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

[r.gonzales]

MrS:

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.

trying to pass of your misconceptions as facts. as Allah says, bring your proof if you are truthful.

 

[maria_james]

MrS:

the last? prophet?

Yeah Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was the last prophet of Islam.

"Many people have a misconception that Islam is a new religion and Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was the founder of Islam. However, let me clarify that Islam is not the name of some unique religion presented for the first time by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) who should, on that account be called the founder of Islam.

The Qur’an states that Islam - the complete submission of man before his One and Only Unique Creator - is the One and Only faith and way of life consistently revealed by God to humankind from the very beginning. Noah, Solomon, David, Abraham, Moses, Isaac and Jesus (pbut) - prophets who appeared at different times and places - all propagated the same faith and conveyed the same message of Tawheed (Oneness of God), Risaalat (Prophethood) and Aakhirah (the Hereafter). These prophets of God were not founders of different religions to be named after them. They were each reiterating the message and faith of their predecessors. "

islamicvoice.com/april.2004/question.htm

MrS:

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.

Your view. However Catholic Pope John Paul II seemed to disagree with you

“Dear Muslims, my brothers: I would like to add that we Christians, just like you, seek the basis and model of mercy in God himself, the God to whom your Book gives the very beautiful name of al-Rahman, while the Bible calls him al-Rahum, the Merciful One.” - Pope John Paul II, address to representatives of Muslims of the Philippines, February 20, 1981

This shows that Pope John Paul II agreed with name of God in Holy Qur’an and Holy Bible.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 841, Muslims together with the Catholics, "adore the one, merciful God."

Now, if the Catholic Church believes that Muslims together with the Catholics adore the one, merciful God, then Catholics must believe in whoever that God chooses as Prophet, right ? …

Maybe it is time for you re-think your faith in Catholicism, huh ?

MrS:

rather good attempt to mislead…

Opinions, opinions … (yawn) …

MrS:

and a true muslim must kill the unbeliever whereever he may find him.

Explained so many times. Falling on deaf years.

 

[George_Waters]

maria_james:

Your view. However Catholic Pope John Paul II seemed to disagree with you

“Dear Muslims, my brothers: I would like to add that we Christians, just like you, seek the basis and model of mercy in God himself, the God to whom your Book gives the very beautiful name of al-Rahman, while the Bible calls him al-Rahum, the Merciful One.” - Pope John Paul II, address to representatives of Muslims of the Philippines, February 20, 1981

This shows that Pope John Paul II agreed with name of God in Holy Qur’an and Holy Bible.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 841, Muslims together with the Catholics, "adore the one, merciful God."

Now, if the Catholic Church believes that Muslims together with the Catholics adore the one, merciful God, then Catholics must believe in whoever that God chooses as Prophet, right ? …

Maybe it is time for you re-think your faith in Catholicism, huh ?

How does this statement show that Pope John Paul II and MrS disagree? Yes, Catholics and Muslims “adore the one, merciful God.” That is not a point of contention. The prophet hood of Muhammad is the point of contention and that is NOT addressed by either Pope John Paul II’s statement or the Catechism. How did you come up with the assertion that Catholics must believe that Muhammad was chosen as God’s prophet based on the fact that we recognize the one true God? So as we do worship the one true God Muslim’s MUST believe in the Trinity, right? Or is that somehow different?

Maybe it’s time you re-think your sarcastic, rude and totally irrelevant remark to MrS, huh?

George

 

[manx]

MrS:

That person is an unbeliever… and a true muslim must kill the unbeliever whereever he may find him.

That’s actually more misleading my dear. Are you telling me that there are millions of unfaithful Muslims (like in Malaysia, Indonesia, and Brunei) because they don’t kill the unbelievers when they see them? Let’s not twist the meanings of some verses in the Qur’an or Hadiths only to support our ideas.

 

[r.gonzales]

correct. the quote from john paul didn’t address prophet muhammad’s prophethood. however, there is one thing i’d like to point out… and perhaps mrS missed it when he read maria’s post.

maria_james:

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

(emphasis mine) to which mrS replied.

MrS:

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.

maria didn’t mention anything about muhammad being the last prophet of roman catholicism. she said the last prophet of islam. so, of what relevance is it then to mention what he believes as a roman catholic - especially given the fact that he rejects islam altogether, let alone prophet muhammad’s prophethood?

 

[DeExupery]

Dear Enigmatic Dilligent Rosy Intelligent Superb Maria (aka Ms. Beautiful Maria),

I have read your beautiful explanation:

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.

Oh…my proof or proofs?

