• Islam in Britain
    328 replies, posted
[QUOTE=starpluck;21449709]In the Bible, when your blood is on your head, it means that you are to be killed.[/QUOTE] According to you. If your argumentation is the same as before for this, please don't bother copypasting it. [QUOTE=starpluck;21449709]And he did say that. Acts 18:5-7 5 When Silas and Timothy came from Macedonia, Paul devoted himself exclusively to preaching, testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ. 6 [U][B]But when the Jews opposed Paul and became abusive[/B][/U], he shook out his clothes in protest and said to them, [highlight]"Your blood be on your own heads![/highlight] I am clear of my responsibility. From now on I will go to the Gentiles." 7 Then Paul left the synagogue and went next door to the house of Titius Justus, a worshiper of God.[/QUOTE] Reading the Nova Vulgata, it just seems like that he got frustrated and uttered a curse of some sorts because the Jews laughed at him for being a religious nut. He gave up trying to convert them. Which doesn't mean that Jews must die.
[QUOTE=mchapra;21449633]You are just pathetically hanging on to the debate now. I gave you another example of wife beating outside Islam. Please before you change your words again, stop.[/QUOTE] Of course wife beating outside of islam happens. But it doesn't change the fact that islam promotes wife beating. Whatever the other pro-islam guy in this thread says doesn't reflect how that passage has affected islamic society. [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g_QwiYxvkY&feature=PlayList&p=6644A687FC212F81&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=6[/url] When you have to twist and turn a passage that many times in order to get something that is still regarded as abuse something is clearly wrong.
[QUOTE=CriticalThought;21449744]That's not what it means though.[/QUOTE] It does, which is why I pulled a few verses that mentioned it. [B]Leviticus 20:9[/B] " 'If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother,[highlight] and his blood will be on his own head.[/highlight] [B] Leviticus 20:11[/B] " 'If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman must be put to death; [highlight] their blood will be on their own heads.[/highlight] [B] Leviticus 20:13[/B] " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; [highlight]their blood will be on their own heads.[/highlight] What do you think "blood on their hand" means? [editline]08:09PM[/editline] [QUOTE=ThePuska;21449765]According to you. If your argumentation is the same as before for this, please don't bother copypasting it. [/QUOTE] Tell me what does it mean then? [editline]08:14PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Zee!;21449774] When you have to twist and turn a passage that many times in order to get something that is still regarded as abuse something is clearly wrong.[/QUOTE] It wasn't even twisted a bit. I was trying to simplify in hopes you'd understand. [quote]Men are the protectors and maintainers of women. because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next) do not share their beds, (and last) beat (tap) them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance): for Allah is Most High, Great (above you all). (4:34)[/quote] You don't even need to explain this verse, its as simple as it gets.
[QUOTE=starpluck;21449818]It does, which is why I pulled a few verses that mentioned it. [B]Leviticus 20:9[/B] " 'If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother,[highlight] and his blood will be on his own head.[/highlight] [B] Leviticus 20:11[/B] " 'If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman must be put to death; [highlight] their blood will be on their own heads.[/highlight] [B] Leviticus 20:13[/B] " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; [highlight]their blood will be on their own heads.[/highlight] What do you think "blood on their hand" means? [editline]08:09PM[/editline] Tell me what does it mean then?[/QUOTE] Hey look, someone can't read. Notice how all the posts clearly state "he must be put to death" "Both the man and the woman must be put to death" "They must be put to death" then does onto say to that their blood will be on their own heads. Do you not thing [B]your[/B] interpretation would be a little redundant? It means they are responsible for their "crimes" and the only person who they can blame for their death is themselves.
[QUOTE=Chekko;21441363]I'm glad atleast one here on Facepunch isn't sleeping. [editline]a[/editline] Also, people that are saying "islamophobia" and such should look up Qouran qoutes on the internet. Videos that media almost doesn't show us [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whWgCOE56K8[/media] This happens daily againts polices [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IasJKOZqkZM[/media] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysDrfrtZDVs[/media] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhmXRem4OHs[/media] Isn't Sweden just wonderful? :). Also if a black person commits a crime he can get his picture pixilated and the journalists makes the pixels white to make him look like a Swede. The left-wing parties hides the truth to the people.[/QUOTE] Props to Sweden for putting up with the bullshit.
