MesMorial wrote:MBL must have missed the part of my ruling where one can go over 1000 words if they have to.
MesMorial wrote:He quotes Verse 33 of Chapter 9:
“He it is Who sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, that He might cause it to prevail over all religions, though the polytheists may be averse.”
Notice “the polytheists” refers to those opposing Islam during its formation:
MesMorial wrote:“They desire to put out the light of Allah with their mouths, and Allah will not consent save to perfect His light, though the unbelievers are averse.”
9:32
MesMorial wrote:“Surely the number of months with Allah is twelve months in Allah's ordinance since the day when He created the heavens and the earth, of these four being sacred; that is the right reckoning; therefore be not unjust to yourselves regarding them, and fight the polytheists all together as they fight you all together; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).”
9:36
MesMorial wrote:Note that the word for “cause it to prevail over all religions” is “liyuẓ'hirahu” which is better translated as “may manifest/show” it above all other religions. There is nothing forceful in it.
29. Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
30. And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!
31. They have taken their doctors of law and their monks for lords besides Allah, and (also) the Messiah son of Marium and they were enjoined that they should serve one God only, there is no god but He; far from His glory be what they set up (with Him).
32. They desire to put out the light of Allah with their mouths, and Allah will not consent save to perfect His light, though the unbelievers are averse.
33. He it is Who sent His Apostle with guidance and the religion of truth, that He might cause it to prevail over all religions, though the polytheists may be averse.
MesMorial wrote:However, accepting “cause it to prevail” we must ask: how will this be done?
MesMorial wrote: If we look again at 9:33, we see that it says Allah has sent Muhammad with the guidance and the religion of truth, so that the religion of truth will prevail over others. It does not say “so that Muslims will prevail and dominate over others”. It says in other words “so that Islam will become the religion triumphant over others”.
MesMorial wrote: How would the Qur’an help Muhammad to conquer the world by force? Its only use is to convince people through its words, but the Qur’an never tells Muslims to convert people if they don’t want to be converted.
MesMorial wrote:The verse describes what Allah has done, but that verse does not tell us what the Qur’an tells Muslims to do (i.e. how to follow their religion)! The verse is restating a common theme in the Qur’an: that Islam is the “right path” of Allah.
MesMorial wrote:What does the Qur’an tell Muslims to do?
MesMorial wrote:“And say: The truth is from your Lord, so let him who please believe, and let him who please disbelieve…”
18:29
MesMorial wrote:“There is no compulsion in the religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing.”
2:256
MesMorial wrote:Indeed, according to the Qur’an, the truth stands out which is why (according to the Qur’an) Islam will “prevail” by at least one adherent over all other religions!
MesMorial wrote:That is one of many such instructions. The wording on that sign is therefore correct in that Islam will (according to the Qur'an) become the dominant (i.e. most pervasive) system/ideology. At least according to 9:33 that is Allah's intention, but then it is not the role of Muslims (as followers of Islam) to enforce that.
MesMorial wrote:MBL mentions 8:39:
“And fight with them until there is no more persecution and the religion should be only for Allah; BUT IF THEY DESIST, then surely Allah sees what they do.”
First, it is clearly self-defence.
MesMorial wrote: Second, it talks of oppressors:
MesMorial wrote:“Surely those who disbelieve spend their wealth to hinder (people) from the way of Allah; so they shall spend it, then it shall be to them an intense regret…”
8:36
MesMorial wrote:Third, MBL thinks that “THE religion/system” means “EVERY religion/system (I never said what he said I said!). Obviously, it does not mean all religion, but that people should rebel against corrupt leaders and get the deen (the Islamic society/system referred to as “the religion”) back in the “hands of Allah” (that would be the Qur’an). The context of the verses preceding 8:36 confirms this view:
MesMorial wrote:“And what (excuse) have they that Allah should not chastise them while they HINDER (Muslims) FROM THE SACRED MOSQUE…”
8:34
MesMorial wrote:Though irrelevant, the taking of booty is permitted after fighting aggressors:
MesMorial wrote:“And know that whatever thing you gain, a fifth of it is for Allah and for the Messenger
MesMorial wrote: and for the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer, if you believe in Allah and in that which We revealed to Our servant, on the day of distinction, the day on which the two parties met; and Allah has power over all things.”
8:41
MesMorial wrote:It is not theft:
MesMorial wrote:“And the recompense of evil is punishment like it, but whoever forgives and amends, he shall have his reward from Allah; surely He does not love the unjust.”
42:40
MesMorial wrote:I will also make it a rule that if one of us does not respond after a week, he accepts defeat (intellectually and in other ways).
Yes, they talk bad about Islam because they think Muhammad is a fraud who is aggressively advancing his fraud. So they speak against him and tell people to watch out for him. Even speaking against Islam could be considered oppression of Islam, and in that case, it's fight fight fight.
And 9:5 doesn't just say to fight them until they stop fighting you, it says to fight them until you conquer them and they pay the jizyah in humiliation or willing submission. That's not just Muslim defense, clearly that is Muslim rule. If it meant what you try to make it mean, it clearly would have stopped before it talked about the humiliation of the jizyah. Sorry, but the Quran doesn't seem to be cooperating with your inventions.
Show it above all other religions by ruling them. Fight until you show them your religion is better?? is that how one shows their religion is better?? The translators knew what it really meant.
Why need to even ask?? The Quran is very clear.
5. So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
Only Muslims pay the poor rate, the conquered non Muslims pay the humiliating jizyah. So this is clearly telling us to stop fighting them only if they repent. What does repent mean? It means become Muslims, and that's where the prayer and paying the poor rate comes into play. This is what Muslims have to do.
Here, it's kind of talking about idolators only because it considers Christians and Jews to be idolators, but it's actually talking about Christians and Jews and not the pagans.
29. Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
Fight them until thy are conquered and feel themselves humiliated and subdued and they acknowledge the superiority of Muslims
33.“He it is Who sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, that He might cause it to prevail over all religions, though the polytheists may be averse.”
And Islam reigns supreme over all other religions. This was right after they are commanded to fight, although you didn't show us that context.
9:29 just got done telling them to fight. 9:33 is a continuation of that point. Fighting is how Islam will become triumphant over other religions. This is why fighting is enjoined on them though they dislike a thing that is good for them and like things that are not.
I said before that Islam does not demand that everyone be a Muslim. They needed dhimmies to tax at whatever rate they felt they needed to tax them. While the Zakat was set at 5%, the jizyah has no set value or limits. Everybody does not need be a Muslim, they just need to be ruled by them.
And 9:29 says fight in order to make this happen. 9:33, is simply an explanation or justification as to why they should carry out 9:5 and 9:29
This means not to force them to become Muslims, (which was later abrogated in certain ways anyway). This does not say anything about Muslim rule, which is the topic.
Gee, if the truth itself is why Islam will be triumphant, then what's all the fighting about?? This sounds more like an early Christian ethos than a Muslim one. And now, you add the qualification of "by at least one adherent", when that simply is not there.
Are you crazy?? This was right after 9:29. That's how problems were to be solved. And some how, you try to twist this into a strictly peaceful movement where the truth stands out like the early Christians practiced? That's utter nonsense.
And it also says that all religion should only be for Allah. But what does desist mean?? It already told us earlier in the sura.
5. So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
Repent or desist means becoming a Muslim as I already explained above.
Then why does it spend so much time speaking about the idolators and Christians and Jews (who were also considered idolators) right before that in the same sura? Clearly, it does not refer to corrupt Muslim leaders. How you could even attempt such a stretch is beyond me.
Irrelevant?? It's the title of the sura. The point is, if you are fighting strictly defensively, you're not going to get much booty except for some horses and some swords. Most booty is usually gained during an offensive attack on someone elses land. And their women became what the Muslim's right hand possessed. How does a supposedly "desperate" and "oppressed" people end up taking all of someone elses possessions including their women and their land itself?? When they got large enough, they were far from desperate and instead very confident and intimidating and agressive. Even though those letters he sent out are not in the Quran, I believe in their historical validity. And these letters had no tone of defensiveness whatsoever.
You honestly must be kidding me. How stupid are you?? What happens when your "other forum support" runs out?? What happens when they all run out of answers to feed you?? tee hee. It's me by myself, but I don't need anything other than good old truth and common sense. Something you may not understand, but it will all play out.
I missed that. where was it? Who cares anyway?
I edited my first answer after I understood your post properly, which i didn't do at first. What I wrote before was my misunderstanding and a waste of your time. Sorry.
MesMorial wrote:First of all it appears that MBL’s second posting is simply a reply to my rebuttal suggesting that he has no new evidence from a book very much larger than the portion we have discussed.
MesMorial wrote:It is a common technique for the people here to laugh when they know they are making a dud point.
MesMorial wrote:However it was ignorant of me to suppose that MBL could manage to remain on the topic and to suppose that he had an adequate knowledge of the Qur’an to avoid bringing up points which he knows will be refuted (e.g. “abrogation” which I will address later). For this reason I will have to exceed 1000 words in my response.
MesMorial wrote:MBL mentions that Chapter 9 was revealed when Muhammad had conquered 1/3 of Arabia. He will later claim that this chapter cancels the policies of other chapters due to a concept he will be unable to defend (abrogation).
MesMorial wrote:As an early response I will inform readers that an earlier revealed chapter declares that Islam is completed and perfected (chapter 5). Thus there can be no change in policy.
MesMorial wrote: As far as debating goes his is a dud point because he provides no Qur’anic context for the audience. The verses he is ultimately referring to are 9:1-5. It is detailed how Allah tells the non-Muslims who had broken their treaties before that the treaties are dissolved unless they repent, no longer wish to fight Muslims and allow/establish Islamic practices. They do not have to be Muslim as per 9:12 and the verses I had quoted previously.
MesMorial wrote:situation at the time was unstable and there were many enemies who could not be trusted (derived from the Qur’an alone):
MesMorial wrote:“And be not slack so as to cry for peace when you have the upper hand, and Allah is with you, and He will not bring your deeds to naught.”
47:35
MesMorial wrote:(This explains the breaking of the treaties.)
“What! will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Messenger, and they attacked you first; do you fear them? But Allah is most deserving that you should fear Him, if you are believers.”
9:13
MesMorial wrote:“And if one of the idolaters seek protection from you, grant him protection till he hears the word of Allah, then make him attain his place of safety; this is because they are a people who do not know.”
9:6
MesMorial wrote:(This shows that those who do not wish to fight Muslims will be OK.)
MesMorial wrote:“And if they break their oaths after their agreement and (openly) revile your religion, then fight the leaders of unbelief-- surely their oaths are nothing-- so that they may desist.”
9:12
As throughout the entire Qur’an, the enemies of Islam are only those who fight Muslims on account of their religion:
“Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice.”
60:8
MesMorial wrote:Yes, they talk bad about Islam because they think Muhammad is a fraud who is aggressively advancing his fraud. So they speak against him and tell people to watch out for him. Even speaking against Islam could be considered oppression of Islam, and in that case, it's fight fight fight.
