The Qur'an clearly links 'jihad' with fighting.

[Tigerace117]

Gratuitous denial that ignores the fact that Israel pulled out of Gaza. Why would they do that if they wanted it? What a stupid 'argument'!



Making up more 'history', I see. See my comments on the 1967 war. Also explain why Israel unilaterally left the Sinai.



See my comments on the 1967 war.



For giving them the only opportunity they've ever had to rule themselves. Egypt had 18 years to do so, but didn't.



Again, no Arab-started 1967 war - no West Bank problem. No Palestinian incessant terrorist attacks - no need for walls and check-points.

(Btw, I'm not happy with Israel's settlements there.)



Yeah, not so much.

Why would they set up colonies if they didn’t want the land? Your narrative runs into a gaping hole right from the start

Israel left the Sinai because they didn’t believe they could beat Egypt if it came to another war, and Egypt had proven they weren’t going to accept Israeli settlements on their land.

Israel also tried to steal the Sinai over a decade before the Six Day War, only to be forced out by the UN, so whining about that is throughly irrelevant.

Sounds like Israel should have stopped trying to steal their neighbors’ land.

Israel setting up its own version of the Bantustans is not genuinely letting them “rule themselves”.

Israel has had over seventy years to stop stealing Palestinian land, and yet throughly refuses.

No incessant Israeli theft of land and attacks on Palestinian civilians— no need for the Palestinians to defend themselves.

Fleeing can’t change the facts

 

[stevecanuck]

Why would they set up colonies if they didn’t want the land? Your narrative runs into a gaping hole right from the start

Why would they unilatterly decide to leave if they wanted the land? You never answer that.

Israel left the Sinai because they didn’t believe they could beat Egypt if it came to another war, and Egypt had proven they weren’t going to accept Israeli settlements on their land.

Sure. Egypt's spectacular victories over Israel prove you're right.

Israel also tried to steal the Sinai over a decade before the Six Day War, only to be forced out by the UN, so whining about that is throughly irrelevant.

They pulled out of the Sinai in 1956 as well.

Sounds like Israel should have stopped trying to steal their neighbors’ land.

Israel setting up its own version of the Bantustans is not genuinely letting them “rule themselves”.

Israel has had over seventy years to stop stealing Palestinian land, and yet throughly refuses.

No incessant Israeli theft of land and attacks on Palestinian civilians— no need for the Palestinians to defend themselves.

Fleeing can’t change the facts

You're drowning in Koolaid.

I see no point in batting your wiffle balls over the fence any further. You're boring as hell.

I'll leave you to claim victory and strut off into the sunset.

 

[Tigerace117]

Why would they unilatterly decide to leave if they wanted the land? You never answer that.



Sure. Egypt's spectacular victories over Israel prove you're right.


They pulled out of the Sinai in 1956 as well.



You're drowning in Koolaid.

I see no point in batting your wiffle balls over the fence any further. You're boring as hell.

I'll leave you to claim victory and strut off into the sunset.

You claimed they never wanted the land in the first place. They very clearly did, or they wouldn’t have set up colonies there. And since they are openly planning on resuming colonizing Gaza, a few years interruption in that process is throughly meaningless.

Yeah, the way they shredded Israel’s much vaunted tankers and pilots in the first wave was. To the point where Israel was panicking and on the verge of getting ready to launch its nukes.

Uh....no, the UN forced them out, something Israel whined endlessly about.

Awww, someone’s mad the historical facts destroy their narrative, as usual

 

[bomberfox]

You didn't address so much as a single point in your so-called response. Here, try again, but one at a time:

Israel NEVER wanted Gaza. Yes or no?

It wasn't included in UN 181, and Israel was just fine with that. Yes or no?

They only acquired it as a result of the six-day war (and don't even think of saying that Israel 'started' that war. Egypt had closed the Straits of Hormuz to Israel shipping, tossed the UN out of the Sinai, and amassed troops on the border along with Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan). Yes or no?

