Re: Help Needed Badly!
I would suggest he read Barnaby Rogerson's; 'The Prophet Muhammad: A Biography.' It is the closest version to Islamic view, from a non muslim author and gives a detailed historical account from a relatively objective perspective.
Re: Help Needed Badly!
[quote]
ok i sort of disagree with 4 things you said. i've marked them in the quotes above.
1. the quran is a historical document. absolutely correct.
but it has been taught to muslims world-wide by their clerics, generation after generation that Quran is not a historical document but a SUPER-NATURAL one. this gives its words and phrases a new meaning altogether. this makes it extremely easy for the extremists and terror organizations to use it to fuel hatred against other ethnicities and religions.
If a muslim cleric stands up and says that kill the jews and christians, people can tell him to shut up and sit down.
but when he stands up and quotes the verses of the quran, namely
quran 9:34 " O ye who believe! Lo! many of the (Jewish) rabbis and the (Christian) monks devour the wealth of mankind wantonly and debar (men) from the way of Allah. They who hoard up gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah, unto them give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom."
after quoting from the quran, it becomes extremely easy for these terror leaders to coax the wayward youth into crimes against christians and jews.(after all, the quran is clearly saying they(chri&jew) r doomed for hellfire anyway)
.
Re: Help Needed Badly!
Pinkie, please tell your friend to subscribe to an account here.
It makes for a more natural discourse.
Re: Help Needed Badly!
...this misses the point. The Quran is a recording of oral revelation with references to historical events. Hence, it is a historical document. The events described within did not occur on a supernatural plane, but in 6th century Arabia.
Thus, when statements are made, in particular with regards to warfare, understanding is only properly extracted with reference to the actual historical events that contextualize the revelation. Such is the nature of Islamic literalism.
[quote]
this gives its words and phrases a new meaning altogether. this makes it extremely easy for the extremists and terror organizations to use it to fuel hatred against other ethnicities and religions.
[/quote]
...so can nationalism...what's your point? If L. Ron. Hubbard had his way, we'd probably be victims of Eugenics. It's folly to suggest that anything but contemporary geopolitical realities are the ultimate motivators for violence.
For the same reason, we can more properly state that the violence being perpetrated by America against parts of the Muslim world are primarily to ensure it's elevated status as the world's super power, and also probably as a neo-imperialist experiment. Once could argue that they are simply acting on the messianic nature of the Christian faith...a 'savior' complex of sorts...and let's not kid ourselves...European Imperialism had huge Christian undertones, and was moralized as a "Christian' thing to do. But, far removed from historic ideologies are more immediate needs of Oil and stability. Let's go with that, no?
[quote]
If a muslim cleric stands up and says that kill the jews and christians, people can tell him to shut up and sit down.
but when he stands up and quotes the verses of the quran, namely
quran 9:34...
[/quote]
Not all Jews are Rabbis, and not all Christians are monks. Again, this is a pathetic attempt at affirming extremist interpretations. I should point out, that the burden of showing that this is in fact valid theology is on you, as you seem to be implying that these are proper interpretations.
Needless to say, the verse is citing particular rabbis and monks of a particular era. If indeed SOME Christians and Jews are behaving towards Muslims as they were in the 6th century (i.e. seeking their genocide), then we got cause to invoke the verse. Open question: is such an interpretation valid given contemporary Jewish and Christian behavior.
[quote]
you rightly said that the quran is not an instructional manual.
but do you think that the ppl who've been taught right frm childhood that the quran is an instruction manual coming straight frm heaven in gods own words, will sit back and listen to such a statement. i'm not sure if even ppl on this forum will listen to such a statement.
[/quote]
...and so what does that have to do with people who disagree with them?
[quote]
is it very hard for a terrorist leader to use a verse like this to coax an already disillusioned youth into hate crimes against non-beleivers?
[/quote]
Duh, any harder than convicing people that Islam is an evil idelogy that must be controlled/eliminated, and that it encourages an irrational system of beliefs that effectivley eliminates any avenue of cooperation? I doubt it.
Why aren't there American terrorists who commit attrocities in her name? The US military is a good starting point...there is an almost universal belief that it stands up for American interests. See that attitude change, and we're in for some trouble. Terrorism is fed on the hope/hoplesness dualism.
