Quran Forbids Muslim from being friends with Jews and Christians?

[getting2big]

Does the Quran forbid Muslims from being friends with Jews and Christians? I made this thread after realizing that people will not give up their lies about Islam and will try everything they can to show it in a form which suits their lies. As one of the members here does (n1rv4n4). First before anyone tries to understand the Quran to its utmost he MUST read it in Arabic. Knowing that most wont, then it would be fair to ask them not to try to interpret it BUT ask those who know. By that I was referring to Muslim scholars not n1rv4n4.

Another point which I posted a number of times with members here always turning a blind eye to it is, that even a COMMON Arab will NOT be able to interpret the Quran. That is due to him usually lacking in the many sciences that he needs to understand. I just wanted to note that again just for everyone to understand that if a common arabd doesn’t have the CAPACITY to interpret the Quran to its utmost, then it is obvious that a western like n1rv4an4 will not have the ability to even read it correctly.

Here it is the verse of the Quran which supposedly forbids Muslims not to be friends with Jews and Christians. [b]I will only scrath the surface of the "tafsir" of this Aya.

5:51 O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

First mistake that should be noted in this translation is the use of the word "friend". As in the Quran in Arabic the word used wasn’t "friends" it was "lieges". As everyone knows that there is a difference between the two words as friends according to the Merriam-Webster means : one attached to another by affection or esteem. WHILE Lieges means : a vassal bound to feudal service and allegiance.

This was the first mistake that people usually encounter when reading this verse and this is what the islamophobes use against the muslims.

I will translate roughly due to my capacity in English the "Al-Mizan Fi Tafsir Al-Koran" By AL-Allamah Mohammad Al-Tabatabai. He is considered one if not the most renowned Scholars of islam.

First Al-Tabatabai wrote the following as a simple introduction to this verse and the following(verse 52,53 and 54): These verses of the Quran are Madaneya (a country in KSA) and not Makeya( a place in KSA) meaning that they came to the prophet when he was in Madina and not Mekka. The reason why Al-Tabatabai pointed this out will be understood further on in the interpretation. The reason why it is Madaneya and not Makeya is that it referred to Jews and Christians. Jews and Christians weren’t a concern in Mekka as they were in Madina.

In the verse it said "do not take" which meant do not be dependent on Jews and Christians( in itself).

As for the meaning of lieges. There are many intentnesses for it. If it was taken from prevailing and pietism perspective, then it means that they (muslims) will support and fight for Jews and Christians no matter if they were right or wrong. But if lieges referred to lieges in love and affinity then in this case the Muslim will devote himself to Jews and Christians to the degree where he will do what they do and believe what they believe. If the lieges referred to lieges in sense of pedigree then the Jew and the Christians will have the right to inherit the Muslim. All of the previous are not accepted and I believe that this is understandable.

Now to try and find what lieges actually meant. This is also hard as many scholars have went in many directions but mostly it was either lieges in prevailing and pietism or in love and affinity.

As for prevailing and pietism it is said that scholars have said that Muslims at the time were forming alliances with Jews and Christians against Muslims themselves and they believe in this point due to the appearance of the verse is that it came before Hejat Alwedaa. At a time when The Prophet (pbuh) and Muslims haven’t yet settled their disputes with the Jews of Madina and Fadak and Khaibar also with the Christians. Also it might be due to when Obada bin Al-Samat who is from Bani Oaf ibn Al-Khazraj left Bani QainaQaa when they faught the Prophet and he (Obada) had an alliance with them., while Abdallah bin abi Raas didn’t leave them (Bin-Qainaqaa) and went to them for help and refuge as it will further reveal in verse 52 went it said saying: We fear lest a calamity should befall us . That with different issues where Muslims were turning their alliance to Jews and Christians.

Al-Tabatabai refuted the previous by saying that (1) the causes of the coming of the verse were contradicting each other if they were taken from that perspective. (2) at these times there weren’t any sort of war alliances between Muslims and Christian. (3) that there were other contradiction with the chronology of the affairs and the verse. (roughly translated….MUST return to the book if you want the exact reaons)

What Al-Tabtabai believed to be the meaning of lieges was the lieges of love and affinity. That was due to the verse using the term lieges and not alliance which would have proven that it was lieges to prevail. He continued to and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them It means that when a Muslim takes a lieges of love and affinity with Jews and Christians, then he will have their same beliefs and will share their system of ethics and will commit the same actions and thus the two will become one. This is not accepted as Islam came against the forged beliefs of Jews and Christians.

5:52 But you will see those in whose hearts is a disease hastening towards them, saying: We fear lest a calamity should befall us; but it may be that Allah will bring the victory or a punish ment from Himself, so that they shall be regretting on account of what they hid in their souls.

This verse is usually left out by those who try to show Islam in a false manner. It shows that what the previous verse was referring to was " those in whose hearts is a disease hastening towards them these are the people who were showing lieges to the Jews and Christians against the Muslims (thus traitors). Another point which should be noted is that in the English translation it said "" hastening towards them while in the Arabic Quran it said "hastening in them" and not "towards". The difference in the to terms is that if the first was used it shows that a certain group of people with different beliefs hastening towards another group with a different belief. While if "in them" was used then it will refer to a group of people hastening to another group but both with the same beliefs. Thus the Quran was showing that these people were actually just Muslims by name and that they used " We fear lest a calamity should befall us as an excuse for their act of betrayal.

5:54 O you who believe! whoever from among you turns back from his religion, then Allah will bring a people, He shall love them and they shall love Him, lowly before the believers, mighty against the unbelievers, they shall strive hard in Allah's way and shall not fear the censure of any censurer; this is Allah's Face, He gives it to whom He pleases, and Allah is Ample-giving, Knowing.

This is also another verse which clarifies the meaning of the first. This is also left out by the islamophobes to further gain their goal of showing Islam to what it isn’t.

In this verse it referred to whoever from among you turns back from his religion The people who betrayed Islam which were referred to previously. Also to show that the meaning of lieges of love and affinity meant not only simple love and care and actually went further on to

will have their same beliefs and will share their system of ethics and will commit the same actions and thus the two will become one.

Thus the Muslim will no longer be a Muslim and will stand against his brothers (explained previously).

I will stop here as I believe that this was enough that this verse didn’t mean normal friendship. As islamophobes are trying to prove.

There is another Tafsir "Majma Al-Bayan Fi Tafsir Al-Quran" By the Sheikh Abo-Ali Al-Fadel Bin-Al-Hasan Al-Tabers . Which I will post later on.

I believe now that it is clear that the meaning wasn’t not to make friendship with Jews and Christians.(as it was explained)

I'm sure that most will not bother themselves in reading this. But this was to prove that not any person can come and interpret the Quran to his own whim. Not even an Arab has the capacity to interpret it so it is obvious that a western who doesn’t understand Arabic will not have the ability to understand it. Also as I said at the beginning I only scratched the surface of the Tafsir of Al-Tabatabai and these were only a few words of what he said. Also place in mind that this was only the Tafsir of 3 verses of the Quran. So in the end I wish you understood that if you want the true meaning you shouldn’t ask islamophobes who understand nothing about what they are taking about.

I will post another Tafsir of the same verses and will continue with another thread about other verses of the Quran which have deliberately misinterpreted.

If you didn’t understand anything just ask.

[974g63awd]

Originally Posted by getting2big

Does the Quran forbid Muslims from being friends with Jews and Christians? I made this thread after realizing that people will not give up their lies about Islam and will try everything they can to show it in a form which suits their lies. As one of the members here does (n1rv4n4). First before anyone tries to understand the Quran to its utmost he MUST read it in Arabic. Knowing that most wont, then it would be fair to ask them not to try to interpret it BUT ask those who know. By that I was referring to Muslim scholars not n1rv4n4.

