Do Not Bash Muslims

[Joyousperson]

Now lets look at the following example you gave in an attempt to show that Verse 9:5 abrogates the peaceful verses:

Suyuti [1445–1505 AD; aka Jalaluddin; an Egyptian of Persian origin. Historian, biographer, jurist, teacher and scholar of Islamic theology; he was one of the most prolific writers of the Middle Ages.] Suyuti said that everything in the Qur'an about forgiveness and peace is abrogated by verse 9:5, which orders Muslims to fight the unbelievers and to establish God's kingdom on earth

This is proof positive that your sources are intentionally misleading you. Suyuti never said that "everything in the Qur'an about forgiveness and peace is abrogated by verse 9:5." While he does cite this claim in his book, he rejects it entirely and concludes that only 19 verses of the Qur’an were abrogated and verse 9:5 doesn't abrogate any of the verses on forgiveness and peace.

This is not me saying this, you can read it for yourself straight from the source. Full text of "Al itqan fi ulum al quran"

See how important context is now? What you thought was proof that a well versed Islamic source agrees with you that chapter 9 verse 5 abrogates the peaceful verses actually says the complete opposite when his material is read in its full context. This example is exactly why I warn people about sites like answeringislam and people like David Wood and tell them to stay away from them. They are intentionally misleading their audiences and I hope this example will be enough evidence for you to see this.

Note Ibn Kathir used the term 'abrogated' i.e. as posted above;

Then Ibn Kathir stated,
This honorable Ayah was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said,

"It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term."
Al-Awfi said that Ibn Abbas commented:
"No idolater had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara’ah was revealed. The four months, in addition to, all peace treaties conducted before Bara’ah was revealed and announced had ended by the tenth of the month of Rabi’ Al-Akhir."​

The above is Ibn Kathir views and how can you assert AnswringIslam is wrong. Note Ibn Kathir is merely one of the reference supplied by AnweringIslam to support their views.

Re your reference to Sayuti, he was merely another interpreter.
Full text of "Al itqan fi ulum al quran"

Sayuti presented his own views in his tafsir, but who is he to be the final judge?
While Sayuti preferred not to use the term 'abrogation' for 9:5 but rather he preferred to label it "being made to forget."
Regardless, his view is still the same as 9:5 is to be used offensively and defensively depending on the circumstances of fasadin [threat to Islam] where the state of disbelieving is always deemed a threat to Islam.

Here is what Sayuti wrote;

Fourth: abrogations comprise of several categories. These include:

1. The abrogation of an order before its implementation as in the verse dealing with secret conversations. This is an actual case of abrogation.

2. Abrogation of laws that applied to earlier communities. This is the case with the verse dealing with retaliation and blood wit. Other examples are of laws that are collectively
abrogated such as those that changed the direction of prayer from the Bait '1-Maqdis to the Ka^ba, and fasting the first 10 days of the month of Muharram. These however, are abrogations in a manner of speaking only.

3. The abrogation of a law based on a particular circumstance which subsequently disappears.
This is the case with the call to patience and forgiveness during times of weakness or numerical disadvantages. This was abrogated when fighting became obligatory.

In actual fact, this is not a case of abrogation but a case of "being made to forget", as God Almighty Himself says in the case of war: ". . .or We cause it to be forgotten", that is, the duty to do battle, until Muslims become stronger.
During times of weakness however, the rule is to forbear in the face of persecution.
This then puts paid to the arguments claiming that all such verses have been abrogated by the "verse of the sword", when in fact, this is not the case. Rather, it belongs to the 'made to forget' category, to which belongs every order that is meant to be executed whenever the circumstances so demand, but which gets moved elsewhere when those same circumstances are changed.
This is not abrogation, because abrogation effaces a ruling and makes its subsequent application illegal.
Makki thus points out that in the view of some scholars verses such as: "Forgive and overlook till God brings forward His decree."(2:109) should be considered qualified and not abrogated, because they allude to the deferment of time or purpose. And that which has been deferred to some future time is not abrogated.
​

From the above, whether 9:5 abrogates all that is relevant to it or is meant 'other contrary' are made to be forgotten, the fundamental is 9:5 is still in general a verse of aggression towards non-Muslims since the disbelievers are deemed to be a threat [fasadin] to the ideology of Islam.

Note Allah stated the Quran is supposed to be easy to read and understand, so it is very sinful for Sayuti is overturning Allah words by introducing the complexity of abrogation.

44:58. And We have made (this Scripture) easy in thy language only that they [Muslims] may heed.
​

I don't agree with Sayuti's dilution of 9:5 as not an abrogation per se. There are many contentious camps to the interpretation and ultimately no humans can judge who is right and wrong.
This is the STALEMATE Dilemma where the extremists will carry on and commit evil and violent acts as a religious duty to please Allah.

Btw, none of the above [from Ibn Kathir or Sayuti] support your central argument, i.e.

99% of Muslims understand 9:5 and related verses thoroughly to be purely historical as confined to that specific period and circumstances, thus 99% of Muslims at present are not terrorists.​

 

[setst777]

I highlighted the reason why I condemn answeringislam.

Hi Joseph

You quoted Joyousperson as follows:
Note Setst777 quoted from the “Reliance of the Traveller,” but you did not agree with the evil and violent elements that were quoted.

Joseph responded:
<<
Context is key.
>>

Setst RE: Your repeated responses about context are a cop out. Just saying something is out of context because it disagrees with you is not evidence. You never refuted or explained why any of the sources I gave are out of context. Therefore, every source I gave still stands as a witness against all your arguments. All your arguments have been refuted so far in every message and on every point.

setst777 wrote:
I quoted from the original sources and gave you links to Ibn Kathir’s commentary so you can look up anything you want and study it right from his commentary. I quoted the Qur’an for you and Islam’s best scholars. So if you saw something I quoted that was in error, all you had to do was look it up and bring it to my attention. So Your comment is not based in reality, is slanderous, and has no merit.

Joseph RE: I gave a link to Ibn Kathir's commentary to the OP in another thread in it's entirity to show where he was in error about Chapter 9.

Setst RE: Another thread? You gave no refutation of the quotes I gave, so your arguments are false and are refuted.

JosephZ wrote:
<<
When you read the tafsir of Ibn Khatir in full context it debunks the claims being made by answeringislam and your claims made in this tread. Quran Tafsir Ibn Kathir - Surah 9 - Tawbah (Repentance)

It seems you both are having trouble understanding what is written.
>>

Setst RE: You are giving broad generalizations attacking all sources that disagree with you, but have proven nothing.

Joseph writes:
<<
Since Muslims who were born into Islam and Schools that offer courses in Islamic Studies use the exact same Islamic texts, yet come to totally totally different conclusions, did you ever stop to think that maybe you are being misled by those anti-Islamic propaganda sites you visit?
>>

Setst RE: Which schools and which texts? And quote what do those schools teach about those texts?

setst777 wrote:
Thanks for admitting that “Reliance of the Traveller” is an excellent source. I quoted from that excellent source at least 7 times attempting to teach you what Sharia is, what Taqyah is, what Jihad is, and how it deals with unbelievers, hypocrites, and apostasy. At the time you would arrogantly not accept any source that disagreed with you. So, excellent or not, you reject "Reliance of the Traveller."

Joseph responds:
<<
Context is everything.

Since you are having difficulty understanding the concepts of Shari'a I would like to recommend the following book as a companion to the Reliance of the traveler:

Islam: A Sacred Law: What Every Muslim Should Know About the Shariah, Feisal Abdul Rauf,
>>

Setst RE:
Feisal Abdul Rauf is a sufi Muslim. The Sufi branch of Islam spiritualizes just about everything. They do not represent the mainstream Islam.

Only about 1% of all Muslims practice Sufi.
Sufism — What is it?

Did you miss that in your context?

Your argument regarding “context” without any legitimate evidence is no evidence at all.

setst777 wrote:
Every Islamic source that shows that later violent Qur’anic revelations abrogate earlier sources you said are extremist and propaganda.

Joseph RE: Can you give a specific example?

Setst RE: I quoted you at least 5 times which were in response to all the Islamic sources I gave you showing that the violent verses abrogate earlier peaceful verses. YOU are the example; so, look in the mirror.

setst777 wrote:
That is why the later verses replace the earlier ones, just as the Qur’an, Hadith and Sira and Tafsir teach.

Joseph responds:
<<
It's not that simple. Once again the concept of abrogation is very complex.
>>

Setst RE: Yes, it is complex, especially since Muslim scholars do not define abrogation the same way. Some believe abrogation means later verses permanently blot out earlier verses.

Qur'an 13:39
Allah doth blot out or confirm what He pleaseth: with Him is the Mother of the Book.

Others believe this too, but only as one of several ways abrogation is used in the Qur’an.

In regards to peaceful verses abrogated by earlier verses:

The best Islamic scholars, which I quoted repeatedly, state that abrogation can also have a temporary use in stages.

Qur'an 16:101 (The Noble Qur'an)
When We substitute one revelation for another- and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages) - they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not.

Depending on the circumstances (the stage of power Islam is in at the time) in contrast to the enemies (unbelievers) will determine if the abrogated verses are again used – but only temporarily.

For instance, earlier peaceful verses are said by the best Islamic scholars that I quoted from to be abrogated Qur’an 9:5-34 – the Islamic conquest of unbelievers for Allah until there is no religion but Islam.

However, this is only the case when Islam has power to attack and overcome the unbelieving group, groups, or nation (as Muhammad did), or when Islam is temporarily giving unbelievers the opportunity to repent (as Muhammad did).

When Islam lacks power to dominate and win battles, or if Islam is giving time to repent, then Islam reverts back to an earlier stage (of which Muhammad used) but not permanently. In this case, truces are authorized with the enemy, just as Muhammad did, but never permanently, because Chapter 9 abrogates all earlier verses of peace and co-existence.

Reliance of The Traveler
Truces
o9.16 Umar Barakat explains that truces are only ever temporary, for the benefit of the Muslim war effort, since it is “a matter of the gravest consequence because it entails the non-performance of jihad”.

When temporarily in an earlier stage, then the earlier verses of peace and co-existence, or defensive Jihad, take precedence until such Qur’an 9:5 is again enacted.

Joseph responds:
<<
Iran is doing this? Can you provide a source for this claim?
>>

Setst RE: Of course I can.
https://clarionproject.org/exclusive-michigan-mosques-linked-to-iranian-regime/

Shiite Muslims Quietly Establish a Foothold in U.S.

Shia Muslims - the majority of which are in Iran - have more Shia organizations and Mosques in the USA then most other foreign lands, except for Iran.

List of Shia Organizations

Iran for many years has been growing its network of sleeper cells in the USA in preparation for attacking the USA.

https://clarionproject.org/iran-has-sleeper-cells-us-ready-attack-4/

IMAMS.us

Joseph responds: First off, that article doesn't show that Iran has spent hundreds of millions of dollars building mosques and promoting their doctrine throughout the US and in Europe.

Setst RE: I never said Iran alone was spending hundreds of millions of dollars, but that both Saudi Arabia and Iran were spending this money. I never gave a monetary breakdown of who was paying what.

Joseph continues:
<<
Secondly, you need to find a better source for information:
>>

Setst RE: Once again, when anyone disagrees with you, the source must be wrong.

Joseph continues:
<<
The Clarion Project has an extreme right wing bias in reporting and wording. They are classified as an active anti-Muslim hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Has a false claim according to a fact checker. (D. Van Zandt 4/15/2017)
>>

Setst RE: The Southern Poverty Law Center is famous for labeling just about anyone who tells the truth - that is negative about someone else - as a hate group and “extremists.” Solid Christian ministries and those who report about Islamic extremism are labeled by them as hate groups. Yet, interestingly, the SPLC neglects to label the Islamic extremists who commit violent acts or support terrorism as extremists or hate groups.

Southern Poverty Law Center - Wikipedia

setst wrote:
Shia Muslims - the majority of which are in Iran - have more Shia organizations and Mosques in the USA then most other foreign lands, except for Iran.

Joseph wrote:
<<
While there are extremist elements to be found in both Sunni and Shia Islam, you should be happy about this because Shias are more moderate than Sunnis and are anti-Wahhabists.
>>

Setst RE: Shia and Sunni Muslims both teach the same about defensive Jihad to perceived wrongs against them, or for what they feel is wrong. Terrorism is used in such cases. Wahhabists are Sunnis, so obviously Shia Muslims are against them.

• We should equally fear the Shias and the Sunnis in their growing entrenchment in the West.
• We should fear the Mosques that indoctrinate Muslims. We should fear their Islamic Organizations in the West – most of whom have known ties to terrorism, or support terrorism.
• We should fear their build up of sleeper cells in the USA.

