Islam According To The Qur'an/hadeeths Interpreted By:

[jeffpugh]

They did begin as a heresy though...

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1289612' date='Jun 6 2007, 04:33 PM']No not everything in the Qur'an is false, there is lots of facts. They began as a sect of Christianity like Protestantism and evolved into what is seen now. The problem is obvious, you've never read the Qur'an, so you don't know what it contains.
Reza[/quote]

I've stated it has "elements of truth", yet it is FALSE, and by NO means is it holy. It [i]may[/i] have began as a sect of Christianity in [b]apostacy[/b] but that means little. It is still false today. It will be false tomorrow and everyday until they worship Jesus Christ as Lord and forsake the false prophet Mohammad.

The quran is contray to the true written word of God, which is truth. That is all that needs to been known.


edit: to correct terms used, and grammar.

Edited June 7, 2007 by KnightofChrist

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1289800' date='Jun 6 2007, 09:35 PM']They did begin as a heresy though... [/quote]
Not heresy, but apostacy.

A heretic remains Christian (believes in Jesus Christ as his Lord, God, and Savior), but denies other elements of Christian (Catholic) dogma.

Muslims deny that Christ is Lord, God, and Savior, and thus are not Christians of any kind.

[jeffpugh]

Thanks for the clarification, Socrates.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1289834' date='Jun 6 2007, 09:47 PM']Not heresy, but apostacy.

A heretic remains Christian (believes in Jesus Christ as his Lord, God, and Savior), but denies other elements of Christian (Catholic) dogma.

Muslims deny that Christ is Lord, God, and Savior, and thus are not Christians of any kind.[/quote]


Wow yeah I've forgotten that... thanks man.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1289774' date='Jun 6 2007, 08:18 PM']That article did not provide much of a refutation of anything I posted.
It gave an extremely short (and blandly p.c.) one-page account of the history of Islam. It did not refute any of the facts I and KnightofChrist mentioned, but essentially glossed over the "hows" of the early spread of Islam. None of the battles of Muslim agression nor repressive policies towards Christians were refuted, but simply not mentioned at all.[/quote] Actually it was more detailed then the brief "history" [if you wanna call it that] that you and KnightofChrist posted, you simply posted a very litered with propaganda, version of an Islamic timeline.

As I'd mentioned, it's not just me that disagrees with you, but a professor at George Town University, among others. If you'd like a further details in a timeline form, as you gave that better explains the plight of Muslims, here is a great source: [url="http://www.barkati.net/english/chronology.htm"]http://www.barkati.net/english/chronology.htm[/url] or a very indepth and long winded synopsis: [url="http://www.al-islam.org/restatement/"]http://www.al-islam.org/restatement/[/url]

[quote]And the passage from the article you quote as "proof" against my claims is not even about the same period of history I was referring to, as is evident when the sentence before is included in the quote:
(emphasis added)[/quote]It was a general claim against yours, as you suggested that Islam spread strictly by the sword, throughout the lands, but this Georgetown College Professor, gave evidence otherwise, that it was spread by merchants, etc. which is true. If you knew just a little bit of history behind the culture of Mekkah, you'd know that it was a central trading post for trade in the middle east. If Muhammed would have killed everyone that believes a different faith, as you suggested, it would have caused such a severe depression and famine that Arabia couldn't survive but contrary to your claims, Mekkah remained a central trading post for a long time after Arabia had become primarily Muslim. It was spread throughout the world, through trade, which worked very magnificently for Mekkah and those of the Islamic faith.

[quote]The source I was using was Dr. Warren Carroll's [i]The Building of Christendom[/i], using for this statement the source John Baggot Glubb's [i]The Great Arab Conquests [/i]and Phillip K. Hitti's [i]History of the Arabs from the Earliest Times to the Prese[/i]nt, 5th Ed.[/quote] You didn't fool me, it's obvious that you were using propaganda, and depending on non-Muslims for your information about Muslims, just as you always have done. I'm not remotely surprised, you have more to say about the Qur'an thou having never read it before, yet proclaiming that it says something, then those that have read it.

[quote]And I am the one who has been "taking the Q'ran for what it says" while you have been trying to explain these passages away ("it only means fighting in a spiritual sense", etc.).[/quote]No you havn't, as you haven't even taking the Qur'an in the proper context, researched the context, etc. You've simply used propaganda websites, that have anti-Qur'anic claims to fuel a hateful stereotype. I, on the other hand, have read the Quran, done the research on the context and history regarding it.

[quote]Even you admit here that Christians were not allowed by the Muslim law to "proslytize" - i.e. spread the Gospel.[/quote] What's your point? That's quite different then your claim that Christianity was "wiped out".

