Muhammad's Quran challenged by Arielmessenger (ritual, moral, punishment, Earth)

[Booko]

Originally Posted by *Paul*

1. [4.76] Those who believe fight in the way of Allah, and those who disbelieve fight in the way of the Shaitan. Fight therefore against the friends of the Shaitan; surely the strategy of the Shaitan is weak.
2. [4.84] Fight then in Allah's way; this is not imposed on you except In relation to yourself, and rouse the believers to ardor maybe Allah will restrain the fighting of those who disbelieve and Allah is strongest in prowess and strongest to give an exemplary punishment.
3. also if a muslim considers himself to be persecuted:
4. [8.39] And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.
5. [9.29] 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.
6. [9.36] Surely the number of months with Allah is twelve months in Allah's ordinance since the day when He created the heavens and the earth, of these four being sacred; that is the right reckoning; therefore be not unjust to yourselves regarding them, and fight the polytheists all together as they fight you all together; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).
7. 9.123] O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).
8. [48.16] Say to those of the dwellers of the desert who were left behind: You shall soon be invited (to fight) against a people possessing mighty prowess; you will fight against them until they submit; then if you obey, Allah will grant you a good reward; and if you turn back as you turned back before, He will punish you with a painful punishment.
9. [4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
10. [9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
11. [5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,

I suppose some of these are rules of warfare but the trouble is that a hell of a lot of muslims believe they are in a war.

OK, well it's obvious that you have access to a concordance that includes the Quran and can correctly type the word "fight." That's a start.

Now please take these disparate suras, one at a time, with some textual and historical context, and explain how you believe they demonstrate inherent violence in Islam in general.

I look forward to your exposition.

[arielmessenger]

Organized religionists will of course be offended by someone who states their organized religions are responsible for misleading believers but I stand behind the judgment of history. If traditional organized religions could have brought peace into the world they would have done so by now, they've had plenty of time to test their doctrines.

There isn't two or three or four spiritual truths. There is one and that one will rise to the top of all the rest regardless of traditional religious inertia. We are in the Information Age and the fatal flaws within each religion will become known to the world. It is just a matter of time before Islam goes through the same process that challlenged and changed Christianity.

Each traditional Abrahamic religion has been built on intellectual fraud. There was no "Adam" and "Eve", no "Noah", no Abraham, no Moses, no David, no Solomon, no Jesus Christ of the Gospel accounts.

The religionists who know their religions are based on mythical events will have little trouble keeping their faiths but those religionists whose religion is based on inerrancy of the doctrine, well, they are in for the shock of disillusionment once they discover their cherished beliefs are bogus or worse yet, borrowed from pagans, e.g. the story of Noah borrowed from the Sumerian/Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh.

God has gotten tired of the same ol' same ol, with the prophets and their conflicting Words of God and so someone new is sent to chuck out the old wineskins and replace them with a new one that will not leak. Thus the new Religion of Peace has been born who's only unwritten law is this:

"Everything people make into weapons against peace must be sacrificed. Truth cannot be sacrificed."

This means even Scriptures that historically have led men into acts of violence against their neighbors must be sacrificed, so that others may live, so that others can have life and have it more abundantly.

If Muslims and Muslim apologists want to see a Muslim repeat of the fate that happened to the Roman Catholic Church and the Communist Revolution, continue on oblivious to criticisms of Muhammad's totalitarian religious instructions. But actually, that will never happen because Islam will be forced to go through its needed Reformation as soon as Muslims realize they cannot practice Islamic Sharia social laws in Western democratic countries, only in their own Muslim majority countries where democracy can be kept at bay with majority rule social pressure and if need be, with Muslim violence against Muslim defectors.

You've seen a taste of the Muslim territorial agenda here in Muhammad's Islamic religion when someone asked what happens when a Muslim wants to convert to another religion. As Muslims confront Western ideas more and more they will either withdraw into more orthodox and unquestioning belief or become confused by democratic choice, believing Islam can be compatible with religious and social freedom when of course it cannot.

Muslims are on the hotseat because so many Muslims in the world are acting like savages. It gets old hearing those who say "What's the problem? Islam is a religion of peace. It's only a few bad apples that giving the religion a bad name."

It was only a few bad apples who gave us the Roman Catholic Church, the Third Reich, the Soviet Union, the Iraqi War, yet millions died. I do not accept the irresponsible scapegoating of believers for bad instructions given them in the first place.

Time for a change in religious instructions that really do create peace and not put bandaids on broken theologies and ideologies that have long since lost their moral authority.