Another point which I posted a number of times with members here always turning a blind eye to it is, that even a COMMON Arab will NOT be able to interpret the Quran. That is due to him usually lacking in the many sciences that he needs to understand. I just wanted to note that again just for everyone to understand that if a common arabd doesn’t have the CAPACITY to interpret the Quran to its utmost, then it is obvious that a western like n1rv4an4 will not have the ability to even read it correctly.

Here it is the verse of the Quran which supposedly forbids Muslims not to be friends with Jews and Christians. [b]I will only scrath the surface of the "tafsir" of this Aya.

5:51 O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

First mistake that should be noted in this translation is the use of the word "friend". As in the Quran in Arabic the word used wasn’t "friends" it was "lieges". As everyone knows that there is a difference between the two words as friends according to the Merriam-Webster means : one attached to another by affection or esteem. WHILE Lieges means : a vassal bound to feudal service and allegiance.

This was the first mistake that people usually encounter when reading this verse and this is what the islamophobes use against the muslims.

I will translate roughly due to my capacity in English the "Al-Mizan Fi Tafsir Al-Koran" By AL-Allamah Mohammad Al-Tabatabai. He is considered one if not the most renowned Scholars of islam.

First Al-Tabatabai wrote the following as a simple introduction to this verse and the following(verse 52,53 and 54): These verses of the Quran are Madaneya (a country in KSA) and not Makeya( a place in KSA) meaning that they came to the prophet when he was in Madina and not Mekka. The reason why Al-Tabatabai pointed this out will be understood further on in the interpretation. The reason why it is Madaneya and not Makeya is that it referred to Jews and Christians. Jews and Christians weren’t a concern in Mekka as they were in Madina.

In the verse it said "do not take" which meant do not be dependent on Jews and Christians( in itself).

As for the meaning of lieges. There are many intentnesses for it. If it was taken from prevailing and pietism perspective, then it means that they (muslims) will support and fight for Jews and Christians no matter if they were right or wrong. But if lieges referred to lieges in love and affinity then in this case the Muslim will devote himself to Jews and Christians to the degree where he will do what they do and believe what they believe. If the lieges referred to lieges in sense of pedigree then the Jew and the Christians will have the right to inherit the Muslim. All of the previous are not accepted and I believe that this is understandable.

Now to try and find what lieges actually meant. This is also hard as many scholars have went in many directions but mostly it was either lieges in prevailing and pietism or in love and affinity.

As for prevailing and pietism it is said that scholars have said that Muslims at the time were forming alliances with Jews and Christians against Muslims themselves and they believe in this point due to the appearance of the verse is that it came before Hejat Alwedaa. At a time when The Prophet (pbuh) and Muslims haven’t yet settled their disputes with the Jews of Madina and Fadak and Khaibar also with the Christians. Also it might be due to when Obada bin Al-Samat who is from Bani Oaf ibn Al-Khazraj left Bani QainaQaa when they faught the Prophet and he (Obada) had an alliance with them., while Abdallah bin abi Raas didn’t leave them (Bin-Qainaqaa) and went to them for help and refuge as it will further reveal in verse 52 went it said saying: We fear lest a calamity should befall us . That with different issues where Muslims were turning their alliance to Jews and Christians.

Al-Tabatabai refuted the previous by saying that (1) the causes of the coming of the verse were contradicting each other if they were taken from that perspective. (2) at these times there weren’t any sort of war alliances between Muslims and Christian. (3) that there were other contradiction with the chronology of the affairs and the verse. (roughly translated….MUST return to the book if you want the exact reaons)

What Al-Tabtabai believed to be the meaning of lieges was the lieges of love and affinity. That was due to the verse using the term lieges and not alliance which would have proven that it was lieges to prevail. He continued to and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them It means that when a Muslim takes a lieges of love and affinity with Jews and Christians, then he will have their same beliefs and will share their system of ethics and will commit the same actions and thus the two will become one. This is not accepted as Islam came against the forged beliefs of Jews and Christians.

5:52 But you will see those in whose hearts is a disease hastening towards them, saying: We fear lest a calamity should befall us; but it may be that Allah will bring the victory or a punish ment from Himself, so that they shall be regretting on account of what they hid in their souls.

This verse is usually left out by those who try to show Islam in a false manner. It shows that what the previous verse was referring to was " those in whose hearts is a disease hastening towards them these are the people who were showing lieges to the Jews and Christians against the Muslims (thus traitors). Another point which should be noted is that in the English translation it said "" hastening towards them while in the Arabic Quran it said "hastening in them" and not "towards". The difference in the to terms is that if the first was used it shows that a certain group of people with different beliefs hastening towards another group with a different belief. While if "in them" was used then it will refer to a group of people hastening to another group but both with the same beliefs. Thus the Quran was showing that these people were actually just Muslims by name and that they used " We fear lest a calamity should befall us as an excuse for their act of betrayal.

5:54 O you who believe! whoever from among you turns back from his religion, then Allah will bring a people, He shall love them and they shall love Him, lowly before the believers, mighty against the unbelievers, they shall strive hard in Allah's way and shall not fear the censure of any censurer; this is Allah's Face, He gives it to whom He pleases, and Allah is Ample-giving, Knowing.

This is also another verse which clarifies the meaning of the first. This is also left out by the islamophobes to further gain their goal of showing Islam to what it isn’t.

In this verse it referred to whoever from among you turns back from his religion The people who betrayed Islam which were referred to previously. Also to show that the meaning of lieges of love and affinity meant not only simple love and care and actually went further on to Thus the Muslim will no longer be a Muslim and will stand against his brothers (explained previously).

I will stop here as I believe that this was enough that this verse didn’t mean normal friendship. As islamophobes are trying to prove.

There is another Tafsir "Majma Al-Bayan Fi Tafsir Al-Quran" By the Sheikh Abo-Ali Al-Fadel Bin-Al-Hasan Al-Tabers . Which I will post later on.

I believe now that it is clear that the meaning wasn’t not to make friendship with Jews and Christians.(as it was explained)

I'm sure that most will not bother themselves in reading this. But this was to prove that not any person can come and interpret the Quran to his own whim. Not even an Arab has the capacity to interpret it so it is obvious that a western who doesn’t understand Arabic will not have the ability to understand it. Also as I said at the beginning I only scratched the surface of the Tafsir of Al-Tabatabai and these were only a few words of what he said. Also place in mind that this was only the Tafsir of 3 verses of the Quran. So in the end I wish you understood that if you want the true meaning you shouldn’t ask islamophobes who understand nothing about what they are taking about.

I will post another Tafsir of the same verses and will continue with another thread about other verses of the Quran which have deliberately misinterpreted.

If you didn’t understand anything just ask.

Although your post means well, I think you might be wasting your time. The people who you are trying to convince have already made up their minds.

[getting2big]

Originally Posted by 974g63awd

Although your post means well, I think you might be wasting your time. The people who you are trying to convince have already made up their minds.

I know but still it was intended to rid these people from their excuses. Now they know the truth and dont have anymore excuses. Also this is helping me a lot in furthering my understanding of the Quran and knowing how deep this book actually goes. Its amazing, I'm a muslim who lives in the middle east and even that didnt allow me to understand it to its utmost. Now I truly understand why the Quran is a miracle who no arab was able to refute ( I might explain that later on).

[EOY]

Nice work bro. Really good post. I'd rep you if I could. I was waiting for a post like this.

hey n1rv4n4..........

CCCCCCCCCCAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN

YYYYYOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUUUU

DDDDDDDDDIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGGG

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT ?????

Get this through your head. YOU CAN'T INTERPRET THE QURAN WITH QUOTES..no matter how many colors and fonts you use

[TranceNRG]

Great post 2big
But as it was already mentioned, you can't show anything to someone who doesn't want to see

BUT... some of the people who are actually interested, may very well benefit for your great post

peace

[pusherman]

Just like I asked in a thread about Genesis, and how the word 'day' meant 'period of time'. If the scholars think that the current translation is wrong, why doesn't anyone fix it and make it widely known?

[Krunk Fu]

Good post, but after reading some of those quotes from the Quran, it is obvious why one would intepret those meanings completely differently.

[n1rv4n4]

Originally Posted by getting2big

First before anyone tries to understand the Quran to its utmost he MUST read it in Arabic.

Unsurprised. Your explanation of Islam to Western audiences relies upon their ignorance of the Arabic language. If the Qur'an was translated accurately into the English there is no doubt that it would be illegal under jurisdictions with hate-crime legislation.

Actually, just so we can clarify the nature of this thread. The Qur'anic ayat that getting2big is interpretting here and providing his own personal tafsir for does not refer to friendship nor servitude (liege) -- as he would like you to believe. The Arabic root is "awliyah" meaning protectors.

This thread is not really a thread regarding personal relationships, and shouldn't be interpteted that way. As his post hinted towards, it's one regarding military allegiances, treaties and pacts. This ayat is a late Medinan surah... meaning it was revealed after the Prophet Muhammad gained considerable military power and influence... and established his own Islamic Empire -- a history written in blood. From this point on, Muhammad's attitude towards Christians and Jews changed considerably, and led to new relevations from Allah and verse abbrogation.

Which makes me wonder.... Muslims.... why are you not following the Qur'an? Why are you living in Canada, the UK, the United States, accepting protectorship from Christians, Jew, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists and everyone else? Clearly the Qur'an is meaningless to you... Not only have you accepted the Ahlul-Kitaab as protectors, you pay allegiance to them... Taxes that pay towards liberating the Islamic world from the same backwardness and barbarity that you have left behind.

Proof once and for all that $$$ > Allah. Welcome to the club. You are more of a Westerner than you even know.

[getting2big]

Originally Posted by n1rv4n4

Unsurprised. Your explanation of Islam to Western audiences relies upon their ignorance of the Arabic language. If the Qur'an was translated accurately into the English there is no doubt that it would be illegal under jurisdictions with hate-crime legislation.

First off I just brought the interpretation as it was. It is true that to understand the Quran you must read it in Arabic. It makes no difference if you believe it or not. Also it makes no difference what you think about the Quran. This isnt the thread for it. Its about the interpretation of the previous verses

Originally Posted by n1rv4n4

Actually, just so we can clarify the nature of this thread. The Qur'anic ayat that getting2big is interpretting here and providing his own personal tafsir for does not refer to friendship nor servitude (liege) -- as he would like you to believe. The Arabic root is "awliyah" meaning protectors.

Ok thats what I want.

Everyone if you read my first post you would have realized that I said tha islamophbes will lie for the sake fo disgracing Islam. I also said that n1rv4n4 is amongst those liers. To prove that:

(1) HE said as pointed above in his post. That I wasproviding my own Tafsir. Which is the first lie. I said that this tafsir was of Al-Tabatabai. I also said that the only thing Im doing is translating it. So that is lie number one

(2) Second lie is hilarious. He was trying to prove that lieges didnt mean lieges of friendship and that it was protecting. Not only was this point refuted in my first post which shows that the he didnt bother himslef with reading or simply he didnt have the capacity to understand it. He also said that the Quran said awliyah.That is true but he also said that "awliyah" means "protectors". That is were he went wrong as that word means protectors, loved ones, family and other meanings. Any Arab would have known that but yet again a western doesnt have that capacity. Also he was trying to prove that it meant protectors an nothing else. This point also was refuted in my post. Which shows that he either didnt have the capacity or didnt read it.

Originally Posted by n1rv4n4

This thread is not really a thread regarding personal relationships, and shouldn't be interpteted that way. As his post hinted towards, it's one regarding military allegiances, treaties and pacts. This ayat is a late Medinan surah... meaning it was revealed after the Prophet Muhammad gained considerable military power and influence... and established his own Islamic Empire -- a history written in blood. From this point on, Muhammad's attitude towards Christians and Jews changed considerably, and led to new relevations from Allah and verse abbrogation.

For the love of God read what I wrote I dont want o keep on copy pasting just because you dont feel like reading.

This was just a simple reply to this post. I will try to provide the other Tafsir today. This is not my tafsir this is the tafsir of scholars (unlike n1rv4n4 wanted to prove). n1rv4n4 how about you provide some proof to what you are saying rather than just typing your garbage. If you dont provide intelligent replies I will go a little bit deeper and bring in Arabic grammer to prove my post, would you like that. This is what your kind was trying to simplify.

[getting2big]

Originally Posted by TranceNRG

Great post 2big
But as it was already mentioned, you can't show anything to someone who doesn't want to see

BUT... some of the people who are actually interested, may very well benefit for your great post

peace

As I said the purpose of this was to refute what n1rv4n4 was saying about Islam. Also it is to provide people with the truth to rid them from excuses.

[getting2big]

Originally Posted by pusherman

Just like I asked in a thread about Genesis, and how the word 'day' meant 'period of time'. If the scholars think that the current translation is wrong, why doesn't anyone fix it and make it widely known?

I am not sure why they dont do something about it. But it might be due to that they arent the ones who translated the Quran or they havent read it in English. Also scholars job is to provide you with answer regarding whatever issue about Islam. So if you wanted to understand something you found to be unclear you can always ask them.

So it might not be widely known as I myself didnt know that there was such a mistake until I read it in English. As you dont usually read the Quran in English over here.

[getting2big]

Originally Posted by akaye47

Good post, but after reading some of those quotes from the Quran, it is obvious why one would intepret those meanings completely differently.

Yes that is understandable but as you know when you are studying something knew to you, you must make sure that you got the exact meaning. That is done by asking those who know and it is obvious that the Prof. will know more than the student. Thus the muslims scholar will know more than n1rv4n4. If I were you I also wont fear of them lying to you as they will present you with the truth no matter if it stood against the common mans logic. What I'm trying to say is that they will not sugar coat anything.

[getting2big]

Originally Posted by EOY

Nice work bro. Really good post. I'd rep you if I could. I was waiting for a post like this.

hey n1rv4n4..........

CCCCCCCCCCAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN

YYYYYOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUUUU

DDDDDDDDDIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGGG

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT ?????

Get this through your head. YOU CAN'T INTERPRET THE QURAN WITH QUOTES..no matter how many colors and fonts you use

More is to come but I need time . It was nice how he thought he owned muslims by using their Quran against them. It was also hilarious how he actually tried to teach me Arabic and dispute the word of scholars. I mean please thats just like a 1st grade student arguing a Prof. . He just opend a door that he will wish he nver did.

[getting2big]

Another thing I believe that I should point out. n1rv4n4 said that "awliyah" which is the arabic word used in the Arabic Quran in place of "friends" which was used in the English translation, meant "protectors". "awliyah" litarelly doesnt mean protector, which I believe is the method HE used to interpret it thus in both cases he was wrong. But even if it did (which it doesnt) it had been disputed in my first post. As in both cases if the lieges referred to love or prevailing both werent accepted as it was explained.

