Forum

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

Pages: 1 2 3 4 ... 7
Send Topic Print
Quran demands violence to impose Islam (Read 8647 times)
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Quran demands violence to impose Islam
Reply #15 - Mar 8th, 2018 at 1:53pm
 
freediver wrote on Mar 6th, 2018 at 2:01pm:
Quote:
Why aren't you quoting the Bible, FD?


Gandalf get's upset when I do quote bombs. He has started deleting my posts again. In any case, it was Brian who cited it. I'm happy to leave it at "you'd have to be an idiot to conclude that NT verse is instructing Christians to use violence to impose their religion". If you have a different interpretation, feel free to take up the cause.


The last post I deleted wasn't because it was a quote bomb. It was because you (once again) lifted a whole heap of quotes from one thread and tried to continue the discussion in a completely new thread.

You can't complain that I haven't warned you enough times about doing that. I also invited you to repost the quotes in the thread from which it came from.
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
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 91852
Gender: male
Re: Quran demands violence to impose Islam
Reply #16 - Mar 8th, 2018 at 2:52pm
 
There you go, FD, you have permission to quote from the Old Testament.

Freeeedom, innit.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Quran demands violence to impose Islam
Reply #17 - Mar 8th, 2018 at 3:32pm
 
freediver wrote on Mar 6th, 2018 at 7:35am:
http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=8&verse=39

Mohsin Khan:


Interesting. I wonder why FD chooses one of the more obscure translations, and one of the only ones that specifically defines 'fitnah' as 'disbelief and polytheism'?

And not any of these...

Quote:
DR. GHALI
And fight them, till there is no temptation (Or: sedition, persecution)


Quote:
YUSUF ALI
And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression


Quote:
MUFTI TAQI USMANI
And fight them until there is no Fitnah (mischief)


Quote:
ABDUL HALEEM
[Believers], fight them until there is no more persecution


Quote:
DR. MUSTAFA KHATTAB, THE CLEAR QURAN
Fight against them until there is no more persecution


Lets explore the actual meaning of the word a little more...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitna_(word)#Classical_Arabic

Quote:
Lane, in his monumental Arabic-English Lexicon compiled from various traditional Arabic lexicographical sources available in Cairo in the mid-19th-century, reported that "to burn" is the "primary signification" of the verb.[2] The verb then came to be applied to the smelting of gold and silver. It was extended to mean causing one to enter into fire and into a state of punishment or affliction. Thus, one says that something caused one to enter al-fitna, i.e. trial, affliction, etc., or more generally, an affliction whereby some good or evil quality is put to the test.[2] Lane glosses the noun fitna as meaning a trial, a probation, affliction, distress or hardship, and says that "the sum total of its meaning in the language of the Arabs" is an affliction whereby one is tried, proved or tested.[3]

The definitions offered by Lane match those suggested by Badawi and Haleem in their dictionary of Qur'anic usage. They gloss the triliteral root as having the following meanings: "to purify gold and silver by smelting them; to burn; to put to the test, to afflict (in particular as a means of testing someone's endurance); to disrupt the peace of a community; to tempt, to seduce, to allure, to infatuate."[4]


and in the context of specific verses related to fighting the unbeliever:

Quote:
Persecution
Fitna as persecution appears in several of the verses commanding Muslims to fight the unbelievers (specifically referring to the Meccan polytheists who had persecuted Muhammad and his early followers, thus leading to the hijra). For example, in Qur'an 2:191, the command to fight is justified on the grounds that "persecution (al-fitnatu) is worse than slaying." Similarly, in Qur'an 2:193, Muslims are forbidden from fighting unbelievers around the Holy Mosque in Mecca unless the unbelievers attack first, in which case Muslims are to fight "until there is no persecution (fitnatun) and the religion is God's." The hijra is mentioned in Qur'an 16:110 as having occurred because of the persecution believers had suffered in Mecca. Other examples are Qur'an 85:10, which promises the chastisement of Hell for those who have persecuted Muslims, and Qur'an 4:101, which provides that one's daily required prayer may be shortened if, when on a journey, one fears that the unbelievers may attack if one remains in a place long enough to complete the full prayer.
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
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 91852
Gender: male
Re: Quran demands violence to impose Islam
Reply #18 - Mar 8th, 2018 at 3:52pm
 
