Page 1 of 3

Comments on MBL and Mesmorial debate.

PostPosted: Sat Feb 05, 2011 3:03 pm
by skynightblaze
Mesmorial claims that 9:29 is prescribed for fighting against people defined in 9.36.Lets see the 2 verses in concerned.

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).”


[009:029]
Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Mesmorial claims here that muslims are commanded to fight only in self defense. Before proceeding let me remind Mesmorial that only “FIGHT THEM IF THEY FIGHT YOU” constitutes self defense and nothing else so the pattern of any verse has to be “fight them if they fight you” if at all he wants to claim self defense. Any other reason prescribed for fighting doesn’t constitute self defense. It would be like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

Now let’s consider what 9:29 has to say. IT says FIGHT THEM UNTIL THEY ACKNOWLEDGE THE RELIGION OF ISLAM but now the question to be asked here is ,does this fit the definition of self defense that we just saw above? The obvious answer is NO because self defense gives one only the right to protect himself from the enemy and not the right to make his enemy acknowledge his beliefs. Beliefs have got nothing to do in fighting for self defense however Mesmorial does quote 9:36 wherein it says “FIGHT THEM IF THEY FIGHT YOU” to tell us that 9:29 was in self defense . Mesmorial needs to keep one thing in mind that just because quran calls 9:29 a self defense it doesn’t become so. Facts or evidence need to support Quran’s claim.Here in this case 9:29 doesn’t support Qurans claim of self defense.Fighting so that people acknowledge islam is aggressive fighting and not self defense. WE can use our brain to know that quran was wrong to call that self defense because of the reasons explained above.

The author of quran gives away himself clearly in 9:29 and it creates a discrepancy. Such contradictions/discrepancies can exist only when a liar is trying to shift the blame onto the victims but accidentally he says something that gives him away! Had the author of quran been telling us the true story would there be a discrepancy as we see? A truthful person would be consistent. We would be finding everywhere “Fight them if they fight you” and most importantly other verses would support this claim and not contradict it. The contradiction can arise only when the person is lying because truth is always consistent . Its lies that are inconsistent so the point is that there is more to the story than what we are told and quran isnt telling us the true story.

I have noticed this pattern throughout the Quran. It keeps on claiming how the enemy is at fault and talks about self defense but in between there are 1 or 2 verses which really don’t fit the framework of self defense which makes it clear that something is missing and the author is lying. The only conclusion is that the author was a liar and trying to find excuses so that his believers have some strong conviction to fight !

Re: Comments on MBL and Mesmorial debate.

PostPosted: Sat Feb 05, 2011 7:28 pm
by Nosubmission
Mesmorial is simply lying and twisting his scripture.

Surah 9:29 also targets the People of the Book, who do not accept Islam as the only true religion, but does not say anything about defense. If what Mesmorial suggests were true, Surah 9:29 would be in the following form:

Fight those WHO FIGHT YOU AND ARE OF THOSE who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Re: Comments on MBL and Mesmorial debate.

PostPosted: Sat Feb 05, 2011 7:32 pm
by MesMorial
Mesmorial claims here that muslims are commanded to fight only in self defense. Before proceeding let me remind Mesmorial that only “FIGHT THEM IF THEY FIGHT YOU” constitutes self defense and nothing else so the pattern of any verse has to be “fight them if they fight you” if at all he wants to claim self defense. Any other reason prescribed for fighting doesn’t constitute self defense. It would be like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.



Firstly 9:29 mentions until they pay the "jizya" which means recompense. Thus it is already established to be retaliatory. Secondly we know that the Qur'an does not permit unwarranted fighting and thus it is only logical that the non-Muslims here are being described as those who do not believe in the last day nor forbid the forbidden etc. BECAUSE they have and are acting against Muslims (as per 9:36 and 9:1-28).

There is thus no contradiction.

Send in the cavalry :lol:

Re: Comments on MBL and Mesmorial debate.

PostPosted: Sun Feb 06, 2011 4:46 am
by skynightblaze
MesMorial wrote:
Mesmorial claims here that muslims are commanded to fight only in self defense. Before proceeding let me remind Mesmorial that only “FIGHT THEM IF THEY FIGHT YOU” constitutes self defense and nothing else so the pattern of any verse has to be “fight them if they fight you” if at all he wants to claim self defense. Any other reason prescribed for fighting doesn’t constitute self defense. It would be like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.



Firstly 9:29 mentions until they pay the "jizya" which means recompense. Thus it is already established to be retaliatory.


:lol: How can it be retaliatory? I guess there is a problem with understanding of the word "retaliatory". I wouldnt be surprised if you change the word's basic meaning because quran has to be somehow accommodated. The verse says non muslims are supposed to pay jizya if they dont accept islam so that they feel inferior . This isnt retaliatory in any possible way.

Mesmorial wrote:
Secondly we know that the Qur'an does not permit unwarranted fighting and thus it is only logical that the non-Muslims here are being described as those who do not believe in the last day nor forbid the forbidden etc. BECAUSE they have and are acting against Muslims (as per 9:36 and 9:1-28).


Quran does permit unwarranted fighting as established by 9:29 itself.This is where you went wrong .In my post above I just showed you why 9:29 doesnt fit in the pattern of self defense and also just because there are some verses on self defense in the quran it doesnt mean 9:29 is also self defense . Each verse should be evaluated on its content.What you are doing is simply saying sky is yellow when we can clearly see that its blue.The verse specifically tells you when to fight i.e till the disbelievers acknowledge islam. You muslims are supposed to fight disbelievers until they acknowledge islam or pay jizya feeling subdued which isnt self defense. How in the world can you say that's acting against muslims? Refusing to acknowledge islam or not paying jizya means acting against islam? 9:29 doesnt say muslims are to fight if the disbelievers act against muslims.

