Islam According To The Qur'an/hadeeths Interpreted By:

[RezaMikhaeil]

In you quoting faulty english translations [which no Muslims honor], you're no different then Protestants quoting "The Message Bible" or "The New International Version" in their arguments against the Roman Catholic Church and Scriptural interpretation. You're not getting into the Exegesis of the scriptures, in the Arabic and therefore missing the context of the content.

Here is a translation that is much more accurate:

[quote]Surah 3:28

Those who believe shall not take misbelievers for their patrons, rather than believers, and he who does this has no part with God at all, unless, indeed, ye fear some danger from them. But God bids you beware of Himself, for unto Him your journey is.[/quote]Want more proof? There's a scholar named Tabari that wrote an article about it [which can be found here, thou it's in Arabic, [url="http://quran.al-islam.com/Tafseer/DispTafsser.asp?l=arb&taf=TABARY&nType=1&nSora=3&nAya=28"]http://quran.al-islam.com/Tafseer/DispTafs...a=3&nAya=28[/url]] in which he said that Muslims shouldn't support non-believers in their religion but should support their own religion, thou in it's fullest truth of context, says nothing against being friends with Non-Muslims.

[quote]The correct translation of the ayah in Surah al-Ma'idah is, "O you who believe! Do not take Jews and Christians as your patrons. They are patrons of their own people. He among you who will turn to them for patronage is one of them. Verily Allah guides not a people unjust." (al-Ma'idah 5:51). It is obvious that Jews patronize Jews and Christians patronize the Christians, so why not Muslims patronize Muslims and support their own people. This ayah is not telling us to be against Jews or Christians, but it is telling us that we should take care of our own people and we must support each other.

Ibn Kathir in his Tafsir has mentioned that some scholars say that this ayah of Surah al-Ma'idah was revealed after the Battle of Uhad when Muslims had a set back. At that time a Muslim from Madinah said, "I am going to live with Jews so I shall be safe in case another attack comes on Madinah." And another person said, "I am going to live with Christians so I shall be safe in case another attack comes on Madinah." So Allah revealed this ayah reminding the Believers that they should not seek the protection from others, but should protect each other. (see Ibn Kathir, Al-Tafsir, vol. 2, p. 68)

Muslims are allowed to have non-Muslims as friends as long as they keep their own faith and commitment to Islam pure and strong. You are correct in pointing out that a Muslim man is also allowed to marry a Jewish or Christian woman. It is obvious that one marries someone for love and friendship. If friendship between Muslims and Jews or Christians was forbidden, then why would Islam allow a Muslim man to marry a Jew or Christian woman? It is the duty of Muslims to patronize Muslims. They should not patronize any one who is against their faith or who fights their faith, even if they were their fathers and brothers. Allah says, "O you who believe! Take not for protectors (awliya') your fathers and your brothers if they love unbelief above faith. If any of you do so, they are indeed wrong-doers." (al-Tawbah 9:23) In a similar way the Qur'an also tells Muslims that they should never patronize the non-Muslims against other Muslims. However, if some Muslims do wrong to some non-Muslims, it is Muslims duty to help the non-Muslims and save them from the oppression of the so-called Muslims. The Prophet -peace be upon him- said that he himself will be the plaintiff of a Dhimmi living among Muslims to whom injustice is done by Muslims. But Islam also teaches that Muslims should not seek the patronage of non- Muslims against other Muslims. They should try to solve their problems among themselves. Allah says, "Let not the Believers take the unbelievers as their patrons over against the Believers… (Al 'Imran 3:28) "O you who believe! Take not for patrons unbelievers rather than Believers. Do you wish to offer Allah an open proof against yourselves?" (al-Nisa' 4:144)[/quote]

An interesting point is mentioned by the author of this commentary, why is it that Muslim men are allowed to marry Christian/Jewish women if they aren't to even take them as their friends? It's very contrary to your assessment but it seems that you're deliberately keeping in with your false claims, as you even refuse to acknowledge the difference between a friend and a patron.

Muhammad Asad, was a Jew that converted to Islam, a very respected Muslim that could be considered a scholar based upon his vast research that was detailed in the many books that he had written. He once wrote that Muslims shouldn't be in a moral alliance with Christians/Jews, because they fundementally disagree on a vast amount of morals, but have a friendship alliance with them. He uses Sura 60:7-9 to prove his point:

[quote]60:7-9 says, GOD may change the animosity between you and them into love. GOD is Omnipotent. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful. [b]GOD does not enjoin you from befriending those who do not fight you because of religion[/b], and do not evict you from your homes. [b]You may befriend them and be equitable towards them.[/b] GOD loves the equitable. GOD enjoins you [b]only from befriending those who fight you because of religion[/b], evict you from your homes, and band together with others to banish you. You shall not befriend them. Those who befriend them are the transgressors.[/quote]

In other words, according to the scripture, Muslims are only forbid from befriending Non-Muslims that might cause them harm because of their religion.

