Quote:


They kill the infidel wherever they find them because the Koran instructs them to.

Quote:


It says that once. It instructs Muslims to slaughter the infidel dozens of times, often without meaningful qualificiation. Again, the onus is placed on the infidel to incline to peace while being slaughtered. The onus is never on Muslims to seek out peace as a preferable alternative to slaughtering the infidel.

Quote:


Why does "cease" not refer to what came immediately before - the bit about "until worship is acknowledged to be for Allah"? That would make more sense. Again, you are reading into it something that is not actually there.

Does ceasing oppression include paying Islamic taxes and living under shariah law?

There are lots of ways to oppress people. It usually involves actually doing something. So what is it exactly that the infidel must cease doing to avoid being slaughtered by Muslims? And why is the onus always on the infidel to act to avoid being slaughtered, and the onus always on Muslims to slaughter the infidel until they do whatever is expected of them?

Islam completely rejects the concept of individual human rights, so oppression could mean just about anything. The Koran does not exactly offer many sugestions, except for things like mocking Islam. In searching for references to rights for example, the first pillar of Islam and verse 21:25 of the Koran is sometimes translated as "none has the right to be worshipped by Allah." This is also repeated in many of the hadiths. This is the closest that Islam comes to even talking about individual rights, and it is a clear denial of them. So, what meaning does oppression have in an ideology that actively exploits slavery, encourages the denial of freedom of religion and freedom of speech, and seeks to govern every minutia of human activity?

The Koran states clearly and explicity that muslims are to slaughter the infidel. There is no just war theory. There are just a few vague instructions to excuse and direct the slaughter of the infidel. These instructions do not say what you claim they say. Instead, you are projecting something that is simply not there because you found a few blank spaces you thought you could insert them into.

Quote:


Examples of what? It explains quite clearly that Muslims are to slaughter the infidel until they become Muslims. I am yet to see any examples clarifying what the verse says the infidel is to cease doing to avoid being slaughtered, or what it means by oppression.

Quote:


Sure. So is Muhammad murdering and robbing traders, killing hundreds of innocent Jews in a single day, capturing Mecca and destroying all the pagan idols except for his money-spinning kaaba then kicking them out of Mecca, and sending war parties to slaughter pagans and destroy competing pagan shrines. What I am actually after is an explanation of what the infidel is to cease doing to avoid being slaughtered, and what the verse actually means by oppression. Otherwise you are left with a very clear instruction to slaughter the infidel until the convert to Islam, and your "just war theory" is entirely based on things the Koran does not ever say. Your interpretation is cannot be reconciled with either Muhammad's actions or the Koran. If war is "only" for self defence then Muhammad's violence does not suddenly become compatible with that because of the few occasions he was on the back foot.

Quote:


And again, I have explained several times the the Koran never says "only". That is you claiming it says things it does not actually say.

Quote:


If you a slaughtering the ifidel until they convert to Islam, that makes you the agressor. The Koran only ever instructs Muslims to be the aggressor, and only ever puts the onus on non-Muslims to seek peace. Even you have claimed victimhood on behalf of Muslims while the commit genocide, so that is where your absurd version of self defence gets you. And it is no wonder you can end up anywhere with it, because the Koran never says anything about war only being for self defence. Your interpretation relies entirely on you inserting words that are not there, and you can insert anything you want.

Being able to find examples of oppression in the Koran is not in any way evidence of what the verse means when it uses the term. Nor is it evidence that when it says the infidel must cease what they are doing to avoid being slaughtered it means they must cease oppression.

The Koran develops no concepts of individual human rights or oppression, nor were there any accepted concepts in Muhammad's society. It just goes from whiny victimhood to blind, violent retaliation. There is no concept of "proportionate response". The Koran never actually says that war should only be fought in self defence. That is entirely you inserting words that are not there.

You fabricated this theory by filling in the vast blank spaces with your own ideas.

freediver wrote on Jul 6^th, 2017 at 3:04pm:


Good point FD - the Quran was written in Arabic and doesn't contain the English words "self defense".

It does however go out of its way to explain the meaning of self defense, and stipulate it as the condition upon which fighting is permitted:

Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress - 2.190

Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged... [They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right - only because they say, "Our Lord is Allah ." - 22.39-40

So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them. - 4:90

And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah . - 8:61

FD can you please define for me what 'self defense' is - in a way that is different to the above descriptions?

freediver wrote on Jul 6^th, 2017 at 8:56am:


No, there is clearly a reason WHY they are fighting the infidels and unbelievers but the Quran doesn't state why.

The words used when describing 'them' and 'they' are used in the 3rd person plural in Arabic - therefore it is specific. The Arabic word doesn't use 'all unbelievers'; it use the 3rd person plural, which means that it's specific to a group of people.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 6^th, 2017 at 4:47pm:


Ok. Seems I was wrong. Sura 22 is a medinan sura and comes quite late chronologically. That is interesting.

A couple of verses which neutralize the false claims that muslims only slaughter in self defence.

Al-Anfal 8:41:
And know that whatever of war-booty that you may gain, verily one-fifth (1/5th) of it is assigned to Allâh, and to the Messenger, and to the near relatives [of the Messenger (Muhammad SAW)], (and also) the orphans, Al-Masâkin (the poor) and the wayfarer, if you have believed in Allâh and in that which We sent down to Our slave (Muhammad SAW) on the Day of criterion (between right and wrong), the Day when the two forces met (the battle of Badr) - And Allâh is Able to do all things.

Al-Ahzab 33:27:
And He caused you to inherit their lands, and their houses, and their riches, and a land which you had not trodden (before). And Allâh is Able to do all things

You can't get booty if you stay at home peacefully, or are muslims telling us they were invaded by people who bought all their good and chattels and their women and kids to be collected as booty by the muslims when they destroyed the invaders?

You have to be the aggressor and invade to collect your spoils of war, in the land you have not trodden before