French and Mali armies kills 100 jihadists this month

[Jonsa]

That was an evasion. The Qur'an explicitly tells Muslims they must fight, kill, and die to get into heaven. Some try to obey, hence Islamist jihad. No "perversion" of scripture is necessary - only slavish obedience.

no. here is the deal. Jihadls principle meaning and most of its invocations have NOTHING to do with religious war. Not a damn thing. It has to do with the "Eternal Internal Struggle of All Humans:" in defining and lving a valued and righteous life amidst all of life's temptations and vicissitudes. The path to paradise is a long one, with one notable and convenient direct shortcut.

There can be no higher "calling" in one's life than to die in name of God in defense of his worshipful righteous earthly kingdom. Gazillions of christians believe that for damn sure. OTOH, you be dead so in Islam's case you get a one way ticket to paradise. Now way back in the day, that was all about covering the horrific crimes a soldier of those times would commit in war - crimes that ordinarily the prophet had deemed a date with the headsman or a bunch of bloodthirsty self righteous hags with big stones and immediate VIP transportation to Jahannam. Oh wait, what would jesus do in a war?

So, I acknowledge the various admonitions to fight against the enemies of allah, etc one can find in the qu'ran, all of which occur in its version of the "new testament" the ,Medina surahs. You may recall he had to get outta dodge, I mean Mecca, fast and ran to Medina where he plotted and executed a triumphant return some years and buckets o blood later. One can notice the distinct change in tone, tenor and substance in those parts, quelle surprise.

Lemme put it another way, What exactly is stopping a Christian leader interpreting Samuel 15:2-3 as justification for genocide? Oh excuse me, I forgot all those self righteous nazi bastards, and don't get me started on the Belgians.

Twisted people twist what they need to indulge the twist in the first place. nuff said.

 

[stevecanuck]

no. here is the deal. Jihadls principle meaning and most of its invocations have NOTHING to do with religious war. Not a damn thing. It has to do with the "Eternal Internal Struggle of All Humans:" in defining and lving a valued and righteous life amidst all of life's temptations and vicissitudes. The path to paradise is a long one, with one notable and convenient direct shortcut.

There can be no higher "calling" in one's life than to die in name of God in defense of his worshipful righteous earthly kingdom. Gazillions of christians believe that for damn sure. OTOH, you be dead so in Islam's case you get a one way ticket to paradise. Now way back in the day, that was all about covering the horrific crimes a soldier of those times would commit in war - crimes that ordinarily the prophet had deemed a date with the headsman or a bunch of bloodthirsty self righteous hags with big stones and immediate VIP transportation to Jahannam. Oh wait, what would jesus do in a war?

So, I acknowledge the various admonitions to fight against the enemies of allah, etc one can find in the qu'ran, all of which occur in its version of the "new testament" the ,Medina surahs. You may recall he had to get outta dodge, I mean Mecca, fast and ran to Medina where he plotted and executed a triumphant return some years and buckets o blood later. One can notice the distinct change in tone and tenor and substance in those parts.

Lemme put it another way, What exactly is stopping a Christian leader interpreting Samuel 15:2-3 as justification for genocide? Oh excuse me, I forgot all those self righteous nazi holymen.

Twisted people twist what they need to indulge the twist in the first place. nuff said.

I plan to answer this in more depth tomorrow, but for now, I want to be sure of one thing. You started with the word "No". Are you denying that the Qur'an explicitly tells Muslims they must fight, kill, and die to get into heaven?

 

[Jonsa]

I plan to answer this in more depth tomorrow, but for now, I want to be sure of one thing. You started with the word "No". Are you denying that the Qur'an explicitly tells Muslims they must fight, kill, and die to get into heaven?

I said no to your "slavish obedience" explanation.

I am not denying it at all. I'm quite explicit in my explanation and you surely can't interpret my post as not having a rather indepth understanding of the exact issue you raise.

