Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't accept as Islam any other hadith than the Hadith of Allah (the Qur'an) the Best Hadith (39:23). This thread is all about the verses from the Qur'an (not hadith books from men).
45:6 These are Ayat of Allah which we recite to you with truth; then in which hadith would they believe?
Stop the nonsense.
You said: "What was Yasir''s and his wife's fault that they were tortured and then killed by the Meccans, that they began to worhip the same One God that Jews and Christians worshipped?"
Post the quotes from the Quran and/or ahadith that prove this.
You said: "When the well documented aggression and torture of Muslims is pointed out"
Post the well documented quotes from the Quran and/or ahadith that prove this.
Why did you lie about that movie? Why did you lie and claim the non-Muslims were torturing the Muslim women when it was really the Muslims torturing and slaughtering the non-Muslim women?
You said: "What was Yasir''s and his wife's fault that they were tortured and then killed by the Meccans, that they began to worhip the same One God that Jews and Christians worshipped?"
Post the quotes from the Quran and/or ahadith that prove this.
You said: "When the well documented aggression and torture of Muslims is pointed out"
Post the well documented quotes from the Quran and/or ahadith that prove this.
Why did you lie about that movie? Why did you lie and claim the non-Muslims were torturing the Muslim women when it was really the Muslims torturing and slaughtering the non-Muslim women?
WHY DID YOU LIE????
Everything I wrote is true. Meccans did torture Sammiya and her husband for their religion. They are known as the first martyrs in Mecca. Thousands have seen the tortue of Muslims in the movie. You didn't condemn their torture. It just goes to show that torture of Muslims is good for you because they are evil. Yes?
As for Islam, it is only in the Qur'an. You don't even understand what is meant by "Islam".
Yeah, all the real evidences are those that are acceptable to you, the non-believers, only. When the well documented aggression and torture of Muslims is pointed out, it is still Muhammad's fault. What was Yasir''s and his wife's fault that they were tortured and then killed by the Meccans, that they began to worhip the same One God that Jews and Christians worshipped?
Btw, do you understand root cause analysis and how to do and interpret the results?
What is critical is the ultimate root cause not the intermediate causes.
Basically if Muhammad had not experienced his altered states of consciousness, then there would be no Islam-inspired evils and violence by SOME [not all] evil prone Muslims who were inspired by the supposed words of Muhammad.
Quote:
1. Everything in the Qur'an is to stop evil.
2. SOME self-proclaimed Muslims have not understood the Qur'an or deliberately misinterpreted the Qur'an to qualify their evil acts. MOST Muslim don't see the Qur'an commanding evil acts but to forbid ehvil acts 9:71, 9:112, 28:84, 33:17, 35:10.
3. SOME Christians have done the evil, and so have SOME Jews, SOME Atheists, SOME Buddhists, SOME Americans, SOME British, SOME Arabs, SOME Africans, SOME Asians, SOME Europeans and the listen can go on.
4. The Qur'an does not command imperialism but forbids corruption and mischief on the earth.
The problem is you read the Quran only 6-7 times which is insufficient to get a full grasp of the essence of the Quran. Thereafter you probably read various tafsir and commentaries by other Muslim scholars who by default has to be bias.
I suggest you read the Quran at least 50 times and more.
Quote:
Muhammad didn't even leave Arabia. There is no command in the Qur'an for any conquest. Spreading a good word of Islam is not conquest but like spreading democracy in Iraq by the Americans and the British. If it resulted in evil acts and killings of thousands, whould you blame democracy for it?
Muhammad established the ethos of imperialism within the Quran and that started within Arabia.
The Quran proclaimed Islam will prevail over all other religions and there is no other effective way to do this other than by force and imperialism.
Quote:
Then the terrible evil acts and violence, aggression both on land and from the sky is motivated by the idea of spreading democracy and orders of Bush and Blair.
I did not made any defense on this matter.
Whatever is classified as 'evil' or 'violence' by Bush, Blair or any one else is factually evil and thus must be addressed.