Then in 2005, they UNILATERALLY left, and they made all their settlers leave with them. Yes or no?

That allowed Gazans to actually vote for their own government for the first time ever. Yes or no?

Thank you Israel - here, have a few thousands rockets pointed your way. Yes of no?

Remember, Egypt occupied Gaza from 1949 to 1967 without doing one damned thing to help the Gazans towards independence. Egypt also built a wall to keep them from entering Egypt. Yes or no?

And how did Gazans thank Israel for granting them the closest thing they've ever had to independence???? They voted in Hamas, which was singularily dedicated to wiping out Israel. Yes or no?

That's why Gaza was and is a shit-hole. The cement that was supposed to go to infrastructure instead went to terrorist tunnels. Hospitals didn't have back-up generators because Hamas was too busy using those funds to buy more rocket launcers. Etc, etc, etc. Yes or no?

And why did Hamas have an armed wing to begin with if not to attack Israel? They had exactly zero needed for a defensive force because Israel had already left of it's own accord. It had no enemies if it didn't want any. The al Qassam Brigade was built for terrorism and nothing else. Yes or no?


Not one of you Israel haters have any answers to those questions.

They seem to be doing their best to cleanse it and the west bank. Palantir’s AI technology cant tell the difference between enemy combatant and civilian on really any accurate basis yet its still being widely used. They didnt really leave gaza as there was a decade + long blockade and control of what went in and out. The Israeli state is also helping the territorial expansion in the west bank which has been pretty much in territorial limbo with only certain areas governed by the PA, that was the deal that Sharon and Clinton made.

 

[stevecanuck]

They seem to be doing their best to cleanse it and the west bank. Palantir’s AI technology cant tell the difference between enemy combatant and civilian on really any accurate basis yet its still being widely used. They didnt really leave gaza as there was a decade + long blockade and control of what went in and out. The Israeli state is also helping the territorial expansion in the west bank which has been pretty much in territorial limbo with only certain areas governed by the PA, that was the deal that Sharon and Clinton made.

You still can't answer a single question. How much more clearly can I ask them? Help me out.

 

[Koala]

How has this thread devolved into another Palestine Israel thread?

Anyhow jihad has several meaninings, and all of them are good.


Jihad should not be a dirty word, and the right, in fact obligatinon to perform jihad should not be something controversial. There are many rules and definitions for each type of jihad. For the one meaning a collective war against non-believer for the sake of Allah, there are rules to them -- and all of them go beyond what is observed by most so-called Western human rights supporters -- no killing of non-combatants, cannot cut down even a tree (no scorched earth policy), and it must be stopped if the aggressor stops their attacks, and this type of jihad can never be started without a proper justification. And it should be done under the command of unified leader and unified structure, meaning nobody just go off and start a jihad group with a couple of their buddies -- it must have the support and represent the community of muslims, usually a Caliph.

And another one of them is a war in defense of one-self or others from attack, eviction, or oppression. That its controversial is simply due to the fact that there is an agenda by some groups of non-muslim interests, to paint everything Muslims do as automatically barbaric or somehow "terrorist-y". The idea/goal is to try to rob Muslims of something this is a GOD GIVEN RIGHT of ALL PEOPLE, understood by even a small child -- which is the right, even obligation, everyone has to SELF-DEFENSE.

THen there is what is called the "greatest jihad" and this is the struggle within oneself, the spiritual struggle against base desires, selfish thinking, forbidden acts, etc.

There isnt a single meaning of jihad any Muslim should be shy to defend, but Muslims are shy cause they have no knowledge and have let outsiders redefine their own religion and own words like jihad for ulterior purposes.

 

[LittleNipper]

How has this thread devolved into another Palestine Israel thread?

Anyhow jihad has several meaninings, and all of them are good.


