Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 5/19/07 12:27 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: I'm not cellardoor...

Wasnt referencing you.

Looked it up -- doesn't strike me as something the Sanhedrin would do. They would be quite unwilling to execute people.

Whatever dude. I dont know enough about Jewish law to argue it but I think you are painting a much rosier picture than it otherwise would.

Certainly have. Look at nations like Turkey and the condition of Israeli Arabs...they've adapted. it can be done, but it requires time and infrastructure.

Turkey is only secular because their military have overthrown their government a number of times. Its like the big monster in the closet no one is talking about, Turkey has been secular because of their military. Thats not really adaptation but the military forcing Turkey to stay on a certain line. And for that reason Turkey is frankly a bad example of change in the Middle East, their circumstances are very unique.

---

At 5/19/07 12:32 PM, Demosthenez wrote:

Whatever dude. I dont know enough about Jewish law to argue it but I think you are painting a much rosier picture than it otherwise would.

I only know what I've read...I can get quotes and sources, but I'm only saying what I've read.

And the Sanhedrin were very, very unwilling to execute people...besides the point that lex talionis only applied to the extent that an eye was equivalent to the value of an eye.

Turkey is only secular because their military have overthrown their government a number of times.

The military in Turkey is a secularizing, modernizing, westernizing and meritocratic influence. I'm all in favor of that...

The only issue is that it's a military influencing the government. That's hard for me to justify.

---

Islam just like any other religion/ideology is capable of both a radical and moderate aspect. So to answer your question, yes.

---

At 5/19/07 07:59 AM, lapis wrote:

At 5/19/07 07:33 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Yes, but those Muslims still have that belief when they are entering their new countries. If they have the opportunity to take it a step further, I believe most would, it's part of their religion to spread Islam, forcible if necessary.

It's part of their religion to not let there be a compulsion in religion. It's part of their religion to be at war only when others declare war upon you.

Watch the video I linked to. It seems those Muslims already think we're at war, they praised the "beloved 19" hijackers of 9/11 as opening a new front in Jihad. They DO think we're at war, and it was coming from the mouth of someone who in one news interview pretended to condemn 9/11. He then praises 9/11 infront of Muslims.

That's Taqiyyah. Deception of their enemy; you, me, CNN, the EU, the UN, all of us. They believe they are at war with us, and therefore they lie to us to pretend they are moderate in order to conceal or even facilitate their eventual goals.

Since they are fully aware that if they voiced these opinions public it would cause problems, they willingly put on the cloak of moderation in order to bide their time. Taqiyyah.

That's strangely reminiscent of classic anti-Semitism where Jews were accused of lying about the cabals and world domination because of the parts of the Talmud that told Jews not to reveal the secret meanings of the Torah to the goyim.

Yeah except in this case there is PROOF that Muslims have been teaching those things that the Jews were accused of teaching, yet were never proved in doing so.

Once again, watch the video.

You can never prove that their intentions are malevolent and simply stating that they're all liars is not much of a justification.

But I think I have a pretty solid argument to suggest that they are lying. Because if you take into account everything, it seems that if they AREN'T lying to us and don't really have malevolent motives, then they are disobeying their own religion.

What other device could facilitate that other than a nuclear bomb?

And I believe that most of it is a conspiracy theory. Since the Qur'an forbids starting a war and slaying the innocent

Nonbelievers aren't innocent in the eyes of Muslims. And they are already at war in their eyes (infidels in the holy land and Iraq), so by nuking us they wouldn't be starting the war, but only escalating it so that the conflict meets the criteria articulated in the revelations that predict what happens before the coming of the Mahdi.

I don't see why they would want to expedite the arrival of the Mahdi if that meant that he would punish them the moment he came.

Why would they think the Mahdi would punish them if they were only attacking nonbelievers who they were at war with? They DO think they are at war with us, therefore your argument there doesn't apply. How can Muslims not think we are at war if they interpret it in the Koranic sense? In their eyes Jews are in Israel, Christians and Jews are in Iraq, Christian western forces have influence over many Muslim governments and occupy them. They think we are at war, and that we started it. So they would have no reservations of using nukes in order to fulfill the prerequisites of the infidels being scourged with fire worldwide.

The whole Hojjatieh belief is extremely outlandish and even though I don't doubt that there are some people who actually believe it, it's far, far from a mainstream belief.

Of course you wouldn't know if those "mainstream" beliefs that are articulated by Muslims are really theres or not, because they could be using Taqiyyah (permission from Allah to lie to nonbelievers during war) in order to deceive you.

Why wouldn't they lie? Don't you think it would sabotage their efforts if they expressed those views openly? Don't you think there would be a bigger sense of urgency in the wester world of the Islamic threat, which could possibly prevent it, if Muslims were more open about it if they did in fact view things that way?

He criticised your statement that Turkey was the sole exception, and mentioned a few secular governments in the Middle East. He wasn't comparing anything in that bit.

Turkey is probably the most notable exception. But him bringing up Saddam Hussein's Iraq doesn't hold water because although he was secular, secularism wasn't the issue. And Saddam Hussein's Iraq wasn't really a successful country anyway, so it was ridiculous to bring it up.

---

At 5/19/07 11:46 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Of course you wouldn't know if those "mainstream" beliefs that are articulated by Muslims are really theres or not, because they could be using Taqiyyah (permission from Allah to lie to nonbelievers during war) in order to deceive you.

And there is our dilemma. You dont know and I dont know and lapis doesnt know. You are looking at shadows and seeing monsters and lapis is looking at shadows and seeing shadows. You cant make a huge sweeping generalization like that based off insufficent information and a few examples. And the reason I doubt this is. . .

1) Islam is not united. It would be foolhardy to believe Muslims worldwide are in on some conspiracy to lie about their true intentions.
2) I very much doubt most Muslims are educated enough to begin to even grasp taqqiyah or what not, doctrinal wise.
3) I am pretty sure intelligence networks or journalists would have found out about this if this if it is as prevelent as you are suggesting. There aint to many better stories out there now than scary Muslims and what better story could a journalist hope to find than a whole bunch of scary Muslims in Western nations who are posing as mainstream Muslims?
4) "Could be" is never a justifiable reason to create policy with (whatever policy that may be). "Probable," yes. "Could be," no.

Listen, I know there are Muslims out there who exploit our courts, exploit free speech to spread hate, exploit the protections our society offers, etc. etc. But that is not reason enough to generalize the entire religion like you are doing or live in some paranoid fear about Muslims. Be aware there are wolves among the sheep and that is about the best you can do.

And why is nuclear weapons, Hojjatieh, and the Mahdi being talked about? Is this about Islam or Iran?

---

At 5/20/07 02:13 AM, Demosthenez wrote:

At 5/19/07 11:46 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Of course you wouldn't know if those "mainstream" beliefs that are articulated by Muslims are really theres or not, because they could be using Taqiyyah (permission from Allah to lie to nonbelievers during war) in order to deceive you.

And there is our dilemma. You dont know and I dont know and lapis doesnt know. You are looking at shadows and seeing monsters and lapis is looking at shadows and seeing shadows. You cant make a huge sweeping generalization like that based off insufficent information and a few examples. And the reason I doubt this is. . .

1) Islam is not united. It would be foolhardy to believe Muslims worldwide are in on some conspiracy to lie about their true intentions.

I don't think it is foolhardy. I put myself in a Muslims shoes when I make that determination. If you consider yourself a Muslim who looks out for Islam first and foremost, you see a country like the US (which can be considered Judeo-Christian or secular both as negatives) hold sway over the world and invade Muslim lands, then you would probably consider that a war against Islam. Islam isn't ruling the world right now, and that pisses Muslims off, and they see the Jewish-American - western pact as the only obstacle.

