Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 
Send Topic Print
chapter 9 (Read 50299 times)
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47369
At my desk.
chapter 9
Jul 30th, 2016 at 10:08am
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-Tawba

Sūrat at-Tawbah (Arabic: سورة التوبة‎‎, "The Repentance"), also known as al-Barā'ah ("The Repudiation"),[1] is the ninth chapter of the Qur'an. It contains 129 verses and is one of the last Madinan chapters.

http://www.noblequran.com/translation/surah9.html

9. Surah At-Taubah (The Repentance)

1. Freedom from (all) obligations (is declared) from Allah and His Messenger () to those of the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah), with whom you made a treaty.

2. So travel freely (O Mushrikun - see V.2:105) for four months (as you will) throughout the land, but know that you cannot escape (from the Punishment of) Allah, and Allah will disgrace the disbelievers.

3. And a declaration from Allah and His Messenger to mankind on the greatest day (the 10th of Dhul-Hijjah - the 12th month of Islamic calendar) that Allah is free from (all) obligations to the Mushrikun (see V.2:105) and so is His Messenger. So if you (Mushrikun) repent, it is better for you, but if you turn away, then know that you cannot escape (from the Punishment of) Allah. And give tidings (O Muhammad ) of a painful torment to those who disbelieve.

4. Except those of the Mushrikun with whom you have a treaty, and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor have supported anyone against you. So fulfill their treaty to them to the end of their term. Surely Allah loves Al- Mattaqun (the pious - see V.2:2).

5. Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then
kill the Mushrikun
(see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush.
But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

6. And if anyone of the Mushrikun (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) seeks your protection then grant him protection, so that he may hear the Word of Allah (the Qur'an), and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men who know not.

7. How can there be a covenant with Allah and with His Messenger for the Mushrikun (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) except those with whom you made a covenant near Al-Masjid-al-Haram (at Makkah)? So long, as they are true to you, stand you true to them. Verily, Allah loves Al-Muttaqun (the pious - see V.2:2).

8. How (can there be such a covenant with them) that when you are overpowered by them, they regard not the ties, either of kinship or of covenant with you? With (good words from) their mouths they please you, but their hearts are averse to you, and most of them are Fasiqun (rebellious, disobedient to Allah).

9. They have purchased with the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allah a little gain, and they hindered men from His Way; evil indeed is that which they used to do.

10. With regard to a believer, they respect not the ties, either of kinship or of covenant! It is they who are the transgressors.

11. But if they repent, perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat) and give Zakat, then they are your brethren in religion. (In this way) We explain the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) in detail for a people who know.

12. But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and attack your religion with disapproval and criticism then
fight
(you) the leaders of disbelief
(chiefs of Quraish - pagans of Makkah) - for surely their oaths are nothing to them - so that they may stop (evil actions).

13. Will you not
fight
a people who have violated their oaths (pagans of Makkah) and intended to expel the Messenger, while they did attack you first? Do you fear them? Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are believers.

14.
Fight
against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people,

15. And remove the anger of their (believers') hearts. Allah accepts the repentance of whom He wills. Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.

16. Do you think that you shall be left alone while Allah has not yet tested those among you who have striven hard and
fought
and have not taken Walijah [(Batanah - helpers, advisors and consultants from disbelievers, pagans, etc.) giving openly to them their secrets] besides Allah and His Messenger, and the believers. Allah is Well-Acquainted with what you do.

17. It is not for the Mushrikun (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah), to maintain the Mosques of Allah (i.e. to pray and worship Allah therein, to look after their cleanliness and their building, etc.), while they witness against their ownselves of disbelief. The works of such are in vain and in Fire shall they abide.

Back to top
« Last Edit: Apr 27th, 2017 at 10:15pm by freediver »  

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #1 - Jul 30th, 2016 at 10:09am
 
18. The Mosques of Allah shall be maintained only by those who believe in Allah and the Last Day; perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat and fear none but Allah. It is they who are expected to be on true guidance.

19. Do you consider the providing of drinking water to the pilgrims and the maintenance of Al-Masjid-al-Haram (at Makkah) as equal to the worth of those who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and strive hard and
fight
in the Cause of Allah? They are not equal before Allah.
And Allah guides not those people who are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrong-doers).

20. Those who believed (in the Oneness of Allah - Islamic Monotheism) and emigrated and strove hard and
fought
in Allah's Cause with their wealth and their lives are far higher in degree with Allah
. They are the successful.

21. Their Lord gives them glad tidings of a Mercy from Him, and that He is pleased (with them), and of Gardens (Paradise) for them wherein are everlasting delights.

22. They will dwell therein forever. Verily, with Allah is a great reward.

23. O you who believe! Take not for Auliya' (supporters and helpers) your fathers and your brothers if they prefer disbelief to Belief. And whoever of you does so, then he is one of the Zalimun (wrong-doers, etc.).

24. Say: If your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your wives, your kindred, the wealth that you have gained, the commerce in which you fear a decline, and the dwellings in which you delight ... are dearer to you than Allah and His Messenger, and striving hard and
fighting
in His Cause , then wait until Allah brings about His Decision (torment). And Allah guides not the people who are Al-Fasiqun (the rebellious, disobedient to Allah).

25. Truly Allah has given you victory on many
battle
fields, and on the Day of Hunain (
battle
)
when you rejoiced at your great number but it availed you naught and the earth, vast as it is, was straitened for you, then you turned back in flight.

26. Then Allah did send down His Sakinah (calmness, tranquillity and reassurance, etc.) on the Messenger (Muhammad ), and on the believers, and sent down forces (angels) which you saw not, and punished the disbelievers. Such is the recompense of disbelievers.

27. Then after that Allah will accept the repentance of whom He will. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

28. O you who believe (in Allah's Oneness and in His Messenger (Muhammad )! Verily, the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah, and in the Message of Muhammad ) are Najasun (impure) . So let them not come near Al-Masjid-al-Haram (at Makkah) after this year, and if you fear poverty, Allah will enrich you if He will, out of His Bounty. Surely, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.

29.
Fight
against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

30. And the Jews say: 'Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allah's Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!

31. They (Jews and Christians) took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah (by obeying them in things which they made lawful or unlawful according to their own desires without being ordered by Allah), and (they also took as their Lord) Messiah, son of Maryam (Mary), while they (Jews and Christians) were commanded [in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)) to worship none but One Ilah (God - Allah) La ilaha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He) . Praise and glory be to Him, (far above is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him)."

32. They (the disbelievers, the Jews and the Christians) want to extinguish Allah's Light (with which Muhammad  has been sent - Islamic Monotheism) with their mouths, but Allah will not allow except that His Light should be perfected even though the Kafirun (disbelievers) hate (it).

33. It is He Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad ) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), to make it superior over all religions even though the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) hate (it).

34. O you who believe! Verily, there are many of the (Jewish) rabbis and the (Christian) monks who devour the wealth of mankind in falsehood, and hinder (them) from the Way of Allah (i.e. Allah's Religion of Islamic Monotheism). And those who hoard up gold and silver [Al-Kanz: the money, the Zakat of which has not been paid], and spend it not in the Way of Allah, -announce unto them a painful torment.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Apr 27th, 2017 at 10:18pm by freediver »  

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #2 - Jul 30th, 2016 at 10:09am
 
35. On the Day when that (Al-Kanz: money, gold and silver, etc., the Zakat of which has not been paid) will be heated in the Fire of Hell and with it will be branded their foreheads, their flanks, and their backs, (and it will be said unto them):-"This is the treasure which you hoarded for yourselves. Now taste of what you used to hoard."

36. Verily, the number of months with Allah is twelve months (in a year), so was it ordained by Allah on the Day when He created the heavens and the earth; of them four are Sacred, (i.e. the 1st, the 7th, the 11th and the 12th months of the Islamic calendar). That is the right religion, so wrong not yourselves therein, and
fight
against the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) collectively
, as they fight against you collectively. But know that Allah is with those who are Al-Muttaqun (the pious - see V.2:2).

37. The postponing (of a Sacred Month) is indeed an addition to disbelief: thereby the disbelievers are led astray, for they make it lawful one year and forbid it another year in order to adjust the number of months forbidden by Allah, and make such forbidden ones lawful. The evil of their deeds seems pleasing to them. And Allah guides not the people, who disbelieve.

38. O you who believe! What is the matter with you, that when you are asked to
march
forth in the Cause of Allah (i.e. Jihad) you cling heavily to the earth? Are you pleased with the life of this world rather than the Hereafter?
But little is the enjoyment of the life of this world as compared with the Hereafter.

39. If you
march
not forth, He will punish you with a painful torment and will replace you by another people
, and you cannot harm Him at all, and Allah is Able to do all things.

40. If you help him (Muhammad ) not (it does not matter), for Allah did indeed help him when the disbelievers drove him out, the second of two, when they (Muhammad  and Abu Bakr ) were in the cave, and he () said to his companion (Abu Bakr ): "Be not sad (or afraid), surely Allah is with us." Then Allah sent down His Sakinah (calmness, tranquillity, peace, etc.) upon him, and strengthened him with forces (angels) which you saw not, and made the word of those who disbelieved the lowermost, while it was the Word of Allah that became the uppermost, and Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise.

41.
March
forth, whether you are light (being healthy, young and wealthy) or heavy (being ill, old and poor), strive hard with your wealth and your
lives
in the Cause of Allah
. This is better for you, if you but knew.

42. Had it been a near gain (booty in front of them) and an easy journey, they would have followed you, but the distance (Tabuk expedition) was long for them, and they would swear by Allah, "If we only could, we would certainly have come forth with you." They destroy their ownselves, and Allah knows that they are liars.

43. May Allah forgive you (O Muhammad ). Why did you grant them leave (for remaining behind, you should have persisted as regards your order to them to proceed on
Jihad
), until those who told the truth were seen by you in a clear light, and you had known the liars?

44. Those who believe in Allah and the Last Day would not ask your leave to be exempted from
fighting
with their properties and their lives
, and Allah is the All-Knower of Al-Muttaqun (the pious - see V.2:2).

45. It is only those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and whose hearts are in doubt that ask your leave (to be exempted from
Jihad
). So in their doubts they waver.

46. And if they had intended to
march
out
, certainly, they would have made some preparation for it, but Allah was averse to their being sent forth, so He made them lag behind, and it was said (to them), "Sit you among those who sit (at home)."

47. Had they
marched
out
with you, they would have added to you nothing except disorder, and they would have hurried about in your midst (spreading corruption) and sowing sedition among you, and there are some among you who would have listened to them. And Allah is the All-Knower of the Zalimun (polytheists and wrong-doers, etc.).

48. Verily, they had plotted sedition before, and had upset matters for you, - until the truth (
victory
) came and the Decree of Allah (His Religion, Islam) became manifest though they hated it.

49. And among them is he who says:"Grant me leave (to be exempted from
Jihad
) and put me not into trial." Surely, they have fallen into trial. And verily, Hell is surrounding the disbelievers.

50. If good befalls you (O Muhammad ), it grieves them, but if a calamity overtakes you, they say: "We took our precaution beforehand," and they turn away rejoicing.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Apr 27th, 2017 at 10:23pm by freediver »  

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #3 - Jul 30th, 2016 at 10:10am
 
51. Say: "Nothing shall ever happen to us except what Allah has ordained for us. He is our Maula (Lord, Helper and Protector)." And in Allah let the believers put their trust.

52. Say: "Do you wait for us (anything) except one of the two best things (
martyrdom or victory
)
; while we await for you either that Allah will afflict you with a punishment from Himself or at our hands. So wait, we too are waiting with you."

53. Say: "Spend (in Allah's Cause) willingly or unwillingly, it will not be accepted from you. Verily, you are ever a people who are Fasiqun (rebellious, disobedient to Allah)."

54. And nothing prevents their contributions from being accepted from them except that they disbelieved in Allah and in His Messenger (Muhammad ); and that they came not to As-Salat (the prayer) except in a lazy state ; and that they offer not contributions but unwillingly.

55. So let not their wealth or their children amaze you (O Muhammad ); in reality Allah's Plan is to punish them with these things in the life of the this world, and that their souls shall depart (
die
) while they are disbelievers.

56. They swear by Allah that they are truly of you while they are not of you, but they are a people (hypocrites) who are afraid (that you may
kill
them).

57. Should they find a refuge, or caves, or a place of concealment, they would turn straightway thereto with a swift rush.

58. And of them are some who accuse you (O Muhammad ) in the matter of (the distribution of) the alms. If they are given part thereof, they are pleased, but if they are not given thereof, behold! They are enraged!

59. Would that they were contented with what Allah and His Messenger () gave them and had said: "Allah is Sufficient for us. Allah will give us of His Bounty, and (also) His Messenger (from alms, etc.). We implore Allah (to enrich us)."

60. As-Sadaqat (here it means Zakat) are only for the Fuqara' (poor), and Al-Masakin (the poor) and those employed to collect (the funds); and for to attract the hearts of those who have been inclined (towards Islam); and to free the captives; and for those in debt; and for Allah's Cause (i.e. for Mujahidun - those
fighting in the holy wars
), and for the wayfarer (a traveller who is cut off from everything); a duty imposed by Allah. And Allah is All-Knower, All-Wise.

61. And among them are men who hurt the Prophet (Muhammad ) and say: "He is (lending his) ear (to every news)." Say: "He listens to what is best for you; he believes in Allah; has faith in the believers; and is a mercy to those of you who believe." But those who hurt Allah's Messenger (Muhammad ) will have a painful torment.

62. They swear by Allah to you (Muslims) in order to please you, but it is more fitting that they should please Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad ), if they are believers.

63. Know they not that whoever opposes and shows hostility to Allah (ÚÒ æ Ìá) and His Messenger (), certainly for him will be the Fire of Hell to abide therein. That is extreme disgrace.

64. The hypocrites fear lest a Surah (chapter of the Qur'an) should be revealed about them, showing them what is in their hearts. Say: "(Go ahead and) mock! But certainly Allah will bring to light all that you fear."

65. If you ask them (about this), they declare: "We were only talking idly and joking." Say: "Was it at Allah (ÚÒ æ Ìá), and His Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) and His Messenger () that you were mocking?"

66. Make no excuse; you have disbelieved after you had believed. If We pardon some of you, We will punish others amongst you because they were Mujrimun (disbelievers, polytheists, sinners, criminals, etc.).

67. The hypocrites, men and women, are from one another, they enjoin (on the people) Al-Munkar (i.e. disbelief and polytheism of all kinds and all that Islam has forbidden), and forbid (people) from Al-Ma'ruf (i.e. Islamic Monotheism and all that Islam orders one to do), and they close their hands [from giving (spending in Allah's Cause) alms, etc.]. They have forgotten Allah, so He has forgotten them. Verily, the hypocrites are the Fasiqun (rebellious, disobedient to Allah).

68. Allah has promised the hypocrites; men and women, and the disbelievers, the Fire of Hell, therein shall they abide. It will suffice them. Allah has cursed them and for them is the lasting torment.

69. Like those before you, they were mightier than you in power, and more abundant in wealth and children. They had enjoyed their portion awhile, so enjoy your portion awhile as those before you enjoyed their portion awhile; and you indulged in play and pastime (and in telling lies against Allah and His Messenger Muhammad ) as they indulged in play and pastime. Such are they whose deeds are in vain in this world and in the Hereafter. Such are they who are the losers.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Apr 27th, 2017 at 10:25pm by freediver »  

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #4 - Jul 30th, 2016 at 10:11am
 
70. Has not the story reached them of those before them? - The people of Nuh (Noah), 'Ad, and Thamud, the people of Ibrahim (Abraham), the dwellers of Madyan (Midian) and the cities overthrown [i.e. the people to whom Lout (Lot) preached], to them came their Messengers with clear proofs. So it was not Allah Who wronged them, but they used to wrong themselves.

71. The believers, men and women, are Auliya' (helpers, supporters, friends, protectors) of one another, they enjoin (on the people) Al-Ma'ruf (i.e. Islamic Monotheism and all that Islam orders one to do), and forbid (people) from Al-Munkar (i.e. polytheism and disbelief of all kinds, and all that Islam has forbidden); they perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat) and give the Zakat, and obey Allah and His Messenger. Allah will have His Mercy on them. Surely Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise.

72. Allah has promised to the believers -men and women, - Gardens under which rivers flow to dwell therein forever, and beautiful mansions in Gardens of 'Adn (Eden Paradise). But the greatest bliss is the Good Pleasure of Allah. That is the supreme success.

73. O Prophet (Muhammad )! Strive hard against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be harsh against them, their abode is Hell, - and worst indeed is that destination.

74. They swear by Allah that they said nothing (bad), but really they said the word of disbelief, and they disbelieved after accepting Islam, and they resolved that (plot to murder Prophet Muhammad ) which they were unable to carry out, and they could not find any cause to do so except that Allah and His Messenger had enriched them of His Bounty. If then they repent, it will be better for them, but if they turn away, Allah will punish them with a painful torment in this worldly life and in the Hereafter. And there is none for them on earth as a Wali (supporter, protector) or a helper.

75. And of them are some who made a covenant with Allah (saying): "If He bestowed on us of His Bounty, we will verily, give Sadaqah (Zakat and voluntary charity in Allah's Cause) and will be certainly among those who are righteous."

76. Then when He gave them of His Bounty, they became niggardly [refused to pay the Sadaqah (Zakat or voluntary charity)], and turned away, averse.

77. So He punished them by putting hypocrisy into their hearts till the Day whereon they shall meet Him, because they broke that (covenant with Allah) which they had promised Him and because they used to tell lies.

78. Know they not that Allah knows their secret ideas, and their Najwa (secret counsels), and that Allah is the All-Knower of the unseen.

79. Those who defame such of the believers who give charity (in Allah's Cause) voluntarily, and those who could not find to give charity (in Allah's Cause) except what is available to them, so they mock at them (believers), Allah will throw back their mockery on them, and they shall have a painful torment.

80. Whether you (O Muhammad ) ask forgiveness for them (hypocrites) or ask not forgiveness for them ... (and even) if you ask seventy times for their forgiveness ... Allah will not forgive them, because they have disbelieved in Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad ). And Allah guides not those people who are Fasiqun (rebellious, disobedient to Allah).

81. Those who stayed away (from Tabuk expedition) rejoiced in their staying behind the Messenger of Allah; they hated to strive and
fight
with their properties and their lives in the Cause of Allah
, and they said: "
March
not forth in the heat." Say: "The Fire of Hell is more intense in heat", if only they could understand!

82. So let them laugh a little and (they will) cry much as a recompense of what they used to earn (by committing sins).

83. If Allah brings you back to a party of them (the hypocrites), and they ask your permission to go out (to
fight
), say: "Never shall you go out with me, nor
fight
an enemy with me; you agreed to sit inactive on the first occasion, then you sit (now) with those who lag behind."

84. And never (O Muhammad ) pray (funeral prayer) for any of them (hypocrites) who
dies
, nor stand at his grave
. Certainly they disbelieved in Allah and His Messenger, and
died
while they were Fasiqun (rebellious, - disobedient to Allah and His Messenger ).

85. And let not their wealth or their children amaze you. Allah's Plan is to punish them with these things in this world, and that their souls shall depart (die) while they are disbelievers.

86. And when a Surah (chapter from the Qur'an) is revealed, enjoining them to believe in Allah and to strive hard and
fight
along with His Messenger, the wealthy among them ask your leave to exempt them (from
Jihad
) and say, "Leave us (behind), we would be with those who sit (at home)."
Back to top
« Last Edit: Apr 27th, 2017 at 10:28pm by freediver »  

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #5 - Jul 30th, 2016 at 10:11am
 
87. They are content to be with those (the women) who sit behind (at home). Their hearts are sealed up (from all kinds of goodness and right guidance), so they understand not.

88. But the Messenger (Muhammad ) and those who believed with him (in Islamic Monotheism) strove hard and
fought
with their wealth and their lives (in Allah's Cause)
. Such are they for whom are the good things, and it is they who will be successful.

89. For them Allah has got ready Gardens (Paradise) under which rivers flow, to dwell therein forever. That is the supreme success.

90. And those who made excuses from the bedouins came (to you, O Prophet ) asking your permission to exempt them (from the
battle
), and those who had lied to Allah and His Messenger sat at home (without asking the permission for it); a painful torment will seize those of them who disbelieve.

91. There is no blame on those who are weak or ill or who find no resources to spend [in
holy fighting (Jihad)
], if they are sincere and true (in duty) to Allah and His Messenger. No ground (of complaint) can there be against the Muhsinun (good-doers - see the footnote of V.9:120). And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

92. Nor (is there blame) on those who came to you to be provided with mounts, and when you said: "I can find no mounts for you," they turned back, while their eyes overflowing with tears of grief that they could not find anything to spend (for
Jihad
).

93. The ground (of complaint) is only against those who are rich, and yet ask exemption . They are content to be with (the women) who sit behind (at home) and Allah has sealed up their hearts (from all kinds of goodness and right guidance) so that they know not (what they are losing).

94. They (the hypocrites) will present their excuses to you (Muslims), when you return to them. Say (O Muhammad ) "Present no excuses, we shall not believe you. Allah has already informed us of the news concerning you. Allah and His Messenger will observe your deeds. In the end you will be brought back to the All-Knower of the unseen and the seen, then He (Allah) will inform you of what you used to do." [Tafsir At-Tabari]

95. They will swear by Allah to you (Muslims) when you return to them, that you may turn away from them. So turn away from them. Surely, they are Rijsun [i.e. Najasun (impure) because of their evil deeds], and Hell is their dwelling place, - a recompense for that which they used to earn.

96. They (the hypocrites) swear to you (Muslims) that you may be pleased with them, but if you are pleased with them, certainly Allah is not pleased with the people who are Al-Fasiqun (rebellious, disobedient to Allah).

97. The bedouins are the worst in disbelief and hypocrisy, and more likely to be in ignorance of the limits (Allah's Commandments and His Legal Laws, etc.) which Allah has revealed to His Messenger. And Allah is All-Knower, All-Wise.

98. And of the bedouins there are some who look upon what they spend (in Allah's Cause) as a fine and watch for calamities for you, on them be the calamity of evil. And Allah is All-Hearer, All-Knower.

99. And of the bedouins there are some who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and look upon what they spend in Allah's Cause as approaches to Allah, and a cause of receiving the Messenger's invocations. Indeed these (spendings in Allah's Cause) are an approach for them. Allah will admit them to His Mercy. Certainly Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

100. And the first to embrace Islam of the Muhajirun (those who migrated from Makkah to Al-Madinah) and the Ansar (the citizens of Al-Madinah who helped and gave aid to the Muhajirun) and also those who followed them exactly (in Faith). Allah is well-pleased with them as they are well-pleased with Him. He has prepared for them Gardens under which rivers flow (Paradise), to dwell therein forever. That is the supreme success.

101. And among the bedouins round about you, some are hypocrites, and so are some among the people of Al-Madinah, they exaggerate and persist in hypocrisy, you (O Muhammad ) know them not, We know them. We shall punish them twice, and thereafter they shall be brought back to a great (horrible) torment.

102. And (there are) others who have acknowledged their sins, they have mixed a deed that was righteous with another that was evil. Perhaps Allah will turn unto them in forgiveness. Surely, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful .

103. Take Sadaqah (alms) from their wealth in order to purify them and sanctify them with it, and invoke Allah for them. Verily! Your invocations are a source of security for them, and Allah is All-Hearer, All-Knower.

104. Know they not that Allah accepts repentance from His slaves and takes the Sadaqat (alms, charities) and that All&achrc;h Alone is the One Who forgives and accepts repentance, Most Merciful?
Back to top
« Last Edit: Apr 27th, 2017 at 10:31pm by freediver »  

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #6 - Jul 30th, 2016 at 10:12am
 
105. And say (O Muhammad ) "Do deeds! Allah will see your deeds, and (so will) His Messenger and the believers. And you will be brought back to the All-Knower of the unseen and the seen. Then He will inform you of what you used to do."

106. And others await Allah's Decree, whether He will punish them or will forgive them. And Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.

107. And as for those who put up a mosque by way of harming and disbelief, and to disunite the believers, and as an outpost for those who
warred
against Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad ) aforetime, they will indeed swear that their intention is nothing but good. Allah bears witness that they are certainly liars.

108. Never stand you therein. Verily, the mosque whose foundation was laid from the first day on piety is more worthy that you stand therein (to pray). In it are men who love to clean and to purify themselves. And Allah loves those who make themselves clean and pure (i.e. who clean their private parts with dust [i.e. to be considered as soap) and water from urine and stools, after answering the call of nature].

109. Is it then he, who laid the foundation of his building on piety to Allah and His Good Pleasure, better, or he who laid the foundation of his building on an undetermined brink of a precipice ready to crumble down, so that it crumbled to pieces with him into the Fire of Hell. And Allah guides not the people who are the Zalimun (cruel, violent, proud, polytheist and wrong-doer).

110. The building which they built will never cease to be a cause of hypocrisy and doubt in their hearts, unless their hearts are cut to pieces. (i.e. till they
die
).
And Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.

111. Verily, Allah has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties; for the price that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allah's Cause, so they
kill (others) and are killed
.
It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel) and the Qur'an. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah? Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded. That is the supreme success .

112. (The believers whose lives Allah has purchased are) those who repent to Allah (from polytheism and hypocrisy, etc.), who worship Him, who praise Him, who fast (or go out in Allah's Cause), who bow down (in prayer), who prostrate themselves (in prayer), who enjoin (people) for Al-Ma'ruf (i.e. Islamic Monotheism and all what Islam has ordained) and forbid (people) from Al-Munkar (i.e. disbelief, polytheism of all kinds and all that Islam has forbidden), and who observe the limits set by Allah (do all that Allah has ordained and abstain from all kinds of sins and evil deeds which Allah has forbidden). And give glad tidings to the believers.

113. It is not (proper) for the Prophet and those who believe to ask Allah's Forgiveness for the Mushrikun (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) even though they be of kin, after it has become clear to them that they are the dwellers of the Fire (because they
died
in a state of disbelief).

114. And [Ibrahim's (Abraham)] invoking (of Allah) for his father's forgiveness was only because of a promise he [Ibrahim (Abraham)] had made to him (his father). But when it became clear to him [Ibrahim (Abraham)] that he (his father) is an enemy to Allah, he dissociated himself from him. Verily Ibrahim (Abraham) was Al-Awwah (has fifteen different meanings but the correct one seems to be that he used to invoke Allah with humility, glorify Him and remember Him much), and was forbearing. (Tafsir Al-Qurtubi).

115. And Allah will never lead a people astray after He has guided them until He makes clear to them as to what they should avoid. Verily, Allah is the All-Knower of everything.

116. Verily, Allah! Unto Him belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth, He gives life and He causes
death
. And besides Allah you have neither any Wali (protector or guardian) nor any helper.

117. Allah has forgiven the Prophet (), the Muhajirun (Muslim emigrants who left their homes and came to Al-Madinah) and the Ansar (Muslims of Al-Madinah) who followed him (Muhammad ) in the time of distress (Tabuk expedition, etc.), after the hearts of a party of them had nearly deviated (from the Right Path), but He accepted their repentance. Certainly, He is unto them full of Kindness, Most Merciful.

118. And (He did forgive also) the three [who did not join the Tabuk
expedition
(whom the Prophet )] left (i.e. he did not give his judgement in their case, and their case was suspended for Allah's Decision) till for them the earth, vast as it is, was straitened and their ownselves were straitened to them, and they perceived that there is no fleeing from Allah, and no refuge but with Him. Then, He accepted their repentance, that they might repent (unto Him). Verily, Allah is the One Who accepts repentance, Most Merciful.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Apr 27th, 2017 at 10:34pm by freediver »  

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #7 - Jul 30th, 2016 at 10:13am
 
119. O you who believe! Be afraid of Allah, and be with those who are true (in words and deeds) .

120. It was not becoming of the people of Al-Madinah and the bedouins of the neighbourhood to remain behind Allah's Messenger (Muhammad  when
fighting
in Allah's Cause) and (it was not becoming of them) to prefer their own lives to his life. That is because they suffer neither thirst nor fatigue, nor hunger in the Cause of Allah, nor they take any step to raise the anger of disbelievers nor inflict any injury upon an enemy but is written to their credit as a deed of righteousness.
Surely, Allah wastes not the reward of the Muhsinun

121. Nor do they spend anything (in Allah's Cause) - small or great - nor cross a valley, but is written to their credit, that Allah may recompense them with the best of what they used to do (i.e. Allah will reward their good deeds according to the reward of their best deeds which they did in the most perfect manner).

122. And it is not (proper) for the believers to go out to
fight (Jihad)
all together. Of every troop of them, a party only should go forth, that they (who are left behind) may get instructions in (Islamic) religion, and that they may warn their people when they return to them, so that they may beware (of evil).

123. O you who believe!
Fight
those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who are the Al-Muttaqun (the pious - see V.2:2).

124. And whenever there comes down a Surah (chapter from the Qur'an), some of them (hypocrites) say: "Which of you has had his Faith increased by it?" As for those who believe, it has increased their Faith, and they rejoice.

125. But as for those in whose hearts is a disease (of doubt, disbelief and hypocrisy), it will add suspicion and doubt to their suspicion, disbelief and doubt, and they
die
while they are disbelievers.

126. See they not that they are tried once or twice every year (with different kinds of calamities, disease, famine, etc.)? Yet, they turn not in repentance, nor do they learn a lesson (from it).

127. And whenever there comes down a Surah (chapter from the Qur'an), they look at one another (saying): "Does any one see you?" Then they turn away. Allah has turned their hearts (from the light) because they are a people that understand not.

128. Verily, there has come unto you a Messenger (Muhammad ) from amongst yourselves (i.e. whom you know well). It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty. He (Muhammad ) is anxious over you (to be rightly guided, to repent to Allah, and beg Him to pardon and forgive your sins, in order that you may enter Paradise and be saved from the punishment of the Hell-fire), for the believers (he  is) full of pity, kind, and merciful.

129. . But if they turn away, say (O Muhammad ): "Allah is sufficient for me. La ilaha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He), in Him I put my trust and He is the Lord of the Mighty Throne."



EDIT: word count added. This is the number of appearances in chapter 9 alone:

fight: 19
fought: 3
die/death: 15
punish: 14
life/lives: 14
war: 9
jihad: 8
march: 6
kill: 4
victory: 4
battle: 3
enemy: 3
attack: 2
cut: 2
ambush: 1
capture: 1
besiege: 1
destroy: 1
Mujahidun: 1
murder: 1
martyrdom: 1
inflict: 1
troop: 1
overthrown: 1
fallen: 1

disbelief/ve: 48
cause: 25
forbid: 12
torment: 10
hell: 9
hard: 9
obey/obedient: 9
fire: 8
pain: 7
fear: 7
strive(ing): 7
pure...: 7
mock: 4
expedition: 4
calamity(ies): 4
clean: 4
recompense: 4
disgrace: 3
liar: 3
afraid: 3
anger: 2
injury: 2
curse: 2
harm: 2
sedition: 2
trial: 2
harsh: 2
blame: 2
pieces: 2
crumble: 2
refuge: 2
suffer: 1
afflict: 1
distress: 1
flight: 1
flee: 1
submission: 1
subdued: 1
branded: 1
extreme: 1
losers: 1
cry: 1
tears: 1
grave: 1
weak: 1
ill: 1
grief: 1
horrible: 1
thirst: 1
fatigue: 1
hunger: 1
superior: 1

wealth: 11
spend: 10
zakat: 9
take: 6
exempt: 6
rich: 4
pay/paid: 4
properties: 3
hoard: 3
gold: 2
money: 2
silver: 2
contributions: 2
booty: 1
niggardly: 1
resources: 1
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jun 24th, 2017 at 6:00pm by freediver »  

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Yadda
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 20956
A cat with a view
Re: chapter 9
Reply #8 - Jul 30th, 2016 at 10:18am
 



NOT chapter 9......


"There is for you an excellent example (to follow) in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people: "We are clear of you and of whatever ye worship besides Allah: we have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred for ever,- unless ye believe in Allah and Him alone"....."
Koran 60:4


n.b.
......enmity and hatred for ever


for ever = = for all time, without end.


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: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #9 - Apr 27th, 2017 at 9:05pm
 
greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 27th, 2017 at 12:38pm:
moses wrote on Apr 27th, 2017 at 11:05am:
To borrow a phrase from one of our trolls "oh dearie dearie me tsk tsk".

Why do apologists for islam always quote the O.T. law when 2017 years ago it was abolished by Christ?



"Killing and destruction are referenced slightly more often in the New Testament (2.8%) than in the Quran (2.1%)".

Dear o dear.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #10 - Apr 28th, 2017 at 7:37am
 
greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 7:30am:
Frank wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 7:25am:
greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 27th, 2017 at 9:54pm:
Frank wrote on Apr 27th, 2017 at 9:47pm:
greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 27th, 2017 at 9:10pm:
freediver wrote on Apr 26th, 2017 at 8:09pm:
I don't think any religious text actually encourages violence to the extent that Islam does.


The Old Testament was found to be more than twice as violent as the Quran.

These are the facts.




Who acts on the Old Testament, Squirrel Turd (ie nutty)?  On the Koran?




I'll post FD's incorrect statement once again, just so you can see where you went so terribly wrong.

"I don't think any religious text actually encourages violence to the extent that Islam does."

Your task now, is to point out where he said anything about "acts on".

Over to you, old boy ...



Actually he is spot on: it is his perception ("I think") and he says 'to the extent' which is an indication of, you know, extent.

And you know what proves him right? The extent of religiously motivated violence by Muslims. Nobody comes even close.



You really should concentrate harder.

Here it is again, for all the slow learners at the back of the class:

"I don't think any religious text actually encourages violence to the extent that Islam does" (nothing about "acts on").

And, he's wrong.

Catholic and Jewish texts encourage more violence than anything Islam has to offer.