That's a quote bomb, G. I don't think FD will allow that one.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Quran demands violence to impose Islam
Reply #19 - Mar 8th, 2018 at 7:49pm
 
Mattyfisk wrote on Mar 8th, 2018 at 11:51am:
freediver wrote on Mar 7th, 2018 at 12:08pm:
Quote:
Oh, I'm happy to be educated, Secret, but I can see nothing in the New Testament that justifies wholesale slaughter.


How about the Quran?


We've been through all the verses, FD, you know the answer to that.

Why do you ask?


Because I don't recall you ever giving a straight answer.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 8th, 2018 at 1:53pm:
freediver wrote on Mar 6th, 2018 at 2:01pm:
Quote:
Why aren't you quoting the Bible, FD?


Gandalf get's upset when I do quote bombs. He has started deleting my posts again. In any case, it was Brian who cited it. I'm happy to leave it at "you'd have to be an idiot to conclude that NT verse is instructing Christians to use violence to impose their religion". If you have a different interpretation, feel free to take up the cause.


The last post I deleted wasn't because it was a quote bomb. It was because you (once again) lifted a whole heap of quotes from one thread and tried to continue the discussion in a completely new thread.

You can't complain that I haven't warned you enough times about doing that. I also invited you to repost the quotes in the thread from which it came from.


What's the difference between a quote bomb and "lifting a whole heap of quotes from one thread". Quote bomb was your term. I recall finding it quite curious that a Muslim would use the term bomb in that way.

Quote:
You can't complain that I haven't warned you enough times about doing that.


You have warned me. But then you started doing quote bombs yourself (perhaps it was in self defence, or retribution for past quote bombs that you and your community were a victim of, or perhaps these two excuses are one and the same), and I have done plenty since. So I assumed you had given up.

Quote:
I also invited you to repost the quotes in the thread from which it came from.


That was generous of you to let me do that after you deleted everything.

Quote:
Interesting. I wonder why FD chooses one of the more obscure translations, and one of the only ones that specifically defines 'fitnah' as 'disbelief and polytheism'?


Because of your absurd efforts to claim that "fight them until all religion is for allah and there is no more oppression" is actually saying that war may only be fought in self defence. I recall you ran away and never came back last time I quoted that version. Shall I bump the thread so we can continue? Or is it time for a new one? I'll start collecting quotes of all the contradictory things you have said.
Back to top
 

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


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Quran demands violence to impose Islam
Reply #20 - Mar 8th, 2018 at 7:57pm
 
Quote:
Persecution
Fitna as persecution appears in several of the verses commanding Muslims to fight the unbelievers (specifically referring to the Meccan polytheists who had persecuted Muhammad and his early followers, thus leading to the hijra). For example, in Qur'an 2:191, the command to fight is justified on the grounds that "persecution (al-fitnatu) is worse than slaying." Similarly, in Qur'an 2:193, Muslims are forbidden from fighting unbelievers around the Holy Mosque in Mecca unless the unbelievers attack first, in which case Muslims are to fight "until there is no persecution (fitnatun) and the religion is God's." The hijra is mentioned in Qur'an 16:110 as having occurred because of the persecution believers had suffered in Mecca. Other examples are Qur'an 85:10, which promises the chastisement of Hell for those who have persecuted Muslims, and Qur'an 4:101, which provides that one's daily required prayer may be shortened if, when on a journey, one fears that the unbelievers may attack if one remains in a place long enough to complete the full prayer.


Can you explain why the almost-identical verse 8:39 also uses fitna in a way that cannot possibly be interpreted as persecution?

