No, David Wood won the debate (both of them) for content and proof and citing Islamic sources. Shabir just threw all Islamic sources (Hadith, Sira, Tarikh of Al Tabari, Tafsirs , Ibn Kathir) except the Qur’an under the bus.
Wood was being sarcastic on that specific point. He does NOT rejoice over the Jihadists killings and raping.
He showed that Canaanites and Amalakites lived after those passages in Deut., Joshua, and I Sam.; so they were not genocides. The Canaanites / Phoenicians and other pagan tribes lived on in the book of Judges and were in what is known today as Lebanon; and Israel had no right to attack into Lebanon, so your take on these things is wrong.
I Sam. 15 and Theocratic Israel was temporary. They do not exist and have not existed since 70 AD.
But your religion continues to do this all through it’s history:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah ‘s Apostle said, ” I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ and whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ his life and property will be saved by me except for Islamic law, and his accounts will be with Allah, (either to punish him or to forgive him.)”
حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو الْيَمَانِ، أَخْبَرَنَا شُعَيْبٌ، عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، حَدَّثَنَا سَعِيدُ بْنُ الْمُسَيَّبِ، أَنَّ أَبَا هُرَيْرَةَ ـ رضى الله عنه ـ قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم “ أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَقُولُوا لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ اللَّهُ. فَمَنْ قَالَ لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ اللَّهُ، فَقَدْ عَصَمَ مِنِّي نَفْسَهُ وَمَالَهُ، إِلاَّ بِحَقِّهِ، وَحِسَابُهُ عَلَى اللَّهِ ”. رَوَاهُ عُمَرُ وَابْنُ عُمَرَ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم.
Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 2946
In-book reference : Book 56, Hadith 158
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 4, Book 52, Hadith 196
(deprecated numbering scheme)
You said;
No, David Wood won the debate (both of them) for content and proof and citing Islamic sources. Shabir just threw all Islamic sources (Hadith, Sira, Tarikh of Al Tabari, Tafsirs , Ibn Kathir) except the Qur’an under the bus.
Wood was being sarcastic on that specific point. He does NOT rejoice over the Jihadists killings and raping.
I say;
Ibn Kathir, Tabari etc. are not Quran and so are not always right. Who tells you or David Wood Muslims agree with everything Tabari or Ibn Kathir said? It is only a confused missionary who will think that. Some Muslims never heard the name Ibn Kathir or Tabari, but yet they know their obligation through the Quran and tafsir.
Muslims have multiple tafsirs with regards to any hadith or verse from the Quran and the one that closely match with the Quran is accepted. The hadith has multiple sayings and interpretations and one has to ask and analyze to draw a conclusion than just quoting what you like and interpreting it the way you like without any proper Arabic exegeses. Missionaries can do such to their Christian audience but Muslims never accepts quoting hadiths or Quran without its Arabic words and analyzing it properly.
Shabbir Ally said, the Quran or hadith needs analysis that are logical to determine what the hadith and the Quranic verses means than just quoting verses.
This will counter what any Christian missionary quoted and left out
Sura 9
13. Will you not fight a people who have violated their oaths (pagans of Makkah) and intended to expel the Messenger, while they did attack you first? Do you fear them? Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are believers
4. Except those of the Mushrikun with whom you have a treaty, and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor have supported anyone against you. So fulfill their treaty to them to the end of their term. Surely Allah loves Al- Mattaqun (the pious – see V.2:2).
6. And if anyone of the Mushrikun (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) seeks your protection then grant him protection, so that he may hear the Word of Allah (the Qur’an), and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men who know not.
Sura 2:9
And fight in (the) way (of) Allah those who fight you and (do) not transgress. Indeed, Allah (does) not like the transgressors.
Allah knows the humans he created and war is sometime inevitable, for Ken Temple and his evangelicals Christians are following the Biblical passages that said Kill everyone including babies to kill like how the Crusaders did to Muslims and Jews and begin to do the same to themselves i.e. protestants trying to wipe out the Catholics and the Catholics want to wipe out protestants like how they wiped out Muslims and Jews in Spain and the Holy land and invaded Iraq and helping Israel to destroy Churches and Mosques and know preparing to attack Iran because Iran just like Canada, Japan, China etc. wants nuclear electricity to his people . Carly Fiorina did well on last debate because she said she will support Israel to prevent Iran from peaceful nuclear and the republican campaign is jeered towards that, so that Iran will be attacked by the support of Christian evangelicals.
So, in this case Israel and the United states backed by Zionist and evangelical Christians attacked Iran, a Muslim majority country first, so they must fight to defend their land just like Iraq was attacked first.
The rule of war applied to the Muslims and we have clearly defined rule of war above if you care to read. Give me a Christian rule of war. Iran or Iraq or Palestine will not sit down and let the evangelical Christians to use their Bible of massacring women and children to finish them up. The Palestinians are strong and may God bless them with all the contribution Ken Temple and his Christians are doing to Israel with bull dozers to destroy their farm lands, children schools, churches, mosques, homes, street to build Jewish alone neighbourhood supported by Ken Temple and David Wood.
Ken Temple, I agree that Wood won the debate on Quran and peace, not because he had the better arguments but because Shabir did not adequately respond to his contentions on abrogation and the nature of Ibn Kathir’s commentary. I don’t see how Wood came out victorious in the second debate. Can you tell me what his best argument was that led you to believe the bible is peaceful? As for Shabir’s methodology, it is no different from what scholars of Islamic studies in the West employ in their research. What was Wood’s methodology? Basically, Quran says this; Hadith says that; Ibn Kathir says so and so. This is not a scholarly methodology. For one thing, books don’t speak.
Let me also ask you this question. On the issue of abrogation, do we have any hadith in which Muhammad(saw) himself says that earlier peaceful verses are abrogated by later violent ones?
They were under the same judgment/curse as the other pagans that lived within the borders of the promised land of Israel, as spoken of about the Canaanites, Amorites, Jebusites, etc. (Genesis 15:13-21, Deut. 7, 9, 20; book of Joshua, Judges, etc.)
But all that was temporary only for Israel in the promised land; and only for that time.
Biblical Israel is no more, and never has been since 70 AD.
Jesus had mercy on the Canaanite woman in the territory of Lebanon in Matthew 15 and Mark 7.
The Church was NEVER given permission to fight wars or do terrorism, as some Muslims do today.
Matthew 5:38-48 – turn the other cheek
Matthew 26:52 – put your sword away; those who live by the sword will die by the sword
Ephesians 6:10-20 – our struggle is not against humans, but against the spiritual forces and demons
2 Cor. 10:3-5 – the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly / carnal / physical
John 18:36 – My kingdom is not of this world; if it were of this world, My servants would be fighting; but as it is; they don’t fight because My kingdom is not of this world
Can you tell me what his best argument was that led you to believe the bible is peaceful?
Basically, because the NT abrogates the OT promised land – war texts, as I showed above.
Matthew 5:38-48 – turn the other cheek
Matthew 26:52 – put your sword away; those who live by the sword will die by the sword
Ephesians 6:10-20 – our struggle is not against humans, but against the spiritual forces and demons
2 Cor. 10:3-5 – the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly / carnal / physical
John 18:36 – My kingdom is not of this world; if it were of this world, My servants would be fighting; but as it is; they don’t fight because My kingdom is not of this world
David Wood used some of those verses, along with “love your neighbor as yourself” (Luke 10:27) and “live in peace with all men” (Romans 12:18; Hebrews 12:14) and “God is love” ( 1 John 4:8).
David also pointed out that Just War principles were developed in the Western Christian tradition of Ambrose and Augustine (mid to late 300s-430 AD). And Shabir was using a book that was dependent on that which is Christian based. It was based on the harmonization of the verses and principles that I lay above; and Romans 13 and that the state has the responsibility to punish evil with the sword (police, military, just war).
Shabir used Hebrews 11 to try and show that the NT was somehow saying that what Samson, Jepthah, Samuel, David did in wars is still acceptable.
As I have pointed out, there is no more OT Theocratic Israel, since 70 AD. Wood did say that the commands to kill the pagans and drive them out was:
1. temporary (Jesus took the authority for Israel to do that away from them in Matthew 21:43-45) No more since 70 AD.
2. Limited to only the Promised Land.
The land promises for ethnic Israel are no more: the book of Hebrews clearly interprets the land promises as fulfilled in Christ and a symbol of heaven.
Hebrews chapter 4
Hebrews 11:10
Hebrews 11:13-14
Hebrews 11:16
Hebrews 12:22-23 – Mt. Zion, the hill the temple was on in Jerusalem is called “the heavenly Jerusalem” and is associated with the church
Hebrews 13:14
Matthew 21:43-45 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
43 Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people, producing the fruit of it.
44 And he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust.”
45 When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them.
You said;
But all that was temporary only for Israel in the promised land; and only for that time.
Biblical Israel is no more, and never has been since 70 AD.
Jesus had mercy on the Canaanite woman in the territory of Lebanon in Matthew 15 and Mark 7.
The Church was NEVER given permission to fight wars or do terrorism, as some Muslims do today.
I say;
Give us example and evidence from the Quran where it says go and kill babies and women and non combatants.
Terrorism now lies on Ken Temple and most evangelical Christians who contributes to Israel to massacre and mass murder Palestinians. Destroy their farmlands, Waters, Churches and Mosques and kill babies at the UN compound as the Bible said. Bomb Churches in Gaza that is being protected by the Palestinian Christians. Support Iraq war by the evangelical Christians and now supporting attack on Iran. Supported Israel attack on Lebanon, Iraq and Syria with Church contributions. That is terrorism backed by Bible verses.
Whatever verse you will bring has been refuted by this verses;
Sura 9
13. Will you not fight a people who have violated their oaths (pagans of Makkah) and intended to expel the Messenger, while they did attack you first? Do you fear them? Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are believers
4. Except those of the Mushrikun with whom you have a treaty, and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor have supported anyone against you. So fulfill their treaty to them to the end of their term. Surely Allah loves Al- Mattaqun (the pious – see V.2:2).
6. And if anyone of the Mushrikun (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) seeks your protection then grant him protection, so that he may hear the Word of Allah (the Qur’an), and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men who know not.
Sura 2:9
And fight in (the) way (of) Allah those who fight you and (do) not transgress. Indeed, Allah (does) not like the transgressors.
Br. P. Williams //Ken, tell me: what crime did the Amalakite women and children commit to deserve their genocide?//
KT //They were under the same judgment/curse as the other pagans that lived within the borders of the promised land of Israel, as spoken of about the Canaanites, Amorites, Jebusites, etc. (Genesis 15:13-21, Deut. 7, 9, 20; book of Joshua, Judges, etc.)//
And what is it this curse so that even innocent babies deserve the punishment? Isnt God gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love; and relents over disaster??
Ken is wrong (again) about the given reasons for the genocide. It is clearly stated in 1 Samuel 15: they were being punished for crimes committed by other people 300 years earlier.
You said;
As I have pointed out, there is no more OT Theocratic Israel, since 70 AD. Wood did say that the commands to kill the pagans and drive them out was:
1. temporary (Jesus took the authority for Israel to do that away from them in Matthew 21:43-45) No more since 70 AD.
2. Limited to only the Promised Land.
I say;
Who the heck tells you or told you that TEMPRORALLY KILLING OF INOCCENT WOMEN, CHILDREN, CATTLE, ANINAL BY MEN is good? David Wood? told you that? TEMPRORALLY KILLING OF INOCCENT WOMEN, CHILDREN, CATTLE, ANINAL BY MEN is good?
If that is the case, both of you need psychiatric treatment.
Killing of babies, who are innocent and women and live stock is just not good and it is a sin. And the Christians are using these command of annihilation right now to help the state of Israel to annihilate the Palestinians and they are damn happy for the annihilation and the Christians used the verses to annihilate and exterminate the Jews and the Muslims in Spain and the Holy Land and destroyed the Churches but Muslims have to conquer the Christians and rebuilt and renovate the Temples, Churches and Mosques standing side by side in the Holy Land today. The evangelical Christians through the inspiration of John Hagee, Jack Van Impe, have warned their senators and congress men to worship Netanyahu as the Bible said worship Israel and anything it has so that Palestinians will be exterminated. Palestinians both Muslims and Christians are fighting to keep their land and God is with them and despite all these annihilation by Ken Temple and his Christian using Biblical verses, they could not exterminate the Palestinians.
Ken Temple and David Wood could not defend the horrible Biblical verses but to say it is temporal like saying let me temporally kill you by slashing your throat with a sword. It is rubbish to temporally kill innocent babies.
With regards to abrogation in Islam, I mentioned to you here sometimes back, that no any verse is abrogated in the Quran until specified clearly or explained by the prophet. It is not true that the newer verses of the Quran abrogate the older ones. That is not true. Besides, I have been quoting verses that counter what any missionary in the same sura 9 they have been quoting.
Sura 9
13. Will you not fight a people who have violated their oaths (pagans of Makkah) and intended to expel the Messenger, while they did attack you first? Do you fear them? Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are believers
4. Except those of the Mushrikun with whom you have a treaty, and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor have supported anyone against you. So fulfill their treaty to them to the end of their term. Surely Allah loves Al- Mattaqun (the pious – see V.2:2).
6. And if anyone of the Mushrikun (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) seeks your protection then grant him protection, so that he may hear the Word of Allah (the Qur’an), and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men who know not.
Sura 2:9
And fight in (the) way (of) Allah those who fight you and (do) not transgress. Indeed, Allah (does) not like the transgressors.
The Amalekites were nomadic raiders, who constantly attacked the Jews (Paul is right about the beginning of that in Exodus 17, Numbers, Deut. 25:17-19; and they continued after I Sam. 15 – I Sam. 30 and 2 Sam. 8:12) and God put them under the same ban (Harem חרמ = “devoted to destruction”; cognate with the Arabic حرام and حرم “forbidden” – Deut. chapters 7, 9, 20 ) as the other pagan tribes, and specifically because they persecuted Israel in their journey in the wilderness from Sinai to the promised land. They were nomadic raiders and kept coming into the promised land and attacking the Israelites, so the Israelites fought them back.
They even survived in Haman the Agagite,(the book of Esther),who tried to destroyed all the Jews in the Persian Empire. Haman, the Agagite, was a descendent of Agag, the king of the Amalekites from 1 Sam. 15.
But all of that is still only for OT Theocratic Israel that ceased in 70 AD. The Church was never to do anything like that, and never did.
John Hagee is a heretic; who says that we should not share the gospel of Jesus Christ with Jewish people. That is horrible and at root, anti-semitic, because it blocks the Jewish people off from hearing the good news about their true Messiah and God, Jesus Christ. Hagee is also a heretic because he is part of the “prosperity health and wealth” teachings. (Word of Faith movement; “name it claim it”, positive confession movement.)
Jack Van Impe is unbalanced and all he ever talks about is the End-time events and book of Revelation and the rapture stuff and relates it to modern Israel. He is a pre-tribulationalist and Premillennialist. Pre-Tribulationism is not a credible interpretation of the end time texts, in my opinion. Same for Hal Lindsay and Tim LaHaye’s books – they are popular, but I don’t agree with that stuff.
I lean toward an Amillennial view point. If you study the texts of my earlier post above – the verses from Hebrews – it shows that the promised land is a type and symbol of heaven and not meant to be a perpetual thing.
I don’t agree with everything modern Israel does; and I don’t base their existance on the OT land promises. Rather, they had the right to the original 2 state plan and territory of 1948, but because the Muslims never even agreed to anything for them; and attacked them first, and kept doing it; well, Israel kept winning because the Muslims never even allowed the Jews to have some of the land, which was mostly bought and developed from rich Arab land owners from 1880s up to the time of 1948. Those rich Arab land owners were living in areas of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, etc. and they were all under the government of the Ottoman Empire. When the Ottoman’s joined Germany in WW I, and lost, they were justly punished and the Jews could carve out something for themselves.
The land promises with commands of war for ethnic Israel are no more: the book of Hebrews clearly interprets the land promises as fulfilled in Christ and a symbol of heaven.
God judged them in 70 AD and 135 AD (Bar Kokhba rebellion) and scattered them over the earth. (Matthew 23:36-24:3 – destruction of the temple).
Hebrews chapter 4
Hebrews 11:10
Hebrews 11:13-14
Hebrews 11:16
Hebrews 12:22-23 – Mt. Zion, the hill the temple was on in Jerusalem is called “the heavenly Jerusalem” and is associated with the church
Hebrews 13:14
Also Galatians 4:26 says “the Jerusalem above, she is our Mother” – based on Psalm 87, where is says that true Zion is the acceptance of peoples from other cultures into the family of God – the Lord even lists many of the OT enemies of Israel – Rahab (Canaanites), Babylon, Philistia, Tyre, Ethiopia, – they will be included as those are born in Zion, when God registers the peoples and born in Zion.” (verses 4-6) This is about true Zion, fulfilled in the church (Hebrews 12:22-23) and that the Lord redeemed people from all the nations, tribes, languages, and peoples in Revelation 5:9 and 7:9. (prophesied about in Daniel 7:13-14)
Psalm 87
1 His foundation is in the holy mountains.
2 The Lord loves the gates of Zion
More than all the other dwelling places of Jacob.
3 Glorious things are spoken of you,
O city of God. Selah. 4 “I shall mention Rahab and Babylon among those who know Me;
Behold, Philistia and Tyre with Ethiopia:
‘This one was born there.’”
5 Indeed, of Zion it shall be said, “This one and that one were born in her”;
And the Most High Himself will establish her.
6 The Lord will count when He registers the peoples,
“This one was born there.”
Selah.
7 Then those who sing as well as those who play the flutes shall say,
“All my springs of joy are in you.”
Ken You are wrong about this too! Paul, in the forged letter 2 Timothy 3:16, tells his readers about the OT: it is useful for teaching, reproof, correction and training in righteousness. Christians have been inspired by OT examples to commit atrocities and genocide throughout history. Even in America!
No wonder people become atheists refusing to believe in such barbarism and evil.
Paul, you didn’t read this part? I agreed with you that 1 Sam. 15 gives the specific reasons – going back to Exodus 17, Numbers, Deut. 25, etc.
The Amalekites were nomadic raiders, who constantly attacked the Jews (Paul is right about the beginning of that in Exodus 17, Numbers, Deut. 25:17-19; and they continued after I Sam. 15 – I Sam. 30 and 2 Sam. 8:12) and God put them under the same ban (Harem חרמ = “devoted to destruction”; cognate with the Arabic حرام and حرم “forbidden” – Deut. chapters 7, 9, 20 ) as the other pagan tribes, and specifically because they persecuted Israel in their journey in the wilderness from Sinai to the promised land. They were nomadic raiders and kept coming into the promised land and attacking the Israelites, so the Israelites fought them back.
Ken you are just wrong again: both verses are about the OT and it does not say to the read that it does not apply to the New Israel. You seem to think the NT existed in Paul’s time!
I asked Temple also when Jesus (he is God according to him) in your bible tell you, “HAPPY IS HE WHO SMASHES BABIES ONTO ROCKS” (Psalm 137) does he feel outrage with this chilling unmerciful acts?? I try to understand it with context, clearly this is about God revenge. God shows no mercy and repay those Babylonians including the babies.
He seems throwing part of his holy book under the bus to keep his congregation.
Even Shabir Ally used the Just War principles developed by the Western Christian tradition – Ambrose, Augustine (died in 430 AD) and Aquinas. He used a book based on Christian tradition for the “Just War Theory”, which developed out of taking all of the NT together along with Romans 13 and the government’s responsibility to punish evil, criminals, rapists, murderers. (today’s police and good and just military actions of defending the innocent.)
Psalm 137 was a judgement / justice passage on Babylon, in judgement and retribution for what Babylon did to Israel and Jerusalem.
Jesus changed that attitude of “taking revenge”:
Matthew 5:38-48
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’
39 But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
40 If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.
41 Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.
42 Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’
44 But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
47 If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?
48 Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
The progression in Christianity is OT to NT – war for the promised land for Theocratic Israel to peace and love by the church.
The progression in Islam was the opposite. Meccan Surahs to Medina Surahs – 610-622 (peaceful, persecuted) to 622-632 AD and beyond (Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman, Ali, Muawiyya, Yazid, etc.) permission to raid caravans, permission to fight, self -defense, then all out war against everyone. (Surah 9)
Ken don’t whitewash your Bible! 2Tim 3:16 tells his readers to use the OT for examples in conduct and training. Christians in history have done just that and committed acts of terror and genocide against ‘savages’ usually non-White peoples.
KT//Aquinas. He used a book based on Christian tradition for the “Just War Theory”, today’s police and good and just military actions of defending the innocent.)//
– fight only when they are attacked until there is NO more OPPRESSION, till JUSTICE prevails.
– do not embezzle the spoils;
– do not break your pledge; and
– do not mutilate (the dead) bodies;
– do not kill the children.
Those are from the Holy Qur’an and sound hadiths not the bible.
I am asking you how smashing babies skulls onto rocks and killing women, children and animal can be “JUST”??
Eric “I am asking you how smashing babies skulls onto rocks and killing women, children and animal can be “JUST”??”
You don’t understand, brother. .. You have to have the Holy Spirit. …. Believe! …. Then “Jesus” will come in your heart and will make you understand! …. Jesus lurves you ….
And on and on and on … till the cows come home … er … Jesus returns 🙂
fight only when they are attacked until there is NO more OPPRESSION, till JUSTICE prevails.
That is a Christian principle, not an Islamic principle,
since many Hadith say:
Fight them until religion is all for Allah (see below just one of them, from Sahih Al Bukhari, 2946; vol. 4, book 52, # 196)
Fight the people of the book, until they are humiliated and they pay the Jiziyeh. (Surah 9:28-33) Aye 33 – “that He may cause the religion of the truth (Al Islam) to prevail over all religion”
The Byzantines and Persia did not attack first, the Muslims did and did all out war against them. For centuries!!