Note the loads of condemnations that were thrown at Bush and Blair where most politicians at present made an attempt to avoid.
War is fundamentally evil and humanity should strive to prevent war at all cost. At present we have no choice but to tolerate war but eventually they must be prevented and got rid of.
Quote:
Then the aggression and evil acts in Iraq were motivated by the arrogance of Bush and Blair that the system of democracy will prevail over all other systems and all will be subjugated to it. Funny it is not their intention to do the same in China and Russia but only in Muslim countries like Iraq and Afghanistan.
Bush and Blair are not Gods and they don't send immutable holy texts with command of evil nature that are supposed to last eternally for their believers to obey.
There is something wrong for a God to promote false arrogance to believers which will influence SOME believers to be big headed with their religion. This is really happening with most Muslims who believe theirs in the ONLY real religion and superior over other religions.
Quote:
That is if you purposely overlook the Meccan aggression towards Muhammad, their design to kill him, torturing Muslims in Mecca, chasing them as far as Abyssinia (now Ethiopia) when they tried to escape Meccans' torture.
Muhammed also was 'evidently' showing aggression when he was running out of Mecca to save his life.
Note I am more interested in the relevant ultimate root causes and not intermediate ones in the cause of a tit-for-tat.
Quote:
6. It is this aggressive and martial ethos of Muhammad that make Muhammad the most likely to initiate the first unilateral step to aggravate the Meccans, Jews and Christians who were living harmoniously despite the differences in their religions.
Quote:
The movie, The Message, clearly shows that Meccca Quraish were in charge of businesses around the Ka'ba and people coming there to worship the idols were bringing in wealth for them. Muhammad's One God revelation was seen as threat to Quraish. It wasn't your imagined aggression from Muhammad but the perceived threat to Meccans' income (call it national interests) that they wanted to stop worship of One God instead of their 360 idol gods by torturing and killing Muslims.
Again this is an intermediate root cause from the tit-for-tat.
Beside how credible is the movie, i.e. someone's story!!
Quote:
The later revelations and the next 23 years certainly proved that it wasn't Muhammad who had experienced any altered state of consciousness but those who wanted to kill him in Mecca and Madina.
My explanation 1-7 above in a complete picture from actual evidence is more convincing to show that Muhammad was the aggressor who initiate the terrible evils and violence.
Quote:
The above is neither the explanation nor the true picture of the events in Mecca at the time.
You are just guessing here rather than being aware of the full facts.
1. Muhammad was Messenger of Allah. None of the Chrstians and Jews was Messenger of Allah.
2. Any Christians or Jews in the whole Arabia were there for making money from trade and properties. They had log give up most of their religion.
3. Most of the Christians were in Najran rather than many in Mecca. That's why there were no churches in Mecca at the time. Most of the Jews were in or around Yasrib (Madina) and not in Mecca.
4. Muhammad wasn't claiming that he has been sent by a different God than the God of Jews and Christians. Why did they oppose what he had brought but not the idol worshipping? What did Muhamad do wrong against Jews in Madina before they sided with idol worshippers of Mecca during the Meccan attack at the Trench? Did the Jews of Madina commit treason or not?
I can only guess based on rational inferences.
Unless you have genuine video recordings to show me, you are also guessing but mostly likely to be emotionally bias.
From the verses Quran mentioning Jews and Christians, while I do not know the exact compositions it is most likely there were Jews and Christians as minorities in Mecca and the near surrounding areas.
Quote:
Obviously you havn't read the whole verse. The word for 'war' in Arabic 'harb' and it is, therefore, in context of war. Wenn this verse was revealed, the only war being referred in the verse is war by the Mecans on Muslims in Madina.
I read the context in terms of 47:1-4 which imply 'smite the neck' of the condemned infidels.
The subsequent elements related to a 'battle' situation is the secondary effects.
Quote:
The verse does not say child of the unelievers but the "unbelievers" who were attacking Madina. Your underdstanding of the Qur'an is just as twisted as that mental woman in Russia. Please do not worry about your understanding of the Qur'an; I m here to correct it. In y retirement, time is no problem.
