But aren’t they also rejecting the truth ? Aren’t they also disbelievers ? Why not kill them too ?

But they still rejected the truth of Islam ..and didn’t accept Prophet Muhammad as the messenger of God, which is the definition of a disbeliever. In your opening post you mentioned quoting Ghamidi saab :

“when a prophet performs itmaam e hujjat all rejectors of the truth are killed.”

What is truth here ? What does it mean to reject the truth ? Does it mean that people of the book didn’t reject the truth when they rejected Prophet Muhammad ?

OK..

A Muslim man could marry a Christian woman, without the Christian woman converting to Islam, and despite her rejection of Prophet Muhammad’s truth. Now are you saying that she didn’t “knowingly” reject truth ?

If there was a polytheist, would it mean that he will also be spared his life if he rejected the truth due to misunderstanding ?

So, do you mean that their ego and bias was the reason of their killing, and not exactly rejection of truth and rejection of Prophet Muhammad ?

So, the real reason of killing them was their animosity towards the Prophet, right ?

Let’s be very clear. When Prophet killed them, in the justice context, what was the reason he gave ?

If rejection of truth was the reason, then it would mean people of the book need be killed as well.. otherwise there is contradiction.

If animosity to the Prophet was the reason, again the people of the book should fit this criterion as well.. in fact the Jewish woman who poisoned Prophet in Khaybaar was NOT killed because of this act, but was killed because of one companion of Prophet died.. so just animosity to the Prophet can’t be the reason of killing them.

AFAIK, there were 8 people who were not forgiven after the conquest of Makkah, even if they repented and requested Prophet to save their lives. Most likely due to their earlier behavior towards Prophet .

When we hear that Prophet forgave everyone, it is not correct.

I couldn’t understand it properly, because some words were in Urdu . Is it possible to clarify it ?

Does it mean a Christian woman who is married to a companion of the Prophet, and is aware of the direct message from Prophet, and still denies it , continuing with her faith in Jesus as her lord, is NOT supposed to be killed, even though she is rejecting the truth ?

OK.. so no people should be killed who are not fighting .. even at the time of Prophet ? Even if they rejected the message of Prophet ?

OK then the first post seems to be wrong where it is mentioned that Ghamidi saab said :

“hen a prophet performs itmaam e hujjat all rejectors of the truth are killed.”

This quote doesn’t talk about any exception for non-combatants.

ok.. thanks for giving your opinion. Your opinion, seems to be different from the opening post and quote of Ghamidi saab.

Yes, but the first post quoted Ghamidi saab’s comment, so its accuracy needs be scrutinized.

What was inaccurate in his quoting Ghamidi saab’s comment ?

It doesn’t and shouldn’t matter. Even if completion of proof is there, even if it is proven beyond doubt that Muhammad was the messenger of God (it wasn’t proven by the way, but it is a different topic), but still, there is no compulsion in religion, so one can’t be forced to accept the truth, or stay in Islam (apostasy prohibition).

No compulsion in religion – simply means what it says. It doesn’t mean that once truth is proven to you, you have to accept Islam or be killed.

Unless again, you mean to convey that Allah doesn’t mean what he says.

It seems I am not able to convey my point properly.

Threat of Murdering them is compelling them to acceptance of Islam.

It would have been fine if God himself, through a natural calamity killed those people.

However, Prophet killing them (by of course claiming that God ordered him, like he did for all his actions and justified them as the will of God) is a human punishment, which violates the principle of no compulsion in religion.

.

Sorry my original post got deleted by mistake.. I posted it again in the main section.

Actually, the proof is not accepted by me when the man says it. It is only his view that I am stubborn and denying him out of stubbornness. Anyone with sword can give this argument.

How is not being able to produce a similar Qur’an prove that I am denying him as a messenger of God, out of stubbornness? In fact, such a challenge of produce a similar Qur’an in itself a fallacious claim . Are we judging the poetry of Qur’an ?