I am also indirectly admonishing you to apply the same template to Islam as you do to your religion and how you reconcile your sinful thoughts and life to the bibles admonitions not to mention recognize how it has been and is currently being cynically "interpreted" as personal need or political opportunity may require.

Everybody twists his "spiritual" self to accommodate their material self.

 

[stevecanuck]

no. here is the deal. Jihadls principle meaning and most of its invocations have NOTHING to do with religious war.

That's simply not true. The majority of mentions of jihad in the qur'an directly relate to warfare.

Surah 9 uses 'qatl (fight/kill)' and 'jihad' interchangeably. I previously summarized that as follows:


Sura 9 contains the following verses in which conjugations of 'jihad' are clearly used interchangeably with those of 'qatl' (kill/fight), and all in the context of fighting for allah and Islam. I have shown in parentheses whether 'qatl' or 'jihad' was used:

9:12 - But if, after coming to terms with you, they break their oaths and revile your belief, fight (qatl) the leaders of the disbelief - for they have no oaths - in order that they will desist.
9:13 - Will you not fight (qatl) against those who have broken their oaths and conspired to expel the Messenger?
9:14 - Fight (qatl) them, Allah will punish them with your hands and degrade them. He will grant you victory over them and heal the chests of a believing nation.
9:16 - Did you suppose that you would be left before Allah has known those of you who fought (jihad) and did not take a confidant other than Allah, His Messenger, and the believers? Allah is Aware of what you do.
9:19 - Do you consider giving drink to the pilgrims and inhabiting the Sacred Mosque is the same as one who believes in Allah and the Last Day, and struggles (jihad) in the Way of Allah? These are not held equal by Allah. Allah does not guide the harm-doers. (In this case 'jihad' is interpreted in most translations as 'struggle' or 'strive', but is still used in the context of fighting. Here, God (actually Mohamed pretending to receive revelations) is telling the faithful that simply cheering and praying will not please him as much as fighting).
9:20 - Those who believe, and migrated, and struggle (jihad) in the Way of Allah with their wealth and their persons are greater in rank with Allah. It is they who are the winners (continuation of 9:19).
9:24 - Say: 'If your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your wives, your tribes, the property you have acquired, the merchandise you fear will not be sold, and the homes you love, are dearer to you than Allah, His Messenger and the struggling (jihad) for His Way, then wait until Allah shall bring His command. Allah does not guide the evildoers.'
9:25- Allah has helped you on many a battlefield. In the Battle of Hunain, when your numbers were pleasing you they availed you nothing; the earth, for all its vastness, seemed to close in upon you and you turned your backs and fled. (I've included this to prove that warfare is the topic at hand, lest anyone tries to tell us Mohamed was organizing a bake sale.)
9:29 - Fight (qatl) those who neither believe in Allah nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, and do not embrace the religion of the truth, being among those who have been given the Book (Bible and the Torah), until they pay tribute out of hand and have been humiliated.
9:39 - If you do not go forth, He will punish you with a painful punishment and replace you by another nation. You will in no way harm Him; for Allah has power over all things. (This shows Allah/Mohamed is still cajoling and threatening the faithful to lay down their lives for him.)
9:41 - Whether lightly or heavily, march on and fight (jihad) for Way of Allah, with your wealth and your persons. This will be best for you, if you but knew.
9:44 - Those who believe in Allah and the Last Day will not ask your permission so that they may struggle (jihad) with their wealth and their selves. Allah knows best the righteous.

Notice that 'qatl' is the root word for the first three verses above, but gives way to 'jihad' in the next four, reverts to 'qatl' in the infamous 9:29, then goes back to 'jihad' by 9:41, proving that the two are used interchangeably.

I've also highlighted the phrases "go forth" and "and their selves". They are code for fighting used several times in the qur'an.

(more to come).

 

[stevecanuck]

It has to do with the "Eternal Internal Struggle of All Humans:" in defining and lving a valued and righteous life amidst all of life's temptations and vicissitudes. The path to paradise is a long one, with one notable and convenient direct shortcut.