Remember all we have is one sided story from quran.We dont have the account of disbelievers who were killed in the battle.

Mesmorial wrote:There is thus no contradiction.

Send in the cavalry :lol:


IS there a need? :lol:

Re: Comments on MBL and Mesmorial debate.

PostPosted: Sun Feb 06, 2011 5:28 am
by MesMorial
How can it be retaliatory? I guess there is a problem with understanding of the word "retaliatory". I wouldnt be surprised if you change the word's basic meaning because quran has to be somehow accommodated. The verse says non muslims are supposed to pay jizya if they dont accept islam so that they feel inferior . This isnt retaliatory in any possible way.


You introduce nothing new here. Jizya does not mean tax. It means reparation and there has to be a REASON why they had to pay that (and the reasons abound in 9:1-27 and 9:30-33).

Quran does permit unwarranted fighting as established by 9:29 itself.This is where you went wrong .In my post above I just showed you why 9:29 doesnt fit in the pattern of self defense and also just because there are some verses on self defense in the quran it doesnt mean 9:29 is also self defense . Each verse should be evaluated on its content.What you are doing is simply saying sky is yellow when we can clearly see that its blue.The verse specifically tells you when to fight i.e till the disbelievers acknowledge islam. You muslims are supposed to fight disbelievers until they acknowledge islam or pay jizya feeling subdued which isnt self defense. How in the world can you say that's acting against muslims? Refusing to acknowledge islam or not paying jizya means acting against islam? 9:29 doesnt say muslims are to fight if the disbelievers act against muslims.

Remember all we have is one sided story from quran.We dont have the account of disbelievers who were killed in the battle.


I am that glad you added the last sentence to rebut yourself.

I discussed 9:29 already. You are saying we should not look at the context, and that is all.

IS there a need?


Your presence in a surprise non-exclusive exclusive thread concerning a debate of which you are no part indicates that it is so and you are the best to do it.

Re: Comments on MBL and Mesmorial debate.

PostPosted: Sun Feb 06, 2011 5:30 am
by MesMorial
Something the kids might find more interesting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRWKEG11LFs

Re: Comments on MBL and Mesmorial debate.

PostPosted: Sun Feb 06, 2011 5:53 am
by skynightblaze
MesMorial wrote:
How can it be retaliatory? I guess there is a problem with understanding of the word "retaliatory". I wouldnt be surprised if you change the word's basic meaning because quran has to be somehow accommodated. The verse says non muslims are supposed to pay jizya if they dont accept islam so that they feel inferior . This isnt retaliatory in any possible way.


You introduce nothing new here. Jizya does not mean tax. It means reparation and there has to be a REASON why they had to pay that (and the reasons abound in 9:1-27 and 9:30-33).


So the idea was compensation? So lets say a disbeliever acknowledges the religion of islam then as per the verse he wouldnt be entitled to pay Jizya but then what happened to the claim of compensation ? If someone becomes a muslim does the damage get repaired? ofcourse no so if it was all about compensation then quran should have given only 1 option i.e pay jizya but it gives the other option i.e accept islam which means quran isnt interested in compensation. See how nonsense your attempt was?

YOu are simply making up stories. The purpose of jizya is clearly mentioned in 9:29 i.e to subdue the non muslims or make them feel inferior.SHow me a single verse in the quran that backs your claim that Jizya was claimed for compensation.

Mesmorial wrote:
Quran does permit unwarranted fighting as established by 9:29 itself.This is where you went wrong .In my post above I just showed you why 9:29 doesnt fit in the pattern of self defense and also just because there are some verses on self defense in the quran it doesnt mean 9:29 is also self defense . Each verse should be evaluated on its content.What you are doing is simply saying sky is yellow when we can clearly see that its blue.The verse specifically tells you when to fight i.e till the disbelievers acknowledge islam. You muslims are supposed to fight disbelievers until they acknowledge islam or pay jizya feeling subdued which isnt self defense. How in the world can you say that's acting against muslims? Refusing to acknowledge islam or not paying jizya means acting against islam? 9:29 doesnt say muslims are to fight if the disbelievers act against muslims.

Remember all we have is one sided story from quran.We dont have the account of disbelievers who were killed in the battle.


I am that glad you added the last sentence to rebut yourself.

I discussed 9:29 already. You are saying we should not look at the context, and that is all.


Whether you look at the context or not that verse is offensive and any kid can tell you that.I have no issues if you look at the context but that would imply that we refer to sources outside quran which you wont accept. Self defense implies fighting for protecting oneself and not fighting so that others acknowledge islam so even if we look at the context and assume that pagans were offensive then that would give muslims the right to fight to protect themselves and not the right to fight so that they acknowledge islam .You discussed 9:29 however the question here is does it make sense of what you discussed? One can go on discussing till the end without making sense.It seems that its only you can make sense out of that .

Mesmorial wrote:Your presence in a surprise non-exclusive exclusive thread concerning a debate of which you are no part indicates that it is so and you are the best to do it.


The forum gives anyone the permission to comment on anyone's debate .If you look at other 1-1 debates you will find a comments thread.

At a time you claim that you will debate only 1 person so its natural that others have to comment outside the 1-1 debate thread.Btw as we have decided I will be the next to debate you 1-1 after you finish your debate with MBL. You need to wait for him to reply to your arguments and until both the parties lay their case.

Re: Comments on MBL and Mesmorial debate.

