[tif49]

(Original post by ideas4life)
Excellent question.

heres the answer mentioned in hadith, hope this clear it up:

So they were abrogated, and muhammad's companions Ali, Umar, Abu Bakr, and Uthman all knew about abrogated verses but still kept it in Quran according to this hadith

OK, but why?

Then why didn't later scholars who you love to quote, take those verse out?

Why don't Muslims know?

Why does the Qur'an say that a true believer believes in it all?

Also why would we want to stop following those beautiful peaceful verses? It just seems like wishful thinking on your behalf and totally convenient for your ulterior devious motives.

[Iqbal007]

(Original post by sachinisgod)
All this equals to converting.. no matter how fancy the words are

Not at all, 'he may hear the words of Allah',
telling someone something is very very different from converting, its in the hope they may be interested in Islam, if they are not, then they are not.

[Hylean]

(Original post by ideas4life)
Look where you have come down to. First you were denying Islam is against homosexuality, that Quran doesn't homosexuality e.t.c

Now i gave all evidence and suddenly your arguing about the translation

You haven't provided any proof. You've shown nowhere that the Qur'an mentions homosexuality and rely on a book, where you can't even provide the original text, which was published centuries after the Qur'an. Yes, I question you, because you have shown no empirical evidence of your position and have ignored my counterarguments with "but, but, but, it says here that sodomy is bad, and sodomy is clearly homosexuality!" which we both know to be untrue.

As someone who has been trained to respect the original language, I demand the original script, so I can see for myself what ibn Kathir says. Given the Bible has been plagued by incorrect translations for centuries, it's quite important to make sure what has been written in the translation is actually correct. Moreover, given the ultimate authority is still the Qur'an and it nowhere mentions "homosexuality", but focuses on the act of "sodomy", it really doesn't matter what Kathir thinks, as he is putting his own interpretation on it. Does it state that a man who loves another man should be stoned? No. Does it state that a woman who loves another woman should be stoned? No. How then, do you equate one act, which is performed by heterosexuals, bisexuals, homosexuals and pansexuals as the sole defining characteristic of homosexuality, especially when it's not always performed by male homosexuals and extraordinairely rarely by female homosexuals?

Your position is exceptionally weak at the moment.

[ideas4life]

(Original post by HeavyTeddy)
You quote context but not the full context there. You failed to highlight the fact that Musaylimah the Liar, was a known enemy of Islam and actually waged war against Islam (The War of Apostasy)after the Prophet had died and Abu Bakr became the Caliph. He rallied all the hypocrites against the Muslims and those that refused to pay the Zakah (alms) that were required of them. The Prophet did not kill him, but I expect that they must have killed him afterwards in the War of Apostasy, as that's obviously what happens in war.

Word of advice: The full and required context is not given here, so I doubt it's given elsewhere.

No he did not wage war against Muhammad during Muhammad's lifetime. How do i know? I have studied all 101 military expeditions of Muhammad

Abu Bakr attacked Musaylimah after Muhammad died as part of the Riddah wars (wars against apostates)

[sachinisgod]

(Original post by Iqbal007)
Because they can still apply to these circumstances, so instead of the opponent being a polytheist, they'll be the opposing combatant....also the other issue is that the Bassad regime are Alwite which fall outside of Islam, as their beliefs are way out of line in Islam.

So how did they manage to get power. if they were 'not muslims'? How did the sunnis/shias allow this to happen?

what about libya? Im sure gadaffi was a muslim? rite?

[sachinisgod]

(Original post by Iqbal007)
Not at all, 'he may hear the words of Allah',
telling someone something is very very different from converting, its in the hope they may be interested in Islam, if they are not, then they are not.

okay so if they were given protection in muslim lands, would they still be allowed to carry on their own faith?

[tif49]

(Original post by sachinisgod)
okay so if they were given protection in muslim lands, would they still be allowed to carry on their own faith?

Yes

[ideas4life]

(Original post by Iqbal007)
x

You asked about abrogation, and why verses are in Quran if their abrogated. Heres answer:

I said to 'Uthman bin 'Affan (while he was collecting the Qur'an) regarding the Verse:-- "Those of you who die and leave wives ..." (2.240) "This Verse was abrogated by an other Verse. So why should you write it? (Or leave it in the Qur'an)?" 'Uthman said. "O son of my brother! I will not shift anything of it from its place."
Sahih Bukhari 6: 60:53

So they were abrogated, and muhammad's companions Ali, Umar, Abu Bakr, and Uthman all knew about abrogated verses but still kept it in Quran according to this hadith

[ideas4life]

(Original post by tif49)
Yes

Yes but if they dont pay Jizyah they cant keep their religion

[Iqbal007]

(Original post by ideas4life)
Response to claim that Islam teaches that if they incline towards peace, you incline towards peace

Muhammad's cousin Ibn Abbas and al-Suyuti and Ibn Kathir all said this verse has been abrogated and no longer applies:

Muhammad believed fighting must go on forever

Muslim Scholars believed fighting must go on

I provided evidence where Muslims must not transgress and must seek every available opportunity to seek peace with neighbors.

