The Meccans:"if they gain dominance over you"

[paarsurrey]

The Meccans:"if they gain dominance over you"
Verse (9:8)
Sahih International: 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.

The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Word by Word Grammar, Syntax and Morphology of the Holy Quran

Whenever Muhammad made a treaty for peace with the Meccans, they broke it and came to attack Muhammad and the believers. They, the Meccas, made Sword the only judge and arbitrator. Right? Please
Regards

______________
#11LuisDantas
#13 paarsurrey

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

I think this is clearly the truth.
The meccans didnt like change. They did know that Monotheism will lead to succes in this world and hereafter but were too arrogant.

 

[LuisDantas]

Whenever Muhammad made a treaty for peace with the Meccans, they broke it and came to attack Muhammad and the believers. They, the Meccas, made Sword the only judge and arbitrator. Right? Please

It is very difficult to speak with any authority about the intents and the available options of two groups of people people living about 1400 years ago, and whose history we know of almost entirely by the account of a single side.

I have actually read an explanation on why the tale is not really that one-sided. If I recall correctly, something about two minor tribes that were at odds with each other, one of which feared supposedly justified revenge and decided to join Islaam so that they would be protected by the early Muslims. That, of course, could only be perceived as unjustified violence by the tribe originally seeking revenge.

I don't necessarily believe that version either, but the general principle is solid enough. Peace can not be attained if one is content to decide that some people must be dealt with by violence. Ever.

If peace is to be possible, we must be at the very least ready to accept peaceful attitudes from our nominal enemies.

This verse you quote is a direct denial of that, and that alone would be reason enough for me to doubt the wisdom of the Qur'an.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The Meccans:"if they gain dominance over you"
Verse (9:8)
Sahih International: 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.
View attachment 15734
The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Word by Word Grammar, Syntax and Morphology of the Holy Quran

Whenever Muhammad made a treaty for peace with the Meccans, they broke it and came to attack Muhammad and the believers. They, the Meccas, made Sword the only judge and arbitrator. Right? Please
Regards

I am having trouble wrapping my head around this. On one hand it states that "if they gain dominance over you" they are not observing a pact of kinship or covenant of protection, but then it starts stating that they "refuse compliance" and they are "defiantly disobedient". Disobedient to whom or what, exactly? If it is disobedience to the ones they made the pact with, then doesn't that mean that the ones they made that pact with are exerting some form of "dominance" over them?

Just because someone makes a peace treaty with you does NOT mean they are now going to accept you bossing them around. Trying to rule over those you have made peace with is, in fact, opposed to the idea of a treaty in the first place.

Group 1: "Hey man, let's make a pact to be peaceful toward one another."
Group 2: "Okay, sounds good."
Group 1: "Cool. Now here is a list of things you are doing wrong. Please let us know when you have reached a state of compliance and are no longer being disobedient to us, so that we can begin the peace."
Group 2: "Wow, has this ever started off on the wrong foot. Um... treaty is kinda cancelled, bro. Sorry."
Group 1: "I am shocked and appalled. What is wrong with you???"

 

[paarsurrey]

I am having trouble wrapping my head around this. On one hand it states that "if they gain dominance over you" they are not observing a pact of kinship or covenant of protection, but then it starts stating that they "refuse compliance" and they are "defiantly disobedient". Disobedient to whom or what, exactly? If it is disobedience to the ones they made the pact with, then doesn't that mean that the ones they made that pact with are exerting some form of "dominance" over them?

Just because someone makes a peace treaty with you does NOT mean they are now going to accept you bossing them around. Trying to rule over those you have made peace with is, in fact, opposed to the idea of a treaty in the first place.

Group 1: "Hey man, let's make a pact to be peaceful toward one another."
Group 2: "Okay, sounds good."
Group 1: "Cool. Now here is a list of things you are doing wrong. Please let us know when you have reached a state of compliance and are no longer being disobedient to us, so that we can begin the peace."
Group 2: "Wow, has this ever started off on the wrong foot. Um... treaty is kinda cancelled, bro. Sorry."
Group 1: "I am shocked and appalled. What is wrong with you???"

