Do Not Bash Muslims

[Joyousperson]

As long as you are using sources like the ones below, that's what you are going to believe.

setst777 said: ↑
IslamicSupremacism.org
http://www.saneworks.us/uploads/application/52.pdf (David Yerushalmi)
Topical study on: Islam and jihad
Amillennialist Contra Mundum | Verbum Domini Manet in aeternum: Exposing Islam's Big Lies​

None of those sources should be used to learn about Islam and what it teaches.

Below are some more qualified sources.

The Use of Force under Islamic Law -- Niaz A. Shah

The concept of Jihad in Islamic Jurisprudence: its meaning and evolution throughout history -- Federico Borsari

The Concept and Practice of Jihad in Islam -- Michael G. Knapp

Jihād as Defense: Just-war theory in the Quran and Sunnah -- Justin Parrott

You will find that, despite being from differing backgrounds, these sources all use the exact same verses from the Qur'an and hadiths as Robert Spencer and the other sources you have provided, yet they come to a more logical conclusion. The reason they do, is because they know how to read these texts and put them into their proper textual and historical context.

I did a quick read and listen to the sources provided by Setst777 and yours.
I find Setst777's sources are 10 times more reliable than those of yours.

Your sources' points are weak and faulty;

One source merely cherry picked the verses that are bias to his views without presenting the thorough context of the ideology Islam.
Another insist the verses are specific to the historical period of the 7th century.
Dr. Bilal quote mostly from the Ahadith and not the Quran plus practicing Taqiyyah and deception in his explanation.

Example Dr. Philips stated Jihad is more about personal struggle but justifiable for war/fighting purposes if there is a threat against from a tyrant or anyone. This is precisely what is quoted by Bin Laden [ironically Quranic evidences provided by Setst77's sources, not yours] relied upon to attack the West for being tyrant and occupying Islamic lands and committing all sorts of fasad against Islam and Muslims. So where is Bin Laden wrong? which is in alignment with Dr. Bilal's view which he did not go into the details and reality of it.​

I stated Setst777 sources are 10 times better than your references, but they are still not deep enough to cover the full context of the ideology of Islam.

In the fuller context of the ideology of Islam, the non-Muslims are the eternal enemies of Islam. This is represented by the 3400++ verses that are antagonistic, dehumanizing and contemptuous to non-Muslims which set the primal US versus THEM of hatred.

This very terrible and intense impulse of US versus THEM is the nursery bed of the ideology of Islam that trigger SOME evil prone to genocides and various atrocities.

The first cause of 8 that trigger genocide is the primal US Versus THEM impulse within an ideology;

Genocide is a process that develops in eight stages that are predictable but not inexorable. At each stage, preventive measures can stop it. The process is not linear. Logically, later stages must be preceded by earlier stages. But all stages continue to operate throughout the process.
1. CLASSIFICATION: All cultures have categories to distinguish people into “us and them” by ethnicity, race, religion, or nationality:
http://www.genocidewatch.org/genocide/8stagesofgenocide.html
​

The existence of this terrible primal mode of the VERY intense US versus THEM impulse within the ideology of Islam and with salvation at stake, is the critical ground for SOME Muslims to war against and commit terrible evil and violent acts upon non-Muslims.

In addition to 3400++ of contemptuous verses directed at non-Muslims there are 1000+ of verses of destruction and extermination of non-Muslims of old for their disbelief and wrongness against Islam.

On top of that there are 300++ verses related to warring against non-Muslims where there are threats [fasad] [very vaguely defined*] against Islam. * even drawing of cartoon of Muhammad is a threat to Islam thus warrant Muslims to kill non-Muslims.

This is an overriding verse for all Muslims to act which is related to the infidels of old, probably 3000 years before Muhammad's time,

5:33. The only reward [punishment] of those [infidels] who
[1] make war [HRB: yuḥāribūna] upon Allah and His messenger and
[2] strive [S3Y: wayasʿawna ] after corruption [FSD: fasādan; mischiefs, wronged] in the land
- will be that they [infidels] will be killed [QTL: yuqattalū] or crucified [SLB: yuṣallabū], or have their [infidels'] hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their [infidels] degradation [KhZY: khiz'yun] in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs [infidels] will be an awful doom;​

Are you insisting the above is historical?
If you insist on the historical context, then all of whatever is related to Muhammad and the old stories of the Bible should be historical and ignored because they are supposed to be relevant to their specific historical periods. This would comprised on 70% of the Quran.
Note I have debunked this point when you agreed Jihad is defensive as and when similar situations related to Muhammad occur.

Allah stated in various verses, the stories of old are potents mean as warning and guides [also 3:138];

2:252. These [stories] are the portents of Allah which We recite unto thee (Muhammad) with truth, and Lo! thou art [one] of the number of (Our) messengers;​

All the verses in the Quran are supposed to be guidance [HDY] for all Muslims to adopt and guide to act in the similar conditions.

3:138. This [Quran] is a [bayānun; clear explanation] declaration for mankind, a guidance and an admonition unto those [Muslims] who ward off (evil) [lil'muttaqīna; god fearing]​

There are many verses in the Quran that state the whole Quran is a guidance for all Muslims.

What I have presented is a fuller context which Setst777's sources covered sufficiently but did not cover more fully and yours sources are much worse with confirmation bias.

What I had presented is merely 60% of the full context and I can present in 90% fuller context based on the 6236 verses of the Quran.

Note I have provided references from the Quran, i.e. the final authority of Allah and Islam. Show me where I am wrong?

 

[setst777]

Neither

setst777 said: ↑
In the context of the other two Sahih Bukhari Hadith that you omitted, a face covering for women is what is meant by the Burka verses in the Qur’an.

Narrated 'Aisha: While I was sitting in my resting place, I was overwhelmed by sleep and slept. Safwan bin Al-Muattal As-Sulami Adh-Dhakwani was behind the army. When he reached my place in the morning, he saw the figure of a sleeping person and he recognized me on seeing me as he had seen me before the order of compulsory veiling (was prescribed). So I woke up when he recited Istirja' (i.e. "Inna lillahi wa inna llaihi raji'un") as soon as he recognized me. I veiled my face with my head cover at once, and by Allah, we did not speak a single word, and I did not hear him saying any word besides his Istirja'. He dismounted from his camel and made it kneel down, putting his leg on its front legs and then I got up and rode on it. [...]
Sahih Bukhari 5:59:462

Narrated Safiya bint Shaiba: 'Aisha used to say: "When (the Verse): "They should draw their veils over their necks and bosoms," was revealed, (the ladies) cut their waist sheets at the edges and covered their faces with the cut pieces."
Sahih Bukhari 6:60:282

Neither of those hadiths command Muslim women to cover their faces or wear a burka and if you read the sources I provided earlier, you would understand why they don't.

Setst RE: They sure do. You can’t get any clearer than what is plainly stated. The Qur'an, the Hadith, and the Hanbali and the Shafii are all labelled by you as extremists by your own definition.

Since you discredit the Qur'an and Hadith as extremist, that really means your version of Islam is a fake.

setst777 said: ↑
Joyousperson already responded to your sick bigoted attacks on the credibility of others, and dismissing all documentation.

It's not just me, its scholars of Islam and Islamic history, historians, and real experts doing this as well.

Setst RE: Scholars of Islam? You mean those few Western scholars who water down Islam, or those that have an agenda against the United States?

I quote:
<<
[David] Cook argued that "Presentations along these lines [the Western presentation of Islam in the most innocuous manner possible] are ideological in tone and should be discounted for their bias and deliberate ignorance of the subject" and that it "is no longer acceptable for Western scholars or Muslim apologists writing in non-Muslim languages to make flat, unsupported statements concerning the prevalence — either from a historical point of view or within contemporary Islam — of the spiritual jihad."[195]
Jihad - Wikipedia
>>

Many scholars disagree with you.

• David Cook, Dr. Bostom, Robert Spencer, Dr. David Wood, are just the more well known history scholars that disagree with you.
• Islam’s Jurists, the Caliphs, and most respected Mufassirun also disagree with you.
• Islam's Quran, Hadith and Sira (of which the Jurists, Caliphs and Mufassirun quote to justify Jihad) also disagree with you.

All of these sources you label as extremist by your own definition.

The genuine objective scholars are the ones who actually quote the Jurists, the Caliphs, and the historical documents, and the Sahih Hadeth, and foremost, the Qur’an. Those are the ones you dislike.

The real scholars are Islam’s Jurists themselves who are in agreement regarding Jihad against all unbelievers until Islam is the only religion. That is how they interpret or understand the Qur'an, Hadith and Sira on Jihad.

The Jurists and the most renowned Mufassiun are the ones who actually quote the Qur’an and Hadith as their authority and their command to commit Jihad against unbelievers, so the Qur’an is applicable for all time despite the fact that you dislike it.

I provided links to source material for you showing that this is the case. I will also include wikiislam, because they also contain many of the Jurists:

• Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Scholars on Jihad - WikiIslam
• http://www.saneworks.us/uploads/application/52.pdf
• Topical study on: Islam and jihad
• Amillennialist Contra Mundum | Verbum Domini Manet in aeternum: Exposing Islam's Big Lies
• Islamicsupremacism.org

Like I said before and say again, 1400 years of Islamic history does not lie.

Thanks to Islamic historians: Dr. Bostom and Robert Spencer, Edmond Fagnan, Thomas P. Hughes, , Henri Laoust, Rudolph Peters, Shaykh al Uyayri, Franz Rosenthal, Leon Bercher, Dr. Michael Schub, , Noah Ha Mim Keller, Michael J. Miller, Yohanan Friedmann, Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi , Droit Musulman, V.B. Moreen, Barry Rubin, Judith Colp Rubin, Terry Nardin, and so many more, including Islam’s own scholars throughout its history, including:

Kitab Mahal, Majid Khadduri, Al-Suyuti, Durr al-Manthur, Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi, Al-Mawardi, Ahmad Ibn Lulu Ibn Al-Naqib, Abd Allah ibn `Abbas, Abu Tahir Muhammad ibn Yaqub al-Fayruz Aabadi, Jami-i-Abbasi, Baha' al-Din Muhammad ibn Husayn al-Amili, Fatemeh Masjedi, Risala-ya Sawa'iq al-Yahud, al Tabari, Ibn Kathir, Yaqub ibn Ibrahim al-Ansari (Abu Yusuf), Muhammad al-Shaybani, Shaikh Burhanuddin Ali, Shah Wali-Allah, Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, Ibn Qudamah, Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Qayyim, Mālik ibn Anas, Ibn Rushd (Averroes), Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Abi Zayd, Abū ʿAbdillāh Muhammad ibn Idrīs al-Shāfiʿī, Al-Ghazali (Algazel), Al-Mawardi, Al-Misri, Ziauddin Barani, Ibn Hudayl, Ahmad Sirhindi, Al-Hilli, Al-`Amili, Al-Majlisi.

Also, thanks also to Modern Day Islam’s Scholars, some of which are:

Majid Khadduri, Sayyid Qutb, Ruhollah Khomeini, Bassam Tibi, Dr. M. Sa’id Ramadan Al-Buti, Sheikh Abdullah Yusuf Azzam, Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid

Thanks to the above mentioned scholars, Islamic scholars, Jurists, Mufassirun, researchers, and writers of Islamic history, and so many more not mentioned, we possess an accurate understanding of Islam, of Islam’s core Scriptures, and of Islamic Jihad.

Thanks to the work of Dr. Bostom, Robert Spencer and many other notable historians of Islam, we now possess that historical record of Islam showing us the reality of Islam in its 1400 + years of history, and its use of the Qur’an, Hadith and Sira as applicable authorities to carry out Jihad against all unbelievers for all time.

To deny that such Jihad is part of mainstream traditional Islam (Sharia) since inception, is to suggest that Allah, Muhammad, the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs, and all the Caliphs after them, Muslim Jurists, and the most respected of Islam’s mufassirūn throughout Islam's history have drastically misunderstood the religion of Islam and its core Scriptures.

Unbelievably, that is your position - a position of denial. All such sources you call "extremist" per your own definition.

setst777 said: ↑
I will just add that Dr. Bostom is well known and praised for making publicly available, for the first time in the world, the collection and interpretation of a plethora of historical Islamic texts from their originals, and also secondary historical sources, on the actual history of Jihad.

Yes, he is well known and praised within the Anti-Muslim/Islam Fringe which is not surprising. Outside of this group, his work for the most part is considered to be unscholarly.

Setst RE: Look at the source material, and stop judging people by your own subjective bias.

setst777 said: ↑
What I provided from Bostom was the historical Jurists fiqh position on Jihad in all four schools of Sunni, and also of Shia – from Islam’s highest authorities.

setst777 said: ↑
The Sunni and Shia positions are identical in that Jihad is defensive and offensive until the whole world is one religion, Islam. That is the position of traditional Islam from their most respected jurists and scholars.

setst777 said: ↑
Islam is the only religion which demands violence against unbelievers in order to make Islam the only religion on earth – this is according to all the foremost Muslim Jurists of Sunni and Shia Islam, and demonstrated by the history of Islam Jihad since inception.

As long as you are using sources like the ones below, that's what you are going to believe.

