Quote of the Day #10 Update

Yusuf al-Qaradawi

Advertisements

This post is for the lady who wrote a massive comment on my previous quote from Islamic “scholar” Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Firstly, I have had a troll from another blog I contribute to visit this site so all comments are now held for moderation; I am not censoring you. Secondly, the site you used to post your (endless) series of quotes from the Koran contained some kind of virus that caused the WordPress app to crash. Thirdly, I understood the quote from al-Qaradawi perfectly well; words mean what they mean, not what you say they mean. Feel free to come back for a debate, without quoting endlessly from a book of fairy stories that I promise I have read from cover to cover (and read Koran, Sura 66 if you want a good laugh).

11 thoughts on “Quote of the Day #10 Update”

  1. > Thirdly, I understood the quote from al-Qaradawi perfectly well; words mean what they mean, …

    Well then you’d have to explain his numerous other statements such as him saying “the justification for fighting is not unbelief, but rather waging war” and his other statements on religious freedom in Islam.

    > Feel free to come back for a debate, without quoting endlessly from a book

    How can I prove a point for a religion whose central message is in a book, if you can’t even allow me to quote from it?!

    Like

    1. I did not say that you could not quote from the Koran; I said that the quotes you posted were from a website that contained a virus and caused my WordPress app to crash. I also suggested that I am not going to scroll through endless quotes from a book I have read and found to be dull, repetitive and incoherent.

      The reason I posted al-Qaradawi’s quote was to make a point about apostasy and he is quite clear that without the apostasy law Islam would not exist. In other words, Islam cannot stand on its own merits but has to compel adherence. This is the very essence of dictatorship.

      You explained that al-Qaradawi says “the justification for fighting is not unbelief but rather waging war.” If you look in my original post, it contains al-Qaradawi’s words that “the punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle is that they should be murdered or crucified.” A more vague ‘crime” than “waging war against Allah” is hard to imagine.

      Like

      1. > I did not say that you could not quote from the Koran; I said that the quotes you posted were from a website that contained a virus and caused my WordPress app to crash.

        That does not make sense to me, I don’t think it’s due to me having copied them “from a website that contained a virus.” It’s something else that caused the crash, but I’m not sure what the real cause was, also since I can’t replicate your issue on a wordpress blog.

        > I also suggested that I am not going to scroll through endless quotes from a book I have read and found to be dull, repetitive and incoherent.

        There was absolutely nothing compelling you to read it in its entirety, you could’ve just read 3 or 5 verses from each category and that would’ve been very sufficient. In fact these are sufficient:

        1. Differences in people’s beliefs are bound to happen, so attempting to force everyone to become Muslim is, ab initio, impossible and contrary to the Divine Command: “And had your Lord willed, those on earth would have believed — all of them entirely. Then, [O Muhammad], would you compel the people in order that they become believers?” (10:99)

        2. Judgement between people in their differences in belief is in the Day of Resurrection and not in this earthly world: “As for the believers, those who follow the Jewish faith, the Sabians, the Christians, the Magians, and the idolaters, God will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection; God witnesses all things.” (22:17) See also 5:105.

        3. Compulsion and coercion is prohibited, and it is the way of unbelievers and not pious believers: “There is no compulsion in religion: true guidance has become distinct from error, so whoever rejects false gods and believes in God has grasped the firmest hand-hold, one that will never break. God is all hearing and all knowing.” (2:256) And there are many examples of past prophets and their followers being subject to coercion by unbelievers, that are mentioned in the Qur’an.

        4. The human is free to believe or to disbelieve: “Say, ‘Now the truth has come from your Lord: let those who wish to believe in it do so, and let those who wish to reject it do so.’” (18:29)

        5. The purpose of Prophets and Mesengers is restricted to preaching and da’wa, and to give a clear warning, without any type of compulsion or coercion, and that negates the idea that the Messengers have to be guardians and watchers over people. “if they argue with you [Prophet], say, ‘I have devoted myself to God alone and so have my followers.’ Ask those who were given the Scripture, as well as those without one, ‘Do you too devote yourselves to Him alone?’ If they do, they will be guided, but if they turn away, your only duty is to convey the message. God is aware of His servants.” (3:20) “So [Prophet] warn them: your only task is to give warning, you are not there to control them.” (88:21-22) and many other verses.

        6. Having a different religion does not prohibit kindness and justice

        “God does not forbid you to deal kindly and justly with anyone who has not fought you for your faith or driven you out of
        your homes: God loves the just.

