In FrontPage today I discuss yet another dishonest attempt to portray Muhammad as a man of peace — an attempt that appears especially cynical and dishonest in light of the Sydney and Peshawar jihad attacks:
Did Muhammad approve of torture? For Ahmadi Muslim leader Qasim Rashid, the answer is “no” – a “no” so unequivocal that Rashid holds up Muhammad as an example for the U.S. – newly sullied, in his view, by the just-released torture report – to follow in its treatment of prisoners of war.
This all sounds like a mainstream media dream: a moderate Muslim invoking Muhammad to rebuke the U.S. for its torture practices. The only problem with this gloriously multicultural scenario is that Qasim Rashid is a relentlessly disingenuous writer. Previously he has whitewashed the reality of jihad violence and Sharia oppression; dissembled about the Qur’an’s sanction of deception of unbelievers; lied about the presence of violent passages in the Qur’an; lied about the Qur’an’s sanction of beating disobedient women; lied about the nature of Sharia; and called for limitations on the freedom of speech and expression to outlaw behavior and speech some Muslims may find offensive. When challenged about the “facts” he has presented, he (like virtually all other Islamic supremacists) responds with furious ad hominem contempt, but no substance.
But he tells the mainstream media establishment what it wants to hear and fosters the complacency and ignorance of non-Muslims regarding jihad terror, and so his abject inability to defend his preposterous claims is of no import: he continues to be given a platform all over. Here he takes advantage of the controversy over the just-released torture report to claim that Muhammad rejected torture — while cynically refraining from mentioning all the evidence to the contrary.
In “5 Lessons From Prophet Muhammad to Stop Torture” in the Huffington Post (of course) last Wednesday, Rashid claimed:
…Were the world to adopt Muhammad’s example of compassion, tolerance, and civility, such a torture report would not exist, because torture itself would not exist.
Yes, because Muhammad would never have approved of harsh interrogation techniques, would he? Well, let’s see: Muhammad’s earliest biographer, Ibn Ishaq, records that when Muhammad was trying to determine whether or not his favorite wife, Aisha, was guilty of adultery, he asked a slave, Burayra: “So the apostle called Burayra to ask her, and Ali got up and gave her a violent beating, saying ‘Tell the Apostle the truth.’” (Ibn Ishaq 734) Muhammad is not recorded as having rebuked Ali for violently beating this woman.
Nor was that an isolated incident, as we shall see.
Rashid continues:
Here are five lessons the CIA, ISIS and humanity at large can learn from Prophet Muhammad on how to stop torture.
1. Stop engaging in pre-emptive war
Prophet Muhammad forbade pre-emptive war, all forms of terrorism, violently revolting against a government no matter how unjust, and even went to the extent of forbidding civil disobedience lest it lead to violence.
All forms of terrorism? But Muhammad is reported as having said: “I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror…” (Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220). One may argue that he didn’t mean modern-day terrorism, but given the other incidents that I will recount in this article, the claim that he forbade “all forms of terrorism” is fanciful in the extreme.
While not mentioning that hadith or the Qur’an verse telling Muslims to “strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah” (8:60), Rashid plows on:
When Muslims faced incessant and brutal persecution in Mecca from 610-620, Muhammad forbade any violent or incendiary response to the governing authorities. He offered his companions three options — remain and bear the persecution, try to change laws through peaceful argumentation, or leave.
Many Muslims left — some to Abyssinia where they sought and received refuge under the righteous Christian King Neghus. Others left to Medina, where they forged a peaceful alliance with the Jews and soon established a unified secular state governed by the Charter of Medina. Fighting was then only permitted in self-defense once Muslims were pursued and attacked, just as the Qur’an 22:40 allows: “Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged — and Allah indeed has power to help them.” Once in defensive war, the Qur’an only permits killing active combatants, as elaborated next.
Rashid omits all mention of the Qur’an’s teaching on offensive fighting. Ibn Ishaq explains the progression of Qur’anic revelation about warfare. First, he explains, Allah allowed Muslims to wage defensive warfare. But that was not Allah’s last word on the circumstances in which Muslims should fight. Ibn Ishaq explains offensive jihad by invoking a Qur’anic verse: “Then God sent down to him: ‘Fight them so that there be no more seduction,’ i.e. until no believer is seduced from his religion. ‘And the religion is God’s’, i.e. Until God alone is worshipped.” The Qur’an verse Ibn Ishaq quotes here (2:193; cf. also 8:39) commands much more than defensive warfare: Muslims must fight until “the religion is God’s” — that is, until Allah alone is worshipped.
The great medieval scholar Ibn Qayyim (1292-1350) also outlines the stages of the Muhammad’s prophetic career: “For thirteen years after the beginning of his Messengership, he called people to God through preaching, without fighting or Jizyah, and was commanded to restrain himself and to practice patience and forbearance. Then he was commanded to migrate, and later permission was given to fight. Then he was commanded to fight those who fought him, and to restrain himself from those who did not make war with him. Later he was commanded to fight the polytheists until God’s religion was fully established.”
In other words, he initially could fight only defensively — only “those who fought him” — but later he could fight the polytheists until Islam was “fully established.” He could fight them even if they didn’t fight him first, and solely because they were not Muslim.
Nor do all contemporary Islamic thinkers believe that that command is a relic of history. According to a 20th century Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh ‘Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid, “at first ‘the fighting’ was forbidden, then it was permitted and after that it was made obligatory.” He also distinguishes two groups Muslims must fight: “(1) against them who start ‘the fighting’ against you (Muslims) . . . (2) and against all those who worship others along with Allah . . . as mentioned in Surat Al-Baqarah (II), Al-Imran (III) and At-Taubah (IX) . . . and other Surahs (Chapters of the Qur’an).” (The Roman numerals after the names of the chapters of the Qur’an are the numbers of the suras: Sheikh ‘Abdullah is referring to Qur’anic verses such as 2:216, 3:157-158, 9:5, and 9:29.)
As an Ahmadi, Rashid may reject this understanding of the Qur’an and jihad, but it does exist, and he must know it exists. To ignore it entirely and give the impression that it doesn’t exist is cynical and deceptive.
And his cynicism and deceptiveness don’t end there. He continues:
2. Stop justifying collateral damage
Drone strikes, indiscriminate bombing, and collateral damage have each sadly become part of the American military experience. Prophet Muhammad categorically condemned any act of violence in which civilians, property, or places of worship were harmed.
Following Muhammad’s guidance, Abu Bakr the first Khalifa commanded to the Muslim army about to embark on battle,
“O people! I charge you with ten rules; learn them well… for your guidance in the battlefield! Do not commit treachery, or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy’s flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone.”
As history’s first major figure to condemn collateral damage in word and in deed, Prophet Muhammad demonstrated a high precedent that even the most advanced nations today cannot match. Today’s leaders can end the war atrocities engulfing our world by following Muhammad’s example of justice and compassion.
Collateral damage: “It is reported on the authority of Sa’b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them.” (Muslim 4321)
There is still more. Rashid says:
3. Stop indefinite detention for POWs
The Afghan and Iraq wars are long over. Yet, America continues to maintain numerous POWs in Guantanamo Bay, and likely in other undisclosed locations. Prophet Muhammad categorically condemned this practice. After permitting Muslims to only fight in self-defense, the Qur’an 47:5 next commands Muslims to release POWs immediately as war comes to an end.
Actually, Qur’an 47:5 says: “Soon will He guide them and improve their condition.” That is not in any clear sense a command to release POW’s immediately as war comes to an end. Ibn Abbas in his commentary on this verse explains: “He will give them success to perform righteous deeds (and improve their state) and improve their condition and intention; it is also said that this means: He will save them in the Hereafter and improve their state and accept their works on the Day of Judgement.” To whom is Ibn Abbas referring? Not to prisoners of war, but (according to his gloss on 47:4) to “those who are killed in obedience of Allah on the Day of Badr, referring here to the prophetic Companions.” Ibn Kathir interprets the verse in a similar way, without any reference to freeing prisoners of war at the end of the war.
Without mentioning this anomaly, Rashid goes on:
Maintaining POWs well after the war has ended creates distrust and animosity among allies and enemies alike, and is beneath the standard of a civilized country. Rather than usurp human rights with indefinite detention, rather than provide propaganda material to extremists, rather than violate its own Constitution and international law, we should all learn from Prophet Muhammad’s example, and justly release POWs.