What more proof is needed? It's very clear that you're going to great lengths to imply something that wasn't written, without digging deep into the Exegesis of the scripture itself.

Note: I find it interesting that you quote the english phonetics to words that you don't know how to pronounce or even what they mean for that matter.

Reza

[RezaMikhaeil]

In you quoting faulty english translations [which no Muslims honor], you're no different then Protestants quoting "The Message Bible" or "The New International Version" in their arguments against the Roman Catholic Church and Scriptural interpretation. You're not getting into the Exegesis of the scriptures, in the Arabic and therefore missing the context of the content.

Here is a translation that is much more accurate:

[quote]Surah 3:28

Those who believe shall not take misbelievers for their patrons, rather than believers, and he who does this has no part with God at all, unless, indeed, ye fear some danger from them. But God bids you beware of Himself, for unto Him your journey is.[/quote]Want more proof? There's a scholar named Tabari that wrote an article about it [which can be found here, thou it's in Arabic, [url="http://quran.al-islam.com/Tafseer/DispTafsser.asp?l=arb&taf=TABARY&nType=1&nSora=3&nAya=28"]http://quran.al-islam.com/Tafseer/DispTafs...a=3&nAya=28[/url]] in which he said that Muslims shouldn't support non-believers in their religion but should support their own religion, thou in it's fullest truth of context, says nothing against being friends with Non-Muslims.

[quote]The correct translation of the ayah in Surah al-Ma'idah is, "O you who believe! Do not take Jews and Christians as your patrons. They are patrons of their own people. He among you who will turn to them for patronage is one of them. Verily Allah guides not a people unjust." (al-Ma'idah 5:51). It is obvious that Jews patronize Jews and Christians patronize the Christians, so why not Muslims patronize Muslims and support their own people. This ayah is not telling us to be against Jews or Christians, but it is telling us that we should take care of our own people and we must support each other.

Ibn Kathir in his Tafsir has mentioned that some scholars say that this ayah of Surah al-Ma'idah was revealed after the Battle of Uhad when Muslims had a set back. At that time a Muslim from Madinah said, "I am going to live with Jews so I shall be safe in case another attack comes on Madinah." And another person said, "I am going to live with Christians so I shall be safe in case another attack comes on Madinah." So Allah revealed this ayah reminding the Believers that they should not seek the protection from others, but should protect each other. (see Ibn Kathir, Al-Tafsir, vol. 2, p. 68)

Muslims are allowed to have non-Muslims as friends as long as they keep their own faith and commitment to Islam pure and strong. You are correct in pointing out that a Muslim man is also allowed to marry a Jewish or Christian woman. It is obvious that one marries someone for love and friendship. If friendship between Muslims and Jews or Christians was forbidden, then why would Islam allow a Muslim man to marry a Jew or Christian woman? It is the duty of Muslims to patronize Muslims. They should not patronize any one who is against their faith or who fights their faith, even if they were their fathers and brothers. Allah says, "O you who believe! Take not for protectors (awliya') your fathers and your brothers if they love unbelief above faith. If any of you do so, they are indeed wrong-doers." (al-Tawbah 9:23) In a similar way the Qur'an also tells Muslims that they should never patronize the non-Muslims against other Muslims. However, if some Muslims do wrong to some non-Muslims, it is Muslims duty to help the non-Muslims and save them from the oppression of the so-called Muslims. The Prophet -peace be upon him- said that he himself will be the plaintiff of a Dhimmi living among Muslims to whom injustice is done by Muslims. But Islam also teaches that Muslims should not seek the patronage of non- Muslims against other Muslims. They should try to solve their problems among themselves. Allah says, "Let not the Believers take the unbelievers as their patrons over against the Believers… (Al 'Imran 3:28) "O you who believe! Take not for patrons unbelievers rather than Believers. Do you wish to offer Allah an open proof against yourselves?" (al-Nisa' 4:144)[/quote]

An interesting point is mentioned by the author of this commentary, why is it that Muslim men are allowed to marry Christian/Jewish women if they aren't to even take them as their friends? It's very contrary to your assessment but it seems that you're deliberately keeping in with your false claims, as you even refuse to acknowledge the difference between a friend and a patron.

