On Saturday I took up the claim made by an Islamic apologist that the verses of the Qur'an quoted in Geert Wilders's film Fitna were "incorrectly translated." My post was narrowly focused: it didn't discuss the contexts of the verses or anything else about the Qur'an and the film. The claim was made that the translations of the verses were incorrect, which is not the same thing as saying they were ripped out of context. Accordingly, I took up that claim only, and simply presented 16 translations of the Qur'an, including all of those most commonly used in the English-speaking world, and showed that the versions of the verses presented in Fitna were accurate and consistent with the other translations.
In response came this post at the Pardon My Paradox blog (thanks to James), in which someone calling himself or herself "Lister" claims that my list of 16 translations actually did show that Wilders had misquoted at least one of the Qur'an verses in Fitna, 47:4:
This is about meeting unbelievers in battle. Yusuf Ali, Nooruddin, Dawood, Pickthall, Hilali-Khan, Shakir, Asad, Sher Ali and Muhammad Ali all mention battle directly in that particular line of 47:4While other translators may not mention battle directly in their translation of that one sentence, I bet they do mention battle in a later line: “when the war lays down its burden”, which is included as part of 47:4 in the translation on WikiSource.
So the context makes it clear that this is about meeting in battle. Wilders gives no context. So there is no way to know that the context is battle. People could think that it includes meeting unbelievers for a cup of coffee. He gives no context as to the cause of battle.
Again, the original claim by apologist Ali Eteraz was that the verses were "incorrectly translated." So when Lister acknowledges that "other translators may not mention battle directly in their translation of that one sentence," he has destroyed his own argument: if even some of the Muslim translators (including Fakhry, whose translation is approved by no less an authority than Al-Azhar) leave "battle" out of that section, one cannot (at least if one has any interest in consistency or integrity) fault Wilders for doing so.
For the record, the Arabic doesn't mention battle in the first part of the verse. Here is Qur'an 47:4 in Arabic:
فَإِذَا لَقِيتُمُ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ فَضَرۡبَ ٱلرِّقَابِ حَتَّىٰٓ إِذَآ أَثۡخَنتُمُوهُمۡ فَشُدُّواْ ٱلۡوَثَاقَ فَإِمَّا مَنَّۢا بَعۡدُ وَإِمَّا فِدَآءً حَتَّىٰ تَضَعَ ٱلۡحَرۡبُ أَوۡزَارَهَاۚ ذَٲلِكَ وَلَوۡ يَشَآءُ ٱللَّهُ لَٱنتَصَرَ مِنۡہُمۡ وَلَـٰكِن لِّيَبۡلُوَاْ بَعۡضَڪُم بِبَعۡضٍ۬ۗ وَٱلَّذِينَ قُتِلُواْ فِى سَبِيلِ ٱللَّهِ فَلَن يُضِلَّ أَعۡمَـٰلَهُمۡ
I would translate فَإِذَا لَقِيتُمُ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ as "When you meet those who are unbelievers," although I will readily grant that the context of the verse makes it clear that it's talking about a battle, not about beheading unbelievers over coffee. Still, that is a question of context, not of the correctness of the translation, which is the only thing my post was about. But don't believe me, since I am, according to jihad apologist myth, a venomous "Islamophobe" who knows no Arabic -- Fakhry, Daryabadi, Arberry, Palmer, Rodwell, and Sale agree that "battle" is not mentioned, while Yusuf Ali, Hilali and Khan, and Asad add it in brackets, which is also a tacit admission that it isn't in the Arabic.
And now -- about that context. In "Verses from Fitna (The Movie), in Historical Context," Rogster in his Telegraph blog (thanks to all who sent this in) takes it up at length. The only weakness of his post is that he doesn't provide Islamic sources for his assertions, but I challenge any Islamic apologist to show from the early Islamic texts that anything he has written here about the contexts of the Qur'an verses in Fitna is inaccurate.
Because Rogster says that his post might be taken down, and because of its value, I reproduce it all here, although if he asks me to, I will remove it in whole or part.
Disclaimer:
1. This article is not an act of spreading/stirring hatred, as many Muslims who use the logical fallacy ‘Argumentum ad Odium’ would argue.
2. This article is a report on the historical contexts behind the verses used in Fitna the movie, in response to those who dismissed the movie solely on the basis that the verses were being quoted ‘out of historical context’. In this article, I attempt to show that the historical contexts are in-line with the intended Fitna contexts.
3. This article is not an act of racism, since a) Islam is not a race and b) Muslims are not a race, and c) This article has nothing to do with discrimination, see (2).
4. This article is not glorification of Jihadism / Islamic terrorism.
5. This article is not recruitment for Jihadists / Islamic terrorists.
6. This article is not intended to cause offence, albeit this article will likely be considered by the permanently-offended, to be offensive.The following verses are in order of appearance, with an explanation of the intended Fitna context, as well as associated historical context. I have also written a short explanation of the battle of Badr and battle of Uhud, in order to clarify the historical context surrounding the quoted revelations.
Historical Context: Battle of Badr (The historical context for 8:60, 47:4, 8:39)1. A Quraysh caravan comes from Syria > Mecca, funded with the money raised from sale of the belongings, of those who went off to join Muhammad.
2. Muhammad intended to ambush/raid the caravan.
3. The caravan found out about Muhammad’s planned ambush, and so sent out a messenger to Mecca, to ask for reinforcements.
4. The Quraysh sent an army out, to defend the caravan.
5. Muhammad learnt of the Quraysh reinforcements, but forced his men onward, to prepare for the arrival of the Quraysh
6. Muhammad ordered his men to fill-in all but one water source, and then defend the remaining water source, forcing the Quraysh to attack, in order to gain access to it.
7. Muhammad’s troops took a strong defensive position.
8. The Quraysh attacked, but lost the battle to Muhammad, despite having an army x3 bigger than Muhammad.Note: Muslims and apologists often claim that the battle of Badr was ‘purely self-defence’ against the aggressor/oppressor Quraysh.
As I have shown above, in (2), Muhammad intended to raid the caravan before the Quraysh even thought about attacking Muhammad. (3-4) The Quraysh then sent their troops ‘to defend the caravan’. (6) Muhammad provoked the Quraysh into attacking, by filling-in all the water sources (but one), whilst defending the last one from the Quraysh.
One can see that Muhammad was the true aggressor in this battle. The Quraysh were simply defending their caravan and were later provoked into attacking, in order to gain access to water.
So if we consider this historical context, the verses 8:60, 47:4 and 8:39 are all in relation to a battle in which Muhammad was the true aggressor and provoker.
Historical Context: Battle of Uhud (The historical context for 4:56)1. The Quraysh desired to avenge their losses at Badr
2. The Quraysh also wanted to strike back at Muhammad, for raiding many Quraysh caravans and for generally being a mass-murdering marauder.
3. The Muslims readied for war, soon afterwards, and the two armies fought on the slopes and plains of Uhud.
4. The losses on the Muslim side, were far greater than at Badr, but they still gained victory.Note: Again, Muslims and apologists often claim that the battle of Uhud was ‘purely self-defence’ against the aggressor/oppressor Quraysh.
Whilst technically the Muslims did act in self-defence here. The battle of Uhud was in response to the constant raids carried out by Muhammad as his followers (As in the case of Badr), as well as due to the fact that Muhammad was the true aggressor and provoker of the battle of Badr, thus making him a warlord as well as a marauder of caravans & people.
8:60 - “Prepare for them whatever force and cavalry ye are able of gathering, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies, of Allah and your enemies”Fitna context: The quotation of 8:60 in ‘Fitna’, is meant to show that through Qur’anic verse, Allah incites Muslims to terrorise, and that the terrorism carried out by Muslims today, is inspired by such verses, since Allah is literally commanding Muslims to terrorise their enemy.
Note: Unlike Islamic apologists will argue, this verse does not command Muslims to ‘frighten’ their enemies, in hope that their enemy will retreat.
Looking backwards in this chapter, for more context on what is meant by “Strike terror into the hearts of the unbelievers”, we refer to Qur’an 8:12, where we can see another example of this use of ‘Terror’ against unbelievers, with Allah saying: “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”.
The process is:
1. Allah terrorises the unbelievers, and then
2. Muslims carry out violent acts against the unbelieversThe process is not:
1. Allah terrorises the unbelievers, and then
2. Muslims watch the unbelievers retreatThere is a clear system here, which first begins with terrorism, and then ends in Muslims carrying out violent acts against the unbelievers. It is not, as apologists argue, that terrorism was used merely to make an enemy retreat, so as to avert having to fight any battle to begin with. 8:12’s use of terrorism, is specifically accompanied with acts of violence. So when we refer back to 8:60, where Allah commands Muslims to: “strike terror into the hearts of the enemies, of Allah and your enemies”, he is (specifically) giving Muslims permission to do the terrorising, unlike in 8:12, where it is Allah doing the terrorising.
Furthermore, if we refer to Bukhari, we also find the Prophet Muhammad himself admitting that he has “been made victorious with terror” Bukhari, Vol 4, Book 52, No. 220 (The Hadith: “Fighting for the Cause of Allah”).
The historical context of 8:60 (And 8:12), places the verse(s) after the battle of Badr. The ‘enemies of Allah’, which are mentioned in the verse, were historically the Quraysh tribe (Who fought them at Badr). The verse does not simply apply to that time and people, but instead applies to ‘enemies of Allah’ (generally) and applies for all time.
(Note: The reasoning behind the Quraysh attack upon the Muslims at Badr, is noted at the beginning of this article)
In a modern context, literally all non-Muslims can be argued to be ‘enemies of Allah’, one way or another; whether it be through governmental support of Israel, or even something as insignificant as cartoons about Muhammad, etc.
It has even be argued that non-Muslims are enemies of Allah by default, simply due to them not already being Muslims, or by refusing to convert to Islam, after being given an invitation (Like that which Ahmadinejad gave to the US, thus making the war against the US, a ‘just’ war, since they did not automatically embrace Islam, after being invited). Note that the Muslims giving an invitation to a non-Muslim nation, to embrace Islam (Short of which, war is declared upon them), has been as constant hallmark throughout Islamic history.
4:56 - “Those who have disbelieved our signs, we shall roast them in fire: Whenever their skins are cooked to a turn, we shall substitute new skins for them, that they may feel the punishment: Verily Allah is sublime and wise”Fitna context: This verse is revealed shortly before two videos,
1. The first video is of an Imam, preaching from Bukhari (Vol 4, Book 52, No. 176-177), which is where Muhammad says that “The Hour” (ie. The Islamic Resurrection and End of Time), is literally dependent on the killing of Jews by Muslims, that the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and that the rocks and trees will yell out to Muslims, to come and kill the Jews.
