Clearing Up Misconceptions about Islam

[empr guy]

I think this fatwa was a little emotional rather than Islamic .Salman Rushdie is quite hated in Iran but nobody took this fatwa serious. Don't call him Imam, nobody deserves this title but 12 Imams.
This fatwa was given when some of the governments involved themselves in this dispute so Mr. Khomeini reacted to those governments acts.

Are you aware Salman is in hiding, innocent people with no connection to any government have died because of the fatwa, and that it still stands today? How is that not serious?

[VALIS]

Fardin could you please explain these quotes from 'prophet' Muhammad.

Sahih Bukhari (52:260) - "...The Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "

Sahih Bukhari (83:37) - "Allah's Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate."

Sahih Bukhari (84:57) - [In the words of] "Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

Sahih Bukhari (89:271) - A man who embraces Islam, then reverts to Judaism is to be killed according to "the verdict of Allah and his apostle."

And could you explain why Iran executes apostates? Is it not because of the very well established precedent and belief amongst orthodox Islamic clerics or Mullahs that apostates should be killed?

[PointOfViewGun]

Fardin could you please explain these quotes from 'prophet' Muhammad.

Sahih Bukhari (52:260) - "...The Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "

Sahih Bukhari (83:37) - "Allah's Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate."

Sahih Bukhari (84:57) - [In the words of] "Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

Sahih Bukhari (89:271) - A man who embraces Islam, then reverts to Judaism is to be killed according to "the verdict of Allah and his apostle."

And could you explain why Iran executes apostates? Is it not because of the very well established precedent and belief amongst orthodox Islamic clerics or Mullahs that apostates should be killed?

First of all, thanks for using an anti-Islam website blindly.

Let's first address the obvious. 84:271. It refers to "the verdict of Allah" which we can only assume to be Quran itself. The problem here is that there is no verse in Quran that orders the killing of people who change their religion from Islam. So, it's obviously containing false information. Yet, we hear it from a trusted Hadith compiler like Bukhari.

Muhammad died on 632. Bukhari, the guy who compiled these Hadiths, was born on 810. He merely compiled hearsay stories. Many Hadiths from Bukhari alone contradict each other or contain plain silly absurdities.

[VALIS]

First of all, thanks for using an anti-Islam website blindly.

Let's first address the obvious. 84:271. It refers to "the verdict of Allah" which we can only assume to be Quran itself. The problem here is that there is no verse in Quran that orders the killing of people who change their religion from Islam. So, it's obviously containing false information. Yet, we hear it from a trusted Hadith compiler like Bukhari.

Muhammad died on 632. Bukhari, the guy who compiled these Hadiths, was born on 810. He merely compiled hearsay stories. Many Hadiths from Bukhari alone contradict each other or contain plain silly absurdities.

Sahih Bukhari is a highly respected hadith collection, in fact amongst sunni's Bukhari is the second most important compilation of books after the Quran.
As for hear say stories that does a disservice to the rigour of hadith sciences and the levels of corroboration and concordance that occurs in the study of hadith ishnads to come to the decision whether what is compiled in them is trustworthy.

And many things that muslim's do are not in the Quran such as the shahada, the call to prayer, praying five times a day, the exact specifics of praying, the specifics of Hajj, funeral rites. In fact there barely anything of substance in regards to the five pillars of Islam in the Quran apart from rather vague references. It is very frustrating for muslims to pick and choose (like Christians) the part's of their religious tradition that makes them feel somewhat uncomfortable yet still practice commands and obligations from the exact same sources they cast doubt on in other areas.

And again ignoring Bukhari for a moment, all the mullahs in Iran as far as I'm aware support the death penalty for apostasy, and we know for a fact Khomeini did as he implemented the death penalty for apostasy, and of course Khamenei is in full support.

And still, the majority of sunni's accept Sahih Bukhari as of great importance and do not consider what is in that collection to be 'silly absurdities', it are these doctrines in the hadiths that are causing immense bloodshed in the world today and makes Islam such a regressive force holding back these societies.

Why don't your call by your nearest masjid in town and ask the cleric the ruling of apostasy.
Anyway next I may talk about Islam's endorsement of sexual slavery of non-muslim women in battle. Of which there ARE Quranic passages that support such an evil practice.

[The Gurkhan]

Sahih Bukhari is a highly respected hadith collection, in fact amongst sunni's Bukhari is the second most important compilation of books after the Quran.
As for hear say stories that does a disservice to the rigour of hadith sciences and the levels of corroboration and concordance that occurs in the study of hadith ishnads to come to the decision whether what is compiled in them is trustworthy.

And many things that muslim's do are not in the Quran such as the shahada, the call to prayer, praying five times a day, the exact specifics of praying, the specifics of Hajj, funeral rites. In fact there barely anything of substance in regards to the five pillars of Islam in the Quran apart from rather vague references. It is very frustrating for muslims to pick and choose (like Christians) the part's of their religious tradition that makes them feel somewhat uncomfortable yet still practice commands and obligations from the exact same sources they cast doubt on in other areas.

And again ignoring Bukhari for a moment, all the mullahs in Iran as far as I'm aware support the death penalty for apostasy, and we know for a fact Khomeini did as he implemented the death penalty for apostasy, and of course Khamenei is in full support.

And still, the majority of sunni's accept Sahih Bukhari as of great importance and do not consider what is in that collection to be 'silly absurdities', it are these doctrines in the hadiths that are causing immense bloodshed in the world today and makes Islam such a regressive force holding back these societies.

Why don't your call by your nearest masjid in town and ask the cleric the ruling of apostasy.
Anyway next I may talk about Islam's endorsement of sexual slavery of non-muslim women in battle. Of which there ARE Quranic passages that support such an evil practice.

Nothing to do with picking and choosing to avoid embarrassment or even denying Hadith as Quranists do. You are simply showcasing a typical assumption of how jurists have interpreted Hadith.

It is an accepted fact in classical jurisprudence for some Sahih Hadith to contradict others, be technically invalid through abrogation or even not be accepted as a legal consensus and still be collected as a valid part of Islamic discourse. For example in Bukhari there is a narration attributed to Uthman in which ghusl (washing) is not required after sexual intercourse where no discharge is present. Yet the consensus amongst jurists is the opposite and ghusl is always required. In fact other Sahih Hadith counter this narration and say it is required.

As for phoning a local Islamic centre for an opinion on apostasy? Depends. Have you? Whether you have or not, a variety of answers is entirely possible. Even the likes of Zakir Naik now advocate a supposed difference between 'private and 'public' apostasy.

As for scholars of a traditional background such as Timothy Winter;

https://ageofjahiliyah.wordpress.com...-muslim-women/

The Ottoman Caliphate, the supreme representative of Sunni Islam, formally abolished this penalty in the aftermath of the so-called Tanzimat reforms launched in 1839. The Shaykh al-Islam, the supreme head of the religious courts and colleges, ratified this major shift in traditional legal doctrine. It was pointed out that there is no verse in the Qur’an that lays down a punishment for apostasy (although chapter 5 verse 54 and chapter 2 verse 217 predict a punishment in the next world). It was also pointed out that the ambiguities in the hadith (the sayings of the Prophet) suggest that apostasy is only an offense when combined with the crime of treason.

These ambiguities led some medieval Muslims, long before the advent of modernisation, to reject the majority view. Prominent among them one may name al-Nakha’i (d.713), al-Thawri (d.772), al-Sarakhsi (d. 1090), al-Baji (d. 1081), and al-Sha’rani (d.1565). The debate triggered by the Ottoman reform was continued when al-Azhar University in Cairo, the supreme religious authority in the Arab world, delivered a formal fatwa (religious edict) in 1958, which confirmed the abolition of the classical law in this area.

It is perfectly possible for devout Muslims to navigate these liberal obsessions about a faith tradition in a way that is in keeping with said traditions and not as a result of groveling before anti Islam polemics.

[Infidel144]

@Infidel144
Tabari History is a distorted source not because it is inconsistent to my words,because it is inconsistent to the most of the historians of that era like the important ones I posted before,let me give an example:
According to Tabari history Imam Hussain was involved in massacre of Iranians but every historian say Imam Hussain wasn't involved in any war even the minor fights.
Imam Ali was the greatest warrior of Arabs and he had fought in many battles for Islam but The Omar the second Caliph ordered for an non Islamic war,he disagreed the war and didn't take part in any of those wars and ordered his sons (Imam Hassan and Imam Hussain) to do so,but Tabari history says Imam Hussain was involved in capturing 2 fortresses and killing the civilians and captives ,maybe Tabari had wondered how is possible that the greatest warriors of Arabs do not go to war so he made a scenario to place this story in real history, even his claim is denied indirectly by himself.there is many other examples like this too, so everyone who wants to read and use it, must be an expert historian and must have read the other history books related to that era to see which opinion is in majority.Tabari history is a really good source but not for amateurs like you.

I am not sure what Fardin is referring to about these important historians of the era, but let see if Tabari is inconsistant with the Sira (I am taking both from Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya and Sirat Rasul Allah)
Well, let us see what others do say:
The hafiz Abu Bakr al-Bayhaqi stated that he was informed by Abu 'Abd Allah
al-Hafiz~ and Abu Sa'id Muhammad b. Musa ibn al-Fadl, both of whom said,
"Abu al-'Abbas Muhammad b. Ya'qub related to us, quoting Ahmad b. 'Abd
al-Jabbar, quoting Yunus b. Bukr, from Salama b. 'Abd Yasii', from his father,
from his grandfather. Yunus, who had been a Christian and had accepted Islam,
said that the Messenger of God (SAAS) wrote to Najran before the (sirat) Ta
Sin of Sulayman (Soloman) had been revealed to him, 'In the name of the God
of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, from Muhammad, the Prophet, the Messenger of
God, to the bishop of Najran. Are you peaceable? I praise to you the God of
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. To proceed: I summon you to the worship of God,
away from worshipping servants of God. Ifyou should refuse, then you will have
to pay the jizya. If you refuse, I am warning you of warfare. Peace.'
Certain tribes still remained who had not accepted Islam, so the apostle sent Khalid to the Banu al-Harith in Najran, with orders to give them three days to embrace Islam, and thereafter to subdue them if they refused. Khalid sent out mounted parties in every direction to invite the people to Islam, shouting, 'Make profession of Islam and you will be saved!' The people responded to the call and entered the religion, and Khalid remained among them to teach them the doctrines of Islam, the Koran, and the ordinances of the apostle of Allah. After a time, Khalid brought a deputation of the Banu al-Harith to meet the apostle at Medina .


