Qur'an 2:256 and the sophistry it inspires.

[JerryMyers]

Except in this case. The qur'an also tells us that they were running away "while the prophet called them from behind".

Therefore, they had to disobey the prophet in order to obey Allah. This episode also brings up the question of why Mohamed didn't know that Allah had caused his troops to flee. The more you study the qur'an, the less sense it makes.

Not really. In fact, the more you study the Quran in its proper contexts and take into account the time period, cultures, and the circumstances of the time those verses were revealed, the more sense it makes. Of course, it also goes without saying, it also needs rational and logical thinking.

However, if you study the Quran just based on what you read (which is properly what you are doing), then, yes, the less sense it makes. Then again, this does not apply only to the Quran, it also applies to all scriptures, including the Bible.

Quran 3:152 is mainly referring to the group of Muslim archers whom the Prophet ordered to position themselves strategically on a hill. This group of archers is the one who quarreled among themselves, abandoned their position (thus disobeying the Prophet’s order), and went for the booty.

Quran 3:153 is mainly referring to the other Muslim followers who were somewhere else and some with Muhammad. When faced with a surprise 2-pronged attack, this group of Muslim followers scattered and Muhammad found himself with just a small group of about 10-12 followers. It was this group of fleeing followers who Muhammad called from behind, NOT to the group of archers who disobeyed the Prophet and abandoned their position (for the booty) which enabled the enemies to launch a 2-pronged attack on the Muslims.

How could Muhammad have known that Allah had caused his troops, that is, the followers who he had ordered to position themselves on the hill, to flee? No one, including prophets, know what Allah plans to do except Himself.

 

[KWED]

Why not?? The basic definition of politics is about living together and making decisions. Since God is the Supreme Creator, why wouldn’t He give His creation, Man the guidance of the do’s and the don’ts and make better decisions?? You can say God’s Revelation to Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad is like a manual on how Man should lead his life on earth and how to achieve everlasting life in the afterlife. When a new invention hit the stores, don’t you expect it comes with a manual??

You are conflating two separate issues here. God revealing his final, perfect, complete guide for all mankind is not the same thing as interfering in the affairs of humans. I know that, according to Islam, he does interfere, but I was asking why he does. This also touches on the free-will paradox.

So said you…. which itself is a meaningless platitude and demonstrably false.

Hmm. Seems like you don't understand what "meaningless platitude" or "demonstrably false".

God revealing so many passages about wars of the past DOES NOT mean God started all those wars

Never claimed he did. However, it is undeniable that people have used god's words about fighting and violence to justify inflicting violence on others.
As god is omniscient, omnipotent, and determines the outcome of all affairs by his decree, he therefore knew people would use the Quran to justify violent intolerance so he could have worded it differently or done something to prevent it, but he didn't. Therefore the outcome is what he wants.

– that’s like saying the author who wrote a history of past wars started those wars or has something to do with those wars!

No it isn't. lol. Remember what god is and what he does. He created the universe according to his own plan, including evert event that happens, and as you just admitted, he plays politics and interferes in the affairs of man.

A better analogy would be Churchill's autobiography.

Yes, subjective issue IF you don’t know the cause.

Knowing the cause can explain the cowardly retreat, but if people run away because they are scared, it is still a cowardly retreat.

In Quran 3:152, it’s clearly stated God made them flee from that battle, so it’s not a cowardly retreat as it was not on their own initiative but God made them flee to save them from being slaughtered.

So you admit that god makes people do things against. He can make people fun away and he can make them fight.

Fighting in the way of God is very different from fighting because of God.

Is it? How so?

‘Fighting because of God’ would mean you do not know why you are fighting but you fight because God told you to fight,

Like what god did to the Muslim army in 3:152. The people concerned are not responsible for their action.

A good example of this is many Russian soldiers do not know why they are fighting the Ukrainians but they find themselves in battles with the Ukrainians because Putin commanded them so. In other words, they fight because of Putin.

Some of the, not all. But that is generally the case. Soldiers fight because they are ordered to - but if they signed up voluntarily they knew that it is a fundamental part of their job. It is nothing like people who do things because god is controlling their actions.

‘Fighting in the way of God’ means you are practicing the way of life as prescribed by God (eg, praying 5 times a day, fasting in the month of Ramadan, and so on) but some groups took offense at your way of life and when this escalates to actual fighting, then, it’s said you are fighting in the way of God as you are defending your right to be a practicing Muslim.

A somewhat disingenuous claim. During Muhammad's lifetime he invaded and conquered much of the Arabian peninsula. You cannot claim this was all done in "self-defence". It was aggressive, military expansionism. Plain and simple.

So, yes, no wars were fought because of God and I did not change my mind on that.

I think you are attempting to redefine "because".
If Allah/Islam is the reason for fighting, then the fighting is because of Allah/Islam. After all, that is literally the definition of "because".

I never say nor imply that God regards self-defense as an act of aggression although an act of aggression can be an act of self-defense, like when the hunter became the hunted.