Needless to say, what I can say for certain is that over the past few years more people have died in the name of "freedom" (or at least containing Islamic radicalism) than in the name of Islam. And strange enough...you can't see that.
Don't get me wrong. I condemn bin-laden and his sorts. I'm not a big fan of Hamas (to say the least). Now will you be honest enough to speak to the violence (on a grander scale, I should add), being perpetrated by some western nations, and the state of Israel?
Do you understand why it's fustrating to hear all this about Islam and violence, and yet not a single word on the violence that (a case could be made) inpired it? Whitewashing this as a group of Muslims acting on Islamic idelogy is not only intellectually dishonest, it simply does not follow the sequence of history.
Yes, we Muslims have a problem with violent militants. But puh-lease...do NOT excuse your own whack jobs...who, might i add...hold POWER.
[quote]
As a matter of fact, Bin laden made it clear in one of his earliest videos quoting the above phrase that the jihad were to continue untill the non-beleivers and US surrenders.
[/quote]
OR until the Muslim world is left alone. Why is that always overlooked?
More later...perahps...
Re: Help Needed Badly!
That was the agreement in yathrib that jews will be tried according to jewish laws there were no secular laws in those times the religious laws were the laws of the land
same for byzantines and Sassinians
.
[QUOTE]
besides that jews in their entirety makes up for 14 million people. yes thats the jewish population on earth. they are a fading religion. apart from the israeli army, there is not even a single jewish militant group anywhere in the world simply because they dont have enough numbers to build such organisations filled with vagabond youth
[/QUOTE]
well that is different problem altogather. I am not saying that we kill all their men and enslave all their women now
before banu quraizya two other tribes were simply exiled for treason so Prophet(pbuh) avoided blooshed whenever possible but sometimes it was neccesary
[QUOTE]
so seriously, does it even matter what the jewish scripture might be saying?
i dont think so.
[/QUOTE]
It does matter then because according to the agreement the jewish scriptures were the law
[QUOTE]
My statements might have come across as critical and some might've started harboring a silent dislike for me but all i gotta say
love ya'll and may god bless all of u
peace
[/QUOTE]
sorry if I was Impolite you can criticise the muslims all you want but if people attack the prophet(pbuh) we get a annoyed
Re: Help Needed Badly!
[QUOTE]
...this misses the point.** The Quran is a recording of oral revelation with references to historical events. Hence, it is a historical document**. The events described within did not occur on a supernatural plane, but in 6th century Arabia.
this is what i meant with "historical document"
Re: Help Needed Badly!
I will now address a few of your specific comments. You argued that Muslims resorted to violence only in retaliation against Meccan or Jewish aggression.
Correction: this is de facto Islamic interpretation of our History. Thus, insofar as theology and law is concerned, it is this understanding that guides us.
There is a bit of flip-flopping going on here. On the one hand, there is an affirmation of extremist theology, namely the insistence that their interpretations and invocations of Quranic invocations divorced from context is correct. Then, when their interpretations of history are considered as being vindicating of the actions of the Prophet(pbuh), all of a sudden we need to ignore such interpretations and see what is recorded in history. Unh...cake and eat it too?
[quote]
Muhammad would have taken over every city around him, for he had shown that he was bent on conquering the whole of Medina having sacked many cities already.
[/quote]
proof?
[quote]
The Arabs did not make a truce with him because they wanted it; they did so out of fear of being killed.
[/quote]
proof?
[quote]
The fact that Muhammad only gave them peace if they would convert to Islam shows that he was not at all willing to grant his neighbors the right to worship as they saw fit, but would rather kill them or make them convert.
[/quote]
Proof?
[quote]
and it certainly is not the attitude a supposed successor to Jesus, who forced his beliefs on no man, would have.
[/quote]
Jesus? Jesus! What does he have to do with anything? According to Christian theology, his only accomplishment was dying. And correct me if I'm wrong, but Christians love to boast that there's is not a faith of legalisms and emulation...thus the "sunnah" of Christ is not really binding on Christians. After all, if they deviate, they can always be forgiven...thanks to Christ's death.
[quote]
That is what is wrong with it. And, according to my sources, when the Muslims marched on Mecca they gave the Meccans an ultimatum; surrender, convert, or die.
[/quote]
War had been declared on Muslims by the Meccans at that time...such is our understanding of history, and this is what guides us.
