Debate:- Nadir Ahmed with Robert Spencer

Nadir Ahmed sent me a link of his debate with Robert Spencer, and asked me to give feedback. Here is the debate followed by my feedback.
My feedback:-
Respected Nadir,I sincerely apologize for the delay in this reply, and thanks for the link. I went through your debate with Robert Spencer, and I agree as well as disagree with many things, which you said in that debate. You started your argument with “You will never find any example of fighting against non Believers, because they are Non Believers. So everyone understands what the topic here is. “I personally disagree with this point of yours, and I will provide you evidence from Canonical Islamic scriptures as you say, and from the works of Great scholars of Islam, and the point I agree that Robert Spencer, did not answered  your question which you asked him that, whether Christians during the life of Muhammad were clear and present danger?In that debate, Robert tried to show you that the way you are interpreting the Qu’ranic verses, are your exclusive interpretation, and the Muslim world does not interprets Qu’ran, as you do, nor the Islamic scholars do. Now you need to answer this, that why most Islamic scholars does not interprets Qur’an the way you do?Robert Spencer quotes Qur’an 9:29 to prove that Islam preaches believers to fight against non-believers because they are Non-Believers, but you tried to give your own interpretation to that verse.  As most of scholars of Islam support Robert’s view on that verse. Let’s start with the very verse 9:29, which says:-

Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

Now we need to look into historical background of this verse, and need to see why it was revealed. For that I’ll use some famous Tafsir by Islamic scholars. Ibn Kathir comments on this verse as:-

(Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.) Therefore, when People of the Scriptures disbelieved in Muhammad , they had no beneficial faith in any Messenger or what the Messengers brought. Rather, they followed their religions because this conformed with their ideas, lusts and the ways of their forefathers, not because they are Allah’s Law and religion. Had they been true believers in their religions, that faith would have directed them to believe in Muhammad , because all Prophets gave the good news of Muhammad’s advent and commanded them to obey and follow him. Yet when he was sent, they disbelieved in him, even though he is the mightiest of all Messengers. Therefore, they do not follow the religion of earlier Prophets because these religions came from Allah, but because these suit their desires and lusts. Therefore, their claimed faith in an earlier Prophet will not benefit them because they disbelieved in the master, the mightiest, the last and most perfect of all Prophets .

As I said earlier that most scholars do not interpret the Qur’anic verses as you do, and here we see Ibn Kathir gives another historical context for revelation of this verse. It is not as you said, that the Christians were violent and in clear and present danger, that’s not the reason why the Jihad verses are there in Qur’an to confront that. Let’s see another scholar, ‘Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi’ he says:-

The series of events that have been discussed in this Surah took place after the Peace Treaty of Hudaibiyah. By that time, one-third of Arabia had come under the sway of Islam which had established itself as a powerful, well organized and civilized Islamic State. This Treaty afforded further opportunities to Islam to spread its influence in the comparatively peaceful atmosphere created by it. After this Treaty, two events took place, which led to very important results.

Further he says:-

If we keep in view the preceding background, we can easily find out the problems that were confronting the Community at that time. They were:

  1. to make the whole of Arabia a perfect Dar-ul-Islam,
  2. to extend the influence of Islam to the adjoining countries,
  3. to crush the mischiefs of the hypocrites, and
  4. to prepare the Muslims for Jihad against the non- Muslim world.
  1. Now that the administration of the whole of Arabia had come in the hands of the Believers, and all the opposing powers had become helpless, it was necessary to make a clear declaration of that policy which was to be adopted to make her a perfect Dar-ul-Islam. Therefore the following measures were adopted:
    1. A clear declaration was made that all the treaties with the mushriks were abolished and the Muslims would be released from the treaty obligations with them after a respite of four months.(vv. 1-3). This declaration was necessary for uprooting completely the system of life based on shirk and to make Arabia exclusively the center of Islam so that it should not in any way interfere with the spirit of Islam nor become an internal danger for it.
    2. A decree was issued that the guardianship of the Ka`abah, which held central position in all the affairs of Arabia, should be wrested from the mushriks and placed permanently in the hands of the Believers, (vv. 12-18) that all the customs and practices of the shirk of the era of ‘ignorance’ should be forcibly abolished: that the mushriksshould not be allowed even to come near the “House” (v. 28). This was to eradicate every trace of shirk from the “House” that was dedicated exclusively to the worship of Allah.
    3. The evil practice of Nasi, by which they used to tamper with the sacred months in the days of ‘ignorance’, was forbidden as an act of kufr(v. 37). This was also to serve as an example to the Muslims for eradicating every vestige of the customs of ignorance from the life of Arabia (and afterwards from the lives of the Muslims everywhere).
  2. In order to enable the Muslims to extend the influence of Islam outside Arabia, they were enjoined to crush with sword the non- Muslim powers and to force them to accept the sovereignty of the Islamic State. As the great Roman and Iranian Empires were the biggest hindrances in the way, a conflict with them was inevitable. The object of Jihad was not to coerce them to accept Islam they were free to accept or not to accept it-but to prevent them from thrusting forcibly their deviations upon others and the coming generations. The Muslims were enjoined to tolerate their misguidance only to the extent that they might have the freedom to remain misguided, if they chose to be so, provided that they paid Jizyah (v. 29) as a sign of their subjugation to the Islamic State.

Isn’t this enough historical evidences from Islamic scholars, who clearly states that the verse we are discussing was revealed to extend influence of Islam outside Arabia.

Waiting for your reply.



Nadir Ahmed:-

Yes you are right, unfortunately I did not have enough time to elaborate on the scholars. I do not have my own interpretation because… I am not interpreting anything! I am saying that the scriptures do not have any verse which teaches to fight because they are disbeleivers. im simply claiming something is not there. I can only think of maybe 3-4 scholars who agree with spencer. the vast majority does not
What you are sent me in the email is not from canonical scripture. these are the mere words of men. Commentaries are not evidence in Islam. The unrefuted argument stands: 9:29 does not say you should fight them because they are disbelievers. As I stated it only states WHO to fight but not WHY to fight. on this point, Spencer was defeated.
Here are the 5 reasons to fight from canonical scripture:
My Reply:-
Respected Nadir,I can understand that you did not had enough time to elaborate on the scholars, next you said, “I can only think of maybe 3-4 scholars who agree with Spencer. the vast majority does not.” This is not true Nadir, as I can quote majority scholars saying what Robert said in the debate. See how majority Islamic scholars agrees with Robert Spencer. I have already quoted two most prominent Scholar, i.e. Ibn Kathir and Ibn Mauddudi, here are some more explanations by Islamic scholars on  9:29:-Ibn Jalalayan:-
Fight those who do not believe in God, nor in the Last Day, for, otherwise, they would have believed in the Prophet (s), and who do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden, such as wine, nor do they practise the religion of truth, the firm one, the one that abrogated other religions, namely, the religion of Islam — from among of those who (min, ‘from’, explains [the previous] alladhīna, ‘those who’) have been given the Scripture, namely, the Jews and the Christians, until they pay the jizya tribute, the annual tax imposed them, readily (‘an yadin is a circumstantial qualifier, meaning, ‘compliantly’, or ‘by their own hands’, not delegating it [to others to pay]), being subdued, [being made] submissive and compliant to the authority of Islam.

Ibn Abbas:-

(Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture) the Jews and Christians (as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day) nor in the bliss of Paradise, (and forbid not) in the Torah (that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the religion of truth) do not submit themselves to Allah through confession of Allah’s divine Oneness, (until they pay the tribute readily) standing: from hand to hand, (being brought low) abased.

Sayyid Quttub in his book ‘In the shade of Qur’an’ says regarding this verse:-

These new rulings include a number of substantial amendments to the rules governing relations between the Muslim community and people of earlier revelations, particularly the Christians. By the time this sūrah was revealed, all encounters and military conflicts with the Jews had already taken place, but no such conflict took place with any Christian community. The main amendment the new rulings include is the order given to fight those who deviate from the divine faith until they pay the jizyah, or submission tax, after they have been humbled. No peace agreement may be made with them except on this basis of submission evident by the payment of a special tax which gives them the right to live in peace with the Muslims. On the other hand, if they become convinced of the truth of Islam and accept it, they are considered part of the Muslim community.Never will they be forced to accept the Islamic faith. A basic and definitive Islamic rule states: “There shall be no compulsion in religion.” (2: 256) But they are not given a peaceful status unless they are bound by covenant with the Muslim community on the basis of paying the submission tax.
So you see how most of scholars agrees with Robert Spencer’s view on 9:29, you should also notice that these Tafsirs are from man, but they quote Canonical scriptures directly to explain Quranic verses. Most of Tafsir quote authentic Hadith to explain the verses, as such is Ibn Kathir. See how Ibn Kathir quotes Canonical scripture in his narration of this verse, and see what he says:-

Allah said, (until they pay the Jizyah), if they do not choose to embrace Islam,(with willing submission), in defeat and subservience, (and feel themselves subdued.), disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated. Muslim recorded from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet said, (Do not initiate the Salam to the Jews and Christians, and if you meet any of them in a road, force them to its narrowest alley.) This is why the Leader of the faithful `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, demanded his well-known conditions be met by the Christians, these conditions that ensured their continued humiliation, degradation and disgrace. The scholars of Hadith narrated from `Abdur-Rahman bin Ghanm Al-Ash`ari that he said, “I recorded for `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, the terms of the treaty of peace he conducted with the Christians of Ash-Sham: `In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. This is a document to the servant of Allah `Umar, the Leader of the faithful, from the Christians of such and such city. When you (Muslims) came to us we requested safety for ourselves, children, property and followers of our religion. We made a condition on ourselves that we will neither erect in our areas a monastery, church, or a sanctuary for a monk, nor restore any place of worship that needs restoration nor use any of them for the purpose of enmity against Muslims. We will not prevent any Muslim from resting in our churches whether they come by day or night, and we will open the doors ﴿of our houses of worship﴾ for the wayfarer and passerby. Those Muslims who come as guests, will enjoy boarding and food for three days. We will not allow a spy against Muslims into our churches and homes or hide deceit ﴿or betrayal﴾ against Muslims. We will not teach our children the Qur’an, publicize practices of Shirk, invite anyone to Shirk or prevent any of our fellows from embracing Islam, if they choose to do so. We will respect Muslims, move from the places we sit in if they choose to sit in them. We will not imitate their clothing, caps, turbans, sandals, hairstyles, speech, nicknames and title names, or ride on saddles, hang swords on the shoulders, collect weapons of any kind or carry these weapons. We will not encrypt our stamps in Arabic, or sell liquor. We will have the front of our hair cut, wear our customary clothes wherever we are, wear belts around our waist, refrain from erecting crosses on the outside of our churches and demonstrating them and our books in public in Muslim fairways and markets. We will not sound the bells in our churches, except discretely, or raise our voices while reciting our holy books inside our churches in the presence of Muslims, nor raise our voices ﴿with prayer﴾ at our funerals, or light torches in funeral processions in the fairways of Muslims, or their markets. We will not bury our dead next to Muslim dead, or buy servants who were captured by Muslims. We will be guides for Muslims and refrain from breaching their privacy in their homes.’ When I gave this document to `Umar, he added to it, `We will not beat any Muslim. These are the conditions that we set against ourselves and followers of our religion in return for safety and protection. If we break any of these promises that we set for your benefit against ourselves, then our Dhimmah (promise of protection) is broken and you are allowed to do with us what you are allowed of people of defiance and rebellion.”’

So you see how the Canonical scripture proves you wrong, that Christians at the time of Muhammad was a clear and present danger, because we see in above narration, that Christians were ready to accept any terms of Muslims. Another problem I see in Qur’an is that despite the claim that Quran is a very clear and well explained book, still many of the verses are not self-understandable and  which cannot be understood without Tafsirs such as 68:1, which says:-

Nun. By the pen and what they inscribe,

What do you understand by this verse, so we have to rely on Tafsir for understanding this verse. Another thing, which I would like to share with you is that the verse you quoted 9:29, nowhere says why we need to fight those Christians who are fighting against Jews, its says “Fight against those who don’t believe in Allah nor the last Day”, i.e. Non-Muslims. Isn’t it? So you have to reply on immediate context of the verse or the Tafsirs.I have already quoted all major Tafsir now let’s see the context of the verse 9:29.Qur’an 9:28 says:-
O you who have believed, indeed the polytheists are unclean, so let them not approach al-Masjid al-Haram after this, their [final] year. And if you fear privation, Allah will enrich you from His bounty if He wills. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Wise.
This verse isn’t talking about Christians who are killing Jews, and as we understand for this verse that this verse was revealed about Pagans, Polytheists,  and people of Book. This verse commands Muslims that Non-Muslims are unclean, so don’t let them enter al-Masjid al-Haram, in this regards Ibn Kathir quotes a authentic Hadith which says:-
(So let them not come near Al-Masjid Al-Haram (at Makkah) after this year.)” This Ayah indicates that idolators are impure and that the believers are pure. In the Sahih is the following, (The believer does not become impure.)
Further the verse says as per Ibn Kathir who again quotes Canonical scripture:-

this will be your compensation for the closed markets that you feared would result.’ Therefore, Allah compensated them for the losses they incurred because they severed ties with idolators, by the Jizyah they earned from the People of the Book.” Similar statements were reported from Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, `Ikrimah, Sa`id bin Jubayr, Qatadah and Ad-Dahhak and others.

So we see nowhere the verse gives a slightest hint that Christians were attacking or killing Jews, for which the next verse was revealed. But we see how after forbidding Non-Muslims from entering Al-Masjid Al-Haram, they they feared poverty and to enrich them Allah revealed the verse 9:29, which speaks of Jizyah. Lastly, I can only say that either Major Scholars of Islam are wrong or yo, and there is no reason to believe that all Scholars are wrong.I think your view on the verse 9:29 is wrong, and is not supported by major Scholars of Islam, as I have shown. In my next mail, I’ll reply your 5 reasons of Offensive Jihad.Regards.

Nadir Ahmed:-

What is this nonsense? the issue here is what canonical scripture teach. IF the scriptures do not teach it, then it is irrelevant what any man says. Only a fool would ignore what his scripture teaches for some words of mere men. Please don’t ask me to engage in this kind of stupidity.

So now for the second time…. show me in canonical scripture where it teaches to wage war again non-believer because they are non-believers.
Nadir Ahmed
My Reply:-
Respected Nadir,After going through your last mail, now I am sure that it is impossible to prove you that Canonical scriptures of Islam commands Muslim to kill Non-Muslim, just because they are Non-Muslim. It is not because, there is no such verse in Canonical scripture, but because you are not ready to accept it.We were talking on verse 9:29, and as per you it commands Muslims to fight those Christians who were clear and present danger? But the verse, nor the context mentions that anywhere. So from where you got this idea. Now, you are denying all the scholars of Islam, as earlier you said, only 3-4 scholars agree with Robert, but I gave you as many commentary I can give, from Major Islamic scholars. So its easy to deny their authenticity and ask evidence from Canonical scripture. I showed you, how these scholars directly quote Canonical scripture, i.e. Hadith for the explanation of verse, then what more you need. As we see the verse 9:29 clearly says Muslims to fight those who believe not in Allah (Non-Muslims). Isn’t it a sufficient evidence? Because it nowhere gives the context, which you want us to believe.

Here is a Lengthy Hadith from Sahih Bukhari, which clearly states to fight Pagans until they believe in Allah and accept Muhammad as messenger, or they pay Jizyah.

Vol 4. Book 53 No 386:
Narrated Jubair bin Haiya: `Umar sent the Muslims to the great countries to fight the pagans. When Al−Hurmuzan embraced Islam, `Umar said to him. “I would like to consult you regarding these countries which I intend to invade.” Al−Hurmuzan said, “Yes, the example of these countries and their inhabitants who are the enemies. of the Muslims, is like a bird with a head, two wings and two legs; If one of its wings got broken, it would get up over its two legs, with one wing and the head; and if the other wing got broken, it woul  get up with two legs and a head, but if its head got destroyed, then the two legs, two wings and the head would become useless. The head stands for Khosrau, and one wing stands for Caesar and the other wing stands for Faris. So, order the Muslims to go towards Khosrau.” So, `Umar sent us (to Khosrau) appointing An−Nu`man bin Muqrin as our commander. When we reached the land of the enemy, the representative of Khosrau came out with forty−thousand warriors, and an interpreter got up saying, “Let one of you talk to me!” Al−Mughira replied, “Ask whatever you wish.” The other asked, “Who are you?” Al−Mughira replied, “We are some people from the Arabs; we led a hard, miserable, disastrous life: we used to suck the hides and the date stones from hunger; we used to wear clothes made up of fur of camels and hair of goats, and to worship trees and stones. While we were in this state, the Lord of the Heavens and the Earths, Elevated is His Remembrance and Majestic is His Highness, sent to us from among ourselves a Prophet whose father and mother are known to us. Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:−− “Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master.” (Al−Mughira, then blamed An−Nu`man for delaying the attack and) An−Nu’ man said to Al−Mughira, “If you had participated in a similar battle, in the company of Allah’s Apostle he would not have blamed you for waiting, nor would he have disgraced you. But I accompanied Allah’s Apostle in many battles and it was his custom that if he did not fight early by daytime, he would wait till the wind had started blowing and the time for the prayer was due (i.e. after midday).
Even Sahih Muslims records a similar thing:-
Bk 1, Number 0033:
It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. ‘Umar that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.
Isn’t these from Canonical scriptures? Now, I leave it on to you to prove why these attacks by prophet were not on Non-Muslims, because they were Non-Muslims, as these Narrations clearly say whom to fight.

