₦airaland Forum

Cutezt:
The version of Islam on nairaland and the one practiced in reality in Nigeria, especially northern Nigeria, is not tallying at all!

Abi online Islam and reality Islam dey?

You judge a religion by what it books says and not how the people behave. Mind you also don't judge a religion by what fraction of it's people do. Look at the ones that are actually following it. This tiny fraction are the ones that are claiming to be religious but doesn't want to follow what the religion commands thereby tainting the religion. Also are those that are intentionally tainting the religion but are not muslims. E.g the west and their cohort putting Islam and terrorism in the same bracket.
Islam is the only true religion of people have done their research right.

jokerphilics:
You judge a religion by what it books says and not how the people behave. Mind you also don't judge a religion by what fraction of it's people do. Look at the ones that are actually following it. This tiny fraction are the ones that are claiming to be religious but doesn't want to follow what the religion commands thereby tainting the religion. Also are those that are intentionally tainting the religion but are not muslims. E.g the west and their cohort putting Islam and terrorism in the same bracket.
Islam is the only true religion of people have done their research right.

All this one you are saying does not tally!

I come from the north (Middle Belt), and I have lived close to a mosque, i have stayed with muslims; in fact, back then in school, my best friend and sit mate for 3 years was a muslim from Kogi, born and brought up in the Middle Belt. I will tell you that the Quran is replete with so many violent ayahs.

The Imams are not helping matters because many of them preach hate and violence, and nobody cautions them, not even you with your claim.

Which prominent muslim has come out to caution Sheik Yahaya Jingir for all his atrocious messages in Jos?

The man is directly responsible for over 70% of the unrest the state suffers, and the Kano governor was raising his hands in endorsement when the fool was spewing rubbish.

When we were in secondary school, there was unrest in some parts of the state on a Tuesday afternoon; I will never forget. My supposed best friend and seatmate was called out by the leader of their Islamic students' fellowship. After he left the class and came back, he took his bag and spoke with a couple of other muslims in the class, and before we knew it, all Muslims had already left. I asked him where he was going with his bag; he said he was going to the mosque, cos we have one inside the school, someone who was even teaching me the Quran at some point o. Do you know that they spread the message that all muslims should meet and go home together, and no Christian knew what was happening?

When the news finally broke out that there was unrest in some parts of the state, it took God's grace for some of the Christians to get to their houses safely.


Bro, I know muslims too well for them to deceive me.

jokerphilics:
[b]You judge a religion by what it books says [/b]and not how the people behave. Mind you also don't judge a religion by what fraction of it's people do. Look at the ones that are actually following it. This tiny fraction are the ones that are claiming to be religious but doesn't want to follow what the religion commands thereby tainting the religion. Also are those that are intentionally tainting the religion but are not muslims. E.g the west and their cohort putting Islam and terrorism in the same bracket.
Islam is the only true religion of people have done their research right.

Yes, and the book and text of that religion say hate, violence, bloodshed, conquer and dominate. Ayah upon ayah, surah upon surah. Oppression is simply a by-product of the main themes.

The tiny faction are the ones who live it wholeheartedly. The vast majority fully support them, and only a few are against it, but dare not be outspoken, lest hate, violence etc.....come upon them.

The outworking of the religion is clear, not anything the west does. Is it the west decapitating the citizens of Oyo, or carrying out gee.hard across great swathes of Africa?


TV

what you personally experienced cannot be dismissed, but tuning it and accusations against individuals should not be used to judge an entire faith or millions of Muslims. Let's examine the Qur'an, context, and specific teachings fairly. Have you not seen or heard of cases where Muslims engaged in acts to protect those not of their faith. In your secondary school days what other main issues existed outside the religious cover? I lived decades in Jos. Had this sad rhyme you got to quote memory verses, say something islamic else your bucket gets kicked if any one cares to take the time before committing murder crime.
It was both or all ways and you should know better how opportunists capitalised to loot, steal and rape.

Cutezt:
All this one you are saying does not tally!

I come from the north (Middle Belt), and I have lived close to a mosque, i have stayed with muslims; in fact, back then in school, my best friend and sit mate for 3 years was a muslim from Kogi, born and brought up in the Middle Belt. I will tell you that the Quran is replete with so many violent ayahs.

The Imams are not helping matters because many of them preach hate and violence, and nobody cautions them, not even you with your claim.

Which prominent muslim has come out to caution Sheik Yahaya Jingir for all his atrocious messages in Jos?