[quote]
Very true; he fulfilled the Old Testament Laws, which means that mankind is no longer bound by the laws of the Torah. Jesus paid the price for sin, which is death.
[/quote]
I beg to differ...Jesus was sinless. He was framed. Victim of a Kangaroo court and intrigues. Lack of Justice is what led to his (attempted?) death.
BUT, during his life, he abided by OT laws. How is that fact altered by his death?
[quote]
Thus, death does not need to be inflicted upon any man for his sin. In the Old Testament God ordered the Israelites (NOT Christians) to kill certain people (NOT Muslims) because those people sinned and the price of sin is death.
[/quote]
So, it's established Christian doctrine that certain people were NOT Muslims...impressive, considering Islam didn't come about untill 6 centuries later. The point is...this interpretation need not be universal. I applaud you for yours, but it gives me no sense of security.
[quote]
But Jesus paid that price, so no more does death need to be dealt as a punishment for sin, for Christ paid it already. It need not be paid twice.
[/quote]
That is sickeningly unjust. I would die for Christ as he was a messenger from God himself, suggestions to the opposite are offensive. No one need die for anyone else's sin. How can an act of injustice forgive other injustices?
[quote]
It is fallacious to pooh-pooh or disregard the violent verses in the Koran using the excuse, “They are taken our of context,” or “You are just picking and choosing verses
[/quote]
I see. So, pretty much challenging intellectually dishonest use of Quranic passages (whether by Muslims or non-Muslims) is now fallacious? In other words: "Don't blind me with the facts, but answer my question!". Nice.
More later...perhaps...
Re: Help Needed Badly!
Salam guys...
First of all thank you for your replies... I did not email my friend your responses because i was waiting for Faisal's as well... But i wont wait any longer and will send out your replies.
Thank you again Lajawab, Commonsense is king, Das Reich and Picoico..As soon as i get a response back i shall post it to you.
Salam
Re: Help Needed Badly!
This surah also deals with a time when a state of war existed against the idolaters and they had infiltrated into medina that is why it says "slay them whereever you find them"
Jizya is not for idolaters it is for people of the book(jews christians) and zorastrians in the time of umar(ra)
and paying the poor-due is Jizya? I think jizya goes to the islamic state as it is for exemption from conscription
Re: Help Needed Badly!
This verse does say that convert or die. if the dis-believers dont convert, then slay them is precisely what the quran preaches. in fact, if they "repent" and pay the poor-due(jizya) only then let them free is what the quran says. In fact," there is no compulsion in religion " is verse 2.256 the other verse happens to be 9.005. so, that does over-ride the previous one doesnt it? lookin forward to hearing frm u love to ya'll C_I_King
Oldest trick in the book...Taking verses out of context...
Why don't you read the verses before and after 9:5 so that the real picture emerges...(Pickthall translation)
**
9:1 Freedom from obligation (is proclaimed) from Allah and His messenger toward those of the idolaters with whom ye made a treaty.
9:2 Travel freely in the land four months, and know that ye cannot escape Allah and that Allah will confound the disbelievers (in His Guidance).
9:3 And a proclamation from Allah and His messenger to all men on the day of the Greater Pilgrimage that Allah is free from obligation to the idolaters, and (so is) His messenger. So, if ye repent, it will be better for you; but if ye are averse, then know that ye cannot escape Allah. Give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom to those who disbelieve,
9:4 Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. (As for these), fulfil their treaty to them till their term. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty (unto Him).
9:5 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.
9:6 And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not.
9:7 How can there be a treaty with Allah and with His messenger for the idolaters save those with whom ye made a treaty at the Inviolable Place of Worship ? So long as they are true to you, be true to them. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty.**
Now, read all the verses instead is just taking 9:5 out of context and tell me what you think?
Re: Help Needed Badly!
subhan'Allaah. 4giv me insha'Allaah pinkie. i have got so much on. i got a major discussion this sunday wiv a "shaykh" who is against my manhaj so iv been preparing for that.
Re: Help Needed Badly!
Salam guys...Here is the delayed response to all the posters from my friend!
I apologize for not getting back to everyone sooner. Obligation has hit me like a ton of bricks, and these past few weeks have found me studying Latin until the wee hours of the morning, getting articles ready for publication, fine-tuning projects under consideration and, when I have time, sleeping. I finally managed to get some of my work done and have a few days of rest, and so I thought I would finally get back to this issue. So many of you responded that I cannot tackle the topic in one, massive, single article, and so I will respond to the specific concerns placed by posters, quoting them as I deem necessary.
