Do Not Bash Muslims

[JosephZ]

What is it you said in particular that the source confirms regarding Chapter 9?

That these verses are in reference to a specific point in history and addressed to a specific audience and 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 or whose treaties had expired, but only if those polytheists refuse to repent or ask for protection. The commands in chapter 9 do not apply to all polytheists, nor were they for an indefinite period of time.

The source"al-islam.org" gives an interpretation that agrees with the top mufassirun of Islam, as I quoted earlier...

No it doesn't.

[Muhsin Khan, "Introduction," in ibid., pp. xxiv-xxv.]
[Ibn Hazm, An-Nasikh wal-Mansukh, pp. 19, 27; Muhi al-Din Ibn al-'Arabi, Tafsir al-Qur'an al-Krim (Beirut: Dar al-Andalus, 1978), p. 69; Burton, The Encyclopedia of Islam, vol. 7, s.v. "Naskh," p. 1010; Salama, An-Nasikh wal-Mansukh, p. 130, mentioned only 114.]
[Suyuti, Al-Itqan fi ‘Ulum al-Qur'an, part 1, pp. 60, 65, 164.]
[See explanations, Suyuti, Al-Itqan fi ‘Ulum al-Qur'an, part 1, pp. 60, 65, 164.]
[Ibn Kathir, Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, vol. 4, pp. 375-7.]
[Ibn Kathir, Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, vol. 4, pp. 375-7.]
(Damascus: Dar al-Fikr, 2001), pp. 323-4.]
[Jurisprudence in Muhammad’s Biography, p 134, 7th edition]

In what way does any of this support what you said about Chapter 9?

Have you ever taken the time to read these commentaries on Chapter 9 in their entirety rather than finding them on sites like answering-islam and copying and pasting them here? Quoting the parts of these commentaries related to single verses can be very misleading. This is what sites like answering-Islam do. This is just like taking verses out of the Qur'an out of context and making them appear to say something that was not originally intended.

And if your interpretation does not agree with the Islamic scholarship or al-islam.org, what makes you think your interpretation trumps the most renowned mufassirun of Islam?

It does as I pointed out in my earlier post. If you have doubt, maybe you can contact the site and ask them if the commands in Chapter 9 that you are concerned about (i.e. slay them wherever you find them) were meant to be applied to all non-Muslims and for an indefinite period of time. I'm pretty confident they will also tell you that the Qur'an doesn't command Muslims in 2019 to go about killing non-Muslims just because they refuse to follow Islam or to wage war on non-Muslims without provocation.

setst RE: Here were the sources:
[Muhsin Khan, "Introduction," in ibid., pp. xxiv-xxv.]
And also (highly credible open-source document)
List of Abrogations in the Qur'an - WikiIslam
Abrogated Verses Of the Quran: Evidence from the Hadith Collection
Yes, it is from answering-islam, but the information is completely factual from the original most reliable sources.

Have you read these Islamic texts anywhere other than wiki-Islam, answering-Islam, or other anti-Islamic sites?

I am sure you did, and I do remember that. But you listed that among the reputable schools you attended in your 30 years of study, so that confirmed to me that you approved of that school and its teaching - since you said repeatedly that you were not aware of any reputable school that teaches what I am saying about Islam.

It is a reputable school and its teachings were on par with other schools I have taken courses on Islamic Studies.

6 Best Online Middle Eastern Studies Programs

1. American Military University (Charles Town, WV)
2. American University (Washington, DC)
3. California University of Pennsylvania (California, PA)
4. Southern New Hampshire University (Manchester NH)
5. University of West Florida (Pensacola, FL)
6. Islamic Online University (Doha, Qatar)
Founded by Dr. Bilal Philips in 2007, Islamic Online University holds a mission to educate students in the authentic Islamic teachings taken from the the Qur’an and Sunnah. All available diploma’s are free of charge, while degree programs are offered at a fixed registration fee running from $60 to $150 USD. Currently the University is comprised of seven colleges offering accredited online degree all taught from an Islamic perspective.

Degree programs include:

Master of Arts in Islamic Studies
Bachelor of Arts in Islamic Studies
Bachelor of Arts in Arabic Language and Linguistics
Bachelor of Science in Islamic Economics, Banking, and Finance
Bachelor of Education
Bachelor of Science in Psychology
Bachelor of Business Administration
Bachelor of Science in Information Technology

Muslims dress the way they do because that is how Muhammad dressed and that is how Muhammad commanded women to dress. This is not difficult to understand. The Hadith, Sira, and actually Sharia, give detailed examples of how Muslims were to dress, eat, bathroom, pray, sleep, have sex, and the list goes on. Sharia, and all its detailed regulation about how Muslims are to live in every aspect of their lives, including dress, are founded on the Qur'an, the Sira and the Hadith. Why didn't you know this?

Why do you think many Christians in the Middle East and North Africa dress and live their lives the way they do?

What is your point? Muhammad gave no instruction or example about buildings. Nothing is written about how buildings are to be built anywhere in the Hadith, Sira, or the Quran, except that a Christian structure of worship in a Muslim controlled land may not be higher than a Muslim building.

You said Nothing has changed for Muslims and that they are still living in the 7th century. I was just point out that quite a bit has changed.

You love to argue about everything, but what does this show about your knowledge of Islam and Muslims after saying you spent decades living with them and studying Islam for 30 years? You appear to lack any meaningful knowledge about Muslims or Islam.

Based on what you have posted here, your entire education on Islam comes from the internet and you use the most notorious anti-Islamic sites and anti-Islamic propagandists found on the web as sources. You dismiss what 90% of the world's Muslims believe and choose to believe the fewer than 10% who follow a Fundamentalist/Salafi/Wahhabist sect of Islam that has been rejected throughout the history of Islam. I showed without doubt that what you are describing here is Wahabbism, not the religion of Islam that the vast majority of Muslims follow. What you teach as being Islam is not taught in any legitimate school that offers courses in Islamic Studies or Islamic History regardless if the courses are offered by a Christian, Islamic, or secular school of thought. All you are doing here is parroting what you have found on anti-Islamic propaganda sites. You and the OP are even quoting the exact same sources. Since you have been led to believe that Fundamentalist Islamic extremists are the only ones who are correct in their interpretation of Islam from what you have read from those sites, do you also believe that Independent Fundamental Baptists are the only denomination in Christianity that have it right?

 

[setst777]

Since you believe that Fundamentalist Islamic extremists are the only ones who are correct in their interpretation of Islam, do you also believe that Independent Fundamental Baptists are the only denomination in Christianity that have it right?

Hi Joseph,

setst wrote: What is it you said in particular that the source confirms regarding Chapter 9?

Joseph responds:
<<
That these verses are in reference to a specific point in history and addressed to a specific audience and 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 or whose treaties had expired, but only if those polytheists refuse to repent or ask for protection. The commands in chapter 9 do not apply to all polytheists, nor were they for an indefinite period of time.
>>

setst RE: I agree with the entirety of that source because it is supported by the Mufassirun and the Rashidun.

Your conclusion is not supported by the source. You misrepresented the conclusions of the source, cutting out what you didn't like. For instance:

"because the program of Islam has been to root out idolatry from the whole earth."

"given the glad tidings of the spread of Islam through the world."

Both these statements show that the program of Islam has not changed since Chapter 9, that the program will continue until Islam roots out all idolatry from the whole earth, and Islam becomes supreme. And this agrees with the best Islamic sources regarding Chapter 9.

You have way to much pride to think you know more than the best Islamic scholars. But then, you think the best Islamic scholars are extremists and do not represent Islam.

I will say this as a concession... Sure you will find contemporary western Immams who use taqyah in the West to deceive us into thinking Islam is all about peace and love, and that is what you have obviously been misled by, and what many in the West are mislead by - so it is not just you. . .

But the actual

• Mufassiruns of the past who lived in Islamic countries, who interpret the Quran and Hadith,
• and those who actually compiled the Hadith,
• and the scholars who wrote Islamic Jurisprudence, and the Rashidun,

all state the truth unguided by Taqyah, because their audience was Islamic. These are the sources I used.

Yet, because these sources disagree with your bias against Islam, you label all these genuine Islam sources as extremists who do not represent Islam. Bravo!

This biased thinking of yours has no foundation in reality.

Sharia also includes clear instructing regarding unbelievers that you are unfamiliar with because you never studied it. I quoted from Sharia for you several times regarding the rules about unbelievers, hypocrites, apostasy. If you knew this, you would not keep claiming any source that disagrees with you as being anti-Islamic. I am quoting Islamic sources and you don't even recognize the sources.

You even think there are many Sharias and that it is adaptable and can be changed. How naive. Sharia is the unchangeable immutable Law of Allah founded on the Quran, Hadith and Sira. Sharia - Wikipedia

How could you not know this?

You believed that Sharia was already being fully implemented in various countries. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Islam knows this isn't true. I had to correct you on this.

How could you not know this?

When I quote you Hadith and other Islamic sources, including Reliance of the Traveller, to show you what full Sharia is, you say that is Wahhabism or extremist. No Joseph, that is Sharia.

How could you not know this?

Joseph continues:
<<
Have you ever taken the time to read these commentaries on Chapter 9 in their entirety rather than finding them on sites like answering-islam and copying and pasting them here? Quoting the parts of these commentaries related to single verses can be very misleading. This is what sites like answering-Islam do. This is just like taking verses out of the Qur'an out of context and making them appear to say something that was not originally intended.
>>

setst RE: I gave you the sources, and they weren't from answering-islam or any other such incorrectly labeled "anti-Islamic" sites. answering-islam is a great site because it actually quotes the Islamic sources. Even so, I did not use them with you because of your biased labels.

Look them up for yourself. You will see that the context supports exactly the conclusions stated.

The Sahih Hadith narrations agree with the conclusions as well - which I repeatedly quoted for you. The reasons that you are unfamiliar with this is that you don't know about Islamic sources. From your responses, I doubt you even know what the Hadith are.

Anyone with 30 yrs of Islamic study and living among Muslims for decades would know all this. Yet you say you have never learned any of what I am teaching you about Islam in any of the schools you attended in 30 years. Simply untrue comments of yours.

And then, because I tell you the truth from Islam's own best sources,

• now I am discredited by you as lacking education, as getting my education from anti-Islamic sites and other nasty comments.
• the Islamic sources are labeled by you as "extremist" and not really Islamic.

Joseph write:
<<
Have you read these Islamic texts anywhere other than wiki-Islam, answering-Islam, or other anti-Islamic sites?
>>

setst RE: So now you want the opportunity to use prejudiced attacks on any site or source that disagrees with you as lacking credibility, just as you have been doing so far. Do not attack the messenger; rather, LOOK up the best Islamic sources and READ them.

Joseph writes:
<<
It is a reputable school and its teachings were on par with other schools I have taken courses on Islamic Studies.
>>

setst RE: So it is a reputable school. You have been duped by Bilal Philips, a Muslim terrorist supporter and you don't even know it and are unwilling to admit it. Instead you support his school as reputable because he deceived you into believing Islam is peace and Muslims are friendly and wouldn't hurt anyone. And you still believe the deception that Philips told you about Muslims.

Joseph writes:
<<
Why do you think many Christians in the Middle East and North Africa dress and live their lives the way they do?

You said Nothing has changed for Muslims and that they are still living in the 7th century. I was just point out that quite a bit has changed.
>>

setst RE: You still miss the point. Muslims dress the way they do because Muhammad did, and that is the reason for dress code for men and women are in Sharia. 'Nothing has changed' part is all addressed in Sharia.

You didn't know this simple fact because you never studied Islam, you have no idea what Sharia is, nor could you have lived among Muslims. No one with the education and experience you say you have could be that oblivious of Islam and Sharia or Islamic sources - not even knowing why Muslims dress the way they do.

You say you never learned any of this from your 30 years of schooling.

You don't even know why Muslims dress the way they do. I will never forget that. In fact this basic knowledge of Sharia most people already know from the news or from classes in high school. I knew these basics in 7th grade history class.

Joseph writes:
<<
Based on what you have posted here, your entire education on Islam comes from the internet and you use the most notorious anti-Islamic sites and anti-Islamic propagandists found on the web as sources.
>>

setst RE: Nice thoughts. Wrong, but I will keep you guessing. I know you would love to slap more labels on me to boost your own ego.

Joseph writes:
<<
I showed without doubt that what you are describing here is Wahabbism, not the religion of Islam that the vast majority of Muslims follow. What you teach as being Islam is not taught in any legitimate school that offers courses in Islamic Studies or Islamic History regardless if the courses are offered by a Christian, Islamic, or secular school of thought.
>>

setst RE: These are your thoughts.

You like to say words like "without doubt" and throw numbers around as your numbers on what Muslims believe or think - forget what the polls actually state.

And you like to label any teaching on Islam that disagrees with you as "anti-islamic" or "Wahhabism." The sources are mainly Sunni.

And you even discredit the best Islamic scholars as "extremists" or "that do not represent Islam.

And then you continually boast about your education as if that gives you credibility over Islamic scholarship.

Such very cheap ways to try to "win" a discussion. You are so full of pride in yourself.

My focus of education, regarding Islam, is mainly Sunni Islam and their schools of jurisprudence, but I let the evidence speak for itself. I am not going to use my credentials, or biased labels, as cheap labels to try to make points in a discussion.

Joseph writes:
<<
Since you believe that Fundamentalist Islamic extremists are the only ones who are correct in their interpretation of Islam, do you also believe that Independent Fundamental Baptists are the only denomination in Christianity that have it right?
>>

setst RE: No one with an education in Islamic studies would ask such a naive question. The two do not even compare.

What you have been led to believe by those Muslims using taqyah on you is that anyone who believes in, and follows, the Quran, Hadith, Sira and all of Sharia must be an extremist - whom you have said are not really Muslims at all.

And all the friendly liberal Muslims who have little understanding of Islam are the real Muslims. This is delusional thinking that is definitely the result of Islamic taqyah in the West simply because some Muslims were friendly to you.

If you did attend any schools then they likely censored out anything disagreeable to Muslims for fear of being legally, politically or physically attacked by "friendly" Muslims.

During the Obama Administration, President Obama clearly ordered the following:

"Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole confirmed on Wednesday that the Obama administration was pulling back all training materials used for the law enforcement and national security communities, in order to eliminate all references to Islam that some Muslim groups have claimed are offensive."
Obama administration pulls references to Islam from terror training materials, official says

Muslim groups traditionally sensor information in the West.

Censorship in Islamic societies - Wikipedia

List of charities accused of ties to terrorism - Wikipedia

US working to list Muslim Brotherhood as terrorist group | MEO

Terrorism-Linked CAIR Forces U.S. Army War College to Capitulate on Raymond Ibrahim's Islam Lecture

Censorship is likely the reason you never received proper instruction regarding Islam in whatever schools you attended. That is, IF you actually attended or passed any "legitimate school" of Islamic instruction.

