[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I have. What does it have to do with Islam and where does it prescribe open-ended warfare against unbelievers as Islam does?
Oh.
So it doesn’t say to, upon the enemy desisting, to stop warring against them immediately, even if it means accepting unfavourable peace conditions?
Or are you going out of your way to misrepresent the religion?
You mean misrepresent your religion?
The terms are entirely those of the Muslims. You have three options:
- Convert
- Pay jizyah and accept dhimmitude
- Die
What are the reasons for warfare in the first place? That there is “unbelief” in Allah.
The unbelievers declared open war against all muslims.
What did I misrepresent? So far you’ve demonstrated zero knowledge of Islam, meaning you’re either a taqiyya practicing Muslim or a useful idiot. I’m not sure which is worse.
The Qur’an (Second Surah) says:
-
Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. God does not love aggressors.
-
And slay them wherever you find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the inviolable place of worship until they attack you there, but if they attack you there then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.
-
[i]But if they desist, then lo! God is Forgiving, Merciful.[/i]
-
And fight with them until persecution is no more, and religion is for God. [i]But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers.[/i]
Not persecuting muslims seems to be a pretty clear option #4.
Thank you for that standard Muslim lie.
Tafsir al-Jalalayn says that that verse has been abrogated by 9:1:
http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=2&tAyahNo=190&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0
The real key to these surahs is the Islamic definition defensive conflict.
What constitutes a defensive conflict? A clue to that comes in v. 193: “And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.” Ibn Ishaq explains that this means that Muslims must fight against unbelievers “until God alone is worshipped.” Says Bulandshahri: “The worst of sins are Infidelity (Kufr) and Polytheism (shirk) which constitute rebellion against Allah, The Creator. To eradicate these, Muslims are required to wage war until there exists none of it in the world, and the only religion is that of Allah.” This conflict would be essentially defensive, against the aggressions of unbelief: if Muslims must fight until unbelief does not exist, the mere presence of unbelief constitutes sufficient aggression to allow for the beginning of hostilities. This is one of the foundations for the supremacist notion that Muslims must wage war against unbelievers until those unbelievers are either converted to Islam or subjugated under the rule of Islamic law, as 9:29 states explicitly. As the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad, puts it: “I have been commanded to fight against people, till they testify to the fact that there is no god but Allah, and believe in me (that) I am the messenger (from the Lord) and in all that I have brought. And when they do it, their blood and riches are guaranteed protection on my behalf except where it is justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.” Thus one may reasonably assume that if one does not accept him as a prophet, one’s blood and riches are not safe from those who read these words as the words of a messenger from the one true God.
So unbelief is a good enough reason for you Muslims to wage “defensive” jihad. What an enlightening religion it is - it can only be spread by the sword.
So what you’re saying is if you take v. 193 out of context, and make wild assumptions about what it might mean, it might be interpretable in a way that condones what v 190 prohibits.
Also, I don’t care what “Ibn Ishaq” had to say about Islam any more than I care what my neighbour has to say about his favorite brand of potato chip. You can imagine, then, how I feel about someone else’s opinions about what Ibn Ishaq had to say (since none of his original works survive).
but thanks for demonstrating my point. Except for the occasional irrational hatred for the irish, there’s always some rationale to people’s bigotry, but it’s predicated on factually incorrect information, and errors in logic.[/quote]
Are Muslims even capable of telling the truth? The more I debate them, the more I think the answer is, “no.”
You don’t care what the first biographer of Mohammed says, huh? You don’t think Sirah Rasoul Allah is on any value? Well, unfortunately for your line of argumentation, Muslims go to Ibn Ishaq for the historical context of Mohammed’s conversation with Allah (the Qur’an).
The Qur’an has almost no historical context, and is ultimately unintelligible without Ibn Ishaq and the Hadith. I didn’t pull the surah out of context at all - I gave you the context. Either way, as al-Jalalayn demonstrates, it was given before Surah 9, and Mohammed’s Meccan Surahs are abrogated by his Medinan Surahs (Surah 9).
Don’t lie about the context of 2:193 - I gave it.