Archive for FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT BREAK THE CHAINS OF IGNORANCE AND FEAR
 

The free forums are now under new ownership, a full announcement will be made shortly

       FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> The Qur'an
BMZ

Kill them, fight and kill them. LOL!

I wrote this, in response to a Christian poster on a very nice Jewish Site, where I am the only Muslim. We do have very civil discussions.   Very Happy

Here is one just for everyone's reading pleasure. The thought was based upon Ahmed's comment that there is no Sword mentioned in Qur'aan, while the Bible is full of it.


BMZ wrote:
This might be news for you. You will be surprised and shocked to know that there is NO "Sword" word in the entire Qur'aan.
 

XYZ wrote:
Tell me BMZ, when the Qur'an instructs Muslims to "kill them wherever they find them" and instructs Muslims to "smite necks," what is the weapon of choice?

http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Themes/jihad_passages.html



Good question and I will answer that. The Holy Bible does the same.

But first, we must put on record that there is no such word as Sword or putting people to blade in Qur'aan and you have already conceded on this, becasue you could not find the word Sword in Qur'aan.  

Before I give you a detailed answer, tell me what do you understand from what you wrote "kill them where ever you find them" and smite whose necks. If your accusation were true, Muslims would have slain and smitten all the Europeans who entered the ME and other Muslim areas. Would not have given them any chance.  That is where this ridiculous accusation has been concocted, quoted out of context and is put forward by polemic and evangelical Christians.

The order was given to the Muslims of the time during the early period of Islam, when the new Muslims were being persecuted, attacked, tortured and killed.

It was real killing carried out by the pagan Meccans. The Meccans were not slapping the new Muslims' cheeks. If that were the case, Muslims would have been told to offer the other cheek.

It was not a Jesus type scenario, where he was walking freely without being beaten or molested by the Jews. The Jews did not put Jesus and his followers to blade or to the sword, because Jesus and his followers were a few and did not proclaim any new religion.

Jesus had not even been open and frank or honest about his claims. He never declared openly that he was the Messiah or the King of the Jews. He did not come even with a new religion to a people who already had a religion established 1,500 years before his arrival.

There was no idolatory in the Temple. According to gospels, Jesus told a Samaritan woman that he was he (messiah) but told her not to tell. Coming down from the mountain after the alleged transfiguration, he told his disciples not to tell anyone and you know there are such more instances, where he hid the truth.

You thus see Jesus hiding all that from the Jews. According to gospels, Jesus is made to appear as if he was playing a double game.

Now look at Muhammad who was out in the open soon and declared openly that he was a messenger of God and that there is only one God to a Godless and fierce and ruthless tribal people who had about 365 idols, an idol a day.  

Even they were not offically told to turn the other cheek, they did, bore with patience, suffered but to no avail.

When the order to fight was given, it was to fight and kill those who were doing the fighting and killing. Ask yourself a simple question. Did Muhammad issue any order to fight, slaughter and kill all the pagan inhabitants when Mecca was taken back on Prophet's Triumphal Entry into Mecca? You may refer to polemic sources on this.  

Let me know how many thousands of Meccans were killed at Prophet's Triumphal Entry into Mecca?

In those days, there were no B52s doing the carpet-bombing, helicopter gunships and A10 attack aircrafts to blast and pulverise people. Killing people by blasting may seem acceptable and normal to you while in those days it was man to man combat. All swordsmen were smiting, chopping and killing in all parts of the world.  

Where does Qur'aan say that Muslims and I should go out, fight, kill and slay all non-Muslims? You must read the verses and understand what had happened.

BMZ
Baal

Re: Kill them, fight and kill them. LOL!

BMZ wrote:
I wrote this, in response to a Christian poster on a very nice Jewish Site, where I am the only Muslim. We do have very civil discussions.   Very Happy

Here is one just for everyone's reading pleasure. The thought was based upon Ahmed's comment that there is no Sword mentioned in Qur'aan, while the Bible is full of it.


BMZ wrote:
This might be news for you. You will be surprised and shocked to know that there is NO "Sword" word in the entire Qur'aan.
 

XYZ wrote:
Tell me BMZ, when the Qur'an instructs Muslims to "kill them wherever they find them" and instructs Muslims to "smite necks," what is the weapon of choice?

http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Themes/jihad_passages.html



Good question and I will answer that. The Holy Bible does the same.

But first, we must put on record that there is no such word as Sword or putting people to blade in Qur'aan and you have already conceded on this, becasue you could not find the word Sword in Qur'aan.  

Before I give you a detailed answer, tell me what do you understand from what you wrote "kill them where ever you find them" and smite whose necks. If your accusation were true, Muslims would have slain and smitten all the Europeans who entered the ME and other Muslim areas. Would not have given them any chance.  That is where this ridiculous accusation has been concocted, quoted out of context and is put forward by polemic and evangelical Christians.

The order was given to the Muslims of the time during the early period of Islam, when the new Muslims were being persecuted, attacked, tortured and killed.

It was real killing carried out by the pagan Meccans. The Meccans were not slapping the new Muslims' cheeks. If that were the case, Muslims would have been told to offer the other cheek.

It was not a Jesus type scenario, where he was walking freely without being beaten or molested by the Jews. The Jews did not put Jesus and his followers to blade or to the sword, because Jesus and his followers were a few and did not proclaim any new religion.

Jesus had not even been open and frank or honest about his claims. He never declared openly that he was the Messiah or the King of the Jews. He did not come even with a new religion to a people who already had a religion established 1,500 years before his arrival.

There was no idolatory in the Temple. According to gospels, Jesus told a Samaritan woman that he was he (messiah) but told her not to tell. Coming down from the mountain after the alleged transfiguration, he told his disciples not to tell anyone and you know there are such more instances, where he hid the truth.

You thus see Jesus hiding all that from the Jews. According to gospels, Jesus is made to appear as if he was playing a double game.

Now look at Muhammad who was out in the open soon and declared openly that he was a messenger of God and that there is only one God to a Godless and fierce and ruthless tribal people who had about 365 idols, an idol a day.  

Even they were not offically told to turn the other cheek, they did, bore with patience, suffered but to no avail.

When the order to fight was given, it was to fight and kill those who were doing the fighting and killing. Ask yourself a simple question. Did Muhammad issue any order to fight, slaughter and kill all the pagan inhabitants when Mecca was taken back on Prophet's Triumphal Entry into Mecca? You may refer to polemic sources on this.  

Let me know how many thousands of Meccans were killed at Prophet's Triumphal Entry into Mecca?

In those days, there were no B52s doing the carpet-bombing, helicopter gunships and A10 attack aircrafts to blast and pulverise people. Killing people by blasting may seem acceptable and normal to you while in those days it was man to man combat. All swordsmen were smiting, chopping and killing in all parts of the world.  

Where does Qur'aan say that Muslims and I should go out, fight, kill and slay all non-Muslims? You must read the verses and understand what had happened.

BMZ

Yes BMZ, but if you consider the entire koran, you will find the lack of verses for muslims who are NOT being persecuted. A lack of verses for muslims who just want a set of moral guidance for this world. When the vast makority of your verses are only there to punish disbelievers, when the vast majority of reasons to enter hell are for disbelieving, when I sayy vast majority, I mean over 90%, then that book is no longer a tool for self-defence and moral guidance.

It is a book of aggression. And you are right, the sword is not the weapon of choice to smite necks. If the guy is already bound on the floor, the weapon of choice is small serrated knife that will cause a lot more pain then a nice clean sword cut.
BMZ

Re: Kill them, fight and kill them. LOL!

Baal wrote:
BMZ wrote:
I wrote this, in response to a Christian poster on a very nice Jewish Site, where I am the only Muslim. We do have very civil discussions.   Very Happy

Here is one just for everyone's reading pleasure. The thought was based upon Ahmed's comment that there is no Sword mentioned in Qur'aan, while the Bible is full of it.


BMZ wrote:
This might be news for you. You will be surprised and shocked to know that there is NO "Sword" word in the entire Qur'aan.
 

XYZ wrote:
Tell me BMZ, when the Qur'an instructs Muslims to "kill them wherever they find them" and instructs Muslims to "smite necks," what is the weapon of choice?

http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Themes/jihad_passages.html



Good question and I will answer that. The Holy Bible does the same.

But first, we must put on record that there is no such word as Sword or putting people to blade in Qur'aan and you have already conceded on this, becasue you could not find the word Sword in Qur'aan.  

Before I give you a detailed answer, tell me what do you understand from what you wrote "kill them where ever you find them" and smite whose necks. If your accusation were true, Muslims would have slain and smitten all the Europeans who entered the ME and other Muslim areas. Would not have given them any chance.  That is where this ridiculous accusation has been concocted, quoted out of context and is put forward by polemic and evangelical Christians.

The order was given to the Muslims of the time during the early period of Islam, when the new Muslims were being persecuted, attacked, tortured and killed.

