|
Sina
wrote:
|
|
The
verses 25 and 26 talk about the defeat of the Muslims in
Hunain, despite their great numbers and then their victory,
the details of this event is in Sira and really does not
belong to this Sura. How would we know what happened in
Hunain and with whom Muslims fought without consulting the
Sira? Isn’t this another proof that the Quran, without
hadith and Sira is incomprehensible?
|
Again:
left foot, right foot; wet foot, dry foot; true foot, lie foot; here
comes the evilgelical-sunni sly soot!
|
Sina
wrote:
|
|
The
verse 29 starts with
قَـتِلُواْ
this can only be translated as
fight and not fight (back). It is an offensive order and not
defensive. It is qatilu not dafeu. The verse goes on to say
fight them until they pay
الْجِزْيَةَjizyah.
This word derives from jaza. It means fine and punishment
the plural of that is mojazat.
It does not mean compensation. The correct word for
compensation is mokafat.
|
After
another lengthy diversion with a load of trashy references and lies,
you finally make an argument, though a funny argument. First, the
word MOKAFAT is modern Arabic and is not used in the Quran and
hadith books. You are confusing a Modern Arabic word with classic
Arabic. Second, the JAZA means recompense, reward. In fact, in haste
I missed a better English term for Jizya: reparation. Various nouns
and verbs derived from the same root, JaZaYa is mentioned in the
Quran 118 times. If we exclude the JiZYa of verse 29 for the sake of
the argument, NOT IN A SINGLE occurrence it has anything to do with
TAXation. Furthermore, in dozens of verses this word is used to
describe REWARD and COMPENSATION.
Here
are some verses that falsify your claim
3:144-145; 10:4; 12:22; 12:74-75; regarding the modern Arabic
word MOKAFAT 14:51; 18:88; 20:76;
28:14; 33:24;
37:80,105,110,121,131; 39:34;
55:60; and more.
First,
your linguistic sources are little better than your hadith sources,
but it is still the third rate source. Any person can go write an
article and definition in wikipedia.org, including you and any of
your followers. From your MOKAFAT, now your knowledge of classic
Arabic becomes suspect, and from using wikipedia.org I know your
level of academic gullibility becomes an issue. Please be serious
Ali.
Besides,
no scholar who is familiar with transformation of language will put
his or her full trust in a dictionary, even if it is the most
reputable dictionary. There are some Arabic words have changed their
meaning through time and it does not take to be a rocket scientist
or a monotheist to notice the traces of such change. We have many
examples of such a change in English too. For instance, you cannot
claim that a renaissance poet was homosexual because in his poems he
called himself GAY several times. Wikipedia.org indeed does a good
job in listing the early meaning of the word GAY. However, it fails
to define word ELOI or ELI one of the few Aramaic words used in
English translation of the Bible (Mat 27:46; Mrk 15:34). If I claim
that the etymological origin of Arabic Elahi (my god) is the same
with Aramaic Eloi (my god) or the origin of Allah (the god) is the
same as the Aramaic Alohim (the god), you may refute me by referring
to wikipedia.org, which defines Eloi as of the two post-human races
mentioned in the novel The Time Machine. You might claim that Jesus
was asking help from Eloi not Marlocks who lived in the year 802701
AD! Or you might just refer the quotation from Biblical verses and
claim that it just means the God of Anglo-Saxon version!
The
Devil's Califs of Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties had too much
interest and motivation to change the meaning of a Quranic word and
they had many hadith and sunnah fabricators under their service. So,
changing the meaning of JIZYA from reparation to tax perhaps took
some time, but considering their success in changing much important
principles and practices it was not that difficult. |
