polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 10:23am:



Your argument, your justification for fighting against unbelievers, is because moslems are simply defending their communities from non-moslem oppression.

THAT CLAIM IS PURE MOSLEM PROJECTION [i.e. committing a criminal act, then justifying your crimes by blaming the victim].

i.e.
We need to turn that moslem argument around, 180 degrees.

And view the real circumstances with fresh eyes.






gandalf,

Allah himself, IN THE KORAN, tells moslems what disbelief indicates in men, it indicates;



So, the condition of unbelief in a non-moslem society indicates "fitnah" TOWARDS BELIEVERS [i.e. moslems].



"Let those fight in the cause of Allah Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah,- whether he is slain or gets victory - Soon shall We give him a reward of great (value).
And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?- Men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!"
Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan. "
Koran 4.74-76

So fight against the disbelievers [NOT BECAUSE OF FITNAH], BUT BECAUSE UNBELIEF IS FITNAH !

And Allah states that, in Koran 4.74-76i

The exhortations to moslems within ISLAMIC texts, to fight in 'the Cause of Allah' are prolific....

Here is a small sample;

"Believers, obey Allah, and obey the Messenger! Those who disbelieve and hinder men from the Cause of Allah, He will not pardon. Do not falter; become faint-hearted, or weak-kneed, crying for peace. You have the upper hand.
Koran 47.33-35


"A man came to the Prophet and asked, "A man fights for war booty; another fights for fame and a third fights for showing off; which of them fights in Allah's Cause?" The Prophet said, "He who fights that Allah's Word (i.e. Islam) should be superior, fights in Allah's Cause." "
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.065
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.080i

n.b.



"Allah's Apostle was asked, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad). The questioner then asked, "What is the next (in goodness)? He replied, "To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause." "
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #001.002.026










That is the truth, which moslems obfuscate and always refuse to acknowledge - because moslems are fighting a war, which justifies lies and deception.

Yadda wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 11:06am:


Just so we're clear, 'fitnah' is not mentioned once in 4:74-76

In any case, your thesis that "fitnah" equals "unbelief", therefore the command to fight against 'fithah' equals kill all the non-muslims makes no sense in the context of the verses you just quoted.

Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.

How can there simultaneously be a slaughter of all unbelievers for being unbelievers, and a specific command to not fight those unbelievers who don't oppress you?

FITNAH literally translates to 'chaos', 'disorder', 'strife'. The context of the word in the quran, is the prevention of being able to practice islam due to the chaos/disorder/strife caused by the unbelievers. To all intents and purposes, it literally means oppression, by non-muslims who have muslims under their yoke.

Other verses in the quran simply make a mockery of your claim that the quranic war verses are simply commands to kill non-muslims for being non-muslims:

Quote:

9:6

Deliver him to his place of safety? Shouldn't it be "deliver them to the grave" or something? 

this verse comparing to what the aggressors do:

Quote:

9:10

Why would this point of comparison be necessary if God simply wanted the same treatment meted out to non-believers?

Yadda wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 11:06am:


Um.. you're quoting a passage that calls for muslims to not falter in their cry for *PEACE*?? Whats wrong Yadda? - getting a bit sloppy with your cherry picking 


Yadda wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 11:06am:


who added the words in parenthesis - you? I fully advocate jihad - and I am non-violent. How could this be Yadda?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 12:20pm:


Oh come on!

How much more obfuscation and tap-dancing are you people capable of?

You know as well as I do that the Koran provides justification for jihad against the Unbelievers just as it counsels peace. It all depends on accepting or rejecting the abrogated versions of the Koran.

Suicide bombers are no less following the commands found in the Koran than are those who advocate peace.

And this is what makes Islam so dangerous. There are 'extremist' passages in the Koran just as there are passages of a more modest nature.

What this means is that whatever you do as a Muslim ~ some cherry-picked parts of the Koran will provide moral sanction for what you've done.

It's a religion that's all over the place like a mad woman's breakfast.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 12:59pm:


I thought 2/85 forbids cherry picking, Falah did say the ability to cherry pick is what separates Islam from the other beliefs.

www.quran.com/2/85

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 1:31pm:


Of course it allows for violence. Read my point again: there is no sanction in the quran for the type of aggressive violence and terrorism against non-muslims for the simple crime of being non-muslims. None, whatsoever. That is what Yadda is attempting to argue, and it can easily be rejected by looking at the verses that he quotes in its full, non-cherry picked, form.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 1:31pm:


No, violence begets violence. Extremism is born from extremism. By the way, what did intervening in Iraq have to do with fighting islamic extremism? Al Qaeda and co hated Saddam even more so than the west. He was an atheist for crying out loud.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 2:32pm:


He was leader of a party that was fiercely secularist and anti-religion. He persecuted muslims, and promoted a non-religious society.

Actually, sounds like your kinda guy Baron.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 3:10pm:


I have no idea how we got to this topic, but I never said the west wages war on muslims. I know a lot of muslims make this statement, but its idiotic. The US typically support islamic extremists - like they are doing in Syria now, and target secular almost anti-islamic regimes like Saddam, and more recently Libya. Thats been the pattern for most of the post war period.

What was your point again?