Do Not Bash Muslims

[JosephZ]

I quoted the article re 9:5 from Answering Islam which I have read through and agreed. It has pages and pages of reference from various primary sources of Islam. It would be stupid for me to produced a similar article. Thus the convenience of referencing that article.
Instead of cursing the site, why not explain why the article is wrong or intellectually irresponsible.

I have done this already.

Historical context means everything. Qur'an 9:5 deals with a specific situation concerning Meccan pagans breaking their peace treaties and declaring war on the Muslims. That verse is not meant to apply to all non-Muslims and it applied to a set point in time. It's not in any way applicable to Muslims today.

Qur'an 9 starts by saying "A declaration of immunity from God and His Messenger to the polytheists with whom you had made a treaty."

Do you believe that Muhammad had made treaties with all the non-Muslim tribes in the world? What about the ones found outside the Arabian Peninsula, those in North and South America?

The verse in Chapter 9 where it says "Once the sacred months have passed kill the polytheists wherever you find them" is referring to a very specific group of non-Muslims (Those which Muhammad had made a treaty with) at a specific point in history. It was not talking about all non-Muslims and those commands were not addressed to Muslims living in 2019. This really shouldn't be that difficult to understand.

Now let's start at the beginning of Chapter 9 so we can see which polytheists are being talked about.

1. A declaration of immunity from God and His Messenger to the polytheists with whom you had made a treaty.

4. Except for those among the polytheists with whom you had made a treaty, and did not violate any of its terms, nor aided anyone against you. So fulfill the treaty with them to the end of its term. God loves the righteous.

As seen in these two verses, it's not talking about all polytheists. Since verse 4 says "Except for those among the polytheists with whom you had made a treaty, and did not violate any of its terms, nor aided anyone against you," then this automatically tells us that some of the polytheists have broken their treaties.

7. How can there be a treaty with the polytheists on the part of God and His Messenger, except for those with whom you made a treaty at the Sacred Mosque? As long as they are upright with you, be upright with them. God loves the pious.

8. How? Whenever they overcome you, they respect neither kinship nor treaty with you. They satisfy you with lip service, but their hearts refuse, and most of them are immoral.

10. Towards a believer they respect neither kinship nor treaty. These are the transgressors.

In the above verses we again see a distinction between polytheists, Those who upheld their treaties (Verse 7) and those who didn't respect their treaties (Verses 8 & 9). Those who didn't keep their treaties are the transgressors.

13. Will you not fight a people who violated their oaths, and planned to exile the Messenger, and initiated hostilities against you? Do you fear them? It is God you should fear, if you are believers.

The above question wouldn't have been asked had there not been polytheists who had already broken their treaty. So when you read verse 5:

When the Sacred Months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them. And capture them, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayers, and pay the alms, then let them go their way. God is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful.

When it says "Once the sacred months have passed kill the polytheists wherever you find them," it's obvious that it's only talking about those who have already broken their treaties, and not all polytheists.

The link you provided confirms what I said in my reply to you. I will just pick some of the more relevant portions of the article to show this.

The declaration of Barā’at (immunity) was for the infidels’ perjury which has been referred to in verses 7 and 8 of the current Surah. In Islam, the general law is that promises should be fulfilled, and as long as the opposite party is faithful to the treaty, it should be kept, too.

The addressee ‘you’ in the sentence: “towards those of the polytheists with whom you made covenant ” is both the Messenger of Allah (S) and the Muslims. Thus, it means that they should declare immunity unto the polytheists between whom and them there was an agreement, because Allah (s.w.t.) and His Messenger (S) are quit of them.

The objective meaning here is that Allah (s.w.t.) and His Messenger (S) are quit of giving a promise to them and, after that, fulfilling it, because the polytheists who made covenants with them broke their promises.

That covenant was not a permanent (and an absolute) treaty, but it was bound over a definite point of time and for a certain length of time, so that when its term was ended that covenant would be broken, either.

It has also been pointed out in some traditions that the Messenger of Allah (S) had conditioned the above mentioned matters with them in the treaty. It has also been narrated that the idolaters broke their promise or decided to break it.

Then, Allah, the Glorified, commanded His Prophet to break their covenant, too Next to that, through the following verse, Allah, the Glorified, addressing the idolaters, says:

The Qur’ānic phrase: “So go about in the earth freely…” addresses the pagans of Mecca meaning that they could go about freely, and with peace of mind, in the land of Mecca and, being in easy circumstances.

“…for four months…” which means when this time was ended and the pagans did not embrace Islam, the string of their covenant would be broken and the security of life and wealth would be removed from them.

“Except those of the polytheists with whom you made covenant, and who have not failed you in anything nor have supported anyone against you. Then fulfil their treaty with them until (the end of) their term; surely Allah loves the pious ones.”

This unilateral cancellation of pagans’ covenants related only to those pagans from whom some signs of perjury, or preparation of perjury, had been appeared. This harshness of action is for the sake that Islam’s plan is to root out idolatry from the whole points of the earth, since idolatry is not a creed or religion which could be respected.
Section 1: Immunity Declared

Once again, Do you believe that Muhammad had made treaties with all the non-Muslim tribes in the world? What about the ones found outside the Arabian Peninsula, those in North and South America?

Chapter 9 is addressed to a very specific audience at a very specific point of time in history. If you ever take the time to take some courses in Islamic Studies, you will be taught about the historical and textual context that these verses and others found in the Qur'an were written. You will not learn this by visiting anti-Islamic propaganda sites and listening to people like David Wood.

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.

For example when Qur'an 9 says "When the Sacred Months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them," or "Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief" it is dealing with specific events at a point in history when Meccan pagans were breaking their peace treaties and declaring war on the Muslims and when certain Muslims were standing in the way of other Muslims or refusing themselves to migrate to Medina. Those verses would not negate the peaceful verses in the Qur'an since they are very specific to their intent and the point in history they were to be applied.

The following was revealed regarding those who refrained from emigrating because of their families and trade: O you who believe, do not take your fathers and brothers for your friends, if they prefer, if they have chosen, disbelief over belief; whoever of you takes them for friends, such are the evildoers. -- Jalal - Al-Jalalayn

(O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren) who are in Mecca from among the disbelievers (for friends) in religion (if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith) if they choose disbelief instead of faith. (Whoso of you taketh them for friends) in religion, (such are wrong-doers) disbelievers like them; it is also said that this means: O ye who believe! take not your believing fathers and brothers who are in Mecca, who had prevented you from migrating to Medina, for allies, seeking their help and assistance, if they choose to remain in the abode of disbelief, i.e. Mecca, rather than migrate to the abode of Islam, i.e. Medina. Whosoever takes them for allies harms only himself. -- Abbas - Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs

(O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith) [9:23-24]. Said al-Kalbi: “When the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, was commanded to migrate to Medina, some men went to their fathers, brothers or wives and said: 'We have been commanded to migrate to Medina'. Thus, some people liked the command and hastened to execute it, while the wives, dependents and children of others hung on to some others, saying: 'We beseech you by Allah not to leave us to no one, causing our waste and peril'. The hearts of these softened for them and, as a result, they refrained from migrating. These words of Allah, exalted is He, were then revealed to rebuke them (O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith…)”. As for those who stayed back in Mecca and did not migrate, Allah, exalted is He, revealed (then wait till Allah bringeth His command to pass…) [9:24], meaning fighting and the conquest of Mecca. -- Wahidi - Asbab Al-Nuzul by Al-Wahidi

This really all comes down to using common sense.

Here is your problem. You fail to recognize that the Qur'an was written to specific audiences, who were facing specific circumstances, at specific points in history. Some of the Qur'an is addressed to Muslims, some of it to the people of Israel, some of it to Muhammad at times when he was under threat, some of it to the wives of Muhammad, and some of it to all people. Much of what is found in the Qur'an addresses very specific events like Qur'an 9:5 which says: "When the Sacred Months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them. And capture them, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every ambush." This was a very specific command, with specific conditions, given during a time of war. That war ended centuries ago and that command doesn't apply in any way to Muslims today. Much of what's in the Qur'an was written to Muslims living in the 7th century and doesn't apply to Muslims living in the 21st century. It's incorrect to read the Qur'an with the mindset that everything written is addressed to the same audience and extends across all time from the 7th century until today.

If you fail to recognize the audience being addressed and fail to put what you are reading into historical context, you will not get the correct meaning or interpretation. This is what leaders of extremists groups do to deceive their recruits.

I also did this when you started a thread titled "Is Quran 9:5 Historical Only?" where you quoted an entire article from the religionofpeace (Another anti-Islamic site) to open the thread.

 

[Joyousperson]

I have done this already.

I also did this when you started a thread titled "Is Quran 9:5 Historical Only?" where you quoted an entire article from the religionofpeace (Another anti-Islamic site) to open the thread.

First,
WHO ARE YOU to decide, 9:5 and all warring verses and killing of disbelievers are only confined to a specific point in time and not applicable to Muslims today?
Where in the Quran did Allah commanded that?