34 And why should not Allah punish them while they stop (men) from Al-Masjid-al-Haram, and they are not its guardians? None can be its guardian except Al-Muttaqun (the pious - see V.2:2), but most of them know not.

35 Their Salat (prayer) at the House (of Allah, i.e. the Ka'bah at Makkah) was nothing but whistling and clapping of hands. Therefore taste the punishment because you used to disbelieve.

36 Verily, those who disbelieve spend their wealth to hinder (men) from the Path of Allah, and so will they continue to spend it; but in the end it will become an anguish for them. Then they will be overcomed. And those who disbelieve will be gathered unto Hell.

37 In order that Allah may distinguish the wicked (disbelievers, polytheists and doers of evil deeds) from the good (believers of Islamic Monotheism and doers of righteous deeds), and put the wicked (disbelievers, polytheists and doers of evil deeds) one on another, heap them together and cast them into Hell. Those! it is they who are the losers.

38 Say to those who have disbelieved, if they cease (from disbelief) their past will be forgiven. But if they return (thereto), then the examples of those (punished) before them have already preceded (as a warning).

39 And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.

40 And if they turn away, then know that Allah is your Maula (Patron, Lord, Protector and Supporter, etc.), (what) an Excellent Maula, and (what) an Excellent Helper!

41 Know that whatever property you may gain, one fifth belongs to God, the Messenger, the kindred, orphans, the needy and those who need money while on a journey. (This is the law) if you believe in God and what We revealed to Our Servant on the Day of Distinction (Badr) when the armies confronted each other. God has power over all things.


Can you explain why both verses (8:39 and 2:139) contain a reference to Islam becoming the only religion in the same sentence?

Also, what concept of political liberty and freedom, or political persecution or oppression existed at the time? Did Muhammad every communicate any concepts of oppression vs freedom? Or was he too busy slaughtering the infidel and telling Muslims that fighting is ordained for them even though they detest it?
Back to top
 

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


Australian Politics

Posts: 91852
Gender: male
Re: Quran demands violence to impose Islam
Reply #21 - Mar 8th, 2018 at 8:02pm
 
Oh, I see. But you do remember you giving a straight answer, yes?

Can you quote that for me, FD?

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


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Quran demands violence to impose Islam
Reply #22 - Mar 9th, 2018 at 11:05am
 
freediver wrote on Mar 8th, 2018 at 7:49pm:
What's the difference between a quote bomb and "lifting a whole heap of quotes from one thread".


The problem arises only if its continuing an existing debate, especially with quotes, in a different thread - irrespective of whether or not its a 'quote bomb'. Although historically, quote bombs are typically presented as new threads. My beef is when I attempt to track someone's argument through the course of a particular debate, and find myself having to traverse 3, 4, 5 or even more separate threads. But you know all this because I've told you all this before.

freediver wrote on Mar 8th, 2018 at 7:49pm:
But then you started doing quote bombs yourself


The rate at which you did it just became absurd. I had to do something.

freediver wrote on Mar 8th, 2018 at 7:49pm:
That was generous of you to let me do that after you deleted everything.


You are administrator of this board. If you don't have easy access to a backup, then you are not a very good administrator. If it was anyone else, I wouldn't have deleted it.





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: Quran demands violence to impose Islam
Reply #23 - Mar 9th, 2018 at 11:17am
 
freediver wrote on Mar 8th, 2018 at 7:49pm:
Because of your absurd efforts to claim that "fight them until all religion is for allah and there is no more oppression" is actually saying that war may only be fought in self defence.


I do believe you are literally the only person alive who would argue that a command to fight until there is no more oppression - is somehow not a command to only fight in self defense.

One can only begin to imagine the mental acrobats you must go through to convince yourself of this.

