₦airaland Forum

AntiChristian:
Are we discussing my moniker right now or your brother that is telling lies?

Your moniker says a lot about you.

honesttalk21:
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.

Therein lies the rub. Surah 8:39 can be as narrowly or broadly defined as suits. It's situational - dependent largely on the situation of the "ummah". The Mecca vs. Medina dichotomy - defensive when weak, offensive when strong. There will always be those who read the verses belligerently and follow through forcefully when opportuned.

As for dhimmitude. The outworking of that is clear in Muslim-majority countries. Forced conversions, forced marriage, ray.ape-to-marry\convert, job and housing discrimination. Political disenfranchisement, summary executions based (often false) blasphemy law violations. The mu-mu ticket in Nigeria is a prime example. Muslims dominant, persecution, violence and bloodshed follow. Euphemistically termed banditry or grazer vs. herdsmen clashes.

Let's not ever forget the name of Miss Debbie Samuels. Islam does not brook plurality, competition or dissent and always drives for dominance. If that means eliminating competing ideologies or faiths, or even individual voices, so be it.

Where ee.slam goes, hate, violence, death and destruction follow. At pace!


TV

TV01:
Therein lies the rub. 8:39 can be as narrowly or broadly defined as suits. It's situational - dependent largely on the situation of the "ummah". The Mecca vs. Medina dichotomy. defensive when weak, offensive when strong. There will always be those who read the verses belligerently and follow trough when chanced.

As for dhimmitude. The outworking of that is clear in Muslim-majority countries. Forced conversions, forced marriage, ray.ape-to-marry\convert, job and housing discrimination. Political disenfranchisement, blasphemy law victimisation. The mu-mu ticket in Nigeria is a prime example. Let's not ever forget the name of Miss Debbie Samuels. Islam does not brook plurality, competition or dissent and always drives for dominance. If that means eliminating competing ideologies or faiths, or even indiividual voices, so be it.

Where ee.slam goes, hate, violence, death and destruction follow. At pace!


TV

You can’t really isolate Qur’an 8:39 from verses 38–40. It speaks about opponents who had already been warned, and commands fighting until fitnah ends and religion is for Allah. So it’s hard to reduce it to simple self-defense. But the context also doesn’t prove a blanket command to attack non-Muslims whenever Muslims gain power. That broader claim needs the wider texts and juristic tradition. The same applies to dhimmitude, Muslim rulers, and cases like Deborah Samuel. The real question is what the texts require, how scholars understood them, and how Muslim leaders actually applied them.

honesttalk21:
You can’t really isolate Qur’an 8:39 from verses 38–40. It speaks about opponents who had already been warned, and commands fighting until fitnah ends and religion is for Allah. So it’s hard to reduce it to simple self-defense. But the context also doesn’t prove a blanket command to attack non-Muslims whenever Muslims gain power. That broader claim needs the wider texts and juristic tradition. The same applies to dhimmitude, Muslim rulers, and cases like Deborah Samuel. The real question is what the texts require, how scholars understood them, and how Muslim leaders actually applied them.

No. But what I can do is tie it to a holistic review of the islamic text and the imprimateur it gives to violence and warlike behaviour to advance islam and the islamic god.

56 Fighting for the Cause of Allah (Jihaad)
(15)Chapter: Whoever fights so that Allah's Word be superior(15)باب مَنْ قَاتَلَ لِتَكُونَ كَلِمَةُ اللَّهِ هِيَ الْعُلْيَا
Narrated Abu Musa:

A man came to the Prophet (ﷺ) and asked, "A man fights for war booty; another fights for fame and a third fights for showing off; which of them fights in Allah's Cause?" The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "He who fights that Allah's Word (i.e. Islam) should be superior, fights in Allah's Cause."

Sahih al-Bukhari · No. 2782
Chapter 56
حَدَّثَنَا الْحَسَنُ بْنُ صَبَّاحٍ، حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ سَابِقٍ، حَدَّثَنَا مَالِكُ بْنُ مِغْوَلٍ، قَالَ سَمِعْتُ الْوَلِيدَ بْنَ الْعَيْزَارِ، ذَكَرَ عَنْ أَبِي عَمْرٍو الشَّيْبَانِيِّ، قَالَ قَالَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مَسْعُودٍ ـ رضى الله عنه ـ سَأَلْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قُلْتُ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ أَىُّ الْعَمَلِ أَفْضَلُ قَالَ ‏"‏ الصَّلاَةُ عَلَى مِيقَاتِهَا ‏"‏‏.‏ قُلْتُ ثُمَّ أَىٌّ‏.‏ قَالَ ‏"‏ ثُمَّ بِرُّ الْوَالِدَيْنِ ‏"‏‏.‏ قُلْتُ ثُمَّ أَىٌّ قَالَ ‏"‏ الْجِهَادُ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ ‏"‏‏.‏ فَسَكَتُّ عَنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَلَوِ اسْتَزَدْتُهُ لَزَادَنِي‏.‏

I asked Allah's Messenger (ﷺ), "O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! What is the best deed?" He replied, "To offer the prayers at their early stated fixed times." I asked, "What is next in goodness?" He replied, "To be good and dutiful to your parents." I further asked, what is next in goodness?" He replied, "To participate in Jihad in Allah's Cause." I did not ask Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) anymore and if I had asked him more, he would have told me more.

56/1. Chapter:

The superiority of Jihad
وَقَوْلُ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى: {إِنَّ اللَّهَ اشْتَرَى مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ أَنْفُسَهُمْ وَأَمْوَالَهُمْ بِأَنَّ لَهُمُ الْجَنَّةَ يُقَاتِلُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ فَيَقْتُلُونَ وَيُقْتَلُونَ وَعْدًا عَلَيْهِ حَقًّا فِي التَّوْرَاةِ وَالإِنْجِيلِ وَالْقُرْآنِ وَمَنْ أَوْفَى بِعَهْدِهِ مِنَ اللَّهِ فَاسْتَبْشِرُوا بِبَيْعِكُمُ الَّذِي بَايَعْتُمْ بِهِ} إِلَى قَوْلِهِ: {وَبَشِّرِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ} قَالَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ الْحُدُودُ الطَّاعَةُ.
And the Statement of Allah تعالى: "Verily, Allah has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties; for the price that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allah's Cause, so they kill (others) and are killed. It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel) and the Qur'an. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah? Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded.. (up to).. And give glad tidings to the believers." (V.9:111, 112)


Sahih Bukhari : 2783



حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ سَعِيدٍ، حَدَّثَنَا سُفْيَانُ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي مَنْصُورٌ، عَنْ مُجَاهِدٍ، عَنْ طَاوُسٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ ـ رضى الله عنهما ـ قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ "‏لاَ هِجْرَةَ بَعْدَ الْفَتْحِ وَلَكِنْ جِهَادٌ وَنِيَّةٌ، وَإِذَا اسْتُنْفِرْتُمْ فَانْفِرُوا ‏"‏‏.‏

Narrated Ibn `Abbas: Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "There is no Hijra (i.e. migration) (from Mecca to Medina) after the Conquest (of Mecca), but Jihad and good intention remain; and if you are called (by the Muslim ruler) for fighting, go forth immediately.

