Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I would not recommend an engagement about ahadith from Christian apologetics---Hadith are in Arabic.

I would not attempt a discussion on these topics as I am not a Arabist and nor do I imagine are any of your interlocutors!

However, as with all ancient texts, we have to consider them in their exact historical context and not attempt to interpret them from our own 21st century viewpoint.

I am enjoying your contributions by the way.

[rogue06]

maybe there is a miscommunication? What is your definition of "holy war"?

I seriously doubt that this is the problem. Far more likely is what I said previously

Muslims have repeatedly demonstrated a disingenuous duplicity when it comes to the subject of jihad ... and we are seeing it in action right now.

Muslims engage in deliberate, willful deception as they present this farcical attitude wrt to jihad. They count on "infidels" being ignorant of their practice of taqqiya/idtirar which effectively is deliberately lying to non-Muslims. This is exactly what y'all engage in when you insist that jihad has nothing whatsoever to do with waging Holy War.

For instance the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) regularly proclaims that jihad "does not mean ‘holy war.’" Likewise at the U.N. panel on "Islamophobia" toward the end of 2004, Ahmed Kamal Aboulmagd, an Egyptian judge and law professor at Cairo University, told the "infidels" there that the notion of Holy War doesn’t exist in Islam:

In Islam and in Islamic literature there is no such thing as ‘a holy war.’ This is [a] Western invention that was attributed to us I don’t know how and why and when.

He was obviously counting on nobody actually reading the Qur'an or the Hadiths.

My absolute personal favorite is when Farid Eseck, a visiting Professor at Auburn Theological Seminary, declared that jihad is really all about things like protecting women's rights (as they have a long and illustrious history of defending them ).

Another example could be recently seen on the Muslim Brotherhood's websites put up in English as compared to the one for Arabic with starkly different even contradictory messages. In the former it was all about "peace" and "freedom" with a picture of a young girl in a white hijab whereas on the site in Arabic, the one for their fellow Muslims, this was nowhere to be seen but instead featured crossed swords with the words "Make Ready" underneath. "Make ready" is a reference to Surah Al-Anfal [8:60]:

Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.

Give the gullible infidels a message of peace and freedom while telling your fellow Muslims to prepare for battle against them.

Another one was when one of the supporters of the "Ground Zero Mosque" went to Egypt where he delivered a speech in which he mocked his and others claims made here that it would be a symbol of religious unity and cooperation pretty much saying it was amazing that the idiot infidels had fallen for that line (I posted about this in a pre-crash thread and am still looking for the info again).

As the above demonstrates if you want to understand what Muslims are actually thinking we need to disregard the pap that they try to feed non-Muslims and pay attention to what they say to each other and what they teach. Over the years the Israelis have done a splendid job translating radio and TV broadcasts that they picked up that were meant for internal consumption. The differences between them and the messages provided to outsiders are stark and unsettling.

So what do they say about jihad when conversing amongst themselves?

To start, let's look at what Ayatollah Khomeini who spoke on the subject of "Peace" and "Jihad," said and made clear what the orthodox (Shiite) view is on the matter:

Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of other [countries] so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world ... Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured [by the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them [non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean we should surrender to the enemy? Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Quranic] psalms and Hadiths urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.

Let’s see, "Those who know nothing pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless." and "Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword." Seems pretty clear^[1]

But since he was a Shiite, let's throw in a Sunni, Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid (d.1981), who was the Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia and Imam of the Grand Mosque of Mecca, who delivered a sermon on the history of jihad as recorded by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan of the Islamic University of Medina, where he said that for Muslims, fighting (with weapons, that is) is "obligatory" against "all those who worship others along with Allah." That includes Christians and Jews. "The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fires of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures."

Now, when backed into a corner with the facts Muslims attempt another duplicitous ploy. They will admit to non-Muslims that jihad means Holy War but then they insist that is the "lesser" meaning and that "the greater Jihad" is all about an internal, spiritual struggle citing a passage from a hadith.

Upon his return from battle Muhammad said, "We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad (i.e. the struggle against the evil of one's soul).