Please read the first 21 verses of chapter 9 of Quran, then one will understand the context of the verse. I quote one from it:

Quran Vers 9:12
Chapter (9) sūrat l-tawbah (The Repentance)


Sahih International: And if they break their oaths after their treaty and defame your religion, then fight the leaders of disbelief, for indeed, there are no oaths [sacred] to them; [fight them that] they might cease.
The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Translation
Fight them them to cease their continued aggression, to restore peace in the region and to establish freedom of religion.
Please
Regards

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Sahih International: And if they break their oaths after their treaty and defame your religion, then fight the leaders of disbelief, for indeed, there are no oaths [sacred] to them; [fight them that] they might cease.
The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Translation
Fight them them to cease their continued aggression, to restore peace in the region and to establish freedom of religion.
Please
Regards

See... here it goes again... the part I put in bolded red above. What, exactly are the leaders disbelieving? If they are the "leaders of disbelief"... what is it that they aren't believing that your scriptures apparently want/need them to.

It really, truly reads to me like every few phrases, things are "slipped in" that express the true intent, regardless what the context surrounding it is. Sorry... but I can't just not see this.

It really reads to me like a call to force peace by assimilation and expect belief or break treaty because the other guys are being "disobedient".

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
Sahih International: And if they break their oaths after their treaty and defame your religion, then fight the leaders of disbelief, for indeed, there are no oaths [sacred] to them; [fight them that] they might cease.
The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Translation
Fight them them to cease their continued aggression, to restore peace in the region and to establish freedom of religion.
Please
Regards

See... here it goes again... the part I put in bolded red above. What, exactly are the leaders disbelieving? If they are the "leaders of disbelief"... what is it that they aren't believing that your scriptures apparently want/need them to.

It really, truly reads to me like every few phrases, things are "slipped in" that express the true intent, regardless what the context surrounding it is. Sorry... but I can't just not see this.

It really reads to me like a call to force peace by assimilation and expect belief or break treaty because the other guys are being "disobedient".

"they break their oaths after their treaty and defame your religion"

One did not pondered the lines colored in magenta by me. Please read intently.
They, the Meccan disbelievers entered into a treaty with Muhammad but:
1.did not honor the promises they made
2.they broke the treaty they entered into
3.they defamed the religion of Muhammad.

Treaty of Hudayibyyah:
"In your name, O God!
This is the treaty of peace between Muhammad Ibn Abdullah and Suhayl ibn Amr. They have agreed to allow their arms to rest for ten years. During this time each party shall be secure, and neither shall injure the other; no secret damage shall be inflicted, but honesty and honour shall prevail between them. Whoever in Arabia wishes to enter into a treaty or covenant with Muhammad can do so, and whoever wishes to enter into a treaty or covenant with the Quraysh can do so. And if a Quray****e comes without the permission of his guardian to Muhammad, he shall be delivered up to the Quraysh; but if, on the other hand, one of Muhammad's people comes to the Quraysh, he shall not be delivered up to Muhammad. This year, Muhammad, with his companions, must withdraw from Mecca, but next year, he may come to Mecca and remain for three days, yet without their weapons except those of a traveler, the swords remaining in their sheaths."
Treaty of Hudaybiyyah - Wikipedia
Please
Regards

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

"they break their oaths after their treaty and defame your religion"

One did not pondered the lines colored in magenta by me. Please read intently.
They, the Meccan disbelievers entered into a treaty with Muhammad but:
1.did not honor the promises they made
2.they broke the treaty they entered into
3.they defamed the religion of Muhammad.

Please
Regards

I have to admit, you're right. I did sort of gloss over the part where the religion was "defamed". However - I would have to say if one is secure in their religion/beliefs, then it doesn't matter how much someone tries to "defame" it. In my case, I might try to set them straight on the truth of my ideas and ideals, if they were willing to listen. And if they weren't willing... well... I certainly wouldn't fight them about it. That would only prove that I was insecure in the first place. The broken treaty bit is the more important piece... the "defaming of religion" is far less than even a side-note - probably not even worthy of mention - and yet it is given as another reason to take up arms.