2) I very much doubt most Muslims are educated enough to begin to even grasp taqqiyah or what not, doctrinal wise.

Actually Muslims are very educated, it's a myth to brand Muslims as illiterate peasant farmers or peddlers of the desert. The reason we have had difficulty against Islamic terrorism is because we underestimated them. Before 9/11 nobody thought that they could pull off such a complex attack. Back then when people pictured terrorists, they pictured people with ski masks and Ak-47s in a mud hut somewhere.

And now I'm thinking you're underestimating the power that religion has in the world.

3) I am pretty sure intelligence networks or journalists would have found out about this if this if it is as prevelent as you are suggesting.

Actually I'm sure the intelligence networks are on to it. But pursuing it more openly and especially in the media would lead to a backlash by people motivated by political correctness. It is politically incorrect to make the claims I have. Therefore we are paralyzed by our own decency from protecting ourselves. And our enemy knows this, they are using it against us.

There aint to many better stories out there now than scary Muslims and what better story could a journalist hope to find than a whole bunch of scary Muslims in Western nations who are posing as mainstream Muslims?

Actually there has been tons of stories, but they usually get branded as racist or bigoted in some form, and therefore get discredited or disregarded as conspiracy and intolerance. Most aren't even allowed into the mainstream media because it would cause a backlash. Just think about it, remember the Danish Cartoons? One silly cartoon ended up in an entire country apologizing after getting bombarded with threats. Same applies today, CNN will never air something like that because it would cause too much controversy.

And why is nuclear weapons, Hojjatieh, and the Mahdi being talked about? Is this about Islam or Iran?

Iran is a country ruled by Islam. Their aspirations as a nation are Islamic, not secular. I fact, their mission statement includes the goal of glorification of Islam in all pursuits as a nation. Therefore the nuclear issue with Iran is entirely related.

---

At 5/19/07 11:46 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Watch the video I linked to.

I watched it, and it was even less impressive that I had expected (and I wasn't expecting much). They showed two people who lied, including Arafat (a politician). Politicians lie, big whoop. Most Sunnis don't even think that Taqiyya is a valid doctrine because it were Shi'ites who came up with and used in to escape persecution in the earlier days of heavy infighting. If you have a video or aticle that proves that Taqiyya is an accepted and encouraged doctrine in most mosques then you'd have some sort of point. Then it would still be possible that there's a moderate Islam but as of yet you've proved nothing at all.

Besides: "It's not easy to be a Muslim in America, say the community leaders, and rightly so. And nevertheless, apparently it's easier in the U.S. than in the places they came from. Most know to appreciate this. A veteran intelligence official says that Muslim Americans are the primary source of information on "problematic" organizations in the community."

Weird considering that the average Muslim is supposed to be a seditious liar, huh?

Yeah except in this case there is PROOF that Muslims have been teaching those things that the Jews were accused of teaching, yet were never proved in doing so.

They have pleaded guilty to blood libels in the past (under torture), proof enough if you want to think that they're guilty, and Maimonides even literally advocated Taqqiya. But the thing that most closely connects your sentiments and anti-Semitism is the fact that you assume that all of them are liars, so there is no way in the world that you can counter your "argument" because you can never look in the minds of the Muslims. You suspend the habeas corpus principle of innocent until proven guilty because you have proof that a few (out of many) are hypocrites, and that not a valid argument in a debate (hasty generalisation).

then they are disobeying their own religion.

Lying as a strategem in war is justified but not commanded. If your enemy asks you what your favourite colour is then you're not obliged to lie and say it's yellow while in fact it's green.

Nonbelievers aren't innocent in the eyes of Muslims.

Christians aren't nonbelievers, they're the people of the book. If they fall prostrate to God they are righteous (3:113-114), and the righteous are innocent. By nuking a Christian city chances are that you'd kill some of the righteous and then it'd be like you've slain all mankind. And then the Mahdi would not be amused. Besides, the appearance of the Relief (al-Faraj) depends solely upon Allah. Trying to expedite the Relief means that you're trying to influence a decision by God, and I doubt that He'd look favourably upon that.

Of course you wouldn't know if those "mainstream" beliefs that are articulated by Muslims are really theres or not, because they could be using Taqiyyah (permission from Allah to lie to nonbelievers during war) in order to deceive you.

And maybe George Bush invaded Iraq because he wanted to expedite the Rapture. He's lied before (end of the video), so he's obviously cool about that, so whatever he says cannot be trusted. Prove me wrong.

And Taqiyya is not "permission from Allah to lie to nonbelievers during war", Taqiyya is permission from God to lie about your religious beliefs in order to escape persecution or death. The part of 9:5 that allows you to deceive in war is not Taqiyya, don't misuse the terminology.

But him bringing up Saddam Hussein's Iraq doesn't hold water because although he was secular, secularism wasn't the issue.

What? You said "Turkey is an example of how Muslims, and a Muslim nation can be moderate." A secular nation is by default moderately Islamic, so he brought up a secular nation which would mean that Turkey was no longer the sole exception. Secularism was the issue, the only one that he addressed at that point, that's why he said "Iraq was a secular nation"

At 5/20/07 02:30 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Actually Muslims are very educated, it's a myth to brand Muslims as illiterate peasant farmers or peddlers of the desert. The reason we have had difficulty against Islamic terrorism is because we underestimated them. Before 9/11 nobody thought that they could pull off such a complex attack.

And that's the same logical fallacy that you used earlier. If you want to prove something about the religious knowledge of the average Muslim (them being aware of Taqqiya) then you have to do better than point at 19 out of about a billion. And he didn't mention overall education, he mentioned religious education.

Just think about it, remember the Danish Cartoons? One silly cartoon ended up in an entire country apologizing after getting bombarded with threats.

Oh come on, in the Netherlands alone I can name three mainstream newspapers/magazines who reprinted those cartoons, the Volkskrant, NRC Handelsblad and either the Telegraaf or Elsevier, I forgot. And the Danish government never apologised for the cartoons. Never.

If there was any serious evidence to suggest that most Western Muslims in fact do believe that the UK should be nuked but lie about it then it would have been covered. It would at the very least have leaked and been put on YouTube.

Iran is a country ruled by Islam. Their aspirations as a nation are Islamic, not secular. I fact, their mission statement includes the goal of glorification of Islam in all pursuits as a nation. Therefore the nuclear issue with Iran is entirely related.

Every count is a nobleman but not every nobleman is a count. Although they are Islamic, they represent only a minor portion of the Islamic world and their actions do not represent the average Muslim by default.

---

At 5/19/07 12:21 AM, JoS wrote: Religion itself is not evil, it is man who is evil and twists holy words to fit their causes.

;
Absolutely.
The whole problem with Organized Religion, answered in one sentence.

Nice :-)

---

At 5/20/07 06:55 AM, lapis wrote: Most Sunnis don't even think that Taqiyya is a valid doctrine because it were Shi'ites who came up with and used in to escape persecution in the earlier days of heavy infighting.

NOW I remember what Taqiyya is (does it need to be capitalized?). It was for Shiite Muslims who could lie in certain instances, when they were confronted by Sunnis, and say that they were Sunni so they could escape persecution, like you said. I remember it also relating to the Shiite practice of Quietism among the Ayatollahs and higher clerics where they would for the most part keep quiet about issues and not lead directly. You see this in people like Grand Ayatolah Ali al-Sistani who give a couple of guidelines here and there but for the most part stay out of politics.

