Ryan also commented on Abdullah: On the Level or Sneaky Devil?. Due to the high density target rich comment, I will add superscripts to selected points and use the superscripts to identify my responses. [Obscenity deleted.]
First of all, Taquiiya is a shia muslim concept, not a sunni one. as a sunnin, abdullah would not be one to utilize it1 . two, taquiyya means saying that your not a muslim. Also, it’s possible to make an enemy fear you by kicking their asses in military combat.2
It’s possible to fight jews and christians without slaughtering them.3 And there are schools of muslim thought who DON’T acocate offensive warfare.4 Hell the first appearence of that wasn’t until 200 years after muhammed died, and even then the only people it applied to were pagans There are certain directives of the Qur’an pertaining to war which were specific only to the Prophet Muhammad against Divinely specified peoples of his times (the polytheists and the Israelites and Nazarites of Arabia and some other Jews, Christians, et al.) as a form of Divine punishment — for they had persistently denied the truth of the Prophet’s mission even after it had been made conclusively evident to them by God through the Prophet, and asked the polytheists of Arabia for submission to Islam as a condition for exoneration and the others for jizya and submission to the political authority of the Muslims for exemption from death punishment and for military protection as the dhimmis of the Muslims. Therefore, after the Prophet and his Companions, there is no concept in Islam obliging Muslims to wage war for propagation or implementation of Islam.5 The only valid basis for jihad through arms is to end oppression when all other measures have failed.6 Islam only allows Jihad to be conducted by a Government7[14] with at least half the power of the enemy.[15][16]
AT least one expert claimst that
There are certain directives of the Qur’an pertaining to war which were specific only to the Prophet Muhammad against Divinely specified peoples of his times 8(the polytheists and the Israelites and Nazarites of Arabia and some other Jews, Christians, et al.) as a form of Divine punishment — for they had persistently denied the truth of the Prophet’s mission even after it had been made conclusively evident to them by God through the Prophet, and asked the polytheists of Arabia for submission to Islam as a condition for exoneration and the others for jizya and submission to the political authority of the Muslims for exemption from death punishment and for military protection as the dhimmis of the Muslims. Therefore, after the Prophet and his Companions, there is no concept in Islam obliging Muslims to wage war for propagation or implementation of Islam. The only valid basis for jihad through arms is to end oppression when all”
The Qur’an commands Muslims to make a proper declaration of war prior to the commencement of military operations. Thus, surprise attacks are illegal under the Islamic jurisprudence. The Qur’an had similarly commanded Muhammad to give his enemies, who had violated the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, a time period of four months to reconsider their position and negotiate.[25] This rule, however, is not binding if the adversary has already started the war.[26] Forcible prevention of religious practice is considered an act of war.[27]
You claim that any people who caim misintrepraation are fools; why is kathir’s interpreation less valide then the interpretations of other scholars?
28.^ a b Ali ibn al-Athir, Al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, Vol.3, p.227
29.^ Ghamid (2001), referring to Sahih Bukhari 3016, and Sahih Bukhari 2613
30.^ Ghamidi (2001), referring to Qur’an 8:47
31.^ Dāmād(2003), p. 266
32.^ USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts
33.^ Ghamidi (2001), quoting Qur’an 4:90
34.^ a b Maududi (1998), p. 35
35.^ Ali (1991), p. 79, quoting Qur’an 2:190
36.^ Ghamidi (2006), refers to Sahih Bukhari 2629
37.^ Ghamidi (2001), refers to a hadith “plundered [food] is not better than dead meat [forbidden in Islam]” Sahih Bukhari 2705
tell me, are these sources wrong also? They all draw basis from the quran and hadiths, yet they pretty much say that you are full of.
Kiddo, if you were to debate real muslim scholars they would eat you alive, your corpse out, and then urinate on your grave. You lie, you misuse sources, you giver real scholars evevrywhere a bad name
1.
Sunni or Shi’ia, they believe in the same demon, emulate the same brigand and read the same Qur’an. Islam is a lie and Muslims are liars; I am not deceived. The specific example from which the concept developed is narrow, the general application is much broader.
2. Terror is terror, no matter how it is induced. Moe intentionally built a reputation for barbarian brutality for the purpose of intimidating his victims. Four ayat are particularly applicable.
59:2. He it is Who drove out the disbelievers among the people of the Scripture (i.e. the Jews of the tribe of Banî An-Nadîr) from their homes at the first gathering. You did not think that they would get out. And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from Allâh! But Allâh’s (Torment) reached them from a place whereof they expected it not, and He cast terror into their hearts, so that they destroyed their own dwellings with their own hands and the hands of the believers. Then take admonition, O you with eyes (to see).
59:13. Verily, you (believers in the Oneness of Allâh – Islâmic Monotheism) are more awful as a fear in their (Jews of Banî An-Nadîr) breasts than Allâh. That is because they are a people who comprehend not (the Majesty and Power of Allâh).
8:60. Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of God, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.
3. It may be possible, but when one settlement surrendered, Moe had the men and adolescent boys decapitated, enslaving the rest. People with common sense will perceive that conquest is undesirable even without genocide. On page 131 of The Life of Muhammad, he is quoted thusly: “By him who holds my life in His hand I bring you slaughter.'”
4. Muslims who deviate from the standard, such as Ahmadiyya, are the exception which proves the rule.
5. Moe fought in 17 battles and his total was 86. In another reply, I posted an excerpt from the table of contents of The Life of Muhammad. It is thick with raids, battles & conquests. The damnable details of the Jihad doctrine are documented in another series of posts: Jihad.chm.
6. Define oppression. Islam’s definition is any resistance to domination by Muslims. I am not jumping into any semantic traps. The accursed Qur’an is absolutely clear on this matter, there is no possibility of misinterpretation of these verses.
9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
9:123. O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allâh is with those who are the Al-Muttaqûn (the pious – see V.2:2).
Compare the translations, click the context links and examine the surrounding ayat for modifiers to the commands. Compare the tafsirs. When the evidence is considered, truth stands out above fiction.
7. Shaffi’ite Fiqh is explicit on this matter: if there is no caliph, no permission is required.
If jihad is possible but neglected, everyone who knew of the fard al-kifaya and neglected it is in a state of sin.
Book o9.1 makes this clear, and also informs us that offensive jihad is an annual obligation.
8. Jihad is not an anachronism. Moe explicitly stated that it would be performed continuously until Judgment Day and cursed Muslims in the eventuality of its abandonment.
Narrated Anas ibn Malik:
The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, “There is no god but Allah” and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist). The tyranny of any tyrant and the justice of any just (ruler) will not invalidate it. One must have faith in Divine decree.
Sunan Abu Dawud Book 23, Number 3455:
Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar:
I heard the Apostle of Allah, (peace_be_upon_him) say: When you enter into the inah transaction, hold the tails of oxen, are pleased with agriculture, and give up conducting jihad (struggle in the way of Allah). Allah will make disgrace prevail over you, and will not withdraw it until you return to your original religion.
Islamophobia: Exposing Malicious Malarkey 
January 12, 2011 at 6:14 pm |
While I am flattered that you took the time to look at my responses, your arguements are fatally undermined by basic mistakes that anyone who actually bothered to read the quran would notice.
1.) Muhammad minced no words about the necessity of telling the truth: “It is obligatory for you to tell the truth, for truth leads to virtue and virtue leads to Paradise, and the man who continues to speak the truth and endeavors to tell the truth is eventually recorded as truthful with Allah, and beware of telling of a lie for telling of a lie leads to obscenity and obscenity leads to Hell-Fire, and the person who keeps telling lies and endeavors to tell a lie is recorded as a liar with Allah.” [3]
you know who said that. Robert Spencer, one of the biggest critics of islam out there. He does agrue that lying is mandatory in some cases, but he never claims that islam praises it as a matter of course.
2.) Taquiyya is only permitted when a person’s life is in danger. Verses 60:8 and 60:9, combined with the fact that the number of roots and possible variations in the arabic languatge mean that the sentence can take on multiple meanings.
3.) The Quariyza were guilty of high treason (what is more, according to jewish law all would have died. The punishment given was far more leniant then what they would have normally revieced.)
4.) I based my response on other more prominent scholars; The Hanafi school of thought holds that war can only be launched against a state that had resorted to armed conflict against the Muslims. War, according to the Hanafis, can’t simply be made on the account of nation’s religion. Muhammad ibn Idris ash-Shafi`i (d. 820), founder of the Shafi’i school of thought, was the first to permit offensive jihad. He limited this warfare against pagan Arabs only, not permitting it against non-Arab non-Muslims.[17] exceptions my ass.
5.) The entire situation was a struggle for survival.
6.) Kathir is not the be all and end all. Tasfirs are not part of islamic canon, merely guesses. The way the quran is structured (open) any muslim can analyze the book to apply to their own situation. It is the equivelent of st thomas aquinas’s writings, or that of any other saint after the gospels; utterly optional.
7.) Again, historical context certainly influenced word choice; at the time, all non muslims were out to kill the other muslims. It was a choose a side and stick with it term.
8.) There are three types of hadith categories (solid, somewhat reliable, and garbage). Dawud is one of the less reliable ones; therefore, citing it as be all proof is an out and out lie. If you want to cite authority, cite reputable ones.
Epic Fail
January 12, 2011 at 10:57 pm |
[…] here to see the original: Reply to Ryan on Abdullah: On the Level or Sneaky Devil … This entry was posted in Islam and tagged all-proof, cite-authority, equivelent, islam, kathir, […]
January 13, 2011 at 12:23 am |
[…] Read the rest here: Reply to Ryan on Abdullah: On the Level or Sneaky Devil … […]