The man is directly responsible for over 70% of the unrest the state suffers, and the Kano governor was raising his hands in endorsement when the fool was spewing rubbish.

When we were in secondary school, there was unrest in some parts of the state on a Tuesday afternoon; I will never forget. My supposed best friend and seatmate was called out by the leader of their Islamic students' fellowship. After he left the class and came back, he took his bag and spoke with a couple of other muslims in the class, and before we knew it, all Muslims had already left. I asked him where he was going with his bag; he said he was going to the mosque, cos we have one inside the school, someone who was even teaching me the Quran at some point o. Do you know that they spread the message that all muslims should meet and go home together, and no Christian knew what was happening?

When the news finally broke out that there was unrest in some parts of the state, it took God's grace for some of the Christians to get to their houses safely.


Bro, I know muslims too well for them to deceive me.

honesttalk21:
what you personally experienced cannot be dismissed, but tuning it and accusations against individuals should not be used to judge an entire faith or millions of Muslims. Let's examine the Qur'an, context, and specific teachings fairly. Have you not seen or heard of cases where Muslims engaged in acts to protect those not of their faith. In your secondary school days what other main issues existed outside the religious cover? I lived decades in Jos. Had this sad rhyme you got to quote memory verses, say something islamic else your bucket gets kicked if any one cares to take the time before committing murder crime.
It was both or all ways and you should know better how opportunists capitalised to loot, steal and rape.

You argue that I should not judge a faith by the actions of individuals, but this distinction fails when the source text itself contains explicit commands for violence. The Qur'an does not just "allow" fighting in self-defense; it contains verses that command offensive warfare and subjugation. We are still seeing it in Jos every day. If you follow the happenings in Barkin Ladi and Mangu LGA, you will not argue it.

It is not enough to say "read the context." These verses are foundational and have been used by jurists and jihadists alike to justify violence throughout history. If these verses are merely "contextual," why do extremists cite them so frequently? and no single religious leader has come out to say, 'No, this can't be used in this context?'

The text itself provides the blueprint.

Also, you claim the Jos crisis was always about looting or politics. That is historically inaccurate. The initial clashes, which I all witnessed, were sparked by religious grievances. Looters may have joined later, but the spark and the mobilization were purely religious. To say it was "just opportunism" erases the theological hatred that drove the mobs.

You ask me to look for "good Muslims." Of course, there are millions of peaceful Muslims. But that is not the question. The question is: Why is the vast majority of global terrorism and religiously motivated communal violence perpetrated by Muslims? You can't ask us to overlook the acts when the world has not had peace because of one religion. A research is conducted from a sample, not every single source.

From ISIS in Iraq/Syria to Boko Haram in Nigeria, Al-Shabaab in Somalia, and attacks in Europe, the perpetrator profile is overwhelmingly Muslim. If one person from a group commits a crime, it's an individual issue. When it happens consistently across different countries, cultures, and continents, it suggests a systemic issue within the ideology or interpretation, not just "bad apples."

The earlier you advocate for your leaders to rise up and speak strongly against all this nonsense, the better. That is, if you survive your advocacy. But I already know this can't be stopped; the Bible already said His hand shall be against every man, and every man's hand against him - Genesis 16:12,

Cutezt:
The earlier you advocate for your leaders to rise up and speak strongly against all this nonsense, the better. That is, if you survive your advocacy.

In truth, it's not advocacy at all. We all know what their religious texts command. We all know what the drive and ultimate aim of the religion is.

It's like the rat that blows softly on your toe as it eats you alive. There is no context for what is considered the unchangeable word of god, for all peoples for all time. The call to hate, violence and bloodshed against everyone and everything that is not them are replete.


TV

I'm not denying the violence or its religious framing rather I'm denying that the religious framing is a sufficient explanation on its own. HRW's own field reporting on Jos and Yelwa documents attacks and reprisals by both Christian and Muslim militias, layered onto indigene/settler status, land disputes, and political appointments.
That's not me softening the record; it's what the organization that actually investigated it found. Can you look keenly here devoid of religious bias?

Personal experience is real, but it's still one perspective, gathered inside one community, filtered through one set of narrators which is exactly the mechanism that produces confirmation bias. Fortunately my long walk in that evening to night in September from Naraguta hostel through permanent site gate, katako then my stop away from home after Apata are to Zaria bye pass didn't turn violent but I and my friend were twice verbally challenged, and a third time told they'd kill us and throw us in the gutter.

Not because what you saw is false, but because it was never designed to test the broader claim you're now using it to support.