[quote]You told what battle one of the passages was written after, and gave statements without proof concerning its "proper interpretation." (Which apparently most of the early Muslim leaders did not agree with.)[/quote]I gave the proper context of the scriptures, which most Islamic scholars going back to the beginning agreed with, while you relied on your propaganda websites to tell you "this means they hate us", which it doesn't.

[quote]I don't know what you're talking about here, but whatever happened, it sure as hell wasn't ordered by the Pope. If you claim it was, the burden of proof is on you, yet this has nothing to do with the subject on hand but is a diversion. Start another thread if you wish to discuss this. (Who's "going off on tangents"? -Sheesh!)[/quote] It has everything to do with the subject, as the battle of Tabouk involves the Byzintines that were involved with the Crusades along with the Roman Catholics. It's interconnected. If you chose to believe that the Pope didn't order the mass killing of Copts [and Jews, among others don't forget] then you seriously got a problem. After the Crusades, which killed mass amounts of Copts, St. Mark's relics were stolen, along with lots of artifacts of the Coptic Church, which weren't returned until His Holiness Pope Paul VI [I believe it was him, one of the modern Roman Popes, no doubt], that's over 1000 years after the Crusades, so if these other Popes [including the Pope that ordered the crusades] didn't agree with it, why didn't he denounce it? Why didn't he right the wrong? It's totally infathumable to say that he didn't agree with it or order it.

[quote]And the large majority of Muslims are Sunni.
Are you now going to claim that the Sunni are not "true Muslims"?
The Sunni claim to follow the Qu'ran, as do the Shiites.
And as far as I'm aware, the Shiites aren't pacifists.[/quote]I never said that the majority of current Muslims aren't Sunni, but they weren't always the majority and again, your mass stereotype of all Muslims being violent in spreading Islam, is false. Using a select few, to massively stereotype all Muslims is deliberately ignorant.

[quote]Anyway, unless you can provide specific evidence that any of my claims are false - rather than giving broad denials and dismissing any history which claims the spread of Islam was less than peaceful as "propaganda" - I am afraid this debate with you has run its course. You have hardly been convincing.[/quote]

I've given more evidence that it was spread by merchants, then you have that it was spread by violence, so don't sit here and say that I should give you more evidence, when the evidence that supports your bigoted agenda isn't even remotely supported.


[quote name='Socrates' post='1289784' date='Jun 6 2007, 08:26 PM']Once again you are wrong.
The Muslims explicitly deny the Divinity of Christ - they only honor Him as a Prophet, but claim that Mohammed is a greater prophet.

They do not even claim to be Christian.[/quote]

Seriously, do you not even read my posts? I never said that Muslims claim to be Christians today, what I said is that it [color="#FF0000"][u][b][i]BEGAN[/i][/b][/u][/color] as a Christian sect, as I provided evidence that testifies to this...

Reza

[misereremi]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1289612' date='Jun 6 2007, 11:33 PM']Muslims used to pray towards Jerusalem, rather then Mecca. The term "Qur'an" came from a Syriac Orthodox book known as the "Quryana", it mentions several Syriac Martyrs. Muhammeds uncle was a Priest [I think a bishop if I remember correctly]. Praying 5 times a day, came from Syriac Orthodox Monks that prayed seven formal prayers... and the list goes on and yes, Islam began as a Christian sect.
No not everything in the Qur'an is false, there is lots of facts. They began as a sect of Christianity like Protestantism and evolved into what is seen now. The problem is obvious, you've never read the Qur'an, so you don't know what it contains.
How can you know what it says about Jesus until you've read it? Again... you've got to know how the knot was tied before you can begin to untie it.

Reza[/quote]
Thanks for the info on origins. I once tried to explain to a group of Muslims that they started out as an apostacy, needless to say I was verbally gunned down.

I think the Qur'an is all the more dangerous for intermixing facts with falsehood. Several of my Christian friends converted to Islam after dwelling on verses like "they crucified him not", and verses about shirk (teh word "trinity" seems to have been added by translators). Because it takes from the Injeel and alters the Truth, it makes you believe that as a Christian you were lead astray.

Those who taught my friends about Islam drummed it into them that the Qu'ran is the perfect word of Allah, has never and can never be altered, and has no contradictions- and that the Holy Bible on the other hand has been corrupted. So no one allows you to criticise the validity of the Qur'an in conversation. I think in dialogue it is key to start with the origins as you say, but I feel like -in practice- I am constanly talking to a brick wall.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1289612' date='Jun 6 2007, 04:33 PM']Muslims used to pray towards Jerusalem, rather then Mecca. The term "Qur'an" came from a Syriac Orthodox book known as the "Quryana", it mentions several Syriac Martyrs. Muhammeds uncle was a Priest [I think a bishop if I remember correctly]. Praying 5 times a day, came from Syriac Orthodox Monks that prayed seven formal prayers... and the list goes on and yes, Islam began as a Christian sect.
No not everything in the Qur'an is false, there is lots of facts. They began as a sect of Christianity like Protestantism and evolved into what is seen now. The problem is obvious, you've never read the Qur'an, so you don't know what it contains.
How can you know what it says about Jesus until you've read it? Again... you've got to know how the knot was tied before you can begin to untie it.

