The purpose of these posts is not to mock people! I hope they are of benefit.
Response Part II
?Muhammad bin Lyin? possesses the inability to mind and consolidate his own points and must respond to every paragraph I write in order to give the best illusion of authenticity and ?thoroughness?. However, once more I will respond with a coherent and presentable statement which stands alone without needing to refer to the other?s response in order to understand what the presentation is actually saying. The petty nature of my critic?s response is demonstrated by his ?correction? of my order for addressing the four verses discussed in Part I.
His first point is that the ?Qur?an-alone? concept is an excuse for inventing my own meanings. He forgets that he had the opportunity to raise and support such a statement earlier, although his reason now is to highlight that the Qur?an ?does not? provide the details for everything which was known at the time. For example, the meaning of the ?Jizya? would have been known but it is difficult to ascertain today beyond that it fulfilled some purpose regarding the aggressors in 929. He could make the same claim about the ?splitting of the moon? in verses 541-2, the sacred months or the exact identity of Abu Lahab, but then also the Qur?an does not teach us to understand Arabic because Allah (SWT) knew what was known then by Muhammad (SAW) and his companions. The Qur?an indeed is clear, complete and fully-detailed for our religious guidance, but it is a textbook for no other subject. Examples of its historical contextualisation have been demonstrated by the verses discussed in Part I of this article. If we desire clarity for deeper and ultimately less necessitous knowledge, we must consult the histories left by those who lived to bear the responsibility of the times. The historical nature of the Qur?an would be primarily responsible for the perceived necessity and hence enshrinement of the ahadith or ?Prophetic Sunna? as a second source of religious law (as opposed to some history and contextual or technical interpretation). As a ?Qur?an alone? Muslim I accept no other material as my source of religious law besides the Qur?an, yet I recognise that the ahadith are a valuable source of history and clarification for context providing that there is no apparent contradiction with the Qur?an (i.e. there will be found authentic accounts and fabrications, good examples and bad examples). Those ahadith which are expressions of the spirit of the Qur?an are acceptable as good examples which people can follow if they wish. In this way I am partly ?traditional? whilst recognising that Islam is indeed and ultimately derived from one obligatory source alone. I just remember that tradition is simply not religion.
It will be difficult to explain directly my opponent?s points because his replies are in context of my previous arguments. I would have to list the relevant verses again as well as his response to explain exactly why they are flawed. Fortunately the strength of his replies is self-explanatory and so I would ask ?Muhammad bin Lyin? to (instead of coming up with lame excuses for his views as opposed to rebutting mine) answer ?Yes? or ?No? to a straight-forward question. This of course is primarily for the benefit of readers? judgement
?Does my explanation of 839 in Part I of this article prove that it was instructing Muslims to fight the aggressors until they stopped fighting Muslims and inhibiting them from practicing a non-aggressive religion??
?Muhammad bin Lyin??s response is this (neither grammar nor flow is corrected)
?Yes, non Muslims are inhibiting Muslims. As far as attempting to dominate it, I would more call it attempting to inhibit it's spread or practice in their land, if you do an actual historical investigation. But the funny part is that they did nothing different than what 80% of Muslims around the world do to other religions. They really don't allow very much propagation of any other religion besides Islam in Muslim dominated countries. So Islam must never be inhibited, and yet other religions must be inhibited in Muslim lands.
Islam is very aggressive in it's propagation, even when violence is not involved. and even today, that is the truth.?
It is very easy for ?Muhammad bin Lyin? since he need only cast aspersions to be satisfied. The pith of the matter is that the context of 839 tells us that the non-Muslims were attacking Muslims and inhibiting them from the Sacred Mosque. How he relates this to the matter of church-building (as an umbrella term for what he describes) is through desperation to divert the discussion from what we are discussing.
? those who have been expelled from their homes without a just cause except that they say Our Lord is Allah. And had there not been Allah?s repelling some people by others, certainly there would have been pulled down cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques in which Allah's name is much remembered; and surely Allah will help him who helps His cause; most surely Allah is Strong, Mighty.?
Qur?an 2240
So as we can see (among many verses listed in Part I), Islam promotes ?inter-faith harmony?. This is precisely why Muslims are instructed to fight against those who fight them and those who oppress others, debarring them from freedom of belief/religious practice. A true Muslim has faith in Allah (SWT), and he/she accepts other Muslims as brothers/sisters in faith. Why should a true Muslim be insecure enough to be aggressive in offering the Word of Allah (SWT)? There is no basis for this, and once a Muslim society is established it is expected that the Muslims in power will ensure that the people are always free to practice Islam. The non-Muslims are free to practice and believe in their religion or creed, but regardless of whether the government is Islamic or not Muslims always carry a constitution unto itself (the Qur?an). If it be the common will that a state be controlled by non-Muslims, then so be it. Muslims would have to make sure that they were able to practice their religion, and any deliberate obstacles imposed by non-Muslims would be considered an offence. Regarding the propagation of other religions in an Islamic society, church-building etc. would require the consultation of the community. Regarding debate, there would be a time and place where people could have the opportunity to experience or participate in inter-faith dialogue (see 16125). If non-Muslim propagation is becoming apparently overt or is ?pushing the limits? such that it is bordering on a nuisance, Muslims could always employ the verse 16126
?Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and have disputations with them in the best manner; surely your Lord best knows those who go astray from His path, and He knows best those who follow the right way. And if you take your turn, then retaliate with the like of that with which you were afflicted; but if you are patient, it will certainly be best for those who are patient.?
