"A terrorist drove a vehicle packed with more than three tonnes of explosives into the busy market area of Khan Bani Saad, north of the capital Baghdad, on what was a scorching Friday afternoon.
In what is considered one of deadliest attacks in Iraq this decade, the driver called on hundreds of locals to gather around the vehicle, telling them he was selling ice at a heavily discounted price in celebration of Eid al-Fitr - the feast that ends the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan.
Although ice was visible on the back of the truck, more than three tonnes of explosives were hidden beneath it. The explosion caused by the deadly load being detonated by the Islamic extremist killed 115 innocent people, injured scores more and left a massive crater in the floor of the marketplace."
Call me crazy, but I think they were better off when we were there.
"A terrorist drove a vehicle packed with more than three tonnes of explosives into the busy market area of Khan Bani Saad, north of the capital Baghdad, on what was a scorching Friday afternoon.
In what is considered one of deadliest attacks in Iraq this decade, the driver called on hundreds of locals to gather around the vehicle, telling them he was selling ice at a heavily discounted price in celebration of Eid al-Fitr - the feast that ends the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan.
Although ice was visible on the back of the truck, more than three tonnes of explosives were hidden beneath it. The explosion caused by the deadly load being detonated by the Islamic extremist killed 115 innocent people, injured scores more and left a massive crater in the floor of the marketplace."
Call me crazy, but I think they were better off when we were there.
Which is why I shall be, within the coming years, working on a secessionist movement to break away from what is causing the most harm to our people - the federal government.
I would like to think that can be done without a war, but I am not so naive as to believe it will be peaceful. The nature of socialists is to control the lives of those around them. So, I expect a bit of a war to come from it.
I've considered a standard revolution to overthrow authority and establish a new authority... but the problem with those types of revolutions always comes in the "establish new authority" phase that turns into revolving door oligarchies and dictatorships where people kill the living shit out of each other. Such as with Bolshevik, Stalin, Mao and the French revolutions.
As such, the only real solution is to declare a new system within a distinct territory and defend that territory and new system without trying to impose that system over others.
Much cleaner.
Then we can turn our attention to the issue of Islam. Europe will be burning by that point in time and the caliphate will be gearing up to Zerg-rush Serbia.
5:48 And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. To each of you We prescribed a law and a method. Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation [united in religion], but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so race to [all that is] good. To Allah is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ.
5:49 And judge, [O Muhammad], between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations and beware of them, lest they tempt you away from some of what Allah has revealed to you. And if they turn away - then know that Allah only intends to afflict them with some of their [own] sins. And indeed, many among the people are defiantly disobedient.
You must be registered for see links
2:190 Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.
191 And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.
192 And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
193 Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.
194 [Fighting in] the sacred month is for [aggression committed in] the sacred month, and for [all] violations is legal retribution. So whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you. And fear Allah and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.
The Shiites are at war with the Sunnis in parts of Syria and Lebanon. This attack was conducted in a Shiite-majority area of Iraq by the Sunni group forming the Islamic State.
Surat Al-Baqarah, Ayah 194 justifies retaliation against the Shiites during Ramadan.
Further, the conflict between Shiites and Sunni is also justified per the command to fight until there is no disagreement or trial within Islam. Unity is more important than individual life.
Which is why I shall be, within the coming years, working on a secessionist movement to break away from what is causing the most harm to our people - the federal government.
I would like to think that can be done without a war, but I am not so naive as to believe it will be peaceful. The nature of socialists is to control the lives of those around them. So, I expect a bit of a war to come from it.
I've considered a standard revolution to overthrow authority and establish a new authority... but the problem with those types of revolutions always comes in the "establish new authority" phase that turns into revolving door oligarchies and dictatorships where people kill the living shit out of each other. Such as with Bolshevik, Stalin, Mao and the French revolutions.
As such, the only real solution is to declare a new system within a distinct territory and defend that territory and new system without trying to impose that system over others.
Much cleaner.
Then we can turn our attention to the issue of Islam. Europe will be burning by that point in time and the caliphate will be gearing up to Zerg-rush Serbia.
5:48 And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. To each of you We prescribed a law and a method. Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation [united in religion], but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so race to [all that is] good. To Allah is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ.
5:49 And judge, [O Muhammad], between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations and beware of them, lest they tempt you away from some of what Allah has revealed to you. And if they turn away - then know that Allah only intends to afflict them with some of their [own] sins. And indeed, many among the people are defiantly disobedient.
You must be registered for see links
2:190 Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.
191 And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.
192 And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
193 Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.
194 [Fighting in] the sacred month is for [aggression committed in] the sacred month, and for [all] violations is legal retribution. So whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you. And fear Allah and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.
The Shiites are at war with the Sunnis in parts of Syria and Lebanon. This attack was conducted in a Shiite-majority area of Iraq by the Sunni group forming the Islamic State.
Surat Al-Baqarah, Ayah 194 justifies retaliation against the Shiites during Ramadan.
Further, the conflict between Shiites and Sunni is also justified per the command to fight until there is no disagreement or trial within Islam. Unity is more important than individual life.
Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. 5:32
You must be registered for see links
On the meanings of Fitnah.
You must be registered for see links
5:48 And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. To each of you We prescribed a law and a method. Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation [united in religion], but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so race to [all that is] good. To Allah is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ.
5:49 And judge, [O Muhammad], between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations and beware of them, lest they tempt you away from some of what Allah has revealed to you. And if they turn away - then know that Allah only intends to afflict them with some of their [own] sins. And indeed, many among the people are defiantly disobedient.
Nothing there supports your fabrication that Islam commands the killing of innocent, because quite simply it doesn't. The only time Islam permits killing is:
1- When someone is spreading corruption in the land
2- When someone has murdered another
3- When an apostle propagates and spreads hate and lies about Islam.
Those are the only three times Islam allows executions, because when a person does one of the three above they're bound to bring harm to others.
You must be registered for see links
2:190 Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.
