Answering-Christians

Saturday

Jul172010

The so-called inconsistency of 2:256 and 9:29?

Saturday, July 17, 2010 at 2:22AM

When looking at any piece of literature, or scripture contextually there are several things to keep in mind. Whenever Muslims or people of other faith read the Qur`an, they must not read it "faithfully". In other words, they have to read it objectively without letting their personal beliefs overcome them. The Qur`an, and other scriptural books must be read within their historical, political and social context. The composition of the texts must be taken into consideration in order to arrive at the authentic meaning(s) of the text, or scripture in this case.

Each person approaches the Qur`an differently, and with a particular intention. However, if you are a honest person then you will read it with a pure intention to understand it, regardless of what understanding you will arrive at.

Evangelised Christians often purport the argument that 9:29 and 2:256 of the Holy Qur`an is inconsistent and contradictory because in the latter God says there is no compulsion in religion while in the former it is stating the opposite. These two verses are often misused, and misunderstood.

First, let us read the verses;

Holy Qur`an 2:256

There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.

Holy Qur`an 9:29

Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

Unfortunately some evangelised Christian apologists either mistakenly or carelessly ignore the context and/or time frame of Qur`anic texts in order to play their game of "gotcha". When calling people to Islam force can not be used as a tool of "conversion" or "evangelising". Fear antics and scare tactics are not justified methods to use in order to propagate the message of Islam. Those who force Islam on non-Muslims are violating God's command and are subject to his punishment. Islam calls Muslims to engage in respectful dialogue with non-Muslims, in an attempt to reach a common platform in order to live in a harmonious and cohesive society. (Holy Qur`an 16:125, 3:64).

When was the verses of 9:29 in the Holy Qur`an revealed?

The revelation of 9:29 was in direct reference to the betrayal of one of the tribes that were contractually bound to uphold the agreed upon treaty. When the Prophet (SAW) entered Medina he had established a covenant between all the tribes (including the Jews). The covenant gave the tribes a promise of peace, tranquillity and harmony so long as they are all truthful and do not insinuate war against one another. The Jewish tribe of Bani Quraydha broke this covenant by betrying the Muslims at the battle of Al-Ahzab. They sided with the pagan Arabs and fought against the Prophet (SAW). It was due to this that the verse 9:29 was revealed. In addition it was contextually in self-defence as Shaykh Sayyid Sabiq states;

As for fighting the Jews (People of the Scripture), they had conducted a peace pact with the Messenger after he migrated to Madinah. Soon afterwards, they betrayed the peace pact and joined forces with the pagans and the hypocrites against Muslims. They also fought against Muslims during the Battle of A`hzab , then Allah revealed…[and he cites verse 9:29] (Sayyid Sabiq,Fiqhu as-Sunnah, Vol. 3, p. 80)

Therefore we can conclude that 9:29 is not speaking about an offensive attack, rather a defensive attack, an attack repelling aggression initiated. As a result we can see that the two verses are not contradictory but rather coherent with each in light of it's history and context.

AC TEAM |

2 Comments |

Holy Qur`an,

Jihad

Monday

Jul122010

Prophet Muhammad loved women - What’s wrong with that?

Monday, July 12, 2010 at 8:35PM

Recently I was watching a debate that took place between Sami Zaatari and David Wood regarding the validity of Muhammad’s (Saw) Prophethood. During the question and answer session, a little kid spoke on the mic; the question posed to David by the kid was “Why did you choose to speak so much about women?”.

Indeed David used the bulk of his time in the debate to talk about women (Wives of the prophet Muhammad, etc), so much so that even this kid noticed and confronted David about it (and most Christian apologists speak about this topic in the most immature and perverted ways).

In most debates regarding the Prophet-hood of Muhammad (Saw) there seems to be an obligation for Christians to mention the wives of the Prophet Muhammad as an appeal to discredit him, his message and way of life.

This approach reveals a more sinister aim since Christians are continuously obsessed with women - Muslim women.

What argument do they make against the Prophet-hood of Muhammad? That he loved women. Yes! There is something wrong with loving women, and being intimate with them. This probably explain why in one period of Christian history men did not defile themselves with women, they were ‘dirty’. In Islam on the other hand, they are not dirty creatures, they are beautiful. Notice that women in general are more beautiful than men, and this is a mercy from the Lord Allah. So let’s apply the Bible to one of the arguments Christian Apologists use against the Prophet Muhammad (SAW).

