Does the Quran Prohibit Killing

To demonstrate that Islam does not promote violence Muslims often quote a part of the quranic verse 5:32. “Whosoever killed a person it shall be as if he killed all mankind; and whoso saved a life, it shall be as if he has saved the life of all mankind.”

That sound pretty good.  The problem is that it is not a teaching of Muhammad. It is a quote from Judaic scriptures.

“Whoever destroys a soul, it is considered as if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world.” Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 4:1 (22a)

Killing one person is not the same as the genocide of all mankind.  It only makes sense in its context.  It is related to the mythology of Abel and Cain.  Since these two brothers were the only men at that time, killing one of them would have prevented his offspring to be born and humanity would not come to exist.

Actually despite Muslims’ claim Muhammad did not say this is his own teaching.  The complete verse is as follow:

On account of this, WE prescribed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killed a person it shall be as if he killed all mankind; -unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land- and whoso saved a life, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. And our Messengers came to them with clear Signs, Yet even after that, many of them commit excesses in the land.

Muhammad is quoting a biblical fable.  How can Muslims claim credit for it?

The problem does not end there.  Talmud is not considered to be the word of God. It is the recorded teachings of Sanhedrin, the high council of rabbis.

So why Allah says “WE prescribed for the Children of Israel…”?

The god of the Quran is claiming ownership of something he never said. This leaves us with few options.

1-      Allah has plagiarized the teachings of the rabbis.

2-      He was confused and had forgotten that those words were not his.

3-      This verse is not from God. Muhammad admitted that sometimes Satan came and whispered some verses to him that he thought were from God. Could this verse be one of those satanic verses?

4-      Muhammad lied. The Quran is not the word of God.

I cannot think of another option to explain why Allah claims ownership of a verse that he never said.  The quote is not in the Bible; it is from Talmud and Talmud is not considered to be the word of God.

Now, this verse emphasizes that killing is bad. But Muhammad told his followers that waging war, fighting and killing are the best commerce, which will have the highest reward.

“O you who believe! Shall I guide you to a commerce that will save you from a painful torment?  That you believe in Allah and His Messenger and that you strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives… (Q .61:10-11)

So he had to make a disclaimer. While quoting the Talmud he inserted “unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land” in the verse. This disclaimer does not exist in the original text of the Talmud.

With this disclaimer his followers were left free to raid and to kill non-Muslims.  Those who resisted Islam and opposed it were considered to be spreading mischief.

The word mischief is the translation of the word “fitnah”, which means dissention, opposition, sedition.  If you dissent Islam or oppose it you are causing sedition and spreading mischief.  You are considered to be waging war against it.  This war does not have to be violent.  Your mere disagreement with Islam is the same as waging war against it. If you criticize Islam or preach a faith other than Islam to Muslims you are causing sedition. All these are mischief.

What is the punishment of those who spread mischief?

“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.”

So the only verse that Muslims oft quote to claim Muhammad prohibited killing is from Judaism, is wrongly attributed to Allah and it contains a disclaimer, which allows Muslims to kill all those who don’t agree with Islam.

Spread The Word! Share it:

You may also like...

202 Responses

  1. I-HATE-ISLAM says:

    Slave mentality, I congratulate Abdel for deciding to abandon the falsehood called islam. In addition to what he posited in proving Muhammad to have been a liar, it has to be acknowledged that Muhammad himself proved that he was a liar. After Zayyanab of Khayyabar had given her reasons for poisoning the evil fool, he responded:" ALLAH WILL NOT GIVE YOU THE POWER TO DO THAT". He was dead wrong for allah empowered the good young woman to achieve her objective. Three years down the road, when the poison had taken its toll, Muhammad would complain to whoever cared to listen that his tribulation came from the poisoned food had eaten. He died, according to the quran, as an evil man who was not saved from the "agony of the tribulation of death".
    He had lied that 'allah would not give' the brave woman the power to kill him. This was one in the series of lies he constantly told. WHAT A NUMBSKULL.

  2. Iftekhar says:

    I am a muslim and I know very few about Islam. But I maintain all the rules and regulations of Islam. I respect all the prophets and believe that they had done their duty for a great reason.

    Now, I don't know from where I have come and also I don't know after death where I will go. But the truth is I have to die.

    So, my suggestion is don't fight to prove who is right and who is wrong. You obey your religion and I will obey my religion. After death we all come to know the truth. If your religion is true, you win, but if my religion is true than I win. Thats all.

    • Agracean says:

      Dear Mr Iftekhar, I can't help laughing at your above pathetic heartfelt comments. How on earth can you believe in a religion that has no answer at all about your identity and leaves you dangling in the air for the rest of your earthly life, or should say for eternity, ever wondering where in the world did you pop out from? Are you satisfied from being nonchalant, indifferent or care less about the absolute truth while you are alive on earth and would prefer to wait until the day that you finally die and then, lo and behold, the truth that you've been deceived by a mad prophet?

    • Slave of Prophet says:

      @Agracean
      The truth is all the christian, Hindu, Jew and other non-believers in prophet Muhammad would be in hell while all-believers in prophet would be in heaven. This is the simple and clear truth told by holy prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

    • Abdel, ex-Muslim says:

      Mohammed lied. He said the earth is flat and that the sun turns around it. Islam and mohammed is a fraud.

    • Slave of Prophet says:

      @ex-Muslim
      Bro, we have not substantial proof from Quran which prove earth is flat. This is just an Idea of non-believers or misinterpretation of Quranic verses.. If anyone can give me, I am ready to discard Quran.

    • I-HATE-ISLAM says:

      Slave mentality, your offer to dump the quran should it be proved that there are provisions saying that the earth is flat is not worth anything. Being a muhammadan, you are more slippery than a snake and should not be taken to mean what you say. Allah and its/his prophet said that a muslim can rescind a promise or treaty at his convenience. You are quite capable of doing the same.
      But for whatever it is worth, here are some quranic verses which allude to a flat earth.
      Sura 15:19 "WE HAVE SPREAD THE EARTH AND SET UPON IT IMMOVABLE MOUNTAINS".
      Sura 50:7 "WE SPREAD OUT THE EARTH AND SET UPON IT IMMOVABLE MOUNTAINS".
      Sura 51:48 "WE BUILT THE HEAVENS WITH OUR MIGHT, GIVING IT A VAST EXPANSE, AND STRETCHED THE EARTH BENEATH IT. GRACIOUS IS HE WHO SPREAD IT OUT".
      Sura 71:19 "HE HAS MADE THE EARTH A VAST EXPANSE FOR YOU".
      Sura 78;6 "DID WE NOT CREATE THE EARTH LIKE A BED AND RAISED THE MOUNTAINS LIKE PEGS?".
      When something is spread it means that it is on a flat surface. Similarly, 'cradle' and 'bed', which are some of the words used by allah in some of the verses mean flat surfaces. Even though unimaginable things happen in muhammadanism, there can be no running away from the fact that all beds and cradles are meant for comfort and to achieve that they must be flat.
      It is amusing when you attribute the idea of 'flat earth in the quran' to non-believers and misinterpretation. You may be well educated, but when it comes to the interpretation of the quran, there is no doubt that you pale into insignificance when compared to the knowledge acquired by the highest religious authority of a country like Saudi Arabia.
      On this same issue, Sheik Abdul ibn Abdulaziz, at that time the highest religious authority of the muhammadan kingdom, declared: "THE EARTH IS FLAT. WHOEVER CLAIMS IT IS ROUND IS AN ATHEIST DESERVING PUNISHMENT".
      Would you say that the sheik was an unbeliever or ignorant of the quran?
      Another muhammadan scholar, this time an astronomy researcher, Fadhel Al Sa'd said on Iraqi Al Fayhaa television on October 31,2007, that the earth is flat because of the quranic verses.
      You will go ahead and display the typical muhammadan behavior of denouncing them or calling them ignoramuses. But the fact remains that when it comes to academic credentials, whether secular or religious, yours cannot be compared to what these people have. Yet, as it is evident, those two islamic scholars know nothing about science. Since both of them based their arguments on the quran, this proves what a fake the author of the quran was, for the true God will never fail to know the things that HE created.
      If for once, you choose to be a human being by keeping to your words of discarding the quran on prove that it refers to a flat earth, do not fail to contact Dr Ali Sina. But I have my doubts.

    • Agracean says:

      Hi Slave of Prophet, this is a horrible lie. The truth is that your mad unrepentant slave driver lied all his life and even on his deathbed. The truth is that he is now in hell and not in Heaven. So, the truth is that all those who follow him will all end up in hell. Are you one of those braindead zombies?

    • Demsci says:

      Sounds like Pascal's Wager, which is; "If I believe and it's untrue, I lose nothing" but " If I do not believe and it's true, then I lose a great deal". But this was in 17th century, and then it may have been a reasonable gamble due to lack of knowledge. Nowadays we know a 100 times more facts and science and it is a very bad gamble, like winning the lottery. AND COUNTING ON IT.

      And although God gave you brains, and Internet, to check and think hard, you only gamble, despite all the available proof of the fallabilities of Quran.

      IMO Islam should not be chosen because of convenience, because family and community demand it and are nice to you if you do, but get ugly and violent when you change your religion, in effect blackmailing you with their love and support.

      And Islam should not even be chosen because you like it. It should only be chosen for searching for the highest truth you can find, with the greatest brain effort you are capable of, as long as it takes.

      Remember, if you are just taking the easy way out, gambling on Islam, that does not make Islam true, and it does not quarantee you heaven.

      And if you gamble wrong, you perpetuate this wrong gamble that much longer for a big part of mankind, while all the while there is a higher truth out there, which you and many future humans will miss.

      But it seems to so many people do not care at all about finding the highest truth they can find, with science, fact-searching and logic, which nowadays is abundant available and learnable. That is allowed in democracy, but why don't people openly admit it?

  3. khidramari says:

    Ali said:

    With this disclaimer his followers were left free to raid and to kill non-Muslims. Those who resisted Islam and opposed it were considered to be spreading mischief.

    The word mischief is the translation of the word “fitnah”, which means dissention, opposition, sedition. If you dissent Islam or oppose it you are causing sedition and spreading mischief. You are considered to be waging war against it. This war does not have to be violent. Your mere disagreement with Islam is the same as waging war against it. If you criticize Islam or preach a faith other than Islam to Muslims you are causing sedition. All these are mischief.

    What is the punishment of those who spread mischief?

    “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.”

    So the only verse that Muslims oft quote to claim Muhammad prohibited killing is from Judaism, is wrongly attributed to Allah and it contains a disclaimer, which allows Muslims to kill all those who don’t agree with Islam.

    POINT 4:

    Ali, is misled and has distorted to ayat believing that Muslims were free to raid and kill non Muslims. Any one who resisted Islam and opposed Islam were considered to be spreading mischief this is totally false.

    First off, Allah says:

    "There is no COMPULSION/FORCE in deen: true guidance has become distinct from error, so whoever rejects false gods and believes in Allah has grasped the firmest hand-hold, one that will never break. Allah is all hearing and all knowing." Sura 2/256

    There is no compulsion in the deen of Islam we can't force people to become Muslims or to accept Islam. Every one has the right to believe in what they will and we learn from the Qur’an that in this world, there will people with all kinds of faiths and that they will be created the way they are in their destiny providentially:

    "We have appointed a law and a practice for every one of you. Had Allah willed, He would have made you a single community, but He wanted to test you regarding what has come to you. So compete with each other in doing good. Every one of you will return to Allah and He will inform you regarding the things about which you differed. Sura al-Ma’ida/48

    In another verse of the Qur’an, Our Lord says the following to the Prophet Muhammad (saas):

    "[Say]: “You have your deen and I have my deen.” Sura Al-Kafirun/6

    Had Allah wanted all of humanity to believe Allah would have made it so:

    "If your Lord had willed, all the people on the earth would have come to believe, one and all." Sura 10/99

    Right to defend ourselves and fighting doesn't always mean physical:

    "And fight in the Way of Allah those who fight you, but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allah likes not the transgressors. And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing. And fight not with them at Al-Masjid-Al-Haram, unless they (first) fight you there. But if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. But if they cease, then Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.And fight them until there is no more Fitnah. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun " Sura 2/190-193

    Any who believes in Allah and the Last Day will have a reward:

    "Verily! Those who believe and those who are Jews and Nazarenes, and sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." Sura 2/62

    "Surely, those who believe, and those who are the Jews and the sabians and the Nazarenes, – whosoever believed in Allah and the Last Day, and worked righteousness, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." Sura 5/69

    "Verily, those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the sabians, and the Nazarenes, and the Majus, and those who worship others besides Allah, truly, Allah will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection. Verily! Allah is over all things a Witness." Sura 22/17

    None of the above ayats says that ONLY Muslims are going to get a reward clearly any who believes in Allah and the Last Day will have a good ending and who does righteous deeds. So these ayats above refutes any of Ali's claim that the Qur'an condones the fighting and killing of any who don't agree to what the Qur'an says.

    • Bakari says:

      Excellent Ahki..

    • I-HATE-ISLAM says:

      This is the worst garbage to be spewed on this website so far. What about all the verses in the quran which command the killing of unbelievers until the religion of allah is established or nobody worships any being but allah? Muhammadans are adept at falsehood and that is precisely what you are doing here. Those who know muhammadanism cannot be deceived by this amateur tactics.

