Quran has the best guidance about war and peace.

[icehorse]

So who is it. It's written in the book. Don't avoid the question. Since you claim to have studied it.

I already answered this question. ciao baby

 

[firedragon]

I already answered this question.

Not at all. You never did.

 

[icehorse]

So who is it. It's written in the book. Don't avoid the question. Since you claim to have studied it.

Do you really want to have the reputation that we all have to babysit you? Go reread post #202.

 

[Bird123]

Its exactly how it is. Leaving us to learn a meaningless lesson.

Perhaps you will learn more when you choose Hate.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Bird123]

Oppressed value these things, oppressors do not.

By the very definition, doesn't an oppressor strive to control??

How have all the tyrants of the past made out? In time, Does it ever catch up with them???

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Bird123]

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

If God has such great abilities, Why would God need anyone to help? Why would God need holy books when God has the ability to implant all the knowledge in everyone. It's mankind's work you value. You will value these things until God brings enough lessons to your door that you Understand all those petty things for what they really are.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[firedragon]

Do you really want to have the reputation that we all have to babysit you? Go reread post #202.

That's no answer. That's evasion because you don't know what you are talking about. You made false claims.

You have not studied the book in any manner.

So all you have is try to weasel out and make some insult while trying to call your cavalry saying "we". There are few in this forum who claims "I have studied cognitive science" when asked a question about the text. Though there are some who pretend to be scholars, that takes the cake.

 

[loverofhumanity]

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

We both have our sources. But I believe justice and fairness would be to investigate both views with as much impartiality as is possible to find the truth. For myself I’ve read and looked deeply into the views of those like Robert Spencer and such say about Islam being violent and given due consideration to their points of view. Then compared their views with what Baha’u’llah says and teaches and made my decision. But it took many years, much questioning, even me challenging Baha’u’llah’s views so in the end no doubt would remain.

But to recognise truth, a pure heart is needed. If one does not have a pure heart with pure motives and intentions, all the academic training and knowledge will lead him astray because we follow our heart and instincts and if our heart is impure it will not lead us to the truth. So the heart must first be cleansed of all ulterior motives, then the truth will be revealed to us and we will reach a station of absolute certitude. But the effort must be made.

 

[loverofhumanity]

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.

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.

On the first point, after Muhammad died, the Caliphs disobeyed the explicit instructions of the Quran not to aggress, fabricating false hadiths to support their aggression. The Umayyads actually ruined Islam by their aggression.

2:190 And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you: but commit not the injustice of attacking them first: God loveth not such injustice: (Quran)

On the second point. Yes, it’s something we each have to decide for ourselves. But we might be doing ourselves an injustice if we did not investigate both sides of the story. So many have not even given Baha’u’llah a fair hearing and that is against justice and fairness. Like a just judge we should consider the information presented by both sides before judgement.

But sadly, on a whim, without having given Baha’u’llah a fair hearing, most are hasty to rush to judgement and so how can such people call themselves just judges when they pass verdict after only hearing only one side of the story. We only ask that people be fair and just and not rush to judgement that’s all.

 

[loverofhumanity]

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...!!!"

Well you’ve heard the one side of the story, the negative views so the Book of Certitude is the other side of the case a just judge might need to hear so that he can say he has heard both sides of the case. An honest and just judgement can only be made after considering both sides stories and I gave you Baha’u’llah’s for you as a just judge to ponder and consider before becoming judgemental.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Okay, so you have FAITH that a couple of hundred years ago, the word of god was revealed to Baha’u’llah. There's nothing wrong with FAITH, but I think we should be honest about it. In a recent post I just admitted an article of faith that I have.

The thing about faith is that so far most faith claims are unfalsifiable. In other words they cannot be proven or disproven. That means arguing about the veracity of faith claims is mostly a waste of time.

Yes it’s more an independent and subjective thing. I cannot find truth for you only myself and you too can only do your own search and follow that. We can each share the outcome of our search. Our result can act as a signpost to help others who are searching. But you know the saying ‘you can take a horse to water but can’t make it drink’. We can only share that maybe it will be of assistance but then it’s up to people which path they choose to take.

 

[KWED]

Allah (swt) will punish people for not following him,

So you admit he is intolerant of different beliefs.

 

[KWED]

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

Stop spreading sectarian hatred.

Mohammad (s) did not fight people not hostile per Quran.

So you admit they fought people with different beliefs.
You also admit that any pagans attacking the Muslims were justified because the Muslims were hostile to the beliefs of the pagans.

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.

The Quraysh sent an emissary to Muhammad to ask for peace, but he still invaded Mecca.

The whole idea that Muhammad and the Muslims only ever sought peace and to be left alone, and never attacked or invaded anyone is pure myth.

 

[KWED]

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.

This is just deluded nonsense.

 

[KWED]

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.

The reasons for the disagreement are irrelevant. You claim a unanimity of opinion amongst Shia scholars. There is no such agreement. Opinion is divided. That is a fact.

 

[KWED]

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.

"The tone"? You'll have to explain that.
The rest of it is not contained in the original text. It is your own interpretation.

 

[KWED]

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.

You can't spend ages insulting, belittling, threatening and fighting people because of their beliefs, and then claim that you are actually peaceful and tolerant of their beliefs!

 

[KWED]

The Shiite Tafsirs and Hadiths seem to agree with you. I was wrong about this. I always thought it was Khaybar due to "stronghold" emphasis.

I checked on altafsir.com, it seems you are right all tafsirs say the same.

So you now accept that Muhammad executed prisoners and enslaved the survivors.

 

[KWED]

@KWED, the word is not enslaved here, but taken as captives. There's a difference.

The standard apologists' argument here is that slavery was necessary in ancient Arabia because there were no prisons. Captives were distributed as possessions (those who your right hand possess) amongst the victors. That is slavery by definition.

The Quran says captives are only allowed if there is a huge killing in the land. Was the tribe even that numerous or is this hadiths contradicting Quran injunction that Mohammad (s) will only take captives if there is a huge slaughter?

Given that casualties in even the major battles were usually in the tens, the execution of 600+ people would certainly qualify as a "huge slaughter".

It also shows to free captives either by ransom or generosity till war ceases, which means, at that point no more ransom but free them. (See start of Surah Mohammad (s)).

Non sequitur. It could mean that after war ceased, no slaves were to be ransomed.

Do you know the population of the tribe? They were not many from what I see in the hadiths, but you might know more sources.

The number executed is around 6-700, depending on the source. Hadith mention those executed being any male past puberty, so that would give a rough estimate of the population as between 1500 and 2000 people in total, which is in keeping with a long established and prosperous tribe. Mecca at the time is estimated to have had a population of around 10-20 thousand.

Seems things are not adding up. The verse you quoted seems to about all of people of the book that fought them with polytheists, not a particular of people of the book who were on side of Prophet but betrayed him in battle. That would be an important thing to emphasize if it happened, but we do not see this mentioned in the verse or anywhere in Quran.

Nope. It says "those among the people of the book who supported the disbelievers". That perfectly describes the accusation against the Banu Qurayza. If a text is talking about a specific incident (which the hadith and scholars agree is the Banu Qurayza), then why would you assume any reference to people involved applied to everyone outside that event? In a report of a match between Barcelona and Madrid, would you claim any reference to "the players" referred to every player in La Liga? Of course not.
Remember, stop being biased and trying to make everything fit your existing conclusion. Just study the evidence and form a conclusion based on that.

 

[KWED]

No it's not an open question nor is it just guess work. It's very specific. You just have not done any study of the book though you claim so.

Wrong.
You only assume it is not an open question because you are obliged to support a particular agenda, based on certain preconceptions. It is typical of the close-minded thinking of the ideologue.
The actual intended audience and purpose depends on who actually wrote it, and why. These are things that are not known, only assumed.