JosephZ wrote:
Historical context means everything. Qur'an 9:5 deals with a specific situation concerning Meccan pagans breaking their peace treaties and declaring war on the Muslims. That verse is not meant to apply to all non-Muslims and it applied to a set point in time. It's not in any way applicable to Muslims today.
​

Whatever is in the Quran are to be used as precedents and guidelines for all Muslims to adopt. Otherwise it would imply Allah is that stupid to waste so many verses to merely confined it to the historical.

Note there are more than 3000++ verses e.g. stories from the Bible and elsewhere which are presumably historical long before Muhammad, are you insisting these are historical as well. Allah stated these are meant to represent the necessary principles for Muslims to abide to.

Note 9:5 is merely one example of the warring verses and the killing of disbelievers.
Note the reputable past scholars and the schools of Muslims has been relying on such verses as Islamic Laws in their jurisprudence,

Here is a note to the figh of the Shafi'i via the Reliance of the Traveller;

Book O: 9.0
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.)​

It is the same with the other Schools of Islam and reputable tafsirs.

You'd be insulting Allah if you insist otherwise that those warring and killing of disbelievers are merely historical and confined to a particular time.

Note I have already stated, in the Quran [in many verses] Allah expect ALL Muslims to comply with the commands [AMR] in the Quran without exception to the best of their ability. Muslims cannot insist certain verses are merely historical in according to their whims in contradicting Allah's commands.

 

[JosephZ]

You'd be insulting Allah if you insist otherwise that those warring and killing of disbelievers are merely historical and confined to a particular time... Muslims cannot insist certain verses are merely historical in according to their whims in contradicting Allah's commands.

Putting things into historical perspective doesn't change what is written.

It's important to remember that the Muslims that were being spoken to in the Qur'an lived in a different culture, at a different point in time, and were facing unique situations. Just like the Bible, the verses in the Qur'an address specific audiences, during a specific point in time, and under specific circumstances. The Qur'an can't be read as if every single verse is addressed to a Muslim living in 2019. Textual and historical context are key to interpreting religious scriptures. What was revealed in Medina was targeted at a very specific audience who were defending themselves under a specific circumstance which happened over 1,400 years ago. This point in history and those being spoken too have long passed and these verses are no longer applicable to Muslims living in 2019.

Here are a couple of Muslim perspectives on this:

"Every verse of Quran was revealed in connection with a certain particular context of reality of the time… So the Quran and the Hadith are first basically a historical document. When the situation, when the reality changed, then the interpretation of the spirit of Quran needs to be changed also.” -- Yahya Cholil Staquf

The Qur’an is not an easy text to comprehend without the help and aid of the knowledge of the historical context of Arabia in general and of the northern area in particular. The main reason for this difficulty. Firstly, the Qur’an is a historical text emerged in a time which was, in many ways, different from our own. The Qur’an, though a given fact from the perspective of faith, exhibits a response to the factual reality of its time. It obviously responded to events and behaviour patterns of this time, often explicitly but also at times implicitly. When one does not know how to understand the relevant Qur’anic passage in the proper historical context, but transfers them literally into our era, this can lead to incalculable misinterpretations and misunderstandings.

In order to understand the Qur’an, we must recognise that, even though it is the speech of God, it has historical text; it was spoken, proclaimed, and written down in a specific historical situation, in the intellectual milieu and the language of the 7th century. Only an understanding of the basis of this comprehensive historical knowledge enables us to interpret the Qur’anic texts correctly. This allows us to grasp the core of the message which transcends its historical context and to decide what it means for us, the believers of today. -- Nasr Abu Zayd, Served as Professor of Literature and Linguistics at Leiden University and held the Ibn Rushd Chair of Islam and Humanism at the University of Humanistic, Utrecht. He is an internationally recognized expert on modern Islamic thought, critically approaching classical and contemporary Islamic discourses.

The importance of textual and historical context from a Christian perspective on understanding the Bible:

It's important to study Bible passages and stories within their context. Taking verses out of context leads to all kinds of error and misunderstanding. Understanding context begins with four principles: literal meaning (what it says), historical setting (the events of the story, to whom is it addressed, and how it was understood at that time), grammar (the immediate sentence and paragraph within which a word or phrase is found) and synthesis (comparing it with other parts of Scripture for a fuller meaning). Context is crucial to biblical exegesis in that it is one of its most important fundamentals.

 

[Joyousperson]

Putting things into historical perspective doesn't change what is written.

Note your who argument on this basis do not jive, i.e. non-sequitor and groundless.

You declared and admitted Islam is a false religion and Muhammad is a false prophet, thus the history behind has to be false!

Note currently there are loads of contentious issues surrounding the religion of Islam, i.e.

1. Is there are real Muhammad as in the Quran?
2. Was the activities of the origin or Islam and Muhammad located in the current Mecca or somewhere else.
3. In the current Quran a pristine copy [not changed from what was revealed to Muhammad] as claimed.
4. There are not proper historical records of a real Muhammad's life.​

I won't bother to show references, but if you are a balanced researcher of Islam, you should have come across the above by reputable historians.

I don't deny there is a history to how the Quran and the ideology of Islam emerged since years ago.
With the above contentious issues, whatever the historical interpretations, they cannot be credible at all.

Here are a couple of Muslim perspectives on this:

"Every verse of Quran was revealed in connection with a certain particular context of reality of the time… So the Quran and the Hadith are first basically a historical document. When the situation, when the reality changed, then the interpretation of the spirit of Quran needs to be changed also.” -- Yahya Cholil Staquf

The Qur’an is not an easy text to comprehend without the help and aid of the knowledge of the historical context of Arabia in general and of the northern area in particular. The main reason for this difficulty. Firstly, the Qur’an is a historical text emerged in a time which was, in many ways, different from our own. The Qur’an, though a given fact from the perspective of faith, exhibits a response to the factual reality of its time. It obviously responded to events and behaviour patterns of this time, often explicitly but also at times implicitly. When one does not know how to understand the relevant Qur’anic passage in the proper historical context, but transfers them literally into our era, this can lead to incalculable misinterpretations and misunderstandings.

In order to understand the Qur’an, we must recognise that, even though it is the speech of God, it has historical text; it was spoken, proclaimed, and written down in a specific historical situation, in the intellectual milieu and the language of the 7th century. Only an understanding of the basis of this comprehensive historical knowledge enables us to interpret the Qur’anic texts correctly. This allows us to grasp the core of the message which transcends its historical context and to decide what it means for us, the believers of today. -- Nasr Abu Zayd, Served as Professor of Literature and Linguistics at Leiden University and held the Ibn Rushd Chair of Islam and Humanism at the University of Humanistic, Utrecht. He is an internationally recognized expert on modern Islamic thought, critically approaching classical and contemporary Islamic discourses.

The importance of textual and historical context from a Christian perspective on understanding the Bible:

It's important to study Bible passages and stories within their context. Taking verses out of context leads to all kinds of error and misunderstanding. Understanding context begins with four principles: literal meaning (what it says), historical setting (the events of the story, to whom is it addressed, and how it was understood at that time), grammar (the immediate sentence and paragraph within which a word or phrase is found) and synthesis (comparing it with other parts of Scripture for a fuller meaning). Context is crucial to biblical exegesis in that it is one of its most important fundamentals.

The above views are not credible and contradict what is intended in whole contexts of the 6236 verses of the Quran.

The above accused their opponents as just picking one verse from the Quran and acted upon only one verse.

I have already explained [in my last post] those Muslim scholars of the various Sunni Schools and others who accept the warring against and killing of disbelievers upon threats [fasad] by disbelievers are taking the whole of he Quran's 6236 verses into context.

Verse 9:5 is not to be read alone by itself BUT in the context of all the 6236 verses of the WHOLE Quran.

Here are some counter views to your above views;

https://www.quora.com/Why-doesn’t-the-Quran-provide-a-detailed-historical-context-to-certain-verses

What kind a book is the Quran ?
"Quran is not a historical book but a book of guidance"
In order to give a proper description of the Quran, we must turn to the Quran itself. When we refer to the Quran, we see that this great book mentions a number of attributes and characteristics for itself, which reveal part of the truth about it. Some of the qualities mentioned are as under:

1. The Quran says:
"ذلك الكتاب لا ریب فیه هدی للمتقین'' ( Quran. 2:1)
This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah.

In this holy verse, the Quran introduces itself as a book in which there is no ambiguity or vague points. If we look at historical proofs and evidences, we will come to know that apart from the Quran which speaks so clearly, there is no other to make such a claim. Therefore, the first attribute of the Quran is that there is no dark or inconspicuous point in the Quran. The Quran is a clear proof.

2. Then it says, "Guidance to those who fear Allah". Those who are God-fearing and protect themselves against evil are the ones who are guided.

3. Elsewhere the Quran says:
"هذا بصائر من ربكم و هدی و رحمة لقوم یوقنون" (Quran.7: 203)
These are clear proofs from your Lord and a guidance and a mercy for a people who believe.