Suppose Usain Bolt comes and makes the similar claim, and tells me: “Run faster than me if you want to prove me wrong or else accept my claim of being a messenger of God ” and I am not able to run faster than Bolt, then does it mean Bolt has proven his claim ?

The point remains simple.. that these are all claims made by Muhammad and he forced religion of Islam on the Arab Pagans/Jews etc.

How do you know apart from the claim of Muhammad himself, that they knew he was messenger of God but denied him only out of stubbornness ?

Proofs through the Qur’an itself ? Which in itself is doubted by them ? Strange.

Anyway, let’s discuss in a separate thread.

No doubt and it was claimed by Muhammad ..

Basically you mean .. that there should not have been any doubt after Muhammad explained.. and if there is , then he will kill them..

Will you accept this argument from John ?

There is NO proof that Muhammad split the moon either. Where is the evidence of it ? Who all saw it ? Did the world see this event of moon splitting?

Yes, but please provide evidence when you mention something as evidence of Muhammad being divinely inspired.

Yes, let’s discuss in that thread, but I don’t think Qur’an mentioning that Muhammad split the moon counts for evidence, unless there is some historical proof and people independently saw and verified this miracle.

But you said you won’t accept John making this argument because John didn’t split the moon. When I said even Muhammad did NOT split the moon, you said that Qur’an is the proof that Muhammad split the moon. But we are discussing that Quran’s own claims don’t count for evidence.

It is circular reasoning.

This video is saying that there were only 3 eye witnesses of this moon splitting .. and interestingly all of them were Muslims .. how can it be counted as evidence ? Did the people of the world see it ? Any recorded history showing it ? Also, this doesn’t intend to be validated as his prophethood as the video and you explained.

Please understand the context of our discussion. Disbelievers don’t accept Qur’an as true .. and asked for a proof from Muhammad. Now if you or some other person says that moon splitting is one miracle, and we ask who saw the moon split, and you reply that 3 of his companions saw it .. but nobody else in the entire world saw such a grand event to have taken place, but only those 3 people who already believed in Muhammad ? Strange.

Now you say that it doesn’t matter, but what matters is Qur’an says it happened, and Qur’an is undeniably true .. but that’s the point.. the disbelievers rejected it saying Qur’an is not true..

So, how exactly you can make a claim that disbelievers were convinced and still rejected Muhammad only due to their stubbornness ? By this logic, even John can make this argument that he explained in “undeniable” manner that he was the divine person, and anyone not accepting this so-called “undeniable” evidence is fit to be killed.

I am sure you reject John’s claim.. and I think you are reasonable in rejecting John’s ridiculous claim. The strange thing is, you don’t reject Muhammad’s same claim .

Your premise gets stuck on 1st point itself. Let’s see if Qur’an is undeniably true in the other thread. I think Qur’an is full of logical and moral flaws. It can’t be coming from God. Rest of your 2, 3, 4, 5 points are invalid in my view.

Qur’an says no compulsion in religion. It doesn’t say no compulsion in religion but kill them if they don’t accept you. If it says it, it is contradiction. What part of “no compulsion” is consistent with “kill them if they don’t accept truth” .

Are you saying that there is compulsion in religion if truth is made known to the disbelievers?

Thanks .. I will watch it and then discuss it further. Is it in English or Urdu ?

Actually I can’t understand Urdu properly.

So, if some polytheist today says that he understood the truth of Islam but still denies it knowingly, is it fair to kill him ?

Then, it means that “not being able to know” is not the reason of not killing the polytheists. Even if Prophet knew the polytheists in Arabia were lying, he couldn’t have killed them, without the God’s order.

And how did God punish them ? With the help of sword of Muhammad only ? Which verse in the Qur’an says that ?

Do we apply the same criterion for apostates also ? Only God has the right to kill apostates, but the ordinary Muslim ruler doesn’t have the right to kill those who leave their religion of Islam ?

@AhmadShoaib