MBL puts his interpretation on 9:32 but misses the pith which is 9:36:
“Surely the number of months with Allah is twelve months in Allah's ordinance since the day when He created the heavens and the earth, of these four being sacred; that is the right reckoning; therefore be not unjust to yourselves regarding them, and fight the polytheists all together AS THEY FIGHT YOU ALL TOGETHER; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).”
He believes that talking against Islam is fighting it. Please read:
“Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and have disputations with them in the best manner; surely your Lord best knows those who go astray from His path, and He knows best those who follow the right way. And if you take your turn, then retaliate with the like of that with which you were afflicted; but if you are patient, it will certainly be best for those who are patient.”
16:125-126
MesMorial wrote:“And We did not create the heavens and the earth and what is between them two but in truth; and the hour is most surely coming, so turn away with kindly forgiveness.”
15:85
MesMorial wrote:“And the servants of the Beneficent Allah are they who walk on the earth in humbleness, and when the ignorant address them, they say: Peace.”
25:63
MesMorial wrote:And 9:5 doesn't just say to fight them until they stop fighting you, it says to fight them until you conquer them and they pay the jizyah in humiliation or willing submission. That's not just Muslim defense, clearly that is Muslim rule. If it meant what you try to make it mean, it clearly would have stopped before it talked about the humiliation of the jizyah. Sorry, but the Quran doesn't seem to be cooperating with your inventions.
MBL’s ignorance is apparent. 9:5 declares:
“So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.”
MesMorial wrote:It says fight until they stop fighting you, repent and establish Islamic practices.
MesMorial wrote: “Establish” here means “uphold/allow” (e.g. in society),
MesMorial wrote: because/although it also does not matter since verse 9:12 quoted before tells us to fight the leaders of unbelief only when they defame Islam (refer to 16:125-126). “Fight” here does not have to mean a physical fight to the death since 9:12 mentions “…so that they cease.” The reason is given in 9:13:
MesMorial wrote:“What! will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Messenger, and they attacked you first; do you fear them? But Allah is most deserving that you should fear Him, if you are believers.”
It must be re-emphasized that converting to Islam was not the criterion for the non-Muslims to establish peace (with Muslims in this context). The Qur’an only says that if they do then they are brothers in Islam:
MesMorial wrote:“But if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, they are your brethren in faith; and We make the communications clear for a people who know.”
9:11
MesMorial wrote:(Then it says that if they break their treaties AND defame Islam then Muslims should fight the leaders (cause).
MesMorial wrote:The following verse proves that non-Muslims did not have to convert
“How can there be an agreement for the idolaters with Allah and with His Messenger; except those with whom you MADE AN AGREEMENT AT THE SACRED MOSQUE? SO LONG AS THEY ARE TRUE TO YOU, BE TRUE TO THEM; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty).”
9:7
MesMorial wrote:Besides, 9:29 actually proves that converting to Islam is not compulsory for making peace with Muslims.
MesMorial wrote:
Furthermore (contrary to MBL’s claim) 9:5 it does not mention anything about “jizya” (recompense) because the word for “poor-rate” is zakat (obligatory charity for a Muslim). MBL is confused.There is nothing in Chapter 9 which abrogates or cancels any other verse in the Qur’an. That is simply a dream wish and delusion for folk such as MBL. The entire chapter concerns the defence of religion and not the religion itself.
MesMorial wrote:Islam was already perfected and completed in 5:3:
“This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favour on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion.”
MesMorial wrote:Chapter 9 was a response to a specific situation, and even without 5:3 it is blaringly obvious from the verses I have quoted above that it refers to the situation of the time. Muslim and non-Muslim can see this, but not the people on Faithfreedom.org.
MesMorial wrote:Show it above all other religions by ruling them. Fight until you show them your religion is better?? is that how one shows their religion is better?? The translators knew what it really meant.
Such arguments can plead stupidity. Where does 9:33 tell Muslims to fight non-Muslims simply to show that Islam is better? The verse says that Allah sent the Qur’an down so that Islam could be manifested above other ideologies.
MesMorial wrote: Where is the fight?
MesMorial wrote: How does the Qur’an conquer by itself? What does the Qur’an tell people to do?
MesMorial wrote:To adhere to Islam and defend it. What is Islam? It is the religion detailed within the Qur’an.
MesMorial wrote:“This Book, there is no doubt in it, is a guide to those who guard (against evil). Those who believe in the unseen and keep up prayer and spend out of what We have given them. And who believe in that which has been revealed to you and that which was revealed before you and they are sure of the hereafter.”
2:2-4
Where is the aggression?
MesMorial wrote:MBL places his interpretation on 9:30-33
MesMorial wrote: despite the fact that it is already known the Qur’an disagrees firstly with hoarding wealth and secondly associating others with Allah. We know that there are differences between religions, but that does not mean people cannot live in harmony with each other. MBL and other deliberately believe that Muslims and non-Muslims are at war because it fits their mindset. They are in fact haters who are more amusing since they cannot argue.
MesMorial wrote:Why need to even ask?? The Quran is very clear.
5. So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
Only Muslims pay the poor rate, the conquered non Muslims pay the humiliating jizyah. So this is clearly telling us to stop fighting them only if they repent. What does repent mean? It means become Muslims, and that's where the prayer and paying the poor rate comes into play. This is what Muslims have to do.
Again there is no mention of jizya in verse 9:5. Refer to my discussion of 9:5 above.
MesMorial wrote: He declares of 9:31:Here, it's kind of talking about idolators only because it considers Christians and Jews to be idolators, but it's actually talking about Christians and Jews and not the pagans.
Perhaps, but 9:36 refers to anyone who comes under the category and fights Muslims.
MesMorial wrote:29. Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
Fight them until thy are conquered and feel themselves humiliated and subdued and they acknowledge the superiority of Muslims
33.“He it is Who sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, that He might cause it to prevail over all religions, though the polytheists may be averse.”
And Islam reigns supreme over all other religions. This was right after they are commanded to fight, although you didn't show us that context.
Context of what? 9:29 tells Muslims to fight against the aggressors of 9:36.
MesMorial wrote: 9:30-35 informs us that idolaters in general do not like the fact that Allah has revealed the Qur’an so that it can be manifested above all other religions (which are according to the Qur’an diverted). Now what does Allah revealing the Qur’an have to do with 9:29?
MesMorial wrote: Can you explain how the revelation of the Qur’an will conquer non-Muslims any more easily than simply fighting them?
MesMorial wrote: Why does 9:33 not say “…so that Muslims can follow its instructions which are to kill or conquer everyone else?”
MesMorial wrote: It simply means that people will become Muslim because of the Qur’anic wisdom (according to the Qur’an). The truth stands out (2:256). Why do you twist the meaning of everything to fit your own perverted world view?
MesMorial wrote:9:29 just got done telling them to fight. 9:33 is a continuation of that point. Fighting is how Islam will become triumphant over other religions. This is why fighting is enjoined on them though they dislike a thing that is good for them and like things that are not.
I just explained all that. All fighting is in self-defence:
MesMorial wrote:“And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.”
2:190
MesMorial wrote:I said before that Islam does not demand that everyone be a Muslim. They needed dhimmies to tax at whatever rate they felt they needed to tax them. While the Zakat was set at 5%, the jizyah has no set value or limits. Everybody does not need be a Muslim, they just need to be ruled by them.
Nowhere in the Qur’an is there a tax for being non-muslim.
The jizyah was understood to be exactly thatMesMorial wrote: That violates 2:256 where there is no compulsion in the religion.
MesMorial wrote:Please note that the word “jizya” derives from the word “jaza” which means “recompense” or “punishment”. In 9:29 it refers to compensation for war expenses and damages.
MesMorial wrote:And 9:29 says fight in order to make this happen. 9:33, is simply an explanation or justification as to why they should carry out 9:5 and 9:29
How can one possibly argue with that? How much twisting of 9:33 does it take to get it to mean that?
MesMorial wrote: 9:5 and 9:29 are responses to 9:8. 9:13 and 9:36 (among others). 9:33 refers to the fact that Allah sent the Qur’an so that Islam could be manifested and shown to be above the other ideologies even though they hate it.
MesMorial wrote: If you take it to mean “prevail over” then where is the command to fight and conquer those who are friendly with you and who do not fight you?
MesMorial wrote: What stops you from seeing the common-sense meaning that the Qur’an was revealed so that the Qur’an could (or that Allah revealed so that Allah could…) cause Islam to spread.
MesMorial wrote:“Allah has revealed the best announcement, a book conformable in its various parts, repeating, whereat do shudder the skins of those who fear their Lord, then their skins and their hearts become pliant to the remembrance of Allah; this is Allah's guidance, He guides with it whom He pleases; and (as for) him whom Allah makes err, there is no guide for him.”
39:23
This shows (according to the Qur’an) that Allah guides people WITH THE QUR’AN and not by inciting violence against non-Muslims.
MesMorial wrote:How can you say (even without those verses) that 9:33 refers to the Qur’an being sent down so that Muslims can follow its instructions to conquer non-Muslims? Firstly the Qur’an does not say to do that,
MesMorial wrote: and secondly it does not say “so that Muslims can (do this or that)”. It says so that Islam can prevail/be manifested.
MesMorial wrote: Islam cannot do that without the Qur’an because people would not know how to follow Islam!
MesMorial wrote:MBL claims that verse 18:29 is cancelled.
“And say: The truth is from your Lord, so let him who please believe, and let him who please disbelieve…”
18:29
The verses he says that cancel this are which ones? He says 4, 8 and 9. I assume he refers to Chapter 9…
“Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up any one against you, so fulfill their agreement to the end of their term; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty).”
9:4
“How (can it be)! while if they prevail against you, they would not pay regard in your case to ties of relationship, nor those of covenant; they please you with their mouths while their hearts do not consent; and most of them are transgressors.”
9:8
“They have taken a small price for the communications of Allah, so they turn away from His way; surely evil is it that they do.”
9:9
It is amusing that Chapter 9 has already been discussed in its context.
MesMorial wrote: 9:9 is simply referring to something that the particular non-Muslims of that situation have done.
MesMorial wrote: From a Muslim perspective Allah declares in 9:8 that the people who had attacked Muslims before and had broken their treaties in some ways could not be trusted. Neither verses so far are actually cancelling 18:29. How does 9:4 contradict it? 9:4 was revealed in response to the specific situation and does not compel people to believe or not.
MesMorial wrote:Thus there is no abrogation and MBL’s choice of words is clumsy.
MesMorial wrote:He does not realise that non-Muslims have to fulfil the criteria of having attacked Muslims before, having sought to expel them, broken treaties in some way and desiring to fight the Muslims when they have the upper hand (proving that 9:5 is simply an application of 47:35).
MesMorial wrote:they had to do was prove that they wanted an allegiance and did not want to attack Islam by signing a treaty at the Sacred Mosque and allowing Muslims to practice their religion wherever they were.