Setst RE: Look at the source material provided and stop attacking the messengers just because they don’t agree with you.

Continued. . .

 

[setst777]

Neither

Continued. . .

setst777 said: ↑

IslamicSupremacism.org

http://www.saneworks.us/uploads/application/52.pdf (David Yerushalmi)

Topical study on: Islam and jihad

Amillennialist Contra Mundum | Verbum Domini Manet in aeternum: Exposing Islam's Big Lies

None of those sources should be used to learn about Islam and what it teaches.

Setst RE: Of course they shouldn't be used, because it is Islam's own recorded history from its most reliable sources. That is something you totally detest.

What do we actually learn about Islam and Jihad from:

• the Qur’an?
• the Hadith?
• Sira?
• Islam’s most respected Jurists?
• Islam's most renowned mufassirun?
• Islam's Caliphs?
• Islam's 1400 yrs of recorded history of Jihad?

We learn that all these sources are all in agreement with the history of Islamic conquest - that Jihad against unbelievers is to continue until the world is Islam.

And that is the only sources of information the above listed sites utilize. No political or personal agenda or prejudiced opinions and bigotry. Just the facts are give from Islam’s original source material.

You can call it offensive or defensive, but the result is the same…

According to the Jurists and the Caliphs and the best Mufassirun, we understand that all unbelievers who resist Islam’s call to submit to Islam are a threat to Islam’s goal to follow the command of Allah to make Islam the only religion on earth.

Those who resist the call of Islam are a threat to Islam, and are to be fought (this can be called defensive or offensive, because of the threat involved to Islam's goal of Jihad to those who resist and refuse Islams call). This is not my view; rather, this is what 1400 year of jihad history have proven as recorded in Islam's own historical sources.

Jihad is commanded against all unbelievers who refuse the invitation to become Muslims per

• the Qur’an,
• the Hadith,
• the Sira,
• the Rightly Guided Caliphs,
• all the Caliphs throughout Islam's history,
• the Jurists,
• the most renowned Mufassirun,
• and is demonstrated by 1400 years of Islamic Jihad against unbelievers.

Below are some more qualified sources.

Setst RE: The few sources you listed have an agenda from their own perspective – that is so very obvious. They are not relying on Islam’s own sources to explain 1400 years of Jihad as commanded in the

• the Qur’an,
• the Hadith,
• the Sira,
• the Rightly Guided Caliphs,
• all the Caliphs throughout Islam's history,
• the Jurists,
• the most renowned Mufassirun,
• and is demonstrated by 1400 years of Islamic Jihad against unbelievers.

Instead, they are spouting off a political agenda of their own making and using statements out of context. All one has to do is start reading their literature, and will understand what I am saying.

You will find that, despite being from differing backgrounds, these sources all use the exact same verses from the Qur'an and hadiths as Robert Spencer and the other sources you have provided, yet they come to a more logical conclusion. The reason they do, is because they know how to read these texts and put them into their proper textual and historical context.

Setst RE:

Why are those same verses quoted repeatedly?

Answer: Those exact verses are quoted by:

• the Rightly Guided Caliphs,
• all the Caliphs throughout Islam's history,
• the Jurists,
• the most renowned Mufassirun,
• and is demonstrated by 1400 years of Islamic Jihad against unbelievers.

This recorded Islamic History shows that particular Quranic Jihad verses and Hadith are quoted to justify and glorify Jihad against unbelievers from Islam’s inception to the present day. That is why scholars quote those Jihad verses.

So you cannot counter by saying those Qur'anic Jihad verses are only for a specific historical purpose, when all of Islam’s history shows that those verses were unanimously understood by Islams Caliphs, Jurists and best Mufassirun to be an ongoing Jihad against unbelievers until Islam is the only religion in the whole world.

Hundreds of verses are quoted by scholars, but Islam’s core verses for Jihad is what these scholars concentrate on - Qur'an 9:5-33 being the most prominent.

This really all comes down to common sense. How would it be possible for a religion that teaches the way you describe Islam in this thread to thrive and prosper in the world for more than 1,400 years? It would be impossible for a religion like the one you have been describing in this thread to grow to more than 1.6 billion followers if what you believe about Islam were true. Why would so many people be converting to Islam if it taught the way you believe?

Setst RE: Common sense is what you lack, so I would not talk about common sense.

1400 years of Islamic history do not lie.

Which will I choose to believe…

• 1400 years of recorded history from Islam’s own sources from their own Caliphs, Jurists, and Musfassirun, the Qur’an, the Hadith?…
• or should I rather follow your bigoted taqyah version of common sense?

The choice is obvious. If I want to find out the reality of Islam, I must go to Islam’s core Scriptures and sources, and their own history to find out.

• the Qur’an,
• the Hadith,
• the Sira,
• the Rightly Guided Caliphs,
• all the Caliphs throughout Islam's history,
• the Jurists,
• the most renowned Mufassirun,
• and is demonstrated by 1400 years of Islamic Jihad against unbelievers.

You don't want to find out about the real Islam. You instead bow down to those supposed scholars in the West, and Salafi Phillips, who are instead relying on their own personal agenda to re-write history.

So I ask you:

Which is the real objective common sense?

Face it Joseph, you are a victim of political correctness and taqyah.

Why? Well, some people are just very gullible. I think that is why, if you see Muslims smile when you are around, it is because you are their infidel stooge to help mask Islam’s true agenda. Basically, you are a puppet of Islam’s Jihad (in stages) agenda to conquer the world and bring it under Sharia.

I would be happy with you too if I were a Muslim. You pose no threat to Islam and its mission of Jihad. Instead you are promoting Islam’s agenda to placate the West though Taqyah. What more could any good Muslim hope for from an infidel?

You are the kind of infidel that Islam should be happy about. And the sad thing is, I doubt you even know you are a stooge for Islam’s agenda. But if you really knew what you were doing, then that would be treasonous.

 

[JosephZ]

I did a quick read and listen to the sources provided by Setst777 and yours.
I find Setst777's sources are 10 times more reliable than those of yours.

I stated Setst777 sources are 10 times better than your references,

You consider an anonymous youtuber who goes by the name "Christian Prince" to be a reliable source, so I'm not surprised that you find the sources Setst777 provided to be better than the ones I did.

Dr. Philips stated Jihad is more about personal struggle but justifiable for war/fighting purposes if there is a threat against from a tyrant or anyone. This is precisely what is quoted by Bin Laden [ironically Quranic evidences provided by Setst77's sources, not yours] relied upon to attack the West for being tyrant and occupying Islamic lands and committing all sorts of fasad against Islam and Muslims. So where is Bin Laden wrong? which is in alignment with Dr. Bilal's view which he did not go into the details and reality of it.

Dr. Philips position on physical jihad is the most widely held in Islam.

They sure do. You can’t get any clearer than what is plainly stated... Since you discredit the Qur'an and Hadith as extremist, that really means your version of Islam is a fake.

If those hadiths are so clear and plainly stated as you claim, why don't the Hanafi and Maliki schools of thought (The oldest and most widely followed) not teach that women need to cover their faces?

Let's put the hadith you quoted into historical context.

I found my necklace after the army had gone, and came to their camp to find nobody. So, I went to the place where I used to stay thinking they would discover my absence and come back in my search. While I was sitting in my resting place, I was overwhelmed by sleep and slept. Safwan bin Al Muattal As Sulami Adh Dalhwant was behind the army. When he reached my place in the morning, he saw the figure of a sleeping person, and he recognized me as he had seen me before the order of compulsory veiling (was prescribed). So I woke up when he recited Istirja as soon as he recognized me. I veiled my face with my head cover at once, and by Allah, we did not speak a single word, and I did not hear him saying any word besides his Istirja. -- Sahih Bukhari 5:59:462

In that hadith it was being questioned as to whether or not Aisha had an affair with Safwan a companion of Muhammad and an Arab commander. The reason Aisha covered her face in the above hadith was not because it was commanded of her, it was to give testimony that she didn't have an affair with Safwan by putting a complete barrier between herself and the Arab commander and not speaking to him during the time that they were alone.

Ironically, the second hadith you quoted is often used to show that no covering of the head or face is required and only modest dress:

'Aisha used to say: "When (the Verse): "They should draw their veils over their necks and bosoms," was revealed, (the ladies) cut their waist sheets at the edges and covered their faces with the cut pieces." Sahih Bukhari 6:60:282

Thanks to... Islam’s own scholars throughout its history, including:

Kitab Mahal, Majid Khadduri, Al-Suyuti, Durr al-Manthur, Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi, Al-Mawardi, Ahmad Ibn Lulu Ibn Al-Naqib, Abd Allah ibn `Abbas, Abu Tahir Muhammad ibn Yaqub al-Fayruz Aabadi, Jami-i-Abbasi, Baha' al-Din Muhammad ibn Husayn al-Amili, Fatemeh Masjedi, Risala-ya Sawa'iq al-Yahud, al Tabari, Ibn Kathir, Yaqub ibn Ibrahim al-Ansari (Abu Yusuf), Muhammad al-Shaybani, Shaikh Burhanuddin Ali, Shah Wali-Allah, Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, Ibn Qudamah, Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Qayyim, Mālik ibn Anas, Ibn Rushd (Averroes), Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Abi Zayd, Abū ʿAbdillāh Muhammad ibn Idrīs al-Shāfiʿī, Al-Ghazali (Algazel), Al-Mawardi, Al-Misri, Ziauddin Barani, Ibn Hudayl, Ahmad Sirhindi, Al-Hilli, Al-`Amili, Al-Majlisi.

Also, thanks also to Modern Day Islam’s Scholars, some of which are:

Majid Khadduri, Sayyid Qutb, Ruhollah Khomeini, Bassam Tibi, Dr. M. Sa’id Ramadan Al-Buti, Sheikh Abdullah Yusuf Azzam, Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid

How many of the Islamic scholars above in that list that you copied and pasted from wikiislam have you taken the time to study? Aside from the selective quotes from the above mentioned scholars that were cherry picked by wikiislam, what other works have you read from them? The reason I ask is because some of the scholars on that list disagree with what you are saying in this thread and taught that jihad is purely defensive.

I provided links to source material for you showing that this is the case. I will also include wikiislam, because they also contain many of the Jurists:

• Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Scholars on Jihad - WikiIslam
• http://www.saneworks.us/uploads/application/52.pdf
• Topical study on: Islam and jihad
• Amillennialist Contra Mundum | Verbum Domini Manet in aeternum: Exposing Islam's Big Lies
• Islamicsupremacism.org

Thanks to the above mentioned scholars, Islamic scholars, Jurists, Mufassirun, researchers, and writers of Islamic history, and so many more not mentioned, we possess an accurate understanding of Islam, of Islam’s core Scriptures, and of Islamic Jihad.

The sources you provided distort the Islamic scholars and jurist's intent by only quoting small portions of what they have said on the subject of jihad and failing to include the historical context in which they were said to deceive those who visit their site about what Islam teaches.

The real scholars are Islam’s Jurists themselves who are in agreement regarding Jihad against all unbelievers until Islam is the only religion. That is how they interpret or understand the Qur'an, Hadith and Sira on Jihad.The Jurists and the most renowned Mufassiun are the ones who actually quote the Qur’an and Hadith as their authority and their command to commit Jihad against unbelievers, so the Qur’an is applicable for all time despite the fact that you dislike it.

What I provided from Bostom was the historical Jurists fiqh position on Jihad in all four schools of Sunni, and also of Shia – from Islam’s highest authorities....
The Sunni and Shia positions are identical in that Jihad is defensive and offensive until the whole world is one religion, Islam. That is the position of traditional Islam from their most respected jurists and scholars.

The positions between Sunni and Shia are NOT identical on the subject of jihad, and there is also division among the four schools of thought within Sunni Islam with three of the four concluding that jihad is defensive in nature.

According to the majority of jurists, the Hanafī, Mālikī, and Hanbalī schools, is that the Qur’ānic casus belli are restricted to aggression against Muslims and fitnah, that is, persecution of Muslims because of their religious belief (Qur’ān 2:190; 2:193; 4:75; 22:39–40).

War and coercion are not means by which religion may be propagated because belief in a religion is only a matter of the conviction of the heart
(Qur’ān 2:256; 10:99; 16:93; 18:29).

Fighting non- Muslims solely because they do not believe in Islam contradicts the Qur’ānic injunction (Qur’ān 2:256).

These jurists therefore maintain that only combatants are to be fought; noncombatants such as women, children, clergy, the aged, the insane, farmers, serfs, the blind, and so on are not to be killed in war.

This prohibition means that fighting is permitted only against those whom Ibn Taymiyyah calls ahl al- mumāna‛ah wa al- muqātilah (combatants) and not against unbelievers per se. Furthermore, Ibn Taymiyyah and al- ana‛ānī (d. 1768) point out, after the cessation of hostilities, non- Muslim prisoners of war are to be released freely or in exchange and are not to be forced to adopt Islam. This indicates that their unbelief in itself is not the justification for war, otherwise they would not be released without accepting Islam. Thus, the Hanafī jurist Ibn Najīm explicitly states: “the reason for jihād in our [the Hanafīs] view is kawnuhum harbā ‛alaynā [literally, their being at war against us], while in al- Shāfi‛ī’s view it is their unbelief.” In fact, what Ibn Najīm means here is that the justification for jihād is the enemy’s hostility and aggression.