        But God forbids you to take as allies those who have fought against you for your faith, driven you out of your homes, and helped others to drive you out: any of you who take them as allies will truly be wrongdoers.” (60:8-9)

        ____________________

        > The reason I posted al-Qaradawi’s quote was to make a point about apostasy and he is quite clear that without the apostasy law Islam would not exist.

        And I said very clearly that you were taking him out of context. Here’s an example:

        > In other words, Islam cannot stand on its own merits but has to compel adherence.

        Again you’re twisting his own words, he said in Fiqh al-Jihad pg.322: “This verse (2:256) shows that the true religion – which is Islam – does not accept compulsion, and it is not allowed, for a clear reason: that it does not need in any way someone to be compulsed to it, for its clear proofs.”

        > This is the very essence of dictatorship.

        al-Qaradawi is a very famous proponent of democracy (as far as it doesn’t relate to the majority controlling the law, since that is the exclusive realm of God).

        > You explained that al-Qaradawi says “the justification for fighting is not unbelief but rather waging war.” If you look in my original post, it contains al-Qaradawi’s words that “the punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle is that they should be murdered or crucified.” A more vague ‘crime” than “waging war against Allah” is hard to imagine.

        Again quoting him on his commentary on that verse in Fiqh al-Jihad pg.1102:
        “those are who commit armed robbery, who spread mischief on earth, and those are the ones mentioned in the verse: ‘The punishment for those who fight God and His Messenger and spread mischief on earth…'” And in pg.1182 of the same book he goes on to more details on how this verse puts severe punishments for the crime of terrorism: “Section: 1. Terrorism (al-irhab). And the Holy Qur’an has warned against this great crime, and set forth for its punishment one of the most severe hududs[1], or the most severe one according to some, to deter others from making their action. [and then he cites the verses: 5:33-34 “Those who wage war against God and His Messenger and strive to spread corruption in the land should be punished by death, crucifixion, the amputation of an alternate hand and foot, or banishment from the land: a disgrace for them in this world, and then a terrible punishment in the Hereafter,
        unless they repent before you overpower them- in that case bear in mind that God is forgiving and merciful.”] And look at these huge punishments: Killing, taslib, the amputation of an alternate hand and foot, banishment from the land, to those criminals, since they spread fear, and had an impact on the safety of people, and the Qur’an considered them to be “fighting God and His Messenger”, and they considered them to be spreading mischief on earth,”

        ____________

        [1] : To learn about what hududs are–if you want, and the misconceptions surrounding them, see this great article by a Georgetown University professor: https://yaqeeninstitute.org/en/jonathan-brown/stoning-and-hand-cutting-understanding-the-hudud-and-the-shariah-in-islam/

        Like

        1. Ok, I’ll play…

          In the order of the points you made:

          I’m not very computer-savvy but there was definitely something up with your first post. It kept causing the WordPress app to crash on my iPad. I had to fire up the old laptop and send the message straight to junk. Sorry about that, you obviously took the time and effort to reply to my original post. Apologies for your wasted time.

          “Divine Command” – since there is no god, he cannot “command” people to be Muslim anyway. Don’t take this personally; just as I don’t believe in your god, I don’t believe in Zeus, Thor, Quetzalcoatl or the magic carpenter. There is absolutely no evidence that any “god” exists – and the onus of proof is on believers not atheists. If I said that there was an invisible pink unicorn called Gerald living in my shoe, would you believe me? And if I said that Gerald orders me to eat ham sandwiches and drink beer and that He demands special treatment and tax concessions for His Holy Stable? You would dismiss me as a dangerous loony.

          “Day of Resurrection” – childish threats about what happens after you die hold no terror. How is being judged by your “god” after I die any different from parents telling kids to be good or Santa won’t bring them a present? Fear of punishment is not morality – a “celestial North Korea” as the late, great, much-lamented Christopher Hitchens would say.

          Koran 2:256 is the apologists’ favourite verse. You know as well as I do that the earlier, more pacific suras are abrogated by the latter, more militant ones. Sura 9 which contains the notorious “Verse of the Sword” was one of the last to be “revealed.”

          Freedom to believe or disbelieve is worthless if disbelief automatically sends someone to the Fire (capital F!).

          “Prophets” – why does “god” only speak to mythical or semi-historical figures on the margins of civilisation? If “god” really wanted to get his message across, why choose an illiterate merchant as his messenger? Why is the message so opaque, even to native Arabic speakers? If “god” really wanted to talk to us, he would appear at the final of the World Cup.

