Thank you SO much for giving a simple answer to a simple question. You are more intelligent than A LOT of other people.
Now, are you killing the unbelievers wherever you find them?
Upvote
0
-
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Islam The Quran and reading its interpretation.
- Thread starter Why?JustWhy?
- Start date
Now, are you killing the unbelievers wherever you find them?
Upvote
0
Mod Hat On
Thread has been cleaned
This Forum is for
Debate between Christian members
And the non-Christian religion
Challenged
From the Sop:
Specific Forum GuidelinesThread has been cleaned
This Forum is for
Debate between Christian members
And the non-Christian religion
Challenged
From the Sop:
- Only Christian members may start threads to challenge/debate members of a specific non-Christian religion.
- Debates are only between Christian members and members of the specific non-Christian religion being challenged.
Upvote
0
Why not? You are NOT a Muslim. The Quran says kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.
Here is my argument:
1- A person is a Muslim if and ONLY if he/she follows the Quran.
2-The Quran is CLEAR and explained in detail. It is easy to understand and it is a clarification for all things.
3-The Quran COMMANDS people to kill the unbelievers wherever they find them (Surah 9 ayah 29).
4- YOU, are NOT following what the Quran says.
5- Therefore, you are NOT a Muslim. (concluded from 4,1)
One thing to consider:
If at any point you mention a verse that instructs people to be nice to unbelievers, you are actually citing a contradiction.
Waiting on your response.
Upvote
0
Because, unlike you, I understand the context in which the verse you cite was revealed. I know, without doubt - and because the Qur'an is very clear on the matter - that I have no right at all to murder people - any people; whether or not they are Muslim. I can guarantee that my brother Muslims (Limo and Anatolian) will say the very same.
Your opinion on my status as a Muslim for refusing to commit murder is of no matter to me. I am not - and never will be - answerable to you.
Upvote
0
I want this to be a fruitful discussion. I do.
So let me ask you this: Are you familiar with deductive arguments? If yes, then great. If no, then I can help.
My argument that I proposed against your view, is a deductive argument. That argument is valid. Valid simply means it is structured safely. Furthermore, the argument is also SOUND. Sound means the premises and conclusion are supported with evidence.
Now, for you to refute a deductive argument, you have to show that, at least, one premise is FALSE.
So, which premise(s) do you want to challenge? BTW, it can be MORE THAN 1 premise.
Waiting for your response.
Until you refute my argument, it is sound. I have shown why it is sound. Accept it, or refute it.
Upvote
0
You accuse me of not being a Muslim because I said that I do not kill unbelievers wherever I find them. This accusation is based on your argument:
‘1. A person is a Muslim if and ONLY if he/she follows the Quran.
‘2. The Quran is CLEAR and explained in detail. It is easy to understand and it is a clarification for all things.
‘3. The Quran COMMANDS people to kill the unbelievers wherever they find them (Surah 9 ayah 29).
‘4. YOU are NOT following what the Quran says.
‘5. Therefore, you are NOT a Muslim. (concluded from 4,1).’
End of quote.
You say that in order to refute this argument I have only to: ‘Show that, at least, one premise is FALSE.’
Premise 1 is correct.
Premise 2 is correct (allowing for those parts of the Qur’an that are allegorical)
Premise 3 is false. It is false because the Qur’an does not command ‘people’ to kill unbelievers; it commands certain Muslims to kill certain unbelievers, and only then under well defined, conditions.
Considered in its historical context it is clear that Al-Tawba: 29 is concerned with defensive military action against the Byzantine empire, which had mobilised troops in order to attack the Muslims.
The Reverend E.M. Wherry, an American Presbyterian missionary to India wrote this about the Surah:
‘Verses 29-128 refer to the events connected with the expedition to Tabuq, which occurred in Rajab of A.H. 9. They were not, however, all enunciated at one time, but partly before the expedition, partly on the march, and partly after the return. Verses 29-35 may be referred to the time of arrival at Tabuq, when the Christian prince, John of Aylah, tendered his submission to Muhammad, paying tribute (Jazya).’ (A Comprehensive Commentary on the Quran: Volume 2; page 274.)