Correct. And that path involves fighting and dying as 9:111 CLEARLY says.

There can be no higher "calling" in one's life than to die in name of God in defense of his worshipful righteous earthly kingdom. Gazillions of christians believe that for damn sure. OTOH, you be dead so in Islam's case you get a one way ticket to paradise. Now way back in the day, that was all about covering the horrific crimes a soldier of those times would commit in war - crimes that ordinarily the prophet had deemed a date with the headsman or a bunch of bloodthirsty self righteous hags with big stones and immediate VIP transportation to Jahannam. Oh wait, what would jesus do in a war?

Are you saying the crimes came first, and scriptural approval second? Seems like it. You can't defend that entirely gratuitous claim.

So, I acknowledge the various admonitions to fight against the enemies of allah, etc one can find in the qu'ran, all of which occur in its version of the "new testament" the ,Medina surahs.

Correct. No mention of fighting occurred during the Meccan period. As to "enemies of Allah", I hope you realize that simply not believing in Allah, and therefore not following Mohamed, is all it takes to be labeled as such.

You may recall he had to get outta dodge, I mean Mecca, fast and ran to Medina where he plotted and executed a triumphant return some years and buckets o blood later. One can notice the distinct change in tone, tenor and substance in those parts, quelle surprise.

History is written by the winner. Mohamed SAID he had to flee for his life, but I think it's more likely that he just got tired of being ignored for 12 years and used that for an excuse (He was apparently a slow learner). Yes, the tone changed, and that's my point. The day he left Mecca was the day he turned Islam into the warrior religion that it remains to be.

Lemme put it another way, What exactly is stopping a Christian leader interpreting Samuel 15:2-3 as justification for genocide? Oh excuse me, I forgot all those self righteous nazi bastards, and don't get me started on the Belgians.

Start a thread. This one's about Islam.

Twisted people twist what they need to indulge the twist in the first place. nuff said.

Again you're making the unsupported claim that the qur'an is being twisted. It demands warfare and killing. Some devout, utterly sucked in Muslims, are trying their best to obey. Denying that is an example of Slothful Induction.

 

[stevecanuck]

I said no to your "slavish obedience" explanation.

I am not denying it at all. I'm quite explicit in my explanation and you surely can't interpret my post as not having a rather indepth understanding of the exact issue you raise.

I am also indirectly admonishing you to apply the same template to Islam as you do to your religion and how you reconcile your sinful thoughts and life to the bibles admonitions not to mention recognize how it has been and is currently being cynically "interpreted" as personal need or political opportunity may require.

Not only do you make claims you can't support, but incorrect assumptions as well.

Everybody twists his "spiritual" self to accommodate their material self.

This seems to be your default position. The qur'an (as you admit) demands people wage inner jihad as well as physical jihad. That means they are being asked to do the exact opposite of what you claim. They must subvert their earthly desires to serve allah. As 2:216 says, "Prescribed for you is fighting, though it be hateful to you".

Side note: Mohsin Khan has no problem translating 'qatl' into 'jihad' - "Jihad (holy fighting in Allah's Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it".

 

[Jonsa]

That's simply not true. The majority of mentions of jihad in the qur'an directly relate to warfare.

Surah 9 uses 'qatl (fight/kill)' and 'jihad' interchangeably. I previously summarized that as follows:


Notice that 'qatl' is the root word for the first three verses above, but gives way to 'jihad' in the next four, reverts to 'qatl' in the infamous 9:29, then goes back to 'jihad' by 9:41, proving that the two are used interchangeably.

I've also highlighted the phrases "go forth" and "and their selves". They are code for fighting used several times in the qur'an.

(more to come).

I am well aware of these passages. I get it. You are merely repeating what is already on the record as if it somehow revalidates the facts we both accept. Its just I have more of those facts and greater context.

I don't dispute the content I dispute your interpretation as an exhortation to waging religious war.