[QUOTE=Zee!;21449774]Of course wife beating outside of islam happens. But it doesn't change the fact that islam promotes wife beating. Whatever the other pro-islam guy in this thread says doesn't reflect how that passage has affected islamic society. [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g_QwiYxvkY&feature=PlayList&p=6644A687FC212F81&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=6[/url] When you have to twist and turn a passage that many times in order to get something that is still regarded as abuse something is clearly wrong.[/QUOTE] Which verse. Now.
[QUOTE=mchapra;21450067]Which verse. Now.[/QUOTE] The one that has been quoted multiple times in this thread.
[QUOTE=CriticalThought;21449986]Hey look, someone can't read. Notice how all the posts clearly state "he must be put to death" "Both the man and the woman must be put to death" "They must be put to death" then does onto say to that their blood will be on their own heads. Do you not thing [B]your[/B] interpretation would be a little redundant? It means they are responsible for their "crimes" and the only person who they can blame for their death is themselves.[/QUOTE] Think logically, what image comes to your mind when you read "their blood will be on their own heads." Regardless. The fact that " their blood will be on their own heads. " is used on every verse which everyone know means death, is clear that it has the same meaning when used another context. Why would I be surprised about redundancy? You do realize how many contradictions exist in the Bible?
[QUOTE=Zee!;21450088]The one that has been quoted multiple times in this thread.[/QUOTE] Of which starpluck gave proper explanation.
[QUOTE=mchapra;21450067]Which verse. Now.[/QUOTE] Ignore him, he's an obvious troll. After it was already explained to him, he acts illiterate.
[QUOTE=starpluck;21450129]Think logically, what image comes to your mind when you read "their blood will be on their own heads." Regardless. The fact that " their blood will be on their own heads. " is used on every verse which everyone know means death, is clear that it has the same meaning when used another context. Why would I be surprised about redundancy? You do realize how many contradictions exist in the Bible?[/QUOTE] So basically you state that the reasoning you have for the meaning of the word is what it makes you think about. Then, you use the same baseless statement to try to back it up and say that it is "clear" it means something that it does not. Also do you know what redundancy means? [editline]03:27PM[/editline] [QUOTE=mchapra;21450130]Of which starpluck gave proper explanation.[/QUOTE] No he didn't, in fact he's been refuted over and over and just keeps repeating himself
Facepunch debate team delivers
[QUOTE=Tudd Fudders;21419634]Someone needs to strap themselves with a bomb and walk into they're gatherings. Give'em a taste of they're own medicine.[/QUOTE] I agree. See how they like it. Suicide bombing is so cowardly.
[QUOTE=CriticalThought;21450241]So basically you state that the reasoning you have for the meaning of the word is what it makes you think about.[/QUOTE] No not really at all, which is why I disregarded it. Think of it as a trick to remember what it means more easily. [quote] Then, you use the same baseless statement to try to back it up and say that it is "clear" it means something that it does not. [/quote]That's what it means.[quote] Also do you know what redundancy means?[/quote]Yes I do, and like I said the Bible is filled with contradictorily errors and such, no question about it. I can provide many examples. So why don't you redundancy think would be an issue? [quote] No he didn't, in fact he's been refuted over and over and just keeps repeating himself[/quote]I have? Or was I just ignored. Show me where and how I was refuted.
[QUOTE=starpluck;21450129]Think logically, what image comes to your mind when you read "their blood will be on their own heads." Regardless.[/QUOTE] I think it's just a poetic way of saying that they're responsible for their own fate, and that fate won't be good, because they don't believe in Jesus as the saviour. A warning of sorts and a curse, from the frustrated Paul to the Jews. It's definitely not a suggestion nor an order to kill Jews. Seriously, just consider this passage [quote]Qui maledixerit patri suo et matri, morte moriatur; qui patri matrique maledixit, sanguis eius sit super eum.[/quote] He who speaks ill of his father and mother is to be killed; he who speaks ill of his father and mother, his blood be upon him. Book of Leviticus is full of passages like this. I find it difficult to believe that it'd be that redundant. And apparently many translators and interpretors agree with me, since all translations I can find in my native language translate the second part as "it's his own fault".
