Abrogation was debunked already two threads ago. Scholars agree maybe on as few as one or two verses. Violent verses do NOT have priority. That's another myth I'm afraid you've been promoting.
Abrogation is mandated in the quran and hadith, and is official doctrine in Islamic jurisprudence.
Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?
-2:106
Abu al. 'Ala' b. al-Shikhkhir said: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) abrogated some of his commands by others, just as the Qur'an abrogates some part with the other.
-Sahih Muslim 3-675
Furthermore in direct relation to the verses in question Muslim scholars have said the violent verses abrogate the earlier ones
He told the Prophet: "Shall I force them to embrace Islam, they insist on Christianity", hence Allah revealed this verse. but this verse is abrogated by the verse of fighting
Therefore, all people of the world should be called to Islam. If anyone of them refuses to do so, or refuses to pay the Jizya they should be fought till they are killed.
-Tafsir Ibn Kathir.
This honorable Ayah was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, "It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term." Al-Awfi said that Ibn Abbas commented: "No idolater had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara’ah was revealed.
-Tafsir Ibn Kathir
The jihad is a duty. This precept is laid down in all the sources. It is true that there are to be found in the Kuran divergent, and even contradictory, texts. These are classified by the doctrine, apart from certain variations of detail, into four successive categories: those which enjoin pardon for offences and encourage the invitation to Islam by peaceful persuasion; those which enjoin fighting to ward off aggression; those which enjoin the initiative in attack, provided it is not within the four sacred months; and those which enjoin the initiative in attack absolutely, at all times and in all places. In sum, these differences correspond to the stages in the development of Muhammad 's thought and to the modifications of policy resulting from particular circumstances; the Meccan period during which Muhammad, in general, confines himself to moral and religious teaching, and the Medina period when, having become the leader of a politico-religious community, he is able to undertake, spontaneously, the struggle against those who do not wish to join this community or submit to his authority. The doctrine holds that the later texts abrogate the former contradictory texts (the theory of naskh [q.v.]), to such effect that only those of the last category remain indubitably valid; and, accordingly, the rule on the subject may be formulated in these absolute terms: "the fight (jihad) is obligatory even when they (the unbelievers) have not themselves started it".
---
A broad consensus among medieval exegetes and jurists exists on the issue of waging war. The simplest and earliest solution of the problem of contradictions in the Quran was to consider Q 9:5 and 9:29 as abrogating all the other statements. Scholars seem sometimes to have deliberately expanded the list of the abrogated verses, including in it material that is irrelevant to the issue of waging war (e.g. Q2:83, see Ibn al-Barzi, Nasikh, 23; Ibn al-Jawzi, Musaffa, 14; id., Nawasikh, 156-8; Baydawi, Anwar, i, 70; Tabari, Tafsir, i, 311; other examples: Q 3:111; 4:63; 16:126, 23:96; 25:63; 28:55; 38:88; 39:3). The number of verses abrogated by Q 9:5 and 9:29 is sometimes said to exceed 120 (Ibn al-Barzi, Nasikh, 22-3 and passim; also Powers, Exegetical genre, 138). Several verses are considered as both abrogating and abrogated, in turn, by others. The Muslim tradition, followed by modern scholars (SEE POST-ENLIGHTENMENT ACADEMIC STUDY OF THE QURAN),
-Encyclopedia of Islam
Abrogation was debunked already two threads ago. Scholars agree maybe on as few as one or two verses, from the entire Quran! Violent verses do NOT have priority. That's another myth I'm afraid you've been promoting.
Scholars again. Most of them can't agree how many verses are in the Quran.
It's not necessary to attend Princeton to read it. It's right there and there are specific instructions what NOT to do to Christians.
If that's the case then why are so many muslims ignoring it and it's not just ISIS, scores of churches were torched in Niger over the Hebdo cartoons, churches are being destroyed in Pakistan and Christians persecuted/murdered, the grand muff diver in Saudi wants all churches destroyed across the M.E - that's just a few examples from a quick google
If that's the case then why are so many muslims ignoring it and it's not just ISIS, scores of churches were torched in Niger over the Hebdo cartoons, churches are being destroyed in Pakistan and Christians persecuted/murdered, the grand muff diver in Saudi wants all churches destroyed across the M.E - that's just a few examples from a quick google
That's not a reasonable question. People from various religions ignore the tenets of their religion, sin, commit crimes. You are just dredging up junk from Google. For every behavior you post, there are good behaviors of millions of peaceable Muslims. For every Christian in jail for robbery, there are thousands of law abiding ones.