Because, if things go wrong between the US and Shia or Sunni Muslims, and if there is war, then you can expect devastation and death caused by such cells right within our country. They don’t need missiles to reach us when they are building up an army right within our boarders.

setst777 wrote:
<<
Yes, in a few of your messages you did refer to a few Hadith and several Qur’an verses, and even a couple Muslim teachers. This is in contrast to almost every message of mine referring to the Islamic sources as my evidence.

If you go through my past posts you will find that I have used both the Qur'an and the hadiths extensively as references in several threads.

Joseph responds:
<<
In this thread I'm just taking a different approach. Like I said in my last post, you are not the only one who has presented these exact same verses, hadiths, and sources in their attempts to bash Islam. Everything you are posting here, I have countered at least once, perhaps even more than once, in other threads.
>>

Setst RE: That is not evidence. Your excuse that you are “taking a different approach” does not exempt you from providing the evidence to support your generalizations.

setst777 wrote:
The Hadith, and Sharia (Reliance of the Traveller), the Qur’an, and Islamic scholars I quoted to you clearly shows that in regards to unbelievers, Taqyah is deceptiong - to deceive others through lies if necessary.

Joseph responds:
<<
Only in very specific circumstances. I clarified this for you in a previous post. You are free to believe what you want.
>>

Setst RE: I responded to your circumstances and sources used. And they have no merit in regards to Takyah when used with unbelievers when Islam is a minority or lacks power. In such cases, Takyah, in the form of deception used in order to prevent hostility by the enemy until such time the Muslims in that land gain the power (in stages) to carry out Chapter 9.

setst777 wrote:
<<
In MSG 166 you quote two sources from Muslims who show that abrogation is complex. Who doesn't know that?! Why do you quote them? To obviously to show that abrogation is so complex that we will never know what abrogates what in any circumstance so don’t even try. However, such a conclusion of yours contradicts the best Islamic scholars and tafsir showing abrogation, especially in regarding to Qur'an chapter 9 abrogating all peaceful verses and all treaties with unbelievers.

Joseph responds: Why do you quote them?
To help explain why you as a non-Muslim living in the west would have difficulty in understanding the concept, much less be able to determine which verses have been abrogated.

Setst RE: Easy to attack the messenger and NOT deal with the Islamic sources I provided repeated – at least 5 times now – regarding abrogation. This is important to quote because Islam uses Chapter 9 as a key verse that abrogates others – the reason why Jihad against unbelievers until Islam is the only religion in the whole world is taught in Sunni and Shia Islam.

Do you understand the implications here and why this is so important? That is why I quoted verses that abrogate others, and use the best Islamic Scholars to prove the point. As usual, you neglect the sources and attack the messenger.

setst777 wrote:
However, such a conclusion of yours contradicts the best Islamic scholars and tafsir showing abrogation, especially in regarding to Qur'an chapter 9 abrogating all peaceful verses and all treaties with unbelievers.

Joseph responds:
<<
Once again, Abrogation is a complex issue, and just because a verse is revealed later it does not mean it automatically replaces an earlier verse. A later verse has to cross reference an earlier verse and be along the same lines of reasoning.
>>

Setst RE: That is why I quoted the best Islamic scholars. Your refusal to look at the evidence does not mean your argument is valid – just the opposite. Just stating abrogation is complex does not legitimize or prove any of your arguments.

continued...

 

[setst777]

Context is key.

Hi Joseph,

Joseph, you list some sources that I actually quoted in my messages to you as follows:
<<
Isma’il bin Al-Kathir (the Ayah of the Sword)
[Ibn Kathir, Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, vol. 4, pp. 375-7.]
[Ibn Kathir, Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, vol. 4, pp. 375-7.]
[Muhsin Khan, "Introduction," in ibid., pp. xxiv-xxv.]
[Suyuti, Al-Itqan fi ‘Ulum al-Qur'an, part 1, pp. 60, 65, 164.]

Nothing was out of context.
>>

Joseph responds:
<<
What are you talking about? What you have shown is a perfect example of taking things out of context. Those examples are all quotes relating to a single verse. Have you ever read the commentaries from these same Islamic sources on chapter 9 in their entirety?
>>

Setst RE: Yes, didn't you know? We predominantly discussing Qur'an 9:5 "the verse of the Sword" that abrogates many peaceful verses. Not all the verses in Chapter 9 are direct commands of Allah. The Islamic scholars concentrate their use of abrogation on Qur’an 9:5 mostly, but include all the way to around verse 33 because these are the commands of Allah regarding the unbelievers that abrogate peaceful verses. I quoted the sources for you.

As well, you don’t even have to read the whole Qur’an to understand this, because the Qur’an is not in Chronological order, so the verses are not in order. Hardly a story can be found in the Qur’an that actually has a completion.

Joseph continues:
<<
Now lets look at the following example you gave in an attempt to show that Verse 9:5 abrogates the peaceful verses:

Suyuti [1445–1505 AD; aka Jalaluddin; an Egyptian of Persian origin. Historian, biographer, jurist, teacher and scholar of Islamic theology; he was one of the most prolific writers of the Middle Ages.] Suyuti said that everything in the Qur'an about forgiveness and peace is abrogated by verse 9:5, which orders Muslims to fight the unbelievers and to establish God's kingdom on earth

This is proof positive that your sources are intentionally misleading you. Suyuti never said that everything in the Qur'an about forgiveness and peace is abrogated by verse 9:5. While he does cite this claim in his book, he rejects it entirely and concludes that only 19 verses of the Qur’an were abrogated and verse 9:5 doesn't abrogate any of the verses on forgiveness and peace.

This is not me saying this, you can read for yourself it straight from the source. Full text of "Al itqan fi ulum al quran"

Setst RE: Yes, I read "Al itqan fi ulum al quran" a while back. Your conclusions are totally false. I quote the part that you overlooked in the context as follows:

Start of quote:
<<
3. The abrogation of a law based on a particular circumstance which subsequently disappears. This is the case with the call to patience and forgiveness during times of weakness or numerical disadvantages. This was abrogated when fighting became obligatory. In actual fact, this is not a case of abrogation but a case of "being made to forget", as God Almighty Himself says in the case of war: ". . .or We cause it to be forgotten", that is, the duty to do battle, until Muslims become stronger. During times of weakness however, the rule is to forbear in the face of persecution. This then puts paid to the arguments claiming that all such verses have been abrogated by the "verse of the sword", when in fact, this is not the case. Rather, it belongs to the 'made to forget' category, to which belongs every order that is meant to be executed whenever the circumstances so demand, but which gets moved elsewhere when those same circumstances are changed. This is not abrogation, because abrogation effaces a ruling and makes its subsequent application illegal. Makki thus points out that in the view of some scholars verses such as: "Forgive and overlook till God brings forward His decree."(2:109) should be considered qualified and not abrogated, because they allude to the deferment of time or purpose. And that which has been deferred to some future time is not abrogated.
[suyuti al-itqan fi ulum al-qur'an part 3]
>>
End of quote

You keep saying to me that abrogation is complex. And so it is. In regards to complexity, notice that, Suyuti has a very narrow (simple) definition of abrogation that does not account for the complexity of its use. However, the result is the same taught by the other Scholars I quoted that use the word “abrogation” to define the very same thing Suyuti is describing.

In fact, that is the reason for truces and Taqyah in regards the unbelievers whom Allah commands Muslims to conquer.

Notice that Suyuti does, in fact, teach that, when Muslims are stronger the duty is for Muslims to do battle per Chapter 9…

“We cause it to be forgotten", that is, the duty to do battle, until Muslims become stronger”

However, the earlier abrogated (caused to be forgotten) verses are temporarily used in stages – to grant time for repentance, or when Islam is too weak at the time to conquer a group of people. In cases like these truces are made, and Muslim, when in a minority in a non-Muslim man are to use Taqyah to prevent hostility of the enemy to the Islamic command to conquer them.

Reliance of The Traveler
Truces
o9.16 Umar Barakat explains that truces are only ever temporary, for the benefit of the Muslim war effort, since it is “a matter of the gravest consequence because it entails the non-performance of jihad”.

Quran 3:28 Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah. except by way of precaution (takiah – deception), that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.

Regarding Quran 3:28,

Tafsir Ibn Kathir, vol. 2, 141, comments as follows:
“‘Unless you indeed fear a danger from them’ meaning, except those believers who in some 51 areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly.…‘We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.’”

“Mohammed said, ‘War is deceit.’” (Bukhari vol. 4:267 and 269)
“He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar.” (Bukhari vol. 3:857 p.533)

Joseph writes:
<<
See how important context is now?
>>

Setst RE: Oh yes, I have always seen how important context is, but obviously you need to take the plank out of your own eye so you can see the context too.

Joseph continues:
<<
What you thought was proof that a well versed Islamic source agrees with you that chapter 9 verse 5 abrogates the peaceful verses actually says the complete opposite when his material is read in its full context. This example is exactly why I warn people about sites like answeringislam and people like David Wood. They are intentionally misleading their audiences.
>>

Setst RE: What I thought was proof was proof because I read the context. You refused to read the context, and so your argument backfires on you.

Generalizations in criticism of sources without evidence, only shows you have defeated yourself.

Not looking at the context, shows you are unwilling to see beyond your own bias.

So far, you have not shown any evidence that refutes any sources I gave in all my posts. Why? Because I gave you solid evidence from Islam's best sources, and you did not refute them.

In all regards, your arguments have no merit because they are built on generalizations, labeling of others and their sources, and attacking the messenger, and making excuses for yourself. These are not sources, and that is not evidence.

Ad Hominem attacks on sources and persons prove nothing, accept that you have no foundation to base your strong unjust opinionated biases.

 

[setst777]

Note Ibn Kathir used the term 'abrogated' i.e. as posted above;

Then Ibn Kathir stated,
This honorable Ayah was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said,

"It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term."
Al-Awfi said that Ibn Abbas commented:
"No idolater had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara’ah was revealed. The four months, in addition to, all peace treaties conducted before Bara’ah was revealed and announced had ended by the tenth of the month of Rabi’ Al-Akhir."​

The above is Ibn Kathir views and how can you assert AnswringIslam is wrong. Note Ibn Kathir is merely one of the reference supplied by AnweringIslam to support their views.

Re your reference to Sayuti, he was merely another interpreter.
Full text of "Al itqan fi ulum al quran"

Sayuti presented his own views in his tafsir, but who is he to be the final judge?
While Sayuti preferred not to use the term 'abrogation' for 9:5 but rather he preferred to label it "being made to forget."
Regardless, his view is still the same as 9:5 is to be used offensively and defensively depending on the circumstances of fasadin [threat to Islam] where the state of disbelieving is always deemed a threat to Islam.

Here is what Sayuti wrote;

Fourth: abrogations comprise of several categories. These include:

1. The abrogation of an order before its implementation as in the verse dealing with secret conversations. This is an actual case of abrogation.

2. Abrogation of laws that applied to earlier communities. This is the case with the verse dealing with retaliation and blood wit. Other examples are of laws that are collectively
abrogated such as those that changed the direction of prayer from the Bait '1-Maqdis to the Ka^ba, and fasting the first 10 days of the month of Muharram. These however, are abrogations in a manner of speaking only.

3. The abrogation of a law based on a particular circumstance which subsequently disappears.
This is the case with the call to patience and forgiveness during times of weakness or numerical disadvantages. This was abrogated when fighting became obligatory.

In actual fact, this is not a case of abrogation but a case of "being made to forget", as God Almighty Himself says in the case of war: ". . .or We cause it to be forgotten", that is, the duty to do battle, until Muslims become stronger.
During times of weakness however, the rule is to forbear in the face of persecution.
This then puts paid to the arguments claiming that all such verses have been abrogated by the "verse of the sword", when in fact, this is not the case. Rather, it belongs to the 'made to forget' category, to which belongs every order that is meant to be executed whenever the circumstances so demand, but which gets moved elsewhere when those same circumstances are changed.
This is not abrogation, because abrogation effaces a ruling and makes its subsequent application illegal.
Makki thus points out that in the view of some scholars verses such as: "Forgive and overlook till God brings forward His decree."(2:109) should be considered qualified and not abrogated, because they allude to the deferment of time or purpose. And that which has been deferred to some future time is not abrogated.
​

From the above, whether 9:5 abrogates all that is relevant to it or is meant 'other contrary' are made to be forgotten, the fundamental is 9:5 is still in general a verse of aggression towards non-Muslims since the disbelievers are deemed to be a threat [fasadin] to the ideology of Islam.

Note Allah stated the Quran is supposed to be easy to read and understand, so it is very sinful for Sayuti is overturning Allah words by introducing the complexity of abrogation.

44:58. And We have made (this Scripture) easy in thy language only that they [Muslims] may heed.
​

I don't agree with Sayuti's dilution of 9:5 as not an abrogation per se. There are many contentious camps to the interpretation and ultimately no humans can judge who is right and wrong.
This is the STALEMATE Dilemma where the extremists will carry on and commit evil and violent acts as a religious duty to please Allah.

Btw, none of the above [from Ibn Kathir or Sayuti] support your central argument, i.e.