So raise the bar to something that can actually be examined; if the claim is that the Qur'an mandates present day violence against non-Muslims, name the specific ayat. Then look at when and why each was revealed, how classical specialist scholars read them not modern polemicists on either side and, most importantly, make the case for why the historical condition they addressed still holds today. That's a real argument. Pointing to what alleged jihadists quote isn't, because extremists cherry-pick decontextualized lines from every scripture, including yours. Naming the verse and doing the historical work would be a stronger claim than either of us has made so far. Are you willing to do that, or is the text is the blueprint resting entirely on how it's been used rather than what it actually says in context?

Cutezt:
You argue that I should not judge a faith by the actions of individuals, but this distinction fails when the source text itself contains explicit commands for violence. The Qur'an does not just "allow" fighting in self-defense; it contains verses that command offensive warfare and subjugation. We are still seeing it in Jos every day. If you follow the happenings in Barkin Ladi and Mangu LGA, you will not argue it.

It is not enough to say "read the context." These verses are foundational and have been used by jurists and jihadists alike to justify violence throughout history. If these verses are merely "contextual," why do extremists cite them so frequently? and no single religious leader has come out to say, 'No, this can't be used in this context?'

The text itself provides the blueprint.

Also, you claim the Jos crisis was always about looting or politics. That is historically inaccurate. The initial clashes, which I all witnessed, were sparked by religious grievances. Looters may have joined later, but the spark and the mobilization were purely religious. To say it was "just opportunism" erases the theological hatred that drove the mobs.

You ask me to look for "good Muslims." Of course, there are millions of peaceful Muslims. But that is not the question. The question is: Why is the vast majority of global terrorism and religiously motivated communal violence perpetrated by Muslims? You can't ask us to overlook the acts when the world has not had peace because of one religion. A research is conducted from a sample, not every single source.

From ISIS in Iraq/Syria to Boko Haram in Nigeria, Al-Shabaab in Somalia, and attacks in Europe, the perpetrator profile is overwhelmingly Muslim. If one person from a group commits a crime, it's an individual issue. When it happens consistently across different countries, cultures, and continents, it suggests a systemic issue within the ideology or interpretation, not just "bad apples."

The earlier you advocate for your leaders to rise up and speak strongly against all this nonsense, the better. That is, if you survive your advocacy. But I already know this can't be stopped; the Bible already said His hand shall be against every man, and every man's hand against him - Genesis 16:12,

honesttalk21:
So raise the bar to something that can actually be examined; if the claim is that the Qur'an mandates present day violence against non-Muslims, name the specific ayat. Then look at when and why each was revealed, how classical specialist scholars read them not modern polemicists on either side and, most importantly, make the case for why the historical condition they addressed still holds today. That's a real argument. Pointing to what alleged jihadists quote isn't, because extremists cherry-pick decontextualized lines from every scripture, including yours.

How "classical specialist scholars" read them is of little import. I have no allegiance to the pope, no fealty to the Bishopric of Canterbury and no one can stop me from interpreting and practising Christianity as I read it or force their interpretation on me.

Further, there will be so called classical specialist scholars who interpret them just as the gee.hardists do. One of the issues I have always had with ee.slam is the fact that both sides of an argument can often be taken from the same scriptures. And, adherents love to present as flattering and benign a view as possible on any topic.

ee.sams aim to bestride the world - by violence if need be - is writ clear. There is no gainsaying that. The view as non-adherents as infidels and inferior will always lead to the hate, violence and bloodshed that the "oppression" topic of this thread is but a secondary matter. It is supremacist, totalitarian, broking no dissent or plurality - more political than religious.


TV

Freedom to interpret scripture does not make an interpretation true. Extremists quoting scripture does not prove what it mandates, and belief alone does not establish causation.

TV01:
How "classical specialist scholars" read them is of little import. I have no allegiance to the pope, no fealty to the Bishopric of Canterbury and no one can stop me from interpreting and practising Christianity as I read it or force their interpretation on me.

If scripture supposedly compels violence today, show it through the text, context, history, competing interpretations, and evidence that its original conditions still apply. “It’s written clearly” is a conviction, not an argument.

TV01:
Further, there will be so called classical specialist scholars who interpret them just as the gee.hardists do. One of the issues I have always had with ee.slam is the fact that both sides of an argument can often be taken from the same scriptures. And, adherents love to present as flattering and benign a view as possible on any topic.

ee.sams aim to bestride the world - by violence if need be - is writ clear. There is no gainsaying that. The view as non-adherents as infidels and inferior will always lead to the hate, violence and bloodshed that the "oppression" topic of this thread is but a secondary matter. It is supremacist, totalitarian, broking no dissent or plurality - more political than religious.