It was real killing carried out by the pagan Meccans. The Meccans were not slapping the new Muslims' cheeks. If that were the case, Muslims would have been told to offer the other cheek.

It was not a Jesus type scenario, where he was walking freely without being beaten or molested by the Jews. The Jews did not put Jesus and his followers to blade or to the sword, because Jesus and his followers were a few and did not proclaim any new religion.

Jesus had not even been open and frank or honest about his claims. He never declared openly that he was the Messiah or the King of the Jews. He did not come even with a new religion to a people who already had a religion established 1,500 years before his arrival.

There was no idolatory in the Temple. According to gospels, Jesus told a Samaritan woman that he was he (messiah) but told her not to tell. Coming down from the mountain after the alleged transfiguration, he told his disciples not to tell anyone and you know there are such more instances, where he hid the truth.

You thus see Jesus hiding all that from the Jews. According to gospels, Jesus is made to appear as if he was playing a double game.

Now look at Muhammad who was out in the open soon and declared openly that he was a messenger of God and that there is only one God to a Godless and fierce and ruthless tribal people who had about 365 idols, an idol a day.  

Even they were not offically told to turn the other cheek, they did, bore with patience, suffered but to no avail.

When the order to fight was given, it was to fight and kill those who were doing the fighting and killing. Ask yourself a simple question. Did Muhammad issue any order to fight, slaughter and kill all the pagan inhabitants when Mecca was taken back on Prophet's Triumphal Entry into Mecca? You may refer to polemic sources on this.  

Let me know how many thousands of Meccans were killed at Prophet's Triumphal Entry into Mecca?

In those days, there were no B52s doing the carpet-bombing, helicopter gunships and A10 attack aircrafts to blast and pulverise people. Killing people by blasting may seem acceptable and normal to you while in those days it was man to man combat. All swordsmen were smiting, chopping and killing in all parts of the world.  

Where does Qur'aan say that Muslims and I should go out, fight, kill and slay all non-Muslims? You must read the verses and understand what had happened.

BMZ

Yes BMZ, but if you consider the entire koran, you will find the lack of verses for muslims who are NOT being persecuted. A lack of verses for muslims who just want a set of moral guidance for this world. When the vast makority of your verses are only there to punish disbelievers, when the vast majority of reasons to enter hell are for disbelieving, when I sayy vast majority, I mean over 90%, then that book is no longer a tool for self-defence and moral guidance.

It is a book of aggression. And you are right, the sword is not the weapon of choice to smite necks. If the guy is already bound on the floor, the weapon of choice is small serrated knife that will cause a lot more pain then a nice clean sword cut.


Thank you very much for the opening part of your post, Baal.

Quote:
Yes BMZ,


You are the first person, who said Yes to my explanation and I appreciate that.

That was what I was really after.

BMZ
Pazuzu bin Hanbi

Re: Kill them, fight and kill them. LOL!

BMZ wrote:
Good question and I will answer that. The Holy Bible does the same.


I think I would die of shock if a muslim made an argument and DIDN’T resort to tu quoque!

Baal wrote:
consider the entire koran, you will find the lack of verses for muslims who are NOT being persecuted. A lack of verses for muslims who just want a set of moral guidance for this world.
On a related note, I recall when I went through bad times recently and turned desperately to the Qur’ân for some words of guidance and peace. Something I could recite as a mantra to help ease my troubled soul. And guess what? I found bugger all, just exhortations to remember god or go to hell. After posting on muslim forums online I had people suggest supplications — but none of them came directly from the Qur’ân. Interestingly, the Bible contains many such passages seemingly designed just for such occasions!
BMZ

Re: Kill them, fight and kill them. LOL!

Pazuzu bin Hanbi wrote:
BMZ wrote:
Good question and I will answer that. The Holy Bible does the same.


I think I would die of shock if a muslim made an argument and DIDN’T resort to tu quoque!

Baal wrote:
consider the entire koran, you will find the lack of verses for muslims who are NOT being persecuted. A lack of verses for muslims who just want a set of moral guidance for this world.
On a related note, I recall when I went through bad times recently and turned desperately to the Qur’ân for some words of guidance and peace. Something I could recite as a mantra to help ease my troubled soul. And guess what? I found bugger all, just exhortations to remember god or go to hell. After posting on muslim forums online I had people suggest supplications — but none of them came directly from the Qur’ân. Interestingly, the Bible contains many such passages seemingly designed just for such occasions!


lol! Why didn't you ask me? I would have quoted you direct from Qur'aan.  Very Happy Qur'aan has plenty of supplications. One should not use Biblical supplicants because one does not know which one of the three, is one supplicating to. LOL!

When you discuss Islam with a Christian, who raises issues, a Muslim should make full use of an earlier Tu Quoque or one in advance, before the Christian comes up with it. Trust me. It works, no matter how annoyed one gets. lol!

The one that I used, was to make him realise Yahweh's doings in Joshua and Numbers. It is necessary to remind the Pot before it addresses the kettle.  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing

You have not seen the Christian Tu Quoque. It straightaway develops into "Your Allah", "Your prophet" and so on, till it starts getting boring and leads to unpleasantness. One has to nip it in the bud.

Cheers
BMZ
HomoErectus

No need to specifically mention "the sword" - islam is just one big sword - without all the threats, islam wouldn't exist anymore !

Look at all the islamic onslaught, the conquests, and islamic behaviour once they have the "upper hand" - SWORD !

And plenty of proof for all kinds of violence, ambushing, robbing, stealing, looting, raping, enslaving, and kill kill kill...

Just have a look at your socalled "holy book"...

and of course the many many ahadith...

You don't see no sword ?

Strange... something must be wrong with your eyes or your comprehension then...

Aaaah, yeah, I forgot... you are a victim of the cult, you have been indoctrinated and brainwashed into this hoax and - like so many - now you are blinded "by the light" !

.
Baal

Re: Kill them, fight and kill them. LOL!

BMZ wrote:

Yes BMZ, but if you consider the entire koran, you will find the lack of verses for muslims who are NOT being persecuted. A lack of verses for muslims who just want a set of moral guidance for this world. When the vast makority of your verses are only there to punish disbelievers, when the vast majority of reasons to enter hell are for disbelieving, when I sayy vast majority, I mean over 90%, then that book is no longer a tool for self-defence and moral guidance.

It is a book of aggression. And you are right, the sword is not the weapon of choice to smite necks. If the guy is already bound on the floor, the weapon of choice is small serrated knife that will cause a lot more pain then a nice clean sword cut.


[i]Thank you very much for the opening part of your post, Baal.

[/quote]
I am just lowering myself to the level of your apology BMZ.

You are faced with a book where the majority of the verses are violent, when 94% of the reasons people enter hell is for disbelieving or disobeying muhammad. 6% of the reasons is for moral reasons or for doing things bad to other people.

You are answering that somehow, those majority of verses are for the sake of persecuted muslims.

Even if that apology holds water. And it does not. We are still facing a lack of verses for non-persecuted muslims.
Mutley

BMZ wrote:

Good question and I will answer that. The Holy Bible does the same.


Now everybody, let's look at the logic. What he is telling himself is that the behavior is justified because we find it in a book that he thinks is a false lie anyway (the Bible). Did everybody catch that logic? Amazing, isn't it? And they don't even know they do this.
BMZ

Mutley wrote:
BMZ wrote:

Good question and I will answer that. The Holy Bible does the same.


Now everybody, let's look at the logic. What he is telling himself is that the behavior is justified because we find it in a book that he thinks is a false lie anyway (the Bible). Did everybody catch that logic? Amazing, isn't it? And they don't even know they do this.


Mutley,

It has nothing to do with logic. It is just that you do not know my style of writing and responding to pots and different pans. I will let you know now.

My responses are specially 'tailor-made, made to measurement, to fit like a perfect glove' and this is what you should know. I am a very blunt person and I do not use flowery language during discourses. In Arabic, we have "Zukhrufal-Qaule-Ghurrora" for flowery and deceitful language/words. You may check with Baal, All_Brains and Ahmed.

I cannot do that. I can be polite but only with those who are really polite.  Smile  

When one is dealing with a known Christian polemic and evangelist, one has to respond back in his/her style, as this has an immediate impact upon him/her. This helps in making him/her realise that he/she is not a lovely China Porcelain. The one I dealt with, is a "pot". And I make an evangelical  Christian  "pot" realise that he/she should be careful in writing and think before writing.

I apply the same golden rule of mine to those who do not make their affiliations with Christianity known and yet feel irritated and show their displeasure when I write. Those will include your goodself, many at FFI and other sites. This is My style of responding and you should get used to it.  Laughing I like it and enjoy it very much.

Those who are genuinely interested in discussing Islam and Qur'aan, will always find me writing and explaining.

