I
inJESUS
Guest
no, in fact we are talking here about an old covenant and a new one…not about abrogating commands within 23 years.
- Status
V
Valke2
Guest
Are you saying the brevity of the period of time suggests the same writer changed his mind?
I
inJESUS
Guest
not only the brevity, but the kind of contradictory commandmants. You can google it…
answering-islam.de/Main/Quran/abrogatedverses.html
you can read Islamic links as well and assess.
I
inJESUS
Guest
Here is just an example of the difference between the shift from an Old covenant to a New one, and Quranic abrogation:
Al-Zamakhshari stated in reference to Sura 2:106:
(As the occasion of the revelation of this verse) the following is related: The unbelievers had challenged the canceling of verses and said: 'Look at Muhammad, how he commands his companions to do something, and then forbids it to them and commands the opposite. He says something today and retracts it tomorrow.'
THEREUPON THIS VERSE CAME DOWN
002.106
YUSUFALI: None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?
implying that Muhammad only mentioned abrogation after the unbelievers started questioning him for changing his mind and contradicting himself.
Clearly, Muhammad’s doctrine of abrogation was nothing more than his attempt of trying to explain away all his contradictions and inconsistencies. Muhammad needed to come up with an explanation for having changed his mind regarding certain issues which resulted in contradictions with what he had previously said about those same things.
Al-Zamakhshari stated in reference to Sura 2:106:
(As the occasion of the revelation of this verse) the following is related: The unbelievers had challenged the canceling of verses and said: 'Look at Muhammad, how he commands his companions to do something, and then forbids it to them and commands the opposite. He says something today and retracts it tomorrow.'
THEREUPON THIS VERSE CAME DOWN
002.106
YUSUFALI: None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?
implying that Muhammad only mentioned abrogation after the unbelievers started questioning him for changing his mind and contradicting himself.
Clearly, Muhammad’s doctrine of abrogation was nothing more than his attempt of trying to explain away all his contradictions and inconsistencies. Muhammad needed to come up with an explanation for having changed his mind regarding certain issues which resulted in contradictions with what he had previously said about those same things.
R
Rodrigo_Bivar
Guest
I think you need to read up on 9:29 buddy, it’s context - when it was revealed etc.Actually, the word isnt persecution, it is Jizyah. It is a tax. Fair? No but not as bad
As for the fighting, it is most likely more of a defence of faith that going out and conquering the world.
As the following shows “Truely God commands you give back trusts to those to whom they are due, and when you judge between people, to judge with justice” (4: 58
-“And let not the hatred of others make you avoid justive. Be just: that is nearer to piety…”(5:8)
“God does not forbid you from showing kindness and dealing justly with those who have not fought you about religion and have not driven you out of your homes. God loves just dealers” (60:8)
Theres one particular Surah where it states very clearly the only justification for invading someone is if they pose a threat to your existance and even then, it should only be to get them to stop. Dont have the time to look for it atm, perhaps someone could hlp?
To Rodrigo, sure there is some unsightly verses but depending on your interpretation they can mean many things. Again, same as the bible. Even the most peaceful and loving religions have had their words interpreted to commit acts of violence.
This is ayat 9:29
Qatiloo allatheena la yu/minoona biAllahi wala bialyawmi al-akhiri wala yuharrimoona ma harrama Allahu warasooluhu wala yadeenoona deena alhaqqi mina allatheena ootoo alkitaba hatta yuAAtoo aljizyata AAan yadin wahum saghiroona
Fight/kill those who do not believe with God and nor the Day the Last/Resurrection Day, and do not forbid/prohibit what God and His messenger forbid/prohibited, and do not take/adopt a religion the correct/right religion from those who were given/brought The Book , until they give/hand over the fee paid by non-Moslems living in a Moslem society (paid instead of Zakat by Moslems) from a hand, **and (while) they are subservient/humiliated . **
This ayat has been discussed before many times - since it is the last or second last surah revealed it abrogates all previous surahs. I will discuss the context of each of your other verses if you want, but not in this thread.
