Quran has the best guidance about war and peace.

[RAYYAN]

Verse 9:29 clearly says to fight the people of the book until they submit.

Just out of curiosity, is there an Islamic scholar who uses this verse to justify fighting against non-Muslims?

 

[stevecanuck]

Too vague..
You could at least name a particular battle.

ANY battle to which the Muslim army had to travel outside their own territory to fight.

But, since that just opens the door for you to further stall, how about the Battle of Tours in 732. Who in France was oppressing the people of Mecca?

 

[muhammad_isa]

..how about the Battle of Tours in 732.

Perhaps you need a bit of background..
Campaign history of the Roman military - Wikipedia

Who in France was oppressing the people of Mecca?

Dear, dear .. you haven't got a clue, have you?
First of all, you need to realise that the Roman Empire "absorbed" Christianity and channeled it to strengthen their Empire.

There were two factions .. so-called Arians .. and Trinitarians.
Arians were oppressed by Trinitarians, and battles ensued, and this before even Muhammad was born.

The Romans didn't like Muslims [Saracens] .. they were on the "Arian" side..
..and so on..

 

[stevecanuck]

Perhaps you need a bit of background..
Campaign history of the Roman military - Wikipedia


Dear, dear .. you haven't got a clue, have you?
First of all, you need to realise that the Roman Empire "absorbed" Christianity and channeled it to strengthen their Empire.

There were two factions .. so-called Arians .. and Trinitarians.
Arians were oppressed by Trinitarians, and battles ensued, and this before even Muhammad was born.

The Romans didn't like Muslims [Saracens] .. they were on the "Arian" side..
..and so on..

That was ridiculous. The battle in question was between Francs and Muslims. The Muslims were there to conquer. So, again - How were the Francs oppressing the Muslims of the Arabian Peninsula?

 

[muhammad_isa]

That was ridiculous..

Only because you want to ignore the background..

It's easy to ignore what doesn't suit your agenda.
That's the thing about historical accounts. They are biased.
..just like you.

 

[stevecanuck]

Only because you want to ignore the background..

It's easy to ignore what doesn't suit your agenda.
That's the thing about historical accounts. They are biased.
..just like you.

I see you've dropped the pretense of debating, and have gone full ad-hom.

Again, how were the Francs oppressing the Muslims of the Arabian Peninsula?

 

[KWED]

Sorry, that is not what I claimed. There are commands in the Quran that are used by ISIS to justify killing, that's why it is happening right!
What I am saying is, these commands don't say that,

There are plenty of passages that explicitly prescribe killing. I gave you some references. If ISIS uses those passages to justify killing, you can't claim that they don't prescribe killing, you can only claim that you don't agree with the way ISIS are implementing those prescriptions.

and for Muslims to kill others, a TINY population of Muslims like ISIS, vast majority of them don't understand the Quran, they are psycho, or don't care about what the Quran says all they want is leadership and power even if it goes against what the Quran says.

I understand that you dislike ISIS (as every rational person does), but you can't claim that their actions have nothing to do with Islam, or that their leaders know nothing about Islam. Both claims are demonstrably untrue.

Then you provided Quran 9:61 as said, there is no clear indication that punishment is by God, or by Muslims. This is the point of discussion now (I think)

Exactly.
There is a verse that explicitly states that anyone who insults Muhammad will receive a painful punishment. That is all it says.
You claim that the punishment can only come from god in the afterlife. Others claim that the punishment can be imposed by men in this world.
Neither of you has anything to prove your claim. It is just opinion.
However, if there are examples elsewhere in the Quran of punishments against transgressors being imposed by men, then a precedent has been set that supports the claim that men can impose punishment on those who transgress Allah's laws.

- Since there is no command, and a clear indication of who suppose to carry the punishments, The Quran clearly says in Quran 3:7 that We should not follow anything that is not clear in the Quran. Also, the prophet said, leave what is doubtful to what is clear. So, ISIS is clearly wrong in following verses that are not clear.

1. It is not "unclear". The verse is explicit and unequivocal. Those who insult Muhammad will be painfully punished.
2. Verse 3:7 does not say to ignore any verse that is not clear. It says that those with perverse hearts will interpret unclear verses to suit their own agenda. And as no one can know the true meaning, no one can say if any interpretation is wrong.
3. It says that those of true belief will accept everything in the Quran.
4. It says "people of understanding" will grasp the message.

So we can see that 3:7 both vague itself, and contradictory. It also raises the question of why Allah would deliberately insert verses that he knows will be misinterpreted by people to work against Islam.

- I asked you to provide evidence that a scholar said 9:61 is a command to attack others, and you failed to provide one,

As I never made that claim, why are you still chasing that straw man?
However in his tafsir, Ibn Abbas said "(for them there is a painful doom) in the life of this world and in the Hereafter."
So you have your scholarly reference.

then you started to change the topic and quote other verses. (I will be happy to debate about other verses if we are done here

You asked me for verses in the Quran that had commands to harm other, because you claimed that there were no such verses.

