Are Muslims disobeying the Qur'an by participating in this forum?

[stevecanuck]

There are no replacements of Surahs/Chapters and verses of the Quran. It is one's wrong perception, I understand.
Please try to understand Quran from the context verses, that is some verses preceding and some verses following. The whole Quran is in reasonable system/s, one part of it is supported and explained by the rest of it . Right?
Regards

I have read the Qur'an in chronological order (based on Revelation Order - Tanzil Documents). It makes the transition from Mecca to Yathrib obvious and stark. Very stark. The transition to warrior status was swift and stunning.

 

[stevecanuck]

Ah, NO
I am sure you got this on Google without reading about it in depth

I've been reading the qur'an for 20 years. Try another strawman.

9:29 and the whole chapter is talking about the conflict between Muslims and The Byzantine power. The Prophet PBUH sent a message to Caesar, Caesar killed the messenger,

You are speaking of the so-called 'invitation to Islam'. That 'invitation' is actually an ultimatum based on 9:29. It 'invited' the Byzantines to either adopt Islam, surrender and pay the jizyah, or face invasion. You do know that, don't you?

then he prepared an army to go killed the Muslims. But, Muslims beat him to it by sending an army.
So that verse talks about that battle

There was no battle at Tabuk. The Byzantines had no interest in fighting the Muslims. They were embroiled in a 4-decade long war with the Persians instead. The last thing they needed was another war front. That story you told is utter nonsense.

That being the rule of that time, when you take over land the losers have 3 options
- Become Muslims and pay tax like any other Muslim
- Don't be a Muslim but pay taxes for services and protection
- Fight and win or die

What is expected by armies fighting, of course slaughter them

You've just admitted that Islam is a conquering creed. Thank you.

 

[RAYYAN]

In all these words, You didn't say anything that I don't know and you just reformed it your way LOL

I've been reading the qur'an for 20 years. Try another strawman.

So what made you read something that you don't like for 20 years!
and your post doesn't tell you read it for 20 minutes

You are speaking of the so-called 'invitation to Islam'. That 'invitation' is actually an ultimatum based on 9:29. It 'invited' the Byzantines to either adopt Islam, surrender and pay the jizyah, or face invasion. You do know that, don't you?

I am speaking of a battle. When you give it another name, it doesn't make it true

There was no battle at Tabuk. The Byzantines had no interest in fighting the Muslims. They were embroiled in a 4-decade long war with the Persians instead. The last thing they needed was another war front. That story you told is utter nonsense.

Is that what you say and I have to believe, or do you have an authentic and trustworthy source?

You've just admitted that Islam is a conquering creed. Thank you.

No, maybe you have a reading disability
I gave you the reason why that happen. I ask you AGAIN, do you have a source to contradict what I say?

Actually, Islam is generous, it gives options unlike other battles, it is kill or get killed

 

[stevecanuck]

I have read the Qur'an and lived my whole life in Muslim societies. I was also brought up into the religion and practiced it regularly until early adulthood.

I agree with @Left Coast's assessment. Dismissing more progressive and peaceful interpretations of the Qur'an only gives leverage to the notion that only extremist and literalist readings of scripture are valid. This is counterproductive and doesn't aid in promoting the more peaceful voices.

There is almost nothing in the qur'an that promotes peaceful coexistence with those of other religions. Almost nothing. If people want to live by 6 verses and ignore the other 6,230, then more power to them. Unfortunately, reality gets in the way.

Such dismissal may be a convenient means of painting the entire religion in a negative light by treating it as a monolith, but overlooking diversity and nuance doesn't help advance coexistence or do justice to the Muslims who also believe in advancing it.

That was nothing other than buzz-word bingo. Using words like "nuance" in no way blunts verses such as 9:111. Surah 9 is a call to arms, and it matters more than other surahs because it's the last (except for surah 110, which also speaks of military conquest). With that, the transition of Islam to warrior religion was complete.

 

[stevecanuck]

I am speaking of a battle. When you give it another name, it doesn't make it true

There was no battle. Look up Tabuk and learn something.

 

[stevecanuck]

I am speaking of a battle. When you give it another name, it doesn't make it true

Is that what you say and I have to believe, or do you have an authentic and trustworthy source?

You're the one making the claim that there was a battle, and you do so without supplying a source.

In his tafsir of surah 9, Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi (https://www.englishtafsir.com/Quran/9/index.html), summarizes "the problems that were confronting the [Islamic] Community at that time" thus:

- to make the whole of Arabia a perfect Dar-ul-Islam [abode of Islam],
- to extend the influence of Islam to the adjoining countries,
- to crush the mischief of the hypocrites, and
- to prepare the Muslims for Jihad against the non- Muslim world.

Could a warrior, conquering stance be more obvious?

 

[Kooky]

You're the one making the claim that there was a battle, and you do so without supplying a source.

In his tafsir of surah 9, Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi (https://www.englishtafsir.com/Quran/9/index.html), summarizes "the problems that were confronting the [Islamic] Community at that time" thus:

- to make the whole of Arabia a perfect Dar-ul-Islam [abode of Islam],
- to extend the influence of Islam to the adjoining countries,
- to crush the mischief of the hypocrites, and
- to prepare the Muslims for Jihad against the non- Muslim world.

Could a warrior, conquering stance be more obvious?

Okay, at this point, you've been extensively argueing that Muslim religion is only about holy war, force-conversion of unbelievers, and possibly conquest and oppression.

What conclusions are you drawing from this? What do you suggest to do about it?

 

[stevecanuck]

Okay, at this point, you've been extensively argueing that Muslim religion is only about holy war, force-conversion of unbelievers, and possibly conquest and oppression.

What conclusions are you drawing from this?

You mostly just stated my conclusions.

Except maybe for "only". The first chronological 2/3 of the Qur'an is little more than endless repetition of Allah's oneness and greatness. Only after Mohamed relocated to Yathrib did Islam become a warrior religion.

What do you suggest to do about it?

Be knowledgeable. Be aware. It used to be, "See something - say something". Now that we're swimming in PC Wokeness, it has become, "See something - say something - get called a bigoted Islamophobe".

 

[Kooky]

Be knowledgeable. Be aware. It used to be, "See something - say something". Now that we're swimming in PC Wokeness, it has become, "See something - say something - get called a bigoted Islamophobe".

So your preferred course of action is to attack people who vocally oppose Islamophobia.

Is that all?

 

[RAYYAN]

You're the one making the claim that there was a battle, and you do so without supplying a source.

In his tafsir of surah 9, Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi (https://www.englishtafsir.com/Quran/9/index.html), summarizes "the problems that were confronting the [Islamic] Community at that time" thus:

- to make the whole of Arabia a perfect Dar-ul-Islam [abode of Islam],
- to extend the influence of Islam to the adjoining countries,
- to crush the mischief of the hypocrites, and
- to prepare the Muslims for Jihad against the non- Muslim world.

Could a warrior, conquering stance be more obvious?

The verse you are quoting is talking about a battlefield, it doesn't matter if the battle happened or not. The verse is talking about how Muslims act when they face the enemy on the battlefield in Tabuk.
It is not an invitation to kill non-Muslims with no cause

 

[stevecanuck]

The verse you are quoting is talking about a battlefield, it doesn't matter if the battle happened or not. The verse is talking about how Muslims act when they face the enemy on the battlefield in Tabuk.
It is not an invitation to kill non-Muslims with no cause

Yet there it still lies like the turd that it is - "Fight those who believe not in Allah .....".

 

[stevecanuck]

So your preferred course of action is to attack people who vocally oppose Islamophobia.

Is that all?

Your preferred course of action seems to be to attack those who expose the Kafriphobia in the Qur'an.

I have a big problem with a creed that specifically compares Jews to donkeys, and calls unbelievers "wretched" (The likeness of those who are entrusted with the Law of Moses, yet apply it not, is as the likeness of the *** carrying books. Wretched is the likeness of folk who deny the revelations of Allah. And Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk).

My question to you is why don't you have a problem with it?

 

[stevecanuck]

The verse you are quoting is talking about a battlefield, it doesn't matter if the battle happened or not. The verse is talking about how Muslims act when they face the enemy on the battlefield in Tabuk.
It is not an invitation to kill non-Muslims with no cause

Let's be clear about that context. The Byzantines were NOT a threat to the Muslims. As I told you, and you failed to acknowledge, they were embroiled in a 4-decade long war with the Persians. The last thing they were about to do is look for another enemy. Mohamed tried to start a war with THEM.

Tell me what an army that only fights in self defense was doing in France a hundred years later. Then India and the slaughter of millions of Hindus. Explain that next. You have a lot of tap-dancing to do. Get your shoes on.

 

[KWED]

Verse 4:140 of the Qur'an states:

Yusuf Ali: Already has He sent you Word in the Book, that when ye hear the signs of Allah held in defiance and ridicule, ye are not to sit with them unless they turn to a different theme: if ye did, ye would be like them. For Allah will collect the hypocrites and those who defy faith - all in Hell.

It seems quite clear to me that when a Muslim engages in debate with the likes of me, that he/she is openly defying Allah's command to not do so.

Comments?

Seems pretty straightforward, although it makes the obligation to give dawah a little difficult if you have to stop as soon as anyone responds negatively.

A cynic might even suggest that Allah is afraid of his followers being defeated in a debate and swayed away from the 'truth'.

Well, the Quran does say... "O you who believe! Ask not about things which, if made plain to you, may cause you trouble... A people before you indeed asked such questions, and then became disbelievers on account of them." (5:101-102)

 

[KWED]

No, why would you think that?

Erm... because of what Allah says in the Quran?
You are constantly accusing people here of mocking and ridiculing and bashing Islam. Allah says that you must not remain in the company of people like that or you will be treated like them come judgement day.
If you disagree, please present an argument as to why Allah isn't actually saying what he seems to be saying, rather than just a bare denial.

 

[KWED]

4:141

وَقَدۡ نَزَّلَ عَلَیۡکُمۡ فِی الۡکِتٰبِ اَنۡ اِذَا سَمِعۡتُمۡ اٰیٰتِ اللّٰہِ یُکۡفَرُ بِہَا وَیُسۡتَہۡزَاُ بِہَا فَلَا تَقۡعُدُوۡا مَعَہُمۡ حَتّٰی یَخُوۡضُوۡا فِیۡ حَدِیۡثٍ غَیۡرِہٖۤ ۫ۖ اِنَّکُمۡ اِذًا مِّثۡلُہُمۡ ؕ اِنَّ اللّٰہَ جَامِعُ الۡمُنٰفِقِیۡنَ وَالۡکٰفِرِیۡنَ فِیۡ جَہَنَّمَ جَمِیۡعَۨا ﴿۱۴۱﴾ۙ

English - Sher Ali
And He has already revealed to you in the Book that, when you hear the Signs of Allah being denied and mocked at, sit not with them until they engage in a talk other than that; for in that case you would be like them. Surely, Allah will assemble the hypocrites and the disbelievers in Hell, all together;
Holy Quran: Read, Listen and Search
" being denied and mocked at "

When people start ridiculing and or mocking , that in fact indicates that they are no longer serious to continue the debate and or discussion. Right, please?

Regards

I guess it depends on how you define "mocking". Some people seem to consider even pointing out unacceptable practices (like slavery and torture) to be mocking, attacking, bashing, etc.

 

[KWED]

Is why I refuse to discuss with athiests anymore

You were very keen to do so when you assumed everyone would simply accept your claims as gospel. However, I agree that if you don't want to have your religious claims scrutinised, a public religious debate forum is probably not the best place to make them (especially if they are demonstrably flawed).

 

[KWED]

someone argumentative with the sole purpose of proving or winning said argument.

Are you familiar with the concept of debate?

 

[KWED]

We get it.
You don't like Islam.
Loud and clear.

Who would like an ideology that promotes or condones things like slavery, torture, using female captives for sex, execution for consensual adult sex, sex with young girls, gender discrimination, ideological supremacism.
If a political party started today with the principles of Islam as its manifesto, it would be universally condemned and probably banned.

 

[KWED]

"And eat of the lawful and good things God has provided for you; and be conscious of God, in Whom you are believers."
If you're gonna criticize it, at least cite it correctly.
Quran in English - Clear and Easy to Read.

The Quran describes disbelievers as "the worst of beasts" in sura 8:22 and 8:55
"For the worst of beasts in the sight of Allah are the deaf and the dumb,- those who understand not."
"Surely the worst of beasts in God's sight are the unbelievers`"