[*Paul*]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Booko

OK, well it's obvious that you have access to a concordance that includes the Quran and can correctly type the word "fight." That's a start.

Sure, I've read much of the koran before and remember what it said but I can't remember which suras said what so a concordance is useful.

Now please take these disparate suras, one at a time, with some textual and historical context, and explain how you believe they demonstrate inherent violence in Islam in general.

If you look at the question i responded to no explanation was asked just a list of verses which i have supplied and for which the interpretation of them is obviously open as different muslims say they mean different things, so you could quote different scholars to make them say different things depending on you particular bias. I know that they are to do with warfare and even self defense, I said that if you notice. The trouble is that some muslims are able to make a very good case that they are at war now against the great shaitan and it's allies, you know, we are on their land and we have no right, we have some land that used to be theirs once, we are supporting the growth and flourishing of Zionism, we are holding female muslims captive we are supproting the oppresion of the "palestinians" etc. If there were a definite meaning to these verses then there wouldn't be a problem.

[Mujahid Mohammed]

Originally Posted by arielmessenger

Islam is one of the traditional Abrahamic religions that is now facing its "End Times" due to its theology and morality being inadequate to deal with modern social problems.

On this thread RF members can ask the hard questions of both Muhammad's Islam and my criticisms of Muhammad and his book.

One of the first criticisms I and most non-Muslims have is how on earth Muslims can claim Islam is a religion of peace when the Quran urges Muslims to fight until all worship Allah who's definition and spiritual instructions are supposedly based upon Jewish scriptures interpreted by one man and a non-Jewish man at that.

YOU FORGOT THE EVIDENCE where is your evidence from the Quran and Sunnah. who exactly does it urge muslims to fight and answer the question why allow the jews to live in Medinah. why have the convenant and asking those living under the protection of the Muslim state who do not have to fight but the muslims will defend them pay the jizyah. If we are to just fight them until all worship Allah. why are these things in Shariah if that is the case. Why did not Muhammed just kill all the jews in Medinah. why did he allow them to live there in with them under the conditions of the covenant. Why didn't Omar fight and kill and the people in Jerusalem.

[Mujahid Mohammed]

Originally Posted by comprehend

I have read the same thing from Muslim scholars:



His book is accepted even in orthodox Muslim practice, in his book is this quote:

In terms of Jihad first you must determine the linguistic and now religious meaning. First Jihad linguistically does not mean fighting. It means struggle. Struggle for the sake of Allah and his religion. Now the final jihad is the jihad of fighting which can only be obtained when one conquers the jihad of Nafs (desires). this is the first and most important jihad. There are many types of Jihad. Many many types. The Prophet told one of the companions who wanted to go out on a Ghazwat (battle) The prophet asked him are you parents still alive. The Sahabi said yes. The Prophet said go and be dutiful to them that is your jihad.

But now a days jihad is always looked at in the context of war. We as muslims understand it as that but on a different level. Now the question is when is Qital (fighting) allowed and what are the limits set up by Allah and his Messenger and what is the order of revelation concerning the ayats of jihad. For their was an order in which they were given and none of the ayat were left out just added on depending on situation.

People forget the Muslims for over 14 years were not allowed to fight but to just be patient and deal with the murder and persecution of those who chose to follow Muhammed. Everybody forgets that. And then when they were allowed to fight they had limits in the things they could do.

Are the quotes I have found authentic and are they a legitimate source to read from?

They are but you have to have everything together. You need to know the history and the tafsir of the Quran and the order of revelation to get a good idea of how it came to be and what is the ruling. The ruling is yes fight till the religion of Allah is victorious but how, and who are we to fight. And what took place to mandate the fighting. these things need to be taken into context. The Quran in terms of revelation is not in order the first verses revealed to Muhammed is not in Surah Baqarah it is in Surah Alaq. Just the first 5 verses. so when you read it it is not in order in terms of the revelation. That is why you need the tafsir. There are many things you must learn first before you just jump right into the fiqh rulings and say O.K. this is jihad. We have many many statements of the Prophet Muhammed concerning different levels of Jihad.

We just cannot go out and start killing non muslims if they do not accept Islam. the accepting of it will never be accepted by Allah. There are conditions even for the Shahadah (professing the faith of Islam). The most important is the intention. Are you accepting Islam solely for Allah or are you doing it because someone put a gun or sword to your head. think about it.

I beleive many of us have already covered this issue.

