Australian Politics Forum

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 20956
A cat with a view

Re: chapter 9
Reply #120 - Jun 27^th, 2017 at 4:49pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 27^th, 2017 at 1:36pm:

Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors. (8:61)

And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah . Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing (1:193)

Speaking frankly FD, I think you are being completely unreasonable in flatly denying muslims any scriptural leeway to interpret the Quran as commanding war in self defense only.

The verses I have pointed out to you I think are very clear.

But tell me this FD, in my (and vast numbers of muslims around the world) interpretation of the Quran as permitting war only in self defense, are you really going to persist with this line that to do so I must necessarily be cherry-picking and being dishonest?

I have patiently given you what I think is a reasonable case which not only cites the verses that clearly outline restrictions, I have also dealt with the "incriminating" verses and explaining they have a context both in time and place as well as the verses ordering self defense (ie they are linke, not isolated and therefore contradictory).

gandalf,

Q.
Does a moslem, in his religion, have any obligation to Allah, and to ISLAM, to seek to achieve to convert the whole world to ISLAM, either by persuasion or by force ?
....and that struggle will be without end [for the moslem] ?

Quote:

War is eternal

The fact that Islam legitimises deceit during war cannot be all that surprising; strategist Sun Tzu (c. 722-221 BC), Italian political philosopher Machiavelli (1469-1527) and English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) all justified deceit in war.

However, according to all four recognised schools of Sunni jurisprudence, war against the infidel goes on in perpetuity, until "all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to Allah" (Quran 8:39).

According to the definitive Encyclopaedia of Islam (Brill Online edition): "The duty of the jihad exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained.

Peace with non-Muslim nations is, therefore, a provisional state of affairs only; the chance of circumstances alone can justify it temporarily.

Furthermore there can be no question of genuine peace treaties with these nations; only truces, whose duration ought not, in principle, to exceed ten years, are authorised.

But even such truces are precarious, inasmuch as they can, before they expire, be repudiated unilaterally should it appear more profitable for Islam to resume the conflict."

The concept of obligatory jihad is best expressed by Islam's dichotomised worldview that pits Dar al Islam (House of Islam) against Dar al Harb (House of War or non-Muslims) until the former subsumes the latter.

Muslim historian and philosopher, Ibn Khaldun (1332- 1406), articulated this division by saying: "In the Muslim community, 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 defence.

But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations."

http://www.meforum.org/2095/islams-doctrines-of-deception

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

Yadda Gold Member Offline Posts: 20956 A cat with a view	Re: chapter 9 Reply #121 - Jun 27^th, 2017 at 4:49pm bump
Back to top	"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." Luke 16:31 IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47364
At my desk.

Re: chapter 9
Reply #122 - Jun 27^th, 2017 at 8:37pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 27^th, 2017 at 1:36pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 27^th, 2017 at 12:56pm:

So far you are merely combining your misunderstanding of both what I say and what the verses you quote say.

OK FD, here's what you say...

Quote:

It looks like wholesale slaughter, and the exception is when there is an oath oath of peace the Muslims still choose to recognise.

Can you educate me as to how these verses don't contradict this statement of yours?

Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors. (8:61)

And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah . Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing (1:193)

Speaking frankly FD, I think you are being completely unreasonable in flatly denying muslims any scriptural leeway to interpret the Quran as commanding war in self defense only. The verses I have pointed out to you I think are very clear. But tell me this FD, in my (and vast numbers of muslims around the world) interpretation of the Quran as permitting war only in self defense, are you really going to persist with this line that to do so I must necessarily be cherry-picking and being dishonest? I have patiently given you what I think is a reasonable case which not only cites the verses that clearly outline restrictions, I have also dealt with the "incriminating" verses and explaining they have a context both in time and place as well as the verses ordering self defense (ie they are linke, not isolated and therefore contradictory).

You can interpret anything you want. That is what I am accusing you of - reading something into it that is not there.

It still does not actually say that. And yes you are being dishonest. You interpretation is completely at odds with the example demonstrated by Muhammad. Which is why you have not touched on this point, despite me raising it in every response. Chapter 9 is dedicated almost entirely to encouraging Muslims to slaughter the infidel, offering a variety of reasons for doing so, including things as benign as mocking Islam. You have not dealt with them, other than in a collective and vague sense. The word count alone should demonstrate that you have your work cut out for you trying to dismiss every single one.

There is no rhyme or reason to your interpretation. If it sounds good, you broaden the statement beyond what it says and assume it is general. If it sounds bad, you assume it is limited by context, even when there is none and it is a general instruction to slaughter the infidel.