4. In another verse, the Quran says:
"هذا بصائر للنّاس و هدی و رحمة لقوم یوقنون"
These are clear evidences to men and a Guidance and Mercy to those of assured Faith.

5. The Quran says in another verse:
"... قد جاءكم مّن الله نور و كتاب مّبین، یهدی به الله من اتّبع رضوانه سبل السّلام و یخرجهم مّن الظّلمات الی النّور باذنه و یهدیهم الی صراط مّستقیم"( Quran.5: 15-16)
"Indeed Our Messenger has come to you making clear to you much of what you concealed of the Book and passing over much; indeed, there has come to you light and a clear Book from Allah; With it Allah guides him who will follow His pleasure into the ways of safety and brings them out of utter darkness into light by His will and guides them to the right path."

There are points in these verses which give us a clear description of the Quran:
A) This book is a book of guidance, blessing, insight and illumination.
B) Whoever turns for guidance to this book in which there is no ambiguity and uncertainty, will be guided.
as a result, Quran is not a historical book but a book of guidance . this is why historical events did not come in detail in this holy book,nevertheless, in some cases referred to when it is instrumental in human guidance to the right path .
​

Here is another view:

Why doesn’t the Quran provide a detailed historical context to certain verses?
Because the Quran is not a History book and it’s not meant to be.
All the historical content/verses in the Quran are very specific and their main purpose is to teach a life lesson or for spiritual reflection.
Also, you should see how the Quran was revealed. It was not revealed all at once. Verses would be revealed depending on the situation.
For example, imagine you are suffering at the hand of the hands of the disbelievers because of your faith. You are being tortured, your homes have been taken away, your businesses have been taken away, your family members murdered or tortured. And then a verse is revealed regarding your situation.
It would make more sense that the verse is short, concise, and addresses your situation, rather than explain the whole historical context and etc. It would be of no use to you. Quran is a spiritual book, so historical context is limited to those that provide spiritual or moral lessons.

So, if you want to study the Quran, you can read the historical context reegarding when which verses were revealed to understand their context. This can be found in various tafsir books, the most famous and easiest to understand being Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir. Or you could learn or listen about the life of the Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) and it will provide a general context for you.

Or you could read the Quran and benefit and learn from it and when it comes to certain verses where it makes you think, “Hmm, in what context or scenario was this revealed?” you can open Ibn Kathir and read specifically regarding the revelation of that verse.​

Note Allah did not state the verses of the Quran are meant to be historical only.
Allah delivered the Quran for the whole of Humanity till eternity. The message can be read from the verses in the Quran in its full context of the 6236 verses.
Quran's Message for Humanity
https://www.islamicity.org/6509/qurans-message-for-humanity/

Therefore to insist the verses of the Quran are only specific to a period of time, that is an insult to Allah and great sin.

Btw, it would be worst for Islam if the Quran verses and Chapters were to be interpreted in purely a historical perspective. e.g. the verses where Muhammad conveniently invent his own to enable him to marry his son's [adopted] wife and other unsavory tales of Muhammad implied in the 'just-in-time" chapters of the Quran.

 

[setst777]

What you have mentioned above are conspiracy theories and promoting these falsehoods is dangerous. Repeating conspiracy theories like the ones above can sometimes lead people to act out violently. I would suggest you keep these thoughts and wild accusations to yourself.

Hi Joseph,

Joyousperson effectively responded to your most recent posts to me, so no need for me to respond further.

Your arguments are again an attempt to deceptively sidetrack the discussion of Islam using subjective and Westernized arguments rather than turning to Islam and its core Scriptures and Figh.

Until you are willing to study:

• Islam’s Core Scriptures,
• and the historical contextual interpretations of those Scriptures (Sharia Figh)
• of Traditional Islam (all four schools of Sunni) and Shia,
• and the history of Islam Jihad since inception

you will never grasp objective reality regarding Islam and Global Jihad that is, and has been practiced, by Islam since inception, and is now being implemented in the USA and Europe.

Study those first, and:

accept what Islam states about itself, rather than depending on the Infidel Version.

If you do this, you will be ready to discuss Islam.

To prove you have actually studied at least some of Islam, I want you to quote for me, from authoritative sources from Islam, the following:

The Sunni (all four schools) interpretation (Figh) of Sharia on Jihad.

The Sharia interpretation (figh) of Sharia on Jihad.

Once you do that, then we can discuss further.

 

[JosephZ]

Joyousperson effectively responded to your most recent posts to me, so no need for me to respond further.

Some of the questions in that post weren't generic and could only be answered by you.

I'm just courious, do you follow all of the commands of Jesus found in the four gospels? Why or why not?

So you really do believe that The University of Maryland, Assemblies of God Theological Seminary, TVS Seminary, and Dr. Philip's Islamic University all of which I have taken courses from over the past three decades and who all teach basically the same about Sharia, Islamic jurisprudence, and the schools of thought found within Islam are all practicing taqiyya? Does that even sound reasonable?

If the differences [Between Islamic sects] are so minimal, why are there certain sects of Islam at war with others and in some cases Muslims in general?

Until you are willing to study:

• Islam’s Core Scriptures,
• and the historical contextual interpretations of those Scriptures (Sharia Figh)
• of Traditional Islam (all four schools of Sunni) and Shia,
• and the history of Islam Jihad since inception

Study those first, and: accept what Islam states about itself, rather than depending on the Infidel Version. If you do this, you will be ready to discuss Islam.

To prove you have actually studied at least some of Islam, I want you to quote for me, from authoritative sources from Islam, the following:
The Sunni (all four schools) interpretation (Figh) of Sharia on Jihad.
The Sharia interpretation (figh) of Sharia on Jihad.
Once you do that, then we can discuss further.

I could simply cut and paste information from the internet on those subjects, so requesting that I quote from authoritative sources from Islam about those subjects would prove nothing one way or the other on whether or not I have studied Islam. Therefore, I will provide more convincing evidence.

I have taken the course The Gospel and Islam from TVS Seminaries:

The lecturer for this course is Dr. David Shenk. He has a PhD in Religious Studies from New York University and teaches courses in Islam and Eastern Religions. He was born in Tanzania. Lived for ten years in Somalia and lectured in comparative religion and church history at Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Kenya for six years and has spent time working in several other Islamic countries.

Resources and topics covered were as follows:

Textbook #1: A Muslim and A Christian in Dialogue
Textbook #2 for the course: Journeys
Encyclopedia Of Islam.pdf
Concise Encyclopedia Islam.pdf
The New Cambridge History of Islam Volume 1

STUDY WEEK 1
Early Theological Formation in the Arabian Background
VIDEO 3.1.The Christian Context.
VIDEO 3.2. The Jewish Context.
VIDEO 3.3. The Jahiliyya and the Hanif Contexts.

STUDY WEEK 2
VIDEO 4.1. The Muslim Community (Ummah). Part 1.
VIDEO 4.2. The Muslim Community (Ummah). Part 2.

STUDY WEEK 3
Muslim Theology and Praxis
VIDEO 5.1. The Five Pillars of Muslim Theology (Iman).
VIDEO 5.2. Presenting the Gospel to Muslim.
VIDEO 5.3. The Five Pillars of Muslim Praxis (Ihsan).
VIDEO 5.4. The Mission of Islam to the World

STUDY WEEK 4
VIDEO 6. Adam and Eve
VIDEO 7. Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac

STUDY WEEK 5
VIDEO 8.1. The Qur'an and Jesus.
VIDEO 8.2. The Qur'an and Muhammad.
VIDEO 8.3. Is Muhammad the Seal of the Prophets?

STUDY WEEK 6
VIDEO 9.1. Understanding the Qur'an.
VIDEO 9.2. The Arabic Qur'an.

STUDY WEEK 7
VIDEO 10.1. Tanzil and Incarnation. Part 1.
VIDEO 10.2. Tanzil and Incarnation. Part 2.

STUDY WEEK 8
VIDEO 11.2 Migration of Muhammad from Mecca to Medina.
VIDEO 11.2. Jesus's Journey to the Cross.
VIDEO 11.3. The Significance of the Cross.

STUDY WEEK 9
VIDEO 12.1. The Muslim Ummah in Medina.
VIDEO 12.2. The Church in Jerusalem.
VIDEO 13. Tawhid and Trinity

STUDY WEEK 10
VIDEO 14. The Hajj and the Eucharist.
VIDEO 15.1. Shari'a is Muslim Law. Part 1.
VIDEO 15.2. Shari'a is Muslim Law. Part 2.

STUDY WEEK 11
VIDEO 16. The Shi'a or Shi'ite Muslims.
VIDEO 17. Sufi Mystics.
VIDEO 18. Folk and Secularist Islam

STUDY WEEK 12
VIDEO 19. Principles for Ministry Among Muslims
VIDEO 20. An Open Door (Revelation 3:7-12)

I have also taken two courses from Islamic University Online:

The founder of this school and the professor of those courses is Dr. Bilal Philips, a Sunni Salafi fundamentalist.