But what they don't say is that this is a much later saying and not only is not found in any of the Hadiths considered sahih ("reliable")^[2] but that this source is considered at best suspect and generally viewed as spurious if not outright fraudulent (a Maudu (Fabricated) Hadith). The noted 11th century Hadith expert Imām al-Bayhaqi dismissed it saying it did not originate from Muhammad but from Ibraaheem bin Abee Ablah, a Taabi’ee, who is considered a weak source. Ibn Taymiyyah^[3] rejected it outright saying

This hadith has no source, nobody whomsoever in the field of Islamic Knowledge has narrated it. Jihad against the disbelievers is the most noble of actions, and moreover it is the most important action for the sake of mankind

For more see Silsilah Ahaadeeth ad Da'ifah wal-Mawdu'ah written by 'Abdu l-Lah Ibnu Mani' Ar-Rooqi.

Moreover, if Jihad primarily means inner struggle, then why does the Qur'an exempt the disabled (or injured) from jihad in Surah An-Nisa [4:95-96]? Obviously if it means inner struggle then the disabled would have no difficulty participating, but if jihad refers to Holy War (combat) then excusing them is perfectly understandable.

The indisputable fact is that Muhammad calls the highest Jihad to be the spilling of blood fighting the unbelievers, not some inner struggle. This is attested to multiple times by the sahih Hadiths. For instance the two most trusted of them Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih al-Muslim both contain the following passage:

I asked the Prophet, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and to fight for His Cause."

They both also declare

The Prophet said, "A single endeavor (of fighting) in Allah's Cause in the forenoon or in the afternoon is better than the world and whatever is in it.

As well as:

Allah's Apostle said, "Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords."

Sahih al-Bukhari (widely regarded as the most accurate and trustworthy of all of the hadiths) reports the following and later reiterates it:

Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshiped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives an property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah."

Sahih al-Muslim (the second most respected hadith) confirms this reporting the following and also later reiterates it:

It is reported on the authority of Abu Huraira that he heard the Messenger of Allah say: I have been commanded to fight against people, till they testify to the fact that there is no god but Allah, and believe in me (that) I am the messenger (from the Lord) and in all that I have brought. And when they do it, their blood and riches are guaranteed protection on my behalf except where it is justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.

The Hadith Abu Dawud, also considered sahih, also confirms it stating:

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: I am commanded to fight with men till they testify that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is His servant and His Apostle, face our qiblah (direction of prayer), eat what we slaughter, and pray like us. When they do that, their life and property are unlawful for us except what is due to them. They will have the same rights as the Muslims have, and have the same responsibilities as the Muslims have.

And back to the Sahih al-Muslim, we read:

It has been reported on the authority of Jabir that a man said: Messenger of Allah, where shall I be if I am killed? He replied: In Paradise. The man threw away the dates he had in his hand and fought until he was killed (i. e. he did not wait until he could finish the dates).

And while not a Hadith, Musnad Ahmed, a celebrated collection of hadith sayings, written by Imām Ahmad ibn Hanbal, the founder of the Hanbali school which is one of the four traditional Sunni Islamic schools of jurisprudence (fiqh) and called "True Shaykh of Islam," "Proof of the Faith," and "Seal of the Mujtahid Imams," as well as being described as "the most significant exponent of the traditionalist approach in Sunni Islam," contains the following:

A man asked [the prophet]: "...and what is Jihad?" He replied: "You fight against the disbelievers when you meet them (on the battlefield)." He asked again: "What kind of Jihad is the highest?" He replied: "The person who is killed whilst spilling the last of his blood."

So much for jihad as Holy War being the lesser jihad. To assert otherwise plainly contradicts textual evidence and reality.

I'll finish by citing someone more modern, Abul A'la Maududi, a Pakistani Muslim philosopher, jurist and imām, founder of the Jamaat-e-Islami, the then largest Islamic organisation in Asia and instrumental in the foundation of Pakistan, in his Al Jihad fil-Islam ("Jihad in Islam") (2006) in which he instructed followers to employ force in pursuit of a Shari'a-based order:

These [Muslim] men who propagate religion are not mere preachers or missionaries, but the functionaries of God [so that they may be witnesses for the people], and it is their duty to wipe out oppression, mischief, strife, immorality, high handedness, and unlawful exploitation from the world by force of arms.