 

[Joyousperson]

Hi Joseph,

setst wrote: What is it you said in particular that the source confirms regarding Chapter 9?

Joseph responds:
<<
That these verses are in reference to a specific point in history and addressed to a specific audience and 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 or whose treaties had expired, but only if those polytheists refuse to repent or ask for protection. The commands in chapter 9 do not apply to all polytheists, nor were they for an indefinite period of time.
>>

setst RE: I agree with the entirety of that source because it is supported by the Mufassirun and the Rashidun.

Your conclusion is not supported by the source. You misrepresented the conclusions of the source, cutting out what you didn't like. For instance:

"because the program of Islam has been to root out idolatry from the whole earth."

"given the glad tidings of the spread of Islam through the world."

Both these statements show that the program of Islam has not changed since Chapter 9, that the program will continue until Islam roots out all idolatry from the whole earth, and Islam becomes supreme. And this agrees with the best Islamic sources regarding Chapter 9.

You have way to much pride to think you know more than the best Islamic scholars. But then, you think the best Islamic scholars are extremists and do not represent Islam.

I will say this as a concession... Sure you will find contemporary western Immams who use taqyah in the West to deceive us into thinking Islam is all about peace and love, and that is what you have obviously been misled by, and what many in the West are mislead by - so it is not just you. . .

But the actual

• Mufassiruns of the past who lived in Islamic countries, who interpret the Quran and Hadith,
• and those who actually compiled the Hadith,
• and the scholars who wrote Islamic Jurisprudence, and the Rashidun,

all state the truth unguided by Taqyah, because their audience was Islamic. These are the sources I used.

Yet, because these sources disagree with your bias against Islam, you label all these genuine Islam sources as extremists who do not represent Islam. Bravo!

This biased thinking of yours has no foundation in reality.

Sharia also includes clear instructing regarding unbelievers that you are unfamiliar with because you never studied it. I quoted from Sharia for you several times regarding the rules about unbelievers, hypocrites, apostasy. If you knew this, you would not keep claiming any source that disagrees with you as being anti-Islamic. I am quoting Islamic sources and you don't even recognize the sources.

Joseph continues:
<<
Have you ever taken the time to read these commentaries on Chapter 9 in their entirety rather than finding them on sites like answering-islam and copying and pasting them here? Quoting the parts of these commentaries related to single verses can be very misleading. This is what sites like answering-Islam do. This is just like taking verses out of the Qur'an out of context and making them appear to say something that was not originally intended.
>>

setst RE: I gave you the sources, and they weren't from answering-islam or any other such incorrectly labeled "anti-Islamic" sites. answering-islam is a great site because it actually quotes the Islamic sources. Even so, I did not use them with you because of your biased labels.

Look them up for yourself. You will see that the context supports exactly the conclusions stated.

The Sahih Hadith narrations agree with the conclusions as well - which I repeatedly quoted for you. The reasons that you are unfamiliar with this is that you don't know about Islamic sources. From your responses, I doubt you even know what the Hadith are.

Anyone with 30 yrs of Islamic study and living among Muslims for decades would know all this. Yet you say you have never learned any of what I am teaching you about Islam in any of the schools you attended in 30 years. Simply untrue comments of yours.

And then, because I tell you the truth from Islam's own best sources,

• now I am discredited by you as lacking education, as getting my education from anti-Islamic sites and other nasty comments.
• the Islamic sources are labeled by you as "extremist" and not really Islamic.

Joseph write:
<<
Have you read these Islamic texts anywhere other than wiki-Islam, answering-Islam, or other anti-Islamic sites?
>>

setst RE: So now you want the opportunity to use prejudiced attacks on any site or source that disagrees with you as lacking credibility, just as you have been doing so far. Do not attack the messenger; rather, LOOK up the best Islamic sources and READ them.

Joseph writes:
<<
It is a reputable school and its teachings were on par with other schools I have taken courses on Islamic Studies.
>>

setst RE: So it is a reputable school. You have been duped by Bilal Philips, a Muslim terrorist supporter and you don't even know it and are unwilling to admit it. Instead you support his school as reputable because he deceived you into believing Islam is peace and Muslims are friendly and wouldn't hurt anyone. And you still believe the deception that Philips told you about Muslims.

Joseph writes:
<<
Why do you think many Christians in the Middle East and North Africa dress and live their lives the way they do?

You said Nothing has changed for Muslims and that they are still living in the 7th century. I was just point out that quite a bit has changed.
>>

setst RE: You still miss the point. Muslims dress the way they do because Muhammad did, and that is the reason for dress code for men and women are in Sharia. 'Nothing has changed' part is all addressed in Sharia.

You didn't know this simple fact because you never studied Islam, you have no idea what Sharia is, nor could you have lived among Muslims. No one with the education and experience you say you have could be that oblivious of Islam and Sharia or Islamic sources - not even knowing why Muslims dress the way they do.

You say you never learned any of this from your 30 years of schooling.

You don't even know why Muslims dress the way they do. I will never forget that. In fact this basic knowledge of Sharia most people already know from the news or from classes in high school. I knew these basics in 7th grade history class.

Joseph writes:
<<
Based on what you have posted here, your entire education on Islam comes from the internet and you use the most notorious anti-Islamic sites and anti-Islamic propagandists found on the web as sources.
>>

setst RE: Nice thoughts. Wrong, but I will keep you guessing. I know you would love to slap more labels on me to boost your own ego.

Joseph writes:
<<
I showed without doubt that what you are describing here is Wahabbism, not the religion of Islam that the vast majority of Muslims follow. What you teach as being Islam is not taught in any legitimate school that offers courses in Islamic Studies or Islamic History regardless if the courses are offered by a Christian, Islamic, or secular school of thought.
>>

setst RE: These are your thoughts.

You like to say words like "without doubt" and throw numbers around as your numbers on what Muslims believe or think - forget what the polls actually state.

And you like to label any teaching on Islam that disagrees with you as "anti-islamic" or "Wahhabism." The sources are mainly Sunni.

And you even discredit the best Islamic scholars as "extremists" or "that do not represent Islam.

And then you continually boast about your education as if that gives you credibility over Islamic scholarship.

Such very cheap ways to try to "win" a discussion. You are so full of pride in yourself.

My focus of education, regarding Islam, is mainly Sunni Islam and their schools of jurisprudence, but I let the evidence speak for itself. I am not going to use my credentials, or biased labels, as cheap labels to try to make points in a discussion.

Joseph writes:
<<
Since you believe that Fundamentalist Islamic extremists are the only ones who are correct in their interpretation of Islam, do you also believe that Independent Fundamental Baptists are the only denomination in Christianity that have it right?
>>

setst RE: No one with an education in Islamic studies would ask such a naive question. The two do not even compare.

What you have been led to believe by those Muslims using taqyah on you is that anyone who believes in, and follows, the Quran, Hadith, Sira and all of Sharia must be an extremist - whom you have said are not really Muslims at all.

And all the friendly liberal Muslims who have little understanding of Islam are the real Muslims. This is delusional thinking that is definitely the result of Islamic taqyah in the West simply because some Muslims were friendly to you.

If you did attend any schools then they likely censored out anything disagreeable to Muslims for fear of being legally, politically or physically attacked by "friendly" Muslims.

During the Obama Administration, President Obama clearly ordered the following:

"Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole confirmed on Wednesday that the Obama administration was pulling back all training materials used for the law enforcement and national security communities, in order to eliminate all references to Islam that some Muslim groups have claimed are offensive."
Obama administration pulls references to Islam from terror training materials, official says

Muslim groups traditionally sensor information in the West.

Censorship in Islamic societies - Wikipedia

List of charities accused of ties to terrorism - Wikipedia

US working to list Muslim Brotherhood as terrorist group | MEO

Terrorism-Linked CAIR Forces U.S. Army War College to Capitulate on Raymond Ibrahim's Islam Lecture

Censorship is likely the reason you never received proper instruction regarding Islam in whatever schools you attended. That is, IF you actually attended or passed any "legitimate school" of Islamic instruction.

Good points, so far what you have argued upon is based on Islamic sources from the Quran supported by the Ahadith and the various tafsirs by famous scholars.

I believe it is critical to establish consensus with JosephZ on 'what is Islam' and 'Who is a Muslim', otherwise we will be arguing pass each other like apples versus oranges.

By the universal principle of epistemology i.e. knowledge,
What is Islam is represented by all the 6236 verses of the Quran revealed to Muhammad from Allah via Angel Gabriel during the period 610 to 632 CE and supported by the Ahadith.
Islam cannot be anything else other than the above.

By JosephZ's definition, What is Islam is the cherry-picking Islam where the majority of Muslims choose the verses in the Quran they want to adopt and ignore all others verses commanded by Allah.
Where the verses are not evil and violent, they argued these verses are only to be taken as historical and are specific to a certain period, when Allah in the Quran never mentioned such a historical criteria. JosephZ is inventing his own cherry-picking-historical-based Islam.
To Joseph, what is Islam is up the any Muslim or group of Muslim to define their own 'what is Islam' rather than what Allah intent Islam to be. This is a serious sin.

I can expect JosephZ to accuse sites like AnsweringIslam, WikiIslam and other sites that critique Islam as false even if they present 1 + 1 = 2.

JosephZ kept arguing based on the ad populum fallacy, i.e. "if the masses agree, then is true," without justifying to the true sources from Allah in the Quran and Ahadith.

JosephZ,
I have asked you to show me where AnsweringIslam, WikiIsla, David Wood, Christian Prince, has falsely quoted from the Quran or Ahadith.
If you listened to David Wood's or Christian Prince's videos, in most cases you will note they will put on the screen, the relevant Quran and the Ahadith verses and read from them to prove they are reading direct from the direct sources.

 

[JosephZ]

Your conclusion is not supported by the source. You misrepresented the conclusions of the source, cutting out what you didn't like. For instance:

"because the program of Islam has been to root out idolatry from the whole earth."

I didn't cut this out when using your source as an example when responding to you.

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

Being a Christian I thought this would be easy for you to understand.

What was the purpose of God commanding His people to attack idolaters in the Bible?

"given the glad tidings of the spread of Islam through the world."

Qur'an 5:3 was the final revelation to Muhammad.

Prohibited for you are carrion, blood, the flesh of swine, and animals dedicated to other than God; also the flesh of animals strangled, killed violently, killed by a fall, gored to death, mangled by wild animals—except what you rescue, and animals sacrificed on altars; and the practice of drawing lots. For it is immoral. Today, those who disbelieve have despaired of your religion, so do not fear them, but fear Me. Today I have perfected your religion for you, and have completed My favor upon you, and have approved Islam as a religion for you. But whoever is compelled by hunger, with no intent of wrongdoing—God is Forgiving and Merciful.

This came when the enemies of Islam had given up hope in fighting against Islam and Allah gave assurance that Muslims no longer need to fear them. From that point forward Islam was to be spread through Daʿwah. Which means rather than use violence, Muslims are to invite others by sharing the message of Islam

Both these statements show that the program of Islam has not changed since Chapter 9, that the program will continue until Islam roots out all idolatry from the whole earth, and Islam becomes supreme. And this agrees with the best Islamic sources regarding Chapter 9.

The battles being referred to in Chapter 9 fulfilled their purpose over 1,400 years ago and are now a part of Islamic history. This is no different than the battles found in the Old Testament.

You have way to much pride to think you know more than the best Islamic scholars. But then, you think the best Islamic scholars are extremists and do not represent Islam.

There is nothing wrong with any of the Islamic scholars you have sourced. You are just reading their texts just like you do the Qur'an. Out of context. This is why I asked if you had read any of their works in their entirety in regards to chapter 9.

I will say this as a concession... Sure you will find contemporary western Immams who use taqyah in the West to deceive us into thinking Islam is all about peace and love, and that is what you have obviously been misled by, and what many in the West are mislead by - so it is not just you. . .

Over a period of over three decades I have taken courses in Islamic Studies from the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary and the University of Maryland; I also have taken courses from a Sunni Salafi school of thought based outside the west that targets Muslim students and even recommended you take this course from a Christian point of view The Gospel and Islam - TVSEMINARY Trinity Video Seminary. In addition to these sources, I have also attended numerous forums here in Southeast Asia where Islam is the topic of discussion and personally know many Muslims from different parts of the world both professionally and as friends. You are actually suggesting that all of these schools and individuals are lying to me?

But the actual

• Mufassiruns of the past who lived in Islamic countries, who interpret the Quran and Hadith,
• and those who actually compiled the Hadith,
• and the scholars who wrote Islamic Jurisprudence, and the Rashidun,

all state the truth unguided by Taqyah, because their audience was Islamic. These are the sources I used.

Islamic Fundamentalism has always been rejected since the inception of Islam.

I quoted from Sharia for you several times regarding the rules about unbelievers, hypocrites, apostasy. If you knew this, you would not keep claiming any source that disagrees with you as being anti-Islamic. I am quoting Islamic sources and you don't even recognize the sources.

There's nothing wrong with the sources you are using, you are taking them out of context and/or misunderstanding them.

You even think there are many Sharias and that it is adaptable and can be changed. How naive. Sharia is the unchangeable immutable Law of Allah founded on the Quran, Hadith and Sira. Sharia - Wikipedia

You even think there are many Sharias and that it is adaptable and can be changed. How naive. Sharia is the unchangeable immutable Law of Allah founded on the Quran, Hadith and Sira. Sharia - Wikipedia

How could you not know this???

Here is what I have said about Shari'a in this thread.

I'm pretty sure what you believe about Shari'a is not the same as that of Muslims. Shari'a is not much different than halakhah in Judaism or the magisterium found in Catholicism.

Shari'a comes mostly from the Qur’an and Sunnah and is a guide used by Muslims to become closer to God through teaching values, providing a code of conduct, and giving religious commandments which guide Muslims on how to live their day to day lives. The word Shari'a literally translates into "the path" or "the way" and only applies to Muslims.

Those examples are of political governments whose leaders base their laws on local interpretations of the Qur'an and haddiths. These rules and laws of course vary from culture to culture and will often contradict what Islam teaches, but I think you would agree that non-Muslims living in western countries have nothing to fear when it comes to Shari'a.

While your wiki link goes into deeper detail, the explanation I gave sums up what is found there pretty well.


Read the below and tell me if this is what you believe is true Islam. A simple yes or no will do.