Reza[/quote]

I haven't read the entire Koran. Guilty as charged. But Islam does not consider Jesus God, only a prophet. Quite frankly, that's all I need to know to know that Islam is false.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1290160' date='Jun 7 2007, 07:07 AM']I haven't read the entire Koran. Guilty as charged. But Islam does not consider Jesus God, only a prophet. Quite frankly, that's all I need to know to know that Islam is false.[/quote]

There might be more then meets the eye and being that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world [and particularly in the united states], don't you think it would be worth finding out what they believe, how their religion started, etc?

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1290418' date='Jun 7 2007, 03:26 PM']There might be more then meets the eye and being that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world [and particularly in the united states], don't you think it would be worth finding out what they believe, how their religion started, etc?[/quote]

Sure, in order to have a respectful and informed discussion with a Muslim.

What are you suggesting when you say that there's more than meets the eye?

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1290425' date='Jun 7 2007, 02:36 PM']Sure, in order to have a respectful and informed discussion with a Muslim.

What are you suggesting when you say that there's more than meets the eye?[/quote]

Just that, there's more then meets the eye. Most people ignorantly don't read the Qur'an, let alone find out the true origins of it, so as to never truely understand it. As you might have noticed my quote, at the bottom of my page, "Americans know less about Eastern Christianity, then they do about Islam and they don't know anything about Islam". It was written by a Roman Catholic Professor, and it very much rings true. If someone were to truely understand Islam, they'd see that it began as an Eastern Christian Heresey [must like Gnosticism, Nestorianism, etc] and eventually evolved into what is seen now.

If you were to travel to Saudi Arabia, you'd see Mosques wrapped in calligraphy that is "never ending" in the sense that you can't tell where it begins and where it ends, this is meant to symbolize the infinate nature of God. I'd heard some westerners categorize this negatively or assume that it means something that it doesn't but what people don't know, is that Muslims hijacked it from Christianity [Coptic Christianity, particularly]. Muslims pray 5 formal prayers daily right? Is it a coincidence that Christian monks in Saudi Arabia, during the era that Muhammed lived, prayed seven formal prayers? Is it a surprise that in Palestine, Muslims that pass by St. George [who killed the dragon]'s burial grave, bow in reverence to him because even they honor what he did? What about the more contraversal elements that the west focuses on, a woman's hijab/niqab? Is it a surprise that St. Clement of Alexandria wrote in his triology that women should cover their heads and faces, as not to snare men? That Byzintine women veiled their faces also, and Saudi Arabia [through trade] was heavily influenced by this?

Reza

[mortify]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1284687' date='May 30 2007, 07:59 PM']Since I began this thread, and I'd like to lead by example, let me set it off...

Most people that have false stereotypes interpret this scripture as, that Muslims cannot be friends with Muslims, simple and plain, but is that the case?
The arabic word that's used [as your translation says "friends"] is Auliya, which means protector or helper [among other meanings]. Most Muslim scholars have concluded that the word "Auliya" is more properly interpreted as helper or protector.

If properly interpreted, it would be more accurate to say that Muslims are not to rely on Christians or Jews to be their protectors or rely on them to be their helpers more then their own Muslim breathren [IE: Muslims shouldn't ask their Christian breathren for spiritual advice, over Muslims], as it goes on and says that Christians and Jews don't believe in the same charectoristics of God as Muslims and aren't guided by the same traditions as Muslims [which even Christians would agree with to some degree]. Just so there's no confusion, let me expand on this further... In the context, it would be more intelligent to say that Muslims shouldn't take Christians [or Jews] as their Patrons [just as Christians take Patron Saints, we shouldn't take Muslim Icon figures as our Patron Saints, but rather Christian Saints as our Patron Saints].

