Quran has the best guidance about war and peace.

[Link]

Allah is fundamentally intolerant.

Allah (swt) will punish people for not following him, but this in the inward kingdom in this world and hell in the next. It is not for us to punish people or discriminate.

Imam Ali (a) is said to have worked for a Jew (his job) for example.

 

[KWED]

They were oppressors, and towards their own people as well. This will have to be discussed in more detail, but you bring a central point, Muslim tyrants ruined Islam both to Muslims and outsiders. They ruined the justice of it.

I am thankful Iran is Muslim, but there is evidence than Persia sought peace and did not want to fight Muslim, but Umar never the less sought to conquer Persia.

Musalma was allowed to be a false Prophet during Mohammad (s) time, but Abu Bakr killed him and his followers.

More will be said on this subject.

Muhammad was a Muslim tyrant. He invaded tribes and lands whose inhabitants were not aggressive or who wanted peace.
The Muslim imperialists invaded and colonised huge areas for centuries, often with much bloodshed. There are historians who consider the Islamic conquest of India to have been the greatest genocide in history.
Now, you might say "Bad apples!", but if there are so many rotten apples, there might be something wrong with the barrel.

 

[KWED]

Tafsir Hassan Al-Askari (a) is words too sublime for normal humans to overall write. Some of it is altered, but over all, it's a proven source by its own sublimity.

You clearly don't realise just how ridiculous that sounds to rational people!

 

[Link]

Muhammad was a Muslim tyrant. He invaded tribes and lands whose inhabitants were not aggressive or who wanted peace.
The Muslim imperialists invaded and colonised huge areas for centuries, often with much bloodshed. There are historians who consider the Islamic conquest of India to have been the greatest genocide in history.
Now, you might say "Bad apples!", but if there are so many rotten apples, there might be something wrong with the barrel.

The barrel is rotten when they did not follow Mohammad's (s) Successors and Heirs.

Mohammad (s) did not fight people not hostile per Quran. I do not know Sunni sources maybe as well as you, but I know per Quran, there was no offensive wars allowed to people who inclined to peace.

 

[KWED]

Few, most say what he have, is part of his tasfir with potential alterations. Some say the chain is reliable and no alterations, but there is some alterations from what I see.

Anyways, people can read it themselves and judge for themselves.

So you dismiss the concerns of Shia scholars because you like it.
Seems reasonable!

 

[Link]

You clearly don't realise just how ridiculous that sounds to rational people!

Quran words are above that of all humans and Ahlulbayt (a) cannot do it.
Ahlulbayt (a) words are superior to all humans but short words harder to see, but the longer it gets, the more obvious it becomes and clearer it gets its from the Imam.

For example, The Noble Misbahal Shariah, no one can write like it from normal humans. This is also true per Quranic wisdom:

"They cannot do it for they are from the hearing far removed".

They cannot mimic exalted wise ways of speech from the light as they are in darkness, deaf, dumb and blind.

 

[KWED]

Nope you keep insisting your interpretation is the literal obvious meaning, but I've shown the context shows otherwise.

Ironically, I cite the consensus of Islamic scholarly opinion, with references. You just give your bizarre opinion and claim everyone else is corrupted by dark magic, etc.
A most rational argument.

 

[Link]

So you dismiss the concerns of Shia scholars because you like it.
Seems reasonable!

Most Shiite scholars dismiss those views. There always differences of opinion. For example, Misbahal Shariah is opposed because it seems too Sufi like. But its not Sufi like at all. It is way above how Sufis talk today, and how they talked in the past.

Of course, its highly spiritual, but the way it is, is not Sufi like.

Even if it was, that is not a reason to dismiss it.

What is the reason some Shiite scholars thought it was fabricated? Can you tell them. Let's investigate those reasons.

It seems most of it is just that they did not humble their hearts and were arrogant to words way above their understanding.

 

[KWED]

I agree with that, but it also teaches to tolerate each others. Its balanced with both.

What part of that passage teaches tolerance?

 

[Link]

Ironically, I cite the consensus of Islamic scholarly opinion, with references. You just give your bizarre opinion and claim everyone else is corrupted by dark magic, etc.
A most rational argument.

You know the first thing you have to know, is Islamic scholars if you gather past and present, there is no consensus on anything. Not even Tawhid, not even what Nabi means, not even what Rasool means. Even Angels and their station is disputed.

 

[Link]

What part of that passage teaches tolerance?

The tone, we do not worship the same God, but to you is your religion and to me is mine. We are free to worship wrongly or truly in this world, the consequences is for the next, but in this world, everyone has right to their religion.