Qur?an 16125-126
In this context it would mean telling people to move on. Without point or purpose, the noisy expression of a particular viewpoint is no different to intrusive advertising. If we are talking about people who love their religion and they are not Muslim, then firstly nothing is stopping them from practicing their faith, and secondly if people want to inquire about it then they will do so when they are ready to. If there were a point or a grievance to be addressed, then that could be dealth with, too. The Qur?an provides practical and straight-forward wisdom for all societies.
To the next point, ?Muhammad bin Lyin? provides an intriguing and otherwordly justification for correlating Islam (?the system? in 839) with ?all religion?. He says
?I think all religion and the system are the same thing. The belief system of religion itself must be for Allah. That's why so many translators translated it the way they did. You can't say all of Islam must be for Allah because if it's not for Allah, it isn't Islam. So all of Islam is always for Allah and anything else is not Islam. So you can't correct Islam, you can only bring people to it. So your twist attempt ends up making no sense.?
Aside from seeming slightly disturbed, ?Muhammad bin Lyin? begins his point which results in mine ?making no sense? with the cute phrase ?I think?. This means that my point makes no sense to him although the average reasonable person could understand my explanation of ?aldeen? in Part I. He says the ?the system? refers to the ?system of religion?? Let us use one of his favourite verses to teach him this lesson once more
?He it is Who sent His Messenger with guidance and the system of truth, that He might cause it to prevail over all systems, though the polytheists may be averse.?
Qur?an 933
In spite of the Qur?an clearly expressing the fact that there are many systems, ?Muhammad bin Lyin? claims that there is only one?and he calls that ?Religion? (although ?Muhammad bin Lyin??s religion is Tafsirianism (some more on that later)). Please see my list of verses using the words ?the system? in Part I of this article. Verse 53 alone proves ?Muhammad bin Lyin? wrong, but as usual he misses the obvious facts. My advice to him is to be satisfied with his little opinions if he desires, but to keep them to himself. To close this point, the system ?being all for Allah (SWT)? quite clearly means all devotion should be to Allah (SWT) alone by following His Way alone. Religion can be divided into sects, the sects can still be known as the religion, but they are not for Allah (SWT), are they?
Now ?Muhammad bin Lyin? writes
?If all religion should be for Allah only, or all religious belief itself should only be for Allah, then they would be turning away from religion itself as Islam is actually the only valid religion and therefore the only religion. Again, this is why so many translators translated it that way. An invalid religion is not a religion. Religion itself should all be for Islam. You don't want to know the tafsir for this. It?s a lot worse than what I?m saying.?
?Muhammad bin Lyin? is making the same mistake yet again by mixing the words ?the system? with ?religion?. It has already been demonstrated that there is a plurality of systems, but there is according to the Qur?an only one valid one. That is a just part of Muslim belief. He refers to a tafsir, yet he does not present it. The tafsir is actually quite harmless and repeats only what the verse declares. Readers should note that ?tafsir? conveys ?interpretation? of the Qur?an. ?Muhammad bin Lyin? relies on them to support his own interpretations, but what they say is simply what anyone would see if they read the verses (each is presented in isolation to other verses and thus are not to be used for ?Muhammad bin Lyin??s purpose). For example, in the debate he presented a tafsir of verse 933 which only referred to what I had already said that Islam would be shown to be greater, and that is all. He thinks he has something, but it is only sad.
?Muhammad bin Lyin??s response is very weak and I could skip most of it since Part I has it covered. In truth I think that he shows many signs of being a compulsive psychopath (or else he would have given up before he looked silly). He continues to chirp his assertion that ?system? means ?all religion?, and that is enough to certify my thoughts. He is a dangerous person (we do not need fanatics when we have him!) and represents the specific mental condition of Islamophobia as shared by many on Faithfreedom.org.
Part I of this article demonstrated that there was no contradiction between Sura 9 and the rest of the Qur?an regarding the rules for warfare. However, ?Muhammad bin Lyin? thinks himself fit to dictate to Muslims about how they should run their religion. He is telling Muslims and the rest of the world that they should always be at war (that is why he is dangerous), yet there is no evidence in the Qur?an or ahadith to support him. He also says that defending the Qur?an is shameful. What is shameful is his warmongering though he will of course turn around and say that he is using truth and commonsense. The reader must be the judge here.
Here is what the Qur?an says in 91
? immunity by Allah and His Messenger towards those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement.?
