Home

 Articles

 Op-ed

 Authors

 FAQ

 Leaving Islam
 Library
 Gallery
 Comments
 Debates
  Links
 Forum

 

 

Edip Yuksel vs. Ali Sina

Round VIII -31

Back <     >  Next

Ibn Ishaq gives us the historical context for verse 9:29 and Jizya.

            Then He said (v. 28):  The polytheists are nothing but unclean, so let them not approach the sacred mosque after this year of theirs, and if you fear poverty” that was because the people said “the markets will be cut off from us, trade will be destroyed, and we shall lose the good things we used to enjoy,” and God said, “If you fear poverty God will enrich you from His bounty,¨ i.e. in some other way, “if He will.  He is knowing, wise.  Fight those who do not believe in God and the last day and forbid not that which God and His apostle have forbidden and follow not the religion of truth from among those who have been given the scripture until they pay the poll tax out of hand being humbled,¨ i.e. as a compensation for what you fear to lose by the closing of the markets.  God gave them compensation for what He cut off from them in the former polytheism by what He gave them by way of poll tax from the people of the scripture”.

 So according to Ibn Ishaq, Jizya is the reparation paid to Muslims for losing the money they would have made from the pagans coming to trade and buying in their markets. Your own definition of Jizyah serves to prove my point, namely that this is reparation Muslims receive from the subjugated people in place of the financial loss they would have experienced due to Allah preventing the pagans from coming to Mecca .

Umar ibn Al-Khatab is reported to have said: "I advise you to fulfill Allah's Convention (made with the Dhimmis) as it is the convention of your Prophet and the source of the livelihood of your dependents (i.e. the taxes from the Dhimmis.) "  Bukhari 4. 53.388:      

But of course you may not know who Umar was since there is no mention of him in the Quran. 

Forget about Ibn Ishaq and Umar. Let us stick to your own word: "reparation". Reparation means compensation or remuneration required from a defeated nation as indemnity for damage or injury during a war. Now in this case the aggressors were the Muslims who still demanded remuneration from their defeated victims. Would it be fair if the non-Muslim countries to charge reparation from their Muslim subjects? Won't you cry foal and call us fascists? What if they attacked the Muslim countries and demanded reparation from them after defeating them? This is what Islam did to its victims and what the Sura Bara'a instructs Muslims to do.  

First, I do not separate the verses of the Quran as Meccan on Medinan verses. Again, you are confusing me with Sunnis. The Quran does not contain such a distinction and a believer must follow ALL the verses of the Quran. You are a disbeliever of the Quran and you do not care about its internal consistency and integrity. You will divide and chop, mix and twist, take verses out of their context and do all the SIX STEPS to fulfill reach TO THE POWER OF 666! You, your Sunni and Shiite partners are warned by 15:90-99:

As We have sent down on the dividers.
The ones who have made the Quran obsolete.
By your Lord, We will ask them all.
Regarding what they use to do.
So proclaim what you have been commanded and turn away from those who set up partners.
We will relieve you from those who mocked.
Those who placed with God another god. They will come to know.
And We know that your chest is strained by what they say.
So glorify with the praise of your Lord, and be of those who prostrate.
And serve your Lord until certainty comes to you.

Second, the trashy sources you are so fond of using against my faith, yes your favorite sources are reporting differently regarding the first verse in your reference: Verse 2:256 is listed as Medinan verse by the sources you wish me to believe. Again, you mix truth with falsehood, pieces of glass with diamond, poison with candies… Exactly like hadith narrators and collectors had done. 



If you do not read the Quran in its historic context you won't be able to understand it. The Quran is not a novel, it is not a how-to book, it is not a scientific dissertation and it is not a philosophical exegesis. The Quran is a collection of many verses that were written in response to certain events in the life of Muhammad. A great part of the Quran refers to episodes happening to Muhammad and his followers. If we disregard this historic context or what the Muslim scholars call the sha’ne nozool, we miss the whole point.  For example the Surah 111 about Abu Lahab makes completely no sense unless one knows the context in which this Sura was written. Only when we read the tafseer and the sha’ne nozool of these verses we can understand why in one place Muhammad says:

 73:10  Be patient with what they say, and part from them courteously.

And in another place he says:

 9:123  Oh ye who believe! Murder the disbelievers and let them find harshness in you.  

 

Abrogation

The idea of abrogation is a Satanic idea, and it was fabricated by Sunni and Shiite mushriks who had problems with some verses when they tried to twist others. Ironically, your mentality is not much different. It seems that you have rejected the substance of your religion but you are keeping its mind set, its fallacious reasoning methods exactly. No wonder, the Sunnys who are following our argument have found you much closer to themselves!  

The idea of abrogation is confirmed in the Quran itself. 

16:101  “And when We put a revelation in place of (another) revelation, - and Allah knoweth best what He revealeth - they say: Lo! thou art but inventing. Most of them know not.”  

2:106  “Nothing of our revelation (even a single verse) do we abrogate or cause be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things?”  

This verse shows that some verses of the revelation were abrogated and replaced with allegedly better ones.  

13:039  Allah effaceth what He will, and establisheth (what He will), and with Him is the source of ordinance.  

The word used in Arabic is Yamhoo يَمْحُو This is translated by various translators of the Quran as blot out, make to pass away, erase, abolish and abrogate. The correct word of abrogation is naskh, but the word mahv used above also conveys the same meaning.

Also:  

17:086  “And if We willed We could withdraw that which We have revealed unto thee, then wouldst thou find no guardian for thee against Us in respect thereof.”  

Apparently there were also verses that were abrogated but never replaced. This information comes to us from hadith. You are not required to agree with it and in fact you may skip this part. I am only quoting it as a matter of interest. If you are allowed to write a book describing the details of the life of Muhammad using the hadith without placing any particular importance them, why shouldn't I?

Aisha is reported saying:

"The Prophet invoked evil upon those (people) who killed his companions at Bir Mauna for 30 days (in the morning prayer). He invoked evil upon (tribes of) Ril, Lihyan and Usaiya who disobeyed Allah and His Apostle. Allah revealed a Quranic Verse to His Prophet regarding those who had been killed, i.e. the Muslims killed at Bir Ma'una, and we recited the Verse till later it was cancelled. (The Verse was:) 'Inform our people that we have met our Lord, and He is pleased with us, and we are pleased with Him." Bukhari 5.59.421

Back <     >  Next

Index to this debate 

 

 

 

 

 

Articles Op-ed Authors Debates Leaving Islam FAQ
Comments Library Gallery Video Clips Books Sina's Challenge
 

  ©  copyright You may translate and publish the articles in this site only if you provide a link to the original page.