Surah 8:39 says until there is no more fitna فتنه and religion is all for Allah. Fitna فتنه does not mean “persecution” or “oppression” – it means turmoil, rebellion, mutiny, confusion.
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah ‘s Apostle said, ” I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ and whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ his life and property will be saved by me except for Islamic law, and his accounts will be with Allah, (either to punish him or to forgive him.)”
حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو الْيَمَانِ، أَخْبَرَنَا شُعَيْبٌ، عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، حَدَّثَنَا سَعِيدُ بْنُ الْمُسَيَّبِ، أَنَّ أَبَا هُرَيْرَةَ ـ رضى الله عنه ـ قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم “ أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَقُولُوا لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ اللَّهُ. فَمَنْ قَالَ لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ اللَّهُ، فَقَدْ عَصَمَ مِنِّي نَفْسَهُ وَمَالَهُ، إِلاَّ بِحَقِّهِ، وَحِسَابُهُ عَلَى اللَّهِ ”. رَوَاهُ عُمَرُ وَابْنُ عُمَرَ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم.
Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 2946
In-book reference : Book 56, Hadith 158
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 4, Book 52, Hadith 196
(deprecated numbering scheme)
“fight till they say, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,”
does NOT mean “till there is no more oppression” or “until justice prevails”
KT//The progression in Islam was the opposite. Meccan Surahs to Medina Surahs – 610-622 (peaceful, persecuted) to 622-632 AD and beyond (Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman, Ali, Muawiyya, Yazid, etc.) permission to raid caravans, permission to fight, self -defense, then all out war against everyone. (Surah 9)//
No, Islam early wars are for liberation against trinitarian paganism. The Qur’an is clear in setting the limit
وَقَاتِلُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ الَّذِينَ يُقَاتِلُونَكُمْ وَلَا تَعْتَدُوا ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ الْمُعْتَدِينَ
“Fight in the cause of Allâh those who fight you, but do not transgress limits: for Allâh loveth not transgressors.”
the bible has nothing of the sort . no chilling baby killing.
And it is Christian leaders like Bush and Blair who have started wars of aggression against other states with huge civilian deaths. When was the last time a Muslim country invaded USA, lol
KT//fight only when they are attacked until there is NO more OPPRESSION, till JUSTICE prevails. That is a Christian principle, not an Islamic principle,//
Fight them until there is NO [MORE] FITNAH and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be NO AGGRESSION except against the oppressors. (Q 2:193)
FITNAH فِتْنَةٌ specifically means “oppression”
‘UDWAANA عُدْوَانَ means aggression
“Just war” is CLEAR Qur’anic cocept!
So so much for your claim as being Christian principle, where is your proof?
Smashing innocent baby skulls clearly does not constitute fighting oppression let alone justice.
Burhaddin1 –
As a Muslim, you don’t believe in hell or judgement day?
Eric –
I read Hayward’s book, as I told you under the Philip Jenkins/ Riz Khan post and I am glad for that modern interpretation the most Muslim’s nowadays have, since the abolition of the Khaliphate. But Ibn Kathir and classical Muslims commentators did not have that interpretation.
Christianity did not start most of the wars in the last 500 years. That is ridiculous.
Roman Catholicism is not true Christianity, and it went astray from the Bible from 500s and 600s onward.
Hitler and Japan etc. – they were all non-Christians, pagans.
Stalin, USSR, Pol Pot of Cambodia, Mao of China – all atheists and communists.
Hitler even said basically, as he rejected the religion of the history of Germany:
“Why couldn’t we Germans have a manly and warlike religion like Islam or the Japanese religion – one that fights; not the wimpy and weak and meek Christianity.”
“It’s been our misfortune of have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammadan religion too would have been much more acceptable to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?” page 165, “Bonhoeffer, Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy”, by Eric Metaxas
Temple “Burhaddin1 – As a Muslim, you don’t believe in hell or judgement day?”
Temple, are you pretending to be ignorant? The reformed-protestant brand of Christianity (yours I guess) condemns me to hell, just because I am born human.
I am totally depraved by nature, and therefore deserve eternal death, correct? Just because I am human and was created that way by a “loving and just” God, correct?
KT//I read Hayward’s book, as I told you under the Philip Jenkins/ Riz Khan post and I am glad for that modern interpretation the most Muslim’s nowadays have, since the abolition of the Khaliphate. But Ibn Kathir and classical Muslims commentators did not have that interpretation.//
Apparently you either don’t read properly or have comprehension problem. Nowhere is Professor Hayward said he is making new interpretation of those Qur’anic verses, he studied what classical commentator had to say (including Ibn Kathir) and then explain it to anyone who are mistaken in understanding Islam’s approach to war, as a military educator himself he know what modern just war about.
//Roman Catholicism is not true Christianity//
This is hilarious. Last time I check “The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church, is, the LARGEST Christian church”
and Hitler?
“The anti-Semitism of the new movement (Christian Social movement)was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge.”
“all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” Romans 3:23
“Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” John 3:18
There is still time for you to repent and trust in Al Masih.
Mark 1:15
“Repent and believe in the gospel”
No, Hitler was NOT a Christian, but he used that church background to deceive the German people, especially at the beginning. That speech was 1922 was early, and he was being deceptive in order to win the German people over to his agenda.
He even told Himler, Borrman, Rosenberg, and Reinhard Heydrick (the 4 of his inner circle that were even more anti-Christian than Hitler was; Hitler was a pragmatist) Himler and Borrman and those guys were wanting to come out against the Church in Germany more directly, but Hitler said that would not be wise because the people would turn against them. Hitler said wait until they have won; then they can create a new religion based on the old paganism war-like gods of the Goths – the Ancient Germanic tribes.
You need to read chapter 11 of Eric Metaxas’ book, “Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy” – he explains how Hitler used the church and decieved, etc. and he explains the Nazi real religion. Chapter 11 is called “Nazi Theology” – it is very revealing and documented.
Ken just for the record: what crime or sin had the women, children, babies and animals committed? Btw I am not asking you what crime had their ancestors committed 300 years before.
I didn’t go through all the posts. Ken Temple, did you answer my question, “Do we have any hadith in which Muhammad(saw) himself said that earlier peaceful verses are abrogated by later violent verses?”
The Qur’an approves of the wars of Joshua (says a prophet after Moses), Saul, and David in Surah 2:249-251, at the end saying “David slew/killed Goliath”. Goliath was a Philistine, and the Philistines were an ancient pagan people (the sea peoples) who came into the land of Israel (in the area of what is today known as Gaza and that general area) and kept attacking Israel. The Amalekites were nomadic tribe, coming into and across the border of Israel and they kept attacking the Israelites. Apparently, Saul was to “wipe them out” ( Harem) from the borders of Israel; so they were all under the same ban as the Canaanite pagan peoples.
But that is not applicable at all today. The NT abrogates that; and Just War principles were developed in the west, based on the NT and justice.
Ken what crime or sin had the women, children, babies and animals committed? Btw I am not asking you what crime had their ancestors committed 300 years before.
KT//“ftna” فتنه does not mean oppression. Oppression is Zolm or Zulm ظلم . same root word as oppressors that is in the verse you quoted. الظالمین//
It is obvious that your dont understand the nuance of classical arabic, but you act yourself like a sheikh
ف ت ن got range of meanings ie. to try or prove, persecute, burn, assay, put into affliction, distress and hardship, slaughter, cause to err, seduce from faith by any means, mislead, sow dissension or difference of opinion, mischief, put in confusion, punish, give reply or excuse, tempt, lead to temptation, make an attempt upon, seduce.
فِتْنَةُ fitnatun – persecution, trial, probation, burning, assaying, reply, excuse, war, means whereby the condition of a person is evinced in respect of good or evil, hardship, punishment, answer, temptation, burning with fire.
Even Arabic-English Lexicon by Edward William Lane (London: Willams & Norgate 1863) put it under “castigation” or even “slaughter” in one of its definition
KT//There is still time for you to repent and trust in Al Masih.
Mark 1:15
“Repent and believe in the gospel”//
We already believe in the genuine Injeel of Isa Al-Masih , the son of Mary and the slave of Allah….but NOT the gospel of unknown authors who claim and preach false gospel of true Christ.
I didn’t go through all the posts. Ken Temple, did you answer my question, “Do we have any hadith in which Muhammad(saw) himself said that earlier peaceful verses are abrogated by later violent verses?”
I don’t know of ones that say that specifically; but the progression seems clear and the way they are expressed by, “permission is now given to fight” whereas before it was not. And the later verses and Hadiths say, “fight until religion is all for Allah” – that means clearly until all pagans are Muslims and only Christians and Jews are allowed to be Dhimmis and be humiliated and forbidden to do evangelism and build new churches.
it is clear from those hadith that I cited above,
and that Surah 9 is said to be the last Surah revealed,
Narrated Al-Bara:
The last Sura that was revealed was Bara’a (Immunity, another name for Surah 9), and the last Verse that was revealed was: “They ask you for a legal verdict, Say: Allah’s directs (thus) about those who leave no descendants or ascendants as heirs.” (4.176)
حَدَّثَنَا سُلَيْمَانُ بْنُ حَرْبٍ، حَدَّثَنَا شُعْبَةُ، عَنْ أَبِي إِسْحَاقَ، سَمِعْتُ الْبَرَاءَ ـ رضى الله عنه ـ قَالَ آخِرُ سُورَةٍ نَزَلَتْ بَرَاءَةَ، وَآخِرُ آيَةٍ نَزَلَتْ {يَسْتَفْتُونَكَ }
USC-MSA web (English) reference :
Sahih Al Bukhari Vol. 6, Book 60, Hadith 129
Arabic reference : Book 65, Hadith 4605
and the way Abu Bakr and Omar and Uthman applied the principles was all out war against pagans and war against Christians and Jews until they submitted and paid the Jiziyeh and agreed to not do any evangelism or rebel.
According to a hadith recorded by Bukhari, sura 9 was the last complete Surah to be revealed as a whole, although parts and individual verses of other suras came later. (that one verse from Surah 5:3 – “this day is your religion complete – Al Islam” ; Islamic scholars debate whether Surah 9 or parts of 5 or all of 5; or 110 is last, but in any case, they are the last 3 Surahs revealed.) According to that Hadith above, the last verse Ayeh revealed was 4:176.
Another hadith says that sura 110 was actually the last, but in any case sura 9 is very late, among the last revelations Muhammad received. It came around the time, according to an Islamic tradition, of an inconclusive expedition Muhammad undertook against a Byzantine garrison at Tabuk in northern Arabia in 631, and much of its contents revolve around the events of that attempt to engage the army of the great Christian empire in battle.
After Muhammad died in 632 AD; the Caliphs applied 9:29-33 to all out war against the Christian Byzantine Empire and kept going all through history.
fitnah can be interpreted any way in that range, since in Islam, if there is rebellion, mutiny, confusion, corruption, people protesting in the streets against Sharia law, Islam can interpret that as a trial and persecution against their understanding of Sharia law and Islam.
This Hadith from Sahih Al Bukhari shows the understanding of Surah 9 and Surah 8 together (8:39 – fight until there is no more rebellion/confusion/mutiny and religion is all for Allah)
notice that phrase:
“. . . till they started thinking that none would be left unmentioned therein.”
” . . .
Narrated Sa`id bin Jubair:
I asked Ibn `Abbas about Surat Al-Tauba, and he said, “Surat Al-Tauba? It is exposure (of all the evils of the infidels and the hypocrites). And it continued revealing (that the oft-repeated expression): ‘…and of them …and of them.’ till they started thinking that none would be left unmentioned therein.” I said, “What about) Surat Al-Anfal?” He replied, “Surat Al-Anfal was revealed in connection with the Badr Battle.” I said, “(What about) Surat Al-Hashr?” He replied, “It was revealed in connection with Bani an-Nadir.”
حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الرَّحِيمِ، حَدَّثَنَا سَعِيدُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ، حَدَّثَنَا هُشَيْمٌ، أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو بِشْرٍ، عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ جُبَيْرٍ، قَالَ قُلْتُ لاِبْنِ عَبَّاسٍ سُورَةُ التَّوْبَةِ قَالَ التَّوْبَةُ هِيَ الْفَاضِحَةُ، مَا زَالَتْ تَنْزِلُ وَمِنْهُمْ وَمِنْهُمْ، حَتَّى ظَنُّوا أَنَّهَا لَمْ تُبْقِ أَحَدًا مِنْهُمْ إِلاَّ ذُكِرَ فِيهَا. قَالَ قُلْتُ سُورَةُ الأَنْفَالِ. قَالَ نَزَلَتْ فِي بَدْرٍ. قَالَ قُلْتُ سُورَةُ الْحَشْرِ. قَالَ نَزَلَتْ فِي بَنِي النَّضِيرِ.
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Sahih Al Bukhari Vol. 6, Book 60, Hadith 404
Arabic reference : Book 65, Hadith 4882
the Caliphs understood that to be all out war and fighting “until none would be left unmentioned therein” in those groups of infidels, hypocrites, and the people of the book (until they submit and pay Jiziyeh and don’t do any evangelism, etc.
You said;
I don’t know of ones that say that specifically; but the progression seems clear and the way they are expressed by, “permission is now given to fight” whereas before it was not. And the later verses and Hadiths say, “fight until religion is all for Allah” – that means clearly until all pagans are Muslims and only Christians and Jews are allowed to be Dhimmis and be humiliated and forbidden to do evangelism and build new churches.
it is clear from those hadith that I cited above,
and that Surah 9 is said to be the last Surah revealed,
You also said;
that specifically; but the progression seems clear and the way they are expressed by, “permission is now given to fight” whereas before it was not. And the later verses and Hadiths say, “fight until religion is all for Allah” – that means clearly until all pagans are Muslims and only Christians and Jews are allowed to be Dhimmis and be humiliated and forbidden to do evangelism and build new churches.
I say;
Shabbir Ally said, no one can interpret the Quran the way he likes and want, be it Ibn Kathir, missionaries, David Wood, Ken Temple etc. except the Prophet alone. Like the Christians and their Bible and every religion, Muslims have various interpretation with regards to its test, so just quoting hadith, Suras in the middle of debate and interpreting the way one wants is childish and lack of analytical skills.
Most Islamic Universities, Imams and scholars teach that, any abrogation has to come from our prophet and if he did not say a verse is abrogated, no one can abrogate any verse. The hadiths are man made and it is not obligated to accept any of them.
Ken Temple, David Wood, James White, Ibn Kathir, etc. cannot tell Muslims what abrogation means in their religion. They cannot tell them what fitna etc. means in their religion, unless they have attended Islamic university and attained a proper credentials and even in such case they have to provide proof according to classical Arabic.
I debated with you about Aramaic and I provide my proof. You seem to be producing wrong information to Muslims and brother Eric keeps correcting you from years back with Arabic dictionary, Hebrew dictionary till today and you keep repeating your intentional mistakes.
What you have to prove is that the Quran said; “Kill women and children”, “Kill non combatant”, “Kill old people”, “Destroy Churches” etc. than trying to educate us Muslims on how the abrogation, fitna, sura 9, Ibn Kathir, Tabari, etc. are. You do not know them better than us. I do not know the gospel of John, Mathew, Mark than you so I cannot teach you how they abrogate verses, but what I know is that there is no where in the whole gospel that said; “all the old testament verses were abrogated”
You also lied from your teeth that the laws governing war is Christians without citing a single proof from the whole Bible but we have cited so many proof from the Quran and or hadith for you.
The same sura 9 you falsely educated us that is the last sura and command Muslims to Kill said this;
4. Except those of the Mushrikun with whom you have a treaty, and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor have supported anyone against you. So fulfill their treaty to them to the end of their term. Surely Allah loves Al- Mattaqun (the pious – see V.2:2).
6. And if anyone of the Mushrikun (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) seeks your protection then grant him protection, so that he may hear the Word of Allah (the Qur’an), and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men who know not.
Sura 2:9
And fight in (the) way (of) Allah those who fight you and (do) not transgress. Indeed, Allah (does) not like the transgressors.
They are from the same verse 9 you, David Wood, Jay Smith, Sammuel Green etc. and all missionary are cut and pasting but never brought the above to hide the truths.
If Sura 9 is for killing non Muslims why the above verses from sura 9 that said a non Muslim who is not aggressor and want protection from the Muslims must be escorted to a safe place so that he might hear the word of Allah for he may not know what he was doing.
This is a place where the Quran could have said “force convert him” but it did not. You can never find “force convert him” in the Quran but Ken you keep accusing Islam with force conversion without proof.
You said Islam stole the regulation of war from Christianity, and if you are truthful give us one verse from the whole Bible that said
6. And if anyone of the Mushrikun (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) seeks your protection then grant him protection, so that he may hear the Word of Allah (the Qur’an), and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men who know not.
Sura 2:9
And fight in (the) way (of) Allah those who fight you and (do) not transgress. Indeed, Allah (does) not like the transgressors.
Mr.Ken Temple. There is NO record of the Prophet(saw) himself saying that peaceful verses have been abrogated by violent verses. There is no consensus among scholars that peaceful verses have been abrogated. In fact, there is no consensus among scholars regarding the number of abrogated verses. Some say 200, others say 5, others say 0. Moreover, as Prof.Asma Afsaruddin has shown in her book, Striving in the path of God, the concept of perennial Jihad went through the same progression as Jesus’ divinity did. Just as Jesus went from being very human in Mark to being very Divine in John, so did the concept of Jihad start out as something entirely defensive among the earliest scholars but then became more offensive and perennial in later scholarly works. All these things (and more) go to show that the Quran is a lot tamer with respect to warfare than what later scholars made it out to be, exactly as Shabir Ally contended during his debate.
That’s the difference between Wood and Ally. According to Wood, the Quran says this or the hadith says that or Ibn Kathir says this..therefore, the Quran is not a book of peace. This is not a scholarly methodology and if Wood were to present his case to an Islamic studies journal real scholars would just laugh him off.
You said;
Narrated Sa`id bin Jubair:
I asked Ibn `Abbas about Surat Al-Tauba, and he said, “Surat Al-Tauba? It is exposure (of all the evils of the infidels and the hypocrites). And it continued revealing (that the oft-repeated expression): ‘…and of them …and of them.’ till they started thinking that none would be left unmentioned therein.” I said, “What about) Surat Al-Anfal?” He replied, “Surat Al-Anfal was revealed in connection with the Badr Battle.” I said, “(What about) Surat Al-Hashr?” He replied, “It was revealed in connection with Bani an-Nadir.”
حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الرَّحِيمِ، حَدَّثَنَا سَعِيدُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ، حَدَّثَنَا هُشَيْمٌ، أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو بِشْرٍ، عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ جُبَيْرٍ، قَالَ قُلْتُ لاِبْنِ عَبَّاسٍ سُورَةُ التَّوْبَةِ قَالَ التَّوْبَةُ هِيَ الْفَاضِحَةُ، مَا زَالَتْ تَنْزِلُ وَمِنْهُمْ وَمِنْهُمْ، حَتَّى ظَنُّوا أَنَّهَا لَمْ تُبْقِ أَحَدًا مِنْهُمْ إِلاَّ ذُكِرَ فِيهَا. قَالَ قُلْتُ سُورَةُ الأَنْفَالِ. قَالَ نَزَلَتْ فِي بَدْرٍ. قَالَ قُلْتُ سُورَةُ الْحَشْرِ. قَالَ نَزَلَتْ فِي بَنِي النَّضِيرِ.
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Sahih Al Bukhari Vol. 6, Book 60, Hadith 404
Arabic reference : Book 65, Hadith 4882
the Caliphs understood that to be all out war and fighting “until none would be left unmentioned therein” in those groups of infidels, hypocrites, and the people of the book (until they submit and pay Jiziyeh and don’t do any evangelism, etc.
I say;
Since when did you became an Islamic scholar? with a degree in Islamic studies and Arabic? to explain to Muslims what the above means, when people spend years to learn the science of hadith.
No where the above hadith said that is all our war and fighting “until none would be left unmentioned therein” in those groups of infidels, hypocrites, and the people of the book (until they submit and pay Jiziyeh and don’t do any evangelism, etc.
That is your missionary interpretation and not accepted or understood as that by Muslims. You have to provide proof from the above hadith that said “It is all our war and fighting until……………………….”
You thought, the Caliph understood what you understood. Nonsense and rubbish, are you in the Caliphs mind?
You said;
The Qur’an approves of the wars of Joshua (says a prophet after Moses), Saul, and David in Surah 2:249-251, at the end saying “David slew/killed Goliath”. Goliath was a Philistine, and the Philistines were an ancient pagan people (the sea peoples) who came into the land of Israel (in the area of what is today known as Gaza and that general area) and kept attacking Israel. The Amalekites were nomadic tribe, coming into and across the border of Israel and they kept attacking the Israelites. Apparently, Saul was to “wipe them out” ( Harem) from the borders of Israel; so they were all under the same ban as the Canaanite pagan peoples.
But that is not applicable at all today. The NT abrogates that; and Just War principles were developed in the west, based on the NT and justice.
I say;
Where does the NT said; “It abrogates all the Old Testament verses”? and there is no where in the NT that states the principle of just war by itemizing what should or should not be done during war. No were in the whole NT.
The Quran and Hadith has clearly itemized what should and should not be done during war including “Do not kill children, women, elderly, non combatant, animals, destroy property etc. but the Bible clearly said “Kill them all”. It does not matter if it is temporal, it is still not good, The Bible did not say it is temporal and the Christians used the verses to wipe Muslims and Jews and any non Christian except Christians alone in their dominateThed countries. Then the Christians started to wipe themselves(each other) i.e. the Roman Catholic and the Protestants. The remaining atheist, agnostic and liberals said “Wait a minute”, theses religious fanatics and terrorists Christians, if we do not fight them and stop them when they finish with each other we are surely the next target. They beat the hell out of the Christians(protestants and Catholics) because they are divided they became less strong and the liberals in the west managed to overcome them and brought constitution, rule of law and freedom of religions.
