Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

To understand why Islam is so fundamentally violent as well as extreme, we first need to understand the basic relationships between the Abrahamic religions. I have thoughtfully created a visual aid to spare you from a lengthy explanation:

Now, we know Sharia Law is what the terrorists seek to impose over the world, it's what they impose on every new town and territory they capture. We also know that Sharia Law is incorporated into many Middle Eastern countries' governments. The Quran supposedly being the final revelations from God to a Prophet (Muhammad), and the Hadith being a collection of Muhammad's actions and sayings as a living person, we know that Sharia Law is the product of pure Islam and can understand why fundamentalist Christians and Jews, though also extreme, are not waging a modern Holy War against the rest of the world.

So, what do we do about it? Does the rest of the world have a right, or even an obligation, to step in against countries where unspeakable human rights atrocities are committed daily under the authority of religion? Where the basic rights to education and a sense of independent self are legally denied with the same justification?

Since 9/11, global terrorist death toll has been averaging ~15,000 deaths per year. In 2014 it jumped 30% up to 19,000 deaths and is on trend to continue increasing. The problem is growing both in the Middle East/Northern Africa and in Western countries as they begin to change their tactics and support lone-wolf style attacks claimed through social media, and that's just terrorism action. What do we do about the regular women who are killed in "honor" by their family members for simply being seen with an unrelated male?

Here are some spoons in addition to what I've posted:

Can a whole religion be held responsible for the criminal actions of a movement in its name in the same way as countries were held responsible (and still are being held responsible) for the criminal actions of a movement that started and grew to involve them?

Would we be more willing to impose international pressure on the situation if the countries in violation did not hold an important economic factor to consider? Does energy independence, alternative sources of oil (Central America, Keystone Pipeline, etc), and any people or groups standing in the way of their implementation play a role?

>Can a whole religion be held responsible for the criminal actions of a movement in its name

How am I supposed to respond to this?

Since 9/11, global terrorist death toll has been averaging ~15,000 deaths per year. In 2014 it jumped 30% up to 19,000 deaths and is on trend to continue increasing.

---

Right, right, I forgot you guys don't look things up by default anyway.

Does the forum work the same way as the comments?

Global Terrorist Death Toll Soars As Attacks Become Deadlier

{ The firm's analysts found that in the 12 months before July 1 there were 18,668 fatalities compared to an average of 14,443 for the five years before that – a 29.3% increase. }

{ How am I supposed to respond to this? }

Uh, I guess typing out your feelings seems the most obvious method.

We've been holding entire countries responsible for WW2 since WW2 ended, even though not every single person in the country committed crimes or supported Hitler. Why can't we hold a whole religion which includes multiple governments and countries responsible for the same exact crimes?

I think that if you accept one religion as inherently violent, than you should say the same about all religions. The real difference you're talking about is just the amount of violence one has committed in the name of its deity.

The exact same logic is there. The amount of immoral acts doesn't change that.

We can not hold islam responsible because it did not command ISIS to fight non-muslims on the basis of being non-muslim. These people who fight non-muslims on this basis have just misinterpreted verses in the Qur'an without full understanding.

We can hold countries responsible because we are actually holding the world leaders in charge responsible. The world leaders are the ones who consciously decide to act upon a crime. Unlike Islam which is 1400 years old and cannot be consciously responsible for any attacks by isis on the basis it did not directly command believers to attack muslims on the basis of being non-muslim.

{ I think that if you accept one religion as inherently violent, than you should say the same about all religions. }

Obviously they're all inherently violent, they're all the same religion, but we're not talking about how they were all once inherently violent, we're talking about why only one remains violent. The Crusades were 700 years ago, will you people drop the apples to oranges comparison already?

Personally, I would be fine with establishing an absolute separation of "Church and State" across the world. Freedom from rather than of, if you will. It's turned into a situation that warrants such legislation. But again, we're talking about a bunch of countries that still wont accept basic human rights treaties.

{ We can hold countries responsible because we are actually holding the world leaders in charge responsible. }

So we can hold the countries responsible for their fundamentalist Islamic governments instead of blaming Islam itself? Okay, if twisting the words that way makes your PC bells calm down, by all means, that's what we'll call it.

We have proof these governments and their elite citizens are a major source of funds for ISIS and Al-Q, and more recently Boko Haram as they've been growing more and more significant. We know for a fact that the governments themselves are strictly Islamic, and even basic women's rights are non-existent.

