Understanding Islam

[Mustardseed]

Dear Friends
I am starting this new thread to examine and try to understand some of the many facets of Islam. The last thread seemed to veer from the initial post and I felt a new heading was in order. I am not opening this thread to immunize my own faith so if anyone want to make a similar thread for Christianity, I would welcome it and attempt to take part in the posting.

Researching Islam I have learned of the Doctrine of NASKH, Jeehad posted a reply explaining to me what this means. It seems that certain doctrines and suras keep evolving within Islam, and this doctrine lays down the method of how a progressive revelation is verified.

The following is a article in which the Author examines the Abrogated suras one by one. It appears that if my source material is correct the famous Sura 9:5 the sword verse Abrogated some previous suras and I would like to ask for a comment from any one who can explain this.

The Quran's Doctrine of Abrogation
Prepared by Abdullah Al Araby
In an attempt to polish Islam's image, Muslim activists usually quote verses from the Quran that were written in the early days of the Islamic movement while Mohammed lived in Mecca. Those passages make Islam appear loving and harmless because they call for love, peace and patience. Such is a deception. The activists fail to tell gullible people that such verses, though still in the Quran, were nullified, abrogated, rendered void by later passages that incite killing, decapitations, maiming, terrorism and religious intolerance. The latter verses were penned while Mohammed's headquarters was based in Medina.

When speaking with people of Christianized/Western societies, Muslim activists deliberately hide a major Islamic doctrine called "al-Nasikh wal-Mansoukh" (the Abrogator and the Abrogated). This simply means that in situations wherein verses contradict one another, the early verses are overridden by the latter verses. The chronological timing in which a verse was written determines its authority to establish policies within Islam. Non-Muslims cannot afford to be ignorant about the full implications of the Abrogator and the Abrogated Doctrine (al-Nasikh wal-Mansoukh). When Islamic spokesmen say that Islam is a religion of peace and that the Quran does not support such things as human rights infractions, gender bias and terrorism, they are lying. This means that the Western politicians and liberal journalists, who continually spout that Islam is a noble religion of peace, are in reality propagating a deception that they have been deceived into parroting.

This presents problems for naïve people who are not familiar with Islam and the Quran. They don't know that the surahs/chapters of the Quran are not arranged in chorological order in regard to the timing in which they were written. Therefore an activist who is out to deceive them can turn to various places throughout the Quran and read verses that sound peaceful, tolerant, reasonable and loving. The impression is that the entire Quran promotes peace, love, equality and tolerance for all. That is far from the truth. Most Muslims fully understand that the few Quranic verses that seemingly promote equality, peace and justice are more often than not overridden/ nullified by later verses that validate such things as terrorism and legalistic restrictions on routine human and women's rights.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE ABROGATOR AND THE ABROGATED IN THE QURAN (Al Nasikh Wal Mansoukh)
This doctrine is based on two verses that Allah allegedly instructed Mohammed to put into the Quran.
"None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?" Surah 2: 106
"When We substitute one revelation for another, and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages), they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not." Surah 16:101

The documentation for the information that I am offering in this piece is found in one of Islam's classical reference books in the Arabic language. It is titled "al-Nasikh wal-Mansoukh" (The Abrogator and the Abrogated) and was authored by the revered Muslim scholar Abil-Kasim Hibat-Allah Ibn-Salama Abi-Nasr. The book goes through every Surah (chapter) in the Quran and cites in great detail every verse that was cancelled-out/overridden by particular verses that were written later. The author noted that out of 114 Surahs (chapters) of the Quran, there are only 43 Surahs that were not affected by this concept. The implications are very revealing. It means that those who would be inclined to accept the Quran as reliable can take only 43 chapters of the Quran at face value. The majority of its chapters cannot be taken at face value. The cancelled verses are mixed in with the authoritative verses and only schooled Islamist know which is which.

The following are English translation excerpts from the reference book's original Arabic
THREE KINDS OF ABROGATION:
1) Verses in which both the wording and application were abrogated/nullified.
There is an example of this found in a narration by Ans Ibn Abdel Malik. He said that during the life of Mohammed, they used to read a Surah that was equal in size to that of Surah 9 (the repentance). He further stated that he only remembered one verse from that Surah/chapter. - "If the son of Adam has two valleys of gold he would covet to have a third one, if he has three he would covet to have a fourth one. Nothing would fill the belly of the son of Adam except dirt, and Allah would accept the repentance of those who repent."
Another example is the narration of Ibn Abdullah Ibn Massoud. He said that Mohammed recited a verse for him that he memorized and wrote in his Quran. When he checked his Quran the following day, he discovered that the verse had disappeared. Mohammed explained what had happened to ibn Massoud. He told him that the verse had been lifted during the previous day.
2) Verses in which the wording was abrogated (nullified) but the application was not.
These are verses wherein the wording was nullified, but the inferences/possible applications of those words remained intact.
There is an example of this form in a narration about Omar Ibn Al Khattab. He said, "If I didn't hate that people would say we added to the Quran which was not part of it, I would have insisted in including the verse of stoning. By God we have recited it by the Apostle of God."
3) Verses in which the application was abrogated (nullified), but the wording was not.
These are verses wherein the wording remained the same, but the authority to consider such in the formation of Islamic polices were nullified
There are sixty-three Surahs/chapters in the Quran that mention such things as praying in the direction of Jerusalem, regulations about fasting and the forgiveness that is available to polytheists

FOUR DEGREES OF ABROGATION
1. Surahs that were not influenced by applications of the doctrine of the Abrogator and the Abrogated. (43 Surahs)

Surahs 1, 12, 36, 49, 55, 57, 61, 62, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 77, 78, 79, 82, 83, 84, 85, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 104, 105, 106, 107,109, 108, 110, 112, 113, and 114
2. Surahs that maintained the authority of the Abrogator, but their original wording was not abrogated/nullified.(6 Surahs)

Surahs 48, 59, 63, 64, 65, and 87
3. Surahs that had their wording abrogated/nullified, but maintained their authority for applications. (40 Surahs)
Surahs 6, 7 10, 11, 13, 15 16 17, 18, 20, 23, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 51, 53, 54, 60, 68, 70, 74, 75, 76, 77, 86, 80, 88, and 109
4. Surahs that have had both their authority for applications and their wording abrogated. (24 Surahs)

Surahs 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 14, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 33, 34, 40, 42, 51, 52, 56, 58, 73, 103, and 108

THE VERSE OF THE SWORD
The verse that Abrogated (nullified) the Peace Verses.
An example of the abrogation: There are 124 versus that call for tolerance and patience that have been cancelled and replaced by one, single verse. This verse is called the verse of the sword:
"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)....." Surah 9:5
Verses that support the verse of the Sword

1) "Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of believers" (Surah 9:14).

2) "O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque" (Surah 9:28).

3) "The Jews call 'Uzayr a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the son of God. That is saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate the Unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!" (Surah 9:30).

4) "O Prophet! Strive hard against the Unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell – an evil refuge indeed" (Surah 9:73).

5) "O ye who believe! Fight the Unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him" (Surah 9:123).

Some of the verses abrogated by the verse of the Sword:

1) "Those who believe (in the Qua'an), and the Christians and the Sabians – any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord: on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve" (Surah 2:62).
2) "Quite a number of the People of the Book wish they could turn you (people) back to infidelity after ye have believed, from selfish envy, after the Truth hath become manifest unto them: but forgive and overlook, till Allah accomplish his purpose" (Surah 2:109).
3) "But because of their breach of their Covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the Message that was sent them, nor wilt thou cease to find them – barring a few – ever bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for Allah loveth those who are kind" (Surah 5:13).
4) "Leave alone those who take their religion to be mere play and amusement, and are deceived by the life of this world. But proclaim (to them) this (truth): that every soul delivers itself to ruin by its own acts: it will find for itself no protector or intercessor except Allah: if it offered every ransom, (or reparation), none will be accepted: such is (the end of) those who deliver themselves to ruin by their own acts: they will have for drink (only) boiling water, and for punishment, one most grievous: for they persisted in rejecting Allah" (Surah 6:70).
5) "But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah" (Surah 8:61)
6) "And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury); but say, 'We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; our God and your God is One; and it is to Him we bow (in Islam)" (Surah 29:46).
7) "And remember We took a covenant from the Children of Israel (to this effect): worship none but Allah" (Surah 2:83).
"Say: Will ye dispute with us about Allah, seeing that He is our Lord and your Lord; that we are responsible for our doings and ye for yours; and that we are sincere (in our faith) in Him?" (Surah 2:139)
9) "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors" (Surah 2:190)
10) "But fight them at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there" (Surah 2:191)
11) "But if they cease, Allah is Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful" (Surah 2:192).
12) "But there is no compulsion in religion" (Surah 2:256).
13) "So if they dispute with thee, say: 'I have submitted my whole self to Allah and so have those who follow me,' And say to the People of the Book and so to those who are unlearned: 'do ye (also) submit yourself? If they do, they are in right guidance, but if they turn back, thy duty is to convey the Message" (Surah 3:20).
14) "Let not the Believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers; if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourself from them" (Surah 3:28).
15) "Those men – Allah knows what is in their hearts; so keep clear of them, but admonish them, and speak to them a word to reach their souls" (Surah 4:63) .
16) "He who obeys the Messenger, obeys Allah: but if any turn away, we have not sent thee to watch over their (evil deeds)" (Surah 4:80).
17) "But Allah records their nightly (plots): so keep clear of them, and put thy trust in Allah" (Surah 4:81).
18) "Then fight in Allah's cause – thou art held responsible only for thyself" (Surah 4:84).
19) "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 Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: therefore, if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (guarantees of ) peace, then Allah hath opened no way for you (to war against them)" (Surah 4:90).
20) "O ye who believe! Violate not the sanctity of the Symbols of Allah, nor of the Sacred Month" (Surah 5:2).
Other verses that were abrogated by the verse of the sword:
Surah 5: 99
Surah 6: 66; 104; 106- 108; 112; 135; 158
Surah 7:183; 199
Surah 10: 41, 46, 99, 108, 109
Surah 11: 121
Surah 13: 40
Surah 15: 3, 85, 88, 94
Surah 16: 82, 125, 127
Surah 17: 54
Surah 19: 84
Surah 20: 130, 135
Surah 22: 68
Surah 23: 54, 96
Surah 24: 54
Surah 28: 55
Surah 30: 60
Surah 32: 30
Surah 33:48
Surah 34: 25
Surah 39: 15
Surah 41: 34
Surah 42: 6, 15, 48
Surah 43: 83, 89
Surah 44: 59
Surah 45: 14
Surah 46: 35
Surah 50: 39
Surah 52: 48
Surah 53: 29
Surah 58: 8-9, 11
Surah 73: 10
Surah 76: 8
Surah 86: 17
Surah 88: 22- 24
Surah 109: 6

Thanks Regards Mustardseed

[Jeehad]

Understanding Abrogation:

Let's first agree on certain points, which I believe you are aware of. First, no one can offer a correct explanation of the Qur'an except scholars who have mastered all sciences that qualify them to understand its occasions of revelation, linguistic style, structure, and all other imports and aspects. Even with their near-perfect explanation, we can still safely say that their explanations are not totally perfect; rather, they are subject to error just like the product of any human mind.