That's not a reasonable question. People from various religions ignore the tenets of their religion, sin, commit crimes. You are just dredging up junk from Google. For every behavior you post, there are good behaviors of millions of peaceable Muslims. For every Christian in jail for robbery, there are thousands of law abiding ones.
It's a reasonable question to ask what motivates muslim extremists to commit terrible deeds, of which many they cite inspiration from their religion.
It's a reasonable question to ask what motivates muslim extremists to commit terrible deeds, of which many they cite inspiration from their religion.
Politics, greed, quest for power, land, money. The same as motivates criminals and psychopaths anywhere. The terrorists like material things, some of the same things they claim to hate the west over. Were they ever to build a workable state, they would be wearing Italian shoes and smart watches, along with their high tech ID cards.
Many of the men are unemployed and didn't have wives because they couldn't support them. ISIS offers wives, housing, free food.
Politics, greed, quest for power, land, money. The same as motivates criminals and psychopaths anywhere. The terrorists like material things, some of the same things they claim to hate the west over. Were they ever to build a workable state, they would be wearing Italian shoes and smart watches, along with their high tech ID cards.
Many of the men are unemployed and didn't have wives because they couldn't support them. ISIS offers wives, housing, free food.
Apart Sharia Law is meant to remove greed, power, land and money.
It has nothing to do with nutella pancakes, smart watches and Italian shows. It is everything to with enforcing Islam and it's legal system on a population.
Scholars again. Most of them can't agree how many verses are in the Quran.
Not so dissimilar then to agreement about what books are in the Bible, the Apocrypha, authenticity of various sources, and what was to be included or not included. Most interpretation of text trickles down from theologians to pastors to congregations, so scholars are involved.
Apart Sharia Law is meant to remove greed, power, land and money.
It has nothing to do with nutella pancakes, smart watches and Italian shows. It is everything to with enforcing Islam and it's legal system on a population.
Stop apologizing for extremists,
Stop baiting jediknight. No one here supports sharia and you know that.
Why do many believe that "your task is only to exhort, you cannot compel them to believe."
Maybe millions believe this? Why do they?
Can we ignore that many believe this?
well that's very nice , but that doesn't explain why people are joining IS , or why so many muslims are fundamentalists , extremists , why so many islamic countries and regimes are essentially extremist already .
the Christian population in many islamic countries has shrunk massively over the last 20 years , Muslims are shoving them out in many places , there's definitely a Muslim agenda there .
well that's very nice , but that doesn't explain why people are joining IS , or why so many muslims are fundamentalists , extremists , why so many islamic countries and regimes are essentially extremist already .
the Christian population in many islamic countries has shrunk massively over the last 20 years , Muslims are shoving them out in many places , there's definitely a Muslim agenda there .
.
.
.
Again you need a poll as to why they join. There are already opinions based on the psychology of it. Cults and bizarre ideological movements are hardly new.
If you keep conflating conservative Islam with ISIS, I don't think you grasp how far ISIS goes beyond that ideology. From the outside it might look all the same to you, but I'm convinced it's not. There's a simple test for that.
Do you seriously think that one group pushing another out, is typical only of Muslims or has it been occurring all throughout our history?
Let's look at Burma, or China/Japan hositilities, or Russia. That's not to say it should be excused but just that Muslims are not responsible for all the world's turmoil. They are just in the hot seat, at the moment. It is hard to remember that the vast majority of Muslims are not like that. Just as the vast majority of Buddhists don't commit genocide.
Again you need a poll as to why they join. There are already opinions based on the psychology of it. Cults and bizarre ideological movements are hardly new.
If you keep conflating conservative Islam with ISIS, I don't think you grasp how far ISIS goes beyond that ideology. From the outside it might look all the same to you, but I'm convinced it's not. There's a simple test for that.
Do you seriously think that one group pushing another out, is typical only of Muslims or has it been occurring all throughout our history?
I think it's naive, though, to ignore the parallels between conservative Islam and Islamic State. The difference is more one of action than one of belief. I would suggest that conservatve/devout muslims have more in common with Islamic State than they do their non-Islamic Western counterparts.
Many 'moderate' muslims don't believe in free speech, don't believe in criticism of Islam, don't believe in the rights of homosexuals or women, don't drink alcohol, don't engage with members of the opposite sex and have a profound suspicion/dislike of Western culture. The difference is that they're not actively violent, but the common ground is there between them and Islamic State when it comes to ideology. We know that significant number of British muslims dream of the UK becoming an Islamic state. So does IS.