    • I-HATE-ISLAM says:

      Khidaramari, just to debunk your hypocritical claim that every body is free to follow the religion of his choice, I want you to read the article titled:"IS SHIA KAFIR" on Allahuakbar.net. At the foot of that page the writer, who in all probability is a sunni, says:"HATE FOR SHIA IS THE PROOF OF IMAN. LOVE FOR SHIA IS KAFIR". A kafir is an infidel who is the worst creature in the sight of allah. If a fellow muhammadan is called a 'kafir', how is it possible for everyone to choose his religion freely? We see shiites being killed in their dozens daily. The fate of a non-muslim is far worse than that. STOP SPREADING LIES EITHER OUT OF IGNORANCE OR SHEER DECEIT.

    • chuck says:

      @I-HATE-ISLAM,
      They are quick to forget that the Verse of Sword Q:9-5 abrogates most of the humane sounding goody goody verses….worst is they all know it and still resort to these lies.

    • I-HATE-ISLAM says:

      Quite right,Chuck. Even their eminent scholars confirm that the so-called peaceful verses have been abrogated.

    • chuck says:

      Here's what Tafsir Ibn Kathir, perhaps the most popular tafsir, says about 9:5 :
      This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, "It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term.''
      Al-Awfi said that Ibn Abbas commented:
      "No idolator had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara'ah was revealed. The four months, in addition to, all peace treaties conducted before Bara'ah was revealed and announced had ended by the tenth of the month of Rabi Al-Akhir.''

  4. khidramari says:

    Ali said:

    3- This verse is not from God. Muhammad admitted that sometimes Satan came and whispered some verses to him that he thought were from God. Could this verse be one of those satanic verses?

    4- Muhammad lied. The Quran is not the word of God.

    I cannot think of another option to explain why Allah claims ownership of a verse that he never said. The quote is not in the Bible; it is from Talmud and Talmud is not considered to be the word of God.

    Now, this verse emphasizes that killing is bad. But Muhammad told his followers that waging war, fighting and killing are the best commerce, which will have the highest reward.

    “O you who believe! Shall I guide you to a commerce that will save you from a painful torment? That you believe in Allah and His Messenger and that you strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives… (Q .61:10-11)

    So he had to make a disclaimer. While quoting the Talmud he inserted “unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land” in the verse. This disclaimer does not exist in the original text of the Talmud.

    POINT 3:

    "And so We have appointed for every Prophet enemies – Shayatin (devils) among Nasi/Adamites and Jinn/Gentiles, inspiring one another with adorned speech as a delusion. If your Lord had so willed, they would not have done it; so leave them alone with their fabrications." Sura 6/112

    "And We did not send before you any messenger or prophet, but when he desired, the Shaitan [Satan] made a suggestion respecting his desire; but Allah annuls that which the Shaitan casts, then does Allah establish His communications, and Allah is Knowing, Wise." Sura 22/52

    Its clear that Allah says all of the Prophets are given enemies and Allah warned Prophet Muhammad not to change the Qur'an or invent sayings since Allah would punish him:

    "And when Our signs are recited to them, clear signs, those who look not to encounter Us say, 'Bring a Qur'an other than this, or alter it.' Say: 'It is not for me to alter it of my own accord. I follow nothing, except what is revealed to me. Truly I fear, if I should rebel against my Lord, the chastisement of a dreadful day.' Sura 10/15

    "And they indeed strove to beguile you away from that wherewith We (Allah) have inspired you, that thou shouldst invent other than it against Us; and then would they have accepted thee as a friend. And if We had not made thee wholly firm thou mightest almost have inclined unto them a little. 75 Then had We made you taste a double (punishment) of living and a double (punishment) of dying, then hadst thou found no helper against Us." Sura 17/73-74

    "it is the speech of a noble Messenger. It is not the speech of a poet (little do you believe) nor the speech of a soothsayer. A sending down from the Lord of all Being. Had he invented against Us any sayings, We would have seized him by the right hand, then We would surely have cut his life-vein." Sura 69/40-46

    Now thus consider how harsh these warnings are… Allah threatens to kill Prophet Muhammad if he dared to concoct statements in his Allah’s name or change the inspiration which supposedly came to him.

    These threats become all the more intriguing in light of the fact that, according to some of these non Muslim views, Muhammad did change the message of the Qur'an yet was not killed.

    • I-HATE-ISLAM says:

      "–MUHAMMAD DID CHANGE THE MESSAGE OF THE QUR'AN YET WAS NOT KILLED-". Allah did say that if Muhammad changed his message he(allah) will cut his aorta. It is reported that after he was poisoned at Khyabbar,Muhammad would complain about his aorta burning like coal on fire. He died as a result of that. This proves that he was a false prophet even to allah, his invented god. I have equally read it somewhere that Muhammad admitted imputing to allah what the latter had not said. So allah was Muhammad and vice-versa.
      On killing, there is nowhere in the quran where allah said that the instruction given to the children of Israel was binding on muslims. The so-called disclaimer you talked about only applies to muslims. Spreading rumour in the land means saying anything against islam, muhammad and in modern times, the imams. Islam offers protection to non-muslims on the stiffest of conditions which often border on inhumanity.

    • Bakari says:

      Being as though HADITH'S are Not the word of Allah.Where did you get your info. pertaining Prophet Muhammad Complaining of his "AORTA" ???

    • I-HATE-ISLAM says:

      Bakari read
      Bukhari "–O AISHA! I STILL FEEL THE PAIN CAUSED BY THE FOOD I ATE AT KHAIBAR–I FEEL AS IF MY AORTA IS BEING CUTOFF FROM THAT POISON-"'.
      Abu Dawud:"HE THEN SAID ABOUT THE PAIN OF WHICH HE DIED:'I CONTINUE TO FEEL PAIN FROM THE MORSEL WHICH I HAD EATEN AT KHAHBAR. THIS IS THE TIME WHEN IT HAS CUT OFF MY AORTA"'.
      If you are ignorant about your own religion, then blame yourself. Your heinous 'prophet' died miserably having been degraded by allah because he lied.

    • chuck says:

      @I-HATE-ISLAM
      Good job. I saw somebody use the phrase Brain dead zombies! Guess who fits to the bill?

    • I-HATE-ISLAM says:

      Hi Chuck,
      The answer is:"BY THEIR FRUITS YOU SHALL KNOW THEM". It is not difficult to see who the 'brain dead zombies' are. The likes of Slave mentality, Shabby, Bakari, Khidaramari and others whose grey matter has been completely destroyed by constant brainwashing.

  5. khidramari says:

    Ali says:

    “On account of this, WE prescribed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killed a person it shall be as if he killed all mankind; -unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land- and whoso saved a life, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. And our Messengers came to them with clear Signs, Yet even after that, many of them commit excesses in the land.”

    Muhammad is quoting a biblical fable. How can Muslims claim credit for it?