The Quran permits fighting against those who fight against the Muslims.
If a Muslim army marches into another people's land and the people resist the invasion, that then allows the Muslim army to fight the defenders.
This is clearly regarding defensive action as aggression and legitimises the fighting.
If Allah really wanted to avoid fighting he should have said "and do not invade other people's land" in the Quran.

Like what example are you referring to? The advice of never disobeying the Prophet (or for that matter, any prophets of God) is universal and timeless.

So any command or instruction he ever gave still applies?
What about his practical and moral example though? Is everything he did still morally acceptable today?

It's not that you cannot criticize the actions of Muhammad, the fact is, there is nothing you can criticize him about!

More obvious nonsense.
I can criticise his beheading hundred of unarmed prisoners.
I can criticise him allowing his men to use captive women for sex.
I can criticise him torturing people to death.
I can criticise him owning slaves.
I can criticise him having sex with a child.

Presumably you consider all those things morally and practically acceptable, in principle.

All the criticisms that you read and heard are from the haters of Muhammad and Islam, and this has been happening since the 7th century! Nothing new nor is it alarming…. It’s like getting used to hearing Trump and his supporters shouting the last presidential election was rigged and Biden did not win and in both cases just wild claims and zero evidence.

All the things I find objectionable about Muhammad come directly from authentic Islamic texts. Are you calling people like imam Bukhari and ibn Ishaq "haters of Muhammad and Islam"? Yikes!

However, there are also many non-Muslims who are unbiased and recognize the greatness of Muhammad. Here are 2 of these folks:
1. Pringle Kennedy (Arabian Society at the Time of Muhammad, pp.8, 10, 18, 21):

Muhammad was, to use a striking expression, the man of the hour. In order to understand his wonderful success, one must study the conditions of his times…..

….. How, in a few years, all this was changed, how, by 650 AD a great part of this world became a different world from what it had been before, is one of the most remarkable chapters in human history …. This wonderful change followed, if it was not mainly caused by, the life of one man, the Prophet of Mecca ….

2. Michael H Hart in his book, The 100, has ranked the great men in history with respect to their influence on human history. He ranked the Holy Prophet Muhammad as the most influential man in human history. He wrote the following about the Holy Prophet Muhammad, “My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world’s most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular levels”.

He was clearly a charismatic and effective spiritual, social and military leader. There have been many such people throughout history, and some of them were monsters who would be tried for war crimes today.

As for Hart's list, people like Hitler, Stalin and Mao are on there as well. It is a list of influence on history, not of character.

Again, displaying zero knowledge of Islam.

That doesn't make sense. I clearly showed that I have knowledge of the contents of the Quran - therefore not zero knowledge. Plus all the other stuff I've mentioned.
Or maybe "zero" is another of those words that don't mean what you think they mean.

Yes, it’s considered honorable to die fighting in Allah’s cause, but that does NOT mean you intentionally allow the enemies to slay you

Another straw man. I never made that claim. The Quran is quite clear about the honour and privilege of dying while fighting in Allah's cause, so not sure what your argument is.

– that’s suicide!! If you do that, chances are you will end up in Hell as committing suicide is a serious sin in Islam.

So it is a sin to go into battle against a superior enemy. It is a sin to be at the front of a charge against enemy lines. Are you sure?

No, it's not. Refusing to reveal what you believe in as the truth IS a cop-out. Period.

No idea what you are referring to here.

Let me ask you a simple question – Why do you think students must sit for tests to graduate when the answers to those test questions are easily accessible or already known to the examiners who mark those test papers anyway??

Erm, because the examination board does not know the level of knowledge of the student, or their ability to explain it.
God already knows exactly how everyone will act in every given situation, and he cannot be wrong. Sometimes he even makes then act that way (as you admitted earlier).
If every examiner knew the exact result every student would get, down the every word of every answer because they infallibly knew the future, there would't be any exams. They would be utterly pointless.
Pretty basic stuff, tbh.

 

[KWED]

Not really. In fact, the more you study the Quran in its proper contexts and take into account the time period, cultures, and the circumstances of the time those verses were revealed, the more sense it makes. Of course, it also goes without saying, it also needs rational and logical thinking.

However, if you study the Quran just based on what you read (which is properly what you are doing), then, yes, the less sense it makes. Then again, this does not apply only to the Quran, it also applies to all scriptures, including the Bible.

Quran 3:152 is mainly referring to the group of Muslim archers whom the Prophet ordered to position themselves strategically on a hill. This group of archers is the one who quarreled among themselves, abandoned their position (thus disobeying the Prophet’s order), and went for the booty.

Quran 3:153 is mainly referring to the other Muslim followers who were somewhere else and some with Muhammad. When faced with a surprise 2-pronged attack, this group of Muslim followers scattered and Muhammad found himself with just a small group of about 10-12 followers. It was this group of fleeing followers who Muhammad called from behind, NOT to the group of archers who disobeyed the Prophet and abandoned their position (for the booty) which enabled the enemies to launch a 2-pronged attack on the Muslims.

