Quran has the best guidance about war and peace.

[KWED]

From my reading of the Quran it teaches peace and justice.

It must have been a heavily edited version, because there is a fair bit of violence and injustice in the complete version.

It does not teach hatred

What? Verse 60:4 literally says that hatred towards non-Muslims until they accept Islam is a good example to follow!

or violence

What about the crucifixion, dismemberment, flogging, beating, striking the necks of enemies, fighting in Allah's cause, causing great slaughter, etc...?

but to defend one’s rights if oppressed.

Ah, are you saying that it does teach hatred and violence, but it is justified hatred and violence?

Muhammad says if people offer peace then to respond with peace.

The "peace" is usually conditional on submitting to Islam.

Many Muslims at first when they were told to fight for their freedom of religion and rights resisted and did not want to get involved in defending themselves.

Muhammad and the early Muslims had freedom of religion. They were allowed to practice Islam alongside all the other religions in Mecca. It was the blasphemy and attacks on the existing gods that others took exception to. Islam is far more intolerant of such behaviour than Meccan society was. Imagine if a group had started up in Medina publicly denouncing Allah as a false god and Islam as a false religion and Muhammad a false prophet. How long do you think they would have lasted? 10 minutes, never mind 10 years.

But that would have meant genocide. The goal of the enemy was the complete extermination of the Muslim community so it was it was imperative that they defended themselves for their very survival.

Nonsense. In the first decade of Islam, in Mecca a total of two Muslims were killed. Hardly "genocide". After the Hijra, there were no attacks on the Muslims in Medina until the Muslims started attacking and looting Meccan caravans.
Someone has been telling you porkies.

 

[KWED]

They are exactly the same words here, translated differently.

Look closely. They are written differently. That is why they are translated differently.

 

[Link]

After the Hijra, there were no attacks on the Muslims in Medina until the Muslims started attacking and looting Meccan caravans.
Someone has been telling you porkies.

Suppose this is true, why did Mohammad (S) do it if believers only numbered 313 in Battle of Badr? Why would he want to fight with 100 to 1000 odds? Or 1 to 10?

 

[Link]

Look closely. They are written differently. That is why they are translated differently.

The "le" is the only thing that is different, which means "to (word)", that is it. They are exactly written the same here.

 

[KWED]

Two threads that have topics being raised here:

Did God ever command to slavery per Quran? | Religious Forums

Is it permitted to beat women per Quran? (challenge for one on one debate with anyone) | Religious Forums

Let's keep it on point, about war and peace. Not off-topics.

Yes. It was conclusively demonstrated that the Quran does instruct husbands to beat their wives under certain conditions. Your attempts at "the 4:34 dance" went nowhere.
The other one is based on a straw man. No one claims that the Quran "commands to slavery" [sic], just that slavery is permitted, which is again demonstrable accurate.

 

[Link]

@KWED Here is a good source for me: Exegesis of Surah Baqarah: Verses 63- 92 | Tafseer Imam Hasan Askari (a.s.) | Al-Islam.org

Go to verse 87 there and see some of the historical events. It also talks about Abu Jahl and what lead to battle of Badr.

 

[Link]

Yes. It was conclusively demonstrated that the Quran does instruct husbands to beat their wives under certain conditions. Your attempts at "the 4:34 dance" went nowhere.
The other one is based on a straw man. No one claims that the Quran "commands to slavery" [sic], just that slavery is permitted, which is again demonstrable accurate.

As I explained to you many times, I am saying slavery is not allowed at all in that topic in Quran. Maybe the title was not the best words, but the topic is about if it was ever allowed.

As for what was demonstrated one way or the other, people can read the thread and decide for themselves.

 

[firedragon]

It took me less than 30 seconds to do an internet search using the phrase "Islamic Battles". Of course there are many, many search results to review, but here's a nice overview:

List of battles 301–1300 - Wikipedia

Stop being a sea lion, some of us would like to have actual discussions.

Of course. When people make very specific, bias searches it takes only 30 seconds to be as shallow and as bias as you are.

But generally educated people do better research. Read the encyclopaedia of wars by Charles and Alan. Only 7% of all wars ever recorded were motivated by any religion.

 

[KWED]

Suppose this is true,

It is true. No supposing required.

why did Mohammad (S) do it if believers only numbered 313 in Battle of Badr? Why would he want to fight with 100 to 1000 odds? Or 1 to 10?