The Quranic verse:
"But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things). (The Noble Quran, 8:61)"

Still stands, despite the opinions of those people....... as I stated before if they were supposed to abrogated, then why do they still exist in the Quran today........ because it is still valid.

Your sources Sunan an-Nasa'i 3591 & Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal,etc............. dont explicitly say that Muslims must continue to wage war. It refers to always being ready for when war arises and is showing the fact that there'll always be other groups out to attack the Muslims.

[sachinisgod]

(Original post by tif49)
Yes

so in effect if they are allowed to carry out their faith even in muslim lands.. so why there is still discrimination of the highest extent against non believers in Saudi Arabia and many Arab countries. As the pinnicle of Islam (site of mecca), isnt it really not following what is written in the verses.

Just quoting your answer

[tif49]

(Original post by ideas4life)
Yes but if they dont pay Jizyah they cant keep their religion

Well who wouldn't pay jizya? Anyone with common sense would pay it.

[HeavyTeddy]

(Original post by ideas4life)
No he did not wage war against Muhammad during Muhammad's lifetime. How do i know? I have studied all 101 military expeditions of Muhammad

Abu Bakr attacked Musaylimah after Muhammad died as part of the Riddah wars (wars against apostates)

For the first thing you said, yes I agree with you, that's what I have said in my comment. Read it. I said he waged war after Muhammad (pbuh) died, against Abu Bakr who was the Caliph at the time. Him, Al-Aswad and Sajah combined their forces and waged war against the Muslims. I have also studied this. O.o

Either way, I've proved that the full context was not given there.

[ideas4life]

(Original post by Iqbal007)
I provided evidence where Muslims must not transgress and must seek every available opportunity to seek peace with neighbors.

The Quranic verse:
"But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things). (The Noble Quran, 8:61)"

Still stands, despite the opinions of those people....... as I stated before if they were supposed to abrogated, then why do they still exist in the Quran today........ because it is still valid.

Your sources Sunan an-Nasa'i 3591 & Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal,etc............. dont explicitly say that Muslims must continue to wage war. It refers to always being ready for when war arises and is showing the fact that there'll always be other groups out to attack the Muslims.

No, it says Muslims must continue to wage war and their NEVER EVER will be peace

So since their never EVER will be peace, the verse "if they incline towards peace" is abrogated

Muhammad believed that Muslims who are against violence are cursed:

“Zayd ibn Aslam, from his father, that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu `alayhe wassallam) said: Jihad will remain fresh and green as long as raindrops fall from the sky. And there will come upon the people a time when Qur’an reciters from among them will say: "This is not the time of Jihad." So whoever comes to that time, then it is the best time for Jihad. They said: "O Messenger of Allah, would someone really say that?" He said: Yes, the one whom Allah has cursed, and the angels and all of mankind."
Ibn Asakir transmitted it. (Mashari- ul-Ashwaq by Ibn Nuhaas, Vol. 1, P. 110 and 107)

He called these Muslims hypocrites:

"One who dies but did not fight in the way of Allah nor did he express any desire (or determination) for Jihad dies the death of a hypocrite. "
Sahih Muslim 2:4696

Jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal. The tyranny of any tyrant and the justice of any just (ruler) will not invalidate it. One must have faith in Divine decree.
Abu Dawud 14:2526

[Iqbal007]

(Original post by sachinisgod)
So how did they manage to get power. if they were 'not muslims'? How did the sunnis/shias allow this to happen?

what about libya? Im sure gadaffi was a muslim? rite?

It didn't start out like that, maybe research the history of Syria..............i'm not here to teach you about stuff outside of Islam.

I'm hear to tell you how the verse still stands today and can be used in the conflict........................ ................ Just being Muslim doesn't automatically me that they are following everything, he committed atrocities which were against Islam.

[tif49]

(Original post by sachinisgod)
so in effect if they are allowed to carry out their faith even in muslim lands.. so why there is still discrimination of the highest extent against non believers in Saudi Arabia and many Arab countries. As the pinnicle of Islam (site of mecca), isnt it really not following what is written in the verses.

Just quoting your answer

Yeah, I agree. The problem is just that, Saudis are corrupt and generally Muslims have stopped following the true teachings of Islam as written in Qur'an and Hadith.

The Saudis are just lost in their power and wealth and disregard the religion. So does pretty much every other Muslim leader these days. They have all become corrupt and too worldly and materialistic.