I am not a scholar of Islam either, and I certainly can’t spew forth dates and authors off the top of my head. What I can do, however, is a little scholastic research on issues, and even though I am not Muslim nor have I ever taken classes on Islam or studied it religiously, I can approach the issue like any historical issue and use sources to form an argument. Like the civil war I have a general idea of what Islamic history is all about, but if I want to argue about it intelligently and credibly, I must do research on the issue. Just like I would have to do if arguing about the civil war.
Aye, everyone has a bias. CNN, ABC, FOX News, all claim to be unbiased but they are not. An honest person would admit his bias. But there are also some people who are so blatantly biased that it goes above and beyond normal bias to pure and unadulterated agenda-pushing. Like Al Jazeera for instance.
It is true that history has been written by the victors. But this line is also a cop-out and people try to use it to pooh-pooh another man’s research. I firmly assert that there is truth, and I firmly believe that man can know this truth. I believe that it is also possible for man to know the truth about history even though he may only exist because his side was victorious in the past. For instance, America “lost” the Vietnam War, and yet still tries its best (and more or less succeeds) holding a balanced viewpoint of the issue, aiming for truth. Also, Islam conquered the whole of the Byzantine Empire and held that area of the world for generations. It was, in the very sense of the word, the victor of that part of the world for a very long time. If one is to discount all historical research and all histories ever given simply because they have been written by the victor, then we must also discount any history ever written, believed or passed down by Muslims, since they too have been victors. This sort of thinking is flawed; I believe that truth can be discerned from history by anyone with an honest heart and a critical eye.
I wasn’t there at the time and I do not know who decided the fate of the Bani Qurayzah. I must therefore reconstruct this event based on the resources before me. The resources I have describe the annihilation of every man and the enslavement of the women and children by Muhammad, the holy prophet of Islam, because they were Jewish. If these are wrong, I would love to see some historical sources—any historical source—that states otherwise.
“That I cannot do...For that requires me spending much research and time on my part to come up with and that I don’t have...You are welcome to Google or verify my cases with your professors, if what I say is wrong or correct...Most of the things you mention, must be done from your end...All that you require from me is something that you yourself are capable of doing, for after all, I'll have access to the same sources of info that you will have...It's not like my sources will be any different from what you yourself are incapable of finding...”
I have set forth an argument based on the research I have already done (and continue to do). I have made my conclusions based on this research. If I found anything at all that led me to believe otherwise I would have noted it, but I have not. I have presented my argument and one is free to disagree with it. But it is an empty and powerless disagreement unless he is willing to back it up with his own research.
I did not skim through anti-Muslim sites. In fact, I did not use the internet much at all. I used a hard copy of the Koran that I had read and made notations in. I used books that I own and are in my library. My research was very old-fashioned. I did not browse anti-Muslim sites and accept what they said without cross-reference. I instead selected secular sources from reputable men who are known for their scholastic prowess and intellectual honesty.
I will not stay away from all contemporary sources under the assumption that they are all biased against Islam for it would be simply that; an assumption. It is blind to simply state that all modern scholars are biased against Islam because they are modern. Some of the world’s best historians are modern and it would be a shame to ignore their work just because it was written within the last hundred years. My opinion is that you will find anti-Muslim and pro-Muslim scholars in any period of time since the birth of Islam. I can assure you that histories written about Saracens during the crusades were most likely far from flattering.