How could Muhammad have known that Allah had caused his troops, that is, the followers who he had ordered to position themselves on the hill, to flee? No one, including prophets, know what Allah plans to do except Himself.

So Allah made the Muslim soldiers in the valley retreat, but Muhammad called them to come back.
So Muhammad was unaware of Allah's plan (because being omniscient, he always knew this would happen and decreed it) and he was effectively telling the Muslims to disobey Allah.
Interesting.

 

[KWED]

Your original comment which was an observation too was ONLY about repetitive verses/passages in the Quran, so, I made a similar observation too about the Bible, in case you missed that the Bible too has repetitive verses/passages. Did I quote any Biblical verses? No. It was simply to show you the similarities, so what’s the big deal about the Quran having repetitive verses/passages when other scriptures like the Bible have repetitive verses/passages – that’s the point!

That still doesn't address my point. Pointing out that your friend also stole a car doesn't explain why you stole one. And the issue wasn't about repetition, it was about irrelevancy.

So I'll ask again...
"Why does a book that is meant to be the final, perfect, unchangeable guide for all people and all times, spend so much time describing past events that apologists tell us have no bearing on life today."

Typical response from someone who doesn’t understand Islam and just trying to belittle the Quran.

It was a question based on your response. I assumed there was a reason why you compared the Quran to the Bible.

Similarities between the Quran and the Bible do NOT mean the Quran copied the Bible, it means the Quran is confirming those passages of the Bible (that the Quran repeated) as true.

Sounds a like using the Bible as a source to me.

If someone wrote an article about the Titanic and wrote the ship sank after hitting an iceberg, and years later someone else wrote another article about the Titanic and also wrote the ship sank after hitting an iceberg, thus that means he was copying from the first writer?? Obviously not as the second writer is confirming the fact and what the first writer wrote.

Another poor analogy.
A better one would be someone writing a novel, and then years later someone writes another one with some of the exact same plot elements. The second author would be accused of plagiarism.
It is undeniable that the Quran contains some of the same stories as the Quran, so not sure what you point is.

And who are these so-called apologists? Care to share who they are and their writings??

It is anyone who says things like "things were different then" or you have to "take into account the time period, cultures, and the circumstances of the time those verses were revealed".

What’s so puzzling about that??

I explained. Do you want me to go over it again?

But if you do find another Revelation from God and He reveals that to some lucky chap and all religious Muslim and Christian scholars are in consensus agreement that is true, you let me know.

Are all scholars of all other religions in agreement that The Quran is true? No, so your challenge is meaningless.
However, I can produce "revelations from god" revealed after the Quran whose followers are as convinced are true as you are about the Quran. So do you accept they are genuine? If not, why not?

Question is – why would God change His Mind??

No it isn't. The question is can god change his mind. If the answer is "yes", then you cannot claim that the Quran is definitely god's final message.

Many people claimed they received revelation from God, but none have been proven legit. How do you think religions came to existence??

Indeed. I fully agree with you.

No, not really. The truth is always right because it came from God, but the right (which is a question from whose perspective) is NOT necessarily the truth.

I was using "right" to mean "correct", not "morally acceptable". Morals do not deal with truth or accuracy or information.

You cannot go to a person and said “I don’t believe in your speech this morning. I want to know why you said what you said!”. You need to be specific about which part of his speech you don’t like. Likewise, you cannot come to me and demand you want to know why I believe that when I am not sure which ‘that’ are you talking about.
So the real question is – which one of my beliefs do you perceive as NOT the truth and can you back up what you perceived as not the truth?

Erm, your belief that Allah exists and revealed the Quran and its contents are true Thought that was pretty obvious.

Now, if you only think some of it is true, I'd be interested to know which bits.

Why won't you even reveal what you believe in?? Sounds like a cop-out to me.

Because it is an attempt at a red herring.
However, in this context, I don't have any beliefs.

Why would you say that? Of course, knowing what you believe is relevant to me, or else I am wasting time explaining to someone about God when that someone may not believe in God, to begin with – that’s like doing card tricks in front of someone who turns out to be totally blind!

You seem to be getting thoroughly confused here.
You are making a claim (that Islam is true). I want you to explain why you believe your claim is true. My position is irrelevant to why you believe what you believe.

Also, your argument is doubly incoherent because it implies that Muslims shouldn't try and convince non-Muslims that Islam is true. It's kinda what Muhammad spent his last two decades doing. Do you think he was "wasting time"?

That’s a laugh!! What ‘rational and evident-based, referencing scripture and other sources’ arguments have you presented so far??? Please refresh my memory!

Feel free to browse my posting history.

 

[stevecanuck]

Not really. In fact, the more you study the Quran in its proper contexts and take into account the time period, cultures, and the circumstances of the time those verses were revealed, the more sense it makes. Of course, it also goes without saying, it also needs rational and logical thinking.

