Society/Culture At Least 42 Dead And Hundreds Injured In Church And Hotel Bombings (Now 258 Dead)

(Log in to remove this ad.)

FalcoX

All Australian
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Posts
813
Likes
626
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Oh, btw, Surah 65:4 implies that marriages for those who have not reached puberty are still ok(A). And, of course,(B) Surah 9:29 would be used by people like the Sri Lankan suicide bombers to justify killing hundreds of people in the name of Allah. Hadith or not, the result is the same.
A) I respectfully disagree. Look up and familiarize yourself with the medical condition “Amenorrhea” where despite the age, females are physically unable to menstruate. To state that passage condones child marriage is not supported by the Quran. What does the scripture actually say about marriageable age?

004:006
Test (trial) the orphans (Arabic: wa-ibtalu l-yatama) until they reach the age of marriage (Arabic: balaghu l-nikaha); if you then find sound judgment in them, release their property to them; but consume it not wastefully, nor in haste against their growing up. If the guardian is well-off, let him claim no remuneration, but if he is poor, let him have for himself what is just and reasonable. When you release their property to them, take witnesses in their presence (Arabic: Fa-ashiddu alayhim) : But all-sufficient is God in taking account.”

So, marriageable age is reached when their wealth and property can be entrusted to them and they are of sound judgment and maturity, which clearly cannot be a six-year old or a pre-pubescent child.

Further to the above, it is stated not to go near an orphan’s wealth until they are “ashudd” which indicates full strength and maturity:

006:152

"And do not go near to the wealth / property of the orphans except with that which is best until he reaches his maturity / his full strength (Arabic: Ashuddahu)..."

Definition of ‘ashudd” :

"Full physical and mental capacity. The notion of maturity ( ashudd, rushd)has reference to a person who has attained complete natural development, who is fully grown and capable of assuming the responsible management of his or her own affairs."

https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-the-quran/maturity-EQCOM_00115


Also:

004:021

“And how could ye take it when you have gone in to each other, and they have taken from you a solemn covenant (Arabic: Meethaqan Galezaan)?"

Marriage is described as a solemn covenant. Let’s see where else Quran uses this term:

THE SOLEMN COVENANT GOD TOOK WITH ALL HIS PROPHETS


033:007
“And remember We took from the prophets their covenant: As (We did) from thee: from Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus the son of Mary: We took from them a solemn covenant (Arabic: Meethaqan Galezaan)”

THE SOLEMN COVENANT GOD TOOK WITH THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL WITH REGARDS THE SABBATH


004:154
“And for their covenant we raised over them the mount; and (on another occasion) we said: "Enter the gate with humility"; and (once again) we commanded them: "Transgress not in the matter of the Sabbath." And we took from them a solemn covenant (Arabic: Meethaqan Galezaan)”

It seems absurd to suggest that a child could enter such an arrangement. The notion that the Quran supports child marriages is totally unsupported by the text itself and hadith which claim Mohammad did such a thing can be safely discarded as having no factual basis.

B)
“And, of course, Surah 9:29 would be used by people like the Sri Lankan suicide bombers to justify killing hundreds of people in the name of Allah. “


There is nothing in the Quran which justified mass indiscriminate killings such as those. The verse you quote refers to those who broke peace treaties at a time when followers of Islam were under mortal danger and had to flee their homes under threat of harm and violence.

Directives regarding warfare in the Quran:


“Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely God is well able to assist them; Those who have been expelled from their homes without a just cause except that they say: Our Lord is God. And had there not been God's repelling some people by others, certainly there would have been pulled down cloisters and Churches and Synagogues and Mosques in which God's name is much remembered; and surely God will help him who helps His cause; most surely God is Strong, Mighty”

060:008
God 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 God loves the doers of justice”

008:061

"And if they incline to peace, then you also incline to it and trust in God; surely He is the Hearing, the Knowing"

Quran 2:190-194
"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors" 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. But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. 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.
 

FalcoX

All Australian
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Posts
813
Likes
626
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
You are arguing for a very, very small minority position within Islam. Sunni and Shia both use hadith, and see Quranists as a heretical sect because certain passages of the Quran need the hadith in order to make sense.
The notion that hadith are needed to explain Quran is not supported by the Quran itself.

