Jump to content

70 jawans killed in biggest Maoists/Naxal attack ever in India


ViruRulez

Recommended Posts

jeeez ... lets look at this very very slowly ... heres the main part of the verse : Our punishment took them on a sudden by night or while they slept for their afternoon rest What does that sentence mean ... lets break it down and see ... Our = Muhammad and Co (on behalf of God) punishment = (iam sure you know the meaning of punishment) sudden by night or while they slept = without warning and when they were least expecting a attack.
let me begin by saying, for the first time in this discussion, you are beginning to argue in a logically coherent manner. keep it up! now, let us look at your breakdown of this verse. the 2nd two parts you have interpreted correctly. the first part you have incorrectly interpreted, due to the language that Abrahamic/Monotheistic scrptures tend to use. Our = God alone - not Muhammad or any other mortal agent(s). we know this because of the following verses from both the Quran and other Abrahamic scriptures such as the Penteteuch: It is We Who created you and gave you shape; then We bade the angels bow down to Adam, and they bowed down; not so Iblis; He refused to be of those who bow down. [surah 7, verse 11] this is just 7 verses after 7:4, the verse you are talking about. here again we see that God is using the first person plural to refer to Himself. if the first person plural is Muhammad in 7:4, it must also be Muhammad seven verses later, no? but is it? Muhammad and Co aren't claiming to have created Adam in this verse. there are many other examples of this Abrahamic peculiarity, and thus the verse you are talking about his God's divine punishment of the tribes of Aad, Thamud, as well as Noah's people and Lot's people as well. once again, you don't have proof, even in the tafsir/hadith that this was Muhammad's doing or a description of Muhammad's actions. here is the 26th verse from Genesis, chapter 1 further highlighting the Abrahamic convention of God referring to his Majesty by using the first person plural: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. [Genesis 1:26]
And the purpose of Hadiths is to not elaborate or comment on the Quran but to narrate incidents , events and circumstances of those times. Your claim that all Hadith that dont confirm to Quran should be discarded falls apart because that incident mentioned in Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4292 is exactly in line with the message of 7:4. Hence the true meaning of 7-4 is do whatever it takes to keep your ideology afloat.
see above explanation of 7:4, by linkage to 7:11 and the Bible.
Again... You seek immunity for acts that would be considered inappropriate in the absence of such an immunity. In our world GWB and his defence secretary cant be prosecuted under any American law for their acts in Iraq because they have immunity. This is exactly what Muhammad did. He claimed immunity from God himself before proceeding to wipe out all the Pagans from far and near. In any case you will find it hard to find why he wiped out the Khybar jews who were so small and so far away from Medina that they posed no threat to him at all.
again, what is the difference in the disbelievers in verse 9:4 and those in 9:5? in other words, why didn't Muhammad create the same immunity for those disbelievers? they were disbelievers too, weren't they? btw, khybar is 85 miles away from Medina, and given the ease with which the Meccans traveled to Ethiopia to get the first Muhajireen, and the ease with which they attacked at Badr which is 200 miles away, 85 miles is basically a suburb of Medina. don't believe me? look it up on google maps.
And pls keep the patronizing away from this thread. It gives me no pleasure to unearth these things knowing well that we will have to live with a 100 million people who find no issues with such blatantly violent ideology.
you're in a much better position than i am. the radical islamists who have perverted Islam, consider me to be a bigger enemy of Islam than you can ever dream or dare to be. you and I are both in their cross-hairs, except that i'm the traitor, you're not. further, millions of moderate muslims, the world over also have to deal with the biased, bigoted clowns from the other aisle who are also gunning for us. i'm talking about the rednecks of Alabama, the neocons of Washington, the Geert Wilders of Europe, the BJPs and Shiv Senas of India, the Meir Kahanes of Brooklyn/Israel, and all other sociopaths who lack not only the balls to ask the real questions in life but also the cerebral capacity to swallow basic axioms of deductive logic. the way i see it, i have far more enemies than you do...but whats the use in complaining, eh?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

unless you can show me that there existed more than one definition of what constituted a day during Mohammads time you have no case here.
ok, lets break this one down further using an analogy. it takes one hour to complete task 1. it takes 1 hour to complete task 2. does it necessarily take 2 hours to complete task 1 + task 2? human beings can "multi-task". so what of the Omnipotent God of all the worlds? He can't multitask? again, these are just rhetorical questions.
Once you are done with that ... then take a look at these verses : 16:06 (What happens to Apostates ) http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/016.qmt.html
first of all 16:6 is talking about farming...not apostates. you're really makin me work here... you must have been thinking of 4:137: Lo! those who believe, then disbelieve and then (again) believe, then disbelieve, and then increase in disbelief, Allah will never pardon them, nor will He guide them unto a way. [surah 4, verse 137] Muslims are not instructed here to do anything...God alone will judge - which is what all religions teach.
03:85 ( Only Islam Acceptible ) followed by 3:86-3:390 which explain what happens to apostates. If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/003.qmt.html
again, it only speaks of God's Divine punishment in the afterlife. muslims aren't instructed to do anything. you also conveniently left out 3:89 although you included it in your condemnation but must have forgot to read: But excepted shall be they that afterwards repent and put themselves to rights: for, behold, God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace. [surah 3, verse 89]
Contrast with : 02:256 ( The famous verse used by apologist to claim that Islam is a tolerant religion) http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/002.qmt.html So clearly 3:85-3:90 and 16:06 are the exact opposite of 02:256
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its quite disturbing to see Aggressive behaviour such as this being part of a religious ideology. No wonder violence follows where Islam goes without any exceptions. .
umm...islam actually came to many regions without war or conquest. Saad bin abi Waqqas was the first muslim in China and china was never conquored by islam. india, indonesia, malaysia, the sylhet region of bangladesh all had their FIRST experience of islam via merchants and traders and not warriors, according to secular historians. Mahmud of Gazni, Babur, Aurugzeb all came centuries after these traders etc.
Contrast this with a 75+ yr old Mahtama Gandhi who dealt with hostile Muslims walking right into the middle of their Neighbourhood with nothing but a walking stick in his hand and daring them to slap him or kill him. None would have faulted hm had he ordered the army to forcibly deport the entire Muslim community out of India given the history. But he chose to forget and forgive
a) then why is it that you are so against such "pussyfying" actions and so jingoistic. it seems to me as though you are trying to eat your pie and have it too. b) what gandhi does is his prerogative. had he taken up arms he would have been justified, as you mentioned. this does not mean that a person who does defend himself is comitting a crime. c) Gandhi too may not be such a pristine character. the last i remember, the Khalistanis don't hold him or Nehru in very high regard, not to mention Indira Gandhi. my grandmother, and again this could just be her inherent bias (God bless her soul) also told me that Gandhi was a severely bigoted person, off the record. again, there is no evidence of that, although my Khalistani friend Sunpreet heartily disagreed with me when i told him that.
A truly noble and benevolent virtue that comes standard with Dharmic faiths.
first of all blanket statements can never go with a religion's followers. if this was true, and by true i mean not false, then the Pala dynasty of Bengal would never have been wiped out by the Senas. if this was true, the Golden Temple would never have been destroyed in operation blue star. if this was true, hundreds of sikhs in delhi would never have been massaccred. none of this incidents had anything to do with Muslims or any other Abrahamic faiths. this was all Dharmic.
Thats the sort of people you need to treat as a Prophet of Peace not someone who is willing to take up a sword at the slightest excuse. Iam sorry but we come from ideologies that are 180 degress apart and you will never understand the inherent problem with your ideology which is draconian and ruthless by the book and by real examples.
well, if defensive of self is considered the "slightest excuse" then yes, i've got nothing more to say. if by ruthless you include verses of peace (8:60-62, all of surah 37, and many many more), then i have nothing more to say. if by real examples you mean after-the-fact narratives that came 100-700 years later, then i have nothing to say. if by real examples you mean figments of your imagination and/or blatant misreading of texts, then i have nothing to say.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont see any wrong commited by the Khybar jews. Granting refuge to Bani Nadir jews isnt a crime and I dont buy the excuse that Bani Nadir violated any treaties considering that they invited Muhammad to live amongst them when he migrated from Medina. but from your link ... heres an interesting tidbit : So once again your own link paints a very negative picture of Muhammad.