MesMorial wrote:To put a further nail in the coffin of abrogation,
MesMorial wrote: the Qur’an throughout declares that Muslims are allowed to retaliate in kind against the aggressors:
MesMorial wrote:“The Sacred month for the sacred month and all sacred things are (under the law of) retaliation; whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you and be careful (of your duty) to Allah and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).”
2:194
MesMorial wrote:MBL says of 2:256:This means not to force them to become Muslims, (which was later abrogated in certain ways anyway). This does not say anything about Muslim rule, which is the topic.
So letting people do what they want (providing it does not hurt anyone) does not say anything about Muslim rule? Well, MBL, “Muslim rule” is not the topic either. It is whether Islam INTENDS to rule the world.
MesMorial wrote: You have failed to provide proof of this from the Qur’an. Muslims are allowed to defend themselves and their religious way. You cannot bring one verse to show that they should convert non-Muslim societies.
MesMorial wrote:Gee, if the truth itself is why Islam will be triumphant, then what's all the fighting about?? This sounds more like an early Christian ethos than a Muslim one. And now, you add the qualification of "by at least one adherent", when that simply is not there.
The fighting is about Muslims thinking that other Muslims are non-Muslims, and non-Muslims clapping their hands when someone dies. Like you. It is not Islam itself, and from a Muslim perspective the situation should prove that “cause to prevail” is better expressed as “manifest Islam above”
MesMorial wrote: even if only some have the courage to express it openly. Just because people twist the meaning of what is written, it does not change what is written. Neither does it change the context.
Are you crazy?? This was right after 9:29. That's how problems were to be solved. And some how, you try to twist this into a strictly peaceful movement where the truth stands out like the early Christians practiced? That's utter nonsense.
Why do you accuse me of twisting things? That sign is right according to the translation which I accept (though I think the other is more correct from the current situation). You cannot relate 9:33 to 9:29 because 9:29 refers to 9:36 as well as 9:1-28. I have explained 9:33 enough.
MesMorial wrote:And it also says that all religion should only be for Allah. But what does desist mean?? It already told us earlier in the sura.
5. So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
Repent or desist means becoming a Muslim as I already explained above.
WHERE does it say that ALL religion MUST be for Allah?
MesMorial wrote: Why are you defining the meaning of “desist” as presented in 8:39 (Chapter 8) using Chapter 9 and saying that the verses of Chapter 9 are earlier within the Sura of Chapter 8??? You are confused again.
MesMorial wrote:For readers, the verse he just quoted is in chapter 9, not 8. Just completely separate contexts!
MesMorial wrote:In my opening response I showed that “desist” refers to hindering people from their religion:
“And what (excuse) have they that Allah should not chastise them WHILE THEY HINDER PEOPLE FROM THE SACRED MOSQUE…”
8:34
MesMorial wrote:“Surely those who disbelieve spend their wealth to hinder (people) from the way of Allah; so they shall spend it, then it shall be to them an intense regret, then they shall be overcome; and those who disbelieve shall be driven together to hell.”
8:36
“And fight with them until there is no more persecution and the religion (ISLAM!!!) should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.”
8:
MesMorial wrote:It is a dirty and self-satisfying tactic to ask “Ah, but what does “desist” mean???)
MesMorial wrote:MBL says at the end of his second (illegal) post that common sense will prevail. It certainly will not be him holding it up :p Note that “prevail” in my context refers to being SHOWN as the best.
MesMorial wrote:So even though we know from 8:34-36 that “persecution” refers to hindering people from their religion, it will also obviously refer to other things for which Muslims must fight against aggressors (e.g. military action). For smaller things Muslims are allowed to retaliate in kind (because Islam does not stand for cowardice) but forgiveness is better (16:125-126).
MesMorial wrote:“And how they should and will be the oppressed when it's all said and done, and pay the jizyah in willing subjection (9:5)”
I want MBL to make an admission that he is an ignorant fool unless he can find the Arabic word “jizya” in 9:5. Now once more, 9:29 proves that converting to Islam is not compulsory for making peace with Muslims.
MesMorial wrote:Replying to 8:36, he says:
“I already answered that above.”
Where did he answer that?
MesMorial wrote:
Then why does it spend so much time speaking about the idolators and Christians and Jews (who were also considered idolators) right before that in the same sura? Clearly, it does not refer to corrupt Muslim leaders. How you could even attempt such a stretch is beyond me.
Anyone who believes in God and submits to His will is a Muslim.
MesMorial wrote: The Qur’an says that Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian but a Muslim and an upright man. Christians and Jews (according to the Qur’an) who believe in the oneness of God and keep up prayer and good works etc. are also Muslims.
MesMorial wrote: The truth is it does not matter whether the people hindering others from following the Qur’an/keeping up religious practices are Jews, Christians or simple Islamophobes. It is what they are DOING that matters (of course).
MesMorial wrote:Muhammad bin Lyin wants the rest of 8:34
“And what (excuse) have they that Allah should not chastise them while they hinder (men) from the Sacred Mosque and they are not guardians of it; its guardians are only those who guard (against evil), but most of them do not know.”
So according to Muslim belief the Shrine is there for a specific religion…
MesMorial wrote:the religion of the people who maintain a standard (of behaviour) and preside over the mosque. Basically the most righteous are its guardians.
MesMorial wrote: In any case pilgrimage to the mosque is necessary for a Muslim and thus whoever has control of it must allow Muslims to visit it.
MesMorial wrote:Irrelevant?? It's the title of the sura. The point is, if you are fighting strictly defensively, you're not going to get much booty except for some horses and some swords. Most booty is usually gained during an offensive attack on someone elses land. And their women became what the Muslim's right hand possessed. How does a supposedly "desperate" and "oppressed" people end up taking all of someone elses possessions including their women and their land itself?? When they got large enough, they were far from desperate and instead very confident and intimidating and agressive. Even though those letters he sent out are not in the Quran, I believe in their historical validity. And these letters had no tone of defensiveness whatsoever.
Booty is just a right of war.
MesMorial wrote: Muslims can take whatever they want and whatever they can get as long as it was obtained in a fight against an aggressor. If the aggressor invades obviously Muslims will take mostly horses and swords etc. If the enemy invades and they are driven back but still fight, Muslims will inevitably/eventually take control of their home base and therefore have a right to what is there. It is just the aggressor’s choice! “Spoils of war” = “spoils OF WAR”.
MesMorial wrote:The treatment of captives/women etc. is a separate subject to that we are discussing.
MesMorial wrote:The remainder of your post is irrelevant.
MesMorial wrote:Good luck trying again.
MesMorial wrote:P.S.You honestly must be kidding me. How stupid are you?? What happens when your "other forum support" runs out?? What happens when they all run out of answers to feed you?? tee hee. It's me by myself, but I don't need anything other than good old truth and common sense. Something you may not understand, but it will all play out.
Well how stupid am I? – That is a stupid question with a stupid reasoning since I am not using any material except what I already know (e.g. I already argued with you all before
MesMorial wrote:…) Truth and common sense will show you up every time.
MesMorial wrote: You think that war-mongering is truth and common sense. In truth you are nothing but a big fool.
[/quote]MesMorial wrote: Apologies but I do not fear your ability. You do clearly enjoy talking on this forum (from the number of your posts) but it seems it is really pointless for you. For that I am truly sorry.You are just no challenge.
MesMorial wrote:Do not reply to this; there are about 2 points you brought up that are worth a response. The rest is simply a repeat of your interpretation which ignores the evidences I have presented above.
MesMorial wrote: You respond to my points individually and thus in isolation without bringing a case.
MesMorial wrote: I will respond to them when I return and that will be 3 rounds.
This is the Ayah of the Sword
Mujahid, `Amr bin Shu`ayb, Muhammad bin Ishaq, Qatadah, As-Suddi and `Abdur-Rahman bin Zayd bin Aslam said that the four months mentioned in this Ayah are the four-month grace period mentioned in the earlier Ayah,
[فَسِيحُواْ فِى الاٌّرْضِ أَرْبَعَةَ أَشْهُرٍ]
(So travel freely for four months throughout the land.) Allah said next,
[فَإِذَا انسَلَخَ الأَشْهُرُ الْحُرُمُ]
(So when the Sacred Months have passed...), meaning, `Upon the end of the four months during which We prohibited you from fighting the idolators, and which is the grace period We gave them, then fight and kill the idolators wherever you may find them.' Allah's statement next,
[فَاقْتُلُواْ الْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدتُّمُوهُمْ]
(then fight the Mushrikin wherever you find them), means, on the earth in general, except for the Sacred Area, for Allah said,
[وَلاَ تُقَـتِلُوهُمْ عِندَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ حَتَّى يُقَـتِلُوكُمْ فِيهِ فَإِن قَـتَلُوكُمْ فَاقْتُلُوهُمْ]
(And fight not with them at Al-Masjid Al-Haram, unless they fight you there. But if they attack you, then fight them. )[2:191] Allah said here,
[وَخُذُوهُمْ]
(and capture them), executing some and keeping some as prisoners,
[وَاحْصُرُوهُمْ وَاقْعُدُواْ لَهُمْ كُلَّ مَرْصَدٍ]
(and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush), do not wait until you find them. Rather, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in the various roads and fairways so that what is made wide looks ever smaller to them. This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam,
[فَإِن تَابُواْ وَأَقَامُواْ الصَّلَوةَ وَءاتَوُاْ الزَّكَوةَ فَخَلُّواْ سَبِيلَهُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ]
(But if they repent and perform the Salah, and give the Zakah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.) Abu Bakr As-Siddiq used this and other honorable Ayat as proof for fighting those who refrained from paying the Zakah. These Ayat allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations. Allah mentioned the most important aspects of Islam here, including what is less important. Surely, the highest elements of Islam after the Two Testimonials, are the prayer, which is the right of Allah, the Exalted and Ever High, then the Zakah, which benefits the poor and needy. These are the most honorable acts that creatures perform, and this is why Allah often mentions the prayer and Zakah together. In the Two Sahihs, it is recorded that Ibn `Umar said that the Messenger of Allah said,
«أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَشْهَدُوا أَنْ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللهُ وَأَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُولُ اللهِ وَيُقِيمُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَيُؤْتُوا الزَّكَاة»
(I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer and pay the Zakah.) This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, "It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term.'' Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas commented: "No idolator had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara'ah was revealed. The four months, in addition to, all peace treaties conducted before Bara'ah was revealed and announced had ended by the tenth of the month of Rabi` Al-Akhir.''
