Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What I meant was that Christians are at the same level of spite as the general population. Not that all Christians are spiteful.I disagree with that.
I would say "spiteful people can be Christians"... my family is all christians and not one of them is in any way spiteful.
You said that Muslims would kill anyone who didn't convert. That was so wrong it needed correcting. It was so wrong that you should go back and correct it. And an 'oops, my bad' wouldn't go amiss.As is expected, you're ignoring my flagging the principle of abrogation and citing a verse from the Medina period. Though this is not the thread for getting into the ins and outs of Islamic jurisprudence.
Not you, particularly. Not even the Christian nationalists--they're just reacting to it, but that they are reacting to it by fighting a culture war rather than a religious war might be a clue as to what people are walking away from..... uh .... in what way specifically am I to take the blame for the religious decline in the U.S.?
Quote what I said.You said that Muslims would kill anyone who didn't convert. That was so wrong it needed correcting. It was so wrong that you should go back and correct it. And an 'oops, my bad' wouldn't go amiss.
Quote what I said.
Though Protestant beligerantism is certainly problematic, but its a different sort of beligerance from that exemplified by islam. One will write scathing letters and call you a heretic, the other will cut your head off if you refuse to convert.
Actually, the Quran does not allow the execution of those who won't convert. Some forms of Islam allow it for apostasy, but there is not universal agreement about it.
Properly understood, it absolutely does. But that takes engagement with Islamic scholarship and the Sunnah material, where it is clear that Muhammad used the threat of conversion or death against the people of Mecca when he overthrew the city. And forms that deny death for apostasy are the exception, whereas it is the prescriptive punishment by pretty much all mainline divisions(sunni, shia, sufi)
There is? Only if it was: "kill some of those those who don't convert" and "kill anyone who doesn't convert". If you have a different religion and you don't convert, according to you then either sentence is applicable. Which is not correct....there is a difference between "kill those who don't convert" and "kill anyone who doesn't convert"...
I spoke of muslim beligerants, and I stand by my statement even with you attempting to mischaracterize it.There is? Only if it was: "kill some of those those who don't convert" and "kill anyone who doesn't convert". If you have a different religion and you don't convert, according to you then either sentence is applicable. Which is not correct.
It's not just apostates, it's anyone they classify as kafiri...which is pagans, polytheists, atheists, and idolaters. Which is the marching orders from the end of Muhammad's life, which is why abrogation is an important concept to understand to understand Islamic jurisprudence. Apostasy is a different matter, which is why I wasn't talking about apostates.Apostasy is a different matter.
You made two statements. And they both mean the same thing. And they are both wrong.I spoke of muslim beligerants, and I stand by my statement even with you attempting to mischaracterize it.
From here: https://islam.ru/en/content/story/slay-unbelievers-wherever-you-find-them-verse-sword-explainedIt's not just apostates, it's anyone they classify as kafiri...which is pagans, polytheists, atheists, and idolaters.
Christians who walk in the flesh. Galatians 5.Carnal Christians sounds menacing...like calling them meat. But I suppose such names are good for looking down the end of our noses at people.
nope, they're both right. You're just falling for Islamist apologist propaganda.You made two statements. And they both mean the same thing. And they are both wrong.
Yeah, an islamist apologetics site is not the best way to get accurate information about things that aren't flattering to Islam. But hey, not everyone has the time to actually read the hadith and sira, as well as the ishtijad which is mostly in disagreement with those claims until recent attempts at whitewashing. But I'm sure you source all of your information about religions from their apologists, right?From here: https://islam.ru/en/content/story/slay-unbelievers-wherever-you-find-them-verse-sword-explained
'The Quran says, “Slay them wherever you find them…” which abrogates all the peaceful verses in the Quran and lets Muslims kill any non-Muslim they want.'
But...
'This verse commands Muslims to defend their community against idolaters who violated their peace treaty obligations and were waging a war of aggression.
The verse is applicable only to hostile armies and not to non-Muslims in general. We should look at the entire chapter and interpret the verses comprehensively and consistently, rather than taking one verse out of context.
And...
"When the sacred months have passed, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give charity, let them go on their way. Verily, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.:
But...
Some scholars referred to this as the “verse of the sword” because it commands the Muslims to defend the community against their enemies, but this is merely the designation of some scholars and it was not labeled as such by the Prophet, his companions, or the early Muslims. The verse allows for hostilities to cease if the idolaters repent from their transgression and become Muslims. Even if they refuse to accept Islam, the verse immediately following commands peace with any idolater who stops fighting and asks for a covenant of security.
The Quran is like the bible. Open to different interpretations. I get all my info about it from various people who interpret it their own way. If I'd actually read the whole thing then I'd have my own interpretation. Now, unless you have a quote or a reading or an interpretation that says Muslims can "kill those who don't convert" which isn't clarified by other verses as I did above then bring it to the table. Otherwise...nope, they're both right. You're just falling for Islamist apologist propaganda.