Also keep in mind the topic of the thread is Islam in Britain, and arguments about Christianity hold no bearing on the topic of Islam. The only thing that matters in an argument about Islam is Islam. [release]This isn't an issue of opinion, and I'd like to know if you've spent any time studying the Qur'an, the Sunnah, and the Fiqh of the various schools of Madh'hab (Hanafi, Maliki, Hanbali, Shafii, Jaafari, Imami, Zaidi, Ismaili, etc). [b]If you had, you would understand that Islam at it's core is a violent, political ideology. It was created by Muhammad to obtain power and wealth.[/b] Muhammad was no fool. The memetic structure he created has the lasting power of few others. [b]The Qur'an was revealed by Muhammad over a period of time[/b]. It can be split into two basic sections. The Meccan Qur'an, and the Medinan Qur'an. The Meccan Qur'an are the passages revealed early on in Muhammad's career, before the Meccans expelled him from the city. At this point in time he had little political or military power, his followers mostly relegated to his extended family. It was after Muhammad migrated to Medina that the revelations changed. As he gained more wealth, might and followers, [b]the revelations became more and more imperialist, culminating in Surah at-Taubah, the second last to be revealed and one of the most violent and supremacist chapters in the Qur'an (the Qur'an is not arranged in chronological order, but by length of Surah, going from longest to shortest. you can find the chronology here: [url]http://www.bombaxo.com/chronsurs.html[/url])[/b] Now, the word of Allah is eternal and everlasting. It cannot be changed or abrogated by any mere mortal. The only thing that can abrogate the word of Allah is: the word of Allah (as per Qur'an al-Baqarah 106 and an-Nahl 101). So what this means, [b]is that any contradictions in the Qur'an, are abrogated by the ayat or surah revealed later chronologically.[/b] What one finds, when one examines the small amount of exhortations to peace and tolerance in the Qur'an (not including the "no compulsion in religion" verse, which is routinely taken out of context by apologists, something I will touch on another time), is that they are almost universally confined to the Meccan period. I am going to copy+paste many violent passages from both the Qur'an, and the Sunnah (which is comprised of accounts of the life, words and deeds of Muhammad and which is the basis of Shariah law the world over). [b]I'm sure I will be accused of quote mining or taking things out of context.[/b] [b]The context game is fallacious, for reasons I stated above.[/b[ Allah's word is eternal and omnipotent, and cannot be abrogated by anything, including historical context. [b]His commands of violence are not locked down by any language confining them to a time and place.[/b] If time, place and historical context abrogate the eternal word of Allah, it can't really be "eternal" can it? The sheer overwhelming amount of clear and explicit exhortations to violence against "unbelievers" as well as the accounts of Muhammad's life are all the evidence one needs, straight from the core and holiest Islamic sources themselves, that Islam is not in any way peaceful by the regularly accepted western definition. Muhammad himself told Muslims to hit their wives, Muhammad himself ordered people to be killed, Muhammad himself engaged in slave trading. [b]Muhammad is the perfect man, or Al-Insan al-Kamil. He is the moral compass in Islam. If Muhammad did it or said it was ok, then it's Halal.[/b] If Muhammad forbade it, it's Haram (the only real debate within Islam is over things that Muhammad didn't touch on, things he neither forbade or allowed. The debate within Islam is usually confined to determining whether such things are "Mushbooh", or suspicious). [b]It is the duty of every Muslim man to emulate Muhammad to the best of his ability.[/b] Most Muslims don't do this, but that is only evidence that our inner humanity can pierce even the blackest of shrouds. [b]So long as Islam exists, it gives carte blanche to anyone who wants to engage in wanton slaughter, subjugation and enslavement of the "other", the only condition being that that "other" consists of Kufr. [/b]Now, I'm not saying we should or even could ban Islam. [b]What I am doing, is saying that Islam is a problem in a way that other religions just aren't, especially in this day and age.[/b] There is indeed a global Jihad. It is not a grand conspiracy (although there are small conspiracies within it, such as the infiltration of American civil discourse by the Muslim Brotherhood and it's front groups), but simply devout Muslims around the world working to make Allahs religion superior over all others. The global Jihad is simply the sum of all local Jihads (including, but not limited, to Kashmir, south Thailand, Mindanao, the Caucasus, Pakistan, Somalia, Nigeria, etc).[/release]Or refer to page 2 for full post [editline]03:47PM[/editline] [url]http://www.facepunch.com/showpost.php?p=21449100&postcount=159[/url] The whole basis of your argument is that "The blood be upon your head" means that you are marked for death by Christians. Even if this was what it meant, which is doesn't, you haven't provided any evidence to support that it does outside of visualizing a metaphor, which in itself is asinine, and the only use you have for this is that an apostle said it to a group of Jews who blasphemed before him and claim that that means all Jews, which is also asinine. Even if it did mean death to all Jews, it still has nothing to do with Islam.