The Wahhabism that the Saudi monarchy enforces, and on which it bases its legitimacy, is shown in these documents as a fanatically bigoted, xenophobic and sometimes violent ideology. These publications articulate its wrathful dogma, rejecting the coexistence of different religions and explicitly condemning Christians, Jews, all other non-Muslims, as well as non-Wahhabi Muslims. The various Saudi publications gathered for this study state that it is a religious obligation for Muslims to hate Christians and Jews and warn against imitating, befriending, or helping such “infidels” in any way, or taking part in their festivities and celebrations. They instill contempt for America because the United States is ruled by legislated civil law rather than by totalitarian
Wahhabi-style Islamic law.

Wahhabism began only 250 years ago with the movement created by fanatical preacher Muhammad Ibn Abd alWahhab. Once a fringe sect in a remote part of the Arabian peninsula, Wahhabi extremism has been given global reach through Saudi government sponsorship and money, particularly over the past quarter century as it has competed with Iran in spreading its version of the faith. With its vast oil wealth and its position as guardian of Islam’s two holiest sites, Saudi Arabia now claims to be the leading power within Islam and the protector of the faith, a belief stated in the Saudi Basic Law. Saudi Foreign Policy Adviser Adel al-Jubeir publicly states that “the role of Saudi Arabia in the Muslim world is similar to the role of the Vatican.” Even as the Saudi state asserts that it strives to keep the faith “pure” and free of innovation, it invents a new role for itself as the only legitimate authority on Islam.

Within worldwide Sunni Islam, followers of Wahhabism and other hardline or salafist (literally translated as venerable predecessors) movements are a distinct minority.

Saudi state curriculum for many years has taught children to hate “the other” and support jihad, a malleable term that is used by terrorists to describe and justify their atrocities... Recent converts with limited experience of Islam can be particularly susceptible to the Saudi publications’ toxic message... The spread of Islamic extremism, such as Wahhabism, is the most serious ideological challenge of our times. Wahhabi extremism is more than hate speech; it is a totalitarian ideology of
hatred that can incite to violence.

Religion is the foundation of the Saudi state’s political ideology, and religion is an important part of Saudi education. Saudi Arabia defines itself as an Islamic state, and has established Wahhabism as the official state doctrine. Saudi Wahhabism is an extreme interpretation of Islam based on a dualistic worldview in which the true “monotheists” are obliged until judgment day to “fight” “polytheists,” and “idolators,” including Christians, Jews, Shiites and insufficiently devout Sunni Muslims.

Adherents of Wahhabism constitute a small minority within world Islam [Fewer than 5%],yet, Saudi Arabia is trying to assert itself as the world’s authoritative voice on Islam. Its conquest of the Hejaz in 1924 gave it control of Islam’s two holiest sites and the Hajj, the annual pilgrimage to Mecca that is one of the five pillars of Islam. This role, along with its vast oil wealth, has been used by Saudi Arabia to lay claim to being the leading power within all of Islam and the protector of the faith, a claim emphasized in the Saudi Basic Law.

Saudi state textbooks propound a belief that Christians and Jews and other unbelievers have united in a war against Islam that will ultimately end in the complete destruction of such infidels. Like the statements of Osama bin Laden, they advance the belief that the Crusades never ended and continue today in various forms.

Some of the most disturbing examples include the following (See Appendix A for text excerpts.) Regarding Sunni, Shiite, Sufi and other non-Wahhabi or non-Salafi Muslims, the textbooks:

• Denounce Muslims who do not interpret the Qur’an literally.
• Muslims to hate Christians, Jews, polytheists and other unbelievers.
Christians are considered infidels who must be fought unless they have a protection contract with Muslims
• Jews and the Christian are enemies of the Muslim believers and the clash between the two realms continues until the Day of Resurrection.
• The spread of Islam through jihad is a religious obligation.
• The struggle between Muslims and Jews will continue until the hour of judgment and that Muslims will triumph because they are right and he who is right is always victorious.
• Whoever obeys the Prophet and accepts the oneness of God cannot be loyal to those who oppose God and His Prophet, even if they are his closest relatives.
• It is forbidden for a Muslim to be a loyal friend to someone who does not believe in God and His Prophet, or someone who fights the religion of Islam.
• A Muslim, even if he lives far away, is your brother in religion. Someone who opposes God, even if he is your brother by family tie, is your enemy.
https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/inline_images/Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Invade American Mosques.pdf
https://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/Tier1_SAUDI ARABIA.pdf

Since the above perfectly describes what what you have been posting here on this forum, then this tells you that what you are talking about is Wahhabism and it's teachings rather than the religion of Islam. It is and always has been rejected by the vast majority of the world's Muslims.

‘Islam bashing’ nowadays normally takes the form of conflating Islam, one of the world’s most historically important and influential religions, with Islamism [Extremism]... or, to be more precise, ‘Islam bashers’ tend to attribute all of the regressive, bellicose and other undeniably negative characteristics associated with Islamism and its jihadist components to Islam in general... What the ‘Islam bashers’ fail to acknowledge is that these particular interpretations are by no means the only possible interpretations of core Islamic doctrines, traditions and values, much less the most authentic, valid or widely shared interpretations... they are clearly not disinterested or neutral observers.

No one with an education in Islamic studies would ask such a naive question. The two do not even compare.

Comparable or not, I asked a simple question that can be answered with a Yes or No. Do you believe that Independent Fundamental Baptists are the only denomination in Christianity that have it right?

Censorship is likely the reason you never received proper instruction regarding Islam in whatever schools you attended.

My education of Islam started in the mid-80's, long before 9/11, President Obama. and most of the anti-Islamic propagandists who are all post 9/11 fixtures.

 

[Joyousperson]

Qur'an 5:3 was the final revelation to Muhammad.

Prohibited for you are carrion, blood, the flesh of swine, and animals dedicated to other than God; also the flesh of animals strangled, killed violently, killed by a fall, gored to death, mangled by wild animals—except what you rescue, and animals sacrificed on altars; and the practice of drawing lots. For it is immoral. Today, those who disbelieve have despaired of your religion, so do not fear them, but fear Me. Today I have perfected your religion for you, and have completed My favor upon you, and have approved Islam as a religion for you. But whoever is compelled by hunger, with no intent of wrongdoing—God is Forgiving and Merciful.

This came when the enemies of Islam had given up hope in fighting against Islam and Allah gave assurance that Muslims no longer need to fear them. From that point forward Islam was to be spread through Daʿwah. Which means rather than use violence, Muslims are to invite others by sharing the message of Islam.

Dawah?? you are very ignorant of the ethos and intentions of Allah in the Quran.
Btw, no humans can make the final judgments on the intent of Allah.

Thus we can only get as close as possible to Allah's intention based on authorized references and actions of Muhammad and his followers.

In the AnsweringIslam article re 9:5 Silas listed 5 sources to justify 9:5 is both defensive and offensive.

One of the source is the recorded actions of Muhammad and his closest follower, Caliph Abu Bakr;

1. Actions. "Actions speak louder than words". Muslim historians such as Tabari and Ibn Sa’d recorded Muhammad’s actions and the actions of his followers both before and after he spoke the 9:5 passage.
I will focus primarily on the actions of the Caliph Abu Bakr. He ruled the Islamic empire after Muhammad died and arguably knew Muhammad and his teachings best. He loved and obeyed Muhammad. He believed in him, served him, fought for him, and would have died for him.
Logically, this dedicated, battle hardened veteran soldier, would continue to put Muhammad’s commands into practice. His actions involving non-Muslims display the true meaning of 9:5, i.e., was violence limited to only defense or were Muslims to expand by force?​

Note the terrible evil and violent acts of Caliph Abu Bakr as inspired by Chapter 9, 5, verse 9:5 and the rest of the Quran here.
Abu Bakr - Wikipedia

The battles being referred to in Chapter 9 fulfilled their purpose over 1,400 years ago and are now a part of Islamic history. This is no different than the battles found in the Old Testament.

You got it all wrong.
Yes, the events in Chapter 9 could be related to Islamic history, but the most critical reason for it is to embed the related principles as guidance for all Muslims.

Note I deliberately raised a specific OP to argue 9:5 is not solely for historical purpose.
Is Quran 9:5 Historical Only?

Here is the comment therein from a Muslim;

No, it isn't just historical. And no Muslim should be ignorant enough to say that.

It therefore shameful for you as non-Muslim to argue otherwise based on flimsy arguments.

Note in the AnsweringIslam article, Silas stated his arguments are based on the following sources [not his opinions];

There are five Islamic source groups I’ll draw from to build this understanding:

1. First, we have other classes of Islamic source materials that are related to the chapter 9 passage. These are the "authentic traditions" (sahih hadiths) and biographical stories (sira). These sources provide additional details concerning the passage. The majority of Islamic scholars, both Muslim and non-Muslim, recognize them as having some degree of validity.

2. Second, Actions. "Actions speak louder than words". Muslim historians such as Tabari and Ibn Sa’d recorded Muhammad’s actions and the actions of his followers both before and after he spoke the 9:5 passage. I will focus primarily on the actions of the Caliph Abu Bakr. He ruled the Islamic empire after Muhammad died and arguably knew Muhammad and his teachings best. He loved and obeyed Muhammad. He believed in him, served him, fought for him, and would have died for him. Logically, this dedicated, battle hardened veteran soldier, would continue to put Muhammad’s commands into practice. His actions involving non-Muslims display the true meaning of 9:5, i.e., was violence limited to only defense or were Muslims to expand by force?

3. Third, we have the commentary (tafsir) of the great Islamic scholars. I’m not talking about some eloquent Muslim living in the West, doing a snow job on a naive and lazy Western audience like Hamza Yusuf, or trying to innovate and re-invent Islam into a more benign religion like Ali Eteraz or Stephen Schwartz. I’m talking about scholars like Ibn Kathir who devoted much of their lives to the study of Islam and had no need to fool an audience and present Islam as something it wasn’t in order to gain its acceptance.

4. Fourth, we have Islamic tomes and theological encyclopedias, such as the "Reliance of the Traveller" and "Encyclopedia of Islam". These may not focus upon specific verses like 9:5, rather they focus on specific subjects, such as jihad and how the 9:5 theme ties into that subject.

5. Fifth, there is the Quran itself. We should look to other verses in the chapter to see if they parallel 9:5 and attempt to understand what the Quran as a whole, in context, teaches. Because of size limitations I will only look at 2 other verses from chapter 9. But, the references I cite from group 4 above, list many other verses that support a violent jihad.
AnsweringIslam article re 9:5​

Thus it is very intellectually dishonest and childish for you brush off his argument merely because you lumped up AnsweringIslam as an anti-Islam propagandists.

Note the tafsir of Ibn Khatir are the most notable and authoritative. Your references used other than Ibn Khatir are questionable, else prove your references are very reliable.

Note the Muʿtazilites in the 8th to 10th centuries already tried to sanitize Islam [to present it as benign] they way you are other apologists are doing but failed because they deviated from Allah's real intentions are revealed in the perfected words of Allah in the 6236 verses of the Quran.

There is nothing wrong with any of the Islamic scholars you have sourced. You are just reading their texts just like you do the Qur'an. Out of context. This is why I asked if you had read any of their works in their entirety in regards to chapter 9.

Out of context??
Note the 5 sources [very detailed] Silas referred to support his argument that 9:5 is offensive and defensive.

Islamic Fundamentalism has always been rejected since the inception of Islam.

Whatever you called it, Islam-proper had always been practiced by Muhammad and thereafter by his closest followers, e.g. Caliph Abu Bakar and his series of evil and violent acts committed upon non-Muslims. This has continued to the present.

There were groups [Muʿtazilite] who tried to reform Islam to be more rational and compassionate to the non-Muslims, but these were squashed to pieces;

Under Caliph al-Mutawakkil (847-861), "who sought to reestablish the traditional Moslem faith" (intentionally wanted to restore his legitimacy due to backlash towards Ahmad Ibn Hanbal's persecution under previous Caliphs), Muʿtazilite doctrines were repudiated; their professors persecuted;
Muʿtazila - Wikipedia​

Read the below and tell me if this is what you believe is true Islam. A simple yes or no will do.

The Wahhabism that the Saudi monarchy enforces, and on which it bases its legitimacy, is shown in these documents as a fanatically bigoted, xenophobic and sometimes violent ideology. These publications articulate its wrathful dogma, rejecting the coexistence of different religions and explicitly condemning Christians, Jews, all other non-Muslims, as well as non-Wahhabi Muslims. The various Saudi publications gathered for this study state that it is a religious obligation for Muslims to hate Christians and Jews and warn against imitating, befriending, or helping such “infidels” in any way, or taking part in their festivities and celebrations. They instill contempt for America because the United States is ruled by legislated civil law rather than by totalitarian
Wahhabi-style Islamic law.

Wahhabism began only 250 years ago with the movement created by fanatical preacher Muhammad Ibn Abd alWahhab. Once a fringe sect in a remote part of the Arabian peninsula, Wahhabi extremism has been given global reach through Saudi government sponsorship and money, particularly over the past quarter century as it has competed with Iran in spreading its version of the faith. With its vast oil wealth and its position as guardian of Islam’s two holiest sites, Saudi Arabia now claims to be the leading power within Islam and the protector of the faith, a belief stated in the Saudi Basic Law. Saudi Foreign Policy Adviser Adel al-Jubeir publicly states that “the role of Saudi Arabia in the Muslim world is similar to the role of the Vatican.” Even as the Saudi state asserts that it strives to keep the faith “pure” and free of innovation, it invents a new role for itself as the only legitimate authority on Islam.

Within worldwide Sunni Islam, followers of Wahhabism and other hardline or salafist (literally translated as venerable predecessors) movements are a distinct minority.

Saudi state curriculum for many years has taught children to hate “the other” and support jihad, a malleable term that is used by terrorists to describe and justify their atrocities... Recent converts with limited experience of Islam can be particularly susceptible to the Saudi publications’ toxic message... The spread of Islamic extremism, such as Wahhabism, is the most serious ideological challenge of our times. Wahhabi extremism is more than hate speech; it is a totalitarian ideology of
hatred that can incite to violence.

Religion is the foundation of the Saudi state’s political ideology, and religion is an important part of Saudi education. Saudi Arabia defines itself as an Islamic state, and has established Wahhabism as the official state doctrine. Saudi Wahhabism is an extreme interpretation of Islam based on a dualistic worldview in which the true “monotheists” are obliged until judgment day to “fight” “polytheists,” and “idolators,” including Christians, Jews, Shiites and insufficiently devout Sunni Muslims.