This meant that the Prophet and his companions were not to start the fighting; but to defend themselves against aggressors. That was how fighting was ordained; but know that they -the Prophet pbuh and his followers-, fought to defeat the aggressors i.e. the Quraish, so that they could live without fear of molestation and invasion. Remember God does not command anyone to start fighting; rather He permits people to fight in self defence or for the defence of those who are attacked unjustly.
This ayat comes from the Surah Al-Baqarah. Al-Baqarah was concerned with the Muslims and non Muslims at the time the Prophet was still alive and the Quraish (a group of non Muslims who worshipped idols) were trying to kill the Prophet pbuh and his followers. This ayat you've quoted was command in at a specific time. It doesn't order Muslims in this day and age to terrorise others.
Know the context/background of the ayats you're using before you claim that Islam commands the killing of the innocent.
191 And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.
192 And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
193 Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.
A classic and popular example of what Muslim scholars call a ‘cut and paste’ approach. Everything becomes so much easier for the Anti-Islamists when they remove the context. :lol
The solution for the Muslim is to simply replace the verse in its context:
Again, this ayat comes from surah Al-Baqarah and as I've already said Al-Baqarah was concerned with the Muslims and non Muslims at the time of the Prophet; thus this command was direct to the Prophet and his followers, not with Muslims in this day and age.
As I've already said, these verse were revealed at a time when Muslims of Madinah were under constant attack from the Makkans. An example would be when the Makkans conducted the public crucifixion of the companion of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), Khubaib bin Adi. These would be classified as 'terrorist activities' according to the modern usage of the term. So what does this verse say in this context? "Fight in the cause of God those who fight you", "unless they (first) fight you there" - the context of this verse applies to those who initiate the attack against Muslims. And even after they attack, the verse makes it clear: "But if they cease, God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." And it also makes clear the purpose for what Muslims fight: "fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God". It is the duty of Muslims to defend humanity from oppression and persecution and to establish justice. Muslims believe that God has placed us here on earth as his deputy or viceroy, and thus, it is our duty to enjoin the good and forbid the evil, to establish peace and justice in the land.
Once again, know the context/background of the ayats you're using before you claim that Islam commands the killing of the innocent.
194 [Fighting in] the sacred month is for [aggression committed in] the sacred month, and for [all] violations is legal retribution. So whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you. And fear Allah and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.
Surat Al-Baqarah, Ayah 194 justifies retaliation against the Shiites during Ramadan
"[Fighting in] the sacred month is for [aggression committed in] the sacred month"
This means that fighting or initiating a fight in the sacred month (Ramadan) is classified as aggression.
"and for [all] violations is legal retribution."
This means that for all violations there is a legal punishment; And because fighting is a violation during the holy month of Ramadan, it should be punished; thus why it says:
So whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you.
Basically the whole ayat means that fighting in the sacred month is a violation, and because for all violations there is a legal retribution (punishment), the punishment for a person who attacks you is that you're permitted to assault them back just as they have done to you.
Therefore surah Al-Baqarah ayat 194 does not justify the retaliation of Shiites against the 114 innocent people they've been killed in the explosion. It only justifies when it's against those ISIS barbarians as they're the ones who've started the fight.
Further, the conflict between Shiites and Sunni is also justified per the command to fight until there is no disagreement or trial within Islam. Unity is more important than individual life.
Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. 5:32
Let's look at that section of Surat Al-Ma'idah more carefully.
5:27 And recite to them the story of Adam's two sons, in truth, when they both offered a sacrifice [to Allah ], and it was accepted from one of them but was not accepted from the other. Said [the latter], "I will surely kill you." Said [the former], "Indeed, Allah only accepts from the righteous [who fear Him].
28 If you should raise your hand against me to kill me - I shall not raise my hand against you to kill you. Indeed, I fear Allah , Lord of the worlds.
29 Indeed I want you to obtain [thereby] my sin and your sin so you will be among the companions of the Fire. And that is the recompense of wrongdoers."
30 And his soul permitted to him the murder of his brother, so he killed him and became among the losers.
31 Then Allah sent a crow searching in the ground to show him how to hide the disgrace of his brother. He said, "O woe to me! Have I failed to be like this crow and hide the body of my brother?" And he became of the regretful.
Now - for all of 32 (since you only partially quoted it):
32 Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.
.... Oh?
This is an account of laws prescribed for Israel. It is a story justifying Muhammad's claim that Israel had lost favor with 'Allah.'
33 Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,
Keep that phrase "disgrace in this world" in mind. It's used frequently throughout the Qu'ran - and this is what the term is in reference to.
Nothing there supports your fabrication that Islam commands the killing of innocent, because quite simply it doesn't. The only time Islam permits killing is:
1- When someone is spreading corruption in the land
2- When someone has murdered another
3- When an apostle propagates and spreads hate and lies about Islam.
Those are the only three times Islam allows executions, because when a person does one of the three above they're bound to bring harm to others.
2:8 And of the people are some who say, "We believe in Allah and the Last Day," but they are not believers.
2:9 They [think to] deceive Allah and those who believe, but they deceive not except themselves and perceive [it] not.
2:10 In their hearts is disease, so Allah has increased their disease; and for them is a painful punishment because they [habitually] used to lie.
2:11 And when it is said to them, "Do not cause corruption on the earth," they say, "We are but reformers."
2:12 Unquestionably, it is they who are the corrupters, but they perceive [it] not.
2:13 And when it is said to them, "Believe as the people have believed," they say, "Should we believe as the foolish have believed?" Unquestionably, it is they who are the foolish, but they know [it] not.
2:14 And when they meet those who believe, they say, "We believe"; but when they are alone with their evil ones, they say, "Indeed, we are with you; we were only mockers."
2:15 [But] Allah mocks them and prolongs them in their transgression [while] they wander blindly.
...
2:78 And among them are unlettered ones who do not know the Scripture except in wishful thinking, but they are only assuming.
2:79 So woe to those who write the "scripture" with their own hands, then say, "This is from Allah ," in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.
...
2:89 And when there came to them a Book from Allah confirming that which was with them - although before they used to pray for victory against those who disbelieved - but [then] when there came to them that which they recognized, they disbelieved in it; so the curse of Allah will be upon the disbelievers.
