Is "Smite Their Neck" acceptable in Islam for those who are perceived as enemy?

[manx]

Reuben J:

But we can always try to be good Christians though.

I post this somewhere before:-

Thank you very much for the wonderful advice and explanation.

peace be with you.

 

[Reuben_J]

manx:

Thank you very much for the wonderful advice and explanation.

peace be with you.

And with you too.

 

[DeExupery]

Dear Brother Rasheed and Edris,

I am back.
First of all, I have to answer about your accusation that I shift bit by bit in discussion. I believe that any discussion will evolve, and if you want Q&A, it’s not a discussion. Sometimes, answers can trigger new questions, again and again.

neither of these are substantiated or even suggested by the texts describing the event. nor are they facts as found in recorded history.

The only “facts” we know are that Mohammed claimed that Jibril came to him and forced him to ‘iqra’ and Mohammad said he couldn’t.

Your explanation doesn’t explain my logic that THERE’S A HUGE PROBABILITY that Mohammad often heard Talmud or else during his life before his ‘revelation’.

Fox

P.S. Since your explanation becomes very long, how if you show me that THERE’S IMPOSSIBLE of Mohammed to know or hear anything about Talmud or Bible Story.

 

[r.gonzales]

DeExupery:

Your explanation doesn’t explain my logic that THERE’S A HUGE PROBABILITY that Mohammad often heard Talmud or else during his life before his ‘revelation’.

huge probability based upon nothing but your speculation and conjecture. there is nothing from recorded history to support such fanciful supositions.

DeExupery:

P.S. Since your explanation becomes very long, how if you show me that THERE’S IMPOSSIBLE of Mohammed to know or hear anything about Talmud or Bible Story.

the burden of proof is upon the claimant. you claim that he heard or took knowledge from the jewish and christian scriptures, it is upon you produce the proof that he did.

 

[DeExupery]

Dear Rasheed,

First of all, let me quote you:

huge probability based upon nothing but your speculation and conjecture. there is nothing from recorded history to support such fanciful supositions.

It’s common sense based on the fact that Mohammed PBUH is a trader, he must know and meet a lot of people. They didn’t have internet at that time, so I don’t think they did intenet selling.

the burden of proof is upon the claimant. you claim that he heard or took knowledge from the jewish and christian scriptures, it is upon you produce the proof that he did.

Wrong. You are the first one to state that that’s impossible for Mohammed to copy from Talmud. Let me quote your previous statement:

yes it was impossible. he was illiterate.

So I will be grateful to listen to your claim about the IMPOSSIBILITY of that.

Fox

P.S. The proof of copycat has been given by Joel, anyway, with the verse about “The Children of Israel”.

 

[r.gonzales]

DeExupery:

It’s common sense based on the fact that Mohammed PBUH is a trader, he must know and meet a lot of people. They didn’t have internet at that time, so I don’t think they did intenet selling.

states muhammad mohar ali, in his book “sirat al-nabi and the orientalists” (vol.1A, pg.187):

that the prophet did engage himself in some trading activities is clear from the sources. it is also well known that he made two journeys to syria, once in the company of his uncle abu talib and again as leader of khadijah’s (r.a.) caravan when he was about twenty-five years old. if he had made any other trade journeys to distant lands that would surely have been noted by the chroniclers or reported by many of his companions as an important event in his life. basing upon the above mentioned facts, however, the orientalists have made a number of far-fetched and wide speculations.

thus, w. muir, writing connection with the prophet’s second journey to syria, makes him visit a number of other places, though there is not the slightest indication in the sources to such excursions.

earlier in his book (pg.172) he states:

the formation of the hilf al-fudul indeed marks the prophet’s emergence into public life. he was by then well known for his honesty, integrity, truthfulness, reliability and high moral character so that he was generally called al-amin or “the trustworthy”. such reputation and public recognition of his character he must have acquired by his day-to-day dealings with his people, especially by his discharge of trusts and responisibilities that must have been reposed to him from time to time. we have, however, no detailed information about such activities on his part. all that the sources reveal are some indirect and vague allusions to some trading activities on his part in makka.