[quote=CriticalThought]Even if it did mean death to all Jews, it still has nothing to do with Islam. [/quote] [QUOTE=CriticalThought;21450505]Also keep in mind the topic of the thread is Islam in Britain, and arguments about Christianity hold no bearing on the topic of Islam. The only thing that matters in an argument about Islam is Islam. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=heatsketch;21441756] Find me a single passage in the bible where God unequivocally commands the Jews or Christians to wage war against heathens until religion in the world is only for Him. [/QUOTE] He asked, I delivered. [release] If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant, And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; ... Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die. -- Deuteronomy, Chapter 17:2-3,5[/release]
[QUOTE=starpluck;21450670]He asked, I delivered. [release] If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant, And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; ... Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die. -- Deuteronomy, Chapter 17:2-3,5[/release] [release][/QUOTE] Also, I have already stated that that is not a passage where "God unequivocally commands the Jews or Christians to wage war against heathens until [B]religion in the world is only for Him[/B]." Read the entire thread, as that refers specifically to land God has given to his people, "[B]within[/B] any of thy [B]gates[/B] which the LORD thy God [B]giveth[/B] thee" which is NOT the entire world as it is in Islam In fact I see that you already know that as you have ...'d out this part: And it be told thee, and thou hast heard [of it], and enquired diligently, and, behold, [it be] true, [and] the thing certain, [that] such abomination is wrought [B]in Israel[/B]:
[QUOTE=CriticalThought;21450719]Also, I have already stated that that is not a passage where "God unequivocally commands the Jews or Christians to wage war against heathens until [B]religion in the world is only for Him[/B]." Read the entire thread, as that refers specifically to land God has given to his people, "[B]within[/B] any of thy [B]gates[/B] which the LORD thy God [B]giveth[/B] thee" which is NOT the entire world as it is in Islam[/QUOTE] It [B]is[/B] referring to any non-Christians. [release] If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant, [highlight]And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; ... Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.[/highlight] -- Deuteronomy, Chapter 17:2-3,5[/release] It says anyone who served other gods, worshiped them, sun or moon, or any other host of heaven, [B]which I have not commanded[/B], then bring forth that person who committed that act, and stone them until they die.
[QUOTE=CriticalThought;21450719]Also, I have already stated that that is not a passage where "God unequivocally commands the Jews or Christians to wage war against heathens until [B]religion in the world is only for Him[/B]." Read the entire thread, as that refers specifically to land God has given to his people, "[B]within[/B] any of thy [B]gates[/B] which the LORD thy God [B]giveth[/B] thee" which is NOT the entire world as it is in Islam[/QUOTE] The Quran says: "Let there be no compulsion in religion" [2:256]
[QUOTE=starpluck;21450799]It [B]is[/B] referring to any non-Christians. [release] If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant, [highlight]And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; ... Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.[/highlight] -- Deuteronomy, Chapter 17:2-3,5[/release] It says anyone who served other gods, worshiped them, sun or moon, or any other host of heaven, [B]which I have not commanded[/B], then bring forth that person who committed that act, and stone them until they die.[/QUOTE] It's funny that you missed my edit and attempt to perpetuate your lie And it be told thee, and thou hast heard [of it], and enquired diligently, and, behold, [it be] true, [and] the thing certain, [that] such abomination is wrought [B]in Israel[/B]: This whole passage only applies when it happens IN ISRAEL, which is God's promised land. In Islam the entire world is Allah's promised land. [editline]03:57PM[/editline] [QUOTE=mchapra;21450815]The Quran says: "Let there be no compulsion in religion" [2:256][/QUOTE] [B]What one finds, when one examines the small amount of exhortations to peace and tolerance in the Qur'an (not including the "no compulsion in religion" verse, which is routinely taken out of context by apologists[/B]
[QUOTE=CriticalThought;21450837]It's funny that you missed my edit and attempt to perpetuate your lie And it be told thee, and thou hast heard [of it], and enquired diligently, and, behold, [it be] true, [and] the thing certain, [that] such abomination is wrought [B]in Israel[/B]: This whole passage only applies when it happens IN ISRAEL, which is God's promised land. In Islam the entire world is Allah's promised land. [/QUOTE] I didn't notice your edit, and didn't attempt to cut off part of the quote. Where does it say the entire world is Allah's promised land?