2:90 How wretched is that for which they sold themselves - that they would disbelieve in what Allah has revealed through [their] outrage that Allah would send down His favor upon whom He wills from among His servants. So they returned having [earned] wrath upon wrath. And for the disbelievers is a humiliating punishment.
These are accounts of general disbelief in a single written set of laws and teachings as revealed by 'Allah.' The theme is that 'Allah' has prescribed specific things, and people turn away from those revelations, modify them, etc.
Shia Islam has embraced a number of principles that were not part of Muhammad's teachings. As such, they are quite correctly interpreted as spreading corruption in the land.
This meant that the Prophet and his companions were not to start the fighting; but to defend themselves against aggressors. That was how fighting was ordained; but know that they -the Prophet pbuh and his followers-, fought to defeat the aggressors i.e. the Quraish, so that they could live without fear of molestation and invasion. Remember God does not command anyone to start fighting; rather He permits people to fight in self defence or for the defence of those who are attacked unjustly.
2:2 This is the Book about which there is no doubt, a guidance for those conscious of Allah -
Are the Shiites and the Sunnis not at war?
This ayat comes from the Surah Al-Baqarah. Al-Baqarah was concerned with the Muslims and non Muslims at the time the Prophet was still alive and the Quraish (a group of non Muslims who worshipped idols) were trying to kill the Prophet pbuh and his followers. This ayat you've quoted was command in at a specific time. It doesn't order Muslims in this day and age to terrorise others.
The Qu'ran is not a historical account. That is for things like the Hadith. The Qu'ran is the book of truth and the revelations granted to humanity so that they may live as rightfully guided.
Know the context/background of the ayats you're using before you claim that Islam commands the killing of the innocent.
Again, your error is assuming that you know something I do not, and that the Shiites in this case are innocent.
They are not. Just as, from the Shiite perspective, the Sunni are not innocent. Both are essentially spreading corruption through the land and both are called to war in order to unify Islam under one teaching.
Further, you will note that the Quraysh were not attacking the Muslims.
Muhammad was raiding caravans after he fled Mecca due to his unpopularity with his tribe after preaching against them and insulting their gods. This led the Quraysh to forbid Muhammad's followers from traveling through their territory. In fact, the Quraysh were Muhammad's tribe. Hence why the Imams are selected from among the Quraysh.
The fighting Muhammad mentioned was, essentially, the start of a civil war within the Quraysh - Muhamma's flight to Medina was after a series of meetings with leaders from other tribes in an attempt to find military might to leverage against the Quraysh.
A classic and popular example of what Muslim scholars call a ‘cut and paste’ approach. Everything becomes so much easier for the Anti-Islamists when they remove the context. :lol
The solution for the Muslim is to simply replace the verse in its context:
Again, this ayat comes from surah Al-Baqarah and as I've already said Al-Baqarah was concerned with the Muslims and non Muslims at the time of the Prophet; thus this command was direct to the Prophet and his followers, not with Muslims in this day and age.
While you are correct in your assertion that it is not an enduring command per se; it is a contextual command as it is included within the Qu'ran. The Qu'ran is the only book the Muslim -needs-. To deny this goes specifically against the very wording of the Qu'ran, itself (specifically, the beginning of Surat Al-Baqarah).
The context is not historical, it is situational. "If your situation parallels this; then act according to this."
As I've already said, these verse were revealed at a time when Muslims of Madinah were under constant attack from the Makkans.
This has to be placed within your beloved words.... context.
You must be registered for see links
" He sat down with the three brothers who were the princes of the Thaqif and invited them to Allah, and told them he had come to ask their aid in the propagation of Islam, and their support against those of his people who opposed him. But one of the men said he would tear up the cloth which covered the Kaba if Allah had sent him; and the second man said, 'Could Allah find no better to send except you?' and the third man complained, 'I shall never speak to you! For, if you are an apostle of Allah, your dignity is too great for me to contradict you; and if you are lying, there is no necessity for me to speak to you.'
So the apostle of Allah left them, in despair of receiving any *aid from the Thaqif. He said to them, 'Since you have done what you have done, at least keep my request secret', for he was unwilling that his people should hear of the matter lest they be further incensed against him. The three princes did not keep silent, however, but encouraged their slaves to curse him and to shout after him, so that he was compelled to take refuge in an orchard belonging to Utba and Shayba, both of whom were *there at the time. The rabble of Thaqif withdrew and the apostle of Allah sat down in the shade of a vine while Utba and Shayba looked on. "
...
" After Abdullah had marched two days' journey, he opened the letter, and found it contained the following instructions: 'Go on to Nakhla, between Mecca and Al‑Taif, and keep watch over the Quraysh there and bring back news of their business.' Abdullah said, 'I read and obey!' Then he told his companions about the letter, and added, 'He has also prohibited me from forcing any one of you to do anything against his will. If, therefore, any of you wishes to earn martyrdom, let him come with me; but if not, let him go back.' All his companions went with him, and none remained behind, but at Bahran two of the travellers lost the camel which they had been riding in turns and they fell behind to look for it. Abdullah marched on with the rest of his companions to Nakhla, where they came upon a Quraysh caravan laden with raisins, tanned hides, and various other goods., and accompanied by four men.
When the caravan saw Abdullah and his companions they were afraid because they had alighted so near to them, but when Ukkasha – whose head was shaved like that of a pilgrim – approached them, they recovered their confidence and said, “These are pilgrims, and we need have no fear of them.’
This took place on the last day of the sacred month Rajab [October]. Abdullah and his companions conferred among themselves: ‘If we allow these people to continue and reach sacred territory tonight, they will be safe from us; but if we attack them now, we profane the sacred month.’ And they vacillated and hesitated to attack, but at last mustered up their courage and agreed to slay as many of the Quraysh as they could, and take possession of what they had with them. So Waqid shot an arrow and killed one of the Quraysh, two others were made prisoner, and the fourth fled. "
...
" When Allah made plunder permissible He allowed four parts to those who had won it, and one part to Himself and to His apostle, exactly as Abdullah had done with the captured caravan.