4. Stop mistreating POWs
POWs, during and after the war must be treated with the dignity all human beings deserve. Historian Sir William Muir well records how Prophet Muhammad commanded his companions to treat POWs:
The Refugees had houses of their own, received the prisoners with kindness and consideration. “Blessings on the men of Medina!” said one of these in later days: “they made us ride, while they themselves walked afoot; they gave us wheaten bread to eat when there was little of it, contenting themselves with dates.” It is not surprising, therefore, that some of the captives, yielding to these influences, declared themselves Believers, and to such their liberty was at once granted. The rest were kept for ransom. Such as had nothing to give were liberated without payment; but a service was required… To each were allotted ten boys, to be taught the art of writing; and the teaching was accepted as a ransom.
Mind you, this was at a time in Arabia when Muslims captured during battle suffered the fate of torture and death. Yet, in response, Muslims demanded the ransom of education, fed POWs with their own food and sheltered them with their own shelter. Once war ended, Muhammad immediately released all POWs. This is how he brought lasting peace to a former Arabian wasteland engulfed in constant war.
Mistreating POW’s: “When Muhammad saw Hamzah he said, ‘If Allah gives me victory over the Quraysh at any time, I shall mutilate thirty of their men!’ When the Muslims saw the rage of the Prophet they said, ‘By Allah, if we are victorious over them, we shall mutilate them in a way which no Arab has ever mutilated anybody.” (Al-Tabari, vol. 7, p. 133; cf. Ibn Ishaq 387)
And: “Anas reported: Eight men of the tribe of ‘Ukl came to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and swore allegiance to him on Islam, but found the climate of that land uncogenial to their health and thus they became sick, and they made complaint of that to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: Why don’t you go to (the fold) of our camels along with our shepherd, and make use of their milk and urine. They said: Yes. They set out and drank their (camels’) milk and urine and regained their health. They killed the shepherd and drove away the camels. This (news) reached Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and he sent them on their track and they were caught and brought to him (the Holy Prophet). He commanded about them, and (thus) their hands and feet were cut off and their eyes were gouged and then they were thrown in the sun, until they died.” (Sahih Muslim 4131)
Rashid concludes with a dishonest coup de grace:
5. Stop justifying torture
Nothing justifies the torture the CIA meted out to those 119 human beings. Indeed, in response to those arguing safety, the report concludes that America was not made any safer as a result of these barbaric practices. This was just one among many reasons Prophet Muhammad categorically forbade torture.
For example, as recorded in Sahih Muslim, “Hisham ibn Hakim passed by some people in Syria who had been made to stand in the sun and had oil poured over their heads. He asked, “What is this?” It was said,
“They are being punished for not paying taxes.” Hisham said: I heard Prophet Muhammad say: “Verily, Allah will torture those who torture people in this world.” Likewise, Jabir ibn Abdullah reported that Prophet Muhammad commanded: “Do not torture the creation of Allah the Exalted.”
Indeed, Prophet Muhammad’s compassion extended beyond humans as he also specifically forbade torturing animals, declaring, “A woman was punished because of a cat she had imprisoned until it died; thus, she entered Hellfire because of it. She did not give it food or water while it was imprisoned, neither did she set it free to eat from the vermin of the earth.”
Muhammad, according to Islamic tradition, didn’t just justify torture. He ordered it: “Kinana b. al-Rabi`, who had the custody of the treasure of B. al-Nadir, was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came (T. was brought) to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going round a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle said to Kinana, ‘Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?’ he said Yes. The apostle gave orders that the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr b. al-Awwam, ‘Torture him until you extract what he has,’ so he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head, in revenge for his brother Mahmud.” (Ibn Ishaq 515).
After his tour de force of disingenuousness, Rashid concludes:
It is not a lack of intelligence, but a lack of morality that permitted this barbaric act of torture to occur at all. The CIA, ISIS, and indeed the world at large can learn volumes about compassion, justice, mercy, and morality from Prophet Muhammad, the man who successfully brought peace to a warring world.
The world is warring all over today because of Muhammad’s teachings. It is a peculiar lack of morality that would create this deceptive piece, with its calculated omissions and frankly false conclusion. If Rashid is asked about this post, he will sneer that it is not peer-reviewed; he will not answer any of its substantive refutations of his dishonest claims. He cannot do so — both because the traditions about Muhammad don’t bear out his claims, and because of his own intellectual and moral dishonesty.
Qasim Rashid apparently doesn’t want the world to know that Muhammad commanded and approved of torture. He wants people to think that he forbade it. The effect of this will be to foster ignorance and complacency about the jihad threat. The blood of the next victims tortured by Islamic jihadists will cry out to Qasim Rashid from the ground on which it is spilled.
mortimer says
Ahmadi Islam has abrogated aggressive, political jihad, but it hasn’t abrogated TAQIYYA. Ha, ha.
In a world craving transparency, the doctrine of taqiyya makes all Muslims look like insincere, incredible clowns.
particolor says
Well I can tell You that no Real Australian is Laughing at them !!
Jay Boo says
Maybe we could try the European appeasement plan?
1961 — Muslim Turks are allowed to work in Germany but politicians promise it is only on a two year rotation, and then they must return to Turkey.
1964 — Law changed and Muslims are allowed to stay in Germany permanently.
3 million Turkish immigrants living in Germany
1972 — PLO attack Munich Olympics (with help from Neo-Nazi anarchists.)
———– a month later Germany finds an excuse to release the three surviving terrorists.
1994 — PLO terrorist Yasser Arafat receives the Nobel Peace Prize
Paul says
What incoherent piffle. Good point about appeasement, however.
Jay Boo says
Behead Islam with the steely blade of truth.
mortimer says
Did Muhammad approve of torture?
Ask Ayatollah Joe Biden. He knows ‘two things’ about Islam.
Jay Boo says
The reason that Muslims act like starving wild dogs is quite simple:
They have no INNER PEACE
Islam is emptiness
Don McKellar says
“Did Muhammad approve of torture?” Does a bear shit in the woods?
“The blood of the next victims tortured by Islamic jihadists will cry out to Qasim Rashid from the ground on which it is spilled.” And cry out to the Huffington Post’s editors and publishers for aiding and abetting Islamic horrors, either willfully, or out of willful ignorance.
Salah says
Muhammad did indeed approve of torture. It’s in the Sira (biography of Muhammad,) it’s in Bukhari and it’s in the Qur’an itself.
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2012/03/muhammad-and-torture.html
Salah says
@Christy
Did you know that Muhammad, your “prophet,” used to wear women’s clothing?
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2010/03/transvestite-muhammad-mahomet-le.html
particolor says
Well Ill be Stuffed !! I thought they all still did ??
sophia says
In the Gospel of John, Jesus promises the arrival of the Last Prophet using a variety of names:
But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the
sophia says
But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the ‘Paraklit’ will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment. (John, 16:7-8). In these verses, the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) is referred to as the Paraklit, a Greek word meaning the Distinguisher between Truth and Falsehood.
sophia says
Other verses in the New Testament that give testimony of Prophet Mohammad (SAW) are: I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by taking what is mine and making it known to you. (John, 16.12-14). I will not speak with you much longer, for the Prince of this world is coming. And I posses nothing of him. (John, 14.30)
sophia says
Also in the New Testament, Christ is recorded to have said this to the Jews: So [For this reason; Therefore] I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to people [a nation] who do the things God wants in his kingdom [will produce its fruit]. (Matthew 21:43). Jesus Christ peace be upon him here spoke about foreign people; non-Jews. Jesus was a Jew and was speaking with Jews.
Jay Boo says
In fairness, maybe the clothing at that time was unisex in nature except for things like a veil.
Compared to all the many truly disgraceful disgusting things that Muhammad did during his miserable life on earth including pimping Islam in the name of his made up revelations while claiming to be a messenger of God his choice of clothing would be easy to overlook in comparison.
Jay Boo says
above comment @Salah
sophia says
May his name endure for ever; may it continue as long as the sun. All nations will be blessed through him and they will call him blessed. (Psalms, 72:8-17)
These verses describe the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) in a very clear way. Since Prophet David, upon him be peace the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) has spread Allah’s religion from east to west, and on whom one fifth of mankind call, multitudes of time every day, God’s peace and blessings (SAW) fits this description given in this Psalm.