"Ibn Ishaq stated, "The Messenger of God (SAAS) sent forth Khalid b. al-Walid
in Rabi' al-Akhir, orJumada al-Uwla of 10 AH to Banu a1-harith b. Kab in Najran.
"He ordered him to invite them to Islam for three days before attacking them.
If they responded positively, he was to accept them, and if they did not, he was
to attack them.
"Khalid went forth and when he reached them, he sent out riders in all
directions inviting them to Islam, telling them, 'Accept Islam and you will be safe.'
"They did accept Islam and accepted what they had been asked to do. Khalid
remained with them, instructing them in Islam, in God's Book and in the
practices of His Prophet CSAAS), as the latter had ordered if they should accept
Islam and not do battle."
Tabari is consistant with the earlier Sira and Imam Kathir provides it in his later work.
Prophet Muhammad offer the people of Najran three options: accept Islam, pay the Jizya or war.
I may address Fardin's commentary on Imam Ali and his sons at some later time, but at this point it is not particularly relevant.

What is a prophet's job? Spreading the words of god, the pagans tried to kill him not because their gods were insulted, they tried to kill the prophet because the prophet said the slaves are humans and they have human rights and tried to spread Islam between the slaves so some of the slaves became rebels to their masters then the slave masters killed and tortured many slaves( Balal Habashi was one of those slaves who became one of the closest companions of the prophet later) but it didn't calm down the rage of the slaves so the slave masters(Meccan nobles) tried to kill the prophet to put an end to this.

"When the apostle openly displayed Islam as Allah ordered him his people did not
withdraw or turn against him, so far as I have heard, until he spoke disparagingly of their
gods. When he did that they took great offence and resolved unanimously to treat him as
an enemy, except those whom Allah had protected by Islam from such evil, but they were
a despised minority. Abu Talib his uncle treated the apostle kindly and protected him,
the latter continuing to obey God's commands, nothing turning him back. When Quraysh
saw that he would not yield to them and withdrew from them and insulted their gods and
that his uncle treated him kindly and stood up in his defence and would not give him up
to them, some of their leading men went to Abu Talib [...] .They said, `O Abu Talib, your
nephew has cursed our gods, insulted our religion, mocked our way of life and accused our forefathers of error;
either you must stop him or you must let us get at him, for you yourself are in the same position as
we are in opposition to him and we will rid you of him.' He gave them a conciliatory reply and a soft answer and they went away."


"When the Quraysh saw that the apostle had a party and companions not of their tribe
and outside their territory, and that his companions had migrated to join them, and knew
that they had settled in a new home and had gained protectors, they feared that the apostle
might join them, since they knew that he had decided to fight them. So they assembled in
their council chamber, the house of Qusayy b. Kilab where all their important business
was conducted, to take counsel what they should do in regard to the apostle, for they were
now in fear of him."
Sirat Rasul Allah
They want to kill prophet Muhammed because of his disparagement of their gods, religion and way of life, and because they know he had decided to fight them.
which he had:
After reaching Medina:
"Then the apostle prepared for war in pursuance of God's command to fight his
enemies and to fight those polytheists who were near at hand whom Allah commanded
him to fight. This was thirteen years after his call."

They didn't kill Imam Ali because his father was one of the greatest men of Mecca but the prophet was an orphan and he had no serious supporter.Many Muslims migrated to Ethiopia to survive the massacre of mislims in mecca by the Meccan nobles,they even sent some men to find and kill them in Ethiopia but Ja'far ibn AbuTalib (Imam Ali's brother) introduced Islam to the Ethiopian king (he became Muslim some years later) and he allowed the muslims to live in there and provided their safety from the nobles of Mecca.

Note here that the father of Imam Ali, Abu Talib, whom Fardin is citing as the reason for Imam Ali not being killed when he took prophet Muhammad's place, was the uncle of the prophet, who had been protecting prophet Muhammad, and who had recently died. Thus no more protection from him.
While the sira does hold that the Muslims were persecuted, the term 'massacre' seems rather over dramatic, as there seems to be one reported killing, that of Sumayya, who is said to have been killed by Abu Jahl stabbing her with a spear, though Imam Kathir casts some doubt on that particular account.

After the migration of the prophet to the Yathreb(Medina's previous name) most of the muslims came to Medina after the prophet and then the nobles of mecca sacked every property of the muslims who migrated to Medina and tried to sell them in Syria so the prophet ordered to raid the caravans to retrieve the muslims property that was sacked by pagans.

As I have previously noted in other discussion on the subject:
That the caravans were laden with possessions of muslims is a modern addition. To my knowledge it does not appear in the historical sources.
Abu Bakr was wealthy, and set up business in Medina. One tradition has Abu Bakr giving money to Muhammad for the mosque: "and Abu Bakr asked the apostle if he would not build for his family, and when he said that he would if he had the money Abu Bakr gave him 12 okes and 20 dirhems.' This tradition from 'A'isha comes via Ibn Abu'l-Zinad from Hisham b. 'Urwa from his father", while another tradition has it that Muhammad did so himself: "The Messenger of God (SAAS) made an offer of money to them but they replied, "No; we will give it to you, Messenger of God." But he refused, and bought it from them instead and then built a mosque on it". Ali had stayed behind to settle up Muhammad's accounts "Ibn Ishaq also stated that 'Ali b. Abu Talib remained in Mecca for three days and nights until he had handed back the deposits made with the Messenger of God (SAAS)". Later: "Ahu Bakr dispatched Zayd b. Haritha and Abu Rafi, both freed-men of the Messenger of God (SAAS) to bring back their families from Mecca. They sent with them two loads of goods and 500 dirhams with which to purchase a camel of Qudayd. They left and soon returned with the two daughters of the Messenger of God (SAAS), Fahma and Umm Kulthum, his two wives, Sawda and 'A'isha, and the latter's mother, Umm Ruman, along with other members of his and Abn Bakr's family, including the latter's son, 'Abd Allah."

All their properties had not been sacked, while the sira notes of the caravans:
"A caravan of Quraysh carrying dry raisins and leather and other merchandise of
Quraysh passed by them,"
"This is the Quraysh caravan containing their property. Go out to attack it, perhaps Allah will give it as a prey."


Of course, none of this addresses my argument, in response to Fardin's claim/query, that if apostasy and spreading apostasy is punishable by death (as Fardin has asserted and as I have provided quotes and citations for), then no, attempting to kill prophet Muhammad who was an apostate and spreading apostasy is not an act of war.

Jizya is not an alternative between death and convert,it's an extra tax for non muslims who are living under Islamic rule,if any non muslim didn't have the money to pay the tax he will be forgiven.
https://www.al-islam.org/philosophy-...-purpose-jizya

Fardin here creates another strawman. It does not matter if those who could not afford it could be forgiven (though that is not quite what Imam Khomeni wrote in theTahrir). The point is that they had to accept dhimmi status and the rule of Islam, otherwise death or coinversion. As quoted above with the tribes of Najran: some accepted to pay the jizya and keep their faith, for those who had not Khalid ibn Walid was sent to offer conversion or war.

Or let me quote from the Hadith of the Five Swords again:
Description of Swords by Imam Baqir(A.S.)
As a man of his adherents asked him about the battles of Imam Ali Amirul Muminin(a), Imam Al-Baqir(a) said:
[...]
"One is unsheathed against the Arab polytheists. Allah the Glorified says: Slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush.( Holy Qur'an 9:5) But if they repent-i.e. then believe-and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, they are your brethren in faith. (Holy Qur'an 9:11) These people are either killed or convert to Islam. Their fortunes are regarded as spoils. Their progenies are captives according to the practices of the Prophet(S.A.W.). He captured, overlooked, and accepted atonement."
"The second sword is against the Dhimmis. Allah the Praised says: And you shall speak to men-i.e. the Dhimmis-good words. (Holy Qur'an 2:83) This Verse was repealed afterwards by Allah's saying: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection. (Holy Qur'an 9:29)
Nothing will be accepted from the Dhimmis, who are enjoying the protection of the Islamic state, except the tribute otherwise, they are killed, their fortunes taken as spoils, and their progenies as captives. If they accept to pay the tribute, it will be prohibited to take them as captives and to seize their fortunes. In addition, it will be lawful to marry from them. For those who declare war against us, it is lawful for us to capture them and seize their fortunes. In addition, it is prohibited to marry from them. Nothing will be accepted from them except converting to Islam, paying the tribute, or being fought to death."

The verses of Qur'an are revealed through 23 years and Imam Ali was the person who noted and memorized the verses and then wrote the first Qur'an.
Surah AlTawbah wasn't an exception between all those ,most of the verses of Surah AlTawbah was revealed after capturing Mecca but if you read the Sha'ne Nozul of that verse ,every scholar has stated it's for the pagan's breaking of truce event.

Again a stawman by Fardin, there is no argument over how the Quran was revealed or Imam Ali.

I have provided three scholars (or sources) stating that Sura 9 was revealed in 9AH (after the conquest of Mecca) around the time of Tabuk, some verses before, some later (specifically ayahs 1-29). These are two Shia and one Sunni:
"This Surah, which is the ninth Surah of the Qur’ān, contains 129 verses and has been
revealed in the ninth year A.H. (anno Hejira). Some parts of the Surah were revealed before the Battle of Tabūk, some parts during the Battle, and other parts were revealed after it."
An Enlightening Commentary into the Light of the Holy Quran

"(It has been narrated) from Abu Abdullahasws having said: ‘(Surah) Al-Fatah (Chapter110) was in year eight, and (Surah) Bara’at was in year nine, and the Farewell Pilgrimage was in year ten’ (after migration to Medina from Mecca)."
Tafseer Hub-e-Ali asws


"Chronologically, verses 1-29 were a notable declaration of State policy promulgated about the month of Shawwal, A.H. 9 and read out by Hadhrat 'Ali at the Pilgrimage two months later [...]. The remainder of the Sura, verses 30-129, was revealed a little earlier..."
Translation Of The Meaning Of The Holy Quran And Commentary In English

Let me add even the Ahmadiyya:
"The whole of this chapter [9] was revealed in the ninth year of the Hijra, the opening verses belong to the close, and the major portion to about the middle of that year, during or after the Tabuk expedition, which took place in the month of Rajab in the ninth year of the Hijrah."
The Holy Quran, Maulana Muhammad Ali

and similarly in Ibn Kathir, Qurtubi, Tafhim al-Quran.

in 9:2 there is four months respite for the pagans to reconsider the truce but after 4 months(sacred months) in 9:5 muslims were allowed to attack them.Comparing this to the Tabuk's events doesn't make sense.