Dr. Mustafa As-Sibaa’ie writes: ‘This is also known as Ghazwat al-Usrah (the campaign of hardship). It took place in Rajab 9 AH. Tabook is a place between Wadi al-Qura, in the Hijaz, and Syria. The reason for this battle was that the Byzantines had gathered a huge number of troops in Syria, including the tribes of Lakhm, Judhaam, ‘Aamilah and Ghassan, who were Christianized Arabs. They did so because Heraclius intended to attack Madeenah and put an end to the state that was developing in the Arabian Peninsula, as the news of this state and its victories had filled Heraclius with fear and terror. So the Prophet ordered the people to prepare for a campaign.’ (‘The life of Prophet Muhammad - Highlights and Lessons: page 116).
Commenting on Al-Tawba, Shaykh Muhammad al-Ghazali writes:
‘Muslims are therefore basically opposed to war and are never the ones to start it. By the imperative of their own religion, they are taught not to impose their beliefs on others by force. Their mission is to impart and communicate God’s message, leaving people free to decide whether to believe or reject it. Those who refuse to believe are free to pursue their lives in peace as long as they do not pose any obstacle or threat to Islam and the Muslims, who perceive their faith as the strongest and most vital binding relationship between God and humankind and that it is their responsibility to make others aware of it and provide them with the opportunity to understand and appreciate it. This is the basis of the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims in Islamic society. God says elsewhere in the Qur’an: “Therefore if they (the unbelievers) do not trouble you and cease their hostility towards you and offer you peace, God gives you no authority over them” (al-Nisa: 90). Those who take up arms against a Muslim state or parts of it must be met by force, and if they are overcome, they should be disarmed. Once that is achieved, they are free to lead their own lives and practise their beliefs in peace and security under the protection of the Muslim authorities, in return for which they have to pay a levy.
‘This is the background against which prescription of the Jizyah, or exemption tax, came into being. It is not due from those who are neutral and have never taken arms against the Muslim state. The surah gives ample explanation for the reasons behind the establishment of this tax, for it stipulates who should pay it. They are those ‘who do not believe in God and the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden, and who do not follow the true religion, until they pay the exemption tax unreservedly and with humility.’ (A Thematic Commentary on the Qurʼan; pages 182–183).
This is what Alexander Mikaberidze has to say about the Qur’an’s stance on warfare:
‘The following verses are widely acknowledged to be the first to grant Muslims permission to bear arms: “Permission (to fight) is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged, and indeed, God has the power to help them: those who have been driven from their homes against all right for no other reason than their saying, “Our Provider is God!” For, if God had not enabled people to defend themselves against one another, monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques - in all of which God’s name is abundantly glorified - would surely have been destroyed.” (22:39-40).
‘In these verses, the Koran asserts, if people were not allowed to defend themselves against aggressive wrongdoers, all the houses of worship - it is worthy of note here that Islam is not the only religion indicated here - would be destroyed and thus the word of God extinguished. Another verse states: “They ask you concerning fighting in the prohibited months. Answer them: “To fight therein is a serious offence. But to restrain men from following the cause of God, to deny God, to violate the sanctity of the sacred mosque, to expel its people from its environs is in the sight of God a greater wrong than fighting in the forbidden month. (For) discord and strife (fitna) are worse than killing.” (2:217).
‘Wrongful expulsion of believers - Muslims and other monotheists - from their homes for no other reason than their avowal of belief in one God is one of the reasons - jus ad bellum - that justify recourse to fighting, according to these verses. Earlier revelations (Koran 42.40-43) had allowed only non-violent self-defence against wrongful conduct of the enemy. In another verse (2:291), the Koran acknowledges the enormity of fighting, and thus the potential taking of human life, but at the same time asserts the higher moral imperative of maintaining order and challenging wrongdoing.