 

[KWED]

All my sources are from Divine sources not any man made interpretations and that is the key to the proper understanding of the Quran. God is the only Eye Witness to what actually transpired as neither you or I were there at the time.

So I rely on what the Prophets of God have stated as opposed to peoples views or opinions because God is the only reliable witness. So those biased against Islam will use biased interpretations out of context while the Divine reveals the truth. For those who rely on fallible interpretations or don’t believe in God, they will make misinformed judgements and misconstrue Muhammad and the Quran.

Okay. So while I use the Quran, hadith, classical tafsir and early Islamic biographies for my sources for information on early Islamic history, you use the opinions of a Persian bloke from the late 19th century, who claimed god spoke to him.
Seems reasonable

 

[KWED]

Yes, its with holding they are the lowest of the low (per Surah Teen), but still living with them, having compassion for them, forbearing them, and wishing well for them.

Our views of reality inward should not prevent us from peace and harmony in outward earth.

You just pulled all that out of your arse.
It just says that disbelievers are the worst of beasts. Another passage advises hatred for them. Another describes them as "like cattle". Another that they have "diseased hearts". That they are "like dogs". "Apes and swine". "Unintelligent".

"Tolerance"?

 

[Link]

You just pulled all that out of your arse.
It just says that disbelievers are the worst of beasts. Another passage advises hatred for them. Another describes them as "like cattle". Another that they have "diseased hearts". That they are "like dogs". "Apes and swine". "Unintelligent".

"Tolerance"?

Tolerance in the sense no dispute in the world, "There is no dispute between us and you, to you is your actions and to us is ours" but of course, we dispute about inward world and spiritual destination. This is clear in Quran that it should not prevent harmony and should not imply we have to force each other to views and we are to act justly to each other.

Read Surah Shura, it contextualizes all this, and even has the verses I quoted in the OP.

 

[Link]

فَلِذَٰلِكَ فَادْعُ ۖ وَاسْتَقِمْ كَمَا أُمِرْتَ ۖ وَلَا تَتَّبِعْ أَهْوَاءَهُمْ ۖ وَقُلْ آمَنْتُ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ مِنْ كِتَابٍ ۖ وَأُمِرْتُ لِأَعْدِلَ بَيْنَكُمُ ۖ اللَّهُ رَبُّنَا وَرَبُّكُمْ ۖ لَنَا أَعْمَالُنَا وَلَكُمْ أَعْمَالُكُمْ ۖ لَا حُجَّةَ بَيْنَنَا وَبَيْنَكُمُ ۖ اللَّهُ يَجْمَعُ بَيْنَنَا ۖ وَإِلَيْهِ الْمَصِيرُ | So summon to this [unity of religion], and be steadfast, just as you have been commanded, and do not follow their desires, and say, ‘I believe in whatever Book Allah has sent down. I have been commanded to do justice among you. Allah is our Lord and your Lord. Our deeds belong to us and your deeds belong to you. There is no quarrel between us and you. Allah will bring us together and toward Him is the destination.’ | Ash-Shura : 15

That is the verse I keep hinting to.

And said early on:

قُلْ لِلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا يَغْفِرُوا لِلَّذِينَ لَا يَرْجُونَ أَيَّامَ اللَّهِ لِيَجْزِيَ قَوْمًا بِمَا كَانُوا يَكْسِبُونَ | Say to the faithful to forgive those who do not expect Allah’s days, that He may [Himself] requite every people for what they used to earn. | Al-Jaathiya : 14

 

[KWED]

So a person claims that the Quran teaches violence but God says that the military expeditions of Muhammad were purely defensive.

Oxymoron right there.
You cannot invade another country purely in self defence. Besieging and ambushing are not defensive actions. They are aggressive.
The Quran explicitly commands aggressive military action.

Now I wasn’t there nor the person interpreting the Quran taught violence but God WAS there and is All Knowing so I rely on God as the Eye Witness rather than someone who wasn’t there and is just speculating with their finite, fallible and human error prone mind.

Much like with Bahaullah, you only have Muhammad's word that he spoke to god (via Jibril). He could well have been delusional or dishonest. The actual contents of the Quran sound exactly like what a 7th century Arab would write, complete with mistakes, contradictions, repetitions, and rehashes of earlier beliefs and myths.
With no evidence for the supernatural or any of the claims about god, the delusion or dishonesty explanations are more likely than the divine. After all, we know that people are delusional, mistaken or dishonest about stuff like that.

 

[KWED]

From the revealed written Word of God revealed by Baha’u’llah.

So one bloke's unsubstantiated claims.

 

[KWED]

Here is one about the Quran specifically.

“Say: Perused ye not the Quran? Read it, that haply ye may find the Truth, for this Book is verily the Straight Path. This is the Way of God unto all who are in the heavens and all who are on the earth.”

I would recommend the Book of Certitude where it is mentioned that we can reach a station of Certitude where we ‘see with the Eyes of God.’


“Only when the lamp of search, of
earnest striving, of longing desire, of passionate devotion, of fervid love, of
rapture, and ecstasy, is kindled within the seeker’s heart, and the breeze of
His loving-kindness is wafted upon his soul, will the
darkness of error be dispelled, the mists of doubts and misgivings be
dissipated, and the lights of knowledge and certitude envelop his being. At
that hour will the mystic Herald, bearing the joyful tidings of the Spirit,
shine forth from the City of God resplendent as the morn, and, through the
trumpet-blast of knowledge, will awaken the heart, the soul, and the spirit
from the slumber of negligence. Then will the manifold favours and outpouring
grace of the holy and everlasting Spirit confer such new life upon the seeker
that he will find himself endowed with a new eye, a new ear, a new heart, and a
new mind. He will contemplate the manifest signs of the universe, and will
penetrate the hidden mysteries of the soul. Gazing with the eye of God, he will
perceive within every atom a door that leadeth him to the stations of absolute
certitude.


The Kitáb-i-Íqán
Bahá’u’lláh

What observation is that a testable explanation of?

BTW, "Book of Certitude"? Hardly a promising start if you are claiming a reasoned, open-minded, rational approach. It's like those YouTube videos titled "THE TRUTH ABOUT...!!!"

 

[KWED]

That was battle of khaybar. There are also other verses of battles with people of the book who took side of Mushrikeen and fought against Muslims, but this particular is about Khaybar, and the strongholds is a hint to that.

Nope.
" they are Banu Qurayzah" - Tafsir Ibn Abbas 33:26
"namely, the [Banū] Qurayza" - Tafsir Al Jalalayn 33:26
"So the Messenger of Allah got up immediately, and commanded the people to march towards Banu Qurayzah" - Tafsir Ibn Kathir 33:26
"That is, Jews of the Bani Quraizah." - Tafsir Ala Maududi 33:26

After the Battle of Khayber, the Jews were allowed to leave after turning over their possessions. They weren't killed or enslaved. It was the Banu Qurayza who were killed or enslaved after surrendering.

 

[Link]

In Du'a Jawthan

يَا سَالِمُ

O accorder of peace

Followed by "O Ruler/Judge" (Hakem)

Preceded by "and granter of mercy" (Rahem) (note: different then Raheem).

So God gives peace and took position as ruler/judge as a mercy from him.

Also:


O Master of peace and security,
ya dhal-am-ni wal-aman

يَا ذَا الأَمْنِ وَالأَمَانِ

Preceded by:

يَا ذَا الْفَضْلِ وَالإمْتِنَانِ
O Most gracious and obliging,
ya dhal-fadhli wal-im-tinan

So we his obligating is linked to want to establish peace and security, in the souls and in the land (outwardly).

In this note, his role as Momin (Securer):


اللَّهُمَّ إِنِّي أَسْألُكَ بِاسْمِكَ
O Allah, verily I beseech You in Your name:
allahumma in-ne as-aluka bis-mika

يَا مُؤْمِنُ يَا مُهَيْمِنُ
O Securer of safety, O Protector,
ya mu-minu ya muhaymin

يَا مُكَوِّنُ يَا مُلَقِّنُ
O Bestower of being, O Bestower of knowledge,
ya mukaw-winu ya mulaq-qin

يَا مُبَيِّنُ يَا مُهَوِّنُ
O Manifester, O Facilitator,
ya mubay-yinu ya muhaw-win

يَا مُمَكِّنُ يَا مُزَيِّنُ
O Provider of place, O Adorner,
ya mumak-kinu ya mu-zay-yin

يَا مُعْلِنُ يَا مُقْسِّمُ
O Proclaimer, O Distributor.
ya mua'-linu ya muq-s-sim

سُبْحَانَكَ يَا لا إلَهَ إلاّ أنْتَ
Praise be to You, there is no god but You,
subhanaka ya la ilaha illa anta

الغَوْثَ الغَوْثَ
[I beseech you for] relief, relief
al-ghawth al-ghawth

خَلِّصْنا مِنَ النّارِ يا رَبِّ.
Protect us from the Fire, O Lord.
khallisna minan-nari ya rabb




He is Proclaimer (reveals divine books to humanity) part of his role Protector and Security giver/establisher.

@Bird123 I would see this Du'a: Duaa Jawshan Kabeer - Ramadan - Duas.org