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 have no intention of repeating the same thing again and again.
My last question is, "can anyone submit to Allah without believing Allah?"
I say again, there are many senses to the term 'believe', just like reasoning, thinking, religions, love, etc.
A Muslim can submit on impulse to Allah without 'believing-proper'.
Note we are arguing within the context of 49:14.
In that verse Allah implied 'submit-proper' precede 'believing-proper'.
Note 49:14 again;
49:14 [Pickthall] The wandering Arabs say: We believe.
Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Ye believe not, but rather say "We submit," for the faith hath not yet entered into your hearts.
Yet, if ye obey Allah and His messenger, He will not withhold from you aught of (the reward of) your deeds. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
We can't take the verse out of its and the Qur'anic context. This is fundamental rule when studying the Qur'an. The unbelievers mentioned in this verse are not ALL unbelievers but only those who were in war at the time against Muslims.
That is how I have always understood the verse. If you read the full verse, war is mentioned further down in the verse. You will even see in the verse that prisoners can be taken and either held or freed (with ransom payment) until war on Muslims (believer) is no more. This is clear indication in study of this verse that (a) war was on Muslims and (b) unbelievers even in that war were not all supposed to be killed by the believers or else there would be no need to take prisoners.
There are, therefore, clear rules of engagement here in particular "until war is no more". In other words, when they stop attacking believers, the believers must stop too. The believers can't carry on striking the necks of the unbelievers. If the war had been from the believers (Muslims), there would be no need to stop until all unbelievers were killed.
Therefore, there is no outright command in the Qur'an to kill ALL unbelievers either then or in future (as now) but only those who physically are trying to kill believers as was the case at the time of this verse. This is why I have no problem living even next door to unbelievers if they are not trying to kill me.
I did not take the verse out of context.
If you read Chapter 47 from
verse 47:1, Allah condemned the infidels,
47:2 praise the Muslims,
47:3 condemned the infidels and then
47:4 starts with beheading the infidels,
then only mentioned elements of fighting, routing infidels, ransom, etc.
Chapter 47:1-4 implied infidels are to be condemned [worst of creatures, do not follow way of Allah, thus threat to Islam,], Muslims are good, therefore behead the infidels.
It is only from the intention of killing and smiting the necks of infidels that results in fighting either by one Muslims or a group of Muslims.
This lone wolf [vixen] woman in Moscow and other lone wolf[s] e.g. in Woolwich, Amsterdam, killed non-Muslims by smiting their necks or beheading as influence by 47:1-4 and other verses on a personal mission. There is nothing wrong with this.
Now you tell me where can these lone wolf[s] be wrong in the eyes of Allah on Judgment Day because they have complied with Chapter 47:1-4 and other related verses.
In other cases the evil prone Muslims attack and kill non-Muslims in groups based on 47:1-4 and other related verses and end up routing the non-Muslims, taking them for ransom, raping, etc.
In addition, the Quran present a state such that non-Muslims by their nature of being disbelievers are always a threat and at war [in one sense to Muslims.
Quote:
They are being driven out of their homes by Asaad, Russians, British and Europeans. They are all at it. Quite a few of these refugees are from Libya. When Libya was bombed by the British, and then British leader Cameron went to Libya and told those Libyans that Britain is going to help them, it ever arrived. When no help reached them, they decided to seek help in Europe.
This is the point, the Muslim refugees are driven from the home. This is a threat to Islam and Muslims, therefore Muslims must protect these Muslims by striving in the cause of Allah, i.e. be a mujahideen and go abroad to defend Islam.
Note the following of a Muslim to fight for the cause of Allah;
4:75. How should ye [Muslims] not fight for the cause of Allah and [for the cause] of the feeble among men and [for the cause] of the women and the children who are crying: Our Lord! Bring us [Muslim victims - the weak] forth from out this town of which the people are oppressors! Oh, give us [Muslims] from Thy presence some protecting friend! Oh, give us [Muslims] from Thy presence some defender!
Quote:
Yes, those people are given permission to defend when war is made upon them. Even when defending, there are rules of engagement and limits set in the Quran as to how far one can go. There is no outright, no limit, killing of ALL unbelievers in the Qur'anic context. Any wrong interpretation whether by unbelievers or ignorant believers (terrorists) is due to either hate or ignorance and hate by these parties. Both are wrong.
Note the issue of abrogation where some rules of engagement are overridden in different circumstances.
The point is the concepts of war [immoral] should NEVER have been included in a holy text.
Where is exists there are two truths [good and evil] to them. There is nothing wrong in the eyes of Allah if SOME evil prone Muslims prefer the ones they are inclined to i.e. committing terrible evils and violence.
Quote:
That is overstretching the commands. There is nothing "in general". That's where people twist the commands and call it "in general" every time to qualify their misuderstandinng. Every command leads to specific meaning if the Qur'an is studied properly.
The Quran cannot cater to be specific and what will happen in reality then, now and the future will never the same.
Therefore the Quran has to be general.
Quote:
She had no basis to kill the child from Islamic point of view. Children are never labeled unbelievers in Islam. They are innocent until they clearly understand the differrnce between right and wrong and are able to take responsibility for their actions.
From her perspective of 47:1-4 and other related verses, she has comply with the words of Allah. It is likely she may not have read the Quran but were influenced by other who has read the Quran.
WHO ARE YOU [& others] as a fallible and slave of Allah to decide for Allah that she has no basis to kill the child from the Islamic point of view?
Obviously from humanity's point of view, what she did was evil, but no one can judge on for Allah on the basis of Islam's POV.
Quote:
There is no allowance in Islam for what she did. In fact, her action is likely to have opposite effect to what she was trying to achieve. We simply do not know what would be the judgment of Allah. She will have to wait for that judgment. Signs are not good for her if she is sane.
No allowance, note I quoted 47:1-4 and there are other relevant verses in the Quran to support her acts.
Yes, you cannot know, it is up to Allah to judge.
However we can infer she has complied with verses in the Quran, e.g. 47:1-4 and other verses.
The point is while you and other humans cannot decide for Allah, SOME [from a pool of 300 million] evil prone Muslims will continue to kill Muslims based on the evil laden elements in the Quran.
This the very real reality that is glaringly evident which no sane humans can deny.
I did not take the verse out of context.
If you read Chapter 47 from
verse 47:1, Allah condemned the infidels,
47:2 praise the Muslims,
47:3 condemned the infidels and then
47:4 starts with beheading the infidels,
then only mentioned elements of fighting, routing infidels, ransom, etc.
Chapter 47:1-4 implied infidels are to be condemned [worst of creatures, do not follow way of Allah, thus threat to Islam,], Muslims are good, therefore behead the infidels.
It is only from the intention of killing and smiting the necks of infidels that results in fighting either by one Muslims or a group of Muslims.
Of course you had taken the verse out of its own context (of war)! I even explained that it was revealed in a situation of war as mentioned in the verse. You still did not believe me even though the verse clearly describes what to do when the war ends. I will tell you more about the context of the verse that the people at the time in Madina were aware of. The Meccan army is heading towards Madina. They were coming to Madina to kill Muhammad and all Muslims with him. Muslims in Madina are commanded to fight them when they attack Madina. There are only two options open to Muslims, either smite the necks of the attackers or get their own necks chopped off by the unbelievrs from Mecca. What would you have expected Muslims to do in that situation of war?
Quote:
This lone wolf [vixen] woman in Moscow and other lone wolf[s] e.g. in Woolwich, Amsterdam, killed non-Muslims by smiting their necks or beheading as influence by 47:1-4 and other verses on a personal mission. There is nothing wrong with this.
None of them were being personally attacked. No war situation. 47:4 does not apply in any of the three situation.
Quote:
Now you tell me where can these lone wolf[s] be wrong in the eyes of Allah on Judgment Day because they have complied with Chapter 47:1-4 and other related verses.
These lone wolves were not under attack from those who they killed. If you think they were complying with 47:4, then they were just as ignorant in understanding the context of 47:4 as you are. To comply with 47:4 as you understand it, I will have to disobey Allah's commands in other verses.
Quote:
In other cases the evil prone Muslims attack and kill non-Muslims in groups based on 47:1-4 and other related verses and end up routing the non-Muslims, taking them for ransom, raping, etc.
It's not that they are evil prone but ignorant. They do not understand the Qur'an. Muslims with Muhammad were not ignorant. They knew the context of such verses and other verses about unbelievers. When they went back to their homes back in Mecca they did not kill even one unbeliever. Do you know why 47:4 wasn't complied with there? You will give me the correct answer only if you understand the context of 47:4 in full.
Quote:
In addition, the Quran present a state such that non-Muslims by their nature of being disbelievers are always a threat and at war [in one sense to Muslims.
Are you trying to teach me about the state presented by the Qur'an?
Quote:
This is the point, the Muslim refugees are driven from the home. This is a threat to Islam and Muslims, therefore Muslims must protect these Muslims by striving in the cause of Allah, i.e. be a mujahideen and go abroad to defend Islam.
I am not sure what you are trying to say here.
Quote:
Note the following of a Muslim to fight for the cause of Allah;
4:75. How should ye [Muslims] not fight for the cause of Allah and [for the cause] of the feeble among men and [for the cause] of the women and the children who are crying: Our Lord! Bring us [Muslim victims - the weak] forth from out this town of which the people are oppressors! Oh, give us [Muslims] from Thy presence some protecting friend! Oh, give us [Muslims] from Thy presence some defender!
Tell me which town is mentioned here? Don't forget the context!
Quote:
Note the issue of abrogation where some rules of engagement are overridden in different circumstances.
Such as???
Quote:
The point is the concepts of war [immoral] should NEVER have been included in a holy text.
Where is exists there are two truths [good and evil] to them. There is nothing wrong in the eyes of Allah if SOME evil prone Muslims prefer the ones they are inclined to i.e. committing terrible evils and violence.
Ignorant; rather than evil prone.
Quote:
The Quran cannot cater to be specific and what will happen in reality then, now and the future will never the same.
Therefore the Quran has to be general.
It is not for the dummies but for those who have brains and can think, ponder over the Ayat and understand them.
Quote:
From her perspective of 47:1-4 and other related verses, she has comply with the words of Allah. It is likely she may not have read the Quran but were influenced by other who has read the Quran.
She was likely influenced by an unbeliever who was always twisting the verses and seeing only evil in them.
Quote:
WHO ARE YOU [& others] as a fallible and slave of Allah to decide for Allah that she has no basis to kill the child from the Islamic point of view?
No basis in the Qur'an.
Quote:
Obviously from humanity's point of view, what she did was evil, but no one can judge on for Allah on the basis of Islam's POV.
Rules are in the Quran.
Quote:
No allowance, note I quoted 47:1-4 and there are other relevant verses in the Quran to support her acts.
The Qur'an does not support her action.
Quote:
Yes, you cannot know, it is up to Allah to judge.
However we can infer she has complied with verses in the Quran, e.g. 47:1-4 and other verses.
None whatsoever.
Quote:
The point is while you and other humans cannot decide for Allah, SOME [from a pool of 300 million] evil prone Muslims will continue to kill Muslims based on the evil laden elements in the Quran.
EVERONE is evil prone as well as good prone.
Quote:
This the very real reality that is glaringly evident which no sane humans can deny.
You see "very real reality" differently than I do. I am certainly sane.
I say again, there are many senses to the term 'believe', just like reasoning, thinking, religions, love, etc.
A Muslim can submit on impulse to Allah without 'believing-proper'.
Note we are arguing within the context of 49:14.
In that verse Allah implied 'submit-proper' precede 'believing-proper'.
Note 49:14 again;
49:14 [Pickthall] The wandering Arabs say: We believe.
Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Ye believe not, but rather say "We submit," for the faith hath not yet entered into your hearts.
Yet, if ye obey Allah and His messenger, He will not withhold from you aught of (the reward of) your deeds. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
That means you do not know who the unbelievers submit to.
30:53 and 2:208 give the correct sequence. I call it the Qur'anic context.
I will tell you more about the context of the verse that the people at the time in Madina were aware of. The Meccan army is heading towards Madina. They were coming to Madina to kill Muhammad and all Muslims with him. Muslims in Madina are commanded to fight them when they attack Madina. There are only two options open to Muslims, either smite the necks of the attackers or get their own necks chopped off by the unbelievrs from Mecca. What would you have expected Muslims to do in that situation of war?
POST THE VERSES THAT SAY THIS!!!
Chronology according to Muslim historians:
There is absolutely no record of Meccan aggression against the Muslims at Medina in the first three years after their arrival in 622.
Muhammad ordered the first raids against the Meccans a year after the hijra in February of 623, which eventually proved deadly. There is no record of Meccan aggression during this time.
Word of an impending Muslim attack on a particularly rich caravan, prompted the Meccans to send an army out in defense, where they were goaded into battle and routed by the Muslims at Badr in March of 624.
The Meccans avenged their loss at Badr (and the hostages that were cruelly executed by Muhammad) by routing the Muslims at Uhud, near Medina, in March of 625. If their ultimate objective had been to kill Muhammad and his followers, then they surely would have invaded the defenseless city and defeated them. They obviously did not have any interest in doing this.
Muhammad behaved himself with the Meccans for one year, choosing to support himself instead by evicting local Jewish tribes and confiscating their property. Then he began attacking caravans in April of 626.
After a year of renewed Muslim aggression, the Meccans responded by sending an army to Medina a year later in April of 627, where they failed in a siege that is known as the 'Battle of the Trench.'
The historical record provides absolutely no evidence that the Muslims were being oppressed or threatened in any way by the Meccans, and fully supports the view that it was the latter who were acting in self-defense. The Meccans had no interest in Muhammad and simply wanted to live in peace and pursue their commerce. At each turn, the prophet of Islam unnecessarily harassed them with deadly and provocative actions that eventually forced battles on several occasions.
That means you do not know who the unbelievers submit to.
30:53 and 2:208 give the correct sequence. I call it the Qur'anic context.
This is basic.
Unbelievers [non-Muslims] if they submit, submit to their own God as per their holy texts.
Note I did a search for the term 'believe' [exactly] which result in 539 times and 1100++ times in other senses. Note I read all the 539 verses related to 'believe.'
Most of the times, the term 'believe' relate to 'those who believe' i.e. Muslims-in-general.
However in the context of 49:14, Allah's intention is to differentiate between 'submit-proper' and 'believe-proper.'
Allah conveyed 'you believe not but has only submitted.'
It is very and logically obvious 'submit' in this case precede 'believe'.
There is no other ways about it.
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.
