Quran has the best guidance about war and peace.

[KWED]

Decimated is a translation but it means killed a lot of them, a huge slaughter, its the same word used in the verse:

مَا كَانَ لِنَبِيٍّ أَنْ يَكُونَ لَهُ أَسْرَىٰ حَتَّىٰ يُثْخِنَ فِي الْأَرْضِ ۚ تُرِيدُونَ عَرَضَ الدُّنْيَا وَاللَّهُ يُرِيدُ الْآخِرَةَ ۗ وَاللَّهُ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ | A prophet may not take captives until he has thoroughly decimated [the enemy] in the land. You desire the transitory gains of this world, while Allah desires [for you] [the reward of] the Hereafter, and Allah is all-mighty, all-wise. | Al-Anfaal : 67

The tafsir explaining the word "يُثْخِنَ" translated as decimated means a huge amount of killing and defeating them (both is implied) and overtaken them, the tafsir explains the word:

يكثر القتل ويبالغ فيه حتى يذل الكفر ويقلّ حزبه ويعزّ الإِسلام ويستولي أهله من أثخنه المرض إذا أثقله

Start with the implication a lot of killing and then other things such as overcoming them and that they are defeated and belittled and Islam is strengthen over them (total victory is implied), but it cannot be without a huge amount of killing.

This is why I am saying the small tribe thing who betrayed Rasool (s) contradicts this verse. He cannot take them as captives, any of them, per this verse.

In both the verses in Surah Mohammad (s) and this one, the same word appears, but there is no direct translation. But it includes huge slaughter and totally overcoming the enemy.

Firstly, so you admit that Muhammad was ordered by Allah to cause a great slaughter.
Second, executing several hundred people is the definition of a great slaughter.

In your determination to prove some point (that escapes me), you are admitting to things you have previously denied, ie. Muhammad engaging in unnecessary killing and slavery.

 

[KWED]

The Quran shows disputes occur despite knowledge and clear proofs in the past.

More unsupported assertion. The events are neither known nor proven.
It is the apologists' job to demonstrate their case, but you are merely claiming that it has been demonstrated, but fail to provide any evidence.

What you have to keep in mind is Ahlulbayt (a) were meant to be Kings and Masters and Leaders of Muslims. Their position was usurped from one perspective, but from another, they continue to rule the hearts and be true leaders and anointed kings (more of Jesus is king anointed by God and his authority pertains to the next world type perspective).

That is only from a minority sectarian perspective. It is neither a fact nor even a majority opinion.

They are an essential component to understanding Quran.

Only if you believe it to be true. Muslims with different sectarian values reject your claims and rely on other components for understanding.

 

[KWED]

Your mind reading skills are very weak, don't quit your day job.

I'll say this one more time and then I'm done with this point:

I acknowledge that I have not studied the book the way you have. I'm also happy to acknowledge that it appears that you've studied the book in a way consistent with many religious scholars. And that's fine.

But I've studied the book from a different perspective. AFAIK, my perspective is somewhat unique. That doesn't make mine better or worse than yours, just different.

@firedragon 's steadfast refusal to enter into any kind of debate over the contents of the Quran, or respond appropriately to any questions or points made about its contents suggest that he hasn't studied it at all.

 

[KWED]

We've covered this ground before. And after a few months, I give you another chance. I have not lied once in this discussion. And, as you have done in the past, you ultimately resort to calling me a liar. I don't have time for you.

Perhaps someday you'll learn to be a better apologist for Islam. As it stands, you behave like the poster child for why Islam has a bad reputation with so many people.

I have had the same conversation with them. Their approach is bewildering. If there are any Muslims struggling with doubt over any of these issues reading these exchanges, @firedragon 's responses here can only serve to heighten that doubt. Here is a Muslim who seems (or at least claims to be) intelligent and well read, a student of the Quran, yet they cannot respond to any of these issues and instead just glibly try to deflect and obfuscate, often resorting to personal insult.
It's almost as if they are an atheist fifth-columnist trying to make Muslim apologists look bad!

 

[KWED]

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.

Why do you keep bringing up Robert Spencer as a source for a rational, evidence-based approach to Islam. He is an anti-Muslim bigot with a pro-Christian agenda. What he says about Islam can be dismissed. Just read the original Islamic texts. From those it is clear that Muhammad was a man of his place and time. He introduced some beneficial social reform but he also conducted aggressive military campaigns to invade and conquer other lands and impose his ideology on them. Islam is clearly a religion of peace and violence, of tolerance and intolerance, of equality and discrimination, depending on circumstance.
To insist that Muhammad never committed any morally questionable acts, or that Islam contains nothing that promotes or condones morally questionable acts is to deny reality and show that you really haven't looked into Muhammad and Islam with any kind of open mind or objectivity.
The facts are there in black and white. Recognising it has nothing to do with a "pure heart" or "pure intention". Ironically you are basically admitting that you aren't interested in anything that contradicts your existing position. Publicly admitting that you are ignoring the truth is not a good look.

 

[KWED]

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.

Muhammad conquered a large part of the Arabian peninsula while he was still alive! Subsequent caliphs merely continued his work.

How did he manage to conquer all that red area (over a million square km) by only fighting in self defence?

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.

I have now read quite a bit of his writings, and it is mostly vague platitudes. There is nothing in there that suggests he was actually communicating with a god (a god for which there is no evidence either). However, feel free to present a passage that you feel best illustrates his divine nature, and we can examine it.

 

[KWED]

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.

You said that Bahaullah provided explanations for observations.
You posted a quote from his writings.
I could not see what that was explaining, so I asked you, assuming that you knew.
If you don't, how can you know that it is an explanation of anything?

 

[KWED]

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.

If it is subjective and unverifiable then it is not "truth", it is merely "opinion" or "speculation".

 

[Link]

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!!

The oppressor sees control as a means but is based on falsehood. The good see government and discourse as a means of achieving good and they enjoin the discourse on truth.

 

[Link]

Perhaps you will learn more when you choose Hate.

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

I temper my hate with discipline. I believe hell awaits the oppressors, those who side with them, and those who just watch it all happen (and do nothing).

 

[Link]

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!!

He does not need our help, but set it up that we can help him and will reward us by the degrees we do.

He can talk to us all directly, but we saw with Angels, they became arrogant over time, and so the trial of Prophets and Messengers is a trial, that is somewhat difficult but not too hard.

It requires a humble heart to realize there are exalted souls that are our means to redemption and our saviors. Just as we exalt God, we should exalt them, just not to the level we exalt God.

In conjecture of things "well God can talk to us all", people dismiss Prophets at their own peril. This is arrogance and not love.

God does not need holy books or Prophets but we are in need of them.

 

[Link]

Salam

@KWED, you bring a good point that he did conquer lands. Staying just at Madina is not what I mean by self-defense. I mean the ones he conquered waged war first against him and he conquered them. He did not go attacking people that did not attack him, the Quran says "so long as they (group of polytheists that did not fight Nabi (s) or held their treaties and did not break them) stay true (to their treaties of peace)" to stay true as well (see Surah 9).

 

[Link]

Firstly, so you admit that Muhammad was ordered by Allah to cause a great slaughter.
Second, executing several hundred people is the definition of a great slaughter.

In your determination to prove some point (that escapes me), you are admitting to things you have previously denied, ie. Muhammad engaging in unnecessary killing and slavery.

The slaughter is from battle. Anyways, I have to research this issue more.

 

[Link]

.

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

This maybe true because the Quran says they kept up breaking treaties and so were not trustworthy to keep making treaties (See Surah 9).

The polytheists that kept true to their treaties, God said, to stay to true to them.

 

[Bird123]

The oppressor sees control as a means but is based on falsehood. The good see government and discourse as a means of achieving good and they enjoin the discourse on truth.

Is being an oppressor really an act of Good? What if you were the one being oppressed? Does the view start to look different? Further, What are you teaching those around you by oppressing??

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

 

[Bird123]

I temper my hate with discipline. I believe hell awaits the oppressors, those who side with them, and those who just watch it all happen (and do nothing).

Hell does not exist!! On the other hand, people can choose very hard lessons for themselves. I guess some can define learning the hard lesson as Hell.

With hate with discipline you have at least placed limits on your choice. Still there are sides you have yet to Discover. Not only will you learn from your choices that you direct hate, you will learn from the results of those you are teaching to hate. In time, you will learn the price for hate is always too high.

There are much better ways. I'm surprised you can't come up with some rather than follow those who teach you to hate.

Remember, One is supposed to become much more than the sum of their teachings. We are all meant to Think!!

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

 

[Bird123]

He does not need our help, but set it up that we can help him and will reward us by the degrees we do.

He can talk to us all directly, but we saw with Angels, they became arrogant over time, and so the trial of Prophets and Messengers is a trial, that is somewhat difficult but not too hard.

It requires a humble heart to realize there are exalted souls that are our means to redemption and our saviors. Just as we exalt God, we should exalt them, just not to the level we exalt God.

In conjecture of things "well God can talk to us all", people dismiss Prophets at their own peril. This is arrogance and not love.

God does not need holy books or Prophets but we are in need of them.

Why would you need a holy book if the information has already implanted in your memory?

We are all Children of God. We are all Equal in God's eyes.

We all have the power to choose what we deem Important. Each can choose to think a person has more value than others, however it is not true reality.

We are all equal including those you label as ugly garbage evil souls. Since you are unable to control them and you value all those petty things mankind holds so dear, you deem them as less.

Don't you see that you are choosing a we against they? Should not it be an US??? Do not value those petty things. SOLVE THE PROBLEM INSTEAD!!!

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

 

[loverofhumanity]

Why do you keep bringing up Robert Spencer as a source for a rational, evidence-based approach to Islam. He is an anti-Muslim bigot with a pro-Christian agenda. What he says about Islam can be dismissed. Just read the original Islamic texts. From those it is clear that Muhammad was a man of his place and time. He introduced some beneficial social reform but he also conducted aggressive military campaigns to invade and conquer other lands and impose his ideology on them. Islam is clearly a religion of peace and violence, of tolerance and intolerance, of equality and discrimination, depending on circumstance.
To insist that Muhammad never committed any morally questionable acts, or that Islam contains nothing that promotes or condones morally questionable acts is to deny reality and show that you really haven't looked into Muhammad and Islam with any kind of open mind or objectivity.
The facts are there in black and white. Recognising it has nothing to do with a "pure heart" or "pure intention". Ironically you are basically admitting that you aren't interested in anything that contradicts your existing position. Publicly admitting that you are ignoring the truth is not a good look.

Glad that you can see through those who have bigoted agendas. As I stated, I have investigated and come up with my conclusion. You and others are free to disagree and I respect that because we all have the right to freedom of thought and belief. I’m only saying that I have come to the conclusion after many years of reflection and study regarding Islam that..

1. Muhammad was a Prophet of God and perfect in every way morally, mentally and spiritually. And was a Prophet of Peace Who united the warring barbaric tribes and made of them a great nation and established the world’s first Constitution.

2. That the Quran is the Word of God revealed to Muhammad and a Book that teaches Justice, Peace and freedom of religion as well as human rights.

People can only agree with what their own investigation has turned up so I respect that you differ.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Muhammad conquered a large part of the Arabian peninsula while he was still alive! Subsequent caliphs merely continued his work.

How did he manage to conquer all that red area (over a million square km) by only fighting in self defence?

I have now read quite a bit of his writings, and it is mostly vague platitudes. There is nothing in there that suggests he was actually communicating with a god (a god for which there is no evidence either). However, feel free to present a passage that you feel best illustrates his divine nature, and we can examine it.

It was a period of about 23 years so it didn’t happen overnight. But the conquests of the Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties were after the death of Muhammad and against the specific laws of the Quran not to aggress. (Sura 2:190)

Are you referring to Baha’u’llah or Muhammad.? Regardless with Muhammad for me the Quran is proof enough. I suppose it’s a very subjective thing. With regards Baha’u’llah, I found His Book of Certitude enlightened me very much and gave me a new understanding of the world’s scriptures. I believe it was revealed within 2 days and I find that a Book of such deep meanings and explanations to be revealed in that time an indication of innate knowledge as it would take months and even years to put such a Book together impossible in two days without some sort of Divine intervention. But that’s just my opinion.

 

[loverofhumanity]

You said that Bahaullah provided explanations for observations.
You posted a quote from his writings.
I could not see what that was explaining, so I asked you, assuming that you knew.
If you don't, how can you know that it is an explanation of anything?

Im not sure which explanations you mean could you clarify?