This actually is good because God's words are beyond the limitations of a human mind, hence, man can comprehend and grasp only some aspects of those words but not all of them, otherwise God's words will be limited and restricted.



Coming to the issue of abrogation, we need to understand one focal point, which is that Allah Almighty's knowledge covers everything. It is not subject to change because it is not limited by the boundaries of time. This means that when Allah Almighty reveals something in the Qur'an and later on gives a fresh command that adjusts the old one or cancels it, He surely knows already that He is going to reveal something to adjust the old command or cancel it. In other words, the new command is not new to Him; it is new to us because we have no access to His knowledge and we are bound by time limitations.



In the light of this, we can understand that Allah Almighty has already had knowledge that He is going to give a new command at a certain point in the life of people telling them to change their way of life or correct certain concepts in ways that suit the new stage. Behind this, there is surely great divine wisdom, which sometimes we are aware of and sometimes we are not.



To illustrate this, let's think about a father whose five-year-old child asks him about the origin of life; where do males and females come from? At this point of the child's age, the most suitable answer will be something like "We come from Adam and Eve." But later on when this same child grows up, the simple answer will be abrogated by telling him about the mechanism of production and fertilization. This example gives a bit of an idea about how this process of abrogation works.



Here's another example: When a teacher is teaching a certain book for his students, he already knows the contents of what he is teaching. To the students, the information he is giving every time is new but to him it is not. Besides, he may give a certain rule at one time and later on speaks about other things that contradict this rule. When one of the students says, "Excuse me, sir! This contradicts what you said last time," the teacher will simply tell him, "There are exceptions to every rule and this is one of the exceptions. Today's example is meant to make you aware of the exceptions to last time's rule." Of course, the exception is new to the student but it is not new to the teacher who has already known it a long time ago.



As for Allah, His infinite knowledge neither has a start nor an end. Yet, here we need to ask, if that is what abrogation is like, what is the benefit or the wisdom of doing that?



In fact, scholars have counted a number of wisdoms behind abrogation. First, abrogation can happen as a way of gradual legislation that aims at making things easy for people.



Sometimes, Allah Almighty commands that a certain strict thing should be observed and then alleviates it to make the life of people easier. An example of this is when Allah Almighty commanded that anyone who wants to speak to the Prophet (peace be upon him) should offer something in charity. Later on, Allah (Glory be to Him) removed this requirement and just encouraged people to establish prayer and do good deeds.



But one may ask, "What is the point of this?" The answer is, there are many wisdoms behind it, one of which is to make people aware of the fact that Allah is merciful to them and that He looks after them and cares for their well-being. Another wisdom is to refine the souls of people and train them on how to observe to higher levels of morality.



For instance, if your child is not studying hard and spending much time playing, you can discipline him saying, "You are not allowed to play anymore for the coming month." Later on, you may see that he has complied with the command and became very good in his studies, so what you do is to alleviate the restrictions and allow him to play for a certain number of hours. In this way, you create a balance in his life. In this exact way, Allah Almighty trains us on how to lead a life of balance.



Sometimes, abrogation comes to establish a certain ruling that needs to be established gradually because it is difficult for people to apply it completely. Suppose that you want a drug addict to give up drugs, it would be unpractical to ask him to give up right away. The most practical way will be to train him how to give up bit by bit. The same is applied in the Qur'an when Allah Almighty commanded the believing community to give up wine: He did not do that at one shot. Rather, Allah Almighty first spoke about wine and that it may be beneficial for some people (i.e. traders) but it has some greater harm. Later on, a new instruction came prohibiting any drunken man to engage in prayer and, in fact, that was stage two. Then, when the community was fully prepared to receive a final decision and were able to apply the law, Allah Almighty told them to avoid drinking wine completely and never approach it.



Focusing more on the verse you referred to in your question, I would like to mention one more wisdom of abrogation, which is correcting ideas and removing misunderstandings. For instance, Allah Almighty gives a rule that whoever does a good deed will get a reward for it in this life and in the hereafter. Some people may understand that the hereafter reward is also given to non-believers and therefore Allah Almighty explains this in another place in the Qur'an saying that a condition for reward in the hereafter is to believe in Allah Almighty and adopt Islam. One of the examples that fall into this category is the example you have referred to.



Another important point is that the Qur'an is interlinked which means that verses explain and expound one another. In some places where Allah Almighty says that those Jews, Christians, and Sabians who believe in Allah and the Last Day should fear no harm on the Day of Judgment, He actually refers to a rule that needs further elaboration, mentioned elsewhere in the Qur'an. This elaboration exists in the following surah wherein Almighty Allah explains that the accepted way of Allah being Islam is the way that should be followed by anyone who wants to be safe on the Day of Judgment.



*{And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers. }* (Aal `Imran 3:85)



Now, we clearly see that there is no contradiction between the two statements because they compliment each other. If one says, why doesn't Allah make each one self-explanatory without need to the other statement? We simply tell the asker that because both statements are considered the same word of  Allah, and we should take the word of  Allah as a total entity wherein no part can stand on its own without referring to the whole. In the light of this, we can also understand the sayings of some scholars who said that the whole Qur'an is treated as one verse.


My view:

For your question, the word abrogation is a translation of the word "naskh" which means revocation and replacement of a legal ruling with another legal ruling. It does not mean cancellation or amendment in the English sense.

However, this issue has been a subject of disagreement among scholars. I am of the opinion that there is no cancellation or abrogation but there was always revocation or progression in setting up legal rulings. In other words, the Qur'an was revealed to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in a gradual manner, so as to enable the people to have a better understanding of its meanings and teachings. This is stated in the Qur'an, Allah says what means: "And (it is) a Qur'an that We have divided, that you may recite it unto mankind at intervals, and We have revealed it by (successive) revelation." (Al-'Isra': 106)

[Jeehad]

PART 2:


INTRODUCTION

The abrogation of Quranic verses, arguably the greatest lie against the Quran, was originally invented during the fourth century A.H. (late 10th century A.D.) by some Muslim scholars notably Ahmed Bin Ishaq Al-Dinary (died 318 A.H.), Mohamad Bin Bahr Al-Asbahany (died 322 A.H.), Hebat Allah Bin Salamah (died 410 A.H.) and Mohamad Bin Mousa Al-Hazmy (died 548 A.H.), whose book about Al-Nasekh and Al-Mansoukh is regarded as one of the leading references in the subject.

This concept invented originally by these scholars, claims that there are some verses in the Quran that have been abrogated and invalidated by other verses!

The verse that is the abrogator they call (Al-Nasekh) while the abrogated verse they call (Al-Mansoukh).

These scholars have come up with hundreds of cases of abrogated verses to the extent that they have formulated a whole science of the subject filling lengthy books and references.

Although the concept was originally invented by Muslim scholars as a result of their poor understanding of the Quran, yet it has been widely exploited by non-Muslim writers to tarnish the perfection and divinity of the book.

Abrogations or Contradictions?

The lie invented by the Muslim scholars suggests that some Quranic verses have been abrogated by other verses. On the other hand, the non-Muslim writers claim that these cases, and other cases they put forward, are in fact contradictions inside the Quran. Consequently, they use these cases as evidence to refute the divinity of the Quran.

It is noted that the examples used by Muslim scholars as 'abrogated verses' are not always the verses used by non-Muslim writers and which they simply refer to as 'contradictions in the Quran'.

Although it can be said that the common aspect shared by the two groups is their poor understanding of the Quran, yet it can also be added that in the case of the non-Muslim writers, and particularly those who do not speak Arabic, we often find many of their claims for contradictions to be a product of their acquisition of corrupted and misleading translations of the Quran.

Both of these types of false claims can be dealt with in the light of the Quran. It can be demonstrated that these claims are no more than cases of poor understanding of the book.

Abrogation claims of

Muslim Scholars

"A.L.R. This is a book whose verses have been perfected" Sura 11, verse 1
"......the words of God are unchangeable" 10:64

Although God asserts that the Quran is perfect and harbours no contradictions, yet sadly these scholars have invented the greatest lie about the Quran, claiming that there are verses in the Quran that abrogate and invalidate other verses.

They base their claim on a corrupted interpretation of two verses:

FIRST VERSE 2:106

"Whichever Ayah We relinquish or cause to be forgotten We replace it with its equal or with that which is greater, did you not know that God is capable of all things?" 2:106

What the interpreters claim is that this verse confirms that some Quranic verses are invalidated by others. They interpret 'Ayah' in this verse to mean a verse in the Quran.