TV

You're arguing both ends in saying no authority can fix scripture's meaning, yet you're certain there's one true meaning every individual should independently arrive at. Pick a side.

expert234:
Oga, stop deceiving yourself. The Hadith is clear. Stop trying to hide behind nonexistent context.

The content of the Hadith is written in plain words very easy to understand.


“Do not greet the Jews and the Christians before they greet you, and when you meet any one of them on the roads, force him to go to the narrowest part of it.”

So nothing really happened? That's alright! May God rebuke the liar between us. Say Amen!

honesttalk21:
Freedom to interpret scripture does not make an interpretation true. Extremists quoting scripture does not prove what it mandates, and belief alone does not establish causation.

Exactly that. Groups that use the text to justify carrying out attacks are not bound by alternative readings - no matter the fancy titles you give them. Just as I don't give hoot about papal bulls or the declarations of any bishop.

The fact is that the prevailing belief in ee-lam is that violence is justified in order to spread the religion - gee.hard is real. Non-believers are treated like 2nd class citizens at best, and altogether inferior persons. And like fancy titles, derogatory labels like extremist mean nothing either.

Unlike the Christian scriptures, which cannot be read to mean attack unbelievers, or proselytise by force. And any such erroneous notions will never become mainstream

honesttalk21:
If scripture supposedly compels violence today, show it through the text, context, history, competing interpretations, and evidence that its original conditions still apply. “It’s written clearly” is a conviction, not an argument.

To historicise or contextualise are ruses of taqqiya. You know your religion. Own it. Historically how was it spread - by the sword. How did it, and still does, routinely discriminate against non-believers.

honesttalk21:
You're arguing both ends in saying no authority can fix scripture's meaning, yet you're certain there's one true meaning every individual should independently arrive at. Pick a side.

One doesn't need a so called "authority" to clearly see scriptural intent. In Christianity it is loving God and loving your neighbour. In ee.slam, it is obeying god, which includes disaliving your neighbour if he doesn't conform. Or even if your neighbour doesn't conform in a way you like! What a dangerous farce.


TV

It's a bother that you are asserting the conclusion rather than demonstrating it.

TV01:
Exactly that. Groups that use the text to justify carrying out attacks are not bound by alternative readings - no matter the fancy titles you give them. Just as I don't give hoot about papal bulls or the declarations of any bishop.
TV

You say scholars' interpretations don't matter because you can read the text yourself, but then you treat your own reading as self-evidently authoritative. If interpretation is purely individual, the jihadist's reading and yours have no stated method for deciding which one represents the text's meaning.

TV01:
The fact is that the prevailing belief in ee-lam is that violence is justified in order to spread the religion - gee.hard is real. Non-believers are treated like 2nd class citizens at best, and altogether inferior persons. And like fancy titles, derogatory labels like extremist mean nothing either.

Unlike the Christian scriptures, which cannot be read to mean attack unbelievers, or proselytise by force. And any such erroneous notions will never become mainstream

That's not actually true of Islam, though. The tradition has established mechanisms for distinguishing authoritative interpretations from fringe ones, including ijmaʿ (scholarly consensus). The 2005 Amman Message is a particularly clear modern example. It was endorsed by scholars and authorities representing the major Islamic legal schools and explicitly rejected the practice of declaring Muslims outside the faith on the basis of unauthorized interpretations. You may disagree with that methodology, but saying no methodology exists is simply inaccurate.

TV01:
To historicise or contextualise are ruses of taqqiya. You know your religion. Own it. Historically how was it spread - by the sword. How did it, and still does, routinely discriminate against non-believers.

One doesn't need a so called "authority" to clearly see scriptural intent. In Christianity it is loving God and loving your neighbour. In ee.slam, it is obeying god, which includes disaliving your neighbour if he doesn't conform. Or even if your neighbour doesn't conform in a way you like! What a dangerous farce.
TV

There's a deeper irony here as the Bible you're claiming to read free of authority exists in the form you're reading because of centuries of scholarly and ecclesiastical decisions about canon. Catholics have 73 books; most Protestants and Anglicans have 66; Orthodox traditions include additional books. Councils, synods, bishops, theologians and later reformers all played roles in determining which texts their communities recognized. You didn't escape authority by reading the text yourself; you inherited a canon shaped by authorities and then rejected the need for authority in interpreting it.

