• 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!

What exactly is Islamophobia?

Islam existed in full the day the last 'revelation' was made. The Qur'an says so explicitly in 5:3.

You aren’t a Muslim, you don’t have to take the Quran at face value.

You are allowed to think critically and look at evidence.

The secular historical evidence doesn’t seem to support you on this, but you absolutely refuse to learn even the most elementary aspects of contemporary secular scholarship on early Islam.

Islam existed in full the day the last 'revelation' was made. The Qur'an says so explicitly in 5:3.

Again - "This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion."

How can it be "perfected" and "completed" yet still in the making?

If you weren’t so resistant to actually learning about secular scholarship of Islam, you’d already know this as I’ve told you before.

To start, we notice that the Qur'an addresses overwhelmingly people whom it calls "Believers" (mu'minun). In this, it differs from the traditional Muslim narratives and from modern scholarly practice, both of which routinely refer to Muhammad and his followers mainly as "Muslims" (muslimun, literally, "those who sub- mit") and refer to his movement as "Islam."

This later usage is, how- ever, misleading when applied to the beginnings of the community as reflected in the Qur'an. It is of course true that the words islam and muslim are found in the Qur'an, and it is also true that these words are sometimes applied in the text to Muhammad and his followers. But those instances are dwarfed in number by cases in which Muhammad and his followers are referred to as mu'minun, "Believers"-which occurs almost a thousand times, compared with fewer than seventy-five instances of muslim, and so on.

Later Muslim tradition, beginning about a century after Muhammad's time, came to emphasize the identity of Muhammad's followers as Muslims and attempted to neutralize the importance of the many passages in which they are called Believers by portraying the two terms as syn- onymous and interchangeable. But a number of Qur'anic passages make it clear that the words mu'min and muslim, although evidently related and sometimes applied to one and the same person, cannot be synonyms.

For example, Q. 49:14 states, "The bedouins say: 'We Believe' (aman-na). Say [to them]: 'You do not Believe; but rather say, "we submit" (aslam-na), for Belief has not yet entered your hearts.'" In this passage, Belief obviously means something different (and better) than "submission" (islam); and so we cannot simply equate the Believer with the Muslim, though some Muslims may qualify as Believers.

The Qur'an's frequent appeal to the Believers, then- usually in phrases such as "0 you who Believe .. .''-forces us to conclude that Muhammad and his early followers thought of them- selves above all as being a community ofBelievers, rather than one of Muslims, and referred to themselves as Believers. Moreover, the notion that they thought of themselves as Believers is corroborated by some very early documentary evidence dating from several decades after Muhammad's death.


Muhammad and the believers - F Donner
The Qur'an is the definition - Mohamed is the example of how to apply said definition.

Much of the Sunnah is fabricated specifically to make the Quran comprehensible.

It defines Islam as much if not more than the Quran.

Whether you think it should or not is largely irrelevant to the reality.
The bible didn't exist for the purpose of creating Christianity, it took a counsel to do that 3 centuries later, so we agree on that.

Your knowledge of the evolution of the Bible is somewhat lacking too ;)
 
Last edited:

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Then countless people have devoted their lives and careers to something that is not needed. Again - makes no sense.

They're taking it to another level. What's wrong with that?

According to verse 9:111, the zealots have been given a job to do by Allah. In exchange for a spot in heaven they are required to "fight in the cause of Allah, kill and be killed".

Yes, Surah 9...

Fight against the aggressors. Fight against those who break their treaties. No Justice, No Peace. Know Justice, Know Peace.
Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is Allah Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!​
But, if they stand by their treaty, their religious beliefs do not matter.

How can there be a league, before Allah and His Messenger, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for Allah doth love the righteous.​
There is no compulsion in religion.

----------------------------------------------------------------

The point from the previous post was that the burden of proof is lifted from the zealot. But that doesn't mean they don't fight.

I have no superstitious/religious beliefs.

Then... this book is not for you. :)

It is a book of clear proofs for those who beleive the unseen. That's why I said, the harsh punishments are not for you. They are for me.

You know these verses don't you?

This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah; Who believe in the Unseen.
 

stevecanuck

Well-Known Member
There are certainly Christian terror groups, for instance: Army of God (terrorist organization) - Wikipedia

Groups? Don't you mean group?