And

Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam, regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of its own ideology and programme, regardless of which nation assumes the role of the standard-bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State. Islam requires the earth—not just a portion, but the whole planet. ... Towards this end, Islam wishes to press into service all forces which can bring about a revolution and a composite term for the use of all these forces is 'Jihad'. ... the objective of the Islamic 'jihād' is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system and establish in its stead an Islamic system of state rule.

1. It should be noted that Shaul Bakhash, an Iranian born Jew who is a noted Middle Eastern historian has said he doubts the authenticity of the quote but AFAICT has never given any reason for why he has doubts. It may be due to the fact that one of those who has cited it, Amir Taheri, does have a history of providing quotes that cannot be substantiated but FWIU he is not the only source (though the most frequently cited one).

2. Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Abu Dawud, al-Sughra, Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah with the first two having the highest status.

3. While unpopular during his time and the centuries immediately after for his condemnation of the practice of ziyara (pilgrimages to tomb-shrines of family members or close associates of Muhammad) he has since become one of the most influential medieval writers in contemporary Islam

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

How aware were the Prophet and the Meccan/Medinan Arabs of the world beyond the Arabian peninsula?

opinions differ among Western historians---some look at the Bedouins and conclude that the Arabs around Mecca and Medina were simple, tribal, generally nomadic peoples. IMO, they forget that The Prophet was a Trader/Merchant and the Arabian peninsula has the silk route to the north (Persia) and the maritime spice trade to the south (present day Yemen). These trade routes span from Africa to China.

The Arab and Persian Jews were already established traders along these routes and the Christian missionaries of the Eastern Churches (Nestorian) used these routes for their religious missions.

I do not deny any of that and some of of those trading routes were very ancient.

However, I suspect some of your interlocutors view ancient texts that write of the world to mean the globe as we now know it today!

[siam]

I do not deny any of that and some of of those trading routes were very ancient.

However, I suspect some of your interlocutors view ancient texts that write of the world to mean the globe as we now know it today!

....is it really from ancient texts or someones imagination? ...because actual historical research tells a different story.

During the time of the Prophet, He did sort of "conquer" Mecca (Mecca surrendered without a fight) but many of other tribal affiliations/territories were brought together through peace treaties. Conversions were voluntary---and some tribes converted to Islam for pragmatism---better to be affiliated with the rising power of the region than be against. After the death of the Prophet these tribes broke their treaty and so Caliph Abu Bakr sent out the army to keep the coalition intact so as to maintain the peace that the Prophet had worked so hard for....and that is how it all began---simple coincidence.

The rest of the conquests is more about people power---citizens deciding to choose their own destiny---than about religion. The Ghassanids (Byzantine vassals) followed a different Christianity than the Byzantines. So, while the leadership was loyal to the Byzantines, the people were not happy about it...Same with the neighboring Arab Lahkmids who were vassals of the Sassanids---they had recently been taken over by the Persians and lost their kingdom---so they too were unhappy. This was also the case with Egypt.

[siam]

[siam]

I seriously doubt that this is the problem. Far more likely is what I said previously

Muslims engage in deliberate, willful deception as they present this farcical attitude wrt to jihad. ....

For instance the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) regularly proclaims that jihad "does not mean ‘holy war.’" Likewise at the U.N. panel on "Islamophobia" toward the end of 2004, Ahmed Kamal Aboulmagd, an Egyptian judge and law professor at Cairo University, told the "infidels" there that the notion of Holy War doesn’t exist in Islam:

In Islam and in Islamic literature there is no such thing as ‘a holy war.’ This is [a] Western invention that was attributed to us I don’t know how and why and when.

.....