[Mujahid Mohammed]

Originally Posted by *Paul*

1. [4.76] Those who believe fight in the way of Allah, and those who disbelieve fight in the way of the Shaitan. Fight therefore against the friends of the Shaitan; surely the strategy of the Shaitan is weak.
2. [4.84] Fight then in Allah's way; this is not imposed on you except In relation to yourself, and rouse the believers to ardor maybe Allah will restrain the fighting of those who disbelieve and Allah is strongest in prowess and strongest to give an exemplary punishment.
3. also if a muslim considers himself to be persecuted:
4. [8.39] And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.
5. [9.29] 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.
6. [9.36] Surely the number of months with Allah is twelve months in Allah's ordinance since the day when He created the heavens and the earth, of these four being sacred; that is the right reckoning; therefore be not unjust to yourselves regarding them, and fight the polytheists all together as they fight you all together; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).
7. 9.123] O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).
8. [48.16] Say to those of the dwellers of the desert who were left behind: You shall soon be invited (to fight) against a people possessing mighty prowess; you will fight against them until they submit; then if you obey, Allah will grant you a good reward; and if you turn back as you turned back before, He will punish you with a painful punishment.
9. [4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
10. [9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
11. [5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,

I suppose some of these are rules of warfare but the trouble is that a hell of a lot of muslims believe they are in a war.

Where is the tafsir of this ayat and what is the order of revelation for these verses. If you do not know the order, the history surrounding the events, or the context of the verse then stop just putting verses out there. who specifically were these verses talking about. what was going on. who were the muslims fighting at this time. what were they doing to mandate this from Allah. give me that first

I mean you didn't even list the first verse concerning Jihad a verse that was never abrogated. Come on man.

[Mujahid Mohammed]

Originally Posted by *Paul*

Sure, I've read much of the koran before and remember what it said but I can't remember which suras said what so a concordance is useful.

Much but not all obviously.

If you look at the question i responded to no explanation was asked just a list of verses which i have supplied and for which the interpretation of them is obviously open as different muslims say they mean different things,

No real muslim cares what other muslims think concerning these verses. What does Allah and His Messenger say. That is Islam anything outside of that is garbage. If someone comes along and is muslim and says hey suicide bombing is the fastest way to martyrdom and we have an authentic hadith from the Prophet saying those who ended their life will be punished with what they killed themself with till the Day of Judgment what is more logical or in lines with our religion.
Duh I think the answer is obvious. so whose testimony is more valid THE MESSENGER or just some fool who tries to determine the meanings of the Quran and Islam through his own very limited and perverted knowledge.

so you could quote different scholars to make them say different things depending on you particular bias.

It doesn't matter what a scholar thinks the greatest scholars of Islam always said there opinion is the same as what the Messenger said. Imam shafie said my opinion is what is based on the authentic hadith.

I know that they are to do with warfare and even self defense, I said that if you notice. The trouble is that some muslims are able to make a very good case that they are at war now against the great shaitan and it's allies, you know, we are on their land and we have no right, we have some land that used to be theirs once,

that is not the issue. The issue is are they transgressing the limits set up by Allah and His Messenger. Yes, they are being oppressed and killed and it seems the World Super Powers are against the Muslims. So is the answer is do something unIslamic and kill civilians that makes it better right. No way. We still have to do what is commanded regardless of the condition or circumstances. there are rules and regulations governing us in every aspect of our lives. Even warfare, you just cannot accept the Ideology of any general and go with it. Exterminate whoever just because they are not you or they are like the ones oppressing you. so if Jews are killing muslims I am just supposed to go out and kill jews. One of my best friends is an Israeli.

we are supporting the growth and flourishing of Zionism, we are holding female muslims captive we are supproting the oppresion of the "palestinians" etc. If there were a definite meaning to these verses then there wouldn't be a problem.

There is a definite meaning and definite context. Insha Allah I will finish my post about the history of Islam from Abraham to Muhammed. I am almost done with Abraham and will start with the story of Muhammed next. Insha Allah that may help in terms of your understandind of the context of Quran. for Quran was revealed for many reasons one is to answer what was going on or in relation to an event or addressing a certain group the muslims were up against.

[Booko]

Originally Posted by *Paul*

Sure, I've read much of the koran before and remember what it said but I can't remember which suras said what so a concordance is useful.

If you had the idea I was criticizing you for using a concordance, you were mistaken. Concordances are very useful tools -- as a first step on the way to understanding a text. But then you have to take the next step.

If you look at the question i responded to no explanation was asked just a list of verses which i have supplied and for which the interpretation of them is obviously open as different muslims say they mean different things, so you could quote different scholars to make them say different things depending on you particular bias.