‘Therefore, when both just cause and righteous intention exist, war in self-defence becomes obligatory. The Koran further asserts that it is the duty of Muslims to defend those who are oppressed and cry out to them for help (4.75), except against a people with whom the Muslims have concluded a treaty (8.72).
‘With regard to initiation of hostilities, the Koran has specific injunctions. Koran 2.190 reads, “Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not commit aggression, for God loves not aggressors,” which forbids Muslims from initiating hostilities. Recourse to armed combat must be in response to a prior act of aggression committed by the opposite side.
‘In the month of Ramadan in the third year of the Islamic calendar (624), full-fledged hostilities broke out between the Muslims and the pagan Meccans in what became known as the Battle of Badr. In this battle, the small army of Muslims decisively trounced a much larger, and more experienced, Meccan army. Two years later, the battle of Uhud was fought in which the Muslims suffered severe reverses, followed by the Battle of Khandaq in 627. Apart from these three major battles, a number of other minor campaigns were fought until the Prophet’s death in 632. Some of the most trenchant verses exhorting the Muslims to fight were revealed on the occasions of these military campaigns.
‘One such verse is 9.5, which is one of what have been termed the ‘Sword verses’ (Ayat al-sayf), states: “And when the sacred months are over, slay the Polytheists wherever you find them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every conceivable place.
‘Another verse that is often conjoined to the previous verse runs: “Fight against those who - despite having been given revelation before - do not believe in God nor in the Last Day, and do not consider forbidden that which God and His Messenger have forbidden, and do not follow the religion of the truth, until they pay Jizyah with willing hand, having been subdued.” (9.29).
‘The first of the sword verse verses (9.5), with its internal reference to the polytheists who may be fought after the end of the sacred months, would circumscribe its applicability to only the pagan Arabs of Muhammad’s time; this is how in fact medieval jurists, such as al-Shafii (d. 820), understood the verse.
‘The second of the sword verses is seemingly at the People of the Book, that is, Jews and Christians, but again, a careful reading of the verse clearly indicates that it does not intent all the people of the Book but only those from among them who do not, in contravention of their own laws, believe in God and the Last Day and, in a hostile manner, impede the propagation of Islam.
‘The Koran, in another verse (2.193), makes clear, however, that should hostile behaviour on the part of the foes of Islam cease, then the reasons for engaging them in battle also lapses. This verse states:
“And fight them on until there is no more chaos (fitna) and religion is only for Gd, but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression.”’ (Conflict and Conquest in the Islamic World: A Historical Encyclopedia; Volume 1; pages 929–930).
This is what John Gallagher and Eric D. Patterson have to say:
‘The Quran also developed a just war ideology. It forbids aggressive warfare and the pre-emptive strike, and makes it clear that self-defence was the only possible justification for hostilities. War was always a terrible evil, but it was sometimes necessary in order to preserve decent values, such as freedom of worship. Even here, the Quran did not abandon its pluralism: synagogues and churches as well as mosques should be protected. The Quran insists on the importance of mercy and forgiveness, even when during armed conflict. While engaged in hostilities, Muslims must fight steadfastly in order to bring the war to a speedy end, but the moment the enemy asked for peace, Muslims must lay down their arms. They must accept any truce, even if they suspect the enemy of double-dealing.
‘Later Islamic Law developed additional principles of humane warfare. It forbids war against a country where Muslims are permitted to practice their religion freely; it outlaws the killing of civilians, the deliberate destruction of property, and the use of fire in warfare.
‘Holy war was not one of the essential principles of Islam. The word Jihad does not refer to armed conflict but to the ‘effort’ and ‘struggle’ required to implement God’s will in a flawed and violent world. Muslims are exhorted to strive in his endeavour on all fronts: intellectual, social, economic, spiritual, moral, and domestic. Sometimes they would have to fight, but this was not their chief duty.
‘It is true that Muslim rulers often engaged in wars for territorial aggrandizement and personal interest and dignified their military activities by calling it a Jihad, but, like other Kings and imperialists, they were motivated by political ambition rather than by religion.’ (‘Debating the War of Ideas’: Page 57).