Reza[/quote]

Ibn Kathir had this to say about the surah 5 verse 51:

[quote][color="#0000FF"]Allah forbids His believing servants from having Jews and Christians as friends, [b]because they are the enemies of Islam and its people, may Allah curse them[/b]. Allah then states that they are friends of each other and He gives a warning threat to those who do this,

(And if any among you befriends them, then surely he is one of them.) Ibn Abi Hatim recorded that [b]`Umar [/b]ordered Abu Musa Al-Ash`ari to send him on one sheet of balance the count of what he took in and what he spent. Abu Musa then had a Christian scribe, and he was able to comply with `Umar's demand. `Umar liked what he saw and exclaimed, "This scribe is proficient. Would you read in the Masjid a letter that came to us from Ash-Sham'' Abu Musa said, `He cannot.'' `Umar said, "Is he not pure'' Abu Musa said, "[b]No, but he is Christian[/b].'' Abu Musa said, "So `Umar admonished me and poked my thigh (with his finger), saying, `[b]Drive him out (from Al-Madinah)[/b].' He then recited,

"O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as friends..."[/color][/quote]

From: [url="http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=5&tid=14082"]http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=5&tid=14082[/url]
(A Muslim run site)

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='mortify' post='1290639' date='Jun 7 2007, 09:21 PM']Ibn Kathir had this to say about the surah 5 verse 51:
From: [url="http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=5&tid=14082"]http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=5&tid=14082[/url]
(A Muslim run site)[/quote]

It's one english translation, that is very inaccurate [which is why Muslims don't consider an english version of the Quran to truely be the Quran in full truth] but as I'd pointed out in my initial post, if you translate the arabic properly, that isn't the mainline view amongst Muslim scholars.

Reza

[mortify]

[quote]It's one english translation, that is very inaccurate [which is why Muslims don't consider an english version of the Quran to truely be the Quran in full truth]but as I'd pointed out in my initial post, if you translate the arabic properly, that isn't the mainline view amongst Muslim scholars.[/quote]

I'm sorry but all three translators give them same translation for "awliyya":

[color="#0000FF"]YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your [b]friends[/b] and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for [b]friends[/b]. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.

SHAKIR: O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for [b]friends[/b]; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.[/color]

Only Yusuf Ali adds "...and protectors" but he obviously doesn't reject what came before it. This is no surprise as even the Quran lists Abraham as on of the "Awliyyaullah" or "friends of Allah" and this is a phrase given to Muslim saints as well, it obviously can't mean "protector" or "gaurdian" in these cases.

Please note I did quote a renowned Muslim Scholar, Ibn Kathir, who wrote a famous Quranic commentary that is still studied today. Also consider what he mentions in regards to Umar and the Christian scribe.

[mortify]

Some additional examples:


La yattakhithi almuminoona alkafireena [b]awliyaa[/b] min dooni almumineena waman yafAAal thalika falaysa mina Allahi fee shayin illa an tattaqoo minhum tuqatan wayuhaththirukumu Allahu nafsahu waila Allahi almaseeru
[color="#0000FF"]3:28 Let not the believers Take for[b] friends or helpers[/b] Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah. except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.[/color]

Allatheena amanoo yuqatiloona fee sabeeli Allahi waallatheena kafaroo yuqatiloona fee sabeeli alttaghooti faqatiloo [b]awliyaa[/b] alshshaytani inna kayda alshshaytani kana daAAeefan
[color="#0000FF"]4:76 Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the [b]friends[/b] of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan.[/color]

Waddoo law takfuroona kama kafaroo fatakoonoona sawaan fala tattakhithoo minhum [b]awliyaa[/b] hatta yuhajiroo fee sabeeli Allahi fain tawallaw fakhuthoohum waoqtuloohum haythu wajadtumoohum wala tattakhithoo minhum waliyyan wala naseeran
[color="#0000FF"]4:89 They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not [b]friends[/b] from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;[/color]

Allatheena yattakhithoona alkafireena [b]awliyaa[/b] min dooni almumineena ayabtaghoona AAindahumu alAAizzata fainna alAAizzata lillahi jameeAAan
[color="#0000FF"]4:139 Yea, to those who take for [b]friends[/b] unbelievers rather than believers: is it honour they seek among them? Nay,- all honour is with Allah.[/color]

Ya ayyuha allatheena amanoo la tattakhithoo alkafireena [b]awliyaa[/b] min dooni almumineena atureedoona an tajAAaloo lillahi AAalaykum sultanan mubeenan
[color="#0000FF"]4:144 O ye who believe! Take not for [b]friends[/b] unbelievers rather than believers: Do ye wish to offer Allah an open proof against yourselves?[/color]

Ya ayyuha allatheena amanoo la tattakhithoo allatheena ittakhathoo deenakum huzuwan walaAAiban mina allatheena ootoo alkitaba min qablikum waalkuffara [b]awliyaa[/b] waittaqoo Allaha in kuntum mumineena
[color="#0000FF"]5:57 O ye who believe! take not for [b]friends[/b] and protectors those who take your religion for a mockery or sport,- whether among those who received the Scripture before you, or among those who reject Faith; but fear ye Allah, if ye have faith (indeed).[/color]


This was taken from here:
[url="http://www.islamicity.com/ps/default.asp?inc=PhoneticSearch.asp"]http://www.islamicity.com/ps/default.asp?i...neticSearch.asp[/url]


You said in your second post:
[quote]The arabic word that's used [as your translation says "friends"]is Auliya, which means protector or helper [among other meanings]. Most Muslim scholars have concluded that the word "Auliya" is more properly interpreted as helper or protector.[/quote]

Who are these scholars and from your understanding of their writing why does "awliya" in 5:51 not refer to friends?