[QUOTE=mchapra;21450815]The Quran says: "Let there be no compulsion in religion" [2:256][/QUOTE] This is abrogated by Surah At-Taubah Three translations of the same verse: [quote]009.005 YUSUFALI: But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. PICKTHAL: Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. SHAKIR: So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.[/quote] [quote]009.029 YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low. SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.[/quote] [QUOTE=starpluck;21450891]I didn't notice your edit, and didn't attempt to cut off part of the quote. Where does it say the entire world is Allah's promised land?[/QUOTE] [quote]008.038 YUSUFALI: Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). PICKTHAL: Tell those who disbelieve that if they cease (from persecution of believers) that which is past will be forgiven them; but if they return (thereto) then the example of the men of old hath already gone (before them, for a warning). SHAKIR: Say to those who disbelieve, if they desist, that which is past shall be forgiven to them; and if they return, then what happened to the ancients has already passed.[/quote] [quote]008.039 YUSUFALI: And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, [B]and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere[/B]; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do. PICKTHAL: And fight them until persecution is no more, [B]and religion is all for Allah[/B]. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do. SHAKIR: And fight with them until there is no more persecution and [B]religion should be only for Allah[/B]; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.[/quote] Surah 8 (al-Anfal) was revealed in the Medinan period. "al-Anfal", the name of the chapter, is arabic for "the spoils of war". 30-36 of al-anfal were revealed in Mecca, but 38-39 were revealed in Medina
Wow jeez this thread turned into religiousquotefag central or something.
[QUOTE=Not Tishler;21448582]no... it's not [editline]06:47PM[/editline] You mean the humans?[/QUOTE] Yeah, was just using it descriptively. I am against Islam. That doesn't mean I don't like the people who follow it, I don't like what they follow. It isn't the people I dislike, it's the groups and beliefs they identify with so blindly.
[QUOTE=CriticalThought;21449519]Hahahaha, you're the racist. It's possible to be middle eastern and not Muslim, in which case I would have no issue with the person, it is also possible to be a middle-class white male and yet be a Muslim, in which case I would have an issue with the person. By introducing race to your argument you are trying to stall the thread and derail it in a direction in which it has no grounding. Quote me if I said that? I said: The muslims [B]PROTESTING[/B], not the ones being [I]interviewed[/I]. What are you responding to here exactly? You claimed that [B]ALL[/B] the Muslims in the video belong to Islam4UK, which is an inaccurate claim. Keep up to date will you? If you choose to not read posts I can't help you. Well I'm glad you admit that it doesn't involve going into other peoples lands and killing them, because that passage refers specifically to breaking God's rules in God's lands. Well I'm glad you admit that the figure you stated further up in your post is indeed wrong, as it is from 2001, and you are agreeing that there are now more Muslims. [editline]02:53PM[/editline] So where does this make him an authority on [B]CHRISTIANITY?[/B][/QUOTE] there's too many Strawmen arguments in here to sift through. [editline]09:53PM[/editline] [QUOTE=CriticalThought;21449986]Hey look, someone can't read. Notice how all the posts clearly state "he must be put to death" "Both the man and the woman must be put to death" "They must be put to death" then does onto say to that their blood will be on their own heads. Do you not thing [B]your[/B] interpretation would be a little redundant? It means they are responsible for their "crimes" and the only person who they can blame for their death is themselves.[/QUOTE] put to death? how the FUCK do you interpret it anyway else? what the fuck is wrong with you, Criticalthought? you are so god awfully stupid, how do you possibly survive without forgetting to breathe?