2. The second video is of a child named Basmallah, who refers to Jews as “Apes and Pigs”, inspired not by some random hatred of Jews, but in accordance with Qur'an 2:62-5, 5:59-60 and 7:166.
These two videos relate to the quoted Qur’anic verse 4:56, in Fitna, because 4:56 is about Jews, if you consider that verses 4:44-59 are a general censure against Jews. Verse 4:47 talks of Jews being accursed by Muhammad and ‘being transformed’ (Consequently into the ‘apes and pigs’, as noted above).
Thus, one can see that the Fitna usage of this verse, along with the following two videos, actually gives the verse context.
The historical context of 4:56, places the verse after the battle of Uhud. Again, just as in the case of Badr, it was the Quraysh army versus Muhammad’s army.
(Note: The reasoning behind the Quraysh attack upon the Muslims at Uhud, is noted at the beginning of this article)
The censure in chapter 4 of the Qur’an, against the Jews, is intended to denigrate them into the ‘apes and pigs’ and generally make the Jews appear ‘less human’.
Again, since the Qur’an cannot change and that it applies forever, this censure remains a constant, and accounts for the modern anti-Semitism exhibited by Muslims today, exemplified by the two videos following the verse, in Fitna.
The historical context of providing a censure against the Jews of the Quraysh tribe, has been applied in a modern context, to all Jews, since the verse only states: “Those who have disbelieved our signs”, rather than “The Quraysh, who have disbelieved our signs”. This ambiguity was intentional, so that the verse would apply indefinitely to pretty much anyone who ‘disbelieves’.
Also, when 4:56 states that “Those who have disbelieved our signs, we shall roast them in fire”, the verse has been interpreted today, to mean that Muslims should be the ones who “roast them in fire” (aka. By suicide bomb), rather than as a description of what others interpret as something which only happens to unbelievers in Hell.
47:4 - “Therefore, when ye meet the unbelievers, smite at their necks, and when ye have caused a bloodbath amongst them, bind a bond firmly on them”Fitna context: The quotation of 47:4, is meant to show that Muslims are required to carry out these violent acts (against unbelievers), and that this verse continues to inspire today’s Muslims to carry out these violent acts (against unbelievers).
To put the verse into a modern context, there are several subsequent videos (After the verse is quoted), which give modern examples of how said verse is being applied today, by Muslims.
The first video is about the murder of Theo Van Goth, who was murdered by a Muslim, who murdered him for what he admitted were religiously (Islamic) motivated reasons.
The second video features a protest, by Muslims, on the streets of London, in which (If I’m correct) the voice of Anjem Choudary is shouting that the British people should “Take lesson from Theo Van Goth” and from other examples, that we will “pay with our blood”. These two videos are examples of how the “cause a bloodbath amongst them” part of this verse, applies today.
However, it is the third video with which this verse is particularly relevant, since it features Ken Bigley, whom was ‘tied up’ and ‘beheaded’, in line with verse 47:4.
The historical context of this verse, places the verse before the battle of Badr, that is, before Muhammad and his army, defeated the first Quraysh attack.
(Note: The reasoning behind the Quraysh attack upon the Muslims at Badr, is noted at the beginning of this article)
This verse gives the Muslims permission to behead the Quraysh, to cause a bloodbath amongst them, and to take prisoners (In pre-emption of the battle). All violent acts, of which the Muslims do, during the battle of Badr...
The process is:
1. Allah gives Muslims permission to a) Behead unbelievers, b) Cause a bloodbath amongst them, c) Take prisoners.
And then...
2. The Muslims act upon said verse, in the battle of Badr, by a) Beheading unbelievers, b) Causing a bloodbath, and c) Taking prisoners.
Perfectly consistent with the verse.
Today’s Muslims, who look at the verse and the associated historical context, will emulate it by doing exactly what the Muslims did, when the verse was revealed to the Muslims of the time - They will go out and behead unbelievers, cause a bloodbath amongst them and take prisoners.
Just like what they did with Ken Bigley and so many others...
4:89 - “They but wish ye should reject faith as they do, and thus be on the same footing as they, so take not friends from their ranks, until they flee in the way of Allah. But if they turn renegades, seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take no friends or helpers from their ranks”Fitna context: By quoting this verse, the intention is to show that it is forbidden to leave Islam, and that if after becoming Muslim, someone converts from Islam or betrays the Muslims, then Muslims are required (By Allah’s command, and also consequently by Islamic law itself) to capture them and kill the apostate, wherever the Muslims find them, without taking any friends or helpers (From amongst the unbelievers) in accomplishing this task.
The first video after the verse, shows a Muslim man stating that: “Islam is a sacred religion. The best religion there is. If someone converts to Christianity (From Islam), he deserves the death penalty”.
From 4:89, apostasy laws are derived - “If they turn renegades, seize them and kill them, wherever you find them”.
The movie also shows another side to Muslims - Their ‘superiority complex’, which places Islam (In their minds) above all other religions. In the first video, the Muslim man says that Islam is: “The best religion there is”. Whilst in the second video, (I think) Trevor Brooks, aka Omar Brooks, aka Abu Izzadeen, talks about Islam being ‘superior’ to all major religions. The apostasy death sentence, directly influences this superiority complex, because if Allah himself commands apostates to be killed, then Islam must be “The best religion there is”, since otherwise Allah would not command Muslims to kill apostates.
The historical context of this verse, places the verse after the battle of Uhud, with the ‘people’ mentioned in the verse “They but wish ye should reject faith as they do”, being the Bedouin tribes, which lived in Medina (and also the countryside).
At the time of this verse, there was much distrust over the Bedouin, who inhabited Medina. Some Muslims were hoping that eventually the Bedouin would become Muslims (Which is the foundation behind Dhimmitude), whilst some Muslims wanted to take a harsher stance towards them.
The verse continues this trend of distrust: “So take not friends from their ranks, until they flee in the way of Allah. But if they turn renegades, seize them and kill them wherever you find them”, thus commanding the Muslims not to be friends with the Bedouin, until they become Muslims, and that if the Bedouin (after accepting Islam) leave Islam, or betray the Muslims, then the Muslims are required by Allah, to capture and kill them.
Again, since the Qur’an is not limited to a specific people or place, and the verses apply for all time, Muslims in a modern context, can use 4:89, replacing the historically contextual Bedouin, with any modern denomination they feel like (Christians, Hindus, Zoroastrians, etc).
If a Muslim is to refer to the historical context to gain insight into how 4:89 was implemented upon the Bedouin, it is clear to see from Islamic history, that the Bedouin were treated with distrust (Until they converted to Islam) and that Bedouin apostates were summarily captured and executed, in line with what actually happened. Thus, in a modern context, other non-Muslim denominations are treated with distrust by Muslims today, until they convert to Islam. If they then leave Islam, they are to be captured and killed, by Muslims. All major schools of Islamic jurisprudence accept death for apostasy. It is not something which can be denied.
So in the case of 4:89 and it’s insight into how Muslims dealt with apostates, it is clear that the historical context supports the intended context in Fitna.
8:39 - “Fight them until there is no dissension, and the religion is entirely Allah’s”Fitna context: By quoting this verse, the intention is to show that one of the goals of Islam, is to dominate the entire world. The first video, following the verse, is of an Islamic Imam/Cleric, stating that: “Islam is a religion that wants to rule the world. It has done so before and will eventually rule it again”. This video is then followed by a video of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, stating pretty much the same thing, he said: “The message of the Islamic revolution, is global, and is not restricted to a specific place or time. Have no doubt... Allah willing, Islam will conquer what? - It will conquer all the mountain tops of the world”. Following this theme of Islam being world domineering, a further video of another Imam/Cleric is preaching that Islam “has ruled the world the world before, and by Allah, the day will come when we will rule the entire world again! The day will come when we will rule Britain and the entire world!”. A fourth video follows, where an Imam/Cleric admits that: “Allah commanded us to spread this religion worldwide”. Basically, this theme goes on for quite a bit longer, if not simply to demonstrate the widespread acknowledgement of Islam as being a religion that desires world domination.
The historical context places this verse as being revealed after the battle of Badr, with “Fight them” to mean the Jews of the Quraysh tribe. The verse refers to the ‘persecution’ of the Muslims by the Quraysh, and that Allah commands the Muslims to “fight them until there is no more persecution”, adding “and religion should be only for Allah”.
(Note: The reasoning behind the Quraysh attack upon the Muslims at Badr, is noted at the beginning of this article)
To understand how exactly and for what reasons the Quraysh were ‘persecuting’ the Muslims, I would first need to discuss the battle of Badr and the reasons for the Quraysh launching an attack against the Muslims in the first place. This will be mentioned as soon as I deal with the latter part of this verse, and it’s associated historical context.
The ending (To Qur’an 8:39) goes: “and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do”. According to Tafsir Ibn Kathir, and many other Tafsir, the former part of the ending, which states that “religion should be only for Allah”, means that Muslims should fight until there is no more “shirk”.
Robert Spencer notes that: “Shirk is the association of partners with Allah – i.e., calling Jesus the Son of God. So this verse, although it was revealed in the aftermath of a seventh-century battle between Muslims and pagans, has a universal application”
Basically, 8:39 verse commands Muslims to fight non-Muslims, until the only religion (In the world), is Islam. This is nothing less than Allah condoning/commanding genocide, and nothing less than the rhetoric of world domination.
This goal of dominating the world, was even admitted by Muhammad who said: “I have been commanded to fight against people, till they testify to the fact that there is no god but Allah, and believe in me (that) I am the messenger (from the Lord)”
Note: The Razzias (raids) carried out by Muhammad and his followers:Prior to the two battles, the Muslims and Meccans had fought several smaller skirmishes in late 623 and early 624, as the Muslim raids grew increasingly commonplace, but Badr was their first large-scale battle.
Note: Even though many Muslims were Quraysh themselves, they believed that they were entitled to steal from them, because the Meccans had expelled them from their homes and tribes (Crazy Muslim logic 101).
