Islam promotes lying and killing disbelievers

Pro started off by showing you all the prime example of taqiyyah: my arguments. He proceeds to completely ignore my rebuttals, which I can understand, because the truth cannot be denied. The rest is up to the reader, I base my arguments on the Quran first, the Sunnah (Hadith) second and then any other expert analysis. Pro however, thinks that the expert analysis is the most reliable source. According to Muslim belief the Quran is the uncorrupted word of Allah. Therefore it cannot contain any mistakes. Analysis, usually in the form of tafsir, is done by humans and can contain error. Therefore, the primary source for Islamic teachings is the Quran. Abrogation Before I start with rebuttals, I would like to clarify something Pro mentioned, abrogation. This doctrine of abrogation is completely false. The Quran mentions explicitly that it does not contain contradictions and is a perfect book. If something is perfect, how can some verses be abrogated? That would be an imperfection wouldn’t you say? That means that the Quran contradicts itself. Therefore, since abrogation contradicts the Quran, it cannot be a correct Islamic doctrine. Usually there is a reference a verse from al-Baqarah 2:107: “Whatever sign we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, we bring one better than that or the like thereof. Dost thou not know what Allah has the power to do all that He wills?” When looking at the surrounding verses, the passage is about the People of the Book and their scriptures. Then it becomes clear that this abrogation is referring to those (older) scriptures, not the Quran itself. (1) Pro also mentioned Carlyle’s quote regarding the Quran to say that it is not a perfect book. That people who do not believe in Islam do not agree with this belief is beside the point. We are debating the actions of Muslims. Muslims must act in accordance with the Quran, including the belief that it is a perfect book. That is the point that I’m trying to make. Jihad Pro claims that the Hadith I was referring to (regarding greater and lesser Jihad) is a falsification and not true. This is a lie. It has come to my knowledge after further research that this particular Hadith had a weak chain of narration. This by itself does not mean that the Hadith is not true. The other criteria which are used to test the validity of the hadith are sound. It does not contradict the Quran. It does not contradict historic records and it has no internal contradictions. Besides this Hadith there are many other similar Hadith, which have sound chains of narration and meet all criteria. For example, in Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah it is reported that remembrance of Allah is far better than slaying an enemy or being slain in combat. Further they report that a warrior who is covered in blood, is still a degree below those who remember Allah. Muhammad also mentioned in the ‘farewell pilgrimage’: “The Fighter in the Way of Allah is he who makes jihad against himself (jahada nafsah) for the sake of obeying Allah.” The hadith I mentioned is therefore in accordance with other sources that have been proven to be sound and authentic. (2)(3) A source that Pro quoted claims that the hadith is in contradiction with a verse from the Quran (4:96). The verse actually mentions that the ‘mujahideen’ are a rank higher than the people who sit at home and practice their religion. A mujahideen is merely someone who takes part in Jihad, i.e. propagating Islam. Pro continues to mention that I paraphrased the Quran when referring to verse 25:53. However, multiple translations mention the same thing that I quoted, namely that one should do Jihad (strive), against disbelievers, with the Quran. (4) The next verses that he mentions are from al-Baqarah 2:191-194. I don’t see how this makes my reference to the verse any less valid. Even the last of these verses, 194, mentions “But if they desist, then remember that no hostility is allowed except against the wrongdoers.” The wrongdoers in this case are those who still fight (physically), cause disturbances and incite violence. Pro’s second point regarding this verse was a supposed case of abrogation by 9:1. I mentioned the doctrine of abrogation above, but will clarify the apparent contradiction. The verse 9:1 mentions that the past treaties, in which the Meccans had many demands that restricted Muslims, were void. The following verses mention to fight and kill certain people. It also mentions repeatedly that the disbelievers with whom there is another (new) treaty which allows them to live in peace, should be honored. (9:4) It then mentions that the idolaters that seek refuge with the Muslims (without accepting Islam) should be given protection. (9:6). Then it becomes clear in verse 9:12 that those people who break their oaths and fight against Muslims, these are the ones that should be killed. So there is no abrogation or contradiction whatsoever. (5) There is also a reference to some Hadith quoting Muhammad saying that he would “fight against disbelievers”. This is merely referring to the Jihad which I have mentioned in the previous rounds. It does not have to be a physical fight, but also a spiritual fight (propagating Islam by peaceful means). The verses which Pro refers to from 22:40-41 are speaking against himself. They clearly mention “Permission to take up arms is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged.” How can you conclude that Muslims are the aggressors if they defend themselves? The following verses show examples of disbelieving people who were eventually destroyed by God Himself and the disbelievers are warned to not follow in their footsteps, because they might suffer the same fate. There is no mention of human interference. Pro also mentions a division of the world in two parts: Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. He claims that this is mentioned in the Quran and Sunnah. This is not true. This division is never mentioned in the Quran nor in the Hadith. (6) He also refers to the ‘Jihad against Israel’ as an example. As I have clearly demonstrated in previous rounds, Jihad is not an aggressive form of Holy War. The hostile stance towards Israel is purely political and has no Islamic basis. Also the conquests that are mentioned (North Africa, Spain, etc) are also politically motivated wars, since they lack any basis in Islam. Then there is mention of verse 4:75. Pro concludes from these verses that the great reward that is mentioned is “endless sexual and carnal pleasure” and “female sex slaves and loot”. Where do you see this being mentioned? Is this your definition of a ‘great reward’? Furthermore, this is mentioning the defensive war that is permitted in Islam. When such a situation arises, then able men are told to go forth in battle. 4:96 – This verse mentions that people who take part in Jihad are higher in rank than people who sit at home. This is indeed true. As I have mentioned earlier, Jihad includes the propagation of Islam. 9:5 – Pro talks of this as the famous ayt as-saif, the sword verse. Again he ignores the entire context. Just the following verse (9:6) will suffice. It mentions that if any disbeliever seeks refuge with the Muslims, they are obligated to protect him. Furthermore, a few verses further (9:12) there is mention of which people are meant (to kill): those who fight, cause disorder and break their pledge (of non-violence and peace). Pro also accused Muhammad and his companions to attack caravans during the month of Ramadan (while this is prohibited), but fails to provide any evidence. Based on the principle “innocent until proven guilty” this accusation is therefore considered false. He concludes by repeating himself, mentioning hadith, some which he has mentioned before already. These hadith are in reference to either the defensive wars that were fought or they are about a spiritual fight by peaceful means. Conclusion Yet again, any claims or allegations made by Pro have been proven to be false. Verses are pulled out of context again and again. Even reading the one verse preceding and the one verse following the mentioned verses provides sufficient clarification, but Pro fails to do this. I’ll provide an analogy to clarify further. For example a father is playing with his child and at one point he says: “AHHH, I will eat you!” If I were acting like Pro, I would immediately go to the police and report this man, because he said he would eat his daughter. It is a fact that the father of this child said it. But the mistake that is being made here is obvious, the context is not mentioned at all. The father said this in a playful way, while playing with his child. There is no intention of actually eating him or her. Context is very important. I would kindly request Pro to start looking at the context. References: 1. http://www.alislam.org... (page 9-10) 2. http://www.sunnah.org... 3. http://sunnah.org... 4. http://quran.com... 5. http://www.alislam.org... 6. https://en.wikipedia.org...