          “Having a different religion does not prohibit kindness and justice” – lots of your co-religionists would disagree. Profoundly.

          I am not twisting al-Qaradawi’s words – the apostasy law is dictatorship.

          “al-Qaradawi is a very famous proponent of democracy (as far as it doesn’t relate to the majority controlling the law, since that is the exclusive realm of God).” You have described theocracy not democracy. Democracy comes from the Greek meaning “people power” – saying that the law is exclusively for god to decide is the antithesis of democracy.

          “Spreading mischief on Earth” is an even vaguer ‘crime’ than “waging war against Allah.”

          Best regards to you.

          Like

          1. > “Divine Command” – since there is no god, he cannot “command” people to be Muslim anyway. Don’t take this personally; just as I don’t believe in your god, …

            How is you not believing in God negate the idea that “in Islam it is a divine command that people will necessarily have different religions and beliefs on earth”?

            > “Day of Resurrection” …

            Again, same thing as above.

            > Koran 2:256 is the apologists’ favourite verse. You know as well as I do that the earlier, more pacific suras are abrogated by the latter, more militant ones. Sura 9 which contains the notorious “Verse of the Sword” was one of the last to be “revealed.”

            There are many conditions for a verse to be considered abrogated that must be met, but let’s even forget about all these conditions and only work out with the : If “There is no compulsion in religion” is abrogated by verses on fighting then how can you explain the fact that this verse was revealed in the very chapter in which we find “Fighting has been prescribed for you…” and many other verses on fighting?

            More importantly, how does 9:5 or “the verse of the sword” (even do the word ‘sword’ never appears in the Qur’an) contradict 2:256 for it to be said to have been abrogated? If you read the whole passage (9:1-13) it makes it abundandtly clear that 9:5 speaks about those polytheists who broke their treaties and initiated war: 9:6, 9:7 “But as for those
            with whom you made a treaty at the Sacred Mosque, so long as they
            remain true to you, be true to them; God loves those who are mindful of Him.”, 9:13 “How could you not fight a people
            who have broken their oaths, who tried to drive the Messenger out,
            who attacked you first? Do you fear them? It is God you should fear
            if you are true believers.”

            If “There is no compulsion in religion” was abrogated then why did the 2nd Caliph Umar b. al-Khattab reportedly use it as a justification for not forcing his mamluk to embrace Islam? Do you think Umar b. al-Khattab, who was a companion of the Prophet, doesn’t know Islam well?

            > Freedom to believe or disbelieve is worthless if disbelief automatically sends someone to the Fire (capital F!).

            That doesn’t make sense from the perspective of those who disbelief: if they’re really disbelievers, wouldn’t they also reject the claim that their disbelief will send them to Hell?

            (And to clarify one point: in Islam, those who didn’t receive its message, or who received it in a very distorted way = as is the case today, are in a different category and are not necessarily destined to Hell)

            > “Prophets” – …

            Again, your beliefs with regards to Prophets has no impact on the statement “in Islam, Prophets’ mission is only restricted to preaching, and they’re no watchers over people”.

            > “Having a different religion does not prohibit kindness and justice” – lots of your co-religionists would disagree. Profoundly.

            Would they disagree on the following clear-cut verse?

            “God does not forbid you to deal kindly and justly with anyone who has not fought you for your faith or driven you out of
            your homes: God loves the just.

            But God forbids you to take as allies those who have fought against you for your faith, driven you out of your homes, and helped others to drive you out: any of you who take them as allies will truly be wrongdoers.” (60:8-9)

            > You have described theocracy not democracy.

            “theocracy: a form of government in which a country is ruled by religious leaders” This isn’t the case here, since the leader is democratically elected.

            > “Spreading mischief on Earth” is an even vaguer ‘crime’ than “waging war against Allah.”

            Since you’re interested in the technical definition let me quote from Ahmed Al-Dawoody’s Phd Thesis at the University of Birmingham on War in Islamic Law,[1]

            > Muslim jurists are unanimous in their view that these verses {5:33-34, i.e. those that you quoted} are the basis of the treatment and punishment of the law of hirabah… Concerning the technical juristic definition of hirabah, the jurists commonly agree on the following main characteristics of the perpetrators of this crime as: a group of Muslims who under the threat, or use, of arms attack or merely intimidate or terrorize their victims in order to overtly and forcefully rob, kill or merely terrorize their victims.