    The problem does not end there. Talmud is not considered to be the word of God. It is the recorded teachings of Sanhedrin, the high council of rabbis.

    So why Allah says “WE prescribed for the Children of Israel…”?

    The god of the Quran is claiming ownership of something he never said. This leaves us with few options.

    1- Allah has plagiarized the teachings of the rabbis.

    2- He was confused and had forgotten that those words were not his.

    POINT 2:

    Again, Prophet Muhammad never quoted a Biblical fable at all the Torah is not a fable its from YHWH, ALLAH, the Most High. Prophet Muhammad was of the same lineage, from Bani Israel sent with a confirmation of what came before in terms of the Divine Scriptures.

    The Talmud came centuries LATER and the Torah came FIRST. It seems that the Rabbis studied the Torah. The Most High who revealed the Qur'an indeed claims OWNERSHIP of something he sent to the previous Prophets. There is no plagiarism in Qur'an at all. The Torah/Qur'an are from Allah so how can YHWH/ALLAH'S WORDS be plagiarized?

    LIFE FOR LIFE KILLING:

    Allah says:

    "And do not Kill anyone whose Killing Allah has forbidden, except for a just cause. And whoever is Killed wrongfully, We have given his heir the authority. But let him not exceed limits in the matter of taking life . Verily, he is helped" Sura 17/33

    "And there is life for you in retaliation, O men of understanding, that ye may ward off (evil)." Sura 2/179

    "And We ordained therein for them: "Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal." But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity, it shall be for him an expiation. And whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are the Zalimun." Sura 5/45

    What does the Torah says:

    Exodus 21:22-25

    “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound."

  6. khidramari says:

    Now Ali has truly confused the issue in regards to what is from the Most High and what is from man. There is a big difference between YHWH Books and man books.

    Point 1 UNJUST KILLING IS FORBIDDEN:

    Ali Sina says, "To demonstrate that Islam does not promote violence Muslims often quote a part of the quranic verse 5:32. “Whosoever killed a person it shall be as if he killed all mankind; and whoso saved a life, it shall be as if he has saved the life of all mankind.”

    That sound pretty good. The problem is that it is not a teaching of Muhammad. It is a quote from Judaic scriptures.

    “Whoever destroys a soul, it is considered as if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world.” Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 4:1 (22a)"

    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

    Ali, doesn't know that the same ayat from Sura 5/32 came from the same SOURCE

    "And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image." Genesis 9:5-6

    Exodus 20:13 “You shall not murder."

    Leviticus 24:17 “Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death.

    Deuteronomy 5:17 "You shall not murder."

    Allah says in Qur'an about the unjust KILLING:

    "It is He Who has sent down the Book (the Qur'an) to you with truth, confirming what came before it. And He sent down the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)," Sura 3/3

    "And whoever Kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell to abide therein; and the Wrath and the Curse of Allah are upon him, and a great punishment is prepared for him." Sura 4/93

    "Because of that We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone Killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land – it would be as if he Killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind. And indeed, there came to them Our Messengers with clear proofs, evidence, and signs, even then after that many of them continued to exceed the limits in the land!" Sura 5/32

    Now are the Mishnah Talmduic Hadith from YHWH the Most High? No!!!!! These books are divided into six sections called sedarim. Each seder contains one or more divisions called masekhtot (in English, tractates). There are 63 masekhtot in the Mishnah. Approximately half of these masekhtot have been addressed in the Talmud.

    1. Zera'im
    2. Mo'ed
    3. Nashim
    4. Nezikin
    5. Kodashim
    6. Toharot

    So the Talmud Mishnah Hadith ARE NOT from YHWH at all. YHWH already indicated that killing innocent people are forbidden in the Divine Scripture. No where does it say that Moses received the Talmud Mishnah Hadith.

  7. Mir says:

    There is no God! Stop fighting.

  8. qwert says:

    i cant believe how damn wrong you all are. i actually feel sorry for you. if only you knew…

  9. yo tengo fe says:

    The writings I could care less about…what I'd like to know is what, if anything, in Islam permits parents to throw acid all over their child and kill that child "for the sake of honour"…that is abhorrent and downright medieval thinking!

  10. Islamisthetruth says:

    9 But theLORD God called to the man,"Where are you?"Compare with the Qur'ân 6:3.AndHe is God in the heavens and on earth.He knoweth what ye hide, and what ye reveal, and He knoweth the (recompense) which ye earn (by yourdeeds).Like a human being, God is depicted in theBible as being sorry for some of His decisions,the implication being that he was eitherignorant of the consequences or that He issubject to whimsical moods.Genesis 6:6 6The LORD was grievedthat he had made man on the earth, and hisheart was filled with pain.and Exodus 32:14.14 Then theLORD relentedand did not bring on his people the disaster hehad threatened.

  11. Islamisthetruth says:

    [002:255] God!There is no god but He,-the Living, the Self-subsisting,Eternal.No slumber can seize Him nor sleep. His are all things in theheavens and on earth. Who is there can intercede in His presence except asHe permitteth? He knoweth what (appeareth to His creatures as) before orafter or behind them. Nor shall they compass aught of His knowledgeexcept as He willeth. His Throne doth extend over the heavens and theearth, and He feeleth no fatigue in guarding and preserving them for He isthe Most High, the Supreme (in glory).God walks in the garden and a man can hidehimself from Him and to seek him out fromhis hiding place, God has to search for him.Isit God is all-knowing and all-wise?….Genesis 3:8.8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of theLORD God as he waswalking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORDGod among the trees of the garden.

    • Amit says:

      Visit India only then you guys (Christians and Moslims) will understand real religion. you are illusioned

    • I-HATE-ISLAM says:

      Amit, I have visited India and did not find what you are talking about. I have no problems with the Hindus although they sometimes exhibit anti Christian attitudes. But such are not as widespread as those of the muhammadans. Do not seek to open your own front. Let us face a common enemy who will stop at nothing to eliminate you.