... Abul A'la Maududi, a Pakistani Muslim philosopher, jurist and imām, founder of the Jamaat-e-Islami, the then largest Islamic organisation in Asia and instrumental in the foundation of Pakistan, in his Al Jihad fil-Islam ("Jihad in Islam") (2006) in which he instructed followers to employ force in pursuit of a Shari'a-based order:

These [Muslim] men who propagate religion are not mere preachers or missionaries, but the functionaries of God [so that they may be witnesses for the people], and it is their duty to wipe out oppression, mischief, strife, immorality, high handedness, and unlawful exploitation from the world by force of arms.

And

Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam, regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of its own ideology and programme, regardless of which nation assumes the role of the standard-bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State. Islam requires the earth—not just a portion, but the whole planet. ... Towards this end, Islam wishes to press into service all forces which can bring about a revolution and a composite term for the use of all these forces is 'Jihad'. ... the objective of the Islamic 'jihād' is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system and establish in its stead an Islamic system of state rule.

So you are saying one group of Muslims claim Jihad is not holy war and another (allegedly) claim Jihad is holy war---and you have judged that the group that says it is not--is lying, and the group that says it is---is telling the truth.
...and what do you want me to do with your opinion?

What is your (Christian) definition of Holy War?

[DesertBerean]

So you are saying one group of Muslims claim Jihad is not holy war and another (allegedly) claim Jihad is holy war---and you have judged that the group that says it is not--is lying, and the group that says it is---is telling the truth.
...and what do you want me to do with your opinion?

What is your (Christian) definition of Holy War?

Seems to me he isn't showing his opinion. He's quoting *other* people's....namely Muslim?

[siam]

Seems to me he isn't showing his opinion. He's quoting *other* people's....namely Muslim?

it is his opinion that one group is lying and the other is not.

...if anyone wants my opinion on this matter (Jihad = Holy war)....I can give one......

[rogue06]

it is his opinion that one group is lying and the other is not.

...if anyone wants my opinion on this matter (Jihad = Holy war)....I can give one......

Only one can be telling the truth. Is it the ones talking to fellow Muslims or those practicing taqqiya/idtirar while talking to kafir (unbelievers/infidels)?

And speaking of taqqiya and idtirar... it is absolutely NOT some sort of intra-Muslim insult as is portrayed to gullible non-Muslims.

While it may have started out as a way for Muslims to avoid persecution by lying (compare and contrast that to early Christian martyrs) but it was rather quickly greatly expanded to include situations where no danger is involved but when it merely serves their interests with the justification that Muhammad regularly employed deception against infidels.

A line in the most revered of the Hadiths, the Sahih al-Bukhari is usually cited in order to legitimize the practice, which states that Abu Darda, one of the companions of Muhammad and later governor of Syria reminded the faithful that they should "smile in the face of some people [infidels] although our hearts curse them."

The lies spewed to kafir (unbelievers/infidels) about the nature of jihad is just one example. Another is the oft-repeated false claim that Islam means peace. This is utterly false, it means "submission" or "surrender." Not the same thing by a long shot.

For instance, Wikipedia claims that

The Arabic word salaam (سلام) ("peace") originates from the same root as the word Islam.

But this is simply not true.

Source: Islam Means Peace? A brief etymological reflection

Let us be clear. The etymological (linguistic) root of the word ‘Islam’ is not ‘salam’ (peace). It is the verb ‘salima,’ which means to find security, safety, or even a deeper sense of wellbeing. The word ‘salam’ is derived from that same verb salima, just like the word ‘Islam’ is derived from it. But in the case of ‘Islam,’ it is the so-called Form IV of the verb, aslama, from which it derives more directly. So in a sense, Islam is salam’s sibling, rather than its child. One child, Salam, goes on to express meanings of peace, wellbeing, good neighborliness and hospitality. Whereas the other child, Islam, moves on to generate derivatives of power, such as submission and surrender, with the purpose of finding safety and security.


Source

© Copyright Original Source

Sure you could say that surrendering brings peace, but that is not what the definition is. Muhammad did not teach peace and tolerance, but instead led armies and ordered the assassination of his enemies. Muhammad and his followers initiated offensive wars against peaceful nations in order to impose Islam by force as well as seize the abundance of those lands. From its inception there was nothing "peaceful" about Islam.