It is not an exhortation it is a JUSTIFICATION for Ol' Mo breaking the treaty of Hudaybiyyahb and attacking Mecca (the idolators). From that it has been used by those so politically or spiritually inclined to justify waging aggressive wars of avaristic expansion of the Islamic ummah. Just like the whack job Islamist terrorist scumbags have accepted this twisted interpretation as a blatant free pass for their disgusting inhuman behaviors.

I wonder if there are any such special dispensations for going off to fight a christian war.. I could be wrong but if so, tens of millions of christian soldiers are rotting in hell.

Again, people twist what they need to meet their twisted needs. Doesn't matter if its a nutter Islamist with a koran in his hand or a bible thumping foam spitting patriot crapping in the halls of democracy. Same psychological mechanism, with obvious differing but nonetheless twisted effect.

We can at least violently agree that Islamists terrorists and every other kind of violent religious fanatic are scum.

 

[Court Jester]

Let the bodies hit the floor....

Let the bodies hit the floor.....

THIS!

 

[Jonsa]

Correct. And that path involves fighting and dying as 9:111 CLEARLY says.

obvious nuance beyond you?

Are you saying the crimes came first, and scriptural approval second? Seems like it. You can't defend that entirely gratuitous claim.

Well some crimes came first, but Mo knew what was up. He had to justify breaking the treaty. His objectives are clearly laid out and so is the religious dispensation to execute the battle plan. So yeah, this particular sura just happened to arrive in the world simultaneous to the launch of his campaign against the idolators of Mecca.

Correct. No mention of fighting occurred during the Meccan period. As to "enemies of Allah", I hope you realize that simply not believing in Allah, and therefore not following Mohamed, is all it takes to be labeled as such.

labelled by who exactly? your statement is nonsense without context. I hope you realize that simply not believing in Jeheovah and therefore not a follower of jesus, is sufficient to label you an enemy of christians and entitle them to claim oppression.

History is written by the winner. Mohamed SAID he had to flee for his life, but I think it's more likely that he just got tired of being ignored for 12 years and used that for an excuse (He was apparently a slow learner). Yes, the tone changed, and that's my point. The day he left Mecca was the day he turned Islam into the warrior religion that it remains to be.

Oh please. Educate yourself before making an arse of yourself by demonstrating bigoted ignorance. While there are differing versions of mo's history, the power struggle in mecca was well documented by non islamic scholars of the day (both pagan, hebrew,and christian).

Start a thread. This one's about Islam.

nice dodge.

Again you're making the unsupported claim that the qur'an is being twisted. It demands warfare and killing. Some devout, utterly sucked in Muslims, are trying their best to obey. Denying that is an example of Slothful Induction.

Well I tellya what, you're a Canadian, walk down to the local mosque and aske them about Islamist terrorists and do they spout a twisted hateful interpretation of Islam. As for the devout being utterly sucked in, well d'uh that is the whole modus operandi of every damn religion in history.

 

[Jonsa]

Not only do you make claims you can't support, but incorrect assumptions as well.

okay you are not a christian. sorry for the assumption.

This seems to be your default position. The qur'an (as you admit) demands people wage inner jihad as well as physical jihad. That means they are being asked to do the exact opposite of what you claim. They must subvert their earthly desires to serve allah. As 2:216 says, "Prescribed for you is fighting, though it be hateful to you".

Side note: Mohsin Khan has no problem translating 'qatl' into 'jihad' - "Jihad (holy fighting in Allah's Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it".

Yes its my default position. I always attempt to take a sociological big picture perspective when it comes to religion on account of the fact I'm an agnostic atheist who rejects ALL religious dogma out of hand. As much as you insist scriptures influence human behavior, human behavior influenced scripture. IN EVERY religion's development.

I accept that lowlife scumbags interpret passages of Islamic scripture to justify their batshit crazy actions. I'm just not willing to demonize an entire religion or any other for that matter for the actions of their extreme adherents.

 

[stevecanuck]

I am well aware of these passages. I get it. You are merely repeating what is already on the record as if it somehow revalidates the facts we both accept. Its just I have more of those facts and greater context.

