Islam forbids

[Mr.Fitnah]

Sorry jack ,come back when your opinion is taught at any school let alone Oxford .
As it stands their are about 1 persons on earth who agree with you.

Naskh is the pivot point for your Islam not for me.
Nothing abrogates these unequivocal commands

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

http://www.ummah.com/what-is-islam/quran/noble/

Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir

Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir

Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir
Seems you are unable to prove non muslims are innocent according to Islamic scripture, That is to bad.

 

[Kalam]

Sorry jack ,come back when your opinion is taught at any school let alone Oxford .
As it stands their are about 1 persons on earth who agree with you.

Now that's a concession if I've ever seen one.

Come back when you're prepared to address my argument. Your ignorance of Islamic history and theological development is positively glaring.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Sorry jack ,come back when your opinion is taught at any school let alone Oxford .
As it stands their are about 1 persons on earth who agree with you.

Now that's a concession if I've ever seen one.

Come back when you're prepared to address my argument. Your ignorance of Islamic history and theological development is positively glaring.

Fallacy: Appeal to Popularity

Im sorry that is not proof, anymore than the rest of the gibberish and deceptions you post are.
Im not appealing to authority.
Im saying what you post is obvious bullshit, meant to deceive .


Many muslims like to say " Islam forbids the killing of innocent people"
Please provide Islamic scripture to prove unequivocally non muslims are innocent.

 

[Kalam]

Im sorry that is not proof, anymore than the rest of the gibberish and deceptions you post are.
Im not appealing to authority.
Im saying what you post is obvious bullshit, meant to deceive .

You've found yourself unable to disprove what I've posted, so you've resorted to tossing out baseless accusations of dishonesty. That's a recourse that seems to be popular among people who find themselves unable to respond to their opponents' arguments substantively. I highly doubt you'll actually be able to address my post, so I wonder if you'll concede, jump ship silently, or persist in your lunacy? My money's on the third.

Please demonstrate that my post is dishonest or inaccurate.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Let me be clear.
The links you post never prove what you want to prove,
the scholars you refer to are modern day bullshitters lying deliberately to paint a false image of Islam.
You can never prove " non Muslims are innocent" according to Islamic scripture.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Let me be clear.
The links you post never prove what you want to prove,
the scholars you refer to are modern day bullshitters lying deliberately to paint a false image of Islam.
You can never prove " non Muslims are innocent" according to Islamic scripture.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Im sorry that is not proof, anymore than the rest of the gibberish and deceptions you post are.
Im not appealing to authority.
Im saying what you post is obvious bullshit, meant to deceive .

You've found yourself unable to disprove what I've posted, so you've resorted to tossing out baseless accusations of dishonesty. That's a recourse that seems to be popular among people who find themselves unable to respond to their opponents' arguments substantively. I highly doubt you'll actually be able to address my post, so I wonder if you'll concede, jump ship silently, or persist in your lunacy? My money's on the third.

Please demonstrate that my post is dishonest or inaccurate.

It is the third ,
it is irrelevant, having nothing to do with what I posted , just shit thrown at the wall.

 

[Kalam]

Im sorry that is not proof, anymore than the rest of the gibberish and deceptions you post are.
Im not appealing to authority.
Im saying what you post is obvious bullshit, meant to deceive .

You've found yourself unable to disprove what I've posted, so you've resorted to tossing out baseless accusations of dishonesty. That's a recourse that seems to be popular among people who find themselves unable to respond to their opponents' arguments substantively. I highly doubt you'll actually be able to address my post, so I wonder if you'll concede, jump ship silently, or persist in your lunacy? My money's on the third.

Please demonstrate that my post is dishonest or inaccurate.

It is the third ,
it is irrelevant, having nothing to do with what I posted , just shit thrown at the wall.

Your entire argument is contingent on the existence of internal abrogation. Therefore, it behooves you to either disprove my argument or accept it.

 

[Kalam]

It is the third

And thank you for affirming that what you post is lunacy. Baby steps...

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

You've found yourself unable to disprove what I've posted, so you've resorted to tossing out baseless accusations of dishonesty. That's a recourse that seems to be popular among people who find themselves unable to respond to their opponents' arguments substantively. I highly doubt you'll actually be able to address my post, so I wonder if you'll concede, jump ship silently, or persist in your lunacy? My money's on the third.

Please demonstrate that my post is dishonest or inaccurate.

It is the third ,
it is irrelevant, having nothing to do with what I posted , just shit thrown at the wall.

Your entire argument is contingent on the existence of internal abrogation. Therefore, it behooves you to either disprove my argument or accept it.

Your agrument is based on ignoring what is common knowledge .
I present mainstream traditional Islamic thought .

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

You have tried and shown you cant prove that.

I have shown it to be true on a number of occasions; you cling to falsities because you realize that acknowledging the truth would deprive your hilariously pathetic Islamophobia of a rational basis. I'm sure that you're not even familiar with the development of the theory of internal naskh. As time has passed and knowledge has increased, a progressively fewer number of verses have been regarded as "abrogated." During the Medieval period, for example, varying numbers of passages were thought to be affected by internal abrogation - Imam Jalaluddin Al-Suyuti eventually demonstrated that no more than 21 verses could have been abrogated.

The possibly abrogated verses -- as recognized by Suyuti -- are as follows:

• 2:180 (by 2:181)
• 2:184 (by 2:185)
• 2:183 (by 2:187)
• 2:217 (by 9:36)
• 2:240 (by 2:234)
• 2:284 (by 2:286)
• 3:102 (by 64:16)
• 4:33 (by 8:75)
• 4:8
• 4:15
• 5:2
• 5:42 (by 5:49)
• 5:106 (by 65:2)
• 8:65 (by 8:66)
• 9:41 (by 24:61, 9:91, and 9:122)
• 24:3 (by 24:32)
• 24:58
• 33:52 (by 33:33)
• 58:12 (by 58:13)
• 60:11
• 73:2

Suyuti's discussion of Naskh can be found in full here (for some reason, it's hosted on an Ahmadi website):
http://www.ahmadiyya.org/images_blog/nasikhmansukh.pdf

You will notice that 2:256 (Let there be no compulsion in religion...) and similar passages that I cite were not included by Suyuti in his list of abrogated verses.

What's more, renowned Indian scholar Shah Wahiullah (d. 1762) demonstrated in Al Faudhul Kabir fi Usoolut Tafsir that all but five of Suyuti's verses were unaffected by abrogation. We have now reduced this number to zero, as it's plainly obvious that the passages that supposedly explain internal naskh actually describe a form of naskh that involves the Qur'an taking precedence over previous scriptures. Like Maulana Muhammad Ali, eminent Sunni leader Maulana Maududi confirmed that the references were to the Qur'anic abrogation of Halakha. Excerpted from his tafsir, Tafhim al-Qur'an (regarding 2:106) -

Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?

This is the answer to an objection which the Jews raised to create doubts in the minds of the Muslims. They argued this: "The Qur'an says that the former Scriptures had been sent down by Allah and that it had as well. If this is so, why does the Qur'an give commands that differ from those contained in the former Books? How can the same God give different commands at different times?" Besides, they said, "The Qur'an asserts that the Jews and the Christians have forgotten a part of the teachings sent down to them. How is it possible that the teachings of Allah could be obliterated from memory?" They did not raise these objections for the sake of arriving at the truth, but for the sake of creating mischief. Allah answers their objections thus: "I am the Sovereign and My powers are unlimited. I can repeal any order of Mine or allow it to be forgotten, but I substitute for it something that serves the same purpose better or at least equally well."​

___

It is rather obvious that 2:106 is referring specifically to the Quran, based on 2:108

002.106
YUSUFALI: None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?
PICKTHAL: Nothing of our revelation (even a single verse) do we abrogate or cause be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things?
SHAKIR: Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?

002.107
YUSUFALI: Knowest thou not that to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth? And besides Him ye have neither patron nor helper.
PICKTHAL: Knowest thou not that it is Allah unto Whom belongeth the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth; and ye have not, beside Allah, any guardian or helper?
SHAKIR: Do you not know that Allah's is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth, and that besides Allah you have no guardian or helper?

002.108
YUSUFALI: Would ye question your Messenger as Moses was questioned of old? but whoever changeth from Faith to Unbelief, Hath strayed without doubt from the even way.
PICKTHAL: Or would ye question your messenger as Moses was questioned aforetime? He who chooseth disbelief instead of faith, verily he hath gone astray from a plain road.
SHAKIR: Rather you wish to put questions to your Messenger, as Musa was questioned before; and whoever adopts unbelief instead of faith, he indeed has lost the right direction of the way.

The Noble Quran : Surat 2
Muhammad is talking to muslims about the Quran.

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?

107. Know you not that it is Allâh to Whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth? And besides Allâh you have neither any Walî (protector or guardian) nor any helper.

108. Or do you want to ask your Messenger (Muhammad Peace be upon him ) as Mûsa (Moses) was asked before (i.e. show us openly our Lord?) And he who changes Faith for disbelief, verily, he has gone astray from the right way.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Many muslims like to say " Islam forbids the killing of innocent people"
Please provide Islamic scripture to prove unequivocally non muslims are innocent.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Many muslims like to say " Islam forbids the killing of innocent people"
Please provide Islamic scripture to prove unequivocally non muslims are innocent.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Proof requires something more than what you can provide.

Proof, to you, entails something more than anybody can provide. More than I can provide, more than Islam's most eminent scholars can prove...

So statements like " Islam forbids the killing of innocent people" are simply lies to quell the fears are concerns on future victims of Islamic supremacy ideology and jihad.

More information is provided by William Muir's "Life of Mahomet", Volume I, footnote 88:

The common Moslem belief is that it is allowable to tell a falsehood on four occasions:
1st, to save one's life;
2nd, to effect a peace or reconciliation;
3rd, to persuade a woman;
4th, on the occasion of a journey or expedition.

To save one's life

The first is borne out by Mahomet's express sanction. Ammar ibn Yasir was sorely persecuted by the pagans of Mecca, and denied the faith for his deliverance. The Prophet approved of his conduct: - "If they do this again, then repeat the same recantation to them again." Katib al Wackidi; p. 227 ½. Another tradition preserved in the family of Yasir, is as follows: - "The idolators seized Ammar, and they let him not go until he had abused Mahomet and spoken well of their gods. He then repaired to the Prophet, who asked of him what had happened." - "Evil, oh Prophet of the Lord! I was not let go until I had abused thee, and spoken well of their gods." - "But how," replied Mahomet, "dost thou find thine own heart?" - "Secure and steadfast in the faith." - "Then," said Mahomet, "if they repeat the same, do thou too repeat the same." Ibid. Mahomet also said that Ammar's lie was better than Abu Jahl's truth.
To effect a peace or reconciliation

The second is directly sanctioned by the following tradition:- "That person is not a liar who makes peace between two people, and speaks good words to do away their quarrel, although they should be lies. Mishcat, vol ii. p.427.
To persuade a woman

As to the third, we have a melancholy instance that Mahomet did not think it wrong to make false promises to his wives, in the matter of Mary his Egyptian maid.
[This article provides more information on this incident.]

On the occasion of a journey or expedition

And regarding the fourth, it was his constant habit in projecting expeditions (excepting only that to Tabuk) to conceal his intentions, and to give out that he was about to proceed in another direction from the true one. Hishami, p. 392; Katib al Wackidi, p. 133 ½.

 

[Kalam]

It is rather obvious that 2:106 is referring specifically to the Quran, based on 2:108

Not really.

Rather you wish to put questions to your Messenger, as Moses was questioned before. And whoever adopts disbelief instead of faith he indeed has lost the right direction of the way.​

The reference is to those who don't believe that the Qur'an abrogates previous scriptures. If you were familiar with the Qur'an, you'd know that the use of the words "your Messenger" does not mean that the passage in question is directed at Muslims, as Muhammad (SAWS) was everybody's messenger.

Whatever good befalls thee, it is from Allah, and whatever misfortune befalls thee, it is from thyself. And We have sent thee to mankind as a Messenger. And Allah is sufficient as a witness. - 4:79

O mankind, the Messenger has indeed come to you with truth from your Lord, so believe, it is better for you. And if you disbelieve, then surely to Allah belongs whatever is in the heavens and the earth. And Allah is ever Knowing, Wise. - 4:170

Say: O mankind, surely I am the Messenger of Allah to you all, of Him, Whose is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth. There is no god but He; He gives life and causes death. So believe in Allah and His Messenger, the Ummi Prophet who believes in Allah and His words, and follow him so that you may be guided aright. - 7:158

And We have not sent thee but as a bearer of good news and as a warner to all mankind, but most men know not. - 34:28​

I'm sorry; my post concerning abrogation stands.

 

[Kalam]

So statements like " Islam forbids the killing of innocent people" are simply lies to quell the fears are concerns on future victims of Islamic supremacy ideology and jihad.

That explains why nearly all of the website's traffic and questions come from the Islamic world. Clearly, millions of Muslims from around the world are involved in an elaborate scheme to trick the kafiruun into living under Sharia. You're not letting them get you, though.

Accusations of dishonesty are typically accompanied by incontrovertible proof of the party in question being dishonest. Please prove that Shaykhs Yusuf Qaradawi and Ali Gomaa are purposefully presenting a misleading image of Islam in order to lure non-Muslims into a false sense of security, you silly motherfucker.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

It is rather obvious that 2:106 is referring specifically to the Quran, based on 2:108

Not really.

Rather you wish to put questions to your Messenger, as Moses was questioned before. And whoever adopts disbelief instead of faith he indeed has lost the right direction of the way.​

The reference is to those who don't believe that the Qur'an abrogates previous scriptures. If you were familiar with the Qur'an, you'd know that the use of the words "your Messenger" does not mean that the passage in question is directed at Muslims, as Muhammad (SAWS) was everybody's messenger.

Whatever good befalls thee, it is from Allah, and whatever misfortune befalls thee, it is from thyself. And We have sent thee to mankind as a Messenger. And Allah is sufficient as a witness. - 4:79

O mankind, the Messenger has indeed come to you with truth from your Lord, so believe, it is better for you. And if you disbelieve, then surely to Allah belongs whatever is in the heavens and the earth. And Allah is ever Knowing, Wise. - 4:170

Say: O mankind, surely I am the Messenger of Allah to you all, of Him, Whose is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth. There is no god but He; He gives life and causes death. So believe in Allah and His Messenger, the Ummi Prophet who believes in Allah and His words, and follow him so that you may be guided aright. - 7:158

And We have not sent thee but as a bearer of good news and as a warner to all mankind, but most men know not. - 34:28​

I'm sorry; my post concerning abrogation stands.

It stands as representing your and a small cult of heretics opinion on the matter, not the opinion of the traditional interpretation of Islam of which yours is not part of.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

So statements like " Islam forbids the killing of innocent people" are simply lies to quell the fears are concerns on future victims of Islamic supremacy ideology and jihad.

That explains why nearly all of the website's traffic and questions come from the Islamic world. Clearly, millions of Muslims from around the world are involved in an elaborate scheme to trick the kafiruun into living under Sharia. You're not letting them get you, though.

Accusations of dishonesty are typically accompanied by incontrovertible proof of the party in question being dishonest. Please prove that Shaykhs Yusuf Qaradawi and Ali Gomaa are purposefully presenting a misleading image of Islam in order to lure non-Muslims into a false sense of security, you silly motherfucker.

Perhaps you will be good enough to explain using Islamic scripture how it would be best if sharia law were not the law all around the world.
How it is best is man judge by man made laws and not "allahs "law.

 

[Kalam]

It stands as representing your and a small cult of heretics opinion on the matter

Logical Fallacy: Argumentum ad Hominem

If the argument was not logical and sound, you would have refuted it by now. Thanks...

 

[Kalam]

Perhaps you will be good enough to explain using Islamic scripture how it would be best if sharia law were not the law all around the world.
How it is best is man judge by man made laws and not "allahs "law.

Why would I want to do that? Islam is the ideal system for all people. True belief does not result from compulsion -- forced "conversions" will not produce an ideal Islamic society, they'll produce a society of munafiquun. People must choose to embrace Islam.

And obey Allah and obey the Messenger and be cautious. But if you turn back then know that the duty of Our Messenger is only a clear deliverance of the message. - 5:92​