Many of the White Supremacy groups here in the US have Christian nationalism as their basis.

1. They're not killing anyone or destroying whole countries.
2. They're not following the peaceful message ascribed to the mythical character named Jesus.

Islamists on the other hand ...... well, you know.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
I've been called an Islamophobe too many times to count. Can someone please tell me what that means?

Let's get specific. For example, I greatly dislike verse 4:34. It says that men are in charge of women, and that when they disobey they are to be beaten. I'm not making anything up or putting some sort of spin on it. It's right there in black and white for everyone to see. So, does my dislike of that verse make me an Islamophobe?


I will ignore all of the predictable whataboutism and trolling.
Ignorant prejudice is the cause of most hatreds. Sura 4:34 is an interpretation. Mostly men translated the Quran so they used words which reflected the male dominant culture around them. But Muhammad never beat or hit His wives. That’s because He understood the original Arabic Quran never meant to hit or beat a wife. The Quran never promotes domestic violence against women.

 

Saint Frankenstein

From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
Premium Member
I've been called an Islamophobe too many times to count. Can someone please tell me what that means?

Let's get specific. For example, I greatly dislike verse 4:34. It says that men are in charge of women, and that when they disobey they are to be beaten. I'm not making anything up or putting some sort of spin on it. It's right there in black and white for everyone to see. So, does my dislike of that verse make me an Islamophobe?


I will ignore all of the predictable whataboutism and trolling.
A made up smear term used in much the same way as "racist", "anti-Semite", etc. are often used to stifle discussion, but even worse because it tends to conflate race with religion. You don't have to like a religion, just as you don't have to like anything. Especially if you have reasonable justifications for that opinion (theology, effect on behavior and culture, etc.). But regardless of how you feel about the religion itself, it's important to treat everyone in a civil, respectful and dignified manner.
 

stevecanuck

Well-Known Member
You aren’t a Muslim, you don’t have to take the Quran at face value.

You are allowed to think critically and look at evidence.

The secular historical evidence doesn’t seem to support you on this, but you absolutely refuse to learn even the most elementary aspects of contemporary secular scholarship on early Islam.





If you weren’t so resistant to actually learning about secular scholarship of Islam, you’d already know this as I’ve told you before.

To start, we notice that the Qur'an addresses overwhelmingly people whom it calls "Believers" (mu'minun). In this, it differs from the traditional Muslim narratives and from modern scholarly practice, both of which routinely refer to Muhammad and his followers mainly as "Muslims" (muslimun, literally, "those who sub- mit") and refer to his movement as "Islam."

This later usage is, how- ever, misleading when applied to the beginnings of the community as reflected in the Qur'an. It is of course true that the words islam and muslim are found in the Qur'an, and it is also true that these words are sometimes applied in the text to Muhammad and his followers. But those instances are dwarfed in number by cases in which Muhammad and his followers are referred to as mu'minun, "Believers"-which occurs almost a thousand times, compared with fewer than seventy-five instances of muslim, and so on.

Later Muslim tradition, beginning about a century after Muhammad's time, came to emphasize the identity of Muhammad's followers as Muslims and attempted to neutralize the importance of the many passages in which they are called Believers by portraying the two terms as syn- onymous and interchangeable. But a number of Qur'anic passages make it clear that the words mu'min and muslim, although evidently related and sometimes applied to one and the same person, cannot be synonyms.

LOL!! That is probably the most ridiculous piece of convoluted logic I've ever seen you post. Thanks for the laugh.

For example, Q. 49:14 states, "The bedouins say: 'We Believe' (aman-na). Say [to them]: 'You do not Believe; but rather say, "we submit" (aslam-na), for Belief has not yet entered your hearts.'" In this passage, Belief obviously means something different (and better) than "submission" (islam); and so we cannot simply equate the Believer with the Muslim, though some Muslims may qualify as Believers.

Wow, what's this guy smoking? Even Moses is referred to as a Muslim because of his monotheism.

Verse 2:208 makes the link undeniable - "O you who have believed, enter into Islam completely".

Islam means 'submit', and muslim means 'one who submits', but you know that. I really don't know what this stupid game is all about. Who do you actually think you're fooling?