Muhammad Asad, was a Jew that converted to Islam, a very respected Muslim that could be considered a scholar based upon his vast research that was detailed in the many books that he had written. He once wrote that Muslims shouldn't be in a moral alliance with Christians/Jews, because they fundementally disagree on a vast amount of morals, but have a friendship alliance with them. He uses Sura 60:7-9 to prove his point:

[quote]60:7-9 says, GOD may change the animosity between you and them into love. GOD is Omnipotent. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful. [b]GOD does not enjoin you from befriending those who do not fight you because of religion[/b], and do not evict you from your homes. [b]You may befriend them and be equitable towards them.[/b] GOD loves the equitable. GOD enjoins you [b]only from befriending those who fight you because of religion[/b], evict you from your homes, and band together with others to banish you. You shall not befriend them. Those who befriend them are the transgressors.[/quote]

In other words, according to the scripture, Muslims are only forbid from befriending Non-Muslims that might cause them harm because of their religion.

What more proof is needed? It's very clear that you're going to great lengths to imply something that wasn't written, without digging deep into the Exegesis of the scripture itself.

Note: I find it interesting that you quote the english phonetics to words that you don't know how to pronounce or even what they mean for that matter.

Reza

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1290509' date='Jun 7 2007, 04:55 PM']Just that, there's more then meets the eye. Most people ignorantly don't read the Qur'an, let alone find out the true origins of it, so as to never truely understand it. As you might have noticed my quote, at the bottom of my page, "Americans know less about Eastern Christianity, then they do about Islam and they don't know anything about Islam". It was written by a Roman Catholic Professor, and it very much rings true. If someone were to truely understand Islam, they'd see that it began as an Eastern Christian Heresey [must like Gnosticism, Nestorianism, etc] and eventually evolved into what is seen now.

If you were to travel to Saudi Arabia, you'd see Mosques wrapped in calligraphy that is "never ending" in the sense that you can't tell where it begins and where it ends, this is meant to symbolize the infinate nature of God. I'd heard some westerners categorize this negatively or assume that it means something that it doesn't but what people don't know, is that Muslims hijacked it from Christianity [Coptic Christianity, particularly]. Muslims pray 5 formal prayers daily right? Is it a coincidence that Christian monks in Saudi Arabia, during the era that Muhammed lived, prayed seven formal prayers? Is it a surprise that in Palestine, Muslims that pass by St. George [who killed the dragon]'s burial grave, bow in reverence to him because even they honor what he did? What about the more contraversal elements that the west focuses on, a woman's hijab/niqab? Is it a surprise that St. Clement of Alexandria wrote in his triology that women should cover their heads and faces, as not to snare men? That Byzintine women veiled their faces also, and Saudi Arabia [through trade] was heavily influenced by this?

Reza[/quote]

I agree with you that Islam can be characterized as a heresy of Christianity. Again, the "crux" of the matter is how Islam treats Jesus. Prophet? Wrong. Ipso facto, false. Many people are deceived by this almost-but-not-quite-true religion.

I infer from your posts a view of equivalence between Christianity and Islam, which is why I won't let it go. However much Islam was "influenced" by Christianity, at the end of the day, Christianity is true, and Islam false. I'm not sure why you're going to such great lengths to say, "no, really, Islam isn't like [i]that[/i], it's like [i]this[/i]." So what? It's false.

[mortify]

Peace Reza,

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1290767' date='Jun 8 2007, 05:44 AM']In you quoting faulty english translations [which no Muslims honor], you're no different then Protestants quoting "The Message Bible" or "The New International Version" in their arguments against the Roman Catholic Church and Scriptural interpretation. You're not getting into the Exegesis of the scriptures, in the Arabic and therefore missing the context of the content.[/quote]

If by honor you mean venerate, as Muslims do with the Quran in it's original language you are correct but the translations I mentioned are well known, written by Muslims who were familiar with classical Arabic and English, so I see no reason in rejecting them. The point of quoting Ali, Shakir, and Pikthal was to show these people understood "awliya" to mean friends. Apparently the USC Muslim Student Association felt these translations were worthy to put on there site.

Now I quoted Ibn Kathir, a renowned source, who said the verse plainly means not to take Christians and Jews as friends, and he himself quotes Umar's handling of a Christian scribe. My question to you is, how do you fit your interpretation of the verse with Umar's action?

[quote]Here is a translation that is much more accurate:[/quote]I had to look up that quote to see who the translator was, I came up with an E.H. Palmer. Do Muslims honor his translation?