Finally:Prominent Muslim scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi recently made a comment about ‘Fitna: The movie’, saying that:
“We need scholarly refutations to claims that Prophet Muhammad incited the killing of men and women”.The fact that Qaradawi is admitting that there aren’t scholarly refutations to the claims (In the first place), demonstrates that all current rebuttals against said claims, have thus far been on the basis that ‘Muslims don't want to believe that Muhammad incited the killing of men and women’, rather than rebuttals which are based upon authoritative fact, and supported by authoritative sources.
Really, it just defies any sense of verisimilitude, to say that the Prophet Muhammad never incited the killing of men and women. As I have shown in this blog - He clearly did.
The propaganda article below is on point with this "Fitna" thread: "Translating Qur'an from original Arabic loses meaning"
http://media.www.lsureveille.com/media/storage/paper868/news/2008/04/21/Opinion/Translating.Quran.From.Original.Arabic.Loses.Meaning-3336974.shtml
Funny how they're always claiming that, isn't it? Just a type of taqiyya.
If God tells a Prophet to wage a war against a group of people; God being our Lord who is all knowing and all wise; who are we to object or open our mouth or dare to pick up a pen or operate our fingers to start writing? What is the aim and for what? Why an action of a Prophet who was bestowed with the blessings to complete the religion of God for the mankind; who did every thing on the command of God. He spoke or did only; what God told him to do. Why that should be pinching some one today?
This post is another provocation; a futile effort to ratchet up the hype of Fitna movie in order to depict Muhammad as aggressive?
But again…Muhammad being aggressive;… in a battle? What could have he done? Probably present a bouquet of flowers to his enemies?
adabarez
It is easy to see that Robert Spencer knows Islam better than 99% of Muslims. That's assuming that Muslims are not lying and spinning. This "Lister" is trying to put the best face on an awful region that he was born into.
Muslims are not objective when debating Islam. Far from it. They are defending their life because Islam and Islamic culture is the center of it. Because they were brought up wrong and will never admit it. All the Islamic holidays and rituals and 5 times prayers per day are designed to brainwash the doubters back into submission
Their "holy men" shout that all a Muslim needs to know is in the Koran. Muslims are more brainwashed by their faith than those of any other faith. I believe in God of Moses and Abraham but am aware of the mechanics of religion
Jews Christians Hindus Buddhists and other are more critical and objective about their faiths. Muslims are fanatical when it comes to any non Muslim calling their religion into account. So they will lie about 9 year old Aisha and lie & misrepresent about the Fitna movie
When I looked at my TV and saw the 9/11 images it seemed out of context. Looking back, so many epxeriences were out of context. The 1979 hostage taking, Great Satan, 1972 Munich Olympics, and so many others. Now we go through intense security at airports. I used to see that as out of context, but now somehow I don't anymore.
The more terrorism stays the same, the more in-context it seems to be.
Robert,
the little weasel from the MCB, Inayat Bunglawussi, is attacking you and Melanie Phillips on his' Islamophobia Watch' website:
* For years now we have covered the ravings of Robert Spencer and his cronies as they take the language of hate and give it an air of respectability so that loons like Melanie Phillips aren't forced to rely on BNP propaganda for their diatribes.*
Today, though, our attention has been drawn to an article that is little more than a 21st century version of the scientific racism used to justify some of history's most appalling acts of genocide and colonialism.
At first we thought it was a spoof designed to discredit Spencer and his website but, no, it does appear to be genuine.
http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2008/4/21/frontpage-magazine-scientific-racism.html
Sheik:
That one is pretty outlandish, even as these things go. In the first place, FP is not my website. Although I do write there regularly, I have no hand in editorial decisions whatsoever.
Second, I didn't see this article until just now, when you called my attention to it. I don't know Hammond, and don't know on what basis he arrives at this data. But in any case, there is nothing in it, nothing whatsoever, that has anything to do with "scientific racism," much less genocide or colonialism. He is saying that Muslim demands increase in proportion to their numbers within a non-Muslim polity. That is demonstrably true with reference to the recent history of Europe, but it has nothing to do with race (Islam is a religio/political ideology, not a race), and genocide and colonialism are nowhere in the picture.
I don't endorse Hammond's piece, simply because I haven't seen the data he has used to arrive at his conclusions, but the Islamophobia Watch piece is simply yet another example of jihad apologists grasping at straws and using smear tactics instead of actually refuting what I say -- which, of course, they cannot do.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
"But again…Muhammad being aggressive;… in a battle? What could have he done? Probably present a bouquet of flowers to his enemies?"
Your prophet is a fake prophet and you all lie about him. Your alleged prophet fought many wars and battles and they were not all defensive wars. You are children of the lie and that is the lie you tell. About defensive wars.
A religion doesn't conquer huge swaths of the Middle East and beyond within two centuries without being extremely aggressive and bloody. This is your inheritance of blood. The blood on the hands of Muhammad and the wrongly guided four caliphs who succeeded him. Blood blood blood of those you call infidels
You make it easy to follow the bouncing ball. I read some works on the reasoning's given for the death penalty for apostacy, I can follow their logic, but I have to shut off portions of my brain to do it.
Question:
Are the two below quotes in conflict with each other?
Also, when 4:56 states that “Those who have disbelieved our signs, we shall roast them in fire”,
'Ikrimah said: 'Ali burned some people who retreated from Islam. When Ibn 'Abbas was informed of it, he said: If it had been I, I would not have them burned, for the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Do not inflict Allah's punishment on anyone, but would have had killed them on account of the statement of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him). The Apostle said: Kill those who change their religion.
Thanks
Of the little I read of Islam I got the impression that when it is perceived by Muslims that Islam is under attack there is war on Islam and this should be meet with forceful action.
Apostatizing is an attack on Islam and the umma, questioning the rolls of Islam and the Koran as the true word of Allah is likewise an attack on Islam and shall be meet with force.
So Islam can be at war very easy.
Another smelly troll?
duh swami,
No, they're precisely in harmony. In 4:56 Allah says he will roast the unbelievers in fire. In the hadith you quoted, Muslims hesitate to burn their enemies because that is a punishment that is the prerogative only of Allah.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Robert...That's what I thought, thanks for the clarification.
Engelbrekt:
Islam seeks nothing less than a total global domination. The word Islam literally means “submission” or “surrender”, the kind that comes by force or fraud. Its scripture must be taken literally; its provisions are intended to dominate every waking moment in the life of a believer. There is no room for being a half-hearted Muslim and no toleration of watering down its invocations.
Non-Muslims have been granted the freedom to stay outside the Islamic fold and to cling to their false, man-made ways if they so wish. They have, however, absolutely no right to seize the reins of power in any part of God’s earth nor to direct the collective affairs of human beings according to their own misconceived doctrines.
(Maudidi’s commentary on Sura 9:29, in Towards understanding the Qur’an.
Muslim scholar Bassam Tibi:
“Muslims are religiously obliged to disseminate the Islamic faith throughout the world…. If non-Muslims submit to conversion or subjugation, this call can be pursued peacefully. If they do not, Muslims are obliged to wage war against them. … Those who resist Islam cause wars and are responsible for them”
So after all the infidels are the one who don’t want world peace according to Islamic scholars.
World peace in accordance to Islamic teachings can be achieved only when all the people in the world submit themselves to Islam.
You have to get up pretty early to beat Robert in a debate about Islamic scripture--so early, in fact, that he's not out of bed yet. It's your only chance. And from what I've seen in the posts' timestamps, Robert seldom sleeps anyway.
As for the troll, that stuff is rich indeed. What else was Mohamed to do, after all? He was in battle, doncha know--battles he started, but let's not quibble. That's what one does in battle: rapes, pillages, plunders, and destroys.
"But again…Muhammad being aggressive;… in a battle? What could have he done? Probably present a bouquet of flowers to his enemies?"
The founders of Christianity went to their deaths metaphorically doing exactly that: praying for their enemies and turning the other cheek.
But Mohammedans must kill and destroy--or when they're unable to do either, to mock and deride.
HAID
You have to get up pretty early to beat Robert in a debate about Islamic scripture--so early, in fact, that he's not out of bed yet. It's your only chance. And from what I've seen in the posts' timestamps, Robert seldom sleeps anyway.
As for the troll, that stuff is rich indeed. What else was Mohamed to do, after all? He was in battle, doncha know--battles he started, but let's not quibble. That's what one does in battle: rapes, pillages, plunders, and destroys.
"But again…Muhammad being aggressive;… in a battle? What could have he done? Probably present a bouquet of flowers to his enemies?"
I know it's hard for the troll to imagine, but the founders of Christianity went to their deaths metaphorically doing exactly that: praying for their enemies and turning the other cheek.
But Mohammedans must kill and destroy--or when they're unable to do either, to mock and deride.
HAID
This is the kind of thing - taking one by one the Qur'anic verses quoted in "Fitna" and examining their meaning, as given by a dozen or more translations -- that has to be done if the easily-flung charges are to be carefully rebutted. Very few people in the Western world have the knowledge and the patience, to do so, and fewer have the stamina to keep at it, again and again and again. There should, and there could, however, be more, if others simply undertook to study, to teach themselves. After all, what Infidels have to learn is not some hermetic secret, nor something akin to elementary particle physics that requires all kinds of other, preliminary study. It's unpleasant, for some, it demands an ability to read and re-read not only the canonical texts -- Qur'an, Hadith, Sira -- but also commentaries by both Muslims and non-Muslims on those texts -- the skill of close reading, as well as some study of history, a history that some may find appalling, but if that they must convince themselves is appalling in a fascinating way, so as to keep their spirits up as they master the material that will make them unfoolable, and able to help other Infidels, many of whom will never make the attempt at such reading or such study themselves, from being fooled, dangerously, disastrously, fooled.
Robert said
Hammond points out a verifiable fact (Muslim demands increase as their population grows in Dar al-Harb), and by doing so, he is committing "genocide" according to Bunglawussi.
The urge to back down under the spurious and irrational claims of "genocide", "racist" (sic), "Islamophobia", "colonialist", "Crusader", etc. must be resisted at every step. Thankfully, Robert is quite seasoned and experienced at reacting to these (cough-cough) "debating techniques".
Very few people in the Western world have the knowledge and the patience, to do so, and fewer have the stamina to keep at it, again and again and again. There should, and there could, however, be more, if others simply undertook to study, to teach themselves.
Wait, I thought that it was ignorance of Islam that made us Islamophobic? Are you saying that JW readers actually know something about Islam and still don't think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread?
