|
28665. concerned - 10/31/2006 7:06:39 AM From 'Tolerance in Islam':
Of the verse "There is no compulsion in religion", the scholar Nahas said:
"the scholars differed concerning Q. 2:256. Some said: 'It has been abrogated [cancelled] for the Prophet compelled the Arabs to embrace Islam and fought them and did not accept any alternative but their surrender to Islam. The abrogating verse is Q. 9:73 'O Prophet, struggle with the unbelievers and hypocrites, and be thou harsh with them.' Mohammad asked Allah the permission to fight them and it was granted. Other scholars said Q. 2:256 has not been abrogated, but it had a special application. It was revealed concerning the people of the Book [the Jews and the Christians]; they can not be compelled to embrace Islam if they pay the Jizia (that is head tax on free non-Muslims under Muslim rule). It is only the idol worshippers who are compelled to embrace Islam and upon them Q. 9:73 applies. This is the opinion of Ibn 'Abbas which is the best opinion due to the authenticity of its chain of authority."[1]
In exempting the Jews and the Christians from Q. 2:256, the Muslim scholars agree that the idol worshippers can be compelled by force to embrace Islam.
It is clear that, whether Q. 2:256 was abrogated or not, the scholars quite naturally admit to the historical fact that "the Prophet compelled the Arabs to embrace Islam and fought them and did not accept any alternative but their surrender to Islam."
THE JUSTIFICATION FOR COMPULSION
The Muslim theologians had to justify this compulsion. Here is the reason given by a famous scholar:
"No compulsion" is a condemnation of compelling people to do evil generally, but compelling people in the truth is a religious duty. Does the infidel get killed for any thing except on the basis of his religion? The Prophet said: I have been ordered to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah. This Hadith is taken from the words of Allah 'Fight them on until there is no more tumult and religion becomes that of Allah (Q. 2:193).
If some one asks how can people be compelled in the truth when the mere fact of compelling indicates a the violation of the will of the one compelled? The first answer is that Allah sent Mohammad calling people to Him, showing the way to the truth, enduring much harm ... until the evidence of Allah's truth became manifest ... and His apostle became strong, He ordered him to call people by the sword ... hence there is no more an excuse after being warned. The second answer is that people first are taken and compelled, but when Islam becomes prevalent ... and they mix and make friends ... their faith strengthens and finally becomes sincere."[2]
According to the above :
1. Muslims believe that they have the right to compel people to accept Islam because it is the truth.
2. Muslims believe that Mohammad was given a divine command to fight against people, not in self defence or for economical or political reasons, but because people do not worship the one Mohammad worshipped.
3. The above scholar had no value for the human free will. To him, forcing Islam on people is justified if later on they will become Muslims. It is not an exaggeration then to say that the sword is Allah's final word.
Dr. M. Khan the translator of Sahih al-Bukhari into English, had this to say in the introduction to his translation:
"Allah revealed in Sura Bara'at (Repentance, IX) the order to discard (all) obligations (covenants, etc), and commanded the Muslims to fight against all the Pagans as well as against the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) if they do not embrace Islam, till they pay the Jizia (a tax levied on the Jews and Christians) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued (as it is revealed in 9:29). So the Muslims were not permitted to abandon "the fighting" against them (Pagans, Jews and Christians) and to reconcile with them and to suspend hostilities against them for an unlimited period while they are strong and have the ability to fight against them. So at first "the fighting" was forbidden, then it was permitted, and after that it was made obligatory."[11]
Thus all verses in the Kor(a)n suggesting there is no compulsion in Islam are abrogated. Rather, the vacillating purported 'will of Allah' was nothing more than an expedient way for Muhammad (Pigs Be Upon Him) to impose his personal will on others by taking advantage of their credulity.
Jexster - you going to keep repeating abrogated flat earth Islamic religious texts (of which there are more than there are not) like some fucking brain damaged parrot?
28666. concerned - 10/31/2006 7:09:24 AM 28667. concerned - 10/31/2006 7:22:32 AM toys? 28668. concerned - 10/31/2006 8:17:55 AM When Muhammad wrote 'there is no religious compulsion', and then he created a religious compulsion in a big way, that made him a fucking liar. 28669. jexster - 10/31/2006 10:22:15 AM You tell em TD! 28670. jexster - 10/31/2006 10:26:25 AM 28665 -
That would be by the noted scholars
Copyright © 1996 by M. Rafiqul-Haqq and P. Newton. All rights reserved.
Tolerance in Islam
by M. Rafiqul-Haqq and P. Newton
P Newton's copyrighted web page!
Linked via Matt Drudge?