[quote]If properly interpreted, it would be more accurate to say that Muslims are not to rely on Christians or Jews to be their protectors or rely on them to be their helpers more then their own Muslim breathren[/quote]5:51 says not to take Christians and Jews as friends, period.

The others give me the impression Muslims are not to take the company of disbelievers.

[quote]IE: Muslims shouldn't ask their Christian breathren for spiritual advice, over Muslims[/quote]

That's quite a stretch, even if I were to say that Awliya in this case strictly means "protectors" and "helpers" I would never think of it in the way you just suggested. The ironic thing is, saying awliyya means protector or helper doesn't solve the problem, it only adds to it. Does the verse forbid Muslims living under non-Islamic governments?

[quote]In the context, it would be more intelligent to say that Muslims shouldn't take Christians [or Jews]as their Patrons [just as Christians take Patron Saints, we shouldn't take Muslim Icon figures as our Patron Saints, but rather Christian Saints as our Patron Saints].[/quote]

Considering what "patron" means it only adds to the difficulties of Muslims living under non-Islamic governments, and I'm not quite sure how it squares away with other verses mentioned.

[RezaMikhaeil]

In you quoting faulty english translations [which no Muslims honor], you're no different then Protestants quoting "The Message Bible" or "The New International Version" in their arguments against the Roman Catholic Church and Scriptural interpretation. You're not getting into the Exegesis of the scriptures, in the Arabic and therefore missing the context of the content.

Here is a translation that is much more accurate:

[quote]Surah 3:28

Those who believe shall not take misbelievers for their patrons, rather than believers, and he who does this has no part with God at all, unless, indeed, ye fear some danger from them. But God bids you beware of Himself, for unto Him your journey is.[/quote]Want more proof? There's a scholar named Tabari that wrote an article about it [which can be found here, thou it's in Arabic, [url="http://quran.al-islam.com/Tafseer/DispTafsser.asp?l=arb&taf=TABARY&nType=1&nSora=3&nAya=28"]http://quran.al-islam.com/Tafseer/DispTafs...a=3&nAya=28[/url]] in which he said that Muslims shouldn't support non-believers in their religion but should support their own religion, thou in it's fullest truth of context, says nothing against being friends with Non-Muslims.

[quote]The correct translation of the ayah in Surah al-Ma'idah is, "O you who believe! Do not take Jews and Christians as your patrons. They are patrons of their own people. He among you who will turn to them for patronage is one of them. Verily Allah guides not a people unjust." (al-Ma'idah 5:51). It is obvious that Jews patronize Jews and Christians patronize the Christians, so why not Muslims patronize Muslims and support their own people. This ayah is not telling us to be against Jews or Christians, but it is telling us that we should take care of our own people and we must support each other.

Ibn Kathir in his Tafsir has mentioned that some scholars say that this ayah of Surah al-Ma'idah was revealed after the Battle of Uhad when Muslims had a set back. At that time a Muslim from Madinah said, "I am going to live with Jews so I shall be safe in case another attack comes on Madinah." And another person said, "I am going to live with Christians so I shall be safe in case another attack comes on Madinah." So Allah revealed this ayah reminding the Believers that they should not seek the protection from others, but should protect each other. (see Ibn Kathir, Al-Tafsir, vol. 2, p. 68)

Muslims are allowed to have non-Muslims as friends as long as they keep their own faith and commitment to Islam pure and strong. You are correct in pointing out that a Muslim man is also allowed to marry a Jewish or Christian woman. It is obvious that one marries someone for love and friendship. If friendship between Muslims and Jews or Christians was forbidden, then why would Islam allow a Muslim man to marry a Jew or Christian woman? It is the duty of Muslims to patronize Muslims. They should not patronize any one who is against their faith or who fights their faith, even if they were their fathers and brothers. Allah says, "O you who believe! Take not for protectors (awliya') your fathers and your brothers if they love unbelief above faith. If any of you do so, they are indeed wrong-doers." (al-Tawbah 9:23) In a similar way the Qur'an also tells Muslims that they should never patronize the non-Muslims against other Muslims. However, if some Muslims do wrong to some non-Muslims, it is Muslims duty to help the non-Muslims and save them from the oppression of the so-called Muslims. The Prophet -peace be upon him- said that he himself will be the plaintiff of a Dhimmi living among Muslims to whom injustice is done by Muslims. But Islam also teaches that Muslims should not seek the patronage of non- Muslims against other Muslims. They should try to solve their problems among themselves. Allah says, "Let not the Believers take the unbelievers as their patrons over against the Believers… (Al 'Imran 3:28) "O you who believe! Take not for patrons unbelievers rather than Believers. Do you wish to offer Allah an open proof against yourselves?" (al-Nisa' 4:144)[/quote]

An interesting point is mentioned by the author of this commentary, why is it that Muslim men are allowed to marry Christian/Jewish women if they aren't to even take them as their friends? It's very contrary to your assessment but it seems that you're deliberately keeping in with your false claims, as you even refuse to acknowledge the difference between a friend and a patron.