            He basis this off many major works on fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) as can be seen in footnote 229.

            Is it still vague for you?

            By this definition, terrorism would fit under that crime,[2]

            > the current Grand Mufti of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and head of the Committee of Senior Scholars and the Department of Scholarly Research and Fatwa in Saudi Arabia, includes among the crimes to bepunished under the law of hirabah: “[terrorist] explosions and hijacking airplanes, ships, trains, etc.” The Islamic Fiqh Council Statement on Terrorism, signed by a group of world-renowned Muslim scholars,adds that “the perpetrators of, and accomplices who plan, finance, supply weapons for, or propagate, such terrorist acts receive the deterrent punishments prescribed in theh hirabah verse (5:33).”

            _________

            [1] : http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/382/1/Aldawoody09PhD.pdf p.317, see footnote 129 where he cites all the major works by Muslim jurists on which he bases this definition.

            [2] : p.324

            _________

            Best wishes,

            Like

            1. Your answer concerning everything to do with Islam is… more Islam. This is unsurprising as people have been arguing, debating and building laws and states based on the Koran for the past 1,400 years. The fact that Islam is divided into so many competing sects is proof that it is manmade not divine.

              You dismiss my point about the nonexistence of god not once but three times (like Peter?). But this is the absolute crux of our disagreement. If I may…

              1/ All elephants are pink;
              2/ Nelly is an elephant;
              3/ Therefore, Nelly is pink.

              This is perfectly logical and consistent in itself but it is based on a false assumption. Ditto Islam. The Islamic declaration of faith contained two untruths in the space of eleven words.

              The very fact that the doctrine of abrogation exists proves that the Koran is a manmade not divine document. It’s not surprising it is inconsistent as it (allegedly) contains the thoughts of Muhammad over his 20+ year career as a “prophet.” He went from musing in a cave about the injustice he witnessed in Mecca to dictator of the Arabian peninsula with eleven wives – remember that the hilariously indiscreet Sura 66 gives Muhammad, and Muhammad alone, the right to have more than four wives. No wonder his opinions changed.

              Saying that Koran 9:5 does not contain the word “sword” is pure sophistry.

              Using a Saudi Arabian cleric to defend your (I will admit, liberal) interpretation of Islam? Seriously? It is Saudi Arabian-funded Wahhabi Islam that has poisoned Islamic communities the world over. If a more disgusting, totalitarian ideology than Wahhabism exists in the world today I am not aware of it – a misogynistic, homophobic, anti-Semitic, Kafirphobic, basically misanthropic, fascist doctrine.

              The Conditions of Umar are not your friend. They are based on the classic “convert, die or pay” options so beloved of ISIS. You may not think forcing people to pay a poll tax, making them to give up their seats to Muslims and a ban on repairing churches amount to “compulsion” but I certainly do. They are part of a nasty, supremacist world view that sees non-Muslims as less than human – why do you think ISIS use Yazidi women as their sex slaves?

              Perhaps it is time to read a book other than the Koran and commentaries based thereon? I recommend “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins, “God is NOT Great” by Christopher Hitchens and “Why I Am Not A Muslim” by Ibn Warraq. The splendid Tom Holland wrote a book on early Islamic history called “In the Shadow of the Sword” which was accompanied by a television documentary – for which he (predictably) received death threats.

              Best wishes to you.

              Like

  2. > Your answer concerning everything to do with Islam is… more Islam.

    I don’t understand what your point is here. Of course my answers will involve speaking about Islam, what did you expect?

    > You dismiss my point about the nonexistence of god not once but three times…

    Yeah, because saying that God doesn’t exist has no relevance to statements describing what the beliefs of a religion are, in other words it has no epistemic impact on statements of the form “Islam says X”, “Islam commands Y”… If you want to disprove “Islam says X” you’d have to prove that “Islam says not X”, as mentioned earlier, maintaining that “not X” has no epistemic impact on that statement. Just like believing that colonialism is wrong has no epistemic impact on the statement “Britain maintained a colonialist agenda in the past centuries.”

    > The very fact that the doctrine of abrogation exists proves that the Koran is a manmade not divine document.

    How is God commanding the commission of X whenever circumstance Y obtains, and the abandonment of X for another ruling Z whenever Y changes or disappears be, in any way, contradictory?

    > Sura 66 gives Muhammad, and Muhammad alone, the right to have more than four wives.

    Yeah, where’s the problem with that?

