Page 1 of 2

A Debate with Muhammad bin Lyin: Islam intends to rule world

PostPosted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 8:02 pm
by MesMorial
Well the title is self-explanatory. Islam is the religion detailed in the Qur'an alone unless Muhammad bin Lyin wishes to argue otherwise at the same time. However it must be clarified that "Islam intending to rule the world" is separate from certain Sunnis (etc.) intending to rule it. Furthermore a general social preference on the part of individuals does not mean an intention to claim it anymore than a Capitalist would intend to conquer the world with Capitalism etc..

Muhammad bin Lyin will make his first post (his case) because he chose the topic. All posts should be limited to 1000 words unless absolutely necessary for more.

Muhammad bin Lyin is FOR
MesMorial is AGAINST

Re: A Debate with Muhammad bin Lyin: Islam intends to rule world

PostPosted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 8:27 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
OK, as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words, so before we all hear all of the denial that's bound to come, let's look at an actual, factual picture.

Image

Now, where would this "supposedly", poor mixed up fellow get this idea from that Islam will dominate?? Well, actually, if we look closely at his sign, we don't have to wonder where he gets it from at all, because he's clearly trying to tell us where he gets it from in the quote at the bottom of his sign. Why, it's Sura 9:33. Go figure.
:lol:

Here is Shakir's translation, although I don't think translation means that much in this case as I've probably seen them all, and they are pretty consistent.

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.

Here, this is not talking about wayward Muslims as MesMorial attempted to say in the case of 8:39, it's clearly talking about non Muslims.

Now, the usual claim is always that Muslims are always fighting on the defensive, even though an entire sura 8 is entitled "the booty". Isn't the booty normally taken from someone elses land?

The next excuse that is used is that 8:39 doesn't say all religion, it says all systems. Isn't Islam both a religious belief and a religious/political system?

BTW, I don't agree with your new, made up rule of the posts being 1000 words or less, and anybody can only figure that you would bother trying to make this rule because you think it will work to your advantage. Notice how I don't make any rules and I even ask or allow you to pick the topic??

So on the fairness and good debating scale, it's clearly Muhammad bin Lyin 1, Memorial 0. :lol:

Re: A Debate with Muhammad bin Lyin: Islam intends to rule world

PostPosted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 12:09 am
by Muhammad bin Lyin
New addition. I don't care what the topic is, because it will always end up being nonsense, because that's actually what Islam is if anybody truly looks at it through an honest, objective lens. All of these little exercises are nothing but ridiculous excuses invented by Muslims in the face of modern knowledge. The philosophy of Islam doesn't have a deeper philosophical base to it, and therefore doesn't survive on a deeper philosophical basis that is independent of any current circumstances, but rather only an authoritarian basis, because Muhammad was not a deep person. It's obvious. Look at the Quran. Tell me something that you couldn't have thought of yourself through normal common sense. You can't. That's because it was written to appease people's common sense at the time, rather than actually impart any new wisdom. And why would it do that?? Because "somebody" needed for people to behave in a certain way at that time. And then, of course, those needs changed over time, which is why those needs needed to be revealed over time. Hmmmm......

Those needs needed. I gotta' like that. :lol:

Re: A Debate with Muhammad bin Lyin: Islam intends to rule world

PostPosted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 1:14 am
by MesMorial
Addressing readers and my opponent, I clarify/remind that the arguments I present can be used by non-Muslims because I will not be using religious belief to make my point. It is thus best to consider me agnostic whilst witnessing the exposure of the ignorance involved in wholeheartedly anti-Islamic arguments (as far as it goes).

Now addressing MBL’s “BTW”, I will inform readers and remind him that I issued the invitation for any person to debate provided that he or she DID want to debate upon one of the listed topics. He responded declaring that I could choose the topic, but the prospect of debating was not for my benefit since I had already replied to the arguments inside the public threads (and that was why the title of my challenge was “Goodbye, Unless Needed”!). It was clear he was unable to make up his mind in spite of WANTING to debate, and thus he must have liked all topics. I told him to choose which was PREFERABLE for him, and he accepted my invitation based on his desire to argue the topic “Islam intends to rule the world”.

MBL must have missed the part of my ruling where one can go over 1000 words if they have to. Since this is a public debate (viewable by more than one website) it is important responses are presented succintly. MBL complains about this despite requiring over another 700 words to reach the benchmark 1000 in his initial posting.

I now address his argument. He begins with shock-value, but makes it easy to reply to by specifying the source of the sensational notion presented on the sign.

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:


“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


“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


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.

However, accepting “cause it to prevail” we must ask: how will this be done? 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”. 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.

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.

What does the Qur’an tell Muslims to do?


“And say: The truth is from your Lord, so let him who please believe, and let him who please disbelieve…”

18:29


“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


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!


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.

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. Second, it talks of oppressors:


“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


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:


“And what (excuse) have they that Allah should not chastise them while they HINDER (Muslims) FROM THE SACRED MOSQUE…”

8:34


Though irrelevant, the taking of booty is permitted after fighting aggressors:


“And know that whatever thing you gain, a fifth of it is for Allah and for the Messenger 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


It is not theft:


“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


999 “words”.

Re: A Debate with Muhammad bin Lyin: Islam intends to rule world

PostPosted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 1:17 am
by MesMorial
I break my rule in response to MBL's second post:

He is doing what the people here are always doing: mocking and diverting the subject of the thread.

Irrelevant!

You laughed at your own joke and it was not very funny.


The score so far:


“And say: The truth is from your Lord, so let him who please believe, and let him who please disbelieve…”

18:29


“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


Therefore Islam does not intend to rule the world.

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).

Re: A Debate with Muhammad bin Lyin: Islam intends to rule world

PostPosted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:18 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
MesMorial wrote:MBL must have missed the part of my ruling where one can go over 1000 words if they have to.


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: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:


To be more precise, the beginning of Sura 9 was uttered when Muslims already had 1/3 of Arabia.

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


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.

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


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.

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.


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.

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!


May Allah destroy them?? This is Muhammad asking Allah to destroy them?? I know it's a side point, but look at how weird that verse is, and he did the same thing elsewhere

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).


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.

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.


The Christians and Jews are talking bad about Muhammad and Islam because they think he is a fraud.

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.


Polytheists clearly include Christians and Jews and I just got done explaining why.

MesMorial wrote:However, accepting “cause it to prevail” we must ask: how will this be done?


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.

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.

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”.


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.

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.


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.

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.


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


MesMorial wrote:What does the Qur’an tell Muslims to do?


Realize that 9:29 tells them to fight because Islam must reign supreme, which it tells them in 9:33. That guy holding the sign certainly sees the obvious, as do I.


MesMorial wrote:“And say: The truth is from your Lord, so let him who please believe, and let him who please disbelieve…”
18:29


And this was uttered before he became powerful and was later abrogated by verses in 4, 8 and 9, which came later.


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


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.

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!


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.

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.


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.


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.


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.

MesMorial wrote: Second, it talks of oppressors:


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)

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


I already answered that above.

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:


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.

MesMorial wrote:“And what (excuse) have they that Allah should not chastise them while they HINDER (Muslims) FROM THE SACRED MOSQUE…”
8:34


And???

MesMorial wrote:Though irrelevant, the taking of booty is permitted after fighting aggressors:


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.

MesMorial wrote:“And know that whatever thing you gain, a fifth of it is for Allah and for the Messenger


The 20% profit?? Where does it say that the 20% profit can't skim off the top?? After all, Allah would want to compensate his most favored profit, right?? He certainly showed he wanted to do that with women (even little girls if the profit so wished), so why not with the booty as well??


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


So it's Allah first, Muhammad second, and next comes the near of kin, orphans, needy wayfarer....So this says Muhammad gets a cut first (after Allah, so I suppose Muhammad or Muslim soldiers burn some of it for Allah so that he can smell it :lol: ), along with the poor and needy who get what it left over. Otherwise, "the messenger" wouldn't have even been mentioned.

MesMorial wrote:It is not theft:


Sure. No more than any conquering army leader, or a politician, or a cult leader does. :lol:

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


It isn't evil or unjust for Muhammad to skim off the top, Allah told him to do that, just like Allah told Muhammad to marry Ayesha by giving him two erotic dreams about her. Seems like Allah told Muhammad to do a lot of things that he might have found pleasurable. "I did not want to have sex with her, but Allah told me I should". :lol:

Re: A Debate with Muhammad bin Lyin: Islam intends to rule world

PostPosted: Sat Feb 05, 2011 1:26 am
by Muhammad bin Lyin
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).


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.

Re: A Debate with Muhammad bin Lyin: Islam intends to rule world

PostPosted: Sat Feb 05, 2011 4:46 am
by MesMorial
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. He mentions that I break my own rule though it was in response to MBL’s ignorance of common debating etiquette where we are allowed one posting per round. In his first case it was OK but the problem was I wrote my response as a reply to his first post, but when I had finished there was another to which I had to respond. It is a common technique for the people here to laugh when they know they are making a dud point.

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.

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). 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. 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. The situation at the time was unstable and there were many enemies who could not be trusted (derived from the Qur’an alone):


“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

(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


“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


(This shows that those who do not wish to fight Muslims will be OK.)


“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


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


“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


“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


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.”