Qur?an 91
?Muhammad bin Lyin? applies his own tafsir
?It refers to people who don't have a treaty and the 4 month grace period that they are allowed, where Muslims can't fight them, is about to expire.?
Really, ?Muhammad bin Lyin?? I thought the verse stated ??those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement. If there were no treaties, how then could they have broken them (94)? It does not mention the ?grace period? being about to expire.
?Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up any one against you, so fulfil their agreement to the end of their term; surely Allah loves those who are careful .?
Qur?an 94
?Muhammad bin Lyin? writes (without real rebuttal)
?Why does an instruction for all times have instructions about what to do in only one time and place? It's pretty odd because elsewhere the Quran also curses individual people of Muhammad's time who ridiculed Muhammad.?
The message of the Qur?an never changed since the Messenger of Ibrahim (SAW), but then of course the historical context did. The Qur?an provides examples for our guidance and instructs us on how to worship Allah (SWT), but it was also a guide to the believers of the time in that it would teach and instruct them in how to deal with different situations as they arose (it was a crucial time and partly why Muslims were instructed to follow and obey the Messenger). It always made this clear by providing reasons and qualifications (as discovered in Part I), some examples being 91, 913 and 936 which detail context. The Message was being revealed during these periods of time and thus it deals with the reality whilst accomplishing its purpose. This may sound strange to certain non-Muslims, but it is an undeniable fact that not every verse should be seen as ?applicable for all time?. Other verses include the one concerning Abu Lahab and those which mention battles where Muslims are ordered to fight in self-defence. Obviously these are examples whereby Muslims can learn the importance of possessing and applying certain qualities (bravery, piety etc.) but then it is stupid and against commonsense to consider that we should take the verses themselves out of their context which is made clear.
?And certainly We have explained in this Quran every kind of example, and man is most of all given to contention.?
Qur?an 1854
This is also my attitude to ahadith, the majority of which were witnessed by one or two people and only written down about two centuries following the death of Muhammad (SAW). The majority of statements and actions recorded there would be taken out of context, especially since the ahadith unlike the Qur?an provide very little context for the very specific words and actions described.
Moving on, ?Muhammad bin Lyin? reiterates his weird interpretation of 96 which does not need a response.
?Muhammad bin Lyin? explains
?So the verses that followed 95 expound on why 95 is to be carried out, but, of course, the verses that follow 929 are NOT supposed to expound on why 929 is supposed to be carried out.?
The first portion is correct, but it is unclear how he arrives at the second. After all, Part I explained that verses 930-36 detailed the hostile attitude of the People of the Book, but it was also clearly explained that 933 could not logically mean what he said it did. Verse 933 was a response to 932, and even if it is in the context of 929 it still does not order Muslims to conquer or convert anyone (i.e. it is not a reason for 929 but a part of the description of the non-Muslims in that context). Please refer to Part I to understand the verse. As usual, playing dumb and casting aspersions is ?Muhamad bin Lyin??s only answer. However, we should stay patient!
?Muhammad bin Lyin? demonstrates his idiocy
?If I said "from a non Muslim perspective, ....", would that mean anything to you in this debate?? What does a Muslim or non Muslim perspective have to do with a debate that is supposed to be objective and seeking of the truth?? And if one side can't be objective, then what could ever be the point?? Debates are built on objectivity and objective rules.?
?Muhammad bin Lyin? cannot comprehend some baby logic. He is attempting to explain why non-Muslims should be scared of Islam, but if Islam (i.e. the Word of Allah (SWT) which must be believed and accepted to be legitimately followed) commands Muslims to fight non-Muslims only under certain circumstances (i.e. when they are attacked by them) then the only possible way for non-Muslims to be scared of Islam is if non-Muslims believe the Islamophobes. In this instances I was stating that 95 was revealed in a specific context and although non-Muslims will not believe that Allah (SWT) knew what was in the non-Muslims? hearts at the time (such that 95 was justified), Muslims will??and as long as Muslims understand Islam non-Muslims need not worry since the Islamophobes are not actually Muslims!
Now ?Muhammad bin Lyin? says
?So parts of the Quran, the book for all times, are only an instruction for that particular time and place? Again, I asked this before. If it's only recounting what to do in a particular instance, then doesn't this belong in the hadiths???
The contextual nature of the Qur?an was explained earlier, and whether one believes the Qur?an or not it does not change the obvious. The Message is for all time, but ?Muhammad bin Lyin? misunderstands the difference between the revelation of a strategy for dealing with the defence of religion (a strategy which is explained and justified such that there is no contradiction between it and the rest of the Qur?an) and the principles or precepts of the religion itself.
?Muhamad bin Lyin? then asks
?We apply 91 and 93 to 4735???
That is correct, but not before taking into consideration 94 and 97-13. Notice he goes to some effort to make my explanations sound incredible when actually they are very simple.