  12. Islamisthetruth says:

    7 The Biblical concept of God is quite different from the Qur'ânic one. In the Bible, God is described in a human form: Genesis 1:26, "Then God said, 'Let us makeman in out image, afterour likeness', or Gen. 9:6, 'for God made man in his own imageCompare these passages with the Qur'ân which says:"Say: He isGod,the Eternal the Absolute. He begets not, nor is he begotten. Andthere is nothing like God." Qur'ân, 112:1-4or"there is nothing comparable to Him" 42:11.Michalengelo’s imagination about God’s face.This is not God!!"there is nothing comparable to Him" Quran 42:11He is depicted as one who gets tired and needsrest: Genesis 2:22 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so onthe seventh dayhe rested [a]from all his work. 3 And God blessed theseventh day and made it holy,because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.Compare with the Qur'ân 2:255

    • I-HATE-ISLAM says:

      islamisthelie, I agree that the Biblical God is markedly different from the quranic god.The Former created man in His likeness and breathed into man the breath of life. That is why HE commanded;"THOU SHALT NOT KILL". To HIM life is sacred and must not be wasted. The quranic god knows absolutely nothing about creation and for that reason it has no respect for life. It appears you have problems because of the human nature attributed to the Biblical GOD.It is only with that nature that good is distinguished from evil. That nature makes one to appreciate that inflicting pain on the other person is wrong. So that same God further commanded that you should not even covet what belongs to your neighbor who you should love as you love yourself.
      As for picking bones that God is assigned human features, it goes to show that you are not familiar with the quran where allah's anthropomorphism is clearly displayed. Thus in the quran it is said that allah has a face, it has hands, it sits on the throne and in the hadiths Muhammad even saw it/him in paradise praying.All these are attributes of man. If by your reckoning the Bible is wrong to describe GOD in the way that it does, what makes the quran better? Muhammad was a very poor plagiarist. In an ill fated attempt to sound original, he committed several blunders.Yet muhammadans are so blind that they cannot learn their lesson.

  13. Islamisthetruth says:

    6 Firstly,The Bible is not one book but a collection of at least 66 booksaccording to the Protestant version or 75 according to the Roman CatholicDouay versionwritten by at least 40 authors.Secondly, the Bibleis a mixture of both divine statements and humancommentaries of later followers. See for example Luke 1:1-4, and I Corinthians7:25. The Qur'ân has no such commentaries, even the words of Muhammad(P)are not part of the Qur'ân.Thirdly, the New Testament's four gospels teach about Jesus(P), his life andmission. The Qur'ân is not a biography of Muhammad(P)written by hisfollowers.Fourthly, theBible has several books written many years after the death of those Prophets sometimes not in the original language of those Prophets thusgiving rise to a number of difficulties in analysis. The entire Qur'ân was writtenduring the lifetime of the Prophet(P)and it was memorised by hundreds of people in the original language.Fifthly, thefour cannonised gospels were not the only gospels, the decision of what should be in the Bible and what should not is left to human judgement. InIslam there were no conferences to determine which chapter should or shouldnot be in the Qur'ân.

  14. Islamisthetruth says:

    3The first Arabic version of the Old Testament and New Testament appeared afew hundred after the death of Muhammad(P).4 Similarity between any two compositions or books does not in itself constitutesufficient evidence that one was copied from the other, or the latter from theearlier one. Both of them could be based on a common third source. This is precisely the argument of the Qur'ân. There are certain portions of the Biblethat might have remained intact and if God is the source of both revelations thatshould explain the existence of parallels.5 A close examination of the two texts would clearly show that the idea of borrowing is at best flimsy:

    • denialisnoproof says:

      nofil warakka translated some of the verses to muhammad.

    • I-HATE-ISLAM says:

      denialisnoproof, in addition to Warraka, there were the two Christian slave boys, who taught Muhammad the earlier scriptures. To show the truth of this, the quran makes a denial at some point about the opinion in circulation at that time which indicated that Muhammad was taught . Why was that rebuttal necessary if there was no truth? Besides, Muhammad had access to Christian monks and Jewish rabbis on his trading trips and some of the ideas in his book were obtained from those sources. It is futile to argue that a man like Warraka, who translated the New Testament into Arabic and who encouraged him on the road to his self proclaimed prophethood, did not teach him the Bible. Deceit is in the DNA of muhamadanism. So the muhammadans will deny everything except what coincides with their perverted views.

    • chuck says:

      Even his first wife, Khadija, was a Christian. She was a first cousin to Waraka ibn Nawfal. Also unlike how Muhamad like to portray these days, Arabia was a land of great influx and had trade relations far and wide. Indeed Muhamad himself was a trader who had traveled outside Arabia and may have picked up different traditions, folklore etc.

    • I-HATE-ISLAM says:

      Chuck, you are quite right. Revisionism will never allow the muhammadans to either see or acknowledge the truth, no matter what. They cling tenaciously to their lies or ignorance.Their stock in trade is to revise history to suit their purpose in the same way that Muhammad revised the stories he heard from others and presented them as 'revelations'.

  15. Islamistruth says:

    10Ways To Prove That Quran in Not Copied From The Bible 1 Nabi Muhammad said that the Qur'ân came from God and we have alreadyattempted to show that from historical reasons Muhammad(could not havecopied the Qur'ân from the Bible.2Muhammad(P)was illiterate. He could not have studied and selected from previous scriptures without the ability to read and write.

  16. Peacefulbeings says:

    Religions are peaceful but become problematic and risk for peace when we divide human beings and multiply gods through different so-called divine interpretations. I think to rule like a 'master' on peaceful and simple human beings, some 'masters' divided the human into sects, race, and color and multiplied the God into gods. My message is PEACE FOR ALL. http://www.facebook.com/peacefulbeings

  17. truthseeker says:

    Exellent!!
    Ali Sina is a plain liar!!
    Kudos to farzan and zitouni

  18. Saveworld says:

    Islam=Stupid, Lazy, Rubbish, Problem, Lie,  Barbarian, Dirty, Ugly, Noisy, Crazy, Oppress, Violent, Behead, Horror, War, Boom, Politic, Womanizing, Polygamy, Fanatic, Evil, Terrorist

  19. Prasad says:

    Dear Mr .Ali sina,
    some social sites contains the topic "i converted muslim after wathing this video ".this video contains scientific documentary where how to determine sex of the baby .It revealed that in qauran ,it is said that only male can detrmine the sex of the baby.
    is that true ?please explain

    • Ali Sina says:

      There is nothing scientific in the Quran. The Quran is a book of nonsense. Muslims interpret the obtuse verses of Muhammad in any way they like. Every day they find something new and interpret it to fit it with the Quran/ If the Quran had any scientific information, Muslims should have been at the the forefront of science. Yet we see the are the most backward people on the planet. The people who are most hated by Muslims, i.e. the Jews have acheived a thousand times more success than Muslims in science. This shows those who follow the Quran actually become stupid.

    • enlightened25 says:

      Assuming this claim is true (which it isn`t), how does this prove koran is from God? Indeed if it is true it means it cannot be from God, Allah has a body, a tongue to speak arabic? Indeed Allah would be nothing but a finite being a alien, such a entity is not God.