Early Muslim violence is most definitely about history and not exclusively logic, as you have said. Mohammad did attack Mecca first—he and his band of Muslims threatened the city with violence and forced them to surrender. That is an act of hostility; an attack. I see nothing wrong with Meccans kicking Mohammad out of their city if they did not want him there. Perhaps they did not like his message. Perhaps they did not like his hair cut. Whatever the reason, it was their city, not Mohammad’s, and they had every right to kick him and his followers out. Did Meccans do violence against Muslims while they were in the city? I have yet to read any evidence of this anywhere, and no one has yet cited any source for me. I must therefore consider it hearsay and of no historical relevance, or, perhaps, something Muslims tell themselves to justify the violence done to the Meccans. But even if these stories were true, it would not justify what Mohammad did, for what he did was vengeance. He wanted Mecca to pay for not believing him. He wanted to take over all of Medina. He wanted power, and he was prepared to use violence and manslaughter to attain that power, as demonstrated time and time again. Did Meccans sally forth from their city walls to harass the Muslims in Medina? Only in response to their trade caravans being attacked, sacked and captured by Muslims. I have found no evidence anywhere of Meccans attacking Muslims without provocation. It is even illogical to propose such a thing, for why would a city of people go out of their way and leave their walls to harass Muslims that had already long left? You wanted me to use logic and here it is: it is illogical to think that a city of people would go out of their way to persecute a man and his followers when they posed no threat whatsoever. If they did pose a threat then Mohammad and his followers deserved to be persecuted. By threat I mean real and immediate danger to the wellbeing of the city. I am just speculating. I do not know if he was a danger to the Meccans before he was kicked out or not. But, if your claim is true that the Meccans ruthlessly persecuted Mohammad (of which I have found no evidence of) then the only logical explanation is that Mohammad was dangerous.
“When the Quran said, 'There is no compulsion in religion', you expect the Prophet of Islam to against the Quran? How do you think it would have made him look, not in just front of his followers but non-believers as well...”
I agree. Which makes it even more damning that the originator of that religion violated his own faith.
Quote:
“Would you like me to list the number of things here that would make the Bible out to be the manual for war?”
Yes please. I would like that very much. There is no violence condoned by Christianity in the Bible. Ever. In Judaism there are countless places where Israelites, at the command of God, sacked a city, killed a people, so on and so forth. But when Jesus came on the scene he gave mankind a new covenant, not one of death and violence, but one of grace and mercy. Death is no longer the penalty for sin, as it was for so many generations before Christ, because Jesus already paid that penalty for us. You mentioned a verse where Jesus said that he came to earth to bring the sword. Since I am such a nice guy, I will quote it for you:
“Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (RSV Matthew 10:34)
The truth of Jesus’ words could not be truer. Since the death and resurrection of Christ, there has been constant warfare and bloodshed in the name of Christ and against those who believe in Christ. If you think about it, if not for Jesus there would not be Islam; there would be no jihads, there would have been no crusades, there would have been no 9/11, no suicide bombers, no violent riots against a few cartoons drawn in a Danish newspaper—none of it. Jesus was very correct; He came and with him came the sword. But this isn’t because Jesus himself is violent or that he promoted violence. Rather, there is such evil in this world, evil from men and evil from Lucifer, that has no other purpose but to fight that which is holy and righteous. Thus when true righteousness, truth and holiness appears, evil will wage war upon it. Jesus is saying that the consequences of being a Christian are not light. One may very well die for being a Christian. One will certainly be persecuted for being a Christian. Jesus elaborates on this just a few verses later:
“He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.” (RSV Matthew 10:37-38)
If my parents forbade me to be a Christian and I loved them more than God, I would not be worthy of God. But to remain true to God would mean being rejected by my parents. This is the sword that Jesus mentioned—division. As Christians, we will be persecuted by many and hated by all. But by all means, scan the New Testament, for it is in the New Testament that Christianity emerges. You will find no instance, not one, of Jesus ever condoning violence or ever being violent. You will not see Jesus telling people to enact retribution upon those who do not believe or who persecute them. In fact he says, “Love those who persecute you,” and “Bless and do not curse.” (Matthew 5:44-45; Romans 12:14). No where in the New Testament will you see Christians banding together and making war upon cities and people of other faiths. It did not happen. This is the stark difference between Christianity and Islam, and one reason why it is completely illogical for Islam to be the successor of Christianity, like Christianity was the successor of Judaism. Our faith evolved from the violence and death of Judaism to the grace and mercy of Christianity. It is illogical for the faith to turn full circle again and become a faith of vengeance, retribution and the sword.