I don't dispute the content I dispute your interpretation as an exhortation to waging religious war.

It is not an exhortation it is a JUSTIFICATION for Ol' Mo breaking the treaty of Hudaybiyyahb and attacking Mecca (the idolators). From that it has been used by those so politically or spiritually inclined to justify waging aggressive wars of avaristic expansion of the Islamic ummah. Just like the whack job Islamist terrorist scumbags have accepted this twisted interpretation as a blatant free pass for their disgusting inhuman behaviors.

I wonder if there are any such special dispensations for going off to fight a christian war.. I could be wrong but if so, tens of millions of christian soldiers are rotting in hell.

Again, people twist what they need to meet their twisted needs. Doesn't matter if its a nutter Islamist with a koran in his hand or a bible thumping foam spitting patriot crapping in the halls of democracy. Same psychological mechanism, with obvious differing but nonetheless twisted effect.

We can at least violently agree that Islamists terrorists and every other kind of violent religious fanatic are scum.

You entire argument is based on reversing cause and effect. The irony is that for Mohamed, you're 100% right, but for every other Muslim you're 100% wrong. Allow me to explain:

Mohamed wanted to punish the Meccans for ignoring and mocking him, so yes, he made up revelations from allah to justify his bloody intent. He made up the entire qur'an to make it say exactly what he needed it to say depending on what was going on in his life at the time. He wanted more wives, he wanted to have sex with captives, so no problem - Gabriel showed up that night and gave him permission. Easy Peasy.

Trouble is, he convinced enough people that he really was getting revelations, and here we are. There is no way 9:111 does not mean exactly what it says. Bur, don't just take my word for it.

Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi (https://www.englishtafsir.com/Quran/9/index.html), summarizes "the problems that were confronting the [Islamic] Community at that time" thus:

- to make the whole of Arabia a perfect Dar-ul-Islam [abode of Islam],
- to extend the influence of Islam to the adjoining countries,
- to crush the mischief of the hypocrites, and
- to prepare the Muslims for Jihad against the non- Muslim world.

In order to enable the Muslims to extend the influence of Islam outside Arabia, they were enjoined to crush with sword the non- Muslim powers and to force them to accept the sovereignty of the Islamic State. As the great Roman and Iranian Empires were the biggest hindrances in the way, a conflict with them was inevitable. The object of Jihad was not to coerce them to accept Islam they were free to accept or not to accept it-but to prevent them from thrusting forcibly their deviations [non-Islamic religions] upon others and the coming generations. The Muslims were enjoined to tolerate their misguidance only to the extent that they might have the freedom to remain misguided, if they chose to be so, provided that they paid Jizyah (v. 29) as a sign of their subjugation to the Islamic State.

In order to prepare the Muslims for Jihad against the whole non-Muslim world, it was necessary to cure them even of that slight weakness of faith from which they were still suffering. For there could be no greater internal danger to the Islamic Community than the weakness of faith, especially where it was going to engage itself single-handed in a' conflict with the whole non-Muslim world. That is why those people who had lagged behind in the Campaign to Tabuk or had shown the least negligence were severely taken to task, and were considered hypocrites if they had no plausible excuse for not fulfilling that obligation. Moreover, a clear declaration was made that in future the sole criterion of a Muslim's faith shall be the exertions he makes for the uplift of the Word of Allah and the role he plays in the conflict between Islam and kufr. Therefore, if anyone will show any hesitation in sacrificing his life, money, time and energies, his faith shall not be regarded as genuine. This is a reference to verses 9:81-96.

 

[stevecanuck]

obvious nuance beyond you?

Well some crimes came first, but Mo knew what was up. He had to justify breaking the treaty. His objectives are clearly laid out and so is the religious dispensation to execute the battle plan. So yeah, this particular sura just happened to arrive in the world simultaneous to the launch of his campaign against the idolators of Mecca.

Where's that superior knowledge you claim to have? Sura 9 was created after the conquest of Mecca and is mostly about the Tabuk expedition.

labelled by who exactly? your statement is nonsense without context.