[getting2big]

This translation is from the book of Al-Tabersi

In his book Al-Tabersi stated that the reason for this verse of the Quran:

5:51 O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

Till verse 5:54. Came for a number of incident that the scholars have disagreed upon. Some (Saad Al-Ofi and Al-Zahari) said that when the people of "Bader" lost, the muslims told their (the people who lost) allies of the jews, believe in Allah (sw) before Allah (sw) bestows upon you a day as that of "Bader". Malek Bin-Thaif replied: You are (muslims) full of yourself because of a victory you had against Quraish, people who know nothing of fighting and warfare. But if you came against us you will surely lose. Then came Abdallah Bin-Samet to the Prophet (pbuh) and said : O Prophet of Allah I have lieges with the Jews who are of large numbers and of strong status and I aciculated from them to and I have no lord besides Allah and you. Then Abdallah Bin-Abi said : I will not aciculate from the Jews as I fear their wrath….

While Al-Sadi said : At "Uhood" ( a battle) the Muslims were in a tough situation and some came out and said " I shall be with the Jews and they will give me peace" while others said " I shall be with the Christians in Al-Sham (Syria and region surrounding it) and they will give me peace.

The Interpretation:

O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends Allah told Muslims that they should break their alliances with Jews and Christians and that Muslims should not should not ask them for help and degrade themselves by begging them

and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend Meaning whoever asks them for help and takes them as proponents he is then surely he is one of them Thus it was referring to Muslims who were betraying their brother Muslims and Islam by taking Jews and Christians as allies against Muslims.

5:52 But you will see those in whose hearts is a disease hastening towards them, saying: We fear lest a calamity should befall us; but it may be that Allah will bring the victory or a punish ment from Himself, so that they shall be regretting on account of what they hid in their souls.

But you will see those in whose hearts is a disease Referring to Muslims who still doubt Islam and are insincere to it ( Ibn-Abbas said that it was referring to Abdallah Bin-Abi). hastening towards them Meaning Hastening towards turning their alliance to Jews and becoming one with them and it was also said that it meant Helping Jews against Muslims. It was also said it was referring to allying with the Jews and Christians of Najran as they were distinguished…. As was said by Al-Kalbi.

I will stop here as I believe that this is enough and its obvious that n1rv4n4 will not be able to refute it. I hope its clear now that what was meant wasn’t friendship as Islam doesn’t stand against forming friendships with Jews, Christians or anyone who doesn’t insult or disgrace Islam (mutual respect).

Wait for the next thread of deliberately misinterpreted verses of islam.

[Power-Quest]

Originally Posted by n1rv4n4

Which makes me wonder.... Muslims.... why are you not following the Qur'an? Why are you living in Canada, the UK, the United States, accepting protectorship from Christians, Jew, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists and everyone else? .

Ill take a stab at this , because they want world dominance , and it makes it easier when you have a large population of muslims already in place.

I'm sure they didn't move to these places with the above intentions , but like my freind and i say " he will be your best friend untill you kick his dog , then he will gut you."

Just my opinion.

[n1rv4n4]

Originally Posted by getting2big

This translation is from the book of Al-Tabersi

In his book Al-Tabersi stated that the reason for this verse of the Quran:

5:51 O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

Till verse 5:54. Came for a number of incident that the scholars have disagreed upon. Some (Saad Al-Ofi and Al-Zahari) said that when the people of "Bader" lost, the muslims told their (the people who lost) allies of the jews, believe in Allah (sw) before Allah (sw) bestows upon you a day as that of "Bader". Malek Bin-Thaif replied: You are (muslims) full of yourself because of a victory you had against Quraish, people who know nothing of fighting and warfare. But if you came against us you will surely lose. Then came Abdallah Bin-Samet to the Prophet (pbuh) and said : O Prophet of Allah I have lieges with the Jews who are of large numbers and of strong status and I aciculated from them to and I have no lord besides Allah and you. Then Abdallah Bin-Abi said : I will not aciculate from the Jews as I fear their wrath….

While Al-Sadi said : At "Uhood" ( a battle) the Muslims were in a tough situation and some came out and said " I shall be with the Jews and they will give me peace" while others said " I shall be with the Christians in Al-Sham (Syria and region surrounding it) and they will give me peace.

Once again, you have affirmed exactly what I stated above. This verse is just reflective of the greater militarism that pervades the Qur'an and especially Muhammad's ministry after he gained power. This verse has hardly anything to do with being friends with Christians or Jews. If you have read the history of Islam, you will understand that they are meant to be utterly dominated, and forced to pay tax and live subservient to the law and state of Islam.

Why don't you explain the Battle of Badr for everyone here? After he defeated the Quryish and assumed power in Mecca, the nature of Islam totally changed. While early Meccan surahs dealt with themes of peace, co-existence and friendship with Christians and Jews (until they would convert), after his hijrah there was only one theme: war. This culminated at the Battle of Badr.

At Badr, the Muslim armies succeeded in slaughtering Amr ibn Hashem (Abu Jahl - father of fools - as Muhammad called him) and his army. This was the beginning of Muhammad's reign as not merely a prophet, but a warlord, and infallible authority. He had now forged his own empire.

The Interpretation:

O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends Allah told Muslims that they should break their alliances with Jews and Christians and that Muslims should not should not ask them for help and degrade themselves by begging them

and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend Meaning whoever asks them for help and takes them as proponents he is then surely he is one of them Thus it was referring to Muslims who were betraying their brother Muslims and Islam by taking Jews and Christians as allies against Muslims.

5:52 But you will see those in whose hearts is a disease hastening towards them, saying: We fear lest a calamity should befall us; but it may be that Allah will bring the victory or a punish ment from Himself, so that they shall be regretting on account of what they hid in their souls.

But you will see those in whose hearts is a disease Referring to Muslims who still doubt Islam and are insincere to it ( Ibn-Abbas said that it was referring to Abdallah Bin-Abi). hastening towards them Meaning Hastening towards turning their alliance to Jews and becoming one with them and it was also said that it meant Helping Jews against Muslims. It was also said it was referring to allying with the Jews and Christians of Najran as they were distinguished…. As was said by Al-Kalbi.

The usual rhetoric. One thing is clear from this post and ayah, however, and that is that Islam was spread by the sword. As getting2big details above, the true genesis of Islam only took place after Muhammad took up a weapon, mobilized an army and sent them marching into pagan cities, slaughtering Christians, Jews and all else in its wake and forging an empire. Muhammad refused to accept Christians and Jews as allies, equals or consorts, but rather sought to establish total dominance and subdue them utterly and impose jizya (mandatory disbeliever tax).

Moreover, Muhammad didn't simply stop at shirking Christians or Jews from positions of trust. He slaughtered them. For example, when it came to the tribe of Jewish tribe of Bani Quraiza from Medina, he had each and every young man past the age of puberty (seems to be a recurrent theme in Islam ) slaughtered, and all their women and children sold into slavery.

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 446:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamen...ml#005.059.447

Narrated Anas:
Volume 5, Book 59, Number 447:

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

The people of (Banu) Quraiza agreed to accept the verdict of Sad bin Mu'adh. So the Prophet sent for Sad, and the latter came (riding) a donkey and when he approached the Mosque, the Prophet said to the Ansar, "Get up for your chief or for the best among you." Then the Prophet said (to Sad)." These (i.e. Banu Quraiza) have agreed to accept your verdict." Sad said, "Kill their (men) warriors and take their offspring as captives, "On that the Prophet said, "You have judged according to Allah's Judgment," or said, "according to the King's judgment."