You are incorrect in saying that there was “never an incentive for people to convert to Islam.” During the rule of the Ottomans, who were all Muslims, they divided the people of the kingdoms they conquered into groups or “millets” based on their religion. There was a ruling Muslim millet, an Orthodox millet, a Gregorian Armenian millet, a Jewish millet and a Catholic millet. No one from any of the religious groups was allowed to marry a Muslim woman except from the Muslim millet. No one from any of the other religions was allowed to hold political office. There was also a special compulsory tax levied on all people who were not members of the Muslim millet. And probably most horrible, every year the Muslims would chose the handsomest male children from those who were not Muslims, take them while children and raise them to be warriors in their military or scholars, forcibly converting them to Islam. History clearly shows that Muslims, when in power, do force their religion on others or punish those who are not Muslim. (The Greek World, edited by Robert Browning, excerpt by Robert Clogg, page 301; Western Civilization by Jackson J. Spielvogel, pages 232-234)
Now I will give you an argument against this. The truth of these historical facts cannot be denied, but one can say that a religion should not be condemned because of the evil deeds of its practitioners. And this is most certainly true; Christians and Jews have indeed made some stupid decisions and done evil, non-Christian, non-Biblical things. Instead, one should judge a religion based on the statuettes of that religion and by what its holy book says. And while I do not recall any page of the Koran that tells Muslims to kidnap Christian children in order to raise them Muslim, it certainly condones the slaying of those Christians. Which, I think, is just as bad—if not more so.
Quote: *
*“I would advice you to see a movie called 'The Message'…”
I would love to see the movie, and I will look for it at my nearest movie store. But I doubt very much that any movie will clear anything up for me as far as history goes. A movie is mere entertainment; that is it. It would be like me asking you to watch the Passion of the Christ so you can get a clear understanding of Christianity. “Passion” is just a Hollywood movie; a good movie and nothing more. When I want someone to know their history, I refer to history. Not movies.
Quote: *
*“So, forget the sources...Study yourself...look into the matter yourself...”
I have. And I have found nothing that corroborates any claims anyone on this website has said to me. Not one of them.
In Response to Commensense_king
Quote:
“This verse [quran 9.05(pickthal transl.) ] does say that convert or die. if the dis-believers dont convert, then slay them is precisely what the quran preaches…In fact, ’there is no compulsion in religion’ is verse 2.256 the other verse happens to be 9.005. so, that does over-ride the previous one doesnt it?”
Very good point. I will also point out the fact that any religion that says that later verses supersede earlier verses is acknowledging that their faith contradicts itself. God cannot contradict himself, thus God could never have been behind the writing of the Koran, which makes it not inspired by God and not a holy document at all, but merely a wonderful piece of Persian poetry.
In Response to Picosio
“Yes, we Muslims have a problem with violent militants. But puh-lease...do NOT excuse your own whack jobs...who, might i add...hold POWER.”
Much of this poster’s comments were about how America and the “Christian” West (which isn’t very Christian I might add—I, a Christian, live in a world that seeks to destroy me because of my faith, destroy the morals that I hold and ridicule my belief system calling it childish, ancient and filled with hate—and I live in America) has been doing uncounted crimes against Islamic countries, and that Islamic terrorism is merely a response to this western aggression. Call me ignorant, but I do not see it. Please give me some examples where westerners have targeted Muslims to persecute and kill them just because they are Muslims. Please give me links or citations. I hear this charge a lot but never hear anyone backing it up.
Quote: *
*“’Muhammad would have taken over every city around him, for he had shown that he was bent on conquering the whole of Medina having sacked many cities already.’
proof?”
Here you go. The following show evidence of Mohammad’s aggression towards his neighbors and his desire to promote his religion by any means necessary, but especially by his favorite mean--violence:
“[This consilatory gesture] was, however, more than offset by determined attempts to distrupt Meccan long distance trading. After several unsuccessful attempts, a small Meccan caravan was intercepted and captured at Nakhla.” (Alan Jones, The Introduction to the Koran published by Orion Publishing Group in 1994, xvi)
“Not long after, the Meccans heard that a much larger caravan on its way back from Syria was likely to be attacked. They sent a force of some 1,000 men to protect it. They met some 300 Muslims at Badr, not far from Medina, in a pitched battle in which the Muslims triumphed in 624.” (Jones, xvi)
“[This victory] gave a considerable boost to the standing of Muhammad in Medina, and when, shortly afterwards, they clashed with one of the Jewish tribes there, the Banu Qaynuqa, they were able to secure the consent of their Arab protectors the Khazraj for the expulsion of the Jewish tribe from the settlement.” (Jones, xvi)
“Though [the battle at Mount] Uhud left Muhammad with theological problems—defeat is not usually equated with divine support—it does not seem to have affected the political situation in Medina.” (Jones, xvi)
“The third Jewish Tribe, the Banu Quaraynza, was accused of supporting the Meccans…The judgment was savage; the men were to be killed and the women and children enslaved. With only a couple reprieves the sentence was carried out.” (Jones, xvii)
“Next year the Meccans did evacuate the city for three days and the Muslims were able to perform the pilgrimage. Before then, however, Muhammad had led a large expedition and captured Khaybar, the next strategic settlement to the north of Medina. The population of Khaybar was largely Jewish, including many of those who had already been expelled from Medina. When they resisted, the settlement was taken by force, and those who had resisted were driven out.
