• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Debate a Muslim

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
The question was "Of course not. Where does there Quran say "pagans should be put to death for being pagans"?"

You will not find one single verse that says "pagans should be put to death for being pagans".

Cherry picking cut and paste?

Read up.

Peace

Oh, please? You expect me to buy such a terrible argument?

Those passages clearly refer to killing people who are not Muslims. Which, unless I am mistaken, INCLUDES PAGANS.

So you want to explain to me why those passages DON'T apply to pagans?

The passage says, "Kill disbelievers wherever you find them." It does NOT say, "Kill disbelievers wherever you find them, unless they are pagans, in which case invite them over for tea and crumpets."

And then you spout a whole bunch of passages that say not to kill unbelievers, are transparent attempt at damage control.

You are fooling no one.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
You cut and pasted some cherry picked verses. The same verses have a context of the following verses, preceding verses, chapter, and the whole book. So when you cherry pick, you are intentionally misrepresenting a book. Intentionally.

And now you are rejecting some other work with an assumption it is similar in tactic to your own cut and paste.

Brother this generation has lost the art of language. I don't think Tiberius is insincere, he just does not realize how language works as far as this is concerned.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I would have put a like on the post if I agreed with it.

I do not condone hatred of anyone.

Lol. Quick jump at defending someone who insults people. Why not ask him why he cherry picked, refused to read anything else, and said childish things like "little Allah"? Maybe you liked it.

Have a good day.
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Lol. Quick jump at defending someone who insults people. Why not ask him why he cherry picked, refused to read anything else, and said childish things like "little Allah"? Maybe you liked it.

Have a good day.
I didn't defend him, I pointed out you were misdirecting your anger lol.
In my opinion.
 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
@Tiberius we are living in a generation that has forgotten norms of language.

Mutahari (r) clarifies:

B- Unconditional verses about Jihad
I said that some of the Qur’anic instructions about jihad against kuffar (disbelievers) are unconditional, which means they state only this: “O Prophet Fight with the Kuffar and the hypocrites.” Or, in the case the verse pertaining to which we recited, after a period which is given to the polytheists (four months), if they have not adopted Islam or haven't migrated, then they are to be killed. (Note: Whether this migration means to the surroundings of Mecca and around, or elsewhere, is a question to be discussed late.) Or that verse with which we began our discussion and which is about the People of the Book.

« Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth» (9:29).

or another verse:

« O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. » (9:73).

If we were to pay attention only to this verse, we would say that Islam fully instructs the Muslims to fight against kuffar and hypocrites and they (Muslims) must never be in a state of peace with them, that Muslims must fight them, as vehemently as they can. They must fight them. If we maintain this rhetoric, we will come to believe that the Qur’an unconditionally tells us to fight the non-Muslims.

I stated, however, that there is a scholastic rule that when both an unconditional and a conditional command exist, i.e. when there is an instruction that in one place is unconditional but in another place has a condition attached, then, according to the ulama’, the unconditional must be interpreted as the conditional. The verses I have just recited are unconditional.

Other verses exist that are conditional, meaning that they read like this: “O Muslims. Fight against those polytheists for the reason that they are in aggression against you, because they are in a state of war with you, and therefore you definitely have to fight against them.”

Thus it becomes clear that where the Qur’an says: “O Prophet Fight against the kuffar and hypocrites,” it means that we must fight those kuffar and hypocrites who are fighting us and who will continue fighting if we fight them.

C- Conditional Verses
In Suratul-Baqarah, the Qur’an tells us:

« Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.» (2:190)

The Qur’an calls to those of faith, to fight those who will fight them - i.e. fight them because they are fighting - but do not violate the limit. What does this mean, not to violate the limit? Does it mean to not be the transgressor?

The obvious meaning of this verse is that we are to fight only those who are fighting us, not anyone else. Moreover, we are to fight only on the battleground, against a certain group of people (soldiers employed by the other side), the men of war whom they prepared for war against us. It is these who we are to fight, and we cannot turn away in cowardice. We must cross swords, exchange bullets, and fight.