Where you do not see this at all, however, is Iran. Khomeini rejected Quietism, believing the clerics where the ones who needed to be directing the country and doing it actively since they were the only ones knowledgable enough to apply Sharia and direct Muslims on the right path that the Prophet would approve of. Vali-ye faqih

Yeah, sorry cellardoor. I dont think the Taqiyya argument holds to much water.

---

Let me start with this Lapis... (as a way to say I have yet to cede the "Islam is peaceful ground to you).

Your weak ass rebuttal to Spencer's point was as follows:

:"Example of this guy's spin:

Following the conquest of Mecca, Muhammad outlined the future of his religion. (...) Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177; Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour {of the Last Judgment} will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

We read in number 95 that these passages refer to the Jews of Khaibar, who were harbouring the Jewish Banu Nadir who had supported the Quraysh earlier and who were still trying to raise an army against Muhammad. The conquest of Khaibar occurred two years before the conquest of Mecca so his whole point is moot. It doesn't refer to all Jews."

So I forwarded it to him. His response:

Obviously not. The Hour of the Last Judgment didn't come at Khaybar, and no Muslim has ever believed it has. So even if this only refers to certain Jews, it clearly still lies in the future -- to wit also the repeated invocation of this by jihadists.

Tomorrow (after my movie) will be spent to ripping your arguments to shreds (and from what I've seen from both this and the Falwell thread), I don't have a hard task before me.

---

At 5/21/07 03:14 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Obviously not. The Hour of the Last Judgment didn't come at Khaybar, and no Muslim has ever believed it has. So even if this only refers to certain Jews, it clearly still lies in the future -- to wit also the repeated invocation of this by jihadists.

Read the passage: it doesn't say that the End of Days will come at the same time of the battle with the Jews. The End of Days will come in the future. Before that event, there will be a battle with the Jews. If Muhammad said this before the battle of Khaybar (which is obviously the most likely because other passages also refer to the battle of Khaybar), then this battle took place at Khaybar. Now we'll still have to wait for the End of Days. I highly doubt that Muhammad said this after the conquest of Mecca, and if you use this verse as the validation for your claim that the final goal of Islam is the extermination of the Jews, then sorry, no.

Tomorrow (after my movie) will be spent to ripping your arguments to shreds (and from what I've seen from both this and the Falwell thread), I don't have a hard task before me.

Hahaha, I can hardly wait.

---

At 5/20/07 06:55 AM, lapis wrote:

Although they are Islamic, they represent only a minor portion of the Islamic world and their actions do not represent the average Muslim by default.

Of 1.2 billion Muslims...how many are actively involved in terrorism? Beyond that, how many even consider committing acts of terror. I would venture that very few are involved in terror and few even consider it.

---

Okay, I'm growing impatient. If ripping my argument to shreds is such an easy task then I wonder why writing a rebuttal has to take several fucking days. If you have a hard time explaining abrogation, or naskh, (since your whole standpoint either falls or stands depending on it) then here's a more in-depth explanation than the one little paragraph I had written earlier. Now you can pick the bits that you want to respond to and you're no longer forced to write it all yourself. Good luck.

---

The practice of naskh deals with the evolution of the Islamic judiciary system over the course of Muhammad's life. As the Muslims gained control in Medina and started to turn into a cohesive community new laws were necessary, and verses similar to the older ones were revealed that augmented them but never caused the other ones to be abrogated or forgotten (or else the words of Allah would hardly be eternal, 10:64). In the words of others: "Thus, Allah has informed us that no one can alter the fate which He has decreed for the universe, and no one can repeal His decisions and decrees. This is completely different from the phenomenon of naskh, in which a new ruling is followed, in accordance with His original decree. Consequently, there is no contradiction between the two verses". The practice owes its name to the Arab version of the word "abrogate" from the following verse:

2:106: "None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?"

Never does a verse cause another verse to be annulled, it can elaborate on it or recommend a form of behaviour similar to the original verse. The few verses that contradicted the very principles upon which other verses were built are probably already taken out of the Qur'an, if they existed. These include the rumoured verse that prescribed the death penalty for adultery, which would not only abrogate the verse that prescribes a whipping (24:2) but also the very principle of equal punishment as laid out in 42:40 and the prohibition of killing unless the victim is a murderer himself or one who spread mischief in the land (5:32). Spreading mischief is not clearly defined but in 5:64 it's brought into connection with "kindling the fire of war", which makes clear that the principle of equal punishment is supported here and that death is only an appropriate punishment for those who have caused death themselves.

There is a verse in the Sunna which ordains the stoning of adulterers if I'm not mistaken, but since the Sunna are anecdotal evidence collected decades or even centuries after the death of Muhammad the problem of contradiction is a lot more real in this case, and therefore naskh becomes necessary. Some countries even believe that this hadith can abrogate the Qur'an, a narration as told by a man abrogating the direct word of God. Never understood it (how they think they can justify it, that is).

Other abrogated verses are possibly the controversial "Satanic Verses", in which the prophet Muhammad allegedly praised a few Meccan idols after revealing 53:19 and 53:20 but later recalled his statements claiming that Satan had whispered those verses to him. This could also explain verse 22:52: "Never did We send a messenger or a prophet before thee, but, when he framed a desire, Satan threw some (vanity) into his desire: but Allah will cancel anything (vain) that Satan throws in, and Allah will confirm (and establish) His Signs: for Allah is full of Knowledge and Wisdom".

Of course, the verse could also address previous Prophets like Moses and Jesus and any sort of conflict that could arise between the Qur'an and the older scriptures. This also to some extent applies to 2:106, the older scriptures are not completely abrogated or caused to be forgotten, but something better is revealed in their place (the Qur'an). The fact that 2:108 contains a reference to Moses and that 2:105 and 2:109 contain references to the people of the book adds credence to this theory.

Examples of "something better is revealed in its place" include the verses 2:219, 4:43 and 5:90. The first one, 2:219 mentions the nagative effects of alcohol, the second one, 4:43, forbids being intoxicated during prayer and the last one, 5:90, forbids intoxicants and gambling altogether. The underlying principle, that alcohol is bad and that believers should not indulge in it, is maintained throughout the process of revelation.

---

Some verses are contradictory at first sight but at closer inspection turn out to be in harmony. Verse 60:8, "GOD does not enjoin you from befriending those who do not fight you because of religion, and do not evict you from your homes", seemingly contradicts verse 5:51: "O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another.". But upon closer inspection, verse 5:57 tells the Muslim not to befriend those who mock his religion which indicates that 5:51 also refers to those Jews and Christians who mock and ridicule Islam. Verse 5:66 also nuances the statement by pointing out that not all Jews and Christians are bad, some are on the right track.

Referring to a subgroup among a group such as Christians as "the Christians" and later elaborating upon the characteristics that separate this subgroup from the rest of the group is not uncommon, see also the verse from the Sunnah mentioned above ("The Jews" referring to certain Jews). This could be one of problems of translating the Arab Qur'an into English.

Taking all this into account, 60:8 is not made irrelevant by 5:51 but simply elaborated upon by stating that it is also forbidden to befriend the mockers and 5:55 tells Muslims that even though they can befriend non-believers they cannot take them as "owliya", protectors or the most intimate of friends. This is called takhsees, specification. An earlier verse is restricted or limits that weren't specified in it are introduced by a new verse.