But you're probably right - I probably did run away from such an attempt at an "argument". Ran away shaking my head and rolling my eyes no doubt.
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
 
Baronvonrort
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 17387
Gender: male
Re: Quran demands violence to impose Islam
Reply #24 - Mar 9th, 2018 at 11:50am
 
Quote:
Sahih International

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.

https://quran.com/9/29


Sounds like Allah does demand violence to impose Islam to me.

No mention of fighting in self defence there.
Back to top
 

Leftists and the Ayatollahs have a lot in common when it comes to criticism of Islam, they don't tolerate it.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Quran demands violence to impose Islam
Reply #25 - Mar 9th, 2018 at 12:31pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 9th, 2018 at 11:05am:
freediver wrote on Mar 8th, 2018 at 7:49pm:
What's the difference between a quote bomb and "lifting a whole heap of quotes from one thread".


The problem arises only if its continuing an existing debate, especially with quotes, in a different thread - irrespective of whether or not its a 'quote bomb'. Although historically, quote bombs are typically presented as new threads. My beef is when I attempt to track someone's argument through the course of a particular debate, and find myself having to traverse 3, 4, 5 or even more separate threads. But you know all this because I've told you all this before.

freediver wrote on Mar 8th, 2018 at 7:49pm:
But then you started doing quote bombs yourself


The rate at which you did it just became absurd. I had to do something.

freediver wrote on Mar 8th, 2018 at 7:49pm:
That was generous of you to let me do that after you deleted everything.


You are administrator of this board. If you don't have easy access to a backup, then you are not a very good administrator. If it was anyone else, I wouldn't have deleted it.







So you only deleted my post because I am the site owner and you think it is easy to go into the website backups and retrieve it? How often do you think those backups are made?

Also, are you now saying there is not actually a rule against these quote bombs, but against exceeding some kind of quota for them?
Back to top
 

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


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Quran demands violence to impose Islam
Reply #26 - Mar 9th, 2018 at 12:34pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 9th, 2018 at 11:17am:
freediver wrote on Mar 8th, 2018 at 7:49pm:
Because of your absurd efforts to claim that "fight them until all religion is for allah and there is no more oppression" is actually saying that war may only be fought in self defence.


I do believe you are literally the only person alive who would argue that a command to fight until there is no more oppression - is somehow not a command to only fight in self defense.

One can only begin to imagine the mental acrobats you must go through to convince yourself of this.

But you're probably right - I probably did run away from such an attempt at an "argument". Ran away shaking my head and rolling my eyes no doubt.


Remember, do not question that which, if revealed to you, may cause you trouble.

Quote:
Persecution
Fitna as persecution appears in several of the verses commanding Muslims to fight the unbelievers (specifically referring to the Meccan polytheists who had persecuted Muhammad and his early followers, thus leading to the hijra). For example, in Qur'an 2:191, the command to fight is justified on the grounds that "persecution (al-fitnatu) is worse than slaying." Similarly, in Qur'an 2:193, Muslims are forbidden from fighting unbelievers around the Holy Mosque in Mecca unless the unbelievers attack first, in which case Muslims are to fight "until there is no persecution (fitnatun) and the religion is God's." The hijra is mentioned in Qur'an 16:110 as having occurred because of the persecution believers had suffered in Mecca. Other examples are Qur'an 85:10, which promises the chastisement of Hell for those who have persecuted Muslims, and Qur'an 4:101, which provides that one's daily required prayer may be shortened if, when on a journey, one fears that the unbelievers may attack if one remains in a place long enough to complete the full prayer.


Can you explain why the almost-identical verse 8:39 also uses fitna in a way that cannot possibly be interpreted as persecution?

34 And why should not Allah punish them while they stop (men) from Al-Masjid-al-Haram, and they are not its guardians? None can be its guardian except Al-Muttaqun (the pious - see V.2:2), but most of them know not.

35 Their Salat (prayer) at the House (of Allah, i.e. the Ka'bah at Makkah) was nothing but whistling and clapping of hands. Therefore taste the punishment because you used to disbelieve.