Mirren10 says
“
…Were the world to adopt Muhammad’s example of compassion, tolerance, and civility, such a torture report would not exist, because torture itself would not exist”
What utter ridiculous nonsense, which flies in the face of history, knowledge of what *mohammed* did, and knowledge of unfortunately, human nature.
Human beings have always, in certain circumstances, been absolutely *vile* to each other; Jesus Christ was born long before the repulsive mohammed, and he lived in a world where the Romans were enthusiastic advocates of torture. Christ himself suffered Roman torture, before they crucified him. There is evidence from Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon remains, that torture was used against various tribal factions. Man’s inhumanity to man, to use a tired cliché, is as old as man himself.
”Muhammad’s example of compassion, tolerance, and civility … ”
Oh, for God’s sake. Is this fool so simple, so stupid, that he thinks we can’t read for ourselves, the many examples of mohammed’s cruelty, violence, and general foulness ? does he really think if he states such nonsense often enough, long enough, we will all disregard the written word ( in this case, the vile Koran, sira, and hadith) and fall in with his suicidal determination to ignore truth/evidence ?
No doubt. And this idiot belongs to a sect that other mohammedans gleefully slaughter, because they are considered to be heretics. There is no reasoning with deliberate, wilful, suicidal fools.
cs says
Against Banu Qusaira? Saffyias father?
plume line says
They neglect to tell that their “prophet” attacked caravans, murdering men & taking women & children as slaves. He kept 25% of all taken & balance went to soldiers. Sharia law is another form of slavery that the men call a religion.
jay says
If anyone sat and did this with Christianity they would be burned alive for even suggesting that religious teaching or doctrines be used to show people ‘the right way’. This man is an Islamist inciter, he’s clearly propagandizing Islam as a cure to the evil’s of America’s/Western ways. I’m glad so many comments are calling him out on it and only a few are apologists. Maybe HuffPo isn’t a lost cause altogether. I’ve been banned from commenting there since for some mysterious reason my FB comments don’t go through, I can still like though!
Anon says
Tiny Minority tm update. How big is the CURRENT problem:
Should Sharia Apply to All Citizens? – The percentage that believe this is 46.5% based on ten Muslim majority countries in the Middle East, South Asia and North Africa. Based on the Muslim population of those countries, that results in 243 million people (at a minimum) believing that Sharia law should apply to all citizens.
Penalty for Converting to Another Faith – The percentage that believe this is 67.60% based on ten Muslim majority countries in the Middle East, South Asia and North Africa. Based on the Muslim population of those countries, that results in 353 million people (at a minimum) believing in the death penalty for leaving Islam.
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country (collated from known sources).
Someone please show me where more than 400 million Christians around the world believe in the death penalty for leaving Christianity.
Edison says
Way to go, Robert Spencer.
duh_swami says
I’m going to torture you oooby doo…But we won’t call it torture it’s ‘tough love’ for your own good. Allah willing, and he always is.
Jay Boo says
Two choices:
In order to defeat these robotic Islamosoids.
1 Either we add the word DON’T at the beginning of their sign to read:
— (DON’T behead those who insult Islam) — and they stop beheading insulters
or
2 We add the word DON’T just before the word ‘insult’ to read:
— (Behead those who DON’T insult Islam) — and they start beheading each other.
Adam says
Whilst I regard any previous Christian misdeeds with shame because they were carried out in Jesus name despite His commands. it is said love your neighbour, but I say love your enemy. and Bless those who curse you, do good to those who harm you, pray for those who spitefully use you. Christianity is falsely critisized in the West – because it does not condone sexual deviance( porn etc) – by westerners who have never read the bible for themselves and Islam is often praised by the same-people who are indeed ignorant of what these satanic verses actually say and have never read the Koran.
People love to quote others and do not even recognize that in the Christian world there is freedom, whilst it is opposite in Islamic countries.
It is time that western people wake up and realise that Islam is not content with its own. They want to dominate, and it is an act of faith to kill non believers, especially Christians. Do I belive we should retaliate. Not at all. Lets leave vengeance to God and do our duty to be peacemakers and preach the good news of salvation unto ALL creatures.
Call me a bigot if you like… I am all those things you like to call me. That is why I rely on Christ’s grace to change me
sophia says
Hi Robert,
The quote
SOPHIA says
Hi Robert,
The quote
Sophia says
It is a shame that you have this mechanism to hide anything in the comments that is countering your arguments about Islam. This clearly shows how biggottted you are. Remember one thing false hood (being spread by you and the so called jehadists) will perish soon. Prophet Moses, just like Prophet Mohammad peace and blessings be upon them were also maligned during their time by people like you but the truth prevailed in the end.
Angemon says
Sophia posted:
“It is a shame that you have this mechanism to hide anything in the comments that is countering your arguments about Islam.”
She said, before embarking on a posting rampage, with very compelling arguments such as “Please don”, which she saw fit to post 5 times in five separate posts.
There’s no such thing as a mechanism to hide anything in the comments, as any cursory investigation of JW articles can easily prove. This whole idea reeks of islamic butthurt: according to Sophia it’s not that what Robert says is true, explains what’s going on and his sources easily verifiable, it’s that Robert is lying and there’s a mechanism that blocks comments that “debunk” him. This is just a standard application of the islamic conspiracy theory mindset:
sophia says
Hi Robert,
The quote “the man doth protests too much” aptly applies to you. Your futile attempts to prove and your overly insistence that Islam and Mohammad (SAW) had a terrorist agenda implies the opposite is most likely true. Your site Jihad Watch is a blatant example of your true inner feelings and your bias and hatred towards Islam. Taking advantage of the situation the so called jihadists have created you are bent upon misleading the world about Islam by distorting the facts and providing quotes from Ahadis which are not authentic. What evidence do you have that the unsubstantiated and one off Ahadis you quote, out of thousands, are authentic.
sophia says
These Ahadis were not written by the Prophet himself. After his death many people contributed to the literature that makes up these Ahadis. Those against the prophet and the teachings of Islam and who wanted to malign his name and Islam, just as yourself distorted and corrupted the sayings or actions of the Prophet (SAW) for political, sectarian and theological reasons (See Khan, 2012). Given the widespread anti-Islamic sentiment currently dominating mainstream media you and other anti-Islamic factions such as the so called jihadists are taking advantage of these fabricated hadiths, and extensively publishing and ruthlessly exploiting the situation to support the thesis of Islamic violence. By narrating stories without checking their authenticity you are being dishonest and deceiving the people.
sophia says
Since Mohammad (SAW) was the last Prophet of Allah whose prediction is given in both the Old and New Testament and then finally in the Quran, there is no shred of doubt that Prophet Mohammad as the previous prophets May peace and blessings be upon them all would preach anything else other than what the other Prophets of Allah preached.
For example, the following verses of the Torah promise the coming of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW):
The Lord said to me [Moses]:
sophia says
The Lord said to me [Moses]:
sophia says
The Lord said to me [Moses]: ‘What they say is good. I will raise up for them a Prophet like you among their brothers; I will put My words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. If anyone does not listen to My words that the Prophet speaks in My Name, I will Myself call him to account.’ (Deuteronomy, 18.17-9)
It is clear from these verses that what is meant by ‘a Prophet like you among their brothers’ is a Prophet who will come from the line of Ishmael, since Ishmael is the brother of Isaac, who is the forefather of Moses’ people, the Children of Israel. The only Prophet who came from the line of Ishmael after Moses and resembled him in many ways is the Prophet Muhammad (SAW).
Angemon says
Sophia posted:
“These Ahadis were not written by the Prophet himself. After his death many people contributed to the literature that makes up these Ahadis.”
This seems to confirm what I speculated earlier: Sophia is one of those “quran-only” muslims. By standard mainstream islam standards, she’s a deviant, a heretic. Sophia, I’d like to ask you a few quick questions:
– How do you know how to pray using the quran alone?
– How do you know how much zakaah to pay using the quran alone?
– Didn’t the quran and the ahadith came from the same sources?
– Why would allah preserve the quran and not preserve its meaning and context?