The Hanafī jurists al- Shaybānī (d. 189/804–5) and al- Sarakhsī (d. 483/1090–1) emphasize that “although kufr [unbelief in God] is one of the greatest sins, it is between the individual and his God the Almighty and the punishment for this sin is to be postponed to the dār al- jazā’, (the abode of reckoning, the Hereafter).”

The hadīth narrated by Abū Hurayrah in which the Prophet says, “I have been ordered to fight against the people [emphasis added] until they say: There is no God but God,” refers only to the Arab idolaters, according to “the majority of the Muslims,” including the Hanafīs and Ibn Hanbal, while for the Mālikīs, it refers only to the tribe of Quraysh. That is because non- Arab/non- Qurayshite idolaters may either accept Islam or pay jizyah (the tax levied to exempt eligible males from conscription). More importantly, this hadīth means, as Ibn Taymiyyah explains it, that if non- Muslim enemy combatants during the conduct of war accept Islam, the war must cease, but this does not mean that all people have to be fought until they accept Islam. Concerning the reason why jizyah was not to be accepted from Arab/Qurayshite idolaters, according to those who maintain that jizyah was not accepted from them, it is argued that this was because they had already accepted Islam before jizyah was introduced. It is therefore clear, according to this interpretation of the Qur’ān and hadīth, that peace should characterize the normal and permanent relationship with non- Muslims. This conclusion is drawn from the view of these jurists that recourse to war is only justified in defense against enemy hostility and aggression. In line with this position, Ibn Taymiyyah emphasized that jihād is “a defensive war against unbelievers whenever they threatened Islam.”

At present, no matter how contemporary Muslims formulate the Islamic casus belli, the overwhelming majority advocate the same casus belli as that given by the majority of classical jurists, namely, aggression against, or religious persecution of, Muslims. In other words, they advocate jihād as a defensive just war. However, a minority still exists that espouses al- Shāfi‛ī’s understanding of jihād as offensive war against non- Muslims because of their rejection of Islam or refusal to submit to the Islamic state.

Dr Ahmed Aldawoody, born in Egypt, is the Legal Adviser for Islamic Law and Jurisprudence at the ICRC. Prior to joining the ICRC, he was an Assistant Professor in Islamic Studies and Islamic law at Al-Azhar University in Cairo. He was the Assistant Director of Graduate Studies for the Institute for Islamic World Studies at Zayed University in Dubai. He earned his PhD from the University of Birmingham, UK

It is also important to know that jihad also has several other components. When it comes to spreading Islam for example, mission work and da'wah are types of jihad. Physical jihad, or acts of war are limited to self defense.

Common sense is what you lack, so I would not talk about common sense. 1400 years of Islamic history do not lie.

Then how do you explain the main reasons for people converting to Islam and being their preference to Muslim teachings and reading religious texts?

These people are reading the same verses in the Qur'an that you have been quoting in this thread.

How would it be possible for a religion that teaches the way you describe Islam in this thread to thrive and prosper in the world for more than 1,400 years?

It would be impossible for a religion like the one you have been describing in this thread to grow to more than 1.6 billion followers if what you believe about Islam were true.

Do you really believe people (Most of whom are women by the way), would decide to follow a religion that is anything like what you describe in this thread? A religion that is oppressive to women, demands participation in a war against all non-Muslims to spread Islam until it conquers the world, commands female circumcision, commands women cover from head to toe including their faces, demands four witnesses from a victim to prove rape, etc...?

 

[Joyousperson]

You consider an anonymous youtuber who goes by the name "Christian Prince" to be a reliable source, so I'm not surprised that you find the sources Setst777 provided to be better than the ones I did.

Your intellectual IQ is very low.
Note if an anonymous person wrote 2 + 2 = 4 will you be condemning the anonymous person as unreliable with his equation above?

What counts with Islam is whether any statements about Islam do align with the words of Allah i.e. the 6236 verses of the Quran and supported by the Ahadith.

In Christian Prince's case who prefer to be anonymous [due to potential evil from SOME Muslims who will kill anyone who critique Islam] he argued based on the Quran or Ahadith most of the time and he open his reference on the computer screen.

In the below example, show me where Christian Prince's as being anonymous is a handicap or discredit his the credibility of his arguments. I don't agree with CP on everything he said about the verses but what is critical is CP supports his critical points with references to the Quran and Ahadith openly and anyone can see that. I can personally verify to the sources he provided.

On the above hand, in the video you linked Dr. Bilal do not even open the Quran or mentioned the Quran to support his points.

Dr. Philips position on physical jihad is the most widely held in Islam.

On the issue of hijab in that video, he did NOT rely on the Quran fully to justify his points.

On the other hand, re the issue of Jihad, as in this thread,
What is Jihad?
I presented the complete picture of what Allah said about Jihad [JHD] by showing ALL the verses where Jihad [JHD] was mentioned in the Quran in various contexts.
It is from this complete picture of Allah I justified my points in the whole context of the Quran and Allah's intention, that Jihad in the case of warring against non-Muslims is both offensive and defensive.

As a matter of intellectual principle, rigor and quality, how can you compare Dr. Bilal's own personal views from that video to my views based on the complete picture of Allah's intention.

The sources you provided distort the Islamic scholars and jurist's intent by only quoting small portions of what they have said on the subject of jihad and failing to include the historical context in which they were said to deceive those who visit their site about what Islam teaches.

The positions between Sunni and Shia are NOT identical on the subject of jihad, and there is also division among the four schools of thought within Sunni Islam with three of the four concluding that jihad is defensive in nature.

According to the majority of jurists, the Hanafī, Mālikī, and Hanbalī schools, is that the Qur’ānic casus belli are restricted to aggression against Muslims and fitnah, that is, persecution of Muslims because of their religious belief (Qur’ān 2:190; 2:193; 4:75; 22:39–40).

War and coercion are not means by which religion may be propagated because belief in a religion is only a matter of the conviction of the heart
(Qur’ān 2:256; 10:99; 16:93; 18:29).

Fighting non- Muslims solely because they do not believe in Islam contradicts the Qur’ānic injunction (Qur’ān 2:256).

These jurists therefore maintain that only combatants are to be fought; noncombatants such as women, children, clergy, the aged, the insane, farmers, serfs, the blind, and so on are not to be killed in war.

This prohibition means that fighting is permitted only against those whom Ibn Taymiyyah calls ahl al- mumāna‛ah wa al- muqātilah (combatants) and not against unbelievers per se. Furthermore, Ibn Taymiyyah and al- ana‛ānī (d. 1768) point out, after the cessation of hostilities, non- Muslim prisoners of war are to be released freely or in exchange and are not to be forced to adopt Islam. This indicates that their unbelief in itself is not the justification for war, otherwise they would not be released without accepting Islam. Thus, the Hanafī jurist Ibn Najīm explicitly states: “the reason for jihād in our [the Hanafīs] view is kawnuhum harbā ‛alaynā [literally, their being at war against us], while in al- Shāfi‛ī’s view it is their unbelief.” In fact, what Ibn Najīm means here is that the justification for jihād is the enemy’s hostility and aggression.

The Hanafī jurists al- Shaybānī (d. 189/804–5) and al- Sarakhsī (d. 483/1090–1) emphasize that “although kufr [unbelief in God] is one of the greatest sins, it is between the individual and his God the Almighty and the punishment for this sin is to be postponed to the dār al- jazā’, (the abode of reckoning, the Hereafter).”

The hadīth narrated by Abū Hurayrah in which the Prophet says, “I have been ordered to fight against the people [emphasis added] until they say: There is no God but God,” refers only to the Arab idolaters, according to “the majority of the Muslims,” including the Hanafīs and Ibn Hanbal, while for the Mālikīs, it refers only to the tribe of Quraysh. That is because non- Arab/non- Qurayshite idolaters may either accept Islam or pay jizyah (the tax levied to exempt eligible males from conscription). More importantly, this hadīth means, as Ibn Taymiyyah explains it, that if non- Muslim enemy combatants during the conduct of war accept Islam, the war must cease, but this does not mean that all people have to be fought until they accept Islam. Concerning the reason why jizyah was not to be accepted from Arab/Qurayshite idolaters, according to those who maintain that jizyah was not accepted from them, it is argued that this was because they had already accepted Islam before jizyah was introduced. It is therefore clear, according to this interpretation of the Qur’ān and hadīth, that peace should characterize the normal and permanent relationship with non- Muslims. This conclusion is drawn from the view of these jurists that recourse to war is only justified in defense against enemy hostility and aggression. In line with this position, Ibn Taymiyyah emphasized that jihād is “a defensive war against unbelievers whenever they threatened Islam.”

At present, no matter how contemporary Muslims formulate the Islamic casus belli, the overwhelming majority advocate the same casus belli as that given by the majority of classical jurists, namely, aggression against, or religious persecution of, Muslims. In other words, they advocate jihād as a defensive just war. However, a minority still exists that espouses al- Shāfi‛ī’s understanding of jihād as offensive war against non- Muslims because of their rejection of Islam or refusal to submit to the Islamic state.

Dr Ahmed Aldawoody, born in Egypt, is the Legal Adviser for Islamic Law and Jurisprudence at the ICRC. Prior to joining the ICRC, he was an Assistant Professor in Islamic Studies and Islamic law at Al-Azhar University in Cairo. He was the Assistant Director of Graduate Studies for the Institute for Islamic World Studies at Zayed University in Dubai. He earned his PhD from the University of Birmingham, UK

It is also important to know that jihad also has several other components. When it comes to spreading Islam for example, mission work and da'wah are types of jihad. Physical jihad, or acts of war are limited to self defense.


Then how do you explain the main reasons for people converting to Islam and being their preference to Muslim teachings and reading religious texts?

These people are reading the same verses in the Qur'an that you have been quoting in this thread.

How would it be possible for a religion that teaches the way you describe Islam in this thread to thrive and prosper in the world for more than 1,400 years?

It would be impossible for a religion like the one you have been describing in this thread to grow to more than 1.6 billion followers if what you believe about Islam were true.

Do you really believe people (Most of whom are women by the way), would decide to follow a religion that is anything like what you describe in this thread? A religion that is oppressive to women, demands participation in a war against all non-Muslims to spread Islam until it conquers the world, commands female circumcision, commands women cover from head to toe including their faces, demands four witnesses from a victim to prove rape, etc...?

Re the topic of Jihad, what I had presented as in
What is Jihad?
is the complete picture of what Allah intended Jihad to be in the various contexts.

The term 'jihad' literally mean struggle, strive, and the likes thus one can apply that to anything on a personal basis.

As far as Allah and the Quran is concerned whatever is applicable to the term 'jihad' they are covered within the 50+ verses included in the Quran from Allah.

As far as jihad related to warring against and killing non-Muslims, it is very explicit within those verses I quoted.

I suggest you read ALL the verses in the Quran that contain and are related to those words with the root JHD, in the various forms of Jahada, yujahidu, jihad, mujahid, jahid. You will note the core concentration of these words in relation to the whole Quran are related to warring and killing non-Muslim.

If there is only one verses with the term JHD is related vaguely to warring and fighting infidels, then I can agree with you jihad is focus on internal strive against lust and others. But in this case more than 50% of the verses with the JHD root is focused in warring and fighting the infidels.

Re Why not all Muslims are fighting the infidels?
Note ALL human beings are infected with all sorts of dangerous bateria, viruses, cancer cells and other toxins but why is that there are still 7+ billion of humans on earth. The reasons is there are various factors, i.e. the viruses are dormant, the individual resistant is strong but possibility of dying from the potential danger is always there.

It is the same with the ideology of Islam which is a very toxic virus in the minds and brains of Muslims. Why not all Muslims are triggered by the commands of Allah as in the Quran is because of ignorance, their stronger good human values and the non-Muslims are strong. As you can see wherever there is a weakness in the non-Muslims position, the Islam virus will strike as triggered by a critical SOME Muslims.
Southern Philippines is a good example of where there is weakness on the part of the Philippines Government thus the ability of the evil prone Muslims to do their evil acts on non-Muslims. It is the same pattern for these Muslims everywhere.

 

[JosephZ]

In Christian Prince's case... he argued based on the Quran or Ahadith most of the time and he open his reference on the computer screen.

What he is doing is no different that what you, Setst777, David Wood, and others are doing. Anybody can take religious texts out of textual and historical context and make them say whatever they want them to say. It's no different than fundamentalist/extremist Christians who cherry pick verses out of the Bible to justify the death penalty for homosexuals or to justify killing non-Christians.

On the above hand, in the video you linked Dr. Bilal do not even open the Quran or mentioned the Quran to support his points... On the issue of hijab in that video, he did NOT rely on the Quran fully to justify his points. On the other hand, re the issue of Jihad, as in this thread, What is Jihad? I presented the complete picture of what Allah said about Jihad [JHD] by showing ALL the verses where Jihad [JHD] was mentioned in the Quran in various contexts.

I only included Dr. Philips video to show that even a Sunni Salafi Fundamentalist which many consider to have extremist views doesn't teach that women must cover their faces or that physical jihad is to be an offensive act. The other sourced I provided went more into detail with the Qur'an and hadiths.