Another verse that's considered takhsees is the infamous 9:5, specifying the actions that were to be carried out against the Mushrik/Pagan Arabs and the Byzantine invaders. As in 5:51, the Mushriks are referred to as "the Pagans", but the Arabs with whom the Muslims had signed a peace treaty were exempted in 9:1 and 9:4, even before 9:5 itself (which also incorporates the "kill them wherever you find them" of 2:191, another verse in which the context makes clear which people the verse is directed at). Then, in 9:6, it specifies that Mushriks seeking protection are to be left unharmed, and in 9:13 it specifies that the targeted Mushriks are the ones who broke the peace treaties and attacked first: "What! will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Messenger, and they attacked you first; do you fear them?". There's no contradicition between the verse and the (many, many) other verses and none of them can justifiably be ignored using naskh as an excuse.

Consistently advocating restraint from the aftermath of the Hijra until the last Sura to be revealed before verse 9 (Sura 5, kindling war is a part of spreading mischief) and then abrogating the whole bunch of it with two verses? I've never bought it. Of course I'm not the only one.

Verse 9:25 also mentions the Battle of Hunayn. The Pagan allies of the Quraysh tried to attack Muhammad while he was besieging Mecca but the quick victory of the Muslims allowed Muhammad to march on the Pagans instead and defeated them. But the most uncomfortable thing about fighting Bedouins was that they, being nomads, could simply move their camps outside Muslim-controlled territory and they'd be able to try to amass an army again. Therefore, it was vital that the Muslims controlled the whole Arabia either through alliances or conquest. All those who would be subdued in the process would be free to keep their own religion, if they paid the Jizya in return for the protection of the Muslims who were the only ones required (and ordained) to fight in the cause of Allah in the event of a war.

The only goal of Islam was to worship the one true God and to do this in peace. However, they were persecuted and driven from their homes, and Muhammad realised that if he wanted to preserve his religion and his followers he'd have to organise his following into a fighting force and a political entity. It's only ironic that too many later Muslim rulers did onto their non-Muslim subjects what the Quraysh had done onto their ancestors (with a lot of notable exceptions, of course). They turned from the persecuted into persecuters. But that was not what the religion was about, and "abrogation" was conceived in order to dodge the verses that they wanted to ignore. But that's not how it was meant to be.

---

Damn lapis :P Good shit.

How did you learn all this? University?

---

At 5/21/07 08:10 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: KILL THE NON-BELIEVERS!!!!!

You make a persuasive argument, sir.

---

Sorry, it's been so long since my response, been busy. I'll start by addressing the old.

At 5/18/07 06:18 PM, lapis wrote: All I'm saying is that there are numerous Islamic scholars and terorists who agree with the violent interpretation of the Qur'an and I only wonder why some people desperately want them to be correct and moderate Muslims to be wrong. It's the motive that I'm curious about, but I'll never avoid the discussion.

Because coming to the conclusion that Islam is violent, or condones violence, or at the very least has passages that can be construed as condoning violence, OF COURSE means that I (or anyone else) WANTS Islam to be violent.
That's such an assinine charge, I don't know how to respond to it.

:blah blah

Yea, I was gone for awhile. I came back and couldn't find the post anymore. It wasn't on the top of my priorities list. Still isn't. Mohammad could come back tomorrow and say "No, stupid, it means kill all the Jews", and you'd tell him HIS take on it is wrong.

No, they sure as hell didn't mean what your bigoted ass thought they meant. Fuck it, here's the new thread, as per your request. Have fun reading the beginning of it, and resume the debate however the hell you want to.

Anyone who finds anything wrong with Islam is of course a bigot.
Of course you're open to free debate and aren't trying to stiffle it at all. That's why you have already called me a bigot and want to know why I WANT the terrorists to be right.

Of course it means what I say it means. "Kill all the jews" means kill all the jews. It sure as hell doesn't mean have them over for cake and tea. KIll those who spread corruption doesn't have a clause for exemption if one is spreading corruption simply by being Jewish, or "not holding what Allah holds or proscribing what Allah has proscribed."

Book 195. You could have ctrl-f'd "Khaibar", but whatever, I typed one number too little so it's my fault in the end. Now your question is answered, rejoice.

So sometime later in the same book, after going off on six or seven different tangants, they then talk about the battle of which you speak. Unless there's some other Holy book explaining why these particular two are linked...then, there's no reason to believe that the two are talking about each other.
Furthermore, as when the "talking rocks" incident is supposed to happen is at the time of "the hour" or the time of reckoning, it is certainly not the Battle of Khaibar that he was referring to here.

The Battle of the Trench wasn't quite fought out because the Quraysh "busied" the Muslims, it was fought out because the Quraysh attacked the Muslims and busied them with war, causing them to miss their prayers. If you had put some effort into your response you would have known that.
You just busied me with an insipid response. I'll burn your house down, infidel.

You'll have to excuse me, I was very unfamiliar with the source (I am still reading and looking up things contained within).
However, I find it interesting that the justification for war is just that they were too busy to pray...not that they were attacked and fighting in self defense.

Were all the Turks killed in the end? Does the verse ordain genocide? Or does it only say that there will be a battle?

It is speaking of the Hour. The Hour will not only be heralded (or caused) by the killing of the Jews, but by the Battling of the Turks. Considering these two things are not only right next to each other, but both speak of the Hour, it is clear that these are linked.

Were they wrong? Did they simply not understand the "pure" teachings of Islam that ordains them to kill pagans wherever they find them and spread Islam until the Dar-al-Islam, the Muslim varaint of Christendom, covers the entire globe?

The question can be reversed. Look at Christianity during the Inquisition, or the Salem Witch trials. Were they following the tenets of their faith? Or ignoring them? Did they correctly understand the scriptures in a way that Christians didn't get it before or since?

Along with the resurge of Islamism in the past few decades came a renewed predominance of radical interpretations of the Qur'an and the fight against the pagans, the Jihad (the minor Jihad, that is. The major Jihad is the battle against one's lusts and desires). Along with them came a whole new generation of Islam criticisers who share their views on Islams with the radical Muslim clerics, namely the view that the Qur'an commands Muslims to subdue the entire world, slay all non-Monotheists who refuse to convert and force the people of the book, the Jews and Christians et cetera, to pay the Jizya.

Are they correct? I'll do my best to narrate the life of Muhammad from what I know of it.

There is definately Quranic scripture that can, at the very least, be VERY easily misconstrued to support the jiyza on non-believers, support jihad to establish the faith, etc etc etc. Yet there is little (and I'm being generous) to suggest that jihad is anything but warfare. I'm glad that millions of Muslims hold this belief, and do whatever mental gymnastics it takes to come to this conclusion. Either way, it definately takes some mental leaps. Spreading corruption isn't spreading corruption in this world view if sc is ONLY spitting gum. The quran does not in any way shape or form say this, but still teh view is held. Etc.

---

At 5/24/07 01:19 AM, WolvenBear wrote: The question can be reversed. Look at Christianity during the Inquisition, or the Salem Witch trials. Were they following the tenets of their faith? Or ignoring them? Did they correctly understand the scriptures in a way that Christians didn't get it before or since?

So Christianity is inherently peaceful and those people were just following it wrong and Islam is inherently violent and the people in the past were just following it wrong? Nice way to frame the debate there buddy.

Yet there is little (and I'm being generous) to suggest that jihad is anything but warfare.

I dont know as much about Islam as lapis but all this tells me is you havent read any direct source material or studied any of the major Islamic scholars. I wish I had some of my source books with me but I left them in Colorado when I got off school. I very clearly remember a passage from one of my readings directly referencing this. I think it was Uthman Dan Fodio but there is also a good chance I am wrong, its been awhile and I read a lot of shit. Anyways, the quote was talking about going on a Jihad against some foes or whatnot and mentioned it was the LESSER jihad. Actually, it might even have been Mohammed abd al-Wahab.

