Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Al-Hassan

Does The Quran Teach To Kill, Or Convert Infidels?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

"Does the koran teach to kill, tax or convert infidels as a general principle? Also does the Koran teach that in the last day trees will cry out there is a Jew behind me come and kill him?"

The simple answer is NO. It does NOT, and anti-Islamic propagandists that claim Islam is spread by the sword or evil like Pastor Terry Jones need to have that planted in their thick brainless skulls. We often suffer from the lies and propaganda that the wahabis spread to degrade Shia Islam but we pay less attention to the bigger enemies that attack our holy prophet and noble Quran. At the same time ,the dajjal and liar Terry Jones and his Shayteen(devils) in his church and the likes of them are the people who the media narrowly focuses on to portray Islam to others, so it is our wajib(duty) to go out there and refute their baseless claims. Unfortunately, we do not show much effort to refute them , and the only reaction coming from Muslims in general that the western media focuses on is from the Wahabis, in which they respond to them in the most uncivilized and uneducated manner.

Fortunately,however, one of our Shia western Imams went out in public and had an open dialogue with terry Jones on public television and entirely refuted his baseless claims. The Imam is Hassan Al-Quizin and he is the leader of the Islamic mosque of Dearborn , which is the largest mosque in all of North America. Here is the video below showing how Imam Quizini destroyed Terry Jones.

This also an article from a Sunni website refuting the idea that Islam is spread by the sword and gives a detailed answer to the question I wrote in italics above. It also explains how some of the verses in the Quran that mentions kuffar, jews and Christians can easily be misinterpreted.

http://spa.qibla.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=9801&CATE=1427

I personally like this Sunni website. They are purely anti-wahabi and salafi. Plus they believe in unity with the Shias as well. Here are answers from their websites expressing their opinions on the Shias.

http://spa.qibla.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=9787&CATE=24

http://spa.qibla.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=13662&CATE=1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not even the islamophobes make the claim that the islamic faith says "to kill or a convert"; it seems our fellow shias cant comprehend a sentence they quote.

The main issue both islamophobes and critics have is with the idea of perpetual war with non-believing governments; they recognize non-muslims are given the right to safety and freedom of worship as long as they pay the jizya tax. But the criticism mainly lies with the aggressive nature of jihad and many of the unjust laws historically imposed on non-muslim citizens (however it varies significantly among different jurists).

The response is simple; in liberal democracies there's no official infidel 'regime' and even muslims participate in government (heck even sharia courts are allowed to exist in the UK). Jihad is waged against specifically against hardline disbelieving regimes as they're seen as obstacles to the spread of Islam and the implementation of sharia. Besides in tashayyu a jihad cannot be waged without the presence of an infallible Imam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmm....Why does that Sunni site use this verse: (Let there be no compulsion in religion) to prove Islam is peaceful, when most of their scholars say it's been abrogated by the verse of the sword?

Edited by Naruto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A child could have destroyed Terry Jones. He's so ignorant, it's painful. I think Sayyid Qazwini would have found himself in a slightly more sticky situation had he been up against someone slightly more informed. For example, when Sayyid Qazwini tried to give the mpression only the Taliban stoned people, and that it wasn't in the Quran, he could have been asked why Shia Iran stones people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone should tell this guy that the Qur'an doesn't commanded killing apostates, but his Bible does. Same thing for stoning.

Quran : "let there be no compulsion in religion for truth is clear from error"

The truth is, the Christians do not stone apostates, but the muslims often do. It's pathetic lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone should tell this guy that the Qur'an doesn't commanded killing apostates, but his Bible does. Same thing for stoning.

Sharia isn't only based on the Quran. It isn't even mainly based on the Quran. As for Christians, they have the easy get out of all that stuff being under the Old Law, which was for the theocratic Jewish state of Israel, and doesn't apply to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sharia isn't only based on the Quran. It isn't even mainly based on the Quran. As for Christians, they have the easy get out of all that stuff being under the Old Law, which was for the theocratic Jewish state of Israel, and doesn't apply to them.

Yes, but when shariah contradicts the Quran it is not logical to follow it. Apostasy is not Islamic.

Quran: "let there be no compulsion in religion for truth is clear from error"

Explanation of this including of the hadiths and why there was 'apostasty' in the early stages of islam.

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/uploads/monthly_02_2013/post-106463-0-01941700-1359837209_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sharia isn't only based on the Quran. It isn't even mainly based on the Quran. As for Christians, they have the easy get out of all that stuff being under the Old Law, which was for the theocratic Jewish state of Israel, and doesn't apply to them.

Jesus is quoted as saying he didn't came to abolish the law. But Christians only follow the parts of the Bible that suits them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus is quoted as saying he didn't came to abolish the law. But Christians only follow the parts of the Bible that suits them.

He is quoted as saying that he didn't come to abolish the Law, but to fulfil it. Christians, following Paul, interpret the fulfilment of the Law to have come about when Jesus was crucified (thereby dying for their sins), and that after that it was no longer necessary to follow the entirety of the old Law.

4 Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes. [Romans 10:4, NIV]

23 Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. [Galatians 3:23-25, NIV]

1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. 2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. [Galatians 5:1-6, NIV]

Anyway, the point is, it's not as simplistic as saying 'it's in the Bible', and you have to address what Christians actually believe, not what you'd like them to believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmm....Why does that Sunni site use this verse: (Let there be no compulsion in religion) to prove Islam is peaceful, when most of their scholars say it's been abrogated by the verse of the sword?