On the reasons for the attack, Scottish historian William Montgomery Watt notes that the presence of the Banu Nadir in Khaybar, who were inciting hostilities along with neighboring Arab tribes against Muhammad. Contemporary scholar Laura Veccia Vaglieri, while giving full credence to Watt's view, points out other reasons such as Muhammad's raising his prestige among his followers, as well as to capture booty to sustain subsequent conquests. please note the bold part. Vaglieri contradicts herself. On the one hand she agrees with Watt that Khyber incited hostilities...on the other she THINKS - no factual proof - that these were selfish conquests. which is it? she has to make up her mind or else concede that no definitive conclusion can be reached. now, she has no reason to agree with Watt either...and thats precisely my point. she could say "we don't know what happened, good or bad" but instead she takes two contradictory positions at the same time i.e "muhammad fought in self defense, but he also fought offensively". as for khyber, merely hosting without protest, criminals is a crime in and of itself. every heard of the legal phrase "accessory to a crime" or the military phrase "aiding and abetting"? the taliban were hosting war criminals and terrorists and thus war was justifably declared on them. very simple concept.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry thats 16:106
gotcha...regardless same explanation from my end: divine punishment only. no instructions to me to go and do anything about it. As for anyone who denies God after having once attained to faith-and this, to be sure, does not apply toone who does it under duress, the while his heart remains true to his faith, [134] but [only, to] him who willingly opens up his heart to a denial of the truth-: upon all such [falls] God's condemnation, and tremendous suffering awaits them: [surah 16, verse 106] Bossbhai: when the Hadith contradicts the Quran, which one is "right?" [you answered already, to which i proved above the contradictions between the hadeeth and the quran regarding public miracles or spectacles of divine power. if you agree to concede this point, i'll check this Q off, otherwise you will need to address it, as everyone here can see that only one of us is selectively answering questions here] why does the Quran urge "offensive" war, as you claim, in verse 9:5 when 9:4 says "peace"? why does the Quran repeatedly mention provocations as the only justification for war? if you condemn islam for condemning "wicked sinning", is it then correct to assume that you support "wicked sinning" or that dharmic religions support "wicked sinning"? if abrahamic peoples are so "violent" today, how do you believe the pagan arabs and arabian jews were perfectly peaceful to Muhammad 1400 years ago? AND fight in God's cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression-for, verily, God does not love aggressors [surah 2, verse 190] this is the very first call to war to occur in the Quran, textually speaking. none of the preceeding 197 verses makes any mention of warfare or fighting. what part of "do not commit aggression" do you find to be so aggressive and/or offensively violent? [also answered, but not necessarily correctly. again i await a response.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not just the afterlife .... the cuurent life is included too. Read this : http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=3&tid=8371
again, the QURAN doesn't mention the present life. the tafsir of ibn kathir does. who's to say that tafsir ibn kathir is right and "tafsir Kriterion" is wrong?
And once again ... keep such agressive posturing and patronizing out of this debate. I'am truly not interested in going down that line.
fair enough.
Not one single Pagan tribe of Arabia survived Islam - thats a real example. The Zorastrians fled persecution (By guess who) and found refuge in India where they lived happily ever after and continue to do so after more than 1000 yrs ... The Bani Israel Jews have been living in India for nearly 2000 yrs. The community is sooo small that it beggars belief how they survived all those yrs without getting converted. find me a single instance of that happening in the Islamic strongholds and we can talk. Heck Islam isnt even 1400 yrs old ... never mind 2000.
last i heard there are Jews in morocco and in Iran who have not been "converted". in iran they even have MPs. 10% of egypt's population are unconverted christians. in Bangladesh, Christmas and Budda Purnima are government holidays along with Pujas and Eids. as far as i know, one or more West African nations with majority Muslims populations have non-Muslim heads of state - Obasanjo in Nigeria would be a prime example.
Not selectively answering. This is being addresed in the debate if you can keep track of the discussion. The Quran doesnt contain the entire life history of Muhammad to which you agree. The only other place where you can get your information on how he lead his life is from the Seerah and Hadith. Your position that anything that contradicts the quran should be chucked out is a typical stance taken by the apologists who are embarassed by the amount of violence that is recorded in those Hadiths and Seerahs which were all written by Muslims themselves. No scholar worth his salt rejects the authenticity of these books. And even otherwise I have proved that sudden attacks were part of Muhammads game plan as verse 7-4 clearly tells you (backed up by examples in the Hadith). If you want to go only by the Quran you will end up with Muhammad having only fought 2or 3 wars (IIRC) because there is no mention of all wars , battles and raids that Muhammad undertook in his lifetime in the Quran (never mind the details).
but not written by Muhammad. when did these muslims write these things? Bukhari's hadith - ~150 years after Muhammad Ibn Ishaq's Seerah - ~100 years after Muhammad Tafsir Ibn Kathir - ~700 years after Muhammad (your source of choice) if you think Ibn Kathir could definitely commentate on Muhammad's life 700 years later, using Bukhari or Ibn Ishaq's work which was itself 100+ years old, then there isn't much to say. has it occurred to you that muslims of the past may have been motivated by greed and conquest? unless you want to switch sides here and argue that muslims are peaceful now. so how can we reconcile this need for bloodlust with the overwhelming verses of peace in teh Quran? by creating this imaginary "context" for the quran to fit into, where Muhammad's supposed actions justify everything that these muslims wanted/needed to do.
The other thing is that the Quran itself is contradictory and not a clear & perfect book as Muslims would like us to believe. The time duration needed to create earth and heaven recorded differently at different places is a classic example. Your position that there is a possibility of multitasking is just hilarious. I mean the Quran was written AFTER the creation was done and you are trying to argue that God forgot to add up the days and account for Multitasking in one of the verses is a pretty brilliant way to spin things. Do you really expect anyone to answer to such blatant and intellectually dishonest line of debating ?
who said He forgot? the Abrahmic concept of God is Absolute - hence the need for just One. lets try another way to state the not-so-obvious: It took me 30 minutes to bake a cake, 15 minutes to make the batter, and 30 minutes to make some rice in my rice cooker. 30 + 15 + 30 = 75 minutes however, all that really only takes 45 minutes since the rice cooker and cake baking can occur CONCURRENTLY. if I can do it, then Who is God, to be unable to do it? what verse in the Quran indicates that these events did not occur CONCURRENTLY?
So in short you trying to spin things to mean the exact opposite of what it is a typical muslim thought process. As such Iam sure that nothing I say or the tons of evidence that stares at you ( including YOUR OWN links showing Muhammad in a very negative manner ) are not going to make any difference. In other words that signature that you have applies more to you and muslims in general.
look if the that lady takes up contradictory positions and that is cited in wikipedia, its not my fault. the burden of proof is on YOU and HER to explain her apparent contradiction. you've selectively ignored Watts position, which is line with the Quran written by Muhammad. how do you know the women is more correct than watt? and how do explain that the women also agrees with Watt - if he is wrong and she is right?
Twisting and spinning things tend to produce such interpretations. You can believe all you want that that surah is in line with "defensive warfare only" ... line of apologist thinking but Iam not going to waste any time untill you come up with some scholarly interpretations from well renowned scholars that say the same thing as you do. I have said all I need to say and the Tafsirs, Seerah and Hadith back up what I say (not that we needed them in any case ). Further evidence of aggressive warfare comes from the fact that large no.of territories were converted to Islam during Muhammads time itself. A lot of them were very very far away from Meccah/Medina and had no business with Muhammad whatsoever.
that wasn't the Q. the question was simple: verse 9:4 and 9:5 mention one group of people "kuffar" translated into English by the SAME work "disbelievers". however the two verses call for different responses to them. the Q is, why is there a different response for the "kuffar 9:4" as opposed to "kuffar 9:5". if muhammad was who you say he was, wouldn't he have the same response for both: war? how do YOU know whether they had business with Muhammad or not. the Arabs of Meccan travelled all the way to Syria to do do financial business. have you heard of the term "camel caravan"?
