Debate a Muslim

[firedragon]

Disagree, I'm not responding for anyone other than myself.

Then that's not relevant to you, because that question was asked from someone else who made a particular claim.

Have a good day.

 

[firedragon]

Despite all your posturing, it is clear from reading the Koran that Allah considers non-believers to be the enemy,

You can repeat the same bogus claim a 1000 times it doesnt make it true.

 

[Tiberius]

You can repeat the same bogus claim a 1000 times it doesnt make it true.

So you are telling me that never in the Koran does it say that Allah hates unbelievers and he will send them to the fire for a "painful doom"?

 

[firedragon]

So you are telling me that never in the Koran does it say that Allah hates unbelievers and he will send them to the fire for a "painful doom"?

Lol. Tell me first. What is an unbeliever? Since you are posing as some expert in the Quran, I asked you many times.

1. Why is a glove called Kuffar?
2. Why is planting seed called the same?
3. What would be a Kuffar in a court room?

Maybe if you try your best you can be objective rather than being a cut and paste scholar of cherry picked verses. So try.

 

[Tiberius]

Lol. Tell me first. What is an unbeliever? Since you are posing as some expert in the Quran, I asked you many times.

1. Why is a glove called Kuffar?
2. Why is planting seed called the same?
3. What would be a Kuffar in a court room?

Maybe if you try your best you can be objective rather than being a cut and paste scholar of cherry picked verses. So try.

All you can do is play mind games?

If you can't understand that an unbeliever is someone who does not believe in a certain religious faith (Islam, in this case) then I'm not sure what you are doing here.

Or perhaps you can explain to me the proper context of 2:6-7 to explain how it does not say that people who don't believe are going an "awful doom."

Because 2:8 clearly says it is talking about people.

 

[firedragon]

All you can do is play mind games?

Not really. I do play some other games like chess.

If you can't understand that an unbeliever is someone who does not believe in a certain religious faith (Islam, in this case) then I'm not sure what you are doing here.

Thats wrong. So you dont have the education on the subject. Its just that this is what you want to believe since its easier to cut and paste cherry picked verses and come out thinking "I have done it".

Or perhaps you can explain to me the proper context of 2:6-7 to explain how it does not say that people who don't believe are going an "awful doom."

Because 2:8 clearly says it is talking about people.

Finally you have asked a question. Though I do believe that you dont intend to ask but just to malign, I will answer your question.

The first occurrences of the term Kafir occurs in the second chapter of the Quran.

• As for those who Kafaroo , whether you warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe. – Quran 2:6
• Or like a storm cloud from the sky, in it is darkness and thunder and lightning. They place their fingers in their ears from the thunder-claps for fear of death; and God is aware of the Kafirs (Bialkafireena). – Quran 2:1

An exploration of the chapter in concern in context of the surrounding verse will expound the true intention of this allusion. Below you will find a summary of this chapter’s philosophy. This is not rhetoric, you can check the verses from the beginning of the chapter to the verses you are showing.

• The Quran is revealed to the righteous, who believe in the unseen, who believe in this and the previous revelations.
• As for those who see the truth and hide it maliciously commonly referred to as rejecter’s they will not believe in the truth if you inform them or not
• Their hearts and ears are sealed, and they are blind. They will proclaim to believe in God and there’s a last day but only lie.
• They will claim to be good but they will spread corruption. When they meet those who acknowledge the truth they lie saying they do too

There are no references to religions, races or any denomination. A Kafir could be a person who calls himself a Muslim as you can see above that when a Kafir meets one who has acknowledged the truth they lie to you saying they also do accept the truth. Right at the beginning of the Quran God has explained what a Kafir is, therefore it is high time that people woke up and realised that they may have been mistaken all their lives.

Of course it is common that most of us were taught otherwise throughout our lives. The Quran tells you to not follow what your society has taught you blindly.

And if you obey most of those on the earth, they will lead you away from the path of God; that is because they follow conjecture, and that is because they only guess. – Quran 6:115

 

[We Never Know]

Not really. I do play some other games like chess.



Thats wrong. So you dont have the education on the subject. Its just that this is what you want to believe since its easier to cut and paste cherry picked verses and come out thinking "I have done it".



Finally you have asked a question. Though I do believe that you dont intend to ask but just to malign, I will answer your question.

The first occurrences of the term Kafir occurs in the second chapter of the Quran.