What makes E.H. Palmer's (or someone else?) more accurate than that of Shakir, Ali, and Pikthal (all Muslims, btw)?


[quote]In other words, according to the scripture, Muslims are only forbid from befriending Non-Muslims that might cause them harm because of their religion.[/quote]

Reza, I don't know how it is with Copts, but in the West we have a problem with liberal theologians/priests/bishops/etc, who tend to contradict what was taught before. The question is always whether the interpretation fits in and reaffirms or amplifies what was taught before, or whether it's an innovation that is foreign to previous understanding. I'm suspicious of modern Catholic theologians and so there's no reason for me not to be suspicious of modern Muslim theologians.

I personally think interpretations that try to suggest Muslims can have friendships with non-Muslims are of a modern understanding, trying to make Islam more palatable in a relativist world.

I also added before, that saying Muslims can't take Christians as their supporters only creates more difficulties. Can Muslims live under non-Islamic governments?

[quote]What more proof is needed? It's very clear that you're going to great lengths to imply something that wasn't written, without digging deep into the Exegesis of the scripture itself.[/quote]Reza, unfortunately it doesn't take great lengths to find this. I'm not interpreting the Quran, I'm simply quoting ancient sources.

[quote]Note: I find it interesting that you quote the English phonetics to words that you don't know how to pronounce or even what they mean for that matter.[/quote]

I quoted the transliteration of Quran from an Islamic site, most probably their own translation, and it goes to show that they (the Muslim translators) regard "awliya" to mean "friends."

Lastly, you mentioned marriage with non-Muslims. Do you know why a Muslim MAN can marry a non-Muslim, but a Muslim WOMAN can't?

[mortify]

[quote][quote]Question:
Calling people to Islam means establishing personal relationships with the Kuffaar, in the first place to break the ice and pave the way for da’wah. If one of them invites me to eat or drink something that contains nothing haraam, such as coagulated milk, fish and tea, is it permissible for me to eat or drink it? What if there is the possibility that the vessels have been used before that to serve pork or wine – even though they have been washed with soap and water?[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]Answer:

Praise be to Allaah.

Relationships between people are of different kinds. [b]If the Muslim has a relationship of friendship, love and brotherhood with a kaafir, this is [u]haraam[/u] and may be [u]kufr[/u]. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):[/b]

“You (O Muhammad) will not find any people who believe in Allaah and the Last Day, making [u][b]friendship[/b][/u] with those who oppose Allaah and His Messenger (Muhammad), even though they were their fathers or their sons or their brothers or their kindred (people). For such He has written Faith in their hearts, and strengthened them with Rooh (proofs, light and true guidance) from Himself. And He will admit them to Gardens (Paradise) under which rivers flow, to dwell therein (forever). Allaah is pleased with them, and they with Him. They are the party of Allaah. Verily, it is the party of Allaah that will be the successful” [al-Mujaadilah 58:22]

And there are other aayaat and ahaadeeth which convey the same meaning.

If it is a relationship based on selling or buying, or accepting an invitation to eat halaal food, or accepting a gift of something that is permissible, for example, without that having an influence on the Muslim, then this is permitted and it is permissible to eat the food offered by a kaafir to a Muslim if the food and drink are halaal. Even if it is presented in a vessel which has previously been used for drinking wine or eating pork, etc., it is still permissible to take it, so long as the vessel has been washed after being used for haraam or naajis (impure) things and all traces of them have been completely removed. If this will help to convey the message of Islam, this is a stronger reason why these invitations should be accepted and these relationships upheld, and there is more hope that there will be a reward in this case.



From Fataawaa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah, 12/254[/color][/quote]

From: [url="http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=8798&ln=eng&txt=friendship"]http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=8798...;txt=friendship[/url]

Note, Haram=forbidden, Kufr=disbelief (i.e. falling into apostasy).



Question to Reza, what Arabic word is translated as "friendship" in 58:22?

Edited June 8, 2007 by mortify

[RezaMikhaeil]

Once again, you're not getting into the Exegesis of the scripture... and Muhammed Asad is a very reliable and respected Muslim scholar [as were the others that I posted] in which highly disagree with you.

It's very interesting that you totally ignored Muhammed Asad.