The Qur'an's frequent appeal to the Believers, then- usually in phrases such as "0 you who Believe .. .''-forces us to conclude that Muhammad and his early followers thought of them- selves above all as being a community ofBelievers, rather than one of Muslims, and referred to themselves as Believers. Moreover, the notion that they thought of themselves as Believers is corroborated by some very early documentary evidence dating from several decades after Muhammad's death.

Oh my god this is stupid.

This is like try to differentiate between the words 'lord' and 'allah' and pretend they're different.

Muhammad and the believers - F Donner


Much of the Sunnah is fabricated specifically to make the Quran comprehensible.

It defines Islam as much if not more than the Quran.

Whether you think it should or not is largely irrelevant to the reality.

So you keep repeating.

I do believe we're done here. Bye until your next pathetic attempt at deflection. I will leave you to claim victory.
 

stevecanuck

Well-Known Member
They're taking it to another level. What's wrong with that?

Another level?????

You are actually trying to suggest that there's a level beyond what Allah his own self has established?????

Yes, Surah 9...

Fight against the aggressors. Fight against those who break their treaties. No Justice, No Peace. Know Justice, Know Peace.
Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is Allah Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!​
But, if they stand by their treaty, their religious beliefs do not matter.

How can there be a league, before Allah and His Messenger, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for Allah doth love the righteous.​

You're ignoring 9:29 which is a bare-faced command to attack "the people of the book" until they submit to Islam.
 
LOL!! That is probably the most ridiculous piece of convoluted logic I've ever seen you post. Thanks for the laugh.

Yes dear, it’s ridiculous to question a religious text that doesn’t match factual evidence.

Unlike any other religion in history,Islam emerges fully formed out of a bottle and reading any ambiguous passage of its scripture gives you a perfect window into the past.

:facepalm:
Wow, what's this guy smoking? Even Moses is referred to as a Muslim because of his monotheism.

Verse 2:208 makes the link undeniable - "O you who have believed, enter into Islam completely".

Islam means 'submit', and muslim means 'one who submits', but you know that. I really don't know what this stupid game is all about. Who do you actually think you're fooling?

At least you admit you think it’s a “silly game” to base arguments on evidence and historical scholarship rather than naïve overconfidence.

"The documentary evidence suggests that the word islām as a name for the new Arab religion only became the most often-employed designation towards the end of the first/seventh century. Before that, the members of the new religious movement were most often known as muʾminūn, Believers. Other names that were used, if rarely, included muslimūn (attested in the Qurʾān and later Arabic literature) and muhājirūn, “Emigrants” (attested in the contemporary non-Arabic documents and later Arabic literature). The word muhājirūn is not always interchangeable with muʾminūn, since the former chiefly means the non-Bedouin Arab Believers. Around the early second/eighth century, muhājirūn died out as a general appellation and muslimūn won the day, even over muʾminūn." Muhjirn as a Name for the First/Seventh Century Muslims - Ilkka Lindstedt - Journal of Near Eastern

Around this time the Shahada changes too, and starts adding Muhammad’s name alongside God’s, not to mention the centuries it took for the Sunnah of the Prophet to overtake the sunnah of the caliph as the ultimate authority in creating religious doctrine.

A more intellectually curious fellow might just ask himself if this new belief system was evolving and adapting, just like every other religion in human history has.

Oh my god this is stupid.

This is like try to differentiate between the words 'lord' and 'allah' and pretend they're different.

Strangely enough, actual experts who can speak the language and have actually studied the text, context and historical evidence disagree.

But then again it’s not surprising as you think Islam emerged fully formed on the day Muhammad “received” a specific revelation.

100% of secular experts disagree with you on this, but virtuoso displays of the Dunning-Krueger effect seem to be a speciality of yours.

“I’ve read a translation of the Quran once or twice. I am the greatest expert in all of the world!” :D
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Another level?????

You are actually trying to suggest that there's a level beyond what Allah his own self has established?????

I think it would be good to roll back through the conversation. Maybe I mispoke, or maybe you misunderstood.

You asked: "if Allah signs are so clear and easy, why is anything else needed? Why does there have to be hadiths, tafsirs, etc. to help people understand how these signs are to be applied? It makes no sense."​
I answered: "Maybe the Hadiths and commentary isn't needed for belief in Allah, Quran, and Muhammad?"​
So, what I'm trying to say here is that the most basic purpose / goal for a Muslim, as I understand it, is belief in these 3 things. That's the baseline, the bare minimum.