Muhammad Asad, was a Jew that converted to Islam, a very respected Muslim that could be considered a scholar based upon his vast research that was detailed in the many books that he had written. He once wrote that Muslims shouldn't be in a moral alliance with Christians/Jews, because they fundementally disagree on a vast amount of morals, but have a friendship alliance with them. He uses Sura 60:7-9 to prove his point:

[quote]60:7-9 says, GOD may change the animosity between you and them into love. GOD is Omnipotent. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful. [b]GOD does not enjoin you from befriending those who do not fight you because of religion[/b], and do not evict you from your homes. [b]You may befriend them and be equitable towards them.[/b] GOD loves the equitable. GOD enjoins you [b]only from befriending those who fight you because of religion[/b], evict you from your homes, and band together with others to banish you. You shall not befriend them. Those who befriend them are the transgressors.[/quote]

In other words, according to the scripture, Muslims are only forbid from befriending Non-Muslims that might cause them harm because of their religion.

What more proof is needed? It's very clear that you're going to great lengths to imply something that wasn't written, without digging deep into the Exegesis of the scripture itself.

Note: I find it interesting that you quote the english phonetics to words that you don't know how to pronounce or even what they mean for that matter.

Reza

[RezaMikhaeil]

In you quoting faulty english translations [which no Muslims honor], you're no different then Protestants quoting "The Message Bible" or "The New International Version" in their arguments against the Roman Catholic Church and Scriptural interpretation. You're not getting into the Exegesis of the scriptures, in the Arabic and therefore missing the context of the content.

Here is a translation that is much more accurate:

[quote]Surah 3:28

Those who believe shall not take misbelievers for their patrons, rather than believers, and he who does this has no part with God at all, unless, indeed, ye fear some danger from them. But God bids you beware of Himself, for unto Him your journey is.[/quote]Want more proof? There's a scholar named Tabari that wrote an article about it [which can be found here, thou it's in Arabic, [url="http://quran.al-islam.com/Tafseer/DispTafsser.asp?l=arb&taf=TABARY&nType=1&nSora=3&nAya=28"]http://quran.al-islam.com/Tafseer/DispTafs...a=3&nAya=28[/url]] in which he said that Muslims shouldn't support non-believers in their religion but should support their own religion, thou in it's fullest truth of context, says nothing against being friends with Non-Muslims.

[quote]The correct translation of the ayah in Surah al-Ma'idah is, "O you who believe! Do not take Jews and Christians as your patrons. They are patrons of their own people. He among you who will turn to them for patronage is one of them. Verily Allah guides not a people unjust." (al-Ma'idah 5:51). It is obvious that Jews patronize Jews and Christians patronize the Christians, so why not Muslims patronize Muslims and support their own people. This ayah is not telling us to be against Jews or Christians, but it is telling us that we should take care of our own people and we must support each other.

Ibn Kathir in his Tafsir has mentioned that some scholars say that this ayah of Surah al-Ma'idah was revealed after the Battle of Uhad when Muslims had a set back. At that time a Muslim from Madinah said, "I am going to live with Jews so I shall be safe in case another attack comes on Madinah." And another person said, "I am going to live with Christians so I shall be safe in case another attack comes on Madinah." So Allah revealed this ayah reminding the Believers that they should not seek the protection from others, but should protect each other. (see Ibn Kathir, Al-Tafsir, vol. 2, p. 68)

