Islam promotes lying and killing disbelievers

Carlyle’s Quote Pro presented a quote from David Margoliouth, which described Muhammad in a negative way. It must be noted that Margoliouth was a Christian priest, who obviously is biased against Islam. It has been proven that most Christian literature from the Middle Ages and onward was propaganda against Islam. Later writers from the period of Enlightenment, had a positive view of Muhammad as a person and the teachings Islam. These individuals can be considered neutral. Very influential philosophers like Voltaire, Goethe and Victor Hugo wrote of Muhammad as a good person. (1) Pro points towards the fact that texts can be translated. This is completely true, but when you translate a text, you lose some of its original style and meaning. There are certain verbs, phrases, figures of speech, etc. that are unique to a language and cannot be properly expressed in translation. Therefore, if you can study a text in its original language, in this case Arabic, that gives one a better understanding. Quran and Deception I have explained verse by verse what those verses mean in previous rounds. I’ll only respond to certain aspects which you have pointed out. You mention the usage of the word ‘makru’ and that it means deception. I quote from Lane: “Makru: is praised or dispraised according to the nature of its object [For further explanation, see what follows.]” (2) When makru is used when referring to the disbelievers who plot against Islam, it has a negative connotation and when it is referring to Allah’s plans, it has a positive connotation. Furthermore, I have already pointed out that planning is not the same as deceiving. At the crucifixion of Jesus, the deception came not from Allah, as I already explained. The Jews had the means to confirm Jesus’ death (breathing, heartbeat, etc.). However, they failed to do this, because they were too happy celebrating. If Allah had somehow prevented the Jews from being able to confirm Jesus’ death, that would have been deceit from Allah’s part. When referring to verses 8:43-44 I have already explained that this was the tactic that the Meccans used, but again pro doesn’t seem to have read my complete explanation. They hid parts of their army so they would appear smaller in number and not scare the Muslim army off from the beginning. Verse 2:225 clearly mentions “that you may abstain from doing good and acting righteously”. But again, you seem to have not read (or selectively read, which Pro seems to do) what I have said. Pro then mentions verse 3:28 again and seems to have ignored my explanation. Multiple translations convey the same message: Do not take disbelievers as friends OVER believers. Preference should be given to Muslims as friends. (3) Furthermore, it refers to ‘Auliyah’ which is one type of friend (helper/supporter) and the Quran mentions other types of friends with other words elsewhere. There is also no mention of hate, just a warning to be cautious when dealing with disbelievers. Finally Pro mentions the Hadith which quote Muhammad saying: War is deceit. What a surprise, Pro didn’t read my explanation: - Deceit refers to war itself (in the original Arabic text). This means that war in itself is deceit, because of the influence it has on people - Second, even if taken literally, deceit only refers to tactics of war (i.e. surprise attacks, evasive manouvres) not of conduct (lying to someone’s face). Other hadith clearly mention that deceit in conduct is absolutely forbidden (an example: luring an enemy in by acting as if one is surrendering and then proceeding to kill). Conclusion: deceit in conduct (i.e. lying) is still absolutely forbidden. Fitnah Pro again proceeds with the definition of Fitnah. I have provided the translation from Lane. Fitnah can mean different things, usually referring to challenge, with the literal meaning being: ‘to burn’. One of the meanings which Lane mentions is oppression. Also many translations state fitnah as oppression or tumult (Pickthall, Yusuf Ali, Shakir). I am clearly not making this up, with Lane, Pickthall, etc. backing me up in this case. The verse (2:193) further mentions “until religion is for Allah”. When understanding the Arabic term, this means that Islam can be practiced and propagated freely. Ka’b bin Ashraf “Your history is all wrong because he was assassinated by Muhammad while Muhammad was at Medina.” First, Ka’b was indeed a poet, amongst many other things. He was a political leader, a wealthy and influential man. Second, the source I have provided, has many references to historians, including Hisham, which is considered one of the most accurate sources. You can check these sources again if you wish. (4) So it is your opinion that these historians are all wrong? Be my guest if you want to be ignorant. These sources clearly mention that Ka’b bin Ashraf was causing unrest. He was rallying up the remaining Quraish (who were living in peace after their army had been defeated and