Note again a strawman by Fardin. It is not being compared to Tabuk's events. It is being placed in its correct postion in the timeline.

Nowadays any form of slavery is forbidden.Christianity and Judaism or Zoroastrianism are considered different from apostacy by Islam,they live freely and have same rights,they have reserved seats in parliament because no Shia will vote for them.I think this is more than what they expect in a society that 98% of it are Shias.

We have previously found this claim by Fardin to be innacurate. Fardin has admitted that a non-Muslim cannot become President. It has been pointed out that punishment for killing can be different. Non-muslims cannot prosylitize to muslims. Hmm. Is a Muslim man permitted to marry a non-Muslim woman? Is a non-Muslim man permitted to marry a muslim woman...

What places were captured by prophet? the prophet led army to Tabuk for a battle not for capturing anything.
http://en.wikishia.net/view/Battle_of_Tabuk

Led an army there for battle with an non-existant army, and in the end Fardin's own source nots that while the muslim army stayed in Tabuk [thus capturing it]: "the Prophet (s) signed a peace treaty on the condition of receiving Jizya from Ukaydir b. 'Abd al-Malik al-Kindi, the head of Dumat al-Jandal, and the inhabitants of Adruh, Jirba and Ayla."
Jizya being a sign of submission to muslims by non-muslims in an Islamic state.

I think this fatwa was a little emotional rather than Islamic .Salman Rushdie is quite hated in Iran but nobody took this fatwa serious. Don't call him Imam, nobody deserves this title but 12 Imams.
This fatwa was given when some of the governments involved themselves in this dispute so Mr. Khomeini reacted to those governments acts.

In addition to what was said previously by empr guy in post 152, Fardin does not support his claim as to the fatwa being a reaction to the involvement of governments.
I am unsure of whether or not Fardin is saying this fatwa is un-Islamic and if Fardin condemns it.
Also Fardin's seemingly preferred source refers to Khomeini as Imam:
"Sayyid Rūḥ Allāh Mūsawī Khumaynī (Persian: سید روح الله موسوی خمینی), best known as Imam Khomeini..."
http://en.wikishia.net/view/Sayyid_R...usavi_Khomeini

[basics]

Can I ask Fardin why Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map?

[PointOfViewGun]

Funny you should mention science because it turns out the perception of colour is subjective and no, someone telling you something is green and others agreeing is not enough as that entire group could all be viewing it in a different light or it could be a mass hysteria or whatever, the objective standard would be to judge its refractive properties and the nature or the receptor ie. the eye that views it and yes that does depend on the species of animal that looks at it.

So now you know, the subjective agreement is not objective it is subjective to both agreement and human fallibility, it is not objective which the only current true standard is the scientific method.

Dont get me wrong if Allah comes down like any time today, just for a visit, and confirms all those points we'll probably agree then eh.

Why did you alter what I said to argue against it? I didn't talk about agreement. I talked about someone saying that something is green, and that it is an objective truth that that person called that something green. I didn't talk about others agreeing at all. You need to reconsider.

Oh no...oh god...so scared to try how could I...Oh OK maybe I can:

And He brought those of the People of the Scripture who supported them down from their strongholds, and cast panic into their hearts. Some ye slew and ye made captive some. And He caused you to inherit their land and their houses and their wealth, and land ye have not trodden. Allah is Able to do all things

Qur'an 33:26-27

Perhaps you should have done it the first time I asked you... Is your claim that Quran justifies violence regardless of whether it is done in self defense or not? I thought you were referring to the claim that Banu Qurayza men were all executed. The verses you're pointing at talks about a battle.

Except the above I guess lets cross one bridge at a time eh, kill on infidel at a time

Right... So, we should just ignore that you made a definitive claim about Quran and it was so damn easy to refute it? I can only conclude that you're not really making these claims based on proper research but you're just making them up as you go along based on a bigoted view of Islam.

Sahih Bukhari is a highly respected hadith collection, in fact amongst sunni's Bukhari is the second most important compilation of books after the Quran.
As for hear say stories that does a disservice to the rigour of hadith sciences and the levels of corroboration and concordance that occurs in the study of hadith ishnads to come to the decision whether what is compiled in them is trustworthy.

And many things that muslim's do are not in the Quran such as the shahada, the call to prayer, praying five times a day, the exact specifics of praying, the specifics of Hajj, funeral rites. In fact there barely anything of substance in regards to the five pillars of Islam in the Quran apart from rather vague references. It is very frustrating for muslims to pick and choose (like Christians) the part's of their religious tradition that makes them feel somewhat uncomfortable yet still practice commands and obligations from the exact same sources they cast doubt on in other areas.

And again ignoring Bukhari for a moment, all the mullahs in Iran as far as I'm aware support the death penalty for apostasy, and we know for a fact Khomeini did as he implemented the death penalty for apostasy, and of course Khamenei is in full support.

And still, the majority of sunni's accept Sahih Bukhari as of great importance and do not consider what is in that collection to be 'silly absurdities', it are these doctrines in the hadiths that are causing immense bloodshed in the world today and makes Islam such a regressive force holding back these societies.

Why don't your call by your nearest masjid in town and ask the cleric the ruling of apostasy.
Anyway next I may talk about Islam's endorsement of sexual slavery of non-muslim women in battle. Of which there ARE Quranic passages that support such an evil practice.

I don't really care what people think about Bukhari. Even a regular citizen can spot the discrepancies its stories present. He can't even give a clear picture of how old Muhammad was when he died or for how many years he stayed in Mecca. Even Quran itself rejects other sources on religious authority. I don't even need to consider Hadith stories.

You talking about how it frustrates Muslims to pick and choose things like praying five times a day exposes the laziness of human nature. That's no real excuse.

Why should I call the cleric to ask about apostasy? Does he have some sort of other worldly power to understand Quran better than I do? That would be blasphemy. I have the Quran. That's all I need.

Can I ask Fardin why Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map?

It's because you make use of false translations that is a products of bigotry.

Can I ask Fardin why Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map?

Can I ask you why you've been unable to back up your claims?

[Fardin]

Are you aware Salman is in hiding, innocent people with no connection to any government have died because of the fatwa, and that it still stands today? How is that not serious?

I knew he is in hiding but I didn't know any innocent died because of this fatwa, can you explain more of the events caused death?
As I said this fatwa was very emotional and somehow political, when Salman receives the knight title from the British queen or receives many rewards , How do expect Mr.Khomeini to tolerate this humiliation?
This fatwa was criticized from the first moment,if you ask anyone in Iran what do you think about this fatwa, everyone will laugh at you.

I am not sure what Fardin is referring to about these important historians of the era, but let see if Tabari is inconsistant with the Sira (I am taking both from Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya and Sirat Rasul Allah)
Well, let us see what others do say:
The hafiz Abu Bakr al-Bayhaqi stated that he was informed by Abu 'Abd Allah
al-Hafiz~ and Abu Sa'id Muhammad b. Musa ibn al-Fadl, both of whom said,
"Abu al-'Abbas Muhammad b. Ya'qub related to us, quoting Ahmad b. 'Abd
al-Jabbar, quoting Yunus b. Bukr, from Salama b. 'Abd Yasii', from his father,
from his grandfather. Yunus, who had been a Christian and had accepted Islam,
said that the Messenger of God (SAAS) wrote to Najran before the (sirat) Ta
Sin of Sulayman (Soloman) had been revealed to him, 'In the name of the God
of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, from Muhammad, the Prophet, the Messenger of
God, to the bishop of Najran. Are you peaceable? I praise to you the God of
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. To proceed: I summon you to the worship of God,
away from worshipping servants of God. Ifyou should refuse, then you will have
to pay the jizya. If you refuse, I am warning you of warfare. Peace.'
Certain tribes still remained who had not accepted Islam, so the apostle sent Khalid to the Banu al-Harith in Najran, with orders to give them three days to embrace Islam, and thereafter to subdue them if they refused. Khalid sent out mounted parties in every direction to invite the people to Islam, shouting, 'Make profession of Islam and you will be saved!' The people responded to the call and entered the religion, and Khalid remained among them to teach them the doctrines of Islam, the Koran, and the ordinances of the apostle of Allah. After a time, Khalid brought a deputation of the Banu al-Harith to meet the apostle at Medina .


"Ibn Ishaq stated, "The Messenger of God (SAAS) sent forth Khalid b. al-Walid
in Rabi' al-Akhir, orJumada al-Uwla of 10 AH to Banu a1-harith b. Kab in Najran.
"He ordered him to invite them to Islam for three days before attacking them.
If they responded positively, he was to accept them, and if they did not, he was
to attack them.
"Khalid went forth and when he reached them, he sent out riders in all
directions inviting them to Islam, telling them, 'Accept Islam and you will be safe.'
"They did accept Islam and accepted what they had been asked to do. Khalid
remained with them, instructing them in Islam, in God's Book and in the
practices of His Prophet CSAAS), as the latter had ordered if they should accept
Islam and not do battle."
Tabari is consistant with the earlier Sira and Imam Kathir provides it in his later work.
Prophet Muhammad offer the people of Najran three options: accept Islam, pay the Jizya or war.
I may address Fardin's commentary on Imam Ali and his sons at some later time, but at this point it is not particularly relevant.

Why do you forget every thing very quickly? Read last page of my other thread again, you'll see the important historians I sent you there.
I looked again in my sources and I didn't see any war happened, only a debate took place and the christians lost the debate.
Ibn Ishagh is accepted by Shias but I couldn't verify your text because you didn't address where it is from.
http://en.wikishia.net/view/Mubahala
If you want to answer to my statement you should read vol.4 of Tabari history, and if you want to say Imam Ali was an advisor in the planning parts of wars, it was very rare and he did because he didn't want the Islamic rule to be destroyed in those wars.