Jihad should not be a dirty word, and the right, in fact obligatinon to perform jihad should not be something controversial. There are many rules and definitions for each type of jihad. For the one meaning a collective war against non-believer for the sake of Allah, there are rules to them -- and all of them go beyond what is observed by most so-called Western human rights supporters -- no killing of non-combatants, cannot cut down even a tree (no scorched earth policy), and it must be stopped if the aggressor stops their attacks, and this type of jihad can never be started without a proper justification. And it should be done under the command of unified leader and unified structure, meaning nobody just go off and start a jihad group with a couple of their buddies -- it must have the support and represent the community of muslims, usually a Caliph.

And another one of them is a war in defense of one-self or others from attack, eviction, or oppression. That its controversial is simply due to the fact that there is an agenda by some groups of non-muslim interests, to paint everything Muslims do as automatically barbaric or somehow "terrorist-y". The idea/goal is to try to rob Muslims of something this is a GOD GIVEN RIGHT of ALL PEOPLE, understood by even a small child -- which is the right, even obligation, everyone has to SELF-DEFENSE.

THen there is what is called the "greatest jihad" and this is the struggle within oneself, the spiritual struggle against base desires, selfish thinking, forbidden acts, etc.

There isnt a single meaning of jihad any Muslim should be shy to defend, but Muslims are shy cause they have no knowledge and have let outsiders redefine their own religion and own words like jihad for ulterior purposes.

If Muslims lack knowledge, who do they have to blame but themselves?

 

[stevecanuck]

How has this thread devolved into another Palestine Israel thread?

Anyhow jihad has several meaninings, and all of them are good.

According to the Qur'an jihad is good. Even when it means fighting unbelievers simply for being unbelievers.

Jihad should not be a dirty word, and the right, in fact obligatinon to perform jihad should not be something controversial. There are many rules and definitions for each type of jihad. For the one meaning a collective war against non-believer for the sake of Allah, there are rules to them

At least you're not denying that jihad can refer to fighting unbelievers "fee sabil Allah".

-- and all of them go beyond what is observed by most so-called Western human rights supporters -- no killing of non-combatants, cannot cut down even a tree (no scorched earth policy), and it must be stopped if the aggressor stops their attacks,

And there's the lie.

Let's look at 2:190-191 for a prescise definition:

During the revelation of surah 2, Mohamed embarked on a military campaign that changed not only the nature of Islam, but the course of history, when he began raiding Qurayshi trade caravans. For the first time, Muslims were instructed by the Qur'an to take lives and to fight "fee sabil Allah [in the cause of God]". For Mohamed to order military action against the Pagans "in the cause of God", he would have to show that warfare would in fact be justified and in compliance with God's wishes. The Qur'an would therefore have to supply him with two instructions not included in any of the 86 Meccan surahs; a direct command to fight, and moral justification for taking lives. To that end, the following two verses were revealed:

- 2:190 - The phrase "And fight in the way of God with those; who fight with you, but aggress not: God loves not the aggressors" gives the Qur'an's first order to fight, albeit in self defense only. As such, it falls short of justifying an attack against the Pagans as they had never initiated organized hostilities against the Muslims.
- 2:191 is as busy as it is pivotal - "And slay them wherever you come upon them, and expel them from where they expelled you; and persecution (fitnah) is more grievous than slaying. But fight them not by the Holy Mosque (Kaaba) until they should fight you there; then, if they fight you, slay them. Such is the recompense of unbelievers." This not only gave Mohamed the divine permission he needed to attack Mecca, but in the process, set Islam on a doctrinal path that is possibly more impactful than any other. It breaks down as follows:

