polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9
th, 2018 at 10:11am:
its pretty self-explanatory from this as to who it is referring to, and only who it is referring to - is it not? I mean, it wouldn't make sense to say "this is a declaration of disassociation from group x..." - if it really meant to include groups y and z as well - would it? Please tell me you're not going to start playing FD games and say 'oh if it doesn't specify "only" - then surely it must be referring to everyone - even if it doesn't mention anyone else'. Common sense is allowed here.
To you it is self-explanatory. You interpret it as being 'only'.
Your logic doesn't stand up: the first verse sets a different set of conditions for those with whom the Muslims made a treaty; it is an addition, not a subtraction. For e.g. if I say: "And fight those people who believe not in Queen and the Union Jack..." and then I say in another part: "to the nation of China and its people, because we have a treaty with you...." It is clear that I'm making an exception to China and its people, which doesn't subtract from the first sentence.
And I'm not playing games: don't forget this is God speaking (supposedly), surely He would make himself clearly by qualifying his statement using the correct terminology??? Unless God is a poor user of the Arabic language???
polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9
th, 2018 at 10:11am:
And the point I've been trying to get across to both you and FD is that verse 1 sets the entire scope of the chapter - thats why its in verse 1. Again, it refers only "to those with whom you had made a treaty among the polytheists". It is reasonable to assume that any other mushriken (polytheists) - who have no treaty, and/or never had a treaty with the muslims - are not affected by the commands in this chapter. To say otherwise would be to second guess the Quran and assume, baselessly, that it is referencing something that is not even mentioned.
Those other people are mentioned in other parts of the Quran, for e.g. 2:191 states, which was dictated earlier than 9 states: "kill them wherever you find them...."
polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9
th, 2018 at 10:11am:
Not to mention that your and FD's interpretation is logically inconsistent with not only this chapter, but several other chapters dealing with the same subject. You point to 9:4 and argue it is a blanket command to kill all mushriken merely because there is no qualification - yet you ignore (or likely haven't read) the actual justification - which as you will see, is just plain at odds with a "garr just kill everyone who disbelieves" narrative. When justifying waging war and killing mushriken, it doesn't state mere disbelief as reason enough - which your interpretation would imply. Instead it describes in fair amount of detail the specific behaviours that are consistent with people who betray and break treaties. Hence 9:8...
How [can there be a treaty] while, if they gain dominance over you, they do not observe concerning you any pact of kinship or covenant of protection? They satisfy you with their mouths, but their hearts refuse [compliance], and most of them are defiantly disobedient.
You're missing 9:5 which states, 'when the sacred months are passed, kill them wherever you find them...." Why doesn't it say, and when they sacred months have passed, seek an extension of that treaty? Instead it commands a killing, and lying in wait for them - that indicates an ambush, not defensive warfare.
polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9
th, 2018 at 10:11am:
erm... if a party fails another party in their treaty - when do you think this can happen if not "subsequently" to the signing of that treaty? Think about it.
You were the one who used this quote to state that it covered all persons not those with whom a treaty was made. You now seem to be backpedalling.