The Order to fight People of the Scriptures until They give the Jizyah
Allah said,
[قَـتِلُواْ الَّذِينَ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَلاَ بِالْيَوْمِ الاٌّخِرِ وَلاَ يُحَرِّمُونَ مَا حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَلاَ يَدِينُونَ دِينَ الْحَقِّ مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُواْ الْكِتَـبَ حَتَّى يُعْطُواْ الْجِزْيَةَ عَن يَدٍ وَهُمْ صَـغِرُونَ ]
(Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.) Therefore, when People of the Scriptures disbelieved in Muhammad , they had no beneficial faith in any Messenger or what the Messengers brought. Rather, they followed their religions because this conformed with their ideas, lusts and the ways of their forefathers, not because they are Allah's Law and religion. Had they been true believers in their religions, that faith would have directed them to believe in Muhammad , because all Prophets gave the good news of Muhammad's advent and commanded them to obey and follow him. Yet when he was sent, they disbelieved in him, even though he is the mightiest of all Messengers. Therefore, they do not follow the religion of earlier Prophets because these religions came from Allah, but because these suit their desires and lusts. Therefore, their claimed faith in an earlier Prophet will not benefit them because they disbelieved in the master, the mightiest, the last and most perfect of all Prophets . Hence Allah's statement,
[قَـتِلُواْ الَّذِينَ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَلاَ بِالْيَوْمِ الاٌّخِرِ وَلاَ يُحَرِّمُونَ مَا حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَلاَ يَدِينُونَ دِينَ الْحَقِّ مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُواْ الْكِتَـبَ]
(Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture,) This honorable Ayah was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book, after the pagans were defeated, the people entered Allah's religion in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims' control. Allah commanded His Messenger to fight the People of the Scriptures, Jews and Christians, on the ninth year of Hijrah, and he prepared his army to fight the Romans and called the people to Jihad announcing his intent and destination. The Messenger sent his intent to various Arab areas around Al-Madinah to gather forces, and he collected an army of thirty thousand. Some people from Al-Madinah and some hypocrites, in and around it, lagged behind, for that year was a year of drought and intense heat. The Messenger of Allah marched, heading towards Ash-Sham to fight the Romans until he reached Tabuk, where he set camp for about twenty days next to its water resources. He then prayed to Allah for a decision and went back to Al-Madinah because it was a hard year and the people were weak, as we will mention, Allah willing.
Paying Jizyah is a Sign of Kufr and Disgrace
Allah said,
[حَتَّى يُعْطُواْ الْجِزْيَةَ]
(until they pay the Jizyah), if they do not choose to embrace Islam,
[عَن يَدٍ]
(with willing submission), in defeat and subservience,
[وَهُمْ صَـغِرُونَ]
(and feel themselves subdued.), disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated. Muslim recorded from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet said,
«لَا تَبْدَءُوا الْيَهُودَ وَالنَّصَارَى بِالسَّلَامِ، وَإِذَا لَقِيتُمْ أَحَدَهُمْ فِي طَرِيقٍ فَاضْطَرُّوهُ إِلَى أَضْيَقِه»
(Do not initiate the Salam to the Jews and Christians, and if you meet any of them in a road, force them to its narrowest alley.) This is why the Leader of the faithful `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, demanded his well-known conditions be met by the Christians, these conditions that ensured their continued humiliation, degradation and disgrace. The scholars of Hadith narrated from `Abdur-Rahman bin Ghanm Al-Ash`ari that he said, "I recorded for `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, the terms of the treaty of peace he conducted with the Christians of Ash-Sham: `In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. This is a document to the servant of Allah `Umar, the Leader of the faithful, from the Christians of such and such city. When you (Muslims) came to us we requested safety for ourselves, children, property and followers of our religion. We made a condition on ourselves that we will neither erect in our areas a monastery, church, or a sanctuary for a monk, nor restore any place of worship that needs restoration nor use any of them for the purpose of enmity against Muslims. We will not prevent any Muslim from resting in our churches whether they come by day or night, and we will open the doors [of our houses of worship] for the wayfarer and passerby. Those Muslims who come as guests, will enjoy boarding and food for three days. We will not allow a spy against Muslims into our churches and homes or hide deceit [or betrayal] against Muslims. We will not teach our children the Qur'an, publicize practices of Shirk, invite anyone to Shirk or prevent any of our fellows from embracing Islam, if they choose to do so. We will respect Muslims, move from the places we sit in if they choose to sit in them. We will not imitate their clothing, caps, turbans, sandals, hairstyles, speech, nicknames and title names, or ride on saddles, hang swords on the shoulders, collect weapons of any kind or carry these weapons. We will not encrypt our stamps in Arabic, or sell liquor. We will have the front of our hair cut, wear our customary clothes wherever we are, wear belts around our waist, refrain from erecting crosses on the outside of our churches and demonstrating them and our books in public in Muslim fairways and markets. We will not sound the bells in our churches, except discretely, or raise our voices while reciting our holy books inside our churches in the presence of Muslims, nor raise our voices [with prayer] at our funerals, or light torches in funeral processions in the fairways of Muslims, or their markets. We will not bury our dead next to Muslim dead, or buy servants who were captured by Muslims. We will be guides for Muslims and refrain from breaching their privacy in their homes.' When I gave this document to `Umar, he added to it, `We will not beat any Muslim. These are the conditions that we set against ourselves and followers of our religion in return for safety and protection. If we break any of these promises that we set for your benefit against ourselves, then our Dhimmah (promise of protection) is broken and you are allowed to do with us what you are allowed of people of defiance and rebellion.'''
People of the Scriptures try to extinguish the Light of Islam
Allah says, the disbelieving idolators and People of the Scriptures want to,
[أَن يُطْفِئُواْ نُورَ اللَّهِ]
(extinguish the Light of Allah). They try through argument and lies to extinguish the guidance and religion of truth that the Messenger of Allah was sent with. Their example is the example of he who wants to extinguish the light of the sun or the moon by blowing at them! Indeed, such a person will never accomplish what he sought. Likewise, the light of what the Messenger was sent with will certainly shine and spread. Allah replied to the idolators' desire and hope,
[وَيَأْبَى اللَّهُ إِلاَّ أَن يُتِمَّ نُورَهُ وَلَوْ كَرِهَ الْكَـفِرُونَ]
(but Allah will not allow except that His Light should be perfected even though the disbelievers (Kafirun) hate (it)) [9:32]. [Linguistincally] a Kafir is the person who covers something. For instance, night is called Kafiran [covering] because it covers things [with darkness]. The farmer is called Kafiran, because he covers seeds in the ground. Allah said in an Ayah,
Islam is the Religion That will dominate over all Other Religions
Allah said next,
[هُوَ الَّذِي أَرْسَلَ رَسُولَهُ بِالْهُدَى وَدِينِ الْحَقِّ]
(It is He Who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth.) `Guidance' refers to the true narrations, beneficial faith and true religion that the Messenger came with. `religion of truth' refers to the righteous, legal deeds that bring about benefit in this life and the Hereafter.
[لِيُظْهِرَهُ عَلَى الدِّينِ كُلِّهِ]
(to make it (Islam) superior over all religions) It is recorded in the Sahih that the Messenger of Allah said,
«إِنَّ اللهَ زَوَى لِي الْأَرْضَ مَشَارِقَهَا وَمَغَارِبَهَا، وَسَيَبْلُغُ مُلْكُ أُمَّتِي مَا زُوِيَ لِييِمنْهَا»
(Allah made the eastern and western parts of the earth draw near for me [to see], and the rule of my Ummah will extend as far as I saw.) Imam Ahmad recorded from Tamim Ad-Dari that he said, "I heard the Messenger of Allah saying,
«لَيَبْلُغَنَّ هَذَا الْأَمْرُ مَا بَلَغَ اللَّيْلُ وَالنَّهَارُ، وَلَا يَتْرُكُ اللهُ بَيْتَ مَدَرٍ وَلَا وَبَرٍ إِلَّا أَدْخَلَهُ هَذَا الدِّينَ، يُعِزُّ عَزِيزًا وَيُذِلُّ ذَلِيلًا، عِزًّا يُعِزُّ اللهُ بِهِ الْإِسْلَامَ وَذُلًّا يُذِلُّ اللهُ بِهِ الْكُفْر»
(This matter (Islam) will keep spreading as far as the night and day reach, until Allah will not leave a house made of mud or hair, but will make this religion enter it, while bringing might to a mighty person (a Muslim) and humiliation to a disgraced person (who rejects Islam). Might with which Allah elevates Islam (and its people) and disgrace with which Allah humiliates disbelief (and its people).) Tamim Ad-Dari [who was a Christian before Islam] used to say, "I have come to know the meaning of this Hadith in my own people. Those who became Muslims among them acquired goodness, honor and might. Disgrace, humiliation and Jizyah befell those who remained disbelievers.''
Then, when the sacred months have passed — that is, [at] the end of the period of deferment — slay the idolaters wherever you find them, be it during a lawful [period] or a sacred [one], and take them, captive, and confine them, to castles and forts, until they have no choice except [being put to] death or [acceptance of] Islam; and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush, [at every] route that they use (kulla, ‘every’, is in the accusative because a [preceding] genitive-taking preposition has been removed). But if they repent, of unbelief, and establish prayer and pay the alms, then leave their way free, and do not interfere with them. God is Forgiving, Merciful, to those who repent.
Fight those who do not believe in God, nor in the Last Day, for, otherwise, they would have believed in the Prophet (s), and who do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden, such as wine, nor do they practise the religion of truth, the firm one, the one that abrogated other religions, namely, the religion of Islam — from among of those who (min, ‘from’, explains [the previous] alladhīna, ‘those who’) have been given the Scripture, namely, the Jews and the Christians, until they pay the jizya tribute, the annual tax imposed them, readily (‘an yadin is a circumstantial qualifier, meaning, ‘compliantly’, or ‘by their own hands’, not delegating it [to others to pay]), being subdued, [being made] submissive and compliant to the authority of Islam.
He it is Who has sent His Messenger, Muhammad (s), with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may manifest it, make it prevail, over every religion, all the religions which oppose it, even though the disbelievers be averse, to this.
Why move on to new things when you can't properly reconcile your current points?
Not mine.
Oh, for God's sake, would you just get to the point?? What are all these theatrics about?? Nobody here cares. They care about the point, niot your silly, made up, arbitrary rules.
If you could prove anything, then Muslim scholars wouldn't be split down the middle about this, so don't even bother because you can't prove anything that any proponent scholar wouldn't prove if he could.
Or, the author changed his mind later and decided that more suras need be added?? So even that declaration got abrogated.
This is the second time you have now tried to switch the point of the topic and this will be the second time you are corrected. This debate is not about whether Islam demands that everybody be a Muslim, it's about Islam demanding that Islam and Muslims rule
All you are doing is providing justification for the fighting and conquering and subsequent ruling. The topic is that Islam seeks to rule the world, and you keep offering justifications for this rather than telling us they do not seek to rule.
Thanks for helping my point. I forgot about this verse
Again, all you are doing is to explain why it was justified for Muslims to conquer and rule rather than denying they seeked to rule, and it's the latter that you need to do in this debate.
“And if one of the idolaters seek protection from you, grant him protection till he hears the word of Allah, then make him attain his place of safety; this is because they are a people who do not know.”
9:6
Why is "till he hears the word of Allah" in there?? What does that have to do with allowing someone to surrender?? Obviously, there's more to it than you would like there to be.
