Context and the Qur'an.

[stevecanuck]

... It basically boils down to "only fight those who fight you" and "if they stop fighting, you stop"....

When I summarized the Qur'an, I addressed this as follows:

For Mohamed to order military action "in the cause of God", he was faced with being able to claim that a clearly offensive strike would be justified and in compliance with God's wishes. The Qur'an would therefore have to supply him with two revelations that were not so much as hinted at in all previous surahs - a direct command to fight, and moral justification for taking lives. To that end, the following two verses were conveniently revealed:

- 2:190 "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors".
- 2:191 "And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression (fitnah) are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith".

Verse 190 provided the order to fight, but only in self defense, which by itself did not justify an attack against the pagans as there is no indication in the Qur'an that any Muslims had been killed. Therefore, Mohamed could not accuse them of being "those who fight you". He immediately solved that problem in 191 by providing a work-around that moves the goal posts in such a vague and open-end manner as to designate virtually any unbeliever an enemy. It breaks down as follows:
- "And slay them wherever ye catch them", removed any doubt that blood-letting had been introduced to Islam.
- "and turn them out from where they have turned you out", is a clear reference to Mohamed's claim that he was forced to flee Mecca.
- "for tumult and oppression (fitnah) are worse than slaughter", introduced 'fitnah' as a catch-all crime against Islam that, in the space of one verse, effectively dropped self defense to second place as a reason to make war.

 

[firedragon]

Ermmm, no. It's right there. I included it in the quote.

Yeah. I repeat. Read the whole book.

I made a claim about what the Qur'an says

What claim?

If there's one thing that is crystal clear in the Qur'an, it's the division between believer and unbeliever.

I asked you a question. When a man puts on a glove, is he an unbeliever?

 

[firedragon]

- 2:190 "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors".
- 2:191 "And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression (fitnah) are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith".

Wheres the next verse?

 

[stevecanuck]

Verse 2:217 piles on further, and, if anything, is even more direct. It gives a detailed list (highlighted) of sins worse than killing, and of course all of them involve denial of or disrespect toward Islam:

Arberry: They will question thee concerning the holy month, and fighting in it. Say: 'Fighting in it is a heinous thing, but to bar from God's way, and disbelief in Him, and the Holy Mosque, and to expel its people from it -- that is more heinous in God's sight; and persecution is more heinous than slaying.' ......

The first, second, and fourth conditions are obvious references to Mohamed's rejection by the pagans of Mecca, and as such, a peaceful Muslim might argue that the matter was settled 1400 year ago and therefore no longer applies. However, there is no getting around the second condition. If fighting against Muslims is given as a reason to fight back (that would be reasonable if it stopped there), this verse clearly states that it is still not equal to "fitnah" or "disbelief". And make no mistake - "disbelief in Him" comes from the root KFR (كفر). That alone opens the door to making war on unbelievers - which is exactly what Mohamed and the first Muslims did and what today's mujahadeen are doing.

 

[stevecanuck]

Yeah. I repeat. Read the whole book.

Non sequitur/misdirection (because that's all you have). Did I include the first part of the verse in the quote or not?

What claim?

Try to pay attention. I was defending my claim that not being a Muslim - rejecting Islam - was the worst thing a person could do, which therefore precludes them from being called innocent. Read about 2:217 above for more of the same.

I asked you a question. When a man puts on a glove, is he an unbeliever?

How many times do you need to be told that I'm not playing your games. If you have a point - make it.

 

[stevecanuck]

Wheres the next verse?

Point?

Do you want me to post 6,236 verses each time so that we have the proper 'context'?

 

[firedragon]

Non sequitur/misdirection (because that's all you have). Did I include the first part of the verse in the quote or not?

I will ignore most of your post above.

But, the answer is yes. You quoted the whole verse, but ignored the beginning. Of course, you ignored the Quran as a whole. Thats the whole point.

Try to pay attention. I was defending my claim that not being a Muslim - rejecting Islam - was the worst thing a person could do, which therefore precludes them from being called innocent. Read about 2:217 above for more of the same.

Hmm. So you are imposing "guilty" and what ever you wish to impose upon this verse because it speaks of about liars and those who denies the truth, they are all not innocent, and they should be killed.

Thats a lot of hoops you are jumping to make it murderous. But it doesnt work that way. Thats why you should actually read there Quran. innocents cannot be killed. Killing is only for murder. So try not to ignore explicit verses. And I gave you other verses upon your request where it speaks of those who kill innocents in the name God, and they also get the death penalty.

Not innocents.

 

[firedragon]

Point?

Do you want me to post 6,236 verses each time so that we have the proper 'context'?

I didnt say 6236 verses. At least, the next verse because cherry picking so hard is an intentional attempt at creating a wrong impression for pleasure.

 

[firedragon]

"disbelief in Him" comes from the root KFR (كفر)

Tell me. How could a man who wears a glove be a kaafir? He has actually done a kuf. You must be knowing this for sure.

 

[firedragon]

Verse 190 provided the order to fight, but only in self defense, which by itself did not justify an attack against the pagans as there is no indication in the Qur'an that any Muslims had been killed. Therefore, Mohamed could not accuse them of being "those who fight you". He immediately solved that problem in 191 by providing a work-around that moves the goal posts in such a vague and open-end manner as to designate virtually any unbeliever an enemy. It breaks down as follows:

Which Seerah are you getting all of this information from? Please elaborate.