But maybe there is an explanation aside from outright duplicity that explains the contradictory messages. Perhaps this observation from Bassam Tibi (a Muslim who until his retirement was Professor for International Relations at Göttingen University as well as well as having eighteen visiting professorships at top universities such as the University of California Berkeley and Princeton along with being a visiting senior fellow at Yale University) about how Muslims consider waging war to spread Islam to really be an act of peace might explain some of the different messages:

"In this sense Muslims believe that expansion through war is not aggression but fulfillment of the Quranic command to spread Islam as a way to peace. The resort to force to disseminate Islam is not war (“harb”), a word that is only used to describe the use of force by non-Muslims.”

IOW, wars instigated by Muslims to spread Islam do not count as wars to Muslims (no matter how many people are killed), but are instead meritorious efforts to liberate the world from disbelief (“jahallyya”) by its submission to Islam. Only submission brings peace, and it is the non-Muslim’s failure to submit to them that "provokes" war! This philosophy is frighteningly reminiscent of the old Communist definition of peace: the ceasing of resistance toward communist expansion.



Here is another more recent example of taqqiya/idtirar in action that hopefully will suffice in making my point.

It took place right after the beheading of radio tower repairman Nicholas Berg by Islamic terrorists in Iraq when Muslims emphatically insisted such actions had no precedent in the Qur'an or Islamic tradition. For instance, Imām Mohammed Adam El-Sheikh, co-founder and then chief cleric at the Dar Al Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Virginia and now the head of the Islamic Judiciary Council of the Shari’ah Scholars’ Association of North America, solemnly insisted that "Beheadings are not mentioned in the Qur'an at all."

Similarly, Yvonne Haddad, a professor in the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding in the School of Foreign Service and the Department of History at Georgetown University, proclaimed "There is absolutely nothing in Islam that justifies cutting off a person's head."

Likewise, Asma Afsaruddin, while an associate professor of Arabic and Islamic studies at the University of Notre Dame (now a professor in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures at Indiana University in Bloomington and chair of the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy board of directors), declared "Just because a certain group claims it is behaving in accordance with Islamic conduct, that does not mean we should believe that. There is absolutely no religious imperative for this."

Really?

A quick look at the Qur'an reveals this to be nonsense. For instance, Surah Al-Anfal [8:12]

[Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip."

Or more clearly stated in the Shakir translation (same source)

When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.

And there is also Surah Muhammad [47:4]

So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them

This time the Muhammad Sarwar translation is clearer

If you encounter the disbelievers in a battle, strike-off their heads.

What's more during the massacre of the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe, which lived in northern Arabia at the present site of Medina, by a force led by Muhammad, Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad’s earliest biographer, wrote in his Sīratu Rasūli l-Lāh ("Life of the Messenger of God")

The apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for [the men of Banu Qurayza] and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches.

Al-Tabarani, widely considered the most important hadith scholar of the 10th century states that between 600 to 900 were executed.

So Mohammad himself over saw mass decapitations and puts the lie to the explanation sometimes offered of the quranic verses that it was only a reference to fighting in battle since what happened to the Jews was after they had surrendered.

And a couple decades after Muhammad's death, when various factions started fighting (resulting in the Sunni-Shiite split), Muhammad's favorite grandson, Husayn ibn Ali, had his head chopped off after the battle of Karbala^[1] in central Iraq (along with most of his family and companions, including Husayn's six month old son), at the behest of the caliph Yazid I. The head of Husayn and the 71 others also decapitated were first sent to Allah ibn Ziyad the Governor of Basra and Kufa at the latter location and subsequently Husayn's was placed upon a silver platter and sent to Yazid in Damascus, and finally sent to Cairo for inspection by the Governor of Egypt.

Nope. No tradition of decapitations in Muslim tradition.