As a matter of intellectual principle, rigor and quality, how can you compare Dr. Bilal's own personal views from that video to my views based on the complete picture of Allah's intention.

On the subject of jihad and spreading Islam by force, in addition to Dr. Philip's point of view, I also included the points of view from several others.

The Use of Force under Islamic Law -- Niaz A. Shah

The concept of Jihad in Islamic Jurisprudence: its meaning and evolution throughout history -- Federico Borsari

The Concept and Practice of Jihad in Islam -- Michael G. Knapp

Jihād as Defense: Just-war theory in the Quran and Sunnah -- Justin Parrott

In addition to the opinions above, three of the four Sunni schools of thought have a different interpretation of jihad than you and Setst including the Hanafi which is the oldest and most widely followed school of thought in Islam. What you two are doing is taking the teachings of a small minority in Islam and applying those teachings to represent the religion of Islam as a whole.

If the majority of Islamic scholars and jurists both classical and contemporary, including those who were closest to Muhammad have a different interpretation of physical jihad than you, a non-Muslim living in the 21st century, then it's a safe bet that your interpretation is incorrect.

 

[Joyousperson]

What he is doing is no different that what you, Setst777, David Wood, and others are doing. Anybody can take religious texts out of textual and historical context and make them say whatever they want them to say. It's no different than fundamentalist/extremist Christians who cherry pick verses out of the Bible to justify the death penalty for homosexuals or to justify killing non-Christians.

Your response above is too impulsive without listening to CP in the whole videos and the many hundreds of video he has uploaded.

The first credit we have to give to CP is he is arguing based on verses directly from the Quran and Ahadith opened on screen.
In most cases he had crossed references between verses within the Quran and Ahadith plus between the two sources in addition to linking to the tafsirs.
One important point is CP is reading the verses in Arabic and he often critiqued how the translators corrupted the meanings in their translations.

I only included Dr. Philips video to show that even a Sunni Salafi Fundamentalist which many consider to have extremist views doesn't teach that women must cover their faces or that physical jihad is to be an offensive act. The other sourced I provided went more into detail with the Qur'an and hadiths.

The video from Dr. Philips was solely related to Jihad. If Dr. Philips is truly a Salafi Fundamentalist, he had limited and lied about the Salafi's views of jihad.
As I had stated Dr. Philips explanation of Jihad in that video is very amateurish where he did not bring in the Quran.
Obviously he was not as rigor and detailed as I had presented in this thread;
What is Jihad?

I dare say, 99% [if not all] Islamic scholars and experts never present the term 'jihad' like the way I analyzed the term 'jihad' in terms of the words of Allah.

Note my latest response to the thread;

Jihad, literally mean struggle in general, thus applicable to whatever actions and efforts toward a purpose.

In the context of the whole of the ideology of Islam;
Islam in its core is represented by 6236 verses of the Quran which is the direct words of Allah revealed to Muhammad via angel Gabriel.

There are only 40 [corrected] verses with the term 'jihad' [roots J.H.D] in the Quran.
23 of the 40 verses relate to striving and warring against non-Muslims as threats to the religion.
11 of these verses relate to striving with money and lives to war against non-Muslims. This is where motivation for war and suicide bombings come in.

There are ONLY 3 verses where 'jihad' is related to internal personal struggle.

Yes, jihad relate to both internal and external struggle, but one can infer objectively, jihad related to warring against non-Muslims [23/40] has a heavier weightage against jihad related to internal struggle [3/40].

As such over the 1400 years to the present, and with salvation at stake, the term 'jihad' has naturally gravitated to mean 'holy war against non-Muslims' as the default meaning. This is confirmed in the Arabic dictionaries.​

On the subject of jihad and spreading Islam by force, in addition to Dr. Philip's point of view, I also included the points of view from several others.

The Use of Force under Islamic Law -- Niaz A. Shah

The concept of Jihad in Islamic Jurisprudence: its meaning and evolution throughout history -- Federico Borsari

The Concept and Practice of Jihad in Islam -- Michael G. Knapp

Jihād as Defense: Just-war theory in the Quran and Sunnah -- Justin Parrott

In addition to the opinions above, three of the four Sunni schools of thought have a different interpretation of jihad than you and Setst including the Hanafi which is the oldest and most widely followed school of thought in Islam. What you two are doing is taking the teachings of a small minority in Islam and applying those teachings to represent the religion of Islam as a whole.

If the majority of Islamic scholars and jurists both classical and contemporary, including those who were closest to Muhammad have a different interpretation of physical jihad than you, a non-Muslim living in the 21st century, then it's a safe bet that your interpretation is incorrect.

Note my above detailed analysis of the term 'jihad' in the Quran, the final authority of Allah and Islam.
Tell me where I am wrong when I am presenting my points as close as possible to what Allah [in the Quran] intended on the emphasis of the term 'jihad' to be used.

I have read the articles you linked above and commented on them in my earlier post [you missed that] as intellectually insufficient and amateurish.

The first critical issue is most of them are Muslims, thus heavy confirmation bias especially with salvation at stake at the subliminal level.

Note again;

I dare say, 99% [if not all] Islamic scholars and experts never present the term 'jihad' like the way I analyzed the term 'jihad' in terms of the words of Allah.​

The term 'jihad' in the Quran also has to be taken in the background and contexts of the 3400++ contemptuous verses against non-Muslim.
Within the above there is the impulse of salvation which will drive a critical SOME Muslims to do whatever Allah commands them [as slaves to Allah] to do to earn their way to paradise with eternal life.

I have not researched in depth into the other 3 schools of Islam. Noted Setst777 had provided counter views.
Point is there are above 242 million Muslims in South East Asia
Islam in Southeast Asia - Wikipedia
whom are mostly of the Shafi'i School.
In total, it would be much more taking into account Shafi'i Muslims elsewhere.
Shafi‘i - Wikipedia
As such it could likely top at 300+ million which is 20% [some claim it is 16%].
So in reference to the Shafi'i school we are not referring to a small minority as you had claimed.
You are using words to deflect and deceive.
20% [seemingly low] is a critical and significant quantum of 300 million!!!

As I had argued the analysis by school is useful, but it is not critical to the terrible evil and violent acts committed by a critical SOME* evil prone Muslims compelled by the commands of Allah. [conservatively 20% of 1.5 billion]

What is critical is what Allah's words and commands as they effect a percentile of evil prone Muslims with salvation as stake. Such evil prone Muslims exists within the 1.5 billion Muslims around the world.
Those known Islamic terrorists comprised of all types, schools, denomination, and sects of Islam.

 

[JosephZ]

you cannot counter by saying those Qur'anic Jihad verses are only for a specific historical purpose, when all of Islam’s history shows that those verses were unanimously understood by Islams Caliphs, Jurists and best Mufassirun to be an ongoing Jihad against unbelievers until Islam is the only religion in the whole world.

Here is how I have explained Chapter 9.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a source that goes far deeper into the historical context of Chapter 9 than I did above.

The proponents of the progression argument maintain that verses 9:5 and 9:29 abrogated verses 22:39 and 2:190, permitting the use of force in self-defence. Offensive jihad thus became an obligation for every Muslim: the rules of jihad progressed from a state of patience to the use of force in self-defence followed by an obligatory jihad against the polytheists and People of the Book. If this interpretation is accepted, it would simply mean that verse 9:5 obliges Muslims to forcefully convert polytheists to Islam or kill them, which would amount to a rule for genocide. It would also mean that verse 9:29 obliges Muslims to subjugate the People of the Book. However, the study of verses 9:5 and 9:29 in their historical and Qur’anic contexts suggests that the progression argument is untenable. We argue that verses 9:5 and 9:29 do not repeal verses 22:39 and 2:190. To establish our point, we need to examine verses 9:5 and 9:29 in their Qur’anic and historical contexts. We would also need to find out whether the Qur’an had used the ‘kill them [polytheists]’ language in other verses and contexts as well. Finally, we need to examine the practices of Prophet Muhammad and his immediate successors to find out how they dealt with the polytheists and the People of the Book after verses 9:5 and 9:29 were revealed.

Verses 9:5 and 9:29

Chapters 8 and 9 of the Qur’an were revealed at Medina and their subject matter is similar, i.e. war. Chapter 8 was revealed shortly after the battle of Badr (2 AH) and dealt with the lessons of Badr: the question of war booty; the virtues necessary for good fighting; victory against the odds; and clemency and consideration for one’s own people and for others in the hour of victory.13 It aimed to address the large questions arising at the start of a newly organized community. Chapter 9 logically follows the argument of chapter 8 so closely that a Bismillah (‘in the name of Allah’) is not written at the beginning. This is the only chapter of the Qur’an to begin without a Bismillah because the compilers of the Qur’an were not sure if they were separate chapters. Chapter 9 is the last of the Qur’anic chapters to be revealed. Verses 1–29 of Chapter 9 were revealed before the battle of Tabuk in October, 9 AH.17 The subject matter of the chapter is ‘what is to be done if the enemy breaks faith and is guilty of treachery’.18 It does not lay down new rules for the use of force.

Chapter 9 discusses three kinds of people: the polytheists (or pagans), the People of the Book, and the hypocrites (those who pretended to be Muslims but never wholeheartedly embraced Islam). There were four kinds of polytheists in Medina in 630 AD. A first group were those with whom the Prophet Muhammad had concluded a peace treaty at Hudaybiyya in 628 AD, i.e., the Quraysh. One of the conditions of the treaty was that no party would attack another party or its allies. The treaty allowed other tribes to join any of the main parties to the treaty. Banu Bakr joined the Quraysh whereas Banu Khazagh joined the Muslims. Banu Bakr breached the terms of Hudaybiyya by attacking Banu Khazagh, and so did the Quraysh by aiding its ally. As the treaty was violated, the Prophet Muhammad marched towards Mecca in 629 AD but was conquered without actual combat. The second group of polytheists were those with whom the Prophet Muhammad had concluded peace treaties for a fixed period, during which time the terms of their treaties were not broken, e.g., Bani Zamrah and Bani Madlej. The third group comprised those with whom the Prophet Muhammad had open-ended peace treaties: their terms were not fixed. The fourth group was made up of those with whom the Prophet Muhammad had no treaty at all.19 The first three verses address the first and second groups, who were given a four-month guarantee
of safe passage (aman):

Here is a disavowal (proclaimed) by Allah and His Messenger against the [polytheists] with whom you have a treaty (9:1).

So, move in the land freely for four months, and be aware that you can never frustrate Allah, and that Allah is going to disgrace the disbelievers (9:2).

And here is an announcement, from Allah and His Messenger, to the people on the day of the greater Hajj, that Allah is free from (any commitment to) the [polytheists], and so is His Messenger.

Now, if you repent, it is good for you. And if you turn away, then be aware that you can never frustrate Allah. And give those who disbelieve the ‘good’ news of a painful punishment (9:3)
.
Verse 9:4 was addressed to Banu Zamrah and Banu Madlej: ‘[e]xcept those of the [polytheists] with whom you have a treaty, and they were not deficient (in fulfilling
the treaty) with you, and did not back up any one against you. So fulfil the treaty with them up to their term.’ Verse 9:7 was addressed to Banu Hamzah and Banu Kinana
who remained faithful to their treaties and were given time until the end of their treaties: ‘[h]ow can the [polytheists] have a treaty with Allah and His Messenger?
Except those with whom you made a treaty near Al-Masjid-ul-Haram. Then, as long as they remain straight with you, you too remain straight with them’ (9:7).

Continued....

 

[JosephZ]

Verse 9:5 was addressed to Quraysh who broke the terms of Hudaybiyya: ‘o, when the sacred months expire, kill the [polytheists] wherever you find them, and catch them and besiege them and sit in ambush for them everywhere. Then, if they repent and establish Salah (prayer) and pay Zakah (poor due) leave their way.’

Verse 9:29 was revealed to address the People of the Book: ‘[f]ight those People of the Book who do not believe in Allah, nor in the Last Day, and do not take as unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have declared as unlawful, and do not profess the Faith of Truth; [fight them] until they pay Jizya with their own hands while they are subdued.’

The immediate context for the revelation of verse 9:29 was the rumour that the Byzantines (Romans) – who were People of the Book – were preparing to attack Arabia. After the revelation of verse 9:29, the Prophet Muhammad gathered an army of 30,000 and marched towards Syria, and stayed at Tabuk, a town bordering Byzantine territory, in order to repel the imminent Byzantine attack. The Byzantine invasion did not come off, but the Prophet Muhammad made treaties with some Christian and Jewish tribes near the Gulf of Aqabah.22 Verses 30–129 were revealed after the Tabuk expedition, and dealt with the hypocrites who did not join the Tabuk expedition and other issues, such as who must participate in actual combat (qital).

A careful contextual analysis of verses 9:1–9:29 indicates that they were revealed to address particular groups of people and their relationship with the Muslims at that time. The subject-matter and intention of these verses is not to create new rules for the use of force by superseding the previous verses, but whether to dissolve or not to dissolve treaties with particular tribes. The dissolution of a treaty means that a treaty relationship is eliminated and thus a non-treaty relationship is entered. It does not mean that new rules for the use of force are created or that the previous ones are repealed. Elahi argues that verse 2:29 is not about spreading Islam – through obligatory jihad – and eliminating the People of the Book if they do not embrace Islam. It is about jizya, a symbol of political dominance and sovereignty.