Dr. Philips received his B.A. degree from the Islamic University of Medina and his M.A. in Islamic Theology from the King Saud University in Riyadh, completed his PhD at the University of Wales, St. David's University College. He taught Islamic studies for a decade at an Islamic high school in Riyadh and was an Arabic and Islamic studies teacher in the American University of Dubai for 10 years.

I have also taken courses in Islamic Studies from The Assemblies of God Theological Seminary (1987) and University of Maryland (1989). Since these were taken before the age of the internet and I only have hard copies I can't provide transcripts from these two schools at this time since I do not have access to them.

I lived in Turkey for 11 months in the mid 80's and for the past 8 years I have been a missionary in Mindanao where I have lived in a primarily Muslim village in Davao City and my mission work takes me to the predominately Islamic communities and islands in the Sulu Archipelago (95-98% Muslim). The Muslims in this region are primarily Sunni and of course being a missionary the topic of religion is constantly being discussed.

Violent extremism is also a major issue in this part of the world and extremists interpretations of Islam are also often a topic of discussion especially since countering violent extremism is incorporated into our ministry. I have also witnessed acts of Islamic extremism and the suffering that it leaves in its wake first hand. I was present when Islamic extremists detonated a bomb at a night market in Davao City that killed 15 and wounded dozens more and for a time I owned a business in a local mall where a bomb went off inside the theater in 2013 that was located just 150 feet from our kiosk in the foodcourt. The villages we work in have also been the scene of many acts of violence by Islamic extremists over the years; most notably the Siege of Zamboanga in 2013 in which all of the villages of the people group we work with were razed and more than 150 of these people died from malnutrition and disease in the year that followed.

I even have a Qur'an app on my phone.

Aside from what you have learned from notorious anti-Islamic websites and shared here, what is your background in Islamic studies and your relationship with Muslims?

 

[Joyousperson]

Some of the questions in that post weren't generic and could only be answered by you.

I could simply cut and paste information from the internet on those subjects, so requesting that I quote from authoritative sources from Islam about those subjects would prove nothing one way or the other on whether or not I have studied Islam. Therefore, I will provide more convincing evidence.

I have taken the course The Gospel and Islam from TVS Seminaries:

View attachment 260370
The lecturer for this course is Dr. David Shenk. He has a PhD in Religious Studies from New York University and teaches courses in Islam and Eastern Religions. He was born in Tanzania. Lived for ten years in Somalia and lectured in comparative religion and church history at Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Kenya for six years and has spent time working in several other Islamic countries.

Resources and topics covered were as follows:

Textbook #1: A Muslim and A Christian in Dialogue
Textbook #2 for the course: Journeys
Encyclopedia Of Islam.pdf
Concise Encyclopedia Islam.pdf
The New Cambridge History of Islam Volume 1

STUDY WEEK 1
Early Theological Formation in the Arabian Background
VIDEO 3.1.The Christian Context.
VIDEO 3.2. The Jewish Context.
VIDEO 3.3. The Jahiliyya and the Hanif Contexts.

STUDY WEEK 2
VIDEO 4.1. The Muslim Community (Ummah). Part 1.
VIDEO 4.2. The Muslim Community (Ummah). Part 2.

STUDY WEEK 3
Muslim Theology and Praxis
VIDEO 5.1. The Five Pillars of Muslim Theology (Iman).
VIDEO 5.2. Presenting the Gospel to Muslim.
VIDEO 5.3. The Five Pillars of Muslim Praxis (Ihsan).
VIDEO 5.4. The Mission of Islam to the World

STUDY WEEK 4
VIDEO 6. Adam and Eve
VIDEO 7. Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac

STUDY WEEK 5
VIDEO 8.1. The Qur'an and Jesus.
VIDEO 8.2. The Qur'an and Muhammad.
VIDEO 8.3. Is Muhammad the Seal of the Prophets?

STUDY WEEK 6
VIDEO 9.1. Understanding the Qur'an.
VIDEO 9.2. The Arabic Qur'an.

STUDY WEEK 7
VIDEO 10.1. Tanzil and Incarnation. Part 1.
VIDEO 10.2. Tanzil and Incarnation. Part 2.

STUDY WEEK 8
VIDEO 11.2 Migration of Muhammad from Mecca to Medina.
VIDEO 11.2. Jesus's Journey to the Cross.
VIDEO 11.3. The Significance of the Cross.

STUDY WEEK 9
VIDEO 12.1. The Muslim Ummah in Medina.
VIDEO 12.2. The Church in Jerusalem.
VIDEO 13. Tawhid and Trinity

STUDY WEEK 10
VIDEO 14. The Hajj and the Eucharist.
VIDEO 15.1. Shari'a is Muslim Law. Part 1.
VIDEO 15.2. Shari'a is Muslim Law. Part 2.

STUDY WEEK 11
VIDEO 16. The Shi'a or Shi'ite Muslims.
VIDEO 17. Sufi Mystics.
VIDEO 18. Folk and Secularist Islam

STUDY WEEK 12
VIDEO 19. Principles for Ministry Among Muslims
VIDEO 20. An Open Door (Revelation 3:7-12)

I have also taken two courses from Islamic University Online:

View attachment 260369

The founder of this school and the professor of those courses is Dr. Bilal Philips, a Sunni Salafi fundamentalist.

Dr. Philips received his B.A. degree from the Islamic University of Medina and his M.A. in Islamic Theology from the King Saud University in Riyadh, completed his PhD at the University of Wales, St. David's University College. He taught Islamic studies for a decade at an Islamic high school in Riyadh and was an Arabic and Islamic studies teacher in the American University of Dubai for 10 years.

I have also taken courses in Islamic Studies from The Assemblies of God Theological Seminary (1987) and University of Maryland (1989). Since these were taken before the age of the internet and I only have hard copies I can't provide transcripts from these two schools at this time since I do not have access to them.

I lived in Turkey for 11 months in the mid 80's and for the past 8 years I have been a missionary in Mindanao where I have lived in a primarily Muslim village in Davao City and my mission work takes me to the predominately Islamic communities and islands in the Sulu Archipelago (95-98% Muslim). The Muslims in this region are primarily Sunni and of course being a missionary the topic of religion is constantly being discussed.

Violent extremism is also a major issue in this part of the world and extremists interpretations of Islam are also often a topic of discussion especially since countering violent extremism is incorporated into our ministry. I have also witnessed acts of Islamic extremism and the suffering that it leaves in its wake first hand. I was present when Islamic extremists detonated a bomb at a night market in Davao City that killed 15 and wounded dozens more and for a time I owned a business in a local mall where a bomb went off inside the theater in 2013 that was located just 150 feet from our kiosk in the foodcourt. The villages we work in have also been the scene of many acts of violence by Islamic extremists over the years; most notably the Siege of Zamboanga in 2013 in which all of the villages of the people group we work with were razed and more than 150 of these people died from malnutrition and disease in the year that followed.

View attachment 260373

I even have a Qur'an app on my phone.

View attachment 260389

Aside from what you have learned from notorious anti-Islamic websites and shared here, what is your background in Islamic studies and your relationship with Muslims?

You did not answer Sets777's question directly at all.

setst777 said: ↑
To prove you have actually studied at least some of Islam, I want you to quote for me, from authoritative sources from Islam, the following:
The Sunni (all four schools) interpretation (Figh) of Sharia on Jihad.
The Sharia interpretation (figh) of Sharia on Jihad.
Once you do that, then we can discuss further.
​

To do so, you will need to refer to the authoritative sources of the four main schools of Sunni. E.g. for the Shafi'i school, there is the manual, The Reliance of the Traveller [Book O.09] [I have read this relevant section and the intro chapters].

Btw, I asked you a critical question;
Do you agree with the Sharia edict of the Shafi'i school [re Book O.09 Reliance] that apostates are to be killed [presumably that is fasad and a threat to Islam re 5:33].

You posted loads above but all the above are merely window-dressing based on confirmation bias as naturally expected from Muslims apologists [this is a sweeping statement here, but I have addressed them in details elsewhere]. As for Bilal Philip a salafi, he is doing Taqiyyah, he has to, else, he would be arrested as a sympathizer.

I would be interested to listen to the following you listed;
1. VIDEO 15.1. Shari'a is Muslim Law. Part 1.
2. VIDEO 15.2. Shari'a is Muslim Law. Part 2.
Perhaps you can provide the link if possible or provide a link where Shenk wrote about Sharia.
I can predict the above videos would not cover in detail the topic of 'Jihad' as within the Shafi'i School described in Book O.09 of the Reliance of the Traveller [I have read this] and those of the other main Sunni Schools.

Nothing to brag about having the Quran on your phone and that is easily available plus loads of English translated Quran are available from the Web.

What is critical with the Quran is whether you have understood the 6236 verses therein in its proper context in line with the whole spectrum of human nature and humanity. From what you have posted it is obvious you do not have a deep understanding of the message of the Quran.