– How much is the jizyah that the People of the Book have to pay?
– Does the quran say that cross dressing is haram?
– The Quran says that men can beat their wives. Is that a spiritual beating or a harmful physical beating?
– Is it permissible for a man to look at a naked man?
– Can a muslim pray salat naked?
– How do muslims know the order of the alcohol revelations using the quran alone? Maybe the first of the quranic revelations said it was haram and then the later ones came saying that is was okay except during prayer times.
– According to 66:3, muhammad told his wives that he knew because allah had informed him about it. In which quranic verse Allah informed muhammad about it? If there’s no such verse in the quran, does this not prove that muhammad received “revelations” besides the ones found in the quran?
More from Sophia:
“Those against the prophet and the teachings of Islam and who wanted to malign his name and Islam, just as yourself distorted and corrupted the sayings or actions of the Prophet (SAW) for political, sectarian and theological reasons (See Khan, 2012).”
Like I said, the authenticity and reliability of the ahadith came from islamic sources. Claiming Robert had some saying in which ahadith exist today or how reliable the existing ones are qualifies you to a free tinfoil hat from the nearest mental asylum.
“Given the widespread anti-Islamic sentiment currently dominating mainstream media”
This bit made me chuckle. Mainstream media are tripping over one another to praise muslims and islam, going as far as to name muslim leaders linked to islamic terrorist groups as being “moderate”.
“you and other anti-Islamic factions such as the so called jihadists”
Lol!
“are taking advantage of these fabricated hadiths, and extensively publishing and ruthlessly exploiting the situation to support the thesis of Islamic violence.”
Notice that nowhere in her ramblings Sophia produced any sort of evidence to back her claim that all existing hadith are fabrications. She just threw out that idea and rolled with it.
“By narrating stories without checking their authenticity you are being dishonest and deceiving the people.”
As I stated before, the reliability of the ahadith comes from islamic scholars. If islamic scholars deemed sahih bukhari and sahih muslim as being… well, sahih (“authentic” or “trustworthy”), and if islamic terrorists also consider them to be true and act upon them, what do you expect Robert to say other than “islamic theology teaches such and such, and that’s why jihadis are acting so and so, much like they acted during the time of the rightly-guided caliphs and from there on until today”?
It seems that Sophia expects Robert to come and say something along the lines of “well, jihadis are acting so and so, like they have always acted, because of these things called ahadith, but you don’t need to worry, I studied the ahadith and I assure you that they don’t come from any reliable sources and therefore jihadis are not islamic so go back to your daily lives, be complacent and pay no heed to those islamophobes who try to link islam and terrorism”. Sophia is not interested in stopping jihadis or even having a rational, factual-based discussion regarding islam, all she wants is to stop discussion of islam.
Angemon says
sophia posted:
“Those against the prophet and the teachings of Islam and who wanted to malign his name and Islam, just as yourself distorted and corrupted the sayings or actions of the Prophet (SAW) for political, sectarian and theological reasons (See Khan, 2012).”
Huh? What actions would that be? You just said that the ahadith were made up. Were they made up or distorted and corrupted? Make up your damn mind and try to stay coherent from sentence to sentence.
Angemon says
Sophia posted:
“ Your futile attempts to prove and your overly insistence that Islam and Mohammad (SAW) had a terrorist agenda implies the opposite is most likely true.”
So the trusted islamic sources that prove that islam mandates, and muhammad approves of, what islamic terrorists are doing implies that the opposite is most likely true? This is a textbook example of insane troll logic.
“What evidence do you have that the unsubstantiated and one off Ahadis you quote, out of thousands, are authentic.”
Is this some sort of bad joke? The authenticity, or lack thereof, of any ahadith rests on the hands of islamic scholars. They set up series of criteria to classify on how trustworthy each hadith is, and they classified each of the collections of ahadith as being more or less reliable. Sophia seems to be one of those “quran-only” muslims. If that’s the case then, by islamic mainstream standards, she’s a deviant heretic and therefore is higher on the islamic kill-list than people like Robert, who merely report on what islamic sources say.
sophia says
I must admit that by giving comments against the Prophet Mohammad (SAW) you show your true selves and your distorted and demented mentality. You are no different than the so called jihadists. You make use of your tongues to hurt others whereas they use brute force to do that. Have you ever reflected that the so called jihadists are the product of anti-Islamic movement to distort and malign the name of Islam. I think it is very clear from the fact that they are killing the Muslims most. Anyone with an iota of common sense can make out that either these Jihadists are demented or they are mercenaries who are either paid or brainwashed to engage in such heinous crimes. With all your hatred I still respect you as fellow human beings and pray to Allah as a believer that you see the light of love and peace for the whole humanity.
Angemon says
sophia posted:
“I must admit that by giving comments against the Prophet Mohammad (SAW) you show your true selves and your distorted and demented mentality. You are no different than the so called jihadists. You make use of your tongues to hurt others whereas they use brute force to do that.”
Pointing out the teaching of muhammad that drive jihadis to rape and kill muslims and non-muslims alike, and disagreeing with them is, according to sophia, the same as raping and killing muslims and non-muslims alike. Isn’t it wonderful the moral compass islam (even an version deemed heretic by mainstream islam) provides to its adherents?
“Have you ever reflected that the so called jihadists are the product of anti-Islamic movement to distort and malign the name of Islam.”
More islamic conspiracy mindset – whatever bad things muslims do when complying to islamic teachings, it’s always to be blamed on non-muslims.
“I think it is very clear from the fact that they are killing the Muslims most.”
They’re killing them because they call themselves muslims but don’t follow islamic rules – as far as the jihadis are concerned, they’re killing hypocrites. Guess what: they’re following the quran:
“O Prophet, fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched is the destination” (quran, 9:73)
“And that He might make evident those who are hypocrites. For it was said to them, “Come, fight in the way of Allah or [at least] defend.” They said, “If we had known [there would be] fighting, we would have followed you.” They were nearer to disbelief that day than to faith, saying with their mouths what was not in their hearts. And Allah is most Knowing of what they conceal -” (quran 3:167)
So even by sophia’s quran-only version of islam, jihadis who are killing muslims are following islamic law – tjose muslims that they are killing are hypocrites.
More from sophia:
“Anyone with an iota of common sense can make out that either these Jihadists are demented or they are mercenaries who are either paid or brainwashed to engage in such heinous crimes.”
Huh? ALL of the jihadis in, let’s say, the islamic state are demented? And still they managed to create and manage a fighting force that managed to conquer portions of Iraq and Syria? Well, if the problem is dementia, what does that say about the westerners who converted to islam and decided to join the islamic state? It seems islam is the source of their dementia. Same goes for the brainwashing theory. As for the remaining hypothesis, who’s paying them, and why?
Sophia says
Thank you for your comments. You seem to firmly adhere to what a handful of Jehadists and fanatic clarics say about Islam and keep denying the Islamic notions of 1.6 billion Muslims spread across the entire globe with different ethnic backgrounds. Please see the history of Afghanistan and the middle east before the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. You will not find a trace of these Jehadists and other redical groups in Islam. Isn’t it common sense that it is all politicised. In Afghanistan it was the power struggle between Russia and America. Taliban were the creation of America. The whole world knows that. Then it was the Middle east for oil, the Palistine issue and of course to top it all the 9/11 which is still shrouded in mystery. All is politicised and the product of these insurgencies are these radical groups. Even a novice can make out that these groups on their own can’t be so powerful they are financed and supported by factions with a strong political agenda against Islam that is why as you say they managed to create and manage a fighting force that managed to conquer portions of Iraq and Syria? To top it all the media, one example of it is the Jihad Watch, are wronly projecting these groups as the true bearers of Islamic faith rather than condeming them as heratics. By quoting the verses of the Quran on fighting you have answered your own question. These verses are for fighting these so called jehadists hypocrytes who have no relegion and are therefore disbelievers. These verses are not anti sematic or anti christ or anti Islam. Honestly how do you feel about these jehadists don’t you want these to be erased from the surface of this Earth and that is what the verses of the Quran you have quoted mean.
