More out- of- context arguments

Submitted by Nura (United States), May 19, 2008 at 23:14

Since you are so fond of my attention, I will respond one last time to your arguments.

This attack of the Quran is far from new:

41) Narrated 'Aisha: Allah's Apostle recited the Verse:-- "It is He who has sent down to you the Book. In it are Verses that are entirely clear, they are the foundation of the Book, others not entirely clear. So as for those in whose hearts there is a deviation (from the Truth ). follow thereof that is not entirely clear seeking affliction and searching for its hidden meanings; but no one knows its hidden meanings but Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in it (i.e. in the Qur'an) the whole of it (i.e. its clear and unclear Verses) are from our Lord. And none receive admonition except men of understanding." (3.7) Then Allah's Apostle said, "If you see those who follow thereof that is not entirely clear, then they are those whom Allah has named [as having deviation (from the Truth)] 'So beware of them." (Book #60, Hadith #70)

Indeed!!! It is precisely this tactic of taking verses out of context is what is used when discussing Islam. It also why these are arguments are ALWAYS easily refuted.

In most religious discussions, the further it continues, the more ignorant arguments become. Anger clouds responses which emits more anger. We are advised to stop the discussion before this happens on either side, especially when the truth is clear and the points had been made. Surah 40, I would not call it a "gag" order, because much of the Quran is debate!!! Allah challenges the questions of the disbelievers, and he also supplies the Prophet with answers to challenges that were being waged against him from the pagans, Christians and Jews. Let's look at the verse 40:04

" None can dispute about the Signs of Allah but the Unbelievers. Let not, then, their strutting about through the land deceive thee!"

I guess you misunderstand the word "Can", let's try this translation:

"No one quarrels about the verses of Allah, except those who disbelieve. So, their (prosperous) movements in the cities should not deceive you."

This Ayat is clearly saying that no one would argue about the Quran, unless they are disbelievers. It goes on to say:

"But (there were people) before them, who denied (the Signs),- the People of Noah, and the Confederates (of Evil) after them; and every People plotted against their prophet, to seize him, and disputed by means of vanities, therewith to condemn the Truth; but it was I that seized them! and how (terrible) was My Requital!"

It is a statement. A believer in the Quran does not dispute the truth of it. I think this is obvious. So this is obviously not a gag order for a believer. A disbeliever does not need a gag order, they are disbelievers, what is in their hearts is enough. Allah is telling the Prophet (PBUH) that the questions, as yours, are not questions for the sake of knowing the answers, but to illustrate aggressive disbelief regardless of answers. This is another reason why Muslims are advised not to reduce ourselves to petty, vain arguments which do not support understanding, but rather persistent ignorance.

"If you challenge someone to do something is it not encouragement?"

Another vain, petty argument.

Allah encourages pagans to embrace Islam. That is the first encouragement, Plato, as I am sure you are aware of. What does Allah gain by the death of anyone? He could have destroyed them all if he desired!!!When Allah speaks in the Quran, he speaks directly to the believer and the disbeliever knowing that they are both his audience. He knows what is in the hearts of both. This "challenge" is a profound statement that illustrates to the pagans that all power is in the hands of Allah(SWT). The Pagans are first frustrated that with all of their might and mane they could not kill the Prophet(PBUH). Their frustration mounted with each attempt. Allah is showing them in this Ayat that not only have they not been able to kill him, but that they would NEVER be able to kill him. A very bold statement. The pagans, being unable to kill him, were enraged more because it was prophesized in the Quran. Allah knows the hatred and frustration that they had in their hearts. The challenge to hang themselves was more of an insult than encouragement. Allah questioned them "If you think if will cure what enrages you", He is telling them that not only will they remain angry, but even the taking of their own lives will not remove it! Surely Allah (SWT) speaks the truth!!

Your arguments are becoming more desperate.

Slavery over 2,000 years ago was a reality that could be taken for granted!!! Again, look at the history of your "culture" since you don't have a religion. No, slavery?

"Wife thrashing", another cliché argument. What it is says that if your wife is guilty of lewdness to first, verbally admonish them, then to leave the bed, then the admonish them physically.

"The Prophet never beat any of his wives or servants; in fact, he did not strike any living being with his hand except in the cause of Allah or when the prohibitions of Allah had been violated, and he retaliated on behalf of Allah." (An-Nasaa'i)

Now let's define lewdness:

1.

inclined to, characterized by, or inciting to lust or lechery; lascivious.

2.

obscene or indecent, as language or songs; salacious.

3.

Obsolete.

a.

low, ignorant, or vulgar.

b.

base, vile, or wicked, esp. of a person.

c.

bad, worthless, or poor, esp. of a thing.

You can be arrested here is the U.S. for open lewdness.