I think it's naive, though, to ignore the parallels between conservative Islam and Islamic State. The difference is more one of action than one of belief. I would suggest that conservatve/devout muslims have more in common with Islamic State than they do their non-Islamic Western counterparts.
Many 'moderate' muslims don't believe in free speech, don't believe in criticism of Islam, don't believe in the rights of homosexuals or women, don't drink alcohol, don't engage with members of the opposite sex and have a profound suspicion/dislike of Western culture. The difference is that they're not actively violent, but the common ground is there between them and Islamic State when it comes to ideology. We know that significant number of British muslims dream of the UK becoming an Islamic state. So does IS.
Of course there are parallels because ISIS co-opted islam.
I don't see that you characterized moderate Muslims correctly. I know moderate Muslims and they aren't as you describe, at all.
People can privately believe what they want if they aren't interfering with others. I know Pentecostals, who think they shouldn't be gay, but don't object to others being gay, and are warm and friendly to gays they know.
There are Christians who dream of the U.S. being white and all Christian, as well.
It seems to me that you are throwing a lot of stuff about Muslims at the wall, to see what sticks.
Of course there are parallels because ISIS co-opted islam.
I don't see that you characterized moderate Muslims correctly. I know moderate Muslims and they aren't as you describe, at all.
People can believe what they want if they aren't interfering with others. I know Pentecostals, who think they shouldn't be gay, but don't object to others being gay, and are warm and friendly to gays they know.
There are Christians who dream of the U.S. being white and all Christian, as well.
ISIL are Islam, the violent and intolerant 7th centurty version of it.
The film attempts to explain several complex and interconnected narratives. One of the narratives is how past governments, including Russia and the West, with their continued, largely failing, interventions in Afghanistan, keep repeating such failures, without properly understanding the country's cultural background or its past political history and societal structure
It also outlines the US's alliance with Saudi Arabia, especially the former's agreement to buy Saudi oil, for control of a key energy supplier during the cold-war era, with Saudi Arabia gaining wealth and security in return, with agreement withstanding provided it was allowed to continue its violent and fundamentalist interpretation of Islam, Wahhabism, uninhibited from external influence.
This in turn has fed like a feedback loop back into the many troubles the world faces with regards to various pseudo-Jihadic forces spanning the 1970s to present day; be they the Mujahideen, Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and into IS.
Watch it and learn something.
By the way, I know dogs who like dogs, I know dogs who like people, I know dogs who like people but don't like other dogs and I know dogs who like other dogs but don't like other people.
Of course there are parallels because ISIS co-opted islam.
I don't see that you characterized moderate Muslims correctly. I know moderate Muslims and they aren't as you describe, at all.
People can privately believe what they want if they aren't interfering with others. I know Pentecostals, who think they shouldn't be gay, but don't object to others being gay, and are warm and friendly to gays they know.
There are Christians who dream of the U.S. being white and all Christian, as well.
That's not a reasonable question. People from various religions ignore the tenets of their religion, sin, commit crimes. You are just dredging up junk from Google. For every behavior you post, there are good behaviors of millions of peaceable Muslims. For every Christian in jail for robbery, there are thousands of law abiding ones.
Junk from google? so are you saying none of that happens and we're not talking about crimes in general so don't try to make light of it.
You said there are specific instructions what NOT to do to Christians so do they exclude burning churches and persecution? Those who are doing it got the idea from somewhere or someone and one I mentioned you completely ignored.
The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia is the most senior and most influential Wahhabi Muslim religious and legal authority in Saudi Arabia (google junk?)
He said the destruction of churches was absolutely necessary and is required by Islamic law and if he's saying that then so are others in high positions, the people then follow what their leaders say.
Your reply to John_Huxley on this (post 1134) was so typical of you, blame everything except islam.
Junk from google? so are you saying none of that happens and we're not talking about crimes in general so don't try to make light of it.
You said there are specific instructions what NOT to do to Christians so do they exclude burning churches and persecution? Those who are doing it got the idea from somewhere or someone and one I mentioned you completely ignored.
The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia is the most senior and most influential Wahhabi Muslim religious and legal authority in Saudi Arabia (google junk?)
He said the destruction of churches was absolutely necessary and is required by Islamic law and if he's saying that then so are others in high positions, the people then follow what their leaders say.
Your reply to John_Huxley on this was so typical of you, blame everything except islam.
And I find it typical that you blame religion for everything.