However, if you study the Quran just based on what you read (which is properly what you are doing), then, yes, the less sense it makes. Then again, this does not apply only to the Quran, it also applies to all scriptures, including the Bible.

Quran 3:152 is mainly referring to the group of Muslim archers whom the Prophet ordered to position themselves strategically on a hill. This group of archers is the one who quarreled among themselves, abandoned their position (thus disobeying the Prophet’s order), and went for the booty.

Quran 3:153 is mainly referring to the other Muslim followers who were somewhere else and some with Muhammad. When faced with a surprise 2-pronged attack, this group of Muslim followers scattered and Muhammad found himself with just a small group of about 10-12 followers. It was this group of fleeing followers who Muhammad called from behind, NOT to the group of archers who disobeyed the Prophet and abandoned their position (for the booty) which enabled the enemies to launch a 2-pronged attack on the Muslims.

How could Muhammad have known that Allah had caused his troops, that is, the followers who he had ordered to position themselves on the hill, to flee? No one, including prophets, know what Allah plans to do except Himself.

I'm going to accept that explanation because it's not a hill worth dying on. The point was relatively minor to begin with.

What you have not done is comment on the OP. Do you have anything to say about it?

 

[stevecanuck]

Never claimed he did. However, it is undeniable that people have used god's words about fighting and violence to justify inflicting violence on others.
As god is omniscient, omnipotent, and determines the outcome of all affairs by his decree, he therefore knew people would use the Quran to justify violent intolerance so he could have worded it differently or done something to prevent it, but he didn't. Therefore the outcome is what he wants.

This point is too salient to be buried in the longer reply. If after 1400 years of bloodshed Allah hasn't issued an update, then it truly does prove that things are going as he planned. The Ahmadiyya's do indeed claim that such an update occurred, but they only represent 1 or 2 percent of all Muslims.

 

[stevecanuck]

The Quran is quite clear about the honour and privilege of dying while fighting in Allah's cause

Another point worthy of isolation.

Surah 3's tap dance over the loss at Uhud proves your point perfectly. It says, "We alternate among the people so that Allah may make evident those who believe and [may] take to Himself from among you martyrs".

Verse 3:143 sets Islam apart from the other Abrahamic religions as it tells Muslims that the Battle of Uhud gave them a first-hand look at the martyrdom they desire. This is a, "Wait. What?" moment. To this point Muslims knew martyrdom was possible, but this is the first time the Qur'an said they should desire it, "And certainly you desired death before you met it". By contrast, Christians and Jews may have accepted martyrdom as the ultimate consequence of maintaining their beliefs, but they were never expected to actively pursue it.

Much of surah 9 is spent cajoling the Hypocrites to fight. Verse 9:52 tells them in no uncertain terms that Allah expects them to keep their promise to "fight in the cause of Allah" or face the consequences. Included in this is an allusion to the expectation of achieving either victory or martyrdom. This is not stated explicitly, but some translators such as Yusuf Ali consider it so obvious that they put it in brackets. After all, what else could the "two glorious things" be referring to?:
9:52 - (Yusuf Ali): Say: "Can you expect for us (any fate) other than one of two glorious things- (Martyrdom or victory)? But we can expect for you either that Allah will send his punishment from Himself, or by our hands. So wait (expectant); we too will wait with you".

Verse 33:23, if translated word for word (as much as Arabic to English syntax will allow), would simply sound like more praise for those who fought, "Of the believers are men who are true to the covenant which they made with Allah: so of them is he who accomplished his vow, and of them is he who yet waits". Note the phrase, "he who has accomplished his vow". At least 29 translators (Ayah al-Ahzab (The Clans, The Coalition, The Combined Forces, The Allies) 33:23) chose to editorialize that phrase to mean they achieved martyrdom, and that those who "yet wait" will eventually join them. Those translators, who by definition declare themselves to be scholars, clearly believe that God expects Muslims to fight for Him until they are killed.

 

[stevecanuck]

Erm, because the examination board does not know the level of knowledge of the student, or their ability to explain it.
God already knows exactly how everyone will act in every given situation, and he cannot be wrong. Sometimes he even makes then act that way (as you admitted earlier).
If every examiner knew the exact result every student would get, down the every word of every answer because they infallibly knew the future, there would't be any exams. They would be utterly pointless.
Pretty basic stuff, tbh.

Allah flip-flops when it comes to judging people's actions. In some verses he claims to know what is in every heart, while in others he says he must test Muslims to know who is truly faithful. Does he know or not? Depends on which verses you read.

 

[KWED]

How could Muhammad have known that Allah had caused his troops, that is, the followers who he had ordered to position themselves on the hill, to flee?

Erm, by Allah telling him. Allah was in regular communication with Muhammad. Allah also knows the future, so he knew the archers would disobey Muhammad and open the Muslim flank to surprise attack. He could have informed him at at point what was happening/going to happen.

No one, including prophets, know what Allah plans to do except Himself.