  20. zitouni says:

    they did not kill a Muslim ignorant they killed the ambassador . Read this then I will reply to the rest you are really soooo ignorant about histroy of Islam

    The hostilities between the Muslims and the Roman empire began when the Prophet Muhammad’s messenger to the Ghassan tribe (a governate of the Roman empire), Al-Harith bin Umayr Al-Azdi, was tied up and beheaded (Al-Mubarakpuri, Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum, p. 383). The killing of a diplomat was an open act of war, and the Prophet Muhammad sent an armed force to confront the tribe, but the Roman empire brought in reinforcements and the resulting conflict, known as the Battle of Mut’ah, was a defeat for the Muslims.

    check this also
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tabouk

    • Sanada_10 says:

      Dear, oh dear, I thought all is the same in the eyes of Allah and no caste system applied in order not to differentiate any muslim. It’s so easy, just replace the “fellow muslim” with “the ambassador/important muslim”. Now, I ask you a verse that indicates the difference between ordinary and ambassador.

      Stilll didn’t answer the problem in the verse. It should say what I have proposed. We are talking about verse not history. Killing an ambassador was an act of war? They should just attack them suddenly just like Muhamamad did. Killing them would alert the enemy and not a smart move. So, the muslim was the attacker and as always, Muhammad found justification for his raid.

      You didn’t even respond to my explanation about the verse, you changed course.

      Now, who says that Islam is a religion, Islam is a state, a political disguised religion.

      Why did he send ambassador? On what purpose? Why did they kill him? Surely, there is no smoke without fire.

    • zitouni says:

      You didn’t even respond to my explanation about the verse, you changed course.

      First you have no authority to interpret koran because you are Tafsir ignorant secondly I have sent you a link that talks about war and verse 929 was revealed during those days

      Now, who says that Islam is a religion, Islam is a state, a political disguised religion.

      Who care what you say about Islam whether it is religion or not because only fool take ignorant people like you serious .

      Why did he send ambassador? On what purpose? Why did they kill him? Surely, there is no smoke without fire.

      no matter what was the purpose it was in those days and still today killing ambassador an act of war period .

    • zitouni says:

      Whites in America didn’t have the eternal doctrine to kill the black and the black enjoys success now.

      who cares what motivated them still they are gulity . are you trying to say just because they did not have eternal doctrine therefore it is ok to kill black and enslave them. Church considred in those days that black were not human. You have not done your research on the subject

      In discussions of Church teaching, “slavery” is defined by some Catholic writers as the condition of involuntary servitude in which a human being is regarded as no more than the property of another, as being without basic human rights; in other words, as a thing rather than a person.

      the native American is also fine now.

      Oh yes after they were reduced from 100% to 1% population in USA

    • zitouni says:

      The truth is clear, in my posts and I want you to answer it. Simple, just click and click. Don't just judge, prove it.

      If you are talking about this link .

      http://www.faithfreedom.org/articles/quran-koran/

      and I suppose you want to say you wrote it . I have read it and I can tell that you are Arabic ignorant therefore it just does not make sense to give it much importance .

    • Sanada_10 says:

      Nope, it was written by jonmc, not me. You should deal with him and prove it in FFI.org straightly. Calling it ignorant is not going to answer him. Nowadays, people love to use this excuse to get away.

      You know, I thought you can give me any answer but you re just the same with other muslims. Your answer is typical.

    • Sanada_10 says:

      It’s funny to see a person who wrote “who care” so many times just to answer the opponent. It reflects your own mind and behavior.

      You wrote, “who cares what motivated them still they are gulity . are you trying to say just because they did not have eternal doctrine therefore it is ok to kill black and enslave them. Church considred in those days that black were not human. You have not done your research on the subject”

      You really have a reading problem. I, for instance, never said they were innocent, that’s why I called it “eternal doctrine”. If they had the doctrine they would hate the black for eternity and would feel proud and justified to kill them. The term “racism” and equality of blacks would never be born.

      You are full of hate, you didn’t even read my post correctly. The core of my point is “the present” and “changeable”. Black nowadays don’t undergo anything like that again in USA, they are successful and enjoys equal rights. Can this happen if the eternal doctrine comes around?

      Church considered what? Do you think I don’t even know what racism in the past? Of course the churches were nothing more than political move and it didn’t have any base in Christianity. 2 wrongs won’t make 1 right, especially when the second wrong is fixed.

      You wrote, “In discussions of Church teaching, “slavery” is defined by some Catholic writers as the condition of involuntary servitude in which a human being is regarded as no more than the property of another, as being without basic human rights; in other words, as a thing rather than a person.”

      Mark your own words, “the church teaching” and remember it well. Slavery was common in the past and Muhammad also did that so why shouting to another place while your prophet condoned it? Slavery was erased not by Muhammad but by the west. Basic human rights was not born at Muhammad’s time nor at any time in the past too. Now, the eternal doctrine comes in again and makes slavery as legal so the view of “human property is legal and not a sin” will remain forever in the mind of muslims.

      You wrote, “Oh yes after they were reduced from 100% to 1% population in USA”

      So were minorities in muslim countries, no to mention the Arab peninsula. This is worse than native American because they are safe now and the past is the past. Eternal doctrine will keep supplying muslim with hatred. You are missing the point entirely.

    • zitouni says:

      Funny, you answered this one without Quran, what's the matter?

      What are you talking about

      So? It didn’t erase what Islam had done to India and Pakistan is persecuting minorities.

      Muslims are not angels there may be some persecusion , but it is not encouraged in Islam and thats the point that you should take note of

      The challenge of this site and if you want, my queries.

      What is this queries

      Nope, it applies to you who didn’t read anything including the queries.

      I read the link and it has nothing about Mushrikin , but you and Ali Sina read koran while you were drunk

    • Sanada_10 says:

      I didn’t even talk about “no human is perfect”. You are so silly changing course whenever you see fit. I talked about what the Quran and Islam think about the polytheist, the mushrikoon. Associating god with other gods are found too in Christianity and Judaism using Jesus and Uzair, so they were called like this too.

      You wrote, “but it is not encouraged in Islam and thats the point that you should take note of”

      Funny statement again, the fact that Allah ordered the religion of the polytheist to be destroyed and its faith to be considered as the “worst sin” is a form of encouragement. You didn’t know how to analyze, did you? Do you forget what Muhammad had done to the religion?

      You wrote, “I read the link and it has nothing about Mushrikin , but you and Ali Sina read koran while you were drunk”

      You didn’t read it, did you? Come on, read it again and tell me what the article is talking about. Also, the challenge page is clear. It talks about Muhammad’s crime and mind. My queries are, as always, evaded. So, you only responded the link, not the challenge nor my queries. What’s the matter?

    • Sanada_10 says:

      Ah, when the likes of you failed to answer you chose to use personal attack. The one that you should deal is the answer not my mind or how I think.

      You wrote, “First you have no authority to interpret koran because you are Tafsir ignorant secondly I have sent you a link that talks about war and verse 929 was revealed during those days”

      First, I don’t regard any authority based on faith and fan. Islamic scholarship is one sided and can’t be verified by common people so you have to analyze it logically. Second, I didn’t even have to be an authority because I used the authority of the muslims themselves, at least, to know what they think about it.