But with everyone else – those who are not men of war, soldiers, not in a state of combat, including old men, women of all ages, and children – we cannot interfere, and we cannot transgress their rights. Acts of transgressions we are forbidden from doing include, among other things, ruining their economic resources (cutting down their trees, filling their canals).

Do not be misled to believe that the destruction of homes and property is inevitable if we are to engage in war with enemy soldiers. The question of avoiding these occasions is a separate issue. In Islam, military operations directed at damaging houses and other personal property are forbidden unless there is no other option.

Another conditional verse is the one we discussed from Suratul-Hajj. In fact these are five to six consecutive verses, and the first revealed verses on jihad. These verses say that because the other side has lifted its sword in opposition to us, we can do the same.

In another verse of Surah at-Tawba, we are told:

«… fight the Pagans all together as they fight you all together…» (9:36)

You'd expect an all powerful God wouldn't spread out his rules, because that kind of thing leads to mistakes. 2:191 says to kill the unbelievers wherever you find them. It doesn't include any limitations (and besides the word "kill" implies no limits, at least no limits short of death).

Again, this appears to be nothing more than damage control.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Oh, please? You expect me to buy such a terrible argument?

Those passages clearly refer to killing people who are not Muslims. Which, unless I am mistaken, INCLUDES PAGANS.

So you want to explain to me why those passages DON'T apply to pagans?

The passage says, "Kill disbelievers wherever you find them." It does NOT say, "Kill disbelievers wherever you find them, unless they are pagans, in which case invite them over for tea and crumpets."

And then you spout a whole bunch of passages that say not to kill unbelievers, are transparent attempt at damage control.

You are fooling no one.

Read. You didnt read it. ;) It doesn't say what you want it to say. It does not say "Kill disbelievers because they are disbelievers". But when you cherry pick, you can say whatever you want to say. Its actually a pretty cheap evangelical trick used in some websites. I am wondering why someone like you would do the same trick. What are you gonna gain? Converts?

this trick comes out as very basic and childish in fact.

Tell me. You quoted these two verses together. Was that a mistake?

2:191 Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

2:193 And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. (Fight the unbelievers until they either convert or are dead.)

;)

Also. Can you explain what you understand by the word "disbeliever"? And each verse you cut and pasted, what is the context?
 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
It's actually comes down to in summary of how language works. If you state the conditions, you don't have to repeat them. Because God does not repeat the conditions, you think it means you can fight without those conditions. This is wrong and would make mentioning conditions in the first place pointless.

You'd think God would favour clear communication more than an attitude of, "I don't repeat myself."
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
You'd expect an all powerful God wouldn't spread out his rules, because that kind of thing leads to mistakes. 2:191 says to kill the unbelievers wherever you find them. It doesn't include any limitations (and besides the word "kill" implies no limits, at least no limits short of death).

But in your own post you have the response to it. Just two verses ahead. ;)

2:191 Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

2:193 And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. (Fight the unbelievers until they either convert or are dead.)
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
You'd expect an all powerful God wouldn't spread out his rules, because that kind of thing leads to mistakes. 2:191 says to kill the unbelievers wherever you find them. It doesn't include any limitations (and besides the word "kill" implies no limits, at least no limits short of death).

Again, this appears to be nothing more than damage control.

It's not damage control, it's how language works. Have you read the context of 2:191? In the same chapter, it says to fight those who fight you and not to transgress.
 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
You cut and pasted some cherry picked verses. The same verses have a context of the following verses, preceding verses, chapter, and the whole book. So when you cherry pick, you are intentionally misrepresenting a book. Intentionally.

And now you are rejecting some other work with an assumption it is similar in tactic to your own cut and paste.

Nah, I find all religions have this.

Whenever there is a passage that is unpleasant or disagreeable, the believers cry out aloud, "But you have to consider the context!" It's a cheap attempt to try to get out of admitting their religious text contains atrocities without having to admit their God got it wrong.