This wasnt any of this feel good liberal Islam bullshit, this was coming from a full blooded Islamic jurist. And chances are if I have read this once with my very limited reading on Islam, it has been mentioned a number of times. And all I get from you is that you have done very little real research and know very little about what you are talking about and then making grand pronouncements. Thats bunk bro.

---

At 5/18/07 06:16 PM, lapis wrote: abrogation stuff

That is quite interesting. And given those verses alone, I would be inclined to agree with his interpretation. But as both 87:6-7 and 17:86 show, Allah can indeed cause even the prophet to forget what has been revealed. Indeed Allah is capable of all things.

And now we're able to answer a question related to the purpose of the thread: when does the commandment of verse 9:5 apply?
What about the 47:4 that the Deccans used to justify the slaughtering of Hindus in India? "So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish."

In 47, it even makes reference to a Sura about fighting being oncoming. It also speaks of spreading corruption, as simply turning away from God and the teachings of Mohammad. (paraphrasing) "The sick at heart visibly faint at the prospect of death. Better for them to be obedient, and to make the right choice when the decision to fight has been made.
Sura 9 furthers this by beginning with the announcement that the treaty has been lifted by Allah. After 4 months, the Muslims will track them down...they will not escape. They are idolaters who revile the religion, so fight them. If they turn to god, however, and pay the alms, say the prayers, they are forgiven. (9 1-15) Fight those who do not truly believe, if they do not hold what Allah holds or forbid what he has forbidden. Indeed it is forbidden to hold others up to God, as both the Jews and Christians have done. Islam is the religion of truth, and the idolaters (including Jews and Christians) hate it. (9:28-33)

When do you slay the unbelievers? When they go to war with you. And if they do, slay those who you meet in battle, the rest of the population will be left unharmed (There shall be no compulsion in religion, 2:256, the whole of Sura 109, do not kill those who did not kill themselves or spread mischief in the land (persecuting Islam is a way to spread mischief, though)). If they move to peace, do the same and put your trust in God.

Speaking out against Islam is also a way to spread mischief/cause corruption. 9:64-67 As is postponing the sacred months 9:37

The entirety of Sura 9 makes it further that it is the duty of the believers to participate in war for the religion. Those who do not are damned. Even stpulating that this is fully justified, it makes it clear that Muslims are to fight.

Relations with the unbelievers? 60:8-9: "GOD does not enjoin you from befriending those who do not fight you because of religion, and do not evict you from your homes. You may befriend them and be equitable towards them. GOD loves the equitable. GOD enjoins you only from befriending those who fight you because of religion, evict you from your homes, and band together with others to banish you. You shall not befriend them. Those who befriend them are the transgressors."

Belivers, do not take your fathers and brothers as allies if they prefer disbelief to faith. Those who do so are wrong.

So do the commandments of Sura 9 always apply? No, I don't think they do. When Sura 9 was revealed the Muslims had to be motivated to embark on campaigns against the Quraysh, the Arab allies of the Quraysh and the Byzantines. Therefore the Sura was needed. But it does not contradict or annul the previous verses that specificlly forbid any sort of war waged against those who do not attack the Muslims.

But the case CAN be made, as shown above, that abrogation is quite real. And there are passages in 9 and in 8 that directly contradict earlier verses. By the time we get to 9, Islam is as volatile as a barrel of gasoline. Doing as little as mocking Islam can lead to jihad (Behead those who insult Islam and all that noise.) There is definately the call for either submission or conversion (since submission is an option, as is death...there truly is no compulsion in religion).

Is a moderate version of Islam possible, a version that does not ordain its followers to bring the entire world under its control? A version that most Muslims have followed in the past few centuries anyway? Can Muslims coexist with non-Muslims, under the rulership of the latter? I believe they can. For now, this will be all that I'll cite. If anyone has a point to make, a piece of scripture to quote or a portion of my text to dispute, then please do.

Of course Moderate Islam is possible, just as violent Christianity, socialistic Christianity, etc are possible. But there is more than enough in the Quran to justify war against non-believers.
What is troubling about moderate Islam is not that all Muslims are violent, but that any criticism of anything Muslim, or of anything related to Islam, or even concerns cited is met with indignant outcry! Bigot! Islamophobic! You want Islam to be violent! This is one of the things that moved me away from being a Muslim apologist and arguing all the stuff that you're arguing now (albeit with far less experience). We who are still fence sitters, or who are even tilted to your favor see the imams refusing to condemn Hamas and Hezbollah. We see the murderous violence after the Muhammid cartoons. And we hear (mostly) the deafening silence from the Islamic communities. You yourself accuse me of wanting Islam to be violent (obviously justifying my hatred of all Muslims). And instead of emailing Spencer on his factual mistakes, you call it spin and snicker.

The example of Kholmeni is cited, and it is an excellent example. The shah was hardly an Islamic ruler. If anything he was very pro-Western. When Kholmeni began his cry that the Shah was trampling Islam, what could teh Shah say? He HAD intereferred with religious life, and was in no way ruling under Islamic law. Kholmeni could cite verse and chapter about teh Shah's failures, but the Shah had nothing to come back with except imprisonment and exile.

I know there's quite a bit more to this topic than I have even started on, so forgive me if I don't get to your responses immediately. I'll devote a good chunk of tomorrow to getting thru the rest of this two page post. So, if you make a brilliant response and I fail to get to it immediately...that's why. I have a bit of catching up to do here.

---

HEll, I'll hit the rest tonight. I can't sleep anyways. The points worth mentioning...

At 5/19/07 07:11 AM, lapis wrote: I don't think they care that much. Although Muslim immigrants often state that they wouldn't mind Sharia law being introducded they also don't act on it politically in Western countries. The only instance of a party founded by Muslims that I can think of is the AEL and they were Nasserite and Arab Nationalist in nature, rather than Islamist. And even this party failed miserably to achieve any sort of electoral success, since most Muslims still vote for social democratic parties if they care enough about politics to vote.

There are plenty of Islamic sharia groups. CAIR is a damned good example. The Muslim brotherhood is another. As Europe increasingly falls to radicals, we need to start taking a look at the root tenets that these people believe...Oh wait...that's racist.
Nevermind.

At 5/19/07 07:59 AM, lapis wrote: It's part of their religion to not let there be a compulsion in religion. It's part of their religion to be at war only when others declare war upon you. All that the immigrants seem to care about is workplace discrimination.

This is a basic demand however, that society assimilate to fit them, and not vice versa. If you have to pray 5 times a day, then you're not terribly productive. If Christians had to pray 5 times a day, I'd say "piss on em". Employers have the right to choose who will provide them the most service for their money.

That's strangely reminiscent of classic anti-Semitism where Jews were accused of lying about the cabals and world domination because of the parts of the Talmud that told Jews not to reveal the secret meanings of the Torah to the goyim. You can never prove that their intentions are malevolent and simply stating that they're all liars is not much of a justification.

There is, however, a Qur'anic basis for lying. There is none for Judiasm.

He criticised your statement that Turkey was the sole exception, and mentioned a few secular governments in the Middle East. He wasn't comparing anything in that bit.

Saddam may not have ruled by Sharia, but to say that he didn't use Muslim doctrine to his advantage is false.

You basically said "all", not many. I even doubt that "many" muslims believe it, the Qur'an says (8:61) "If they resort to peace, so shall you", and the opposite of war is peace. Disbelieving is not a form a making war, or else the Muslims can not "do the same" when the enemy of the Muslim desists. Perpetual war is not based on the Qur'an, I've personally never felt that Muslims considered themselves at war with me when I talked to them and many Muslim countries value good relations with the West.