It is often purported that Muhammad (SAW) took advantage of his status as a Prophet in an attempt to gain wealth, popularity, women and etc. Although this isn’t the case, since the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) lived a very ordinary life, and did not abuse his status. He would eat and drink with his disciples like an ordinary person. Christian Apologists like David wood make an emotional appeal by manipulating the audiences thoughts on Marriage and women -- “Muhammad married many women” is the most popular saying, after “The Lord loves you” among Christians.

Now the question I will pose is, does having multiple wives disqualify a person from Prophet-hood? Let’s see what the Bible tells us;

Abijah whom “God was on his side” had 14 wives (2 Chron 13).
Abraham “God’s friend had 3 wives (Gen, 16, 25).
David, who uthored hundreds of chapters of scripture (Psalms) and was “after God’s own
heart” (Acts 13) had many wives (2 Sam. 3, 5, 18, 25).
Ezra, the Jewish scribe who established the Great Assembly of scholars and prophets, the leader
of the Sanhedrin, and an authority on religious law, had 2 wives.
Solomon, the son of David, the author of scripture, the constructor of the first temple in Jerusalem,
the ruler of Israel, and the ancestor of Jesus Christ, had 300 wives and 700 concubines.

One could go on for ages naming Biblical Patriarch’s who were respected, honored, and followed that were polygynists. So what’s the big deal?

AC TEAM |

2 Comments |

Women

Monday

Jul122010

Mary Jo's Feminist pants on fire

Monday, July 12, 2010 at 6:16PM

Who is she? She is a Christian Apologist. She will not be a reasonable Christian and concede that there are numerous instances in the Bible whereby “Equality” -- the very concept which Christians scream about on a daily basis is actually non-founded in the Bible. In response to people like ourselves – reasonable – witty – and good looking, She will use her creative writing skills to justify the Bible. Today, I bring you one of the contemporary Christian Apologists with feminist pants – Liar! Liar! Pants on fire.

Mary Jo. Debated Dr. Tabassum – Muslim Apologist. None of her points illustrated how Biblical Christianity gives women a role that is superior or even better when compared to other world-religions. In her opening statement she made several arguments and gave a “comprehensive view of women in the Bible, and more importantly in the New Testament”.

God created the man and woman. (Genesis 1:27).

Mary Jo. Overlooks the crucial aspect of creation. The man was created prior to the woman, and the woman was created for the man according to the Bible. You see, the woman was not created immediately, she was created AFTER Adam sought to mate with other living creatures, none of which he found a suitable mate in. The woman won because she was deemed to be better than a pig, donkey, monkey and all of the other creatures according to the Bible.

The fact that God in the Bible created man prior to the woman is actually a slap in the face of Feminists as St Paul reminds them why they are subservient to men – [12] But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. [13] For Adam was first formed, then Eve. We should not just call St Paul sexist, chauvinistic or even discriminatory because his view was confirmed by many Christian scholars for centuries.

God made woman a helper, who runs to man's aid (Genesis 2:18)

Mary Jo says it like she was just given a Noble prize for being created for the purpose of running to man's aid. Where is the Equality here? If Christianity did propose equality in creation, then we would see a counter verse saying “God made the man a helper, who runs to woman's aid”. Of course no such verse exists, and therefore Mary Jo is very creative in turning the negatives of Christianity into “positives”, but unfortunately she has done a very poor job.

Listen to the debate here, and judge it yourself. Can Mary Jo hang onto her feminist pants?

AC TEAM |

2 Comments |

Feminism,

Women

Sunday

Jul112010

Blogging about Extreme Evangelised Christians

Sunday, July 11, 2010 at 2:28PM

Who are these Extreme Evangelised Christians? They're the hecklers that Blog day and night about every bit of information they can use against another religion to make their own a little bit more credible. They think about blogging while they're shopping, eating, visiting family, watching a movie, sitting in a lecture hall, peeing, or giving a lecture.

What's your definition of a extreme evangelised Christian?

AC TEAM |

7 Comments |

Evangelised