Do you need tafsir to explain what slaughtering men above puberty, and stealing their wives and children into slavery means? Anyways, why stop there? Not only are Christians and Jews not to be taken as awliyah, the Qur'an states quite clearly that they are the worst of creations and surely will burn forever and ever in the fires of hell. Far from "mutual respect" wouldn't you say?

The Qur'an: Al Bayinnah 98:06
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/098.qmt.html#098.006

098.006
YUSUFALI: Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures.
PICKTHAL: Lo! those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings.
SHAKIR: Surely those who disbelieve from among the followers of the Book and the polytheists shall be in the fire of hell, abiding therein; they are the worst of men.

I will stop here as I believe that this is enough and its obvious that n1rv4n4 will not be able to refute it. I hope its clear now that what was meant wasn’t friendship as Islam doesn’t stand against forming friendships with Jews, Christians or anyone who doesn’t insult or disgrace Islam (mutual respect).

Wait for the next thread of deliberately misinterpreted verses of islam.

Let's just clarify:

1) Muhammad established his religion by warfare, as getting2big states - The Battle of Badr.
2) Jews and Christians are to be shirked from all positions of trust, authority and respect.
3) Jews and Christians are the worst of creations, and will be in hell
4) Muhammad slaughtered the worst of creations, the Jewish tribe of Banu Quraiza, and took their surviving wives and children as slaves (many of which became holy concubines).

As usual, Islam is peace, love, tolerance and respect™.

[getting2big]

I must say I didn’t expect you to fall for this but I guess that was just my subconscious wishing you weren’t so ignorant.

Originally Posted by n1rv4n4

Once again, you have affirmed exactly what I stated above. This verse is just reflective of the greater militarism that pervades the Qur'an and especially Muhammad's ministry after he gained power. This verse has hardly anything to do with being friends with Christians or Jews. If you have read the history of Islam, you will understand that they are meant to be utterly dominated, and forced to pay tax and live subservient to the law and state of Islam.

First you said I "have affirmed what you have stated above". While the truth is that I have only translated two tafsirs. A 1st grader would have realized that the reason for that is to show that the translation of the Quran has many paths in which the scholars have took and each had his reason for choosing his path and that’s due to his understanding of the Quran and Islamic history. So saying "I" have affirmed what you have said is quite ignorant as I have only shown two sides of the Tafsir, unlike others (you) who only show the side that suits them.

In these two Tafsirs a muslims wouldn’t have faced the problem of choosing one of them as both are logically accepted. One Tafsir told Muslims not to be one with Jews and Christians (as was explained just so you don’t interpret my words to you whim) and the other Tafsir told Muslims not to prevail Jews and Christians against Muslims ( as was explained due to the event of that time). So in both the Scholars had their proof which both had their own bases. Knowing that I'm not in the same level of the scholars I couldn’t decide which is true and which is not.

It seems you believe that this verse has nothing to do with "love" but again as usual you failed to provide proof as to why it has nothing to do with love. So by all means enlighten as to why you chose what you chose and of course I'm asking for historical and Quranic proof. And nothing else.

It also seems that you slipped when you said that it has nothing to do with friendship as you have proved my point in that the Quran doesn’t forbid Muslims from being friends with Jews and Chirstians and for that I thank you for saving me the time.

Then you through in "taxes" which had nothing to do what so ever with the verse. Also you showed in the most stupidest manner. Why didn’t tell everyone what are the rules of these taxes? Is it not because they show the humanitarian and logical side of Islam? Yes that is the reason. Everyone you should understand that the taxes that n1rv4n4 threw in with out clarifying their rules are only asked from the non-muslims if they live in an Islamic country and only if they showed that they are not willing to fight for that country if it was attacked. So in other words it is just a form of service that they weren’t willing to do for their country and for that they are taxed for it. Which is what n1rv4n4 deliberately hid.

Originally Posted by n1rv4n4

Why don't you explain the Battle of Badr for everyone here? After he defeated the Quryish and assumed power in Mecca, the nature of Islam totally changed. While early Meccan surahs dealt with themes of peace, co-existence and friendship with Christians and Jews (until they would convert), after his hijrah there was only one theme: war. This culminated at the Battle of Badr.

Now you are standing against logic itself. Can anyone tell me that he will throw himself in a fight where he is out numbered? Will you not stay away from trouble even though you know what is being done is wrong? especially when you are sure that for your actions will make your whole family suffer (killed)? That is how the Muslims were like in the beginning. They were vastly outnumbered, they were continuously tortured by the Arabs, they had their family and loved ones killed just because they were Muslims. So when commonsense comes in he will tell you not to fight and stay away from your enemy. Can anyone tell me that what the Muslims did was wrong?

But what should be noted is that the Quran came with verses of peace and also with verses asking Muslims not to fight at the time being ( as they did they would have been whipped out. Does any military strategist stand against this?). When the Muslims gained strength then they were asked to start to DEFEND themselves. The Quran told Muslims that now you may fight for your rights but still the Quran also said that war should be the last solution. Which is something n1rv4n4 didn’t say.

As for "Bader":

"Bader" is a well which lays 160km away from Medina and the battle was named after that well. The battle was at the 2nd Hejree year at 17 of Ramdan. Before the battle started Allah (sw) brought this Quranic verse to the Prophet (pbuh) "Al-Anfal" 61: And if they incline to peace, then incline to it and trust in Allah; surely He is the Hearing, the Knowing. asking the kufar for peace and to avoid war (this shows that in Islam war is the last solution). Thus the Prophet (pbuh) sent Robaiaa to the kufar and asked them not to fight the Muslims. But Abu-Jahaal refused and said that war is the only solution.

I believe that this was enough about Bader as after that the battle started. This battle actually proved to everyone that war should be the last solution and it should always be avoided if possible. This is the teaching of Islam. Not what n1rv4n4 is trying to show.

n1rv4n4 was trying to prove that after Bader Islam and Muslims changed. He is trying to prove that the peace the Muslims were asking for was just a lie due to their position at that time. But yet again the battle of Bader proved that war is ALWAYS the last solution in Islam. But of course I also said that war should always be avoided if possible and this was the case with Muslims before hijra. They weren’t in a position to defend themselves and protect their rights. But after hijra they had that power and they only used it defend and protect. Unlike what n1rv4n4 was trying to show. Also what should be noted that at the bettle of Bader the Muslims were VASTLEY outnumbered.

Originally Posted by n1rv4n4

At Badr, the Muslim armies succeeded in slaughtering Amr ibn Hashem (Abu Jahl - father of fools - as Muhammad called him) and his army. This was the beginning of Muhammad's reign as not merely a prophet, but a warlord, and infallible authority. He had now forged his own empire.

Now n1rv4n4 is trying to show the Prophet as a warlord which is quite stupid. I ask everyone what makes a leader perfect? Isnt it that he should be well versed in the arts? I again ask everyone If war was to defend your rights and regain them is it not a just war? So all of these rhetoric are unbalanced, they are actually asking Muslims to be sitting ducks and accept whatever fait is bestowed upon them. I believe that everyone will disagree with what n1rv4n4 was desperately trying to prove. As for "Abu-Jahal" and the ignorant comment n1rv4n4 came up with, that was his nickname at the time and "Jahal" in Arabic means ignorant or knows nothing.

Originally Posted by n1rv4n4

The usual rhetoric. One thing is clear from this post and ayah, however, and that is that Islam was spread by the sword. As getting2big details above, the true genesis of Islam only took place after Muhammad took up a weapon, mobilized an army and sent them marching into pagan cities, slaughtering Christians, Jews and all else in its wake and forging an empire. Muhammad refused to accept Christians and Jews as allies, equals or consorts, but rather sought to establish total dominance and subdue them utterly and impose jizya (mandatory disbeliever tax).