    > Saying that Koran 9:5 does not contain the word “sword” is pure sophistry.

    That was behind two parentheses, it was not even my whole point. (Since you didn’t address the other arguments that I presented on how 9:5 doesn’t abrogate 2:256, I’ll put them at the end hoping that you wont ignore them next time)

    > Using a Saudi Arabian cleric to defend your (I will admit, liberal) interpretation of Islam? Seriously?

    I was quoting Ahmad al-Dawoody’s Phd thesis. He was just presenting his fatwa as an example of how hirabah is interpreted in the modern context, and how it incorporates new aspects such as modern forms of terrorism (“airplane hijacking, … bombings …”). What’s wrong with that? (I’m definitely not a follower of “Wahhabi Islam” or whathever you call it, but I wont address those myths that you have on it since that’s off-topic)

    > The Conditions of Umar are not your friend. They are based on the classic “convert, die or pay” options so beloved of ISIS.

    You didn’t address the arguments. By the way, ‘convert, pay the jizya, or die’ just because one is a disbeliever has absolutely no basis in Islam. We already noted how ‘Umar didn’t think that 2:256 was abrogated (which you didn’t address, but I’ll give ou the opportunity to do so – see below), I can also mention how ‘Umar ordered that the non-Muslim civilians shouldn’t be fought (in particular non-Muslim farmers and peasants who don’t wage war), or more importantly how the overwhelming majority of Muslim jurists agreed that the justification for war is not unbelief, but this will come after you address the points I made earlier (you can also read al-Dawoody’s Phd thesis if you want concerning the justification for war).

    > Perhaps it is time to read a book other than the Koran and commentaries based thereon?

    Lol, as if Muslims necessarily read only one book in their life.

    > I recommend “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins, “God is NOT Great” by Christopher Hitchens and “Why I Am Not A Muslim” by Ibn Warraq.

    This is getting really off-topic (look how the conversation started with a discussion on al-Qaradawi’s views on apostasy, and now you’re talking about atheism. Since you seem to ignore many points that I mentioned earlier, I’ll leave at the end the on-topic things that you didn’t address in the earlier reply, which I hope you can address since they’re on-topic)

    [off-topic: I wont respond next time]
    You didn’t even recommend a book by some academically adept atheist, I was expecting you to recommend some book by Bertrand Russell, or some other philosopher of his calibre, but instead you recommend Richard’s book, which is, as described by the philosopher Alvin Plantinga, “many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class”, and a journalist’s take on theology (who also wants to teach us how religion is bad for our health, yet somehow managed to die from cancer due to his alcohol and cigarettess addiction), and finally, a complice of Richard Spencer, Pamella Geller and their ilk?
    [/off-topic]

    > The splendid Tom Holland wrote a book on early Islamic history called “In the Shadow of the Sword”

    [off-topic]
    I’m already aware of his work, including his ridiculous claim that early Muslims took the practice of the 5 daily prayers – that every Muslim on earth agreed with – from Zoroastrian converts to Islam, which was absolutely debunked by Georgetown professor Jonathan Brown, “So we have a choice. We can believe Holland’s claim, based on an unreliable nineteenth-century forgery of a supposedly twelfth-century work from France quoting an eleventh-century rabbi in Baghdad quoting an eighth century rabbi from near Kufa, that, because Zoroastrian converts to Islam still liked to drink wine, that therefore the Muslim practice of praying five times a day, which, like wine drinking, Zoroastrians also did, must also have been imported into Islam from Zoroastrianism by Zoroastrian converts.

    That, or, we can believe, based on historically attested Muslim and non-Muslim sources, which paint a reliable overall picture of Muslim practice in Kufa and Medina decades before Rav Yehudai supposedly made his observation, that the five daily prayers were widely accepted as a core practice of Islam by at least the early 700’s, only seventy or so years after the death of the Prophet Muhammad.”[1]
    [/off-topic]

    ______________

    [1] : http://drjonathanbrown.com/2015/tom-holland-the-five-daily-prayers-and-they-hypocrisy-of-revisionism/

    -o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-
    -o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-

    Okay, finally, here are the on-topic things that you didn’t address,

    _________________

    > “Divine Command” – since there is no god, he cannot “command” people to be Muslim anyway. Don’t take this personally; just as I don’t believe in your god, …

    How is you not believing in God negate the idea that “in Islam it is a divine command that people will necessarily have different religions and beliefs on earth”?

    > “Day of Resurrection” …

    Again, same thing as above.