This has been proven several times in this thread.

However, as an Islamophobe, you refuse to accept these facts.

It's alright, though - I understand.

Islamophobia rots the brain.


This should be interesting. Can you give an example of a "catholic text" that promotes violence more than chapter 9 of the Koran?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #11 - Apr 28th, 2017 at 9:35am
 
Certainly LOVE and FORGIVENESS seems short on doesn't it...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
issuevoter
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9200
The Great State of Mind
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #12 - Apr 28th, 2017 at 11:14am
 
Just for the record, Allah, if you are reading this. I am one of those Mushrikuns that you want Muzlims to murder. So, Phuque you, ya big dumb cosmic bozo.
Back to top
 

No political allegiance. No philosophy. No religion.
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #13 - Apr 28th, 2017 at 2:33pm
 
I love the way atheists claim stats without proof, then make more claims out of context... Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
Soooo  where are all the New Testament teachings of Christ that urge fighting and war in the name of God...  hmmmmm? Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #14 - Apr 28th, 2017 at 4:19pm
 
I believe FD thinks he's proved something.

Just what, I don't know.
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
 
greggerypeccary
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 131492
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #15 - Apr 28th, 2017 at 4:21pm
 
Grendel wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 2:33pm:
I love the way atheists claim stats without proof, then make more claims out of context... Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
Soooo  where are all the New Testament teachings of Christ that urge fighting and war in the name of God...  hmmmmm? Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes


The Old Testament was found to be more than twice as violent as the Quran.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #16 - Apr 28th, 2017 at 5:45pm
 
greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 4:21pm:
Grendel wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 2:33pm:
I love the way atheists claim stats without proof, then make more claims out of context... Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
Soooo  where are all the New Testament teachings of Christ that urge fighting and war in the name of God...  hmmmmm? Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes


The Old Testament was found to be more than twice as violent as the Quran.

The Old Testament is not the New Testament Gweggy....  The Old Testament is the "Jewish Bible" it contains a Jewish Religious History.  Would you like to try again? Grin Grin Grin
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
rhino
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 17179
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #17 - Apr 28th, 2017 at 6:03pm
 
Grendel wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 5:45pm:
greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 4:21pm:
Grendel wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 2:33pm:
I love the way atheists claim stats without proof, then make more claims out of context... Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
Soooo  where are all the New Testament teachings of Christ that urge fighting and war in the name of God...  hmmmmm? Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes


The Old Testament was found to be more than twice as violent as the Quran.

The Old Testament is not the New Testament Gweggy....  The Old Testament is the "Jewish Bible" it contains a Jewish Religious History.  Would you like to try again? Grin Grin Grin
Pecca just got owned, (again) Muslims also beleive in parts of the Bible including the Old testament.
Quote:
Muslims believe The Qur'an, which they hold to be a revelation to the Islamic prophet Muhammad, was given as a remedy and that it identifies three sets of books from the Bible as genuine divine revelation given to trusted messengers: the Tawrat (Torah) given to Musa (Moses), the Zabur (Psalms) given to Daud (David) and the Injil (Gospel) given to Isa (Jesus). They believe that, together, the Qur'an, these books, and the Suhuf Ibrahim ("Scrolls of Abraham", which they believe is currently lost) constitute Islam's scripture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_the_Christian_Bible
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #18 - Apr 28th, 2017 at 7:31pm
 
greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 4:21pm:
Grendel wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 2:33pm:
I love the way atheists claim stats without proof, then make more claims out of context... Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
Soooo  where are all the New Testament teachings of Christ that urge fighting and war in the name of God...  hmmmmm? Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes


The Old Testament was found to be more than twice as violent as the Quran.

LOL....  in whose opinion Gweggy?
In what context Gweggy?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
moses
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6353
Re: chapter 9
Reply #19 - Apr 28th, 2017 at 9:07pm
 
Well hell I mean how in the world can you beat some anti Christian nutcase, who has come up with some crap about the Bible being really angry, so it must be worse that the old moon god allahs' commands to hate torture and kill.

Then again the nutcase in question may be on to something and he doesn't know it.

muzzies don't get angry when they commit the foulest of atrocities against their fellow man, they morph into a blood crazed euphoria as they gleefully slaughter people around the globe, who they perceive to be the enemies of allah.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #20 - Apr 30th, 2017 at 12:48am
 
moses wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 9:07pm:
Well hell I mean how in the world can you beat some anti Christian nutcase, who has come up with some crap about the Bible being really angry, so it must be worse that the old moon god allahs' commands to hate torture and kill.


Because Genesis, Deuteronomy and Leviticus contain far more commands to torture and kill, silly. You know that. You keep apologizing for it.

Prophet Yeheshua. AKA Jesus the Christ: "I come not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it."
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 40538
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #21 - Apr 30th, 2017 at 10:21am
 
Mattyfisk wrote on Apr 30th, 2017 at 12:48am:
moses wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 9:07pm:
Well hell I mean how in the world can you beat some anti Christian nutcase, who has come up with some crap about the Bible being really angry, so it must be worse that the old moon god allahs' commands to hate torture and kill.


Because Genesis, Deuteronomy and Leviticus contain far more commands to torture and kill, silly. You know that. You keep apologizing for it.

Prophet Yeheshua. AKA Jesus the Christ: "I come not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it."



And so you hear Christians stabbing Muslims every day, all over the world, shouting those verses.

Back to top
 

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #22 - Apr 30th, 2017 at 12:27pm
 
LOL Karnal is a wanker, Jesus fulfilled the law by dying for all our sins and conquering death.  Oh dear atheists and Muslims should not quote things they are ignorant of.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
moses
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6353
Re: chapter 9
Reply #23 - Apr 30th, 2017 at 12:57pm
 
Karnal wrote Reply #20 - Today at 12:48am Quote:
Prophet Yeheshua. AKA Jesus the Christ: "I come not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it."


There's a bit more to the story than that (if you want to be honest).

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

fulfill to bring to a successful conclusion


Luke 16:16  The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached , and every man presseth into it.

a clear cut time frame was established


John 17:1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

Jesus acknowledging his time on earth was up, He has finished his work (finalizing / fulfilling the ancient law)


John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, He said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

The last words Jesus ever spoke on earth "It is finished". The law was finished.


Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Hebrews 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

Rom 3:20  Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Rom 3:28  Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.


Gal 2:16  Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Confirmation that the law was superseded by faith in Christ


Jump forward to today 2017, we have muslims and their apologists bending over backwards trying to equate Christianity as being as evil as islam.

Why?

Well we all know the answer, don't we?

islam is irrefutably and inextricably linked to human rights atrocities being a core part of their doctrine.

They cannot reject the depraved teachings as being outdated and irrelevant, they stupidly believe islamic degeneracy is infallible and can never be changed, any alteration of doctrine would destroy islam.

So rather than be honest about this perversion, muslims and their apologists prefer the bloodshed death and destruction, (all the while deliberately lying trying to whitewash islam and paint Christianity as being doctrinally as bad as islam)
 
Oh well them's the breaks, however you're losing the battle, as the world is definitely turning against muslims and their apologists.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #24 - Apr 30th, 2017 at 3:42pm
 
Thanks for being honest, Moses. Have you read Matthew 5.19?

You might want to give it a squiz before we examine 5.17 in context.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #25 - Apr 30th, 2017 at 10:12pm
 
Mattyfisk wrote on Apr 30th, 2017 at 3:42pm:
Thanks for being honest, Moses. Have you read Matthew 5.19?

You might want to give it a squiz before we examine 5.17 in context.

Wassup Karnal....  cant face the truth....  how long you going to keep the denial and idiocy up? Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #26 - May 1st, 2017 at 6:01pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 4:19pm:
I believe FD thinks he's proved something.

Just what, I don't know.


The promotion of violence is a core message of Islam. There are entire chapters of the Koran devoted to it.

freediver wrote on Apr 27th, 2017 at 9:05pm:
greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 27th, 2017 at 12:38pm:
moses wrote on Apr 27th, 2017 at 11:05am:
To borrow a phrase from one of our trolls "oh dearie dearie me tsk tsk".

Why do apologists for islam always quote the O.T. law when 2017 years ago it was abolished by Christ?



"Killing and destruction are referenced slightly more often in the New Testament (2.8%) than in the Quran (2.1%)".

Dear o dear.


freediver wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 7:37am:
greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 7:30am:
Frank wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 7:25am:
greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 27th, 2017 at 9:54pm:
Frank wrote on Apr 27th, 2017 at 9:47pm:
greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 27th, 2017 at 9:10pm:
freediver wrote on Apr 26th, 2017 at 8:09pm:
I don't think any religious text actually encourages violence to the extent that Islam does.


The Old Testament was found to be more than twice as violent as the Quran.

These are the facts.




Who acts on the Old Testament, Squirrel Turd (ie nutty)?  On the Koran?




I'll post FD's incorrect statement once again, just so you can see where you went so terribly wrong.

"I don't think any religious text actually encourages violence to the extent that Islam does."

Your task now, is to point out where he said anything about "acts on".

Over to you, old boy ...



Actually he is spot on: it is his perception ("I think") and he says 'to the extent' which is an indication of, you know, extent.

And you know what proves him right? The extent of religiously motivated violence by Muslims. Nobody comes even close.



You really should concentrate harder.

Here it is again, for all the slow learners at the back of the class:

"I don't think any religious text actually encourages violence to the extent that Islam does" (nothing about "acts on").

And, he's wrong.

Catholic and Jewish texts encourage more violence than anything Islam has to offer.

This has been proven several times in this thread.

However, as an Islamophobe, you refuse to accept these facts.

It's alright, though - I understand.

Islamophobia rots the brain.


This should be interesting. Can you give an example of a "catholic text" that promotes violence more than chapter 9 of the Koran?


Greg would you like to retract any of these claims?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #27 - May 28th, 2017 at 11:32am
 
Mattyfisk wrote on May 26th, 2017 at 10:42am:
moses wrote on May 26th, 2017 at 10:14am:
Aussie wrote; Reply #35 - Yesterday at 6:30pm

Quote:
Do they follow the OT, Moses?


In what way?

Are you referring to ancient text which tells of a barbaric society some 4000 years ago?

It appears to me that the Jews have progressed with the times, we know they have contributed much to mankind, they are a

successful peaceful nation surrounded by a barbaric mass of muslims. That's about as much as I can tell you about them.


They have indeed, Moses. And yet they follow a book far more violent and sinister than the Muselman.

What does this tell you?


Karnal is referring to Jews here.

Is there anything that calls Jews to violence to the extent that chapter 9 of the Koran calls Muslims to violence?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 40538
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #28 - May 28th, 2017 at 12:33pm
 
Mattyfisk wrote on Apr 30th, 2017 at 12:48am:
moses wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 9:07pm:
Well hell I mean how in the world can you beat some anti Christian nutcase, who has come up with some crap about the Bible being really angry, so it must be worse that the old moon god allahs' commands to hate torture and kill.


Because Genesis, Deuteronomy and Leviticus contain far more commands to torture and kill, silly. You know that. You keep apologizing for it.

Prophet Yeheshua. AKA Jesus the Christ: "I come not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it."

Relevance?

Nobody is blown up by men shouting "Matthew 5.19" or "Matthew 5.17".

Allahu akhbaring, on the other hand, is the last thing victims of terrorism hear.



Back to top
 

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #29 - May 28th, 2017 at 12:36pm
 
Mattyfisk wrote on Apr 30th, 2017 at 12:48am:
moses wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 9:07pm:
Well hell I mean how in the world can you beat some anti Christian nutcase, who has come up with some crap about the Bible being really angry, so it must be worse that the old moon god allahs' commands to hate torture and kill.


Because Genesis, Deuteronomy and Leviticus contain far more commands to torture and kill, silly. You know that. You keep apologizing for it.

Prophet Yeheshua. AKA Jesus the Christ: "I come not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it."

Oh now you really are showing your religious ignorance and what dishonest depths you will stoop to to back up your ridicuous beliefs. Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #30 - May 28th, 2017 at 12:39pm
 
Grendel wrote on Apr 30th, 2017 at 12:27pm:
LOL Karnal is a wanker,
Jesus fulfilled the law by dying for all our sins and conquering death. 
Oh dear atheists and Muslims should not quote things they are ignorant of.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #31 - May 28th, 2017 at 12:44pm
 
freediver wrote on May 28th, 2017 at 11:32am:
Mattyfisk wrote on May 26th, 2017 at 10:42am:
moses wrote on May 26th, 2017 at 10:14am:
Aussie wrote; Reply #35 - Yesterday at 6:30pm

Quote:
Do they follow the OT, Moses?


In what way?

Are you referring to ancient text which tells of a barbaric society some 4000 years ago?

It appears to me that the Jews have progressed with the times, we know they have contributed much to mankind, they are a

successful peaceful nation surrounded by a barbaric mass of muslims. That's about as much as I can tell you about them.


They have indeed, Moses. And yet they follow a book far more violent and sinister than the Muselman.

What does this tell you?


Karnal is referring to Jews here.

Is there anything that calls Jews to violence to the extent that chapter 9 of the Koran calls Muslims to violence?


Does calling for the death of 10s of thousands (the figures are stated in the bible) of men women and infants count?
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
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #32 - May 28th, 2017 at 12:49pm
 
Oh Dear....  when will you people stop this nonsense and debate the facts and the world we live in today?

Muslims claim the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) have moved away from God and His word and that their Koran inviolable, unalterable is now the only true word of God.

How can any of your claims re the Bible, be supported then?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #33 - May 28th, 2017 at 12:53pm
 
Grendel wrote on May 28th, 2017 at 12:49pm:
Oh Dear....  when will you people stop this nonsense and debate the facts and the world we live in today?

Muslims claim the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) have moved away from God and His word and that their Koran inviolable, unalterable is now the only true word of God.

How can any of your claims re the Bible, be supported then?


I don't dispute that G, and thats not the question.

I was addressing FD's specific question
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: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #34 - May 28th, 2017 at 12:57pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on May 28th, 2017 at 12:44pm:
freediver wrote on May 28th, 2017 at 11:32am:
Mattyfisk wrote on May 26th, 2017 at 10:42am:
moses wrote on May 26th, 2017 at 10:14am:
Aussie wrote; Reply #35 - Yesterday at 6:30pm

Quote:
Do they follow the OT, Moses?


In what way?

Are you referring to ancient text which tells of a barbaric society some 4000 years ago?

It appears to me that the Jews have progressed with the times, we know they have contributed much to mankind, they are a

successful peaceful nation surrounded by a barbaric mass of muslims. That's about as much as I can tell you about them.


They have indeed, Moses. And yet they follow a book far more violent and sinister than the Muselman.

What does this tell you?


Karnal is referring to Jews here.

Is there anything that calls Jews to violence to the extent that chapter 9 of the Koran calls Muslims to violence?


Does calling for the death of 10s of thousands (the figures are stated in the bible) of men women and infants count?


Not if it is not an incitement to further violence.

For example, we killed millions of people in WWI and WWII. But documentation of those deaths, and even texts supporting allied involvement in those wars, is not the same thing a call for ongoing slaughter.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #35 - May 28th, 2017 at 1:07pm
 
Did you mean to say "not unless its an incitement to further violence"?

Would you agree that framing the mass slaughter of women and infants by good God-fearing people (by the 10s of thousands) as something that is ordained by God Himself could give the 'wrong message' to devotees looking for an excuse to commit ethnic cleansing and/or mass slaughter?
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: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #36 - May 28th, 2017 at 1:41pm
 
Of course. But not as likely to give the "wrong message" as "go out and slaughter the infidel wherever you find them".

I refer you back to Karnal's original statement:

Quote:
And yet they follow a book far more violent and sinister than the Muselman.


I think the more productive role that Jews play in civilised society compared to Muslims, regardless of whether they are a majority or a minority, reflects the differences in the ideologies. Body count alone is not a complete measure than that, despite what the apologists for Islam keep saying, otherwise documenting the holocaust would be a dangerous thing.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #37 - May 28th, 2017 at 2:03pm
 
freediver wrote on May 28th, 2017 at 1:41pm:
Of course. But not as likely to give the "wrong message" as "go out and slaughter the infidel wherever you find them".

I refer you back to Karnal's original statement:

Quote:
And yet they follow a book far more violent and sinister than the Muselman.


I think the more productive role that Jews play in civilised society compared to Muslims, regardless of whether they are a majority or a minority, reflects the differences in the ideologies. Body count alone is not a complete measure than that, despite what the apologists for Islam keep saying, otherwise documenting the holocaust would be a dangerous thing.


Jews have improved their image - and rightly so. Yet it wasn't so long ago that people just like you were pontificating about how despicable and dangerous the jews were - and were cheering on their persecution. And in far more vitriolic language (and actions) than what we see towards muslims. And it took a near annihilation event for these ingrained attitudes to change.

You are a product of your time FD - you don't really have a positive view of jews because you are objectively looking at their "productivity" and making objective assessments about that - because that same "productivity" was viewed as something deeply sinister in times gone by. More than anything, your positive views of jews are shaped by a 'enemy of my enemy' rationale vis-a-vis the muslims. One just needs to look at the way you actually weren't afraid to criticise jews and Israel before your conversion onto the anti-Islam bandwagon in 2007.
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
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 40538
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #38 - May 28th, 2017 at 5:02pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on May 28th, 2017 at 2:03pm:
freediver wrote on May 28th, 2017 at 1:41pm:
Of course. But not as likely to give the "wrong message" as "go out and slaughter the infidel wherever you find them".

I refer you back to Karnal's original statement:

Quote:
And yet they follow a book far more violent and sinister than the Muselman.


I think the more productive role that Jews play in civilised society compared to Muslims, regardless of whether they are a majority or a minority, reflects the differences in the ideologies. Body count alone is not a complete measure than that, despite what the apologists for Islam keep saying, otherwise documenting the holocaust would be a dangerous thing.


Jews have improved their image - and rightly so. Yet it wasn't so long ago that people just like you were pontificating about how despicable and dangerous the jews were - and were cheering on their persecution. And in far more vitriolic language (and actions) than what we see towards muslims. And it took a near annihilation event for these ingrained attitudes to change.



Well, Jews have not improved their image with Muslims, though. People just like you - Muslims - are still pontificating about how despicable and dangerous the Jews are - and are cheering on their persecution.
At the same time you are eager to appropriate their victim status all to yourselves and you do this especially loudly after yet another Muslim terrorist attack.

Never mind the actual victims of Islamic ideology, it's the poor Muslims, again and again and again, blowing up people to demonstrate their utter victimhood.





Back to top
 

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #39 - May 28th, 2017 at 5:10pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on May 28th, 2017 at 2:03pm:
freediver wrote on May 28th, 2017 at 1:41pm:
Of course. But not as likely to give the "wrong message" as "go out and slaughter the infidel wherever you find them".

I refer you back to Karnal's original statement:

Quote:
And yet they follow a book far more violent and sinister than the Muselman.


I think the more productive role that Jews play in civilised society compared to Muslims, regardless of whether they are a majority or a minority, reflects the differences in the ideologies. Body count alone is not a complete measure than that, despite what the apologists for Islam keep saying, otherwise documenting the holocaust would be a dangerous thing.


Jews have improved their image - and rightly so. Yet it wasn't so long ago that people just like you were pontificating about how despicable and dangerous the jews were - and were cheering on their persecution. And in far more vitriolic language (and actions) than what we see towards muslims. And it took a near annihilation event for these ingrained attitudes to change.

Well that is rubbish....  are you saying the world was full of Nazis?


You are a product of your time FD - you don't really have a positive view of jews because you are objectively looking at their "productivity" and making objective assessments about that - because that same "productivity" was viewed as something deeply sinister in times gone by. More than anything, your positive views of jews are shaped by a 'enemy of my enemy' rationale vis-a-vis the muslims. One just needs to look at the way you actually weren't afraid to criticise jews and Israel before your conversion onto the anti-Islam bandwagon in 2007.

Do you honestly think most of us see Jews as a threat and something to be hated?  honestly...  Anti-Semitism is hardly something I'd suggest like you did is wide-spread in the Non-Muslim World...  I mean we know you teach your children to hate the Jews..
. Cheesy Cheesy

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #40 - May 28th, 2017 at 5:41pm
 
Quote:
Jews have improved their image - and rightly so.


Why does everything keep falling back to the spin with you Gandalf?

Quote:
Yet it wasn't so long ago that people just like you were pontificating about how despicable and dangerous the jews were


LOL. How about you stick to the things I actually say? Or shall I start tarring you with the terrorist brush?

Quote:
You are a product of your time FD


I can't imagine any time in the last 1400 years when I could have supported Islam.

Quote:
you don't really have a positive view of jews because you are objectively looking at their "productivity" and making objective assessments about that - because that same "productivity" was viewed as something deeply sinister in times gone by


You'll have to explain your logic here Gandalf.

Quote:
More than anything, your positive views of jews are shaped by a 'enemy of my enemy' rationale vis-a-vis the muslims.


Where have I even said anything positive about the Jews?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: chapter 9
Reply #41 - May 28th, 2017 at 5:53pm
 
Rule No. 1 when it comes to reading the Quran:

If it's Medinan verse, it's contextual; if it's a Meccan verse, it's eternal.

Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: chapter 9
Reply #42 - May 29th, 2017 at 4:49pm
 
Ok, so in response to your request, FD, to comment on this topic, here is my view.

In Chapter 9 and such other chapters, there are two important distinctions to make:

First, there are Punishment stories where God punishes people for disbelieving, etc. This is not the problem in my view because if you just simply had those verses then people would say: "ah ok, so God will punish them when they die...." kind of in much the same way as Christians believe.

Where the issue becomes a problem in my view is that many verses call 'other people' to kill, slay or fight disbelievers. Obviously, these verses are troubling.

Again, I invite you to think about the following logic: does God deliver punishment and death to people, or do people do it on behalf of God? My view of God (despite being an Atheist) is that God can only determine who dies, not a human being.

The conclusion therefor is that the verses that call the person or reader to take up arms, or to slay the idolators, were written contextually and referring to specific groups of people at the time. Even if it weren't specific and was 'universal', the question then has to become: "why would God provide divine punishment, only then to encourage people to do His 'dirty work for Him'? One then has to question the nature of 'calling to fight' verses and whether or not these are reflective of God's nature or not? Even if you argue that God dictated the verse (which I don't understand why that is the case), then the conclusion must be that it is contextual.
--
Now, I'm willing to concede that many Islamists or persons who find the Quran true believe that God 'can change His mind' because he is God. True, but why would He if God is omniscient? That's why I encourage you to use this logic when debating (if you do) with Muslims.

Even if you want to argue that the entire Quran is the Word of God, then the Medinan verses are contextual for that time and do not have universal application.
--
So, the base logic is this:

1) God is benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient;

2) If God is benevolent, then God would not command one of his creation to slay another of his creation. He would not encourage the physical harm of one of his creation toward another one of his creation. He would not prescribe a lower status to women given that they are also His creation.

3) If God is omnipotent, then He can end anyone's life without justification. If this is the case, then why would He have any need to command one of His creation to murder or harm another one of His creation?

4) If God is omniscient, then why would He prescribe instructions on how to live life that is applicable for all time, if God knew in the 7th Century that in 2006 the iPhone would be invented (and other things) thereby fundamentally transforming social organization. Therefore, God would only prescribe instructions on how to live based on the context and the needs of the time.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #43 - May 29th, 2017 at 7:07pm
 
Quote:
In Chapter 9 and such other chapters, there are two important distinctions to make:
First, there are Punishment stories where God punishes people for disbelieving, etc.


Can you point one out?

Quote:
Where the issue becomes a problem in my view is that many verses call 'other people' to kill, slay or fight disbelievers. Obviously, these verses are troubling.
Again, I invite you to think about the following logic: does God deliver punishment and death to people, or do people do it on behalf of God? My view of God (despite being an Atheist) is that God can only determine who dies, not a human being.


I am not a Muslim Caesar. Why are you trying to convince me this is not the word of God?

Quote:
The conclusion therefor is that the verses that call the person or reader to take up arms, or to slay the idolators, were written contextually and referring to specific groups of people at the time.


Only if you start with a few fundamental assumptions, including:
* that the Koran is the word of God
* that God fits in your pigeon hole of behaviour

I understand the second assumption, as you state it constantly. I cannot figure out why so much of what you post also implies the first assumption. Why not simply conclude that it is a load of crap? Do you think Muslims will take you more seriously if you pretend to be one? Do you think they will respect you misrepresenting or diluting your own views on the matter in some kind of strategy to change their mind? It just makes people constantly wonder wtf you are on about.

Quote:
Now, I'm willing to concede that many Islamists or persons who find the Quran true believe that God 'can change His mind' because he is God. True, but why would He if God is omniscient? That's why I encourage you to use this logic when debating (if you do) with Muslims.


What are you trying to help me convince Muslims of?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: chapter 9
Reply #44 - May 30th, 2017 at 1:44pm
 
freediver wrote on May 29th, 2017 at 7:07pm:
Can you point one out?


In the 2 ayat (of your first post) it says: "....you cannot escape (from the Punishment of) Allah..."

In the 3rd ayat it also says: "..... then know that you cannot escape (from the Punishment of) Allah...."

These are examples of where God punishes people. Contrast these statements with:

"...kill the Mushrikun
(see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush..."

This verse is a 'call' to believers to 'kill' other people.
--
One is God punishing people; the other is a call for one person to kill another person.

So, in one verse it says that God will punish them, then in the next verse it calls for people to kill them. Why the sudden change of mind by God? Such behaviour would only be reminiscent of a God who is evil, and I doubt that any Muslim would believe that God was evil.

freediver wrote on May 29th, 2017 at 7:07pm:
Why are you trying to convince me this is not the word of God?


I'm trying to demonstrate that there is a way to interpret the text of the Quran that is logical and conducive to peace.

freediver wrote on May 29th, 2017 at 7:07pm:
that God fits in your pigeon hole of behaviour


Most religious people (at least of monotheistic religions) would agree that God is benevolent and just (otherwise you worship Satan). I'm sure many Muslims would agree that 'God can change His mind' and that they don't understand 'God's Will.' In the case of the first, you have to admit that God is arbitrary, which is fundamentally against His nature. In the second case, if it's God's Will, then why is it His Will to change His mind?



Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: chapter 9
Reply #45 - May 30th, 2017 at 1:55pm
 
freediver wrote on May 29th, 2017 at 7:07pm:
Why not simply conclude that it is a load of crap?


Because I don't believe that religion is 'a load of crap'. As I stated in a previous post, religion is about self-betterment and improvement - an evolution from the animal to the human. The verses of the Quran that seek to promote this idea is relevant.

Surely you would agree that greed, lust, power and selfishness are all negative attributes? Wouldn't the world be a better place if we were all 'human' as opposed to 'animals'?

I agree the doctrine of Islam is not so 'obvious' about this goal as say is Jainism or Buddhism, or even Christianity. I think it became corrupted later on to be about power and control. Anyone with half a brain would know that any monotheistic religion is about power and control.

freediver wrote on May 29th, 2017 at 7:07pm:
Do you think Muslims will take you more seriously if you pretend to be one?


Muslims probably won't listen to me. It would be interesting to try these arguments with a moderate Muslim (I've never tried). For e.g. I'd start with the headscarf: whilst women are more than entitled to wear anything they wish (if they so choose), I would ask the following question: "why would God command a woman to wear the headscarf? If it's to be closer to God, surely there are more practical ways to be 'closer' God, like abstaining from sex, or from accumulating wealth?"

freediver wrote on May 29th, 2017 at 7:07pm:
What are you trying to help me convince Muslims of?


Because I think it's important we all promote a view of religion that is inclusive and representative of a modern society.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #46 - May 30th, 2017 at 2:42pm
 
Auggie wrote on May 30th, 2017 at 1:55pm:
freediver wrote on May 29th, 2017 at 7:07pm:
Why not simply conclude that it is a load of crap?


Because I don't believe that religion is 'a load of crap'. As I stated in a previous post, religion is about self-betterment and improvement - an evolution from the animal to the human. The verses of the Quran that seek to promote this idea is relevant.

Surely you would agree that greed, lust, power and selfishness are all negative attributes? Wouldn't the world be a better place if we were all 'human' as opposed to 'animals'?

I agree the doctrine of Islam is not so 'obvious' about this goal as say is Jainism or Buddhism, or even Christianity. I think it became corrupted later on to be about power and control. Anyone with half a brain would know that any monotheistic religion is about power and control.

freediver wrote on May 29th, 2017 at 7:07pm:
Do you think Muslims will take you more seriously if you pretend to be one?


Muslims probably won't listen to me. It would be interesting to try these arguments with a moderate Muslim (I've never tried). For e.g. I'd start with the headscarf: whilst women are more than entitled to wear anything they wish (if they so choose), I would ask the following question: "why would God command a woman to wear the headscarf? If it's to be closer to God, surely there are more practical ways to be 'closer' God, like abstaining from sex, or from accumulating wealth?"

freediver wrote on May 29th, 2017 at 7:07pm:
What are you trying to help me convince Muslims of?


Because I think it's important we all promote a view of religion that is inclusive and representative of a modern society.

Last time I looked God didn't command a woman to wear a headscarf or a Burka.  Modesty was the concern and the choice of clothing cultural.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: chapter 9
Reply #47 - May 30th, 2017 at 2:46pm
 
Quote:
Last time I looked God didn't command a woman to wear a headscarf or a Burka.  Modesty was the concern and the choice of clothing cultural.


Well, the wearing of modest clothing is prescribed in the Quran. But, I agree that God wouldn't make a command that prescribed it more on women, than on men.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #48 - May 30th, 2017 at 5:25pm
 
Auggie wrote on May 30th, 2017 at 1:55pm:
freediver wrote on May 29th, 2017 at 7:07pm:
Why not simply conclude that it is a load of crap?


Because I don't believe that religion is 'a load of crap'. As I stated in a previous post, religion is about self-betterment and improvement - an evolution from the animal to the human. The verses of the Quran that seek to promote this idea is relevant.

Surely you would agree that greed, lust, power and selfishness are all negative attributes? Wouldn't the world be a better place if we were all 'human' as opposed to 'animals'?

I agree the doctrine of Islam is not so 'obvious' about this goal as say is Jainism or Buddhism, or even Christianity. I think it became corrupted later on to be about power and control. Anyone with half a brain would know that any monotheistic religion is about power and control.

freediver wrote on May 29th, 2017 at 7:07pm:
Do you think Muslims will take you more seriously if you pretend to be one?


Muslims probably won't listen to me. It would be interesting to try these arguments with a moderate Muslim (I've never tried). For e.g. I'd start with the headscarf: whilst women are more than entitled to wear anything they wish (if they so choose), I would ask the following question: "why would God command a woman to wear the headscarf? If it's to be closer to God, surely there are more practical ways to be 'closer' God, like abstaining from sex, or from accumulating wealth?"

freediver wrote on May 29th, 2017 at 7:07pm:
What are you trying to help me convince Muslims of?


Because I think it's important we all promote a view of religion that is inclusive and representative of a modern society.


Well, GM's tried the inclusive, modern line with FD too, Augie.

FD won't have a bar of it.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #49 - May 30th, 2017 at 6:32pm
 
Quote:
In the 2 ayat (of your first post) it says: "....you cannot escape (from the Punishment of) Allah..."


My bad. I didn't realise that was a story.

Quote:
I'm trying to demonstrate that there is a way to interpret the text of the Quran that is logical and conducive to peace.


By dismissing half of it on the grounds that it is illogical and not conducing to peace? You are just reinforcing the fundamentalist view that the Koran calls Muslims to violence. I think this boils down to your "practical" suggestion that we should get Muslims to reject half of the Koran, but it is far less practical than abandoning Islam entirely. Have you considered Gandalf's approach of instead of dismissing it because it is illogical and violent, reinterpreting it to mean something else?

Quote:
Most religious people (at least of monotheistic religions) would agree that God is benevolent and just (otherwise you worship Satan). I'm sure many Muslims would agree that 'God can change His mind' and that they don't understand 'God's Will.' In the case of the first, you have to admit that God is arbitrary, which is fundamentally against His nature.


Are you talking about yourself again as God?

Quote:
Because I don't believe that religion is 'a load of crap'.


You are an atheist.

Quote:
As I stated in a previous post, religion is about self-betterment and improvement


It is about faith. As Muslims so often demonstrate, this does not necessarily have to involve improvement. Now you are trying to redefine religion itself. Are you hoping that Muslims will stop blowing things up once they relaise they have the wrong definition of religion?

Quote:
I agree the doctrine of Islam is not so 'obvious' about this goal as say is Jainism or Buddhism, or even Christianity. I think it became corrupted later on to be about power and control.


By later on, you mean when Muhammad came into a position of power?

Quote:
Muslims probably won't listen to me.


So what is it you are trying to achieve?

Quote:
If it's to be closer to God, surely there are more practical ways to be 'closer' God, like abstaining from sex, or from accumulating wealth?"


Why do you equate abstaining from sex with God? Is this about being closer to you?

Quote:
Because I think it's important we all promote a view of religion that is inclusive and representative of a modern society.


But if it is completely pointless at best why bother? In reality you are promoting a self delusion about the nature of religion.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #50 - Jun 12th, 2017 at 7:34pm
 
Gandalf how does chapter 9 fit into your Islamic reform agenda? Is your plan to ignore it and hope it goes away?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #51 - Jun 13th, 2017 at 3:36pm
 
freediver wrote on Jun 12th, 2017 at 7:34pm:
Gandalf how does chapter 9 fit into your Islamic reform agenda? Is your plan to ignore it and hope it goes away?


You know as well as I do, FD, that G says Chapter 9 deals with battles during Muhammad's time - battles fought in a specific cultural context, and in self-defence.

You should also know by now that the Koran is not a book of laws, as Deuteronomy was, but an enigmatic collection of stories and ideas, based on Muhammad's life. Muslims are free to take  inspiration from the Koran, not a rigid world view.