And it is one that has continued into modern times and not just by terrorist groups. In 1992, the Iranian government sent a "specialist" to assassinate Shapour Bakhtiar, the deposed shah's last prime minister, in Suresnes, a suburb of Paris. While most news reports simply state that he was killed with kitchen knives, he was in fact decapitated with them. When the news broke, Hashemi Rafsanjani, then president of the Islamic Republic, publicly thanked Allah for having allowed "the severing of the head of the snake."






1. Shiite Muslims commemorate the battle during a 10-day period of mourning often marked by such things as self-flagellation

[Dan Zebiri]

What part of the "whole" + "world" don't you understand, HA?

Allah's "gift" to Muhamed the founder of islam, was the world per the Hadith sahih's declaration. So that he and his followers "can pray anywhere" in the world that supposedly "given to Muslims".

Muhamed & his people obviously took it to mean "anywhere" and CORRECTLY took that understanding to its logical conclusion- the world without any continental borders as they are known.

You are obviously incorrect to set geographical or physical limits on it when the Koran and Muslims never did.

The concept of fighting to conquer territories and to attack ans kill enemies is an extremely important & central idea in the Qur’an. Check the following verses from the KORAN (not the Hadiths):

“And FIGHT them until there is no more Fitnah - disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah and the religion or worship will ALL BE for Allah Alone in the WHOLE OF THE WORLD. But if they cease -worshipping others besides Allah, then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.” (8:39 Hilali-Khan translation, also in all the following quotations)

“FIGHT (Q-T-L, qatala) 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 (Jews and Christians), until they PAY THE Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (9:29)

“It is He Who has sent His Messenger - Muhammad with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), to make it SUPERIOR over all religions even though the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) hate it.” (9:33)

“Jihad (holy fighting in Allah's Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allah knows but you do not know.” (2:216)

“So, when you meet (in the Jihad of Allah's Cause), those who disbelieve, SMITE at their necks till when you have KILLED and WOUNDED MANY of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives). Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islam), until the war lays down its burden.

Thus [you are ordered by Allah to continue in carrying out Jihad against the disbelievers till THEY EMBRACE ISLAM in the or at least come under your protection], but if it had been Allah's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them without you. But He lets you fight, in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost,” (47:4)

Muhamed was the model of jihad participating in a number of battles and planning others, in the pursuit of conquering the whole world, without limits, 'gifted' to him by Allah. All the 4 succeeding caliphs, army generals like Tariq bin Ziyad, Khalid Abdul Walid and other soldiers who conquered Spain, Syria, Damascus, Egypt, Persia and Byzantine. Later, India was colonized and other parts of north Africa. They had no confusions at all about what the World was.

What was understood by the "whole earth" to someone in Arabia in the late sixth century? It did not include the Americas, nor parts of the Far East and Oceania.

What about Abram? Gen.15.18-21? Have you looked at what that could include on a modern map of the Middle East? It might not be the whole earth as you and I now comprehend that term but to the peoples of the ancient near east it was a sizeable chunk.

[Dan Zebiri]

You need not source the authentic islamic Hadith sources ("Hadith Sahih") from 'Christian Apologetics' courses, Siam.

There are good enough English translations of hadith sahih Bukhari, Muslim, ibn Najah, etc made in the missionary enterprise to convert the west to islam, done by islamic scholars themselves. Though sometimes they twist and embellish the more unsavory hadiths to cover up the offensive nature of many of them to western minds.

So, here are more authentic hadiths for you and everyone here, that confirm the naturally offensive - and aggressive, hegemonistic nature of islam and the Koran's commands to fight the non-muslim 'infidels' and the unbelieving enemies of islam, to murder and conquer them that has inspired millions of muslims who have waged physical warfare since the seventh century C.E. - the conquests of Damascus, Syria, Antioch. Then, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, European Spain and then also Persia and Byzantium to the east, and all the way to India before Partition.

The following are a few examples in the hadith collection of Bukhari, the most authoritative book in Sunni Islam, second only to the Qur'an (Sahih Al-Bukhari, 9 Volumes. translated by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Al Nabawiya: Dar Ahya Us-Sunnah, n.d.).