He didn't march out to do battle with a Meccan army. He set out to attack a large caravan. Therefore the force was plenty big enough. It was only because the Meccans got wind of Muhammad's plan and sent out their own army to protect the caravan. The war between the Muslims and the Quraysh was started by Muhammad's aggressive acts.

The odds at Badr were 3:1.

 

[Link]

Is this the original, standard Islam or your new version if it?

My version, I can only talk about my version, I don't know the original but know the standard is false:


وَإِذَا جَاءَهُمْ أَمْرٌ مِنَ الْأَمْنِ أَوِ الْخَوْفِ أَذَاعُوا بِهِ ۖ وَلَوْ رَدُّوهُ إِلَى الرَّسُولِ وَإِلَىٰ أُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنْهُمْ لَعَلِمَهُ الَّذِينَ يَسْتَنْبِطُونَهُ مِنْهُمْ ۗ وَلَوْلَا فَضْلُ اللَّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ وَرَحْمَتُهُ لَاتَّبَعْتُمُ الشَّيْطَانَ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا | When a matter of safety or fear comes to them, they immediately broadcast it; but had they referred it to the Apostle as well to those vested with the authority from them, those of them who investigate would have ascertained it. And were it not for Allah’s grace upon you and His mercy, you would have surely followed Satan, [all] except a few. | An-Nisaa : 83

4:83 is obviously an elaboration of 4:59. This means God (swt), and Rasool (s) and Ulil-Amr (a) commands all have to do with safety and fear whether with regards to next world or this world. Its implied. And since they are the sources of guidance, we can conclude that is what Islam is about.

Also, see the post where I started with:


هُوَ اللَّهُ الَّذِي لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا هُوَ الْمَلِكُ الْقُدُّوسُ السَّلَامُ الْمُؤْمِنُ الْمُهَيْمِنُ الْعَزِيزُ الْجَبَّارُ الْمُتَكَبِّرُ ۚ سُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ | He is Allah—there is no god except Him—the Sovereign/King, the All-holy, the All-Peace, the Securer, the All-conserver, the All-mighty, the All-compeller, and the All-magnanimous. Clear is Allah of any partners that they may ascribe [to Him]! | Al-Hashr : 23


Another way to translate it:

He is God, there is no God but Him, the Holy King, The Peace, The Securer, the Preserver/Guardian, The Honorable/Mighty, The Compeller, the Magnified, Glorified is God from what they associate.

So we see God the Holy King. Why would he take Authority, it's because he is the Peace, and such seeks to secure it in the land, and preserves his creation and is mighty, the next title is is definitely linked to Islam with the title, "The Compeller". @Bird123 Always is saying God is not forcing people to views, would not do that, lets them decide, but we see wisdom here of God being the True king, because he needs to secure his creation from harming each other, and creating chaos on earth that cannot be repaired. And such he compels them to obey him and take him as the holy King and true King, as a means of acquiring inner peace, but also religion wise, collectively, wants them as a community, coming together, to secure the land from havoc of evil humans and Jinn. This is the only way he can preserve human honor and dignity and hence does not want us all doing decisions and learning from it. He wants peace on earth, not to learn by causing havoc, that we did things wrong.

 

[KWED]

The "le" is the only thing that is different, which means "to (word)", that is it. They are exactly written the same here.

So, they are written exactly the same, except for the difference.

 

[Link]

So, they are written exactly the same, except for the difference.

There is no difference, "to" word always connects with the word. You do not know Arabic again, and are being ignorant, instead of asking for clarification.

The, to, are examples in Arabic that connect with the word.

So for example. In English:

Toknow
Theapple

know and apple are the words, to and the are words too, but in Arabic, they get connected so it looks like one word if you do not know Arabic. But if you know Arabic...

 

[KWED]

@KWED Here is a good source for me: Exegesis of Surah Baqarah: Verses 63- 92 | Tafseer Imam Hasan Askari (a.s.) | Al-Islam.org

Go to verse 87 there and see some of the historical events. It also talks about Abu Jahl and what lead to battle of Badr.

That's one interpretation.

 

[KWED]

As I explained to you many times, I am saying slavery is not allowed at all in that topic in Quran. Maybe the title was not the best words, but the topic is about if it was ever allowed.

The Quran implicitly allows slavery and explicitly instructs a husband to beat a wife under certain conditions. All your rambling posts do nothing to change that. I understand that you are uncomfortable with some of the stuff in the Quran, but that's because it was written by 7th century Arabs for 7th century Arabs, so some of the stuff in there seems unacceptable to modern, civilised society.

 

[Link]

What? Verse 60:4 literally says that hatred towards non-Muslims until they accept Islam is a good example to follow!

People of Ibrahim (a) were going to be destroyed by God for kicking out believers and seeking to oppress them, same case, was going to happen with Mecca/Becca, but due to some good men in Yathrib later to be called Madina Al-Munuwara, who invited Mohammad (s) to come with his followers, and prayed that Mecca be spared and delayed harm, Allah (swt) did not destroy Mecca.

The believers with Ibrahim (a) were patient in trials, and God then destroyed their enemies, as he did with people of Pharaoh.

However, you are not quoting it in context. This an example for while the people are in hostility. If people cease hostility, then God says perhaps he will put love:


In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. . O you who believe! do not take My enemy and your enemy for friends: would you offer them love while they deny what has come to you of the truth, driving out the Apostle and yourselves because you believe in Allah, your Lord? If you go forth struggling hard in My path and seeking My pleasure, would you manifest love to them? And I know what you conceal and what you manifest; and whoever of you does this, he indeed has gone astray from the straight path. 1If they find you, they will be your enemies, and will stretch forth towards you their hands and their tongues with evil, and they ardently desire that you may disbelieve. 2Your relationship would not profit you, nor your children on the day of resurrection; He will decide between you; and Allah sees what you do. 3Indeed, there is for you a good example in Ibrahim and those with him when they said to their people: Surely we are clear of you and of what you serve besides Allah; we declare ourselves to be clear of you, and enmity and hatred have appeared between us and you forever until you believe in Allah alone-- but not in what Ibrahim said to his father: I would certainly ask forgiveness for you, and I do not control for you aught from Allah-- Our Lord! on Thee do we rely, and to Thee do we turn, and to Thee is the eventual coming: 4Our Lord! do not make us a trial for those who disbelieve, and forgive us, our Lord! surely Thou art the Mighty, the Wise. 5Certainly there is for you in them a good example, for him who fears Allah and the last day; and whoever turns back, then surely Allah is the Self-sufficient, the Praised. 6It may be that Allah will bring about friendship between you and those whom you hold to be your enemies among them; and Allah is Powerful; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. 7Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice. 8Allah only forbids you respecting those who made war upon you on account of (your) religion, and drove you forth from your homes and backed up (others) in your expulsion, that you make friends with them, and whoever makes friends with them, these are the unjust. 9O you who believe! when believing women come to you flying, then examine them; Allah knows best their faith; then if you find them to be believing women, do not send them back to the unbelievers, neither are these (women) lawful for them, nor are those (men) lawful for them, and give them what they have spent; and no blame attaches to you in marrying them when you give them their dowries; and hold not to the ties of marriage of unbelieving women, and ask for what you have spent, and let them ask for what they have spent. That is Allah's judgment; He judges between you, and Allah is Knowing, Wise. 10And if anything (out of the dowries) of your wives has passed away from you to the unbelievers, then your turn comes, give to those whose wives have gone away the like of what they have spent, and be careful of (your duty to) Allah in Whom you believe. 11O Prophet! when believing women come to you giving you a pledge that they will not associate aught with Allah, and will not steal, and will not commit fornication, and will not kill their children, and will not bring a calumny which they have forged of themselves, and will not disobey you in what is good, accept their pledge, and ask forgiveness for them from Allah; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. 12O you who believe! do not make friends with a people with whom Allah is wroth; indeed they despair of the hereafter as the unbelievers despair of those in tombs. 13

I will highlight from this:


Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice. 8Allah only forbids you respecting those who made war upon you on account of (your) religion, and drove you forth from your homes and backed up (others) in your expulsion, that you make friends with them, and whoever makes friends with them, these are the unjust.

And:

It may be that Allah will bring about friendship/love between you and those whom you hold to be your enemies among them; and Allah is Powerful; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.


So we see its not as you interpret.

The sentence is contextualized not to mean what you said.