• As for those who Kafaroo , whether you warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe. – Quran 2:6
• Or like a storm cloud from the sky, in it is darkness and thunder and lightning. They place their fingers in their ears from the thunder-claps for fear of death; and God is aware of the Kafirs (Bialkafireena). – Quran 2:1

An exploration of the chapter in concern in context of the surrounding verse will expound the true intention of this allusion. Below you will find a summary of this chapter’s philosophy. This is not rhetoric, you can check the verses from the beginning of the chapter to the verses you are showing.

• The Quran is revealed to the righteous, who believe in the unseen, who believe in this and the previous revelations.
• As for those who see the truth and hide it maliciously commonly referred to as rejecter’s they will not believe in the truth if you inform them or not
• Their hearts and ears are sealed, and they are blind. They will proclaim to believe in God and there’s a last day but only lie.
• They will claim to be good but they will spread corruption. When they meet those who acknowledge the truth they lie saying they do too

There are no references to religions, races or any denomination. A Kafir could be a person who calls himself a Muslim as you can see above that when a Kafir meets one who has acknowledged the truth they lie to you saying they also do accept the truth. Right at the beginning of the Quran God has explained what a Kafir is, therefore it is high time that people woke up and realised that they may have been mistaken all their lives.

Of course it is common that most of us were taught otherwise throughout our lives. The Quran tells you to not follow what your society has taught you blindly.

And if you obey most of those on the earth, they will lead you away from the path of God; that is because they follow conjecture, and that is because they only guess. – Quran 6:115

Not to interrupt you all but chess is a great game.
I play here every morning. Its a pretty good site.

Chess.com - Play Chess Online - Free Games

 

[firedragon]

Not to interrupt you all but chess is a great game.
I play here every morning. Its a pretty good site.

Chess.com - Play Chess Online - Free Games

I have played there long ago. Now I just play on the computer. On the Mac there is an inbuilt game. This is just for fun. I used to be ranked major in my school days. But now that you reminded, maybe I should play there at chess.com. Nothing like playing with live players.

If I get addicted its all your fault. Thanks WNK. Its always nice to meet a fellow chess player. Have a good day.

 

[Tiberius]

Finally you have asked a question. Though I do believe that you dont intend to ask but just to malign, I will answer your question.

The first occurrences of the term Kafir occurs in the second chapter of the Quran.

• As for those who Kafaroo , whether you warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe. – Quran 2:6
• Or like a storm cloud from the sky, in it is darkness and thunder and lightning. They place their fingers in their ears from the thunder-claps for fear of death; and God is aware of the Kafirs (Bialkafireena). – Quran 2:1

An exploration of the chapter in concern in context of the surrounding verse will expound the true intention of this allusion. Below you will find a summary of this chapter’s philosophy. This is not rhetoric, you can check the verses from the beginning of the chapter to the verses you are showing.

• The Quran is revealed to the righteous, who believe in the unseen, who believe in this and the previous revelations.
• As for those who see the truth and hide it maliciously commonly referred to as rejecter’s they will not believe in the truth if you inform them or not
• Their hearts and ears are sealed, and they are blind. They will proclaim to believe in God and there’s a last day but only lie.
• They will claim to be good but they will spread corruption. When they meet those who acknowledge the truth they lie saying they do too

There are no references to religions, races or any denomination. A Kafir could be a person who calls himself a Muslim as you can see above that when a Kafir meets one who has acknowledged the truth they lie to you saying they also do accept the truth. Right at the beginning of the Quran God has explained what a Kafir is, therefore it is high time that people woke up and realised that they may have been mistaken all their lives.

Of course it is common that most of us were taught otherwise throughout our lives. The Quran tells you to not follow what your society has taught you blindly.

And if you obey most of those on the earth, they will lead you away from the path of God; that is because they follow conjecture, and that is because they only guess. – Quran 6:115

So you say that it is referring to people who have seen the truth and yet deliberately try to hide it from others? These are the people who will face an awful doom?

 

[firedragon]

So you say that it is referring to people who have seen the truth and yet deliberately try to hide it from others? These are the people who will face an awful doom?

Seen the truth? Can you say what that means?

I will explain what this word means. but you can explain what you mean by "seen the truth" in a post that follows.

If you go to a courtroom and there is a person who owes you money, you file a case, but at courts this person who owes you lies and says he has already paid you. Thats an act of hiding the truth. Thats Kuf.

