Christian-Muslim Relations In the Middle-East

  • Advertisement
  • Nevermore

    Nevermore

    New Member
    Your generalization is very inaccurate.

    Many Pan Arab or Pan Syrian figures have been Christians. The SSNP, the communists and Baath are very pan Arabic and were led or created by Christians. I can understand the urge to divorce your Arabic identity at later years as a rightwing Christian reaction because the Arabic identity presently is greatly influenced by Islam. But that urge is not reflective of a historical identity of Christians in the Levant. The Arab Christian migration to the Levant preceded the Arab Islamic migration. The Lakhmid, the Ghassanids, the Banu Amilah, Banu Judham, Banu Kalb etc. were all pre Islamic Arab Christian tribes of the Levant. The Arabic identity in the Levant did not start with the coming of Islam, it goes way to Biblicak times. The rulers of Syria during the time of the Byzantines were Arab Christians. So this imaginative history that the Arabic identity or influence or existence came with Islam to the Levant is wrong. The coming of Islam empowered the Arab identity above competing identities and eventually, there was increasing Arabization, Islamization, assimilation, acculturation, but that by no means make Christians aliens to the Arabic identity. Among the Arab tribes in the Levant before Islam who converted to Islam, they converted not in Arabia but in the Levant. Islam came and met Arabs already in the Levant many centuries before.
    Thank you for proving my point exactly.

    This hodgepodge of hackneyed maxims doesn't address any of the points made in the quoted post. How did you manage to turn a discussion of the modern experiences of MENA Christians into one about the false histories you've regurgitated throughout the forum? First, those Pan-Arab or Pan-Syrian Christian figures are aberrations/anomalies to the factual reality of the Christian lived experience. The more telling fact is that they were usually bourgeois or petit-bourgeois academic types, a class of people that was and remains a vanguard of expressed Pan-Arabism despite sect and national identity. They're naive as much as they are opportunistic and didactic.

    Second, your use of "rightwing reaction" is telling - an attempt to vilify those Christians' political choices and attempts at political independence. Holding those Christians accountable for choosing empowering political stances is the same as blaming the Shia of Lebanon for embracing Hizbullah.

    As for the rest, it has been consistently and repeatedly proven to you that the Christians native to MENA countries are overwhelmingly and decisively indigenous on account that those tribes you've mentioned 1) were not entirely Christian (and, eventually, most converted to Islam), 2) to the extent that they were Christian, they were decidedly not Jacobite/Miaphysite/Dyophisite (their perspective on Christianity is reflected in the Qur'an's severely flawed representation of Christianity) 3) arrived in the 6th century, long after Levantine Christianity was established and institutionalized, 4) settled between what are now eastern Jordan, Southern Syria, Iraq, and Iran, and the northernmost parts of Saudi Arabia, 5) to the extent that they did come into contact with local, indigenous Christians, they largely assimilated into local Christian sects and cultures, 6) never settled in Mount Lebanon, nor did they go north of the southern Syrian desert on a large scale, where most Levantine Christians had settled, 7) they did not have a developed, independent system of communication, while the Levantines had already developed Syriac-Aramaic as a script, speech, and liturgical language, and 8) it is entirely possible that those tribes were originally Levantines who settled in Arabia and moved back up to avoid persecution or attacks from pagan Arabians. Therefore, the movement of tribes doesn't amount to a significant change in the structure of Levantine (Syriac churches, mainly) and Coptic Christianity.

    In fact, rather than me having to prove to you that the Levantine Christians of antiquity and present are not Arabs, I want you to prove to me exactly how those Levantine Christians are, in fact, fully Arab. So far, you've failed to make a compelling argument supported by any credible sources, often citing sources that confirm your pre-conceived notions of MENA Christians, as well as repeating old colonialist (Western and Arab) assumptions meant to lump all of the peoples of the region into one easy to understand group. Only the parts in bold hold truth.

    The Arab identity was so alien to those Christians, they created an interactional phenomenon known as Garshuni and constantly referred to Arabs as foreigners.

    Your hysteria is palpable on this forum. You constantly grasp at straws to assert a point that is illogical, presumptuous, and often false as you’ve repeatedly done here. Quarantine is hard, I know. Consider taking a deep breath before you post so we can have more fruitful discussions.
     
    Last edited:
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    Thank you for proving my point exactly.

    This hodgepodge of hackneyed maxims doesn't address any of the points made in the quoted post. How did you manage to turn a discussion of the modern experiences of MENA Christians into one about the false histories you've regurgitated throughout the forum? First, those Pan-Arab or Pan-Syrian Christian figures are aberrations/anomalies to the factual reality of the Christian lived experience. The more telling fact is that they were usually bourgeois or petit-bourgeois academic types, a class of people that was and remains a vanguard of expressed Pan-Arabism despite sect and national identity. They're naive as much as they are opportunistic and didactic.

    Second, your use of "rightwing reaction" is telling - an attempt to vilify those Christians' political choices and attempts at political independence. Holding those Christians accountable for choosing empowering political stances is the same as blaming the Shia of Lebanon for embracing Hizbullah.

    As for the rest, it has been consistently and repeatedly proven to you that the Christians native to MENA countries are overwhelmingly and decisively indigenous on account that those tribes you've mentioned 1) were not entirely Christian (and, eventually, most converted to Islam), 2) to the extent that they were Christian, they were decidedly not Jacobite/Miaphysite/Dyophisite (their perspective on Christianity is reflected in the Qur'an's severely flawed representation of Christianity) 3) arrived in the 6th century, long after Levantine Christianity was established and institutionalized, 4) settled between what are now eastern Jordan, Southern Syria, Iraq, and Iran, and the northernmost parts of Saudi Arabia, 5) to the extent that they did come into contact with local, indigenous Christians, they largely assimilated into local Christian sects and cultures, 6) never settled in Mount Lebanon, nor did they go north of the southern Syrian desert on a large scale, where most Levantine Christians had settled, 7) they did not have a developed, independent system of communication, while the Levantines had already developed Syriac-Aramaic as a script, speech, and liturgical language, and 8) it is entirely possible that those tribes were originally Levantines who settled in Arabia and moved back up to avoid persecution or attacks from pagan Arabians. Therefore, the movement of tribes doesn't amount to a significant change in the structure of Levantine (Syriac churches, mainly) and Coptic Christianity.

    In fact, rather than me having to prove to you that the Levantine Christians of antiquity and present are not Arabs, I want you to prove to me exactly how those Levantine Christians are, in fact, fully Arab. So far, you've failed to make a compelling argument supported by any credible sources, often citing sources that confirm your pre-conceived notions of MENA Christians, as well as repeating old colonialist (Western and Arab) assumptions meant to lump all of the peoples of the region into one easy to understand group. Only the parts in bold hold truth.

    The Arab identity was so alien to those Christians, they created an interactional phenomenon known as Garshuni and constantly referred to Arabs as foreigners.

    Your hysteria is palpable on this forum. You constantly grasp at straws to assert a point that is illogical, presumptuous, and often false as you’ve repeatedly done here. Quarantine is hard, I know. Consider taking a deep breath before you post so we can have more fruitful discussions.
    Your postulations are just flawed but very fake. I can hear whispers of your frustration in your attempt to re-argue what I have already argued and lashed you guys with. Dont be sore losers. What you are expressing is greatly brain screwing.

    Pan Arabist Christians are an "anomaly" according to you. That's ridiculous. Check the history of the Baath party, the SSNP, the communist party. They are all pan Arab and led by Christian Arabs or even created by Arab Christians.

    Most of the tribes that arrived in pre Islamic times and settled in the Levant came in at latest time in the 3rd century or even in the BC era. Check your dates of those Arab tribes in the Levant and when they moved in. Most embraced Islam, after resisting the Arabian Muslim incursions into the Byzantine territories in the Levant and some remained Christian to this day.

    Talking about "flawed" representation of Christianity in the Quran, that is utter foolishness and turning a blind eye to your early Christian history. There was not a unified or mainstream Christianity preached by Jesus or Paul with streamlined beliefs until starting from the 3rd century, after the Pagan Roman rulers adopted Christianity, that your bishops whom were expressly divided even among themselves, started holding ecumenical councils to unify doctrines and their ranks. Christians before Constantine adopted and imposed Christianity were a confused or differing flock flock themselves. No majority status of one Christian brand. Many little gnostic sects propping up, each with it's own scripture and version of Christianity. Even the disciples of Jesus, after Jesus disagreed and differed among themselves on some details as portrayed in the New Testament. What am I saying in practical terms? What you consider "pure Christianity" today is nothing but later fabrications based on the interpretations of some bishops and their imposition, sometimes brutal or even by the use of force on sects that refused to accept those streamlined doctrines or council edicts. (I'm afraid this my reply might make you go ma d. I dont know why I can sense that you sound like @Indie ). Bac to my point. For example, the doctrine of the trinity did not fall from the seven heavens. Neither was it ever mentioned anywhere in the Bible, Old or New Testamemt. Whatever traces of "father, son and holy spirit" in the NT (like the verse that says there are three that bear witness in heaven) are believed to be nothing but dishonest interpolations to appeal to church invented doctrines and give those doctrines scriptural backing. This the manuscripts show. You can further read on examples of interpolations in the New Testament. And neither were the formulations of doctrines by the councils acceptable to all early Christians. The Athanasian and Arian split in Christianity was only sealed by the use of force or persecution. Not by any holy spirit inspiration, when every Chrsitian group or sect, to this very day, and every pastor or priest would claim he is inspired by the holy spirit. The Arians refused to see Jesus as anything divine. Because the other side had power or state tools to impose its views, which were appealing to the early Roman rulers who adopted Christianity from paganism, does not mean the other side was "flawed". And Islam does not shy from the fact that it was a reactionary movement that was born to rectify the errors that crept into the older Abrahamic creeds. Therefore, it is categorically stated in the Quran that your trinity doctrine is idolatrous or polytheistic. Be a trinitarian at your own peril. Dont say on judgment day, you were not warned. Take heed. So this fake sense of trying to prove that the other side doesnt know what it is speaking about is foolish arrogance indeed. Review your inter Christian history and rivalries and how your doctrines were formulated and adopted or rejected and how they were imposed forcefully on all. Yet, there were many smaller groups that put up a resistance. For that fact, it goes to show that this opposition to trinity and other council of bishops formulated pagan doctrines even predated the birth of Muhammad (s). Eventually, the use of force meant power, not truth prevailed and the smaller groups which showed resistance eventually were defeated, wiped out or went into extinction due to persecution. Islam came to tell you to look back and do the right thing. Retrace your steps. Follow Jesus (as), not Paul or councils of bishops over the first 4 centuries of Christianity and their declarations or edicts and pagan doctrines.

    You are taking us back many pages. Lebanon or the area that is known as Lebanon did not have any large scale Christian settlements or city or any large scale populations, Jewish, Christian, Pagan or whatever. I have asked you over and over to present a large scale population centre or Christian inhabited city in Lebanon that was taken over by Muslims. None. What we find is the revese: Christians took over Shia imhabiter cities starting from the 14th century (Jbeil, Keserwan, Jezzine etc). What existed in the Levant before Islam were pastoral communities in the harsh mountainous terrains. The terrain in Lebann has mostly been not conducive to support latge populations. Even the formation of Greater Lebanon by the French, and adding the Beqaa, the South and the North to Mount Lebanon was to ensure a Christian led state would not suffer famine again like you did in the past during ottoman rule and your conflicts with the Druze. Otherwise, we dont find instances like the instances where the Shia were replaced in large cities by another community of Chrsitians losing territory to another incoming community. But we find evidence of the Christians (many migrants from Hawran and Aleppo in Syria) being the ones who dispossessed others of their cities and territories in Lebanon.E.g. Tripoli Keserwan, Jezzine. Syriac was developed in Syria. Not in Lebanon. So the question would be, why didn't the French help you in creating a Maronite led state in Aleppo, where Maroon was born and lived? Because you were a persecuted minority in Syria and you fled to Lebanon starting from the 7th century like many other groups fled to Lebanon to use its harsh mountainous terrain for protection. Check how the Orthodox Byzantines pereceuted the Maronites. The persecution started because Maronites were considered by the larger Christian groups as heretics. Even the catholic church at a point excommunicated the Maronites for heresy. Bitter historical facts you guys either cover up or dont know while you project a solid Christian identity and false claim of originality (with shaky foundations that can be rattled by historical facts) for political gains. Tread carefully, otherwise, you'd continue to have gigantic shocks that could make you sweat each time you trade my replies on your history and Lebanon's history. Lebanon's history didnt start with the Mamluks and crusaders and large scale migrations of Maronites from Syria.