    > Koran 2:256 is the apologists’ favourite verse. You know as well as I do that the earlier, more pacific suras are abrogated by the latter, more militant ones. Sura 9 which contains the notorious “Verse of the Sword” was one of the last to be “revealed.”

    There are many conditions for a verse to be considered abrogated that must be met, but let’s even forget about all these conditions and only work out with the : If “There is no compulsion in religion” is abrogated by verses on fighting then how can you explain the fact that this verse was revealed in the very chapter in which we find “Fighting has been prescribed for you…” and many other verses on fighting?

    More importantly, how does 9:5 or “the verse of the sword” (even do the word ‘sword’ never appears in the Qur’an) contradict 2:256 for it to be said to have been abrogated? If you read the whole passage (9:1-13) it makes it abundandtly clear that 9:5 speaks about those polytheists who broke their treaties and initiated war: 9:6, 9:7 “But as for those
    with whom you made a treaty at the Sacred Mosque, so long as they
    remain true to you, be true to them; God loves those who are mindful of Him.”, 9:13 “How could you not fight a people
    who have broken their oaths, who tried to drive the Messenger out,
    who attacked you first? Do you fear them? It is God you should fear
    if you are true believers.”

    If “There is no compulsion in religion” was abrogated then why did the 2nd Caliph Umar b. al-Khattab reportedly use it as a justification for not forcing his mamluk to embrace Islam? Do you think Umar b. al-Khattab, who was a companion of the Prophet, doesn’t know Islam well?

    > Freedom to believe or disbelieve is worthless if disbelief automatically sends someone to the Fire (capital F!).

    That doesn’t make sense from the perspective of those who disbelief: if they’re really disbelievers, wouldn’t they also reject the claim that their disbelief will send them to Hell?

    (And to clarify one point: in Islam, those who didn’t receive its message, or who received it in a very distorted way = as is the case today, are in a different category and are not necessarily destined to Hell)

    > “Prophets” – …

    Again, your beliefs with regards to Prophets has no impact on the statement “in Islam, Prophets’ mission is only restricted to preaching, and they’re no watchers over people”.

    > “Having a different religion does not prohibit kindness and justice” – lots of your co-religionists would disagree. Profoundly.

    Would they disagree on the following clear-cut verse?

    “God does not forbid you to deal kindly and justly with anyone who has not fought you for your faith or driven you out of
    your homes: God loves the just.

    But God forbids you to take as allies those who have fought against you for your faith, driven you out of your homes, and helped others to drive you out: any of you who take them as allies will truly be wrongdoers.” (60:8-9)

    > You have described theocracy not democracy.

    “theocracy: a form of government in which a country is ruled by religious leaders” This isn’t the case here, since the leader is democratically elected.

    _________________

    > Muslim jurists are unanimous in their view that these verses {5:33-34, i.e. those that you quoted} are the basis of the treatment and punishment of the law of hirabah… Concerning the technical juristic definition of hirabah, the jurists commonly agree on the following main characteristics of the perpetrators of this crime as: a group of Muslims who under the threat, or use, of arms attack or merely intimidate or terrorize their victims in order to overtly and forcefully rob, kill or merely terrorize their victims.

    He basis this off many major works on fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) as can be seen in footnote 229.

    Is it still vague for you?

    By this definition, terrorism would fit under that crime,[2]

    __________________

    Best wishes,

    Like

    1. Sigh.

      The original quote was “If they had got rid of the apostasy punishment Islam wouldn’t exist today.” Islam means “submission,” the apostasy law demands submission under threat of death. At least thirteen Muslim-majority countries, including Saudi Arabia – ruled by the Custodian of the Two Mosques, impose the death penalty for apostasy. This is fascism.

      Islam is an idea. An idea that must compel allegiance with death threats in by definition a bad idea. The solution to the problems caused by Islam is not more Islam. This website is not the place to discuss the minutiae of Islamic law.

      You offer no proof for god’s existence but talk (again!) about his “commands.” An idea based on a falsehood is a bad idea.

      You accuse me of ignoring your point about verse 2:256 and Caliph Umar’s belief that this verse what not abrogated. The brutal conditions imposed by Umar demonstrate that the verse was ignored whether or not it was abrogated. Actions not words.

      “Convert, pay the jizya or die has absolutely no basis in Islam.” Is this a joke? Caliph al-Baghdadi, with his PhD in Islamic Studies from an Islamic university, doesn’t seem to have a problem with it. And I suspect he knows a lot more about Islamic law than either of us.