The most disingenous aspect of Muslim apologetics is when they piously intone that we must read the Koran to understand the greatness of their faith. They know for a fact that we won't even read our own foundational texts and they people who do make the effort won't get past page 5 before being bored to tears. Out of 100 people who do actually read the Koran, I will bet 99 of them reach the JW conclusion that this is a very dangerous book (and not "dangerous" in the way that a D.H. Lawrence could once be considered dangerous). The other 1 converts.
I follow the adage about Islam that "What's new isn't true and what's true isn't new" and I think Islam has absolutely no redeeming qualities whatsoever, is a completely superflous fraud perpetrated by a psychopath, and if it disappeared tomorrow I would think it was the greatest thing to happen to mankind since fire and the wheel, combined.
1.
Rogster's presentation of the context is a useful exercise, one that needs to be on display.
A couple of comments on his presentation:
Regarding 4:56, maybe I missed something, but Rogster did not mention that the verse refers to Allah burning the non-Muslims in hell-fire. It is a stretch to suggest, as Rogster does, that this would be used by jihadists as a justification for burning non-Muslims in suicidal bomb attacks. (There are other verses which they use for the general purpose of justifying killing oneself in jihad, e.g., 9:111).
Regarding 4:89, any well-prepared apologist will point out that there are problems with taking the verse as straightforwardly supporting the death penalty for mere apostasy from Islam. The objections of the apologists need to be anticipated and refuted preemptively. Due to the Quran's ambiguity, establishing that Islam calls for death to apostates ultimately requires citation of the several ahadith in which Muhammad gives a general order permitting the killing of anyone who leaves Islam, and citation of Islamic laws.
2.
Regarding Robert's above comment to another poster about Muslims quoted in a hadith, where they hesitate to use fire as a punishment, of course in the Hadith generally there are numerous instances where Muhammad orders his men to use fire as a weapon, threatens to use fire, supervisizes his men using fire in battle (and lets them do it), or is ordered by Allah to use fire. This is taken up in Islamic law...
From the Hanafi book of jurisprudence, the Hedayah (see Jihad entry):
"[...]"...the Muslims must then with God's assistance attack the infidels with all manner of warlike engines (as the Prophet did by the people of Ta'if), and must also set fire to their habitations (in the same manner as the Prophet fired Baweera), and must inundate them with water and tear up their plantations and tread down their grain because by these means they will become weakened, and their resolution will fail and their force be broken; these means are, therefore, all sanctified by the law."
http://www.answering-islam.org/Books/Hughes/j.htm
The notion that Muslims should not use "Allah's punishment," suggested in the hadith which Robert mentions, does appear to me to be contrary to the Quran's statements to the effect that Muslims can and should deliver Allah's punishment through their hands (9:14, 9:52). Moroever, other Quranic verses state that Allah will punish non-Muslims in hell with iron implements of various sorts (hooked rods, chains, among other things), yet, obviously, it would be contrary to the entire weight of the Quran, Hadith, and Sira to suggest that Muslims are not permitted to use iron to punish non-Muslims (through jihad and sharia).
Hugh stated read and study history. I want to second that. The study of the various works of Islam is important but only one half of the picture. The other half is understand how those in the past reacted and dealt with the threat.
The desire to trade in the far east drove the Portuguese to sail south around Africa. And Columbus to sail west for China. This was because Islam was blocking the way in the east. There are other things that occurred because of the raise of Islam.
So, the more we know the better prepared we will be to the scourge that the world is facing.
adabarez,
Both of these appellations are disputed by anyone with reason.
Ditto and more. Please work harder on your ESL homework. The "blessings" of Islam leave an unproductive sand pit wherever they perch.
Well, then your Allah (who is not "God") is a vicious monster. Likewise your Prophet. Did Mohammed (pee and bm upon him) only do "what [Allah] told him to do" when he lit a fire on a man's chest to complete the theft of treasury after the cowardly sneak attack ghazwah of Khaybar? Likewise, when he perverted a small child by beginning serially raping her at age 9 and later having her watch all day long 600+ Banu Quraizah being beheaded? Did God tell him to rape the captives' wives and use them like sexual toilets after his ghazwahs? One could go on all day like this. Allah is sick. You're sick if you think printing it in a pathetic book of horrible and declining pseudo-poetry makes it okay.
No, but my response above was. Deal with it.
This is such a common phrase by Muslim provocateurs that I would like to know where it originates. Hizballah_supporter and A Khokar both used it on these threads. Are you one of these, adabarez?
Really, you have a "god" called Allah, who picked out an illiterate narcissistic epileptic to "reveal" in "recitations" consisting of repetitive, decontextualized indulgences and narrations about said epileptic's ongoing life (including his inaccurate renditions of pre-existing literature), to be reorganized non-chronologically after his death into a book to be memorized in a language most of his future followers would not understand and who will live in unproductive sand pits for following its tenets. You find this "superior"? You expect us to be impressed?
Don't try to kid us about Islam. If you had read The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and went out on the Mississippi, if you ran across Tom, you would recognize him from what you've read. In the same manner, we can tell who the "real" Muslims are, by reading the Qur'an, ahadith and sira.
Another thing that this post makes me realize is that when you see the straws at which Muslim apologists will grasp, it really puts the mental efforts of an Ibn Warraq to free himself from Islam in perspective. Muslims would literally rather die than give up on something so obviously inhumane and false as their moon god religion. Makes you realize just how pliant and stupid the human animal can be under infelicitous conditions such as are the norm under Islam.
Thanks for quoting my article. I often tell people that if they want referencing for specific points, then I'm more than willing to give it to them.
...(continued re use of fire in Islam)...
I posted some information on this issue previously here.
To that I would add...
Ishaq, p. 552. (Conquest of Mecca. Muhammad destroys the polytheists' idols).
"When the apostle prayed the noon prayer on the day of the conquest he ordered that all of the idols which were round the Ka'ba should be collected and burned with fire and broken up. Fadala b. al-Mulawwih al-Laythi said commemorating the day of the conquest:
'Had you seen Muhammad and his troops
The day the idols were smashed when he entered,
You would have seen God's light become manifest
And darkness covering the face of idolatry.'
Ishaq, p. 588.
“Don’t help al-Lāt for God is about to destroy her.
How can one who cannot help herself be helped?
She that was burned in black smoke and caught in fire,
None fighting before her stones, is an outcast.
When the apostle descends upon your land
None of her people will be left when he leaves.”
Re the attack on Dhu-al-Khalasah:
“[…]When the Apostle of God captured Mecca and the Arabs embraced Islam, among the delegates who came to pay their homage was Jarir ibn-'Abdullah[16]. He came to the Apostle and embraced Islam before him. Thereupon the Apostle addressed him saying, "O Jarir! Wilt thou not rid me of dhu-al-Khalasah?" Jarir replied, "Yea." So the Apostle dispatched him to destroy it. He set out until he got to the banu-Abmas[17] of the Bajilah [tribe] and with them he proceeded to dhu-al-Khalasah. There he was met by the Khath'am and the Bahilah, who resisted him and attempted to defend dhu-al-Khalasah. He, therefore, fought them and killed a hundred men of the Bahilah, its custodians, and many of the Khath'am[15]; while of the banu-Qubafah ibn-'Amir ibn-Khath'am[18] he killed two hundred. Having defeated them and forced them into flight, he demolished the building which stood over dhu-al-Khalasah and set it on fire.[…]”
Note the source link for the Dhu-al-Khalasah quote is
http://muslim-quotes.netfirms.com/islamstart.html
Kinana of Khaybar, here is another hadith that seems to explicitly say that Muhammad does not allow burning kufirs to death:
Bukhari:V4B52N260 “Ali burnt some [former Muslims alive] and this news reached Ibn Abbas, who said, ‘Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, “Don’t punish with Allah’s Punishment.” No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, “If a Muslim discards his Islamic religion, kill him.”’
So, maybe Muhammad approved of setting fire to the kufirs' habitation and their idols, and of course it is okay to kill the kufirs wherever you find them, but not okay to kill them by fire.
Then, there is this:
Tabari VIII:122/Ishaq:515 “The Prophet gave orders concerning Kinanah to Zubayr, saying, ‘Torture him until you root out and extract what he has. So Zubayr kindled a fire on Kinanah’s chest, twirling it with his firestick until Kinanah was near death. Then the Messenger gave him to Maslamah, who beheaded him.”
Apparently it is okay to use fire until the victim is near death, as long as you then behead him/her to finish them off. I'm sure there's an "Ask the Imam" posting out there somewhere explaining the subtleties of this point.
Special Guest,
Indeed, I think the hadith you cite is the same one Robert was referring to...there are several variants of essentially the same account.
I go over this in a bit more depth in the previous link that I cited above. (In fact I selected my most recent moniker in addressing this point, using Kinana as one example of someone who was "punished" with fire under Muhammad's direct supervision). It seemed to me there were a lot of contradictory ahadith dealing with this issue of punishing with fire, some suggsting punishment with fire is permissible and others suggesting that it is only "Allah's" punishment. [As I argued above, though, that a punishment is "Allah's" doesn't necessarily mean that Muslims shouldn't use it; on the contrary, Quran 9:14 states explicitly that Allah will deliver his punishment of the disbelievers through the hands of the Muslims]. Faced with all that contradictory and ambiguous material, it is useful to see what jurists write about it, and the few that I've seen address it say or imply that it is permissible to burn people (not just their property) in jihad. For example, Al-Ghazali (d. 1111), the Sufi theologian and Sunni jurist, claimed that in jihad...
"...one may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them..."
Cited from Bostom’s (2005) The Legacy of Jihad, orig. source: Al-Ghazali (1979). Kitab al-Wagiz fi fiqh madhab al-imam al-Safi'i, Translated into English by Dr. Michael Schub. (pp. 186, 190-91). Beirut.
Then there is this hadith quoting Muhammad:
excerpt:
“[..]Verily, Allah commanded me to burn (kill) the Quraish.[…]” (Sahih Muslim Book #040, Hadith #6853)
In another incident, Muhammad ordered the destruction of the Opposition Mosque, and it was, according to at least one source, burned down while people were in it.
This type of punishment is consistent with a different case involving Muhammad's threats to those who don't attend prayers, cited in Sahih Bukhari:
Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "No doubt, I intended to order somebody to pronounce the Iqama of the (compulsory congregational) prayer and then I would go to the houses of those who do not attend the prayer and burn their houses over them." (Book #41, Hadith #602)
This suggests that people could be killed or injured by fire if their houses were burned "over them."
This is also possible in another similar hadith involving the context of jihad...
