Quran has the best guidance about war and peace.

[KWED]

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

There are Shia scholars who believe it is. Its authenticity is questioned.

 

[Link]

There are Shia scholars who believe it is. Its authenticity is questioned.

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.

 

[KWED]

You isolated it outside of it's own explanation.

Er, no. I merely presented what the Quran says. "Its own explanation" is simply the meaning of the words used. I understand that you don't like what some of the words in the Quran mean, so you have invented new meanings and definitions, but that doesn't change what Allah's perfect, final, unchangeable words actually says.

"Oh, but Allah didn't mean that. He wasn't capable of expressing himself clearly, but I understand what he wanted to say and can explain it for him".
Just listen to yourself!

 

[Link]

Er, no. I merely presented what the Quran says. "Its own explanation" is simply the meaning of the words used. I understand that you don't like what some of the words in the Quran mean, so you have invented new meanings and definitions, but that doesn't change what Allah's perfect, final, unchangeable words actually says.

"Oh, but Allah didn't mean that. He wasn't capable of expressing himself clearly, but I understand what he wanted to say and can explain it for him".
Just listen to yourself!

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

 

[KWED]

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

You have misunderstood that passage. That was before the battle, when Muhammad was rousing his troops. It says "if there are, then...". and gives example s of different numbers, so it is clearly not relating the numbers actually at the battle. Verse 3:13 does that, and it says "twice their number".

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).

Again that is not referring to the Battle of Badr. The consensus is that there were 300-odd Muslims against about 1000 Meccans, even amongst Shia sources.
WikiShia gives the numbers as 313/950. Battle of Badr
Shia website Al-Islam gives it as 314/950 The Battle of Badr
Shia.org , 314/950 Battle of Badr
shiastudies.com - 313/"three times that". The Battle of Badr | Shia Studies' World Assembly
irfan.com - 314/950. The Battle of Badr

In fact, every Shia source that mentions it shows odds of 3:1. You are simply and demonstrably wrong. Of course, your severe bias won't allow you to admit it.

 

[stevecanuck]

To you is your religion and to me is mine.

Here's the whole surah:

Say, "O disbelievers,
I do not worship what you worship.
Nor are you worshippers of what I worship.
Nor will I be a worshipper of what you worship.
Nor will you be worshippers of what I worship.
For you is your religion, and for me is my religion.

Again, there is no, "And that's okay", either stated or implied in that. Rather, it's a simple explanation of why Muslims and unbelievers will never see eye to eye. This is an early Meccan surah that helps to create the us-against-them tone on which the Qur'an is built.

 

[Link]

You have misunderstood that passage. That was before the battle, when Muhammad was rousing his troops. It says "if there are, then...". and gives example s of different numbers, so it is clearly not relating the numbers actually at the battle. Verse 3:13 does that, and it says "twice their number".

Again that is not referring to the Battle of Badr. The consensus is that there were 300-odd Muslims against about 1000 Meccans, even amongst Shia sources.
WikiShia gives the numbers as 313/950. Battle of Badr
Shia website Al-Islam gives it as 314/950 The Battle of Badr
Shia.org , 314/950 Battle of Badr
shiastudies.com - 313/"three times that". The Battle of Badr | Shia Studies' World Assembly
irfan.com - 314/950. The Battle of Badr

In fact, every Shia source that mentions it shows odds of 3:1. You are simply and demonstrably wrong. Of course, your severe bias won't allow you to admit it.

You maybe right I will see hadiths on it, This maybe another contradiction in shiite hadiths and I maybe emphasizing on the wrong few.

 

[Link]

Here's the whole surah:

Say, "O disbelievers,
I do not worship what you worship.
Nor are you worshippers of what I worship.
Nor will I be a worshipper of what you worship.
Nor will you be worshippers of what I worship.
For you is your religion, and for me is my religion.

Again, there is no, "And that's okay", either stated or implied in that. Rather, it's a simple explanation of why Muslims and unbelievers will never see eye to eye. This is an early Meccan surah that helps to create the us-against-them tone on which the Qur'an is built.

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

 

[loverofhumanity]

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"?

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.

 

[stevecanuck]

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

Tolerate? You mean like in 8:55 - Unbelievers are the worst of God's creatures. Like that?

 

[Link]

Tolerate? You mean like in 8:55 - Unbelievers are the worst of God's creatures. Like that?

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.

 

[icehorse]

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

Study a little prior to doing that.

I've studied cognitive science and pedagogy for years. I have a good understanding of how human brains and human minds learn from the written word.

I would guess, and I admit it's only a guess, that your opinions about the Quran and other scripture comes from what Imams and such have said. But in the end, all the Imams that have ever been, have just been making guesses. So they come together and try to make some agreements about how to interpret ambiguous and self-contradictory scripture. But none of them really know.

OTOH, scientists and teachers can study and measure and predict how and what people will learn when reading.

So I'll give you this much: I'm sure you know much, much more about how Imams have interpreted the book than I do. It's just that I don't think the Imams have any special powers that allow them to really know what the people who wrote the Quran intended. It can be interesting to see what agreements Imams have made between themselves, as long as you don't imagine that these agreements are somehow, magically "correct".

I'll also grant you this: the people who wrote the Quran had an intuitive understanding of how propaganda works that was very, very advanced and accurate for their time. The book is truly a marvel of propaganda.

 

[icehorse]

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.

But in your posts, you ARE making such consequential and divisive judgments.

 

[icehorse]

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.

Where did you learn that?

 

[Link]

But in your posts, you ARE making such consequential and divisive judgments.

These judgments can be found in Quran and Sunnah. So I have backing to these views.

Its assessing reality as is as well, but with support from Quran and Sunnah as well.

 

[firedragon]

I've studied cognitive science and pedagogy for years.

Irrelevant. If you think that scares people to say "I have a Phd in zoology so I know the Quran better than you", it's absurd. Irrelevant.

I would guess, and I admit it's only a guess, that your opinions about the Quran and other scripture comes from what Imams and such have said.

Don't do guesswork.

But in the end, all the Imams that have ever been, have just been making guesses.

What guesses did Fakruddhin al razz make? Or Imam Mujahid bin Jabr make? Just out of curiosity.

So I'll give you this much: I'm sure you know much, much more about how Imams have interpreted the book than I do. It's just that I don't think the Imams have any special powers that allow them to really know what the people who wrote the Quran intended. It can be interesting to see what agreements Imams have made between themselves, as long as you don't imagine that these agreements are somehow, magically "correct".

I'll also grant you this: the people who wrote the Quran had an intuitive understanding of how propaganda works that was very, very advanced and accurate for their time. The book is truly a marvel of propaganda.

This is all irrelevant. Just random statements.

Don't make claims about a book you have not studied brother. Don't do that.

Cheers.

 

[stevecanuck]

All my sources are from Divine sources not any man made interpretations

The Qur'an is believed to be the ultimate divine source in Islam. Correct?

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.

And he told you everything he thinks you need to know about "what actually transpired" in the Qur'an. Correct?

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. [/quote]

No. Reading the Qur'an interpreted into other languages by fluently bilingual Islamic scholars puts non-Arabic speakers on an equal footing. The so-called bias of which you speak is simple revulsion of the message.

For those who rely on fallible interpretations or don’t believe in God, they will make misinformed judgements and misconstrue Muhammad and the Quran.

Again, the interpretations by scholars such as Yusuf Ali are not fallible. Please (as I channel another well known poster) give me 9 examples of "misinformed judgements" made by detractors of Islam and show your sources.

 

[icehorse]

These judgments can be found in Quran and Sunnah. So I have backing to these views.

Its assessing reality as is as well, but with support from Quran and Sunnah as well.

Is it fair for me to connect the dots then and say that you support divisiveness between people because the Quran says that's okay?

 

[stevecanuck]

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.

Utter nonsense. You can't support those claims with quotes.

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

Yet there are dozens of verses that contain the command to kill, and it's coded cousin, "go forth in the cause of Allah".

 

[Fool]

Salam

The statement: What Quran says about war and peace, is as good as it gets. There maybe other books out there in China or else where, about war and peace philosophies, that say the best thing possible as well. So the claim is not that only Quran says these things, but that what it says about war and peace is the best.

Please keep it on topic of this. Not if Quran is true or God exists or what is says about other things. Just this topic.

I will start with a balanced notion in Surah Shura and being adding to it:

وَالَّذِينَ إِذَا أَصَابَهُمُ الْبَغْيُ هُمْ يَنْتَصِرُونَ | those who, when afflicted by oppression, defend themselves. | Ash-Shura : 39

The word is defend, but it also carries the meaning of seeking victory over their oppressors. In fact, the latter is probably the pure meaning and defend is not a good word here, but I left the translation as is.

وَجَزَاءُ سَيِّئَةٍ سَيِّئَةٌ مِثْلُهَا ۖ فَمَنْ عَفَا وَأَصْلَحَ فَأَجْرُهُ عَلَى اللَّهِ ۚ إِنَّهُ لَا يُحِبُّ الظَّالِمِينَ | The requital of evil is an evil like it, so whoever excuses and conciliates, his reward lies with Allah. Indeed, He does not like the wrongdoers. | Ash-Shura : 40

Here we see evil is to be repelled by an evil like it. Yet says who pardons and forgives, their reward is with God.

I made the case Ainseenqaaf is about Hassan (a), and why Hussain (a) fought while Hassan (a) fought but then did a treaty in other threads.

Here we see the proper way is to seek victory over your oppressors, but a circumstance can occur when you cannot seek it, and hence forgive your enemies and pardon, and seek to reform them.

Imam Ali (a) says something on the lines in Nahjul balagha, when offered an army from Abu Sufyan, "blessed is he who rises with wings (of support) or otherwise, remains down so that people are saved from afflictions (of war) and peace remains". I forget exact words but it was to justify why he did not want to fight despite the oppression and lost lives of some believers.

وَلَمَنِ انْتَصَرَ بَعْدَ ظُلْمِهِ فَأُولَٰئِكَ مَا عَلَيْهِمْ مِنْ سَبِيلٍ | As for those who retaliate after being wronged, there is no ground for action against them. | Ash-Shura : 41

إِنَّمَا السَّبِيلُ عَلَى الَّذِينَ يَظْلِمُونَ النَّاسَ وَيَبْغُونَ فِي الْأَرْضِ بِغَيْرِ الْحَقِّ ۚ أُولَٰئِكَ لَهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ | The ground for action is only against those who oppress the people and commit tyranny in the land in violation of justice. For such there will be a painful punishment. | Ash-Shura : 42

This is to say people who seek victory over oppressors (retaliate should be translated as "seek victory"), there is no right of fighting them.

42:42 is awfully translated, but I will say it has two components.

(1) Oppressors
(2) Those who rebel in the earth without truth

So the second people you can fight is those who rebel against a government without truth and without right. This is allowed, but not if they have the right and truth.

These verses go back to "By the name of God The Benevolent, the Compassionate (intensely), Hameem is Ainseenqaaf", meaning there is no difference between way of Hassan (a) and way of Hussain (a) except circumstances, they both are the name of God and same light and Hussain (a) is Hassan (a).

This also means, there is no real difference of Pre-Madina Mohammad (s) and Post-Madina Mohammad (s), it's different circumstances. He didn't change policies or nature.

أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى الَّذِينَ قِيلَ لَهُمْ كُفُّوا أَيْدِيَكُمْ وَأَقِيمُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَآتُوا الزَّكَاةَ فَلَمَّا كُتِبَ عَلَيْهِمُ الْقِتَالُ إِذَا فَرِيقٌ مِنْهُمْ يَخْشَوْنَ النَّاسَ كَخَشْيَةِ اللَّهِ أَوْ أَشَدَّ خَشْيَةً ۚ وَقَالُوا رَبَّنَا لِمَ كَتَبْتَ عَلَيْنَا الْقِتَالَ لَوْلَا أَخَّرْتَنَا إِلَىٰ أَجَلٍ قَرِيبٍ ۗ قُلْ مَتَاعُ الدُّنْيَا قَلِيلٌ وَالْآخِرَةُ خَيْرٌ لِمَنِ اتَّقَىٰ وَلَا تُظْلَمُونَ فَتِيلًا | Have you not regarded those who were told, ‘Keep your hands off [from warfare], and maintain the prayer and give the zakat’? But when fighting was prescribed for them, behold, a part of them feared the people as if fearing Allah, or were even more afraid, and they said, ‘Our Lord! Why did You prescribe fighting for us? Why did You not respite us for a short time?!’ Say, ‘The enjoyments of this world are trifle and the Hereafter is better for the Godwary, and you will not be wronged so much as a single date-thread. | An-Nisaa : 77

This shows some people from Mecca were good on terms when Mohammad (s) told them not to fight, but were against fighting because of fear of their opponents.

In fact, before Quran clear Surahs or commands were given to fight, Mohammad (s) did orders, and Quran confirmed his actions later. This was to show that Sunnah and Quran go together, but even during time of Mohammad (s), some people said "why not a Surah" to believers, hence, the truth was not always spread but rather believers were accused of not having "a Surah" to back what Mohammad (s) was telling them in the Sunnah.

So we see even during Mohammad (s) time, there was people arguing with his commands, by "why not a (a clear) Surah with fighting mentioned", kind of response. Thus a trait of hypocrisy was to escape Sunnah and commands of Rasool (s) with Quran early stage.

This dividing between words of Nabi (a) and Quran remains till this day.

But this might appear off-topic, but I will be providing proof also from the lives of the living Qurans - the Ahlulbayt (a) that is I will connect this with the lives of Imams (a) and how they strove against oppressors, and most of them not by fighting nor commanding their followers to fight.

And so we see fighting is not the only option, but if you can overtake oppressors and tyrants you should, and we will see different ways of resisting oppressor, even totally accepting their rule and become part of their government as did Yusuf (a) is allowed.

That is we have to assess the circumstances and what is best for stability and peace of people.

j

this is obviously could be a delusion of self-grandeur that believes and not having experienced all religions and their writings.