Islam Today....and Yesterday

[Osomir]

If there is no alternative to your claim as you seem to be insiting upon by ignoring my statements to the contrary, then how do you explain Muhammad's own alliances with non-Islamic tribes during the revelation of Sura 9?

Also, how do you reconcile that message with Sura 2 which states that there is no compulsion in religion?

 

[Osomir]

I'm also curious how you explain both current and historical Islamic populations who are/were both quite religious and quite tolerant of diversity if there is, as you insist, no alternative to your suggested interpretation of Sura 9?

 

[Uncensored2008]

If there is no alternative to your claim as you seem to be insiting upon by ignoring my statements to the contrary, then how do you explain Muhammad's own alliances with non-Islamic tribes during the revelation of Sura 9?

Also, how do you reconcile that message with Sura 2 which states that there is no compulsion in religion?

Muhammad was a warlord. Any good General knows that fighting on too many fronts simultaneously brings only defeat. Muhammad made alliances with various tribes to give him the respite to pursue his war on other tribes. Remember, Muhammad would as quickly betray those who foolishly allied with him, once circumstance allowed him to turn his troops on them.

The Nadir found out the hard way that an alliance with the brutal warlord Muhammad would not bring them peace, when he betrayed them and drove them from their homes and lands.

Muhammad was ruthless and cruel, which served him well as a warlord.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm also curious how you explain both current and historical Islamic populations who are/were both quite religious and quite tolerant of diversity if there is, as you insist, no alternative to your suggested interpretation of Sura 9?

Where would one find these tolerant Muslims? Riding on the backs of unicorns?

 

[PoliticalChic]

If there is no alternative to your claim as you seem to be insiting upon by ignoring my statements to the contrary, then how do you explain Muhammad's own alliances with non-Islamic tribes during the revelation of Sura 9?

Also, how do you reconcile that message with Sura 2 which states that there is no compulsion in religion?

1. I am disappointed to find that you lack honesty.


2. You mention "Sura 2 which states that there is no compulsion in religion."

You didn't mention sura 9:29
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.


Must have assumed that I was unfamiliar with sura 2:106.

3. There are 124 verses of tolerance. But those are rendered meaningless by the rule of "abrogation. This rule is the hermeneutic key that Islamic scholars use to resolve contradictions found in the Koran. Koranic passages are abrogated, cancelled, by any subsequently revealed passages that convey a different meaning. In other words, when their is a contradiction, e.g., 'don't kill infidels', vs. 'kill infidels,' whichever was 'revealed' to the prophet Mohammed more recently is the one that takes priority.
West, "American Betrayal," p.12

a. This comes directly from Mohammad himself, in sura 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?" Surah Al-Baqarah: Translation and Commentary on The Holy Qur-an: by Dr. Zohurul Hoque




I'll assume that everything you write is a lie.

 

[Osomir]

1. I am disappointed to find that you lack honesty.

I'm disappointed that you have such a hard time responding to the content of my posts.

2. You mention "Sura 2 which states that there is no compulsion in religion."

You didn't mention sura 9:29
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

That's because I already mentioned it in this thread. The problem you have here is that you are taking one verse out of both the scriptural and historical context in which it was revealed.

The first part of Sura 9 deals specifically with two major military incidents: the Battle of Tabuk against the Byzantines and a conflict involving some pagan tribes located around the region of Mecca who violated an existing peace treaty with the ummah. "those who do not believe in Allah" is not a reference to all non-Muslims, Sura 9 makes this very clear in the first couple of verses.

Sura 9:5 Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].

Sura 9:6 And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah . Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.

Then the layout of Muhammad's argument with the tribes of Mecca is laid out in preparation for the potential upcoming confrontation.

From Sura 9:10 They do not observe toward a believer any pact of kinship or covenant of protection. And it is they who are the transgressors.

Notice that he justifies fighting them based on numerous criteria:

1.) They don't have any covenant or kinship connections with or to members of the Ummah.

2.) They are transgressors.

Must have assumed that I was unfamiliar with sura 2:106.

3. There are 124 verses of tolerance. But those are rendered meaningless by the rule of "abrogation. This rule is the hermeneutic key that Islamic scholars use to resolve contradictions found in the Koran.

I disagree greatly with that interpretation and is also goes completely against how the Rashidun (rightly guided ones) governed the Islamic community after Muhammad's death.

a. This comes directly from Mohammad himself, in sura 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?" Surah Al-Baqarah: Translation and Commentary on The Holy Qur-an: by Dr. Zohurul Hoque

Your source is misquoting Sura 2.

Sura 2:106: 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?

I'll assume that everything you write is a lie.

Lol if that's what you need to tell yourself in order to make yourself feel better about your argument.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Question to BecauseIKnow; why did you change your name to Osomir?

 

[Osomir]

Muhammad was a warlord.

No disagreement there.

Any good General knows that fighting on too many fronts simultaneously brings only defeat. Muhammad made alliances with various tribes to give him the respite to pursue his war on other tribes.

Right, but we can't ignore the fact that he also claimed to be a divine prophet through whom the word of God was delivered. Not even he could go against the word of "God." Especially not him otherwise it would have undermined his entire political and military institution that he had been constructing.

Thus your rationale, while logical, wouldn't explain a theological discrepancy with Muhammad's actions. So once again, within the context of Islamic theology how do you reconcile that interpretation with Muhammad's actual actions and the fact that he was allied with non-Islamic tribes at the time of the revelation?

The Nadir found out the hard way that an alliance with the brutal warlord Muhammad would not bring them peace, when he betrayed them and drove them from their homes and lands.

He expelled them from Medina when they mobilized to attack him and usurp his political rule (which violated the constitution of Medina). He didn't have them slaughtered, and fighting emerged when they attacked the Umma in concert with the Meccans (Battle of the Trench).

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. I am disappointed to find that you lack honesty.

I'm disappointed that you have such a hard time responding to the content of my posts.

2. You mention "Sura 2 which states that there is no compulsion in religion."

You didn't mention sura 9:29
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

That's because I already mentioned it in this thread. The problem you have here is that you are taking one verse out of both the scriptural and historical context in which it was revealed.

The first part of Sura 9 deals specifically with two major military incidents: the Battle of Tabuk against the Byzantines and a conflict involving some pagan tribes located around the region of Mecca who violated an existing peace treaty with the ummah. "those who do not believe in Allah" is not a reference to all non-Muslims, Sura 9 makes this very clear in the first couple of verses.

Sura 9:5 Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].

Sura 9:6 And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah . Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.

Then the layout of Muhammad's argument with the tribes of Mecca is laid out in preparation for the potential upcoming confrontation.

From Sura 9:10 They do not observe toward a believer any pact of kinship or covenant of protection. And it is they who are the transgressors.

Notice that he justifies fighting them based on numerous criteria:

1.) They don't have any covenant or kinship connections with or to members of the Ummah.

2.) They are transgressors.



I disagree greatly with that interpretation and is also goes completely against how the Rashidun (rightly guided ones) governed the Islamic community after Muhammad's death.

a. This comes directly from Mohammad himself, in sura 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?" Surah Al-Baqarah: Translation and Commentary on The Holy Qur-an: by Dr. Zohurul Hoque

Your source is misquoting Sura 2.

Sura 2:106: 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?

I'll assume that everything you write is a lie.

Lol if that's what you need to tell yourself in order to make yourself feel better about your argument.

Quote:
Must have assumed that I was unfamiliar with sura 2:106.

3. There are 124 verses of tolerance. But those are rendered meaningless by the rule of "abrogation. This rule is the hermeneutic key that Islamic scholars use to resolve contradictions found in the Koran.
Quote:
Must have assumed that I was unfamiliar with sura 2:106.

Sura 2:106: 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?




Later suras surpass earlier in import.




" ....disagree greatly with that interpretation..."


Of necessity.

It exposes you as a liar.

 

[Osomir]

It exposes you as a liar.

And yet you lack the ability to refute any of the comments in my previous posts and has continuously failed to respond to any of my counter arguments and assertions.

Your inability to defend your position is pretty telling when it comes to th strength of your attempted argument.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It exposes you as a liar.

And yet you lack the ability to refute any of the comments in my previous posts and has continuously failed to respond to any of my counter arguments and assertions.

Your inability to defend your position is pretty telling when it comes to th strength of your attempted argument.

Once you've been proven a liar, it taints any posts you provide.l

 

[Osomir]

Once you've been proven a liar, it taints any posts you provide.l

Except you haven't proven anything?

You haven't even attempted to respond to the vast majority of the content of my posts, nor have you been able to explain the rest of Sura 9 which directly contradicts the assertion you were trying to make.

Once again, I find it pretty indicative of how insecure you are in your opinions, and of how weak your written argument is, that instead of actually reponding to my comments you have to rely simply on personal attacks.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Once you've been proven a liar, it taints any posts you provide.l

Except you haven't proven anything?

You haven't even attempted to respond to the vast majority of the content of my posts, nor have you been able to explain the rest of Sura 9 which directly contradicts the assertion you were trying to make.

Once again, I find it pretty indicative of how insecure you are in your opinions, and of how weak your written argument is, that instead of actually reponding to my comments you have to rely simply on personal attacks.

Your posts were an example of taqiyya.


You are a liar.

 

[Osomir]

Your posts were an example of taqiyya.
You are a liar.

Lol. Let me know if you ever gather the courage / ability to actually defend your argument.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Your posts were an example of taqiyya.
You are a liar.

Lol. Let me know if you ever gather the courage / ability to actually defend your argument.

Let me know if you ever develop the character to admit that you construct posts with no regard for truth.

You know that sura 2 is obviated by sura 9...yet presented it as the effective lesson.

You've been revealed as a liar, a fraud.

I'm certain that you are an embarrassment to honorable Moslems.

 

[Osomir]

Let me know if you ever develop the character to admit that you construct posts with no regard for truth.

You know that sura 2 is obviated by sura 9...yet presented it as the effective lesson.

So disagreeing with you is now tantamount to lying? A bit arrogant even for my tastes.

I'm certain that you are an embarrassment to honorable Moslems.

I'm am atheist.