"Allah's Apostle said, ‘Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords.’" (vol. 4, p. 55)

"Allah's Apostle said, ‘I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ and whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ his life and property will be saved by me…" (vol. 4, p. 124)

"It is not fitting for a prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he has made a great slaughter among his enemies in the landÂ…" (vol. 4, p. 161). This was Muhamed refering to himself as that prophet, obviously.

"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then KILL HIM." (vol. 9, p. 45)

"An infidel spy came to the Prophet while he was on a journey. The spy sat with the companions of the Prophet and started talking and then went away. The Prophet said (to his companions), ‘Chase and kill him.’ So, I killed him. The Prophet then gave him the belongings of the killed spy." (vol. 4, pp. 181-182)

"Some people from the tribe of Ukl came to the Prophet and embraced Islam. The climate of Medina did not suit them, so the Prophet ordered them to go to the (herd of milk) camels of charity and to drink their milk and urine as a medicine (!) They did so, and after they had recovered from their ailment (became healthy) they turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away.

"The Prophet sent (some people) in their pursuit and so they were (caught and) brought, and the Prophet ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and that their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they die." (vol. 8, pp. 519-520)

"The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." (vol. 4, pp. 158-159)

From: Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Al Nabawiya: Dar Ahya Us-Sunnah, n.d.

These hadith complement the Koran verses in my previous post and together, they just underscore & reinforce the aggressive, violent nature of Islamic Jihad - or 'Holy War" to: convert the unbelieving infidels, conquer & colonize non-muslim lands and to appropriate the whole earth as "a mosque given by Allah to Muhamed" so as to 'fulfill the destiny of Muslims'!

I would not recommend an engagement about ahadith from Christian apologetics---Hadith are in Arabic. They mention circumstances of the "sayings" as well as the transmission route. They are also categorized into subjects/themes and many contradict each other because the circumstances are different---example---on a hot day the Prophet might say ---drink cold water, but on a cold day he might say drink hot water....etc.
Christian apologetics have no clue how to handle the ahadith.

Shahih Bukhari 323 is about mensturation
Narrated Um Salama: While I was lying with the Prophet under a woolen sheet, I got my menses. I slipped away and put on the clothes for menses. The Prophet said, Have you got your menses? I replied, Yes. He called me and I slept with him under the woolen sheet.
https://hamariweb.com/islam/hadith/sahih-bukhari-323/
...Hadith 323 in the book of invocations says
Narrated Al-Bara bin 'Azib:

Allah's Apostle ﷺ said to me, "When you want to go to bed, perform ablution as you do for prayer, then lie down on your right side and say: 'Allahumma aslamtu wajhi ilaika, wa fauwadtu Amri ilaika wa aljatu zahri ilaika, raghbatan wa rahbatan ilaika, lamalja'a wa la manja mink a ill a ilaika. Amantu bikitabi kalladhi anzalta wa bi nabiyyikal-ladhi arsalta'. If you should die then (after reciting this) you will die on the religion of Islam (i.e., as a Muslim),
so let these words be the last you say (before going to bed)" While I was memorizing it, I said, "Wa birasiulikal-ladhi arsalta (in Your Apostle whom You have sent).' The Prophet ﷺ said, "No, but say: Wa binabiyyi-kalladhi arsalta (in Your Prophet whom You have sent)."


This is because the classification system is complicated and one needs to be a Hadith scholar to understand and interpret this stuff.

The next hadith by Jubair ---
It is narrated on the authority of Jabir that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:

War is a stratagem.
This is from the book of Jihad and expeditions (32) and the hadith is numbered 20
the one that is numbered 22 says
It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:

Do not desire an encounter with the enemy; but when you encounter them, be firm.



The Quran quotes are easier to deal with---generally if one reads the verses prior to, and subsequent to, the ones quoted---it generally puts the quoted verses in context. Sometimes the historical circumstances behind the verses add a helpful dimension.

[Trucker]

And yet they did "behave in such a manner", in very large numbers and for many generations.