99% of Muslims understand 9:5 and related verses thoroughly to be purely historical as confined to that specific period and circumstances, thus 99% of Muslims at present are not terrorists.​

Hi Joyousperson,

I came to a similar conclusion regarding Sayuti on abrogation just from remembering reading this at an earlier time.

I wonder why Joseph could have missed this, since he stressed "context" so frequently?

Seeing your post obviously is a confirmation that I am not imagining things here. My understanding of the context of Sayuti is not something that can just be overlooked if one really read it.

Apparently Joseph never actually read Sayuti's volume, as mentioned. I wish he had, because I don't like to see anyone humiliated so badly as Joseph has been for so many days.

Blessings to you and keep up the good work.

setst

 

[setst777]

zzz

 

[JosephZ]

Suyuti [1445–1505 AD; aka Jalaluddin; an Egyptian of Persian origin. Historian, biographer, jurist, teacher and scholar of Islamic theology; he was one of the most prolific writers of the Middle Ages.] Suyuti said that everything in the Qur'an about forgiveness and peace is abrogated by verse 9:5, which orders Muslims to fight the unbelievers and to establish God's kingdom on earth
[Suyuti, Al-Itqan fi ‘Ulum al-Qur'an, part 1, pp. 60, 65, 164.]

The above is false. Suyuti never said "everything in the Qur'an about forgiveness and peace is abrogated by verse 9:5." He says the opposite, that none of the verses found in chapter 9 abrogate the verses about forgiveness and peace. Since this false claim can only be found on anti-Islamic websites and from anti-Islamic propagandists, why do you trust them as a source of information on Islam?

Feisal Abdul Rauf is a sufi Muslim. The Sufi branch of Islam spiritualizes just about everything. They do not represent the mainstream Islam.
Only about 1% of all Muslims practice Sufi.
Sufism — What is it?
Did you miss that in your context?

I didn't miss anything and was hoping you would catch that. Since you did pick up on the fact that Feisal Abdul Rauf is a sufi Muslim, why do you reject what he has to say on the subject of Shari'a since he comes from a branch of Islam that only 1% of the world's Muslims adhere to, yet choose to accept the teachings of the Wahhabists on Shari'a when those who follow this sect only make up around 4% of the Muslim population? Shouldn't you reject them both since they only make up such a small minority of the world's Muslims and neither represent mainstream Islam?

Your argument regarding “context” without any legitimate evidence is no evidence at all.

I did give evidence in earlier posts, what are you talking about? I gave the full context of some of your sources and links to others which showed where the original sources were taken out of context.

Your repeated responses about context are a cop out. Just saying something is out of context because it disagrees with you is not evidence.

It's not a cop out. How can you take a single sentence or a paragraph out of an article or a book and use that alone to determine it's intended meaning? If you were going to write a book report in school, wouldn't you read the entire book to thoroughly understand it and receive a passing grade?

We predominantly discussing Qur'an 9:5 "the verse of the Sword" that abrogates many peaceful verses. Not all the verses in Chapter 9 are direct commands of Allah. The Islamic scholars concentrate their use of abrogation on Qur’an 9:5 mostly, but include all the way to around verse 33 because these are the commands of Allah regarding the unbelievers that abrogate peaceful verses. I quoted the sources for you.

You have to start at verse 1 and go from there. When you do, you will find that every Islamic source you provided disagrees with what you are saying on Chapter 9. They all are in agreement as to when and to which non-Muslims the commands found in that chapter applied to.

My explanation found here: Do Not Bash Muslims and the sources you provided here

Try reading the following Islamic source to gain a better understanding...
Section 1: Immunity Declared

and here

>> Al-Islam.org on Surah 9

along with Ibn Kathir's commentary found here Quran Tafsir Ibn Kathir - Surah 9 - Tawbah (Repentance) are all in agreement.

The Southern Poverty Law Center is famous for labeling just about anyone who tells the truth - that is negative about someone else - as a hate group and “extremists.” Solid Christian ministries and those who report about Islamic extremism are labeled by them as hate groups. Yet, interestingly, the SPLC neglects to label the Islamic extremists who commit violent acts or support terrorism as extremists or hate groups.

SPLC wasn't the source I provided on the Clarion Project, it was Mediabiasfactcheck. SPLC was only mentioned in their report. Mediabiasfactcheck is accurate when it describes all sources whether they be left or right leaning. Here is their report on MSNBC for example: MSNBC - Media Bias/Fact Check

I came to a similar conclusion regarding Sayuti on abrogation just from remembering reading this at an earlier time.

I wonder why Joseph could have missed this, since he stressed "context" so frequently?

Apparently Joseph never actually read Sayuti's volume, as mentioned. I wish he had, because I don't like to see anyone humiliated so badly as Joseph has been for so many days.

Isn't it you that said the following?

Suyuti [1445–1505 AD; aka Jalaluddin; an Egyptian of Persian origin. Historian, biographer, jurist, teacher and scholar of Islamic theology; he was one of the most prolific writers of the Middle Ages.] Suyuti said that everything in the Qur'an about forgiveness and peace is abrogated by verse 9:5, which orders Muslims to fight the unbelievers and to establish God's kingdom on earth
[Suyuti, Al-Itqan fi ‘Ulum al-Qur'an, part 1, pp. 60, 65, 164.]

If you had actually read Suyuti on abrogation, how could you make such a gross error? He never said such a thing and rejected the idea that the verses in Chapter 9 abrogated the verses on forgiveness and peace found elsewhere in the Qur'an. In his book he concludes that none of the violent verses in chapter 9 abrogate the peaceful verses.

I found the source of your claim in Bill Warner's Political Islam which is also found on the answeringislam website. Bill Warner by the way has absolutely no background in religion, Islamic studies or Islamic history.

Here is the quote from Bill Warner's Political Islam: "Al-Suyuti declared clearly that every thing in the Qur’an about forgiveness and peace is abrogated by verse 9:5, which orders Muslims to fight the unbelievers and to establish Allah’s kingdom on earth."

The above is a lie. Bill Warner even says "Al-Suyuti declared clearly." Declared clearly? He never declared it at all.

So how can make the following comment: "I came to a similar conclusion regarding Sayuti on abrogation just from remembering reading this at an earlier time. I wonder why Joseph could have missed this, since he stressed "context" so frequently? Apparently Joseph never actually read Sayuti's volume, as mentioned."

Had you actually read Suyuti's Al itqan fi ulum al quran for yourself, you would have never used a source that said Suyuti claimed everything in the Qur'an about forgiveness and peace is abrogated by verse 9:5. Also, if you read this book, you will see where you are in error on your understanding of abrogation. Suyuti refers to several ancient Islamic scholars in his work and you will get various perspectives on the subject of abrogation from this single source.

 

[Joyousperson]

Hi Joseph

You quoted Joyousperson as follows:
Note Setst777 quoted from the “Reliance of the Traveller,” but you did not agree with the evil and violent elements that were quoted.

Joseph responded:
<<
Context is key.
>>

Setst RE: Your repeated responses about context are a cop out. Just saying something is out of context because it disagrees with you is not evidence. You never refuted or explained why any of the sources I gave are out of context. Therefore, every source I gave still stands as a witness against all your arguments. All your arguments have been refuted so far in every message and on every point.

setst777 wrote:
I quoted from the original sources and gave you links to Ibn Kathir’s commentary so you can look up anything you want and study it right from his commentary. I quoted the Qur’an for you and Islam’s best scholars. So if you saw something I quoted that was in error, all you had to do was look it up and bring it to my attention. So Your comment is not based in reality, is slanderous, and has no merit.

Joseph RE: I gave a link to Ibn Kathir's commentary to the OP in another thread in it's entirity to show where he was in error about Chapter 9.

Setst RE: Another thread? You gave no refutation of the quotes I gave, so your arguments are false and are refuted.

JosephZ wrote:
<<
When you read the tafsir of Ibn Khatir in full context it debunks the claims being made by answeringislam and your claims made in this tread. Quran Tafsir Ibn Kathir - Surah 9 - Tawbah (Repentance)

It seems you both are having trouble understanding what is written.
>>

Setst RE: You are giving broad generalizations attacking all sources that disagree with you, but have proven nothing.

Joseph writes:
<<
Since Muslims who were born into Islam and Schools that offer courses in Islamic Studies use the exact same Islamic texts, yet come to totally totally different conclusions, did you ever stop to think that maybe you are being misled by those anti-Islamic propaganda sites you visit?
>>

Setst RE: Which schools and which texts? And quote what do those schools teach about those texts?

setst777 wrote:
Thanks for admitting that “Reliance of the Traveller” is an excellent source. I quoted from that excellent source at least 7 times attempting to teach you what Sharia is, what Taqyah is, what Jihad is, and how it deals with unbelievers, hypocrites, and apostasy. At the time you would arrogantly not accept any source that disagreed with you. So, excellent or not, you reject "Reliance of the Traveller."

Joseph responds:
<<
Context is everything.

Since you are having difficulty understanding the concepts of Shari'a I would like to recommend the following book as a companion to the Reliance of the traveler:

Islam: A Sacred Law: What Every Muslim Should Know About the Shariah, Feisal Abdul Rauf,
>>

Setst RE:
Feisal Abdul Rauf is a sufi Muslim. The Sufi branch of Islam spiritualizes just about everything. They do not represent the mainstream Islam.

Only about 1% of all Muslims practice Sufi.
Sufism — What is it?

Did you miss that in your context?

Your argument regarding “context” without any legitimate evidence is no evidence at all.

setst777 wrote:
Every Islamic source that shows that later violent Qur’anic revelations abrogate earlier sources you said are extremist and propaganda.

Joseph RE: Can you give a specific example?

Setst RE: I quoted you at least 5 times which were in response to all the Islamic sources I gave you showing that the violent verses abrogate earlier peaceful verses. YOU are the example; so, look in the mirror.

setst777 wrote:
That is why the later verses replace the earlier ones, just as the Qur’an, Hadith and Sira and Tafsir teach.

Joseph responds:
<<
It's not that simple. Once again the concept of abrogation is very complex.
>>

Setst RE: Yes, it is complex, especially since Muslim scholars do not define abrogation the same way. Some believe abrogation means later verses permanently blot out earlier verses.

Qur'an 13:39
Allah doth blot out or confirm what He pleaseth: with Him is the Mother of the Book.

Others believe this too, but only as one of several ways abrogation is used in the Qur’an.

In regards to peaceful verses abrogated by earlier verses:

The best Islamic scholars, which I quoted repeatedly, state that abrogation can also have a temporary use in stages.

Qur'an 16:101 (The Noble Qur'an)
When We substitute one revelation for another- and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages) - they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not.

Depending on the circumstances (the stage of power Islam is in at the time) in contrast to the enemies (unbelievers) will determine if the abrogated verses are again used – but only temporarily.

For instance, earlier peaceful verses are said by the best Islamic scholars that I quoted from to be abrogated Qur’an 9:5-34 – the Islamic conquest of unbelievers for Allah until there is no religion but Islam.

However, this is only the case when Islam has power to attack and overcome the unbelieving group, groups, or nation (as Muhammad did), or when Islam is temporarily giving unbelievers the opportunity to repent (as Muhammad did).

When Islam lacks power to dominate and win battles, or if Islam is giving time to repent, then Islam reverts back to an earlier stage (of which Muhammad used) but not permanently. In this case, truces are authorized with the enemy, just as Muhammad did, but never permanently, because Chapter 9 abrogates all earlier verses of peace and co-existence.

Reliance of The Traveler
Truces
o9.16 Umar Barakat explains that truces are only ever temporary, for the benefit of the Muslim war effort, since it is “a matter of the gravest consequence because it entails the non-performance of jihad”.

When temporarily in an earlier stage, then the earlier verses of peace and co-existence, or defensive Jihad, take precedence until such Qur’an 9:5 is again enacted.

Joseph responds:
<<
Iran is doing this? Can you provide a source for this claim?
>>

Setst RE: Of course I can.
https://clarionproject.org/exclusive-michigan-mosques-linked-to-iranian-regime/

Shiite Muslims Quietly Establish a Foothold in U.S.

Shia Muslims - the majority of which are in Iran - have more Shia organizations and Mosques in the USA then most other foreign lands, except for Iran.

List of Shia Organizations

Iran for many years has been growing its network of sleeper cells in the USA in preparation for attacking the USA.

https://clarionproject.org/iran-has-sleeper-cells-us-ready-attack-4/

IMAMS.us

Joseph responds: First off, that article doesn't show that Iran has spent hundreds of millions of dollars building mosques and promoting their doctrine throughout the US and in Europe.

Setst RE: I never said Iran alone was spending hundreds of millions of dollars, but that both Saudi Arabia and Iran were spending this money. I never gave a monetary breakdown of who was paying what.

Joseph continues:
<<
Secondly, you need to find a better source for information:
>>

Setst RE: Once again, when anyone disagrees with you, the source must be wrong.

