Tolerance or Arrogance?

His life, his examples and his psychology
User avatar
Amanalice
Posts: 255
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 9:37 pm

Re: Tolerance or Arrogance?

Post by Amanalice »

No muslim will ever accept but their reprehensible fact is they look at women as a sex toy.looking at a women they only can think of her 2 breast and one v####a.

@Prince, you said women have beauty.
I do agree but from where do you get that beauty means sex slave and must be locked? Beauty is in Nature too, river too, in fact whole world has a lot of beautiful things. According to you all must be in black cloths? What about Taj Mahal, Monalisa? etc beautiful things?

The thing is when you say women have beauty, you actually mean women have 2 breast and 1 v####a. You dont have any single idea about the real beauty of a women. Her creative beauty, her nursing beauty, her social beauty, her caring beauty. Your mother must be ashamed on you if she will know what you mean actually by a woman's beauty.

Even you only see breasts and v####a as beauty then its not their fault to be in black, its sickness in muslims mind that they cant control their lusty MO idea of sex and sex. So punishment must be to muslims men and they should cover their eyes in black or the best is to be blind for whole life.

I feel to vomit knowing your idea about womens' beauty. How shame.
I request Mr. Ali to not debate such people but he has too, to make this world real beautiful.

SHAME ON YOU MUSLIMS
NEVER ARGUE WITH A STUPID, COZ 1ST HE WILL PULL YOU DOWN TO HIS LEVEL THEN WILL BEAT YOU WITH HIS EXPERIENCE

User avatar
IslamoCritic
Posts: 86
Joined: Thu May 09, 2013 6:49 pm

Re: Tolerance or Arrogance?

Post by IslamoCritic »

Prince Steven wrote:As men are given more opportunity of working they must take care of their wives and give them shelter, food and security. Men are stronger than women and it would be very funny if women were given the command of protecting their husbands.
Funny? As in how Khadijah protected Muhammad by giving him shelter, food and security? Using your own standards, I suppose Muhammad was a funny and pathetic excuse for a man who lived off his wife's fortune.
Prince Steven wrote:
“Men are the keepers of women,”
You agree with this right?
So I guess Khadijah was the man of the house and the Prophet was the women? This alone shows the Qur'an is in error. Not a surprise, considering stereotypes usually are. It could have simply stated "men and women are the protectors of each other," but that would make too much sense.
Prince Steven wrote:Islam does not order men to disrespect their wives. After they work hard all day trying to earn money for their families men simply do not deserve to be disrespected and disobeying your husband is an activity that deserves to be discouraged unless your husband insists you to do something bad.
Men are not the only people who work. Therefore that is utter nonsense only a misogynistic Neanderthal would agree with. Why doesn't the Qur'an provide instructions for women like Khadijah who are in control of the household income? The Qur'an was outdated even in the seventh century.
Prince Steven wrote:Islam teaches us to respect people and I see nothing wrong about that.
Having to obey your husband's commands isn't respect, it's slavery.
Prince Steven wrote:EVEN AFTER THAT she still disobeys you then you can beat her lightly.
Yusuf Ali is not Allah. The Qur'an says "beat", not "beat lightly".
Prince Steven wrote:Now let us see, Is Islam really giving men the permission to beat their wives? YES! But not in the way we generally beat people.
This beating is a SYMBOLIC BEATING.
Nowhere in the 6 hadith collections does it say the beating is symbolic. It is a few scholars who say this. And what was it you said to Ali about using the opinions of Islam's greatest scholars?
Prince Steven wrote:IF YOU HAVE A BETTER WAY TO TREAT YOUR WIFE PLEASE DO NOT HESITATE TO SHARE IT WITH US.
How about not beating her at all and trying to talk through your marital problems?
Prince Steven wrote:In Islam, divorcing your wife is the worst thing you can do to her. So we keep divorce as our last option!
So Muhammad considered doing to Sauda what is"the worst thing you can do to her" because she was old and unattractive?
Prince Steven wrote:Verses of quran : Forbidding mean to beat .their wives.
Can you even read English? Neither of those verses forbid beating your wives. On the other hand, Qur'an 4:34 clearly allows it.
Prince Steven wrote:Narrated Mu'awiyah al-Qushayri: "I went to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and asked him: What do you say (command) about our wives? He replied: Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them.”
(Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2139
That narration is found here: http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-t ... p#011.2139" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Why did you fail to quote the narration that directly follows it?

Narrated Abdullah ibn AbuDhubab:

Iyas ibn Abdullah ibn AbuDhubab reported the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) as saying: Do not beat Allah's handmaidens, but when Umar came to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and said: Women have become emboldened towards their husbands, he (the Prophet) gave permission to beat them. Then many women came round the family of the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) complaining against their husbands. So the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: Many women have gone round Muhammad's family complaining against their husbands. They are not the best among you.


Abu Dawud Book 11, Number 2141:
http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-t ... p#011.2141" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Meaning any hadith that say Muhammad forbid wife beating was prior to him changing his mind and allowing it.
Prince Steven wrote:Riyad as Saliheen, chapter 34, ‘treating women well’ Nr. 279. Iyas ibn 'Abdullah ibn Abi Dhubab reported that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Do not beat the female slaves of Allah." Then 'Umar came to the Prophet and said, "The women have become bold towards their husbands," and so he made an allowance to beat them. Then many women surrounded the family of the Messenger of Allah to complain about their husbands. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "The people of the household of Muhammad have surrounded by many women who are complaining about their husbands. Those men are not among the best of you."
"Those men are not among the best of you"? No, I don't think so. Let's stick to your rules and see who the major hadith collections says is "not the best among you":

Narrated Abdullah ibn AbuDhubab: Iyas ibn Abdullah ibn AbuDhubab reported the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon_him) as saying: Do not beat Allah's handmaidens, but when Umar came to the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) and said: Women have become emboldened towards their husbands, he (the Prophet) gave permission to beat them. Then many women came round the family of the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) complaining against their husbands. So the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) said: Many women have gone round Muhammad's family complaining against their husbands. They are not the best among you.

Abu Dawud Book 11, Number 2141:
http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-t ... p#011.2141" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is clear here that those who are "not the best among you" are the women who complain, not the men who beat them. This point is made even clearer by the hadith that directly follows:

Narrated Umar ibn al-Khattab:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife.


Abu Dawud Book 11, Number 2142:
http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-t ... p#011.2142" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

i.e. stop complaining, because your husbands are allowed to treat you this way.
Prince Steven wrote:I should mention a few points about the hadith.
It would be nice if you actually mentioned anything of your own, but you can't, can you? Your replies are nothing more than copy/pastes of other people's work you find via Shaykh Google. Absolutely nothing is your own.

Let me follow forum rules for you by attributing your copy/pasted source for the next section:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/k ... adiths.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Prince Steven wrote: 1. 'AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi failed to follow Noble Verse 4:34 which was sent by Allah Almighty to protect women from harmfull men.
2. The woman was trying to get back with her first husband. In Islam, if a woman gets divorced or divorces herself from her husband through the Islamic court by "Khala'", then the only way she can get back with her husband, or her husband gets back to her is by HER MARRYING ANOTHER PERSON, HAVE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH HIM, AND THEN GET A DIVORCE FROM HIM. This is to guarantee that divorce would not be a joke among Muslims.
3. The woman was claiming that her second husband was sexually no good. The husband disputed that, and brought his two sons from another marriage as a proof that he can perform sex. The Prophet peace be upon him then told the woman "by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow"
4. Aisha's opinion about the woman's bruise doesn't prove or disprove anything. She got angry because she saw another woman badly beaten, which is perfectly fine and acceptable. But her emotions and opinions are not Islamic Verdicts!
What point are you making, exactly? This is pure convoluted nonsense. Even the Prophet's silence on an issue is important. This hadith shows Muhammad provided tacit approval of beating your wives' "green". For your benefit, the definition of "tacit approval":

Tacit approval is a benign form of approval that is not expressed clearly, in words. It is silent approval. It is approval that is implied by other statements, actions or by a failure to clearly express disapproval with the situation, performance, idea, plan or request. Tacit approval may be expressed by body language such as smiling, a nod of the head, a pat on the back or a shrug of the shoulders. It can be a friendly form of encouragement and support. On the other hand it is approval that can be easily and conveniently denied as/if a situation deteriorates.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_tacit_approval" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Note the other criteria, "smiling". Then read this naration where Abu Bakr informs Muhammad he slapped Khadijah’s daughter, and he responds by laughing and allows the mother of believers to be hit by the companions:

Jabir b. 'Abdullah (Allah be pleased with them) reported: Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) came and sought permission to see Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him). He found people sitting at his door and none amongst them had been granted permission, but it was granted to Abu Bakr and he went in. Then came 'Umar and he sought permission and it was granted to him, and he found Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) sitting sad and silent with his wives around him. He (Hadrat 'Umar) said: I would say something which would make the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) laugh, so he said: Messenger of Allah, I wish you had seen (the treatment meted out to) the daughter of Khadija when you asked me some money, and I got up and slapped her on her neck. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) laughed and said: They are around me as you see, asking for extra money. Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) then got up went to 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) and slapped her on the neck, and 'Umar stood up before Hafsa and slapped her saying: You ask Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) which he does not possess. They said: By Allah, we do not ask Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) for anything he does not possess. Then he withdrew from them for a month or for twenty-nine days. Then this verse was revealed to him:" Prophet: Say to thy wives... for a mighty reward" (xxxiii. 28). He then went first to 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) and said: I want to propound something to you, 'A'isha, but wish no hasty reply before you consult your parents. She said: Messenger of Allah, what is that? He (the Holy Prophet) recited to her the verse, whereupon she said: Is it about you that I should consult my parents, Messenger of Allah? Nay, I choose Allah, His Messenger, and the Last Abode; but I ask you not to tell any of your wives what I have said He replied: Not one of them will ask me without my informing her. God did not send me to be harsh, or cause harm, but He has sent me to teach and make things easy.

Sahih Muslim Book 009, Number 3506:
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc ... l#009.3506" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Prince Steven wrote:By the way the hadith tells only one part of the incident, it doesn’t mention anything about the decision made by the prophet after this incident , simply because only one part of the story is known and written down. So it’s rediculous to say that Islam and the prophet allowed wife beating, as a matter of fact the opposite is true!
On the contrary, I provided evidence he first disallowed, but then changed his mind. Additionally, your logic is flawed and you're a hypocrite. You won't even accept the educated and referenced claims/opinions of Islam's greatest scholars, yet expect us to accept mere speculation by you of what may have took place later? I could likewise claim Muhammad and Umar later gang-raped Khadijah's daughter. This is no more ridiculous than what you claim (i.e. that he may have later scolded the wife-beater).
Prince Steven wrote:Men are not required to cover whole of their body in public but women are told to do so. Why?
I could speculate that it is to hide all their bruises (this would explain why men are not allowed to damage the face), but we all know the real reason Muslim women have to cover up: http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Revelation_of_the_Hijab" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Prince Steven wrote:I am not done. Tomorrow I will blast the rest of your claims……..
Quick! Start Googling for more answers to copy/paste as your own.

frankie
Posts: 2612
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:10 pm

Re: Tolerance or Arrogance?

Post by frankie »

Prince Steven wrote:I am not done. Tomorrow I will blast the rest of your claims……..

I am still waiting for my claims to be "blasted",are you up for the job,or are you taking the cowards way out again by giving your lame excuses?

All what you have written is purely academic only,and has no meaning or truth in it whatsoever.

The reason,Mohammed was a fake,he had no perception of true spirituality, because he just used what he already knew, and turned it into one big fat deception,the one you call Islam.

You don't need to take my word for it,the answers are held within the pages of your own Islamic writings,and the (pagan) rituals you follow which identify you as a Muslim.These are nothing but Pre Islamic pagan rituals, which Mohammed used to make his new invention look authentic.

He left in place a pagan idol familiar to him and his tribe, The Black Stone,which you as a Muslim still circumambulate,along with running up and down two hills,throwing stones at pillars etc,all practiced by pagan Arabs before,during and after Mohammeds time.

Have a look at what the Quran and hadith say:

Muhammad's pagan tribe, the Quraish, fasted on the 10th of Muharram. Though optional, Muhammad retained this pagan practice too.

Narrated 'Aisha: 'Ashura' (i.e. the tenth of Muharram) was a day on which the tribe of Quraish used to fast in the pre-lslamic period of ignorance. The Prophet also used to fast on this day. So when he migrated to Medina, he fasted on it and ordered (the Muslims) to fast on it. When the fasting of Ramadan was enjoined, it became optional for the people to fast or not to fast on the day of Ashura.

Sahih Bukhari 5:58:172

Tawaf between Safa and Marwa

Doing Tawaf between Safa and Marwa is an Islamic ritual associated with the pilgrimage to Mecca. Safa and Marwa are two mounts, located at Mecca. This ritual entails Muslims walking frantically between the two mounts, seven times. This was originally a pagan pre-Islamic practice. Muhammad retained it for Islam, sanctioning it with yet another Qur'anic revelation.[7]

Narrated 'Asim: I asked Anas bin Malik: "Did you use to dislike to perform Tawaf between Safa and Marwa?" He said, "Yes, as it was of the ceremonies of the days of the Pre-lslamic period of ignorance, till Allah revealed: 'Verily! (The two mountains) As-Safa and Al-Marwa are among the symbols of Allah. It is therefore no sin for him who performs the pilgrimage to the Ka'ba, or performs 'Umra, to perform Tawaf between them.' " (2.158)
Source:
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Pagan_Origins_of_Islam" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So you can see,the foundations of Islam are pagan,whatever you may write to defend your faith it is totally futile,because it is an invention of a deluded Arabian,who originally thought (correctly as it turned out) he was visited by demons, but was persuaded by friends and family he was a prophet,from the same mold as all Bible prophets.His ways and example however prove this not to be the case,as does the book called the Quran,which has more than enough evidence to show the same falsehood.