Taqiyya is also being used loosely here; and it's a common go to perhaps without better arguments, in the way anti-Islam commentary often deploys it as a catch-all for "any Muslim explanation I don't like is a lie." The actual doctrine is considerably narrower and is particularly associated with Shia traditions of concealing one's faith under serious persecution. It is not a theological license to fabricate history or scholarship during an argument. Perhaps you have a verifiable reference saying otherwise. Using the word to pre-declare the other side's evidence deceptive isn't an argument against that evidence.

And "spread by the sword" is another historical claim, not proof of a religious mandate. The historical record is considerably more varied. Indonesia's Islamization is generally associated with trade, Muslim merchants and Sufi networks rather than military conquest, while much of the spread of Islam in West Africa likewise occurred through commerce, scholarship and missionary networks. That doesn't erase Muslim conquest elsewhere; it demonstrates why one mechanism cannot simply be projected onto the entire history of Islam.

Your claim that 'Christian scripture cannot be read that way' deserves the same historical and interpretive scrutiny. Christianity spread through peaceful missionary activity but also through periods of political coercion. Charlemagne's forced conversions are a documented example, while papal documents such as Dum Diversas provided religious authorization for conquest and enslavement of non-Christian peoples. That doesn't make Christianity reducible to those acts, any more than Muslim warfare makes Islam reducible to warfare. Both histories are more complicated than "peaceful religion versus violent religion."

There are therefore two separate claims being conflated: that Islamic history contains warfare and discriminatory institutions, and that Islam's scripture consequently commands Muslims today to attack or subordinate unbelievers. The first can be investigated historically; it does not automatically establish the second.

And 'Christian scripture cannot be read that way' is itself an interpretive claim. Christianity has difficult texts concerning warfare, conquest, punishment and outsiders. That doesn't make Christianity a violent religion, but it does demonstrate why "the text is clear" was never a sufficient method for establishing what scripture mandates, for either tradition.

If the claim is that Islam mandates present-day violence against unbelievers, make that case from the actual texts and evidence. "I can see the intent" is not evidence of intent.

AntiChristian:
So nothing really happened? That's alright! May God rebuke the liar between us. Say Amen!

I don't understand what you mean by "so nothing really happened"
Is it not written in your authentic Hadith that you should haitte and oprrress Jews and Christians?!

Why not confirm it by yourself instead of intentionally turning blliinnd eyes to the truth?!

AntiChristian:
So nothing really happened? That's alright! May God rebuke the liar between us. Say Amen!

I don't understand what you mean by "so nothing really happened"
Is it not written in your authentic Hadith that you should haitte and oprrress Jews and Christians?!

Why not confirm it by yourself instead of intentionally turning blliinnd eyes to the truth?!

Have Muslims not tried to kppaii the Juuus and Xttians all over the world according to the comands of your foouunndder?

expert234:
Sahih Muslim 2167a

Abu Hurayrah reported that the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ said:

“Do not greet the Jews and the Christians before they greet you, and when you meet any one of them on the roads, force him to go to the narrowest part of it.”


Sunan Abi Dawud 5205

“Do not salute them (Jews and Christians) first, and when you meet them on the road, force them to go to the narrowest part of it.”

You know you are liyiing but still insist on covering up the liiees to decceiivve others instead of you to come.out.of the liiees!

Islam can Only be promoted through liiees, forrcefful conversion and kiiilling. Nothing else.

Staying strictly within presentation both narrations exist and there's no dispute of the existence. The greeting rule however covers the Islamic salam, which Muslims are told not to initiate with Jews or Christians. In the earlier reports, some Jews greeted the prophet pbuh with As-Samu Alaikum (Death be upon you); he only answered Wa Alaikum and told Aishah to avoid harsh language. Force him to the narrowest part concerns road precedence, and the wording does not command striking or injury. Criticizing these rules as discriminatory is fair; deriving orders to attack or kill Christians from them is not.

It's easy to go with exaggeration but it's wiser otherwise.

Ohyoudidnt:
Staying strictly within presentation both narrations exist and there's no dispute of the existence. The greeting rule however covers the Islamic salam, which Muslims are told not to initiate with Jews or Christians. In the earlier reports, some Jews greeted the prophet pbuh with As-Samu Alaikum (Death be upon you); he only answered Wa Alaikum and told Aishah to avoid harsh language. Force him to the narrowest part concerns road precedence, and the wording does not command striking or injury. Criticizing these rules as discriminatory is fair; deriving orders to attack or kill Christians from them is not.

