Rough Notes X8

Rough Notes X8

Bro I'm a Communist:

Let’s look at the global chess board. USA is Capitalist with a Christian majority, and they support Israel, which is economically neutral with a Jewish majority, and same goes for the rest of the West, all of which share liberal values.

Now, the Arab Palestine Liberation movement has its basis in Islam’s consideration of al-Aqsa as their second mosque after the conquest of Jerusalem, when they named Jerusalem al-Quds and built al-Aqsa on top of the destroyed Second Temple on Temple Mount. But with intellect of Jews and the backing of USA and the rest of the West, even the entire Middle East won’t stand a chance against Israel. So how are they remaining neutral? With the aid of Russia, China and North Korea (North Korea lmao). These fools will stand against anything that’s against the West.

Now, eliminated Hamas chief Ismail Haniyeh’s daughter said last month that Iran is the capital of Islam, which was the goal of Iran, because they supported Hamas. But Iran is Shi’a, and therefore are mortal enemies of the other Muslims, who are Sunni, because they are performing the greatest sin of idolatry by following Imams, and attributing it to Mohammed, tarnishing the image of Islam. And the reason the Middle East is not attacking Israel is because it is taught in the Qur’an not to fight battles whenever you lack the strength, and remain deceitful until then (e.g. in Chapter 157: War is Deceit, from Book 56: Fighting for the cause of Allah (Jihaad), from Saheeh al-Bukhari, according to the Arabic Reference Scheme) and stick to either temporary term peace treaties (which have to be honoured) or indefinite term treaties (which can be broken anytime). The target strength to declare war is when Muslims and non-Muslims have a ratio of 1:2, in which case they have the right strength to attack non-Muslims and win the war (This is shown in Qur’an 8:66, which is an abrogation of the preceding verse 8:65).

Hinduism is a polytheist religion, but some Hindus want to deny that. Are they ashamed about their polytheism?
Comment 1: (Indian Banyan > > Chris Pratt (Christians have picked up the notion ...))

You can’t say false notion, only a terrible notion. If you have to assert truity or falsity to something, you must be able to prove it under some axioms. However, those religions are their own axioms, so you can’t prove or disprove them using themselves. But you can, if you create axioms using the language in which they preach the religion, such as English.

Comment 2 (Indian Banyan >> Indian Banyan (These things are said with a lot of certitude)):
We did not know what solid food to eat when we were born, yet we found a way. The strong atheistic point of view is that we figured it out by hard trial and error, or perhaps by that during slow evolution, we figured out one step at a time, and passed it on.

But the theistic point of view is that God put in the plan to ensure that nature will evolve into humans and humans will find a way through, ensuring that people will get the right amounts of good experiences and bad experiences in order to fulfil God’s plan. A general perspective is also that evil and good are not fundamental phenomena, but rather, emergent phenomena. This is the case in Judaism (The human inclinations of Yetzer Hatov and Yetzer Hara) and Hinduism (The human inclinations of Antahkaranas).

My personal perspective is far too complicated to explain, however I agree with Rich Wilkinson’s perspective that the validity of human agency is the only factor that makes a theological model right or wrong, unless you can disprove it under some other axioms that are based on the language you are conversing in.

Handala > Haniff

It’s not a bizzare thing. They went there because they were being persecuted in Europe, and the reason they were in Europe is because of those who kicked them out of Judea. When it comes to survival, they gave them the best option, to peacefully settle and start a state.

But Muslims, just as they stole the identity of Jews, and claimed the Second Temple, also couldn’t handle the loss of a land that they considered Daar Al-Islam after they gained it during their medieval Jihad al-Talab conquest by which they oppressed the Jews under the Dhimmah system, as required by the Quran.

https://www.quora.com/What-religion-has-the-most-terrorist-groups-in-the-world-today/answer/Andrew-Lenihan-1 -> Comment

Suicide bombing may be a sin, but killing infidels and dying isn’t.

In 5:32, he was referring to the command that was given to B’nei Yisra’El. In the next verse, 5:33 he says that the punishment for them, since they did not follow the Torah (according to Mohammed), their punishment had to be brutal in this world too:

Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and spread mischief in the land is death, crucifixion, cutting off their hands and feet on opposite sides, or exile from the land. This ˹penalty˺ is a disgrace for them in this world, and they will suffer a tremendous punishment in the Hereafter.

Tafseer Ibn Katheer

(The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land.) **Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil.** Ibn Jarir recorded thatIkrimah and Al-Hasan Al-Basri said that the Ayat,

————————————————————

In 6:151, the legal right means under the Deen (Religion and Law) of Allah, which has to be established worldwide by Jihad al-Talab (Offensive Jihad)

Tafseer Ibn Katheer:

(And kill not anyone whom Allah has forbidden, except for a just cause (according to Islamic law).) This part of the Ayah emphasizes this prohibition in specific, although it is included in the immoral sins committed openly and in secret.

…

In the Two Sahihs, it is recorded that Ibn Mas`ud said that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said,

«لَا يَحِلُّ دَمُ امْرِىءٍ مُسْلِمٍ يَشْهَدُ أَنْ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللهُ وَأَنِّي رَسُولُ اللهِ، إِلَّا بِإِحْدَى ثَلَاثٍ: الثَّيِّبُ الزَّانِي، وَالنَّفْسُ بِالنَّفْسِ، وَالتَّارِكُ لِدِينِهِ الْمُفَارِقُ لِلْجَمَاعَة»

(The blood of a Muslim person who testifies that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah ﷺ is prohibited, except for three offenses: a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse, life for life, and whoever reverts from the religion and abandons the Jama`ah (the community of faithful believers).)

See what it says, only the blood of Muslim people.

There is a prohibition, a warning and a threat against killing the Mu`ahid, i.e., non-Muslims who have a treaty of peace with Muslims

Who are the Mu’aahid? It only includes the Dhimmah, and the Mushrikeen who come to Daar Al-Islaam to learn about Islaam. But after they learn, they won’t later have a second chance to keep treaty. Because as per many Hadeeths (Jami at-Tirmidhi 3092, Jami at-Tirmidhi 3092, and many others are in Arabic and in Siyaar (Biographies)), the treaties always have to be fixed term, and are only to be considered a ceasefire, because Jihad al-Talab is necessary worldwide. As for indefinite term treaties, they can be broken anytime, according to Surah At-Tawbah / Al-Bara’ah Ayah 1 (9:1). Also see its Tafseer by Ibn Katheer.

Al-Bukhari recorded that Abdullah binAmr said that the Prophet said,

«مَنْ قَتَلَ مُعَاهِدًا لَمْ يَرَحْ رَائِحَةَ الْجَنَّةِ، وَإِنَّ رِيحَهَا لَيُوجَدُ مِنْ مَسِيرَةِ أَرْبَعِينَ عَامًّا»

(Whoever killed a person having a treaty of protection with Muslims, shall not smell the scent of Paradise, though its scent is perceived from a distance of forty years. )

Wow great. That ought to deter people from accidentally slaughtering Kuffar.

————————————————————

2:256 only means that there is no point in forcing someone to become Muslim without, because they will not gain Jannah. But it is not a prohibition against killing those who don’t want to convert.

Tafseer Ibn Katheer

(There is no compulsion in religion), meaning, "Do not force anyone to become Muslim, for Islam is plain and clear, and its proofs and evidence are plain and clear. Therefore, there is no need to force anyone to embrace Islam. Rather, whoever Allah directs to Islam, opens his heart for it and enlightens his mind, will embrace Islam with certainty. Whoever Allah blinds his heart and seals his hearing and sight, then he will not benefit from being forced to embrace Islam."

Muslims have noble intentions in this regard, but are stupid, and think all other people are evil and so should be killed. And also, this came before Surah At-Tawbah (Repentance) / Al-Bara’ah (Freedom from Obligations), which is the last Surah.

————————————————————

8:61 was revealed is abrogated by 9:5 and 9:29, and is only valid when Muslims are not strong enough to take them on. It is shown by the other contradicting verse of 47:35:

47:35

“So be not weak and ask not for peace (from the enemies of Islam) while you are having the upper hand. Allaah is with you, and He will never decrease the reward of your good deeds’

Tafseer Ibn Katheer

(So do not lose heart and beg for peace while you are superior.) meaning, in the condition of your superiority over your enemy. If, on the other hand, the disbelievers are considered more powerful and numerous than the Muslims, then the Imam (general commander) may decide to hold a treaty if he judges that it entails a benefit for the Muslims. This is like what Allah's Messenger ﷺ did when the disbelievers obstructed him from entering Makkah and offered him treaty in which all fighting would stop between them for ten years.

This means that 8:61 only applied in the special context, when Mohammed was trying to go to Mecca for the first Hajj, and encountered the Quraysh, and he couldn’t fend them off at the time.

Also see Tafseer al-Qurtubi on 8:61:

واختلف العلماء في حكمها، فقيل: إنها ناسخة لقوله تعالى:" وإن جنحوا للسلم فاجنح لها" «٢» [الأنفال: ٦١]، لأن الله تعالى منع من الميل إلى الصلح إذا لم يكن بالمسلمين حاجة إلى الصلح. وقيل: منسوخة بقوله تعالى:" وإن جنحوا للسلم فاجنح لها". وقيل: هي محكمة. والآيتان نزلتا في وقتين مختلفي الحال. وقيل: إن قوله" وإن جنحوا للسلم فاجنح لها" مخصوص في قوم بأعيانهم، والأخرى عامة. فلا يجوز مهادنة الكفار إلا عند الضرورة، وذلك إذا عجزنا عن مقاومتهم لضعف المسلمين.

Google Translate:

The scholars differed in their ruling, saying: It is an unwritten statement: "And the people of heaven were blessed with peace." If there was no peace then only Muslims needed peace. And he said: Canceled words: "And the world will rest in peace." He said: This is the court. And this visit comes at different times. And he said: These sayings, "And the world is blessed with peace", are specific to the people who are unaware of them and others in general. Therefore, it is not permissible to make sacrifices except when absolutely necessary, that is, if we are unable to resist the weakness of the Muslims.

Also, see that 8:61 flows straight into Surah At-Tawbah / Al-Bara’ah, starting with the Ayah with the Bara’ah (Discharge from Obligations) (9:1).

˹This is˺ a discharge from all obligations,1 by Allah and His Messenger, to the polytheists you ˹believers˺ have entered into treaties with:

The context of the revelation is mentioned in the following Saheeh Ahdeeths (listed in the Arabic Reference Scheme).

(Basically Mohammed decided to break all peace treaties, because one party allied with Muslims attacked another party allied with Quraysh (Mohammed knew earlier that the two clans were always fighting each other - so he just exploited the right opportunity because he observed (as anyone can) that the Arabs are fools without honour or common sense, and therefore can be stirred into revolt because it is logically provable that a treaty was broken). And that was ignoring that Mohammed himself had violated the treaty twice himself (which I’ll show next))

Revelation of the Discharge from Obligations towards Mushrikeen ‘Including Reduction of Indefinite Term Treaties to Four Months’ and Eternal Ban on Mushrikeen Performing Hajj and Anyone Performing the Tawaf Naked:

Jami' at-Tirmidhi 3092 (grade: Saheeh) (Jami` at-Tirmidhi 3091 had a Da’eef Sanad)

Jami' at-Tirmidhi 871 (grade: Saheeh)

Revelation of the Discharge from Obligations towards Mushrikeen and Eternal Ban on Mushrikeen Performing Hajj and Anyone Performing the Tawaf Naked:

Saheeh al-Bukhari 369

Eternal Ban on Mushrikeen Performing Hajj and Anyone Performing the Tawaf Naked:

Sunan an-Nasa'i 2957 (grade: Saheeh)

Saheeh al-Bukhari 1622

Saheeh al-Bukhari 4363

Saheeh al-Bukhari 4655

Saheeh al-Bukhari 4656

Saheeh al-Bukhari 4657

Musnad Ahmad 594 (grade: Saheeh)

Saheeh Muslim 1347

Here’s when Mohammed broke the treaties on his behalf. Luckily for him, Quraysh were humans, and not bloodthirsty like him to start a war and kill and risk people’s lives for small violations.

First, these were the conditions of the treaty:

Saheeh al-Bukhari 2700

On the day of Hudaibiya, the Prophet (ﷺ), the Prophet (ﷺ) made a peace treaty with the Al-Mushrikun on three conditions:
1. The Prophet (ﷺ) would return to them any person from Al-Mushrikun (polytheists, idolaters, pagans).
2. Al-Mushrikun pagans would not return any of the Muslims going to them, and
3. The Prophet (ﷺ) and his companions would come to Makkah the following year and would stay there for three days and would enter with their weapons in cases, e.g., swords, arrows, bows, etc.

This is when Mohammed violated the treaty earlier:

Mohammed refused to return the women who emigrated by revealing 60:10, effectively violating the treaty of al-Hudaibiyya. He said that since the wives have become Muslim, they are not valid for the disbelieving husbands.
Saheeh al-Bukhari 2711-12
Saheeh al-Bukhari 2731-2732
Saheeh al-Bukhari 4180-81,
Abu Basir started stopping Meccan caravans, killing the passengers and looting them. When they asked Mohammed to send him back in accordance with the treaty, he revealed 48:24–26 to make another exception.
Saheeh al-Bukhari 2731–2732

And Mohammed later declared war, because when the treaty was declared, from two clans who would fight each other, Banu Khuza’ah joined with the Muslims and Banu Bakr joined with the Quraysh (Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah - The Life of Muhammad Translated by A. Guillaume p.504).

p. 505

The apostle's companions had gone out without any doubt of occupying Mecca because of the vision which the apostle had seen, and when they saw the negotiations for peace and a withdrawal going on and what the apostle had taken on himself, they felt depressed almost to the point of death.

‘The apostle then went on his way back (from Hudaybiya) and when he was half-way back, the sura al-Fath (Victory) came down: 'We have given you a plain victory that God may forgive you your past sin and the sin which is to come and may complete his favor upon you and guide you on an upright path'’ [Ibn Ishaq, p. 505–06].

When Banu Bakr reportedly later attacked Banu Khuza’ah, for revenge for them killing one of their members in the past, Mohammed sent the Quraysh an enoy asking them to stop supporting Banu Bakr. Some of them told him they don’t care, since Mohammed himself didn’t follow the treaty properly. But then, Quraysh leader Abu Sufyan decided to not make it a problem and renew the treaty. But Mohammed said no and attacked. Mohammed cleverly utilized the treaty to attack Quraysh, exterminate them and steal the holy place that belonged to them for years.

todo: Add letters to Khosrau II

**https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-LGBT-people-should-be-killed-in-Islam-If-yes-whats-the-proof/answer/Brian-Mason-13?comment_id=424636004&comment_type=2**

The life of the last prophet (First and Last as I’d call it) is exactly the problem, based on Ahadeeth and Siyar. He married Juwarriyah bint al-Harith when she traded herself in as ransom to protect her clan, and he married Saffiyah bint Huyayy immediately after killing the entire Jewish clans of Khaybar (Banu Qurayzah) including her father, brother and newly wed husband Kinana, and slept with her within three days, because

She was taken by Mohammed because she was the most beautiful girl (she was the chief mistress of Banu Qurayzah and Banu Nadir)

Page 185 of “The History of Al-Tabari, Vol. 39” translated by Ella Landau-Tasseron, published by State University of New York Press (In section: The Death Dates of the Prophet's Wives Who Died after Him):

Ibn ‘Umar [al-Waqidi] – Kathir b. Zayd – al-Walid b. Rabah – Abu Hurayrah: While the Prophet was lying with Safiyah Abu Ayyub stayed the night at his door. When he saw the Prophet in the morning he said "God is the Greatest." He had a sword with him; he said to the Prophet, "O Messenger of God, this young woman had just been married, and you killed her father, her brother and her husband, so I did not trust her (not to harm) you." The Prophet laughed and said "Good".

As for her husband Kinana, he was tortured for treasure and killed in revenge for a bloodthirsty companion of Mohammed in retaliation for the death of his brother,even after he killed someone else for it, because they were just terrorists.

Page 515 of The Life of Mohammed by Ibn Ishaq (In section: The Expedition to Khaybar, A.H. 7 > The Rest of the Affair of Khaybar):

Kinana b. al-Rabi', who had the custody of the treasure of the B. al-Nadir, was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came (Tabari says "was brought") to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going round a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle said to Kinana, 'Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?' he said Yes. The apostle gave orders that the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave ordrs to al-Zubayr b. al-'Awwam, 'Torture him until you extract what he has,' so he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head in revenge for his brother Mahmud.

Same story goes in Page 123 of Al-Tabari Vol. 8

As for Maslama, he had already killed Marhab from Khaybar for his revenge.

Page 396–397 of “The Life of Muhammad” by Muḥammad Ḥusayn Haykal, translated by “Ismail Raji al-Faruqi” (In section 21: The Campaign to Khaybar and Missions to Kings):

At one stage in the campaign, Marhab came out of one of the fortresses fully covered with his military attire and singing the following verses: "Khaybar knows that I am Marhab, that I am an experienced hero fully prepared for war. I deal blows to my enemies and I strike them. Even the lions I face with drawn sword. The ground I hold is unassailable. Even the most experienced in war dares not approach it. "

Muhammad asked his companions, "Who will rise to meet him?"

Muhammad ibn Maslamah rose and said, "Send me, O Prophet of God. For I am angry and bereaved, who lost his brother yesterday." The Prophet permitted him and he sprang to meet Marhab. The pair fought valiantly and, at one stage, Marhab almost killed the Muslim. Ibn Maslamah, however, intercepted the falling sword with his shield which bent under its weight and was cut so that the sword could not be pulled out and disengaged. Muhammad ibn Maslamah seized the opportunity and gave Marhab a fatal blow.

(Actual reports say it was Ali not Maslamah who killed Marhab.)

(add: wiki:

On the same day, Ibn Maslamah avenged his brother by killing Marhab in a vicious duel which was so intense to the point that palm trees within the garden outside the fortress wall, were chopped-off completely. (18) The battle ended with Ibn Maslamah managing to chop off one of Marhab's legs. (18) However, before Ibn Maslamah delivered the killing blow. he was intercepted by Ali who passed by and cut off Marhab's head. This entitled Ali to take the booty which prompted Ibn Maslamah to argue the claims of Ali to Muhammad, and after they referred their dispute to him, he granted Marhab's sword, shield, cap and helmet to Ibn Maslamah. (18, 5: 513, 9: 323, 17: 118)

Later, Ibn Maslamah also killed another Jewish champion named Yusayr (9: 323) and also participated in the squad of those who shielded Muhammad when they besieged the fortress of al-Saab ibn Muadh. (9: 324) After the battle, Kinana ibn al-Rabi was tortured by Zubayr ibn al-Awwam in the hope that he would reveal where he had hidden the treasure of the Abu'l-Huqayq clan. When Kinana was no longer able to speak, Muhammad ordered al-Zubayr to hand him over to Ibn Maslamah. Ibn Maslamah was allowed to cut off Kinana's head. (5: 515, 9: 331, 17: 123, 19: 135)

)

Rough Notes X8

Tags