GeoffP said:
First off, what does my religion have to do with anything? Islam should be able to stand on its own merits without needing to resort to
tu tuoque. Why would my own religion - if any - matter?
Your "number of Israelis" argument, first, is false. 4000 Israelis worked in the Twin Towers? Really. Dubious. Second, I assume you have proof that this veritable horde of Israelis stayed home that day? You may not have made a hate remark "yet", as you say, but the implication is unmistakeable. Bring your proofs if ye are truthful.
By the by, on the actual list of deaths in the Twin Towers, one sees that there were indeed Israeli casualties - one Israeli, and two people with Israeli citizenship. Ah! so low, it must have been a plot, then?
Well, no.
There was also a paltry number of Australians, Chinese, Irish, Hondurans, Swedes, Italians, Germans, Portugese, and Russians killed there. And only 1 Dominican!
So, perhaps
everybody was plotting?
http://www.september11victims.com/september11victims/COUNTRY_CITIZENSHIP.htm
"This was just a thread I created so people would criticize it's [the Gospel of Barnabas'] credentials."
This statement appears to be highly misleading. The thread was started as a somewhat indirect attack on Christians and Christianity. You're welcome to do so, of course, as I'm welcome to argue against islam, but I don't think phrasing it as some kind of investigative journalism is terribly honest.
I have already apologized for the title, as it doesn't fit the purpose of the thread. I guess I was wrong. But simply put I don't think the Jews did 9/11.
From the Quran:
Q 9:5 So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the
idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and
besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if
they repent and keep up prayer [that is, convert to islam] and pay the poor-rate [the humiliating jizyah tax, levied at roughly 2x that of zakaat, the muslim tax, which is actually voluntary anyway], leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
Well you must first understand that this is a war, this can be understood if you read verse 12. The breaking of the "oath", "pledge", or "treaty" by the Meccans is talking about the Treaty of Hudaybiyah(spelling?
)
So when looked upon it with that in mind, the next verse is also understood.
009.005
YUSUFALI: But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
PICKTHAL: Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
SHAKIR: So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
Yes fight them whereever you find them. But you only fight those who fought you, which can be supported if you read verse 2:190. So when it is refering to Pagan it is talking of the pagans who fought them. Since all who fought them were Pagans, then to use the word "Pagan" is not wrong at all. As for the second part that is "if they repent" then you must know they wouldn't be fight the Muslims, thus you don't fight them. If they convert to Islam meaning become Muslim why would they be fighting the Prophet himself. This is common sense. So yes don't fight those you have converted to Islam, because since they have converted, they would stop fighting you. I think this is common sense.
Q 9:6 follows in the same vein - protection on conversion: And if one of the idolaters seek protection from you, grant
him protection till he hears the word of Allah, then make him
attain his place of safety; this is because they are a people who do
not know.
Well you have asserted the beginning. Let us look at the actual quote without your assertion.
YUSUFALI: If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.
PICKTHAL: And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not.
SHAKIR: And if one of the idolaters seek protection from you, grant him protection till he hears the word of Allah, then make him attain his place of safety; this is because they are a people who do not know.
You see that it isn't converting them. It is actually common sense what the verse says. If the Pagan asks for asylum (protection) grant it to them or him, "SO" they may hear the world of Allah. It doesn't use the word convert or forceful conversion of anytype. If you had any common sense then you could conclude that once the Pagan was taken in protection he would "NATURALLY" hear the word of Allah, because the society is a Muslim society. The verse goes on by saying that escort them to a safe place, and then says because they don't know. Yes they are Pagans they don't know. Nowhere here does it say convert them forcefully. It simply is talking common sense that when you give them protection, they will hear the word of Allah, then escort them to a safe place because these people don't know. (truth)
Q 9:29. Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter
day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have
prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who
have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment
of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
This can be understood since they were in a war. Once the Muslim armies win, the conquered must pay the tax. So if you conquer them then you put a tax on them. Taxing the people hardly seems like something inhumane. Maybe you believe that the government has no right to tax it's people (subjects). But I believe that people should pay the government taxes so the government could be stable and the money used for something useful to the country.
And so forth. You might claim - and probably will - that this is merely referring to a single incident. Regrettably, the language contains no such perogative.
No I don't claim that this is time bound, but it is "event" bound. If you are in a War then this applies. This is not for a war that was fought 1400 years ago, but it is for all wars that Muslims fight. So you are right that the language contains no such perogative but it isn't supposed to.
"Yes apostates are to be killed according to the Hadith. But this concept is also found in OT."
I see. And the Jews of this era - they are doing this? Killing apostates? And Christians?
In fact, is there any religion in the world presently, save islam, that condemns apostates - those who leave that religion - to death? Should I assume you support such action, since you do not decry it?