Adherents of Wahhabism constitute a small minority within world Islam [Fewer than 5%],yet, Saudi Arabia is trying to assert itself as the world’s authoritative voice on Islam. Its conquest of the Hejaz in 1924 gave it control of Islam’s two holiest sites and the Hajj, the annual pilgrimage to Mecca that is one of the five pillars of Islam. This role, along with its vast oil wealth, has been used by Saudi Arabia to lay claim to being the leading power within all of Islam and the protector of the faith, a claim emphasized in the Saudi Basic Law.

Saudi state textbooks propound a belief that Christians and Jews and other unbelievers have united in a war against Islam that will ultimately end in the complete destruction of such infidels. Like the statements of Osama bin Laden, they advance the belief that the Crusades never ended and continue today in various forms.

Some of the most disturbing examples include the following (See Appendix A for text excerpts.) Regarding Sunni, Shiite, Sufi and other non-Wahhabi or non-Salafi Muslims, the textbooks:

• Denounce Muslims who do not interpret the Qur’an literally.
• Muslims to hate Christians, Jews, polytheists and other unbelievers.
Christians are considered infidels who must be fought unless they have a protection contract with Muslims
• Jews and the Christian are enemies of the Muslim believers and the clash between the two realms continues until the Day of Resurrection.
• The spread of Islam through jihad is a religious obligation.
• The struggle between Muslims and Jews will continue until the hour of judgment and that Muslims will triumph because they are right and he who is right is always victorious.
• Whoever obeys the Prophet and accepts the oneness of God cannot be loyal to those who oppose God and His Prophet, even if they are his closest relatives.
• It is forbidden for a Muslim to be a loyal friend to someone who does not believe in God and His Prophet, or someone who fights the religion of Islam.
• A Muslim, even if he lives far away, is your brother in religion. Someone who opposes God, even if he is your brother by family tie, is your enemy.
https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/inline_images/Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Invade American Mosques.pdf
https://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/Tier1_SAUDI ARABIA.pdf

Since the above perfectly describes what what you have been posting here on this forum, then this tells you that what you are talking about is Wahhabism and it's teachings rather than the religion of Islam. It is and always has been rejected by the vast majority of the world's Muslims.

Note I have raised a specific thread to counter your points above;
Is Wahhabism an Extreme Form of Islam?

‘Islam bashing’ nowadays normally takes the form of conflating Islam, one of the world’s most historically important and influential religions, with Islamism [Extremism]... or, to be more precise, ‘Islam bashers’ tend to attribute all of the regressive, bellicose and other undeniably negative characteristics associated with Islamism and its jihadist components to Islam in general... What the ‘Islam bashers’ fail to acknowledge is that these particular interpretations are by no means the only possible interpretations of core Islamic doctrines, traditions and values, much less the most authentic, valid or widely shared interpretations... they are clearly not disinterested or neutral observers.

To use the term 'Islam-bashers' without referring to the argument used by them is intellectually immature.
Whatever the term, Islam-bashers or otherwise, what is critical here is whether these critiques of Islam provided thorough references from Islamic sources to support and argue their point.
Note this article AnsweringIslam article re 9:5 which qualify as a serious scholarly work as substantiated by the appropriate references.

Comparable or not, I asked a simple question that can be answered with a Yes or No. Do you believe that Independent Fundamental Baptists are the only denomination in Christianity that have it right?

You are deflecting.
The question is whether Independent Fundamental Baptists qualified to belong to Christianity-proper as defined. See;
Who is a Christian?

My education of Islam started in the mid-80's, long before 9/11, President Obama. and most of the anti-Islamic propagandists who are all post 9/11 fixtures.

There is an objective approach to determine 'What is Islam' and 'Who is a Muslim'.

I mentioned the Muʿtazila - Wikipedia
Muʿtazila who tried to spin [with good intention] to redefine 'What is Islam' and they failed despite their expertise in philosophical knowledge, wisdom and rationality.

You can have a 100 years of education, but if you started with the wrong definition and understanding of "what is Islam" which is solely from the 6236 verses of the Quran supported by the Ahadith, then you are off tangent, which in this case, you are off course from what is Islam-proper.

Islam-proper is inherently evil, violent and malignant, thus any ordinary human being will not accept the evil and violent elements, so those being good human beings [like yourself and 80% others] will try to ignore and pretend the evil elements do not exist or are merely historical.

Btw, I noted you are not responding to my counterpoints, chickening out or what??

 

[JosephZ]

Btw, I noted you are not responding to my counterpoints, chickening out or what??

This is why.

JosephZ as usual is waving subjective opinions with very little references to the Quran, Ahadiths, tafsirs from reputable scholars. He is obviously being brainwashed by Dr. Bilar Philips. I suspect he could be a jihadist pretending [Taqiyya of course] to be a Christian Missionary.

You lost your argument when you made the above comment.

Here is the comment therein from a Muslim;

"No, it isn't just historical. And no Muslim should be ignorant enough to say that."

It therefore shameful for you as non-Muslim to argue otherwise based on flimsy arguments.

I don't think you understand what he was saying. Maybe he will chime in and further explain his answer. If so, why don't you ask him why he is not killing non-Muslims everywhere he sees them since this is what you feel is commanded of Muslims for all time in verse 5 of Chapter 9.

 

[Joyousperson]

You lost your argument when you made the above comment.

Note 'suspect' and that is an opinion.

I don't think you understand what he was saying. Maybe he will chime in and further explain his answer. If so, why don't you ask him why he is not killing non-Muslims everywhere he sees them since this is what you feel is commanded of Muslims for all time in verse 5 of Chapter 9.

I believe he did not accept 9:5 is purely historical.

Most Muslims will either accept 9:5 as a defensive or offensive strategy

That is the problem when Islam and Quran allow such options to the range of human beings, i.e. at one side the percentile of naturally born evil prone Muslims [est. 20% or a pool of 320 million ] who will be influenced to take the offensive strategies.

Such is a reality as glaringly evident by the range of real terrible evil and violent acts committed by the evil prone Muslims throughout the 1400 years history of Islam.

 

[Joyousperson]

JosephZ,

I am rereading through the Quran from Chapter 1 to 114. There are 77,449 words, 6236 verses in 144 chapters.
Some may be able to memorize the Quran in Arabic by rote, but it is not easy to hold to memory the actual meanings of all of Allah's message in one's head.

It is is also low IQ to insist that 9:5 and the thousands of other similar verses are supposed to be historical only.

Here is one verse which counter and override the historical perspective.

4:26. Allah would explain to you [Muslims] and guide you by the examples of those [Muslims] who were before you, and would turn to you in mercy. Allah is Knower, Wise.
​

Therefore the stories in Chapter 9 and elsewhere are supposed to be guide to the relevant principles applicable to those stories mentioned in the Quran.

Btw, I have also given you a long listing of verses that indicate the importance of the stories told in the Quran.

 

[setst777]

I didn't cut this out when using your source as an example when responding to you.

setst777 said: ↑
Your conclusion is not supported by the source. You misrepresented the conclusions of the source, cutting out what you didn't like. For instance:

"because the program of Islam has been to root out idolatry from the whole earth."

Joseph responds:
<<
I didn't cut this out when using your source as and example.
>>

Setst RE: You cut it out from your interpretation the parts I bolded for you so you could replace it with your own conclusion, which is that it was only for that time, when it was suppose to be a worldwide conquest to root out idolatry.

JosephZ said: ↑
<<
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

Being a Christian I thought this would be easy for you to understand.

What was the purpose of God commanding His people to attack idolaters in the Bible?
>>

Setst RE:
Sure I will explain this.

First of all, as in the days of Muhammad, the same idolatry he was commanded to fight still exists. The goal to root out idolatry from the whole earth has not yet been achieved.

This Jihad against unbelief through warning and war is still taught in Sunni and Shia Islam. In fact, the numbers of those living in idolatry (those who refuse to believe in Islam) are exponentially higher now than they were at the time of Muhammad. We do not see Islam as the only religion throughout the world. The only reason the expansion of Islam stopped for a time – at least in physical combat – is because of the dominance of the West.
Spread of Islam - Wikipedia
In the Bible, the Old Testament, God made it clear that

1) The conquering of peoples was only when those people to be conquered had reached the fullness of their sins: Genesis 15:14-18. God had blessed these sinful people to live in the land they presently resided. However, God would work with Israel to remove these peoples from that land because of their fullness of their sin.

2) The peoples to be conquered were in a localized area – the land that God promised to Israel (a specific Geographical area that God clearly spells details in the Old Testament.

Exodus 3:8 (NIV)
8 So I have come down to rescue them from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land into a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey—the home of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites.

Once the promise Land was secured, there was to me no more conquering. This was not a worldwide conquest, but a removing of peoples from the land that God graced them with because of their sins. God chose to bless Israel - to receive that land instead. The physical dimensions of that Land to be conquered is clearly spelled out in the OT.

In contrast, Allah makes clear in the Qur’an that Islam was to root out all idolatry in the whole world until there is no more unbelief so Islam may be the only religion. That is also how classical Islam, Sunni and Shia, understood this (See: Wikipedia.org on Classical Islam – Jihad).

This command of Allah is open-ended, and is not only in Qur’an 9 but many other places in the Qur’an, and is also repeated and detailed in the Hadith, and also the Sira, some of which I quoted to you repeatedly. And Islam’s foremost Tafsir also explained it this way.

The people to be conquered were all people not believing in Allah and His Messenger.

I quoted from the best Tafsir and Scholars of Islamic Jurisprudence. I quote the Reliance of the Traveller – a Sunni Shafii Sharia guide – which also shows that Jihad against unbelievers continues over the entire earth.

Regarding Shia Muslims, this worldwide war against unbelievers is taught as well, but can only take place under a Caliph.

Shia – Jiahd
According to a number of sources, Shia doctrine taught that jihad (or at least full scale jihad [129]) can only be carried out under the leadership of the Imam, [130] (who will return from occultation in order to bring absolute justice into the world).[59] However, "struggles to defend Islam" are permissible before his return.[129]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

So, when another Caliph does arrive, we will again see holy Jihad against all unbelievers in Shia and also Sunni Islam, just as we saw before the age of the Caliphs ended with the West’s domination.

Even so, defensive Jihad may be taken up by any Muslim or Muslim group who "feels" they have been wronged. We see this being carried out today.
<< Start of Quote -Wikipedia/Jihad

Jihad is an Arabic word which literally means striving or struggling, especially with a praiseworthy aim.[1][2][3][4] In an Islamic context, it can refer to almost any effort to make personal and social life conform with God's guidance, such as struggle against one's evil inclinations, religious proselytizing, or efforts toward the moral betterment of the ummah,[1][2][5] though it is most frequently associated with war.[6] In classical Islamic law, the term refers to armed struggle against unbelievers,[2][3]

Keep in mind more than a few Islamic leaders in top 13 Islamic nations who dared tried to liberalize Islam were assassinated. Islam remains classical, even though Immams in the West claim contemporary liberal thinking.

Regarding the Hadith on Jihad according to Muhammad, whom Muslims are to submit to...

The Messenger of Allah was asked about the best jihad. He said:

"The best jihad is the one in which your horse is slain and your blood is spilled."
— cited by Ibn Nuhaas and narrated by Ibn Habbaan[35]

Ibn Nuhaas also cited a hadith[citation needed] from Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, where Muhammad states that the highest kind of jihad is "The person who is killed whilst spilling the last of his blood" (Ahmed 4/144).[36]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad
>> End of Quote

Regarding Classical Islam on Jihad...

“The primary aim of jihad as warfare is not the conversion of non-Muslims to Islam by force, but rather the expansion and defense of the Islamic state.[57][58] In theory, jihad was to continue until "all mankind either embraced Islam or submitted to the authority of the Muslim state." There could be truces before this was achieved, but no permanent peace.[45]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

That is why we see the expansion of Islam begin with Muhammad, and then during the Islamic conquests under the Caliphs after Muhammad, until finally Islam was stopped by the West. So we see 1400 years of classical Islamic Jihad against unbelievers.

Spread of Islam - Wikipedia

https://www1.cbn.com/churchandministry/1400-years-of-christian-islamic-struggle

So, while contemporary Muslims try to downplay Jihad, just as other liberal Muslims have tried to do in the past, that is not what Islam taught since its inception. 1400 years of Islamic History reveals the truth.

Fundamentalist Islam is well embedded in Sunni and Shia nations, and the desire to see Islam brought back to its original guidance under the commands of Allah and Muhammad is seeing an awakening.

“Islamist/revivalists/fundamentalists (Abul Ala Maududi, Sayyid Qutb, Abdullah Azzam, etc.) view it as a struggle for the expansion of Islam and the realization of Islamic ideals."[75]”
Jihad - Wikipedia

When the West refuses to recognize this fact, they are setting themselves up to be defenseless before the conquering Muslims through Jihad in its many forms against the West today: politically, socially, through threats, violence, terror and war. This is all happening now in the foreign lands the Muslims are emigrating to.

setst777 said: ↑
"given the glad tidings of the spread of Islam through the world."

Joseph writes:
<<
Qur'an 5:3 was the final revelation to Muhammad.
Today, those who disbelieve have despaired of your religion, so do not fear them, but fear Me. Today I have perfected your religion for you, and have completed My favor upon you, and have approved Islam as a religion for you.

This came when the enemies of Islam had given up hope in fighting against Islam and Allah gave assurance that Muslims no longer need to fear them. From that point forward Islam was to be spread through Daʿwah. Which means rather than use violence, Muslims are to invite others by sharing the message of Islam
>>

Setst RE: The commentary given after the 5:3 quote is an added teaching/opinion by someone, and of which is not stated in the Qur’anic verse. Do you know which source that commentary actually comes from and who said it?

That would be nice if it were true – meaning if Allah actually had stated it in the Qur’an. When viewing the commands of Allah in the Qur’an, we do not see any verse abrogating the last command and commission to fight unbelievers until Islam is supreme in Chapter 9.

Neither the Sunni nor Shia Muslims, since inception of Islam, ever understood that military Jihad against unbelievers was to cease.
1,400 Years of Christian/Islamic Struggle: An Analysis

Both Sunni and Shia Muslims believe in offensive Jihad against unbelievers just as taught in reliable Islamic sources.

Ibn Al Kathir (one of the two most renouwned Tafsir in Islam) does a good job of interpreting this verse as follows:
<<
5.3 Kathir - Ibn Al Kathir
Shaytan and the Disbelievers Do Not Hope that Muslims Will Ever Follow Them

Allah said,

(This day, those who disbelieved have given up all hope of your religion `Ali bin Abi Talhah reported that Ibn `Abbas said that the Ayah means, "They gave up hope that Muslims would revert to their religion.'' ... It is also possible that the Ayah negates the possibility that the disbelievers and Shaytan will ever be like Muslims, since Muslims have various qualities that contradict Shirk and its people. This is why Allah commanded His believing servants to observe patience, to be steadfast in defying and contradicting the disbelievers, and to fear none but Allah. Allah said, (So fear them not, but fear Me.) meaning, `do not fear them when you contradict them. Rather, fear Me and I will give you victory over them, I will eradicate them, and make you prevail over them, I will please your hearts and raise you above them in this life and the Hereafter.'

Islam Has Been Perfected For Muslims…
QuranX.com The most complete Quran / Hadith / Tafsir collection available!
>>

This interpretation continues until the end of Qur’an 5:3 showing the approximate time Q 5:3 may have been given. No indication is given that fighting unbelievers has permanently stopped, only not to fear them because the unbelievers have given up all hope of expunging Islam since it has now become strong.

There is no indication that, just because Islam is now strong, and unbelievers have failed to prevent Islam, that the commands of Allah to uproot unbelief from the world through warning and war has been abrogated or removed. And such a thought disagrees with Islamic doctrine.
Spread of Islam - Wikipedia
Jihad - Wikipedia

setst777 said: ↑
Both these statements show that the program of Islam has not changed since Chapter 9, that the program will continue until Islam roots out all idolatry from the whole earth, and Islam becomes supreme. And this agrees with the best Islamic sources regarding Chapter 9.

Joseph responds:
<<
The battles being referred to in Chapter 9 fulfilled their purpose over 1,400 years ago and are now a part of Islamic history. This is no different than the battles found in the Old Testament.
>>

Setst RE: Actually, if they fulfilled their purpose, then we would not have had 1400 years of Islamic Jihad against unbelievers.
https://www1.cbn.com/churchandministry/1400-years-of-christian-islamic-struggle

So, this is your opinion that is not supported by Islamic sources. The Command of CH 9 had a beginning, and the end would only come when unbelief was uprooted from the whole earth. That has not happened yet.

The Hadith agree, and the best Tafsir agree as well. And the earliest Islamic history, during and after Muhammad, confirms this – the Islamic conquest. Both Sunni and Shia teach this a Islamic doctrine.

Go to: QuranX.com The most complete Quran / Hadith / Tafsir collection available!. There you can put any chapter and verse you desire in the boxes, and you will get Kathir - Ibn Al Kathir tafsir on any Qur’an chapter and verse he covers.

Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).
Fighting for the Cause of Allah (Jihaad)
Sahi Bukhari :: Book 4 :: Volume 52 :: Hadith 220

I quoted many more verses and Hadith just like this one.

 

[setst777]

post 9/11 fixtures.

Hi Joseph,

setst777 said: ↑

You have way to much pride to think you know more than the best Islamic scholars. But then, you think the best Islamic scholars are extremists and do not represent Islam.

Joseph responds:
<<
There is nothing wrong with any of the Islamic scholars you have sourced. You are just reading their texts just like you do the Qur'an. Out of context. This is why I asked if you had read any of their works in their entirety in regards to chapter 9.
>>

Setst RE: There was something wrong with them in you earlier statements.

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

Joseph responds:
The only people you will find teaching that the older verses in the Qur'an that promote peace, tolerance, and coexistence have been superseded by verses revealed later in the Qur'an that promote war and violence are extremists and anti-Islamic propagandists.
>>

Joseph, it is statements like these that are dangerous because they are totally untrue and slanderous against the best Islamic Hadith and Tafsir – calling them extremists. Statements like these are the reason why the West is defenseless against the rising Islamic presence in foreign lands. We are sitting ducks before Islam.

Isma’il bin Al-Kathir (the Ayah of the Sword)
This honorable Ayah (9:5) 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 idolator, every treaty, and every term.'' Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas commented: "No idolator 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.''
Quran Tafsir Ibn Kathir - This is the Ayah of the Sword

Isma'il bin Kathir [1301-1373 AD, was a student under Ibn Taymiyya, one of the foremost of Qur'an interpreters]: bin Kathir, in his commentary on Chapter 9:5, expressed that jihad involves death and the killing of men, God draws attention to the fact that disbelief, polytheism, and avoidance of God's path as shown by the Qur'an are worse than killing them.
[Ibn Kathir, Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, vol. 4, pp. 375-7.]

According to bin Kathir in his commentary on Chapter 9:5, Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, the first caliph, used this and other verses to validate fighting anyone who either did not pay religious taxes to the Muslims or convert to Islam. Ibn ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab, one of the hadith transmitters, quoted Muhammad as saying, "I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except God and that Muhammad is the Messenger of God." He testified that Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim, an authentic transmitter of hadiths, said that the verse of the sword"abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term." ‘Awfi cited Ibn ‘Abbas, who argued that "Ultimatum" obviated earlier peace treaties.
[Ibn Kathir, Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, vol. 4, pp. 375-7.]



Muhsin Khan, [1927 AD the translator of Sahih al-Bukhari and the Qur'an, entitled The Noble Qur'an, which he completed along with Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din al-Hilali], says God revealed "Ultimatum" in order to discard restraint and to command Muslims to fight against all the pagans as well as against the People of the Book if they do not embrace Islam or until they pay religious taxes. So, at first aggressive fighting was forbidden; it later became permissible (2:190) and subsequently obligatory (9:5).
[Muhsin Khan, "Introduction," in ibid., pp. xxiv-xxv.]


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.]

Nothing was out of context.

The best Islamic sources say fighting is to continue over the whole earth, from one end to the other until all unbelief is rooted out and Islam is supreme. This is not Wahhabism, this is Islam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

setst777 said: ↑
I will say this as a concession... Sure you will find contemporary western Immams who use taqyah in the West to deceive us into thinking Islam is all about peace and love, and that is what you have obviously been misled by, and what many in the West are mislead by - so it is not just you. . .

Joseph responds:
<<
Over a period of over three decades I have taken courses in Islamic Studies from the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary and the University of Maryland; I also have taken courses from a Sunni Salafi school of thought based outside the west that targets Muslim students and even recommended you take this course from a Christian point of view The Gospel and Islam - TVSEMINARY Trinity Video Seminary. In addition to these sources, I have also attended numerous forums here in Southeast Asia where Islam is the topic of discussion and personally know many Muslims from different parts of the world both professionally and as friends. You are actually suggesting that all of these schools and individuals are lying to me?
>>

Setst RE: I find such statements of yours puzzling.

Perhaps all the classes you say you took that convinced you of your present attitude about Islam came from classes on combating extremism, in which case Islamic doctrine is portrayed as extremist and therefore non-Islam. Think that over. This is exactly what Muslim leaders in the West want you to believe while they secretly promote terrorism and political/social Jihad right before your unsuspecting eyes.

I quote the Hadith and Sira, and also Suni tafsir, and when they teach about later verses abrogating earlier verses of peace you say it is all by extremists and anti-Islamic propagandists.

setst777 said: ↑
But the actual

• Mufassiruns of the past who lived in Islamic countries, who interpret the Quran and Hadith,
• and those who actually compiled the Hadith,
• and the scholars who wrote Islamic Jurisprudence, and the Rashidun,

all state the truth unguided by Taqyah, because their audience was Islamic. These are the sources I used.

Joseph writes:
<<
Islamic Fundamentalism has always been rejected since the inception of Islam.
>>

Setst RE: The inception of Islam officially started with Muhammad. and the Rashidun (The Rightly Guided Caliphs – 1st generation Muslims). Islamic Fundamentalism was the only doctrine .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_of_Islam

They are all part of that inception of Islam, and it was all fundamental – submission to Allah and His Messenger… Islam was founded on the documents the scholars of Islam preserved from Muhammad and this early history. The Mufassirun, the scholars of Islamic Jurisprudence, and classical Islam in general, support the view of Jihad that I am explaining from Islam’s own reliable sources.

The Rashidun themselves were considered by Sunni Muslims to be the best of Muslims because they were of the first generation and companions of Muhammad – during Muhammad’s time.
Rashidun - Wikipedia

Sunni perspectives
They were called the "Rightly-Guided" because they have been seen as model Muslim leaders by Sunni Muslims. This terminology came into a general use around the world, since Sunni Islam has been the dominant Islamic tradition, and for a long time it has been considered the most authoritative source of information about Islam in the Western world.
Rashidun - Wikipedia

setst777 said: ↑
I quoted from Sharia for you several times regarding the rules about unbelievers, hypocrites, apostasy. If you knew this, you would not keep claiming any source that disagrees with you as being anti-Islamic. I am quoting Islamic sources and you don't even recognize the sources.

Joseph responds:
<<
There's nothing wrong with the sources you are using, you are taking them out of context and/or misunderstanding them.
>>

Setst RE: Yes, so you say. Actually, you have stated the sources that disagree with you are extremist and anti-Islamic propagandists

<<
Joseph wrote: The only people you will find teaching that the older verses in the Qur'an that promote peace, tolerance, and coexistence have been superseded by verses revealed later in the Qur'an that promote war and violence are extremists and anti-Islamic propagandists.
>>

setst777 said: ↑
You even think there are many Sharias and that it is adaptable and can be changed. How naive. Sharia is the unchangeable immutable Law of Allah founded on the Quran, Hadith and Sira. Sharia - Wikipedia

How could you not know this???

Joseph responds:
<<
Here is what I have said about Shari'a in this thread.

JosephZ said: ↑

I'm pretty sure what you believe about Shari'a is not the same as that of Muslims. Shari'a is not much different than halakhah in Judaism or the magisterium found in Catholicism.

Shari'a comes mostly from the Qur’an and Sunnah and is a guide used by Muslims to become closer to God through teaching values, providing a code of conduct, and giving religious commandments which guide Muslims on how to live their day to day lives. The word Shari'a literally translates into "the path" or "the way" and only applies to Muslims.

JosephZ said: ↑
Those examples are of political governments whose leaders base their laws on local interpretations of the Qur'an and haddiths. These rules and laws of course vary from culture to culture and will often contradict what Islam teaches, but I think you would agree that non-Muslims living in western countries have nothing to fear when it comes to Shari'a.
>>

Setst RE: You missed some…
<<
setst777 said: ↑
Your argument that Sharia can be adapted to be peaceful and conform to modern life is a fallacy.

Joseph responds:
Then how do you explain the hundreds of millions of Muslims that currently practice Shari'a in modern developed countries today?
>>
<<
JosephZ said: ↑
Some state governments and extremist groups may do this, but not Muslims. Muslims are kind, compassionate, and generous people like most others in the world and this is in large part because of Shari'a.
>>

Once again, your understanding of Shari'a is different than that of Muslims.

Based on your comments about Sharia, you show that your understanding of Sharia is based only on personal lifestyle aspects only; yet, you think this is full Sharia in practice by hundreds of millions of Muslims.

No country presently uses Sharia in full, although Saudi Arabia comes close.

You seem oblivious to Sharia regarding child marriage, unbelievers, hypocrites, apostasy, blasphemy, other crimes under Hudud (ei: fornication, adultery, drinking, stealing, homsexuality), female genital mutilation, slavery laws, rights of women, you neglect as well. The military/jihad/terrorism aspects of Sharia you neglect as well, and the dhimmi status for Jews and Christians until they feel themselves subdued. So, you are showing by your responses that you do not understand the full extent of Sharia, because you think Sharia is all friendly – You say that Muslims practicing Sharia are the friendliest and most compassionate. . .

Sharia and peace and compassion
Even when Sharia is partially enacted in various countries, we do not find the kind of peace and compassion by Muslims that you attribute to Sharia. Firstly, take a look at all the Muslim countries and you will find that Muslim countries are the most violent countries in the world. And when Sharia is enacted, even partially, in other countries we see similar problems.

The role of Sharia has become a contested topic around the world.[3] Introduction of sharia-based laws sparked intercommunal violence in Nigeria[18][19] and may have contributed to the breakup of Sudan.[3] Some jurisdictions in North America have passed bans on use of sharia, framed as restrictions on religious or foreign laws.[20] There are ongoing debates as to whether sharia is compatible with democracy, human rights, freedom of thought, women's rights, LGBT rights, and banking. [Sharia - Wikipedia].

A surprisingly high percentage of Muslims in Western nations, even the US, want Sharia, and they also want blasphemy and apostasy punished under Sharia hudud law.

So, Islam is not the peace loving, kind and generous religion you think it is, just because you may have met some friendly Muslims in places. And even when they are friendly, that does not mean they are still not guided by their faith as the polls show:
[Islamic Statistics on violence, rape, terror, Sharia, ISIS, and welfare | CARM.org]

You cannot see what they are thinking. All you know for sure is that they smiled at you and acted friendly.

Yes, I agree that many 2nd and 3rd generation (and over) Western Muslims are free thinkers, and are not rooted in the Quran or Sharia. However that is changing as the polls show.

And Saudi Arabia and Iran are at work to promote Islam in the Western Mosques that Western Muslims attend to re-educate them.

 

[setst777]

post 9/11 fixtures.

Hi Joseph

Joseph writes:
<<
Read the below and tell me if this is what you believe is true Islam. A simple yes or no will do.

The Wahhabism that the Saudi monarchy enforces, and on which it bases its legitimacy, is shown in these documents as a fanatically bigoted, xenophobic
>>

Setst RE: So far this sounds like your reaction to fundamental Islam, Sharia, and those who are attempting to show the truth about Islam.

“Continued… and sometimes violent ideology. These publications articulate its wrathful dogma, rejecting the coexistence of different religions and explicitly condemning Christians, Jews, all other non-Muslims, as well as non-Wahhabi Muslims. The various Saudi publications gathered for this study state that it is a religious obligation for Muslims to hate Christians and Jews and warn against imitating, befriending, or helping such “infidels” in any way, or taking part in their festivities and celebrations. They instill contempt for America because the United States is ruled by legislated civil law rather than by totalitarian Wahhabi-style Islamic law.”

Setst RE: This is all accurate with Qur’an Chapter 9, according to the best Tafsir of Islam and Sharia and is practiced by a majority of Islamic nations – Shia and Sunni.

Both Sunni and Shia would agree with this. Look at countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Yemen, Pakistan, Indonesia, Turkey, Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia. These are all predominantly Sunni. And look at countries like Iran and Iraq that are Shia. Many of these countries persecute Christians and Jews until hardly any are left.

<< Start of Quote
Christians have faced increasing levels of persecution in the Muslim world. Muslim-majority nations in which Christian populations have suffered acute discrimination, persecution, repression, violence and in some cases death, mass murder or ethnic cleansing include; Iraq, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Somalia, Qatar, Kuwait, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Maldives.[228][229]

Furthermore, any Muslim person—including any person born into a Muslim family or any person who became a Muslim at a given point in his or her life—who converts to Christianity or re-converts to it, is considered an apostate. Apostasy, the conscious abandonment of Islam by a Muslim in word or deed, including conversion to Christianity, is punishable as a crime under applications of the Sharia (countries in the graph).
Persecution of Christians - Wikipedia
>> End of Quote

This is all accurate to the Qur’an, Hadith, Sira and Tasfir, and is Sunni in 3 out of 4 of its schools. All of this is part of “Reliance of the Traveller,” which is Sharia with Sunni interpretation, the Shaffi school.