Jewish sewer swill
Thanks be to Allah for The Google of the Internets 28671. jexster - 10/31/2006 10:29:59 AM 28665 -
OR
noted scholar
TOLERANCE IN ISLAM
An Abridged Version of the 1927 Lecture
by
Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall
(Introduction Copyright © 1997 by Dr. A. Zahoor; Abridged Version Copyright © 1990 by Dr. Z. Haq)
All Rights Reserved. 28672. jexster - 10/31/2006 10:31:51 AM That last is in E-Book form....I guess they'll have to fight the copyright battle themselves...
As for the rest of you the latter is in EBOOK form!
But you'll have to do the google of the internets yourselves 28673. jexster - 10/31/2006 10:36:30 AM Doubt it is Jew sewer swill fed to the Fundamentalists???
Fed by Jude Suss himself
See for yourselves at DanielPipes.org
 28674. jexster - 10/31/2006 10:41:07 AM 655,000 Iraqis and 103 US troops this month have been slaughtered and Lebanon laid waste on account of such cranks 28675. alistairconnor - 10/31/2006 10:42:52 AM Con : Message # 28643 :
You didn't find any, in fact, that exhort the believer to lie to, cheat, defraud and murder those of other faiths.
Be so good as to note the present tense, please. That means now, not 1500 years ago. Not 3000 years ago. Now.
OK, it seems you have fallen into the Dualist heresy, espoused by Marcion in the second century, which consists of rejecting the relevance of the Old Testament. Yahweh was just a little tribal god of the Jews, with no relevance.
Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought we were talking about mainstream Christianity.
I take it, then, that you also reject the Ten Commandments? Just a list of housekeeping rules for a bunch of piddling little desert tribesmen. 28676. jexster - 10/31/2006 10:43:27 AM By their deeds you shall know them... 28677. alistairconnor - 10/31/2006 10:46:39 AM I have to concede that you have definitely found examples where the Hebrews have mistreated others in such ways in the past. My apologies if you misunderstood what I was asking. [...]
That means now, not 1500 years ago. Not 3000 years ago. Now.
So, when Mahomet (1200 years ago) exhorts the people of Medina to have no mercy on the pagans of Mecca who attack them, you concede that this has no relevance to modern Moslems, as Jexster claims? 28678. jexster - 10/31/2006 10:47:25 AM God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them. [Holy BushWrit 2:204] 28679. jexster - 10/31/2006 10:57:19 AM The real problem here is the same problem that zealots like Daniel Goldhagen have when they attempt to blame the Holocaust on Christianity. History is not so simple as the simple minded would have you believe.
Indeed, in the case of Islam it is much more complex because they have no Pope, no eeclesial structure, no Magesterium
Muslims are rather much like US Fundamentalists which makes this entire argument rather precious 28680. alistairconnor - 10/31/2006 11:04:28 AM I ask all to take note of the subtle perversity of Con's rhetoric :
He invites me to look for
verses of Christianity or Judaism that exhort the believer to lie to, cheat, defraud and murder those of other faiths
and when I quote the Old Testament to illustrate exactly this, he distances himself from those sacred, distasteful Judaeo-Christian texts, then projects onto me :
AC - however much contempt you may have for Jewish religious beliefs and attitudes...
.... classic!
So, Con, make yourself clear. Do you repudiate the Old Testament, as did Marcion, and with it the Ten Commandments? 28681. concerned - 10/31/2006 7:45:30 PM AC -
You refuse to grant the present tense only nature of my 'invitation', even when I re-emphasized it. You insist on conflating individual specific instructions given by certain Old Testament personages meant only for the ancient Hebrews thousands of years ago with the comprehensively controlling religious edicts meant for all present-day believers of Islam.
Until you can stop misconstruing my statements and correct these flaws in your 'argument' (I use the term loosely), don't hold your breath waiting for answers to irrelevant questions such as in 28680. 28682. jexster - 10/31/2006 8:08:06 PM Dhimmi See
Dhimmi Done Did 28683. jexster - 10/31/2006 8:09:03 PM "Concerned puts words in AC's mouth, like he puts bullshit in his head"
David Letterman 28684. alistairConnor - 10/31/2006 8:54:07 PM OK. Concerned will perhaps reveal how he chooses the relevant passages in the Old Testament. Those which consist of injunctions to present-day Christians, as opposed to those which were addressed purely to the contemporaries of the Prophets.
(Perhaps it's by divine inspiration. Concerned, a latter-day Joseph Smith?)
Or perhaps he will allege that nothing in the Old Testament should be construed as religious edicts for present-day Christians. This, of course, would make a nonsense of his original invitation, since there would be, by definition, nothing to discuss.
And would also be a confession of the Dualist heresy.
|