Instead of criticizing these practices and applying international pressure for legitimate governments to be formed, the US President has decided to lift sanctions on and expand Iran's nuclear capabilities (who have been on, and remain on, the State Sponsors of Terrorism list), and this comes after hailing the withdrawal of our troops/abandonment of the people we promised to defend as his ultimate achievement as President at the time, which is directly responsible for the gains ISIS made immediately afterward.

And the KKK was 70 years ago.

There are still Christians that do things that are what western societies would consider immoral and they are organized. It's not just governmental. Christians are still violent. There organizations are smaller.

We're talking about the cornerstone of religion itself when we talk about an inherent violent nature. Because calling it inherently violent means that what the Muslims in Europe and NA believe are inherently violent too.

---

What your getting at is why these countries are violent, not the religion. Even if the religion is what guides them.

Lisa, could you please take the political compass test and post your results so we could better understand your basic ideology?

{ what the Muslims in Europe and NA believe are inherently violent too. }

Yes? That's correct. What the Christians and Jews and Muslims believe everywhere is an inherently violent religion. They are all the same religion up to a certain point, and it is a violent one. Then historically things simmered down for the most part, the Jews are waiting for a Prophet and refusing to sit next to women on airplanes, the Christians have captured the art of non-violent protest, but the Muslims are still waging war.

But the point is that the Muslims are still waging war because their religion was effectively intercepted by some guy claiming to be Jesus v.2 with a new revelation from God, and he was a pretty violent guy with a penchant for revenge. When you say "the Muslims in Europe and NA" you mean "the Muslims who aren't fundamentally obeying the Quran and Hadith", "the Muslims who refuse to follow Muhammad", which are, for all intents and purposes, just more exotic Christians.

So yeah, I'm pretty sure I'm talking about the religion.

If you are referring to Saudi Arabia about this "fundamentalist Islamic government" than you have not heard of this concept known as "wahabism". Al-Wahhabi was a theologian who proposed that hadiths be taken literally. The problem with that is that this mindset does not account for the context some hadith literature is written at.

The Saudis are wahabists who interpret hadith literature out of context. Also if a vile act is committed by a Muslim but a commandment for him to do such an act is no where to be seen in the Qur'an, you have absolutely no basis in your claim that Islam is responsible. Islam is an ideology not a culture and an ideology like atheism cannot be responsible For the persecution of Christians in the soviet union.

When you say “the Muslims in Europe and NA” you mean “the Muslims who aren’t fundamentally obeying the Quran and Hadith”, “the Muslims who refuse to follow Muhammad”, which are, for all intents and purposes, just more exotic Christians.

---

No True Muslims

uhh okay

I consider myself a moderate conservative if that helps.

???? I don't see how that applies to what I said at all. We know all the religions are linked and we know that to be a Muslim it is a required belief that Muhammad is the last Prophet and the Quran is the true interpretation of God's message. They murder you if you disagree with that part, remember?

{ If you are referring to Saudi Arabia about this “fundamentalist Islamic government” than you have not heard of this concept known as “wahabism”. }

I am referring to multiple different countries ruled by multiple different denominations. They're all based on the same texts.

Correction: Interpretation of texts.

{ Also if a vile act is committed by a Muslim but a commandment for him to do such an act is no where to be seen in the Qur’an, you have absolutely no basis in your claim that Islam is responsible. }

The Hadith is a collection of Muhammad's crusades that act as the model Muslim, that's what Sharia Law is based on. The Massacre of Banu Qurayza, for example? It's told in the text Islam considers second in religious authority only to the Quran itself.

What's your basis for only referencing one of Islam's 5 religious texts?

Is that not literally what my first post says? Each of these three religions is a progression of interpretations that get further and further from where they all started together. All three of these religions were at peace with each other at one point in history because they were selling the same message.

Banu Qureyza started the war with Muslims after Muslims dishonoured polytheistic gods. That was all the justification they had to go full on war with the Muslims because they were very tribal. In fact just read this wikipedia article.

Also the Qur'an is far superior to hadiths in terms of authenticity. Not all hadiths are created equal because some are from dodgy sources. So to criticise islam majorily through hadiths is pretty fallacious.

Al-Baqara 256

So when tribal people defend their religion violently it's an invitation for war, when Muslims defend their religion violently it's….? justified? Something we should turn our cheeks to because of the past? I don't get what you're implying here.

That's covered in the Hadith…
Could you just explain whatever you're trying to say instead of linking me to vague pages?