• "And slay them wherever you come upon them" removes any doubt that blood-letting had been introduced to Islam.
• "and expel them from where they expelled you" is a clear reference to Mohamed's claim that the Muslims were forced to flee Mecca.
• "and persecution (fitnah) is more grievous than slaying" is the salient phrase that serves as the 'fight in self defense only' deal breaker. It introduces "fitnah" as a catch-all crime that dropped self defense to second place as a reason to make war. In this case, it refers to Mohamed's alleged expulsion from Mecca and the pagan's use of the Kaaba for 'blasphemous' idol worshipping. However, that was just the beginning of the influence that this verse would have in shaping history. Although it was crafted to solve the short term problem of giving Mohamed an excuse to attack the Meccans, it was presented as a permanent, all encompassing imperative for Muslims to fight those guilty of committing "fitnah", and as such, has inspired Islamic jihad for 1400 years and counting.
• "But fight them not by the Holy Mosque (Kaaba) until they should fight you there; then, if they fight you, slay them" indicates Mohamed's intention of bringing the fight to Mecca. The right to fight in self defense or to defend one's beliefs was not extended to Pagans.
• "Such is the recompense of the unbelievers" illustrates the method of instruction used in hundreds of verses. Whereas the first part of the verse is specific to a given circumstance, the wording of the conclusion has universal, on-going implications that put all unbelievers at the pointy end of Islam for all time.

 

[stevecanuck]

and it must be stopped if the aggressor stops their attacks

Further to this lie:

The next two verses clarify the 'Islam versus unbelief' nature of the fight, and that hostilities are expected to continue until Islam prevails:

- 2:192 - "But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful." If read in isolation, this could give the impression that if the unbelievers simply stop fighting, Muslims should cease hostilities as well. However, the next verse shows that it is 'fitnah', rather than fighting, that must be ceased.
- 2:193 - "And fight with them until there is no fitnah (persecution), and religion should be only for Allah" explicitly gives 'fitnah', rather than fighting, as the reason for hostilities, and tells Muslims to press the fight until Islamic superiority and rule is established. "But if they desist, then there should be no hostility", given the initial reference to 'fitnah', proves that what must be ceased is the reason for the attack in the first place; the pagan's rejection of Islam. Therefore, the end of the verse, "Except against the oppressors/evil doers", refers to those who refuse to 'desist' in their 'fitnah'.

Verse 2:217 is best examined in two parts:

• The first is little more than a reiteration of 2:191, but with one significant update. The phrase "and to disbelieve in Him" has explicitly been added to the list of activities that qualify as 'fitnah', thereby removing any argument that it has been unfairly read in. Verse 80:42 (and many others) tell us that unbelievers are wicked - "they who are unbelievers, the wicked." Verse 2:217 then ramps up the rhetoric to describe such wickedness as being "worse than killing" - "They question thee (O Muhammad) with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say [to them, Mohamed]: Warfare therein is a great (transgression), but to turn (men) from the way of Allah, and to disbelieve in Him and in the Inviolable Place of Worship, and to expel His people [Muslims] thence, is a greater (transgression) with Allah; for persecution (fitnah) is worse than killing." This reaffirms that unbelief, or any obstruction to the practice of Islam is a crime greater than killing.
• The second part claims that the Pagans will not cease fighting Muslims until they renounce Islam and become fuel for Hell - "And they will not cease from fighting against you till they have made you renegades from your religion, if they can. And whoso become a renegade and die in his disbelief: such are they whose works have fallen both in the world and the Hereafter. Such are rightful owners of the Fire: they will abide therein". What it does not explain is how they could "not cease from fighting you", given that they had never started.

 

[stevecanuck]

And it should be done under the command of unified leader and unified structure, meaning nobody just go off and start a jihad group with a couple of their buddies -- it must have the support and represent the community of muslims, usually a Caliph.

Where does it say that? (Hint: It doesn't)

And another one of them is a war in defense of one-self or others from attack, eviction, or oppression. That its controversial is simply due to the fact that there is an agenda by some groups of non-muslim interests, to paint everything Muslims do as automatically barbaric or somehow "terrorist-y". The idea/goal is to try to rob Muslims of something this is a GOD GIVEN RIGHT of ALL PEOPLE, understood by even a small child -- which is the right, even obligation, everyone has to SELF-DEFENSE.

Why did a Muslim army end up in France in 732 fighting in 'self-defense'?

How is it possible to create a great caliphate within only 100 years of Mohamed's death by fighting in so-called self-defense?

THen there is what is called the "greatest jihad" and this is the struggle within oneself, the spiritual struggle against base desires, selfish thinking, forbidden acts, etc.