Sunan of Abu Dawud (3) Narrated Usamah: The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) enjoined upon him to attack Ubna in the morning and burn the place. (Book #14, Hadith #2610)
Another jurist...
"Al-Mawardi (978-1058 C.E.), a Shafi'i and one of the most famous Islamic minds of the middle ages, discusses jihad in his al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah (Laws of Islamic Governance):
"The amirate of jihad is particularly concerned with fighting the mushrikūn. This section deals with the direction of war. The mushrikūn of Dar al-Harb (the arena of battle) are of two types:
First, those whom the call of Islam has reached, but they have refused it and have taken up arms. The amir of the army has the option of fighting them in one of two ways, that is in accordance with what he judges to be in the best interest of the Muslims and most harmful to the mushrikūn; the first, to harry them from their houses and to inflict damage on them day and night, by fighting and burning, or else to declare war and combat them in ranks; Second, those whom the invitation to Islam has not reached, although such persons are few nowadays since Allah has made manifest the call of his Messenger - unless there are people to the east and extreme east, or to the west, of whom we have no knowledge, beyond the Turks and Romans we are fighting; it is forbidden us to initiate an attack on the mushrikūn while they are unawares or at night, that is, it is forbidden to kill them, use fire against them or begin to attack before explaining the invitation to Islam to them, informing them of the miracles of the Prophet and making plain proofs so as to encourage acceptance on their part; if they still refuse to accept after this, war is waged against them and they are treated as those whom the call has reached."
Source:
http://www.geocities.com/ibniblis/jihad.html
Qaradawi, the famous modern day scholar, has also cited burning as a punishment of homosexuals who commit sodomy, though there is some dispute as to whether Qaradawi was advocating or merely citing the penalty. (In any case, he's at least citing the existence of such a penalty using fire).
[Source]
Lastly, the next hadith suggests that one who is burnt by fire is a martyr (especially if it is in jihad in the cause of Allah):
"[...] The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: Allah Most High gave him a reward according to his intentions. What do you consider martyrdom? They said: Being killed in the cause of Allah. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: There are seven types of martyrdom in addition to being killed in Allah's cause: one who dies of plague is a martyr; one who is drowned is a martyr; one who dies of pleurisy is a martyr; one who dies of an internal complaint is a martyr; one who is burnt to death is a martyr; who one is killed by a building falling on him is a martyr; and a woman who dies while pregnant is a martyr." (Book #20, Hadith #3105)
After all that, there may yet be some clear restrictions, stated by jurists, limiting using fire as a punishment, but I haven't come across such examples.
Rather than obsess about perceived contradictions, and trying to resolve their conflict, we should be mindful of the dualistic logic and ethics of of the foreign Islamic ideology. Where the Western mind sees contradiction, the Islamic mind sees lattitude. The "correct" verse is the one used to justify the immediate action.
Concerned Citizen
I may not know any ‘Hezbollah _supporter’ but I certainly know A Khokar. I know that how; when none of the JW contributors on this site was able to refute the truth of the scripture and the Wisdom of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) that he defended; that Quran is pristine scripture containing the uncorrupted and unsullied commandments. Very expediently, A Khokar was banned to see him off and silence for good. One could also see how many other JW right hand contributors were seen so gleeful on this occasion.
It is deep seeded bad habit in the west that they make lot of clamor to avail their right of freedom of speech and may go at any length to project it; but when the other side opts for their freedom of speech; simply they are banned, shut or labeled with some obnoxious labels?
You may also see how the so-called civilized lot hurls the abuses toward their opponents on this site and how a foul language is practiced. Nevertheless, I have yet to come across any foul mouth slang being uttered by A Khokar in response; being targeted so viciously.
Adabarez
How enmarassing it is to see most of the replies here confuse two contradictory terms God and Allah. These terms cannot be used interchangeably. I will attempt to clarify this once and for all and I hope that most of you will take notes.
God is the Mighty God that the Christians, Jews and few other legitimate religions believe in. The Mighty God loves life and true peace. Read the Bible or the Torah and you shall see an ample evidence of what is claimed here.
Allah is an evil satanic daemon aka The Devil. Allah loves death, killings, terror, etc... Please do not take my word on this. Read the Koran and you shall see ample evidence of how evil Allah is.
Please never confuse these two contradictory legends.
Adabarez/Khokar,
Actually, I never personally wanted you banned. You got yourself banned by pointless bloviating. You never answered the question of how rape and dismemberment of captives is "defensive". Still waiting.
The Qur'an is hardly pristine, it wasn't even compiled as a volume until after Mohammed's death, and subsequently had to be revised after additional ayat were found. Numerous versions had to be destroyed, presumably including the other six "dialects" in which it was revealed, including that of the Quraish. It is also notable that the Qur'an, claiming lineage from Judaism, does not even contain the 10 commandments, but does succeed in violating nearly every one of them within its system of dual ethics (non-Muslim and Muslim).
"It is deep seeded bad habit in the west that they make lot of clamor to avail their right of freedom of speech and may go at any length to project it; but when the other side opts for their freedom of speech; simply they are banned, shut or labeled with some obnoxious labels?"
That's rich, a muslim lecturing us about freedom of speech.
Concerneed Citizen,
A Khokar might come back to give you reply or not; he knows better.
But to answer your query about 10 commandments; whether they are in Quran or not? Well I only know that Quran validates the Book of Moses; the Torah in a very explicit form. Name of Moses is mentioned in Quran for some 162 times and Torah book for some 18 Times.
It is mentioned in Holy Quran [17:2], ‘And We gave Moses the Book and We made it a guidance for the Children of Israel, commanding, 'Take ye no guardian beside ME,
[40:53] And, indeed, We gave Moses the guidance, and made the children of Israel heirs to the Book
[6:154] Moreover, We gave Moses the Book - completing the favour upon him who did good, and an explanation of all necessary things, and a guidance and a mercy - that they might believe in the meeting with their Lord.
[6:91] And they do not make a just estimate of the attributes of Allah, when they say, 'Allah has not revealed anything to any man. Say, 'Who revealed the Book which Moses brought, a light and a guidance for the people - though you treat it as scrapes of paper, some of which you show while you hide much thereof and you have been taught that which neither you nor your fathers knew?' Say, 'Allah.' Then leave them to amuse themselves with idle talk’.
I ONLY KNOW that higher degree education need not to have the lesson of Alphabets that one learns in kindergarten primary education as one of its lesson. Like wise, ‘Ten Commandments’ is the Alphabet in the educational books of religion; where as Quran is the ‘Last Commandment’ which completes religion that Allah selected for the mankind.
I know that Allah categorically vouch safe for this book of Quran and Allah says in Quran [15:9] Verily, it is We Who have sent down this Exhortation (Quran), and most surely We are its Guardians.’
Rest; I am sure, it is all just conjuncture and Allah says: [2:78] ‘And some of them are ignorant, they know not the book but their own false notions, and they do nothing but conjecture’.
You are cordially invited to watch ‘Peace TV’ if you can. It telecasts “Free to Air” state-of-the-art religious features and Q&As in English and Urdu on satellites and on cable; almost in all the countries of the world.
The channel features internationally famous scholars and orators like Dr. Zakir Naik, Ahmed Deedat, Dr. Israr Ahmed, Maulana Parekh, Dr. Bilal Philips, Yassir Fazaga, Abdur Rahim Green and many others. Cross fire programme may be of your special interest.
With best of regards
Adabarez
Adabarez and/or Khokar,
Likewise, I invite you to read the Torah, since you validate Moses' existence, I'm sure you are desirous to know more about him, since so little is given in the Qur'an and the ahadith, other than such as repetitive versions (39 isn't it?) of an encounter with Pharoah. As an added bonus, you might even find the unusual deprecating narrative curiously appealing to any innate anti-semitic views you might harbor.
Regarding what you consider an "alphabet", could you please recount for me some questions regarding commandments 6, 7, 8, and 9?
#6 Thou shalt not murder.
What is the Qur'anic penalty for murder of an infidel (kufr)?
#7 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
What is the Qur'anic penalty for adultery (zina) with an infidel (the penalty upon the participating Muslim, male or female)?
#8 Thou shalt not steal.
What is the Qur'anic penalty for stealing the properties of an infidel?
#9 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
What is the Qur'anic penalty for lying to or to the detriment of an infidel?
I thank you in advance for your time in answering, which will help me appropriately gauge my respect or lack thereof of your purported moral and theological superiority of the Islamic faith.
After reading the comments I just realized we need to reach an arm to our fellow human beings, Muslims. The PR strategy should be more emotionally intelligent.
We could simply start telling them: “You don’t have to be Muslims if you don’t want to be”. People don’t react well on scholarly tractates. But by causing cognitive, people tend to resolve it the simplest way.
Eg.:
A: I’m a Muslim. I’m a good person at heart.
B: Islam is evil.
Conclusion: Because I’m a Muslim, and I’m a good person at heart, Islam cannot be evil.
johnsawyer,
Unfortunately, Islam is designed with an intrinsic system of dualistic ethics and logic, so obtaining the construct labelled "B" above is difficult.
In dualism, "Islam is a Religion of Peace™" and "Islam is a Religion of Violence" are not contradictory or mutually exclusive. They are additive and both defined as good within the system, each useful and appropriate to any current situational ethical dilemma.
This is an ideological system of extreme minutia. How you drink out of a cup, how do you stand when you pee, which hand is used to hold yourself, how do you clean yourself and with what, what way do you face, etc. If someone has bought into this trivia being appropriately prescribed, redefining good and evil is not so much a stretch.
“You don’t have to be Muslims if you don’t want to be”.
They anticipated that. Baddala deenahu, faqtuluhu (Bukhari vol. 9, bk. 84, no. 57). Apostate murder is defined as "good" because it is part of Islam. It is obedient to Muhammed, and has promises of afterlife rewards.
But I think you're right, that perhaps you can keep up the dialog until you strike a chord, activate their conscience and release natural doubts in an environment safe for it to florish with introspection.
...additional points about the Islamic use of fire or burning as a punishment or weapon:
-Examination of the context of Quran 59:5 shows that destroying the enemies trees using fire is permitted in the cause of jihad and terrifying the disbelievers. Ibn Kathir in his tafsir of that verse notes that "...The Two Sahihs also recorded from Ibn `Umar that the Messenger of Allah burned down the date trees of Bani An-Nadir and had them cut down the date palms of Al-Buwayrah. Allah the Exalted and Most Honored revealed this Ayah,...".
