Fight only those who fight you

[Eddy]

Firstly, in Islam, we only ever fight (and as a last resort) to ultimately obtain peace. I think that’s the obvious argument that everyone makes.

That is what a Muslim said on a thread called "Saying "Islām Is A Religion of Peace"...?"


I wasn't allowed to respond to it because I'm not a Muslim so I had to open this thread.

Anti muslim apologists are quick to bring up Quran 9:29 to defeat that line of thinking.

SAHIH INTERNATIONAL

Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

I am not that quick to make cheap accusations, I like to make my own little research before saying anything.
I have to admit, the (anti) muslim apologists are not that wrong after all.

I missed the word in parenthesis in the original post. At that time the Forum didn't give me the option to edit the text.

 

[Nitro Zeus]

That is what a Muslim said on a thread called [h=3]"Saying "Islām Is A Religion of Peace"...?"[/h]
I wasn't allowed to respond to it because I'm not a Muslim so I had to open this thread.

Anti muslim apologists are quick to bring up Quran 9:29 to defeat that line of thinking.

[h=4]SAHIH INTERNATIONAL[/h][h=2]Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.[/h]I am not that quick to make cheap accusations, I like to make my own little research before saying anything.
I have to admit, the muslim apologists are not that wrong after all.

If you want to know the truth, please visit Discover-The-Truth.com and there you have your answer which was already answered by a Muslim scholar.

That verse it is connected to Battle of Tabuk because the Roman Empire was about to invade Arabia peninsula and the Romans weren't really Christians, because they did not believed that God is One Person. But that happened 1400 years. I invite you to the link I provided and see for yourself.

 

['Abdullah]

Let me ask if you believe in Geneva conventions and UN’s international human rights? If you do, how do the think these international humanitarian laws are enforced and is it okay to enforce these laws?

 

[keiv]

I am not that quick to make cheap accusations, I like to make my own little research before saying anything.
I have to admit, the muslim apologists are not that wrong after all

Interesting

 

[eesa the kiwi]

Greetings and peace be with you Eddy,

I don't think the questions you are asking on this forum will help you find what you are looking for. I am a Christian and believe that Islam is a religion of peace. I will leave my Muslim friends to answer your questions.

Islam inspires and encourages people to do something, ask why are you a Muslim, asks what it inspires them to do, there has to be a lot of good points or there would not be the billion plus followers.

I noticed in your first post on this forum that you regard yourself as agnostic; and I find that a strange position to hold.

The creation of the universe is history and you can't change history. Either at least 'One God' created the universe, or there is no god. There cannot be a probable or maybe god. Regardless as to what you or I believe about God, he exists fully and totally, or there is no creator god.

Ask yourself, how could the universe happen purely by natural causes? How could abiogenesis happen purely by natural causes? How could life evolve without any help from God?

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric

From [MENTION=370]Eric H[/MENTION]

 

[Eddy]

Let me ask if you believe in Geneva conventions and UN’s international human rights? If you do, how do the think these international humanitarian laws are enforced and is it okay to enforce these laws?

Yes I do believe in international human rights.
Unfortunately there are so many different cultures that it is almost impossible to please everyone with only one set of rules.
Western culture and Islamic culture are pretty different so right there you have one little problem.
Anyway we don't want to go too far from the topic at hand.

The topic is: Does Islam promotes the idea that you attack only when you are attacked?
This is a very common and popular understanding according to most Muslims.

I have found in my readings that this idea is simply false.
Why?
Because there are many occasions in the Quran where this is totally contradicted.
Quran 9:29 never mentions that you fight only if they attack you.
As a matter of fact this verse clearly suggests that is the Muslims who are initiating the attack (fight).
The Muslims were never attacked in this occasion.
It says:
[fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.
It doesn't say fight them until they stop fighting you.
Fight until they pay the jizyah.
What if they don't want to pay the jizyah?
Do they get killed then?
That's the way it looks to me.
Where am I wrong/

 

['Abdullah]

Yes I do believe in international human rights.
Unfortunately there are so many different cultures that it is almost impossible to please everyone with only one set of rules.
Western culture and Islamic culture are pretty different so right there you have one little problem.
Anyway we don't want to go too far from the topic at hand.