Sorry brother. I do not think I can answer your question or at least answer it correctly as I have limited knowledge on that verse you mentioned " verse of the sword". Maybe a more knowledgeable brother or sister can help out?

ws

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry brother. I do not think I can answer your question or at least answer it correctly as I have limited knowledge on that verse you mentioned " verse of the sword". Maybe a more knowledgeable brother or sister can help out?

ws

That's fine brother. It was supposed to be a rhetorical question. :D

Quran : "let there be no compulsion in religion for truth is clear from error"

The truth is, the Christians do not stone apostates, but the muslims often do. It's pathetic lol.

Wrong. Apostates do not get stoned. In fact, we Shi'as believe that stoning is not a valid method of execution until Imam Al-Mehdi (as) comes back. You could say It's temporatily 'abrogated'.

Yes, but when shariah contradicts the Quran it is not logical to follow it. Apostasy is not Islamic.

Quran: "let there be no compulsion in religion for truth is clear from error"

Explanation of this including of the hadiths and why there was 'apostasty' in the early stages of islam.

http://www.shiachat....37209_thumb.jpg

lol...Of course apostasy is not Islamic. :lol:

Edited by Naruto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmm....Why does that Sunni site use this verse: (Let there be no compulsion in religion) to prove Islam is peaceful, when most of their scholars say it's been abrogated by the verse of the sword?

What is the verse of the sword?

9:5?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, that's the infamous verse of the sword.

But it was referring to a specific event if you read the context. Non-Muslims always take this verse out-of-context.

9:1

to top

9_1.png

Shakir(This is a declaration of) immunity by Allah and His Messenger towards those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement.

Sahih International[This is a declaration of] disassociation, from Allah and His Messenger, to those with whom you had made a treaty among the polytheists.

9:2

to top

9_2.png

9:3

to top

9_3.png

9:4

to top

9_4.png

And I never god the issue of abrogation. Abrogation means there are contradictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it was referring to a specific event if you read the context. Non-Muslims always take this verse out-of-context.

And I never god the issue of abrogation. Abrogation means there are contradictions.

Yeah, I agree with you of course. I was just saying that the vast majority of Sunni mufassirs have said that the 'no compulsion' verse was abrogated. I have yet to see any Shi'ah mufassirs say it's abrogated, in fact, some of them argue that it wasn't abrogated, Allamah Tabataba'i, for example.

Abrogation does not necessarily mean that the Qur'an 'contradicts' itself, it just means that one law is overruled by a newer, more suitable law.to suit the Muslims' conditions.

Edited by Naruto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I agree with you of course. I was just saying that the vast majority of Sunni mufassirs have said that the 'no compulsion' verse was abrogated. I have yet to see any Shi'ah mufassirs say it's abrogated, in fact, some of them argue that it wasn't abrogated. Allamah Tabataba'i, for example.

Abrogation does not necessarily mean that the Qur'an 'contradicts' itself, it just means that one law is overruled by a newer, more suitable law.to suit the Muslims' conditions.

No wonder why Sunnis have many terrorists among them... And they give Islam a bad name.

BTW, the post wasn't necessarly directed to you.

Edited by Robin Hood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is quoted as saying that he didn't come to abolish the Law, but to fulfil it. Christians, following Paul, interpret the fulfilment of the Law to have come about when Jesus was crucified (thereby dying for their sins), and that after that it was no longer necessary to follow the entirety of the old Law.

4 Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes. [Romans 10:4, NIV]

23 Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. [Galatians 3:23-25, NIV]

1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. 2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. [Galatians 5:1-6, NIV]

Anyway, the point is, it's not as simplistic as saying 'it's in the Bible', and you have to address what Christians actually believe, not what you'd like them to believe.

Traditionally the early church fathers like Augustine sanctioned torturing heretics 'out of love' to compel them back to the faith. It only got worse in the days of Aquinas when they were burned instead. The Old Testament was never used to justify this, rather it was based on the New Testament itself. They mainly relied on the words of Paul in Romans, where he said the authorities are appointed by God and are His instrument of divine wrath (hence Paul's statement 'beware, for they do not bear the sword for nothing'). Since God essentially sends divine wrath on not just apostates but also stubborn disbelievers, the implications of Paul's words went far beyond merely punishing apostates but were even given a new twist by St. Ambrose for the argument that no religion should be tolerated other than Christianity (since all non=christians were infidels).

See, the thing about the New Testament is its much more subtle...whereas the Old Testament is as explicit as you can get with its penal regulations and war rhetoric.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No wonder why Sunnis have many terrorists among them... And they give Islam a bad name.

You know, they not only believe that the 'no compulsion' verse was abrogated, but they believe that the 'verse of the sword' has abrogated other verses, such as:

But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things). (8:61)

Whether some Shi'ah's agree with this or not, I'm not certain.

Edited by Naruto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surah Al-Kafirun (Chapter about the Faithless)

"{1} Say, ‘O faithless ones!

{2} I do not worship what you worship,

{3} nor do you worship what I worship;

{4} nor will I worship what you have worshiped

{5} nor will you worship what I worship.

{6} To you your religion, and to me my religion.’"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...