Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MMM1997)
    9:5 was in defence because it was against the polytheists who had broken the treaty. The treaty stated that if any side broke the treaty they would be at war so the ones who broke it i.e. the polytheists took the Muslims to war.. The defender can wait four months to allow them a chance to correct their wrong which is explained in the next verse. The conditions were that they had four months to leave because they had declared war. Or they could seek asylum which had to be granted. If any remained they were to be killed. These people were classed as traitors, and the practice for centuries in many countries including England was to kill traitors.
    Sura 9 was the penultimate verse revealed, shortly before Muhammad's death. By this time, Mecca had been conquered and most of central Arabia subjugated by Islam. There was no "breaking of treaties" by the polytheists. It was a declaration of war by Muhammad, almost certainly because of his position of military supremacy in the region. Essentially, it was an excercise in forced conversion and ethnic cleansing. His "final solution".
    Read Ibn Kathir's tafsir on the matter, or one of the Biographies of Muhammad (written by a Muslim - so no accusations of "bias" ) like Mubarakpuri or Lings...
    "Ali proclaimed the Divine Message. The gist of it was that the idolaters were given four months' respite to come and go as they pleased in safety, but after that God and His Messenger would be free from any obligation towards them. War was declared upon them, and they were to be slain or taken captive wherever they were found."

    As I said before, much of the apologist narrative on these matters is either ill-informed or deliberately dishonest, despite the "historical truth" being easily and clearly available from pro-Islamic sources. It just seems that many Muslims are satisfied to simply accept what they are told and are not interested in any objective and open-minded research into Islamic history.Luckily, history is my academic hobby (science is my actual subject), so I love doing it!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by frankielogue)
    I am against the ideology of Islam but:

    1.) That was five years ago, before the rise of Daesh
    2.) That 100% figure is complete garbage, my closest friends are muslim and whilst they are against gay marriage for religious reasons, completely accept homosexuality
    honestly tell me how many muslims *you* think support/accept homosexuality then. make me chuckle.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tongeyyy)
    So you've said that 1.6 billion muslims are peaceful and I've quoted a figure to disprove you because supporting suicide bombings in the name of religion is NOT peaceful so your argument is that 'I can't control what people think'
    Anyone can hold ill thoughts, the only problem I'm worried about is whether they're willing to act on them

    Find me a poll saying that a large percentage of Muslims would willingly consider committing terrorist attacks, then I'd be worried.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    Anyone can hold ill thoughts, the only problem I'm worried about is whether they're willing to act on them

    Find me a poll saying that a large percentage of Muslims would willingly consider committing terrorist attacks, then I'd be worried.
    Well I think you should already be worried that there are probably around 1000 jihadists in the UK right now who are part of that boat and with attacks in the name of islam becoming a norm in Europe these days
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tongeyyy)
    Well I think you should already be worried that there are probably around 1000 jihadists in the UK right now who are part of that boat and with attacks in the name of islam becoming a norm in Europe these days
    I am yet to see a reliable source claiming this tbh, a few odd Daily Express/Mail articles don't constitute to this.

    And their attacks aren't in the name of Islam, they are in the name of political gain.

    Take the Bataclan attackers for example, they wanted revenge on France for airstrikes.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    honestly tell me how many muslims *you* think support/accept homosexuality then. make me chuckle.
    I’m not going to give figures, as it is obvious Islam is unaccepting of homosexuality and women and is an abhorrent ideology. However, it is also obvious that there are some muslims who accept homosexuality.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    I am yet to see a reliable source claiming this tbh, a few odd Daily Express/Mail articles don't constitute to this.

    And their attacks aren't in the name of Islam, they are in the name of political gain.

    Take the Bataclan attackers for example, they wanted revenge on France for airstrikes.
    Well of course the figure is going to contested but what I'm saying is that there is a sizeable number of infidels of ISIS in this country who are willing to act on their beliefs and kill innocents.

    And for your one example that proves that these attacks aren't in the name of Islam can you explain why the Truck driver in Nice shouted "Allahu Akbar" before he mowed down scores of innocent French?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    I am yet to see a reliable source claiming this tbh, a few odd Daily Express/Mail articles don't constitute to this.

    And their attacks aren't in the name of Islam, they are in the name of political gain.