Your fourth premise (that I am not following the Qur’an) is false. It is clear, from the historical context, that Al-Tawba 29 can be applied only to Muslims who are members of the military; and who are engaged in a defensive war. The verse does not apply, and never has applied, to Muslims in general. To say otherwise is a lie.
Conclusion:
When it comes to my refusal to kill disbelievers I am doing exactly what the Qur’an says. I am no longer in the military (I once was); I am not a combatant on active service, in defence of my country; fighting an enemy who seeks to kill either myself, or someone who depends on me for their protection.
Your conclusion (that I am not a Muslim) is false.
Your entire case is a crock of twaddle. And yes, I do know what deductive arguments are. I learned all about argument when I took my degree in Philosophy and Logic; and I engaged in argument for over sixty years as a Christian; learning from people better qualified - and more experienced - than I (which is by far the best way to learn). I recommend you give it a try.
Have a nice day
Upvote
0
Your further clarification of the Quran and its verses and chapters refutes premise 2.
You admitted that premise 2 is true. You agreed that the Quran is clear and easy to understand.
1- The Quran says it is clear and explained in detail.
2- The Quran claims it is a clarification for ALL things.
3- The Quran is NOT clear. (this is understood from your reply)
4- Therefore that is a contradiction. (thanks to logic. A cannot be A and not A at the same time and in the same sense)
5- Therefore, according to the Quran, The Quran isn't from God.
You have to either agree the Quran isn't clear, or it is clear.
If it is clear, you have to agree that it commands people to kill unbelievers.
If you reject that, you are implying a contradiction.
If you clarify ANY statement in the Quran, you are refuting premise 2
Have a nice day!
Upvote
0
Oh dear. No one can be as dim as your behaviour suggests and still be able to place one foot in front of the other. I must assume, therefore, that you are merely perverse. This is my last word on the matter.
Upvote
0
Typical Muslim. I forgive you.
Just refuted your religion in less than 10 posts. Thanks for discussion. IDK if we can call it a discussion.
You will soon realize that the Quran is NOT from God.
Peace.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
GrowingSmaller
Muslm Humanist
I think theres an apparent contradition. Thats true. First it says theres some unclear verses, and then that Muhammed (saws) is sent down a book (sent to him) which clarifies all things.
I suppose the get out would be that "all things" is not to be taken literally. Meaning it could be interpreted as a who does the dishes first in 1758 household with such a pin code etc. Or what it the spin of the Higgs boson. But it seems obvious that its not clarifying all such things, so there has to be A) the conclusion that the verse is rubbish or B) it was speaking to muhammed (saws) in that the Koran clarified unto him thinks he was unclear about.
Then, if it clarified "all things" in that way then why are there unclear or allegorical verses?
The get out would be Muhammed (saws) was known to be in the cave of hira (IIRC) trying his best to learn for himself the truth about religion. Then the revelations started. They clarified unto him his basic or main questions, like the nature of God.
Does that imply there cant be allegorical aspects to the revelation?
...
It again depends on defining "all things". If some things are unclear or allegorical, then they cant simultaneously be clear and straightforwards. Thats 100% accepted. But the "set" of things made clear ("all things") was - if theres a case to be made - probably meant to mean all things which were unclear to Muhammed which he needed to be straightened out about. In terms of the life of faith.
...
So we have the conclusion, the clarifications were given to Muhammed (saws) where it benifited him. Other verses might be unclear, or allegorical, but they are, its implied, better put that way... the faith *need not* be straintforwards all of the time, because the staringh path for mankind includes appreciating stories and allegories (like the spiders web verses) which are not - and need not according to their function - be literal and clear in the sense that other things *need* to be. Those needs are the "all things" which needed clarifying.
A bit contrived, maybe, but my humble effort.
GS.