Qur'an 98:
6. Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islam, the Qur'an and Prophet Muhammad from among the people of the Scripture - Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikun (idolatry or polytheism) will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.

Qur'an 8:55 Verily, The worst of moving (living) creatures before Allah are those who disbelieve - so they shall not believe.

In contrast, the best of peoples evolved for mankind are only Muslims:

Qur'an 3:110
“Ye (Muslims) are the best of Peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah.

Does this sound like Wahhabism from Islam’s most sacred Scriptures?

Last Message of Muhammad just before he died

Sahih Bukhari Eng. Ref: Vol 1, Book 8, Chapter 55, Hadith 427
Narrated `Aisha and `Abdullah bin `Abbas:
When the last moment of the life of Allah's Messenger came he started putting his 'Khamisa' on his face and when he felt hot and short of breath he took it off his face and said, "May Allah curse the Jews and Christians for they built the places of worship at the graves of their Prophets." The Prophet was warning (Muslims) of what those had done.

Qur'an 9:
29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the People of the Book (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. ... Allah's Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!

Does this sound like Wahabism from Islam’s most reliable sources?

Tafsir of Ibn Kathir (on Qur’an 9:29-30) ”Fighting the Jews and Christians is legislated because They are Idolators and Disbelievers. ... This is why Allah declared both groups to be liars, ("That is their saying with their mouths"), but they have no proof that supports their claim, other than lies and fabrications,("resembling"), imitating, ("the saying of those who disbelieved aforetime.") They imitate the previous nations who fell into misguidance just as Jews and Christians did, (may Allah fight them), Ibn `Abbas said, "May Allah curse them…. Paying Jizyah is a Sign of Kufr and Disgrace

Allah said,

… (until they pay the Jizyah), if they do not choose to embrace Islam, (with willing submission), in defeat and subservience, (and feel themselves subdued.), disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated. Muslim recorded from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet said,

(Do not initiate the Salam to the Jews and Christians, and if you meet any of them in a road, force them to its narrowest alley.) This is why the Leader of the faithful `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, demanded his well-known conditions be met by the Christians, these conditions that ensured their continued humiliation, degradation and disgrace. " https://quranx.com/Tafsir/Kathir/9.30

Does all this sound like Wahhabism from Islam’s most reliable Tafsir?

Muslims (through Islamic Organizations) are deceiving foreign nations and leaders and its citizens by quoting peaceful verses to hide their true intentions to placate the West while they build up their dominance through political and social jihad, and terrorism, threats, demonstrations, and through teaching Muslims in this country about their duty to Islam through Mosques.

Sorry to say you have been brain-washed by them along with many others. People like you are setting the West up for its domination by Islam under Sharia.

Ibn Kathir on 9:33
(This matter (Islam) will keep spreading as far as the night and day reach, until Allah will not leave a house made of mud or hair, but will make this religion enter it, while bringing might to a mighty person (a Muslim) and humiliation to a disgraced person (who rejects Islam). Might with which Allah elevates Islam (and its people) and disgrace with which Allah humiliates disbelief (and its people). Tamim Ad-Dari who was a Christian before Islam used to say, "I have come to know the meaning of this Hadith in my own people. Those who became Muslims among them acquired goodness, honor and might. Disgrace, humiliation and Jizyah befell those who remained disbelievers.''

Does this all sound like Wahhabism, or is this not actually Islam as we see in many Islamic countries today?

Joseph continues to quote:
<<Wahhabism began only 250 years ago with the movement created by fanatical preacher Muhammad Ibn Abd alWahhab.
Some of the most disturbing examples include the following (See Appendix A for text excerpts.) Regarding Sunni, Shiite, Sufi and other non-Wahhabi or non-Salafi Muslims, the textbooks: ....

• Denounce Muslims who do not interpret the Qur’an literally.
• Muslims to hate Christians, Jews, polytheists and other unbelievers.
Christians are considered infidels who must be fought unless they have a protection contract with Muslims
• Jews and the Christian are enemies of the Muslim believers and the clash between the two realms continues until the Day of Resurrection.
• The spread of Islam through jihad is a religious obligation.
• The struggle between Muslims and Jews will continue until the hour of judgment and that Muslims will triumph because they are right and he who is right is always victorious.
• Whoever obeys the Prophet and accepts the oneness of God cannot be loyal to those who oppose God and His Prophet, even if they are his closest relatives.
• It is forbidden for a Muslim to be a loyal friend to someone who does not believe in God and His Prophet, or someone who fights the religion of Islam.
• A Muslim, even if he lives far away, is your brother in religion. Someone who opposes God, even if he is your brother by family tie, is your enemy.
https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/inline_images/Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Invade American Mosques.pdf
https://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/Tier1_SAUDI ARABIA.pdf >>

Setst RE: This is all part of the command of Allah in Qur’an Chapter 9, of which the best Tafsir interpret just like your quote above. That is how Christians are treated in many major Islamic countries – Sunni and Shia.

The author chooses to label these beliefs as Wahhabi, and as a tiny minority. If you include most of Sunni, and Ashari theology, then you have a majority population of Muslims who potentially believe everything stated in your quote, just as their best tafsir explain, even though many Muslims, or Muslim nations, are not actually fully practicing it at this time due to the present dominance and pressure from the West.

Let me quote two more Sahih narrations (the best of Sunni Hadith that guide their beliefs) that clearly show the extent of hatred for Jews by Islam.

Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar: Allah's Messenger said, "You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews until some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O ‘Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.'"

Sahih Bukhari 2925
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.
Sahih Muslim 2922

These Sahih narrations are in a future context. Therefore, your idea that Muslims are peaceful and are not to fight anymore is not accurate according to the best sahih narrations in every sense, and not in accordance with classical Islam jurisprudence.

Joseph writes:
<<
Since the above perfectly describes what what you have been posting here on this forum, then this tells you that what you are talking about is Wahhabism and it's teachings rather than the religion of Islam. It is and always has been rejected by the vast majority of the world's Muslims.
>>

Setst RE: This is Sunni and Shia Islam, which represents Sunni and Shia Islam. And when you include any other Muslim sects that fall into Ashari theology (the foremost theology of Islam), then you have an even greater number.

“Mosques: How fundamental Islam of the East is spreading its theology to Western Muslims”

Your sources (which I responded to) deals with how Wahhabism (Saudi Arabia) is influencing Western Muslims through Mosques all over the West with classical Islamic Doctrine on Jihad.

This is very true. And Saudi Arabia, and Iran, has spent hundreds of millions of dollars building mosques and promoting their doctrine throughout the US and in Europe.

The naïve non-Muslims who have bought into the lie that Islam is Peace and Love typically underestimate the beliefs, and the power, Islam, through Sharia, potentially has over the minds of billion+ Muslims on the earth.

The West are, therefore, sitting ducks to Islamic political and social Jihad. The West are defenseless by what could potentially happen as true Islamic doctrine is being taught to Muslims all over the world piped in through these Mosques. This is true because, while Islam continues with its expansion into the West, the West is sleeping.

Since the Quran and Hadith and Tafsir are now online for all to study, and

Since the Mosques are being controlled by fundamental Islam countries in the East, and

Since our Universities, government, social media, and are now being heavily influence by Islamic organizations, and

Since Muslim emigration to the West and Europe is rising, and

Since increasing Muslim populations, and

Since naivety of the West to Islamic influence,

Then, only time will tell what impact this will have on the next generation of Muslims and life as we now know it. It doesn’t look pretty.

And the polls show that many more Western Muslims then you think are more in line with the so called “Wahhabist” mindset.

The West is unprepared to meet the challenge, because of the mindset of people like you who say Islam is peace and compassion. Therefore, the West is prevented from facing the threat.

Joseph quotes:
<<
‘Islam bashing’
>>

Setst RE: I am not familiar with any Islamic Bashers, so I wouldn’t know.

From the polls it appears a huge and growing number of Muslims in the USA and Europe want Sharia implemented, if not at least for the Muslims to be ruled and judge by in those countries. Once you have a double legal system in a country – one for Sharia and one for the Government – the nations will then become divided by Islam. Once divided, the easier to conquer.

setst777 said: ↑
No one with an education in Islamic studies would ask such a naive question. The two do not even compare.

Joseph responds:
<<
Comparable or not, I asked a simple question that can be answered with a Yes or No. Do you believe that Independent Fundamental Baptists are the only denomination in Christianity that have it right?
>>

Setst RE: You asked a simple question in order to attempt to use the answer to incorrectly correlate it to Islam. So the question is unethical. Note that the Pharisees, Sadducees, and teachers of the Law also tried to trick Lord Jesus similarly by their questions, and Jesus played such questions right back onto them.

setst777 said: ↑
Censorship is likely the reason you never received proper instruction regarding Islam in whatever schools you attended.

Joseph responds:
<<
My education of Islam started in the mid-80's, long before 9/11, President Obama. and most of the anti-Islamic propagandists who are all post 9/11 fixtures.
>>

Setst RE: I think you were brainwashed by courses in ‘Islamic Extremism.’ Taqyah must be used to deceive so that the West does not become hostile to the true intentions of Islamic Jihad in the West – the destruction of civilization as we now know it under Sharia.

Non-Muslim Muslims and the Jihad Against the West - Political Islam

 

[Joyousperson]

Hi Joseph

Joseph writes:
<<
Read the below and tell me if this is what you believe is true Islam. A simple yes or no will do.

The Wahhabism that the Saudi monarchy enforces, and on which it bases its legitimacy, is shown in these documents as a fanatically bigoted, xenophobic
>>

Setst RE: So far this sounds like your reaction to fundamental Islam, Sharia, and those who are attempting to show the truth about Islam.

“Continued… and sometimes violent ideology. These publications articulate its wrathful dogma, rejecting the coexistence of different religions and explicitly condemning Christians, Jews, all other non-Muslims, as well as non-Wahhabi Muslims. The various Saudi publications gathered for this study state that it is a religious obligation for Muslims to hate Christians and Jews and warn against imitating, befriending, or helping such “infidels” in any way, or taking part in their festivities and celebrations. They instill contempt for America because the United States is ruled by legislated civil law rather than by totalitarian Wahhabi-style Islamic law.”

Setst RE: This is all accurate with Qur’an Chapter 9, according to the best Tafsir of Islam and Sharia and is practiced by a majority of Islamic nations – Shia and Sunni.

Both Sunni and Shia would agree with this. Look at countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Yemen, Pakistan, Indonesia, Turkey, Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia. These are all predominantly Sunni. And look at countries like Iran and Iraq that are Shia. Many of these countries persecute Christians and Jews until hardly any are left.

<< Start of Quote
Christians have faced increasing levels of persecution in the Muslim world. Muslim-majority nations in which Christian populations have suffered acute discrimination, persecution, repression, violence and in some cases death, mass murder or ethnic cleansing include; Iraq, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Somalia, Qatar, Kuwait, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Maldives.[228][229]

Furthermore, any Muslim person—including any person born into a Muslim family or any person who became a Muslim at a given point in his or her life—who converts to Christianity or re-converts to it, is considered an apostate. Apostasy, the conscious abandonment of Islam by a Muslim in word or deed, including conversion to Christianity, is punishable as a crime under applications of the Sharia (countries in the graph).
Persecution of Christians - Wikipedia
>> End of Quote

This is all accurate to the Qur’an, Hadith, Sira and Tasfir, and is Sunni in 3 out of 4 of its schools. All of this is part of “Reliance of the Traveller,” which is Sharia with Sunni interpretation, the Shaffi school.

Qur'an 98:
6. Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islam, the Qur'an and Prophet Muhammad from among the people of the Scripture - Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikun (idolatry or polytheism) will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.

Qur'an 8:55 Verily, The worst of moving (living) creatures before Allah are those who disbelieve - so they shall not believe.

In contrast, the best of peoples evolved for mankind are only Muslims:

Qur'an 3:110
“Ye (Muslims) are the best of Peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah.

Does this sound like Wahhabism from Islam’s most sacred Scriptures?

Last Message of Muhammad just before he died

Sahih Bukhari Eng. Ref: Vol 1, Book 8, Chapter 55, Hadith 427
Narrated `Aisha and `Abdullah bin `Abbas:
When the last moment of the life of Allah's Messenger came he started putting his 'Khamisa' on his face and when he felt hot and short of breath he took it off his face and said, "May Allah curse the Jews and Christians for they built the places of worship at the graves of their Prophets." The Prophet was warning (Muslims) of what those had done.

Qur'an 9:
29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the People of the Book (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. ... Allah's Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!

Does this sound like Wahabism from Islam’s most reliable sources?

Tafsir of Ibn Kathir (on Qur’an 9:29-30) ”Fighting the Jews and Christians is legislated because They are Idolators and Disbelievers. ... This is why Allah declared both groups to be liars, ("That is their saying with their mouths"), but they have no proof that supports their claim, other than lies and fabrications,("resembling"), imitating, ("the saying of those who disbelieved aforetime.") They imitate the previous nations who fell into misguidance just as Jews and Christians did, (may Allah fight them), Ibn `Abbas said, "May Allah curse them…. Paying Jizyah is a Sign of Kufr and Disgrace

Allah said,

… (until they pay the Jizyah), if they do not choose to embrace Islam, (with willing submission), in defeat and subservience, (and feel themselves subdued.), disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated. Muslim recorded from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet said,

(Do not initiate the Salam to the Jews and Christians, and if you meet any of them in a road, force them to its narrowest alley.) This is why the Leader of the faithful `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, demanded his well-known conditions be met by the Christians, these conditions that ensured their continued humiliation, degradation and disgrace. " https://quranx.com/Tafsir/Kathir/9.30

Does all this sound like Wahhabism from Islam’s most reliable Tafsir?

Muslims (through Islamic Organizations) are deceiving foreign nations and leaders and its citizens by quoting peaceful verses to hide their true intentions to placate the West while they build up their dominance through political and social jihad, and terrorism, threats, demonstrations, and through teaching Muslims in this country about their duty to Islam through Mosques.

Sorry to say you have been brain-washed by them along with many others. People like you are setting the West up for its domination by Islam under Sharia.