Those who do are only fooling themselves. Many are indeed dangerous. As G and others are quick to argue, such Muslims are not following the spirit of Islam, which is about peace and tolerance. This is what G believes. He has told you this many times.

Rather than simply saying ah, you are at pains to deny G this belief, constantly pretending he believes something else. The question here is yours: why do you want G to embrace violence?

We all look forward to your sincere - and honest - reply.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #52 - Jun 13th, 2017 at 7:00pm
 
Are any of these your own thoughts Karnal, or are you doing an Aug?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #53 - Jun 13th, 2017 at 9:59pm
 
freediver wrote on Jun 13th, 2017 at 7:00pm:
Are any of these your own thoughts Karnal, or are you doing an Aug?


You forgot to answer, FD, so I'll ask again. What is it that threatens you about G's religious views?

Why do you continue to deny him the right to hold them?

And why do you tell fibs about them?

After you've answered that, you can ask me anything you like.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #54 - Jun 13th, 2017 at 10:11pm
 
How do I deny him the right to hold his religious views?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #55 - Jun 13th, 2017 at 10:21pm
 
freediver wrote on Jun 13th, 2017 at 10:11pm:
How do I deny him the right to hold his religious views?


You're asking me another question, FD.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #56 - Jun 13th, 2017 at 10:34pm
 
Perhaps if I could understand what on earth you are talking about, I might be able to answer yours.

Do I deny him his right to his opinions by giving him a popular platform from which to voice them?

Or do you think the right to have an opinion means some kind of protection from criticism of that opinion?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #57 - Jun 13th, 2017 at 10:43pm
 
freediver wrote on Jun 13th, 2017 at 10:34pm:
Perhaps if I could understand what on earth you are talking about, I might be able to answer yours.

Do I deny him his right to his opinions by giving him a popular platform from which to voice them?

Or do you think the right to have an opinion means some kind of protection from criticism of that opinion?


You're trying really hard to evade, aren't you?

Is this why you started the Wiki?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #58 - Jun 13th, 2017 at 10:51pm
 
Come back soon, FD.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
cods
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 88048
Re: chapter 9
Reply #59 - Jun 13th, 2017 at 11:21pm
 
freediver wrote on Jun 12th, 2017 at 7:34pm:
Gandalf how does chapter 9 fit into your Islamic reform agenda? Is your plan to ignore it and hope it goes away?




have you joined the pro Muslim [luv] group we have here fd??..

you sound more like them everyday...gweg will be thrilled...

I am thinking gandy will be thrilled to see you go away... Wink Wink

have you any idea how many threads get ruined
by parrots who seem to have the compulsion to repeat the same question day and night...?

well you probably dont as you only deal with Islam threads......

and gandy is very obliging when it comes to answering weirdo questions.. more than can be said for others..
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #60 - Jun 14th, 2017 at 12:11pm
 
Karnal I think your blathering about Gandalf's right to his own opinions is symptomatic of the corrupted perspective on rights and freedoms one must adopt in order to become an apologist for Islam.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #61 - Jun 14th, 2017 at 12:39pm
 
freediver wrote on Jun 13th, 2017 at 10:11pm:
How do I deny him the right to hold his religious views?


You constantly lecture me about being dishonest about my beliefs. So rather than accepting my assertions about my Islamic beliefs being about love and peace and tolerance, your premise is that Islam can only ever be a rigidly violent and intolerant religion, and that any muslims who says otherwise must be lying.

Your sneering quip in post# 50 is a case in point, and is basically saying "how are you going to lie your way out of the "truth" of chapter 9?" (the "truth" being that it is a universal call for muslims to be violent warmongers).

You always sneer at the idea of Islamic reform - I think because the only "reform" you could contenance is one where muslims renounce their prophet and probably most of the text - which you know they cannot do. I think you describe it "being honest" about the tenets of Islam - the clear insinuation being that muslims already accept your violent/intolerant version of Islam, but are too "dishonest" to acknowledge it. Never again will you accept the idea that muslims are actually being honest when they promote a genuinely peaceful/tolerant interpretation of Islamic scripture - like you used to before 2007.
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: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #62 - Jun 14th, 2017 at 12:47pm
 
freediver wrote on Jun 14th, 2017 at 12:11pm:
Karnal I think your blathering about Gandalf's right to his own opinions is symptomatic of the corrupted perspective on rights and freedoms one must adopt in order to become an apologist for Islam.


Karnal is not talking literally. Of course you don't literally deny me of my beliefs.

Intellectually though, you "deny" us having a civilized discussion about this topic which could potentially be very interesting. You "deny" me the right of being treated as a normal human being with individuality who can be treated as an equal in sensible civilized discussion - as opposed to treating me as part of a mindless hive mind, who can routinely be dismissed with derogatory terms like "typical muslim"

You could go back to posting the ideas of Tariq Ramadan and other reformers you used to admire, and actually not bring up the issue of reform for the sole purpose of ridiculing it. But you don't because you have no desire to go past the inane and thoroughly debased "discussions" on how to checkmate the muslim and ridicule all his merry apologists.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jun 14th, 2017 at 12:53pm by polite_gandalf »  

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
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #63 - Jun 14th, 2017 at 1:27pm
 
freediver wrote on Jun 14th, 2017 at 12:11pm:
Karnal I think your blathering about Gandalf's right to his own opinions is symptomatic of the corrupted perspective on rights and freedoms one must adopt in order to become an apologist for Islam.


I thought you might. Now, our question: why do G's views bother you so much that you choose to stalk him, interrogate him, ignore his answers and put words in his mouth?

If you believe in rights and freedoms, why do you work so hard to deny someone else the freedom to own their beliefs?

That's a question.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #64 - Jun 14th, 2017 at 8:29pm
 
Quote:
If you believe in rights and freedoms, why do you work so hard to deny someone else the freedom to own their beliefs?


Again, what corrupted view of freedom could you possibly hold to make such an accusation?

Quote:
You constantly lecture me about being dishonest about my beliefs.


Can you give an example?

Quote:
So rather than accepting my assertions about my Islamic beliefs being about love and peace and tolerance, your premise is that Islam can only ever be a rigidly violent and intolerant religion


False dichotomy. If you met a really really nice Nazi who just happened to think Hitler was God's second cousin, would that change anything about Nazism?

Quote:
Your sneering quip in post# 50 is a case in point, and is basically saying "how are you going to lie your way out of the "truth" of chapter 9?" (the "truth" being that it is a universal call for muslims to be violent warmongers).


Can you give an example using what I actually say? Or am I not allowed to speak for myself?

Quote:
You always sneer at the idea of Islamic reform


How can you always tell when I am sneering?

Quote:
I think because the only "reform" you could contenance is one where muslims renounce their prophet and probably most of the text


Might as well renounce the lot Gandalf.

Quote:
which you know they cannot do


Of course they can, and plenty do. Just not in those places where, thanks to Islam, it is too late for them.

Quote:
I think you describe it "being honest" about the tenets of Islam - the clear insinuation being that muslims already accept your violent/intolerant version of Islam, but are too "dishonest" to acknowledge it.


Surely not. Let's give it a go shall we? Gandalf, is chapter 9 of the Koran the word of God?

Quote:
Intellectually though, you "deny" us having a civilized discussion about this topic which could potentially be very interesting.


If it was not interesting I would not be here.

Quote:
You "deny" me the right of being treated as a normal human being


Do you have a problem with people who are not normal?

Quote:
as opposed to treating me as part of a mindless hive mind


Ah, like those hundreds of innocent Jews whose murder you support unquestioningly? How hypocritical of me. There, is that civilised enough for you? I wasn't sneering when I typed it, if that affects your answer.

Quote:
who can routinely be dismissed with derogatory terms like "typical muslim"


You are denying me the right to dismiss you with my own derogatory terms. Apologist.

Quote:
You could go back to posting the ideas of Tariq Ramadan and other reformers you used to admire, and actually not bring up the issue of reform for the sole purpose of ridiculing it.


Would you deny me the right to change my mind?

Quote:
But you don't because you have no desire to go past the inane and thoroughly debased "discussions" on how to checkmate the muslim and ridicule all his merry apologists.


That is a lot of effort to go to to avoid the question. You accuse me of ridiculing your reform efforts, but if your reform requires you to simply pretend chapter 9 does not exist - which is the only conclusion I can draw from your non-answer - what other response do you expect? By self-identifying as a Muslim, you are giving implicit support to everything in the Koran, including chapter 9, and you should take ownership and responsibility for that, and the consequences. When you promote Islam, you promote the view that chapter 9 is God's instruction to Muslims, and you cannot expect me to take you seriously if you deny the implications of that - that Muslims will read it for themselves and find out what it really says, and act in a way that is not hypocritical to their faith. Maybe one day you will read it yourself and make a decision. I'd like to know what you decide.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #65 - Jun 14th, 2017 at 10:49pm
 
Don't want to say, eh?

Quote:
That is a lot of effort to go to to avoid answering the question.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Raven
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2981
Around
Re: chapter 9
Reply #66 - Jun 15th, 2017 at 12:12am
 
Grendel wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 5:45pm:
greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 4:21pm:
Grendel wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 2:33pm:
I love the way atheists claim stats without proof, then make more claims out of context... Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
Soooo  where are all the New Testament teachings of Christ that urge fighting and war in the name of God...  hmmmmm? Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes


The Old Testament was found to be more than twice as violent as the Quran.

The Old Testament is not the New Testament Gweggy....  The Old Testament is the "Jewish Bible" it contains a Jewish Religious History.  Would you like to try again? Grin Grin Grin


And yet, whenever a so called "Christian" uses the bible to sprout hatred and bigotry they always quote from the OT.
Back to top
 

Quoth the Raven "Nevermore"

Raven would rather ask questions that may never be answered, then accept answers which must never be questioned.
 
IP Logged
 
Raven
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2981
Around
Re: chapter 9
Reply #67 - Jun 15th, 2017 at 12:15am
 
Grendel wrote on Apr 30th, 2017 at 12:27pm:
LOL Karnal is a wanker, Jesus fulfilled the law by dying for all our sins and conquering death.  Oh dear atheists and Muslims should not quote things they are ignorant of.


It's very pagan isn't it. Kinda like the Aztecs, a human sacrifice to save the rest of people.
Back to top
 

Quoth the Raven "Nevermore"

Raven would rather ask questions that may never be answered, then accept answers which must never be questioned.
 
IP Logged
 
Raven
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2981
Around
Re: chapter 9
Reply #68 - Jun 15th, 2017 at 12:24am
 
freediver wrote on Jun 12th, 2017 at 7:34pm:
Gandalf how does chapter 9 fit into your Islamic reform agenda? Is your plan to ignore it and hope it goes away?


There can be no reform, certainly not anytime soon. Not until Muslims realise that much of their archaic teachings have no place in modern civilised society.
Back to top
 

Quoth the Raven "Nevermore"

Raven would rather ask questions that may never be answered, then accept answers which must never be questioned.
 
IP Logged
 
Raven
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2981
Around
Re: chapter 9
Reply #69 - Jun 15th, 2017 at 12:31am
 
Grendel wrote on May 30th, 2017 at 2:42pm:
Auggie wrote on May 30th, 2017 at 1:55pm:
freediver wrote on May 29th, 2017 at 7:07pm:
Why not simply conclude that it is a load of crap?


Because I don't believe that religion is 'a load of crap'. As I stated in a previous post, religion is about self-betterment and improvement - an evolution from the animal to the human. The verses of the Quran that seek to promote this idea is relevant.

Surely you would agree that greed, lust, power and selfishness are all negative attributes? Wouldn't the world be a better place if we were all 'human' as opposed to 'animals'?

I agree the doctrine of Islam is not so 'obvious' about this goal as say is Jainism or Buddhism, or even Christianity. I think it became corrupted later on to be about power and control. Anyone with half a brain would know that any monotheistic religion is about power and control.

freediver wrote on May 29th, 2017 at 7:07pm:
Do you think Muslims will take you more seriously if you pretend to be one?


Muslims probably won't listen to me. It would be interesting to try these arguments with a moderate Muslim (I've never tried). For e.g. I'd start with the headscarf: whilst women are more than entitled to wear anything they wish (if they so choose), I would ask the following question: "why would God command a woman to wear the headscarf? If it's to be closer to God, surely there are more practical ways to be 'closer' God, like abstaining from sex, or from accumulating wealth?"

freediver wrote on May 29th, 2017 at 7:07pm:
What are you trying to help me convince Muslims of?


Because I think it's important we all promote a view of religion that is inclusive and representative of a modern society.

Last time I looked God didn't command a woman to wear a headscarf or a Burka.  Modesty was the concern and the choice of clothing cultural.


True, but the bible does.
Back to top
 

Quoth the Raven "Nevermore"

Raven would rather ask questions that may never be answered, then accept answers which must never be questioned.
 
IP Logged
 
Raven
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2981
Around
Re: chapter 9
Reply #70 - Jun 15th, 2017 at 12:36am
 
Auggie wrote on May 30th, 2017 at 2:46pm:
Quote:
Last time I looked God didn't command a woman to wear a headscarf or a Burka.  Modesty was the concern and the choice of clothing cultural.


Well, the wearing of modest clothing is prescribed in the Quran. But, I agree that God wouldn't make a command that prescribed it more on women, than on men.


"But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head" (1 Cor. 1:3-6).
Back to top
 

Quoth the Raven "Nevermore"

Raven would rather ask questions that may never be answered, then accept answers which must never be questioned.
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #71 - Jun 21st, 2017 at 12:37pm
 
Funny FD didn't find these ayat from Chapter 9 important enough to highlight:

Quote:
4. Except those of the Mushrikun with whom you have a treaty, and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor have supported anyone against you. So fulfill their treaty to them to the end of their term. Surely Allah loves Al- Mattaqun (the pious - see V.2:2).


Quote:
13. Will you not fight a people who have violated their oaths (pagans of Makkah) and intended to expel the Messenger, while they did attack you first? Do you fear them? Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are believers.


Good grief - is the Quran saying its "pious" to make peace with those who have not wronged you, or supported others against you??

Could it possibly be that the Quran is saying that fighting is only permitted against those who violate oaths they have made with you, and who attack you first??

related:

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. 8.61

Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.

Allah only forbids you from those who fight you because of religion and expel you from your homes and aid in your expulsion - [forbids] that you make allies of them. And whoever makes allies of them, then it is those who are the wrongdoers.
  60.8-9


Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged. And indeed, Allah is competent to give them victory.

[They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right - only because they say, "Our Lord is Allah ." And were it not that Allah checks the people, some by means of others, there would have been demolished monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of Allah is much mentioned. And Allah will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, Allah is Powerful and Exalted in Might.


oh look - surely Allah doesn't support worshippers of other non-muslim faiths (christians and jews) in which "the name of Allah (God) is much mentioned"??

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: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #72 - Jun 21st, 2017 at 12:57pm
 
Quote:
Good grief - is the Quran saying its "pious" to make peace with those who have not wronged you, or supported others against you??


No. It says don't violate oaths of peace you have, unless they do, in which case the slaughter is back on.

In case there is any confusion, Muhammad demonstrated quite clearly that it is open season on pagans, and only the flimsiest of excuses are needed to nullify any treaties with Jews.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #73 - Jun 21st, 2017 at 1:11pm
 
freediver wrote on Jun 21st, 2017 at 12:57pm:
It says don't violate oaths of peace you have, unless they do


So, slightly different to your spin - no?

If its wholesale slaughter of non-believers, why does it go to the trouble of specifying who are to be fought - and making it look suspiciously like a self-defense/just war doctrine?

Quote:
who have violated their oaths (pagans of Makkah) and intended to expel the Messenger, while they did attack you first?


Why not simply say "kill all non-believers" - without qualifcation?


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: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #74 - Jun 21st, 2017 at 1:17pm
 
freediver wrote on Jun 21st, 2017 at 12:57pm:
In case there is any confusion, Muhammad demonstrated quite clearly that it is open season on pagans


By signing peace treaties with them in a position of overwhelming strength?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Hudaybiyyah
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: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #75 - Jun 21st, 2017 at 1:25pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 21st, 2017 at 1:11pm:
freediver wrote on Jun 21st, 2017 at 12:57pm:
It says don't violate oaths of peace you have, unless they do


So, slightly different to your spin - no?

If its wholesale slaughter of non-believers, why does it go to the trouble of specifying who are to be fought - and making it look suspiciously like a self-defense/just war doctrine?

Quote:
who have violated their oaths (pagans of Makkah) and intended to expel the Messenger, while they did attack you first?


Why not simply say "kill all non-believers" - without qualifcation?




It does not look like self defence. It looks like wholesale slaughter, and the exception is when there is an oath oath of peace the Muslims still choose to recognise. Muhammad himself engaged in the wholesale slaughter of non-Muslims, even where there was no aspect of self-defence.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #76 - Jun 21st, 2017 at 2:01pm
 
freediver wrote on Jun 21st, 2017 at 1:25pm:
It looks like wholesale slaughter, and the exception is when there is an oath oath of peace the Muslims still choose to recognise.


the only exception?

Again, if its wholesale slaughter, why all the qualifications specifying those who evicted you, attacked you first or supported those who attacked you?

not to mention...

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. 8.61

- thats not a suggestion by the way, thats a command - you must incline towards peace if your enemy does so too - note there's no exceptions...

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
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #77 - Jun 21st, 2017 at 2:07pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 21st, 2017 at 12:37pm:
Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.

Allah only forbids you from those who fight you because of religion and expel you from your homes and aid in your expulsion - [forbids] that you make allies of them. And whoever makes allies of them, then it is those who are the wrongdoers.
  60.8-9



Right. So Muslims are only forbidden from associating with people from other religions who fight religious wars against Muslims and throw Muslims out of their homes.

And Muslims are encouraged to be nice and fair to everybody else.

That's in their holy book, G. Should we change our focus to what Muslims themselves say?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #78 - Jun 21st, 2017 at 2:09pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 21st, 2017 at 2:01pm:
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. 8.61

- thats not a suggestion by the way, thats a command - you must incline towards peace if your enemy does so too - note there's no exceptions...



Taqiyya. Can we put this down to taqiyya?

Questions questions.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #79 - Jun 21st, 2017 at 2:11pm
 
Tell me karnal why is it you fail to realise that nearly every post you make is idiotic and detracts from the debate more often than adding anything sensible to it?

Honestly just shut up or post like a sensible person for a change.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
moses
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6353
Re: chapter 9
Reply #80 - Jun 21st, 2017 at 2:13pm
 
AugCaesarustus wrote: Reply #42 - May 29th, 2017 at 4:49pm

Quote:
"why would God provide divine punishment, only then to encourage people to do His 'dirty work for Him'?


Well allah was all for it.

quran 47.4: So, when you meet (fighting Jihad in allah's cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)... If it had been allah's Will, he himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (he lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the way of allah, he will never let their deeds be lost."

So there it is plain and simple, the moon god allah could have done it himself but he prefers muslims to do it as a test.

If a muslim is killed while killing others, his deeds will never be forgotten, he goes straight into the islamic brothel in the sky, replete with big breasted houris and little boys with eyes like pearls for an everlasting orgy of divine sex.

islam engenders islamic terrorism, when will muslims and their apologists stop lying about this fact?
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jun 21st, 2017 at 2:20pm by moses »  
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #81 - Jun 21st, 2017 at 2:19pm
 
moses wrote on Jun 21st, 2017 at 2:13pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote: Reply #42 - May 29th, 2017 at 4:49pm

Quote:
"why would God provide divine punishment, only then to encourage people to do His 'dirty work for Him'?


Well allah was all for it.

quran 47.4: So, when you meet (fighting Jihad in allah's cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)... If it had been allah's Will, he himself could certainly have punished them (without you)[b]. But (he lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But [b]those who are killed in the way of allah, he will never let their deeds be lost."

So there it is plain and simple, the moon god allah could have done it himself but he prefers muslims to do it as a test.

If a muslim is killed while killing others, his deeds will never be forgotten, he goes straight into the islamic brothel in the sky, replete with big breasted houris and little boys with eyes like pearls for an everlasting orgy of divine sex.

islam engenders islamic terrorism, when will muslims and their apologists stop lying about this fact?


Because you got it wrong, Moses. It doesn't say if a Muslim is killed while killing others, it says those who are killed in the way of Allah. This means doing something nice, not mean; or as G quotes, acting righteously and justly towards others.

Unless, of course, it doesn't mean what it says. Do you think it's taqiyya?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
moses
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6353
Re: chapter 9
Reply #82 - Jun 21st, 2017 at 2:31pm
 
qur'an 9.111: Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain. It is a promise which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur'an. Who fulfilleth His covenant better than Allah? Rejoice then in your bargain that ye have made, for that is the supreme triumph.

Fight in the way of allah, slay and be slain in the way of allah.

I reiterate

quran 47.4: So, when you meet (fighting Jihad in allah's cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)... If it had been allah's Will, he himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (he lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the way of allah, he will never let their deeds be lost."

So there it is plain and simple, the moon god allah could have done it himself but he prefers muslims to do it as a test.

If a muslim is killed while killing others, his deeds will never be forgotten, he goes straight into the islamic brothel in the sky, replete with big breasted houris and little boys with eyes like pearls for an everlasting orgy of divine sex.

islam engenders islamic terrorism, when will muslims and their apologists stop lying about this fact?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #83 - Jun 21st, 2017 at 2:45pm
 
moses wrote on Jun 21st, 2017 at 2:31pm:
islam engenders islamic terrorism, when will muslims and their apologists stop lying about this fact?


Because it doesn't. You've read G's quotes. There is no way this can be interpreted as being anything other than righteous and just.

Repeating your earlier post makes no difference. You quote passages out of context and rely on people's ignorance.

If you don't want to read the Koran, Moses, no worries.

It doesn't mean what it says, no?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
moses
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6353
Re: chapter 9
Reply #84 - Jun 21st, 2017 at 2:51pm
 
once again
Quote:
qur'an 9.111: Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain. It is a promise which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur'an. Who fulfilleth His covenant better than Allah? Rejoice then in your bargain that ye have made, for that is the supreme triumph.

Fight in the way of allah, slay and be slain in the way of allah.

quran 47.4: So, when you meet (fighting Jihad in allah's cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)... If it had been allah's Will, he himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (he lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the way of allah, he will never let their deeds be lost."

So there it is plain and simple, the moon god allah could have done it himself but he prefers muslims to do it as a test.

If a muslim is killed while killing others, his deeds will never be forgotten, he goes straight into the islamic brothel in the sky, replete with big breasted houris and little boys with eyes like pearls for an everlasting orgy of divine sex.

islam engenders islamic terrorism, when will muslims and their apologists stop lying about this fact?


The old moon god allah calling for a bit of slaughter in his name.

When will muslims and their apologists stop lying about the cause of islamic terrorism
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #85 - Jun 21st, 2017 at 2:57pm
 
moses wrote on Jun 21st, 2017 at 2:51pm:
once again
Quote:
qur'an 9.111: Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain. It is a promise which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur'an. Who fulfilleth His covenant better than Allah? Rejoice then in your bargain that ye have made, for that is the supreme triumph.

Fight in the way of allah, slay and be slain in the way of allah.

quran 47.4: So, when you meet (fighting Jihad in allah's cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)... If it had been allah's Will, he himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (he lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the way of allah, he will never let their deeds be lost."

So there it is plain and simple, the moon god allah could have done it himself but he prefers muslims to do it as a test.

If a muslim is killed while killing others, his deeds will never be forgotten, he goes straight into the islamic brothel in the sky, replete with big breasted houris and little boys with eyes like pearls for an everlasting orgy of divine sex.

islam engenders islamic terrorism, when will muslims and their apologists stop lying about this fact?


The old moon god allah calling for a bit of slaughter in his name.

When will muslims and their apologists stop lying about the cause of islamic terrorism


G has already corrected you, Moses. Why dost thou turn away from truth?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #86 - Jun 21st, 2017 at 2:58pm
 
Brain-washed.

I'm betting karnal and co understand Doublethink very well and now have developed a form of Doublespeak.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #87 - Jun 24th, 2017 at 5:54pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 21st, 2017 at 2:01pm:
freediver wrote on Jun 21st, 2017 at 1:25pm:
It looks like wholesale slaughter, and the exception is when there is an oath oath of peace the Muslims still choose to recognise.


the only exception?

Again, if its wholesale slaughter, why all the qualifications specifying those who evicted you, attacked you first or supported those who attacked you?

not to mention...

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. 8.61

- thats not a suggestion by the way, thats a command - you must incline towards peace if your enemy does so too - note there's no exceptions...



It is slaughtering the infidel from start to finish Gandalf, with only a few references to justify it. That is why you now resort to quoting from other chapters in an effort to excuse it. I am hardly going to go looking for the few non-violent passages and draw attention to them.

Here is a word count, from a single chapter of the Koran:

fight: 19
fought: 3
die/death: 15
punish: 14
life/lives: 14
war: 9
jihad: 8
march: 6
kill: 4
victory: 4
battle: 3
enemy: 3
attack: 2
cut: 2
ambush: 1
capture: 1
besiege: 1
destroy: 1
Mujahidun: 1
murder: 1
martyrdom: 1
inflict: 1
troop: 1
overthrown: 1
fallen: 1

disbelief/ve: 48
cause: 25
forbid: 12
torment: 10
hell: 9
hard: 9
obey/obedient: 9
fire: 8
pain: 7
fear: 7
strive(ing): 7
pure...: 7
mock: 4
expedition: 4
calamity(ies): 4
clean: 4
recompense: 4
disgrace: 3
liar: 3
afraid: 3
anger: 2
injury: 2
curse: 2
harm: 2
sedition: 2
trial: 2
harsh: 2
blame: 2
pieces: 2
crumble: 2
refuge: 2
suffer: 1
afflict: 1
distress: 1
flight: 1
flee: 1
submission: 1
subdued: 1
branded: 1
extreme: 1
losers: 1
cry: 1
tears: 1
grave: 1
weak: 1
ill: 1
grief: 1
horrible: 1
thirst: 1
fatigue: 1
hunger: 1
superior: 1

wealth: 11
spend: 10
zakat: 9
take: 6
exempt: 6
rich: 4
pay/paid: 4
properties: 3
hoard: 3
gold: 2
money: 2
silver: 2
contributions: 2
booty: 1
niggardly: 1
resources: 1
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #88 - Jun 24th, 2017 at 6:14pm
 
Where's stoning to death, FD?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #89 - Jun 24th, 2017 at 6:32pm
 
wow that was a worthwhile endeavor FD  Grin
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: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #90 - Jun 24th, 2017 at 6:37pm
 
freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2017 at 5:54pm:
It is slaughtering the infidel from start to finish Gandalf, with only a few references to justify it.


One reference justifying it as self defense is all thats needed wouldn't you agree? Besides, extra justification is given in other verses. I think you would have us believe that chapter 9 has to be read in isolation, out of context - yes?
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: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #91 - Jun 24th, 2017 at 6:43pm
 
Wow. So quoting the entire chapter is now taking it out of context? Do we have to quote the entire Koran or something in case people 'misinterpret' the lengthy and repetitive calls to violence against non-Muslims?

There is nothing in there amongst all that violence mongering saying it must be limited to self defense. Nor does the example of Muhammad suggest self defense is a requirement.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #92 - Jun 24th, 2017 at 6:53pm
 
Yes FD, the Quran must be understood as a whole - and yes, individual verses are linked to other verses, Chapter 9 being no exception. I understand this is inconvenient for you since you will never read it for yourself and prefer to get spoonfed the "bad" bits taken out of context.
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: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #93 - Jun 24th, 2017 at 7:00pm
 
So where does it say war can only be in self defense?

Was Muhammad acting in self defense when he spent years robbing and murdering Meccan traders?

How about when he murdered about 800 unarmed Jewish POWs?

What about the raids sent out by Muhammad and his successors to slaughter pagans and destroy pagan temples?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #94 - Jun 24th, 2017 at 7:04pm
 
freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2017 at 7:00pm:
So where does it say war can only be in self defense?


Oh look, FD doesn't listen to what I say again.

reply# 71.

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
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #95 - Jun 24th, 2017 at 7:55pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 24th, 2017 at 7:04pm:
freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2017 at 7:00pm:
So where does it say war can only be in self defense?


Oh look, FD doesn't listen to what I say again.

reply# 71.



Can you quote that?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #96 - Jun 24th, 2017 at 8:29pm
 
That's it? Islam "does not forbid" Muslims from refraining from being douchebags? That's the 'context' that changes the meaning of chapter 9?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #97 - Jun 24th, 2017 at 8:41pm
 
freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2017 at 8:29pm:
That's it? Islam "does not forbid" Muslims from refraining from being douchebags? That's the 'context' that changes the meaning of chapter 9?


Oh, I don't know. Moh also says this.

Quote:
[They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right - only because they say, "Our Lord is Allah ." And were it not that Allah checks the people, some by means of others, there would have been demolished monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of Allah is much mentioned. And Allah will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, Allah is Powerful and Exalted in Might.


What do you think this means, FD?

I'm curious. I'm keen to know what you think.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #98 - Jun 24th, 2017 at 8:49pm
 
That Muslims are prone to going on violent rampages.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #99 - Jun 24th, 2017 at 9:13pm
 
freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2017 at 8:49pm:
That Muslims are prone to going on violent rampages.


No, really. What does it mean?

You have masterful skills in writing, FD. Here's your chance to display your skills in reading.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #100 - Jun 24th, 2017 at 9:17pm
 
That they would be even more violent if they aren't kept in check.

Did you read it?

Perhaps you should just get to the point Karnal.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #101 - Jun 24th, 2017 at 9:58pm
 
freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2017 at 9:17pm:
That they would be even more violent if they aren't kept in check.

Did you read it?

Perhaps you should just get to the point Karnal.


No, I'm giving you an opportunity, FD. What do you think it means?

It's not a test. Try it.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #102 - Jun 25th, 2017 at 6:51am
 
OK, it appears to be a collective statement of (potential) victimhood, with Jews, Christians and Muslims lumped together. Not sure whether they are potential victims of each other or some other group.

Is there a point to this, or am I just helping you read the Koran?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #103 - Jun 25th, 2017 at 2:43pm
 
freediver wrote on Jun 25th, 2017 at 6:51am:
OK, it appears to be a collective statement of (potential) victimhood, with Jews, Christians and Muslims lumped together. Not sure whether they are potential victims of each other or some other group.

Is there a point to this, or am I just helping you read the Koran?


Try helping yourself. Is there any reason you prefer to obfuscate, complicate and hide things rather than simply acknowledging what they are?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #104 - Jun 26th, 2017 at 7:44am
 
Are you trying to point out that the Koran leaves it to Allah's intervention to bring peace rather than expecting Muslims to take the initiative?

It's a bit like you expecting me to make your point for you. But then you are unhappy with the outcome. I think there's something in that for all of us.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #105 - Jun 26th, 2017 at 10:37am
 
freediver wrote on Jun 26th, 2017 at 7:44am:
Are you trying to point out that the Koran leaves it to Allah's intervention to bring peace rather than expecting Muslims to take the initiative?

It's a bit like you expecting me to make your point for you. But then you are unhappy with the outcome. I think there's something in that for all of us.


No, I'm asking for your own analysis. I'm not trying to lead you anywhere.

Remember, FD, sometimes a question is just a question.

Try answering one. You might enjoy it.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #106 - Jun 26th, 2017 at 11:06am
 
freediver wrote on Jun 26th, 2017 at 7:44am:
It's a bit like you expecting me to make your point for you.


There's no point. There's no judgment. I would have thought that, given the amount of time you spend on Islam, you would be interested in its texts.

If you can't post a neutral reading of a religious text, I think you're in the wrong business, FD.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #107 - Jun 26th, 2017 at 12:47pm
 
Quote:
There's no point.


Ah
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #108 - Jun 26th, 2017 at 1:01pm
 
freediver wrote on Jun 26th, 2017 at 12:47pm:
Quote:
There's no point.


Ah


Is that your final answer?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #109 - Jun 26th, 2017 at 1:01pm
 
freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2017 at 8:29pm:
That's it? Islam "does not forbid" Muslims from refraining from being douchebags? That's the 'context' that changes the meaning of chapter 9?


No thats not it FD, there are 4 Quranic quotes there, plus the two you neglected to mention in chapter 9. How could you not notice that? Please don't ask silly questions when the answer is right there in front of you. Why do you play these silly games?
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
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #110 - Jun 26th, 2017 at 1:07pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 26th, 2017 at 1:01pm:
freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2017 at 8:29pm:
That's it? Islam "does not forbid" Muslims from refraining from being douchebags? That's the 'context' that changes the meaning of chapter 9?


No thats not it FD, there are 4 Quranic quotes there, plus the two you neglected to mention in chapter 9. How could you not notice that? Please don't ask silly questions when the answer is right there in front of you. Why do you play these silly games?


Because he wants to discuss chapter 9 without actually discussing chapter 9.

Sometimes a question is just a question, yes?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #111 - Jun 26th, 2017 at 1:24pm
 
This is just one of the quotes FD inconceivably missed from post 71:

Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged. And indeed, Allah is competent to give them victory.
22:39

Bolded  the key part - in case its not obvious enough.

Is this not clearly specifying who (and only who) fighting against is given permission to? Or is FD just going to shift the goalposts again and pretend this is merely creating a victim complex that somehow excuses unrestrained slaughter?

oh look, Allah even specifys that when fighting is permitted, it must end when the oppression is over:

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. 1:193

and, as mentioned, when the enemy inclines towards peace, you must also:

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. 8.61
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jun 26th, 2017 at 1:31pm by polite_gandalf »  

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: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #112 - Jun 26th, 2017 at 8:19pm
 
Quote:
How could you not notice that?


I already responded to one of the others. The first one you came up with you managed to read into it something that was clearly not there.