PostPosted: Sun Feb 06, 2011 9:00 am
by MesMorial
So the idea was compensation? So lets say a disbeliever acknowledges the religion of islam then as per the verse he wouldnt be entitled to pay Jizya but then what happened to the claim of compensation ? If someone becomes a muslim does the damage get repaired? ofcourse no so if it was all about compensation then quran should have given only 1 option i.e pay jizya but it gives the other option i.e accept islam which means quran isnt interested in compensation. See how nonsense your attempt was?

YOu are simply making up stories. The purpose of jizya is clearly mentioned in 9:29 i.e to subdue the non muslims or make them feel inferior.SHow me a single verse in the quran that backs your claim that Jizya was claimed for compensation.


The verse never mentions converting people to Islam although you do a lot. Because it is in context, the jizya would be according to the damage that the enemies had caused in that situation.


“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.”

9:14


You say looking at the context is OK but that it requires extra-Qur’anic sources. The context is entirely in the Qur’an.


The purpose of the jizya is not humiliation; the verse declares that they should pay it WHILE subdued.

You ask for my proof about the jizya. Firstly can you find a single verse in the Qur’an that supports your interpretation of it? Secondly various derivatives of the word are employed in the Qur’an to convey “recompense”:

53:41, 6:93, 10:52, 27:90, 36:54, 37:39 and others.

Also I never said you should not have started this thread, but it was more likely you came to rescue the debate rather than to simply imitate threads created for other debates.

Re: Comments on MBL and Mesmorial debate.

PostPosted: Sun Feb 06, 2011 12:43 pm
by Nosubmission
MesMorial wrote:
The verse never mentions converting people to Islam although you do a lot.


Yet the verse commands Muslims to fight and humiliate non-Muslims BECAUSE THEY DO NOT TURN TO ISLAM. :D

MesMorial wrote:Because it is in context, the jizya would be according to the damage that the enemies had caused in that situation.


Which damage? Show me the word damage in Surah 9:29.

MesMorial wrote:“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.”9:14


This means Allah will use Muslim armies as a means of punishing non-Muslims for their disbelief. So simple. :*)

MesMorial wrote:The purpose of the jizya is not humiliation; the verse declares that they should pay it WHILE subdued.


NO. You are simply lying. Surah 9:29 makes it clear that jizyah is a sign that illustrates non-Muslims' defeat and humiliation. Muslims are commanded to fight such people until they are defeated, as a result of which they will have to pay the jizyah. You lack the basic ability of reading and reasoning? :???:

MesMorial wrote:You ask for my proof about the jizya. Firstly can you find a single verse in the Qur’an that supports your interpretation of it?


You have provided zero proof for your innovative interpretation of the word jizyah or Surah 9:29 yet!

MesMorial wrote:Secondly various derivatives of the word are employed in the Qur’an to convey “recompense”:

53:41, 6:93, 10:52, 27:90, 36:54, 37:39 and others.



So what? Even if the word jizyah means recompense, in Surah 9:29 it is declared to be the recompense for the DISBELIEF of non-Muslims. I cannot see anything about defense in that verse.

Re: Comments on MBL and Mesmorial debate.

PostPosted: Sun Feb 06, 2011 3:09 pm
by skynightblaze
MesMorial wrote:
The verse never mentions converting people to Islam although you do a lot. Because it is in context, the jizya would be according to the damage that the enemies had caused in that situation.


9.29
Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.


What does this verse tell you? In simple words it tells you to fight those who dont acknowledge religion of islam . A simple negation of this would be dont fight those who acknowledge the religion of islam i.e the message it sends is acknowledge islam or else be prepared for a fight! Its n simple english language.How much are you going to twist now?.This is what quran says and not me.

Secondly I forgot to raise one more point regarding jizya as a compensation.Muslims are given rights to take away the booty in wars from non muslims so muslims are already compensated more than required and they dont need to be compensated more. Of course I am saying this assuming that muhammad was fighting a self defense battle but he wasnt as I have shown in opening post.

The point I am making is that even if we assume it was a self defense case it still has a problem!

You also didnt answer my question .How can anyone be compensated for the damage by accepting/acknowledging islam if the purpose of the verse was to claim compensation?? The verse says FIGHT THEM until they accept islam . This doesnt compensate you so the purpose of the verse cant be re compensation.

Mesmorial wrote:“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.”
9:14


One question here. Why does an All powerful God require to punish non muslims via muslims? Cant he do that himself? The answer is because muhammad wanted people to fight for him so he had to say Allah wanted this dirty act done.Now Dont give me excuses like Allah wants to test because an all knowing God wouldnt require a test as tests are taken to find something that is unknown.I know you would quote quranic verses to give this excuse.

Mesmorial wrote:
The purpose of the jizya is not humiliation; the verse declares that they should pay it WHILE subdued.


Thats called humiliation in other words.Non muslims are supposed to pay a tax because they dont accept islam and hence they become inferior as per quran.

Mesmorial wrote:You ask for my proof about the jizya. Firstly can you find a single verse in the Qur’an that
supports your interpretation of it?


9:29 is the verse itself. I dont need any other verse. The proof is in front of you but you are choosing to ignore it straightway.

Mesmorial wrote: Secondly various derivatives of the word are employed in the Qur’an to convey “recompense”:

53:41, 6:93, 10:52, 27:90, 36:54, 37:39 and others.


We are concerned as to how the word is used in concerned verse i.e 9:29 and not any other verses.I will repeat myself again.There are 2 reasons as to why jizya cant be talking about recompensation in 9:29 as you imply.

If jizya's aim was recompensation then it would have directly asked to pay jizya only and stopped at that but it gives the other option of converting/acknowledging islam . Now converting to islam doesnt recompensate so the aim cant be recompense in such a case otherwise quran wouldnt give an option of converting to islam.

Secondly muslims already are given privileges to take away the booty of their opponent so there is no need of compensation.

Most importantly the verse doesnt even talk about damage.Its quite clear as to why jizya should be taken. IT says it should be taken so that non muslims feel subdued and not muslims are compensated as you have been trying to twist.


Mesmorial wrote:Also I never said you should not have started this thread, but it was more likely you came to rescue the debate rather than to simply imitate threads created for other debates.


The question of coming to rescue comes into the picture provided you have won the debate and MBL needs help . I dont think you have answered him convincingly and also this debate is far from over as he is yet to reply to your latest arguments. I made this thread because I also wanted to comment on this subject .

Re: Comments on MBL and Mesmorial debate.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:55 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
MesMorial wrote:
Mesmorial claims here that muslims are commanded to fight only in self defense. Before proceeding let me remind Mesmorial that only “FIGHT THEM IF THEY FIGHT YOU” constitutes self defense and nothing else so the pattern of any verse has to be “fight them if they fight you” if at all he wants to claim self defense. Any other reason prescribed for fighting doesn’t constitute self defense. It would be like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.



Firstly 9:29 mentions until they pay the "jizya" which means recompense. Thus it is already established to be retaliatory. Secondly we know that the Qur'an does not permit unwarranted fighting and thus it is only logical that the non-Muslims here are being described as those who do not believe in the last day nor forbid the forbidden etc. BECAUSE they have and are acting against Muslims (as per 9:36 and 9:1-28).

There is thus no contradiction.

Send in the cavalry :lol:


Why is it always the stupid ones that are their own best cheerleader?? :lol: The jizyah is not a recompensation. That recompensation (assuming it was even justified) was already taken from the booty. The jizyah is a tax designed to humiliate non Muslims and show Muslim superiority. That's why 29 even says humiliation, humble submission, etc....This is Muslim rule. And, no matter how much Muslims call this a "protection tax" where it was a tax for being protected by Muslims, it actually went to fund jihad and Muslim expansion.

This is what any smart ruler would do. Why kill them when you can tax them and use their money to pay your army?? A ruler needs resources for his expansion, and historically speaking, these resources have always come from conquered lands. This is why the USSR practiced the scorched earth policy when Hitler was invading, so that his forces had nothing to use.

Re: Comments on MBL and Mesmorial debate.

PostPosted: Sat Feb 12, 2011 2:06 pm
by skynightblaze
Mesmorial wrote:MBL counters my claim that he cannot prove abrogtion by suggesting I cannot disprove it.


I want to debate over the topic of abrogation in the quran with you after you are done with him.

Re: Comments on MBL and Mesmorial debate.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 5:47 am
by MesMorial
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

Re: Comments on MBL and Mesmorial debate.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:38 am
by skynightblaze
Mesmorial wrote: 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 thereis 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:


I really cant even bother to look at your desperate attempt in the above post to white wash islam.Keep deluding yourself.9:29 is an offensive verse. No amount of other verses are going to change its meaning. IF there are other verses regarding self defense then its a contradiction i.e They dont complement 9:29 but rather contradict it .Its very simple if you are objective but since the aim of the debate for you is to defend quran at any cost there is really no point of you to continue debate with MBL.You will keep fooling yourself claiming that other verses somehow change the meaning of 9:29.You are a burning example as to why islam is dangerous idealogy because it makes people do literally anything to defend their religion . You are clearly a brainwashed guy.The reason you bring other verses in defense of 9:29 is clear as daylight because the verse itself is clearly offensive but to make quran legitimate something has to be done and hence other verses prescribing self defense are brought so that meaning of 9:29 gets changed! The verse clearly says FIGHT Till religion of islam is acknowledged by jews and christians or ask them to pay jizya. Period! There can be no argument further because these are not actions taken by anyone in self defense.

I am even surprised that you still come up with nonsense of recompense when its clearly debunked .YOu have to understand that if you lose the debate then your religion loses and not you. Clearly you have lost because its not possible to defend the impossible and anyone who defends quran is bound to lose.

Re: Comments on MBL and Mesmorial debate.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 7:46 am
by MesMorial
Skynightblaze, I am surprised that you bother to reply without bothering to read it (the article answered your points of course). However I have added some notes about "jizya" which might help us think more laterally:


"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 is un-Qur’anic) 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. "

Re: Comments on MBL and Mesmorial debate.

PostPosted: Sat Feb 19, 2011 4:14 pm
by skynightblaze
MesMorial wrote:Skynightblaze, I am surprised that you bother to reply without bothering to read it (the article answered your points of course). However I have added some notes about "jizya" which might help us think more laterally:
"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.


The first mistake that you do is assume that other verses in the quran are complementary to 9:29 .I will explain as to why you are wrong to assume this. The first question that you must ask yourself is , IS the verse 9:29 really unclear so that it needs complementary verses to explain it ? We have to get back to basics here. The case for complementary verses arises only when the said verse is not sufficiently clear to convey the meaning but not otherwise.

Lets recap on what 9:29 says …

“Fight them until they acknowledge islam or they pay jizya feeling subdued”

(9:29 is crystal clear on its content and there is no need of further explanation. Tell me what you didn’t understand in 9:29 so that you need explanation from other verses in the quran?? The verse is loudly clear .WE don’t really need to look at other verses to know what is being said in 9:29 .A point has to be noted that it’s not always necessary that one has to rely on complementary verses to understand a particular verse. Certain verses are loudly clear and hence they need no explanation and 9:29 is one such case.

I will explain with an example as to what you are trying to do.

Statement A : I am a fan of George Bush
On the very same page I write..

Statement B : I hate Bush and he is a rascal.