You also have not explained what this "just war" theory is. That is because if you were to put it into words, it would sound absurd, or nothing at all like the verses you base it on. For example, how you you come up with a just war theory based on only attacking "the oppressors"? You end up with the typical Islamic victimhood mentality where any sort of collective violent action is justified for Muslims because they can always find some wrong to go nuts over. Terms like "self defence" are your invention.

In the example you quote, it basically says to fight them until they convert to Islam. Not sure why you thought that was a good example. Did you read it?

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

Mattyfisk

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 92276
Gender: male

Re: chapter 9
Reply #123 - Jun 27^th, 2017 at 8:57pm

freediver wrote on Jun 27^th, 2017 at 12:56pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 26^th, 2017 at 11:24pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 26^th, 2017 at 8:19pm:

No.

Yes it is,

No it isn't. It does not even hint that this is the only circumstance permissible. Again, you are projecting something onto it that is not actually there. If a particular verse gave you permission to eat an apple, would you conclude you are forbidden from eating oranges?

Quote:

and moreover its a complete contradiction to your 'unrestrained slaughter of all non-muslims" claptrap - whether you like to admit it or not.

You are absolutely correct Gandalf. But does it contradict anything I actually said? So far you are merely combining your misunderstanding of both what I say and what the verses you quote say.

Quote:

It is also just one of several quotes I have pointed out that clearly sets out the 'just war' (self defense) doctrine, which you avoid like the plague:

I am happy to discuss any of them Gandalf.

You're not happy to discuss any of them, remember?

Ah.

Back to top

IP Logged

Mattyfisk

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 92276
Gender: male

Re: chapter 9
Reply #124 - Jun 27^th, 2017 at 9:14pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 27^th, 2017 at 1:36pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 27^th, 2017 at 12:56pm:

So far you are merely combining your misunderstanding of both what I say and what the verses you quote say.

OK FD, here's what you say...

Quote:

It looks like wholesale slaughter, and the exception is when there is an oath oath of peace the Muslims still choose to recognise.

Can you educate me as to how these verses don't contradict this statement of yours?

Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors. (8:61)

And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah . Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing (1:193)

Speaking frankly FD, I think you are being completely unreasonable in flatly denying muslims any scriptural leeway to interpret the Quran as commanding war in self defense only. The verses I have pointed out to you I think are very clear. But tell me this FD, in my (and vast numbers of muslims around the world) interpretation of the Quran as permitting war only in self defense, are you really going to persist with this line that to do so I must necessarily be cherry-picking and being dishonest? I have patiently given you what I think is a reasonable case which not only cites the verses that clearly outline restrictions, I have also dealt with the "incriminating" verses and explaining they have a context both in time and place as well as the verses ordering self defense (ie they are linke, not isolated and therefore contradictory).

Well yes, but FD's going on what you don't say, G.

Sending money to terrorist causes (paying Muslim school fees and eating halal), interbreeding with the Negroid subspecies (a plausible theory) and executing gays who do it Mardi Gras-style.

You people will never admit this because you practice taqiyya. That's why we need open, honest and forthright people like FD to expose you.

Sometimes a question is just a question, no?

Back to top

IP Logged

Mattyfisk

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 92276
Gender: male

Re: chapter 9
Reply #125 - Jun 27^th, 2017 at 9:18pm

freediver wrote on Jun 27^th, 2017 at 8:37pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 27^th, 2017 at 1:36pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 27^th, 2017 at 12:56pm:

So far you are merely combining your misunderstanding of both what I say and what the verses you quote say.

OK FD, here's what you say...

Quote:

It looks like wholesale slaughter, and the exception is when there is an oath oath of peace the Muslims still choose to recognise.

Can you educate me as to how these verses don't contradict this statement of yours?

Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors. (8:61)

And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah . Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing (1:193)

Speaking frankly FD, I think you are being completely unreasonable in flatly denying muslims any scriptural leeway to interpret the Quran as commanding war in self defense only. The verses I have pointed out to you I think are very clear. But tell me this FD, in my (and vast numbers of muslims around the world) interpretation of the Quran as permitting war only in self defense, are you really going to persist with this line that to do so I must necessarily be cherry-picking and being dishonest? I have patiently given you what I think is a reasonable case which not only cites the verses that clearly outline restrictions, I have also dealt with the "incriminating" verses and explaining they have a context both in time and place as well as the verses ordering self defense (ie they are linke, not isolated and therefore contradictory).