I think the process is rather patient.

Physical admonishment:

The arabic word used in noble verse 4:34, which you are refering is "idribuhunna", which is derived from "daraba",The word in Arabic means to "strike" or "hit". It inludes everything from a tap with a tooth-stick to what in English we call beating. If it is stated that so-and-so "hit" so-and-so without further description, it would be assumed to be a single blow and it could be of any magnitude. When the Prophet (PBUH) took a tiny stick and tapped one of the Muslims on the stomach to straighten the ranks in preparation for war, he "hit" him with this meaning. Contrast this to the English phrase: "beat them". The meaning is totally different. If you took a shoe lace and hit someone on the hand with it, you could properly say dharabtahu in Arabic but in English you could never say that you had "beaten" that person.

Let's look at what he said on beating:

Narrated Mu'awiyah al-Qushayri: "I went to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and asked him: What do you say (command) about our wives? He replied: Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2139)"

The Prophet (pbuh) also expressed astonishment at the cruelty of certain men when he said: "Could any of you beat his wife as he would beat a slave, and then lie with her in the evening ?" (Bukhari and Muslim).

The hadith in Muslim states that the Prophet (pbuh) in his Farewell Pilgrimage said: "Lo! My last recommendation to you is that you should TREAT WOMEN WELL. Truly they are your helpmates, and you have no right over them beyond that - EXCEPT IF THEY COMMIT A MANIFEST INDECENCY. If they do, then refuse to share their beds and hit them WITHOUT INDECENT VIOLENCE . Then, if they obey you, do not show them hostility any longer. Lo! you have a right over your women and they have a right over you. Your right over your women is that they not allow whom you hate to enter your bed nor your house. While their right over them is that you treat them excellently in their garb and provision."

We could go on like this Plato only because every statement that you make and every source that you bring is OUT OF CONTEX!! You can not just open the Quran and profess that you understand exactly what it being said!! This is why there is Hadith and Fiqh.

"The Koran is a manuel of war"

It is Not!!! It is a manuel of BELIFE. Glad tidings for the believer and a warning for the disbeliever. Is war the most dominant topic in the Quran? Or does it give specific guidance in times of War?

The cause that Muslims may sacrifice their lives is Belief!!! Sacrfice does not ALWAYS mean death. A believer Scarifices DAILY to stay in the accordance of beliefe especally in a society that oppresses it. So then Jihad in ordained to stop oppression of Belief. Oppression is worse slaughter. Oppression can be a cause of disbelife, as seen with the Jews in Egypt. Muslims are to fight oppression untill there is no more, or untill death takes them. It is a cure for oppression.

Narrated ‘Abdullah bin Abu Aufa : Allah's Messenger, at a time when he was face to face with the enemy, and was waiting for the sun to decline, stood up and said, " O people! Do not long for an encounter with the enemy and supplicate to Allah to grant you security. But if you face the enemy, you should show patience and steadfastness; and keep it in mind that Paradise lies under the shade of the swords." Then he invoked Allah, saying, "O Allah, Revealer of the Book, Disperser of the clouds, Defeater of the Confederates, put our enemy to rout and help us in over-powering them." (Al-Bukhari and Muslim)

Muslims do not LOVE war and death. War is necessary to preserve faith and life at times.

"I have no clue to the meaning of this statement. No one will die for a cause they do not believe in UNLESS they believe that they will be rewarded in the afterlife for dying uselessly in this life. That surely would be the most amazing hypocrisy."

Let me clarify. Muslims are attacked for the belief in Jihad, when secular nations have, and still wage war in the name of a cause. In India, do you not have a military? Do you not have rules on the engagement of war. How it is conducted. Is not the loyalty of the troops to the "Nation"? Example: Kashmir. Is it the troops or the government who have kept them from having their independence for decades? An example where you might have troops fighting for a cause that they do not believe in? Any military for that matter. In the U.S. Many troops don't understand why they are in Iraq, and a large portion do not think that it is right. Their loyalty, however is to the nation, not God, so they comply with the request of their nation to fight in a war that they do not believe in. These same people criticize Muslims for fighting for THEIR cause. For THEIR nation. For THEIR authority who is Allah. It is better to be loyal to a nation, rather than God? Hypocrisy. It is a mercy that the Quran mentions war. It must have guidelines. If it is not mentioned, how could you make rules for it? It has to be mentioned, because Jihad must be conducted in the best way through guidance. This is why we do not need the Geneva conventions, the rules of war are mentioned in the Quran, and Hadith. You have secular countries as we speak breaking codes of the Geneva conventions. So much for secular rules for war. Muslims cannot break what is in the Quran nad Sunnah. A stronger pull towards correction.

Peace Out

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".