It says fight until they stop fighting you, repent and establish Islamic practices. “Establish” here means “uphold/allow” (e.g. in society), 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:


“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:


“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


(Then it says that if they break their treaties AND defame Islam then Muslims should fight the leaders (cause).


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


Besides, 9:29 actually proves that converting to Islam is not compulsory for making peace with Muslims.


According to Muslims according to Allah, the non-Muslims who had attacked Islam before simply could not be trusted in that situation:


“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


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. 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.”


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.


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. Where is the fight? How does the Qur’an conquer by itself? What does the Qur’an tell people to do? To adhere to Islam and defend it. What is Islam? It is the religion detailed within the Qur’an.


“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?


MBL places his interpretation on 9:30-33 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.


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. 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.


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. 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? Can you explain how the revelation of the Qur’an will conquer non-Muslims any more easily than simply fighting them? Why does 9:33 not say “…so that Muslims can follow its instructions which are to kill or conquer everyone else?” 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?


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:


“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


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. That violates 2:256 where there is no compulsion in the religion. 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.

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? 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. 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? 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.


“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.


“And they who give associates (to Allah) say: If Allah had pleased, we would not have served anything besides Allah, (neither) we nor our fathers, nor would we have prohibited anything without (order from) Him. Thus did those before them; IS THEN AUGHT INCUMBENT UPON THE MESSENGERS EXCEPT A PLAIN DELIVERY (OF THE MESSAGE)?”

16:35


“And We will either let you see part of what We threaten them with or cause you to die, for only the delivery of the message is (incumbent) on you, while calling (them) to account is Our (business).”

13:40


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, and secondly it does not say “so that Muslims can (do this or that)”. It says so that Islam can prevail/be manifested. Islam cannot do that without the Qur’an because people would not know how to follow Islam!

You keep parroting that line of “attack”.

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. 9:9 is simply referring to something that the particular non-Muslims of that situation have done. 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. Thus there is no abrogation and MBL’s choice of words is clumsy. 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). All 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.

To put a further nail in the coffin of abrogation, the Qur’an throughout declares that Muslims are allowed to retaliate in kind against the aggressors:


“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


It is simple.


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. 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.


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” 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.

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? 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.

For readers, the verse he just quoted is in chapter 9, not 8. Just completely separate contexts!


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


“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.”

8:39


It is a dirty and self-satisfying tactic to ask “Ah, but what does “desist” mean???) 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.


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).


“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.


Replying to 8:36, he says:


“I already answered that above.”


Where did he answer that?



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. 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. 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).


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…the religion of the people who maintain a standard (of behaviour) and preside over the mosque. Basically the most righteous are its guardians. 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.

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. 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”.


The treatment of captives/women etc. is a separate subject to that we are discussing.

The remainder of your post is irrelevant.

Good luck trying again.


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…) Truth and common sense will show you up every time. You think that war-mongering is truth and common sense. In truth you are nothing but a big fool. 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. :ermm: You are just no challenge.

Re: A Debate with Muhammad bin Lyin: Islam intends to rule world

PostPosted: Sat Feb 05, 2011 6:01 am
by MesMorial
YET ANOTHER ILLEGAL POST (FROM ME)

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.


Accepted.

Re: A Debate with Muhammad bin Lyin: Islam intends to rule world

PostPosted: Sun Feb 06, 2011 6:46 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
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.


Why move on to new things when you can't properly reconcile your current points?

MesMorial wrote:It is a common technique for the people here to laugh when they know they are making a dud point.


Not mine.

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.


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.


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).


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.

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.


Or, the author changed his mind later and decided that more suras need be added?? So even that declaration got abrogated. :lol:


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.


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

MesMorial wrote:situation at the time was unstable and there were many enemies who could not be trusted (derived from the Qur’an alone):


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.

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


Thanks for helping my point. I forgot about this verse :)


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


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.

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.

MesMorial wrote:(This shows that those who do not wish to fight Muslims will be OK.)


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??

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


This has nothing to do with Islam wanting to conquer and rule or not, it is merely a justification for the conquering

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


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.


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


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??

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


Until they get strong enough, and then it's "where's the jizyah".

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.”


My typo, sorry. I meant 9:29. you couldn't figure that out?


MesMorial wrote:It says fight until they stop fighting you, repent and establish Islamic practices.


Muslims pay the poor rate and, so one who does this is a Muslim.

MesMorial wrote: “Establish” here means “uphold/allow” (e.g. in society),


No, it means them performing regular prayers. That's why it's rare that you will find any translator even use the word "establish".


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:


It means so that they as a people cease, it's not talking about the individuals on the battle field.

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:


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.


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


Paying the poor rate is what Muslims do. Non Muslims pay the jizyah. i already pointed this out and you ignored it merely to repeat the same thing again.

MesMorial wrote:(Then it says that if they break their treaties AND defame Islam then Muslims should fight the leaders (cause).


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.

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


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.

MesMorial wrote:Besides, 9:29 actually proves that converting to Islam is not compulsory for making peace with Muslims.


Sure, all you need to do is accept them ruling over you, which is the exact point of this topic. you keep helping me.

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.


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.

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.”


Excuse me, but anything that has been completed and perfected needs no additions, and yet that's what happened after 5:3

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.


This is not the hadiths, which are a one time recollection of events, this is the Quran, which is intended as instruction for all times. So while it's context might be historical, those verses are also supposed to transcend specific times and situations.

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.


You said shown to above, i said shown to be better. What is the ridiculous nitpicking about?? It means the same thing.

MesMorial wrote: Where is the fight?


It's a reason for why people are supposed to carry out 9:29. So there is the fight.

MesMorial wrote: How does the Qur’an conquer by itself? What does the Qur’an tell people to do?


Fight the unbelievers until they pay the jizyah with willing submission and Islam is the supreme religion.

MesMorial wrote:To adhere to Islam and defend it. What is Islam? It is the religion detailed within the Qur’an.


This is getting ridiculous. You're just flapping your arms around in ridiculous ways at this point.

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?


Suras 4, 8 and 9, which came later

MesMorial wrote:MBL places his interpretation on 9:30-33


Excuse me, but why didn't 9:29 make it on to your list??

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.


What the heck is this?? weren't we talking about how the Quran gives the ethos that Islam should rule??

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.


I meant that Muslims pay the poor rate, so 9:5 is referring to people who have becomes Muslims. Non Muslims pay the jizyah, as we are told in 9:29

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.

'
There's nothing that says 9:36 is speaking about anybody different then the people who were mentioned in the 7 verses before.

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.


Not just fight them, but rule over them and subject them to a humiliating tax. You keep trying to quietly brush that part away.

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?


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.

MesMorial wrote: Can you explain how the revelation of the Qur’an will conquer non-Muslims any more easily than simply fighting them?


I think Muhammad thought it was much simpler to fight them

MesMorial wrote: Why does 9:33 not say “…so that Muslims can follow its instructions which are to kill or conquer everyone else?”


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.


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?


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.

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:


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.

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.

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 that

MesMorial wrote: That violates 2:256 where there is no compulsion in the religion.


You're right. That was abrogated later by 9

Re: A Debate with Muhammad bin Lyin: Islam intends to rule world

PostPosted: Sun Feb 06, 2011 6:51 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
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.


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.


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?


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.


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.


That's why they need to carry out 9:29, because Islam is the superior religion. It tells us what to do (fight) when to stop (when they pay the jizyah), and why they should do this. And the why consists of two things.
1) because they are bad idolators
2) because Islam is the right religion and therefore must reign supreme

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.

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.


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.

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.


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

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,


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.

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.


Since it's in the Quran, it's context is both historical and modern.

MesMorial wrote: 9:9 is simply referring to something that the particular non-Muslims of that situation have done.


If it is talking about a specific incident, then it belongs in the hadiths

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.


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

MesMorial wrote:Thus there is no abrogation and MBL’s choice of words is clumsy.


Yes, my choice and the choice of a lot of Muslim scholars.

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).


Gee, it's funny how it never worked out that way. Who was attacking Muslims from India??

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.


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.


MesMorial wrote:To put a further nail in the coffin of abrogation,


Where was the first one??

MesMorial wrote: the Qur’an throughout declares that Muslims are allowed to retaliate in kind against the aggressors:


and conquer them and rule them.

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


This all changed after Muslims were more powerful.

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.


Which means the topic is whether Islam intends that Islam rule the world which translates into Muslim rule. What the heck was that??

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.


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.

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”


Oh for God's sake, it's the same thing. Look at this ridiculous little nit picking technicalities you are attempting.

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.


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.

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?


Read the translations. It's pretty clear.

http://islamawakened.org/quran/8/39/default.htm

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.


I'm looking for clarification as to what 8:39 meant by desist. Did it mean "stop fighting", or "become a Muslim" or both? 9:5 seems to say it means both.

MesMorial wrote:For readers, the verse he just quoted is in chapter 9, not 8. Just completely separate contexts!


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.

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


It means desist fighting them.

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:


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:It is a dirty and self-satisfying tactic to ask “Ah, but what does “desist” mean???)


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


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.


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

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).


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.

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.


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.


MesMorial wrote:Replying to 8:36, he says:

“I already answered that above.”
Where did he answer that?


What?? Read it again.


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.


Not if they take partners with Allah, which is exactly what it accuses the Christians and Jews of doing.

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.


