To Shakeel: Read Surah 9 once more with care

Submitted by Plato (United Arab Emirates), May 30, 2007 at 03:10

Shakeel you are in square brackets:

[You gave me the reference of the verse 9:28-29, in turn I asked you to start reading from 9:1. But you left in between and did not complete reading till 9:29, and this is the reason you have to write such a big letter to me.]

Shakeel this is one Surah (9)all Muslims and infidels should read carefully. It encapsulates all that is wrong with Islam. The call to unilaterally tear up treaties, to kill pagans or to convert them, unfairly accuse them of taunting Islam and so on. Let us take them one at a time.

009.10 YUSUFALI: In a Believer they respect not the ties either of kinship or of covenant! It is they who have transgressed all bounds.
009.11But (even so), if they repent, establish regular prayers, and practise regular charity,- they are your brethren in Faith: (thus) do We explain the Signs in detail, for those who understand.
009.12But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and taunt you for your Faith,- fight ye the chiefs of Unfaith: for their oaths are nothing to them: that thus they may be restrained. Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is Allah Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!

9:10 accuses infidels of not respecting ties of kinship or covenant. The covenant part I have already dealt with before. But what about the charge of not respecting ties of kinship. What is the Koran's and the Prophet's record on this?

58.022 YUSUFALI: Thou wilt not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, loving those who resist Allah and His Messenger, even though they were their fathers or their sons, or their brothers, or their kindred. For such He has written Faith in their hearts, and strengthened them with a spirit from Himself. And He will admit them to Gardens beneath which Rivers flow, to dwell therein (for ever). Allah will be well pleased with them, and they with Him. They are the Party of Allah. Truly it is the Party of Allah that will achieve Felicity.
9.023 O ye who believe! take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love infidelity above Faith: if any of you do so, they do wrong.

Are these two verses telling Muslims to respect ties of kinship??? Then why does Allah expect pagans to respect ties of kinship? The Koran is teaching you reject ties of kinship for this new faith.

The Koran also charges the infidels of taunting the Muslims for their faith. Like you, even the Koran has a sense of humour. Allah's Rasool for thirteen years taunted the Pagans for their faith and now the Koran accuses them of taunting Muslims' faith. It is an offense isn't it to hold another faith? So it is okay to denigrate other people's beliefs, but if they return the favour it is persecution of Muslims and rebellion against Allah deserving of death. Your God is a deadly joker.

009.013 YUSUFALI: Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is Allah Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!

Reading this I must agree with you that a lot of your traditions are fabricated. Here is the Koran itself saying the Meccans plotted only to expel him. But the stories your historians concocted say they planned to assassinate him after the death of his uncle. Even 9:40 talks only about the Rasool being driven out. This verse also does not say anything about the Meccans trying to kill him. Logically attempt to kill would have been mentioned as it is worse than plotting to expel or being driven out. So all those stories of the Prophet escaping after putting a dummy in his bed must have been your moulvis embellishing this verse to defame the Meccans.Is there any verse in the Koran that indicates that the Meccans threatened his life?

009.040 YUSUFALI: If ye help not (your leader), (it is no matter): for Allah did indeed help him, when the Unbelievers drove him out: he had no more than one companion; they two were in the cave, and he said to his companion, "Have no fear, for Allah is with us": then Allah sent down His peace upon him, and strengthened him with forces which ye saw not, and humbled to the depths the word of the Unbelievers. But the word of Allah is exalted to the heights: for Allah is Exalted in might, Wise.

Is the Koran talking about a personal assault (9:13) on the Rasool or is it about the Meccans attacking the Muslims after the migration? Since it talks of the Messenger (third person) and then says you I would presume the 'you' is the Muslims in general. In which case the historians must have fabricated the story of the attack on meccan traders at Nahla. Confusing isn't it?

[Before Allah clears His signs on people and convince them from inside that Rasool is true and with true message, Rasool is not allowed to compel anyone to believe in Allah and him Allah only punishes people, when they are fully convinced from inside that Rasool is true but even then reject Rasool and the teachings brought by him.]

I am at a loss to understand what you are trying to say here First you say Rasool is not allowed to compel anyone and in the next breath maintain that he can punish them if they are convinced he is Rasool and yet reject him. Can you explain how someone who is convinced of something will reject what he is convinced about. You prove to me 1+1 equals two but I refuse to accept the evidence. Either I am insane or belong to the moron category. Would a merciful Allah, who himself created the cretin, have him killed for having the ability to understand and yet not believe? This so-called stubborness of pagans and Jews was the excuse for the Rasool to kill his opponents.This is the notorious Muslim logic at work to find reasons for the killing of infidels by the merciful Prophet of Allah.

Do you recall writing this just yesterday in RE:To Shakeel: Bring your proof: "Many times, I have told you that only Rasool's opponents who are preached by him in his own life, must get punishment.Muhammad (sws) in his life time, preached Arabians and kings of Persia, Egypt, Byzantine and some other.So only Arabs and those kings were to get punishment of God.Except for above mentioned people all other people are exempted from this punishment."

Is punishing/threatening them (with death, no less) not compulsion? Sending messages to kings all around announcing the good news of his Rasoolhood and threatening them with dire consequences for not believing is not compulsion? I am getting concerned about you state of mind, Shakeel.

Itmam Ul Hujja, Completion of Argument, sounds a bit like 'quo erat demonstrandum' (what is to be proved is proved) of Euclid. The big difference is your Rasool's proof is more circular than any of Euclid's circles. The Rasool is the Messenger of Allah. Who says so. The Messenger of Allah himself. Making a devout Muslim understand why this is no argument at all is for all practical purposes an impossibility. It is just our good luck that we were not born under the shadow of this Itman ul Hujja.

[FYI: Itmam-ul-Hujja is something which only Rasool can accomplish. It cannot be accomplished by any Muslim, no matter, how great he is. Since, no Muslim can accomplish Itmam-ul-Hujja on people, so for people only verse 10:99 is to be acted upon.]

Almost immediately the Prophet died, the first rightly-guided Khalifa broke your law when he went about killing apostates during the ridda wars. And the bloody trail of conversion continues to this day. Christians in Pakistan are being told to convert by those pure Muslims in the land of the pure. Itmam-ul-hujja has been a living reality even 1400 years after the passing of the prophet for us infidels.

---

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".