All of this has been previously disputed and is totally baseless as neither of the tafsirs agree with what n1rv4n4 said. Please return to my first post and read what lieges of prevailing and pietism meant and what lieges of love and affinity meant. Which both have been proven to be correct and stood side by side with logic. Also the taxes were explained earlier.

I believe that I should add something which I believe that you will find quite interesting: The thread was made to show the true interpretation of the verses 5:51-54 and that was done and no one until now disputed it. What n1rv4n4 is arguing has nothing to do with these verses and has nothing to do with the battle of Bader. Actually the battle of Bader was only used to show the chronological order which was accepted by some scholars and refuted by others. N1rv4n4 tried to link the battle of Bader with the verse but in doing so he agreed that the verse didn’t come regarding friendship which proves my point (read the first paragraph of his post). But desperately tried to show that Islam came to slaughter everyone else which was previously refuted. BUT his true game comes in when he said that Islam stands against all Jews and Christians and doesn’t make alliance with and linked that to the verse as proof to what he is trying to prove and that was MY proof that his kind will take the Quranic verses out of context to suit their means.

[getting2big]

Originally Posted by n1rv4n4

Moreover, Muhammad didn't simply stop at shirking Christians or Jews from positions of trust. He slaughtered them. For example, when it came to the tribe of Jewish tribe of Bani Quraiza from Medina, he had each and every young man past the age of puberty (seems to be a recurrent theme in Islam ) slaughtered, and all their women and children sold into slavery.
Volume 5, Book 59, Number 446:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamen...ml#005.059.447
Narrated Anas:
Volume 5, Book 59, Number 447:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
The people of (Banu) Quraiza agreed to accept the verdict of Sad bin Mu'adh. So the Prophet sent for Sad, and the latter came (riding) a donkey and when he approached the Mosque, the Prophet said to the Ansar, "Get up for your chief or for the best among you." Then the Prophet said (to Sad)." These (i.e. Banu Quraiza) have agreed to accept your verdict." Sad said, "Kill their (men) warriors and take their offspring as captives, "On that the Prophet said, "You have judged according to Allah's Judgment," or said, "according to the King's judgment."
Do you need tafsir to explain what slaughtering men above puberty, and stealing their wives and children into slavery means? Anyways, why stop there? Not only are Christians and Jews not to be taken as awliyah, the Qur'an states quite clearly that they are the worst of creations and surely will burn forever and ever in the fires of hell. Far from "mutual respect" wouldn't you say?

You are about to drown. Did you actually sacrifice whatever credibility you had on this? What does this have to do with the verses I brought? Is there any proof that any of these hadiths true and authentic? Where is your proof on that? And don’t forget What does this have to do with these verses?

Again everyone this is another proof of how n1rv4n4's mind works. He jumps from one task to another with accomplishing the first. I bring Quranic verses which are 100% authentic he brings hadith which he fails to prove their authenticity and also fails to show the WHOLE story behind so people would understand and again fails to prove it.

I have something to say: "John beheaded Tom who's a respected gentleman". Tell me what will you immediately think of John after you heard this?

I will rephrase it : " John beheaded Tome who's a respected gentleman who massacred and raped a whole village of innocent people". Now what will you say about John after hearing this?

Lets not get into simple details of how Tom could be respected and a rapist ( read history and this proves itself). I believe it is obvious what I was aiming at. Even though both of the statement were true, you would have reacted differently on each one. Do I need to point out which form n1rv4n4 uses?

Originally Posted by n1rv4n4

The Qur'an: Al Bayinnah 98:06
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/098.qmt.html#098.006

098.006
YUSUFALI: Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures.
PICKTHAL: Lo! those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings.
SHAKIR: Surely those who disbelieve from among the followers of the Book and the polytheists shall be in the fire of hell, abiding therein; they are the worst of men.

Let's just clarify:

1) Muhammad established his religion by warfare, as getting2big states - The Battle of Badr.
2) Jews and Christians are to be shirked from all positions of trust, authority and respect.
3) Jews and Christians are the worst of creations, and will be in hell
4) Muhammad slaughtered the worst of creations, the Jewish tribe of Banu Quraiza, and took their surviving wives and children as slaves (many of which became holy concubines).

As usual, Islam is peace, love, tolerance and respect™.

ً
What does mutual respect have anything to do with what you just said? Muslims will respect who respects them in this life. But we have nothing to do with them in the life after. Your statement was completely meaningless, just shows how hard you are trying to find anything on Islam and forge it to suit your means. As for the rest of the nonsense I have refuted all of it previously in this post. Another thing is as I said before the Religion of Peace card has just expired. Islam is the religion of peace to shows it peace and the religion of war to who shows it war . SO STOP YOUR LYING.

I believe that was interesting. Please read what n1rv4n4 wrote and look at the answers to it which I posted. This ALL proves my point of him doing everything he can of forging and manipulating to gain his mean which he failed at doing so. Please read every word carefully and if I wasn’t clear in any point just ask and I will try my best to clarify it.

Thank You

[TranceNRG]

Impressive getting2big
good job

[EOY]

*Standing Ovation*

I'd have to say..OWNED!.

Has anyone noticed how n1rv4n4 jumps from irrelevant topic to another just to try to "SHOCK !" people with his startling Islamic facts ?
For God's sake just stick to the subject for once.

[TranceNRG]

Originally Posted by EOY

Has anyone noticed how n1rv4n4 jumps from irrelevant topic to another just to try to "SHOCK !" people with his startling Islamic facts ?
.

He also stopped replying to another thread, as soon as I tried to dig the issue a deeper. He just cursed me and left


Intelligant people won't fall for his hateful lies.
However, those who already hate Islam love his threads.

[n1rv4n4]

Originally Posted by getting2big

I must say I didn’t expect you to fall for this but I guess that was just my subconscious wishing you weren’t so ignorant.

This coming from someone that believes there is absolutely nothing wrong with executing people for leaving Islam, executing homosexuals, engaging in sexual slavery, and slaughtering people for the sake of Allah. Sure, pal.

First you said I "have affirmed what you have stated above". While the truth is that I have only translated two tafsirs. A 1st grader would have realized that the reason for that is to show that the translation of the Quran has many paths in which the scholars have took and each had his reason for choosing his path and that’s due to his understanding of the Quran and Islamic history.

As if you’ve found some sort of profound truth. Keep your tafsir – it proves nothing. If you paid any attention to what I was saying, I agreed that this ayah has nothing to do with personal relationships. This was an ayah conveniently delivered by Allah as a prelude to the holy jihad of Muhammad, as he entered into battle, triumphed, and established his own holy empire on the bodies of his enemies – still dripping with blood. The fact that you aren’t disturbed by this just goes to show you how great the gulf is between the enslaved Muslim mind, and the free-thinking West that is committed to human rights and equality.

One fact does remain from your tafsir, something that cannot be changed, and that is that your Prophet was a warlord, as his god Allah sanctioned holy war for the purpose of spreading his religion. Whether or not Christians or Jews could be held as lieges, protectors, or military partners is largely irrelevant to the case I am making. If you bothered reading the Qur’anic ayah I posted, it’s already an established fact that Christians and Jews are the worst of creations. Lofty language, isn’t it? Hard to be friends with someone, an equal, when the word of your Allah clearly states they are abominations:

The Qur'an: Al Bayinnah 98:06
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/098.qmt.html#098.006

098.006
YUSUFALI: Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures.
PICKTHAL: Lo! those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings.
SHAKIR: Surely those who disbelieve from among the followers of the Book and the polytheists shall be in the fire of hell, abiding therein; they are the worst of men.