You will notice that even with the political turmoil in the ME, you will not find any such discussions and debates raging between Jews and Muslims. Right? Of course, I am right. Why? Because both have got God right, while Christianity hasn't. You will find it mostly between Christians and Muslims and tu quoque is a tool used by both. In fact, it is quite healthy to use it, just to wake up the other person and shake his/her conscience. Beleiev me it works. Laughing

Forgot to add: I wish to make use of this opportunity to say something which I realised only recently, after having been through with FFI, The Council of Ex-Muslims, All_Brains' and other sites. I found that a genuine ex-Muslim is far better, more thoughtful and more well-mannered than the average polemic Christian during exchanges of thoughts.  Laughing Please think hard on this.  Laughing

Happy Chinese New Year

BMZ
Tvebak

Lol BMZ I like your argument, but please understand that making another religion look bad, does not make your own religion better. Sometimes though it seems that you follow that logic. But one thing I like about your argument is that it seems you are arguing from the muslim traditional history, which you by the way at other times seems to question. Do you pick and choose? Another thing I like is that you argue that Jesus never said that he brought a new religion or said that he was the king of jews and therefore was not persecuted by swords. Where you there at the time and did you use the quran or the bible to make this argument? A third thing I like is that you are arguing that Muhammad obviously claimed a new religion and also perhaps claimed to be the leader of? And therefore he was meet by swords. Did he claim a "new" religion differently from that what Jesus did according to the Quran, ie. being a new messenger from "god"?


Alright some further questions arise here concerning the comparison of Muhammad and Jesus and the situation in which they where in. Cause it is interesting which sources you use and how you use them.

Can you show me how Muhammad was molested and beaten? and can you show me wether Muhammad was molested and beaten all the time?
Can you show me that Jesus was not molested and beaten at any time?

And you have to remember that you have to think about which sources you are using, cause in validating your argument about Jesus in comparison to Muhammad you a not sure you can use the christian bible, cause you cannot be sure what is correct and what is wrong (which by the way is another way which we see many muslims using a "pick and choose"-tactic towards the bible). Now concerning the Jesus in the Quran he surely proclaim that he was a messenger of "god", there's no doubt there. He even did it to the people of Israel, you the jews. And that is what is important when you argue from a islamic perspective. So basicly according to your reasoning above the jews should have "molested and beaten" Jesus for claiming to be a prophet and messenger of "god". And also in the case of Muhammad you have to consider which sources you are using. Are you gonna use the traditional history or can you only use the quran to present your argument?

Oh and can you give me references for these?, thanks

Quote:
The order was given to the Muslims of the time during the early period of Islam, when the new Muslims were being persecuted, attacked, tortured and killed.


Quote:
Now look at Muhammad who was out in the open soon and declared openly that he was a messenger of God and that there is only one God to a Godless and fierce and ruthless tribal people who had about 365 idols, an idol a day.  


Of course from sources you think is reliabel.

Cheers

EDIT: Just cleared some points up!
Tvebak

Oh and happy chinese new year to you too. There's a lot of chinese in your area right?
Mutley

Re: Kill them, fight and kill them. LOL!

BMZ wrote:
I wrote this, in response to a Christian poster on a very nice Jewish Site, where I am the only Muslim. We do have very civil discussions.   Very Happy

Here is one just for everyone's reading pleasure. The thought was based upon Ahmed's comment that there is no Sword mentioned in Qur'aan, while the Bible is full of it.


BMZ wrote:
This might be news for you. You will be surprised and shocked to know that there is NO "Sword" word in the entire Qur'aan.
 

XYZ wrote:
Tell me BMZ, when the Qur'an instructs Muslims to "kill them wherever they find them" and instructs Muslims to "smite necks," what is the weapon of choice?

http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Themes/jihad_passages.html



Good question and I will answer that. The Holy Bible does the same.


That's not an answer.

BMZ wrote:

But first, we must put on record that there is no such word as Sword or putting people to blade in Qur'aan and you have already conceded on this, becasue you could not find the word Sword in Qur'aan.  

Before I give you a detailed answer, tell me what do you understand from what you wrote "kill them where ever you find them" and smite whose necks. If your accusation were true, Muslims would have slain and smitten all the Europeans who entered the ME and other Muslim areas.


If Muslims were capable, they would have conquered Europe as well

BMZ wrote:

Would not have given them any chance.  That is where this ridiculous accusation has been concocted, quoted out of context and is put forward by polemic and evangelical Christians.

The order was given to the Muslims of the time during the early period of Islam, when the new Muslims were being persecuted, attacked, tortured and killed.

It was real killing carried out by the pagan Meccans.


Can you document this?


BMZ wrote:

The Meccans were not slapping the new Muslims' cheeks. If that were the case, Muslims would have been told to offer the other cheek.

It was not a Jesus type scenario, where he was walking freely without being beaten or molested by the Jews. The Jews did not put Jesus and his followers to blade or to the sword, because Jesus and his followers were a few and did not proclaim any new religion.

Jesus had not even been open and frank or honest about his claims. He never declared openly that he was the Messiah or the King of the Jews. He did not come even with a new religion to a people who already had a religion established 1,500 years before his arrival.

There was no idolatory in the Temple. According to gospels, Jesus told a Samaritan woman that he was he (messiah) but told her not to tell. Coming down from the mountain after the alleged transfiguration, he told his disciples not to tell anyone and you know there are such more instances, where he hid the truth.

You thus see Jesus hiding all that from the Jews. According to gospels, Jesus is made to appear as if he was playing a double game.

Now look at Muhammad who was out in the open soon and declared openly that he was a messenger of God and that there is only one God to a Godless and fierce and ruthless tribal people who had about 365 idols, an idol a day.  

Even they were not offically told to turn the other cheek, they did, bore with patience, suffered but to no avail.


What? He just didn't have an army yet.

BMZ wrote:

When the order to fight was given, it was to fight and kill those who were doing the fighting and killing. Ask yourself a simple question. Did Muhammad issue any order to fight, slaughter and kill all the pagan inhabitants when Mecca was taken back on Prophet's Triumphal Entry into Mecca? You may refer to polemic sources on this.


He didn't need to. They surrendered without a fight As long as he ruled, everything was fine.  

BMZ wrote:

Let me know how many thousands of Meccans were killed at Prophet's Triumphal Entry into Mecca?


He didn't need to. They surrendered without a fight As long as he ruled, everything was fine.  

BMZ wrote:

In those days, there were no B52s doing the carpet-bombing, helicopter gunships and A10 attack aircrafts to blast and pulverise people. Killing people by blasting may seem acceptable and normal to you while in those days it was man to man combat. All swordsmen were smiting, chopping and killing in all parts of the world.  

Where does Qur'aan say that Muslims and I should go out, fight, kill and slay all non-Muslims? You must read the verses and understand what had happened.

BMZ


009.029
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

009.030
YUSUFALI: The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!
PICKTHAL: And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!
SHAKIR: And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

This doesn't look very defensive to me, and it clearly appears to be about religion. Let's see if the hadith can clarify



   Narrated Ibn ‘Umar:

   Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives an property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24)

   Narrated Anas bin Malik:

   Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’ And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’, faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387)


   It is narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) breathed his last and Abu Bakr was appointed as his successor (Caliph), those amongst the Arabs who wanted to become apostates became apostates. 'Umar b. Khattab said to Abu Bakr: Why would you fight against the people, when the Messenger of Allah declared: I have been directed to fight against people so long as they do not say: There is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was granted full protection of his property and life on my behalf except for a right? His (other) affairs rest with Allah. Upon this Abu Bakr said: By Allah, I would definitely fight against him who severed prayer from Zakat, for it is the obligation upon the rich. By Allah, I would fight against them even to secure the cord (used for hobbling the feet of a camel) which they used to give to the Messenger of Allah (as zakat) but now they have withheld it. Umar b. Khattab remarked: By Allah, I found nothing but the fact that Allah had opened the heart of Abu Bakr for (perceiving the justification of) fighting (against those who refused to pay Zakat) and I fully recognized that the (stand of Abu Bakr) was right. (Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0029)

   It is reported on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf except for the right affairs rest with Allah. (Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0030)

   It is narrated on the authority of Jabir that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded that I should fight against people till they declare that there is no god but Allah, and when they profess it that there is no god but Allah, their blood and riches are guaranteed protection on my behalf except where it is justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah, and then he (the Holy Prophet) recited (this verse of the Holy Qur'an): "Thou art not over them a warden" (lxxxviii, 22). (Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0032)

   It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. 'Umar that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah. (Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0033)
David

Re: Kill them, fight and kill them. LOL!

BMZ wrote:


I wrote this, in response to a Christian poster on a very nice Jewish Site, where I am the only Muslim. We do have very civil discussions.   Very Happy  


You sound like you are out numbered.  How many Christians reply to your posts?  5, 10, 25, 50?

What is your interpretation of the verses in your signature?

Luke 22:36He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."38The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied.

What do you think Jesus is saying?
BMZ

Re: Kill them, fight and kill them. LOL!