You can interpret anything you want. That is what I am accusing you of - reading something into it that is not there.

It still does not actually say that. And yes you are being dishonest. You interpretation is completely at odds with the example demonstrated by Muhammad. Which is why you have not touched on this point, despite me raising it in every response. Chapter 9 is dedicated almost entirely to encouraging Muslims to slaughter the infidel, offering a variety of reasons for doing so, including things as benign as mocking Islam. You have not dealt with them, other than in a collective and vague sense. The word count alone should demonstrate that you have your work cut out for you trying to dismiss every single one.

There is no rhyme or reason to your interpretation. If it sounds good, you broaden the statement beyond what it says and assume it is general. If it sounds bad, you assume it is limited by context, even when there is none and it is a general instruction to slaughter the infidel.

You also have not explained what this "just war" theory is. That is because if you were to put it into words, it would sound absurd, or nothing at all like the verses you base it on. For example, how you you come up with a just war theory based on only attacking "the oppressors"? You end up with the typical Islamic victimhood mentality where any sort of collective violent action is justified for Muslims because they can always find some wrong to go nuts over. Terms like "self defence" are your invention.

In the example you quote, it basically says to fight them until they convert to Islam. Not sure why you thought that was a good example. Did you read it?

Keep educating G on the Quran, FD. I think we're finally getting somewhere.

Just don't tell him what it means, okay?

Back to top

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: chapter 9
Reply #126 - Jun 27^th, 2017 at 9:35pm

freediver wrote on Jun 27^th, 2017 at 8:37pm:

You also have not explained what this "just war" theory is.

You are not familiar with the just war doctrine? It simply means fighting in self defense. Thats it. The Quran preaches a just war doctrine, that is plain enough.

freediver wrote on Jun 27^th, 2017 at 8:37pm:

It still does not actually say that.

Doesn't say what?

FD kindly explain how I am so wrong in interpreting "if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors." and ""if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also]" - as commands to fight only against aggression - ie in self defense? Perhaps if you actually attempt an argument rather than simply spewing the same old trash without actually explaining anything - it might help.

freediver wrote on Jun 27^th, 2017 at 8:37pm:

In the example you quote, it basically says to fight them until they convert to Islam. Not sure why you thought that was a good example. Did you read it?

Yes FD, it does say that - that is if you ignore the second half of the quote. The giveaway is the part starting with "but".

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47364
At my desk.

Re: chapter 9
Reply #127 - Jun 27^th, 2017 at 9:47pm

Gandalf, how do you reconcile your "interpretation" of the Koran with Muhammad's actions?

Quote:

You are not familiar with the just war doctrine? It simply means fighting in self defense. Thats it. The Quran preaches a just war doctrine, that is plain enough.

Nowhere in the Koran does it say that war can only be fought in self defence. There are entire chapters dedicated to slaughtering the infidel for all sorts of reasons.

Quote:

Doesn't say what?

It does not say that war can only be fought in self defence. As you demonstrate, this is a fairly simple concept to communicate. If that is what Muhammad actually intended, don't you think he might have gotten round to saying it?

Quote:

FD kindly explain how I am so wrong in interpreting "if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors." and ""if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also]" - as commands to fight only against aggression - ie in self defense?

Sure, now if you chop the sentence in half it kind of looks like you could interpret it that way. But then again, you just criticised me because when I quoted the entirety of chapter 9 I left out the rest of the Koran, whose context somehow changes the meaning. Now you have to reinterpret half a sentence that does not actually say what you claim it does.

Quote:

Yes FD, it does say that - that is if you ignore the second half of the quote. The giveaway is the part starting with "but".

Have you read the second half of the sentence? It does not say that war can only be fought in self defence either. It appears to merely reinforce the first half about slaughtering the infidel until they convert to Islam. You appear to be mentally inserting a few words that are not there. I cannot quote what you imagine is there Gandalf, only point out that it does not say what you claim.

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: chapter 9
Reply #128 - Jun 27^th, 2017 at 10:15pm

freediver wrote on Jun 27^th, 2017 at 9:47pm:

Sure, now if you chop the sentence in half it kind of looks like you could interpret it that way.

You are the only one insisting the sentence must be chopped in half. I have no problem with the first half - but it is clearly superseded by the qualifier that comes after "but". Or in other words - fight the infidel until there is no more oppression - unless the infidels cease oppressing. A clearer command to fight only in self defense could not be made. But of course FD will find a way to explain it away.... or not - actually he just stands there huffing and puffing without actually attempting to explain anything.

freediver wrote on Jun 27^th, 2017 at 9:47pm:

Gandalf, how do you reconcile your "interpretation" of the Koran with Muhammad's actions?

