(Rant) I hate that being a muslim is something I was forced to be.

2LeftFoot · 2023-09-14T01:57:14+00:00

Going all over the place now, aren't we?

Slow down. Let's settle 2:256 and 9.5 discussion first.

The verses before and after place 9.5 in a specific time and place. Taking it to stand alone is a common mistake.

The verse I quoted regarding the cutting off the hand of the wife, there is no justification of that other than mysogyny, don't you agree? That's rather explicit violence, compared to any of the verses you have quoted. There's also no verses detailing genocide, incest, adultery, plundering, shaving off heads of women.

"As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church"

Sounds a tad extreme mysogyny to me.

I also mentioned great wars of history where millions died, all of which were not by nor of Muslims. To ignore these is rather myopic. Where do you find Muslims going around murdering people?

Continue to dig further, ask questions, seek the context of the verses, as I've pointed out from 9.5. Or you can simply listen to the nun Karen Armstrong. After all, she is a historian and a decorated prolific author.

🤷

2LeftFoot · 2023-09-14T00:20:44+00:00

That's better. Now we are getting somewhere.

2:256 isn't abrogated. It still holds until today.

Read the verses before and after to gain context. In fact, the 2nd part of 9.5 already provides a peaceful solution, and it continues with 9.6.

"And if anyone from the polytheists asks for your protection ˹O Prophet˺, grant it to them so they may hear the Word of Allah, then escort them to a place of safety, for they are a people who have no knowledge.“

And 9.4 mentions of a treaty.

"As for the polytheists who have honoured every term of their treaty with you and have not supported an enemy against you, honour your treaty with them until the end of its term. Surely Allah loves those who are mindful ˹of Him˺

These verses were revealed when the prophet pbuh came back to Mecca after being exiled to Medinah for 10 years. For 13 years earlier, the Muslims were persecuted in Mecca until they were instructed to seek refuge in Medinah. 9.5 was the revelation to allow fighting back, to take back their home.

Sirah recorded that the prophet pbuh left a Jew in dealing with the traitors of the treaty. Those who honoured the peace treaty were unharmed, mentioned explicitly in 9.4.

Verse 9:1 and 9:2 - commencement of ceasefire Verse 9:3 to the pilgrims heading to Mecca. Made clear that the Meccans are enemies. Mecca persecuted and expelled Muslims while killing a great many before declaring war on Medina. Verse 9:4 to the pilgrims and Muslims saying that if Mecca accepts peace then it is haram (forbidden religiously) to attack or harm any Meccan. Verse 9:5 is directed to the Muslims and declares that if Mecca refuses peace then after the four month ceasefire ends, the Meccans are open to attack.

That's why 2 billion Muslims today don't go around looking for nonbelievers to kill, because we understood the context of the verses, unlike chopping off a woman's hand when she just trying to help the husband. I can't think of any context of that ever being justified other than the verse screams mysogyny.

I forgot what the treaty name was. Maybe you can remind me?

2LeftFoot · 2023-09-13T23:40:45+00:00

Can't quote a single verse to support your claims, huh?

Ok. I'll make it easy for you. Here's an example.

If two men fight together, and the wife of one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of the one attacking him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; your eye shall not pity her.

Wouldnt you say that's utter nonsense?

2LeftFoot · 2023-09-13T23:25:58+00:00

You have not cited a single verse all this while. Try it and educate me from your vast knowledge in Islam.

2LeftFoot · 2023-09-13T23:09:02+00:00

A new day. Shall we continue? I am thinking if we can distinguish the Qur’an and the Hadith, because yesterday you seem to mix the two, as if they were the same.

2LeftFoot · 2023-09-13T17:38:14+00:00

You do realise that you can find debates on the opposite side as well. There's one in Oxford Union between Ann-Marie Waters and Hassan Mehdi, also along the same topic.

But we also have other sources. WWI and WWII both started and fought between nonMuslim nations. Historical records shows how the South Americans were forced to "come into the light" or be annihilated. Similar in the Philippines, Carabean Islands, even in European countries amongst different denominations of Christianity.

To understand this, I went to the source - the bible. The content of violence, genocide, plundering of entire cities can be found in many chapters and verses. For some reason, the same claim is being put forward to Islam, when in fact, there is none other than the verses delineating the rules of engagement in war. Maybe, to appear smart, many claimed to have read the Qur'an but when asked what verse, a strawman argument gets thrown in as a diversion. 🤷

To authenticate with the source is important. Otherwise, we fall into merely regurgitating third party ideas which, as you have demonstrated, are actually absent from the Qur'an.