R
Rodrigo_Bivar
Guest
I realize many Christians say (probably out of political correctness, misunderstanding, or politeness) that the Muslims, Jews and Christians worship the same god.
This cannot be true. No Christian should believe this. Here is the reason why.
Suppose Christians accept that the Muslim Allah is the God of Abraham and thus the God of Jesus Christ.
Now, if this is accepted, then the God of Abraham has chosen a final prophet who has denied the divinity of Jesus Christ, and has commanded Christians to convert to Islam or suffer persecution.
So, Christians who believe that Muslims worship the God of Abraham - why are you disobeying your god? Why haven’t you converted to Islam?
By not becoming Muslims you have disobeyed your God since you deny the prophethood of Muhammad the desert bandit.
So what’s keeping you? You can say the shahada immediately: "I testify that there is no god (ilah) but God (Allah), and I testify that Muhammad is the messenger of God.’
This cannot be true. No Christian should believe this. Here is the reason why.
Suppose Christians accept that the Muslim Allah is the God of Abraham and thus the God of Jesus Christ.
Now, if this is accepted, then the God of Abraham has chosen a final prophet who has denied the divinity of Jesus Christ, and has commanded Christians to convert to Islam or suffer persecution.
So, Christians who believe that Muslims worship the God of Abraham - why are you disobeying your god? Why haven’t you converted to Islam?
By not becoming Muslims you have disobeyed your God since you deny the prophethood of Muhammad the desert bandit.
So what’s keeping you? You can say the shahada immediately: "I testify that there is no god (ilah) but God (Allah), and I testify that Muhammad is the messenger of God.’
C
corvidae
Guest
It seems that what they actually believe is very different than your portrayal of it. I mean, meedo has said several things that are just plain contradictory to what you say.
I would much rather learn the beliefs of a religion by what they say about themselves, than what others say about them. If I trusted what others said about the Catholic faith I would believe that we are actually the reincarnation of a Babylonian mystery cult.
I will fight fanatical Islam if I must, I will crusade against it if I must, but I will not label all Muslims as Fanatical. I try to live out my faith, and spread it when I can, but I will not make my faith just a platform to rail against others.
I believe I have the fullness of the Truth in the Catholic faith, and I try to spread it because I want others to know the fullness of the Truth, not because I believe they are evil.
You claim to be very learned in all faiths
The fool believes himself wise, the wise man knows he is a fool.
That is a quote from shakespeare but seems to be true. The intelligent people that I have met admit that there are huge things they do not know. Socrates said he is only wise because he knows he is ignorant.
I am ignorant on a huge number of subjects. In the words of a friend, I usually know just enough to engage in a deep conversation, and upset those I am conversing with (mainly because I know enough they cannot use oversimplified answers)
However, I seek the truth. I am still learning, and hopefully will be learning my entire life.This applies to truth whereever I can find it, even if it is the Truth about what someone actually believes.
A lone Raven
L
Loginus
Guest
Nicely put and I fully agree. If I want to learn about Islam, ask a Muslim not someone who likes to rant about them
R
Rodrigo_Bivar
Guest
The truth is the truth regardless of who tells it. If you think you’re being misled please tell us. After all, this is a discussion forum, not a lecture platform for Muslims to lecture us about the ROP.
C
corvidae
Guest
Rodrigo,
I believe in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. By the Grace of God I am still Catholic, and by His Grace I will remain one until I die.
I think that a small basic Islam thread would be a good thing. It would give common ground so that things can actually be discussed. For example, if I am trying to have a discussion with a Muslim, It would be helpful for me to know what that person actually believes or is required to believe to be a Muslim. If I just persue my own prejudices, then no discussion will be done.
As for this thread being misleading, I will trust the Muslims on what they believe over others until it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt that they are lying.
A lone Raven
I believe in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. By the Grace of God I am still Catholic, and by His Grace I will remain one until I die.
I think that a small basic Islam thread would be a good thing. It would give common ground so that things can actually be discussed. For example, if I am trying to have a discussion with a Muslim, It would be helpful for me to know what that person actually believes or is required to believe to be a Muslim. If I just persue my own prejudices, then no discussion will be done.
As for this thread being misleading, I will trust the Muslims on what they believe over others until it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt that they are lying.
A lone Raven
R
Rodrigo_Bivar
Guest
Thank you and I will prove using Islamic theological sources if and when the Muslims lie to you. Okay?
C
corvidae
Guest
As long as it is not just your interpretation of the Qu’ran, that will be fine.
A lone Raven
A lone Raven
R
Rodrigo_Bivar
Guest
I see you are lacking in trust. Dialogue is only possible if nobody is constrained in any way. If you don’t like my interpretation you should of course examine the evidence provided.
I don’t ask anyone to blindly accept my ‘interpretation’. As this is a discussion forum, I am here to discuss. Ask for evidence if you’re unhappy with the explanation, and will be provided.
Or are you in the habit of believing without question? I think merely accepting Muslim apologetics is counterproductive.
I don’t ask anyone to blindly accept my ‘interpretation’. As this is a discussion forum, I am here to discuss. Ask for evidence if you’re unhappy with the explanation, and will be provided.
Or are you in the habit of believing without question? I think merely accepting Muslim apologetics is counterproductive.
C
corvidae
Guest
Let me make this clear,
I have a huge problem with anti-Catholic interpretation of the Bible.
I believe Muslims would have a similar problem with the Qu’ran.
I am treating them the way I want to be treated.
A lone Raven
I have a huge problem with anti-Catholic interpretation of the Bible.
I believe Muslims would have a similar problem with the Qu’ran.
I am treating them the way I want to be treated.
A lone Raven
H
havemercy
Guest
Loginus, I would kindly ask you to read the Bible over until you can see it as a cohesive whole, and God as unchanging. God has always been merciful and loving, but when one swears an oath with God and breaks it (as the Jews did constantly), wrath ensues and justice must be served. God is merely true to Himself and is faithful to His promises. One God, one history of salvation.
R
Rodrigo_Bivar
Guest
Are you saying I misintepret the Quran?
C
corvidae
Guest
I am saying you could, that is why I am asking for sources outside of the Quran.
If you can show me where Muslims have said what they believe the interpretation is. It is just good argument. Instead of saying they believe this, or they think this, show me where they say it.
A lone Raven
R
Rodrigo_Bivar
Guest
You mean the tafsirs. I am here to oblige. I presume you mean the verse by which the Muslim Allah persecutes Christians.
For context, here is Maududi’s explanation.
isgkc.org/Maududi/mau9.htm
Problems of the Period
If we keep in view the preceding background, we can easily find out the problems that were confronting the Community at that time. They were:
to make the whole of Arabia a perfect Dar-ul-Islam,
to extend the influence of Islam to the adjoining countries,
to crush the mischiefs of the hypocrites, and
**to prepare the Muslims for Jihad against the non- Muslim world. **
This Surah comprises three discourses:-
The first discourse (vv. 1-37), was revealed in Zil-Qa’adah A. H. 9 or thereabout. As the importance of the subject of the discourse required its declaration on the occasion of Haj the Holy Prophet despatched Hadrat Ali to follow Hadrat Abu Bakr, who had already left for Makkah as leader of the Pilgrims to the Ka’abah. He instructed Hadrat Ali to deliver the discourse before the representatives of the different clans of Arabia so as to inform them of the new policy towards the mushriks.
==> this shows that 9:29 was revealed after Muhammad had beaten all his enemies - there were no enemies left to challenge him and so there is no ‘defense against non-Muslim attacks’ excuse.