As you so rightly point out:

When the truth comes before falsehood, falsehood perishes for falsehood, by its nature meant to perish.’

Islam is perishing as we write, because Islam is false

Prince Steven
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat May 04, 2013 1:40 pm

Re: Tolerance or Arrogance?

Post by Prince Steven »

I made a slight mistake and I hope you will forgive me. You see I thought it will be easy for me to answer all the claims in 1 day. I have been very busy so i did not get a chance to touch the topic yet!I will need some time. So Ali Sina ,you can work on other things while I come back!! I will post my response with in the 15th of May. Thank you

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Tolerance or Arrogance?

Post by manfred »

That is something I really sympathise with and I think happens to all of us.

Just don't forget to come back!
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

Ali Sina
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 1:52 am

Re: Tolerance or Arrogance?

Post by Ali Sina »

Don't be delusional Steven, You can't answer logic. No one has and no one will. Do you think if Muslims could answer me they would not have done it by now? I am offering $50,000 dollars reward and the promise to shut down my site along with a public recognition that Islam is true. Is this not enough incentive for Muslims to refute me? I am doing this now for 15 years. Even without the money Muslims should have volunteered to put an end to my claims and my sites. Why they haven't? It is because they can't.

It is not that I don't accept my errors. I always do. I have been corrected many times. But the core of the message that Islam is false has never been refuted.

Now instead of wasting more of your time, trying to come up with more absurd excuses which I will dismantle in no time, why don't you order an e-book version of my book from Amazon and read it? My book can save many years of your life. No one has read it without being affected by it. The reason it is convincing is because I have answered the questions I had myself as a believer. All Muslims believe in the same fallacies.

If you don't want to buy it, ask me and I will send you the 4th edition. But if you want to spend tens of hours reading it, I think it is worth to read the 6th edition. The improvements are substantial. Understanding Muhammad can change your life. It is the best investment of your time you have ever made. Once you come to see the truth you will be the first to acknowledge it. And if you don't agree and think you can prove me wrong then this is a great way to refute the charges and claim your victory. Since faithfreedom is famous, you'll get all the glory for shutting it down.

zitouni
Posts: 312
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:04 pm

Re: Tolerance or Arrogance?

Post by zitouni »

"Ali Sina" :
Yes there is. Here they are:
2:191, And slay them wherever ye catch them

2:193, And fight them on until there is no more fitnah (dissension)

2:216, Fighting is prescribed for you, and you dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you

3:28, Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah

4:84, Then fight in Allah’s cause.

5:33, The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger (oppose them), and strive with might and main for mischief through the land (show that Islam is a lie) is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;

8:12, I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them

8:17, It is not ye who slew them; it was Allah:

8:60, Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies

8:65, O Prophet! rouse the Believers to the fight.

9:5, But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem.

9:14, Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers,

9:29, Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, 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.

9:39, Unless ye go forth, (for Jihad) He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least.

9:73, O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed.

9:111, Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur’an

9:123, O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.

22:9, (Disdainfully) bending his side, in order to lead (men) astray from the Path of Allah: for him there is disgrace in this life, and on the Day of Judgment We shall make him taste the Penalty of burning (Fire).

47:4, Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length,

48:13 And if any believe not in Allah and His Messenger, We have prepared, for those who reject Allah, a Blazing Fire!
48:29, Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other.
[/quote]


I have already responded to those verses and you keep repeating the same stupidity. I told you that you have to read those verses in their historical context . They were revealed during war time if Muslims understood them the way you did then no Kafirs should have been left alive in Midlle east since 1400 years ago . You should seek psycological evaluation you are sick liar.

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Tolerance or Arrogance?

Post by manfred »

... and all that has been debunked, too. The war of Islam, the war of the Muslims against all non-Muslims has continued for 1400 years, on a daily basis.

You are taking part in it, by trying to spread false information about Islam.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

Prince Steven
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat May 04, 2013 1:40 pm

Re: Tolerance or Arrogance?

Post by Prince Steven »

Hello everyone.
I have been a bit busy for the last two days and I was a bit feverish yesterday.
Now I am back and I am sorry that I could not post this within the 15th of May..
Ali Sina, let me tell you something, your claims and your questions are not bothering me, not even a bit. To be honest debating with you is turning out to be much easier than I thought it would be. I suggested that we do this on E-mail but you had to bring this in YOUR forum. It does not matter much though. I prefer hunting tigers in their own territory rather than bringing one them in my city and killing it with the help of my friends. However my place and your place does not matter much as I am completely ignoring the garbage your friends are posting. I will have to admit they are indeed successful in causing me a lot of trouble; I am facing difficulties finding out your junk in this pile of garbage.

It does not matter you take the logical approach or the illogical approach. Lies will always perish in front of the truth. The reason I will eventually win this debate is that I am both logical and truthful. You can go for your outside chance of victory but it will be very difficult for you to prove things that are TOTALLY…………f.cked up!!

‘The rights of women in Islam is similar to the rights of slaves. Men are the keepers of women, while the women should protect what belongs to the husband and be grateful to them for providing for them and must obey them and if the husband fears that his wife is thinking of disobeying him he can abuse him verbally, emotionally and physically (Q. 4:34) and no one can question as to why a man beats his wife.’

‘The rights of women in Islam is similar to the rights of slaves’

Well slavery was a very common thing back then, thankfully this is no longer an issue for the 21st century. Islam could not abolish the system of slavery but Islam did try to improve their status. Our great prophet Muhammad encouraged people to free their slaves but it did not change things much. Slaves under the Islamic rule were in a much better position than the slaves of the other parts of the world; most importantly for the first time in Arab slaves were given the right to own their own property.

A wise man should not compare the rights of slaves with the rights of women. You have just made a very stupid claim. There is nothing much I can do about this. No evidence no proof no anything. It is like saying the Moon is flying in the sky. Things are not always what they appear to be.
‘’If the husband fears that his wife is thinking of disobeying him he can abuse him verbally, emotionally and physically’’
I want evidence. Your rubbish claims won’t do. A criminal gets punished after he commits a crime. Punishing him assuming that he might commit a crime is a punishable. activity itself. If a person abuses his wife thinking that she might do something wrong then he should certainly be punished. ISLAM DOES NOT ENCOURAGE THIS
Now moving on to the next point. ‘he can abuse him verbally, emotionally and physically’’’

Please write carefully, he can abuse ‘her’ verbally…

According to Islam, A MAN CANNOT PUNISH HIS WIFE. It is just things that he can do for himself to adjust to the situation and control his wife. When your wife is doing something wrong you will have to talk to her and make her understand. Discussion is the best way to solve a problem. Does Islam support my claim? Here is a hadith

Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) reported Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) as saying: "He who believes in Allah and the Hereafter, if he witnesses any matter he should talk in good terms about it or keep quiet. Act kindly towards woman, for woman is created from a rib, and the most crooked part of the rib is its top. If you attempt to straighten it, you will break it, and if you leave it, its crookedness will remain there. So act kindly towards women. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Book 008, Number 3468)"

This tells us everything we need to know. How it came, from where it came does not matter. Still I suggest you to look at the background of this hadith and see whether you can come up with any disturbing information or not.

REMEMBER: WHEN YOUR WIFE DISOBEYS YOU OR BECOMES DISRESPECTFUL OR DOES WRONG THINGS; THE FIRST THING YOU SHOULD DO IS TO MAKE HER UNDERSTAND IN A VERY POLITE WAY!!
For first offense Islam does not allow ANYTHING more than this!


, ‘emotionally and physically’’’

You can neither abuse her emotionally nor can you abuse her physically. I am about to prove that this is Totally Prohibited in ISLAM.

I told you for first offense you should make your wife understand. If you are a good human being this is where you should stop! Keep explaining this to her. Help her understand help her realize, explain everything to her. Try to correct her in a very good way. Perhaps that’s the best thing you can do. 1 year 2 year 10 year keep waiting maybe someday your wife will listen to you.

You can not have two people constantly fighting and having a very good relationship at the same time. If your wife does not realize that what she is doing is indeed bad then you will have to keep explaining no matter how long it takes. In some cases your wife maybe aware of the fact that she is doing some wrong things. However she is not stopping because she likes doing it!! In that case you can stop having sex with her. This is NOT an encouragement this is a LIMITATION. This is the worst punishment you can give her. For second offense you may not make her suffer more than this. If you have a better way of handling things then apply it!!
Do anything to prevent harshness and obey the command of the Glorious Quran

O ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness, that ye may take away part of the dower [money given by the husband to the wife for the marriage contract] ye have given them, except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and God brings about through it a great deal of good. (The Noble Quran, 4:19)"

If things get better than its done nothing else is needed. But if things get REALLY WORSE then you are merely allowed to give your wife a symbolic beating .
Maintaining the following conditions
1. Don’t beat her such a way that it may leave a mark on her body
2. Do not hit her on the face
3. Do not hit her with a hard material.

Remember this is the last thing you can do before divorcing her. If things totally fail you can divorce her but it should be the last option as
Marriage in Islam is something sacred, because it prevents the Muslim from doing sins and it is a great way to settle down with the spouse he/she loves.

Now let us have a good look at the story Bukhari: 7: 72:715


Narrated 'Ikrima:
Rifa'a divorced his wife whereupon 'AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. 'Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's Apostle came, 'Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering AS MUCH AS THE BELIEVING WOMEN. Look! Her skin IS GREENER THAN HER CLOTHES!." When 'AbdurRahman heard that his wife had gone to the Prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, "By Allah! I have done no wrong to him but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this," holding and showing the fringe of her garment, 'Abdur-Rahman said, "By Allah, O Allah's Apostle! She has told a lie! I am very strong and can satisfy her but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifa'a." Allah's Apostle said, to her, "If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifa'a unless 'Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you." Then the Prophet saw two boys with 'Abdur-Rahman and asked (him), "Are these your sons?" On that 'AbdurRahman said, "Yes." The Prophet said, "You claim what you claim (i.e. that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow,"

I should mention a few points about the hadith.

1. 'AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi failed to follow Noble Verse 4:34 which was sent by Allah Almighty to protect women from harmful men.
2. The woman was trying to get back with her first husband. In Islam, if a woman gets divorced or divorces herself from her husband through the Islamic court by "Khala'", then the only way she can get back with her husband, or her husband gets back to her is by HER MARRYING ANOTHER PERSON, HAVE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH HIM, AND THEN GET A DIVORCE FROM HIM. This is to guarantee that divorce would not be a joke among Muslims.
3. The woman was claiming that her second husband was sexually no good. The husband disputed that, and brought his two sons from another marriage as a proof that he can perform sex. The Prophet peace be upon him then told the woman "by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow"
4. Aisha's opinion about the woman's bruise doesn't prove or disprove anything. She got angry because she saw another woman badly beaten, which is perfectly fine and acceptable. But her emotions and opinions are not Islamic Verdicts!

5. By the way the hadith tells only one part of the incident, it doesn’t mention anything about the decision made by the prophet after this incident, simply because only one part of the story is known and written down. So it’s ridiculous to say that Islam and the prophet allowed wife beating, as a matter of fact the opposite is true!
I have posted this before as well; some of your friends told me that Muhammad’s silence on this matter proves that he supported what AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi did.
There are many ayats which clearly prohibits Muslim men to beat their wives. You guys surely never heard of them right? But you do hear ‘Muhammad’s silence’. Hadiths do not contain each and every word of our Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). It only contains some of his important teachings. I have a question for you. “by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow" . What did Muhammad do after saying this? He sat down , stood up? Went home? Went anywhere else? Slept?.
There are no certain answers to these questions. Why? Because what Muhammad did after that, is not important. This ayat tells us that after marrying a man, a woman can not demand divorce until she has Intercourse with him.
Maybe Muhammad punished the man for not obeying the Quran maybe the woman forgave him and there was no punishment, maybe she got the divorce she wanted, whatever happened is not important because everything was already mentioned and likely things happened according to them..
So we can not say for sure Muhammad was silent , even if we was we should follow his words not his silence.
Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 11, Number 2142
A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife. The word ‘beat’ does not exist in the arabic hadith , the word should be ‘hit’ not beat.
As I previously mentioned there are some conditions of ‘hitting’. Allah will not ask a man why he hits his wife as long as he is wihin the conditions. A MAN HAS A RIGHT OF HITTING HIS WIFE IN THE INSTRUCTED WAY. What about wives? Here is something for them.
It is the right of the Muslim wife that she is not to be hit except in the case of nushooz (repeated rebellion against the husband’s authority, mentioned in Quran verse 4:34)
So a man can not hit his wife whenever he wishes. It was not very wise of you to quote this ayat Ali Sina, Tell me, will your God question you for doing this? Oh.. you think you do not have a God right? Then the question of questioning or not questioning does not come . Then how is atheism better than Islam? You think Islam is bad because a man wont be asked why he hits his wife, well in atheism you will not be asked anything about how you behaved with your wife. So before you question others question yourself.
Dawud: 12: 2220
So what is the objection? The woman wanted a divorce. The prophet gave the man a part of his OWN property and got her the divorced she wanted .This shows our Prophet was a very generous man. Nothing wrong with this one.
‘equal rights between men and women. This is not possible in Islam where women are regarded as inferior to men’
If a husband has a degree of advantage over his wife, it does not mean that MEN have a degree of advantage over WOMAN. You have to respect your mother, obey her behave nicely with her but your mother does not have to listen to you neither needs to obey you. Your mother is a Woman and you are a Man. So this proves in Islam it’s actually the Women who have a degree of advantage over men. (According to your way of thinking)
I believe Rights should be proportional to Responsibilities
The more Responsibilities you have the more Rights you should be given. Policemen are permitted to carry guns. Normal citizens are usually not given this permission. This is because policemen have more responsibilities than Normal citizens.
Islam is based on the same thing. When it comes to Equality, R is proportional to R .
You may ask, ‘then why are not women given more responsibilities?’ The answer to this question is ‘because of their physical capabilities’ Men are stronger than women and you must have heard the proverb. “With great power come great responsibilities.”
So this is the natural way to go. Women are permitted to work but their husbands can not force them to work. Furthermore when a woman earns money she can keep the money for herself but when a man earns money he must spend it after his family.
Islam is not only for men it is for women. We have to follow the rules set for us and women have to follow rules set for them. If you think the rules are illogical I will prove that they are logical but if you do not want to follow the rules then you belong to the category of people who thinks burning in hell is better than following the rules.
By the way among all the people in the world who accepted Islam as the true religion between the years 1950 to 2010 almost 75 percent of them are women. You are right Ali Sina , there is no proof that men are smarter than women. Women are indeed smart!
Challenge to Ali Sina: Find me an authentic hadith or verse from the Quran which suggests that Muhammad used to misbehave with his wives.