Disbelieving IS a form of making war. The entirity of sura 9 makes that quite clear.

At 5/19/07 12:20 PM, Demosthenez wrote: There is the cellardoor I expected.

At 5/19/07 10:14 AM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

Have you seen the conditions they have been exposed under? Colonialism, invasion (Israel may have been given by the UN but it might as well just have been an invasion, the political leaders of the area now came from a completly different place), utter weakness and prostration to the West, etc. Because of this both competly secular (Nassirism) and religious (Hamas, Hizbullah, Iran) have been violently opposed to Western ideas and rule. So in many places you see people rejecting Westernism that they see as oppressive and returning to their "true" cultural roots, Islam.

They have been exposed under much more favorable conditions than...lets say, India. Yet India is now becoming a powerhouse in outsourcing of jobs and insourcing of computer programers, and the Middle East is good at...well, nothing. They have oil and Islam.

And change will happen, whether its us or them (my guess is them), it just will take awhile. This isnt a speedy process here.

They hang gays and stone women who walk without a male escort. I wouldn't hold my breath if I was you.

At 5/20/07 02:13 AM, Demosthenez wrote: And there is our dilemma. You dont know and I dont know and lapis doesnt know. You are looking at shadows and seeing monsters and lapis is looking at shadows and seeing shadows. You cant make a huge sweeping generalization like that based off insufficent information and a few examples. And the reason I doubt this is. . .

Lapis is looking at groups of thousands of men with ill intentions and seeing shadows.

1) Islam is not united. It would be foolhardy to believe Muslims worldwide are in on some conspiracy to lie about their true intentions.

If 1 out of every 10,000 Christians were talking about abortion clinic bombings being justified, we would be taking a look at every Christian book ever written to see what was causing this violence. That between 10-25% of Muslims, depending on the survey, justify violence to INNOCENTS should give every intelligent person reason to pause.

2) I very much doubt most Muslims are educated enough to begin to even grasp taqqiyah or what not, doctrinal wise.

OK, Muslims are all stupid. Great starting point...
So, this implies that most Muslims can't get the point that their religion is violent. Were you planning this as a talking point in your favor?

3) I am pretty sure intelligence networks or journalists would have found out about this if this if it is as prevelent as you are suggesting. There aint to many better stories out there now than scary Muslims and what better story could a journalist hope to find than a whole bunch of scary Muslims in Western nations who are posing as mainstream Muslims?

Oh...I don't know...nonexistant Muslim abuse maybe?
Overexaggerating the war in Iraq?
Etc.

4) "Could be" is never a justifiable reason to create policy with (whatever policy that may be). "Probable," yes. "Could be," no.

Really? That underlies MOST of our policy. Women with children could starve. Welfare to the rescue!

And why is nuclear weapons, Hojjatieh, and the Mahdi being talked about? Is this about Islam or Iran?

It's about both. Ahmendenijad is using the Quran to justify his nuclear program. That should give us all pause.

---

At 5/20/07 06:55 AM, lapis wrote: Most Sunnis don't even think that Taqiyya is a valid doctrine because it were Shi'ites who came up with and used in to escape persecution in the earlier days of heavy infighting. If you have a video or aticle that proves that Taqiyya is an accepted and encouraged doctrine in most mosques then you'd have some sort of point. Then it would still be possible that there's a moderate Islam but as of yet you've proved nothing at all.

So, basing it on the Quran...the unadulterated word of God...isn't enough?
3:28 5:55

Besides: "It's not easy to be a Muslim in America, say the community leaders, and rightly so. And nevertheless, apparently it's easier in the U.S. than in the places they came from. Most know to appreciate this. A veteran intelligence official says that Muslim Americans are the primary source of information on "problematic" organizations in the community."

It's plenty easy in The USA for Muslims. Please. Be real.

Christians aren't nonbelievers, they're the people of the book. If they fall prostrate to God they are righteous (3:113-114), and the righteous are innocent. By nuking a Christian city chances are that you'd kill some of the righteous and then it'd be like you've slain all mankind. And then the Mahdi would not be amused. Besides, the appearance of the Relief (al-Faraj) depends solely upon Allah. Trying to expedite the Relief means that you're trying to influence a decision by God, and I doubt that He'd look favourably upon that.

But they ascribe partners to God, making them unclean. And therefore, they do not hold what Allah holds...etc.

And maybe George Bush invaded Iraq because he wanted to expedite the Rapture. He's lied before (end of the video), so he's obviously cool about that, so whatever he says cannot be trusted. Prove me wrong.

Um...except he never lied. HE used the same intelligence that Clinton and Bush Sr. used. So, yea, you're full of crap on this one.

And Taqiyya is not "permission from Allah to lie to nonbelievers during war", Taqiyya is permission from God to lie about your religious beliefs in order to escape persecution or death. The part of 9:5 that allows you to deceive in war is not Taqiyya, don't misuse the terminology.

Oh, our bad. There's a different term for lying during war...excuse us.

What? You said "Turkey is an example of how Muslims, and a Muslim nation can be moderate." A secular nation is by default moderately Islamic, so he brought up a secular nation which would mean that Turkey was no longer the sole exception. Secularism was the issue, the only one that he addressed at that point, that's why he said "Iraq was a secular nation"

Secular nations are by no means moderately Islamic. They are anti-religion.

If there was any serious evidence to suggest that most Western Muslims in fact do believe that the UK should be nuked but lie about it then it would have been covered. It would at the very least have leaked and been put on YouTube.

That's as weak of an argument as ever I heard.

---

At 5/22/07 02:23 PM, lapis wrote: Okay, I'm growing impatient. If ripping my argument to shreds is such an easy task then I wonder why writing a rebuttal has to take several fucking days.

Actually it has to do with the fact that I was doing other things. And that I'm insanely lazy. Playing Scarface>debating you.

I'm sorry you're so impatient. But as I've shown, your argument doesn't hold water. By your own link, abrogation was created (and retained) by the Islamic community. There's a further case as your source doesn't address ALL quranic verse dealing with abrogation.

Even cellardoor makes the basic case. Your points are moot. At best.

---

At 5/24/07 01:51 AM, Demosthenez wrote: So Christianity is inherently peaceful and those people were just following it wrong and Islam is inherently violent and the people in the past were just following it wrong? Nice way to frame the debate there buddy.

When you can post some Biblical scripture that permits when happened..then I'll care. Til then...what the hell good is your argument?

I dont know as much about Islam as lapis but all this tells me is you havent read any direct source material or studied any of the major Islamic scholars. I wish I had some of my source books with me but I left them in Colorado when I got off school. I very clearly remember a passage from one of my readings directly referencing this. I think it was Uthman Dan Fodio but there is also a good chance I am wrong, its been awhile and I read a lot of shit. Anyways, the quote was talking about going on a Jihad against some foes or whatnot and mentioned it was the LESSER jihad. Actually, it might even have been Mohammed abd al-Wahab.

TEH OMG! YOU HATE ALL MUESLIMS!
I admit to only having a Quran. (I used to be an apologist, who argued that, no matter how much better the ME Quran scholors could argue than me...I was right and they weren't. Much like Lapis is doing now.) Until now, I have not read the Sunna. And it confirms FURTHER, Islamic violence.

This wasnt any of this feel good liberal Islam bullshit, this was coming from a full blooded Islamic jurist. And chances are if I have read this once with my very limited reading on Islam, it has been mentioned a number of times. And all I get from you is that you have done very little real research and know very little about what you are talking about and then making grand pronouncements. Thats bunk bro.