It's easy to go with exaggeration but it's wiser otherwise.

A Muslim always liiees and twist fact's to defend Islam because Islam is a religion of liiees and decceppttion that can't be deffendded with the truth!

Ohyoudidnt:
Staying strictly within presentation both narrations exist and there's no dispute of the existence. The greeting rule however covers the Islamic salam, which Muslims are told not to initiate with Jews or Christians. In the earlier reports, some Jews greeted the prophet pbuh with As-Samu Alaikum (Death be upon you); he only answered Wa Alaikum and told Aishah to avoid harsh language. Force him to the narrowest part concerns road precedence, and the wording does not command striking or injury. Criticizing these rules as discriminatory is fair; deriving orders to attack or kill Christians from them is not.

It's easy to go with exaggeration but it's wiser otherwise.

A Muslim always liiees and twist fact's to defend Islam because Islam is a religion of liiees and decceppttion that can't be deffendded with the truth!

The focus of this post is that Islam doesn't support oprresiion, but this Hadith proves that you guys are lyying! Islam supports and promotes oprresiion aggainnst non-Muslims.

Ohyoudidnt:
Staying strictly within presentation both narrations exist and there's no dispute of the existence. The greeting rule however covers the Islamic salam, which Muslims are told not to initiate with Jews or Christians. In the earlier reports, some Jews greeted the prophet pbuh with As-Samu Alaikum (Death be upon you); he only answered Wa Alaikum and told Aishah to avoid harsh language. Force him to the narrowest part concerns road precedence, and the wording does not command striking or injury. Criticizing these rules as discriminatory is fair; deriving orders to attack or kill Christians from them is not.

It's easy to go with exaggeration but it's wiser otherwise.

A Muslim always liiees and twist fact's to defend Islam because Islam is a religion of liiees and decceppttion that can't be deffendded with the truth!

The focus of this post is that Islam doesn't support oprresiion, but this Hadith proves that you guys are lyying! Islam supports and promotes oprresiion aggainnst non-Muslims.

Nobody says forrccing non-Muslims to the narrowest path mean injjury. We are saying it means oprresiion! Only a buly does that to those he thinks he is stronger than! So, your alllla command you to behave like bulies!

Ohyoudidnt:
Staying strictly within presentation both narrations exist and there's no dispute of the existence. The greeting rule however covers the Islamic salam, which Muslims are told not to initiate with Jews or Christians. In the earlier reports, some Jews greeted the prophet pbuh with As-Samu Alaikum (Death be upon you); he only answered Wa Alaikum and told Aishah to avoid harsh language. Force him to the narrowest part concerns road precedence, and the wording does not command striking or injury. Criticizing these rules as discriminatory is fair; deriving orders to attack or kill Christians from them is not.

It's easy to go with exaggeration but it's wiser otherwise.

A Muslim always liiees and twist fact's to defend Islam because Islam is a religion of liiees and decceppttion that can't be deffendded with the truth!

The focus of this post is that Islam doesn't support oprresiion, but this Hadith proves that you guys are lyying! Islam supports and promotes oprresiion aggainnst non-Muslims.

Nobody says forrccing non-Muslims to the narrowest path mean injjury. We are saying it means oprresiion! Only a buly does that to those he thinks he is stronger than! So, your alllla command you to behave like bulies!

Jeewws said As-Samu Alaikum to your founder and he told you Muslims to oprres them because of that?! This proves that your founder wasn't sent by the same Person that sent Jesus Christ! This means your alllla is not the God of Jesus Christ!

Ohyoudidnt:
Staying strictly within presentation both narrations exist and there's no dispute of the existence. The greeting rule however covers the Islamic salam, which Muslims are told not to initiate with Jews or Christians. In the earlier reports, some Jews greeted the prophet pbuh with As-Samu Alaikum (Death be upon you); he only answered Wa Alaikum and told Aishah to avoid harsh language. Force him to the narrowest part concerns road precedence, and the wording does not command striking or injury. Criticizing these rules as discriminatory is fair; deriving orders to attack or kill Christians from them is not.

It's easy to go with exaggeration but it's wiser otherwise.

A Muslim always liiees and twist fact's to defend Islam because Islam is a religion of liiees and decceppttion that can't be deffendded with the truth!

1. The focus of this post is that Islam doesn't support oprresiion, but this Hadith proves that you guys are lyying! Islam supports and promotes oprresiion aggainnst non-Muslims.

