Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


New Britain
Yesterday at 11:51 PM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
February 15, 2025, 04:00 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
February 14, 2025, 08:00 AM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
February 13, 2025, 10:07 PM

Muslim grooming gangs sti...
February 13, 2025, 08:20 PM

German nationalist party ...
February 13, 2025, 01:15 PM

Lights on the way
by akay
February 13, 2025, 01:08 PM

Russia invades Ukraine
February 13, 2025, 11:01 AM

Islam and Science Fiction
February 11, 2025, 11:57 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
February 06, 2025, 03:13 PM

Gaza assault
February 05, 2025, 10:04 AM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
February 03, 2025, 09:25 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Warmongering Islam

 (Read 21697 times)
  • Previous page 1 2 3 4« Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Warmongering Islam
     Reply #90 - March 20, 2010, 02:00 PM

    I already said to me it's clear from the verses of the Quran alone that there was a truce between the Muslims and Pagan Arabs. It is also clear from the verses surrounding verse 5 that Muslims were only ordered to fight the polytheists who broke the truce.


    So abuyunus, even if there was a truce, what sort of truce?

    This is what the Quran has to say about pagan Arabs.

    Quran says that pagan Arabs are unclean.

    Quran 9:28, "O ye who believe: Truly the pagans are unclean, so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque,...".

    Pagan Arabs, as "unbelievers" are the worst of animals.

    Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve, (8:55)

    Pagan Arabs are not to be befriended by Muslims

    Qur'an (3:28) - "Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah..."

    Qur'an (3:118) - "O you who believe! do not take for intimate friends from among others than your own people, they do not fall short of inflicting loss upon you; they love what distresses you; vehement hatred has already appeared from out of their mouths, and what their breasts conceal is greater still; indeed, We have made the communications clear to you, if you will understand."

    Pagan Arabs have no right to marry Muslims.

    Wed not idolatresses till they believe; for lo! a believing bondwoman is better than an idolatress though she please you; and give not your daughters in marriage to idolaters till they believe, for lo! a believing slave is better than an idolater though he please you. These invite unto the Fire, and Allah inviteth unto the Garden, and unto forgiveness by His grace, and expoundeth His revelations to mankind that haply they may remember.

    AbuYunus 2, if someone today used such hate speech against you as a Muslim & restricted your rights like this, would you keep a truce with them?

    If they said that because you're a Muslim, you're "unclean" , you're the "worst of animals", you're not fit to be a friend of a Muslim, you have no right to marry any non Muslim in an interfaith marriage because while you're the vilest of animals(Quran 8:55),they are the best of peoples (Quran 3:111) would you want to enter & remain in a truce with such folks?

    From hadiths & sira, we learn that Muhammad & Muslims smashed every polytheistic idol & threatened to kill any pagan who came out to protect his idols, he also killed Jewish tribes.

    Even if we ignore hadiths, from Quran itself we read that Muhammad is using hate speech against unbelievers, calling them the vilest of animals, unclean & not to be let near mosques, that they have no right to have interfaith marriage with Muslims, that they have to pay the jizya taxes which Muslims don't.

    Would you keep truces with people wh used rampant hate speech like this against you, or would you want to break truces to gain equal rights & dignity?

    You guys obviously disagree, but I feel the Quran makes it quite clear that fighting is only permitted in self defence. The Quran also makes it quite clear that there should be no sects of Islam, no sunni no shia no nothing. Just submitters to God's will.


    Re read Quran 9:5, it says Muslims can stop fighting when idolators, take to prayer, render the alms levy ie zakat, not when idolators have ceased fighting.

    So fighting continues till idolators accept Islam. This isn't self defence, its forced conversion.

    I think you accept that rape under any circumstances is unacceptable & no matter how provocatively a woman was dressed or behaving, it doesn't justify rape. Exactly like that, forced conversion under any circumstances is unacceptable. Thats what Quran 9:5 preaches.

    Yes, there're supposed to be no Shia Sunni in Islam, but that still doesn't solve the problem for the overwhelming majority of the world's inhabitants have no wish to submit to Islam.

    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Warmongering Islam
     Reply #91 - March 20, 2010, 02:11 PM

    If you dont believe in the tafsir  then we need to see what "Fighting by disbelievers " consists of  as per quran.If you criticize against islam then that is also termed as fighting against islam or muslims.see the following verses..


    Oh abuyunus believes in tafsir allright, but only if it suits him.. For example, he does accept that Quran 4:34 justifies wife beating, but he then accepts tafsirs to show that Muslim tafsir writers had generally said that the verse means only a "light tap" & not beating the shit out of one's wife.