It also mentions the opposite too ( the verse 2:217 where it approves fighting during sacred month is a classic example .. ohh and speaking about contradiction ... in verse 9-5 it says slay the unbelievers after the sacred months have passed hmm ) .
not a contradiction. if you study pre-Islamic history. ongoing wars were stopped during the sacred 4 months, and resumed afterwards. verse 2:217 refers to fighting if you have been attacked INSIDE a sacred month. 9:5 refers to fighting if you have been attacked OUTSIDE a sacred month, and once the month arrives, the campaign is still unfinished.
But forget that. You dont seem to realize that a messenger of God himself would probably know better ways than warfare to resolve conflicts and bring peace. I gave you Gandhi's example. According to your own ideology Gandhi should have driven out the Muslims from India. I hope you realize who is faaar more noble and peacefull. Gandhi never went close to a gun in his entire life never mind owning or using a gun. How can you rate Muhammad as being a pacifist in the same vein as Gandhi ?
if i used the world "pacifist" i apologize. pacifisim is a philosophically superior method so long as you don't value your OWN right to live. but i believe that all people, myself included, were put on earth for a reason. if someone tries to intefere with my right to live, then he automatically loses his, regardless of whether i am a position to do something about it or not. do you disagree? because apparently Gandhi did? and you yourself, hold Gandhi in low esteem because of this "cowardice" - your words, if not literally. so i ask you the question: how can you use this idea, which you yourself find so anathema and self-defeating?
The Satanic verses are proof of this. This is the time when Pagans agreed to let Muhammad worship in kaaba. They could have quite simply killed him if they wished too and it would have been perfectly ok by Muhammads own doctrine of intolerance that he preached.
satanic verses story doesn't hold up according to the logic of those who advocate it. proponents state that Muhammad could "abrogate" anything he said at anytime with a new "verse". so why accuse satan? why not say, "woops my bad" and bring a new verse? i mean isn't it worse to say "yeah, i'm a Divine messenger, and yet i got tricked by Satan"? afterall, Muhammad had justification for everything else he did, right? so why was this so difficult? again, you still haven't answered the Q, your apparent contradiction. here you are saying Meccans are tolerant. but earlier in this thread you were bragging about the intolerance of Abrahamic peoples (jews/muslims/christians/bahai). so which is it? intolerant or tolerant? you can't be both.
Because it is over-ridden by verses from later stages of Muhammads life. The surah 9 is the last chapter that was revealed and is essentially Muhammads will. Combined with Chapter 8 they pretty much give free license to go after Pagans. And I have already explained my position on chapter 9 and chapter 8. You can go ask any neutral person to give a honest opinion on chapter 9 ,8 and they will tell you the same thing.
no, actually, surah 5 (i believe) is the last revealed surah and came after victory was attained. how can surah 9 and 8 be the last revelations and wars with Mecca were still going on? and even still, verse 9:4 says "observe your treaty". verse 8:60-62 says "if they want peace, incline towards peace, even if its just a strategy on their part". so according to you, peace over-rides, isn't it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

to put an end to this "No Force used to convert/No compulsion in religion" claim by the apologists to rest ... lets take a look at something called as the Ridda Wars ... whats this ? Well in short its the Apostacy Wars. Why? Well soon after Mohammad died in June 632 all the conquered tribes decided to do a U-Turn feeling that they had a better chance to be free again. This conclusively lays to rest any suggestion that Muhammad did not employ force to convert many tribes. Long story short the rebellious tribes were made to re-submit to Islam by the Sahaba's (Companions of Muhammad) ... and this was done by using ... you guess it ... FORCE ! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ridda_wars
you yourself quoted verses on apostacy...kindly show where in teh Quran Muhammad said to declare wars against people, solely on the basis of excercising their religious freedom or of turning apostates. all it says is that God will punish them in the afterlife. the Sahaba are not God, and the Ridda Wars weren't in the afterlife. it may very well be that the apostates attacked first. it may also be that Abu Bakr or Umar got caught up in their zeal, and violated the defensive injuctions of the Quran. they didn't write the book, Muhammad did. i don't know, i wasn't there. and neither were you. so it may be that Muslims were the aggressors here, as they have been at many times in history, outside of the time of Muhammad. i have never justified any aggressive actions of people after Muhammad's time, because they oppose the Quran's viewpoint of war for self-defense only, as highlighted in all chapters, be they Meccan or Medina. and i am about to start justifying them now. the defense rests, your honor.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bossbhai: when the Hadith contradicts the Quran, which one is "right?" [you answered already, to which i proved above the contradictions between the hadeeth and the quran regarding public miracles or spectacles of divine power. if you agree to concede this point, i'll check this Q off, otherwise you will need to address it, as everyone here can see that only one of us is selectively answering questions here] why does the Quran urge "offensive" war, as you claim, in verse 9:5 when 9:4 says "peace"? [you totally skirted around this question, so i'm not striking it out. further you accussed me of introducing interpretations, when all i did was quote the verse number. what part of the numebers 9,5, and 4 amount to an interpretation. i'm not continuing to bring up irrelevant tafsirs - which are interpretations after the fact.] why does the Quran repeatedly mention provocations as the only justification for war? [as i've shown you, surah 8 and 9 couldn't be the last ones since Meccans were still waging war] if you condemn islam for condemning "wicked sinning", is it then correct to assume that you support "wicked sinning" or that dharmic religions support "wicked sinning"? if abrahamic peoples are so "violent" today, how do you believe the pagan arabs and arabian jews were perfectly peaceful to Muhammad 1400 years ago? [inccorect, the muslims did not worship openly in the Kabaa or anywhere else, until Umar converted to Islam, thereby significantly weakening the Abu Jahl - Umar - Abu Sufyan "triple entente". put another way, if they were so tolerant, why the boycott from 617-619?] AND fight in God's cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression-for, verily, God does not love aggressors [surah 2, verse 190] this is the very first call to war to occur in the Quran, textually speaking. none of the preceeding 197 verses makes any mention of warfare or fighting. what part of "do not commit aggression" do you find to be so aggressive and/or offensively violent? [also answered, but not necessarily correctly. again i await a response.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You missed the point ... the question is if all the Tribes had embraced Islam out of their own goodwill ( which is your position w.r.t "No compulsion in religion") under no duress why did they do a U-turn soon after Muhammad died and take up arms to fight the Sahabas ? I see no reason other than that they were forced by Muhammad to accept Islam. The point is not about what the companions did.
