Christchurch Shootings

SEXY MAMA wrote:In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful

The verse 9:29 is a command to fight the Byzantine Romans and other hostile powers who were planning an invasion against the Muslims in Arabia. In context, it is a distinct response to aggression, in particular the assassination of one of the Prophet’s ambassadors.

Allah said:

قَاتِلُوا الَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَلَا بِالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ وَلَا يُحَرِّمُونَ مَا حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَلَا يَدِينُونَ دِينَ الْحَقِّ مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ حَتَّىٰ يُعْطُوا الْجِزْيَةَ عَن يَدٍ وَهُمْ صَاغِرُونَ

Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not acknowledge the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture, until they give the tribute willingly while they are humbled.

Surah At-Tawba 9:29

On the surface, this appears to be an open-ended command to fight non-Muslims until they are conquered. However, a fundamental principle of Quranic exegesis (tafseer) is that the verses must be understood in the context in which they were revealed (asbab an-nuzul) and in conjunction with other verses delineating the rules of warfare.

At-Tabari and other commentators record that this verse was revealed concerning the expedition of Tabuk.

At-Tabari records:

عَنْ مُجَاهِدٍ قَاتِلُوا الَّذِينَ لا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَلا بِالْيَوْمِ الآخِرِ… حِينَ أُمِرَ مُحَمَّدٌ وَأَصْحَابُهُ بِغَزْوَةِ تَبُوكَ

Mujahid reported concerning the verse, “Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day…” that it was revealed when Muhammad and his companions were commanded with the expedition of Tabuk.

Source: Tafseer At-Tabari 9:29

The expedition of Tabuk was preceded by the battle of Mu’tah which began when the emissary of the Prophet was assassinated while delivering a letter to a Roman ally.

Ibn Al-Qayyim writes:

وَكَانَ سَبَبُهَا أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ بَعَثَ الحارث بن عمير الأزدي أَحَدَ بَنِي لِهْبٍ بِكِتَابِهِ إِلَى الشَّامِ إِلَى مَلِكِ الرُّومِ أَوْ بُصْرَى فَعَرَضَ لَهُ شرحبيل بن عمرو الغساني فَأَوْثَقَهُ رِبَاطًا ثُمَّ قَدَّمَهُ فَضَرَبَ عُنُقَهُ وَلَمْ يُقْتَلْ لِرَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ رَسُولٌ غَيْرُهُ فَاشْتَدَّ ذَلِكَ عَلَيْهِ حِينَ بَلَغَهُ الْخَبَرُ فَبَعَثَ الْبُعُوثَ

The cause of the battle was that the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, sent Harith ibn Umair Al-Azdi of the tribe of Lihb with his letter to Syria for the Roman king or Busra. He presented it to Sharhabeel ibn Amr Al-Ghassani and he bound him and struck his neck. Never had an ambassador of the Messenger of Allah been killed besides him. The Prophet was upset by that when news reached him and he dispatched an expedition.

Source: Zaad Al-Ma’ad 336

Safiur Rahman writes:

The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, had sent Al-Harith ibn Umair Al-Azdi on an errand to carry a letter to the ruler of Busra. On his way, he was intercepted by Sharhabeel ibn Amr Al-Ghassani, the governor of Al-Balqa and a close ally to Caesar, the Byzantine Emperor. Al-Harith was tied and beheaded by Al-Ghassani.

Source: The Sealed Nectar p. 245

This was the first act of Roman aggression that further led to the expedition of Tabuk concerning which the verse 9:29 was revealed. The verse describes the aggressors as those “who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day,” because they committed this act of treachery. Executing emissaries from other countries is a war crime that could never be committed by those who sincerely believe in God.

Anas ibn Malik reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said:

لَا إِيمَانَ لِمَنْ لَا أَمَانَةَ لَهُ وَلَا دِينَ لِمَنْ لَا عَهْدَ لَهُ

There is no faith for one who cannot be trusted. There is no religion for one who cannot uphold a covenant.

Source: Musnad Ahmad 11975, Grade: Hasan

Safiur Rahman further describes the reason the conflict took place:

The Byzantine power, which was considered the greatest military force on earth at that time, showed an unjustifiable opposition towards Muslims. As we have already mentioned, their opposition started at killing the ambassador of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, Al-Harith ibn Umair Al-Azdi, by Sharhabeel ibn Amr Al-Ghassani. The ambassador was then carrying a message from the Prophet to the ruler of Busra. We have also stated that the Prophet consequently dispatched a brigade under the command of Zaid bin Haritha, who had a fierce fight against the Byzantines at Mu’tah. Although Muslim forces could not have revenge on those haughty overproud tyrants, the confrontation itself had a great impression on the Arabs all over Arabia.