The capture of Khaybar was part of a policy of pressure to the north that had started somewhat earlier and was to be pursued vigorously to the end of Muhammad’s life. It was also to lead to expansion northwards into Syria after his death. It appears to have been based on two aims: control of strategic routes and direct contact with northern tribes to convert them to Islam.” (Jones, xvii)
“Muhammad assembled a large expedition and set out to deal with the Meccans once and for all. In the end, there was a negotiated surrender of the city (January 630).” Jones, xviii
“Important though the capture of Mecca was, the region could not be secured without also dealing with the rival town of al-Ta’if and the Hawazin, the large tribal confederation in the center of whose lands the al-Taif lay. The Muslims inflicted a crushing defeat on the Hawazin in a pitched battle at Hunayn; but an attempt to besiege al-Ta’if was as fruitless as the Meccan siege of Medina had been [a reaction to the repeated assaults by Muslims on Meccan trading]. After only a fortnight the siege was called off, though it was not long before the people of al-Ta’if were won over by negotiation. Muhammad then returned to Mecca and performed the lesser pilgrimage…and afterwards went back to Medina.” (Jones, xviii)
“As far as the Arabian Peninsula was concerned he had achieved his goal of bringing the Arabs within the fold of Islam. Most of those outside were to follow shortly.” (Jones, xviii)
Quote: *
*“’The Arabs did not make a truce with him because they wanted it; they did so out of fear of being killed.’
proof?”
Here you go:
“Tribes began to send delegations to Medina to negotiate allegiance to Mohammad. His basic condition was always that they should become Muslims.” (Jones, xvii)]“
Most of the Aws and Kazraj [Jewish tribes that had been at war but had come to a negotiated peace] converted to Islam, with greater or lesser enthusiasm.” (Jones, xv
Quote: *
*“The fact that Muhammad only gave them peace if they would convert to Islam shows that he was not at all willing to grant his neighbors the right to worship as they saw fit, but would rather kill them or make them convert.
Proof?”
This isn’t a prove or disprove argument. I am making a conclusion based on historical examples. Muslims had shown themselves to be aggressive and violent, and, with a few exceptions, successful. It was only until after Mohammad had already captured several cities in and around Medina, as quoted above, that Arab towns nearby sent delegations for negotiation. Muhammad would only agree to the peace if these cities converted to Islam, which many did, not because they truly believed, but “reluctantly” because they feared being attacked.
Quote: *
*“According to Christian theology, his only accomplishment was dying.”
Incorrect. The full accomplishment was dying and rising again. Since He is God, and all.
Quote: *
*“War had been declared on Muslims by the Meccans at that time...such is our understanding of history, and this is what guides us.”
I’d throw in a sarcastic “proof?” here, as you were so fond of doing, but instead I will simply point out that a man’s understanding of history is not what matters. What matters is what actually happened. If it is true that Mecca attacked Muslims first, then so be it. But give me some source that agrees with this idea. My sources as quoted above state that it was the Muslims, after conquering much of Medina and seeing Mecca as a tasty price, who marched on the city and forced them to surrender. I have been begging over and over again for a source, any source, for any of these claims, and yet I receive none.
Quote: *
*“BUT, during his life, he abided by OT laws. How is that fact altered by his death?”
He abided but Old Testament laws until his death because it wasn’t until after his death that he fulfilled those laws. Jews sacrificed animals to atone for their sins. That is how they received “forgiveness”. Jesus was sacrificed on a cross for all of mankind’s sins, past, present and future. Therefore the wages of sin, which are death, have been paid for by Christ and no longer need to be paid again. No more animals need to be sacrificed. No more laws and prayers and ointments and bells on robs need to be observed for salvation or forgiveness, for now we are all forgiven, redeemed, cleansed and given grace. All of this is altered by His death.