Am I making complementary statements or am I making contradictory statements? Going by your logic Statement A says I am a fan of bush and hence it must be complementing statement B and hence statement B must be meaning that I am really a fan of Bush .Is that the case???? Do you see a problem with this ? This is exactly what you are trying to attempt!
Both the statements(A and B) are clear in their meaning and hence they don’t need any complementary or additional information to understand and we can clearly see that there is a contradiction in the statement A and B .

Same is the case here i.e 9:29 and 25:57 are clear verses and hence 9:29 is contradictory to the verse that you just quoted

MesMorial wrote: [u]Therefore the “jizya” must have served some purpose besides humiliating or labelling non-Muslims[/u, and then the only separation between jizya as “state tax” and “recompense” would be its purpose.


The underlined part is a faulty conclusion. The premise on which you drew this conclusion is fallacious. I showed you above exactly how faulty such kind of reasoning is.Accepting your conclusion would be like saying “since statement A talks of me being a fan of Bush, statement A must be complementing statement B and hence I must really be a fan of bush when in reality I am contradicting myself by abusing Bush on the very same page that I am writing.

MesMorial wrote: 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).


You assume here that quran cannot contradict itself.Evidence indicates that it does however the contradiction is resolved when we have a concept of abrogation. We can clearly see a contradiction.This contradiction can be explained by abrogation which we would discuss in due course of time.

MesMorial wrote: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.


Again I see no reason as to why its justified to tax non muslims. Muslims can have booty as per quran so that they are already compensated extra for damages in the war (assuming that muslims were fighting a defensive war) so still there seems no purpose in imposing Jizya.

Btw I have a question here which is a bit off topic.To claim that jizya has some other meaning than what history suggest is to make a claim that historians fabricated the concept of jizya. In such a case you need to agree that one or two guys cant fabricate the whole history and just get away with it. It would be like me trying to fabricate the quran today and no muslim raising any objections and I getting away with it cleanly. We both know this isn’t possible unless majority of muslims are supporting me so if what you say is true then it has to be mass conspiracy in case of historical concept of jizya .Well in such a case a person who wants to fabricate and assign lies to muhammad would first corrupt the quran rather than any other book because that is the main book of islam. Well when quran has been passed through such a corrupt generation how do you know that its not corrupt ? Logically it has to be corrupt because a fabricator would go for the main kill i.e quran rather than the hadiths or biographies.


MesMorial wrote: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 is un-Qur’anic) or a tax in return for protection or some practical purpose


First of all collecting tax as non-Muslims’ acceptance of subjection to the state and Islamic laws is quranic and not un quranic as you claim unless you wish to tell us that 9:29 is not a part of quran or you try to change the meaning of 9:29 by bringing some other verses fallaciously. 9:29 doesn’t need any other verse for its explanation because it’s clear in its meaning.

There is ofcourse a practical aspect involved here. If one isn’t going to accept islam at all then instead of killing him/her then it would be better to get the money from him/her and use it in Allah’s cause I,e fighting . That would be a wiser decision than killing him/her.

MesMorial wrote:(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).


Just below this para you have said that its clear from the quran that non muslims weren’t completely under the rule of muslims but however you are claiming here that its justified to tax non muslims because they considered them as a burden to be carried i.e non muslims are under the muslim rule so essentially you have contradicted yourself below. Also I don’t see any point in charging non muslim with any tax especially when you have collected all the booty which is much more than the expenses in the war.Btw one ends up contradicting himself when one tries to justify something that is not possible to justify.

MesMorial wrote: 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!

You are trying to show here as if its illogical and not making sense if one assumes that quran is telling the muslims to fight against jews and Christians for accepting islam especially when they aren’t under the muslim rule. Its foolish to expect jews and Christians to follow islam when they aren’t under muslim rule however its not at all foolish to expect them to follow islam when you are using violence to persuade them to be under your rule.You missed this link.
Yes they aren’t under the muslim rule and that’s why to bring them under the muslim rule quran is ordering fighting. 9:29 says fight them until the acknowledge islam or pay jizya with a feeling of inferiority. This means you muslims are supposed to fight unbelievers(here jews and Christians) until either of the following conditions are met:

1) Jews and Christians become muslims
2) They pay jizya as 2nd class citizens.

So the moral is , it very much makes sense to expect people to follow Islamic practices especially when you are going to use violence against them to make them follow Islamic practices.

MesMorial wrote: 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. "


Its not that quran only pointed a finger at jews and christians alone.These verses deal with jews and Christians however quran keeps on blaming again and again those who disbelieve which would mean any non muslim. Pagans are also blamed in the quran .If you look at your own quran then it says that those who disbelieve fight in the cause of evi(4:76) and hence they need to be fought so in such a case attacking non muslim state is very much in line with the theme of quran .

Re: Comments on MBL and Mesmorial debate.

PostPosted: Sun Feb 20, 2011 12:23 am
by MesMorial
Your entire argument is based on misreading 9:29.

You say it says

“Fight them until they acknowledge islam or they pay jizya feeling subdued”



No, it says "fight those of the People of the Book" who fulfill a certain criteria... Hence the lack of logic in interpreting it as "fight them because they are non-Muslim" or else everyone else would be attacked. If we read through to 9:36 we understand the verse fully. I am not quite sure what you are getting at. Ah, now you are talking about jizya rather than Islam being violent. I will write something to clarify for you.

Re: Comments on MBL and Mesmorial debate.