You cannot be both a Christian, AND a Muslim no matter what little stories you would like to make up for yourself.

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).


It does matter because you tried to represent that it was talking about corrupt Muslims, when clearly it was talking about Christians and Jews.

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…


Islam

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.


According to the Quran, the most righteous are Muslims, not just "righteous people" from all religions.

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.


And when Muslims are in control of the sacred mosque, nobody else is allowed to visit it. So it asks for fair treatment when it is weak, but when it is strong and the shoe is on the other foot, so to speak, there is none of that same fairness to be found.

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.


And it mainly comes from offensive war, not defensive.

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”.


Gee, that sounds just like Israel, doesn't it?? If you attack them, they take your land.

MesMorial wrote:The treatment of captives/women etc. is a separate subject to that we are discussing.


Those poor, poor defensive people enjoying what their right hand possesses. Did you ever here of the hadith where Muhammad told them not to bother to pull out so as to avoid pregnancy when they were raping these right hand possessions??


MesMorial wrote:The remainder of your post is irrelevant.


Naturally


MesMorial wrote:Good luck trying again.


What luck?? This is easy, although a bit long and cumbersome.

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


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??

MesMorial wrote:…) Truth and common sense will show you up every time.


I suppose we'll find out whether that is true or not when you start practicing truth and common sense.

MesMorial wrote: You think that war-mongering is truth and common sense. In truth you are nothing but a big fool.


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.

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. :ermm: You are just no challenge.
[/quote]

:lol: 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.

Re: A Debate with Muhammad bin Lyin: Islam intends to rule world

PostPosted: Sun Feb 06, 2011 10:52 pm
by MesMorial
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. You respond to my points individually and thus in isolation without bringing a case. I will respond to them when I return and that will be 3 rounds.

:)

Re: A Debate with Muhammad bin Lyin: Islam intends to rule world

PostPosted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 1:54 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
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.


Ignores them?? I painstakingly answered every single point you attempted piece by piece and after all that work, you tell me I am ignoring things?? My answers were anything but an ignoring, they were refuttals, and you are merely ignoring the refuttals.

MesMorial wrote: You respond to my points individually and thus in isolation without bringing a case.


What???? I painstakingly refute every single thing you attempt. I paid attention to and answered every single detail. That takes a lot of work. From now on, i won't bother, I'll just snip out most of your replies and pick one or two important things that I will focus on and try to make the debate only about those things so that I can try to have a manipulated advantage. Sound good to you?? Sound familiar??


MesMorial wrote: I will respond to them when I return and that will be 3 rounds.

:)


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.

Re: A Debate with Muhammad bin Lyin: Islam intends to rule world

PostPosted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 4:22 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
This is from a respected, renowned Muslim scholar who was speaking before people, such as yourself, decided Islam needed to be whitewashed

tafsir for 9:5

http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=20750

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.''



tafsir for 9:29

http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=20980

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.'''


tafsir for 9:32

http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=21029

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,



tafsir for 9:33

http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=21037

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.''

Re: A Debate with Muhammad bin Lyin: Islam intends to rule world

PostPosted: Wed Feb 09, 2011 1:44 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
Don't like Kathir's tafsir?? OK, here's another renowned scholar who wrote before the Quran needed to be whitewashed. Here's al Jalalayn.
9:5
http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMa ... nguageId=2
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.


9:29
http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMa ... nguageId=2
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.


9:33
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.



So why is it that the scholars who wrote before Islam needed to be whitewashed for modern consumption all agree with me?? How come I understand the Quran as well as they do??? Because it's easy because the Quran is actually a very clear book and very easy to understand. It only gets complicated when one needs to whitewash it or put lipstick on the pig. How long are Muslims going to continue with this charade?? What is it going to take to de-hypnotize you and get you to join the rest of humanity in the 21st century?? The Quran talks about Allah sealing our hearts, but I think Muhammad has sealed the minds of Muslims. Islam is a mental trap.

Re: A Debate with Muhammad bin Lyin: Islam intends to rule world

PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 1:15 pm
by MesMorial
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.

Not mine.


In that case you really do think that your jokes are funny! I was simply providing an excuse for you.

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. 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.

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. In this debate such a tactic is irrelevant because as I demonstrated above, there was no contradiction in the verses we have discussed. 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. 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.

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.

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). I refuted them early so as a part of detailing the context for readers, I will explain the sources of misconceptions. 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. Intending to rule over non-Muslims also implies that the ideal itself is to have the entire world be Muslim. It is only a part of the debate, but the other part (which is also the source of your argument) was debunked earlier.

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. Innocent until proven guilty, but that is reversed in the case of blind prejudice. You have shown no evidence the Qur’an instructs Muslims to take over the world instead of only defending themselves.

Thanks for helping my point. I forgot about this verse


It only “helps” if you know how to apply it. I would reply in turn. Let us see if you apply it:

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).

“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. It proves Muslims were not simply supposed to fight and kill non-Muslims as you would suggest. Anyway, it is saying that Muslims should protect him even after hearing the Word of Allah (SWT). 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.

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? Does it mention a criterion of their being Muslim or not afterwards? 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. 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.

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.

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). 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.) but it would seem the idolaters did not share that policy. “Putting out the light of Allah is an act of fighting” is correct according to whom? Just you! 16:126 already answered you by saying we must respond IN TURN (or be patient). 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, but if that were the case 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. Nothing more needs to be said. 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!), 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

It is very simple but you take the Qur’an out of context. 9:29 is just in context of 9:36. 9:32 actually explains 9:33 and we will get to that yet. You say that 9:33 is the reason for 9:29, 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.

“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??


Again a baseless claim which ignores my Round 2 response. Muslims must not be aggressive, but then we should defend the religion.

“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

Among others.

Until they get strong enough, and then it's "where's the jizyah".


It is obvious you hate Islam, so I will just refute you instead. Regardless of the meaning of “jizya”, read 9:36. However, if “jizya” were to mean “tax for being non-Muslim” then that would go against 2:256 and countless other verses mandating no compulsion in the religion. The excuse is “protection”, but protection against what? There is simply no Qur’anic evidence for the tax. Why is it we can find the details for everything else in the Qur’an, but not how much the jizya “tax” is? “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.).

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…!

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.

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.

http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp? ... =9&verse=5

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”.

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. Your 8:39 argument is beyond me since you seem to misread “THE” as “ALL” every time. But we will get to that.

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.”

9:12

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.

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).

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. 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). 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.

I skip some irrelevant/desperate things:

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.

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.

“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.


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. They “desire to put out the light of Allah with their mouths”, but the response is that they will not because Allah (SWT) has already revealed the Qur’an to manifest/cause to prevail the right path. The QUR’AN will cause the religion to prevail/be manifested, so what does fighting have to do with it? 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, but they are the reason for 9:36 which is the reason for 9:29 (i.e. the non-Muslims were fighting against Muslims). 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.

“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?”

9:33 is thus useless to you for your opening point.

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).

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.


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. So what about 2:190 where Muslims can attack aggressors? What has changed exactly?

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).

“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.

You're right. That was abrogated later by


No evidence.

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.

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. Look at 9:30-36 as a whole and stop forcing me to ask you questions about 9:33 you cannot answer.

“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).

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. It is not a direct reason and the response (9:33) is just a response to 9:32 (eliminating your prime argument).

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)? The answer is in 9:30-36. 9:33 is explained by 9:32 (it is just a response).

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.

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.

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).

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!

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.


“And say: The truth is from your Lord, so let him who please believe, and let him who please disbelieve…”

18:54


“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


Where was the first one??


The fact you never produced a first argument supporting it. Is all this your painstaking rebuttal?...

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).

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.

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.

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.

“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.


You cannot relate 9:33 to 9:29 because it is clearly a response to 9:32. 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.

Read the translations. It's pretty clear.

http://islamawakened.org/quran/8/39/default.htm


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.

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.

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.


It says THE system (of belief/conduct). Look at the context of 8:34-39. It is too obvious. The inclusion of “THE” destroys your point.

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.). The point is there is no change of policy. Sura 9 is simply an application of the defence of the religion.

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)?

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.

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.

What?? Read it again.


When someone asks you to locate what you are referring to, never ask them to read it again.

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.

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

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


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.

What luck?? This is easy, although a bit long and cumbersome.


Easy for me.

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??


The link is available on other sites and thus it is viewable FROM other sites and not ON them.

I suppose we'll find out whether that is true or not when you start practicing truth and common sense.


I am sure that my arguments are sound.

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.


Only Clint Eastwood says that, but I apply it too. I am also telling you what the Qur’an actually says, and well I am glad firstly that you agree 9:30-36 applies to 9:29, you cannot apply your interpretation of 9:33 logically and you misunderstand 8:39. I think that this debate is mine.

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.


How can you keep challenging if you were not a challenge in the first place?

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.
[/quote][/quote]

I never said 9:30-35 do not apply. I was saying 9:33 does not apply to anything else except 9:32, and my proof is mainly that you cannot get 9:33 to make the sense that you want it to (i.e. a call to war). 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? Islam is not aggressive, therefore no-one else needs to be either.

You were not supposed to reply to my last post but then you knew your arguments did not stand up. Thus you posted the tafsirs. Among other things I failed to see how you can still apply whichever interpretation of Sura 9 outside its apparent context. They simply give a literal interpretation of verses without consulting the surrounding ones. They are also contaminated by the cultural traditions (e.g. 9:29). That is the point.