Muhammad Asad, was a Jew that converted to Islam, a very respected Muslim that could be considered a scholar based upon his vast research that was detailed in the many books that he had written. He once wrote that Muslims shouldn't be in a moral alliance with Christians/Jews, because they fundementally disagree on a vast amount of morals, but have a friendship alliance with them. He uses Sura 60:7-9 to prove his point:

[quote]60:7-9 says, GOD may change the animosity between you and them into love. GOD is Omnipotent. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful. GOD does not enjoin you from befriending those who do not fight you because of religion, and do not evict you from your homes. You may befriend them and be equitable towards them. GOD loves the equitable. GOD enjoins you only from befriending those who fight you because of religion, evict you from your homes, and band together with others to banish you. You shall not befriend them. Those who befriend them are the transgressors.[/quote]

Reza

[mortify]

Peace Reza,

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1291129' date='Jun 8 2007, 06:07 PM']Once again, you're not getting into the Exegesis of the scripture... and Muhammed Asad is a very reliable and respected Muslim scholar [as were the others that I posted] in which highly disagree with you.[/quote]

In the next few sentences you say,

[quote][i]"Muhammad Asad, was a Jew that converted to Islam, a very respected Muslim that [b]could be[/b] considered a scholar..."[/i][/quote]

Was he a scholar or not? I personally don't know him, I quoted Ibn Kathir, an authority that needs no introduction. Scholarship in Islam is not based on reading or writing books, one needs permission from a Shaykh to teach. Self proclaimed ulema are a recent phenomena with the Wahabis and neo-Salafis. I mentioned in another thread a former friend of mine, an apostate Catholic who embraced Islam and began studying Shafi Fiq. After he studied under a shaykh for some time, the Shaykh gave him a license to teach others the basics of the faith. I looked up Muhammad Asad and apparently he was a convert who wrote some articles on the faith, he was not a scholar and certainly not a follower of the traditional schools of thought.

You're quoting the opinions of modern Muslims who voice their opinions as if they were Shayukh. Can you show me anything of a historical or authoritative nature?

And I addressed several questions (some repeated) to you, will you be answering them any time soon?


Now lets take a look at surah 60, and then I'll quote Ibn Kathir:

You quoted surah 60 to say:
[color="#FF0000"]GOD does not enjoin you from [b]befriending[/b] those who do not fight you because of religion, and do not evict you from your homes. You may [b]befriend[/b] them and be equitable towards them.[/color]

Why is it none of the three main translators of Quran use the word "befriend"?

[color="#0000FF"]YUSUFALI: Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing [b]kindly and justly[/b] with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.

PICKTHAL: Allah forbiddeth you not those who warred not against you on account of religion and drove you not out from your homes, that ye should show them [b]kindness[/b] and deal [b]justly[/b] with them. Lo! Allah loveth the just dealers.

SHAKIR: Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them [b]kindness[/b] and deal with them [b]justly[/b]; surely Allah loves the doers of justice.[/color]

Reza, what Arabic word was translated as "befriending" in your translation?

This is what Ibn Kathir has to say about surah 60, verses 7 through 9 (only certain sections for brevity's sake)

[quote][color="#0000FF"]Allah said to His faithful servants, after ordering them to be enemies with the disbelievers,

(Perhaps Allah will make friendship between you and those, whom you hold as enemies.) meaning affection after animosity, tenderness after coldness and coming together after parting from each other,

(And Allah has power (over all things),) Allah is able to gather opposites and bring together hearts, after feeling hostility and hardness. In this case, the hearts will come together in agreement, just as Allah said when He mentioned His favor on the Ansar

([b][u]Love your loved one moderately, because one day, he might become your enemy. Hate your hated one moderately, because one day, he might become your loved one.[/u][/b]) Allah's statement,

And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.) means, Allah forgives the disbelief of the disbelievers if they repent from it, returned to their Lord and surrendered to Him in Islam. Surely, He is the Oft-Forgiving, the Most-Merciful to those who repent to Him from their sins, no matter what type of the sin it is.[/color][/quote]

[quote] [color="#0000FF"](Allah does not forbid you with those who fought not against you on account of religion nor drove you out of your homes,) means, those who did not have a role in your expulsion. Therefore, Allah does not forbid you from being kind to the disbelievers who do not fight you because of the religion, [b][u]such as women and weak disbelievers[/u][/b]

(to deal kindly) to be gentle with them,

(and justly with those) to be fair with them

(Verily, Allah loves those who deal with equity.) Imam Ahmad recorded that Asma' bint Abu Bakr said, "My mother, who was an idolatress at the time, came to me during the Treaty of Peace, the Prophet conducted with the Quraysh. I came to the Prophet and said, `O Allah's Messenger! My mother came visiting, desiring something from me, should I treat her with good relations' The Prophet said,