PostPosted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 10:05 am
by MesMorial
Explaining the Explanation

Before I begin, I wish to remind that I am not claiming (nor am I denying!) the concept of “Jizya” was corrupted by the early generations, but still I will keep an open mind about their practice being taken out of context by the later generations. If the Jizya or the rate of Jizya is unjustified, it is not justified according to Allah (SWT). After all, following ahadith which tell us about the early generations living two centuries before the ahadith were written is not the same as following the early generations or what they were enjoined to follow!* Besides, it is a standard of Muslim belief that the Word of Allah (SWT) (i.e. the Qur’an) is preserved, and if it were not then InshaAllah one will not be blamed providing that the central message of the Qur’an is kept in mind and applied in all matters. This is precisely the point of Amina Wadud’s statement that I featured in the article “Does Islam Intend to Conquer the World? (Part II)".


* Bassam Zawadi cites verse 9:100 of proof that the early generation of Muslims (i.e. the companions of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW)) were hadith-followers!:


“And [as for] the foremost, the first of the Muhajirs and the Ansars, and those who followed them in goodness, Allah is well pleased with them and they are well pleased with Him, and He has prepared for them gardens beneath which rivers flow, to abide in them for ever; that is the mighty achievement.”

Qur’an 9:100


Firstly it is not talking about Sunnism (i.e. eating with the right hand and killing apostates etc. etc.) but if we look at verse 9:99 we see that it is talking about those who believe in Allah (SWT) and spend their wealth and means for the cause of pleasing Allah (SWT) (which is why He is pleased with those who follow them in goodness):


“And of the dwellers of the desert are those who believe in Allah and the latter day and take what they spend to be [means of] the nearness of Allah and the Messenger’s prayers; surely it shall be means of nearness for them; Allah will make them enter into His mercy; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.”

Qur’an 9:99


Again this is the reason it mentions Allah (SWT) being pleased with the foremost Muslims in verse 9:100. Secondly, the basis of Zawadi’s idea is that the ahadith originated from the first Muslims. The ahadith were written down a long time after the companions had passed away and so we are back to the usual argument (let alone the fact that the Qur’an does not mandate any source of religious law besides the Qur’an). Not all of the companions would have known all of the ahadith (since the majority were supposedly witnessed by only one or two people) whilst not all events in the ahadith had taken place at the time in which this verse was revealed. To say that the ahadith are actually necessary for guidance and more importantly to be a Muslim is thus highly illogical (let alone the fact that the religion was completed in Sura 5 (see verse 3)). Secondly Bassam Zawadi does not realise that if he accepts and declares mandatory any ahadith which are false or taken out of context (i.e. too many of them) then he is committing the worst sin and is a big hypocrite:


“And who is more unjust than one who forges a lie against Allah, or gives the lie to the truth when it has come to him? Will not in hell be the abode of the unbelievers?”

Qur’an 29:68


Why would Allah (SWT) make a mishmash of unpreserved narrations as the criterion for right and wrong? It is stupid to think this and to not realise that Allah (SWT) really made it easy by giving us the Qur’an:


“Say: What thing is the weightiest in testimony? Say: Allah is witness between you and me; and this Quran has been revealed to me that with it I may warn you and whomsoever it reaches. Do you really bear witness that there are other gods with Allah? Say: I do not bear witness. Say: He is only one Allah, and surely I am clear of that which you set up [with Him].”

Qur’an 6:19


“Surely this Qur’an guides to that which is most upright and gives good news to the believers who do good that they shall have a great reward.”

17:9


So the Qur’an is complete for guidance.


“Surely this Islam is your religion, one religion (only), and I am your Lord, therefore serve Me. And they broke their religion (into sects) between them: to Us shall all come back.”

92-93


The Qur’an is the truth (2:40-42, 2:91, 2:119, 2:147, 2:176, 5:48, 16:102). See also the verses 10:32-33. The Qur’an is the sole guidance (2:63, 2:91, 2:176, 6:19, 6:114-115, 6:157, 7:144-147, 7:169-171, 12:111, 18:27, 21:45, 39:23, 45:6 etc.). Therefore those who introduce new sources of religious law are innovating and diverting Islam. All sects are forbidden and unnecessary.


“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.”

Qur’an 39:23


So according to some basic logic, Bassam Zawadi is a sectarian idol-worshipper.


***


Having written/read the article “Does Islam Intend to Conquer the World” parts I and II, it would be an appropriate time to write/read the answer to the claim that verse 9:29 of the Qur’an is a standalone statement. “Skynightblaze” clings to this verse as a justification of his entire cause, but his assertion is but a simple and deliberate error:


“Do not move your tongue with it to make haste with it, Surely on Us (devolves) the collecting of it and the reciting of it. Therefore when We have recited it, follow its recitation. Again on Us (devolves) the explaining of it.”

Qur’an 75:16-19


“Skynightblaze” thinks that he can simply interpret a verse on its own whilst wilfully ignoring its explanation (complete) through verses 9:30-36. He thinks that 9:36 is contradictory to 9:29 (although he cites verse 25:57). Let us test this notion by emphasizing the key words:


“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


“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


Verses which serve as a basis for 9:29 and a compliment to 9:36 are:


“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


(So the Jews and Christians here have the motivation to fight the Muslims.)


“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


(So as Islam spreads the Jews and Christians will become more and more averse.)


“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


Islam prohibits greed, corruption and the hindering of people from Islam, thus the activities of the polytheists here will put them at odds with the Islamic way of life and incite them to prohibit Islamic practices (e.g. those described in 9:29).


“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


According to this verse and according to history, some of the People of the Book had allied with the Pagans and were fighting and/or planning to fight Muslims whenever they could.


Is there still a contradiction after the explanation of 9:29? “Skynightblaze” could have made the exact same mistake with verse 5:51:


“O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for allies; they are allies of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for an ally, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.”

Qur’an 5:51


Firstly it refers to the (i.e. those of the particular time) Jews and the Christians rather than “Jews and Christians” for all time, and secondly we should once again follow the explanation:


“But you will see those in whose hearts is a disease hastening towards them, saying: We fear lest a calamity should befall us; but it may be that Allah will bring the victory or a punish ment from Himself, so that they shall be regretting on account of what they hid in their souls.”