006:114

"Say: "Shall I seek for judge other than God? - when He is the One who has sent to you the Book, explained in detail (Arabic: Mufassalan)." They know full well, to whom We have given the Book, that it has been sent down from your Lord in truth. Never be then of those who doubt"

012:111

"In their histories there is certainly a lesson for men of understanding. It is not a narrative which could be forged, but a verification of what is before it and a detailed explanation (Arabic: watafsila) and a guide and a mercy to a people who believe"

007.052

"For We had certainly sent to them a Book based on knowledge, which We explained in detail (Arabic: fasalnahu), a guide and a mercy to all who believe"

What the Quran says about using other sources:

007:185

"Do they see nothing in the government of the heavens and the earth and all that God has created? (Do they not see) that it may well be that their terms are drawing to an end? In what HADITH after this will they then believe?"

014:027

"God will establish in strength those who believe, with the word that stands firm (Arabic: bil-qawlithabiti), in this world and in the Hereafter; but God will leave, to stray, those who do wrong: God does what He wills"

016:104-5

"Indeed, (As for) those who do not believe in God's verses (Arabic: biayati), surely God will not guide them, and they shall have a painful punishment. Only they invent falsehood who do not believe in the verses of God (Arabic: biayatAllahi), and these are the liars"

031:006-7

"But there are, among men, those who purchase frivolous HADITH (Arabic: Hadithi), without knowledge (or meaning), to mislead from the Path of God and throw ridicule (on the Path): for such there will be a Humiliating Penalty. When Our verses (Arabic: Ayatuna) are recited to such a one, he turns away in arrogance, as if he heard them not, as if there were deafness in both his ears: announce to him a grievous Penalty"

039:023

"God has revealed the best HADITH (Arabic: Hadithi) in the form of a Book, consistent with itself, (yet) repeating (its teaching in various aspects): the skins of those who fear their Lord tremble at it; then their skins and their hearts do soften to the celebration of God's praises. Such is the guidance of God: He guides with it whom He pleases, but such as God leaves to stray, can have none to guide"

045:006

"These are verses of God (Arabic: ayat-ullah) that We recite to you with truth. Then, in what HADITH (Arabic word: Hadithin) after God and His verses (Arabic: Ayati) do they believe?"

068:036-38

"What is wrong with you, how do you judge? Or do you have another book which you study? In it, you can find what you wish?"

068:044

"Then leave Me alone with such as reject this Hadith (The Quran) (Arabic Word: Hadithi): by degrees shall We punish them from directions they perceive not"

077:050

"Then In what Hadith (Arabic Word: Hadithin), after this will they believe?"

The Quran categorically denies the need for a source other than Quran for mankind’s guidance.

Surah 4:65 says that Muslims should submit to Muhammad's decisions. Surah 4:80 says that whoever obeys Muhammad, obey Allah. Surah 33:21 says that Muhammad is the pattern of conduct for believers. Guess what? None of these is possible without the hadith, which are the record of Muhammad's decisions and conduct.
The Quran does indeed repeatedly announces obedience to the messenger. The 'message' remained connected to the 'messenger' and it was in this capacity of the 'messenger' that Muhammad needed to be obeyed.

The Quran never demanded obedience to 'Muhammad' in his personal preferences and choices. In fact, a stark warning was given to Prophet Muhammad if he so much as introduced any personal preferences in the matter of God's ordained religious system:

066:001

“O Prophet! Why do you ban that which God has made lawful for you, seeking to please thy wives? And God is Forgiving, Merciful”

069:044-48

“And if the messenger were to invent any sayings in Our name, We should certainly seize him by his right hand, And We should certainly then cut off the artery of his heart: Nor could any of you withhold him (from Our wrath). But verily this is a Message for the God-fearing”

024:054

"Say: "Obey God, 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)"

This is again repeated in 64:12 and can be seen in 5:92. His duty was to convey the message and act on its guidance and his followers are to 'Obey the messenger' in the message that he brought.

What was the message if not the Quran? Obeying the messenger meant obedience to his authority who dealt with matters in light of the Quran. Others in authority were also expected to be obeyed in much the same way the Prophet was asked to be obeyed:

004.059
"O ye who believe! Obey God, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you. Then if you disagree in anything among yourselves, refer it to God and His Messenger, if ye do believe in God and the Last Day: That is best, and most suitable for final determination"

As the messenger is not alive today, he cannot judge between disputes nor can he exercise his authority in light of the Quran. Therefore, this task falls on those in authority who are responsible for addressing their community matters in light of the Quran.