Oh please. You have no clue what you're talking about...but you're an Islamic jurist? That's bullshit of the nth degree. You can't be a jurist (expert) and yet not know what you're talking about. Since you admit that you don't know what you're talking about, we'll put you in the BS column ok? In the future, don't call yourself an expert or a jurist after admitting you've barely read the Quran. And if (by some chance), you're trying to reference Lapis as an Islamic jurist...guess what...he isn't either.

Assuming that I have no clue what I'm talking about...you don't either. And that makes you far from the person to call me on it.

---

At 5/24/07 01:19 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Because coming to the conclusion that Islam is violent, or condones violence, or at the very least has passages that can be construed as condoning violence, OF COURSE means that I (or anyone else) WANTS Islam to be violent.

When scores of Muslim scholars point out that Islam only condones violence in the case of external aggression, and you (or anyone else) starts to do his best to make the case for abrogation, that only extremists have used to be able to ignore verses that they don't like, to prove that they're wrong, then you to some extent want them to be wrong, or you only care about being right. Every time I read Suras it became more clear to me that the Qur'an doesn't encourage believers to actively go around and kill all non-believers or force them to submit, and I think you're knowingly twisting verses out of context because you want to be right.

And (having read the rest of what you wrote) if you really turned from an Islam apologiser into an advocate of the "true Islam is violent" doctrine not because you read the Qur'an and concluded that that was the only way it could be interpreted but because of the way that certain Muslims behave then I feel my notion was justified.

But hey, if you genuinely believe that Islam is violent (that's the only one I care about, Islam condones violence in some cases, yes, and that some passages can be construed as being violent is also through, albeit not legitimately) then good for you. I'll let you keep your true motives to yourself, I can never know them anyway.

Anyone who finds anything wrong with Islam is of course a bigot.

When you call my arguments claptrap you won't get a cordial response.

Of course it means what I say it means. "Kill all the jews" means kill all the jews. It sure as hell doesn't mean have them over for cake and tea.

Cite your verses. If you're talking about the Sunna verse, it doesn't say "kill all the Jews". And look at my previous two posts, "referring to a subgroup among a group such as (...)".

if one is spreading corruption simply by being Jewish, or "not holding what Allah holds or proscribing what Allah has proscribed."

I'm assuming you're citing 9:29, and even that verse doesn't call for the annihilation of the Jews. Even if (and by no means am I saying that it does) it referred to all Jews, it still ordains them to leave them alone if they pay the Jizya and are under Muslim rulership.

So sometime later in the same book, after going off on six or seven different tangants, they then talk about the battle of which you speak. Unless there's some other Holy book explaining why these particular two are linked...then, there's no reason to believe that the two are talking about each other.

The book is laden with passages speaking of Khaybar, and the passages between the one with the Jews and the stones and 195 cover related topics: first Muhammad says that the Hour will not come until battle has been done with the Jews and the Turks (convenient thing to say when your fighters are more preoccupied with the End of Days than the impending battles), then verses follow about past battles ("Once the Prophet was offering ...", 185), then there's a bit about the messengers that Muhammad sent to the neighbouring countries (same time period) and then follows the account about Khaybar. Although the passages in the Sunnah are not necessarily chronologically ordered nearby passages are often related.

It's funny, on the jihadwatch website I read "following the conquest of Mecca, Muhammad outlined the future of his religion", followed by that verse. I wonder why he assures that it was written after the conquest of Mecca.

Furthermore, as when the "talking rocks" incident is supposed to happen is at the time of "the hour" or the time of reckoning, it is certainly not the Battle of Khaibar that he was referring to here.

All that Abu Huraira says is that the hour won't be established until there has been a battle with Turks and Jews. The Hour can be established after the battle, the Turks and Jews don't have to be fought at the exact same time. And the "talking rocks" incident is allegorical, it simply indicates how much the Muslims are the right ones and how much their enemies are hated: it doesn't mean that the battle of Khaybar didn't qualify because there were no rocks that physically formed mouths and started to speak. And even Spencer apparently admits that it doens't have to refer to all Jews.

However, I find it interesting that the justification for war is just that they were too busy to pray...not that they were attacked and fighting in self defense.

It's not the justification, but it to some extent aggrevates the horridness of the attack.

The Hour will not only be heralded (or caused) by the killing of the Jews, but by the Battling of the Turks.

Only Allah can cause the hour (like stated before, "the appearance of the Relief (al-Faraj) depends solely upon Allah"). And the Hour does not have to be heralded by these events, all it says it that these fights will happen before the Hour.

The question can be reversed.

The only issue is whether or not violently spreading the dar-al-Islam is really one of the "tenets of their faith". That's what we're trying to answer here. Is it possible that they ignore their faith? Yes. Did they ignore their faith? That's what this topic is about. But the fact that there's a plethora of Muslim rulers in the past who were moderate in their belief indicates that I'm not the only one who assumes that Sura 9 is not the single most important Sura because it completely contradicts and overrides all other verses that ordain restraint and opting for peace during a war.

There is definately Quranic scripture that can, at the very least, be VERY easily misconstrued to support the jiyza on non-believers, support jihad to establish the faith, etc etc etc.

Yet it only appears in Sura 9. In all the other Suras (such as 2, 4, 8, 22 and 47) that mention warfare the strict conditions are mentioned in the same bloc of verses, in Sura 9 you have to look in 1, 4 and 13 to see who can be fought against in a minor Jihad.

Yet there is little (and I'm being generous) to suggest that jihad is anything but warfare.

A Jihad is simply the struggle in the way of God. There are many, many verses in the Qur'an that urge the believers to refrain from debaucheries, a lot more than there are verses that talk about violence. That's why the struggle against desire is the major struggle and the struggle against the attacks of non-believers the minor one.

Spreading corruption isn't spreading corruption in this world view if sc is ONLY spitting gum. The quran does not in any way shape or form say this, but still teh view is held. Etc.

I want the exact definition of spreading corruption according to you and verses that support that view. Sinning and spreading corruption or mischief are not equal by far.

---

At 5/24/07 03:51 AM, WolvenBear wrote: That is quite interesting. And given those verses alone, I would be inclined to agree with his interpretation. But as both 87:6-7

"The subject matter shows that this too is one of the earliest Surahs to be revealed, and the words: "We shall enable you to recite, then you shall never forget" of verse 6 also indicate that it was sent down in the period when the Holy Messenger (upon whom he Allah's peace) was not yet fully accustomed to receive Revelation and at the time Revelation came down he feared lest he should forget its words"

Kind of funny that I quote Maududi, because he supports the "Islam vs the rest of the world" theory. But it should remain clear that this verse does not speak of abrogation, and he worded it better than I can.

and 17:86 show,

God could take it all away, and then the believer would have no means to prevent it. Except the mercy of God, which prevents Him from doing it. That verse is in no way related to abrogation.

Allow me to repeat 2:106: "None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?"

In 47, it even makes reference to a Sura about fighting being oncoming.

This very Sura is also about fighting, it (47:20) says that believers ask for Suras to be revealed but shiver when it mentions war because they are afraid of death.

It also speaks of spreading corruption, as simply turning away from God and the teachings of Mohammad

As a believer. These verses refer to the cowards among the believers.

Sura 9 furthers this by beginning with the announcement that the treaty has been lifted by Allah.

9:4: "(But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous".