many of them were nominally muslims and accepted islam strategically. there was no way to tell who is genuinely converting and who isn't until they apostized. for example there are accounts, of unverifiable authenticity that many "false" prophets and prophetesses appear the very day Muhammad died or the news reached their locale. reference Musailamah "the liar". many of these prophets even claimed to be prophets of Islam, just after Muhammad. there isn't any Quranic verse which indicates that Muhammad forcibly converted them to Islam. think about it. did the Banu Nadir accept Islam? Did Banu Qurayza? Did the Meccans at Badr? Were they not faced with "force" regardless of whether it was justified or not (i say it was, you will say it wasn't but thats a moot point here). Merely flashing a sword does not convince anyone's mind, especially in 7th century Araba where babies learn to flash swords before they are able to walk. so the idea of being intimidated by force is out of the question, in such a violent region of the world. what would you do if someone told you believe in Marxism or face death? would you say "sure, boss, i'd love to?" just to give you a personal account: when i was in undergrad, a few years ago, i had a group of friends who were all African-American converts to Islam. Andre, Rashaad, Gaidi, and Tory. Tory eventually got engaged to an ethipian christian woman, and is today a christian. bottom line is he is not a muslim. within 3 months of him telling me, and i quote "i know allah real, cuz i prayed to him on the streets, and he brought me here, so i know he real...jesus don't listen to no prayers" he was a christian again. people convert for all sorts of reasons, psychological, personal, financial, political, and social. that a few tribes here and there recanted, doesn't prove anything in light of the above. if someone asked me to convert to anther religion or die, i'd probably choose death, and most humans beings are this way. people have fought and died for less, much less (language martyrs in BD, Kurdistan, etc).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not selectively answering. This is being addresed in the debate if you can keep track of the discussion. The Quran doesnt contain the entire life history of Muhammad to which you agree. The only other place where you can get your information on how he lead his life is from the Seerah and Hadith. Your position that anything that contradicts the quran should be chucked out is a typical stance taken by the apologists who are embarassed by the amount of violence that is recorded in those Hadiths and Seerahs which were all written by Muslims themselves. No scholar worth his salt rejects the authenticity of these books. And even otherwise I have proved that sudden attacks were part of Muhammads game plan as verse 7-4 clearly tells you (backed up by examples in the Hadith). If you want to go only by the Quran you will end up with Muhammad having only fought 2or 3 wars (IIRC) because there is no mention of all wars , battles and raids that Muhammad undertook in his lifetime in the Quran (never mind the details). The other thing is that the Quran itself is contradictory and not a clear & perfect book as Muslims would like us to believe. The time duration needed to create earth and heaven recorded differently at different places is a classic example. Your position that there is a possibility of multitasking is just hilarious. I mean the Quran was written AFTER the creation was done and you are trying to argue that God forgot to add up the days and account for Multitasking in one of the verses is a pretty brilliant way to spin things. Do you really expect anyone to answer to such blatant and intellectually dishonest line of debating ? So in short you trying to spin things to mean the exact opposite of what it is a typical muslim thought process. As such Iam sure that nothing I say or the tons of evidence that stares at you ( including YOUR OWN links showing Muhammad in a very negative manner ) are not going to make any difference. In other words that signature that you have applies more to you and muslims in general. Twisting and spinning things tend to produce such interpretations. You can believe all you want that that surah is in line with "defensive warfare only" ... line of apologist thinking but Iam not going to waste any time untill you come up with some scholarly interpretations from well renowned scholars that say the same thing as you do. I have said all I need to say and the Tafsirs, Seerah and Hadith back up what I say (not that we needed them in any case ). Further evidence of aggressive warfare comes from the fact that large no.of territories were converted to Islam during Muhammads time itself. A lot of them were very very far away from Meccah/Medina and had no business with Muhammad whatsoever. It also mentions the opposite too ( the verse 2:217 where it approves fighting during sacred month is a classic example .. ohh and speaking about contradiction ... in verse 9-5 it says slay the unbelievers after the sacred months have passed hmm ) . But forget that. You dont seem to realize that a messenger of God himself would probably know better ways than warfare to resolve conflicts and bring peace. I gave you Gandhi's example. According to your own ideology Gandhi should have driven out the Muslims from India. I hope you realize who is faaar more noble and peacefull. Gandhi never went close to a gun in his entire life never mind owning or using a gun. How can you rate Muhammad as being a pacifist in the same vein as Gandhi ? The Satanic verses are proof of this. This is the time when Pagans agreed to let Muhammad worship in kaaba. They could have quite simply killed him if they wished too and it would have been perfectly ok by Muhammads own doctrine of intolerance that he preached. Because it is over-ridden by verses from later stages of Muhammads life. The surah 9 is the last chapter that was revealed and is essentially Muhammads will. Combined with Chapter 8 they pretty much give free license to go after Pagans. And I have already explained my position on chapter 9 and chapter 8. You can go ask any neutral person to give a honest opinion on chapter 9 ,8 and they will tell you the same thing. heres the root cause of enemity with Banu Nadir and guess who started the hostilities for petty reasons ! ...... (Keep in mind that it was the Banu Nadir that invited Muhammad from Mecca) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Nadir Other historians cite that Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf went to the Quraish in order to lament the loss at Badr and to incite them to take up arms to regain lost honor, noting the statement of Muhammad: "He (Ka'b) has openly assumed enmity to us and speaks evil of us and he has gone over to the polytheists (who were at war with Muslims) and has made them gather against us for fighting".[13] This too was thought to be in contravention of the Constitution of Medina, of which the tribe led by Ka'b ibn al-Asharf was a signatory, which prohibited them from "extending any support" to the tribes of Mecca, namely Banu Quraish Muhammad called upon his followers to kill Ka'b. Muhammad ibn Maslama offered his services, collecting four others. By pretending to have turned against Muhammad, Muhammad ibn Maslama and the others enticed Ka'b out of his fortress on a moonlit night,[11] and killed him in spite of his vigorous resistance.[14] Some attribute this action to norms of the Arab society that demand retaliation for a slight to a group's honor.[15] The Jews were terrified at his assassination, and as the historian ibn Ishaq put it "...there was not a Jew who did not fear for his life".[16] .
the Banu Nadir did not invite Muhammad. the Ansar Muslims invited Muhammad and the Muhajireen (those who made the Hijrah). Muhammad invited the Banu Nadir into the Constitution of Medina, which occurred before your quoted text above. so why, if Muhammad wished to eliminate them without provocation, did he invite them into his treaty?
After the Battle of Badr, one of the Banu Nadir's chiefs Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf, who was also a gifted poet, wrote a poetic eulogy commemorating the slain Quraish notables; later, he also wrote erotic poetry about Muslim women, which the Muslims found offensive.[11] This poetry influenced so many [12] that his actions were considered directly against the Constitution of Medina which states, loyalty gives protection against treachery and this document will not (be employed to) protect one who is unjust or commits a crime.
firstly, as you stated before that Muhammad while in Mecca was, subject to their laws, even when those laws deny freedom of religion. but the same does not apply to muslims? i think this illustrates the double - standard you are harboring. secondly, you may not care if someone says something about your wife or mother, but in most societies, including non-muslim ones, those are "fightin words". you may not have grown up in the US - a non-muslim society, btw - but i did, and i can tell you that many a middle school fight turned to fist-throwing once the phrase "yo mama..." was thrown in. now here we are talking about grown adults, with people who you have a treaty with, and according to the link, a blanket and unfounded statement against all women from a certain community. let me just tell you that not long ago, a bunch of clowns went berserk in hydrabad cuz some muslims hoisted up a green flag, not the flag of any other country, but a green flag. what would they have done if some erotic poetry about their women was written? and this is 21st century dharmic india, not Abrahmic 7th century arabia which just can't help its barbarism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that again blows a big hole into the "No compulsion" verse. If the Non-muslims were treated on par with Muslims there wouldnt be a need for this "strategic" action (of converting to Islam ). You very well know that most of them were converted by force but are trying to stick to your theory by picking and chosing the early meccan verses which were delivered under totally diff circumsttances (i.e when Muhammad did not have any military power).
actually i haven't quoted a single MECCAN verse. if i'm wrong, i apologize in advance. i have given you quotes from surah 9, and surah 2, both MEDINA chapters. i have also quoted from surah 8, which is your chapter of choice, the "spoils of war". you haven't been able to discuss these verses, and have thus pointed me towards tafsirs you've dug up. many of these tafsirs, don't even make any mention of these verses. you've also mistakenly interpreted verses from 7:4, i think it was, to advocate clandestine attacks. this is a anachronism, as well as attributing God's divine actions indicated by usage of the divine personal pronoun "We" with that of the moratl Muhammad. please reference my previous post where i talked about my friend Tory and his conversion and subsequent un-conversion to Islam. i stated that there can be many reasons, political, psychological, social, political for converting to islam or any other religion. many tribes converted to islam, because so and so muslim had married women from various warring factions. the tribes were now "in-laws" and lay down their arms, and due to the establishment of peace brought about by these muslims, accepted islam. this can be classified as a social or political reason. in any case, if these tribes initially converted due to fear of force, how could they un-convert when Islam had grown stronger relative to when they initially converted? remember muslims weren't any weaker once Muhammad died.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not true and is explained in that wiki link ( here it is again for your convenience : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ridda_wars ) .... heres the relevant tidbit from that link ... it explains how the Muslim HQ itself needed protection from the rebellious tribes. In the fourth week of August 632, Abu Bakr moved to Zhu Qissa with all available fighting forces. There he planned the strategy of the Campaign of the Apostasy to deal with the various enemies who occupied the entire land of Arabia except for the small area in the possession of the Muslims. [3] The battles which he had fought recently against the apostate concentrations at Zhu Qissa and Abraq were in the nature of immediate preventive action to protect Medina and discourage further offensives by the enemy. These actions enabled Abu Bakr to secure a base from which he could fight the major campaign that lay ahead, thus gaining time for the preparation and launching of his main forces. Abu Bakr had to fight not one but several enemies: Tulayha at Buzakha, Malik bin Nuwaira at Butah, Musailima at Yamamah. He had to deal with widespread apostasy on the eastern and southern coasts of Arabia: in Bahrain, in Oman, in Mahra, in Hadhramaut and in Yemen. There was apostasy in the region south and east of Mecca and by the Quza'a in northern Arabia. Abu Bakr formed the army into several corps. The strongest corps, and this was the main punch of the Muslims, was the corps of Khalid ibn Walid. This was used to fight the most powerful of the rebel forces. Other corps were given areas of secondary importance in which to subdue the less dangerous apostate tribes. The first corps to go into action was that of Khalid, and the timing of the despatch of other corps hinged on the operations of Khalid, who was given the task of fighting the strongest enemy forces one after the other. Abu Bakr's plan was first to clear the area of west central Arabia (the area nearest to Medina), then tackle Malik bin Nuwaira, and finally concentrate against the most dangerous and powerful enemy: the self-proclaimed prophet Musailima.