David wrote:
You sound like you are out numbered.  How many Christians reply to your posts?  5, 10, 25, 50?


On that partcular site, the number of Christians is two and a half. I always write on sites where I am out-numbered.

David wrote:
What is your interpretation of the verses in your signature?


Arm yourself with swords. Get as many swords as possible. Whatelse?

Quote:
Luke 22:36He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."38The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied.


David wrote:
What do you think Jesus is saying?


He wanted them to sell everything and buy swords. What is your spin over that famous Killer Verse?

By the way, I wrote that post to inform the polemic Christians that the word SWORD is not at all mentioned in the Holy Qur'aan. Do you know that? You must have heard from Ahmed, before. Very Happy

BMZ
Tvebak

Re: Kill them, fight and kill them. LOL!

BMZ wrote:
David wrote:
You sound like you are out numbered.  How many Christians reply to your posts?  5, 10, 25, 50?


On that partcular site, the number of Christians is two and a half. I always write on sites where I am out-numbered.


That's not true. You are also writing at Answering-FFI and FI as I'm aware of, maybe more sites Razz  Just teasing.

BMZ wrote:

By the way, I wrote that post to inform the polemic Christians that the word SWORD is not at all mentioned in the Holy Qur'aan. Do you know that? You must have heard from Ahmed, before. Very Happy

BMZ


I don't think David have seen Ahmed putting forward that argument, but yes it's correct. There's no mentioning of any swords in all the verses arguing to "fight", maybe it was expected that people understood what to use  Wink

By the way I'm look forward to your respond of mine (and perhaps also Mutleys comment) I might learn some new things.

Cheer and peace
BMZ

Re: Kill them, fight and kill them. LOL!

BMZ wrote:
Before I give you a detailed answer, tell me what do you understand from what you wrote "kill them where ever you find them" and smite whose necks. If your accusation were true, Muslims would have slain and smitten all the Europeans who entered the ME and other Muslim areas.


Mutley wrote:
If Muslims were capable, they would have conquered Europe as well


Mutley, do you ever read a post properly and think before posting a reply? Read the emboldened word. Were we discussing any conquest?

BMZ wrote:
Would not have given them any chance.  That is where this ridiculous accusation has been concocted, quoted out of context and is put forward by polemic and evangelical Christians.

The order was given to the Muslims of the time during the early period of Islam, when the new Muslims were being persecuted, attacked, tortured and killed.

It was real killing carried out by the pagan Meccans.


Mutley wrote:
Can you document this?


Read Qur'aan.  

It is no use quoting me from Hadith. Hadith is something like the Bible, specially the New Testament, containing narrations and stories told by various persons. Both are not reliable scriptures.

BMZ
BMZ

Re: Kill them, fight and kill them. LOL!

Tvebak wrote:
BMZ wrote:
David wrote:
You sound like you are out numbered.  How many Christians reply to your posts?  5, 10, 25, 50?


On that partcular site, the number of Christians is two and a half. I always write on sites where I am out-numbered.


That's not true. You are also writing at Answering-FFI and FI as I'm aware of, maybe more sites Razz  Just teasing.

BMZ wrote:

By the way, I wrote that post to inform the polemic Christians that the word SWORD is not at all mentioned in the Holy Qur'aan. Do you know that? You must have heard from Ahmed, before. Very Happy

BMZ


I don't think David have seen Ahmed putting forward that argument, but yes it's correct. There's no mentioning of any swords in all the verses arguing to "fight", maybe it was expected that people understood what to use  Wink

By the way I'm look forward to your respond of mine (and perhaps also Mutleys comment) I might learn some new things.

Cheer and peace


Yes, Tvebak. I do write on AnsweringFFI, FI, IslamiCity, IslamOnline and a nice Jewish site. The two and a half Christians I mentioned are on the Jewish site. By half, I meant a Messianic Jew which in fact is a nice name for Christians.  Wink I am completely banned at FFI and even when I posted openly under mzbsp just a few days ago, I was banned again. Another site, I used to write was, CARM but I have been banned forever. Both can't take criticsm.

Of course, everyone's weapon of choice; at that time, before and after for quite some time, was the sword.

I just wanted to clear that the so-called killer verses were no order to kill all non-Muslims forever. Believe me if there were really an order to kill all non-Muslims, none would have been left and Muslims would also have been finished. That false accusation is so ridiculous.  Laughing

I will take a look at your post and will write. Sorry, I might have missed it as I was busy with a topic on CD's exchanges.

Cheers
BMZ  
BMZ

Tvebak wrote:
Oh and happy chinese new year to you too. There's a lot of chinese in your area right?


Yes, 73% of Singapore's population is Chinese. The place is multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-national, all in quite a good harmony.

I had recommended to a few ministers and some Heads of States of Muslim countries with a Muslim majority to import foreigners equal to at least 25% of their population, e.g., Chinese, Palestinians, Africans and North Koreans but nobody has done anything so far, although they greatly appreciated the idea. The idea was to introduce others to blend in the population masses as that would break the monotony and lead to hard work, racial harmony and tolerance.

And all we have got is transmigration, to and fro, of Muslim refugees between Muslim states. lol!
An example. Last time Afghans flooded Pakistan and now they, including tribal area people under the "blitz kreig" of the U.S. military and Pakistani Forces, are flooding back Afghanistan.

BMZ
Tvebak

Re: Kill them, fight and kill them. LOL!

BMZ wrote:

Yes, Tvebak. I do write on AnsweringFFI, FI, IslamiCity, IslamOnline and a nice Jewish site. The two and a half Christians I mentioned are on the Jewish site. By half, I meant a Messianic Jew which in fact is a nice name for Christians.  Wink I am completely banned at FFI and even when I posted openly under mzbsp just a few days ago, I was banned again. Another site, I used to write was, CARM but I have been banned forever. Both can't take criticsm.

Of course, everyone's weapon of choice; at that time, before and after for quite some time, was the sword.

I just wanted to clear that the so-called killer verses were no order to kill all non-Muslims forever. Believe me if there were really an order to kill all non-Muslims, none would have been left and Muslims would also have been finished. That false accusation is so ridiculous.  Laughing

I will take a look at your post and will write. Sorry, I might have missed it as I was busy with a topic on CD's exchanges.

Cheers
BMZ  


I do like your interpretation of it. And I do agree that history have shown that every "kafir" haven't been killed. That's great. But then one could argue that this is because of the good taxes one could get from the dhimmis which is also mentioned in the Quran, but of course this is much more elaborated on in other materials. But the main thing is that there can be interpretation and disturbingly there's quite many muslims, too many, who consider some of the Quran is telling them that islam should govern all of the world. You should not excuse the behaviour of earlier or other contemporary muslims and institutions of islam, because as I understand from you, you would like to see that you differ from their opinions.

When I read some of these verses in the Quran I can't forget that it stipulates "And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God altogether and everywhere" (8.39) (and in 8.41 the "booty" is mentioned). Similar thoughts is expressed in other verses, and I can't stop thinking why on earth does anyone at all think this as divine. They fathom a creature which is the creator of all things, and is loving, merciful etc. and then they follow some words which says that this creature is encouraging people to go to war, to do killings, and that until "faith in God altogether and everywhere" (and at same time collect "rightfully" the booty of war), and the book is not lacking of verses like this. I must admit I find this rather perverse and utterly absurd that people considers this to be the word of something divine, a One. And BMZ don't worry, these thoughts of mine is similar towards christianity, on quite similar points. So no need to bring up some examples of attrocity in the christian history or "holy" book. They exist in both the Quran and in the Bible.

Cheers and peace
BMZ

Re: Kill them, fight and kill them. LOL!

You do ask good questions, presented in a good way and I appreciate such questions, Tvebak.

Tvebak wrote:
 I do like your interpretation of it. And I do agree that history have shown that every "kafir" haven't been killed. That's great.


I am glad that you liked the interpretation and agreed. It is a positive comment.

Tvebak wrote:
But then one could argue that this is because of the good taxes one could get from the dhimmis which is also mentioned in the Quran, but of course this is much more elaborated on in other materials.


This is another misinformation, Tvebak. Earlier I said that there is no Sword word in Qur'aan. Likewise, there is also NO such word as Dhimmi in the entire Qur'aan. Would you believe me?  Very Happy

I will continue with the rest of my reply after dinner but in the mean time, I would like to know from you, if you agree with me on what I wrote about the word DHIMMI, not being mentioned in Qur'aan at all. Agreed?

BMZ
Tvebak

Re: Kill them, fight and kill them. LOL!

BMZ wrote:
You do ask good questions, presented in a good way and I appreciate such questions, Tvebak.

Tvebak wrote:
 I do like your interpretation of it. And I do agree that history have shown that every "kafir" haven't been killed. That's great.


I am glad that you liked the interpretation and agreed. It is a positive comment.