Christians never accepted freedom of religion but had to be forced on them by the liberal west. When they force converted the blacks they stole from Africa, they will not allow them in their Churches but to black Churches and they Christians keep burning the black Churches up to today. Black Church witness a Christian terrorist who pretend to worship with them and end up shooting and massacring them.
Some Arabs are obviously racist to be honest, but we never have black Mosques. All Mosques are for everyone and it shows tolerance in Islam and hashness in Christianity.
I gave lots of verses that shows that the NT abrogates the land-war texts of the OT. But I guess you did not read them and are too lazy to look them up.
Please, you have to look all these up for yourselves and think about it. Go to Biblegateway.com and use NIV or NASB or ESV.
Basically, because the NT abrogates the OT promised land – war texts, as I showed above.
Matthew 5:38-48 – turn the other cheek
Matthew 26:52 – put your sword away; those who live by the sword will die by the sword
Ephesians 6:10-20 – our struggle is not against humans, but against the spiritual forces and demons
2 Cor. 10:3-5 – the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly / carnal / physical
John 18:36 – My kingdom is not of this world; if it were of this world, My servants would be fighting; but as it is; they don’t fight because My kingdom is not of this world
David Wood used some of those verses, along with “love your neighbor as yourself” (Luke 10:27) and “live in peace with all men” (Romans 12:18; Hebrews 12:14) and “God is love” ( 1 John 4:8).
David also pointed out that Just War principles were developed in the Western Christian tradition of Ambrose and Augustine (mid to late 300s-430 AD). And Shabir was using a book that was dependent on that which is Christian based. It was based on the harmonization of the verses and principles that I lay above; and Romans 13 and that the state has the responsibility to punish evil with the sword (police, military, just war).
Shabir used Hebrews 11 to try and show that the NT was somehow saying that what Samson, Jepthah, Samuel, David did in wars is still acceptable.
As I have pointed out, there is no more OT Theocratic Israel, since 70 AD. Wood did say that the commands to kill the pagans and drive them out was:
1. temporary (Jesus took the authority for Israel to do that away from them in Matthew 21:43-45) No more since 70 AD.
2. Limited to only the Promised Land.
The land promises for ethnic Israel are no more: the book of Hebrews clearly interprets the land promises as fulfilled in Christ and a symbol of heaven.
Hebrews chapter 4
Hebrews 11:10
Hebrews 11:13-14
Hebrews 11:16
Hebrews 12:22-23 – Mt. Zion, the hill the temple was on in Jerusalem is called “the heavenly Jerusalem” and is associated with the church
Hebrews 13:14
Matthew 21:43-45 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
43 Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people, producing the fruit of it.
44 And he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust.”
45 When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them.
You guys have been saying “who are you to tell us Muslims what our religion is?” etc.
I could say the same thing about what you are saying about the Bible and Christianity.
Look up all those verses in Hebrews chapters 4, 11, 12, and 13 and Galatians 4:26 – “the Jerusalem above, she is our Mother”, and you will see that the land of Israel is used as a type and symbol of heaven in the NT.
Therefore, with all the verses above, the NT abrogated the OT land-war texts.
Jesus took the kingdom away from Israel. Matthew 21:43-45
. . . the concept of Jihad start out as something entirely defensive among the earliest scholars but then became more offensive and perennial in later scholarly works.
Not just in scholarly interpretations, but in the progression from the Qur’an itself – Meccan Surahs to Medinan Surahs with 9 as last – it is clear that it went from:
1. persecution in Mecca
2. to permission to raid caravans
making the pagan Meccans angry – resulting in the Battle of Badr and Uhud
3. to defensive wars
4. to offensive wars to conquer all pagans and expel them from Arabia – Surah 9:1-28
5. to offensive wars to conquer Christians, Jews, and make them pay the Jiziyeh and they could do no evangelism or freedom of speech or build new churches. Surah 9:29-33 – verse 33 “until the religion of truth prevails over all religion” “until religion is all for Allah” (all those Hadith passages that I gave; they are clear)
Muhammad himself said, “I have been ordered to fight the people until religion is all for Allah”. (those Hadith above)
Ken Temple, I just pointed out that the “Quran says this or hadith says that” methodology is a bad methodology and what you do? You cite some passages from the Quran and a hadith. I’ll give you a point for trolling. Now read the remaining post carefully.
As for the progression in the Quran, let’s suppose that war becomes broader in scope in later Surahs. So what? Unless you assume abrogation, it still doesn’t follow that the verses in Surah 9 are the final marching order, especially in light of Surah 60:9-10 and the fact that we have absolutely no statements from the Prophet(saw) or his closest Companions that peaceful verses of the Quran have been nullified. This is really telling!
True, the early Muslims pursued an expansionist policy but the objective was not, as you put it, ” to conquer Christians, Jews, and make them pay the Jiziyeh and they could do no evangelism or freedom of speech or build new churches.” As Daniel Brown notes in his book, The New Introduction to Islam:
No systematic sacking of cities took place, and no destruction of agricultural land occurred. The conquests brought little immediate change to the patterns of religious or communal life. There were no mass or forced conversions. Christian, Jewish, or Zoroastrian communities in Syria and Iraq may have felt threatened, but they continued to thrive. New synagogues, churches, and monasteries were still being built into the eighth century, and churches or synagogues were not converted to mosques on any noticeable scale. The first urban mosques were not built until after 690… [According to tradition, Muhammad died in 632. -B.C.]
[P]roduction of wine (forbidden by Islamic law) continued unchanged, and pigs (considered unclean by Muslims) continued to be raised and slaughtered in increasing numbers…
What about the Hadith you quoted? It is a late tradition and as I pointed out the later the tradition the more is warfare (and martyrdom) glorified. When we look at really early traditions, a different picture emerges. For instance, in the Musannaf of Abdul Razzak (which predates Bukhari), we have reports from Ibn Jurayj, Abdullah B Umar, Amr B Dinar and Sufyan Al Thawri, all among the Salafi generations, to the effect that military Jihad isn’t an obligation.
I would suggest that before you write a response to my points, consider the following:
(1) Abrogation is a contested idea among Quranic exegetes
1.1. There are no reports from Muhammad or his Companions that peaceful verses have been abrogated
1.2. There is no consensus among scholars that peaceful verses have been abrogated
(2) There is an evolution in the concept of Jihad
2.1. Military Jihad carries a much lower importance in very early works compared to much later works
With the name of Allah the Most Gracious the Most Merciful
KT// Not just in scholarly interpretations, but in the progression from the Qur’an itself – Meccan Surahs to Medinan Surahs with 9 as last.//
At-Taubah (9) Verses were a context-specific verses relating to the purification of Mecca and its environs of all Arab polytheism and idolatry. it has not abrogated the scriptures encouraging peace, tolerance and reconciliation.
Muslim scholars dont embrace the view that ALL later Qur’anic scriptures modify or cancel out all earlier ones . Verses revealed very late in prophet Muhammad’s (saw) mission, do not cance out the overwhelming number of verses that extol tolerance, reconciliation, inclusiveness and peace.
Muhkam [clear in and of themselves] verses, i.e. definite, not allegorical. They are not known to have been abrogated, so they naturally hold. No reason exists at all to think that they have been overruled. Only Islamophobes use this kind of reasoning.
If you genuinely want to learn about the concept of abrogation in Islam buy :
“I have been ordered to fight the people until religion is all for Allah”
The context for the saying is clear: liberation against paganism . However the Qur’an is clear in setting the limit
وَقَاتِلُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ الَّذِينَ يُقَاتِلُونَكُمْ وَلَا تَعْتَدُوا ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ الْمُعْتَدِينَ
“Fight in the cause of Allâh those who fight you, but do not transgress limits: for Allâh loveth not transgressors.” (Q 2:190)
Indeed, Allah defends those who have believed. Indeed, Allah does not like everyone treacherous and ungrateful.
Permission [to fight] has been given tothose who are being fought, because they were wronged. And indeed, Allah is competent to give them victory.
[They are]those who have been evicted from their homes without right- only because they say, “Our Lord is Allah .” And were it not that Allah checks the people, some by means of others, there would have been demolished monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of Allah is much mentioned. And Allah will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, Allah is Powerful and Exalted in Might. (Q 22:39 -41)
Ibn Kathir, accepts earlier interpretations that the “transgressions” mentioned in the Qur’an refer to “mutilating the dead, theft (from the captured goods), killing women, children and old people who do not participate in warfare, killing priests and residents of houses of worship, burning down trees and killing animals without real benefit.” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Volume 1, p. 528)
So the figth is a “just war” and muslims are forbidden to hurt women and children, not to harm prisoners, not to mutilate bodies, not to plunder and not to destroy trees or crops.
Abu Bakr, the first Caliph, in a celebrated address to his warriors, Abu Bakr proclaimed:
“Do not act treacherously; do not act disloyally;DO NOT ACT NEGLECTFULLY. DO NOT MUTILATE; DO NOT KILL LITTLE CHILDREN OR OLD MEN, OR WOMEN; DO NOT CUT OFF THE HEADS OFF THE PALM-TREES OR BURN THEM; DO NOT CUT DOWN THE FRUIT TREES; DO NOT SLAUGHTER A SHEEP OR A COW OR A CAMEL, EXCEPT FOR FOOD. You will pass by people who devote their lives in cloisters; leave them and their devotions alone. You will come upon people who bring you platters in which are various sorts of food; if you eat any of it, mention the name of God over it.”
With the name of Allah Most Gracious Most Merciful
KT//There is still time for you to repent and trust in Al Masih.
Mark 1:15
“Repent and believe in the gospel”//
We already believe in the genuine Injeel of Isa Al-Masih , the son of Mary and the slave of Allah….but NOT the gospel of unknown authors who claim and preach false gospel of true Christ.
//No, the genuine original gospel is the 4 gospels of the NT and the rest of the NT.
That is why even in the Qur’an, it calls Jesus “His word” و کلمته 4:171
meaning, “the word of God” کلمه الله – because Muhammad heard the Christians calling Jesus that and he incorporated it into the Qur’an.
The Qur’an confirms Jesus as the eternal Word of God in John 1:1 and John 1:14, even though it also denies it’s doctrines./
First, the original Injeel the Qur’an refer is *the* Injeel (goodnews) FROM Jesus himself, ….whereas the 4 gospels were not written by eyewitnesses, were not even written by the names which were prescribed onto them after the fact and were in fact written anonymously.
Secondly Islamic ageedah don’t compromise monotheism whenJesus (peace be upon him) is called Word from Him کلمته .
“There is no likeness unto Him.” {Q 42:11}
When prophet Abraham (peace be upon him) is called friend of Allah because Allah has “taken” a friend in Q 4:125
Wa Attakhadhallāhu ‘Ibrāhīma Khalīlāan وَاتَّخَذَ اللَّهُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ خَلِيلًا
Our aqeedah prevent us to believe that Abraham is also God because God took him as His “friend”?? No Muslim is to believe that Allah has a Godly ‘friend” which Abraham. And anyone who does believe that is guilty of unbelief, compromising Monotheism, Shirk the greatest sin in Islam.
Since you imply (make ta’weel – Figurative interpretation) that Word from Him کلمته in the Quran is Allah Himself , is clearly a violation of Islamic aqeedah a very violation of the monotheism.
You continue to become ignorant in the Lord you claim to worship but… instead you worship an imaginary God…
You said;
You guys have been saying “who are you to tell us Muslims what our religion is?” etc.
I could say the same thing about what you are saying about the Bible and Christianity.
I say;
Yes, we cannot tell you what your religion is but we are only telling you that
-No where in NT does it say “The old testament verses are abrogated”. “Turn the other cheek” and all that you quoted does not mean abrogation. That is we cannot see that phrase in the NT but not telling you what this said or what that said.
-We can also not see or read our prophet say, or any where in the Quran that states “the older verses are abrogated”. You cannot prove because you have to be clear or you have to be an Islamic scholar. There is no verse like that so you cannot force it on us.
1. Generate means to create and anything generated/created is not God- this is language.
2. Son can metaphorically be used to make all of us sons of God but any son who is not metaphorical or figuratively defined is a literal to have sex or in vitro fertilization-Language but not telling you what your religion is
3. 3 Persons are 3 beings because every person is a being and so 3 persons are either 3 divine beings or combination of 3 divine and human beings-Language but not telling what your religion is
4. Death means cease to exist because we do not see the dead existing with us. Spirit or soul is not a human being so the human being that dies cease to exist- Language and not religion
5. Some one who is eternal cannot die – Language and truth
6. Suns Ray is not the Sun itself- Language not religion
7. Father is not son because a Father gives birth to a son and so a father cannot give birth to himself.
8. Whatever is introduced into a womb of a woman to stay there for nine months and use umbilical cord to receive food from the mother without sex and trigger child birth is in vitro fertilization. Reality and not religion.
9, etc.
You said;
Not just in scholarly interpretations, but in the progression from the Qur’an itself – Meccan Surahs to Medinan Surahs with 9 as last – it is clear that it went from
I say;
That is not true because these peaceful verses are also from sura 9 but you refuse to mention
4. Except those of the Mushrikun with whom you have a treaty, and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor have supported anyone against you. So fulfill their treaty to them to the end of their term. Surely Allah loves Al- Mattaqun (the pious – see V.2:2).
6. And if anyone of the Mushrikun (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) seeks your protection then grant him protection, so that he may hear the Word of Allah (the Qur’an), and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men who know not.
Sura 2:9
And fight in (the) way (of) Allah those who fight you and (do) not transgress. Indeed, Allah (does) not like the transgressors
Temple, you claim Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses, was the final blood sacrifice according to this law, was the high priest to deliver this sacrifice and so forth.
While at the same time Jesus has to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek, because he is disqualified from being a priest under mosaic law.
The order of Melchizedek needs no, operates without blood sacrifice!
You said;
You said;
You guys have been saying “who are you to tell us Muslims what our religion is?” etc.
I could say the same thing about what you are saying about the Bible and Christianity
I say;
No Muslim ever quoted any person in the Bible and tell you what he thinks the person thinks unless it is clear. Like God is immortal which is clear, God cannot be seen which is clear, Paul of Tarsus said he abolished the law which is clear, Jesus said he has a God which is clear.
No Muslim have ever quoted Paul of Tarsus and said he thinks Paul of Tarsus meant this, or that or that, but all we are doing here is quote what Paul of Tarsus said that “the law have been abolished” and it is clear but not lie to him or we think that is what he meant but the phrase is clear.
So, to be fair we want you to quote from Quran or anywhere that said, “the peaceful verses are all abrogated” which you cannot find anywhere, instead of lecturing us Muslims on our religion that you think what Caliph Umar think and Umar and the other caliph never said “all peaceful verses are abrogated”, “We have to conquer all non Muslims and force convert them” etc. as you keep telling us here. We want proof and clear statement just like how we want a clear statement where Jesus Christ said clearly he is God, but not what somebody said about him or how his enemies the Jews thought he was. If you think I am a thief, it does not mean I a thief unless I confess and swear that I am a thief. Even that is not enough for a critical thinking person unless he sees me stealing he will not say I am a thief. What we keep asking Christians is to provide a clear statement that Jesus himself said he is God and they cannot and a recent debate between Justin Bas and Bart Erhman prove us right.
We cannot lecture you on what your religion is but we keep asking questions but you seem to be lecturing us about what you think Umar thinks and you think verses are abrogated without a proof of where it says in the Quran all peaceful verses are abrogated.
They are not known to have been abrogated, so they naturally hold. No reason exists at all to think that they have been overruled. Only Islamophobes use this kind of reasoning.
Ibn Kathir thought otherwise. So Ibn Kathir is an “Islamophobe” ?
from his commentary on Surah 9:5
“Abu Bakr As-Siddiq used this and other honorable Ayat as proof for fighting those who refrained from paying the Zakah. ”
. . .
“In the Two Sahihs, it is recorded that Ibn `Umar said that the Messenger of Allah said,
(I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer and pay the Zakah.) This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, “It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term.” Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas commented: “No idolator had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara’ah was revealed. The four months, in addition to, all peace treaties conducted before Bara’ah was revealed and announced had ended by the tenth of the month of Rabi` Al-Akhir.”
And from his commentary on 9:28-29:
(So let them not come near Al-Masjid Al-Haram (at Makkah) after this year.)” This Ayah indicates that idolators are impure and that the believers are pure. In the Sahih is the following,
«الْمُؤْمِنُ لَا يَنْجُس»
(The believer does not become impure.) Allah said,
(and if you fear poverty, Allah will enrich you, out of His bounty.) Muhammad bin Ishaq commented, “The people said, `Our markets will be closed, our commerce disrupted, and what we earned will vanish.’
(and if you fear poverty, Allah will enrich you, out of His bounty), from other resources,
﴿إِن شَآءَ﴾(if He wills), until,
﴿وَهُمْ صَـغِرُونَ﴾
(. ..and feel themselves subdued.) This Ayah means, `this will be your compensation for the closed markets that you feared would result.’ Therefore, Allah compensated them for the losses they incurred because they severed ties with idolators, by the Jizyah they earned from the People of the Book.”
Similar statements were reported from Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, `Ikrimah, Sa`id bin Jubayr, Qatadah and Ad-Dahhak and others. Allah said,
﴿إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلِيمٌ﴾
(Surely, Allah is All-Knowing), in what benefits you,
﴿حَكِيمٌ﴾
(All-Wise), in His orders and prohibitions, for He is All-Perfect in His actions and statements, All-Just in His creations and decisions, Blessed and Hallowed be He. This is why Allah compensated Muslims for their losses by the amount of Jizyah that they took from the people of Dhimmah.
embolding is mine for emphasis.
It seems clear that what Abu Bakr, and Omar DID in actions was based on that last Surah, no. 9 – Ibn Kathir even says it abrogated EVERY agreement of peace before with pagans – 9:5
and what Omar did by attacking the Byzantine Empire was for money because they feared poverty (9:28) since there were no more pagans to come to the Kaaba for pilgrimage and they could not charge them for that anymore.
Eric
I did spend a lot of time looking around at the links you provided. (Dr. Louay Fatoohi and Al Tabari) Thanks.
There is so much there, hard to digest in the amount of time right now.
As I said before, I am glad for the peaceful view of yours, and other commenters here, and most Muslims all over the world, and most in the west; but I wish it was more prevalent in the Islamic world today. It seems that when a secular dictator is taken out or weakened, the Jihadist terrorist types take over or cause lots of turmoil, confusion, and violence. (Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc.) It is truly sad for all the peaceful Syrians and others who are suffering under the Islamists, as in Nigeria under Boko Haram and Al Shabbab in Somolia and Kenya, etc. Thankfully, the people of Egypt rose up; and General Al Sissi had a better understanding of Islam, and Abdullah, king of Jordan.
Why doesn’t the view of Louay Fatoohi and Joel Hayward have any impact on Al Qaeda types and other Jihadist groups?
I am out of time for now have to go do other work.
Ibn Kathir was clear. He said that Surah 9:28-29 gave the reasons for attacking the people of Dhimmah (Christians and Jews) – ie, the Byzantine Empire, after the pagans were conquered in Arabia.
“if you fear poverty, Allah will reward you from other sources” (v. 28)
“fight the people of the book . . . until they submit and pay the Jiziyeh and are humiliated and brought low” (v. 29)
“This is why Allah compensated Muslims for their losses by the amount of Jizyah that they took from the people of Dhimmah.” Ibn Kathir
Once again you are lecturing us as if we do not know our religion but you have been to Islamic University and have a degree in Islamic studies. What you said is repletion and I and brother Eric have refuted you 2 years and a year ago that the specifics of all that you quoted is for the pagans of Mecca who kept breaking their promise with the treaty with Muslims and that was the beginning of your favourite Sura 9, if you care to reference. It started with accusing the pagans of breaking treaties with Muslims and so Muslims must defend themselves and make sure there is no fitnah,
You said;
I am out of time for now have to go do other work.
I say;
God bless your work. At least you did well despite your untruths. One Christian against more Muslims on their home ground. That is good, and I wish more Christian participate. Robert Wells was doing Well but have since been retired.
One Mountain Lion against Lions
One Snow Leopard against 10 Leopards
One pink Panther against Panthers
One Jaguar against Cheetahs
You said;
As I said before, I am glad for the peaceful view of yours, and other commenters here, and most Muslims all over the world, and most in the west; but I wish it was more prevalent in the Islamic world today. It seems that when a secular dictator is taken out or weakened, the Jihadist terrorist types take over or cause lots of turmoil, confusion, and violence. (Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc.) It is truly sad for all the peaceful Syrians and others who are suffering under the Islamists, as in Nigeria under Boko Haram and Al Shabbab in Somolia and Kenya, etc. Thankfully, the people of Egypt rose up; and General Al Sissi had a better understanding of Islam, and Abdullah, king of Jordan.
We said;for
We also thank you for acknowledging most Muslims are peaceful and we do not believe the peaceful verses in the Quran are abrogated and the fighting verses are for an inevitable war when attacked, like how Netanyahu and evangelical Christians are pushing for war with Iran because it is using the UN right to develop nuclear for peaceful use as in electricity, medicine etc. like how US, Japan, Canada etc. and all nations of the world are using.
Yes, Most Muslims do not support or like Boko, isis, Al Shabbab and they came out clearly to condemn their act and some are using their military to strike them. Recently, Egypt attacked isis for killing its Christian native citizens and most notable imams have condemned this groups and keep condemning them and Muslims loosing their lives to fight them. Iraqi Muslim broad caster cried on camera for what isis was doing to his Christian brothers. Muslims clearly do not like violence but in any community we have Satanic one like boko and the rest. The Christian terrorist equivalent is the evangelical Christians who are contributing money to Israel to bomb UN compound full of babies and women like what the Bible said, destroying Palestinian farmlands, Churches, Mosques etc. for Jewish only neighbourhood and those who use the attack of innocent civilians to attack Islam such as David Wood and Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, John Hagee, Jack Van Impe etc.
So, Mr. Ken, it will be good for these Christian terrorist be recognised and condemned by politicians in the US, instead of telling them to insult our prophet for freedom of speech but cannot say anything about any Jew in this world even though a terrorist Jew few weeks ago burnt a Palestinian home with women and babies all dead. Cnn and fox news never reported such case but will report stone throwing Palestinians youths as terrorists.
We are blaming all sides but the US media and politicians are only focusing on one side. Peace will prevail if the two extreme sides are recognized and controlled.
With the name of Allah Most Gracious Most Merciful
Temple,
Of course Ibn Kathir is not Islamophobe, your misuse of his works is!
If you are able to read Ibn Kathir directly you must get the correct understanding that specific nature of the context of those ayahs is— the purification of Mecca from polytheistic and idolatrous pilgrimages and rituals .
Ibn Kathir NEVER said that the ayahs of at Taubah abrogate all peaceful verses ever previously revealed to the prophet.
Here my own translation, (words in bracket is mine):
…..Described by Ishak bin Ibrahim, told by Hakam bin salamah described by abu ja’far arraji either one of them is verse of the sword which according to Ad-Dahhâk bin Muzâhim cancel every TREATY AGREEMENT , AND EVERY TERM (with the pagans).” Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas commented: “the pagans had no more agreement or promise of safety ever since this exemption was revealed. The four months, in addition to, all peace treaties conducted before exemption was revealed and announced had ended by the tenth of the month of Rabi` Al-Akhir.’…
So here Ibn Kathir quoted an earlier authority, Ad-Dahhâk bin Muzâhim, who only stated that the verse of the sword cancelled out every treaty which HAD GRANTED PILGRIMAGE RIGHTS TO ARAB PAGANS TO TRAVEL ALONG ISLAMIC ROUTES, enter Mecca.
Because of Ibn Kathir referred to (based on Ad-Dahhâk bin Muzâhim) something of the verse “cancelling” something, Islamophobes mistakenly/deliberately extrapolates this to claim, baselessly, that this one single verse abrogate all earlier inter-faith practices and arrangements and forever negatively changed attitudes to non-Muslims in general.
This is NOT !!
So here we have:
1)The cancellation narrated by one source Ad-Dahhâk bin Muzâhim al Hilali, a Kufan mufassir NOT Ibn Kathir
2)What he meant was the cancellation of this single verse ONLY refer to SPECIFIC agreement which previously allow pagans to enter Mecca and perform rituals there.
Of course the pagans brought their polytheistic rituals to Kaaba and thats IMPURE and must not be allowed to enter the holy Mosque.
So I will forgive you if your ignorance is because of limited understanding in Islamic scholarship and arabic but I won’t be that generous if you get the understanding by citing materials from Islam hater like R. Spencer or Shameoun??
KT //Ibn Kathir was clear. He said that Surah 9:28-29 gave the reasons for attacking the people of Dhimmah (Christians and Jews) – ie, the Byzantine Empire, after the pagans were conquered in Arabia.//
Where is this “reason for ATTACKING” can you give me the exact sentence from Ibn Kathir? do you make this up or do you get this from spencer or uneducated shameoun??
Again 9:28-29 refer to the specific agreement with the pagans which the Prophet had previously made , the Hudaybiyah. After this verses, pagans were prevented from performing religious rituals or pilgrimages in or around the newly purified sanctuary in Mecca. Ayah 29 thus also refers to the cleansing of Mecca and its environs as well as to the need to secure the borders of the Arabian Peninsula from greater external powers which might smother the Islamic ummah (community) in its infancy.
It was an important move in Islamic history, from there on the holy Mosque were liberated and only pure monotheist practice are allowed
The Jizya and dhmmi is a just and right , theseare a sign of Islamic tolerance , it is a fee for protection provided by the Muslim state for the non muslim who were being an exemption from military service,
Historian Thomas Arnold gives the example of the tribe of al-Jurajima, a Christian tribe in the neighborhood of Antioch who “made peace with the Muslims, promising to be their allies and fight on their side in battle, on condition that they should not be called upon to pay jizyah and should receive their proper share of the booty.
“As stated above, the jizyah was levied on the able-bodied males, in lieu of the military service they would have been called upon to perform had they been Musalmans ; and it is very noticeable that when any Christian people served in the Muslim army, they were exempted from the payment of this tax”
So Jizyah works exactly the same way modern state function, there is nothing humiliating about it. Can you find similar measure for non-christians during christian rule, byzantine, rome?
KT //I did spend a lot of time looking around at the links you provided. (Dr. Louay Fatoohi and Al Tabari) Thanks.
There is so much there, hard to digest in the amount of time right now.
Why doesn’t the view of Louay Fatoohi and Joel Hayward have any impact on Al Qaeda types and other Jihadist groups?//
I pray that you are sincere in pursuing the truth and God give you His guidance.
Throughout human civilisation , those modern days violent groups committed in the name of Islam(btw I don’t like your term “Jihadi” because Jihad is for good cause and no association with negative violence) contribute small fraction in time.
As a sunni muslim who seriously study and practice Islam for 30 years or so and , I can say nothing Islamic in those groups. The root cause is the injustice . The stability in the middle east as is a direct result of western policy and colonialism. From hundred years of colonialism , subduing most of muslims countries now they messed up the mideast , by supporting regimes not by the will of people , illegal invasion , divide and proxy rule. that kind of policy. The civilian casualties suffered by muslims are far higher than those casualties violent groups, but most western media and evangelical christian don’t mention it but continue to blame Islam.
You said;
With the name of Allah the Gracious the Merciful
KT //Ibn Kathir was clear. He said that Surah 9:28-29 gave the reasons for attacking the people of Dhimmah (Christians and Jews) – ie, the Byzantine Empire, after the pagans were conquered in Arabia.//
Where is this “reason for ATTACKING” can you give me the exact sentence from Ibn Kathir? do you make this up or do you get this from spencer or uneducated shameoun??
Again 9:28-29 refer to the specific agreement with the pagans which the Prophet had previously made , the Hudaybiyah. After this verses, pagans were prevented from performing religious rituals or pilgrimages in or around the newly purified sanctuary in Mecca. Ayah 29 thus also refers to the cleansing of Mecca and its environs as well as to the need to secure the borders of the Arabian Peninsula from greater external powers which might smother the Islamic ummah (community) in its infancy.
It was an important move in Islamic history, from there on the holy Mosque were liberated and only pure monotheist practice are allowed
The Jizya and dhmmi is a just and right , theseare a sign of Islamic tolerance , it is a fee for protection provided by the Muslim state for the non muslim who were being an exemption from military service,
I say;
The Christians have a great double standards when attacking Islam. Any little thing they see in Islamic literature that said, cancel, fight, Jizya, abrogate etc. they will say we got this Muslims and start to use it against Islam, even though they know very well what it means and does not mean what they try to say but they will use it because they cannot find any bad against Islam so the try their lies.
Sura 9 is their favourite because there is fight, attack etc. in the verse. And they know very well it says “attack those who attack you”, “Fight those who do not honour their treaty with you” etc. they Christians missionary will ignore this.
I do not know if Ken Temple will allow idol worshiper to bring his idols into his Church and worships it there. He Ken Temple and all Christian missionaries will not allow idol worshiping in their Churches but they attack Islam head on for refusing to allow the Pagan Arabs to bring their idols in the Kaaba.
Ken Temple will not even allow his own fellow Christians the Catholics who the largest Christian denomination than his protestant to worship in his(Ken Temple) Churches because he consider the Catholics as not Christians and the Catholic consider then and other denomination as not Christians and they started to exterminate and annihilate each other in the west until the atheist, liberals and agnostic overpowered the Christians because they are busy persecuting themselves and the rule of law, freedom of religion etc. was established by the liberals.
Ken Temple, Jay Smith etc. will say the freedom in the west is because of Christians values and Ken even went further and claimed the tolerance of war opponents that can be clearly found in Islam and which cannot be found anywhere in Christianity is a Christian document and cannot be found in Christianity with all due respect.
Ken, if you are sincere and honest person, you will commend Islam for this one for not allowing idol worship in a holy place where only a monotheism God of Abraham must be worshiped but you sided with the idol worshipers here in other to worship idols in Mosque, Synagogue and Church, but you will not allow that to happen. This is hypocrisy.
You said;
Thankfully, the people of Egypt rose up; and General Al Sissi had a better understanding of Islam, and Abdullah, king of Jordan.
I say;
Al Sissi is just like the former dictator Hosni Mubarak. During the Muslim brotherhood rule, people can come out to demonstrate. They Egyptians cannot come and demonstrate now under Sissi and they will be shot and killed. Have you witnessed any demonstration under Sissi? No. The few ones ended in bloody and fatal shootings and death caused by Sissi’s regime. So, it is unfortunate for you Ken to be happy about Sissi’s regime because he will say yes to whatever Israel and the US say.
King Abdullah of Jordan is just a puppet of the US and Israel and their people do not like their policies. General Sissi is just a dictator and no one can demonstrate but that does not mean he has a better understandings of Islam. General Sissi is not an Islamic government but a puppet of US and Israel who will crush any decent view.
Caliph Umar is the one who has better understanding of Islam, because he protected the Christians and Jews and all non Muslims and Muslims alike under his rule and protected Churches, Temples and Mosques that are standing in the Holy Land today.
I share your sentiment. Unfortunately some Christians are systematically taught that Islam and Muslims as inherently evil as a result they’ll never be able to See or hear Islam’s message (which is in fact in sync with most fundamental biblical narrative) objectively and always from negative side of it.
As-Sa‘di (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path” [al-Baqarah 2:256] means: once the one becomes distinct from the other, there is no room for compulsion, because compulsion can only be in the case of an issue the soundness and merits of which are not clear. But once it is clear that well-being and happiness in this world and in the Hereafter are connected to it, then what reason can there be for compulsion?
Something similar may be said concerning the verse “And say: ‘The truth is from your Lord.’ Then whosoever wills, let him believe, and whosoever wills, let him disbelieve” [al-Kahf 18:29]., i.e., this is the truth that clear evidence demonstrates is true, so that whoever wants to believe may do so and let whoever wants to disbelieve may do so.” Tafseer as-Sa‘di, p. 954.
Ibn Qudaamah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “If one whom it is not permissible to compel is compelled to enter Islam, such as a dhimmi (non-Muslim living under Muslim rule) or a non-Muslim who has been granted security, he is not deemed to be a Muslim unless he shows signs of having become Muslim voluntarily. ” al-Mughni, 10/96. the Christian historian Al-Makin notes: The Prophet of Islam has said: “Whoever torments the dhimmis, torments me.” Historia Saracenica, page 11
I found following articles to be very interesting on the subject of abrogation.
Ken Temple will not even allow his own fellow Christians the Catholics who the largest Christian denomination than his protestant to worship in his(Ken Temple) Churches because he consider the Catholics as not Christians and the Catholic consider then and other denomination as not Christians and they started to exterminate and annihilate each other in the west until the atheist, liberals and agnostic overpowered the Christians because they are busy persecuting themselves and the rule of law, freedom of religion etc. was established by the liberals.
Not true. Any Roman Catholic is welcome to come to our church or any other biblical church. We don’t have any pictures or statues of Mary, so they won’t do any of that idolatry. They can sing, pray, and worship in their hearts and listen to the sermons and Bible study.
My focus is not: “catholics are not Christians” – rather, my focus is “Roman Catholicism is not Biblical Christianity” – Roman Catholicism is a heresy that developed after 500 AD by adding things such as:
Priests – no such office in the New Testament. All Christians are priests. ( I Peter 2:4-10)
An office called “Pope = bishop of Rome is over all other Bishops”. Developed very slowly, one can reasonable argue from 600 AD onward.
Purgatory (600 AD and beyond – especially Gregory 1, bishop of Rome)
Exalting Mary too much, praying to her, statues and picture of her; and bowing down and talking to the statues and pictures and kissing them.
Transubstantiation – developed from 800 AD – 1215 AD; proclaimed as dogma in 1215 AD.
Indulgences – giving people a written certificate that their sins are forgiven and they get time out of purgatory if they went and fought in the Crusades against Muslims. That was really really wrong!! (developed from 1095 AD to 1517, when Luther protested it.) Wycliffe ( 1300s) and Jan Hus (1400s) before Luther protested this also.
Denial of Justification by Faith Alone by the Council of Trent – 1545-1563.
Mary dogmas – 1854 – sinless, immaculately conceived
1870 – Papal Infallibility
1950 – the bodily Assumption of Mary proclaimed as dogma
NONE of those doctrines, dogmas, or practices are in the Bible at all.
Protestants also consider themselves little c, “catholic” ( meaning universal) and see their roots also in 0-500 AD.
“The Bible is much more violent than the Quran.”
I don’t know if what I’m about to say has been mentioned above or not, the comments were way too long to read but anyway…
The bible is not necessarily more violent than the Quran. It’s true that it has more violent passages than the Quran but you have to take into consideration that the bible is a much larger book. If you used a percentage comparison for number of violent passages to the total number of verses it may be that the Quran turns out higher. In fact, someone has done this before and that’s what they found.
You’ve probably heard of skeptics annotated Bible/Quran: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/bible_quran.html
Bare in mind this guy despises the bible so there is no bias in his analysis. The only subjective part would of course be what verses/passages should be considered violent for each book, and also which passages are more violent than others e.g. Is 1 Samuel 15 more violent/cruel than Surah 9:29 or 98:6?
Ken Temple will not even allow his own fellow Christians the Catholics who the largest Christian denomination than his protestant to worship in his(Ken Temple) Churches because he consider the Catholics as not Christians and the Catholic consider then and other denomination as not Christians and they started to exterminate and annihilate each other in the west until the atheist, liberals and agnostic overpowered the Christians because they are busy persecuting themselves and the rule of law, freedom of religion etc. was established by the liberals.
Not true. Any Roman Catholic is welcome to come to our church or any other biblical church. We don’t have any pictures or statues of Mary, so they won’t do any of that idolatry. They can sing, pray, and worship in their hearts and listen to the sermons and Bible study.
I say;
Will you allow a Catholic Christian to bring the statue of virgin Mary in your Church and bowing to it? Will you allow a Catholic Christian to bring the body of Jesus Christ in your Church and eat it? Will you allow a Catholic Christian in your Church to forgive sins?
You will not allow your fellow Christian to the above in your Church, but to hypocritically accuse Muslims for not allowing idols anymore in the Kaaba, a first place of worship prophet Abraham built for the worship of only one true God of him(Abraham).
You do not have any evidence that says “force convert the non Muslims, if you over power them”, rather their are clear verses that said, “there is no compulsion in religion”, “You unto your religion and my unto my religion”, “Lead the non Muslim to a safe place, if he seek your help and protection, so that he may hear the word of Allah”-May hear the word of Allah means he can decide not to hear, and no one can do anything to him, according to the verse.
These and many others are all clear verses and there is no proof from the Quran itself or from our prophet that said these clear verses are abrogated. Christian missionaries developing their theory of “abrogating peaceful verses” which is not in the Quran or from our prophet is unfounded callous and wicked.
Logically, when the Muslims were a minority, you do not expect them to retaliate or fight their attackers, but if they are now many, you do expect a permission to be given to then to “fight those who fight them” which is clearly stated in the Quran.
Muslim God is a true God for he will say the truthful command “fight those who fight you” so that people can defend themselves and will not sit down and allow their old, young and women and sick to be killed and raped by an opposing faction.
It makes sense than the Christian lies of “turn the other cheek” which does not sound like it came from God because if someone is attacking me, why and how should I turn the other cheek? Not to defend myself? If I can? In order to defend myself? and my family and my population? so that an enemy will finish me off and rape my family?
“Turn the other cheek” in Christianity does not make sense may a Christian can explain why it is better than Muslims “fight those who fight you and drove you from your homes and destroy Churches, synagogues and Mosques”.
Blogging Theology 
I think Wood was being sarcastic. He’s a piece of crap but not a dumb piece of crap. Anyway, I think he clearly lost the bible and peace debate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not surprised he lost. He had an impossible task. The Bible is much more violent than the Quran.
LikeLike
No, David Wood won the debate (both of them) for content and proof and citing Islamic sources. Shabir just threw all Islamic sources (Hadith, Sira, Tarikh of Al Tabari, Tafsirs , Ibn Kathir) except the Qur’an under the bus.
Wood was being sarcastic on that specific point. He does NOT rejoice over the Jihadists killings and raping.
LikeLike
he denied that genocides happened in the OT. He was clearly deluded about that.
LikeLike
He showed that Canaanites and Amalakites lived after those passages in Deut., Joshua, and I Sam.; so they were not genocides. The Canaanites / Phoenicians and other pagan tribes lived on in the book of Judges and were in what is known today as Lebanon; and Israel had no right to attack into Lebanon, so your take on these things is wrong.
LikeLike
No I not wrong. You are wrong. Tell me: what crime did the Amalakite women and children commit to deserve their genocide?
LikeLike
I Sam. 15 and Theocratic Israel was temporary. They do not exist and have not existed since 70 AD.
But your religion continues to do this all through it’s history:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah ‘s Apostle said, ” I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ and whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ his life and property will be saved by me except for Islamic law, and his accounts will be with Allah, (either to punish him or to forgive him.)”
حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو الْيَمَانِ، أَخْبَرَنَا شُعَيْبٌ، عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، حَدَّثَنَا سَعِيدُ بْنُ الْمُسَيَّبِ، أَنَّ أَبَا هُرَيْرَةَ ـ رضى الله عنه ـ قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم “ أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَقُولُوا لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ اللَّهُ. فَمَنْ قَالَ لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ اللَّهُ، فَقَدْ عَصَمَ مِنِّي نَفْسَهُ وَمَالَهُ، إِلاَّ بِحَقِّهِ، وَحِسَابُهُ عَلَى اللَّهِ ”. رَوَاهُ عُمَرُ وَابْنُ عُمَرَ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم.
Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 2946
In-book reference : Book 56, Hadith 158
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 4, Book 52, Hadith 196
(deprecated numbering scheme)
LikeLike
irrelevant. You have been refuted Ken.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
No, David Wood won the debate (both of them) for content and proof and citing Islamic sources. Shabir just threw all Islamic sources (Hadith, Sira, Tarikh of Al Tabari, Tafsirs , Ibn Kathir) except the Qur’an under the bus.
Wood was being sarcastic on that specific point. He does NOT rejoice over the Jihadists killings and raping.
I say;
Ibn Kathir, Tabari etc. are not Quran and so are not always right. Who tells you or David Wood Muslims agree with everything Tabari or Ibn Kathir said? It is only a confused missionary who will think that. Some Muslims never heard the name Ibn Kathir or Tabari, but yet they know their obligation through the Quran and tafsir.
Muslims have multiple tafsirs with regards to any hadith or verse from the Quran and the one that closely match with the Quran is accepted. The hadith has multiple sayings and interpretations and one has to ask and analyze to draw a conclusion than just quoting what you like and interpreting it the way you like without any proper Arabic exegeses. Missionaries can do such to their Christian audience but Muslims never accepts quoting hadiths or Quran without its Arabic words and analyzing it properly.
Shabbir Ally said, the Quran or hadith needs analysis that are logical to determine what the hadith and the Quranic verses means than just quoting verses.
This will counter what any Christian missionary quoted and left out
Sura 9
13. Will you not fight a people who have violated their oaths (pagans of Makkah) and intended to expel the Messenger, while they did attack you first? Do you fear them? Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are believers
4. Except those of the Mushrikun with whom you have a treaty, and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor have supported anyone against you. So fulfill their treaty to them to the end of their term. Surely Allah loves Al- Mattaqun (the pious – see V.2:2).
6. And if anyone of the Mushrikun (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) seeks your protection then grant him protection, so that he may hear the Word of Allah (the Qur’an), and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men who know not.
Sura 2:9
And fight in (the) way (of) Allah those who fight you and (do) not transgress. Indeed, Allah (does) not like the transgressors.
Allah knows the humans he created and war is sometime inevitable, for Ken Temple and his evangelicals Christians are following the Biblical passages that said Kill everyone including babies to kill like how the Crusaders did to Muslims and Jews and begin to do the same to themselves i.e. protestants trying to wipe out the Catholics and the Catholics want to wipe out protestants like how they wiped out Muslims and Jews in Spain and the Holy land and invaded Iraq and helping Israel to destroy Churches and Mosques and know preparing to attack Iran because Iran just like Canada, Japan, China etc. wants nuclear electricity to his people . Carly Fiorina did well on last debate because she said she will support Israel to prevent Iran from peaceful nuclear and the republican campaign is jeered towards that, so that Iran will be attacked by the support of Christian evangelicals.
So, in this case Israel and the United states backed by Zionist and evangelical Christians attacked Iran, a Muslim majority country first, so they must fight to defend their land just like Iraq was attacked first.
The rule of war applied to the Muslims and we have clearly defined rule of war above if you care to read. Give me a Christian rule of war. Iran or Iraq or Palestine will not sit down and let the evangelical Christians to use their Bible of massacring women and children to finish them up. The Palestinians are strong and may God bless them with all the contribution Ken Temple and his Christians are doing to Israel with bull dozers to destroy their farm lands, children schools, churches, mosques, homes, street to build Jewish alone neighbourhood supported by Ken Temple and David Wood.
Thanks
LikeLike
LOL; you didn’t refute anything, and neither did Shabir in his debates with Wood.
LikeLike
Ken, tell me: what crime did the Amalakite women and children commit to deserve their genocide?
You have failed to make your case.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken Temple, I agree that Wood won the debate on Quran and peace, not because he had the better arguments but because Shabir did not adequately respond to his contentions on abrogation and the nature of Ibn Kathir’s commentary. I don’t see how Wood came out victorious in the second debate. Can you tell me what his best argument was that led you to believe the bible is peaceful? As for Shabir’s methodology, it is no different from what scholars of Islamic studies in the West employ in their research. What was Wood’s methodology? Basically, Quran says this; Hadith says that; Ibn Kathir says so and so. This is not a scholarly methodology. For one thing, books don’t speak.
Let me also ask you this question. On the issue of abrogation, do we have any hadith in which Muhammad(saw) himself says that earlier peaceful verses are abrogated by later violent ones?
LikeLike
They were under the same judgment/curse as the other pagans that lived within the borders of the promised land of Israel, as spoken of about the Canaanites, Amorites, Jebusites, etc. (Genesis 15:13-21, Deut. 7, 9, 20; book of Joshua, Judges, etc.)
But all that was temporary only for Israel in the promised land; and only for that time.
Biblical Israel is no more, and never has been since 70 AD.
Jesus had mercy on the Canaanite woman in the territory of Lebanon in Matthew 15 and Mark 7.
The Church was NEVER given permission to fight wars or do terrorism, as some Muslims do today.
Matthew 5:38-48 – turn the other cheek
Matthew 26:52 – put your sword away; those who live by the sword will die by the sword
Ephesians 6:10-20 – our struggle is not against humans, but against the spiritual forces and demons
2 Cor. 10:3-5 – the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly / carnal / physical
John 18:36 – My kingdom is not of this world; if it were of this world, My servants would be fighting; but as it is; they don’t fight because My kingdom is not of this world
LikeLike
Can you tell me what his best argument was that led you to believe the bible is peaceful?
Basically, because the NT abrogates the OT promised land – war texts, as I showed above.
Matthew 5:38-48 – turn the other cheek
Matthew 26:52 – put your sword away; those who live by the sword will die by the sword
Ephesians 6:10-20 – our struggle is not against humans, but against the spiritual forces and demons
2 Cor. 10:3-5 – the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly / carnal / physical
John 18:36 – My kingdom is not of this world; if it were of this world, My servants would be fighting; but as it is; they don’t fight because My kingdom is not of this world
David Wood used some of those verses, along with “love your neighbor as yourself” (Luke 10:27) and “live in peace with all men” (Romans 12:18; Hebrews 12:14) and “God is love” ( 1 John 4:8).
David also pointed out that Just War principles were developed in the Western Christian tradition of Ambrose and Augustine (mid to late 300s-430 AD). And Shabir was using a book that was dependent on that which is Christian based. It was based on the harmonization of the verses and principles that I lay above; and Romans 13 and that the state has the responsibility to punish evil with the sword (police, military, just war).
Shabir used Hebrews 11 to try and show that the NT was somehow saying that what Samson, Jepthah, Samuel, David did in wars is still acceptable.
As I have pointed out, there is no more OT Theocratic Israel, since 70 AD. Wood did say that the commands to kill the pagans and drive them out was:
1. temporary (Jesus took the authority for Israel to do that away from them in Matthew 21:43-45) No more since 70 AD.
2. Limited to only the Promised Land.
The land promises for ethnic Israel are no more: the book of Hebrews clearly interprets the land promises as fulfilled in Christ and a symbol of heaven.
Hebrews chapter 4
Hebrews 11:10
Hebrews 11:13-14
Hebrews 11:16
Hebrews 12:22-23 – Mt. Zion, the hill the temple was on in Jerusalem is called “the heavenly Jerusalem” and is associated with the church
Hebrews 13:14
LikeLike
Matthew 21:43-45 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
43 Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people, producing the fruit of it.
44 And he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust.”
45 When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
But all that was temporary only for Israel in the promised land; and only for that time.
Biblical Israel is no more, and never has been since 70 AD.
Jesus had mercy on the Canaanite woman in the territory of Lebanon in Matthew 15 and Mark 7.
The Church was NEVER given permission to fight wars or do terrorism, as some Muslims do today.
I say;
Give us example and evidence from the Quran where it says go and kill babies and women and non combatants.
Terrorism now lies on Ken Temple and most evangelical Christians who contributes to Israel to massacre and mass murder Palestinians. Destroy their farmlands, Waters, Churches and Mosques and kill babies at the UN compound as the Bible said. Bomb Churches in Gaza that is being protected by the Palestinian Christians. Support Iraq war by the evangelical Christians and now supporting attack on Iran. Supported Israel attack on Lebanon, Iraq and Syria with Church contributions. That is terrorism backed by Bible verses.
Whatever verse you will bring has been refuted by this verses;
Sura 9
13. Will you not fight a people who have violated their oaths (pagans of Makkah) and intended to expel the Messenger, while they did attack you first? Do you fear them? Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are believers
4. Except those of the Mushrikun with whom you have a treaty, and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor have supported anyone against you. So fulfill their treaty to them to the end of their term. Surely Allah loves Al- Mattaqun (the pious – see V.2:2).
6. And if anyone of the Mushrikun (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) seeks your protection then grant him protection, so that he may hear the Word of Allah (the Qur’an), and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men who know not.
Sura 2:9
And fight in (the) way (of) Allah those who fight you and (do) not transgress. Indeed, Allah (does) not like the transgressors.
Thanks
LikeLike
Bismillah
Br. P. Williams //Ken, tell me: what crime did the Amalakite women and children commit to deserve their genocide?//
KT //They were under the same judgment/curse as the other pagans that lived within the borders of the promised land of Israel, as spoken of about the Canaanites, Amorites, Jebusites, etc. (Genesis 15:13-21, Deut. 7, 9, 20; book of Joshua, Judges, etc.)//
And what is it this curse so that even innocent babies deserve the punishment? Isnt God gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love; and relents over disaster??
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ken is wrong (again) about the given reasons for the genocide. It is clearly stated in 1 Samuel 15: they were being punished for crimes committed by other people 300 years earlier.
LikeLiked by 1 person
and “They” here includes child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.?!? …hardly a loving and just god..
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nothing like this in the Holy Quran!
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
As I have pointed out, there is no more OT Theocratic Israel, since 70 AD. Wood did say that the commands to kill the pagans and drive them out was:
1. temporary (Jesus took the authority for Israel to do that away from them in Matthew 21:43-45) No more since 70 AD.
2. Limited to only the Promised Land.
I say;
Who the heck tells you or told you that TEMPRORALLY KILLING OF INOCCENT WOMEN, CHILDREN, CATTLE, ANINAL BY MEN is good? David Wood? told you that? TEMPRORALLY KILLING OF INOCCENT WOMEN, CHILDREN, CATTLE, ANINAL BY MEN is good?
If that is the case, both of you need psychiatric treatment.
Killing of babies, who are innocent and women and live stock is just not good and it is a sin. And the Christians are using these command of annihilation right now to help the state of Israel to annihilate the Palestinians and they are damn happy for the annihilation and the Christians used the verses to annihilate and exterminate the Jews and the Muslims in Spain and the Holy Land and destroyed the Churches but Muslims have to conquer the Christians and rebuilt and renovate the Temples, Churches and Mosques standing side by side in the Holy Land today. The evangelical Christians through the inspiration of John Hagee, Jack Van Impe, have warned their senators and congress men to worship Netanyahu as the Bible said worship Israel and anything it has so that Palestinians will be exterminated. Palestinians both Muslims and Christians are fighting to keep their land and God is with them and despite all these annihilation by Ken Temple and his Christian using Biblical verses, they could not exterminate the Palestinians.
Ken Temple and David Wood could not defend the horrible Biblical verses but to say it is temporal like saying let me temporally kill you by slashing your throat with a sword. It is rubbish to temporally kill innocent babies.
With regards to abrogation in Islam, I mentioned to you here sometimes back, that no any verse is abrogated in the Quran until specified clearly or explained by the prophet. It is not true that the newer verses of the Quran abrogate the older ones. That is not true. Besides, I have been quoting verses that counter what any missionary in the same sura 9 they have been quoting.
Sura 9
13. Will you not fight a people who have violated their oaths (pagans of Makkah) and intended to expel the Messenger, while they did attack you first? Do you fear them? Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are believers
4. Except those of the Mushrikun with whom you have a treaty, and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor have supported anyone against you. So fulfill their treaty to them to the end of their term. Surely Allah loves Al- Mattaqun (the pious – see V.2:2).
6. And if anyone of the Mushrikun (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) seeks your protection then grant him protection, so that he may hear the Word of Allah (the Qur’an), and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men who know not.
Sura 2:9
And fight in (the) way (of) Allah those who fight you and (do) not transgress. Indeed, Allah (does) not like the transgressors.
Thanks
LikeLike
The Amalekites were nomadic raiders, who constantly attacked the Jews (Paul is right about the beginning of that in Exodus 17, Numbers, Deut. 25:17-19; and they continued after I Sam. 15 – I Sam. 30 and 2 Sam. 8:12) and God put them under the same ban (Harem חרמ = “devoted to destruction”; cognate with the Arabic حرام and حرم “forbidden” – Deut. chapters 7, 9, 20 ) as the other pagan tribes, and specifically because they persecuted Israel in their journey in the wilderness from Sinai to the promised land. They were nomadic raiders and kept coming into the promised land and attacking the Israelites, so the Israelites fought them back.
They even survived in Haman the Agagite,(the book of Esther),who tried to destroyed all the Jews in the Persian Empire. Haman, the Agagite, was a descendent of Agag, the king of the Amalekites from 1 Sam. 15.
But all of that is still only for OT Theocratic Israel that ceased in 70 AD. The Church was never to do anything like that, and never did.
LikeLike
Ken why will not not answer my question? You are just like Wood and Jay Smith in the speakers corner video – running away from your Bible.
So I ask you again: what crime/sin did the women, children, babies and animals commit such that “god” ordered their genocide?
LikeLike
John Hagee is a heretic; who says that we should not share the gospel of Jesus Christ with Jewish people. That is horrible and at root, anti-semitic, because it blocks the Jewish people off from hearing the good news about their true Messiah and God, Jesus Christ. Hagee is also a heretic because he is part of the “prosperity health and wealth” teachings. (Word of Faith movement; “name it claim it”, positive confession movement.)
Jack Van Impe is unbalanced and all he ever talks about is the End-time events and book of Revelation and the rapture stuff and relates it to modern Israel. He is a pre-tribulationalist and Premillennialist. Pre-Tribulationism is not a credible interpretation of the end time texts, in my opinion. Same for Hal Lindsay and Tim LaHaye’s books – they are popular, but I don’t agree with that stuff.
I lean toward an Amillennial view point. If you study the texts of my earlier post above – the verses from Hebrews – it shows that the promised land is a type and symbol of heaven and not meant to be a perpetual thing.
I don’t agree with everything modern Israel does; and I don’t base their existance on the OT land promises. Rather, they had the right to the original 2 state plan and territory of 1948, but because the Muslims never even agreed to anything for them; and attacked them first, and kept doing it; well, Israel kept winning because the Muslims never even allowed the Jews to have some of the land, which was mostly bought and developed from rich Arab land owners from 1880s up to the time of 1948. Those rich Arab land owners were living in areas of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, etc. and they were all under the government of the Ottoman Empire. When the Ottoman’s joined Germany in WW I, and lost, they were justly punished and the Jews could carve out something for themselves.
LikeLike
The land promises with commands of war for ethnic Israel are no more: the book of Hebrews clearly interprets the land promises as fulfilled in Christ and a symbol of heaven.
God judged them in 70 AD and 135 AD (Bar Kokhba rebellion) and scattered them over the earth. (Matthew 23:36-24:3 – destruction of the temple).
Hebrews chapter 4
Hebrews 11:10
Hebrews 11:13-14
Hebrews 11:16
Hebrews 12:22-23 – Mt. Zion, the hill the temple was on in Jerusalem is called “the heavenly Jerusalem” and is associated with the church
Hebrews 13:14
Also Galatians 4:26 says “the Jerusalem above, she is our Mother” – based on Psalm 87, where is says that true Zion is the acceptance of peoples from other cultures into the family of God – the Lord even lists many of the OT enemies of Israel – Rahab (Canaanites), Babylon, Philistia, Tyre, Ethiopia, – they will be included as those are born in Zion, when God registers the peoples and born in Zion.” (verses 4-6) This is about true Zion, fulfilled in the church (Hebrews 12:22-23) and that the Lord redeemed people from all the nations, tribes, languages, and peoples in Revelation 5:9 and 7:9. (prophesied about in Daniel 7:13-14)
Psalm 87
1 His foundation is in the holy mountains.
2 The Lord loves the gates of Zion
More than all the other dwelling places of Jacob.
3 Glorious things are spoken of you,
O city of God. Selah.
4 “I shall mention Rahab and Babylon among those who know Me;
Behold, Philistia and Tyre with Ethiopia:
‘This one was born there.’”
5 Indeed, of Zion it shall be said, “This one and that one were born in her”;
And the Most High Himself will establish her.
6 The Lord will count when He registers the peoples,
“This one was born there.”
Selah.
7 Then those who sing as well as those who play the flutes shall say,
“All my springs of joy are in you.”
LikeLike
Ken You are wrong about this too! Paul, in the forged letter 2 Timothy 3:16, tells his readers about the OT: it is useful for teaching, reproof, correction and training in righteousness. Christians have been inspired by OT examples to commit atrocities and genocide throughout history. Even in America!
No wonder people become atheists refusing to believe in such barbarism and evil.
LikeLike
Temple “The Church was never to do anything like that, and never did.” LOL
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lol!!! Whitewashing history.
LikeLike
Paul, you didn’t read this part? I agreed with you that 1 Sam. 15 gives the specific reasons – going back to Exodus 17, Numbers, Deut. 25, etc.
The Amalekites were nomadic raiders, who constantly attacked the Jews (Paul is right about the beginning of that in Exodus 17, Numbers, Deut. 25:17-19; and they continued after I Sam. 15 – I Sam. 30 and 2 Sam. 8:12) and God put them under the same ban (Harem חרמ = “devoted to destruction”; cognate with the Arabic حرام and حرم “forbidden” – Deut. chapters 7, 9, 20 ) as the other pagan tribes, and specifically because they persecuted Israel in their journey in the wilderness from Sinai to the promised land. They were nomadic raiders and kept coming into the promised land and attacking the Israelites, so the Israelites fought them back.
LikeLike
But you are wrong on 2 Tim. 3:16 – that is never justified as somehow making those OT land-war texts applicable to the church or to today.
2 Tim. 3:15 is about the OT
2 Tim. 3:16 expands it to the NT.
LikeLike
Ken you are just wrong again: both verses are about the OT and it does not say to the read that it does not apply to the New Israel. You seem to think the NT existed in Paul’s time!
Lol
LikeLike
I asked Temple also when Jesus (he is God according to him) in your bible tell you, “HAPPY IS HE WHO SMASHES BABIES ONTO ROCKS” (Psalm 137) does he feel outrage with this chilling unmerciful acts?? I try to understand it with context, clearly this is about God revenge. God shows no mercy and repay those Babylonians including the babies.
He seems throwing part of his holy book under the bus to keep his congregation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Even Shabir Ally used the Just War principles developed by the Western Christian tradition – Ambrose, Augustine (died in 430 AD) and Aquinas. He used a book based on Christian tradition for the “Just War Theory”, which developed out of taking all of the NT together along with Romans 13 and the government’s responsibility to punish evil, criminals, rapists, murderers. (today’s police and good and just military actions of defending the innocent.)
LikeLike
KT// specifically because they persecuted Israel in their journey in the wilderness from Sinai to the promised land//
How can babies and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey persecute anyone or anything, so they deserve genocide??
LikeLiked by 1 person
Eric – Ken will not answer this question. Just like his buddies Wood and Smith. Secretly they are terrified by the Bible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Psalm 137 was a judgement / justice passage on Babylon, in judgement and retribution for what Babylon did to Israel and Jerusalem.
Jesus changed that attitude of “taking revenge”:
Matthew 5:38-48
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’
39 But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
40 If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.
41 Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.
42 Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’
44 But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
47 If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?
48 Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
LikeLike
The NT clearly changed the OT land war texts as not applicable to the church.
LikeLike
The progression in Christianity is OT to NT – war for the promised land for Theocratic Israel to peace and love by the church.
The progression in Islam was the opposite. Meccan Surahs to Medina Surahs – 610-622 (peaceful, persecuted) to 622-632 AD and beyond (Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman, Ali, Muawiyya, Yazid, etc.) permission to raid caravans, permission to fight, self -defense, then all out war against everyone. (Surah 9)
LikeLike
Ken don’t whitewash your Bible! 2Tim 3:16 tells his readers to use the OT for examples in conduct and training. Christians in history have done just that and committed acts of terror and genocide against ‘savages’ usually non-White peoples.
LikeLike
Ken just for the record: what crime or sin had the women, children, babies and animals committed?
Btw I am not asking you what crime had their ancestors committed 300 years before.
LikeLike
KT//Aquinas. He used a book based on Christian tradition for the “Just War Theory”, today’s police and good and just military actions of defending the innocent.)//
– fight only when they are attacked until there is NO more OPPRESSION, till JUSTICE prevails.
– do not embezzle the spoils;
– do not break your pledge; and
– do not mutilate (the dead) bodies;
– do not kill the children.
Those are from the Holy Qur’an and sound hadiths not the bible.
I am asking you how smashing babies skulls onto rocks and killing women, children and animal can be “JUST”??
LikeLiked by 1 person
Eric “I am asking you how smashing babies skulls onto rocks and killing women, children and animal can be “JUST”??”
You don’t understand, brother. .. You have to have the Holy Spirit. …. Believe! …. Then “Jesus” will come in your heart and will make you understand! …. Jesus lurves you ….
And on and on and on … till the cows come home … er … Jesus returns 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
fight only when they are attacked until there is NO more OPPRESSION, till JUSTICE prevails.
That is a Christian principle, not an Islamic principle,
since many Hadith say:
Fight them until religion is all for Allah (see below just one of them, from Sahih Al Bukhari, 2946; vol. 4, book 52, # 196)
Fight the people of the book, until they are humiliated and they pay the Jiziyeh. (Surah 9:28-33) Aye 33 – “that He may cause the religion of the truth (Al Islam) to prevail over all religion”
The Byzantines and Persia did not attack first, the Muslims did and did all out war against them. For centuries!!
Surah 8:39 says until there is no more fitna فتنه and religion is all for Allah. Fitna فتنه does not mean “persecution” or “oppression” – it means turmoil, rebellion, mutiny, confusion.
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah ‘s Apostle said, ” I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ and whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ his life and property will be saved by me except for Islamic law, and his accounts will be with Allah, (either to punish him or to forgive him.)”
حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو الْيَمَانِ، أَخْبَرَنَا شُعَيْبٌ، عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، حَدَّثَنَا سَعِيدُ بْنُ الْمُسَيَّبِ، أَنَّ أَبَا هُرَيْرَةَ ـ رضى الله عنه ـ قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم “ أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَقُولُوا لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ اللَّهُ. فَمَنْ قَالَ لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ اللَّهُ، فَقَدْ عَصَمَ مِنِّي نَفْسَهُ وَمَالَهُ، إِلاَّ بِحَقِّهِ، وَحِسَابُهُ عَلَى اللَّهِ ”. رَوَاهُ عُمَرُ وَابْنُ عُمَرَ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم.
Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 2946
In-book reference : Book 56, Hadith 158
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 4, Book 52, Hadith 196
(deprecated numbering scheme)
“fight till they say, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,”
does NOT mean “till there is no more oppression” or “until justice prevails”
LikeLike
KT//The progression in Islam was the opposite. Meccan Surahs to Medina Surahs – 610-622 (peaceful, persecuted) to 622-632 AD and beyond (Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman, Ali, Muawiyya, Yazid, etc.) permission to raid caravans, permission to fight, self -defense, then all out war against everyone. (Surah 9)//
No, Islam early wars are for liberation against trinitarian paganism. The Qur’an is clear in setting the limit
وَقَاتِلُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ الَّذِينَ يُقَاتِلُونَكُمْ وَلَا تَعْتَدُوا ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ الْمُعْتَدِينَ
“Fight in the cause of Allâh those who fight you, but do not transgress limits: for Allâh loveth not transgressors.”
the bible has nothing of the sort . no chilling baby killing.
Read Professor Joel Hayward on this issue: http://www.joelhayward.org/quranandwar.htm
christianity started almost all wars in the last 500 years or so, motivated by greed and hatred: “gold, gospel, glory” http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3045300940.html
LikeLike
And it is Christian leaders like Bush and Blair who have started wars of aggression against other states with huge civilian deaths. When was the last time a Muslim country invaded USA, lol
LikeLiked by 1 person
Temple “The progression in Christianity is OT to NT – war for the promised land for Theocratic Israel to peace and love by the church.”
You claim your “God is Love”. The Church preaches “peace and love”?
What message of love is it, threatening me with eternal hell simply for just being human?
LikeLiked by 1 person
KT//fight only when they are attacked until there is NO more OPPRESSION, till JUSTICE prevails. That is a Christian principle, not an Islamic principle,//
Let me help you:
وَقَاتِلُوهُمْ حَتَّىٰ لَا تَكُونَ فِتْنَةٌ وَيَكُونَ الدِّينُ لِلَّهِ ۖ فَإِنِ انتَهَوْا فَلَا عُدْوَانَ إِلَّا عَلَى الظَّالِمِينَ
Fight them until there is NO [MORE] FITNAH and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be NO AGGRESSION except against the oppressors. (Q 2:193)
FITNAH فِتْنَةٌ specifically means “oppression”
‘UDWAANA عُدْوَانَ means aggression
“Just war” is CLEAR Qur’anic cocept!
