FrontPageMagSymposium: A New Koran?
-
http//www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=a00f3895-42bb-4a7d-9fa5-4a19f3286ead
Hope I'm not duplicating this if it's been posted elsewhere - but thought it was worth discussing - Khalim Massoud, Edip Yuksel, Thomas Haidon, and three anti-muslims. Khalim Massoud goes further than most reformists in advocating the removal of violent passages from the Quran, for which he is flamed by Edip and basically everyone else on the 'Symposium'.
Khalim's chief gripe is what he refers to as the 'the doctrine of Islamic supremacy'. He is also very critical of attempts to reform certain passages of the Quran, specifically 2.191 and 9.5, which explicitly refer to killing certain groups of people, which he describes as "nothing more than whitewashing of genocide".
Thoughts?
-
Salam,
A great many verses come to mind. But I'll just post these two...
275
(Free-minds Translation)
Did you expect that they would believe with you, when a group of them had heard God's words then altered them knowingly after having understood?
446
(Free-minds Translation)
From amongst the Jews there are those who take the words out of context, and they Say "We hear and disobey, and listen but let not any listen, and shepherd us," in a twisting of their tongues and as a mockery of the system! And had they said "We hear and obey, and listen, and watch over us," it would have been better for them and more upright; but God has cursed them for their disbelief, they do not believe except very little.
sigh
Salam,
Arnab -
Salams Arnab,
This is the issue though, what do we mean by God's words. I appriciate the arguments of Edip, amongst others, that the Quran's structure must be correct due to the maths of things. However where you have verses that contradict each other, it clearly shows we have not understood something. Now in the case of 9.5 (free minds translation), the instruction "kill those who have set up partners" seems to contradict "There is no compulsion in religion".
So we have misunderstood something. Either we have misunderstood "kill those who have set up partners", or "There is no compulsion in religion", or perhaps neither. Perhaps we have misunderstood the claim "There is no doubt in this book". Perhaps it doesn't mean God is preventing the people who had input into it from making any error. Perhaps when it sounds like there is something wrong with a verse, it means there is maybe something wrong with it.
I should say, I do not agree in principle with Khalim Massoud's idea of taking bits out of the Quran. However, I do agree with his analysis of the situation - it is entirely possible that some bits of the Quran are wrong - that Allah never advised any that book be taken as 100% absolute divine truth.
Now, let's consider the events of September 11, the most documented event in the history of humanity. Just several years after the events, it is quite easy to find many different "historical" versions of what "really" happened, including some versions that are diametrically opposed to each other. So the statement like "proven historical facts" is at the very least a stretch. Having said that, I would like to emphasize that we believe that Muhammad was God's messenger, which does not make him a perfect human being. It is quite possible that he did all the things that he is accused of. We also need to consider that norms of today's society are very different from the norms of many centuries ago. Slavery, polygamy, pedophilia, gender discrimination, etc., are not unique to the Seventh century Arabia. We can find all of that in the religious texts preceding the Koran.
-
I should say, I do not agree in principle with Khalim Massoud's idea of taking bits out of the Quran. However, I do agree with his analysis of the situation - it is entirely possible that some bits of the Quran are wrong - that Allah never advised any that book be taken as 100% absolute divine truth.
The God promised to protect the quran. Your stating it is possible some bits of the quran are wrong. You either believe in quran being the word of God or you don't its simple. I find it bizarre some people think its difficult to believe God can protect a book.
PEACE
-
Salam,
I agree with 2-Pac-Notts on this one.
I think it comes down to faith. You either believe it is protected or you don't.
But, Mahmud_M, I do understand what you are saying from an analytical stand point.
I just disagree with it.
Salam Arnab
-
The God promised to protect the quran. Your stating it is possible some bits of the quran are wrong. You either believe in quran being the word of God or you don't its simple. I find it bizarre some people think its difficult to believe God can protect a book.
PEACE
Of course God can protect a book, but the question is, why would he? He lets humans die. He lets the bible be corrupted, both the Christian and Jewish versions, and any others out there. This is actually why the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches don't take a fundamentalist view of the bible - they know it's not perfect because they put it together - instead they believe that the Ecumenical Councils are infallible, they think that God protects the believers when they all get together and make a decision. That's why the Pope is allowed to say evolution is true - it contradicts the bible, but not the decisions of the 'Ecumenical Councils'. It doesn't work to say the Quran says it is infallible, circular reasoning. Think about it. What if every single statement in the Quran was true, except the one that says it is the infallible word of God - wouldn't that be crazy? But it would be perfectly logically consistent.
-
Of course God can protect a book, but the question is, why would he?
So we know its from The God. Personally speaking if I came across a scripture that claimed to be from God and went through major editing I would ask is this really from God or has the message been lost.
He lets humans die.
Life would be boring staying in a physical body and not experiencing beyond our physical realm imo. The God doesn't LET humans die he MAKES humans die...big difference my friend as we don't have a choice in this Law of God He placed the Law there and its not a Law we can ever change.
It doesn't work to say the Quran says it is infallible, circular reasoning. Think about it. What if every single statement in the Quran was true, except the one that says it is the infallible word of God - wouldn't that be crazy? But it would be perfectly logically consistent.
My bad then I assumed you already believed Quran is the word of God. So just to clarify your saying why should God promise to protect a book He's revealed??Also that he let other scriptures be altered etc. In my opinion its Gods mercy he let's this happen even though its blasphemous what they did editing the scriptures etc. He's decided in his infinite wisdom to give us Quran to supersede these books and promised to protect it too. The God gives us sooooo many chances even after people try to change what is revealed. hmm
PEACE
-
Now in the case of 9.5 (free minds translation), the instruction "kill those who have set up partners" seems to contradict "There is no compulsion in religion".
No contradiction and impossible to force a belief for it?s a conviction of the mind; as soon as the force is removed people will revert back to whatever thoughts pop in their heads and even fake it during.
There is an example in Qur?an how to deal with those who are serious and want to destroy and cause harm, gives believer?s pre-emptive right to defend themselves ? no pity on mischief makers...
?Then when the Sacred Months have passed, then kill the Mushrik?n (non-believers/mischief makers) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Sal?t, and give Zak?t, then leave their way free. Verily, All?h is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And if anyone of the Mushrik?n seeks your protection then grant him protection, so that he may hear the Word of All?h (the Qur'?n), and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men who know not. How can there be a covenant with All?h and with His Messenger for the Mushrik?n except those with whom you made a covenant near Al-Masjid-al-Har?m? So long, as they are true to you, stand you true to them. Verily, All?h loves Al-Muttaq?n (the pious)? ? Qur?an 95-7
Note the above "kill the Mushrik?n wherever you find them" is often taken out of context by the crazies? (heretics) and those frantically opposed to Islam.
That's why the Pope is allowed to say evolution is true - it contradicts the bible, but not the decisions of the 'Ecumenical Councils'.
<< Luke 3 >>
Young's Literal Translation
23 And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, son of Joseph, 24 the son of Eli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Janna, the son of Joseph, 25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Naum, the son of Esli, 26 the son of Naggai, the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semei, the son of Joseph, the son of Juda, 27 the son of Joanna, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, 28 the son of Neri, the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmodam, the son of Er, 29 the son of Jose, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, 30 the son of Levi, the son of Simeon, the son of Juda, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonan, the son of Eliakim, 31 the son of Melea, the son of Mainan, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, 32 the son of David, the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Booz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon, 33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Aram, the son of Esrom, the son of Pharez, 34 the son of Judah, the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, 36 the son of Salah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, 38 the son of Cainan, the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.Unless above is taken as non-literal (really don't see how); 77 generations x 30-40 years = 2300 ? 3100 years
Peace
-
Of course God can protect a book, but the question is, why would he? He lets humans die.
Death is part of nature and life. And part of the ?plan.? How do I know this? I could quote scripture but you may want a different answer. The other answer is I have never known or heard of anyone living forever so I know based on experience that it is part of nature and the over all ?plan.?
He lets the bible be corrupted, both the Christian and Jewish versions, and any others out there.
Actually scripture was never corrupted.
We have the same scripture from thousands of years ago.
We do have people who decide to edit, change, alter, delete passages and make absurd translations. They name these books ?The Bible? and ?The Quran? but they are impostures.
We still have the original scripture in the original languages and these books sit side by side with the other books that have been edited but share the same names.
There are those who feel more comfortable with these altered versions and there are those of us who will accept nothing less than the true scripture.
Its kind of like those people who sell fake ipods on auction sites and insist they are ipods. The people buy them hoping to get what they want but ultimately they break and have all sorts of problems and they just end up wasting time and money.
It doesn't work to say the Quran says it is infallible, circular reasoning. Think about it. What if every single statement in the Quran was true, except the one that says it is the infallible word of God - wouldn't that be crazy? But it would be perfectly logically consistent.
You?re right it is circular logic.
If this statement was applied to an unrelated subject it is easy to see that you are correct in that statement.Please note that I?m jonly saying that your argument is correct not that I agree with it.
It comes down to faith.
You either believe it or you don?t.I would say that I personally believe the Quran to be protected and divinely inspired and intact not only because the Quran indicates this but?.
because it is in harmony with previous scripture.
because I have found that every thing in the Quran is true and that leaves me to assess that I have no reason to believe that this is not true just because I cannot prove it.
And the last reason I can offer at this moment is that the Quran spoke to me (figuratively) in a way that only scripture can. This last reason is not very scientific and is actually more spiritual in content. But I felt that it was important to include it.
Salam,
Arnab -
No contradiction and impossible to force a belief for it?s a conviction of the mind; as soon as the force is removed people will revert back to whatever thoughts pop in their heads and even fake it during.
There is an example in Qur?an how to deal with those who are serious and want to destroy and cause harm, gives believer?s pre-emptive right to defend themselves ? no pity on mischief makers...
?Then when the Sacred Months have passed, then kill the Mushrik?n (non-believers/mischief makers) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Sal?t, and give Zak?t, then leave their way free. Verily, All?h is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And if anyone of the Mushrik?n seeks your protection then grant him protection, so that he may hear the Word of All?h (the Qur'?n), and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men who know not. How can there be a covenant with All?h and with His Messenger for the Mushrik?n except those with whom you made a covenant near Al-Masjid-al-Har?m? So long, as they are true to you, stand you true to them. Verily, All?h loves Al-Muttaq?n (the pious)? ? Qur?an 95-7
Note the above "kill the Mushrik?n wherever you find them" is often taken out of context by the crazies? (heretics) and those frantically opposed to Islam.
It hardly sounds like the words of al-Rahman al-Rahim though. It is clearly taking the lazy option of referring to a specific tribe which the early Muslims were at war with as "The Pagans/The Non-believers". This is something that aggressive people do in the middle of a sectarian conflict. Just as in the bible, the writer of St John's Gospel takes the lazy option of referring to the clerics who run the Temple in Jerusalem as "The Jews". Jesus would have never called them "The Jews" as almost everyone around him was Jewish. It wouldn't make sense. But because it was written 70 years after Jesus' death, by Christians who no longer considered themselves a sect of Judaism, it seemed normal to refer to their adversaries as "The Jews" - so you get statements like
1031 Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him
What an odd thing to write. It's accusing an entire religion of trying to murder Jesus. Of course it doesn't mean it, but at a time when many Christians were being persecuted by both Romans Authorities and some Jewish people, it seemed normal, natural for them to generalise and thus slander an entire religion.
That's the same thing we see in the Quran in 9.5. Kill the Pagans unless they convert. Those sentences are not the words of God. They're the words of frightened and angry human beings in the middle of a civil war - not bothering to distinguish between soldiers and civilians because they are seeing the whole world in terms of "Us" and "Them".
-
It hardly sounds like the words of al-Rahman al-Rahim though. It is clearly taking the lazy option of referring to a specific tribe which the early Muslims were at war with as "The Pagans/The Non-believers". This is something that aggressive people do in the middle of a sectarian conflict.
No, not a specific tribe rather Mushrikoon is a generic term for all those disbelievers in God, idolaters (including atheists), polytheists, pagans, etc., and it?s perfectly stated when read in context.
Perhaps you have an example of words to use; let?s hear your non-lazy/non-aggressive option how to deal with an enemy bent on destroying you ? perhaps love them, give up all your possessions, and turn the other cheek or even set yourself on fire in protest as Buddhists do or abandon everything including your family and flee to the hills?
-
Perhaps you have an example of words to use; let?s hear your non-lazy/non-aggressive option how to deal with an enemy bent on destroying you ? perhaps love them, give up all your possessions, and turn the other cheek or even set yourself on fire in protest as Buddhists do or abandon everything including your family and flee to the hills?
rotfl
-
Sure, I agree, I'm not a pacifist. I believe self defense is right, so is defending the innocent. But this just isn't what it says.
?Then when the Sacred Months have passed, then kill the Mushrik?n (non-believers/mischief makers) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush."
It doesn't say defend yourself. It doesn't say negotiate a peaceful settlement. It doesn't say understand and respect. It says kill them, capture them, besiege them, ambush them.
Nun de plume, as you describe, it is identifying people with different religious beliefs as the enemy. I have a problem with this. It is not what self defense means.
-
Sure, I agree, I'm not a pacifist. I believe self defense is right, so is defending the innocent. But this just isn't what it says.
?Then when the Sacred Months have passed, then kill the Mushrik?n (non-believers/mischief makers) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush."
It doesn't say defend yourself. It doesn't say negotiate a peaceful settlement. It doesn't say understand and respect. It says kill them, capture them, besiege them, ambush them.
Nun de plume, as you describe, it is identifying people with different religious beliefs as the enemy. I have a problem with this. It is not what self defense means.
OK I'll repost again; let's read Qur'an in context and not pluck sentences out of a paragraph and see exactly what is says...
94-7
Except those of the Mushrikoon with whom you have a treaty, and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor have supported anyone against you. So fulfill their treaty to them to the end of their term. Surely Allah loves Al- Mattaqoon (the pious)...Then when the Sacred Months have passed, then kill the Mushrikoon wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat, and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful...And if anyone of the Mushrikoon seeks your protection then grant him protection, so that he may hear the Word of Allah (the Quran), and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men who know not...How can there be a covenant with Allah and with His Messenger for the Mushrikoon except those with whom you made a covenant near Al-Masjid-al-Haram? So long, as they are true to you, stand you true to them. Verily, Allah loves Al-Muttaqoon (the pious).
Remember verse numbering is only for our convenience (unless you're a hafiz) and not part of revelation as some believe.
Always read in context of the verse, paragraph, chapter, and scope of entire Qur'an to get the best meaning.
Peace
-
Peace Mahmud,
Don't let the criminals lies turn you away from the Quran405 Denial had come before them from the people of Noah and the opponents after them, and every nation plotted against their messenger to seize him, and they disputed by means of falsehood to defeat with it the truth. So I took them; how then was My punishment!
-
http//www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=a00f3895-42bb-4a7d-9fa5-4a19f3286ead
Hope I'm not duplicating this if it's been posted elsewhere - but thought it was worth discussing - Khalim Massoud, Edip Yuksel, Thomas Haidon, and three anti-muslims. Khalim Massoud goes further than most reformists in advocating the removal of violent passages from the Quran, for which he is flamed by Edip and basically everyone else on the 'Symposium'.
Khalim's chief gripe is what he refers to as the 'the doctrine of Islamic supremacy'. He is also very critical of attempts to reform certain passages of the Quran, specifically 2.191 and 9.5, which explicitly refer to killing certain groups of people, which he describes as "nothing more than whitewashing of genocide".
Thoughts?
After 9-11 there has been various debates about Islam. Some have said that the terrorist are Islam's true spoken. The so called moderates practice taqiya. Taqiya is the deliberate lying for the faith. They say Islam is a violent religion that commands Muslims to kill non Muslim. Non Muslims have 3 choices, either they convert, pay the jizya(tax) or die. They say Muhammad was peaceful for PR reasons and once strong showed his true colors and preached violent jihad. They say all the peaceful verses were abrogated after his final victory with this verse
9.5. But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
And also this verse
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 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.
This verses are chosen for a reason. When read alone it implies a command to attack until they convert. Of course there are other verses in the Koran that talks about fighting. But why do they tend to focus on this one? Its simple, the other verses tend to show the defensive nature of the jihad and also the malicious intent and behavior of the pagans. Thus never cited. Lets look at some of them
2.190. Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors
2.191. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith
2.193. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God, but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression
Also
2.217. They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say "Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of God to prevent access to the path of God, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members." Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein.
All these verses talks about fighting, however within these verses the defensive nature of the verses and the malicious behavior of the pagans is cited. Thus those who wish to attack Islam never cite those verses. Its a deliberate attempt to hide what the Koran as saying and using selective verses to imply what they know the verses does not mean.
Lets however look at the verse that is often cited. This time we will take the verses before and after it to see what is the context this verse is talking.
9.4. (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term for God loveth the righteous.
9.5. But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
However in the same chapter in explains the intention behind this verse
9.13. Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is God Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!
The Koran must be quoted fully and not selectively.
-
http//www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=a00f3895-42bb-4a7d-9fa5-4a19f3286ead
Hope I'm not duplicating this if it's been posted elsewhere - but thought it was worth discussing - Khalim Massoud, Edip Yuksel, Thomas Haidon, and three anti-muslims. Khalim Massoud goes further than most reformists in advocating the removal of violent passages from the Quran, for which he is flamed by Edip and basically everyone else on the 'Symposium'.
Khalim's chief gripe is what he refers to as the 'the doctrine of Islamic supremacy'. He is also very critical of attempts to reform certain passages of the Quran, specifically 2.191 and 9.5, which explicitly refer to killing certain groups of people, which he describes as "nothing more than whitewashing of genocide".
Thoughts?Peace,
Respectfully.God said in the Quran that no falsehood can enter the Quran in the past or the future.
I trust God and i believe in GOd and i know that God can do anything and everything.
Quran is complete.
God says Himself that today (time of prophet
Muhammad, end of revelation) He has completed the religion of Islam.Glory be to God, The Most Wise.
Peace.
-
Hi Bigmo, I do apperciate the context, but none of that context undermines that the text is generalising on the basis of religion and advocating aggression on this basis.
I agree 2.190-3 do not do this in the same way. It is 94-5 that are the problem. Even in the context of 913 it is still implying killing people for not changing their religion.
This is an extreme example of a fundamental problem - I do not believe God sent the Messanger to divide up the world into believers and unbelievers so there can be a great big war between them. That isn't what religion is about.
95 is not saying react to aggression. It doesn't say "When they attack, defend yourself" - it says "when the forbidden months are past" (presumably a treaty expiring?) "then fight and slay the Pagans". That isn't self defence. It isn't self defence at all. It's descriminating on the basis of religion and advocating sectarian violence.
-
Hi Bigmo, I do apperciate the context, but none of that context undermines that the text is generalising on the basis of religion and advocating aggression on this basis.
I agree 2.190-3 do not do this in the same way. It is 94-5 that are the problem. Even in the context of 913 it is still implying killing people for not changing their religion.
This is an extreme example of a fundamental problem - I do not believe God sent the Messanger to divide up the world into believers and unbelievers so there can be a great big war between them. That isn't what religion is about.
95 is not saying react to aggression. It doesn't say "When they attack, defend yourself" - it says "when the forbidden months are past" (presumably a treaty expiring?) "then fight and slay the Pagans". That isn't self defence. It isn't self defence at all. It's descriminating on the basis of religion and advocating sectarian violence.
Mahmud, first study the Koran. Lets look at what the job of the prophet is and what is his mission.
1682 But if they turn away from you, your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message .
6107 Yet if God had so willed, they would not have ascribed Divinity to aught besides Him; hence, We have not made you their keeper, nor are you a guardian over them.
479-80 Say'Whatever good betides you is from God and whatever evil betides you is from your own self and that We have sent you to mankind only as a messenger and all sufficing is God as witness. Whoso obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys God. And for those who turn away, We have not sent you as a keeper."
1128 He (Noah) said "O my people! think over it! If I act upon a clear direction from my Lord who has bestowed on me from Himself the Merciful talent of seeing the right way, a way which you cannot see for yourself, does it follow that we can force you to take the right path when you definitely decline to take it??
1753-54 And tell my servants that they should speak in a most kindly manner. Verily, Satan is always ready to stir up discord between men; for verily; Satan is mans foe .... Hence, We have not sent you with power to determine their Faith.
21107-109 (O Prophet?) 'We have not sent you except to be a mercy to all mankind" Declare, "Verily, what is revealed to me is this, your God is the only One God, so is it not up to you to bow down to Him?' But if they turn away then say, "I have delivered the Truth in a manner clear to one and all, and I know not whether the promised hour is near or far."
2267 To every people have We appointed ceremonial rites which they observe; therefore, let them not wrangle over this matter with you, but bid them to turn to your Lord. You indeed are rightly guided. But if they still dispute you in this matter, `God best knows what you do."
24.54. Say "Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger. but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance. The Messenger's duty is only to preach the clear (Message).
8821 22; And so, exhort them your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe.
4828 He it is Who has sent forth His Messenger with the Guidance and the Religion of Truth, to the end that tie make it prevail over every religion, and none can bear witness to the Truth as God does.3616 17 (Three Messengers to their people) Said, "Our Sustainer knows that we have indeed been sent unto you, but we are not bound to more than clearly deliver the Message entrusted to us.'
3941 Assuredly, We have sent down the Book to you in right form for the good of man. Whoso guided himself by it does so to his own advantage, and whoso turns away from it does so at his own loss. You certainly are not their keeper.
426 48 And whoso takes for patrons others besides God, over them does God keep a watch. Mark, you are not a keeper over them. But if they turn aside from you (do not get disheartened), for We have not sent you to be a keeper over them; your task is but to preach ....
6412 Obey God then and obey the Messenger, but if you turn away (no blame shall attach to our Messenger), for the duty of Our Messenger is just to deliver the message.
6725 26 And they ask, "When shall the promise be fulfilled if you speak the Truth?" Say, "The knowledge of it is verily with God alone, and verily I am but a plain warner."
109.1-6 Say O ye that reject Faith,! I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship, And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship, To you be your Way, and to me mine.
74.11-17 Leave Me with whom I created alone!, To whom I granted resources in abundance, And sons to be by his side, To whom I made (life) smooth and comfortable, Yet is he greedy-that I should add (yet more);- By no means! For to Our Signs he has been refractory!, Soon will I visit him with a mount of calamities!
These verses spell the job and duty of the messenger. As far as verse 9-4, lets look at it.
-
(But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term for Allah loveth the righteous.
-
But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
Here you seem to think that the condition is placed on establishing regular prayers and practice charity. Yet its not this that places the condition but verse 9-8.
-
If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.
-
How can there be a league, before Allah and His Messenger, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them for Allah doth love the righteous.
-
How (can there be such a league), seeing that if they get an advantage over you, they respect not in you the ties either of kinship or of covenant? With (fair words from) their mouths they entice you, but their hearts are averse from you; and most of them are rebellious and wicked.
-
In a Believer they respect not the ties either of kinship or of covenant! It is they who have transgressed all bounds.
The condition of peace is not when the establish regular prayers and charity, thats the condition of brotherhood. Its stated in verse
-
But (even so), if they repent, establish regular prayers, and practise regular charity,- they are your brethren in Faith (thus) do We explain the Signs in detail, for those who understand.
-
But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and taunt you for your Faith,- fight ye the chiefs of Unfaith for their oaths are nothing to them that thus they may be restrained.
-
Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is Allah Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe
What the koran is saying if the pagans seize on fighting you then you seize on doing so. This is because for the prophet to do his job he needs to either stay alive or have freedom to preach. This is why the pharoah chased Moses out of Egypt and the Jews and Romans crucified jesus. By killing or chasing the prophet out they think they can hamper his job and mission.
The Koran says that if they seize and leave you to be then so be it. However they are not your brethren in faith till they abandon paganism. You are mixing between peace and brotherhood.
-
-
If what you're saying is correct, then it is simply a very badly written passage.
If fact, I do agree with you, that is the most likely meaning when you study the text and interpret it properly. But Chapter 9 is still an awful passage, which when read by any ordinary person sounds like an instruction to religious violence. It still categories people into believers and pagans in a way which has not reflected the realities of the world for the past 13 hundred years+ since the Prophet's life.
With regards to your quotes as to the truth of the Quran, yes, they all clearly say the Prophet's recitation was true. They do not say that God will direct the people who recorded it and handed it down to us. This is a very important point to understand. This is where the early Christians went wrong, they thought God was looking after them so they could commit no sin. There is absolutely no logic in believing that God will prevent those in power from altering and perverting the scriptures, when you study how they were codified.