Tvebak wrote:
But then one could argue that this is because of the good taxes one could get from the dhimmis which is also mentioned in the Quran, but of course this is much more elaborated on in other materials.


This is another misinformation, Tvebak. Earlier I said that there is no Sword word in Qur'aan. Likewise, there is also NO such word as Dhimmi in the entire Qur'aan. Would you believe me?  Very Happy

I will continue with the rest of my reply after dinner but in the mean time, I would like to know from you, if you agree with me on what I wrote about the word DHIMMI, not being mentioned in Qur'aan at all. Agreed?

BMZ


Great I look forward to your comment.

I know that the word dhimmi is not in the quran. I just used the word, cause I thought that you would understand what I was refering to , ie. the jazya (9.29). It has obviously been a interpretation that people of other faith could be of use through paying the tribute, willingly or unwillingly.

But there was also another comment I wanted you to respond to. It's the one right before the one where I wished you a happy chinese new year.

Peace and hope you enjoy your dinner  Wink
BMZ

Re: Kill them, fight and kill them. LOL!

Tvebak wrote:
BMZ wrote:
You do ask good questions, presented in a good way and I appreciate such questions, Tvebak.

Tvebak wrote:
 I do like your interpretation of it. And I do agree that history have shown that every "kafir" haven't been killed. That's great.


I am glad that you liked the interpretation and agreed. It is a positive comment.

Tvebak wrote:
But then one could argue that this is because of the good taxes one could get from the dhimmis which is also mentioned in the Quran, but of course this is much more elaborated on in other materials.


This is another misinformation, Tvebak. Earlier I said that there is no Sword word in Qur'aan. Likewise, there is also NO such word as Dhimmi in the entire Qur'aan. Would you believe me?  Very Happy

I will continue with the rest of my reply after dinner but in the mean time, I would like to know from you, if you agree with me on what I wrote about the word DHIMMI, not being mentioned in Qur'aan at all. Agreed?

BMZ


Great I look forward to your comment.

I know that the word dhimmi is not in the quran. I just used the word, cause I thought that you would understand what I was refering to , ie. the jazya (9.29). It has obviously been a interpretation that people of other faith could be of use through paying the tribute, willingly or unwillingly.

But there was also another comment I wanted you to respond to. It's the one right before the one where I wished you a happy chinese new year.

Peace and hope you enjoy your dinner  Wink


Thanks and I will do this first and go back to the earlier posts later, when I can.

The word mentioned in 9:29 is JIZYAH and this would also be something new and interesting for all that I am going to write. Jizya has been used and mentioned in the entire Qur'aan only once in 9:29.

Note that Jizya was a one time payment kind of thing prescribed only for those who had lost their battles with the new Muslims, had been humbled and wanted to stay with the Muslims in their territory. This is indicated by the Arabic sentence at end of the verse "Wa hum saaghayroon".

Jizya was thus a compensation payment kind of thing or an exemption tax sort of thing, imposed only after a lost battle, so that they could live together with the Muslims and carried no military responsibility and their protection was guaranteed by the Muslims. Hope you remember how much Jizya was Iraq charged after the Gulf War?  Very Happy

Now the "responsiblity" for the safety of those people, who surrendered in a war or a battle but wanted to live on in the same place,  is known as "Zim-ma" and the word is pronounced with a Zed sound in British English or a Zee sound in American English. Some silly folks wrote it 'Dhim-ma' and from that nonsense came 'Dhim-me'. lol!

So, no non-Muslim or a foreigner has to pay any Jizya, if he/she comes to Muslim lands. Income tax is another matter. Even Bani Israel were paying taxes to the Romans and our good friend also agreed with that.  Wink

There was no Jizya charged to non-Muslims and foreigners coming to work in Muslim lands. Even now, no foreigner is ever charged a Jizya. lol!  For the payment of Jizya, non-Muslims have to lose a  battle and only then we would require payment of a Jizya.  Wink

Hope this helped.

BMZ
Tvebak

Re: Kill them, fight and kill them. LOL!

BMZ wrote:

Thanks and I will do this first and go back to the earlier posts later, when I can.

The word mentioned in 9:29 is JIZYAH and this would also be something new and interesting for all that I am going to write. Jizya has been used and mentioned in the entire Qur'aan only once in 9:29.

Note that Jizya was a one time payment kind of thing prescribed only for those who had lost their battles with the new Muslims, had been humbled and wanted to stay with the Muslims in their territory. This is indicated by the Arabic sentence at end of the verse "Wa hum saaghayroon".

Jizya was thus a compensation payment kind of thing or an exemption tax sort of thing, imposed only after a lost battle, so that they could live together with the Muslims and carried no military responsibility and their protection was guaranteed by the Muslims. Hope you remember how much Jizya was Iraq charged after the Gulf War?  Very Happy

Now the "responsiblity" for the safety of those people, who surrendered in a war or a battle but wanted to live on in the same place,  is known as "Zim-ma" and the word is pronounced with a Zed sound in British English or a Zee sound in American English. Some silly folks wrote it 'Dhim-ma' and from that nonsense came 'Dhim-me'. lol!

So, no non-Muslim or a foreigner has to pay any Jizya, if he/she comes to Muslim lands. Income tax is another matter. Even Bani Israel were paying taxes to the Romans and our good friend also agreed with that.  Wink

There was no Jizya charged to non-Muslims and foreigners coming to work in Muslim lands. Even now, no foreigner is ever charged a Jizya. lol!  For the payment of Jizya, non-Muslims have to lose a  battle and only then we would require payment of a Jizya.  Wink

Hope this helped.

BMZ


Ok take your time. Untill then I will comment on your thoughts about jizyah

Quote:
Note that Jizya was a one time payment kind of thing prescribed only for those who had lost their battles with the new Muslims, had been humbled and wanted to stay with the Muslims in their territory. This is indicated by the Arabic sentence at end of the verse "Wa hum saaghayroon".


Well that seems to be one way of interpreting it  Wink again matter of interpretation. Others have interpreted it to mean a tax and both interpretation have been "exemplified" in history. Personally I would not in anyway 'defend' either interpretation as 'good' or 'logical'. But anywas how does "wahum saaghayroon" tell that it was one-time payment?

But wiki has fairly good article on the subject of jizya

Quote:
Jizya was thus a compensation payment kind of thing or an exemption tax sort of thing, imposed only after a lost battle, so that they could live together with the Muslims and carried no military responsibility and their protection was guaranteed by the Muslims. Hope you remember how much Jizya was Iraq charged after the Gulf War?  Very Happy


protectionmoney eh?  Wink  Otherwise they would not be guaranteed their safety. Great (sarcasm). It's a funny thing that you compare "divine" laws with rulings of "humans", as when you do that with the Gulf War. Like that should make the "divine" law any better?

Quote:
Now the "responsiblity" for the safety of those people, who surrendered in a war or a battle but wanted to live on in the same place,  is known as "Zim-ma" and the word is pronounced with a Zed sound in British English or a Zee sound in American English. Some silly folks wrote it 'Dhim-ma' and from that nonsense came 'Dhim-me'. lol!


Actually the letter ز‎ is sometimes transliterated with "dh" instead of "z". Quite often.

Quote:
So, no non-Muslim or a foreigner has to pay any Jizya, if he/she comes to Muslim lands. Income tax is another matter. Even Bani Israel were paying taxes to the Romans and our good friend also agreed with that.  Wink


Yes income tax is another matter. It's in no way to be compared with jizya. Ahmed even compared income tax with the "warbooty" of the quran...

Quote:
There was no Jizya charged to non-Muslims and foreigners coming to work in Muslim lands. Even now, no foreigner is ever charged a Jizya. lol!  For the payment of Jizya, non-Muslims have to lose a  battle and only then we would require payment of a Jizya.  Wink


Well that's just a good thing, right. But it does not "remove" the idea that some do (did) in fact interpret(ed) it in that way and that it has been used in history, which was what I refered to in my comment about dhimmis and the question about non-muslims in muslim territory, which was part of some of the things you are to respond to.

Peace
David

Re: Kill them, fight and kill them. LOL!

BMZ wrote:
David wrote:
You sound like you are out numbered.  How many Christians reply to your posts?  5, 10, 25, 50?


On that partcular site, the number of Christians is two and a half. I always write on sites where I am out-numbered.

David wrote:
What is your interpretation of the verses in your signature?


Arm yourself with swords. Get as many swords as possible. Whatelse?


Arm themselves with swords to do what?  Jesus said two were enough.

BMZ wrote:


Quote:
Luke 22:36He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."38The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied.


Why did you leave out verse 37?

David wrote:
What do you think Jesus is saying?


He wanted them to sell everything and buy swords. What is your spin over that famous Killer Verse?  


Did they go out and buy swords or did they say they had 2 and Jesus said 2 were enough?  Two swords were enough for what?