Quote:
Is this not clearly specifying who (and only who) fighting against is given permission to?


No.

Quote:
Or is FD just going to shift the goalposts again and pretend this is merely creating a victim complex that somehow excuses unrestrained slaughter?


Treating guilt and innocence collectively makes conflict inevitable.

Gandalf can you reconcile any of this apologetics with Muhammad's behaviour?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #113 - Jun 26th, 2017 at 8:36pm
 
Oh, something tells me FD doesn't want to discuss any of that, G.

Something tells me he doesn't want to discuss this subject at all.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #114 - Jun 26th, 2017 at 8:37pm
 
freediver wrote on Jun 26th, 2017 at 8:19pm:
Quote:
How could you not notice that?


I already responded to one of the others.


Ah.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #115 - Jun 26th, 2017 at 11:24pm
 
freediver wrote on Jun 26th, 2017 at 8:19pm:
No.


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

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:

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] and rely upon Allah . Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing


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 #116 - Jun 27th, 2017 at 12:54am
 



Quote:

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] and rely upon Allah . Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing





"See! ISLAM, calls for peace. And for an end to all hostilities!"


No.


Why so ?

LISTEN UP !

FACT;
There is no concession given from Allah,         which ever allows devout [mujahideen] moslems to live at peace with disbelievers - EVER !
[in fact, throughout ISLAMIC religious texts, the exact opposite is stated and re-stated.]



"Let those fight in the cause of Allah Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah,- whether he is slain or gets victory - Soon shall We give him a reward of great (value).
And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?- Men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!"
Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan."
Koran 4.74-76



Quote:

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




The form of words which are used here, in the moslems 'acceding' to this 'peace', are pure 'weasel words' [i.e. pure sophistry].

That form of words, which are being used, can have two distinct interpretations, of their specific meaning.



In ISLAM's lexicon;

The word 'oppressors' = = identifies those who 'hold out', those who continue to resist and to reject ISLAM, and to reject ISLAM's strictures, upon them.  They are DISBELIEVERS.

In the phrase, 'incline to peace' = = the word 'peace', here, is NOT referring to a cessation of hostilities [i.e. against disbelievers!].   In the phrase, 'incline to peace', this is referring to an 'ideal' circumstance.  Where an enemy who is joined in conflict, would sue the moslems for 'peace' - aka, accept ISLAM, and worship Allah.




Those who are converts [particularly those who may convert under 'duress' ]....
"As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them".....

....seek to establish the bona-fides of those who may convert under 'duress'.

"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.
How can there be a league, before Allah and His Messenger, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for Allah doth love the righteous.
How (can there be such a league), seeing that if they get an advantage over you, they respect not in you the ties either of kinship or of covenant? With (fair words from) their mouths they entice you, but their hearts are averse from you; and most of them are rebellious and wicked.
The Signs of Allah have they sold for a miserable price, and (many) have they hindered from His way: evil indeed are the deeds they have done."
Koran 9.006-009


Are they really going to follow ISLAM's strictures ?.......

"In a Believer they respect not the ties either of kinship or of covenant! It is they who have transgressed all bounds.
But (even so), if they repent, establish regular prayers, and practise regular charity,- they are your brethren in Faith: (thus) do We explain the Signs in detail, for those who understand. "
Koran 9.010, 011

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 #117 - Jun 27th, 2017 at 9:13am
 

WHAT NAIVE NON-MOSLEMS NEED TO BE AWARE OF.......


Whenever the moslem speaks [to the non-moslem] using English words, the moslem will purposely, often attribute, to many common English words, a new and an oblique and a different meaning - within the context of a particular conversation.   !!!!
[moslems speak using these linguistic tricks [this 'SLIGHT OF HAND'], so as to avoid the 'necessity' of speaking in a frank and candid manner]



So that whenever a moslem, and a non-moslem are in conversation, and are discussing a matter,
       they will often [unbeknownst to the non-moslem] be speaking at cross-purposes, while apparently, speaking in total agreement.   !!!!

e.g.
After some bombing atrocity, when the moslem publicly is heard to condemn the killing of 'innocent people', the broader non-moslem community naturally assumes that the spokseman for the moslem community, is referring to those victims of such atrocities.

But those non-moslems would be mistaken!


ANOTHER EXAMPLE;
The English word peace, is defined as an absence of war, or conflict.

Dictionary;
Peace = =
1 freedom from disturbance; tranquillity.
2 freedom from or the cessation of war.



But within ISLAM's 'English language' lexicon,          the word 'peace', is attributed with a new meaning, which is;         'submission to Allah'.

And then, in our ears, we hear the moslem words,        that the moslem community wishes to see 'peace' spread all over the world.   !!!!


ANOTHER EXAMPLE;

Dictionary;
oppress = = keep in subjection and hardship.

But within ISLAM's 'English language' lexicon, the word 'oppressor', refers to 'a person who refuses to accept ISLAM, and refuses to have ISLAMIC strictures imposed upon him'.   !!!!

And then, in our ears, we hear the moslem words, that the moslem community wishes to see the overthrow of all 'oppressors'.   !!!!



.



This is the 'holy' and the 'lawful' mindset, which the religion of ISLAM inculcates into the psyche of every moslem....


--------- >

"....those who resist Islam cause wars and are responsible for them."




Quote:

.....In the book “Reliance of the Traveler" (This 1200+ page voluminous book on Sharia contains fundamentals of Islamic jurisprudence), one of the more respected, classical works in Islamic theology, compiled by "the great 13th century Hadith scholar and jurisprudent", Iman Nawawi, and others. Defines jihad and its application in page 599 as follows: 

JIHAD: "Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word "mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion.....


Bassam Tibi wirtes in "War and Peace in Islam": 

At its core, Islam is a religious mission to all humanity.

Muslims are religiously obliged to disseminate the Islamic faith throughout the world.

"We have sent you forth to all mankind" (Q. 34:28).

If non-Muslims submit to conversion or subjugation, this call (da’wa) can be pursued peacefully.

If they do not, Muslims are obliged to wage war against them.

In Islam, peace requires that non-Muslims submit to the call of Islam, either by converting or by accepting the status of a religious minority (dhimmi) and paying the imposed poll tax, jizya.

World peace, the final stage of the da’wa, is reached only with the conversion or submission of all mankind to Islam.....

Muslims believe that expansion through war is not aggression        but a fulfillment of the Qur’anic command to spread Islam as a way to peace.

The resort to force to disseminate Islam is not war (harb), a word that is used only to describe the use of force by non-Muslims.

Islamic wars are not hurub (the plural of harb) but rather futuhat, acts of "opening" the world to Islam and expressing Islamic jihad.

Relations between dar al-Islam, the home of peace, and dar al-harb, the world of unbelievers, nevertheless take place in a state of war, according to the Qur’an and to the authoritative commentaries of Islamic jurists.

Unbelievers who stand in the way, creating obstacles for the da’wa, are blamed for this state of war, for the da’wa can be pursued peacefully if others submit to it.

In other words, those who resist Islam cause wars and are responsible for them.

Only when Muslim power is weak is ‘temporary truce’ (hudna) allowed (Islamic jurists differ on the definition of ‘temporary’).



.....These definitions from Islamic scholars are more than enough to prove that jihad is about bloody war against non-Muslims, forcing them to embrace Islam.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/Peaseforever60415.htm            this is part of page 1 of 4



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: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #118 - Jun 27th, 2017 at 12:56pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 26th, 2017 at 11:24pm:
freediver wrote on Jun 26th, 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. None of them say what you claim, and you jump rapidly from one to the other because of this. Reading something into it that is clearly not there in ten verses does not make you any more correct than when you do it with one verse.

For example, in chapter 9, mocking Islam is listed as one of the reasons to slaughter the infidel. If this "just war" fantasy of yours had any legitimacy, why would that be in the Koran?

How do you reconcile your "just war" fantasy with Muhammad's behaviour?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #119 - Jun 27th, 2017 at 1:36pm
 
freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 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).





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 #120 - Jun 27th, 2017 at 4:49pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 27th, 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 27th, 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: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #122 - Jun 27th, 2017 at 8:37pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 27th, 2017 at 1:36pm:
freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 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!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #123 - Jun 27th, 2017 at 8:57pm
 
freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 2017 at 12:56pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 26th, 2017 at 11:24pm:
freediver wrote on Jun 26th, 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: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #124 - Jun 27th, 2017 at 9:14pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 27th, 2017 at 1:36pm:
freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 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: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #125 - Jun 27th, 2017 at 9:18pm
 
freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 2017 at 8:37pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 27th, 2017 at 1:36pm:
freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 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 27th, 2017 at 9:35pm
 
freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 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 27th, 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 27th, 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: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #127 - Jun 27th, 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!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #128 - Jun 27th, 2017 at 10:15pm
 


freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 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 27th, 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: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #129 - Jun 27th, 2017 at 10:16pm
 
freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 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 27th, 2017 at 10:55pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 27th, 2017 at 10:16pm:
freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 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: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #131 - Jun 27th, 2017 at 11:17pm
 
Yadda wrote on Jun 27th, 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 27th, 2017 at 11:53pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 27th, 2017 at 11:17pm:
Yadda wrote on Jun 27th, 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 27th, 2017 at 11:58pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 27th, 2017 at 11:17pm:
Yadda wrote on Jun 27th, 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: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #134 - Jun 28th, 2017 at 12:28am
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 27th, 2017 at 11:17pm:
Yadda wrote on Jun 27th, 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
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #135 - Jun 28th, 2017 at 12:34am
 
Yadda wrote on Jun 27th, 2017 at 11:53pm:
"....the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies."
Koran 4.101


The entire ayat:

And when you travel throughout the land, there is no blame upon you for shortening the prayer, [especially] if you fear that those who disbelieve may disrupt [or attack] you. Indeed, the disbelievers are ever to you a clear (or "open") enemy.

Reading it in its context puts an entirely different perspective to it.

Yadda would have us believe "open" as in "open enemy" is equivalent to "open season" - as in open season to kill the disbelievers. And so it becomes clear why Yadda wants to conceal the ayat in its entirety - since this:
it is permissible to shorten your prayers for your own safety when in hostile territory -
because the disbelievers can be open season for you [to kill]
- makes so much more sense than simply saying its permissible (to shorten the prayer in hostile territory) because the disbelievers are a "clear" enemy (ie threat)! /sarc off

Another use of the same word translated as "open" (مبينا):

O mankind, there has come to you a conclusive proof from your Lord, and We have sent down to you a clear light. (4:174)

highlighted is the same word used in 4:101.

"Clear" - as in "obvious", "apparent", "pronounced" etc

What would Yadda have us believe مبينا in 4:174 really means?

...we have sent down to you an "open" (enemy?) light??  Cheesy

Does that make sense to you Yadda? Or do both 4:174 and 4:101 make sense by describing both the light and the enemy as things that are "clear" as in "obvious", "apparent", and "pronounced"?i
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: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #136 - Jun 28th, 2017 at 8:11am
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 27th, 2017 at 10:15pm:
freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 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.


It does not say "until there is no more oppression" or until they cease oppressing. You are misrepresenting the Koran Gandalf. It says slaughter the infidel until they accept Muslims as their rulers and Islam as their religion. It is your quote. You should have read it before attempting to use it as an example.

Quote:
A clearer command to fight only in self defense could not be made.


Sure it could. How about "fight only in self defence"? Too complicated perhaps?

Quote:
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.


I can only point out (over and over again apparently) that it does not say what you claim it says.

Quote:
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:


So Islam promotes a just war theory because Muhammad occasionally refrained from slaughtering the infidel?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Yadda
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 20956
A cat with a view
Re: chapter 9
Reply #137 - Jun 28th, 2017 at 9:14am
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 28th, 2017 at 12:34am:

Another use of the same word translated as "open" (مبينا):

O mankind, there has come to you a conclusive proof from your Lord, and We have sent down to you a clear light. (4:174)

highlighted is the same word used in 4:101.

"Clear" - as in "obvious", "apparent", "pronounced" etc

What would Yadda have us believe مبينا in 4:174 really means?



...we have sent down to you an "open" (enemy?) light??  Cheesy




Does that make sense to you Yadda? Or do both 4:174 and 4:101 make sense by describing both the light and the enemy as things that are "clear" as in "obvious", "apparent", and "pronounced"?




LOL


gandalf,

The          'clear light',        to which Allah is referring, is the Koran itself.



The indisputable authority of the words of the Holy Koran
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1496306965/0#0



Allah declares, that [to his followers] the authority of the words of the Koran are indisputable [to those who revere the Koran].....




"It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book,......"
Koran 3.003


"We have sent down to thee the Book in truth, that thou mightest judge between men, as guided by Allah: so be not (used) as an advocate by those who betray their trust;..."
Koran 4.105


"......For Allah hath sent down to thee the Book and wisdom and taught thee what thou Knewest not (before): And great is the Grace of Allah unto thee."
Koran 4.113


"......lest they beguile thee from any of that (teaching) which Allah hath sent down to thee.[/b] And if they turn away, be assured that for some of their crime it is Allah's purpose to punish them. And truly most men are rebellious. "
Koran 5.049


"Say: "Shall I seek for judge other than Allah? - when He it is Who hath sent unto you the Book, explained in detail." They know full well, to whom We have given the Book, that it hath been sent down from thy Lord in truth. Never be then of those who doubt......."
Koran 6.114,115


"A Book revealed unto thee,- So let thy heart be oppressed no more by any difficulty on that account,- that with it thou mightest warn (the erring) and teach the Believers)......"
Koran 7.002,003


"We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption)."
Koran 15.009


"......And We sent down the Book to thee for the express purpose, that thou shouldst make clear to them those things in which they differ, and that it should be a guide and a mercy to those who believe."
Koran 16.063,064


"......and We have sent down to thee the Book explaining all things, a Guide, a Mercy, and Glad Tidings to Muslims."
Koran 16.088,089


"We have not sent down the Qur'an to thee to be (an occasion) for thy distress,
But only as an admonition to those who fear (Allah),-
A revelation from Him Who created the earth and the heavens on high."
Koran 20.002-004


"And this is a blessed Message which We have sent down: will ye then reject it?"
Koran 21.050


"A sura which We have sent down and which We have ordained in it have We sent down Clear Signs, in order that ye may receive admonition."
Koran 24.001


" "The (Qur'an) was sent down by Him who knows the mystery (that is) in the heavens and the earth: verily He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." "
Koran 25.006


"Verily He Who ordained the Qur'an for thee......
And thou hadst not expected that the Book would be sent to thee except as a Mercy from thy Lord:....."
Koran 28.085-087


"[b]By the Qur'an, full of Wisdom,-
....It is a Revelation sent down by (Him), the Exalted in Might, Most Merciful......The Word is proved true against the greater part of them: for they do not believe."
Koran 36.002-007




.





gandalf,

Allah himself has sent down the Koran, as "A revelation from Him Who created" all things.

And gandalf, what is demanded, in the "Revelation sent down by (Him)" ?????

It is this.....



"O ye who believe!
Ask not questions
about things which, if made plain to you, may cause you trouble.....
Some people before you did ask such questions, and on that account lost their faith."
Koran 5.101, 102


"We sent not a messenger, but to be obeyed..........they ['believers'] can have no (real) Faith, until they make thee judge in all disputes between them, and find in their souls no resistance against Thy decisions, but accept them with the fullest conviction."
Koran 4.64, 65


"O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger [i.e. the clerics], and make not vain your deeds!"
Koran 47:33





THE      'REVELATION'       FROM ALLAH IS, THAT HE DEMANDS PURE, BLIND OBEDIENCE.

AND OBEDIENCE TO WHAT !!??

OBEDIENCE, TO THE CLERICS, AND TO ALL OF THE STRICTURES DEMANDED, BY ISLAM, REVEALED WITHIN THE KORAN.




Light, indeed!

Your 'light', is a great DARKNESS!

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: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #138 - Jun 28th, 2017 at 10:21am
 
freediver wrote on Jun 28th, 2017 at 8:11am:
It does not say "until there is no more oppression" or until they cease oppressing. You are misrepresenting the Koran Gandalf. It says slaughter the infidel until they accept Muslims as their rulers and Islam as their religion. It is your quote. You should have read it before attempting to use it as an example.


Have you got to the bit that follows the word "but" yet? I'm getting tired of constantly quoting it for you, only for you to ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist. You are summoning some extraordinary powers of evasion here FD.

Also FD, can you cite those "entire chapters" (plural) that you assured us
are "dedicated" to slaughtering the infidel? Or when you said "entire chapters" (plural), did you really just meant chapter 9?

freediver wrote on Jun 28th, 2017 at 8:11am:
So Islam promotes a just war theory because Muhammad occasionally refrained from slaughtering the infidel?

Grin familiar with Life of Brian are you FD?

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
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #139 - Jun 28th, 2017 at 10:29am
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 28th, 2017 at 12:34am:
Yadda wrote on Jun 27th, 2017 at 11:53pm:
"....the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies."
Koran 4.101


The entire ayat:

And when you travel throughout the land, there is no blame upon you for shortening the prayer, [especially] if you fear that those who disbelieve may disrupt [or attack] you. Indeed, the disbelievers are ever to you a clear (or "open") enemy.

Reading it in its context puts an entirely different perspective to it.

Ah....  NO, it doesn't.



Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #140 - Jun 28th, 2017 at 11:09pm
 
freediver wrote on Jun 28th, 2017 at 8:11am:
polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 27th, 2017 at 10:15pm:
freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 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.


It does not say "until there is no more oppression" or until they cease oppressing. You are misrepresenting the Koran Gandalf. It says slaughter the infidel until they accept Muslims as their rulers and Islam as their religion. It is your quote. You should have read it before attempting to use it as an example.

Quote:
A clearer command to fight only in self defense could not be made.


Sure it could. How about "fight only in self defence"? Too complicated perhaps?

Quote:
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.


I can only point out (over and over again apparently) that it does not say what you claim it says.


Oh, I know.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #141 - Jun 28th, 2017 at 11:09pm
 
Grendel wrote on Jun 28th, 2017 at 10:29am:
polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 28th, 2017 at 12:34am:
Yadda wrote on Jun 27th, 2017 at 11:53pm:
"....the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies."
Koran 4.101


The entire ayat:

And when you travel throughout the land, there is no blame upon you for shortening the prayer, [especially] if you fear that those who disbelieve may disrupt [or attack] you. Indeed, the disbelievers are ever to you a clear (or "open") enemy.

Reading it in its context puts an entirely different perspective to it.

Ah....  NO, it doesn't.





Grendel agrees, FD.

Food for thought, eh?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #142 - Jun 29th, 2017 at 12:48pm
 
Got nothing as usual I see karnal...  just the usual...  Cuckoo... cuckOO...  CuCkoooo
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #143 - Jul 17th, 2017 at 8:33pm
 
Mattyfisk wrote on Jul 17th, 2017 at 7:49pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 17th, 2017 at 6:41pm:
Mattyfisk wrote on Jul 17th, 2017 at 4:32pm:
moses wrote on Jul 17th, 2017 at 3:49pm:
The archaic barbarity which reflects society in those days is easily read as belonging to the ancient past, it has no bearing on the modern Jew.


I agree, Moses. That's why I'm asking you why the Muslims' equally ancient book is a cause of modern terrorism.

Why are Jews not equally compelled to follow the laws of Genesis, Leviticus and Deuteronomy as you state Muslims are to the Koran?


It's because the Koran instructs Muslims to go out and slaughter the infidel.  Not a particular infidel and a particular time. The constraints I am aware of are not during the holy months unless it is in self defence, don't slaughter goats or women, and don't slaughter people you have a peace treaty with. This requires no special "interpretation" of the Koran. It is all there in black and white.

Kill the Mushriken wherever you find them.


You've been shown exactly where it says no such thing, FD. However, the Torah instructs Jews to kill Gentiles, seize their livestock and take their children and wives for slaves.

There is no doctrine of self-defence here, merely the admonition that Jews are God's chosen people.

So why are the Jews not terrorists anymore? To date, neither yourself nor Moses have been able to answer this question, despite claiming that the Koran is the root cause of Muslim terrorism - that, and their subhuman Negroid genes.

A plausible theory.


Here you go Karnal:

freediver wrote on Jul 30th, 2016 at 10:08am:
5. Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then
kill the Mushrikun
wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush.
But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.



Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
moses
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6353
Re: chapter 9
Reply #144 - Jul 22nd, 2017 at 1:01pm
 
karnal wrote Quote:
You've been shown exactly where it says no such thing, FD. However, the Torah instructs Jews to kill Gentiles, seize their livestock and take their children and wives for slaves.

There is no doctrine of self-defence here, merely the admonition that Jews are God's chosen people.

So why are the Jews not terrorists anymore? To date, neither yourself nor Moses have been able to answer this question, despite claiming that the Koran is the root cause of Muslim terrorism - that, and their subhuman Negroid genes.

A plausible theory.



One of the many times I have answered this question is at:

Reply #40 - Jul 17th, 2017 at 3:49pm

It's been done to death.

You must get a kick out of reading the answer.

Here we go again one more time for you.

Jewish doctrine was over 1000 years in the making, it is the works of 48 Prophets and 7 Prophetesses.

Consequently Jewish writings cover many different literary styles and subjects.

The archaic barbarity which reflects society in those days is easily read as belonging to the ancient past, it has no bearing on the modern Jew.

result?

Jews are streets ahead of the muslims in the civilization stakes.


conversely

islamic doctrine is the work of one man, a thief liar pedophile rapist torturer and mass murderer, muhammad.

It spans a very short period of time historically (a few decades).

It is a collection of extremely faulty plagiarism of Jewish and Christian writings, plus a massive amount of exhortation by muhammad to get muslims to rape torture and kill non believers and corrupt muslims.

Due to its' literary style it is conducive to muslims committing atrocities today, 21st century, 2017.

Result?

Today worldwide muslims / islam is nothing more that a death cult.


There's only one answer to the threat of islamic atrocities in the world today.

A thorough review of the evil in the qur'an, which causes and motivates islamic terrorism.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #145 - Jul 22nd, 2017 at 2:10pm
 
Moses, have you ever heard of Orthodox Jews?

I'm curious. A penny for your thoughts.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #146 - Jul 22nd, 2017 at 2:14pm
 
freediver wrote on Jul 17th, 2017 at 8:33pm:
Mattyfisk wrote on Jul 17th, 2017 at 7:49pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 17th, 2017 at 6:41pm:
Mattyfisk wrote on Jul 17th, 2017 at 4:32pm:
moses wrote on Jul 17th, 2017 at 3:49pm:
The archaic barbarity which reflects society in those days is easily read as belonging to the ancient past, it has no bearing on the modern Jew.


I agree, Moses. That's why I'm asking you why the Muslims' equally ancient book is a cause of modern terrorism.

Why are Jews not equally compelled to follow the laws of Genesis, Leviticus and Deuteronomy as you state Muslims are to the Koran?


It's because the Koran instructs Muslims to go out and slaughter the infidel.  Not a particular infidel and a particular time. The constraints I am aware of are not during the holy months unless it is in self defence, don't slaughter goats or women, and don't slaughter people you have a peace treaty with. This requires no special "interpretation" of the Koran. It is all there in black and white.

Kill the Mushriken wherever you find them.


You've been shown exactly where it says no such thing, FD. However, the Torah instructs Jews to kill Gentiles, seize their livestock and take their children and wives for slaves.

There is no doctrine of self-defence here, merely the admonition that Jews are God's chosen people.

So why are the Jews not terrorists anymore? To date, neither yourself nor Moses have been able to answer this question, despite claiming that the Koran is the root cause of Muslim terrorism - that, and their subhuman Negroid genes.

A plausible theory.


Here you go Karnal:

freediver wrote on Jul 30th, 2016 at 10:08am:
5. Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then
kill the Mushrikun
wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush.
But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.





What does this have to do with killing Gentiles, FD? Can you explain why Jews are no longer beholden to the violent, expansionist decrees of their religious texts, but Muslims, citing a specific 7th century battle, are?

I look forward to your thoughtful, considered reply.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #147 - Jul 22nd, 2017 at 3:29pm
 
Mattyfisk wrote on Jul 22nd, 2017 at 2:14pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 17th, 2017 at 8:33pm:
Mattyfisk wrote on Jul 17th, 2017 at 7:49pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 17th, 2017 at 6:41pm:
Mattyfisk wrote on Jul 17th, 2017 at 4:32pm:
moses wrote on Jul 17th, 2017 at 3:49pm:
The archaic barbarity which reflects society in those days is easily read as belonging to the ancient past, it has no bearing on the modern Jew.


I agree, Moses. That's why I'm asking you why the Muslims' equally ancient book is a cause of modern terrorism.

Why are Jews not equally compelled to follow the laws of Genesis, Leviticus and Deuteronomy as you state Muslims are to the Koran?


It's because the Koran instructs Muslims to go out and slaughter the infidel.  Not a particular infidel and a particular time. The constraints I am aware of are not during the holy months unless it is in self defence, don't slaughter goats or women, and don't slaughter people you have a peace treaty with. This requires no special "interpretation" of the Koran. It is all there in black and white.

Kill the Mushriken wherever you find them.


You've been shown exactly where it says no such thing, FD. However, the Torah instructs Jews to kill Gentiles, seize their livestock and take their children and wives for slaves.

There is no doctrine of self-defence here, merely the admonition that Jews are God's chosen people.

So why are the Jews not terrorists anymore? To date, neither yourself nor Moses have been able to answer this question, despite claiming that the Koran is the root cause of Muslim terrorism - that, and their subhuman Negroid genes.

A plausible theory.


Here you go Karnal:

freediver wrote on Jul 30th, 2016 at 10:08am:
5. Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then
kill the Mushrikun
wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush.
But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.





What does this have to do with killing Gentiles, FD? Can you explain why Jews are no longer beholden to the violent, expansionist decrees of their religious texts, but Muslims, citing a specific 7th century battle, are?

I look forward to your thoughtful, considered reply.


Expansionist?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #148 - Jul 22nd, 2017 at 3:51pm
 
freediver wrote on Jul 22nd, 2017 at 3:29pm:
Mattyfisk wrote on Jul 22nd, 2017 at 2:14pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 17th, 2017 at 8:33pm:
Mattyfisk wrote on Jul 17th, 2017 at 7:49pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 17th, 2017 at 6:41pm:
Mattyfisk wrote on Jul 17th, 2017 at 4:32pm:
moses wrote on Jul 17th, 2017 at 3:49pm:
The archaic barbarity which reflects society in those days is easily read as belonging to the ancient past, it has no bearing on the modern Jew.


I agree, Moses. That's why I'm asking you why the Muslims' equally ancient book is a cause of modern terrorism.

Why are Jews not equally compelled to follow the laws of Genesis, Leviticus and Deuteronomy as you state Muslims are to the Koran?


It's because the Koran instructs Muslims to go out and slaughter the infidel.  Not a particular infidel and a particular time. The constraints I am aware of are not during the holy months unless it is in self defence, don't slaughter goats or women, and don't slaughter people you have a peace treaty with. This requires no special "interpretation" of the Koran. It is all there in black and white.

Kill the Mushriken wherever you find them.


You've been shown exactly where it says no such thing, FD. However, the Torah instructs Jews to kill Gentiles, seize their livestock and take their children and wives for slaves.

There is no doctrine of self-defence here, merely the admonition that Jews are God's chosen people.

So why are the Jews not terrorists anymore? To date, neither yourself nor Moses have been able to answer this question, despite claiming that the Koran is the root cause of Muslim terrorism - that, and their subhuman Negroid genes.

A plausible theory.


Here you go Karnal:

freediver wrote on Jul 30th, 2016 at 10:08am:
5. Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then
kill the Mushrikun
wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush.
But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.





What does this have to do with killing Gentiles, FD? Can you explain why Jews are no longer beholden to the violent, expansionist decrees of their religious texts, but Muslims, citing a specific 7th century battle, are?

I look forward to your thoughtful, considered reply.


Expansionist?


That's a question.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #149 - Jul 23rd, 2017 at 11:48am
 
The claim "we only fight and kill in defense" goes hand in hand with the almost universal victimhood mentality.

If they are always victims they are always oppressed therefore they are always "defending" themselves and their fellow Muslims.  Killing infidels then is a universal constant until all infidels are dead.

Then of course there is the internecine struggle/jihad...  until only one side of Islam exists. Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
moses
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6353
Re: chapter 9
Reply #150 - Jul 23rd, 2017 at 3:12pm
 
Quote:
Moses, have you ever heard of Orthodox Jews?

I'm curious. A penny for your thoughts.


Not heard too much about them at all.

Come on tell me how they are a worldwide terrorist group, killing innocent men women and children around the globe on a daily basis like muslims do.

Tell me do they believe in the full spectrum of Judaism which took over 1000 years and the works of 48 Prophets and 7 Prophetesses to develop?

Or are you going to try and tell me they only believe in a small section e.g. the ancient barbarity of Mosaic law?

I'm sure you've got an array of excuses to exonerate the depraved backwardness of the traditional death cult muslim and the immense quantity of islamic doctrine which urges him / her to commit the foulest of deeds against the unbeliever and corrupt muslims.

How much bloodshed death and destruction will it take before muslims and their apologists stop trying to blame everybody else for an islamic problem?

islamic terrorism is religious death cult terrorism solely.

islamic doctrine is the root cause and motivation for muslims religious terrorism.

islams' division of the world into dar al-Islam and  dar  al-Harb  is a huge problem that only muslims can solve.

How many more little kids do you want killed by muslims karnal, before you tell the truth?

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Moriaty
Full Member
***
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 209
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #151 - Jul 23rd, 2017 at 7:14pm
 
Christianity too should be banned outright in this country. Christianity seems to encourage systemic and organised child abuse and domestic violence, as well as the very well organised cover-up of the sexual crimes committed by its members.

Anytime I see someone wearing the instrument of torture around their next I wonder if they too sexually abuse children...  Angry

And I feel physically ill anytime someone calls Australia a "Christian Country". This is not a nation of rock spiders!
Back to top
 

Defend Free-speech. Say no to censorship on this forum! Defend the freedoms our soldiers fought for against the Fascist-racist forces of evil!
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #152 - Jul 29th, 2017 at 8:10am
 
Brian Ross wrote on Jul 28th, 2017 at 5:34pm:
'Violence more common' in Bible than Quran, text analysis reveals.

Yet the Islamophobes are silent on that.  I wonder why?  Could it because they are Islamophobic and Christophiles?  Tsk, tsk.  Surely not.    Roll Eyes


You have gotten plenty of responses on this one Brian. But you keep running away. Responses such as - those stats are made up, and the Koran actually promotes violence like no other religion. Can you find anything in any religion that compares to chapter 9 of the Koran?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #153 - Jul 29th, 2017 at 7:49pm
 
moses wrote on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 3:12pm:
Quote:
Moses, have you ever heard of Orthodox Jews?

I'm curious. A penny for your thoughts.


Not heard too much about them at all.



I see. So you can't know about hundreds of thousands of people around the world who follow the Old Testament to the letter. They don't turn lights on during the Sabbath. They don't touch menstruating women. They cook milk and meat on separate stoves, they offer their son's foreskins to Jehova, and they slaughter lambs every Passover to put their blood on their front doors.

So I'm curious. Why do you think the Jews have changed their ancient laws?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #154 - Jul 29th, 2017 at 11:12pm
 
Grendel wrote on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 11:48am:
The claim "we only fight and kill in defense" goes hand in hand with the almost universal victimhood mentality.

If they are always victims they are always oppressed therefore they are always "defending" themselves and their fellow Muslims.  Killing infidels then is a universal constant until all infidels are dead.

Then of course there is the internecine struggle/jihad...  until only one side of Islam exists. Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #155 - Jul 30th, 2017 at 7:07am
 
Mattyfisk wrote on Jul 29th, 2017 at 7:49pm:
moses wrote on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 3:12pm:
Quote:
Moses, have you ever heard of Orthodox Jews?

I'm curious. A penny for your thoughts.


Not heard too much about them at all.



I see. So you can't know about hundreds of thousands of people around the world who follow the Old Testament to the letter. They don't turn lights on during the Sabbath. They don't touch menstruating women. They cook milk and meat on separate stoves, they offer their son's foreskins to Jehova, and they slaughter lambs every Passover to put their blood on their front doors.

So I'm curious. Why do you think the Jews have changed their ancient laws?


Probably for the same reason Gandalf has. The difference is that the Jews don't have a God-given right to establish a militant expansionist empire for the purpose of imposing religion on people in order to prevent the Gandalf's of the world doing what they do.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
moses
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6353
Re: chapter 9
Reply #156 - Jul 30th, 2017 at 3:58pm
 
karnal wrote:Reply #153 - Yesterday at 7:49pm


Quote:
I see. So you can't know about hundreds of thousands of people around the world who follow the Old Testament to the letter. They don't turn lights on during the Sabbath. They don't touch menstruating women. They cook milk and meat on separate stoves, they offer their son's foreskins to Jehova, and they slaughter lambs every Passover to put their blood on their front doors.

So I'm curious. Why do you think the Jews have changed their ancient laws?


"Well if that don't beat all" said the imam as he preached how muslim males sit down to piss and tug little girls forelocks on their child marriage night to get the evil spirits out of her.

I mean I'm quaking in my boots, Jews don't turn lights on during the Sabbath. They don't touch menstruating women. They cook milk and meat on separate stoves, they offer their son's foreskins to Jehova, and they slaughter lambs every Passover to put their blood on their front doors.

Here's me thinking muzzies who cut innocent peoples' throats, teach their kids how to behead people, raise their kids to be islamic terrorists, hold people hostage and slaughter them, run over innocent people in trucks, commit suicide as the murder guiltless non muslims, burn people alive, kill people by drowning them, deliberately target and slaughter little kids at a childrens' concert etc. etc., were the global religious terrorist threat of the 21st century.