Verse 2:29 is addressed to the Muslims of 7th-century Arab society. It is not addressed to the Muslims of the 21st century, asking them to go to the People of the Book with the Qur’an in one hand and a sword in the other, and to kill them if they do not accept the Qur’an (i.e., embrace Islam) or pay jizya. Verse 9:5 is about fighting those polytheists – Quraysh – who broke their covenants with the Muslims. It is not directly addressed to Muslims today.

The ‘kill them’ language

In addition to a contextual analysis, a linguistic analysis indicates that the Qur’an did not use the ‘kill them’ language for the first time in verses 9:5 and 9:29. The same language had been used in verses revealed before verses 9:5 and 9:29. Kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out, as Fitnah (to create disorder) is more severe than killing (2:191). They wish that you should disbelieve, as they have disbelieved, and thus you become all alike. So, do not take friends from among them unless they migrate in the way of Allah. Then, if they turn away, seize them, and kill them wherever you find them, and do not take from among them a friend or helper (4:89). You will find others who want to be secure from you, and secure from their own people. (But) whenever they are called back to the mischief, they are plunged into it. So, if they do not stay away from you, and do not offer peace to you, and do not restrain their hands, then seize them, and kill them wherever you find them, and, we have given you an open authority against them (4:91) [emphasis added].

Whenever the Qur’an requires the killing of non-Muslims, it is contingent upon them doing or not doing something. For instance, verse 2:191 is about expelling non-Muslims from where they had expelled Muslims. In verse 4:89, the killing is contingent on ‘if they turn away’, whereas in verse 4:91 it is conditional upon ‘if they do not stay away from you’. The ‘kill them’ language has been used on specific occasions for specific groups of people. This is also the case with verses 9:5 and 9:29. They do not repeal or purport to repeal verses related to jihad in self-defence. The only normative value of verses 9:5 and 9:29 is that in similar contexts and conditions Muslims may follow the course suggested by these verses. The rule of killing for specific reasons is not confined to non-Muslims only. Islamic law allows the killing of Muslims in certain cases, such as in rebellion. The contextual and linguistic analysis suggests that the Qur’an does not permit the killing of polytheists.

Textual and historical context are key to interpreting religious scriptures. As I have said before, Qur'an chapter 9 was revealed to a very specific audience who were defending themselves under a specific circumstance which happened over 1,400 years ago. This point in history and those being spoken too have long passed and those verses commanding that polytheist be killed or converted to Islam are not applicable to Muslims living in 2019.

 

[Joyousperson]

Verse 9:5 was addressed to Quraysh who broke the terms of Hudaybiyya: ‘o, when the sacred months expire, kill the [polytheists] wherever you find them, and catch them and besiege them and sit in ambush for them everywhere. Then, if they repent and establish Salah (prayer) and pay Zakah (poor due) leave their way.’

Verse 9:29 was revealed to address the People of the Book: ‘[f]ight those People of the Book who do not believe in Allah, nor in the Last Day, and do not take as unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have declared as unlawful, and do not profess the Faith of Truth; [fight them] until they pay Jizya with their own hands while they are subdued.’

The immediate context for the revelation of verse 9:29 was the rumour that the Byzantines (Romans) – who were People of the Book – were preparing to attack Arabia. After the revelation of verse 9:29, the Prophet Muhammad gathered an army of 30,000 and marched towards Syria, and stayed at Tabuk, a town bordering Byzantine territory, in order to repel the imminent Byzantine attack. The Byzantine invasion did not come off, but the Prophet Muhammad made treaties with some Christian and Jewish tribes near the Gulf of Aqabah.22 Verses 30–129 were revealed after the Tabuk expedition, and dealt with the hypocrites who did not join the Tabuk expedition and other issues, such as who must participate in actual combat (qital).

A careful contextual analysis of verses 9:1–9:29 indicates that they were revealed to address particular groups of people and their relationship with the Muslims at that time. The subject-matter and intention of these verses is not to create new rules for the use of force by superseding the previous verses, but whether to dissolve or not to dissolve treaties with particular tribes. The dissolution of a treaty means that a treaty relationship is eliminated and thus a non-treaty relationship is entered. It does not mean that new rules for the use of force are created or that the previous ones are repealed. Elahi argues that verse 2:29 is not about spreading Islam – through obligatory jihad – and eliminating the People of the Book if they do not embrace Islam. It is about jizya, a symbol of political dominance and sovereignty.

Verse 2:29 is addressed to the Muslims of 7th-century Arab society. It is not addressed to the Muslims of the 21st century, asking them to go to the People of the Book with the Qur’an in one hand and a sword in the other, and to kill them if they do not accept the Qur’an (i.e., embrace Islam) or pay jizya. Verse 9:5 is about fighting those polytheists – Quraysh – who broke their covenants with the Muslims. It is not directly addressed to Muslims today.

The ‘kill them’ language

In addition to a contextual analysis, a linguistic analysis indicates that the Qur’an did not use the ‘kill them’ language for the first time in verses 9:5 and 9:29. The same language had been used in verses revealed before verses 9:5 and 9:29. Kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out, as Fitnah (to create disorder) is more severe than killing (2:191). They wish that you should disbelieve, as they have disbelieved, and thus you become all alike. So, do not take friends from among them unless they migrate in the way of Allah. Then, if they turn away, seize them, and kill them wherever you find them, and do not take from among them a friend or helper (4:89). You will find others who want to be secure from you, and secure from their own people. (But) whenever they are called back to the mischief, they are plunged into it. So, if they do not stay away from you, and do not offer peace to you, and do not restrain their hands, then seize them, and kill them wherever you find them, and, we have given you an open authority against them (4:91) [emphasis added].

Whenever the Qur’an requires the killing of non-Muslims, it is contingent upon them doing or not doing something. For instance, verse 2:191 is about expelling non-Muslims from where they had expelled Muslims. In verse 4:89, the killing is contingent on ‘if they turn away’, whereas in verse 4:91 it is conditional upon ‘if they do not stay away from you’. The ‘kill them’ language has been used on specific occasions for specific groups of people. This is also the case with verses 9:5 and 9:29. They do not repeal or purport to repeal verses related to jihad in self-defence. The only normative value of verses 9:5 and 9:29 is that in similar contexts and conditions Muslims may follow the course suggested by these verses. The rule of killing for specific reasons is not confined to non-Muslims only. Islamic law allows the killing of Muslims in certain cases, such as in rebellion. The contextual and linguistic analysis suggests that the Qur’an does not permit the killing of polytheists.

Textual and historical context are key to interpreting religious scriptures. As I have said before, Qur'an chapter 9 was revealed to a very specific audience who were defending themselves under a specific circumstance which happened over 1,400 years ago. This point in history and those being spoken too have long passed and those verses commanding that polytheist be killed or converted to Islam are not applicable to Muslims living in 2019.

JosephZ wrote,
Textual and historical context are key to interpreting religious scriptures. As I have said before, Qur'an chapter 9 was revealed to a very specific audience who were defending themselves under a specific circumstance which happened over 1,400 years ago. This point in history and those being spoken too have long passed and those verses commanding that polytheist be killed or converted to Islam are not applicable to Muslims living in 2019.​

You are merely parroting above without a thorough understanding of the Quran and human nature of those critical SOME Muslims.

I have read that whole article you linked above.
Your source [Niaz Shah] above is not thorough in reflecting the real ethos of Islam as represented by the 6236 verses in the Quran.

This topic is about 'jihad' but he did not give fair consideration to the term 'jihad' as used 40 times in the Quran and the emphasis of its warring against non-Muslims in 23/40 times. Shah just mumbled something about 'juhd' which is merely restricted to one verse, i.e. 9:79 related to Charity.

9:79 ... those who find not but their striving [juh'dahum] to give [charity]...​

He stated re historical;

Verse 2:29 is addressed to the Muslims of 7th-century Arab society. It is not addressed to the Muslims of the 21st century, asking them to go to the People of the Book with the Qur’an in one hand and a sword in the other, and to kill them if they do not accept the Qur’an (i.e., embrace Islam) or pay jizya.25
Verse 9:5 is about fighting those polytheists – Quraysh – who broke their covenants with the Muslims. It is not directly addressed to Muslims today.​

However he wrote later;

The only normative value of verses 9:5 and 9:29 is that in similar contexts and conditions Muslims may follow the course suggested by these verses. ​

Whenever the Qur’an requires the killing of non-Muslims, it is contingent upon them doing or not doing something. ​

The above point is critical as I had argued the whole Quran is a guidance as eternal principles and doctrines to ALL Muslims are they are to comply accordingly in similar contexts and conditions.
Therefore 9:5 and the other verses cannot be historical and not applicable to Muslims in 2019.

Shah agreed Jihad can be defensive but he argued against offensive Jihad proposed by various Islamic scholars [Qutb, Mawdudi, etc.].
It is not a matter of which scholars but what Allah commanded in the Quran as applicable to ALL Muslims.

Throughout the article Shah provided his personal views against offensive jihad and his bias interpretation of evil, mischief, corruption, wrongness.

I have argued the leading verse sanctioning jihad as in warring against and kill non-Muslim is 5:33 related to biblical times;

5:33. The only reward [punishment] of those [infidels] who

[1] make war [HRB: yuḥāribūna] upon Allah and His messenger and
[2] strive [S3Y: wayasʿawna ] after corruption [FSD: fasādan; mischiefs, wronged] in the land ​

- will be that they [infidels] will be killed [QTL: yuqattalū] or crucified [SLB: yuṣallabū], or have their [infidels'] hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their [infidels] degradation [KhZY: khiz'yun] in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs [infidels] will be an awful doom; ​

The Quran itself give loads of example of what is fasadan as threats to the religion of Islam in terms of evil, mischiefs, wrong, which Shah did not research into and considered in his arguments.

The critical points is who is Shah, you, me or others to judge those Muslims who interpret 5:33 and all related verses in warring and fighting against non-Muslims as commanded by Allah as per the verses in the Quran.

So the fact is, as long as Islam exists with its loads of evil and violent laden verses, the inherent and avoidable significant SOME of evil prone Muslims will continue to be compelled by the verses of the Quran, i.e. Allah's words, to war and fight against non-Muslims and no one on Earth have the divine authority to stop it.

 

[setst777]

setst777 said: ↑
They sure do. You can’t get any clearer than what is plainly stated... Since you discredit the Qur'an and Hadith as extremist, that really means your version of Islam is a fake.

If those hadiths are so clear and plainly stated as you claim, why don't the Hanafi and Maliki schools of thought (The oldest and most widely followed) not teach that women need to cover their faces?

Setst RE: There could be a number of reasons for this.

Let's put the hadith you quoted into historical context.

Setst RE: Your point is good. The verses are not so clear that an alternate meaning could not be formed. However I don’t believe that the Shafii and Hanbali schools are extremist because most commanded it.

"… most medieval Hanbali and Shafi'i jurists counted a woman's face among the awra, concluding that it should be veiled, except for the eyes."[25][23]
Burqa - Wikipedia

setst777 said: ↑
Thanks to... slam’s own scholars throughout its history, including:

Kitab Mahal, Majid Khadduri, Al-Suyuti, Durr al-Manthur, Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi, Al-Mawardi, Ahmad Ibn Lulu Ibn Al-Naqib, Abd Allah ibn `Abbas, Abu Tahir Muhammad ibn Yaqub al-Fayruz Aabadi, Jami-i-Abbasi, Baha' al-Din Muhammad ibn Husayn al-Amili, Fatemeh Masjedi, Risala-ya Sawa'iq al-Yahud, al Tabari, Ibn Kathir, Yaqub ibn Ibrahim al-Ansari (Abu Yusuf), Muhammad al-Shaybani, Shaikh Burhanuddin Ali, Shah Wali-Allah, Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, Ibn Qudamah, Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Qayyim, Mālik ibn Anas, Ibn Rushd (Averroes), Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Abi Zayd, Abū ʿAbdillāh Muhammad ibn Idrīs al-Shāfiʿī, Al-Ghazali (Algazel), Al-Mawardi, Al-Misri, Ziauddin Barani, Ibn Hudayl, Ahmad Sirhindi, Al-Hilli, Al-`Amili, Al-Majlisi.

Also, thanks also to Modern Day Islam’s Scholars, some of which are:

Majid Khadduri, Sayyid Qutb, Ruhollah Khomeini, Bassam Tibi, Dr. M. Sa’id Ramadan Al-Buti, Sheikh Abdullah Yusuf Azzam, Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid

How many of the Islamic scholars above in that list that you copied and pasted from wikiislam have you taken the time to study? Aside from the selective quotes from the above mentioned scholars that were cherry picked by wikiislam, what other works have you read from them? The reason I ask is because some of the scholars on that list disagree with what you are saying in this thread and taught that jihad is purely defensive.

Setst RE: I believe most of this information and sources are from Dr. Bostom’s book, “The Legacy of Jihad” which I read. As well, I did read the quotes from wikiislam and the other sites I listed.