Yes. Keep good relation with your mother.)'' The Two Sahihs recorded this Hadith. Imam Ahmad recorded that `Abdullah bin Zubayr said, "Qutaylah came visiting her daughter, Asma' bint Abi Bakr, with some gifts, such as Dibab, coagulated milk and clarified (cooking) butter, and she was an idolatress at that time. Asma' refused to accept her mother's gifts and did not let her enter her house. `A'ishah asked the Prophet about his verdict and Allah sent down the Ayah,

(Allah does not forbid you with those who fought not against you on account of religion) until the end of the Ayah. Allah's Messenger ordered Asma' to accept her mother's gifts and to let her enter her house.''[/color][/quote]

Taken from: [url="http://www.tafsir.com/Default.asp"]http://www.tafsir.com/Default.asp[/url]
Surah 60


Let us keep in mind the opening of this Surah:
[color="#FF0000"]O ye who believe! Choose not My enemy and your enemy for allies. Do ye give them friendship when they disbelieve in that truth which hath come unto you, driving out the messenger and you because ye believe in Allah, your Lord ? If ye have come forth to strive in My way and seeking My good pleasure, (show them not friendship). Do ye show friendship unto them in secret, when I am Best Aware of what ye hide and what ye proclaim ? And whosoever doeth it among you, he verily hath strayed from the right way.[/color]

The later verses clarify that this does not mean Muslims can be unjust or unkind towards disbelievers, they do not say Muslims can take them as friends.

Edited June 9, 2007 by mortify

[mortify]

[quote][size=3]Question:
Can a non-muslim man marry a muslim woman?[/size]

Answer:

[b]It is absolutely not permissible under any circumstances in Islamic law (shari'a) of Allah, the most esteemed and exhalted, for a non-Muslim to marry a Muslim woman,[/b] as per what He has said regarding the marriage of a kafir (unbeliever) to a Muslim woman and vice versa: (interpretation of the meaning).

They are not lawful (wives) for the unbelievers, nor are the unbelievers lawful (husbands) for them... (Al-Mumtahina:10)

And Allah the most esteemed and exhalted has also said (interpretation of the meaning):

Nor marry (your girls) to unbelievers until they believe... (Al-Baqara:221)

i.e., it is not ever permissable for someone to marry his Muslim daughter or sister or any Muslim woman for whom he is a guardian to a kafir.

[b]Islam must be exhalted and cannot be subjugated, so how could a Muslim woman be put under the care of a kafir man[/b], when the man is normally naturally in a stronger position? In such a situation he could cause her to corrupt the practice of her religion or force her into subdual by causing her to live a life of oppression with him. He could also prevent her from practicing some of her religious rites. These are among the reasons for the aforementioned ban expressed in the previous ayaat. wallahu a'lam (and Allah is the most knowledgable).



Islam Q&A
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid[/quote]

[url="http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=115&ln=eng&txt=Kafir"]http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=115&...g&txt=Kafir[/url]

[RezaMikhaeil]

Ibn Kathir is not honored by all 4 of the Islamic schools of thought, infact by fewer of them then you might suspect, while Muhammed Asad is respected by every school of thought in Islam.

However, again... you're avoiding the Exegesis of the scripture.

Reza

[Socrates]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1289877' date='Jun 6 2007, 09:59 PM']Actually it was more detailed then the brief "history" [if you wanna call it that] that you and KnightofChrist posted, you simply posted a very litered with propaganda, version of an Islamic timeline.

As I'd mentioned, it's not just me that disagrees with you, but a professor at George Town University, among others. If you'd like a further details in a timeline form, as you gave that better explains the plight of Muslims, here is a great source: [url="http://www.barkati.net/english/chronology.htm"]http://www.barkati.net/english/chronology.htm[/url] or a very indepth and long winded synopsis: [url="http://www.al-islam.org/restatement/"]http://www.al-islam.org/restatement/[/url]

It was a general claim against yours, as you suggested that Islam spread strictly by the sword, throughout the lands, but this Georgetown College Professor, gave evidence otherwise, that it was spread by merchants, etc. which is true. If you knew just a little bit of history behind the culture of Mekkah, you'd know that it was a central trading post for trade in the middle east. If Muhammed would have killed everyone that believes a different faith, as you suggested, it would have caused such a severe depression and famine that Arabia couldn't survive but contrary to your claims, Mekkah remained a central trading post for a long time after Arabia had become primarily Muslim. It was spread throughout the world, through trade, which worked very magnificently for Mekkah and those of the Islamic faith.

You didn't fool me, it's obvious that you were using propaganda, and depending on non-Muslims for your information about Muslims, just as you always have done. I'm not remotely surprised, you have more to say about the Qur'an thou having never read it before, yet proclaiming that it says something, then those that have read it.