Joseph continues:
<<
The Clarion Project has an extreme right wing bias in reporting and wording. They are classified as an active anti-Muslim hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Has a false claim according to a fact checker. (D. Van Zandt 4/15/2017)
>>

Setst RE: The Southern Poverty Law Center is famous for labeling just about anyone who tells the truth - that is negative about someone else - as a hate group and “extremists.” Solid Christian ministries and those who report about Islamic extremism are labeled by them as hate groups. Yet, interestingly, the SPLC neglects to label the Islamic extremists who commit violent acts or support terrorism as extremists or hate groups.

Southern Poverty Law Center - Wikipedia

setst wrote:
Shia Muslims - the majority of which are in Iran - have more Shia organizations and Mosques in the USA then most other foreign lands, except for Iran.

Joseph wrote:
<<
While there are extremist elements to be found in both Sunni and Shia Islam, you should be happy about this because Shias are more moderate than Sunnis and are anti-Wahhabists.
>>

Setst RE: Shia and Sunni Muslims both teach the same about defensive Jihad to perceived wrongs against them, or for what they feel is wrong. Terrorism is used in such cases. Wahhabists are Sunnis, so obviously Shia Muslims are against them.

• We should equally fear the Shias and the Sunnis in their growing entrenchment in the West.
• We should fear the Mosques that indoctrinate Muslims. We should fear their Islamic Organizations in the West – most of whom have known ties to terrorism, or support terrorism.
• We should fear their build up of sleeper cells in the USA.

Because, if things go wrong between the US and Shia or Sunni Muslims, and if there is war, then you can expect devastation and death caused by such cells right within our country. They don’t need missiles to reach us when they are building up an army right within our boarders.

setst777 wrote:
<<
Yes, in a few of your messages you did refer to a few Hadith and several Qur’an verses, and even a couple Muslim teachers. This is in contrast to almost every message of mine referring to the Islamic sources as my evidence.

If you go through my past posts you will find that I have used both the Qur'an and the hadiths extensively as references in several threads.

Joseph responds:
<<
In this thread I'm just taking a different approach. Like I said in my last post, you are not the only one who has presented these exact same verses, hadiths, and sources in their attempts to bash Islam. Everything you are posting here, I have countered at least once, perhaps even more than once, in other threads.
>>

Setst RE: That is not evidence. Your excuse that you are “taking a different approach” does not exempt you from providing the evidence to support your generalizations.

setst777 wrote:
The Hadith, and Sharia (Reliance of the Traveller), the Qur’an, and Islamic scholars I quoted to you clearly shows that in regards to unbelievers, Taqyah is deceptiong - to deceive others through lies if necessary.

Joseph responds:
<<
Only in very specific circumstances. I clarified this for you in a previous post. You are free to believe what you want.
>>

Setst RE: I responded to your circumstances and sources used. And they have no merit in regards to Takyah when used with unbelievers when Islam is a minority or lacks power. In such cases, Takyah, in the form of deception used in order to prevent hostility by the enemy until such time the Muslims in that land gain the power (in stages) to carry out Chapter 9.

setst777 wrote:
<<
In MSG 166 you quote two sources from Muslims who show that abrogation is complex. Who doesn't know that?! Why do you quote them? To obviously to show that abrogation is so complex that we will never know what abrogates what in any circumstance so don’t even try. However, such a conclusion of yours contradicts the best Islamic scholars and tafsir showing abrogation, especially in regarding to Qur'an chapter 9 abrogating all peaceful verses and all treaties with unbelievers.

Joseph responds: Why do you quote them?
To help explain why you as a non-Muslim living in the west would have difficulty in understanding the concept, much less be able to determine which verses have been abrogated.

Setst RE: Easy to attack the messenger and NOT deal with the Islamic sources I provided repeated – at least 5 times now – regarding abrogation. This is important to quote because Islam uses Chapter 9 as a key verse that abrogates others – the reason why Jihad against unbelievers until Islam is the only religion in the whole world is taught in Sunni and Shia Islam.

Do you understand the implications here and why this is so important? That is why I quoted verses that abrogate others, and use the best Islamic Scholars to prove the point. As usual, you neglect the sources and attack the messenger.

setst777 wrote:
However, such a conclusion of yours contradicts the best Islamic scholars and tafsir showing abrogation, especially in regarding to Qur'an chapter 9 abrogating all peaceful verses and all treaties with unbelievers.

Joseph responds:
<<
Once again, Abrogation is a complex issue, and just because a verse is revealed later it does not mean it automatically replaces an earlier verse. A later verse has to cross reference an earlier verse and be along the same lines of reasoning.
>>

Setst RE: That is why I quoted the best Islamic scholars. Your refusal to look at the evidence does not mean your argument is valid – just the opposite. Just stating abrogation is complex does not legitimize or prove any of your arguments.

continued...

As usual, great stuff and solid arguments.

I have a copy of the 'Reliance of the Traveller' [have not read it fully.

I often read of the part where Muslims are exhorted to attack the kuffar at least once a year to cast terror on them to sustain fears and terror in them.

The communal obligation to attack Kuffar at least once each year. Link [not working]
Islam Exposed: Reliance of the Traveller: Handbook of Shari'ah​

Previously I could easily find the reference but now it is very difficult - must be due to censorship.

Do you know where the reference is off hand?

 

[Joyousperson]

The above is false. Suyuti never said "everything in the Qur'an about forgiveness and peace is abrogated by verse 9:5." He says the opposite, that none of the verses found in chapter 9 abrogate the verses about forgiveness and peace. Since this false claim can only be found on anti-Islamic websites and from anti-Islamic propagandists, why do you trust them as a source of information on Islam?


I didn't miss anything and was hoping you would catch that. Since you did pick up on the fact that Feisal Abdul Rauf is a sufi Muslim, why do you reject what he has to say on the subject of Shari'a since he comes from a branch of Islam that only 1% of the world's Muslims adhere to, yet choose to accept the teachings of the Wahhabists on Shari'a when those who follow this sect only make up around 4% of the Muslim population? Shouldn't you reject them both since they only make up such a small minority of the world's Muslims and neither represent mainstream Islam?


I did give evidence in earlier posts, what are you talking about? I gave the full context of some of your sources and links to others which showed where the original sources were taken out of context.


It's not a cop out. How can you take a single sentence or a paragraph out of an article or a book and use that alone to determine it's intended meaning? If you were going to write a book report in school, wouldn't you read the entire book to thoroughly understand it and receive a passing grade?


You have to start at verse 1 and go from there. When you do, you will find that every Islamic source you provided disagrees with what you are saying on Chapter 9. They all are in agreement as to when and to which non-Muslims the commands found in that chapter applied to.

My explanation found here: Do Not Bash Muslims and the sources you provided here
and here along with Ibn Kathir's commentary found here Quran Tafsir Ibn Kathir - Surah 9 - Tawbah (Repentance) are all in agreement.


SPLC wasn't the source I provided on the Clarion Project, it was Mediabiasfactcheck. SPLC was only mentioned in their report. Mediabiasfactcheck is accurate when it describes all sources whether they be left or right leaning. Here is their report on MSNBC for example: MSNBC - Media Bias/Fact Check


Isn't it you that said the following?

If you had actually read Suyuti on abrogation, how could you make such a gross error? He never said such a thing and rejected the idea that the verses in Chapter 9 abrogated the verses on forgiveness and peace found elsewhere in the Qur'an. In his book he concludes that none of the violent verses in chapter 9 abrogate the peaceful verses.

I found the source of your claim in Bill Warner's Political Islam which is also found on the answeringislam website. Bill Warner by the way has absolutely no background in religion, Islamic studies or Islamic history.

Here is the quote from Bill Warner's Political Islam: "Al-Suyuti declared clearly that every thing in the Qur’an about forgiveness and peace is abrogated by verse 9:5, which orders Muslims to fight the unbelievers and to establish Allah’s kingdom on earth."

The above is a lie. Bill Warner even says "Al-Suyuti declared clearly." Declared clearly? He never declared it at all.

So how can make the following comment: "I came to a similar conclusion regarding Sayuti on abrogation just from remembering reading this at an earlier time. I wonder why Joseph could have missed this, since he stressed "context" so frequently? Apparently Joseph never actually read Sayuti's volume, as mentioned."

Had you actually read Suyuti's Al itqan fi ulum al quran for yourself, you would have never used a source that said Suyuti claimed everything in the Qur'an about forgiveness and peace is abrogated by verse 9:5. Also, if you read this book, you will see where you are in error on your understanding of abrogation. Suyuti refers to several ancient Islamic scholars in his work and you will get various perspectives on the subject of abrogation from this single source.

As Sets777 had stated, you have to point out what you think is wrong and it can be reviewed to determine whether the issue is critical to the argument or not.

Note there is no gross error in the interpretation of Suyuti's interpretation of "abrogation".
It was not a precise interpretation but nevertheless in context the main point of 9:5 in 'fighting and killing' non-Muslims is still effective in Suyuti's case.
Where fighting and killing non-Muslim is obligatory, it is clear and obvious all peaceful verses are abrogated or as Suyuti has extended to 'made to forget'.

But note in the context of the whole of the Quran - the core of Islam, re the 3400++ of contemptuous verses against non-Muslims, they are recognized in the later chronologically based Medinian chapters as an eternal threat to Islam, thus always at war with Islam. Thus is clear, 9:5 as obligatory has abrogated and overridden all peaceful verses for non-Muslims [made forgotten].
The only exclusion where 9:5 is not to be executed is when Muslims are in a weak position which is obvious.

As such there is no solid reason to reject the thousands of points that were presented by Bill Warner.

 

[Joyousperson]

I didn't miss anything and was hoping you would catch that. Since you did pick up on the fact that Feisal Abdul Rauf is a sufi Muslim, why do you reject what he has to say on the subject of Shari'a since he comes from a branch of Islam that only 1% of the world's Muslims adhere to, yet choose to accept the teachings of the Wahhabists on Shari'a when those who follow this sect only make up around 4% of the Muslim population? Shouldn't you reject them both since they only make up such a small minority of the world's Muslims and neither represent mainstream Islam?

Note The Reliance of the Traveler of the Shafi'i school not Wahhabist. It is also accepted by most Sunni Muslims.

The Shafi‘i school is presently predominant in the following parts of the Muslim world:[8]
​

• • Africa: Djibouti, Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, eastern Egypt and the Swahili Coast.[18]
  • Middle East: Yemen, Kurdish regions of the Middle East, Caucasus region, Saudi Arabia, the Levant and parts of Egypt.
  • Caucasus[citation needed]
  • Asia: Indonesia, Malaysia, Maldives, Sri Lanka, Kerala in India, Singapore, Myanmar, Thailand, Brunei, and the southern Philippines.
• Shafi‘i school is the second largest school of Sunni madhhabs by number of adherents, states Saeed in his 2008 book. [contested]

Indonesia itself has the largest number of Muslims which are mainly of the Shafi'i school.
Therefore it cannot be 4% which is false.

It's not a cop out. How can you take a single sentence or a paragraph out of an article or a book and use that alone to determine it's intended meaning? If you were going to write a book report in school, wouldn't you read the entire book to thoroughly understand it and receive a passing grade?

The focus is on 9:5 but we have always argued it in the context of the whole of the Quran and the whole chapter 9.

Btw MSNBC - Media Bias/Fact Check has always been very bias to the left.

In this case, it is useless to brand groups hastily but rather you have to be specific by providing evidence and proofs why the ClarionProject, AnsweringIslam and others are wrong.

 

[JosephZ]

Note The Reliance of the Traveler of the Shafi'i school not Wahhabist. It is also accepted by most Sunni Muslims.

Indonesia itself has the largest number of Muslims which are mainly of the Shafi'i school.
Therefore it cannot be 4% which is false.

Muslims don't interpret the Qur'an and various other Islamic texts the way you do. I wasn't even thinking about the book "Reliance of the Traveler" when I made that post. I was talking about Wahabbism and the Wahhabist interpretation of Shari'a which you and the member I was quoting believe represent the religion of Islam and which better than 95% of the world's Muslims reject.

The Reliance of the Traveler of the Shafi'i school not Wahhabist. It is also accepted by most Sunni Muslims... .

And yet Muslims (With the exception of Islamic extremists) in the following countries reject Wahhabism and Islamic fundamentalism: Djibouti, Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Yemen, Kurdish regions of the Middle East, Caucasus region, Indonesia (Indonesia itself has the largest number of Muslims which are mainly of the Shafi'i school), Malaysia, Maldives, Sri Lanka, India, Singapore, Myanmar, Thailand, Brunei, and the southern Philippines.

Why do you think that is?

 

[Joyousperson]

Muslims don't interpret the Qur'an and various other Islamic texts the way you do. I wasn't even thinking about the book "Reliance of the Traveler" when I made that post. I was talking about Wahabbism and the Wahhabist interpretation of Shari'a which you and the member I was quoting believe represent the religion of Islam and which better than 95% of the world's Muslims reject.