Qur’an 5:52


(Why would they hasten to join the Jews and Christians out of fear if the Jews and Christians referred to in 5:51 were not already hostile towards the Muslims?)


Thus the explanation is completed in 5:57:


“O you who believe! do not take for guardians those who take your religion for a mockery and a joke, from among those who were given the Book before you and the unbelievers; and be careful of (your duty to) Allah if you are believers.”

Qur’an 5:57


“Skynightblaze” suggests that there is a contradiction between verses 9:29 and 25:57 in that one is ordering payment of Jizya if people do not convert to Islam whilst 25:57 suggests that the Muslims should ask for nothing nor accept any derived material benefit from being in possession of the Message itself. However, after considering the explanation of 9:29 above, we can see that the two verses are in separate contexts – one of which is where the non-Muslims are declaring and demonstrating hostility towards the Muslims. Thus “Skynightblaze” has provided absolutely no proof that “Jizya” was anything but a recompense (based on a “practical and fair basis)” from the Qur’an-alone. His suggestion of abrogation (which we would discuss “in due course of time”!) now dissolves. The fact of the matter for him is that because the Jizya (assuming “tax”) applied to the People of the Book under the circumstances in the Qur’an, and because the Jizya applied (according to ahadith) to non-Muslims in societies that accepted Islamic rule, the Qur’an is demanding payment from people in return for not converting and therefore abrogating verse 25:57:


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

Qur’an 25:57


It will be amusing to the reader familiar with part II of the article “Does Islam Intend to Conquer the World?” to note that “Muhammad bin Lyin” declared this verse had nothing to do with the Jizya (asking me what I was trying to pull!) such that the two concepts could not be related, and yet “Skynightblaze” agrees it does and can in order to suit his own point… This is where I must re-emphasise a point that I made in the article about a standout (i.e. disproportionate) tax on non-Muslims being un-Qur’anic. I also implied there was no evidence that the Jizya was not simply the Islamic name for a tax which would already have existed as a part of societal function back in those times just as it exists functionally today. Although the Qur’an never mandates a special tax for non-Muslims, there is nothing to stop Muslims taking the name “Jizya” from the Qur’an and applying it as a tax “compensating” for non-Muslims’ residence in society just as the Zakat would “compensate” for Muslims’ residence. For example, obeying a country’s laws is a “recompense” for enjoying the country’s freedoms. Regarding my alleged self-contradiction in saying that in the case of Muslims seeing non-Muslims as “separate” and a burden to Islamic society (“Skynightblaze” phrases it such that he seems confused and thinks that the Jizya was to be imposed on the People of the Book because they were a burden, but according to the Qur’an it was proof of their submission after losing the war that they were fighting), well the “separation” justifies naming the tax “Jizya” as opposed to “Zakat” (it could be called anything besides “Zakat” but it is more appealing to use a Qur’anic word!) and “burden” means no more a burden than anyone in any society who extracts benefits from the state. Anyone could say that “useful” people should not have to pay tax (or that the amount of tax to be paid depends on who/“what” you are), but in any case “tax” is an umbrella term describing a functional system of the state. Obedience to this system means that one is submitting to the society’s laws, and this is the purpose of the Jizya as “compulsory tax” in verse 9:29. The Jews/Christians of 9:29 who did not pay the Jizya would pay Zakat because they had fulfilled the criteria of being Muslim (or at least appreciating Islam). If “Skynightblaze” wishes to argue that the Jizya is a tax on non-Muslims simply because they are non-Muslim, that is fine but he should prove from scripture that this tax is unfair compared to the Zakat (according to the Qur’an since 2.5% of income was simply the rate at that time). It should afterwards be demonstrated that the Jizya tax as a standout payment is a necessity in modern times (since it is only divinely mandated upon the People of the Book who were fighting Muslims, and then the ahadith only suggest that it was implemented in those times on Muhammad’s (SAW) request and in his context (Islam had become an empire-state)). The problem of what cause the money or material goods of Jizya would be used for as opposed to what Zakat is used for is answered by the following Qur’anic verse (among many others):


“They ask you as to what they should spend. Say: Whatever wealth you spend, it is for the parents and the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer, and whatever good you do, Allah surely knows it.”

Qur’an 2:215


(Therefore for the betterment of society.)


Adopting “Skynightblaze”’s meaning of “Jizya”, the decision of how much to tax non-Muslims is not set in concrete and then the people in charge must be guided by a “practical and fair basis”:


“Allah does not impose upon any soul a duty but to the extent of its ability; for it is (the benefit of) what it has earned and upon it (the evil of) what it has wrought”

Qur’an 2:286


(True Muslims should emulate this in all matters.)


“O you who believe! be maintainers of justice, bearers of witness of Allah's sake, though it may be against your own selves or (your) parents or near relatives; if he be rich or poor, Allah is nearer to them both in compassion; therefore do not follow (your) low desires, lest you deviate; and if you swerve or turn aside, then surely Allah is aware of what you do.”

Qur’an 4:135


“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


(It would be extremely stupid for true Muslims to emulate the doctors and monks in this verse!)


“And they who when they spend, are neither extravagant nor parsimonious, and [keep] between these the just mean.”

Qur’an 25:67


“And what will make you comprehend what the uphill road is? [It is] the setting free of a slave, or the giving of food in a day of hunger to an orphan, having relationship, or to the poor man lying in the dust. Then he is of those who believe and charge one another to show patience, and charge one another to show compassion.”