Have you ever called someone “the worst of creations,” and then extended your hand in friendship? Sort of like Brutus betraying Christ with a kiss, if you ask me. But of course, that flew right over your head. You had no response to that except… “Well, what comes in the afterlife is irrelevant.” Please. We already know how Islam looks upon non-Muslims.

In fact, as in the hadith I posted above, Muhammad not only slaughtered entire tribes of Jews, and took their wives and children into enduring, lifelong sexual slavery, he also commanded all Muslims in his dying years to achieve his own “Final Solution” of sorts for Christians and Jews:

Book 45, Number 45.5.18:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamen...ml#045.45.5.18
Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Two deens shall not co-exist in the Arabian Peninsula."
Malik said that Ibn Shihab said, ''Umar ibn al-Khattab searched for information about that until he was absolutely convinced that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, had said, 'Two deens shall not co-exist in the Arabian Peninsula,' and he therefore expelled the Jews from Khaybar."

Hard to have Christian and Jewish friends when they are expelled from your lands, huh? Or when they are excluded from all positions of trust, and power, and responsibility? You really expect us to believe that Islam seeks to establish tolerance and friendship between Christians, Jews and Muslims? Muhammad was clear, that he was sent to fight until the whole world had accepted Islam.

Book 14, Number 2635:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamen....html#014.2635

Narrated Anas ibn Malik:

The Prophet said: I am commanded to fight with men till they testify that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is His servant and His Apostle, face our qiblah (direction of prayer), eat what we slaughter, and pray like us. When they do that, their life and property are unlawful for us except what is due to them. They will have the same rights as the Muslims have, and have the same responsibilities as the Muslims have.

Excuse the rest of us for believing that all people should be equal in spite of your precious religious blueprint.

The fact that I was trying to make is that it is difficult to ascribe a tafsir

So saying "I" have affirmed what you have said is quite ignorant as I have only shown two sides of the Tafsir, unlike others (you) who only show the side that suits them.

In these two Tafsirs a muslims wouldn’t have faced the problem of choosing one of them as both are logically accepted. One Tafsir told Muslims not to be one with Jews and Christians (as was explained just so you don’t interpret my words to you whim) and the other Tafsir told Muslims not to prevail Jews and Christians against Muslims ( as was explained due to the event of that time). So in both the Scholars had their proof which both had their own bases. Knowing that I'm not in the same level of the scholars I couldn’t decide which is true and which is not.

For nearly the entire course of this thread, you’ve decided to completely skirt the topic at hand and instead ramble for more than half a page about nothing (and in numerous posts, at that). Instead of arguing at the heart of the matter, which is the status of Christians and Jews in Islam, and where they fit into the Prophet Muhammad’s ministry, you’ve chosen to babble about tafsirs – and I know exactly why.

In addition to the plain language of the initial ayah that ensures Christians and Jews are to always be subordinates and never equals, I posted a clear Qur’anic ayat that states exactly what Christians and Jews are: the vilest of creature. Friendship is impossible when such a climate is sanctioned by Allah, and even moreso when the Prophet Muhammad states clearly that religions cannot co-exist.

It doesn’t take any tafsir to realize the major themes of Islam, afterall, we hear it in the Prophet Muhammad’s own words and see it all around the world, everyday.

In addition to this, I found your own “you must understand Arabic” clause, to be absolutely hilarious. Doesn’t that violate the basic principle of your religion: Islam is for all? This is all that Islam truly is – a tool of Arab imperialism. Is it any wonder that people around the world are forced to shirk their native cultures, dress like Arabs, pray in the Arab language, facing an Arab city, reciting the Qur’an in Arabic, masquerading as something they are not? Did you think that Arabs are the majority of Muslims? LOL…. and here you have Trance, this poor Persian fellow, who’s ancestors were brutalized, raped, slaughtered and subjugated into finally accepting this religion! What a joke!

It also seems that you slipped when you said that it has nothing to do with friendship as you have proved my point in that the Quran doesn’t forbid Muslims from being friends with Jews and Chirstians and for that I thank you for saving me the time.

Excuse me? I’ve stated from the very beginning that this has nothing to do with friendship. It’s simply another example of your Prophet’s militant design for Islam, and the fact that Muslims are to be dominant in every standard. Friendship is irrelevant and out of the question as Christians and Jews are the vilest of creatures, religions should never co-exist, and rather they should be forced into submission, and mandatory “disbeliever taxes” to Allah’s cronies on earth.

Then you through in "taxes" which had nothing to do what so ever with the verse. Also you showed in the most stupidest manner. Why didn’t tell everyone what are the rules of these taxes? Is it not because they show the humanitarian and logical side of Islam? Yes that is the reason. Everyone you should understand that the taxes that n1rv4n4 threw in with out clarifying their rules are only asked from the non-muslims if they live in an Islamic country and only if they showed that they are not willing to fight for that country if it was attacked. So in other words it is just a form of service that they weren’t willing to do for their country and for that they are taxed for it. Which is what n1rv4n4 deliberately hid

So let me get this straight… Muslims have invaded my land, swallowed my government whole, taken full control of the education system, the courts, all legal jurisdictions, and every apparatus of state control, imposed their language and religion onto my land, and forced the captured women into sexual slavery… and you expect me to pay a tax to YOU as a sign of justice and logic? And what happens if I decide to no longer pay any jizya? I think this is what you delibaretly hid – YOU DIE BY THE SWORD OF MUSLIMS:

[n1rv4n4]

Book 019, Number 4294:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamen....html#019.4294

If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them.

This isn’t logic or justice – it’s bruteforced Mafia-style extortion, sanctified by Allah! But then again, we’ve come to expect this from Muslims, as its clear that human rights and common decency have no place in the Prophet Muhammad’s traditions: only jihad for the purpose of spreading faith, virgins, slavery, forced taxes, and an assortment of other barbaric anachronisms that have no place in this world.

Now you are standing against logic itself. Can anyone tell me that he will throw himself in a fight where he is out numbered? Will you not stay away from trouble even though you know what is being done is wrong? especially when you are sure that for your actions will make your whole family suffer (killed)? That is how the Muslims were like in the beginning. They were vastly outnumbered, they were continuously tortured by the Arabs, they had their family and loved ones killed just because they were Muslims. So when commonsense comes in he will tell you not to fight and stay away from your enemy. Can anyone tell me that what the Muslims did was wrong?

The only solution is to fight them, slaughter all their post-pubescent men, force their wives into permanent sexual slavery, raise their children in Islam, and if they refuse, make them slaves as well. I mean, this is how Islam was spread, right – on the defensive. Muslims were defending themselves from the whole world, which is exactly how they ended up in the Middle East, in Persia, in India, in Asia minor, at the gates of Europe, and in the Caucasus.

This is the great difference between Christianity and Islam. While Christ was prepared to be crucified for his beliefs, Muhammad crucified others. Next time, save us the rhetoric of logic, justice, love, peace and that entire steaming load of BS.

But what should be noted is that the Quran came with verses of peace and also with verses asking Muslims not to fight at the time being ( as they did they would have been whipped out. Does any military strategist stand against this?). When the Muslims gained strength then they were asked to start to DEFEND themselves. The Quran told Muslims that now you may fight for your rights but still the Quran also said that war should be the last solution. Which is something n1rv4n4 didn’t say.