And yet Muslims (With the exception of Islamic extremists) in the following countries reject Wahhabism and Islamic fundamentalism: Djibouti, Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Yemen, Kurdish regions of the Middle East, Caucasus region, Indonesia (Indonesia itself has the largest number of Muslims which are mainly of the Shafi'i school), Malaysia, Maldives, Sri Lanka, India, Singapore, Myanmar, Thailand, Brunei, and the southern Philippines.

Why do you think that is?

Note Islam is represented by the 6236 verses in the Quran [Primary] and supported by the Ahadith [secondary].

Thus to what degree a person is a Muslim will depend on how many verses [some critical than others] s/he understand, agree and comply with.

So the name given by humans to a Muslim, i.e. Wahabbism, Sunni, Shafi'i, terrorist, etc. is not critical in the eyes of Allah who only recognized who is a Muslim in terms of the Quran's 6236 verses.
Your harping on 'Wahabbism' and the rest who are moderate is very intellectually childish.

What is presented in the 'Reliance of the Traveler' [which you agree with] is in alignment and compliance with 99-100% of what is in the Quran, i.e. including all the 3400++ of contemptuous and fighting verses against non-Muslims.
The Wahabbists, the extremists, the terrorists and other fundamentalists also agree with 99-100% of the 6236 verses of the Quran.

Note, the number of those who agree with the Reliance of the Traveler by default and otherwise is likely to be more than 30%, note Indonesia and elsewhere.
Those who are evil prone from a pool of 320 million will likely agree with a larger % of the Quran's 6236 verses.

Your so-called majority of 'good' and moderate Muslims, on the other hand, will not agree with the 3400++ verses and the contemptuous and antagonistic elements therein.
In a way, your 'good' Muslims will reject the Wahabbist's view which is more Islamic. They will also reject the Sharia elements in the 'Reliance of the Traveler' which is 99-100% with the Quran.

Thus logically, your supposedly 'good' Muslims would be lesser Muslims in Allah's eyes because they disagreed with a high % of Allah's verses.
Fortunately for all, they are good human beings and not-so-good Muslims.

Therefore your argument that the majority of Muslims reject Wahabbism is toothless in terms of Allah's Islam.

The critical point is,
the better Muslim is one who understands, agrees and complies with more of the 6236 verses of the Quran - words of Allah.
The Wahabbists, the extremist Muslims, the terrorists, fundamentalists and some others agree and comply with a very high % up to 99-100% of the 6236 verses of the Quran. Regardless, how they are named by humans, they are the better grade or ranked Muslims in the eyes of Allah.

4:95. Those [Muslims] of the believers who sit still, other than those [Muslims] who have a (disabling) hurt, are not on an equality with those [Muslims] who strive in the way of Allah with their wealth and lives. Allah hath conferred on those [Muslims] who strive with their wealth and lives a rank above the sedentary. Unto each Allah hath promised good, but He hath bestowed on those [Muslims fighters] who strive a great reward above the sedentary; [inspire, trigger Jihadists to fight]

4:96. Degrees of rank from Him [Allah], and forgiveness and mercy. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.
​

In the Quran, there are many verses where Allah will grade Muslims in accordance to their understanding, agreement and compliance with his words.

It is so obvious your so-called "good" Muslims are already many points lesser as a Muslim in Allah's eyes when they do not agree with Allah re befriending and fighting non-Muslims, cast terror on them and be stern to non-Muslims.

 

[setst777]

The above is false. Suyuti never said "everything in the Qur'an about forgiveness and peace is abrogated by verse 9:5." He says the opposite, that none of the verses found in chapter 9 abrogate the verses about forgiveness and peace. Since this false claim can only be found on anti-Islamic websites and from anti-Islamic propagandists, why do you trust them as a source of information on Islam?

Hi Joseph

setst777 quoted:
Suyuti [1445–1505 AD; aka Jalaluddin; an Egyptian of Persian origin. Historian, biographer, jurist, teacher and scholar of Islamic theology; he was one of the most prolific writers of the Middle Ages.] Suyuti said that everything in the Qur'an about forgiveness and peace is abrogated by verse 9:5, which orders Muslims to fight the unbelievers and to establish God's kingdom on earth
[Suyuti, Al-Itqan fi ‘Ulum al-Qur'an, part 1, pp. 60, 65, 164.]

Joseph responds:
<<
The above is false. Suyuti never said "everything in the Qur'an about forgiveness and peace is abrogated by verse 9:5." He says the opposite, that none of the verses found in chapter 9 abrogate the verses about forgiveness and peace. Since this false claim can only be found on anti-Islamic websites and from anti-Islamic propagandists, why do you trust them as a source of information on Islam?
>>

Setst RE: I agree that what Suyuti quoted was not his own words. In practice - he does teach the very same thing.

The only issue you are having is that Suyuti replaces the word “abrogate” with “cause to be forgotten.” In context, however, Suyuti is completely in line with those other scholars who are aware that everything in the Qur’an about forgiveness and peace is abrogated (cause to be forgotten) by verse 9:5.

While the quote I provided is from another site, this does not negate the evidence if you read the whole context. However, in the future I will be more careful in vetting the material I quote. I apologize for the confusion that quote created.

setst777 said:
Feisal Abdul Rauf is a sufi Muslim. The Sufi branch of Islam spiritualizes just about everything. They do not represent the mainstream Islam.

Only about 1% of all Muslims practice Sufi.

Sufism — What is it?

Did you miss that in your context?

Joseph responds:
<<
I didn't miss anything and was hoping you would catch that.
>>

Setst RE: You listed the link to your source as your evidence to show me how wrong I was about what Reliance of the Traveller was really saying in context.

The 'proof' you provided is "Sufi." Apparently you read the wrong book to tell you what Reliance of the Traveller is actually saying. So naturally your understanding of the “context” of “Reliance of the Traveller” is faulty and is the reason you are falsely saying I am taking quotes out of context.

Joseph writes:
<<
… yet choose to accept the teachings of the Wahhabists on Shari'a when those who follow this sect only make up around 4% of the Muslim population?
>>

Setst RE: You really don't know anything about Muslim sects. “Reliance of the Traveller” is not a Wahhabist manual about Shari; rather, it is a Sunni Shafii manual.

Reliance of the Travellor represent the majority of Sunni Muslim Sharia

"While the volume represents the Shafi’i School of jurisprudence, it is identical with 75 percent of the other three Sunni Schools of Islamic law."

"[Reliance of the Traveller] text is the first Islamic legal work in a European language to receive certification from the most important seat of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence, Cairo’s al-Azhar University."
Reliance of the Traveller—Sharia Law Manual |

setst777 said:
Your argument regarding “context” without any legitimate evidence is no evidence at all.

Joseph responds:
<<
I did give evidence in earlier posts, what are you talking about? I gave the full context of some of your sources and links to others which showed where the original sources were taken out of context.
>>

Setst RE: You gave me original sources, like your Sufi book to try to show me what Sunni believe about Sharia.

I already reviewed the Islamic sources you gave just two posts ago - even supplying the ID numbers to your posts... In each case I have given accurate Islamic evidence (not just stated) to show that all your sources lack any credibility, in that the sources do not address the context which you so much harp about. You could not refute it.

setst777 wrote:
Your repeated responses about context are a cop out. Just saying something is out of context because it disagrees with you is not evidence.

Joseph responds:
<<
It's not a cop out. How can you take a single sentence or a paragraph out of an article or a book and use that alone to determine it's intended meaning? If you were going to write a book report in school, wouldn't you read the entire book to thoroughly understand it and receive a passing grade?
>>

Setst RE: The quote was by Suyuti. True, Suyuti was quoting another scholar. The fact remains that you didn't understand that the quote actually agreed with Suyuti, even though Suyuti replaces "abrogate" with "caused to be forgotten." I see nothing in the quote that is the "opposite" of what Suyuti understood. Suyuti was in agreement with the scholar he quoted; in that; Q 9:5 replaced (caused to be forgotten) all the peaceful verses.

You are getting hung up on the terminology used, but fail to see context of what is being said.

You say all the sources I gave you are “out of context;” yet, you have shown not one example where anything quoted was out of context. You are repeatedly using the “out of context” phrase as a cop out.

setst777 said:
We are predominantly discussing Qur'an 9:5 "the verse of the Sword" that abrogates many peaceful verses. Not all the verses in Chapter 9 are direct commands of Allah. The Islamic scholars concentrate their use of abrogation on Qur’an 9:5 mostly, but include all the way to around verse 33, because these are the commands of Allah regarding the unbelievers that abrogate peaceful verses. I quoted the sources for you.

Joseph writes:
<<
You have to start at verse 1 and go from there. When you do, you will find that every Islamic source you provided disagrees with what you are saying on Chapter 9. They all are in agreement as to when and to which non-Muslims the commands found in that chapter applied to.
>>

Setst RE: I read it. I compared it to the best Islamic sources (Qur'an, Sahih Hadith, Tafsir and scholars, and with the Islamic Encyclopedia on Jihad, with the sources on traditional and classical Islam, History of Islamic Conquest, on Wikipedia and other sources that I quoted. I provided quality evidence for everything. All the sources agree that, although Qur'an 9:5-33 is couched in an historical context, the command of Allah is to fight with the unbelievers until Islam is the only religion on earth.

And traditional Sunni and Shia doctrine, as well as Sunni and Shia history, on Jihad and its use, agrees with the Qur’an 9:5 – that it predominantly has to do with war against unbelievers until the religion of Islam is the only religion on earth.

In the process of accomplishing this command of Allah, the context of Islamic sources reveal there are times when truces, and the use of takyah, are permissible with the enemy when in an minority status, or when too weak to conquer an enemy nation or group, or to allow time for repentance. This is what is meant by Allah “causing to forget (in stages).” I quoted “Reliance of the Traveller” and other highly credible Islamic sources to show this was the case.

You showed, by the sources you quoted, that you didn’t know what Takyah was in relation to “unbelievers.”

You showed by the Suffi source you listed, and opinions you gave (which I re-quoted for you when you asked), that you didn’t know what Sharia was, or that is was not fully implemented. You thought the most peaceful Muslims are the ones who follow Sharia. The evidence clearly shows this is not the case.

I have shown from “Reliance of the Traveller” (Sunni Sharia Law) and many Qur’an and Hadith verses what Sharia is, and you said that was all “Wahhabism.” So, you really are mixed up, and don’t know much about what Islam teaches about anything. Reliance the Traveller is a Sunni Manual.

setst777 said:
The Southern Poverty Law Center is famous for labeling just about anyone who tells the truth - that is negative about someone else - as a hate group and “extremists.” Solid Christian ministries and those who report about Islamic extremism are labeled by them as hate groups. Yet, interestingly, the SPLC neglects to label the Islamic extremists who commit violent acts or support terrorism as extremists or hate groups.

Joseph responds:
<<
SPLC wasn't the source I provided on the Clarion Project, it was Mediabiasfactcheck. SPLC was only mentioned in their report. Mediabiasfactcheck is accurate when it describes all sources whether they be left or right leaning. Here is their report on MSNBC for example: MSNBC - Media Bias/Fact Check
>>

Setst RE: From what I understand, Mediabiasfactcheck is basically operated by one man. He quotes SPLC as the source for the negative information. What does that tell you about the honesty of Mediabiasfactcheck?

He gives “subjective” rulings, but rarely provides evidence to support those rulings. Some of what he provides is helpful to identify unreliable sites. But he is also dishonest and biased in his subjective decisions in that evidence is lacking for such decisions.

Media Bias Fact Check: Incompetent or Dishonest? - Just Facts

PolitiFact Bias: Can you trust what "Media Bias/Fact Check" says about PolitiFact? (Updated)

Consequently, Mediabiasfactcheck rates politfacts.com credibility as “high.”

 

[setst777]

As usual, great stuff and solid arguments.

I have a copy of the 'Reliance of the Traveller' [have not read it fully.

I often read of the part where Muslims are exhorted to attack the kuffar at least once a year to cast terror on them to sustain fears and terror in them.

The communal obligation to attack Kuffar at least once each year. Link [not working]
Islam Exposed: Reliance of the Traveller: Handbook of Shari'ah​

Previously I could easily find the reference but now it is very difficult - must be due to censorship.

Do you know where the reference is off hand?

Hi Joyousperson,

Yes, censorship.

This is quoted from the internet...

Reliance of the Traveller O9.1 “Jihad is a communal obligation,” meaning obligatory upon the Muslims each year.

I have the book as well, but never got around to reading it yet. I think tomorrow I will start.

 

[JosephZ]

The fact remains that you didn't understand that the quote actually agreed with Suyuti, even though Suyuti replaces "abrogate" with "caused to be forgotten." I see nothing in the quote that is the "opposite" of what Suyuti understood. Suyuti was in agreement with the scholar he quoted; in that; Q 9:5 replaced (caused to be forgotten) all the peaceful verses.