[1] After the conquest of Makkah there was no need for Muslims to emigrate from Makkah to Al-Madīna. The Prophet ﷺ tells his companions that one can attain rewards through Jihād against Kufr ; i.e., to fight for Allāh's Cause when there is a call for it, otherwise one should have the intention to participate in Jihād and this intention has the same reward as that of Jihād itself.
Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 2783
In-book reference : Book 56, Hadith 2
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 4, Book 52, Hadith 42

There is no honest, coherent defence, explanation, amelioration or even the remotest dilution of the islamic war-cry. It is writ loud and clear.


TV

TV01, the distinction is clear enough now. Jihad means striving and includes non-military effort, but that doesn't erase its military use. Bukhari 2782 shows armed fighting can be jihad: asked which of three fighters is in Allah's cause, the Prophet pbuh names the one fighting so that Allah's word is supreme. That tells us which fighter counts, not that anyone must fight. The Ibn Abbas report concerns a call to go forth; "by the Muslim ruler" is the translator's bracket, so the ruler point has to come from the jurists, not the English. And 2:256 covers belief, not armed jihad, so I won't claim it settles that. What remains is jurisprudence: who may fight, whom, and under what conditions. Dhimmitude and blasphemy laws belong in that question. Deborah Samuel's killing was murder, and a mob is private violence, which is exactly what that question asks whether anyone was authorized to commit. Deuteronomy 20:10-15 has a similar shape to 9:29, an offer of peace first and forced labor for those who accept. Verses 16-18 order total destruction of six named peoples. Christians read that as bound to ancient Israel, which is the contextualizing you call taqiyya. Apply your outworking test to it, or drop it.

TV01:
No. But what I can do is tie it to a holistic review of the islamic text and the imprimateur it gives to violence and warlike behaviour to advance islam and the islamic god.

56 Fighting for the Cause of Allah (Jihaad)
(15)Chapter: Whoever fights so that Allah's Word be superior(15)باب مَنْ قَاتَلَ لِتَكُونَ كَلِمَةُ اللَّهِ هِيَ الْعُلْيَا
Narrated Abu Musa:

A man came to the Prophet (ﷺ) and asked, "A man fights for war booty; another fights for fame and a third fights for showing off; which of them fights in Allah's Cause?" The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "He who fights that Allah's Word (i.e. Islam) should be superior, fights in Allah's Cause."

Sahih al-Bukhari · No. 2782
Chapter 56
حَدَّثَنَا الْحَسَنُ بْنُ صَبَّاحٍ، حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ سَابِقٍ، حَدَّثَنَا مَالِكُ بْنُ مِغْوَلٍ، قَالَ سَمِعْتُ الْوَلِيدَ بْنَ الْعَيْزَارِ، ذَكَرَ عَنْ أَبِي عَمْرٍو الشَّيْبَانِيِّ، قَالَ قَالَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مَسْعُودٍ ـ رضى الله عنه ـ سَأَلْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قُلْتُ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ أَىُّ الْعَمَلِ أَفْضَلُ قَالَ ‏"‏ الصَّلاَةُ عَلَى مِيقَاتِهَا ‏"‏‏.‏ قُلْتُ ثُمَّ أَىٌّ‏.‏ قَالَ ‏"‏ ثُمَّ بِرُّ الْوَالِدَيْنِ ‏"‏‏.‏ قُلْتُ ثُمَّ أَىٌّ قَالَ ‏"‏ الْجِهَادُ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ ‏"‏‏.‏ فَسَكَتُّ عَنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَلَوِ اسْتَزَدْتُهُ لَزَادَنِي‏.‏

I asked Allah's Messenger (ﷺ), "O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! What is the best deed?" He replied, "To offer the prayers at their early stated fixed times." I asked, "What is next in goodness?" He replied, "To be good and dutiful to your parents." I further asked, what is next in goodness?" He replied, "To participate in Jihad in Allah's Cause." I did not ask Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) anymore and if I had asked him more, he would have told me more.

56/1. Chapter:

The superiority of Jihad
وَقَوْلُ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى: {إِنَّ اللَّهَ اشْتَرَى مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ أَنْفُسَهُمْ وَأَمْوَالَهُمْ بِأَنَّ لَهُمُ الْجَنَّةَ يُقَاتِلُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ فَيَقْتُلُونَ وَيُقْتَلُونَ وَعْدًا عَلَيْهِ حَقًّا فِي التَّوْرَاةِ وَالإِنْجِيلِ وَالْقُرْآنِ وَمَنْ أَوْفَى بِعَهْدِهِ مِنَ اللَّهِ فَاسْتَبْشِرُوا بِبَيْعِكُمُ الَّذِي بَايَعْتُمْ بِهِ} إِلَى قَوْلِهِ: {وَبَشِّرِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ} قَالَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ الْحُدُودُ الطَّاعَةُ.
And the Statement of Allah تعالى: "Verily, Allah has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties; for the price that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allah's Cause, so they kill (others) and are killed. It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel) and the Qur'an. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah? Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded.. (up to).. And give glad tidings to the believers." (V.9:111, 112)


Sahih Bukhari : 2783



حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ سَعِيدٍ، حَدَّثَنَا سُفْيَانُ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي مَنْصُورٌ، عَنْ مُجَاهِدٍ، عَنْ طَاوُسٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ ـ رضى الله عنهما ـ قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ "‏لاَ هِجْرَةَ بَعْدَ الْفَتْحِ وَلَكِنْ جِهَادٌ وَنِيَّةٌ، وَإِذَا اسْتُنْفِرْتُمْ فَانْفِرُوا ‏"‏‏.‏

Narrated Ibn `Abbas: Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "There is no Hijra (i.e. migration) (from Mecca to Medina) after the Conquest (of Mecca), but Jihad and good intention remain; and if you are called (by the Muslim ruler) for fighting, go forth immediately.

[1] After the conquest of Makkah there was no need for Muslims to emigrate from Makkah to Al-Madīna. The Prophet ﷺ tells his companions that one can attain rewards through Jihād against Kufr ; i.e., to fight for Allāh's Cause when there is a call for it, otherwise one should have the intention to participate in Jihād and this intention has the same reward as that of Jihād itself.
Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 2783
In-book reference : Book 56, Hadith 2
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 4, Book 52, Hadith 42

There is no honest, coherent defence, explanation, amelioration or even the remotest dilution of the islamic war-cry. It is writ loud and clear.


TV

honesttalk21:
TV01, the distinction is clear enough now. Jihad means striving and includes non-military effort, but that doesn't erase its military use.