Actually, I'm less interested in what scholars have to say on the matter as I'm interested in taking a look at the wider text to see what meaning surrounds those individual verses. That would include historical context, as much as we can find it.

You see, I've seen some pretty silly things done with the Bible's texts by ripping out individual verses and using them to "prove" some damaging point about either Christianity or Judaism.

But then, when you look a few verses before and after, you find it's not quite what you'd think.

It's a poor hermeneutic, and the sort of thing I have a bad habit of questioning when I see it. I've no idea if that's what you had in mind, but if it wasn't, I'm sure you'll clear it up for me (and thanks in advance, I'd add!)

I have no problem if anyone wants to criticize another religion's texts. But I do question when people appear to be taking things out of context to use as a hammer against others. It's bad scholarship.

I know that they are to do with warfare and even self defense, I said that if you notice. The trouble is that some muslims are able to make a very good case that they are at war now against the great shaitan and it's allies, you know, we are on their land and we have no right, we have some land that used to be theirs once, we are supporting the growth and flourishing of Zionism, we are holding female muslims captive we are supproting the oppresion of the "palestinians" etc. If there were a definite meaning to these verses then there wouldn't be a problem.

Without the wider context, I would not say that it's obvious they're even about war. "Jihad", for one notable example, is a term that has become notorious in the West, simply because we have not bothered to understand its wider meaning. If "war" means to strive to become a better person and treat others fairly and with honesty, then sign me up to join the Jihad.

Working under the assumption that God is infallable and humans are fallible (which I assume is a belief we both share?) I can only observe that their is no perfect message God can give us that, in our fallibility, we cannot screw up.

The history of religions (pick any) should show that this is not only possible, but inevitable.

So if your intent is to criticize Islam because Muslims have done this, I would suggest you look to your own religious house first.

If that wasn't your intent, then we're off to a completely different discussion, eh?

Either way is fine.

[Booko]

Originally Posted by Mujahid Mohammed

YOU FORGOT THE EVIDENCE where is your evidence from the Quran and Sunnah. who exactly does it urge muslims to fight and answer the question why allow the jews to live in Medinah. why have the convenant and asking those living under the protection of the Muslim state who do not have to fight but the muslims will defend them pay the jizyah. If we are to just fight them until all worship Allah. why are these things in Shariah if that is the case. Why did not Muhammed just kill all the jews in Medinah. why did he allow them to live there in with them under the conditions of the covenant. Why didn't Omar fight and kill and the people in Jerusalem.

These are all excellent questions and I look forward to seeing the conversation develop.

And thanks for saving me the time for having to ask them myself.

[Booko]

Originally Posted by Mujahid Mohammed

People forget the Muslims for over 14 years were not allowed to fight but to just be patient and deal with the murder and persecution of those who chose to follow Muhammed. Everybody forgets that. And then when they were allowed to fight they had limits in the things they could do.

Actually, they don't forget it, for that would imply they actually knew it in the first place.

In the West, we have no education about the history of Islam that is worth anything, except in a few college history courses. We don't run into it in our daily lives when meeting people, except for a few people who are on places like RF and just happen to meet someone who has some knowledge in the area (that doesn't happen much either).

The only reason I know anything about it is because I'm a hopeless book addict and did some reading on the subject while digging around the stacks at a couple of university libraries I had access to. And what I know is really tiny -- it's just enough to understand just how much we *don't* know here.

They are but you have to have everything together. You need to know the history and the tafsir of the Quran and the order of revelation to get a good idea of how it came to be and what is the ruling.

Knowledge about how Muhammad (pbuh) handled these situations Himself is very important, I think, for if there's any question about how to understand something, looking to what Muhammad did shows how He meant something to be understood.

The ruling is yes fight till the religion of Allah is victorious but how, and who are we to fight.

Indeed. One could "fight with the sword of the tongue." Or with kindness and charity, or patient explanations for those who are interested.

To imagine that "fighting" only involves armaments is, frankly, wrongheaded.

To my fellow Americans, I would point out that President Johnson declared a "War on Poverty" but I don't think he meant to eliminate poverty by killing all the poor people.

We just cannot go out and start killing non muslims if they do not accept Islam. the accepting of it will never be accepted by Allah. There are conditions even for the Shahadah (professing the faith of Islam). The most important is the intention. Are you accepting Islam solely for Allah or are you doing it because someone put a gun or sword to your head. think about it.

I beleive many of us have already covered this issue.

Unfortunately, it is likely to have to be covered again and again, because there is such a lack of good information available. But don't worry -- the information you present will continue to spread over time.