The topic is: Does Islam promotes the idea that you attack only when you are attacked?
This is a very common and popular understanding according to most Muslims.

I have found in my readings that this idea is simply false.
Why?
Because there are many occasions in the Quran where this is totally contradicted.
Quran 9:29 never mentions that you fight only if they attack you.
As a matter of fact this verse clearly suggests that is the Muslims who are initiating the attack (fight).
The Muslims were never attacked in this occasion.
It says:
[fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.
It doesn't say fight them until they stop fighting you.
Fight until they pay the jizyah.
What if they don't want to pay the jizyah?
Do they get killed then?
That's the way it looks to me.
Where am I wrong/

The two topics are very closely related. And that’s why I asked what do you do to enforce International human rights? Is putting sanctions not part of enforcing what you believe in right? Is raging war to liberate people and bring democracy not considered to be the right thing. See what has been done in Afghanistan, Libya, and Iraq to liberate them at the name of humanitarian rights? Why sanctions were imposed on Brunei when it declared to implement sharia law? Why are sanctions imposed on Iran for keep nuclear weapons and why these sanctions can’t be imposed on USA for example for doing the same crime? Why was USA allowed to use nuclear weapons in World War II to enforce its own so-called humanitarian laws? And how humanitarians have supported Israel to kick out and occupy Palestine?

If modern world ( first world of today) can do all evil things to impose what they believe to be right, why can’t Muslims do the same? Why are there double standards?

 

[Eddy]

See what has been done in Afghanistan, Libya, and Iraq to liberate them at the name of humanitarian rights?

That is a very complex question to answer in one paragraph but I would say this.
Is Afghanistan worse today than when Al Qaeda and the Taliban owned the country and executed all kinds of atrocities in the name of Islam?
Iraq was being held together by an oppressive leader who did used chemical weapons against the Kurds in the north.
Today they are free to manage their country as they please. Are they capable of doing it?
Too many conflicts among them.
Anyway I don't want to get too much into politics on a religious forum.
The UN and the International human rights are not chosen and implemented based on Christianity.
I don't think the American government represents Christianity and I don't think Al Qaeda and the Taliban represent Islam
So I don't quite know how is this relevant to what the Quran teaches.

 

['Abdullah]

That is a very complex question to answer in one paragraph but I would say this.
Is Afghanistan worse today than when Al Qaeda and the Taliban owned the country and executed all kinds of atrocities in the name of Islam?
Iraq was being held together by an oppressive leader who did used chemical weapons against the Kurds in the north.
Today they are free to manage their country as they please. Are they capable of doing it?
Too many conflicts among them.
Anyway I don't want to get too much into politics on a religious forum.
The UN and the International human rights are not chosen and implemented based on Christianity.
I don't think the American government represents Christianity and I don't think Al Qaeda and the Taliban represent Islam
So I don't quite know how is this relevant to what the Quran teaches.

I did not say that UN or USA is preaching Christianity but they are preaching what they think is right thing to do such as democracy, interest based financial systems such as capitalism, promoting slavery on a new level by creating IMF and giving loans to third world countries on interest, promoting liberalism and secularism, promoting feminism etc. You believe in that religion ( let’s call it first Worldism) because you accepted international human rights and you accepted that UN and USA is right to enforce them. By the way, in the process they killed millions of innocent people and the countries I mentioned are in worse form than they were before US intervention.

How is this relevant? You believe UN, USA and IMF can’t do what ever they think is right to promote and enforce the values they believe to be true. Muslims also believe is what is revealed to them and we believe only God has the right to tell what is good for us and what is bad. It’s our duty then to make sure we believe, support and spread that message to keep justice in the society. If UN can enforce its values, what’s wrong for Muslims to enforce the values they believe are true and will provide true justice in the society?

Between are there any rules of war set to enforce humanitarian values? If there are please, list those so we can compare apple to apples and see who truly is the source of corruption in the society?

 

[Eddy]

You believe in that religion ( let’s call it first Worldism) because you accepted international human rights and you accepted that UN and USA is right to enforce them.