However the word Ayah, as used in the Quran, can have one of four different meanings:

a- It could mean a miracle from God as in:

"And We supported Moses with nine profound Ayah's (miracles)." 17:101

b- It could also mean an example for people to take heed from as in:

"And the folk of Noah, when they disbelieved the messengers, We have drowned them and set an Ayah (example) of them for all people." 25:37

c- The word 'Ayah' can also mean a sign as in:

"He said, 'My Lord, give me an 'Ayah' (sign).' He said, 'Your Ayah is that you will not speak to people for three consecutive nights." 19:10

d- It could mean a verse in the Quran, as in:

"This is a book that We have sent down to you that is sacred, perhaps they will reflect on its 'Ayat' (verses)." 38:29

Now if we consider verse 106 of Sura 2, we can easily spot that the word 'Ayah' in this particular verse could not mean a verse in the Quran. It can mean any of the other meanings (miracle, example or sign) but not a verse in the Quran. This is because of the following reasons:

1- The words "cause to be forgotten" could not be applicable if the word 'Ayah' in this verse meant a verse in the Quran. How can a verse in the Quran become forgotten? For even if the verse was invalidated by another (as the interpreters falsely claim) it will still be part of the Quran and thus could never be forgotten.

2- The words "We replace it with its equal" would be meaningless if the word 'Ayah' in this verse meant a Quranic verse, simply because it would make no sense for God to invalidate one verse then replace it with one that is identical to it!

3- If the word 'Ayah' in verse 106 meant a miracle an example or a sign, then all the words of the verse would make perfect sense. The words "cause to be forgotten" can apply to all three meanings and that is what actually happens with the passing of time. The miracles of Moses and Jesus have long been forgotten. We only believe in them because they are mentioned in the Quran.

Similarly the words "We replace with its equal or with that which is greater" is in line with the miracles of God. God indeed replaces one miracle with its equal or with one that is greater than it. Consider the following verse :

"And We have sent Moses with Our Ayah's (miracles or signs) to Pharaoh and his elders proclaiming : 'I am a messenger from the Lord of the universe'. When he brought them our Ayah's they laughed at him. Every Ayah We showed them was greater than the one that preceded it." 43:46-48

SECOND VERSE 16:101

"When We substitute one Ayat (revelation) in place of another, and God is fully aware of what He reveals, they say, 'You made this up'. Indeed most of them do not know"

The substitution spoken of here is concerned with one of two things:

a- The substitution of one Scripture in place of another.

b- The substitution of one verse or law within a Scripture with another in a subsequent Scripture

a- The first meaning is given evidence to in the following verse:

"Then we revealed to you this scripture, truthfully, confirming previous scriptures, and superseding them." 5:48

Here, the words "superseding them." confirm that the previous scripture were substituted with the Quran.

b- The second meaning is also given evidence to in the Quran where various issues that were prohibited to the previous people of the book were made lawful in the Quran.

As an example, we are told in 2:187 that sexual intercourse between married couples during the nights of the fasting month was made lawful, while it was prohibited previously.

We are also told in 6:146 that God prohibited for the Jews all animals with undivided hoofs; and of the cattle and sheep the fat was prohibited. These were made lawful in the Quran.

This verse 16:101 does not speak about the substitution of one verse in the Quran with another.

The evidence to that is given within the same verse (16:101):
The key to the meaning of the verse lies in the words:

"........they say, 'You made this up"

Here we must stop and ask, who is likely to tell the messenger "You made this up" ? and why? For sure it cannot be his followers, his followers are not likely to tell him

"You have made it up"................it has to be those who do not believe in him, which focuses on the followers of previous scripture who feared that their scripture was in danger of being "substituted" with the Quran............

What more evidence to that more than the fact that till this day, the Jews and Christians accuse Muhammad that he fabricated the Quran himself! If this accusation is from the Jews and Christians we must then ask, are they accusing Muhammad of substituting one verse in the Quran with another? The Jews and Christians do not care if one verse in the Quran is substituted for another, after all they do not believe in the whole book............. they will not complain that one verse in the Quran is being substituted with another! However, and if their Scripture is being substituted by the Quran, they will immediately accuse the messenger that the Scripture he brings (Quran) is not from God but that he "made it up" himself.

These glorious words "You have made it up" indeed stand as true indicator from God Almighty that the substitution spoken of in this verse is not related to one within the Quran, but indeed a substitution between two scripture.

As mentioned before, the substitution of the previous scripture with the Quran is confirmed in 5:48

       As a result of the corruption of the meaning of 2:106 and 16:101, and the claim that some Quranic verses invalidate other verses, the interpreters have demonstrated their failure to uphold two main characteristics of the Quran, those being that the Quran is perfect and harbours no contradictions (11:1) and also that the words of God are unchangeable (10:64).

It is well worth inquiring here into the motive behind the interpreters corruption of the meaning of 2:106 and 16:101.

Perhaps the major reason is not connected to the Quran at all but to the 'hadith'. It is well accepted among the hadith scholars that the concept of abrogation applies to the hadith since it is found that many 'hadith' contradict one another. The examples of these are too numerous. The following are only some examples:

P.S. (the first number is the number of the book (chapter), and second number is the number of hadith. For example Muslim 18/58 means the 58th hadith in the 18th book of Muslim. In other quotations the name of the chapter is given instead of its number.

1- "I am the most honourable messenger" (Bukhary 97/36).
This hadith contradicts the following hadith:
"Do not make any distinction among the messengers; I am not even better than Jonah" (Bukhary 65/4,5; Hanbel 1/205,242,440).

2- "The Prophet never urinated in standing position" (Hanbel 6/136,192,213). This contradicts:
"The prophet urinated in standing position" (Bukhary 4/60,62).

3- "The prophet said, 'The sun was eclipsed the day Ibrahim (the prophet's son) died'...(Bukhary 7/page 118)
This contradicts:
"The prophet said, 'the sun and moon are signs from God, they are not eclipsed for the death or life of any one" (Bukhari 2/page 24)

4- "If two Muslims fight each other with their swords, the killer and the killed will go to hell" (Bukhari 1/page 13, Muslim 18/page 10).
This hadith contradicts the hadith of the ten who were foretold that they will go to heaven by the prophet (Ahmad 1/page 187-188, also narrated by Abu Dawood and Al-Tarmazy). That is because among those ten were those who fought and killed one another in battle, specifically Ali, Talha and Al-Zobair. According to the first hadith they will go to hell but accoding to the second hadith they are foretold paradise!

5- In various hadith, specifically in the chapters of the 'Hereafter' in the books of Bukhary and Muslim we read numerous predictions by the prophet detailing what will take place there. This contradicts the hadith by Aesha, the prophet's wife where she says "Anybody who says that Muhammad knows the future is a liar" (Bukhary 8/ page 166, Muslim 3/ page 9-10)

6- "The prophet said, 'Take your religion from the words of Aesha (the prophet's wife)"
This contradicts: "The prophet said, 'Aesha is immature in mind and faith." (Bukhari and others)

The heart of the matter is directly connected to the following verse:

"Why do they not study the Quran carefully? If it were from a source other than God, they would have detected within it numerous contradictions." 4:82

This verse confirms that anything that contains contradictions cannot be from God, and since the hadith contains numerous contradictions, as shown, it cannot be from God. But the hadith advocates claim that the hadith was inspired by God and that the hadith Al-Qudsy is God's own words spoken to Muhammad! If that is so, how could they explain the contradictions in hadith? How could it be from God when it is full of contradictions? According to 4:82 nothing that contains contradictions can be from God.

To wiggle out of this tricky situation, the hadith advocates devised the concept of the abrogation of Quranic verses.

The plan was as such: If the Quran can be shown to contain contradictory verses, yet no one will dispute that it is from God, then the hadith with its contradictions can also be described to be inspired by God !!!

Quite a sly plot except for one minor detail;

THE QURAN CONTAINS NO CONTRADICTIONS!

      It is the intention of this book to review the most common cases of abrogation and, God willing, demonstrate that they are all based upon poor understanding of the Quran. Each case presented will be accompanied by Quranic evidence that confirms the absence of any contradiction between the relevant verses, and as a result will expose the interpreter's poor understanding of the Quran.

CLAIMS OF ABROGATION

P.S.

(The following are a few examples, the complete number of claimed abrogated cases appear in the book by the author).

CASE ONE:

The first example is concerned with the following verses:

Abrogated

"Whether you declare your inner thoughts or you conceal them, God holds you accountable to them." 2:284

Abrogator

"God never burdens any soul beyond its means, to its credit is what it earns, and against it is what it commits." 2:286

The claim is that these two verses contradict one another, the first verse states that God holds people accountable to their intentions while as the second verse indicates that we are only accountable to our deeds. Therefore this stands as a candidate for abrogation where the second verse is the abrogator and the first verse is abrogated.

Thus they claim that the underlined words in 2:284 were invalidated by the underlined words in 2:286

However, one only has to read the verse immediately before verse 284 to realise that there is no contradiction between 284 and 286:

The last words of verse 283 together with verse 284 read as follows:

"Anyone who withholds a testimony is sinful at heart. God is fully aware of everything you do. To God belongs everything in the heavens and the earth, Whether you declare your inner thoughts or conceal them, God holds you accountable for them."

By reading the two verses together it becomes apparent that the subject of verse 284 is testimony and not one's intentions in general.

Verse 284 confirms that God holds those who conceal a testimony accountable. Furthermore, the words used in verse 284 are 'declare' and 'conceal' while as the words used in verse 286 are 'earn' and 'commit'. The words 'declare' and 'conceal' are consistent with the subject of testimony. Testimony can indeed be declared or concealed. On the other hand, the words 'earn' and 'commit' which are used in verse 286 speak of our deeds.