Here is your mistake, you confuse people with religion. You mix the so called "followers" by the religion. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (religions) all allow the killing of the apostates. It is just the matter of fact that Jews and Christians don't follow their religion. If they don't then you can't say only Islam preaches it, but Judaism and Christianity also does. It is just the fact that Muslims follow the religion, and the Jews and Christians don't. This is same like if you condemn Christianity for the doings of Hitler. I don't use this as an argument against Christians. But sadly the Christians are always using the acts of terrorists to defame Islam. My humble request to you is, that forget the people and look at the religion. This arguement of yours is dependant on the so-called followers of the respective religion. NOT the Religion itself. But if that is your arguement, then yes Muslims, are the only people who care about their religion, and follow it by killing the apostates. If the Jews and Christian don't do the same, then it's their problem as to why they don't like to follow their "Word of God". Talking on the point of Apostasy then I would like to make clear that I said "according to the Hadith". One point must be understood that the sayings of the Prophet must be in conciliation with the Quran, if not then either it is a falsely ascribed Hadith, or the interpretation of the Hadith is wrong. And so this matter of punishment of apostasy must be taken as a very sensitive issue. I would like you to read 2 articles refering to this topic.
http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=discussion&did=94
http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=286
*Note---- I in no way endorse anything on the site, but I'm just refering to it to let you know other interpretations of the same topic.
"I have to admit that they might have been treated harshly, but not as hard as the Christians had treated the Jews. "
Harshly enough that there were about a dozen rebellions in islamic-occupied Spain by Christians who could no longer accept their oppression. I imagine that their situtation must have been horrible, almost as bad as non-muslims in present islamic nations. Merely saying that "well, the Jews had it rough too" is, again, tu tuoque and does not excuse the actions of islam during this period. I might add that there were one - or two, can't recall - mass forced expulsions of Jews by muslims, besides other horrors, during the same period in Spain, so Jewish people can hardly have had it easy under sharia either.
As I said said above, that you cannot ascribe this treatment to the religion. If you don't understand this concept then discussion with me is useless.
"For someone who claims to have read the Quran, then I wonder why you skipped the verse which says "There is no compulsion in religion" (Quran 2:256). Forcefully converting anybody is condemned by Islam, it is a different topic what so-called "Muslims" do."
Regrets, but this is not the full passage. The ayah in its entirely reads:
Q 2 :256 (three translations)
YUSUFALI: Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.
PICKTHAL: There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.
SHAKIR: There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing.
The remainder of this ayah is never quoted by anyone trying to make the point you are now trying to make: indeed, it seems to be almost willfully ignored. The sura says that there is no compulsion in religion [islam] because those who have taken the "right direction" [islam] cannot be in error. Thus, religion may indeed be forcible in the material sense - for how can one 'force' someone to take the right direction? Why, surely only an obstinate would refuse the 'right' path? This, in fact, is precisely the way that Wahhabists and some Shi'a interpret it.
So - what, then, for those that refuse the 'right path'? Sura 9, and al-Buhkari.
Wow. I don't know how you concluded something without an arguement. The word "Islam" is an assertion. The rest of the passage clearly states that the right path is clear from the wrong. But in no way does it discredit the saying that "There is no compulsion in religion" rather it could be a simple statement of fact that the right is clear from the wrong. So believe if you want to, and refuse if you want to, because "there is no compulsion in religion". This arguement can be further supported if you read chapter 109.
109.001
YUSUFALI: Say : O ye that reject Faith!
PICKTHAL: Say: O disbelievers!
SHAKIR: Say: O unbelievers!
109.002
YUSUFALI: I worship not that which ye worship,
PICKTHAL: I worship not that which ye worship;
SHAKIR: I do not serve that which you serve,
109.003
YUSUFALI: Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
PICKTHAL: Nor worship ye that which I worship.
SHAKIR: Nor do you serve Him Whom I serve:
109.004
YUSUFALI: And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship,
PICKTHAL: And I shall not worship that which ye worship.
SHAKIR: Nor am I going to serve that which you serve,
109.005
YUSUFALI: Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
PICKTHAL: Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
SHAKIR: Nor are you going to serve Him Whom I serve:
109.006
YUSUFALI: To you be your Way, and to me mine.
PICKTHAL: Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.
SHAKIR: You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion.
The concept of "There is no compulsion in religion" was present in that verse, and so is in this chapter. If you disagree, then "to you be your way, and to me mine".
"Yes Homosexuality is forbidden."
And homosexuals, as apostates, must die, then?
I believe so, as this is breaking the bounds of God. Homosexuality if let alone will screw up the society even more. I believe that the people of Lot were destroyed for the very same reason. Bible believing folk know about the story of Sodom and Gomorah. If you don't like the rules, then don't.
Peace be with you