Sophia says
Sydney and Peshawar attacks are heinous crimes by people who are not fit to be called humans let alone Muslims (which means person who enters into peace). They kill Muslims and no-Muslims alike. Please don
sophia says
Please don
sophia says
Please don
sophia says
Please don
sophia says
Please don
Angemon says
Sophia posted:
“Sydney and Peshawar attacks are heinous crimes by people who are not fit to be called humans let alone Muslims (which means person who enters into peace).”
Islam means submition. A muslim is someone who submits to allah and muhammad. According to the quran (2:216):
“Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not.”
sophia says
Thank you Angemon for your comment. When you quote Quran without knowing the context you get in trouble and then start misinterpreting it. To clear your misconception about this verse I will need a lot of space. As I previously did I will explain it by sending several comments. I will include the the verse mentioned in your comment but it will appear nearly at the end of my expalations. Please be patient and bear with me.
sophia says
These demented groups with their hidden allies are trying their level best to distort the true message of Allah which is also mentioned in the previous scriptures revealed to our beloved prophets before Mohammad peace and blessings be upon them all and to create mischief and hatred amon us by distorting and misinterpreting the words of Allah. For such people Allah says, And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitna (creating mischief with Allah’s creation that is humanity) is worse than kiling. But if they desist then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitna (mischief) and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the tyrants) 2: 191-193). Please read the Holy Bible carefully and notice similar verses in it. If you want me to I will quote these to you from the Bible. It is unfortunate that this verse of the Quran is being linked to violance in Islam. This particular verse is for any mischief maker whether a muslim or from any other relegion who comits crimes against humanity. God does not allow fighting except in the case of self defence. The Quran is very clear on this. It says, If they leave you alone, refrain from fighting you and offer you peace then God gives you no excuse to fight them (4:90). If they resort to peace so shall you and put your trust in God. He is the hearer, or when wronged permission (to fight) is granted to those who are being persecuted, since injustice has befallen them and indeed Allah is competent to give them victory. They were evicted from their homes unjustly for no reason other than saying Our lord is God (22:39). This verse aptly fits well with the situation in Iraq and Syria where thousands of innocent people have had to migrate because of the brutality of these so called jehadists. Do not agress. God dislikes the agressors (5:87). These injunctions in the Quran are for the whole of humnanity and the benefit for all and not just for people who call themseleves muslims. When it comes to evil the Quran does not distinguish between a muslim or a non muslim. In Islam fighting against opression and tyranny is enjoined upon anyone irrespective of their relegion. The Quran states, If it were not for God’s supporting of some people against others, monasteries, churches, synagogues and masjids where the name of God is commemorated frequently would have been destroyed. Absolutely God supports those who support Him. God is powerful, Almighty (22:39-40). What a strong messsage is conveyed in this verse as God does not differentiate between any relegion. He rather acknowledges that His people who do good deeds and remember Him will always have his support irrespective of their relegion.
sophia says
ISIS is not Islam. IS are terrorists who are depraved and have lost all their moral sense that Islam preaches. They have sold their souls to Satan and have reverted to the blackest evil practices that are prohibited in Islam. In the Quran Allah says,
sophia says
Certainly We created humans in the best make, then We render him the lowest of the low, except those who believe and do good, so they shall have a reward, never to be cut off. Then who could give you the lie after (this) about the judgement. A group [of you] He guided, and a group deserved [to be in] error. Indeed, they had taken the devils as allies instead of Allah while they thought that they were guided (7:30).
sophia says
The so called Jehadists wrongfully misinterpret the Qur
Mirren10 says
Really ? In what way ?
sophia says
The so called Jehadists wrongfully misinterpret the Quran and claim to kill in the name of Allah. The Prophet’s own uncle who brought him up and many of his close relatives never accepted Islam yet he never killed them. Rather he loved and respected his uncle and treated his relative with kindness. The Quran clearly states, Surely they that believe and those of Jews, and the Christians and those Sabeans, who so ever believes in God and the last day and works righteousness their wages wait them with their lord, and no fear shall be on them neither shall they sorrow (5:69). Also the following verse of the Quran points to these groups who are following the footsteps of their pre islamic forefathers, And when they commit an immorality they say We found our fathers doing it, and Allah has ordered us to do it. Say indeed Allah does not order immorality. Do you say about Allah that which you do not know (7:28). Quran never justifies undue killing, You shall not kill God has made life sacred – except in the course of justice. These are his commnadments to you that you may understand (6:151)
Mirren10 says
Looks to me as if the ” so called Jehadists” are interpreting your Koran to the letter.
You’re wasting your time with this nonsense of yours; your foul book is all over the internet, for everyone to read.
Quran (2:191-193) – “And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing…
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)” (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). The use of the word “persecution” by some Muslim translators is thus disingenuous (the actual Muslim words for persecution – “idtihad” – and oppression – a variation of “z-l-m” – do not appear in the verse). The actual Arabic comes from “fitna” which can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. Taken as a whole, the context makes clear that violence is being authorized until “religion is for Allah” – ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.
Quran (2:244) – “Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things.”
Quran (2:216) – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.” Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.
Quran (3:56) – “As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.”
Quran (3:151) – “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”. This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be ‘joining companions to Allah’).
Quran (4:74) – “Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward.” The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, who were led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. This is the theological basis for today’s suicide bombers.
Quran (4:76) – “Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…”
Quran (4:89) – “They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”
Quran (4:95) – “Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-” This passage criticizes “peaceful” Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah’s eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that “Jihad” doesn’t mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is the Arabic word used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man’s protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad and this is reflected in other translations of the verse).
Quran (4:104) – “And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain…” Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense?
Quran (5:33) – “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement”
Quran (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them” No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.
Quran (8:15) – “O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey’s end.”
Quran (8:39) – “And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion should be only for Allah” Some translations interpret “fitna” as “persecution”, but the traditional understanding of this word is not supported by the historical context (See notes for 2:193). The Meccans were simply refusing Muhammad access to their city during Haj. Other Muslims were allowed to travel there – just not as an armed group, since Muhammad had declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction. The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, since it was Muhammad’s intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did). Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until “religion is only for Allah”, meaning that the true justification of violence was the unbelief of the opposition. According to the Sira (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 324) Muhammad further explains that “Allah must have no rivals.”
Quran (8:57) – “If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember.”
Quran (8:67) – “It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he had made a great slaughter in the land…”
Quran (8:59-60) – “And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah’s Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy.”
Quran (8:65) – “O Prophet, exhort the believers to fight…”
Quran (9:5) – “So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.” According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence is to convert to Islam (prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religion’s Five Pillars). This popular claim that the Quran only inspires violence within the context of self-defense is seriously challenged by this passage as well, since the Muslims to whom it was written were obviously not under attack. Had they been, then there would have been no waiting period (earlier verses make it a duty for Muslims to fight in self-defense, even during the sacred months). The historical context is Mecca after the idolaters were subjugated by Muhammad and posed no threat. Once the Muslims had the power, they violently evicted those unbelievers who would not convert.
Quran (9:14) – “Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people.” Humiliating and hurting non-believers not only has the blessing of Allah, but it is ordered as a means of carrying out his punishment and even “healing” the hearts of Muslims.
Quran (9:20) – “Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah’s way are of much greater worth in Allah’s sight. These are they who are triumphant.” The Arabic word interpreted as “striving” in this verse is the same root as “Jihad”. The context is obviously holy war.
Quran (9:29) – “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” “People of the Book” refers to Christians and Jews. According to this verse, they are to be violently subjugated, with the sole justification being their religious status. This was one of the final “revelations” from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad’s companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths.
Quran (9:30) – “And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!”
Quran (9:38-39) – “O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place.” This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell.
Quran (9:41) – “Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew.” See also the verse that follows (9:42) – “If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them” This contradicts the myth that Muslims are to fight only in self-defense, since the wording implies that battle will be waged a long distance from home (in another country and on Christian soil, in this case, according to the historians).
Quran (9:73) – “O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.” Dehumanizing those who reject Islam, by reminding Muslims that unbelievers are merely firewood for Hell, makes it easier to justify slaughter. It also explains why today’s devout Muslims have little regard for those outside the faith.
Quran (9:88) – “But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper.”
Quran (9:111) – “Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.” How does the Quran define a true believer?
Quran (9:123) – “O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness.”