Update May 29, 2012 

Nadir Ahmed:-
I have already address this hadith in our debate with robert, here is the response:
As for scholars, here is my challenge –  name me 1 scholar today that we can BOTH meet and lets see who they agree with? Smile Then you must post the response on your website.
Here are the 5 reasons for offensive Jihad:
This is the 3rd debate defeat kuffars have suffered on this topic. as a result, they have all ran away. Now you must accept the truth that no where in canonical scripture does it teach to fight because they are non believers
Nadir Ahmed
My Response:-
Respected Nadir,

So finally you accept that the Canonical scripture of Islam, permits offensive war, but you want to argue on which circumstances it permit?  In your last reply, you said, ” I have already address this hadith in our debate with Robert, here is the response :” . So I went through your link, there you said :-

Western historians refer to this period in Christian history during the era of Muhammad(P)’s life (died 632 A.D.) as the dark ages.  Encyclopedia Britannica referred to this Era as a period of “intellectual darkness and barbarity”.   One example from history is taken from Ibn Ishaq’s biography, the “Sirat Rasul Allah”, (THE LIFE OF THE PROPHET),  which documented that a Christian army under the leadership of Abraha built a huge cathedral in Sana, Yemen and swore that they would force the Arabs to pay homage to it. They pronounced that they had come to destroy their religion. However chapter 105 of the Quran states that God intervened and stopped the Christian army.

Here I agree that Christian history during the era of Muhammad’s life was the dark age, but it has no connection with Qur’an 9:29, nor any of the verse of Qur’an. The example you quoted from “Sirat Rasul Allah”, happened before birth of Prophet, so this again can’t be historical context of 9:29. Another thing I would like to share with you is that, the story you quoted from “Sirat Rasul Allah” is incomplete, and when we quote the story complete we see that Christians were not the first to wage wars against Arabs. Here is the complete story:-

At that time the Yemen was under the rule of Abyssinia, and an Abyssinian named Abrahah was vice-regent. He built a magnificent cathedral in San’a’, hoping thereby to make it supersede Mecca as the great place of pilgrimage for all Arabia. He had marble brought to it from one of the derelict palaces of the Queen of Sheba, and he set up crosses in it of gold and of silver, and pulpits of ivory and ebony, and he wrote to his master, the Negus: “I have built thee a church, 0 King, the like of which was never built for any king before thee; and I shall not rest until I have diverted unto it the pilgrimage of the Arabs.” Nor did he make any secret of his intention, and great was the anger of the tribes throughout Hijaz and Najd. Finally a man of Kinanah, a tribe akin to Quraysh, went to San’a’ for the deliberate purpose of defiling the church, which he did one night and then returned safely to his people.

When Abrahah heard of this he vowed that in revenge he would raze the Ka’bah to the ground; and having made his preparations he set off for Mecca with a large army, in the van of which he placed an elephant. Some of the Arab tribes north of San’a’ attempted to bar his way, but the Abyssinians put them to flight and captured their leader, Nufayl of the tribe of Khath’am. By way of ransom for his life, he offered to act as guide.

So, the reason why Abrahah  vowed to destruct Kabba, is because some Quraysh went to San’a with the purpose of defiling the Church. So, as we see Abrahah initial intention was not to destruct Kabba, but to shift the pilgrimage from Mecca to San’a’.

Next you quoted a Hadith, which again is incomplete, as it is irrelevant to quote the complete Hadith, so I’ll quote the relevant part of it.

When I had been absent (from the company of the Holy Prophet) he used to bring me the news and when he had been absent I used to bring him the news, and at that time we dreaded a king of Ghassan. It was mentioned to us that he intended to attack us, and our minds were haunted by him. My friend, the Ansari, came to me, and he knocked at the door and said: Open it, open it. I said: Has the Ghassani come? He said: (The matter is) more serious than that. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) has separated himself from his wives.

Here we see that there was something more important than King of Ghassan, whom they feared, and it is Muhammad and his relationship with his wives. So you really think that the King of Ghassam was  clear and present danger for Muslim? We see thieves are always frightened of Police, does it mean that they are right and Police is wrong? This explanation is weak and again does not prove your point.

Also, I would like to remind you that, while proving that 9:29 is a peaceful verse, you did not used the Canonical scripture of Islam, rather you used second hand sources like Tafsir (which I had used), which is obviously man-made. The Quranic verse 9:29, neither gives us hint, not it its context say, what you want Non-Muslims to believe. You want Non-Muslims to believe this:-

Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (who rip women’s breasts off, subject infidels and heretics to blood curdling torture, and commit genocide and are a clear and present danger), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Which is obviously wrong, and no where stated in Qur’an nor in Hadith. So why can’t we rely on Islamic scholars explanations?  Further you gave me a challenge, “as for scholars, here is my challenge –  name me 1 scholar today that we can BOTH meet and lets see who they agree with?”

This is insane, because I don’t think Islamic scholars will change their interpretation and explanation of any verse of Qur’an for you or me. When Ala-Mauddudi and Ibn Kathir and many more which I have already mentioned in my previous mail, clearly gives the historical context of the above verse, using what you call Canonical explanation, why they will agree to you?

Lastly, Even for sake of argument I agree what you say, “Christians posed this eminent threat, this influenced and motivated the author of the Quran to write those words into the Quran. The historical context provides us a motives and reasons for why the Quran reads the way it does.”

Still you are unable to prove that this verse is peaceful, because the verse is not commanding Muslims to fight and kill only those Christians who posed the eminent threat, but it also commands to fight those:-

1) Do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day.
2) Who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful.
3) Who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture.
Here we see that Allah has already commanded Muslims to fight the people of 3rd category, whom you say that they posed threat, but what about the rest two categories? As we are sure the rest two categories does not comprise Christians and Jews, as they are already referred in the verse itself.


5 thoughts on “Debate:- Nadir Ahmed with Robert Spencer

  1. Verse 9:29 is very clear : Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

    Meaning of the word Fight :

    1. To strive vigorously and resolutely: fought against corruption; fighting for justice.

    2. To attempt to harm or gain power over an adversary by blows or with weapons.

    3. To engage in a quarrel; argue:

    Muslims are to DO all of the above and NOT play hide and seek or “Tikri” with the disbelievers!!

    That verse is very clear as Islam is NOT a dandia play!!! Today Islam IS the Number One religion in the world. Do you know why? It does not have Yoni worship!!

    Muslims are told : “Strive for your religion at any cost, punch those who punch you…tit for tat
    …….for those who were given the Scriptures and yet disbelieved keep punching them until they believe like many hindus who converted to Islam or they become subjugated and pay taxes to live under Islamic rule.

    The above verse is very very clear!!!

    • Glum, thanks for the link. It is very revolting to see such haps in our generation not only relating to Afghanistan but all over the world. These brutes who commit such atrocities are actually beasts disguised as humans and should be punished for such crimes immediately.

      But attaching such incidents to Islam and labelling them as “Islamic” is absolutely balls coming from your thick skull of Australopithecus Sediba!

      See here how your brain did NOT evolve as previously believed :

      Skull of Homo erectus throws story of human evolution into disarray!!

      The spectacular fossilised skull of an ancient human ancestor that died nearly two
      million years ago has forced scientists to rethink the story of early human evolution.

      “Nobody has ever seen such a well-preserved skull from this period”

  2. I understand what you mean by that. And I cannot deny the words of the Quran. But you. since you seem like a learned man, should know that no religion says Do Not Fight. Islam is no exception. It is a part of Islam’s history: Jihad. Now how you see that will be where conflicts come.
    I will like to say only 1 counter-arguement since almost every counter_arguement can be argued.
    You quote the story of Abrahah. But you say the Muslims started it and Abrahah was justified to raze Mecca because a man defiled that church. In truth, it was Abrahah who tried to move the piligrimage from Mecca to Sina, as you said. So he’s invading Islam at that moment because to change the piligrimage from Mecca is not just a bad thing, it is the worst thing. It goes against the very core of Islam!

    • Allah’s Servant,

      Nice counter argument. You said, “because to change the pilgrimage from Mecca is not just a bad thing, it is the worst thing. It goes against the very core of Islam.” No it is not true, because if you remember, Mecca was not actually a Muslim pilgrimage, but in fact a Pagan holy site, which Muslims attacked and captured.

      Secondly, it was not given much importance initially, as Muhammad himself directed his people to face Jerusalem in place of Mecca, and then later changed it. So you can’t say that Abraha was against the very core of Islam. He just tried to shift the pilgrimage..


  3. Pingback: Peaceful Verses of Qur’an. « The False Prophet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s