I found three hadiths that suggests something like this, at first glance it seemed that way but after reading again and again I got the actual meaning and I now have their answers. 99% of the atheists attack the Muslims in the same way. Now the question is will you try to approach my challenges like the other anti Islamics or you will try to be smart and accept that this challenges can not be met? What to do ,what to do? Choose wisely.
Ali wrote:
if they are not Muslim, a believer owes them no respect. In fact the Sira says that when Abu Sufyan came to Medina and went to the house of his daughter Habibah, who was a wife of Muhammad she did not allow him to sit on the carpet, on which Muhammad used to sit. So much for parental respect.


We should be kind and nice to every non muslim ,as long as they are okay with the fact that We ARE Muslims. In case of our Parents if they try to make us leave Islam we will have to make them understand but we should never be disrespectful.

Here are some verses.(these are unconditional verses for muslim and for non muslim parents)

{And (remember) when We made a covenant with the Children of Israel, (saying): Worship none save Allah (only), and be good to parents and to kindred and to orphans and the needy, and speak kindly to mankind; and establish worship and pay the poor due. Then, after that, ye slid back, save a few of you, being averse.} (Al-Baqarah 2:83)

{And serve Allah. Ascribe no thing as partner unto Him. (Show) kindness unto parents, and unto near kindred, and orphans, and the needy, and into the neighbor who is of kin (unto you) and the neighbor who is not of kin and the fellow traveler and the wayfarer and (the slaves) whom your right hands possess. Lo! Allah loveth not such as are proud and boastful.} (An-Nisaa 4:36)


{Thy Lord hath decreed, that ye worship none save Him, and (that ye show) kindness to parents. If one of them or both of them to attain old age with thee, say not "Fie" unto them nor repulse them, but speak unto them a gracious word.} (Al-Israa 17:23)

{And it was said unto his son): O John! Hold the Scripture. And We gave him wisdom when a child, and compassion from Our presence, and purity; and he was devout, and dutiful toward his parents. And he was not arrogant, rebellious.} (Maryam 19:12-14)

{And We have enjoined upon man concerning his parents. His mother beareth him in weakness upon weakness, and his weaning is in two years. Give thanks unto Me and unto thy parents. Unto Me is the journeying. But if they strive with thee to make thee ascribe unto Me as partner that of which thou hast no knowledge, then obey them not. Consort with them in the world kindly, and follow the path of him who repenteth unto Me. Then unto Me will be your return, and I shall tell you what ye used to do.} (Luqman 31:14-15)

THESE AYATS WERE MEANT FOR ALL TIMES AND NOT FOR A SPECIFIC SITUATION. You can look at their backgrounds if you want.



I should love myself and each person should love themselves. Then this love grows and spreads.
Yes Ali Sina , you should love yourself. That is what selfish people can do when they are hated by everyone!! Muslims think of each other as their brothers. Not only that we also believe in universal brotherhood.
As an atheist you do need to love yourself because no one else in going to.
Believers are loved by Allah! Allah has prohibited the consumption of things that are harmful to our body. Suicide is also haram in Islam. The Quran tells us not to anyhow damage our bodies. So you see there is nothing special about loving ourselves as everyone does the same.
He suffered from malignant self-love. Yes we should love each other as human beings but no one should be loved more.
We should love each other right? Then what’s wrong with malignant self-love. The thing is our prophet did not force us to love him. We love him for the great person he was. He was the greatest man on Earth!
It is you who thinks we are forced to love him. I do not have to love Muhammad. Muslims do not have to love him, but they can not help it because love comes from the heart. Also Allah told us to respect him and follow his instruction so we are actually following Allah’s orders. It is not possible to believe in Allah and hate Muhammad.

its seeds can scattered all around and adjacent lands blossom too.
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE DOING. Scattering the seeds of love. Loving others and teaching them to love others. If you are not a good human being then you are not a Muslim. We know how to love people and so it is our duty to teach others to do the same. This is one reason people waste so much time preaching Islam. This is why we preach love and peace. Have you ever heard anyone saying ‘join my religion and kill’?
I believe every religion supports peace and love but no religion wants peace as much as Islam.

Yes I know Muslims often use this as a way to cop-out and avoid having to respond to difficult questions, but they can't do without the Sira and tafseer. It is impossible to understand Islam without these two sources.
Islam is a religion. We do not follow people, we follow religion. When a verse is explained by Islamic scholars there is a chance that the explanation is not correct. If you like to quote from EVERYWHERE you can do it I will not object. I request you to point it out to your followers that only quoting from the authentic sources will land You into trouble and not ME. The Quran is a complete book which tells us to refer to Muhammad for more explanation. Muhammad put his explanations in the hadiths. The hadiths does not tell us to follow sirats and tafseers. So you see the path is lost. But if you think I am avoiding the sirats and tafseers to escape from difficult questions then PLEASE GO AHEAD and quote whatever you want. I was only objecting as both of us believe that these biographies are ‘sanitized’.
I have no guarantee that these biographies are just as they used to be. So I can not always defend them. However I believe that the Quran and Hadiths are unaltered so I am confident about defending them.

Second Challenge: An authentic verse from the Quran and hadith which tells us that we have to believe in Sirats and tafseers.


Islam is complete Allah did not depend on people to make Islam understandable. Allah says in the Quran ‘And we have indeed made the Qur'an easy to understand and remember, then is there any that will remember’. The Quran and hadiths can be explained further and things can be cleared out but certainly we do not have to believe in new added up things. The word history tells us ‘his-story’. We do not have to understand Islam by Muhammad’s history. We will have to judge his teachings. Which are recorded in the 6 books of hadith.
As long as there are countries that are not controlled by the Sharia law, they are dar al harb and Muslims must wage war on them.

Again, can you demonstrate this? Did Muhammad wage war on neighboring countries?
I AM NOT OBJECTING I AM DEMANDING PROOF!!

Muhammad raided 78 times in the years he lived in Medina. All his raids were collected in various books of Maghazi (plural of ghawa meaning raids). Here are a few examples of such raids.
Narrated Ibn Aun: I wrote a letter to Nafi and Nafi wrote in reply to my letter that the Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day. Nafi said that Ibn 'Umar had told him the above narration and that Ibn 'Umar was in that army. [Bukhari:3: 46: 717]
The tribe Bani Mustaliq were preparing to launch an attack on the Muslims. The Muslims had foreknowledge about this, therefore they took the initiative and attacked first. The Bani Mustaliq were not aware that the Muslims knew about their preparation for war, therefore they were surprised as to why the Muslims attacked them.

It is alleged by some anti-Islamic writers that the Prophet Muhammad allowed the Muslim men to have sex with the women captives of Bani Mustaliq. However this is fabrication and a lie,

The Bani Mustaliq were allies with the Meccans. They hated Islam and wanted to bring it down-- they planned an attack on Prophet Muhammad and the Muslims.

Muhammad had received news that the tribe was gathering together against the Muslims under the leadership of al-Harith ibn Abu Dirar.tribe Banu Mustaliq was preparing to go launch an attack on Madinah, but the Muslims caught wind of their plan and quickly raised a defense force of 700 men who marched forward to the strategic point of Al-Marisa'. The Muslim army then sent a message to Banu Mustaliq to accept Islam, and in doing so abandon their hostilities and continue to live in peace and security in their own land. Instead of accepting this offer Banu Mustalaq declared war and shot one of the Muslim soldiers with an arrow, at which point wild fighting broke out.

After minimal casualties, the Muslim forces were victorious. Among the many captives was Juwayriya, whose husband, Mustafa bin Safwan, had been killed in the battle. She initially fell among the booty of Muhammad's companion Thabit b. Qays b. Al-Shammas. Troubled by this, Juwayriya sought a deed of redemption from Muhammad. Muhammad proposed to marry her and as a result freed her from the bondage of Thabit b. Qais and consequently ameliorated the condition of her captured tribe.

The account is recorded in the hadith:

Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin:Juwayriyyah, daughter of al-Harith ibn al-Mustaliq, fell to the lot of Thabit ibn Qays ibn Shammas, or to her cousin. She entered into an agreement to purchase her freedom. She was a very beautiful woman, most attractive to the eye.

Aisha said: She then came to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) asking him for the purchase of her freedom. When she was standing at the door, I looked at her with disapproval. I realised that the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) would look at her in the same way that I had looked.

She said: Apostle of Allah, I am Juwayriyyah, daughter of al-Harith, and something has happened to me, which is not hidden from you. I have fallen to the lot of Thabit ibn Qays ibn Shammas, and I have entered into an agreement to purchase of my freedom. I have come to you to seek assistance for the purchase of my freedom.

The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: Are you inclined to that which is better? She asked: What is that, Apostle of Allah? He replied: I shall pay the price of your freedom on your behalf, and I shall marry you.

She said: I shall do this. She (Aisha) said: The people then heard that the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) had married Juwayriyyah. They released the captives in their possession and set them free, and said: They are the relatives of the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) by marriage. We did not see any woman greater than Juwayriyyah who brought blessings to her people.



Third Challenge to Ali Sina : Quote any sahi hadith or Quranic verse that suggests Muhammad was a person of an offensive nature.


We are not permitted to kill innocent people.
By Me.

You say this because you are ignorant of the history of Islam as you confessed that you did not read it and don’t believe in it. As far as Islam is concerned no one is innocent unless they accept Islam.


Well I do know about history but the problem is I am not willing to learn from the history. I have the Quran and the hadiths. If history does anything against Quran and hadiths it is not my fault.
That sounds good. The problem is that it is not a teaching of Muhammad. It is a quote from Judaic scriptures. It is taken from Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 4:1 (22a)
"
Whoever destroys a soul, it is considered as if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world."
Killing one person is not the same as the genocide of all mankind. This passage only makes sense in its context. It is related to the mythology of Abel and Cain. Since these two brothers were the only men at that time, killing one of them would have prevented his offspring to be born and humanity would not have come to exist.
Right that is not Muhammad’s teaching. That is Allah’s teaching. He taught the same thing to all the other prophets and told them to pass on the knowledge to the normal people. If that is written in the Quran then Muslims are bound to follow it. What do you mean when you say it is not Muhammad’s teachings? Muhammad did not want us to follow this?

It is related to the mythology of Abel and Cain. Since these two brothers were the only men at that time, killing one of them would have prevented his offspring to be born and humanity would not have come to exist

Oh really? So you are suggesting killing one of them would finish the whole human race?
Preventing your grandson from taking birth is killing him? That means, if I kill you will the police charge 1000000000 murder cases against me?

Okay Ali Sina let me put it this way. If there are two man living then killing one of them does not mean the ‘WHOLE’ of humanity is dead. For argument sake let us suppose that it really does kill the whole of humanity. If we consider that what would you say about this part of the verse?” if you kill one person unjustly ………….”
Then why does the Question of unjustly come? You can kill hi justly and you can kill him unjustly it makes no difference. Whatever you do would finish up the whole human race.

Plus Abel and Cain were NOT the only man at that time. Adam was still living and he hadhis other sons as well. A LOT OF THEM. Most importantly nowhere it is written that this rule was only applicable for that time. The Quran is for the whole of humanity and the laws are meant for people of all times.

So stop making rubbish claims.

Killing one person is not the same as the genocide of all mankind

Ofcourse it is not. Allah just wanted to emphasize on how dangerous it is to kill just one person and how big a sin this is. This shows that Islam is putting a lot of focus on this matter and killing of innocent people is STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
Allah in the Qur'an is claiming ownership of something he never said.
That is a very stupid point. If anyone who is not anyhow related to Allah teaches us not to lie that do not mean that prophets can not teach us the same thing. The verse of the Judaic scripture that you quoted resembles this statement but it is not the same. You have no proof that Allah copied the verse from there. Any way ‘The Talmud is not the word of God. It is the recorded teachings of Sanhedrin, the high council of rabbis’
Then why did you mention it is a Judaic scripture?
“unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land.” This disclaimer does not exist in the original text of the Talmud.