"When the apostle openly displayed Islam as Allah ordered him his people did not
withdraw or turn against him, so far as I have heard, until he spoke disparagingly of their
gods. When he did that they took great offence and resolved unanimously to treat him as
an enemy, except those whom Allah had protected by Islam from such evil, but they were
a despised minority. Abu Talib his uncle treated the apostle kindly and protected him,
the latter continuing to obey God's commands, nothing turning him back. When Quraysh
saw that he would not yield to them and withdrew from them and insulted their gods and
that his uncle treated him kindly and stood up in his defence and would not give him up
to them, some of their leading men went to Abu Talib [...] .They said, `O Abu Talib, your
nephew has cursed our gods, insulted our religion, mocked our way of life and accused our forefathers of error;
either you must stop him or you must let us get at him, for you yourself are in the same position as
we are in opposition to him and we will rid you of him.' He gave them a conciliatory reply and a soft answer and they went away."


"When the Quraysh saw that the apostle had a party and companions not of their tribe
and outside their territory, and that his companions had migrated to join them, and knew
that they had settled in a new home and had gained protectors, they feared that the apostle
might join them, since they knew that he had decided to fight them. So they assembled in
their council chamber, the house of Qusayy b. Kilab where all their important business
was conducted, to take counsel what they should do in regard to the apostle, for they were
now in fear of him."
Sirat Rasul Allah
They want to kill prophet Muhammed because of his disparagement of their gods, religion and way of life, and because they know he had decided to fight them.
which he had:
After reaching Medina:
"Then the apostle prepared for war in pursuance of God's command to fight his
enemies and to fight those polytheists who were near at hand whom Allah commanded
him to fight. This was thirteen years after his call."

Oh,again poor memory,add spinach to your meals , Your first assertion was: Prophet ordered for offenssive raids,I think this was your answer.

Note here that the father of Imam Ali, Abu Talib, whom Fardin is citing as the reason for Imam Ali not being killed when he took prophet Muhammad's place, was the uncle of the prophet, who had been protecting prophet Muhammad, and who had recently died. Thus no more protection from him.
While the sira does hold that the Muslims were persecuted, the term 'massacre' seems rather over dramatic, as there seems to be one reported killing, that of Sumayya, who is said to have been killed by Abu Jahl stabbing her with a spear, though Imam Kathir casts some doubt on that particular account.

I knew Abu Talib died before these events but your justification is like: A prince will be murdered if their parents die,Abu Talib had a very respected and important character so they didn't dare to kill Imam Ali.
I have the enough courage to admit when I am wrong so; yes, the word "persecution" is better.And Sumayya wasn't the only muslim who were killed, they killed and tortured many muslim slaves.

As I have previously noted in other discussion on the subject:
That the caravans were laden with possessions of muslims is a modern addition. To my knowledge it does not appear in the historical sources.
Abu Bakr was wealthy, and set up business in Medina. One tradition has Abu Bakr giving money to Muhammad for the mosque: "and Abu Bakr asked the apostle if he would not build for his family, and when he said that he would if he had the money Abu Bakr gave him 12 okes and 20 dirhems.' This tradition from 'A'isha comes via Ibn Abu'l-Zinad from Hisham b. 'Urwa from his father", while another tradition has it that Muhammad did so himself: "The Messenger of God (SAAS) made an offer of money to them but they replied, "No; we will give it to you, Messenger of God." But he refused, and bought it from them instead and then built a mosque on it". Ali had stayed behind to settle up Muhammad's accounts "Ibn Ishaq also stated that 'Ali b. Abu Talib remained in Mecca for three days and nights until he had handed back the deposits made with the Messenger of God (SAAS)". Later: "Ahu Bakr dispatched Zayd b. Haritha and Abu Rafi, both freed-men of the Messenger of God (SAAS) to bring back their families from Mecca. They sent with them two loads of goods and 500 dirhams with which to purchase a camel of Qudayd. They left and soon returned with the two daughters of the Messenger of God (SAAS), Fahma and Umm Kulthum, his two wives, Sawda and 'A'isha, and the latter's mother, Umm Ruman, along with other members of his and Abn Bakr's family, including the latter's son, 'Abd Allah."

All their properties had not been sacked, while the sira notes of the caravans:
"A caravan of Quraysh carrying dry raisins and leather and other merchandise of
Quraysh passed by them,"
"This is the Quraysh caravan containing their property. Go out to attack it, perhaps Allah will give it as a prey."


Of course, none of this addresses my argument, in response to Fardin's claim/query, that if apostasy and spreading apostasy is punishable by death (as Fardin has asserted and as I have provided quotes and citations for), then no, attempting to kill prophet Muhammad who was an apostate and spreading apostasy is not an act of war.

Oh,again poor memory,add spinach to your meals , Your first assertion was "Prophet ordered for offenssive raids",I think this was your answer.
You provided some quotes from a sunni source that is full of contradictions and no Shia scholar recognizes that as a Hadith source.
Apostates won't be senetenced to death unless they do big crimes against Islam and Islamic society like spreading Islam in Islamic society,this is the sentence that every Justice Court accepts and judges based on that(it's from Sharia Law).
Someone asked from Imam Ali that: We hear very contradictory hadiths from you and the Prophet, How should we distinguish between true and false Hadiths? Imam Ali answered: "Accept the ones that is based on the words of God(Qur'an) and ignore the other ones".
This is how we accept Hadiths.

Fardin here creates another strawman. It does not matter if those who could not afford it could be forgiven (though that is not quite what Imam Khomeni wrote in theTahrir). The point is that they had to accept dhimmi status and the rule of Islam, otherwise death or coinversion. As quoted above with the tribes of Najran: some accepted to pay the jizya and keep their faith, for those who had not Khalid ibn Walid was sent to offer conversion or war.

Or let me quote from the Hadith of the Five Swords again:
Description of Swords by Imam Baqir(A.S.)
As a man of his adherents asked him about the battles of Imam Ali Amirul Muminin(a), Imam Al-Baqir(a) said:
[...]
"One is unsheathed against the Arab polytheists. Allah the Glorified says: Slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush.( Holy Qur'an 9:5) But if they repent-i.e. then believe-and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, they are your brethren in faith. (Holy Qur'an 9:11) These people are either killed or convert to Islam. Their fortunes are regarded as spoils. Their progenies are captives according to the practices of the Prophet(S.A.W.). He captured, overlooked, and accepted atonement."
"The second sword is against the Dhimmis. Allah the Praised says: And you shall speak to men-i.e. the Dhimmis-good words. (Holy Qur'an 2:83) This Verse was repealed afterwards by Allah's saying: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection. (Holy Qur'an 9:29)
Nothing will be accepted from the Dhimmis, who are enjoying the protection of the Islamic state, except the tribute otherwise, they are killed, their fortunes taken as spoils, and their progenies as captives. If they accept to pay the tribute, it will be prohibited to take them as captives and to seize their fortunes. In addition, it will be lawful to marry from them. For those who declare war against us, it is lawful for us to capture them and seize their fortunes. In addition, it is prohibited to marry from them. Nothing will be accepted from them except converting to Islam, paying the tribute, or being fought to death."

You really don't understand what you are saying, Jizya is an extra tax for non muslims living under Islamic rule(in the other words "the dihmmi"),You said: "Jizya is an alternative between death death or conversion" and I responded like the above sentence and I posted an article about it for you to read more but it seems you've fully ignored it and since you couldn't support your claim your are trying to mislead the discussion to another topic.
And I couldn't verify the five sword hadith,what is it's source?

Again a stawman by Fardin, there is no argument over how the Quran was revealed or Imam Ali.

I have provided three scholars (or sources) stating that Sura 9 was revealed in 9AH (after the conquest of Mecca) around the time of Tabuk, some verses before, some later (specifically ayahs 1-29). These are two Shia and one Sunni:
"This Surah, which is the ninth Surah of the Qur’ān, contains 129 verses and has been
revealed in the ninth year A.H. (anno Hejira). Some parts of the Surah were revealed before the Battle of Tabūk, some parts during the Battle, and other parts were revealed after it."
An Enlightening Commentary into the Light of the Holy Quran

"(It has been narrated) from Abu Abdullahasws having said: ‘(Surah) Al-Fatah (Chapter110) was in year eight, and (Surah) Bara’at was in year nine, and the Farewell Pilgrimage was in year ten’ (after migration to Medina from Mecca)."
Tafseer Hub-e-Ali asws


"Chronologically, verses 1-29 were a notable declaration of State policy promulgated about the month of Shawwal, A.H. 9 and read out by Hadhrat 'Ali at the Pilgrimage two months later [...]. The remainder of the Sura, verses 30-129, was revealed a little earlier..."
Translation Of The Meaning Of The Holy Quran And Commentary In English

Let me add even the Ahmadiyya:
"The whole of this chapter [9] was revealed in the ninth year of the Hijra, the opening verses belong to the close, and the major portion to about the middle of that year, during or after the Tabuk expedition, which took place in the month of Rajab in the ninth year of the Hijrah."
The Holy Quran, Maulana Muhammad Ali

and similarly in Ibn Kathir, Qurtubi, Tafhim al-Quran.

Note again a strawman by Fardin. It is not being compared to Tabuk's events. It is being placed in its correct postion in the timeline.

We have previously found this claim by Fardin to be innacurate. Fardin has admitted that a non-Muslim cannot become President. It has been pointed out that punishment for killing can be different. Non-muslims cannot prosylitize to muslims. Hmm. Is a Muslim man permitted to marry a non-Muslim woman? Is a non-Muslim man permitted to marry a muslim woman...

Again you are ignoring every sentence of mine and trying to mislead this topic with quoting some vague and unrelated texts , a stagy word called "strawman" and some nonsense questions.
Please read again my last response about those verses, and you'll realize they are very obviously mentioning to the event of the breaking the truce by the pagans.

Led an army there for battle with an non-existant army, and in the end Fardin's own source nots that while the muslim army stayed in Tabuk [thus capturing it]: "the Prophet (s) signed a peace treaty on the condition of receiving Jizya from Ukaydir b. 'Abd al-Malik al-Kindi, the head of Dumat al-Jandal, and the inhabitants of Adruh, Jirba and Ayla."
Jizya being a sign of submission to muslims by non-muslims in an Islamic state.