These devout muslims are all following the qur'an to the very letter, all piously passing the test allah has set for them (murdering non-believers).

They slaughter the innocent in the full knowledge that now they have passed the murder test set by allah, they are assured a place in the old moon god allahs' brothel in the sky, replete with houris oops sorry, grapes and raisins with big breasts and untouched hymens and little boys scattered like pearls before them, for their eternal pleasure.

Ah well on reflection, I've yet to be shown anything as evil as islam, the worlds largest cult of killers.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #157 - Jul 30th, 2017 at 8:19pm
 
Mattyfisk wrote on Jul 29th, 2017 at 7:49pm:
moses wrote on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 3:12pm:
Quote:
Moses, have you ever heard of Orthodox Jews?

I'm curious. A penny for your thoughts.


Not heard too much about them at all.



I see. So you can't know about hundreds of thousands of people around the world who follow the Old Testament to the letter. They don't turn lights on during the Sabbath. They don't touch menstruating women. They cook milk and meat on separate stoves, they offer their son's foreskins to Jehova, and they slaughter lambs every Passover to put their blood on their front doors.

So I'm curious. Why do you think the Jews have changed their ancient laws?

LOL
Wassup karnal, don't read stuff here just prattle away interminably in ignorance.

Jews don't follow the OLD TESTAMENT.
Orthodox Jews follow several books none of them called the Old Testament.

Do get it right occasionally. Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jul 31st, 2017 at 1:17pm by Grendel »  
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #158 - Jul 30th, 2017 at 8:21pm
 
Moriaty wrote on Jul 23rd, 2017 at 7:14pm:
Christianity too should be banned outright in this country. Christianity seems to encourage systemic and organised child abuse and domestic violence, as well as the very well organised cover-up of the sexual crimes committed by its members.

Anytime I see someone wearing the instrument of torture around their next I wonder if they too sexually abuse children...  Angry

And I feel physically ill anytime someone calls Australia a "Christian Country". This is not a nation of rock spiders!

Morratty...  so many lies in such a short post...  oh and you are still confusing, Catholic, Christians and pedophiles eh.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #159 - Jul 30th, 2017 at 8:45pm
 
Gandalf recently deleted one of my posts because I tried to use a Venn diagram to illustrate the distinction between Christianity and Catholicism. But he still demanded I tell him what the difference is.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #160 - Jul 30th, 2017 at 8:56pm
 
moses wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 3:58pm:
karnal wrote:Reply #153 - Yesterday at 7:49pm


Quote:
I see. So you can't know about hundreds of thousands of people around the world who follow the Old Testament to the letter. They don't turn lights on during the Sabbath. They don't touch menstruating women. They cook milk and meat on separate stoves, they offer their son's foreskins to Jehova, and they slaughter lambs every Passover to put their blood on their front doors.

So I'm curious. Why do you think the Jews have changed their ancient laws?


"Well if that don't beat all" said the imam as he preached how muslim males sit down to piss and tug little girls forelocks on their child marriage night to get the evil spirits out of her.

I mean I'm quaking in my boots, Jews don't turn lights on during the Sabbath. They don't touch menstruating women. They cook milk and meat on separate stoves, they offer their son's foreskins to Jehova, and they slaughter lambs every Passover to put their blood on their front doors.

Here's me thinking muzzies who cut innocent peoples' throats, teach their kids how to behead people, raise their kids to be islamic terrorists, hold people hostage and slaughter them, run over innocent people in trucks, commit suicide as the murder guiltless non muslims, burn people alive, kill people by drowning them, deliberately target and slaughter little kids at a childrens' concert etc. etc., were the global religious terrorist threat of the 21st century.

These devout muslims are all following the qur'an to the very letter, all piously passing the test allah has set for them (murdering non-believers).

They slaughter the innocent in the full knowledge that now they have passed the murder test set by allah, they are assured a place in the old moon god allahs' brothel in the sky, replete with houris oops sorry, grapes and raisins with big breasts and untouched hymens and little boys scattered like pearls before them, for their eternal pleasure.

Ah well on reflection, I've yet to be shown anything as evil as islam, the worlds largest cult of killers.


Why don't you want to answer the question, Moses?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #161 - Jul 30th, 2017 at 8:59pm
 
freediver wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 8:45pm:
Gandalf recently deleted one of my posts because I tried to use a Venn diagram to illustrate the distinction between Christianity and Catholicism. But he still demanded I tell him what the difference is.


Is that why you never draw us a Venn diagram, FD? You always offer.

Theoretically, I suppose you offer to answer questions too. Up for one? Moses has given up.

How about you?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #162 - Jul 31st, 2017 at 1:20pm
 
freediver wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 8:45pm:
Gandalf recently deleted one of my posts because I tried to use a Venn diagram to illustrate the distinction between Christianity and Catholicism. But he still demanded I tell him what the difference is.

LOL
Really?
Wow, that is hard to believe.

Maybe you need to write it down first, I like the Venn Idea though.  A picture is worth 1000 words.

Ok...  gandalf....  Catholics are a subset of Christians.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #163 - Jul 31st, 2017 at 1:22pm
 
Mattyfisk wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 8:59pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 8:45pm:
Gandalf recently deleted one of my posts because I tried to use a Venn diagram to illustrate the distinction between Christianity and Catholicism. But he still demanded I tell him what the difference is.


Is that why you never draw us a Venn diagram, FD? You always offer.

Theoretically, I suppose you offer to answer questions too. Up for one? Moses has given up.

How about you?

OI...  Pinhead...  people in glass houses Sunshine...   Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
moses
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6353
Re: chapter 9
Reply #164 - Jul 31st, 2017 at 5:18pm
 
Reply #160 - Yesterday at 8:56pm

Quote:
So I'm curious. Why do you think the Jews have changed their ancient laws?

Why don't you want to answer the question, Moses?


Maybe their writings, which as I understand it, took over 1000 years 48 prophets and 7 prophetesses to accumulate, were formulated in such a way as to be conducive to the Jews becoming a modern progressive people, today the 21st century?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #165 - Aug 1st, 2017 at 11:12am
 
moses wrote on Jul 31st, 2017 at 5:18pm:
Reply #160 - Yesterday at 8:56pm

Quote:
So I'm curious. Why do you think the Jews have changed their ancient laws?

Why don't you want to answer the question, Moses?


Maybe their writings, which as I understand it, took over 1000 years 48 prophets and 7 prophetesses to accumulate, were formulated in such a way as to be conducive to the Jews becoming a modern progressive people, today the 21st century?      


I doubt that, Moses. How is having two separate stoves to cook meat and dairy in line with ancient dietary laws at all modern and progressive?

The modern and progressive Jews are known as secular. The ones who follow the laws are known as orthodox. For them, there is no changing any law. They go to great lengths to submit to these archaic practices, and they have no logical explanation for them.

After all, how can turning on a light or driving on the Sabbath be classed as work? In the modern era, there's more work involved in keeping this commandment.

So, please explain how squatting down to piss or entering a bathroom with your right foot is categorically different to ancient Jewish laws and practices.

We'll resolve this issue once and for all.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 1st, 2017 at 3:35pm by Mattyfisk »  
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #166 - Aug 1st, 2017 at 11:49am
 
Who cares how many stoves they have? It's none of your business. What matters is they aren't raping and pillaging their way across the middle east, just like Muhammad did.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #167 - Aug 1st, 2017 at 3:35pm
 
freediver wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 11:49am:
Who cares how many stoves they have? It's none of your business. What matters is they aren't raping and pillaging their way across the middle east, just like Muhammad did.


Sorry, FD, are you saying God's chosen people did not rape and pillage their way across the Middle East?

Have you actually read the texts we're discussing here? I doubt Moses has. If he did, he forgot it pretty quick.

But I'm curious. Why are Muslim sub-retardation levels, squatting to piss and bowing down to pray our business? You've been obsessing over these things since 2007.

An answer to this would be great, FD. After all, your argument is that Muslims are inherently evil because of their holy text, but we're still trying to uncover why the Jews aren't evil with a much worse holy text. For some reason, you keep switching back to the old "but Jews aren't raping and pillaging their way across the Middle East" argument, even though their ancient legal text specifically orders them to.

Please explain?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
moses
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6353
Re: chapter 9
Reply #168 - Aug 1st, 2017 at 3:47pm
 
karnal wrote:

Quote:
So, please explain how squatting down to piss or entering a bathroom with your right foot is categorically different to ancient Jewish laws and practices.

We'll resolve this issue once and for all.


Squatting down to piss is mere stupidity we all know that.

What concerns people is the islamic terrorism, caused and motivated by the doctrine these muslims follow to the very letter.

Please, let's resolve the issue of global islamic terrorism, stop making excuses for muslims and their atrocities, call for a thorough review of the depravity in the qur'an.

Stats from this site tell us:

The majority of the qur'an is made up of hatred and slaughter of the non believer.

In Meccaan verses 67% of the text is devoted to this hatred. In Medina verses 51% was about kafirs. The amount of text in the entire Koran devoted to kafirs is 61%.

So once again yes, the issue of the perversion and depravity in the qur'an definitely needs to be resolved.

Stop the bullshit about Jewish doctrine, it's got nothing to do with the Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists whatever.

This is solely a muslim and their doctrine problem, there is only one way to settle it.

An honest appraisal of the qur'an and the innumerable so called infallible never to be changed verses, which cause and motivate global islamic terrorism.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #169 - Aug 1st, 2017 at 5:06pm
 
moses wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 3:47pm:
karnal wrote:

Quote:
So, please explain how squatting down to piss or entering a bathroom with your right foot is categorically different to ancient Jewish laws and practices.

We'll resolve this issue once and for all.


Squatting down to piss is mere stupidity we all know that.

What concerns people is the islamic terrorism, caused and motivated by the doctrine these muslims follow to the very letter.


Thanks, Moses. Now can you explain why such doctrine does not equally inspire the Jews? 

Consider this one:

Quote:
Moses was angry with the officers of the army--the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds--who returned from the battle. "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. (Numbers 31:14-18)


Or this one:

Quote:
But Sihon king of Heshbon refused to let us pass through. For the LORD your God had made his spirit stubborn and his heart obstinate in order to give him into your hands, as he has now done. The LORD said to me, "See, I have begun to deliver Sihon and his country over to you. Now begin to conquer and possess his land." When Sihon and all his army came out to meet us in battle at Jahaz, the LORD our God delivered him over to us and we struck him down, together with his sons and his whole army. At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed them--men, women and children. We left no survivors. (Deuteronomy 2:30-34)


Or this:

Quote:
The LORD said to me, "Do not be afraid of him, for I have handed him over to you with his whole army and his land. Do to him what you did to Sihon king of the Amorites, who reigned in Heshbon." So the LORD our God also gave into our hands Og king of Bashan and all his army. We struck them down, leaving no survivors. At that time we took all his cities. There was not one of the sixty cities that we did not take from them--the whole region of Argob, Og's kingdom in Bashan. All these cities were fortified with high walls and with gates and bars, and there were also a great many unwalled villages. We completely destroyed them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying every city--men, women and children. (Deuteronomy 3:2-6)


Or this:

Quote:
When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. (Deuteronomy 20:10-18)


Or this:

Quote:
When the trumpets sounded, the people shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the people gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so every man charged straight in, and they took the city. They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it--men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys. (Joshua 6:20-21)


Or this:

Quote:
When Israel had finished killing all the men of Ai in the fields and in the desert where they had chased them, and when every one of them had been put to the sword, all the Israelites returned to Ai and killed those who were in it. Twelve thousand men and women fell that day--all the people of Ai. (Joshua 8:24-25)


I could go on and on. The Old Testament is literally filled with examples of Jews raping and pillaging their way through the Middle East. It's filled with instructions on whom to kill, and how to kill them. Adulterers, sorcerers, blasphemers, people who insult their parents, and on and on. Burning, stoning, putting to the sword. And when they run out of people, the animals need to go. The Jewish religion/culture was created on an order by God to Abraham to kill his own son as a human sacrifice.

Jewish dietary practices are hardly the issue here. The question I put to you is if doctrine is the cause of Muslim violence, why does doctrine not cause Jewish violence?

No one is excusing murder, we're discussing its motivation. This is a question about cause and effect. If Muslims are motivated by the doctrines FD has quoted in Chapter 9 (excluding, of course, the admonition that this can only be done in self defense), why are Jews not motivated by the far more barbarous doctrines I've quoted above?

You're welcome to consider this question, Moses, and answer it. After all, you've taken your own name from the mass-murdering prophet quoted above. 

Does this mean you support his actions?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
moses
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6353
Re: chapter 9
Reply #170 - Aug 1st, 2017 at 5:39pm
 
karnal wrote:
Quote:
You're welcome to consider this question, Moses, and answer it.


Mass killings are recorded in the Old Testament:

1. The Flood (Genesis 6-8)
2. The cities of the plain, including Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18-19)
3. The Egyptian firstborn sons during the Passover (Exodus 11-12)
4. The Canaanites under Moses and Joshua (Numbers 21:2-3; Deuteronomy 20:17; Joshua 6:17, 21)
5. The Amalekites annihilated by Saul (1 Samuel 15)

The first three describe how the God of the Jews carried out the mass killings directly.

The next two are time and people specific e.g.:

The Canaanites under Moses and Joshua (Numbers 21:2-3; Deuteronomy 20:17; Joshua 6:17, 21) about 1400 B.C. (finished 3500 years ago)

The Amalekites annihilated by Saul (1 Samuel 15) about 1000 B.C. (finished 3000 years ago)

There are no ongoing commands to kill Canaanites or Amalekites.

That is the major major difference between the Bible, which describes the destruction of an enemy at a point in time, and the quran, which urges an ongoing jihad to defeat unbelievers.

islam is an aggressive  violent doctrine,which seeks to impose islamic law on the globe through inhumane atrocities committterd against the unbeliever.


Now when are you going to stop the bullshit and call on the muslims to exhaustively purge their book of the ongoing hatred against the unbeliever?

This doctrine is the root cause of all islamic depravity today 2107.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #171 - Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:22pm
 
moses wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 5:39pm:
karnal wrote:
Quote:
You're welcome to consider this question, Moses, and answer it.


Mass killings are recorded in the Old Testament:

1. The Flood (Genesis 6-8)
2. The cities of the plain, including Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18-19)
3. The Egyptian firstborn sons during the Passover (Exodus 11-12)
4. The Canaanites under Moses and Joshua (Numbers 21:2-3; Deuteronomy 20:17; Joshua 6:17, 21)
5. The Amalekites annihilated by Saul (1 Samuel 15)

The first three describe how the God of the Jews carried out the mass killings directly.

The next two are time and people specific e.g.:

The Canaanites under Moses and Joshua (Numbers 21:2-3; Deuteronomy 20:17; Joshua 6:17, 21) about 1400 B.C. (finished 3500 years ago)

The Amalekites annihilated by Saul (1 Samuel 15) about 1000 B.C. (finished 3000 years ago)

There are no ongoing commands to kill Canaanites or Amalekites.

That is the major major difference between the Bible, which describes the destruction of an enemy at a point in time, and the quran, which urges an ongoing jihad to defeat unbelievers.

islam is an aggressive  violent doctrine,which seeks to impose islamic law on the globe through inhumane atrocities committterd against the unbeliever.


Now when are you going to stop the bullshit and call on the muslims to exhaustively purge their book of the ongoing hatred against the unbeliever?

This doctrine is the root cause of all islamic depravity today 2107.


No, Moses, the Bible tells Jews to kill blasphemers, sodomites, adulterers, sorcerers, you name it. It's specific that these commandments are for all time and apply to all Jewish people and their slaves.

As is this passage on the rules of war and "all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby" (Deuteronomy 20:10-18):

Quote:
When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.


As we've seen, the Koran instructs Muslims to kill people only in self-defense. Remember? You've tried to explain this away by saying all Muslims have to do is get someone to pick on them in order to kill them. Cunning, no?

Given the Koranic instruction to kill others only in self-defense, FD posits that Muslims are influenced by Mohammed's actions. You know, besieging a city, raiding caravans and torturing that Jew for his gold. As we can see, however, the Jewish prophets, including your own namesake, killed a lot more than FD's favorite Jewish "genocide". 800 Jews killed in a day? Try 20,000 men, women and children. None spared.

As we can see, the Koran lays down rules that are designed to be fairer than the laws of the Jews. And you're right - Jews are not going around killing people on mass today whereas some Muslims are.

So my question still stands. If this all comes down to ancient religious texts and dogma as you argue, why are the Jews not far worse than Muslims who base their beliefs on the reform of eye-for-an-eye laws and attitudes?

I most certainly do call bullsh!t on Muslims who go around killing or hurting innocent people, but I don't see their actions as based, as you say, on a book of "ongoing hatred against the unbeliever". If they read their book properly, they would see that it tells them to leave people as they find them, make peace as this is favourable to God, and offer forgiveness, charity and mercy to ALL people.

And do you know? This is what Muslims tell me they read and believe, so how can I tell them to renounce their book?

I don't tell Jews to renounce their book, even though it clearly instructs them to do all sorts of nasty things to me if God tells them to. As FD rightly says, it's none of my business what people do in the privacy of their own homes.

As you've said, Moses, what they do to us - today - is important, and I agree with this too. We don't exclude, punish or exile people based on their beliefs or any ancient books they claim to follow. You, on the other hand, say that we should, which leads me to my next question.

Given that we've seen just how nasty the Jews' religious text is, why are you not calling for it to be "exhaustively purged"?

Feel free to provide an answer to this one, Moses.

FD, you're free to answer too.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:28pm by Mattyfisk »  
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: chapter 9
Reply #172 - Aug 1st, 2017 at 10:04pm
 
Mattyfisk wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 6:22pm:
moses wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 5:39pm:
karnal wrote:
Quote:
You're welcome to consider this question, Moses, and answer it.


Mass killings are recorded in the Old Testament:

1. The Flood (Genesis 6-8)
2. The cities of the plain, including Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18-19)
3. The Egyptian firstborn sons during the Passover (Exodus 11-12)
4. The Canaanites under Moses and Joshua (Numbers 21:2-3; Deuteronomy 20:17; Joshua 6:17, 21)
5. The Amalekites annihilated by Saul (1 Samuel 15)

The first three describe how the God of the Jews carried out the mass killings directly.

The next two are time and people specific e.g.:

The Canaanites under Moses and Joshua (Numbers 21:2-3; Deuteronomy 20:17; Joshua 6:17, 21) about 1400 B.C. (finished 3500 years ago)

The Amalekites annihilated by Saul (1 Samuel 15) about 1000 B.C. (finished 3000 years ago)

There are no ongoing commands to kill Canaanites or Amalekites.

That is the major major difference between the Bible, which describes the destruction of an enemy at a point in time, and the quran, which urges an ongoing jihad to defeat unbelievers.

islam is an aggressive  violent doctrine,which seeks to impose islamic law on the globe through inhumane atrocities committterd against the unbeliever.


Now when are you going to stop the bullshit and call on the muslims to exhaustively purge their book of the ongoing hatred against the unbeliever?

This doctrine is the root cause of all islamic depravity today 2107.


No, Moses, the Bible tells Jews to kill blasphemers, sodomites, adulterers, sorcerers, you name it. It's specific that these commandments are for all time and apply to all Jewish people and their slaves.

As is this passage on the rules of war and "all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby" (Deuteronomy 20:10-18):

Quote:
When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.


As we've seen, the Koran instructs Muslims to kill people only in self-defense. Remember? You've tried to explain this away by saying all Muslims have to do is get someone to pick on them in order to kill them. Cunning, no?

Given the Koranic instruction to kill others only in self-defense, FD posits that Muslims are influenced by Mohammed's actions. You know, besieging a city, raiding caravans and torturing that Jew for his gold. As we can see, however, the Jewish prophets, including your own namesake, killed a lot more than FD's favorite Jewish "genocide". 800 Jews killed in a day? Try 20,000 men, women and children. None spared.

As we can see, the Koran lays down rules that are designed to be fairer than the laws of the Jews. And you're right - Jews are not going around killing people on mass today whereas some Muslims are.

So my question still stands. If this all comes down to ancient religious texts and dogma as you argue, why are the Jews not far worse than Muslims who base their beliefs on the reform of eye-for-an-eye laws and attitudes?

I most certainly do call bullsh!t on Muslims who go around killing or hurting innocent people, but I don't see their actions as based, as you say, on a book of "ongoing hatred against the unbeliever". If they read their book properly, they would see that it tells them to leave people as they find them, make peace as this is favourable to God, and offer forgiveness, charity and mercy to ALL people.

And do you know? This is what Muslims tell me they read and believe, so how can I tell them to renounce their book?

I don't tell Jews to renounce their book, even though it clearly instructs them to do all sorts of nasty things to me if God tells them to. As FD rightly says, it's none of my business what people do in the privacy of their own homes.

As you've said, Moses, what they do to us - today - is important, and I agree with this too. We don't exclude, punish or exile people based on their beliefs or any ancient books they claim to follow. You, on the other hand, say that we should, which leads me to my next question.

Given that we've seen just how nasty the Jews' religious text is, why are you not calling for it to be "exhaustively purged"?

Feel free to provide an answer to this one, Moses.

FD, you're free to answer too.


Good answer. I totally agree.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Jasin
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 46494
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #173 - Aug 1st, 2017 at 10:40pm
 
Islam was invented to get back what the Christians stole from the Jews. Wink
Back to top
 

AIMLESS EXTENTION OF KNOWLEDGE HOWEVER, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK YOU REALLY MEAN BY THE TERM 'CURIOSITY', IS MERELY INEFFICIENCY. I AM DESIGNED TO AVOID INEFFICIENCY.
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #174 - Aug 1st, 2017 at 11:30pm
 
Jasin wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 10:40pm:
Islam was invented to get back what the Christians stole from the Jews. Wink


Maybe. According to Mohammed, Islam was invented to bring the focus back to one God as opposed to three, and in doing so, unite the Arab tribes.

Shurely shome mishtake.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
moses
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6353
Re: chapter 9
Reply #175 - Aug 2nd, 2017 at 3:10pm
 
Quote:
No, Moses, the Bible tells Jews to kill blasphemers, sodomites, adulterers, sorcerers, you name it. It's specific that these commandments are for all time and apply to all Jewish people and their slaves.

As is this passage on the rules of war and "all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby" (Deuteronomy 20:10-18):


Nice bit of falsely attributing the time line of Deuteronomy karnal.

Deuteronomy was written around 1406 BC, at the end of the forty years of wandering endured by the nation of Israel. At the time, the people were camped on the east side of the Jordan River, on the plains of Moab, across from the city of Jericho (Deuteronomy 1:1; 29:1). They were on the verge of entering the land that had been promised centuries earlier to their forefathers (Genesis 12:1, 6–9). The children who had left Egypt were now adults, ready to conquer and settle the Promised Land. Before that could happen, the Lord reiterated through Moses His covenant with them.

source

So the facts are?

Deuteronomy is a 3400 year old account of the rules of capturing the promised land.

There is absolutely nothing that says these things are never ending and against all people.

It is time and people specific, as such has no relevance today 2017. (it refers to the capture of the promised land only)

Quote:
As we've seen, the Koran instructs Muslims to kill people only in self-defense. Remember?

Given the Koranic instruction to kill others only in self-defense,

&

As we can see, the Koran lays down rules that are designed to be fairer than the laws of the Jews. And you're right - Jews are not going around killing people on mass today whereas some Muslims are.

&

So my question still stands. If this all comes down to ancient religious texts and dogma as you argue, why are the Jews not far worse than Muslims who base their beliefs on the reform of eye-for-an-eye laws and attitudes?


What a load of bollocks.

A few verses from the 61% of the qur'an which urges muslims to slaughter the unbeliever. there is nothing at all about war it's all about how allah hates the unbeliever and wants them murdered.

qur'an 98.6: Those who reject (truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye).They are the worst of creatures

qur'an 8.55: For the vilest of beasts in the sight of allah are those who reject Him: They will not believe.

unbelievers are the vilest of people


10.100 : No soul can believe,except by the will of allah, and he will place doubt (or obscurity) on those who will not understand.

7.178: Whomsoever allah guides, he is the guided one, and whomsoever he sends astray, those! They are the losers.

7.179: And surely, we have created many of the jinns and mankind for Hell. They have hearts wherewith they understand not, they have eyes wherewith they see not, and they have ears wherewith they hear not (the truth). They are like cattle, nay even more astray; those! They are the heedless ones.

allah causes disbelief, he specifically created certain men to go to hell (unbelievers)


qur'an 3.151: We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve because they ascribe unto Allah partners, for which no warrant hath been revealed. Their habitation is the Fire, and hapless the abode of the wrong-doers

qur'an 9.29: Fight those who do not believe in allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what allah and his messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

qur'an 9.111: Lo! allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of allah and shall slay and be slain. It is a promise which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur'an. Who fulfilleth His covenant better than allah? Rejoice then in your bargain that ye have made, for that is the supreme triumph.

it is the duty of all muslims to cast terror into the hearts of the unbeliever, muslims are to slay and be slain in the fight against the unbeliever


quran 47.4: So, when you meet (fighting Jihad in allah's cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)... If it had been allah's Will, he himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (he lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the way of allah, he will never let their deeds be lost."

last but not least allah could have killed the unbeliever but he wants muslims to slaughter them as a test


So what does this all add up to?

A qur'an written in the present and future tense, the majority (61%) of it preaching terrorism, hatred and murder of the unbeliever.

A clear cut islamic threat against all non muslims. Devoid of any rules of war etc., hatred and murder of the unbeliever is the distinct theme of the qur'an.

So the real question is: when are you going to call on the muslims to purge this hatred of unbelievers?
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 2nd, 2017 at 3:26pm by moses »  
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #176 - Aug 2nd, 2017 at 3:59pm
 
Thanks, Moses, but I'm curious.

Why are Jews still slaughtering lambs for Passover?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
moses
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6353
Re: chapter 9
Reply #177 - Aug 2nd, 2017 at 4:16pm
 
karnal
Quote:
Why are Jews still slaughtering lambs for Passover?


I suppose it's to celebrate the original event when all the male Jewish children were saved by the blood of the lamb in Egypt? (just my thoughts on it)

Interesting thing about the parallels as they are referred to.

Abrahams' faith was tested, he displayed great faith and Y.H.W.H. supplied the sacrificial lamb.

The children of the Hebrews were saved by the blood of the lamb in Egypt.

Christ came and gave his blood for the sins of mankind, now mankind who want it are saved by faith in the blood of Christ.

Much more civilized don't you think?

How many defenseless animals are slaughtered in a very barbaric manner by muslims, Hindus, many Asiatic beliefs etc. on their holy days?

But we digress, the problems facing the world today are much more sinister than the millions of animals slaughtered by various beliefs.

Slaughter of the unbeliever by muslims is the global threat today, when are people going to be honest and call on the muslims to address the evil in their qur'an which says: allah creates hates and wants unbelievers murdered by muslims.

 
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #178 - Aug 2nd, 2017 at 8:30pm
 
Why don't they touch menstrating women? Why do they offer their son's foreskins to Jehovah? Why do they use separate stoves to cook milk and meat? Why don't they eat pork?

Wouldn't have anything to do with a few temporary ancient laws, would it, Moses?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
moses
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6353
Re: chapter 9
Reply #179 - Aug 3rd, 2017 at 2:44pm
 
Who cares about Jews eating pork, or muslim men sitting down to piss and playing with their penis afterwards?

The major security threat around the globe is islamic terrorism, caused and motivated by the open ended majority of the qur'an, which unequivocally is devoted to the hatred and murder of the unbeliever.

Fundamentalist muslims all categorically state they are following the qur'an to the very letter, the imams in fundamentalist mosques all preach from the qur'an to verify that it is the sacred duty of muslims to slaughter the unbeliever.

All the excuses in the world will never expunge the fact that the majority of the qur'an preaches terrorism hatred and murder of the unbeliever.

When are muslims going to be honest and contest these abominable teachings?

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #180 - Aug 3rd, 2017 at 3:50pm
 
moses wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 3:10pm:
Nice bit of falsely attributing the time line of Deuteronomy karnal.

Deuteronomy was written around 1406 BC, at the end of the forty years of wandering endured by the nation of Israel. At the time, the people were camped on the east side of the Jordan River, on the plains of Moab, across from the city of Jericho (Deuteronomy 1:1; 29:1). They were on the verge of entering the land that had been promised centuries earlier to their forefathers (Genesis 12:1, 6–9). The children who had left Egypt were now adults, ready to conquer and settle the Promised Land. Before that could happen, the Lord reiterated through Moses His covenant with them.

source

So the facts are?

Deuteronomy is a 3400 year old account of the rules of capturing the promised land.

There is absolutely nothing that says these things are never ending and against all people.

It is time and people specific, as such has no relevance today 2017. (it refers to the capture of the promised land only)


Oh the hypocrisy!

Deuteronomy is allowed to have a context, but chapter 9 is not.


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
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #181 - Aug 3rd, 2017 at 7:55pm
 
WHAT DON'T YOU PEOPLE UNDERSTAND ABOUT ONE BEING A HISTORY...  IE; ABOUT THE PAST...  AND THE OTHER IS THE CURRENT AND FUTURE PLAYBOOK FOR BEHAVIOUR.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #182 - Aug 3rd, 2017 at 9:06pm
 
moses wrote on Aug 3rd, 2017 at 2:44pm:
Who cares about Jews eating pork, or muslim men sitting down to piss and playing with their penis afterwards?


You do, Moses, but that's not the point.

The Jews don't eat pork because their ancient laws forbid them. You know that, and we know you know it.

So why is the Muselman's ancient religious text so much worse? So far, you haven't said.

FD, feel free to join in at this point as well. Strangely enough, you've gone.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #183 - Aug 3rd, 2017 at 11:29pm
 
Karnal is there anything wrong with all the previous answers you have been given to that question?

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 3rd, 2017 at 3:50pm:
moses wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 3:10pm:
Nice bit of falsely attributing the time line of Deuteronomy karnal.

Deuteronomy was written around 1406 BC, at the end of the forty years of wandering endured by the nation of Israel. At the time, the people were camped on the east side of the Jordan River, on the plains of Moab, across from the city of Jericho (Deuteronomy 1:1; 29:1). They were on the verge of entering the land that had been promised centuries earlier to their forefathers (Genesis 12:1, 6–9). The children who had left Egypt were now adults, ready to conquer and settle the Promised Land. Before that could happen, the Lord reiterated through Moses His covenant with them.

source

So the facts are?

Deuteronomy is a 3400 year old account of the rules of capturing the promised land.

There is absolutely nothing that says these things are never ending and against all people.

It is time and people specific, as such has no relevance today 2017. (it refers to the capture of the promised land only)


Oh the hypocrisy!

Deuteronomy is allowed to have a context, but chapter 9 is not.




Chapter 9 says to wait till after the holy months are over to slaughter then infidel.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #184 - Aug 3rd, 2017 at 11:33pm
 
Mattyfisk wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 3:35pm:
freediver wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 11:49am:
Who cares how many stoves they have? It's none of your business. What matters is they aren't raping and pillaging their way across the middle east, just like Muhammad did.


Sorry, FD, are you saying God's chosen people did not rape and pillage their way across the Middle East?

Have you actually read the texts we're discussing here? I doubt Moses has. If he did, he forgot it pretty quick.

But I'm curious. Why are Muslim sub-retardation levels, squatting to piss and bowing down to pray our business? You've been obsessing over these things since 2007.

An answer to this would be great, FD. After all, your argument is that Muslims are inherently evil because of their holy text, but we're still trying to uncover why the Jews aren't evil with a much worse holy text. For some reason, you keep switching back to the old "but Jews aren't raping and pillaging their way across the Middle East" argument, even though their ancient legal text specifically orders them to.

Please explain?


From the opening post:

freediver wrote on Jul 30th, 2016 at 10:08am:
5. Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then
kill the Mushrikun
(see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush.
But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #185 - Aug 3rd, 2017 at 11:47pm
 
freediver wrote on Aug 3rd, 2017 at 11:29pm:
Karnal is there anything wrong with all the previous answers you have been given to that question?

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 3rd, 2017 at 3:50pm:
moses wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 3:10pm:
Nice bit of falsely attributing the time line of Deuteronomy karnal.

Deuteronomy was written around 1406 BC, at the end of the forty years of wandering endured by the nation of Israel. At the time, the people were camped on the east side of the Jordan River, on the plains of Moab, across from the city of Jericho (Deuteronomy 1:1; 29:1). They were on the verge of entering the land that had been promised centuries earlier to their forefathers (Genesis 12:1, 6–9). The children who had left Egypt were now adults, ready to conquer and settle the Promised Land. Before that could happen, the Lord reiterated through Moses His covenant with them.

source

So the facts are?

Deuteronomy is a 3400 year old account of the rules of capturing the promised land.

There is absolutely nothing that says these things are never ending and against all people.

It is time and people specific, as such has no relevance today 2017. (it refers to the capture of the promised land only)


Oh the hypocrisy!

Deuteronomy is allowed to have a context, but chapter 9 is not.




Chapter 9 says to wait till after the holy months are over to slaughter then infidel.


Why don't you tell me those answers, FD? We'll wind this one up once and for all.

Over to you.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #186 - Aug 4th, 2017 at 12:24pm
 
Deuteronomy 20:10-15:

Quote:
When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.


not the slightest indication that this is an order only for one particular time and place.
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
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #187 - Aug 4th, 2017 at 12:25pm
 
...

