I'm wondering which translation you used. This is not Yusuf Ali, Pickthall, or Shakir (the three most famous versions). Here is what 8:39 really says:
Just curious...what part of: “and religion is all for Allah” or “and religion should be only for Allah,” don't you understand? I mean it can only mean that Muslims are obligated to wage jihad perpetually against all non-Muslims until the religion is “all for Allah” or “the religion should be only for Allah.” Or in other words, until the entire world has been placed under the yoke of Sharia. Indeed, what else could it mean?
Notable scholar on Islam and Comparative Religion Studies, Dr. Zakir Naik refutes this criticism in the following way:
You know you can quote the mumblings of a Zakir Naik if you like all you want, but the fact of the matter is his interpretations of 9:5 are rejected by all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence which all together govern all the various sects of Islam, by all the most mainstream leading authorities in mainstream Sunni and Shi'a Islam, and also by all the leading universities in Sunni and Shi'a Islam.
In fact, with the exception of maybe about hundred so-called Muslims if that many, Mr. Naik has exactly zero following and zero credibility in the global Muslim community, and as you should know if you don't already, it is not how some obscure kook somewhere interprets particular Islamic verses. Instead, it is how the overall mainstream body of the world's Muslims interpret the verses that count, as the keys to itijihad have been closed for over a thousand years, and thus his interpretations are worthless. Hey...but nice try at apologizing for Islam again.
Again, read this in context with the other verses instead of off an Islamophobic website.
Uhm, I have on many, many occasions. Anyway the meaning of the verse is unequivocal and you don't have to be a Muslim or a rocket scientists to understand it as the verse commands Muslims to wage war (jihad) against the Jews and the Christians until they feel themselves subdued and pay the Jizya with willing submission or otherwise until they convert to Islam.
It is also the reason why the institution of dhimmitude, which is a corollary of the institution of jihad, is only open to people of the book (Christians and Jews), as all other religions, polytheists, agnostics, and atheists, etc in practice are supposed to either convert or be executed at the time of conquest.
In other words, Christians and Jews can submit to the Dhimma (contract) and pay the Jizya with willing submission or else they can elect to convert to Islam. Nevertheless, because the terms of the Dhimma are so harsh, humiliating, and degrading because it is designed to force eventual conversion to Islam, it means that the majority of the subjugated Jews and Christians over time will eventually convert to Islam.
As a matter of fact, a majority of Muslim's ancestors in North Africa and the Middle East were Christians with a few Jews intermingled in, as Islam conquered over half of Christendom in the 7th and 8th centuries and the majority of those Christians were eventually forcibly converted via the very harsh, humiliating, and very degrading subjugation of Dhimmitude.
Indeed, look inside the Dar al Islam today, we still see the same sort of harsh, humiliating, and degrading persecution and discrimination of non-Muslims still taking place throughout the Islamic world today. Which is why non-Muslim Christians and Jews are escaping the harsh oppression of the Dar al Islam in mass today.
Further to the East, those Muslim's ancestors either converted at the time of conquest or otherwise they were slaughtered, as the harsh, humiliating, and degrading subjugation known as dhimmitude wasn't available to their ancestors, since they weren't people of the book.
Well if it is the 'religion of truth' why would it not be superior? It would be completely illogical to assume the 'religion of truth' should be inferior to other religions.
Actually, per the verse, Muhammad was sent to make Islam supreme over all other religions, which is Islam's sole purpose and highest mandate. Nice try though.
In any event, you sound like you may be a taqiyya spewing Muslim? Are you a Muslim trying to deceive kafirs? Never mind, I would believe you if you told me today it was Saturday and the Sun was shining outside, which it is.
Oh well, I know these simple explanations won't convince someone who does not even bother using context when quoting scripture. Your contempt for Islam is quite obvious.
How can you take those verses out of context? I quoted them in their entirety so that their context would be obvious to anyone. Not only that but you don't have to be a Muslim or a rocket scientists to understand their context.
Nevertheless, besides the above cited verses, there are also tons of other Hadiths and leading Muslim exegetes and scholars of Islam I could cite and quote if I wanted to more than prove my point. Needless to say, every sect of Islam and every Islamic school of jurisprudence teaches that non-Muslims must be subjugated and even killed to make Islam supreme, and its unequivocal. Thus, you can spew all the taqiyya and kitman you want and apologize for Islam until the cows come home, it won't take away from the truth of Islam, which is self evident.
Nevertheless, don't take my word, take the word of famous Muslim scholar Ibn Khaldun who was admired in the West for his “progressive” insights, as he puts it:
In the Muslim community, the holy war [jihad] is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force ... The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense ... They are merely required to establish their religion among their own people. That is why the Israelites after Moses and Joshua remained unconcerned with royal authority [e.g., a caliphate]. Their only concern was to establish their religion [not spread it to the nations] … But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.
We can also get into the principle of abrogation if you like, but nonetheless this isn't a debate you are going to ever come close to winning I'm afraid.
Don't bother, Degreez. Karl Rove has been banned for sock puppetry. :mrgreen:
