/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Are Muslims being picky when convenient?



Eddy
03-18-2021, 02:22 AM
Let me explain.
I like to study Islam and other religions in search for the truth.
It is totally frustrating to read the Quran and find suspicious passages that are obviously violent and then when asking Muslims the answer is always a very convenient "you have to look at the context".
Fine, what is the context?
In many occasions the context is still violent.
Ok, Muslims say, in that case look at the total context of the whole Quran.
Fine, what is the total context of the Quran in those specific situations?
The total context is still the same, it is violent unless you submit to Allah or pay the Jizya.
Are those Muslims saying that Allah waisted most of the Quran giving instructions that only apply at 7th century situations where prophet Muhammad was involved?
What if today a Muslim country is invaded by foreign forces?
Do Muslim have the permission from Allah to defend themselves by attacking and killing the invaders unless they stop the attacks or pay the jizya?
It is kind of hard to defend yourself and not killing your enemy on a war situation, don't you think?
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Ümit
03-18-2021, 07:17 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Eddy
Let me explain.
I like to study Islam and other religions in search for the truth.
It is totally frustrating to read the Quran and find suspicious passages that are obviously violent and then when asking Muslims the answer is always a very convenient "you have to look at the context".
Fine, what is the context?
I do not know which "suspicious passages" you exactly mean but let me make it even more convenient for you:
The context can be found in one of the Tafsirs. I would recommend Tafsir Ibn Kathir.

The Tafsir explains which verse is revealed where, when, why or what does it refer to, and of course the translation. So, in short it provides the basic information you AT LEAST need to know to understand a verse.

format_quote Originally Posted by Eddy

In many occasions the context is still violent.
yeah so?
format_quote Originally Posted by Eddy

Ok, Muslims say, in that case look at the total context of the whole Quran.
Fine, what is the total context of the Quran in those specific situations?
The total context is still the same, it is violent unless you submit to Allah or pay the Jizya.
is it? or is it just your "convenient" conclusion?

Here is some information about dhimmis and jizya:
https://www.------------/question/do...izya-or-death/

Here is the part of the above link you should AT LEAST read to understand the concept of jizya....for you conviently quoted:
We begin with a proper explanation of what exactly is a dhimmi. Dhimmi is a historical term referring to non-Muslim subjects of a Muslim state [2]. The word literally means, “One whose responsibility is taken” or “people with whom a covenant or compact has been made” [3]. The word describes citizens of a Muslim State afforded security over their persons, property and religious practice in return for a tax, the jizya. Historically, when empires won battles and wars, common men were subjugated, looted and forced to work as laborers and serve in the military. Islam did away with such practice by affording all non-Muslim subjects the special dhimmi status [4].
Dhimmis had a special place in Medina. Prophet Muhammad(sa) said, “If anyone wrongs a man with whom a covenant has been made [i.e. a dhimmi], or curtails any right of his, or imposes on him more than he can bear, or takes anything from him without his ready agreement, I shall be his adversary on the Day of Resurrection.” [1,5]
He also made it clear that the protection of their life and honor was the responsibility of the Muslims, and failing in this regard would incur God’s wrath, “Whoever killed a Mu’ahid (a person who is granted the pledge of protection by the Muslims, i.e. a dhimmi) shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise though its fragrance can be smelt at a distance of forty years (of traveling).” [6] At the conquest of Mecca, Prophet Muhammad(sa) had the upper hand against the personalities who had persecuted him for over two decades. He could have silenced his enemies forever. Instead, he turned to the Meccans and asked:
‘O’ Quraish! How do you think I would treat you?’ They replied: ‘We expect nothing but good from you as you are a noble and kind brother to us and the son of a noble and kind brother as well.’ The Prophet said, ‘I say to you what the Prophet Joseph said to his brothers: ‘No blame shall lie on you this day! You are free to go.’ [7]
Even before the conquest of Mecca, the Charter of Medina set the precedent for the treatment of mu’ahids (dhimmis are those non-Muslim subjects who become subjects after a war. If there is no war and there is a negotiated settlement then they are called mu’ahids). When Prophet Muhammad(sa) was popularly appointed Medina’s ruler, he entered into a pact with the Jewish communities of Medina. Through this pact, he granted equal political rights to non-Muslims. They were ensured complete freedom of religion. They were not required to take part in the religious wars of the Muslims, but were required to fight a common enemy of the State. Even as the head of state, Prophet Muhammad(sa) afforded non-Muslims the same social status he afforded Muslims. For example, “Once a funeral procession passed before Prophet Muhammad(sa) and he stood up [out of respect]. He was told that he [the dead man] was a Jew. Upon this he remarked: ‘Was he not a human being or did he not have a soul?’ [8]
After the Prophet Muhammad’s demise, non-Muslim inhabitants of the fast-expanding Islamic empire enjoyed the same dignified treatment. [9] When Umar, Second Khalifa of Prophet Muhammad(sa), conquered Jerusalem, he entered into a pact with all inhabitants of the city, declaring:
In the name of Allah, the most Gracious, most Beneficent. This is a covenant of peace granted by the slave of Allah, the commander of the faithful ‘Umar to the people of Jerusalem. They are granted protection for their lives, their property, their churches, and their Crosses, in whatever condition they are. All of them are granted the same protection. No one will dwell in their churches, nor will they be destroyed and nothing will be reduced of their belongings. Nothing shall be taken from their Crosses or their property. There will be no compulsion on them regarding their religion, nor will any one of them be troubled. [10]
A dhimmi assassinated Umar in 644 CE. Rather than lashing out against dhimmis, at his deathbed, Umar specifically ordered:
I urge him (i.e., the new Caliph) to take care of those non-Muslims who are under the protection of Allah and His Messenger in that he should observe the convention agreed upon with them, and fight on their behalf (to secure their safety) and he should not over-tax them beyond their capability. [11]
The example we see from Umar specifically condemns taxing dhimmis beyond what they can bear. Instead, Muslims were commanded to care for dhimmis, fight for dhimmis, and to keep dhimmis safe.
Critics also allege that Umar enforced taxation on non-Muslims populations under penalty of death. To support this assertion, they cite the Qur’an 9:29:
Fight those from among the People of the Book who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor hold as unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have declared to be unlawful, nor follow the true religion, until they pay the tax with their own hand and acknowledge their subjection. [12]
Nowhere does this verse suggest that death is a penalty for not paying your taxes. The Qur’an has mentioned the use of the death penalty elsewhere for other reasons, unrelated to tax evasion:
And kill not the soul which Allah has forbidden except for just cause. And whoso is killed wrongfully, We have surely given his heir authority to demand retaliation, but let him not exceed the prescribed bounds in slaying; for therein he is helped by law. [13]
Islam has reserved the death penalty for such crimes as treason, murder, or other severe acts of violence that shock the conscience. Umar, Second Khalifa of Prophet Muhammad(sa), never sentenced a non-Muslim to death for not paying his taxes.
Critics allege that Muslim immigrants to Western nations consider themselves “divinely entitled” to the welfare payments they receive in these countries. Quoting the following verse, they claim that Muslims consider the Western nations their dhimmis and such welfare payment the jizya. [14]
Fight those from among the People of the Book who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor hold as unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have declared to be unlawful, nor follow the true religion, until they pay the tax considering a favor and acknowledge their subjection. [15]
Obviously, even plainly reading this verse demonstrates that no connection exists between the allegation and the verse itself. Having established that Islam required Muslims to protect dhimmis with equal and just treatment, we transition to the allegations regarding jizya.
Remember, the term dhimmi literally means “protected.” If no such protection existed, such minority communities could potentially be exploited. The jizya tax was the only tax imposed on non-Muslims, and it was less in number and amount than taxes on the Muslims of that state. The term jizya comes from same Arabic root as jaza’ which means “reward” and “compensation.” So according to Shariah law, that money returned to the minorities. The jizya tax, like other taxes, creates accountability on the part of the government to do right by its citizens—not unlike governments that deal with immigration and minority communities. In Christian ruled Sicily, for example, the Christian officials had such a tax for minorities—and they too called it jizya.
Thus, non-Muslims paid jizya as free citizens of the Muslim State in return for protection of their civil and political liberties. Aside from this, critics also hide the fact that Muslims were also taxed. The tax levied on Muslims was on some occasions a heavier tax than the jizya. Additionally, Muslims were obligated to perform military service, from which all non-Muslims were exempt. [16]
Jizya served as the sole citizen tax to assure protection from all foreign attacks. Thus, if protection could not be promised then jizya was impermissible. In his book “The Preaching of Islam,” Thomas Arnold records a statement of the Muslim general, Khalid bin Waleed, “In a treaty made by Khalid with some town in the neighborhood of Hirah, he writes; ‘If we protect you, then Jizya is due to us; but if we do not, then it is not.’” [17]



format_quote Originally Posted by Eddy

Are those Muslims saying that Allah waisted most of the Quran giving instructions that only apply at 7th century situations where prophet Muhammad was involved?
What if today a Muslim country is invaded by foreign forces?
I do not understand what you are trying to say here. you expect muslims to be non-violent and peacefull during war? I do not get it. If a muslim country is invaded by foreign forced, a jihad will be called out and every muslim will fight till their last breath or until they are victorious....just a basic human right to defend yourself.