The prophet were told it'll be an army, You should notice that this military campaign was the hardest one compared to the previous ones because most of the muslim nobles sabotaged in supplies and weakened the morale of the muslims, and you are saying that with all of these problems and hardships, the prophet led a massive army to take jizya from a pathetic tribe?
read it again but carefully this time:
http://en.wikishia.net/view/Battle_of_Tabuk
I think this is from the article I sent but again you ignored it on purpose:
"Cause
Most of the works by early biographers contain accounts of the expedition of Tabuk. But these narrations differ on some important factors like the cause of this expedition. According to a famous account, the Prophet's goal of this expedition was to counter the Romans' military activities in those lands. "

In addition to what was said previously by empr guy in post 152, Fardin does not support his claim as to the fatwa being a reaction to the involvement of governments.
I am unsure of whether or not Fardin is saying this fatwa is un-Islamic and if Fardin condemns it.
Also Fardin's seemingly preferred source refers to Khomeini as Imam:
"Sayyid Rūḥ Allāh Mūsawī Khumaynī (Persian: سید روح الله موسوی خمینی), best known as Imam Khomeini..."
http://en.wikishia.net/view/Sayyid_R...usavi_Khomeini

I got a job to attend unlike you so I can not be present every moment.
Imams are chosen by God and Mr. Khomeini wasn't chosen by god as far as I know.And no one believes he had "ismah(or immunity from doing sins)" . He is just an usual man with many mistakes like everyone.
If you read what you've quoted again, you can see it says he is known as Imam Khomeini but didn't say he is Imam.

Can I ask Fardin why Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map?

Dear basics
The answer is very simple, because they are our enemy.
The Prophet told us to respect and treat our neighbors like our family members whether they are muslim or not so stop insisting on your funny assertion.

[empr guy]

I knew he is in hiding but I didn't know any innocent died because of this fatwa, can you explain more of the events caused death?
As I said this fatwa was very emotional and somehow political, when Salman receives the knight title from the British queen or receives many rewards , How do expect Mr.Khomeini to tolerate this humiliation?

The japanse translator was stabbed to death, 37 Turks were killed in a fire intended to kill the turkish translator that wasn't actually in the building, known as the Sivas massacre. Is,in your view, being a translator for a simple book enough to be sentenced to death? Were these people enemies of Islam?

Can you also explain why this book is a source of "humiliation" in any way? Salman mixed some basic Islamic theology with a modern immigration story to create a made up story for enjoyment, who cares? Should we set Dan Brown on fire for writing that Jesus, the Son of GOD, and in some sects god himself, fell prey to human nature and had a child with a prostitute?

This fatwa was criticized from the first moment,if you ask anyone in Iran what do you think about this fatwa, everyone will laugh at you.
.

Iran's Hard-Line press adds to bounty on Salman Rushdie

It's kind of dumb to lie about people thinking this is a joke when almost 40 people have died, there is a several million dollar reward for carrying it out, and Khamenei has said as recently as 2005 that it's still valid and has never retracted it.

[Fardin]

The japanse translator was stabbed to death, 37 Turks were killed in a fire intended to kill the turkish translator that wasn't actually in the building, known as the Sivas massacre. Is,in your view, being a translator for a simple book enough to be sentenced to death? Were these people enemies of Islam?

Can you also explain why this book is a source of "humiliation" in any way? Salman mixed some basic Islamic theology with a modern immigration story to create a made up story for enjoyment, who cares? Should we set Dan Brown on fire for writing that Jesus, the Son of GOD, and in some sects god himself, fell prey to human nature and had a child with a prostitute?

Iran's Hard-Line press adds to bounty on Salman Rushdie

It's kind of dumb to lie about people thinking this is a joke when almost 40 people have died, there is a several million dollar reward for carrying it out, and Khamenei has said as recently as 2005 that it's still valid and has never retracted it.

Oh ,what a mess!
I've always tried to tell the truth , Mr. Khamenei is not people and he doesn't dare to disagree Mr. Khomeini's fatwa because it'll become another mess.
The book is not a source of humiliation but the governmental prizes are.

[Infidel144]

I knew he is in hiding but I didn't know any innocent died because of this fatwa, can you explain more of the events caused death?
As I said this fatwa was very emotional and somehow political, when Salman receives the knight title from the British queen or receives many rewards , How do expect Mr.Khomeini to tolerate this humiliation?

It most have been completely intolerable and humiliating for Imam Khomeini. I mean there is absolutely no way Imam Khomeini should have stood for this. In fact he did not, since Imam Khomeini was laying down...
Imam Khomeini had been dead for 17 years when Rushdie was knighted.

Perhaps Fardin should actually name the 'governmental prizes' that Rushdie received which supposedly led to the Fatwa.
He should, however, remember that the fatwa was issued Feb. 14 1989, while the book was published in Sept. of 1988.

[Infidel144]

Why do you forget every thing very quickly? Read last page of my other thread again, you'll see the important historians I sent you there.

The historians Fardin named in his other thread were "Aaban bin Othman bin Affan, Orvah bin Zobayr,Muhammad bin Shahab Zahri,Muhammad bin Es hagh(Isaac),Ali bin Muhammad Madatheni(his book is in 20 Vol.), Ibn Wazeh Ya'g".
What he did not do was actually provide anything from these historians.
That would be rather unlike what I have done...

I looked again in my sources and I didn't see any war happened, only a debate took place and the christians lost the debate.

Odd, I looked again at the quote I provided from al-Tabari, and then at the quotes I provided from Ibn Ishaq and Imam Ibn Kathir (who essentially repeats Ishaq/Hisham), and they supported what I initially provided from from al-Tabari. This tends to contradict the claim that Fardin made that the narrative from al-Tabari is distorted.
Now comparing that the sources Fardin has provided in this... Oh wait... That would just be Fardin's assertions.

Ibn Ishagh is accepted by Shias but I couldn't verify your text because you didn't address where it is from.

That is odd, I thought I did provide it.
<looks> Fardin even quoted me providing it "Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya and Sirat Rasul Allah". The first is Imam Ibn Kathir and the second is Ibn Ishaq. Ibn Kathir's work is essentially a repetition of Ishaq.

I might try to verify Fardin's text, but, well...

http://en.wikishia.net/view/Mubahala

About the 'debate' with the Christians. There is no disagreement. Thus irrelevant.
Fardin seems to be repeatedly missing the point. There were others in the Najran that did not: Certain tribes still remained who had not accepted Islam, so the apostle sent Khalid to the Banu al-Harith in Najran, with orders to give them three days to embrace Islam, and thereafter to subdue them if they refused.
Ibn Ishaq, whom Fardin says Shia accept, and is one of the historians he named on the last page of his other thread (not that he provided anything from Ishaq...)

Oh,again poor memory,add spinach to your meals , Your first assertion was: Prophet ordered for offenssive raids, I think this was your answer.

Fardin seems to have become lost here. I noted the caravan raids as prophet Muhammad being offensive. Fardin claimed (via question) that since the Meccans tried to kill Muhammad while he was in Mecca the Meccans started the 'war'.
I pointed out that Muhammad was an apostate, spreading apostasy and insulting and disparaging the Meccans gods and religion etc. (with quotes from muslim souces). I said it was not an act war, since in an Islamic death can be the penalty for such actions, even quoting Fardin to back up my assertion and which he repeats again below: "(Apostates won't be senetenced to death unless they do big crimes against Islam and Islamic society like spreading Islam [here Fardin obviously does not mean spreading Islam, but rather spreading apostasy) in Islamic society,this is the sentence that every Justice Court accepts and judges based on that(it's from Sharia Law)..).

Perhaps Fardin requires some spinach...

I knew Abu Talib died before these events but your justification is like: A prince will be murdered if their parents die,Abu Talib had a very respected and important character so they didn't dare to kill Imam Ali.

Note, I made no justification for Imam Ali not being killed. I pointed out the problem with Fardin's justification, in that Ali's father who had also been the prophets protector, was dead. Hence offered no protection. Otherwise Fardin is simply making assertions. And Fardin's assertions are not evidence. The simple fact is that the Quraysh had the opportunity to kill Imam Ali, and did not.

I have the enough courage to admit when I am wrong so; yes, the word "persecution" is better.And Sumayya wasn't the only muslim who were killed, they killed and tortured many muslim slaves.

Again, Fardin is just making assertions that 'many muslim slaves' were killed. In the sira there is, as best I can tell, one muslim killed (Sumayya, who had, by that point, been freed).

You provided some quotes from a sunni source that is full of contradictions and no Shia scholar recognizes that as a Hadith source.

Odd, I thought that Fardin just above said that the Shia accepted Ibn Ishaq. Since I am quoting from Ishaq either directly or vis Imam Ibn Kathir. Perhaps Fardin's eyesight failed him when I noted sira. That Fardin does not want to accept Sunni sources is irrelevant, particularly since Fardin wrote in the first post

If you had any question about Islam or its branches (Shia , Sunni or …) and Islamic politics, We'll answer gladly.

. Note 'Sunni' in there and the lack of anything limiting the discourse to Shia sources...
Oddly enough, though, I am the one actually providing sources...
Carrots are supposed to be good for eyesight...

Apostates won't be senetenced to death unless they do big crimes against Islam and Islamic society like spreading Islam in Islamic society,this is the sentence that every Justice Court accepts and judges based on that(it's from Sharia Law).

An apostate wont be killed if the apostate keeps silent about his apostasy...
If prophet Muhammad had kept his apostasy to himself, then the Meccans would not have tried to kill him either.

You really don't understand what you are saying, Jizya is an extra tax for non muslims living under Islamic rule(in the other words "the dihmmi"),You said: "Jizya is an alternative between death death or conversion" and I responded like the above sentence and I posted an article about it for you to read more but it seems you've fully ignored it and since you couldn't support your claim your are trying to mislead the discussion to another topic.

Fardin continues the strawmaning. My statement was quite clear:
FIt does not matter if those who could not afford it could be forgiven (though that is not quite what Imam Khomeni wrote in the Tahrir). The point is that they had to accept dhimmi status and the rule of Islam, otherwise death or conversion. As quoted above with the tribes of Najran: some accepted to pay the jizya and keep their faith, for those who had not Khalid ibn Walid was sent to offer conversion or war.

And I couldn't verify the five sword hadith,what is it's source?

Fardin can pick one from a google search:
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22n....0.l5vd5GAG6Ho

Again you are ignoring every sentence of mine and trying to mislead this topic with quoting some vague and unrelated texts , a stagy word called "strawman" and some nonsense questions.
Please read again my last response about those verses, and you'll realize they are very obviously mentioning to the event of the breaking the truce by the pagans.

