Terrorism Is Alien to Islam

  • Thread starter Thread starter PPatience
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The evidence that the surah of the sword abrogates all previously ‘peaceful’ verses.

Ibn Kathir:
This is the Ayah of the Sword …

<But if they repent and perform the Salah, and give Zakah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.>

Abu Bakr As-Siddiq used this and other honorable Ayat as proof for fighting those who refrained from paying the Zakah. These Ayat allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations… In the two Sahihs, it is recorded that Ibn ‘Umar said that the Messenger of Allah said,

<I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer and pay Zakah.>

This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, “It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, EVERY TREATY, AND EVERY TERM.” Al-‘Awfi said that Ibn ‘Abbas commented: “No idolator had any more treaty or promise ever since Sura Bara’ah was revealed. The four months, in addition to, all peace treaties conducted before Bara’ah was revealed and announced had ended by the tenth of the month of Rabi’ Al-Akhir.” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged) Volume 4 (Surat Al-A’raf to the end of Surah Yunus), by Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri, First Edition: May 2000, pp. 375, 377;

Hilali & Khan quoting Tabari:
9:29 abrogates 2:109
(V. 2:109) The provision of this verse has been abrogated by the (V. 9:29). (Tafsir At-Tabari) (fn. 1, p. 21)

Chau,
Rodrigo
 
THEKING said:
well abrogation in Quran was another block for me…if you read about souras which have Nasikh, souras with mansoukh, and souras with both, it forms 60% of the Quran !! how can a rational human being believe that an all-knowing God changed his mind that often is beyond me…worse yet, Allah changed his mind only when humans like Umar or a disabled man ecc asked for it , as if Allah needed a reminder !!

the Bible is different : it was an old covenant and a new covenant as per OT and not changing and deleting things within 23 years!
Click to expand...
Ah ha. And this is why you couldn’t just quote the language that says 9:29 abrogates something?

Your claims and Eden’s claims come from anti-Islamic website. I can’t find a single Muslim source that reads the Quran as being “60 percent abrogated” or that reads “abrogation” the way you do.

I’m sorry, but you’re both flat out wrong here. 9:29 addresses conditions for ending a war. But if you read Surah 9, you’ll find multiple statements that war is legitimate only when you’ve been attacked/had a treaty violated. That is what the Quran says about starting a war.
 
40.png
pro:
9:29 addresses conditions for ending a war.
Click to expand...
Hahahah!!!

Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

Muhammad ended a war by "qatiloo"ing (i.e. fighting/killing) those who don’t believe in Allah until they pay the Jizyah in humiliation.

That is the Muslim way of peace - yeah right. Muchos gracias amigo.
40.png
pro:
But if you read Surah 9, you’ll find multiple statements that war is legitimate only when you’ve been attacked/had a treaty violated. That is what the Quran says about starting a war.
Click to expand...
What nonsense - war is legitimate only when you’ve been attacked/had a treaty violated?

9:1 - Muhammad aka Allah unilaterally cancelled all treaties with polytheists.

Muslim scholars believe the only treaty left intact was that with Banu Damra which had only nine more months to go (reference tafsir Jalalayn). That is what 9:4 is referring to.

Thus, when Muhammad ordered his followers to fight those who break their covenants he was referring to those who no longer wished to live as dhimmis. That is the covenant he was referring to - the covenant of dhimmitude.

The only ‘treaty’ to be honored by the Muslims are those signed by the B. Damra at the sacred mosque. That is what 9:7 is referring to.

“How can the idol worshipers demand any pledge from GOD and from His messenger? Exempted are those who have signed a peace treaty with you at the Sacred Masjid. If they honor and uphold such a treaty, you shall uphold it as well. GOD loves the righteous.”

All other disbelievers are to be fought until they converted or forced into dhimmitude.