it is particularly on record, however, that he made a second journey to syria, when about twenty-five years of age, leading khadijah’s trade caravan to that land. historians have been careful to note this event in some detail obviously beause it proved to be a turning point in his life. yet this very commercial assignment to him presupposes that he had by then some acknowledged experience in such transactions; for, wise and well-experienced as khadijah was by all accounts in trade and commerce, she just would not have staked her capital and caravan upon a young man, however honest and just, if she had not been convinced of his abilities and suitability in this respect. nonetheless it is certain that whatever trading activities he might have been engaged in at makkah, he had not previously led any other trade caravan to a foreign land. if he had done so, that fact would surely have been referred to by the chroniclers and traditionalists at least in connection with his trading mission on behalf of khadijah.

more discussion related to this and its connection to your initial claim that he took some knowledge from the people of the book to follow below…

 

[r.gonzales]

DeExupery:

Wrong. You are the first one to state that that’s impossible for Mohammed to copy from Talmud.

wrong, the initial claim was made by none other than yourself. why didn’t you quote the statement i quoted from you in that very same post?

DeExupery:

And if it has been in Talmud, it’s not an impossibility that Mohammed PBUH had already read it, or know it, for he lived in a place where there were a lot of Jews (the previous Arabia).

to which i said that it was impossible because prophet muhammad was illiterate; meaning: it was impossible to have read it because of this fact.

as for the last portion of your statement here, f.y.i., arabia was not “a place where there were a lot of jews”. the people of the book in general were a large minority in arabia, with the jews of that time mostly settled in and around yathrib (al-madeenah), which was quite a journey away from makkah back then.

again m.m. ali states (pg.260):

it is an acknowledged fact that there were jews and christians in arabia; the former mainly at yathrib (madinah) and the latter mainly at najran. so far as makkah, the birth-place of the prophet and the immediate scene of his activities is concerned, there were only a few christians of humble social and intellectual status, being either slaves or petty retailers, and mostly immigrants. one or two original inhabitants of makkah like uthman ibn al-huwayrith and waraqah ibn nawfal had turned chrisitians, the former out of personal or political considerations, and the latter as a result of his search or a better faith. also the makkans conducted trading operations with such countries such as syria and abyssinia where christianity prevailed. it is therefore quite understandable that the knowledgeable section of the makkan community including muhammad (s) had been aware of both judaism and christianity as systems of religion and did doubtless so know something of the common beliefs and practicies of the votaries of those religions. indeed all three of our scholars, muir, margoliouth and watt, are at one in stating, after all of their arguments, that muhammad’s (s) knowledge of judaism and christianity was at best second-hand, “superficial” and erroneous.

in comment to this, what is mentioned at the end no where even suggests that he would have been able to copy something out of their scriptures, such as the talmud. for if it did and it was a real and legitimate possibility, his knowledge would not be considered “second-hand at best”.

secondly, that there will be common points of belief between all three religions is something that is expected, as all of the prophets whom each religion believes in were sent by Allah, all bring the same basic beliefs to their respective peoples.

so again, since it was you who made the initial claim, the burden of proof is upon you. bring your proof that prophet muhammad took from judaism’s or christianity’s scriptures. speculation and conjecture doesn’t constitute proof or evidence.

 

[DeExupery]

Dear Rasheed,

Ok, let me start from the very first time:

You said:

Allah says in the Quran, 5:32 - whoever killed a soul without a soul (i.e., without right) or caused corruption in the earth, then it is certainly as if he killed all of mankind. and whoever let it live (i.e., the soul), it is certainly as if he let all of mankind live.

I said:

“32. On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.”
So I think Allah prescribed that to Children of Israel. Or am I wrong. Please enlight me.

Joel said:

and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Thats from the Talmud

I said:

Is that so? So do you think that there are a lot of things in Quran taken from Talmud?

Edris Said:

so Why would you be surprised if was mentioned before in the Talmud. If the verse didn’t mention the Children of Israel then I would call it copying and plagiarizing. To answer your question, nothing is taken from the previous scriptures. and what Allah (swt) Has mentioned in previous scriptures, would give credit to them.

I said:

With my foolish knowledge: WE means the single Allah. And He ordained the Children of Israel about the murder…
So it means that the verses are for Children of Israel. OR am I wrong here?
And if it has been in Talmud, it’s not an impossibility that Mohammed PBUH had already read it, or know it, for he lived in a place where there were a lot of Jews (the previous Arabia).

You said:

yes it was impossible. he was illiterate.

This is first, so we have a better sequence to our discussion.
Fox

(continued)

 

[DeExupery]

So, to conclude our discussion:

I find that a verse in Quran has been mentioned in Talmud. So I said that’s a POSSIBILITY that Mohammed PBUH have ever heard Talmud, since:

1. He was a trader.
2. He met a lot of Jews in his life before the revelation.
3. The verse really similar with what was written in Talmud.

And you said, it’s impossible, because he was illiterate.

I state my cased based on the similarity of the verse.

Since you claim that it’s impossible, and while the evidence shows that the verse is similar with what Talmud has written (and Talmud was written long time before Quran was written),
so it’s the case that you need to explain, and proof, why YOU SAID IT’S IMPOSSIBLE.

If no verse is similar and I claim that Mohammed PBUH might have heard or know Talmud…it will be MY CASE to explain.
So I am waiting for your explanation. And I would be very grateful if you could make it reader friendly.

Fox

 

[JoelRichardson]

Forgive me for jumping in to throw little tid-bits into this conversation. Why could not Muhammad simply have learned this saying from Talmud while debating/talking with some Jews in some town square scenario? A very possible scenario.

 

[Cyber_Knight]

JoelRichardson:

Forgive me for jumping in to throw little tid-bits into this conversation. Why could not Muhammad simply have learned this saying from Talmud while debating/talking with some Jews in some town square scenario? A very possible scenario.

So far as I can read… thats all DeExupery, Rodrigo, Reuben J, Booklover were trying to explain. oh well.

 

[DeExupery]

Dear Brother Manx,

Oh, my. How did I misread your comment?

hold on…if Mohammad was unlettered, how can he produce an eloquent book that even his contemporaries were not able to meet the challenge.

What challenge? And what criteria? Can you let me know more?

Fox

 

[cute2904]

DeExupery:

Dear Brother Manx,
Oh, my. How did I misread your comment?
What challenge? And what criteria? Can you let me know more?
Fox

For god’s sake Fox, he is playing taqiyya from the first place.

 

[Booklover]

r.gonzales:

huge probability based upon nothing but your speculation and conjecture. there is nothing from recorded history to support such fanciful supositions.

the burden of proof is upon the claimant. you claim that he heard or took knowledge from the jewish and christian scriptures, it is upon you produce the proof that he did.

Do you mean that Mohammed was miraculously kept isolated from Jews and Christians? That he had no contact with them? Come on! Don’t tell me that people in those days didn’t get together and discuss their traditions and beliefs and whatever. They didn’t have books like we have now, nor TV, movies or internet.

There were Nestorian monks in the area who did not believe in the crucifixion of Jesus, and bingo! Mohammed comes up with the same idea. Can you say that he didn’t get that from them?

All we are trying to say is that there is no proof that Mohammed did not get his “revelations” from information he obtained in his travels and decided to use later when he launched the Quran and Islam!

 

[cute2904]

Do you mean that Mohammed was miraculously kept isolated from Jews and Christians? That he had no contact with them? Come on! Don’t tell me that people in those days didn’t get together and discuss their traditions and beliefs and whatever. They didn’t have books like we have now, nor TV, movies or internet.

There were Nestorian monks in the area who did not believe in the crucifixion of Jesus, and bingo! Mohammed comes up with the same idea. Can you say that he didn’t get that from them?

All we are trying to say is that there is no proof that Mohammed did not get his “revelations” from information he obtained in his travels and decided to use later when he launched the Quran and Islam!
[/quote]

the point is Quran is from God. period. Any reasons behind it… allah knows best, vickie…

 

[maria_james]

DeExupery:

I said:

With my foolish knowledge: WE means the single Allah. And He ordained the Children of Israel about the murder…
So it means that the verses are for Children of Israel. OR am I wrong here?
And if it has been in Talmud, it’s not an impossibility that Mohammed PBUH had already read it, or know it, for he lived in a place where there were a lot of Jews (the previous Arabia).