No you havn't, as you haven't even taking the Qur'an in the proper context, researched the context, etc. You've simply used propaganda websites, that have anti-Qur'anic claims to fuel a hateful stereotype. I, on the other hand, have read the Quran, done the research on the context and history regarding it.

What's your point? That's quite different then your claim that Christianity was "wiped out".

I gave the proper context of the scriptures, which most Islamic scholars going back to the beginning agreed with, while you relied on your propaganda websites to tell you "this means they hate us", which it doesn't.

It has everything to do with the subject, as the battle of Tabouk involves the Byzintines that were involved with the Crusades along with the Roman Catholics. It's interconnected. If you chose to believe that the Pope didn't order the mass killing of Copts [and Jews, among others don't forget] then you seriously got a problem. After the Crusades, which killed mass amounts of Copts, St. Mark's relics were stolen, along with lots of artifacts of the Coptic Church, which weren't returned until His Holiness Pope Paul VI [I believe it was him, one of the modern Roman Popes, no doubt], that's over 1000 years after the Crusades, so if these other Popes [including the Pope that ordered the crusades] didn't agree with it, why didn't he denounce it? Why didn't he right the wrong? It's totally infathumable to say that he didn't agree with it or order it.

I never said that the majority of current Muslims aren't Sunni, but they weren't always the majority and again, your mass stereotype of all Muslims being violent in spreading Islam, is false. Using a select few, to massively stereotype all Muslims is deliberately ignorant.
I've given more evidence that it was spread by merchants, then you have that it was spread by violence, so don't sit here and say that I should give you more evidence, when the evidence that supports your bigoted agenda isn't even remotely supported.
Seriously, do you not even read my posts? I never said that Muslims claim to be Christians today, what I said is that it [color="#FF0000"][u][b][i]BEGAN[/i][/b][/u][/color] as a Christian sect, as I provided evidence that testifies to this...

Reza[/quote]
Again, you have provided nothing to refute the historical facts which I have mentioned.
Quoting a professor saying that Islam in the tenth through fifteenth centuries (after the fall of the Caliphates) is not a refutation of what I posted concerning the rise of Islam in the seventh and eight centuries.

And even your Islamic websites do not refute the facts about the battles mentioned here.

I have been honest about the sources I was using. Dr. Carroll was my history professor, and is quite honest. He is not an anti-Muslim propagandist, though he is a devout Catholic, and if you read his works you will see that not everything he says about the Muslims is negative. He cited well-established histories of the Arabian world.
While you may not accept Wikipedia, it is hardly an "anti-Muslim propaganda" site, but is merely repeating accepted historical fact, citing mainstream histories of Islam. (It was cited here as a"neutral," "mainstream" source.) Again, if you can provide specific evidence against what it says, provide it, rather than just giving denials.

It seems that you refuse to accept any non-Islamic sources that disagree with your (almost militantly) pro-Muslim views, and thus your arguments are circular. Anything you disagree with is automatically dismissed as false propaganda.

You have thus far failed to refute the following facts:

1) Islam was spread by violent warfare, and threat of war. Towns and tribes were given the option of either submitting to Islamic rule or facing the Muslims in battle. Mohammed himself led armies and raiding parties, and ordered the assasination of several of his enemies, including three poets who mocked him. (John Baggot Glubb, [i]The Life and Times of Muhammed[/i] pp 160, 235-240)

2) In territories conquered by the Muslims, under Islamic law, Christians were made to live as second-class citizens (Dhimmi), whose rights were restricted, and who had to pay a heacy tributary tax (jizya).

3) Apostacy from Islam to Christianity under Islamic law was punishable by death. (Despite the fact that this was overturned in many places centuries later, this was the original practice.)

As for the Crusades, you have still provided absolutely no evidence of a Pope ordering the massacre of Copts, but if you have evidence, please provide in a new threat, as it is off-topic.

Unless you can provide specific historical evidence refuting the three points I have listed above, I'll consider this debate ended.

And while Muslims indeed took things from Christians, they were never a Christian sect. Christians worship Jesus Christ as Lord, God, and Savior. Muslims consider Christ a mere prophet, and even claim He was never crucified! You will have to show me a Koranic verse proclaiming Christ's divinity to convince me otherwise.