i'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say here, so i'll ask for some clarification. it seems that the part you bolded, would indicate Abu Bakr launching wars for "self-defense" (not sure how authentic the source is) at least under the "Bush Doctrine" of pre-emption. but the main quesitions are these: was the Islamic military might dented very severely due to one man's death (Muhammad)? maybe, maybe not. its hard to tell. but interestingly, your position that Muslims conquored vast amounts of territory by force (which is at least partly if not largely true, btw) would indicate that Muhammad's death WAS NOT that much a cause of weakness. just to put into perspective, Muhammad died in 632, and by 732 Muslims had marched to Tours, in north central France, not far from present day Paris. that could not have been done by a militarily weak Islamic state. the Islamic state was militarily weak for most of Muhammad's lifetime. the fact that the Constitution of Medina was chartered to protect all of Medina's inhabitants, Jews, Muslims, and Pagans as one Ummah points definitively towards that. the battle of Badr was won against extreme odds, the battle of uhud was lost, and the battle of the trench was only won due to extreme tactics of digging an empty moat. however, for whatever reason, (Divine intercession/ brilliant strategizing) the muslims eventually prevailed over the Meccans and all their allies. at this point, BEFORE the riddah wars, the Islamic state was relatively powerful. however, there is no Quranic indication, that the tribes of the Riddah wars were forcibly converted to Islam. this would violate Meccan verses of tolerane as well as the Medina verse of 2:256. further, there isn't a verse which demands unprovoked compliance, as 9:29 was waaay before the Riddah wars and thus was applicable only to the Meccans and their allies amongst the People of the Book. if the situation repeated itself i.e an unprovoked attack by the Riddah tribes, only then is 9:29 applicable to them. otherwise, this was a moral mistake committed by Abu Bakr, Umar, et al...which is fully within the bounds of logic as they were fallible human beings.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bossbhai: when the Hadith contradicts the Quran, which one is "right?" [you answered already, to which i proved above the contradictions between the hadeeth and the quran regarding public miracles or spectacles of divine power. if you agree to concede this point, i'll check this Q off, otherwise you will need to address it, as everyone here can see that only one of us is selectively answering questions here] why does the Quran urge "offensive" war, as you claim, in verse 9:5 when 9:4 says "peace"? [you totally skirted around this question, so i'm not striking it out. further you accused me of introducing interpretations, when all i did was quote the verse number. what part of the numbers 9,5, and 4 amount to an interpretation. i'm not continuing to bring up irrelevant tafsirs - which are interpretations after the fact.] why does the Quran repeatedly mention provocations as the only justification for war? [as i've shown you, surah 8 and 9 couldn't be the last ones since Meccans were still waging war] if you condemn islam for condemning "wicked sinning", is it then correct to assume that you support "wicked sinning" or that dharmic religions support "wicked sinning"? if abrahamic peoples are so "violent" today, how do you believe the pagan arabs and arabian jews were perfectly peaceful to Muhammad 1400 years ago? [inccorect, the muslims did not worship openly in the Kabaa or anywhere else, until Umar converted to Islam, thereby significantly weakening the Abu Jahl - Umar - Abu Sufyan "triple entente". put another way, if they were so tolerant, why the boycott from 617-619?] AND fight in God's cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression-for, verily, God does not love aggressors [surah 2, verse 190] this is the very first call to war to occur in the Quran, textually speaking. none of the preceeding 197 verses makes any mention of warfare or fighting. what part of "do not commit aggression" do you find to be so aggressive and/or offensively violent? [also answered, but not necessarily correctly. again i await a response.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are completely missing the point. The point is very very simple .... soon after Muhammads death many of the tribes that were conquered by his armies re-nounced Islam and took up arms against Muhammads succesor.
i agree with this logic. however... according to the wikipedia link on ridda wars, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ridda_wars, it appears that much of apostacy was led by the "false" prophets of Musaliama, Tulaayha, and others. now according to the Quran, religious freedom is a necessity of the world, and people have a right to claim to be prophets and follow false prophets. however, according to the link, and again this may or may not be supported by academic scholars, these "false" prophets didn't just preach a religion other than islam, but sought to attack the center of Islamic state, Medina. again this is from teh wikipedia link, and i can't vouch for its authenticity, but if you wish to accept, it is going to make the point that even teh Ridda wars were essentially, if not completely, wars of self-defense against renegades who sought to violently overturn the entire system (as opposed to peaceful proselytizing, which is in line with surahs 109 and 2:256).
Whether these tribes thought Islamic empire had weakened (or not) has nothing to do with the fact that they were unhappy with Islam and were willing to take their chances with Abu Bakr knowing very well their fate if they lost...that this could have only happened if they were forced into accepting Islam in the first place is the point Iam interested in
. this is where i begin to disagree with your interpretation for the following reasons (as well as the reasons highlighted above). 1) the quran is very clear about their being "no compulsion in religion..." [surah 2, verse 256], and "unto you your religion, and unto me my religion" [surah 109, verse 5]. the latter is a Meccan verse, but the former is a Medina verse, thereby avoiding any theories of Muhammad urging tolerance only when he was "weak". 2) the Quran also makes sure to mention that God alone will deal with apostates in the hereafter. in other words Muhammad's responsibility is only to convey the message, not enforce its obedience. 3) even if we turn to your hadiths and tafsirs of choice, as far as i know, we cannot recount an instance of disbelievers being coerced into accepting Islam. if there is, i would like you to point it out, although of course i will reject such a hadith as it contradicts with the higher authority Quran. now your point is that why would people leave Islam as soon as Muhammad was dead, if they willingly converted to Islam? this is essentially the wrong question to ask, because there could be a whole host of answers. people convert uncovert religions all the time, it does not necessarily mean they were "coerced" into following their previous faith. for example, Muhammad Ali converted out of Christianity, whether he was practicing or not. this doesn't mean he was forced into christianity, altho perhaps his ancestors may have been. but he was not. and thats what matters. people get demoralized with all religions and turn to other religions or no religion at all. it doesn't mean they were forcibly converted prior to. in our case, we have arabs who may not have been convinced of Muhammad's message but may have chose to convert for a whole host of reasons, cowardice being very last on list given the old-world's penchant for bravery and honor. many muslims converted for purposes of marriage, to seek wealth, to gain personal favors from muslim leaders, or just to escape their own societal problems. there isn't one set reason for why people convert in or out of Islam, or any other religion for that matter. most of these apostates, or at least a large fraction of them, were following these so called "false" prophets. what was there motivation? to get out of islam because they were forced into it? there's no evidence of that. to get out of islam because minorities were 2nd class citizens? again there is no evidence of that either. both theories also contradict the Quran, and probably the Hadiths/Tafsir too. i think, Musailama and other "prophets" were motivated by Muhammad's success, and wanted to replicate that for their ends, which would bring them even more material gain. of course they weren't very successful as their religions do not exist anymore. now you can attribute that to whatever factor, but bottom line is what was there motivation? and if they were coerced into islam, why is that only they were coerced, why was Banu Nadir/Qurayza/etc not coerced also? wouldn't that have saved the Muslims a lot of lives, trouble, and money? if they were coerced, why is there no verse in the Quran calling for coercion if even minor things like not gambling and not eating pork are mentioned quite extensively and often more than once?