This was the occasion when the first booty was taken by the Muslims, when the first prisoners were taken by the Muslims and when the first man was slain by the Muslims. It was eighteen months since the Emigrants had arrived in Medina.
Soon the apostle of Allah heard that Abu Sufyan ‑ whom he had missed at al‑Ushayra ‑ was returning from Syria with a large caravan of merchandise, accompanied by thirty or forty men. Then he addressed the Believers, saying: 'Go forth against this caravan; it may be that Allah will grant you plunder.' The people soon assembled, though some were fearful and others hesitated because they had not thought the apostle would really go to war. "
These were not defensive wars. He and his followers were not under attack in Medina. He went to war against the Quraysh out of vengeance, raiding and pillaging their supply caravans.
An example would be when the Makkans conducted the public crucifixion of the companion of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), Khubaib bin Adi. These would be classified as 'terrorist activities' according to the modern usage of the term.
This was not until after the battle of Badr, itself was after several notable caravan raids by Muhammad and his followers.
So what does this verse say in this context? "Fight in the cause of God those who fight you", "unless they (first) fight you there" - the context of this verse applies to those who initiate the attack against Muslims. And even after they attack, the verse makes it clear: "But if they cease, God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." And it also makes clear the purpose for what Muslims fight: "fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God". It is the duty of Muslims to defend humanity from oppression and persecution and to establish justice. Muslims believe that God has placed us here on earth as his deputy or viceroy, and thus, it is our duty to enjoin the good and forbid the evil, to establish peace and justice in the land.
So they pillaged caravans in retribution, exiled Jews, and turned a religious argument into a civil war that eventually grew into a decree for religious conquest.
Once again, know the context/background of the ayats you're using before you claim that Islam commands the killing of the innocent.
Within the view of Islam, the Quraysh were not innocent. Neither were the hypocrites among them, and neither were the Jews.
Basically, anyone who resists the teachings of Muhammad or distorts them is guilty in some way or another. Strictly speaking - you are just as guilty as I am for believing Muhammad to be, at best, a schizophrenic warlord and at worst a pawn of satan.
Fighting is for aggression committed. IE - Fighting done in the sacred month is to be for retribution.
"and for [all] violations is legal retribution."
This means that for all violations there is a legal punishment; And because fighting is a violation during the holy month of Ramadan, it should be punished; thus why it says:
So whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you.
Basically the whole ayat means that fighting in the sacred month is a violation, and because for all violations there is a legal retribution (punishment), the punishment for a person who attacks you is that you're permitted to assault them back just as they have done to you.
In your own round-about way, you came around to a correct-enough interpretation.
Therefore surah Al-Baqarah ayat 194 does not justify the retaliation of Shiites against the 114 innocent people they've been killed in the explosion. It only justifies when it's against those ISIS barbarians as they're the ones who've started the fight.
The Shiites are not innocent. Just as Muhammad justified the attacks on the caravans during the holy month as retribution for crimes committed by the Quraysh in his eyes, every Shiite is just as guilty as the ones fighting in the civil wars.
For example - the missiles fired by Shiite rebels into Saudi Arabia. The Saudis intercepted the missiles - but the attack was still directed toward Sunnis.
It isn't justified. You'll know why when you read my rebuttal.
It is reported on the authority of Sa'b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them. "
Groups of people contain guilt.
Come at me with more stupid claims backed up by ayats you've quoted out of context, and I'll prove you wrong.
It is narrated on the authority of Jabir that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: War is a stratagem. "
I haven't even touched Surat At-Tawbah, yet. But that is mostly because that is a declaration of Islam's enduring conquest of humanity at the point of the sword. It isn't as helpful at peering into how Islam is supposed to settle internal disputes regarding interpretations of scripture and the like.
For that, we have to go all the way back to the beginnings of Islam and how Islam sought to unify its followers and immediate surrounding territories.
Basically - the solution Islam provides to "who has the correct interpretation" is, when all else fails, go to war with each other and In-Sha-Allah. Let the superior ideology win. Multiple portions of the Qu'ran appeal to this idea - reminding Muslims to remember various battles and when the muslims were victorious over their enemies - claiming that it was proof of Allah's favor (of course, when they lost... well... that's because there weren't enough people who truly believed and the defeat was exposing the consequence of disbelief).
Thus - the Qu'ran's guidance for how to resolve the dispute between the Sunnis and the Shiites is to declare each other Kuffar and kill each other until unity has been achieved.
There is an Ayat about taking those concerns to the prophet... but a lot of good that does, today (the best that can be done is to take it to the Hadith - but there is disagreement upon some Hadith here and there). Thus, the only guidance the Muslim is left with is to declare opposing views as those of disbelief or corruption and set about Jihad. Perhaps to 'bring a warning' at first, but, eventually, it becomes necessary to defer all dealings with those who are Kuffar to Surat At-Tawbah, where it's essentially an open declaration of war and conquest.
Which stacks up pretty closely with Islam's history.
2:190 Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.
191 And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.
192 And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
193 Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.
194 [Fighting in] the sacred month is for [aggression committed in] the sacred month, and for [all] violations is legal retribution. So whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you. And fear Allah and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.
Let me start by saying that the killing of civilians/non-combatants is still forbidden. Let's turn to your favourite Ibn Kathir, and inbefore you even get to Surat At-Tawbah, note the following comment of his, on 2:190 :
"Abu Al-`Aliyah said, "This was the first Ayah about fighting that was revealed in Al-Madinah. Ever since it was revealed, Allah's Messenger used to fight only those who fought him and avoid non-combatants. Later, Surat Bara'ah (chapter 9 in the Qur'an) was revealed.'' `Abdur-Rahman bin Zayd bin Aslam said similarly, then he said that this was later abrogated by the Ayah: (then kill them wherever you find them) (9:5).
However, this statement is not plausible, because Allah's statement:
(...those who fight you) applies only to fighting the enemies who are engaged in fighting Islam and its people. So the Ayah means, `Fight those who fight you', just as Allah said (in another Ayah):
(...and fight against the Mushrikin collectively as they fight against you collectively.) (9:36) "
You must be registered for see links
As I already told you like 3 times before - getting ditched in the end-, Ibn Kathir simply doesn't support your interpretation. You'd do well to get over that point.
"This Ayah means, `Fight for the sake of Allah and do not be transgressors,' such as, by committing prohibitions. Al-Hasan Al-Basri stated that transgression (indicated by the Ayah), "includes mutilating the dead, theft (from the captured goods), killing women, children and old people who do not participate in warfare, killing priests and residents of houses of worship, burning down trees and killing animals without real benefit.'' This is also the opinion of Ibn `Abbas, `Umar bin `Abdul-`Aziz, Muqatil bin Hayyan and others. Muslim recorded in his Sahih that Buraydah narrated that Allah's Messenger said:
Fight for the sake of Allah and fight those who disbelieve in Allah. Fight, but do not steal (from the captured goods), commit treachery, mutilate (the dead), or kill a child, or those who reside in houses of worship.)
It is reported in the Two Sahihs that Ibn `Umar said, "A woman was found dead during one of the Prophet's battles and the Prophet then forbade killing women and children. ''
You must be registered for see links
As for the meaning of fitnah, as you can see, it can also be translated as 'persecution, oppression'. While it's true that islamqa translates fitnah in verse 193 as 'disbelief', and even in the translation of the above mentioned tafseer of Ibn Kathir it is translated as such in both 191 and 193, but instead of buying your own interpretation, let's turn to islamic scholars...You should have checked the other islamqa article on removing fitnah...
"2 – Repelling the aggression of those who attack the Muslims.
The scholars are unanimously agreed that repelling the aggression of those who attack the Muslims is fard ‘ayn (an individual obligation) upon those who are able to do that.
Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And fight in the way of Allaah those who fight you, but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allaah likes not the transgressors”
[al-Baqarah 2:190]
“Will you not fight a people who have violated their oaths (pagans of Makkah) and intended to expel the Messenger while they did attack you first? Do you fear them? Allaah has more right that you should fear Him if you are believers”
[al-Tawbah 9:13]
3 – Removing fitnah (tribulation)
Fitnah is of different types:
(i) That which is caused by the kuffaar who persecute the Muslims or apply pressure to them to make them give up their religion. Allaah has commanded the Muslims to fight in jihad in order to save those who are weak and oppressed. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And what is wrong with you that you fight not in the Cause of Allaah, and for those weak, ill-treated and oppressed among men, women, and children, whose cry is: “Our Lord! Rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from You one who will protect, and raise for us from You one who will help”
[al-Nisa’ 4:75]
(ii) The fitnah of the kuffaar themselves and their preventing others from hearing and accepting the truth. That is because the kaafir systems corrupt the innate nature and reason of people, and make them get used to worshipping and submitting to things other than Allaah, getting addicted to alcohol, wallowing in the mire of sexual licence, and losing all characteristics of virtue. Whoever is like that can rarely tell truth from falsehood, good from evil, right from wrong. So jihad is prescribed in order to remove those obstacles that prevent people from hearing and accepting the truth and getting to know it.
4 – Protecting the Islamic state from the evil of the kuffaar.
Hence the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) ordered that the leaders of the kuffaar be killed, those who incited the enemies against the Muslims, such as the Jews Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf and Ibn Abi’l-Haqeeq.
Another aspect of jihad is to protect the borders against the kuffaar. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) encouraged that as he said: “Guarding the border for one day for the sake of Allaah is better than this world and everything in it.” Al-Bukhaari, 2678. "
You must be registered for see links
(Inbefore you start digressing by referring to the rest of the points mentioned in the article, like fighting is prescribed against people till they worship Allah..., I'll quote you a scholarly opinion on that too, from An Nawawi [he's quite the authority]:
So, what does it mean when he says,“to fight the people”? This is the most controversial and misunderstood part of the hadith. Does “people” refer to everyone, a certain group, or is there further context to this hadith? Based on the context of the life of the Prophet (sas), and the actions of the generations after him, it’s understood that this hadith does not refer to all people, by any means. There were many people that he didn’t fight and people with whom we had peace contracts. There were also people that paid jizya. They were not Muslims, but they paid this tax to the Muslim state in order to be protected and to receive services.
Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani (ra), in his explanation of Sahih Al Bukhari, mentions five or six different possibilities for what “the people” could mean. The main point in that discussion is that the hadith refers to a particular type of people.
One specific incident that occurred, related to the context of this hadith, is that a group of people decided that they would no longer pay zakah when Abu Bakr became the leader of the Muslim nation. Abu Bakr took the stance that he would fight them unless they paid zakah. Many of the other companions disagreed with him, and Abu Bakr would refer to this narration, and others would refer to the narrations that don’t have the mention of establishing prayer and paying zakah.
Umar (ra) disagreed with him and argued with him for a while. Umar later said, “When I saw that Allah had made Abu Bakr so convinced with his opinion, then I, myself, also become convinced with his opinion.” Abu Bakr said that you couldn’t distinguish between these things. They are all fundamentals of the faith and cannot be denied, in particular establishing prayer and paying zakah because of this narration.
You must be registered for see links
)
So, back to fitnah: even islamqa recognizes fitnah as oppression or persecution, as seen above.
Ibn Kathir goes on:
"(And fight them until there is no more Fitnah) Al-Bukhari recorded that Nafi` said that two men came to Ibn `Umar during the conflict of Ibn Az-Zubayr and said to him, "The people have fallen into shortcomings and you are the son of `Umar and the Prophet's Companion. Hence, what prevents you from going out'' He said, "What prevents me is that Allah has for bidden shedding the blood of my (Muslim) brother.'' They said, "Did not Allah say:
(And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah))'' He said, "We did fight until there was no more Fitnah and the religion became for Allah Alone. You want to fight until there is Fitnah and the religion becomes for other than Allah!'' "
You must be registered for see links
Gee, a companion of the Prophet pbuh didn't want to fight his fellow brothers, because that's exactly what would lead to fitnah, that was already removed.