Grendel wrote on Aug 3rd, 2017 at 7:55pm:
WHAT DON'T YOU PEOPLE UNDERSTAND ABOUT ONE BEING A HISTORY...  IE; ABOUT THE PAST...  AND THE OTHER IS THE CURRENT AND FUTURE PLAYBOOK FOR BEHAVIOUR.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #188 - Aug 4th, 2017 at 12:30pm
 
Grendel wrote on Aug 4th, 2017 at 12:25pm:
WHAT DON'T YOU PEOPLE UNDERSTAND ABOUT ONE BEING A HISTORY...  IE; ABOUT THE PAST


Because its not stated in the past tense. Because there is not the slightest suggestion that its describing a history or something that is only appropriate for one time and place. Read it again Grendel.
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
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #189 - Aug 4th, 2017 at 12:30pm
 
Hey Karnal,
How many times must YOU be
...
SHOTDOWN

before you stop posting nonsense.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #190 - Aug 4th, 2017 at 1:47pm
 
freediver wrote on Aug 3rd, 2017 at 11:33pm:
Mattyfisk wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 3:35pm:
freediver wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 11:49am:
Who cares how many stoves they have? It's none of your business. What matters is they aren't raping and pillaging their way across the middle east, just like Muhammad did.


Sorry, FD, are you saying God's chosen people did not rape and pillage their way across the Middle East?

Have you actually read the texts we're discussing here? I doubt Moses has. If he did, he forgot it pretty quick.

But I'm curious. Why are Muslim sub-retardation levels, squatting to piss and bowing down to pray our business? You've been obsessing over these things since 2007.

An answer to this would be great, FD. After all, your argument is that Muslims are inherently evil because of their holy text, but we're still trying to uncover why the Jews aren't evil with a much worse holy text. For some reason, you keep switching back to the old "but Jews aren't raping and pillaging their way across the Middle East" argument, even though their ancient legal text specifically orders them to.

Please explain?


From the opening post:

freediver wrote on Jul 30th, 2016 at 10:08am:
5. Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then
kill the Mushrikun
(see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush.
But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.



Check out the similarities between your above passage and this one from Deuteronomy, FD:

Quote:
When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.


Can you tell me the difference?

This is a question.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
moses
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6353
Re: chapter 9
Reply #191 - Aug 4th, 2017 at 3:00pm
 
Quote:
5. Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

&

When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.


Both of the above have absolutely nothing to do with the present day threat of islamic terrorism.

They are being used as a smokescreen to excuse islamic atrocities being commmitted against the unbeliever according to the maxims set down in the 61% of the qur'an which categorically states allah hates the unbeliever and wants them killed by the highest grade of muslims.

I reiterate:

A few verses from the 61% of the qur'an which urges muslims to slaughter the unbeliever. there is nothing at all about war it's all about how allah hates the unbeliever and wants them murdered.

qur'an 98.6: Those who reject (truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye).They are the worst of creatures

qur'an 8.55: For the vilest of beasts in the sight of allah are those who reject him: They will not believe.

unbelievers are the vilest of people


10.100 : No soul can believe,except by the will of allah, and he will place doubt (or obscurity) on those who will not understand.

7.178: Whomsoever allah guides, he is the guided one, and whomsoever he sends astray, those! They are the losers.

7.179: And surely, we have created many of the jinns and mankind for Hell. They have hearts wherewith they understand not, they have eyes wherewith they see not, and they have ears wherewith they hear not (the truth). They are like cattle, nay even more astray; those! They are the heedless ones.

allah causes disbelief, he specifically created certain men to go to hell (unbelievers)


qur'an 3.151: We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve because they ascribe unto allah partners, for which no warrant hath been revealed. Their habitation is the Fire, and hapless the abode of the wrong-doers

qur'an 9.29: Fight those who do not believe in allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what allah and his messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

qur'an 9.111: Lo! allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of allah and shall slay and be slain. It is a promise which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur'an. Who fulfilleth His covenant better than allah? Rejoice then in your bargain that ye have made, for that is the supreme triumph.

it is the duty of all muslims to cast terror into the hearts of the unbeliever, muslims are to slay and be slain in the fight against the unbeliever


quran 47.4: So, when you meet (fighting Jihad in allah's cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)... If it had been allah's Will, he himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (he lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the way of allah, he will never let their deeds be lost."

last but not least allah could have killed the unbeliever but he wants muslims to slaughter them as a test


The above and innumerable others are all about how allah creates unbelievers, how allah hates unbelievers, how allah wants them murdered by muslims.

The islamic terrorist problem of today 2017 is caused and motivated by doctrine which deals specifically with the hatred and slaughter of the unbeliever.

The fundamentalist muslims all tell us exactly that, the fundamentalist imams all preach exactly that.

Yet so called moderate muslims and apologists all try and deny this truth. They lie they snivel they sneak all the while trying to excuse the root cause of islamic terrorism (islamic doctrine).

When are they going to stop the lies and address the majority of the qur'an which causes islamic terrorism?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Yadda
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 20956
A cat with a view
Re: chapter 9
Reply #192 - Aug 4th, 2017 at 7:22pm
 
moses wrote on Aug 3rd, 2017 at 2:44pm:
Who cares about Jews eating pork, or muslim men sitting down to piss and playing with their penis afterwards?

The major security threat around the globe is islamic terrorism, caused and motivated by the open ended majority of the qur'an, which unequivocally is devoted to the hatred and murder of the unbeliever.

Fundamentalist muslims all categorically state they are following the qur'an to the very letter, the imams in fundamentalist mosques all preach from the qur'an to verify that it is the sacred duty of muslims to slaughter the unbeliever.

All the excuses in the world will never expunge the fact that the majority of the qur'an preaches terrorism hatred and murder of the unbeliever.

When are muslims going to be honest        and contest these abominable teachings?




My dear moses,       1/ moslems don't know how to be honest,          and 2/ no moslem has ever, ever contested Allah's will.

Moslems are 'submitters' [to Allah's will],      not 'contesters'.

ISLAM is the religion of the 'submitters' to Allah's will.




Watch what normal moslems [in Norway] are say,
         while they talk about      practicing their religion,     in Europe.

They are 'submitters'.



-------- >


What Normal Muslims Think - And Europe Fails to Understand
           3 min
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIK8bfeLXSw





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
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #193 - Aug 4th, 2017 at 7:48pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4th, 2017 at 12:30pm:
Grendel wrote on Aug 4th, 2017 at 12:25pm:
WHAT DON'T YOU PEOPLE UNDERSTAND ABOUT ONE BEING A HISTORY...  IE; ABOUT THE PAST


Because its not stated in the past tense. Because there is not the slightest suggestion that its describing a history or something that is only appropriate for one time and place. Read it again Grendel.

But the "old Testament" as noted by Karnal, is a book concerning the Jewish Religious History.  That is what it is.  Just like any History Book.  Jews have many religious books they adhere to and learn from.
They also follow many traditions.
I don't consider "going out and killing infidels wherever you may find them" a particularly useful or even sensible behaviour in today's world.  Do you?
I don't think looking for excuses for such behaviour a particularly sensible or sane pastime either. Roll Eyes

The Exodus is a historic event, the things that happened then are historical events.  All those recorded events are historical.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #194 - Aug 4th, 2017 at 9:17pm
 
Mattyfisk wrote on Aug 4th, 2017 at 1:47pm:
freediver wrote on Aug 3rd, 2017 at 11:33pm:
Mattyfisk wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 3:35pm:
freediver wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 11:49am:
Who cares how many stoves they have? It's none of your business. What matters is they aren't raping and pillaging their way across the middle east, just like Muhammad did.


Sorry, FD, are you saying God's chosen people did not rape and pillage their way across the Middle East?

Have you actually read the texts we're discussing here? I doubt Moses has. If he did, he forgot it pretty quick.

But I'm curious. Why are Muslim sub-retardation levels, squatting to piss and bowing down to pray our business? You've been obsessing over these things since 2007.

An answer to this would be great, FD. After all, your argument is that Muslims are inherently evil because of their holy text, but we're still trying to uncover why the Jews aren't evil with a much worse holy text. For some reason, you keep switching back to the old "but Jews aren't raping and pillaging their way across the Middle East" argument, even though their ancient legal text specifically orders them to.

Please explain?


From the opening post:

freediver wrote on Jul 30th, 2016 at 10:08am:
5. Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then
kill the Mushrikun
(see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush.
But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.



Check out the similarities between your above passage and this one from Deuteronomy, FD:

Quote:
When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.


Can you tell me the difference?

This is a question.



They look quite different to me Karnal. Even the worst bits of the old testament don't come close to Islam. It does not even make sense for the Jews to engage in imperialism the way Islam commands Muslims to. They'd be extinct in a few centuries if they did.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #195 - Aug 4th, 2017 at 10:21pm
 
freediver wrote on Aug 4th, 2017 at 9:17pm:
Mattyfisk wrote on Aug 4th, 2017 at 1:47pm:
freediver wrote on Aug 3rd, 2017 at 11:33pm:
Mattyfisk wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 3:35pm:
freediver wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 11:49am:
Who cares how many stoves they have? It's none of your business. What matters is they aren't raping and pillaging their way across the middle east, just like Muhammad did.


Sorry, FD, are you saying God's chosen people did not rape and pillage their way across the Middle East?

Have you actually read the texts we're discussing here? I doubt Moses has. If he did, he forgot it pretty quick.

But I'm curious. Why are Muslim sub-retardation levels, squatting to piss and bowing down to pray our business? You've been obsessing over these things since 2007.

An answer to this would be great, FD. After all, your argument is that Muslims are inherently evil because of their holy text, but we're still trying to uncover why the Jews aren't evil with a much worse holy text. For some reason, you keep switching back to the old "but Jews aren't raping and pillaging their way across the Middle East" argument, even though their ancient legal text specifically orders them to.

Please explain?


From the opening post:

freediver wrote on Jul 30th, 2016 at 10:08am:
5. Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then
kill the Mushrikun
(see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush.
But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.



Check out the similarities between your above passage and this one from Deuteronomy, FD:

Quote:
When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.


Can you tell me the difference?

This is a question.



They look quite different to me Karnal. Even the worst bits of the old testament don't come close to Islam. It does not even make sense for the Jews to engage in imperialism the way Islam commands Muslims to. They'd be extinct in a few centuries if they did.


You support slavery, eh?

We understand. Freeeeedom, innit.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #196 - Aug 5th, 2017 at 2:12pm
 
Sorry, FD, I'll ask you a more specific question.

Why does it not make sense for the Jews to engage in imperialism when they were ordered to do so by their prophet Moses?

How are these two military commands different?

A) Kill the enemy where you find them, but if they repent and make peace, let them go free.

B) Kill entire populations and destroy their cities, but if they submit and let you in, seize their goods and place them all in slavery.

A clue: it has to do with Freeeeedom.

We look forward to your answer.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
moses
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6353
Re: chapter 9
Reply #197 - Aug 5th, 2017 at 4:40pm
 
Quote:
Why does it not make sense for the Jews to engage in imperialism when they were ordered to do so by their prophet Moses?


How the crap flows to excuse islamic terrorism.

The Hebrews were ordered to take the promised land only. (there is a clear cut boundary to the amount of land the Jews were given.

Moses never entered the promised land, it was long after Moses had died that the Hebrews were lead by Joshua to capture the promised land.

Joshua 1:1 Now after the death of Moses the servant of the LORD it came to pass, that the LORD spake unto Joshua the son of Nun, Moses' minister, saying,

Joshua 1:2 Moses my servant is dead; now therefore arise, go over this Jordan, thou, and all this people, unto the land which I do give to them, even to the children of Israel.

Joshua 1:3 Every place that the sole of your foot shall tread upon, that have I given unto you, as I said unto Moses.

Joshua 1:4 From the wilderness and this Lebanon even unto the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and unto the great sea toward the going down of the sun, shall be your coast.

The promised land had a defined limit going back to the book of Genesis 

Genesis 15:18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:

Genesis15:19 The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites,

Genesis15:20 And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims,

Genesis15:21 And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.

...

Now when are the lies that muslims and their apologists keep sprouting to excuse islamic terrorism going to stop?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #198 - Aug 5th, 2017 at 5:00pm
 
Most likely never.
Karnal craps on about Deuteronomy and it speaks of the past, even D20 which he seems fixated on speaks of the past.

Like I keep telling him and other apologists the "Hebrew Bible" is a history.  It speaks of times gone by and laws and rules to be obeyed in those times....  not today.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #199 - Aug 5th, 2017 at 6:30pm
 
moses wrote on Aug 5th, 2017 at 4:40pm:
Quote:
Why does it not make sense for the Jews to engage in imperialism when they were ordered to do so by their prophet Moses?


How the crap flows to excuse islamic terrorism.

The Hebrews were ordered to take the promised land only. (there is a clear cut boundary to the amount of land the Jews were given.



Given by Whom, Moses?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #200 - Aug 5th, 2017 at 6:58pm
 
So karnal, in the name of proper context, are those 7 tribes mentioned still existing today?  Tomorrow?  Hmmmm

Nope...
HISTORY.


SHOTDOWN AGAIN...


...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #201 - Aug 6th, 2017 at 8:58am
 
Mattyfisk wrote on Aug 5th, 2017 at 2:12pm:
Sorry, FD, I'll ask you a more specific question.

Why does it not make sense for the Jews to engage in imperialism when they were ordered to do so by their prophet Moses?

How are these two military commands different?

A) Kill the enemy where you find them, but if they repent and make peace, let them go free.

B) Kill entire populations and destroy their cities, but if they submit and let you in, seize their goods and place them all in slavery.

A clue: it has to do with Freeeeedom.

We look forward to your answer.


I was not aware they were commanded to. Here is a link to a previous time I have answered this question. Feel free to bump the thread.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1497611982/2#2

Was A) meant to be thise verse?

5. Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Did you just twist convert or die into peace and freedom in a desperate effort to defend Islam?
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 6th, 2017 at 9:05am by freediver »  

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #202 - Aug 6th, 2017 at 12:33pm
 
freediver wrote on Aug 6th, 2017 at 8:58am:
Mattyfisk wrote on Aug 5th, 2017 at 2:12pm:
Sorry, FD, I'll ask you a more specific question.

Why does it not make sense for the Jews to engage in imperialism when they were ordered to do so by their prophet Moses?

How are these two military commands different?

A) Kill the enemy where you find them, but if they repent and make peace, let them go free.

B) Kill entire populations and destroy their cities, but if they submit and let you in, seize their goods and place them all in slavery.

A clue: it has to do with Freeeeedom.

We look forward to your answer.


I was not aware they were commanded to. Here is a link to a previous time I have answered this question. Feel free to bump the thread.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1497611982/2#2

Was A) meant to be thise verse?

5. Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Did you just twist convert or die into peace and freedom in a desperate effort to defend Islam?


Strange. You haven't answered.

May I ask you another question?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #203 - Aug 6th, 2017 at 12:42pm
 
So karnal, in the name of proper context, are those 7 tribes mentioned still existing today?  Tomorrow?  Hmmmm

Nope...
HISTORY.


SHOTDOWN AGAIN...


...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #204 - Aug 17th, 2017 at 4:06pm
 
Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic.
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: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #205 - Aug 17th, 2017 at 3:59pm
 
please reply to me in the thread I posted in FD. I've asked this enough times.
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: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #206 - Aug 17th, 2017 at 4:02pm
 
I have asked you the same question about this chapter enough times, in a variety of threads. Now that you have decided to answer, I think this is the logical place to continue. Or are you going to revert to your usual evasiveness? Do you think it is easier to mislead people about the context contained within the rest of chapter 9 in a thread where I have not quoted the whole chapter in the opening posts?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #207 - Aug 17th, 2017 at 4:46pm
 
Did you move my post Gandalf?

Why are you so reluctant to discuss chapter 9 in a thread called chapter 9 and in which the entire chapter 9 is quoted in the opening posts? Are you worried that the content of chapter 9 might reflect badly on your spin?

Why did you not complain when I brought this topic up there, and several other threads, by quoting from elsewhere, in an effort to get a straight answer from you, but now insist it must not be discussed here? Why the unusual combination of obsessive micromanagement of threads and poor choices of where to move people's posts to?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #208 - Aug 17th, 2017 at 4:55pm
 
freediver wrote on Aug 17th, 2017 at 4:02pm:
Now that you have decided to answer, I think this is the logical place to continue.


Well what I "think" is that you appointed me moderator of the Islam sub-forum, with the authority to make and enforce my own rules. I have requested too many times that you desist from this annoying habit of spreading conversations around multiple threads. There is a very good reason for it - I often revisit old threads, and have been regularly frustrated by one conversation branching off into many threads because you decide to post replies in threads other than where they were posted in. Which makes it nigh impossible to keep track of. You do it all the time, and I kindly request that, as the Islam moderator, you desist. I can't make you stop, its your forum after all. But if you do insist on continuing I ask that you remove me as moderator and you can then make whatever rules you like here.
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: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #209 - Aug 17th, 2017 at 5:04pm
 
That does not make sense. The other thread is not where the discussion began. It only ended up there because you felt compelled to give a straight answer after Karnal started going on about how wonderful you are at giving straight answers. You made no complaint at all when discussion of chapter 9 made it into that thread and several others, in an effort to get an answer from you. Surely if that was your real issue, you would want discussion of chapter 9 in a thread dedicated to discussion of chapter 9? Not fractured into multiple threads every time you turned evasive and then continued in whichever thread you decide to give the next straight answer in.

In any case, I gave plenty of links to where the previous posts came from. Not sure how that could be so frustrating. At this rate I will have to attempt to continue my attempts at getting a straight answer from you about chapter 9 in this thread, without quoting or linking to the one answer you gave in the other thread.

Is that allowed, or am I not allowed to discuss chapter 9 at all in this thread now?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #210 - Aug 18th, 2017 at 9:34am
 
freediver wrote on Aug 17th, 2017 at 5:04pm:
That does not make sense.


Just don't reply to a post I made in one thread, in a different thread. Its actually very simple FD.
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: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #211 - Aug 18th, 2017 at 12:33pm
 
freediver wrote on Jul 30th, 2016 at 10:08am:
4. Except those of the Mushrikun with whom you have a treaty, and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor have supported anyone against you. So fulfill their treaty to them to the end of their term. Surely Allah loves Al- Mattaqun (the pious - see V.2:2).

5. Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then
kill the Mushrikun
(see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush.
But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.



Gandalf does this say to slaughter the infidel wherever you find them, except for the ones you have a treaty with, unless they violate that treaty somehow?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #212 - Aug 18th, 2017 at 3:56pm
 
freediver wrote on Aug 18th, 2017 at 12:33pm:
Gandalf does this say to slaughter the infidel wherever you find them, except for the ones you have a treaty with, unless they violate that treaty somehow?


Perhaps if you took that quote in isolation, but not if you took into consideration all of the preceding verses - starting from verse 1:

Quote:
[This is a declaration of] disassociation, from Allah and His Messenger, to those with whom you had made a treaty among the polytheists.


which is followed in a logical sequence by...

Quote:
Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].


Clearly, from the outset this entire chapter concerns only those polytheists that had entered into treaties with the muslims. It then makes a clear distinction between those who had remained true to the treaty, and those who had not. The former are put in an "exempted" status.

So the sequence in your question is more accurately:

Among the polytheists to whom the muslims had a treaty with, exempt those who had been true to their treaty, then give the rest a certain number of months grace period to reestablish their treaties that they had broken - after which "kill the musrhiken wherever you find them".
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
 
moses
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6353
Re: chapter 9
Reply #213 - Aug 18th, 2017 at 4:50pm
 
I see mushriken were killed at the avenue of Las Ramblas yesterday.

The infallible perfect never to be changed doctrine, gleaming like the beacon of hate and slaughter it is, as the jihadists rapturously mutilate mangle and murder the unbelievers, in their spiritual journey to islamic paradise.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #214 - Aug 18th, 2017 at 6:37pm
 
Quote:
[This is a declaration of] disassociation, from Allah and His Messenger, to those with whom you had made a treaty among the polytheists.


The version I quoted in the opening posts does not even have the "this is a declaration" bit at the start of verse one. But it does for verse 3:

3. And a declaration from Allah and His Messenger to mankind

Are you serioyusly telling us that a declaration from Allah to all mankind should only be interpretted to include non-Muslims who have a treaty with Muslims and then violated it?

Were there any Muslim theologians who interpreted chapter 9 your way in the first century of Islam? Or did they only come up with this lie after they were no longer in a position to slaughter the infidel wherever they found them and had to instead project a more benign image for political reasons?

Quote:
Clearly, from the outset this entire chapter concerns only those polytheists that had entered into treaties with the muslims.


Wrong. Most of the chapter is about Muslims, and the third verse, which is actually closer to the verses in question (verses 4 and 5) states quite clearly that it concerns all mankind.

Quote:
It then makes a clear distinction between those who had remained true to the treaty, and those who had not. The former are put in an "exempted" status.


The ones who had a treaty and remained true to it are exempted from the "slaughter the infidel" bit. This is exactly what I said. The broken treaty is clearly presented as an exception to an exception.

Quote:
Among the polytheists to whom the muslims had a treaty with, exempt those who had been true to their treaty, then give the rest a certain number of months grace period to reestablish their treaties that they had broken - after which "kill the musrhiken wherever you find them".


Is this consistent with Muhammad's actions? For example in attacking Mecca?

Or the instructions from the rightly guided Caliphs to the generals they sent out to slaughter the infidel?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #215 - Aug 21st, 2017 at 4:46pm
 
freediver wrote on Aug 18th, 2017 at 6:37pm:
The version I quoted in the opening posts does not even have the "this is a declaration"


splitting hairs FD. Are you seriously trying to tell me there is some meaningful difference between:

"[This is a declaration of] disassociation, from Allah and His Messenger, to those with whom you had made a treaty among the polytheists."

and

"Freedom from (all) obligations (is declared) from Allah and His Messenger () to those of the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah), with whom you made a treaty.?

Both refer to those "with whom you made a treaty" as the frame of reference for the chapter. Even if we just look at the version you quoted - can you explain how it makes sense to firstly declare "freedom from obligation" towards those that have a treaty with the muslims - and then 2 verses later declare that actually, you have to remain true to those you have a treaty with?

You're peddling nonsense. The only way this verse makes sense is if its talking only about the mushriken to whom they have a treaty - and the ones that remain faithful to the treaty are exempted, while the others firstly have a grace period to make amends, after which its open season.

freediver wrote on Aug 18th, 2017 at 6:37pm:
3. And a declaration from Allah and His Messenger to mankind

Are you serioyusly telling us that a declaration from Allah to all mankind should only be interpretted to include non-Muslims who have a treaty with Muslims and then violated it?


Firstly, you're not making any sense. Its calling on "mankind" to bear witness to the fact that Allah is disassociating responsibility from the Mushriken - not telling "mankind" they are being disassociated. Secondly, don't get carried away with the interpretation of "mankind". The word is  "Al-Nas" - which is simply "the people". Sahih international interprets it as "the people". But either way, 'mankind' is not out of place - its the difference between "Mankind! - Allah disassociates Himself from those mushriken who will not amend their treaty with the muslims" and  "O People! Allah disassociates Himself from those mushriken who will not amend their treaty with the muslims". Either works - one is just a bit more grandiose.
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: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #216 - Aug 21st, 2017 at 7:30pm
 
Quote:
Are you seriously trying to tell me there is some meaningful difference between


Sure there is. You claimed that the "this" in your version was a reference to the entirety of chapter 9. That interpretation is not possible with the version in the OP. You are basically seeking out the slightest ambiguity in language and inserting an elaborate fairy tale in its place. There is nothing to suggest that verse 1 is limiting the entirety of the chapter to people with whom the Muslims have a treaty. That is inconsistent with what the rest of the verse says and is inconsistent with the actions of Muhammad and the rightly guided Caliphs.

Quote:
Firstly, you're not making any sense. Its calling on "mankind" to bear witness to the fact that Allah is disassociating responsibility from the Mushriken - not telling "mankind" they are being disassociated. Secondly, don't get carried away with the interpretation of "mankind". The word is  "Al-Nas" - which is simply "the people". Sahih international interprets it as "the people". But either way, 'mankind' is not out of place - its the difference between "Mankind! - Allah disassociates Himself from those mushriken who will not amend their treaty with the muslims" and  "O People! Allah disassociates Himself from those mushriken who will not amend their treaty with the muslims". Either works - one is just a bit more grandiose.


Verses 3 and 5 make a general reference to Mushriken. Verse 4 makes an exception for those who have a treaty. Why would you interpret it any other way than as general statements about Mushriken, with an exception for those with a treaty?

freediver wrote on Jul 30th, 2016 at 10:08am:
3. And a declaration from Allah and His Messenger to mankind on the greatest day (the 10th of Dhul-Hijjah - the 12th month of Islamic calendar) that Allah is free from (all) obligations to the Mushrikun (see V.2:105) and so is His Messenger. So if you (Mushrikun) repent, it is better for you, but if you turn away, then know that you cannot escape (from the Punishment of) Allah. And give tidings (O Muhammad ) of a painful torment to those who disbelieve.

4. Except those of the Mushrikun with whom you have a treaty, and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor have supported anyone against you. So fulfill their treaty to them to the end of their term. Surely Allah loves Al- Mattaqun (the pious - see V.2:2).

5. Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then
kill the Mushrikun
(see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush.
But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.




You expect us to believe that Muhammad intended it to be limited to those Mushriken with whom the Muslims have a treaty, even though he forgot to state this explicitly or even implicitly, and even though his own actions contradict such an interpretation.

Were there any Muslim theologians who interpreted chapter 9 your way in the first century of Islam? Or did they only come up with this lie after they were no longer in a position to slaughter the infidel wherever they found them and had to instead project a more benign image for political reasons?

Quote:
Among the polytheists to whom the muslims had a treaty with, exempt those who had been true to their treaty, then give the rest a certain number of months grace period to reestablish their treaties that they had broken - after which "kill the musrhiken wherever you find them".


Is this consistent with Muhammad's actions? For example in attacking Mecca?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #217 - Aug 21st, 2017 at 7:57pm
 
freediver wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 7:30pm:
Sure there is. You claimed that the "this" in your version was a reference to the entirety of chapter 9. That interpretation is not possible with the version in the OP.


Please explain your logic. And no, nothing hinges on whether or not the verse contains a "this".

And you still haven't addressed the fact that verse 1 completely contradicts your interpretation that the mushriken who have a treaty with the muslims are exempted.

freediver wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 7:30pm:
Why would you interpret it any other way than as general statements about Mushriken, with an exception for those with a treaty?


Because it specifically says its about mushriken with a treaty - in the very first verse.
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: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #218 - Aug 21st, 2017 at 8:28pm
 
Quote:
Please explain your logic.


Quote:
1. Freedom from (all) obligations (is declared) from Allah and His Messenger () to those of the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah), with whom you made a treaty.


This is not an all encompassing statement intended to limit the application of the entire chapter. Nor is your version, but it is a bit easier to misrepresent it that way with the mangled English in your version.

Quote:
And you still haven't addressed the fact that verse 1 completely contradicts your interpretation that the mushriken who have a treaty with the muslims are exempted.


No it does not. Happy now?

Quote:
Because it specifically says its about mushriken with a treaty - in the very first verse.


The first verse refers to treaties. It does not say that the entire chapter is about people with a treaty. You only have to look at the rest of the chapter to see that is not what it is about. You are inventing content of the Koran.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #219 - Aug 21st, 2017 at 8:31pm
 
Quote:
1. Freedom from (all) obligations (is declared) from Allah and His Messenger () to those of the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah), with whom you made a treaty.


What are the obligations that Muhammad is free from regarding the Mushriken with a treaty? Here's one:

freediver wrote on Jul 30th, 2016 at 10:08am:
5. Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then
kill the Mushrikun
(see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush.
But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.



Gandalf you never seem to be able to put the entire thing into a coherent message. You can only ever pick out a few words at a time. For example, here is a rational interpretation:

Kill the Mushriken wherever you find them, unless:

a) they convert to Islam and pay Islamic taxes; or

b) they have a treaty - unless Muslims can invent some kind of violation on which to discard the entire treaty; or

c) they come to you as refugees from your slaughtering of their friends and family, seeking protection


Can you do the same with your interpretation, or does all the meaning get lost in obfuscation?
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 21st, 2017 at 8:37pm by freediver »  

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Moriaty
Full Member
***
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 209
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #220 - Aug 21st, 2017 at 9:07pm
 
Hatred leads to the dark side Freediver. And the dark side fishes in the no-take MPA zones.

Sad
Back to top
 

Defend Free-speech. Say no to censorship on this forum! Defend the freedoms our soldiers fought for against the Fascist-racist forces of evil!
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #221 - Aug 22nd, 2017 at 4:46pm
 
freediver wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 8:31pm:
Gandalf you never seem to be able to put the entire thing into a coherent message. You can only ever pick out a few words at a time. For example, here is a rational interpretation:

Kill the Mushriken wherever you find them, unless:


That might make sense if that command came in the very first verse, with all the exemptions following after it. Instead of opening the chapter by specifically singling out the mushriken with whom the muslims have a treaty with, and putting them on notice.


freediver wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 8:28pm:
It does not say that the entire chapter is about people with a treaty. You only have to look at the rest of the chapter to see that is not what it is about. You are inventing content of the Koran.


Do you agree that the only mushriken chapter 9 does specifically refer to are those who have a treaty with the muslims? Are we to just presume that after opening the chapter by referring specifically to those mushriken who have a treaty, it then switches to other mushriken without actually saying so? Is this yet another example of FD's Quran version that doesn't really mean what it says?

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: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #222 - Aug 22nd, 2017 at 8:36pm
 
Quote:
That might make sense if that command came in the very first verse, with all the exemptions following after it. Instead of opening the chapter by specifically singling out the mushriken with whom the muslims have a treaty with, and putting them on notice.


So every verse is like a sub-clause to the previous verse? Are you making this up as you go along?

Quote:
Do you agree that the only mushriken chapter 9 does specifically refer to are those who have a treaty with the muslims?


No. There are several references to Mushriken. Also, it does not make sense for verse 4 to make a specific exception for those with a treaty if the entire chapter is already limited to those who have a treaty and have broken it. The only rational explanation for a general exception for those with a treaty is that the following verse is an even more general reference to Mushriken.

Quote:
Are we to just presume that after opening the chapter by referring specifically to those mushriken who have a treaty, it then switches to other mushriken without actually saying so?


It does say so. Kill the Mushriken, except for the ones you have a treaty with, except if they violated it.

What it does not say is that the entire chapter is restricted to the Mushriken who have a trety and violated it.

Gandalf you never seem to be able to put the entire thing into a coherent message. You can only ever pick out a few words at a time. For example, here is a rational interpretation:

Kill the Mushriken wherever you find them, unless:

a) they convert to Islam and pay Islamic taxes; or

b) they have a treaty - unless Muslims can invent some kind of violation on which to discard the entire treaty; or

c) they come to you as refugees from your slaughtering of their friends and family, seeking protection


Can you do the same with your interpretation, or does all the meaning get lost in obfuscation?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #223 - Aug 23rd, 2017 at 10:07am
 
freediver wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 8:36pm:
o every verse is like a sub-clause to the previous verse? Are you making this up as you go along?


Um Hello FD - you literally just introduced the notion that this chapter is a set of "sub-clauses" to previous verses in that chapter. I'll remind you:

freediver wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 8:36pm:
Kill the Mushriken wherever you find them, unless:

a) they convert to Islam and pay Islamic taxes; or

b) they have a treaty - unless Muslims can invent some kind of violation on which to discard the entire treaty; or

c) they come to you as refugees from your slaughtering of their friends and family, seeking protection


And worse, its not even in the order that you put it in. It specifies the mushriken whom the muslims have a treaty with in the very first verse, followed by declaring that those who have been true to that treaty are exempted - before saying "kill the mushriken wherever you find them". Your interpretation quite simply can only make sense if the "kill the mushriken wherever you find them" verse came at the very beginning, after which it sets out the "sub-clauses" for exemption. Instead of coming after the chapter had already specified only the mushriken who had a treaty with the muslims (either upheld or violated) - and then going on and exempting those who had been faithful to the treaty. All coming before the "kill the mushriken" verse.

freediver wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 8:36pm:
No. There are several references to Mushriken.


Thats not what I asked FD -again: do you agree that the only mushriken chapter 9 does specifically refer to are those who have a treaty with the muslims? Can you find me a specific reference to mushrken to whom no treaty has been made with the muslims? If not, why on earth should we assume that the chapter is about mushriken in general after opening the chapter with specific reference to mushriken with a treaty in the very first verse - and never mentioning any other mushriken?


freediver wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 8:36pm:
What it does not say is that the entire chapter is restricted to the Mushriken who have a trety and violated it.


It does in effect - by only ever talking about mushriken to whom a treaty has been made -
from the very first verse. You can't reconcile the fact that the chapter never once makes any mention of Mushriken that have no treaty. And you certainly haven't reconciled why in a chapter supposedly about killing all mushriken - treaty or no - it makes any sense at all to open the chapter by specifying mushriken to whom a treaty is made - and never giving any indication that its actually about other mushriken as well.
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: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #224 - Aug 23rd, 2017 at 10:17am
 
Quote:
Um Hello FD - you literally just introduced the notion that this chapter is a set of "sub-clauses" to previous verses in that chapter. I'll remind you:


Yes Gandalf, based on what the verses say, not what order they appear in.

Are you saying that every verse is like a sub-clause to the previous verse?

Gandalf you never seem to be able to put the entire thing into a coherent message. You can only ever pick out a few words at a time. For example, here is a rational interpretation:

Kill the Mushriken wherever you find them, unless:

a) they convert to Islam and pay Islamic taxes; or

b) they have a treaty - unless Muslims can invent some kind of violation on which to discard the entire treaty; or

c) they come to you as refugees from your slaughtering of their friends and family, seeking protection


Can you do the same with your interpretation, or does all the meaning get lost in obfuscation?

IS this too hard for you Gandalf?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #225 - Aug 23rd, 2017 at 11:07am
 
freediver wrote on Aug 23rd, 2017 at 10:17am:
Gandalf you never seem to be able to put the entire thing into a coherent message. You can only ever pick out a few words at a time.


Bullshit.