Yup, we all know this.

There isnt a single meaning of jihad any Muslim should be shy to defend, but Muslims are shy cause they have no knowledge and have let outsiders redefine their own religion and own words like jihad for ulterior purposes.

BS. For any Muslim to know that he will not get in heaven unless he is willing to fight and die for Islam to reign supreme needs only to read verses such as 9:29 and 9:111.

The Qur'an is a book of Islamosupremacy and the requirement to achieve it by any means necessary.

 

[stevecanuck]

There isnt a single meaning of jihad any Muslim should be shy to defend

Surah 9 is the last chronologically (other than a three-verse wrapup) and it contains the following verses in which conjugations of 'jihad' (struggle) 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' is the root word:

• 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.
• 9:16 - Did you suppose that you would be left before Allah has known those of you who fought (jihad).
• 9:19 - Do you consider giving drink to the pilgrims and inhabiting the Sacred Mosque are 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 used in the context of fighting. Here, Allah is telling the faithful that simply cheering and praying will not please him as much as fighting).
• 9:20 - Those who believe, have migrated, and struggle (jihad) in the Way of Allah with their wealth and their persons are greater in rank with Allah (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 battle field. 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).
• 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 with 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 struggle (jihad) for the Way of Allah, with your wealth and your persons. This will be best for you, if you know.
• 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 themselves. 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, and then goes back to 'jihad' by 9:41, proving that the two are used interchangeably.

 

[stevecanuck]

Muslims are shy cause they have no knowledge and have let outsiders redefine their own religion and own words like jihad for ulterior purposes.

There is no way you can know what Muslims know.

 

[Koala]

There is no way you can know what Muslims know.

I AM Muslim, but you are correct, there's no way I can pretend to have the summary knowledge of all Muslims. I cant even pretend that Im a knowledgeable Muslim, that is reserved for scholars who can debate and answer you much better than I can. I see youve been studying Islam, and perhaps this is the area that you don't understand/dislike about the religion, and want someone to explain further about the fiqh (jurisprudence) of jihad fe sebellelaah.

So thats where I stop , cause I dont have knowledge jihad fe sebellelaah, I wish I did. THe little I know is that its irrelevant now, it cannot be applied under conditions toady because there is no unified Caliphate to be able to have Caliph that can declare this type of jihad. But the jihad of self-defense remains separate from that, and that is the jihad that has been taken away from Muslims, and that is the jihad that is obligatory, not jihad fe seebilillah. Meanwhile due to the conflation, between the two, the jihad of self defense has become almost forbidden for Muslims, which doesnt make sense!

 

[stevecanuck]

I AM Muslim, but you are correct, there's no way I can pretend to have the summary knowledge of all Muslims. I cant even pretend that Im a knowledgeable Muslim, that is reserved for scholars who can debate and answer you much better than I can. I see youve been studying Islam, and perhaps this is the area that you don't understand/dislike about the religion, and want someone to explain further about the fiqh (jurisprudence) of jihad fe sebellelaah.

So thats where I stop , cause I dont have knowledge jihad fe sebellelaah, I wish I did. THe little I know is that its irrelevant now, it cannot be applied under conditions toady because there is no unified Caliphate to be able to have Caliph that can declare this type of jihad. But the jihad of self-defense remains separate from that, and that is the jihad that has been taken away from Muslims, and that is the jihad that is obligatory, not jihad fe seebilillah. Meanwhile due to the conflation, between the two, the jihad of self defense has become almost forbidden for Muslims, which doesnt make sense!

Have you read the Qur'an?

 

[Rumpel]

What are you trying to do here? What's the point of all this?

and why not spell that book simply thus: Koran

 

[stevecanuck]

and why not spell that book simply thus: Koran

Because ق is closer to Q than K, which would be a ك

 

[Rumpel]

Because ق is closer to Q than K, which would be a ك

but the Q sound = K

 

[stevecanuck]

but the Q sound = K

Not if pronounced correctly. Make the K sound, and you'll feel it comes from the middle of your mouth. Now try it, but from the back of your throat, and should feel and hear a difference.

 

[stevecanuck]

Also, when transliterating, using a Q or a K tells the reader who knows Arabic which of the two is in the original Arabic word.

 

[Rumpel]

Not if pronounced correctly. Make the K sound, and you'll feel it comes from the middle of your mouth. Now try it, but from the back of your throat, and should feel and hear a difference.

ok .... but you talk of an Arabic sound that we dont have

 

[stevecanuck]

ok .... but you talk of an Arabic sound that we dont have

Yes, one of many.

You probably think that the word Arab starts with our equivalent of the letter A, and why wouldn't you? It actually starts with the consonant ع, which sounds like an A if you're dangling a piece of wet spaghetti down your throat. Have you ever noticed the slightly gutteral sound of Arabic? That letter accounts for most of it.

The next time you hear a native Arabic speaker say 'Mohamed', listen for the emphasis they put on the 'h'. You will notice a heavy, breathiness to it. More like moHamed. Same with the variation name aHmed (which everyone mispronounced as achmed or awkmed.)

 

[stevecanuck]

Not for nothing, but the only Muslim who's showed up on this site for a long time runs for the hills at the first rebuttal leaving a trail of unanswered questions behind him. He must be used to having us infidels lap up the lies.

 

[Koala]

Surah 9 is the last chronologically (other than a three-verse wrapup) and it contains the following verses in which conjugations of 'jihad' (struggle) 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' is the root word:

• 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.
• 9:16 - Did you suppose that you would be left before Allah has known those of you who fought (jihad).
• 9:19 - Do you consider giving drink to the pilgrims and inhabiting the Sacred Mosque are 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 used in the context of fighting. Here, Allah is telling the faithful that simply cheering and praying will not please him as much as fighting).
• 9:20 - Those who believe, have migrated, and struggle (jihad) in the Way of Allah with their wealth and their persons are greater in rank with Allah (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 battle field. 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).
• 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 with 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 struggle (jihad) for the Way of Allah, with your wealth and your persons. This will be best for you, if you know.
• 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 themselves. 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, and then goes back to 'jihad' by 9:41, proving that the two are used interchangeably.

Whoa, whoa who, qatl and jihad are not used interchangeably. Every word is chosen because it is the most appropriate word for that situation, and there are layers of meaning to the selection of every word, to most precisely convey the intended and appropriate meaning -- that is in fact one of the textual miracles of the Quran . The specific and precise meanings, connotations that can be derived from the particular word's use in that verse have been studied by people with far more knowledge, to produce tafseers which are contextualization's of the Quran to help people understand the Quran.

Youve actually just unknowingly proven why a tafseer of this verse is required, instead of your own interpratation of it, and why misinterpretation of these verses are so likely and so dangerous!

 

[gboisjo]

Given how many religions have cited the truth of their belief as justification for slaughter, I'm not sure an analysis of Islam is meaningful.

The real lesson here is that while some people may successfully use faith to motivate good deeds, organized religion is more poison than balm.

Humans are social animals, hardwired to group up. Cults and religions are just a few examples of people forming associations.

Problem with the innate grouping up behavior is for every good one there's something else.

 

[gboisjo]

You claimed they never wanted the land in the first place. They very clearly did, or they wouldn’t have set up colonies there. And since they are openly planning on resuming colonizing Gaza, a few years interruption in that process is throughly meaningless.

Yeah, the way they shredded Israel’s much vaunted tankers and pilots in the first wave was. To the point where Israel was panicking and on the verge of getting ready to launch its nukes.

Uh....no, the UN forced them out, something Israel whined endlessly about.

Awww, someone’s mad the historical facts destroy their narrative, as usual

If tens of millions of Jews hadn't been slaughtered by European Jew haters in the 30's and 40's, we wouldn't be talking about Israel.

They ran for there lives, it won't happen again. Its just a matter of time before Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran are ended.

I can't wait for it to happen.