2. Nobody says forrccing non-Muslims to the narrowest path mean injjury. We are saying it means oprresiion! Only a buly does that to those he thinks he is stronger than! So, your alllla command you to behave like bulies!

3. Jeewws said As-Samu Alaikum to your founder and he told you Muslims to oprres them because of that?! This proves that your founder wasn't sent by the same Person that sent Jesus Christ! This means your alllla is not the God of Jesus Christ!


4. Why are you saying peace be upon him to your founder?! Is it because your founder doesn't have peace where he is right now and it is your prayer that will give him peace?! Isn't that concerning?!

Interesting repetition however expert234,
I've conceded both narrations, and the road report plainly describes compelled precedence, so criticize it as discriminatory if you like. That's a moral argument I won't dodge. But force him to the narrowest part is not strike him or kill him, and you still haven't quoted a line that says so, as certainly you don't have an inexistent such report. In the greeting incident (Sahih al-Bukhari 6926), a man wished death on the Prophet pbuh, the companions asked whether to kill him, and he said no saying answer wa alaykum. The record contains both a discriminatory rule and a refusal of violence, and you've quoted only one. If your claim is that Islam commands violence against Christians as such, quote the command. Saying it louder isn't a source.

expert234:
A Muslim always liiees and twist fact's to defend Islam because Islam is a religion of liiees and decceppttion that can't be deffendded with the truth!

1. The focus of this post is that Islam doesn't support oprresiion, but this Hadith proves that you guys are lyying! Islam supports and promotes oprresiion aggainnst non-Muslims.

2. Nobody says forrccing non-Muslims to the narrowest path mean injjury. We are saying it means oprresiion! Only a buly does that to those he thinks he is stronger than! So, your alllla command you to behave like bulies!

3. Jeewws said As-Samu Alaikum to your founder and he told you Muslims to oprres them because of that?! This proves that your founder wasn't sent by the same Person that sent Jesus Christ! This means your alllla is not the God of Jesus Christ!


4. Why are you saying peace be upon him to your founder?! Is it because your founder doesn't have peace where he is right now and it is your prayer that will give him peace?! Isn't that concerning?!

TV01:
It is not only not a sin, spousal oppression is baked in - thoroughly embedded!

How is being able to take 4 wives - without consent from any existing wife or wives - have temporary marriages, underage marriages - wherein consent is simply not possible - and sex slaves considered "kindness and mercy" in marriage? Kindness and mercy, when a husband is permitted give his wife a good smacking - merely on suspicion . Or divorce her at will .

This creed redefines all that is good and proper about holy matrimony and female worth. It degrades everything.

The Afghanistan type of kindness and mercy in marriage will soon reach you.


TV

I am not an Afghan but a Nigerian.
Secondly, i am not in support of temporary marriage.
Thirdly, marriage should be determined by maturity not age.
And i have never seen any Abrahamic religion that promotes freeing slaves like Islam.

Marriage should be free and same as divorce with justice!

If you are pained about 4 wives na you sabi o.

Rashduct4luv:
I am not an Afghan but a Nigerian.
Secondly, i am not in support of temporary marriage.
Thirdly, marriage should be determined by maturity not age.
And i have never seen any Abrahamic religion that promotes freeing slaves like Islam.

Marriage should be free and same as divorce with justice!

If you are pained about 4 wives na you sabi o.

Your support or otherwise of temporary marriage - muttah, misyar - is besides the point. Your religion expressly permits it. You are bordering on kuffr if you attempt to gainsay the practice. I appreciate it does makes sense if you are a roaming brigand and need urgent relief. Like urgent 2k .

Pained about 4 wives? At all. I am married - holy matrimony - and know the bliss of a happy marriage. No multiply married woman actually knows what marriage is. No justice, no kindness, no mercy.

Some stuff you can't make up, but they do. Some stuff no one really believes, but they just follow.


Cheers
TV

honesttalk21:
It's a bother that you are asserting the conclusion rather than demonstrating it.



You say scholars' interpretations don't matter because you can read the text yourself, but then you treat your own reading as self-evidently authoritative. If interpretation is purely individual, the jihadist's reading and yours have no stated method for deciding which one represents the text's meaning.



That's not actually true of Islam, though. The tradition has established mechanisms for distinguishing authoritative interpretations from fringe ones, including ijmaʿ (scholarly consensus). The 2005 Amman Message is a particularly clear modern example. It was endorsed by scholars and authorities representing the major Islamic legal schools and explicitly rejected the practice of declaring Muslims outside the faith on the basis of unauthorized interpretations. You may disagree with that methodology, but saying no methodology exists is simply inaccurate.