It's pretty hard to rationalize slavery of any human being with:

See also Mat 22:37 He said to him, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the greatest and most important command.
Mat 22:39 The second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself.
Mat 22:40 All the Law and the Prophets depend on these two commands."

Luk 6:31 Just as you want others to do for you, do the same for them.[HCSB]
Mat 22:37 He said to him, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the greatest and most important command.
Mat 22:39 The second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself.
Mat 22:40 All the Law and the Prophets depend on these two commands [HCSB]

Luk 10:25 Just then an expert in the law stood up to test Him, saying, "Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
Luk 10:26 "What is written in the law?" He asked him. "How do you read it?"
Luk 10:27 He answered: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.
Luk 10:28 "You've answered correctly," He told him. "Do this and you will live." [HCSB]

Then add in this:

1 Timothy 1:10, NIV: "for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine"

1 Timothy 1:10, ESV: "the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,"

1 Timothy 1:10, KJV: "For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;"

1 Timothy 1:10, NASB: "and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,"

1 Timothy 1:10, NLT: "The law is for people who are sexually immoral, or who practice homosexuality, or are slave traders, liars, promise breakers, or who do anything else that contradicts the wholesome teaching"

1 Timothy 1:10, CSB: "for the sexually immoral and homosexuals, for slave traders, liars, perjurers, and for whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching"

The Greek word in question here is : ἀνδραποδιστής. From the COMPLETE WORD STUDY DICTIOINARY:

G405

ἀνδραποδιστής
andrapodistḗs; gen. andrapodistoú, masc. noun from andrapodízō (n.f.), to enslave, which is from andrápodon (n.f.), a slave. A man stealer, kidnapper, one who steals men to make them slaves or sell them into slavery. Andrapodistḗs is not only he who by deceit reduces free men to slavery, but also seduces slaves from their masters in order to convey them elsewhere and sell them. Both activities are prohibited for Christians (1Ti_1:10). Andrápodon is a captive slave, while doúlos (G1401), which originally was the lowest term in the scale of servitude, is a bond-slave.
Syn.: verbal: doulóō (G1402), doulagōgéō (G1396) and katadoulóō (G2615), to make a slave of, bring into bondage,.
Ant.: lutrōtḗs (G3086), redeemer.

Slavery simply cannot be justified by any proper exegesis of the New Testament

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

What part of the "whole" + "world" don't you understand, HA?

What do you not understand about the extent of exploration in the late sixth century?

The known world was vast at that time but it was not the entire world that you and I know of today.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

....is it really from ancient texts or someones imagination? ...because actual historical research tells a different story.

As I wrote earlier, I am not an Arabist and nor [clearly] are your interlocutors. From my own limited knowledge of the rise of Islam there was a lot of hostility shown towards Mohammed and his followers in the early days. Hence the need to flee from Mecca.

[siam]

As I wrote earlier, I am not an Arabist and nor [clearly] are your interlocutors. From my own limited knowledge of the rise of Islam there was a lot of hostility shown towards Mohammed and his followers in the early days. Hence the need to flee from Mecca.

As a Muslim I have no problem with the term "rise of Islam"---but there are some Modern historians that are beginning to contest this view---mostly because (Eastern) Christians, Jews and others were active participants and contributors alongside Muslims....and by focusing on Islam/Muslims, they think it creates bias. Yet, there is also no obscuring the fact that a new paradigm/way of thinking emerged in the 7th century that eventually had impact from Spain to China.

The Prophet and his followers were persecuted in Mecca, yet, The Christian King of Abyssinia gave some of the Muslims asylum (present day Ethiopia, Eritrea). The people of Yathrib also invited the Prophet to their city, which they renamed Medina. (This immigration from Mecca to Medina is the start of the Islamic calendar) The Coptic Church also extended its hand in friendship and sent a gift to the Prophet. Even though the Prophet and his followers left, the Meccans were still unhappy...so, battles were fought---eventually a peace treaty was negotiated. This treaty was broken by the Meccans which is what led to the Prophet leading an army to Mecca, at which point they surrendered without a fight.