And you'll notice that the cries to consider the context are only ever said when it comes to unpleasant passages. No one ever says we need to consider the context for passages that say to treat people with kindness. Why? Because believers aren't interested in what their book says, they are only interested in making their religion look as good as possible and when they can't make it look good, they try to pretend that there are justifications for the horribleness.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Brother this generation has lost the art of language. I don't think Tiberius is insincere, he just does not realize how language works as far as this is concerned.

People go to the internet, do a quick google search, the cut and paste from a famous website.

Lets see if these people wish to engage in any kind of decent discussion, and lets see if they even engage with language.
 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
Brother this generation has lost the art of language. I don't think Tiberius is insincere, he just does not realize how language works as far as this is concerned.

Apparently, language works by finding whatever interpretation makes your religion look as good as possible, and then deciding that's the correct way.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Apparently, language works by finding whatever interpretation makes your religion look as good as possible, and then deciding that's the correct way.

Tiberius don't be silly. You want to find faults in Islam, then do so. But this is not one of them.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Apparently, language works by finding whatever interpretation makes your religion look as good as possible, and then deciding that's the correct way.

Why do atheists go looking for cut and pastes from internet lists to insult a religion and run away with some bogus excuse like "interpretation"? Its better to look at context rather than cherry picking to "make a religion look as bad as possible".
 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
Read. You didnt read it. ;) It doesn't say what you want it to say. It does not say "Kill disbelievers because they are disbelievers". But when you cherry pick, you can say whatever you want to say. Its actually a pretty cheap evangelical trick used in some websites. I am wondering why someone like you would do the same trick. What are you gonna gain? Converts?

this trick comes out as very basic and childish in fact.

Tell me. You quoted these two verses together. Was that a mistake?

2:191 Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

2:193 And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. (Fight the unbelievers until they either convert or are dead.)

;)

Also. Can you explain what you understand by the word "disbeliever"? And each verse you cut and pasted, what is the context?

Okay, let's take the first one. "Kill disbelievers wherever you find them."

So a Muslim guy is out walking and comes across a disbeliever. According to that verse, what should he do? Because it seems to me that the verse is calling for the Muslim guy to kill the disbeliever. After all, the passage makes it very clear who it is talking about - disbelievers - and it makes it very clear what is to be done - Kill them.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
firedragon, this generation seeks to find fault in not only books but in speech in general.

Even philosophers have gone haywire with fallacies. For example, loaded question should not be a fallacy.

It's a way of claiming something (that can be true or false) with a question. There is nothing wrong with it. But this generation is very SILLY with language.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Nah, I find all religions have this.

Whenever there is a passage that is unpleasant or disagreeable, the believers cry out aloud, "But you have to consider the context!" It's a cheap attempt to try to get out of admitting their religious text contains atrocities without having to admit their God got it wrong.

And you'll notice that the cries to consider the context are only ever said when it comes to unpleasant passages. No one ever says we need to consider the context for passages that say to treat people with kindness. Why? Because believers aren't interested in what their book says, they are only interested in making their religion look as good as possible and when they can't make it look good, they try to pretend that there are justifications for the horribleness.

General statement. Childish people who have never read do this kind of pretence to spread their own religion. Thats what you are doing. I will respond the same way you have done. I think you are trying to malign another religion with any kind of cut and pastes because your own religion has the worse history anyone can think of. Murderous history. So this is a diversion tactic of yours.

It that a good enough response similar to yours?
 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
But in your own post you have the response to it. Just two verses ahead. ;)

2:191 Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

2:193 And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. (Fight the unbelievers until they either convert or are dead.)

So? What's your point? The Koran says that when you find unbelievers, you have to fight them until they convert or you kill them.

If you met me in the street, would you kill me?
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Okay, let's take the first one. "Kill disbelievers wherever you find them."

So a Muslim guy is out walking and comes across a disbeliever. According to that verse, what should he do? Because it seems to me that the verse is calling for the Muslim guy to kill the disbeliever. After all, the passage makes it very clear who it is talking about - disbelievers - and it makes it very clear what is to be done - Kill them.

You should read the book I linked you. It shows examples, of how language works. It also goes into length when fighting is allowed and when it's not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top