So you admit that you cannot claim that the Quran is actually Allah's final message and Muhammad the final messenger. You are simply assuming that you know what god plans to do - something you have just stated you cannot do.
The Ahmadis or Baha'is could be right and those who reject them as heretics and blasphemers are now the disbelievers - which would be a delicious irony.

 

[KWED]

Not really. In fact, the more you study the Quran in its proper contexts and take into account the time period, cultures, and the circumstances of the time those verses were revealed, the more sense it makes. Of course, it also goes without saying, it also needs rational and logical thinking.

However, if you study the Quran just based on what you read (which is properly what you are doing), then, yes, the less sense it makes. Then again, this does not apply only to the Quran, it also applies to all scriptures, including the Bible.

Quran 3:152 is mainly referring to the group of Muslim archers whom the Prophet ordered to position themselves strategically on a hill. This group of archers is the one who quarreled among themselves, abandoned their position (thus disobeying the Prophet’s order), and went for the booty.

Quran 3:153 is mainly referring to the other Muslim followers who were somewhere else and some with Muhammad. When faced with a surprise 2-pronged attack, this group of Muslim followers scattered and Muhammad found himself with just a small group of about 10-12 followers. It was this group of fleeing followers who Muhammad called from behind, NOT to the group of archers who disobeyed the Prophet and abandoned their position (for the booty) which enabled the enemies to launch a 2-pronged attack on the Muslims.

How could Muhammad have known that Allah had caused his troops, that is, the followers who he had ordered to position themselves on the hill, to flee? No one, including prophets, know what Allah plans to do except Himself.

I've had another look at this passage, along with classical tafsir and your previous explanation (that Allah made the Muslims flee in order to prevent them being slaughtered), and this doesn't hold water.

Verse 3:152 clearly says "then we made you flee from them". The archers leaving their position was not "fleeing", they were attacking the Quraysh camp. Their actions allowed a Quraysh attack on the main body of Muhammad's army, which is who "fled from them" and Muhammad "called back".

So, Muhammad was attempting to overrule Allah, and Allah doesn't seem to have known that the battle would take a turn against Muhammad - which obviously raises all kinds of difficult questions.

 

[stevecanuck]

I've had another look at this passage, along with classical tafsir and your previous explanation (that Allah made the Muslims flee in order to prevent them being slaughtered), and this doesn't hold water.

Verse 3:152 clearly says "then we made you flee from them". The archers leaving their position was not "fleeing", they were attacking the Quraysh camp. Their actions allowed a Quraysh attack on the main body of Muhammad's army, which is who "fled from them" and Muhammad "called back".

So, Muhammad was attempting to overrule Allah, and Allah doesn't seem to have known that the battle would take a turn against Muhammad - which obviously raises all kinds of difficult questions.

If you let a person who is making things up as he goes along speak long enough, he will contradict himself. Mohamed was no exception.

 

[JerryMyers]

You are conflating two separate issues here. God revealing his final, perfect, complete guide for all mankind is not the same thing as interfering in the affairs of humans. I know that, according to Islam, he does interfere, but I was asking why he does. This also touches on the free-will paradox.

God don’t really interfere - you are probably confused between lending a helping hand and interfering. If I help an elderly man from being robbed, does that mean I am interfering in the affair of the robber?

Just to be clear, can you give an example of God interfering in the affairs of man?

Hmm. Seems like you don't understand what "meaningless platitude" or "demonstrably false".

You sure?? Or are you such a simpleton not to know what I meant?? Think you are someone who will literally go and fly a kite if someone tells you to go and fly a kite!

Never claimed he did. However, it is undeniable that people have used god's words about fighting and violence to justify inflicting violence on others.

People can use anything, including God’s name, to justify their bad actions but that does NOT mean God approves or has anything to do with their bad actions.

As god is omniscient, omnipotent, and determines the outcome of all affairs by his decree, he therefore knew people would use the Quran to justify violent intolerance so he could have worded it differently or done something to prevent it, but he didn't. Therefore the outcome is what he wants.

God determines your destiny. He does not necessarily determine the outcome of your affairs – you determine the outcome of your own affairs.
By your logic, would you advise your son who may have an interest in becoming a doctor, that he doesn’t have to pursue his medical studies and just sit at home doing nothing because if God wants him to be a doctor he will be one without him doing anything? Is that how your thinking logic works?? Lol.

No it isn't. lol. Remember what god is and what he does. He created the universe according to his own plan, including evert event that happens, and as you just admitted, he plays politics and interferes in the affairs of man.

Again, you are confused between God lending a helping hand and interfering.

Knowing the cause can explain the cowardly retreat, but if people run away because they are scared, it is still a cowardly retreat.

No. Knowing the cause will explain the reason for the retreat. Not all retreats are because of cowardice. Don’t be so naïve!

So you admit that god makes people do things against. He can make people fun away and he can make them fight.

God makes things happen for a reason which we humans may not understand till much much later. In the context of Quran 3:152, God made the archers flee to save them from being slaughtered.

