Quran has the best guidance about war and peace.

[muhammad_isa]

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

Don't tell me what my position is !
You assume that I always think that Muslims are some kind of super-human beings that don't sin?

..maybe you atheists are perfect..

 

[RAYYAN]

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

Yes, I agree ISIS uses those verses to kill people
No, the verses don't say what ISIS think it says, or ISIS bent it to make seem says what it doesn't say to fulfill their agenda

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

I still claim that their action has nothing to do with Islam. For example, in Islam, you can't go around and kill innocent people, but ISIS does

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

Ok, we are moving in circles here
There is no command, that means there is no action to be done
But, if that floats your boat, so be it

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.

Oh, boy
The verse says ".......As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific......"
Since ISIS follows something that is not clear, and not specified, that means their heart is deviated, which makes them not following the rules of Islam

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

I was not chasing that, I was just telling how the debate went so far.
Still, Ibn Abbas didn't say it is a command to Muslims, God can punish in this world, or hereafter

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

I think we are talking about two different things here
For example, Capital punishment
There is a verse that says if you kill, you get killed. Do you consider this as a verse of harming others?

What I am saying here is, yes, there are verses about killing and punishments, but, it is the same as the constitution of countries, there are rules of punishment if someone commits a crime.
I think you are making it the Quran says to kill others because they are not Muslims. That doesn't exist in Islam.

Well, they obviously do.

And the only evidence you have is members of ISIS LOL

2:10 is talking about those who spread mischief (specifically mentioned in the next verse).

Wrong. read again "In their hearts is disease, so Allah has increased their disease; and for them is a painful punishment because they [habitually] used to lie"

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.

This is a bunch of misleading statements by you here.
5:33
Indeed, the penalty for those who
1. wage war against Allah and His Messenger and
2. strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be

A. killed or
B. crucified or that their
C. hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they
D. be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,

That is the verse above.
It is not like you simplified it above

The verse is saying, In a Muslim state, where Islamic law is implemented, anyone who wages war against the president (Muhammed) AND spreads corruption (killing, stealing, damaging properties,.....etc.)

conditions 1 and 2 must be present
punishments vary as a ruler sees fit

HOWEVER, you didn't answer my question
What is the punishment in your country for a person who wages war against the president and against the government?

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"

You are missing the point LOL
See the verses I provided including 9:61 and compare it with verse 5:33

In all those verses it says "Painful punishment"
verse 5:33 clearly states the punishment to be carried by people

Can't you see the difference? it is simple

 

[RAYYAN]

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.

Actually, they are simple verses to explain
2:191
It is clearly explained by the previous and following verse
previous verse "Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors"
following verse "And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful"

The previous verse says, fight those who fight you (How did you miss that)
It is clear that non-Muslims were attacking Muslims, then God says, if they stop, then you Muslims stop the fight. Unless you have an explanation cease what exactly

9:5
Is talking about people who broke a treaty with Muslims and caused Muslims to be killed. the previous verse says
"Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him]"

Following verse
"How can there be for the polytheists a treaty in the sight of Allah and with His Messenger, except for those with whom you made a treaty at al-Masjid al-Haram? So as long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him]"

See, it is easy

 

[RAYYAN]

"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.

A link please

 

[RAYYAN]

Moving the Goalposts

Well, I didn't accept your arguments
They were all refuted

 

[RAYYAN]

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.

Good.
Then 5:33 is saying the same thing
The ruler or judge sees the punishment that fits
If you don't accept capital punishment that is your problem, many countries have it.

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?

In general, I am ok with Islamic punishment law if it is applied in Islamic state, under Islamic law, and on Muslims who accepted Islam and its law.
The method of punishment can be modernized to cop up with the world today

Using captives for sex. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER happened under Islamic law. Why don't you make a new thread so I can show you where you are wrong

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?

I never accepted the existence of punishment for non-crime
All punishments are for a crime

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".

No, Islam doesn't say that. Let me guess, you will quote 5:33 AGAIN. I explained that already

 

[RAYYAN]

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!