Needless - nobody is worked up over anyone's personal inner struggle. Religious or otherwise. Jihad is only in view, a concern, because little girls are being blown up at music concerts and planes hijacked and flown into buildings.

honesttalk21:
Bukhari 2782 shows armed fighting can be jihad: asked which of three fighters is in Allah's cause, the Prophet pbuh names the one fighting so that Allah's word is supreme. That tells us which fighter counts, not that anyone must fight.

Read in tandem and as a whole, the call is absolute. Any fight by any believer to advance the cause (or defeat perceived enemies) is pleasing. I appreciate you or others may choose to interpret it differently. It clearly reads as the cause, not the fighter

honesttalk21:
The Ibn Abbas report concerns a call to go forth; "by the Muslim ruler" is the translator's bracket, so the ruler point has to come from the jurists, not the English. And 2:256 covers belief, not armed jihad, so I won't claim it settles that.

Again, you may wish to qualify it in that way. Others may choose not to do so. Scholars, imams, sheiks and the like only have the authority others place in them. Where is the clear divine writ in islam for these jurusts?

honesttalk21:
What remains is jurisprudence: who may fight, whom, and under what conditions. Dhimmitude and blasphemy laws belong in that question.

The message can clearly be read as absolute. Yes, certainly easier to codify and implement within an islamic state, but no less acceptable as an offering as a lone or individual endeavour. Hence the "lone wolf" attack is as valid and as well received as state-sponsored action by muslims.

honesttalk21:
Deborah Samuel's killing was murder, and a mob is private violence, which is exactly what that question asks whether anyone was authorized to commit.

The predicate was the same. Islamic writ and an act of service to the muslim god. Note how any condemnation by other muslims (even high profile ones like A. Atiku) were quickly retracted. Muslims never condemn anything done by other muslims whether good or bad in the name of their god or against non-muslims.

honesttalk21:
Deuteronomy 20:10-15 has a similar shape to 9:29, an offer of peace first and forced labor for those who accept. Verses 16-18 order total destruction of six named peoples. Christians read that as bound to ancient Israel, which is the contextualizing you call taqiyya. Apply your outworking test to it, or drop it.

The OT is not proof text for Christian behaviour or lifestyle. The covenant was between God and the Israelites and very specific and time bound - there are no Israeli terrorists rampaging the globe summarily or systematically ending non-believers to further the cause of YHWH now are there?


TV

TV01:
Needless - nobody is worked up over anyone's personal inner struggle. Religious or otherwise. Jihad is only in view, a concern, because little girls are being blown up at music concerts and planes hijacked and flown into buildings.

Read in tandem and as a whole, the call is absolute. Any fight by any believer to advance the cause (or defeat perceived enemies) is pleasing. I appreciate you or others may choose to interpret it differently. It clearly reads as the cause, not the fighter

Again, you may wish to qualify it in that way. Others may choose not to do so. Scholars, imams, sheiks and the like only have the authority others place in them. Where is the clear divine writ in islam for these jurusts?

The message can clearly be read as absolute. Yes, certainly easier to codify and implement within an islamic state, but no less acceptable as an offering as a lone or individual endeavour. Hence the "lone wolf" attack is as valid and as well received as state-sponsored action by muslims.

The predicate was the same. Islamic writ and an act of service to the muslim god. Note how any condemnation by other muslims (even high profile ones like A. Atiku) were quickly retracted. Muslims never condemn anything done by other muslims whether good or bad in the name of their god or against non-muslims.

The OT is not proof text for Christian behaviour or lifestyle. The covenant was between God and the Israelites and very specific and time bound - there are no Israeli terrorists rampaging the globe summarily or systematically ending non-believers to further the cause of YHWH now are there?


TV

You call this needless, yet it has run over several days. I have conceded the warfare character of the verses, the broader readings of jihad in the classical juristic tradition, and the existence of jizya. I also called Deborah Samuel's killing murder. The question now is what these texts establish.

You have moved from clear to can be read as. That matters.

Bukhari 2810 asks which fighter is in Allah's Cause. 2782 is the report ranking jihad among the best deeds. Bukhari 2783 says if you are called… go forth. You cannot turn if you are called into a permanent command that every individual Muslim may act on alone.

On authority, Qur'an 4:59 refers disputes back to Allah and the Messenger. 4:83 refers matters to those able to draw the right conclusion. 9:122 says believers are not all to go forth at once, and that a group should devote itself to religious understanding and instruct others. None of that makes every individual the executor of a warfare verse.

It is also ironic to dismiss the scholars while relying on Bukhari, whose authentication, classification and legal use are products of that same scholarly tradition.

On the lone wolf, Bukhari 3014-3015 record the Prophet's prohibition on killing women and children, and 3166 warns severely against killing a person under treaty protection. A mob does not gain Islamic legitimacy by quoting a verse.

Muslims never condemn is an absolute claim, so one counterexample defeats it. The Sultan of Sokoto condemned the killing. You can argue one voice does not represent all Muslims, but then never is gone. He is a highly reverred Muslim leader amongst the highest in Nigeria.

On Deuteronomy, calling it time-bound is contextualizing. If that is taqiyya when I do it, it is taqiyya when you do it. (Taqiyya also has specific, limited meanings in jurisprudence. It is not a license to reinterpret inconvenient texts.)

Nobody does it today is your outworking test again, and it fails:

- Crusaders and Puritans drew on Canaanite conquest imagery to justify taking land.
- Slaveholders leaned on Leviticus 25:44-46 and the curse of Ham.
- Netanyahu quoted "Remember what Amalek did to you" during the Gaza war, and repeated it in a letter to soldiers days later. South Africa cited such Amalek references in its genocide case at the ICJ. He said he meant Hamas and the October 7 attack, while critics read it differently.

Invocation shows what people claim, not what the text requires. That holds for a politician quoting Deuteronomy and for a militant quoting the Qur'an. Apply one standard to both books.

So the step you still haven't shown is how you get from Islamic scripture contains warfare commands to an individual Muslim today is authorized to attack his neighbour. Show it from the Qur'an, authentic Sunnah and juristic principles, not from the mere existence of the verses.

TV01:
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

Look at your write-up. If it's the very few of them that live and the vast majority support them, how come you are alive or are you not a Nigerian? And you have not been killed in the name of jihad? Are Muslims not among your neighbors, people on the streets,in schools, workplace and the likes? If I should judge by this your measurement yard-stick, then no the followers of Paul won't be a terrorist because we saw what the crusaders did to the people and what America have done and is doing.

You said the tiny fraction dare not say anything about it. This means you are living in the bush. Social Media only proves your claim false. And what am I doing now? Chickening out?

State those verses that preaches hate, violence, conquer and the likes. Remember you have questions to answer in your bible too?

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.

So what is happening in the north is what you will use to judge an entire religion? I might as well judge the followers of Paul that they are terrorist because of what the earlier generations of them did. E.g crusaders, Adolf Hitler etc

jokerphilics:
Look at your write-up. If it's the very few of them that live and the vast majority support them, how come you are alive or are you not a Nigerian? And you have not been killed in the name of jihad?

What was the ee.slam.ic response to the killing of Miss Debbie Samuels? Not a word. Any that tried decry it were instantly silenced. It was carried ut by students - on a female, someone they knew! Not herders or bushmen. No matter how intellectual you are, ee.slam has the potential to make a bloodthirsty animal of you. Are moo.slims not beheading Yoruba as we speak?

And no, I am not a Nigerian and I make a point of staying far away from ee.slam and it's regressiveness as possible. Even here. The horrors of ee.slam.ic tear.or.ree.sm are constant.

jokerphilics:
Are Muslims not among your neighbors, people on the streets,in schools, workplace and the likes? If I should judge by this your measurement yard-stick, then no the followers of Paul won't be a terrorist because we saw what the crusaders did to the people and what America have done and is doing.

The crusades were a direct response to ee.slam.ic aggression. Before the first crusade in 1095, ee.slam had forcibly converted by the sword or attacked, Christian Syria, Jordan Palestine, Egypt, Algeria, Libya, Morocco, Portugal, Spain France, Sicily, Turkey, Armenia and Italy. The crusades were a legitimate and needed response to ee.slam.ic supremacism, colonialism and aggression. Moose.slims be whining about getting their behinds handed to them after initiating open hostility, violence and warfare. The natureof ee.slam is clear, until it is utterly extirpated, the aggression and violence will always rear it's head.

jokerphilics:
You said the tiny fraction dare not say anything about it. This means you are living in the bush. Social Media only proves your claim false. And what am I doing now? Chickening out?

Can you even quote me correctly? ee.slam, dulling human beings since the 7th century. Although only a small percentage are actively carrying out attacks, many more would join them if possible and the vast majority support them. The few that don't and do not, cannot speak out or they would be direct targets themselves.

jokerphilics:
State those verses that preaches hate, violence, conquer and the likes. Remember you have questions to answer in your bible too?

If you claim ignorance of text in the ee.slam.ic scripture that preach violence and bloodshed against non-believers, you are either lying or ignorant. No one denies the verses exist, they simply try to rationalise or justify them by "contextualising" or "historicising". But it changes nothing. The sum import of the scriptures is ee.slam.ic supremacism, enjoining hatred, violence and bloodshed against unbelievers in the quest for ee.slam.ic domination. Preached in mosques worldwide.


TV

jokerphilics:
So what is happening in the north is what you will use to judge an entire religion? I might as well judge the followers of Paul that they are terrorist because of what the earlier generations of them did. E.g crusaders, Adolf Hitler etc

No just northern Nigeria - everywhere there is a significant moo.slim presence, bloodshed, crime and regressivness follow.


TV

^{...is the spambot on hajj . This normally gets me banned like, not even 2 secs. Long may it continue. I will enjoy it whilst it lasts!}

honesttalk21:
You call this needless, yet it has run over several days. I have conceded the warfare character of the verses, the broader readings of jihad in the classical juristic tradition, and the existence of jizya. I also called Deborah Samuel's killing murder. The question now is what these texts establish.

You have moved from clear to can be read as. That matters.

Bukhari 2810 asks which fighter is in Allah's Cause. 2782 is the report ranking jihad among the best deeds. Bukhari 2783 says if you are called… go forth. You cannot turn if you are called into a permanent command that every individual Muslim may act on alone.

On authority, Qur'an 4:59 refers disputes back to Allah and the Messenger. 4:83 refers matters to those able to draw the right conclusion. 9:122 says believers are not all to go forth at once, and that a group should devote itself to religious understanding and instruct others. None of that makes every individual the executor of a warfare verse.

It is also ironic to dismiss the scholars while relying on Bukhari, whose authentication, classification and legal use are products of that same scholarly tradition.

On the lone wolf, Bukhari 3014-3015 record the Prophet's prohibition on killing women and children, and 3166 warns severely against killing a person under treaty protection. A mob does not gain Islamic legitimacy by quoting a verse.

Muslims never condemn is an absolute claim, so one counterexample defeats it. The Sultan of Sokoto condemned the killing. You can argue one voice does not represent all Muslims, but then never is gone. He is a highly reverred Muslim leader amongst the highest in Nigeria.

On Deuteronomy, calling it time-bound is contextualizing. If that is taqiyya when I do it, it is taqiyya when you do it. (Taqiyya also has specific, limited meanings in jurisprudence. It is not a license to reinterpret inconvenient texts.)

Nobody does it today is your outworking test again, and it fails:

- Crusaders and Puritans drew on Canaanite conquest imagery to justify taking land.
- Slaveholders leaned on Leviticus 25:44-46 and the curse of Ham.
- Netanyahu quoted "Remember what Amalek did to you" during the Gaza war, and repeated it in a letter to soldiers days later. South Africa cited such Amalek references in its genocide case at the ICJ. He said he meant Hamas and the October 7 attack, while critics read it differently.

Invocation shows what people claim, not what the text requires. That holds for a politician quoting Deuteronomy and for a militant quoting the Qur'an. Apply one standard to both books.

So the step you still haven't shown is how you get from Islamic scripture contains warfare commands to an individual Muslim today is authorized to attack his neighbour. Show it from the Qur'an, authentic Sunnah and juristic principles, not from the mere existence of the verses.

Story. The sword verse and it's like are believed, loved and lived by adherents of ee.slam everywhere you find them. Their capacity and ability to follow through is thankfully limited and often thwarted. But great damage, hurt and suffering are still taking place as a result.

And you are hear arguing, not so much against it, but how it must be under the aegis of legitimate state-sponsorship. Your only problem is it being done without the approval of your preferred "classical ee.slam.ic scholars" or "jurists".

Was the fatwah against Salman Rushdie legit? Issued by a whole Ayatollah? Sugar coated taqqiyah does not change the reality on the ground. People are being killed. Great harm and suffering are the result of tear.or.wrist attacks motivated by ee.slam.ic text. The list in the UK aone, not too mention the almost daily horror in Nigeria. I am not here to split hairs over the correct ecclesiatical
authority that is required to provide holy writ.


TV

TV01:
Story. The sword verse and it's like are believed, loved and lived by adherents of ee.slam everywhere you find them. Their capacity and ability to follow through is thankfully limited and often thwarted. But great damage, hurt and suffering are still taking place as a result.

And you are hear arguing, not so much against it, but how it must be under the aegis of legitimate state-sponsorship. Your only problem is it being done without the approval of your preferred "classical ee.slam.ic scholars" or "jurists".

Was the fatwah against Salman Rushdie legit? Issued by a whole Ayatollah? Sugar coated taqqiyah does not change the reality on the ground. People are being killed. Great harm and suffering are the result of tear.or.wrist attacks motivated by ee.slam.ic text. The list in the UK aone, not too mention the almost daily horror in Nigeria. I am not here to split hairs over the correct ecclesiatical
authority that is required to provide holy writ.


TV

You have now shifted the argument from “what does the text authorize?” to “people have committed violence while invoking it.” I don't deny terrorism, mob violence, or that extremists cite Islamic texts. The point is narrower: where does the Qur’an and authentic Sunnah give every individual Muslim a standing licence to independently declare war and attack whoever he regards as an enemy? You still haven't established that bridge.