The problem is that you're 'shifting the goalposts' so that no peaceful Muslims qualify as True Muslims in your eyes. And because all the peaceful ones aren't really Muslims, it leaves only violent ones left to be the "real Muslims."

Also, you can't change the definition of Muslim to suit your agenda. A Muslim is someone who follows Islam and personally identifies as Muslim, whether they believe their books are the literal word of God or allegories is irrelevant.

You wouldn't call Protestants "not real Christians" for believing in consubstantiation (figurative interpretation of the sacrament of the Eucharist) rather than transubstantiation (literal interpretation of the sacrament of the Eucharist) like Catholics, would you?

{ And because all the peaceful ones aren’t really Muslims, it leaves only violent ones left to be the “real Muslims. }

They're not really Muslims according to Islam, not to me. There are required beliefs for being a Muslim. If you disagree with the required beliefs, you're not a Muslim, and now you're a walking target. It's really that simple.

I wouldn't call Protestants Christians, they're a Christian denomination, that means there's something about their beliefs that specifically makes them not-Christians…

Catholics are a Christian denomination too, but you don't consider them Christians, right?

They absolutely deserved it. The muslims had to live with these tribal people the moment islam was born. When they took up islam they had to go through incomprehensible persecution for 10 years. What they faced is worse than bullying at school with muslims being tortured and killed for stating the shahada.

There was also a famous event where an abyssinian slave named bilal ibn rabbah who was dragged along the desert to be tied to a wooden post to be whipped and at the same time a heavy stone was put on his chest all done by his qureyshi master. All because he believed in islam.

Bilal ibn rabbah later than killed ummayya ibn khalaf (his master).

Is that supposed to justify the same exact actions in reverse? That's kind of the point, the Hadith and Quran justify slaughter in revenge or defense of a perceived threat to Islam's existence. They see the West as a threat to Islam's existence and their ability to rule by Sharia Law, they are correct. That's literally why they're fighting everybody and the Christians and Jews aren't.

What are you talking about ofcourse not! Now bring me evidence to support your claim (from the Qur'an!).

Okay.

Sura At-Tawba, chapter 9, in English "The Ultimatum", the only chapter in the Quran that does not begin with the holy words because it's a direct address to the non-believers advising them the mercy of Allah had been withdrawn and they were to either convert or be slaughtered.

Maybe you know the Sword Verse? 9:5 { When the sacred months have passed, then kill the pagans wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. }

9:30 { The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah"; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah." That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before them. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded? }

9:111 { Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah, so they kill and are killed. }

You have done exactly what I have expected you to do. I don't feel like writing a response so here is a video explaining these verses.

I don't feel like watching a video, either summarize or move on from the discussion thread you're currently in.

Let me guess: no like, it totally means in self-defense!

It was 12pm when I wrote this so there are no excuses being lazy.

"9:5 Kill the disbelievers wherever you find them.

This verse, often called “the verse of the sword”, has been misquoted in a manner similar to the previous verses. First, we shall provide the verse in its context:

9:5-6 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.

Having presented the verse in context, we can analyze it properly. Dr. Maher Hathout gives an explanation on the historical context of the verse:

This verse was revealed towards the end of the revelation period and relates to a limited context. Hostilities were frozen for a three-month period during which the Arabs pledged not to wage war. Prophet Muhammad was inspired to use this period to encourage the combatants to join the Muslim ranks or, if they chose, to leave the area that was under Muslims rule; however, if they were to resume hostilities, then the Muslims would fight back until victorious. One is inspired to note that even in this context of war, the verse concludes by emphasizing the divine attributes of mercy and forgiveness. To minimize hostilities, the Qur’an ordered Muslims to grant asylum to anyone, even an enemy, who sought refuge. Asylum would be granted according to the customs of chivalry; the person would be told the message of the Qur’an but not coerced into accepting that message. Thereafter, he or she would be escorted to safety regardless of his or her religion. (9:6). (Hathout, Jihad vs. Terrorism; US Multimedia Vera International, 2002, pp.52-53, emphasis added)

Therefore, this verse once again refers to those pagans who would continue to fight after the period of peace. It clearly commands the Muslims to protect those who seek peace and are non-combatants. It is a specific verse with a specific ruling and can in no way be applied to general situations. The command of the verse was only to be applied in the event of a battle. As Abdullah Yusuf Ali writes:

The emphasis is on the first clause: it is only when the four months of grace are past, and the other party show no sign of desisting from their treacherous design by right conduct, that the state of war supervenes – between Faith and Unfaith. (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an, Text, Translation and Commentary, emphasis added)

If the pagans would not cease their hostilities towards the Muslims, then they were to be fought, especially since they were living in the land of an Islamic state."