You asked: "Then countless people have devoted their lives and careers to something that is not needed. Again - makes no sense."​
I answered: "They're taking it to another level. What's wrong with that?"​
The hadith and tafsir enhance and add dimension to the Muslim's religious duties. They spend time with the Quran, probing its depths, memorizing it. They learn how Muhammad lived his life, and how his companions lived their lives. What they said... All of this is taking the belief in Allah, Quran, and Muhammad to a deeper more profound level. The Quran is all a person needs to be a Muslim. The Hadith and Tasfir is more. Clearly to be a sunni a person needs hadith. I think the same is for shia. But if we're just focusing on being a Muslim... all that's needed is the Quran. When a person converts / reverts, there's no pledge to the hadiths no pledge for daily ritual. It's simply an assertion of belief.

Does that help?

You're ignoring 9:29 which is a bare-faced command to attack "the people of the book" until they submit to Islam.

... until they do what? submit? That's not what it says. I know the word for submission, and that's not it. They acknowledge and they pay a tax.

And, if you keep reading, in the next verse, who deals with them? The curse is from Allah, not the zealots. The zealot simply fights until they acknowledge they pay a tax. Any other retribution for religious heresy is Allah's jurisdiction. If you keep reading, verse 35, the Quran instructs to "announce" a grevious penalty will happen in Hell. But they do not do anything else. Then there's a whole lot fo encouragement for fighting when it's needed... Then there's declaration for punishments for Muslims who oppose Muhammad, and hypocrits. But still, no instructions for the zealot to do anything. These are Muslims themself who are the hypocrits. The striving is against themselves ( verse 74 ). And Allah is th e one who takes retribution. The zealot is given no instructions other than not to pray for them at their death. I stopped reading at around verse 90.

There is still no compulsion in religion by the zealot. It is all being guided by Allah. That's what is in the Quran.
 

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
Groups? Don't you mean group?



1. They're not killing anyone or destroying whole countries.
2. They're not following the peaceful message ascribed to the mythical character named Jesus.

Islamists on the other hand ...... well, you know.

Note my use of the phrase "for instance." Some more Christian terrorist groups:

-The Ku Klux Klan
-The National Liberation Front of Tripura
-The Lord's Resistance Army
-The Eastern Lightening

Christian groups and individuals certainly do kill people and are perfectly willing to do so to install Christian states.

Christian nationalism is very much a concern here in the US of A; with politicians openly asserting this position such as "The Church should direct the State" (Lauren Boebert).
 

stevecanuck

Well-Known Member
Note my use of the phrase "for instance." Some more Christian terrorist groups:

-The Ku Klux Klan
-The National Liberation Front of Tripura
-The Lord's Resistance Army
-The Eastern Lightening

Christian groups and individuals certainly do kill people and are perfectly willing to do so to install Christian states.

Christian nationalism is very much a concern here in the US of A; with politicians openly asserting this position such as "The Church should direct the State" (Lauren Boebert).

This is ridiculous. Christian terrorist groups are a joke compared to the 189 Islamist groups spreading the love and tolerance of Islam around the world. The KKK has about 5 to 8 thousand members. Are you seriously trying to draw a parallel here?
 

stevecanuck

Well-Known Member
I think it would be good to roll back through the conversation. Maybe I mispoke, or maybe you misunderstood.

You asked: "if Allah signs are so clear and easy, why is anything else needed? Why does there have to be hadiths, tafsirs, etc. to help people understand how these signs are to be applied? It makes no sense."​
I answered: "Maybe the Hadiths and commentary isn't needed for belief in Allah, Quran, and Muhammad?"​

Okay, so far so good.

So, what I'm trying to say here is that the most basic purpose / goal for a Muslim, as I understand it, is belief in these 3 things. That's the baseline, the bare minimum.

I would say it's the bare minimum at best. Just consider what the word 'Muslim' means, which is "one who surrenders". Of course in the context of the religion it means "one who surrenders to the will of God". So, how is one to do that? Well, he has to know what the "will of God" is. And the way to know that is to read and study the text that contains his proclamations and commands - the Qur'an. There is exactly zero mystery in this.