      Tafisr itself is not divine and don’t have its sanction in the Quran. You are the one who are ignorant of Allah’s claim. Yeah, the link about the war doesn’t have anything to do with the verse in the first place. The war itself is doubtful and disconnected with 9:29.

      You wrote, “Who care what you say about Islam whether it is religion or not because only fool take ignorant people like you serious .”

      You are so childish. You didn’t answer but ignored it. You didn’t even want to find any truth. I can say the same you know. Who care what you say about Islam and specifically verse 9:29? You didn’t bring any proof, the war is disconnected, the verse is unclear and too general, last but not least, Allah’s verse about how a tafsir should be is non existent. These holes are sufficient enough to know that this particular tafsir is a joke.

      Ad hominem won’t answer my query.

      You wrote, “no matter what was the purpose it was in those days and still today killing ambassador an act of war period .”

      So this is an incomplete history and divine verse. In here, I notice 2 weaknesses:

      1. Lacking of real reason as to why the ambassador was killed, from the historical POV, it is doubtful.
      2. Lacking of real divine knowledge on Allah’s side

      In short, no one knew why the killing happened, not even the all knowing Allah.

    • zitouni says:

      The Battle of Tabouk (also called the Battle of Tabuk) was a military expedition, which, according to Muslim biographies, was initiated by the Prophet Muhammad in October, AD 630 ……..

      Not so convincing eh?

      If you read interpretation of history by enemy of Islam you are not going to be convinced .

      You did not read the link which I sent you this shows you just love to read anti Islamic website .

      From the horse mouth :

      The non Muslim scholar William Muir claims that one of the reasons Heraclius decided to go to War was that he wanted to prevent the recurrence of the Expedition of Ukasha bin Al-Mihsan against the Banu Udrah and military campaigns similar to it

      to Muslim biographies, was initiated by the Prophet Muhammad in October, AD 630

      Which Muslim biographies ????

    • Sanada_10 says:

      If you read the history made by its obvious fan, you won’t be convinced either and the absent of the record by the other side is sufficient enough to say that the history of this event is doubtful. All you need is historical proof which is neutral and of course this is not interpretation but mere explanation of what is obvious.

      I didn’t read? The problem from the very start is the verse not the site. You have failed to prove that the verse actually talks that way. I just used a very simple method, logic and proof. I don’t need to read any websites be it pro or con.

      You had changed course again. If you can't answer this very simple question how do you answer the rest of my queries then?

    • Sanada_10 says:

      "The Battle of Tabouk (also called the Battle of Tabuk) was a military expedition, which, according to Muslim biographies, was initiated by the Prophet Muhammad in October, AD 630. Muhammad led a force of as many as 30,000 north to Tabouk in present-day northwestern Saudi Arabia, with the intention of engaging the Byzantine army. Though not a battle in the typical sense, if historical the event would represent the opening conflict in the coming Byzantine-Arab wars. There is no contemporary Byzantine account of the events, and much of the details come from later Muslim sources. Noting this, as well as the fact that the armies never met, some Western scholars have questioned the authenticity of the details surrounding the event;[1] though in the Arab world it is widely held as historical."

      Not so convincing eh?

    • zitouni says:

      Dear, oh dear, I thought all is the same in the eyes of Allah and no caste system applied in order not to differentiate any muslim. It’s so easy, just replace the “fellow muslim” with “the ambassador/important muslim”. Now, I ask you a verse that indicates the difference between ordinary and ambassador.

      are you ignorant or you play dumb with me ? . You know that killing government representative of a nation in any country by authorities of that country is an act of war . If it were done by criminals in that contry is something else .

    • Sanada_10 says:

      Still didn't answer anything I'd posted. All I need is a verse from Allah to justify this view and if you didn't bring it that means you are creating your own deluded opinion influenced not by Islamic doctrine but common human rule.

      The proof does the talking not this, let alone your ad hominem. :p

    • zitouni says:

      Stilll didn’t answer the problem in the verse. It should say what I have proposed. We are talking about verse not history.

      who are you to teach God how to reveal his book . In science of Tafsir we have something called Asbabo Nozool . It tells you why , the occasion and reason of revealation . It is not neccessary to put it the way you did .

      Killing an ambassador was an act of war? They should just attack them suddenly just like Muhamamad did. Killing them would alert the enemy and not a smart move. So, the muslim was the attacker and as always, Muhammad found justification for his raid.

      Yes It is an act of war . You start now putting your silly interpretation of history which has no basis at all

    • Sanada_10 says:

      Who am I? I am rational thinker, I used what was used by your own religion and analyzed it. I didn't say what "god should do", I said, " what a verse should sound if you wanted it that way". It was you who had the problem. You didn't even answer this obvious wrong meaning of the verse, you just complained.

      It was very necessary to do that because that would be a very clear verse and didn’t even need any tafsir or created dissenting opinions which lead to conflicts. Quran had to be consistent in saying that its words were clear and easy to understand and by definition, it didn’t go running around with vague orders and rules.

      The verse, if it dealt with particular group such as Christians who, again, specifically referred to Byzantine and its allies, should not created general impression of:

      1. Christians, let alone the Jews
      2. How you should treat them
      3. Lacking of actual specified “reason”

      You wrote, “Yes It is an act of war . You start now putting your silly interpretation of history which has no basis at all”

      One thing you failed to understand is my position. I don’t care about interpretation because it leads to mere opinions. I just saw the raw words from the Quran and compared it to the tafsir and judged it. In here, we can see that even if I pretend you are right, Allah as a god had done a very poor explanation on his own words and needed human intervention. There are 2 possibilities:

      1. You lied
      2. Allah was a poor spoke person

      Your choice is …

      Everything you wrote about "Allah/Muhammad's view" should be backed by the Quran. Now, I demand again the verse that I'd asked before. Calling something you don't like as silly won't answer this. You also didn't answer "the fire before the smoke" and the logic behind the "act of war" because anything can be made like that. I suggest you read my other queries about other reasons that lead to "act of war". The standard you are using is silly because you have no reference.

  21. zitouni says:

    So the only verse that Muslims oft quote to claim Muhammad prohibited killing is from Judaism, is wrongly attributed to Allah and it contains a disclaimer, which allows Muslims to kill all those who don’t agree with Islam.

    Ali Sina you are sooooooo stupid and ignorant . I advise the people who hired you to look for another person to fight Islam on their behalf because they are wasting their money and I advise you to look for another way to make money . Read this verse dummy

    And do not kill anyone which Allâh has forbidden, except for a just cause. And whoever is killed (intentionally with hostility and oppression and not by mistake), We have given his heir the authority [(to demand Qisâs, Law of Equality in punishment or to forgive, or to take Diya (blood money)]. But let him not exceed limits in the matter of taking life (i.e he should not kill except the killer only). Verily, he is helped (by the Islâmic law )

    • John K says:

      Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them was Muhammad's last command on the subject.