lost Mecca) to fight against Muslims. He was also harassing Muslim women and at one point he planned to poison Muhammad after inviting him to dinner. These are not my words, but are corroborated by historians, including Hisham. Furthermore, the execution of Ka’b was a complicated matter. Doing so publicly would cause even more unrest and chaos. The welfare of the state was at stake. Therefore, only in this one isolated and extreme situation, Muhammad after much hesitation agreed to this plan. Also, historic accounts mention that Muhammad was democratically chosen by the tribes of Medina as their leader. He did not always apply Islamic law, but asked the defendants by which law they wanted to be tried. Most defendants were Jewish, and Jewish law has strict punishments, including the death penalty for certain crimes. So many of the Jewish criminals were prosecuted by Jewish law (by their own choice) and were eventually executed. (4)(5) Marriage by false witnesses You have mentioned a hadith which talks about a man using two false witnesses to marry a woman against her will. The hadith mentions that the man knows that the witnesses are false. The hadith also mentions that the judge rules the marriage to be legal. The conclusion is that the man can consummate the marriage legally. You again seem to have ignored my explanation completely. First, the man knows the witnesses are false. Of course he knows they are false, since he wants to marry a certain woman by using lies and deceit! Lying is obviously a sin and since both the husband and the witnesses will get their punishment for this. Second, the judge rules the marriage as lawful. How can the judge decide otherwise? He is presented with two witnesses who are claiming the marriage took place. The judge cannot look into their hearts and know that they are lying. The judge has no choice here. Third, since the judge had to rule the marriage as lawful, the society cannot prevent him from consummating the marriage. The society cannot know that the witnesses and the husband are lying. This also means that the society accepts the marriage as valid. Finally, the final judgment and punishment for this deceit will be given by Allah, since he does know what is going on in the hearts of these people. The hadith only mentions what happens in this world but in the Afterlife justice will be dealt. The deception will still be punished and it is not lawful (by Allah’s laws) to lie and deceive. Further rebuttals of Taqiyya Pro quoted the source he linked (from al-islam.org). On this page, there are some parts which are quoted from these tafaseer (of Ibn Khatir, al-Suyuti, etc.) and then the author of that page, draws his own conclusions from these quotes. (Pro quotes the entire text as if that is directly from the tafseer, which seems pretty deceptive) The quoted parts from tafseer are mentioning the same thing as I have mentioned earlier: 1. The punishment from lying will be reserved, for the time being, when it is done under coercion, immediate life-threatening situations, etc. 2. When migration has taken place to a safer place and when the Muslim is not under threat of persecution and can practice religion freely (such as in the West), he will be forgiven for his earlier sin of lying. Lying in everyday life to propagate Islam is categorically forbidden, refer to previous rounds for citations. Abrogation 2:106 – See previous round 13:39 – The verse talks about the power of God to create and destroy (first part) and that the Shariah is based on his attributes (for example Justice). 16:101 – The verse talks about the signs (aya) of Allah, in this case punishments which are averted or delayed (based on surrounding verses, context) 17:85-86 – The chapter is about the Jews and how they are an example of how not to be, since they deviated from their teachings. Similarly it says that at one point in time the Muslims will deviate from Quranic teachings (which are ‘taken away’ by the doing of man). 87:6-7 – The verse mentions that the Quran will not be forgotten. The phrase “as what Allah wills” refers to matters of everyday life (as mentioned in other places of the Quran. (6) The first Qiblah (Jerusalem) was not ordered in the Quran. The Quranic revelation that the Qiblah should be the Sacred Mosque abrogated the pre-Quranic teaching. (7) The number of Salat is mentioned in the Quran to be 5 times in two verses and corroborated by hadith.(8) Conclusion I would like to conclude this debate, by saying I learned a lot from it. Everything that I have said, I have backed it up with references. Pro however, seems to reject these, because ‘he says so’. He also seems to ignore most of my arguments which I have presented and consistently cherry picks and selectively picks out quotes and verses, ignoring the entire context. Therefore I believe I have refuted the allegations made by Pro and proven that Islam in fact does not promote deception and does not promote and endless war against disbelievers.