Yeah, an islamist apologetics site is not the best way to get accurate information about things that aren't flattering to Islam. But hey, not everyone has the time to actually read the hadith and sira, as well as the ishtijad which is mostly in disagreement with those claims until recent attempts at whitewashing. But I'm sure you source all of your information about religions from their apologists, right?
not quite, Islamic jurisprudence is heavily regulated until modernists have sought to re-write Islamic history. They say "the doors of ishtijad are closed" and defer to classic interpreters, who unanimously agreed that ayat like 9:29 were unlimited calls to war until the end of time "when there is no more fitnah." That is, of course, not adding the additional wrinkle that the Qu'ran cannot be interpreted without the hadith because it is almost entirely without context, and the actions of Muhammad are the baseline for how Muslims are supposed to behave...and he'd fit more with ISIS than with the Ahmadi.The Quran is like the bible. Open to different interpretations. I get all my info about it from various people who interpret it their own way. If I'd actually read the whole thing then I'd have my own interpretation. Now, unless you have a quote or a reading or an interpretation that says Muslims can "kill those who don't convert" which isn't clarified by other verses as I did above then bring it to the table. Otherwise...
Perhaps I should have added "or pay the jizya" since that is what Islam calls for, modernist whitewashing not withstanding.Oops, my bad. maybe that should be "kill anyone who doesn't convert".
As I said, it's all interpretation. All sections of the Quran must be read in context. No cherry picking or I'll start with the OT.not quite, Islamic jurisprudence is heavily regulated until modernists have sought to re-write Islamic history. They say "the doors of ishtijad are closed" and defer to classic interpreters, who unanimously agreed that ayat like 9:29 were unlimited calls to war until the end of time "when there is no more fitnah."
No, that only applies to non believers within an Islamic state. And nowhere does it call for beheading. Or any other form of death.Perhaps I should have added "or pay the jizya" since that is what Islam calls for, modernist whitewashing not withstanding.
All this statement shows is your ignorance of Islamic jurisprudence, because it's all well spelled out with little to "interpret".As I said, it's all interpretation. All sections of the Quran must be read in context. No cherry picking or I'll start with the OT.
Nope, it's what Muslims are called to pursue until there is no more "fitnah", the whole world is divided into "dar-al-Islam" and "dar-al-harb" and the only question about implementation is which part of the program is active. I really have to wonder why you are so willing to speak on things that you are so clearly ignorant about as if you know anything at all, and why you are so quick to turn to Islamic apologists as if they are going to be an unbiased source.No, that only applies to non believers within an Islamic state. And nowhere does it call for beheading. Or any other form of death.
Yet again, and this is becoming the usual MO, you provide absolutely no evidence whatsoever.All this statement shows is your ignorance of Islamic jurisprudence, because it's all well spelled out with little to "interpret".
Nope, it's what Muslims are called to pursue until there is no more "fitnah", the whole world is divided into "dar-al-Islam" and "dar-al-harb" and the only question about implementation is which part of the program is active. I really have to wonder why you are so willing to speak on things that you are so clearly ignorant about as if you know anything at all, and why you are so quick to turn to Islamic apologists as if they are going to be an unbiased source.
Do you want me to flood your PMs with it? Because I'm holding back to try to derail this thread less than it already is being derailed. So if you want the receipts, I'll gladly give them to you.Yet again, and this is becoming the usual MO, you provide absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
Anyone who has made a serious effort to study Islam knows that abrogation is a very complex and controversial subject. Very few verses found in the Qur'an have been agreed on as being abrogated among scholars, and of those that have, none override the verses that teach tolerance, coexistence, and peace. A far more important concept in understanding Islamic jurisprudence is puting things in historical and cultural context when reading any Islamic texts.It's not just apostates, it's anyone they classify as kafiri...which is pagans, polytheists, atheists, and idolaters. Which is the marching orders from the end of Muhammad's life, which is why abrogation is an important concept to understand to understand Islamic jurisprudence.
The Muslims that were being spoken to in the Qur'an and the classic scholars lived in a different culture, at a different point in time, and were facing unique situations. You can't read the Qur'an, hadiths, or the tasfirs from a modern perspective, you have to read them through a historical lens, if not, you will continue to misinterpret what they are saying.Islamic jurisprudence is heavily regulated until modernists have sought to re-write Islamic history. They say "the doors of ishtijad are closed" and defer to classic interpreters, who unanimously agreed that ayat like 9:29 were unlimited calls to war until the end of time "when there is no more fitnah."
Neither the Qur'an nor the hadith can be properly interpreted without putting them into the historical and cultural context they were written in.the Qu'ran cannot be interpreted without the hadith because it is almost entirely without context, and the actions of Muhammad are the baseline for how Muslims are supposed to behave...and he'd fit more with ISIS than with the Ahmadi.
You do realise that Muslims also had to pay taxes (zakāt)? And the tax was for the betterment of society as a whole. Would it be fair for non-Muslims to live in an Islamic state and receive all of the benefits and protections offered by that state without any contribution to the costs involved?Perhaps I should have added "or pay the jizya" since that is what Islam calls for, modernist whitewashing not withstanding.