After they hear the word of Allah, and then, obviously, the expectation would be that they would be Muslims afterwards. Think about it. It they heard Allah's words and then rejected it, then aren't they supposed to be fought like all of the others who reject Allah's word??
This has nothing to do with Islam wanting to conquer and rule or not, it is merely a justification for the conquering
Why would you bring in an unrelated verse from a completely different time and different circumstances when all we have to do is to look at the actual verse itself and it's self explanatory?? It's explaining why the idolators (and people of the book) should be fought. One reason is that they use the their mouths to put out the light of Allah. Putting out the light of Allah is an act of fighting. Therefore, they should be fought. So yes, talking against Islam is really the same as fighting it, as far as Muhammad was concerned. If we even refer to the hadiths, Muhammad even had a guy assassinated for talking bad about Allah and his apostle after the Muslims killed this guys friends and threw them into a ditch. Heck, Muhammad even gave them permission to deceive and lie to the assassination victim and take advantage of the victim's apparent generous nature to pull the job off.
32. They desire to put out the light of Allah with their mouths, and Allah will not consent save to perfect His light, though the unbelievers are averse.
You try to introduce other verses for further clarification, when no clarification is needed in the case of that verse. So you introduce these additional verses not to clear the meaning up, but rather to change it.
“And We did not create the heavens and the earth and what is between them two but in truth; and the hour is most surely coming, so turn away with kindly forgiveness.”
15:85
Well, ya know...circumstances change, eh?? I've read that some scholars think that parts of sura 9 were the last verses Muhammad ever uttered. I'm not sure if that's proven, but I'm guessing that 9 came after the verses you reference and therefore 9 abrogates them. Hey, changing circumstances require changing rules. How was Muhammad supposed to know what would happen 5 years later?? So he deserves the chance to change his mind as the situation dictates. It's only fair, right??
Until they get strong enough, and then it's "where's the jizyah".
My typo, sorry. I meant 9:29. you couldn't figure that out?
Muslims pay the poor rate and, so one who does this is a Muslim.
No, it means them performing regular prayers. That's why it's rare that you will find any translator even use the word "establish".
It means so that they as a people cease, it's not talking about the individuals on the battle field.
This topic is not about whether Islam demands that everyone be a Muslim or not, it's about whether Islam demands that it and Muslims rule everywhere.
It doesn't say anything about fighting their leaders, it just says fight "them", or fight the unbelievers. It doesn't say to only fight the leaders. This is getting ridiculous.
And your BIG POINT actually has nothing to do with the topic because the topic is not about whether everybody has to be a Muslim, it's about how everybody has to be ruled by Muslims you wasted a lot of time on this useless angle.
Sure, all you need to do is accept them ruling over you, which is the exact point of this topic. you keep helping me.
9:5 is telling Muslims to fight them until they pay the poor rate. in that case, one stops fighting them because they have become Muslim. But they don't always become Muslims, and that's why 9:29 tells us what to do with the ones who are conquered but are still not Muslims. Instead of paying the poor rate because they have become Muslim, as in the case of 9:5, they instead pay the jizyah.
There's nothing that says 9:36 is speaking about anybody different then the people who were mentioned in the 7 verses before.
Not just fight them, but rule over them and subject them to a humiliating tax. You keep trying to quietly brush that part away.
“9:30-35 informs us that idolaters in general do not like the fact that Allah has revealed the Qur’an so that it can be manifested above all other religions (which are according to the Qur’an diverted). Now what does Allah revealing the Qur’an have to do with 9:29?”
Allah is further explaining why people need to carry out 9:29. it's giving the reason why Islam must reign supreme. It outlines the supposed wrongdoing of the Christians and Jews and calls them idolators and explains that this is why Islam must reign supreme.
It first tells them what to do, and then in subsequent verses it tells them why they should. It's pretty easy to see. It's not trying to be mysterious.
Well gee, judging by the fact that i showed you a picture of a Muslim who clearly agrees with my interpretation, i would say it's not just my own perverted world view. This is what happens when a person knows they are not doing well in the discussion. They turn their attention to their opponent. 2:256 was said when he was in a compromised position, but that changed later.
Whether it starts off as defensive or not, it doesn't end up in defense, it ends up in conquering and then subsequent rule forever.
“And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.”
2:190
Right, if the accept Muslim rule, then do not fight them.
You're right. That was abrogated later by
No, it is a "protection money" tax, kind of like what the mafia does. Islam conquers them and then charges them money to be protected from conquerors. It's total mafia style where you actually don't pay for the protector to protect you against others, you actually pay the protector to protect you against the protector himself. Hey, but who cares?? If they become a Muslim, they can be treated as first class citizens.
It takes no twisting. it comes right after 9:29 as an explanation as to why they should do 9:29.That's common sense.
“If you take it to mean “prevail over” then where is the command to fight and conquer those who are friendly with you and who do not fight you?”
Those people became Muslims. Take a look at the letters Muhammad sent out to the kings after he got bold and strong.
Well, it just so happens to be right next to some very violent, critical and angry verses. You can't just snip things off at 9:32 and say that 9:33 has little to do with 9:29-32. you're just trying to manipulate it so that you can dilute the negativity.
9:29 does not talk about guiding people, it talks about fighting and conquering them. Again, everybody does not have to be a Muslim, they just need to be ruled by them
Fight them until they pay the jizyah.
MesMorial wrote: and secondly it does not say “so that Muslims can (do this or that)”. It says so that Islam can prevail/be manifested.
Fight and conquer them so that Islam can prevail as the superior religion, which essentially means it rules over them
MesMorial wrote: Islam cannot do that without the Qur’an because people would not know how to follow Islam!
Well apparently, it couldn't do that without fighting either.
Since it's in the Quran, it's context is both historical and modern.
If it is talking about a specific incident, then it belongs in the hadiths
Again, the issue never was about Muslims forcing others to become Muslims, the issue is that Islam dictates that Muslims rule over non Muslims. Islam dictates that it should rule the world
So Muslims could practice their religion in the holy town of another religion, but nobody may practice anything but Islam in the Muslim holy town.
Where was the first one??
and conquer them and rule them.”
Which means the topic is whether Islam intends that Islam rule the world which translates into Muslim rule. What the heck was that??
Not convert them, conquer and rule over them. I've already made it clear why it's probably not beneficial for Muslims that everybody be a Muslim, because then, Muslims wouldn't have a people to rule over and be superior over.
Oh for God's sake, it's the same thing. Look at this ridiculous little nit picking technicalities you are attempting.
“Why do you accuse me of twisting things? That sign is right according to the translation which I accept (though I think the other is more correct from the current situation). You cannot relate 9:33 to 9:29 because 9:29 refers to 9:36 as well as 9:1-28. I have explained 9:33 enough.”
So you make 9:29 jump over it's surrounding verses so that it can relate to the one you want it to relate to?? That's ridiculous. If you start pulling little stunts like this, this debate is going to be over really fast. I'm not to waste my time with someone who is merely going to attempt any stunt conceivable if he finds himself in a tough spot.
It's still talking about fighting the unbelievers, so in the most important respect, the context is quite the same. Fight the unbelievers but if they.......(desist, become a Muslim, or pay the humiliating tax), then stop fighting them.
But here's the funny thing folks. Pay very close attention. When he needs to, he steers away from 9 and 8 and invokes other verses from other suras, even though the context of those suras are clearly different than the context of 9. Then, he says you can't relate verses if they occur under different contexts or circumstances. This is the classic Muslim,. The rules always change, just right when they need them to change. You always have to pay close attention when you are discussing things with Muslims, because these are precisely the little things they attempt.
You added the word Islam in there and changed the meaning. You had to add a word to do that. When it just says "religion", then that means religion in general, which is why so many of the translators correctly translated it as all religion.
In some cases, becoming a Muslim, in other cases, surrendering to them. That's at least according to other fight fight fight verses like 9:5 and 9:29
People can certainly be SHOWN who is the best via the sword. These are just nonsense little technicalities and qualifications you try to introduce that the issue drifts off into the direction you need it to
8:38 is telling them to fight them until there is no more oppression AND all religion is for Allah only. No more oppression means all religion is for Allah only
Look, it's talking about the non Muslim tax, whatever word you want to say its actually saying. And it is clearly something designed to humiliate.
What?? Read it again.
Not if they take partners with Allah, which is exactly what it accuses the Christians and Jews of doing.
You cannot be both a Christian, AND a Muslim no matter what little stories you would like to make up for yourself.
It does matter because you tried to represent that it was talking about corrupt Muslims, when clearly it was talking about Christians and Jews.
And it (botty) mainly comes from offensive war, not defensive.
What luck?? This is easy, although a bit long and cumbersome.
You don't have people in that other forum commenting on what you post from here and offering suggestions?? Why are you even posting this on another forum anyway when they can come here and read it themselves??
I suppose we'll find out whether that is true or not when you start practicing truth and common sense.
Whatever. As they say, opinions are like arssholes, everybody's got one. Who cares whether you call me a fool or not? And I'm not war mongering, I'm telling you what the Quran actually says as opposed to what you need it to say. There are very good reasons why so much violence is practiced in the name of Islam.
Nice acting, Shakespeare. If I wasn't a challenge, then you wouldn't waste your time telling me I wasn't. But you need for me to think that I'm not a challenge in hopes that I will stop challenging.
[/quote][/quote]Yes, make sure you tell us why the Quran suddenly takes a schizophrenic turn off and goes off on a tangent in 9:30 to 9:35, then goes back on course on 9:36. There is absolutely no good reason to make this ridiculous leap frog move where you merely attempt to literally jump over the verses. 9:29 to 9:36 are all related just as anyone would expect in any natural reading of any literature or any reading at all. You say 9:29 is related to 9:36 and not 9:30-35. If that's so, then what verses are 9:30-35 related to?? It's a ridiculous attempt with no reasonable justification except that it's what you need it to be. If I keep sensing behavior like that, I'm just going to bail, because it's senseless debating anything with someone who's willing to resort or stoop to anything to save face. If I start to believe that even you don't believe you own answer, then debate becomes pointless.
MesMorial wrote:Why move on to new things when you can't properly reconcile your current points?
That is correct. It explains why you have remained stuck on your own points without anything new to offer.
MesMorial wrote:Oh, for God's sake, would you just get to the point?? What are all these theatrics about?? Nobody here cares. They care about the point, niot your silly, made up, arbitrary rules.
When one is a clown the least that the other can do (because talking is like talking to a brick wall) is to create a theatre.
MesMorial wrote: Have you heard of debating etiquette? Anyhow, if they care about the point then they will find your humour amusing in a certain way and the rest unnecessary (I can afford to say these things since your points are of a strength that we need only talk about them rather than needing to reply to them.
MesMorial wrote:If you could prove anything, then Muslim scholars wouldn't be split down the middle about this, so don't even bother because you can't prove anything that any proponent scholar wouldn't prove if he could.