Quran (17:16) – “And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction.” Note that the crime is moral transgression, and the punishment is “utter destruction.” (Before ordering the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden first issued Americans an invitation to Islam).
Quran (18:65-81) – This parable lays the theological groundwork for honor killings, in which a family member is murdered because they brought shame to the family, either through apostasy or perceived moral indiscretion. The story (which is not found in any Jewish or Christian source) tells of Moses encountering a man with “special knowledge” who does things which don’t seem to make sense on the surface, but are then justified according to later explanation. One such action is to murder a youth for no apparent reason (74). However, the wise man later explains that it was feared that the boy would “grieve” his parents by “disobedience and ingratitude.” He was killed so that Allah could provide them a ‘better’ son. (Note: This is one reason why honor killing is sanctioned by Sharia. Reliance of the Traveler (Umdat al-Saliq) says that punishment for murder is not applicable when a parent or grandparent kills their offspring (o.1.1-2).)
Quran (21:44) – “We gave the good things of this life to these men and their fathers until the period grew long for them; See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will win?”
Quran (25:52) – “Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness…” “Strive against” is Jihad – obviously not in the personal context. It’s also significant to point out that this is a Meccan verse.
Quran (33:60-62) – “If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbors in it but a little while. Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter.” This passage sanctions the slaughter (rendered “merciless” and “horrible murder” in other translations) against three groups: Hypocrites (Muslims who refuse to “fight in the way of Allah” (3:167) and hence don’t act as Muslims should), those with “diseased hearts” (which include Jews and Christians 5:51-52), and “alarmists” or “agitators who include those who merely speak out against Islam, according to Muhammad’s biographers. It is worth noting that the victims are to be sought out by Muslims, which is what today’s terrorists do. If this passage is meant merely to apply to the city of Medina, then it is unclear why it is included in Allah’s eternal word to Muslim generations.
Quran (47:3-4) – “Those who disbelieve follow falsehood, while those who believe follow the truth from their Lord… So, when you meet (in fight Jihad in Allah’s Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)… If it had been Allah’s Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost.” Those who reject Allah are to be killed in Jihad. The wounded are to be held captive for ransom. The only reason Allah doesn’t do the dirty work himself is to to test the faithfulness of Muslims. Those who kill pass the test.
Quran (47:35) – “Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (Shakir: “have the upper hand”) for Allah is with you,”
Quran (48:17) – “There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom.” Contemporary apologists sometimes claim that Jihad means ‘spiritual struggle.’ Is so, then why are the blind, lame and sick exempted? This verse also says that those who do not fight will suffer torment in hell.
Quran (48:29) – “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves” Islam is not about treating everyone equally. There are two very distinct standards that are applied based on religious status. Also the word used for ‘hard’ or ‘ruthless’ in this verse shares the same root as the word translated as ‘painful’ or severe’ in verse 16.
Quran (61:4) – “Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way” Religion of Peace, indeed! The verse explicitly refers to “battle array” meaning that it is speaking of physical conflict. This is followed by (61:9): “He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist.” (See next verse, below). Infidels who resist Islamic rule are to be fought.
Quran (61:10-12) – “O You who believe! Shall I guide you to a commerce that will save you from a painful torment. That you believe in Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad ), and that you strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives, that will be better for you, if you but know! (If you do so) He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into Gardens under which rivers flow, and pleasant dwelling in Gardens of ‘Adn – Eternity [‘Adn (Edn) Paradise], that is indeed the great success.” This verse refers to physical battle in order to make Islam victorious over other religions (see above). It uses the Arabic word, Jihad.
Quran (66:9) – “O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey’s end.” The root word of “Jihad” is used again here. The context is clearly holy war, and the scope of violence is broadened to include “hypocrites” – those who call themselves Muslims but do not act as such
sophia says
Rather Islam preaches respect and mutual coexistance with other relegions. In the Quran it is stated, Unto every one of you have We appointed a different law and way of life. And if God had so willed, He could have made you all one single community: but He willed it otherwise in order to test you by means of what he has revealed to you ( revelation here means all revealed scriptures not just the Quran). Compete then with one another in doing good works! Unto God you all must return and then He will make you trully understand all that on which you differed (5:44-48). Please try to understand this very carefully. I urge you to stop defaming Islam or any other religion for that matter and spread love and goodness, that is inherent in all relgions, instead of instigating hatred for a particular religion and join hands with the victimised and other muslims around the world who need support from their fellow human beings and fight against the evil forces hand in hand and defame these so called Jehadists by letting them know that they belong to any religion they are the tyrents against whom the Quran enjoins fighting.
Sometimes fighting becomes inevitable as in the case of fighting against evil such as the IS. In such a case the Quran sayas, Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows, and ye know not (2:216). Look at the wisdom in this verse. We can take the example of the present situation. We dislike war and fighting but we still have to engage in it to shun evil. You love to demean Islam and its followers and you feel it is good to do that without reflecting it could do more harm then good.
sophia says
Please don
sophia says
Hi Mirren you have mentioned a number of verses in the Quran and you feel that these reflect what the Jihadists are doing. I will take each one of these separately and attempt to explain these. For instance this verse in your comment; Indeed, Allah loves those who fight in His cause in a row as though they are a [single] structure joined firmly.
Have you ever pondered what the cause of Allah is? In this verse it is very clear that you fight against terrorism and oppression which is the cause of Allah to save humanity, as mentioned in my previous explanation of the verses. Nowhere in this verse is mentioned you Muslims fight against other religions. Also in the present situation it is the muslims who are being victimised by these Jehadists the most. Rather it says unite and join hands with other fellow beings to build a firm structure (strong support) to crush tyranny because that is the cause of Allah to fight against evil. Please don’t misinterpret these verses as the handful of so-called Jihadists and other biased people are doing. Rather unite and condemn the IS and other radical groups that are fulfilling their agenda in the name of Islam. This is the time to show solidarity as this verse enjoins us to unite and fight evil.
sophia says
Quran (2:216) – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.”
Mirren, please don’t just copy and paste from internet websites that are not authentic. Please read the historic facts as the audience was under attack when this verse was revealed. Persecuted, harassed, afflicted, poverty-ridden, exiled, and small in number the Muslims were too weak to carry out the struggle against the mighty forces that were advancing towards them and were bent upon their destruction. During the battle of Badr When the Mekkan advancing army of 1000 experienced warriors outnumbered the Muslims 313 it was but natural that they were none too fond of crossing swords with the mighty forces that had conspired for their extirpation. Therefore the Muslims disliked going to war against them. Yet it became inevitable that they should fight in self defence or they would be destroyed. It was their utter weakness and the enormous disparity in numbers that made them dislike the fighting. This injunction was given to fight against those who took up the sward first and turned the Muslims out of their homes. It was an injunction to fight to end persecution even if the Muslims disliked going to war. What Hadith are you quoting here please provide a reference. Please refrain from writing anything you get hold of on the internet and don’t have evidence for. By doing so, you lose your own credibility as you are committing the felony of spreading false rumours and misinformation.
Quran (3:56) – “As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.”
Please make sure you know the context before quoting and don’t copy the one off verses given on the websites without context. This verse is linked to the previous verse 3:55 and is not about Jihad or fighting but is related to Prophet Jesus peace be upon him. This verse was revealed for the disbelievers who brutally persecuted and crucified Prophet Jesus. Do you justify the act of the people who crucified Prophet Jesus? What in your view should be the fate of people who engage in acts of extreme torture? Should they be left scot free or they should be brought to justice. All the verses that you have quoted that show punishment and fighting in the Quran are for such people. The Quran does not make any distinction between Muslims and non Muslims when it comes to doing justice to achieve peace.
(3:151) – “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”. This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be ‘joining companions to Allah’).