I refuted all your arguments because they were weak and shows your lack of Islam 101

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

incomplete chain, which means there is no way to know if the Prophet really said that.

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.

Again putting words into my mouth
Can you show me where I said that by cutting part of what I said?

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.

Believe me. I am on the top here
As I said, Bukhari and Muslim are the most acceptable collection of books. Others, it is true they are hadith, but didn't have strict rules in collecting their hadith, so you can't be sure how sahih they are.

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?

Show me where I accepted all of that
Note: don't pick part of what I said when you do

 

[KWED]

You assume that I always think that Muslims are some kind of super-human beings that don't sin?

Are you saying that Muhammad was sometimes a sinner and went against Allah's word?

 

[KWED]

Yes, I agree ISIS uses those verses to kill people
No, the verses don't say what ISIS think it says, or ISIS bent it to make seem says what it doesn't say to fulfill their agenda

Yes. I already know that you don't agree with ISIS' interpretations. And they don't agree with yours. It dosa'y really get us anywhere though.

I still claim that their action has nothing to do with Islam. For example, in Islam, you can't go around and kill innocent people, but ISIS does

It is interesting how often apologists insert "innocent" into their arguments. So you accept that Islam says to kill people who are "not innocent"?
Also, "innocence" is subjective and contextual. Islam sees homosexuality and unmarried sex as claimed. The laws of developed countries do not. So while someone may be "innocent" in one context, they are "guilty" in another.
In their own eyes, ISIS don't kill "innocent" people. They are all guilty of some transgression and they cite passages to support this. They also take the Quran and sunnah's exhortations to kill more literally than you do.

Ok, we are moving in circles here

indeed.

There is no command, that means there is no action to be done

So you are claiming that Muslims can only do those things that are explicitly commended?
But, if that floats your boat, so be it

Oh, boy
The verse says ".......As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific......"
Since ISIS follows something that is not clear, and not specified, that means their heart is deviated, which makes them not following the rules of Islam

1. No, that is not what the verse says. It says that those who have perverse hearts will use the unclear verses to created discord and disbelief. It doesn't say you must ignore the unclear verses.
2. How do you know ISIS' hearts are perverted? They were probably sincere and pious in Allah's way. You just don't agree with them.

I was not chasing that, I was just telling how the debate went so far.
Still, Ibn Abbas didn't say it is a command to Muslims,

Why do you keep attacking the same straw man? No one has claimed that it is a command.

God can punish in this world, or hereafter

But god doesn't seem to punish in this world. He always leaves it up to men to do it for him.

I think we are talking about two different things here
For example, Capital punishment
There is a verse that says if you kill, you get killed. Do you consider this as a verse of harming others?

What I am saying here is, yes, there are verses about killing and punishments, but, it is the same as the constitution of countries, there are rules of punishment if someone commits a crime.
I think you are making it the Quran says to kill others because they are not Muslims. That doesn't exist in Islam.

Moving the goalposts again!
There are many verses that command harming others. You now claim that harm is justified - which ironically is ISIS' argument that you keep dismissing.

And the only evidence you have is members of ISIS LOL

It's not just ISIS. Other fundamentalist groups like Al Qaeda, and ordinary individuals have threatened and carried out lethal attacks on people accused of insulting Muhammad.

Wrong. read again "In their hearts is disease, so Allah has increased their disease; and for them is a painful punishment because they [habitually] used to lie"

"And when it is said to them, "Do not cause corruption on the earth," they say, "We are but reformers."" - 2:11

This is a bunch of misleading statements by you here.
5:33 Indeed, the penalty for those who
1. wage war against Allah and His Messenger and
2. strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be

A. killed or
B. crucified or that their
C. hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they
D. be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,

That is the verse above.
It is not like you simplified it above

The verse is saying, In a Muslim state, where Islamic law is implemented, anyone who wages war against the president (Muhammed) AND spreads corruption (killing, stealing, damaging properties,.....etc.)

conditions 1 and 2 must be present
punishments vary as a ruler sees fit

As Ibn Kathir explained, "wage war" includes opposition contradiction and disbelief". "Spread mischief" includes disobeying god's law and disbelief.
So, simply speaking out against Islam is enough to satisfy your demand.
And as you agree, the punishment can be execution by torture.