I have read the Quran Verse 1 to 6236 at one go >100 times and more times on specific chapters.

For the 6236 verses I have analyzed them in Excel Microsoft in terms of;

1. Putting the 6236 verses in 6236 rows.
2. Analyzed the above verses in terms of 1400++ categories in various main categories.
3. Summarized the above in ONE main theme.
​

It is not easy for the ordinary person or even the so-claimed experts to grasp the full 6236 verses in 1400++ categories at one go to understand the Quran deeply and thoroughly.
Most, even expert Islamic scholars driven by the salvation impulse will be subjected to confirmation bias and not the truth of the matter.

In your case, you will spontaneously sweep whatever evil and violent acts by Islamists inspired by the Quran under the 'All types of terrorist' carpet and deflect the main issue.
You had never taken the full 6236 verses of the Quran, i.e. Allah's words into account because that is beyond you.

 

[Godistruth1]

Hi GodisTruth1,

You demanded Joyousperson to produce the evidence. Now that the evidence has been produced, you reject it outright.

I am serious, but you are playing games.

I definitely will not waste my time with a bigot.

Blessings

U are running away from a real challenge because u don't know anything more than copy paste. I doubt u even read what uve pasted here.

 

[Joyousperson]

U are running away from a real challenge because u don't know anything more than copy paste. I doubt u even read what uve pasted here.

The above is a silly complain.
I believe it is a smart and wise move to avoid your complain at this point.

Here is a note of advice;

List your challenge points & arguments and we will provide objective counters to your arguments.

There is nothing wrong in 'copy & paste' as long as they are supported and traceable to the primary sources of Islam, i.e. the Quran [supported by Ahadith].

Your complain to wikipedia is very intellectually childish.
Wikipedia qualifies what Wikipedia is about, i.e. it is open source and anyone can edit but all statements made must be supported by the appropriate references which anyone can counter and verify.

If you read Wikipedia, you will surely come across "[Citation Needed]"
e.g.

Other non-Arab Muslims might use different names as much as Allah, for instance "Tanrı" in Turkish,[citation needed] "Khodā" in Persian or "Ḵẖudā" in Urdu.​

No statement in any Wiki article can stand on its own merely based on any Wiki writers personal views.

Note the article on Islam in Wikipedia;
Islam - Wikipedia
It is 411 references for anyone to verify.

If you think any of the references are wrong, you can counter it in the article by presenting an alternative referenced view.

It is the same with any article from any other sources, if it is not properly referenced and argued logically, then one should place a degree of confidence level depending on the quality of the argument and references or reject it totally.

Your unsupported complain that we have simply copy & paste is too intellectually childish.

 

[JosephZ]

You did not answer Sets777's question directly at all.

Setst777 wanted me to to prove that I have actually studied at least some of Islam by quoting from authoritative sources from Islam. How exactly would that prove that I have studied Islam? All I would have to do is google some acceptable answers to his requests which would only prove that I know how to use Google, hence my response to him:

I could simply cut and paste information from the internet on those subjects, so requesting that I quote from authoritative sources from Islam about those subjects would prove nothing one way or the other on whether or not I have studied Islam. Therefore, I will provide more convincing evidence.

The evidence I provided was more than sufficient.

Nothing to brag about having the Quran on your phone and that is easily available plus loads of English translated Quran are available from the Web.

I wasn't bragging, that was just icing on the cake.

 

[Joyousperson]

Setst777 wanted me to to prove that I have actually studied at least some of Islam by quoting from authoritative sources from Islam. How exactly would that prove that I have studied Islam? All I would have to do is google some acceptable answers to his requests which would only prove that I know how to use Google, hence my response to him:
The evidence I provided was more than sufficient.

It was a very conditional question,

setst777 said: ↑
To prove you have actually studied at least some of Islam, I want you to quote for me, from authoritative sources from Islam, the following:

1. The Sunni (all four schools) interpretation (Figh) of Sharia on Jihad.
2. The Sharia interpretation (figh) of Sharia on Jihad.​

Once you do that, then we can discuss further. ​

The conditions to be met are 1. & 2.

I wasn't bragging, that was just icing on the cake.

You meant the cake is those certificates you have obtained?
Obvious those are very questionable when we have not questioned the assumptions and biasness they are depended upon by the course and lecturers.
Note Dr. Bilal Philip has to practice Taqiyyah.

Here is one video from Dr. Shenk whom you spoke highly of;

In the above, Dr. Shenk praised Chapter 1 -the Al Fatihah of the Quran very highly as if it is like the Lord's prayer.

But in the whole context of the 6236 verses of the Quran, Chapter 1 is very negative and by implication, terribly condemned the Christians and the Jews.

1:7. The path of those [Muslims] whom Thou hast favoured; Not (the path) of those [Infidels] who earn Thine anger [GHDB l-maghdūbi wrath] nor of those [Infidels] who astray [DLL: dall].​

When the pronouns 'those [Muslims]' and 'those [Infidels]' are highlighted as intended in the verse, they invoke and trigger the related emotions involved re anger and 'astray'.

What is at stake here for the Muslims who prayed above is their salvation from the straight path and their salvation could be threatened and impeded or led astray by the Jews and the Christians as in 1:7 in the context of the whole Quran.

Here are few verses among the many similar verses of such threats [fasad] leading to 5:33 [sanction for killing of disbelievers];

2:120. And the Jews will not be pleased with thee [O Muhammad], nor will the Christians, till thou follow their creed [MLL; millat -millatahum]. Say: Lo! the guidance of Allah (Himself) is Guidance. And if thou [Muhammad] shouldst follow their [infidels] desires [HWY; ahwāahum] after the knowledge [Quran] which hath come unto thee, then wouldst thou [Muhammad] have from Allah no protecting friend nor helper.

2:135. And they [infidels Jews & Christians] say: Be Jews or Christians, then ye will be rightly guided [HDY; tahtadū]. Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Nay, but (we {Muslims} follow) the religion [millat] of Abraham, the upright [hanifan; monotheist], and he was not of the idolaters. [millat not Deen]

3:100. O ye [Muslims] who believe! If ye [Muslims] obey a party of those [Christians - infidels] who have received the Scripture they [infidels] will make you disbelievers [KFR: kuffar] after your belief.

4:44. Seest thou not those [Jews & Christians] unto whom a portion of the Scripture hath been given, how they [Jews & Christians - infidels] purchase error [DLL: l-ḍalālata], and seek to make you (Muslims) err from the right way?
[nb: Staunch Jews hid/denied prophecies supposedly mentioned Messiah to Muhammad as claimed by renegade Jews] [This Instilling 'hate' for the Jews and Christians]

5:49. So judge between them [Jews, Christians, Islamists] by that [scriptures] which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires, but beware of them [Jews and Christians] lest they [Jews and Christians] seduce thee from some part of that which Allah hath revealed unto thee. And if they turn away, then know that Allah's will is to smite [afflict, punish] them for some sin of theirs. Lo! many of mankind are evil livers [FSQ; fasiq].​

In the context of the 6236 verses, the ones who are the most which God is angry with and hated are the Jews, here are a few from the many verses in the Quran;

2:65. And ye know of those of you [the Jews] who broke the Sabbath, how We said unto them [the Jews]: Be ye apes, despised [KhSA; khāsiīna] and hated!​

2:90. Evil is that for which they [Israelites] sell their souls: that they [Jews] should disbelieve [KFR: yakfurū] in that which Allah hath revealed, grudging [envious, resenting] that 'Allah should reveal [bestow] of His bounty unto whom He will of His bondmen.' They [infidels] have incurred anger upon anger. For disbelievers [infidels] is a shameful doom.

7:166. So when they [Jews infidels] took pride in that which they [infidels] had been forbidden, We said unto them [infidel Jews]: Be ye apes despised [KhSA: khāsiīna] and loathed! [Dehumanized]​

Those who are condemned as astray are mainly the Christians and the Jews as well.

3:69. A party [TWF: ṭāifatun; group] of the People of the Scripture [Jews & Christians infidels] long to make you [Muslims] go astray [DLL: yudillu]; and they [infidels] make none to go astray except themselves, but they [infidels] perceive not.
​

The Christians are accused as 'astray' due to their belief, Allah has a son, Jesus was crucified, the Trinity, etc.

I don't believe Dr. Shenk understood the above verses or he would be an ostrich to them when he read the Quran.

In another point;
Dr. Shenk noted Muslims recite the above 17 times a day with fervor and those who understand the Quran in its right context or are influenced by the clergy will have the hatred of the Jews and Christians in mind when they pray 17 times a day.

