Islam forbids

[Mr.Fitnah]

I got the same thing from your post. Kind of hard to ignore when it comes straight from Islams holy scriptures, isn't it?

There's one holy scripture, the Qur'an, which I'm undoubtedly more familiar with than you and your friends here. I bring that up not to brag or be a blowhard - it's simply a matter of fact. I've read a number of major hadith collections, commentaries, and so-called biographies as well; I simply happen to reject most of them because they are not congruous with the message of the Qur'an. Having an uninformed individual like yourself tell me that I'm unable to comprehend the book I study daily makes me wonder whether you actually think before hitting "submit."

You all have been reduced to cutting and pasting arguments from radical heretics and making ridiculous comments like yours above.

So you are one of those progressives?, that may have to contend with the fundamentalists? Do you follow Mohammeds examples?

Oh and by the way, what about the verse of the sword, that abrogates/nullified the peace verses?

If you call posting Holy Islamic scriptures reducing, then OK

He ignores abrogation despite what the Quran states

16:101. And when We change a Verse [of the Qur'ân, i.e. cancel (abrogate) its order] in place of another, and Allâh knows the best of what He sends down, they (the disbelievers) say: "You (O Muhammad SAW) are but a Muftari! (forger, liar)." Nay, but most of them know not.

2:106. Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allâh is able to do all things?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Reading comprehension must not be your strong point.

I got the same thing from your post. Kind of hard to ignore when it comes straight from Islams holy scriptures, isn't it?

There's one holy scripture, the Qur'an, which I'm undoubtedly more familiar with than you and your friends here. I bring that up not to brag or be a blowhard - it's simply a matter of fact. I've read a number of major hadith collections, commentaries, and so-called biographies as well; I simply happen to reject most of them because they are not congruous with the message of the Qur'an. Having an uninformed individual like yourself tell me that I'm unable to comprehend the book I study daily makes me wonder whether you actually think before hitting "submit."

You all have been reduced to cutting and pasting arguments from radical heretics and making ridiculous comments like yours above.

Reading comprehension must not be your strong point.
The problem is you dont like Islam, so you have to throw a great deal of the founding documents under the bus makes you look pretty damn silly. Over a billion and a half mainstream muslims think you are a heritic.
They have the scripture and the moral high ground.
I dont know why you have to attack muslims to defend Islam.

 

[Kalam]

So you are one of those progressives?, that may have to contend with the fundamentalists? Do you follow Mohammeds examples?

I'm a Muslim that has to contend with radicals, a task made more difficult by supporters of theirs such as Fitnah and you.

Oh and by the way, what about the verse of the sword, that abrogates/nullified the peace verses?

I have made a post disproving abrogation that nobody has been able to address. Fitnah still hasn't realized that the very arguments he attempts to make against it have already been disproved.

 

[PixieStix]

There's one holy scripture, the Qur'an, which I'm undoubtedly more familiar with than you and your friends here. I bring that up not to brag or be a blowhard - it's simply a matter of fact. I've read a number of major hadith collections, commentaries, and so-called biographies as well; I simply happen to reject most of them because they are not congruous with the message of the Qur'an. Having an uninformed individual like yourself tell me that I'm unable to comprehend the book I study daily makes me wonder whether you actually think before hitting "submit."

You all have been reduced to cutting and pasting arguments from radical heretics and making ridiculous comments like yours above.

So you are one of those progressives?, that may have to contend with the fundamentalists? Do you follow Mohammeds examples?

Oh and by the way, what about the verse of the sword, that abrogates/nullified the peace verses?

If you call posting Holy Islamic scriptures reducing, then OK

He ignores abrogation despite what the Quran states

16:101. And when We change a Verse [of the Qur'ân, i.e. cancel (abrogate) its order] in place of another, and Allâh knows the best of what He sends down, they (the disbelievers) say: "You (O Muhammad SAW) are but a Muftari! (forger, liar)." Nay, but most of them know not.

2:106. Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allâh is able to do all things?

So basically those who say this is not so, are also saying mohammed is a liar. Or are they being silent because they know it is true

 

[PixieStix]

So you are one of those progressives?, that may have to contend with the fundamentalists? Do you follow Mohammeds examples?

I'm a Muslim that has to contend with radicals, a task made more difficult by supporters of theirs such as Fitnah and you.