Here are the tafsirs:
29 Fight those of the people who were given the Book
who do not have iman in Allah and the Last Day
until they pay the jizya with their own hands
Ibn Juzayy:
(Fight those of the people who do not have iman in Allah and the Last Day) A command to fight the People of the Book and denying their belief in Allah because of the words of the Jews, “'Uzayr is the son of Allah” and the words of the Christians, “The Messiah is the son of Allah.” Their belief in the Last Day is denied because their belief in it is incorrect. They do not accept the Next World or the Reckoning.
(who do not make haram what Allah and His Messenger have made haram) because they consider as lawful carrion, blood, pork, etc. (and do not take as their deen the deen of Truth) i.e. they do not enter Islam.
(who were given the Book) Clarifying those they were commanded to fight. When this ayat was revealed, the Messenger of Allah set out onthe expedition to Tabuk to fight the Christians.
(until they pay the jizya) Scholars agree about accepting jizya from the Jews and Christians. The Magians/Zoroasterians have been added to them going by the words of the Prophet, “Treat them as People of the Book.” There is disagreement about accepting it from idolatrs and Sabians. It is not collected from women, children or the insane. Malik says that it is 4 dinars for the people whp use gold and 40 dirhams for the people who use silver. It is a head tax. (with their own hands) This has two interpretations. One is that the dhimmi pays it with his own hand and does not send anyone with it nor postpone it as is said, “from hand to hand.” The second is submission and obedience as you say, “he gave his hand to so-and-so [an expression meaning “he surrendered to so-and-so”].” (state of abasement) i.e. they are humble.
Jalalayn:
(Fight those of the people who do not have iman in Allah and the Last Day) Otherwise, they would believe in the Prophet.
[As-Sawi: Fighting the people of the Torah and the Gospel is mentioned after the clarification regarding fighting the Arab idolaters. This ayat was revealed when the Messenger of Allah was commanded to fight the Byzantines. When it was sent down, the Messenger of Allah prepared for the expedition to Tabuk.]
(who do not make haram what Allah and His Messenger have made haram) like wine, etc. (and do not take as their deen the Deen of Truth) which is firm and abrogates other deens. It is the deen of Islam. (who were given the Book) meaning the Christians and the Jews. (they pay the jizya) which they have to pay every year.
[As-Sawi: It is called jizya because it spares them from being fought and accords them security. Jazâ means to compensate for something.]
(with their own hands) An adverbial expression, i.e. in obedience and directly with their own hands without any deputy. (state of abasement) humble and obedient to the judgements of Islam.
cont.
For context, here is Maududi’s explanation.
isgkc.org/Maududi/mau9.htm
Problems of the Period
If we keep in view the preceding background, we can easily find out the problems that were confronting the Community at that time. They were:
to make the whole of Arabia a perfect Dar-ul-Islam,
to extend the influence of Islam to the adjoining countries,
to crush the mischiefs of the hypocrites, and
**to prepare the Muslims for Jihad against the non- Muslim world. **
This Surah comprises three discourses:-
The first discourse (vv. 1-37), was revealed in Zil-Qa’adah A. H. 9 or thereabout. As the importance of the subject of the discourse required its declaration on the occasion of Haj the Holy Prophet despatched Hadrat Ali to follow Hadrat Abu Bakr, who had already left for Makkah as leader of the Pilgrims to the Ka’abah. He instructed Hadrat Ali to deliver the discourse before the representatives of the different clans of Arabia so as to inform them of the new policy towards the mushriks.
==> this shows that 9:29 was revealed after Muhammad had beaten all his enemies - there were no enemies left to challenge him and so there is no ‘defense against non-Muslim attacks’ excuse.