The Quran is not trying to copy anything here. The fact that all of the words of these two verses are different is enough to prove what I am saying. Bibles contradicts with their own teachings but when Allah put this verse in the Quran he was well aware of the fact that killing is sometimes necessary. This is obvious!

This verse emphasizes that killing is bad. But Muhammad said fighting is good.
“Fighting is prescribed for you, and you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and love a thing which is bad for you? But God knows and you know not.
In simple English the verse meant this : Warfare (for the sake of Allah) has been ordained for you, though it is not something you like. It is possible that the thing you detest might just (turn out to) be good for you. It is possible that the thing you like (the most) might in reality be bad for you. Allah knows (all) while you know nothing (at all)!

The Quran says Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors.

"But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things). (The Noble Quran, 8:61)"


"If thou dost stretch thy hand against me, to slay me, it is not for me to stretch my hand against thee to slay thee: for I do fear God, the cherisher of the worlds. (The Noble Quran, 5:28)"

There is a difference between killing and fighting. Fighting is neither good nor bad. It depends on what you are fighting and why you are fighting. If policemen can not fight criminals will win every time. Why do countries have armed forces and weapons if fighting was a bad thing?
“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter." (5:33)

Hmm I smell hypocrisy. Just a moment ago you were talking as if waging a war is a very bad thing. I told you before Islam allows self defense. When people try to kill us because of our religion we should fight back. It is you Ali Sina, who thinks killing the Muslims is okay and people who does should not be harmed.

‘to crucifiy and to cut off the hands and feet of those who don't agree with Islam. Not very tolerant.’
Hey hey hey, stop …. WAGING WAR ON SOMETHING………..And NOT BELIEVING IN SOMETHING are two different things You explained quite neatly that people who wage war against Muslims should be killed and after all that explanations you suddenly jump to the conclusion that Muslims are told to kill any one who does not believe in Allah.
Challenge to Ali Sina: Find me a verse of the Quran which tells us to kill unbelievers for nothing!

Who the hell are you (or any Muslim) to decide how others should interpret their religion? This is the problem with Islam. Muslims put their nose in everybody’s business and belief. This is the reason we can’t tolerate them and we must either eliminate Islam or separate Muslims from the rest of the people so they can’t meddle on other people’s lives and cause mischief.
I am not deciding anything; I am just quoting the authentic scriptures. Muslims do not put their noses in everybody’s belief, as we are not blind believers we like to gain knowledge of every religion, if we do not then there is simply no way of finding out the truth. Ali Sina if you do not like Islam then do not follow why do you want to prove Islam was a bad religion to all its believers. You do not like the ideas of any ‘religions’. So you do not really care who worships what. What I am saying is that hindus should mind their OWN scriptures not ours and their own scriptures suggests the idea of 1 god. Just like Islam

People make idols as avatars of gods whom they worshiped. It is the spirit behind it that they worship. This has been true for thousands of years in every culture.
That is your misconception Ali Sina. Okay tell me this, how do I worship an idol? I mean suppose I have created a wax statue of flying spaghetti monster! Now I want to worship it. What can I do to the statue that will convince you that I am actually worshipping the statue and not the spirit behind it? If you can put your Gods Spirit in a statue then you can also put it inside a jar. Then you can worship the jar itself. Why waste so much money?

They choose to look stupid lest the world realizes their prophet was an ignorant impostor
Hmm we will soon see who ends up being STUPID!!

. having jealousy for someone that does not exist is insane.
Let us say that I am jealous that my wife may look at other men and live in constant fear that she may cheat on me. I may threaten her that if she goes with other men I will punish her, torture her, dismember her, etc. In that case I need psychological help. I must be locked up. I am nuts. But what if we live in an island where there is no other man except me. Then my paranoia is really insane.


Let me remind you Ali Sina , you may have a slight most dependency on your wife, Allah does not depend on for anything! This life is a test for us not him! If we manage to live in the way he wills we will enter heaven if we do not then we will enter hell. Everything is for us. Allah is not jealous of us worshipping anything other than him. That is just one of the things we told us not to do. If you know all the rules and still choose not to obey him then why the hell will he save you? I may threaten her that if she goes with other men I will punish her, torture her, dismember her, etc. In that case I need psychological help. I must be locked up. I am nuts and you are very lucky Allah is not doing that to you. I do not understand why is he letting you live? What does it take?. a stroke? Then its all over. You are dead. That’s it , so much for Ali Sina.
The feeling of jealousy does not come in Allah. You can not worship both Allahand another god together.

The example you gave is all I need t prove that Allah’s anger in this case is indeed logical.
may look at other men and live in constant fear that she may cheat on me.
The question of ‘may’ does not come. Here we are talking about people who are already worshiping other gods. Imay threaten her that if she goes with other men I will punish her, torture her, dismember her, etc. In that case I need psychological help
The situation is not like this. The situation is that your wife married another guy and still wants to maintain a healthy relation with you. You are not doing anything to her. She is living the way she wants to.
But what if we live in an island where there is no other man except me. Then my paranoia is really insane
Then it is your wife who needs psychological help. Suppose no one there in the island. Everyday your wife wakes up and makes tea for her imaginary husband. Spends 20 hours a day with her imaginary husband and at night asks you to sleep on the floor because she wants to sleep with her imaginary husband. You can take this for at best 20 years. Allah is taking this for your whole life and the whole lives of other unbelievers. The best thing you can do in this situation is to break up with her. This means you will not carry out her expenses and will pay for her food, her shelter and you will not keep any relation with her. When Allah does this to a person it means he will not take the responsibilities of taking him to heaven. Logical? Ever thought what would happen if your wife did not believe in your existence? Or what if she makes a statue and declares it her husband?
Wouldn’t that be a sight!!
Respect? You Muslims deserve derision, not respect. You are the stupidest people that ever lived in this plane
t

You have a extremely foul mouth Mr Ali Sina. It amuses me!
O ye who believe ! fight such of the disbelievers as are near to you and let them find hardness in you; and know that ALLAH is with the
righteous. 9:123
Another word for harsh is ‘stern’ which means ‘Serious and unrelenting ‘

In this verse Allah is telling the Muslims to be ‘relentless’ when people offer us to leave Islam or change our ways. When they come to preach and tell us good things about their religion and bad things about Islam like you. We should not weaken our belief on ALLAH and we should try to maintain a strong faith on him. The last part also tells the same thing ‘ALLAH is with the
righteous’. If you have faith on the right thing ALLAH will be with you. So we can not get deviated. When Allah says ‘fight such of the disbelievers as are near to you’ He actually means that we should be able to reply to their claims and questions. They can not preach if they are not near us.
How can my heart be impure when I don’t hate any human and the heart of you Muslims be pure when your hatred of all mankind takes you to such extreme that you happily blow up your selves in order to kill them

Pure heart of Ali Sina
:
Respect? You Muslims deserve derision, not respect. You are the stupidest people that ever lived in this planet
About the suicide bombing thing. O ye who believe!... [do not] kill yourselves, for truly Allah has been to you Most Merciful. If any do that in rancour and injustice, soon shall We cast him into the Fire..." (Koran 4:29-30)

It is strictly forbidden in Islam and I am completely against this. Few Muslims drink wine and eat pork as well but that does not represent the true face of my religion.

Challenge to Ali Sina: Find me anything from the Quran that promotes the idea of suicide bombing.

Don’t you want to have freedom of speech? Will you not cry victim if it is denied to you? If freedom of speech is so bad why you Muslims want to have all the freedoms when you live in non-Muslim majority countries?
You know Steven, I think I am wasting my time with you. I now can see you are a too stupid to grasp anything. "Freedom of speech is bad, you are filthy for supporting it. But I want it. It is my human rights." If this is not hypocrisy what is?

Get a life poor man. It is sad to see how Islam ruins the brain of people. No drug can do more damage.
Ali Sina , A lot of people supports freedom of speech. Calling them filthy is unwise. However the approach you took is not a logical one. When someone says something that goes against me I do not simple stop talking to him. I ask for the reasons for this claims and I try to see things in his way. If that is not logical then I explain that to him. A logical person would have asked me why I do not support freedom of speech. Instead of behaving childishly like you did.
Honestly speaking I do support the idea that everyone must have the right of speaking freely but I am unwilling to give any one the right of insulting freely. I do not support FREEDOM OF INSULT.
Plus Ali Sina you have called Muslims by many bad names and they are more important to me than people who supports freedom of speech are to you.

This verse is not an injunction for universal love of all the people. It allows Muslims to not shun their relatives or reject their gifts if they don’t oppose Islam. It means a Muslim’s acceptance of others is conditional…………..

I disagree. This Ayat is for everybody who meets the conditions provided in the ayat.
One condition is that they can not fight us for our religion.

Allah forbids you not, With regard to those who Fight you not for (your) Faith Nor drive you out Of your homes, From dealing kindly and justly With them: For Allah loveth Those who are just.”

Notice the word ‘those’ does not say your family. If we learn to be friendly to non muslims what is your problem. We understand the ayat clearly but why don’t you.?
I have explained this verse before as well just look into the previous post.
I don’t consider women weak, Muhammad did. This was his thinking
I think you forgot how this came up. I said that Islam allows us to be nice to our parents if they are okay with our faith and we should keep this in mind even if they are non Muslims. You disagreed with and said that this verse is only applicable for our mother and Muslims are only told to respect their non muslim mother as father is strong and can wean us out of Islam. This is your opinion. If my parents are Muslim it means I accepted Islam under their influence and when I was totally sure that Islam is the right religion. After converting to Islam their persuasion is unlikely to be useful. So this logic is not acceptable.

Allah told us clearly to be nice with anyone (Muslim or Non Muslim) who are okay with the fact that we are Muslims. We should show extra respect for our parents and it does not matter they are Muslims or Non Muslims. I have quoted some ayats above.

This ayat clearly tells us not to show affection to the disbelievers.

There you go. Then why do you argue with me? This is what I am saying. At first you deny it and then confirm the exact thing I say.
YeS read whatever comes after that !!! I always back up my statements with logic and proof!

This is the sure way to keep Muslims ignorant and under control. All cults do that. They prohibit the cultist to associate with outsiders who may show them their errors and bring them to their senses. The cultist is strictly prohibited talking with those who criticize their belief. However, they are allowed talking with those who are clueless in order to convert them.
Yes this is a good way of keeping ignorant Muslims safe. As long as they are ignorant they can easily be deceived my misquoting from the Quran. You can not do that to people who know everything about the Quran. Who not only knows the ayats but also knows about their explanations. If by any chance they leave Islam they will miss their opportunity of entering hell. It is like keeping a student away from drugs. Or keeping a baby away from fire.

But Islam is a big lie. Muslims are killers and murderers. There is not a day that some Muslim, somewhere does not commit an act of terror and does not kill a bunch of people. How can you stand for truth when you follow a liar and a terrorist as a prophet? You Muslims lie and call liars those who expose your lies and based on that fallacy you hate them and fight them and kill them.
Muslims are killers and murderers! What kind of an stupid comment is that. I have already shown you that Islam does not promote terrorism and killing 1 person is like killing whole of humanity. No where does Islam say KILL KILL KILL
I Challenge you to bring me any ayats which tells us to kill without conditions.
I do agree that sometimes Muslims are forced to take aggressive steps to stop crime then again who does not?
The meaning of peace in Islam is submission and subjugation. Muhammad divided the world in two camps – darl al harb and dar al Islam. Fighting is ordained on all Muslims, (even though they don’t like it) on all and sundry until everyone is subdued and succumb to Islam. Then peace can be established. This was also the idea of peace for Hitler. He too thought peace can be achieved when he conquers the world and subdues others. He had convinced the Germans that his wars would put an end to all wars. This is a very twisted understanding of peace and it shows that Muhammad was a sociopath much like Hitler.

Hitler did not get any messages from Allah, what he did is totally for himself. He attacked and killed people for power. Most importantly he was Jewish not a Muslim.
When you say Muslims are killers and Murderers, it creates a doubt in my mind that you have never read any history at all. People from other religions or any other religion have killed uncountable more people than Muslims did. But I am not saying their religion influenced this. NO RELIGION IN THE WORLD PROMOTES KILLING OF INNOCENT PEOPLE. Its not like there are no Muslim terrorists but the thing is they are not under the influence of Islam , they are killing and robbing for their own benefit.

All the wars that our Prophet fought were defensive and the idea was to protect Muslims from the non Muslims. There is a common question that Non Muslims ask that is

How can Islam be a religion of peace when it was spread by the sword?
(A lot of non Muslims have this question, they are people with less knowledge about Islam, I am pasting the answer for you, I was not really expecting this but then again, You are no different from an average unknowledgeable non muslim.)

WAS ISLAM SPREAD BY THE SWORD?

It is a common complaint among some non-Muslims that Islam would not have millions of adherents all over the world, if it had not been spread by the use of force. The following points will make it clear, that far from being spread by the sword, it was the inherent force of truth, reason and logic that was responsible for the rapid spread of Islam.

1. Islam means peace.

Islam comes from the root word ‘salaam’, which means peace. It also means submitting one’s will to Allah (swt). Thus Islam is a religion of peace, which is acquired by submitting one’s will to the will of the Supreme Creator, Allah (swt).