Even the Five Pillars of Islam fall apart without the hadith.
I am aware of the argument that the hadith are necessary because for instance the Quran doesn’t detail the current ritualized form of prayers that muslims perform today.

The Quran provides guidance to certain parameters which must be followed such as the need for ablution (4:43, 5:6), qibla (2.143-44), allusion of times, tone (17:110), lead (4:102), basic form such as a standing position (3:39; 4:102), bowing down and prostration (4:102; 22:26; 38:24; 48:29) et al, and as long as these are adhered to, the prayer from a Quran's perspective is complete. Purpose over form. Not to mention the majority of hadith were collected about two centuries after the messenger’s death, which begs the question of how muslims prayed in the absence of hadith all that time, especially considering Islam had spread far and wide during this time? It’s almost as if the practice would have been passed down from generation to generation and the hadith were unnecessary to perform prayers.

Likewise with other pillars, none “fall apart” in the absence of hadith if you properly study the Quranic text.
 

Opts

Club Legend
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Posts
1,040
Likes
1,157
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Brisbane Lions

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
Mar 5, 2011
Posts
28,080
Likes
20,477
Location
Australia
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Fremantle, WA, Associates
What you see here, folks, is a Muslim - sorry, a "person with Muslim friends" - who is desperately trying to wrangle something acceptable to Western culture out of a religion that is naturally at odds with the West, so much so that he has to throw century after century of Islamic scholarship away, including even the most respected modern commentators along with those from earlier times, ignore Islam's most trusted sources, try to obfuscate with the 'real Arabic' - essentially treating Allah as a deceiver by allowing Muslims to believe in and adopt practices based on the hadith, which were passed down and written in the exact same way as the Quran was, via the same people.

Allah wouldn't mind being called a deceiver (makr), given he calls himself the best deceiver in Surah 3:54. Of course, many Muslim scholars find this untenable as well, so they change it to "planner", but it undoubtedly deceptive to make it appear as though Jesus was crucified when he wasn't, as that passage claims Allah did, in a game of oneupsmanship with the Jews. They schemed, and he schemed better - according to the Quran.

The notion that hadith are needed to explain Quran is not supported by the Quran itself.

006:114

"Say: "Shall I seek for judge other than God? - when He is the One who has sent to you the Book, explained in detail (Arabic: Mufassalan)." They know full well, to whom We have given the Book, that it has been sent down from your Lord in truth. Never be then of those who doubt"

012:111

"In their histories there is certainly a lesson for men of understanding. It is not a narrative which could be forged, but a verification of what is before it and a detailed explanation (Arabic: watafsila) and a guide and a mercy to a people who believe"

007.052

"For We had certainly sent to them a Book based on knowledge, which We explained in detail (Arabic: fasalnahu), a guide and a mercy to all who believe"
Oh yes, the Quran loves saying how great it is, how clear and detailed it is - but anyone who has read it knows otherwise. Not only is it full of contradictions (I'll get back to that), it's also just poorly written. Bad grammar, unusual use of Arabic words, unfinished sentences and so on - this pretty much forces Muslims to use commentaries to try and grasp what's being said. Even the order of each Surah is totally illogical, because it isn't chronological. So, despite the Quran claiming to not need explanations beyond itself, reality forces Muslims to do exactly that, because Allah wasn't as clear as he could've been.

What the Quran says about using other sources:
aka "let's see how far I can stretch the word 'hadith'"

007:185

"Do they see nothing in the government of the heavens and the earth and all that God has created? (Do they not see) that it may well be that their terms are drawing to an end? In what HADITH after this will they then believe?"
"They" is referring to those who reject the message of Muhammad and the Quran, which those who interpret via the Islamic hadith do not.

"God will establish in strength those who believe, with the word that stands firm (Arabic: bil-qawlithabiti), in this world and in the Hereafter; but God will leave, to stray, those who do wrong: God does what He wills"
This says nothing about the Islamic hadith.