Regarding defensive jihad… You are no doubt referring to the Hanbali Jurist, Ibn Taymiyya. I listed him so you could see I was not cherry picking.

True that Ibn Taymiyya is rather unique, in that he considered offensive Jihad as voluntary since he believed it conflicted with Qur’an 2:256. However, Ibn Taymiyya teaching on defensive jihad is the reason that Ibn Taymiyya was a “favorite source of the contemporary mujahideen for jihad against the following:

1) All Western interests anywhere in the Muslim world (including that part of the world once considered in the domain of Dar al-Islam such as Spain and other parts of Europe) northern and parts of sub-Saharan Africa, and large regions of Asia.” According to Ibn Taymiyya, these are defensive jihad targets.

2) All infidel lands (USA and most European countries) that at some point in time sent an army to any Muslim land. Ibn Taymiyya teaches that the country from which those armies came should justifiably be fought in Jihad.

In reality then, Ibn Taymiyya teaches a defensive Jihad that is, in practice, the same as offensive Jihad of all the other Jurists in that all the major targets are the same. The only difference is that defensive jihad can be done by any Muslim or group of Muslims to defend Islam without any Caliphat to order it as is required under offensive Jihad. That is why the muhadideen for jihad favor Ibn Taymiyya’s fiqh on Jihad. In essence then, Ibn Taymiyya’s doctrine of Jihad is far more destructive in that it justifies all manner of terrorism by any Muslims against the targets of defensive Jihad without an order from a Caliph.

The same countries are to be fought according to Ibn Taymiyya and the other Jurists, whether you call it defensive or offensive Jihad. The result is the same in practice.

See:
http://www.saneworks.us/uploads/application/52.pdf

http://islamicsupremacism.com/Islamic_Supremacism/A_Classic_Jurist_From_Each_of_the_5_Schools_files/Ibn Taymiyya.pdf

Although Ibn Taymiyya was an Hanbali Jurist, the Hanbali school was not founded on his fiqh, but actually was founded (rooted) on the writings of the Hanbali Jurist Abu Bakr al-Khallal.

“The 20th century Hanbali jurisprudent Badran called al-Khallal's collection "the very root of the Hanbali school, from which sprang all later books of Hanbali jurisprudence."
Abu Bakr al-Khallal - Wikipedia

The principles he laid out for the Hanbali School include defensive and offensive Jihad.

“Since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God's entirely and God's word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought...

As for the People of the Book and the Zoroastrians, they are to be fought until they become Muslims or pay the tribute (jizya) out of hand and have been humbled. With regard to the others, the jurists differ as to the lawfulness of taking tribute from them. Most of them regard it as unlawful...”
(Excerpted from Rudolph Peters, Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam (Princeton, NJ: Markus Wiener, 1996), pp. 44-54.) (Andrew Bostom Legacy of Jihad)

setst777 said: ↑
I provided links to source material for you showing that this is the case. I will also include wikiislam, because they also contain many of the Jurists:

• Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Scholars on Jihad - WikiIslam
• http://www.saneworks.us/uploads/application/52.pdf
• Topical study on: Islam and jihad
• Amillennialist Contra Mundum | Verbum Domini Manet in aeternum: Exposing Islam's Big Lies
• Islamicsupremacism.org

setst777 said: ↑
Thanks to the above mentioned scholars, Islamic scholars, Jurists, Mufassirun, researchers, and writers of Islamic history, and so many more not mentioned, we possess an accurate understanding of Islam, of Islam’s core Scriptures, and of Islamic Jihad.

The sources you provided distort the Islamic scholars and jurist's intent by only quoting small portions of what they have said on the subject of jihad and failing to include the historical context in which they were said to deceive those who visit their site about what Islam teaches.

Setst RE: That is untrue. Although the websites listed do not copy the full context of the Jurists and other top Islamic Scholars, Dr. Bostom’s book, “The Legacy of Jihad” does. I have not found that the excerpts used on the websites distort the full intent of the context, especially in practice.

As well, the historical context is demonstrated by 1400 years of Islamic Jihad starting with Prophet Muhammad as the example.

• After Muhammad, we have the example of the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs,
• and then all the Caliphs after them up to the 1900’s when Islamic Jihad and the Rule of Caliphs was crushed by the West.

Even so, Jihad continues on smaller scale, and includes more widely used political and social Jihad within foreign countries.

A Caliph is Required

Full scale united Islamic Jihad will only be enforced again when the next Caliph arrives, just as we have seen in the previous 1400 years of Jihad against unbelievers under the previous Caliphs. Why? The reason is because Jihad against unbelievers cannot be altered. History, therefore, repeats itself.

From what I have read from the Jurists, I am presently convinced that all four schools of Sunni and also Shia and Salafi are in agreement on Jihad being defensive and offensive just as we see demonstrated historically. Why? The Jurists teach it.

Only the scope of Jihad is different in that Hanbali, Salafi and Wahhabi also fight any Muslims who do not strictly adhere to the Qur’an and Hadith – or Sharia.

setst777 said: ↑
The real scholars are Islam’s Jurists themselves who are in agreement regarding Jihad against all unbelievers until Islam is the only religion. That is how they interpret or understand the Qur'an, Hadith and Sira on Jihad. The Jurists and the most renowned Mufassiun are the ones who actually quote the Qur’an and Hadith as their authority and their command to commit Jihad against unbelievers, so the Qur’an is applicable for all time despite the fact that you dislike it.

setst777 said: ↑
What I provided from Bostom was the historical Jurists fiqh position on Jihad in all four schools of Sunni, and also of Shia – from Islam’s highest authorities....
The Sunni and Shia positions are identical in that Jihad is defensive and offensive until the whole world is one religion, Islam. That is the position of traditional Islam from their most respected jurists and scholars.

The positions between Sunni and Shia are NOT identical on the subject of jihad, and there is also division among the four schools of thought within Sunni Islam with three of the four concluding that jihad is defensive in nature.

https://serdargunes.files.wordpress...s-and-regulations-palgrave-macmillan-2011.pdf

Setst RE: I appreciate Dr Ahmed Aldawoody efforts. I have not read the whole manual, but have read commentaries.

One thing I have done is that I have read the directives of the Jurists in their full context in “The Legacy of Jihad” translated from the original documents. I have studied the historical results of these rulings by the Jurists in 1400 years of Jihad induced expansion of the religion of Islam throughout much of Europe, the Middle East, parts of Africa and Italy.

I have seen enough evidence to understand that all four schools of Sunni and also of Shia, and Salafi, possess an essentially identical pattern of defensive and offensive Jihad against unbelievers and hypocrites, just as Allah commanded.

Firstly,
yes we do find that defensive Jihad is justified against those who invade or threaten Muslim groups. In such cases, it is incumbent upon all able individual Muslims to oppose the threat (Qur’an 2:191-193).

Secondly,
offensive Jihad was a group effort and was clearly justified if an unbelieving town, city, state or nation refused the invitation to accept the Muslim faith (Quran 9; Sahih Muslim 19:4294; 4:76) to support and justify offensive Jihad until the world is one religion – Islam (Abu Dawud 14:2526). The Christians and Jews were spared if they accepted Islam rule over them, and paid the Jizya with willing submission (Quran 9:29) feeling themselves subdued.

Not only do the four schools of Sunni, and also Shia, and Salafi teach offensive and defensive Jihad, but the evidence is demonstrated by this Jihad taking place in the 1400 years of conquest by Islam upon non-Muslim nations and peoples in 2/3 of Europe, parts of Africa, Italy, Egypt, the Middle East, and so forth..

This evidence for offensive and defensive Jihad among all four schools of Sunni and of Shia and Salafi was provided for your viewing many times and from many different sources including Wikipedia, the Encyclopedia of Islam, and lately I included four different sites which quote the actual Jurists. They all agree.

Dr. Aldawoody quotes Ibn Taymiyya for his defensive Jihad position, but the Jurist Ibn Taymiyya was rather unique in his position among the Jurists, and he is not the authority of any of the four schools of Sunni, or of Shia.

When you actually look at all of what Ibn Taymiyya wrote though, you will find that there is not hardly a European nation today, including the USA, that Ibn Taymiyya does not justify continued defensive Jihad against until they are conquered.

Why? The reason is that most of these infidel lands have sent military into some part of Islam territory at some point, and many of the European lands were once under Islam’s control through Jihad. Ibn Taymiyya justifies defensive Jihad against all those nations involved. So, in essence, Ibn Taymiyya’s defensive Jihad is the same as offensive Jihad. The targets for Jihad are the same.

Continue. . .

 

[setst777]

Continued. . .

It is also important to know that jihad also has several other components. When it comes to spreading Islam for example, mission work and da'wah are types of jihad. Physical jihad, or acts of war are limited to self defense.

Setst RE: Yes, da’wah should always come first according to the Jurists in most circumstances before considering an offensive attack on any town, city or nation. That is a given. (Sahih Muslim 19:4294).

Obviously, if Islam is defending himself from attack by the unbelievers, then there really is no time to be giving the unbelievers time to repent and turn to Islam before defending themselves. So the context is offensive.

The Jurists and all four schools of Sunni believe that the invitation to accept Islam must first be given before the infidel, town, city, state or nation is considered for Jihad attack (Qur'an 9; Sahih Muslim 19:4294; Qur'an4:76). If the town, city, state or nation accepts Islam as their religion, then certainly they will have peace, but only under Sharia, and as Muslims. If not, then they are to be attacked.

Islam Jihad for 1400 years shows that this understanding of Jihad in actual practice.

setst777 said: ↑
Common sense is what you lack, so I would not talk about common sense. 1400 years of Islamic history do not lie.

Then how do you explain the main reasons for people converting to Islam and being their preference to Muslim teachings and reading religious texts?

Setst RE: Many reasons exist. How do you explain why so many people joined ISIS not only from Muslim lands, but also from Europe, the USA, and even Israel?

How would it be possible for a religion that teaches the way you describe Islam in this thread to thrive and prosper in the world for more than 1,400 years?

Setst RE: How do you think?

How did Islam manage to survive after their 1400 years of violent Jihad against two thirds of Europe, the Middle East, Italy, parts of Africa and so forth, slaughtering tens of Millions and enslaving hundreds of millions more, and subduing Millions of others as dhimmis?

How? They have taken advantage of the West’s humanity and weakness through threats, by rewriting history through taqyah, through terror, through taking advantage of humane laws of the West, through Taqyah (deception), through influencing government and politicians to censor the truth in our schools and universities, and media and politics, through threatening politicians to create politically correct laws that support Islam, and so much more, through paying off politicians. I quoted sources for you already showing much this is the case. So, this should be no surprise to you.

It would be impossible for a religion like the one you have been describing in this thread to grow to more than 1.6 billion followers if what you believe about Islam were true.

Setst RE: What is the benefit of giving up a religion that will ostracize you from your family, and condemn you, and sentence you to death for apostatizing from the Islam? And what if Islam is true?... Is it worth giving up one’s eternal life to apostatize from Islam? Much is at stake for apostatizing from Islam.

Do you really believe people (Most of whom are women by the way), would decide to follow a religion that is anything like what you describe in this thread? A religion that is oppressive to women, demands participation in a war against all non-Muslims to spread Islam until it conquers the world, commands female circumcision, commands women cover from head to toe including their faces, demands four witnesses from a victim to prove rape, etc...?

Setst RE: Yes. Why did so many Muslims support ISIS? Why did so many people of all faiths join ISIS, including many women?

Did you know that there is a subculture within society called Dom/sub relations? Some women cannot survive well without being dominated, controlled and given structure. And there are men who fall into that category as well. Without this dominating structure, such people will conduct their lives in a destructive manner that damages their well being. Even if only 1% of non-Muslims are fall into the category of “subs” that would still mean that potentially 60 million people in the world could benefit from being dominated and controlled by Islamic Sharia - most being women.

setst777 said: ↑
you cannot counter by saying those Qur'anic Jihad verses are only for a specific historical purpose, when all of Islam’s history shows that those verses were unanimously understood by Islams Caliphs, Jurists and best Mufassirun to be an ongoing Jihad against unbelievers until Islam is the only religion in the whole world.

Here is how I have explained Chapter 9. . .

Textual and historical context are key to interpreting religious scriptures. As I have said before, Qur'an chapter 9 was revealed to a very specific audience who were defending themselves under a specific circumstance which happened over 1,400 years ago. This point in history and those being spoken too have long passed and those verses commanding that polytheist be killed or converted to Islam are not applicable to Muslims living in 2019.

Setst RE:

Firstly, the interpretation you gave is not the view of Muhammad according to the Hadith.

Secondly, none of the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs understood Chapter 9 in that way.

Thirdly, the Caliphs after them did not interpret Chapter 9 like you do.

Fourthly, the Four Jurists of the four Schools of Sunni did not interpret Chapter 9 in that way.

Fifthly, Shia does not interpret Chapter 9 in that way

Sixthly, the most renowned Mufassirun al-Tabari and Ibn Kathir do not interpret Chapter 9 that way.

Seventhly, Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim reveal that Chapter 9 was to continue after Muhammad until the world is Islam.