Kuf is an act of hiding something and depends on the context of what you are saying.

So lets hear what you mean by "seen the truth"?

 

[Tiberius]

Seen the truth? Can you say what that means?

I will explain what this word means. but you can explain what you mean by "seen the truth" in a post that follows.

If you go to a courtroom and there is a person who owes you money, you file a case, but at courts this person who owes you lies and says he has already paid you. Thats an act of hiding the truth. Thats Kuf.

Kuf is an act of hiding something and depends on the context of what you are saying.

So lets hear what you mean by "seen the truth"?

Dude, I'm asking you to explain what your religious text actually means. Can you do it or not?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Pu. Whatever event necessitates a cause for its eventuality,
Pp. The world is an event,
C. Therefore, the world necessities a cause for its eventuality.

I agree to that, but how does it prove that the cause is what is professed as Allah?
"God of the gaps is a theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence." - Wikipedia

 

[firedragon]

Dude, I'm asking you to explain what your religious text actually means. Can you do it or not?

Thats what I just did. I am trying to give you examples to explain what an arabic word means, and I have given you the context of the same verse you quoted from the beginning of the same chapter.

Maybe you didnt take an exploratory approach.

 

[firedragon]

I agree to that, but how does it prove that the cause is what is professed as Allah?
"God of the gaps is a theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence." - Wikipedia

Haha. What this person presented is simple logic, not God of the gaps arguments which is a scientific argument. This is a philosophical argument.

 

[Tiberius]

Thats what I just did. I am trying to give you examples to explain what an arabic word means, and I have given you the context of the same verse you quoted from the beginning of the same chapter.

Maybe you didnt take an exploratory approach.

Okay, dude. Let me tell you something. Asking me about what I think isn't going to tell me squat about what you think. You explain nothing to me when you are asking me questions.

You ask me questions = me giving information to you.

What I want is for you to give information to me.

 

[danieldemol]

- That's a truistic definition. Then what?

Then do you also accept that random gene mutation occurs, producing traits which may be acted on by natural selection?

- This is fallacious. "It is possible that, therefore it is true that" is a fallacy.

Well I did give you 13 examples of where the people had changed the law. Whilst I did not demonstrate that the ideas that the people had that changed the law came from a single individual, it ultimately doesn't matter whether the ideas came from a single individual or from a group of individuals who all thought of the idea at once. The point is a good idea that is not part of the law can become part of the law, therefore if my ideas are demonstrably superior to some aspect of Islamic law then it is the law that should change.

- Bare assertions. You're offering zero justification & zero objection to make your case. Regardless, your contentions are more appropriate to the liberal-capitalism apostates persecuted in the West. You're being an obvious hypocrite.

I ws making a clarification, some times it is necessary to clarify what you are asserting before you demonstrate why it is better. Otherwise confusion would result. My contentions are just as appropriate to the US's persecution of capitalism apostates as it is to the Islamic states' persecution of religious apostates. The Australian state does not persecute apostates from capitalism to my knowledge, so it is not hypocrisy.

- Either way that's unjust. Qadda in Islam (Islamic judiciary) relies on perfect proof in penalties. No perfect proof = no penalty, as the Prophet (pbuh) sanctioned. This still is a non-starter, wrongful conviction does not inform legitimacy or otherwise of the nature of penalty, nor is the opposite true. At best this is a question of proof & evidence.

It is unjust either way, but it is a reversible injustice. And you are reffering to an ideal process. In an Islamic state it is humans who carry out judgement just as much as it is in any Western state, and they are just as capable of feeling murder or other death sentence crimes to be proven then turning out to be wrong later on as humans in western states who carry out such judgements.

- Bare assertion. Dismissed.

It is a self evidently true assertion, if you disagree with it and your aim is to get me saying the shahada for you, then you have to demonstrate why the opposite assertion, that killing people for mere non-treasonous apostasy is justified is true. Otherwise if we can just make up reasons to kill people without any justification what is to stop someone saying killing someone for wearing turbans is justified?

- That's not a point of contention at all in Sharia. Any doubt whatsoever about the offense revokes penalty.

Thats precisely the problem. The humans who run the system often have no doubt, execute the victim then turn out to be wrong. Don't forget Sharia law is implemented by humans, not God (at least not before any alleged judgement day scenario).

- AGAIN, what's your moral basis to make such assertions? & why should we believe your assertions true or even relevant anyways?