"Indeed, (As for) those who do not believe in God's verses (Arabic: biayati), surely God will not guide them, and they shall have a painful punishment. Only they invent falsehood who do not believe in the verses of God (Arabic: biayatAllahi), and these are the liars"
This was part of a passage denouncing Jews and Christians for not listening to Muhammad.

"But there are, among men, those who purchase frivolous HADITH (Arabic: Hadithi), without knowledge (or meaning), to mislead from the Path of God and throw ridicule (on the Path): for such there will be a Humiliating Penalty. When Our verses (Arabic: Ayatuna) are recited to such a one, he turns away in arrogance, as if he heard them not, as if there were deafness in both his ears: announce to him a grievous Penalty"
This is widely accepted to mean singing/music, though if you use an exceptionally broad meaning you could include the Islamic hadith in it as 'fairy tales', assuming that aren't verifiable histories.

"God has revealed the best HADITH (Arabic: Hadithi) in the form of a Book, consistent with itself, (yet) repeating (its teaching in various aspects): the skins of those who fear their Lord tremble at it; then their skins and their hearts do soften to the celebration of God's praises. Such is the guidance of God: He guides with it whom He pleases, but such as God leaves to stray, can have none to guide"
This is just another verse proclaiming how great the Quran is, how clear it is etc.

"These are verses of God (Arabic: ayat-ullah) that We recite to you with truth. Then, in what HADITH (Arabic word: Hadithin) after God and His verses (Arabic: Ayati) do they believe?"
This is just like 7:185.

"What is wrong with you, how do you judge? Or do you have another book which you study? In it, you can find what you wish?"
068:044

"Then leave Me alone with such as reject this Hadith (The Quran) (Arabic Word: Hadithi): by degrees shall We punish them from directions they perceive not"[/QUOTE]

These are just like 16:104-105.

"Then In what Hadith (Arabic Word: Hadithin), after this will they believe?"
This much the same as most of the previous passages criticising those who do not believe in Allah.

The Quran categorically denies the need for a source other than Quran for mankind’s guidance.
Not really. It denies that anything afterwards could be the word of Allah (though affirms that the Jewish Tanakh and Christian Gospels are the word of Allah, which raises some massive contradictions. Like, sky high contradictions), but Muslims don't claim that the hadith are the word of Allah.

The Quran does indeed repeatedly announces obedience to the messenger. The 'message' remained connected to the 'messenger' and it was in this capacity of the 'messenger' that Muhammad needed to be obeyed.

The Quran never demanded obedience to 'Muhammad' in his personal preferences and choices. In fact, a stark warning was given to Prophet Muhammad if he so much as introduced any personal preferences in the matter of God's ordained religious system:

066:001

“O Prophet! Why do you ban that which God has made lawful for you, seeking to please thy wives? And God is Forgiving, Merciful”

069:044-48

“And if the messenger were to invent any sayings in Our name, We should certainly seize him by his right hand, And We should certainly then cut off the artery of his heart: Nor could any of you withhold him (from Our wrath). But verily this is a Message for the God-fearing”

024:054

"Say: "Obey God, 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)"

This is again repeated in 64:12 and can be seen in 5:92. His duty was to convey the message and act on its guidance and his followers are to 'Obey the messenger' in the message that he brought.
It is super convenient for you to ignore the hadith given the context of the first two passages you quote here. Alas, you don't seem to grasp the implications of your own logic.

If Muhammad's duty is to "convey the message and act on its guidance", then his followers should do as he does, because he is acting on the guidance he is given. This is affirmed not only by 24:54, but also 33:21. Muhammad is warned against contradicting Allah, which is amusing given how often the Quran contradicts itself. But if his actions do not contradict the message of Allah, then surely they are to be followed, because if he was at any point contradicting Allah in his actions and his explanations of the message of Allah, Allah would either tell him so or kill him. So the Quran is, at best, silent on the issue of following Muhammad, and can quite reasonably be understood to be telling Muslims to follow the actions of Muhammad as best as possible across their lives, because he is the model of conduct in his life and Islam involves submitting to the will of Allah across all of life, as affirmed by the Quran.

Furthermore, if the Quran is so clear, it should be clear from the text that it is only the message that is to be obeyed, not the messenger. It is not, because it keeps saying to "obey the messenger".