1. In the entire string of posts, you are the one who* ** first** * started this by saying “it’s not an impossibility that Mohammed PBUH had already read it, or know it” without giving ***ANY ** * proofs whatsoever.

So the burden of proof lies on you.

Now, even if it were the other way around, Gonzales and Edris have thrown in a number of verses and posts proving that Prophet (PBUH) was unlettered. **So now the burden of proof rests solely on you and your friends. **

Please show authentic, non-Islamic links and posts that prove Prophet (PBUH) wasn’t unlettered.

Don’t keep quoting from Hadiths and other Islamic notes coz Islamic sources mentioning Prophet (PBUH) writing letters to others (posts by Bivar), have already been explained by Gonzales and Edris …** ie., Prophet (PBUH) dictates, companions write. Same thing happened with Holy Qur’an as well.**

Read more here :

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=61916

Another parallel would be the writing of Mahabharatha (of Hindus) which was “written” by Veda Vyasa. But it was actually dictated by him and written down by Lord Ganesha.

"Thus began the composition of the story of Mahabharata. Vyasa went on dictating ; Lord Ganesha took down faithfully"

freeindia.org/biographies/sages/vedavyasa/page10.htm

Which part of this is difficult for you to understand ? … All you have said so far are :

DeExupery:

Mohammed PBUH had lived for 40 years before the revelation. He was a trader, communicating with many people. So do you think that he will not be able to hear stories from everywhere? I am not yet fourty, but I know a lot of stories. And I am not a trader myself.
So why dismissing this possibility because of the death of Waraqa?

What we need are solid proofs now. Not your statements. Have you got anything so far ? …

1. BTW what has this do with the topic of the thread ?

 

[maria_james]

DeExupery:

The “fact” that Mohammed said he couldn’t read is illogical because:

1. If Mohammed is forced to read and he said he can’t read, then Jibril and Allah is not all knowing. They even didn’t know anything about the man they chose to become a messenger.

**Luk 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? **

How did Mary conceive ? … Didn’t God know that Mary was a virgin and was not married ? … **Wasn’t God Omniscient (all knowing) at that time ? … Yet God chose Mary. **

Same thing. God knew Muhammad (PBUH) was unlettered. Yet God chose him as the last Prophet of Islam.

But I see you have no problem with Mary being chosen despite being a virgin. Maybe that’s becoz when it comes to explaining God’s activities/decisons in your faith, you set aside reasoning and logical deductions but when it comes to Islam you apply all these, huh ?.

God works in mysterious ways. If you ask questions like “why didn’t God do this, why didn’t God do that ?” etc, you know where that’s gonna lead you … If you can’t understand that, you can’t be helped.

 

[MrS]

maria_james:

Same thing. God knew Muhammad (PBUH) was unlettered. Yet God chose him as the last Prophet of Islam.

.

the last? prophet?

As a Roman Catholic, I would have to think that [1] he was not choosen by God, and [2] he could not have been a prophet - one who speaks the truth.

Could it be that most of the back-and-forth “discussion” here are based on just those two premises… it is very hard for anyone, Muslim or Catholic to understand, much less accept basic tenants of the other’s faith.

 

[maria_james]

BarbaraTherese:

I do not understand at all what the Muslim religion is all about, not at all. Not knowing I neither condemn nor condone.

Maybe this link from PBS.ORG will help you get started :

pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/muslims/etc/faqs.html

 

[MrS]

maria_james:

Maybe this link from PBS.ORG will help you get started :

pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/muslims/etc/faqs.html

rather good attempt to mislead…

right, Muslims won’t kill the innocent. But one who denies that Muhammad is a prophet, and professes that there is only one Triune God, and Jesus is God… is not considered innocent. That person is an unbeliever… and a true muslim must kill the unbeliever whereever he may find him.