Note again that I have provided four separate sources two of them Shia, one Sunni, one Ahmadiyya, all of which support my claim that surah 9 was revealed after the conquest of Mecca. I have noted that other scholars say the same in their commentaries.
Fardin has simply made bald assertions.
I make a claim. I provide quotes from Islamic sources to support those claims. Fardin makes assertions, with no support, and cries out 'vague', 'distorted', 'contradictory', 'no sunni', if he does not like what it says.

My point still stands. Surah 9 was revealed after the conquest of Mecca, around the time of Tabuk, some of it before, and the first portion of the Sura after.

The prophet were told it'll be an army, You should notice that this military campaign was the hardest one compared to the previous ones because most of the muslim nobles sabotaged in supplies and weakened the morale of the muslims, and you are saying that with all of these problems and hardships, the prophet led a massive army to take jizya from a pathetic tribe?
read it again but carefully this time:
http://en.wikishia.net/view/Battle_of_Tabuk
I think this is from the article I sent but again you ignored it on purpose:
"Cause
Most of the works by early biographers contain accounts of the expedition of Tabuk. But these narrations differ on some important factors like the cause of this expedition. According to a famous account, the Prophet's goal of this expedition was to counter the Romans' military activities in those lands. "

Again irrelevant. The prophet invaded Roman lands to counter (non-existent) Roman military activities in the Roman lands. After doing so he he took the jizya from the people of those lands.
This was aggression initiated by the prophet.

I got a job to attend unlike you so I can not be present every moment.
Imams are chosen by God and Mr. Khomeini wasn't chosen by god as far as I know.And no one believes he had "ismah(or immunity from doing sins)" . He is just an usual man with many mistakes like everyone.
If you read what you've quoted again, you can see it says he is known as Imam Khomeini but didn't say he is Imam.

Note that the site referred to him repeatedly as Imam Khomeini, as do the editors in his Tahrir.
I also referred to him as Imam Khomeini.
I do find it highly amusing that Fardin is seemingly worked up by me referring to Khomeini with a polite and accepted honorific. I certainly could refer to him in less respectful terms...

Dear basics
The answer is very simple, because they are our enemy.
The Prophet told us to respect and treat our neighbors like our family members whether they are muslim or not so stop insisting on your funny assertion.

At least Fardin is honest here. I wonder if Setekh will come in and try to correct him, as Setekh attempted to do with basics. Will Setekh accuse Fardin of "It's because you make use of false translations that is a products of bigotry."

I might also wonder if Setekh will apologize to basics. I might, but...

[Fardin]

I'll answer only to the non-repetitive subjects.

The historians Fardin named in his other thread were "Aaban bin Othman bin Affan, Orvah bin Zobayr,Muhammad bin Shahab Zahri,Muhammad bin Ishagh(Isaac),Ali bin Muhammad Madatheni(his book is in 20 Vol.), Ibn Wazeh Ya'g".
What he did not do was actually provide anything from these historians.
That would be rather unlike what I have done...

The most of these sources are in Arabic and Farsi, since my English is not good , I'm not able to translate them for you.
I am a Muslim and I've grown up with Qur'an and Hadiths, I listen to the religious scholars speeches after prayers and I read many books for knowing more of Islam but I didn't think I'll use them for a debate some day so I didn't memorize or noted all of the sources because of my High-volume study.
All of my claims are based on Sharia law and my studies or the scholars speeches. I say we don't do such a thing and I provided many examples in the first post to prove it,but you ignored it again.

Odd, I looked again at the quote I provided from al-Tabari, and then at the quotes I provided from Ibn Ishaq and Imam Ibn Kathir (who essentially repeats Ishaq/Hisham), and they supported what I initially provided from from al-Tabari. This tends to contradict the claim that Fardin made that the narrative from al-Tabari is distorted.
Now comparing that the sources Fardin has provided in this... Oh wait... That would just be Fardin's assertions.

If you look at what I said before: "Tabari history is a really good source but not for amateurs like you"; I mean it's not a referable and reliable source.
Sorry if I couldn't suggest anything to improve the understanding power.

That is odd, I thought I did provide it.
<looks> Fardin even quoted me providing it "Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya and Sirat Rasul Allah". The first is Imam Ibn Kathir and the second is Ibn Ishaq. Ibn Kathir's work is essentially a repetition of Ishaq.

I might try to verify Fardin's text, but, well...

Ibn Kathir is a Shafei Sunni so no I don't trust him,When even one offensive war didn't happen in the time of prophet ,what makes you think the prophet would start this one as an exeption?

The contradiction I posted is in vol.4 the part that mentions to the conquest of Tabarestan(I think it was between 2000 and 2150 pages )

Fardin seems to have become lost here. I noted the caravan raids as prophet Muhammad being offensive. Fardin claimed (via question) that since the Meccans tried to kill Muhammad while he was in Mecca the Meccans started the 'war'.
I pointed out that Muhammad was an apostate, spreading apostasy and insulting and disparaging the Meccans gods and religion etc. (with quotes from muslim souces). I said it was not an act war, since in an Islamic death can be the penalty for such actions, even quoting Fardin to back up my assertion and which he repeats again below: "(Apostates won't be senetenced to death unless they do big crimes against Islam and Islamic society like spreading Islam [here Fardin obviously does not mean spreading Islam, but rather spreading apostasy) in Islamic society,this is the sentence that every Justice Court accepts and judges based on that(it's from Sharia Law)..).
Perhaps Fardin requires some spinach...

I completed my answer,it would be enough for you if you are looking for answers.

Note, I made no justification for Imam Ali not being killed. I pointed out the problem with Fardin's justification, in that Ali's father who had also been the prophets protector, was dead. Hence offered no protection. Otherwise Fardin is simply making assertions. And Fardin's assertions are not evidence. The simple fact is that the Quraysh had the opportunity to kill Imam Ali, and did not.

He was Imam Ali's father and prophet's supporter,I think there are many differences between these two.
the Prophet and Imam Ali were both from the Quraysh tribe too.

Again, Fardin is just making assertions that 'many muslim slaves' were killed. In the sira there is, as best I can tell, one muslim killed (Sumayya, who had, by that point, been freed).

I suggest you to watch "The Message" movie,it's under licence of both Shia and Sunni.You can verify my claim there(it's the easiest way).

Odd, I thought that Fardin just above said that the Shia accepted Ibn Ishaq. Since I am quoting from Ishaq either directly or vis Imam Ibn Kathir. Perhaps Fardin's eyesight failed him when I noted sira. That Fardin does not want to accept Sunni sources is irrelevant, particularly since Fardin wrote in the first post . Note 'Sunni' in there and the lack of anything limiting the discourse to Shia sources...
Oddly enough, though, I am the one actually providing sources...
Carrots are supposed to be good for eyesight...

I wrote We'll answer the questions about Sunni and Shia, like what's their beliefs or something like this,Actually it was one of my Sunni friends responsibility but he is too busy nowadays, and I didn't write I accept Sunni sources.

An apostate wont be killed if the apostate keeps silent about his apostasy...
If prophet Muhammad had kept his apostasy to himself, then the Meccans would not have tried to kill him either.

I'm living in Iran for many years but I haven't seen or heard someone is executed because he was apostate,the philosophy of execution is to scare the people not to do that action anymore but when nobody has seen something like this, why are you insisting on killing them? Your words are like a bowl that is hotter than the soup.if you are insisting we should kill them, no problem, I'll do it myself.

Fardin can pick one from a google search:
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22n....0.l5vd5GAG6Ho

It is from Tuhaf al-Uqul and that is accepted again, when I read all of that hadith and I realized you've skipped all of the good part so it's very clear that you are here only for blackwashing, I looked to the hadith again and I didn't see Imam Baqer has said force them to convert but he says don't show mercy to them but show mercy if they regret and accept Islam,And I want to repeat that the Shahadateyn words are accepted only with personal interest so any force to Islam is meaningless.

Note again that I have provided four separate sources two of them Shia, one Sunni, one Ahmadiyya, all of which support my claim that surah 9 was revealed after the conquest of Mecca. I have noted that other scholars say the same in their commentaries.
Fardin has simply made bald assertions.
I make a claim. I provide quotes from Islamic sources to support those claims. Fardin makes assertions, with no support, and cries out 'vague', 'distorted', 'contradictory', 'no sunni', if he does not like what it says.
My point still stands. Surah 9 was revealed after the conquest of Mecca, around the time of Tabuk, some of it before, and the first portion of the Sura after.

If you read again what I've wrote you can see that I agreed that the most of the Surah Al Tawbah was revealed after the capturing of Mecca but seems you've closed your eyes again,I provided two verses from Qur'an the most reliable Islamic source to support my claim.
9:2 :
However, during the four sacred months, they (pagans) may travel peacefully through the land. Know (pagans) that you cannot make God helpless, but it is God who has the power to disgrace the unbelievers.
9:5 :
When the sacred months are over, slay the pagans wherever you find them. Capture, besiege, and ambush them. If they repent, perform prayers and pay the religious tax, set them free. God is All-forgiving and All-merciful.

I think it is quite clear for everyone.

Note that the site referred to him repeatedly as Imam Khomeini, as do the editors in his Tahrir.
I also referred to him as Imam Khomeini.
I do find it highly amusing that Fardin is seemingly worked up by me referring to Khomeini with a polite and accepted honorific. I certainly could refer to him in less respectful terms...

They call him Imam from their habit, it's very ridiculous that you are still discussing about this worthless issue.

I'd like to reiterate my question of why any of this was "humiliating", even if he got some sort of prize, so what? Why the fatwa against him instead of the UK then?

You should be a Muslim to understand,I don't support this fatwa at all and as you know everyone makes mistakes and Mr. Khomeini is not an exception.
About four weeks ago a french fighter bombed a village to kill 10 ISIS members but they killed 90 innocent villagers with them , now you tell me, did you see anyone in France or western countries come and denounce this attack? why are you trying to magnify an ant to an elephant?
And the funny thing is some people say: Muslims always find a reason to hate west.
Islam is always under your microscopes but you forget to look at yourselves.Let's be fair after this.
We have proverb in Iran that says:If you want to hit someone with a small needle,you should first hit yourself with a Javaldooz(a kind of needle that is 20cm); It helps you to be fair.

Fardin,

Why are they your enemy? Does a state of war exist between your countries and if so when was it declared? And, if you are to treat neighbours like family friends is Israel not a near neighbour? You maintain Islam to be a peaceful religion so is it really funny to ask why they are your enemies especially as of yet they have not attacked you yet you have attacked them?