Again, all that knowledge and contextual insight you claim seems to have gone missing. God said it - explicitly in 2:98 (Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and His messengers and Gabriel and Michael - then indeed, Allah is an enemy to the disbelievers).

Oh please. Educate yourself before making an arse of yourself by demonstrating bigoted ignorance. While there are differing versions of mo's history, the power struggle in mecca was well documented by non islamic scholars of the day (both pagan, hebrew,and christian).

As I said, "The day he left Mecca was the day he turned Islam into the warrior religion that it remains to be". You have admitted as much yourself earlier. Wars of conquest began almost immediately, continued after his death, and are experiencing a rebirth today.

nice dodge.

Staying on topic is not a dodge. Your whataboutism is a dodge.

 

[Jonsa]

You entire argument is based on reversing cause and effect. The irony is that for Mohamed, you're 100% right, but for every other Muslim you're 100% wrong. Allow me to explain:

Mohamed wanted to punish the Meccans for ignoring and mocking him, so yes, he made up revelations from allah to justify his bloody intent. He made up the entire qur'an to make it say exactly what he needed it to say depending on what was going on in his life at the time. He wanted more wives, he wanted to have sex with captives, so no problem - Gabriel showed up that night and gave him permission. Easy Peasy.

Trouble is, he convinced enough people that he really was getting revelations, and here we are. There is no way 9:111 does not mean exactly what it says. Bur, don't just take my word for it.

Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi (https://www.englishtafsir.com/Quran/9/index.html), summarizes "the problems that were confronting the [Islamic] Community at that time" thus:

I think we are in more or less agreement. OTOH, your statement about every other muslim is just bullshit. As for convincing enough people that is exactly the goal of religion and politics and marketing.

Where we differ is you focus on the fringe interpretations and I focus on the mainstream interpretation. I draw parallels between all the religions and how their most fanatic adherents adopt advantageous interpretations of their scriptures in order to accomplish political goals.

 

[Jonsa]

Where's that superior knowledge you claim to have? Sura 9 was created after the conquest of Mecca and is mostly about the Tabuk expedition.

No, it was a direct reference to breaking the treaty.

Again, all that knowledge and contextual insight you claim seems to have gone missing. God said it - explicitly in 2:98 (Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and His messengers and Gabriel and Michael - then indeed, Allah is an enemy to the disbelievers).

Again, I do not debate the content. I debate your universal interpretation to condemn all muslims. Where is your insights into sectarian interpretation? Do all christians believe the same thing? Do they emphasize the same admonitions? Can these interpretations be diametrically opposed?

As I said, "The day he left Mecca was the day he turned Islam into the warrior religion that it remains to be". You have admitted as much yourself earlier. Wars of conquest began almost immediately, continued after his death, and are experiencing a rebirth today.

It is not a warrior religion, any more than christianity is.

Staying on topic is not a dodge. Your whataboutism is a dodge.

Not whataboutsim, attempting to frame the issue in a way that broadens your perspective and understanding. You are adamant in your excoriation of Islam, yet the same dynamics (if not violence today) can be found in every other major religion. Both history and contemporary events bare witness.

BTW, I am an agnostic atheist. I reject all religious dogma out of hand. I do not believe in "received" knowledge from invisible sky beings that require their creations to worship them or burn. Unfortunately not enough humans agree.

 

[ecofarm]

You should. People who would like to see you dead take it seriously.

That's so stupid.

 

[stevecanuck]

I think we are in more or less agreement. OTOH, your statement about every other muslim is just bullshit. As for convincing enough people that is exactly the goal of religion and politics and marketing.

Where we differ is you focus on the fringe interpretations and I focus on the mainstream interpretation. I draw parallels between all the religions and how their most fanatic adherents adopt advantageous interpretations of their scriptures in order to accomplish political goals.

You completely blew off the Islamic scholar I linked to.

 

[stevecanuck]

No, it was a direct reference to breaking the treaty.