Ibn Kathir goes even further:
"(And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief))
He said, "That we did during the time of Allah's Messenger when Islam was still weak and (the Muslim) man used to face trials in his religion, such as killing or torture. When Islam became stronger (and apparent), there was no more Fitnah.''
You must be registered for see links
Pretty obvious that removing fitnah means to stop oppression till muslims can freely practice their religion and are not subject to torture or persecution.
Another commentary, which uses not only Ibn Kathir but other tafseers as well:
"(2:191) Kill them whenever you confront them and drive them out from where they drove you out. (For though killing is sinful) wrongful persecution is even worse than killing.202 Do not fight against them near the Holy Mosque unless they fight against you; but if they fight against you kill them, for that is the reward of such unbelievers.
202. Here the word fitnah is used in the sense of 'persecution'. It refers to a situation whereby either a person or a group is subjected to harassment and intimidation for having accepted, as true, a set of ideas contrary to those currently held, and for striving to effect reforms in the existing order of society by preaching what is good and condemning what is wrong. Such a situation must be changed, if need be, by the force of arms.
Bloodshed is bad, but when one group of people imposes its ideology and forcibly prevents others from accepting the truth, then it becomes guilty of an even more serious crime. In such circumstances, it is perfectly legitimate to remove that oppressive group by the force of arms.
(2:193) Keep on fighting against them until mischief ends and the way prescribed by Allah prevails.204 But if they desist, then know that hostility is directed only against the wrong-doers.205
204. Here the term fitnah is used in a different sense from the one in which it was used above see( verse 191). It is evident from the context that fitnah refers here to the state of affairs wherein the object of obedience is someone other than God. Hence the purpose of a believer's fighting is that this fitnah should cease and obedience should be consecrated to God alone.
An investigation of the usages of the word din (which occurs in this verse) reveals that the core of its meaning is obedience. In its technical usage, the word refers to that system of life which arises as a result of a person recognizing someone as his Lord and Sovereign and committing himself to following his commands and ordinances. This explanation of the word din makes it quite clear that when some human beings establish their godhead and absolute dominance over others, this state of affairs is one of fitnah. Islam seeks to put an end to this and replace it by a state of affairs in which people live in obedience to the laws of God alone.
205. What is meant here by 'desisting' is not the abandonment of unbelief and polytheism on the part of the unbelievers but rather their desistance from active hostility to the religion enjoined by God. The unbeliever, the polytheist, the atheist, has each been, empowered to hold on to his beliefs and to worship who and whatever he wishes. In order to deliver these people from their error, Muslims are required to counsel them and tell them where their good lies. But Muslims ought not to try to achieve this purpose by resorting to force. At the same time, these misguided people have no right to either enforce the false laws of their own contriving instead of the laws of God or to drive the people of God to bondage of others than God. In order to put an end to this fitnah, both persuasion and force be used, whenever and to the extent to which each of the two is needed, and a true believer will not rest until the unbelievers give up this fitnah.
The statement that hostility is meant only against wrong-doers seems to imply that when the true system of life replaces the false one, ordinary people should be granted a general amnesty. At the same time, however, it would be justifiable to punish those who exceeded all limits in their hostility to the Truth, at the time when they held the reins of power. Yet in dealing with such people, it becomes the true believers, after they have one final victory, to adopt a general attitude of forgiveness and tolerance towards the vanquished rather than subject them to revenge for the wrongs they committed in the past. Those criminals whose records were exceptionally bad could, however, be punished. The Prophet (peace be on him), availed himself of this permission in respect of some notorious enemies whose hostility had exceeded all limits, even though pardon and forgiveness behoved none more than him. Thus 'Uqbah ibn Abi Mu'avt and Nadr b. Harith from among the captives of the Battle of Badr were put to death and when a general amnesty, was proclaimed after the conquest of Makka four out of seventeen persons were executed. (See Ibn Hisham, vol. 1, p. 644 and vol. 2, pp. 409 ff. - Ed.) These acts were based on the permission to put to the sword those who have been conspicuously ruthless in their hostility to Islam and the Muslims. "
You must be registered for see links
However, I must say that you're partially correct. Self-defense is allowed in the sacred month too.
"(The sacred month is for the sacred month, and for the prohibited things, there is the Law of equality (Qisas).)
Imam Ahmad recorded that Jabir bin `Abdullah said, "Allah's Messenger would not engage in warfare during the Sacred Month unless he was first attacked, then he would march forth. He would otherwise remain idle until the end of the Sacred Months.'' This Hadith has an authentic chain of narrators. "
You must be registered for see links
"(2:194) The sacred month for the sacred month; sanctities should be respected alike (by all concerned). Thus, if someone has attacked you, attack him just as he attacked you, and fear Allah and remain conscious that Allah is with those who guard against violating the bounds set by Him.206
206. From the time of Abraham three months - Dhu al-Qa'dah, Dhu al-Hijjah and Muharram - were consecrated for Hajj, and the month of Rajab was consecrated for 'Umrah. For the duration of these four months warfare, killing and pillage were prohibited so that people could perform Pilgrimage and return home safely. For this reason these months were called the 'sacred months'.
The purpose of the verse is to stress that if the unbelievers respect the sanctity of the sacred months, the Muslims should do the same. If, however, they violate this sanctity and subject the Muslims to aggression, then the Muslims are also entitled to retribution even during the 'sacred months'.
The permission mentioned here was called forth by the introduction of nasi', a practice which had been introduced by the Arabs in order to have an advantage over others in their battles and raids. The manner in which the Arabs used nasi' was such that whenever they wished either to start a conflict in order to satisfy their vendetta or to loot and plunder they carried out their raid in one of the sacred months and then later on tried to compensate for this violation by treating one of the non-sacred months as a sacred month. The Muslims were, therefore, concerned as to what they should do in case the unbelievers resorted to this artifice and surprised them by an attack in one of the recognized sacred months. The verse refers to this problem. "
You must be registered for see links
It is true that some/many sunni muslims don't even consider the shiites to be muslims, and would rather support ISIS against a shia gvmnt. But it's true that the shia gvmnt in Iraq was oppressive towards sunnis. Killing of civilians is still not allowed.