{That is, Muhammad had is men burn down (and cut down) those trees. Thus, the Quran, read in context--as apologists routinely claim we must do--shows that fire was permitted as a weapon}.
-fire has been used by Muslims in jihad throughout Islamic history, including by Islamic heroes such as Saladin.
-jihadist poetry in the Sira suggests that Muslims used branding irons, which constitutes burning as a punishment (e.g., from Ishaq, "I swear we shall never lack soldiers, nor army leaders. Driving before us infidels until we subdue them with a halter above their noses and a branding iron."
-according to Ibn Warraq, "...Under Muslim law, the male apostate must be put to death, as long as he is an adult, and in full possession of his faculties [...] In general, execution must be by the sword, though there are examples of apostates tortured to death, or strangled, burnt, drowned, impaled or flayed."
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/001590.php
Concerned Citizen,
Jesus was blessed with Bible to facilitate the reformation of ill practices in the light of Torah by Israelite.But the arrogant and haughty minded Israelites whose hearts were hardened and full of darkness vice; they failed to recognise his message of love, leave a few.
Time passed by and God revealed His final commandments in the latest book -The Holy Quran. After revelation of Quran, all the old teachings and practices stand null and void. In the presence of this latest Commandments; what ever the significance we may like to attach to the old teachings; once superseded they bear no value and hold no authority. They become the things of the past.
God is all knowing; all wise. After knowing Him to be such; His creation, we the human being has only one simple choice left. Come forward and submit to His will.
The latest universal commandment for mankind is Islam; which is all but to submit to His will.
This is all very much expected that people of the darkness with their haughty knowledge will come up to conspire, malign or put hurdles in the way of Quran; but what ever the efforts they will put to under mine it; they will come but to succumb.
Allah categorically vouches safe for this book of Quran and Allah says in [15:9] ‘Verily, it is We Who have sent down this Exhortation (Quran), and most surely We are its Guardians’.
Rest all is sure just juncture and Allah says: [2:78] ‘And some of them are ignorant they know not the book but their own false notions, and they do nothing but conjecture.’
O’ Allah we place thee as shield against them and seek thy refuge from their mischief.
Adabarez, you seem like an intelligent man? Why do you keep insisting this foolishness of Islam is a word of God?
Why are you so attached to Islam? Is it emotional? Heritage, tradition? Or are you afraid of repercussions by your family and friends if you leave Islam?
If God wanted to create Muslims, he would have created perfect obedient beings. In fact he has perfect obedient beings, called angles. He had perfect obedient beings, before he had created people!!! But he gave people free will. And that's for a reason.
Example: you are a king and all around you are only servants. They make you every wish true. But you are lonely, you need friends. Someone to give you intelligent and unique responses to the topics of interest.
And now Muhammad comes and takes our individuality away and tries to make us like angels, executing every wish of his. How are we to become closer to God if we have to deny our individuality, our yearnings, and our freedom???
Adabarez/Khokar,
Last chance. Either answer the questions (commandments #6,7,8, & 9) above, or I will answer them for you. This is your opportunity to give your pro-Islamic spin. But please, no taqiyya, be honest.
Time's up!
#6 Thou shalt not murder.
What is the Qur'anic penalty for murder of an infidel (kufr)?
THERE IS NO PENALTY.
#7 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
What is the Qur'anic penalty for adultery (zina) with an infidel (the penalty upon the participating Muslim, male or female)?
THERE IS NO PENALTY. (for the male, at least)
#8 Thou shalt not steal.
What is the Qur'anic penalty for stealing the properties of an infidel?
THERE IS NO PENALTY.
#9 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
What is the Qur'anic penalty for lying to or to the detriment of an infidel?
THERE IS NO PENALTY.
So, pray tell, Adabarez/Khokar, how exactly is this a moral improvement? Is this what you were alluding to
That's quite a leap for the would-be "revert", isn't it, Adabarez/Khokar? Seems to be left out of the standard da'wa, doesn't it?
More fire as punishment. Here there is a difference of opinion on how homosexuals should be punished, with some scholars and ahadith indicating that they are to be burned:
"Verily, the punishment here is the burning of both homosexuals (the actor and acted upon) or stoning them with rocks till death because Allah Most High stoned the people of Lut after demolishing their village."
[…]
"In his book Fat-h al-Qadir, the famous Hanafi scholar, Ibn al-Humam states:
“Al-Bayhaqi reported in his book Shu`ab al-Iman on the authority of Abu ad-Dunya that Abd al-`Aziz ibn Abi Hazim related from Dawud ibn Bakr who related from Muhammad ibn al-Mukadir the following:
“Khalid Ibn al-Walid wrote to Abu Bakr [seeking the legal ruling] concerning a man with whom another man had sexual intercourse. Thereupon, Abu Bakr gathered the Companions of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and sought their opinion. `Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, was the strictest of all, saying, 'Only one nation disobeyed Allah by committing such sin and you know how Allah dealt with them. I see that we should burn the man with fire.’ The Companions unanimously agreed on this.” This incident is also mentioned by al-Waqidi under the subject of apostasy at the end of the section on the apostasy of Bani Salim.]”
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503545556
Concerned Citizen and Friends,
As we have discussed earlier that as per the latest Commandment in Quran, the Torah and Bible and all other previous books stand superseded and there by are replaced by the latest Commandments of Quran: so question of any viability or the comparison of old in the presence of latest Commandments does not arrive.
How ever in order to understand the premise given above; this should be borne in mind that on the advent of Muhammad (pbuh) in Mecca, Arabia the general masses constituted of disintegrated Jews licking the wounds of ‘wrath of God and Rejection’ and people of darkness called Pagan from Jahilia. There was also felt the presence of some followers of Jesus (as) because after the saga of cross followed by the mysterious disappearance of Jesus; there were lot many myths floating about in the air and some people did believe in those. But it had passed some 600 years that the usual dissention of prophets at the head of each century as in Judaic era was seen, was no more there.
The basic fabrics of religion and belief of masses that Muhammad (pbuh) had to work upon (for the phase of universality in religion) were the follower of Torah supposedly with their reformed state as per Bible but they were found in total disarray, their state of affairs were totally tarnished and were in tatters. To start with; he had to address the innumerable dins of society; their primitive concocted belief, the prevalent culture and traditions, where girls were buried alive after birth; where opulence of wealth, herds of cattle and number of women as concubines was the strength of the tribal chiefs.
This was a fresh new start in the ‘universality phase’ of the religion under taken by Muhammad (pbuh). This should also be borne in mind that his immediate addressees right at the start were also the most powerful and influenced wealthy tribes who used to run ‘World Trade Trains’ on the world major trades routes between East and the West. Although with in eastern world and in the west the trade used to ply by ships but in the absence of Suez Canal that links the East and west today; at those times the linking land route of Arabian Peninsula with its sea ports and trade cities like Damascus in the west and Yemen in the East were used. These powerful tribes operating these trade trains had their control over all the Arabian Peninsula and on the link trades.
The subject controversy or the comparison business of old and new laws also simply does not arise here with the reason that Torah laws were for a particular following called Israelites as per their circumstances and requirement of the day; where as Quran speaks of a Universality in Religion prescribed for whole of humanity. Quran says in [2:2],’This is a perfect Book; there is no doubt in it; it is a guidance for the righteous…’and in [3:3] ‘He has sent down to thee (Muhammad) the Book containing the truth and fulfilling that which precedes it; and He has sent down the Torah and the Gospel before this, as a guidance to the people; and He has sent down the Discrimination.’
In view of above this may not be brought in the context also here that what Islam says about Murder, Adultery and Stealing that for instance about murder:
MURDER
The Quran [5:32], …..that whosoever killed a person - unless it be for killing (murdering) a person or for creating disorder in the land - it shall be as if he killed all mankind; and whoso saved a life, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind…..’
The Quran [2:217] ‘…. to hinder men from the Sacred Mosque, and to turn out its people there from, is more heinous in the sight of Allah; and persecution is worst than killing.….’
For a Adultery and Fornication Quran says [5:5].’This day all good things have been made lawful for you. And the food of the people of the Book is lawful for you. And your food is lawful for them. And lawful for you are chaste believing women and chaste women from among those who were given the Book before you, when you give them their dowries, contracting valid marriage and not committing fornication, nor taking secret paramours. And whoever rejects the faith, his work indeed is vain, and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers.
To conclude I will say that Islam has come to give glade tiding for the believers and ask them to strive hard to be righteous in their conduct. (Following verse also speaks of adultery) Quran says in [60:12] ‘O Prophet! when believing women come to thee, taking the oath of allegiance at thy hands that they will not associate anything with Allah, and that they will not steal, and will not commit adultery, nor kill their children, nor bring forth a scandalous charge which they themselves have deliberately forged, nor disobey thee in what is right, then accept their allegiance and ask Allah to forgive them. Verily, Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.’
In any case if you want to stick to your own understandings; by all means please do so. My sole duty is to deliver the message of Truth known to me with an endeavour to pursue you to think over it; because Quran is guidance for the people who posses knowledge and are blessed with the faculty of true thinking on the line of righteousness.
I suppose it will suffice for the time being.
May Allh guide you on the right path.
Adabarez
Wow, that was a deep steaming pile of taqiyya! At least you left out #9 Thou shalt no lie.
#6 Thou shalt not murder.
What is the Qur'anic penalty for murder of an infidel (kufr)?
THERE IS NO PENALTY.
005.033
YUSUFALI: 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;
Book 019, Number 4457:
This tradition has been narrated by the game authority (Yazid b. Hurmus) through a different chain of transmitters with the following difference in the elucidation of one of the points raised by Najda in his letter to Ibn Abas: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) used not to kill the children, so thou shouldst not kill them unless you could know what Khadir had known about the child he killed, or you could distinguish between a child who would grow up to he a believer (and a child who would grow up to be a non-believer), so that you killed the (prospective) non-believer and left the (prospective) believer aside.
#7 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
What is the Qur'anic penalty for adultery (zina) with an infidel (the penalty upon the participating Muslim, male or female)?
THERE IS NO PENALTY. (for the male, at least)
Bukhari
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 13o:
Narrated 'Abdullah:
We used to participate in the holy battles led by Allah's Apostle and we had nothing (no wives) with us. So we said, "Shall we get ourselves castrated?" He forbade us that and then allowed us to marry women with a temporary contract (2) and recited to us: -- 'O you who believe ! Make not unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you, but commit no transgression.' (5.87)
005.087
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! make not unlawful the good things which Allah hath made lawful for you, but commit no excess: for Allah loveth not those given to excess.