Note I am putting myself in the shoes of those believers who read it from their own correct perspectives. Note the Duck-Rabbit image. You see the Duck in that verse and they see the 'Rabbit' in the same verse and both are correct.
Quote:
Most of the refugees are from Syria, Iraq and Libya as a result of attack on these countries by the Americans, British, French and the Russians. The verse in context is about those who were driven from their homes in Mecca.
Your thinking in this case is very shallow and dumb.
What is you imply is this verse apply only when Muslims are driven from Mecca then (7th Century), at present in 2016 or the future.
The general principle is,
"attack infidels whenever Muslims are driven away from their home by infidels"
Therefore whenever Muslims are driven from their homes anywhere, then Muslims must attack the infidels.
Quote:
"In general" mean outside the Qur'an. In the Qur'an is a specific situation when this verse was revealed and those Muslims were aware of the exact situation and the exat non-believers (the attackers).
This is shallow and dumb. Note my explanation re generic principles.
Why don't you suggest Muslims can only pray in front of Muhammad or until he reappear physically in Mecca.
The problem is you read the Quran only 6-7 times which is insufficient to get a full grasp of the essence of the Quran.
I suggest you read the Quran at least 50 times and more.
Just "reading" the Qur'an is not enough whether it is 6-7 or 50+ times. Pondering over the Ayat and understanding them with their context plus the Qur'anic context is the way to go or else you will misunderstand the verses.
Quote:
Muhammad established the ethos of imperialism within the Quran and that started within Arabia.
The Quran proclaimed Islam will prevail over all other religions and there is no other effective way to do this other than by force and imperialism.
Islam prevailing over all other false religion has nothing to do with imperialism. Islam is prevailing in America, Europe and many other countries without any imperialism in these countries.
Quote:
There is something wrong for a God to promote false arrogance to believers which will influence SOME believers to be big headed with their religion. This is really happening with most Muslims who believe theirs in the ONLY real religion and superior over other religions.
There is no promotion of arrogance in the Qur'an. In fact, arrogance is condemned in the Qur'an 40:35, 57:23, 2:34.
Quote:
Beside how credible is the movie, i.e. someone's story!!
Anything written or made into a movie centuries after the perfection of Islam could have corruption of facts of the time. This is why I rely on the Qur'an only to learn about Islam. I would never have mentioned the movie documented centuries later if I were not being stuffed on this forum with pages and pages of ahadith and what else was written centuries after Islam being perfected through the Qur'an. So even if you reject the movie as unreliable, it's fine with me as long as you reject other documents about Muhammad written centuries after Muhammad as unreliable.
Quote:
I read the context in terms of 47:1-4 which imply 'smite the neck' of the condemned infidels.
The subsequent elements related to a 'battle' situation is the secondary effects.
I read the context in terms of situation at the time of war (harb) clearly stated in the verse 4. It isn't war by Muslims waged against unbelievers but the war waged by the unbelievers of Mecca upon the Muslims in Madina some 325 miles from Mecca. The Qur'an is clear as to how to deal with those unbelievers during the time of peace:
60:8-9Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not drove you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly. Surely Allah loves those who do justice. Allah only forbids you respecting those who made war upon you on account of (your) religion, and drove you forth from your homes, and backed up (others) in your expulsion, that you make friends with them, and whoever makes friends with them, these are the unjust.
This is the context of the Qur'an about the same people of Mecca who had waged war upon Muslims because of their religion, expelled them from their homes that Muslim do not make them their friends. Clearly, nobody is going to even think about making friends of them in battlefield (when smiting their necks)) but at the time of no actual war at the time. All the rest of the unbelievers (who have not done what Meccans did to Muslims) can be respected and be dealt with justly, and friends made of them.
Therefore, any claim that all unbelievers should be killed according to the Qur'an is evil claim through the hate against Muslims and Islam.
Quote:
Your thinking in this case is very shallow and dumb.
What is you imply is this verse apply only when Muslims are driven from Mecca then (7th Century), at present in 2016 or the future.