Very easily. Like when he reached out for peace with a severely weakened enemy, from an overwhelming position of strength - despite agreeing to significant concessions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Hudaybiyyah

And this wasn't an isolated case. But please, do tell me the one about the appalling genocide of those poor innocent jews - I surely haven't heard that one before

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20023 Canberra Gender:	Re: chapter 9 Reply #129 - Jun 27^th, 2017 at 10:16pm freediver wrote on Jun 27^th, 2017 at 9:47pm: There are entire chapters dedicated to slaughtering the infidel for all sorts of reasons. entire chapters FD? Would you mind quoting more of these chapters besides chapter 9? Remember you did say "chapters" (plural).
Back to top	A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said: Quote: Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms. IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 20956
A cat with a view

Re: chapter 9
Reply #130 - Jun 27^th, 2017 at 10:55pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 27^th, 2017 at 10:16pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 27^th, 2017 at 9:47pm:

There are entire chapters dedicated to slaughtering the infidel for all sorts of reasons.

entire chapters FD?

Would you mind quoting more of these chapters besides chapter 9?

Remember you did say "chapters" (plural).

gandalf,

Are you a real, real moslem ?

Or are you just a moslem impersonator ?

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful.

Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."

Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you.

Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority".

Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward."

Quran (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"

Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."

Quran (4:95) - "Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives.

And on, and on, and on.....

Quran (4:104)

Quran (5:33)

Quran (8:12)

Quran (8:15)

Quran (8:39)

Quran (8:57)

Quran (8:67)

and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on.....

all the way to....

Quran (66:9) - "O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them......

All cited here.....
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

polite_gandalf Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20023 Canberra Gender:	Re: chapter 9 Reply #131 - Jun 27^th, 2017 at 11:17pm Yadda wrote on Jun 27^th, 2017 at 10:55pm: Quran (66:9) - "O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them...... shocking.
Back to top	A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said: Quote: Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms. IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 20956
A cat with a view

Re: chapter 9
Reply #132 - Jun 27^th, 2017 at 11:53pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 27^th, 2017 at 11:17pm:

Yadda wrote on Jun 27^th, 2017 at 10:55pm:

Quran (66:9) - "O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them......

shocking.

Oh really ?

.

"....the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies."
Koran 4.101

"......the curse of Allah is on those without Faith."
Koran 2.089

"....Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith."
Koran 2.98

"....those who reject Allah have no protector."
Koran 47.008
v. 8-11

.

Quote:

Here, for example, are two very illuminating passages from the canonical Life of Mohammed by Ibn Ishaq, as translated by A. Guillaume, and a third passage, from the earliest known Muslim historian.

Ishaq: 204 - "'Men, do you know what you are pledging yourselves to in swearing allegiance to this man [Muhammad]?' 'Yes. In swearing allegiance to him we are pledging to wage war against all mankind.'"

Ishaq:231 - "Muslims are one ummah (community) to the exclusion of all men. Believers are friends of one another to the exclusion of all outsiders."

And here is Al-Tabari, a very early Muslim historian, in book 9, chapter or section 69, reporting words that Muslims believe to have been said by Mohammed himself - "Killing infidels is a small matter to us".

These texts are not fossils from a distant past. They are not dead letters. They are still 'live' and carry tremendous weight in the imagination and practice of many Muslims around the world.
...DDA

Google

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 20956
A cat with a view

Re: chapter 9
Reply #133 - Jun 27^th, 2017 at 11:58pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 27^th, 2017 at 11:17pm:

Yadda wrote on Jun 27^th, 2017 at 10:55pm:

Quran (66:9) - "O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them......

shocking.

Shameless.

Dictionary;
shameless = =
1 showing a lack of shame.
2 a moslem. [it is not in the dictionary, but it should be]

Dictionary;
shame = =
1 a feeling of humiliation or distress caused by the consciousness of wrong or foolish behaviour.
2 dishonour. a person or thing bringing dishonour.
3 a regrettable or unfortunate thing.

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

Mattyfisk Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 92276 Gender:	Re: chapter 9 Reply #134 - Jun 28^th, 2017 at 12:28am polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 27^th, 2017 at 11:17pm: Yadda wrote on Jun 27^th, 2017 at 10:55pm: Quran (66:9) - "O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them...... shocking. Sounds just like the Y doctrine without the "Moslems, go to hell" part.
Back to top	IP Logged