Muhammad claimed the pagans started the war - but only rejecting him. The surah does not say to only fight those Muslims who attack you (as pro claimed). Here is the relevant verse:

at-Taubah 009:012
‏9:12 وان نكثوا ايمانهم من بعد عهدهم وطعنوا في دينكم فقاتلوا ائمة الكفر انهم لاايمان لهم لعلهم ينتهون
Wa-in nakathoo aymanahum min baAAdi AAahdihim wataAAanoo fee deenikum faqatiloo a-immata alkufri innahum la aymana lahum laAAallahum yantahoona

And if they broke/violated their oaths from after their promise and they defamed/stabbed in your religion so fight/kill (the) leaders/examples (of) the disbelief, that they truly (have) no oaths/swearings for them, maybe/perhaps they terminate/stop.

The phrase is ‘wataAAanoo fee deenikum’ which means to “attack your RELIGION” - not “attack you”. The polytheists ‘attacked the Muslim’s religion’ through denigration and disbelief - they did not attack the Muslims.

So all of us here who are ‘attacking Islam’ must be fought and killed because qatiloo means to ‘fight to kill’.

Chau,
Rodrigo
 
Rodrigo,

I’m sorry, but it’s just not possible to take you seriously. I mean, look at it…here you are giving us a short piece detaling the arabic language involved. Except that you don’t speak Arabic.

I’ll keep my eyes open, but I doubt I’ll see anything quite so ridiculous again today.
 
Pro,
So you can’t disprove me, except to say I don’t speak Arabic. But you know what? This whole issue has been debated by Arabic speakers before.

I will let these Arabic speakers prove me right and you wrong.

Yusuf Ali But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and taunt you for your Faith,- fight ye the chiefs of Unfaith: for their oaths are nothing to them: that thus they may be restrained.
Pickthal And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief - Lo! they have no binding oaths - in order that they may desist.
Arberry But if they break their oaths after their covenant and thrust at your religion, then fight the leaders of unbelief; they have no sacred oaths; haply they will give over.
Shakir And if they break their oaths after their agreement and (openly) revile your religion, then fight the leaders of unbelief-- surely their oaths are nothing-- so that they may desist.
Sarwar Fight against the leaders of the unbelievers if they violate their established peace treaty with you and revile your faith, to force them to stop their aggression against you. You do not have to bind yourselves to such a treaty.
Khalifa If they violate their oaths after pledging to keep their covenants, and attack your religion, you may fight the leaders of paganism - you are no longer bound by your covenant with them - that they may refrain.
Hilali/Khan But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and attack your religion with disapproval and criticism then fight (you) the leaders of disbelief (chiefs of Quraish - pagans of Makkah) - for surely their oaths are nothing to them - so that they may stop (evil actions).
Malik But if they violate their treaty once they have sworn it and insult your Deen, then fight with the ringleaders of the unbelief - for their oaths are nothing to them - so that they may be stopped.[12]
QXP If they keep breaking their pledges after their treaty, and assail your System, then fight the chiefs of the disbelievers. They have no respect for their binding oaths. This action will help restrain them from aggression.
Maulana Ali And if they break their oaths after their agreement and revile your religion, then fight the leaders of disbelief – surely their oaths are nothing – so that they may desist.
Free Minds And if they break their oaths after making them, and they denounce the authority of your system; then you may kill the chiefs of rejection. Their oaths are nothing to them, perhaps they will then cease.

Tafsir Jalalayn:
If they break their oaths after making their treaty and defame your deen, then fight the leaders of kufr – their oaths mean nothing – so that hopefully they will stop.

Jalalayn: (break their oaths) meaning their treaties (defame your deen) criticise it… (their oaths) treaties. (Hopefully they will stop) from rejection.

Ibn Kathir:
12. But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and attack your religion with disapproval and criticism, then fight (you) against the leaders of disbelief – for surely, their oaths are nothing to them – so that they may stop (evil actions).)

Allah says, if the idolators with whom you conducted peace treaties for an appointed term break
﴿أَيْمَـنِهِمْ﴾
(their oaths) meaning, terms of their treaties, and covenants
﴿وَطَعَنُواْ فِى دِينِكُمْ﴾
(and attack your religion…) with disapproval and criticism, it is because of this that one who curses the Messenger, peace be upon him, or attacks the religion of Islam by way of criticism and disapproval, they are to be fought.