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). 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.

You agree 9:30-36 applies to 9:29, you cannot apply your interpretation of 9:33 logically and you misunderstand 8:39. You now have no arguments left.

Salaam.

Re: A Debate with Muhammad bin Lyin: Islam intends to rule world

PostPosted: Sat Feb 12, 2011 7:23 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
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.


Why is somebody supposed to offer new points when the original ones haven't been sufficiently answered??



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.


So you admit that you are practicing theatrics??

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.


This is your arbitrary opinion whether something needs to be replied to or not. All you need to do is to call a good point not worthy of reply so that you don't have to address it. Anybody with any common sense can see right through that.

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.


You said you would disprove it and I said you can't because even scholars cannot.

"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)."


MesMorial wrote:In this debate such a tactic is irrelevant because as I demonstrated above,


What tactic?? You essentially said you would disprove abrogation. Would you quit with the deceptive little games please?? They don't work.


MesMorial wrote: there was no contradiction in the verses we have discussed.


Yes there are and your answers did not properly support your point and I pointed out exactly why. You merely ignore that and pretend as though your answers are still valid. What is going on here?? What kind of a stunt are you attempting to pull??

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.


This sentence didn't make any sense. Read it again. You said the strongest argument against abrogation isn't Quranic study, but the fact that there is no abrogation. So I say there is abrogation and you prove there is none merely by saying there is none. What is going on here??

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.


I didn't tell you you couldn't try to disprove abrogation, I just said you'll never effectively do it.


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.


You said the religion was completed by Sura 5, but if it needs instructions on making war, then it is not completed. If it was completed, there would be no more suras after sura 5. Instead, there are many suras after 5, and not just 9, and they are about religion. Your point has absolutely no leg to stand on and you shouldn't have raised it because it merely points out another error.

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).


8:39 and other verses also confirm my point, but I don't need to raise them until you sufficiently explain away 9:5 and 9:29 and 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.


Your refutations were flawed and I pointed out the exact flaws in every single one of them. Do you think that if you can type an answer, any answer, that the problem has been sufficiently answered?? Is that how the game works??


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.


This is entirely your invention and not my point. You are trying to move the focus of my point ever so slightly into a point that you find you can argue against better. So you change my point to make it more refutable. Yet another attempted trick. Why are Muslims always so tricky?? Are they proud of deceptive, tricky behavior??

MesMorial wrote: Intending to rule over non-Muslims also implies that the ideal itself is to have the entire world be Muslim.


No it does not at all. If everyone were a Muslim, then who would they reign superior over?? Who would they tax at high rates in order to support jihad??

MesMorial wrote: It is only a part of the debate,


It is an irrelevant part and an attempt to change the topic into something more refutable for you.

MesMorial wrote: but the other part (which is also the source of your argument) was debunked earlier.


And your debunk was clearly, in detail, shown as flawed. That's where we are at right now. And you have no answers to the flaws I pointed out in your refutation, so thus far, you have refuted absolutely nothing. You have merely typed faulty answers with major holes in them that cannot stand up to proper scrutiny. Just because you can type an answer, doesn't mean it should automatically be considered a sufficient answer. But you seem to think it does, and this is very common with Muslims. It's a bizarre mental similarity that many of them seem to share.

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.


I don't have to prove anything. All i need to do is to be more convincing and show my interpretation to be far more likely and I am certainly doing that.

MesMorial wrote: Innocent until proven guilty,


Not in a debate moron. You are being manipulative to gain any advantage possible. You making the rules of this debate to be that I have to show everything and you don't have to show anything. Classic Muslim cheating being attempted. This is why Muslims are not to be trusted in any religious discussion. it's so important to them that Islam be right, that they will even attempt to cheat if they think they need to, and they won't feel the least bit ashamed.

MesMorial wrote: but that is reversed in the case of blind prejudice.


Oh I get it, if someone sees flaws in the Quran and Islam or sees something negative, rather than look at it and consider it, you write it off as the other person merely being prejudice. You and most other Muslims have an amazing ability of lying to themselves.

MesMorial wrote: You have shown no evidence the Qur’an instructs Muslims to take over the world instead of only defending themselves.


Yes I have and you haven't sufficiently answered the evidence. 9:29 doesn't say to just fight them until they give up, it says fight them until they pay the jizyah. Jizyah means Muslim rule. There's no contesting that and every single scholar would admit to this.

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).


You are justifying Muslim fighting, but the debate is not about whether Muslims are justified to fight or not.

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.


If they go to the Muslim side, that is them surrendering to the Muslims.

MesMorial wrote: It proves Muslims were not simply supposed to fight and kill non-Muslims as you would suggest.


If one becomes a Muslim, then they won't be killed. That's what the verse means and the scholars' tafsir agrees with me 100%

MesMorial wrote: Anyway, it is saying that Muslims should protect him even after hearing the Word of Allah (SWT).


Because the assumption is that they are not Muslims merely because they haven't heard the word, but when they do, they will, of course, become Muslim.

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.


Look, if it was merely talking about ceasing to fight Muslims, it wouldn't have mentioned anything about being taken someplace to hear the Quran. If the Quran did not add that, you would have a point, but it clearly did, and you simply pretend as though that isn't even in the 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?


It is assumed that when one wants to hear the Quran, they will naturally become a Muslim.


MesMorial wrote: Does it mention a criterion of their being Muslim or not afterwards?


It doesn't have to, the assumption is that when one hears the word, they will become a Muslim.


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.


Pagans had only two choices. Become Muslim, or die. Christians and Jews were the only people that could keep their religion, at the cost of extreme humiliation. Since Christians and Jews were allowed to keep their religion, one cannot say that Islam seeks to convert everyone and that's exactly why i didn't choose that as a topic.

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.


Sure, not after they heard the word of Allah and of course, became a Muslim.

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.


How many times do i have to say that the point of this debate is whether Islam seeks to rule over the world, and not whether Muslims seek to convert everyone. How many times??

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).


Right, different circumstances so they don't relate. So when it benefits you, you offer verses from unrelated circumstances, but when it doesn't benefit you, you claim one can't relate verses that are said in different circumstances. I get so sick and tired of watching Muslims consistently cheat and change the rules on the fly to benefit their argument.

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.)


That changed as the circumstances changed.

MesMorial wrote: but it would seem the idolaters did not share that policy.


The Quran itself trashes everyone else's religion. Why do you think that the Meccans kicked Muhammad out??

MesMorial wrote: “Putting out the light of Allah is an act of fighting” is correct according to whom? Just you!


Me and anybody else with common sense. If you put out the light of Allah, you are fighting Islam's acceptance and expansion, which is something that Muslims must always be seeking to do.

MesMorial wrote:16:126 already answered you by saying we must respond IN TURN (or be patient).


That was abrogated later.


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,


Talking bad is one of the reasons why Muslims are instructed to fight them and rule them in 9:29. i didn't say anything about 9:36. You're the one that keeps bringing that verse up so that you can pull an "Allah Kazam" and magically leap from 9:29 to 9:36 over the verses in between. That's utter nonsense and you still haven't sufficiently explained why we should do this. The only reason I can see, as presented so far, is that it is this way simply because you need it to be this way.

MesMorial wrote: but if that were the case


It's not.

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.


No, 9:29 tells them what to do. Kill Christians and Jews and/or rule them. 9:30 tells us why they are wrong and should be killed or ruled, because their beliefs are wrong and those beliefs insult Allah. It specifically targets Christians and Jews in 9:29, 9:30, 9:31 and 9:32. It mentions Christians and Jews in the attack of 9:29, and it mentions the Christians and Jews for their wrongdoings in 9:30-9:35. Therefore, those verses are clearly related. In 9:32 its goes even further and says that not only are their beliefs wrong, but that they talk against Islam, so this is yet another reason why they should be killed or at least brought low. And 9:33 tells us that Allah has ordained that Muslims rule over them and this explains why they are commanded to conquer in 9:29. 9:34 is an even further explanation of their supposed wrong doings and beliefs. and therefore more reasons why Muslims need to rule them via battle in 9:29. 9:35 says they are all going to hell. 9:36 is essentially repeating 9:29, but it doesn't bother to mention paying the jizyah in humiliation, and instead talks more about the months. But it's still the same command. Fight the polytheists. So it's just an additional mention or aspect of the same thing in 9:29 for good measure.

Why would the Quran go off on an unrelated tangent for 5 unrelated verses and then return on the sixth?? Those verses are all a continuation of each other unless the author was a schizophrenic. My God, you people will try anything.

MesMorial wrote: Nothing more needs to be said.


Nope. Nice try but it will not work.


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!),


How does Allah not wanting people to associate partners with him mean there is no abrogation?? :crazy:

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


Abrogated later. 9:5 doesn't just say to fight them if they fight you, it says to fight them until they practice regular prayers and pay the poor rate. That's what Muslims do, so this translates into fight them until they die or become Muslims. We've already been through this

MesMorial wrote:It is very simple but you take the Qur’an out of context. 9:29 is just in context of 9:36.