Indeed verses 283 and 284 are related to the same subject (withholding testimony) since they are consecutive. For all that, it becomes clear that there is not the slightest contradiction between verses 284 and 286.

CASE TWO:

Abrogated

"Surely those who believe, and the Jews, and the Christians and the Sabaeans, those among them who believe in God and the hereafter, and who works righteous deeds, will receive their recompense from their Lord, they have nothing to fear nor will they grieve" 2:62

Abrogator

"Whoever seeks other than Islam as his religion, it will not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he will be with the losers" 3:85

Here the claim is that while verse 2:62 says that some Jews and Christians will be rewarded, this was abrogated by 3:85 which states that all who are not Muslim will end up in hell.

The misunderstanding and poor interpretation here stems from their lack of understanding of the word Islam (Submission). In spite of the fact that God tells us in the Quran that Islam (Submission to God Alone) is as old as Abraham who was the first Muslim (see 2:128, 2:131, 2:133) and who was the first to name us Muslims (22:78), still the Muslim scholars today insist that Islam is confined to being the religion of the Quran !!!

By creating such a false statement, the Muslim scholars claim to be the custodians of the message! In 3:67 God specifically tells us that Abraham was neither Jewish nor Christian, but a monotheist Muslim. God also tells us in 5:111 that Jesus and the Disciples were Muslim. In 27:44 tells us that Solomon was Muslim and in 5:44 we are told of all the prophets who were given the Torah and who were all Muslim.

What all these verses are confirming is that there are Muslims who followed the Torah and the Bible and who knew nothing of the Quran. These Muslims were submitters to God Alone , Lord of the universe.

In effect the religion of Islam which was originally founded by Abraham can be found, not only in the Quran, but also in the Torah and the Bible. After all we are told that all the foundations of the religion, and which Muslims call the pillars of Islam were first given to Abraham.

The Quran confirms the true meaning of a Muslim, as being he who submits to God Alone and obeys the law of God Alone, and should not be confined to he who follows the Quran.

Those among the Christians who believe in the Oneness of God and who do not worship Jesus are Muslim in the sight of God. Similarly those among any other religion who submit to God Alone and who set up no idols to partner Almighty God are Muslim in the sight of God.

All these have their recompense from their Lord and have nothing to fear (2:62). These people are also the subject of 3:85 since they chose to be Muslim (submitters) to God. They could be Muslim submitters, Jewish submitters, Christian submitters .....etc.

Consequently, there is no contradiction between 2:62 and 3:85

CASE THREE:

Some of the most ridiculous cases of abrogation are connected with the difficulty of these scholars in understanding that some laws set by God make allowance for exceptions. Whenever the scholars see a law that makes allowance for an exception, they construe it as a case of abrogation!

There are many cases throughout the Quran of this poor deduction and total irrationality, the following are some of them:

1- In 4:19 God address's the men by saying:

"You shall not force them (the women) to give up anything you have given them, unless they commit a proven adultery"

Here the abrogation claim is that the first part of the verse "You shall not force them (women) to give up anything you have given them" has been abrogated by the second part of the verse "unless they commit a proven adultery" !!!!

Why does an exception to a rule that is made allowance for by God obliterate the rule??? Obviously the rule still stands, because God states that for all women who have not committed adultery, their husbands do not have the right to regain anything they had previously given them.

The first part of the verse, which constitutes the general case has not been abrogated. The second part of the verse which constitutes the exception also stands.

2- In 2:159 we read:

"Those who conceal Our revelations and guidance, after proclaiming them in the Scripture, are condemned by God; they are condemned by all the condemners"

They claim that this verse (159) has been abrogated by the verse that immediately followed it (160) which reads:

"Except those who repent, reform and proclaim, I redeem them. I am the Redeemer, the Most Merciful"

Again we see that verse 160 says that those who had concealed the revelation but then repented and reformed are redeemed by God. Verse 159 has not been abrogated. It still stands, since all those who concealed the revelations and have not repented and reformed are not redeemed.

3- In 3:86-88 we read:

"Why should God guide those who disbelieved after believing................the retribution is never commuted for them, nor will they be reprieved"

The claim here is that these verses have been abrogated by verse 89:

"Exempted are those who repent thereafter and reform, God is Forgiver, Most Merciful."

Once again the claimed abrogation is non existent. Both verses stand true.

Verses 86-88 are speaking about those who disbelieve after believing and maintain their disbelieving until death. They are never reprieved in the hereafter. Verse 89 speaks about those who repent and reform during their life. Because God is Forgiver and Most Merciful they are reprieved.

The Quran confirms that only those who die as disbelievers are not pardoned:

"Those who disbelieve and die as disbelievers, an earthful of gold will not be accepted from any of them, even if such a ransom were possible. They have incurred painful retribution; they will have no helpers." 3:91

Once again the claim of abrogation is false and is based on poor understanding of the Quran.

4- Another case of poor understanding is found in the following verses:

"Also you shall not be married to two sisters at the same time" 4:23

they claim that this has been abrogated by the words that immediately followed :

"except that which has taken place in the past"

and they interpret the last sentence, which in Arabic is (Ila ma salaf) to have the meaning of (I have forgiven you).

Obviously this is all incorrect. What this last verse means is 'do not break up existing marriages'. It has nothing to do with forgiveness.

In other words God is saying that this law is to be enforced from that time onwards, but not to previous marriages so as not to break existing families.

Again the abrogation is non existent.
The same is applied to :

"Do not marry the women who were previously married to your fathers, except that which has taken place in the past.............." 4:22

CASE FOUR:

Here they claim the underlined words in the following verse:

"To God belongs the east and the west, so wherever you go you will always be facing God. God is Omnipresent, Omniscient" 2:115

have been abrogated by the underlined words in the following verse:

"We now assign a Qiblah that is pleasing to you. Henceforth, you shall turn your face towards the Sacred Masjid. Wherever you may, all of you shall turn your faces towards it." 2:144

The claim is that in the beginning God made it lawful for the believers to face anywhere in Salat (Contact Prayers) (as in 2:115) then later God cancelled that by appointing a set Qibla (2:144) for the believers. Therefore, the claim is that 2:144 invalidates 2:115

First of all, it was never made lawful for believers to face anywhere in their Salat. We are told in the Quran that the Qibla was changed, but nowhere are we told that there was no Qibla.

We are told in the Quran that there was a Qibla that did not appeal to the prophet, and that God changed it to one that is more appealing to the prophet (see 2:144)

The obvious misunderstanding here is that while verse 144 is speaking about Qiblah for the Salat, verse 115 is not speaking about Salat at all. Verse 115 is speaking about the fact that God is present everywhere, and thus wherever we may look or wherever we may go, we will always be facing God. The presence of the word "Omnipresent" at the end of the verse confirms that the subject of the verse is God's Presence and not the Salat.

Verse 144 does not abrogate verse 115. They are talking about two completely different subjects.

CASE FIVE:

Abrogated:

"Had they, when they wronged their souls, come to you and prayed to GOD for forgiveness, and the messenger prayed for their forgiveness, they would have found GOD Redeemer, Most Merciful." 4:64

Abrogator:

"Whether you ask forgiveness for them, or do not ask forgiveness for them - even if you ask forgiveness for them seventy times - GOD will not forgive them. This is because they disbelieve in GOD and His messenger. GOD does not guide the wicked people." 9:80

The claim is that the underlined words in 9:80 "even if you ask forgiveness for them seventy times - GOD will not forgive them" invalidate the underlined words in 4:64 "the messenger prayed for their forgiveness, they would have found GOD Redeemer, Most Merciful."

Once again very poor understanding of the Quran.

Here we immediately note that these two verses speak about two different groups of people. In 4:64 God is speaking about those who have wronged their souls but have turned back to God and asked for His forgiveness. The fact that they asked forgiveness from God denotes that they believe in God, and for that we are told that "they would have found GOD Redeemer, Most Merciful."

On the other hand, those spoken of in 9:80 are described by the words: "they disbelieve in GOD and His messenger" .........and because they are disbelievers, we are told that "GOD will not forgive them"

From these two verses we learn that forgiveness can be asked for any believer who repents and reforms, but may never be asked for disbelievers.

No contradiction or invalidation exists between the two verses.

CASE SIX:

Abrogated:

"O you who believe, witnessing a will when one of you is dying shall be done by two equitable people among you (relatives or close friends). If you are travelling, then two others may do the witnessing. After observing the Contact Prayer (Salat), let the witnesses swear by GOD, to alleviate your doubts: "We will not use this to attain personal gains, even if the testator is related to us. Nor will we conceal GOD's testimony. Otherwise, we would be sinners." 5:106

Abrogator:

"Once the interim is fulfilled, you may reconcile with them equitably, or go through with the separation equitably. You shall have two equitable witnesses from among you (relatives or close friends) witness the divorce before GOD." 65:2

The claim is that in 5:106 any two witnesses, who are not necessarily relatives or close friends, can act as witnesses while in travel if relatives are not available, but this was invalidated by 65:2 which stated that the witnesses must be from among the relatives or close friends.

Once again, the claim is false for the following reasons:

1- The subject of 5:106 is witnessing the will of someone who is dying, or near death. The subject of 65:2 is witnessing a divorce.

2- In the situation of travel, a dying person may not have much time left, and since equitable relatives may not be available in time, thus God wavered the condition of the witnesses being from among the relatives, so that the will is witnessed in time before the death of the person.

3- The case of divorce does not present such immediate urgency, and thus the condition of equitable witnesses from among the relatives stands.

4- Thus it is obvious that 65:2 does not abrogate 5:106 in any way.

CASE SEVEN:

Abrogated:

"Say, 'I fear, if I disobeyed my Lord, the retribution of an awesome day." 6:15

Abrogator:

"We have bestowed upon you (O Messenger) a great victory, whereby GOD forgives your past sins, as well as future sins........" 48:2

Here the claim is that the underlined words in 6:15 were abrogated later by the underlined words in 48:2

The indirect outcome of this outrageous abrogation is one of total idolatry.