As Muslims, we have to respect our guests and neighbors but we don't have to respect a guest who kills his hosts,they started to kill our brothers and sisters,they started to kick out the hosts from their houses,they started to kill their host's children.They assassinated many scientists in Iran,they supported the terrorist groups operating in Iran and now they are supporting the Syria's terrorists to kill our brothers again, they even killed an Iranian General in Syria 2 years ago.

[Infidel144]

I'll answer only to the non-repetitive subjects.

The most of these sources are in Arabic and Farsi, since my English is not good , I'm not able to translate them for you.

There might be another reason, not mentioned by Fardin.
Take for example: Orvah bin Zobayr/Urwa ibn Zubayr. It waould be rather difficult for Fardin to provide anything directly from Urwa ibn Zubayr as his works are not extant. He destroyed them. His sira is known through Ibn Ishaq.
Muhammad bin Shahab Zahri/Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri. No extant works.
Aaban bin Othman bin Affan/ Aban bin Uthman. Wrote the first Maghazi. Not quite sure, but don't think it is extant either.
They mostly survive as transmitters of hadith.
Ibn Ishaq survives (through Hisham's recension and in extracts in al-Tabari's History via ibn Fadl al-Ansari).

I am a Muslim and I've grown up with Qur'an and Hadiths, I listen to the religious scholars speeches after prayers and I read many books for knowing more of Islam but I didn't think I'll use them for a debate some day so I didn't memorize or noted all of the sources because of my High-volume study.
All of my claims are based on Sharia law and my studies or the scholars speeches. I say we don't do such a thing and I provided many examples in the first post to prove it,but you ignored it again.

All of little relevance. What has happened is Fardin has made a lot of assertions, I have challenged those assertions and backed my statements up with Islamic sources.

If you look at what I said before: "Tabari history is a really good source but not for amateurs like you"; I mean it's not a referable and reliable source.
Sorry if I couldn't suggest anything to improve the understanding power.

Still irrelevant. I backed al-Tabari's narrative up with ibn Ishaq and ibn Kathir.

Ibn Kathir is a Shafei Sunni so no I don't trust him,When even one offensive war didn't happen in the time of prophet ,what makes you think the prophet would start this one as an exeption?

Since what I quoted from Imam ibn Kathir is essentially a repetition of ibn Ishaq (which Fardin says Shia do accept) Fardin's lack of trust is irrelevant in this particular case, even were I to accept it might be relevant in other cases (which I don't).
Also, the argument that Fardin frames as a question, the premise assumes the conclusion. And I have demonstrated that it is faulty, using Islamic sources. Fardin's whole counter argument has been to claim the historical sources are distorted, unreliable or Sunni. He has not been able to provide any of his own and several of the 'historians' he has 'recommended' don't have any extant works. What portions of their work may survive seem to do so only in the works of other, ie hadith collections.

He was Imam Ali's father and prophet's supporter,I think there are many differences between these two.
the Prophet and Imam Ali were both from the Quraysh tribe too.

I don't think I said anything different, so I am unsure of Fardin's point here.

I suggest you to watch "The Message" movie,it's under licence of both Shia and Sunni.You can verify my claim there(it's the easiest way).

First, this assumes I have not watched "The Message". I have. Thirty some odd years ago.
That out of the way.

Excuse me while I choke a little.
I'm actually utilizing historical Islamic sources. And Fardin, rather than backing his claims up with, for example, Ibn Ishaq, refers me to a modern movie. Next I'll be referred to Braveheart if I want to learn about William Wallace or Kingdom of Heaven if I want to learn about about Balian etc.

I provide actual historical sources, and in return I am referred to historians who have no extant works and a 'historical drama'. Which I, in part, alluded to earlier when I noted modern additions not found in the historical accounts.

I wrote We'll answer the questions about Sunni and Shia, like what's their beliefs or something like this,Actually it was one of my Sunni friends responsibility but he is too busy nowadays, and I didn't write I accept Sunni sources.

Fardin does not seem to understand his non-acceptance of sunni sources is irrelevant. He made no such declaration in the opening post, he has stated that Ibn Ishaq is accepted, and what I have been using is Ishaq, either direct (or direct as possible) or through Kathir.

Fardin can not counter what I have said with historical sources so he must simply dismiss or ignore.

I'm living in Iran for many years but I haven't seen or heard someone is executed because he was apostate,the philosophy of execution is to scare the people not to do that action anymore but when nobody has seen something like this, why are you insisting on killing them? Your words are like a bowl that is hotter than the soup.if you are insisting we should kill them, no problem, I'll do it myself.

Still irrelevant. I have quoted from Imam Khomeini's Tahrir on the subject. In the first post on the subject of apostasy I asked about the statements of three Imams on the subject:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Did Imam Mohammad Baqer define an apostate as someone who repudiates Islam and denies the revelation of the Prophet? Did he note that an apostate's repentance will not be accepted, and he must be put to death?Did Imam Mousa Kazem state that a Muslim who converts to Christianity should be killed?
Did Imam Ja'far Sadeq note that there were at least three instances in which Imam Ali killed individuals who had committed apostasy?

Which Fardin ignored. And even if Fadin is correct and apostasy is not a capital offence, and Khomeini, Baqer, Kazem and Sadeq are all wrong, Muhammad was still spreading apostasy, which Fardin has stated is a crime for which one can be executed in an Islamic state.
So the answer, if there is to be any sort of consistency, is still no. Trying to kill Muhammad was not an act of war. When Muhammad went to Medina, he is the one who initiated battle by raiding caravans. And even then it took several before the Meccans tried to retaliate.

It is from Tuhaf al-Uqul and that is accepted again, when I read all of that hadith and I realized you've skipped all of the good part so it's very clear that you are here only for blackwashing, I looked to the hadith again and I didn't see Imam Baqer has said force them to convert but he says don't show mercy to them but show mercy if they regret and accept Islam,And I want to repeat that the Shahadateyn words are accepted only with personal interest so any force to Islam is meaningless.

It seems Fardin fails to remember, but I quoted the entire thing if I am not mistaken, in post 134, and prior to that in part via Hub-e-Ali.
I do think I have read something about spinach being good for memory. I forget where...
Of course, in addition to Fardin not recalling that I quoted the entire thing previously, he also simply makes assertions and does not support them. This has become quite typical.

If you read again what I've wrote you can see that I agreed that the most of the Surah Al Tawbah was revealed after the capturing of Mecca but seems you've closed your eyes again,I provided two verses from Qur'an the most reliable Islamic source to support my claim.
9:2 :
However, during the four sacred months, they (pagans) may travel peacefully through the land. Know (pagans) that you cannot make God helpless, but it is God who has the power to disgrace the unbelievers.
9:5 :
When the sacred months are over, slay the pagans wherever you find them. Capture, besiege, and ambush them. If they repent, perform prayers and pay the religious tax, set them free. God is All-forgiving and All-merciful.

I think it is quite clear for everyone.

If Fardin would read again what I have provided from actual scholars and Islamic sources Shia and Sunni (and Ahmadiyya), they all say that the Surah was revealed after the conquest of Mecca.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"This Surah, which is the ninth Surah of the Qur’ān, contains 129 verses and has been
revealed in the ninth year A.H. (anno Hejira). Some parts of the Surah were revealed before the Battle of Tabūk, some parts during the Battle, and other parts were revealed after it."
An Enlightening Commentary into the Light of the Holy Quran




"(It has been narrated) from Abu Abdullah asws having said: ‘(Surah) Al-Fatah (Chapter110) was in year eight, and (Surah) Bara’at was in year nine, and the Farewell Pilgrimage was in year ten’ (after migration to Medina from Mecca)."
Tafseer Hub-e-Ali asws




"Chronologically, verses 1-29 were a notable declaration of State policy promulgated about the month of Shawwal, A.H. 9 and read out by Hadhrat 'Ali at the Pilgrimage two months later [...]. The remainder of the Sura, verses 30-129, was revealed a little earlier..."
Translation Of The Meaning Of The Holy Quran And Commentary In English

"The whole of this chapter [9] was revealed in the ninth year of the Hijra, the opening verses belong to the close, and the major portion to about the middle of that year, during or after the Tabuk expedition, which took place in the month of Rajab in the ninth year of the Hijrah."
The Holy Quran, Maulana Muhammad Ali

Similar can be found in Kathir, Qurtb, and Maududi)

Scholars say revealed after the Conquest of Mecca.
Fardin makes assertions.
I provided evidence.
And that is what makes truth clear from error.

They call him Imam from their habit, it's very ridiculous that you are still discussing about this worthless issue.

What is even more ridiculous is that Fardin began this 'worthless issue' by criticizing my politely referring to Khomeini as Imam Khomeini. When the wiki he repeatedly links to does the same thing. And then he has to try and justify it. He could have avoided the whole thing by simply accepting my good manners.

You making claims and ignoring to back them up are not things that need a response? You failed to come up with anything to support your claims yet you accuse someone else of that. That is quite hypocritical.

This is the second time that setekh has criticized basics for this, yet Fardin has already implicitly acknowledged that basics is correct, and even responded as to why Iran wants wants to wipe Israel off the map.

Perhaps Setekh would have better luck taking on Fardin and explaining to him the he is relying on wrong and bigoted translations, etc.

[PointOfViewGun]

This is the second time that setekh has criticized basics for this, yet Fardin has already implicitly acknowledged that basics is correct, and even responded as to why Iran wants wants to wipe Israel off the map.

Perhaps Setekh would have better luck taking on Fardin and explaining to him the he is relying on wrong and bigoted translations, etc.

Not really. It is the second time you're confusing two different issues. basics claimed that Muhammad wants people to hate their neighbours. I'm waiting for him to support his claim. The fact that Ahmedinejad's words being deliberately mistranslated, even though many Iranians do hate Israel to the core, is not much of a dispute. I didn't even ask basics to back that claim up. Funny how you need to rely on such petty tactics.

[Fardin]

There might be another reason, not mentioned by Fardin.
Take for example: Orvah bin Zobayr/Urwa ibn Zubayr. It waould be rather difficult for Fardin to provide anything directly from Urwa ibn Zubayr as his works are not extant. He destroyed them. His sira is known through Ibn Ishaq.
Muhammad bin Shahab Zahri/Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri. No extant works.
Aaban bin Othman bin Affan/ Aban bin Uthman. Wrote the first Maghazi. Not quite sure, but don't think it is extant either.
They mostly survive as transmitters of hadith.
Ibn Ishaq survives (through Hisham's recension and in extracts in al-Tabari's History via ibn Fadl al-Ansari).