2. Sometimes force has to be used to maintain peace.

Each and every human being in this world is not in favor of maintaining peace and harmony. There are many, who would disrupt it for their own vested interests. Sometimes force has to be used to maintain peace. It is precisely for this reason that we have the police who use force against criminals and anti-social elements to maintain peace in the country. Islam promotes peace. At the same time, Islam exhort it followers to fight where there is oppression. The fight against oppression may, at times, require the use of force. In Islam force can only be used to promote peace and justice.

3. Opinion of historian De Lacy O’Leary.

The best reply to the misconception that Islam was spread by the sword is given by the noted historian De Lacy O’Leary in the book "Islam at the cross road" (Page 8):

"History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myth that historians have ever repeated."

4. Muslims ruled Spain for 800 years.

Muslims ruled Spain for about 800 years. The Muslims in Spain never used the sword to force the people to convert. Later the Christian Crusaders came to Spain and wiped out the Muslims. There was not a single Muslim in Spain who could openly give the adhan, that is the call for prayers.

5. 14 million Arabs are Coptic Christians.

Muslims were the lords of Arabia for 1400 years. For a few years the British ruled, and for a few years the French ruled. Overall, the Muslims ruled Arabia for 1400 years. Yet today, there are 14 million Arabs who are Coptic Christians i.e. Christians since generations. If the Muslims had used the sword there would not have been a single Arab who would have remained a Christian.

6. More than 80% non-Muslims in India.

The Muslims ruled India for about a thousand years. If they wanted, they had the power of converting each and every non-Muslim of India to Islam. Today more than 80% of the population of India are non-Muslims. All these non-Muslim Indians are bearing witness today that Islam was not spread by the sword.

7. Indonesia and Malaysia.


Indonesia is a country that has the maximum number of Muslims in the world. The majority of people in Malaysia are Muslims. May one ask, "Which Muslim army went to Indonesia and Malaysia?"

8. East Coast of Africa.

Similarly, Islam has spread rapidly on the East Coast of Africa. One may again ask, if Islam was spread by the sword, "Which Muslim army went to the East Coast of Africa?"

9. Thomas Carlyle.

The famous historian, Thomas Carlyle, in his book "Heroes and Hero worship", refers to this misconception about the spread of Islam: "The sword indeed, but where will you get your sword? Every new opinion, at its starting is precisely in a minority of one. In one man’s head alone. There it dwells as yet. One man alone of the whole world believes it, there is one man against all men. That he takes a sword and try to propagate with that, will do little for him. You must get your sword! On the whole, a thing will propagate itself as it can."

10. No compulsion in religion.

With which sword was Islam spread? Even if Muslims had it they could not use it to spread Islam because the Qur’an says in the following verse:
"Let there be no compulsion in religion:
Truth stands out clear from error"
[Al-Qur’an 2:256]

11. Sword of the Intellect.

It is the sword of intellect. The sword that conquers the hearts and minds of people. The Qur’an says in Surah Nahl, chapter 16 verse 125:
"Invite (all) to the way of thy Lord
with wisdom and beautiful preaching;
and argue with them in ways that are
best and most gracious."
[Al-Qur’an 16:125]

12. Increase in the world religions from 1934 to 1984.

An article in Reader’s Digest ‘Almanac’, year book 1986, gave the statistics of the increase of percentage of the major religions of the world in half a century from 1934 to 1984. This article also appeared in ‘The Plain Truth’ magazine. At the top was Islam, which increased by 235%, and Christianity had increased only by 47%. May one ask, which war took place in this century which converted millions of people to Islam?

13. Islam is the fastest growing religion in America and Europe.

Today the fastest growing religion in America is Islam. The fastest growing religion in Europe is Islam. Which sword is forcing people in the West to accept Islam in such large numbers?

14. Dr. Joseph Adam Pearson.

Dr. Joseph Adam Pearson rightly says, "People who worry that nuclear weaponry will one day fall in the hands of the Arabs, fail to realize that the Islamic bomb has been dropped already, it fell the day MUHAMMED (pbuh) was born".

Answer written by Dr Zakir Naik.

You should not any more doubt after reading this but as you are an average Non Muslim I am expecting a lot of objections!
Good result? What is good in stoning people, maiming them and beheading them? The Sharia law gives birth to dictatorship, oppression and abuse. The countries ruled under the Sharia are hellish. What is good in Saudi Arabia or in Iran? To the degree that Muslim countries are ruled by the Sharia law they are backwards, barbaric and oppressive.
What kind of stupid question is that? There is no good in stoning people. We do not stone them or behead them for nothing. That is a offensive crime for raping and committing adultery. What do you think we should do to rapists? Let them go? What if somebody rapes your mother, what would you do? Let him get away? You may think raping women are no big deal as you have a perverted mind. We love and respect mothers and sisters and it is our duty to ensure their safety. These punishments have done what the United States failed to do. No one in Islamic countries dare to rape, they do not dare to steal and the shariah laws gives you a country where people do not dare to commit crimes.Plus Islamic nations have not always been backwards. You forgot about the golden age of Islam? Who were ruling the world then?
Yes it is a very big problem for a criminal like you!
Sharia law they are backwards, barbaric and oppressive.
Saudi Arabia is in a good condition. Infact they are doing quite well. Technology is not everything Ali Sina, There is no poverty in Saudi Arabia , the crime rates are down, most importantly everyone is safe and happy. The problem with Iran is that USA is trying to bring it down, they try to do that to every Muslim country. Iran is not going down for the Shahriah laws. Tell me Ali Sina how many African countries follow the Shariah laws? What is wrong with Somalia, Nigeria…etc what is wrong with them? Why are they going down?
and oppressive
Yes oppressive, criminals deserves to be oppressed.



This is the sickness of Islam. Why should women obey their husband? Men and women are equal. Regarding women as inferior, is savagery. The entire Muslim world is a sick world because of its misogyny. Mistreated and abused women develop low self-esteem. They become impaired psychologically. They suffer from a host of mental disorders. I hardly know of a Muslim woman who does not suffer from depression. All this is the result of systematic abuse. Then these psychologically impaired women become mothers and pass their disorders to their sons. As the result the entire Muslim society is a sick society.

Muslims don’t even know the meaning of love. One condition of love is equality. In a society where women are treated as slaves there can be no love between spouses.
Dogs must obey their masters. Why should women obey their husband? Why men should be regarded as superior? There is absolutely no scientific evidence that men are smarter. In fact we have evidence that women’s brain develop faster. At the end men catch up, but they never surpass.
Subjugating women and telling them they must obey their husband is not just abusive to women it is destructive to the family and eventually the society. Among all the evils of Islam its misogyny is the biggest of all. It victimizes everyone, not just the women.
It is very simple. Men are given the responsibility of providing for their family and look after their wives. That is why Husbands are given a degree of advantage. Yes Men and Women are equal but you can not justify this when you are talking of a specific relationship. What about a mother-son relationship? You must thing boys obeying their mothers are also unnatural. Girls also obey their fathers but when they are married it is no longer their father’s responsibility to feed them. A man willingly takes the responsibility by marrying her and paying her Mahr. If you do not want your wife to obey you then do not let her obey you. It is as simple as that. No one is telling you to force her to obey you.
You wrote Regarding women as inferior, is savagery . Well just because Islam is asking the women to obey their husbands does not mean they are inferior. Inferiority has no connection with obedience.
Let us look at a general case. Generally Husbands are older than their wives. Generally men marry younger women. You are likely to treat an older person with respect. There is nothing wrong with that. Clearly Islam has chosen the natural way.

Muslims don’t even know the meaning of love. One condition of love is equality

You want equality? Then give your wife quality. If you have no problem with a disobedient wife then everything is settled. Allah is not prohibiting you from having a romantic relationship. Why should women obey their husband because men provides for them.
If woman does not like to obey her husband then she can simply choose someone who will accept her disobedience and as for men, if they want the system to be different they can make it different. Or they can simply marry women who will obey them.
If both Husband and Wife can agree on something then Islam has no problem with it.
I will try to go for an obedient woman, if I can find one I will marry, and If I do not find one then I will not. It is my choice right?
For Women: If your husband does not want you to be obedient and you are not obedient then its okay but if your husband wants you to be obedient and you are disobedient you are going against Islam. You can stop or you can continue it is your wish. We know the rules and the consequences of disobeying them, now it is up to us we follow or choose not to follow.
This is a sick reasoning. A good relationship is based on love and love is based on equality and freedom. I can’t pretend to love someone if I deny her freedom. To love someone means to be concerned about him or her in the same way I am concerned about myself. If I love freedom for myself, I must desire the same for the person I love.
Islam is for everybody and not for 1 woman. If we allow 1 person to do this then we must allow everybody to do this it is not necessary that a marriage will be based on love. Love will not get you a place in heaven. Love is for our own benefit. Muslim women like loving Allah more so they do not marry non Muslim men. There are a lot of Non Muslims who will deny their wives freedom. Everybody is not like you. In that case her whole life will be ruined. Plus if she marries non Muslim man she might not get her Mahr. If he does not give her that then she will not be able to force him to do so. There are a lot of complications. By the way Muslim women are not desperate to jump on the laps of Non Muslim women. If all the Muslim women are satisfied by this rule then what is your problem? Women do not think like you Ali Sina. Yes you will not be able to marry a muslim women. What is the grantee that you will not try to torture her and will not force her to leave Islam? Your religion does not discourage wife beating. So we really can not trust guys like you. Besides this world is full of stupid people and we do not need more Ali Sina’s like you.

What a sick religion! First of all no sane man will approach his wife if she is unwilling. This mentality is Islamic. Only a Muslim man thinks he can rape his wife even when she is not willing.
SHUT UP!! What answer will I give? You are just blabbering out rubbish. I do not have anything to discuss with you. You think Islam is a sick religion because sex during periods is haram? And Muslims do not rape their wives. They are not allowed to.

If a man calls his wife to bed and she refuses, and then he sleeps angry, the angels shall curse her until he awakens.

( She will be cursed if she makes her husband angry but husband can not rape her)

There is no compulsion in religion, for the right way is clearly from the wrong way. Whoever therefore rejects the forces of evil and believes in God, he has taken hold of a support most unfailing, which shall never give way, for God is All Hearing and Knowing.

There shall be no infliction of harm on oneself or others". (Related by Al-Daraqutni, Ibn Majah and Ahmad.)


O ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness, that ye may take away part of the dower [money given by the husband to the wife for the marriage contract] ye have given them, except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and God brings about through it a great deal of good (Qu’ran An-nisa 19)


Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) reported Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) as saying: "He who believes in Allah and the Hereafter, if he witnesses any matter he should talk in good terms about it or keep quiet. Act kindly towards woman, for woman is created from a rib, and the most crooked part of the rib is its top. If you attempt to straighten it, you will break it, and if you leave it, its crookedness will remain there. So act kindly towards women. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Book 008, Number 3468)"


Narrated Abu Huraira: "Allah's Apostle said, 'The strong is not the one who overcomes the people by his strength, but the strong is the one who controls himself while in anger. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Good Manners and Form (Al-Adab), Volume 8, Book 73, Number 135)"

In almost all cases (especially when it comes to sex) forcing someone into sex/marital rape goes together with: ‘cursing, or using bad words’


The Prophet directed husbands how they should approach their wifes, He said: “None of you should fall upon his wife like an animal; but let there first be a messenger between you.” The Companions exclaimed, “What is that messenger?” The Prophet replied, “Kisses and (romantic) words!” (Reported by Al-Daylami)

"Your body has a right over you, your eyes have a right over you and your wife has a right over you." (Bukhari, Vol.7, No. 127) The wife's rights include a right to companionship from her husband and fulfillment of her sexual needs.

We have a free will
surat Al-Isra', (Verse 15), , "Whoever goes right, then he goes right only for the benefit of his ownself. And whoever goes astray, then he goes astray to his own loss. No one laden with burdens can bear another’s burden

We can not force anybody against their free will. So RAPING IS HARAM!
No they don’t. You don’t know anything about women and their psychology. These are stupid religious “knowledge” and have no bases on science. The ancient folks even thought women don't have libido
Are you insane? Have you ever seen men getting raped? In all porn sites combined , 90% of the registered users are men. There are more male prostitutes or more female prostitutes? Who makes more money?
This is something even a stupid person like you should realize.
Most women married to Muslim men are not. By Muslim I mean those idiots who want their wife to obey them. There are also good people who scuff at this silly thought and although call themselves Muslim by name, never act as dictators in the house.
Did you do a survey on this? Ever tried to compare the divorce rate of Islamic countries with european countries or American countries? Women take like staying with their Muslim husbands and this is a rare sight in Western world. I myself have seen 7 western breakup.My mother seems to obey my father. My father also does not do anything my mother completely disagrees with. But most of the time my father spends his money the way he likes. My Mother seems to be okay with the fact. When I was a child I led a happy life and I have hardly ever seen them quarrel. What you just said is based on pure assumption. Women can simply marry men who will not want to obey them. It is not like the road is blocked. Maybe your sister would have been much happier is she had married a Muslim guy. She chooses to disobey and let me tell you our afterlife will not end but our life will. I rather suffer for 70 years than eternity. What an amazing offer this is. Stay in my way for 70 years and I will let you have anything you want for eternity!! ALLAH IS TRULY GREAT. But some people do not have patience and they deserve to be in hell.
I think you have some difficulty in comprehension. I said friendship between Muslims and non-Muslim is not allowed, and Muslims are required to be harsh with non-Muslims. The only time Muslims are to be kind to non-Muslims is when they want to lure them to Islam. That kindness is nothing but a bait. It is not sincere.
That is not right friendship between Muslims and non muslims are allowed and I have proved it !
Allah Almighty commanded the Muslims to be kind and just with non-Muslims: "Allah forbids you not, With regard to those who Fight you not for (your) Faith Nor drive you out Of your homes, From dealing kindly and justly With them: For Allah loveth Those who are just. (The Noble Quran, 60:8)"
Just because a person might be a non-Muslim it doesn't automatically make him an enemy to the Muslims. Peace-loving and innocent non-Muslims are to be treated with justice and kindness, otherwise the Muslims would be committing a sin and violating Allah Almighty's Holy Commands, "For Allah loveth Those who are just".
"This day are (all) things good and pure made lawful unto you. The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them. (Lawful unto you in marriage) are (not only) chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book, revealed before your time,- when ye give them their due dowers, and desire chastity, not lewdness, nor secret intrigues if any one rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good). (The Noble Quran, 5:5)"


There are no such ayats and hadith prohibitng the friendship of muslims and non muslims. You have pointed out some ayats like this before and I have answered them .
When you are friends with someone you no longer care about your religion. You will help him unconditionally and will always be nice with him. As friendship is allowed being nice is also allowed. Allah commands us to be nice to evryone who are nice to us.
And we can be friends with non muslims and there is no need of an hidden agenda.