Source

tl;dr – It talks about a war that happened a long time ago and not about how to treat non-Muslims in a modern day era

@Lisa

1. Here's the textile guide if that stuff is giving you trouble.

2. This is the forum, just click on the edit button if you want to add stuff to your post. You have 30 minutes to do that, and unnecessary double posting is looked down upon.

You have, like everyone else, linked a Western Muslim's personal interpretation of 1-2 verses out of complete context. Why don't we try to interpret the whole chapter ourselves, directly from the text? I'll walk us through it.

Quran.com Chapter 9
So we can all follow along from the same translation.

I will do the big blocks of verses that prove this chapter is a call to aggressive action, not self-defense.

---

9:16 { Do you think that you will be left [as you are] while Allah has not yet made evident those among you who strive [for His cause] and do not take other than Allah , His Messenger and the believers as intimates? And Allah is Acquainted with what you do. }

Don't think that you're safe just because you're a believer. Allah will rank you by worth even among those who believe. He will test you to see who strives for his cause and who simply sits at home and believes.

(17-19 is about the upkeep of mosques) 9:20-22 { The ones who have believed, emigrated and striven in the cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives are greater in rank in the sight of Allah . And it is those who are the attainers [of success]. Their Lord gives them good tidings of mercy from Him and approval and of gardens for them wherein is enduring pleasure. [They will be] abiding therein forever. Indeed, Allah has with Him a great reward. }

The people who strive in his cause with their wealth and their lives are greater in rank to Allah. They're the ones getting the virgins.

9:23-24 { O you who have believed, do not take your fathers or your brothers as allies if they have preferred disbelief over belief. And whoever does so among you – then it is those who are the wrongdoers.

If your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your wives, your relatives, wealth which you have obtained, commerce wherein you fear decline, and dwellings with which you are pleased are more beloved to you than Allah and His Messenger and jihad in His cause, then wait until Allah executes His command. And Allah does not guide the defiantly disobedient people. }

Turn your back on your family if they do not believe. If you accept them even though they disbelieve, you will also be punished. If your family would rather enjoy their wealth and belongings than fight for the cause of Allah, then wait until Judgement Day (the execution of his command) where you will be denied his guidance to Heaven because you were disobedient.

---

Maybe we're better off doing this one big block at a time? If nobody has a rebuttal we can move on to the next section, mid :30s – about :50.

>2. This is the forum, just click on the edit button if you want to add stuff to your post. You have 30 minutes to do that, and unnecessary double posting is looked down upon.

Okay maybe I wont post in parts? Is there a limit?

……………………….You literally are double posting in reply to my post telling you to not double post. Come on, I hoped you were smarter than this. If you want to seperate your post in sections within the post, use the <hr> html code, which will give the following:

---

The character limit is quite high. I forgot the exact number, but once you hit it you should get a message "your post can only contain X characters".

I'm not going to address a question on posting etiquette to you and break down the Quran in one post. :| idc if there's a 1px gray line separating them. I was assuming something similar to fb, but now I know and will keep everything relevant in one post from here on thx~

>mfw Muhammad gave asylum to Jews and pagans.
>mfw Muhammad made alliances with christian kingdoms and even had a christian wife which was part of a marriage alliance
>mfw there were plenty of non-muslims living in Medina and Mecca under his rule.
>mfw poster thinks The Prophet would be proud of an extremist group who also kills fellow muslims.

I still find it absolutely hilarious that people are always trying to make a view of Islam as a war religion. During my time studying theology, we were more focused on studying the philosophical meanings of The Prophet's verses rather than talk about his war aspects and jihads. I learned more about how does each Islamic sect pray during the 5 praying hours rather than how to hate other people of other religions and to declare war on them.
For crying out loud, i live in a country with the world's largest Islamic population and we chose to be a republic rather than an Islamic State to protect religious minorities.

{ >mfw poster thinks The Prophet would be proud of an extremist group who also kills fellow muslims. }

I literally just posted the verses from the Quran which explain exactly how Allah ranks Muslims in terms of worth.

The Muslims killed by the fundamentalist groups aren't considered Muslims. They are no more Muslim than me, according to the fundamentalists, they have rejected the true religion. That's why they have no problem killing people who "sit at home" instead of striving with their "wealth and lives", as the Quran says.