Yet you would probably object heartily to blaming atheists for atheist governments that abuse people. Where did Mao get his ideas? One could argue that atheists and atheist governments share common ground.
Yet you would probably be quick to distance yourself from such ideology.
Comments
Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?
-2:106
Abu al. 'Ala' b. al-Shikhkhir said: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) abrogated some of his commands by others, just as the Qur'an abrogates some part with the other.
-Sahih Muslim 3-675
Furthermore in direct relation to the verses in question Muslim scholars have said the violent verses abrogate the earlier ones
He told the Prophet: "Shall I force them to embrace Islam, they insist on Christianity", hence Allah revealed this verse. but this verse is abrogated by the verse of fighting
Therefore, all people of the world should be called to Islam. If anyone of them refuses to do so, or refuses to pay the Jizya they should be fought till they are killed.
-Tafsir Ibn Kathir.
This honorable Ayah was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, "It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term." Al-Awfi said that Ibn Abbas commented: "No idolater had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara’ah was revealed.
-Tafsir Ibn Kathir
The jihad is a duty. This precept is laid down in all the sources. It is true that there are to be found in the Kuran divergent, and even contradictory, texts. These are classified by the doctrine, apart from certain variations of detail, into four successive categories: those which enjoin pardon for offences and encourage the invitation to Islam by peaceful persuasion; those which enjoin fighting to ward off aggression; those which enjoin the initiative in attack, provided it is not within the four sacred months; and those which enjoin the initiative in attack absolutely, at all times and in all places. In sum, these differences correspond to the stages in the development of Muhammad 's thought and to the modifications of policy resulting from particular circumstances; the Meccan period during which Muhammad, in general, confines himself to moral and religious teaching, and the Medina period when, having become the leader of a politico-religious community, he is able to undertake, spontaneously, the struggle against those who do not wish to join this community or submit to his authority. The doctrine holds that the later texts abrogate the former contradictory texts (the theory of naskh [q.v.]), to such effect that only those of the last category remain indubitably valid; and, accordingly, the rule on the subject may be formulated in these absolute terms: "the fight (jihad) is obligatory even when they (the unbelievers) have not themselves started it".
---
A broad consensus among medieval exegetes and jurists exists on the issue of waging war. The simplest and earliest solution of the problem of contradictions in the Quran was to consider Q 9:5 and 9:29 as abrogating all the other statements. Scholars seem sometimes to have deliberately expanded the list of the abrogated verses, including in it material that is irrelevant to the issue of waging war (e.g. Q2:83, see Ibn al-Barzi, Nasikh, 23; Ibn al-Jawzi, Musaffa, 14; id., Nawasikh, 156-8; Baydawi, Anwar, i, 70; Tabari, Tafsir, i, 311; other examples: Q 3:111; 4:63; 16:126, 23:96; 25:63; 28:55; 38:88; 39:3). The number of verses abrogated by Q 9:5 and 9:29 is sometimes said to exceed 120 (Ibn al-Barzi, Nasikh, 22-3 and passim; also Powers, Exegetical genre, 138). Several verses are considered as both abrogating and abrogated, in turn, by others. The Muslim tradition, followed by modern scholars (SEE POST-ENLIGHTENMENT ACADEMIC STUDY OF THE QURAN),
-Encyclopedia of Islam
Obviously you don't know, Muhammad sent letters to various Kings, he invited the to 'embrace Islam'.
If they refused they were invaded, conquered and forcefully converted to Islam.
If there was no compulsion in religion he would not have invaded Mecca to begin with.
Scholars again. Most of them can't agree how many verses are in the Quran.
If that's the case then why are so many muslims ignoring it and it's not just ISIS, scores of churches were torched in Niger over the Hebdo cartoons, churches are being destroyed in Pakistan and Christians persecuted/murdered, the grand muff diver in Saudi wants all churches destroyed across the M.E - that's just a few examples from a quick google
Take a look at this list I found, it's huge!
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/ChristianAttacks.htm
That's not a reasonable question. People from various religions ignore the tenets of their religion, sin, commit crimes. You are just dredging up junk from Google. For every behavior you post, there are good behaviors of millions of peaceable Muslims. For every Christian in jail for robbery, there are thousands of law abiding ones.
They must surely be drawing inspiration from the Buddha, Krishna or Jesus.
Politics, greed, quest for power, land, money. The same as motivates criminals and psychopaths anywhere. The terrorists like material things, some of the same things they claim to hate the west over. Were they ever to build a workable state, they would be wearing Italian shoes and smart watches, along with their high tech ID cards.