So so much for your claim as being Christian principle, where is your proof?
Smashing innocent baby skulls clearly does not constitute fighting oppression let alone justice.
LikeLike
Burhaddin1 –
As a Muslim, you don’t believe in hell or judgement day?
Eric –
I read Hayward’s book, as I told you under the Philip Jenkins/ Riz Khan post and I am glad for that modern interpretation the most Muslim’s nowadays have, since the abolition of the Khaliphate. But Ibn Kathir and classical Muslims commentators did not have that interpretation.
Christianity did not start most of the wars in the last 500 years. That is ridiculous.
Roman Catholicism is not true Christianity, and it went astray from the Bible from 500s and 600s onward.
Hitler and Japan etc. – they were all non-Christians, pagans.
Stalin, USSR, Pol Pot of Cambodia, Mao of China – all atheists and communists.
Hitler even said basically, as he rejected the religion of the history of Germany:
“Why couldn’t we Germans have a manly and warlike religion like Islam or the Japanese religion – one that fights; not the wimpy and weak and meek Christianity.”
“It’s been our misfortune of have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammadan religion too would have been much more acceptable to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?” page 165, “Bonhoeffer, Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy”, by Eric Metaxas
LikeLike
Two words Ken: Bush and Blair Christian war criminals.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“ftna” فتنه does not mean oppression. Oppression is Zolm or Zulm ظلم . same root word as oppressors that is in the verse you quoted. الظالمین
I was quoting Surah 8:39, not 2:190-193.
LikeLike
Ken just for the record: what crime or sin had the women, children, babies and animals committed?
Btw I am not asking you what crime had their ancestors committed 300 years before.
LikeLike
Hitler admired Islam and the Japanese religion because they were war-like.
LikeLike
Ken just for the record: what crime or sin had the women, children, babies and animals committed?
Btw I am not asking you what crime had their ancestors committed 300 years before.
LikeLike
Temple “Burhaddin1 – As a Muslim, you don’t believe in hell or judgement day?”
Temple, are you pretending to be ignorant? The reformed-protestant brand of Christianity (yours I guess) condemns me to hell, just because I am born human.
I am totally depraved by nature, and therefore deserve eternal death, correct? Just because I am human and was created that way by a “loving and just” God, correct?
That’s speciecism of the worst kind.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Hitler admired Islam and the Japanese religion because they were war-like.” Lol, muaahhahhhahhhaaaa
LikeLiked by 1 person
BIsmillah
KT//I read Hayward’s book, as I told you under the Philip Jenkins/ Riz Khan post and I am glad for that modern interpretation the most Muslim’s nowadays have, since the abolition of the Khaliphate. But Ibn Kathir and classical Muslims commentators did not have that interpretation.//
Apparently you either don’t read properly or have comprehension problem. Nowhere is Professor Hayward said he is making new interpretation of those Qur’anic verses, he studied what classical commentator had to say (including Ibn Kathir) and then explain it to anyone who are mistaken in understanding Islam’s approach to war, as a military educator himself he know what modern just war about.
//Roman Catholicism is not true Christianity//
This is hilarious. Last time I check “The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church, is, the LARGEST Christian church”
and Hitler?
“The anti-Semitism of the new movement (Christian Social movement)was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge.”
[Adolf Hitler, “Mein Kampf”, Vol. 1, Chapter 3]
Source: http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch03.html
My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter…
[Adolf Hitler, speech in Munich on April 12, 1922,]
Source: http://www.hitler.org/speeches/04-12-22.html
He seems he is sure he is a christian
LikeLiked by 1 person
“all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” Romans 3:23
“Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” John 3:18
There is still time for you to repent and trust in Al Masih.
Mark 1:15
“Repent and believe in the gospel”
LikeLike
No, Hitler was NOT a Christian, but he used that church background to deceive the German people, especially at the beginning. That speech was 1922 was early, and he was being deceptive in order to win the German people over to his agenda.
He even told Himler, Borrman, Rosenberg, and Reinhard Heydrick (the 4 of his inner circle that were even more anti-Christian than Hitler was; Hitler was a pragmatist) Himler and Borrman and those guys were wanting to come out against the Church in Germany more directly, but Hitler said that would not be wise because the people would turn against them. Hitler said wait until they have won; then they can create a new religion based on the old paganism war-like gods of the Goths – the Ancient Germanic tribes.
You need to read chapter 11 of Eric Metaxas’ book, “Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy” – he explains how Hitler used the church and decieved, etc. and he explains the Nazi real religion. Chapter 11 is called “Nazi Theology” – it is very revealing and documented.
LikeLike
Ken just for the record: what crime or sin had the women, children, babies and animals committed? Btw I am not asking you what crime had their ancestors committed 300 years before.
LikeLike
Temple, so that’s how you see your fellow brothers in humanity.
Totally depraved by nature, and therefore deserving eternal death. Just because I am human and was created that way by your “loving and just” God.
That’s probably the worst anti-human ideology ever. No wonder all the bloodshed and misery comes from that source.
Thanks, but no thanks.
LikeLike
I didn’t go through all the posts. Ken Temple, did you answer my question, “Do we have any hadith in which Muhammad(saw) himself said that earlier peaceful verses are abrogated by later violent verses?”
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Qur’an approves of the wars of Joshua (says a prophet after Moses), Saul, and David in Surah 2:249-251, at the end saying “David slew/killed Goliath”. Goliath was a Philistine, and the Philistines were an ancient pagan people (the sea peoples) who came into the land of Israel (in the area of what is today known as Gaza and that general area) and kept attacking Israel. The Amalekites were nomadic tribe, coming into and across the border of Israel and they kept attacking the Israelites. Apparently, Saul was to “wipe them out” ( Harem) from the borders of Israel; so they were all under the same ban as the Canaanite pagan peoples.
But that is not applicable at all today. The NT abrogates that; and Just War principles were developed in the west, based on the NT and justice.
LikeLike
Ken what crime or sin had the women, children, babies and animals committed? Btw I am not asking you what crime had their ancestors committed 300 years before.
LikeLike
http://www.sott.net/article/303020-Islamic-Holocaust-Western-wars-have-killed-AT-LEAST-4-million-Muslims-since-1990
LikeLike
KT//“ftna” فتنه does not mean oppression. Oppression is Zolm or Zulm ظلم . same root word as oppressors that is in the verse you quoted. الظالمین//
It is obvious that your dont understand the nuance of classical arabic, but you act yourself like a sheikh
ف ت ن got range of meanings ie. to try or prove, persecute, burn, assay, put into affliction, distress and hardship, slaughter, cause to err, seduce from faith by any means, mislead, sow dissension or difference of opinion, mischief, put in confusion, punish, give reply or excuse, tempt, lead to temptation, make an attempt upon, seduce.
فِتْنَةُ fitnatun – persecution, trial, probation, burning, assaying, reply, excuse, war, means whereby the condition of a person is evinced in respect of good or evil, hardship, punishment, answer, temptation, burning with fire.
Even Arabic-English Lexicon by Edward William Lane (London: Willams & Norgate 1863) put it under “castigation” or even “slaughter” in one of its definition
We can say in modern Arabic like
وَاقْتُلُوهُمْ حَيْثُ ثَقِفْتُمُوهُمْ وَأَخْرِجُوهُم مِّنْ حَيْثُ أَخْرَجُوكُمْ وَالْفِتْنَةُ أَشَدُّ مِنَ الْقَتْلِ
Drive them out of the places from where they drove you out, for persecution (فِتْنَةُ) is worse than slaughter
….. Still your claim that“Just war” is christian principle has no basis, it is in fact a Qur’anic cocept!
LikeLike
KT//There is still time for you to repent and trust in Al Masih.
Mark 1:15
“Repent and believe in the gospel”//
We already believe in the genuine Injeel of Isa Al-Masih , the son of Mary and the slave of Allah….but NOT the gospel of unknown authors who claim and preach false gospel of true Christ.
LikeLike
I didn’t go through all the posts. Ken Temple, did you answer my question, “Do we have any hadith in which Muhammad(saw) himself said that earlier peaceful verses are abrogated by later violent verses?”
I don’t know of ones that say that specifically; but the progression seems clear and the way they are expressed by, “permission is now given to fight” whereas before it was not. And the later verses and Hadiths say, “fight until religion is all for Allah” – that means clearly until all pagans are Muslims and only Christians and Jews are allowed to be Dhimmis and be humiliated and forbidden to do evangelism and build new churches.
it is clear from those hadith that I cited above,
and that Surah 9 is said to be the last Surah revealed,
Narrated Al-Bara:
The last Sura that was revealed was Bara’a (Immunity, another name for Surah 9), and the last Verse that was revealed was: “They ask you for a legal verdict, Say: Allah’s directs (thus) about those who leave no descendants or ascendants as heirs.” (4.176)
حَدَّثَنَا سُلَيْمَانُ بْنُ حَرْبٍ، حَدَّثَنَا شُعْبَةُ، عَنْ أَبِي إِسْحَاقَ، سَمِعْتُ الْبَرَاءَ ـ رضى الله عنه ـ قَالَ آخِرُ سُورَةٍ نَزَلَتْ بَرَاءَةَ، وَآخِرُ آيَةٍ نَزَلَتْ {يَسْتَفْتُونَكَ }
USC-MSA web (English) reference :
Sahih Al Bukhari Vol. 6, Book 60, Hadith 129
Arabic reference : Book 65, Hadith 4605
and the way Abu Bakr and Omar and Uthman applied the principles was all out war against pagans and war against Christians and Jews until they submitted and paid the Jiziyeh and agreed to not do any evangelism or rebel.
According to a hadith recorded by Bukhari, sura 9 was the last complete Surah to be revealed as a whole, although parts and individual verses of other suras came later. (that one verse from Surah 5:3 – “this day is your religion complete – Al Islam” ; Islamic scholars debate whether Surah 9 or parts of 5 or all of 5; or 110 is last, but in any case, they are the last 3 Surahs revealed.) According to that Hadith above, the last verse Ayeh revealed was 4:176.
Another hadith says that sura 110 was actually the last, but in any case sura 9 is very late, among the last revelations Muhammad received. It came around the time, according to an Islamic tradition, of an inconclusive expedition Muhammad undertook against a Byzantine garrison at Tabuk in northern Arabia in 631, and much of its contents revolve around the events of that attempt to engage the army of the great Christian empire in battle.
After Muhammad died in 632 AD; the Caliphs applied 9:29-33 to all out war against the Christian Byzantine Empire and kept going all through history.
LikeLike
fitnah can be interpreted any way in that range, since in Islam, if there is rebellion, mutiny, confusion, corruption, people protesting in the streets against Sharia law, Islam can interpret that as a trial and persecution against their understanding of Sharia law and Islam.
LikeLike
No, the genuine original gospel is the 4 gospels of the NT and the rest of the NT.
That is why even in the Qur’an, it calls Jesus “His word” و کلمته
4:171
meaning, “the word of God” کلمه الله – because Muhammad heard the Christians calling Jesus that and he incorporated it into the Qur’an.
The Qur’an confirms Jesus as the eternal Word of God in John 1:1 and John 1:14, even though it also denies it’s doctrines.
LikeLike
This Hadith from Sahih Al Bukhari shows the understanding of Surah 9 and Surah 8 together (8:39 – fight until there is no more rebellion/confusion/mutiny and religion is all for Allah)
notice that phrase:
“. . . till they started thinking that none would be left unmentioned therein.”
” . . .
Narrated Sa`id bin Jubair:
I asked Ibn `Abbas about Surat Al-Tauba, and he said, “Surat Al-Tauba? It is exposure (of all the evils of the infidels and the hypocrites). And it continued revealing (that the oft-repeated expression): ‘…and of them …and of them.’ till they started thinking that none would be left unmentioned therein.” I said, “What about) Surat Al-Anfal?” He replied, “Surat Al-Anfal was revealed in connection with the Badr Battle.” I said, “(What about) Surat Al-Hashr?” He replied, “It was revealed in connection with Bani an-Nadir.”
حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الرَّحِيمِ، حَدَّثَنَا سَعِيدُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ، حَدَّثَنَا هُشَيْمٌ، أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو بِشْرٍ، عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ جُبَيْرٍ، قَالَ قُلْتُ لاِبْنِ عَبَّاسٍ سُورَةُ التَّوْبَةِ قَالَ التَّوْبَةُ هِيَ الْفَاضِحَةُ، مَا زَالَتْ تَنْزِلُ وَمِنْهُمْ وَمِنْهُمْ، حَتَّى ظَنُّوا أَنَّهَا لَمْ تُبْقِ أَحَدًا مِنْهُمْ إِلاَّ ذُكِرَ فِيهَا. قَالَ قُلْتُ سُورَةُ الأَنْفَالِ. قَالَ نَزَلَتْ فِي بَدْرٍ. قَالَ قُلْتُ سُورَةُ الْحَشْرِ. قَالَ نَزَلَتْ فِي بَنِي النَّضِيرِ.
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Sahih Al Bukhari Vol. 6, Book 60, Hadith 404
Arabic reference : Book 65, Hadith 4882
the Caliphs understood that to be all out war and fighting “until none would be left unmentioned therein” in those groups of infidels, hypocrites, and the people of the book (until they submit and pay Jiziyeh and don’t do any evangelism, etc.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
I don’t know of ones that say that specifically; but the progression seems clear and the way they are expressed by, “permission is now given to fight” whereas before it was not. And the later verses and Hadiths say, “fight until religion is all for Allah” – that means clearly until all pagans are Muslims and only Christians and Jews are allowed to be Dhimmis and be humiliated and forbidden to do evangelism and build new churches.
it is clear from those hadith that I cited above,
and that Surah 9 is said to be the last Surah revealed,
You also said;
that specifically; but the progression seems clear and the way they are expressed by, “permission is now given to fight” whereas before it was not. And the later verses and Hadiths say, “fight until religion is all for Allah” – that means clearly until all pagans are Muslims and only Christians and Jews are allowed to be Dhimmis and be humiliated and forbidden to do evangelism and build new churches.
I say;
Shabbir Ally said, no one can interpret the Quran the way he likes and want, be it Ibn Kathir, missionaries, David Wood, Ken Temple etc. except the Prophet alone. Like the Christians and their Bible and every religion, Muslims have various interpretation with regards to its test, so just quoting hadith, Suras in the middle of debate and interpreting the way one wants is childish and lack of analytical skills.
Most Islamic Universities, Imams and scholars teach that, any abrogation has to come from our prophet and if he did not say a verse is abrogated, no one can abrogate any verse. The hadiths are man made and it is not obligated to accept any of them.
Ken Temple, David Wood, James White, Ibn Kathir, etc. cannot tell Muslims what abrogation means in their religion. They cannot tell them what fitna etc. means in their religion, unless they have attended Islamic university and attained a proper credentials and even in such case they have to provide proof according to classical Arabic.
I debated with you about Aramaic and I provide my proof. You seem to be producing wrong information to Muslims and brother Eric keeps correcting you from years back with Arabic dictionary, Hebrew dictionary till today and you keep repeating your intentional mistakes.
What you have to prove is that the Quran said; “Kill women and children”, “Kill non combatant”, “Kill old people”, “Destroy Churches” etc. than trying to educate us Muslims on how the abrogation, fitna, sura 9, Ibn Kathir, Tabari, etc. are. You do not know them better than us. I do not know the gospel of John, Mathew, Mark than you so I cannot teach you how they abrogate verses, but what I know is that there is no where in the whole gospel that said; “all the old testament verses were abrogated”
You also lied from your teeth that the laws governing war is Christians without citing a single proof from the whole Bible but we have cited so many proof from the Quran and or hadith for you.
The same sura 9 you falsely educated us that is the last sura and command Muslims to Kill said this;
4. Except those of the Mushrikun with whom you have a treaty, and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor have supported anyone against you. So fulfill their treaty to them to the end of their term. Surely Allah loves Al- Mattaqun (the pious – see V.2:2).
6. And if anyone of the Mushrikun (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) seeks your protection then grant him protection, so that he may hear the Word of Allah (the Qur’an), and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men who know not.
Sura 2:9
And fight in (the) way (of) Allah those who fight you and (do) not transgress. Indeed, Allah (does) not like the transgressors.
They are from the same verse 9 you, David Wood, Jay Smith, Sammuel Green etc. and all missionary are cut and pasting but never brought the above to hide the truths.
If Sura 9 is for killing non Muslims why the above verses from sura 9 that said a non Muslim who is not aggressor and want protection from the Muslims must be escorted to a safe place so that he might hear the word of Allah for he may not know what he was doing.
This is a place where the Quran could have said “force convert him” but it did not. You can never find “force convert him” in the Quran but Ken you keep accusing Islam with force conversion without proof.
You said Islam stole the regulation of war from Christianity, and if you are truthful give us one verse from the whole Bible that said
6. And if anyone of the Mushrikun (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) seeks your protection then grant him protection, so that he may hear the Word of Allah (the Qur’an), and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men who know not.
Sura 2:9
And fight in (the) way (of) Allah those who fight you and (do) not transgress. Indeed, Allah (does) not like the transgressors.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Mr.Ken Temple. There is NO record of the Prophet(saw) himself saying that peaceful verses have been abrogated by violent verses. There is no consensus among scholars that peaceful verses have been abrogated. In fact, there is no consensus among scholars regarding the number of abrogated verses. Some say 200, others say 5, others say 0. Moreover, as Prof.Asma Afsaruddin has shown in her book, Striving in the path of God, the concept of perennial Jihad went through the same progression as Jesus’ divinity did. Just as Jesus went from being very human in Mark to being very Divine in John, so did the concept of Jihad start out as something entirely defensive among the earliest scholars but then became more offensive and perennial in later scholarly works. All these things (and more) go to show that the Quran is a lot tamer with respect to warfare than what later scholars made it out to be, exactly as Shabir Ally contended during his debate.
That’s the difference between Wood and Ally. According to Wood, the Quran says this or the hadith says that or Ibn Kathir says this..therefore, the Quran is not a book of peace. This is not a scholarly methodology and if Wood were to present his case to an Islamic studies journal real scholars would just laugh him off.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken Temple
You said;
Narrated Sa`id bin Jubair:
I asked Ibn `Abbas about Surat Al-Tauba, and he said, “Surat Al-Tauba? It is exposure (of all the evils of the infidels and the hypocrites). And it continued revealing (that the oft-repeated expression): ‘…and of them …and of them.’ till they started thinking that none would be left unmentioned therein.” I said, “What about) Surat Al-Anfal?” He replied, “Surat Al-Anfal was revealed in connection with the Badr Battle.” I said, “(What about) Surat Al-Hashr?” He replied, “It was revealed in connection with Bani an-Nadir.”
حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الرَّحِيمِ، حَدَّثَنَا سَعِيدُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ، حَدَّثَنَا هُشَيْمٌ، أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو بِشْرٍ، عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ جُبَيْرٍ، قَالَ قُلْتُ لاِبْنِ عَبَّاسٍ سُورَةُ التَّوْبَةِ قَالَ التَّوْبَةُ هِيَ الْفَاضِحَةُ، مَا زَالَتْ تَنْزِلُ وَمِنْهُمْ وَمِنْهُمْ، حَتَّى ظَنُّوا أَنَّهَا لَمْ تُبْقِ أَحَدًا مِنْهُمْ إِلاَّ ذُكِرَ فِيهَا. قَالَ قُلْتُ سُورَةُ الأَنْفَالِ. قَالَ نَزَلَتْ فِي بَدْرٍ. قَالَ قُلْتُ سُورَةُ الْحَشْرِ. قَالَ نَزَلَتْ فِي بَنِي النَّضِيرِ.
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Sahih Al Bukhari Vol. 6, Book 60, Hadith 404
Arabic reference : Book 65, Hadith 4882
the Caliphs understood that to be all out war and fighting “until none would be left unmentioned therein” in those groups of infidels, hypocrites, and the people of the book (until they submit and pay Jiziyeh and don’t do any evangelism, etc.
I say;
Since when did you became an Islamic scholar? with a degree in Islamic studies and Arabic? to explain to Muslims what the above means, when people spend years to learn the science of hadith.
No where the above hadith said that is all our war and fighting “until none would be left unmentioned therein” in those groups of infidels, hypocrites, and the people of the book (until they submit and pay Jiziyeh and don’t do any evangelism, etc.
That is your missionary interpretation and not accepted or understood as that by Muslims. You have to provide proof from the above hadith that said “It is all our war and fighting until……………………….”
You thought, the Caliph understood what you understood. Nonsense and rubbish, are you in the Caliphs mind?
Thanks.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
The Qur’an approves of the wars of Joshua (says a prophet after Moses), Saul, and David in Surah 2:249-251, at the end saying “David slew/killed Goliath”. Goliath was a Philistine, and the Philistines were an ancient pagan people (the sea peoples) who came into the land of Israel (in the area of what is today known as Gaza and that general area) and kept attacking Israel. The Amalekites were nomadic tribe, coming into and across the border of Israel and they kept attacking the Israelites. Apparently, Saul was to “wipe them out” ( Harem) from the borders of Israel; so they were all under the same ban as the Canaanite pagan peoples.
But that is not applicable at all today. The NT abrogates that; and Just War principles were developed in the west, based on the NT and justice.
I say;
Where does the NT said; “It abrogates all the Old Testament verses”? and there is no where in the NT that states the principle of just war by itemizing what should or should not be done during war. No were in the whole NT.