If the scholars state that the words "I fear, if I disobeyed my Lord, the retribution of an awesome day" are invalidated, are they saying that the prophet no longer has to fear God? !!!

To demonstrate the truth of these verses and their implications it is necessary first to examine in the light of the Quran what is forgiven by God, and which can be implied under 48:2, and what is never forgiven by God and thus must be feared according to 6:15.

We are told in the Quran that God forgives all sins except idolatry:

"God does not forgive idolatry, but He forgives lesser offences for whomever He wills." 4:48 and 116

We are also told that this warning applies to all people, including God's messengers. To affirm that even Muhammad was not excluded from that warning we see God specifically warning Muhammad against idolatry:

"It has been revealed to you (O Muhammad), and to those before you that if you ever commit idolatry, all your works will be nullified, and you will be with the losers." 39:65

Now when we come to the claimed abrogation of 6:15, we read the following words:

"Say, 'I fear, if I disobeyed my Lord, the retribution of an awesome day."

However, when we read the words that immediately precede this verse, we read:

"Say, "I am commanded to be the most devoted submitter, and, `Do not be an idol worshiper." 6:14

If we put the two verses next to one another (verses 14 and 15 of Surah 6), it becomes obvious that the messenger is to say (I fear the retribution of an awesome day if I should disobey God and commit idolatry).

It follows from that to conclude that verse 48:2 which promises the messenger's sins will be forgiven (past and future sins) is obviously connected to all other sins, except idol worship.

There is no contradiction or abrogation between the two verses.

CASE EIGHT:

Abrogated:

"GOD has pardoned you: why did you give them permission (to stay behind), before you could distinguish those who are truthful from the liars?" 9:43

Abrogator:

"The true believers are those who believe in GOD and His messenger, and when they are with him in a community meeting, they do not leave him without permission. Those who ask permission are the ones who do believe in GOD and His messenger. If they ask your permission, in order to tend to some of their affairs, you may grant permission to whomever you wish, and ask GOD to forgive them. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful." 24:62

The claim here is that in 9:43 the prophet was not allowed to give permission to the ones wanting to stay behind, before he could distinguish those who are truthful from the liars, while in 24:62 he was not given the permission to do so.

Again, the error is quite obvious. Verse 9:43 is specifically talking about going out for battle while 24:62 is talking about leaving a community meeting to attend to some personal matters!

We read in the two verses preceding 9:43, namely 9:41 and 42:

"You shall readily mobilize, light or heavy, and strive with your money and your lives in the cause of GOD. This is better for you, if you only knew.
If there were a quick material gain, and a short journey, they would have followed you. But the striving is just too much for them. They will swear by GOD: "If we could, we would have mobilized with you." They thus hurt themselves, and GOD knows that they are liars."

The underlined words "mobilize" and if it were a "short journey" indicate that the subject is mobilizing to go out for the purpose of battle.

However, the words "community meeting" in 24:62, denotes that the situation then is not one of battle but a normal community meeting where a request for permission to be excused for some personal matters would not exactly be classified as an unforgivable sin!

Once again 24:62 does not contradict or abrogate 9:43, the subject of the two verse is different.

PRAISE ALMIGHTY GOD

[Jeehad]

Sorry for the double post but I ask God for you to read it all, and Inshallah truth will be restored, and confusion shall be relinquished. Ameen

[Curious39]

Jeehad,

Aside from your last post.... perhaps a small amount of embelleshment and some "bumpers" not a single stinkin' word of that was your own work.

Not one.

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1168265477728&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam%2FAskAboutIslamE%2FAskAboutIslamE

Dude, you just lost 100% credibility.  Let's see you argue on your OWN with your OWN work and your OWN knowledge.

Sheesh.

C

[Jeehad]

Do you think MustardSeed wrote out that entire argument? He gets a copy from the internet to prove his "point" so shall I.

[Curious39]

Jeehad,

You write it without crediting your sources.  That is called "plagiarism."  Mustardseed credits his sources, which is not.  See below..

Mustardseed wrote, "The following is a article in which the Author examines the Abrogated suras one by one. It appears that if my source material is correct..." and, "The Quran's Doctrine of Abrogation
Prepared by Abdullah Al Araby" which starts the article.

Credit your sources.

C

[Berserk]

Mustardseed,

For me, the issue is whether progressive revelation is operant or whether an ill-tempered Muhammad became progressively more irritated by the resistance of Jews and Christians and unconsciously infused a more bigoted and murderous rage into his image of Allah.  I favor the latter explanation because of obvious indications that Muhammad consciously or unconsciously ripped off much of his "revelation" about the early childhood of Jesus from historically discredited Christian infancy Gospels composed from the 2nd to the 5th  centuries.  I have tracked down these parallels.  No modern historian invests these infancy Gospels with a shred of historical credibility.  What truly frightens me is the realization that the Islamo-Fascists seem to have more legtimate claim than the moderates to a correct interpretation of the true intent of Muslim tradition.

Don   

[Mustardseed]

Well my problem is not with Jeehad. What appears to have happened is a progression of frustration on the part of Muslims, culminating today. Islam was clearly a force to be reckoned with back then and the leaders of the religion and possibly Mohammed himself saw themselves as successful. Islam then capitalized on the line of oppression and force. It worked. In this day and age however they are not a world force, and instead try to negate the evolution of the Koran and appear peaceful as it suits the moment.

Jeehad and millions of others are decent good people and reject violence, however since the doctrine of Naskh is by now accepted, they must twist things to appear nonviolent but the suras have evolved, by their own hand and it it is not possible to take back what was said and taught without rejecting Naskh in its entirety.

This is a problem. Unless Muslims like Jeehad seriously decides to research their own doctrine, they will continue to flounder and flail. They might think that they (moderates) have the truth and that Islam teaches peace etc but if they take the time to look closer they are shaken and most revert to a sort of denial where they keep repeating the suras thet speak of peace, not having the guts to face the fact of what Islam has become.

It is very hard indeed and my heart goes out to these folks. I myself have had to do some in debth studies of secular scholars, to find my place in Christianity. Fundamentalists by definition must believe in the foundation and in the Koran, the foundation rests on the doctrine of Naskh Abrogation. It is not something that can not be discussed, as it is "revealed truth".

The only alternative is to reject the foundation and that would mean a monumental break with their world. Everything they have been taught and believe, friends family and previously held beliefs. Most do not want to even attempt this as the personal expense are too high, so they just settle for being peaceful themselves and in a way live a sort of modified Islam you could say, settling into the silent majority. Apostasy is then another very pertinent doctrine and is for most not acceptable.

I don't know what the answer is. I am thinking about it a lot and my prayers goes out to those who are caught in this fix.

Regards Mustardseed 

[Mustardseed]

So..... Jeehad how does Abrogation apply to Sura 9:5

[Jeehad]

Mustardseed,

For me, the issue is whether progressive revelation is operant or whether an ill-tempered Muhammad became progressively more irritated by the resistance of Jews and Christians and unconsciously infused a more bigoted and murderous rage into his image of Allah.  I favor the latter explanation because of obvious indications that Muhammad consciously or unconsciously ripped off much of his "revelation" about the early childhood of Jesus from historically discredited Christian infancy Gospels composed from the 2nd to the 5th  centuries.  I have tracked down these parallels.  No modern historian invests these infancy Gospels with a shred of historical credibility.  What truly frightens me is the realization that the Islamo-Fascists seem to have more legtimate claim than the moderates to a correct interpretation of the true intent of Muslim tradition.

Don   

Don, instead of ranting on about claims why don't you support your proof? Show me an authentic hadith where Muhammed was so called ill tempered towards Jews and Christians?? If you think the holy Quran was ripped from the bible THEN CLEARLY you have not read the bible nor have you read the Quran.According to archaelogical discoveries an original Arabic version of the Bible was discovered dated back to the year 1000, meaning that if the Qur'an was copied, it would be identical to the Arabic bible or at least have some similarities, but they are totally different. If the implication is that the content has been copied, I would say both documents may cover common material. Both the Qur'an and the Bibles have the stories of Jonah and the Whale in common, as well as the Exodus of Moses and the story of Joseph as covered in the Old Testament and the Miracle birth of Jesus and that of John the Baptist in the New Testament. However this does not imply copying, but rather information originating from a common source. Because there are remnants of God's revelation still evident in the modern Bibles, as Muslims we acknowledge the common thread, however, and this I must stress, if Qur'an was copied from the Bible as they claim, then the foundation of Christian belief should be easily visible in Qur'an - such as the 'Crucifiction", the "Resurrection", the existence of a "Trinitarian godhead", the "Original sin", and that "Jesus died for the sins of the world" etc... But non of this is in the Qur'an, the most important parts of Christian belief is abscent from Qur'an, the very foundations on which Christianity stands in not in the Qur'an yet Christians claim the Qur'an is copied from the Bible. I don't think so. If you take a look at my thread "understanding Christianity" it will cite the many errors available in the Ot and NT. Tell me, find me on valid error in the holy Quran? If the Quran was copied then surely it would be filled with the same sort of errors copied from the bible?  As Muslims we believe that Jesus had the true message "The Injeel" But the Christians have shown a history of corrupting such a word, my words are also backed up by historical accounts of the bible being altered and changed through out history.Now let me explain what the Qur'an is! It is an untranslatable document, it may be available in French, Spanish, Portuegese, German, Swahilli etc... non of which is the Qur'an but rather an authors choice of word within his limited understanding of the Arabic original. The Arabic Qur'an is composed of prose, of poetry in the first person (God's Almighty's speech), it is verbal art, with aesthetic evocative qualities and cadences that make grown men cry when heard. It is rythimic with incantatory qualities and totally euphonic and possess vowel harmony. This beauty only exists in the Arabic Quran and when translated into any other language its effect is lost... completely. So.., does that imply when the Qur'an was copied from the Bible (which are second and third persons accounts of events) which have non of these aforementioned qualities, translated into a Qur'an speaking in the first person, containing all these aforementioned qualities, I don't think so. Besides, because of these said qualities, Qur'an it easy to remember, hence Millions of Muslims have committed some portion of Qur'an to memory with hundreds of thousands of Gufaaz (scholars) situated all over the world, all having committed the whole of the Qur'an to memory. Todate, I have not come across any person that committed the entire Bible to memory besides the fact that the Bible is a work in progress and changes every so often. The Bible has gone through a metamorphasis since its inception and has yet to arrive in its final state.o my question now is, how it it possible to copy the Qur'an from the Biible and build into this copy the potential to easily commit it to memory when the host does not possess that quality. Because of these amaizing qualities, a chalange has been set by this very Arabic Qur'an daring any human being to produce just one chapter like it, portraying such qualities. Todate, nobody has and in fact never will. When the poetry of the the "world's greatest poets" like Homer, Dante and Shakespear was compared to verses of Qur'an, one sees how insipid and inferior their poems are, and how ridiculously inadequate English is.