The very fact that these wars are called as "Apostasy" wars (As opposed to normal conquests) by Islamic historians settles the issue. And to make matters worse for you the people who put down these rebels (Khalid, Bakr etc...) are all considered to be very noble figures in Islam.
according to wikipedia (again, veracity pending) these wars were largely if not completely self defensive. if that is the case, which it very well might be, but i'm not 100% sure. then there is no reason why Khalid or Abu Bakr should NOT be held in high esteem. if Abu Bakr, Khalid, et al did indeed committ war crimes, then their celebratory place in Islam's history is due to a product of ignorance, and more importantly in direct contradiction to the teachings of teh Quran and possibly ALL of the Hadiths as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10132762.stm That should blow another hole in Qurans claim that no life is created without Gods will or something to that effect.
not sure how this proves God's will was circumvented, but i'm pretty sure that if God's existence could be disproved it would exclude Jehova, Allah, Bhagwan/Krishna/Vishnu/Shiva, Wahe Guru, Haile Selassie's divinity, David Koresh as God, Ahura Mazda, and any other supernatural being believed in by people of this earth. unless of course that scientific study specifically disproved Allah's existence as opposed to all the others.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

this brings about the still unanswered question, what is the difference between the disbelievers quoted here in 9:73 and 9:5, and the ones in 9:4? 9:73 and 9:5 must be fought, but why then are the disbelievers in 9:4 spared? whats the difference?
And about the right to follow false prophets ... well 99.99% of the Islamic world disagrees with you because Muhammad is considered to be the absolute last prophet sent down by God.
actually its 100% of muslims. i will not believe in a "false prophet" but that doesn't mean someone else doesn't have the right to. freedom of religion also includes freedom of following other prophets.
Not when you have a vast majority of Arabia denouncing Islam. That would be a freakish coincidence of sudden and mass demoralizing . And not all of them were led by false prophets.
firstly, the wiki link claims that these rebellions were more political in nature and painted as religious by later islamic historians - hence the need for secular non-biased academics i'm always harping about. i am uncertain of the authenticity of these information on wikipedia, but IF its correct, it fails to prove your point. in the case its incorrect, you still cannot prove how it was a "vast majority of arabia" and how with such numbers they managed to lose against the leaderless Muslim community, which had its own share of infighting as well. the fact that they were quashed within a year with such overriding tumult and chaos, indicates that many though they were, they were in fact a minority of tribes. but the main point is where they converted by force? what is your source? i doubt if even your hadiths or tafsir point to their converstion by force...so what is your source? like i said, mere conversion away from islam doesn't indicate conversion by force. as i stated earlier, my friend tory converted out of Islam a few years back, but was never converted by force to begin with. as for the coincidence, its a simple case of "group-think". even Umar, is said to have been totally devastated in the wake of Muhammad's death in a very well known story. Umar started threatening anyone who said Muhammad was dead for betraying Muhammad, and stated that Muhammad had merely gone to speak with God as Moses had gone for 40 days. at this point, Abu Bakr, who had a much calmer demeanor, recited 3:144: Muhammad is but a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) have passed away before him. will it be that, when he dieth or is slain, ye will turn back on your heels? He who turneth back doth no hurt to Allah, and Allah will reward the thankful. [surah 3, verse 144] it was then Umar realized that he was wrong and that as a mortal, Muhammad was truly gone. but we see, that death of a loved one can inspire serious psychological effects in people, even those who were as luminous as Umar bin Khattab. so what of those more distant? a lot of Muslims had the mistaken idea, like Umar, that Muhammad was some sort of divine or demigod like figure and when he died, lost all faith in Islam. some of them permently left the fold of Islam. it has nothing to do with being forced, but rather with one's own psychological state.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

good post. this might require a lengthy response, but i guess the discussion is now moving on, despite the questions you've been unable to answer despite your best (?) efforts. i will be coming back to those again and again, just to let you know, since the crux of reality lies in their answers. 1) why are we going back to the tafsir? isn't Muhammad's work, the Quran, enough for the major points of Islam? 2) when was the tafsir of ibn Kathir written? is it fair to assume that Ibn Kathir witnessed the things he wrote about first hand or he did not witness them? now that i have, hopefully, shown that ibn kathir is most-likely talking nonsense, i'll actually prove it without doubt.
once again, Ibn Kathir, for reasons known only to him and God Alone, asserts that Muhammad initiated hostilities with the Pagan tribes of Arabia and then with the Jews and/or Christians. however, this is not supported by either academic scholars or more importantly by Muhammad's lasting legacy, the Quran. fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not, aggressors. [surah 2, verse 190] as i've alreay mentioned, this is the very first verse of war found in the quran scripturally. Sanction is given unto those who fight because they have been wronged; and Allah is indeed Able to give them victory; [surah 22, verse 39] once again we see that fighting is only allowed in self defense, and in an absolute terms, not against just a particular enemy. How should ye not fight for the cause of Allah and of the feeble among men and of the women and the children who are crying: Our Lord! Bring us forth from out this town of which the people are oppressors! Oh, give us from Thy presence some protecting friend! Oh, give us from Thy presence some defender! [surah 4, verse 75] highlights the other reason for war: on behalf of those who are unable to defend themselves. not that the religion of those defenseless is not mentione, and hence irrelevant. i wonder what Ibn Kathir has to say about these verses...???
again, this is in contradiction to what the Quran says: Defeated have been the Byzantines (Roman Catholic Christians), in the lands close-by; yet it is they who, notwithstanding this their defeat, shall be victorious within a few years: [for] with God rests all power of decision, first and last. And on that day will the believers [too, have cause to] rejoice [surah 30, verses 2-4] here we see a reference to the conflict between the Byzantine Christians, who were defeated by the Persian pagans. naturally, this was construed by Muslims as a defeat for Monotheism (however misguided the concept of Trinity might have been seen). It also correctly predicted the eventually victory of the Romans at the Battle of Issus of 622, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Issus_(622). And thou wilt find the nearest of them in affection to those who believe (to be) those who say: Lo! We are christians. That is because there are among them priests and monks, and because they are not proud. [surah 5, verse 82] this verse, further illustrates the state of relations between the majority of Christians in Arabia vis a vis the Muslims, as opposed to the relations with the majority of Jews and Pagan Arabs. again, this contradicts Ibn Kathir who alleges that Muhammad wished to conqour the Arabian Christians, and that too seemingly without provocation. i think this should suffice for now to prove that Ibn Kathir was contradicting not one or two, or even three Quranic verses, but many of them. in the absence of a concession, i would appreciate if your defense of Ibn Kathir's version of history showed some real, hard evidence of Muhammad issuing calls for offensive war. merely quoting Ibn Kathir in a circular manner is wholly insufficient in proving Ibn Kathir is right. its like defining "circular logic" by stating that "circular logic is logic which only goes in circles".
Ok, i won't. I'll just say its totally incorrect with regard to the tafsir you provided above. facetiousness aside, i think it is inevitable to start such a thread, and I would be totally open to discussing this with you, as I am reasonably well familiar with logical and linguistic fallacies on which such arguments are based. it also provides a highlight of many interesting, if perhaps metaphorical, passages of the Quran... but let us assume that the Quran is unreliable. if the Quran is unreliable, then the hadith, tafsir, and seerah, which are all based on the quran, are also unreliable. in fact, the countless contradictions within the hadith itself shows that it is unreliable. even, ALL muslim scholars attest that the Hadith have to be verified according to isnaad. but clearly, even isnaad has its shortcomings, as many sahih hadiths are blatantly at odds with the Quran. thus we are only left with the account of secular academics, who all assert that the Meccans forced the Muslims out of Medina and hence the battles in Muhammad's time were all self defensive. no such guarantee can be given from Abu Bakr onwards, alghough the Ridda wars wiki article seem to indicate that those were defensive engagements as well.
i have always admitted that i am in the minority amongst muslims, but again, you won't find a Scholar who is willing to put the Hadiths on the same pillar as the Quran. i challenge you to find one...and i have some proof of my position on this, so again you will be looking for a magical unicorn. that being said, many muslims while accepting this position, still blindly accept many of the hadiths and are unable to divorce themselves from them although there is no Islamic dogma which says every hadith has to be true and correct, and accepted by all muslims.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Next, that verse(9:74) is not about disbelievers per-se its about those who seek to exit Islam i.e apostates so its got no connection to 9:5 and 9:4 ... Heres the verse again : They swear by Allah that they did not speak, and certainly they did speak, the word of unbelief, and disbelieved after their Islam, and they had determined upon what they have not been able to effect, and they did not find fault except because Allah and His Messenger enriched them out of His grace; therefore if they repent, it will be good for them; and if they turn back, Allah will chastise them with a painful chastisement in this world and the hereafter, and they shall not have in the land any guardian or a helper Now if you dont mind can you clearly explain what part of that verse is in line with things like religious tolerance and "To you be your faith and to me be mine" ? . Needless to say I expect you to answer honestly with an open mind and without being evasive. That verse to any open minded person is as intolerant as it gets unless they have a logic that runs upside down.