BMZ wrote:


By the way, I wrote that post to inform the polemic Christians that the word SWORD is not at all mentioned in the Holy Qur'aan. Do you know that? You must have heard from Ahmed, before. Very Happy

BMZ


I think the sword is understood in the Quran and there was no need to spell it out.
BMZ

Re: Kill them, fight and kill them. LOL!

David wrote:
I think the sword is understood in the Quran and there was no need to spell it out.


lol! That is okay but still, Jesus should not have mentioned the word.  Wink

BMZ
BMZ

Re: Kill them, fight and kill them. LOL!

Tvebak wrote:
 
BMZ wrote:

Thanks and I will do this first and go back to the earlier posts later, when I can.

The word mentioned in 9:29 is JIZYAH and this would also be something new and interesting for all that I am going to write. Jizya has been used and mentioned in the entire Qur'aan only once in 9:29.

Note that Jizya was a one time payment kind of thing prescribed only for those who had lost their battles with the new Muslims, had been humbled and wanted to stay with the Muslims in their territory. This is indicated by the Arabic sentence at end of the verse "Wa hum saaghayroon".

Jizya was thus a compensation payment kind of thing or an exemption tax sort of thing, imposed only after a lost battle, so that they could live together with the Muslims and carried no military responsibility and their protection was guaranteed by the Muslims. Hope you remember how much Jizya was Iraq charged after the Gulf War?  Very Happy

Now the "responsiblity" for the safety of those people, who surrendered in a war or a battle but wanted to live on in the same place,  is known as "Zim-ma" and the word is pronounced with a Zed sound in British English or a Zee sound in American English. Some silly folks wrote it 'Dhim-ma' and from that nonsense came 'Dhim-me'. lol!

So, no non-Muslim or a foreigner has to pay any Jizya, if he/she comes to Muslim lands. Income tax is another matter. Even Bani Israel were paying taxes to the Romans and our good friend also agreed with that.  Wink

There was no Jizya charged to non-Muslims and foreigners coming to work in Muslim lands. Even now, no foreigner is ever charged a Jizya. lol!  For the payment of Jizya, non-Muslims have to lose a  battle and only then we would require payment of a Jizya.  Wink

Hope this helped.

BMZ


Ok take your time. Untill then I will comment on your thoughts about jizyah

Quote:
Note that Jizya was a one time payment kind of thing prescribed only for those who had lost their battles with the new Muslims, had been humbled and wanted to stay with the Muslims in their territory. This is indicated by the Arabic sentence at end of the verse "Wa hum saaghayroon".


Well that seems to be one way of interpreting it  Wink again matter of interpretation. Others have interpreted it to mean a tax and both interpretation have been "exemplified" in history. Personally I would not in anyway 'defend' either interpretation as 'good' or 'logical'. But anywas how does "wahum saaghayroon" tell that it was one-time payment?

But wiki has fairly good article on the subject of jizya

Quote:
Jizya was thus a compensation payment kind of thing or an exemption tax sort of thing, imposed only after a lost battle, so that they could live together with the Muslims and carried no military responsibility and their protection was guaranteed by the Muslims. Hope you remember how much Jizya was Iraq charged after the Gulf War?  Very Happy


protectionmoney eh?  Wink  Otherwise they would not be guaranteed their safety. Great (sarcasm). It's a funny thing that you compare "divine" laws with rulings of "humans", as when you do that with the Gulf War. Like that should make the "divine" law any better?

Quote:
Now the "responsiblity" for the safety of those people, who surrendered in a war or a battle but wanted to live on in the same place,  is known as "Zim-ma" and the word is pronounced with a Zed sound in British English or a Zee sound in American English. Some silly folks wrote it 'Dhim-ma' and from that nonsense came 'Dhim-me'. lol!


Actually the letter ز‎ is sometimes transliterated with "dh" instead of "z". Quite often.

Quote:
So, no non-Muslim or a foreigner has to pay any Jizya, if he/she comes to Muslim lands. Income tax is another matter. Even Bani Israel were paying taxes to the Romans and our good friend also agreed with that.  Wink


Yes income tax is another matter. It's in no way to be compared with jizya. Ahmed even compared income tax with the "warbooty" of the quran...

Quote:
There was no Jizya charged to non-Muslims and foreigners coming to work in Muslim lands. Even now, no foreigner is ever charged a Jizya. lol!  For the payment of Jizya, non-Muslims have to lose a  battle and only then we would require payment of a Jizya.  Wink


Well that's just a good thing, right. But it does not "remove" the idea that some do (did) in fact interpret(ed) it in that way and that it has been used in history, which was what I refered to in my comment about dhimmis and the question about non-muslims in muslim territory, which was part of some of the things you are to respond to.

Peace


Wiki is not an authority, Tvebak. When I write and explain, I do not quote from internet sites. You must have noticed that.

"Wa hum saaghayroon" means "when they had surrendered" or "when they were humbled", which means that they had to pay Jizya after that. Otherwise they would have extracted Jizya from the Muslims, if the Muslims had been "saaghayrooned".

I am not sure if it was a one time time payment or an annual payment. I am really not much into Islamic jurisprudence as it is a huge subject which I have not studied.

BMZ
Tvebak

Re: Kill them, fight and kill them. LOL!

BMZ wrote:

Wiki is not an authority, Tvebak. When I write and explain, I do not quote from internet sites. You must have noticed that.


I did not say it was. I just said that that specific article was fairly good. Mainly because it outlines different opinions about jizya, ie. different interpretations. And that is fairly good from an objective and historical point of view.

BMZ wrote:

"Wa hum saaghayroon" means "when they had surrendered" or "when they were humbled", which means that they had to pay Jizya after that. Otherwise they would have extracted Jizya from the Muslims, if the Muslims had been "saaghayrooned".

I am not sure if it was a one time time payment or an annual payment. I am really not much into Islamic jurisprudence as it is a huge subject which I have not studied.

BMZ


No and that was my point. You cannot deduct from "wa hum saaghayroon" that it was a onetime payment. We can't really say anything for sure only from the Quran. Woops it does not explain everything then  Wink  and BMZ you know very well that islamic jurisprudence is build on the traditional exegesis of the quran, which is one you, as far as you have stated about your opinion about ahadith and sira, is not sure wether you can trust.

But please lets turn back to my earlier comments, which you said you would respond to, unless, of course, you want to continue to elaborate on the meaning of jizya.

Cheers.
Baal

Quote:
"Wa hum saaghayroon" means "when they had surrendered"

Not even close.
AhmedBahgat

Well

Let me take it that the word Saghiroon means humiliated, well that is exactly what happens in any country, if you evade Taxes, you will be jailed (humiliated) as well you will be forced to pay all taxes you evaded

plain and simple
BMZ

AhmedBahgat wrote:
Well

Let me take it that the word Saghiroon means humiliated, well that is exactly what happens in any country, if you evade Taxes, you will be jailed (humiliated) as well you will be forced to pay all taxes you evaded

plain and simple


Welcome back, mate

You make it easy and palatable.  Very Happy

Salaams
BMZ
BMZ

Baal wrote:
Quote:
"Wa hum saaghayroon" means "when they had surrendered"

Not even close.


How far?  Laughing
All_Brains

BMZ wrote:
Baal wrote:
Quote:
"Wa hum saaghayroon" means "when they had surrendered"

Not even close.


How far?  Laughing


Plain and simple...it means humiliated!
BMZ

All_Brains wrote:
BMZ wrote:
Baal wrote:
Quote:
"Wa hum saaghayroon" means "when they had surrendered"

Not even close.


How far?  Laughing


Plain and simple...it means humiliated!


Let us do this one A_B and we will come back to saaghayroon, transliteration my way.

Please translate this for me in simple Arabic "Yusuf, Aa'ridh un haaza" and this will help me explain.

Thanks.

BMZ

PS to Baal: You too try to translate, Baal. Thanks
BMZ

BMZ wrote:
All_Brains wrote:
BMZ wrote:
Baal wrote:
Quote:
"Wa hum saaghayroon" means "when they had surrendered"

Not even close.


How far?  Laughing


Plain and simple...it means humiliated!


Let us do this one A_B and we will come back to saaghayroon, transliteration my way.

Please translate this for me in simple Arabic "Yusuf, Aa'ridh un haaza" and this will help me explain.

Thanks.

BMZ

PS to Baal: You too try to translate, Baal. I need more input. Thanks
Tvebak

BMZ wrote:
All_Brains wrote:
BMZ wrote:
Baal wrote:
Quote:
"Wa hum saaghayroon" means "when they had surrendered"

Not even close.


How far?  Laughing


Plain and simple...it means humiliated!


Let us do this one A_B and we will come back to saaghayroon, transliteration my way.

Please translate this for me in simple Arabic "Yusuf, Aa'ridh un haaza" and this will help me explain.

Thanks.

BMZ

PS to Baal: You too try to translate, Baal. Thanks


Hello BMZ

Glad to see you back in action. So I can expect to get you thoughts about the earlier comments soon?