I agree that what Suyuti quoted was not his own words. In practice - he does teach the very same thing.

No, he does not teach the same thing. Not even close. How anyone could read his works and come to that conclusion is beyond me.

Suyuti specifically mentions Qur'an 9:5 and states this is not a case of abrogation but a case of the context in which it's found. In other words, in some situations the the verses of peace and forgiveness apply, while in other situations the verses that allow violence apply (Basically what I have been saying all along in this thread). He also teaches that no verse in the Qur'an has been completely replaced by another, but rather each has a very specific context and application. In addition, he teaches a verse for a verse, therefore, it would be impossible for verse 9:5 to replace all of the verses of peace and forgiveness. At the very most it would only replace one single verse.

Below is a response I gave to the OP more than a week ago based on what I have been taught about abrogation in real schools (Not websites started by people with absolutely no background in Islamic Studies or Islamic history).

The violent verses found in the Qur'an and those that are talking about not befriending certain non-Muslims don't abrogate the verses of peace because of the context they were written in. There are certain situations where the verses of peace apply, and others where the verses of violence apply, therefore, each verse has a specific context and application. In other words, each verse in the Qur'an is to be applied to its appropriate situation.

As you can see, what I said is inline with what Suyuti teaches.

“The verse of the sword by no means abrogated the verses of peace – rather, each is to be implemented in its appropriate situation.” -- Suyuti

And the following is from The OIC, an organization that represents better than 80% of the world's Muslims. This source gives a partial list of the peaceful verses found in the Qur'an. Since abrogation requires a cross reference, which of the following verses do you feel 9:5 replaces? Remember, you can only choose one, not all.

{There shall be no compulsion in religion; the right way has become distinct from the wrong way} (al-Baqara:256)

{ And say, “The truth is from your Lord. Whoever wills—let him believe. And whoever wills—let him disbelieve} (al-Kahf: 29)

{ But if they incline towards peace, then incline towards it, and put your trust in God. He is the Hearer, the Knower}. (Anfal: 61)

{And fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not commit aggression; God does not love the aggressors.} (al-Baqara:190)

{And fight them until there is no oppression, and worship becomes devoted to God alone. But if they cease, then let there be no hostility except against the oppressors.} (al-Baqara:193)

{If they withdraw from you, and do not fight you, and offer you peace, then God assigns no excuse for you against them.} (al-Nisa: 90)

{Pardon them, and say, “Peace.” They will come to know.} az-Zukruf:89)

{Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good advice, and debate with them in the most dignified manner. Your Lord is aware of those who stray from His path, and He is aware of those who are guided.} (al-Nahl: 125)

{As for those who have not fought against you for your religion, nor expelled you from your homes, God does not prohibit you from dealing with them kindly and equitably. God loves the equitable. But God prohibits you from befriending those who fought against you over your religion, and expelled you from your homes, and aided in your expulsion. Whoever takes them for friends—these are the wrongdoers.} (al-Mumtahinah: 8-9)

{You have your way, and I have my way.} (al-Kafirun: 6)

It is evident from the verses enumerated above that there is no way for a single verse to possibly abrogate all that much of a substance that actually reflects the core spirit of Islam and its primary message of mercy. Having said that, it must be noted that even the concept of abrogation itself is widely contested and that those who stand behind it failed to consider the overriding verse: “We did not send you (oh Prophet Mohamed) except as a (message of) mercy to mankind” found in Surat (Al-Anbiya. 107).

You really don't know anything about Muslim sects. “Reliance of the Traveller” is not a Wahhabist manual about Shari;

I never said it was.

I was asking why you choose to believe Wahhabist who make up less than 4% of the world's Muslim population over the 96% who reject their teaching? Since you so quickly rejected the author of the book I recommended simply because he belonged to such a small minority and was not a part of mainstream Islam, it seems odd to me that you would so easily embrace and accept the teachings of a minority that only makes up 4% of the Muslim population if that.

All the sources agree that, although Qur'an 9:5-33 is couched in an historical context, the command of Allah is to fight with the unbelievers until Islam is the only religion on earth.

If that is the case, then why are 99.99% of the followers of Islam not engaged in violent jihad against non-Muslims?

You showed, by the sources you quoted, that you didn’t know what Takyah was in relation to “unbelievers.”

I gave you the accepted definition of taqiyya and even linked to a video where this topic was discussed by Muslims. If you want to believe anti-Islamic propagandists over Islamic scholars, what is taught is schools that offer courses in Islamic studies, and Muslims that's your choice.

 

[Joyousperson]

Hi Joseph

setst777 quoted:
Suyuti [1445–1505 AD; aka Jalaluddin; an Egyptian of Persian origin. Historian, biographer, jurist, teacher and scholar of Islamic theology; he was one of the most prolific writers of the Middle Ages.] Suyuti said that everything in the Qur'an about forgiveness and peace is abrogated by verse 9:5, which orders Muslims to fight the unbelievers and to establish God's kingdom on earth
[Suyuti, Al-Itqan fi ‘Ulum al-Qur'an, part 1, pp. 60, 65, 164.]

Joseph responds:
<<
The above is false. Suyuti never said "everything in the Qur'an about forgiveness and peace is abrogated by verse 9:5." He says the opposite, that none of the verses found in chapter 9 abrogate the verses about forgiveness and peace. Since this false claim can only be found on anti-Islamic websites and from anti-Islamic propagandists, why do you trust them as a source of information on Islam?
>>

Setst RE: I agree that what Suyuti quoted was not his own words. In practice - he does teach the very same thing.

The only issue you are having is that Suyuti replaces the word “abrogate” with “cause to be forgotten.” In context, however, Suyuti is completely in line with those other scholars who are aware that everything in the Qur’an about forgiveness and peace is abrogated (cause to be forgotten) by verse 9:5.

While the quote I provided is from another site, this does not negate the evidence if you read the whole context. However, in the future I will be more careful in vetting the material I quote. I apologize for the confusion that quote created.

setst777 said:
Feisal Abdul Rauf is a sufi Muslim. The Sufi branch of Islam spiritualizes just about everything. They do not represent the mainstream Islam.

Only about 1% of all Muslims practice Sufi.

Sufism — What is it?

Did you miss that in your context?

Joseph responds:
<<
I didn't miss anything and was hoping you would catch that.
>>

Setst RE: You listed the link to your source as your evidence to show me how wrong I was about what Reliance of the Traveller was really saying in context.

The 'proof' you provided is "Sufi." Apparently you read the wrong book to tell you what Reliance of the Traveller is actually saying. So naturally your understanding of the “context” of “Reliance of the Traveller” is faulty and is the reason you are falsely saying I am taking quotes out of context.

Joseph writes:
<<
… yet choose to accept the teachings of the Wahhabists on Shari'a when those who follow this sect only make up around 4% of the Muslim population?
>>

Setst RE: You really don't know anything about Muslim sects. “Reliance of the Traveller” is not a Wahhabist manual about Shari; rather, it is a Sunni Shafii manual.

Reliance of the Travellor represent the majority of Sunni Muslim Sharia

"While the volume represents the Shafi’i School of jurisprudence, it is identical with 75 percent of the other three Sunni Schools of Islamic law."

"[Reliance of the Traveller] text is the first Islamic legal work in a European language to receive certification from the most important seat of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence, Cairo’s al-Azhar University."
Reliance of the Traveller—Sharia Law Manual |

setst777 said:
Your argument regarding “context” without any legitimate evidence is no evidence at all.

Joseph responds:
<<
I did give evidence in earlier posts, what are you talking about? I gave the full context of some of your sources and links to others which showed where the original sources were taken out of context.
>>

Setst RE: You gave me original sources, like your Sufi book to try to show me what Sunni believe about Sharia.

I already reviewed the Islamic sources you gave just two posts ago - even supplying the ID numbers to your posts... In each case I have given accurate Islamic evidence (not just stated) to show that all your sources lack any credibility, in that the sources do not address the context which you so much harp about. You could not refute it.

setst777 wrote:
Your repeated responses about context are a cop out. Just saying something is out of context because it disagrees with you is not evidence.

Joseph responds:
<<
It's not a cop out. How can you take a single sentence or a paragraph out of an article or a book and use that alone to determine it's intended meaning? If you were going to write a book report in school, wouldn't you read the entire book to thoroughly understand it and receive a passing grade?
>>

Setst RE: The quote was by Suyuti. True, Suyuti was quoting another scholar. The fact remains that you didn't understand that the quote actually agreed with Suyuti, even though Suyuti replaces "abrogate" with "caused to be forgotten." I see nothing in the quote that is the "opposite" of what Suyuti understood. Suyuti was in agreement with the scholar he quoted; in that; Q 9:5 replaced (caused to be forgotten) all the peaceful verses.

You are getting hung up on the terminology used, but fail to see context of what is being said.

You say all the sources I gave you are “out of context;” yet, you have shown not one example where anything quoted was out of context. You are repeatedly using the “out of context” phrase as a cop out.

setst777 said:
We are predominantly discussing Qur'an 9:5 "the verse of the Sword" that abrogates many peaceful verses. Not all the verses in Chapter 9 are direct commands of Allah. The Islamic scholars concentrate their use of abrogation on Qur’an 9:5 mostly, but include all the way to around verse 33, because these are the commands of Allah regarding the unbelievers that abrogate peaceful verses. I quoted the sources for you.

Joseph writes:
<<
You have to start at verse 1 and go from there. When you do, you will find that every Islamic source you provided disagrees with what you are saying on Chapter 9. They all are in agreement as to when and to which non-Muslims the commands found in that chapter applied to.
>>

Setst RE: I read it. I compared it to the best Islamic sources (Qur'an, Sahih Hadith, Tafsir and scholars, and with the Islamic Encyclopedia on Jihad, with the sources on traditional and classical Islam, History of Islamic Conquest, on Wikipedia and other sources that I quoted. I provided quality evidence for everything. All the sources agree that, although Qur'an 9:5-33 is couched in an historical context, the command of Allah is to fight with the unbelievers until Islam is the only religion on earth.

And traditional Sunni and Shia doctrine, as well as Sunni and Shia history, on Jihad and its use, agrees with the Qur’an 9:5 – that it predominantly has to do with war against unbelievers until the religion of Islam is the only religion on earth.

In the process of accomplishing this command of Allah, the context of Islamic sources reveal there are times when truces, and the use of takyah, are permissible with the enemy when in an minority status, or when too weak to conquer an enemy nation or group, or to allow time for repentance. This is what is meant by Allah “causing to forget (in stages).” I quoted “Reliance of the Traveller” and other highly credible Islamic sources to show this was the case.

You showed, by the sources you quoted, that you didn’t know what Takyah was in relation to “unbelievers.”

You showed by the Suffi source you listed, and opinions you gave (which I re-quoted for you when you asked), that you didn’t know what Sharia was, or that is was not fully implemented. You thought the most peaceful Muslims are the ones who follow Sharia. The evidence clearly shows this is not the case.

I have shown from “Reliance of the Traveller” (Sunni Sharia Law) and many Qur’an and Hadith verses what Sharia is, and you said that was all “Wahhabism.” So, you really are mixed up, and don’t know much about what Islam teaches about anything. Reliance the Traveller is a Sunni Manual.

setst777 said:
The Southern Poverty Law Center is famous for labeling just about anyone who tells the truth - that is negative about someone else - as a hate group and “extremists.” Solid Christian ministries and those who report about Islamic extremism are labeled by them as hate groups. Yet, interestingly, the SPLC neglects to label the Islamic extremists who commit violent acts or support terrorism as extremists or hate groups.

Joseph responds:
<<
SPLC wasn't the source I provided on the Clarion Project, it was Mediabiasfactcheck. SPLC was only mentioned in their report. Mediabiasfactcheck is accurate when it describes all sources whether they be left or right leaning. Here is their report on MSNBC for example: MSNBC - Media Bias/Fact Check
>>

Setst RE: From what I understand, Mediabiasfactcheck is basically operated by one man. He quotes SPLC as the source for the negative information. What does that tell you about the honesty of Mediabiasfactcheck?

He gives “subjective” rulings, but rarely provides evidence to support those rulings. Some of what he provides is helpful to identify unreliable sites. But he is also dishonest and biased in his subjective decisions in that evidence is lacking for such decisions.

Media Bias Fact Check: Incompetent or Dishonest? - Just Facts

PolitiFact Bias: Can you trust what "Media Bias/Fact Check" says about PolitiFact? (Updated)

Consequently, Mediabiasfactcheck rates politfacts.com credibility as “high.”

Solid rebuttals as usual and well supported by solid arguments and evidence.

I agree with this;

You [JosephZ] thought the most peaceful Muslims are the ones who follow Sharia. The evidence clearly shows this is not the case.