    I never lumped all peoples into one group. The diversity in the Levant has always been that way. Everyone comes in and goes out and some remain and newcomers join. The populations in the Levant constantly replenishing thanks to continuous migrations and invasions.
    The Arab presence in the Levant predated Islam. How come the Byzantine rulers of Syria were Arabs? The Byzantines did not see the Maronites as anything but a heretical movement that should be quenched. Perhaps you can have an idea why the Orthodox Christians are more exposed or embracing of the pan Arab identity. The Arab presence in the Levant goes back before Christ was born. When you read the Bible and you hear of Gentiles, they could have easily included Arabs, along with Greeks, Romans, Assyrians etc. This region has long been a melting pot of identities, religions and ideologies. Nothing new here. No one group has exclusive rights like Zionism or whatever narrow minded individuals and their narrow thinking and thin ideologies want to project and reinvent history to claim a sense of fake superiority. Yallah bye.
     
    T

    Thoma

    New Member
    @Rafidi
    This is a manifestation of the devil and the evil brainwashing you have been taught fighting back. But I trust you will be strong enough to break that bandage that is trying to cripple your thinking faculty. And it is lovely to see you win this battle. This is basically an interpretation you have been fed and a conclusion you have drawn not based on history but based on finding a way to tarnish the other in order to feel good about your own beliefs, however paganistic and violent they may be.

    Amazingly, it is in the Bible we find convert or die verses. The OT is littered with such verses. But we dont find such in the Quran. We find these verses in the Quran:

    1. "Let there be no compulsion in religion".

    2. "Let him who wills believe and let him who wills disbelive".

    3. "To you your religion and to me mine own religion".

    When you speak of Muhammad's (s) goal, where did you read about his goal somewhere or is that your pre judging his intentions in retrospect? Where did you read Muhammad (s) said his goal was conquest? Bring one verse from the Quran.

    Rather this is what we find:

    "Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best. Indeed, your Lord is most knowing of who has strayed from His way, and He is most knowing of who is [rightly] guided." (Glorious Quran 16:125)

    Someone who speaks of wisdom, good instruction, and debating in the best possible manner doesnt sound to me to be someone with an evil goal. So when you speak of Muhammad's (s) goal that is a pre judgement on your part of his intentions in hindsight.

    Secondly, when you want to pretend to be speaking in the name of history, bring out the facts. The events. The dates. The verses. The scripture. Dont pass a judgment and then type a narrative that make you sound as if you are screaming in frustration from the top of your head and pulling your hair in front of a screen. It is a nonsensical approach!

    For someone who spent 23 years of his last part of his life preaching, 13 of the 23 were spent in Makkah under humiliating treatment, oppression, persecution and assaults. His crime? He preached against idolatry, which was the tradition of his people. So he should be silenced. He was accused of so many things including being mad, being a sorcerer, being possessed by a demonic power and copying scripture, but they could not find any evidence so say for sure, it was this or that that really happened. They were perplexed by the phenomenon called Muhammad (s). Yet, they offered to bribe him literally. They wanted to entice him with money, power, and women. They even told him that if he was mentally sick, they would bring for him the best physicians to treat his ailment. They only wanted him to stop preaching belief in the One God. His response was popular and striking into the hearts of his enemies: "if you bring the sun and the moon and place them to my right and left, I will not give up on this divine mission".

    13 years, he endured persecution and his numbers grew and grew and grew. This doesnt sound like violent conversion like the other religion that conquered an entire empire and continent and rose to the status of a world majority religion through the sword while pretending to be the "turn they other cheek" scammers!!!. Chrsitianity is a scam, my friend. You say one thing and do the other. You preach love and yet you say it was love when those who become your saints "compelled" others to adopt your faith. If you cant come to that conclusion, your conscience will kill you!!!

    Anyways, off to Yathrib the Prophet migrated after his uncle, who was the head of the clan of Hashem passed away and there was no one to protect him in Makkah. His life was threatened and the clans of Quraysh decided it was time to kill him. This attempted assassination, if I were in the shoe of the Prophet, was enough to extinguish my enemies. Enough justification not to leave an ant crawling. But he didnt do that. Instead, he migrated. He chose the peaceful option, and did not choose confrontation in Makkah. Instead, after defeating his enemies and God promised to strengthen and protect him and grant him victory, he still found the kindness and mercy in his heart to forgive his enemies and even granted them protection. Do you really believe this man was bad? Do you really believe this man is the man you have been brainwashed to believe he was? Or dont you think your entire problem with him is religious rivalry even at the price of forging history and painting the wrong picture of him? Your only problem is because his religion grew to importance and you feel your faith in Christianity is at stake. But your faith in Christianity is at stake because there is certainly something better that can win you over!!! That is what makes you guys to go frantic and not leave a stone unturned in falsifying history and dreaming the Prophet. Even centuries after his death, he keeps winning hearts.

    Anyways, the Prophet arrived Yathrib and an entire city became Muslim, with exception of some Jews (who later proved treacherous and broke the pact) and Christians whom he offered protection and safety. The name of the city was changed from Yathrib to Medina. I can understand the fact that Jesus was not this successful. And the Bible provides the answer: "he (Jesus) came unto his own and his own people rejected him". All the preaching, parables and miracles did not make Jesus as successful as Muhammad (s) I'm winning over his own nation. It is understandable therefore why you are brainwashed to imagine Muhamamad (s) was forcing people to his faith. You can't provide any other convincing explanation when you read of the successes of Muhammad (s) in winning over his people and the failure of Jesus who the Bible says his own people rejected him (John 1:11).

    In frustration, look at how Jesus addressed his people:

    "A wicked and adulterous generation" (Matthew 12:39)

    "You brood of vipers" (Matthew 12:34)

    "Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." (John 8:44)

    "You serpents , you generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell"? (Matthew 23:33)

    "You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred"? (Matthew 23:17)

    Now compare:

    "So by mercy from Allah, [O Muhammad], you were lenient with them. And if you had been rude [in speech] and harsh in heart, they would have disbanded from about you. So pardon them and ask forgiveness for them and consult them in the matter. And when you have decided, then rely upon Allah . Indeed, Allah loves those who rely [upon Him]." (Glorious Quran 3:159)

    "And We did not send any messenger except to be obeyed by permission of Allah. And if, when they wronged themselves, they had come to you, [O Muhammad], and asked forgiveness of Allah and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah Accepting of repentance and Merciful." (Glorious Quran 4:64)

    "We have only sent you as a mercy to the creations" (Gloruous Quran 21:107)

    Now tell me, would you naturally, notwithstanding other considerations, follow a man who would call you snake, fool, and adulterous generation, or another man who seeks forgiveness for you, consult with you, speak gently or leniently and is merciful?

    But be assured that the success of Muhammad (s), who said La Ilaha Il-lal-lah" is the success of Jesus (as), who said "hear oh Israel, the Lord Our God is but One God". Not two, not three in one or fifty in four. One God! "Our God", including the God of Jesus himself! The choice of whether to follow Jesus through Muhammad and whether to follow church doctrines which were the inventions of converted pagan nations into Christianity and their bishops in 2,3 or 4 centuries after Jesus is yours to make. I am by no means supporting the enemies of Jesus (as) or going against him. I am showing you that it was a miracle in the way Arabians embraced Muhammad (s) while the Jews rejected Jesus (as) after all. Also, Jesus (as) was not all gentle and kind and a lamb. He was militant and when he needed to be form, he was firm.

    Back to the story of the Prophet's migration. And Yathrib became known as "Madinatun Nabi", or "the city of the Prophet". A beautiful name which every saint and every evil doer would be envious of. It speaks of sheer love. After settling in Medina, the people of Makkah that remained were still trooping to Medina to join the faith of Muhammad (s). A faith based on purity of mind and body and an escape from from blemish of idolatry. The chieftains of Makkah, whose commercial trade centred on pilgrims visiting the idols in the Kaabah were threatened by a firm belief in monotheism or Tawhid. So they felt they couldn't tolerate the rising power in Medina. And you dare speak of violence and you dare link it to the Prophet? You are being unfair. The pagans tried to first strike a deal with the clans of Medina and failed. Later on, they succeeded in getting the Jews on their side (and both were defeated). This was a historical and decisive decision that will frame the relations of Jews with Muslims forever. And the pagans chose to resort to war. And then the Verse of Permission to Fight was revealed to the new Muslims with conditionalities of why/when you can fight and a promise based on certainty from the start that the Prophet would be victorious. In the end, we only have envious haters crying over spilled milk. The rest is history. Keep whining! :)



    That is where you are wrong. For example, after the Prophet's demise, Imam Ali (as) did not fight in ANY conquest of foreign lands outside Arabia. He didnt take part in the conquest of Persia under Umar, the second caliph. Because you dont know these details does not mean they dont exist and you are not right in rushing to conclude that there was no opposition at all, or at least refusal in joining these campaigns or conquests of places outside Arabia. We could have still conquered these places by preaching, and through the truthful word like Islam later on spread in southeast Asia. Today, the largest Muslim country is Indonesia. And not one Muslim soldier stepped foot in southeast Asia to convert anyone at sword point. The Shia of Lebanon are not a story of forceful conversion, even though Shiism was the antithesis of the version of Islam the caliphate followed, Shia Islam was still embraced peacefully in the Levant under the noses of bloody Umayyad caliphate.

    You cant look at these conquests outside Arabia after the Prophet, without taking into consideration that there was already a split among Muslims. Islam was almost hijacked, if not for the split that occurred. Sadly, the majority were every day, day to day Muslims who only cared about their day to day survival. They submitted to the caliphate and abandoned imamate.

    Nonetheless, when you speak of these conquests (and I dont support them), aside from the Persian campaign which was led by Umar and that involved a nation falling, the other campaigns were not staged against nations or their monarchs. Take Jerusalem for example. It was the case of substituting one foreign ruler with another, even though I am not defending the Arabian conquests. The Byzantines left and the Arabian Muslims took over. That is the reason I was, earlier in this thread asking you guys to provide me with an example of the caliphate fighting a single battle against a Christian army in the Lebanon or a single example of the caliphate army conquering a "Christian city" in Lebanon. We really couldn't find any because there was no such battle and there were nothing such as a Christian city in Lebanon. There were scattered settlements with sparse populations in Lebanon but nothing of a major Christian presence. It was even under Muslim rule that Christian migrations and conversions peaked in Lebanon. The Maornites first gained prominence after the Mamluks, not before.



    I think you are referring to Surah 8, not Surah 87. Surah 8 was revealed after the Verse of Permission to Fight (Suran 22 verses 39 to 41) and after the migration and the attempted assassination on the Prophet's life and after the pagan chieftains and their pagan army went to Medinah to forment trouble and declare war. The Prophet didnt fight in Makkah. It was the pagans who came from Makkah to Medina to fight. They came to seek war. Surah 8 has a context. There is time and place involved and against a certain group of aggressors. You cant look at it in isolation.

    My message to you is to be zealous for the truth. To put hatred and prejudices aside. To open your heart to truth based on facts. To love based on truth. To forgive based on mercy. Not based on pretense. Open your heart. You may lose friends, power and money. You will gain your conscience and you will gain eternal life, even if you lose this world. Embrace the truth. That is strength.
    I'm going to start unfolding my earlier post in parts, you and others are welcome to address it as i go.