    In this case, the tafsir writers say things which agree with his conscience, so he accepts that.  bunny

    However, 4;34 says only "beat" with no comment on how hard or lightly.

    But if it comes to violent verses sanction offensive rather than defensive jihad, he will reject tafsirs coz they accept that these verses sanction fighting not only in self defence, but also to spread Islam.

    He interprets Quran 4:34 as  "beat with only a light tap & cause no injury" because it agrees with his conscience, so he's very happy to use tafsirs which support this position.

    However, because tafsirs say Sura 9 sanctions offensive warfare, he might reject tafsirs this time, & claim that hadiths & tafsirs both have no credibility.

    If he accepts tafsirs for this sura like he does for wife beating, I'll accept he's no intellectual coward, but if he doesn't, as I suspect he won't, I will know he's an intellectual coward & avoids looking at things at ways which leads to discomfort & angst for his true self.


    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Warmongering Islam
     Reply #92 - March 20, 2010, 02:13 PM

    Quote from: Asif
    Quote from: Skynightblaze
    "The terrorists require quran to justify their actions because islam supports terrorism.If these verses were not there we wouldnt be finding muslim terrorists."


    And what about non-muslim terrorists do they require help from their scriptures to justify their actions and if their scriptures dont have such verses then will there be non-muslim terrorist.

     


    Non muslims commit acts of terrorism but not because their scripture teaches them unlike muslims.Actually I was wrong when I said that we wouldnt be finding muslim terrorists if these verses were not present in quran. Black sheep are bound to  exist everywhere irrespective of scriptures  but in case of muslims they are more in number because of islam.Islam makes a lot of difference to the number.Just compare the number  of muslim atrocities as against atrocities committed  by kafirs on account of  religion. Muslims clearly outsmart the kafirs as they have committed more number of crimes in the name of religion.The number of terrorist acts will never become zero but they would atleast reduce by 80 % if the effect of islamic scriptures is neutralized .
  • Re: Warmongering Islam
     Reply #93 - March 20, 2010, 02:31 PM

    abyyunus2, I have searched & found exactly where you say that all scholars agree that wife beating should be a light tap & not leave a mark.

    This is exactly what you say:

    Quote
    I think you will find that all scholars of Islam agree that wife beating should be light & not leave a bruise or mark...The Prophet never hit any of his wives, we should try to follow his example.


    Cool, since you accept that interpretation of scholars on this issue, the majority of scholars throughout history & many even today accept that Sura 9 sanctions offensive war, not defensive war.

    Why don't you accept that?  Huh?

    After all, the Quran doesn't mention "light" at all, it only says beat. Rather an omission from the Creator of the Universe not to mention lightly, don't you think?  Wink

    Plus, I'm curious when you mention that the Prophet didn't hit any of his wives.

    Since you reject hadiths, how much of his life do you know from the Quran? The Quran certainly gives no biography of Muhammad, only a few things like his marriage to his adopted son's wife is mentioned in the Quran.

    If you say that Muhammad never his his wife from hadiths, then there is a hadith which shows Muhammad hitting Aisha on the chest in Sahih Muslim.

    And they show him doing worse things like child sexual abuse, mass murdering Jews, forcibly converting idolators etc.

    Why don't you accept those hadiths as well? Huh?

    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Warmongering Islam
     Reply #94 - March 20, 2010, 05:29 PM

    Hi, Rashna., you write so well and prolific in your posts in this forum., I would also suggest you to go through these links and

    http://www.sunniport.com/masabih/index.php?s=49be7b6213e8f21c9c3472919fed8ca8
    http://www.gawaher.com/index.php?showforum=53.html&
    http://www.paklinks.com/gs/

    you may like some of them., So think about getting answers from these guys also ..

    with best regards
    yeezevee

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Re: Warmongering Islam
     Reply #95 - March 20, 2010, 06:39 PM

    Hi, Rashna., you write so well and prolific in your posts in this forum., I would also suggest you to go through these links and

    http://www.sunniport.com/masabih/index.php?s=49be7b6213e8f21c9c3472919fed8ca8
    http://www.gawaher.com/index.php?showforum=53.html&
    http://www.paklinks.com/gs/

    you may like some of them., So think about getting answers from these guys also ..

    with best regards
    yeezevee



    Thanks a lot for those links yeezevee, I might join one of these places sometime. Especially gawahar, I had read about it in Newsweek, apparently that Nigerian underwear bomber was a member there.