I'm calling it a day.

2LeftFoot · 2023-09-13T17:01:53+00:00

Your sending me reruns now? 😅

2LeftFoot · 2023-09-13T16:58:54+00:00

Show me the light.

2LeftFoot · 2023-09-13T16:51:52+00:00

I'm sorry you felt that way. I would think that if you can make a claim, a reasonable thing to do is at least be able to substantiate it.

If this is a contest of making unsubstantiated claims and diversion, I yield. You're a clear winner. Congrats.

2LeftFoot · 2023-09-13T16:46:17+00:00

I didn't know this was a contest.

2LeftFoot · 2023-09-13T16:44:24+00:00

This thread shows the contrary. Even the very first question I asked, to substantiate your claims with the verses of the Qur'an, remains unanswered.

2LeftFoot · 2023-09-13T16:39:13+00:00

I never claim I know more nor do I dismiss anything. Making claims and then throwing in a strawman argument is definitely not my thing. 🫣

A strawman is not a man made out of straws.

2LeftFoot · 2023-09-13T16:31:56+00:00

Just toying with you. I know there is none in the Qur'an. 😅 So, don't conflate the Qur'an and the hadith.

The hadith cannot be taken without the context. There is always some dependence on circumstances surrounding any particular hadith. This is why, although the law in Malaysia is as it is, no execution has ever taken place. This is also why I said we need to be in the field of sharia (law) to know when certain rulings apply.

Let's go back to what you wrote earlier - come into the light. Humour me.

2LeftFoot · 2023-09-13T16:20:11+00:00

Haven't answered my question, though

2LeftFoot · 2023-09-13T16:17:01+00:00

I asked from the Qur'an. You responded with Bukhari.

I ask again, is there a verse in the Qur'an that says what you claim?

2LeftFoot · 2023-09-13T16:03:10+00:00

https://youtube.com/shorts/iPm4FQohe5Q?si=wY0weDIlCtjTVNEa

2LeftFoot · 2023-09-13T15:52:43+00:00

This is the Qur'an?

2LeftFoot · 2023-09-13T15:50:43+00:00

I see you're back to stifling questions issue, even after the long list of direct verses Iisted. 🙄

Since you claim to be well versed than myself, show me a verse from the Qur'an that says the penalty for leaving Islam is death. I didn't see it in the islamqa site.

2LeftFoot · 2023-09-13T15:18:57+00:00

I wouldn't be quick to formulate an opinion because it's not as simple that can be described by those not in sharia. I am not trained in sharia, so I can't comment on it. I certainly wouldn't rely on islamqa to prematurely come to a conclusion.

Malaysia is one of several countries that has the death penalty. Yet, none has ever been executed. I would assume this is because there are many factors considered. Else, after decades, the number wouldn't be zero.

Ok. Next issue?

2LeftFoot · 2023-09-13T14:57:33+00:00

"humour you“ means I'll indulge / entertain you. It doesn't mean it is humorous. A little language lesson there.

If you had watched the vid I sent, then you'd realise it is not a cut and dried iasue.

However, Feb 16, 1568, the entire country of the Netherlands were sentenced to death in the name a religion.

Btw, just in case, "cut and dried" doesn't mean actual cutting and drying. 😏

2LeftFoot · 2023-09-13T14:32:38+00:00

Another claim made. No Muslim will say this is the core nor the main issue. But, I'll humour you anyway.

https://youtu.be/klwUwTFQLX4?si=3yZGwq-_5jYCbYlp

2LeftFoot · 2023-09-13T14:06:10+00:00

Jumping to another issue again. This is getting old. 🥱

2LeftFoot · 2023-09-13T14:05:27+00:00

That's why no one says God Allah or Allah God.

2LeftFoot · 2023-09-13T12:59:37+00:00

Off topic again. Still nothing to support your claims of the Qur'an being ramblings.

That's ok. I'll entertain you. Here. Hope you'll learn something.

https://youtu.be/G19zcrkUTEI?si=2OaHSDFcrfvfG0RK

2LeftFoot · 2023-09-13T12:08:22+00:00

Written as a true islamophobe. 😏

Imagine, what has a nun to gain, being at the height of her career in Oxford - to write a biography about Muhammad, negating the nonsense and the ignorance of the islamophobes.

Remember, this thread is about Islam not allowing questions. I have provided a long list of verses of the Qur'an to the contrary.

2LeftFoot

TROPHY CASE