 

[KWED]

When I summarized the Qur'an, I addressed this as follows:

For Mohamed to order military action "in the cause of God", he was faced with being able to claim that a clearly offensive strike would be justified and in compliance with God's wishes. The Qur'an would therefore have to supply him with two revelations that were not so much as hinted at in all previous surahs - a direct command to fight, and moral justification for taking lives. To that end, the following two verses were conveniently revealed:

- 2:190 "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors".
- 2:191 "And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression (fitnah) are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith".

Verse 190 provided the order to fight, but only in self defense, which by itself did not justify an attack against the pagans as there is no indication in the Qur'an that any Muslims had been killed. Therefore, Mohamed could not accuse them of being "those who fight you". He immediately solved that problem in 191 by providing a work-around that moves the goal posts in such a vague and open-end manner as to designate virtually any unbeliever an enemy. It breaks down as follows:
- "And slay them wherever ye catch them", removed any doubt that blood-letting had been introduced to Islam.
- "and turn them out from where they have turned you out", is a clear reference to Mohamed's claim that he was forced to flee Mecca.
- "for tumult and oppression (fitnah) are worse than slaughter", introduced 'fitnah' as a catch-all crime against Islam that, in the space of one verse, effectively dropped self defense to second place as a reason to make war.

Even with the initial revelation, aggressive military action is still justified.
Muhammad could simply march his troops into another tribe's town, their palm groves, etc. The natural reaction of the inhabitants would be to physically try to stop them. As soon as they do, they are "fighting against" or "attacking" the Muslims. Therefore fighting the inhabitants is now approved. And as the inhabitants aren't likely to stop fighting while the interloper is occupying their land, the fighting continues until they are defeated or surrender. Objective achieved.

 

[KWED]

I will ignore most of your post above.

Really? That's not like you.

And I gave you other verses upon your request where it speaks of those who kill innocents in the name God, and they also get the death penalty.

You seem to have forgotten to respond to my points about who Islam considers "innocent".

 

[stevecanuck]

I will ignore most of your post above.

Then what's the point of trying to talk to you. I'll go you one better - I won't even read your posts. Good bye.

 

[firedragon]

Then what's the point of trying to talk to you.

Go back to your post and read it. Most of it is just gossip rhetoric and adhominem so cant respond to those.

I'll go you one better - I won't even read your posts. Good bye.

Thats because you cannot do much. So you ignored most of them absolutely, and focused on one irrelevant sentence to points made and questions asked and said "I won't read your posts" like an angry ex.

According to the Qur'an, death is only for murder or war against oppressors and invaders and you yourself provided those same verses. When I said "innocents" you tried to bring a verse that speaks about liars about God, people who make things up, and people who cover things up, etc etc to claim that "they are not innocents" but nowhere does it say they should be killed. And the case you were trying your best to make was that since I said no innocents should be killed, you wanted to make them not so innocent, and they should be killed according to the Quran.

But it doesnt say that. Thats a whole story you made up.

Then you were making claims about "Muhammed used this and that to invade and kill people" but I asked you which seerah you were using when you ignored that. I asked you questions about the word Kaafir because you were repeating it, and you didnt respond because though you cut and paste arabic words from somewhere, you have no clue what they are.

Etc, etc.

And now you say, "I won't read your posts". Good bye.

Ciao.

 

[stevecanuck]

Go back to your post and read it. Most of it is just gossip rhetoric and adhominem so cant respond to those.



Thats because you cannot do much. So you ignored most of them absolutely, and focused on one irrelevant sentence to points made and questions asked and said "I won't read your posts" like an angry ex.

According to the Qur'an, death is only for murder or war against oppressors and invaders and you yourself provided those same verses. When I said "innocents" you tried to bring a verse that speaks about liars about God, people who make things up, and people who cover things up, etc etc to claim that "they are not innocents" but nowhere does it say they should be killed. And the case you were trying your best to make was that since I said no innocents should be killed, you wanted to make them not so innocent, and they should be killed according to the Quran.

But it doesnt say that. Thats a whole story you made up.

Then you were making claims about "Muhammed used this and that to invade and kill people" but I asked you which seerah you were using when you ignored that. I asked you questions about the word Kaafir because you were repeating it, and you didnt respond because though you cut and paste arabic words from somewhere, you have no clue what they are.

Etc, etc.

And now you say, "I won't read your posts". Good bye.

Ciao.

Not even close. I've made claims about the Qur'an and provided quotes to prove my points. Your responses amount to little more than outright and gratuitous denial. I can't help that. I can only recognize that you will never respond honestly. I've made my points, so I feel done. See you in the next thread.

 

[firedragon]

Not even close. I've made claims about the Qur'an and provided quotes to prove my points.

Quoting something and creating your own story around it. Unfounded.

 

[KWED]

Most of it is just gossip rhetoric and adhominem so cant respond to those.

Of course you can.
In fact, it should be easy to refute it all if the statements are as flawed as you claim.

 

[stanberger]

Sure, but surely one would like to go above and beyond that. And seeing as it's meant to be the very word of God, it should be saturated with meaning and ripe for lifelong study.

the quran does just that. never goes out of date

 

[Rival]

the quran does just that. never goes out of date

Imo there are many outdated things in the Quran.

 

[stanberger]

quran ' man created in stages from the earth ' [evolution]. 'the heavens and earth were one piece then were separated and every living thing created from water universe expanding ' [Big Bang of creation ] impossible to have known 1400 years ago by a illiterate man in desert