What was the message if not the Quran? Obeying the messenger meant obedience to his authority who dealt with matters in light of the Quran. Others in authority were also expected to be obeyed in much the same way the Prophet was asked to be obeyed:

004.059
"O ye who believe! Obey God, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you. Then if you disagree in anything among yourselves, refer it to God and His Messenger, if ye do believe in God and the Last Day: That is best, and most suitable for final determination"

As the messenger is not alive today, he cannot judge between disputes nor can he exercise his authority in light of the Quran. Therefore, this task falls on those in authority who are responsible for addressing their community matters in light of the Quran.
Given the vast majority of those in authority use the hadith to exercise their judgement by using them for clarity on the Quran (which is 'referring to God and his messenger'), including the imams who taught the Sri Lankan suicide bombers, this logic doesn't work.

I am aware of the argument that the hadith are necessary because for instance the Quran doesn’t detail the current ritualized form of prayers that muslims perform today.

The Quran provides guidance to certain parameters which must be followed such as the need for ablution (4:43, 5:6), qibla (2.143-44), allusion of times, tone (17:110), lead (4:102), basic form such as a standing position (3:39; 4:102), bowing down and prostration (4:102; 22:26; 38:24; 48:29) et al, and as long as these are adhered to, the prayer from a Quran's perspective is complete. Purpose over form. Not to mention the majority of hadith were collected about two centuries after the messenger’s death, which begs the question of how muslims prayed in the absence of hadith all that time, especially considering Islam had spread far and wide during this time? It’s almost as if the practice would have been passed down from generation to generation and the hadith were unnecessary to perform prayers.

Likewise with other pillars, none “fall apart” in the absence of hadith if you properly study the Quranic text.
The idea that there are five pillars of Islam comes from the hadith, as it is never mentioned in the Quran as an over-arching concept.

The shahada does not exist in full in the Quran, so whenever a Muslim recites "and Muhammad is his messenger," they are not reciting the Quran. Furthermore, Muslims are never even told to recite the shahada as a ritual in the Quran.

The Quran only prescribes three daily prayers and never describes what they are to look like, so if any Muslim prays five times a day in a prescribed way, they are not following the Quran.

The Quran mentions the zakat on multiple occasions, that it is compulosry, and even saying who it should be distributed to...but it never says what the zakat actually consists of. Quran-only scholars don't even agree on whether the poor need to pay the Zakat or not, because the Quran alone doesn't make it clear.

The hajj, and to a lesser extent sawm via Ramadan, are on safer ground, except of course that both find their origins in pre-Islamic paganism.

A) I respectfully disagree. Look up and familiarize yourself with the medical condition “Amenorrhea” where despite the age, females are physically unable to menstruate. To state that passage condones child marriage is not supported by the Quran. What does the scripture actually say about marriageable age?
That makes absolutely no sense. This passage is about knowing who has fathered a child, which is why there is a waiting period of three months for divorced women. 65:4 is clarifying what to do in the case of women who "no longer expect to menstruate," "have not menstruated," and "are pregnant." These are three very clear categories, and the Arabic makes it clear that the second group has not yet menstruated ie. they will menstruate in future. It is both only logical and possible that the second category refers to young girls, not yet at puberty.

This means that not only are girls who have not yet menstruated valid candidates for marriage and consummation, it also means they are valid candidates at a young enough age for them to have more than one husband before reaching puberty. Surah 33 confirms this, because married women who do not not consummate the marriage have no waiting period. And yet here in 65:4, a girl who has not yet menstruated has a waiting period of three months - therefore, the marriage with her has to have been consummated beforehand.

004:006
Test (trial) the orphans (Arabic: wa-ibtalu l-yatama) until they reach the age of marriage (Arabic: balaghu l-nikaha); if you then find sound judgment in them, release their property to them; but consume it not wastefully, nor in haste against their growing up. If the guardian is well-off, let him claim no remuneration, but if he is poor, let him have for himself what is just and reasonable. When you release their property to them, take witnesses in their presence (Arabic: Fa-ashiddu alayhim) : But all-sufficient is God in taking account.”

So, marriageable age is reached when their wealth and property can be entrusted to them and they are of sound judgment and maturity, which clearly cannot be a six-year old or a pre-pubescent child.