HOWEVER, you didn't answer my question

What is the punishment in your country for a person who wages war against the president and against the government?

Er, yes I did...
"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."

Do you think that people doing the above should be tortured to death?

You are missing the point LOL
See the verses I provided including 9:61 and compare it with verse 5:33

In all those verses it says "Painful punishment"
verse 5:33 clearly states the punishment to be carried by people

Can't you see the difference? it is simple

You believe that unless there is a clear command to do something, Muslims should not do it. Your are entitled to your opinion.
Others think that when Allah says some anti-Islam behaviour will be painfully punished, that they can do the punishing. They are entitled to their opinion.

 

[KWED]

A link please

Sorry, I assumed you would have access to a copy of Ibn Kathir's tafsir.
QTafsir Tafsir Ibn Kathir Mobile

 

[KWED]

Well, I didn't accept your arguments
They were all refuted

 

[KWED]

Good.
Then 5:33 is saying the same thing
The ruler or judge sees the punishment that fits

The Quran says that they can be tortured to death. Of course, anyone in authority can chose a lesser punishment.

If you don't accept capital punishment that is your problem

With all due respect, thinking that killing people for opposing the government, or being gay, or having an affair (or even for murder) is most definitely your problem. And it is a problem.

In general, I am ok with Islamic punishment law if it is applied in Islamic state, under Islamic law, and on Muslims who accepted Islam and its law.

So flogging, dismemberment, torturing to death are all acceptable in your opinion?
Nice!

The method of punishment can be modernized to cop up with the world today

But Allah specifies punishments in the Quran. How can these be "modernised"? Or do you just mean using machines to inflict the same punishment, etc.

Using captives for sex. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER happened under Islamic law. Why don't you make a new thread so I can show you where you are wrong

Oh dear god.
Not only is it specifically permitted in the Quran, but there are specific and explicit accounts of it happening in sahih hadith.

I never accepted the existence of punishment for non-crime
All punishments are for a crime

So you think that two adult, unmarried people having consensual, straight sex is "a crime". And you believe that anyone committing that "crime" deserves to be flogged with 100 lashes.
Oh dear.

No, Islam doesn't say that. Let me guess, you will quote 5:33 AGAIN. I explained that already

From Ibn Kathir's tafsir on 5:33...
"`Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief,"

From his definition of "mischief"...
"("Do not make mischief on the earth''), that is disbelief and acts of disobedience." The Miraculous Quran - Meaning of Mischief

Remember that the Quran says that anyone "waging war" and "causing mischief" (basically, rejecting Islam) can be tortured to death.

 

[KWED]

incomplete chain, which means there is no way to know if the Prophet really said that.

But some Muslims believe he did.
And anyway, I provided you with a shah hadith, which you demanded. So address that rather than chasing red herrings.

Again putting words into my mouth
Can you show me where I said that by cutting part of what I said?

You claimed that the sahih hadith of Bukhari and Muslim were the only unimpeachable, fully reliable sources.
Several sahih hadith from Bukhari and Muslim explicitly state that Aisha was 6 when Muhammed married her, and 9 when he had sex with her.

Believe me. I am on the top here
As I said, Bukhari and Muslim are the most acceptable collection of books. Others, it is true they are hadith, but didn't have strict rules in collecting their hadith, so you can't be sure how sahih they are.

You linked to a source that stated that the Sunan Abu Dawud was part of the canon of top hadith books, so you can't reject it as unreliable.

Show me where I accepted all of that
Note: don't pick part of what I said when you do

To save time and effort, why not just state clearly what you claim her age to be when she married Muhammad, and what your sources are.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Are you saying that Muhammad was sometimes a sinner and went against Allah's word?