Eighthly, the whole Qur’an (Allah’s Eternal Word) was revealed to a specific audience as a guide to all Muslims to follow after them for all time…

Quran 3:
110 You [true believers in Islamic Monotheism, and real followers of Prophet Muhammad and his Sunnah (legal ways, etc.)] are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind; you enjoin Al-Ma'ruf (i.e. Islamic Monotheism and all that Islam has ordained) and forbid Al-Munkar (polytheism, disbelief and all that Islam has forbidden), and you believe in Allah.

Quran 42:
21 [Question] Or have they [infidels] partners (of Allah) who have made lawful [ShR3: sharaʿū] for them [infidels] in religion [alddeeni] that which Allah allowed not? And but for a decisive word (gone forth already), it would have been judged between them [infidels]. Lo! for wrong doers [ZLM: l-ẓālimīna] is a painful doom.

Quran 21:
10 Indeed, We have sent down for you (O mankind) a Book, (the Qur'an) in which there is Dhikrukum, (your Reminder or an honour for you i.e. honour for the one who follows the teaching of the Qur'an and acts on its orders). Will you not then understand? 11. How many a town (community), that were wrong-doers, have We destroyed, and raised up after them another people!

Quran 57:
9 It is He Who sends down manifest Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) to His slave (Muhammad ) that He may bring you out from darkness into light. And verily, Allah is to you full of kindness, Most Merciful. 10. And what is the matter with you that you spend not in the Cause of Allah? And to Allah belongs the heritage of the heavens and the earth. Not equal among you are those who spent and fought before the conquering (of Makkah) (with those among you who did so later). Such are higher in degree than those who spent and fought afterwards. But to all, Allah has promised the best (reward). And Allah is All-Aware of what you do.

Lastly, 1400 years of Islamic Jihad shows that Chapter 9 was for all time.

 

[Joyousperson]

JosephZ,

Here is a list of all words used in the Quran based on the root J-H-D re struggle or striving in the various grammatical categories.

23 of the 40 are related to warring and fighting against non-Muslim infidels. Only 3 are related to personal struggle!

With 55% or 3400++ of the 6236 verses in the Quran that are contemptuous, antagonistic, derogatory, and dehumanizing against non-Muslims and repeatedly pounded into the Muslim's awareness on a daily basis, it is only natural, the term 'jihad' is commonly associated with warring and fighting against non-Muslims.

Note the form JUHD [mentioned by Niaz Shah] refer to only one verse thus carry no weightage on the issue discussed. This show the degree and extent he would go to deceive based on confirmation bias.

Show me one best Islamic or academic scholar who had analyzed the concept of 'jihad' as I had presented in the context of the whole Quran, i.e. Allah's words?
Note I have done the same with all other concepts [overall is evil in nature] within the Quran.

JHD:
JAHADA—verb III perfect—to struggle
2:218 those who emigrated and struggled in the way [sabil]
3:142 God knows not those who struggled among
8:72 struggled with their wealth and their lives in
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
9:20 believed and emigrated and struggled in the
9:88 with him struggled with their wealth and their
16:110 persecuted and, again, struggled and endured
29:6 struggled, he struggles only for himself. Then
29:8 if they struggled with thee that thou ascribest
29:69 who struggled for Us, We will truly guide them
31:15 both struggled with thee that thou ascribest
49:15 they were not in doubt and they struggled with

verb III imperfect (yujahidu) —to struggle
5:54 They struggle in the way of God and they fear
9:44 they struggle with their wealth and their lives.
9:81 of God and they disliked struggling with their
29:6 struggled, he struggles only for himself. Then
61:11 in God and His Messenger and struggle in the

verb III imperative (jahid)—struggle
5:35 look for an approach to Him and struggle in
9:41 Move forward light and heavy, and struggle
9:73 O Prophet! Struggle with the ones who are
9:86 Believe in God and struggle along with His
22:78 And struggle for God in a true struggling. He
25:52 the ones who are ungrateful and struggle
66:9 O Prophet! Struggle against the ones who are

verb III verbal noun (jihad)—struggling
9:24 than God and His Messenger and struggling in
22:78 And struggle for God in a true struggling. He
25:52 against them thereby with a great struggle
60:1 If you had been going forth struggling in My

verb III active participle (mujahid)— one who struggles
4:95 the ones who struggle in the way of God with
4:95 God gave advantage to the ones who struggle
4:95 God gave advantage to the ones who struggle
47:31 you until We know the ones who struggle

JAHADA—verb I perfect—to be earnest
verb I verbal noun (jahd)—most earnest
5:53 the most earnest of sworn oaths—that they
6:109 And they swear by God the most earnest
16:38 swore by God their most earnest oaths: God
24:53 And they swore by God their most earnest
35:42 they swore by God the most earnest oaths, that

JUHD—masculine noun—striving
9:79 those who find not but their striving [juh'dahum] to give [charity]

 

[setst777]

JosephZ,

Here is a list of all words used in the Quran based on the root J-H-D re struggle or striving in the various grammatical categories.

23 of the 40 are related to warring and fighting against non-Muslim infidels. Only 3 are related to personal struggle!

With 55% or 3400++ of the 6236 verses in the Quran that are contemptuous, antagonistic, derogatory, and dehumanizing against non-Muslims and repeatedly pounded into the Muslim's awareness on a daily basis, it is only natural, the term 'jihad' is commonly associated with warring and fighting against non-Muslims.

Note the form JUHD [mentioned by Niaz Shah] refer to only one verse thus carry no weightage on the issue discussed. This show the degree and extent he would go to deceive based on confirmation bias.

Show me one best Islamic or academic scholar who had analyzed the concept of 'jihad' as I had presented in the context of the whole Quran, i.e. Allah's words?
Note I have done the same with all other concepts [overall is evil in nature] within the Quran.

JHD:
JAHADA—verb III perfect—to struggle
2:218 those who emigrated and struggled in the way [sabil]
3:142 God knows not those who struggled among
8:72 struggled with their wealth and their lives in
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
9:20 believed and emigrated and struggled in the
9:88 with him struggled with their wealth and their
16:110 persecuted and, again, struggled and endured
29:6 struggled, he struggles only for himself. Then
29:8 if they struggled with thee that thou ascribest
29:69 who struggled for Us, We will truly guide them
31:15 both struggled with thee that thou ascribest
49:15 they were not in doubt and they struggled with

verb III imperfect (yujahidu) —to struggle
5:54 They struggle in the way of God and they fear
9:44 they struggle with their wealth and their lives.
9:81 of God and they disliked struggling with their
29:6 struggled, he struggles only for himself. Then
61:11 in God and His Messenger and struggle in the

verb III imperative (jahid)—struggle
5:35 look for an approach to Him and struggle in
9:41 Move forward light and heavy, and struggle
9:73 O Prophet! Struggle with the ones who are
9:86 Believe in God and struggle along with His
22:78 And struggle for God in a true struggling. He
25:52 the ones who are ungrateful and struggle
66:9 O Prophet! Struggle against the ones who are

verb III verbal noun (jihad)—struggling
9:24 than God and His Messenger and struggling in
22:78 And struggle for God in a true struggling. He
25:52 against them thereby with a great struggle
60:1 If you had been going forth struggling in My

verb III active participle (mujahid)— one who struggles
4:95 the ones who struggle in the way of God with
4:95 God gave advantage to the ones who struggle
4:95 God gave advantage to the ones who struggle
47:31 you until We know the ones who struggle

JAHADA—verb I perfect—to be earnest
verb I verbal noun (jahd)—most earnest
5:53 the most earnest of sworn oaths—that they
6:109 And they swear by God the most earnest
16:38 swore by God their most earnest oaths: God
24:53 And they swore by God their most earnest
35:42 they swore by God the most earnest oaths, that

JUHD—masculine noun—striving
9:79 those who find not but their striving [juh'dahum] to give [charity]

Hi Joyousperson,

Very informative regarding Jihad within Islam's own Scriptures.

Below is a video you probably already have viewed by Robert Spencer in Jihad, but I think is worth placing on this thread...

 

[Joyousperson]

Hi Joyousperson,

Very informative regarding Jihad within Islam's own Scriptures.

Below is a video you probably already have viewed by Robert Spencer in Jihad, but I think is worth placing on this thread...

I have seen that video and a few others on the same topic.

Here is another perspective where Bill Warner show visually the timelines of the terrible conquests by Muslims from India to Spain via bloodshed - driven by the doctrine of 'jihad' in alignment with the words and commands of Allah in the Quran.

Question to JosephZ: How can you justify such imperialism be considered as self-defense??

The above can be backed up and grounded solidly upon the detailed analysis of the term 'jihad' in the context of the whole Quran, i.e. Allah's words and its evolution from the original etymological meaning 'struggle' to a terrible motivation force of actions into evil and violent acts by SOME [critical] Muslims.

 

[setst777]

I have seen that video and a few others on the same topic.

Here is another perspective where Bill Warner show visually the timelines of the terrible conquests by Muslims from India to Spain via bloodshed - driven by the doctrine of 'jihad' in alignment with the words and commands of Allah in the Quran.

Question to JosephZ: How can you justify such imperialism be considered as self-defense??

The above can be backed up and grounded solidly upon the detailed analysis of the term 'jihad' in the context of the whole Quran, i.e. Allah's words and its evolution from the original etymological meaning 'struggle' to a terrible motivation force of actions into evil and violent acts by SOME [critical] Muslims.

Hi Joyousperson,

Yes, good short video illustrating Islamic offensive Jihad. And this offensive Jihad, along with defensive jihad was clearly founded upon Muhammad himself not only by example, but by command as taught in the Qur'an and Hadith, and understood by the best tafsir.

While some of Muhammad's battles may be considered self-defense, my understanding is that most of those groups would not have attacked Muhammad at all if not for the fact that he attacked first in raids or provocations. Many of the attacks were rather vengeful.

Exegetical Apologetics: Muhammad Taught and Practiced Offensive Jihad

Myth: Muhammad only Waged War in Self-Defense (Khaybar)

Offensive War to Spread Islam

Not only by example, but Allah commanded offensive jihad against unbelievers, Christians and Jews in Qur'an 9 simply because they refused to become Muslims.

And Qur'an 9 was clearly understood throughout traditional Islamic history to be a command for all time until region was only Islam. And, as the video shows, that is a fact of history.

Blessings,
setst

 

[JosephZ]

Below is a video you probably already have viewed by Robert Spencer in Jihad, but I think is worth placing on this thread...

Here is another perspective where Bill Warner show visually the timelines of the terrible conquests by Muslims from India to Spain via bloodshed - driven by the doctrine of 'jihad' in alignment with the words and commands of Allah in the Quran.

It astounds me how both of you discount legitimate scholars of Islam, historians, and experts on Islam and Islamic history, and yet praise people like Robert Spencer and Bill Warner who have no background whatsoever in Islamic Studies and/or Islamic history. Their work is so filled with error that even someone with only a high school level knowledge of world history and social studies can spot them.

It's getting difficult for me to continue this discussion when the both of you ignore sources from legitimate scholars and counter them with hacks like Robert Spencer, Bill Warner, and continue to link to notorious anti-Islamic sites. There's not a legitimate historian anywhere that would agree with Bill Warner's version of history and no one with even a basic a background in Islamic Studies would agree with what Robert Spencer says.

Praising an anonymous youtuber who simply quotes Islamic text in their videos and recognizing people like Shaykh al Uyayri (A common terrorist who didn't even graduate from high school) and Droit Musulman (Not even a human) as historians only goes to show the lack of knowledge either of you have in this subject. Even when legitimate Islamic scholars like Dr. M. Sa’id Ramadan Al-Buti and several others are mentioned, while it may sound like they agree with your positions when only a small portion of their work is quoted on anti-Islamic websites, in reality they totally disagree when their works are read in their entirety.

Here's what I've said about Robert Spencer in the past:

Robert Spencer is one of the last people you would want to get an education about Islam. He is one of the most notorious anti-Islamic propagandists in the world.

Here is how an Islamic Scholar from his alma mater describes him:

“Robert Spencer has no academic training in Islamic studies whatsoever; his M.A. degree was in the field of early Christianity... The publications of Spencer belong to the class of Islamophobic extremism that is promoted and supported by right-wing organizations, who are perpetuating a type of bigotry similar to anti-Semitism and racial prejudice. They are to be viewed with great suspicion by anyone who wishes to find reliable and scholarly information on the subject of Islam.” – Carl Ernst, Islamic Scholar at the University of North Carolina

And here is a review of his website:

Jihad Watch is a blog affiliated with the David Horowitz Freedom Center, run by blogger Robert Spencer, it has been described as one of the main homes of the anti-Islamic Counter-jihad movement on the internet. It has been repeatedly criticized by numerous academics who believe that it promotes an Islamophobic worldview and conspiracy theories. (D. Van Zandt 10/21/2016) Jihad Watch - Media Bias/Fact Check

Robert Spencer makes a lot of money exploiting non-Muslims in the west and their ignorance of Islam. He thrives on conflict and discord, so he has no motivation to tell the truth about Islam. This is why I suggest people learn from more reputable sources like the course I suggested. Unlike anti-Islamic propagandists like Robert Spencer whose intent it is to create division between Muslims and non-Muslims, I encourage my brothers and sisters in Christ to learn more about Islam and what Muslims believe so they will not fear this religion and those who follow it. I want all Muslims to come to know Christ and this becomes increasingly more difficult when Christians avoid interacting with them out of fear and ignorance. Anti-Islamic propagandists further exploit this fear and ignorance for their own personal gain. They really don't care about you, me, or anyone else, much less the truth.