    • zitouni says:

      quote the verse where it says that and from there I will teach you leson in koran

    • John K says:

      Thanks for your offer Zitouni. I don't take lessons from people with less education than me, but the procedure for you to issue a challenge is located on this page:
      http://alisina.org/understanding-muhammad/

      By the way, I'm surprised you don't know the Quran well enough to know the verse I quoted to you. Even Muslims who haven't read very much of the Quran would know it because you only have to read nine suras to know about it.

      It's Sura 9 verse 5, also known as the Sword Verse:

      "When the sacred months are passed, kill the unbelievers wherever you find them…"

    • zitouni says:

      I do not think you or Ali Sina know Arabic , Islam and koran better than me . I can be your teacher as well as to Ali Sina . The reason I asked for the verse is to show you how ignorant you are about koran . Here is the verse

      And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

      Did you see where you have corrupted and changed the verse ??? You cannot fool me LOL . If you read koran in Arabic which I know you cannot like Ali Sina It says Mushrikin ( polytheists ) and not the kafiron ( unbelivers ) . In Islamic theology there is big diffrence between the two terms . Yes every Mushrik is unbeliever , but not every unbeliever is Mushrik for example Jew is unbeliever , but he is not considered to be Mushrik . Likewise every Colombian is latino , but not every lationo is Colombian . The person maybe Mexican or Dominican . This is new lesson for you in koran LOL as I promised you

    • Sanada_10 says:

      The Surah deals with both the polytheists and the people of the book. Read 9:29. There are many Hindus in this site so they should be killed too.

      Do you think this simple and basic thing will refute the challenge? You didn't even read the entire Quran. Btw, I have queries about Islam, care to answer it?

      Interesting article: http://www.faithfreedom.org/articles/quran-koran/

    • zitouni says:

      The Surah deals with both the polytheists and the people of the book. Read 9:29.

      now you jumped to another verse . Verse 929 deals with Byzantine whose their allies Arab christians murdered Muslim embassadors in cold blood so the verse was revealed to Muslims to fight them .

      There are many Hindus in this site so they should be killed too.

      Muslims ruled India for hundreds of years today the Hindus in India have more territories and population that Muslims do . while whites in America exterminated entire population and you are silent

      Do you think this simple and basic thing will refute the challenge?

      which challenge

      You didn't even read the entire Quran.

      This applies on you and Ali Sina and I proved it .

      Btw, I have queries about Islam, care to answer it?
      You are not somebody who is looking for truth you just like to read anti Islamic propaganda thats all

    • Sanada_10 says:

      If that’s the context then the verse should say like this:

      “Fight those who murder our fellow muslim no matter who they are, even if they are people of the book (why was he calling them like that?)”

      And Byzantine is not Jewish so he should call them Christians and showed specific group who had done certain deed. He should leave the “those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth” part and stick to the “those who harm/kill our fellow muslim”. Again, the solution is hardly about the killing of one person,

      “until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

      The solution should be, “until they pay the blood money or compensation of our loss”. This is a case where Muhammad shouldn’t attack them because they didn’t attack him. No one wanted to attack him that’s why the battle never took place.

      Here’s the reason:

      Ibn Kathir:
      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 . Hence Allah's statement,

      (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,)

      Btw, the ally should not take the burden of what the other did and that's what Muhammad said earlier.

      You wrote, “Muslims ruled India for hundreds of years today the Hindus in India have more territories and population that Muslims do . while whites in America exterminated entire population and you are silent”

      So? It didn’t erase what Islam had done to India and Pakistan is persecuting minorities. Don’t just use the fallacy again, Whites in America didn’t have the eternal doctrine to kill the black and the black enjoys success now. The native American is also fine now. Funny, you answered this one without Quran, what's the matter?

      You wrote, “which challenge”

      The challenge of this site and if you want, my queries.

      You wrote, “This applies on you and Ali Sina and I proved it .”

      Nope, it applies to you who didn’t read anything including the queries.

      You wrote, “You are not somebody who is looking for truth you just like to read anti Islamic propaganda thats all”

      This is an excuse not an answer. The truth is clear, in my posts and I want you to answer it. Simple, just click and click. Don't just judge, prove it.

  22. gcarlin says:

    I am debating with a muslim on this issue and he claims that the Quran promised that it will take care of the older holy books like Torah and Bible. He claims this to be proof that the same verse exists in the Talmud. Please help me help him see the truth.

    • Sanada_10 says:

      The problem with that is the fact that Talmud is not considered to be divine. Quran also didn't mention anything regarding Talmud or any rabbinical works. If you face muslim you should ask reference in Quran about anything he/she says. This will prevent any liar and tafsir expert wannabe.

      Ask a simple thing first, "did Allah promise to keep the words through the same people who allegedly corrupted it, using the very same works they had?"

      Try to demand proof like:

      1. Real Torah or Gospel according to Allah's version, I mean, a complete one
      2. Quranic verses about corruption and alteration, a literal one
      3. Historical and archaeological evidence

      Logical question: If the rabbis wanted to change the meaning or the verse why then they chose to make it another rule that had to be followed, why not erased it completely? Could it be called "alteration" when you had the same verse in different form therefore resulting to same situation?

    • John K says:

      Sanada brings good points. It also depends on what he means by "take care of". The entire paradigm is weak and shallow anyway because historians have already established that everything Muhammad wrote in the Quran was borrowed from other sources. There are only two new doctrines in the Quran. The first from the Mecca period is that Muhammad is Allah's messenger. The second from the Medina period is that if you do not believe him, you are liable to be killed.

      On the issue of corruption of the Bible, I have these notes that I took from David Wood's video:

      "Conversations with Muslims almost always go to corruption of the Bible. Most Christians don't know how to answer. Some can talk about textual criticism and history of manuscripts, but the standard response should be, 1st, why does the Qur'an say no one can corrupt the words of Allah, 2nd, why does the Qur'an say repeatedly that people still have access to the Gospel, 3rd, why does the Qur'an command me to judge by the Gospel? It's been corrupted according to you, and, finally, I can show you textual support for the Bible.

      This is called The Islam Dilemma. There are only two options. If the Qur'an over and over again affirms the Christian scriptures, and the Christian scriptures affirm Islam is false, then Islam has a problem. Islam is false because it contradicts the Christian scriptures. If the Bible is not the word of God, then Islam is false because it constantly affirms the Bible is the word of God. So, if the Bible is true, Islam is false, if the Bible is false, Islam is false. Either way, Islam is false."

      Go to the video to see the textual citations and slides (actually, chalkboard in this presentation): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKKNJ9tjo4Q

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

xanax prices, order clomid, clomid without a prescription