No. You misunderstand. I can respect you, and make you, the unbelirver, my friend as long as you do not make war on me because of my religion, and expel me from my home, and make others join you in such war and my expulsion from my home. The smiting of neck is commanded only when you, the unbeliever, is actually attacking me physically in a battlefield because of my religion. At other times, outside the battlefield, all I am commanded to do against such (not all) unbeievres is not to make friends with them. The question of making friends with you won't even arise if I were to smite the necks of all disbelievers.
I hope you are beginning to see the Qur'anic picture a bit more clearly to express it in your master project.
Quote:
The general principle is,
"attack infidels whenever Muslims are driven away from their home by infidels"
Therefore whenever Muslims are driven from their homes anywhere, then Muslims must attack the infidels.
Attacking infidels is not general princple in the Qur'an as I have explained above but specific only when physically being attacked. The general principle in the Qur'an is, live with them in peace as long as they live with us in peace.
Quote:
Why don't you suggest Muslims can only pray in front of Muhammad or until he reappear physically in Mecca.
Silly suggestion! It's not general princple in the Qur'an.
Everything I wrote is true. Meccans did torture Sammiya and her husband for their religion. They are known as the first martyrs in Mecca. Thousands have seen the tortue of Muslims in the movie. You didn't condemn their torture. It just goes to show that torture of Muslims is good for you because they are evil. Yes?
As for Islam, it is only in the Qur'an. You don't even understand what is meant by "Islam".
You said:
"Muhammad never INITIATED agression. The agression was initiated by evil kuffar of Mecca who had started to torture and kill Muslims in Mecca. Muslims had to run out of Mecca to save their lives. One Muslim woman's each leg was tied with rope and then the other end tied to two camels. Camels were made to run in opposite direction tearing her legs apart and killing her that way. "
I asked for proof.
You said: "I did not read it in the ahadith books but it was documented in an English full movie called The Message. You can watch the full movie in English on the internet."
In fact, it was the MUSLIMS who did this to a non-Muslim woman.
Zayd also raided Wadi-l-Qurra where he met Banu Fazara and some of his companions were killed; he himself carried wounded from the field. Ward b. Amr b. Madash one of B. Sad b. Hudhayl was killed by one of B. Badr whose name Sa’d b. Hudhaym. When Zayd came he swore that he would use no ablution until he raided B. Fazara; and when he recovered from his wounds the apostle sent him against them with a force. He fought them in Wadi-al-Qura and killed some of them. Qays b. al-Musahhar al-Yamuri killed Mas’ada b. Hakama b. Malik b. Hudhayfa b. Badr and Umm Qirfa Fatima was taken prisoner. She was a very old woman, wife of Malik. Her daughter and Abdulla b. Mas’ada were also taken. Zaid ordered Qays b al-Musahhar to kill Umm Qirfa and he killed her cruelly.
Ibn Ishaq 980
“And he killed her cruellyâ€. The cruel method used by the holy warriors of Muhammad to kill Umm Qirfa is described in Al-Tabari:
“By putting a rope into her two legs and to two camels and driving them until they rent her in two....â€
Allah’s Messenger sent Zayd to Wadi Qura, where he encountered the Banu Fazarah. Some of his Companions were killed, and Zayd was carried away wounded. Ward was slain by the Banu Badr. When Zayd returned, he vowed that no washing should touch his head until he had raided the Fazarah. After he recovered, Muhammad sent him with an army against the Fazarah settlement. He met them in Qura and inflicted casualties on them and took Umm Qirfah prisoner. He also took one of Umm’s daughters and Abdallah bin Mas’adah prisoner. Zyad bin Harithah ordered Qays to kill Umm, and he killed her cruelly. He tied each of her legs with a rope and tied the ropes to two camels, and they split her in two.
Tabari Vol.8:Page.96
It was the Muslims who did this thing!!!!!
The elderly woman was ordered to be slaughtered by Zyad bin Harithah - Muhammed's close companion!
There was nothing in the movie that said a Muslim woman, or any woman, was ripped apart by camels by non-Muslims.
You lied. Twice.
From now on, if you make a claim, back it up with some evidence. I no longer trust anything from you.
Your latest claim:
"Meccans did torture Sammiya and her husband for their religion. "
Thousands have seen the tortue of Muslims in the movie.
Actually, this is a very funny statement when you consider this:
" The Message provoked a bloody civilian protest 35 years ago that seems like Hollywood hyperbole today.
Washington, D.C., came to a standstill six weeks into the Carter administration when on March 9, 1977, Hamaas Abdul Khaalis and 11 other Hanafi Muslims drove a rented U-Haul from Maryland to the District of Columbia loaded with machetes, shotguns, and swords. By mid-afternoon they had seized control of the District Building, the Islamic Center, and the B'na B'rith Headquarters, shooting dead a police officer and local reporter in the process. Among the 149 hostages they seized were a future mayor -- Marion Barry, then a city councilman, who survived a shotgun wound to the chest -- and then-mayor Walter Washington, who was barricaded in his office."
Actually, this is a very funny statement when you consider this:
" The Message provoked a bloody civilian protest 35 years ago that seems like Hollywood hyperbole today.
Washington, D.C., came to a standstill six weeks into the Carter administration when on March 9, 1977, Hamaas Abdul Khaalis and 11 other Hanafi Muslims drove a rented U-Haul from Maryland to the District of Columbia loaded with machetes, shotguns, and swords. By mid-afternoon they had seized control of the District Building, the Islamic Center, and the B'na B'rith Headquarters, shooting dead a police officer and local reporter in the process. Among the 149 hostages they seized were a future mayor -- Marion Barry, then a city councilman, who survived a shotgun wound to the chest -- and then-mayor Walter Washington, who was barricaded in his office."
Muslims slaughtering and terrorizing over a pro-Islamic movie.
I vaguely remember that incident. At the time I was a very evangelical Fundementalist Christian and I believe the whole hullabaloo was over an actor portraying Muhammad(saws) In Islam it is considered either Haram or Makrou to depict a picture of Allaah(swt) or any animal (including humans), Angel, Djinn It is largely
acknowledged it is extremely Haram to portray or look at a picture of Allaah(swt) or Any Angel or Prophet..
There is dispute in terms of pictures about Prophets, if the Picture is beneficial in helping people understand Islam. That is what the dispute was over if I remember correctly.It was basically Muslim against Muslim.
I vaguely remember that incident. At the time I was a very evangelical Fundementalist Christian and I believe the whole hullabaloo was over an actor portraying Muhammad(saws) In Islam it is considered either Haram or Makrou to depict a picture of Allaah(swt) or any animal (including humans), Angel, Djinn It is largely
acknowledged it is extremely Haram to portray or look at a picture of Allaah(swt) or Any Angel or Prophet..
There is dispute in terms of pictures about Prophets, if the Picture is beneficial in helping people understand Islam. That is what the dispute was over if I remember correctly.It was basically Muslim against Muslim.
The movie was PRO Islam and Muhammed was not in the movie out of regard for Islam.
However, the Muslims still attacked ... and not other Muslims.
Read this again:
"Washington, D.C., came to a standstill six weeks into the Carter administration when on March 9, 1977, Hamaas Abdul Khaalis and 11 other Hanafi Muslims drove a rented U-Haul from Maryland to the District of Columbia loaded with machetes, shotguns, and swords. By mid-afternoon they had seized control of the District Building, the Islamic Center, and the B'na B'rith Headquarters, shooting dead a police officer and local reporter in the process. Among the 149 hostages they seized were a future mayor -- Marion Barry, then a city councilman, who survived a shotgun wound to the chest -- and then-mayor Walter Washington, who was barricaded in his office."
You may be thinking of another violent outburst by Muslims. There are so many. Maybe this one:
India's northernmost province, Jammu and Kashmir, was not the right place -- and September 14, 2012 was especially not the right time -- to be screening a film about the Prophet Muhammad. Nearby in Pakistan, protests over the controversial Innocence of Muslims had recently turned fatal, and demonstrators at the University of Kashmir carried placards that read "Obama, we are all Osama." Yet at a middle school in the Kupwara district -- where one-third of the population is illiterate and more than two-thirds are Muslim -- the Indian army went ahead with its screening anyway. The event instantly set off a riot.
Shouting first, then throwing stones, a contingent of Kupwara's residents, schoolteachers, and pupils misrecognized the movie as the devious and amateurish YouTube trailer that led to protests in Egypt. But after police arrested two and confiscated the Urdu-dubbed video, they discovered not the "Sam Bacile" production the locals had assumed -- soldiers were actually screening a three-hour, high-budget epic that earned an Academy Award nomination for best original score -- in 1977.
Just "reading" the Qur'an is not enough whether it is 6-7 or 50+ times. Pondering over the Ayat and understanding them with their context plus the Qur'anic context is the way to go or else you will misunderstand the verses.
This is another problem with your rigid thinking and not seeing things in the wider perspectives.
This is the same problem with your lack of understanding of the various concepts of 'believing' and 'submitting.'
When I said "reading" in this case it imply understanding, reflecting, researching and doing whatever is necessary to get the meaning as intended by the original authors in the various circumstances, be it good or evil.
Don't get childish on this.
If it is mere reading no one need to read it 50+ times.
I find the Quran very insulting to non-Muslim and personally to me. It is very unpalatable to read but I have no choice if I have to understand it thoroughly and be objective in my critique.
I have analyzed the 6,236 verses over 300++ 'subject' categories, concepts and ideas, and to ensure each elements is correctly categorized I have to understand each verses thoroughly and deeply. This is why I have to read the Quran so many times so that I can do the relevant categorizing of the 'subjects' and fitting the elements of each verse in their respective category.
Reading 6-7 times is definitely insufficient to get a good grasp of the actual meanings and intentions of the author[s] of the Quran.
Quote:
Islam prevailing over all other false religion has nothing to do with imperialism. Islam is prevailing in America, Europe and many other countries without any imperialism in these countries.
You cannot understand my point because you have only read the Quran 6-7 times.
Islam prevailing over all other religions means Islam will dominate over all other religions.
Your use of "false religion" show that you are insulting other existing religions. This itself is arrogance and you were influenced by the Quran.
It is not only one verse but the whole context of the Quran that generate a false sense of arrogance that influenced SOME evil prone to be big headed to dominate non-Muslims. This false arrogance is a fact and has its real negative consequences as committed by SOME [not all] Muslims.
Quote:
There is no promotion of arrogance in the Qur'an. In fact, arrogance is condemned in the Qur'an 40:35, 57:23, 2:34.
The arrogance I mentioned is different from the other form of arrogance, i.e. being boastful.
This false arrogance that I mentioned re 'prevail over all other religion' generate a sense of superiority over others. When SOME believers has such a sense of superiority [especially pronounced by a God] they feel they can do any thing to dominate others.
This is a very common human behavior which was very obvious in the case of Hitler's claim the Germans were a race that will prevail over all other races. With these sense of arrogance [false of course] the terror that manifest was WW I and WW II.
This is the same with the false arrogance in the Quran, 'Islam will prevail over all others' which results in the conquer of Arabia and the Islamic imperialism from Spain to China, and the current terrors all over the world committed by SOME [not all] evil prone Muslims.
Quote:
I read the context in terms of situation at the time of war (harb) clearly stated in the verse 4. It isn't war by Muslims waged against unbelievers but the war waged by the unbelievers of Mecca upon the Muslims in Madina some 325 miles from Mecca. The Qur'an is clear as to how to deal with those unbelievers during the time of peace:
60:8-9Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not drove you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly. Surely Allah loves those who do justice. Allah only forbids you respecting those who made war upon you on account of (your) religion, and drove you forth from your homes, and backed up (others) in your expulsion, that you make friends with them, and whoever makes friends with them, these are the unjust.