?Muhammad bin Lyin? declares of verse 929
?That was the Christians and Jews after the pagans had essentially been completely conquered, and had died or became Muslim, and Islam ruled the area because of it. You are lying by omission. Muhammad first conquered all the pagans, and then used their numbers to rule over the Christians and Jews. The Christians and Jews never really bought into his fraud. They were more educated than the pagans were.?
Actually according to his interpretation 929 is saying that the People of the Book must convert to Islam or pay the Jizya, so there is essentially no difference between the verses 929 and 95. The Pagans did not have to convert to Islam nor remain Muslims as per the verses 96, 97 and 912. As I explained in Part I it was one of the few ways by which the untrustworthy non-Muslims could demonstrate that they had truly repented for attacking the Muslims (913). Also we learnt from 936 and history that the People of the Book and the Pagans had allied against the Muslims (see once again Part I). Even if nothing else were clear, the Qur?an is clear that 95 and 929 were in retaliation. Furthermore, the fact that the People of the Book were singled out demonstrates that the reason for fighting was definitely not because they were non-Muslim. After all, the only Pagans who were excluded from treaties were those who were untrustworthy according to the reasons given (98-13), and then only those who had broken treaties and acted aggressively (94). Non-Muslims who did not live around there or who had not met Muslims were obviously not going to be attacked because only those who had broken their treaties and acted aggressively were excluded from the protection of Allah?s (SWT) mandate of non-aggression (93-4).
?Muhammad bin Lyin? says of 912
?And if they break their oaths after their agreement and defame your religion, then fight the leaders of unbelief-- surely their oaths are nothing-- so that they may desist.?
912
It only says defame it, not physically attack it. This gets back to my prior argument in the debate about how even speaking against Islam might as well be considered fighting it according to the Quran. Thank you.?
It would be amusing if the only valid point that ?Muhammad bin Lyin? could make (since the rest are so far meaningless) was one that I helped him with. However, I explained in Part I that ?fight? does not have to be physical and it is only against the source of the animosity. In the context of society the following verses are to be considered
?Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and have disputations with them in the best manner; surely your Lord best knows those who go astray from His path, and He knows best those who follow the right way. And if you take your turn, then retaliate with the like of that with which you were afflicted; but if you are patient, it will certainly be best for those who are patient.?
Qur?an 16125-126
Bear in mind that even if it were as simple as ?Muhammad bin Lyin? dictates, 912 is still in the context as explained of Sura 9. It is therefore irrelevant to modern times. ?Muhammad bin Lyin? then goes on to say that ?oppression? is when Muslims do not rule society. Unfortunately he cannot bring a single verse to support his claim.
?Muhammad bin Lyin? argues
?I would think that a very large percentage of Muslims would even say you are totally full of crap. The Quran is an instruction for all times, and for you to say that it has some instruction that only relate to one time and place causes a huge problem for many many Muslims. Although it is true that the Quran does also contain a specific curse against a person that didn't like Muhammad. What's that doing in the Quran?? So I suppose that's something you guys should fight out, because i already know that it's just further evidence that Muhammad used the Quran for himself.?
It is funny because he must never have associated with Muslims (or a large percentage of Muslims tried to kill him!). ?Muhammad bin Lyin? is a media-fed baby who should step out of his cradle before too much rocking causes his diper to fall off and reveals what is or is not underneath. He claims that the majority of Muslims in the world believe they should fight and conquer all non-Muslims. He is appealing not to logic and what is actually written in the Qur?an, but to a phantom majority as his argument. He was never worth debating except to show the stupidity (and the dangerous nature) of what he represents and to be used as a springboard for presenting points around which I would have had to base future articles.
?Muhammad bin Lyin? vomits of verse 2256
?Said under a time of less power, abrogated later. You keep repeating it, but you can't show why it is not abrogated.?
Just read Parts I and II. He also declares once again that the verses 930-35 ?all involve reasons? as to why 929 should be carried out. They are certainly all reasons why the People of the Book fight the Muslims in 936! Furthermore, I explained that 929 did not have to mean a physical fight and that Muslims are to fight against them all together just as (i.e. just like) they are being fought against. It is an inescapable fact that 929 is telling Muslims to fight against the People of the Book not because they are non-Muslims (or else the command would be to fight non-Muslims!) but because their hostile attitude in 930-35 meant that they were fighting Muslims in 936.
?Muhammad bin Lyin? then launches an assault against my explanation of 933. Here is the verse
?He it is Who sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, that He might cause it to prevail over all religions, though the polytheists may be averse.?
Qur?an 933
His fallacy is claiming that the Qur?an is the cause. No, the cause is described as ?He? and not as ?it?. Therefore the Qur?an is the means, and not the sword. ?Muhammad bin Lyin? can find no verse in the Qur?an commanding Muslims to conquer or convert all non-Muslims and societies. He refers to verse 914
?Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace, and assist you against them and heal the hearts of a believing people.?
Qur?an 914
Muslims already believe that whatever happens is by Allah?s (SWT) decree
?Say Nothing will afflict us save what Allah has ordained for us; He is our Patron; and on Allah let the believers rely.?