Here are the tafsirs:
29 Fight those of the people who were given the Book
who do not have iman in Allah and the Last Day
Code:
and do not make haram
what Allah and His Messenger have made haram
and do not take as their deen the deen of Truth,
Code:
in a state of complete abasement.(Fight those of the people who do not have iman in Allah and the Last Day) A command to fight the People of the Book and denying their belief in Allah because of the words of the Jews, “'Uzayr is the son of Allah” and the words of the Christians, “The Messiah is the son of Allah.” Their belief in the Last Day is denied because their belief in it is incorrect. They do not accept the Next World or the Reckoning.
(who do not make haram what Allah and His Messenger have made haram) because they consider as lawful carrion, blood, pork, etc. (and do not take as their deen the deen of Truth) i.e. they do not enter Islam.
(who were given the Book) Clarifying those they were commanded to fight. When this ayat was revealed, the Messenger of Allah set out onthe expedition to Tabuk to fight the Christians.
(until they pay the jizya) Scholars agree about accepting jizya from the Jews and Christians. The Magians/Zoroasterians have been added to them going by the words of the Prophet, “Treat them as People of the Book.” There is disagreement about accepting it from idolatrs and Sabians. It is not collected from women, children or the insane. Malik says that it is 4 dinars for the people whp use gold and 40 dirhams for the people who use silver. It is a head tax. (with their own hands) This has two interpretations. One is that the dhimmi pays it with his own hand and does not send anyone with it nor postpone it as is said, “from hand to hand.” The second is submission and obedience as you say, “he gave his hand to so-and-so [an expression meaning “he surrendered to so-and-so”].” (state of abasement) i.e. they are humble.
Jalalayn:
(Fight those of the people who do not have iman in Allah and the Last Day) Otherwise, they would believe in the Prophet.
[As-Sawi: Fighting the people of the Torah and the Gospel is mentioned after the clarification regarding fighting the Arab idolaters. This ayat was revealed when the Messenger of Allah was commanded to fight the Byzantines. When it was sent down, the Messenger of Allah prepared for the expedition to Tabuk.]
(who do not make haram what Allah and His Messenger have made haram) like wine, etc. (and do not take as their deen the Deen of Truth) which is firm and abrogates other deens. It is the deen of Islam. (who were given the Book) meaning the Christians and the Jews. (they pay the jizya) which they have to pay every year.
[As-Sawi: It is called jizya because it spares them from being fought and accords them security. Jazâ means to compensate for something.]
(with their own hands) An adverbial expression, i.e. in obedience and directly with their own hands without any deputy. (state of abasement) humble and obedient to the judgements of Islam.
cont.
R
Rodrigo_Bivar
Guest
as-Suyuti:
(Fight those of the people who do not have iman in Allah and the Last Day) This is the basis for accepting jizya from the People of the Book, and it is a refutation of those who accept it from others. “With their own hands”. It is related by Abu Hatim from Qatada to be by force, and by Abu Sufyan to be by ability. Its literal meaning is that it is not taken from someone in a state of hardship as Ibn al-Majishun stated. Ibn 'Uyayna said that “with thier own hands” means that it is not sent with someone else. This is used as evidence by those who say that a Muslim cannot be delegated to do it, nor can he guarantee it for him nor transfer it from him to himself, but the dhimmi must pay it in person.