Arabic has a very very vast vocabulary and as such has contributed words to numerous other languages. One of the Miracles of the Qur'an is that it is a book of guidance for life of man, an epic of the prophets of old, a historical document of the unseen, a scientific document of nature, an account of creation, a directory for the afterlife, a book of morals, a light beacon to those lost, an incantation for prayer, a hotline to the Creator, a basis for unity and so much more, written in a mere 2000 unique words. Miracle? I would say so!

[Jeehad]

So..... Jeehad how does Abrogation apply to Sura 9:5

Sorry for not crediting my sources!! MustardSeed, instead of picking surahs from the Quran and taking them out of context how about you actually read the thing first? Here is an article explaining your so called "abrogation" written by Sheikh ahmed Zaid


I would very briefly try to explain some of the important points that need to be considered while determining the nature of the directive entailed in the referred verses of the Qur'an . Please keep in mind that the referred verses are a part of Surah Al-Taubah, which in turn has its own particular placement in the Qur'an  being preceded by Surah Al-An`aam, Al-A`raaf and Al-Anfaal. A thorough understanding of Surah Al-Taubah will obviously require an in-depth understanding of the preceding Surahs as well, as they serve as the premises on which the directives in Surah Al-Taubah are given. However, to avoid extra-ordinarily lengthy details, I shall, presently, restrict the scope of my analysis only to the evidences that are internal to Surah Al-Taubah. In case any question remains unanswered, we can then take up the analysis of the whole group of Surahs, beginning from Al-An`aam and ending at Al-Taubah.

The first point that needs to be considered is the opening of Surah Al-Taubah. The opening of the Surah may be translated as:

    "A declaration of the dissolution of agreements from God and His messenger to the idolaters with whom you have made [no-war] agreements. Thus, you [O polytheists] may freely traverse in the land for four months, but know that you shall not escape God's judgment and that God shall surely humble the unbelievers. A proclamation [should be made] to these people from God and His messenger on the day of Hajj-e-Akbar, [declaring] that God and His messenger are no longer under any obligation toward these polytheists. If you repent, [O polytheists,] it shall be better for you but if you turn your backs [paying no heed], then know that you shall not be able to escape God's judgment. Give these rejecters the glad tidings of a painful punishment, except those polytheists who have not dishonored their treaties with you and have not aided anyone against you. With these, fulfill your treaties till the appointed term. Indeed, God loves the righteous. When the sacred months are over, slay the polytheists wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them and lie in ambush for them." (Al-Taubah 9: 1 – 5)

The Qur'an  further says:

    "How can there be any responsibility of these agreements on God and His messenger, except those with whom you made agreements at the Sacred Mosque? Thus, so long as they uphold their part of the treaty, you should uphold yours. Indeed God loves the righteous." (Al-Taubah 9: 7)

A close look at the above verses shall suffice as evidence to the fact that the directive, "Arrest them, besiege them and lie in ambush for them" is given against those polytheists with whom the Muslims, under the leadership of the Prophet  (pbuh), had entered into an agreement and who had disregarded this agreement and aided others against the Muslims. Obviously, these qualities cannot be generalized on all the polytheists of the world.

The Qur'an  further says:

    "Will you not fight against those who have broken their oaths and have conspired to banush the messenger? They were the first to attack you." (Al-Taubah 9: 12)

Thus, a further qualification of those against whom the directive is given is that besides breaking their oaths with the Muslims, they conspired to banush the Prophet  (pbuh) and were the first to attack the Muslims. It is obvious that the referred directive implies to take action against a particular people. It cannot be generalized to the whole world and to all times to come. The Qur'an  further clarifies that the directive is mainly against those particular polytheists who were the custodians of the Haram – the Ka`bah. The Qur'an  says:

    "It is not becoming for these polytheists to manage the mosques of God – being themselves witnesses on their own rejection." (Al-Taubah 9: 17)

An important point to remember here is that, according to the Qur'an , it is the special and specific position of the Rasu'l (messengers) of Allah, which renders the rejecters among his direct addressees "themselves witnesses on their own rejection". The Qur'an  tells us that the messengers of the Almighty, in contrast to Nabi's (prophets), are not merely deliverers of God's message. It tells us that a messenger of God is a sign of God's final justice. When God sends his messenger among a people, these people are left with no excuse of rejection. The truth becomes as apparent for them as the shining sun. Consequently, if these people persist in their rejection, they are sentenced to one of the following two punishments depending upon their beliefs:

      If they are polytheists (Mushrik), they are sentenced to death, as a punishment of their rejection. The Qur'an  has presented the people of `aad, Thamud, Nooh, Lut, Musa etc. as examples of this category;
   1.

      On the other hand, if these people are not polytheists, they are not sentenced to death, however they are forced to become subservient to the believers  of the messenger. The Banu Israeel, after their rejection of Jesus (pbuh)[1] were subjected to this punishment.

Keeping this brief explanation of God's law regarding the rejecters of His Rasu'l in perspective it should be clear that the phrase 'being themselves witnesses on their own rejection' implies a particular people against whom the companions of the Prophet  (pbuh) are directed to take the action.

As has been mentioned above, the polytheists among the rejecters of a messenger of God are sentenced to death. The implementation of this sentence may take two forms, depending on the condition of the believers :

    *

      If the believers  are very few in number and if an Islamic state has not been created, then this punishment is directly implemented by the Almighty. This implementation normally takes the form of a natural calamity, like a flood, an earthquake, a windstorm etc. This has generally been the case with the rejecters of the messengers of Allah. They were punished by nature unleashed. The Qur'an , in Surah Al-Qamar, while addressing the polytheists of Arabia , at the beginning of the Prophet 's ministry, has referred to some of the more known among the rejecters of the previous messengers of God and has mentioned the consequences that they were subjected to face because of their rejection. At the end of the Surah, the Qur'an  has asked the addressees of the Prophet (pbuh):

        "[Why O polytheists of Arabia , would you not be punished in the same way?] Are your unbelievers better than these [previous rejecters of our messengers]? Or are you given immunity [from this punishment] in the Holy Scriptures? Do they say: We are a strong army [of men]? [Nay,] the army shall surely be routed and they shall flee turning their backs." (Al-Qamar 54: 43 – 46)

    Thus, the addressees of the Prophet  (pbuh) were warned of the consequences of their rejection from the beginning of the Prophet's ministry. They were informed that if they persist in their rejection, they shall face the same consequences as were faced by the rejecters of the previous messengers of God.

    *

      If a significant number of people accept the messenger of God and the messenger also succeeds in forming an Islamic state, then this punishment is implemented through the believers . This serves two purposes. Firstly, the rejecters are punished and secondly, the believers are tested for their truthfulness and the genuineness of their faith.

Keeping this point in perspective, if we consider Al-Taubah 9: 14 – 16, we see that these verses direct the companions of the Prophet  (pbuh) to fight the unbelievers and inform them of the reasons for this directive. Let us take a close look at these verses:

    "Fight them. God shall punish them [for their rejection] through your hands. He shall humble them, grant you victory over them and shall thereby heal the spirit of the believers  and remove all rancor from their hearts... [This fighting against your own kith and kin shall be a test for the truthfulness of your belief in God.] Did you think that you would be left alone [and not tested for the truthfulness of your faith], while God has not yet determined those among you who fight [in His way] and take none as close associates except God, His messenger and the believers? [Remember that] God is aware of all your actions."

Seen in this perspective, it should be obvious that the directives entailed in these verses are specific to the direct addressees of the Qur'an . They can, by no means, be generalized for all human beings and for all times to come.

Finally, if we look at Al-Taubah 9: 39 – 40, we shall see that in these verses, God has warned the hypocrites  and the weak among Muslims that if they do not help the Prophet  (pbuh) and fight according to God's directives, they shall face the dire consequences of turning their backs. These verses also declare that whether the Muslims help the Prophet (pbuh) or not, God shall Himself help him and shall grant him victory over the rejecters. The Qur'an  says:

    "If you do not go to war [against these rejecters], He will punish you severely and will replace you by another people [, who shall help him]. You will not harm him in any way for God [is his protector and He] has power over all things. [Thus,] if you do not help him, God [will Himself help him, as He] helped him when these rejecters drove him out, when he was only the second among the two. When they were in the cave, when he said to his companion: 'Do not despair, indeed God is with us'. God caused His tranquility to descend upon him and strengthened him with warriors that were not visible to you and [thus] He routed the words of the rejecters and exalted the word of God. Indeed God is mighty and wise."

The ultimate result of the fighting regarding which the believers  were being directed to participate in was also declared in this Surah. The Qur'an  declared:

    "It is He, Who has sent His messenger with His guidance and the True Religion that He may exalt it above all other religions [of Arabia], however much these polytheists may detest it." (Al-Taubah 9: 33)

In the light of the above explanation, it should be clear that the Surah and the directives entailed in it are specific not only in their address but also in their implication.