There's a deeper irony here as the Bible you're claiming to read free of authority exists in the form you're reading because of centuries of scholarly and ecclesiastical decisions about canon. Catholics have 73 books; most Protestants and Anglicans have 66; Orthodox traditions include additional books. Councils, synods, bishops, theologians and later reformers all played roles in determining which texts their communities recognized. You didn't escape authority by reading the text yourself; you inherited a canon shaped by authorities and then rejected the need for authority in interpreting it.

Taqiyya is also being used loosely here; and it's a common go to perhaps without better arguments, in the way anti-Islam commentary often deploys it as a catch-all for "any Muslim explanation I don't like is a lie." The actual doctrine is considerably narrower and is particularly associated with Shia traditions of concealing one's faith under serious persecution. It is not a theological license to fabricate history or scholarship during an argument. Perhaps you have a verifiable reference saying otherwise. Using the word to pre-declare the other side's evidence deceptive isn't an argument against that evidence.

And "spread by the sword" is another historical claim, not proof of a religious mandate. The historical record is considerably more varied. Indonesia's Islamization is generally associated with trade, Muslim merchants and Sufi networks rather than military conquest, while much of the spread of Islam in West Africa likewise occurred through commerce, scholarship and missionary networks. That doesn't erase Muslim conquest elsewhere; it demonstrates why one mechanism cannot simply be projected onto the entire history of Islam.

Your claim that 'Christian scripture cannot be read that way' deserves the same historical and interpretive scrutiny. Christianity spread through peaceful missionary activity but also through periods of political coercion. Charlemagne's forced conversions are a documented example, while papal documents such as Dum Diversas provided religious authorization for conquest and enslavement of non-Christian peoples. That doesn't make Christianity reducible to those acts, any more than Muslim warfare makes Islam reducible to warfare. Both histories are more complicated than "peaceful religion versus violent religion."

There are therefore two separate claims being conflated: that Islamic history contains warfare and discriminatory institutions, and that Islam's scripture consequently commands Muslims today to attack or subordinate unbelievers. The first can be investigated historically; it does not automatically establish the second.

And 'Christian scripture cannot be read that way' is itself an interpretive claim. Christianity has difficult texts concerning warfare, conquest, punishment and outsiders. That doesn't make Christianity a violent religion, but it does demonstrate why "the text is clear" was never a sufficient method for establishing what scripture mandates, for either tradition.

If the claim is that Islam mandates present-day violence against unbelievers, make that case from the actual texts and evidence. "I can see the intent" is not evidence of intent.

The verses in the Islamic texts are clear. There are legitimate readings of offensive warfare against non-believers and to force conversion or subjugation. Surahs 8:39 and 9:29 are clear cases of offensive action until all worship is for the isamic god and the subjugation of non-muslims.

There are some who would like to interpret these verses in more defensive terms or as only applicable in a properly constituted islamic polity. Those are weak attempts to launder islam's extremeties. The best way to understand islam is by it's outworking. How did it burst forth from the arabian peninsula?

Taqqiya indeed. The whole world is wise to your game.


TV

TV01, thank you for naming Qur'an 8:39 and 9:29, because that's the standard I asked for. But "clear" is still a conviction until the work is shown. I'll concede what's true as both are warfare verses, some classical jurists read jihad more broadly than modern self-defence, and jizya was a differentiated status you can criticize. But 9:29 ends at jizya, not conversion, so "force conversion" isn't in it. And between "the verse exists" and "a Muslim in Nigeria must attack his neighbour," you skip who had authority to wage war and why a ruling on states binds private individuals. Jihadists quoting a verse shows they quote it, not that they read it correctly. Your "outworking" test also has to run both ways since Deuteronomy 20 orders the destruction of the peoples in the land, and Dum Diversas and the Crusades were justified in terms taken from Christian scripture. Christians now read those texts in context, which you inaccurately call taqiyya when Muslims do it. Same rule for both, or neither.

TV01:
The verses in the Islamic texts are clear. There are legitimate readings of offensive warfare against non-believers and to force conversion or subjugation. Surahs 8:39 and 9:29 are clear cases of offensive action until all worship is for the isamic god and the subjugation of non-muslims.

There are some who would like to interpret these verses in more defensive terms or as only applicable in a properly constituted islamic polity. Those are weak attempts to launder islam's extremeties. The best way to understand islam is by it's outworking. How did it burst forth from the arabian peninsula?

Taqqiya indeed. The whole world is wise to your game.


TV