No it isn't. 9:29 speaks of the Christians and Jews and it continues to do so in 9:30, 31, 32, 34, and 35, and at that point, we could possibly assume that logically it is also speaking about them in 36, although it's not outright explicit. There's nothing illogical about my interpretation. It is you who are attempting the wild acrobatics


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,


One of them. It is part of the explanation as to why they are supposed to carry out 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.


:lol: WOW!! What a twisted individual you are. 9:32 goes to 33 which then jumps to 36, which then jumps to 29. What kind of a schizophrenic would write something like that?? Essentially, you are treating the Quran as a non continuous book, but rather a schizophrenic one that jumps all around (only when you need it to). This is truly ridiculous.

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”.


AND, let's not forget the second part. Until they cease AND pray regularly and poor the poor rate. You always try to ignore half of the verse.


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.


And the answer was riddled with holes that I clearly pointed out, so you have answered nothing yet, you have merely typed out faulty ideas and I show you exactly why, in no uncertain terms, it is faulty. i don't just make the claim, i explain it in detail.

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.


You mean my argument that agrees with translators and tafsir??

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.”


Oh, so they are only going to fight the leaders?? The leaders are going to come out and fight them or is the army going to come out and fight them??" Does it mean they shouldn't fight the other unbelievers who fight them?

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.


No, my point was very specific. Islam does not demand that everybody be a Muslim but it does demand that everybody be ruled by them. How many times do i have to repeat this?? You're not going to take the argument into conversion of non Muslims so that you can perhaps have a stronger argument. It's not going to work. I knew what I picked for debate and I knew why I picked it, and you're attempt to slowly evolve the point into something you might consider more advantageous is simply not going to work. Cheater. But in Islamic culture, this is "clever" rather than dishonest.

Re: A Debate with Muhammad bin Lyin: Islam intends to rule world

PostPosted: Sat Feb 12, 2011 7:25 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
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).


9:36 doesn't even specifically mention Christians and Jews, 9:29, 30, 31, 32 all mention them.

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.


Look, you're wrong about the jizyah. I don't even need to argue with you about it because every Muslim who reads this knows what the jizyah is and all Muslim scholars unanimously agree on it.

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.


"till he hears the word of Allah". If it merely meant what you say, then it shouldn't have added this. Again, you keep throwing out whole parts of verses to twist their meaning. And, it even says that this is a case where the person merely does not know, and that's really the only problem. But if he knew, he would become Muslim, so go take him to safety, indoctrinate him with the Quran and then find him a safe place to live as a Muslim so that his former comrades can't get to him..

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:


They must have been good points. :lol:

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.


There's nothing in that verse that says that.

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.


Then how come they did?? How come we historically know that they DID tax them and rule them when Muhammad was alive?? The level of creative denial going on is astounding. I don't think this debate will ever end. If one thing doesn't work, you'll merely invent another thing and do so forever.

The Quran only referenced it as a reminder of it to people and as a sign of domination. Obviously, they already knew what jizyah was, and the Quran was merely confirming it and commanding that they take it. If you think you are going to go against every single Muslim scholar and practically every single Muslim, and try to change this meaning and whitewash it, then you truly must be crazy. And if your entire argument relies on denying what jizyah meant, then you just lost right there. Scholars would prove me right and history would as well. For you to attempt to deny what jizyah meant and how Muhammad actually carried it out is just plain crazy.

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.


9:29 says to fight Christians and Jews, 9:30-32 begins to outline why. By default, a sentence is related to the sentence before it, unless for some odd reason the author explains otherwise.

They “desire to put out the light of Allah with their mouths”, but the response is that they will not because Allah (SWT) has already revealed the Qur’an to manifest/cause to prevail the right path. The QUR’AN will cause the religion to prevail/be manifested, so what does fighting have to do with it?

9:29 tells them to fight them, 9:30-32 goes into all their wrongdoings as to explain why they should be fought (9:29).

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,


I said they are reasons 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).


:lol: My my, what a twisted mind. So if 9:30-35 is a reason for 36 and 36 is a reason for 29, then ultimately, 30-35 would still end up being a reason for 29. You tried just this really weird, illogical switcharoo and found out you didn't do anything. You ended up right back in the same spot. Look, if a verse tells you to fight someone, and then tells you what is wrong with these same exact people it just got done telling you to fight, then clearly the verses that follow are justification for the command in the prior verse. And then, if you want to say that 36 reiterates the point of 29, after the reasons for 29 were given in the verses that followed, then that's rational. That's simply the way rational writing works. I'm beginning to become frightened that I'm debating a mental patient.

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.


It means recompense or compensating them for protecting them. Look it up, dodo.


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?”


It was a stupid question. Are you asking me if i think that the Quran's revelation will conquer non Muslims faster or more easily than fighting them?? If so, my answer is no, and so was Muhammad's as apparently he thought it was faster to fight them. And I said that the first time.

MesMorial wrote:9:33 is thus useless to you for your opening point.


What???????


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).


9:36 says essentially the same thing as 9:29 except it doesn't mention the jizyah. Why should it mention the jizyah twice??

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.


Pretty interesting how Muslims can clearly stop the spread of other religions and prevent their practice, but nobody is allowed to stop the spread of their religion. That alone, is reason enough to fight. Islam must be allowed to expand while no other religions will be allowed to expand.

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.


You said world view, not it's not about that.

MesMorial wrote: So what about 2:190 where Muslims can attack aggressors? What has changed exactly?


It says they can attack to defend themselves. So does 9:5, but the later verse (9:5) also says to fight them until they pay the poor rate. No matter what sort of ways we try, we can't twist praying and paying the poor rate into anything else but being a Muslim as non Muslims were to pay the jizyah, not the Muslim poor rate tax. The verse leaves us no choice, no matter what the rest of the Quran says.

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).


And pay the tax. You are dead wrong about the jizyah and I am dead on. And if this debate comes down to that, then it's already over. There is historical documentation of jizyah.


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.


Usually, it is logical to take the latter statements as more authoritative than the earlier ones in the cases where their meanings could conflict. Why does 9:5 say "until they pray and pay the poor rate" and add that whereas earlier statements didn't have that? i don't know, but i know that this is what it clearly says.


MesMorial wrote:
You're right. That was abrogated later by


No evidence.


The meanings are not the same, so the latter one takes preference and overwrites the former.

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.


Look, that's what the jizyah was. It was a shakedown and the leaders could charge whatever rate they wanted. Do an historical investigation on it. I'm sure you read what Kathir explain about the jizyah

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.


Yes i did respond. 9:33 is one of a few reasons outlined in 9:30-35 for 9:29 to be carried out. If you want to say it's also a reason for 9:36 in addition to 9:29, then fine. I don't see what real difference that makes.

MesMorial wrote: Look at 9:30-36 as a whole and stop forcing me to ask you questions about 9:33 you cannot answer.


No, I am right. 9:33 is part of a list of reasons why 9:29 should be carried out. And then, when i looked at the tafsir, i saw the title of it and saw where this guy got his title for the sign "Islam will dominate".

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).


Who was actually friendly with Muslims back then?? You might as well have said do not fight fellow Muslims.

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.


No, it explain 9:29 first and foremost. If you want to say it also explains 9:36, which is a semi repeat of 9:29, then fine. If we look at 9:29-36 as a whole, it says fight the Jews and Christians until they submit to the jizyah, Jews and Christians are wrong in their beliefs, they talk bad about Islam, Islam is the supreme religion, they are going to hell, fight them as they fight you. That's the clear meaning

MesMorial wrote: It is not a direct reason and the response (9:33) is just a response to 9:32 (eliminating your prime argument).


It's all part of a flow between 9:29 and 9:35 that clearly speaks of the Christians and Jews throughout, with the exception of 9:33.

MesMorial wrote:So first, you try to deny that the jizyah means tax in 9:29, then


Why would I deny that?

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)?


If you research the history, you'll see that the pagans were already conquered and joined Islam in great numbers, so after this was achieved, Muhammad turned his sights on the Christians and Jews. That's could be why we would even have to consider that even 9:36 is talking about the Christians and Jews, although it's not as clear as it is in 9:29

MesMorial wrote: The answer is in 9:30-36. 9:33 is explained by 9:32 (it is just a response).


They are both explanation as to why 9:29 needs to be carried out.

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.


It's the truth.

Re: A Debate with Muhammad bin Lyin: Islam intends to rule world

PostPosted: Sat Feb 12, 2011 7:27 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
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.


Fight them until they become Muslims or Muslims at least rule over 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).


Yet when convenient for you, we have to consider the specific circumstances and make it applicable only to the historical circumstances of the time. I know, the rules keep changing.

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!


When you realize what the jizyah actually is, then there's your proof. You've already been given the verses and you ignore half of the verse. Are you asking for more verses to cut in half and throw the bad half out??


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.


Well why did Muhammad smash their idols??

MesMorial wrote:“And say: The truth is from your Lord, so let him who please believe, and let him who please disbelieve…”
18:54


And that contradicts Muhammad smashing their idols after he conquered. More abrogation.


MesMorial wrote:
Where was the first one??


The fact you never produced a first argument supporting it. Is all this your painstaking rebuttal?...


If jizyah means what I say, then I have clearly supported it with 9:29. You just try to remove the part that supports it.

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).


We don't exactly know what cease fighting entails. And it also depends upon when it is said. Is this said when Islam has the upper hand??
47:35. And be not slack so as to cry for peace and you have the upper hand, and Allah is with you, and He will not bring your deeds to naught.

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.


yeah right

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.


If you are converting the social order you are dictating what it should be. If you are dictating what the social order should be, you are ruling. What is it with these ridiculous little nitpicks??


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.


It's in the context of some very angry and violent verses.

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.


And 9:32 is giving reasons why 9:29 was commanded. So it's kills the Christians and Jews until they pay jizyah (rule), they are bad (30-32) and Islam is supreme (33) they are going to hell (34-35), so fight them (36)

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.


They are related to the verse that clearly mentions Christians and Jews, 9:29. If you want to add 36, that's fine. Verses relate to the verses that precedes them and follow them. But let's take a quick look at the little slight of hand that gets attempted here. You say that 9:33 can't be related to 9:29 because it's a follow up on 9:32, but now, it looks like 9:33 CAN be related to 9:36. Let's face it, it's pretty transparent that what you are trying to do is to get 9:33 as far away as possible from 9:29 and switch it over to 9:36 where there is no jizyah mentioned (while you simultaneously deny that jizyah is even a problem by denying it's a tax). So now, that you have put a 9:36 wrapper around 9:33, you can then safely relate it to 9:29. This is quite transparent. It never ceases to amaze me just how many twisted angles you people are willing to attempt. And what's more amazing is that somehow you get yourselves to actually believe it.


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.


Actually, if you make a statement like that in a debate and try to dictate when it is shut down and when it isn't, you should be banned as it completely breaks the rule of debate. Unbelievers did not mean fellow Muslims and therefore it is not talking about straightening out Islam and making all Islamic worship for Allah only, it means all worship for Allah only. Is this also talking about fellow Muslims and cleaning up Islam from within?? Nice try, scammer.

190. 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.
191. And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
192. But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
193. And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.

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.


You tried to portray it as speaking about wayward Muslims and bringing Islam itself into line, when it's not talking about wayward Muslims at all. So when it says "the" religion, it means ALL religion.

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.


So is chapter 8. So are parts of many chapters.

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.


It says THE system (of belief/conduct). Look at the context of 8:34-39. It is too obvious. The inclusion of “THE” destroys your point.[/quote]

2:193?? Gee, i guess that's talking about battling wayward Muslims and make Allah reign supreme in Islam only.

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.).


Where did I agree with that??

MesMorial wrote: The point is there is no change of policy. Sura 9 is simply an application of the defence of the religion.


And rule.

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)?


Why did the Quran need any violence at all in order to spread?? Why did Allah command Muhammad to violence and the spreading of Islam?? Remember, fighting is good for you, though you dislike what is good for you.

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.


Your interpretation only makes sense if we say it was talking about fellow Muslims who were perverting Islam, but I think that 2:193 and surrounding verses tell us that it's talking about all religion, just like I claimed.

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.


Read a history book. You saw what I gave you from Kathir, so this means that you will merely ignore anything that doesn't meet what you need Islam to be. The Quran mentioned it and Muhammad carried it out. That is historical. So whether you think that makes sense or not, that is indeed what Muhammad did. So go argue with your own prophet. Next, it will be that not only do the scholars not understand the Quran as well as you do, but Muhammad himself didn't even understand it as well as you.

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.


Not in sura 9 they weren't.

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


Does it say they are Muslims?? Christians believe in Jesus' sacrifice for humanity. Is that OK with Allah?? Well, it had better be because you can't be a Christian without believing that. so what nonsense are you on now??


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


This isn't talking about corrupt Muslims nor are the verses surrounding 2:193. It is 100% your desperate, dishonest, twisted invention with absolutely no demonstratble basis except for the fact that you can imagine it.

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.


It says one thing, and then says another. But the fact remains that booty is usually only a product of offensive war, and the Quran even named an entire sura the booty.

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.
[/quote]

I never said 9:30-35 do not apply.[/quote]

I was saying 9:33 does not apply to anything else except 9:32, and my proof is mainly that you cannot get 9:33 to make the sense that you want it to (i.e. a call to war).[/quote]

It isn't a call to war, it's a reason for the call to war. And it makes perfect sense like that. Let's even stick the two verses together.
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.
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.

They are so well related that they can even make sense together with verses missing in between

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?


It's a call of conquest of people who do fight them. But what does fighting really mean?? Sometimes that merely means inhibiting Islamic expansion by speaking badly about it. When this call was made against Christians and Jews, this was after Muhammad had already conquered the pagans and then he turned his sights back inwards towards the Christians and Jews who knew Muhammad was a fraud, whereas the pagans did not have the means to figure that out.

MesMorial wrote: Islam is not aggressive, therefore no-one else needs to be either.


Not according to the well renowned tafsir i provided.

You were not supposed to reply to my last post but then you knew your arguments did not stand up. Thus you posted the tafsirs. Among other things I failed to see how you can still apply whichever interpretation of Sura 9 outside its apparent context. They simply give a literal interpretation of verses without consulting the surrounding ones. They are also contaminated by the cultural traditions (e.g. 9:29). That is the point.[/quote]

Kathir went into great length to explain what it meant and why it meant it. Are you telling me that you are a better scholar then he was?? Actually, all other older tafsir agrees with me as well because they didn't think they had to whitewash the meaning like you are obviously trying desperately to do.

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).


Did you see the title of that section of tafsir where it discusses 9:33?? It says Islam will dominate. Now why do you think even this Islamic scholar came up with a title like that?? The level of denial and blatant invention you practice is astounding.

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.


No, it because that tafsir and any reputable tafsir agrees with me. So you shutting that down simply amounts to cheating. You answer what you think you can, and shut down what you can't. You cannot make the rules as to which points will be discussed and which ones won't. That is cheating, plain and simple. the truth of the matter is you are totally inventing any desperate idea you can and pulling it out of your arss and the scholars expose this fact. It's good to make up little stories for Islam, eh?? Allah likes a good story inventor.

You agree 9:30-36 applies to 9:29, you cannot apply your interpretation of 9:33 logically and you misunderstand 8:39. You now have no arguments left.

Salaam.[/quote]

I don't misunderstand it and I have answered every single thing you have attempted. All of my points are all still sitting on the table. Your flawed answers did not work and I explained precisely why. I have tafsirs on my side, and heck, I even have your fellow Muslim bros on my side. Do you think the guy in that picture is strictly an isolated case??

Re: A Debate with Muhammad bin Lyin: Islam intends to rule world

PostPosted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 1:34 pm
by MesMorial
Salaam;

Your arguments were repeating (as expected). The following article is my offical response (thus far).


***


I am publishing this article as a response to a three-round debate between myself and “Muhammad bin Lyin” of “Faithfreedom.org”. The topic of the debate was “Islam Intends to Rule the World” and “Muhammad bin Lyin” represented the “FOR” position whilst I represented the “AGAINST” position. This is also an attempt to clean up the discussion and bypass the many petty tirades, denials and claims which manifested themselves in spite of the presentation of evidence. I wish too to clarify I that am a “Qur’an alone” Muslim and that Islam is represented by the Qur’an alone (not by opinions, traditions and histories which have resulted from various viewpoint over time). “Muhammad bin Lyin” had the opportunity to debate this assertion at the same time, but he did not take up the point.

The four main Qur’anic verses which “Muhammad bin Lyin” employed to support his viewpoint are:


“And fight with them until there is no more persecution and the system should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.”

Qur’an 8:39


“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.”

9:5


“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.”

Qur’an 9:33


“Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger 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.”

Qur’an 9:29


I will deal with them in the order that they are presented.


REBUTTAL TO THE CLAIM ABOUT 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.”

Qur’an 8:39



Although 8:39 is quite clearly in self-defence, “Muhammad bin Lyin”’s claim is that it states that Muslims should fight against non-Muslims until all religion is for Allah (SWT). To further “support” his point he states that “desist” means “convert to Islam” because according to him talking against Islam is fighting Islam. There are two things to remember:

1) This verse was revealed in the context of people hindering Muslims from their sacred Masjid (place of worship) (8:34) both via physical (8:30) and financial means (8:36):


“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.”

Qur’an 8:30


“And what [excuse] have they that Allah should not chastise them while they hinder [men] from the Sacred Mosque and they are not [fit to be] guardians of it; its guardians are only those who guard [against evil], but most of them do not know.”

Qur’an 8:34


“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.”

Qur’an 8:36


“Say to those who disbelieve, if they desist, that which is past shall be forgiven to them; and if they return, then what happened to the ancients has already passed. And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.”

Qur’an 8:38-39


Therefore it must be concluded that “desist” means ceasing to inhibit Muslims from practicing their system/religion, and from attempting to dominate it.


2) 8:39 does not mention “all religion”, but simply mentions “the system (aldeen)”. This refers to the system of Islam (“religion” is “millati”). “Aldeen” is also used in some other verses:


“And fight with them until there is no persecution, and the religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.”

Qur’an 2:193


(Predictably “Muhammad bin Lyin” attempted to use this verse to support 8:39 after realising that “all religion” meant “the system”, although he seems to have made the same mistake once again.)


“…and they will not cease fighting with you until they turn you back from your system (deen), if they can; and whoever of you turns back from his system (deen)…”

Qur’an 2:217


(If “deen” represents all systems/religions, how can one party turn another from it?)