Nor am I merely saying “state sponsorship makes violence Islamic.” The issue is authority, jurisprudence and individual action. Bukhari 2783 speaks of believers being called to fight, and the juristic tradition developed rules concerning who may mobilize and conduct warfare. You may reject that tradition, but then explain why you rely on Bukhari while dismissing the scholarly tradition that authenticated, transmitted, classified and interpreted it.

Your Rushdie example actually reinforces the distinction. Khomeini issued a specific decree as a political/religious authority; that does not magically turn every Muslim worldwide into an independently authorized executor. A particular ruling by an authority is not the same thing as a universal private licence.

And “taqiyya” is not a rebuttal. It is a specific theological/jurisprudential concept, not a magic word meaning “any Muslim explanation I dislike is deception.”

So yes, violence exists, and terrorists sometimes invoke Islamic texts. But that establishes misuse or contested interpretation, not universal individual authorization. If you claim otherwise, show the actual Qur’anic verse, authentic hadith, and recognized juristic principle that gives an ordinary Muslim the authority to independently initiate violence. That is the point you still haven't proved.

honesttalk21:
Your Rushdie example actually reinforces the distinction. Khomeini issued a specific decree as a political/religious authority; that does not magically turn every Muslim worldwide into an independently authorized executor. A particular ruling by an authority is not the same thing as a universal private licence.

Bait swallowed whole .

There is no distinction between state sponsored terror, militia-type enterprises, or individually undertaken violence. They are flip sides of the same coin. The direct result of Khomeini's fatwa has been attempts by lone-wolf individuals to end Rushdie's life - as recent as a few years ago!

Be it state-sponsored or individually undertaken, there is no difference. Imams often encourage adherents to carry out scripturally permitted or divinely sanctioned judgements on their own violition. Deborah Samuels, victims like her worldwide and their loved ones could not care less.


TV

TV01:
Bait swallowed whole .

There is no distinction between state sponsored terror, militia-type enterprises, or individually undertaken violence. They are flip sides of the same coin. The direct result of Khomeini's fatwa has been attempts by lone-wolf individuals to end Rushdie's life - as recent as a few years ago!

Be it state-sponsored or individually undertaken, there is no difference. Imams often encourage adherents to carry out scripturally permitted or divinely sanctioned judgements on their own violition. Deborah Samuels, victims like her worldwide and their loved ones could not care less.


TV

You've just made my point for me. If the attacks on Rushdie followed Khomeini's fatwa, what moved those individuals was a specific ruling from an authority, not verses read in isolation. That is the distinction you say doesn't exist.

Saying there's no difference between state and private violence also proves too much. Every legal system separates lawful state action from vigilantism, a soldier under authority from a murderer on his own initiative. Apply that consistently to Deuteronomy 20, Amalek and the Crusades.

The Rushdie ruling was not universally accepted by Muslim scholars. For example, scholars at Al-Azhar disputed Khomeini's authority to impose the sentence, and Rafiq Zakaria explicitly called the fatwa illegal under Islamic law. The Sultan of Sokoto's condemnation of Deborah Samuel's killing also still defeats never. Imams often encourage adherents to act on their own is an assertion. Name the imam, the sermon and the text he cites, then show the step from warfare verses to an ordinary Muslim initiating violence, or concede you haven't.

TV01:
What was the ee.slam.ic response to the killing of Miss Debbie Samuels? Not a word. Any that tried decry it were instantly silenced. It was carried ut by students - on a female, someone they knew! Not herders or bushmen. No matter how intellectual you are, ee.slam has the potential to make a bloodthirsty animal of you. Are moo.slims not beheading Yoruba as we speak?

And no, I am not a Nigerian and I make a point of staying far away from ee.slam and it's regressiveness as possible. Even here. The horrors of ee.slam.ic tear.or.ree.sm are constant.

The crusades were a direct response to ee.slam.ic aggression. Before the first crusade in 1095, ee.slam had forcibly converted by the sword or attacked, Christian Syria, Jordan Palestine, Egypt, Algeria, Libya, Morocco, Portugal, Spain France, Sicily, Turkey, Armenia and Italy. The crusades were a legitimate and needed response to ee.slam.ic supremacism, colonialism and aggression. Moose.slims be whining about getting their behinds handed to them after initiating open hostility, violence and warfare. The natureof ee.slam is clear, until it is utterly extirpated, the aggression and violence will always rear it's head.

Can you even quote me correctly? ee.slam, dulling human beings since the 7th century. Although only a small percentage are actively carrying out attacks, many more would join them if possible and the vast majority support them. The few that don't and do not, cannot speak out or they would be direct targets themselves.

If you claim ignorance of text in the ee.slam.ic scripture that preach violence and bloodshed against non-believers, you are either lying or ignorant. No one denies the verses exist, they simply try to rationalise or justify them by "contextualising" or "historicising". But it changes nothing. The sum import of the scriptures is ee.slam.ic supremacism, enjoining hatred, violence and bloodshed against unbelievers in the quest for ee.slam.ic domination. Preached in mosques worldwide.


TV

Quote or give link to where it's preached I the mosque pls?

jokerphilics:
Quote or give link to where it's preached I the mosque pls?

Ok. You skipped the piece about Deborah Samuels - a cold-blooded murder winked at by the ummah.
You overlooked the response about the crusades - a well deserved retaliation for ee.slamic aggression.
You totally ignored the point about the bloodthirsty texts of your religion - replete and unambiguous.

Then you requested something you must know happens and can easily search out yourself. I never met anyone who tried to make a case for ee.slam that did not deceive and deflect. No change here - totally as expected.

One each from the UK and Oz. Start there and then search for yourself.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUqWAs9jZK8&pp=ygUtaW1hbWFzIHRlYWNoaW5nIGppaGFkIGluIHRoZWlyIG1vc3F1ZSBzZXJtb25z

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxX6MgQtfoU

TV

honesttalk21:
You've just made my point for me. If the attacks on Rushdie followed Khomeini's fatwa, what moved those individuals was a specific ruling from an authority, not verses read in isolation. That is the distinction you say doesn't exist.

A needless distinction. Did the ruing "authority" expressly state individuals should not act. Did the issuing "authority" decry the "rogue" action of individuals? Was the fatwa ever declared limited to the Ayatollahs jurisdiction?

honesttalk21:
Saying there's no difference between state and private violence also proves too much. Every legal system separates lawful state action from vigilantism, a soldier under authority from a murderer on his own initiative. Apply that consistently to Deuteronomy 20, Amalek and the Crusades.

And this makes a meaningful difference to Deborah Samuels or Salman Rushdie or any other victim of ee.slamic violence how?

honesttalk21:
The Rushdie ruling was not universally accepted by Muslim scholars. For example, scholars at Al-Azhar disputed Khomeini's authority to impose the sentence, and Rafiq Zakaria explicitly called the fatwa illegal under Islamic law. The Sultan of Sokoto's condemnation of Deborah Samuel's killing also still defeats never. Imams often encourage adherents to act on their own is an assertion. Name the imam, the sermon and the text he cites, then show the step from warfare verses to an ordinary Muslim initiating violence, or concede you haven't.

