S
SeekerOfTruth7
Guest
As I said before:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
A
AlNg
Guest
There should be a book called the Truth about Robert Spencer.The Truth About Muhammed Written by Robert Spencer
I’m waiting for you to present irrefutable evidence to support your claim. You are the accuser…the burden of proof is on you. That’s how it works in a court of law…at least in the UK. If you like, I’ll ease your burden: Where does it say in the Qu’ran that a person may be killed for no other reason than their refusal to convert to Islam?So to be specific, you condemn the jihad of 270 million people who didn’t believe in Islam?
Prove that the Qur’an sanctions such behaviour.
V
Vox_Catholica
Guest
Satan Dictated it to him! Sometimes Mohammed wasn’t sure if it came from Satan or not. Why should anyone trust him?
V
Vox_Catholica
Guest
He did the wrong thing… Traditional Catholics like us disagree with him.
A
AlNg
Guest
So you think you are going to discover The Truth About Muhammed by reading Robert Spencer?Not a good reason to disregard his works. This is called the Genetic Fallacy defined as: “The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance that is based solely on someone’s or something’s history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context.” It would be like you saying since I am Catholic and therefore against heresy, I can’t present facts about heresies in the past due to me being biased. Its a fallacious argument
Do you think the same for:
Discover the Truth about Judaism by reading Adolph Hitler?
Discover the Truth about the Trinity by reading the JW Watchtower?
Discover the Truth about Catholicism by reading Martin Luther?
Discover the Truth about Freedom of the Press by reading Mao Tse tung?
Discover the Truth about Cigarette Smoking and Lung Cancer by reading publications of the Tobacco Industry.
Discover the Truth about Climate Change and Global Warning by reading publications by the oil industry.
???
S
SeekerOfTruth7
Guest
Wow real professional. You sure convinced me.
S
SeekerOfTruth7
Guest
Historical estimates from the sources in the article is my evidence. Historical estimates are not irrefutable. But you seem to be under that influence that one must present and irrefutable argument to be correct about historical estimates but that is not correct. If you don’t like the sources, that is your choice. But I trust the sources.
On your second part, give me irrefutable evidence the Quran is the Word of God. Oh wait…
On your second part, give me irrefutable evidence the Quran is the Word of God. Oh wait…
A
AlNg
Guest
OK. Anyone can make a mistake. At least you now see that you will not get an unbiased version of Islam from Robert Spencer and that there is no sense to this “genetic fallacy” theory.You sure convinced me.
Oh pleeeese! This isn’t about whether or not the Qu’an is the Word of God. This is about what it sanctions…and what it does not.On your second part, give me irrefutable evidence the Quran is the Word of God. Oh wait…
I repeat: Where does it say in the Qu’ran that a person may be killed for no other reason than their refusal to convert to Islam? Prove that the Qur’an sanctions such behaviour.
S
Salibi
Guest
What sort of argument is this? Where’s your irrefutable evidence that the Bible is the Word of God? Miracles? The Quran also recounts miracles. Unless you’re capable of providing irrefutable evidence for your own holy book, don’t go around asking others for the same.On your second part, give me irrefutable evidence the Quran is the Word of God. Oh w
Last edited:
S
SeekerOfTruth7
Guest
You didn’t answer what I said before. So then you must agree that the historical estimates from my sources are correct or at least not arguable.
Now, the reason I asked about “irrefutable” evidence about the Quran being the word of God is to show the ridiculousness of one asking for irrefutable evidence in the first place when it comes to historical documents or estimates. Don’t ask someone for irrefutable evidence on historical things when there is no such things as irrefutable evidence for those subjects. There is no irrefutable evidence that the Quran is the word of God, just as there is no irrefutable evidenced that the Bible is the word of God. But we have faith that our respective sacred texts are the word of God.
I already gave a text that speaks about cutting the heads off those who disbelieve. You never responded to that. And the historical account of around 270 million people being massacred by jihad and those jihadist using the Quran as their basis on why they did such things shows that obviously the Quran must teach or at least hint at this. But if you don’t want to accept that, fine. I don’t really care. The historical evidence and the sole passage i quoted earlier are enough to convince me that the Quran is a violent book used as justification for the massacre of millions.
Now, the reason I asked about “irrefutable” evidence about the Quran being the word of God is to show the ridiculousness of one asking for irrefutable evidence in the first place when it comes to historical documents or estimates. Don’t ask someone for irrefutable evidence on historical things when there is no such things as irrefutable evidence for those subjects. There is no irrefutable evidence that the Quran is the word of God, just as there is no irrefutable evidenced that the Bible is the word of God. But we have faith that our respective sacred texts are the word of God.
I already gave a text that speaks about cutting the heads off those who disbelieve. You never responded to that. And the historical account of around 270 million people being massacred by jihad and those jihadist using the Quran as their basis on why they did such things shows that obviously the Quran must teach or at least hint at this. But if you don’t want to accept that, fine. I don’t really care. The historical evidence and the sole passage i quoted earlier are enough to convince me that the Quran is a violent book used as justification for the massacre of millions.
S
SeekerOfTruth7
Guest
Exactly!! The reason I asked for such was because he asked for irrefutable evidience on the estimates of 270 million people killed by jihad. I asked the question in an attempt to show the ridiculousness of asking for such things when one can’t prove irrefutably but can only present historical estimates or documents. He asked me for irrefutable evidence on the estimate of 270 million killed by jihad. That’s not possible for an estimate given by multiple sources. But it doesn’t mean that the sources are wrong.
S
SeekerOfTruth7
Guest
Genetic Fallacy is not a theory but in fact a law of reasoning. It doesn’t follow that just because of ones origin or attitude that ones arguments are wrong. The wronged of an argument must come form the arguments themselves. Hence why Hitler was wrong, or the Watchtower, and the list goes on. We must take ones arguments and debate those instead of judging ones arguments as wrong by the attitude of the arguer. That’s it.
You refer to sūrah 47:I already gave a text that speaks about cutting the heads off those who disbelieve. You never responded to that.
‘When you meet the disbelievers, strike them in the neck, and once they are defeated , bind any captives firmly – later you can release them by grace or by ransom – until the toils of war have ended. That (is the way). God could have defeated them Himself if He had willed, but His purpose is to test some of you by means of others. He will not let the deeds of those who are killed for His cause come to nothing; He will guide them and put them into a good state; He will admit them into the Garden He has already made known to them. You who believe! If you help God, He will help you and make you stand firm.’ (Muhammad: 4-7; my emphasis).
Professor Muhammad A. S. Abdel Haleem, OBE; Professor of Islamic Studies at SOAS, University of London, and editor of the Journal of Qur’anic Studies, writes:
‘Commentators highlight the fact that ‘by grace’ is the first of the two options given here, concluding that this is the preferred or recommended course of action.’ (‘The Qur’an’).
Where do these verses say that people can be killed merely for not converting to Islam?
The context of these verses is clear from the text. It describe action that can be taken in time of war. Folk are permitted to kill their enemies in battle. What a surprise!
However, when the battle is over, and the enemy defeated, they may no longer be killed. Ideally, they should be released as an act of mercy; or else ransomed.
Let me stress that no permission is given for prisoners to be killed.
You write (my emphasis):
'And the historical account of around 270 million people being massacred by jihad and those jihadist using the Quran as their basis on why they did such things shows that obviously the Quran must teach or at least hint at this.
Allow me to ask (yet again): Where does it say in the Qu’ran that a person may be killed for no other reason than their refusal to convert to Islam? Prove that the Qur’an sanctions such behaviour.
Last edited:
Concerning the Meaning of Jihad:
In his introduction to the ‘Book of Jihad and Expedition of Sahih Muslim’ the translator (Abd-al-Hamid Siddiqui) makes the following comment:
‘The word Jihad is derived from the verb jahada which means: ‘he exerted himself’. Thus literally, Jihad means exertion, striving; but in a juridico-religious sense, it signifies the exertion of one’s power to the utmost of one’s capacity in the cause of Allah. Thus Jihad in Islam is not an act of violence directed indiscriminately against the non-Muslims; it is the name given to an all-round struggle which a Muslim should launch against evil in whatever form or shape it appears.’
The Qur’an defines ‘jihad’ as: ‘Striving, with one’s self and one’s money, in the cause of Allāh’; but what does this mean?
His path; His way; His cause; each of these means the same thing: That we should strive to uphold His commandments, and to turn away - in condemnation - from all He has forbidden. We should strive to excel in prayer; in charity; in good deeds of all kinds; in standing up for what is true against what is false; and yes, in fighting when we have to.
But what of warfare?
According to Abd-al-Hamid Siddiqui:
‘Qital fi sabilillah (fighting in the way of Allah) is only one aspect of Jihad. Even this qital in Islam is not an act of mad brutality. It has its material and moral functions, i. e. self-preservation and the preservation of the moral order in the world. The verdict of all religious and ethical philosophies - ancient and modern - justifies war on moral grounds. When one nation is assaulted by the ambitions and cupidity of another, the doctrine of non-resistance is anti-social, as it involves non-assertion, not only of one’s own rights, but of those of others who need protection against the forces of tyranny and oppression.’
Continues:
In his introduction to the ‘Book of Jihad and Expedition of Sahih Muslim’ the translator (Abd-al-Hamid Siddiqui) makes the following comment:
‘The word Jihad is derived from the verb jahada which means: ‘he exerted himself’. Thus literally, Jihad means exertion, striving; but in a juridico-religious sense, it signifies the exertion of one’s power to the utmost of one’s capacity in the cause of Allah. Thus Jihad in Islam is not an act of violence directed indiscriminately against the non-Muslims; it is the name given to an all-round struggle which a Muslim should launch against evil in whatever form or shape it appears.’
The Qur’an defines ‘jihad’ as: ‘Striving, with one’s self and one’s money, in the cause of Allāh’; but what does this mean?
His path; His way; His cause; each of these means the same thing: That we should strive to uphold His commandments, and to turn away - in condemnation - from all He has forbidden. We should strive to excel in prayer; in charity; in good deeds of all kinds; in standing up for what is true against what is false; and yes, in fighting when we have to.
But what of warfare?
According to Abd-al-Hamid Siddiqui:
‘Qital fi sabilillah (fighting in the way of Allah) is only one aspect of Jihad. Even this qital in Islam is not an act of mad brutality. It has its material and moral functions, i. e. self-preservation and the preservation of the moral order in the world. The verdict of all religious and ethical philosophies - ancient and modern - justifies war on moral grounds. When one nation is assaulted by the ambitions and cupidity of another, the doctrine of non-resistance is anti-social, as it involves non-assertion, not only of one’s own rights, but of those of others who need protection against the forces of tyranny and oppression.’
Continues:
Muslims are obliged to protect themselves, and all who seek their protection. They must protect the defenceless; women; children; and the old from privation, suffering and moral peril. According to the Shari’a, fighting in a ‘just war’ is a duty (as it is in all other forms of state governance, whether religious or secular).
The Qur’an advocates opposition to aggression and oppression. However, war is allowed only as an act of self defence, and never as an act of aggression:
‘Those who have been attacked are permitted to take up arms because they have been wronged – Allāh has the power to help them – those who have been driven unjustly from their homes only for saying: “Our Lord is Allāh.” If Allāh did not repel some people by means of others, many monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, where Allāh’s name is much invoked, would have been destroyed. Allāh is sure to help those who help His cause – Allāh is strong and mighty……’ (Al-Hajj: 39-40);
Whenever possible, war is to be avoided; even when preparations have been made:
‘Prepare whatever forces you (believers) can muster, including warhorses, to frighten off Allāh’s enemies and yours, and warn others unknown to you but known to Allāh. Whatever you give in Allāh’s cause will be repaid to you in full, and you will not be wronged. But if they incline towards peace, you (Prophet) must also incline towards it, and put your trust in Allāh: He is the All Hearing, the All Knowing.’ (Al-Anfal: 60-61; my emphasis).