Qur?an 951
The verse says nothing about Allah (SWT) aggressing against non-Muslims by using the swords of Muslims. In fact the Qur?an exhorts Muslims to obey Allah (SWT) and follow the Qur?an or go astray, and the Qur?an mandates warfare only as a means of self-defence. It should be noted that 914 demonstrates that the non-Muslims had injured the Muslims in some way.
?Muhammad bin Lyin? repeats the literal interpretation of 95 to show that it states the non-Muslims should convert to Islam. I never disagreed with that point, but he falls into the fallacy of using tafsir as his only argument by not realising that according to 96 and 97 (also 929) that converting was only one means of demonstrating true repentance. It does not say that they have to convert, but only that if they do then they are not to be harmed. Once more the context of verse 95 as explained renders it inapplicable to modern times.
?Muhammad bin Lyin? informs me that I said that some non-Muslims cannot be trusted anymore. I never said that, but if I did then it would have meant that some could not be trusted to read the Qur?an properly. For example, I do not trust him in these matters and nor should anyone else. He is the one declaring that Muslims and non-Muslims should be perpetually at war, and therefore he is the one encouraging people to kill each other. I am ?debating? an apparent psychopath. I once invited the members of Faithfreedom.org to support my cause (to help a proper understanding of the Qur?an to improve things), but their egos were too huge and they would rather glory in the thought of conflict to feed their sicknesses. They accuse me of changing Islam and the Qur?an, but their attempts to prove it are as good as you can see here. Let us suppose that they are right and somehow all of my logic is in truth flawed. Would the Islamophobes (warmongers) be na?ve enough about human psychology to suppose that Muslims would simply see things their (the warmongers?) preferred way and give up their faith? They would not since even in the case of my being wrong there would still be a number of interpretations leading to a non-aggressive religion (as it stands, the Islamophobes fall flat before the truth). They (the warmongers) would still urge them to be violent since they see themselves as the true scholars of Islam and they think that the Muslims who do not want to convert or conquer the non-Muslim world are not real Muslims. Their attitude to my rationale suggests that having a violent Islam is more preferential to them than having a world with a peaceful Islam. They want Islam to be violent so that they can fight Muslims (i.e. sit in front of their televisions and watch others fight them). An Islamophobe who calls himself ?Skynightblaze? said that he could not be bothered to read Part I and that I was a ?burning example of why Islam is so dangerous?. How much perversion does it take before one can be labelled as twisted (I visited an atheist site yesterday critiquing the responsibility of religion as opposed to tradition for the plight of women in some countries, but at least they encouraged Muslims to show that the religion can be practiced better if tradition was the true culprit)? They are not interested in peace. They do not realise that the majority of Muslims are actually peaceful because they can read the Qur?an, but the Islamophobes (warmongers) do not urge these Muslims to speak up to at least help the world (even if they really did believe in their non-psychopathic selves that Islam was aggressive). Instead they see the majority as the cause of the violence they see on T.V., and think that labelling them as fake Muslims will help. Their sickness is revealed by their aversion to the Muslims who do speak up against violence. The ?real Islam? is not what they see on T.V., but Islamophobes are so brainwashed that their every breathing minute is devoted to the one thought of absolutely eradicating Islam. An Islamophobic pensioner in the U.K. admitted to me that this was what she intended. It is for this reason that Islamophobes absolutely hate Muslims who explain why Islam is not aggressive, and they go to any lengths (as shown here) to preserve their fantasies. However one critic (during my stay) realised all of this, and left the forum.
On a new point, in Part I I made a statement concerning verse 933
?The Qur?an will of course help Muslims to have the faith necessary to obey it, but then ?Muhammad bin Lyin? can find no verse mandating Muslims to fight against any people who did not fight Muslims and injure them first.?
?Muhammad bin Lyin??s response is this
?Irrelevant to the conversation. The conversation is about what Muslims did after they got strong enough and started winning. They sought to conquer and rule.?
The conversation (and in fact the title of the debate and subsequent article) is about whether Islam intends to conquer the world. We already know that Islam became strong because people believed in it (it could not be done without the people?s consent! Look at Egypt today!) and those who did not like that lost the wars they began. One day while they were strong Allah (SWT) revealed Sura 9 according to the context explained and provided the reasons within. I do not see ?Muhammad bin Lyin??s point here since the statement he responded to had a pretty clear purpose.
?Muhammad bin Lyin? predictably responds to my comparison between 618-9 and 932-33 by claiming that they are both in the context of war. My purpose was to demonstrate 929 was not a special verse ordering Muslims to conquer non-Muslims simply because of 933. He displays verse 614
?Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way in ranks as if they were a firm and compact wall.?
Qur?an 614
Notice that it says ?in His way?. Unless ?Muhammad bin Lyin? can bring a verse stating clearly that to fight in Allah?s (SWT) way is to fight aggressively against non-Muslims, his point does not stand up. His ?abrogation? theory will make no historical sense since Sura 61 is said to have come well before Sura 5 in which it states
?Surely those who believe and those who are Jews and the Sabians and the Christians whoever believes in Allah and the last day and does good-- they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve.?
Qur?an 569
?Muhammad bin Lyin??s automated response is that this refers to the Jews and Christians who practice Islam. This is odd because he once said that non-Muslims who practice Islam are Muslims, and that if you were a Muslim you could not be anything else. However, the verse only specifies those who believe in Allah (SWT) and who do good?as well as the pious Jews and Christians. Besides, Allah (SWT) will judge justly on the Day of Resurrection
?And We will set up a just balance on the day of resurrection, so no soul shall be dealt with unjustly in the least; and though there be the weight of a grain of mustard seed, (yet) will We bring it, and sufficient are We to take account.?
Qur?an 2147
What else does Sura 5 declare?
?For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our messengers came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land.?
Qur?an 532
This verse is still applied (according to Muslim belief, all Messages were the same with small variations in prohibitions)
?And how do they make you a judge and they have the Taurat wherein is Allah's judgment? Yet they turn back after that, and these are not the believers.?
Qur?an 543
?(They are) listeners of a lie, devourers of what is forbidden; therefore if they come to you, judge between them or turn aside from them, and if you turn aside from them, they shall not harm you in any way; and if you judge, judge between them with equity; surely Allah loves those who judge equitably.?
Qur?an 542
(If they are allowed to come to Muslims then clearly Muslims do not have to go to them to conquer them! Secondly, turning away does not convey ?controlling?.)
Sura 5 is sufficient proof that the statement in 933 has nothing to do with Muslims forcibly conquering or converting non-Muslims.
?Muhammad bin Lyin? calls me ?deceptive? for stating that the Rabbis and monks were hoarding money rather than spending it in the way of Allah (SWT). Firstly it supports me more to say that they were spending it to inhibit Muslims, and secondly the Qur?an also mentions a punishment for their hoarding in verse 934
?O you who believe! most surely many of the doctors of law and the monks eat away the property of men falsely, and turn (them) from Allah's way; and (as for) those who hoard up gold and silver and do not spend it in Allah's way, announce to them a painful chastisement.?
Qur?an 934
?Muhammad bin Lyin? is the liar, and he has no shame about it despite it being blatantly obvious he is wrong. Now alas comes his prime point the Jizya! It is unfortunate for him that I already agreed ?Jizya? could mean ?tax? after considering several factors. This state-tax is a state-tax to be determined according to criteria since of course tax must serve a sustainable purpose and not exhaust the payer
?(They are) listeners of a lie, devourers of what is forbidden; therefore if they come to you, judge between them or turn aside from them, and if you turn aside from them, they shall not harm you in any way; and if you judge, judge between them with equity; surely Allah loves those who judge equitably.?
Qur?an 542
?Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice.?
Qur?an 608
?Therefore do remind, for you are only a reminder. You are not a controller over them.?
Qur?an 8821-22
That (it seems) is why according to the records the Jizya was adjusted to suit the means of the citizen. It is in principle no way discrimination since Muslims must pay the Zakat (obligatory charity) according to their means (or if we follow ahadith out of context instead of the Qur?an, it is 2.5% of income).
Now if we look at the Qur?an we can see that the Jizya is never mandated to be a compulsory religious tax imposed by the Muslims on the non-Muslims in society. ?Tax? in Arabic is actually ?dhareeba?. All that we glean from the ahadith is that Muhammad (SAW) imposed a ?Jizya? on his conquered enemies and other non-Muslim citizens during his time (perhaps as punishment and/or for protection that was necessary ? or simply as a tax system). Now we must also bear in mind that the ahadith have their own context and doubtfulness whilst the Qur?an according to Muslim belief is clear, complete and fully-detailed. Whoever takes the ahadith out of context and declares ?Jizya? to mean ?tax? must disregard the special circumstances detailed by the Qur?an. Scholars disagree on the meaning of the word but common opinions are that it means a ?recompense? for something (e.g. necessary protection), and also a ?substitute? (i.e. recompense). It is definitely not on the basis of belief because firstly that was not the Messenger?s duty?
?And if Allah had pleased, they would not have set up others (with Him) and We have not appointed you a keeper over them, and you are not placed in charge of them.?
Qur?an 6107
?But if they turn back, then on you devolves only the clear deliverance (of the message).?
Qur?an 1682
?Say I do not ask you aught in return (for the Message) except that he who will, may take the way to his Lord.?
Qur?an 2557
(?Muhammad bin Lyin? thinks it is odd that I use this verse in relation to Jizya, but if we consider for one moment it becomes clear that Muhammad (SAW) is not asking for any special benefit which may be conferred to him by delivering the Message. An example would be the ability to impose tax on people who did not accept the Message.)
?and secondly verse 929 is not telling Muslims to impose the Jizya on the People of Book because they are non-Muslim or else Allah (SWT) would have commanded Muslims to convert/conquer all non-Muslims. ?Muhammad bin Lyin? claims that the Qur?an mentions ?Jizya? for the first time because of the ?fact? that it was a practice already introduced, yet whatever was the necessary reason for Jizya and whatever form it took (e.g. tax or payment) it was most certainly not based on religion but on circumstances specifically formulated in Sura 9. Remember from Part I
?This day have those who disbelieve despaired of your system, so fear them not, and fear Me. This day have I perfected for you your system and completed My favour on you and chosen for you Islam as a system??
Qur?an 53
What is of primary concern here is that 929 regardless of anything is in retaliation (see verse 936). Even if the derived meaning of ?tax? is the true meaning of ?Jizya?, we know from the Qur?anic verses above that the tax must be equitable and fair. Since the Jizya is not a part of Islamic policy outside of Sura 9, and since it was imposed in times of some uncertainty (suggesting that it was a sign of submission to state law as was required), the ?Jizya? must ultimately be considered payment either in return for damages caused or a payment applicable to people who had committed certain actions and/or required certain protection or status. It may suffice to consider it an ordinary state tax to be differentiated from obligatory charity since non-Muslims need not practically be labelled as performing an Islamic duty (I noticed that ?Muhammad bin Lyin? accuses me of contradicting myself or back-flipping, but he does not seem to be much of a reader since he does not realise that I am actually discussing various possibilities. His chide implying that I am not a ?real Muslim? will not work since if he attempted to debate against the Qur?an-alone perspective he would be no harder to deal with than a rodent without front teeth. He would also find that the majority of Muslims would agree with the principles that I am applying). In this day and age, the Jizya would simply be a regular state tax that would have had to exist anyway.
For now, ?Muhammad bin Lyin? needs to recognise that traditional understandings of the Qur?an reflect individual interpretations/preferences (at a time of empire) thus do not necessarily derive from the source of Islam itself. Amina Wadud writes
?To avoid potential relativism, there is continuity and permanence in the Qu'ranic text itself as exemplified even through various readings by their points of convergence. However, in order for the Qur?an to achieve its objective to act as a catalyst affecting behavior in society, each social context must understand the fundamental and unchangeable principles of that text, and then implement them in their own unique reflection.?
(Amina Wadud-Muhsin, Qur'an and Woman (Kuala Lumpur Penerbit Fajar Bakti Sdn Bhd, 1992), 5)
Summing up. it is impossible for him (or anyone) to argue that the Qur?an implements Jizya directly as ?tax? and thus he must turn to tafsir written by people who have already accepted other individual interpretations of the word. Tafsir is completely useless to his case since what he brings only parrots what the verse is saying without referring to the rest of the Qur?an (I would challenge him to a discussion of one tafsir at a time). Such interpretations come from ahadith the vast majority of which were written down over two centuries after Muhammad (SAW) died. Even if they are true, as I mentioned before we still cannot be sure of their deeper context. What was appropriate for the defence of the religion during that time had to be implemented, but the Qur?an itself lives on unchanged in Islamic belief.
It is not incumbent on me to discuss further the context of the formation of Islam (those who read about it may find that the ?conquest? was quite peaceful with voluntary acceptance) since ?Muhammad bin Lyin? and his friends have been beaten by the Qur?an. They cannot prove Islam to be an aggressive religion, and this is why Islam lives. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to remember that moral relativism plays an important role in understanding that humans do not and have not lived in a topsy-turvy world where ?world-peace? is not actually peace but rather access to modern technology and a comfortable lifestyle in ignorance of deeper yet higher yearnings?and at the expense of others. The Arabia of Muhammad?s (SAW) time was a dangerous and divided arena where the achievement of order, justice and peace could not come to being without bloodshed and bravery. Thus the Muslims of today will accept Muhammad (SAW) as an accomplisher of a sacred task with the purpose of improving societies and eliminating oppression based on power, competition and discrimination rather than the universal values necessary for fighting corruption
?There is no compulsion in the system; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing.?
Qur?an 2256
If this verse is abrogated, he should bring the verse that abrogates it explaining using the Qur?an how it is not in self-defence or retaliation. It has been explained many times that there exists no contradiction between the verses discussed in Part I and the rest of the Qur?an. It is also not difficult to take apart the verses he claims mandate internal abrogation.
?O you who believe! be maintainers of justice, bearers of witness of Allah's sake, though it may be against your own selves or (your) parents or near relatives; if he be rich or poor, Allah is nearer to them both in compassion; therefore do not follow (your) low desires, lest you deviate; and if you swerve or turn aside, then surely Allah is aware of what you do.?
Qur?an 4135
?Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and have disputations with them in the best manner; surely your Lord best knows those who go astray from His path, and He knows best those who follow the right way.?
Qur?an 16125
?And seek by means of what Allah has given you the future abode, and do not neglect your portion of this world, and do good (to others) as Allah has done good to you, and do not seek to make mischief in the land, surely Allah does not love the mischief-makers.?
Qur?an 2877
?And do not dispute with the followers of the Book except by what is best, except those of them who act unjustly, and say We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our Allah and your Allah is One, and to Him do we submit.?
Qur?an 2946
?And not alike are the good and the evil. Repel (evil) with what is best, when lo! he between whom and you was enmity would be as if he were a warm friend. And none are made to receive it but those who are patient, and none are made to receive it but those who have a mighty good fortune.?
Qur?an 4134-35
?Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice.?
Qur?an 608
And then countless others. These are at the core of every great ideal, and it is why the Qur?an in truth is harmonious with all societies. However, in the circumstances of today we should be looking for improvement, and not for final conflict which can never be won. ?Muhammad bin Lyin? can use some ahadith to scorn Muslims (after all this was predicted in the Qur?an (6112)), but then any Muslim can confront him with a much greater number of worthwhile examples from the same source. Just a minute sample
?The Prophet (peace be upon him) said I guarantee a house in the surroundings of Paradise for a man who avoids quarrelling even if he were in the right, a house in the middle of Paradise for a man who avoids lying even if he were joking, and a house in the upper part of Paradise for a man who made his character good??
Abu Dawood
?The believers who show the most perfect faith are those who have the best character and the best of you are those who are best to their wives.?
Tirmidthi
?Keep God in mind wherever you are; follow a wrong with a right that offsets it, and treat people courteously.?
Tirmidthi
?The world and all things in the world are precious but the most precious thing in the world is a virtuous woman.?
Ahmed and Muslim
?My servants, I have made injustice forbidden to myself, and I have made it forbidden to you, so do not be unjust.?
Hadith Qudsy
?The Jewish Rabbi, ?Abd Allah ibn Salam went to see the Prophet and to hear what he had to say. He narrated that the first sermon that the Prophet delivered in Medina was ?Oh Humanity, spread peace. Provide nourishment for people. Pray in the night when people are asleep and you will enter into Paradise in security and Peace.??
?God is compassionate and loves those who are compassionate. He is gentle and loves those who are gentle to others. Whoever is merciful to creatures, to him is God merciful. Whoever does good for people, to him will God do good. Whoever is generous to them, to him will God be generous. Whoever benefits the people, God will benefit him.?
(Each of these is consistent with the Qur?an aside from the first since the Qur?an never gave Muhammad (SAW) the mandate to guarantee anyone anything.)
Where then are the Islamophobes left? They should not start that game, because the Qur?an must be judge
?Say What thing is the weightiest in testimony? Say Allah is witness between you and me; and this Qur?an has been revealed to me that with it I may warn you and whomsoever it reaches??
Qur?an 619
Every person can choose to call Muhammad (SAW) a conqueror or a Prophet, but the underlying issue is that Islam only spreads by voluntary conversion and that its ultimate ideal is the elimination of corruption and oppression such that the more powerful it becomes, the more contained will people?s ability to take advantage of others (by all means) become. It in fact enshrines the ideal society that most people claim to desire (there is no such place as Utopia on Earth), but the actual exercising of these ?noble ideals? becomes too strenuous for those who would rather use Islam as a punching-bag. If they actually allowed themselves to admit that they agree with the ?nice? principals in the Qur?an, we could then start discussing similarities instead of differences. If they want to argue against Islam, that is fine but firstly they should state why the principles of Islam are inferior to their views (i.e. they would have to present their own thoughts on life!) and having outlined how Islam could improve they should do something about it and take advantage of the ?nice? things in Islam that ultimately are the message of the Qur?an (if one reads it!). But no, they have no thoughts of their own and they label attempts to improve it as ?deception? whilst ignoring a simple principle that the average person could understand freedom of belief and allegiance. Everything takes its evolutionary cause, and to expect that people will simply ?give up their faith? to appease a few opinions is simply stupid. People choose their beliefs and then they choose to live by them. It is no-one?s business. Those who understand this and accept belief do not give a toss about attempts to ?disprove? it using science etc, because ultimately religion is an ideal which itself is the beacon of the Divine. People all have their conceptions of God, and it is the following of the path and worship/celebration/appreciation of existence itself which makes religion and the believer inseparable. This is just plain, secure Faith which understands why it exists. The believer knows him/herself. That is why those who wage their own little war against Islam may as well wage a war against religious belief and human psychology itself, and why they are a detriment to and provocation of the situation seen today. They do not have to embrace the tides, just to help to clean up (if they are sincere). Sadly, their own standards are blurred. This is the way things are; I am neither promoting nor demoting it. As for other Muslims, the same message applies (this could continue in another article, and it is the point of this one).
Finally, ?Muhammad bin Lyin? thinks it was stupid to quote the judgement of a Sunni judge in Saudi Arabia
?Are you serious?? This is the same person who would contradict you and explain why nobody must propagate any religion but Islam in Saudi Arabia. That was a really stupid choice.?
All the better.
Khuda Hafiz