Chellenge to Ali Sina : Find me ayats from the Qura or hadiths which says Muslims can not be firends with non Muslims.


You say we need to be harsh with them and I have explained what ‘harshness’ really means.

That is why I ask people who want to debate me to read my book. I have answered all these questions about Muhammad. The narcissist wants to leave a legacy. Hitler intensified his effort to conquer the world when his hand started trembling and he was told he may not live long. All questions that boggle Muslims are answered in my book.
Well the Quran is not about the legacy of Muhammad. You can find the names of 24 other prophets in Islam. They will also live for an eternity. Muhammad is not the only prophet of Islam he is one of the 12400000 prophets who came to preach Islam.
The best thing I can do after reading your book is to DEFEAT YOU. I am going to do that anyway.
He just came in the right time and the right place and won through terror.
Muhammad was not a cult leader. You seem to be jealous of him because so many people loves him. He established the right way of living . How much more can a person help us.

Prince Steven
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat May 04, 2013 1:40 pm

Re: Tolerance or Arrogance?

Post by Prince Steven »

continued..................
Ali Sina there is no such laws that tells us to kill all the non muslims
.
Yes there is. Here they are:
2:191, And slay them wherever ye catch them

2:193, And fight them on until there is no more fitnah (dissension)

2:216, Fighting is prescribed for you, and you dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you

3:28, Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah

4:84, Then fight in Allah’s cause.

5:33, The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger (oppose them), and strive with might and main for mischief through the land (show that Islam is a lie) is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;

8:12, I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them

8:17, It is not ye who slew them; it was Allah:

8:60, Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies

8:65, O Prophet! rouse the Believers to the fight.

9:5, But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem.

9:14, Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers,

9:29, Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, 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.

9:39, Unless ye go forth, (for Jihad) He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least.

9:73, O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed.

9:111, Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur’an

9:123, O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.

22:9, (Disdainfully) bending his side, in order to lead (men) astray from the Path of Allah: for him there is disgrace in this life, and on the Day of Judgment We shall make him taste the Penalty of burning (Fire).

47:4, Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length,

48:13 And if any believe not in Allah and His Messenger, We have prepared, for those who reject Allah, a Blazing Fire!
48:29, Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other.
I am repeating what I just said. There is no ayat in the Quran which tells us to kill the non muslims for nothing.
You have simply copy pasted and I am going to do the same

1
.2:191, And slay them wherever ye catch them

YUSUFALI: And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.


The non-Muslim quotes this verse and argues that the verse teaches terrorism, and that the verse commands Muslims to slay the unbelievers wherever we catch them. However so does the passage actually preach terrorism? Or is that the non-Muslim is quoting this passage out of its proper context? Well the answer is that the verse is being quoted out of context, which is very sad because it is blatant mis-interpretation and blatant lying because it is not difficult to quote this passage in context, here is the context of this passage:

002.190
YUSUFALI: Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.

002.191
YUSUFALI: And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

002.192
YUSUFALI: But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful

002.193
YUSUFALI: And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.


So here is the passage being quoted in context, and as you can see when the verse is quoted in context one will notice there is no terrorism or genocide being preached or advocated! The context is if MUSLIMS GET ATTACKED then Muslims have the right to attack back, and the context is very clear on that, the theme comes into play on verse 190, not verse 191 which non-Muslims quote alone, the non-Muslim should quote from verse 190 onwards, and once doing so one will see that this is a defensive war, not an offensive one, if people attack the Muslims then the Muslims have the right to attack back, and that is exactly what the verses are saying.

The verses even say that if the people who started the fight begin to stop and make peace than we too must also stop and make peace as well, far from terrorism.

So it is that simple, verse 191 does not advocate terrorism or genocide, it advocates self-defense as can be seen from it context starting from verse 190 which states that if Muslims are attacked then we can attack back, and the context goes on to say that if the enemies stop attacking and make peace then we too should make peace, very simply and easy!

And Allah Knows Best!


2. 2:193, And fight them on until there is no more fitnah (dissension)

"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors. And kill them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for persecution and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, kill them. Such is the reward of those who reject faith. But if they cease, God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression. The prohibited month, for the prohibited month, and so for all things prohibited, there is the law of equality. If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, transgress ye likewise against him. But fear (the punishment of) God, and know that God is with those who restrain themselves." [Noble Quran 2:190-194]
How many times do we see the above verse repeating the message to make it clear? These verses were revealed at a time when Muslims of Madinah were under constant attack from the Makkans. An example would be when the Makkans conducted the public crucifixion of the companion of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), Khubaib bin Adi. These would be classified as 'terrorist activities' according to the modern usage of the term. So what does this verse say in this context? "Fight in the cause of God those who fight you", "unless they (first) fight you there" - the context of this verse applies to those who initiate the attack against Muslims. And even after they attack, the verse makes it clear:
"But if they cease, God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." [Noble Quran 2:192]
And it also makes clear the purpose for what Muslims fight:
"Fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God". [Noble Quran 2:193]
It is the duty of Muslims to defend humanity from oppression and persecution and to establish justice. Muslims believe that God has placed us here on earth as his deputy or viceroy, and thus, it is our duty to enjoin the good and forbid the evil, to establish peace and justice in the land. Dr. Maher Hathout writes the following on verses 2:190-194:
These verses were applicable to a particular situation or if, hypothetically, the same situation was to be repeated... Historically, fighting back against the aggressors was prohibited during the thirteen years of the Meccan period. After the migration to Medina and the establishment of the Islamic state, Muslims were concerned with how to defend themselves against aggression from their enemies. The aforementioned verses were revealed to enable them to protect the newly formed state by fighting in self-defence against those who fought them. However, the Quran clearly prohibits aggression. The verses explain that fighting is only for self-defence. Thus, a Muslim cannot commit aggression and kill innocent men, women, children, the sick, the elderly, monks, priests, or those who do not wish to fight. A Muslim is also mandated not to destroy plant life of livestock. (Hathout, Jihad vs. Terrorism; US Multimedia Vera International, 2002, p.49, emphasis added)
The historical context is something that must always be considered where developing an understanding of Quranic verses. Without knowing the circumstances behind the revelation, one cannot apply the verse as accurately. Sheikh Salman Al-Oadah writes about the general principles in Jihad:
Jihad can never be fought for worldly gain, for conquest, or even for revenge. Muslims must only fight to protect the lives, property, and freedoms of people, especially their freedom to worship Allah when that freedom is forcibly attacked. They are never allowed to attack innocent people, even when they are themselves attacked by the countrymen of those innocents. Any people that go against this established principle of Islamic Law and murder civilians are fighting against Islam and everything that it stands for. It is ludicrous for them to call this fighting a Jihad, a word that means striving in the cause of Islam. They are in fact murderers in the light of Islamic Law and should be treated as such.
There are strict and detailed laws in Islam, which Muslims must follow carefully. A military Jihad must be performed under these regulations. Abdullah Yusuf Ali writes about verse 2:190:
War is only permissible in self-defence, and under well-defined limits. When undertaken, it must be pushed with vigour, but not relentlessly, but only to restore peace and freedom for the worship of God. In any case strict limits must not be transgressed: women, children, old and infirm men should not be molested, nor trees and crops cut down, nor peace withheld when the enemy comes to terms. (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Quran, Text, Translation and Commentary)
He then re-iterates the general principles behind Jihad in his commentary on verse 2:191:
In general, it may be said that Islam is the religion of peace, goodwill, mutual understanding, and good faith. But it will not acquiesce in wrong-doing, and its men will hold their lives cheap in defence of honour, justice, and the religion which they hold sacred. Their ideal is that of heroic virtue combined with unselfish gentleness and tenderness, such as is exemplified in the life of the Apostle. They believe in courage, obedience, discipline, duty, and a constant striving by all the means in their power, physical, moral, intellectual, and spiritual, for the establishment of truth and righteousness. (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Quran, Text, Translation and Commentary)
This is the true focus behind Jihad, and Muslims must never lose this focus. Jihad is solely for the purpose of aiding humanity and bringing justice and freedom to the oppressed. Therefore, all actions must be in-line with this focus and the strict regulations governing Jihad. The focus is to defend, not destroy. One who focuses on the betterment and aid of humanity will realize that destruction will never achieve this. Abdul Majid Daryabadi writes extensively on verse 2:190:
"And fight in the way of Allah those who fight you" [Noble Quran 2:190]
Violating the truce they themselves had signed. The Muslims, after having borne untold persecution with almost superhuman fortitude for years and years at the hands of the pagans of Makkah, are now for the first time enjoined to take to reprisals. 'For a full thirteen years the Muslims were subjected to relentless persecution in Mecca. The Prophet and his followers fled for life to Medina, but the enemy would not leave them alone in their refuge. They came to attack them within a year, and the first three battles were fought in the very locality which will whether the Prophet was an assailant or defendant' (Headley, The Original Church of Jesus Christ and Islam, p. 155). The Makkans had signed a truce and were the first to break it. The words 'fight with those who fight you' clearly show, firstly, that the Muslims were not the aggressors, and secondly, that those of the enemy who were not actual combatants - children, women, monks, hermits, the aged and the infirm, the maimed, and the like - had nothing at all to fear from the Muslim soldiery. It was in light of this express Divine injunction that the great Abu Bakr, the first Caliph, charged his troops into Syria, 'not to mutilate the dead, nor to slay old men, women, and children, nor to cut down fruit-trees, nor to kill cattle unless they were needed for food; and these humane precepts served like a code of laws of war during the career of Mohammadan conquest.' (Bosworth Smith, Mohammed and Mohammedanism, p. 185). Has not Islam thus, in prescribing war against those who break God's law, who challenge His righteous authority, and who fill the world with violence and injustice, made every concession short of the impossible? Has any code of military ethics been so chivalrous, so humane and so tender towards the enemy? 'The moral tone adopted by the Caliph Abu Bakr, in his instructions to the Syrian army, was', says a modern Christian historian, 'so unlike the principles of the Roman government, that it must have commanded profound attention from a subject people. Such a proclamation announced to Jews and Christians' sentiments of justice and principles of toleration which neither Roman emperors nor orthodox bishops had ever adopted as the rule of their conduct' (Finlay, Greece Under the Romans, pp. 367-368). (Daryabadi, The Glorious Quran, emphasis added)
Muhammad Asad explains verse 2:190 in the following manner:
This and the following verses lay down unequivocally that only self-defence (in the widest sense of the word) makes war permissible for Muslims. Most of the commentators agree in that the expression "La ta'tadu" signifies, in this context, "do not commit aggression"; while by al-Mu'tadin "those who commit aggression" are meant. The defensive character of a fight "in God's cause" - that is, in the cause of the ethical principles ordained by God - is, moreover, self-evident in the reference to "those who wage war against you", and has been still further clarified in 22: 39 - "permission [to fight] is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged" - which, according to all available Traditions, constitutes the earliest (and therefore fundamental) Quranic reference to the question of jihad, or holy war (see Tabari and Ibn Kathir in their commentaries on 22: 39). That this early, fundamental principle of self-defence as the only possible justification of war has been maintained throughout the Quran is evident from 60: 8, as well as from the concluding sentence of 4: 91, both of which belong to a later period than the above verse. (Asad, The Message of the Quran, emphasis added)
And on verse 2:191, he states the following:
In view of the preceding ordinance, the injunction "slay them wherever you may come upon them" is valid only within the context of hostilities already in progress (Razi), on the understanding that "those who wage war against you" are the aggressors or oppressors (a war of liberation being a war "in God's cause"). The translation, in this context, of Fitnah as "oppression" is justified by the application of this term to any affliction which may cause man to go astray and to lose his faith in spiritual values (cf. Lisan al-Arab). (Asad, The Message of the Quran, emphasis added)
This extensive commentary on this verse should sufficiently address all confusion and misconceptions that resulted from misquoting this verse
3
2:216, Fighting is prescribed for you, and you dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you
I have already answered this one. I have also given a much simpler explanation. Fighting is obviously necessary and this is the way of getting rid of evil.
4. Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah
This is the problem of copy pasting. You are simply not paying attention to what you are talking about. This ayat does not say kill the non Muslims. I wanted you to perform better than this Ali Sina. You are letting your supporters down. When I tell you to quote something which tells us to kill the non muslims you come up with this!
This is not going to last long Ali Sina! You are almost done!
4. 4:84, Then fight in Allah’s cause.