Edited June 9, 2007 by Socrates

[mortify]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1291164' date='Jun 8 2007, 08:12 PM']Ibn Kathir is not honored by all 4 of the Islamic schools of thought, infact by fewer of them then you might suspect, while Muhammed Asad is respected by every school of thought in Islam.[/quote]

That's a stunning statement, considering Ibn Kathir's commentary is one of the most famous commentaries, while Muhammad Assad explicitly attacked the foundation of the Schools of thought when he rejected Taqleed (or submitting to the authority of the schools of thought.) Honestly Reza, it's like saying St Thomas Aquinas is not accepted by the Church while Hans Kung is endorsed by the Magesterium.

I understand you want to prove your point, but you're getting daringly close to lying (if not already there).

[mortify]

Throwing in some wiki quotes about Ibn Kathir and Muhammad Asad:

Ibn Kathir:
[quote]Ismail ibn Kathir (Arabic: ابن كثير) (1301-1373) was an Islamic scholar. His full name is Abu Al-Fida, 'Imad Ad-Din Isma'il bin 'Umar bin Kathir Al-Qurashi Al-Busrawi. He was born in Busra, Syria (hence Al-Busrawi). He was taught by the "scholar of Islam"Ibn Taymiyya in Damascus, Syria and Abu al-Hajjaj Al-Mizzi, d. 742H, main teacher of Ibn Kathir. Upon completion of his studies obtained his first official appointment in 1341, when he joined an inquisitorial commission formed to determine certain questions of heresy. Thereafter he received various semi-official appointments, culminating in June/July 1366 with a professorial position at the Great Mosque of Damascus. Ibn Kathir wrote a famous commentary of the Qur'an named Tafsir ibn Kathir which linked certain Hadith, or sayings of Muhammad, and sayings of the sahaba to verses of the Qur'an, in explanation. [b]Tafsir Ibn Kathir is famous all over the Muslim world and among Muslims in the Western world, and is one of the most widely used explanations of the Qu'ran today.[/b][/quote]
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Kathir"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Kathir[/url]

Muhammad Asad:
[quote]Asad wrote several books, including Road to Mecca, an account of his travels through Muslim lands and his conversion to Islam, as well as his thoughts on the growing Zionist movement. He also wrote The Message of The Qur'an, a translation and brief commentary on the Muslim holy book based on his own knowledge of classical Arabic and on the authoritative classical commentaries. It has been acclaimed as one of the best, if not the best, translations of the Quran into English, [b]although it has been criticised by some traditionalists for its Mutazilite leanings.[/b] He also wrote a translation and commentary on the Sahih Bukhari, the most authoritative collection of Hadith. In addition, he wrote This Law of Ours where [b]he sums up his views on Islamic law and rejects decisively the notion of taqlid, or strict judicial precedent which has been accepted as doctrine by most Muslim sects except the Salafis[/b]. He also makes a plea for rationalism and plurality in Islamic law, which he sees as the true legacy of the salaf or earliest generations of Muslims.[/quote]
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Asad"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Asad[/url]


Reza is fishing for people who can support his view.

Edited June 9, 2007 by mortify

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote]That's a stunning statement, considering Ibn Kathir's commentary is one of the most famous commentaries, while Muhammad Assad explicitly attacked the foundation of the Schools of thought when he rejected Taqleed (or submitting to the authority of the schools of thought.)[/quote] This is very incorrect but again, the other scholars that I quoted agree with Muhammed Assad, and you're refusing to get into the Exegesis of what is written.

It's kinda interesting that you take everything Wikipedia says, claiming it's fact, when infact you know nothing about what you're talking about, which is why you can't seem to get into the Exegesis of the scripture itself.

Reza

Edited June 9, 2007 by RezaLemmyng

[mortify]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1291249' date='Jun 9 2007, 01:53 AM']This is very incorrect but again, the other scholars that I quoted agree with Muhammed Assad, and you're refusing to get into the Exegesis of what is written.

It's kinda interesting that you take everything Wikipedia says, claiming it's fact, when infact you know nothing about what you're talking about, which is why you can't seem to get into the Exegesis of the scripture itself.

Reza[/quote]

Reza, we've been talking about exegesis the whole time. Why do you think I bothered quoting Ibn Kathir, the scholars from islam-qa.com, and Muslim scholars that translated "awliya" as friends. Ironically when we were discussing surah 9 verse 29 you endorsed the use of the various translators (Ali, Shakir, and Pikthal) to try to create a false impression of ambiguity, and now you ignore them?

What's[i] interesting [/i]is that you can't make a worthwhile response to anything that has been addressed to you, and have even resorted to lying. Are you planning on sticking to your statement that Muhammad Asad is respected by all schools of thought, when he rejected the fundamental doctrine of taqlid?

Edited June 9, 2007 by mortify

[mortify]

double post

Edited June 9, 2007 by mortify