The Quran and Hadith has clearly itemized what should and should not be done during war including “Do not kill children, women, elderly, non combatant, animals, destroy property etc. but the Bible clearly said “Kill them all”. It does not matter if it is temporal, it is still not good, The Bible did not say it is temporal and the Christians used the verses to wipe Muslims and Jews and any non Christian except Christians alone in their dominateThed countries. Then the Christians started to wipe themselves(each other) i.e. the Roman Catholic and the Protestants. The remaining atheist, agnostic and liberals said “Wait a minute”, theses religious fanatics and terrorists Christians, if we do not fight them and stop them when they finish with each other we are surely the next target. They beat the hell out of the Christians(protestants and Catholics) because they are divided they became less strong and the liberals in the west managed to overcome them and brought constitution, rule of law and freedom of religions.
Christians never accepted freedom of religion but had to be forced on them by the liberal west. When they force converted the blacks they stole from Africa, they will not allow them in their Churches but to black Churches and they Christians keep burning the black Churches up to today. Black Church witness a Christian terrorist who pretend to worship with them and end up shooting and massacring them.
Some Arabs are obviously racist to be honest, but we never have black Mosques. All Mosques are for everyone and it shows tolerance in Islam and hashness in Christianity.
Thanks
LikeLike
I gave lots of verses that shows that the NT abrogates the land-war texts of the OT. But I guess you did not read them and are too lazy to look them up.
Please, you have to look all these up for yourselves and think about it. Go to Biblegateway.com and use NIV or NASB or ESV.
Basically, because the NT abrogates the OT promised land – war texts, as I showed above.
Matthew 5:38-48 – turn the other cheek
Matthew 26:52 – put your sword away; those who live by the sword will die by the sword
Ephesians 6:10-20 – our struggle is not against humans, but against the spiritual forces and demons
2 Cor. 10:3-5 – the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly / carnal / physical
John 18:36 – My kingdom is not of this world; if it were of this world, My servants would be fighting; but as it is; they don’t fight because My kingdom is not of this world
David Wood used some of those verses, along with “love your neighbor as yourself” (Luke 10:27) and “live in peace with all men” (Romans 12:18; Hebrews 12:14) and “God is love” ( 1 John 4:8).
David also pointed out that Just War principles were developed in the Western Christian tradition of Ambrose and Augustine (mid to late 300s-430 AD). And Shabir was using a book that was dependent on that which is Christian based. It was based on the harmonization of the verses and principles that I lay above; and Romans 13 and that the state has the responsibility to punish evil with the sword (police, military, just war).
Shabir used Hebrews 11 to try and show that the NT was somehow saying that what Samson, Jepthah, Samuel, David did in wars is still acceptable.
As I have pointed out, there is no more OT Theocratic Israel, since 70 AD. Wood did say that the commands to kill the pagans and drive them out was:
1. temporary (Jesus took the authority for Israel to do that away from them in Matthew 21:43-45) No more since 70 AD.
2. Limited to only the Promised Land.
The land promises for ethnic Israel are no more: the book of Hebrews clearly interprets the land promises as fulfilled in Christ and a symbol of heaven.
Hebrews chapter 4
Hebrews 11:10
Hebrews 11:13-14
Hebrews 11:16
Hebrews 12:22-23 – Mt. Zion, the hill the temple was on in Jerusalem is called “the heavenly Jerusalem” and is associated with the church
Hebrews 13:14
Matthew 21:43-45 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
43 Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people, producing the fruit of it.
44 And he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust.”
45 When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them.
LikeLike
You guys have been saying “who are you to tell us Muslims what our religion is?” etc.
I could say the same thing about what you are saying about the Bible and Christianity.
Look up all those verses in Hebrews chapters 4, 11, 12, and 13 and Galatians 4:26 – “the Jerusalem above, she is our Mother”, and you will see that the land of Israel is used as a type and symbol of heaven in the NT.
Therefore, with all the verses above, the NT abrogated the OT land-war texts.
Jesus took the kingdom away from Israel. Matthew 21:43-45
It is very clear.
LikeLike
Kmak:
. . . the concept of Jihad start out as something entirely defensive among the earliest scholars but then became more offensive and perennial in later scholarly works.
Not just in scholarly interpretations, but in the progression from the Qur’an itself – Meccan Surahs to Medinan Surahs with 9 as last – it is clear that it went from:
1. persecution in Mecca
2. to permission to raid caravans
making the pagan Meccans angry – resulting in the Battle of Badr and Uhud
3. to defensive wars
4. to offensive wars to conquer all pagans and expel them from Arabia – Surah 9:1-28
5. to offensive wars to conquer Christians, Jews, and make them pay the Jiziyeh and they could do no evangelism or freedom of speech or build new churches. Surah 9:29-33 – verse 33 “until the religion of truth prevails over all religion” “until religion is all for Allah” (all those Hadith passages that I gave; they are clear)
Muhammad himself said, “I have been ordered to fight the people until religion is all for Allah”. (those Hadith above)
clear.
LikeLike
Ken Temple, I just pointed out that the “Quran says this or hadith says that” methodology is a bad methodology and what you do? You cite some passages from the Quran and a hadith. I’ll give you a point for trolling. Now read the remaining post carefully.
As for the progression in the Quran, let’s suppose that war becomes broader in scope in later Surahs. So what? Unless you assume abrogation, it still doesn’t follow that the verses in Surah 9 are the final marching order, especially in light of Surah 60:9-10 and the fact that we have absolutely no statements from the Prophet(saw) or his closest Companions that peaceful verses of the Quran have been nullified. This is really telling!
True, the early Muslims pursued an expansionist policy but the objective was not, as you put it, ” to conquer Christians, Jews, and make them pay the Jiziyeh and they could do no evangelism or freedom of speech or build new churches.” As Daniel Brown notes in his book, The New Introduction to Islam:
No systematic sacking of cities took place, and no destruction of agricultural land occurred. The conquests brought little immediate change to the patterns of religious or communal life. There were no mass or forced conversions. Christian, Jewish, or Zoroastrian communities in Syria and Iraq may have felt threatened, but they continued to thrive. New synagogues, churches, and monasteries were still being built into the eighth century, and churches or synagogues were not converted to mosques on any noticeable scale. The first urban mosques were not built until after 690… [According to tradition, Muhammad died in 632. -B.C.]
[P]roduction of wine (forbidden by Islamic law) continued unchanged, and pigs (considered unclean by Muslims) continued to be raised and slaughtered in increasing numbers…
What about the Hadith you quoted? It is a late tradition and as I pointed out the later the tradition the more is warfare (and martyrdom) glorified. When we look at really early traditions, a different picture emerges. For instance, in the Musannaf of Abdul Razzak (which predates Bukhari), we have reports from Ibn Jurayj, Abdullah B Umar, Amr B Dinar and Sufyan Al Thawri, all among the Salafi generations, to the effect that military Jihad isn’t an obligation.
I would suggest that before you write a response to my points, consider the following:
(1) Abrogation is a contested idea among Quranic exegetes
1.1. There are no reports from Muhammad or his Companions that peaceful verses have been abrogated
1.2. There is no consensus among scholars that peaceful verses have been abrogated
(2) There is an evolution in the concept of Jihad
2.1. Military Jihad carries a much lower importance in very early works compared to much later works
LikeLiked by 1 person
With the name of Allah the Most Gracious the Most Merciful
KT// Not just in scholarly interpretations, but in the progression from the Qur’an itself – Meccan Surahs to Medinan Surahs with 9 as last.//
At-Taubah (9) Verses were a context-specific verses relating to the purification of Mecca and its environs of all Arab polytheism and idolatry. it has not abrogated the scriptures encouraging peace, tolerance and reconciliation.
Muslim scholars dont embrace the view that ALL later Qur’anic scriptures modify or cancel out all earlier ones . Verses revealed very late in prophet Muhammad’s (saw) mission, do not cance out the overwhelming number of verses that extol tolerance, reconciliation, inclusiveness and peace.
Muhkam [clear in and of themselves] verses, i.e. definite, not allegorical. They are not known to have been abrogated, so they naturally hold. No reason exists at all to think that they have been overruled. Only Islamophobes use this kind of reasoning.
If you genuinely want to learn about the concept of abrogation in Islam buy :
http://www.quranicstudies.com/books/abrogation-in-the-quran-and-islamic-law/
You can read the Overview of this book here:
http://www.quranicstudies.com/law/an-overview-of-abrogation-in-the-quran-and-islamic-law-a-critical-study-of-the-concept-of-naskh-and-its-impact/
The author Dr. Louay Fatoohi himself British scholar and a former christian arab who obvioulsy can access the arabic sources pertaining to this topic.
http://www.quranicstudies.com/biography/
“I have been ordered to fight the people until religion is all for Allah”
The context for the saying is clear: liberation against paganism . However the Qur’an is clear in setting the limit
وَقَاتِلُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ الَّذِينَ يُقَاتِلُونَكُمْ وَلَا تَعْتَدُوا ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ الْمُعْتَدِينَ
“Fight in the cause of Allâh those who fight you, but do not transgress limits: for Allâh loveth not transgressors.” (Q 2:190)
and also
إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُدَافِعُ عَنِ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا ۗ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ كُلَّ خَوَّانٍ كَفُورٍ
أُذِنَ لِلَّذِينَ يُقَاتَلُونَ بِأَنَّهُمْ ظُلِمُوا ۚ وَإِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلَىٰ نَصْرِهِمْ لَقَدِيرٌ
الَّذِينَ أُخْرِجُوا مِن دِيَارِهِم بِغَيْرِ حَقٍّ إِلَّا أَن يَقُولُوا رَبُّنَا اللَّهُ ۗ وَلَوْلَا دَفْعُ اللَّهِ النَّاسَ بَعْضَهُم بِبَعْضٍ لَّهُدِّمَتْ صَوَامِعُ وَبِيَعٌ وَصَلَوَاتٌ وَمَسَاجِدُ يُذْكَرُ فِيهَا اسْمُ اللَّهِ كَثِيرًا ۗ وَلَيَنصُرَنَّ اللَّهُ مَن يَنصُرُهُ ۗ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَقَوِيٌّ عَزِيزٌ
Indeed, Allah defends those who have believed. Indeed, Allah does not like everyone treacherous and ungrateful.
Permission [to fight] has been given tothose who are being fought, because they were wronged. And indeed, Allah is competent to give them victory.
[They are]those who have been evicted from their homes without right- only because they say, “Our Lord is Allah .” And were it not that Allah checks the people, some by means of others, there would have been demolished monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of Allah is much mentioned. And Allah will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, Allah is Powerful and Exalted in Might. (Q 22:39 -41)
Ibn Kathir, accepts earlier interpretations that the “transgressions” mentioned in the Qur’an refer to “mutilating the dead, theft (from the captured goods), killing women, children and old people who do not participate in warfare, killing priests and residents of houses of worship, burning down trees and killing animals without real benefit.” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Volume 1, p. 528)
So the figth is a “just war” and muslims are forbidden to hurt women and children, not to harm prisoners, not to mutilate bodies, not to plunder and not to destroy trees or crops.
Abu Bakr, the first Caliph, in a celebrated address to his warriors, Abu Bakr proclaimed:
“Do not act treacherously; do not act disloyally;DO NOT ACT NEGLECTFULLY. DO NOT MUTILATE; DO NOT KILL LITTLE CHILDREN OR OLD MEN, OR WOMEN; DO NOT CUT OFF THE HEADS OFF THE PALM-TREES OR BURN THEM; DO NOT CUT DOWN THE FRUIT TREES; DO NOT SLAUGHTER A SHEEP OR A COW OR A CAMEL, EXCEPT FOR FOOD. You will pass by people who devote their lives in cloisters; leave them and their devotions alone. You will come upon people who bring you platters in which are various sorts of food; if you eat any of it, mention the name of God over it.”
Source: The History of al-Tabari Vol. 10: The Conquest of Arabia: The Riddah Wars A.D. 632-633/A.H. 11 (SUNY series in Near Eastern Studies) p 16
http://www.amazon.com/The-History-al-Tabari-Vol-10/dp/0791410722
Unlike in the bible where god seems to order to kill women, children, babies and animals , including smashing innocent baby skulls …
What sin those babies and animals were capable of ??
LikeLike
With the name of Allah Most Gracious Most Merciful
KT//There is still time for you to repent and trust in Al Masih.
Mark 1:15
“Repent and believe in the gospel”//
We already believe in the genuine Injeel of Isa Al-Masih , the son of Mary and the slave of Allah….but NOT the gospel of unknown authors who claim and preach false gospel of true Christ.
//No, the genuine original gospel is the 4 gospels of the NT and the rest of the NT.
That is why even in the Qur’an, it calls Jesus “His word” و کلمته 4:171
meaning, “the word of God” کلمه الله – because Muhammad heard the Christians calling Jesus that and he incorporated it into the Qur’an.
The Qur’an confirms Jesus as the eternal Word of God in John 1:1 and John 1:14, even though it also denies it’s doctrines./
First, the original Injeel the Qur’an refer is *the* Injeel (goodnews) FROM Jesus himself, ….whereas the 4 gospels were not written by eyewitnesses, were not even written by the names which were prescribed onto them after the fact and were in fact written anonymously.
Secondly Islamic ageedah don’t compromise monotheism whenJesus (peace be upon him) is called Word from Him کلمته .
“There is no likeness unto Him.” {Q 42:11}
When prophet Abraham (peace be upon him) is called friend of Allah because Allah has “taken” a friend in Q 4:125
Wa Attakhadhallāhu ‘Ibrāhīma Khalīlāan وَاتَّخَذَ اللَّهُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ خَلِيلًا
Our aqeedah prevent us to believe that Abraham is also God because God took him as His “friend”?? No Muslim is to believe that Allah has a Godly ‘friend” which Abraham. And anyone who does believe that is guilty of unbelief, compromising Monotheism, Shirk the greatest sin in Islam.
Since you imply (make ta’weel – Figurative interpretation) that Word from Him کلمته in the Quran is Allah Himself , is clearly a violation of Islamic aqeedah a very violation of the monotheism.
You continue to become ignorant in the Lord you claim to worship but… instead you worship an imaginary God…
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
You guys have been saying “who are you to tell us Muslims what our religion is?” etc.
I could say the same thing about what you are saying about the Bible and Christianity.
I say;
Yes, we cannot tell you what your religion is but we are only telling you that
-No where in NT does it say “The old testament verses are abrogated”. “Turn the other cheek” and all that you quoted does not mean abrogation. That is we cannot see that phrase in the NT but not telling you what this said or what that said.
-We can also not see or read our prophet say, or any where in the Quran that states “the older verses are abrogated”. You cannot prove because you have to be clear or you have to be an Islamic scholar. There is no verse like that so you cannot force it on us.
1. Generate means to create and anything generated/created is not God- this is language.
2. Son can metaphorically be used to make all of us sons of God but any son who is not metaphorical or figuratively defined is a literal to have sex or in vitro fertilization-Language but not telling you what your religion is
3. 3 Persons are 3 beings because every person is a being and so 3 persons are either 3 divine beings or combination of 3 divine and human beings-Language but not telling what your religion is
4. Death means cease to exist because we do not see the dead existing with us. Spirit or soul is not a human being so the human being that dies cease to exist- Language and not religion
5. Some one who is eternal cannot die – Language and truth
6. Suns Ray is not the Sun itself- Language not religion
7. Father is not son because a Father gives birth to a son and so a father cannot give birth to himself.
8. Whatever is introduced into a womb of a woman to stay there for nine months and use umbilical cord to receive food from the mother without sex and trigger child birth is in vitro fertilization. Reality and not religion.
9, etc.
You said;
Not just in scholarly interpretations, but in the progression from the Qur’an itself – Meccan Surahs to Medinan Surahs with 9 as last – it is clear that it went from
I say;
That is not true because these peaceful verses are also from sura 9 but you refuse to mention
4. Except those of the Mushrikun with whom you have a treaty, and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor have supported anyone against you. So fulfill their treaty to them to the end of their term. Surely Allah loves Al- Mattaqun (the pious – see V.2:2).
6. And if anyone of the Mushrikun (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) seeks your protection then grant him protection, so that he may hear the Word of Allah (the Qur’an), and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men who know not.
Sura 2:9
And fight in (the) way (of) Allah those who fight you and (do) not transgress. Indeed, Allah (does) not like the transgressors
Thanks
LikeLike
Temple, you claim Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses, was the final blood sacrifice according to this law, was the high priest to deliver this sacrifice and so forth.
While at the same time Jesus has to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek, because he is disqualified from being a priest under mosaic law.
The order of Melchizedek needs no, operates without blood sacrifice!
Mega contradiction, mega fail.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken Temple
You said;
You said;
You guys have been saying “who are you to tell us Muslims what our religion is?” etc.
I could say the same thing about what you are saying about the Bible and Christianity
I say;
No Muslim ever quoted any person in the Bible and tell you what he thinks the person thinks unless it is clear. Like God is immortal which is clear, God cannot be seen which is clear, Paul of Tarsus said he abolished the law which is clear, Jesus said he has a God which is clear.
No Muslim have ever quoted Paul of Tarsus and said he thinks Paul of Tarsus meant this, or that or that, but all we are doing here is quote what Paul of Tarsus said that “the law have been abolished” and it is clear but not lie to him or we think that is what he meant but the phrase is clear.
So, to be fair we want you to quote from Quran or anywhere that said, “the peaceful verses are all abrogated” which you cannot find anywhere, instead of lecturing us Muslims on our religion that you think what Caliph Umar think and Umar and the other caliph never said “all peaceful verses are abrogated”, “We have to conquer all non Muslims and force convert them” etc. as you keep telling us here. We want proof and clear statement just like how we want a clear statement where Jesus Christ said clearly he is God, but not what somebody said about him or how his enemies the Jews thought he was. If you think I am a thief, it does not mean I a thief unless I confess and swear that I am a thief. Even that is not enough for a critical thinking person unless he sees me stealing he will not say I am a thief. What we keep asking Christians is to provide a clear statement that Jesus himself said he is God and they cannot and a recent debate between Justin Bas and Bart Erhman prove us right.
We cannot lecture you on what your religion is but we keep asking questions but you seem to be lecturing us about what you think Umar thinks and you think verses are abrogated without a proof of where it says in the Quran all peaceful verses are abrogated.
Thanks.
LikeLiked by 2 people
They are not known to have been abrogated, so they naturally hold. No reason exists at all to think that they have been overruled. Only Islamophobes use this kind of reasoning.
Ibn Kathir thought otherwise. So Ibn Kathir is an “Islamophobe” ?
from his commentary on Surah 9:5
“Abu Bakr As-Siddiq used this and other honorable Ayat as proof for fighting those who refrained from paying the Zakah. ”
. . .
“In the Two Sahihs, it is recorded that Ibn `Umar said that the Messenger of Allah said,
«أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَشْهَدُوا أَنْ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللهُ وَأَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُولُ اللهِ وَيُقِيمُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَيُؤْتُوا الزَّكَاة»
(I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer and pay the Zakah.) This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, “It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term.” Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas commented: “No idolator had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara’ah was revealed. The four months, in addition to, all peace treaties conducted before Bara’ah was revealed and announced had ended by the tenth of the month of Rabi` Al-Akhir.”
And from his commentary on 9:28-29:
(So let them not come near Al-Masjid Al-Haram (at Makkah) after this year.)” This Ayah indicates that idolators are impure and that the believers are pure. In the Sahih is the following,
«الْمُؤْمِنُ لَا يَنْجُس»
(The believer does not become impure.) Allah said,
﴿وَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ عَيْلَةً فَسَوْفَ يُغْنِيكُمُ اللَّهُ مِن فَضْلِهِ﴾
(and if you fear poverty, Allah will enrich you, out of His bounty.) Muhammad bin Ishaq commented, “The people said, `Our markets will be closed, our commerce disrupted, and what we earned will vanish.’
So Allah revealed this verse,
﴿وَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ عَيْلَةً فَسَوْفَ يُغْنِيكُمُ اللَّهُ مِن فَضْلِهِ﴾
(and if you fear poverty, Allah will enrich you, out of His bounty), from other resources,
﴿إِن شَآءَ﴾(if He wills), until,
﴿وَهُمْ صَـغِرُونَ﴾
(. ..and feel themselves subdued.) This Ayah means, `this will be your compensation for the closed markets that you feared would result.’ Therefore, Allah compensated them for the losses they incurred because they severed ties with idolators, by the Jizyah they earned from the People of the Book.”
Similar statements were reported from Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, `Ikrimah, Sa`id bin Jubayr, Qatadah and Ad-Dahhak and others. Allah said,
﴿إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلِيمٌ﴾
(Surely, Allah is All-Knowing), in what benefits you,
﴿حَكِيمٌ﴾
(All-Wise), in His orders and prohibitions, for He is All-Perfect in His actions and statements, All-Just in His creations and decisions, Blessed and Hallowed be He. This is why Allah compensated Muslims for their losses by the amount of Jizyah that they took from the people of Dhimmah.
embolding is mine for emphasis.
It seems clear that what Abu Bakr, and Omar DID in actions was based on that last Surah, no. 9 – Ibn Kathir even says it abrogated EVERY agreement of peace before with pagans – 9:5
and what Omar did by attacking the Byzantine Empire was for money because they feared poverty (9:28) since there were no more pagans to come to the Kaaba for pilgrimage and they could not charge them for that anymore.
LikeLike
Eric
I did spend a lot of time looking around at the links you provided. (Dr. Louay Fatoohi and Al Tabari) Thanks.
There is so much there, hard to digest in the amount of time right now.
As I said before, I am glad for the peaceful view of yours, and other commenters here, and most Muslims all over the world, and most in the west; but I wish it was more prevalent in the Islamic world today. It seems that when a secular dictator is taken out or weakened, the Jihadist terrorist types take over or cause lots of turmoil, confusion, and violence. (Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc.) It is truly sad for all the peaceful Syrians and others who are suffering under the Islamists, as in Nigeria under Boko Haram and Al Shabbab in Somolia and Kenya, etc. Thankfully, the people of Egypt rose up; and General Al Sissi had a better understanding of Islam, and Abdullah, king of Jordan.
Why doesn’t the view of Louay Fatoohi and Joel Hayward have any impact on Al Qaeda types and other Jihadist groups?
I am out of time for now have to go do other work.
LikeLike
Ibn Kathir was clear. He said that Surah 9:28-29 gave the reasons for attacking the people of Dhimmah (Christians and Jews) – ie, the Byzantine Empire, after the pagans were conquered in Arabia.
“if you fear poverty, Allah will reward you from other sources” (v. 28)
“fight the people of the book . . . until they submit and pay the Jiziyeh and are humiliated and brought low” (v. 29)
“This is why Allah compensated Muslims for their losses by the amount of Jizyah that they took from the people of Dhimmah.” Ibn Kathir
LikeLike
Ken Temple
Once again you are lecturing us as if we do not know our religion but you have been to Islamic University and have a degree in Islamic studies. What you said is repletion and I and brother Eric have refuted you 2 years and a year ago that the specifics of all that you quoted is for the pagans of Mecca who kept breaking their promise with the treaty with Muslims and that was the beginning of your favourite Sura 9, if you care to reference. It started with accusing the pagans of breaking treaties with Muslims and so Muslims must defend themselves and make sure there is no fitnah,
Thanks.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
I am out of time for now have to go do other work.
I say;
God bless your work. At least you did well despite your untruths. One Christian against more Muslims on their home ground. That is good, and I wish more Christian participate. Robert Wells was doing Well but have since been retired.
One Mountain Lion against Lions
One Snow Leopard against 10 Leopards
One pink Panther against Panthers
One Jaguar against Cheetahs
Joke
Thanks
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
As I said before, I am glad for the peaceful view of yours, and other commenters here, and most Muslims all over the world, and most in the west; but I wish it was more prevalent in the Islamic world today. It seems that when a secular dictator is taken out or weakened, the Jihadist terrorist types take over or cause lots of turmoil, confusion, and violence. (Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc.) It is truly sad for all the peaceful Syrians and others who are suffering under the Islamists, as in Nigeria under Boko Haram and Al Shabbab in Somolia and Kenya, etc. Thankfully, the people of Egypt rose up; and General Al Sissi had a better understanding of Islam, and Abdullah, king of Jordan.
We said;for
We also thank you for acknowledging most Muslims are peaceful and we do not believe the peaceful verses in the Quran are abrogated and the fighting verses are for an inevitable war when attacked, like how Netanyahu and evangelical Christians are pushing for war with Iran because it is using the UN right to develop nuclear for peaceful use as in electricity, medicine etc. like how US, Japan, Canada etc. and all nations of the world are using.
Yes, Most Muslims do not support or like Boko, isis, Al Shabbab and they came out clearly to condemn their act and some are using their military to strike them. Recently, Egypt attacked isis for killing its Christian native citizens and most notable imams have condemned this groups and keep condemning them and Muslims loosing their lives to fight them. Iraqi Muslim broad caster cried on camera for what isis was doing to his Christian brothers. Muslims clearly do not like violence but in any community we have Satanic one like boko and the rest. The Christian terrorist equivalent is the evangelical Christians who are contributing money to Israel to bomb UN compound full of babies and women like what the Bible said, destroying Palestinian farmlands, Churches, Mosques etc. for Jewish only neighbourhood and those who use the attack of innocent civilians to attack Islam such as David Wood and Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, John Hagee, Jack Van Impe etc.
So, Mr. Ken, it will be good for these Christian terrorist be recognised and condemned by politicians in the US, instead of telling them to insult our prophet for freedom of speech but cannot say anything about any Jew in this world even though a terrorist Jew few weeks ago burnt a Palestinian home with women and babies all dead. Cnn and fox news never reported such case but will report stone throwing Palestinians youths as terrorists.
We are blaming all sides but the US media and politicians are only focusing on one side. Peace will prevail if the two extreme sides are recognized and controlled.
Thanks.
LikeLike
With the name of Allah Most Gracious Most Merciful
Temple,
Of course Ibn Kathir is not Islamophobe, your misuse of his works is!
If you are able to read Ibn Kathir directly you must get the correct understanding that specific nature of the context of those ayahs is— the purification of Mecca from polytheistic and idolatrous pilgrimages and rituals .
Ibn Kathir NEVER said that the ayahs of at Taubah abrogate all peaceful verses ever previously revealed to the prophet.
Here is the original quote of Ibn Kathir tafsier:
حَدَّثَنَا إسْحَاق بْن إِبْرَاهِيم أَنْبَأَنَا حَكَّام بْن سَلَمَة حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو جَعْفَر الرَّازِيّ بِهِ سَوَاء وَهَذِهِ الْآيَة الْكَرِيمَة هِيَ آيَة السَّيْف الَّتِي قَالَ فِيهَا الضَّحَّاك بْن مُزَاحِم أَنَّهَا نَسَخَتْ كُلّ عَهْد بَيْن النَّبِيّ صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَبَيْن أَحَد مِنْ الْمُشْرِكِينَ وَكُلّ عَقْد وَكُلّ مُدَّة
وَقَالَ الْعَوْفِيّ عَنْ اِبْن عَبَّاس فِي هَذِهِ الْآيَة : لَمْ يَبْقَ لِأَحَدٍ مِنْ الْمُشْرِكِينَ عَهْد وَلَا ذِمَّة مُنْذُ نَزَلَتْ بَرَاءَة وَانْسِلَاخ الْأَشْهُر الْحُرُم وَمُدَّة مَنْ كَانَ لَهُ عَهْد مِنْ الْمُشْرِكِينَ قَبْل أَنْ تَنْزِل بَرَاءَة أَرْبَعَة أَشْهُر مِنْ يَوْم أَذَّنَ بِبَرَاءَة إِلَى عَشْر مِنْ أَوَّل شَهْر رَبِيع الْآخِ
Check the whole tafsir on the verses here
http://library.islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?idfrom=635&idto=635&bk_no=49&ID=646
Here my own translation, (words in bracket is mine):
…..Described by Ishak bin Ibrahim, told by Hakam bin salamah described by abu ja’far arraji either one of them is verse of the sword which according to Ad-Dahhâk bin Muzâhim cancel every TREATY AGREEMENT , AND EVERY TERM (with the pagans).” Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas commented: “the pagans had no more agreement or promise of safety ever since this exemption was revealed. The four months, in addition to, all peace treaties conducted before exemption was revealed and announced had ended by the tenth of the month of Rabi` Al-Akhir.’…
So here Ibn Kathir quoted an earlier authority, Ad-Dahhâk bin Muzâhim, who only stated that the verse of the sword cancelled out every treaty which HAD GRANTED PILGRIMAGE RIGHTS TO ARAB PAGANS TO TRAVEL ALONG ISLAMIC ROUTES, enter Mecca.
Because of Ibn Kathir referred to (based on Ad-Dahhâk bin Muzâhim) something of the verse “cancelling” something, Islamophobes mistakenly/deliberately extrapolates this to claim, baselessly, that this one single verse abrogate all earlier inter-faith practices and arrangements and forever negatively changed attitudes to non-Muslims in general.
This is NOT !!
So here we have:
1)The cancellation narrated by one source Ad-Dahhâk bin Muzâhim al Hilali, a Kufan mufassir NOT Ibn Kathir
2)What he meant was the cancellation of this single verse ONLY refer to SPECIFIC agreement which previously allow pagans to enter Mecca and perform rituals there.
Of course the pagans brought their polytheistic rituals to Kaaba and thats IMPURE and must not be allowed to enter the holy Mosque.
So I will forgive you if your ignorance is because of limited understanding in Islamic scholarship and arabic but I won’t be that generous if you get the understanding by citing materials from Islam hater like R. Spencer or Shameoun??
LikeLike
The link to Ibn Kathir tafseer on the verse should be here: http://quran.al-islam.com/Page.aspx?pageid=221&BookID=11&Page=187
apologize for the mistake.
LikeLike
With the name of Allah the Gracious the Merciful
KT //Ibn Kathir was clear. He said that Surah 9:28-29 gave the reasons for attacking the people of Dhimmah (Christians and Jews) – ie, the Byzantine Empire, after the pagans were conquered in Arabia.//
Where is this “reason for ATTACKING” can you give me the exact sentence from Ibn Kathir? do you make this up or do you get this from spencer or uneducated shameoun??
Again 9:28-29 refer to the specific agreement with the pagans which the Prophet had previously made , the Hudaybiyah. After this verses, pagans were prevented from performing religious rituals or pilgrimages in or around the newly purified sanctuary in Mecca. Ayah 29 thus also refers to the cleansing of Mecca and its environs as well as to the need to secure the borders of the Arabian Peninsula from greater external powers which might smother the Islamic ummah (community) in its infancy.
It was an important move in Islamic history, from there on the holy Mosque were liberated and only pure monotheist practice are allowed
The Jizya and dhmmi is a just and right , theseare a sign of Islamic tolerance , it is a fee for protection provided by the Muslim state for the non muslim who were being an exemption from military service,
Historian Thomas Arnold gives the example of the tribe of al-Jurajima, a Christian tribe in the neighborhood of Antioch who “made peace with the Muslims, promising to be their allies and fight on their side in battle, on condition that they should not be called upon to pay jizyah and should receive their proper share of the booty.
“As stated above, the jizyah was levied on the able-bodied males, in lieu of the military service they would have been called upon to perform had they been Musalmans ; and it is very noticeable that when any Christian people served in the Muslim army, they were exempted from the payment of this tax”
Source:
http://www.forgottenbooks.com/readbook_text/The_Preaching_of_Islam_1000005744/71
So Jizyah works exactly the same way modern state function, there is nothing humiliating about it. Can you find similar measure for non-christians during christian rule, byzantine, rome?
You have none!
LikeLike
Bismillah
KT //I did spend a lot of time looking around at the links you provided. (Dr. Louay Fatoohi and Al Tabari) Thanks.
There is so much there, hard to digest in the amount of time right now.
Why doesn’t the view of Louay Fatoohi and Joel Hayward have any impact on Al Qaeda types and other Jihadist groups?//
I pray that you are sincere in pursuing the truth and God give you His guidance.
Throughout human civilisation , those modern days violent groups committed in the name of Islam(btw I don’t like your term “Jihadi” because Jihad is for good cause and no association with negative violence) contribute small fraction in time.
As a sunni muslim who seriously study and practice Islam for 30 years or so and , I can say nothing Islamic in those groups. The root cause is the injustice . The stability in the middle east as is a direct result of western policy and colonialism. From hundred years of colonialism , subduing most of muslims countries now they messed up the mideast , by supporting regimes not by the will of people , illegal invasion , divide and proxy rule. that kind of policy. The civilian casualties suffered by muslims are far higher than those casualties violent groups, but most western media and evangelical christian don’t mention it but continue to blame Islam.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Eric bin Kisam/Ken Temple
You said;
With the name of Allah the Gracious the Merciful
KT //Ibn Kathir was clear. He said that Surah 9:28-29 gave the reasons for attacking the people of Dhimmah (Christians and Jews) – ie, the Byzantine Empire, after the pagans were conquered in Arabia.//
Where is this “reason for ATTACKING” can you give me the exact sentence from Ibn Kathir? do you make this up or do you get this from spencer or uneducated shameoun??
Again 9:28-29 refer to the specific agreement with the pagans which the Prophet had previously made , the Hudaybiyah. After this verses, pagans were prevented from performing religious rituals or pilgrimages in or around the newly purified sanctuary in Mecca. Ayah 29 thus also refers to the cleansing of Mecca and its environs as well as to the need to secure the borders of the Arabian Peninsula from greater external powers which might smother the Islamic ummah (community) in its infancy.
It was an important move in Islamic history, from there on the holy Mosque were liberated and only pure monotheist practice are allowed
The Jizya and dhmmi is a just and right , theseare a sign of Islamic tolerance , it is a fee for protection provided by the Muslim state for the non muslim who were being an exemption from military service,
I say;
The Christians have a great double standards when attacking Islam. Any little thing they see in Islamic literature that said, cancel, fight, Jizya, abrogate etc. they will say we got this Muslims and start to use it against Islam, even though they know very well what it means and does not mean what they try to say but they will use it because they cannot find any bad against Islam so the try their lies.
Sura 9 is their favourite because there is fight, attack etc. in the verse. And they know very well it says “attack those who attack you”, “Fight those who do not honour their treaty with you” etc. they Christians missionary will ignore this.
I do not know if Ken Temple will allow idol worshiper to bring his idols into his Church and worships it there. He Ken Temple and all Christian missionaries will not allow idol worshiping in their Churches but they attack Islam head on for refusing to allow the Pagan Arabs to bring their idols in the Kaaba.
Ken Temple will not even allow his own fellow Christians the Catholics who the largest Christian denomination than his protestant to worship in his(Ken Temple) Churches because he consider the Catholics as not Christians and the Catholic consider then and other denomination as not Christians and they started to exterminate and annihilate each other in the west until the atheist, liberals and agnostic overpowered the Christians because they are busy persecuting themselves and the rule of law, freedom of religion etc. was established by the liberals.
Ken Temple, Jay Smith etc. will say the freedom in the west is because of Christians values and Ken even went further and claimed the tolerance of war opponents that can be clearly found in Islam and which cannot be found anywhere in Christianity is a Christian document and cannot be found in Christianity with all due respect.
Ken, if you are sincere and honest person, you will commend Islam for this one for not allowing idol worship in a holy place where only a monotheism God of Abraham must be worshiped but you sided with the idol worshipers here in other to worship idols in Mosque, Synagogue and Church, but you will not allow that to happen. This is hypocrisy.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
Thankfully, the people of Egypt rose up; and General Al Sissi had a better understanding of Islam, and Abdullah, king of Jordan.
I say;
Al Sissi is just like the former dictator Hosni Mubarak. During the Muslim brotherhood rule, people can come out to demonstrate. They Egyptians cannot come and demonstrate now under Sissi and they will be shot and killed. Have you witnessed any demonstration under Sissi? No. The few ones ended in bloody and fatal shootings and death caused by Sissi’s regime. So, it is unfortunate for you Ken to be happy about Sissi’s regime because he will say yes to whatever Israel and the US say.
King Abdullah of Jordan is just a puppet of the US and Israel and their people do not like their policies. General Sissi is just a dictator and no one can demonstrate but that does not mean he has a better understandings of Islam. General Sissi is not an Islamic government but a puppet of US and Israel who will crush any decent view.
Caliph Umar is the one who has better understanding of Islam, because he protected the Christians and Jews and all non Muslims and Muslims alike under his rule and protected Churches, Temples and Mosques that are standing in the Holy Land today.
Thanks
LikeLike
Salam akhi Abbas,
I share your sentiment. Unfortunately some Christians are systematically taught that Islam and Muslims as inherently evil as a result they’ll never be able to See or hear Islam’s message (which is in fact in sync with most fundamental biblical narrative) objectively and always from negative side of it.
LikeLike
As-Sa‘di (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path” [al-Baqarah 2:256] means: once the one becomes distinct from the other, there is no room for compulsion, because compulsion can only be in the case of an issue the soundness and merits of which are not clear. But once it is clear that well-being and happiness in this world and in the Hereafter are connected to it, then what reason can there be for compulsion?
Something similar may be said concerning the verse “And say: ‘The truth is from your Lord.’ Then whosoever wills, let him believe, and whosoever wills, let him disbelieve” [al-Kahf 18:29]., i.e., this is the truth that clear evidence demonstrates is true, so that whoever wants to believe may do so and let whoever wants to disbelieve may do so.” Tafseer as-Sa‘di, p. 954.
Ibn Qudaamah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “If one whom it is not permissible to compel is compelled to enter Islam, such as a dhimmi (non-Muslim living under Muslim rule) or a non-Muslim who has been granted security, he is not deemed to be a Muslim unless he shows signs of having become Muslim voluntarily. ” al-Mughni, 10/96. the Christian historian Al-Makin notes: The Prophet of Islam has said: “Whoever torments the dhimmis, torments me.” Historia Saracenica, page 11
I found following articles to be very interesting on the subject of abrogation.
http://www.newislamicdirections.com/nid/articles/answers_to_would-be_mujahids
http://www.arabwestreport.info/en/year-2008/week-49/5-no-compulsion-religion-abrogated
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Intellect” wrote:
Ken Temple will not even allow his own fellow Christians the Catholics who the largest Christian denomination than his protestant to worship in his(Ken Temple) Churches because he consider the Catholics as not Christians and the Catholic consider then and other denomination as not Christians and they started to exterminate and annihilate each other in the west until the atheist, liberals and agnostic overpowered the Christians because they are busy persecuting themselves and the rule of law, freedom of religion etc. was established by the liberals.
Not true. Any Roman Catholic is welcome to come to our church or any other biblical church. We don’t have any pictures or statues of Mary, so they won’t do any of that idolatry. They can sing, pray, and worship in their hearts and listen to the sermons and Bible study.
My focus is not: “catholics are not Christians” – rather, my focus is “Roman Catholicism is not Biblical Christianity” – Roman Catholicism is a heresy that developed after 500 AD by adding things such as:
Priests – no such office in the New Testament. All Christians are priests. ( I Peter 2:4-10)
An office called “Pope = bishop of Rome is over all other Bishops”. Developed very slowly, one can reasonable argue from 600 AD onward.
Purgatory (600 AD and beyond – especially Gregory 1, bishop of Rome)
Exalting Mary too much, praying to her, statues and picture of her; and bowing down and talking to the statues and pictures and kissing them.
Transubstantiation – developed from 800 AD – 1215 AD; proclaimed as dogma in 1215 AD.
Indulgences – giving people a written certificate that their sins are forgiven and they get time out of purgatory if they went and fought in the Crusades against Muslims. That was really really wrong!! (developed from 1095 AD to 1517, when Luther protested it.) Wycliffe ( 1300s) and Jan Hus (1400s) before Luther protested this also.
Denial of Justification by Faith Alone by the Council of Trent – 1545-1563.
Mary dogmas – 1854 – sinless, immaculately conceived
1870 – Papal Infallibility
1950 – the bodily Assumption of Mary proclaimed as dogma
NONE of those doctrines, dogmas, or practices are in the Bible at all.
Protestants also consider themselves little c, “catholic” ( meaning universal) and see their roots also in 0-500 AD.
LikeLike
A good book to study to see the Roman Catholic doctrines and dogmas are not even in the early centuries of Christianity.
http://www.amazon.com/Church-Rome-at-Bar-History/dp/0851517102
LikeLike
“The Bible is much more violent than the Quran.”
I don’t know if what I’m about to say has been mentioned above or not, the comments were way too long to read but anyway…
The bible is not necessarily more violent than the Quran. It’s true that it has more violent passages than the Quran but you have to take into consideration that the bible is a much larger book. If you used a percentage comparison for number of violent passages to the total number of verses it may be that the Quran turns out higher. In fact, someone has done this before and that’s what they found.
You’ve probably heard of skeptics annotated Bible/Quran: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/bible_quran.html
Bare in mind this guy despises the bible so there is no bias in his analysis. The only subjective part would of course be what verses/passages should be considered violent for each book, and also which passages are more violent than others e.g. Is 1 Samuel 15 more violent/cruel than Surah 9:29 or 98:6?
LikeLike
obviously the commandments to commit genocide are found in a numerous places in the Bible but are completely absent from the Quran.
That settles the matter.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
“Intellect” wrote:
Ken Temple will not even allow his own fellow Christians the Catholics who the largest Christian denomination than his protestant to worship in his(Ken Temple) Churches because he consider the Catholics as not Christians and the Catholic consider then and other denomination as not Christians and they started to exterminate and annihilate each other in the west until the atheist, liberals and agnostic overpowered the Christians because they are busy persecuting themselves and the rule of law, freedom of religion etc. was established by the liberals.
Not true. Any Roman Catholic is welcome to come to our church or any other biblical church. We don’t have any pictures or statues of Mary, so they won’t do any of that idolatry. They can sing, pray, and worship in their hearts and listen to the sermons and Bible study.
I say;
Will you allow a Catholic Christian to bring the statue of virgin Mary in your Church and bowing to it? Will you allow a Catholic Christian to bring the body of Jesus Christ in your Church and eat it? Will you allow a Catholic Christian in your Church to forgive sins?
You will not allow your fellow Christian to the above in your Church, but to hypocritically accuse Muslims for not allowing idols anymore in the Kaaba, a first place of worship prophet Abraham built for the worship of only one true God of him(Abraham).
You do not have any evidence that says “force convert the non Muslims, if you over power them”, rather their are clear verses that said, “there is no compulsion in religion”, “You unto your religion and my unto my religion”, “Lead the non Muslim to a safe place, if he seek your help and protection, so that he may hear the word of Allah”-May hear the word of Allah means he can decide not to hear, and no one can do anything to him, according to the verse.
These and many others are all clear verses and there is no proof from the Quran itself or from our prophet that said these clear verses are abrogated. Christian missionaries developing their theory of “abrogating peaceful verses” which is not in the Quran or from our prophet is unfounded callous and wicked.
Logically, when the Muslims were a minority, you do not expect them to retaliate or fight their attackers, but if they are now many, you do expect a permission to be given to then to “fight those who fight them” which is clearly stated in the Quran.
Muslim God is a true God for he will say the truthful command “fight those who fight you” so that people can defend themselves and will not sit down and allow their old, young and women and sick to be killed and raped by an opposing faction.
It makes sense than the Christian lies of “turn the other cheek” which does not sound like it came from God because if someone is attacking me, why and how should I turn the other cheek? Not to defend myself? If I can? In order to defend myself? and my family and my population? so that an enemy will finish me off and rape my family?
“Turn the other cheek” in Christianity does not make sense may a Christian can explain why it is better than Muslims “fight those who fight you and drove you from your homes and destroy Churches, synagogues and Mosques”.
Thanks
LikeLike