Ibn Kathir on 9:33
(This matter (Islam) will keep spreading as far as the night and day reach, until Allah will not leave a house made of mud or hair, but will make this religion enter it, while bringing might to a mighty person (a Muslim) and humiliation to a disgraced person (who rejects Islam). Might with which Allah elevates Islam (and its people) and disgrace with which Allah humiliates disbelief (and its people). Tamim Ad-Dari who was a Christian before Islam used to say, "I have come to know the meaning of this Hadith in my own people. Those who became Muslims among them acquired goodness, honor and might. Disgrace, humiliation and Jizyah befell those who remained disbelievers.''

Does this all sound like Wahhabism, or is this not actually Islam as we see in many Islamic countries today?

Joseph continues to quote:
<<Wahhabism began only 250 years ago with the movement created by fanatical preacher Muhammad Ibn Abd alWahhab.
Some of the most disturbing examples include the following (See Appendix A for text excerpts.) Regarding Sunni, Shiite, Sufi and other non-Wahhabi or non-Salafi Muslims, the textbooks: ....

• Denounce Muslims who do not interpret the Qur’an literally.
• Muslims to hate Christians, Jews, polytheists and other unbelievers.
Christians are considered infidels who must be fought unless they have a protection contract with Muslims
• Jews and the Christian are enemies of the Muslim believers and the clash between the two realms continues until the Day of Resurrection.
• The spread of Islam through jihad is a religious obligation.
• The struggle between Muslims and Jews will continue until the hour of judgment and that Muslims will triumph because they are right and he who is right is always victorious.
• Whoever obeys the Prophet and accepts the oneness of God cannot be loyal to those who oppose God and His Prophet, even if they are his closest relatives.
• It is forbidden for a Muslim to be a loyal friend to someone who does not believe in God and His Prophet, or someone who fights the religion of Islam.
• A Muslim, even if he lives far away, is your brother in religion. Someone who opposes God, even if he is your brother by family tie, is your enemy.
https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/inline_images/Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Invade American Mosques.pdf
https://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/Tier1_SAUDI ARABIA.pdf >>

Setst RE: This is all part of the command of Allah in Qur’an Chapter 9, of which the best Tafsir interpret just like your quote above. That is how Christians are treated in many major Islamic countries – Sunni and Shia.

The author chooses to label these beliefs as Wahhabi, and as a tiny minority. If you include most of Sunni, and Ashari theology, then you have a majority population of Muslims who potentially believe everything stated in your quote, just as their best tafsir explain, even though many Muslims, or Muslim nations, are not actually fully practicing it at this time due to the present dominance and pressure from the West.

Let me quote two more Sahih narrations (the best of Sunni Hadith that guide their beliefs) that clearly show the extent of hatred for Jews by Islam.

Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar: Allah's Messenger said, "You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews until some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O ‘Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.'"

Sahih Bukhari 2925
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.
Sahih Muslim 2922

These Sahih narrations are in a future context. Therefore, your idea that Muslims are peaceful and are not to fight anymore is not accurate according to the best sahih narrations in every sense, and not in accordance with classical Islam jurisprudence.

Joseph writes:
<<
Since the above perfectly describes what what you have been posting here on this forum, then this tells you that what you are talking about is Wahhabism and it's teachings rather than the religion of Islam. It is and always has been rejected by the vast majority of the world's Muslims.
>>

Setst RE: This is Sunni and Shia Islam, which represents Sunni and Shia Islam. And when you include any other Muslim sects that fall into Ashari theology (the foremost theology of Islam), then you have an even greater number.

“Mosques: How fundamental Islam of the East is spreading its theology to Western Muslims”

Your sources (which I responded to) deals with how Wahhabism (Saudi Arabia) is influencing Western Muslims through Mosques all over the West with classical Islamic Doctrine on Jihad.

This is very true. And Saudi Arabia, and Iran, has spent hundreds of millions of dollars building mosques and promoting their doctrine throughout the US and in Europe.

The naïve non-Muslims who have bought into the lie that Islam is Peace and Love typically underestimate the beliefs, and the power, Islam, through Sharia, potentially has over the minds of billion+ Muslims on the earth.

The West are, therefore, sitting ducks to Islamic political and social Jihad. The West are defenseless by what could potentially happen as true Islamic doctrine is being taught to Muslims all over the world piped in through these Mosques. This is true because, while Islam continues with its expansion into the West, the West is sleeping.

Since the Quran and Hadith and Tafsir are now online for all to study, and

Since the Mosques are being controlled by fundamental Islam countries in the East, and

Since our Universities, government, social media, and are now being heavily influence by Islamic organizations, and

Since Muslim emigration to the West and Europe is rising, and

Since increasing Muslim populations, and

Since naivety of the West to Islamic influence,

Then, only time will tell what impact this will have on the next generation of Muslims and life as we now know it. It doesn’t look pretty.

And the polls show that many more Western Muslims then you think are more in line with the so called “Wahhabist” mindset.

The West is unprepared to meet the challenge, because of the mindset of people like you who say Islam is peace and compassion. Therefore, the West is prevented from facing the threat.

Joseph quotes:
<<
‘Islam bashing’
>>

Setst RE: I am not familiar with any Islamic Bashers, so I wouldn’t know.

From the polls it appears a huge and growing number of Muslims in the USA and Europe want Sharia implemented, if not at least for the Muslims to be ruled and judge by in those countries. Once you have a double legal system in a country – one for Sharia and one for the Government – the nations will then become divided by Islam. Once divided, the easier to conquer.

setst777 said: ↑
No one with an education in Islamic studies would ask such a naive question. The two do not even compare.

Joseph responds:
<<
Comparable or not, I asked a simple question that can be answered with a Yes or No. Do you believe that Independent Fundamental Baptists are the only denomination in Christianity that have it right?
>>

Setst RE: You asked a simple question in order to attempt to use the answer to incorrectly correlate it to Islam. So the question is unethical. Note that the Pharisees, Sadducees, and teachers of the Law also tried to trick Lord Jesus similarly by their questions, and Jesus played such questions right back onto them.

setst777 said: ↑
Censorship is likely the reason you never received proper instruction regarding Islam in whatever schools you attended.

Joseph responds:
<<
My education of Islam started in the mid-80's, long before 9/11, President Obama. and most of the anti-Islamic propagandists who are all post 9/11 fixtures.
>>

Setst RE: I think you were brainwashed by courses in ‘Islamic Extremism.’ Taqyah must be used to deceive so that the West does not become hostile to the true intentions of Islamic Jihad in the West – the destruction of civilization as we now know it under Sharia.

Non-Muslim Muslims and the Jihad Against the West - Political Islam

Well said and supported.

 

[Joyousperson]

<< Start of Quote -Wikipedia/Jihad
Jihad is an Arabic word which literally means striving or struggling, especially with a praiseworthy aim.[1][2][3][4] In an Islamic context, it can refer to almost any effort to make personal and social life conform with God's guidance, such as struggle against one's evil inclinations, religious proselytizing, or efforts toward the moral betterment of the ummah,[1][2][5] though it is most frequently associated with war.[6] In classical Islamic law, the term refers to armed struggle against unbelievers,[2][3]

Jihad [JHD] etymologically means striving or struggling.
However when one look at the current Arabic dictionaries, the first meaning is 'warring and striving against unbelievers', thus its default meaning.

I have analyzed all the verses with the root J-H-D and 23 [as below] out of the appx. 50 verses with JHD root are related to striving and fighting against unbelievers.
(verses are truncated)

8:72 struggled with their wealth and their lives in
9:20 believed and emigrated and struggled in the
9:88 with him struggled with their wealth and their
49:15 they were not in doubt and they struggled with
9:44 they struggle with their wealth and their lives.
9:81 of God and they disliked struggling with their
61:11 in God and His Messenger and struggle in the
9:41 Move forward light and heavy, and struggle
4:95 God gave advantage to the ones who struggle
2:218 those who emigrated and struggled in the way [sabil]
8:74 who believed and emigrated and struggled in
8:75 afterwards, and emigrated and struggled
9:16 be left before God knows those who struggled
9:19 in God and the Last Day and struggled in the
9:73 O Prophet! Struggle with the ones who are
25:52 the ones who are ungrateful and struggle
66:9 O Prophet! Struggle against the ones who are
9:24 than God and His Messenger and struggling in
60:1 If you had been going forth struggling in My
47:31 you until We know the ones who struggle​

The first 11 relate to jihad, i.e. struggle with money and one's life in the cause of Allah. This is obviously related to warring and armed struggle against unbelievers and to kill them where the opportunity arise. As for jihad with 'lives' that is where Allah promotes suicide bombing.

There are only a few verses related to personal struggle for oneself for various reasons.

Why the Arabic dictionaries interpret the meaning of 'jihad' as the defaulted war against non-believers is due to its more meaningful use and the leveraged of the 55% or 3400++ verses that are contemptuous against disbelievers.

Thus when we see the term 'jihad' the default meaning means to war against and the killings of disbelievers.
If any other meaning of 'jihad' are to be used, they would have to be qualified to the specific context, if not, then it is the default meaning.

 

[setst777]

Jihad [JHD] etymologically means striving or struggling.
However when one look at the current Arabic dictionaries, the first meaning is 'warring and striving against unbelievers', thus its default meaning.

I have analyzed all the verses with the root J-H-D and 23 [as below] out of the appx. 50 verses with JHD root are related to striving and fighting against unbelievers.
(verses are truncated)

8:72 struggled with their wealth and their lives in
9:20 believed and emigrated and struggled in the
9:88 with him struggled with their wealth and their
49:15 they were not in doubt and they struggled with
9:44 they struggle with their wealth and their lives.
9:81 of God and they disliked struggling with their
61:11 in God and His Messenger and struggle in the
9:41 Move forward light and heavy, and struggle
4:95 God gave advantage to the ones who struggle
2:218 those who emigrated and struggled in the way [sabil]
8:74 who believed and emigrated and struggled in
8:75 afterwards, and emigrated and struggled
9:16 be left before God knows those who struggled
9:19 in God and the Last Day and struggled in the
9:73 O Prophet! Struggle with the ones who are
25:52 the ones who are ungrateful and struggle
66:9 O Prophet! Struggle against the ones who are
9:24 than God and His Messenger and struggling in
60:1 If you had been going forth struggling in My
47:31 you until We know the ones who struggle​

The first 11 relate to jihad, i.e. struggle with money and one's life in the cause of Allah. This is obviously related to warring and armed struggle against unbelievers and to kill them where the opportunity arise. As for jihad with 'lives' that is where Allah promotes suicide bombing.

There are only a few verses related to personal struggle for oneself for various reasons.

Why the Arabic dictionaries interpret the meaning of 'jihad' as the defaulted war against non-believers is due to its more meaningful use and the leveraged of the 55% or 3400++ verses that are contemptuous against disbelievers.

Thus when we see the term 'jihad' the default meaning means to war against and the killings of disbelievers.
If any other meaning of 'jihad' are to be used, they would have to be qualified to the specific context, if not, then it is the default meaning.

Hi Joyousperson,

Good study you did and good that you brought this fact up.

Even in Islam's own encyclopedia, Jihad predominantly means war with unbelievers to defend, but also to further the cause of Islam throughout the world -- this is Islam, not just Wahhabism.

JIHAD الْجِهاد
Islamic Encyclopedia Mon, 13 Oct, 2014
Literally, “extraordinary efforts”, “utmost exertion,” or to “strive hard;” but in strict Islamic terminology, fighting with arms, primarily to give ascendancy to the Word of Allah, meaning, to establish His lordship on the earth, where none is worshiped but Allah, and none is obeyed but Allah

So no doubt that Islam is the same yesterday, today and for always a religion of Jihad against unbelievers until the whole world is under Islam through Sharia. Why? Because Muhammad was the last prophet, the seal of the prophets, and no one can change anything Allah commanded through Muhammad as the final orders for Islam - Chapter 9 of the Quran.

 

[JosephZ]

Ibn Al Kathir (one of the two most renouwned Tafsir in Islam) does a good job of interpreting this verse as follows:

Isma'il bin Kathir [1301-1373 AD, was a student under Ibn Taymiyya, one of the foremost of Qur'an interpreters]:

I agree with the above, and if you read the Qur'an along with the commentaries of Ibn Kathir you will learn far more about what Islam teaches than you ever will from visiting anti-Islamic sites like answeringIslam and listening to David Wood.

“Reliance of the Traveller,”

This is another excellent resource.

Actually, you have stated the sources that disagree with you are extremist and anti-Islamic propagandists

Which Islamic sources have I called extremists?

And Saudi Arabia and Iran are at work to promote Islam in the Western Mosques that Western Muslims attend to re-educate them.... Saudi Arabia, and Iran, has spent hundreds of millions of dollars building mosques and promoting their doctrine throughout the US and in Europe.

Iran is doing this? Can you provide a source for this claim?

You asked a simple question in order to attempt to use the answer to incorrectly correlate it to Islam. So the question is unethical. Note that the Pharisees, Sadducees, and teachers of the Law also tried to trick Lord Jesus similarly by their questions, and Jesus played such questions right back onto them.

The question had nothing to do with Islam. I was just trying to find out where you stand on religious fundamentalism in general.

I gave you the sources, and they weren't from answering-islam or any other such incorrectly labeled "anti-Islamic" sites. answering-islam is a great site because it actually quotes the Islamic sources.

Once again, there is nothing wrong with the Islamic sources you provided. It's the way you and answeringislam incorrectly use them.

Look them up for yourself. You will see that the context supports exactly the conclusions stated.

I have and they don't support your conclusions at all.

The Sahih Hadith narrations agree with the conclusions as well - which I repeatedly quoted for you. The reasons that you are unfamiliar with this is that you don't know about Islamic sources. From your responses, I doubt you even know what the Hadith are.

Have you not seen where I have referred to the hadiths in this thread? I have used them for support in several threads since joining this forum.

Anyone with 30 yrs of Islamic study and living among Muslims for decades would know all this. Yet you say you have never learned any of what I am teaching you about Islam in any of the schools you attended in 30 years.

You're not teaching me anything. All you are doing is parroting anti-Islamic propaganda. What you are posting here is identical to what the OP and a handful of other members have posted here from time to time. Same sources, same verses from the Qur'an, same quotes from the hadiths, etc.

You didn't know this simple fact because you never studied Islam, you have no idea what Sharia is, nor could you have lived among Muslims. No one with the education and experience you say you have could be that oblivious of Islam and Sharia or Islamic sources - not even knowing why Muslims dress the way they do.

OK

 

[Joyousperson]

I agree with the above, and if you read the Qur'an along with the commentaries of Ibn Kathir you will learn far more about what Islam teaches than you ever will from visiting anti-Islamic sites like answeringIslam and listening to David Wood.

If you believe the tafsir of Ibn Kathir is credible and reliable, why are condemning AnsweringIslam when they quoted Ibn Kathir.

