Questions about Islam (Ask Away!)

[Dumuzi]

Re: Questions about Islam (Ask Away!)

I don't mind that we are having this discussion, I bet we can both learn greatly from it! I just wish you weren't mentioning so much misinformation that can easily cleared up by checking just the Qur'an in most cases. Let me show you.

Without a doubt offensive fighting was ordained.

The reason I mentioned the "There is no compulsion in religion" verse is because you made the claim that there are no 'peaceful' verses in the revelation that was received in Madinah. I showed you one example, so clearly your claim is false.

And again, I never said there was no fighting that was ordained upon Muslims. My main point is that the reason given to Muslims to fight, has nothing to do with the points that you have mentioned. Just look a few verses BEFORE the one that you have posted, it says: "Would you not fight a people who broke their oaths and determined to expel the Messenger, and they had begun [the attack upon] you the first time? Do you fear them? But Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are [truly] believers." [9:13]

It gives not one reason, but THREE reasons on why fighting has been ordered here. One of them, as you can see, is the fact that they had begun to fight the Muslims first.

And if you go further back, in the same Surah, it talks about protecting the polytheists. "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." [9:6]

This verse is mentioned right after the order to fight them has been given in the verse before it. It is talking about a time where there was a truce between the Muslims and the Polytheists, right after they broke their oath against Muslims. fighting in general, if you'd like I can talk about that in my next reply.

I haven't commented on the topic of Jizyah, because you are still talking about

By the way you do not want to read what Imam Al-Ghazali says about the verse 9:29 that I quoted.

You are giving mixed messages. Should we or should we not rely on these scholars to understand the message of the Qur'an. One time you say they influenced the sources of Islam and changed them. And then when it suits you, you think we should rely on them to understand this verse. What I'm saying is that, they are great scholars but just like everyone else, they've made mistakes. I can also show you different opinions about verses like this one. But my whole point is that if you look at the Qur'an the message becomes quite clear if you want to form your own understanding. I've shown you where the Qur'an contradicts the claims that you have made. Or are you suggesting the opinion of some scholars is above the verses of the Qur'an itself?

Okay we can establish that Saudi Arabia has many Shariah type rulings.

Lots of countries have Shariah type rulings, doesn't mean they are based on Shariah. As a side note, it seems you are only focusing on one branch of Shariah, which is the punishments branch, and even that, the Saudi government has deviated greatly from it. But to get back on topic you are making completely false claims again:

You say that if there was an Islamic state the rulers would be placed on trial for crimes. This is absolutely false.

It also doesn't abrogate the many other verses on inequality such as this one

You mentioned witnesses. What about this verse, which holds the witness of women above that of men? "But it would avert the punishment from the wife, if she bears witness four times (with an oath) By Allah, that (her husband) is telling a lie;" [24:8]

Early in this Surah it describes the accusation of the husband that his wife has cheated on him and it explains how the witness of the wife is above that of the husband. You still didn't show me where I made a false claim that they are equal before god. I've shown my evidence from the Qur'an.

I can go into detail about the topic of hitting women if that's what you want. I'll just leave you with the fact that prohpet Muhammad has spoken against it in several sayings.

[Consciousness]

Re: Questions about Islam (Ask Away!)

Me too I am always open to learning.

When you say by checking just the Qur'an should we exclude hadith from our talks? The reason I ask is as I said earlier muslims would not know the proper way to pray in the masajid if it were not for ahadith. Some instances in the Qur'an you need hadith to understand what is happening. The Qur'an was given in bit by bit pieces and taught so sometimes you need some explanation from hadith. I am willing to just use Qur'an as well.

The reason I mentioned the "There is no compulsion in religion" verse is because you made the claim that there are no 'peaceful' verses in the revelation that was received in Madinah. I showed you one example, so clearly your claim is false.