Is it? How so?

Haven’t I explained it to you? What a waste of time!

L

ike what god did to the Muslim army in 3:152. The people concerned are not responsible for their action.

They are fighting in the way of God, not because of God. They are not responsible for what God made them do, but they are responsible for the choices they made.
Are you still confused between ‘in the way of God’ and ‘because of God’??

ome of the, not all. But that is generally the case. Soldiers fight because they are ordered to - but if they signed up voluntarily they knew that it is a fundamental part of their job. It is nothing like people who do things because god is controlling their actions. {/quote]
Never said all of the Russian soldiers, did I?

God never control their actions. Again you seemed to be confused between ‘lending a helping hand’ and ‘interfering’.

A somewhat disingenuous claim. During Muhammad's lifetime he invaded and conquered much of the Arabian peninsula. You cannot claim this was all done in "self-defence". It was aggressive, military expansionism. Plain and simple.

The question you should ask is – what happened to the Arabian peninsula AFTER Muhammad took control?

A number of historians stated that changes in areas such as social security, family structure, slavery, and the rights of women improved. For example, according to Bernard Lewis in his writings, ‘Lewis, Bernard (1998-01-21). Islamic Revolution. The New York Review of Books’, wrote Islam "from the first denounced aristocratic privilege, rejected hierarchy, and adopted a formula of the career open to the talents".
So, did Muhammad invade or did he liberate the Arabian peninsula? Did the US invade Iraq or did the US liberate Iraq in the Gulf War?

I think you are attempting to redefine "because".
If Allah/Islam is the reason for fighting, then the fighting is because of Allah/Islam. After all, that is literally the definition of "because".

I think you are still confused between ‘because’ and the ‘in the way of’. Try not to be too “simple” in your thinking.

The Quran permits fighting against those who fight against the Muslims.

Yes, that is called self-defense.

If a Muslim army marches into another people's land and the people resist the invasion, that then allows the Muslim army to fight the defenders. This is clearly regarding defensive action as aggression and legitimises the fighting.

Fighting is always there whether you are invading or liberating a country. So what’s your point?

If Allah really wanted to avoid fighting he should have said "and do not invade other people's land" in the Quran.
So any command or instruction he ever gave still applies?
What about his practical and moral example though? Is everything he did still morally acceptable today?

That depends on which commands/instructions are you referring to as some are only applicable to the circumstances and the period of that time while some are applicable for all times.

More obvious nonsense.
I can criticise his beheading hundred of unarmed prisoners.
I can criticise him allowing his men to use captive women for sex.
I can criticise him torturing people to death.
I can criticise him owning slaves.
I can criticise him having sex with a child.
Presumably you consider all those things morally and practically acceptable, in principle.

Don’t presume nor assume.

Can you tell me which hadiths are you referring to?? Then I will tell you whether you are talking facts or more obvious nonsense.

QUOTE="KWED, post: 7647122, member: 73255"]All the things I find objectionable about Muhammad come directly from authentic Islamic texts. Are you calling people like imam Bukhari and ibn Ishaq "haters of Muhammad and Islam"? Yikes!

So which Bukhari and Ibn Ishaq hadiths are you referring to??

He was clearly a charismatic and effective spiritual, social and military leader. There have been many such people throughout history, and some of them were monsters who would be tried for war crimes today.
As for Hart's list, people like Hitler, Stalin and Mao are on there as well. It is a list of influence on history, not of character.

Sure, but Hart never said or, for that matter, anyone ever said Hitler, Stalin and Mao were supremely successful on both the religious and secular levels, now did he?
Success is always associated with something good and you cannot be considered successful if you are of toxic character and make your name making other people's lives miserable.

That doesn't make sense. I clearly showed that I have knowledge of the contents of the Quran - therefore not zero knowledge. Plus all the other stuff I've mentioned.
Or maybe "zero" is another of those words that don't mean what you think they mean.

Knowledge without understanding means zero-knowledge – does that make sense now? And yes, your ‘stuff’ shows you have zero knowledge of Islam.

Another straw man. I never made that claim. The Quran is quite clear about the honour and privilege of dying while fighting in Allah's cause, so not sure what your argument is.

Understandably as I don’t think you are even sure what you are writing too!

So it is a sin to go into battle against a superior enemy. It is a sin to be at the front of a charge against enemy lines. Are you sure?

Another straw man. I never made that claim that it is a sin to go into battle against a superior enemy nor did I claim that it is a sin to be at the front of a charge against enemy lines!

No idea what you are referring to here.

Yup, not surprising as you have no idea what you talking about too!

QUOTE="KWED, post: 7647122, member: 73255"]Erm, because the examination board does not know the level of knowledge of the student, or their ability to explain it.
God already knows exactly how everyone will act in every given situation, and he cannot be wrong. Sometimes he even makes then act that way (as you admitted earlier).[/quote]
Erm, nope, the examination board is not looking at the level of knowledge of the students, they are looking at the level of understanding the students have achieved.

