Quran has the best guidance about war and peace.

[Link]

And you feel qualified to make such judgments?

Not without guidance from God. If I was qualified, I would have no proof of such guidance still, and would not claim either if no book from God claimed these judgments. This is another reason why we need a book from God.

The book of God helps with mental clarity to the past to now and has conditional prophecies of the future as well.

 

[Link]

Don't bother posting. I'm not interested in reading fiction.

Tafsir Hassan Al-Askari (a) is not fiction.

 

[Link]

No. I use the words in the Quran to assert what the Quran says.
You, on the other hand, have to invent statements that are not in the Quran to explain why you claim that the Quran doesn't mean what it says. You can see why the Quran is such a useful tool for the radicalises and extremists. They only have to say "Look at what the Quran says!" rather than "Don't read the Quran, read my 10 page essay on why that verse means something different to what it says".

You isolated it outside of it's own explanation.

 

[KWED]

You should read that interpretation. Imam Hassan Al-Askari (a) wrote a whole tafsir of Quran and gathered an army, but the army was not enough, and the tafsir most of it is lost, very little of it remains. Of it what remains, some of it is altered. But that tafsir is high level, if you slit your tongue to argue and ramble and be too critical and humble your heart from mocking type symptom of dark sorcery, you will find that tafsir exalted, high, mighty, and reveals a lot, and the style is amazing once you get use to it (can be boring in the start). It has treasures upon treasures, and opens many doors to knowledge.

The army that gathered and Shiites could not prevent the occultation sadly and the world pays the price till this day, and the tafsir was not preserved, we can deduce those who had it were killed or some other things must have happened in this regard.

Imam Hassan Alaskari (a) did his best though, at the end, all he could do was prepare people for the first safir of Imam Mahdi (a) and the occultation began and has been too long.

As I said, that is one interpretation. There are others that are different, and their supporters are just as convinced that they are right as you are. So you claims get us absolutely nowhere.

The story that is famous that every Muslim thinks its a fact, that Mohammad (s) got scared when first got revelation, there is a different story to that in Nahjul Balagha by Imam Ali (a). Mainly, that Ali (a) was with Mohammad (s) when revelation came down, and instead both heard Satan scream from agony because he was going towards despair of being worshiped. This does not mean Iblis gave up, but he was severely demoralized. Also, Mohammad (s) was lead by a mighty King since a baby, mainly Elyas (a), and this can be seen with the concept of Imamate and Guide in Quran and what Mohammad (s) would have done if he was in doubt about the truth.

Also Sunnis have hadiths that contradict all this, mainly, things like Mohamad (s) never had a shadow (physically) and that a cloud followed him where ever he went as well and protected him from the son as a kid even, before his Nubuwa. These all signs that Mohammad (s) knew one day and would not be surprised.

Also in Sunni tafsirs, the sky reality became augmented so Jinn and Kahens can't ease drop since birth of Mohamad (s). This is reported from Ibn Abbas.

Mohamad (s) was not Deist nor lost in spirituality, he did not know the book nor faith nor read books nor write before revelation, because he trusted Elyas (a) command not to. Otherwise, he would have read books and sought guidance from legacy of Isa (a)

Shiite history is significantly different, even, about the Serah of Mohammad (s).

For example Imam Mohamad Al-Baqir (a) says people say strange things about Ali (a) including him having a slave woman. As you know a whole pre-story event about Ghadeer is made by Sunnis to contextualize it differently, with companions hating on Ali (a) because he took a very pretty or the prettiest woman as a slave when others wanted her. This is a fabrication per Imam Mohamad Al-Baqir (a) and insult to intelligence.

But if you want to be non-Muslim who takes Sunni side of events, that is fine. But just do not impose on me. With me, if you want dialogue, get familiar with Shiite sources of events.

So basically you are admitting that there is disagreement over the the history of early Islam, depending on which sect you follow. You favour a Shiite version and reject the versions accepted by other groups.
Well, no **** Sherlock!

And 1 to 10 is what Quran states and Shiite hadiths confirm.

The historical and religious consensus is about 3:1.
The Quran says the enemy army was twice the size of the Muslim force (3:13), but hadith are more specific at around 315 Muslims and 900-1000 Quraysh. There isn no mention of 10:1 in the Quran or any hadith I have seen.
You are simply wrong on this.

 

[Link]

The historical and religious consensus is about 3:1.
The Quran says the enemy army was twice the size of the Muslim force (3:13), but hadith are more specific at around 315 Muslims and 900-1000 Quraysh. There isn no mention of 10:1 in the Quran or any hadith I have seen.
You are simply wrong on this.

يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ حَرِّضِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ عَلَى الْقِتَالِ ۚ إِنْ يَكُنْ مِنْكُمْ عِشْرُونَ صَابِرُونَ يَغْلِبُوا مِائَتَيْنِ ۚ وَإِنْ يَكُنْ مِنْكُمْ مِائَةٌ يَغْلِبُوا أَلْفًا مِنَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا بِأَنَّهُمْ قَوْمٌ لَا يَفْقَهُونَ | O Prophet! Urge on the faithful to fight: If there be twenty patient men among you, they shall overcome two hundred; and if there be a hundred of you, they shall overcome a thousand of the faithless, for they are a lot who do not understand. | Al-Anfaal : 65

The hadiths show this was revealed for Battle of Badr and the odds in the battle were exactly this, Shiite wise, and say the verse that cancelled:

الْآنَ خَفَّفَ اللَّهُ عَنْكُمْ وَعَلِمَ أَنَّ فِيكُمْ ضَعْفًا ۚ فَإِنْ يَكُنْ مِنْكُمْ مِائَةٌ صَابِرَةٌ يَغْلِبُوا مِائَتَيْنِ ۚ وَإِنْ يَكُنْ مِنْكُمْ أَلْفٌ يَغْلِبُوا أَلْفَيْنِ بِإِذْنِ اللَّهِ ۗ وَاللَّهُ مَعَ الصَّابِرِينَ | Now Allah has lightened your burden, knowing that there is weakness in you. So if there be a hundred patient men among you, they shall overcome two hundred; and if there be a thousand, they shall overcome two thousand, by Allah’s leave; and Allah is with the patient. | Al-Anfaal : 66

Came after battle of Badr and when many more entered Islam, and the hadiths also say it will be reverted to 1:10 odds when Imam Mahdi (a) rises potentially (all prophecies of such nature are conditional, there may not even be fighting if Imam Mahdi (a) rises, outcomes are not set in stone).

 

[KWED]

Bigotry.

Yes, that is usually what is being the divisiveness - religious bigotry. Intolerance of those not accepted as part of the group.
See, you can get it right, sometimes.

 

[KWED]

This is what my personal investigation turned up. Ive heard the arguments of the Robert Spencers of this world and found them false and ignorant mostly uninformed based on bias. I discovered that Muhammad was a Prophet of Peace and Justice and that the Quran is the perfect Word of God teaching peace, truth, brotherhood and justice.

I can only say what my 45 years of personal investigation turned up. I’ve seen all the arguments and found them baseless slander and ignorant prejudice.

If some want to believe Islam is evil then believe it. I’m not going to preach to the converted. But Islam being right or wrong is not up for negotiation.

What I explained to you all comes from the Quran, hadith or other Islamic sources like Ibn Ishaq.
What did you use for your "sources"? "The Bahai Guide to How Peaceful Muhammad Was"?

 

[Link]

Yes, that is usually what is being the divisiveness - religious bigotry. Intolerance of those not accepted as part of the group.
See, you can get it right, sometimes.

What do you mean by intolerance?

The Quran does not accept disbelievers worship in Surah Kaffiroon, but then says:

To you is your religion and to me is mine.

 

[Link]

I think the religious tribal ideology of the past is one of the obstacles to any real peace in the world.
You simply have to identify this group or that group as "oppressor" then you can justify "evil" actions against them.
People believe themselves to be "good" by fighting the oppressors of the world without any actual thought to the civility of their own actions.

It is righteous before God to strap a bomb on yourself and blow yourself up along with many non-combatants as long as your fight is against your oppressors.

Maybe there was a time in the past when the Quran had successful advise for the survival of the tribe. Historically, it is the words of those that successfully led their tribes. Words, IMO, that provide understanding of our past but should not advise our future.

Well, oppressors do not cease to oppress. God knows that, and so the way out is not to count on them to cease their ways of oppression but to show courage and seek victory over oppressors. Oppressors will not cease especially the planners and Kahens.

However, this does not mean mayhem.

You bring a good point that insight is needed. This is why Quran emphasizes on insights to current affairs through the Messenger (s) and Ulil-Amr (a) as well.

Imam Hassan (a) at a pivotal time, when his army was practically bribed out against him, prevented the rest of the believers to keep fighting. He did it to save the believers, rather, then have them over all annihilated.

Imam Ali (a) when urged to fight against Abu Bakr, and brought an army by Abu Sufyan, said to stay clear from tribulations and fitna.

So its good to seek victory but not in mindless way that causes more trouble.

Here are the words:

Sermon 5: O people, steer clear through the waves of mischief...
Delivered when the Holy Prophet died and ‘Abbas ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib and Abu Sufyan ibn Harb offered to pay allegiance to Amir al-mu’minin for the Caliphate

ومن كلام له (عليه السلام) لمّا قبض رسول الله(صلى الله عليه وآله)

وخاطبه العباس وأبوسفيان في أن يبايعا له بالخلافة

(وذلك بعد أن تمّت البيعة لابي بكر في السقيفة، وفيها ينهى عن الفتنة ويبين عن خلقه وعلمه):

O People!1

Steer clear through the waves of mischief by boats of deliverance, turn away from the path of dissension and put off the crowns of pride. Prosperous is one who rises with wings (i.e. when he has power) or else he remains peaceful and others enjoy ease. It (i.e. the aspiration for Caliphate) is like turbid water or like a morsel that would suffocate the person who swallows it. One who plucks fruits before ripening is like one who cultivated in another’s field.

النهي عن الفتنة

أَيُّها النَّاسُ، شُقُّوا أَمْوَاجَ الفِتَنِ بِسُفُنِ النَّجَاةِ، وَعَرِّجُوا عَنْ طَريقِ الـمُنَافَرَةِ، وَضَعُوا تِيجَانَ الـمُفَاخَرَةِ. أَفْلَحَ مَنْ نَهَضَ بِجَنَاح، أوِ اسْتَسْلَمَ فَأَراحَ، مَاءٌ آجِنٌ، وَلُقْمَةٌ يَغَصُّ بِهَا آكِلُهَا، وَمُجْتَنِي الَّثمَرَةِ لِغَيْرِ وَقْتِ إِينَاعِهَا كالزَّارعِ بِغَيْرِ أَرْضِهِ.

If I speak out they would call me greedy towards power but if I keep quiet they would say I was afraid of death. It is a pity that after all the ups and downs (I have been through). By Allah, the son of Abu Talib2 is more familiar with death than an infant with the breast of its mother. I have hidden knowledge, if I disclose it you will start trembling like ropes in deep wells.

خلقه وعلمه

فَإِنْ أقُلْ يَقُولُوا: حَرَصَ عَلَى الـمُلْكِ، وَإنْ أَسْكُتْ يَقُولُوا: جَزعَ مِنَ المَوْتِ! هَيْهَاتَ بَعْدَ اللَّتَيَّا وَالَّتِي! وَاللهِ لاَبْنُ أَبي طَالِب آنَسُ بالمَوْتِ مِنَ الطِّفْلِ بِثَدْي أُمِّهِ، بَلِ انْدَمَجْتُ عَلَى مَكْنُونِ عِلْم لَوْ بُحْتُ بِهِ لاَضْطَرَبْتُمُ اضْطِرَابَ الاْرْشِيَةِ في الطَّوِيِّ البَعِيدَةِ!

Alternative Sources for Sermon 5
(1) Sibt ibn al-Jawzi, Tadhkirah, bab 6, 137;

(2) al-Tabarsi, al-'Ihtijaj, I, 127;

(3) al-Bayhaqi, al-Mahasin, II, 139, see ‘Arshi.

 

[KWED]

against those who drove you away from your homes illegally,

This old chestnut is easily refuted by authentic Islamic texts. The Muslims chose to go into exile in Medina because they refused to obey the social rules of Mecca. They were asked to stop the blasphemy and attacks on their gods. They were even offered a power sharing deal, whereby Islam would get top billing on alternate years. Muhammad refused any compromise and continued with the blasphemy and law breaking.
Also remember that not all Muslims left for Medina. Some stayed in Mecca. They were not forbidden from practicing Islam, only from blasphemy, heresy and other anti-social behaviour.
No one was "illegally driven from their homes". That is just Islamist propaganda attempting to justify Muhammad's later aggressive military actions in attacking other tribes and invading other lands.
It's a bit like the British Empire claiming they were preventing the locals from fighting and bringing in education and civilisation. Imperialists will make up **** to justify their crimes. Arab Muslim imperialists are no different to European Christian imperialists in that regard.

 

[KWED]

Please explain why it was necessary for Mohamed and his Muslim army to slaughter hundreds of the Banu Quraiza and enslave the rest after they surrendered without the lose of a single Muslim and without being guilty of aiding the Meccans at the Battle of the Trench.

Ah, but the leaders considered changing sides if things had gone differently. Therefore genocide and mass slavery is completely justified, obvs!

And the Quran tells Muslims that if they gain mastery over an enemy in battle, they should deal harshly with them so as to send a message to others.
And that Muhammad should not take prisoners until he has made a great slaughter of the enemy.
So they were only obeying orders.

 

[KWED]

There is an alternative explanation to what really happened in tafsir Hassan Al-Askari (a) then the traditional historical account, I was reading it today. I will post it when I find it again.

But there was no massacre or slavery thing.

I just love this "But we can reject all the accepted Islamic texts that say "X", because I have found a book that says "Not X"!
Of course, others can reject your one book that says "Not X" because there are others that say "X".

 

[Link]

I just love this "But we can reject all the accepted Islamic texts that say "X", because I have found a book that says "Not X"!
Of course, others can reject your one book that says "Not X" because there are others that say "X".

I have said it before, every narration that says x, there is narration that says Not x. So hadiths and historical reports are not a sure means as they contradict each other. They need to be referred to Quran and understanding and reasoning.

 

[KWED]

Oppressed value these things, oppressors do not.

For parts of the history of the Middle and Near East, the Subcontinent, North Africa and parts of Southern Europe - Muslims were the oppressors, and Islam was the ideology forced on the oppressed, so really not sure what point you are trying to make.

 

[Link]

For parts of the history of the Middle and Near East, the Subcontinent, North Africa and parts of Southern Europe - Muslims were the oppressors, and Islam was the ideology forced on the oppressed, so really not sure what point you are trying to make.

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.

 

[KWED]

I have said it before, every narration that says x, there is narration that says Not x. So hadiths and historical reports are not a sure means as they contradict each other. They need to be referred to Quran and understanding and reasoning.

But you are wrong. For your one "alternative" story of the Banu Qurayza, there are several accepted Islamic sources that narrate the genocide and slavery.

 

[KWED]

lWe were discussing the Qur'an. Not this story. So try not to do red herrings.

The Quran contains references to the Massacre of the Banu Qurayza.
You weren't trying to deflect and obfuscate to avoid addressing difficult issues were you?

 

[Link]

The Quran contains references to the Massacre of the Banu Qurayza.

Quote the verses.

 

[Link]

But you are wrong. For your one "alternative" story of the Banu Qurayza, there are several accepted Islamic sources that narrate the genocide and slavery.

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.

 

[KWED]

I can know because you make absolutely ignorant claims. that's why.

Study a little prior to doing that.

Are you seriously claiming that the Quran isn't repeatedly critical or dismissive of disbelievers?

Please stop...