Again in this verse that you have copied with the explanation from the website it is assumed that Christians are here referred to as polytheists. This verse was revealed during the battle of Uhad in which Muslims were only 1/4th of their opponents. During the battle the Mekkans fled the battlefield terror stricken. Since the war was carried out by the Mekkans to make the Muslims renounce their belief in One God or kill them that is why the verse refers to these polytheists and their evil designs against the Prophet and the followers of Islam. Don’t just cut and paste from one unauthentic hate website. Instead search and read scholarly articles and transliteration of the Quranic verses in context with when and why they were revealed. There is a large body of literature written both my Muslim and Non Muslim scholars. Remember before reading keep your mind open remove all the preconceived notions that you have built about the Jihadists Islam as Jihadists are anti-Islamic they are just doing the opposite of what Islam means and says by distorting the true meaning of the verses related to fighting and Jehad. None of the verses you have quoted say Muslims fight with or do Jehad against any particular religion. The only words used are Az Zalimun (tyrents), Al Kafiroon (disbelievers), Mushriqoon (join partners with Allah), munafiquoon (Hypocrites). All these words are general and suggest any individual from these categories groups, irrespective of their religion, who create mischief and disrupt peace on this earth must be dealt with justice.
Sophia says
Quran (2:191-193)
sophia says
Quran (2:191-193)
sophia says
Quran (2:191-193)
Angemon says
Sophia posted:
“To clear your misconception about this verse I will need a lot of space. As I previously did I will explain it by sending several comments. ”
I gave you time and I read your posts. I’m going to ignore dawah and random quran quotes.
“The so called Jehadists wrongfully misinterpret the Qur”
How? The quran claims to be the perfectly clear word of allah. How can someone misinterpret it, wrongfully or not?
“ You seem to firmly adhere to what a handful of Jehadists and fanatic clarics say about Islam and keep denying the Islamic notions of 1.6 billion Muslims spread across the entire globe with different ethnic backgrounds”
“A handful”, eh? That tired old PC notion is blatantly false, and on this age of information where one can easily fact-check no one should believe it. Here’s an observation on the “handful of radicals” theory:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7TAAw3oQvg
That’s a big handful, right?
“Please see the history of Afghanistan and the middle east before the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. You will not find a trace of these Jehadists and other redical groups in Islam.”
Really? Who fought the PDPA and caused Russia to enter Afghanistan? Sophia, exactly how do you define “radical groups”? Are you just talking about groups who take up arms or are you also including individual muslims who, while not joining the fight, support what those groups are trying to achieve? Do you know that the first recorded pogroms of jews in Europe were done by muslims back in the 11th century? Do you know who conquered Egypt and North Africa in the 7th and 8th centuries? Do you know who invaded Spain in the 8th century? Do you know who was stopped in Tours, Navas de Tolosa, Lepanto, twice in Vienna? Would you say those muslims were “radical” or “moderate”? My point is, one only has to look into history to see that unless the non-muslim nations were overwhelmingly strong compared to muslim nations, there’s always been the imperative to wage jihad against non-muslims – it’s not a new, recent ideology, muslim nations simply were not a match to non-muslim nations and as such they kept their heads down, waiting for the day where they could shout “allahu akbar”, slit infidel throats and collect slaves and booty.
More from sophia:
“Isn’t it common sense that it is all politicised. In Afghanistan it was the power struggle between Russia and America. Taliban were the creation of America. The whole world knows that.”
“The whole world”, eh? You know that argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy, right? No, the americans didn’t create the taliban. They trained and supplied them to fight the Russian, but they didn’t create them.
“ Then it was the Middle east for oil, the Palistine issue and of course to top it all the 9/11 which is still shrouded in mystery.”
More conspiracy crap. Not sure what you mean by “Middle east for oil”, but the “palistine” issue is that muslims don’t want Israel because it’s a Jewish state and 9/11 was when muslims drove airplane into the Twin Towers.
“All is politicised and the product of these insurgencies are these radical groups.”
Sophia is trying to scrub islam from “radical” groups – that’s quite an undertaking, considering how those groups flaunt islam as their raison d’être and take pride on how closely they adhere to sharia and muhammad’s example.
“Even a novice can make out that these groups on their own can’t be so powerful they are financed and supported by factions with a strong political agenda against Islam”
Huh? The “radical” groups who are flaunting islam and geting people to join them because of how they “interpret” islam are in fact against islam? How does that work? I’m guessing that sophia is trying to tell us that there’s some sort of shadowy group working unseen to undermine the message of islam. Sadly, this notion is widespread among muslims – anything that makes islam look bad is, by definition, the work of people who can’t stand islam and want to silence it. If only I had a dollar for every muslim who tried to sell me that story…
“that is why as you say they managed to create and manage a fighting force that managed to conquer portions of Iraq and Syria?”
There are rich arab states whose leaders will gladly pay organizations like ISIS to keep them away from their territory – they’re in a comfortable position and the last thing they want is to have someone in their backyard pointing out that they should be using their money and influence to fight infidels.
“To top it all the media, one example of it is the Jihad Watch, are wronly projecting these groups as the true bearers of Islamic faith rather than condeming them as heratics.”
That’s blatantly false. Most media try to whitewash the islamic ideology behind groups like ISIS, or try to pass them as “radicals”, “fundamentalists” or “a tiny minority of extremists”. Even those media who actually tell the truth (like JW) only report on what those groups claim. It’s not JW’s job to claim that froups like ISIS are heretics. Let’s say Robert Spencer or Raymond Ibrahim published an article where they said “I’ve studied the situation and came to the conclusion that groups like ISIS are in fact perverting the message of ialsm”. How would that change things? Do you think that ISIS would say “oh, he’s absolutely right!”? Of course they wouldn’t. The groups that you deem as “radicals” or “heretic” are simply following orthodox islam, and they have texts (quran included) to which they can point and say “look, we’re just following the example of muhammad”. If that’s ever to change, it must be from the inside out – muslims are the ones who must defy those views and try to change them, not non-muslims or the MSM. The reporting of groups like ISIS as islamic will continue until those groups stop claiming to be islamic.
“By quoting the verses of the Quran on fighting you have answered your own question. These verses are for fighting these so called jehadists hypocrytes who have no relegion and are therefore disbelievers.”
Huh? I’ve found verses saying to fight polytheists, jews, christians, non-muslims in general, and codemning hypocrites – the muslims who claim to be muslims but refuse to go on and fight in jihad. What I did not found was a verse saying to fight against groups who fight non-muslims.
“The so called Jehadists wrongfully misinterpret the Quran and claim to kill in the name of Allah. The Prophet’s own uncle who brought him up and many of his close relatives never accepted Islam yet he never killed them. Rather he loved and respected his uncle and treated his relative with kindness.”
Here is surah 111 of the quran (Sahih International):
111:1
May the hands of Abu Lahab be ruined, and ruined is he.
111:2
His wealth will not avail him or that which he gained.
111:3
He will [enter to] burn in a Fire of [blazing] flame
111:4
And his wife [as well] – the carrier of firewood.
111:5
Around her neck is a rope of [twisted] fiber.
Abu Lahab was muhammad’s uncle. From all the people who muhammad cursed in the quran, Abu Lahab was the only one who was named. Does it look like muhammad was kind to him? Also, when muhammad returned to mecca he had his former critics killed. Muhammad returned insult for insult and hatred for hatred. Perhaps sophia would be so kind as to enlighten us on the circumstances of the death of Abu Lahab?
More from sophia:
“These demented groups with their hidden allies are trying their level best to distort the true message of Allah”
Sophia, you’ve argued yourself into a rock and a hard place. Either “radical” islamic groups are following standard islam or they’re succeeding in distorting allah’s “true” message. So either allah’s message is of warfare, beheading, stoning and chopping of limbs, or those groups are successfully distorting the word of allah. Any of those options should be enough to make any “moderate” muslim question theyr faith.
“which is also mentioned in the previous scriptures revealed to our beloved prophets before Mohammad”
Nope. The OT and NT are nothing like the quran, no matter what muhammad claimed.
“And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitna (creating mischief with Allah’s creation that is humanity) is worse than kiling. But if they desist then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitna (mischief) and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the tyrants) 2: 191-193).”
The historical context for those verses is this: muhammad and gang had relocated to Medina and decided to start attackign Meccan caravans. Those verses urge offensive warfare, in that muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). “Fitna” can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. Taken as a whole, the context makes clear that violence is being authorized until “worship is for Allah alone” – ie. until everyone worships allah.
“Please read the Holy Bible carefully and notice similar verses in it. If you want me to I will quote these to you from the Bible.”