Again, God determines your destiny but your choice of actions is on you.

If every examiner knew the exact result every student would get, down the every word of every answer because they infallibly knew the future, there would't be any exams. They would be utterly pointless.
Pretty basic stuff, tbh.

The examiner board would not know the exact result each student will get, that is, not until the board has marked the exam papers, BUT the examiner board would definitely know the answers to the exam papers. Pretty basic stuff, tbh.

 

[JerryMyers]

That still doesn't address my point. Pointing out that your friend also stole a car doesn't explain why you stole one. And the issue wasn't about repetition, it was about irrelevancy.

So I'll ask again...
"Why does a book that is meant to be the final, perfect, unchangeable guide for all people and all times, spend so much time describing past events that apologists tell us have no bearing on life today."

Why NOT?? And who are these so-called apologists??

It was a question based on your response. I assumed there was a reason why you compared the Quran to the Bible.

It was not a comparison it was an observation. That the Bible and the Quran have many repetitive stories is something that I knew long ago when I was studying the Bible. When stories get familiar here and there, then it dawns on you that those stories are repetitive – they really do not require you to make comparisons or do anything, you just knew it through observation as you read through the pages.

Sounds a like using the Bible as a source to me.
Another poor analogy.
A better one would be someone writing a novel, and then years later someone writes another one with some of the exact same plot elements. The second author would be accused of plagiarism.
It is undeniable that the Quran contains some of the same stories as the Quran, so not sure what you point is.

You are such a simpleton! Again, the Quran contains some of the stories told in the Bible means the Quran IS also stating the same facts which were told in the Bible earlier.

No one can accuse any author of plagiarism if he’s stating factual events in his book that many authors earlier than him may have also written those same facts. Why is that so difficult to understand??

It is anyone who says things like "things were different then" or you have to "take into account the time period, cultures, and the circumstances of the time those verses were revealed".

If you cannot even give a single name, then your comment that even apologists feel the repetitive stories in the Quran are redundant is nonsense because you cannot back up what you claimed, which is not surprising at all.

I explained. Do you want me to go over it again?

Sure, let’s go through that nonsense again.

Are all scholars of all other religions in agreement that The Quran is true? No, so your challenge is meaningless.
However, I can produce "revelations from god" revealed after the Quran whose followers are as convinced are true as you are about the Quran. So do you accept they are genuine? If not, why not?

Interesting! So go ahead and make my day by producing this new ‘revelation from God’ AFTER the Quran and tell me who is the recipient of this new revelation.

No it isn't. The question is can god change his mind. If the answer is "yes", then you cannot claim that the Quran is definitely god's final message.

The word ‘can’ is putting a limit on someone – for example, if someone asks, ‘can you speak other languages apart from your mother tongue?’. Then, saying ‘no’ would mean a limitation in your linguistic capability and we know God is limitless, so the question of whether God can change His Mind or not, does not arise because He’s Limitless. So the right question is -why would God change His Mind. Comprande?

Indeed. I fully agree with you.

What are you agreeing on?

My original comment, which you are responding to, is ‘Many people claimed they received revelation from God, but none have been proven legit. How do you think cults came to existence?? (See my Post#57)

So, in responding to this (your Post#64, why did you replace the word ‘cults’ with ‘religions’?? What kind of person will change the original word of another before responding? We may have our differences in our views but I never expect you to stoop that low!

I was using "right" to mean "correct", not "morally acceptable". Morals do not deal with truth or accuracy or information.

What nonsense are you talking??

‘Morally acceptable’ is what is correct and right for that particular society, though, not necessarily it is the truth.

Erm, your belief that Allah exists and revealed the Quran and its contents are true Thought that was pretty obvious. Now, if you only think some of it is true, I'd be interested to know which bits.

Erm.. yes, but if you want to know why I believe the Quran/Islam is the truth, then, you need to be more specific than that as the Quran/Islam is not just a one-liner about believing in God.

On the other hand, your belief is very much simpler – you just don’t believe in the existence of a Supreme Creator. In fact, I should, and will ask you – why don’t you believe in a Supreme Creator or God?

To be honest, I find those who don’t believe in a God are those who are simpletons who just cannot think logically and rationally, and your arguments in this thread is proving me right.

Also, your argument is doubly incoherent because it implies that Muslims shouldn't try and convince non-Muslims that Islam is true. It's kinda what Muhammad spent his last two decades doing. Do you think he was "wasting time"?

What makes you think Muhammad was trying to convince non-Muslims?? The duty of the Prophet is just to convey the Message. Of course in conveying the Message, you need to explain the Message. Whether his listeners are convinced or not, that’s not the concern of Muhammad and that’s the gist of Quran 2:256.

Feel free to browse my posting history.

Been there, done that AND still not a shred of ‘rational and evidence-based, referencing scriptures and other sources’ that you said you have produced!! So, where are they?? Do they exist only in your mind and that’s why I can’t find them??