The moral basis is compassion. It is not compasionate to kill someone for something they couldn't help, and it is certainly more compasionate to have a system that is to a partial degree reversible if you find out down the track that your complete lack of doubt was unjustified.

- This is just a bunch of words stuck together, where is the rationale?? It's like I'm talking to a robot. If you really believe in the truth of what you're saying then establish it.

The rationale is that it is more compassionate to rectify a defective human than it is to kill them for something which you have so far been either unwilling or unable to demonstrate is their fault.

- "A particular premise, therefore a general conclusion" is a fallacy, false generalization. Validly establish your conclusion first, then you can illustrate it with an particular example.

I looked this one up;
'What is the fallacy of false generalization?

The hasty generalization fallacy is sometimes called the over-generalization fallacy. It is basically making a claim based on evidence that it just too small. Essentially, you can't make a claim and say that something is true if you have only an example or two as evidence.'

So my conclusion was "we don't know with certainty that freewill exists (and there are cases where it pretty obviously does not)". Ok, so lets widen my sample size. Do you know of anyone in the human race who can demonstrate how they know with certainty that freewill exists? If so what was there demonstration, please reproduce it.

- You've really given up on defending your case, haven't you. Where are you getting this from? Why is anything you say relevant at all?

No I have not given up. I'm getting this from debates at RF that to me have demonstrated that rehabilitative justice is preferrable to vengeance based justice. Whether what I say is of any relevance all depends on how badly you want me to say the Shahada. If you do want me to then you have to demonstrate why vengeance based justice is preferrable to rehabilitative justice.

- Prevent & discourage transgressions, in order to protect individual's inviolability & insure public safety.

What statistics do you have to show that the death sentence is an effective deterrant to murder, thereby insuring public safety?

- No! Yours is a strawman however. Your argument was a sci-fi Minority-Report case for neurological based criminal tendencies, in the absence of which the Penal Code would be obsolete, for criminal tendencies would simply disappear. This is irrelevant to death penalty. You haven't even thought this through haven't you. That's why I said your ideas are all incoherent. A sci-fi argument, really?!!!

The tendencies would not disapear, they would become identified by the acts of murder etc, then the individuals would be safely isolated for treatment and rehabilitation. And it is certainly not a sci-fi argument in the case of schizophrenia. As for mirror neuron research and whatever else the future holds it may be closer than you think, which is a good reason not to start pre-emptively killing off people who may soon have treatments available. Besides, in return for living safely isolated they may agree to aid research into these criminal tendencies and rehabilitative treatments. I'm inclined to think if it was your child born with a criminal tendency you would prefer it if they could be treated rather than destroyed if it came to the crunch for you.

- False, this does not inform death penalty's justification one way or another at all. This exclusively informs US capital punishment laws, for more or less leniency. I've seen studies for the opposite as well, not all murders are equal.

It is not false, it is valid statistics, and I would suggest that according to most of the experts, those studies you've seen for the opposite are 'fundamentally flawed'. What is the relevance of not all murders being equal?

- LMAO! Another fantasy argument. Are you for real?! You can't honestly believe your fictions are actually any grounds for any argument!!! Your entire case is a nirvana fallacy. Come back to reality & start over.

As per above, it is not fantasy in the case of schizophrenia.

- Dude, what is wrong with you?! You're literally advocating for a system concerned with the wellbeing of the criminal over the wellbeing of the victim.

Don't forget that you have not yet demonstrated that the death penalty will reduce murders, so the death penalty does nothing to improve the well being of the victim who is already dead. Thus the only person remaining to be concerned with is the well being of the criminal due to compassion.

- False. It's Western Secular Liberal system vs. Islamic system. We are not cherry picking here.

There is no such thing as a monolithic 'Western Secular Liberal system'. There are numerous and diverse examples of secular western liberal systems, Australia is one, the US is one, Switzerland is one. if the US is worse than the Islamic system, but Australia is better than the Islamic system, why should we settle for second best?

- No such thing. Notwithstanding, it's irrelevant to Sharia's 'a soul for a soul' principle.

Again if you want me to take the Shahada you have to demonstrate why such a vengeance based principle is preferrable to compassion based rehabilitative justice.