A standard excuse and part of the smokescreen deployed by apologists - no universal scholarly agreement. A point I've made before. Literally all positions can be read from both ends and be situationally dependant. And often are. The imperative is as long as it advances ee.slam.


TV

TV01:
A needless distinction. Did the ruing "authority" expressly state individuals should not act. Did the issuing "authority" decry the "rogue" action of individuals? Was the fatwa ever declared limited to the Ayatollahs jurisdiction?

And this makes a meaningful difference to Deborah Samuels or Salman Rushdie or any other victim of ee.slamic violence how?

A standard excuse and part of the smokescreen deployed by apologists - no universal scholarly agreement. A point I've made before. Literally all positions can be read from both ends and be situationally dependant. And often are. The imperative is as long as it advances ee.slam.


TV

Six days to reply, and all you brought back was the same question. You say you stay far away from Islam, yet it's the one subject you keep returning to. Victims suffer the same either way, so the question is who is accountable and on what authority, which is why every legal system separates a lynching from an execution. If every position can be read from both ends, so can yours, and clear and absolute is gone. Sokoto, a named imam and the textual step are still unanswered do clearly provide these or shut up.

honesttalk21:
[quote author=honesttalk21 post=140853708]The Sultan of Sokoto's condemnation of Deborah Samuel's killing also still defeats never.

Condemnation? Laughable. Did the SoS use his authority to ensure the killers - who carried out their barbaric act in plain sight - were brought to justice? Did moose.slim members of the NBA not offer to defend the murderers pro bone if the case ever came to court? Leave off. Ee.slam is what it is. Own it.

honesttalk21:
Six days to reply, and all you brought back was the same question. You say you stay far away from Islam, yet it's the one subject you keep returning to. Victims suffer the same either way, so the question is who is accountable and on what authority, which is why every legal system separates a lynching from an execution. If every position can be read from both ends, so can yours, and clear and absolute is gone. Sokoto, a named imam and the textual step are still unanswered do clearly provide these or shut up.

Needless distinctions. Ee.slam kills. Stay away from it.


TV

[quote author=TV01 post=140915221][/quote]Again you moved the goalposts from never condemned to not enough. You posted videos to jokerphilics, not me, and I earlier skipped them. A preacher calling for war shows what he says, not what Qur'an and Sunnah require; a sermon is one man's interpretation. Sokoto still kills never, and suspects were arrested. Lawyers volunteering isn't scripture. Show the text licensing a private attack, or drop it.

https://dailytrust.com/sultan-tambuwal-kukah-condemn-killing-of-student-accused-of-blasphemy/

TV01:
What was the ee.slam.ic response to the killing of Miss Debbie Samuels? Not a word. Any that tried decry it were instantly silenced. It was carried ut by students - on a female, someone they knew! Not herders or bushmen. No matter how intellectual you are, ee.slam has the potential to make a bloodthirsty animal of you. Are moo.slims not beheading Yoruba as we speak?

And no, I am not a Nigerian and I make a point of staying far away from ee.slam and it's regressiveness as possible. Even here. The horrors of ee.slam.ic tear.or.ree.sm are constant.

The crusades were a direct response to ee.slam.ic aggression. Before the first crusade in 1095, ee.slam had forcibly converted by the sword or attacked, Christian Syria, Jordan Palestine, Egypt, Algeria, Libya, Morocco, Portugal, Spain France, Sicily, Turkey, Armenia and Italy. The crusades were a legitimate and needed response to ee.slam.ic supremacism, colonialism and aggression. Moose.slims be whining about getting their behinds handed to them after initiating open hostility, violence and warfare. The natureof ee.slam is clear, until it is utterly extirpated, the aggression and violence will always rear it's head.

Can you even quote me correctly? ee.slam, dulling human beings since the 7th century. Although only a small percentage are actively carrying out attacks, many more would join them if possible and the vast majority support them. The few that don't and do not, cannot speak out or they would be direct targets themselves.

If you claim ignorance of text in the ee.slam.ic scripture that preach violence and bloodshed against non-believers, you are either lying or ignorant. No one denies the verses exist, they simply try to rationalise or justify them by "contextualising" or "historicising". But it changes nothing. The sum import of the scriptures is ee.slam.ic supremacism, enjoining hatred, violence and bloodshed against unbelievers in the quest for ee.slam.ic domination. Preached in mosques worldwide.


TV

Generalization without confirmation will only make you look stupid Bruv. When there are countless number of muslims, both the clerica and ordinary Muslim was against it(jungle justice)

If what the crusaders did was retaliating. Was there Islamic colonisation in America, lots of countries in Africa before their brothers in faith ( brothers of crusaders meaning the whites) killed, enslave and colonized them(these countries)? Did you bother to read about what the crusaders did to the citizens and their properties when they took back these countries,take Spain for example? Is that getting what they lost back or you just talk about what you don't know? If the country you live is a colonized country which definitely the colonization was done by the whites. Did these white people just colonozed your forefathers with open hands or there was killing? Jowbis Christianity spread action the word? Isn't it throughout these colonizations coupled with enslavement andbthe like? And you want me to tajebthat religion serious? Or do you think I'm a Muslim that don't read like you?

You said others would have joined if they have the opportunity. If that's the case why am I saying otherwise now to you? Or did you halt me from doing it saying so for me to say otherwise on this platform?

About the verses that says kill. You know nothing about those verses, hence the reason you are typing what you are typing on here. Whatever verse that you misquotebti mean such, quote it here and I will explain it to you. You don't pick a verse out of context in our religion. You understand it before talking about which is why people like you, whatever you say doesn't count?

TV01:
Ok. You skipped the piece about Deborah Samuels - a cold-blooded murder winked at by the ummah.
You overlooked the response about the crusades - a well deserved retaliation for ee.slamic aggression.
You totally ignored the point about the bloodthirsty texts of your religion - replete and unambiguous.

Then you requested something you must know happens and can easily search out yourself. I never met anyone who tried to make a case for ee.slam that did not deceive and deflect. No change here - totally as expected.

One each from the UK and Oz. Start there and then search for yourself.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUqWAs9jZK8&pp=ygUtaW1hbWFzIHRlYWNoaW5nIGppaGFkIGluIHRoZWlyIG1vc3F1ZSBzZXJtb25z

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxX6MgQtfoU

TV

.