In very simple terms, Dar al Islam (House of Islam) historically was a Muslim land with a Muslim government where Islamic law governed. Dar al Harb (House of War) was a land not under an Islamic government or Islamic law, which was openly hostile towards Muslims. Since there are no countries or states that fit these definitions today, the terms are no longer used by Muslims for the most part.Nope, it's what Muslims are called to pursue until there is no more "fitnah", the whole world is divided into "dar-al-Islam" and "dar-al-harb" and the only question about implementation is which part of the program is active.
Yeah, an islamist apologetics site is not the best way to get accurate information about things that aren't flattering to Islam. But hey, not everyone has the time to actually read the hadith and sira, as well as the ishtijad which is mostly in disagreement with those claims until recent attempts at whitewashing.
The only people who talk about jizyah, abrogation, the division of the world into dar-al-Islam and dar-al-harb, and cite Qur'an 9:29 as an open-ended command to Muslims to fight until the end of time today are Islamic extremists and anti-Islamic propagandists. So when someone like yourself presents Islam the way you have in this thread and others, it's clear to me, as someone who has a strong background in Islam, that your understanding of this religion comes from those sources and not the actual teachings and understanding of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims adhere to.You're just falling for Islamist apologist propaganda.
Only with modernist revisionism. As you seem to recognize down below.Anyone who has made a serious effort to study Islam knows that abrogation is a very complex and controversial subject. Very few verses found in the Qur'an have been agreed on as being abrogated among scholars, and of those that have, none override the verses that teach tolerance, coexistence, and peace. A far more important concept in understanding Islamic jurisprudence is puting things in historical and cultural context when reading any Islamic texts
Are Muslims or are Muslims not supposed to imitate Muhammad as the ideal moral example for all humanity? how then can you claim that we have to understand him in his historical situation? And is the Qu'ran the timeless revelation of Allah or is it a contextual document intended only for those who were in the unique situation of 7th century Arabia?.
The Muslims that were being spoken to in the Qur'an and the classic scholars lived in a different culture, at a different point in time, and were facing unique situations. You can't read the Qur'an, hadiths, or the tasfirs from a modern perspective, you have to read them through a historical lens, if not, you will continue to misinterpret what they are saying.
A claim that only arose in the 20th century among modernists, while all historic interpreters were agreed that they very much do.The violent verses found in the Qur'an don't abrogate the verses of peace because of the context they were written in. There are certain situations where the verses of peace apply, and others where the verses of violence apply, therefore, each verse has a specific context and application. In other words, each verse in the Qur'an is to be applied to its appropriate situation. For example, when Qur'an 9:5 says "When the Sacred Months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them. And capture them, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every ambush," it is dealing with a specific event at a point in history when Meccan pagans were breaking their peace treaties and declaring war on the Muslims, so that verse would not negate the peaceful verses in the Qur'an since it is very specific to it's intent and the point in history it was to be applied
A claim that is more modern attempts at whitewashing it into something it isn't..
Neither the Qur'an nor the hadith can be properly interpreted without putting them into the historical and cultural context they were written in.
Another white-washing and nothing more.According to Islamic teachings, Muslims are to emulate Muhammad's character traits like honesty, compassion, and humility and his ethical principles. Muslims understand the historical context in which the Qur'an was written. They see his actions as a warrior to have been appropriate for situations Muslims faced in the 7th century and not as mandates for Muslims to follow in 2025.
With humiliation? The issue isn't "taxes' it's that jizya is designed to humiliate the people paying it and make their second class status clear.You do realise that Muslims also had to pay taxes (zakāt)? And the tax was for the betterment of society as a whole. Would it be fair for non-Muslims to live in an Islamic state and receive all of the benefits and protections offered by that state without any contribution to the costs involved?
there was no "openly hostile" requirement. It is either under islamic control or is "at war" for not being subjugated. You can't whitewash it when there was no 3rd option.In very simple terms, Dar al Islam (House of Islam) historically was a Muslim land with a Muslim government where Islamic law governed. Dar al Harb (House of War) was a land not under an Islamic government or Islamic law, which was openly hostile towards Muslims. Since there are no countries or states that fit these definitions today, the terms are no longer used by Muslims for the most part.
I prefer Islamic fundamentalists to calling them "extremists" because they are simply practicing the religion in its purest form. Speaking the truth about Islamic jurisprudence and history isn't "anti-Islamic propaganda" it's not giving in to Islamic pressure and accusations for the sake of political correctness.The only people who talk about jizyah, abrogation, the division of the world into dar-al-Islam and dar-al-harb, and cite Qur'an 9:29 as an open-ended command to Muslims to fight until the end of time today are Islamic extremists and anti-Islamic propagandists. So when someone like yourself presents Islam the way you have in this thread and others, it's clear to me, as someone who has a strong background in Islam, that your understanding of this religion comes from those sources and not the actual teachings and understanding of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims adhere to.
That would be confusing, because calling a Christian a Fundamentalist implies something entirely different.O
I prefer Islamic fundamentalists to calling them "extremists" because they are simply practicing the religion in its purest form. Speaking the truth about Islamic jurisprudence and history isn't "anti-Islamic propaganda" it's not giving in to Islamic pressure and accusations for the sake of political correctness.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?