As I had mentioned it is a Duck-Rabbit case.
You see the Duck [good] elements but some others see the Rabbit [evil] elements and both are seeing the truths and correct.
In one perspective there is a context to 60:8 from the Ahadiths and tafsir and thus limited.
If we ignore the Ahadiths, it is still a Duck-Rabbit Case.
Note the other verses that contradict 60:8-9
5:54 O ye who believe! Whoso of you becometh a renegade from his religion, (know that in his stead) Allah will bring a people whom He loveth and who love Him, humble toward believers, stern toward disbelievers, striving in the way of Allah, and fearing not the blame of any blamer. Such is the grace of Allah which He giveth unto whom He will. Allah is All-Embracing, All-Knowing.
9:123 O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him).
In addition to the above, there are thousands of verses where contempt, condemnations and hatred are directed at non-Muslims.
While you may be inclined to the Duck [good] elements there is a potential pool of 300 million [20%] evil prone Muslims who are influenced by the Rabbit [evil] elements and yet when they act upon them, they are correct and have not sinned.
Quote:
This is the context of the Qur'an about the same people of Mecca who had waged war upon Muslims because of their religion, expelled them from their homes that Muslim do not make them their friends. Clearly, nobody is going to even think about making friends of them in battlefield (when smiting their necks)) but at the time of no actual war at the time. All the rest of the unbelievers (who have not done what Meccans did to Muslims) can be respected and be dealt with justly, and friends made of them.
Obviously there is no sense of friendship during war with one's enemies.
However in general the Quran condemned the non-Muslims and do not permit Muslims to take non-Muslims as friends [awliya] or as intimate friends.
Quote:
Therefore, any claim that all unbelievers should be killed according to the Qur'an is evil claim through the hate against Muslims and Islam.
Btw, I have never stated the Quran issued very specific or direct commands to kill non-Muslims.
The whole context of the Quran generate the message that Muslims should fight [kill] non-Muslims if Islam and Muslims are under threat.
The problem here is the term 'threat' is very vague and there are Duck-Rabbit scenarios of two truths and either way is true and not sinful to kill non-Muslim.
In addition I stated it is Quran and Islam in-part [this qualification is critical] and ONLY SOME [not all] Muslims who are evil prone are influenced by the evil laden verses to commit terrible evils and violence.
Quote:
No. You misunderstand. I can respect you, and make you, the unbelirver, my friend as long as you do not make war on me because of my religion, and expel me from my home, and make others join you in such war and my expulsion from my home. The smiting of neck is commanded only when you, the unbeliever, is actually attacking me physically in a battlefield because of my religion. At other times, outside the battlefield, all I am commanded to do against such (not all) unbeievres is not to make friends with them. The question of making friends with you won't even arise if I were to smite the necks of all disbelievers.
I hope you are beginning to see the Qur'anic picture a bit more clearly to express it in your master project.
You are the one who misunderstand and cannot understand the principles related to the two truths re Duck-Rabbit image.
The point is you many interpret one way [the non-violent way] but there is the other an inherent truth preferred by the evil prone and they are correct.
The zealous Muslims will not befriend non-Muslims and will smite the necks of non-Muslims, in compliance with the related verses in the Quran, to accumulate merits to ensure they go to paradise. Point is they are following the other truth of the same verse in the Quran and they have not sinned.
Quote:
Attacking infidels is not general princple in the Qur'an as I have explained above but specific only when physically being attacked. The general principle in the Qur'an is, live with them in peace as long as they live with us in peace.
The general principle in the Quran is the contempt, condemnation and hatred for Jews, Christians, other non-Muslims. This is reflected in more than 55% of the 6,236 verses of the Quran.
Read the Quran again, most of the time [99%] the concept of non-believers are mentioned it is in the negative sense.
It is Us=Muslim=Good versus Them=disbeliever=evil.
Quote:
Silly suggestion! It's not general princple in the Qur'an.
This example is a mirror of your silly interpretation of the Quran where you insist the condition must be same as in the Quran.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