MBL counters my claim that he cannot prove abrogtion by suggesting I cannot disprove it.
MesMorial wrote:In this debate such a tactic is irrelevant because as I demonstrated above,
MesMorial wrote: there was no contradiction in the verses we have discussed.
MesMorial wrote: The strongest argument against abrogation is not the completely logical commentary provided in my Qur’anic study, but the fact that abrogation will not be found.
MesMorial wrote: MBL tells me not to bother, but he would be a hypocrite if this meant that he was still entitled to bring up abrogation. MBL’s way of talking is defiant, but nought else.
MesMorial wrote:Or, the author changed his mind later and decided that more suras need be added?? So even that declaration got abrogated.
As demonstrated in my previous response (being another example of arguments ignored by MBL), Sura 9 is concerned with defence of the religion, and not the religion itself.
MesMorial wrote:This is the second time you have now tried to switch the point of the topic and this will be the second time you are corrected. This debate is not about whether Islam demands that everybody be a Muslim, it's about Islam demanding that Islam and Muslims rule
Your entire argument rests on only two verses (9:29, 9:33).
MesMorial wrote: I refuted them early so as a part of detailing the context for readers, I will explain the sources of misconceptions.
MesMorial wrote: Forced/compelled conversion to Islam is something which comes to mind for readers, because according to you Islam intends to rule non-Muslims and thus it might be better if everyone just converted.
MesMorial wrote: Intending to rule over non-Muslims also implies that the ideal itself is to have the entire world be Muslim.
MesMorial wrote: It is only a part of the debate,
MesMorial wrote: but the other part (which is also the source of your argument) was debunked earlier.
MesMorial wrote:All you are doing is providing justification for the fighting and conquering and subsequent ruling. The topic is that Islam seeks to rule the world, and you keep offering justifications for this rather than telling us they do not seek to rule.
See above point. This is context for the verses you are taking out of context. It is up to you to prove that Islam does intend to rule the world, not me to prove otherwise.
MesMorial wrote: Innocent until proven guilty,
MesMorial wrote: but that is reversed in the case of blind prejudice.
MesMorial wrote: You have shown no evidence the Qur’an instructs Muslims to take over the world instead of only defending themselves.
MesMorial wrote:Again, all you are doing is to explain why it was justified for Muslims to conquer and rule rather than denying they seeked to rule, and it's the latter that you need to do in this debate.
See my response before the last. It is amusing how you twist my words by claiming that I am explaining why it was justified for Muslims to take over the world when I am explaining why the Qur’an mandated self-defence at that time in that situation (it is called context).
MesMorial wrote:“And if one of the idolaters seek protection from you, grant him protection till he hears the word of Allah, then make him attain his place of safety; this is because they are a people who do not know.”
9:6
Why is "till he hears the word of Allah" in there?? What does that have to do with allowing someone to surrender?? Obviously, there's more to it than you would like there to be.
Well it has nothing to do with surrendering. It is about idolaters who do not wish to fight Muslims but (among other things) are afraid their own people will gang up on them.
MesMorial wrote: It proves Muslims were not simply supposed to fight and kill non-Muslims as you would suggest.
MesMorial wrote: Anyway, it is saying that Muslims should protect him even after hearing the Word of Allah (SWT).
MesMorial wrote: If the only place of safety is the Muslims’ society, then that is the place of safety. It might be you who is seeing more in that verse.
MesMorial wrote:After they hear the word of Allah, and then, obviously, the expectation would be that they would be Muslims afterwards. Think about it. It they heard Allah's words and then rejected it, then aren't they supposed to be fought like all of the others who reject Allah's word??
This shows the level of your argument. How do you explain the verse telling Muslims to escort him to a place of safety afterwards?
MesMorial wrote: Does it mention a criterion of their being Muslim or not afterwards?
MesMorial wrote: You also contradict yourself. You have (twice I think) accused me of shifting the debate to the topic of whether Islam forcibly converts non-Muslims, but here you are providing the very reason for my discussion of that.
MesMorial wrote: The other verses speak of fighting those who cannot be trusted for reasons specified and who were fighting the Muslims. Besides, if idolaters are escorted to a place of safety, then Muslims are not going to attack them.
MesMorial wrote:This has nothing to do with Islam wanting to conquer and rule or not, it is merely a justification for the conquering
Ah, yet another example of quality “refutation”! You have yet to offer any rebuttal to my Round 2 response, so it is you who needs to stop saying things without supporting them and thus get to the point.
MesMorial wrote:Why would you bring in an unrelated verse from a completely different time and different circumstances when all we have to do is to look at the actual verse itself and it's self explanatory?? It's explaining why the idolators (and people of the book) should be fought. One reason is that they use the their mouths to put out the light of Allah. Putting out the light of Allah is an act of fighting. Therefore, they should be fought. So yes, talking against Islam is really the same as fighting it, as far as Muhammad was concerned. If we even refer to the hadiths, Muhammad even had a guy assassinated for talking bad about Allah and his apostle after the Muslims killed this guys friends and threw them into a ditch. Heck, Muhammad even gave them permission to deceive and lie to the assassination victim and take advantage of the victim's apparent generous nature to pull the job off.
32. They desire to put out the light of Allah with their mouths, and Allah will not consent save to perfect His light, though the unbelievers are averse.
You try to introduce other verses for further clarification, when no clarification is needed in the case of that verse. So you introduce these additional verses not to clear the meaning up, but rather to change it.
Sura 16 was a part of the formation of Islam, and not a special-circumstance Sura which actually explains itself anyway (Sura 9 does).
MesMorial wrote: The idolaters in 9:30-36 were talking bad about Islam, but the Qur’an was talking bad about them because they were talking bad about Islam in the name of what they followed AND they were fighting Muslims (9:36). We know that 16:125 says we should debate politely about things (religious differences etc.)
MesMorial wrote: but it would seem the idolaters did not share that policy.
MesMorial wrote: “Putting out the light of Allah is an act of fighting” is correct according to whom? Just you!
MesMorial wrote:16:126 already answered you by saying we must respond IN TURN (or be patient).
MesMorial wrote: Therefore “talking” bad is not fighting in the sense that you wish it to be. You will say that “talking bad” is the fighting referred to in 9:36,
MesMorial wrote: but if that were the case
MesMorial wrote: then as per the wording of 9:36 Muslims had to fight them according to the treatment they were receiving (until the wrongs were righted and the recompense for damages or expenses incurred was paid). However that would be stretching it (to go there), and your point is 9:32. The only point to be made here is that 9:29 is presented in the context of 9:36.
MesMorial wrote: Nothing more needs to be said.
MesMorial wrote: We know that Allah (SWT) does not wish people to associate others with Him (from the rest of the Qur’an and thus no abrogation!),
MesMorial wrote: and that is what makes Muslims what they are. We believe in the oneness of Allah (SWT) and that is just how it is. The policy of conduct for those who do no share our beliefs but are friendly is simply this:
“Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice.”
60:8
MesMorial wrote:It is very simple but you take the Qur’an out of context. 9:29 is just in context of 9:36.
MesMorial wrote: 9:32 actually explains 9:33 and we will get to that yet. You say that 9:33 is the reason for 9:29,
MesMorial wrote: but actually 9:32-33 is the reason for 9:36 (i.e. why the non-Muslims seek to fight the Muslims) which is the reason for 9:29.
MesMorial wrote:“And We did not create the heavens and the earth and what is between them two but in truth; and the hour is most surely coming, so turn away with kindly forgiveness.”
15:85
Kindly forgiveness for who??MesMorial wrote:Well, ya know...circumstances change, eh?? I've read that some scholars think that parts of sura 9 were the last verses Muhammad ever uttered. I'm not sure if that's proven, but I'm guessing that 9 came after the verses you reference and therefore 9 abrogates them. Hey, changing circumstances require changing rules. How was Muhammad supposed to know what would happen 5 years later?? So he deserves the chance to change his mind as the situation dictates. It's only fair, right??
Again a baseless claim which ignores my Round 2 response. Muslims must not be aggressive, but then we should defend the religion.
Not baseless at all, it's actually in clear writing right in front of anybody's face. Conquer and rule them. If it merely said fight those who fight you in suras 5 and 29, then you might have a point. But in sura 5 it adds until they practice regular prayers and pay the poor rate (only Muslims do that), and in 29, it adds until they pay the jizyah being brought low (that is Muslim rule). These additional parts of the verses that you continually try to ignore refute your point. How long are we going to have to endure this charade?? It's in the verse in plain letters. The Quran does not cooperate properly with your story.MesMorial wrote:Until they get strong enough, and then it's "where's the jizyah".
It is obvious you hate Islam,
No no no, that's not going to work. Whether anybody hates Islam or not is completely irrelevant and that diversion is not going to work.MesMorial wrote: so I will just refute you instead. Regardless of the meaning of “jizya”, read 9:36.
Why not read 9:29 where the jizyah is mentioned??MesMorial wrote: However, if “jizya” were to mean “tax for being non-Muslim”
And believe you me, it does. I can't believe you never knew this.MesMorial wrote: then that would go against 2:256 and countless other verses mandating no compulsion in the religion.
You bet. But hey, that's abrogation. Circumstances changed and therefore so did the rules. That's why the Quran had to be revealed over time, so that it can change it's message to fit the current circumstances. And I love the way you say "countless" when in truth, ,it could probably be counted on one or two hands. Look at the dramatics.MesMorial wrote: The excuse is “protection”, but protection against what?
Well that's a great question. Here's what a renowned Muslim scholar thought, before Islam needed to be whitewashed for modern consumption.(Do not initiate the Salam to the Jews and Christians, and if you meet any of them in a road, force them to its narrowest alley.) This is why the Leader of the faithful `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, demanded his well-known conditions be met by the Christians, these conditions that ensured their continued humiliation, degradation and disgrace. The scholars of Hadith narrated from `Abdur-Rahman bin Ghanm Al-Ash`ari that he said, "I recorded for `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, the terms of the treaty of peace he conducted with the Christians of Ash-Sham: `In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. This is a document to the servant of Allah `Umar, the Leader of the faithful, from the Christians of such and such city. When you (Muslims) came to us we requested safety for ourselves, children, property and followers of our religion. We made a condition on ourselves that we will neither erect in our areas a monastery, church, or a sanctuary for a monk, nor restore any place of worship that needs restoration nor use any of them for the purpose of enmity against Muslims. We will not prevent any Muslim from resting in our churches whether they come by day or night, and we will open the doors [of our houses of worship] for the wayfarer and passerby. Those Muslims who come as guests, will enjoy boarding and food for three days. We will not allow a spy against Muslims into our churches and homes or hide deceit [or betrayal] against Muslims. We will not teach our children the Qur'an, publicize practices of Shirk, invite anyone to Shirk or prevent any of our fellows from embracing Islam, if they choose to do so. We will respect Muslims, move from the places we sit in if they choose to sit in them. We will not imitate their clothing, caps, turbans, sandals, hairstyles, speech, nicknames and title names, or ride on saddles, hang swords on the shoulders, collect weapons of any kind or carry these weapons. We will not encrypt our stamps in Arabic, or sell liquor. We will have the front of our hair cut, wear our customary clothes wherever we are, wear belts around our waist, refrain from erecting crosses on the outside of our churches and demonstrating them and our books in public in Muslim fairways and markets. We will not sound the bells in our churches, except discretely, or raise our voices while reciting our holy books inside our churches in the presence of Muslims, nor raise our voices [with prayer] at our funerals, or light torches in funeral processions in the fairways of Muslims, or their markets. We will not bury our dead next to Muslim dead, or buy servants who were captured by Muslims. We will be guides for Muslims and refrain from breaching their privacy in their homes.' When I gave this document to `Umar, he added to it, `We will not beat any Muslim. These are the conditions that we set against ourselves and followers of our religion in return for safety and protection. If we break any of these promises that we set for your benefit against ourselves, then our Dhimmah (promise of protection) is broken and you are allowed to do with us what you are allowed of people of defiance and rebellion.'''