As an example of what I'm talking about, there was one day I got into a verbal argument with my next door neighbor. She was a very "independent" spirit, and was yelling and hounding a relative or friend of hers, who had come to visit, to pick up a dead rat in her own yard. She obviously had no business telling this other woman to pick up a dead rat that was not her responsibility. The woman was even yelling saying that "by the time she was done" the other woman's son would be picking up the rat. She was basically being a complete and utter jerk, for what seemed to be no reason whatsoever. I had seen this woman behaving poorly many multiple times before - making all sorts of noise with her friends on he front porch as they all reveled in recounting a "fight" they had just participated in, getting home drunk at midnight with a friend, BOTH of whom had left their children (the oldest no more than 8 yrs. old, and two kids under 2 yrs. among them) at her house - alone. Anyway... my point is, when I went out to pick up the stupid rat myself, and end the idiotic situation, she turned on me and started with the verbal attacks. She called me, and my entire family "retarded" to start with. Now, this insult was SO FAR from the truth, and myself, so secure in my knowledge of this, that her statement literally had no effect. Honestly - I felt absolutely zero offense at her words. I told her this, and so she turned to something else - again, no effect. Nothing she could say would have any effect - because I knew that she knew nothing about me, and that any of her words would be spoken out of ignorance, and were simply not true. It didn't matter what she said.

 

[paarsurrey]

I have to admit, you're right. I did sort of gloss over the part where the religion was "defamed". However - I would have to say if one is secure in their religion/beliefs, then it doesn't matter how much someone tries to "defame" it. In my case, I might try to set them straight on the truth of my ideas and ideals, if they were willing to listen. And if they weren't willing... well... I certainly wouldn't fight them about it. That would only prove that I was insecure in the first place. The broken treaty bit is the more important piece... the "defaming of religion" is far less than even a side-note - probably not even worthy of mention - and yet it is given as another reason to take up arms.

As an example of what I'm talking about, there was one day I got into a verbal argument with my next door neighbor. She was a very "independent" spirit, and was yelling and hounding a relative or friend of hers, who had come to visit, to pick up a dead rat in her own yard. She obviously had no business telling this other woman to pick up a dead rat that was not her responsibility. The woman was even yelling saying that "by the time she was done" the other woman's son would be picking up the rat. She was basically being a complete and utter jerk, for what seemed to be no reason whatsoever. I had seen this woman behaving poorly many multiple times before - making all sorts of noise with her friends on he front porch as they all reveled in recounting a "fight" they had just participated in, getting home drunk at midnight with a friend, BOTH of whom had left their children (the oldest no more than 8 yrs. old, and two kids under 2 yrs. among them) at her house - alone. Anyway... my point is, when I went out to pick up the stupid rat myself, and end the idiotic situation, she turned on me and started with the verbal attacks. She called me, and my entire family "retarded" to start with. Now, this insult was SO FAR from the truth, and myself, so secure in my knowledge of this, that her statement literally had no effect. Honestly - I felt absolutely zero offense at her words. I told her this, and so she turned to something else - again, no effect. Nothing she could say would have any effect - because I knew that she knew nothing about me, and that any of her words would be spoken out of ignorance, and were simply not true. It didn't matter what she said.

"I have to admit, you're right. I did sort of gloss over the part where the religion was "defamed""
Thanks for agreeing though partially. Please
Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

The Qur'an is certainly an odd little book, with its impenetrable, multi-layered style that so invites obfuscation and abuse and its insistence on confusing belief with religiosity, and virtue with hatred of outsiders.

 

[Kirran]

For one thing: did the Muslims at all "defame" the religion of the pagan Arabs, or of the Christian and Jewish Arabs?

For another, there's a saying in English: History is written by the victors.

 

[LuisDantas]

For one thing: did the Muslims at all "defame" the religion of the pagan Arabs, or of the Christian and Jewish Arabs?

For another, there's a saying in English: History is written by the victors.

Also, how much effort there is (or should be) in reaching a common understanding among Muslims of what "defamation" means in that context?

 

[Kirran]

Also, how much effort there is (or should be) in reaching a common understanding among Muslims of what "defamation" means in that contexto?

You foreigner coming in here and using your foreign words.

 

[LuisDantas]

It was my browser's correction feature, which foolishly assumes I am speaking portuguese. I swear.

 

[Kirran]

It was my browser's correction feature, which foolishly assumes I am speaking portuguese. I swear.

Te estoy mirando...

 

[LuisDantas]

Te estoy mirando...

No contaban com mi astucia!

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Ugh. More of this Islamic 'they were super-stoked on our religion - even if they didn't know it' nonsense.

 

[Kirran]

No contaban com mi astucia!

Dwi ddim yn daeall gair ti'n dweud nawr ychan...

 

[Jedster]

Dwi ddim yn daeall gair ti'n dweud nawr ychan...

rhaid i chi ddysgu spanish

 

[Kirran]

rhaid i chi ddysgu spanish

Usted tambien, tio

Puedo hablar chileno, es suficiente?