I said that fighting was bestowed to the Ummah in the medina period. This is when they were able to fight in defense. At first defensive jihad is mentioned only. This makes sense, because Muslims were in no strength to launch extensive offensive wars (such as the Romans and Persians). It was only later that offensive jihad was prescribed. This was when the Ummah was strong. That is why the Prophet wanted to dispatch fighters to combat Persians and also Romans.

And again, I never said there was no fighting that was ordained upon Muslims. My main point is that the reason given to Muslims to fight, has nothing to do with the points that you have mentioned. Just look a few verses BEFORE the one that you have posted, it says: "Would you not fight a people who broke their oaths and determined to expel the Messenger, and they had begun [the attack upon] you the first time? Do you fear them? But Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are [truly] believers." [9:13]

It gives not one reason, but THREE reasons on why fighting has been ordered here. One of them, as you can see, is the fact that they had begun to fight the Muslims first.

And if you go further back, in the same Surah, it talks about protecting the polytheists. "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." [9:6]

This verse is mentioned right after the order to fight them has been given in the verse before it. It is talking about a time where there was a truce between the Muslims and the Polytheists, right after they broke their oath against Muslims. fighting in general, if you'd like I can talk about that in my next reply.

I haven't commented on the topic of Jizyah, because you are still talking about

u are giving mixed messages. Should we or should we not rely on these scholars to understand the message of the Qur'an. One time you say they influenced the sources of Islam and changed them. And then when it suits you, you think we should rely on them to understand this verse. What I'm saying is that, they are great scholars but just like everyone else, they've made mistakes. I can also show you different opinions about verses like this one. But my whole point is that if you look at the Qur'an the message becomes quite clear if you want to form your own understanding. I've shown you where the Qur'an contradicts the claims that you have made. Or are you suggesting the opinion of some scholars is above the verses of the Qur'an itself?

Using the Qur'an itself with the verse above 9:29 also reveals the fact of offensive jihad. I understand that verses prior are talking about defensive jihad. I accept that because in Islam there is both offensive and defensive jihad.

Yes, but Fatima is not the ruler. As I pointed out you cannot revolt against the ruler unless you can establish clear kufr (disbelief) on behalf of the ruler. So if the ruler lets say is bowing down to the cross or making statements of kufr (such as insulting the Prophet) then the masses can revolt. If the ruler is just corrupt, but has not committed kufr then you must obey unless he obey and not cause discord.

- - - Updated - - -

You mentioned witnesses. What about this verse, which holds the witness of women above that of men? "But it would avert the punishment from the wife, if she bears witness four times (with an oath) By Allah, that (her husband) is telling a lie;" [24:8]

Early in this Surah it describes the accusation of the husband that his wife has cheated on him and it explains how the witness of the wife is above that of the husband. You still didn't show me where I made a false claim that they are equal before god. I've shown my evidence from the Qur'an.

Yes, but you cannot take this ayah to court concerning property etc. That is why it is more difficult for a woman to establish herself in the ruling system when it comes to property and even other accusations.

Now commenting on the hadith you were responding to we can look at ibn kathir's commentary: (Note that he quotes Sahih Muslim again an authentic narration)

Ibn Katheer said:
Two women are to take the place of one man because women are lacking in reason, as Muslim narrated in his Saheeh… from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “O women, give in charity and seek forgiveness a great deal, for I have seen that you form the majority of the people of Hell.” A wise woman among them said, “Why is it, O Messenger of Allaah, that we are the majority of the people of Hell?” He said, “Because you curse too much, and you are ungrateful to your spouses. I have seen none lacking in common sense and failing in religion but (at the same time) robbing the wisdom of the wise, besides you.” The woman asked: “O Messenger of Allaah, what is wrong with our common sense and our religion?” He said: “Your lack of common sense (can be well judged from the fact) that the evidence of two women is equal to that of one man, that is a proof of the lack of common sense, and you spend some nights (and days) in which you do not offer prayer and in the month of Ramadan (during the days) you do not observe fast, that is a failing in religion.”
(Tafseer Ibn Katheer, 1/336)

Again another verse from the Quran

“Allaah commands you as regards your children’s (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females”
[al-Nisa’ 4:11]

- - - Updated - - -

For some reason I cannot put the rest of my post. It says I exceeded the limit

[Dumuzi]

Re: Questions about Islam (Ask Away!)

For some reason I cannot put the rest of my post. It says I exceeded the limit

I won't reply yet. But you can continue your reply below now that I posted this.

[Consciousness]

Re: Questions about Islam (Ask Away!)

Okay its working now

I can go into detail about the topic of hitting women if that's what you want. I'll just leave you with the fact that prohpet Muhammad has spoken against it in several sayings.

Well lets see what the Prophet said in again the authentic text of sahih Muslim (which has ijma consensus that its authentic)
Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Fear Allaah with regard to women, for you have taken them as a trust from Allaah and intimacy with them has become permissible to you by the words of Allaah. Your right over them is that they should not allow anyone to sit on your furniture whom you dislike; if they do that then hit them but not in a harsh manner. And their right over you is that you should provide for them and clothe them on a reasonable basis.” Narrated by Muslim, 1218.
Now just to make myself clear to other people on the forum I am not against Islam. Like I said I enjoy the Sufi interpretations of the Qur'an. I just simply think that politics (as is what happen to christianity) infiltrated the religion and caused these teachings to enter into the minds of the masses. I think there is indeed great wisdom in the Qur'an. In my personal opinion I just think things were changed including the Book itself.

[anunitu]

Re: Questions about Islam (Ask Away!)

I see much interchange between both of you. As Dumuzi knows I have much respect for all belief systems. What I see as a problem for all beliefs is the tendency to not understand the very BASIC parts and get hung up in the esoteric bits and pieces and forget the very simple tenets.

[Consciousness]

Re: Questions about Islam (Ask Away!)

Yes for sure. I agree. Like I said I am not against Islam I just think it has become political, but this is not true for all. As Dumuzi is a great example. His interpretation could indeed be aligned with the true intent of the Qur'an. I am enjoying reading the books of Ahmad Hulusi on the Qur'an and Allah. Here is his website with free books http://www.ahmedhulusi.org/en/

His books are very esoteric in regarding everything in the Universe as being Allah. And that all things are manifestations of Allah's names. I will have to make another thread discussing some great Sufi masters.

[Dumuzi]

Re: Questions about Islam (Ask Away!)

Thank you for your reply.

Using the Qur'an itself with the verse above 9:29 also reveals the fact of offensive jihad. I understand that verses prior are talking about defensive jihad. I accept that because in Islam there is both offensive and defensive jihad.

I've already commented on that verse before, but I will add that it seems you are confusing two things. In this verse it is describing the people Muslims are fighting. It does not mention the reason behind fighting them. The reason to fight are mentioned in the verses before it.

You also seem to say that offensive war is waged against others for not being Muslim (or not accepting the Jizyah), while my claim, supported by the Qur'an, is that such a war is only waged against the oppressors. Let me give you another example of this from the Sunnah, since you mentioned the fighting of non Muslims from both the Qur'an and Sunnah.

Are you familiar with the letters sent by Muhammad, peace be upon him, to the rulers around him? I'd like to show you two examples that prove the point I am trying to make.

Letter of the Prophet Muhammed to the Negus (king of Ethiopia)

In the name of God the Beneficent, the Merciful: From Muhammad the Prophet of Islam to the Negus, the king of Ethiopia: peace be on you, I thank God for you, The God, who is no god but him, the King, the Holy, the Guardian, and I witness that Jesus, the son of Mary is the Spirit of God and His Word. The word he gave to the pure the believer Mary, and from this word she gave birth to Jesus. God made Jesus from his soul just as he made Adam from his hand. I invite you and your soldiers to believe the God the Almighty. I wrote and advised you, so accept my advise. Peace upon those who follow the right way.

Notice how this letter is an invitation to Islam. No threat was given and no warning is given to the king. That is because this Non Muslim king was a just king. Earlier in history he even protected early Muslims from the Pagans of Arabia.

Now compare this letter with the following one:

In the name of God the Beneficent, the Merciful: (This letter is) from Muhammad son of Abdullah to Heraclius the Great (ruler) of the Romans (Byzantines). Peace be upon him, he who follows the right path. Furthermore I invite you to submit your will to God; submit your will to God and you will be safe, and God will double thy reward, and if you reject, thou you bear the sins of persecuting Arians.

(And I recite to you God's Statement (O Muhammad): 'and people of the scripture! Come to a word common to you and us that we worship none but God and that we associate nothing in worship with Him, and that none of us shall take others as Lords beside God. Then, if they turn away, say: 'Bear witness that we are Muslims' (those who have surrendered to God).

See, how there is a threatening tone in this letter, in contrast to the one before it? Both of those kings are non Muslim, but in this case the letter mentions the persecution of Arians. Those were people who were monotheists and were persecuted by the Romans. For that reason offensive war, as you put it, was waged against that king.

The main factor that determines whether or not fighting is allowed is how these non Muslims treat the believers. Actually a clear and direct verse(s) of the Qur'an explains that quite beautifully and nicely:

"Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.

Allah only forbids you from those who fight you because of religion and expel you from your homes and aid in your expulsion - [forbids] that you make allies of them. And whoever makes allies of them, then it is those who are the wrongdoers." [60:8-9]

These verses help us further understand the verses which you have mentioned, not taking into account the verses I mentioned which come before it. It also explains the Sayings of Muhammad, peace be upon him, regarding the people he ordered us to fight. Again and again the Qur'an talks about tolerance to other people and makes sure the reasons to fight are quite clear. Yet, it seems you want to ignore every single verse in the Qur'an, especially the ones that help us understand the ones you have mentioned.

Yes, but Fatima is not the ruler. As I pointed out you cannot revolt against the ruler unless you can establish clear kufr (disbelief) on behalf of the ruler.

Shes the daughter of the ruler! I compared that with Saudi Arabia today. Clearly, they are not following this Hadith in regards to the sons and daughters of the ruler.

As for revolting against the ruler, I have shown you a Hadith were it contradicts your claim. Furthermore, Muhammad, peace be upon him said, "There is no obedience to a created one in a sin against the creator". (لا طاعة لمخلوق في معصية الخالق) If a ruler is ordering injustice or a sin, no Muslim should obey him, this is quite clear from this Hadith.

Another good example is found in the speech of Abu Bakr, first ruler of Muslims after Muhammad, peace be upon him, who said, "O people, I have been appointed over you, though I am not the best among you. If I do well, then help me; and if I act wrongly, then correct me.Obey me so long as I obey Allah and His Messenger. And if I disobey Allah and His Messenger, then I have no right to your obedience.

[MaskedOne]

Re: Questions about Islam (Ask Away!)

insert post break here

[Dumuzi]

Re: Questions about Islam (Ask Away!)

Thanks MaskedOne! (offers you Jihadi pizza made from the flesh of dead infidels)

PART II of my reply (Revenge of the Sheikhs)

Now just to make myself clear to other people on the forum I am not against Islam.

You claim that it's OK according to Islam to beat the crap out of your wife, and to kill others for their religion, and yet you are not against Islam?

You mentioned in the end two issues regarding equality between men and women in Islam. First you mentioned the witness of men and women, and then you mentioned inheritance.

As for the first issue, I already mentioned that it depends on the situation. In some cases you have to take the witness of two women (in case one errs, according to the Qur'an) and in other situations the witness of a woman is above the witness of a man. Like I mentioned, according to Islam women and men are different, the reason why you need two female witnesses in some situations is to relief women of the responsibility that arises from having to witness against someone alone. This has nothing to do with the quality of her witness, as proven by other situations where only her witness is enough.

Second issue regarding inheritance. Again, this depends on how the female is related to the deceased. In some situations she gets an equal amount, in others she can inherit while the male doesn't. And in some cases, like you've mentioned, she takes half the amount of a male. That's the case in comparing daughters to sons of a deceased father, for example.

But why does the male take double in that situation?

It's quite simply really, when you look at other rules in Islam. The male has the religious obligations of taking care of his wife and children in financial matters. A female according to Islam, has the right to her own property and money, which no man can take away from her. (That's something that wasn't very common before Islam, and even wasn't common in the Western world a century or less ago.)

In other words the money given to the male belongs to him, his wife, his children and sometimes even other relatives that he is responsible for financial wise. While the money given to a woman belongs only to herself. So even from a pure mathematical point of view, this is quite fair.

I must repeat that all of these issues have nothing to do with how equal men and women are before god, as I've shown in the verses I posted. Those are all worldly matters that can easily be explained by the difference in obligations and rights between the two genders.

I also forgot to comment on the wife beating issue, so here it goes.

Before going into the Qur'an and hadith, I will mention that most scholars have spoken against domestic violence and explained the root word of daraba as a very light tap that is meant to be symbolic rather than physical. As for the evidence from the Qur'an and Sunnah, it couldn't be more clear. Sayings of the messenger of Allah, may peace be upon him:

1. "Do not beat the female servants of Allah"

2. "Some (women) visited my family complaining about their husbands (beating them). These (husbands) are not the best of you.and do not beat them, and do not revile them. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2139)"

5. Narrated Mu'awiyah ibn Haydah: "I said: Apostle of Allah, how should we approach our wives and how should we leave them? He replied: Approach your tilth when or how you will, give her (your wife) food when you take food, clothe when you clothe yourself, do not revile her face, and do not beat her. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2138)"

And if you look at the Qur'an in the same Surah that you quoted, it mentions earlier:

"O you who have believed, it is not lawful for you to inherit women by compulsion. And do not make difficulties for them in order to take [back] part of what you gave them unless they commit a clear immorality. And live with them in kindness. For if you dislike them - perhaps you dislike a thing and Allah makes therein much good." [4:19]

So how can Allah order men to be kind to women and then order them to beat them later? Doesn't make sense.

[Consciousness]

Re: Questions about Islam (Ask Away!)

You also seem to say that offensive war is waged against others for not being Muslim (or not accepting the Jizyah), while my claim, supported by the Qur'an, is that such a war is only waged against the oppressors. Let me give you another example of this from the Sunnah, since you mentioned the fighting of non Muslims from both the Qur'an and Sunnah.

Based on your claim you are suggesting that offensive jihad is only against oppressors. This is absolutely false and the consensus of the scholars of Ahlus Sunnah oppose you in this. You are to invite the Kuffar (nonbelievers) to Islam. If they refuse then you offer them to pay jizyah. If they refuse then you fight them. There is ijma on this. That is why I can quote to you if you like from scholars and ahadith (there is actually quite a lot of information on this) supporting offensive jihad. Its not just when other nations are oppressing. No, it includes expanding the Islamic state by occupying other lands and establishing shariah there. You can fight those that do not have a covenant with Muslims.

Commentary on 9:29 from Ibn kathir (a scholar of Tafsir mind you)

(Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day) (9:29) until,
﴿وَهُمْ صَـغِرُونَ﴾
(And feel themselves subdued) (9:29).
Allah's pardon for the disbelievers was repealed.'' Abu Al-`Aliyah, Ar-Rabi` bin Anas, Qatadah and As-Suddi said similarly: It was abrogated by the Ayah of the sword." (Mentioned above). ]

Heres the link to verify http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?opt...id=327&Itemid=


Notice how the Qur'an abrogates previous verses on the kuffar.
From scholarly source again:
It is further explained to call the unbelievers towards the true Religion of Islam and to fight against them, if they are unwilling to accept this true Religion. (Fathul Qadeer)

If an Islamic state is established and there is no defensive Jihad and the Muslims are strong. Then the Imam is REQUIRED to launch offensive jihad. Again this is by ijma (consensus). Look at Fatawa Shami
Fatawa Shami: “It is required of the Imam (leader) of the Muslims to dispatch the army routinely once or twice a year towards the kufr countries. It is also the duty of the Muslim public to assist the Imam in this noble cause. If the Imam does not send an army, then he will be considered sinful."


I am glad you showed the letters of the Prophet, but that does not negate the other statements from the Prophet or his earliest companions on the issue of offensive jihad. Btw earlier I had quoted the hadith (classed as Sahih by ijma) of the Prophet not disapproving of one of his companions killing the woman who insulted the Prophet. She was not oppressing anyone she simply said nasty things about the Prophet. So the man killed her with a sword or dagger.

As for revolting against the ruler, I have shown you a Hadith were it contradicts your claim. Furthermore, Muhammad, peace be upon him said, "There is no obedience to a created one in a sin against the creator". (لا طاعة لمخلوق في معصية الخالق) If a ruler is ordering injustice or a sin, no Muslim should obey him, this is quite clear from this Hadith.

I agree that if the ruler is trying to make you do something forbidden you do not have to obey him. This is established, but you cannot revolt. This is ijma. Read about the khawarij and what the early Salaf (first 3 generations of muslims including the Prophets companion) had to say about revolts. Its forbidden.

The Prophet said, “Whosoever sees something from his leader of sin, then let him hate whatever occurs from sin. And let him not remove his hand from obedience, since whoever removes his hand from disobedience and splits off from the Jamaah (united body), then he dies the death of Jaahiliyyah (pre-Islamic times of ignorance).’’ Recorded by Bukhari and Muslim
The Prophet said “Listen and obey, even if the ruler seizes you and beats your back.” Recorded by Muslim

- - - Updated - - -

You claim that it's OK according to Islam to beat the crap out of your wife, and to kill others for their religion, and yet you are not against Islam?

No you are putting words in my mouth. I already quoted ahadith of the Prophet talking about how you can 'lightly beat' your wife. I already showed that you can hit your wife as long as you do not 1. Break the bone, 2 cause bleeding, or 3 leave a mark. Its also forbidden from hitting the face. You would have to hit another part of the body.

I agree on the part about inheritance. This is how I also explained the differences with women away. Yes the man gets more share of the inheritance, but must share with the the (sister ie. woman). I get this, but the fact that the woman cannot be in control of the wealth herself would be troublesome to me, but I wont press this matter.

I also see the evidence you posted about the Prophet speaking against beating women. Again we have the quote from the Qur'an itself

Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.(Surah 4 ayah 34).

Now you quote these ahadith which I can accept, but you cannot also ignore the other ahadith plus this quranic ayah. In your 4th example you quote from abu dawud while I quoted from Bukhari and Muslim (which have greater authenticity by consensus of scholars).

And earlier you said people should just read the Quran alone. It would be troublesome to explain away surah 4 ayah 34.

- - - Updated - - -.He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you?

[Dumuzi]

Re: Questions about Islam (Ask Away!)

Hey Consciousness

Before I go into my detailed response I must say that I don't mind disagreements and all, but I don't appreciate deception. You post something and then make a part of it in bold letters and increase the size of it so everyone can see it when skimming, and then later it turns out it's actually a complete wrong translation. If you had done this without knowing, the bold plus size thing, then I can understand that. But to do that knowing the correct translation? I just can't agree with that.

And since you mentioned Aisha, here's what Aisha herself has said about this topic in Sahih Muslim:

'A'isha reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) never beat anyone with his hand, neither a woman nor a servant, but only, in the case when he had been fighting in the cause of Allah and he never took revenge for anything unless the things made inviolable by Allah were made violable; he then took revenge for Allah, the Exalted and Glorious. (Book #030, Hadith #5756)

I don't have much more to add to this topic other than the Sayings of Muhammad, peace be upon him, speaking against beating women and ordering us NOT to beat women. It doesn't get more direct than that. So if that doesn't change your mind, I don't know what will.

You do make a good point about the verse in the Qur'an, which is why I mentioned two important points regarding that. First, the very same Surah orders men do deal with kindness towards women (so how can it order them to beat the crap out of them at the same time?). Secondly, the Arabic word daraba can have a wide range of meaning which is why scholars have explained it does NOT mean to beat women, especially when put in contrast with the Sayings of Muhammad, peace be upon him, that don't leave room for doubt regarding the meaning behind this verse. And Allah knows best.

Based on your claim you are suggesting that offensive jihad is only against oppressors. This is absolutely false

I have supported my claim with evidence from the Qur'an and Sunnah. Are you suggesting the opinion of some scholars are above that of Allah, subhanahu wa ta'ala? If you post the opinion of some scholars I have a ton of other scholars that say otherwise, but in the end, to reach a conclusion about this topic we'd have to go back to the source. What does the source tell you?

The argument of abrogation does not apply here, because it only applies when a ruling is changed regarding a topic, such as something that is general that is made more specific or the other way round and so on. When it comes to the topic of how to deal with non Muslims who are not oppressive or fight Muslims, the ruling is never changed.

You also seem to ignore the many verses of the Qur'an that directly deal with this topic.

If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe! [10:99]

And say, "The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills - let him believe; and whoever wills - let him disbelieve." [18:29]

Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly. [60:8]

There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing. [2:256]

And even regarding the verse that you posted, I already explained how it deals with a group of non Muslims who began fighting Muslims first and kicked them out of their homes. In a verse earlier it even tells Muslims to protect those polytheists who seek the protection of Muslims, since there was a treaty between them. Here are the two verses I mentioned earlier:

Would you not fight a people who broke their oaths and determined to expel the Messenger, and they had begun [the attack upon] you the first time? Do you fear them? But Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are [truly] believers. [9:13]

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. [9:6]

As you can see it specifically mentions that those non Muslims began fighting Muslims first. Ignoring that seems to change the meaning completely. And most people will ignore it and never talk about it in order to deceive readers as to the meaning of the Qur'an.

I am glad you showed the letters of the Prophet, but that does not negate the other statements from the Prophet

They prove exactly what I want to say. Why did the early Muslims fight the Romans but at the same time didn't fight Ethiopia? Aren't they both non Muslim countries? If we apply your logic, can you tell me why those early Muslims didn't have a war against their King?

The main difference, according to my claim that I have supported from the Qur'an, is that unlike the King of Ethiopia, the Roman persecuted most people that didn't follow their religion. In Egypt, they were even oppressing Egyptian Christians because they didn't follow their Church.

Another thing that can set explain this matter once and for all, is to ask yourself, why was the permission to fight given to Muslims in the first place? What's the first verse that was revealed regarding fighting?

Permission [to fight] has been given to those 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.
[22-39-40]

I always like to bring up the fact that the Ayah mentions churches and synagogues before mosques. So the whole reason a Muslims were given the permission to fight proves what I want to say.

You brought up other interesting points about other issues in your post, but I don't want to make this too long, and I'm tired. I will reply to the rest later today.

Have a nice day. ;-)

[Consciousness]

Re: Questions about Islam (Ask Away!)

Before I go into my detailed response I must say that I don't mind disagreements and all, but I don't appreciate deception. You post something and then make a part of it in bold letters and increase the size of it so everyone can see it when skimming, and then later it turns out it's actually a complete wrong translation. If you had done this without knowing, the bold plus size thing, then I can understand that. But to do that knowing the correct translation? I just can't agree with that.

Did not the Prophet 'lahad' (push) Aisha to the extent where she mentions that it caused her pain? Do you think its permissible if my wife makes me upset for me to push her on the chest to an extent where it causes her pain? you are apologizing that is all your doing. You are running away from the issue by ignoring it and presenting other evidence (you sometimes do this using the same books I quoted from such as Sahih Bukhari and Muslim) yet you deny what I post?

I don't have much more to add to this topic other than the Sayings of Muhammad, peace be upon him, speaking against beating women and ordering us NOT to beat women. It doesn't get more direct than that. So if that doesn't change your mind, I don't know what will.

You say he orders you not to bead women yet the Qur'an allows it as I have exhaustively stated so using surah 4:34. not only that I showed you how the Prophet pushed Aisha.

Why should I continue on quoting from Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim (the most authentic texts after the Qur'an) if you are going to ignore them with other quotes? Either the consensus of the scholars (which reaches back to the Companions of the Prophet) are wrong and you are right, or they are right and you are wrong.

You accuse me of being deceptive yet I gave the correct translation beneath the hadith. I kept the hadith in tact because that is how it is 'usually' translated as Muhammad struck Aisha. Regardless if it is STRUCK or PUSH Aisha felt pain. You cannot bring yourself to accept that Muhammad caused physical pain for Aisha (thats your problem not mine).

You do make a good point about the verse in the Qur'an, which is why I mentioned two important points regarding that. First, the very same Surah orders men do deal with kindness towards women (so how can it order them to beat the crap out of them at the same time?). Secondly, the Arabic word daraba can have a wide range of meaning which is why scholars have explained it does NOT mean to beat women, especially when put in contrast with the Sayings of Muhammad, peace be upon him, that don't leave room for doubt regarding the meaning behind this verse. And Allah knows best.

You are committing bidah (innovation). You are saying that now the verse does not mean to beat women in 4:34? I already showed you Tafsir from scholars of Tafsir. I am sure you know who the Mufasirun are (scholars of Tafsir). So for some reason you have greater knowledge then the 'orthodox' commentators of the Qur'an some of which are direct disciples of the Prophet. This is absurd and DECEPTIVE to say the least!

I have supported my claim with evidence from the Qur'an and Sunnah. Are you suggesting the opinion of some scholars are above that of Allah, subhanahu wa ta'ala? If you post the opinion of some scholars I have a ton of other scholars that say otherwise, but in the end, to reach a conclusion about this topic we'd have to go back to the source. What does the source tell you?

So my ahadith I posted from AUTHENTIC text from Prophet Muhammad's own lips are false? If Bukhari and Muslim (again the most authentic text after the Quran) quoting Muhammad is not enough for you (except when it suits you) then why bother carrying on a conversation? Just be true to yourself that yes indeed the Prophet allowed these things. I again will bring up about the fact that Muhammad sat by and did nothing to his disciple who killed an innocent woman whose only crime was saying negative things about the Prophet (Again SAHIH BUKHARI).


The rest of your post you just post some more 'defensive' jihad quotes without posting any offensive jihad quotes to substantiate your claims. Now somehow the Islamic state is in charge of fighting oppressors of other countries? Yea sure, but then again what do I know I only know of whats in the most authentic books such as Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim as well as the ijma (consensus of the scholars).

Need i remind you that ijma (consensus) is something that its obligatory to follow since the scholars have full agreement on something? But then again you are more intelligent then the major scholars dating back to the direct disciples of the Prophet Muhammad.

Have a good morning (maybe its evening in Egypt?)

[Heka]

Re: Questions about Islam (Ask Away!)

This all looks fascinating guys, but I'm struggling to read every word. I am assuming though that in there somewhere someone confirms my deductions in response to my questions?

~~~~
Sorry, I'm realising how harshly that comes across (I'm a teacher and I'm still at school at 9pm writing reports UGH). I just don't have the time of patience now to read every word, and I'm hoping that I do understand what I was trying to understand....

What ever it was

[Consciousness]

Re: Questions about Islam (Ask Away!)

Hi Heka,

You can listen to Dumuzi's view. His view would be yes fighting is restricted only against oppressors and that the only reason for offensive fighting against other nations is to fight oppressors.

[Heka]

Re: Questions about Islam (Ask Away!)

Thanks for the quick reply Consciousness (I struggle to spell that every time!), but my questions were about taqiyyah.....