Another swing and a miss. Your "superior knowledge of context" is batting an o-fer.

According to the scholar that you pretended doesn't exist, "The first discourse (vv. 1-37), was revealed in Zil-Qa'adah A.H. 9 or thereabout. As the importance of the subject of the discourse required its declaration on the occasion of Haj the Holy Prophet dispatched Hadrat Ali to follow Hadrat Abu Bakr, who had already left for Makkah as leader of the Pilgrims to the Ka'abah. He instructed Hadrat Ali to deliver the discourse before the representatives of the different clans of Arabia so as to inform them of the new policy towards the mushriks."

That translates to early 631 (https://www.islamicity.org/hijri-gregorian-converter/?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1#), well after the conquest of Mecca. This is NOT a command to break any treaty, let alone Hudabayyah, but a command to attack after a treaty expires.

The remainder of the surah is about Tabuk, and according to Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, prepares "the Muslims for Jihad against the non- Muslim world".

 

[Jonsa]

You completely blew off the Islamic scholar I linked to.

Exactly how many islamic scholars are there? How many schools of Islamic thought are there again?

 

[stevecanuck]

Where we differ is you focus on the fringe interpretations and I focus on the mainstream interpretation. I draw parallels between all the religions and how their most fanatic adherents adopt advantageous interpretations of their scriptures in order to accomplish political goals.

That's your 'get out of jihad free' card, isn't it? If you say "interpretation" enough times, then you can pretend that extremely clear verses can mean something other than what they say. There is no "interpretation" that can change, "They fight in the cause of Allah. They kill and are killed" to mean anything other than, "They fight in the cause of Allah. They kill and are killed".

 

[stevecanuck]

Exactly how many islamic scholars are there? How many schools of Islamic thought are there again?

Please avail us of your "superior knowledge" and tell us what he got wrong.

 

[Jonsa]

Another swing and a miss. Your "superior knowledge of context" is batting an o-fer.

According to the scholar that you pretended doesn't exist, "The first discourse (vv. 1-37), was revealed in Zil-Qa'adah A.H. 9 or thereabout. As the importance of the subject of the discourse required its declaration on the occasion of Haj the Holy Prophet dispatched Hadrat Ali to follow Hadrat Abu Bakr, who had already left for Makkah as leader of the Pilgrims to the Ka'abah. He instructed Hadrat Ali to deliver the discourse before the representatives of the different clans of Arabia so as to inform them of the new policy towards the mushriks."

That translates to early 631 (https://www.islamicity.org/hijri-gregorian-converter/?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1#), well after the conquest of Mecca. This is NOT a command to break any treaty, let alone Hudabayyah, but a command to attack after a treaty expires.

The remainder of the surah is about Tabuk, and according to Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, prepares "the Muslims for Jihad against the non- Muslim world".

Thank you for correcting my false understanding. I was certain.... can I claim a senior's moment instead of intellectual conceit?

 

[Jonsa]

That's your 'get out of jihad free' card, isn't it? If you say "interpretation" enough times, then you can pretend that extremely clear verses can mean something other than what they say. There is no "interpretation" that can change, "They fight in the cause of Allah. They kill and are killed" to mean anything other than, "They fight in the cause of Allah. They kill and are killed".

Yep and then they put those admonitions into context of the political times. Odd that there is such an ebb and flow to militancy thru the ages, wot?

 

[joko104]

Why aren't we bombing someone in West Africa?! Whatever is going on, it's probably our fault because every conflict in the world is, but the other side is truly pure evil and therefore must be stopped. Don't listen to isolationists try to tell you otherwise because they are traitors and selfish.

 

[Jonsa]

delete dupe

 

[Jonsa]

Why aren't we bombing someone in West Africa?! Whatever is going on, it's probably our fault because every conflict in the world is, but the other side is truly pure evil and therefore must be stopped. Don't listen to isolationists try to tell you otherwise because they are traitors and selfish.

Now that's a fine whine. Lemme guess, white?