Muslims are allowed to have non-Muslims as friends as long as they keep their own faith and commitment to Islam pure and strong. You are correct in pointing out that a Muslim man is also allowed to marry a Jewish or Christian woman. It is obvious that one marries someone for love and friendship. If friendship between Muslims and Jews or Christians was forbidden, then why would Islam allow a Muslim man to marry a Jew or Christian woman? It is the duty of Muslims to patronize Muslims. They should not patronize any one who is against their faith or who fights their faith, even if they were their fathers and brothers. Allah says, "O you who believe! Take not for protectors (awliya') your fathers and your brothers if they love unbelief above faith. If any of you do so, they are indeed wrong-doers." (al-Tawbah 9:23) In a similar way the Qur'an also tells Muslims that they should never patronize the non-Muslims against other Muslims. However, if some Muslims do wrong to some non-Muslims, it is Muslims duty to help the non-Muslims and save them from the oppression of the so-called Muslims. The Prophet -peace be upon him- said that he himself will be the plaintiff of a Dhimmi living among Muslims to whom injustice is done by Muslims. But Islam also teaches that Muslims should not seek the patronage of non- Muslims against other Muslims. They should try to solve their problems among themselves. Allah says, "Let not the Believers take the unbelievers as their patrons over against the Believers… (Al 'Imran 3:28) "O you who believe! Take not for patrons unbelievers rather than Believers. Do you wish to offer Allah an open proof against yourselves?" (al-Nisa' 4:144)[/quote]

An interesting point is mentioned by the author of this commentary, why is it that Muslim men are allowed to marry Christian/Jewish women if they aren't to even take them as their friends? It's very contrary to your assessment but it seems that you're deliberately keeping in with your false claims, as you even refuse to acknowledge the difference between a friend and a patron.

Muhammad Asad, was a Jew that converted to Islam, a very respected Muslim that could be considered a scholar based upon his vast research that was detailed in the many books that he had written. He once wrote that Muslims shouldn't be in a moral alliance with Christians/Jews, because they fundementally disagree on a vast amount of morals, but have a friendship alliance with them. He uses Sura 60:7-9 to prove his point:

[quote]60:7-9 says, GOD may change the animosity between you and them into love. GOD is Omnipotent. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful. [b]GOD does not enjoin you from befriending those who do not fight you because of religion[/b], and do not evict you from your homes. [b]You may befriend them and be equitable towards them.[/b] GOD loves the equitable. GOD enjoins you [b]only from befriending those who fight you because of religion[/b], evict you from your homes, and band together with others to banish you. You shall not befriend them. Those who befriend them are the transgressors.[/quote]

In other words, according to the scripture, Muslims are only forbid from befriending Non-Muslims that might cause them harm because of their religion.

What more proof is needed? It's very clear that you're going to great lengths to imply something that wasn't written, without digging deep into the Exegesis of the scripture itself.

Note: I find it interesting that you quote the english phonetics to words that you don't know how to pronounce or even what they mean for that matter.

Reza

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1290509' date='Jun 7 2007, 04:55 PM']Just that, there's more then meets the eye. Most people ignorantly don't read the Qur'an, let alone find out the true origins of it, so as to never truely understand it. As you might have noticed my quote, at the bottom of my page, "Americans know less about Eastern Christianity, then they do about Islam and they don't know anything about Islam". It was written by a Roman Catholic Professor, and it very much rings true. If someone were to truely understand Islam, they'd see that it began as an Eastern Christian Heresey [must like Gnosticism, Nestorianism, etc] and eventually evolved into what is seen now.

If you were to travel to Saudi Arabia, you'd see Mosques wrapped in calligraphy that is "never ending" in the sense that you can't tell where it begins and where it ends, this is meant to symbolize the infinate nature of God. I'd heard some westerners categorize this negatively or assume that it means something that it doesn't but what people don't know, is that Muslims hijacked it from Christianity [Coptic Christianity, particularly]. Muslims pray 5 formal prayers daily right? Is it a coincidence that Christian monks in Saudi Arabia, during the era that Muhammed lived, prayed seven formal prayers? Is it a surprise that in Palestine, Muslims that pass by St. George [who killed the dragon]'s burial grave, bow in reverence to him because even they honor what he did? What about the more contraversal elements that the west focuses on, a woman's hijab/niqab? Is it a surprise that St. Clement of Alexandria wrote in his triology that women should cover their heads and faces, as not to snare men? That Byzintine women veiled their faces also, and Saudi Arabia [through trade] was heavily influenced by this?

Reza[/quote]

I agree with you that Islam can be characterized as a heresy of Christianity. Again, the "crux" of the matter is how Islam treats Jesus. Prophet? Wrong. Ipso facto, false. Many people are deceived by this almost-but-not-quite-true religion.

I infer from your posts a view of equivalence between Christianity and Islam, which is why I won't let it go. However much Islam was "influenced" by Christianity, at the end of the day, Christianity is true, and Islam false. I'm not sure why you're going to such great lengths to say, "no, really, Islam isn't like [i]that[/i], it's like [i]this[/i]." So what? It's false.