Peace
Tvebak

AhmedBahgat wrote:
Well

Let me take it that the word Saghiroon means humiliated, well that is exactly what happens in any country, if you evade Taxes, you will be jailed (humiliated) as well you will be forced to pay all taxes you evaded

plain and simple


Hello Ahmed

So are you arguing that the people getting humiliated, in the quran, is people who are put in jail for the lack of tax-payment??? or is it people who disbelieve and has been beaten in battle?

Peace
AhmedBahgat

Tvebak wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
Well

Let me take it that the word Saghiroon means humiliated, well that is exactly what happens in any country, if you evade Taxes, you will be jailed (humiliated) as well you will be forced to pay all taxes you evaded

plain and simple


Hello Ahmed

So are you arguing that the people getting humiliated, in the quran, is people who are put in jail for the lack of tax-payment??? or is it people who disbelieve and has been beaten in battle?

Peace



Hello pal

My comment is clear, stop acting in such manner regarding my religion

here it is again, the people evading tax

Cheers
AhmedBahgat

also Tvebak , hy you give yourself the right to ask all these zillions of questions (mostely silly) regarding my faith?

let;s assume that you are an atheist, would that be a way to escape being asked regarding your faith?
Tvebak

AhmedBahgat wrote:
Tvebak wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
Well

Let me take it that the word Saghiroon means humiliated, well that is exactly what happens in any country, if you evade Taxes, you will be jailed (humiliated) as well you will be forced to pay all taxes you evaded

plain and simple


Hello Ahmed

So are you arguing that the people getting humiliated, in the quran, is people who are put in jail for the lack of tax-payment??? or is it people who disbelieve and has been beaten in battle?

Peace



Hello pal

My comment is clear, stop acting in such manner regarding my religion

here it is again, the people evading tax

Cheers


Sorry your argument does not apply when reading the verse:

Quote:
9.29: Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.


This is not an econimcal matter between all people. It's a matter between people of a specific faith (faith in GOD and the last day) and people who do not believe in or live according to that specific religion. The people of disbelieve is supposed to subdue themselves to the former and pay jizya. It's quite clear. This is not about people who does not pay their taxes in a secularized society.

Quote:
also Tvebak , hy you give yourself the right to ask all these zillions of questions (mostely silly) regarding my faith?

let;s assume that you are an atheist, would that be a way to escape being asked regarding your faith?


This is a forum to discuss the matter of different things. One of these things happens to be islam (and in that context also the quran and hadith etc), which just happens to be your faith. So why shouldn't i ask questions (zillions I have not, maybe you are including my personal comments) or make comments about it, if this forum is created to discuss such matters? If you don't want to discuss them why do you bother then?

Well yes I'm an atheist. You can discuss the matter of the existance of a "god" at the appropriate place which A_B have made to discuss those matters. Here in this section we are discussing the matter of the quran. Otherwise we could discuss politics if you would like that, also in a appropiate place. For your information I think myself as a soft-socialist.

Peace
All_Brains

BMZ wrote:
All_Brains wrote:
BMZ wrote:
Baal wrote:
Quote:
"Wa hum saaghayroon" means "when they had surrendered"

Not even close.


How far?  Laughing


Plain and simple...it means humiliated!


Let us do this one A_B and we will come back to saaghayroon, transliteration my way.

Please translate this for me in simple Arabic "Yusuf, Aa'ridh un haaza" and this will help me explain.

Thanks.

BMZ

PS to Baal: You too try to translate, Baal. Thanks


Hello BMZ

I am sorry, I did not understand the sentence. Can you please provide the Arabic text?
AhmedBahgat

again TV, stop acting silly and shifty


the verses you posted are about kafirs WHO FUKIN LIVE in muslim land, here it is again:

In a muslim land the tax suppose to be as follow:

For the Muslims = Zakat

For the Kafirs =  Jezya

why don't you dismiss yourself and stop wasting the Muslims time?
BMZ

All_Brains wrote:
BMZ wrote:
All_Brains wrote:
BMZ wrote:
Baal wrote:
Quote:
"Wa hum saaghayroon" means "when they had surrendered"

Not even close.


How far?  Laughing


Plain and simple...it means humiliated!


Let us do this one A_B and we will come back to saaghayroon, transliteration my way.

Please translate this for me in simple Arabic "Yusuf, Aa'ridh un haaza" and this will help me explain.

Thanks.

BMZ

PS to Baal: You too try to translate, Baal. Thanks


Hello BMZ

I am sorry, I did not understand the sentence. Can you please provide the Arabic text?


Thanks, A_B. The idea is to get translations from various minds. Ahmed is good at that. However, I have tried to copy and paste verse 29 of Surah Yusuf 12, from a site. I have asked you about the first part of the verse, in which Yusuf is addressed by the lady's husband.

   يُوسُفُ أَعْرِضْ عَنْ هَـذَا وَاسْتَغْفِرِي لِذَنبِكِ إِنَّكِ كُنتِ مِنَ الْخَاطِئِينَ
Tvebak

AhmedBahgat wrote:
again TV, stop acting silly and shifty


the verses you posted are about kafirs WHO FUKIN LIVE in muslim land, here it is again:

In a muslim land the tax suppose to be as follow:

For the Muslims = Zakat

For the Kafirs =  Jezya

why don't you dismiss yourself and stop wasting the Muslims time?


Why do you responding like that? Take it easy mate, we should get your bloodpresure up. Sure the verse is about people, who disbelieve, that live in muslim land. The only thing I argued was that the "humiliation", mentioned in the quran was not about going to prison, because of lack of tax-payment, what seemed, to me at lest, to be what you argued. But that it is about non-believers subduing them to believers. And in the context of the verse it happens after they have lost the battle, "fight ... until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued".

Peace
All_Brains

BMZ wrote:
All_Brains wrote:
BMZ wrote:
All_Brains wrote:
BMZ wrote:
Baal wrote:
Quote:
"Wa hum saaghayroon" means "when they had surrendered"

Not even close.


How far?  Laughing


Plain and simple...it means humiliated!


Let us do this one A_B and we will come back to saaghayroon, transliteration my way.

Please translate this for me in simple Arabic "Yusuf, Aa'ridh un haaza" and this will help me explain.

Thanks.

BMZ

PS to Baal: You too try to translate, Baal. Thanks


Hello BMZ

I am sorry, I did not understand the sentence. Can you please provide the Arabic text?


Thanks, A_B. The idea is to get translations from various minds. Ahmed is good at that. However, I have tried to copy and paste verse 29 of Surah Yusuf 12, from a site. I have asked you about the first part of the verse, in which Yusuf is addressed by the lady's husband.

   يُوسُفُ أَعْرِضْ عَنْ هَـذَا وَاسْتَغْفِرِي لِذَنبِكِ إِنَّكِ كُنتِ مِنَ الْخَاطِئِينَ


Aghrid means: Avoid, abstain, refrain....basically don't do it!
BMZ

All_Brains wrote:
BMZ wrote:
All_Brains wrote:
BMZ wrote:
All_Brains wrote:
BMZ wrote:
Baal wrote:
Quote:
"Wa hum saaghayroon" means "when they had surrendered"

Not even close.


How far?  Laughing


Plain and simple...it means humiliated!


Let us do this one A_B and we will come back to saaghayroon, transliteration my way.

Please translate this for me in simple Arabic "Yusuf, Aa'ridh un haaza" and this will help me explain.

Thanks.

BMZ

PS to Baal: You too try to translate, Baal. Thanks


Hello BMZ

I am sorry, I did not understand the sentence. Can you please provide the Arabic text?


Thanks, A_B. The idea is to get translations from various minds. Ahmed is good at that. However, I have tried to copy and paste verse 29 of Surah Yusuf 12, from a site. I have asked you about the first part of the verse, in which Yusuf is addressed by the lady's husband.

   يُوسُفُ أَعْرِضْ عَنْ هَـذَا وَاسْتَغْفِرِي لِذَنبِكِ إِنَّكِ كُنتِ مِنَ الْخَاطِئِينَ


Aghrid means: Avoid, abstain, refrain....basically don't do it!


Wasn't asking for the meaning of the word aA'ridh, A_B. But you did come up with "don't do it!"

Could you come up with some more translations for     يُوسُفُ أَعْرِضْ عَنْ هَـذَا ? Most of the translators translate that as "Turn away from this!"

I want some more, please. I am leading you towards a very important point which you will appreciate later. A point which very few understand. Please do consider this as an intellectual discourse.

BMZ
AhmedBahgat

Tvebak wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
again TV, stop acting silly and shifty


the verses you posted are about kafirs WHO FUKIN LIVE in muslim land, here it is again:

In a muslim land the tax suppose to be as follow:

For the Muslims = Zakat

For the Kafirs =  Jezya

why don't you dismiss yourself and stop wasting the Muslims time?