      Sura 66 “what’s the problem with that?” Really? Making special rules for yourself and claiming they came from god isn’t a problem? The mind boggles.

      I have read Russell’s book and plenty of others. Thanks. I apologise for the ‘one book’ remark. It was a cheap shot.

      Ad hominem attack on Christopher Hitchens. At least Hitchens only inflicted cigarettes and alcohol on himself. Religious people inflict their vices on others. May I suggest that religion has caused far more misery to far more people than cigarettes and alcohol.

      Ad hominem attack on Ibn Warraq plus guilt by association. Some Muslims repeatedly (and correctly) object to association with the likes of ISIS but are content to do the same to anyone who dares criticise their religion.

      Alvin Plantinga? Ha, ha, ha…

      Regards to you.

      Like

      1. > You offer no proof for god’s existence but talk (again!) about his “commands.” An idea based on a falsehood is a bad idea.

        I already talked about this here (you’re basing that on an obvious logical fallacy):

        Yeah, because saying that God doesn’t exist has no relevance to statements describing what the beliefs of a religion are, in other words it has no epistemic impact on statements of the form “Islam says X”, “Islam commands Y”… If you want to disprove “Islam says X” you’d have to prove that “Islam says not X”, as mentioned earlier, maintaining that “not X” has no epistemic impact on that statement. Just like believing that colonialism is wrong has no epistemic impact on the statement “Britain maintained a colonialist agenda in the past centuries.”

        > You accuse me of ignoring your point about verse 2:256 and Caliph Umar’s belief that this verse what not abrogated. The brutal conditions imposed by Umar demonstrate that the verse was ignored whether or not it was abrogated.

        You’re dodging the question: you initially claimed that 9:5 abrogated 2:256 and I showed you how ‘Umar – who is more knowledgeable about Islam than we both do – thought that it wasn’t abrogated, yet for some reason you still maintain that. (I already responded to your claim about brutal conditions “convert, pay or die” lie, so don’t repeat it here unless you addressed the earlier comment)

        > “Convert, pay the jizya or die has absolutely no basis in Islam.” Is this a joke?

        As I said earlier “Convert, pay the jizya or die simply because you’re an unbeliever” has no basis in Islam, as mentioned earlier, since as determined by the overwhelming majority of Muslim jurists across the 4 schools of jurisprudence (we can also include the Shi’ite Twelver imamite school) that the justification for war is NOT unbelief, as the famous Damascene scholar Ibn Taymiyyah writes: “The unbelievers are only fought on the condition that they declare war, according to the majority of scholars, as evident in the book and prophetic tradition.” (An-Nubuwwat, 1/140) And Ibn Al-Qayyim writes, “Fighting is only necessary to confront war and not to confront unbelief. For this reason, women and children are not killed, neither are the elderly, the blind, or monks who do not participate in fighting. Rather, we only fight those who wage war against us.” (Ahkam Ahlu Dhimmah, 1/110)

        > Caliph al-Baghdadi, with his PhD in Islamic Studies from an Islamic university,

        Since you seem to know him better than I do, what is his PhD thesis about?

        > doesn’t seem to have a problem with it. And I suspect he knows a lot more about Islamic law than either of us.

        Ok, what was his PhD thesis about then? (Hint: you can’t find it because it doesn’t exist, it’s just a lie perpetrated that you uncritically took)

        > Sura 66 “what’s the problem with that?” Really? Making special rules for yourself and claiming they came from god isn’t a problem?

        How’s God – who decides what is lawful and what is unlawful – make a certain ruling specific to His Prophet a problem? For example, the Prophets do not inherit, where’s the problem with that? And just to get rid of your misconceptions regarding his marriages, as John Bagot Glubb says,

        “It is, however, worthy to note that of all his wives, only Aisha was a virgin when he married her. Zainab bint Jahash was a divorced wife and all the rest were widows, some of them, it would seem, not particularly attractive. Moreover the Apostle had married Khadija when he was twenty-five and she was a widow considerably older than he was. He had remained completely faithful to her for twenty-four years until her death.” (The Life and Times of Muhammad p.237)

        -o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-
        -o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-

        Okay, finally, here are the on-topic things that you didn’t address,

        _________________

        > “Divine Command” – since there is no god, he cannot “command” people to be Muslim anyway. Don’t take this personally; just as I don’t believe in your god, …

        How is you not believing in God negate the idea that “in Islam it is a divine command that people will necessarily have different religions and beliefs on earth”?