I have shown from “Reliance of the Traveller” (Sunni Sharia Law) and many Qur’an and Hadith verses what Sharia is, and you said that was all “Wahhabism.” So, you really are mixed up, and don’t know much about what Islam teaches about anything. Reliance the Traveller is a Sunni Manual.​

 

[Joyousperson]

Hi Joyousperson,

Yes, censorship.

This is quoted from the internet...

Reliance of the Traveller O9.1 “Jihad is a communal obligation,” meaning obligatory upon the Muslims each year.

I have the book as well, but never got around to reading it yet. I think tomorrow I will start.

I have not read the whole book [The Reliance of the Traveler] except those parts of concern to non-Muslims;

Here is the one where Muslims are exhorted to perform JIHAD at least once a year.

Book O: 9:1
In the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) jihad was a communal obligation after his emigration (hijra) to Medina.
As for subsequent times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims.

The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad (def: o9.8) is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, "Jihad is a communal obligation," meaning upon the Muslims each year.
The second state is when non-Muslims invade a Muslim country or near to one, in which case jihad is personally obligatory (def: c3.2) upon the inhabitants of that country, who must repel the non-Muslims with whatever they can). ​

Here is a summary of points [not mine] which are negative to non-Muslims and targeted to the slaughter houses and various condemnations;

Book H Zakat (p 263)
h8.24 “It is not permissible to give zakat to a non-Muslim”.

Who Is Subject To Retaliation For Injurious Crimes
o1.2 The following are not subject to retaliation:
(2) “a Muslim for killing a non-Muslim”
(3) a dhimmi for killing an apostate
(4) a parent for killing their child or grandchild
[thereby excusing honour killings of girls who have become too westernised]

Indemnity (Diya)
o4.9 The indemnity for an accidental death of a woman is half that for a man. For a Jew or Christian it is one third, and for a Zoroastrian one fifteenth, of that for a Muslim.

Apostasy From Islam (Ridda)
o8.1 “When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed”.

Acts That Entail Leaving Islam: o8.7
(1) “to prostrate to an idol”
(2) “to intend to commit unbelief, even if in the future”
(4) “to revile Allah or his Messenger”.
(6) “to be sarcastic about Allah’s name”
(7) to deny any verse of the Koran or to add any to it
(11) to accuse a Muslim of unbelief [ie takfir] incorrectly
[a serious matter because one of the parties will necessarily be considered an apostate]
(14) “to deny the obligatory character of something which by the consensus of Muslims is part of Islam”
(17) “to believe that things in themselves or their own nature have any causal influence independent of the will of Allah”
[perhaps explaining the dearth of great Muslim scientists, despite the myth of the Golden Age]
(18) “to deny the existence of angels or jinn, or the heavens”
(19) “to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law”
[ie anything in the Reliance]
(20) “to deny that Allah intended the Prophet’s message to be the religion followed by the entire world”
[thereby mandating Islamic supremacism].

Jihad
o9.0 “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self (nafs).”
[NB section o9.0 was not in the original Reliance but comes from a 19th century commentary by Umar Barakat added by the translater. The idea of “the greater jihad” comes solely from a particular hadith which is considered weak or fabricated.]

The Obligatory Character Of Jihad
o9.1 “Jihad is a communal obligation. When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others.”
“He who provides the equipment for a soldier in jihad has himself performed jihad.”

The Objectives Of Jihad
o9.8 “The caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians until they become Muslim or else pay the non Muslim poll tax [ie jizya].”

o9.9 “The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim.”
[ie they have no escape by paying the jizya since they are not “people of the book”]



The Rules Of Warfare
o9.13 “When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.”

o9.14 When an adult male is taken captive the caliph decides between the prisoner’s death, slavery, release or ransoming.

Truces
o9.16 Umar Barakat explains that truces are only ever temporary, for the benefit of the Muslim war effort, since it is “a matter of the gravest consequence because it entails the non-performance of jihad”.

 

[Joyousperson]

JosephZ,

I have listed some points [above] from the Reliance of the Traveler which is a Shafi'i manual.
Those points are the evil and violent elements in alignment with what is in the Quran.

Here are some details from the Book itself;

o9.0 JIHAD

(O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self (nafs), which is why the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said as he was returning from jihad.

``We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad.''


The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus (def: b7) is such Koranic verses as:

(1) ``Fighting is prescribed for you'' (Koran 2:216);

(2) ``Slay them wherever you find them'' (Koran 4:89);

(3) ``Fight the idolators utterly'' (Koran 9:36); and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

``I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah'';

and the hadith reported by Muslim,

``To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.''


Details concerning jihad are found in the accounts of the military expeditions of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), including his own martial forays and those on which he dispatched others. The former consist of the ones he personally attended, some twenty-seven (others say twenty-nine) of them. He fought in eight of them, and killed only one person with his noble hand, Ubayy ibn Khalaf, at the battle of Uhud. On the latter expeditions he sent others to fight, himself remaining at Medina, and these were forty-seven in number.)


THE OBLIGATORY CHARACTER OF JIHAD

o9.1 Jihad is a communal obligation (def: c3.2). When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others (O: the evidence for which is the Prophet's saying (Allah bless him and give him peace),

"He who provides the equipment for a soldier in jihad has himself performed jihad," and Allah Most High having said:

"Those of the believers who are unhurt but sit behind are not equal to those who fight in Allah's path with their property and lives.

Allah has preferred those who fight with their property and lives a whole degree above those who sit behind. And to each, Allah has promised great good" (Koran 4:95).

If none of those concerned perform jihad, and it does not happen at all, then everyone who is aware that it is obligatory is guilty of sin, if there was a possibility of having performed it.

In the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) jihad was a communal obligation after his emigration (hijra) to Medina.
As for subsequent times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims.

The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad (def: o9.8) is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, "Jihad is a communal obligation," meaning upon the Muslims each year.
The second state is when non-Muslims invade a Muslim country or near to one, in which case jihad is personally obligatory (def: c3.2) upon the inhabitants of that country, who must repel the non-Muslims with whatever they can).​

From the above, obviously the fighting and violent verses are not meant to be confined to history only.

Note my point;
The above is imperative of Muslims of the Shafi'i school to follow what is presented in the Reliance of the Traveller, and not, the Shafi'i school is said to be the 2nd largest among the Sunni Mahdab schools.
So the evil and violent elements in the Quran and Ahadith are not confined to the Wahhabists only, thus you are very wrong.

 

[Joyousperson]

If that is the case, then why are 99.99% of the followers of Islam not engaged in violent jihad against non-Muslims?

This is one of the most unintelligent response from you.

One must be intelligent and wise enough to separate the ideology of Islam from Muslims the human beings who are involved with Islam.

Note the critical element here is the ideology of Islam, not ALL the Muslims believers of Islam and their actions.

We have already proven beyond doubt, the ideology of Islam is inherently and malignantly evil and violent which then influences and inspire a pool of 20% Muslims or a pool 320 million evil prone Muslims to commit acts which happened to be terrible evil and violent as religious duty to please Allah.

As such we do not expect the 80% or 1.28 billion of naturally good humans [Muslims] to execute those evil and violent commands from Allah due to various reasons.

It is very common where only a small % of those who adopt an evil and violent ideology will commit evil acts.
Note for example the current Antifa and various White Supremacist groups, where only the very aggressive ones will commit terror and violence. What is critical here is the evil ideology and what is in the mind and consciousness of the followers.

What is frightening is the potential pool of 320 million evil prone Muslims who support the evil and violent elements of the ideology. These naturally born with an evil tendency can be triggered to be violent and where if not, they provide moral, financial, and other support to those who carry out the violent acts to achieve the ideology's goals.

Even Allah recognized this point where not all Muslims need to perform fighting and killing in their course of Jihad;

o9.1 Jihad is a communal obligation (def: c3.2). When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others (O: the evidence for which is the Prophet's saying (Allah bless him and give him peace),

"He who provides the equipment for a soldier in jihad has himself performed jihad,"
​

Those who provide moral support, financial, equipment support and various other supports are thus deemed to have performed Jihad in relation to the terror and violent upon the non-Muslims.

Note this is what will happen to the 80% who do not comply with their obligation to perform Jihad;

o9.1 If none of those concerned perform jihad, and it does not happen at all, then everyone who is aware that it is obligatory is guilty of sin, if there was a possibility of having performed it. ​

Here is where Allah state the condition where Jihad is obligatory;

o9.3 Jihad is also (O: personally) obligatory for everyone (O: able to perform it, male or female, old or young) when the enemy has surrounded the Muslims (O: on every side, having entered our territory, even if the land consists of ruins, wilderness, or mountains, for non-Muslim forces entering Muslim lands is a weighty matter that cannot be ignored, but must be met with effort and struggle to repel them by every possible means.

All of which is if conditions permit gathering (A: the above-mentioned) people, provisioning them, and readying them for war.​

In the above case, Jihad is obligatory where non-Muslims forces has entered into Muslims lands [e.g. in the Middle East].
Per Quran, Jihad is obligatory is the religion of Islam is under threat [fasadin] which is so prevalent at present.

Therefore in terms of O:09.0 of the Reliance of the Traveller which is reflecting the words of Allah in the Quran, those 80% supposedly "good" Muslims are actually committing a sin.
This is why I had claimed the so-called moderate Muslims who do support and commit terrible evil and violent acts for Allah are lesser-Muslims, but good human beings.

What is your counter to the above.

 

[Joyousperson]

No, he does not teach the same thing. Not even close. How anyone could read his works and come to that conclusion is beyond me.

Suyuti specifically mentions Qur'an 9:5 and states this is not a case of abrogation but a case of the context in which it's found. In other words, in some situations the the verses of peace and forgiveness apply, while in other situations the verses that allow violence apply (Basically what I have been saying all along in this thread). He also teaches that no verse in the Qur'an has been completely replaced by another, but rather each has a very specific context and application. In addition, he teaches a verse for a verse, therefore, it would be impossible for verse 9:5 to replace all of the verses of peace and forgiveness. At the very most it would only replace one single verse.

Below is a response I gave to the OP more than a week ago based on what I have been taught about abrogation in real schools (Not websites started by people with absolutely no background in Islamic Studies or Islamic history).

Btw, you have been insisting 9:5 is confined to history as it happened to Muhammad's time and not thereafter. Thus you argued on that basis why the majority of Muslims are not committing terror, evil and violent acts.

Now you are changing your position in relation to Suyuti.

As you can see, what I said is inline with what Suyuti teaches.

“The verse of the sword by no means abrogated the verses of peace – rather, each is to be implemented in its appropriate situation.” -- Suyuti

According to Suyuti as I had quoted from his book, Suyuti stated the Verse of the Sword conditioned and override [made forgotten] the peaceful verses of peace and forgiveness.
I read Suyuti's view that the "made of forget" concept is a subset of 'abrogation'.

In any case, I do not agree with Suyuti's spin and views and the "truer" Muslims would not agree with Suyuti's complex analysis, since the Quran was supposedly easy to be understood as stated by Allah.

Note the fact is, the acts of disbelievers and the actions of non-Muslims are a threat [fasadin] to Islam. Thus they Islam by its terms are always at war [Jihad] [Darul-al-hard] with non-Muslims.
Note the points re Jihad raised in the Reliance of the Traveler.

And the following is from The OIC, an organization that represents better than 80% of the world's Muslims. This source gives a partial list of the peaceful verses found in the Qur'an. Since abrogation requires a cross reference, which of the following verses do you feel 9:5 replaces? Remember, you can only choose one, not all.

{There shall be no compulsion in religion; the right way has become distinct from the wrong way} (al-Baqara:256)

{ And say, “The truth is from your Lord. Whoever wills—let him believe. And whoever wills—let him disbelieve} (al-Kahf: 29)

{ But if they incline towards peace, then incline towards it, and put your trust in God. He is the Hearer, the Knower}. (Anfal: 61)

{And fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not commit aggression; God does not love the aggressors.} (al-Baqara:190)

{And fight them until there is no oppression, and worship becomes devoted to God alone. But if they cease, then let there be no hostility except against the oppressors.} (al-Baqara:193)

{If they withdraw from you, and do not fight you, and offer you peace, then God assigns no excuse for you against them.} (al-Nisa: 90)

{Pardon them, and say, “Peace.” They will come to know.} az-Zukruf:89)

{Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good advice, and debate with them in the most dignified manner. Your Lord is aware of those who stray from His path, and He is aware of those who are guided.} (al-Nahl: 125)

{As for those who have not fought against you for your religion, nor expelled you from your homes, God does not prohibit you from dealing with them kindly and equitably. God loves the equitable. But God prohibits you from befriending those who fought against you over your religion, and expelled you from your homes, and aided in your expulsion. Whoever takes them for friends—these are the wrongdoers.} (al-Mumtahinah: 8-9)

{You have your way, and I have my way.} (al-Kafirun: 6)

It is evident from the verses enumerated above that there is no way for a single verse to possibly abrogate all that much of a substance that actually reflects the core spirit of Islam and its primary message of mercy. Having said that, it must be noted that even the concept of abrogation itself is widely contested and that those who stand behind it failed to consider the overriding verse: “We did not send you (oh Prophet Mohamed) except as a (message of) mercy to mankind” found in Surat (Al-Anbiya. 107).