 

[JerryMyers]

I'm going to accept that explanation because it's not a hill worth dying on. The point was relatively minor to begin with.

If you think proper contexts and take into account the time period, cultures, and the circumstances of the time those verses were revealed, as well as rational and logical thinking are relatively minor points to begin with, then, it’s no wonder you can hardly understand the Quran or any other scripture for that matter.

Could it be you don’t believe in a God too?

What you have not done is comment on the OP. Do you have anything to say about it?

Really?? I thought Quran 2:256 is very clear by itself. In religion, there is no compulsion.

In Quran 16:82, God told Muhammad, “But if they turn away, then your duty ˹O Prophet˺ is only to deliver ˹the message˺ clearly”.

Even Muhammad cannot force anyone to become Muslims as his duty is only to clearly convey God’s Message.

 

[JerryMyers]

I've had another look at this passage, along with classical tafsir and your previous explanation (that Allah made the Muslims flee in order to prevent them being slaughtered), and this doesn't hold water.
Verse 3:152 clearly says "then we made you flee from them". The archers leaving their position was not "fleeing", they were attacking the Quraysh camp. Their actions allowed a Quraysh attack on the main body of Muhammad's army, which is who "fled from them" and Muhammad "called back".
So, Muhammad was attempting to overrule Allah, and Allah doesn't seem to have known that the battle would take a turn against Muhammad - which obviously raises all kinds of difficult questions.

You had another look at this passage but your understanding and explanation of that passage became worse than before you had another look at that passage!! This is probably because you took another look at that passage NOT because you wanted to have a better understanding of that passage, BUT because you wanted to find faults with God, Muhammad, and my earlier explanation of that passage! Please stop embarrassing yourself!

 

[stevecanuck]

If you think proper contexts and take into account the time period, cultures, and the circumstances of the time those verses were revealed, as well as rational and logical thinking are relatively minor points to begin with, then, it’s no wonder you can hardly understand the Quran or any other scripture for that matter.

Swing and a miss. I was referring to the point I made.

Could it be you don’t believe in a God too?

Gee, ya think?

Really?? I thought Quran 2:256 is very clear by itself. In religion, there is no compulsion.

In Quran 16:82, God told Muhammad, “But if they turn away, then your duty ˹O Prophet˺ is only to deliver ˹the message˺ clearly”.

Even Muhammad cannot force anyone to become Muslims as his duty is only to clearly convey God’s Message.

100% dodge. The point of the OP is to discuss the context surrounding that quote and to show how quoting it alone can lead to a misunderstanding. You refuse to do that. Noted.

Btw, your response that the phrase is "very clear by itself" precludes you from ever demanding that surrounding verses are necessary to glean proper meaning.

 

[stevecanuck]

God don’t really interfere - you are probably confused between lending a helping hand and interfering.

That's because there is no difference.

If I help an elderly man from being robbed, does that mean I am interfering in the affair of the robber?

YES. That is EXACTLY what it means. I'm beginning to see that the way your 'logical' processes 'work' might lead you to believe Islam is a desirable belief.

Just to be clear, can you give an example of God interfering in the affairs of man?

Is this a joke? The entire Qur'an is an attempt by Allah to change the habits of the world. And then there are little things like the flood.

 

[stevecanuck]

You had another look at this passage but your understanding and explanation of that passage became worse than before you had another look at that passage!! This is probably because you took another look at that passage NOT because you wanted to have a better understanding of that passage, BUT because you wanted to find faults with God, Muhammad, and my earlier explanation of that passage! Please stop embarrassing yourself!

It would save a lot of time if you just answered, "IS NOT" to every post.

 

[KWED]

God don’t really interfere - you are probably confused between lending a helping hand and interfering. If I help an elderly man from being robbed, does that mean I am interfering in the affair of the robber?

Ok, you are a sophisticated atheist troll, presenting a ridiculous parody of an irrational Muslim who will say literally any old nonsense simply to appear to be "refuting" a sceptic's argument. This response alone leaves no other possible conclusion. No one can really be that dim, can they?

If you intervene in a robbery to help the victim and prevent the robbery, you are interfering in the affairs of both the robber and the victim.
(I can't believe that I have actually gone to the trouble of explaining this. )

Just to be clear, can you give an example of God interfering in the affairs of man?

Erm, revealing the Quran? (Again, can't believe I'm still biting)
Come on. I've sussed you out. You can stop playing now.

 

[stevecanuck]

Ok, you are a sophisticated atheist troll, presenting a ridiculous parody of an irrational Muslim who will say literally any old nonsense simply to appear to be "refuting" a sceptic's argument. This response alone leaves no other possible conclusion. No one can really be that dim, can they?

I also considered that, but the one thing that kept me from expressing doubt is his detailed knowledge (Battle of Uhud details for example). If he is trolling, then he's putting a scary amount of time into his little game. However, I agree that his spectacular display of cognitive dissonance and ability to point at black and call it white makes one wonder....