Hadith narrations support the context in which I provide them.
Let's look at that section of Surat Al-Ma'idah more carefully.
5:27 And recite to them the story of Adam's two sons, in truth, when they both offered a sacrifice [to Allah ], and it was accepted from one of them but was not accepted from the other. Said [the latter], "I will surely kill you." Said [the former], "Indeed, Allah only accepts from the righteous [who fear Him].
28 If you should raise your hand against me to kill me - I shall not raise my hand against you to kill you. Indeed, I fear Allah , Lord of the worlds.
29 Indeed I want you to obtain [thereby] my sin and your sin so you will be among the companions of the Fire. And that is the recompense of wrongdoers."
30 And his soul permitted to him the murder of his brother, so he killed him and became among the losers.
31 Then Allah sent a crow searching in the ground to show him how to hide the disgrace of his brother. He said, "O woe to me! Have I failed to be like this crow and hide the body of my brother?" And he became of the regretful.
Now - for all of 32 (since you only partially quoted it):
32 Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.
.... Oh?
This is an account of laws prescribed for Israel. It is a story justifying Muhammad's claim that Israel had lost favor with 'Allah.'
Naaaah...The Quran mentions that decree exactly because the jews didn't keep that ruling, but muslims should. It's obvious that Caain killing Abel was basically the first murder ever, we know of, and ever since killing an innocent soul is forbidden. Why would Allah mention this in the Quran, only to suddenly change His ways and allow muslims to kill innocents...Zero logic in that.
But don't take my word for it.
"(5:32) Therefore We ordained for the Children of Israel53 that he who slays a soul unless it be (in punishment) for murder or for spreading mischief on earth shall be as if he had slain all mankind; and he who saves a life shall be as if he had given life to all mankind.54 And indeed again and again did Our Messengers come to them with clear directives; yet many of them continued to commit excesses on earth.
53.Since the same qualities which had been displayed by the wrong doing son of Adam were manifest in the Children of Israel, God strongly urged them not to kill human beings and couched His command in forceful terms. It is a pity that the precious words which embody God's ordinance are to be found nowhere in the Bible today. The Talmud, however, does mention this subject in the following words:
To him who kills a single individual of Israel, it shall be reckoned as if he had slain the whole race and he who preserves a single individual of Israel, it shall be reckoned in the Book of God as if he had preserved the whole world. The Talmud also mentions that in trials for murder, the Israelite judges used to address the witnesses as follows:
Whoever kills one person, merits punishment as if he had slain all the men in the world.
"54. This means that the survival of human life depends on everyone respecting other human beings and in contributing actively to the survival and protection of others. Whosoever kills unrighteously is thus not merely guilty of doing wrong to one single person, but proves by his act that his heart is devoid of respect for human life and of sympathy for the human species as such. Such a person, therefore, is an enemy of all mankind. This is so because he happens to be possessed of a quality which, were it to become common to all men, would lead to the destruction of the entire human race. The person who helps to preserve the life of even one person, on the other hand, is the protector of the whole of humanity, for he possesses a quality which is indispensable to the survival of mankind. "
You must be registered for see links
"Al-A`mash and others said that Abu Salih said that Abu Hurayrah said, "I entered on `Uthman when he was under siege in his house and said, `I came to give you my support. Now, it is good to fight (defending you) O Leader of the Faithful!' He said, `O Abu Hurayrah! Does it please you that you kill all people, including me' I said, `No.' He said, `If you kill one man, it is as if you killed all people. Therefore, go back with my permission for you to leave. May you receive your reward and be saved from burden.' So I went back and did not fight.''' `Ali bin Abi Talhah reported that Ibn `Abbas said, "It is as Allah has stated,
(if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind.) Saving life in this case occurs by not killing a soul that Allah has forbidden. So this is the meaning of saving the life of all mankind, for whoever forbids killing a soul without justification, the lives of all people will be saved from him.''
You must be registered for see links
Most- if not all- muslims recognized this verse as strenghtening the prohibition of killing innocents -that is those, whom Allah has forbidden to kill. And we know that Allah has commanded us in the Quran to obey His Messenger too.
"O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result. "
You must be registered for see links
"Say, "Obey Allah and obey the Messenger; but if you turn away - then upon him is only that [duty] with which he has been charged, and upon you is that with which you have been charged. And if you obey him, you will be [rightly] guided. And there is not upon the Messenger except the [responsibility for] clear notification."
You must be registered for see links
As I said above, the Prophet pbuh has forbidden the killing of women, children, infirm people,etc. That is to be obeyed.
Thanks for your priceless input, we'll take your suggestions into consideration and act upon our comprehension of said thoughts...But as you're not an authority to us, or anyone in the world, for that matter, allow me to insist on the aforementioned conclusions I've reached reading the same verses. ( Inbefore another lecture: I did acknowledge though that there are sunni authoritative scholars who call against the shiites. But I'm yet to see the majority of scholars arriving on the conclusion that shiite women or kids can be blown up).
The Qu'ran is not a historical account. That is for things like the Hadith.
It is not just a historical account, but it doesn't change that there are historical events mentioned in it. I don't see how the fact that the Quran is the Word of Allah, would exclude the importance of the circumstances it was revealed in. Why do you think Allah had chosen a specific time/era, a specific nation and a specific language to reveal the Quran in/on?
And again, the Quran orders us to obey the Prophet pbuh's commands, which are in the hadith. So the historical things concerning the actions of the Prophet, related in the hadeeth, are also of significance.
They are not. Just as, from the Shiite perspective, the Sunni are not innocent. Both are essentially spreading corruption through the land and both are called to war in order to unify Islam under one teaching.
True, but one could say- as some peopel actually say- that even the 4 madhab are a form of disunity, yet noone says that followers of different schools should start slaying each other...
Also, you seem to be in cognitive dissonance. You're referring to shiite and sunni perspectives, yet you can't drop your prejudices against islam and adopt the thinking of muslims like me or Awkward linguist along with the majority of muslims who don't want to cut your neck (though, you've already declared war on us and are determined to wipe us out so you really have no right to complain if that'd happen. Tho, for now you're only attacking us in words, so the most adept way of answering is in words too).