No, of course not .. but other Muslims clearly did/do.

 

[RAYYAN]

It is interesting how often apologists insert "innocent" into their arguments. So you accept that Islam says to kill people who are "not innocent"?
Also, "innocence" is subjective and contextual. Islam sees homosexuality and unmarried sex as claimed. The laws of developed countries do not. So while someone may be "innocent" in one context, they are "guilty" in another.
In their own eyes, ISIS don't kill "innocent" people. They are all guilty of some transgression and they cite passages to support this. They also take the Quran and sunnah's exhortations to kill more literally than you do.

Islam doesn't tell people to go out on the street and start killing people. If there is a punishment for death, it must be determined by an authority, judge, ruler,....etc. of Muslims in an Islamic state
ISIS is not acceptable to be the ruler of Muslims. They kill Muslims and non-Muslims equally

So you are claiming that Muslims can only do those things that are explicitly commended?
But, if that floats your boat, so be it

Yes, that floats my boat and the boat of every Muslim

1. No, that is not what the verse says. It says that those who have perverse hearts will use unclear verses to create discord and disbelief. It doesn't say you must ignore the unclear verses.
2. How do you know ISIS' hearts are perverted? They were probably sincere and pious in Allah's way. You just don't agree with them.

1. Yes, that is what the verse says (Source)
2. That is simple.
a. You admitted the verse is not clear (The punishment is by god or command to Muslims to kill)
b. The verse above says those who follow unclear verses their hearts have deviated
c. Since ISIS use unclear verse, that means their hearts deviate
d. If their hearts have deviated, then they are wrong

They might be sincere, but it doesn't mean they are right

Why do you keep attacking the same straw man? No one has claimed that it is a command.

Why quote the hadith then?

But god doesn't seem to punish in this world. He always leaves it up to men to do it for him.

He does. Maybe you don't know

Moving the goalposts again!
There are many verses that command harming others. You now claim that harm is justified - which ironically is ISIS' argument that you keep dismissing.

As I mentioned above, and I quote "Islam doesn't tell people to go out on the street and start killing people. If there is a punishment for death, it must be determined by an authority, judge, ruler,....etc. of Muslims in an Islamic state" What is the difference between this and the constitution? it is only the type of punishment. like prison for life vs capital punishment

It's not just ISIS. Other fundamentalist groups like Al Qaeda, and ordinary individuals have threatened and carried out lethal attacks on people accused of insulting Muhammad.

Again, the only evidence you have is the people who are doing this. Potato potato LOL

"And when it is said to them, "Do not cause corruption on the earth," they say, "We are but reformers."" - 2:11

And the previous verse says they are liars. Did you miss that again?

As Ibn Kathir explained, "wage war" includes opposition contradiction and disbelief". "Spread mischief" includes disobeying god's law and disbelief.
So, simply speaking out against Islam is enough to satisfy your demand.
And as you agree, the punishment can be execution by torture.

Wrong analysis
Here is what Ibn Kathir said;
"Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil" (Source)

The thing that you seem to be ignoring is, the crime must be conbined by Waging war, and Spreading mischief. the "AND" is important to note here because it prevents you quoting only what you want.

For example,
- if a person disbelieve in God and his messanger, nothing will happen to him
- If a person disbelieve in God and his messanger and started spreading corruption, there is a punishment

Another thing that you seem to ignore here is, there are variety of punishments mentioned here, but you seem to jump to killing because that serves your agenda and what you wanted to see. Simply, the punishment is what the ruler sees fit

Er, yes I did...
"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."

Do you think that people doing the above should be tortured to death?

Again, as I said above, the punishment should be what the ruler/judge sees fit

You believe that unless there is a clear command to do something, Muslims should not do it. Your are entitled to your opinion.
Others think that when Allah says some anti-Islam behaviour will be painfully punished, that they can do the punishing. They are entitled to their opinion.

Sure, everyone is entitle to his own opinion