Quote: *
*“The point is...this interpretation need not be universal. I applaud you for yours, but it gives me no sense of security.”
It isn’t a matter of interpretation. There isn’t anything in the New Testament that can be interpreted to mean, “Christians, kill Jews and Muslims,” or “Christians, kill people unless they turn and beg forgiveness and become Christians.” It just isn’t there.
Quote: *
*“That is sickeningly unjust. I would die for Christ as he was a messenger from God himself, suggestions to the opposite are offensive. No one need die for anyone else's sin. How can an act of injustice forgive other injustices?”
Christ wasn’t merely a messenger. His purpose was not simply to talk about God as a prophet. He was not Jeremiah, nor was he Isaiah, nor was he Ezekiel. He said himself, during his very life, that his purpose was to be a sacrificial lamb for all of us, to take our sin to pay the price we should pay (John 8:58; Luke 18:31-32). Of course it isn’t fair, because we deserved that punishment. But Jesus is God, and God decided that He wanted to save us, his creation, his children, from that death. And so He himself paid the price, so we wouldn’t have to. Of course, if we reject his gift, if we reject the cleansing blood that he spilt on that cross, we can’t be protected by it, and so when the end comes those that rejected Christ’s grace will have to pay that price. God cannot co-exist with evil. And so God took steps to rid us of all evil so that He could have us back. But if we refuse to accept him, if we refuse to be cleansed of evil we remain evil, and therefore we can not be with him. Since death takes us away from this world, the only other place we can be is Sheol.
Quote: *
*“’Don't blind me with the facts, but answer my question!’. Nice.”
I am still waiting for facts. I haven’t received any. All I have received are the rehearsed lines that Muslims accept without question, because “such is their understanding of history.” When dealing with history, the closest we get to facts are reasonable arguments based on a historical foundation. Cite sources. Give me names. Elbow-grease lads, just a little elbow-grease. If some atheist were to present me with all his arguments about my faith and then challenge me to present my own case, I would jump at the chance, not beg all by saying that I am far too busy, far too important, or that the issue doesn’t interest me enough to actually participate in a real historical discussion.
In Response to Das Reich
Quote:
“Oldest trick in the book...Taking verses out of context...
Why don't you read the verses before and after 9:5 so that the real picture emerges……Now, read all the verses instead is just taking 9:5 out of context and tell me what you think?”
I read all these verses in context before and I have read them again here. Mohammad and his religion seem as violent as ever. First of all, are these verses referring to Christians and Jews as idolaters? If so the Koran is mistaken, for Jews and Christians worship one God, not graven images, not idols. Therefore these verses must be refereeing to pagans. These verses, even the ones before, and even within context, are condoning and ordering the death of pagan people who break treaties and worship idols, unless they convert to Islam. This is horridly cruel and intolerant. No one should die for worshiping idols. People break treaties all the time these days but they do not deserve death. These scriptures echo a morality that does not fit in this modern world, a morality of intolerance towards people who are not Muslim and a morality of violence to those who do not practice Islam. This morality is incompatible with the age in which we live and must change. End of story.
My question is how one can take the verse and the context around it and possibly explain it away. Allah is free from obligation to the idolater? Give tidings of a painful death to the disbeliever? “For God so loved ALL the world that He gave his only begotten son.” (John 3:16) The god of Islam and the God of the Bible can not possibly be the same.
And so I have gone through 18 pages of your responses and have yet to see one person quote, cite or even make reference to any historical source. I applaud the above poster for quoting from the Koran itself, but with all the claims and counter-claims being made here, it is not sufficient. You cannot explain away the discrepancies in historical belief by saying, “Well that is the way we Muslims understand it because that is what was taught to us, and if our clerics say it, we will believe it, even though it very well may not be true.” Such a shallow approach to history may have been sufficient in the past, but not anymore. Back up your claims with historical examples, not hearsay and folklore. I am no professor. I am no historian. I have a job and go to college full time, write for a magazine, am working on getting my own novel published and have very little time to study, let alone sleep. And yet I have taken the time to do some research, as preliminary as it might be, because my friend asked me to. He has since decided that this topic no longer interests him, and has handed me over to all of you. So please, give me the same courtesy that I have given you. Don’t merely say, “X is X because I want to believe it.” Give me evidence.
Looking forward to your responses!