Further to the above, it is stated not to go near an orphan’s wealth until they are “ashudd” which indicates full strength and maturity:

006:152
"And do not go near to the wealth / property of the orphans except with that which is best until he reaches his maturity / his full strength (Arabic: Ashuddahu)..."

Definition of ‘ashudd” :

"Full physical and mental capacity. The notion of maturity ( ashudd, rushd)has reference to a person who has attained complete natural development, who is fully grown and capable of assuming the responsible management of his or her own affairs."

https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-the-quran/maturity-EQCOM_00115

Also:

004:021
“And how could ye take it when you have gone in to each other, and they have taken from you a solemn covenant (Arabic: Meethaqan Galezaan)?"

Marriage is described as a solemn covenant. Let’s see where else Quran uses this term:

THE SOLEMN COVENANT GOD TOOK WITH ALL HIS PROPHETS


033:007
“And remember We took from the prophets their covenant: As (We did) from thee: from Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus the son of Mary: We took from them a solemn covenant (Arabic: Meethaqan Galezaan)”

THE SOLEMN COVENANT GOD TOOK WITH THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL WITH REGARDS THE SABBATH

004:154
“And for their covenant we raised over them the mount; and (on another occasion) we said: "Enter the gate with humility"; and (once again) we commanded them: "Transgress not in the matter of the Sabbath." And we took from them a solemn covenant (Arabic: Meethaqan Galezaan)”

It seems absurd to suggest that a child could enter such an arrangement. The notion that the Quran supports child marriages is totally unsupported by the text itself and hadith which claim Mohammad did such a thing can be safely discarded as having no factual basis.
Yes, the Quran is contradictory, and Muhammad himself was happy to contradict his own teachings.

B)
“And, of course, Surah 9:29 would be used by people like the Sri Lankan suicide bombers to justify killing hundreds of people in the name of Allah. “


There is nothing in the Quran which justified mass indiscriminate killings such as those. The verse you quote refers to those who broke peace treaties at a time when followers of Islam were under mortal danger and had to flee their homes under threat of harm and violence.
Nice try, but no, this verse is making no such distinction. It certainly comes from a Surah where earlier verses talk about earlier treaties, but the context of this passage is thus:

"29. Fight those who do not believe in God, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden, nor abide by the religion of truth—from among those who received the Scripture—until they pay the due tax, willingly or unwillingly. 30. The Jews said, “Ezra is the son of God,” and the Christians said, “The Messiah is the son of God.” These are their statements, out of their mouths. They emulate the statements of those who blasphemed before. May God assail them! How deceived they are! 31. They have taken their rabbis and their priests as lords instead of God, as well as the Messiah son of Mary. Although they were commanded to worship none but The One God. There is no god except He. Glory be to Him; High above what they associate with Him. 32. They want to extinguish God’s light with their mouths, but God refuses except to complete His light, even though the disbelievers dislike it. 33. It is He who sent His Messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, in order to make it prevail over all religions, even though the idolaters dislike it."

That is not a one-off statement. That is a clear, continuous command from Allah to fight Jews and Christians, because they do not follow Allah. Christians say that Jesus is the son of God, which Allah says is blasphemy. Therefore, Islam will prevail over all religions through the words of the Messenger (Muhammad), who has told them what Allah revealed to him: fight the unbelievers.

Directives regarding warfare in the Quran:

022:039-040
“Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely God is well able to assist them; Those who have been expelled from their homes without a just cause except that they say: Our Lord is God. And had there not been God's repelling some people by others, certainly there would have been pulled down cloisters and Churches and Synagogues and Mosques in which God's name is much remembered; and surely God will help him who helps His cause; most surely God is Strong, Mighty”

060:008
God 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 God loves the doers of justice”

008:061

"And if they incline to peace, then you also incline to it and trust in God; surely He is the Hearing, the Knowing"

Quran 2:190-194
"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors" 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. But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. 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.
Here are some more directives regarding warfare in the Quran, aside from 9:33 bolded in the style of Falco:

8:59-60 (yes, directly before the verse he selectively picks above)
Let not the disbelievers assume that they are ahead. They will not escape. And prepare against them all the power you can muster, and all the cavalry you can mobilize, to terrify thereby God’s enemies and your enemies, and others besides them whom you do not know, but God knows them. Whatever you spend in God’s way will be repaid to you in full, and you will not be wronged.