    -------

    "They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: "Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members. Tumult (Fitnah) and oppression are worse than slaughter ..."" — يَسْأَلُونَكَ عَنِ الشَّهْرِ الْحَرَامِ قِتَالٍ فِيهِ قُلْ قِتَالٌ فِيهِ كَبِيرٌ وَصَدٌّ عَن سَبِيلِ اللّهِ وَكُفْرٌ بِهِ وَالْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ وَإِ ْرَاجُ أَهْلِهِ مِنْهُ أَكْبَرُ عِندَ اللّهِ وَالْفِتْنَةُ أَكْبَرُ مِنَ الْقَتْلِ وَلاَ يَزَالُونَ يُقَاتِلُونَكُمْ حَتَّىَ يَرُدُّوكُمْ عَن دِينِكُمْ إِنِ اسْتَطَاعُواْ وَمَن يَرْتَدِدْ مِنكُمْ عَن دِينِهِ فَيَمُتْ وَهُوَ كَافِرٌ فَأُوْلَئِكَ حَبِطَتْ أَعْمَالُهُمْ فِي الدُّنْيَا وَالآ ِرَةِ وَأُوْلَئِكَ أَصْحَابُ النَّارِ هُمْ فِيهَا َالِدُونَ — Quran 2:217. This is Allah recounting the persecution of Muslims in Mecca in justification of Muslims' subsequent killing of Meccans and raiding of their caravans during a sacred month (something that was otherwise prohibited by Allah). What valuable data can be inferred from this verse?

    Ever since he was in Mecca, Muhammad regarded the kaaba as the holiest of places, so much so that he and his followers used to specifically go there to worship Allah, even if this meant doing so among pagan idols and worshipers. So much so that after Muhammad had himself and his companions kicked out of it and denied from accessing to it, that incident was equated to 'them being forced to divert from the path of Allah and to deny Allah altogether', qualified as the gravest of all offenses endured by Muslims, the peak of their persecution in Mecca, so much so that, in and for the sake of the process of overturning and avenging it, Allah had to abrogate/contradict an earlier command of his (Quran 2:194) that 'commanded Muslims to defensively fight and kill during sacred months' with another one (in Quran 2:217, quoted above) that says 'while the violation of that command by the acts of raiding, looting and killing Meccans during sacred months, as Muhammad did, is grave, graver is the kind of offense the Meccans had committed against Muslims in Mecca (referring to the eviction of Muhammad and his followers from the Kaaba)' and facilitate thereby Muhammad's consequent and necessary amassment of power that consisted primarily of caravan raiding, looting and killings, while (Allah) setting with that a dangerous precedent; whenever a vital or foundational interest/goal of Islam and Muslims is threatened or frustrated (like the hijacking of the Kaaba via the expulsion of early Muslims from it, or in other instances, like the prevention of the (re-)installation of the caliphate in the 21st century Syria, or like having an existing caliphate threatened), all bets are off, all moral principles, even those commanded to be so by Allah in earlier parts of the Quran, could be set aside, good becomes identified with anything that enables the achievement of that goal, and evil with anything that frustrates it.

    Here's an additional glimpse of Mohammad preaching about the Kaaba after settling with his followers in Medina during his Hijra years, as he was amassing the much needed force in pursuit of achieving his existential goal and fulfilling his mission of establishing Islam: "Verily, the first House (of worship) appointed for mankind was that at Bakkah (Makkah), full of blessing, and a guidance for mankind". — إِنَّ أَوَّلَ بَيْتٍ وُضِعَ لِلنَّاسِ لَلَّذِي بِبَكَّةَ مُبَارَكًا وَهُدًى لِّلْعَالَمِينَ — Quran 3:96. "Behold! We gave the site, to Ibrahim, of the (Sacred) House, (saying): Associate not anything (in worship) with Me; and sanctify My House for those who compass it round, or stand up, or bow, or prostrate themselves (therein in prayer)". — وَإِذْ بَوَّأْنَا لِإِبْرَاهِيمَ مَكَانَ الْبَيْتِ أَن لَّا تُشْرِكْ بِي شَيْئًا وَطَهِّرْ بَيْتِيَ لِلطَّائِفِينَ وَالْقَائِمِينَ وَالرُّكَّعِ السُّجُودِ — Quran 22:26. "And remember Ibrahim and Ismail raised the foundations of the House (With this prayer): 'Our Lord! Accept (this service) from us: For Thou art the All-Hearing, the All-knowing.'" — وَإِذْ يَرْفَعُ إِبْرَاهِيمُ الْقَوَاعِدَ مِنَ الْبَيْتِ وَإِسْمَاعِيلُ رَبَّنَا تَقَبَّلْ مِنَّا إِنَّكَ أَنتَ السَّمِيعُ الْعَلِيمُ — Quran 2:127.

    Laying an exclusive claim to the Kaaba was thus necessarily the foundational goal of Muhammad by virtue of the faith he preached and practiced and the claims he claimed, a goal the achievement of which, to him, must've been regarded as necessary and inevitable, as something that without which one's entire life or mission or status falls apart. And having indeed failed for 13+ years in trying to achieve it 'peacefully' (peacefully as in an artificial, hate repressing, self-serving way, instead of having it emanating from a real conviction or regard for the good and well-being of the other as other), and particularly after having been kicked out of the Kaaba and denied access to it, he quite expectedly proceeded with achieving it by 'whatever means necessary', with Allah's blessing and having (Allah) justify his consequent inconsistent actions on the go (so long as this benefits that goal) with things like ['evicting him and his followers from the Kaaba is graver than even themselves Muslims violating an earlier command of mine such as that of 'commanding Muslims to defensively fight and kill during sacred months'].

    And what was it that compelled Allah (in Quran 2:217) to justify Muhammad violating a command of his (Quran 2:194) in the first place, classifying it as 'a grave offense against Allah, but not graver than other offenses against which it is being allowed and performed' and by that facilitate Muhammad's consequent and necessary amassment of power? If Muhammad's 'fighting during sacred months' was self-defensive in nature and yet was still considered by Allah a violation of an earlier command of his (and was permitting Muhammad to perform), then 'self-defensive fighting during sacred months' in itself becomes a violation against Allah by default, restricting thereby Allah from ever positively commanding it under the pain of "Allah positively commanding violations against himself". And with 'that violation needing Allah justifying and permitting it' being an indication that the violation was indeed one against a previously revealed commandment of Allah (i.e. necessarily being Quran 2:194), one would become compelled to choose between either "Allah having positively commanded grave offenses against himself" or "Muhammad's actions were transgressive in nature, rather than self-defensive". However, by Allah's own testimony, and with Allah being our witness, and as far as his justification is concerned, Allah didn't deny it being a violation in the first place, rather he affirmed that 'while it indeed is a violation, it is still not graver than some other violation for which it was to be permitted'. In other words, Allah didn't try to justify Muhammad's acts as being self-defensive and thereby not constituting a violation of an earlier command of his wherein Allah is commanding 'self-defensive fighting in sacred months', but to the contrary, he started by first admitting them to be a violation of that earlier command of his, and then proceeded with concerning himself only with justifying the reality of the violation in itself, namely of 'Muhammad violating a earlier command of Allah' in the eyes of muslims, meccans and the world. And Allah did so on the ground of the violation being less grave to Allah than some other violation against him (like that of kicking Muhammad and his companions outside the kaaba). Here, Allah has facilitated it for you and is telling you to concede, proudly and without shame; that Muhammad's actions were transgressive in nature (rather than self-defensive as most modern Muslims - the munafiqoon in the sight of Allah - want others to believe), and were allowed and condoned to the benefit of Muslims, Islam and Allah, even if they were to violate earlier commands. See, unlike modern day Muslim apologists who are bent over backwards hopelessly trying to paint Islam as something other than what it is, Allah couldn't care less about whichever way mere mortals view those transgressions. Allah is supreme lord, all creation is his, and thus so is the Kaaba, and what Allah actually meant to say in that justification is nothing more than a declaration, a reminder, and a warning, to all Muslims, to the world, and especially to the enemies of Islam whoever they may be, saying essentially ['so long as I, (Leviathan masquerading as) Allah, have my 'claim over creation' threatened, disturbed or challenged, all bets are off, whatever I (via my footsoldiers/slaves) mandate as good and permissible, becomes good and permissible, and whatever I mandate as evil and forbidden, becomes evil and forbidden, even if that (new mandate) were to go against earlier mandates/commandments of mine, even if that were to go against the natural law inscribed in every man's heart'].

    What other goal in this strictly Quranic laid out context do you think could possibly be more fundamental to Muhammad than laying exclusive claim to the Kaaba even by force (of the transgressive type) if need be? Think about it, while basing yourself entirely on the Quran, could there have ever been Islam established in this world without the Kaaba? Without the Kaaba having become exclusively Muslim? Without the Kaaba having been forcibly converted to Islam?

    Mohammad did eventually achieve his goal, but only after several violent warring attempts (or battles) and much bloodshed, and only after eventually marching to Mecca with 10 000 armed men and converting the Kaaba to Islam as such. And from there on, he and his followers (with him and after him) consistently proceeded to do much of the same throughout Arabia and beyond, laying claims to cities, countries and kingdoms, near and far, all while threatening, subjugating, looting, conquering, and forcibly converting people in the process, and spreading (imposing) their faith and claims as such, by the sword, with an army lurking in the background or standing in the foreground, not any different from how and what ISIS has done and sought to do in the 21st century, in accordance with their founding father; you only need to substitute in your mind their weapons and vehicles with camels, horses and swords, and you will have peeked right back in time into Mohammad and his followers.

    ---

    Pointing to few peaceful verses and to the existence of peaceful Muslims around the world isn't going to erase that nor change reality.

    ---

    Everyone knows that the Quran contains conflicting teachings or commands, in particular to our case; peaceful ones and violent ones. It is thus often claimed that 'any individual can therefore quote the Quran in justification of their terrorist attacks / violent behavior or their condemnation of violence / peaceful behavior'. Except that that wasn't at all the case, at least not randomly so, neither during Muhammad's time nor after it. For as soon as Muhammad and his followers started receiving and facing conflicting commands, Allah himself mandated through a revelation the abrogation method (and repeatedly so on several occasions). Indeed, obeying Allah is not a matter of picking up a verse that justifies whatever one happens to be doing or prefer, rather one should obey Allah coherently and firmly, just as Muhammad, his companions and early followers did, and how all Muslims by imitation or emulation ought to do. And thus, the Quran presented its own method of interpretation directed specifically towards that end. This revelation straightforwardly outlined the method to be followed and applied by all Muslims in that regard, and it goes like this: 'according to the Quran/Allah, when you (Muslims) are faced with conflicting commands, you aren't supposed to pick the ones you like best, you are to go to history and see which verse was revealed last, whichever verse came last is said to abrogate or cancel earlier (opposing) revelation(s)'.

    - Quran 2:106 "Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?"
    - Quran 16:101 "When We substitute one revelation for another,- and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages),- they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not."
    - Quran 13:39 "Allah makes to pass away and establishes what He pleases, and with Him is the basis of the Book."
    - Quran 17:86 "And if We please, We should certainly take away that which We have revealed to you, then you would not find for it any protector against Us"
    - Quran 87:6–7 "We will make you recite so you shall not forget, except what Allah pleases, surely He knows the manifest, and what is hidden."

    Some desperate voices may try to deceive others by claiming that what's being meant here by 'previous verses/communications/revelations' and which the Quran abrogates, are 'previous non-Quranic revelations' (namely the Jewish and Christian revelations) rather than the Quranic revelations themselves (or parts of the Quran), but to this we point to the Quran 87:6–7 where Allah is clearly addressing Muhammad and none other than Muhammad and telling him 'the revelations among those which we (Allah) are making you recite may be abrogated as we (Allah) please'. That's Allah himself explicitly and unapologetically saying 'abrogation applies to revelations which we (Allah) send down to Muhammad and make him recite'; since 'to make Muhammad recite' is 'to make Muhammad recite what he had received from (Allah) as revelation', and 'what Muhammad had received from (Allah) as revelation' is by definition the Quran, abrogation therefore necessarily applies to the Quran (to the Quranic revelations i.e. parts of the Quran that were recited by Muhammad).

    ---

    And thus, when we apply this method to the Quran, as instructed by the Quran itself, its coherent message of peace and violence derives itself straightforwardly and becomes evident to everyone; we find that there are three stages in the call to being a Muslim (a true Muslim, that is) depending on the status or strength of the Muslim and his community in society. The three stages mirror the three stages of Muhammad's public career. The Quran in parallel is divided into two main consecutive parts, the 'Mecca verses', to which is assigned the first stage, and the 'Medina verses' to which are assigned and second and third stages.

    Accordingly, Muslims fall into three ordered categories the first two of which being considered passing stages towards the third depending a) on 'how much Muslim a Muslim individual or community seeks to be', and b) on their strength for achieving or fulfilling that call within the environment they are living in. The more Muslim they seek to be -> the more strength they ought to maintain and gather up -> the more they ought to be in stage 3. If one were to pick, as an example, any group of people that identify themselves as true Muslims today (or in the past), one would realize how easily said group falls within essentially any of those 3 categories/stages.

    In short:

    category/stage 1: promote 'peace and tolerance' when you are thoroughly outnumbered or overpowered.
    category/stage 2: fight 'defensively' when you are strong enough to fight, but not strong enough to conquer.
    category/stage 3: fight offensively when you are strong enough to violently subjugate non-Muslims, if by so doing you would be able to establish and spread Islam.

    In full:

    Category/Stage 1 (going by the Quran while postponing the Medina verses i.e. the latter parts of the Quran, particularly postponing the parts that conflict with the Mecca verses): Muslims are to promote (self-serving) peace and tolerance when they are thoroughly outnumbered or overpowered; mirroring the Meccan stage where if a Muslim had a disagreement with a non-believer, he was commanded in Quran 109:6 "To you be your religions and to me be my religion". At this stage Muslims were not allowed to fight even to defend themselves against persecution. They were allowed, however, to harbor and repress the hate and anger they'd gather towards the non-Muslim (after all, their being peaceful is solely based on securing one's well-being or survival and on fulfilling their religious' call by striving to pass to stage 3, rather than on a deeply rooted conviction about peace and love for all humans). Here, their strength is directly proportional to the means, the material wealth or the worldly resources and support they would summon, use and deal with, from and with those whom they may be sharing common interests, without much regard about possibly going against proclaimed moral codes in the process, so long as this benefits the ultimate religious call/goal.

    Category/Stage 2 (going by the Quran while abrogating earlier Meccan contrary verses): Muslims are to fight defensively, but also offensively in as much as the Muslim community's current strength allows and so long as it serves in maintaining and increasing their strength and eventually fulfilling their religion's call. This is when Muslims are strong enough to fight (in self-defense) but not strong enough to conquer and subjugate; mirroring the Mecca-Medina transition stage, where Muhammad gained a larger following and formed alliances with various outer tribes, where he was strong enough to self-defend, and also to raid caravans and kill at will (and practice treachery, piling up money via illegal activities, covering and becoming an umbrella for corruption, etc so long as this serves the ultimate religious call or goal), but not strong enough to truly subjugate non-Muslims (like the Meccans). At this stage Muhammad was ordered to wage defensive wars against those who transgress him, but he was also permitted to transgress in as much as his current strength allows him to and so long as it serves in achieving his ultimate religious call/goal. Muslims here are ordered to fight unbelievers but only if the unbelievers 'do something first', but are also permitted to 'do something first' (transgress) in as much as their current strength allows and so long as this serves their ultimate religious goal/call. Quran 2:190-193 "And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits. And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter (with this being the go-to Allah justification for the on-going transgressions committed in parallel, from slaughter, to the likes of caravan raiding and looting, and every other kind of violation or corruption)... and do not fight with them at the sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers. But if they desist, then surely Allah is forgiving, merciful, ... And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors"

    Category/Stage 3 (going by the Quran while abrogating earlier Meccan and even Medina verses that conflict with the latter parts of Medina verses i.e. the latter parts of the Quran. This is focusing on and going by the verses via which Islam was established in this world and was made victorious over its enemies): Muslims are to fight offensively when their community is strong enough to violently subjugate non-Muslims; mirroring the latter part of the Medina stage or the final years of Muhammad where Muslims were commanded to violently subjugate non-Muslims simply for being non-Muslims and doing what 'their being non-Muslim' do (things like worshiping peacefully in their own place without having had someone seeking to lay claim to their place, harassing, bullying, threatening, and eventually being set on slaughtering them). They are to fight people based on what they believe and strive hard not just against 'oppressors, persecutors, or people who are attacking you', but against the unbelievers aka non-Muslims, and the hypocrites aka people who self-identify as Muslims but aren't considered to be fully submitting to the commands of Allah and Mohammad (those perceived as 'workers of fitna'). Notice the distinction in the below corresponding verses being not between 'people who are attacking you' and 'people who are not attacking you', but between believer and unbeliever (between Muslim and non-Muslim):
    ...
    Quran 9:29 "fight those who do not believe in Allah"
    Quran 9:73 "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and they Hypocrites and be unyielding to them"
    Quran 9:123 "O you who believe! Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."
    Quran 48:29 "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are severe against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves."


    ---

    “I have been made victorious with terror.” is reported to have been among the last mutterings of the Prophet of Islam before his death. Is it truly not a fitting summation of his entire missionary career, and of that of those who in following in his footsteps were made victorious just like him?

    ---
     
    Last edited:
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    @Rafidi


    I'm going to start unfolding my earlier post in parts, you and others are welcome to address it as i go.

    -------

    "They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: "Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members. Tumult (Fitnah) and oppression are worse than slaughter ..."" — يَسْأَلُونَكَ عَنِ الشَّهْرِ الْحَرَامِ قِتَالٍ فِيهِ قُلْ قِتَالٌ فِيهِ كَبِيرٌ وَصَدٌّ عَن سَبِيلِ اللّهِ وَكُفْرٌ بِهِ وَالْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ وَإِ ْرَاجُ أَهْلِهِ مِنْهُ أَكْبَرُ عِندَ اللّهِ وَالْفِتْنَةُ أَكْبَرُ مِنَ الْقَتْلِ وَلاَ يَزَالُونَ يُقَاتِلُونَكُمْ حَتَّىَ يَرُدُّوكُمْ عَن دِينِكُمْ إِنِ اسْتَطَاعُواْ وَمَن يَرْتَدِدْ مِنكُمْ عَن دِينِهِ فَيَمُتْ وَهُوَ كَافِرٌ فَأُوْلَئِكَ حَبِطَتْ أَعْمَالُهُمْ فِي الدُّنْيَا وَالآ ِرَةِ وَأُوْلَئِكَ أَصْحَابُ النَّارِ هُمْ فِيهَا َالِدُونَ — Quran 2:217. This is Allah recounting the persecution of Muslims in Mecca in justification of Muslims' subsequent killing of Meccans and raiding of their caravans during a sacred month (something that was otherwise prohibited by Allah). What valuable data can be inferred from this verse?

    Ever since he was in Mecca, Muhammad regarded the kaaba as the holiest of places, so much so that he and his followers used to specifically go there to worship Allah, even if this meant doing so among pagan idols and worshipers. So much so that after Muhammad had himself and his companions kicked out of it and denied from accessing to it, that incident was equated to 'them being forced to divert from the path of Allah and to deny Allah altogether', qualified as the gravest of all offenses endured by Muslims, the peak of their persecution in Mecca, so much so that, in and for the sake of the process of overturning and avenging it, Allah had to abrogate/contradict an earlier command of his (Quran 2:194) that 'commanded Muslims to defensively fight and kill during sacred months' with another one (in Quran 2:217, quoted above) that says 'while the violation of that command by the acts of raiding, looting and killing Meccans during sacred months, as Muhammad did, is grave, graver is the kind of offense the Meccans had committed against Muslims in Mecca (referring to the eviction of Muhammad and his followers from the Kaaba)' and facilitate thereby Muhammad's consequent and necessary amassment of power that consisted primarily of caravan raiding, looting and killings, while (Allah) setting with that a dangerous precedent; whenever a vital or foundational interest/goal of Islam and Muslims is threatened or frustrated (like the hijacking of the Kaaba via the expulsion of early Muslims from it, or in other instances, like the prevention of the (re-)installation of the caliphate in the 21st century Syria, or like having an existing caliphate threatened), all bets are off, all moral principles, even those commanded to be so by Allah in earlier parts of the Quran, could be set aside, good becomes identified with anything that enables the achievement of that goal, and evil with anything that frustrates it.

    Here's an additional glimpse of Mohammad preaching about the Kaaba after settling with his followers in Medina during his Hijra years, as he was amassing the much needed force in pursuit of achieving his existential goal and fulfilling his mission of establishing Islam: "Verily, the first House (of worship) appointed for mankind was that at Bakkah (Makkah), full of blessing, and a guidance for mankind". — إِنَّ أَوَّلَ بَيْتٍ وُضِعَ لِلنَّاسِ لَلَّذِي بِبَكَّةَ مُبَارَكًا وَهُدًى لِّلْعَالَمِينَ — Quran 3:96. "Behold! We gave the site, to Ibrahim, of the (Sacred) House, (saying): Associate not anything (in worship) with Me; and sanctify My House for those who compass it round, or stand up, or bow, or prostrate themselves (therein in prayer)". — وَإِذْ بَوَّأْنَا لِإِبْرَاهِيمَ مَكَانَ الْبَيْتِ أَن لَّا تُشْرِكْ بِي شَيْئًا وَطَهِّرْ بَيْتِيَ لِلطَّائِفِينَ وَالْقَائِمِينَ وَالرُّكَّعِ السُّجُودِ — Quran 22:26. "And remember Ibrahim and Ismail raised the foundations of the House (With this prayer): 'Our Lord! Accept (this service) from us: For Thou art the All-Hearing, the All-knowing.'" — وَإِذْ يَرْفَعُ إِبْرَاهِيمُ الْقَوَاعِدَ مِنَ الْبَيْتِ وَإِسْمَاعِيلُ رَبَّنَا تَقَبَّلْ مِنَّا إِنَّكَ أَنتَ السَّمِيعُ الْعَلِيمُ — Quran 2:127.

    Laying an exclusive claim to the Kaaba was thus necessarily the foundational goal of Muhammad by virtue of the faith he preached and practiced and the claims he claimed, a goal the achievement of which, to him, must've been regarded as necessary and inevitable, as something that without which one's entire life or mission or status falls apart. And having indeed failed for 13+ years in trying to achieve it 'peacefully' (peacefully as in an artificial, hate repressing, self-serving way, instead of having it emanating from a real conviction or regard for the good and well-being of the other as other), and particularly after having been kicked out of the Kaaba and denied access to it, he quite expectedly proceeded with achieving it by 'whatever means necessary', with Allah's blessing and having (Allah) justify his consequent inconsistent actions on the go (so long as this benefits that goal) with things like ['evicting him and his followers from the Kaaba is graver than even themselves Muslims violating an earlier command of mine such as that of 'commanding Muslims to defensively fight and kill during sacred months'].

    And what was it that compelled Allah (in Quran 2:217) to justify Muhammad violating a command of his (Quran 2:194) in the first place, classifying it as 'a grave offense against Allah, but not graver than other offenses against which it is being allowed and performed' and by that facilitate Muhammad's consequent and necessary amassment of power? If Muhammad's 'fighting during sacred months' was self-defensive in nature and yet was still considered by Allah a violation of an earlier command of his (and was permitting Muhammad to perform), then 'self-defensive fighting during sacred months' in itself becomes a violation against Allah by default, restricting thereby Allah from ever positively commanding it under the pain of "Allah positively commanding violations against himself". And with 'that violation needing Allah justifying and permitting it' being an indication that the violation was indeed one against a previously revealed commandment of Allah (i.e. necessarily being Quran 2:194), one would become compelled to choose between either "Allah having positively commanded grave offenses against himself" or "Muhammad's actions were transgressive in nature, rather than self-defensive". However, by Allah's own testimony, and with Allah being our witness, and as far as his justification is concerned, Allah didn't deny it being a violation in the first place, rather he affirmed that 'while it indeed is a violation, it is still not graver than some other violation for which it was to be permitted'. In other words, Allah didn't try to justify Muhammad's acts as being self-defensive and thereby not constituting a violation of an earlier command of his wherein Allah is commanding 'self-defensive fighting in sacred months', but to the contrary, he started by first admitting them to be a violation of that earlier command of his, and then proceeded with concerning himself only with justifying the reality of the violation in itself, namely of 'Muhammad violating a earlier command of Allah' in the eyes of muslims, meccans and the world. And Allah did so on the ground of the violation being less grave to Allah than some other violation against him (like that of kicking Muhammad and his companions outside the kaaba). Here, Allah has facilitated it for you and is telling you to concede, proudly and without shame; that Muhammad's actions were transgressive in nature (rather than self-defensive as most modern Muslims - the munafiqoon in the sight of Allah - want others to believe), and were allowed and condoned to the benefit of Muslims, Islam and Allah, even if they were to violate earlier commands. See, unlike modern day Muslim apologists who are bent over backwards hopelessly trying to paint Islam as something other than what it is, Allah couldn't care less about whichever way mere mortals view those transgressions. Allah is supreme lord, all creation is his, and thus so is the Kaaba, and what Allah actually meant to say in that justification is nothing more than a declaration, a reminder, and a warning, to all Muslims, to the world, and especially to the enemies of Islam whoever they may be, saying essentially ['so long as I, (Leviathan masquerading as) Allah, have my 'claim over creation' threatened, disturbed or challenged, all bets are off, whatever I (via my footsoldiers/slaves) mandate as good and permissible, becomes good and permissible, and whatever I mandate as evil and forbidden, becomes evil and forbidden, even if that (new mandate) were to go against earlier mandates/commandments of mine, even if that were to go against the natural law inscribed in every man's heart'].

    What other goal in this strictly Quranic laid out context do you think could possibly be more fundamental to Muhammad than laying exclusive claim to the Kaaba even by force (of the transgressive type) if need be? Think about it, while basing yourself entirely on the Quran, could there have ever been Islam established in this world without the Kaaba? Without the Kaaba having become exclusively Muslim? Without the Kaaba having been forcibly converted to Islam?

    Mohammad did eventually achieve his goal, but only after several violent warring attempts (or battles) and much bloodshed, and only after eventually marching to Mecca with 10 000 armed men and converting the Kaaba to Islam as such. And from there on, he and his followers (with him and after him) consistently proceeded to do much of the same throughout Arabia and beyond, laying claims to cities, countries and kingdoms, near and far, all while threatening, subjugating, looting, conquering, and forcibly converting people in the process, and spreading (imposing) their faith and claims as such, by the sword, with an army lurking in the background or standing in the foreground, not any different from how and what ISIS has done and sought to do in the 21st century, in accordance with their founding father; you only need to substitute in your mind their weapons and vehicles with camels, horses and swords, and you will have peeked right back in time into Mohammad and his followers.

    ---

    Pointing to few peaceful verses and to the existence of peaceful Muslims around the world isn't going to erase that nor change reality.

    ---

    Everyone knows that the Quran contains conflicting teachings or commands, in particular to our case; peaceful ones and violent ones. It is thus often claimed that 'any individual can therefore quote the Quran in justification of their terrorist attacks / violent behavior or their condemnation of violence / peaceful behavior'. Except that that wasn't at all the case, at least not randomly so, neither during Muhammad's time nor after it. For as soon as Muhammad and his followers started receiving and facing conflicting commands, Allah himself mandated through a revelation the abrogation method (and repeatedly so on several occasions). Indeed, obeying Allah is not a matter of picking up a verse that justifies whatever one happens to be doing or prefer, rather one should obey Allah coherently and firmly, just as Muhammad, his companions and early followers did, and how all Muslims by imitation or emulation ought to do. And thus, the Quran presented its own method of interpretation directed specifically towards that end. This revelation straightforwardly outlined the method to be followed and applied by all Muslims in that regard, and it goes like this: 'according to the Quran/Allah, when you (Muslims) are faced with conflicting commands, you aren't supposed to pick the ones you like best, you are to go to history and see which verse was revealed last, whichever verse came last is said to abrogate or cancel earlier (opposing) revelation(s)'.

    - Quran 2:106 "Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?"
    - Quran 16:101 "When We substitute one revelation for another,- and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages),- they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not."
    - Quran 13:39 "Allah makes to pass away and establishes what He pleases, and with Him is the basis of the Book."
    - Quran 17:86 "And if We please, We should certainly take away that which We have revealed to you, then you would not find for it any protector against Us"
    - Quran 87:6–7 "We will make you recite so you shall not forget, except what Allah pleases, surely He knows the manifest, and what is hidden."

    Some desperate voices may try to deceive others by claiming that what's being meant here by 'previous verses/communications/revelations' and which the Quran abrogates, are 'previous non-Quranic revelations' (namely the Jewish and Christian revelations) rather than the Quranic revelations themselves (or parts of the Quran), but to this we point to the Quran 87:6–7 where Allah is clearly addressing Muhammad and none other than Muhammad and telling him 'the revelations among those which we (Allah) are making you recite may be abrogated as we (Allah) please'. That's Allah himself explicitly and unapologetically saying 'abrogation applies to revelations which we (Allah) send down to Muhammad and make him recite'; since 'to make Muhammad recite' is 'to make Muhammad recite what he had received from (Allah) as revelation', and 'what Muhammad had received from (Allah) as revelation' is by definition the Quran, abrogation therefore necessarily applies to the Quran (to the Quranic revelations i.e. parts of the Quran that were recited by Muhammad).

    ---

    And thus, when we apply this method to the Quran, as instructed by the Quran itself, its coherent message of peace and violence derives itself straightforwardly and becomes evident to everyone; we find that there are three stages in the call to being a Muslim (a true Muslim, that is) depending on the status or strength of the Muslim and his community in society. The three stages mirror the three stages of Muhammad's public career. The Quran in parallel is divided into two main consecutive parts, the 'Mecca verses', to which is assigned the first stage, and the 'Medina verses' to which are assigned and second and third stages.

    Accordingly, Muslims fall into three ordered categories the first two of which being considered passing stages towards the third depending a) on 'how much Muslim a Muslim individual or community seeks to be', and b) on their strength for achieving or fulfilling that call within the environment they are living in. The more Muslim they seek to be -> the more strength they ought to maintain and gather up -> the more they ought to be in stage 3. If one were to pick, as an example, any group of people that identify themselves as true Muslims today (or in the past), one would realize how easily said group falls within essentially any of those 3 categories/stages.

    In short:

    category/stage 1: promote 'peace and tolerance' when you are thoroughly outnumbered or overpowered.
    category/stage 2: fight 'defensively' when you are strong enough to fight, but not strong enough to conquer.
    category/stage 3: fight offensively when you are strong enough to violently subjugate non-Muslims, if by so doing you would be able to establish and spread Islam.

    In full:

    Category/Stage 1 (going by the Quran while postponing the Medina verses i.e. the latter parts of the Quran, particularly postponing the parts that conflict with the Mecca verses): Muslims are to promote (self-serving) peace and tolerance when they are thoroughly outnumbered or overpowered; mirroring the Meccan stage where if a Muslim had a disagreement with a non-believer, he was commanded in Quran 109:6 "To you be your religions and to me be my religion". At this stage Muslims were not allowed to fight even to defend themselves against persecution. They were allowed, however, to harbor and repress the hate and anger they'd gather towards the non-Muslim (after all, their being peaceful is solely based on securing one's well-being or survival and on fulfilling their religious' call by striving to pass to stage 3, rather than on a deeply rooted conviction about peace and love for all humans). Here, their strength is directly proportional to the means, the material wealth or the worldly resources and support they would summon, use and deal with, from and with those whom they may be sharing common interests, without much regard about possibly going against proclaimed moral codes in the process, so long as this benefits the ultimate religious call/goal.

    Category/Stage 2 (going by the Quran while abrogating earlier Meccan contrary verses): Muslims are to fight defensively, but also offensively in as much as the Muslim community's current strength allows and so long as it serves in maintaining and increasing their strength and eventually fulfilling their religion's call. This is when Muslims are strong enough to fight (in self-defense) but not strong enough to conquer and subjugate; mirroring the Mecca-Medina transition stage, where Muhammad gained a larger following and formed alliances with various outer tribes, where he was strong enough to self-defend, and also to raid caravans and kill at will (and practice treachery, piling up money via illegal activities, covering and becoming an umbrella for corruption, etc so long as this serves the ultimate religious call or goal), but not strong enough to truly subjugate non-Muslims (like the Meccans). At this stage Muhammad was ordered to wage defensive wars against those who transgress him, but he was also permitted to transgress in as much as his current strength allows him to and so long as it serves in achieving his ultimate religious call/goal. Muslims here are ordered to fight unbelievers but only if the unbelievers 'do something first', but are also permitted to 'do something first' (transgress) in as much as their current strength allows and so long as this serves their ultimate religious goal/call. Quran 2:190-193 "And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits. And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter (with this being the go-to Allah justification for the on-going transgressions committed in parallel, from slaughter, to the likes of caravan raiding and looting, and every other kind of violation or corruption)... and do not fight with them at the sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers. But if they desist, then surely Allah is forgiving, merciful, ... And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors"

    Category/Stage 3 (going by the Quran while abrogating earlier Meccan and even Medina verses that conflict with the latter parts of Medina verses i.e. the latter parts of the Quran. This is focusing on and going by the verses via which Islam was established in this world and was made victorious over its enemies): Muslims are to fight offensively when their community is strong enough to violently subjugate non-Muslims; mirroring the latter part of the Medina stage or the final years of Muhammad where Muslims were commanded to violently subjugate non-Muslims simply for being non-Muslims and doing what 'their being non-Muslim' do (things like worshiping peacefully in their own place without having had someone seeking to lay claim to their place, harassing, bullying, threatening, and eventually being set on slaughtering them). They are to fight people based on what they believe and strive hard not just against 'oppressors, persecutors, or people who are attacking you', but against the unbelievers aka non-Muslims, and the hypocrites aka people who self-identify as Muslims but aren't considered to be fully submitting to the commands of Allah and Mohammad (those perceived as 'workers of fitna'). Notice the distinction in the below corresponding verses being not between 'people who are attacking you' and 'people who are not attacking you', but between believer and unbeliever (between Muslim and non-Muslim):
    ...
    Quran 9:29 "fight those who do not believe in Allah"
    Quran 9:73 "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and they Hypocrites and be unyielding to them"
    Quran 9:123 "O you who believe! Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."
    Quran 48:29 "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are severe against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves."


    ---

    “I have been made victorious with terror.” is reported to have been among the last mutterings of the Prophet of Islam before his death. Is it truly not a fitting summation of his entire missionary career, and of that of those who in following in his footsteps were made victorious just like him?

    ---
    You have now resorted to copy/paste to reply. It is obvious because you have copied dishonesty, likely, without reading or thinking of what you copied and pasted.

    You have totally transitioned from discussing the justification to fight and when to fight to discussing the details of certain encounters between the Muslims and pagans. Then you went on to join unrelated verses and events about abrogation and fighting, and the sacred months when the Muslims were already in Medina and faced with a dilemma, after they had left Makkah. Unrelated events. But, you didn't do all these without using DISHONESTY, either because you didnt cross check the BS you were copying or you dont understand what you copied or if you authored the above post, then you have chosen to be dishonest.

    WA ALA YAZALOON YUQATILOONAKUM

    These four words show that this verse was revealed in Medina after the hijrah and after the Verse of Permission to Fight and its conditions were fulfilled. That means fighting had ready been going on. Then arrived the sacred months. What to do?

    Fighting in the four holy months is a sin. Do you really speak Arabic? If you do, and I believe you dont, you would see that a part of the very verse 2:217 you are quoting is missing/was left out and replaced with dots in the ENGLISH TRANSLATION you gave us above: "WA LA YAZALOON YUQATILOONAKUM".

    What does that mean? It means despite of the fact that it is forbidden for the Muslims to fight in the four holy months, and even in Arab tradition, the pagans dont use to fight in those four months, the pagans were persisting in fighting the Muslims. That is the meaning of WA LA YAZALOON YUQATILOONAKUM. So the Muslims were in a dilemma: to fight or not to fight in the holy months. The verse 2:217 came to say, since they are still fighting and will continue to do so even in the holy months, and they're not upholding tradition or faith, then you can defend yourself; the verse went on to narrate that they had already committed graver acts in the past. And you are asking me what can we infer and you went on and on and on to make a hill out of a molehill and kept ranting and mixing up different issues. All because you dishonestly read an incomplete translation of the verse or because you read Arabic but chose to ignore that phrase of five letters: "they are still fighting you". The verse clearly states in Arabic that the pagans were still continuing the fight. And that part was omitted in the English translation you presented. Why? Why was it left out? What are you hiding? This is the type of tricks all those islamophobic websites use to brainwash you and initiate new foot soldiers.

    I will consider you unserious and dishonest or just a stupid fellow until you explain to me why you resorted to omitting a part of the verse showing that the pagans were the ones persisting to fight in the holy months, and then you dishonestly asked me why would Allah say dont fight in the holy months, and then later on "change His mind" and urged the Muslims to go against an established command, which is valid even today, that we should not fight or refrain from fighting in the holy months, EXCEPT if the enemy refuses to cease hostilities as the case was in verse 2:217. That is what verse 2:217 established, after the pagans (whom you are defending), not the Muslims broke that rule. It takes two parties to fight. It also takes two parties to stop the fight. This verse is a testimony against your islamophobic rants and claims. In fact it demonstrates the kind of oppression and unrelenting attacks the Muslims were subjected to, even though the early Muslims wanted to refrain from fighting in holy months. The pagans even went against Arab custom not to fight in those four months.

    Tell me why should I waste my time on such dishonesty? You should at least apologise for dishonesty. It is really ridiculous, because you do not want to repent, so you completely ignored my earlier reply you quoted, and make a supposed response to it with an entirely different discussion and unrelated points using DISHONESTY in omitting part of a verse. All because you want to continue ranting about how "evil" Islam and Muslims are, to justify your pagan doctrines you believe im. Now who is the evil one?

    Here is your translation of verse 2:217 -

    "They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: "Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members. Tumult (Fitnah) and oppression are worse than slaughter ...""

    Here is the correct and complete translation of verse 2:217 :

    "They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: "Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members." Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein."

    DONT YOU HAVE SHAME?


    what are you trying to conceal with dots? :lol: :p
     
    T

    Thoma

    New Member
    You have now resorted to copy/paste to reply. It is obvious because you have copied dishonesty, likely, without reading or thinking of what you copied and pasted.

    You have totally transitioned from discussing the justification to fight and when to fight to discussing the details of certain encounters between the Muslims and pagans. Then you went on to join unrelated verses and events about abrogation and fighting, and the sacred months when the Muslims were already in Medina and faced with a dilemma, after they had left Makkah. Unrelated events. But, you didn't do all these without using DISHONESTY, either because you didnt cross check the BS you were copying or you dont understand what you copied or if you authored the above post, then you have chosen to be dishonest.

    WA ALA YAZALOON YUQATILOONAKUM

    These four words show that this verse was revealed in Medina after the hijrah and after the Verse of Permission to Fight and its conditions were fulfilled. That means fighting had ready been going on. Then arrived the sacred months. What to do?

    Fighting in the four holy months is a sin. Do you really speak Arabic? If you do, and I believe you dont, you would see that a part of the very verse 2:217 you are quoting is missing/was left out and replaced with dots in the ENGLISH TRANSLATION you gave us above: "WA LA YAZALOON YUQATILOONAKUM".

    What does that mean? It means despite of the fact that it is forbidden for the Muslims to fight in the four holy months, and even in Arab tradition, the pagans dont use to fight in those four months, the pagans were persisting in fighting the Muslims. That is the meaning of WA LA YAZALOON YUQATILOONAKUM. So the Muslims were in a dilemma: to fight or not to fight in the holy months. The verse 2:217 came to say, since they are still fighting and will continue to do so even in the holy months, and they're not upholding tradition or faith, then you can defend yourself; the verse went on to narrate that they had already committed graver acts in the past. And you are asking me what can we infer and you went on and on and on to make a hill out of a molehill and kept ranting and mixing up different issues. All because you dishonestly read an incomplete translation of the verse or because you read Arabic but chose to ignore that phrase of five letters: "they are still fighting you". The verse clearly states in Arabic that the pagans were still continuing the fight. And that part was omitted in the English translation you presented. Why? Why was it left out? What are you hiding? This is the type of tricks all those islamophobic websites use to brainwash you and initiate new foot soldiers.

    I will consider you unserious and dishonest or just a stupid fellow until you explain to me why you resorted to omitting a part of the verse showing that the pagans were the ones persisting to fight in the holy months, and then you dishonestly asked me why would Allah say dont fight in the holy months, and then later on "change His mind" and urged the Muslims to go against an established command, which is valid even today, that we should not fight or refrain from fighting in the holy months, EXCEPT if the enemy refuses to cease hostilities as the case was in verse 2:217. That is what verse 2:217 established, after the pagans (whom you are defending), not the Muslims broke that rule. It takes two parties to fight. It also takes two parties to stop the fight. This verse is a testimony against your islamophobic rants and claims. In fact it demonstrates the kind of oppression and unrelenting attacks the Muslims were subjected to, even though the early Muslims wanted to refrain from fighting in holy months. The pagans even went against Arab custom not to fight in those four months.

    Tell me why should I waste my time on such dishonesty? You should at least apologise for dishonesty. It is really ridiculous, because you do not want to repent, so you completely ignored my earlier reply you quoted, and make a supposed response to it with an entirely different discussion and unrelated points using DISHONESTY in omitting part of a verse. All because you want to continue ranting about how "evil" Islam and Muslims are, to justify your pagan doctrines you believe im. Now who is the evil one?

    Here is your translation of verse 2:217 -

    "They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: "Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members. Tumult (Fitnah) and oppression are worse than slaughter ...""

    Here is the correct and complete translation of verse 2:217 :

    "They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: "Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members." Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein."

    DONT YOU HAVE SHAME?


    what are you trying to conceal with dots? :lol: :p
    Whether that verse was quoted in full or in its relevant part only, that is really inconsequential given the point in the argument at hand. You are simply clutching at straws, rather than grabbing that hand that is being stretched out to you (my post).

    Since you are admitting that the (abrogating) verse in question was revealed after the (abrogated) verse of 'Allah commanding Muslims to fight specifically defensively during sacred months', what was is then that dilemma you hinted at that Muslims faced after returning from a successful caravan raid (slaughter) all worried about having committed their deed during a sacred month?
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    Whether that verse was quoted in full or in its relevant part only, that is really inconsequential given the point in the argument at hand. You are simply clutching at straws, rather than grabbing that hand that is being stretched out to you (my post).

    Since you are admitting that the (abrogating) verse in question was revealed after the (abrogated) verse of 'Allah commanding Muslims to fight specifically defensively during sacred months', what was is then that dilemma you hinted at that Muslims faced after returning from a successful caravan raid (slaughter) all worried about having committed their deed during a sacred month?
    How can it be inconsequential when you are lying and being dishonest? The part you omitted states the pagans persisted and were attacking Muslims during the holy months. And you came to tell us that Muslims were attacking pagans. Arent you ashamed?

    Arabs, whether Muslims or pagans, dont use to fight in the holy months. Even to this our day, fighting in the holy months is prohibited. Yet, the pagans were ready to even violate their tradition. This isnt the fault of Muslims as your dishonest ranting suggested. So what if we Muslims come under attack? You still defend yourself or rather protect yourself. But other than defense, when attacked only, we dont initiate an attack in the holy months, even if it were a reprisal for an aggression done previously in the months before. You'd wait for the holy month to pass before you retaliate. Once the holy months set in, the hostilities should cease for acts of aggression committed previously.

    There is no question of abrogation here. There is something called asbab al nuzul (causes of revelation, which reveal the context). Fighting in the holy months was not a threat faced by Muslims from pagans. So the initial verse which prohibited fighting in the holy months hadn't touched on that scenario, when it didnt exist because there was no initiation of attacks by pagans. Until the pagans initiated something new, then something new needed to be revealed.

    Abrogation occurred for instance when a revelation is gradual. For instance the prohibition of alcohol was gradual. The first verse revealed was telling us not to near prayers when we are drunk. It was tentative. A caution. The second verse says "alcohol is a blemish of satan, avoid it". A complete prohibition. What this is means is that a better revelation to avoid alcohol altogether was revealed. This is how abrogation takes place. There is no contradiction here. If a Muslim today is to disobey the prohibition and commit a sin and by gettting himself drunk, the initial verse would still be relevant: you cant near prayers in a state of intoxication.

    Try to be honest. Dont replace words with dots and tell me it is inconsequential. Lying rats dont determine what is consequential and what is not. The Quran is not the Bible, where you replace words with dots, you use brackets to insert your imaginative additions and you use asterisks to explain your tampering with text and derived meanings and interpretations. if that part of the verse was inconsequential you wont have omitted it. Omitting that part made it possible for you to paint the Muslims as launching aggression and fighting during holy months. While the verse made it clear that the pagans were relentless and didnt cease hostilities. Have an atom of shame and not argue the obvious. Swallow your $*it.
     
    Last edited:
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    Whether that verse was quoted in full or in its relevant part only, that is really inconsequential given the point in the argument at hand. You are simply clutching at straws, rather than grabbing that hand that is being stretched out to you (my post).

    Since you are admitting that the (abrogating) verse in question was revealed after the (abrogated) verse of 'Allah commanding Muslims to fight specifically defensively during sacred months', what was is then that dilemma you hinted at that Muslims faced after returning from a successful caravan raid (slaughter) all worried about having committed their deed during a sacred month?
    all religious scholars agree on the fact that the tonality, the content and the spirit of the quran changed post the hujra to yathreb (el-madina, "the" city??). they divide the quran into two major themes, a more tolerant and peaceful one while the prophet was still living in meka, and a rather violent one during the medina phase. there is also a scholarly consensus on abrogations. the problem is simply that @Rafidi does not want to admit to that. it is a little game he likes to play, changing facts and inventing many things on the go in the process.

    it goes without saying that the subject of discussion was not about a specific verse but rather on the global scheme of things, but when the objective is to simply throw dust in people's eyes, it becomes more convenient for him to discuss irrelevant technicalities to prevent the discussion from progressing normally.
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    all religious scholars agree on the fact that the tonality, the content and the spirit of the quran changed post the hujra to yathreb (el-madina, "the" city??). they divide the quran into two major themes, a more tolerant and peaceful one while the prophet was still living in meka, and a rather violent one during the medina phase. there is also a scholarly consensus on abrogations. the problem is simply that @Rafidi does not want to admit to that. it is a little game he likes to play, changing facts and inventing many things on the go in the process.

    it goes without saying that the subject of discussion was not about a specific verse but rather on the global scheme of things, but when the objective is to simply throw dust in people's eyes, it becomes more convenient for him to discuss irrelevant technicalities to prevent the discussion from progressing normally.
    Talking about throwing dust into people's eyes is your favourite hobby.

    Our friend is linking abrogation to verses on war to breaking rules etc. And he did that and copied an entire epistle based on one verse. And all his analysis would come down like a pack of cards when it was pointed out he is guilty of dishonest omission.

    Anyways, regarding your very point, for the fact that for 13 years the Muslims were tolerant and laidback or simply put, peaceful. It shows something radically changed. That change is stated in Verse 22:39-41, which are the Verses of Permission to Fight. The pagan resorted to target assassination once the uncle and head of the Prophet's clan passed away. Then, the Muslims were expelled. Not content with that, they were chased to Medina. An entire city in Medina submitted in Islam. That increased the determination of the pagans to finish off the task by hook or crook. You cant observe the change in attitude of the Muslims without observing the conditions that changed between Makkah and Medina. It is a natural occurrence. But still, the change does not in any way support your prejudices, bigotry and even outright lies contrived to cast aspersions on the character of the Prophet and the early Muslims, who were the victims of persecution and only resorted to self defense, as overly stated and proven with Quran verses to defend themselves against an all out pagan assault. The pagan elites had financial interests in regards to the idols in the Kaabah and pilgrims that they didnt want to see them destroyed through the belief in the monotheistic God. They would do anything to make sure they maintain the status quo.

    I have given an example on abrogation in the case of how alcohol was gradually prohibited. In the case of self defense and the permission to fight, that is not in my view abrogation. It is more about adaptability in changing times and environments or the prevailing conditions present or that changed. Both the Makkan verses and the Medina verses can be applied to our time depending if we live in times of peace or in times of war in our environments. There is really no abrogation here. The reasons I have stated on this thread that had Jesus lived in Arabia in the 7th century and Muhammad lived in Palestine in the 1st century, both would have acted in the same way as each other acted distance and time apart.
     
    Last edited:
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    The thing I like about Nabil Qureishi, in a bid to smuggle himself as a one time knowledgeable Muslim, he ends up spoiling or diluting his onslaught against Islam and would make his audience think the opposite of his purpose in preaching. You dont often find Christian missionaries, and bigoted Bible thumpers telling you there are verses of peace in the Quran. But Nabil did. But still, you must not be Muslim; he wants you to become a utilitarian pagan. All the same, both sides of Christian missionaries will continue to focus on the verses on war, a war imposed on Muslims by their pagan predecessors in Arabia and paint the war verses as the only reflection of Muslims and Islam. It suits their missionary propaganda. But Nabil himself didnt tell us that there was actually in the Quran Verses 22:39-41 that permitted fighting for the first time and those verses listed the conditions to fight. He knows there is a verse in the Quran that says "Let there be no compulsion in religion". According to him, Muhammad (s) told the entire world "let there be no compulsion in religion", but the late Qureishi thinks Muhammad (s) compelled people to Islam. He also thinks Muhammad (s) stated he wanted to expel Jews from Arabia (a hadith concocted by later rulers to justify their atrocities), but Muhammad (s) till his death, after all of Arabia came under his rule, had Jwwish and Christian neighbors. He could have easily expelled whomever; but he didnt. Yet, Nabil is confused why there are certain hadiths that Muslims reject. He didnt tell us that after the Muslims left to Medinah, the pagans still went after them and wanted to impede their progress and independence. He didn't also tell us that there is verse 2:216 which categorically states that even though fighting was enjoined upon the Muslims to defend themselves, the Prophet "hated" fighting. This was one of the few times in the Quran the word "hate" appears and it was regarding the Prophet's hatred for fighting. Nabil didnt tell us that the people of Arabia were brutes and bloodthirsty even before Islam, and Islam arose in that area to unite people under the worship of One God, and preach against idolatry.

    Nabil doesnt know Christianity was a cult-like movement with scattered followers, who held competing doctrines, in the Middle East until Constantine converted to give it majority status. That had the Roman rulers not adopted Christianity and made Jesus an additional god, Christianity wont have obtained its majority status in the world. Had it not being that different sects with competing beliefs were subdued violently, Christianity wont have had a unified Bible or unified doctrines. Each gnostic sect and each group would have had their own version of Christianity to a greater extent than we have today with the likes of Seventh Day Adventists, Unitarians, and Jehovah's Witnesses. Nabil doesn't know that European pagan nations were converted to Christianity at the point of the sword. An entire continent that today prides itself with its Christian history saw its nations subdued by the sword to force them into Christianity. But of course, they were being killed in order to "save them" from paganism. It is allowed for Christianity to spread and attain majority status through killing. After all they're been "saved". The first time Jesus supposedly "died on the cross" to "save the world" was not "enough". They still had to subdue at the point of the sword an entire pagan continent (Europe) to "save" them. Nations perished but it was meant to "save them". They also had to enslave Africans and rule over them to "save" them. Pagan rulers that adopted Christianity in Europe and forced their own people to choose between Christianity or death became "saints". You have so many "saviors".
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    Violence in the New Testament

    by Shelly Matthews


    Is the New Testament a violent book? Is the God of the New Testament less violent than the God of the Old Testament?

    When people imagine an angry male God, dishing out punishments and inflicting suffering, they might identify Him as the God of the Old Testament. When asked to consider stories about inflicting harm, even death, upon others in God’s name, again, they might think they are in Old Testament territory. But the New Testament has its own share of violence committed by both people and God. Christians have sometimes assumed that the ministry of Jesus reflected a radical shift in the nature of God towards peace and love, and away from anger and wrath. Yet, depending on context and point of view, New Testament texts might depict God, and God’s people, as peaceful, or violent, or both.

    Name-calling is a common type of violence in the New Testament. In response to the fact that many Jews did not believe that Jesus was the messiah, gospel authors told stories of Jesus attacking them in his teaching. In Matt 23:4-36 Jesus derides Pharisees as the vilest of hypocrites. In John 8:44, Jesus calls “the Jews” the “children of the devil.” While Jews are commonly the target of such name-calling, polytheists are also attacked. For example, Titus 1:12 dismisses the entire population of Crete as “liars, vicious brutes, lazy gluttons.”

    New Testament texts often reflect, rather than challenge, the violent household and political structures of the ancient world. Jesus tells parables in which beatings, and even killings, of household slaves are affirmed as disciplinary measures (for example, Luke 12:45-47). Paul warns the Corinthians, that as their “father,” he might return to them “with a rod,” presumably to beat them (1Cor 4:21). (In John 2:14 Jesus is actually reported to have flogged money changers in the temple with a whip). In Gal 5:12, Paul expresses the wish that those who disagree with him on the matter of circumcision might “castrate themselves.”

    The final judgement is imagined in particularly violent terms in the New Testament, with the book of Revelation serving as Exhibit A. Revelation’s pages burst with gruesome scenes of cosmic battles, plagues, and bloodshed. Consider, for instance, the birds who gorge on human flesh at God’s banquet (Rev 19:17-21). While Revelation is often treated as an outlier, it is better to understand this book as fully at home within New Testament apocalyptic longing for God’s violent judgment against non-believers. Paul imagines Christ at the end of time, handing over the kingdom to God, but only after “he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power” (1Cor 15:24). 2Thess 1:5-10 promises a final judgement with Jesus revealed “in flaming fire,” and inflicting the “punishment of eternal destruction.” Luke’s parable of the nobleman’s return, likely meant to represent Jesus’s second coming, calls for his enemies to be brought forward and slaughtered in his presence (Luke 19:27). Such violent images of final judgement owe to an increasing preoccupation with the afterlife, something of little concern in the Old Testament. This shift in focus between the Testaments once caused Mark Twain to observe that only after the Deity “became a Christian,” did he turn “a thousand billion times crueler,” by inventing and proclaiming hell.

    Shelly Matthews , "Violence in the New Testament", n.p. [cited 26 May 2020]. Online:
    https://www.bibleodyssey.org:443/passages/related-articles/violence-in-the-new-testament
     
    T

    Thoma

    New Member
    How can it be inconsequential when you are lying and being dishonest? The part you omitted states the pagans persisted and were attacking Muslims during the holy months. And you came to tell us that Muslims were attacking pagans. Arent you ashamed?

    Arabs, whether Muslims or pagans, dont use to fight in the holy months. Even to this our day, fighting in the holy months is prohibited. Yet, the pagans were ready to even violate their tradition. This isnt the fault of Muslims as your dishonest ranting suggested. So what if we Muslims come under attack? You still defend yourself or rather protect yourself. But other than defense, when attacked only, we dont initiate an attack in the holy months, even if it were a reprisal for an aggression done previously in the months before. You'd wait for the holy month to pass before you retaliate. Once the holy months set in, the hostilities should cease for acts of aggression committed previously.

    There is no question of abrogation here. There is something called asbab al nuzul (causes of revelation, which reveal the context). Fighting in the holy months was not a threat faced by Muslims from pagans. So the initial verse which prohibited fighting in the holy months hadn't touched on that scenario, when it didnt exist because there was no initiation of attacks by pagans. Until the pagans initiated something new, then something new needed to be revealed.

    Abrogation occurred for instance when a revelation is gradual. For instance the prohibition of alcohol was gradual. The first verse revealed was telling us not to near prayers when we are drunk. It was tentative. A caution. The second verse says "alcohol is a blemish of satan, avoid it". A complete prohibition. What this is means is that a better revelation to avoid alcohol altogether was revealed. This is how abrogation takes place. There is no contradiction here. If a Muslim today is to disobey the prohibition and commit a sin and by gettting himself drunk, the initial verse would still be relevant: you cant near prayers in a state of intoxication.

    Try to be honest. Dont replace words with dots and tell me it is inconsequential. Lying rats dont determine what is consequential and what is not. The Quran is not the Bible, where you replace words with dots, you use brackets to insert your imaginative additions and you use asterisks to explain your tampering with text and derived meanings and interpretations. if that part of the verse was inconsequential you wont have omitted it. Omitting that part made it possible for you to paint the Muslims as launching aggression and fighting during holy months. While the verse made it clear that the pagans were relentless and didnt cease hostilities. Have an atom of shame and not argue the obvious. Swallow your $*it.

    'Killing during sacred months' was offensive to both Allah and the Meccans because it constituted, in itself, a breaking of a pact between themselves involved parties, with that pact being 'no killings during sacred months', and with its breaking thus necessarily occurring whenever a killing is initiated, whenever someone transgresses or attacks another (during a sacred month), and not necessarily occurring whenever others are defending themselves against said attack or breach. First, because, with every breaking instance, by the time a defender ends up killing their attacker while defending themselves against him or his attack, the defender wouldn't be breaching what had already been breached between the two (by the attacker's initiative action). The defender however, would in turn be breaching it whenever their self-defense action involves more than what his defensive action required. Secondly, because, in principle (or universally), self-defense, in which the agent’s intention is not to kill but to preserve his life, can be licit (although some acts of self-defense are illicit, as when the agent uses more violence than is appropriate to that same end).

    In short and without further expansion, self-defensive fighting was naturally/implicitly mandated as a consequence of said pact getting broken. This means this pact in which self-defensive fighting is natually enjoined was necessarily in the awareness and practice of all involved parties, both Muslims and Meccans. This very pact was thereafter explicitly mandated by Allah in the Quran in his command to Muslims to defensively fight during sacred months, only to have that command violated by Muslims themselves afterwards, with Allah's admission and testimony (no less), a violation that had thrown Muslims into a dilemma (namely 'whether or not they had violated Allah after returning from that rich caravan raid / slaughter during a sacred month with a booty to divide among themselves') until Allah brought down an abrogating justification resolving it for them by saying essentially "worry not, their violation of throwing you outside the kaaba is graver than this violation of yours, so don't you mind it, go ahead and carry on with achieving what you're set to achieve".

    ---

    I'm no more interested in how you would address this material, because you've proven you cant and that you wouldn't even if you could (I honestly wouldn't want to be the cause of your jalta, lasamahaallah.. but do know that you are always welcome to address whatever we post). I'm however now interested particularly in exposing your practiced deceit, propagating lies and disfiguring the truth (just out of spite and hate), your 'throwing of dust in people's eyes' to distract them from what you perceive to be an inconvenient and embarrassing truth. And to that, I ask you to go ahead and explain only peripherally how my 'not finishing that quotation and ending it with three dots instead' addresses any of my post (be it this one or the other)?

    Meanwhile, I shall continue to unfold my initial post, inshaallah, all while also highlighting crucial and interesting specifics along the way (e.g. 'Islamic abrogation' vis-à-vis universal moral precepts, etc...)
     
    Last edited by a moderator:
    T

    Thoma

    New Member
    all religious scholars agree on the fact that the tonality, the content and the spirit of the quran changed post the hujra to yathreb (el-madina, "the" city??). they divide the quran into two major themes, a more tolerant and peaceful one while the prophet was still living in meka, and a rather violent one during the medina phase. there is also a scholarly consensus on abrogations. the problem is simply that @Rafidi does not want to admit to that. it is a little game he likes to play, changing facts and inventing many things on the go in the process.

    it goes without saying that the subject of discussion was not about a specific verse but rather on the global scheme of things, but when the objective is to simply throw dust in people's eyes, it becomes more convenient for him to discuss irrelevant technicalities to prevent the discussion from progressing normally.
    I am already reconciled to the fact that administering reason or truth to some people - who are well aware of their practice of deceit - is the same as administering medicine to a corpse. Their problem resides in some other place which only God can reach.
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    The thing I like about Nabil Qureishi, in a bid to smuggle himself as a one time knowledgeable Muslim, he ends up spoiling or diluting his onslaught against Islam and would make his audience think the opposite of his purpose in preaching. You dont often find Christian missionaries, and bigoted Bible thumpers telling you there are verses of peace in the Quran. But Nabil did. But still, you must not be Muslim; he wants you to become a utilitarian pagan. All the same, both sides of Christian missionaries will continue to focus on the verses on war, a war imposed on Muslims by their pagan predecessors in Arabia and paint the war verses as the only reflection of Muslims and Islam. It suits their missionary propaganda. But Nabil himself didnt tell us that there was actually in the Quran Verses 22:39-41 that permitted fighting for the first time and those verses listed the conditions to fight. He knows there is a verse in the Quran that says "Let there be no compulsion in religion". According to him, Muhammad (s) told the entire world "let there be no compulsion in religion", but the late Qureishi thinks Muhammad (s) compelled people to Islam. He also thinks Muhammad (s) stated he wanted to expel Jews from Arabia (a hadith concocted by later rulers to justify their atrocities), but Muhammad (s) till his death, after all of Arabia came under his rule, had Jwwish and Christian neighbors. He could have easily expelled whomever; but he didnt. Yet, Nabil is confused why there are certain hadiths that Muslims reject. He didnt tell us that after the Muslims left to Medinah, the pagans still went after them and wanted to impede their progress and independence. He didn't also tell us that there is verse 2:216 which categorically states that even though fighting was enjoined upon the Muslims to defend themselves, the Prophet "hated" fighting. This was one of the few times in the Quran the word "hate" appears and it was regarding the Prophet's hatred for fighting. Nabil didnt tell us that the people of Arabia were brutes and bloodthirsty even before Islam, and Islam arose in that area to unite people under the worship of One God, and preach against idolatry.
    Nabil is not "smuggling" himself as anything. He was raised as a devout Muslim. That is a fact.

    Furthermore, he is not saying anything that people on this forum haven't previously said. There have been discussions, here, about the contradictions in the quran. Maybe you don't remember, or maybe you're pretending not to remember.

    Lastly, Nabil's argument is that the "peaceful" passages of the quran come from the time Mohammad was not yet powerful. As soon as he gained some power, he turned into a violent persecutor.

    This perfectly fits with the notion of taqiyya, which teaches Muslims that it is ok to decieve others into thinking you are peaceful, until you are powerful enough to subjugate them.

    This is exactly what you do when you pretend to want a secular Lebanon, while espousing an ideology that is completely incompatible with secularism. Secularism is just a way for you to use democracy to bring about an undemocratic and non-secular islamic rule.

    Nabil doesnt know Christianity was a cult-like movement with scattered followers, who held competing doctrines, in the Middle East until Constantine converted to give it majority status. That had the Roman rulers not adopted Christianity and made Jesus an additional god, Christianity wont have obtained its majority status in the world. Had it not being that different sects with competing beliefs were subdued violently, Christianity wont have had a unified Bible or unified doctrines. Each gnostic sect and each group would have had their own version of Christianity to a greater extent than we have today with the likes of Seventh Day Adventists, Unitarians, and Jehovah's Witnesses. Nabil doesn't know that European pagan nations were converted to Christianity at the point of the sword. An entire continent that today prides itself with its Christian history saw its nations subdued by the sword to force them into Christianity. But of course, they were being killed in order to "save them" from paganism. It is allowed for Christianity to spread and attain majority status through killing. After all they're been "saved". The first time Jesus supposedly "died on the cross" to "save the world" was not "enough". They still had to subdue at the point of the sword an entire pagan continent (Europe) to "save" them. Nations perished but it was meant to "save them". They also had to enslave Africans and rule over them to "save" them. Pagan rulers that adopted Christianity in Europe and forced their own people to choose between Christianity or death became "saints". You have so many "saviors".
    These claims have been debunked already. Repeating them won't change the facts.
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Violence in the New Testament

    by Shelly Matthews


    Is the New Testament a violent book? Is the God of the New Testament less violent than the God of the Old Testament?

    When people imagine an angry male God, dishing out punishments and inflicting suffering, they might identify Him as the God of the Old Testament. When asked to consider stories about inflicting harm, even death, upon others in God’s name, again, they might think they are in Old Testament territory. But the New Testament has its own share of violence committed by both people and God. Christians have sometimes assumed that the ministry of Jesus reflected a radical shift in the nature of God towards peace and love, and away from anger and wrath. Yet, depending on context and point of view, New Testament texts might depict God, and God’s people, as peaceful, or violent, or both.

    Name-calling is a common type of violence in the New Testament. In response to the fact that many Jews did not believe that Jesus was the messiah, gospel authors told stories of Jesus attacking them in his teaching. In Matt 23:4-36 Jesus derides Pharisees as the vilest of hypocrites. In John 8:44, Jesus calls “the Jews” the “children of the devil.” While Jews are commonly the target of such name-calling, polytheists are also attacked. For example, Titus 1:12 dismisses the entire population of Crete as “liars, vicious brutes, lazy gluttons.”

    New Testament texts often reflect, rather than challenge, the violent household and political structures of the ancient world. Jesus tells parables in which beatings, and even killings, of household slaves are affirmed as disciplinary measures (for example, Luke 12:45-47). Paul warns the Corinthians, that as their “father,” he might return to them “with a rod,” presumably to beat them (1Cor 4:21). (In John 2:14 Jesus is actually reported to have flogged money changers in the temple with a whip). In Gal 5:12, Paul expresses the wish that those who disagree with him on the matter of circumcision might “castrate themselves.”

    The final judgement is imagined in particularly violent terms in the New Testament, with the book of Revelation serving as Exhibit A. Revelation’s pages burst with gruesome scenes of cosmic battles, plagues, and bloodshed. Consider, for instance, the birds who gorge on human flesh at God’s banquet (Rev 19:17-21). While Revelation is often treated as an outlier, it is better to understand this book as fully at home within New Testament apocalyptic longing for God’s violent judgment against non-believers. Paul imagines Christ at the end of time, handing over the kingdom to God, but only after “he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power” (1Cor 15:24). 2Thess 1:5-10 promises a final judgement with Jesus revealed “in flaming fire,” and inflicting the “punishment of eternal destruction.” Luke’s parable of the nobleman’s return, likely meant to represent Jesus’s second coming, calls for his enemies to be brought forward and slaughtered in his presence (Luke 19:27). Such violent images of final judgement owe to an increasing preoccupation with the afterlife, something of little concern in the Old Testament. This shift in focus between the Testaments once caused Mark Twain to observe that only after the Deity “became a Christian,” did he turn “a thousand billion times crueler,” by inventing and proclaiming hell.

    Shelly Matthews , "Violence in the New Testament", n.p. [cited 26 May 2020]. Online:
    https://www.bibleodyssey.org:443/passages/related-articles/violence-in-the-new-testament
    The so-called "violence in the New Testament" is addressed in this video which I shared in a previous post and which you refused to watch.

     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    I am already reconciled to the fact that administering reason or truth to some people - who are well aware of their practice of deceit - is the same as administering medicine to a corpse. Their problem resides in some other place which only God can reach.
    In one of his lectures, Nabil Qureshi describes the dishonest debating tactics that some Muslims use when they have no arguments left. He wasn't talking about Muslims who sincerely seek the truth, but those who will defend islam no matter how irrational and dishonest their arguments get. It's like he was describing some people on this forum.

    "You can bring a horse to water but you can't force him to drink."
     
    NAFAR

    NAFAR

    Legendary Member
    Well instead of going into endless debates about the past.......let us see the current situation.
    This relation is not working good for Christians.
    The latest incident is the Lassa (Jbeil) shiites stealing of the church land in and around the village.
    The shiites even prevented the church and the Christians from doing agriculture in these lands:
    Due to current crisis the Church allowed Christians to start agriculture in these lands, and when the Christians started the shiites hordes came and beaten the Christians and chase them out of the land.
    Moral of the story for Christians: the moment you fling or you show a slight weakness you will be eaten alive by the hyenas of the ME.
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    'Killing during sacred months' was offensive to both Allah and the Meccans because it constituted, in itself, a breaking of a pact between themselves involved parties, with that pact being 'no killings during sacred months', and with its breaking thus necessarily occurring whenever a killing is initiated, whenever someone transgresses or attacks another (during a sacred month), and not necessarily occurring whenever others are defending themselves against said attack or breach. First, because, with every breaking instance, by the time a defender ends up killing their attacker while defending themselves against him or his attack, the defender wouldn't be breaching what had already been breached between the two (by the attacker's initiative action). The defender however, would in turn be breaching it whenever their self-defense action involves more than what his defensive action required. Secondly, because, in principle (or universally), self-defense, in which the agent’s intention is not to kill but to preserve his life, can be licit (although some acts of self-defense are illicit, as when the agent uses more violence than is appropriate to that same end).

    In short and without further expansion, self-defensive fighting was naturally/implicitly mandated as a consequence of said pact getting broken. This means this pact in which self-defensive fighting is natually enjoined was necessarily in the awareness and practice of all involved parties, both Muslims and Meccans. This very pact was thereafter explicitly mandated by Allah in the Quran in his command to Muslims to defensively fight during sacred months, only to have that command violated by Muslims themselves afterwards, with Allah's admission and testimony (no less), a violation that had thrown Muslims into a dilemma (namely 'whether or not they had violated Allah after returning from that rich caravan raid / slaughter during a sacred month with a booty to divide among themselves') until Allah brought down an abrogating justification resolving it for them by saying essentially "worry not, their violation of throwing you outside the kaaba is graver than this violation of yours, so don't you mind it, go ahead and carry on with achieving what you're set to achieve".

    ---

    I'm no more interested in how you would address this material, because you've proven you cant and that you wouldn't even if you could (I honestly wouldn't want to be the cause of your jalta, lasamahaallah.. but do know that you are always welcome to address whatever we post). I'm however now interested particularly in exposing your practiced deceit, propagating lies and disfiguring the truth (just out of spite and hate), your 'throwing of dust in people's eyes' to distract them from what you perceive to be an inconvenient and embarrassing truth. And to that, I ask you to go ahead and explain only peripherally how my 'not finishing that quotation and ending it with three dots instead' addresses any of my post (be it this one or the other)?

    Meanwhile, I shall continue to unfold my initial post, inshaallah, all while also highlighting crucial and interesting specifics along the way (e.g. 'Islamic abrogation' vis-à-vis universal moral precepts, etc...)
    First of all, you have no decency if you do not apologise for dishonestly omitting a crucial part of the verse.

    Secondly, you talk about breaking a tradition or command. But the very phrase of the verse you omitted shows that the party that broke the command and broke with the tradition of not fighting in holy months. But you are still insisting in drawing parallels between the side that broke the command and the side that was compelled to defend itself in the holy months. That is mental sickness borne out of prejudices. Trust me, as much as you try to be mischievous, you wont give me any jalta. It only exposes the reality of your beliefs. After all "Pious Fraud" is a Christian methodology in preaching and spreading Christianity. You can Google "Pious Fraud" and see the reality of yourselves.

    You think you are smart but you are not. Look at this statement in order for you to cover up your dishonesty and continue with your rant, as if you did nothing wrong:

    "The defender however, would in turn be breaching it whenever their self-defense action involves more than what his defensive action required".

    How did you conclude the "defender" was acting "more than what his defensive action required"? (whatever that wrongly worded phrase means). Who are you to determine that? When Jesus attacked people with a whip in the temple and took it upon himself to beat up people, was that also "more than what was required of him"? You really need Jesus to use his whip and beat some sense into your head!!! 😄

    You are also speaking from both sides of your mouth. On the one hand you agree that the pagans broke a tradition and the Muslims were on the defensive. And on the other hand you ended up saying the Muslims broke a command and there was abrogation. There could not be an abrogation in this case when there was a new case or scenario on hand that never happened before. I dont think it is that difficult to understand the new situation faced by the Muslims. But anyways, go on and keep exposing yourself. And always remember to cross check whatever you are copying and pasting or do not imagine others are not observant enough to expose your gimmicks. Maassalam.
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    Well instead of going into endless debates about the past.......let us see the current situation.
    This relation is not working good for Christians.
    The latest incident is the Lassa (Jbeil) shiites stealing of the church land in and around the village.
    The shiites even prevented the church and the Christians from doing agriculture in these lands:
    Due to current crisis the Church allowed Christians to start agriculture in these lands, and when the Christians started the shiites hordes came and beaten the Christians and chase them out of the land.
    Moral of the story for Christians: the moment you fling or you show a slight weakness you will be eaten alive by the hyenas of the ME.
    Just for your info, the Shia of Lassa predated the Maronites on that land or in that region of Lebanon. So do not use terms like "steal". If you do, we may be compelled to open historical wounds and point to the fact that land was actually "stolen" from the Shia some centuries ago and not the other way round.

    Even if there is conflict, try to present the conflict in a balanced way. I do not support anyone, even if they are my people, beating someone else. And we are all after centuries of coexistence one people through intermarriage and back and forth conversions and eating from the same soil and drinking the same water. But do not paint an unbalanced picture of the situation and use offensive terminology like "steal".
     
    Top