Whatever the Bible says about violence is completely irrelevant to whether the quran is violent or not. This is a attempt at false moral equivalence – what sophia is trying to say is that we must not criticize the passages of the quran who mandate warfare against non-muslims because there are violent passages on the Bible. In any case, feel free to do so – I’m sure we’ll find out that those “similar” verses from the Bible are not open-ended commandments to wage war against non-christians for all eternity. Violence in the Bible is descriptive and restricted to specific times, locations and targets, while the verses in islam who call for warfare against non-muslims have no expiration date in them.
More from sophia:
“God does not allow fighting except in the case of self defence. The Quran is very clear on this”
Once again, sophia displays a stunning ignorance of what the quran says, even though she previously quoted quranic verses asking muslims to fight not those who attack them but until”worship is for Allah alone”. Let’s take a look, for example, at 9:29:
“Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.”
Once again, no mention of self defense. What’s asked there is that muslims fight against those who don’t follow what muhammad preached, even if they are jews and christians, until they pay the jizyah and while being humbled. In all fairness, let’s take a look at the context:
9:28
O you who have believed, indeed the polytheists are unclean, so let them not approach al-Masjid al-Haram after this, their [final] year. And if you fear privation, Allah will enrich you from His bounty if He wills. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Wise.
9:29
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.
9:30
The Jews say, “Ezra is the son of Allah “; and the Christians say, “The Messiah is the son of Allah .” That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?
9:31
They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah , and [also] the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him.
9:32
They want to extinguish the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah refuses except to perfect His light, although the disbelievers dislike it.
The context makes it quite clear:non-muslims are not allowed into mecca (9:28). Now, Mecca thrived on religious pilgrimage, so that would cause a big loss in revenue (9:28). Muhammad saw to fix this by giving permission to fight jews and christians until they gave money to the muslims (9:29). Now, that caused a problem: muahmmad claimed to be the last prophet in the line of jewish and christian prophets, so how could he ask the muslims to fight those who worshiped the same prophets? Well, according to 9:30-32, jews and christians associated others with allah, which is the only sin allah can’t forgive, and, as such, they were vali targets.
More from sophia:
“Rather Islam preaches respect and mutual coexistance with other relegion”
We just saw the exact opposite – muslims are ordered to fight jews and christians because they’re jews and christians.
“ I urge you to stop defaming Islam or any other religion for that matter and spread love and goodness”
How have I defamed islam?
“Sometimes fighting becomes inevitable as in the case of fighting against evil such as the IS. In such a case the Quran sayas, Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows, and ye know not (2:216).”
Wait a minute, sophia. You said that the quran is quite clear in that only permits fighting in self-defense. Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, it also contradicts what you said about fighting only being allowed for self-defense, since the audience was not under attack at the time. From the hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that muhammad was trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.
More from sophia:
“Please read the historic facts as the audience was under attack when this verse was revealed.”
Nope. Muhammad went to medina and started attacking meccan caravans. Now, you claim that the hadith are not reliable, so where are you getting the “historic facts”?
“Persecuted, harassed, afflicted, poverty-ridden, exiled, and small in number the Muslims were too weak to carry out the struggle against the mighty forces that were advancing towards them and were bent upon their destruction.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdofmoYcJNE
“During the battle of Badr When the Mekkan advancing army of 1000 experienced warriors outnumbered the Muslims 313 it was but natural that they were none too fond of crossing swords with the mighty forces that had conspired for their extirpation”
This is simply not true. Muhammad and his gang ran away from Mecca after openly reviling and insulting the gods of the meccans. They were well received in Medina. They were not poverty-ridden, harassed or persecuted. After arriving in Medina, muhammad started attacking meccan caravans. The reason to why the meccans sent 1000 warriors was precisely to defend themselves against muslims preying on their caravans. In fact, the meccans only sent those men after the muslims killed a member of one caravan – they tolerated the muslims attacking them, harassing them and stealing from them, but drew the line at murder.
Either sophia is quite ignorant of her sources or she’s deliberately lying – and there are enough inconsistencies in her narrative and behaviour that point to the latter rather than the former.
More from sophia:
“What Hadith are you quoting here please provide a reference.”
Now, didn’t sophia try to discredit ahadith as being false? Why is she asking for a reference that she claims not to be valid?
“This verse was revealed for the disbelievers who brutally persecuted and crucified Prophet Jesus. Do you justify the act of the people who crucified Prophet Jesus?”
Once gain, sophia displays an incredible ignorance of her own religion – muslims don’t believe Jesus was crucified. Here’s what the quran says on the subject:
4:157
And [for] their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah .” And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.
4:158
Rather, Allah raised him to Himself. And ever is Allah Exalted in Might and Wise.
Do tell us sophia: how is there a verse in the quran aimed at people who did something that the quran claims that didn’t happen?
“Again in this verse that you have copied with the explanation from the website it is assumed that Christians are here referred to as polytheists.”
As I stated before, sura 9 claims that christians and jews took others as partners of allah, therefore making no different than the polytheists who worshiped more than one god.
More from sophia:
“Remember before reading keep your mind open remove all the preconceived notions that you have built about the Jihadists Islam as Jihadists are anti-Islamic they are just doing the opposite of what Islam means and says by distorting the true meaning of the verses related to fighting and Jehad”
Huh? So by fighting against those who the quran commands the muslims to fight against and by chopping limbs as the quran commands, jihadis are distorting what the quran commands?
“None of the verses you have quoted say Muslims fight with or do Jehad against any particular religion. The only words used are Az Zalimun (tyrents), Al Kafiroon (disbelievers), Mushriqoon (join partners with Allah), munafiquoon (Hypocrites).”
First of all, I’d like to pint out this clashes with sophia’s thesis of “fight only in self defense”. Let’s take a look at those terms, shall we? Disbelievers – non-muslims. Join partners with Allah – jews and christians. It’s not that it mandates fighting a particular religion (and we’ve seen that the quran singles out jews and christians), it’s that it mandates fighting ALL religions other than islam. This is a textbook example of tawriya, a doctrine that allows muslims to lie in virtually all circumstances, provided that the lie is articulated in a way that it is technically true – sophia tells us that islam doesn’t say to fight this or that religion, it just says to fight unbelievers, meaning to fight non-muslims. Even if it were true that islam doesn’t single ou a religion to fight against, it mandates fighting against non-muslims, regardless of their religion.
More from sophia:
“All these words are general and suggest any individual from these categories groups, irrespective of their religion”
That was exactly what I said – it’s not that islam mandates to fight specifically this or that religion, it’s that it mandates fighting against non-muslims. Sophia is saying that muslims must fight non-muslims, regardless of their religion.
“who create mischief and disrupt peace on this earth must be dealt with justice”
“Creating mischief” and “disrupting peace” are catch-all terms – is criticizing muhammad “creating mischief” or “disrupting peace”? Is not paying the jizyah “creating mischief”? Is not allowing burkas in the street for a matter of public safety “disrupting peace”?
Angemon says
To sum things up, sophia’s narrative is not only incredibly inconsistent, it also relies solely on taking her word for it – she gives no source for her context of some verses.
Anyone who dabbled into islam, the quran and the ahadith can easily spot where she’s lying, but the naive-minded people who are just looking out for someone who tells them “it’s ok, it’s only a tiny minority of extremists, pay no attention to the hundreds, maybe thousands, of islamic groups worldwide who are actively fighting to impose sharia as the law of the land in their respective countries” will certainly find her speech to be the bliss to their ignorance.
sophia says
Quran (2:191-193)
sophia says
Your comment, First of all, I
sophia says
It is a shame that my comments are being blocked from this site. I have sent atleast three long answers to some of the comments but none appeard on the blog, whereas others have had no problems sending their comments on my views. This shows how unfair this site it. It also shows how bigoted this site is when it comes to Islam.
Angemon says
sophia posted:
“It is a shame that my comments are being blocked from this site. I have sent atleast three long answers to some of the comments but none appeard on the blog, whereas others have had no problems sending their comments on my views. This shows how unfair this site it. It also shows how bigoted this site is when it comes to Islam.”
Even though one might suspect that you have issues with how the posting system works (on the account of your several repeated posts with a handful of words) we’re supposed to believe that the administrators of JW are somehow blocking your comments? Just for good measure: you’re saying that the administration of JW blocked your rebuttals but didn’t block you from complaining about them blocking your rebuttals?