Bukhari
Volume 3, Book 34, Number 432:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
that while he was sitting with Allah's Apostle he said, "O Allah's Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices [pregnant slaves brought a lower price], what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?" The Prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.
Also
Bukhari
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 137:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah's Apostle about it and he said, "Do you really do that?" repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection."
More later...
#8 Thou shalt not steal.
What is the Qur'anic penalty for stealing the properties of an infidel?
THERE IS NO PENALTY.
033.027
YUSUFALI: And He made you heirs of their lands, their houses, and their goods, and of a land which ye had not frequented (before). And Allah has power over all things.
PICKTHAL: And He caused you to inherit their land and their houses and their wealth, and land ye have not trodden. Allah is ever Able to do all things.
SHAKIR: And He made you heirs to their land and their dwellings and their property, and (to) a land which you have not yet trodden, and Allah has power over all things.
048.020
YUSUFALI: Allah has promised you many gains that ye shall acquire, and He has given you these beforehand; and He has restrained the hands of men from you; that it may be a Sign for the Believers, and that He may guide you to a Straight Path;
PICKTHAL: Allah promiseth you much booty that ye will capture, and hath given you this in advance, and hath withheld men's hands from you, that it may be a token for the believers, and that He may guide you on a right path.
SHAKIR: Allah promised you many acquisitions which you will take, then He hastened on this one for you and held back the hands of men from you, and that it may be a sign for the believers and that He may guide you on a right path.
Ibn Ishaq (764) The Khaybar were a peaceful community of Jewish farmers who did not even know they were at war until Muhammad led his men against their town one morning, taking them by surprise and handily defeating them, looting their possessions, and torturing Kinana bin al-Rabi to locate their remaining treasury.
Volume 3, Book 44, Number 668:
Narrated 'Abaya bin Rafa'a bin Raft' bin Khadij:
My grandfather said, "We were in the company of the Prophet at Dhul-Hulaifa. The people felt hungry and captured some camels and sheep (as booty). The Prophet was behind the people...
#9 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
What is the Qur'anic penalty for lying to or to the detriment of an infidel?
THERE IS NO PENALTY.
016.106
YUSUFALI: Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief,- except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith - but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty.
PICKTHAL: Whoso disbelieveth in Allah after his belief - save him who is forced thereto and whose heart is still content with the Faith - but whoso findeth ease in disbelief: On them is wrath from Allah. Theirs will be an awful doom.
SHAKIR: He who disbelieves in Allah after his having believed, not he who is compelled while his heart is at rest on account of faith, but he who opens (his) breast to disbelief-- on these is the wrath of Allah, and they shall have a grievous chastisement.
003.028
YUSUFALI: 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: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.
PICKTHAL: Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security. Allah biddeth you beware (only) of Himself. Unto Allah is the journeying.
SHAKIR: Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming.
040.028
YUSUFALI: A believer, a man from among the people of Pharaoh, who had concealed his faith, said: "Will ye slay a man because he says, 'My Lord is Allah'?- when he has indeed come to you with Clear (Signs) from your Lord? and if he be a liar, on him is (the sin of) his lie: but, if he is telling the Truth, then will fall on you something of the (calamity) of which he warns you: Truly Allah guides not one who transgresses and lies!
PICKTHAL: And a believing man of Pharaoh's family, who hid his faith, said: Would ye kill a man because he saith: My Lord is Allah, and hath brought you clear proofs from your Lord? If he is lying, then his lie is upon him; and if he is truthful, then some of that wherewith he threateneth you will strike you. Lo! Allah guideth not one who is a prodigal, a liar.
SHAKIR: And a believing man of Firon's people who hid his faith said: What! will you slay a man because he says: My Lord is Allah, and indeed he has brought to you clear arguments from your Lord? And if he be a liar, on him will be his lie, and if he be truthful, there will befall you some of that which he threatens you (with); surely Allah does not guide him who is extravagant, a liar:
002.225
YUSUFALI: Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts; and He is Oft-forgiving, Most Forbearing.
PICKTHAL: Allah will not take you to task for that which is unintentional in your oaths. But He will take you to task for that which your hearts have garnered. Allah is Forgiving, Clement.
SHAKIR: Allah does not call you to account for what is vain in your oaths, but He will call you to account for what your hearts have earned, and Allah is Forgiving, Forbearing.
066.002
YUSUFALI: Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths (in some cases): and Allah is your Protector, and He is Full of Knowledge and Wisdom.
PICKTHAL: Allah hath made lawful for you (Muslims) absolution from your oaths (of such a kind), and Allah is your Protector. He is the Knower, the Wise.
SHAKIR: Allah indeed has sanctioned for you the expiation of your oaths and Allah is your Protector, and He is the Knowing the Wise.
Bukhari
Volume 9, Book 84, Number 64:
Narrated 'Ali:
Whenever I tell you a narration from Allah's Apostle, by Allah, I would rather fall down from the sky than ascribe a false statement to him, but if I tell you something between me and you (not a Hadith) then it was indeed a trick (i.e., I may say things just to cheat my enemy).
Reliance of the Traveler (p. 746) -
"[it is] obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory... Whether the purpose is war, settling a disagreement, or gaining the sympathy of a victim legally entitled to retaliate... it is not unlawful to lie when any of these aims can only be attained through lying. But is is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression..."
More on
#7 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
What is the Qur'anic penalty for adultery (zina) with an infidel (the penalty upon the participating Muslim, male or female)?
THERE IS NO PENALTY. (for the male, at least)
Punishment is not incurred by committing whoredom in foreign country. If a Mussulman be guilty of whoredom in a foreign country, or in the territory of the rebels, and afterwards return into a Mussulman state, punishment is not to be meted out on him, on the plea that a man, in embracing the Mussulman faith, binds himself to all the obligations thereof, wherever he may be. The arguments of our doctors on this occasion are twofold; --FIRST, the Prophet has said, "punishment is not to be inflicted in a foreign land" SECONDLY, the design of the institution of punishment is that it may operate as a prevention or warning; now the Mussulman magistrate has no authority in a foreign country, wherefore if punishment were instituted upon a person committing whoredom in a foreign country, yet the institution would be useless; for the use of the institution is that punishment may be executed; and as the magistrate has no authority in a foreign country, the execution is impossible; whence it appears that the commission of whoredom in a foreign country does not occasion punishment there; and if this person should afterwards come from the foreign territory into a Mussulman state, punishment cannot be executed upon him; because as his whoredom did not occasion punishment at the time of its being committed, it will not afterwards occasion.
The Hedaya Commentary on the Islamic Laws (reprint 1994) Translated by Charles Hamilton, Published by Kitab Bhaban , 1784 Kalan Mahal, Darya Ganj, New Delhi 110002 [India], page 185
Concerned Citizen wrote;
"O Allah's Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty,
Concerned Citizen; this should be a matter of concern and let us all be concerned about this concern that in the time of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) the people coming forward to accept Islam were mostly old Pagan and Jews from the dark ages. They came in with their old weary habits and traditions. Once came in the fold of Islam, they needed special nurturing and grooming, which was done step by step; from one stage to another; it took some 23 long years to complete the full revelation of the Holy Quran to complete the religion of Islam. With every up date, people were also updated, and they kept on moving from better to best till they got fully purified.
Allah says in [2: 151] ‘….We have sent to you a Messenger from among yourselves who recites Our Signs to you, and purifies you, and teaches you the Book and Wisdom, and teaches you that which you knew not.’
Needless to say that subject verse or the subject people had recently joined the creed of Islam and were called upon to join an excursion to tackle a debacle to defend the Islamic interests, which they successfully had won. In the completion phase of this incident, they were confronted with the situation of some female captives (as you mentioned) and they experienced a natural urge of being attracted to the opposite sex. This was checked right there and they were admonished to stay away from fornication and were instructed to better get properly married, if they want to and when ever they find the situation in their favour.
This will be also appropriate to bring in light, the mother of all the concerns that some 2000 years plus ago; Jesus (as) was here and Christianity picked him as their mentor, their saviour to follow him; Ever since Christianity has excelled in all the fields and is believed and being lived so successfully in all the parts of this world; but Jews the ancestors of Christianity are the people that very explicatively, they deny the very existence of a true Jesus. The Jews still get gather round the Vailing wall and earnestly pray for the advent of the fore runner Elijah to come and tell that when Jesus* will be there among them to break the shackle of their oppressions? Jesus the kings of King; the would be saviour still awaited? Strange; it is very strange; isn’t it?
But above shows two things:
1. After knowing every thing to be true as such; if you don’t want to believe;( because some times your environment and acquaintances and other influential circles that you belong or work for or the myths surrounding it, may tend you not to believe) and you will simply not believe and deny the very known reality. Specially the religious myths; these myths invariably may hijack the faculty of normal rational thinking.
2. This is also observed that people take reasonably longer time to grasp any new belief. The older you are; the less are the chances that you will convert or adopt to new things. Older parrots may not learn talking so easily!
In this regard; the Christian; who picked Jesus* to follow are also not any exception; they very well know the truth of Islam, the Holy Quran and the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) but knowing all this very well; they don’t want to believe in it! Accepting Islam mean loosing all the opulence and grandeur investments in persons and properties of Christendom and the amassed wealth there in; just imagine; Pope denouncing Christianity and coming up to accept ‘The Truth of Islam’. No never? It is strange; very, very strange; isn’t it?
From your deliberations; it looks like that you are trying to study a lot about Islam? But this study is for what? Is this for your own soul searching or reformation of soul; no not all. Study.. a deep study of every ahadis, every verse of Quran; to dig down deep and carry out the cherry picking, any thing which can be of any use to be used as a tool to misguide the ignorant Joe in the street; high lite it with the intent to defame Islam? What a novel Job; to malign Islam and Prophet of Islam? But mind you all the defaming acts to malign Islam are defaming of (Naoaz Billah) God Almighty.
What a study; what a waste of a life and talent. What a ruining of soul and the hereafter?
May God have His mercy upon us all.
Adabarez
Oh, I thought the Qur'an was supposed to be perfect, not a works-in-progress documentary of pagan Arab culture. Gee, how did Mohammed get to be the "Perfect Man" and "An Excellent Example" while mimicing the local culture?
So were they teaching him, or he teaching them? I forget.
Surprise, surprise! How did that happen? "Warring" in residential neighborhoods, eh?
I guess this would be the "not purified" part.