again you are talking about Divine punishment as this verse clearly talks about "allah" and not "muhammad". unless you can prove that Muhammad and allah were one and the same or that Muhammad claimed to be Allah, this is no different than jewish texts damning eaters of pork to hell, or hindu texts damning people to a life as a lesser creature for failing to maintain proper dharma. we're not talking about logic or rationality here, but just the level of tolerance. again, i may need to be corrected, by according to my understanding, if i was a no so observant hindu, according to the prevailing tenets of your religion, i could well expect to be reincarnated as a stray dog in the next life for merely eating a double cheeseburger or marrying outside of my caste. so i'm not certain on what moral basis you're pointing fingers at issues of tolerance. 9:73 does not contradict "to you your faith" since it never mentions that there aren't otherwordly consequences of "incorrect" faith. ********************* furthermore, it is very interesting that the famous Islamic scholar, Imam Ghazzali, was of the opinion that such verses only applied to those who were aware of the truth of Islam, yet still fought against it for worldly gain. his evidence for this was that the arabic word "kafir" apparently means "one who conceals" and not "one who disbelieves". in other words it is not "disbleivers" per se that the quran admonishes, but rather the "believers" who nonetheless deny what they know to be the truth. i am not sure if i agree with Ghazzali, but, since you've often asked for islamic scholars who have more liberal viewpoints than bukhari/kathir/ibn ishaq...i thought i would throw one of the most celebrated islamic thinkers of all time, into the discussion.
This makes no sense at all as you are esentially rejecting the accounts of your own people ! So going by that approach you should reject the contents of Quran itself as its a product of the Sahaba's. You have no evidence to suggest that they tampered it while putting the verses to paper. So you cant selectively pick and chose which works you accept and which you wont.
see above for the consequences of total and absolute skepticism regarding Quran and Hadiths.
You either accept all sources that are considered kosher by the Ulema or dont.
not if you're a free thinker, and btw, the quran makes aprox. 18 commandments in various ways for people to think for themseleves and outside the box. so this is very much the authentic form of Islam and not some progressive BS.
And is there any source you would accept? Twice in this very thread you have rejected content from your own links from wikipedia and the sources listed in the bibliography of such wiki links.
first of all, that link contained an internal contradiction as to the argument you were making. the "scholar" agreed that Muhammad fought in self defense and was motivated by conquest at the same time. how can it be both? the second time, the link on the ridda wars, actually "proved" my point, but since i wasn't certain of its authenticity, i left that out as well. that was to your benefit actually.
The point is I have links but are you willing to accept them ? I simply dont think you are capable of independent critical open minded clear thinking based on logic and facts. This is what I honestly feel based on the discussion so far. To add further to the ludicrity of this you candidly accept that a vast majority of Muslims including the whos-who of the Ulema dont dispute these sources ! So what is the point of this meer-go-round ? Sounds like you have issues comming to terms with Islamic history and the various sources.
first of all, given the fact that aprox half of all your links contain information that is either totally irrelevant to the topic at hand, or even disproves your argument (some tafsir references, your wiki link to ridda wars, et al) its clear that you either: a) do not read your own links thoroughly (which would take a lot of time) or b) completely do not understand much of the issues at hand (for example your insistance that the abrahimic personal pronoun "We" is a reference to "Muhammad and Co." instead of to "God" which is universally accepted amongst Jewish, Christian, and Muslim understandings of scripture. in light of that, how can any indiviudal pay heed to your links when you yourself either don't put much stock in them or don't understand their significance? there are plenty of Ulema who have different opinions on a host of issues, including Imam Ghazzali - check him out. modern times have produced Sheikh Hamza Yusuf, and Dr Abdullah Hakim Quick, Imam Siraj Wahhaj, among others. further, wikipedia states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an_and_Sunnah) that the quran alone is infallible. further here is an organization that has some understanding of what many muslims believe, although he's taken the extreme position of rejecting Hadiths altogether, which is just as uncalled for as accepting all hadiths blindly. http://submission.org/hadith/bhadith.html an interesting tidbit from there: But let us focus on vol. 6: the explanation of the Quran by Imam Bukhary. Although the Quran has 114 suras or chapters, Bukhari does not explain all the verses in all the suras. Sura 2, Al Baqarah has 286 verses, but Bukhari only provides hadith for about 50 verses. This is slightly over 20% of Al Baqarah. Bukhari has left the Ulamma groping the dark over the remaining 80%. bear in mind that Ibn Kathir's tafsir draws heavily from the hadith as it is 600 years newer than hadiths.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said that Hadith was on par with Quran ... my gripe is with you rejecting the Seerah and the TAfsir's which you very well know is simply wrong. Will respond later in detail.
who said its wrong? you're not an authority on Islam are you? nevermind that the tafsir and seerah are based on the hadith, which means that the hadiths are only partially authentic, then the tafsir and seerah are too.
Because you asked for a Hadith/Tafsir in post#269 and 273. And secondly you keep negating/twisting the meaning of the violent verses which leave nothing to imagination of anyone who is willing to look at them with a clear mind without any bias. This is why I try to bring in other sources to validate my point. And its not like I oull them outta my ***** ... these are as authentic sources as you can get. Heres another source on this matter and his take ...
i asked for it rhetorically, and i showed you how Ibn Kathir contradicts Muhammad's word - the Quran.
http://www.monthly-renaissance.com/issue/query.aspx?id=102 (Keep in mind that this guy is the official Mullah of Pakistan .... now unless you want to claim that his knowledge of Islam is inferior to that of yours you have no case )
his knowledge may be "superior" to mine, but that does not mean he is infallible. especially if and when he contradicts himself. using a cricketing example: Sachin is a superior batsman to Dravid, i think you are a strong proponent of that to which i will also agree. Does this mean that Sachin will always score more runs than Dravid in every innings. Does the smartest student always get the best marks? furthermore, i don't reject the hadiths as a whole. i only reject the ones which contradict the quran. hadiths say, pray 5 times a day. so i check with the Quran. if the quran says "don't pray" or "pray 4 times a day" the hadith is wrong. Quran doesn't say either, so i accept the hadith. plain and simple. for example, there is a hadith that Muhammad split the moon into 2 pieces and one piece flew across the sky. you are telling me that that happenned if you believe in the hadiths 100% without exception. i don't believe it, because the quran states that such miracles are pointless and were done before ad nauseum with little effect on the disbelievers (jesus walking on water, moses splitting the sea, et al). but you MUST necessarily believe that Muhammad split the Moon if you accept that all hadiths are authentic and telling the truth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For starters this guy : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javed_Ahmad_Ghamidi This guy is a member of Council of Islamic Ideology a constitutional body responsible for giving legal advice on Islamic issues to Pakistan Government and the Parliament. The most important tidbit relevant to our duscussion from his site is this : There is no concept of inferring complete guidance from the Qur’ān unless one combines it with the second source of Islam, which is the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (sws). The entire religion, Islam, hangs on to these two fundamental sources Do you want some more scholars ?
once again to reiterate, i don't have a problem with hadiths which corroborate the Quran's messages on various topics. secondly, Ghamidi is a political appointee by a state, not from any independent religious institution. in fact, many of his points, would disprove you and traditional arguments vis a vis pakistan and their state sponsorhood of terrorism. he may very well just be the frosting on the terribly salty cupcake. now i have 2 questions for you or Ghamidi: 1) does Ghamidi accept all of the aproximiately 700,000 hadiths as legitimate hadiths? 2) how does Ghamidi or you, reconcile with this statement?