- the term "painful punishment" is a common term used in many places in the Quran, nobody interpreted it as a command that needs to be carried out by Muslims.

Well, they obviously do.

A Muslim immediately understands this is an act of god. for example: 2:10, 2:174, 3:77, 3:177, 3:188, 5;36, 9:79, 16:63, 16:104, 16:117, and others

2:10 is talking about those who spread mischief (specifically mentioned in the next verse). 5:33 clearly states that a punishment for those spreading mischief is to be killed. So that example confirms that "painful punishment" is to be dome in this world. Thanks.
Some of those specifically mention the punishment being in the afterlife, so they are not relevant.

However, it is interesting that you happily acknowledge that there are so many passages where Allah promises painful punishment for those who do not submit to Islam. But I bet you'll also claim that there is "no compulsion in religion"

For example, Quran 16:63
"By Allah, We did certainly send [messengers] to nations before you, but Satan made their deeds attractive to them. And he is the disbelievers' ally today [as well], and they will have a painful punishment"
do you think this is a command to attack others? However, it is the same style as 9:61

As that is referring to people long-dead, it would be difficult for anyone to punish them now. However, it could reasonably be interpreted to mean that anyone who conspires with satan should be punished in this world as well.

So, are you claiming that every punishment decreed by Allah must only be exacted by Allah in the afterlife? Or do you accept that men are to punish transgressors in this life?

 

[KWED]

I believe I responded to this already on another post. I look forward to your response

Your response was merely to give your opinion that it meant only in the afterlife.
The argument you provided in support of your claim was pretty weak (as I showed). In on place you even confirmed my argument!

A week hadith could be fabricated, that is why it is weak

Could be. But the one I quoted was rated weak because of an incomplete chain, not because it was thought do be fabricated.

The only acceptable hadith is an authentic hadith in Bukhari and Muslim collection

Wrong. Seems you have been misinformed about how hadith work.
But you realise that by saying that, you have implicitly accepted that Aisha was 6 when she was married and 9 when Muhammad had sex with her, because it is clearly stated in several sahih hadith from Bukhari and Muslim.

Keep looking, I am sure you will find something to debate about there

As you demanded, I provided a sahih hadith that records Muhammad condoning the killing of someone who instead him.
Sometimes it's just best to stop digging and climb out of your hole.

Not me
You know how I do!

But you claimed that she was older. On what basis do you make that claim?
(You also accepted that she was very young as well.
So which is it, was she very young or was she older?

 

[KWED]

It is not something I just made up
from Wikipedia "In the Sunni branch of Islam, the canonical hadith collections are the six books, of which Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim generally have the highest status"
Source

Oh dear. Talk about cherry-picking and quote mining!

The full quote is ... "the canonical hadith collections are the six books, of which Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim generally have the highest status. The other books of hadith are Sunan Abu Dawood,..."
The sahih hadith I quoted was from Sunan Abu Dawood - which you rejected as "any random hadith you find"
Ouch!

 

[KWED]

Fair enough. My apologies

No worries.

That's what digital friends do
Unless, you are saying I am not your friend. That will break my heart

I asked this question before, In your country, what does the Government do if someone wage war against the president? and spread corruption (like killing, damaging properties, setting fire, ....etc.)
Muhammed PBUH was the president

If someone stood up in Parliament Square and shouted that the prime minister is a fraud, the government is illegitimate, and that people should protest and stop supporting them - nothing would happen. They certainly wouldn't be tortured to death!
Even if they started an actual, violent revolution they would only be imprisoned.

But, it is not outlawed in Islam in an Islamic state, for people who live under Islamic law. Who are you to tell them how to live?

So you are defending stoning people to death, crucifixion, dismemberment, etc, in principle, simply because it is part of Islamic law, and you think international law is wrong to prohibit them?
What about slavery and using female captives for sex? They are also inherent in Islamic law. Was the civilised world wrong to ban those as well?

I never said there is no harm in Islamic law.

Ok. So if you accept that there are passages that command barbaric punishments for non-crimes, why are you so agitated about people who insult Muhammad being painfully punished? Don't you consider that to be a "crime" in Isalm?

For example, if someone kills people gets killed, if someone commits treason gets killed, if someone steals something valuable, his hands get cut off,.......etc.
I don't consider that harming people because for example, the person who kills others forfeits his life and it is an eye for an eye

Apart from the obvious problems with capital punishment and retributory vengeance, the Quran command killing (being tortured to death in some cases) for "crimes" that include "opposition, contradiction and disbelief".

Do you really thing that is reasonable and acceptable?

 

[KWED]

I don't know what this means!

Moving the Goalposts

 

[KWED]

We all know that..

And yet many apologists insist that Islam is a religion of peace and does not prescribe or condone killing.

You imply that the reason for the killing is because they don't believe Muhammad is a messenger of God.
This is not the case.
The reason is due to these unbelievers oppressing the believers.

There is no single reason, but the various reasons can be summed up as "refusing to submit to Islam".

The claim that all the killing is justified by non-Muslims "oppressing, persecuting, attacking, etc" Muslims is simply not supported by Islamic texts. There are many clear examples of aggressive, expansionist military action, and barbaric punishments for non-crimes.
It's almost as if it was written by a warrior-cleric in 7th century Arabia, as a rule book and propaganda piece.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I see you've dropped the pretense of debating, and have gone full ad-hom.

We are all biased..
However, some of us want to put blame for wars all on one party, whereas I am more interested in the background to conflict, and why it actually happened.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The claim that all the killing is justified by non-Muslims "oppressing, persecuting, attacking, etc" Muslims is simply not supported by Islamic texts. There are many clear examples of aggressive, expansionist military action, and barbaric punishments for non-crimes.

Not true.

I would agree that injustice is done by both sides in wars, but that is not the same as the claim that the Qur'an encourages injustice.

 

[KWED]

Let me start from the top Verses 2:190 - 2:193
This is talking about people who are fighting Muslims. in 192 it says "And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful"
The meaning is to fight them if they fight you, but if they stopped, then stop

2:191 is one of the more difficult ones to excuse (along with 9:5).
They explicitly say to "kill wherever you find them". That is not just permitting defensive action. That is a command to aggressive action. "Finding" implies "looking for".
What's more, 9:5 says to "besiege and ambush". These are aggressive acts, by definition. You cannot besiege or ambush someone in self defence.
The proviso to not kill them depends on them either surrendering or converting.
If an Muslim army marches into another nation's territory (under whatever excuse), and the inhabitants naturally attack them in defence of their land, that then allows the Muslims to fight them. The other option is to simply allow the invaders to take over (as happened in the conquest of Mecca). It's a win/win.

 

[KWED]

Too vague..
You could at least name a particular battle.

Muhammad and the first Muslims lived in Medina. Therefore any expansion from that initial area had to be by attacking others.
After the Conquest of Mecca (attacking people who wanted peace), how did Muhammad manage to conquer a million square km of Arabia by only fighting in self defence?
After his death, how did the Muslim empires expand across North Africa, parts of Europe, the Middle East and South Asia only fighting in self defence?

This is the basic concept that you need to address.
You may as well claim that the British Empire was established by only fighting people who attacked them. It's a meaningless argument.

 

[KWED]

Just out of curiosity, is there an Islamic scholar who uses this verse to justify fighting against non-Muslims?

"This honorable Ayah was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book, after the pagans were defeated, the people entered Allah's religion in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims' control. Allah commanded His Messenger to fight the People of the Scriptures, Jews and Christians, on the ninth year of Hijrah, and he prepared his army to fight the Romans and called the people to Jihad announcing his intent and destination." - Ibn Kathir.

And here's a scholarly explanation for 9:5
"do not wait until you find them. Rather, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in the various roads and fairways so that what is made wide looks ever smaller to them. This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam," - Ibn Kathir

Can't get much clearer than that.

 

[KWED]

Perhaps you need a bit of background..
Campaign history of the Roman military - Wikipedia

Don't think the Roman Empire was involved.

Dear, dear .. you haven't got a clue, have you?

Ironic, much?

First of all, you need to realise that the Roman Empire "absorbed" Christianity and channeled it to strengthen their Empire.

There were two factions .. so-called Arians .. and Trinitarians.
Arians were oppressed by Trinitarians, and battles ensued, and this before even Muhammad was born.

The Romans didn't like Muslims [Saracens] .. they were on the "Arian" side..
..and so on..

So in order to defend Mecca and Medina from the Roman Empire, the Muslim armies invaded North Africa, Spain, and then Southern France.
Seems reasonable.

 

[KWED]

We are all biased..

But not to the same degree, it seems. Those with a dogmatic ideology to defend usually seem far more biased, and also more unaware of their bias.

However, some of us want to put blame for wars all on one party, whereas I am more interested in the background to conflict, and why it actually happened.

WADR, your position is that all wars and battles involving Muhammad and other Muslims armies was always caused by the other party, by definition.
Biased much?

 

[KWED]

Not true.

9:5. "Kill them where you find them, ambush and besiege them". That is unequivocally describing aggressive military action. To deny it is just bonkers!
"Oh, but if they surrender they should be spared" does not overrule the initial command. Also, try telling that to the Banu Qurayza!
5:3 includes crucifixion and dismemberment as punishments. Those are clearly, undeniably "barbaric" (def: savagely cruel; extremely cruel and unpleasant)

I would agree that injustice is done by both sides in wars,

Including Muhammad and his forces?

but that is not the same as the claim that the Qur'an encourages injustice.

Justice" is a subjective concept. But it does encourage fighting, killing and barbaric punishments.

Note: there is nothing unusual or even "wrong" about an ancient culture establishing empire and imposing ideology through violence, or using barbaric punishments. It happened for millennia, all round the world.
What is wrong and unusual is claiming that it didn't happen.