[ideas4life]

(Original post by HeavyTeddy)
For the first thing you said, yes I agree with you, that's what I have said in my comment. Read it. I said he waged war after Muhammad (pbuh) died, against Abu Bakr who was the Caliph at the time. Him, Al-Aswad and Sajah combined their forces and waged war against the Muslims. I have also studied this. O.o

Either way, I've proved that the full context was not given there.

Depends what you mean by "waging war" against Muslims.

Waging war in Islam is not same as what infidels mean by "waging war"

(The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land.) `Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief,
Ibn Kathir

http://www.theholybook.org/content/view/6968/2/


So in Islam,waging war against muslims=not believing in Islam

mischief=disbelief in Islam

"(And when it is said to them: "Do not make mischief on the earth,"), means, "Do not commit acts of disobedience on the earth. Their mischief is disobeying Allah, because whoever disobeys Allah on the earth, or commands that Allah be disobeyed, he has committed mischief on the earth."
[Tafsir ibn Kathir]

http://www.theholybook.org/content/view/6333/2/

[Humberto]

(Original post by Hylean)

Does it state that a man who loves another man should be stoned? No. Does it state that a woman who loves another woman should be stoned? No. How then, do you equate one act, which is performed by heterosexuals, bisexuals, homosexuals and pansexuals as the sole defining characteristic of homosexuality, especially when it's not always performed by male homosexuals and extraordinairely rarely by female homosexuals?

While I wouldn't say it's "extraordinairely rarely done by female homosexuals" (you'd be surprised at how many different, 'weird', etc., ways sexuality can express itself!), I think this is an important thing that ideas4life overlooks. Because of certain ideas of what homosexuality is and more importantly what it should be, he seems to infer conclusions that do not follow from the premisses.

Edit: @ideas4life. Anyway, as many have stated, anti-islamic and islamophobia is something completely different. You saying "It's just semantics", doesn't help, as what we are doing here is semantics: we are trying to establish what certain words mean in certain contexts, which is an important part of semantics. Semantics isn't another word for "misleading word's play", or something similar.

In my view, then, it's our task to find a fine balance between being 'islamophobic' and apologetic. Don't fear it for no good reason, but don't pretend as if there are no problems at all in Islam (as in any other religion). That proves to be extremely difficult, seeing as many people end up in one or the other. Also, keep in mind that many of the problems that Islam has, aren't specific for that religion; judism or christianity have their fair share of 'dubious' claims as well. If that is indeed the case with your counter-arguments against Islam, it makes no sense to be 'anti-islam', as that singles out a single religion from a larger group that suffers from the same problem.

[sachinisgod]

(Original post by tif49)
Yeah, I agree. The problem is just that, Saudis are corrupt and generally Muslims have stopped following the true teachings of Islam as written in Qur'an and Hadith.

The Saudis are just lost in their power and wealth and disregard the religion. So does pretty much every other Muslim leader these days. They have all become corrupt and too worldly and materialistic.

But the religion they promote ( Wahabism) is seen by many imams as the true form of Islam.

BTW i have personally experienced the attititudes and discrimination while i lived there for a few years.

[Hylean]

(Original post by Humberto)
While I wouldn't say it's "extraordinairely rarely done by female homosexuals" (you'd be surprised at how many different, 'weird', etc., ways sexuality can express itself!), I think this is an important thing that ideas4life overlooks. Because of certain ideas of what homosexuality is and more importantly what it should be, he seems to infer conclusions that do not follow from the premisses.

Oh, believe me, there's nothing sexual that could surprise me. It's also a commonly overlook fact in the Bible too, and by homophobic Christians.

(Original post by Humberto)
Anyway, as many have stated, anti-islamic and islamophobia is something completely different. You saying "It's just semantics", doesn't help, as what we are doing here is semantics: we are trying to establish what certain words mean in certain contexts, which is an important part of semantics. Semantics isn't another word for "misleading word's play", or something similar.

Eh? I haven't mentioned semantics once. That's ideas4life trying to refute my points.

(Original post by Humberto)
In my view, then, it's our task to find a fine balance between being 'islamophobic' and apologetic. Don't fear it for no good reason, but don't pretend as if there are no problems at all in Islam (as in any other religion). That proves to be extremely difficult, seeing as many people end up in one or the other. Also, keep in mind that many of the problems that Islam has, aren't specific for that religion; judism or christianity have their fair share of 'dubious' claims as well. If that is indeed the case with your counter-arguments against Islam, it makes no sense to be 'anti-islam', as that singles out a single religion from a larger group that suffers from the same problem.

Well said. But we should not so focus on the bad as to ignore the good, if there is any.