“There is no compulsion in the system; 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.”

Qur’an 2:256


“Surely the (true) system of Allah is Islam, and those to whom the Book had been given did not show opposition but after knowledge had come to them, out of envy among themselves; and whoever disbelieves in the communications of Allah then surely Allah is quick in reckoning.”

Qur’an 3:19


“This is because they say: The fire shall not touch us but for a few days; and what they have forged deceives them in the matter of their system.”

Qur’an 3:24


“And do not believe but in him who follows your system.”

Qur’an 3:73


Etc. etc…


Therefore “aldeen” certainly refers to Islam (in both the verses 2:193 and 8:39). “Muhammad bin Lyin” of course still says that he understands the verse properly.


REBUTTAL TO THE CLAIM ABOUT 9:5


“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.”

9:5



Firstly it must be explained that the Qur’an as given today is not in its chronological order of revelation. Historically it is said that Sura (chapter) 9 was the second-last to be revealed, with Sura 5 before it. The reason I mention this is that verse 5:3 declares that all of the precepts in Islam have been detailed:


“This day have those who disbelieve despaired of your system, so fear them not, and fear Me. This day have I perfected for you your system and completed My favour on you and chosen for you Islam as a system…”


“Muhammad bin Lyin”’s claim of internal abrogation (whereby the Qur’an allegedly cancels and replaces its laws as circumstances change) is therefore invalidated even before I demonstrate that there is no contradiction between what is written in Sura 9 and the rest of the Qur’an. Since there is no contradiction, regardless of whether there is or there is not “abrogation” his claim does not affect my argument. His point is that 9:5 orders Muslims to fight and kill non-Muslims unless or until they convert to Islam. He of course claims that this verse abrogates other verses in the Qur’an which promote freedom of belief. However, let us examine the first verse of Sura 9 to see what time and place the entire segment refers to:


“[This is a declaration of] immunity by Allah and His Messenger towards those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement.”

Qur’an 9:1


Already we can see that 9:5 applies only to the particular non-Muslims with whom the Muslims at the time had a treaty. Those with whom treaties had not been made (e.g. because they did not live in proximity to the Muslims) were of course exempt and this is why the targeted non-Muslims must also represent no liability (9:3) to the Muslims (i.e. the Muslims were not at that time and under those circumstances subject to the Islamic ruling of never initiating combat (the reasons will be discussed)). Let us narrow it down further:


“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].”

Qur’an 9:4


So we can see that it applies only to the non-Muslims of that time and place who had broken treaties and aided the enemies of the Muslims.


“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.”

Qur’an 9:6


We can see that the non-Muslims who did not want to fight Muslims or those who did not agree with the animosity of their fellow people to Muslims are not to be harmed. “Muhammad bin Lyin” says that this verse implies attempting to convert those who surrender, but this is illogical because firstly they are to be taken to a place of safety and not held captive (i.e. they do not have to be soldiers who fought against Muslims) and secondly the verse refutes his fantasy by stating that non-Muslims’ ignorance of Islam is the reason for offering them its knowledge. Let us examine the verse 9:7:


“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 as long as they are true to you, be true to them; surely Allah loves those who are careful [of their duty].”

Qur’an 9:7


Once again Allah (SWT) is re-emphasizing the importance of keeping to treaties. We can also derive from this verse that the non-Muslims could make peace by participating in the making of treaties at the Sacred Mosque. The following verses show that the reason for these declarations is that the non-Muslims had attacked the Muslims first and could not be trusted:


“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.”

Qur’an 9:8


“They do not pay regard to ties of relationship nor those of covenant in the case of a believer; and these are they who go beyond the limits.”

Qur’an 9:10


“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. Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace, and assist you against them and heal the hearts of a believing people and remove the rage of their hearts; and Allah turns [mercifully] to whom He pleases, and Allah is Knowing, Wise.”

Qur’an 9:13-15


Therefore to be the subject of 9:5 the non-Muslims had to fulfil these criteria of hostily towards Muslims. Please note that from a Muslim perspective only Allah (SWT) knew what was in the hearts of the non-Muslims during that time. Thus if Allah (SWT) said that they could not be trusted, then they could not be trusted. Sura 9 was revealed to clarify such things and to guide the Muslims through these dangerous times. For example, the declaration of immunity in 9:1 and 9:3 is (according to the state of the non-Muslims’ hearts) an application of 47:35:


“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.”

Qur’an 47:35


Remember also that the guilty non-Muslims did not have to convert to Islam (after all, the non-Muslims in 9:29 did not have to), but it was one of the few ways by which they could prove that they had truly repented (another would be to make a treaty at the Sacred Mosque or to pay the “jizya”). Verse 9:11 simply states that if they do establish Islamic practices (praying, paying of charity etc.) then they will be “brothers in faith”. 9:12 clarifies that if after converting they left the religion or system, they could only be fought if they openly attacked Islam:


“And if they break their oaths after their agreement and defame your religion, then fight the leaders of unbelief-- surely their oaths are nothing-- so that they may desist.”

Qur’an 9:12


This is against the source of the animosity and it does not have to be a physical fight since it is until they cease. Please note that verbal/symbolical aggression towards Islam/Muslims is to be met only with equal retaliation:


“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.”

Qur’an 16:125-126


“Muhammad bin Lyin” claims without proof that such verses have been abrogated by 9:5 and 9:29 (which will be addressed later), but all throughout the Qur’an fighting is only in retaliation:


“Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them.”

Qur’an 22:39


Finally, given the context of the segment in question (9:1, 9:3, 9:4, 9:8-13), regardless of the policy dictated it is irrelevant to modern times since these days Muslims will not have a Sura revealed to them in similar circumstances (e.g. to tell them what is in particular non-Muslims’ hearts). Muslims can only fight in retaliation according to the injury suffered, and that is only what is described in these verses. The rest was up to Allah (SWT).


REBUTTAL TO THE CLAIM ABOUT 9:33


“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.”

Qur’an 9:33



I will skip directly confronting verse 9:29 now since 9:33 is an integral component of “Muhammad bin Lyin”’s rationale for interpreting the verse in his (i.e. the traditional anti-Islamic) way.

Firstly the literal translation actually renders “cause it to prevail over all religions” as “manifest it above all systems” (that is, to “show it as superior to other religions and thus attract more followers”). Indeed, the correct path stands out clear from error:


“There is no compulsion in the system; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error…”

Qur’an 2:256


Nevertheless, I will bear with the more confronting interpretation of the verse because this is the rendering in 61:8-9. Let us examine the verse in its context of 9:29-36:


“Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the jizya in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.”

Qur’an 9:29


“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!”

Qur’an 9:30


“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 Allah only, there is no god but He; far from His glory be what they set up (with Him).”

Qur’an 9:31


“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.”

Qur’an 9:32


“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.”

Qur’an 9:33


“O you who believe! most surely many of the doctors of law and the monks eat away the property of men falsely, and turn (them) from Allah’s way; and (as for) those who hoard up gold and silver and do not spend it in Allah’s way, announce to them a painful chastisement,”

Qur’an 9:34


“On the day when it shall be heated in the fire of hell, then their foreheads and their sides and their backs shall be branded with it; this is what you hoarded up for yourselves, therefore taste what you hoarded.”

Qur’an 9:35


“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).”

Qur’an 9:36


“Muhammad bin Lyin” claims that 9:33 is a mandate for Muslims to make Islam conquer the world by spreading it through any means possible. If we read it properly, it becomes apparent that it is a response to 9:32 in which the Jews and Christians in this context are expressing aversion to Islam. “Muhammad bin Lyin” declares overtly that 9:29 and 9:33 are directly linked, but to do so he must misread the verse. 9:33 states that Allah (SWT) was the One who revealed the Qur’an to His Messenger to make it prevail over every other religion. So first of all it is a standalone statement detailing what Allah (SWT) has done and not what Muslims should do. Secondly the Qur’an is clearly stated to be the means by which Islam would prevail, and thus “Muhammad bin Lyin” would have to prove that there is a statement in the Qur’an urging Muslims to convert (forcibly or by other means) non-Muslims to Islam. Having failed to demonstrate this using the verses 8:39 and 9:5, his case is left only with 9:29. Since 9:29 only concerns Jews and Christians of that time (not even Hindus or Buddhists of that time), he will, of course, fail.

Here are some verses to clarify this:


“There is no compulsion in the system; 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.”

Qur’an 2:256


“Certainly a Messenger has come to you from among yourselves; grievous to him is your falling into distress, excessively solicitous respecting you; to the believers [he is] compassionate, but if they turn back, say: Allah is sufficient for me, there is no god but He; on Him do I rely, and He is the Lord of mighty power.”

Qur’an 9:128-129


(Notice that the above two verses are in Sura 9. Thus “Muhammad bin Lyin” must now push abrogation as he does with the rest of the Qur’an.)


“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.”

Qur’an 16:125-126


“Say: Every one acts according to his manner; but your Lord best knows who is best guided in the path.”

Qur’an 17:84


“And say: The truth is from your Lord, so let him who please believe, and let him who please disbelieve…”

Qur’an 18:29


“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.”

Qur’an 60:8


(This is the basic law governing social relations between Muslims and non-Muslims).


Furthermore we must ask ourselves: “If “Muhammad bin Lyin” is right, then how will the Qur’an help Muslims to forcibly convert non-Muslims when it would be easier to use the sword?” Does knowledge of knowing what is written in the Qur’an make fighting any easier? No, because the Qur’an would need only say “Convert/conquer all non-Muslims however you can!” to provide as much religious impetus/support as it could offer to assist this. The Qur’an will of course help Muslims to have the faith necessary to obey it, but then “Muhammad bin Lyin” can find no verse mandating Muslims to fight against any people who did not fight Muslims and injure them first. Verse 9:29 is his “last stand”, and that will be dealt with shortly. From the evidence provided, the only rational explanation for verse 9:33 is that the revelation of the Qur’an itself will cause Islam to spread regardless of whether Muslims force it or not (though anyone who forces it is not a Muslim). Thus the verse does indeed suggest that Islam will “dominate”, but only on the basis of the number of people who voluntarily convert and perhaps the presentation of the religion itself (as given via the Qur’an or its true adherents). The assertion that this verse was revealed specifically in context with 9:29 and not 9:32 is unfounded (not only due to the above explanation) because almost the exact same statements are found in Sura 61:


“They desire to put out the light of Allah with their mouths but Allah will perfect His light, though the unbelievers may be averse. He it is Who sent His Messenger with the guidance and the true religion, that He may make it prevail over the religions, all of them, though the polytheists may be averse.”

Qur’an 61:8-9


REBUTTAL TO THE CLAIM ABOUT 9:29


“Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the jizya in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.”

Qur’an 9:29


The first thing to be noticed is that this verse is situated in the contextual Sura 9 and secondly it concerns only the “People of the Book” (Jews and Christians). The context was provided in the rebuttal to 9:5 and 9:33, but let us examine the criteria as we did with 9:5:


The word “jizya” derives from the Arabic word “jaza” which conveys “recompense” or “punishment”. Variations of the word are employed throughout the Qur’an to mean “recompense” (6:93, 10:52, 27:90, 36:54, 53:41 and some others). Therefore if we take the purely Qur’anic meaning of the word then it is clear that the commandment to fight in 9:29 is in self-defence or retaliation for an injury inflicted (it may well be a payment to be made for treaty-terms broken (9:4)). Evidence for this is presented in 9:34 and 9:36 where the rabbis and monks were not only hoarding wealth and debarring people from practicing their religion (just as in 8:39), but also making war on Muslims:


“O you who believe! most surely many of the doctors of law and the monks eat away the property of men falsely, and hinder (them) from Allah’s way; and (as for) those who hoard up gold and silver and do not spend it in Allah’s way, announce to them a painful chastisement,”

Qur’an 9:34


“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).”

Qur’an 9:36


Therefore 9:29 is no different to any other verse in the Qur’an commanding Muslims to fight oppression and aggression. The “jizya” is simply reparation in accordance with the injury inflicted on Muslims It must be remembered that there are differences in religions and under no circumstances does the Qur’an acknowledge the validity of other religions as they are followed today. Nevertheless the Qur’an encourages mutual tolerance and respect amongst people themselves:


“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


“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.”

Qur’an 15:85


“And surely We have honoured the children of Adam, and We carry them in the land and the sea, and We have given them of the good things, and We have made them to excel by an appropriate excellence over most of those whom We have created.”

Qur’an 17:70


(Humanity is one family.)


“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.”

Qur’an 60:8


However, it does not end there. “Muhammad bin Lyin” will of course divert discussion of Islam from the Qur’an alone and refer to the traditional (cultural) understanding of “jizya”. He has not attempted to justify the required assertion that the religion (laws and precepts) of Islam is ultimately derived from more than one scripture, and thus within this debate he has no basis to argue with the “Qur’an-alone” understanding of the word. It is not my purpose here to discuss “Shia” vs “Sunni” vs “Qur’aniyun” understandings of the Qur’an, and thus I will bear with the unsupported transformation of the word “jizya” into “tax for being non-Muslim in a Muslim state”. However, please consider the following verse:


“Say: I do not ask you aught in return (for the Message) except that he who will, may take the way to his Lord.”

Qur’an 25:57


This shows that Muslims would not be rewarded by being exempt from normal state tax simply because they converted to Islam. Therefore the “jizya” must have served some purpose besides humiliating or labelling non-Muslims, and then the only separation between jizya as “state tax” and “recompense” would be its purpose. What was appropriate at the time was appropriate, and it would be un-Islamic to implement a tax based on religion and not on a practical and fair basis (it would break the “no compulsion in the system” rule, for a start). This will be discussed further shortly, but my thoughts are that “jizya” is ultimately a recompense for some justifiable reason or another. I am thus not disagreeing with the traditional understanding of the purpose of “jizya”, but merely the translation into “tax” without considering various factors.


As a side-note, those interested in the debate between traditional hadith-following Muslims and Qur’an-alone Muslims are advised firstly to read the Qur’an by paying attention to the meaning of each relevant verse and referring to both perspectives (the Qur’an-alone position represented by my commentary now over half-complete but covering all necessary arguments). Ultimately the matter does not affect the topic of this debate.

To begin, I will present the new verse:


“Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger 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.”

Qur’an 9:29


The tax is generally understood as either material proof of non-Muslims’ acceptance of subjection to the state and Islamic laws (this would be un-Qur’anic at least as an unjustified standout tax compared to the zakat) or a tax in return for protection or some practical purpose (it is easy to see how if Muslims considered non-Muslims to be “separate” and a burden to be carried that the tax would be implemented under all circumstances). Ultimately regardless of the rationale it would have at least some practical purpose and be no different to any tax in modern times). If the Jews and Christians were not already living in the Muslim-controlled state (logical after reading verse 9:34 and considering the polytheists of 9:1-5), then it is illogical that the Qur’an is telling Muslims to fight against the Jews and Christians who did not establish Muslim practices (including prohibiting what Allah (SWT) and His Messenger prohibited (e.g. pork)) because living under their own social rules one could not expect them to be Islamic! That would mean attacking every non-Muslim state! However, the verse only specifies Jews and Christians making it terribly illogical that Muslims would be ordered to attack them simply for not upholding an Islamic society.

The first solution is that “jizya” means “recompense” as discussed. The second is that (assuming “jizya” means “tax”) Muslims were being ordered to conquer the Jewish and Christian states because they had done something wrong (see the verses 9:34, 9:36 and 9:1-28). It might be noted too that “fight” in the verse does not necessarily mean a physical fight, and that the words “pay the tax in acknowledgement of superiority” could well convey a change in heart of the disbelievers and a voluntary conversion to Islam. This “fight” would be in response to the hostile attitude of the People of the Book in 9:30-36. In the second case (of Muslims being ordered to conquer) it would still be retaliatory and apparently necessary as per verse 9:36 (in which the polytheists (as which the particular “People of the Book” are described) fight the Muslims all together). However, with “jizya” as “tax” it is unclear why the polytheists of 9:1-5 are not subjected to it also. After all, although 9:36 can refer to them alone, to the Jews and Christians alone or to them all together, the wording of 9:36 implies all of them. Converting to Islam, forging an alliance and paying the jizya were all ways by which the untrustworthy non-Muslims (9:8-13) could prove that they had repented.

In the much less likely scenario that the People of the Book were already living in the Islamic society, the jizya as “tax” would make sense and their refusal to pay it would be justification to “fight” them until they did (after all, each state must uphold its tax laws). The amount of tax to be paid would be state-determined and it would obviously have to be fair and reasonable. Jizya as “recompense” in this context is less likely but the meaning itself would explain its purpose.

In conclusion (ignoring 8:39 due to the emptiness of the claim made against it) Sura 9 is a Sura revealed for a particular context. It concerns entirely the defence of the religion in particular circumstances, and does not influence the precepts of the religion itself. To claim that Islam intends to conquer the world using this chapter is thus a futile and desperate attempt at justifying the critic’s need to believe that Islam is unworthy of the thoughts which he or she is constantly and obsessively expressing despite having little or no knowledge of the Qur’an. It has been said that “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing”, and this is certainly the case with “Muhammad bin Lyin”. Below is shown a fatwa issued by Sheikh Hânî al-Jubayr at the Jeddah Supreme Court, Saudi Arabia:


QUESTION: Is it an obligation of an Islamic state to attack neighbouring 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?


ANSWER: 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. Jihad of a military nature is only permitted to help Muslims defend their religion and to remove oppression from the people.

The Persians and Romans did in fact aggress against Islam and attack the Muslims first. The Chosroe of Persia had gone so far as to order his commander in Yemen specifically to assassinate the Prophet (SAW). The Romans mobilized their forces to fight the Prophet (SAW), and the Muslims confronted them in the Battles of Mu’tah and Tabûk during the Prophet’s (SAW) lifetime.



Finally, Shaykh Sayyid Sabiq writes:


As for fighting the Jews (People of the Book), they had conducted a peace pact with the Messenger after he migrated to Madinah. Soon afterwards, they betrayed the peace treaty and joined forces with the pagans and the hypocrites against Muslims. They also fought against Muslims during the Battle of A`hzab , then Allah revealed…[and he cites verse 9:29]”.

(Sayyid Sabiq, Fiqhu as-Sunnah, Vol. 3, p. 80).


This is consistent with the conclusions above.


***


Khuda Hafiz