The point here is disbelievers are an eternal threat [fasadin] to Islam, thus Islam is always in a state of war [dar al-harb] with the disbelievers. Therefore 9:5 will always applies and override all related peaceful verses.

According to The New Encyclopedia of Islam, the dar al-harb (lit. the "abode of war") is:
the territories where Islam does not prevail. During colonial rule in India, the 'uluma decided that as long as the laws of Islam were not prohibited, or as long as the peculiar institution of Islam existed, the country could be considered to lie within dar al-islam ("abode of Islam"). Symbolically, the dar al-harb is the domain, even in an individual's life, where there is a struggle against or opposition to, the Will of God​

However Allah has recommended to Muslims not to go to war if they are in a weak position, just as most of the Muslims-nations are definitely weaker than the USA and its allies, the Russian and other enemies. In this case they cannot execute 9:5, thus comply more with the peaceful verses like the above listed.
Thus when Muslims are in the weaker position, they will have to rely on various deceptive schemes to attack the enemies stealthily. Note the work of the Muslim Brotherhood in penetrating the US and other government, stirr enmit among the non-Muslims so as to destroy them from within.

5:14. And ...Therefor We [Allah] have stirred up [GhRW fa-aghraynā] enmity [3DW l-ʿadāwata] and hatred [BGHD wal-baghḍāa] among them [infidels] till the Day of Resurrection, when Allah will inform them [infidels] of their handiwork.​

When Muslims are in a stronger position or in position to strike in stealth, then they will execute 9:5 like what the terrorists are doing at present, in which case there is no regard for any peaceful considerations.

In any case, the few pseudo-peaceful verses in the Quran are very conditional and are overwhelmed by the tsunami of the 3400++ contemptuous and antagonistic verses bashing the disbelievers.

One thing you cannot deny is the presence of the evil and violent elements within the ideology of Islam that enable the fact of a STALEMATE Dilemma where the evil prone Muslim will continue to fight and kill non-Muslims and no humans on earth can stop them on a divine basis.

Islam is the only religion that has such a predicament that has loads of evil and violent elements within its ideology that are not restraint at all, thus enabling an open passport for the evil prone Muslims to commit evil and violent acts upon non-Muslims.

 

[setst777]

No, he does not teach the same thing. Not even close.

Hi Joseph,

setst777 said:
The fact remains that you didn't understand that the quote actually agreed with Suyuti, even though Suyuti replaces "abrogate" with "caused to be forgotten." I see nothing in the quote that is the "opposite" of what Suyuti understood. Suyuti was in agreement with the scholar he quoted; in that; Q 9:5 replaced (caused to be forgotten) all the peaceful verses.

setst777 said:
I agree that what Suyuti quoted was not his own words. In practice - he does teach the very same thing.

Joseph responds:
<<
No, he does not teach the same thing. Not even close. How anyone could read his works and come to that conclusion is beyond me.
>>

Setst RE: By your response, you now act as if Suyuti is the final say on his simple definition of abrogation when, before, you kept harping that abrogation is complex and YOU were showing me its different uses. However, by your present response, you are showing that you really do not understand the complexity of abrogation and how it is used, and are easily swayed.

I quote Wikipedia (Scriptural Basis) for abrogation as follows:

Start of Quote <<
Only Q.2:106 uses a form of the word naskh (specifically "nanskh" meaning "we abrogate"). Although there "are no less than a dozen" readings/interpretations of verse Q.2:106 (according to Khaleel Mohammed citing John Burton),[63] the "majority of exegetes" (scholars of the interpretation of the Quran),[Note 6] find 2:106 indicative of two varieties of naskh (see below):

• "supersession", i.e. the "suspension" and replacement of the old verse without its elimination (process known as naskh al-hukm duna al-tilawa, or ibdāl in arabic)"[4] or
• "suppression", i.e. the nullification/elimination of the old verse from the Mus'haf (the written Quran compiled after Muhammad's death) (process known as naskh al-hukm wa-'l-tilawa, or ibtāl in arabic).[4]

Two verses also suggest abrogation can refer to either these two meanings,

16:101. "We substitute one ayah for another"" -- suggests naskh is supersession/substitution (tabdīl, related to ibdāl).[64]

22:52. "God eradicated (azala) and nullifies (yubtil, related to ibtāl) what the Devil insinuates" -- refers "solely to eradication or nullification" according to scholar Al-Fakhr al-Razi.[65][66]

Naskh (tafsir) - Wikipedia >> End of Quote

Suyuti agrees that all the peaceful verses are “caused to be forgotten” by the verse of the sword (9:5), which agrees with majority of scholars on the use of abrogation.

I quote Suyuti:
<<
“3. The abrogation of a law based on a particular circumstance which subsequently disappears. This is the case with the call to patience and forgiveness during times of weakness or numerical disadvantages. This was abrogated when fighting became obligatory.

In actual fact, this is not a case of abrogation but a case of "being made to forget", as God Almighty Himself says in the case of war: ". . .or We cause it to be forgotten", that is, the duty to do battle, until Muslims become stronger.

During times of weakness however, the rule is to forbear in the face of persecution. [Al-Itqan fi Ulum al-Qur'an by Jalaluddin Suyuti on “Abrogation”]”

And:

“The verse of the sword by no means abrogated the verses of peace – rather, each is to be implemented in its appropriate situation.”
[Al-Itqan fi Ulum al-Qur'an by Jalaluddin Suyuti]
<< End of Quote

Suyuti, therefore, places “made to forget” under category “3” of “abrogation” even though he disagrees with the majority of scholars, believing that this is not really a case of abrogation but of “made to forget.”

However, Suyuti’s use of the words “made to forget” is in line with one of the uses of abrogation in regards to 9:5. Suyuti agrees that the duty of Muslims is to fight unbelievers when they have the power to do so just like the other scholars do. In this case, the “made to be forgotten” peaceful verses no longer apply. Suyuti agrees with the scholars who call it abrogation, that the verse of the Sword takes precedence over all the peaceful verses anytime Islam is in a position of power.

You recognized this complexity of abrogation when it suited your purpose. But now you are rejecting the complexity of abrogation that you so much harped about repeatedly so that you think you can ‘win’ an argument.

So, it is really a shame that I now have to teach you what abrogation means.

Joseph continues:
<<
And the following is from The OIC, an organization that represents better than 80% of the world's Muslims. This source gives a partial list of the peaceful verses found in the Qur'an. Since abrogation requires a cross reference, which of the following verses do you feel 9:5 replaces? Remember, you can only choose one, not all.
>>

Setst RE: The best Islamic scholars say that 9:5 abrogates the peaceful verses. Suyuti recognizes this, but calls it “made to forget.” In reality, the majority of Islam’s scholars agree that “made to forget” is one use of abrogation.


Regarding OIC….

Gallop Polls (Wikipedia)
In Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) member states, 18% believe military attacks on civilians justified and 14% believe individual attacks on civilians justified.
Muslim attitudes toward terrorism - Wikipedia

In non-OIC states, 24% believe military attacks on civilians justified and 17% believe individual attacks on civilians justified
Muslim attitudes toward terrorism - Wikipedia

setst777 said:
You really don't know anything about Muslim sects. “Reliance of the Traveller” is not a Wahhabist manual about Shari;

Joseph responds:
<<
I never said it was.

I was asking why you choose to believe Wahhabist who make up less than 4% of the world's Muslim population over the 96% who reject their teaching?
>>

Setst RE: My evidence was from Reliance of the Traveller and Islam’s other sacred books, and then you accuse me of believing in Wahhabism.

Show me where I ever said that I choose to believe Wahhabist? You keep trying to say I said something that I never said.

Putting words in my mouth that I never said to ‘win’ an argument, shows your lack credibility.

I have already refuted your Wahhabist claim IN DETAIL with Evidence from Islam’s own sources, and you never refuted the plethora of evidence I gave. As usual, you just pass by all the evidence, never respond to any of it, and hold onto your unfounded biased opinions. How scholarly of you.

setst777 said:
All the sources agree that, although Qur'an 9:5-33 is couched in an historical context, the command of Allah is to fight with the unbelievers until Islam is the only religion on earth - Jihad.

• Sharia agrees,
• best classical Islamic scholars agree,
• the Qur’an agrees,
• the Hadith agree,
• the Islamic Encyclopedia agrees,
• and Wikipedia agrees.

You don’t agree because you are playing games, and using Sufii sources to interpret Sunni/Shia doctrine.

Joseph responds:
<<
If that is the case, then why are 99.99% of the followers of Islam not engaged in violent jihad against non-Muslims?
>>

Setst RE: Your question shows all of us that you don't want to know what Islam teaches or how it affects Muslims, even if they don't carry out terrorism.

So, I ask you…
Why are over 99.99% of Christians not engaged in missionary work to reach non-Christians?

Christian missionary work in foreign lands verses Muslim Jihad in foreign lands.

• Both seek to bring their religion to the world
• Islam teaches Jihad as their missionary work per: Q 9:5-33, Sharia, Qur’an, Hadith, Classical and Traditional Islam.
• Christians teach evangelism as their missionary work per: the NT Scriptures.

Islam is not dominant at this time over countries in the West. If they were, they would be expanding using physical Jihad to make Islam supreme over all other religions JUST like they did since inception.

Look at how they kill each other, and how they treat Christians and Jews in their own Islamic countries where they do dominate. Look at Islamic history when they were dominant – they conquered 2/3 of Europe, enslaving millions, looting and destroying the lands and culture, and killing hundreds of millions of people within 150 years until they were finally stopped at least partially. It took another almost 800 years to finally squash Islam's dominance during the 2nd world war.

How easily people like you forget history, and refuse to face Islamic doctrine of Jihad.

There are 2.4 billion Christians in the world…
Christianity by country - Wikipedia

How many Christian missionaries are in the world?
In the Christian world, there are 306,000 foreign missionaries to other Christian lands. 4,000 in restricted-access countries .
How many Christian missionaries are in the world

How many of the 99.9% Christians support or approve of foreign missionaries to other lands? I would wager that most Christians do support missionary work.

Consider the following Poll results to get an idea of support among Muslims for terrorists and Sharia.

Policy Exchange (2016): 48% if British Muslims would not report a person "linked to terror."
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2308529/half-british-muslims-would-not-report-is-supporters/

Support for implementation of Sharia is very high among Muslims, and even higher among devout Muslim…
https://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/

https://selectra.co.uk/sites/selectra.co.uk/files/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf#page=60

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_toward_terrorism

https://clarionproject.org/new-poll-muslim-countries-finds-large-support-terrorists/
Published December 17, 2013

https://www.algemeiner.com/2016/07/19/polls-demonstrating-muslim-intolerance-and-support-for-terrorism-help-explain-recent-attacks/
July 19, 2016 7:55 AM

https://carm.org/islamic-muslim-statistics-on-violence-rape-terror-sharia-isis-welfare
11/28/2015

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/many-british-muslims-put-islam-first/

The Poll results are revealing.

https://forum.grasscity.com/threads/the-myth-of-islam-radical-minority.1412932/

37% believe Jews in Britain are a "legitimate target".
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist

pastebin.com/mMZbKzxK
Muslim data. a guest Oct ... and Libya (61%) supported the 9/11/2012 attacks against American embassies, including Benghazi. ...

Pew Research (2013): At least 1 in 4 Muslims do not reject violence against civilians (study did not distinguish between those who believe it is partially justified and never justified).

***Detailed data about Muslims...
http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/Muslim/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

setst777 said:
You showed, by the sources you quoted, that you didn’t know what Takyah was in relation to “unbelievers.”

Joseph responds:
<<
I gave you the accepted definition of taqiyya and even linked to a video where this topic was discussed by Muslims.
>>

Setst RE: I responded to your evidence… You only quoted sources using taqyah in friendly ways, and neglected Sharia’s definition and use of Taqyah against unbelievers when a minority or in times of, or preparation for, attack on non-believers. I quoted from the Qur’an, the Sahih Hadith, and Reliance of the Traveller as my evidence, and AS USUAL you neglect the evidence.

Joseph continues:
<<
If you want to believe anti-Islamic propagandists over Islamic scholars, what is taught is schools that offer courses in Islamic studies, and Muslims that's your choice.
>>

Setst RE: You are attacking the many Islamic sources I provided you. Calling the Qur’an, the Sahih Hadith and Sharia as “anti-Islamic propagandists” is slander and blasphemy against Islam and its sacred books. Thankfully you are not in a Muslim country, or you would be crucified. I hope no devout Muslims see your messages of attacks on their most sacred Scriptures.