Oh and by the way, what about the verse of the sword, that abrogates/nullified the peace verses?

I have made a post disproving abrogation that nobody has been able to address. Fitnah still hasn't realized that the very arguments he attempts to make against it have already been disproved.

With all due respect Kalam. I did not see anywhere in this thread where you disproved abrogation. Please point out in scripture where you have proven your point. Mr. Fitnah showed scripture.

Maybe I missed it, but I saw none from you, that proves no such thing

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

So you are one of those progressives?, that may have to contend with the fundamentalists? Do you follow Mohammeds examples?

I'm a Muslim that has to contend with radicals, a task made more difficult by supporters of theirs such as Fitnah and you.

Oh and by the way, what about the verse of the sword, that abrogates/nullified the peace verses?

I have made a post disproving abrogation that nobody has been able to address. Fitnah still hasn't realized that the very arguments he attempts to make against it have already been disproved.

With all due respect Kalam. I did not see anywhere in this thread where you disproved abrogation. Please point out in scripture where you have proven your point. Mr. Fitnah showed scripture.

Maybe I missed it, but I saw none from you, that proves no such thing

Who are you going to believe "kalam" or your own lying eyes?

 

[PixieStix]

I'm a Muslim that has to contend with radicals, a task made more difficult by supporters of theirs such as Fitnah and you.


I have made a post disproving abrogation that nobody has been able to address. Fitnah still hasn't realized that the very arguments he attempts to make against it have already been disproved.

With all due respect Kalam. I did not see anywhere in this thread where you disproved abrogation. Please point out in scripture where you have proven your point. Mr. Fitnah showed scripture.

Maybe I missed it, but I saw none from you, that proves no such thing

Who are you going to believe "kalam" or your own lying eyes?

I can't hide my lyin eyes

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

The traders driving the caravans were innocent traders.

They were part of the Makkan power structure. After Makkah seized the property of the Muslims, I doubt any delusions were harbored about the Muslims not retaliating.

Really how could they tell they attacked them at night.
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 256:
Narrated As-Sab bin Jaththama:
The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet
replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." I also heard the Prophet saying, "The institution of Hima is invalid except for Allah and His Apostle."

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

No your opinion might mean something if it had intellectual force based on consistent scriptural interpretation, known history, backed up by the"prophet"

My opinions meet all of these criteria. Nothing else matters.

Concerning "known history," do explain this and how it would be permissible under your particularly violent interpretation of Islam:

"Constitution" of Medina (Dustur al-Madinah)

Your opinion matters to you, we have firmly established you are far outside mainstream Islamic thought.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Who gives a shit what Islam says or doesn't say and who gives a flying fuck what Christianity or Judaism says (in all cases you can find some appalling shit) ...

Many muslims like to say "Islam forbids the killing of innocent people", I'm asking for someone to prove unequivocally using Islamic scripture that non muslims are innocent, Thanks for reading my post.

And I am asking you, why are we even having all those Islam-related discussions today? Can you tell me the exact reason why?

Because Islam calls for my death , and the destruction of the country that I love and I object.

 

[Kalam]

Well in fact it does, never the lessit fails to prove unequivocally using Islamic scripture that non muslims are innocent.

That is because we were discussing the myth of "satanic verses." Memory problems?

The Quran is the only scripture to the dozen or so members of your deviant sect and other slightly larger deviant quran only sects.

No true Muslim views any work as highly as the Qur'an. I do not wholly reject everything else; I see ahadith, biographies, and similar texts as the peripheral works that they are. The message of the Qur'an must be used to test the legitimacy of every one of these claims and report. They're worth nothing if they contradict the Qur'an, regardless of who wrote or compiled them.

So there is no reason or way to refute those who reject mainstream Islam.

That is because our ideology is logical and can be easily defended by anyone familiar with the Qur'an.

I will leave that to believers and their swords

I have no shortage of pens.

If it were not for the sunnah

And since the Quran is the only scripture in Islam

33:21. Indeed in the Messenger of Allâh (Muhammad ) you have a good example to follow for him who hopes in (the Meeting with) Allâh and the Last Day and remembers Allâh much.

Muslims would not know how to follow the good example with a few exceptions
8:67. It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allâh desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allâh is All-Mighty, All-Wise.

There exists some misunderstanding as to the meaning of yuthkhina used here. Thakhuna means he or it became thick, and athkhana means ghalaba, he overcame (LA). The same word is again used in the Holy Qur’ån exactly in the same sense: “then, when you have overcome them, make them prisoners” (47:4). On the authority of certain reports, the commentators are of opinion that this verse and the next refer to releasing the prisoners of war taken at Badr after taking ransom from them, which act, it is said, is here disapproved. But various considerations show that these verses refer to some other incidents. Firstly, the condition laid down here for taking prisoners is that the Prophet should fight against the enemy, and that had actually been done at Badr. Secondly, the taking of prisoners and their release on this very occasion is justified in clear words only two verses further on, “O Prophet, say to those of the captives who are in your hands: If Allåh knows anything good in your hearts, He will give you better than that which has been taken from you” (v. 70). This shows that these verses were revealed when the prisoners were still in the hands of the Muslims and that which has been taken is clearly the ransom, which must have taken many days to reach Madßnah. If the verse had conveyed a Divine commandment to slay the prisoners and not to release them, that step could still have been taken. But the very fact that no such step was taken shows clearly that the verse conveyed no such Divine commandment. The legality of the Holy Prophet’s procedure on this occasion is clearly borne out by an earlier revelation: “So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, smite the necks; then, when you have overcome them, make them prisoners, and afterwards set them free as a favour or for ransom” (47:4). The Prophet never slew a single prisoner of war, even after the battle of Badr, though thousands of prisoners were taken in some of these battles. On the other hand, the prisoners were almost always set free as a favour, and ransom was taken only from the Badr prisoners. The question is, what is then hinted at in this verse and in the one that follows? To me it seems quite clear that the reference is to the desire (mark the word desire used in the verse) — not to an action already completed — of a party of the Muslims referred to in v. 7, and you loved that the one not armed should be yours. Some Muslims desired to attack and capture the unarmed caravan, but depredations like these, though committed by disbelievers upon the Muslims, were not fit for a prophet. He must fight a hard fight in his defence first and then, if he overcomes the enemy, he may take prisoners. Thus this injunction also declares slavery to be illegal, and allows only the retaining of those who are taken prisoners in war. The frail goods of this world appropriately refer to the caravan and its merchandise, while the addition of the concluding words in v. 69, eat then of the lawful and good things which you have acquired in war, shows that the ransom received on account of the prisoners is among the lawful and good things.
​

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1360829-post223.html as "Kalam" here makes excuses for the murder and mayhem Mohammad resorted to .
"Kalam" and Mohammad justifying the murder of random innocent people because they may be angry hungry and poor.

I have justified nothing more than the forcible removal of oppressors by the oppressed.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

You want me to quote Qur'anic scripture saying that non-Muslims are innocent merely by virtue of their being non-Islamic? Does that not seem like an illogical thing for the Qur'an to say, Mr. al-Kafir?

One would assume that the Quran and other Islamic scripture would be the source of Islamic thought.
Since many muslims like to say Islam forbids the killing of innocent people ,
Islam denounces terrorism.com
It is reasonable to try to determine who exactly they are speaking of These innocent people.

Presumably it refers to killing any person who hasn't committed murder or some similarly heinous crime, as mentioned by Moses (AS) in 18:74. The definition of innocent could be extended further to encompass all people who have not initiated hostilities. This is based on the message of non-aggression, holding true to pacts, and purely defensive retaliation described in 2:190, 2:194, 9:1, 9:4, 9:7, 26:227, 42:39, 42:41, and elsewhere. Islam does not permit aggression or the initiation of hostilities in general.

Sounds like something more than defensive to me.

8:39

And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world[]]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do
2:193.
And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allâh) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allâh (Alone).[] But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc193

Index of /what-is-islam/quran/noble

Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir

Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir

Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir

 

[Kalam]

So you are one of those progressives?, that may have to contend with the fundamentalists? Do you follow Mohammeds examples?

I'm a Muslim that has to contend with radicals, a task made more difficult by supporters of theirs such as Fitnah and you.

Oh and by the way, what about the verse of the sword, that abrogates/nullified the peace verses?

I have made a post disproving abrogation that nobody has been able to address. Fitnah still hasn't realized that the very arguments he attempts to make against it have already been disproved.

With all due respect Kalam. I did not see anywhere in this thread where you disproved abrogation. Please point out in scripture where you have proven your point. Mr. Fitnah showed scripture.

Maybe I missed it, but I saw none from you, that proves no such thing

It was not in this thread, though I've referred Fitnah to it a number of times and have yet to receive an adequate response from him. Maybe you'll have better luck.

Yes, Muslims always pull this crap out too.

Keep in mind the Koran is arranged according to the size of the books, but that the newer additions ALWAYS supercede the older.

There is no such thing as abrogation in the Qur'an. The Qur'an itself makes this clear in 4:82 - "Will they not then meditate on the Qur’an? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy." Moreover, two of the three suwar I cited, al-Baqara and al-Anfal, were revealed in Madinah, after hostilities had already commenced between the Muslims and the persecuting Quraish. Al-Baqara in particular contains most of the Qur'an's guidance pertaining to dealing with enemies. The only verse I cited that was revealed in Makkah was one of the last revealed in that city, after the Quraish had been actively persecuting the Muslims there for some time. If any of the verses I referred to are "superceded" as you suggest, please show me the verses that supposedly take precedence over them. In 1936, Muslim leader and scholar Maulana Muhammad Ali wrote the following on the subject of abrogation:

That certain verses of the Qur'an are abrogated by others is now an exploded theory. The two passages on which it was supposed to rest, refer, really, to the abrogation, not of the Qur'an but of the previous revelations whose place the Holy Book had taken. The first verse is contained in the sixteenth chapter (al-Nahl) - a Makkah revelation - and runs thus: "And when We change a message for a message, - and Allah knows best what He reveals - they say: Thou art only a forger" (16:101). It is a fact that details of the Islamic law were revealed at Madinah and it is in relation to these details that the theory of abrogation has been broached. Therefore, a Makkah revelation would not speak of abrogation. But the reference in the above verse is to the abrogation, not of the Qur'anic verses but of the previous Divine messages or revelations, consequent upon revelation of the Qur'an. The context shows this clearly to be the case, for the opponents are here made to say that the Prophet was a forger. He was so accused by the opponents not because he announced the abrogation of certain verses in the Qur'an but because he claimed that the Qur'an was a divine revelation which had taken the place of previous revelations. They argued that it was not a revelation at all: "Only a mortal teaches him" (16:103). According to them the whole of the Qur'an, and not merely a particular verse of it, was a forgery. The theory of abrogation, therefore, cannot be based on this verse which speaks only of one revelation or one law taking the place of another.

The other verse which is supposed to lend support to the theory runs thus: "Whatever message we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or one like it" (2:106). A reference to the context will show that the Jews or the followers of previous revelations are here addressed. Of these it is said: "they say: We believe in that which was revealed to us; and they deny what is besides that" (2:91). So they were told that if a certain revelation was abrogated, it was only to give place to a better one. And there is mention not only of abrogation but also of something that was forgotten. The words "or cause to be forgotten" cannot refer to the Qur'an at all because no portion of it could be said to have been forgotten so as to require a new revelation in its place. There is no point in supposing that God should make the Prophet forget a verse and then reveal a new one in its place. Why not, if he really had forgotten a verse, remind him of the one forgotten? But even if it is supposed that his memory ever failed in retaining (which really never happened), that verse was quite safely preserved in writing, and the mere failure of memory could not necessitate a new revelation. That the Prophet never forgot what was recited to him is plainly stated in the Qur'an: "We shall make the recite, so thou shalt not forget" (87:6). History also bears out the fact that he never forgot any portion of the Qur'anic revelation. Sometimes the whole of a very long chapter would be revealed to him in one portion, as in the case of the sixth chapter which extends over twenty sections, but he would cause it to be written without delay, and make his companions learn it by heart, and recite it in public prayers, and that without the change of even a letter, notwithstanding the fact that he himself could not read from a written copy, nor did the written copies, as a rule, remain in his possession. It was a miracle indeed that he never forgot any portion of the Qur'an, though other things he might forget, and it is to his forgetfulness in other things that the words except what Allah pleases, in the next verse (87:7), refer. On the other hand, it is a fact that parts of the older revelations had been utterly lost and forgotten, and thus the Qur'an was needed to take the place of that which was abrogated, and that which had been forgotten by the world.

Almost without exception, it is only the older books which call for peace...because at the times being written about, Mohommed was a minority and struggling to come up through the ranks. As he became a more powerful warlord, his directives became quite a bit less warm and fuzzy, and always with the direction that when the books are in conflict, always go by the newest one.

The message of the Qur'an is consistent throughout its entirety. As I said, all of the verses I cited were revealed after the worst of the persecution faced by Muhammad and his followers had begun. Your abrogation argument was proved false quite some time ago.

Guess what? The more recent books are not about peace, love and honor. They are about butchery, lying, and war.

Guess what? That, like most of your half-baked remarks, is untrue.

The next-to-last surah to be revealed tells Muslims to respect their alliances with disbelievers. The surah immediately preceding that tells us that if someone kills an innocent person, "it is as though he had killed all men." It also explains that all people who believe and do good, not just Muslims, will be rewarded. So much for "butchery, lying, and war." You don't know anything about Islam or the Qur'an; you merely regurgitate the ridiculous bullshit fed to you by ignorant Islamophobes.

 

[Kalam]

Did you hold a magnet too close to your head or something? Why are you attempting to respond to the same posts twice with the same meaningless answers?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

No true Muslim views any work as highly as the Qur'an. I do not wholly reject everything else; I see ahadith, biographies, and similar texts as the peripheral works that they are. The message of the Qur'an must be used to test the legitimacy of every one of these claims and report. They're worth nothing if they contradict the Qur'an, regardless of who wrote or compiled them.

I have yet tp see any hadith that contradicts the Quran.
I guess my problem is I know that the Quran was "revealed " over time and mohammad crafted the message to fit the situation as time went on.
IE friendly relations with jews and Christians

5:69. Surely, those who believe (in the Oneness of Allâh, in His Messenger Muhammad SAW and all that was revealed to him from Allâh), those who are the Jews and the Sabians and the Christians, - whosoever believed in Allâh and the Last Day, and worked righteousness, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

until he was rejected because it was obvious he was making it up as he went along, The jews and christians were the enemy.

9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah[] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

I have justified nothing more than the forcible removal of oppressors by the oppressed.

And who is more of an oppressor than

6:21. And who does more wrong than he who invents a lie against Allâh or rejects His Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, revelations, etc.)? Verily, the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong doers, etc.) shall never be successful.

2:254. O you who believe! Spend of that with which We have provided for you, before a Day comes when there will be no bargaining, nor friendship, nor intercession. And it is the disbelievers who are the Zâlimûn (wrong-doers, etc.).

And how do you deal with them?

193. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allâh) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allâh (Alone).[] But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)
no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn
no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn
no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn

Someone who does not believe?

You transgress against them



The Noble Quran

 

[Kalam]

I have yet tp see any hadith that contradicts the Quran.

That is because you're an ignoramus who has studied neither.

I guess my problem is I know that the Quran was "revealed " over time and mohammad crafted the message to fit the situation as time went on.

IE friendly relations with jews and Christians

5:69. Surely, those who believe (in the Oneness of Allâh, in His Messenger Muhammad SAW and all that was revealed to him from Allâh), those who are the Jews and the Sabians and the Christians, - whosoever believed in Allâh and the Last Day, and worked righteousness, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

until he was rejected because it was obvious he was making it up as he went along, The jews and christians were the enemy.

9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah[] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

The jizya was to be paid by those who preferred to remain autonomous rather than recognizing the same laws and limitations as Muslims ("nor forbid that which has been forbidden...") while still being protected by the Islamic state.

The alternative was unity with the Islamic community - see the Madinah Compact. No contradiction exists between the two passages you presented.

 

[Kalam]

The actual meaning of zulm and its derivatives has been explained to you. If you want to persist in your idiocy by acting as if your inaccurate translation changes this, do so knowing that your argument is, as usual, completely meaningless.

 

[PixieStix]

Kalam, maybe you missed the post where I aslked you about it being essential to follow Mohammeds example if you are a Muslim?

Do you?, and isn't it essential to the faith/religion?

 

[PixieStix]

I have justified nothing more than the forcible removal of oppressors by the oppressed.

Who is on first, what?