[mortify]

Peace Reza,

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1290767' date='Jun 8 2007, 05:44 AM']In you quoting faulty english translations [which no Muslims honor], you're no different then Protestants quoting "The Message Bible" or "The New International Version" in their arguments against the Roman Catholic Church and Scriptural interpretation. You're not getting into the Exegesis of the scriptures, in the Arabic and therefore missing the context of the content.[/quote]

If by honor you mean venerate, as Muslims do with the Quran in it's original language you are correct but the translations I mentioned are well known, written by Muslims who were familiar with classical Arabic and English, so I see no reason in rejecting them. The point of quoting Ali, Shakir, and Pikthal was to show these people understood "awliya" to mean friends. Apparently the USC Muslim Student Association felt these translations were worthy to put on there site.

Now I quoted Ibn Kathir, a renowned source, who said the verse plainly means not to take Christians and Jews as friends, and he himself quotes Umar's handling of a Christian scribe. My question to you is, how do you fit your interpretation of the verse with Umar's action?

[quote]Here is a translation that is much more accurate:[/quote]I had to look up that quote to see who the translator was, I came up with an E.H. Palmer. Do Muslims honor his translation?

What makes E.H. Palmer's (or someone else?) more accurate than that of Shakir, Ali, and Pikthal (all Muslims, btw)?


[quote]In other words, according to the scripture, Muslims are only forbid from befriending Non-Muslims that might cause them harm because of their religion.[/quote]

Reza, I don't know how it is with Copts, but in the West we have a problem with liberal theologians/priests/bishops/etc, who tend to contradict what was taught before. The question is always whether the interpretation fits in and reaffirms or amplifies what was taught before, or whether it's an innovation that is foreign to previous understanding. I'm suspicious of modern Catholic theologians and so there's no reason for me not to be suspicious of modern Muslim theologians.

I personally think interpretations that try to suggest Muslims can have friendships with non-Muslims are of a modern understanding, trying to make Islam more palatable in a relativist world.

I also added before, that saying Muslims can't take Christians as their supporters only creates more difficulties. Can Muslims live under non-Islamic governments?

[quote]What more proof is needed? It's very clear that you're going to great lengths to imply something that wasn't written, without digging deep into the Exegesis of the scripture itself.[/quote]Reza, unfortunately it doesn't take great lengths to find this. I'm not interpreting the Quran, I'm simply quoting ancient sources.

[quote]Note: I find it interesting that you quote the English phonetics to words that you don't know how to pronounce or even what they mean for that matter.[/quote]

I quoted the transliteration of Quran from an Islamic site, most probably their own translation, and it goes to show that they (the Muslim translators) regard "awliya" to mean "friends."

Lastly, you mentioned marriage with non-Muslims. Do you know why a Muslim MAN can marry a non-Muslim, but a Muslim WOMAN can't?

[mortify]

[quote][quote]Question:
Calling people to Islam means establishing personal relationships with the Kuffaar, in the first place to break the ice and pave the way for da’wah. If one of them invites me to eat or drink something that contains nothing haraam, such as coagulated milk, fish and tea, is it permissible for me to eat or drink it? What if there is the possibility that the vessels have been used before that to serve pork or wine – even though they have been washed with soap and water?[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]Answer:

Praise be to Allaah.

Relationships between people are of different kinds. [b]If the Muslim has a relationship of friendship, love and brotherhood with a kaafir, this is [u]haraam[/u] and may be [u]kufr[/u]. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):[/b]

“You (O Muhammad) will not find any people who believe in Allaah and the Last Day, making [u][b]friendship[/b][/u] with those who oppose Allaah and His Messenger (Muhammad), even though they were their fathers or their sons or their brothers or their kindred (people). For such He has written Faith in their hearts, and strengthened them with Rooh (proofs, light and true guidance) from Himself. And He will admit them to Gardens (Paradise) under which rivers flow, to dwell therein (forever). Allaah is pleased with them, and they with Him. They are the party of Allaah. Verily, it is the party of Allaah that will be the successful” [al-Mujaadilah 58:22]

And there are other aayaat and ahaadeeth which convey the same meaning.

If it is a relationship based on selling or buying, or accepting an invitation to eat halaal food, or accepting a gift of something that is permissible, for example, without that having an influence on the Muslim, then this is permitted and it is permissible to eat the food offered by a kaafir to a Muslim if the food and drink are halaal. Even if it is presented in a vessel which has previously been used for drinking wine or eating pork, etc., it is still permissible to take it, so long as the vessel has been washed after being used for haraam or naajis (impure) things and all traces of them have been completely removed. If this will help to convey the message of Islam, this is a stronger reason why these invitations should be accepted and these relationships upheld, and there is more hope that there will be a reward in this case.



From Fataawaa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah, 12/254[/color][/quote]

From: [url="http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=8798&ln=eng&txt=friendship"]http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=8798...;txt=friendship[/url]

Note, Haram=forbidden, Kufr=disbelief (i.e. falling into apostasy).



Question to Reza, what Arabic word is translated as "friendship" in 58:22?

Edited June 8, 2007 by mortify