Unlike you I have actually read and understood surah 9. Looks like all the Arabic masters including Suyuti and Ibn Kathir agree with me that 9:12 says ‘attack your religion’ , not ‘attack you’.

Hasta la vista, baby,
Rodrigo
 
Rodrigo_Bivar said:
Pro,
So you can’t disprove me, except to say I don’t speak Arabic. But you know what? This whole issue has been debated by Arabic speakers before.
Click to expand...
The more you talk the more you make yourself a fool.

Now while talking about Surah 9:12, I wonder why you forgot 9:6?

Surah 9:6
9:6 And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the word of Allah; and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not.

Which means: lf during a fight, an enemy makes a request that he should be given an opportunity to understand Islam, the Muslims should give him a surety of protection and allow him to visit them. They should then present Islam before him in order to make him understand it. If, after this, he dces not embrace Islam, they should convey him safely to his place" . Such a person who comes to Dar-ul-Islam under the above mentioned protection is called musta’min in the Islamic Code. --from Tafheem

Have you ever heard the Islamic term musta’min ?
 
Rodrigo_Bivar said:
Pro,
So you can’t disprove me, except to say I don’t speak Arabic. But you know what? This whole issue has been debated by Arabic speakers before.
Click to expand...
The real issue is that you’ve been discredited so many times that it becomes both fruitless and a waste of breath to correct you again. Pointing out that you don’t speak arabic, yet write posts detailing arabic, is an example of the silliness one must wade through if he wishes to read your posts.

There’s also the fact that, despite your broad claims to “know Islam better than Muslims”, you frequently accidentally post exactly the point you claim to be refuting. I’m going to bold the section from your long post below that proves my point above as an example:
**And if they break their oaths after their agreement and revile your religion, then fight the leaders of disbelief – surely their oaths are nothing – so that they may desist. **
Click to expand...
This is why it is silly to bother responding to your claims. They are poorly reasoned, often copied and pasted from anti-Islamic websites, and frequently so poorly thrown together that they contain affirmations of the very claims you want to deny.
 
Rodrigo,

An advice to you: Go and get atleast some basic knowledge of Islam from Islamic persepective first from learned scholars and then come back to talk. Start learning Islam from fundamentals such as Tauheed.
 
As a sidenote:
The English word ‘religion’ does not fully convey the meaning of Arabic word ‘Deen’. Because the word ‘religion’ in your Christian background/culture/understanding is a belief or set of some beliefs/worshipping acts whose range/application is limited from your individual personality to your Church/synagogue only. But Islam is not a such type of religion.

Islam is called Al-Deen. which means The Way of Life. Because Islam makes no distinction between the spiritual and the secular in life and this is the chief characteristic of Islam thus when it is said "وَطَعَنُواْ فِي دِينِكُمْ فَقَاتِلُواْ أَئِمَّةَ الْكُفْرِ " in Surah 9:12 it means if those particular idolaters of Mecca if break their oaths after making covenant and revile/assail your Deen (the whole system of life that includes the political system/government) you should fight with these ringleaders of disbelief --renegades.

So assailing Deen of Islam is not like assailing English word ‘religion’. Because Islam makes no distinction between the spiritual and the secular in life and this is the chief characteristic of Islam.
Islam and Ignorance
witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/M_II/Default.htm

The Islamic Way of Life
al-islamforall.org/litre/Englitre/Islawayoflife.htm
 
nathann said:
The more you talk the more you make yourself a fool.

Now while talking about Surah 9:12, I wonder why you forgot 9:6?

Surah 9:6
9:6 And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the word of Allah; and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not.

Which means: lf during a fight, an enemy makes a request that he should be given an opportunity to understand Islam, the Muslims should give him a surety of protection and allow him to visit them. They should then present Islam before him in order to make him understand it. If, after this, he dces not embrace Islam, they should convey him safely to his place" . Such a person who comes to Dar-ul-Islam under the above mentioned protection is called musta’min in the Islamic Code. --from Tafheem

Have you ever heard the Islamic term musta’min ?
Click to expand...
This is plain ridiculous. It says that when the Muslims are busy killing the polytheists, and if any polytheists beg for mercy so he may learn about Islam (i.e. he is willing to convert), the Muslim may spare him and take him to a safe place where the polytheist may learn about Islam.