I hope this helps. In case any aspect of my answer remains unclear, please feel free in writing back to me at your own convenience.

May the Almighty guide us all to the path of His liking.

Regards

[Jeehad]

Well my problem is not with Jeehad. What appears to have happened is a progression of frustration on the part of Muslims, culminating today. Islam was clearly a force to be reckoned with back then and the leaders of the religion and possibly Mohammed himself saw themselves as successful. Islam then capitalized on the line of oppression and force. It worked. In this day and age however they are not a world force, and instead try to negate the evolution of the Koran and appear peaceful as it suits the moment.

Jeehad and millions of others are decent good people and reject violence, however since the doctrine of Naskh is by now accepted, they must twist things to appear nonviolent but the suras have evolved, by their own hand and it it is not possible to take back what was said and taught without rejecting Naskh in its entirety.

This is a problem. Unless Muslims like Jeehad seriously decides to research their own doctrine, they will continue to flounder and flail. They might think that they (moderates) have the truth and that Islam teaches peace etc but if they take the time to look closer they are shaken and most revert to a sort of denial where they keep repeating the suras thet speak of peace, not having the guts to face the fact of what Islam has become.

It is very hard indeed and my heart goes out to these folks. I myself have had to do some in debth studies of secular scholars, to find my place in Christianity. Fundamentalists by definition must believe in the foundation and in the Koran, the foundation rests on the doctrine of Naskh Abrogation. It is not something that can not be discussed, as it is "revealed truth".

The only alternative is to reject the foundation and that would mean a monumental break with their world. Everything they have been taught and believe, friends family and previously held beliefs. Most do not want to even attempt this as the personal expense are too high, so they just settle for being peaceful themselves and in a way live a sort of modified Islam you could say, settling into the silent majority. Apostasy is then another very pertinent doctrine and is for most not acceptable.

I don't know what the answer is. I am thinking about it a lot and my prayers goes out to those who are caught in this fix.

Regards Mustardseed 

MustardSeed.... Why are you trying to teach me my own religion? You claim Islam was built, upon the basis of "oppression" but yet fail to provide any proof at all!! Look at the crusaders! Wern't they oen of the oppressors whom oppressed many Muslims in Palestine? Since your soo "learnt" in history why don't you show me hand in hand proofs of How Muslims in the Islamic era "conquered" and "killed" innocent lives because it was justified in the doctrine of "nashk"?? First of all, you are completely misunderstanding this "doctrine" for not a single reliable hadith source actually agrees upon such an idea. Where does the Prophet Muhammad command injustice from a reliable hadith? Where does the holy Quran tell man to kill(read the entire sura then give this judgment) I can show you HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of verses from the OT which seem absolutely absurd and gruesome in the way the prophets act. You claim  Jesus narrated the OT, and that "Christians do not believe in the testament at full hand." Isn't that a little absurd? Isn't that selective worship? Where you simply agree on certain passages of the text? Didn't MANY of the biblical stories originate from the OT? See this mentality was created recently when the churches realized that the OT completely destroyed moral values. EARLY CHRISTIANS BELIEVE IN THE OT FULLY!


Let us examine Christians and the OT for a moment shall we?Jesus orders Christians to follow the Old Testament's laws:  "Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.  I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished.  (Matthew 5:17-18)"  It is quite clear from these verses from the New Testament that Jesus peace be upon him did honor the Old Testament and did say that every single "letter" of it has to be honored, followed and fulfilled.

"Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 'The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.  So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.'  (Matthew 23:1-3)"

We clearly see in these verses that Jesus peace be upon him did not prohibit for the Old Testament to be followed, but only warned his followers to not follow it the way the current religious leaders of the Law (the Jewish Rabies) were following it.

On the basis of abrogation again please read:

http://www.submission.org/abrogation.html

http://www.mostmerciful.com/abrogation-and-substitution.htm


To further your learning about Muhammad:
http://www.turntoislam.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4540

I beg of you to read and understand these links before coming onto here and ranting about things you do not have knowledge of. If you only read the life of Muhammad I shall guarantee your views would be completely altered. He was a man of peace, a man who played many different roles int he society. His life would lead you to believe that surely he was a prophet of God. Not only was Muhammad a great man but also he was historically accurate according to historians.

[Mustardseed]

Hi again Jeehad
You sure post long posts. I will have to read them before I answer naturally. However one point I need to make. If you want to examine Christianity I have no problem with that. Just make another thread. I find that the continued mixing of issues confuses things. In this thread we are attempting to understand Islam, so whether we understand Christianity or not is irellevant dont you agree. If christianity has flaws or is misleading, if it is a religion of deciet.....all of this is irrelevant to the validity of Islam. As I said start another thread.

Regards Mustardseed

[Berserk]

Mustardseed, your reply #8 to my last post is both sensitive and masterful.  Thank you.  This discussion is important to me because, though Islam is not my academic specialty, I am asked to give lectures on Islam and terrorism.  I am never challenged, but I am far from proud about this.  On the contrary, I long for the integrity that might come from the sort of debate on this thread.


Jeehad, like Mustardseed, I admire your willingness to defend your faith in a forum such as this.  I guess you want me to document my claims about Muhammad's portrait of Jesus' early years.  When I find the time, I will do just that, but will take no pleasure in doing so.

Don

[Ryuji]

i am now jedi master with the mouse scroll.....

[Mustardseed]

"A declaration of the dissolution of agreements from God and His messenger to the idolaters with whom you have made [no-war] agreements. Thus, you [O polytheists] may freely traverse in the land for four months, but know that you shall not escape God's judgment and that God shall surely humble the unbelievers. A proclamation [should be made] to these people from God and His messenger on the day of Hajj-e-Akbar, [declaring] that God and His messenger are no longer under any obligation toward these polytheists. If you repent, [O polytheists,] it shall be better for you but if you turn your backs [paying no heed], then know that you shall not be able to escape God's judgment. Give these rejecters the glad tidings of a painful punishment, except those polytheists who have not dishonored their treaties with you and have not aided anyone against you. With these, fulfill your treaties till the appointed term. Indeed, God loves the righteous. When the sacred months are over, slay the polytheists wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them and lie in ambush for them." (Al-Taubah 9: 1 – 5)

The Qur'an  further says:

    "How can there be any responsibility of these agreements on God and His messenger, except those with whom you made agreements at the Sacred Mosque? Thus, so long as they uphold their part of the treaty, you should uphold yours. Indeed God loves the righteous." (Al-Taubah 9: 7)

A close look at the above verses shall suffice as evidence to the fact that the directive, "Arrest them, besiege them and lie in ambush for them" is given against those polytheists with whom the Muslims, under the leadership of the Prophet  (pbuh), had entered into an agreement and who had disregarded this agreement and aided others against the Muslims. Obviously, these qualities cannot be generalized on all the polytheists of the world.

Well that is then what we could consider "the springing point". If this Sura (9:5)is only  interpreted to mean "the polytheists who Muhammed was encountering at that time", it would appear that violence is not condoned today, but the facts of reality speaks loud Jeehad. We know that it is an established fact that Muhammed is seen as the sample of Islam, a sample to be followed, and Jihad is condoned and even commanded by various religious leaders in the Muslim world. It would stand to reason that if he (Muhammed) acted or reacted like he did in his day, Muslims are as a body expected to do the same, in THEIR day. You yourself have written in great detail, of the injustice done to the Muslims in the Mideast, and you have explained and justified armed struggle. The fact is that Jihad is as integral a part of Islam today, as it ever was. Using the sample of the great example Muhammed himself, if Muslims perceive themselves as victims, they are justified in taking up arms, and wage Jihad. Even in Muhameds day Jihad was waged on innocent victims. He killed people who spoke against him as well as innocent traders.

Consider the following statement by Hugh Fitzgerald:

The Sira, or life of Muhammad, the man regarded by Muslims as the perfect model, al-insan al-kamil, simply cannot be rewritten to omit those unpleasant parts, in which he, as a successful military leader leading his troops against non-Muslims, behaved in a manner that would cause modern Infidels concern. Muhammad participated in 78 battles, he approved of the beheading of the prisoners taken among the Bani Qurayza, he ordered an attack on inoffensive Jewish farmers of the Khaybar Oasis in order to seize booty, he ordered the assassination of those who offended him, including a woman (Asma bint Marwan), and a 90-year-old man, he married Aisha, a 6-year-old girl, and consummated that marriage when she became 9. His behavior inspired the Ayatollah Khomeini to reduce the marriageable age of girls to nine. .........

As for using the Crusades to justify Jihad consider the following statement by the same author:
The Crusades are presented by Muslim apologists as a defining moment in Muslim-Christian relations, a moment in which the peaceful and inoffensive Muslims were attacked, without cause. In this version, not a word is uttered about the centuries of Muslim Jihad-conquest that preceded the Crusades – nearly 400 years of seizing lands formerly occupied by Christians in Mesopotamia, Syria, Egypt, North Africa (where, among other Fathers of the Church, Tertullian and St. Augustine were born and lived).

As far as I can see Jihad is condoned and encouraged in the Muslim world today. This includes the killing of innocent people if they happen to get in the way. Jihad is the epitome of obedience to Sura 9:5.

Aside from these issues that I address Jeehad, please do yourself and everyone else a favor. When you copy and paste these enormous amounts of texts and expect me to answer and read it all, you are setting yourself up for disappointment. No one has the time for these large posts Jeehad. Besides the fact that you neglect to clearly separate your own statements, from the statements of the ones you quote, it appears that you are barraging me (us) with research maybe hoping that the sheer volume will overwhelm me. By doing so you make posters and people who are interested in the subject, ignore you. Try to keep your posts a bit shorter and pertinent and our discussion will be easier on everyone, and lets try to be at least decent in our addressing of each other. I understand that the very nature of our discussion offends you, but if you are not able to discuss it without getting emotional lets just call it quits. It is not my goal to anger you.