Many of the men are unemployed and didn't have wives because they couldn't support them. ISIS offers wives, housing, free food.
Apart Sharia Law is meant to remove greed, power, land and money.
It has nothing to do with nutella pancakes, smart watches and Italian shows. It is everything to with enforcing Islam and it's legal system on a population.
Stop apologizing for extremists,
Not so dissimilar then to agreement about what books are in the Bible, the Apocrypha, authenticity of various sources, and what was to be included or not included. Most interpretation of text trickles down from theologians to pastors to congregations, so scholars are involved.
Stop baiting jediknight. No one here supports sharia and you know that.
well that's very nice , but that doesn't explain why people are joining IS , or why so many muslims are fundamentalists , extremists , why so many islamic countries and regimes are essentially extremist already .
the Christian population in many islamic countries has shrunk massively over the last 20 years , Muslims are shoving them out in many places , there's definitely a Muslim agenda there .
.
.
.
Interesting and a good example of how ISIS crave things from the same west they say they denounce. Oreos are epitome of American junk food, lol.
Maybe they wish to hold an Oreo burning.
Again you need a poll as to why they join. There are already opinions based on the psychology of it. Cults and bizarre ideological movements are hardly new.
If you keep conflating conservative Islam with ISIS, I don't think you grasp how far ISIS goes beyond that ideology. From the outside it might look all the same to you, but I'm convinced it's not. There's a simple test for that.
Do you seriously think that one group pushing another out, is typical only of Muslims or has it been occurring all throughout our history?
Let's look at Burma, or China/Japan hositilities, or Russia. That's not to say it should be excused but just that Muslims are not responsible for all the world's turmoil. They are just in the hot seat, at the moment. It is hard to remember that the vast majority of Muslims are not like that. Just as the vast majority of Buddhists don't commit genocide.
It's a few ISIL members going over the border and smuggling junk food into Syria.
Given the fact they have burned library books then I doubt the Wahhbis would approve.
I think it's naive, though, to ignore the parallels between conservative Islam and Islamic State. The difference is more one of action than one of belief. I would suggest that conservatve/devout muslims have more in common with Islamic State than they do their non-Islamic Western counterparts.
Many 'moderate' muslims don't believe in free speech, don't believe in criticism of Islam, don't believe in the rights of homosexuals or women, don't drink alcohol, don't engage with members of the opposite sex and have a profound suspicion/dislike of Western culture. The difference is that they're not actively violent, but the common ground is there between them and Islamic State when it comes to ideology. We know that significant number of British muslims dream of the UK becoming an Islamic state. So does IS.
Of course there are parallels because ISIS co-opted islam.
I don't see that you characterized moderate Muslims correctly. I know moderate Muslims and they aren't as you describe, at all.
People can privately believe what they want if they aren't interfering with others. I know Pentecostals, who think they shouldn't be gay, but don't object to others being gay, and are warm and friendly to gays they know.
There are Christians who dream of the U.S. being white and all Christian, as well.
It seems to me that you are throwing a lot of stuff about Muslims at the wall, to see what sticks.
ISIL are Islam, the violent and intolerant 7th centurty version of it.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2hdcji
Watch it and learn something.
By the way, I know dogs who like dogs, I know dogs who like people, I know dogs who like people but don't like other dogs and I know dogs who like other dogs but don't like other people.
Just wanted add my own pointless comparison.
i.e. used Islam as its inspiration.
Inspiration is not a word I would use for criminals and psychopaths.
they won't all agree anyway , they can't even agree on abolishing apostasy .
.
Junk from google? so are you saying none of that happens and we're not talking about crimes in general so don't try to make light of it.
You said there are specific instructions what NOT to do to Christians so do they exclude burning churches and persecution? Those who are doing it got the idea from somewhere or someone and one I mentioned you completely ignored.
The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia is the most senior and most influential Wahhabi Muslim religious and legal authority in Saudi Arabia (google junk?)
He said the destruction of churches was absolutely necessary and is required by Islamic law and if he's saying that then so are others in high positions, the people then follow what their leaders say.
Your reply to John_Huxley on this (post 1134) was so typical of you, blame everything except islam.
I am disappointed they did not opt for bacon flavour Pringles.
And I find it typical that you blame religion for everything.
Yet you would probably object heartily to blaming atheists for atheist governments that abuse people. Where did Mao get his ideas? One could argue that atheists and atheist governments share common ground.
Yet you would probably be quick to distance yourself from such ideology.
The scholars have reconciled already that ISIS isn't Islamic.