Caesar, who could neither ignore the great benefit that the battle of Mu’tah had brought to Muslims, nor could he disregard the Arab tribes’ expectations of independence and their hopes of getting free from his influence and reign, nor he could ignore their alliance to the Muslims. Realizing all that, Caesar was aware of the progressive danger threatening his borders, especially the fronts of Syria which were neighboring Arab lands. So he concluded that demolition of the Muslims’ power had grown an urgent necessity. This decision of his should, in his opinion, be achieved before the Muslims become too powerful to conquer and raise troubles and unrest in the adjacent Arab territories.

To meet these exigencies, Caesar mustered a huge army of the Byzantines and pro-Roman Ghassanite tribes to launch a decisive bloody battle against the Muslims.

Source: The Sealed Nectar p. 272

Therefore, this context must be understood when reading verse 9:29 so that we clearly know who should be fought, specifically the aggressors among the Jews and Christians and not all of them. Rather, many other verses of the Quran make clear that it is unlawful to initiate hostilities against other nations.

Allah said:

وَقَاتِلُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ الَّذِينَ يُقَاتِلُونَكُمْ وَلَا تَعْتَدُوا إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ الْمُعْتَدِينَ

Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Verily, Allah does not love transgressors.


READ THIS SMELLY

IVE been over this time and time again

CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING

Victorismyhero wrote:That just cracked me up smelly...  Stop it or I will begin to think you also have a sense of humor

gelico wrote:

phildidge wrote:

But that is a view point held by people and you find the same crap in the Bible, that has been used to justify violence, rape, slavery etc.

Have you not read any history Gelico?

In fact in the Old Testament is something called Herem, which is genocide, but hey, this is how you want to view things

you've answered your own question there didge

the old testament is indeed full of violence but is no one person in charge making all the rules.  there is not a religion called genesism, or exodusism, or anything else whereby only one person is allowed to make the rules

it is exactly what you said it is,,,,,history.  a series of book documenting the history of that time.

Lurker wrote:The root of all evil is religion.

Lurker wrote:The root of all evil is religion.

Maddog wrote:

Lurker wrote:The root of all evil is religion.

You sound like Mao, who managed to get tens of millions of Chinese killed.  

Lurker wrote:

phildidge wrote:Why would lurker be happy about Muslims being murdered in a religious house of worship?

What has athiesm got to do with the ideology to why this attack was carried out?

In other words White supremacy?

Most athiest are secularists. Hence it would be idiotic to suggest that Lurker would be happy about this

Talk about usiong the victims to score a pathetic and childish point

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:Why would lurker be happy about Muslims being murdered in a religious house of worship?

What has athiesm got to do with the ideology to why this attack was carried out?

In other words White supremacy?

Most athiest are secularists. Hence it would be idiotic to suggest that Lurker would be happy about this

Talk about usiong the victims to score a pathetic and childish point

Will the priest miss his entrails?

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Will the priest miss his entrails?

Well you would need to ask Denis Diderot, who's quote this is

That French Philosopher is now dead

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:


Well you would need to ask Denis Diderot, who's quote this is

That French Philosopher is now dead

Or I can ask the guy on here that embraces that disdain for religion.

The same guy that said religion is the root of all evil, just yesterday.  

This meme he posted is a bit rich considering how much religion seems to bother him.  

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:


Well you would need to ask Denis Diderot, who's quote this is

That French Philosopher is now dead

Or I can ask the guy on here that embraces that disdain for religion.

The same guy that said religion is the root of all evil, just yesterday.  

This meme he posted is a bit rich considering how much religion seems to bother him.  

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Or I can ask the guy on here that embraces that disdain for religion.

The same guy that said religion is the root of all evil, just yesterday.  

This meme he posted is a bit rich considering how much religion seems to bother him.  

I have a disdain for many religious belief systems, but not religious people per say

Religion is certainly one root of evil and history clearly shows this to be the case

Slavery, rape, genocide etc have all been endorsed by religious affilliations and in the name of religion

Even the Catholic Church was complicit in the Holocaust

That does not mean I would wish or would be happy that some innocent religious people were  murdered

There is a problem with beliefs around a deity that the religious works, use fear in order for people to believe.