What country? Let's check up on the human rights record, just for fun.

>The Qur'an says

^ Uh, did you not see where I linked to an online version of the Quran chapter I was referring to, and even broke it down by verse? :| At least pretend to be following along.

I didn't say he was a crazy psychopath, killing everyone in his sights, but to say Islam is a peaceful religion is laughable.

Your response is silly.
/inb4 downvotes
you might as well say "Hitler, a bad person? Just look at all this good stuff he did!"

Islam's main method of conversion, since the very beginning, was through war. There is simply no denying that.
I just don't understand how you can deny that Islam is not a peaceful religion.

Weren't you the one who generalized all Muslims as being the same? Now you're making a distinction between a western Muslim and others?

Besides, your attempts to directly translate text that regards the actions of events hundreds of years in the past is a little broken, considering it's talking about events of the past. Not to mention the cultural differences in translating. I suppose not many people these days like the idea of an omnipresent being telling them not to touch themselves at night or eat bacon.

Still lets play along and translate things for ourselves, I'll place your interpretations near mine as we already know where we're quoting from:

- 9:16 – Don’t think that you’re safe just because you’re a believer. Allah will rank you by worth even among those who believe. He will test you to see who strives for his cause and who simply sits at home and believes.

That's fine. A person who says they believe in God has an advantage in God's eyes for acknowledging him, but isn't treated entirely as a person who cannot do wrong. A believer's actions are held accountable like any one else.

- 9:20-22 – The people who strive in his cause with their wealth and their lives are greater in rank to Allah. They’re the ones getting the virgins.

Do good and you will be rewarded. You didn't sit on your arse all day doing nothing, instead, you helped others around you ("striven in the cause of Allah"). The people you helped hold more respect to you than others because of this, you have more respect for yourself as you have more purpose and belonging to those around you, God gives you a pat on the back for it. There's no mention of virgins in this section but hey, whatever floats your boat.

- 9:23-24 – Turn your back on your family if they do not believe. If you accept them even though they disbelieve, you will also be punished. If your family would rather enjoy their wealth and belongings than fight for the cause of Allah, then wait until Judgement Day (the execution of his command) where you will be denied his guidance to Heaven because you were disobedient.

If a family member kills someone unjustly, do you call them reliable? Would you withhold evidence to protect someone who has done wrong? Always understand that even the closest person to you can do wrong. Protecting that person makes you a wrongdoer, and protecting physical items more than your beliefs makes you a wrongdoer. If you compromise on your own values because of blind love, or from bribery ("wealth which you have obtained"), then God's gonna have more than some words with you.

Edit: Going to sleep for today, let's pick up where we left off tomorrow.

@everyone
I am 12 years old and your shouting is intimidating me

ahem

Please keep the jokes out of this part of the forum

{ Now you’re making a distinction between a western Muslim and others? }

I said all the Abrahamic religions are the same, because they're all based off the same texts up to a point. Every religion has denominations. & I'm not making the distinction, the Quran makes the distinction but doesn't give them a name, only a higher and lower rank. The lower rank are what we call "Westernized Muslims" so the term I expected everyone to be most familiar with is the one I used.

The cultural differences are extremely important to note, the average modern Christian and Jew are willing to shrug and go "ehhhh I'm not really bothered by all these specifics I'll just be a good person". Islamic countries are not modern from a societal point of view, they're the last civilizations left governing by strict religious rule. They apply the death penalty to people who shrug and say "ehhh I'm not really down with this Islam thing anymore".

---

{ That’s fine. }

We agree on verse 16 then.

{ You didn’t sit on your arse all day doing nothing, instead, you helped others around you (“striven in the cause of Allah”). }

To strive in the cause of Allah is to commit yourself to jihad, of which there are four distinct types. Jihad against one's self is to learn the teachings of Islam and convert as many others to the truth as possible. Jihad against Satan is to ward off the doubts and corruption he stirs up. Jihad against the munafiq (hypocrites) and kafir (non-believers) is broken further down into two methods: you commit jihad against hypocrites with your heart and tongue, you try to convince them with words and save them. You commit jihad against kafir with your wealth and person, you physically convince them into submission. The fourth is jihad against oppressors and innovators (the West), and these are given very specific rank in order of how to fight: most preferably jihad by the hand/sellf, physically fighting. If that's not possible, then by the tongue, speaking out against the oppressors, and if that is not possible then by the heart, believing the oppressor is truly evil and knowing they are wrong. Virgins are brought up in the next block, I got ahead of myself~

{ If you compromise on your own values because of blind love, or from bribery (“wealth which you have obtained”), then God’s gonna have more than some words with you. }

This interpretation we also both seem to agree with.