In the above video Dr. Shenk also believed the Bible [Torah and Gospels] in the hands of the present Jews and Christians are not corrupted when the full context of the whole Quran stated otherwise. {noted Sets777 and I had agreed to disagree on this}

Whilst there were some verses which implied Muhammad had accepted the Torah and Injeel of the Jews and Christians as valid which were lost somehow, ultimately Muhammad rejected them as corrupted during some intervening period.
Thus the ones held by the Jews and Christians at present are corrupted. There are many verses to justify the point, here is one significant one;

5:72. They [Christians] surely disbelieve [KFR; kafara] who say : Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. ...​

Thus Islam cannot accept the current Gospel(S) of the Christians which Muhammad [Allah] interpreted Jesus [Messiah] in the Gospel is the 'biological' son of God.
To the Christians, that is a wrong interpretation, but Allah in the Quran will insist that is the case.
So, according to Allah in the Quran, the ultimate stance of Islam is the Torah and Gospels existing at present are corrupted.

The above indicate Dr. Shenk is not fully well verse with the full context of the Quran's 6236 verses.

The problem is Dr. Shenk started with a bias premise and ground that the Quran is compatible with the Torah and the Gospels and differences if any are to be ignored.
Dr. Shenk did not analyze the criticalness of the differences in detail.

Example, Dr. Shenk agreed there is a difference between Allah and the Christian God are the same but only that the Christian God came down to Earth in Jesus while Allah remained aloof.
But if you understands the Quran thoroughly, Allah is a totally different God [invented by man and false] from the Christian God. The God of Christianity and Islam are not comparable at all.

What you have learned from Dr. Shenk are falsehoods as far as the core and critical principles of Christianity and Islam are concerned.

Btw, don't bring in the silly excuse, i.e. the verses I quoted are meant to be HISTORICAL or obtained from anti-Islamic-propagandist sites.

Note the amount of details in [] I have put into ALL the 6236 verses of the Quran [as shown in the ones I quoted above].
In addition I extract verses for the relevant categories quite easily from my database.

 

[setst777]

 

[Joyousperson]

Good video.

Most of her views on Islamic teachings are traceable to the Quranic verses, it not, are from the Ahadith. Here are the ones re the angels in hell on the right and left;

Quran Chapter 69:
15. Then, on that Day will the Event befall.
16. And the heaven will split asunder, for that day it will be frail.
17. And the angels will be on the sides thereof, and eight [angels] will uphold the Throne of their Lord that day, above them.
18. On that day ye [people] will be exposed; not a secret of you will be hidden.
19. Then, as for him [Muslim] who is given his record in his right hand, he will say: Take, read my book!
20. Surely I [Muslim] knew that I should have to meet my reckoning [HSB: ḥisābiyah].
21. Then he [Muslims] will be in blissful state
22. In a high Garden
23. Whereof the clusters are in easy reach.
24. (And it will be said unto those [Muslims] therein): Eat and drink at ease for that which ye sent on before you in past days.
25. But as for him [infidel] who is given his record in his left hand, he will say: Oh, would that I [infidel] had not been given my book
26. And knew not what my [infidel] reckoning!
27. Oh, would that it had been death!
28. My wealth hath not availed me [infidel] ,
29. My power hath gone from me [infidel].
30. (It will be said): Take him [infidel] and fetter him
31. And then expose him [infidel] to hell fire
32. And then insert him [infidel] in a chain whereof the length is seventy cubits.
33. Lo! he [infidel] used not to believe in Allah the Tremendous,​

Aryaan Hirsi mentioned the mother stated angels on the Muslim's shoulder, but the eventual message is the same.

Aryaan Hirsi emphasized the leverage of salvation and the Hereafter as critical to Muslims, thus they are compelled to obey Allah as in the Quran which contain loads [55% of all verses] of evil and violent elements [to Muslims is good and a duty].

Point is there is a large percentage of Muslims [if 20% = 320 million] who are aware Allah is watching, testing them, recording their acts, they will be very zealous in obeying Allah's commands as in the Quran to please Allah, thus the consequences of terrible evil and violent acts upon humanity and non-Muslims. [which is glaringly evident].

Therefore the ideology of Islam is a catalyst that trigger the terrible evil and violent acts of SOME [very significant quantum of] Muslims.

JosephZ, what are your view to the above?

 

[JosephZ]

Most of her views on Islamic teachings are traceable to the Quranic verses, it not, are from the Ahadith. Here are the ones re the angels in hell on the right and left; Quran Chapter 69:
And the angels will be on the sides thereof, and eight [angels] will uphold the Throne of their Lord that day, above them.
18. On that day ye [people] will be exposed; not a secret of you will be hidden.
19. Then, as for him [Muslim] who is given his record in his right hand, he will say: Take, read my book!
25. But as for him [infidel] who is given his record in his left hand,

Aryaan Hirsi mentioned the mother stated angels on the Muslim's shoulder, but the eventual message is the same.

Chapter 69 is speaking of the day of Resurrection and Judgement. The angels spoken of in that chapter and the references to the right hand and left hand have nothing to do with the angels on the shoulders that Hirsi's mother would have been speaking of or angels in hell.

Hirsi's mother was talking about the Kiraman Katibin and these angels are mentioned in Chapters 50 & 82.

We created the human being, and We know what his soul whispers to him. We are nearer to him than his jugular vein. As the two receivers receive, seated to the right and to the left. Not a word does he utter, but there is a watcher by him, ready. (Qur'an 50:16-18)

Though over you are watchers, honest recorders, they know everything you do. (Qur'an 82:10-12)

JosephZ, what are your view to the above?

I will tell you my view of Aryaan Hirsi. She would fall into the category of the "ex-Muslims" I have mentioned before.

Did you know that the business of spreading anti-Islamic propaganda is a big business in the post 9/11 era? A person claiming to be an ex-Muslim who parrots anti-Islamic propaganda can make a big name for themselves and earn a large income in this day and age... "ex Muslims" like Ridvan Aydemir, Walid Shoebat, and Rachid Hammami to name a few have made a lot of money exploiting non-Muslims in the west's ignorance of Islam.

When you can show me an ex-Muslim that isn't soliciting for money, trying to sell a book, and/or doesn't have direct connections to notorious anti-Islamic propagandists like David Wood, Pam Geller, or Robert Spencer to name a few, then I might take the time to watch their video and see why they are saying what they are about Islam.

It seems others have similar criticisms of her.

• In April 2017 she cancelled a planned tour of Australia. This followed the Facebook release of a video by six Australian Muslim women who accused her of being a "star of the global Islamophobia industry" and of profiting from "an industry that exists to dehumanize Muslim women" but did not call for her to cancel her trip.
• Ali's public commentary and stances, particularly her criticisms of Islam, have elicited denunciations from a number of commentators and academics. Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, condemned her as "one of the worst of the worst of the Islam haters in America, not only in America but worldwide."
• Saba Mahmood wrote that Hirsi Ali "had no public profile until she decided to capitalize on the anti-Muslim sentiment that swept Europe following the events of 9/11".
• Adam Yaghi has questioned her appeal in American society where her "serial autobiographies are treated as honest and reliable testimonies in spite of the troubling inaccuracies, exaggerated descriptions, blunt neo-Orientalist portrayals, and sweeping generalizations".
• Stephen Sheehi wrote that in spite of her lack of scholarly credentials and academic qualifications "to speak authoritatively about Islam and the Arab world", Hirsi Ali has been accepted in the West as a scholar, feminist activist, and reformer primarily on the grounds of her "insider claims about Islam".
• Other critics have called Ali an "inauthentic ethnic voice"at the service of "imperialist feminism."
• Kiran Grewal asserted that Ali is "a classic enactment of the colonial 'civilizing mission' discourse." Grewal described Ali's works as using "the language of 'lived experience' to justify an intolerant and exclusionary message" and alleged that her "extremely provocative and often offensive statements regarding Islam and Muslim immigrants in the West" had alienated some feminists and academics.
• Adam Yaghi commented that "Ali attributes everything bad to a monolithic Islam, one that transcends geographic and national boundaries ... willfully ignoring her own distinctions between different interpretations of Islam, versions she personally encountered before leaving to the West".
• Pearl Abraham has made a similar observation: "n her writings, lectures, and interviews", Ali "reaches for the simple solution and quick answer. Always and everywhere, she insists on depicting Islam and Muslims as the enemy, her tribal culture as backward"
  [*]Hirsi Ali is also criticized for persistently singling out Islam and Muslims, but never manifestations of religious revivalism present with other religions.
  [*]According to Rula Jebreal, a Palestinian journalist and foreign policy analyst, Ali's criticism applies mostly to "Wahhabism", the strain of Islam most familiar to Hirsi Ali, and not to Islam as a whole. Jebreal added that Ali's "outbursts" originated from her own pain, "physical scars inflicted on her body during childhood," which were justified by a radical version of the religion into which she was born. Jebreal wrote: "To endorse Hirsi Ali so unabashedly is to insult and mock a billion Muslims. It's time to listen to what is being said by the Muslim voices of peace and tolerance. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not one of them."

Hirsi is pretty much describing the same sect of Islam you and Setst777 have been describing throughout this thread (Wahhabism).

She appears to be dishonest as well and admits that she lied when applying for asylum and the history of her background.

 

[setst777]

Chapter 69 is speaking of the day of Resurrection and Judgement. The angels spoken of in that chapter and the references to the right hand and left hand have nothing to do with the angels on the shoulders that Hirsi's mother would have been speaking of or angels in hell.

Hirsi's mother was talking about the Kiraman Katibin and these angels are mentioned in Chapters 50 & 82.

We created the human being, and We know what his soul whispers to him. We are nearer to him than his jugular vein. As the two receivers receive, seated to the right and to the left. Not a word does he utter, but there is a watcher by him, ready. (Qur'an 50:16-18)

Though over you are watchers, honest recorders, they know everything you do. (Qur'an 82:10-12)


I will tell you my view of Aryaan Hirsi. She would fall into the category of the "ex-Muslims" I have mentioned before.

When you can show me an ex-Muslim that isn't soliciting for money, trying to sell a book, and/or doesn't have direct connections to notorious anti-Islamic propagandists like David Wood, Pam Geller, or Robert Spencer to name a few, then I might take the time to watch their video and see why they are saying what they are about Islam.

It seems others have similar criticisms of her.

• In April 2017 she cancelled a planned tour of Australia. This followed the Facebook release of a video by six Australian Muslim women who accused her of being a "star of the global Islamophobia industry" and of profiting from "an industry that exists to dehumanize Muslim women" but did not call for her to cancel her trip.
• Ali's public commentary and stances, particularly her criticisms of Islam, have elicited denunciations from a number of commentators and academics. Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, condemned her as "one of the worst of the worst of the Islam haters in America, not only in America but worldwide."
• Saba Mahmood wrote that Hirsi Ali "had no public profile until she decided to capitalize on the anti-Muslim sentiment that swept Europe following the events of 9/11".
• Adam Yaghi has questioned her appeal in American society where her "serial autobiographies are treated as honest and reliable testimonies in spite of the troubling inaccuracies, exaggerated descriptions, blunt neo-Orientalist portrayals, and sweeping generalizations".
• Stephen Sheehi wrote that in spite of her lack of scholarly credentials and academic qualifications "to speak authoritatively about Islam and the Arab world", Hirsi Ali has been accepted in the West as a scholar, feminist activist, and reformer primarily on the grounds of her "insider claims about Islam".
• Other critics have called Ali an "inauthentic ethnic voice"at the service of "imperialist feminism."
• Kiran Grewal asserted that Ali is "a classic enactment of the colonial 'civilizing mission' discourse." Grewal described Ali's works as using "the language of 'lived experience' to justify an intolerant and exclusionary message" and alleged that her "extremely provocative and often offensive statements regarding Islam and Muslim immigrants in the West" had alienated some feminists and academics.
• Adam Yaghi commented that "Ali attributes everything bad to a monolithic Islam, one that transcends geographic and national boundaries ... willfully ignoring her own distinctions between different interpretations of Islam, versions she personally encountered before leaving to the West".
• Pearl Abraham has made a similar observation: "n her writings, lectures, and interviews", Ali "reaches for the simple solution and quick answer. Always and everywhere, she insists on depicting Islam and Muslims as the enemy, her tribal culture as backward"
  [*]Hirsi Ali is also criticized for persistently singling out Islam and Muslims, but never manifestations of religious revivalism present with other religions.
  [*]According to Rula Jebreal, a Palestinian journalist and foreign policy analyst, Ali's criticism applies mostly to "Wahhabism", the strain of Islam most familiar to Hirsi Ali, and not to Islam as a whole. Jebreal added that Ali's "outbursts" originated from her own pain, "physical scars inflicted on her body during childhood," which were justified by a radical version of the religion into which she was born. Jebreal wrote: "To endorse Hirsi Ali so unabashedly is to insult and mock a billion Muslims. It's time to listen to what is being said by the Muslim voices of peace and tolerance. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not one of them."

Hirsi is pretty much describing the same sect of Islam you and Setst777 have been describing throughout this thread (Wahhabism).

She appears to be dishonest as well and admits that she lied when applying for asylum and the history of her background.

Wikipedia provides a much more balanced view and understanding of the credibility, knowledge and positions held of Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

The video provided is a smear campaign to destroy Ayaan, using commentary and specific cuts taken of Ayann's statements out context of the.

I am very impressed with Ayann.

Blessings

 

[JosephZ]

Wikipedia provides a much more balanced view and understanding of the credibility, knowledge and positions held of Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

The video provided is a smear campaign to destroy Ayaan, using commentary and specific cuts taken of Ayann's statements out context of the.

I am very impressed with Ayann.

Blessings

Whether that video is part of a smear campaign or not, she openly admits that she lied about her background and not only does she not show any remorse about it, she boasts about beating the system when she applied for asylum. People like that don't impress me.

None of this changes the fact that she is talking about the Islamic sect of Wahhabism and not the religion of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow.

 

[setst777]

Whether that video is part of a smear campaign or not, she openly admits that she lied about her background and not only does she not show any remorse about it, she boasts about beating the system when she applied for asylum. People like that don't impress me.

None of this changes the fact that she is talking about the Islamic sect of Wahhabism and not the religion of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow.

Her lying about aspects of her background does not discredit her when you realize the reasons for this, which Wikipedia goes into more detail. Her main reason for "lying" was to escape a pre-arranged marriage against her will and to free herself of the restraints of Sharia on women. I think she acted wisely and strategically considering her situation.

As for the claim about Wahhabism, Ms Ali quoted the Qur'an, the Hadith in other places, and drew from her own life experiences as a Muslim in Somalia. While all Muslims in the West do not all support Sharia, her point is that many do, including Muslims in Islamic countries. She has had numerous death threats from those in Islam for bringing these truths to light.

Here is a quote from Wikipedia, showing her strong advocacy for women, and issues she has with Islam, and other views of hers which are accurate to the view of Islam and Muslim countries in general - although female genital mutilation is not practiced/mandatory for all Muslims. Her views are in line with the Six Witnesses I gave.

<<
Social and political views[edit]
Hirsi Ali joined the VVD political party in 2002; it combines "classically liberal" views on the economy, foreign policy, crime and immigration with a liberal social stance on abortion and homosexuality. She says that she admires Frits Bolkestein, a former Euro-commissioner and ideological leader of the party.[108]

Hirsi Ali is the founder and president of the AHA Foundation, a non-profit humanitarian organisation to protect women and girls in the U.S. against political Islam and harmful tribal customs that violate U.S. law and international conventions. Through the AHA Foundation, Hirsi Ali campaigns against the denial of education for girls, female genital mutilation, forced marriage, honour violence and killings, and suppression of information about the crimes through the misuse and misinterpretation of rights to freedom of religion and free speech in the U.S. and the West.[109]

Islam and Muslims[edit]
Hirsi Ali has criticised the treatment of women in Islamic societies and the punishments demanded by conservative Islamic scholars for homosexuality and adultery. She publicly identified as Muslim until 28 May 2002, when she acknowledged in her diary that she knew she was not.[110]

In a 2007 interview in the London Evening Standard,[25] Hirsi Ali characterised Islam as "the new fascism":

Just like Nazism started with Hitler's vision, the Islamic vision is a caliphate – a society ruled by Sharia law – in which women who have sex before marriage are stoned to death, homosexuals are beaten, and apostates like me are killed. Sharia law is as inimical to liberal democracy as Nazism ... Violence is inherent in Islam – it's a destructive, nihilistic cult of death. It legitimates murder.

In a 2007 article in Reason magazine, Hirsi Ali said that Islam, the religion, must be defeated and that "we are at war with Islam. And there's no middle ground in wars."[111] She said, "Islam, period. Once it's defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful. It's very difficult to even talk about peace now. They're not interested in peace ... There comes a moment when you crush your enemy. (..) and if you don't do that, then you have to live with the consequence of being crushed." Adding: "the Christian powers have accepted the separation of the worldly and the divine. We don't interfere with their religion, and they don't interfere with the state. That hasn't happened in Islam."[111] She reiterated her position that the problem isn't just a few "rotten apples" in the Islamic community but "I'm saying it's the entire basket." She stated that the majority of Muslims aren't "moderates" and they must radically alter their religion.[112] Max Rodenbeck, writing in The New York Review of Books, notes that Ali's view of Islam has shifted and "mellowed," as she no longer completely rejects Islam. She now narrowly criticizes what she calls "Medina Muslims", meaning the fundamentalists who envision a regime based on sharia,[113] and who ignore the more inclusive passages of Muhammad's Meccan period, a small minority of Muslims,[114] who are, nevertheless, quite influential among young Muslims, according to Hirsi Ali: "These men, I find them to be far more influential in inspiring and mobilising young men to see the religion of Islam the way they see it, than the way either Imam Faisal says he sees it, or Maajid Nawaz says he sees it."[115] Ayaan Hirsi Ali stated that, in her opinion, "The Christian extremists here, in the United States, who take the Bible and use it to kill people and hurt people, they are the fringe, but unfortunately, what we are seeing in Muslim countries is that the people who feel they should be governed under the Sharia Law, are not a fringe. (..) Islam can become a religion of peace, if politics is divorced from religion",[115] and she stated that: "The individual that wants to kill me because I am an apostate of Islam, is inspired to do that from the scripture of Islam, the example of the prophet Mohammed, the clergy that preached to him, and the reward that he will get in the hereafter."[115]

She described Islamic societies as lagging "in enlightened thinking, tolerance and knowledge of other cultures" and that their history cannot cite a single person who "made a discovery in science or technology, or changed the world through artistic achievement".[16]

In a 2010 interview with The Guardian, she compared the responses of Christians and Muslims to criticism of their respective religions. While Christians would often simply ignore criticism, Muslims would instead take offence, display a victim mentality and take criticism as insults.[116]
Ayaan Hirsi Ali - Wikipedia
>> End of Quote

 

[Joyousperson]

Chapter 69 is speaking of the day of Resurrection and Judgement. The angels spoken of in that chapter and the references to the right hand and left hand have nothing to do with the angels on the shoulders that Hirsi's mother would have been speaking of or angels in hell.

Hirsi's mother was talking about the Kiraman Katibin and these angels are mentioned in Chapters 50 & 82.

We created the human being, and We know what his soul whispers to him. We are nearer to him than his jugular vein. As the two receivers receive, seated to the right and to the left. Not a word does he utter, but there is a watcher by him, ready. (Qur'an 50:16-18)

Though over you are watchers, honest recorders, they know everything you do. (Qur'an 82:10-12)

Note I mentioned;

Aryaan Hirsi mentioned the mother stated angels on the Muslim's shoulder, but the eventual message is the same.​

There is no mentioned of 'angels on the Muslim's shoulders' in the Quran and what the mother stated was a modified version [with variations] to frighten the lay-Muslims to ensure they obey what Allah had commanded. But as i had stated the eventual intent of the message aligns with what is in the Quran.

But the context is eventually the same, i.e. Allah is omnipresent and whatever is done by the Muslims are recorded in the relevant books by the angels and produced on Judgment Day.

My point is, everything Hirsi had stated about Islamic doctrine [albeit in lay-Muslims' variations] is ultimately traceable to the Quran or the Ahadith.

I will tell you my view of Aryaan Hirsi. She would fall into the category of the "ex-Muslims" I have mentioned before.

When you can show me an ex-Muslim that isn't soliciting for money, trying to sell a book, and/or doesn't have direct connections to notorious anti-Islamic propagandists like David Wood, Pam Geller, or Robert Spencer to name a few, then I might take the time to watch their video and see why they are saying what they are about Islam.

It seems others have similar criticisms of her.

• In April 2017 she cancelled a planned tour of Australia. This followed the Facebook release of a video by six Australian Muslim women who accused her of being a "star of the global Islamophobia industry" and of profiting from "an industry that exists to dehumanize Muslim women" but did not call for her to cancel her trip.
• Ali's public commentary and stances, particularly her criticisms of Islam, have elicited denunciations from a number of commentators and academics. Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, condemned her as "one of the worst of the worst of the Islam haters in America, not only in America but worldwide."
• Saba Mahmood wrote that Hirsi Ali "had no public profile until she decided to capitalize on the anti-Muslim sentiment that swept Europe following the events of 9/11".
• Adam Yaghi has questioned her appeal in American society where her "serial autobiographies are treated as honest and reliable testimonies in spite of the troubling inaccuracies, exaggerated descriptions, blunt neo-Orientalist portrayals, and sweeping generalizations".
• Stephen Sheehi wrote that in spite of her lack of scholarly credentials and academic qualifications "to speak authoritatively about Islam and the Arab world", Hirsi Ali has been accepted in the West as a scholar, feminist activist, and reformer primarily on the grounds of her "insider claims about Islam".
• Other critics have called Ali an "inauthentic ethnic voice"at the service of "imperialist feminism."
• Kiran Grewal asserted that Ali is "a classic enactment of the colonial 'civilizing mission' discourse." Grewal described Ali's works as using "the language of 'lived experience' to justify an intolerant and exclusionary message" and alleged that her "extremely provocative and often offensive statements regarding Islam and Muslim immigrants in the West" had alienated some feminists and academics.
• Adam Yaghi commented that "Ali attributes everything bad to a monolithic Islam, one that transcends geographic and national boundaries ... willfully ignoring her own distinctions between different interpretations of Islam, versions she personally encountered before leaving to the West".
• Pearl Abraham has made a similar observation: "n her writings, lectures, and interviews", Ali "reaches for the simple solution and quick answer. Always and everywhere, she insists on depicting Islam and Muslims as the enemy, her tribal culture as backward"
  [*]Hirsi Ali is also criticized for persistently singling out Islam and Muslims, but never manifestations of religious revivalism present with other religions.
  [*]According to Rula Jebreal, a Palestinian journalist and foreign policy analyst, Ali's criticism applies mostly to "Wahhabism", the strain of Islam most familiar to Hirsi Ali, and not to Islam as a whole. Jebreal added that Ali's "outbursts" originated from her own pain, "physical scars inflicted on her body during childhood," which were justified by a radical version of the religion into which she was born. Jebreal wrote: "To endorse Hirsi Ali so unabashedly is to insult and mock a billion Muslims. It's time to listen to what is being said by the Muslim voices of peace and tolerance. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not one of them."

Hirsi is pretty much describing the same sect of Islam you and Setst777 have been describing throughout this thread (Wahhabism).

She appears to be dishonest as well and admits that she lied when applying for asylum and the history of her background.

In this case, it does not matter who she is and what she did in the past [for various reasons], or whatever you labelled it [Wahabbism, blah, blah, blah] what is critical is whether whatever she had stated is traceable to the Quran, i.e. the words of Allah -the core of Islam.

In the above case, I have provided the verses from the Quran, i.e. the words of Allah to justify the essence of her statements.

What you are doing is VERY intellectually dishonest and bankrupt by relying on the ad hominen fallacy.

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2] The terms ad mulierem[3] and ad feminam[4] have been used specifically when the person receiving the criticism is female.
Ad hominem - Wikipedia​

Note I have already highlighted the MANY fallacies you have resorted to argue your cases, thus ending them with no credibility. Note this is a very evident and an objective complain.
In suggest you stop such dishonesty unless you want to keep on insulting your own intelligence.

Here is an analogy, - apersonal basis to get to the point;
Say for purely example sake, you had been charged with rape and intellectual crimes, does that mean whatever you stated from and about the Quran cannot be reliable?
NO! if you give examples that can be traceable to the Quranic verses from the Quran [or a reputable Quran translation], that will be acceptable.
Your past crimes will have no effect in your statement which can be verified objectively.
I will be relying on the ad hominen fallacy if I were to brush off whatever you say about Islam [as supported by Quranic verses] by bringing in your past crimes, mistakes, and other infractions.​

 

[Joyousperson]

Whether that video is part of a smear campaign or not, she openly admits that she lied about her background and not only does she not show any remorse about it, she boasts about beating the system when she applied for asylum. People like that don't impress me.

None of this changes the fact that she is talking about the Islamic sect of Wahhabism and not the religion of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow.

As usual, you have resorted to the,

1. ad hominen fallacy - attack the person not the contents, i.e. Islamic doctrines.
2. ad populum fallacy - "If many believe so, it is so."​

The above is intellectual cowardice, when are you going to adhere to intellectual decency?

 

[JosephZ]

Her main reason for "lying" was to escape a pre-arranged marriage against her will and to free herself of the restraints of Sharia on women. I think she acted wisely considering her situation.

The forced marriage was a fabricated story according to family members and people who know her. Before seeking asylum she lived a comfortable upper-class life in kenya for more than a decade. She wasn't escaping anything. Instead, she lied to immigration officials in the Netherlands and was granted asylum which took a spot from someone who may have legitimately been escaping persecution. This dishonest act was a move that she describes as being clever and brilliant.

As for the claim about Wahhabism, Ms Ali quoted the Qur'an, the Hadith in other places, and drew from her own life experiences as a Muslim in Somalia.

She was 7 years old when she left Somalia, so her life experiences as a Muslim in that country were quite limited. The schools she attended after leaving Somalia taught Wahhabism, the strict Saudi form of Islam, so this is where she learned about the teachings of this sect. Since there are no records of her ever criticizing Islam or writing any books on the subject prior to 9/11, it should be pretty obvious as to what motivated her to start doing so. She obviously jumped on the same bandwagon so many other "ex-Muslims" did following the events of 9/11 and started demonizing their former religion for profit.

Here is a quote from Wikipedia, showing her strong advocacy for women who need help against Sharia laws regarding women, and other views of hers which are accurate to the view of Islam and Muslim countries in general

Once again, she is describing Wahhabism, not the religion of Islam that the majority of the world's Muslims follow. Here are some Muslim women who strongly disagree with her.