You are generalizing.
I don't agree with everything that happens in the western world.
I don't agree with every action of the government of the USA.
I don't agree with with every action supported by the UN.

So you believe the western world values are based on:
Democracy, interest based financial systems such as capitalism, promoting slavery on a new level by creating IMF and giving loans to third world countries on interest, promoting liberalism and secularism, promoting feminism etc.

What is wrong with "Democracy? (a government chosen by the majority of the people)
The people of the country are the owners of the country and not the government.
The people have the right to choose and to replace who governs the country.
The government works for the people. The government is employed by the people.

Do you prefer a dictator, (communist style like Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea)
or a dictator (Islamic style like most Muslim countries)?

Do you prefer that the people elect the government (democracy) or you prefer a self proclaimed government taken by force?

Do I believe in capitalism? Yes
Capitalism is not based on interest, two different things.
Capitalism "[FONT=&quot]Economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods or services for profit"[/FONT]

Promoting slavery is not a value accepted by any western societies but it is often mention in the Quran as legitimate.

So you don't like liberalism and secularism.
Let's not confuse liberalism with immoral practices, liberalism is all about freedom and equality.
What's wrong with that?
Secularism is just to separate the government with religion.
In today's world most countries are usually composed with people from many religions.
It doesn't make any sense to have a government that favors one religion over all the others. Don't you think?

And finally feminism, what is feminism?
Feminism is the movement that aims at achieving equality of rights between men and women.
It doesn't mean the traditional roles of men and women change that much.

So you prefer misogyny instead? I think that is the opposite of feminism.

I still don't understand how all this explains Quran 9:29 or relates to fight only those who fight you.

 

[Good brother]

As a matter of fact this verse clearly suggests that is the Muslims who are initiating the attack (fight).
The Muslims were never attacked in this occasion.
It says:
[fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.
It doesn't say fight them until they stop fighting you.
Fight until they pay the jizyah.
What if they don't want to pay the jizyah?
Do they get killed then?
That's the way it looks to me.
Where am I wrong/

The Prophet had sent a messenger to the ruler of Busra. On his way, he was intercepted by a close ally to Caesar, the Byzantine Emperor. Al-Harith, the messenger was tied and beheaded by this ally.

Killing envoys and messengers used to be regarded as the most awful crime, from this point, many battles took place between Muslims and Byzantines that resulted in a major victories of Muslims despite their relatively low numbers and Primitive weapons..

 

[Eddy]

The Prophet had sent a messenger to the ruler of Busra. On his way, he was intercepted by a close ally to Caesar, the Byzantine Emperor. Al-Harith, the messenger was tied and beheaded by this ally.

Thank you very much for the response.
I read this story before but don't you think that it is too incomplete?
What was the messenger sent for?
What was the message he had for the Byzantines?
Do you think the message was appropriate?
What do you think that would have happened if a messenger came to Muhammad and say:

"I have been sent to you (prophet Muhammad) to advice you that the God (Allah) that you claim to believe is not real.
There is only one God and that God is the God worshiped by Christians and Jews.
I therefore offer you salvation by uniting with us worshiping the only God that is the real God."

Now what do you think would have been the response from prophet Muhammad and the Muslims?
Be sincere now.
What is the penalty for blasphemy?
Isn't it death?
Don't you think the messenger was committing blasphemy?
Well, yes he was.

So what happened to that messenger was very predictable and very much in line with the customs of the time.
You don't go to your enemy offering a change of God like it is a change of new cloths.

So what was the reaction from the Muslims after a very predictable outcome, they attacked first.
They didn't attempt to resolve the issue in a pacific way.

It is easy to see things from one side and never consider how does it look from the other side.
Have you thought about it?

 

['Abdullah]

I still don't understand how all this explains Quran 9:29 or relates to fight only those who fight you.

I don't think you asked for the explanation of 9:29 because you yourself said:

​

That is what a Muslim said on a thread called ​

"Saying "Islām Is A Religion of Peace"...?"

I wasn't allowed to respond to it because I'm not a Muslim so I had to open this thread.

Anti muslim apologists are quick to bring up Quran 9:29 to defeat that line of thinking.

​

SAHIH INTERNATIONAL

Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

I am not that quick to make cheap accusations, I like to make my own little research before saying anything.

I have to admit, the muslim apologists are not that wrong after all.​

In case you did not understood this verse, below is a link with complete explanation with context and reason why this verse was revealed.
https://abuaminaelias.com/verse-929-and-the-battle-of-tabuk/

I don't agree with everything that happens in the western world.
I don't agree with every action of the government of the USA.
I don't agree with with every action supported by the UN.

Good to know, you previously admitted that you endorse International Humanitarian Laws and you think UN and USA has the right to enforce them. Anyways, you will see why I asked these questions and how are these relevant to the subject of this thread.

​

What is wrong with "Democracy? (a government chosen by the majority of the people)​

The people of the country are the owners of the country and not the government.​

The people have the right to choose and to replace who governs the country.​

The government works for the people. The government is employed by the people.​

​

Democracy is wrong because by definition it is a form of government in which the “supreme power” is vested in “the people” and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. While in Islam “Supreme Power” is Allah and only the law given by Allah can provide Justice.
On paper, in democracy the elected members shall always work for the best interest of the people. On paper, democracy is supposed to have a system of check and balance (Congress, President, and Judicial System) to make sure power is not misused. But is this all really true?
Can popular opinion be manipulated? The answer is yes. Media is the best example of manipulating people’s opinion. Constantly giving them negative feedback about the Sharia law for example.
Is popular opinion always true? It is similar to as asking is the mob mentality always right? The answer is that it is mostly wrong. Some examples:
• Prostitution is allowed in Nevada because of popular vote. Is this right morally and ethically? No
• Various states in USA have legalized marijuana. Is this ethical and a right decision? The answer is NO
• Various states have allowed same sex marriage through popular vote? Is that ethical? NO
Here we see that we are missing a common ethical law which one can refer to determine what is right and what is wrong. In Islam, it is Sharia law. Where as in democracy, it is determined by people and hence we see that definition of good and bad keeps changing in a Democratic society.
Does democracy serve people? The answer is no. How many people in USA will like to have free medical insurance? Do they get it? No. Why because health insurance companies lobby against such measures. These elected members who are supposed to serve people, serve the lobbies who fund their campaigns. These lobbyists influence the elected officials with money they put in their political campaigns. It all about money and power and if that is not corruption, I am not sure what else can be corruption. This is why we see so much corruption in US history:
• Injustice when we look at genocide of native Americans
• Injustice when we look at oppression of African Americans throughout US history.
• When we look at the atrocities of bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Even recently look at the invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. All of this happened with agreement of all three branches who were supposed to have a check and balance?
So over all, there is a fundamental problem with democracy. One must ask, what are the laws of democracy going to be based upon? If they are to be based on popular opinion, then who says that popular opinion is going to be moral? Who says that popular opinion can arrive to what is just? As stated above, popular opinion can easily be manipulated through mass media, social media and education system. Bottom line is that democracy can never be a substitute for morality. And this is why religion is so important to follow the right religion as a check to see if decisions being made are moral or not.

Do I believe in capitalism? Yes
Capitalism is not based on interest, two different things.
Capitalism "​

Economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods or services for profit"​

​

Capitalism, Feudalism or Socialism, that’s is all human made systems and all of them lack ethical and moral standards for economic system which are found in Islamic economic system. Interest was just one example which you may think is the right thing to do but you need to dig deeper to see why Interest has been banned in all Abrahamic religions.
See my article below on the topic of interest and why it is bad:

Capitalisms basically consists of just two classes: Capitalists who owns the means of production such as factories, farms and other businesses and working class who perform the work. Capitalists not only own the means of production but they also keep a major share of profit (stealing labor value). In order for working class to exist, they have to turn the profit for capitalists to own them. Otherwise they will be forced out of the business by their competitors. Nearly all the efforts of human civilization now is revolves around working hard for capitalists so that they can keep making profits and own means of production. As a result these capitalists own factories, financial institutes, mass media, social media, tech companies, medical and pharmaceutical companies, etc. They own everything.
What does that mean now? It means that they got the power to set the agenda for our society. And what kind of agenda these Capitalists have? It is very simple, making everyone to work so that profits of these capitalists grow bigger and bigger. They don’t really care about the welfare of the workers, or environment. They simply can’t because those things are no profitable. Capitalists don’t allow businesses to run by ethics and morals because these don’t give them any profit. Anything that reduces the profit, is harmful for a Capitalist. Sometimes, these capitalists do get incentives and tax breaks so they spend a portion in charity or on environmentally friendly things and make sure their charities are highlighted and discussed in social and mass media. But they don’t mention how much they have saved in taxes by doing so. It kills two birds with one stone, it helps to market that these Capitalists do care and do spend on good cause and it also allows their businesses and profits to grow.
Now how one can make profit. There are only two ways; one by reducing the cost of production and second by increase the sale price. When reducing the cost, it mostly done by reducing quality of the product and lowering the labor of working class. These Capitalists sometimes eliminate their competitors and thus create a monopoly which gives them a license to charge whatever they want to increase their profits.
In short, rich becomes richer and poor become poorer. That’s the reason today 1% of the rich people in America own as much wealth ( $36T) as the all middle class Americans combined. Only an unethical and morally corrupt person would want to support Capitalism.

Anyways, We will come back to these issues or may be we can discuss these is separate threads. The main reason I brought this up, is that when one believes that certain values are good and will get rid of oppression/corruption in the society then history tells us that human beings always have attempted to enforce those values and beliefs on others. All early Civilizations have survived this way but does this mean that all of them were on truth? Truth can only be one which comes from our creator - Allah and as Muslim we believe that Justice can only be served by implementing Sharia law.
​

 

[Abz2000]

That is what a Muslim said on a thread called [h=3]"Saying "Islām Is A Religion of Peace"...?"[/h]
I wasn't allowed to respond to it because I'm not a Muslim so I had to open this thread.

Anti muslim apologists are quick to bring up Quran 9:29 to defeat that line of thinking.

[h=4]SAHIH INTERNATIONAL[/h][h=2]Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.[/h]

I am not that quick to make cheap accusations, I like to make my own little research before saying anything.
I have to admit, the muslim apologists are not that wrong after all.

The laws of God -Who revealed the Quran and sent Muhammad :saws: as His final messenger- apply universally.
Claiming for example that Molossia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Molossia is an independent republic and is governed by the family democracy does not give any group of individuals license to murder, to rape, to commit incest, to set up UNLAWFUL gambling and loansharking operations centers, to UNLAWFULLY loot passers by, or to avoid JUSTLY IMPOSED financial levies ....... whether they like justice - or not.
Think about it.

At-Taubah 9:33

هُوَ ٱلَّذِىٓ أَرْسَلَ رَسُولَهُۥ بِٱلْهُدَىٰ وَدِينِ ٱلْحَقِّ لِيُظْهِرَهُۥ عَلَى ٱلدِّينِ كُلِّهِۦ وَلَوْ كَرِهَ ٱلْمُشْرِكُونَ

English - Yusuf Ali

It is He Who hath sent His Messenger with guidance and the Religion of Truth, to proclaim it over all religion, even though the Pagans may detest (it).

get Quran App:https://goo.gl/w6rESk

Thank you very much for the response.
I read this story before but don't you think that it is too incomplete?
What was the messenger sent for?
What was the message he had for the Byzantines?
Do you think the message was appropriate?
What do you think that would have happened if a messenger came to Muhammad and say:

"I have been sent to you (prophet Muhammad) to advice you that the God (Allah) that you claim to believe is not real.
There is only one God and that God is the God worshiped by Christians and Jews.
I therefore offer you salvation by uniting with us worshiping the only God that is the real God."

Now what do you think would have been the response from prophet Muhammad and the Muslims?
Be sincere now.
What is the penalty for blasphemy?
Isn't it death?

Click to enlarge:

View attachment 6954

View attachment 6955

View attachment 6956


image sharing

Don't you think the messenger was committing blasphemy?
Well, yes he was.

So what happened to that messenger was very predictable and very much in line with the customs of the time.
You don't go to your enemy offering a change of God like it is a change of new cloths.

So what was the reaction from the Muslims after a very predictable outcome, they attacked first.
They didn't attempt to resolve the issue in a pacific way.

It is not blasphemy for a lawful authority to impose new, improved, and justly fitting laws.
The Romans were not "the enemy" but rather subjects of God and fellow humans of the messenger who were being delivered essential information in goodwill - which was a part of the duty of the messenger of God. They became their own enemies by attempting to prevent officers of The Law of God from carrying out their lawful duties -by murdering (martyring) those dutiful officers in cold blood.

It is easy to see things from one side and never consider how does it look from the other side.
Have you thought about it?

It is the habit of satan and his servant al maseeh-ad-dajjal to create imaginary sides whilst giving his dupes the false illusion that he -or anybody else- is comparable and equal to God. Dajjal attempts to mirror the Messiah, but when the Messiah's subject status becomes undeniable, Dajjal foolishly, criminally, and impotently attempts to mirror God. The desperate infidelity becomes a mass theatrical stage show discrediting only those who stand on falsehood ultimately.
The false illusion via comparison is self evident -since God and others are not equal.
Complete Just truth and slight truth are also not equal.



This is also being made clear to you in plain text and goodwill, so please don't fall for false illusions.


Ar-Ra'd 13:16

قُلْ مَن رَّبُّ ٱلسَّمَٰوَٰتِ وَٱلْأَرْضِ قُلِ ٱللَّهُۚ قُلْ أَفَٱتَّخَذْتُم مِّن دُونِهِۦٓ أَوْلِيَآءَ لَا يَمْلِكُونَ لِأَنفُسِهِمْ نَفْعًا وَلَا ضَرًّاۚ قُلْ هَلْ يَسْتَوِى ٱلْأَعْمَىٰ وَٱلْبَصِيرُ أَمْ هَلْ تَسْتَوِى ٱلظُّلُمَٰتُ وَٱلنُّورُۗ أَمْ جَعَلُوا۟ لِلَّهِ شُرَكَآءَ خَلَقُوا۟ كَخَلْقِهِۦ فَتَشَٰبَهَ ٱلْخَلْقُ عَلَيْهِمْۚ قُلِ ٱللَّهُ خَٰلِقُ كُلِّ شَىْءٍ وَهُوَ ٱلْوَٰحِدُ ٱلْقَهَّٰرُ

Say: "Who is the Lord and Sustainer of the heavens and the earth?"
Say: "(It is) Allah."
Say: "Do ye then take (for worship) protectors other than Him, such as have no power either for good or for harm to themselves?"
Say: "Are the blind equal with those who see? Or the depths of darkness equal with light?"
Or do they assign to Allah partners who have created (anything) as He has created, so that the creation seemed to them similar?
Say: "Allah is the Creator of all things: He is the One, the Supreme and Irresistible."

get Quran App:https://goo.gl/w6rESk


As to what follows:
.

- - - - -

"Say to them: ignorant people do you bid me to worship others than Allah?" (Ibn Jarir, Ibn Abi Hatim, Tabarani). According to another tradition from Ibn Abbas, the Quraish said to the Holy Prophet: "O Muhammad, if you kiss our gods, the idols, we shall worship your God." Thereupon, this Surah was sent down. (Abd bin Humaid).

Said bin Mina (the freed slave of Abul Bakhtari) has related that Walid bin Mughirah, As bin Wail, Aswad bin al-Muttalib and Umayyah bin Khalaf met the Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) and said to him: "O Muhammad (upon whom be Allah's peace and blessings), let us agree that we would worship your God and you would worship our gods, and we would make you a partner in all our works. If what you have brought was better than what we possess, we would be partners in it with You, and have our share in it, and if what we possess is better than what you have brought, you would be partner in it with us and have your share of it." At this Allah sent down: Qul ya-ayyuhal-kafirun (Ibn Jarir, Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn Hisham also has related this incident in the Sirah).

Wahb bin Munabbih has related that the people of Quraish said to Allah's Messenger: "If you like we would enter your faith for a year and you would enter our faith for a year."(Abd bin Humaid, Ibn Abi Hatim).

These traditions show that the Quraish had proposed such things to the Holy Prophet not once, in one sitting, but at different times and on different occasions; and there was need that they should be given a definite, decisive reply so that their hope that he would come to terms with them on the principle of "give and take" was frustrated for ever.


If the Surah is read with this background in mind, one finds that it was not revealed to preach religious tolerance as some people of today seem to think, but it was revealed in order to exonerate the Muslims from the disbelievers religion, their rites of worship, and their gods, and to express their total disgust and unconcern with them and to tell them that Islam and kufr (unbelief) had nothing in common and there was no possibility of their being combined and mixed into one entity. Although it was addressed in the beginning to the disbelieving Quraish in response to their proposals of compromise, yet it is not confined to them only, but having made it a part of the Quran, Allah gave the Muslims the eternal teaching that they should exonerate themselves by word and deed from the creed of kufr wherever and in whatever form it be, and should declare without any reservation that they cannot make any compromise with the disbelievers in the matter of Faith. That is why this Surah continued to be recited when the people to whom it was addressed as a rejoinder, had died and been forgotten, and those Muslims also continued to recite it who were disbelievers at the time it was revealed, and the Muslims still recite it centuries after they have passed away, for expression of disgust with and dissociation from kufr and its rites is a perpetual demand of Faith.

As for the esteem in which the Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) held this Surah, it can be judged from the following few ahadith:

Hadrat Abdullah bin Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) has related that on many an occasion he heard the Holy Prophet recite Surahs Qul Ya-ayyuhal- kafirun and Qul Huwu-Allahu ahad in the two rakahs before the Fajr obligatory Prayer and in the two rakahs after the Maghrib obligatory Prayer. Several traditions on this subject with a little variation in wording have been related by Imam Ahmad, Tirmidhi, Nasai, Ibn Majah, Ibn Hibban, Ibn Marduyah from Ibn Umar.

https://muflihun.com/quran/intro/109

 

[Good brother]

Thank you very much for the response.
I read this story before but don't you think that it is too incomplete?
What was the messenger sent for?

What was the message he had for the Byzantines?

with Prophet's letter to Syria to the king of Busra.

Do you think the message was appropriate?

Sure. He informed them of his noble message and mission.

What do you think that would have happened if a messenger came to Muhammad and say:

"I have been sent to you (prophet Muhammad) to advice you that the God (Allah) that you claim to believe is not real.
There is only one God and that God is the God worshiped by Christians and Jews.
I therefore offer you salvation by uniting with us worshiping the only God that is the real God."

Now what do you think would have been the response from prophet Muhammad and the Muslims?
Be sincere now.
What is the penalty for blasphemy?
Isn't it death?
Don't you think the messenger was committing blasphemy?
Well, yes he was.

So what happened to that messenger was very predictable and very much in line with the customs of the time.
You don't go to your enemy offering a change of God like it is a change of new cloths.

So what was the reaction from the Muslims after a very predictable outcome, they attacked first.
They didn't attempt to resolve the issue in a pacific way.

It is easy to see things from one side and never consider how does it look from the other side.
Have you thought about it?

Answered in the story posted by Abz2000 above.
View attachment 6957

 

[Eddy]

Good to know, you previously admitted that you endorse International Humanitarian Laws and you think UN and USA has the right to enforce them. Anyways, you will see why I asked these questions and how are these relevant to the subject of this thread.

No sir, be careful when you quote people inaccurately.
This was my response to your question "Yes I do believe in international human rights." I never saidthat I "think UN and USA has the right to enforce them." That was you misquoting me. You see, you are adding words into my text that I never said, and that is very dishonest on your part and an awful way to conduct a discussion.

Then you do it again:

You believe UN, USA and IMF can’t do what ever they think is right to promote and enforce the values they believe to be true.

You see, again you attribute words to me that I never said. You make conclusions about what I believe based on nothing that I said. That's not the way of having an honest discussion. Please refrain from doing that in the future.

If UN can enforce its values, what’s wrong for Muslims to enforce the values they believe are true and will provide true justice in the society?

.
The UN is an international entity and many Muslim countries are part of the UN, so you are saying that Muslim countries have values that the UN doesn't approve and you want them to use them anyway.
I don't think the UN cares what Muslim countries do unless they are violating human right rules agreed upon all the nations in it.
Are Muslim countries violating basic human rights?

Democracy is wrong because by definition it is a form of government in which the “supreme power” is vested in “the people” and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. While in Islam “Supreme Power” is Allah and only the law given by Allah can provide Justice.

Democracy elect a government of "real people" to manage a country in the best interest of the people.
Islam doesn't seem to have a way of electing a government to manage and enforce Allah's justice.
How is an Islamic government elected without democracy?
Anyone can jump into power by force?
Is that the Islamic way?
Shouldn't Muslims be allowed to choose who can better enforce Allah's laws?
If Al Qaeda, ISIS and a group of "Moderate Muslims" decide to take over Afghanistan and Syria.
Who should decide which one of these groups should be at the government?
Is there any other better way than democracy in this case?
Please explain.

 

[Eddy]

Click to enlarge:

Attachment 6954

Attachment 6955

Attachment 6956

Thank you for your post but I couldn't open any of the links you provided.

 

['Abdullah]

No sir, be careful when you quote people inaccurately.
This was my response to your question "Yes I do believe in international human rights." I never saidthat I "think UN and USA has the right to enforce them." That was you misquoting me. You see, you are adding words into my text that I never said, and that is very dishonest on your part and an awful way to conduct a discussion.

Then you do it again:

You see, again you attribute words to me that I never said. You make conclusions about what I believe based on nothing that I said. That's not the way of having an honest discussion. Please refrain from doing that in the future.

You are right, please accept my apologies. And thanks for your advice.

 

[Eddy]

So over all, there is a fundamental problem with democracy. One must ask, what are the laws of democracy going to be based upon? If they are to be based on popular opinion, then who says that popular opinion is going to be moral? Who says that popular opinion can arrive to what is just? As stated above, popular opinion can easily be manipulated through mass media, social media and education system. Bottom line is that democracy can never be a substitute for morality. And this is why religion is so important to follow the right religion as a check to see if decisions being made are moral or not.

Ok, time to stop criticising and offering better solutions.
Does Islam provide better solutions?
Why is it that we don't see them?
I can name 10 western countries that are very successful using "Democracy" and none of them is the USA.
Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, France, New Zealand, Australia and I could name more.
They all have very low rates of crime, very low levels of poverty, very good education systems, very good health care systems, etc, etc, etc.
Can you name 10 Islamic countries that don't use democracy and are successful and don't depend on oil to do it?
Name the most promising ones and explain why.
How can they do it?
Is the Islamic system like communism that sounds very nice on paper but has never worked at all anywhere?

 

['Abdullah]

Democracy elect a government of "real people" to manage a country in the best interest of the people.
Islam doesn't seem to have a way of electing a government to manage and enforce Allah's justice.
How is an Islamic government elected without democracy?
Anyone can jump into power by force?
Is that the Islamic way?
Shouldn't Muslims be allowed to choose who can better enforce Allah's laws?
If Al Qaeda, ISIS and a group of "Moderate Muslims" decide to take over Afghanistan and Syria.
Who should decide which one of these groups should be at the government?
Is there any other better way than democracy in this case?
Please explain.

I mentioned in my previous posts that fundamental difference is that “ supreme power” is only Allah not “ the people or their elected representatives.”
In democracy, laws are made based on so-called popular opinion. For example a law can be made to legalize same sex marriage. Is that moral?
or law can be made to legalize prostitution, is that moral?
In Islam, supreme power is Allah and only His law is used to govern the state. A caliph is elected and have administrative power, but he need to make sure that Sharia law is implemented. We also have parliament ( shura) who can do legislation using Ijtihad and Qias on matters which are not clearly stated as halal or haram in the Sharia law. We also have judiciary system, where one can challenge any laws passed by parliament. So over all, you see that structure seems similar to democracy but it is very different because we have a Divine Law which does not change with people’s opinion.