- Now you're playing dumb. The region is unstable because the West, & particularly the US, is constantly destabilizing it to maintain control; by military interventions – against virtually all countries in the ME (& elsewhere)–, wide support for tyrannical military regimes & colonial occupations (like Israel), pillage of local wealth & resources, & constant foreign interference into the internal affairs of these countries. Wherever the West interferes, instability ensue, wherever their interference stops stability rebounds, such as the case for Southeast Asia.

If an Islamic state is unable to ward of destabilization attempts and foreign interference to provide the necessary stability to protect it's people's rights, wealth and resources then it is demonstrably inferior to modern western states which do manage to ward off such events from the Islamic and other states most of the time.

- Blahblahblah... No such thing. I see you love to fantasize, but you need stop saying very obvious lies to my face please. It's shameless. Western systematic institutions are, by design, EXCLUSIVE. Period. No non-secular non-liberal & non-western worldview or rationale is allowed, EVER. You have conceded, moving on.

Mere assertion. Dismissed

- Yeah, don't. Qualification in education is a Muslim invention, which the West adopted when they adopted university systems from the Islamic world.

Then you will no doubt see why Malik would have to meet modern educational qualifications and not just be allowed to walk in off the street and teach.

- You dodging this by an appeal to ignorance? LOL! This clearly shows your position is born purely of hate & bias. If these were Muslims who did this (like kill their own little children) you would've had something different to say.

I have the same thing to say here about Christians doing it that I have to say about Muslims doing it - That it is a problem motivated largely by religious zeal

In my opinion. More to follow (God willing).

 

[oldbadger]

-
- Cut the childishness. I was being courteous.

But you ain't now!
See ya later...........

 

[firedragon]

Okay, dude. Let me tell you something. Asking me about what I think isn't going to tell me squat about what you think. You explain nothing to me when you are asking me questions.

You ask me questions = me giving information to you.

What I want is for you to give information to me.

given already.

 

[danieldemol]

- Where are your 'qualification' claims just a moment ago? In the Islamic Tradition, one must be qualified to express opinion about a subject, otherwise irrelevant. One must be qualified to issue rulings in any other Law, like French Civil Law, or US Common Law or else. Likewise, one has to master a great many disciplines before one can be qualified to issue rulings in Islamic Law. It is categorically prohibited in Sharia to speak for the religion without qualification, like the Prophet (pbuh) said "whoever interprets the Quran with his opinion without knowledge let him take his seat in Hell Fire".

Nobodys asking you to speak for the whole religion, just asking you to speak for yourself.

- Wow! Such stronk arguments! Much power! I'm defeated X-d . Bare assertion... I take this as a concession. Since you refuse to offer any argument or proofs for your fantasies, let's actually compare the community faith based Islamic system (IS) with the democratic secular Western system (WS) in minority rights which you so profess:

• In principle of freedom of religion
  • IS – minorities are allowed & protected by divine decree based on the sacred right of faith (Deen), a perpetual irrevocable right to guarantee freedom of faith to establish accountability for souls to uphold or reject their covenant of Allah.
  • WS – minorities are allowed & protected by constitutional decree subject to supermajority whims &/or revolutionary changes.
• In religion of the state
  • IS – explicit affirmation of 'Islam is state morality', with recognition of other minority sources of moralities. [non-Muslims are not subject to Sharia]
  • WS – concealment of 'Secularism is state morality' to seem “neutral”, with subjugation all minorities to secular morality, under the pretext of “neutrality” & the slogan of “freedom”. [Separation of Church & State is in truth Subjugation of Church to State – the Church has no power over the State or from it, unless granted otherwise]
• In inviolability for humans
  • IS – all humans, Muslims or non-Muslims, in the Abode of Peace (not at war with Muslims), whether in Muslim land or elsewhere, are granted inviolability (Ismah) in the 6 sacred rights: faith, life, reason, progeny, property & honor.
  • WS – only nationals are granted inviolability, all extra-national humans are not inviolable, thus granted no rights.
• In religious beliefs
  • IS – positive tolerance of minorities’ beliefs with recognition of their exclusive claims.
  • WS – intolerance of minorities’ exclusive beliefs with aim to change them under harmony by annihilation pressure (melting pot). [the 1300 years of Islamic rule it took Christianity to fall 30 points in the Middle East, took only 30 years in France under secular rule]
• In religious practices
  • IS – virtually unconditional freedom of practice to act according to one’s beliefs & morality granted to minorities [Christianity in the Middle East fell less under 13 centuries of Islamic rule (~60%) than it did under the past century alone of secular rule adopted since Colonial times (~75%)].
  • WS – none granted unless with the leave of secular law (in practices of worship for instance), minorities acting thus against one’s beliefs & morality in favor of secular morality. [no practices are allowed in most aspects of morality]
• In justice
  • IS – freedom to establish courts, issue rulings & solve disputes according to their beliefs & morality granted to minorities.
  • WS – none whatsoever [in the rare case of minority courts, they are simply non-binding].
• In law
  • IS – freedom to legislate local laws & issue regulations according to their beliefs & morality is granted to minorities in their territories & communities.
  • WS – none whatsoever, in favor of majority rule – only secular rationale is ever allowed in legislation.
• In administration
  • IS – freedom to enact local policies & establish local fiscal system & tax collection granted to minorities.
  • WS – none whatsoever, in favor of majority rule – only secular rationale is ever allowed in policy.
• In government
  • IS – freedom to establish local administrations, elect local representatives & govern own territories are granted to minorities within their communities.
  • WS – none whatsoever – only majority representatives & state administration are enabled.
• In defense
  • IS – exemption granted to minorities from fighting & dying for causes not congruent with their beliefs against maybe peoples of similar faiths.
  • WS – enslavement of soldiers under coercion to fight for the state against their own faiths & die for causes they don’t believe in against potential brothers in faith.
• In education
  • IS – freedom granted to parents to teach own children & to minorities to establish own education system without interference from the state [unless to undermine its integrity].
  • WS – systematic indoctrination in accordance with liberal secular western values,
  • under the tyranny of the slogan of “freedom”, with strict exclusion of any & all minority incompatible worldviews.
• In thought & speech
  • IS – freedom of participation & exchange of challenging ideas & non-Muslim worldview & granted to minorities in academic sphere, with ban of propaganda & proselytization in public sphere [where it’s easy to prey on weak-minded & impressionable people].
  • WS – ban of participation & exchange of non-secular non-liberal non-western worldview from any minority in academic sphere, with freedom granted to propaganda & proselytization in public sphere [where ideas are irrelevant to academia & Thought]
• In language
  • IS – preservation of minority languages is natural in a community based system, where language never dies [Berbers in North Africa still speak Berber despite 13 centuries under Islamic rule, even though their language was not a written language]
  • WS – native languages disappear within 3 generations under the amazing “melting pot” tyranny.
• In culture
  • IS – local customs & minority cultures is conserved in a community based system [there are more than 50 different millennias-old native ethnic groups in the Middle East today with their own languages & customs & territories conserved thanks to 13 centuries of Islamic rule, (knowing many have disappeared during the last century because of secular rule)]
  • WS – harmony by annihilation, aka “melting pot”. No native cultures or customs can be conserved.

I note that you compared your ideal values to the worst examples of excesses of western states as opposed to comparing the best practical examples of Islamic states to the best examples of western states.
I also note that the devil is in the details with respect to law. For example according to my understanding only recognised religions are granted protected minority status. So what happens if for example a group of people that religiously believe in the allowabilty of monogamous gay relationships? Will there law be recognised or will Islamic law take precedence. What about a group of non-religious people, whose law do they live by? Finally what about in the case of recognised religions where there is a clash between Islamic law and say for example Christian law, which takes precedence?

- You're missing the point. If your enemy knows his life is not in danger upon capture, the martial edge systematically tips in his favor.

But he doesn't know that combat will result in capture and isolation, he could be killed in combat in which case any deterrant effect of fear of death is still present.

- Tell me more about this western state giving free citizenships to spies. If you were going to lie, don't make it too obvious.

Shame on you for considering a bunch of innocent people building a temple to carry out there religious rites as 'spies'

- I'm sure that's what your wishful thinking is telling you. Islamic empires dominated global economy, trade, political dominion, science, innovation, & thought for over 10 centuries. The West has been at his for barely 2 centuries & they are already ceding their dominion back to pre-19th powers.

I'm not sure why you see ceding dominion of territories external to the state as a problem. Ceding dominion of territories external to the state allows for people to self govern and I see that principle as a noble one.

In my opinion

 

[danieldemol]

Then that's not relevant to you, because that question was asked from someone else who made a particular claim.

Have a good day.

You still haven't answered the question, how are they supposed to know without referring to non-historical hadith and sira?
In my opinion