Further, you will note that the Quraysh were not attacking the Muslims.
Muhammad was raiding caravans after he fled Mecca due to his unpopularity with his tribe after preaching against them and insulting their gods. This led the Quraysh to forbid Muhammad's followers from traveling through their territory. In fact, the Quraysh were Muhammad's tribe. Hence why the Imams are selected from among the Quraysh.
The fighting Muhammad mentioned was, essentially, the start of a civil war within the Quraysh - Muhamma's flight to Medina was after a series of meetings with leaders from other tribes in an attempt to find military might to leverage against the Quraysh.
Nice fanfic you've got there. Haven't you been thinking about joining the fanfic contest on the base? (Just some comic relief, don't get offended).
I've already quoted Ibn Kathir on muslims having been torured and killed by the Meccans, so I guess iT's unnecessary to spend even more precious time of mine to search for more Ibn Kathir quotes on that. But if you read his tafseer, you'll see that his opinion is a bit different than yours: in this matter too.
It's common knowledge that muslims were oppressed, persecuted and chased out. They left their property and belongings behind, that was confiscated by the meccans. So, by raiding caravans, they really just took back what was their share in the first place. Not to mention the Meccans still sent assassins against the Prophet pbuh, even in Medinah.
The context is not historical, it is situational. "If your situation parallels this; then act according to this."
True that, so I myself don't understand either why would A.L. say that these verses are not for us muslims today...Though you're still noone to talk, as you ignore the situational context too. Just like when I was trying to tell you earlier that you focus only on the disposition ("fight"), but ignore the hypothesis ("if they fight you").
This has to be placed within your beloved words.... context.
You must be registered for see links
" He sat down with the three brothers who were the princes of the Thaqif and invited them to Allah, and told them he had come to ask their aid in the propagation of Islam, and their support against those of his people who opposed him. But one of the men said he would tear up the cloth which covered the Kaba if Allah had sent him; and the second man said, 'Could Allah find no better to send except you?' and the third man complained, 'I shall never speak to you! For, if you are an apostle of Allah, your dignity is too great for me to contradict you; and if you are lying, there is no necessity for me to speak to you.'
So the apostle of Allah left them, in despair of receiving any *aid from the Thaqif. He said to them, 'Since you have done what you have done, at least keep my request secret', for he was unwilling that his people should hear of the matter lest they be further incensed against him. The three princes did not keep silent, however, but encouraged their slaves to curse him and to shout after him, so that he was compelled to take refuge in an orchard belonging to Utba and Shayba, both of whom were *there at the time. The rabble of Thaqif withdrew and the apostle of Allah sat down in the shade of a vine while Utba and Shayba looked on. "
...
" After Abdullah had marched two days' journey, he opened the letter, and found it contained the following instructions: 'Go on to Nakhla, between Mecca and Al‑Taif, and keep watch over the Quraysh there and bring back news of their business.' Abdullah said, 'I read and obey!' Then he told his companions about the letter, and added, 'He has also prohibited me from forcing any one of you to do anything against his will. If, therefore, any of you wishes to earn martyrdom, let him come with me; but if not, let him go back.' All his companions went with him, and none remained behind, but at Bahran two of the travellers lost the camel which they had been riding in turns and they fell behind to look for it. Abdullah marched on with the rest of his companions to Nakhla, where they came upon a Quraysh caravan laden with raisins, tanned hides, and various other goods., and accompanied by four men.
When the caravan saw Abdullah and his companions they were afraid because they had alighted so near to them, but when Ukkasha – whose head was shaved like that of a pilgrim – approached them, they recovered their confidence and said, “These are pilgrims, and we need have no fear of them.’
This took place on the last day of the sacred month Rajab [October]. Abdullah and his companions conferred among themselves: ‘If we allow these people to continue and reach sacred territory tonight, they will be safe from us; but if we attack them now, we profane the sacred month.’ And they vacillated and hesitated to attack, but at last mustered up their courage and agreed to slay as many of the Quraysh as they could, and take possession of what they had with them. So Waqid shot an arrow and killed one of the Quraysh, two others were made prisoner, and the fourth fled. "
...
" When Allah made plunder permissible He allowed four parts to those who had won it, and one part to Himself and to His apostle, exactly as Abdullah had done with the captured caravan.
This was the occasion when the first booty was taken by the Muslims, when the first prisoners were taken by the Muslims and when the first man was slain by the Muslims. It was eighteen months since the Emigrants had arrived in Medina.
Soon the apostle of Allah heard that Abu Sufyan ‑ whom he had missed at al‑Ushayra ‑ was returning from Syria with a large caravan of merchandise, accompanied by thirty or forty men. Then he addressed the Believers, saying: 'Go forth against this caravan; it may be that Allah will grant you plunder.' The people soon assembled, though some were fearful and others hesitated because they had not thought the apostle would really go to war. "
These were not defensive wars. He and his followers were not under attack in Medina. He went to war against the Quraysh out of vengeance, raiding and pillaging their supply caravans.
Really? Really really really??? In the first raids muslims basically didn't get anything, the caravans passed, and was no fighting.
You must be registered for see links
I also find it weird that you quote the Quran all the time but you are denying that the first muslims were oppressed and persecuted and stolen from by the Meccans- but this is in the Quran!
It is justified. Muhammad felt the same:
You must be registered for see links
" Book 019, Number 4321:
It is reported on the authority of Sa'b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them. "
Why you ignore that later the killingof children and women were forbidden by the Prophet? You really shouldn't have done much more research... the quote you cited is from Book 52, number 256...and right under it is no. 257, 258:
Narrated 'Abdullah:
During some of the Ghazawat of the Prophet a woman was found killed. Allah's Apostle disapproved the killing of women and children.
Narrated Ibn 'Umar:
During some of the Ghazawat of Allah's Apostle a woman was found killed, so Allah's Apostle forbade the killing of women and children.