Why do you responding like that? Take it easy mate, we should get your bloodpresure up. Sure the verse is about people, who disbelieve, that live in muslim land. The only thing I argued was that the "humiliation", mentioned in the quran was not about going to prison, because of lack of tax-payment, what seemed, to me at lest, to be what you argued. But that it is about non-believers subduing them to believers. And in the context of the verse it happens after they have lost the battle, "fight ... until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued".

Peace


if my blood pressure is high then your itch is far higher, stop acting so itchy regarding islam

what do you want to achieve exactly?

do you ant to become a muslim or do you want others not to become muslims?

it's one or the other

anyway, from now on I should dismiss most of your stupid questions
Tvebak

AhmedBahgat wrote:

if my blood pressure is high then your itch is far higher, stop acting so itchy regarding islam

what do you want to achieve exactly?

do you ant to become a muslim or do you want others not to become muslims?

it's one or the other

anyway, from now on I should dismiss most of your stupid questions


"should" should of course have been "shouldn't".

Quote:
what do you want to achieve exactly?


Personally I'm learning about different subjects. And also again this forum is about debating different things.

Quote:
do you ant to become a muslim or do you want others not to become muslims?


now that you ask I'm might aswell tell why I do use time on debating religions.
I've been debating with many non-muslims for a long time concerning islam. They are arguing a ONE islam. I argued that islam could be many different things, cause the interpretation a different from one individual to another. You and BMZ seems for instans to have different interpretation of different elements of islam and the quran. What I've been arguing is that people should have the freedom to believe what they would like to believe.

But, yes there's a but (there's actually a couple), I find that fundamentalist of every kind of any religion is unhealthy for society. This is both concerning hinduist, muslims, christians, bahais, etc. Therefore I would like to debate the subjects at matter, ie. the things which a written in the document of the different faiths. In the part of islam I find some references to war and the like, that I find disturbing if people was to follow them. If people find their sacred texts to be divine and should be followed literal, this would mean fx that homosexuals would be seen as sick people, which they are not, a woman would get wipped for having sex with a man she was not married to etc. etc. these things are in my perspective horrible things and I would not like it to be practized. Therefore in that perspective, if being muslim (or christian etc) is about that; no I would not like people to become muslims (or christians etc).

another part of "but"... is that I see that the creationist groups of islam and christianity, and most likely in the future other faiths aswell, is taunting and corrupting science. Furthemore different believers might get bad influence from their religion in relation to their work. If people where to believe in elements of a specific faith they would not be able to do specific progress in science or, fx with medicine, ie. female and male muslims doctors who will not treat the oppossite sex. Things as for instans stem cell-research is religiously criticised in USA. And is it possible from a quranic perspective that a child has no male parent? Scientific progress most likely would result to that humans can reproduce without any influence by men like you and me. Are we crossing a boundary of "gods" law here? Or when scientist a making synthetic life? But back to the point is that believers of different faiths, if they took it literally, could ignore possible progress because it is against their belief. And the more believers there is the more chance there is of negative influence. so in that perspective I would not like people to become christians/muslims/hinduist etc.

Now this is not about that every christians and every muslims is like this or that. But the fact is that different groups of fx christianity and islam has some very literal understandings of their scriptures which I think is damaging for humanity and for the future of humanity. Therefore the issue should be discussed. The best sceanario in my opinion is if believers would consider their scriptures to be of inspiration from "god" and therefore only some "good suggestion" as to how to live. And furthermore if people was to pick and choose so that they would "forget" about slavery in fx the bible.
You have some different observations in some matters, and some of them a quit positive in my opinion, but you also have some which I find disturbing.

This was my introduction or hello to this forum:

Quote:
I have never been christian, muslim, or religious at all for that matter. I consider every single notion of religion and divinity as a social construction by us humans, trying to find answers.

I became interested in debating religions only recently when I discovered that youtube was infested with religious missionaries from different groups. The main group that stuck out was the islamic "miracles", ie. fx Zakir Naik, Harun Yahya. I was amazed of the silly claims put forward, and decided to be part of the debate. But I'm still in the early learningstages. I'm not as such against any religion, but I would like, using Daniel Dennets words, that the spell was broken. And since I don't think that religions will ever vanish I sincerely hope that moderates will get a firm grip of the religion they adhere too, as, I think, is the case for most christian communities in Europe.

This became a long "hello"


And to emphazize it, I would like to contribute to the process of breaking the spell. That is what I want! But of course there's a narrow line between wanting freedom to people to choose their beliefs and then wanting to be critical of different beliefs. I try to be in that line. But I have not argued with anyone who has not themselves already engaged in debating their own religion. I only debate those who I feel is doing missioning or is already active in the religious dispute (you are one of the last in my perspective and fx HFD is one of the first)

And dismiss me if that is what you want. But honestly I don't see what exactly I did wrong in your opinion, other than disputing what you said.

Peace mate.
Baal

AhmedBahgat wrote:
again TV, stop acting silly and shifty


the verses you posted are about kafirs WHO FUKIN LIVE in muslim land, here it is again:

In a muslim land the tax suppose to be as follow:

For the Muslims = Zakat

For the Kafirs =  Jezya

why don't you dismiss yourself and stop wasting the Muslims time?

Tell that to all the islamic rulers who actually charged jizya. Zakat was 2.5% of the income, a very small and meagre donation and tax. Even the OT said that the donation should be 10% so islam even lowered it. So Zakat was often included in the taxation system of the country and EVERYONE paid it.

Jizya when collected, was always in a different order of magnitude. It is bad enough that Jizya is derived from the word: "Jaza' - which means reward or retribution" I will let you pick which of the Two words fits the Jizya.

Jizya was collected above and beyond the tax/zakat that everyone else paid. And it had to be paid: "Wa hum Saghirun" "while they are humiliated".
All_Brains

BMZ wrote:


I want some more, please. I am leading you towards a very important point which you will appreciate later. A point which very few understand. Please do consider this as an intellectual discourse.

BMZ[/i]


Hello BMZ

There isn't really any more meanings to this word! I have given you three examples of different word choices that all point to one single meaning really!!!

Please share with us your point, as the direct approach may be best on this occasion.

Regards
BMZ

All_Brains wrote:
Hello BMZ

There isn't really any more meanings to this word! I have given you three examples of different word choices that all point to one single meaning really!!!

Please share with us your point, as the direct approach may be best on this occasion.

Regards


Hello, A_B

Here is my point:

It doesn't suffice to be just a speaker of a language. More knowledge is needed  to understand idioms, proverbs, the figuratives and various styles of a language.

When I quoted that verse in Arabic, you came up with a meaning and I quoted the translators' choice of words but you would notice that "Yusuf, don't do this!" or "Yusuf, turn away from this!" does not convey the correct meaning at all. Thus literal translation and other meanings by Arabic speakers may not necessarily reflect the most appropriate equivalent in English.

If we read the passage, not just a particular part of the verse, we can come up with the closest meaning.

Thus the verse would mean, the husband of the lady was saying: "Forget it, Yusuf!"

What do you think?

Likewise, "wa hum saaghiroon" would not necessarily mean "they were humiliated".

BMZ
All_Brains

BMZ wrote:
All_Brains wrote:
Hello BMZ

There isn't really any more meanings to this word! I have given you three examples of different word choices that all point to one single meaning really!!!

Please share with us your point, as the direct approach may be best on this occasion.

Regards


Hello, A_B

Here is my point:

It doesn't suffice to be just a speaker of a language. More knowledge is needed  to understand idioms, proverbs, the figuratives and various styles of a language.

When I quoted that verse in Arabic, you came up with a meaning and I quoted the translators' choice of words but you would notice that "Yusuf, don't do this!" or "Yusuf, turn away from this!" does not convey the correct meaning at all. Thus literal translation and other meanings by Arabic speakers may not necessarily reflect the most appropriate equivalent in English.

If we read the passage, not just a particular part of the verse, we can come up with the closest meaning.

Thus the verse would mean, the husband of the lady was saying: "Forget it, Yusuf!"

What do you think?

Likewise, "wa hum saaghiroon" would not necessarily mean "they were humiliated".

BMZ


Hello BMZ

I don't understand the reason you keep repeating the native speaker argument and ignoring the fact that I am a Linguist with a Uni degree in Arabic, English, German and Spanish...I also happen to speak, read and write Italian, French and have good knowledge in Latin and Hebrew.

Your above analogy is extremely weird!!! Forget it Yusuf? Isn't this the nowadays terms for don't do it, or don't you think about it, leave, pass it over, refrain from it??????

I thought you were going to bring a new whole meaning, instead came up with modern casual term that means the same!!

Translations are meant to convey the meaning of a text, using different word choices.

All above submitted translations are all correct and have one meaning, expressed in different words.

Saghiroon has only one meaning "humiliated"! Look at the root word "Saghr" and it will unlock the meaning for you!

p.s: Even Ahmed translated the word as humiliated.

       FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> The Qur'an
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Home|Home|Home|Home|HomeHome|Home|Home|Home|Home