        > “Day of Resurrection” …

        Again, same thing as above.

        > Koran 2:256 is the apologists’ favourite verse. You know as well as I do that the earlier, more pacific suras are abrogated by the latter, more militant ones. Sura 9 which contains the notorious “Verse of the Sword” was one of the last to be “revealed.”

        There are many conditions for a verse to be considered abrogated that must be met, but let’s even forget about all these conditions and only work out with the : If “There is no compulsion in religion” is abrogated by verses on fighting then how can you explain the fact that this verse was revealed in the very chapter in which we find “Fighting has been prescribed for you…” and many other verses on fighting?

        More importantly, how does 9:5 or “the verse of the sword” (even do the word ‘sword’ never appears in the Qur’an) contradict 2:256 for it to be said to have been abrogated? If you read the whole passage (9:1-13) it makes it abundandtly clear that 9:5 speaks about those polytheists who broke their treaties and initiated war: 9:6, 9:7 “But as for those
        with whom you made a treaty at the Sacred Mosque, so long as they
        remain true to you, be true to them; God loves those who are mindful of Him.”, 9:13 “How could you not fight a people
        who have broken their oaths, who tried to drive the Messenger out,
        who attacked you first? Do you fear them? It is God you should fear
        if you are true believers.”

        If “There is no compulsion in religion” was abrogated then why did the 2nd Caliph Umar b. al-Khattab reportedly use it as a justification for not forcing his mamluk to embrace Islam? Do you think Umar b. al-Khattab, who was a companion of the Prophet, doesn’t know Islam well?

        > Freedom to believe or disbelieve is worthless if disbelief automatically sends someone to the Fire (capital F!).

        That doesn’t make sense from the perspective of those who disbelief: if they’re really disbelievers, wouldn’t they also reject the claim that their disbelief will send them to Hell?

        (And to clarify one point: in Islam, those who didn’t receive its message, or who received it in a very distorted way = as is the case today, are in a different category and are not necessarily destined to Hell)

        > “Prophets” – …

        Again, your beliefs with regards to Prophets has no impact on the statement “in Islam, Prophets’ mission is only restricted to preaching, and they’re no watchers over people”.

        > “Having a different religion does not prohibit kindness and justice” – lots of your co-religionists would disagree. Profoundly.

        Would they disagree on the following clear-cut verse?

        “God does not forbid you to deal kindly and justly with anyone who has not fought you for your faith or driven you out of
        your homes: God loves the just.

        But God forbids you to take as allies those who have fought against you for your faith, driven you out of your homes, and helped others to drive you out: any of you who take them as allies will truly be wrongdoers.” (60:8-9)

        > You have described theocracy not democracy.

        “theocracy: a form of government in which a country is ruled by religious leaders” This isn’t the case here, since the leader is democratically elected.

        _________________

        > Muslim jurists are unanimous in their view that these verses {5:33-34, i.e. those that you quoted} are the basis of the treatment and punishment of the law of hirabah… Concerning the technical juristic definition of hirabah, the jurists commonly agree on the following main characteristics of the perpetrators of this crime as: a group of Muslims who under the threat, or use, of arms attack or merely intimidate or terrorize their victims in order to overtly and forcefully rob, kill or merely terrorize their victims.

        He basis this off many major works on fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) as can be seen in footnote 229.

        Is it still vague for you?

        By this definition, terrorism would fit under that crime,[2]

        __________________

        Like

        1. This is becoming wearisome.

          This blog is not the place for discussing the intricacies of Islamic law.

          Any idea that needs to be enforced with apostasy laws is a bad idea. End of.

          I neither know nor care about al- Baghdadi’s PhD. He is accepted as Caliph by a small but significant number of people. Conspiracy theories are tedious.

          God cannot decide “what is lawful and what is unlawful.” Muhammad, if he existed, made those rules himself for his own advantage.

          What, in the name of all the gods that have never existed, has virginity got to do with anything?

          Aisha? We probably shouldn’t go there.

          Like

  3. You won’t win this argument Mike. Religious mutters will go on and on and on and on. They’re almost as blinkered as the Welsh when you point out their language is obsolete.

    My understanding of Islam is that – as your lady says – you cannot force people to believe. The kuran gets around this by telling it’s followers to kill all non believers. Furthermore, it says that killing infidels is not a sin.

    Religion of peace my arse! Having said that, there’s nothing as peaceful as a dead infidel…

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s