This is not mercy - what happens if the polytheist learn about Islam and still doesn’t convert? This verse does not give him safety because later verses tell the Muslim to qutiloo (i.e. fight to kill) him.

read 9:11 to 9:12 to see what happens to this polytheist who refuses to convert.
 
nathann said:
Rodrigo,

An advice to you: Go and get atleast some basic knowledge of Islam from Islamic persepective first from learned scholars and then come back to talk. Start learning Islam from fundamentals such as Tauheed.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the gratuitous insult - I think I know more about Islam than you ever will.
40.png
nathann:
As a sidenote:
The English word ‘religion’ does not fully convey the meaning of Arabic word ‘Deen’. Because the word ‘religion’ in your Christian background/culture/understanding is a belief or set of some beliefs/worshipping acts whose range/application is limited from your individual personality to your Church/synagogue only. But Islam is not a such type of religion.

Islam is called Al-Deen. which means The Way of Life. Because Islam makes no distinction between the spiritual and the secular in life and this is the chief characteristic of Islam thus when it is said "وَطَعَنُواْ فِي دِينِكُمْ فَقَاتِلُواْ أَئِمَّةَ الْكُفْرِ " in Surah 9:12 it means if those particular idolaters of Mecca if break their oaths after making covenant and revile/assail your Deen (the whole system of life that includes the political system/government) you should fight with these ringleaders of disbelief --renegades.

So assailing Deen of Islam is not like assailing English word ‘religion’. Because Islam makes no distinction between the spiritual and the secular in life and this is the chief characteristic of Islam.
Click to expand...
So what? Haven’t I also provided translations of deen to mean ‘system’? So what if you claim Islam is a way of life and not merely a religion? Isn’t this what Christians and Hindus also claim for their religion? Is Christianity solely limited to the Church? Is Hinduism solely limited to the mandir? You have no sense what the term ‘religion’ means to other people.
 
Oh, I forgot your musta’min excuse. Let me tell the Catholics what a musta’min is.
No musta’min will be given an authority to stay here in our country one year.It is to be told to him “if you stay one year,we will levy upon you poll-tax”.If he stays a year,he becomes a zimmi and he will not get permit to go back to his country.
Click to expand...
It is the same law to be followed if he is told “if you stay here a month” or the like,and he stays there,or he purchases a lot of land and some land tax is levied upon it and he has to pay one year land taqx beginning from the time of leviying the tax or a musta’mina woman married a zimmi man. Bu it is just opposite if he marries to a zimmi woman.
Click to expand...
If he returns to his country,then he may be murdered with no penalty.
Click to expand...
From the Book of International Law (al-Siyar), Multaqa’l-Abhur by Ibrahim al-Halabi

iant.com/imam/multaqa5.txt

Nice being a muta’min, isn’t it? You are given a grace period to learn about Islam. If you refuse to convert you may be persecuted as a dhimmi. If you go back to your own people, you may be MURDERED without penalty.
 
Rodrigo_Bivar said:
Oh, I forgot your musta’min excuse. Let me tell the Catholics what a musta’min is.

From the Book of International Law (al-Siyar), Multaqa’l-Abhur by Ibrahim al-Halabi

iant.com/imam/multaqa5.txt

Nice being a muta’min, isn’t it? You are given a grace period to learn about Islam. If you refuse to convert you may be persecuted as a dhimmi. If you go back to your own people, you may be MURDERED without penalty.
Click to expand...
So much for Islam being a religion of peace!!
 
pro_universal said:
The real issue is that you’ve been discredited so many times that it becomes both fruitless and a waste of breath to correct you again. Pointing out that you don’t speak arabic, yet write posts detailing arabic, is an example of the silliness one must wade through if he wishes to read your posts.