Also the word tawala and wali and awliya are contextual. There is a relationship we should not have with people who disbelieve at the end. This is true. But it does not mean all type of love and friendship is forbidden, as we can see, the Quran says he has not forbidden us for those who do not fight us for our religion and its even a case of justice towards non-Muslims to love them and care for them and be good towards them and friendship is not forbidden. The last verse in the Surah is thus a bad translation, as the word Tawala here is contextualized not to include friendship and love, which we are allowed, but this means a specific relationship we are also forbidden or a level of love and friendship that is forbidden.

The word in the last verse I quoted includes affection in the love, and so that is known as highest word of love in Arabic. It says it maybe that God puts that between them and their enemies. But they have to cease hostility.

 

[Link]

The Quran implicitly allows slavery and explicitly instructs a husband to beat a wife under certain conditions. All your rambling posts do nothing to change that. I understand that you are uncomfortable with some of the stuff in the Quran, but that's because it was written by 7th century Arabs for 7th century Arabs, so some of the stuff in there seems unacceptable to modern, civilised society.

So you use disbelief in a circular way to assert it must say these things.

 

[Link]

That's one interpretation.

You should read that interpretation. Imam Hassan Al-Askari (a) wrote a whole tafsir of Quran and gathered an army, but the army was not enough, and the tafsir most of it is lost, very little of it remains. Of it what remains, some of it is altered. But that tafsir is high level, if you slit your tongue to argue and ramble and be too critical and humble your heart from mocking type symptom of dark sorcery, you will find that tafsir exalted, high, mighty, and reveals a lot, and the style is amazing once you get use to it (can be boring in the start). It has treasures upon treasures, and opens many doors to knowledge.

The army that gathered and Shiites could not prevent the occultation sadly and the world pays the price till this day, and the tafsir was not preserved, we can deduce those who had it were killed or some other things must have happened in this regard.

Imam Hassan Alaskari (a) did his best though, at the end, all he could do was prepare people for the first safir of Imam Mahdi (a) and the occultation began and has been too long.

 

[Link]

It is true. No supposing required.

The story that is famous that every Muslim thinks its a fact, that Mohammad (s) got scared when first got revelation, there is a different story to that in Nahjul Balagha by Imam Ali (a). Mainly, that Ali (a) was with Mohammad (s) when revelation came down, and instead both heard Satan scream from agony because he was going towards despair of being worshiped. This does not mean Iblis gave up, but he was severely demoralized. Also, Mohammad (s) was lead by a mighty King since a baby, mainly Elyas (a), and this can be seen with the concept of Imamate and Guide in Quran and what Mohammad (s) would have done if he was in doubt about the truth.

Also Sunnis have hadiths that contradict all this, mainly, things like Mohamad (s) never had a shadow (physically) and that a cloud followed him where ever he went as well and protected him from the son as a kid even, before his Nubuwa. These all signs that Mohammad (s) knew one day and would not be surprised.

Also in Sunni tafsirs, the sky reality became augmented so Jinn and Kahens can't ease drop since birth of Mohamad (s). This is reported from Ibn Abbas.

Mohamad (s) was not Deist nor lost in spirituality, he did not know the book nor faith nor read books nor write before revelation, because he trusted Elyas (a) command not to. Otherwise, he would have read books and sought guidance from legacy of Isa (a)

Shiite history is significantly different, even, about the Serah of Mohammad (s).

For example Imam Mohamad Al-Baqir (a) says people say strange things about Ali (a) including him having a slave woman. As you know a whole pre-story event about Ghadeer is made by Sunnis to contextualize it differently, with companions hating on Ali (a) because he took a very pretty or the prettiest woman as a slave when others wanted her. This is a fabrication per Imam Mohamad Al-Baqir (a) and insult to intelligence.

But if you want to be non-Muslim who takes Sunni side of events, that is fine. But just do not impose on me. With me, if you want dialogue, get familiar with Shiite sources of events.

And 1 to 10 is what Quran states and Shiite hadiths confirm.

 

[stevecanuck]

No they didn't. You are wrong. I mean so blind by hatred so ignorance is given.

Yes they did. When they read, "So they fight in the cause of God. They kill and are killed", for some reason they think it means, "So they fight in the cause of God. They kill and are killed".

Go figure.

 

[firedragon]

Yes they did. When they read, "So they fight in the cause of God. They kill and are killed", for some reason they think it means, "So they fight in the cause of God. They kill and are killed".

Go figure.

Who did that kind of interpretation someone else spoke of and did heinous things because of that interpretation? Can you give lets say 10 examples of them and give direct sources?

Thanks.