To Shakeel: The prophet has been a licence to kill?

Submitted by Plato (India), Jun 19, 2007 at 05:50

Shakeel, you are in inverted commas and you wrote;

"---The context of Surah 9 is that pagans had a treaty with Muslims, but they violated it. In turn Allah asked Muslims to declare that this treaty now does not hold anymore.If you have read carefully, you will soon know it but you always stopped reading in the middle and that's why so much confused---"

Where did you get the context of Surah 9? The Surah itself has nothing to say about any context. Are you going to go by Ibn Ishaq or by the so-called sahhi hadiths? I suppose you are referring to the Treaty of Hudaibiya. The Muslims did break the spirit of the treaty though not the letter in not returning Meccan women who sought refuge in Medina. Let us know how the pagans violated treaties. 9:03 SHAKIR: says: And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters; therefore if you repent, it will be better for you, and if you turn back, then know that you will not weaken Allah; and announce painful punishment to those who disbelieve. In 9:07 SHAKIR Allah clearly says: How can there be an agreement for the idolaters with Allah and with His Messenger; except those with whom you made an agreement at the Sacred Mosque? So as long as they are true to you, be true to them; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty).

Shakeel, why does it bother you when Allah asks the Prophet to break his covenants?You have claimed many times (without showing us any proofs) that the Prophet can kill, exile and rob people who do not accept his Prophethood. Surah 9 is all about breaking covenants, killing infidels and other atrocities the Prophet is allowed to inflict with a clear conscience. Be happy, here is Allah's licence to the Prophet to do as he pleases. Allah is eveready to please the Prophet, be it in the matter of the number of his wives, helping out in domestic quarrels, dumping covenants, taking booty, or having his critics assassinated.

"---Quran is teaching to reject the ties of kinship with kafir parents not non-Muslim parents. Let me tell you, you are not kafir, you are just a non-Muslim. Kafir is a person who gets a Rasool and Rasool makes the Truth apparent to him, but then he rejects it for no valid excuse but because of personal motives and obstinacy.---"

Frankly Shakeel, I am proud to be a kafir. There are no kafirs today? And who told you that? What does this verse, 6:1, mean ':...Yet the kafirs ascribe equals unto their Lord.' or 5:72-73 'They surely are kafirs who say, 'God is the Messiah.....They surely are kafirs who say, 'God is the third of the Three.....' The Christians do this all the time. The polytheists ascribe equals to Allah all the time. Are the Christians of today kafirs or not? Today's Christians have not seen any Rasool. So you Shakeel do not consider them kafirs. But the Koran, as I have shown, does not agree with you.

"---I think, I have already answered your question. I said to you earlier that God judges people with intentions. God punishes only those people who rejects Rasool with wrong intentions for example because of personal motives and obstinacy once truth is apparent to them.---"

This argument of yours of people rejecting the Prophet because of personal motives and obstinacy despite the truth being apparent beats me. What kind of idiots do you think people are to have truth stare them in the face and yet reject it. Don't blame the idiots, blame Allah for creating these kinds of idiots, after all He did create them didn't He? You say Allah judges people by their intentions. I have asked you before, but let me ask again in the hope of getting a cogent answer, did not the All-knowing Allah create them with those intentions?

"---When God says, there is no compulsion in religion; He does not mean to say that He accepts every religion. He means that no Muslim is allowed to force his faith on any other. He also does not allow it to Rasool before the Itmam-ul-Hujja. But after Itmam-ul-Hujja, truth is clear to people and they did not have any valid excuse to deny it. If they deny it, they deny it because of wrong intentions like personal motives and obstinacy, and as I said, God judges people through intentions, so such people are punished.---"

We know Allah accepts only Islam and he has made clear the kind of horrors he will inflict on those who do not accept Islam. When this is the kind of threat that Allah himself holds out for non-belief who needs Muslims to thrust their faith on kafirs?

You have been talking about this itmam-ul-hujja, completion of argument. Why don't you clarify for us the kind of irrefutable proof Mohammed gave to his listeners apart from his self declared prophethood. You have been repeating this charge of personal motives, obstinacy against people who refused to accept Mohammed. Were they gullible children to not take Mohammed seriously when he showed them 'irrefutable proof' , whatever that was, of his direct links with Allah? Do you take the readers of your posts to be gullible children to believe this stuff about 'completion of argument'?

"---Since Itmam-ul-Hujja can only be done by Rasool through the power of God, so Islam does not teach any intolerance towards any other faith.---"

The sense I get from what you say is that the Rasool was authorised by Allah to be intolerant towards other faiths, which he was, after the itmam-ul-hujja, but now that he is in his grave Islam is no more intolerant. This is a great relief for us pagans.We must thank Allah for his infinite mercy.

"---The first rightly guided Caliph did not break this law. He punishes those people who were preached by Muhammad in his life time. If Caliph punishes those people who were not preached by Muhammad, like Hindus, Persians, then he would be violating the law.---"

You have now extended Allah's punishment to all the unfortunates who had the misfortune to be around when Mohammed was in his preaching mood and refused to believe. Was the reason for Mohammed's followers attacking and conquering places as far as Egypt and Persia because he had sent the rulers of those countries threatening messages to accept Islam or else....?

Shakeel, have you wondered why Islam is so hung up on punishment. Punishment in this world and punishment in the next. Does it not argue for a God who could not create people who would be well-behaved and obedient to Him. Allah is a poor designer of slaves.

---

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".