Originally posted by ahosyneyIsn't Surah 9 one of the last chapters in the Quran? And it's my understanding that it is the most violent Surah by far. In the minds of a lot of extreme Muslim organizations this is what they use to justify murder of the infidel and suicide bombings and terrorist actions, right? They believe that Surah 9 takes precedence over all of the peaceful things mentioned about the infidel earlier in the book, right?
Can you give an example of what you are talking about?
1 edit
Originally posted by chappy1If a any person uses any verse in the Bible to kill a non believer (and that happened one day before) will this make it correct.
Isn't Surah 9 one of the last chapters in the Quran? And it's my understanding that it is the most violent Surah by far. In the minds of a lot of extreme Muslim organizations this is what they use to justify murder of the infidel and suicide bombings and terrorist actions, right? They believe that Surah 9 takes precedence over all of the peaceful things mentioned about the infidel earlier in the book, right?
In general the information you said in your post is not correct, specially this part:
And it's my understanding that it is the most violent Surah by far.
Did you read this Surah yourself?
EDIT: If you don't agree and I know you don't then show me where is the violence you are talking about!! I can go with you as far as I want , but I wish you will be truthful for yourself.
Originally posted by scherzoHow can you tell he was a more acurate representation of God?
Allahhu Akbar. Muhammed is the Final Prophet of God, and His dictation from the Angel Gabriel was the least flawed as it was taken immediately. Jesus Christ may have been a prophet, but it seems to me he didn't do much besides burn some fig trees and convince the world that he wasn't dead. Muhammed is a more recent prophet with a more accurate representation of God.
If you can say that, it does mean in fact that you are 'larger' than Muhammed, or else you would not recognize that Muhammed was a more accurate represntation would it?
Originally posted by ahosyneyWhat are you talking about truthful with myself? Here is the violence I'm talking about.
If a any person uses any verse in the Bible to kill a non believer (and that happened one day before) will this make it correct.
In general the information you said in your post is not correct, specially this part:
[b] And it's my understanding that it is the most violent Surah by far.
Did you read this Surah yourself?
EDIT: If you don't agr ...[text shortened]... g about!! I can go with you as far as I want , but I wish you will be truthful for yourself.[/b]
9.5
But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
2 edits
Originally posted by chappy1First:
What are you talking about truthful with myself? Here is the violence I'm talking about.
9.5
But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
This translation is not accurate, when you read it you may assume that there are two verbs: fight and slay while there is only one verb in the verse in Arabic. The verb used in Arabic is "Oktolo" which doesn't mean slay. It means kill. And as the context of the verse is talking about war, so it means fight.
Second:
You assume that the Pagans in the verse are to be any one who is not a Muslim, which is not true. There is a specific people are targeted by this verse which are the pagans of Meca who were fighting the Muslims in the early Islamic days. Refereing to this verse alone is taking it out of context, because if you read the next verse you will find the following:
009.007
How can there be a league, before Allah and His Messenger, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for Allah doth love the righteous.
Here you see that there could be pagans with Treaty with Muslims and we are ordered to stick to it as long as they keep it. So if they didn't fight we can't fight.
In current days any diplomatic relation is considered a treaty and so it goes under this verse.
Is it clear.
Third:
This verse only talks about war not killing and there is a big difference. There is no order in Quran to kill a non beliver. The order it to fight who ever fight you. It doesn't give a permission to kill any non believer, simply read the following verse in the same sura:
9:6 And if anyone of the idolaters or pagans seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not.
So if a non believer comes to Muslims seeking protection we are ordered not to kill him as you assume, but we are ordered to protect him and teach him then reach him a secured place in his country.
I don't know if this matches your idea about the Surah but as you see you are taking one verse , build an idea about it then generalize it over the whole Surah, and then over Quran.
Fourth:
Where the abrogation here?
Fifth:
Here is the violence I'm talking about.
If the war is against who is attacking you (which the verse is talking about) then it is not violence. Specially when it combined with prohibition of touching women, children , old people, farmers, workers, and monks.
That is what I read in Hadith, where the prophet prohibited that in war.
Edit:
What are you talking about truthful with myself?
1- When you know that you are wrong, and your source of information is not correct then you have to admit it.
2- To you show the same feeling if you find something that might look like this in your Bible.
Butting in --
I've come across a statement by a Muslim cleric to the effect that Jesus, son of Mary, will return to liberate Palestine. It was a charged political statement, to be sure, but I'm interested in knowing what it the belief really is and where it comes from, as it suggests that Jesus is more important to Muslims than people realise.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageSaheh Muslim
Butting in --
I've come across a statement by a Muslim cleric to the effect that Jesus, son of Mary, will return to liberate Palestine. It was a charged political statement, to be sure, but I'm interested in knowing what it the belief really is and where it comes from, as it suggests that Jesus is more important to Muslims than people realise.
Chapter 9: PERTAINING TO THE CONQUEST OF CONSTANTINOPLE AND THE APPEARANCE OF THE DAJJAL AND DESCENT OF JESUS SON OF MARY (JESUS CHRIST)
Book 041, Number 6924:
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The Last Hour would not come until the Romans would land at al-A'maq or in Dabiq. An army consisting of the best (soldiers) of the people of the earth at that time will come from Medina (to counteract them). When they will arrange themselves in ranks, the Romans would say: Do not stand between us and those (Muslims) who took prisoners from amongst us. Let us fight with them; and the Muslims would say: Nay, by Allah, we would never get aside from you and from our brethren that you may fight them. They will then fight and a third (part) of the army would run away, whom Allah will never forgive. A third (part of the army). which would be constituted of excellent martyrs in Allah's eye, would be killed ani the third who would never be put to trial would win and they would be conquerors of Constantinople. And as they would be busy in distributing the spoils of war (amongst themselves) after hanging their swords by the olive trees, the Satan would cry: The Dajjal has taken your place among your family. They would then come out, but it would be of no avail. And when they would come to Syria, he would come out while they would be still preparing themselves for battle drawing up the ranks. Certainly, the time of prayer shall come and then Jesus (peace be upon him) son of Mary would descend and would lead them in prayer. When the enemy of Allah would see him, it would (disappear) just as the salt dissolves itself in water and if he (Jesus) were not to confront them at all, even then it would dissolve completely, but Allah would kill them by his hand and he would show them their blood on his lance (the lance of Jesus Christ).
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/041.smt.html
----------------------------------
Saheh Bukhari
Volume 3, Book 34, Number 425:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, son of Mary (Jesus) will shortly descend amongst you people (Muslims) as a just ruler and will break the Cross and kill the pig and abolish the Jizya (a tax taken from the non-Muslims, who are in the protection, of the Muslim government). Then there will be abundance of money and no-body will accept charitable gifts.
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/034.sbt.html
-------------------------------------
Read these two Hadiths. They will give you an idea about the belief and its source. And if you want more discussion about that I will be happy to do so.
Originally posted by ahosyneySee that's just the thing, I don't think I'm wrong. Not at all. See Osama Bin Laden is just being a good Muslim.
First:
This translation is not accurate, when you read it you may assume that there are two verbs: fight and slay while there is only one verb in the verse in Arabic. The verb used in Arabic is "Oktolo" which doesn't mean slay. It means kill. And as the context of the verse is talking about war, so it means fight.
Second:
You assume that the Pagan ...[text shortened]... you show the same feeling if you find something that might look like this in your Bible.
If all of this militant Islam worldwide is so wrong then where are it's critics? Where are the Imams that condemn the acts of violence? I never hear of anyone rebuking these acts.
If some crackpot who claims to be Christian kills an abortion doctor or commits an act of violence the leaders of the different denominations always condemn them.
3 edits
Originally posted by chappy1Because you mix things.
See that's just the thing, I don't think I'm wrong. Not at all. See Osama Bin Laden is just being a good Muslim.
If all of this militant Islam worldwide is so wrong then where are it's critics? Where are the Imams that condemn the acts of violence? I never hear of anyone rebuking these acts.
If some crackpot who claims to be Christian kills an abor ...[text shortened]... r commits an act of violence the leaders of the different denominations always condemn them.
I know many Imams who condemn the acts of violence that doesn't match the Islamic teachings. But tell me where do you listen to them, does your media show that, no, it is always meant to show Islam as evil and you are happy with that. And to do so lies are being told.
The problem is that you mix the self defense with terrorism. You call the person who defend his country against those who attacking it a terrorist. And here no Muslim will agree with you.
About you being wrong, yes you are wrong because you didn't say the complete truth about the surah you are referring too, and you didn't show where some parts of Quran cancels another one.
If all of this militant Islam worldwide is so wrong then where are it's critics?
What do you mean by that:
A Muslim who kill a non believer in a country where there is a treaty between them and Muslims is wrong. so those who did 9/11 if they are Muslims they are wrong.
But a Muslim who defend his land against those who occupy it are not wrong. That is their right and any person will do the same whether he is a Muslim or not.
You are just so biased!!
I don't want to talk about violence in Christianity and violence in your book, everybody knows that clearly. The bible is the only book that allows killing babies and the result we saw just recently.
EDIT: I really want to advise you , the topic of this thread is meaning less, and the quotes you used from Quran are quoted incorrectly and as usual out of scope, so I advise you to go and read Quran yourself , and see after that if what you wrote here does make any sense.
EDIT: a question for you: How many GOD's you worship??