I suppose the get out would be that "all things" is not to be taken literally. Meaning it could be interpreted as a who does the dishes first in 1758 household with such a pin code etc. Or what it the spin of the Higgs boson. But it seems obvious that its not clarifying all such things, so there has to be A) the conclusion that the verse is rubbish or B) it was speaking to muhammed (saws) in that the Koran clarified unto him thinks he was unclear about.
Then, if it clarified "all things" in that way then why are there unclear or allegorical verses?
The get out would be Muhammed (saws) was known to be in the cave of hira (IIRC) trying his best to learn for himself the truth about religion. Then the revelations started. They clarified unto him his basic or main questions, like the nature of God.
Does that imply there cant be allegorical aspects to the revelation?
...
It again depends on defining "all things". If some things are unclear or allegorical, then they cant simultaneously be clear and straightforwards. Thats 100% accepted. But the "set" of things made clear ("all things") was - if theres a case to be made - probably meant to mean all things which were unclear to Muhammed which he needed to be straightened out about. In terms of the life of faith.
...
So we have the conclusion, the clarifications were given to Muhammed (saws) where it benifited him. Other verses might be unclear, or allegorical, but they are, its implied, better put that way... the faith *need not* be straintforwards all of the time, because the staringh path for mankind includes appreciating stories and allegories (like the spiders web verses) which are not - and need not according to their function - be literal and clear in the sense that other things *need* to be. Those needs are the "all things" which needed clarifying.
A bit contrived, maybe, but my humble effort.
GS.
Upvote
0
AskTheFamily
Junior Member
- Mar 14, 2010
- 2,854
- 195
- 39
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Muslim
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- CA-NDP
The Quran clarifies itself, and it is easy to understand if one is sincere to it and come seeking a cure or is sincere to the truth when reciting it.
However if one is unjust, it will increase him in nothing but perdition.
Despite clear verses of how God exists with clear proof, an Atheist may be still blind to it, and the verses about the subject will seem unclear.
Despite clear guidance with respect to God sending guidance and appointing Prophets, to a Deist, he maybe blind to it's verses and not understand it's clear concise as well elaborate arguments.
The same is true of the authority of the family in Quran.
At the end, the only ones who will benefit is people seeking to be lead by God and his book, rather then becoming leaders upon the book imposing interpretations on it.
If one is charitable and does charitable reading to it, they will benefit. When one wants to use the Quran as a means for them to be followed and impose their opinions or justify their love of the Jibt and Taghut all in the name of Quran, they will meet destruction.
Very few Muslims actually benefit from the Quran despite how clear it is. Most of them are following misguided leaders, the Jibt and Taghut is entrenched their hearts, and they cannot see the clearest of teachings and guidance in it.
It is not that book is unclear. Anything that has ambiguity is clarified within itself and reasoning manifests everything it intends. It's that hearts are averse to what it calls to because their actions are for other then God.
May God fill us with love of his chosen ones!
However if one is unjust, it will increase him in nothing but perdition.
Despite clear verses of how God exists with clear proof, an Atheist may be still blind to it, and the verses about the subject will seem unclear.
Despite clear guidance with respect to God sending guidance and appointing Prophets, to a Deist, he maybe blind to it's verses and not understand it's clear concise as well elaborate arguments.
The same is true of the authority of the family in Quran.
At the end, the only ones who will benefit is people seeking to be lead by God and his book, rather then becoming leaders upon the book imposing interpretations on it.
If one is charitable and does charitable reading to it, they will benefit. When one wants to use the Quran as a means for them to be followed and impose their opinions or justify their love of the Jibt and Taghut all in the name of Quran, they will meet destruction.
Very few Muslims actually benefit from the Quran despite how clear it is. Most of them are following misguided leaders, the Jibt and Taghut is entrenched their hearts, and they cannot see the clearest of teachings and guidance in it.
It is not that book is unclear. Anything that has ambiguity is clarified within itself and reasoning manifests everything it intends. It's that hearts are averse to what it calls to because their actions are for other then God.
May God fill us with love of his chosen ones!
Upvote
0
Similar threads