If you want to see a perfect example of how Robert Spencer is deceiving his followers, watch this video carefully.

The above is proof positive that Robert Spencer is not being honest in his approach to teaching Islam. Anti-Islamic propagandists like Bill Warner and Robert Spencer exploit people who know very little about history and those who are ignorant of what Islam teaches for their own personal gain. Always be weary of those criticizing Islam who stand to gain a profit in doing so.

Here's a humorous look at the importance of putting things into context from the same source as the first video I shared.

 

[Joyousperson]

It astounds me how both of you discount legitimate scholars of Islam, historians, and experts on Islam and Islamic history, and yet praise people like Robert Spencer and Bill Warner who have no background whatsoever in Islamic Studies and/or Islamic history. Their work is so filled with error that even someone with only a high school level knowledge of world history and social studies can spot them.

I have stated MANY TIMES, what is most critical whether in reference to Muslim Scholars or Critiques of Islam is whether they provided sound justified arguments supported with references from the authorized scriptures of Islam.

Fact is Robert Spencer, Bill Warner and others we highlighted have supported their arguments from the authorized sources of Islam. The onus is for you to prove them wrong and not simply brush them off by your subjective whims.

It's getting difficult for me to continue this discussion when the both of you ignore sources from legitimate scholars and counter them with hacks like Robert Spencer, Bill Warner, and continue to link to notorious anti-Islamic sites. There's not a legitimate historian anywhere that would agree with Bill Warner's version of history and no one with even a basic a background in Islamic Studies would agree with what Robert Spencer says.

As above no point making general statements, just bring your proofs Robert Spencer, Bill Warner, et. all are wrong.

Praising an anonymous youtuber who simply quotes Islamic text in their videos and recognizing people like Shaykh al Uyayri (A common terrorist who didn't even graduate from high school) and Droit Musulman (Not even a human) as historians only goes to show the lack of knowledge either of you have in this subject. Even when legitimate Islamic scholars like Dr. M. Sa’id Ramadan Al-Buti and several others are mentioned, while it may sound like they agree with your positions when only a small portion of their work is quoted on anti-Islamic websites, in reality they totally disagree when their works are read in their entirety.

Not sure what you are referring to?
Praising a terrorist? I have not and I don't believe Setst777 would have done that.

Here's what I've said about Robert Spencer in the past:
youtube = aTJMDFJdgdg [Andalusia Project]

If you want to see a perfect example of how Robert Spencer is deceiving his followers, watch this video carefully.

The above is proof positive that Robert Spencer is not being honest in his approach to teaching Islam.

Anti-Islamic propagandists like Bill Warner and Robert Spencer exploit people who know very little about history and those who are ignorant of what Islam teaches for their own personal gain. Always be weary of those criticizing Islam who stand to gain a profit in doing so.

Is that the best you can do?
Did you even listen fully to his videos??

I listened to 3 of Ali's videos on the subject. All his counter arguments against Robert Spencer re that book are very superficial toothless.

Ali did not read Spencer's book thoroughly.
Spencer mentioned in his book, the intention was not to go into details the doctrine of 'jihad' [as holy war] which are presented in his other books and by others. Thus his points re the concept of 'jihad' [holy war] is not discussed in details.

This particular book of Spencer is about the history and all the events related to 'jihad' [Islamic holy war] since the days of Muhammad up to the present days.


Ali [in the video #1] claim of Error No. 1
*Understanding Jihad w/ Robert Spencer #1

Ali stated, Spencer quoted Bukhari' Book 56 Hadith No. 2977.
"I [Muhammad] have been made victorious with terror"

Then he falsely claimed, Spencer relied on this verse and the term therein 'terror' as a critical basis for all Islamic terror and terrorism.

Spencer is not that stupid to do that!
Note I stated that Spencer's focus in that book was on the historical events and not on the doctrine.
If Ali is a serious intellectual, he should have picked up Spencer's other particular book about 'What is Jihad [holy war]' and counter him on that point.

Ali continued to argue aimlessly in stating the 'term' terror in that hadith is relevant to the time it was revealed and is not meant to be synonymous with terrorism.
His analogy was the 'gayness' in a Shakespeare's work cannot mean 'homosexuality' then. Thus he accused Spencer of committing an equivocation fallacy and a definist fallacy.

To be specific, the 'terror' in the hadith should be taken in the overall context of the Quran.
The term in Arabic [R3B: l-ruʿ'ba] literally represent "terror" and its synonyms in dictionaries/thesarus = alarmed, terrified, scared, afraid, intimidated, dreaded, cause to panic, etc.
Thus if we trace the hadith,
"I [Muhammad] have been made victorious with terror"
to the Quran, then it is literally true in the context of the whole and ethos of the ideology of Islam.

Note I can bring in 3400+ verses with 300++ on warring against non-Muslims to support the point on Muhammad's victories and his examples of terror [terrorism and all other evil acts] are replicated by SOME evil prone Muslims throughout the 1400 history of Islam to the present and will continue in the future.

Therefore Ali's counter in his video #1 is a straw-man and cheap shot.

Ali [in the video #2] claim of Error No. 2
Here [minute 4:28] Ali quoted Spencer relating how the impulse of 'jihad' started with;

1. threat of hellfire
2. Muhammad was rejected by the Qureshi within the Kaabar and threatened them
3. with harsher and harsher threats
4. then warfare against disbelievers
​

Again because the book was about the historical events of jihad war and not on doctrine, so Spencer provided a quick summary of how it started.
Ali in this case is stupid to jump on it and without taking into account the full details Spencer had presented on the doctrine of 'jihad' [holy war] in full detail elsewhere.

Btw, in his book and articles on jihad, Robert Spencer presented the concept of 'jihad' [J-H-D] [as holy war] in detail [Quran, Ahadith, tafsir, etc.] but not in the analytical and linguistic depth I have done with the term 'jihad' in the Quran and all other critical terms in the Quran.

Ali insisted Muhammad was innocent and the Qureshi initiated the tit-for-tat and violence therefrom.
I had argued many times, it was Muhammad who unilaterally started the tit-for-tat when in his zealousness he started to preach his religion [false as you'd agreed] and insulted the religion of the Qureshi.

Note min 13:12 of the second video.
The Qureshi requested Muhammad's uncle Abu Talib to stop him - the second time and pleaded;

"... By God, we cannot endure that our fathers should be reviled, our custom mocked, and our gods insulted ..."​

This is proof, Muhammad was the initiator and the Qureshi merely reacted. It is very human for anyone to feel VERY offended/ hurt when one's religion is insulted, so the Qureshi's subsequent violent reactions is understandable, given Muhammad's uncle did not take any preventive actions to stop him.

Note how Ali slyly avoided the above truth and stated;

'here we have .. the prophet {PBUH} was simply preaching .. about Allah .. [M] being a prophet .. and erh .. preaching Islam, that's it!​

That's it!?? Note how Ali convenient forgot what he read earlier [literally seconds ago] when the Qureshi pleaded;

"... By God, we [Qureshi] cannot endure that our fathers should be reviled, our custom mocked, and our gods insulted ..."​

Ali is so openly dishonest here with the evidence right in front of him and he twisted it to suit his confirmation bias and falsely claimed the Qureshi were the culprits and initial aggressors.
This is a very natural and typical disease suffered by Muslims who will never be able to see the 500 pound gorilla [of evil elements] within their own ideology of Islam.

The rest of Ali's counter are very toothless, superficial and intellectual immature.

How can you insist in using such a blinded dishonest "scholar' to support your toothless condemnation against Robert Spencer.

I suggest you don't critique Robert Spencer, Bill Warners et. al. until you are confident those who support your views [toothless] are presenting solid arguments and counters based on references from the original texts of the ideology of Islam in its FULL CONTEXT.

I bet, you can bring in 10, 20 or more experts to counter Robert Spencer, their counters will be toothless because fundamentally the ideology of Islam is false [as you'd agreed] and inherently evil.

 

[Joyousperson]

JosephZ,

Here is a summary of the major points of this 23 pages [sort of a haystack with needles] of posts of mine and Sets777 against your counter views.
The Critiques of Islam versus Muslim Apologists

If you think there are missing major points, please add.
If you want to add any points note whether they fall into any of the major points.

Example if you want to argue about the term 'jihad' that is not a major point but rather it is a part of Point 2, i.e. the load of evil and violent elements in the Quran and scriptures.
It is the same with any other doctrinal points, they are all comprised within Point 2.

 

[JosephZ]

Fact is Robert Spencer, Bill Warner and others we highlighted have supported their arguments from the authorized sources of Islam. The onus is for you to prove them wrong and not simply brush them off by your subjective whims.

As above no point making general statements, just bring your proofs Robert Spencer, Bill Warner, et. all are wrong.

I have done this many times, not only in this thread, but others you have started as well. I have tried explaining how the verses Bill Warner and Robert Spencer use to support their position have been taken out of textual and historical context. I have given you some background in Islamic history and how this related to why many of these verses and hadiths were written in they way they were. I have also provided sources from scholars in Islamic Studies and history both contemporary and classical that go into far greater detail than I have to show where Bill Warner and Robert Spencer are incorrect in what they are teaching, but it doesn't matter. Regardless of how clear and concise the explanation given by myself or the sources I provide is in refuting your "experts," they are rejected.

Not sure what you are referring to? Praising a terrorist? I have not and I don't believe Setst777 would have done that.

I didn't say anyone was praising a terrorist. I said:

"Praising an anonymous youtuber who simply quotes Islamic text in their videos and recognizing people like Shaykh al Uyayri (A common terrorist who didn't even graduate from high school) and Droit Musulman (Not even a human) as historians only goes to show the lack of knowledge either of you have in this subject."

Thanks to Islamic historians: Dr. Bostom and Robert Spencer, Edmond Fagnan, Thomas P. Hughes, , Henri Laoust, Rudolph Peters, Shaykh al Uyayri, Franz Rosenthal, Leon Bercher, Dr. Michael Schub, , Noah Ha Mim Keller, Michael J. Miller, Yohanan Friedmann, Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi , Droit Musulman, V.B. Moreen, Barry Rubin, Judith Colp Rubin, Terry Nardin, and so many more..... Thanks to the above mentioned scholars, Islamic scholars, Jurists, Mufassirun, researchers, and writers of Islamic history, and so many more not mentioned, we possess an accurate understanding of Islam, of Islam’s core Scriptures, and of Islamic Jihad.

Ali did not read Spencer's book thoroughly.

He read the book in it's entirety and now he's doing a page by page analysis to point out Spencer's many errors. In well over an hour of video, he hasn't even made it to page 20 yet. I would say he's covering it thoroughly.

This particular book of Spencer is about the history and all the events related to 'jihad' [Islamic holy war] since the days of Muhammad up to the present days.

I stated that Spencer's focus in that book was on the historical events and not on the doctrine.

Yes, it's about Islamic history in which Spencer has got it all wrong.

Here [minute 4:28] Ali quoted Spencer relating how the impulse of 'jihad' started with;
1. threat of hellfire
2. Muhammad was rejected by the Qureshi within the Kaabar and threatened them
3. with harsher and harsher threats
4. then warfare against disbelievers
Again because the book was about the historical events of jihad war and not on doctrine, so Spencer provided a quick summary of how it started.

Robert Spencer quoted from, and sourced, a book by ibn Ishaq to support that fabricated summary. The book makes it clear that it was after 13 years of Muslims being persecuted, violently tortured, murdered, and remaining passive despite of this that they finally resorted to defending themselves.

• It was after 13 years of persecution that Muhammad finally threatened the Qureshi.
• The Qureshi became increasingly and increasingly violent during the 13 years leading up to Muhammad's threats and eventual retaliatory attacks against them.
• It was only after the Qureshi had murdered people close to Muhammad and other Muslims including impaling women in their private parts that Muhammad went to war against the Qureshi.

The above accounts are also supported by many other ancient Islamic scholars with al Tabari and Ibn Kathir being two of the most notable. Robert Spencer's summary of how "jihad" started is inaccurate and misleading. He is intentionally deceiving his audience in making it appear that it was Muhammad that went on the offensive by threatening and eventually going to war with the Qureshi to spread Islam not only among them, but also other non-Muslim tribes. This is not how these events are recorded in history and Robert Spencer from the very beginning of his book (And also the video Setst linked to) is being very dishonest and deceptive.

“Robert Spencer has no academic training in Islamic studies whatsoever; his M.A. degree was in the field of early Christianity... The publications of Spencer belong to the class of Islamophobic extremism that is promoted and supported by right-wing organizations, who are perpetuating a type of bigotry similar to anti-Semitism and racial prejudice. They are to be viewed with great suspicion by anyone who wishes to find reliable and scholarly information on the subject of Islam.” – Carl Ernst, Islamic Scholar at the University of North Carolina