    Take the Bataclan attackers for example, they wanted revenge on France for airstrikes.
    Actually that figure sounds about right. Britain has more Muslims than Germany and in Germany it is estimated that there are middle to high hundreds of extremists that are on the watchlist of the BND.

    And to me that is already too many. Doesn't matter what % that is, it is too many. Same way the group of neo-Nazis killing over a decade was too many. They were three. And it was a huge scandal because of police failings. Three vs a thousand.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    I am yet to see a reliable source claiming this tbh, a few odd Daily Express/Mail articles don't constitute to this.

    And their attacks aren't in the name of Islam, they are in the name of political gain.

    Take the Bataclan attackers for example, they wanted revenge on France for airstrikes.
    Well of course the figure is going to contested but what I'm saying is that there is a sizeable number of infidels of ISIS in this country who are willing to act on their beliefs and kill innocents.And for your one example that proves that these attacks aren't in the name of Islam can you explain why the Truck driver in Nice shouted "Allahu Akbar" before he mowed down scores of innocent French?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by frankielogue)
    I’m not going to give figures, as it is obvious Islam is unaccepting of homosexuality and women and is an abhorrent ideology. However, it is also obvious that there are some muslims who accept homosexuality.
    nah, come on, give me a guess of a figure. or else I'm going to assume you mean something like 95% are unaccepting. in which case, your little anecdote was very pointless in proving that the homophobia wasn't as huge as it is.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tongeyyy)
    Well of course the figure is going to contested but what I'm saying is that there is a sizeable number of infidels of ISIS in this country who are willing to act on their beliefs and kill innocents.

    And for your one example that proves that these attacks aren't in the name of Islam can you explain why the Truck driver in Nice shouted "Allahu Akbar" before he mowed down scores of innocent French?
    Firstly, how do you know he said it?

    Secondly, because he knows that shouting "allahu ackbar" gives him an instant link to ISIS, because of the narrow-mindedness of racist bigots in the world.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by frankielogue)
    my closest friends are muslim and whilst they are against gay marriage for religious reasons, completely accept homosexuality
    Ask your friends if they pray five times a day and when they last time were in mosque. May be they are not true Muslims... :cool:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MMM1997)
    When you are taking verses from the Quran there are rules on which verses can be acted upon and which ones can't. This verse was specific to a time and place. The verse doesn't say that we can kill traitors.
    Correct. It is verse 5:33 that does that. (And for "traitors", read "opponents")

    It says the polytheists who betrayed the Muslims who were traitors. It only refers to them at that time
    Except it does not say that at all. It simply says that the polytheists who do not submit to Islam or go into exile can be hunted down and killed. The Quran actually says that after four months, Allah and Muhammad are no longer bound by any treaties they have with the polytheists.

    What exactly are these polytheists supposed to have done. I often hear this accusation of "treachary" and "treaty breaking" in regards to 9:5, but no one can ever explain what it involved. Certainly, if you read Ibn Kathir, Ibn Ishaq, Mubarakpuri or Lings, there is no mention of anything other than refusing to submit to Islam, and specifically, a desire to continue their pagan religious rituals during hajj to Mecca (something that the polytheists had been doing for centuries).

    I seriously recommend reading some proper histories rather than just dawahganda websites and YouTube videos. If you want a genuine academic overview, Marshall Hodgson's mammoth work is pretty comprehensive.
    https://ia801003.us.archive.org/6/it...ll-Hodgson.pdf
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    Firstly, how do you know he said it?

    Secondly, because he knows that shouting "allahu ackbar" gives him an instant link to ISIS, because of the narrow-mindedness of racist bigots in the world.
    Well then I would ask you the same question of did the Battaclan attacker do it for revenge due to airstrikes? Typical double standards of you lefties. The fact is that numerous reports from witnesses said he shouted it.

    And no I'm not saying he's linked to ISIS but what he did was at least partly motivated by Islam
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tongeyyy)
    Well then I would ask you the same question of did the Battaclan attacker do it for revenge due to airstrikes? Typical double standards of you lefties. The fact is that numerous reports from witnesses said he shouted it.