1. Similarity of the two verses.
2. The history that Mohammed lived in a place where there lived also (used to be before being eradicated) the Jews and the Christians (aka: People of the books).

Not enough? I believe if someone is accused of plagiatism, he needs to prove he is innocent of plagiatism.

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.

Honey pie…unlettered doesn’t make it’s impossible to plagiatize. Beside, are you really sure that you have answered all Rodrigo proof that Mohammed was not unable to read?

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

Dear Superb Maria. That’s what I want from both Edris and Gonzales. Unfortunately, I feel pity for the boys. It seems everyone that could WRITE anything bad about Mohammed PBUH was killed. I remember reading about a poor poet and a poor poetess. I forget their names. Do you want me to give you their stories, so your sensitive heart will cry to hear such a merciless act from the mercy for all humankind?
We know that Islamic Source are unreliable (like Hadeeths, they are fabricated to the favor of Mohammed PBUH).

So I am still waiting. And dear Maria…I think you like to divert our attention to Christiantiy. Why? We are talking about Islam. Tuquoque is not an answer to a healthy discussion.

Fox

P.S. And you don’t continue the debate about Scientific Miracle?

 

[r.gonzales]

first of all, it’s called plagiarism, not plagiatism.

secondly, you don’t really know too much about makkah’s history do you? read my earlier post where i quoted from sirat al-nabi and the orientalists…

rodrigo’s evidences have all been answered sufficiently. other than that, all your “possibilities” are highly imporbable given what is recorded in the history books and chronicles. all you have are baseless assumptions, speculations and conjectures.

 

[Booklover]

**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.

Yes, God does work in mysterious ways! Would God in his infinite wisdom send a last “prophet” as you call him, who would bring his message by “private revelations” which can so easily be used for fraudulent purposes by the so-called “prophet”? A prophet who could put anything in his “revelations” and claim it came from God?? And you actually believe all this?? Because he was illiterate??

You say that God chose Mohammed as the last prophet, could it not be that Mohammed chose to proclaim himself a prophet and used God and religion in his quest for power and greed? To subdue anyone who opposed him?

 

[Booklover]

maria_james:

“
Maybe it is time for you re-think your faith in Catholicism, huh ?

Since in a thread that is now closed you kept telling us that Hitler considered himself a good Catholic and that Pope Pius XII was in league with the Nazis, here’s an interesting bit for you:

In fact, the comparisons to the 1930s make a lot more sense if you compare Muslims to the Nazis. And there was a connection, even during WW2. Adolf Hitler is reputed to have stated his admiration for Islam, and thought it would be a better match for Nazism than Christianity, with its stupid notions of compassion for inferior people. Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the grand mufti of Jerusalem and the leader of Muslim fundamentalists in Palestine, resided in Berlin as a welcome guest of the Nazis throughout the years of the Holocaust. The Nazi-Islamic love affair remains strong. Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’ is a bestseller in Islamic nations such as Turkey, at the same time as Turkish PM Erdogan wants anti-Islamism to be accepted as a crime against humanity in the EU. And not few Muslim leaders state their wish to finish what the Nazis started. Broadcasts from imams in the Palestinian Authority have stated that: “The day will come when we will rule America. The day will come when we will rule Britain and the entire world – except for the Jews. Listen to the Prophet Muhammad, who tells you about the evil end that awaits Jews. The stones and trees will want the Muslims to finish off every Jew."

faithfreedom.org/oped/Fjordman51128.htm

 

[DeExupery]

Dear Rasheed,

first of all, it’s called plagiarism, not plagiatism.

Thanks for your correction…
So, what do you think about the similar verse and PLAGIARISM?

secondly, you don’t really know too much about makkah’s history do you? read my earlier post where i quoted from sirat al-nabi and the orientalists…

Dear Rasheed, should I continue again and again that THEY didn’t negate the impossibility of the PLAGIARISM. If they do, quote it.
Besides, our Beautiful Maria said about the usage of non-islamic source. do you think you can provide us?

rodrigo’s evidences have all been answered sufficiently. other than that, all your “possibilities” are highly imporbable given what is recorded in the history books and chronicles. all you have are baseless assumptions, speculations and conjectures.

Oh…so this is baseless?

**Oh…my proof or proofs?

1. Similarity of the two verses.
2. The history that Mohammed lived in a place where there lived also (used to be before being eradicated) the Jews and the Christians (aka: People of the books).**

Unless you can proof that:

1. The verses are not similar.
2. Mohammed never meet Jews or Christians ALL HIS LIFE.
   Then you cannot refute what I am saying.

Fox

 

[r.gonzales]

DeExupery:

Oh…so this is baseless?

**Oh…my proof or proofs?

1. Similarity of the two verses.
2. The history that Mohammed lived in a place where there lived also (used to be before being eradicated) the Jews and the Christians (aka: People of the books).**

Unless you can proof that:

1. The verses are not similar.
2. Mohammed never meet Jews or Christians ALL HIS LIFE.
   Then you cannot refute what I am saying.

Fox

as i said…

r.gonzales:

all your “possibilities” are highly imporbable given what is recorded in the history books and chronicles. all you have are baseless assumptions, speculations and conjectures.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Edris:

As brother Gonzales mentioned this discussion is starting to get borring. He already explained the word “iqra’” in arabic and what it stands for, a zillion times so far; but it seems to me we have people here who are literate yet “stupid”.

TEXT DELETED

Did I base my claim on iqra? I don’t think so. However, I must say that it is tiresome that Muslims always seem to think they have the right to choose the meaning of a word to suit themselves if more than one meaning is possible.

Edris:

As for hadith #1756, the answer to your claim is in the hadith itself, “…the Book of Allah and this written paper from the Prophet…”. From the Prophet pbuh true, but not wrriten by the Prophet, instead both the Book of Allah (Qur’an) and the paper both were written by the companions.

The Prophet pbuh used to send letters to the leaders of the tribes, he also sent letters to Negus, king of Abyssinia (Ethiopia); Vicegerent of Egypt, called Muqawqas; Chosroes, Emperor of Persia; Caesar, King of Rome; etc… , None of the letters was written by the Prophet pbuh himself instead he dictated the content to the scribes and they wrote down the letters. When the messenger from the Prophet pbuh deliver the letter to a king they will say “this letter is from Prophet Muhammad pbuh” and the letters will read “From Muhammad, Messenger of Allah to…” But doesn’t mean that Muhammd pbuh wrote the letter himself.

The letters sent by the Prophet pbuh and the replies from the kings are in this link witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/SM_tsn/ch5s2.html You can read through them cause they summarise the message of Islam. Specially the last letter which was sent to the King of ‘Oman, Jaifer, and his Brother ‘Abd Al-Jalandi, here ‘Amr bin Al-’As (the messenger from Prophet Muhammd pbuh) engaged in a dialogue with 'Abd Al-Jalandi it basically shows the main concept of Islam.

Letter is not written paper from the Prophet. The phrase strongly suggests his ability to write. This is not the only evidence I brought. I brought many hadiths including some pretty clear ones that he could write.

Now, your friend r. gonzales could not disprove those hadiths that were clearly saying Muhammad could write. Instead, he brought the unsubstantiated opinion of Ibn Hajar who said that ‘write’ means Muhammad didn’t himself write but someone else wrote for him.

I then asked r. gonzales how one could tell the literal from the figurative in ‘Muhammad wrote’. He didn’t reply so I guess he has no answer and my rebuttal to his ‘Ibn Hajar’ unsubstantiated opinion stands.

Anyone can make a claim - including Imams. Without supportive evidence those claims are merely baseless and unworthy of serious consideration. But then, I don’t believe in the logical fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam which is what relying on Ibn Hajar’s unsubstantiated opinion would be.

Look that logical fallacy up, Edris and r. Gonzales. You might learn how to debate properly.

Edris:

As for the rest of the hadiths you quoted, I think brother Gonzales has said more than enough about the “iqra’” and “literacy” issues.

Peace

Sure he had plenty to say but unfortunately he provided no evidence to support his assertions.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

r.gonzales:

rodrigo’s evidences have all been answered sufficiently.

With respect you answered my evidence by providing a logical fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam.

Ibn Hajar didn’t provide any evidence why one should take ‘Muhammad wrote’ figuratively rather than literally. It was only his unsubstantiated opinion because, like you, he was trying to defend the notion that Muhammad was illiterate (at least early in his apostolic career).

I remember asking you how an unbiased reader can tell that a phrase ‘Muhammad wrote’ or similar is literal or figurative but you didn’t answer.

Thus, according to debating conventions and common sense, by not answering I still have the floor - meaning my point stands and you have answered nothing,

Please provide this evidence so we can all see how to tell a simple Arabic phrase meaning ‘Muhammad wrote’ is to be taken literally or figuratively.

Over to you, gonzales.