Qur’an 90:12-17


So quite obviously true Islam and true Muslims are meant to be fair and not do anything that is unwarranted! The people in charge will be those deemed “most in line” with the spirit of the Qur’an. We have already discussed the fact that there is “no compulsion in the religion”, and this clearly must apply to financial matters.

“Skynightblaze” has a problem with imposing the Jizya on people after war-booty has been taken from them. Firstly the fact that war-booty has been taken means that they lost a war with Muslims, and if they fought a war with Muslims then according to the Qur’an it would be because they fought and provoked the Muslims first. Thus the taking of war-booty is as justified as anywhere else in the Qur’an. The Jizya is just a formality of their acceptance into society after the Muslims conquer their land. Its rate would obviously be adjusted according to conditions, and according to traditional law it need not be material but can be service of some form. Please remember that war-booty is only taken from definite aggressors:


“O you who believe! when you go to war in Allah's way, make investigation, and do not say to any one who offers you peace: You are not a believer. Do you seek goods of this world's life! But with Allah there are abundant gains; you too were such before, then Allah conferred a benefit on you; therefore make investigation; surely Allah is aware of what you do.”

Qur’an 4:94


Besides, the people who had spoils taken from them because they were open aggressors would be “captives” for an indefinite term and thus would not have to pay Jizya. As per verses 90:12-17, when captives are able to survive on their own (e.g. because they have relatives who can support them) then they would be freed from that status.

The final point made by “Skynightblaze” is the last flicker before the yawning dawn. He says that because the Qur’an does not praise any religion or beliefs besides Islam, anyone who is not Muslim is evil and fights Muslims. He cites verse 4:76:


“Those who believe fight in the way of Allah, and those who disbelieve fight in the way of the Shaitan. Fight therefore against the friends of the Shaitan; surely the strategy of the Shaitan is weak.”

Qur’an 4:76


Interpreting “fight” as “physical fight”, it is talking about when people fight and not when they are not fighting (we would have to fight therefore when they are fighting!). Secondly it makes no sense to say that two sides are always fighting for their own cause and then ordering one side to fight the other because of that (they are already fighting, are they not?). “Fight” must therefore either mean a non-physical fight in which Muslims give as good as they receive, or a physical fight against the unbelievers who fight (i.e. they are fighting in the Shaitan’s cause because they are fighting Muslims). This is confirmed by verse 4:71 which demonstrates that 4:76 is talking about specific occasions when battles occur and not about Muslims and non-Muslims in general:


“O you who believe! take your precaution, then go forth in detachments or go forth in a body.”

Qur’an 4:71


The context continues clearly through to 4:75:


“And what reason have you that you should not fight in the way of Allah and of the weak among the men and the women and the children, [of] those who say: Our Lord! cause us to go forth from this town, whose people are oppressors, and give us from Thee a guardian and give us from Thee a helper.”

Qur’an 4:75


before settling upon 4:76, as quoted.


Thus the unbelievers in this context are the oppressors who do not allow their citizens/subjects and the believers the freedom that they have caused them to desire.


***


Khuda Hafiz


P.S. A future concept I desire to explore (InshaAllah) is the fact that the Qur’an is adaptable to various circumstances according to the unchanging nature of its Message. The manner in which we obey and interpret the Message itself serves as a criterion for discerning the impure from the pure, the hypocrite from the true believer. Bringing the Qur’an and the whole Qur’an into consideration, Muslims cannot make a wrong move nor fall prey to the traps and interpretations which deliberately appeal to the weaknesses and fancies of those in whom there is carelessness or doubt. Such examples are the treatment of captives and women (mentioned due to some specific verses), as well as other issues of which only those who can understand the central purpose of the Message will have no doubt.

Re: Comments on MBL and Mesmorial debate.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 8:55 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
MesMorial wrote:The Jews/Christians of 9:29 who did not pay the Jizya would pay Zakat because they had fulfilled the criteria of being Muslim (or at least appreciating Islam).


Boy, you really are something else aren't you. Just inventing and changing your story as you see fit. First it was that the Jizyah was a one time recompense for what Muslims lost before and during the battle. This way, it doesn't look like a symbol of continuing Muslim rule, it's just a one time thing. Now that seems to have changed and although the Jizyah is now a continuing thing, it's really not much different than the Zakat. So at first, the jizyah WAS a humiliation, but a one time humiliation that was not symbolic of Muslim rule, but simply Muslim battlefield victory. Now, that the jizyah is not a one time thing, what to do?? Change it into something that is NOT humiliating. Non Muslims were NEVER allowed to pay the Zakat. They couldn't say "I will not pay the Jizyah, but I WILL pay the Zakat". Where did you get that ridiculous invention from?? And a fact that you are not mentioning is that while the Zakat was clearly and always 5%, the Jizyah rate was up to the Muslim rulers, and they charged whatever rate they saw fit. And you can probably guess it never went under 5% and was probably significantly more.

My God, you people are just too much. I've never seen people who invent more excuses than Muslims. It's almost like a part time job for them, given how many excuses they have invented. When will the excuses ever end?? Perhaps never because they think that if Islam turned out to be a hoax, Allah would stop preventing the sky from falling from it's pillars onto them like the Quran says he does.

34:9 (Y. Ali) See they not what is before them and behind them, of the sky and the earth? If We wished, We could cause the earth to swallow them up, or cause a piece of the sky to fall upon them. Verily in this is a Sign for every devotee that turns to Allah (in repentance).

Yes, pieces of the sky falling. Indeed, verily in this is a sign for a 7th century person who doesn't understand the true nature of the sky yet.

Re: Comments on MBL and Mesmorial debate.

PostPosted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 9:36 am
by MesMorial
The Arabic says "fragments from the sky" which does not have to mean the sky itself.

Peace.