jcross19:
you too bring an evidence that prove that radical christians wrecking havoc in the community.

johnydon22:
here is an appetizer https://www.nairaland.com/3594638/elderly-woman-accused-witchcraft-beaten

jcross19:
I saw the post on the forum and am saying it now that any person can do that or bear christian name that does not make him, her or them a christian basic. A good christian will know that we are not wrestling against the flesh so!!!!. There is flaw in every religion on earth but for christianity rascarlity is not the dent . In india from 1993 to 2013, 10million young ladies have been killed for witchery and no atheist have seen or talked about it it. You can google it yourself sir.

johnydon22:
this is called the true scots man fallacy... Trying to redefine the meaning of a christian when stumped...

annunaki2:


When you show pure christian teachings from christ himself that justifies beating the alleged witch, we will start taking your bigotry seriously.

johnydon22:


Go play with your mates. I dont have time to waste on you.

Ubenedictus:
u and johnydon are off topic.

annunaki2:


It's johnydunce that keeps dragging Christianity into strictly islamic threads.

johnydon22:


i am not here to start quoting the scriptures with you, i am here to condemn acts of terrorism both religions has poured on the world due to the 'dominate the world' ideology both possess.

i judge a person based on their action not what your scripture says because i am sure none of you holds to 40% of what the scriptures says.

Jesus and Muhammed are two different dead indviduals, i am not here to argue which of them is better than the other rather i am here to castigate the actions of their so-called followers whose actions certainly affects even me.

Ubenedictus:
Farmerforlife what about the alledged law of abrogation? Is surah 9 also on defensive wars?

Farmerforlife:


We understand all verses of the Quran in the context in which the prophet (ﷺ) applied them. The abrogated verses are clear (from the explanatory hadith), what verses abrogated them is also clear. We cannot just declare a verse abrogated because it does not agree with our desires. There must be backing evidence.

Ubenedictus:
OK, lets see.

surah 2 says there is no compulsion in religion while surah3:83) - "Are they seeking a religion other than Allah's, when every soul in the
heavens and the earth has submitted to Him, willingly or by
compulsion?

Hope u can see? one verse says no compulsion another says every soul must submit willingly or by compulsion. How do u reconcile them without abrogateing the earlier for the later?

Kay17:
In order to judge Islam solely on its merits we require a deep understanding and insight of the historical background of the religion as well as the competing theologies and perspectives within the religion.

For me there is hardly the expertise within this forum to judge Islam or a united perspective within Islam to form the basis of a criticism against it.

Farmerforlife:


We understand all verses of the Quran in the context in which the prophet (ﷺ) applied them. The abrogated verses are clear (from the explanatory hadith), what verses abrogated them is also clear. We cannot just declare a verse abrogated because it does not agree with our desires. There must be backing evidence.

johnydon22:


i am not here to start quoting the scriptures with you, i am here to condemn acts of terrorism both religions has poured on the world due to the 'dominate the world' ideology both possess.

i judge a person based on their action not what your scripture says because i am sure none of you holds to 40% of what the scriptures says.

Jesus and Muhammed are two different dead indviduals, i am not here to argue which of them is better than the other rather i am here to castigate the actions of their so-called followers whose actions certainly affects even me.

MrMontella:

this is nonsense...

Ive seen muslims on this forum pick out verses in the quran by muhammed himself...condemning terroristic acts..

And your statement about jesus would be arguable.....had it been the christian bible had only the four gospels..

Ubenedictus:


I did a little play around muslim literature, see what i found:

Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 959 - Then the apostle sent Khalid bin Walid…
to the Banu al-Harith and ordered him to invite them to Islam three days before he
attacked them. If they
accepted then he was to accept it from them, and if they declined he was to fight them.
So Khalid set out and came to them, and sent out riders in all
directions inviting the people to Islam, saying, “If you accept Islam you will be safe.” So the men accepted Islam as they were invited.

Farmerforlife:


This incident is not authenticated. Scholars have long had issues with the stories of historians that have dubious chains of narrators. In most cases historians themselves have stated that all the stories they have narrated are not authentic (such as atTabari, who also related this incident). This is why Muslim scholars have differentiated between stories from historians and hadith from compilers of narrations. Also, in extracting religious rulings, only hadith narrations are relied upon in interpreting Quranic verses, historical stories are not.


As a by-the-way, even if we accept the story as true, we realise even from ibn Hisham himself that the prophet (ﷺ) was not very happy with the actions of Khalid ibn alWaleed

Ubenedictus:
Are there competing theologies as regards the use of violence? is there any school that advocates non violence?

Ubenedictus:
it is ok if u reject that story as untrue and claim muhamed never sent someone to compel people to islam but that isnt the only story even in d hadith. can u reject all of them?

what about surah 3:83 that seems to allow compulsion?

Ubenedictus:
it is ok if u reject that story as untrue and claim muhamed never sent someone to compel people to islam but that isnt the only story even in d hadith. can u reject all of them?

what about surah 3:83 that seems to allow compulsion?

alfarouq:

In addition to what Farmer 4life has said, scholars explained that the statement submitting willingly or by force to mean
Allah has the power to enforce all humans to obey and always follow his commands like he did with the angels but he decided to allow man to chose whether to willingly submit or not.
But there are instances he has also forced man to obey his will which include forcing all to eat, sleep, excrete, drink, etc whether such person is theist or atheist, old or young, rich or poor.
Those that willingly submitted are the Muslims.
Islam encourages peace and order but it does not support pacifism.
Sometimes to establish peace and order, you need both the stick and carrot approach.

Kay17:

There are Sufis that reject violence absolutely.

Ubenedictus:
farmerforlife Sahih Muslim (1:33) The Messenger of Allah said: "I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer and pay zakat.

Ubenedictus:
farmerforlife Sahih Muslim (1:33) The Messenger of Allah said: "I
have been commanded to fight
against people till they testify
that there is no god but Allah,
that Muhammad is the
messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer and pay
zakat.

Ubenedictus:
Sahih Muslim (19:4294) - "When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold
yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them ... 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.

Ubenedictus:
So u mean sumtimes it is ok to kill people just so they submit to allah even when they dont want to, is that not the definition of violent?

Farmerforlife:
Sorry if I do not respond on time. Sometimes I do not see your mentions until later.



Again it is in the context of responding to aggression. The verse forbidding being initial aggressors is always hanging over our heads. Any other evidence we present, must fall under its purview because it specifies and limits the precise condition under which we may slay, fight, kill etc

Ah I have bolded the operative word in the cited hadith. Interprete accordingly.