    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Warmongering Islam
     Reply #96 - March 20, 2010, 09:43 PM

    abyyunus2, I have searched & found exactly where you say that all scholars agree that wife beating should be a light tap & not leave a mark.

    This is exactly what you say:

    Cool, since you accept that interpretation of scholars on this issue, the majority of scholars throughout history & many even today accept that Sura 9 sanctions offensive war, not defensive war.

    Why don't you accept that?  Huh?

    After all, the Quran doesn't mention "light" at all, it only says beat. Rather an omission from the Creator of the Universe not to mention lightly, don't you think?  Wink

    Plus, I'm curious when you mention that the Prophet didn't hit any of his wives.

    Since you reject hadiths, how much of his life do you know from the Quran? The Quran certainly gives no biography of Muhammad, only a few things like his marriage to his adopted son's wife is mentioned in the Quran.

    If you say that Muhammad never his his wife from hadiths, then there is a hadith which shows Muhammad hitting Aisha on the chest in Sahih Muslim.

    And they show him doing worse things like child sexual abuse, mass murdering Jews, forcibly converting idolators etc.

    Why don't you accept those hadiths as well? Huh?


    He's a hadith rejector and Qur'an only Muslim.

    "The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves."
  • Re: Warmongering Islam
     Reply #97 - March 21, 2010, 02:35 AM

    Oh abuyunus believes in tafsir allright, but only if it suits him.. For example, he does accept that Quran 4:34 justifies wife beating, but he then accepts tafsirs to show that Muslim tafsir writers had generally said that the verse means only a "light tap" & not beating the shit out of one's wife.

    In this case, the tafsir writers say things which agree with his conscience, so he accepts that.  bunny

    However, 4;34 says only "beat" with no comment on how hard or lightly.

    But if it comes to violent verses sanction offensive rather than defensive jihad, he will reject tafsirs coz they accept that these verses sanction fighting not only in self defence, but also to spread Islam.

    He interprets Quran 4:34 as  "beat with only a light tap & cause no injury" because it agrees with his conscience, so he's very happy to use tafsirs which support this position.


    I will create a seperate topic here addressing this issue in detail as I get time.I guess its time to debunk muslim apologist on this.

    Quote from: Rashna
    However, because tafsirs say Sura 9 sanctions offensive warfare, he might reject tafsirs this time, & claim that hadiths & tafsirs both have no credibility.

    If he accepts tafsirs for this sura like he does for wife beating, I'll accept he's no intellectual coward, but if he doesn't, as I suspect he won't, I will know he's an intellectual coward & avoids looking at things at ways which leads to discomfort & angst for his true self.


    If he accepts the tafsirs then he should also accept the tafsir for verses 2:190-194. If he does that then it means that anyone who retaliates against islam being forced upon him then he is considered to fight aggressively against muslims or islam and hence such people deserve to be fought unless they submit to islam.This is what Ibn kathir says. There is no way out of this .

    Anyway its not that tafsirs are really required to prove islam is violent.What about the verses like 9:12,60:2,9:29,8:39 ,9:5,47:35 which prescribe offensive fighting? He cannot ignore them.They are sufficient to prove that islam allows offensive warfare.

  • Re: Warmongering Islam
     Reply #98 - March 21, 2010, 06:17 AM

    JIHAD IS A PILLAR OF ISLAM

    Sahih Bukhari  Volume 1, Book 2, Number 25:

    Narrated Abu Huraira:

    Allah's Apostle was asked, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad).
     The questioner then asked,"What is the next (in goodess)? He replied, "To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause." The questioner again asked, "What is the next (in goodness)?" He replied, "To perform Hajj (Pilgrim age to Mecca) 'Mubrur, (which is accepted by Allah and is performed with the intention of seeking Allah's pleasure only and not to show off and without committing a sin and in accordance with the traditions of the Prophet).[/b]


    Here Jihad is placed before Hajj and immediately after the first pillar i,e faith in Allah and his messenger . A point should be noted that its obligatory for a muslim to do Jihad immediately after he announces faith in the messenger and Allah. I have seen 2-3 hadiths relating to this issue .The position of Jihad varies in each hadith but one thing is certain that they all indicate that Jihad is more important than some of the 5 pillars of islam. In short it wouldnt be wrong if anyone considers Jihad as the one of the 5  pillars of islam.  
  • Re: Warmongering Islam
     Reply #99 - March 21, 2010, 10:11 AM

    He's a hadith rejector and Qur'an only Muslim.