Like I do say that what someone that calls himself a Muslim do is not the justification for what Islam stands for. You know about a religion by their book. These people you show are not the representation of Islam. You don't have a point. If you have I might take America and Israel currently as a representation of Christianity and say you people are killers which is even true according to what the bible says?

honesttalk21:
Again you moved the goalposts from never condemned to not enough. You posted videos to jokerphilics, not me, and I earlier skipped them. A preacher calling for war shows what he says, not what Qur'an and Sunnah require; a sermon is one man's interpretation. Sokoto still kills never, and suspects were arrested. Lawyers volunteering isn't scripture. Show the text licensing a private attack, or drop it.

https://dailytrust.com/sultan-tambuwal-kukah-condemn-killing-of-student-accused-of-blasphemy/

I can't comprehend what you wrote here. Edit it pls

---

jokerphilics:
I can't comprehend what you wrote here. Edit it pls

I was stating how TV first claimed Muslims never condemn, then, when shown that a high-profile condemnation from the Sultan occured, he switched to complaining that the condemnation was insufficient, while still refusing to produce the textual licence for private vigilante violence that the whole argument rests on.

jokerphilics:
.

Like I do say that what someone that calls himself a Muslim do is not the justification for what Islam stands for. You know about a religion by their book. These people you show are not the representation of Islam. You don't have a point. If you have I might take America and Israel currently as a representation of Christianity and say you people are killers which is even true according to what the bible says?

I agree, a religion is to be judged by its text and commands. Its tenets and its precepts. Ee'slam if first and foremost a political ideology with an icing of religion. It's aim is to dominate and subject the whole world.

I agree there are differing opinions amongst scholars and laymen as to how certain scriptures should be interpreted, but interpretations of jihad and conquest are apparent and valid.

Yes, anything the US or Israel do that is wrong or terroristic should be, and is condemned. But none of it is done based on the Judeo-Christian scriptures. They do not claim they are doing it to please God. And the are not Christian nations. Although with a Judeo-Christian history, they are secular..

Jihad was so important to the founder of Islam, Muhammad, that he declared it to be the second most important deed in Islam.

"Allah's apostle was asked, 'What is the best deed?' He replied, 'To believe in Allah and his Apostle.' The questioner then asked, 'What is the next (in goodness)?' He replied, 'To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's cause.'" – The Hadith, Al Bukhari, Vol. 1 no 25.

Muslims, in fact, divide the world into two sectors: Dar-al-Islam (the House of Islam) and Dar-al-Harb (The House of War). The only countries considered to be at peace are those where Islamic law (the Sharia) is enforced.

Islam in Arabic means submission, surrender or subjugation. A Muslim is one who submits. The Arabic word for peace is Salam. Islam is the active form of Salam. Muslims see themselves as a "peace making force" using argument, intrigue, commerce, threats, terrorism, warfare and every other means possible to secure Islam as the only religion worldwide.
Muslims are not permitted to make peace with a non-Muslim country until its inhabitants surrender to Islam. They can agree to a cease fire for a period of time – but never to peace with non Muslims.

The Quran teaches that Muslims are superior to others: "Ye (Muslims) are the best of peoples evolved for mankind . . ." Surah 3:110.

Muslims are forbidden to befriend Jews or Christians: "O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors. They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is one of them . . ." Surah 5:54.

Islam instructs its adherents to fight until their opponents submit. Christians and Jews may be spared if they pay "Jizya" – a penalty tax – with willing submission: "Fight those who believe not in God nor the last day . . . Nor acknowledge the religion of truth, (even if they are) of the people of the Book, until they pay Jizya (tribute taxes) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" Surah 9:29.

"Fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait (ambush) for them in every strategem (of war) . . ." Surah 9:5 (also 2:193).

For those who resist Islam – execution or mutilation is decreed: "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution or crucifixion, or the cutting off of the hands and feet from opposite sides or exile from the land . . ." Surah 5:36.

The Hadith, which is a record of the words and deeds of Muhammad, is also viewed by Muslims as inspired. Next to the Quran, it is the most important source of Islamic Law. It's teachings are regarded as binding on all Muslims.

The Hadith teaches that apostasy is punishable by death: "Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him." Vol. 9:57.

A Muslim may not be punished for killing a non-Muslim: "No Muslim should be killed for killing a kafir (infidel)." Vol 9:50

Those who die in holy war are guaranteed to go to Heaven. "The person who participates in Jihad (Holy battles) in Allah's cause and nothing compels him to do so except belief in Allah and His apostle, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to paradise (if he is killed)." Vol 1:35

It may be hard for Christians to understand the concept of such a militant religion, but the primary aim of Islam is not spiritual but political. The ultimate purpose of Islam is the establishment by force of a worldwide Islamic state where Sharia law is enforced on all.

To achieve this is the goal of Jihad. Islamic scholars identify a multitude of forms that Jihad can take:

1. There is the Jihad of Words. Muhammad was a brilliant and gifted orator silencing his enemies in a war of words. In Arab culture it was customary for feuding tribes to select a poet to mock and provoke the opposing forces with spontaneous verses of cursing. These linguistic warriors engaged in verbal combat seeking to inspire their own side with a sense of superiority and strength whilst undermining the morale of the enemy. This war of words, which Muslim leaders today such as Gaddaffi, Saddam Hussein and Yassar Arafat still engage in, is actually a war of nerves.
2. There is the Jihad of Deception. When Muslims are small in number they can follow the example of Muhammad's 83 followers who fled from persecution in Mecca to Abyssinia (present day Ethiopia). There the Christian Negus (king) offered them refuge. When the Meccans demanded their return as slaves, the Muslim exiles declared that Islam was merely a variation of Christianity. The Muslims selectively recited those passages of the Quran that agree with the Bible such as the virgin birth and miracles of Jesus and His ascension to Heaven and ultimate return. They remained silent on the unbridgeable differences (such as the denial of the Trinity and the atonement) between the Quran and the Bible. As a result the Christian Abyssinians protected the Muslims from the Meccans.

In this way, when it was most vulnerable, Islam grew and developed in a Christian environment. (If we only demonstrate our Christian love without proclaiming the truth of the Gospel we could strengthen anti-Christian forces).

Muhammad compromised with the Meccan merchants during a particularly intense time of persecution. Formerly he had fearlessly condemned polytheism. Then, under pressure, he accepted the Meccan belief that Allah had a wife, Al-lat, and two daughters, Al Uzzo and Manat (Surah 53:20-23). Later Muhammad repudiated these so called Satanic Verses and claimed that all previous prophets had been tempted by demonic influence.

3. There is the Jihad of the Sword. After fleeing to Medina (the Hijra) in AD622, Muhammad started to summon his followers to attack and plunder the caravans of Mecca. His followers initially resisted these calls until Muhammad presented a series of "revelations" commanding Jihad (holy war) and permitting looting ("Whoever has killed an enemy and has proof of that, will possess his spoils" – The Hadith, Vol. 4 no. 370). Where the booty was not large enough, Muhammad held captives as hostages until their families paid a high ransom for their release. Hostage taking has continued to be a common practise in Islam to this day. Those who participate in Jihad are granted a blanket absolution (Surah 8:17) and guaranteed to go straight to Paradise (Heaven) if killed.

4. There is the Jihad of Taxation and Financial Reward. Those who refuse to submit to Islam are forced to pay a special tax for non- Muslims (Jizya). Those who convert to Islam are often offered financial rewards or scholarships.

