Comments on MBL and Mesmorial debate.

[MesMorial]

Are you implying here that the above statement is a LAW to be ENFORCED by Muslims?

;

It’s a logical Islamic principle that mosques built by Muslims should be used/looked after by Muslims.

There are two types of Mushriks mentioned in surah 9. Those accused of breaking "oaths" made to the Muslims, "plotting to expel the messenger" etc and those NOT so accused. The ban on Mushriks visiting the sacred mosque after "this year" has NO RELEVENCE to the members of the former group since they would be killed as per 9:5 WHEREVER FOUND including in the vicinity of the sacred mosque if they ventured there for whatever reason save stating their conversion to Islam. It has relevence only to the latter group who are not be killed/converted (for the time being) and are still able to visit the sacred mosque until the end of "this year". The only plausible reason these "nice" Mushriks were to be banned is for THE REASON GIVEN IN 9:28 ie that they were "filth" (najisun). Why were they "filth"? In the absence of any "crime" except "shirk" it can only be plausibly concluded that they were "filth" because they practiced shirk ie because they were MUshriks. If THEY were to be banned from the sacred mosque for that reason and that reason alone it logically follows that the ban stands and that the Saudi authorities are Qur'anically correct in perpetuating it. How you do try and complicate a very simple situation!

9:5 applies only to idolaters with whom the Muslims made agreements. This confines it to time and place. Out of these, only those who were untrustworthy were to be targeted.

The idolaters in 9:28 were obviously not the ones to be targeted, since they were still expected to trade (study 9:28). 9:28 is a blanket prohibition on ALL the idolaters (with whom agreements had been made) approaching the mosque. Similarly, 9:29 is a mandate to fight Judaism and Christianity (and impose jizya). Not all of them fulfilled the requirements of needing to be fought, but they were a part of the “body” of that time. Similarly, not all the idolaters were “unclean” for reasons of 9:7-13, but they were part of the “body”. So just as 9:29 is confined to a situation (9:36), so is 9:28.

In response to your last question, that is what I meant by “concept”.

The idolaters in 9:28 were those of the time, since it says “after this year of THEIRS”. Their year was based on manipulation (9:36-37).

[antineoETC]

It’s a logical Islamic principle that mosques built by Muslims should be used/looked after by Muslims.

As a non-Muslim, do you believe that the Deen al-Haq (edit al-masjid al-haram) - the Ka'aba in Mecca unless you wish to argue otherwise - was "built by Muslims"? Or do you agree with me, a fellow non-Muslim - that the Qur'anic explanation for the building of the Ka'aba is a load of contrived nonsense and that there is every reason to believe that the Ka'aba was from the very beginning a pagan shrine devoted to the worship of a multitude of gods? There should be no problem with you answering this clearly.

I'll address your second point later.

[MesMorial]

I think it unlikely that people in isolated areas would come up with the same religion. Thus I think that the original intention of the Kaaba would be something un-Qur'anic.

[antineoETC]

I think it unlikely that people in isolated areas would come up with the same religion. Thus I think that the original intention of the Kaaba would be something un-Qur'anic.

In other words Muhammad and his deluded followers had NO MORAL RIGHT to lay claim to what was ALWAYS a polytheistic shrine for the worship of Allah alone - which it is clear from the Qur'an alone was what was going on. Agreed?

[MesMorial]

I think it unlikely that people in isolated areas would come up with the same religion. Thus I think that the original intention of the Kaaba would be something un-Qur'anic.

In other words Muhammad and his deluded followers had NO MORAL RIGHT to lay claim to what was ALWAYS a polytheistic shrine for the worship of Allah alone - which it is clear from the Qur'an alone was what was going on. Agreed?

I suppose so. It's relative. For instance is is better to discourage beliefs things that lead to people harming each other, but peaceful worship should be allowed.

[antineoETC]

I suppose so.

So do you think it would be fair to say that the Muslims were denied access to the Sacred Mosque because of their intended and ill-disguised goal of appropriating, for the worship of Allah alone, a shrine that was rightfully the preserve of the pagans?

[MesMorial]

I suppose so.

So do you think it would be fair to say that the Muslims were denied access to the Sacred Mosque because of their intended and ill-disguised goal of appropriating, for the worship of Allah alone, a shrine that was rightfully the preserve of the pagans?

I guess. Religion is religion, so there is no "rightfully".

[antineoETC]

I suppose so.

So do you think it would be fair to say that the Muslims were denied access to the Sacred Mosque because of their intended and ill-disguised goal of appropriating, for the worship of Allah alone, a shrine that was rightfully the preserve of the pagans?

I guess.

In other words, the war that Muhammad subsequently launched on the polytheists, and partly justified on the grounds of the polytheists banning the Muslims from what was ALWAYS a polytheistic shrine, could not be seriously regarded as a "defensive" or "just" war from a non-Muslim viewpoint. The ONLY people who could regard this war as "just" are those who accept the basic false premise that the Ka'aba was originally built by Ibrahim and Ismail for the worship of Allah alone ie Muslims. And you are no longer a Muslim are you?

Religion is religion, so there is no "rightfully".

You have already agreed with me that the Qur'anic story of the origins of the Ka'aba is a load of baloney. It is clear from the Qur'an Only that Muhammad did not simply desire for himself and his followers to be allowed to worship Allah alone at a shrine open to all to worship whichever god they desired. In banning the Muslims from the Ka'aba - ie inflicting on the Muslims what the Muslims intended to inflict upon them - the polytheists were merely defending their own religious freedom from a cult leader who denied their right to worship gods other than Allah at what you have conceded was ALWAYS a shrine where a multitude of gods were worshipped.