And this from Abd-al-Hamid Siddiqui:
‘So great is the respect for humanly feelings in Islam that even the wanton destruction of enemy’s crops or property is strictly forbidden. The righteous Caliphs followed closely the teachings of Allāh, and those of His Apostle, in letter and spirit. The celebrated address which the first Caliph Abu Bakr (Allāh be pleased with him) gave to his army is permeated with the noble spirit with which war in Islam is permitted. He said: “Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules 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”’ ‘Book of Jihad and Expedition of Sahih Muslim’).
There are some who portray ‘jihad’ as a ‘holy war’. This cannot be correct. ‘Holy war’ is rendered ‘al-harb al-muqadas’; a phrase that does not exist in Qur’anic Arabic. According to the Qur’an no war is holy; not under any circumstance.
The Qur’an advocates opposition to aggression and oppression. However, war is allowed only as an act of self defence, and never as an act of aggression:
‘Those who have been attacked are permitted to take up arms because they have been wronged – Allāh has the power to help them – those who have been driven unjustly from their homes only for saying: “Our Lord is Allāh.” If Allāh did not repel some people by means of others, many monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, where Allāh’s name is much invoked, would have been destroyed. Allāh is sure to help those who help His cause – Allāh is strong and mighty……’ (Al-Hajj: 39-40);
Whenever possible, war is to be avoided; even when preparations have been made:
‘Prepare whatever forces you (believers) can muster, including warhorses, to frighten off Allāh’s enemies and yours, and warn others unknown to you but known to Allāh. Whatever you give in Allāh’s cause will be repaid to you in full, and you will not be wronged. But if they incline towards peace, you (Prophet) must also incline towards it, and put your trust in Allāh: He is the All Hearing, the All Knowing.’ (Al-Anfal: 60-61; my emphasis).
And this from Abd-al-Hamid Siddiqui:
‘So great is the respect for humanly feelings in Islam that even the wanton destruction of enemy’s crops or property is strictly forbidden. The righteous Caliphs followed closely the teachings of Allāh, and those of His Apostle, in letter and spirit. The celebrated address which the first Caliph Abu Bakr (Allāh be pleased with him) gave to his army is permeated with the noble spirit with which war in Islam is permitted. He said: “Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules 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”’ ‘Book of Jihad and Expedition of Sahih Muslim’).
There are some who portray ‘jihad’ as a ‘holy war’. This cannot be correct. ‘Holy war’ is rendered ‘al-harb al-muqadas’; a phrase that does not exist in Qur’anic Arabic. According to the Qur’an no war is holy; not under any circumstance.
S
SeekerOfTruth7
Guest
Here is the sanction. The meaning is clear. It has to be reinterpreted to avoid it from saying what it is saying. The clear meaning of the text is thus.‘When you meet the disbelievers, strike them in the neck
S
SeekerOfTruth7
Guest
So the to preserve the moral order in the world, Muslims have killed estimated 270 million non-Muslims? Yeah that sounds right…. self-preservation and the preservation of the moral order in the world
Tell that to the Umayyad Caliphate. They sure acted in self-defense when they invaded Spain, my kinsmen, and killed thousands for not converting.war is allowed only as an act of self defence, and never as an act of aggression
Then why the conquering of the Near Middle East and the killing of around 270 million non-Muslims in Muslim wars? Were all self-defense? If so, prove that they all were.war is to be avoided
And yet many, millions even, of Muslims and Muslim leaders have declared Jihad on non-believing nations and again, killed around 270 million non-Muslims…‘jihad’ as a ‘holy war’
From what it seems, the word of the Quran have led as justification for the killing of millions. That just doesn’t seem right.
But anyway, I no longer have any interest in continuing this conversation. I have presented my sources, and that i consider them trustworthy. I think they are correct in estimating 270 million non-Muslims have been killed by Muslims who use the Quran as justification for their actions. If you don’t like that information or the sources, i don’t really care.
God Bless and have a blessed day.
A
AlNg
Guest
Catholics have burned people at the stake for disbelieving. Being burned alive at the stake and suffering in flames for 6 hours from 12 noon to 6 PM in a public spectacle is a lot more humiliating and painful than one swift blow to the neck and you are quickly dead then and there.I already gave a text that speaks about cutting the heads off those who disbelieve.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.