---

I'll edit the next block in so we can pick up tomorrow, as we're 2/3 on this set of verses.

---

(:25-:29 = I am the one true god, polytheists are unclean, fight those who do not believe in Allah, etc etc)

9:30-33 { The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah "; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah ." That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded? They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah , and [also] the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him. It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to manifest it over all religion, although they who associate others with Allah dislike it. }

May Allah destroy the polytheist idolaters, how are they so dumb? There is only one God, Allah is the God that rules over all religion, even though the Jews and Christians don't like it.

(:34-35 rejects monetary collections by leaders of the faith, :36-37 commands no jihad during the four sacred months and no postponing the four sacred months and making them up next year)

9:38-39 { O you who have believed, what is [the matter] with you that, when you are told to go forth in the cause of Allah , you adhere heavily to the earth? Are you satisfied with the life of this world rather than the Hereafter? But what is the enjoyment of worldly life compared to the Hereafter except a [very] little.

If you do not go forth, He will punish you with a painful punishment and will replace you with another people, and you will not harm Him at all. And Allah is over all things competent. }

Blatant command to give up your life physically fighting for Allah. Debatable reference to suicide bombing. When you are told to go forth in the cause of Allah you are too attached to the earth. You're too afraid to die. Why are you more satisfied with your life than with what awaits you in Heaven? If you don't, you're going to be killed and replaced with someone else anyway, and Allah don't have a single fuck to spare.

(:40 says Allah is always with you, will send soldier angels to protect the righteous)

9:41-50 { Go forth, whether light or heavy, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the cause of Allah . That is better for you, if you only knew. Had it been an easy gain and a moderate trip, the hypocrites would have followed you [Muhammad], but distant to them was the journey. And they will swear by Allah , "If we were able, we would have gone forth with you," destroying themselves [through false oaths], and Allah knows that indeed they are liars.

Those who believe in Allah and the Last Day would not ask permission of you to be excused from striving with their wealth and their lives. And Allah is Knowing of those who fear Him. Only those would ask permission of you who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and whose hearts have doubted, and they, in their doubt, are hesitating. Had they gone forth with you, they would not have increased you except in confusion, and they would have been active among you, seeking [to cause] you fitnah. And among them is he who says, "Permit me [to remain at home] and do not put me to trial." Unquestionably, into trial they have fallen. And indeed, Hell will encompass the disbelievers. }

In these verses Allah specifically condemns "those who remain at home" to eternal Hell, rejecting them from the reward of Heaven and true Muslims. This is exactly what I mean by "Western Muslims aren't real Muslims to the fundamentalists".

(:51-:62 introduction to hypocrites)

9:63-68 { Do they not know that whoever opposes Allah and His Messenger – that for him is the fire of Hell, wherein he will abide eternally? That is the great disgrace. They hypocrites are apprehensive lest a surah be revealed about them, informing them of what is in their hearts. Say, "Mock [as you wish]; indeed, Allah will expose that which you fear." And if you ask them, they will surely say, "We were only conversing and playing." Say, "Is it Allah and His verses and His Messenger that you were mocking?"

Make no excuse; you have disbelieved after your belief. If We pardon one faction of you – We will punish another faction because they were criminals. The hypocrite men and hypocrite women are of one another. They enjoin what is wrong and forbid what is right and close their hands. They have forgotten Allah , so He has forgotten them [accordingly]. Indeed, the hypocrites – it is they who are the defiantly disobedient. Allah has promised the hypocrite men and hypocrite women and the disbelievers the fire of Hell, wherein they will abide eternally. It is sufficient for them. And Allah has cursed them, and for them is an enduring punishment. }

Literal ancient Islamic-modern English translation of the first paragraph: "haha good thing Allah hasn't revealed anything about hypocrites not that we're one of those" "Joke all you want but Allah will expose your fear and issue a new revelation and you'll be sorry" "dude we were just kidding chill out" "you should be ashamed of yourselves".

Every action has a reaction, if we pardon faithful Muslims then we must punish the defiant hypocrites as well. Hypocrites are just as bad as disbelievers (remember when I said the fundamentalists don't believe that the hypocrite Western Muslims are truly any more Muslim than I am?) and they will burn together in the eternal fires of Hell.

---

We're about halfway through the chapter now.