No, they were told it would be better if they did not practice coitus interruptus
I.e. have forced sham marriages after "annulling" any prior marriages
No, Jesus produced many convincing signs, and followers were so "convinced" that they went to their deaths without changing their stories.
They have their reasons. The Jews, as the Chosen People, have not only excelled beyond others, but have received the most persecution (jealousy).
Lost me here, I believe Jesus was the vicarious atonement for my sins, and the propitiation which produced my newfound favor with YHWH. My faith is my own, derived from my examination of and satisfaction with the Christian scriptures and history.
Especially when every aspect of your life is watched and regulated, like which hand to wipe with and which foot to stand on during micturition, whether or not to breath when drinking from a cup.
No, they DENY the truth of Islam, because it is antithetical to the teachings of Christ (who is NOT "Isa"). E.g. the "Golden Rule", do unto others as you would have others do unto you....perhaps you've heard of it. No?
Why, thank you. I intend that I and everyone I know be well educated kuffar.
Does it ever occur to you, why is it so easy? Why is there so much embarrassing material in the Qur'an and Sunnah? So much contradiction, dualism, illogic? Why? It's because it is false, Khokar/Adabarez.
No, it is rejecting "another Gospel" (2 Corinthians 11:4). Had Mohammad not claimed Isa as Jesus, and Allah as YHWH, I would have ignored your doctrines except such as explained your violent tendencies.
May you come to true repentence (a turning) from your sinful beliefs, acts and apologetics, which would be a mercy of the true God, and come to a true knowledge of your Creator, of whom you are unworthy without a divine intercessor. Jesus' sinlessness provided the quality required to atone for your sins, his divinity provided the quantity required for the elect of God, and his willingness and obedience provided the availability of atonement. Available even to you, Adabarez/Khokar.
So, since every chronological ordering of the surah has 2, 5, and 9 at the very end, we can assume that this is the most purified state of Islam?
Have you actually read these suar? Given these are the last and abrogate the prior (especially the Meccan ones which all Muslim apologists love to quote), at best, the Qur'anic revelation is regressing moral sinkhole.
To quote Tisdall:
The Qur'an breathes the air of the desert, it enables us to hear the battle-cries of the Prophet's followers as they rushed to the onset, it reveals the working of Muhammad's own mind, and shows the gradual declension of his character as he passed from the earnest and sincere though visionary enthusiast into the conscious imposter and open sensualist.
...more on the use of fire. The general conclusion I draw at this point is that, in jihad, most scholars or jurists permit destroying the infidels' property using fire, but there are differing opinions on whether or not infidels should be burnt with fire.
From Andrew Bostom’s The Legacy of Jihad:
{notes in these brackets are mine}
Bidayat Al-Muditahid
Averroes (d. 1198)
p. 152-153
“Controversy exists, however, concerning the question of whether it is allowed to burn them {non-Muslims} with fire…{cites examples of some scholars in favour and some against}…Others allow it only if the enemy started it. The source of the controversy…{is between the general principle expressed in such verses as 9:5, which seems to allow any method, and the particular restriction expressed in the “don’t punish with fire” hadith}… {next, regarding property}…According to Shafi'i, dwellings and trees may be burnt as long as the enemy have the disposal of fortresses.”
p. 194 Al-Ahkam As-Sutaniyyah
Al-Mawardi (d. 1058)
“He may destroy their homes, make night raids against them and cause fired {sic}”
p. 182 Siyar
Shaybani (d. 803/805)
“The army may launch the attack [on the enemy] by night or by day and it is permissible to burn [the enemy] fortifications with fire or inundate them with water” [brackets in quoted source]
p. 179. Kitab Al-Kharaj
Abu Yusuf (d. 798)
“…there is no objection to the use of any kind of arms against the polytheists, smothering and burning their homes, cutting down their trees and groves, and using catapults…”
p. 252 Malikite School
Edmund Fagnan
“…recourse is not had to burning or flooding…”
p. 273-274 The Holy War According to Ibn Hazm of Cordova
Roger Analdez
“In enemy territory it is permissible to burn the produce of the land, the trees, and the vineyards. One can also burn down the houses and demolish them…Camels, cattle, and sheep should be killed and burned…”
p. 287-288 The Law of War
Clement Hart
“…the general is at liberty to fight them ‘in the manner he finds most advantageous for the believers and the most harmful to the infidels,’ for instance, by devastating the enemy territory, putting it to the sword, and setting fire to it in surprise raids by night and day, or else by pitched battle. No limit is set thereby to the destruction…”
Concerned Citizen,
You have every right not to believe in the latest Commandments till you are fully convinced. There is no coercion in religion because the right is very distinct and stands clear of Falsehood. I know many haughty fanatic opponents coming forward as the arch rivals of Islam but they end up submitting at the end in repentance. Since Islam does not discriminate, oppress or subjugate people for paltry worldly economic gain; so most of the times people take the liberty even to cross the limits and end up in the fields of maligning it. No surprise; the idea is that people should know the truth; even they may approach it from the fields of negativity.
As long as you stay with in the frame of mind that it keeps you bowed for His mercy before God; that is desirable. God knows His God fearing creature the best and Quran says: ‘Allah guides not the wrongdoing people’ and ‘Allah bestows His gifts on whomsoever He pleases without reckoning.’
The gracious and ever merciful God is all wise and knowing and also very accommodative. In [2:62] Allah says; ‘Surely, those who believe and the Jews and the Christians and the Sabians - whichever party from among these truly believes in Allah and the Last Day and does good deeds, shall have their reward with their Lord, and no fear shall come upon them, nor shall they grieve.’
May our research and study bring us to the right path; Amen
Adabarez
That is the most absurd and patently false statement you've made yet.
What do you call what is happening in Darfur, and why did Mohammed call blacks "raisinheads", why do the hadiths say the Nubian black women were the best for sex slaves? Why did the black slave trade start in Islamic countries?
Have you read the Qur'an? Reread 9:29 right now. Oppression and subjugation started in Khaybar and continues to this day. Just try to carry a Bible into Saudi Arabia, and cry out, "Jesus, the Son of God" and see what happens.
You have heard of jizya haven't you? HALF of their produce, AFTER having most of their possessions stolen. Spoils, booty, loot? Are you insane? The early Muslims even fought over who had killed so they could get the loot. It was essentially their only real economy. It's why most Muslim countries sit in the dirt watching the rest of the world go buy unless they've got unearned oil wealth.
That is the most absurd and patently false statement you've made yet.
What do you call what is happening in Darfur, and why did Mohammed call blacks "raisinheads", why do the hadiths say the Nubian black women were the best for sex slaves? Why did the black slave trade start in Islamic countries?
Have you read the Qur'an? Reread 9:29 right now. Oppression and subjugation started in Khaybar and continues to this day. Just try to carry a Bible into Saudi Arabia, and cry out, "Jesus, the Son of God" and see what happens.
You have heard of jizya haven't you? HALF of their produce, AFTER having most of their possessions stolen. Spoils, booty, loot? Are you insane? The early Muslims even fought over who had killed so they could get the loot. It was essentially their only real economy. It's why most Muslim countries sit in the dirt watching the rest of the world go buy unless they've got unearned oil wealth.
Let's review:
-You don't believe that the Qur'an is a revelation for all times and all places due to its accomodation of unholy tribal practices, and thus is not a "pristine scripture containing the uncorrupted and unsullied commandments."
-You don't believe that Mohammed as protrayed in the Qur'an is an Excellent Model of Conduct at each point in the "revelation" for all people at all times, as you believe he was influenced by and participated in the native pagan cultural practices.
-You don't believe that the Qur'anic mandates to murder, rape and steal (the foundation of Islamic political imperialism) are enlightened, or at least you are grossly embarrassed by them.
So why not leave Islam? Do you feel trapped by filial piety, community associations, perhaps your status within the ummah? Too much to lose? Or are you afraid of a sacrally santioned vigilante exacting Mohammed's unholy verdict, baddalla deenahu, faqtuluhu? (Bukhari 9,84,57)
You don't want to keep emulating a man who hurt people. You're tired of concocting and inventing claims of pretentious victomhood to justify evil. You're tired of the cognitive dissonance, lying, dissimulation, and spreading sugar-coated false propaganda.
Just leave Islam.
Help is available.
The amount of the material in the Trilogy (Koran, Sira and Hadith) about the kafir is considerable. About 67% of the Koran written in Mecca is about the kafir, 51% of the Koran written in Medina is about the kafir. About 75% of the text in Ishaq's Sira is about the kafir and 20% of the Hadith (Bukhari) is about the kafir.
Every mention about the kafir is negative. "Kafir" is usually translated as unbeliever, but this is wrong. The word "unbeliever" is neutral. The Koran defines the kafir by its usage and says that the kafir can be killed, hated, punished, raped, mocked, enslaved, plotted against, beheaded, tortured, insulted, condemned, stolen from, deceived, kidnapped, humiliated and on and on. The Hadith and Sira follow in the same vein. There is no word in the English language that has the negativity of the word kafir.
As a measure of the negativity it is interesting to observe the Jew hatred. The hatred of Jews accounts for 10.6% of the text written in Medina . As a comparison, 6.8% of the text in Mein Kamph is about Jew hatred.
Even Hell is political. Only 6% of the people in Hell are there for moral failings—theft, lying and so on. The majority, 94%, of the people in Hell are tortured for the simple reason of not believing Mohammed. That is a political and intellectual disagreement, not a moral failing. Allah's Hell is a political prison for kafirs.
Bill Warner, the director of CSPI Publishing and the spokesman for Political Islam.com
Symposium: The Fictional Muhammad?
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, March 07, 2008
--------------------------
So much negativity, Adabarez/Khokar, why not devote yourself to something positive?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020710.php#c535144
[the neologism "foefic" would appear to be an antonymic rendering of "fanfic" (fan·fic [fan-fik] 1. fiction written by fans of a TV series, movie, etc., using existing characters and situations to develop new plots.
2. a work of fiction in this genre.) I.e., a foefic is like a fanfic, but by someone who doesn't like the characters.]
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk
“Islam, this absurd theology of an immoral Bedouin, is a rotting corpse which poisons our lives.”
Muhammad ibn Ismail Al-Bukhari
Sahih Bukhari
Volume 1, Book 4, Number 245:
Narrated Abu Burda:
My father said, "I came to the Prophet and saw him carrying a Siwak in his hand and cleansing his teeth, saying, 'U' U'," as if he was retching while the Siwak was in his mouth."