Again the same thing. We are supposed to fight in Allah’s cause. We are not supposed to kill Non Muslims unconditionally.
.
5
5:33, The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger (oppose them), and strive with might and main for mischief through the land (show that Islam is a lie) is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;
This seems logical. No one should dare to fight against Allah. I already told you about self defense. This is obviously a defensive ayat! ‘The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger

I told you to show me ayats where we are supposed to kill the non Muslims even when they are innocent. This ayat does not meet the condition.

6
Quran 8:12 I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them
Interestingly Ibn Kathir explains this verse. I am going to Quote his explanation but if you have any objections I will explain this to you. You do not need to agree with Ibn Kathir unconditionally.

YUSUFALI: Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."


PICKTHAL: When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying): I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger.


SHAKIR: When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.

Anti-Islamics like to always bring this up and claim that this verse proves that Islam promotes terrorism and that the Quran orders Muslims to go and chop people's heads off along with their finger tips.

The fact that anti-Islamic’s make such claims shows their lack of knowledge on Islam, and that they should really study Islam with an open heart rather than visit anti-Islamic sites, and read anti-Islamic books and believe everything they tell you.

Even that goon Ali Sina uses this same argument over and over again showing how little he knows about Islam.

So to make things easier for everybody, I shall give the explanation of this verse, in doing so it shall help making dialog between Muslims and anti-Islamic’s much easier, since there can’t be any dialog when one party's information is incorrect and distorted.

To begin, this verse is referring to a SPECIFIC BATTLE, this verse is not an order on Muslims, and this verse is talking about a battle that took place. The battle it is referring to is the battle of Badr.

Al-Maududi's introduction to this Surah writes:

Name
The Surah takes its name AL-ANFAL (The Bounties) from the first verse.

The Period of Revelation
It was revealed in 2 A. H. after the Battle of Badr, the first battle between Islam and kufr. As it contains a detailed and comprehensive review of the Battle, it appears that most probably it was revealed at one and the same time. But it is also possible that some of the verses concerning the problems arising as a result of this Battle might have been revealed later and incorporated at the proper places to make it a continuous whole. At any rate, in the whole Surah there is nothing that might show that it is a collection of a couple of discourses, that have been patched up together. (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/maududi/mau8.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

Let us now also post the tafsir of Ibn Kathir regarding this verse:

Allah commands the Angels to fight and support the Believers
Allah said next,
[???? ?????? ??????? ????? ?????????????? ?????? ???????? ???????????? ????????? ??????????]((Remember) when your Lord revealed to the angels, "Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed.'')

This is a hidden favor that Allah has made known to the believers, so that they thank Him and are grateful to Him for it. Allah, glorified, exalted, blessed and praised be He, has revealed to the angels -- whom He sent to support His Prophet, religion and believing group -- to make the believers firmer. Allah's statement,

[????????? ??? ??????? ????????? ????????? ?????????](I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved.) means, `you -- angels -- support the believers, strengthen their (battle) front against their enemies, thus, implementing My command to you. I will cast fear, disgrace and humiliation over those who defied My command and denied My Messenger, f

[???????????? ?????? ??????????? ???????????? ???????? ????? ???????](so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes.) strike them on their foreheads to tear them apart and over the necks to cut them off, and cut off their limbs, hands and feet. It was said that,

[?????? ???????????](over the necks) refers to striking the forehead, or the neck, according to Ad-Dahhak and `Atiyyah Al-`Awfi. In support of the latter, Allah commanded the believers,

[??????? ????????? ????????? ????????? ???????? ?????????? ?????? ????? ???????????????? ?????????? ??????????](So, when you meet (in fight Jihad in Allah's cause) those who disbelieve, smite (their) necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, take them as captives).) [47:4]
Ar-Rabi` bin Anas said, "In the aftermath of Badr, the people used to recognize whomever the angels killed from those whom they killed, by the wounds over their necks, fingers and toes, because those parts had a mark as if they were branded by fire.'' Allah said,

[???????????? ???????? ????? ???????](and smite over all their fingers and toes.)
Ibn Jarir commented that this Ayah commands, "O believers! Strike every limb and finger on the hands and feet of your (disbelieving) enemies.'' Al-`Awfi reported, that Ibn `Abbas said about the battle of Badr that Abu Jahl said, "Do not kill them (the Muslims), but capture them so that you make known to them what they did, their ridiculing your religion and shunning Al-Lat and Al-`Uzza (two idols).'' Allah than sent down to the angels,

[?????? ???????? ???????????? ????????? ?????????? ????????? ??? ??????? ????????? ????????? ????????? ???????????? ?????? ??????????? ???????????? ???????? ????? ???????](Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes.)

In that battle, Abu Jahl (may Allah curse him) was killed along with sixty-nine men. `Uqbah bin Abu Mua`it was captured and then killed, thus bring the death toll of the pagans to seventy,


[?????? ??????????? ????????? ??????? ???????????](This is because they defied and disobeyed Allah and His Messenger.) joining the camp that defied Allah and His Messenger not including themselves in the camp of Allah's Law and faith in Him. Allah said,
[????? ????????? ??????? ??????????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ??????????](And whoever defies and disobeys Allah and His Messenger, then verily, Allah is severe in punishment.) for He will crush whoever defies and disobeys Him. Nothing ever escapes Allah's grasp nor can anything ever stand against His anger. Blessed and exalted He is, there is no true deity or Lord except Him.

[???????? ?????????? ??????? ?????????????? ??????? ???????? ](This is (the torment), so taste it; and surely, for the disbelievers is the torment of the Fire.)
This Ayah addresses the disbeliever, saying, taste this torment and punishment in this life and know that the torment of the Fire in the Hereafter is for the disbelievers.

So as you can see, these events were taking place during a battle. Now off course during a battle in those days you would aim for the neck to get an immediate blow, and off course you would also aim for their fingers, once taking out their fingers the enemy would not be able to carry his sword hence you neutralize the enemy.

So there is nothing barbaric or mean about these verses, it is simply referring to a battle, and nothing barbaric was done in the battle neither these were how battles were fought back then.

7
8:17, It is not ye who slew them; it was Allah:
Let us look at the whole verse
So, it is not you who killed them, but in fact Allah killed them. And you did not throw when you threw but Allah did throw, so that He might bless the believers with a good favour. Surely, Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing.

This verse was also for the times of war. It means that when we are fighting to defend Islam we should not feel guilty for killing as we are fighting for Allah and by the help of Allah we will manage to defeat our enemy. This ayat also does not tell us to kill the noin muslims unconditionally.
8.
8:60, Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies
These verses are only applicable for the times of war. You do not seem to understand this simple thing. I have been telling you about these ayats since the time I started debating with you. There is no point in explaining this one to you. There is no point in clearing out anything to you. I am quite sure you will not miss your opportunity to attack Muslims with the same ayats that I have just cleared out to you. That is the problem of debating with atheists, they never seem to learn.

8:65, O Prophet! rouse the Believers to the fight
This one is not even for us. It was indicated to our prophet in the time of a war. Quoting war verses will not help you Ali Sina, rather than trying to create misconception I suggest that you admit that there is no verse in the Quran that tells us to kill the Non Muslims for nothing.
9:5, But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem.
First let us write down the whole verse in simple English
‘But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.’
This verse was revealed towards the end of the revelation period and relates to a limited context. Hostilities were frozen for a three-month period during which the Arabs pledged not to wage war. Prophet Muhammad was inspired to use this period to encourage the combatants to join the Muslim ranks or, if they chose, to leave the area that was under Muslims rule; however, if they were to resume hostilities, then the Muslims would fight back until victorious. One is inspired to note that even in this context of war, the verse concludes by emphasizing the divine attributes of mercy and forgiveness. To minimize hostilities, the Qur’an ordered Muslims to grant asylum to anyone, even an enemy, who sought refuge. Asylum would be granted according to the customs of chivalry; the person would be told the message of the Qur’an but not coerced into accepting that message. Thereafter, he or she would be escorted to safety regardless of his or her religion
Therefore, this verse once again refers to those pagans who would continue to fight after the period of peace. It clearly commands the Muslims to protect those who seek peace and are non-combatants. It is a specific verse with a specific ruling and can in no way be applied to general situations
9:14, Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers,

Let us look at the verse which comes before this!
‘Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is Allah Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!’
Then we directly go to verse no 14 a question comes into our minds. Who is this ‘them’ verse 14 of sura 9 is talking about? The verse 13 answers this question.
Here the Quran is talking about people who ‘violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault)

The condition was to bring me verses which supports killing of innocent people.
No matter, now we shall look at the verse which comes after this.

‘And still the indignation of their hearts. For Allah will turn (in mercy) to whom He will; and Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.’

So we see Allah is immediately offering mercy and peace to those who repents and decides to fight no more. If you ever try to quote this verse Ali Sina , please quote the verse which comes before this and after this. You guys came up with a pretty good plan of deceiving the Muslims but sadly we are not that much stupid.

9:29, Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, 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.

I have already answered this. I have also proved that Jizyah is not a burden on Non Muslims and I have also explained the reasons why Non Muslims will suffer no more than the Muslims by paying jizyah.

Muslims have to pay zakat and non muslims have to pay Jizyah. This nothing new .You might get punished if you do not follow the countries law. Breaking the law is no where near ‘nothing’. The condition was to bring a verse which supports killing of non muslims who are innocent and did nothing. Nothing= nothing wrong

9:39, Unless ye go forth, (for Jihad) He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least.

You remember how you started the response?

‘Ali Sina there is no such laws that tells us to kill all the non muslims.’

Yes there is. Here they are:


These verses tell us to kill ALL the non Muslims? Innocent Non Muslims?


And nothing else is worth answering .

The Challenge remains : Find me an ayat telling us to kill innocent non muslims.


About the treaty thing. There is no doubt that the Quraish were the first ones to break it.
I do not read the Sira because I do not believe in it! Islam does not force me to believe in it.

Taken from http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamental ... st_76.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Khuza`ah had no choice but to inform the Messenger, their ally, that Banu Bakar and their allies Quraysh had unilaterally broken the treaty of Hudaybiyah by attacking them. The Messenger promised them, "I will prevent from you what I will prevent from myself." (Ibn Hishaam)
The Quraish realized they had broken the treaty with the Messenger by attacking the Muslims' allies.


You are not giving me anything new to deal with. You blabber the same thing every atheist blabbers. I will wait and see whether you come up with new things or the same things that other atheists would come up with. I will end this over here if I realize that you have nothing new to offer me and will continue trying to create doubts by misquoting the Quran. I will observe how you approach my challenges.
Let me tell you Ali Sina I am planning on blasting other frauds as well. Like Sam Shamoun and Mahendra Pal Araya. Now it is up to you, you can post more rubbish for me to deal with or you can admit that you lost and close down the website.
I hope you will choose wisely.

Ali Sina
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 1:52 am

Re: Tolerance or Arrogance?

Post by Ali Sina »

I am completely ignoring the garbage your friends are posting.
Sorry, but I am afraid you've to content yourself with what my friends post because I told you I have no time for convinced and ignorant Muslims.

You had your chance with me and that is all you get. If you want more read my book. This is the rule. I made an exception with you and I realized it was a mistake. Ignorant convinced people are nothing but waste of time. In addition to that you are also extremely arrogant.

Good bye. Come back after you read the book. Ask me the 4th edition but don't be cheap, order the 6th edition which is a lot more complete. Order the e-book. It is less than ten dollars. If you win this debate you get $50,000 dollars. So that is a small investment. What? You have no interest to read my book? In that case I have no interest to read your garbage.

Don't delude yourself. You are no tiger. You are a mouse who is so myopic that is not aware of his size.

Image
Image
Image

sum
Posts: 6631
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:11 pm

Re: Tolerance or Arrogance?

Post by sum »

Hello Prince Steven

Islam does not mean peace. You need to brush up on your Arabic.

Perhaps confusion over the meaning of the word "Islam" plays a role in the disparities between the Western and Islamic definitions of what a peaceful religion entails; even many Muslims are unaware that the word "Islam" comes from the Arabic word "al-silm," which means "submission," and not from "al-Salaam," which means "peace."

sum

Prince Steven
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat May 04, 2013 1:40 pm

Re: Tolerance or Arrogance?

Post by Prince Steven »

So I should read your book and come back? For what? For this? I think we should look back and read what we have posted. Thats the only way you will realize that YOU ARE THE ONE who backed up EVERY SINGLE TIME. At first I wanted to continue this debate as I thought of you an worthy opponent. I accepted your terms and your conditions only to keep you in this!
Every time you came back with a weak response I thought that you were holding back and were not interested in this debate. So I figured if somehow I can get you interested then you will not hold back and give me everything you got.
I have worked on my last response for continuous 27 hours! While working I found some signs, signs which told me that you were giving me everything you got and you have got nothing good.

in my last response I have challenged you to show me a lot of different things. I have answered every single one of your questions.
You do not have to read that but I am sure your friends will . They will never give me any credit for my work and will believe that you always had the upper hand but at some corner of their hearts they will realize that you lost this one!