The treaties with those who aided the Mushriks at Hunain or earlier are dissolved - but
the treaties with those who did not aid the enemy aren't. Maududi, a conservative scholar, agrees with your notion, others don't, but 9:4 is crystal clear. The only ones who are at danger are the ones who conspired against the Muslims. They have four months, the holy months, to dally around and then they'll be considered enemies like the Quraysh.

They are idolaters who revile the religion, so fight them. If they turn to god, however, and pay the alms, say the prayers, they are forgiven. (9 1-15)

You must have conventiently missed the "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"of 9:13. The plots to expel the messenger refer to earlier inequities and this verse is therefore different from 9:12, which only refers to the aspotates, it refers to the Mushriks who are about to be campaigned against. The ones who are to be slain according to this Sura are those who attacked first, and this verse is therefore as much of a core verse as 9:5. The Mushriks and the Byzantines attacked the Muslims and now they're being called to strike back and fight them. Once again, the Sura stresses the "fight only when attacked" message of all the other Suras.

Fight those who do not truly believe, if they do not hold what Allah holds or forbid what he has forbidden.

As proclaimed before the Tabuk campaign. The inequities of the Jews and Christians are being emphasised as a preparation. Some are still righteous (3:113-114), this remains unchanged.

Islam is the religion of truth, and the idolaters (including Jews and Christians) hate it. (9:28-33)

They are separate, Christians and Jews are mentioned in 32 and the idolators in 33.

Speaking out against Islam is also a way to spread mischief/cause corruption. 9:64-67

"[Y]e have rejected Faith after ye had accepted it", they're apostates. The entire bit refers to the Muslims who conspired against Islam and Muhammad. Different standards apply to believers than to non-believers.

As is postponing the sacred months 9:37

It "is an addition to Unbelief". It isn't spreading corruption, and it doesn't justify getting killed for per se.

Even stpulating that this is fully justified, it makes it clear that Muslims are to fight.

Against those who fight Islam, those who "took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you". That is true, and that has consistently been proclaimed throughout the Qur'an. It's identical to 47:20 in a way, believers who refuse to defend the faith against the unbelievers are sinning grievously.

Belivers, do not take your fathers and brothers as allies if they prefer disbelief to faith. Those who do so are wrong.

For protectors, for owliya. "Friends" is not an adequate translation. Read my earlier post about 5:55.

in 8 that directly contradict earlier verses.

Sigh, cite your verses. I'm not going to guess which ones your talking about.

Bigot! Islamophobic! You want Islam to be violent!

Sigh, get over yourself. Your tone was not exactly amicable. If someone says "I have concerns about the violent passages in the Qur'an" then I won't call him a bigot. If he says: "Muhammid was a conquerer, a looter, a thief, and an employer of assassins. And those were some of his good qualities", then I might. If he calls my argument claptrap later on then I sure as Hell will.

We who are still fence sitters, or who are even tilted to your favor see the imams refusing to condemn Hamas and Hezbollah. We see the murderous violence after the Muhammid cartoons. And we hear (mostly) the deafening silence from the Islamic communities.

You can't expect a massive outcry every single time and it also shouldn't affect the way you interpret the verses of the Qur'an. At all. If you are truly upset about them, the best way to argue against them would be to point out why they are wronging their own religion, and urging them to voice their complaints about Islam being misused in a louder fashion.

And instead of emailing Spencer on his factual mistakes, you call it spin and snicker.

I stick to Newgrounds so I only debate what goes on in here. I also doubt it will lead to many results if I send him an e-mail.

Kholmeni could cite verse and chapter about teh Shah's failures, but the Shah had nothing to come back with except imprisonment and exile.

He did not have a lot of public support to begin with, having been put into power by foreign powers as a replacement for an Iranian who tried to nationalise oil companies, he could have started a factual debate but it would have been to no avail. Interfering with Sharia is not persecution per se, and he could have stressed that. But he never would have won over those who hated him.

---

At 5/24/07 09:04 AM, lapis wrote: aspotates,

Yeah, I know. Apostates.

At 5/24/07 05:52 AM, WolvenBear wrote: There are plenty of Islamic sharia groups.

They aren't political parties, and if they were they'd get little to no votes. Your point is irrelevant.

If you have to pray 5 times a day, then you're not terribly productive.

That's not what I meant, and you it. I meant not being hired because your last name is Hussaini instead of Van Gelder. I've yet to meet to first Muslim who demanded refular prayer during worktime, maybe there a few hundred people in all Western nations summed together who demand this.

There is, however, a Qur'anic basis for lying. There is none for Judiasm.

There is a Talmudic basis for hiding the true meaning of the Torah from the unbelievers: it's in Ketubot 111a.

Saddam may not have ruled by Sharia, but to say that he didn't use Muslim doctrine to his advantage is false.

Examples?

Disbelieving IS a form of making war. The entirity of sura 9 makes that quite clear.

If a treaty with a Mushrik is supposed to be upheld if they do not aid the enemies of Islam (9:4) then they're not making war by disbelieving. Point rebutted, anything else? Something a bit more ... convincing?

Lapis is looking at groups of thousands of men with ill intentions and seeing shadows.

If you have a thousands of examples of Taqqiya then show them. I'll let Fab answer the rest.

It's about both. Ahmendenijad is using the Quran to justify his nuclear program. That should give us all pause.

A fatwa has only allowed nuclear weapons, but only if they're "countermeasure" against other powers.

At 5/24/07 06:05 AM, WolvenBear wrote: So, basing it on the Quran...the unadulterated word of God...isn't enough?
3:28

That says nothing about Taqiyya, and it only says that you should take believers for your friends instead of non-believers if the choice arises. Still, if the extremists misrepresent Islam then they're hypocrites and not really worthy of being mentioned in this verse.

5:55

Haha, brilliant. Convenient that you left the post in which I mentioned 5:55 out of your responses, don't take them as protectors or the most intimate of friends. Owliya.

It's plenty easy in The USA for Muslims. Please. Be real.

Sigh, maybe a bit harder than for non-Muslims since 9/11. The point was that many information about extremists comes from within the Muslim community.

But they ascribe partners to God, making them unclean. And therefore, they do not hold what Allah holds...etc.

Unclean, but not worthy of being killed.

Um...except he never lied. HE used the same intelligence that Clinton and Bush Sr. used. So, yea, you're full of crap on this one.

He said "we've never been 'stay the course'" and then the video shows several occasions where he said this exact phrase. I wasn't talking about WMD, good job on not knowing what you're talking about (again).

Secular nations are by no means moderately Islamic. They are anti-religion.

A secular nation is a nation where clerics have no influence over politics. The Netherlands is a secular nation yet the biggest party is a Christian party.

That's as weak of an argument as ever I heard.

Yeah, because there's this big media conspiracy that keeps this sort of information out of the public. But media polls that indicate that many Muslims wouldn't mind the Sharia being introduced somehow make it through. Sure, Wolven. And mankind never landed on the moon.

At 5/24/07 06:11 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

What a weak response to this post, by the way. I hope you don't sincerely believe that you can away with this.

By your own link, abrogation was created (and retained) by the Islamic community.

If the verse did not completely annul the previous one. "None of Our revelations do We abrogate".

There's a further case as your source doesn't address ALL quranic verse dealing with abrogation.

The two that you gave me didn't mention anything that even closely resembled abrogation, so I'm sort of leaning towards not believing you.

Abrogation is not applicable in the case of 9:5. Period.

---

YES!!!! YES IT CAN!!!! Look, if you actually read the whole Q'uoran you will see that things such as Jihad, is actually a war on temptation, all religions preach peace, so they CAN work together, IF people stop trying to get one-up on each other