**(state of abasement) Ibn 'Abbas said: they are pushed. Ibn Abi Hatim transmitted that. It is transmitted that al-Mughira told Rustam, “I call you to Islam or else you must pay the jizya while you are in a state of abasement.” He said, “I know what jizya means, but what does ‘a state of abasement’ mean?” He replied, “You pay it while you are standing and I am sitting and the whip hanging is over your head.” Abu’sh-Shaykh related that Sa’id ibn al-Musayyab said, “I prefer that the people of the dhimma become tired by paying the jizya since He says, ‘until they pay the jizya with their own hands in a state of complete abasement.’” It is used as a proof by those who say that it is taken in a humiliating way, and so the taker sits and the dhimmi stands with his head bowed and his back bent. The jizya is placed in the balance and the taker seizes his beard and hits his chin. This is rejected according to an-Nawawi who said, “This manner is invalid.” This ayat is used as a proof by those who say that the people of the dhimma are left in the landa of Islam because it is understood that one refrains from fighting them when they pay it. **
ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ABewley/tawba1.html
This is the tafsir of Ibn Kathir:
(Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.) Therefore, when People of the Scriptures disbelieved in Muhammad , they had no beneficial faith in any Messenger or what the Messengers brought. Rather, they followed their religions because this conformed with their ideas, lusts and the ways of their forefathers, not because they are Allah’s Law and religion. Had they been true believers in their religions, that faith would have directed them to believe in Muhammad , because all Prophets gave the good news of Muhammad’s advent and commanded them to obey and follow him. Yet when he was sent, they disbelieved in him, even though he is the mightiest of all Messengers. Therefore, they do not follow the religion of earlier Prophets because these religions came from Allah, but because these suit their desires and lusts. Therefore, their claimed faith in an earlier Prophet will not benefit them because they disbelieved in the master, the mightiest, the last and most perfect of all Prophets.
I’m not sure about you but I don’t think this convert to Islam or subject yourself to a ‘state of abasement’ is nice.
(Fight those of the people who do not have iman in Allah and the Last Day) This is the basis for accepting jizya from the People of the Book, and it is a refutation of those who accept it from others. “With their own hands”. It is related by Abu Hatim from Qatada to be by force, and by Abu Sufyan to be by ability. Its literal meaning is that it is not taken from someone in a state of hardship as Ibn al-Majishun stated. Ibn 'Uyayna said that “with thier own hands” means that it is not sent with someone else. This is used as evidence by those who say that a Muslim cannot be delegated to do it, nor can he guarantee it for him nor transfer it from him to himself, but the dhimmi must pay it in person.
**(state of abasement) Ibn 'Abbas said: they are pushed. Ibn Abi Hatim transmitted that. It is transmitted that al-Mughira told Rustam, “I call you to Islam or else you must pay the jizya while you are in a state of abasement.” He said, “I know what jizya means, but what does ‘a state of abasement’ mean?” He replied, “You pay it while you are standing and I am sitting and the whip hanging is over your head.” Abu’sh-Shaykh related that Sa’id ibn al-Musayyab said, “I prefer that the people of the dhimma become tired by paying the jizya since He says, ‘until they pay the jizya with their own hands in a state of complete abasement.’” It is used as a proof by those who say that it is taken in a humiliating way, and so the taker sits and the dhimmi stands with his head bowed and his back bent. The jizya is placed in the balance and the taker seizes his beard and hits his chin. This is rejected according to an-Nawawi who said, “This manner is invalid.” This ayat is used as a proof by those who say that the people of the dhimma are left in the landa of Islam because it is understood that one refrains from fighting them when they pay it. **
ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ABewley/tawba1.html
This is the tafsir of Ibn Kathir:
(Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.) Therefore, when People of the Scriptures disbelieved in Muhammad , they had no beneficial faith in any Messenger or what the Messengers brought. Rather, they followed their religions because this conformed with their ideas, lusts and the ways of their forefathers, not because they are Allah’s Law and religion. Had they been true believers in their religions, that faith would have directed them to believe in Muhammad , because all Prophets gave the good news of Muhammad’s advent and commanded them to obey and follow him. Yet when he was sent, they disbelieved in him, even though he is the mightiest of all Messengers. Therefore, they do not follow the religion of earlier Prophets because these religions came from Allah, but because these suit their desires and lusts. Therefore, their claimed faith in an earlier Prophet will not benefit them because they disbelieved in the master, the mightiest, the last and most perfect of all Prophets.
I’m not sure about you but I don’t think this convert to Islam or subject yourself to a ‘state of abasement’ is nice.
L
Loginus
Guest
I have read it. Im taking a course in Early christian writing. The sad thing is, the more i learn about the Bible and its origins the more and more i feel that it is bogus.
- Status