I am finishing this debate over here. I have written down almost everything I had against your opinions and you wrote down whatever... I will be happy to smack this into the faces of some people like you! You may try to delete this and you will never dare to post this in your website as you like to remain silent about your lost debates. I am gonna go and brag about this and make everyone realize that everything that glitters is not gold. I wanted to check out your sense of reasoning and logic which I did quite well and after everything that happened here I only have 1 advice to give you.

IF YOU WANT TO ATTACK ISLAM WITH LOGIC, MAKE SURE YOU ARE MORE LOGICAL THAN ISLAM. IF YOU WANT TO ATTACK ISLAM WITH THE TRUTH ,MAKE SURE YOU ARE NOT A LAIR!
Perhaps this is the reason why Islam wins every single time!

frankie
Posts: 2612
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:10 pm

Re: Tolerance or Arrogance?

Post by frankie »

Prince Steven:
IF YOU WANT TO ATTACK ISLAM WITH LOGIC, MAKE SURE YOU ARE MORE LOGICAL THAN ISLAM
Fair enough, here are some more logical(home) truths about this diabolical belief system.

Islam finds its origins in Pre Islamic Pagan Arabia,its inventor was a deluded Arabian desert warrior, who just used what he already knew, to deceive people into believing he was a prophet in the same mold as all Biblical prophets, in order for him to gain power, wealth and control of the bodies and minds of gullible people like yourself. It worked, and is still working.

The evidence to prove Mohammed was not a true prophet is shown throughout Islamic writings, and by his own behaviour towards his fellow humans.He was a man of violence,illustrated very well in the reports written about him, and in the Quran, which marks him out to be humanity's best example to emulate, to gain Islamic salvation.

From what you have said so far, you appear to know very well what the Quran has to offer mankind,and so there is no need to provide evidence of the violent nature of this so called holy book.
However, I will provide evidence that your faith just turns you and your co-religionists into re-constituted pagans.

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Pagan_Origins_of_Islam" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This web site provides you with Islamic sources, showing the foundations of the Islamic faith are pagan.

Its ironic to the core that you Muslims you are held so tightly within this iron grip of fear, and cling to what you think your faith provides i.e. belief in a one god, yet spectaculary fail to grasp that this faith finds its origins in the very sources you are commanded to avoid!

Time to wake up to the truth PS, your faith is a provable fake, which makes your "prophet" a provable fake.

Whatever you care to write in future hoping to prove your faith is the "one true religion" is all in vain, and is just purely academic.

Islam has nothing good to offer mankind in any way, shape or form, the more you want to become a better Muslim, the more you will become a terrorist for your false god.

frankie
Posts: 2612
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:10 pm

Re: Tolerance or Arrogance?

Post by frankie »

Prince Steven:

BTW

The word Islam means submission or surrender.

Even if the word Islam did mean peace, it's definition is Islamic peace only, brought about by fighting,killing,subjugating and/or enslaving the infidel to enable submission to Allah through his laws,i.e Sharia.

This is done by the method of Jihad,illustrated very well in Sahih Bukhari Hadith Book 52 Volume 4 named "Fighting for the cause of Allah(Jihad)

http://www.luvu4luv.com/Hadith_Bukhari.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ali Sina
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 1:52 am

Re: Tolerance or Arrogance?

Post by Ali Sina »

So I should read your book and come back? For what?
If you want to debate with me and you are a convinced (meaning ignorant) Muslim you must read my book. The reason is that once you read it your conviction will give way to knowledge and in all likelihood you will not want to make a public fool of yourself. Who knows, maybe you will become enlightened and realize how deluded you've been. Assuming you are so convinced (ignorant) that even after reading my book you don’t come to your senses, you will at least ask questions that are not covered in my book. Engaging with every convinced Muslim is a waste of time for me and for my readers. It does not advance our cause and it does not add any value to our forum. Enthusiasm is not a substitute for knowledge. You have plenty of the former and very little of the latter. The trouble is that you try to compensate your ignorance with arrogance. Debating with someone like you diminishes me. You are no match for me Steven and the tragedy is that you are so myopic that you don't realize it. You even think you know better than the Muslim scholars. If this is not delusional thinking what is? Does any other Muslim share this view? That is why I posted those pictures. If you want to debate with me, go and get some education first. At least make yourself respectable among your own people and then come back. Otherwise read my book. Do whichever is easier for you.

I've studied Islam for 19 years and have debated with thousands of people. But I have never claimed to know it better than Muslim scholars. I claim to look at it from the right angle and see things they can't see. It's the question of shift of paradigm not more knowledge. And you think your 13 years old big brother knows Islam better than Muslim scholars. You are ridiculous Steven. Why should I take you seriously and waste my time with you?

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Tolerance or Arrogance?

Post by manfred »

This is exactly the problem with many Islamic "scholars"... most know a great deal of texts but they never get to the stage of critically evaluating what they study. It is always a case of making sure that Islam is protected. In fact, if all was well with Islam and if all its claims were true, then it would not need protection.

Muslim scholars are like historians who know the precise date of thousands of events, but never connect the events together. And if someone like you comes along, and makes connections they use their acquired details to derail, distract and otherwise obscure.

That is why I don't have a lot of respect for Muslims scholars. They are like a man who can recite at the times tables up to 1000 at great speed, but cannot use maths to solve even simple problems.

It is this inability of evaluation that is the reason why Muslims so easily get "offended" and resort to violence as a reply to criticism.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

ringmaster
Posts: 1679
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 11:36 pm

Re: Tolerance or Arrogance?

Post by ringmaster »

zitouni wrote:
I have already responded to those verses and you keep repeating the same stupidity. I told you that you have to read those verses in their historical context . They were revealed during war time if Muslims understood them the way you did then no Kafirs should have been left alive in Midlle east since 1400 years ago . You should seek psycological evaluation you are sick liar.
“Historical context” is not an acceptable excuse, not if you want to persuade us that the word of your allah guy are universal and applicable to all mankind, for all time, and for all places.

Furthermore, the excuse is condescending. Essentially you are saying that in the opinion of whore master allah, the only history that matters is the history of your manwhore prophet. Histories of other people at other times and places apparently do not matter.

We need something more than a narrative on the history of 7th century Arabia to be persuaded that allah is real.

May allah burn in hell.
The prophet of Islam was nothing more than a common criminal.

Please tell me if this is accurate:

“I have fabricated things against God and have imputed to Him words which He has not spoken.”
~MUHAMMAD (Al-Tabari 6:111)

ringmaster
Posts: 1679
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 11:36 pm

Re: Tolerance or Arrogance?

Post by ringmaster »

Prince Steven wrote: REMEMBER: WHEN YOUR WIFE DISOBEYS YOU OR BECOMES DISRESPECTFUL OR DOES WRONG THINGS; THE FIRST THING YOU SHOULD DO IS TO MAKE HER UNDERSTAND IN A VERY POLITE WAY!!

That presupposes that the man is always right. Sometimes the man is wrong.
Prince Steven wrote:
Maintaining the following conditions
1. Don’t beat her such a way that it may leave a mark on her body
2. Do not hit her on the face
3. Do not hit her with a hard material.
Those are pure inventions. The Koran does not impose those conditions, and therefore there is no reason to believe what you say.

Prince Steven wrote:
We should be kind and nice to every non muslim ,as long as they are okay with the fact that We ARE Muslims. In case of our Parents if they try to make us leave Islam we will have to make them understand but we should never be disrespectful.
Is that why allah refers to us “kufars as “pigs and monkeys”? Is that why the penalty for apostasy is death? Remember, apostates are non muslims too.

In any case, any civilized person cannot be OK with somebody being a muslim. As a muslim you are OK with paedophilia, violence toward women, and rape. Civilized people are not OK with that.

Therefore you cannot be polite with us.

May allah burn in hell.



Prince Steven wrote:
It is alleged by some anti-Islamic writers that the Prophet Muhammad allowed the Muslim men to have sex with the women captives of Bani Mustaliq. However this is fabrication and a lie,
The Sahih Muslim hadith says that Muhammad allowed his men to have sex with women captives. That hadith even suggests that Muhammad partook himself.

So you want us to believe that the writer of Sahih Muslim was anti-islamic?
Prince Steven wrote:
Ali Sina , A lot of people supports freedom of speech. Calling them filthy is unwise. However the approach you took is not a logical one. When someone says something that goes against me I do not simple stop talking to him. I ask for the reasons for this claims and I try to see things in his way. If that is not logical then I explain that to him. A logical person would have asked me why I do not support freedom of speech. Instead of behaving childishly like you did.
Honestly speaking I do support the idea that everyone must have the right of speaking freely but I am unwilling to give any one the right of insulting freely. I do not support FREEDOM OF INSULT.
Then why do you support allah in calling us kufars “pigs and monkeys” and the “worst of men”?
Prince Steven wrote:
Plus Ali Sina you have called Muslims by many bad names and they are more important to me than people who supports freedom of speech are to you.
I have never seen Ali Sina call anybody any bad names. But in your Koran I see your allah guy calling us kufars bad names.

Therefore I support anybody’s right to call allah bad names. I generally refer to allah as either “bitchboy” or “whore master”, or both.
Prince Steven wrote:
NO RELIGION IN THE WORLD PROMOTES KILLING OF INNOCENT PEOPLE.
But since islam’s worst sin is disbelief, that gives you the right the kill non-believers, with apostates being at the top of the list.



Prince Steven wrote:
5. 14 million Arabs are Coptic Christians.

Muslims were the lords of Arabia for 1400 years. For a few years the British ruled, and for a few years the French ruled. Overall, the Muslims ruled Arabia for 1400 years. Yet today, there are 14 million Arabs who are Coptic Christians i.e. Christians since generations. If the Muslims had used the sword there would not have been a single Arab who would have remained a Christian.
But allah gave you verse 9-29. May allah burn in hell.
Prince Steven wrote:

6. More than 80% non-Muslims in India.

The Muslims ruled India for about a thousand years. If they wanted, they had the power of converting each and every non-Muslim of India to Islam. Today more than 80% of the population of India are non-Muslims. All these non-Muslim Indians are bearing witness today that Islam was not spread by the sword.



That’s because Hindus and Sikhs learned to defend themselves. The slaughter of tens of millions of Hindus by muslim invaders is historical fact.

Prince Steven wrote:
7. Indonesia and Malaysia.

Indonesia is a country that has the maximum number of Muslims in the world. The majority of people in Malaysia are Muslims. May one ask, "Which Muslim army went to Indonesia and Malaysia?"
But whore master allah doesn’t even have the decency to allow them to pray in a language other than Arabic?

What’s the matter with your allah guy?
Prince Steven wrote:
10. No compulsion in religion.

With which sword was Islam spread? Even if Muslims had it they could not use it to spread Islam because the Qur’an says in the following verse:
"Let there be no compulsion in religion:
Truth stands out clear from error"
[Al-Qur’an 2:256]
A meaningless early Medina verse.

That verse is abrogated by verse 9-5.
Prince Steven wrote:
11. Sword of the Intellect.

It is the sword of intellect. The sword that conquers the hearts and minds of people. The Qur’an says in Surah Nahl, chapter 16 verse 125:
"Invite (all) to the way of thy Lord
with wisdom and beautiful preaching;
and argue with them in ways that are
best and most gracious."
[Al-Qur’an 16:125]
A meaningless Mecca verse.

Abrogated by verse 9-5.
Prince Steven wrote:
Today the fastest growing religion in America is Islam. The fastest growing religion in Europe is Islam. Which sword is forcing people in the West to accept Islam in such large numbers?
The threats of violence over the cartoons of your prophet?

I thought the cartoons were rather good. I especially liked the image of your prophet tattooed on a pig’s testicle.

You see, just like you support allah’s right to insult us kufars, I support people’s right to insult your prophet.
Prince Steven wrote:
What kind of stupid question is that? There is no good in stoning people. We do not stone them or behead them for nothing. That is a offensive crime for raping and committing adultery.
Then why wasn’t your prophet stoned? He committed both rape and adultery.
Prince Steven wrote:
What do you think we should do to rapists? Let them go? What if somebody rapes your mother, what would you do? Let him get away?

According to verse 4-24, rape is OK, so according to allah, you should let them go and congratulate them for obeying allah.
Last edited by ringmaster on Wed May 22, 2013 2:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.
The prophet of Islam was nothing more than a common criminal.

Please tell me if this is accurate:

“I have fabricated things against God and have imputed to Him words which He has not spoken.”
~MUHAMMAD (Al-Tabari 6:111)

User avatar
IslamoCritic
Posts: 86
Joined: Thu May 09, 2013 6:49 pm

Re: Tolerance or Arrogance?

Post by IslamoCritic »

ringmaster wrote:
Prince Steven wrote:
Maintaining the following conditions
1. Don’t beat her such a way that it may leave a mark on her body
2. Do not hit her on the face
3. Do not hit her with a hard material.
Those are your inventions.
LOL. I highly doubt they are his inventions. He doesn't have the imagination. His latest post is still nothing more than a mix and match of unattributed copy/pasted material. For example his entire section on Qur'an 8:12 is by Spammi Zaatari:

http://muslim-responses.com/Surah_8_/Surah_8_" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Prince Steven wrote:This is the problem of copy pasting. You are simply not paying attention to what you are talking about.
Irony?

Post Reply