There’s also the fact that, despite your broad claims to “know Islam better than Muslims”, you frequently accidentally post exactly the point you claim to be refuting. I’m going to bold the section from your long post below that proves my point above as an example:

And if they break their oaths after their agreement and revile your religion, then fight the leaders of disbelief – surely their oaths are nothing – so that they may desist.

This is why it is silly to bother responding to your claims. They are poorly reasoned, often copied and pasted from anti-Islamic websites, and frequently so poorly thrown together that they contain affirmations of the very claims you want to deny.
Click to expand...
You are being silly. I don’t need to speak fluent Arabic - I have friends who do, and I do have records of discussions on various issues between Arabic speakers. I just have to go to my catalogue and pull out my references.

And I do know certain Arabic words - for instance.

wa = and
taAAanoo = assail (see below)
deen = religion (deenikum = your religion)

Tay-Ayn-Nun = to thrust, defame/discredit, to speak ill of someone, traducing, assail, revile, scoff, pierce, spear, wound, calumniate. studyquran.co.uk/PRLonline.htm

Lane’s Lexicon - thrust, pierce, spear, attack, reproach, censure, blame,

studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume5/00000140.pdf
studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume5/00000141.pdf

so wataAAanoo fee deenikum means and assail (in) your religion.

How difficult is that? Why would anyone need to be a master at classical Arabic to know this? Besides, I love it when the Arabic masters like Imam al-Suyuti and Imam Ibn Kathir prove me right.

In this case, I do know for sure that surah 9 does not say what you claim it says - that it is only permissible to fight those who attack you.

Look at my example which you have mis-interpreted yet again.

9:12 says to fight those who attack YOUR RELIGION, not YOU.

There is a difference.

You claim you bolded the relevant part. How did you miss this? Let me bold that for you.

And if they break their oaths after their agreement and REVILE YOUR RELIGION, then fight the leaders of disbelief – surely their oaths are nothing – so that they may desist.

See that part which says ‘REVILE YOUR RELIGION’? It doesn’t say ‘attack you’. It says ‘REVILE YOUR RELIGION’. Thus proving me correct and you wrong, yet again.

Hasta la vista, baby,
Rodrigo
 
So you all are right where you started. One can easily find violent statements in Islam, but everyone is still having trouble proving the peaceful bit. Why is it so hard to prove that Islam is a peaceful religion? Did you hide your light under a bushel? I guess so. It should be eye opening to people that it is so easy to prove violence teachings in Islam and so hard to prove the teachings of peace. Like, der.
 
pro, the only thing discredited here is you and Islam. Both say they aren’t in favor of terrorism, but both support terrorist groups like hezbullah and hamas. I visited NYC this weekend. Saw the WTC site. On Sunday the Church I went to for Mass had armed police outside. I asked why. They said because of the Muslims. That says it all. Go to Church in the USA and you have to be guarded because of the threat of Islamic violence.
 
Ridgerunner said:
It would be nice to be able to believe this. Unfortunately, when Islamic leader after leader; cleric after cleric, mob after mob, denounces and threatens the Pope for something he did not do, and which they know full well he did not do, and when not a single one comes out and says “Stop! This is wrong! This is sinful!” I cannot.
Click to expand...
Please elaborate. Islam has only one leader. He died 1400 years ago. What you are calling Islamic leaders are mere thugs who kill the innocent in the name of religon, which is not justified by any authentic Islamic literature.

So I and other authentic Muslims do beleive that this is wrong and sinful.

Takbir!
 
cestusdei said:
pro, the only thing discredited here is you and Islam. Both say they aren’t in favor of terrorism, but both support terrorist groups like hezbullah and hamas. I visited NYC this weekend. Saw the WTC site. On Sunday the Church I went to for Mass had armed police outside. I asked why. They said because of the Muslims. That says it all. Go to Church in the USA and you have to be guarded because of the threat of Islamic violence.
Click to expand...
If you take a trip to Hiroshima, will you stop advocating the use of nuclear weapons against Muslims?

Hizbullah and Hamas both had absolutely zero hand in September 11th.

Mosques in America have been targets of shootings already. How many Churches have been shot at by Muslims in America?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top