Here's "coherent" for you FD:

Verse 1: all mushriken who have a treaty with the muslims - be warned.

Verses 2-3: you have a grace period of a few months - get your poo together and know that remaining faithful to your treaty is best for you - turning away will not cause Allah to fail

Verse 4: exempted are those mushriken who have been faithful to their treaties

Verse 5: when the grace period is over, kill the mushriken [who remain belligerent and unfaithful to their treaties] wherever you find them etc


Here's what incoherent looks like FD:

- claiming the 'starting point' of the verse comes in way down in verse 5, a general command to kill *ALL* the mushriken wherever you find them, treaty or no treaty - even though every verse before verse 5, talks specifically and only about mushriken to whom the muslims have a treaty, and there is not once any mention of other mushriken (ie who don't have a treaty).

- not believing that the very first verse that specifies only those mushriken who have a treaty is what the chapter is restricted to - even though there is no subsequent mention of other mushriken, and no indication whatsoever that other mushriken are 'in scope'.

- even after specifying *ONLY* those mushriken to whom a treaty has been made, and after specifying a grace period (sacred months) for those mushriken to reaffirm their pledges - somehow thinking that the preamble in verse 5 "when the sacred months (grace period) have passed" - is not specifically referring to those mushriken who were given a grace period in the first place!

freediver wrote on Aug 23rd, 2017 at 10:17am:
Are you saying that every verse is like a sub-clause to the previous verse?


"kill the mushriken wherever you find them" is obviously a "sub-clause", if you insist on putting it that way, of the opening verse ("clause") putting the mushriken to whom a treaty has been made on notice. Again, you are unable to reconcile how verse 1 can make any sense if its declaring open season on all mushriken - treaty or no.

Again, can you find any specific reference to mushriken who have don't have any treaty that might justify the claim that its talking about some mushriken other than those mentioned in verse 1 and 3? Do you concede that the only mushriken specifically mentioned are those with a treaty? Is this too hard for you FD?
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: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #226 - Aug 23rd, 2017 at 12:21pm
 
Quote:
"kill the mushriken wherever you find them" is obviously a "sub-clause", if you insist on putting it that way, of the opening verse ("clause") putting the mushriken to whom a treaty has been made on notice. Again, you are unable to reconcile how verse 1 can make any sense if its declaring open season on all mushriken - treaty or no.


Why am I still explaining this to you Gandalf?

Kill the Mushriken wherever you find them, unless:

a) they convert to Islam and pay Islamic taxes; or

b) they have a treaty - unless Muslims can invent some kind of violation on which to discard the entire treaty; or

c) they come to you as refugees from your slaughtering of their friends and family, seeking protection


The 'obligation' that verse 1 refers to is to slaughter the Mushriken wherever you find them. Obviously Muhammad is free from this obligation with regard to those he has a treaty with.

How do you explain the fact that your interpretation is completely at odds with the actions of Muhammad and the rightly guided Caliphs?

Were there any Muslim theologians who interpreted chapter 9 your way in the first century of Islam? Or did they only come up with this lie after they were no longer in a position to slaughter the infidel wherever they found them and had to instead project a more benign image for political reasons?
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 23rd, 2017 at 12:26pm by freediver »  

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Lastone
Senior Member
****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 310
Pakenham, Victoria, Australia
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #227 - Aug 23rd, 2017 at 12:23pm
 
moses wrote on Apr 27th, 2017 at 11:05am:
Why do apologists for islam always quote the O.T. law when 2017 years ago it was abolished by Christ?


Because fundamentalist Christians dispute that revocation. Still insisting that the world was created in 7 days and arguing against evolution.

By the way if in fact Jesus did abolish it. Leviticus is part of the old testament correct. Why is Leviticus 20:13 still being quoted against same sex marriage. " If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense."

Not only so called apologist for Islam quote the OT. (I object to your label by the way) Many Christians still adhere to its texts.
Back to top
 

I am yet to see a trickle down lift anyone up
 
IP Logged
 
Lastone
Senior Member
****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 310
Pakenham, Victoria, Australia
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #228 - Aug 23rd, 2017 at 1:11pm
 
FD Has a habit of Editing quotes to suit his purposes.

Here is the full Text from the translation of chapter nine that I have found.

Quote:
4. Except for those among the polytheists with whom you had made a treaty, and did not violate any of its terms, nor aided anyone against you. So fulfill the treaty with them to the end of its term. God loves the righteous.

5. When the Sacred Months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them. And capture them, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayers, and pay the alms, then let them go their way. God is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful.

6. And if anyone of the polytheists asks you for protection, give him protection so that he may hear the Word of God; then escort him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.

7. How can there be a treaty with the polytheists on the part of God and His Messenger, except for those with whom you made a treaty at the Sacred Mosque? As long as they are upright with you, be upright with them. God loves the pious.



FD wants to tell you that chapter nine is an instruction to all Islam to kill all the Infidel. Firstly the original uses the term  Mushrikun not infidel. In the translation I found Mushrikun means polytheists. Greek, Roman, Norse religions follow pantheons of may goods. God's of war. gods of love. Judaeo Christian faiths follow what they call one true good. they are monotheistic. It would appear to me that they are not included in this discussion.

However it would appear that Islam is not alone in dealing harshly with pagan faiths. History tells us .....
The Edict of Milan had been issued by the emperors Constantine and Licinius in 313, and gave official support to the toleration of Christianity. As soon as Christians became influential, the issue of toleration was no longer so important to them. By 330 Constantine was prohibiting pagan rites in Constantinople, his new capital. By around 350 the performance of a pagan sacrifice had become a capital offence*. A few years later, in 391, under Theodosius I, Christianity became the only recognised religion of the Empire. In time the Church, supported by pliant Christian emperors, would eliminate its many rivals, although it would take centuries to achieve a total monopoly. Already, by the middle of the fourth century the Christians were being accused of cruelty exceeding that of wild animals*. All religions except Christianity were suppressed, sacred property was confiscated, holy treasures were seized, temples and shrines were destroyed or taken over as new churches. The ancient rights of sanctuary that had been enjoyed by followers of all religions at their burial grounds were abrogated.

Emperor Karl (Charlemagne) in 782 had 4500 Saxons, unwilling to convert to Christianity, beheaded.

Followers of other religions could be killed with impunity. Dozens of Old Testament passages could be, and were, cited to prove that God approved of mass murder, as in the book of Ezekiel where God orders death for those who have been weeping for Tamuz and those who have been facing and worshipping the sun:

    Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women
    (Ezekiel 9:6)


To my mind none can lay claim to the moral high ground. 
Back to top
 

I am yet to see a trickle down lift anyone up
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #229 - Aug 23rd, 2017 at 2:51pm
 
freediver wrote on Aug 23rd, 2017 at 12:21pm:
Why am I still explaining this to you Gandalf?

Kill the Mushriken wherever you find them, unless:

a) they convert to Islam and pay Islamic taxes; or

b) they have a treaty - unless Muslims can invent some kind of violation on which to discard the entire treaty; or

c) they come to you as refugees from your slaughtering of their friends and family, seeking protection


My guess is that you are not listening or understanding what I'm actually saying vis why this translation is completely incoherent. Like, for example in my very last post where I specifically broke this sequence of yours down for you and explained why it is nonsensical.

freediver wrote on Aug 23rd, 2017 at 12:21pm:
Obviously Muhammad is free from this obligation with regard to those he has a treaty with.


Finally he addresses the point!

Well something resembling an attempt anyway - in usual FD style of simplistically dismissing  the entire point with a catchy one-liner.

But there's just one problem with this explanation FD - if Muhammad is now free from those he has a treaty with, how do you explain the Quran seemingly backpeddling in verse 4, where it says that actually you (Muhammad) are not free from obligation with those you have a treaty with - specifically those who have remained faithful to the treaty?

freediver wrote on Aug 23rd, 2017 at 12:21pm:
How do you explain the fact that your interpretation is completely at odds with the actions of Muhammad and the rightly guided Caliphs?

Were there any Muslim theologians who interpreted chapter 9 your way in the first century of Islam? Or did they only come up with this lie after they were no longer in a position to slaughter the infidel wherever they found them and had to instead project a more benign image for political reasons?


jeez, you still persisting with these non-arguments?

How about you address an actual relevant point - like the fact that the only mushriken that chapter 9 actually refers to are those who have a treaty. Agreed? How do you reconcile the fact that you are insisting the Quran must refer to people it doesn't even mention? What possible reason is there to believe that after opening the chapter by referring to mushriken who have a treaty with the muslims, then talking about those mushriken and the treaties they had - and *NEVER* once making mention of any other mushriken - it must necessarily be talking about those other non-treaty mushriken? Does it really come down to a made up version of Muhammad's actions and unsourced claims about Abu Bakr from wikipedia?
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: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #230 - Aug 23rd, 2017 at 4:24pm
 
Quote:
My guess is that you are not listening or understanding what I'm actually saying

This is what you actually said:

Quote:
"kill the mushriken wherever you find them" is obviously a "sub-clause", if you insist on putting it that way, of the opening verse ("clause") putting the mushriken to whom a treaty has been made on notice. Again, you are unable to reconcile how verse 1 can make any sense if its declaring open season on all mushriken - treaty or no.

How do you get that from this?

Kill the Mushriken wherever you find them, unless:

a) they convert to Islam and pay Islamic taxes; or

b) they have a treaty - unless Muslims can invent some kind of violation on which to discard the entire treaty; or

c) they come to you as refugees from your slaughtering of their friends and family, seeking protection

It's not like I only just sprung this on you.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #231 - Aug 23rd, 2017 at 6:53pm
 
freediver wrote on Aug 23rd, 2017 at 4:24pm:
How do you get that from this?

Kill the Mushriken wherever you find them, unless:

a) they convert to Islam and pay Islamic taxes; or

b) they have a treaty - unless Muslims can invent some kind of violation on which to discard the entire treaty; or

c) they come to you as refugees from your slaughtering of their friends and family, seeking protection

It's not like I only just sprung this on you.


Here's a radical thought - how about you quote something relevant to that?

Like say this...

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 23rd, 2017 at 11:07am:
Here's "coherent" for you FD:

Verse 1: all mushriken who have a treaty with the muslims - be warned.

Verses 2-3: you have a grace period of a few months - get your poo together and know that remaining faithful to your treaty is best for you - turning away will not cause Allah to fail

Verse 4: exempted are those mushriken who have been faithful to their treaties

Verse 5: when the grace period is over, kill the mushriken [who remain belligerent and unfaithful to their treaties] wherever you find them etc


Here's what incoherent looks like FD:

- claiming the 'starting point' of the verse comes in way down in verse 5, a general command to kill *ALL* the mushriken wherever you find them, treaty or no treaty - even though every verse before verse 5, talks specifically and only about mushriken to whom the muslims have a treaty, and there is not once any mention of other mushriken (ie who don't have a treaty).

- not believing that the very first verse that specifies only those mushriken who have a treaty is what the chapter is restricted to - even though there is no subsequent mention of other mushriken, and no indication whatsoever that other mushriken are 'in scope'.

- even after specifying *ONLY* those mushriken to whom a treaty has been made, and after specifying a grace period (sacred months) for those mushriken to reaffirm their pledges - somehow thinking that the preamble in verse 5 "when the sacred months (grace period) have passed" - is not specifically referring to those mushriken who were given a grace period in the first place!


You'll find I actually dealt directly with your silly made up sequence of events here.
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: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #232 - Aug 23rd, 2017 at 8:24pm
 
Here you go Gandalf. Not sure where the refugee bit is from. It's a verse you keep brining up.

freediver wrote on Jul 30th, 2016 at 10:08am:
4. Except those of the Mushrikun with whom you have a treaty, and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor have supported anyone against you. So fulfill their treaty to them to the end of their term. Surely Allah loves Al- Mattaqun (the pious - see V.2:2).

5. Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then
kill the Mushrikun
(see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush.
But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.


Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #233 - Aug 23rd, 2017 at 8:32pm
 
Will you take a question yourself, FD? I have one for you.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #234 - Aug 23rd, 2017 at 9:13pm
 
FD? You've gone again.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #235 - Aug 23rd, 2017 at 9:59pm
 
You're back.

Up for a question?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #236 - Aug 23rd, 2017 at 10:04pm
 
Oh. Gone again.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #237 - Aug 24th, 2017 at 6:28am
 
freediver wrote on Aug 23rd, 2017 at 8:24pm:
Here you go Gandalf. Not sure where the refugee bit is from. It's a verse you keep brining up.


No idea what you are talking about.

Anyway, do you agree that in your little sequence, you reverse the order in which the actual verse appear in the Quran? - namely first is kill the mushriken, then you look at exceptions? Do you agree that putting it in its actual order - ie *FIRST* put the mushriken who have a treaty on notice and give them a grace period, *SECOND* declare that the mushriken who have been faithful to their treaty are exempted - and then command the mushriken to be killed *AFTER* preambling with a direct reference to the expiration of the aforementioned grace period - gives a completely different spin to your version?
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
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #238 - Aug 24th, 2017 at 10:38am
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 24th, 2017 at 6:28am:
freediver wrote on Aug 23rd, 2017 at 8:24pm:
Here you go Gandalf. Not sure where the refugee bit is from. It's a verse you keep brining up.


No idea what you are talking about.

Anyway, do you agree that in your little sequence, you reverse the order in which the actual verse appear in the Quran? - namely first is kill the mushriken, then you look at exceptions? Do you agree that putting it in its actual order - ie *FIRST* put the mushriken who have a treaty on notice and give them a grace period, *SECOND* declare that the mushriken who have been faithful to their treaty are exempted - and then command the mushriken to be killed *AFTER* preambling with a direct reference to the expiration of the aforementioned grace period - gives a completely different spin to your version?


Yes, and my question is how can Moses' directive to kill and enslave entire cities is somehow preferable to your quoted verse. Let's see if FD wants to answer.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #239 - Aug 24th, 2017 at 11:15am
 
Quote:
No idea what you are talking about.


You keep making reference to non-Muslims who come to Muslims seeking protection, as if this somehow negates all the promotion of organised violence.

What obligations does verse 1 refer to? To me, this is saying that the Mushriken with a treaty are exempted from the general rule in verse 5. This is also repeated in verse 4. It does not make sense to use the treaty violaters as the general rule and those who keep to their treaties as the exception. Also, verse 2 and 3 refer to mushriken in general and verse 3 refers to all people.

Quote:
Anyway, do you agree that in your little sequence, you reverse the order in which the actual verse appear in the Quran? - namely first is kill the mushriken, then you look at exceptions? Do you agree that putting it in its actual order - ie *FIRST* put the mushriken who have a treaty on notice and give them a grace period, *SECOND* declare that the mushriken who have been faithful to their treaty are exempted - and then command the mushriken to be killed *AFTER* preambling with a direct reference to the expiration of the aforementioned grace period - gives a completely different spin to your version?


It is your interpretation that gets it backwards, and forces the reader to assume Muhammad is an imbecile. This is your argument:

What Muhammad wanted to say: only kill non-Muslims who break a treaty (an irrational proposition to begin with)

What Muhammad actually said: Kill non-Muslims wherever you find them.

Consider the obvious weight of this instruction. Would Muhammad get it wrong or leave it absurdly ambiguous?

But there are exceptions right? Yes, and they are clearly stated. Not in the sacred months. Not the ones you have a treaty with.

Ah, so Muhammad may have mistakenly instructed Muslims to wholesale slaughter of non-Muslims in verse 5, but he made it clear that the entire chapter only applies to those with a treaty, right? No. It does not actually state this. When it states exclusions it does so openly and explicitly, but you expect us to believe there is an implicit exclusion all the way back in verse 1 (how is that for getting the order backwards?). Verse 1 remains both coherent and consistent with the rest of the verses if it is taken at face value - as a self contained statement rather than a poorly worded broad exclusion that is not actually presented as such.

Both our interpretations introduce the killing in verse 5 and the inclusions and exclusions earlier. Mine does this where the Koran presents them as exclusions and where it makes sense. Your interpretation does the opposite - more backwards, and inserting things into the Koran that are not actually there.

How do you explain the fact that your interpretation is completely at odds with the actions of Muhammad and the rightly guided Caliphs?

Were there any Muslim theologians who interpreted chapter 9 your way in the first century of Islam? Or did they only come up with this lie after they were no longer in a position to slaughter the infidel wherever they found them and had to instead project a more benign image for political reasons?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #240 - Aug 24th, 2017 at 2:10pm
 
Looks like FD doesn't want to say.

Yes, G, FD has hit the end of the ethical road on this one. He can't logically condemn Islamic texts without condemning the laws of the Jews, which he repeatedly refuses to do.

More, FD can't show us how Muslims can be "compelled" by their sinister prophet while Jews aren't. There has been no shift or rewrite of Jewish law. Jews believe it was handed down by G_d. Seeking to alter the law in any way is considered an act of blasphemy, which is still a capital offence under Jewish law.

The ancient Judaic laws are there for all to see. They are far crueler than anything in the Koran. It is telling that all FD can come up with is Chapter 9, which in comparison to Genesis, Leviticus and Deuteronomy, reads as a treatise of ancient law reform. Chapter 9 defines the only lawful killing of others as acts of self-defence. The Torah, by contrast, promotes the killing and enslavement of random populations - anyone the ancient Jewish rulers felt like invading so as to expand their territories and kill off rival populations.

FD's silence on this is a form of agreement. He can't possibly defend Jewish laws as nicer or more liberal than ancient Muslims. The oppression, cruelty and blood-lust of the Old Testament is there for all to see.

Unfortunately for FD, this eats out his entire case on Islam and its followers. If the Jews aren't cruel, bloodthirsty oppressors based on their religious texts and the "example" of their prophets, why are Muslims?

Without an answer to this, FD is left with his inbreeding thesis and his "plausible theory" of the negative impact of "Negroid" genes.

As you can see, for FD, it does boil down to race after all.

And as you can also see, FD doesn't want to say.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #241 - Aug 24th, 2017 at 2:15pm
 
freediver wrote on Aug 24th, 2017 at 11:15am:
You keep making reference to non-Muslims who come to Muslims seeking protection, as if this somehow negates all the promotion of organised violence.


What? I literally said nothing about this in this entire thread. Why on earth would you bring this up out of the blue now?

freediver wrote on Aug 24th, 2017 at 11:15am:
What obligations does verse 1 refer to?


Upholding treaties that are continually violated. Verse 1 puts the Mushriken on notice, that Allah and Muhammad no longer have an obligation towards the treaties with Mushriken - with the exception, as expressed in verse 4, of those who have remained true to their treaties. Again, what you are still unable to reconcile is the fact that these Mushriken (those with a treaty) are the only Mushriken that are ever mentioned in the entire chapter. Yet you still insist that its referring to other Mushriken - without actually saying so.

freediver wrote on Aug 24th, 2017 at 11:15am:
but you expect us to believe there is an implicit exclusion all the way back in verse 1


Funnily enough, I read what it actually says, which is:

Quote:
Freedom from (all) obligations (is declared) from Allah and His Messenger () to those of the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah), with whom you made a treaty.


Question for FD: is it specifying a particular group of Mushriken here? (hint this is not a trick question). Supplementary question, are any other Mushriken other than those "with whom you made a treaty" mentioned anywhere in chapter 9 - ever? And if not, why on earth should we believe that any of the commands pertaining to mushriken in this chapter would apply to any other mushriken besides the only ones that are specifically referred to? Try not to over think this FD.
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
 
moses
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6353
Re: chapter 9
Reply #242 - Aug 24th, 2017 at 3:18pm
 
Quote:
Yes, and my question is how can Moses' directive to kill and enslave entire cities is somehow preferable to your quoted verse. Let's see if FD wants to answer.

&

If the Jews aren't cruel, bloodthirsty oppressors based on their religious texts and the "example" of their prophets, why are Muslims?


The apologists for islamic terrorism are out in force.

Twisting and turning as they desperately try to create a smokescreen around the fact that Moses' directives are entirely restricted  to the period of time of the exodus. As the Hebrews journeyed towards the promised land.

However Moses never entered the promised land, it was after Moses had died that the Hebrews were lead by Joshua to capture the promised land.

The promised land had defined borders and people:

...

So the reason the Jews don't participate in world wide religious terrorism as muslims do is?

The conquest of the promised land is long gone ancient history (over done and finished). Also they have no religious doctrine which tells them the must be terrorists today 2017.

Conversely islam is an endless doctrine of hate against all non muslims and muslims considered to be hypocrites.

There are no time limits or geographical boundaries in the qur'ans' instructions to kill the infidel.

Consequently islam divides the world into two parts dar al-Islam literally the house or region of submission  and  dar  al-Harb  the house or region of war.

muslim terrorists who are engaged in slaughtering of innocent men women and children today 2017 are doctrinally correct and are even described as the highest grade of muslim, guaranteed a place in islamic paradise with a never ending supply of houris with big breasts and little boys.

The muslims and apologists know they can't review the islamic doctrine of hate (which would be positive step in stopping islamic terrorism) without destroying islam, (revising so called infallible never to changed doctrine, means it is fallible, so islam dies).

Which means muslims and their apologists will do and say anything to avoid a reformation of islams' terrorist ism, they are quiet happy with the status quo of global bloodshed death and destruction.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #243 - Aug 24th, 2017 at 3:53pm
 
Quote:
Again, what you are still unable to reconcile is the fact that these Mushriken (those with a treaty) are the only Mushriken that are ever mentioned in the entire chapter.


Wrong. There are several references to Mushriken in general, for example in verses 3 and 5. Or are you attempting to argue that a verse cannot refer to Mushriken in general unless it is a specific reference to a subset of the group? Is this how Islamic logic works?

Quote:
Question for FD: is it specifying a particular group of Mushriken here? (hint this is not a trick question). Supplementary question, are any other Mushriken other than those "with whom you made a treaty" mentioned anywhere in chapter 9 - ever? And if not, why on earth should we believe that any of the commands pertaining to mushriken in this chapter would apply to any other mushriken besides the only ones that are specifically referred to?


Because it refers to Mushriken in general, and there is nothing to suggest that one reference to a particular subgroup should be interpreted as applying as a limitation throughout the chapter.

Verse 1: Allah and Muhammad are free from all obligation to Mushriken with a treaty.

Verse 3: To all people: Allah and Muhammad are free from all obligations to Mushriken.

Verse 4: Except for those Mushriken who have a treaty and do not violate it.

Verse 5: Slaughter the Mushriken wherever you find them, but not during the holy months and not if they convert to Islam.


How do you explain the fact that your interpretation is completely at odds with the actions of Muhammad and the rightly guided Caliphs, as well as the text of the Koran?

Were there any Muslim theologians who interpreted chapter 9 your way in the first century of Islam? Or did they only come up with this lie after they were no longer in a position to slaughter the infidel wherever they found them and had to instead project a more benign image for political reasons?

How stupid would a political leader have to be to instruct his followers to slaughter the infidel wherever they found them, when they actually meant to only kill the ones that break a treaty, and not state clearly anywhere at all what they really mean? If you came across a Nazi leader, or any politician at all, whose followers took the liberties that you do with interpreting what they said, would you call them out on their BS?

How stupid would Muhammad's followers have to be to realise Muhammad had left them with a misleading instruction and not seek a clear and explicit clarification?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #244 - Aug 24th, 2017 at 8:00pm
 
moses wrote on Aug 24th, 2017 at 3:18pm:
Quote:
Yes, and my question is how can Moses' directive to kill and enslave entire cities is somehow preferable to your quoted verse. Let's see if FD wants to answer.

&

If the Jews aren't cruel, bloodthirsty oppressors based on their religious texts and the "example" of their prophets, why are Muslims?


The apologists for islamic terrorism are out in force.

Twisting and turning as they desperately try to create a smokescreen around the fact that Moses' directives are entirely restricted  to the period of time of the exodus. As the Hebrews journeyed towards the promised land.

However Moses never entered the promised land, it was after Moses had died that the Hebrews were lead by Joshua to capture the promised land.

The promised land had defined borders and people:

http://www.differentspirit.org/articles/images/promised_land2.jpg

So the reason the Jews don't participate in world wide religious terrorism as muslims do is?

The conquest of the promised land is long gone ancient history (over done and finished). Also they have no religious doctrine which tells them the must be terrorists today 2017.

Conversely islam is an endless doctrine of hate against all non muslims and muslims considered to be hypocrites.

There are no time limits or geographical boundaries in the qur'ans' instructions to kill the infidel.

Consequently islam divides the world into two parts dar al-Islam literally the house or region of submission  and  dar  al-Harb  the house or region of war.

muslim terrorists who are engaged in slaughtering of innocent men women and children today 2017 are doctrinally correct and are even described as the highest grade of muslim, guaranteed a place in islamic paradise with a never ending supply of houris with big breasts and little boys.

The muslims and apologists know they can't review the islamic doctrine of hate (which would be positive step in stopping islamic terrorism) without destroying islam, (revising so called infallible never to changed doctrine, means it is fallible, so islam dies).

Which means muslims and their apologists will do and say anything to avoid a reformation of islams' terrorist ism, they are quiet happy with the status quo of global bloodshed death and destruction.


Who promised the promised land, Moses?

I'm curious.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #245 - Aug 24th, 2017 at 8:08pm
 
freediver wrote on Aug 24th, 2017 at 3:53pm:
Quote:
Again, what you are still unable to reconcile is the fact that these Mushriken (those with a treaty) are the only Mushriken that are ever mentioned in the entire chapter.


Wrong. There are several references to Mushriken in general, for example in verses 3 and 5. Or are you attempting to argue that a verse cannot refer to Mushriken in general unless it is a specific reference to a subset of the group? Is this how Islamic logic works?

Quote:
Question for FD: is it specifying a particular group of Mushriken here? (hint this is not a trick question). Supplementary question, are any other Mushriken other than those "with whom you made a treaty" mentioned anywhere in chapter 9 - ever? And if not, why on earth should we believe that any of the commands pertaining to mushriken in this chapter would apply to any other mushriken besides the only ones that are specifically referred to?


Because it refers to Mushriken in general, and there is nothing to suggest that one reference to a particular subgroup should be interpreted as applying as a limitation throughout the chapter.

Verse 1: Allah and Muhammad are free from all obligation to Mushriken with a treaty.

Verse 3: To all people: Allah and Muhammad are free from all obligations to Mushriken.

Verse 4: Except for those Mushriken who have a treaty and do not violate it.

Verse 5: Slaughter the Mushriken wherever you find them, but not during the holy months and not if they convert to Islam.


How do you explain the fact that your interpretation is completely at odds with the actions of Muhammad and the rightly guided Caliphs, as well as the text of the Koran?

Were there any Muslim theologians who interpreted chapter 9 your way in the first century of Islam? Or did they only come up with this lie after they were no longer in a position to slaughter the infidel wherever they found them and had to instead project a more benign image for political reasons?

How stupid would a political leader have to be to instruct his followers to slaughter the infidel wherever they found them, when they actually meant to only kill the ones that break a treaty, and not state clearly anywhere at all what they really mean? If you came across a Nazi leader, or any politician at all, whose followers took the liberties that you do with interpreting what they said, would you call them out on their BS?

How stupid would Muhammad's followers have to be to realise Muhammad had left them with a misleading instruction and not seek a clear and explicit clarification?


FD, have you ever considered becoming a fanatical, world-conquering imam and sitting on a Sharia council?

That's a question. G, a Muselman, seems to take issue with your Koranic jurisprudence.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #246 - Aug 25th, 2017 at 8:07am
 
freediver wrote on Aug 24th, 2017 at 3:53pm:
Verse 1: Allah and Muhammad are free from all obligation to Mushriken with a treaty.

Verse 3: To all people: Allah and Muhammad are free from all obligations to Mushriken.

Verse 4: Except for those Mushriken who have a treaty and do not violate it.

Verse 5: Slaughter the Mushriken wherever you find them, but not during the holy months and not if they convert to Islam.


Well done FD - this is a damn sight better interpretation than your original version - wouldn't you agree? Thank you for actually putting the sequence of events in the right order - rather than insisting that the command to kill came first.

freediver wrote on Aug 24th, 2017 at 3:53pm:
Wrong. There are several references to Mushriken in general, for example in verses 3 and 5. Or are you attempting to argue that a verse cannot refer to Mushriken in general unless it is a specific reference to a subset of the group? Is this how Islamic logic works?


Perhaps if I explained how common sense works, that might help. When a chapter opens up in its very first verse as a declaration towards a particular group of people, and then never specifies any other particular group, it is reasonable to assume that any subsequent mention of that group in the general sense, is referring only to that specific group.

And by the way, there are no Islamic scholars who dispute the fact that this chapter is directed only at Mushriken to whom a treaty was made with the muslims.
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: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #247 - Aug 25th, 2017 at 9:12am
 
The first verse is a self contained declaration. No different from verse 3.

How do you explain the fact that your interpretation is completely at odds with the actions of Muhammad and the rightly guided Caliphs, as well as the text of the Koran?

Were there any Muslim theologians who interpreted chapter 9 your way in the first century of Islam? Or did they only come up with this lie after they were no longer in a position to slaughter the infidel wherever they found them and had to instead project a more benign image for political reasons?

How stupid would a political leader have to be to instruct his followers to slaughter the infidel wherever they found them, when they actually meant to only kill the ones that break a treaty, and not state clearly anywhere at all what they really mean? If you came across a Nazi leader, or any politician at all, whose followers took the liberties that you do with interpreting what they said, would you call them out on their BS?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #248 - Aug 25th, 2017 at 10:56am
 
FD, what possible purpose do you think you are serving repeatedly asking questions I have already said are irrelevant?

They are not at odds with Muhammad's behaviour, they are perfectly consistent - his conduct surrounding the treaty of hudaybiyyah being just one example. As for the rightly guided caliphs, you are of course referring to a single unsourced reference from wikipedia that you insist we believe as gospel truth for no other reason than because its from wikipedia. As for 1st century scholars - as far as I know all Islamic scholars accept that chapter 9 is referring only to those Mushrikeen to whom a treaty had been made. If you know of a dissenting opinion, by all means present it for us.

freediver wrote on Aug 25th, 2017 at 9:12am:
If you came across a Nazi leader, or any politician at all, whose followers took the liberties that you do with interpreting what they said, would you call them out on their BS?


I think what you are saying here is that if a muslim insists that according to their Islamic beliefs, muslims should not go around killing unbelievers for being unbelievers - you must tell them that they are wrong and insist that they should be killing unbelievers for being unbelievers - and that any promotion of a "peaceful Islam" is just sneaky taqqiya. Thats what you mean by "call them out on their BS" - right?
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: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #249 - Aug 25th, 2017 at 6:57pm
 
Quote:
FD, what possible purpose do you think you are serving repeatedly asking questions I have already said are irrelevant?


I must have missed that.

How stupid would a political leader have to be to instruct his followers to slaughter the infidel wherever they found them, when they actually meant to only kill the ones that break a treaty, and not state clearly anywhere at all what they really mean? If you came across a Nazi leader, or any politician at all, whose followers took the liberties that you do with interpreting what they said, would you call them out on their BS?

How stupid would Muhammad's followers have to be to realise Muhammad had left them with a misleading instruction and not seek a clear and explicit clarification?

Quote:
They are not at odds with Muhammad's behaviour, they are perfectly consistent


freediver wrote on Aug 18th, 2017 at 6:37pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 18th, 2017 at 3:56pm:
So the sequence in your question is more accurately:

Among the polytheists to whom the muslims had a treaty with, exempt those who had been true to their treaty, then give the rest a certain number of months grace period to reestablish their treaties that they had broken - after which "kill the musrhiken wherever you find them".

Is this consistent with Muhammad's actions? For example in attacking Mecca?


If you have already attempted to evade this one by dismissing it as irrelevant, feel free to post a link to your previous evasion.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #250 - Aug 25th, 2017 at 8:28pm
 
freediver wrote on Aug 25th, 2017 at 6:57pm:
I must have missed that.


You tend to miss a lot of things relevant to a discussion.
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
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #251 - Aug 25th, 2017 at 9:40pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 25th, 2017 at 8:28pm:
freediver wrote on Aug 25th, 2017 at 6:57pm:
I must have missed that.


You tend to miss a lot of things relevant to a discussion.


Do you think he missed my questions?

FD won't say.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Moriaty
Full Member
***
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 209
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #252 - Aug 25th, 2017 at 11:37pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 25th, 2017 at 8:28pm:
freediver wrote on Aug 25th, 2017 at 6:57pm:
I must have missed that.


You tend to miss a lot of things relevant to a discussion.


The only thing FD ever misses is supporting evidence and the point of an argument. Other than that he's ALL OVER it.
Back to top
 

Defend Free-speech. Say no to censorship on this forum! Defend the freedoms our soldiers fought for against the Fascist-racist forces of evil!
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #253 - Aug 29th, 2017 at 9:58pm
 
How stupid would a political leader have to be to instruct his followers to slaughter the infidel wherever they found them, when they actually meant to only kill the ones that break a treaty, and not state clearly anywhere at all what they really mean? If you came across a Nazi leader, or any politician at all, whose followers took the liberties that you do with interpreting what they said, would you call them out on their BS?

How stupid would Muhammad's followers have to be to realise Muhammad had left them with a misleading instruction and not seek a clear and explicit clarification?

Quote:
They are not at odds with Muhammad's behaviour, they are perfectly consistent


polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 18th, 2017 at 3:56pm:
So the sequence in your question is more accurately:

Among the polytheists to whom the muslims had a treaty with, exempt those who had been true to their treaty, then give the rest a certain number of months grace period to reestablish their treaties that they had broken - after which "kill the musrhiken wherever you find them".


Is this consistent with Muhammad's actions? For example in attacking Mecca?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #254 - Aug 30th, 2017 at 7:03pm
 
freediver wrote on Aug 29th, 2017 at 9:58pm:
Is this consistent with Muhammad's actions? For example in attacking Mecca?