5. There is the Jihad of Slavery. Those Muslims who engage in Jihad not only can seize property, extort ransoms and demand taxes, but also capture slaves. The only places in the world today where slavery is still practised are in some Muslim countries. In Sudan, the Islamic government uses slavery as an incentive to encourage Arab Northerners to attack the Christian Blacks in the South, and as a weapon of terror to destabilize non-Muslims. According to the Sharia Law, Muslims are allowed to enslave, own and sell human beings.

6. There is the Jihad of the Sharia Law. Non-Muslims are degraded to a lower class status and are denied equal access to the law because their testimony is not valid against a Muslim. This even applies to murder ("No Muslim should be killed for killing an infidel"wink. The death penalty is applied to anyone who renounces Islam and converts to another religion.

When the wealthy Bedouins of Arabia professed faith in Allah to escape attack, Muhammad did not accept their confession. ("The desert Arabs say 'We believe'. Say, 'Ye have no faith; but ye (only) say 'We have submitted.'" Surah 49:14) Islam does not place much value on personal faith, but demands surrender to the political rule of the Sharia.

It is significant that the calendar of Islam does not begin with the birth of Muhammad, nor the onset of his supposed "revelation", nor the assembling of the first Muslim community, nor the flight of Muslim refugees to Abyssinia. The 12 years of persecution in Mecca were not considered the start of their new religion. The Muslim calendar only begins when Islam became a political state in Medina.

7. There is the Jihad of Polygamy. The devastating defeat of the Muslim forces by the Meccans in the battle of Uhud (AD625) led to what could be considered one of Islam's greatest victories. So many of his men were killed that Muhammad permitted his men to take up to 4 wives (Surah 4:3, 4). With the advent of Western medicine, infant mortality has plummeted. And the Muslim birthrate has skyrocketed. Muslims are increasing in number twice as fast as other religions. This is due to birth control and abortion in Western lands and polygamy in Muslim lands. Muslims are not increasing much by missionary outreaches, but by having many children. Polygamy (rather than persuasion) has become one of Islam's most effective weapons for Holy War, providing Islam with a disproportionate numerical advantage.

8. There is the Jihad of the Spirits. According to the Quran, Muslims are not only men and women but also spirits who fight for the spread of Islam (Surah 46:29-33 and 72:1-15). Also a Muslim is to fight on Muhammad's behalf both in his life and after his death (Hadith Vol. 1 chapter 43).

TV

jokerphilics:
Generalization without confirmation will only make you look stupid Bruv. When there are countless number of muslims, both the clerica and ordinary Muslim was against it(jungle justice)

I agree with your point about generalisation. However, with ee.slam, confirmation comes via it's outworking. It has a bloody history. Violence and bloodshed always follow.

jokerphilics:
If what the crusaders did was retaliating. Was there Islamic colonisation in America, lots of countries in Africa before their brothers in faith ( brothers of crusaders meaning the whites) killed, enslave and colonized them(these countries)? Did you bother to read about what the crusaders did to the citizens and their properties when they took back these countries,take Spain for example? Is that getting what they lost back or you just talk about what you don't know? If the country you live is a colonized country which definitely the colonization was done by the whites. Did these white people just colonozed your forefathers with open hands or there was killing? Jowbis Christianity spread action the word? Isn't it throughout these colonizations coupled with enslavement andbthe like? And you want me to tajebthat religion serious? Or do you think I'm a Muslim that don't read like you?

And now you resort to not only generalisation, but also jumbling up points, many unrelated. But I shall answer.
1. War is a terrible thing. And where it happens atrocities - war crimes always follow. Indeed, war is the crime! Both sides committed atrocities, but ee.slam started it and justifies it.
2. The ee.slamic\Arab trans-Saharan slave trade lasted longer, took more slaves and treated them worse than the Atlantic slave trade. In fact, You can still purchase black slaves in moose.slim\Arab countries today. Saudi only abolished slavery under threat from the UK as recently as the 1960's. And that was a pretend de jure move. De facto slavery still exists and most imprtantly is not haram in ee.slam.
3.Slavery is condemned and outlawed by all historically Judeo-Christian nations. They ended as far as possible a practice by all civilisations through time. Black African countries enslaved each other. Mansa Musa and the Dahomey kingdom were infamous for the slave=trade accumulated wealth. African tribes sold their brethren to the European slave traders - the British fought to have slavery abolished in Nigeria - read the accounts of the Oba of Lagos and the threat of force from the British of he did not cease. Who was Madam Tinubu? A renowned slave trade, who refused to stop even after abolition. Stop playing victim. Black people and Islam practised slavery. Islam enslaved black people.
4. Christianity doe snot preach or practice slavery and it was Christianity that effectively abolished it. Ee.slam still practices it.
5. Colonisation was wrong. How colonised nations would have fared otherwise, is at best debateable.

jokerphilics:
You said others would have joined if they have the opportunity. If that's the case why am I saying otherwise now to you? Or did you halt me from doing it saying so for me to say otherwise on this platform?

Jihad takes many forms, per my earlier post. And yes, many would gleefully join in physical jihad if chanced.

jokerphilics:
About the verses that says kill. You know nothing about those verses, hence the reason you are typing what you are typing on here. Whatever verse that you misquotebti mean such, quote it here and I will explain it to you. You don't pick a verse out of context in our religion. You understand it before talking about which is why people like you, whatever you say doesn't count?

Explained in my earlier response. We now the history, we know the application, We know the aim, and it requires Jihad to achieve it. Sixty million in India alone. Dey play!


TV

honesttalk21:

---

I was stating how TV first claimed Muslims never condemn, then, when shown that a high-profile condemnation from the Sultan occured, he switched to complaining that the condemnation was insufficient, while still refusing to produce the textual licence for private vigilante violence that the whole argument rests on.

Produced here - https://www.nairaland.com/8754224/oppression-islam-types-stance-teachings/2#140947714.

And yes, any condemnation was mere crocodile tears. The murder happened in his caliphate, his city. Where he wields ultimate religious power. If indeed, what they did was a violation of ee.slam.ic tenets, he should be the one to ensure justice is done in the name of that same ee.slam.

They were filmed, boasted bare-faced on camera, never charged to court, and educated moose.slim lawyers offered to defend them pro-bono if they ever were. You would exculpate ee.slam based on mealy-mouthed condemnation?

Why was Atiku's condemnation on social media removed. Because he was rounded on by moose.slims - who always wink at any crime committed by their faithful against non-believers. The reverence for the SoS is such that they couldn't do the same to him.

What he did is effectively taqqiya, as it had zero effect on justice being done, or showing it did not represent ee.slam. Which could only have been proven by the religious authority - of which the SoS is the highest in the land - ensuring they were charged as violating ee.slamic jurisprudence - which prevails in the north.

Keep obfuscating, rationalising and justifying, while people are being wholesale slaughtered - literally daily in Nigeria alone. The deniers and apologists are as evil as the actual perpetrators they cover for.


TV
.