You asked: "Then countless people have devoted their lives and careers to something that is not needed. Again - makes no sense."​
I answered: "They're taking it to another level. What's wrong with that?"​

That suggests the word of God needs further clarification, which in turn suggests that God's "signs" were insufficient. Every single person who has created a tafsir has in effect blasphemed by trying to improve upon God's work.

The hadith and tafsir enhance and add dimension to the Muslim's religious duties. They spend time with the Quran, probing its depths, memorizing it. They learn how Muhammad lived his life, and how his companions lived their lives. What they said... All of this is taking the belief in Allah, Quran, and Muhammad to a deeper more profound level. The Quran is all a person needs to be a Muslim. The Hadith and Tasfir is more.

Those last two sentences are blasphemous. They state that God's word can be improved upon. How can perfection be enhanced?

Again - How. Can. Perfection. Be. Enhanced?

Clearly to be a sunni a person needs hadith. I think the same is for shia. But if we're just focusing on being a Muslim... all that's needed is the Quran. When a person converts / reverts, there's no pledge to the hadiths no pledge for daily ritual. It's simply an assertion of belief.

Does that help?

If God had wanted Muslims to split into sects, he would have made provisions for it. He didn't. As you said above, "just focusing on being a Muslim... all that's needed is the Quran". All that God provided was the Qur'an. What does that tell you?

... until they do what? submit? That's not what it says. I know the word for submission, and that's not it. They acknowledge and they pay a tax.

Yes, I shouldn't have used the word 'submit' by itself because that is what Muslims do (to God). I should have said they must submit in the military sense, stop fighting back, and accept that they are to be ruled by the laws of Islam. Payment of the Jizyah seals that deal.

And, if you keep reading, in the next verse, who deals with them? The curse is from Allah, not the zealots. The zealot simply fights until they acknowledge they pay a tax. Any other retribution for religious heresy is Allah's jurisdiction.

Not according to verse 5:33. It says those who are guilty of "fasad f'il ardi" should be killed. The dots just keep connecting.

You said, "The zealot simply fights until they acknowledge they pay a tax". Excuse me? If you admit (and you just did) that fighting and therefore "killing and being killed (9:111)" in order to establish Islam as the ruling religion is God's desire, then you have defined Islam as the religion of war and subjugation that it is. Simply?????

If you keep reading, verse 35, the Quran instructs to "announce" a grevious penalty will happen in Hell. But they do not do anything else. Then there's a whole lot fo encouragement for fighting when it's needed... Then there's declaration for punishments for Muslims who oppose Muhammad, and hypocrits. But still, no instructions for the zealot to do anything. These are Muslims themself who are the hypocrits. The striving is against themselves ( verse 74 ). And Allah is th e one who takes retribution. The zealot is given no instructions other than not to pray for them at their death. I stopped reading at around verse 90.

There is still no compulsion in religion by the zealot. It is all being guided by Allah. That's what is in the Quran.

Do you see what you did there? You just talked yourself in a corner from which there is no escape. In this very post you said, "The zealot simply fights until they acknowledge they pay a tax". You also can not deny 9:111's message that God will give Muslims a place in heaven if they "fight in the cause of God. So they kill and are killed". Your highlighted comments are probably the best example of self-contradiction that I've ever seen on any forum.

Islam can simply not be portrayed as anything but a religion of war and subjugation.
 

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
This is ridiculous. Christian terrorist groups are a joke compared to the 189 Islamist groups spreading the love and tolerance of Islam around the world. The KKK has about 5 to 8 thousand members. Are you seriously trying to draw a parallel here?

Yes. In my country, Christian terrorism is a bigger threat.

If my focus of discussing religious extremism were to consistently associate Islam with violence but ignore all other forms including the ones that pose a bigger threat to me that would make me Islamophobic.
 

stevecanuck

Well-Known Member
Yes. In my country, Christian terrorism is a bigger threat.

If my focus of discussing religious extremism were to consistently associate Islam with violence but ignore all other forms including the ones that pose a bigger threat to me that would make me Islamophobic.

Need help with those goal posts? Three of the groups you mentioned in post #130 operate in lands far, far away, and they are all fringe groups at best. But yes, the KKK is still going with fewer than a thousand members.
 