36 Verily, those who disbelieve spend their wealth to hinder (men) from the Path of Allah, and so will they continue to spend it; but in the end it will become an anguish for them. Then they will be overcomed. And those who disbelieve will be gathered unto Hell.

37 In order that Allah may distinguish the wicked (disbelievers, polytheists and doers of evil deeds) from the good (believers of Islamic Monotheism and doers of righteous deeds), and put the wicked (disbelievers, polytheists and doers of evil deeds) one on another, heap them together and cast them into Hell. Those! it is they who are the losers.

38 Say to those who have disbelieved, if they cease (from disbelief) their past will be forgiven. But if they return (thereto), then the examples of those (punished) before them have already preceded (as a warning).

39 And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.

40 And if they turn away, then know that Allah is your Maula (Patron, Lord, Protector and Supporter, etc.), (what) an Excellent Maula, and (what) an Excellent Helper!

41 Know that whatever property you may gain, one fifth belongs to God, the Messenger, the kindred, orphans, the needy and those who need money while on a journey. (This is the law) if you believe in God and what We revealed to Our Servant on the Day of Distinction (Badr) when the armies confronted each other. God has power over all things.


Can you explain why both verses (8:39 and 2:139) contain a reference to Islam becoming the only religion in the same sentence?

Also, what concept of political liberty and freedom, or political persecution or oppression existed at the time? Did Muhammad ever communicate any concepts of oppression vs freedom? Or was he too busy slaughtering the infidel and telling Muslims that fighting is ordained for them even though they detest it?

Without those concepts being both present and communicated, what should we assume? That those translators who use the word oppression for fitna are lying about what the Quran says? Or that Muslims use the term oppression with a different meaning, like Aussie when he uses the term Arab to mean Muslim?
Back to top
 

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


Australian Politics

Posts: 91852
Gender: male
Re: Quran demands violence to impose Islam
Reply #27 - Mar 9th, 2018 at 12:34pm
 
freediver wrote on Mar 9th, 2018 at 12:31pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 9th, 2018 at 11:05am:
freediver wrote on Mar 8th, 2018 at 7:49pm:
What's the difference between a quote bomb and "lifting a whole heap of quotes from one thread".


The problem arises only if its continuing an existing debate, especially with quotes, in a different thread - irrespective of whether or not its a 'quote bomb'. Although historically, quote bombs are typically presented as new threads. My beef is when I attempt to track someone's argument through the course of a particular debate, and find myself having to traverse 3, 4, 5 or even more separate threads. But you know all this because I've told you all this before.

freediver wrote on Mar 8th, 2018 at 7:49pm:
But then you started doing quote bombs yourself


The rate at which you did it just became absurd. I had to do something.

freediver wrote on Mar 8th, 2018 at 7:49pm:
That was generous of you to let me do that after you deleted everything.


You are administrator of this board. If you don't have easy access to a backup, then you are not a very good administrator. If it was anyone else, I wouldn't have deleted it.







So you only deleted my post because I am the site owner and you think it is easy to go into the website backups and retrieve it? How often do you think those backups are made?

Also, are you now saying there is not actually a rule against these quote bombs, but against exceeding some kind of quota for them?


Doesn't sound like it, FD. This means you're free to post your Old Testament quotes.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Quran demands violence to impose Islam
Reply #28 - Mar 9th, 2018 at 3:16pm
 
freediver wrote on Mar 9th, 2018 at 12:34pm:
Can you explain why the almost-identical verse 8:39 also uses fitna in a way that cannot possibly be interpreted as persecution?


no, because it doesn't.

(hint: 8:39 doesn't say "in the whole of the world" - Khan made that up.)

Sahih International:

Quote:
And fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah. And if they cease - then indeed, Allah is Seeing of what they do.
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
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Quran demands violence to impose Islam
Reply #29 - Mar 9th, 2018 at 7:09pm
 
and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah

Would you like to offer your interpretation of this Gandalf?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 ... 7
Send Topic Print