Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What I meant was that Christians are at the same level of spite as the general population. Not that all Christians are spiteful.
You said that Muslims would kill anyone who didn't convert. That was so wrong it needed correcting. It was so wrong that you should go back and correct it. And an 'oops, my bad' wouldn't go amiss.
Not you, particularly. Not even the Christian nationalists--they're just reacting to it, but that they are reacting to it by fighting a culture war rather than a religious war might be a clue as to what people are walking away from.
There is? Only if it was: "kill some of those those who don't convert" and "kill anyone who doesn't convert". If you have a different religion and you don't convert, according to you then either sentence is applicable. Which is not correct.
I spoke of muslim beligerants, and I stand by my statement even with you attempting to mischaracterize it.
It's not just apostates, it's anyone they classify as kafiri...which is pagans, polytheists, atheists, and idolaters. Which is the marching orders from the end of Muhammad's life, which is why abrogation is an important concept to understand to understand Islamic jurisprudence. Apostasy is a different matter, which is why I wasn't talking about apostates.
You made two statements. And they both mean the same thing. And they are both wrong.
From here: https://islam.ru/en/content/story/slay-unbelievers-wherever-you-find-them-verse-sword-explained
nope, they're both right. You're just falling for Islamist apologist propaganda.
Yeah, an islamist apologetics site is not the best way to get accurate information about things that aren't flattering to Islam. But hey, not everyone has the time to actually read the hadith and sira, as well as the ishtijad which is mostly in disagreement with those claims until recent attempts at whitewashing. But I'm sure you source all of your information about religions from their apologists, right?
The Quran is like the bible. Open to different interpretations. I get all my info about it from various people who interpret it their own way. If I'd actually read the whole thing then I'd have my own interpretation. Now, unless you have a quote or a reading or an interpretation that says Muslims can "kill those who don't convert" which isn't clarified by other verses as I did above then bring it to the table. Otherwise...
not quite, Islamic jurisprudence is heavily regulated until modernists have sought to re-write Islamic history. They say "the doors of ishtijad are closed" and defer to classic interpreters, who unanimously agreed that ayat like 9:29 were unlimited calls to war until the end of time "when there is no more fitnah." That is, of course, not adding the additional wrinkle that the Qu'ran cannot be interpreted without the hadith because it is almost entirely without context, and the actions of Muhammad are the baseline for how Muslims are supposed to behave...and he'd fit more with ISIS than with the Ahmadi.
Perhaps I should have added "or pay the jizya" since that is what Islam calls for, modernist whitewashing not withstanding.
As I said, it's all interpretation. All sections of the Quran must be read in context. No cherry picking or I'll start with the OT.
No, that only applies to non believers within an Islamic state. And nowhere does it call for beheading. Or any other form of death.
All this statement shows is your ignorance of Islamic jurisprudence, because it's all well spelled out with little to "interpret".
Nope, it's what Muslims are called to pursue until there is no more "fitnah", the whole world is divided into "dar-al-Islam" and "dar-al-harb" and the only question about implementation is which part of the program is active. I really have to wonder why you are so willing to speak on things that you are so clearly ignorant about as if you know anything at all, and why you are so quick to turn to Islamic apologists as if they are going to be an unbiased source.
Do you want me to flood your PMs with it? Because I'm holding back to try to derail this thread less than it already is being derailed. So if you want the receipts, I'll gladly give them to you.
Anyone who has made a serious effort to study Islam knows that abrogation is a very complex and controversial subject. Very few verses found in the Qur'an have been agreed on as being abrogated among scholars, and of those that have, none override the verses that teach tolerance, coexistence, and peace. A far more important concept in understanding Islamic jurisprudence is puting things in historical and cultural context when reading any Islamic texts.
The Muslims that were being spoken to in the Qur'an and the classic scholars lived in a different culture, at a different point in time, and were facing unique situations. You can't read the Qur'an, hadiths, or the tasfirs from a modern perspective, you have to read them through a historical lens, if not, you will continue to misinterpret what they are saying.
Neither the Qur'an nor the hadith can be properly interpreted without putting them into the historical and cultural context they were written in.
You do realise that Muslims also had to pay taxes (zakāt)? And the tax was for the betterment of society as a whole. Would it be fair for non-Muslims to live in an Islamic state and receive all of the benefits and protections offered by that state without any contribution to the costs involved?
In very simple terms, Dar al Islam (House of Islam) historically was a Muslim land with a Muslim government where Islamic law governed. Dar al Harb (House of War) was a land not under an Islamic government or Islamic law, which was openly hostile towards Muslims. Since there are no countries or states that fit these definitions today, the terms are no longer used by Muslims for the most part.
The only people who talk about jizyah, abrogation, the division of the world into dar-al-Islam and dar-al-harb, and cite Qur'an 9:29 as an open-ended command to Muslims to fight until the end of time today are Islamic extremists and anti-Islamic propagandists. So when someone like yourself presents Islam the way you have in this thread and others, it's clear to me, as someone who has a strong background in Islam, that your understanding of this religion comes from those sources and not the actual teachings and understanding of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims adhere to.