Regards Mustardseed

[Jeehad]

Well that is then what we could consider "the springing point". If this Sura (9:5)is only  interpreted to mean "the polytheists who Muhammed was encountering at that time", it would appear that violence is not condoned today, but the facts of reality speaks loud Jeehad. We know that it is an established fact that Muhammed is seen as the sample of Islam, a sample to be followed, and Jihad is condoned and even commanded by various religious leaders in the Muslim world. It would stand to reason that if he (Muhammed) acted or reacted like he did in his day, Muslims are as a body expected to do the same, in THEIR day. You yourself have written in great detail, of the injustice done to the Muslims in the Mideast, and you have explained and justified armed struggle. The fact is that Jihad is as integral a part of Islam today, as it ever was. Using the sample of the great example Muhammed himself, if Muslims perceive themselves as victims, they are justified in taking up arms, and wage Jihad. Even in Muhameds day Jihad was waged on innocent victims. He killed people who spoke against him as well as innocent traders.





Consider the following statement by Hugh Fitzgerald:

The Sira, or life of Muhammad, the man regarded by Muslims as the perfect model, al-insan al-kamil, simply cannot be rewritten to omit those unpleasant parts, in which he, as a successful military leader leading his troops against non-Muslims, behaved in a manner that would cause modern Infidels concern. Muhammad participated in 78 battles, he approved of the beheading of the prisoners taken among the Bani Qurayza, he ordered an attack on inoffensive Jewish farmers of the Khaybar Oasis in order to seize booty, he ordered the assassination of those who offended him, including a woman (Asma bint Marwan), and a 90-year-old man, he married Aisha, a 6-year-old girl, and consummated that marriage when she became 9. His behavior inspired the Ayatollah Khomeini to reduce the marriageable age of girls to nine. .........

As for using the Crusades to justify Jihad consider the following statement by the same author:
The Crusades are presented by Muslim apologists as a defining moment in Muslim-Christian relations, a moment in which the peaceful and inoffensive Muslims were attacked, without cause. In this version, not a word is uttered about the centuries of Muslim Jihad-conquest that preceded the Crusades – nearly 400 years of seizing lands formerly occupied by Christians in Mesopotamia, Syria, Egypt, North Africa (where, among other Fathers of the Church, Tertullian and St. Augustine were born and lived).

As far as I can see Jihad is condoned and encouraged in the Muslim world today. This includes the killing of innocent people if they happen to get in the way. Jihad is the epitome of obedience to Sura 9:5.

Aside from these issues that I address Jeehad, please do yourself and everyone else a favor. When you copy and paste these enormous amounts of texts and expect me to answer and read it all, you are setting yourself up for disappointment. No one has the time for these large posts Jeehad. Besides the fact that you neglect to clearly separate your own statements, from the statements of the ones you quote, it appears that you are barraging me (us) with research maybe hoping that the sheer volume will overwhelm me. By doing so you make posters and people who are interested in the subject, ignore you. Try to keep your posts a bit shorter and pertinent and our discussion will be easier on everyone, and lets try to be at least decent in our addressing of each other. I understand that the very nature of our discussion offends you, but if you are not able to discuss it without getting emotional lets just call it quits. It is not my goal to anger you.

Regards Mustardseed

Well I only have 5 mins so im a make this short and sweet. First of all, Lets say America went into an agreemant with Iran that they cannot design any nuclear weapons. And lets just say that Iran BUILDS ONE opposing the agreement. THE USA has a right under Un resolutions to attack Irans facilities! During the rasuls time, the prophet made peace treaties WITH THE PEOPLE WHO KILLED EVEN HIS OWN FAMILY!! To let them perform hajj in peace! The Meccans broke this promise so Allah sbwt sent a revelation to Muhammad telling him that if they break this promise and attack you THEN FIGHT THEM BACK! Muhammad's definition of Jihad was an inner struggle! A constant battle of the soul or the nafs which is the inner desire , the inner evils of ones soul. Now I will tell you yes indeed Muslims did fight some battles!

Secondly, you just posted an article..... that someone who was opposed to Islam wrote so what makes that as any proof? Why should I believe such a thing?  Jihad isn't the central principality in ?Islam. In Islam we have doctrines for fighting. The prophet taught us that before an enemy comes to attack WE MUST MAKE PEACE FIRST, The Quran says " If they incline towards peace then so do you for god is all knoweth all heareth." Muhammad then stats that if enemies were to attack then FIGHT THEM WITH CLEAR AUTHORITY! The law of fighting in Islam states that we cannot harm ANYTHING INNOCENT whether it be a tree, animal, or human!


I am sorry about the large posts but as you might know brother I am in exam weeks currently. I've been extremely busy lately! I apologize for the short responses, also do me a favor and quit ignoring the answering Christianity thread. You seem to avoid my Christian ethical answers about the bible.

Peace and blessinsg

[Mustardseed]

While this is the interpretation of Sura 9:5 that fits you the best, it is however not the interpretation that most middle east leaders lean to. It is a fact that Jihad is waged in the Palestinian terretories, as well as in Iraq, and you know that very well. Little children are taught to love the idea of becoming Shahada, in the name of Jihad.

You keep talking about peacefull Islam but where is it? I know there are peaceful people who are Muslims but they do not stand up against violence. They hide because they know that they too will be victimised if they speak out against Islam oragainst violence, and simply call a spade a spade.

You are so convinced that Islam is peaceful and like the proverbial austrich you are hiding your head in the sand, not realising that Islam is, in this day and age, an open book. It is no longer a religion that can hide behind Arabic only understood by very few, nor can it hide in Mosques only visited by believers. It is on the internet and we all see it for what it is. No clever intellectual argument can change the facts.

It is absolutely incredible to me that your only defense against my statements is ridicule. You have only brought the Koran to the table, and nothing else. You feel so intellectual and surperiour Jeehad and boast of your superiour knowledge but my young friend, reality is not the picture you paint.

Look at the facts.

Islam opresses Women, all over the mid east.

Islam justifies Violence and converts by violence, it was a Violent religion centuries before the crusades.

The Koran is a conglomeration of "deep" ambiguous saying but is anything but scientific. It states that the sun sets in a puddle and other absurdities. Go figure.

The Muslims (the Umma) in general are uneducated and brainwashed and as a result easily whipped into a religious fervour. This was seen in the case of the Cartoons. They were cartoons insinuating that Islam is a violent religion Jeehad, and the mid east exploded as Muslims took to the streets burned down embassies to prove they are a peaceful religion.  This is a fact not some clever argument. FACT

While I fully sympathise with the cause of the Palestinians, as well as the Iraquis and deplore the occupation, blowing up innocent people is not the answer and will not end the violence. You justify this method, and though you appear to state you are a nonviolent Muslim you stated , something like "when the occupation ends so will the violence"

In my eyes you are as guilty as the ones using these deplorable methods, and as long as you do not publicly stand up and opose this type of struggle, the blood is on your hands. But that is exactly the point, you cannot stand up, because you will get in trouble.

I did my demonstrations against the war, I marched peacefully in the streets and wrote letters to politicians, I have spoken openly against American occupation in Iraque, and condemned the war.........in the west we can do this without getting punished, have you. I expect not, if you wanted to ....could you?

Allthough I have written in detail about all these subjects, included research from Arab scholars etc your main line of "defence" is to attack Christianity. This is a standard position and we see it all the time. When Muslims can no longer defend their actions they turn and attack Christianity or America or whatever, and say well YOU are worse. It is a red herring, a smoke screen and a trick.

My statements above are not some flight of fancy Jeehad. Just because you copy some American teenagers essay, and state that "women are not oppressed in Islam", it does not mean anything. What planet are you living on my friend, what country in the mideast ? It is mindblowing that you can just deny this and go to the next point, and still consider yourself to be intellectual.....from Afghanistan to Pakistan Egypt or Saudi Arabia.......EVERYWHERE women are oppressed, and why.....because of the teachings of Islam.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYB4pG3kHIY&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKhrPJMRYpo&mode=related&search

your only answer to this is to laugh your silly little laugh. Dont you get it Jeehad. People know what Islam is about and they are NOT coming to islam. In the Umma in europe they are fighting to keep their converts, but the young people are leaving especially the girls. Sometimes they pay with their life but they still leave.

16......ahh that I was 16 again. Life was a lot simpler then all black and white and I was still an unspoiled copy of my upbringing. You will grow and as you do you will start seeing reality a bit clearer. It will be hard for you, and you will have to make desisions but that is what life is all about desisions. You too will be brought to truth and will have to choose for yourself what you will do with it.

Regards Mustardseed

[andonitxo]

Islam is good in some way, and bad in many. As always, the problem comes from its interpretation, and its cultural environment.

Any religion should promote equality in all fields, and, of course, it should give people tools to achieve new states of consciousness and understanding.

I don't think christianism and islam fulfill it. Freedom, equality, knowledge, ascension, goodness,...

And, even more, I've never understood why a religion has to "convert" others to its rules.

[Jeehad]

Andon, I agree with you! Religion is not the problem nowadays its the interpretation of religion. Islam is not a problem in society but I view it as a solution! I mean, you need to understand the political effort being thrown on the middle east to fully understand why people are doing this. Christianity has run into the same dangers!!!  I can easily claim that Christians in America are misunderstanding the literal interpretation of the bible which preaches to return the Jews back to the chosen land! Then argue that is the reason for occupation in Palestine! BUT ITS NOT Nor do I blame it! Also Andon, In Islam it is a fulfillment to spread the message of truth and divine interpretation but if one refuses then we are entitled to say lakoo denakom waliya deeni(it is your path not ours). Hope that explains it bette r^^