Note the article re 9:5 from AnsweringIslam re
The Verse of the Sword: Sura 9:5 and Jihad
quoted Ibn Kathir; [partially]

Allah said next,

So when the Sacred Months have passed…meaning, "Upon the end of the four months during which We prohibited you from fighting the idolators, and which is the grace period We gave them, then fight and kill the idolators wherever you many find them." Allah’s statement next,

then fight the Mushrikin wherever you find them, means, on the earth in general, except for the Sacred Area, for Allah said,​

From the above, Ibn Kathir interpret "wherever" in 9:5 refer to Earth-in-General, thus not historical.

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 'abrogated' and 'no idolater .. had any more promise of safety after Suran Bara;ah was revealed" also meant 9:5 and related verses will be the default as the divine command from thereon till eternity since the Quran is immutable.

The AnsweringIslam article quoted Ibn Kathir as above with the following note;

The "Tafsir of Ibn Kathir" 14, on chapter 9. I am using the English commentary volume 4, starting on page 369 and on, published by Darussalam. The Quranic verses (Ayat) are in Green color, bold, and Ibn Kathir’s tafsir will be in blue color. Text in { } type brackets is mine.​

You insisted AnsweringIslam people are wrong. Show proofs they are wrong?

setst777 said: ↑
“Reliance of the Traveller,”

This is another excellent resource.

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

 

[setst777]

I agree with the above, and if you read the Qur'an along with the commentaries of Ibn Kathir you will learn far more about what Islam teaches than you ever will from visiting anti-Islamic sites like answeringIslam and listening to David Wood.

This is another excellent resource.

Which Islamic sources have I called extremists?

Iran is doing this? Can you provide a source for this claim?

The question had nothing to do with Islam. I was just trying to find out where you stand on religious fundamentalism in general.

Once again, there is nothing wrong with the Islamic sources you provided. It's the way you and answeringislam incorrectly use them.

I have and they don't support your conclusions at all.

Have you not seen where I have referred to the hadiths in this thread? I have used them for support in several threads since joining this forum.

You're not teaching me anything. All you are doing is parroting anti-Islamic propaganda. What you are posting here is identical to what the OP and a handful of other members have posted here from time to time. Same sources, same verses from the Qur'an, same quotes from the hadiths, etc.
OK

Hi Joseph,

setst777 said: ↑
Ibn Al Kathir (one of the two most renouwned Tafsir in Islam) does a good job of interpreting this verse as follows:

setst777 said: ↑
Isma'il bin Kathir [1301-1373 AD, was a student under Ibn Taymiyya, one of the foremost of Qur'an interpreters]:

Joseph responds:
<<
I agree with the above, and if you read the Qur'an along with the commentaries of Ibn Kathir you will learn far more about what Islam teaches than you ever will from visiting anti-Islamic sites like answeringIslam and listening to David Wood.
>>

Setst RE: 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.

setst777 said: ↑
“Reliance of the Traveller,”

Joseph responds:
>>
This is another excellent resource.
>>

Setst RE: 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."

Information I gave to show you what Sharia demands regarding unbelievers, Jihad, and other parts of Sharia were from Islamic sites and Islamic sources.

setst777 said: ↑
Actually, you have stated the sources that disagree with you are extremist and anti-Islamic propagandists

Joseph responds:
<<
Which Islamic sources have I called extremists?
>>

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

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

Joseph responds:
The only people you will find teaching that the older verses in the Qur'an that promote peace, tolerance, and coexistence have been superseded by verses revealed later in the Qur'an that promote war and violence are extremists and anti-Islamic propagandists.
>>

I quoted many of the best Islamic sources stated that the later commands of Allah abrogate the earlier verses and you call them extremist and Islamic propagandists.

setst777 said: ↑
And Saudi Arabia and Iran are at work to promote Islam in the Western Mosques that Western Muslims attend to re-educate them.... Saudi Arabia, and Iran, has spent hundreds of millions of dollars building mosques and promoting their doctrine throughout the US and in Europe.

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

setst777 said: ↑
You asked a simple question in order to attempt to use the answer to incorrectly correlate it to Islam. So the question is unethical. Note that the Pharisees, Sadducees, and teachers of the Law also tried to trick Lord Jesus similarly by their questions, and Jesus played such questions right back onto them.

Joseph responds:
<<
The question had nothing to do with Islam. I was just trying to find out where you stand on religious fundamentalism in general.
>>

Setst RE: Your question had nothing to do with Islam? Here is your question….

<<
JosephZ said: ↑
Since you believe that Fundamentalist Islamic extremists are the only ones who are correct in their interpretation of Islam, do you also believe that Independent Fundamental Baptists are the only denomination in Christianity that have it right?
>>

I wish you could remember what you wrote. You are attempting to make a point by incorrectly correlating Islam with the question regarding Fundamental Baptists. Now you say: “The question as nothing to do with Islam.” I find that puzzling. I mean is this site not about “bashing Islam?” So, if your question had nothing to do with Islam then WHY DID YOU ASK IT?

setst777 said: ↑
I gave you the sources, and they weren't from answering-islam or any other such incorrectly labeled "anti-Islamic" sites. answering-islam is a great site because it actually quotes the Islamic sources.

Joseph responds:
<<
Once again, there is nothing wrong with the Islamic sources you provided. It's the way you and answeringislam incorrectly use them.
>>

Setst RE: You can say that all you want, but you have refuted not even one source given from the Qur’an, the Hadith, Ibn Kathir, or any or the best Islamic scholars I quoted, that show that:

1) Newer violent verses abrogate the older peaceful verses
2) That physical jihad against unbelievers is ongoing until the whole world is under Islam through Sharia

The only defense you gave was to say that all quotes given are out of context with no proof, and that all the Islam sources I gave that disagree with your position are extremist and Islamic propaganda, or are parroted from David Wood and others. These are slanderous comments against Islam and against myself.

setst777 said: ↑
Look them up for yourself. You will see that the context supports exactly the conclusions stated.

Joseph responds:
<<
I have and they don't support your conclusions at all.
>>

Setst RE: Then why don’t you quote all the sources I gave and show me where the sources I quoted are out of context – including the sources on Jihad from Wikipedia.com and from the Islamic Encyclopedia.

setst777 said: ↑
The Sahih Hadith narrations agree with the conclusions as well - which I repeatedly quoted for you. The reasons that you are unfamiliar with this is that you don't know about Islamic sources. From your responses, I doubt you even know what the Hadith are.

Joseph responds:
<<
Have you not seen where I have referred to the hadiths in this thread? I have used them for support in several threads since joining this forum.
>>

Setst RE: 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.

The first time you used a few of the Hadith in response to Taqyah to attempt to show the Taqyah does not mean deceiving or lying because that would be dishonest.

However in my response to you, I showed you that the hadith you used did not address Taqyah, just dishonesty and a white lie if it would make things better. No one would deny that Islam teaches that dishonesty is a sin.

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.

The context I gave, Islamic sources show that, in Jihad against unbelievers, and when a minority in a non-Muslim land, taqyah is acceptable. In such cases, it is permissible and necessary to lie to prevent the enemy from becoming hostile to Islam’s true agenda – to conquer them for Islam. “War is deceit.”

Then in Message 158 you quote three Islamic scholars out of context to show that the Qur’an 9 command was only for that time and place. However I quoted those SAME scholars in context, and showed, by their own messages what they actually said – that although the command was given at a specific time and place, the command itself was to continue until the whole world was under the power of Islam.

Yes, we all agree that Ch 9 deals with a specific time and place, but the scholars you quoted clearly stated that the Ch 9 command abrogated all earlier verses of peace and that this was a message to establish Islam throughout the world. That is what the scholars stated IN context that You quoted.

Then in Message 162 You quote part of Chapter 9 and then supply your own commentary as a self-appointed Tafsir. As Chief Mufassir that trumps the best Tafsirs, you then dethrone all those Islamic Mufassirun and scholars and Hadith and proclaim your explanation as the only valid one. That is how you use sources.

And you quote Qur'an 5:3 and supply a commentary that you give no source for - even when I asked you - that the best Islamic Scholars and Tafsir teach just the opposite – as if Qur’an 5:3 abrogated Chapter 9 and all violent verses in the Qur’an. Such is not taught anywhere by the best Islamic scholars, Hadith, Tafsir, and is not taught by Shia or Sunni Muslims.

All the best Islamic sources agree that the Chapter 9 command establishes Jihad (fighting against unbelievers) throughout the earth until Islam is supreme. That is why even the Islamic Encyclopedia states that Jihad is mainly to fight unbelievers until Islam is supreme. Both Sunni and Shia Muslims teach the same.

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.

In MSG 169 you again arrogantly try to act as Chief Mufassir to explain away the best Islamic Tafsirs and scholars on Qur'an 9.

Those are the only times you quoted any Islamic sources, at least in our discussion on this thread. In each case, you have shown that you do not understand Islamic sources, you don’t really know what the Hadith are, and stubbornly refuse to accept the conclusion that the Islamic sources clearly reveal about Taqyah and worldwide Jihad unbelievers until Islam rules under Sharia.

If the Islamic sources disagree with you then you call them extremist Islamic propaganda and then supply your own meaning as the supreme authority over Islam's most trusted sources.

setst777 said: ↑
Anyone with 30 yrs of Islamic study and living among Muslims for decades would know all this. Yet you say you have never learned any of what I am teaching you about Islam in any of the schools you attended in 30 years.

Joseph responds:
<<
You're not teaching me anything. All you are doing is parroting anti-Islamic propaganda. What you are posting here is identical to what the OP and a handful of other members have posted here from time to time. Same sources, same verses from the Qur'an, same quotes from the hadiths, etc.
>>

Setst RE: You are right, no one can teach you anything. Those are your thoughts. Once again, you are calling all the Islamic tafsir, Qur’an, Hadith that I, and Scholars of Islam that I quoted as “anti-Islamic propaganda.”

I would be very careful about slandering Islam or its sacred books, especially on a public forum.

Never forget that Islam is to be supreme over all other religions through Jihad, just as Islam teaches…

<<
JIHAD الْجِهاد
Islamic EncyclopediaMon, 13 Oct, 2014

Literally, “extraordinary efforts”, “utmost exertion,” or to “strive hard;” but in strict Islamic terminology, fighting with arms, primarily to give ascendency to the Word of Allah, meaning, to establish His lordship on the earth, where none is worshipped but Allah, and none is obeyed but Allah:

A man went up to the Prophet and said, “A man fights for tribal (or national) honor, or to display his valor, or to show off, so which one of these is in the way of Allah?” He answered, “He who fought in order to achieve ascendency for Allah’s word, is in the way of Allah.”
>>

setst777 said: ↑
You didn't know this simple fact because you never studied Islam, you have no idea what Sharia is, nor could you have lived among Muslims. No one with the education and experience you say you have could be that oblivious of Islam and Sharia or Islamic sources - not even knowing why Muslims dress the way they do.

Joseph responds: OK

setst RE: Thanks for finally admitting that. There is hope for you after all.

 

[JosephZ]

If you believe the tafsir of Ibn Kathir is credible and reliable, why are condemning AnsweringIslam when they quoted Ibn Kathir.

Note the article re 9:5 from AnsweringIslam re
The Verse of the Sword: Sura 9:5 and Jihad
quoted Ibn Kathir; [partially]

I highlighted the reason why I condemn answeringislam. The partially quote Islamic sources to distort the intended meanings of the texts. In other words, they take things out of textual and historical context.

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

Context is key.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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."

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,

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

Can you give a specific example?

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

It's not that simple. Once again the concept of abrogation is very complex.

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/

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. Secondly, you need to find a better source for information:

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis.

The Clarion Project states its mission as “exposing the dangers of Islamic extremism while providing a platform for the voices of moderation and promoting grassroots activism.” 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)

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.

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: Your question had nothing to do with Islam? Here is your question….

<<
JosephZ said: ↑
Since you believe that Fundamentalist Islamic extremists are the only ones who are correct in their interpretation of Islam, do you also believe that Independent Fundamental Baptists are the only denomination in Christianity that have it right?
>>

I wish you could remember what you wrote. You are attempting to make a point by incorrectly correlating Islam with the question regarding Fundamental Baptists. Now you say: “The question as nothing to do with Islam.” I find that puzzling. I mean is this site not about “bashing Islam?” So, if your question had nothing to do with Islam then WHY DID YOU ASK IT?

I do remember what I wrote, you just can't seem to comprehend what I'm asking. Once again, the reason I asked was to find out your position on religious fundamentalism. It has nothing to do specifically with either Christianity or Islam.

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. 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.

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.

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

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 help explain why you would have difficulty in understanding the concept, much less be able to determine which verses have been abrogated.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

 

[Joyousperson]

I highlighted the reason why I condemn answeringislam. The partially quote Islamic sources to distort the intended meanings of the texts. In other words, they take things out of textual and historical context.

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.

What is the point of giving the tafsir of the whole chapter 9 to read.
Show me where is the error specifically in relation to the tafsir of Ibn Kathir.

JosephZ wrote
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?
​

I would say the same 'maybe you are being misled by those anti-Islamic propaganda sites you visit?"
It is more likely you are misled due to Confirmation Bias by your preferred scholars and they have to window-dress [Taqiyya] what they write in public.

Note the objective approach is to ground whatever interpretation to the Quran and its whole context.
What AnsweringIslam quoted in reference to 9:5 from Ibn Kathir is directly to the point.
Show me where the error.

Whatever the contention which I think the extremists are right in their interpretation of 9:5 as defensive and offensive, YOU, me or others do not have the authority to judge the extremists are wrong. This the reality of the STALEMATE Dilemma the ideology of Islam [an incompetent ideology] has created.

So whatever you believe, the reality is, the ideology of Islam with its loads of evil and violent elements will influence to compel SOME evil prone Muslims from pool of 320 million evil prone [currently] to commit terrible evil and violent acts upon non-Muslims as a religious duty to please Allah.

 

[Joyousperson]

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. Secondly, you need to find a better source for information:

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis.

The Clarion Project states its mission as “exposing the dangers of Islamic extremism while providing a platform for the voices of moderation and promoting grassroots activism.” 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)

What authority and credibility has the Southern Poverty Law Center to critique the Clarion Project as extreme right-wing bias.

I believe the Southern Poverty Law Center itself is an extreme left wing organization.
The people on the left-wing are getting very paranoid, stupid and irrational. They will even jump in and brand 'Jews' as Nazis, fascist and racist. Anyone who do not agree at the slightest with their views are branded right-wing, alt-right, bigots, racists, fascists and the likes.
Most on the left these days do not respect objective arguments just like what you are doing here.