So according to this, it would appear they they had to pay protection money to Muslims to protect them and their religion from Muslims. Now, of course, you will naturally say, that is not the Quran, that is a hadith, and try to dismiss it simply because it doesn't fit into what you need it to fit into. But ask yourself this. Jizyah is mentioned by the Quran, and it is mentioned in a way that leads us to believe that people were already familiar with it before it was ever mentioned in the Quran. This is why the Quran goes into no detail, because it didn't have to. Like the battle of Badr, people already knew what the Quran was talking about when it mentioned it. So, since the Quran only mentions it as a pre-existing thing, then we would have to assume that Muhammad already established this and merely referenced in later in the quran to give it full legitimacy.MesMorial wrote: There is simply no Qur’anic evidence for the tax.
Yes there is, there is mention of paying money and mention of humiliation. Anyway, you're getting desperate now, because nobody disagrees that there was jizyah.MesMorial wrote: Why is it we can find the details for everything else in the Qur’an, but not how much the jizya “tax” is?
We didn't find any details for the oh so important, infamous night journey in the Quran either. It only made a quick reference to it, just like in the case of the battle of Badr and the jizyah. As far as how much it is, that is actually up to the discretion of the Muslim ruler. No kidding, go look it up.MesMorial wrote: “Jizya” derives from “jaza” which means recompense/punishment, and variations of the word are used throughout the Qur’an to mean “reward” or “recompense” (53:41, 6:93, 10:52, 27:90, 36:54 etc.).
Look, every single Muslim scholar that I have ever heard of all unanimously agree that jizyah is a tax of Christian and Jew dhimmies. Recompense was to compensate them for protecting them. That's what it meant, rather than a one time payment. Just go look it up. i don't need to argue this point. it's not my fault that this disappoints your surreal idea for Islam that people have fed you.MesMorial wrote:My typo, sorry. I meant 9:29. you couldn't figure that out?
I might have except you kept making the same mistake and pasting completely wrong ayah. Well some typo…!
Well it is and anybody could see that.MesMorial wrote:Muslims pay the poor rate and, so one who does this is a Muslim.
Exactly why I discussed the fact that non-Muslims did not have to convert to Islam.
Well, actually, in that case, they did, because it says to fight them until they pay the poor rate and practice prayers. Only Muslims pay the poor rate, so this means becoming a Muslim. Only Christians and Jews were ultimately allowed to keep their religion and/or their life when Muslims became powerful enough. So while the point of this thread isn't to show that Muslims seek to convert everyone, but rather to show that they seek to rule them, there were some cases where they didn't even seek to rule them, it was either you become Muslim or die. Yet more abrogation to no compulsion in religion, I suppose. Maybe it should have said no compulsion in religion, as long as you aren't a pagan.MesMorial wrote:No, it means them performing regular prayers. That's why it's rare that you will find any translator even use the word "establish".
Exactly why I discussed the fact that non-Muslims did not have to convert to Islam. If they had to convert, explain 9:29.
I did above. Only the Christians and Jews were allowed to keep their religion, and that is clearly what 9:5 and the later 9:29 verses are telling us.It means so that they as a people cease, it's not talking about the individuals on the battle field.
It actually makes no difference. “Until they cease” just means “until they cease”.
MesMorial wrote:This topic is not about whether Islam demands that everyone be a Muslim or not, it's about whether Islam demands that it and Muslims rule everywhere.
Well you had me fooled in your last three responses. I already answered that point, besides. By answering one I will answer the other. The only point you have made relevant to “the topic” is 9:33 which I have answered too many times.
MesMorial wrote: Your 8:39 argument is beyond me since you seem to misread “THE” as “ALL” every time. But we will get to that.
MesMorial wrote:It doesn't say anything about fighting their leaders, it just says fight "them", or fight the unbelievers. It doesn't say to only fight the leaders. This is getting ridiculous.
Not true. True, your arguments are ridiculous.
“And if they break their oaths after their agreement and (openly) revile your religion, then fight the leaders of unbelief-- surely their oaths are nothing-- so that they may desist.”
MesMorial wrote:And your BIG POINT actually has nothing to do with the topic because the topic is not about whether everybody has to be a Muslim, it's about how everybody has to be ruled by Muslims you wasted a lot of time on this useless angle.
In that case, so did you… They are the same thing, with one not confined to the other.
MesMorial wrote:Sure, all you need to do is accept them ruling over you, which is the exact point of this topic. you keep helping me.
9:29 is because of the reason outlined in 9:36 (and the previous verses too).
MesMorial wrote:9:5 is telling Muslims to fight them until they pay the poor rate. in that case, one stops fighting them because they have become Muslim. But they don't always become Muslims, and that's why 9:29 tells us what to do with the ones who are conquered but are still not Muslims. Instead of paying the poor rate because they have become Muslim, as in the case of 9:5, they instead pay the jizyah.
Firstly the jizya was outlined above.
MesMorial wrote: Secondly Muslims were to stop fighting when the non-Muslims proved that they (the guilty ones) had repented for the crimes outlined in 9:8-13 (e.g. by converting, paying a recompense or by simply not wishing to fight (9:6).
6. And if one of the idolaters seek protection from you, grant him protection till he hears the word of Allah, then make him attain his place of safety; this is because they are a people who do not know.
MesMorial wrote: Please note that in matters of “trusting” the enemy, Muslims these days are not going to have Sura revealed for them and thus discussing Sura 9 in its context is a waste of time for Islamophobes.
MesMorial wrote:I skip some irrelevant/desperate things:
MesMorial wrote:There's nothing that says 9:36 is speaking about anybody different then the people who were mentioned in the 7 verses before.
Thankyou! You just gave me the debate on a plate.
MesMorial wrote:Not just fight them, but rule over them and subject them to a humiliating tax. You keep trying to quietly brush that part away.
Where is the tax in the Qur’an? It just says to fight them, not to rule over them.
MesMorial wrote:Allah is further explaining why people need to carry out 9:29. it's giving the reason why Islam must reign supreme. It outlines the supposed wrongdoing of the Christians and Jews and calls them idolators and explains that this is why Islam must reign supreme.
The reason for 9:29 is given in 9:36. 9:30-35 states that the non-Muslims are doing things which are not good.
MesMorial wrote:9:33 is a statement of Allah’s (SWT) intention, not Islam’s itself (Islam being the Qur’an). You keep saying that 9:30-35 are the only reason for 9:29,
MesMorial wrote: but they are the reason for 9:36 which is the reason for 9:29 (i.e. the non-Muslims were fighting against Muslims).
MesMorial wrote: If they were not actively desiring to “put out the light of Allah”, hoarding wealth and diverting people from Allah and fighting Muslims, then they were not going to be subject to retaliation. “Jizya” means “recompense” and thus it had to be retaliatory.
MesMorial wrote:“Surely the number of months with Allah is twelve months in Allah's ordinance since the day when He created the heavens and the earth, of these four being sacred; that is the right reckoning; therefore be not unjust to yourselves regarding them, AND FIGHT THE POLYTHEISTS ALL TOGETHER AS THEY FIGHT YOU ALL TOGETHER; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).’
9:36
You could not answer my question:
“Can you explain how the revelation of the Qur’an will conquer non-Muslims any more easily than simply fighting them?”
MesMorial wrote:9:33 is thus useless to you for your opening point.
MesMorial wrote:It first tells them what to do, and then in subsequent verses it tells them why they should. It's pretty easy to see. It's not trying to be mysterious.
Indeed, 9:30-36 gives reasons. But each time you ignore 9:36. They are not stand-alone reasons. Retaliation is in kind (16:126).
MesMorial wrote:A “Fatwa”:
“Question: Is it an obligation of an Islamic state to attack the neighboring non-Muslim states and collect ‘jizya’ from them? Do we see this in the example of the rightly guided Caliphs who fought against the Roman and Persian Empires without any aggression initiating from them?
Answered by Sheikh Hânî al-Jubayr, judge at the Jeddah Supreme Court
If the non-Muslim country did not attack the Muslim one nor mobilize itself to prevent the practice and spread of Islam, nor transgress against mosques, nor work to oppress the Muslim people in their right to profess their faith and decry unbelief, then it is not for the Muslim country to attack that country. Jihâd of a military nature was only permitted to help Muslims defend their religion and remove oppression from the people.”
That is true according to the Qur’an.
MesMorial wrote:Well gee, judging by the fact that i showed you a picture of a Muslim who clearly agrees with my interpretation, i would say it's not just my own perverted world view. This is what happens when a person knows they are not doing well in the discussion. They turn their attention to their opponent. 2:256 was said when he was in a compromised position, but that changed later.
It is not about world view as opposed to illiteracy/lack of vision.
MesMorial wrote: So what about 2:190 where Muslims can attack aggressors? What has changed exactly?
MesMorial wrote:Whether it starts off as defensive or not, it doesn't end up in defense, it ends up in conquering and then subsequent rule forever.
Until they desist (2:190, 8:39, 9:7, 9:29).
MesMorial wrote:“And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.”
2:190
Right, if the accept Muslim rule, then do not fight them.
You are a fool. 2:194 defines the enemy as those who act aggressively against you. On another day you would simply say that 2:190 was abrogated, so your arguments would change daily.
MesMorial wrote:You're right. That was abrogated later by
No evidence.
MesMorial wrote:No, it is a "protection money" tax, kind of like what the mafia does. Islam conquers them and then charges them money to be protected from conquerors. It's total mafia style where you actually don't pay for the protector to protect you against others, you actually pay the protector to protect you against the protector himself. Hey, but who cares?? If they become a Muslim, they can be treated as first class citizens.
You explained why your claim does not make sense. Culture is no substitute for what is written.
MesMorial wrote:It takes no twisting. it comes right after 9:29 as an explanation as to why they should do 9:29.That's common sense.
9:33 was explained and you failed to respond.
MesMorial wrote: Look at 9:30-36 as a whole and stop forcing me to ask you questions about 9:33 you cannot answer.