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
Need help with those goal posts? Three of the groups you mentioned in post #130 operate in lands far, far away, and they are all fringe groups at best. But yes, the KKK is still going with fewer than a thousand members.

Do you disagree that Christian terrorism is a bigger threat in the US than Muslim terrorism is?
 

stevecanuck

Well-Known Member
Do you disagree that Christian terrorism is a bigger threat in the US than Muslim terrorism is?

Not currently. Things can always change. And I'm not discounting the Jan. 6 wake-up call.

However, this thread is not a comparative one.
 
Last edited:

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
No matter where you answer me in the future, I will refer you back to this blatant contradiction until you admit you where arguing in bad faith.
No problem, I'm Jewish, so hopefully you'll understand that Friday night-Saturday I won't be replying.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Okay, so far so good.

:thumbsup:
I would say it's the bare minimum at best. Just consider what the word 'Muslim' means, which is "one who surrenders". Of course in the context of the religion it means "one who surrenders to the will of God". So, how is one to do that? Well, he has to know what the "will of God" is. And the way to know that is to read and study the text that contains his proclamations and commands - the Qur'an. There is exactly zero mystery in this.

Great, the bare minimum. We agreed.

That suggests the word of God needs further clarification, which in turn suggests that God's "signs" were insufficient. Every single person who has created a tafsir has in effect blasphemed by trying to improve upon God's work.

No, the Quran is sufficient for belief in Allah, Quran, and Muhammad. It contains clear proofs and guidance for a specific audience. That doesn't mean every single passage is clear.

Those last two sentences are blasphemous. They state that God's word can be improved upon. How can perfection be enhanced?

Tafsir is not improving the Quran. It is expounding on the quran.
Again - How. Can. Perfection. Be. Enhanced?

Thr perfection is not being enhanced. A perfect scripture has infinite levels and dimensions to explore.

If God had wanted Muslims to split into sects, he would have made provisions for it. He didn't. As you said above, "just focusing on being a Muslim... all that's needed is the Quran". All that God provided was the Qur'an. What does that tell you?

It tells me that the Sunni and Shia and Ahmadiyya and the others need to unite.

Yes, I shouldn't have used the word 'submit' by itself because that is what Muslims do (to God). I should have said they must submit in the military sense, stop fighting back, and accept that they are to be ruled by the laws of Islam. Payment of the Jizyah seals that deal.

They made a treaty, then broke it. They are the aggressors. The only thing they need to do is acknowledge and pay a tax.

Not according to verse 5:33. It says those who are guilty of "fasad f'il ardi" should be killed. The dots just keep connecting.

This is what happened the last time we discussed Quran. You would bring a verse, i would show that it is justified and the surrounding verses moderate the zealot. Then instead of saying, "Hey, you're right, this isn't cimpulsion in religion. And the zealot is being moderated." You shift to another verse somewhere else.

This is why you get labeled what you get labeled. You're ignoring all the other verses that bring moderation.

You said, "The zealot simply fights until they acknowledge they pay a tax". Excuse me? If you admit (and you just did) that fighting and therefore "killing and being killed (9:111)" in order to establish Islam as the ruling religion is God's desire, then you have defined Islam as the religion of war and subjugation that it is. Simply?????

The Muslims are fighting to enforce a treaty. Not to establish Isalm. That was brought early in the Surah, and early in our discussion.

Do you see what you did there? You just talked yourself in a corner from which there is no escape. In this very post you said, "The zealot simply fights until they acknowledge they pay a tax". You also can not deny 9:111's message that God will give Muslims a place in heaven if they "fight in the cause of God. So they kill and are killed". Your highlighted comments are probably the best example of self-contradiction that I've ever seen on any forum.

That's only if you reimagine what I said in your brain. Ackknowledge and pay a tax is not establishing Islam, it is enforcing a treaty. Yes, they will be rewarded for killing and being killed when fighting an aggressor. But, regardless of their religious beliefs, if they maintain their treaty, then there will be peace. Allah doth love the righteous. That's what the Quran has in Surah 9.

Islam can simply not be portrayed as anything but a religion of war and subjugation.

Sure it can. You simply ignore the overwhelming majority of moderatiing verses, and also ignore the context.
 
Top