You mean right after they kicked him and his followers out, confiscated their property and tried to kill him? You have a habit of leaving that little detail out.
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
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #255 - Aug 30th, 2017 at 7:51pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 7:03pm:
freediver wrote on Aug 29th, 2017 at 9:58pm:
Is this consistent with Muhammad's actions? For example in attacking Mecca?


You mean right after they kicked him and his followers out, confiscated their property and tried to kill him? You have a habit of leaving that little detail out.


I blame Islam.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #256 - Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:38pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 7:03pm:
freediver wrote on Aug 29th, 2017 at 9:58pm:
Is this consistent with Muhammad's actions? For example in attacking Mecca?


You mean right after they kicked him and his followers out, confiscated their property and tried to kill him? You have a habit of leaving that little detail out.


Would you like me to repeat the question Gandalf?

Or is the answer to every hypocrisy and inconsistency of Islam that Muslims are always the victim?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #257 - Aug 31st, 2017 at 7:28am
 
freediver wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:38pm:
Or is the answer to every hypocrisy and inconsistency of Islam that Muslims are always the victim?


Allow me FD:

Is this consistent with Muhammad's actions? For example in attacking Mecca -  right after they kicked him and his followers out, confiscated their property and tried to kill him?

Can I answer this question FD?

If so my answer is 'yes'
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
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #258 - Aug 31st, 2017 at 1:59pm
 
freediver wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:38pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 7:03pm:
freediver wrote on Aug 29th, 2017 at 9:58pm:
Is this consistent with Muhammad's actions? For example in attacking Mecca?


You mean right after they kicked him and his followers out, confiscated their property and tried to kill him? You have a habit of leaving that little detail out.


Would you like me to repeat the question Gandalf?


Were they mindless?

Were they a collective?

Were they treacherous?

Were they Jewish?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #259 - Aug 31st, 2017 at 2:01pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 31st, 2017 at 7:28am:
freediver wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:38pm:
Or is the answer to every hypocrisy and inconsistency of Islam that Muslims are always the victim?


my answer is 'yes'


Got him, FD. Put him in the Wiki.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #260 - Aug 31st, 2017 at 9:34pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 31st, 2017 at 7:28am:
freediver wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 9:38pm:
Or is the answer to every hypocrisy and inconsistency of Islam that Muslims are always the victim?


Allow me FD:

Is this consistent with Muhammad's actions? For example in attacking Mecca -  right after they kicked him and his followers out, confiscated their property and tried to kill him?

Can I answer this question FD?

If so my answer is 'yes'


So it's OK for Muslims to ignore your BS about treaties if they are taking revenge for some victimhood that arose well before the treaties?

When you say "right after" what does that mean? 10 years? 20 years?



polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 18th, 2017 at 3:56pm:
So the sequence in your question is more accurately:

Among the polytheists to whom the muslims had a treaty with, exempt those who had been true to their treaty, then give the rest a certain number of months grace period to reestablish their treaties that they had broken - after which "kill the musrhiken wherever you find them".


How many months grace period did Muhammad give the Meccans to re-establish their treaty?
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 31st, 2017 at 9:39pm by freediver »  

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #261 - Sep 1st, 2017 at 12:23pm
 
freediver wrote on Aug 31st, 2017 at 9:34pm:
So it's OK for Muslims to ignore your BS about treaties if they are taking revenge for some victimhood that arose well before the treaties?


FD do you think in hindsight that pointing to a war against a group of Mushriken who even you admit had persecuted the muslims (including kicking them out of their homes and confiscating their property) - is a bad example to use in trying to prove your 'kill all mushriken, no exceptions' line?

Here you go FD, wikipedia, which as you recall you assured us is correct - otherwise it would be changed within half an hour - gives a good summary of the scholarly arguments that you ridicule so...

Quote:
According to several mainstream Islamic scholars, the verse relates to a specific event in Islamic history -- namely that Arabian pagans made and broke a covenant with Arabic Muslims. The verses immediately preceding and following 9:5, 9:4 and 9:6, make the context very clear: Only those pagans who broke the covenant were subject to violent repercussions, so that any pagans who honoured the covenant or repented their betrayal were to be spared. Commentating on the following verse, 9:6, Asma Afsaruddin brings the position of different early commentators, and the overall direction taken is that it concerns the Arab polytheists and doesn't translate into indiscriminate killing:


eg...

Quote:
As per Muhammad Abdel-Haleem, translator of the Qur'an, while contextualizing 9:5 and bringing the wider sequential narrative:

It was these hardened polytheists in Arabia, who would accept nothing other than the expulsion of the Muslims or their reversion to paganism, and who repeatedly broke their treaties, that the Muslims were ordered to treat in the same way – to fight them or expel them. Even with such an enemy Muslims were not simply ordered to pounce on them and reciprocate by breaking the treaty themselves; instead, an ultimatum was issued, giving the enemy notice, that after the four sacred months mentioned in 9:5 above, the Muslims would wage war on them. The main clause of the sentence ‘kill the polytheists’ is singled out by some Western scholars to represent the Islamic attitude to war; even some Muslims take this view and allege that this verse abrogated other verses on war. This is pure fantasy, isolating and decontextualising a small part of a sentence. The full picture is given in 9:1–15, which gives many reasons for the order to fight such polytheists. They continuously broke their agreements and aided others against the Muslims, they started hostilities against the Muslims, barred others from becoming Muslims, expelled Muslims from the Holy Mosque and even from their own homes. At least eight times the passage mentions their misdeeds against the Muslims. Consistent with restrictions on war elsewhere in the Qur’an, the immediate context of this ‘Sword Verse’ exempts such polytheists as do not break their agreements and who keep the peace with the Muslims (9:7).


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword_Verse
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: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #262 - Sep 1st, 2017 at 12:30pm
 
Quote:
FD do you think in hindsight that pointing to a war against a group of Mushriken who even you admit had persecuted the muslims (including kicking them out of their homes and confiscating their property) - is a bad example to use in trying to prove your 'kill all mushriken, no exceptions' line?


No. In fact I think that killing people to settle old scores is a big part of why the middle east is such a shithole, and why Islam is such a dangerous religion. Even while trying to push this BS about Islam only permitting war in self defence etc, you will still trot out this excuse about taking revenge for past wrongs and don't even realise how hypocritical it is.

Muhammad's attack on Mecca is inconsistent with your spin about treaties. You seem to be having difficulty understanding the point. Here is the spin I am referring to again:

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 18th, 2017 at 3:56pm:
So the sequence in your question is more accurately:

Among the polytheists to whom the muslims had a treaty with, exempt those who had been true to their treaty, then give the rest a certain number of months grace period to reestablish their treaties that they had broken - after which "kill the musrhiken wherever you find them".


Do you think this is consistent with Muhammad's attack on Mecca? Or is there an implicit "unless Muslims are claiming victimhood" caveat on everything you say about Islam's teaching of restraint?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #263 - Sep 1st, 2017 at 3:53pm
 


Quote:
Muhammad's attack on Mecca is inconsistent with your spin about treaties. You seem to be having difficulty understanding the point.


FD there is no sane logic in using a war that was thrust upon Muhammad and the muslims, to try and demonstrate some apparent hypocricy or bloodlust on the part of Muhammad. Your very description of Muhammad "attacking" Mecca, and being the aggressor is absurd - after a state of war had already been created by the act of forced eviction and attempted assassination.

If you want to talk about Muhammad's behaviour regarding treaties - you might want to look for an example that actually involves treaties. Just a thought. For example you can look at the example of the treaty of hudaybiyyah, which Muhammad signed with the Meccans - despite being in an overwhelming position of strength at the time, and which gave generous concessions to them - even though he easily had the power to march on Mecca and take it. Hudabiyyah is proof that Muhammad was prepared to make great sacrifices to achieve peace, and risked open rebellion from his own people to achieve it (the muslims were shocked by the concessions Muhammad gave to get the agreement).
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: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #264 - Sep 1st, 2017 at 3:57pm
 
Quote:
FD there is no sane logic in using a war that was thrust upon Muhammad and the muslims


Thrust upon him how many years earlier? 20? How is this anything more than Islamic victimhood being used to justify Islamic hypocrisy?

Quote:
If you want to talk about Muhammad's behaviour regarding treaties - you might want to look for an example that actually involves treaties. Just a thought. For example you can look at the example of the treaty of hudaybiyyah, which Muhammad signed with the Meccans

Yes Gandalf. This is what we are talking about. What did you think we were talking about?

Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #265 - Sep 1st, 2017 at 4:14pm
 
freediver wrote on Sep 1st, 2017 at 3:57pm:
es Gandalf. This is what we are talking about. What did you think we were talking about?


You'll have to explain this FD. I thought you were talking about the caravan attacks

Or are you talking about the violation of the treaty of hudabiyya by the Quraysh - which resulted in the bloodless conquest of Mecca?
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: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #266 - Sep 1st, 2017 at 6:30pm
 
When I said Muhammad attacked Mecca, I meant Muhammad attacked Mecca. I was not referring to him robbing and murdering Mecca traders on their way north.

Let's try again. Is this consistent with Muhammad's attack on Mecca?

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 18th, 2017 at 3:56pm:
So the sequence in your question is more accurately:

Among the polytheists to whom the muslims had a treaty with, exempt those who had been true to their treaty, then give the rest a certain number of months grace period to reestablish their treaties that they had broken - after which "kill the musrhiken wherever you find them".

Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #267 - Sep 1st, 2017 at 7:42pm
 
Muhammad attacked Mecca after the Treaty of Hudabiyya was violated by the Quraysh. This is consistent with the principle contained in chapter 9 that the muslims will retaliate against treaty breakers.
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: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #268 - Sep 1st, 2017 at 8:43pm
 
Still having trouble understanding the question eh?

Is this consistent with Muhammad's attack on Mecca?

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 18th, 2017 at 3:56pm:
So the sequence in your question is more accurately:

Among the polytheists to whom the muslims had a treaty with, exempt those who had been true to their treaty, then give the rest a certain number of months grace period to reestablish their treaties that they had broken - after which "kill the musrhiken wherever you find them".

Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #269 - Sep 1st, 2017 at 8:51pm
 
freediver wrote on Sep 1st, 2017 at 8:43pm:
Still having trouble understanding the question eh?


Must be.

Perhaps you can explain your problem with my answer.
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: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #270 - Sep 1st, 2017 at 8:55pm
 
My problem is that you are answering a different question to the one asked.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #271 - Sep 1st, 2017 at 8:59pm
 
freediver wrote on Sep 1st, 2017 at 8:55pm:
My problem is that you are answering a different question to the one asked.


No you're right FD - it isn't consistent - Muhammad spared the Meccans after he conquered the city. My bad.
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: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #272 - Sep 1st, 2017 at 9:06pm
 
freediver wrote on Aug 31st, 2017 at 9:34pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 18th, 2017 at 3:56pm:
So the sequence in your question is more accurately:

Among the polytheists to whom the muslims had a treaty with, exempt those who had been true to their treaty, then give the rest a certain number of months grace period to reestablish their treaties that they had broken - after which "kill the musrhiken wherever you find them".


How many months grace period did Muhammad give the Meccans to re-establish their treaty?

Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #273 - Sep 1st, 2017 at 9:15pm
 
So your issue isn't that Muhammad retaliated against treaty breakers, its that he didn't give a 4 month grace period?

Do you think the 2 contexts might have been a little different?
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: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #274 - Sep 1st, 2017 at 9:23pm
 
My issue is that your spin is inconsistent with Muhammad's actions. You sprout all sorts of fairytale versions of Islam that are inconsistent with what the Koran says and what Muhammad did. Then when the inconsistency is pointed out you pretend you cannot understand the question, or you say it is OK because of Muslim victimhood.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #275 - Sep 1st, 2017 at 9:41pm
 
freediver wrote on Sep 1st, 2017 at 9:23pm:
My issue is that your spin is inconsistent with Muhammad's actions. You sprout all sorts of fairytale versions of Islam that are inconsistent with what the Koran says and what Muhammad did. Then when the inconsistency is pointed out you pretend you cannot understand the question, or you say it is OK because of Muslim victimhood.


Chapter 9 came after the conquest of Mecca. It was referring specifically to other tribes who had made a treaty with Muhammad, but were in the process of breaking them. Do you think the two contexts might have been a little different?

Also, do you think its interesting that Muhammad gave this rather extraordinary grace period right after he had conquered the most powerful tribe in Arabia, and overran the biggest city? Do you think that says something about Muhammad's preferences when it comes to war or peace?

Again I ask - is the issue you have not with Muhammad retaliating against treaty breakers, but that he didn't give the Meccans a 4 month grace period like he gave the other tribes after he had conquered Mecca? Is your argument that when faced with violations of treaties, if he doesn't give massive concessions like a 4 month grace period every time - he is necessarily a warmonger and a hypocrite?
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: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #276 - Sep 1st, 2017 at 9:44pm
 
Same question. Same answer.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #277 - Sep 1st, 2017 at 10:15pm
 
freediver wrote on Sep 1st, 2017 at 9:44pm:
Same question. Same answer.


Is the only "inconsistency" you are pointing out to me that chapter 9 gives a 4 month grace period for treaty breakers, while the Meccans didn't?

Does that inconcsistency make Muhammad a warmonger and a hypocrite - even though in both instances we are talking about people who attacked (broke their treaty) him first?

Is it normal for you to criticise all pre-medieval rulers who retaliate against the violation of treaties and shriek about hypocricy and what not - or only when its Muhammad?
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: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #278 - Sep 2nd, 2017 at 10:10am
 
That's the only one I was pointing out with that particular quote.

Muhammad is the only warmonger that people feel compelled to turn into something else.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #279 - Sep 2nd, 2017 at 7:18pm
 
freediver wrote on Sep 2nd, 2017 at 10:10am:
Muhammad is the only warmonger that people feel compelled to turn into something else.


Thats a courageous statement if ever I've heard one FD.
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
 
issuevoter
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9200
The Great State of Mind
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #280 - Sep 2nd, 2017 at 7:25pm
 
Take a look around, Gandalf, there's any number of beliefs to choose from, but you just had to choose one that stinks of death and corruption.
Back to top
 

No political allegiance. No philosophy. No religion.
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #281 - Sep 2nd, 2017 at 7:39pm
 
issuevoter wrote on Sep 2nd, 2017 at 7:25pm:
Take a look around, Gandalf, there's any number of beliefs to choose from, but you just had to choose one that stinks of death and corruption.


My choice of religion really does bother you doesn't it issue?

In a funny way I actually feel flattered
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: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #282 - Sep 2nd, 2017 at 8:23pm
 
Quote:
Is the only "inconsistency" you are pointing out to me that chapter 9 gives a 4 month grace period for treaty breakers, while the Meccans didn't?


The Meccans were actually pushing for a peace treaty when Muhammad attacked. Muhammad negotiated to end the previous treaty, and when they realised what his intentions were, they tried to renegotiate it. Muhammad merely demonstrates the infinite flexibility of Islam in sanctioning mass murder then pretending to take the higher ground afterwards. Muslims will make all sorts of claims about Islam being about restraint, then offer all sorts of excuses, like the Muslims were afraid or were victims.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #283 - Sep 4th, 2017 at 7:36am
 
freediver wrote on Sep 2nd, 2017 at 8:23pm:
The Meccans were actually pushing for a peace treaty when Muhammad attacked. Muhammad negotiated to end the previous treaty, and when they realised what his intentions were, they tried to renegotiate it.


Sounds like historical revisionism. Please provide your evidence.
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: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #284 - Sep 4th, 2017 at 2:20pm
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_of_Mecca

After the incident, Quraysh sent a delegation to Muhammad, petitioning to maintain the treaty with the Muslims and offering material compensation.

...

Meanwhile, Abu Sufyan ibn Harb travelled back and forth between Muhammad and Mecca, still trying to reach a settlement in order to avoid conquest.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #285 - Sep 4th, 2017 at 3:27pm
 
freediver wrote on Sep 4th, 2017 at 2:20pm:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_of_Mecca

After the incident, Quraysh sent a delegation to Muhammad, petitioning to maintain the treaty with the Muslims and offering material compensation.

...

Meanwhile, Abu Sufyan ibn Harb travelled back and forth between Muhammad and Mecca, still trying to reach a settlement in order to avoid conquest.


Here's the rest of that extract - which you chose not to include in your quote:

Quote:
According to the terms of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, the Arab tribes were given the option of joining either of the parties, the Muslims or Quraysh. Should any of these tribes face aggression, the party to which it was allied would have the right to retaliate. As a consequence, Banu Bakr joined Quraysh, and Khuza'ah joined Muhammad. They thus lived in peace for some time; but ulterior motives stretching back to the pre-Islamic period, ignited by unabated fire of revenge, triggered fresh hostilities. Banu Bakr, without concern for the provisions of the treaty, attacked Banu Khuza'a in a place called Al-Wateer in Sha'ban, in 8 AH. Quraysh helped Banu Bakr with men and arms, taking advantage of the dark night. Pressed by their enemies, the tribesmen of Khuza'ah sought the Holy Sanctuary, but here too, their lives were not spared, and, contrary to all accepted traditions, Nawfal, the chief of Banu Bakr, chased them in the sanctified area — where no blood should be shed — and massacred his adversaries. Khuza'ah at once sent a delegation to Medina to inform Muhammad, of this breach of truce and to seek help from Muslims of Medina being their allies.

After the incident, Quraysh sent a delegation to Muhammad, petitioning to maintain the treaty with the Muslims and offering material compensation. The Muslim forces had gathered in strength to settle account with Quraysh and for the final attack and the opening of Mecca


So, after making considerable concessions, and despite being in an overwhelming position of strength, Muhammad in all good faith forged a peace deal with the Quraysh. The Quraysh then repay that good faith offered to them by providing men and arms to their ally as they brazenly broke the treaty, and committed a massacre of a tribe allied to the muslims.

And you seriously expect us to believe it was unreasonable of Muhammad to not give them yet another chance? Just imagine if it was Muhammad who broke the treaty. Hilarious.
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
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #286 - Sep 4th, 2017 at 4:08pm
 
Yes, G, but FD's never trusted Wikipedia, you know that.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #287 - Sep 4th, 2017 at 7:13pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 4th, 2017 at 3:27pm:
freediver wrote on Sep 4th, 2017 at 2:20pm:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_of_Mecca

After the incident, Quraysh sent a delegation to Muhammad, petitioning to maintain the treaty with the Muslims and offering material compensation.

...

Meanwhile, Abu Sufyan ibn Harb travelled back and forth between Muhammad and Mecca, still trying to reach a settlement in order to avoid conquest.


Here's the rest of that extract - which you chose not to include in your quote:

Quote:
According to the terms of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, the Arab tribes were given the option of joining either of the parties, the Muslims or Quraysh. Should any of these tribes face aggression, the party to which it was allied would have the right to retaliate. As a consequence, Banu Bakr joined Quraysh, and Khuza'ah joined Muhammad. They thus lived in peace for some time; but ulterior motives stretching back to the pre-Islamic period, ignited by unabated fire of revenge, triggered fresh hostilities. Banu Bakr, without concern for the provisions of the treaty, attacked Banu Khuza'a in a place called Al-Wateer in Sha'ban, in 8 AH. Quraysh helped Banu Bakr with men and arms, taking advantage of the dark night. Pressed by their enemies, the tribesmen of Khuza'ah sought the Holy Sanctuary, but here too, their lives were not spared, and, contrary to all accepted traditions, Nawfal, the chief of Banu Bakr, chased them in the sanctified area — where no blood should be shed — and massacred his adversaries. Khuza'ah at once sent a delegation to Medina to inform Muhammad, of this breach of truce and to seek help from Muslims of Medina being their allies.

After the incident, Quraysh sent a delegation to Muhammad, petitioning to maintain the treaty with the Muslims and offering material compensation. The Muslim forces had gathered in strength to settle account with Quraysh and for the final attack and the opening of Mecca


So, after making considerable concessions, and despite being in an overwhelming position of strength, Muhammad in all good faith forged a peace deal with the Quraysh. The Quraysh then repay that good faith offered to them by providing men and arms to their ally as they brazenly broke the treaty, and committed a massacre of a tribe allied to the muslims.

And you seriously expect us to believe it was unreasonable of Muhammad to not give them yet another chance? Just imagine if it was Muhammad who broke the treaty. Hilarious.


Perhaps if you did not concoct such absurdly rose-tinted versions of Islam, you would not have to shift the goal posts so frantically. How many times to I have to remind you why I think Muhammad's behaviour is inconsistent with what you posted? Here it is again Gandalf:

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 18th, 2017 at 3:56pm:
So the sequence in your question is more accurately:

Among the polytheists to whom the muslims had a treaty with, exempt those who had been true to their treaty, then give the rest a certain number of months grace period to reestablish their treaties that they had broken - after which "kill the musrhiken wherever you find them".

Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #288 - Sep 4th, 2017 at 7:48pm
 
FD, you just described the story of Muhammad's attack on Mecca as an event that consisted of nothing more than the poor Meccan's desperately wanting to revive the peace treaty, and Muhammad the warmonger relentlessly marching on. You literally skipped the entire bit about why the treaty was broken in the first place - which, just to recap, was because those poor "peace loving" Meccans armed an ally and provided men to mount a sneak treaty-violating attack against a muslim tribe, and massacred them. This after Muhammad was the one who initiated peace - making great concessions in a position of overwhelming strength.

And you accuse me of concocting 'rose tinted' versions of history. Hillarious.

freediver wrote on Sep 4th, 2017 at 7:13pm:
How many times to I have to remind you why I think Muhammad's behaviour is inconsistent with what you posted?


I think the problem occurs when you try and "prove" Muhammad's behaviour with such a farcically skewed and cherry picked version of history. Like for example completely omitting the bit about him retaliating against treaty breakers, and pretend its just Muhammad attacking for no other reason that he's an appalling warmonger.
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: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #289 - Sep 4th, 2017 at 9:08pm
 
Let's try again Gandalf. It's a simple question. Not sure why you have such trouble understanding it.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 18th, 2017 at 3:56pm:
So the sequence in your question is more accurately:

Among the polytheists to whom the muslims had a treaty with, exempt those who had been true to their treaty, then give the rest a certain number of months grace period to reestablish their treaties that they had broken - after which "kill the musrhiken wherever you find them".


Is this consistent with Muhammad's attack on Mecca?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #290 - Sep 4th, 2017 at 10:50pm
 
freediver wrote on Sep 4th, 2017 at 9:08pm:
Let's try again Gandalf. It's a simple question. Not sure why you have such trouble understanding it.


Classic FD methodology. When they show you up, ask them the question again in an attempt to get the answer you want. Ignore their entire argument and pretend they have trouble understanding. Quote them, deleting the parts where they answer the question. Ignore all their questions. Refuse all attempts to discuss a topic rationally. If they insist, quote Wikipedia and delete everything that proves the opposite of your argument (as if they won't look). And when all that fails, just repeat the same questions robotically:

Were they mindless?

Were they a collective?

Were they Jewish?

Were they treacherous?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #291 - Sep 5th, 2017 at 2:30pm
 
freediver wrote on Sep 4th, 2017 at 9:08pm:
Let's try again Gandalf. It's a simple question. Not sure why you have such trouble understanding it.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 18th, 2017 at 3:56pm:
So the sequence in your question is more accurately:

Among the polytheists to whom the muslims had a treaty with, exempt those who had been true to their treaty, then give the rest a certain number of months grace period to reestablish their treaties that they had broken - after which "kill the musrhiken wherever you find them".


Is this consistent with Muhammad's attack on Mecca?


You probably never noticed that I already answered that. Yes it is consistent - as explained in great detail. Including pointing out the contexts of the attack on Mecca and the circumstances surrounding chapter 9 revelation (coming after Mecca was conquered) were very different.

But I absolutely agree it doesn't look consistent at all with your blatantly dishonest, cherry picked "rose tinted" version of the facts.
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: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #292 - Sep 5th, 2017 at 5:49pm
 
Quote:
But I absolutely agree it doesn't look consistent at all with your blatantly dishonest, cherry picked "rose tinted" version of the facts.


Is that a reference to your quote? Are you saying this:

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 18th, 2017 at 3:56pm:
So the sequence in your question is more accurately:

Among the polytheists to whom the muslims had a treaty with, exempt those who had been true to their treaty, then give the rest a certain number of months grace period to reestablish their treaties that they had broken - after which "kill the musrhiken wherever you find them".


does not apply to people who have broken their treaties?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #293 - Sep 6th, 2017 at 1:38pm
 
I'm not sure you fully understand the context FD. Chapter 9 came after the conquest of Mecca. It obviously isn't referring to, nor is it relevant to that event. It was a special one-off amnesty given to treaty breakers in a particular circumstance. It is not a general rule that every time treaties are violated, the violators must be given a 4 month amnesty and a second chance. That would be both unreasonable and impractical.

The "general rules" that are generally applicable from Chapter 9 are those related to not harming those who stay true to their treaties, and that fighting in self defence (yes, including retaliation against treaty breakers) is permitted and right.
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: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #294 - Sep 6th, 2017 at 1:55pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 18th, 2017 at 3:56pm:
So the sequence in your question is more accurately:

Among the polytheists to whom the muslims had a treaty with, exempt those who had been true to their treaty, then give the rest a certain number of months grace period to reestablish their treaties that they had broken - after which "kill the musrhiken wherever you find them".


Is this consistent with Muhammad's attack on Mecca?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #295 - Sep 6th, 2017 at 1:57pm
 
try read what I say for once FD. You might actually find your answer.
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: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #296 - Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:08pm
 
I read what you posted. You have offered all sorts of excuses, apparently for why this is inconsistent with Muhammad's actions. But despite your apparent belief in those excuses, you still cannot bring yourself to give a straight answer. Are you confused by the question Gandalf?

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 18th, 2017 at 3:56pm:
So the sequence in your question is more accurately:

Among the polytheists to whom the muslims had a treaty with, exempt those who had been true to their treaty, then give the rest a certain number of months grace period to reestablish their treaties that they had broken - after which "kill the musrhiken wherever you find them".


Is this consistent with Muhammad's attack on Mecca?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #297 - Sep 6th, 2017 at 7:13pm
 
freediver wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 5:08pm:
Are you confused by the question Gandalf?


I am indeed FD. Your cryptic talk of "consistency" is stupid and makes no sense - as I've been pointing out. I've already asked you to clarify it, and you answered by giving me a cherry picked version of the attack on Mecca - and not answering my question.

Try rewording your question into something that makes sense. That is, if you're not going to clarify for me what you mean by consistency, as I've already asked you to.
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: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #298 - Sep 6th, 2017 at 10:26pm
 
Quote:
I am indeed FD. Your cryptic talk of "consistency" is stupid and makes no sense - as I've been pointing out. I've already asked you to clarify it, and you answered by giving me a cherry picked version of the attack on Mecca


Have I tried to stop you using your own version of Muhammad's attack on Mecca Gandalf? Use whatever version you want. But offering endless excuses for Muhammad's warmongering is not the same as actually answering this very simple question.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 18th, 2017 at 3:56pm:
So the sequence in your question is more accurately:

Among the polytheists to whom the muslims had a treaty with, exempt those who had been true to their treaty, then give the rest a certain number of months grace period to reestablish their treaties that they had broken - after which "kill the musrhiken wherever you find them".


Is this consistent with Muhammad's attack on Mecca?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #299 - Sep 7th, 2017 at 7:35am
 
Really not getting through am I FD.

Try again.
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: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #300 - Sep 7th, 2017 at 9:18am
 
Have you tried "me no speaka da english" yet Gandalf? Maybe that would work.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #301 - Sep 7th, 2017 at 2:40pm
 
Try this for English comprehension 101 FD:


polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 7:13pm:
Try rewording your question into something that makes sense. That is, if you're not going to clarify for me what you mean by consistency, as I've already asked you to.
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
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #302 - Sep 7th, 2017 at 5:30pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 2:40pm:
Try this for English comprehension 101 FD:


polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 7:13pm:
Try rewording your question into something that makes sense. That is, if you're not going to clarify for me what you mean by consistency, as I've already asked you to.


G, you're attempting to engage someone who has no interest in this topic whatsoever. All FD is doing is jumping on your words and playing games. You're approaching FD as someone who wants to discuss historical facts. He doesn't. He'll change any fact he wants. He'll skew and distort. He'll put words in your mouth. Dealing with FD rationally is a complete waste of time. Remember, FD's sole purpose is to spread hatred against Muslims. He'll use any trick he can to do this, including as we all know, porkies.

Debating FD's tricks and porkies falls into his trap. FD knows he's playing games, he's just teasing you.

Crazy, I know, but FD has never recovered from the loss of a relationship with someone he truly loved: Abu.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #303 - Sep 7th, 2017 at 6:15pm
 
Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 5:30pm:
Crazy, I know, but FD has never recovered from the loss of a relationship with someone he truly loved: Abu.


I know. Its only very recently he's finally stopped quoting what Abu didn't say in every post.
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: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #304 - Sep 7th, 2017 at 7:18pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 18th, 2017 at 3:56pm:
So the sequence in your question is more accurately:

Among the polytheists to whom the muslims had a treaty with, exempt those who had been true to their treaty, then give the rest a certain number of months grace period to reestablish their treaties that they had broken - after which "kill the musrhiken wherever you find them".


Is this consistent with Muhammad's attack on Mecca?

Do Muslims generally not know what it means to act in a way that is consistent with their words? Or is it just you?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #305 - Sep 7th, 2017 at 8:13pm
 
If all you're asking is did he give the Meccans a 4 month grace period, then why not just ask that? But then I've already answered that several times, haven't I? Not to mention given a lengthy explanation about how the two situations are not comparable.

FD, I think what you are hinting at is that the starting position for medieval leaders holding precarious peace agreements with hostile tribes that surround him - is that violations of treaty must be met with months long grace periods - yes? Does that sound reasonable to you? Oh of course I've asked that too - naturally you ignored that too.

You know what, forget all my attempts at nuance - it obviously goes right over your head anyway. Just try one thing - try and reword your question by saying what you actually mean - instead of using the phrase "consistent with" - which I promise you, makes no bloody sense in this context (as already explained).
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: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #306 - Sep 7th, 2017 at 9:06pm
 
Are you saying that having an excuse for why it is not consistent means you are unable to say whether it is consistent?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #307 - Sep 8th, 2017 at 7:41am
 
I have already gave an answer to your consistency question FD. Funny after all this you still missed that. I then followed up with a "what the hell do you actuallyl mean" supplementary question. Yet you continue to ignore it. Why?
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
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #308 - Sep 8th, 2017 at 7:48am
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 8th, 2017 at 7:41am:
I have already gave an answer to your consistency question FD. Funny after all this you still missed that. I then followed up with a "what the hell do you actuallyl mean" supplementary question. Yet you continue to ignore it. Why?


You still point out FD ignoring questions? After all these years?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #309 - Sep 8th, 2017 at 11:35am
 
evasion is one thing, responding to a request for clarification by ignoring it and simply reposting the same question word for word over and over - is a whole new level of absurdity.
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: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #310 - Sep 8th, 2017 at 3:25pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 8th, 2017 at 7:41am:
I have already gave an answer to your consistency question FD. Funny after all this you still missed that. I then followed up with a "what the hell do you actuallyl mean" supplementary question. Yet you continue to ignore it. Why?


I'm terribly sorry Gandalf. I must have missed that. What was your answer? I can repeat the question if it helps you remember.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #311 - Sep 8th, 2017 at 4:20pm
 
freediver wrote on Sep 8th, 2017 at 3:25pm:
I'm terribly sorry Gandalf. I must have missed that.


Apology accepted.

Now show me you are trully sorry for your oversight by going back over my posts and finding your answer.
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: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #312 - Sep 8th, 2017 at 9:20pm
 
You've deleted it haven't you? Leaving nothing but squirmy evasion...
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #313 - Oct 23rd, 2017 at 7:17pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 3rd, 2017 at 3:44pm:
You recently conceded you have only read one chapter of the Quran in its entirety - and this was one of the smaller ones. There are in total 114 chapters.


Gandalf why do you think chapter 9 is one of the smaller ones?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #314 - Oct 23rd, 2017 at 10:34pm
 
freediver wrote on Sep 8th, 2017 at 3:25pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 8th, 2017 at 7:41am:
I have already gave an answer to your consistency question FD. Funny after all this you still missed that. I then followed up with a "what the hell do you actuallyl mean" supplementary question. Yet you continue to ignore it. Why?


I'm terribly sorry Gandalf. I must have missed that.


Ah.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 92296
Gender: male
Re: chapter 9
Reply #315 - Oct 23rd, 2017 at 10:36pm
 
freediver wrote on Oct 23rd, 2017 at 7:17pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 3rd, 2017 at 3:44pm:
You recently conceded you have only read one chapter of the Quran in its entirety - and this was one of the smaller ones. There are in total 114 chapters.


Gandalf why do you think chapter 9 is one of the smaller ones?


FD, why do you continue to evade the only question you need to answer?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #316 - Dec 18th, 2019 at 9:27pm
 
Brian Ross wrote on Dec 18th, 2019 at 8:13pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 18th, 2019 at 7:18pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Dec 18th, 2019 at 6:22pm:
As always, the Islamophobes only focus on the messages that they want to find in the Q'ran, rather than look at the overall message.  Tsk, tsk.  Roll Eyes :Wink


What is the "overall message" of chapter 9?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313


I might answer your questions, Freediver when you answer mine.  Tsk, tsk Roll Eyes


Are you afraid of your own opinion Brian?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47369
At my desk.
Re: chapter 9
Reply #317 - Feb 9th, 2020 at 8:15am
 
Brian Ross wrote on Feb 5th, 2020 at 10:09pm:
Bias_2012 wrote on Feb 5th, 2020 at 8:06pm:
Islam preaches death, that's why


Where?  Roll Eyes


You are very forgetful Brian.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 
Send Topic Print