4:89
They would love to see you disbelieve, just as they disbelieve, so you would become equal. So do not befriend any of them, unless they emigrate in the way of God. If they turn away, seize them and kill them wherever you may find them; and do not take from among them allies or supporters.

8:65
O Prophet, urge the believers to battle. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will overcome two hundred: if a hundred, they will overcome a thousand of those who have disbelieved, because they are a people without understanding.

9:5
When the forbidden months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them. And capture them, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayers, and pay the alms, then let them go their way. God is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Now, I don't know if you believe in internal Quranic abrogation or not, but either way you have a problem. If you do, then you know that Surah 9 abrogates all the peaceful Surahs that were revealed before it, as it was chronilogically the last revelation. If you do not, then you have, as I mentioned before, a contradictory Quran that still preaches warfare and slaughter. Just like what the Sri Lankan terrorists did, and just like what Muhammad's followers did during and after his lifetime.
 

herculez09

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jun 1, 2009
Posts
8,263
Likes
10,013
Location
Essendon
AFL Club
West Coast
Allah wouldn't mind being called a deceiver (makr), given he calls himself the best deceiver in Surah 3:54. Of course, many Muslim scholars find this untenable as well, so they change it to "planner", but it undoubtedly deceptive to make it appear as though Jesus was crucified when he wasn't, as that passage claims Allah did, in a game of oneupsmanship with the Jews. They schemed, and he schemed better - according to the Quran.
On this, it bothers me when Muslims happily argue that Jesus was a Muslim. It's just such a stupidly ahistorical claim that it makes them sound dense. How can Jesus be something which pre-dated its creation? Absurd.

I'd laugh if some new Abrahamic religion came along in 200 years and proclaimed Muhammad was actually an x prophet and not a Muslim (wasn't Muhammad a Jew, anyway?).
 
Last edited:

petedavo

Club Legend
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Posts
1,124
Likes
1,394
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Islamic State Inspired, but Didn’t Direct, Easter Attacks, Sri Lanka Says - WSJ https://t.co/CZPtTUdTmy, see more https://t.co/ggQ1fshFLY

Authorities cite evidence that local planners followed terror group’s designs from the internet to build bombs used in a series of suicide bombings that left more than 250 people dead
By

Saeed Shah and Bill Spindle

May 5, 2019 Wall Street Journal
https://www.wsj.com/articles/islami...says-11557080734?reflink=share_mobilewebshare

COLOMBO, Sri Lanka—The devastating Easter Sunday bombings in Sri Lanka were locally planned and executed, without direct guidance from the Islamic State militant group, investigators said.

Two Sri Lankan Muslim extremists learned how to build the explosive devices that killed more than 250 people in churches and hotels by studying Islamic State designs on the internet and conducting trial-and-error tests, including one that cost a bomb maker several fingers last year, people involved in the probe said.

One plotter, Ilhan Ibrahim, the radicalized son of a wealthy Colombo spice trader, appears to have financed and organized the six nearly simultaneous attacks largely on his own, these people said.

Before the attacks—which were a year in the making—authorities were aware that all but one of the bombers were involved in extremist activities or suspected of other crimes, they said.

A lack of coordination between arms of the government hindered action being taken on the information, officials said

The attacks showed Islamic State’s influence even in decline, and the ability of a small group of self-organized extremists to act on its message in a country not usually considered a target.

Investigators have drawn these early, still tentative, conclusions, which haven’t previously been reported, about the plot through evidence gathered from the computers and possessions of suspected plotters, caches of munitions, clothing and materials from safe houses associated with them, analysis of the bombs and interrogations of people arrested who either participated in the plot or knew those who did.

Questioning of members of the group arrested after the attacks suggests the targets and the timing—churches and hotels on Easter morning—were aimed at boosting Islamic State as its self-declared caliphate was collapsing, the officials said.

“It was a locally led attack. It uses the ideology of ISIS to get the credit for ISIS so it has a success story,” said Lt. Gen. Mahesh Senanayake, commander of the army.

Islamic State had urged followers that couldn’t reach Syria to target their home countries.

“We haven’t seen anything on this scale before with the ISIS brand that’s not directed by them,” said Raffaello Pantucci of the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies in London.