I stated these historians for another issue and I think you've forgotten the other three ones I mentioned, All of them are the greatest historians of Islam but you've ignored it again to continue your mental game for the others.
Muhammad Mada'ini is one of the greatest historians of Islam, he has 20 books each one are in multiple volumes,one of his book that is related to this topic is "Tarikh Al-Islam(History of Islam)" is in about 50 volumes,it's one of the most trusted sources in Islam,Tabari himself has referred to Muhammad Mada'ini in many subjects.
The another one you ignored for various reasons is Ibn Vazeh Ya'qubi,He is also one of the most trusted historians in Islam,his book is "Tarikh Al-Ya'qubi (Ya'qubi history) is in 1245 pages and 2 volumes and it is the oldest public history in Islam.
The third one I stated was Muhammad bin Eshaq(Ibn Ishaq) that I think he doesn't need any further explanation.
The pictures from their books:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Tarikh Al-Ya'qubi


Tarikh Al-Islam

I don't read all of these sources directly because I'm not a professional historian so I use the books of the known histoians who had read these books like: AbdolHussain Zarrinkoob , Allameh Tabataba'i and Zabih-Allah Mansouri.

All of little relevance. What has happened is Fardin has made a lot of assertions, I have challenged those assertions and backed my statements up with Islamic sources.

You chalenged my statements that were all supported by Qur'an with some sources like Sahih Muslim Bukhari that contradictions waves in his books,the reason I reject some of the Sunni sources is: they refer and bring quotes from the historians that were affiliated to the Umayyads who have a long history of distorting Hadiths and Qur'an to justify their crimes and corruptions , they are the ancient ISIS, so if you want to introduce the ISIS way of Islam,I think there is no need for that because everyone is fimiliar with this.

Still irrelevant. I backed al-Tabari's narrative up with ibn Ishaq and ibn Kathir.

Maybe Tabari is right in this case but it is still distorted, the Tabari like some other Sunni sources relies on the historians affiliated to the Umayyads.Several historians have edited Tabari history to correct his historical mistakes and there are some perfect versions of Tabari history in Iran but some other editions are still incorret.

Since what I quoted from Imam ibn Kathir is essentially a repetition of ibn Ishaq (which Fardin says Shia do accept) Fardin's lack of trust is irrelevant in this particular case, even were I to accept it might be relevant in other cases (which I don't).
Also, the argument that Fardin frames as a question, the premise assumes the conclusion. And I have demonstrated that it is faulty, using Islamic sources. Fardin's whole counter argument has been to claim the historical sources are distorted, unreliable or Sunni. He has not been able to provide any of his own and several of the 'historians' he has 'recommended' don't have any extant works. What portions of their work may survive seem to do so only in the works of other, ie hadith collections.

Read above.

I don't think I said anything different, so I am unsure of Fardin's point here.

You said they didn't kill Imam Ali because they were so merciful and kind towards muslims and I said they didn't kill him because he was Abu Talib's son.

First, this assumes I have not watched "The Message". I have. Thirty some odd years ago.
That out of the way.

Excuse me while I choke a little.
I'm actually utilizing historical Islamic sources. And Fardin, rather than backing his claims up with, for example, Ibn Ishaq, refers me to a modern movie. Next I'll be referred to Braveheart if I want to learn about William Wallace or Kingdom of Heaven if I want to learn about about Balian etc.

I provide actual historical sources, and in return I am referred to historians who have no extant works and a 'historical drama'. Which I, in part, alluded to earlier when I noted modern additions not found in the historical accounts.

The all of these movies you said have many historical errors but "The Message Movie is under licence of both Lebanese Shia scholars and Al_Azhar university of Egypt that is one of the best universities in Islamic countries.And we Muslims do not need imaginary historical movies to fill the lack of civilized history like west.

Fardin does not seem to understand his non-acceptance of sunni sources is irrelevant. He made no such declaration in the opening post, he has stated that Ibn Ishaq is accepted, and what I have been using is Ishaq, either direct (or direct as possible) or through Kathir.
Fardin can not counter what I have said with historical sources so he must simply dismiss or ignore.

It seems you do not understand that if anyone find some errors in a history book the whole historical accounts and reliablity of that book is under question,this is the basic knowledge about history books,When I reject some history book that doeasn't mean the whole book is false but it means that book is not reliabe source to be able to reject something based on them.
The subjects I'm explaining for you are very basic, we learn the most of them in primary schools, the lack of history explains your unawareness about these subjects.

Still irrelevant. I have quoted from Imam Khomeini's Tahrir on the subject. In the first post on the subject of apostasy I asked about the statements of three Imams on the subject:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Did Imam Mohammad Baqer define an apostate as someone who repudiates Islam and denies the revelation of the Prophet? Did he note that an apostate's repentance will not be accepted, and he must be put to death?Did Imam Mousa Kazem state that a Muslim who converts to Christianity should be killed?
Did Imam Ja'far Sadeq note that there were at least three instances in which Imam Ali killed individuals who had committed apostasy?

Which Fardin ignored. And even if Fadin is correct and apostasy is not a capital offence, and Khomeini, Baqer, Kazem and Sadeq are all wrong, Muhammad was still spreading apostasy, which Fardin has stated is a crime for which one can be executed in an Islamic state.
So the answer, if there is to be any sort of consistency, is still no. Trying to kill Muhammad was not an act of war. When Muhammad went to Medina, he is the one who initiated battle by raiding caravans. And even then it took several before the Meccans tried to retaliate.

If you read Vol.14 of Mr.Khomeini's Sahifah , he explains: Apostacy is punishable when the apostates insult and mock Islam.
If any apostate mind his own bussineses , He/She will live freely.
You just ask some vague questions to play a game with me and I don't like to enter in one with you especially.
You want to marginalize your answered questions to another irrelevant topic and I know why you are trying to do this.It's a very good tactic for you to fool the others.

It seems Fardin fails to remember, but I quoted the entire thing if I am not mistaken, in post 134, and prior to that in part via Hub-e-Ali.
I do think I have read something about spinach being good for memory. I forget where...
Of course, in addition to Fardin not recalling that I quoted the entire thing previously, he also simply makes assertions and does not support them. This has become quite typical.

You are right,you know I don't care much about your repititive words and I try to ignore them to save some of the time I'm wasting for you.
I think my answer was enough for that hadith.

If Fardin would read again what I have provided from actual scholars and Islamic sources Shia and Sunni (and Ahmadiyya), they all say that the Surah was revealed after the conquest of Mecca.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"This Surah, which is the ninth Surah of the Qur’ān, contains 129 verses and has been
revealed in the ninth year A.H. (anno Hejira). Some parts of the Surah were revealed before the Battle of Tabūk, some parts during the Battle, and other parts were revealed after it."
An Enlightening Commentary into the Light of the Holy Quran
"(It has been narrated) from Abu Abdullah asws having said: ‘(Surah) Al-Fatah (Chapter110) was in year eight, and (Surah) Bara’at was in year nine, and the Farewell Pilgrimage was in year ten’ (after migration to Medina from Mecca)."
Tafseer Hub-e-Ali asws[
"Chronologically, verses 1-29 were a notable declaration of State policy promulgated about the month of Shawwal, A.H. 9 and read out by Hadhrat 'Ali at the Pilgrimage two months later [...]. The remainder of the Sura, verses 30-129, was revealed a little earlier..."
Translation Of The Meaning Of The Holy Quran And Commentary In English
"The whole of this chapter [9] was revealed in the ninth year of the Hijra, the opening verses belong to the close, and the major portion to about the middle of that year, during or after the Tabuk expedition, which took place in the month of Rajab in the ninth year of the Hijrah."
The Holy Quran, Maulana Muhammad Ali.
Similar can be found in Kathir, Qurtb, and Maududi)

Scholars say revealed after the Conquest of Mecca.
Fardin makes assertions.
I provided evidence.
And that is what makes truth clear from error.

You've mixed up many things together in this subject,first I said this verse mentions to the truce breaking(Hudaybiyya truce) from the pagans and you said the Surah had been revealed after 9 or 10 AH that is completely irrelevant.These two verse are very clearly mentioning to the truce breaking of pagans.

Setekh,

I think all the words from all the described so-called teachers as well as the attrocities that are going on in the name of Allah confirm that subjection to Islam takes priority over loving your neighbour. I don't need to back that up as it is common knowledge if one looks at the world right now. The Koran teaches that it is OK to kill, to rape, to steal, to lie whenever these things are appropriate. The American intelligence agencies acknowledge that Iran is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism and yet as far as I know Iran itself hasn't been invaded by anyone in my lifetime and certainly not for any religious purpose as it is doing now. So ole fella, is Iran invading or terrorising these countries out of love?

I think Setekh's answer was enough for your funny assertions about Islam so I'll answer to you about Iran:
USA is the biggest terrorist supporter in the world and it is very ridiculus that you trust US intelligence agencies,trusting US by persons like you is like the sheeps that trust a wolf (no offence). Which countries are terrorized by Iran?
If you are interested in knowing more of US and it's allies crimes you can simply send a private message to me to show them to you with pictures and facts , not only with blind accusations.As you know it is forbiden to post gory images(from children) here.

The Koran is supposed to be the instructions that Allah gave to Mohammed in written form and if there were no misconceptions about that as has been shown by Infidel144 there wouldn't be any problem. But there is and it is obvious by the actions of Muslims who are killing and butchering their way across the globe. They don't have any misconceptions about what their role in the Islamic world is and we didn't give that to them, the Koran did.

If you are looking for truth read this website very carefully and ignore the ignorant's words about Islam.
http://www.misconceptions-about-islam.com/

[basics]

Fardin,

Why are they your enemy? Does a state of war exist between your countries and if so when was it declared? And, if you are to treat neighbours like family friends is Israel not a near neighbour? You maintain Islam to be a peaceful religion so is it really funny to ask why they are your enemies especially as of yet they have not attacked you yet you have attacked them?

[empr guy]

I'd like to reiterate my question of why any of this was "humiliating", even if he got some sort of prize, so what? Why the fatwa against him instead of the UK then?

[mishkin]

basics,

I would appreciate, to make this discussion easier to follow, if you could quote where X user says Y thing. (In example, where do fardin says all those things)