    And no I'm not saying he's linked to ISIS but what he did was at least partly motivated by Islam
    These sorts of people yell "allahu ackbar" because they know that the media will go berserk over it, and it amplifies the damage of their attack.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    These sorts of people yell "allahu ackbar" because they know that the media will go berserk over it, and it amplifies the damage of their attack.
    I honestly can't believe what I'm reading. So you're dismissing the most obvious and reasonable reason for yelling "allahu ackbar" which is because what he is doing is in the name of Islam and because his religion teaches him to carry out what he's done for a reason you've just made up on the spot for him yelling it to amplify his attack which has "nothing to do with islam"
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Correct. It is verse 5:33 that does that. (And for "traitors", read "opponents")

    Except it does not say that at all. It simply says that the polytheists who do not submit to Islam or go into exile can be hunted down and killed. The Quran actually says that after four months, Allah and Muhammad are no longer bound by any treaties they have with the polytheists.

    What exactly are these polytheists supposed to have done. I often hear this accusation of "treachary" and "treaty breaking" in regards to 9:5, but no one can ever explain what it involved. Certainly, if you read Ibn Kathir, Ibn Ishaq, Mubarakpuri or Lings, there is no mention of anything other than refusing to submit to Islam, and specifically, a desire to continue their pagan religious rituals during hajj to Mecca (something that the polytheists had been doing for centuries).

    I seriously recommend reading some proper histories rather than just dawahganda websites and YouTube videos. If you want a genuine academic overview, Marshall Hodgson's mammoth work is pretty comprehensive.
    https://ia801003.us.archive.org/6/it...ll-Hodgson.pdf
    This treaty is the treaty of hudaybiyyah in which the polytheists were supposed to allow the Muslims to perform their pilgrimage and that they would leave the city for 3 days. The polytheists also agreed to no fighting which they then went against by attacking the Muslims allies. The polytheists set the conditions and they were the ones who broke it. And please do not make the assumption that I got this information from dawahganda websites and youtube videos. You haven't asked me what my sources are. As you said there is always mention of treachery and treaty breaking but there isn't anything specifically mentioned. Read up on the treaty of hudaybiyyah which was significant in the fact that it was completely in favour of the polytheists but it was the Muslims who benefitted most from it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tongeyyy)
    I honestly can't believe what I'm reading. So you're dismissing the most obvious and reasonable reason for yelling "allahu ackbar" which is because what he is doing is in the name of Islam and because his religion teaches him to carry out what he's done for a reason you've just made up on the spot for him yelling it to amplify his attack which has "nothing to do with islam"
    It has something to do with Islam, no one's denying that. But these attackers do not wake up one day and suddenly decide to kill in the name of Islam, they do it because their lives go wrong and they start sympathising with extremist groups just like ISIS. Its why if you actually do some research on the subject instead of preaching theoretical bigotry, you would realise that every single attacker since the Sydney Siege has a backstory and a history of petty theft, or being in a war-torn country, or being arrested and put in jail, or being discriminated against, or being pursued by the security services - etc... Its never them waking up and deciding to kill for Islam.

    And its pretty logical that yelling "allahu ackbar" is a media-aimed stunt to maximise the negative impact of their attack.

    Take a look at Rezgui (Tunisia beach attacker), he liked to drink and breakdance and was harmless according to his friends. But apparently yelling "allahu ackbar" is all you need to make it an Islamist terror attack. Its because racist bigots like you focus on the foreign culture as the problem, and you lack perspective on these peoples' lives and why they would become so predisposed towards violence.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MMM1997)
    In a history book
    (Original post by MMM1997)
    And tafsir books
    Muhammad used the opportunity afforded by a small skirmish between some Bedouin, who were allies of the Quraysh, and some Muslims, to march on Mecca with an army of 10,000 and demand the submission of Mecca and its inhabitants.

    Does it not seem a little unwarranted to then order the killing of every polytheist who does not submit to Islam? You don't think that punishing a whole group for the actions of unrelated others is unjustified? It would be like ordering the death of every French Muslim because of the actions of the Charlie Hebdo attackers.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by frankielogue)
    2.) That 100% figure is complete garbage, my closest friends are muslim and whilst they are against gay marriage for religious reasons, completely accept homosexuality
    So they don't "completely accept homosexuality". Because of their religion.

    Way to refute an argument bro!
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 23, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.