    No its not as clear as that.

    I have no problem with hadith rejectors,as long as they're not hadith cherry pickers as well.

    Abuyunus2 is a hadith cherry picker.

    First, if he's a hadith rejector, how does he know whether or not Muhammad hit any of his wives?

    The Quran doesn't go into any details about his wives at all, doesn't even mention most of them, all we have is a line from Allah threatening Mo's wives with double punishment for disobedience & double reward for obedience.

    So we know that Mo was polygamous.

     Also we know that Allah supposedly gave Mo the right to marry his daughter in law, to teach Muslims that they can marry their adopted son's wives, so we know that one of Mo's wives is his ex  daughter in law.

    Beyond that, what does the Quran say regarding Muhammad's wives?

    Does the Quran say that Mo never hit his wives, that abuyunus2 makes that claim?Does it give a detailed account of his relations with each wife?

    Abuyunus gets the bit, "Mo never hit his wives," from hadiths, & he's wrong about it. Mo did his his wife Aisha.

    Sahih Muslim Book004, No 2127: Narrated Aisha " He hit me on the chest which caused me pain."

    Also, if you've visited his blog, you'll find that he writes that in the Quran & various hadiths, we read that Muslims were persecuted by the pagans, well, if he relies on those hadiths, why doesn't he accept hadiths which show Mo preaching & carrying out offensive wars, forcibly converting pagans?

    Also, he accepts tafsir, so he says that Muslim scholarsc agree that 4:34 means hit very lightly.

    The Quran doesn't say lightly, it says beat, but abuyunus takes "lightly" from tafsirs.

    So most scholars & tafsirs also say that Sura 9 sanctions offensive warfare, not defensive, why doesn't he accept those scholars opinions?

    He accepts what he likes, rejects what he doesn't.



    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Warmongering Islam
     Reply #100 - March 21, 2010, 03:13 PM

    Quote from: Rashna
    Abuyunus gets the bit, "Mo never hit his wives," from hadiths, & he's wrong about it. Mo did his his wife Aisha.

    Sahih Muslim Book004, No 2127: Narrated Aisha " He hit me on the chest which caused me pain."


    Some muslims raise an objection that the hadith is not translated properly.


    Quote from: Answering christianity
    The term used in the hadith is:

    mistranslations_of_hadiths_1.jpg (1768 bytes)

    Imam Nawawi in his Sharh states that:

    image004_11.jpg (3784 bytes)

    The word "lahada" according to the lexicographers means, "to push" (dafa'a).

    The usage of the word "struck" is not a correct translation. Rather, the phrase should be translated as (as sheikh Gf haddad said):


    - He pushed my chest with a push that made me sore


    Secondly, this calls to an important matter that is related to the Hand imposition of the Prophet - Allah bless him - because it is a gesture associated with driving away evil influence (waswâs) and conferring blessing as the following reports show:

    1.  Ubay ibn Ka`b said:

    "There occurred in my mind a sort of denial which did not occur even during the Days of Ignorance. When the Messenger of Allah - Allah bless and greet him - saw how I was affected, he slapped me on the chest. I broke into a sweat and felt as if I were looking at Allâh in fear."   (Sahih Muslim)

    2.  Jarir ibn Abdullah Al Bajalî was sent by the Prophet - Allah bless him - on a mission to destroy Dhu Al Kahalasa, the idol-house of Khatham, nicknamed the Yemenite Kaba. Jarr narrates:

    "I went along with a hundred and fifty horsemen but I could not sit steadily on horse. I mentioned it to the Messenger of Allah - Allah bless and greet  him - who then struck his hand on my chest so hard that I could see the trace of his fingers on it, saying: 'O Allah! Grant him steadfastness and make him a guide of righteousness and a rightly-guided one!'   (Bukhari and Muslim)  

    More proof that the correct translation is   ‘He pushed my chest with a push that made me sore’


    http://www.answering-christianity.com/karim/noble_quran_4_34.htm

    I dont understand arabic but these guys are saying that Lahaba means push and not hit .Well if it was just a push then why would Aisha feel the pain? Now the excuse they will come up with is that it wasnt beating her. Muhhamad slapped her to drive away evil spirit and not because he wanted to hit her for her misconduct so its wise not to use the hadith. I will meanwhile look into the hadith that they quoted.They didnt provide the reference so I need to check  the background of the hadiths they quoted so see if I find any point.
  • Previous page 1 2 3 4« Previous thread | Next thread »