format_quote Originally Posted by Eddy
Do Muslim have the permission from Allah to defend themselves by attacking and killing the invaders unless they stop the attacks or pay the jizya?
It is kind of hard to defend yourself and not killing your enemy on a war situation, don't you think?
no...during war, you fight and you kill.
This refers to the situation where the enemy surrenders or ceases to fight....from that moment a muslim is not allowed anymore to just continue his violence and killings.

Very violent and barbaric...right?
Reply

Al-Ansariyah
03-18-2021, 10:11 AM
The instruction to kill the enemies of islam is violent? U.S. killing muslims is not violent, china and other countries killing muslims is not violent? U.S. dropping a bomb on general public who were innocent is not violent?!! That's ridiculous. Because the target is islam which is why everyone wants to put out something which doesnt fit their mind.
If a foreigner invades a muslim country, all the muslims are obliged to fight the enemies. Islam doesnt mean peace at all times! And if any country doesnt have shariah, it is obligated for muslims to fight that ruler so that country becomes islamic state, but if the ruler surrenders then no fight would take place. And non muslims would be given choice of either becoming muslims or pay jizya or fight.
But if u are learning about islam, you shouldnt start with what is the system of rulings and all. You should know our beliefs first as that is most important. What we believe in, etc. After that u learn about all this.
Reply

Ümit
03-18-2021, 11:10 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yrvhere?
The instruction to kill the enemies of islam is violent? U.S. killing muslims is not violent, china and other countries killing muslims is not violent? U.S. dropping a bomb on general public who were innocent is not violent?!! That's ridiculous. Because the target is islam which is why everyone wants to put out something which doesnt fit their mind.
If a foreigner invades a muslim country, all the muslims are obliged to fight the enemies. Islam doesnt mean peace at all times! And if any country doesnt have shariah, it is obligated for muslims to fight that ruler so that country becomes islamic state, but if the ruler surrenders then no fight would take place. And non muslims would be given choice of either becoming muslims or pay jizya or fight.
But if u are learning about islam, you shouldnt start with what is the system of rulings and all. You should know our beliefs first as that is most important. What we believe in, etc. After that u learn about all this.
People being bad and evil is not an excuse for us to be bad and evil as well. Violence in the world, people getiing killed shouldn't be an invitation for us to do the same.

But that is not the issue here.

what it is about is the association of Islaam as a religion with violence. He doesn't understand how a religion can preach violence and at the same time be considered as "peaceful".

But as you already stated, Islaam does not expect us to be non-violent at all times. Islaam respects our basic human rights to defend ourselves when we need to.
These rules about violence, when we may or may not fight against the enemy, and the jizya is not just for our benefit but it is about the protection of them from us. (with them I mean, the enemy who surrenders, ceased violence or people that choose to live in an Islamic state enjoying protection while retaining their own religion.
It it about the rights that those people have over us.

More or less basic common rules also adopted in the wester "civilized" world like, you may not shoot an unarmed man...you cannot use violence on a person who already surrendered....do not use excessive force, just enough to neutralize the danger and secure the situation etc.
So it is not so different different.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Eddy
03-18-2021, 01:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ümit
I do not know which "suspicious passages" you exactly mean
Thanks Ümit for responding to my question.
Let's use a very controversial surah, Quran 9:29.

Fight those People of the Book who do not believe in Allah, nor in the Last Day, and do not take as unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have declared as unlawful, and do not profess the Faith of Truth; (fight them) until they pay jizyah with their own hands while they are subdued.
I read the tafsir and all the story around the time when this surah was revealed and still cannot understand why this only applies to that specific situation.
The tafsir says this applies to that specific situation but the Quran doesn't.
Who do I believe?
Also you could say on other surah it is said "Fight only those who fight you".
Are we saying that Allah made a mistake and one surah contradicts other surahs?
Shouldn't both be valid?
This surah is very clear, "Fight those People of the Book who do not believe in Allah...", I don't think it is there to be ignored.
As a matter of fact many Muslims around the world choose not to ignore this surah.
Something is very wrong or not very clear here.

format_quote Originally Posted by Yrvhere?
The instruction to kill the enemies of islam is violent?
Are the members of other religions the enemies?
According to surah 9:29 they are.
So yes it is violent to kill people from other religions who are not fighting you.
Reply

*charisma*
03-18-2021, 01:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Eddy
So yes it is violent to kill people from other religions who are not fighting you.
Yea well this is where you need the context. Had every muslim felt this way or believed this was what should be done, you'd be dead already. So clearly, this is a YOU issue.
Reply

Eddy
03-18-2021, 01:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by *charisma*
Had every muslim felt this way or believed this was what should be done, you'd be dead already.
You don't need every Muslim to believe this is what should be done, only a few out of 1.6 billion is more than enough.
Reply

*charisma*
03-18-2021, 01:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Eddy
You don't need every Muslim to believe this is what should be done, only a few out of 1.6 billion is more than enough.
That can be said about anything/anyone though. Its a personal and individual issue not a majority one.
I wouldn't say this ayah is problematic nor is it what triggers people to do what they do. Goes in much deeper than that, don't you think?
Reply

Al-Ansariyah
03-18-2021, 01:39 PM
Every verse of Quran applies to all times which is why Quran is a miracle. Its verses cannot contradict each other. This is the work of scholars to tell us how that verse can fit in our times. We laymen cannot interpret Quran in the way which pleases us!
And no, not all the non muslims are to be killed. Only those who oppose islam by words, actions which we can call blasphemy are to be faught. If they live their own life and are paying jizya, then their lives and properties are to be protected by islamic state.
Reply

Eddy
03-18-2021, 01:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yrvhere?
And no, not all the non muslims are to be killed. Only those who oppose islam by words, actions which we can call blasphemy are to be faught.
So you're confirming that those who oppose Islam by "words" (among other things) are to be faught?
That is what I call very violent.
Reply

Ümit
03-18-2021, 02:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Eddy
Thanks Ümit for responding to my question.
Let's use a very controversial surah, Quran 9:29.



I read the tafsir and all the story around the time when this surah was revealed and still cannot understand why this only applies to that specific situation.
The tafsir says this applies to that specific situation but the Quran doesn't.
What do you mean "the Quraan doesn't"? How do you know what the Quraan says about which situations this verse applies to?
Again, the Tafsirs explain how the verses should be interpretet. There is no mistake...there is no contradiction.
The Quraan with the explanation of the Tafsir is very clear on this.

format_quote Originally Posted by Eddy

Who do I believe?
Also you could say on other surah it is said "Fight only those who fight you".
Thats right, that is the general message in Islaam. I believe there are multiple verses throughout the Quraan giving us this specific message.
format_quote Originally Posted by Eddy

Are we saying that Allah made a mistake and one surah contradicts other surahs?
Shouldn't both be valid?
both are valid. one of them in general...the other was about a specific situation.
format_quote Originally Posted by Eddy
This surah is very clear, "Fight those People of the Book who do not believe in Allah...", I don't think it is there to be ignored.
As a matter of fact many Muslims around the world choose not to ignore this surah.
Something is very wrong or not very clear here.
define "many muslims"
most of them are tolerant and peaceful. only a handfull so called "muslims" strap bombs on their bodies and blow themselves up in crowded areas.
We do not even know whether they truely muslims or just pretending to be one.
format_quote Originally Posted by Eddy

Are the members of other religions the enemies?
According to surah 9:29 they are.
So yes it is violent to kill people from other religions who are not fighting you.
in this specific situation, yes they were enemies and they were hostile.
that doesn't apply to every member of other religions.
Reply

Ümit
03-18-2021, 02:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Eddy
So you're confirming that those who oppose Islam by "words" (among other things) are to be faught?
That is what I call very violent.
You must see that differently:

The one opposing Islaam by words (if he lives in the western world) does nothing wrong according to the law of the country he lives in.
However, when this would happen in a country with shariah, then he DOES go against the law so this person must be "fought" or brought back to justice.
So either you pay the jizya, or you will be punished.

Isn't the western world the same where you will be arrested or fined if you break the law? and if you choose not to cooperate, then they will make you with applying force on you?
Reply

keiv
03-18-2021, 06:37 PM
Context - the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.
I don’t understand why people hate being told to understand the context of something they’re reading, specifically when it comes to Islam.
Reply

Eddy
03-19-2021, 02:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ümit
What do you mean "the Quraan doesn't"? How do you know what the Quran says about which situations this verse applies to?
I don't know and I don't think Muslims know either. There is no way to determine this verse was revealed to be used only on this specific situation just by reading the Quran.
Muslims make that assumption based on the fact that this verse was revealed right before Muhammad's army was ready to attack the Byzantines, isn't that so?
Now why would Allah send a revelation to be used only on a specific time and place?
Makes no sense to me and Allah was not specific about that.
Again, the verse doesn't say so, the ones who claim that are the so called Scholars as if they knew what Allah was thinking.
It is totally understandable if some Muslims give the verse the meaning anybody would just by reading the Quran and the context based only on the Quran.
format_quote Originally Posted by Ümit
both are valid. one of them in general...the other was about a specific situation.
See, that's exactly what I mean. I tend to disagree this was meant to be used only once.
format_quote Originally Posted by Ümit
define "many muslims"
most of them are tolerant and peaceful. only a handfull so called "muslims" strap bombs on their bodies and blow themselves up in crowded areas.
I agree, most Muslims are peaceful, no denying that but there are some that have good reasons to believe the scriptures don't mean what other Muslims believe.
format_quote Originally Posted by Ümit
in this specific situation, yes they were enemies and they were hostile.
that doesn't apply to every member of other religions.
Again, the problem is that the Quran doesn't say that. The Quran makes a broad statement that includes all Christians and Jews.
Most people around the world don't have a scholar next to them to interpret what they reading.
We read all kinds of literature including the Bible and we never use an interpreter.
All of a sudden we are told, wait a minute, you can't do that with the Quran, you need a scholar to understand it.
The problem is which scholar do I believe since many of them interpret things differently, don't they.
format_quote Originally Posted by keiv
I don’t understand why people hate being told to understand the context of something they’re reading, specifically when it comes to Islam.
No, we don't hate it. We read the whole Quran and every passage around the verses in question, the problem is when the context comes from sources outside the book we are reading.
Reply

Ümit
03-19-2021, 02:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Eddy
I don't know and I don't think Muslims know either. There is no way to determine this verse was revealed to be used only on this specific situation just by reading the Quran.
Muslims make that assumption based on the fact that this verse was revealed right before Muhammad's army was ready to attack the Byzantines, isn't that so?
Now why would Allah send a revelation to be used only on a specific time and place?
Makes no sense to me and Allah was not specific about that.
Again, the verse doesn't say so, the ones who claim that are the so called Scholars as if they knew what Allah was thinking.
It is totally understandable if some Muslims give the verse the meaning anybody would just by reading the Quran and the context based only on the Quran.

See, that's exactly what I mean. I tend to disagree this was meant to be used only once.

I agree, most Muslims are peaceful, no denying that but there are some that have good reasons to believe the scriptures don't mean what other Muslims believe.

Again, the problem is that the Quran doesn't say that. The Quran makes a broad statement that includes all Christians and Jews.
Most people around the world don't have a scholar next to them to interpret what they reading.
We read all kinds of literature including the Bible and we never use an interpreter.
All of a sudden we are told, wait a minute, you can't do that with the Quran, you need a scholar to understand it.
The problem is which scholar do I believe since many of them interpret things differently, don't they.

No, we don't hate it. We read the whole Quran and every passage around the verses in question, the problem is when the context comes from sources outside the book we are reading.
Wait...could you please point out to me where exactly İ spoke about a scholar? İ asked you to use a Tafsir.
A Tafsir is the translation of a verse and backgrpumd information you at least need to know in order to undetstand the verse. And no matter which tagsir you take...all of them tell you that this verse refers to one specific situation.
İf ypu dpubt that...then you should dig a little deeper to find out why scholars came to that conclusion instead of ranting here.

Besides...there are many verses in the Qutaan that refer to a specific situation...for example Jews being turned into pigs and monkey for ignoring Allahs orders.

So this is not an exception.
Reply

peaceandlove
03-19-2021, 04:19 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Eddy
Let me explain.
I like to study Islam and other religions in search for the truth.
It is totally frustrating to read the Quran and find suspicious passages that are obviously violent and then when asking Muslims the answer is always a very convenient "you have to look at the context".
Fine, what is the context?
In many occasions the context is still violent.
Ok, Muslims say, in that case look at the total context of the whole Quran.
Fine, what is the total context of the Quran in those specific situations?
The total context is still the same, it is violent unless you submit to Allah or pay the Jizya.
Are those Muslims saying that Allah waisted most of the Quran giving instructions that only apply at 7th century situations where prophet Muhammad was involved?
What if today a Muslim country is invaded by foreign forces?
Do Muslim have the permission from Allah to defend themselves by attacking and killing the invaders unless they stop the attacks or pay the jizya?
It is kind of hard to defend yourself and not killing your enemy on a war situation, don't you think?
Asalam O Alikum brother

reading your post it look like you main concern is about war , Jihad and Jizya etc

If you talk about Jiza, I know this is not a good exact example but you can say, in all countries every person had to pay tax, Did you agree? Right

Now in muslim country Muslims should pay Zakat but what about non muslim as they did not belive what shoud they pay|? Now you can say they will pay Jizya (tax) that will make you understan it more easy so both muslims and non muslims are contribution so once you read the context both are paying not just non muslims

Seconldy about fight and war, Well, the best answer you can find in the Holy Quran.

Quran says in Surah 60 , Verses

8. Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly andjustly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.

9. Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) indriving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). Itis such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong.

Those two verses can in shah ALLAH clear all your doubts and mis conceptions, and give you what context we shoud do Jihad and war

Tell me what you will do if some body will attach your house or country and try to kill innocent people, of cousrse you will definately fight with them so that what Quran give you permision

Finally, one thing, donot try to mix some history muslim ruler wrong acts or any muslims wrong acts with Islam, you might be reading some history wrong events and asosciating it with Islam but that might be just a personal act.

May Allah guides all of us
Reply

Eddy
03-19-2021, 05:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ümit
Wait...could you please point out to me where exactly İ spoke about a scholar? İ asked you to use a Tafsir.
My bad, I assumed the people writing the Tafsirs were scholars, weren't they?
I know that among other titles Ibn Kathir was considered a scholar (so I read in Wikipedia)
Reply

Eddy
03-19-2021, 07:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yrvhere?
Every verse of Quran applies to all times which is why Quran is a miracle.
That was my understanding but if you read the previous comments that is not the case according to other Muslims.
It seems that some verses can indeed be interpreted in more than one way and that's my whole point.
Reply

Ümit
03-19-2021, 07:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Eddy
My bad, I assumed the people writing the Tafsirs were scholars, weren't they?
I know that among other titles Ibn Kathir was considered a scholar (so I read in Wikipedia)
That is true...you are right.

However if you look at it like that...you are always dependant of such people...for science you rely on scientists...for history you rely on historians and archeologists...for religion you need scholars.

What İ mean...you have to get your basic background information from somewhere. Without that it is impossible to understand the true message of the Quraan.

To give you a simple example:
İ suppose you do not speak arabic...but you do umderstand that a language cannot be translated in another language 1 on 1...so there is always loss or mutilation of the original message. You do rely on translators for an accurate translation...but experience shows that there if you compare the work of different translators of the same verses, you will find essential differences.

So how can you guarantee me that you are using the right translation. You definitely rely on some translator for this dont you?
Reply

Eddy
03-20-2021, 04:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ümit
you are always dependant of such people...for science you rely on scientists...for history you rely on historians and archeologists...for religion you need scholars.

What İ mean...you have to get your basic background information from somewhere. Without that it is impossible to understand the true message of the Quraan.
The problem is that by relying exclusively on the so called scholars your religion is not what Allah might have meant it to be by it is what Ibn Kathir and others scholars decided it should be.
They did a good job figuring out the background and specific times of each revelations but then they took a big leap and distorted the final message of Allah.
Who are they to decide what Allah meant to say?
Isn't the message of Allah not clear enough for you?
You can translate all you want but you shouldn't change the meaning of Allah's words.
Maybe the truth is not what you would like it to be but the truth is the truth.
You can avoid it if you want but you know is there for you to see it when you decide to do it.
It's up to you to believe in the Quran and Allah or to believe in Ibn Kathir and other scholars.
Reply

Eddy
03-20-2021, 06:00 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by peaceandlove
reading your post it look like you main concern is about war , Jihad and Jizya etc
No, my main concern is that some Muslims misrepresent what the Quran says.
format_quote Originally Posted by peaceandlove
Tell me what you will do if some body will attach your house or country and try to kill innocent people, of cousrse you will definately fight with them so that what Quran give you permision
Well, here in the west we don't do take justice with our own hands, we pay taxes so that the specialized people can defend our country and do what is necessary to protect us.
So basically I don't have any problem with defending yourself.
format_quote Originally Posted by peaceandlove
Finally, one thing, donot try to mix some history muslim ruler wrong acts or any muslims wrong acts with Islam, you might be reading some history wrong events and asosciating it with Islam but that might be just a personal act.
I don't associate wrong doings with Islam but some wrong doers associate themselves with Islam.

Finally one question for you.
According to the Quran under Islamic law I should be killed if I refuse to convert to Islam and refuse to pay the jizya.
Do you agree with this sharia law regulation?
Reply

MidnightRose
03-20-2021, 09:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Eddy
No, my main concern is that some Muslims misrepresent what the Quran says.

Well, here in the west we don't do take justice with our own hands, we pay taxes so that the specialized people can defend our country and do what is necessary to protect us.
So basically I don't have any problem with defending yourself.

I don't associate wrong doings with Islam but some wrong doers associate themselves with Islam.

Finally one question for you.
According to the Quran under Islamic law I should be killed if I refuse to convert to Islam and refuse to pay the jizya.
Do you agree with this sharia law regulation?
Greetings there,

Fascinating discussion going on. I see you realize that anything can be misunderstood and/or misrepresented.

As you have misunderstood about what you mentioned to be a "shariah law regulation", forced conversions makes no sense and is not allowed in Islam (Q. 2:256 - There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion.).

The stipulation you are attempting to refer to only occurs under a bona-fide Islamic government (none exists today) during a situation leading to war. It's the combatants that potentially get killed in battle if the opposing nation decides to fight, no one else. That's a common theme in war among nations.

And, in reality, the Jizya would be orders of magnitude less in comparison to the trillions of dollars that go down the memory hole that we're told is for defense. You would actually be protected in the Islamic lands with the paltry amount paid - if you had to pay at all.

In contrast, one of the highest decorated US Military officers in history has written a treatise making the argument that your tax money for defense is going to fund a criminal enterprise.

Read War is a Racket by Major General Smedley Butler. (click on link to the left)

Perhaps he misunderstood and is not representative of the broader community?
Reply

M.I.A.
03-21-2021, 12:06 AM
Well, here in the west we don't do take justice with our own hands, we pay taxes so that the specialized people can defend our country and do what is necessary to protect us.
So basically I don't have any problem with defending yourself.
See, this is the difference between being a troll or just not processing information correctly.

The bottom line is that western society still needs its violent paragraphs.

It's just that most people don't have to read them anymore.

And it's not just a trivial matter to brush aside because many people do question the defence budgets of Western countries..

Those are some heavy paragraphs.

Now I know that context is everything, most people have no need for violence in everyday life, within the communities and societies they live in.

But a few people do ruin it for others because they don't understand the consequences for society as a whole.

This is primarily why I'm against violence. Simply because most people just end up hurting themselves through its use.

It's like how bin laden was not only responsible for those that died on 9/11 but for enabling America to wage war on the Middle East.

...these are guys that go to gun ranges for fun and who's granpapas carried six shooters.

He should have known better.

I for one am not about to jump on a mustang and practice my bow and arrows..

People been scratching up my car as it is.

But seriously, why can't people just not be violent terrorists? Then you wouldn't have to worry about anything going on somewhere you dont care about.

..but you did save the Jews from Hitler though so I'm sure far away lands and far away people still hold out some hope.

I am actually trying to be funny because the world is a low brow joke to be fair.

I'm a pacifist these days because of the fact, as a brown guy in a white room.. I don't know if I should laugh or be offended when someone says.

It's Mo, he loves us.. Followed up with, your a coconut arnt ya mate.

Or the shift manager telling people it's OK to be yourself at home but you can't be racist at work.

...left me looking around the room thinking who's been offended now. I didn't snitch.

That was really kinda funny.

Super high banter level in a super high energy environment.

Loads of ex army, raf guys and even a few that served navy during the Falklands.

You can usually tell someone's coming long before the door opens.

It's a learning experience.

Iv never really been much of a talker so I really do see the power in words.

And I wish Muslims as a whole were able to better articulate themselves and form not just arguments but answers that lead in the direction they want to go.. Or lead the argument in the direction they wish to go.

It's an education thing for the most part and personal character for the other most part.

Allah swt guide us to good character.. Because who the heck is ever going to be that clever?

Eddy, your a troll..

Violence has been around since cain and able.. And it always has an agenda.

Maybe you expected a different manual for the army once there were enough people to actually form one..

But its all in the same place.

Maybe there should be a few notes on landmines or cluster bombs,napalm or white phosphorus.. Various gasses and whatever else you could think of but no.

It's always as It has been, there for you to read and interpret, Nothing redacted or hidden.

Your just really low tier bate.

I really try not to get caught up in that sort of stuff.

Are Muslims being picky when convenient?
Just check this out, eddy asks...

Why do you claim to be non violent when your religion advocates and wants violence?

..its true, these Muslims do have a nerve. How can this possible be eddy? How?

...are we doing it wrong eddy?

Can't I just do reviews of supercars on YouTube or something?

In all seriousness you will probably find that most terror attacks are committed by mentally unstable people.

One of the first things we got told at work is the importance of avoiding giving any information on social media.

And secondly, not accepting any money to compromise the security of work from outsiders.

Two very important driving factors in today's society.

You may not be a troll, and that worries me more than anything else.

I'm not trying to be another fish on the line.. But we all are.
Reply

Ümit
03-21-2021, 11:35 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Eddy
The problem is that by relying exclusively on the so called scholars your religion is not what Allah might have meant it to be by it is what Ibn Kathir and others scholars decided it should be.
They did a good job figuring out the background and specific times of each revelations but then they took a big leap and distorted the final message of Allah.
Who are they to decide what Allah meant to say?
OK Wiseguy. Then please enlighten us: How are we, as non Arabic speaking average layman, going to find out the details, the fine things in the Quraan without the help of people like Ibn Kathir?
Why do you rely on scientists, archelogists doctors and professors psychiatrists, but when it comes to religion, you do not rely on the most respected scholars like Ibn Kathir?
Why that difference?
Do you really have to invent the wheel all by yourself when it comes to religion?
format_quote Originally Posted by Eddy
Isn't the message of Allah not clear enough for you?
The basic message of Allah is crystal clear. No one needs a translator or scholar for that. But Islaam is not flat. It goes as deep and as detailed as you want. You can only reach a certain depth of detail on your own...if you want to go further, you will gonna need help from professionals.
format_quote Originally Posted by Eddy
You can translate all you want but you shouldn't change the meaning of Allah's words.
I totally agree...therefore never trust one translation...read multiple different translations, if possible in different languages and compare. you will have a wider understanding of that text.
You can even use that same tactic for tafsirs, if you do not want to rely on a single scholar.
format_quote Originally Posted by Eddy
Maybe the truth is not what you would like it to be but the truth is the truth.
You can avoid it if you want but you know is there for you to see it when you decide to do it.
It's up to you to believe in the Quran and Allah or to believe in Ibn Kathir and other scholars.
yes it is there to see it:
Every single expert, tafsir, scholar, orientalist is saying that verse refers to one specific event in history...
And then you come as an amateur scholar and say "maybe it is meant to be general"...
So who is ignoring?
If I wanted the truth to be the way I would like, then my life would be totally different. I think this applies to all muslims.

Besides...Let us say, Ibn Kathir did make a small interpretation failure. And because of that millions and millions of people therefore were misinformed and did the wrong thing....
But Ibn Kathir had the right intentions and didn't do that on purpose...So it will be forgiven and all the millions of people who did it wrong because of that will also be forgiven.
It is not that they apostated because of that....it was just a minor detail.
Reply

Eddy
03-21-2021, 04:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by MidnightRose
Fascinating discussion going on. I see you realize that anything can be misunderstood and/or misrepresented.

As you have misunderstood about what you mentioned to be a "shariah law regulation", forced conversions makes no sense and is not allowed in Islam (Q. 2:256 - There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion.).
I didn't mention anything about force conversions.
I was referring to Quran 9:29 and the options given there.
You are not really forced to convert since you have another option (pay the jizya).
Refusing both options will get you killed if I understood correctly.
Reply

Eddy
03-21-2021, 04:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by M.I.A.
Eddy, your a troll..
Maybe I am, I'm not sure.
I'd like to see myself as someone who looks for the truth.
I'd like to find the true Islam if that makes any sense to you.
I am not hiding anything, you should know by now that I'm an agnostic so that means I don't believe in Allah or any other God but I would accept a God if I'm convinced it exists.
Reply

MidnightRose
03-21-2021, 05:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Eddy
I didn't mention anything about force conversions.
I was referring to Quran 9:29 and the options given there.
You are not really forced to convert since you have another option (pay the jizya).
Refusing both options will get you killed if I understood correctly.

No, you are incorrect. Your answers have more than sufficiently been given.

:threadclo
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 24
    Last Post: 11-08-2022, 10:27 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-22-2016, 04:53 AM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-01-2014, 01:05 AM
  4. Replies: 54
    Last Post: 11-10-2007, 08:49 AM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!