[QUOTE=CriticalThought;21451189]This is abrogated by Surah At-Taubah Three translations of the same verse: Surah 8 (al-Anfal) was revealed in the Medinan period. "al-Anfal", the name of the chapter, is arabic for "the spoils of war". 30-36 of al-anfal were revealed in Mecca, but 38-39 were revealed in Medina[/QUOTE] "Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. " (2:62)
[QUOTE=Not Tishler;21451902]there's too many Strawmen arguments in here to sift through.[/QUOTE] ^ Irony ________________________________________________________________________________________________ [release]Surah at-Taubah is the only Surah that doesn't begin with Bismillah ar-Rahman ar-Rahim – “In the name of Allah, the compassionate, the merciful.” Explanations for this vary, but notable recent theologian Abul Ala Maududi says that Imam Razi, an Ulema scholar from the 11-12th century, had the correct explanation for it's absence: Muhammad himself simply didn't recite it at the beginning. Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, the sixth Fatimad caliph, agrees but goes further, saying that Muhammad command Bismillah ar-Rahman ar-Rahim never be recited by any Muslim at the beginning of Surah at-Taubah. The reason for it's absense is explained by Tafsir al-Jalalayn, saying that Bismillah al-Rahman ar-Rahim was said for security, and Surah at-Taubah "was sent down when security was removed by the sword." Ali ibn Abi Talib, the cousin and son in law of Muhammad, agrees, saying that Bismallah “conveys security while this sura was sent down with the sword. That is why it does not begin with security.” The Tafsir al-Jalalayn adds that “Hudhayfa reports that they called it the Sura of Repentance, while it is, in fact, the Sura of Punishment", although not all schools agree with that name. According to a hadith recorded by Bukhari, sura 9 was the last to be revealed as a whole, although part of another sura came later. Another hadith says that sura 110 was actually the last, but in any case sura 9 is very late, among the last revelations Muhammad received. It came around the time of an inconclusive expedition Muhammad undertook against a Byzantine garrison at Tabuk in northern Arabia in 631, and much of its contents revolve around the events of that attempt to engage the army of the great Christian empire in battle. It begins, however, by addressing the pagans of Mecca. Verses 1-12 free the unbelievers from all obligations they may have incurred in treaties they concluded with the Muslims, and all existing treaties are restricted to a period of four months (vv. 1-3). This restriction comes with the warning that “Allah will cover with shame those who reject Him” (v. 2), which the Tafsir al-Jalalayn explains as [b]“humiliating them in this world by having them killed,[/b] and in the Hereafter, by [sending them to] the Fire.” The announcement is made during the Hajj that “Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans” and [b]call them to repent and accept Islam[/b] (v. 3). This refers only to those pagans who have violated the terms of their treaties with the Muslims; the other treaties will be honored to the end of their term (v. 4). As-Sawi says that this is an exception to the four-month limit, giving to the Damra tribe, “who still had nine months of their treaty remaining.” Then comes the notorious Verse of the Sword, containing the injunction to “slay the unbelievers wherever you find them (v. 5). This is, understandably, a verse much beloved by present-day jihadists. In a 2003 sermon, Osama bin Laden rejoiced over this verse: “Praise be to Allah who revealed the verse of the Sword to his servant and messenger [the Prophet Muhammad], in order to establish truth and abolish falsehood.” Ibn Juzayy, a 13th century scholar, notes that v. 5 abrogates “every peace treaty in the Qur’an,” and specifically abrogates 47:4’s directive to “set free or ransom” captive unbelievers. According to As-Suyuti, “This is an Ayat of the Sword which abrogates pardon, truce and overlooking” – that is, perhaps the overlooking of the pagans’ offenses. The Tafsir al-Jalalayn says that the Muslims must “slay the idolaters wherever you find them, be it during a lawful [period] or a sacred [one], [b]and take them, captive, and confine them, to castles and forts, until they have no choice except [being put to] death or [acceptance of] Islam.”[/b] Ibn Kathir, another 14th century Islamic scholar and one of the most renowned of his era, echoes this, directing that Muslims should “not wait until you find them. Rather, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in the various roads and fairways so that what is made wide looks ever smaller to them. [b]This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam.”[/b] He also doesn’t seem to subscribe to the view commonly put forward by Muslim spokesmen in the West today — that this verse applies only to the pagans of Arabia in Muhammad’s time, and has no further application. He asserts, on the contrary, that “slay the unbelievers wherever you find them” means just that: the unbelievers must be killed “on the earth in general, except for the Sacred Area” – that is, the sacred mosque in Mecca, in accord with 2:191. [b]If the unbelievers convert to Islam, the Muslims must stop killing them.[/b] The Tafsir al-Jalalayn: “But if they repent, of unbelief, and establish prayer and pay the alms, then leave their way free, and do not interfere with them.” Ibn Kathir: “These Ayat [verses] allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations.” Qutb says that the termination of the treaties with a four-month grace period, combined with the call to kill the unbelievers, [b]“was not meant as a campaign of vengeance or extermination, but rather as a warning which provided a motive for them to accept Islam.”[/b] Asad, however, says that v. 5 “certainly does not imply an alternative of ‘conversion or death,’ as some unfriendly critics of Islam choose to assume.” He says that “war is permissible only in self-defence,” in accord with 2:190, and that “the enemy’s conversion to Islam…is no more than one, and by no means the only, way of their ‘desisting from hostility.’ He points the reader to verses 4 and 6 for further elucidation. [highlight]So you see the Muslim idea of aggression is simply not believing in Islam[/highlight] According to Jalaluddin Al-Suyuti, another extremely renowned and important 15th century scholar, the jurist “Ash-Shafi’i took this as [b]a proof for killing anyone who abandons the prayer and fighting anyone who refuses to pay zakat[/b] [alms]. Some use it as a proof that they are kafirun [unbelievers].” Likewise Ibn Kathir: “Abu Bakr As-Siddiq used this and other honorable Ayat as proof for fighting those who refrained from paying the Zakah.” Thus even Muslims who do not fulfill Islamic obligations fall into the category of those who must be fought. This is a principle that latter-day Salafist movements apply broadly and use frequently in branding governments that do not rule according to strict Islamic law as unbelievers who must be fought by those who regard themselves as true Muslims. According to the twentieth century Islamic scholar Muhammad Asad, verses 4 and 6 of Sura 9 belie the impression that many take from v. 5: [b]that pagans are to be offered the choice of “conversion or death.” [/b]V. 4, however, only specifies that if non-Muslims honor the terms of their existing treaties with Muhammad and the Muslims, the Muslims will honor those treaties to the end of their term. (basically a hudna, never a lasting peace) And v. 6, according to Ibn Kathir, gives pagans “safe passage so that they may learn about the religion of Allah, so that Allah’s call will spread among His servants….In summary, those who come from a land at war with Muslims to the area of Islam, delivering a message, for business transactions, to negotiate a peace treaty, to pay the Jizyah, to offer an end to hostilities, and so forth, and request safe passage from Muslim leaders or their deputies, should be granted safe passage, as long as they remain in Muslim areas, until they go back to their land and sanctuary.” The reference here to paying the Jizyah refers to the tax specified for the People of the Book under Islamic rule in v. 29; thus the choice, at least for those who have received a written scripture (mainly Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians), is not conversion or death, but conversion, subjugation or death. The Tafsir al-Jalalayn, As-Suyuti, and Ibn Juzayy agree with this view of v. 6. Ibn Juzayy says that it means that Muslims should “grant them security so that they can hear the Qur’an to see whether they will become Muslim or not. (then convey them to a place where they are safe) If they do not become Muslim, return him to his place.” He notes, however, that this is not a unanimous view: “This is a firm judgment in the view of some people while other people say that it is abrogated by fighting.” [highlight]So that means that Muslim scholars only disagree whether infidels should sometimes be given safe passage, or never given safe passage. not that they should be allowed to coexist as equals on an indefinite basis[/highlight] The treaty that the Muslims concluded with the pagans “near the sacred Mosque” (v. 7) refers to the Treaty of Hudaybiyya. In 628, Muhammad had a vision in which he performed the pilgrimage to Mecca — a pagan custom that he very much wanted to make part of Islam, but had thus far been prevented by the Quraysh control of Mecca. But at this time he directed Muslims to prepare to make the pilgrimage to Mecca, and advanced upon the city with fifteen hundred men. The Quraysh met him outside the city, and the two sides concluded a ten-year truce (hudna), the treaty of Hudaybiyya. Some leading Muslims were unhappy with the prospect of a truce. After all, they had recently broken a Quraysh siege of Medina and were now more powerful than ever. Were they going to bargain away their military might for the sake of being able to make the pilgrimage? According to Muhammad’s first biographer, Ibn Ishaq, a furious Umar went to Abu Bakr and said, “Is he not God’s apostle, and are we not Muslims, and are they not polytheists? Then why should we agree to what is demeaning to our religion?” The two of them went to Muhammad, who attempted to reassure them: “I am God’s slave and His apostle. I will not go against His commandment and He will not make me the loser.” But it certainly didn’t seem as if the treaty was being concluded to the Muslims’ advantage. When the time came for the agreement to be written, Muhammad called for Ali and told him to write, “In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful.” But the Quraysh negotiator, Suhayl bin ‘Amr, stopped him: “I do not recognize this; but write ‘In thy name, O Allah.” Muhammad told Ali to write what Suhayl had directed. But Suhayl was not finished. When Muhammad directed Ali to continue by writing, “This is what Muhammad, the apostle of God, has agreed with Suhayl bin ‘Amr,” he protested again. “If I witnessed that you were God’s apostle,” Suhayl told Muhammad, “I would not have fought you. Write your own name and the name of your father.” Again the Prophet of Islam, to the increasing dismay of his followers, told Ali to write the document as Suhayl wished. In the final form of the treaty, Muhammad shocked his men by agreeing to provisions that seemed disadvantageous to the Muslims: those fleeing the Quraysh and seeking refuge with the Muslims would be returned to the Quraysh, while those fleeing the Muslims and seeking refuge with the Quraysh would not be returned to the Muslims. Yet soon Muhammad broke the treaty. A woman of the Quraysh, Umm Kulthum, joined the Muslims in Medina; her two brothers came to Muhammad, asking that they be returned “in accordance with the agreement between him and the Quraysh at Hudaybiya.” But Muhammad refused: Allah forbade it. He gave Muhammad a new revelation: “O ye who believe! When there come to you believing women refugees, examine and test them: Allah knows best as to their faith: if ye ascertain that they are believers, then send them not back to the unbelievers” (60:10). In refusing to send Umm Kulthum back to the Quraysh, Muhammad broke the treaty. Although Muslim apologists have claimed throughout history that the Quraysh broke it first, this incident came before all those by the Quraysh that Muslims point to as treaty violations. The contemporary Muslim writer Yahiya Emerick asserts that Muhammad based his case on a bit of legal hair-splitting: the treaty stipulated that the Muslims would return to the Quraysh any man who came to them, not any woman. Even if that is true, Muhammad soon – as Emerick acknowledges – began to accept men from the Quraysh as well, thus definitively breaking the treaty. The breaking of the treaty in this way would [b]reinforce the principle that nothing was good except what was advantageous to Islam, and nothing evil except what hindered Islam.[/b] Once the treaty was formally discarded, Islamic jurists enunciated the principle that truces in general could only be concluded on a temporary basis of up to ten years, and that they could only be entered into for the purpose of allowing weakened Muslim forces to gather strength to fight again more effectively. Nevertheless, Ibn Kathir and others maintain that the Quraysh broke the treaty first. And verses 8-14 certainly give the impression that they did indeed break it, excoriating the pagans for selling “the signs of Allah” for a “miserable price” (v. 9) and for violating oaths they made with the Muslims (vv. 12, 13). Thus because of all their enormities, Allah exhorts the Muslims to fight them (vv. 13-14). According to Ibn Juzayy, “Allah will punish them at your hands” (v. 14) means “killing and capture. [b]That is a promise of victory for the Muslims.” The Tafsir al-Jalalayn concurs: “Fight them, and God will chastise them, He will have them killed, at your hands and degrade them, humiliate them through capture and subjugation, and He will give you victory against them…”[/b][/release]
[QUOTE=CriticalThought;21452049]^ Irony[/QUOTE] lol, no, not really. you literally just fucking made up what you wanted to hear. so what's your entire point of this argument?
"Were moving in here, fuck your beliefs and your culture, its our way now." Basically what they are saying. Their religion is like a nuclear warhead balanced ontop a shoddy stool missing a leg. Correct me if I am wrong.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.