Gen. Senanayake said about three-quarters of the wider group of Sri Lankan plotters either died or have been arrested. Authorities said eight militants—including two women—who participated in meetings about the plot but didn’t join are among those being held, adding that at least some of them hoped to bomb other targets later.

Some people who participated in meetings where suicide attacks were discussed remain at large, he said. Authorities added that they believe they have secured most of the bomb-making materials and other equipment intended for additional attacks based on interrogations of those arrested.

Some religious services were canceled on Sunday and Catholic schools will remain closed on Monday when public schools reopen. The country remains under a state of emergency.

Those familiar with the investigation said Rilwan Hashim, brother of key plotter Zahran Hashim, and another bomber they knew, Mohammad Hasthoon, built the explosives for the attacks. Rilwan died in an explosion during a police raid after the attacks in eastern Sri Lanka, and Hasthoon detonated himself at a church in the town of Negombo.

Ilhan Ibrahim, who detonated himself with Zahran Hashim at the Shangri-La hotel, was the driving force in organizing and carrying out the complex attack, investigators said. When police entered Ibrahim’s home later that day, his wife detonated herself there, killing herself, her two children and three police officers.

Some plotters had connections to Islamic State. Jameel Mohammed Abdul Latheef, who was supposed to bomb the Taj Hotel, had been radicalized while studying in Australia and may have kept up contact with Islamic State veterans he met. Zahran Hashim once played what he said was a recording of an Islamic State official putting him in charge of the group in Sri Lanka, but authorities said they were unsure of the recording’s veracity.

Investigators believe he exaggerated the extent of his Islamic State contacts to his co-conspirators, repeatedly falsely claiming to receive instructions from Syria.

He appears to have made contact with veteran Islamic State fighters during illicit trips to India while hiding from Sri Lankan police after they sought to arrest him for an altercation in 2017. But they haven’t found evidence of him being in contact with top Islamic State figures. Investigators believe Rilwan also traveled to Turkey, where he may have received training, and was in contact with another Sri Lankan in Syria, but he was killed in 2017, Gen. Senanayake said.

The brothers’ preparations for a bomb attack began as long ago as early 2018, when Rilwan lost several fingers and injured his eye in an accident involving explosives, people familiar with the investigation said. He continued to experiment with explosives, using designs from Islamic State-related sites on the internet, the officials said.

They learned to use washing-machine timers as triggering mechanisms and blew up a motorcycle days before the attacks as they tried to refine the devices, the officials said. They used the same kind of timer for a car bomb on Easter Sunday—parked outside Saint Anthony’s shrine in Colombo and designed to strike survivors and rescuers after the suicide attacker had hit the shrine—but it didn’t explode.

More than a dozen of Zahran Hashim’s followers from the two militant groups gathered in early April, in the town of Panadura 15 miles south of the capital and decided to put the attacks in motion for Easter, Gen. Senanayake said.

Some who attended the meeting chose not to participate, arguing the group should wait to stage an even-larger attack including coming Buddhist festivals that would be heavily attended by Sri Lanka’s majority Sinhalese Buddhist community, the officials said.

At some point after meeting in Panadura, the eight bombers recorded a video of themselves led by Hashim declaring allegiance to Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi for release after the attacks.

On April 19, the group began preparing bombs in the Colombo area. They were given to the bombers on April 20, the day before the attacks. The hotel bombers checked into their rooms using their real names, people familiar with the investigation said.

Mohammad Azad, the one bomber who Sri Lankan authorities hadn’t picked up on before the attacks, traveled hours to near his home on the east coast, where he stopped in a mosque to pray and rest in the early hours of Easter morning. Then he headed to Zion Church as the Easter service was beginning.



Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk
 

its free real estate

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Posts
6,508
Likes
8,033
AFL Club
Fremantle
Seemed to have a relatively intimate knowledge of Judaism/Christianity to have written the Qu'ran.

I wouldn't be able to do the same for Islam.
They were basically the only books going. I reckon you would if there was nothing else to do.

That’s the key to the Abrahamic faiths over many of those that predate them. Instead of being oral traditions or a hodgepodge of thematically inconsistent stories, they basically asserted a singular, written authority.

None asserted its singular authority more than the Koran. Which is why the weasel words of its adherents and apologists are so ridiculous.
 
Top Bottom