MesMorial wrote:“If you take it to mean “prevail over” then where is the command to fight and conquer those who are friendly with you and who do not fight you?”
Those people became Muslims. Take a look at the letters Muhammad sent out to the kings after he got bold and strong.
Read the question. Where is the command in the Qur’an? You answered by saying that they became Muslims, but if it is not in the Qur’an then it does not matter if they did or not (i.e. your answer is irrelevant).
MesMorial wrote:Well, it just so happens to be right next to some very violent, critical and angry verses. You can't just snip things off at 9:32 and say that 9:33 has little to do with 9:29-32. you're just trying to manipulate it so that you can dilute the negativity.
Look at 9:30-36 as a whole. 9:32 is an indirect reason which led to 9:36 which explains 9:36.
MesMorial wrote: It is not a direct reason and the response (9:33) is just a response to 9:32 (eliminating your prime argument).
MesMorial wrote:So first, you try to deny that the jizyah means tax in 9:29, then
MesMorial wrote:9:29 does not talk about guiding people, it talks about fighting and conquering them. Again, everybody does not have to be a Muslim, they just need to be ruled by them
Why does it specify to fight “People of the Book” and not non-Muslims in general (if you are right)?
MesMorial wrote: The answer is in 9:30-36. 9:33 is explained by 9:32 (it is just a response).
MesMorial wrote:Fight them until they pay the jizyah.
MesMorial wrote: and secondly it does not say “so that Muslims can (do this or that)”. It says so that Islam can prevail/be manifested.
Fight and conquer them so that Islam can prevail as the superior religion, which essentially means it rules over them
MesMorial wrote: Islam cannot do that without the Qur’an because people would not know how to follow Islam!
Well apparently, it couldn't do that without fighting either.
Blah blah.
MesMorial wrote:Since it's in the Quran, it's context is both historical and modern.
Without having Sura revealed for Muslims these days, they cannot use their own suspicion to fight those who would like to fight them (e.g. 9:13 although linking 9:5 to 47:35 it seems that Muslims were the ones to advocate treaties). Furthermore, you have shown no abrogation such that Muslims still can only fight against those who fight them.
MesMorial wrote:If it is talking about a specific incident, then it belongs in the hadiths
9:9 is similar to many other ayat concerning people past/or present. The Qur’an is a book of guidance and it performed its function whilst making references to specific situations (e.g. 66:1).
MesMorial wrote:Again, the issue never was about Muslims forcing others to become Muslims, the issue is that Islam dictates that Muslims rule over non Muslims. Islam dictates that it should rule the world
You keep dictating that but where does it say it? If you could show the verse then you could win!
MesMorial wrote:So Muslims could practice their religion in the holy town of another religion, but nobody may practice anything but Islam in the Muslim holy town.
The Qur’an never prohibitsd other people believing what they wish.
MesMorial wrote:“And say: The truth is from your Lord, so let him who please believe, and let him who please disbelieve…”
18:54
MesMorial wrote:Where was the first one??
The fact you never produced a first argument supporting it. Is all this your painstaking rebuttal?...
MesMorial wrote:and conquer them and rule them.”
Unless they surrender of their own volition (although in any case it never says that Muslims should rule them – it is until they cease fighting).
MesMorial wrote:Which means the topic is whether Islam intends that Islam rule the world which translates into Muslim rule. What the heck was that??
It was just your mistake.
MesMorial wrote:Not convert them, conquer and rule over them. I've already made it clear why it's probably not beneficial for Muslims that everybody be a Muslim, because then, Muslims wouldn't have a people to rule over and be superior over.
Converting the society does not mean converting all the people. It means converting the social order. Now there is no verse to support Muslims having to do that.
MesMorial wrote:Oh for God's sake, it's the same thing. Look at this ridiculous little nit picking technicalities you are attempting.
Well for God’s sake indeed. “Manifesting something above other things” and “forcibly causing it to prevail” (though in neither translation is the latter compatible) are different things.
MesMorial wrote:“Why do you accuse me of twisting things? That sign is right according to the translation which I accept (though I think the other is more correct from the current situation). You cannot relate 9:33 to 9:29 because 9:29 refers to 9:36 as well as 9:1-28. I have explained 9:33 enough.”
All you have said is that 9:29 refers to 9:36, but you never explained exactly why we are supposed to leap over the verses after 9:29, you just keep making the claim that they are unrelated. You have not explained enough at all, and this is starting to almost look like some bizarre scam attempt.MesMorial wrote:
So you make 9:29 jump over it's surrounding verses so that it can relate to the one you want it to relate to?? That's ridiculous. If you start pulling little stunts like this, this debate is going to be over really fast. I'm not to waste my time with someone who is merely going to attempt any stunt conceivable if he finds himself in a tough spot.
You cannot relate 9:33 to 9:29 because it is clearly a response to 9:32.
MesMorial wrote:
9:30-35 as a whole are related to 9:36 which is a justification for 9:29. That is my point. The fact that you accept 9:30-36 as reasons for 9:29 closes the argument. That should be that.
MesMorial wrote:
Yes and people always quote 2:256 “there is no compulsion in religion” but it is actually “there is no compulsion in THE system”.
Here is what the Arabic actually says. Notice that some of the translators translate it correctly:
http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp? ... 8&verse=39
It actually makes more sense with “the” (although it is a reality anyway) in other ayat. This argument is now shutdown.
MesMorial wrote:It's still talking about fighting the unbelievers, so in the most important respect, the context is quite the same. Fight the unbelievers but if they.......(desist, become a Muslim, or pay the humiliating tax), then stop fighting them.
But here's the funny thing folks. Pay very close attention. When he needs to, he steers away from 9 and 8 and invokes other verses from other suras, even though the context of those suras are clearly different than the context of 9. Then, he says you can't relate verses if they occur under different contexts or circumstances. This is the classic Muslim,. The rules always change, just right when they need them to change. You always have to pay close attention when you are discussing things with Muslims, because these are precisely the little things they attempt.
Fight the unbelievers until they stop fighting and persecuting Muslims.
“Surely those who disbelieve spend their wealth to hinder (people) from the way of Allah; so they shall spend it, then it shall be to them an intense regret, then they shall be overcome; and those who disbelieve shall be driven together to hell.”
8:36
People can spend their wealth on military equipment to fight Muslims with etc. etc. etc… It is quite self-explanatory.
MesMorial wrote:
Actually I am demonstrating that there is no abrogation. The context described in Sura 9 makes it clear that there is no contradiction to the actual precepts of the religion in all other sura. Chapter 9 is about the defence of religion, not Islam itself. That is the context which I refer to.
You added the word Islam in there and changed the meaning. You had to add a word to do that. When it just says "religion", then that means religion in general, which is why so many of the translators correctly translated it as all religion.
MesMorial wrote:In some cases, becoming a Muslim, in other cases, surrendering to them. That's at least according to other fight fight fight verses like 9:5 and 9:29
You agreed with me on 9:29 and 9:5 is even more definitely contextualised (9:7-13 etc.).
MesMorial wrote: The point is there is no change of policy. Sura 9 is simply an application of the defence of the religion.
MesMorial wrote:People can certainly be SHOWN who is the best via the sword. These are just nonsense little technicalities and qualifications you try to introduce that the issue drifts off into the direction you need it to
So the Qur’an was revealed so that Muhammad (SAW) could chop people (even though there is no verse which says that)?
MesMorial wrote:8:38 is telling them to fight them until there is no more oppression AND all religion is for Allah only. No more oppression means all religion is for Allah only
THE religion. Big difference.
MesMorial wrote:Look, it's talking about the non Muslim tax, whatever word you want to say its actually saying. And it is clearly something designed to humiliate.
No it says that they should pay it willingly WHILST they are subdued. It does not say its purpose is to humiliate. There is no evidence in the complete and fully-detailed Qur’an of a tax. Neither would it make sense.
MesMorial wrote:Not if they take partners with Allah, which is exactly what it accuses the Christians and Jews of doing.
Not all Christians and Jews. Again Muslims are instructed to forgive people for their beliefs if these people do not fight against them.
MesMorial wrote:You cannot be both a Christian, AND a Muslim no matter what little stories you would like to make up for yourself.
“Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.”
2:62
MesMorial wrote:It does matter because you tried to represent that it was talking about corrupt Muslims, when clearly it was talking about Christians and Jews.
More context for 8:39…
“And when those who disbelieved devised plans against you that they might confine you or slay you or drive you away; and they devised plans and Allah too had arranged a plan; and Allah is the best of planners.”
8:30
MesMorial wrote:It does not matter as per 2:62, 60:8 etc. as long as Muslims are allowed access to the House (8:34). Technically according to the Qur’an Jews and Christians who did not believe in the Qur’an were corrupted Muslims.
Regarding 9:28 where the idolaters are not allowed to visit the Sacred Mosque, in modern times we would have to prove that the person was not a Muslim and/or they were not sincere. That is up to the state and traditional opinion varies on the subject. The actual Arabic says they cannot enter it after this year of theirs, indicating it applies to Hajj and not to all the times in general. These days (I believe) only Islam performs the Hajj there anyway and so no loss. It was a punishment for those times so I see no reason why it should apply these days (although if it only applies to Pilgrimage then there is no point in pondering over it).And it (botty) mainly comes from offensive war, not defensive.
According to the Qur’an, always defensive.
[/quote]MesMorial wrote:Yes, make sure you tell us why the Quran suddenly takes a schizophrenic turn off and goes off on a tangent in 9:30 to 9:35, then goes back on course on 9:36. There is absolutely no good reason to make this ridiculous leap frog move where you merely attempt to literally jump over the verses. 9:29 to 9:36 are all related just as anyone would expect in any natural reading of any literature or any reading at all. You say 9:29 is related to 9:36 and not 9:30-35. If that's so, then what verses are 9:30-35 related to?? It's a ridiculous attempt with no reasonable justification except that it's what you need it to be. If I keep sensing behavior like that, I'm just going to bail, because it's senseless debating anything with someone who's willing to resort or stoop to anything to save face. If I start to believe that even you don't believe you own answer, then debate becomes pointless.
MesMorial wrote: You hand me the debate by admitting that 9:30-36 all apply to 9:29. How can 9:29 be a call for Islamic conquest of people who do not fight Islam?
MesMorial wrote: Islam is not aggressive, therefore no-one else needs to be either.
MesMorial wrote:None of those tafsir (even accepting them although they do no not consult surrounding ayat) support your claim that Islam intends to rule the world. The one for 9:33 only says that Allah (SWT) will causes Islam to enter homes etc. etc. It says nothing about using the sword (and that was my point exactly).
MesMorial wrote: Allah (SWT) may intend this or that for the religion, but that is not the religion itself
The Qur’an is clear on how to interact with people (60:8) and sura 9 is also clearly contextualised (as we have discussed). 4:94 tells us not to assume whether people are enemies or not. I will not talk more on the tafsir here since I told you not to reply.
Return to Exclusive Rooms - One-on-One-Debates
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests