Reply to Ryan on Tolerance

1.) You cited tamiynna at one point. That is athe sign of a poor scholar, since most muslims considere him utterly unreliable and jhave done so for almost the entire time that his works have been known. only hte shalafi sect heeds him with any real seriousness.

2.) There are many verses which encourage tolearnce of non muslims

Not all of them are alike; a party of the people of the Scripture stand for the right, they recite the Verses of God during the hours of the night, prostrating themselves in prayer. They believe in God and the Last Day; they enjoin Al-Ma’rûf and forbid Al-Munkar ; and they hasten in (all) good works; and they are among the righteous. And whatever good they do, nothing will be rejected of them; for God knows well those who are Al-Muttaqûn .(3:113-115)
And there are, certainly, among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), those who believe in God and in that which has been revealed to you, and in that which has been revealed to them, humbling themselves before God. They do not sell the Verses of God for a little price, for them is a reward with their Lord. Surely, God is Swift in account. ‘(3:199)’
Verily! Those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in God and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve . [Qur’an 2:62]
Say (O Muhammad ): “O people of the Scripture : Come to a word that is just between us and you, that we worship none but God, and that we associate no partners with Him, and that none of us shall take others as lords besides God. [Qur’an 3:64].

{3}You are partially correct in that the jizya was utterly asinine, but the quran never described worldly punishment for apostasy. Also, aside from the jizya, the jews actulaly had it fairly esay. Certainly more so then in christian europe where they were brutally murdered on a daily basis

There are many tasfirs, and many interpretaions. KAthir is not the be all and end all.

Advertisements

Tags:

15 Responses to “Reply to Ryan on Tolerance”

  1. American Delight Says:

    Do you believe in the principal of abrogation?

    • dajjal Says:

      It is obvious from the two relevant ayat, which are almost certainly intended to apply to the Torah & Gospels, but must as certainly apply to the Qur’an. Islamic legal scholars interpret it that way. Check the entry in Brill’s Encyclopedia.

  2. Ryan Says:

    There are many muslim legal scholars who don’t believe in it.

    Here are two quotes on the subject

    Whenever it is possible to show agreement or reconciliation between various narrations, in a manner which is suitable, without stretching their meanings, it becomes obligatory to do so. Making Reconciliation (al-Jam) between the texts takes precedence over the other two methods of resolving apparent contradiction between proofs–the two other methods being Outweighing (al-Tarjih) and Abrogation (al-Naskh). This is what has been agreed upon in the Science of Usul al-Fiqh.

    Well, Imam al-Tabari is in a way the father of tafsirs. And his tafsir is the monumental one that came to be used widely in later tafsirs…and he said very clearly that if a verse is to be agrogated, you have to have some definitive information from the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) himself which says that this verse is abrogated, otherwise how would you know if a certain verse is abrogated? You shouldn’t claim that a verse is abrogated without this type of definitive information.

    • dajjal Says:

      How can Allah be in conflict with himself? Is he not omniscient and omnipotent? Did he not command the pen to write before creating the world?

      When he declares that there is no compulsion in religion, only Islam will be accepted, to you yours and to me mine and then commands Muslims to wage war on pagans until he has a monopoly on faith and practice, the conflicts must be resolved.

      Search Bukhari for “with chains” and you will find, if memory serves, 6.60.80, which explains 3:110. In that light, 3:110 can not coexist with 2:259 & 10:99. Something has to give.

      Allah gave himself an out with 2:106 & 16:101.

  3. Ryan Says:

    there are many other quran verses which forbid forced compulsion. but if you insist, the majority of the quranic verses on the subject don’t allow forced conversion.
    “And had God willed, He could have made you all one [religious] community, but He sends astray whom He wills and guides whom He wills. But you shall certainly be called to account for what you (yourself) used to do [i.e. not what others used to do].” (Quran, 16:93)

    “Exhort them to believe; your task is only to exhort. You cannot compel them to believe.” (Quran, 88:21-22)

    “The blood of a Muslim, who confesses that there is no God but God and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: (1) In penalty for murder, (2) a married person who commits adultery and (3) the one who reverts from Islam (apostates) and leaves the community.” (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 12, Book ad-Diyat, Number 6878, p.209)
    (key word being and leaves the community.)

    “The blood of a Muslim, who confesses that none has the right to be worshiped but God and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: (1) a married person who commits adultery; he is to be stoned and (2) a man who went out fighting against God and His Messenger; he is to be killed or crucified or exiled from the land and (3) a man who murders another person; he is to be killed on account of it.” (Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol. 4, Number 4353, p. 126)
    “Why should you be divided into two parties about the Hypocrites? …If they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever you find them; Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty of peace, or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If God had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you and fight you not, and instead send you guarantees of peace, then God Has opened no way for you to war against them…Therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and do not offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given you a clear authority (to war against).” (Quran, 4:89-91)
    WIth all this evidence i’d say that the hadith of sahih bukhari 60 60 80 looses out. this is per the second method al tarijh (outweighing).

    and the hadith, while fairly great (as far as muslims are concerned ) are not perfect. there are THOUSANDS so as such there are bound to be contradictory hadiths within the text.

  4. dajjal Says:

    Check the sequence of revelation: latter verses abrogate conflicting verses issued earlier.

    8:39 sets global monopoly on faith and practice as a condition of terminating jihad.

    Bukhari 4.53.386 restates the order to fight until only Allah is worshiped.

  5. Ryan Says:

    did you miss the principles of Reconcilliation and outwighing?
    Also, the word is chaos and tumult. It means fight until they are no longer trying to kill you or spreading chaos in the lands. since practically all the arab tribes were trying to kill the muslims they were all included. and some translations use the word “land” not globe. You just ignored al-Tarjih you ignorant hillbilly

  6. Ryan Says:

    the same verse says that if they make peace (as earlier verses and even the same surah shows, can include covenants of peace and ceasefire) then it means that as long as they genuinely try to live as equals they are to be allowed to live

  7. Ryan Says:

    past tafsirs have brought up historical contest
    * تفسير Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs, a surah commentator who lived in 807 ad and is pretty well regarded made reference to historical context in each verse). Also, each verse is applicable for certain situations. Also, you have to take into account that there are verses in the same Surah
    (3:113-3:115) which state that it is possible to go to heaven while still being people of the book (ie not muslim). and that there are hadith that can contradict each other in the bukhari (meaning that there may well be verses of the opinion that they cannot be subjugated), and they are ultimately still subordinate to the quran (meaning that if the hadith interpretation violates other verses it is illegitimate.) also, 10:99 comes after surah 3111. As far as muslims believe that is the correct order or revelation (it was revealed successively.) here are some commonly cited examples

    Verse: Q.8:65
    Abrogator (nāsikh): The immediately succeeding Q.8:66, which lightens the ratio of enemies the Muslims are expected to vanquish from 10:1 to 2:1 .
    Verse: Q.2:180
    Abrogator: Q.4:10–11, which provides specific allotments for a deceased’s relatives. These verses constitute a perfect example of what later exegetes would claim to be takhsīs (specification).
    Verse: 2.219
    Abrogator: Q.4:43, whose more explicit disapproval of drunkenness is in turn abrogated by Q.5:90, which institutes a complete ban on the consumption of alcohol:

    Even if that was not the correct order it was still the order muslims believed the verses were revealed in. as such, it is the orders muslims are to follow. most of the verses i cite come after 3110. going by your logic 3110 is the one that gets the boot.

    http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/private/cmje/issues/more_issues/more_issues/JewishMuslim_Relations_Article.pdf

  8. dajjal Says:

    If Allah said it, and it is imperative, and it is in a clear verse, Muslims are obligated to believe in and implement it. That applies to 8:39 & 9:29.

    The record of Islamic conquest confirms the obvious.

    When it comes to tolerance, one hadith stands out.

    Sahih Muslim Book 026, Number 5389:

    Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Do not greet the Jews and the Christians before they greet you and when you meet any one of them on the roads force him to go to the narrowest part of it.

    Which is codified in Reliance. O11.5.4

    O11.5

    Such non-Muslim subjects are obliged to comply with Islamic rules that pertain to the safety and indemnity of life, reputation, and property. In addition, they:

    -1- are penalized for committing adultery or theft, thought not for drunkenness;

    -2- are distinguished from Muslims in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt (zunnar);

    -3- are not greeted with “as-Salamu ‘alaykum”;

    -4- must keep to the side of the street;

    -5- may not build higher than or as high as the Muslims’ buildings, though if they acquire a tall house, it is not razed;

    -6- are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, (A: to ring church bells or display crosses,) recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feastdays;

    -7- and are forbidden to build new churches.

  9. dajjal Says:

    Yusuf Ali renders: “alltogether and everywhere”. Hilali&Khan render: “in the whole of the world”. If that ain’t global scope, what would be?

    http://qb.gomen.org/QuranBrowser/cgi/bin/retrieve.cgi?version=pickthall+yusufali+khan+shakir+sherali+khalifa+arberry+palmer+rodwell+sale&layout=auto&searchstring=008:39

  10. dajjal Says:

    They would not be making peace if Moe had not first made war. Also,
    47:35. So be not weak and ask not for peace (from the enemies of Islâm), while you are having the upper hand. Allâh is with you, and will never decrease the reward of your good deeds.

  11. Ryan Says:

    historical research by most scholars have stated that the pact of umar was rarely enforced.

    and did you not catch how they murdered his followers and persecuted him to the point were he had to flee? of course they fought back.

    Also, the other verses relating for peace say that the enemy has to be the one to ask. The verse says that muslims are not allowed to make the offer. that is somewhat different. If the enemy asks for peace it’s a somewhat different matter.

    Also, HilalKhan and Yusuf Ali are the only ones who render it that way. Due to the nuances of arabic language, it is possible that they translated it that way due to personal preferences. the others make no such injunction.

    And I have checked the record of islamic conquest. The jizya varied depending on how much they were able to pay, and there are records of jews not only being allowed to own property

    As for the laws you mention: That’s from the pact of umar, widely considered by every respectable scholar to be a forgery that originated in the tenth century. And that in most cases the law was enforced sporadically.

    a.) the zunnar was already being worn by the christians even before the muslims came. same with the hair. it was meant for the muslims themselves to stand out.
    87. Ibid., pp.62-63

    In fact, many of the scholars were bitching about how they WANTED things rather than how they actually were.

    The varying views on the topic were summarized in the eighteenth century by the Egyptian scholars Shaykh Damanhuri, responding to a question about the status of the churches in Cairo. He explained that the [then prevalent] Hanafi school allowed houses of worship to be erected in towns taken from non-Muslims by peace treaty provided the treaty stipulated that the land belonged to the indigenous inhabitants and they paid kharaj (land tax). If [however] the terms of the surrender considered the land Muslim…[then] their places of worship were not allowed. Reconstruction of a permitted building after it had been destroyed or upon its impending collapse was strictly regulated so as not to seem to be “new.” Its building materials had to be identical to those of the original structure. [109]
    Similarly, Imam al-Mawardi (d. 1058 A.D.) argued that dhimmis “can restore ancient synagogues and churches that have fallen into ruin.” [111] As such, it seems that the prohibition in the Pact of Umar was not as sweeping as it seems; churches and synagogues could be built in certain areas and repairs made with some significant limitations.

    Also, there are hadiths that oppose murder, mistreatement, and violence against jews. Also, the hadiths are only as valid as the chain of transition. If other hadiths contradict them what happens? Even after paying jizya they were still able to hold jobs, advance within the system and live relatively peaceful lives. Again, far better than christian europe.

    “Whoever killed a Mu’ahid (a person who is granted the pledge of protection by the Muslims) shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise though its fragrance can be smelt at a distance of forty years (of traveling)” bukhari 9 83 49
    Book 32, Number 6328 states that Hisham b. Hakim b. Hizam passed by Syrian farmers who had been detained for jizya and made to stand in the sun, and Number 6330 states that he came by some Nabateans who had been detained “in connection with the dues of jizya”. In both cases his response was to quote Muhammad as saying “Allah would torment those persons who torment people in the world.

    Sahih Bukhari Volume 2, Book 23, Number 475 states ‘Umar’s concern for the well-being of dhimmis on his deathbed (after he was stabbed by a dhimmi). ‘Umar commanded his would-be successor to “abide by the rules and regulations concerning the Dhimmis (protectees) of Allah and His Apostle, to fulfill their contracts completely and fight for them and not to tax (overburden) them beyond their capabilities”.[19][20]

    ^ Sahih Bukhari, 2957, A Muslim ruler is the shield [of his people]. An armed struggle can only be carried out under him and people should seek his shelter [in war].

    Malik, in Al-Muwatta (Book 17, Number 17.24.45), protests the practice of summarily appropriating livestock from dhimmis; he states that livestock should only be taken as jizya. In Book 17, Number 17.24.46, he states that the sunnah is that jizya is only taken from male dhimmis and Zoroastrians who have reached puberty. Jizya is imposed on non-Muslim “People of the Book” to humble them; also, they do not have to pay zakat, which is paid by Muslims as mandatory charity. If the non-believers remain in one country, they pay no other property taxes; however, if they do business in multiple Muslim countries, then they have to pay ten percent of the value of the traded goods each time they move to another country. The reason given is that jizya is imposed on the condition (which they have agreed to) that they will stay in one country and avail of the security thus availed them by their submission; if they do business in multiple countries, then this is outside the stipulated agreements and conditions for jizya, and therefore they must pay ten percent each time. Malik also states that this was the practice in his city. Finally, in Book 21, Number 21.19.49a Malik states that when one collects jizya from a people who surrendered peacefully, then they are allowed to keep their land and property. However, if they are overcome in battle and forced to give jizya, then their land and property become booty for Muslims.
    Abu Yusuf, an eighth century Hanafi jurist states in his Kitab al-Kharaj that “The wali [governor of a province] is not allowed to exempt any Christian, Jew, Magian, Sabean, or Samaritan from paying the tax, and no one can obtain a partial reduction. It is illegal for one to be exempted and another not, because their lives and possessions are spared only on account of the payment of the jizya.[44] He also cautions that “[n]o one of the ahl al-dhimma should be beaten in order to exact payment of the jizya, nor made to stand in the hot sun, nor should hateful things be inflicted upon their bodies, or anything of that sort. Rather, they should be treated with leniency. [. . .] It is proper, O Commander of the Faithful—may Allah be your support—that you treat leniently those people who have a contract of protection from your Prophet and cousin, Muhammad—may Allah bless him and grant him peace. You should look after them, so that they are not oppressed, mistreated, or taxed beyond their means.”[45]

    Islamic jurists had differing opinions. In any case muslim treatments of jews HISTORICALLY was far better than the Doctrine of Perpetual servitade endorsed by the church

  12. dajjal Says:

    Exemplar: http://islamawakened.com/Quran/8/39/

    Sayed Vickar Ahamed:

    And keep on fighting them till there is no more unrest (commotion) or injustice (cruelty), and there exists justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; But if they stop, surely, Allah sees all that they do.

    Supremacy, exclusivity & monopoly are common concepts in the other translations listed on that page.

    Uneven imposition & enforcement subtract nothing from the fatal fact:
    Islam is an aggressive pradator, imposing its rule by intimidation and force of arms.

  13. giant dog breeds Says:

    I really appreciate this post. I’ve been looking everywhere
    for this! Thank goodness I found it on Bing. You have made my day!
    Thx again

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: