Comments on MBL and Mesmorial debate.

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

The Arabic says "fragments from the sky" which does not have to mean the sky itself.

Peace.

Yes, that's true. The sky itself doesn't "crack open" until the last day.

[ringmaster]

............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.

Recompense in the sense that muslims must be recompensed for unbelievers having the temerity to resist islamic expanion. Retaliatory in the sense that muslims must be recompensed for unbelievers having the temerity to resist islamic expanion.

Slaughtering tens of millions of HIndus because they are polytheistic. Polytheisim is "acting against muslims". They can come up with anything they want to say that somebody is "acting against muslims".

Remember, verses 8-39 and 9-5 clearly mean that disbelief is a reason for muslims to attack. Disbelief is "acting against muslims". Promoting another faith is "acting against muslims". The practice and promotion of trinitarianism is "acting against muslims."

And now we see modern day examples. Drawing pictures of the prophet is "acting against muslims". Claiming that muhammad's mama was a whore is "acting against muslims". Calling porkchop allah nasty names is "acting against muslims". Walking our dogs in a public place is "acting against muslims".

And now...in this forum....exposing the KKKKoran for the nonsensical porn rag that it is, is "acting against muslims". They have to defend it because allah is such a moron that he needs mere mortals to defend him (and also to translate for him). Allah is so stupid that he couldn't even come up with the 5 pillars.

And in moron allah's defense, one excuse after the other is invented.

[ringmaster]

That teacher in the UK who was attacked by mudslimes for "teaching other religions"...was "acting against muslims".

Any foreigner visiting Sodomy Arabia, and is in possession of a crucifix and/or a bible is "acting against muslims".

Anybody who consumes food or beverage during Ramadan, inside or outside a mudslime country, is "acting against muslims".

Any Coptic Christian who, without a permit from the Egyptian government makes repairs to his church is "acting against muslims".

Any restaurant that serves pork products is "acting against muslims".

Any restaurant that will serve alcoholic beverages with or without its meals is "acting against muslims"

Apparently muslims in a number of western countries consider the celebration of Christmas to be "acting against muslims".

Mesmorial............when you spew enough foam (there never has been any "beer" in anything you have said), you eventually will hang yourself. Actually, you have hung yourself before. This latest example is just another noose around your neck.

Anybody else in here can come up with other examples of what infidels can do to "act against muslims". It seems that muslims decide these things for themselves.

Another example. Salman Rushdie was "acting against muslims" when he wrote "Satanic Verses". There is still, as far as I know, an outstanding fatwa on him.

May allah burn in hell.

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

All I know is that it seems like everything makes Muslims angry and spin into huge, if not even violent protest.
Everything....except...the death of kafirs at Muslim hands. Somehow, I just don't get the rage level vibe that I do at the cartoon protests.

[ringmaster]

............................Somehow, I just don't get the rage level vibe that I do at the cartoon protests.

I understand the rage level. You have already explained it in your debate with Mesmorial. It is simply another way by which muslims attempt to impose their will, or to impose their rule.

And....according Mesmorial himself, it justifies open warfare.....because........the cartoonists are ....."acting against muslims".

Mesmorial, in his debate with you, hung himself with those three words, because, as we can clearly see, muslims always decide for themselves what that means. They are attempting to impose their rule in Dar Al Harb.

May allah burn in hell.

[ringmaster]

I will also make it a rule that if one of us does not respond after a week, he accepts defeat (intellectually and in other ways).

In what other ways are you talking about??

He hung himself again. It's been more than a week.

Do you think whoremaster/pimp allah will give him a martyr's ticket to allah's celestial bordello?

[ringmaster]

Hey Mesmorial...............what do you think of this?

http://www.faithfreedom.org/features/ne ... es-hatred/

I think it's really cool. I like caricatures of the prophet.....especially uncomplimentary ones. I am cheered by people who show them, and I applaud the court for telling the muslim plaintiff(s) to, in so many words, take a hike.

However, to use your justification for the application of Verse 9-29 and its subsequent verses, I am sure also that you would consider this "acting against muslims". Would that mean jihad against the cartoonists, the judge, the jury, or all of the above? Or maybe this would fall within your boundaries of "no compulsion"????

As a good muslim, I am guessing that your answer would be that they should be beheaded. Would that be right??

Be specific now.

[ringmaster]

With reference to this old debate, we should all be up to date on Mesmorial's latest attempted deception.

According to him, sura 9 is not a "law-giving sura".

[MesMorial]

No more than 33:53. 5:3 completed Islam, and Sura 5 does not say kill unbelievers. 5:42-43 allows unbelievers to go their way.

[antineoETC]

5:3 completed Islam

If skynightblaze does not object to this interjection (I'll remove it if they do): Does that mean that Mushriks, banned from going anywhere near al-masjid al haram in 9:28, should no longer be so prohibited but should instead be free to visit it in order to worship gods other than Allah?

[MesMorial]

Why would he interject? This is not his thread, nor is it an arranged 1-1 debate.

Does that mean that Mushriks, banned from going anywhere near al-masjid al haram in 9:28, should no longer be so prohibited but should instead be free to visit it in order to worship gods other than Allah?

Of course. It refers to the specific idolaters ("this year of theirs"). It clearly applies to those who already visited.

As per 22:25, everyone can visit the Sacred Mosque. While it is in Muslims' power, there may be state laws regulating the amount of anti-Islamic material there. If not in their power, they would just be expecting to worship in peace. Either way, other people should be left in peace.

[antineoETC]

As per 22:25, everyone can visit the Sacred Mosque. While it is in Muslims' power...... If not in their power, they would just be expecting to worship in peace. Either way, other people should be left in peace.

So Allah is OK with Mushriks worshipping partners other than him at al-masjid al-haram? So why did he impose a ban on the mushriks mentioned in surah 9:28 from approaching it after "this year"? The only reason apparent from the verse is that they are "najisun". What does that word mean?

there may be state laws regulating the amount of anti-Islamic material there

On what qur'anic grounds might Muslims "regulate the amount of anti-Islamic material" expounded at al-masjid al-haram? Chapter(s) and verse(s) please.

[MesMorial]

Antineo


I said it applied to those people of the time, and gave reasons.

They were unclean due to their behaviour. Otherwise they would never have been permitted before.

Your last request repeats my phrase “state laws” - without understanding what it actually means.

[antineoETC]

AntineoI said it applied to those people of the time, and gave reasons.

The only "reasons" the verse in question gives is that the Mushriks were "unclean".

They were unclean due to their behaviour. Otherwise they would never have been permitted before.

What "behaviour" was that?

[MesMorial]

See the previous verses in the chapter; they answer both your questions.

[antineoETC]

See the previous verses in the chapter; they answer both your questions.

I'd prefer it if you'd answer the question: What was the specific nature of the "behaviour" to which you attribute Allah's categorization of the Mushriks as "unclean"?. If this alleged "behaviour" is described in the previous verses of surah 9 then it is no great onerous task for you to sift it out and present it.

[MesMorial]

See the previous verses in the chapter; they answer both your questions.

I'd prefer it if you'd answer the question: What was the specific nature of the "behaviour" to which you attribute Allah's categorization of the Mushriks as "unclean"?. If this alleged "behaviour" is described in the previous verses of surah 9 then it is no great onerous task for you to sift it out and present it.

See 9:7-9:13.

[antineoETC]

See 9:7-9:13.

The Mushriks referred to in 9:7 - 9:13 are to be slain WHEREVER FOUND (which would include the sacred mosque) unless they, on the surface at least, convert to Islam as per 9:5 - in which case they are either dead or no longer Mushriks. The Mushriks referred to in 9:28 must therefore belong to the category described in 9:4. Your argument therefore fails and, unless you can come up with an alternative that stands up, it must be concluded that the Mushriks referred to in 9:28 were "unclean" and soon to be barred from visiting the sacred mosque for NO OTHER REASON than they were Mushriks. This is further reinforced as the only plausible interpretation by 9:17-18:

It is not for the Mushriks to tend Allah's sanctuaries, bearing witness against themselves of disbelief. As for such, their works are vain and in the Fire they will abide. He only shall tend Allah's sanctuaries who believes in Allah and the Last Day and observes proper worship and pays the poor-due and fears none save Allah. For such is it possible that they can be of the rightly guided.

It would naturally follow from this that the ban on Mushriks visiting the sacred mosque was intended to be a perpetual and universal LAW of Allah; as has indeed always been the orthodox position right up to the present day. Which would of course demolish your claim that surah 9 "is not a lawgiving surah".

[MesMorial]

Sorry I didn't look 'til now.

I thought I already explained about it being for the people who already went, and of that time. It was a universal ban on those mushriks, whether they were peaceful or not. I already covered that in explaining 9:29, 66:9 etc.. I already thought that those in 9:4 were banned.

9:17-18 simply says idolaters should not be in charge of mosques which are meant for God. That is, while saying or doing un-Islamic things. I do not see a new law there.


“And that the mosques are Allah's, therefore call not upon any one with Allah.” (72:18)


Since 9:29 is clearly not a universal law, it is not hard to see that 9:28 is not. The concept is the same.

[antineoETC]

“And that the mosques are Allah's, therefore call not upon any one with Allah.” (72:18)

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

I already thought that those in 9:4 were banned.

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

Since 9:29 is clearly not a universal law,

I will for arguments sake entertain your tendetiously derived premise that 9:29 is not a universal law. I do not see, was this true, how it necessarily follows:

it is not hard to see that 9:28 is not.

You continue:

The concept is the same.

What "concept" is that?