Ciubate,
Mata Moro

 

[r.gonzales]

Rodrigo Bivar:

Over to you, gonzales.

welcome back from your hiatus.

perhaps you should try reading the bulk of the replies that were posted while you were away. and try not to rush like you’ve shown yourself to do…

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

r.gonzales:

welcome back from your hiatus.

perhaps you should try reading the bulk of the replies that were posted while you were away. and try not to rush like you’ve shown yourself to do…

Thanks for the implied ad hominem circumstantial. I’m a very busy man. Perhaps we could start all over, just between the two of us - then I only have to read what you write.

 

[r.gonzales]

Rodrigo Bivar:

I’m a very busy man. Perhaps we could start all over, just between the two of us - then I only have to read what you write.

many of us are, so take your time .

as for your challenge, that’s fine. but perhaps if you want to keep others out of it, we can discuss via pm or email. your choice .

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

r.gonzales:

many of us are, so take your time .

as for your challenge, that’s fine. but perhaps if you want to keep others out of it, we can discuss via pm or email. your choice .

It’s okay. I have replied to your 4 points in the other thread. I think we should just limit out discussion of Muhammad’s literacy there. I will close off here.

There is no need for me to read anyone else’s posts - since this is between the two of us, we’ll take it from your last post which I have answered.

Ciubate,
Cid

 

[DeExupery]

Dear Rasheed,

all your “possibilities” are highly imporbable given what is recorded in the history books and chronicles. all you have are baseless assumptions, speculations and conjectures.

Let me refresh you:

**Oh…my proof or proofs?

1. Similarity of the two verses.
2. The history that Mohammed lived in a place where there lived also (used to be before being eradicated) the Jews and the Christians (aka: People of the books).**

The verses are similiar = THIS IS FACT
Mohammed lived in a place where there lived also the Jews and Christians (aka: People of the books) = THIS IS FACT.

Since the verse are similar (Fact #1) and Mohammed PBUH lived among the people of the book (Fact #2), it’s is HIGHLY PROBABLE that he borrowed (PLAGIARIZE) from Talmud or Bible.

Now, I need your proof that:

yes it was impossible. he was illiterate.

I have answered you about this:

1. You still need to proof of his inability to read or write (this is the thread you will have with Mr. Rodrigo Bivar!)
2. Being unable to read or write doesn’t mean that it’s IMPOSSIBLE for him to PLAGIARIZE. (this is the point you need to answer me).

I hope that’s clear, because I make it as short and clear as possible.

Fox

 

[DeExupery]

Dear Rasheed,

I am still waiting for you here, because my point is different with Rodrigo.

Fox

 

[r.gonzales]

firstly, your proof that prophet muhammad was illiterate can be found in the thread regarding that topic.

secondly,

1) Similarity of the two verses.
2) The history that Mohammed lived in a place where there lived also (used to be before being eradicated) the Jews and the Christians (aka: People of the books).

these points are circumstancial and do not prove anything.

in his book “sirat al-nabi and the orientalists”, m. m. ali states regarding the similarities and differences between biblical and Quranic accounts (parts bolded by me for emphasis):

thus a comparison between the biblical and Qur’anic accounts of the prophets make it clear that the latter are not a reproduction of the former. there are of course points of similarity between the two sets of accounts; but the Qur’an definitely presents a good deal different and original. some of the orientalists do recognize that there are new elements in the Qur’an. in general, however, their treatment of the subject suffers from three common drawbacks. in the first place, they seem to emphasize only the points of similarity almost to the exclusion of the points of dissimilarity or make only casual and secondary reference to them. secondly, they spare no pains to identify similar facts or ideas in other ancient greek, hebrew and latin works or legends and then immediately advance the suggestion that the Qur’anic accounts are drawn from or based on them. it is overlooked that the mere existence of similar facts or ideas in a previous work, sometimes thousands of years old, does not ipso fact prove that a subsequent work is based on that work. some further evidence is needed to show the contact or possibility of contact with, or understanding of that source. this point is especially relevant in the case of muhammad (s); for it does not carry conviction just to suggest that he mastered the materials treasured in numerous ancient works and sources, and that also in a municipality of foreign and even defunct languages, by means of only casual conversations with a trader in transit or a foreign slave in domestic service. for, that is the most that hitherto been alleged about him. nor is there any indication that makkah and its vicinity at that time possessed a good library or museum containing the ancient works and manuscripts to which the orientalists call their readers to attention; or that there were scholars and philologists in that place to unravel the secrets of such works to the prophet-to-be. thirdly, while casually recognizing that there are new elements in the Qur’an, the orientalists do seem never to have paid attention to find out the sources of these elements. if they had done so, they would surely have found reason to see that the assumptions under which they have hitherto been labouring so diligently and impressively need revision.