As you’ve just affirmed, when Muslims were weak and insignificant, their only commitment was to peace, tolerance and fellowship. However, when Muhammad gained military power, his new modus operandi of faith was jihad, and slaughtering people for the sake of Allah. Muhammad turned from a pacified, illiterate prophet into a true warlord overnight. Read the hadith again, your Prophet was commanded to fight until the whole world has accepted Islam. You, as a Muslim, should follow in his footsteps. Afterall, what is the greatest thing a Muslim can do? Muhammad extolled to his believers that armed, holy conflict in the path of Allah is the greatest thing one can do (aside from become a Muslim):

Volume 1, Book 2, Number 25:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamen...ml#001.002.025

Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle was asked, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad). The questioner then asked, "What is the next (in goodness)? He replied, "To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause." The questioner again asked, "What is the next (in goodness)?" He replied, "To perform Hajj (Pilgrim age to Mecca) 'Mubrur, (which is accepted by Allah and is performed with the intention of seeking Allah's pleasure only and not to show off and without committing a sin and in accordance with the traditions of the Prophet)."

[n1rv4n4]

As for "Bader":

"Bader" is a well which lays 160km away from Medina and the battle was named after that well. The battle was at the 2nd Hejree year at 17 of Ramdan. Before the battle started Allah (sw) brought this Quranic verse to the Prophet (pbuh) "Al-Anfal" 61: And if they incline to peace, then incline to it and trust in Allah; surely He is the Hearing, the Knowing. asking the kufar for peace and to avoid war (this shows that in Islam war is the last solution). Thus the Prophet (pbuh) sent Robaiaa to the kufar and asked them not to fight the Muslims. But Abu-Jahaal refused and said that war is the only solution.

I believe that this was enough about Bader as after that the battle started. This battle actually proved to everyone that war should be the last solution and it should always be avoided if possible. This is the teaching of Islam. Not what n1rv4n4 is trying to show.

Finally we have conclusive proof, that Muhammad was indeed a warlord, commanded to fight until the whole world has accepted Islam. We have noted that jihad is the greatest thing that a Muslim can do. And, let it also be noted for the purpose at hand, that beheadings, sexual slavery, extortion, and cold blooded slaughter are also valid, holy resorts in the Prophet’s traditions (only after you've tried to make them convert by asking them).

n1rv4n4 was trying to prove that after Bader Islam and Muslims changed. He is trying to prove that the peace the Muslims were asking for was just a lie due to their position at that time. But yet again the battle of Bader proved that war is ALWAYS the last solution in Islam. But of course I also said that war should always be avoided if possible and this was the case with Muslims before hijra. They weren’t in a position to defend themselves and protect their rights. But after hijra they had that power and they only used it defend and protect. Unlike what n1rv4n4 was trying to show. Also what should be noted that at the bettle of Bader the Muslims were VASTLEY outnumbered.

You stated yourself that after Muhammad gained power, his stratagem changed – there is no argument there. After all, what strategist, or holy prophet, wouldn’t alter his course of action to achieve unchallenged supremacy as his fortunes changed for the better, right? That peace and love crap clearly took the backseat to armed, holy jihad for Allah. We should also remember that Muhammad wasn’t an average human being – he was the holiest, Seal of Prophets, here to wage war on the behalf of the big dude in the sky. He even has a book to prove it.

Now n1rv4n4 is trying to show the Prophet as a warlord which is quite stupid. I ask everyone what makes a leader perfect? Isnt it that he should be well versed in the arts? I again ask everyone If war was to defend your rights and regain them is it not a just war? So all of these rhetoric are unbalanced, they are actually asking Muslims to be sitting ducks and accept whatever fait is bestowed upon them. I believe that everyone will disagree with what n1rv4n4 was desperately trying to prove. As for "Abu-Jahal" and the ignorant comment n1rv4n4 came up with, that was his nickname at the time and "Jahal" in Arabic means ignorant or knows nothing.

Not only did Muhammad have holy war established as a fine, sacramental art for Allah, he also had:

1) Caravan raiding
2) Beheading
3) Stoning
4) Slavery
5) Pre-pubescent marriage
6) Wife beating
7) Extortion (Jizya)

Similarly perfected in their own rights as sacred acts for Allah.

I believe that I should add something which I believe that you will find quite interesting: The thread was made to show the true interpretation of the verses 5:51-54 and that was done and no one until now disputed it. What n1rv4n4 is arguing has nothing to do with these verses and has nothing to do with the battle of Bader. Actually the battle of Bader was only used to show the chronological order which was accepted by some scholars and refuted by others. N1rv4n4 tried to link the battle of Bader with the verse but in doing so he agreed that the verse didn’t come regarding friendship which proves my point (read the first paragraph of his post). But desperately tried to show that Islam came to slaughter everyone else which was previously refuted. BUT his true game comes in when he said that Islam stands against all Jews and Christians and doesn’t make alliance with and linked that to the verse as proof to what he is trying to prove and that was MY proof that his kind will take the Quranic verses out of context to suit their means.[/b]

I can speak on my own behalf.

getting2big attempted to present Surah 5:51-54, which was an open extolment to refuse Christians and Jews from any positions of respect, authority, and fellowship as being simply delimited towards the greater sphere of state politics, and not dealing with personal relationships.

I agreed, as within Muhammad’s design for war, Christians and Jews are the enemies of Muslims. I further state that friendship is not even an issue to be discussed because, according to Allah, Christians and Jews are the worst of creations, and by Muhammad’s worlds, not to co-exist with Islam.

In the process, we simply affirmed that jihad is indeed a wholly Islamic practice, and by getting2big’s own account, one that the Prophet Muhammad engaged in and assumed as his role as the “perfect” leader, in addition to a vast assortment of other sacred skills.

And once again, it has been proven that Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance, respect, and worldwide fellowship. ™

[EOY]

Just a quick note on Jizya (Islamic taxes) or as n1rv4n4 puts it "EEEXXTOOR-TIOOONN!!" (nice buzz word):

Non-Muslims are asked to pay the Jizya for the privilege of living in an Islamic society. Everyone pays, even the Muslims. Muslims pay Zakat (alms), non-Muslims pay Jizya. How is this unjust ? Tax paying is not extortion. Doesn't the US use a tax system ? It's the same thing.

[FatFat Bastard]

Originally Posted by EOY

Just a quick note on Jizya (Islamic taxes) or as n1rv4n4 puts it "EEEXXTOOR-TIOOONN!!" (nice buzz word):

Non-Muslims are asked to pay the Jizya for the privilege of living in an Islamic society. Everyone pays, even the Muslims. Muslims pay Zakat (alms), non-Muslims pay Jizya. How is this unjust ? Tax paying is not extortion. Doesn't the US use a tax system ? It's the same thing.

does US charge muslims a higher tax rate?

[EOY]

Originally Posted by FatFat Bastard

does US charge muslims a higher tax rate?

No it doesnt. But the Islamic state excuses non-Muslims from paying Zakat or participating in Jihad. It only asks for Jizya in return.

[TranceNRG]

Originally Posted by FatFat Bastard

does US charge muslims a higher tax rate?

dunno about US but Canada taxes people with more income higher.
I dun think there's any country anywhere that charges ALL people the same.
There are always some who have to pay less tax, and always some who have to pay more.

am I wrong?

[FatFat Bastard]

Originally Posted by EOY

No it doesnt. But the Islamic state excuses non-Muslims from paying Zakat or participating in Jihad. It only asks for Jizya in return.

i am trying to say an Islamic state has 2 separate tax brakets for muslims and non muslims, non muslims pay more...