Ghamidi believes that there are certain directives of the Qur’an pertaining to war which were specific only to the Prophet Muhammad and certain specified peoples of his times (particularly the progeny of Abraham: the Ishmaelites, the Israelites, and the Nazarites).
now i'll go one step further than Ghamidi. the Quran is the ultimate guide of Islam. thus, these directives which are specific to Muhammad and to a set scenario (i.e persecution and expulsion from Mecca, subsequent war) lend the logical deduction that ONLY when and if these same conditions of self defense arise, are muslims in other times and places allowed to engage in military action. further, even this is not a carte blanche. surahs 2, 8, and 9 (among others) lay down very lucid rules concerning cessation of hostilities, treatment of POWs, respecting military treaties, etc. no one who is hell bent on conquest imposes such limits on his own self.
If it was a divine punishment it would not say "In this world". It would only say in the hererafter.
God is an all-powerful actor, He is responsible for giving and taking of all lives, which occurs in this very world. never does the verse mention Muhammad is going to punish "in this world."
Can you point me to a post where you proved that the Ridda wars were fictitious (Or that Religion was not the reason for these wars) other than your own claim ? The wiki link clearly mentions 14 different sources from where it gathers information and they include "The Encyclopedia of Islam" , "The Cambridge History of Islam" , Tabari and many others. If these sources are bogus what are the sources that are authentic ?
thats not exactly what i said. what i said was that many times your links have been wholly irrelevant - many times an honest typo or mistake, many other times i suspect you didn't even read what you cited. many more times its been due to a clear lack of understanding of the subject at hand, namely Islamic or Abrahamic history/beliefs/conventions. for example the insistance that "We" refers to Muhammad and Co. and not the Abrahamic God. i mentioned this earlier. but since you asked, here it is: The revolts, in Islamic historiography later interpreted as religious, were in reality mainly political.[2][3] However, these revolts also had a religious aspect: Medina had become the centre of a social and political system, of which religion was an integral part; consequently it was inevitable that any reaction against this system would have a religious aspect.[4] [from wiki link of Ridda Wars]
Can you point me to ONE single scholarly work that validates your claim that the actions of the prophets companiions were NOT in accordance to the Sunnah and Quran ?
yes sir! how is Dr Muhammad Muhsin Khan's translation of Sahih al Bukhari? on the cover of each of the 9 volumes in this set, which is sitting on my shelf at my parent's home. it says this: All muslim scholars are agreed that the hadith of Sahih al Bukhari is the most authentic book besides the Book of Allah. [cover of Sahih al Bukhari, ISBN-10: 1567444962 ISBN-13: 978-1567444964] i have provided the ISBN number so you can check it out for yourself. this is on the Sahih al Bukhari itself. nevermind that mere logic dictates that a commentary written 100 years after Muhammad will be at best, quite a bit less than perfect. not to mention 700 year old tafsirs of Ibn Kathir.
Who are these Secular Academics ?
whoever has been writing school and university text books. the interesting thing about people like Ibn Warraq, Sam Harris, Bridget Gabriel, Mark Gabriel, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Taslima Nasree, and other notable Islamophobes, have the access to the same information store as others. however none of them have been able to answer, with any degree of integrity, the questions i have posed to you in this thread.
Not me but you since you are reqd to agree with anything thats written in there ... here are the verse 54:01 & 54:02 : http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/054.qmt.html
it doesn't matter what i am required to believe or not believe. my essential position is that many of the hadiths are clearly impossible based on what Muhammad himself wrote in the Quran. your position is that the hadiths are accurate accounts of history...in which you case you must necessarily believe that Muhammad split the moon since the hadith has people testifying that they saw it. my whole position, just in case you haven't understood, is that the credibility of these exact people is unverifiable, we don't know their credibility. as for the verse you quoted:
054.001 YUSUFALI: The Hour (of Judgment) is nigh, and the moon is cleft asunder. PICKTHAL: The hour drew nigh and the moon was rent in twain. SHAKIR: The hour drew nigh and the moon did rend asunder. 054.002 YUSUFALI: But if they see a Sign, they turn away, and say, "This is (but) transient magic." PICKTHAL: And if they behold a portent they turn away and say: Prolonged illusion. SHAKIR: And if they see a miracle they turn aside and say: Transient magic.
this verse is taking about the Day of Judgement, ie. the last day. this is again example of you misunderstanding Abrahamic concepts. most Abrahamic faiths teach of a final judgement where God will judge all human beings based on their beliefs and actions. in addition to judging there will also be a dispensation of final justice. the good will be rewarded, the wicked, punished.
If this is not good enough then there is ofcourse the overnight journey ... http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/017.qmt.html Lets start ... Those two links for chapters 54 and 17 reg moon splitting and the overnight flight prove right here and now that the Quran is fallible. if that is still not enough we have the descrepancies reg creation of earth and heaven. So what now ?(I suspect more twisting and spinning)
well seeing as how surah 54 itself mentions the Day of Judgement...it is not the Moon splitting of the hadith in which the actor was Muhammad instead of God. twisting? lets agree to let the logically endowed be the judge of that. put another way. Muhammad did not split the Moon. now imagine a person who DID NOT perform a miracle, and talk about it as if he did. no rational person would do such a thing, because it would guarantee him ZERO followers. and your whole argument of Muhammad being a cold, calculated genocidal maniac, is built on the assumption that he is of sound mind to understand the implications of his actions. i don't even know why i wasted 2 mins writing this, since your own Quran link mentions the day of "Judgement". but there it is anyways... if you're still unconvinced, check the following: surah 81:3 (mountains are destroyed) surah 84:1 (the sky is split asunder) surah 79:6 (worldwide earthquake) are all these "miracles" of Muhammad? if you told your friends you did these things, when clearly you haven't, do you think they would believe you? as for the Night Journey...surah 17 tells us that it happened at night when everyone was asleep. furthermore, whereas the hadith attempts to portray the Moon splitting as a public miracle, it doesn't bother to paint that picture with the Night Journey. possibly the difference between an authentic hadith and a fabricated one. in fact, if you will study, you will find that the Night Journey is how Abu Bakr got his nickname of As-Siddiq (the Verifier of truth). when Muhammad began to preach this verse, the Meccans thought that this all they needed to prove Muhamamd as a madman, since going to Jerusalem and back in one night was totally impossible. the Meccans knew that Abu Bakr, being a sensible man, could not possibly believe such a tall tale, and if they could make the closest friend of Muhammad apostate, then the rest would fail like dominoes. so they went to Abu Bakr, and asked him "did you hear what your prophet has said now?" Abu Bakr's response, just a single statement, quite possibly prevented Islam from collapsing at that fledgling state. "no, i didn't hear what he said, but IF he said it, then its true." the Meccans were slightly disheartened, but not defeated. so they told him the story of the Night Journey. this time Abu Bakr's response devestated them. "like i said before, if Muhammad said it, then i beleive it, because I already believe something even more preposterous. I believe that God sends him revelations through and Angel, and I am suposed to doubt that God could take him on a trip?" moral of the story: Night Journey is not a miracle where God *proves* Muhammad to the disbelievers. its a "leap of faith" taken by Abu Bakr, and all muslims who followed in his footsteps. ************** as for the descrepancy in creation of Heaven and Earth...lets look at this rationally. now I don't know how many days of the week there are in Dharmic calendars, but in the Abrahamic tradition, there are 7 days in each week. Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Pagan Arabs (due to descent from Ismail, Abraham's older son) were all Abrahamic and hence had 7 day weeks. According to all Abrahamics, God created the earth in 6 of those 7 days, and did nothing on the seventh day. this is why each of Abrahamic faiths observes a single day of Sabbath (which means "seven" by the way in Greek, also similar to "saat" in hindi/Sakskrit). they disagree on which day of the week it is, and on the nature of God's actions that day. Christians and Jews, based on the Old Testament, argue that God "rested" on the seventh day. Muslims view this as blasmephous for an All-Powerful God, and merely say he did nothing on the seventh day. Now Muhammad, was by ALL accounts not mentally handicapped. even a kid with Down Syndrome knows there are 7 days in a week. and even he or she can add 2 + 4 + 2 and come up with 8 and not 6. Now how could Muhammad "forget" that there are only 7 days of the week - which comes from the Abrahamic creation story - and mistakenly think there were 9? Who forgets a thing like that? And the person who forgets something like that, is in all likelihood, incapable of committing the highly planned and meticulous "crimes" which you accuse him of, much less starting the 2nd largest religion in the world, something you and i with our combined inteligence couldn't acheive even if we tried.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...