When you have commands, that detrimental to the well being of people. Then that is a problem and has been a problem for thousands of years

Of course not all religions are this way, like Jainism for example and I doubt there is any Janist extremists

The problem with dogmatic faith, is it does not  allow for people to reason and they hold their beliefs over that of the well being of people

Just as extremist political beliefs do.

It makes both camps led by emotions and not reason.

I mean dont you also hold distain for Nazisma and Communism, like I do?

Surely you should hold distain for the Abrahamic beliefs, that certainly teach to persecute and discriminate against groups of people.

Maybe you could explain why anyone would not hold such beliefs with disdain?

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:


I have a disdain for many religious belief systems, but not religious people per say

Religion is certainly one root of evil and history clearly shows this to be the case

Slavery, rape, genocide etc have all been endorsed by religious affilliations and in the name of religion

Even the Catholic Church was complicit in the Holocaust

That does not mean I would wish or would be happy that some innocent religious people were  murdered

There is a problem with beliefs around a deity that the religious works, use fear in order for people to believe.

When you have commands, that detrimental to the well being of people. Then that is a problem and has been a problem for thousands of years

Of course not all religions are this way, like Jainism for example and I doubt there is any Janist extremists

The problem with dogmatic faith, is it does not  allow for people to reason and they hold their beliefs over that of the well being of people

Just as extremist political beliefs do.

It makes both camps led by emotions and not reason.

I mean dont you also hold distain for Nazisma and Communism, like I do?

Surely you should hold distain for the Abrahamic beliefs, that certainly teach to persecute and discriminate against groups of people.

Maybe you could explain why anyone would not hold such beliefs with disdain?

Yes, I reminded Lurker about how many people dies under Mao.

I have disdain for intolerance and it takes place in many organizations, including, but not limited to religion.

I don't mock religion, nor do I have any problems with those involved in it, as long as they are tolerant.

Lurker doesn't see religion like I do.

 

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Yes, I reminded Lurker about how many people dies under Mao.

I have disdain for intolerance and it takes place in many organizations, including, but not limited to religion.

I don't mock religion, nor do I have any problems with those involved in it, as long as they are tolerant.

Lurker doesn't see religion like I do.

 

But the  the reality is religion is never rarely to itself and forced onto others. Where again the Abrahamic faiths are intolerant to many groups of people

I see religion like any other belief. Open to criticism and ridicule

So again my problems is not per say with religious people

Its when some of them effect the well being of others, based on their intolerant religious beliefs. As many religions teach intolerance

So if you have a disdain for intolerant beliefs. That would have to include the Abramaic religions

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

But the  the reality is religion is never rarely to itself and forced onto others. Where again the Abrahamic faiths are intolerant to many groups of people

I see religion like any other belief. Open to criticism and ridicule

So again my problems is not per say with religious people

Its when some of them effect the well being of others, based on their intolerant religious beliefs. As many religions teach intolerance

So if you have a disdain for intolerant beliefs. That would have to include the Abramaic religions

I have no disdain for Abrahamic religions, and I'm tolerant.

Sorry you can't figure out how I do that.

Maybe you don't know what tolerance means?

It does not mean to accept or condone, but simply to tolerate.  

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I have no disdain for Abrahamic religions, and I'm tolerant.

Sorry you can't figure out how I do that.

Maybe you don't know what tolerance means?

It does not mean to accept or condone, but simply to tolerate.  

But you said you are against intolerance and they teach intolerance

They teach a religious form of racism, that does not accept people who do not believe and in fact these people are condemned

So are you tolerant of the religious beliefs that teach to perscute and criminalise homosexuality then?

Are you tolerant of that religious Abrahamic belief?

I certainly understand what tolerance is, but you seem to be confusing yourself

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

But you said you are against intolerance and they teach intolerance

They teach a religious form of racism, that does not accept people who do not believe and in fact these people are condemned

So are you tolerant of the religious beliefs that teach to perscute and criminalise homosexuality then?

Are you tolerant of that religious Abrahamic belief?

I certainly understand what tolerance is, but you seem to be confusing yourself

Some people believe that, others don't. So you can't say "they" do anything.

I'm tolerating you, which takes more work than tolerating most people of faith.