freediver wrote on Jul 27^th, 2017 at 4:15pm:


I have. Many times. As usual you don't listen. There's only a certain amount of spoon feeding I'm willing to do. You can lead a horse to water innit. But once again, 22:39-40. Off you go - are you capable of googling that FD? Or do you need more spoon feeding?


freediver wrote on Jul 27^th, 2017 at 4:15pm:


I accuse you of lying, because you are lying. The fact you want me now to confirm whether or not anyone other than me said those things is just proof you were lying. If you have no knowledge of people saying a particular thing before you state as fact they said that thing - then thats lying FD. Is that really so difficult for you to understand? The parallels between this and the way you try and justify your baseless BS about school money going to terrorists is uncanny. Its as if you literally can't understand the problem with making such outrageous and thoroughly baseless slurs. But even more bizarrely is this unfathomable logic of yours that seems to say - its not wrong to make these baseless slurs as long as gandalf won't confirm or deny them after the fact.

So what games were you playing with this lie anyway? Do you think it makes Islam sound worse when you falsely attribute something you think sounds silly from one muslim, to muslims en masse?

Oh look Gandalf, the Koran has a clearly stated doctrine of both self defence and proportionality. Why did you never give these as examples?

http://submission.org/Four_Sacred_Months.html

[Quran 2:194] During the Sacred Months, aggression may be met by an equivalent response. If they attack you, you may retaliate by inflicting an equitable retribution. You shall observe God and know that God is with the righteous.

freediver wrote on Jul 27^th, 2017 at 4:56pm:


So just so we're clear, the sentence To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight) for they have been oppressed - is not about fighting in self defense?

freediver wrote on Jul 28^th, 2017 at 6:24pm:


That is my interpretation. If it was carte blanche, then this little qualification would not only be redundant, it wouldn't even make sense. Also the wording "permission is given" strongly suggests a command that is limiting in nature.

And thats not even going into the other verses that say to stop fighting when the enemy inclines towards peace, and when the oppression stops.

oblique? I'm struggling to imagine how more clear it could be. Still, baby steps. Up until yesterday you were still mocking the very idea that it existed at all in the Quran.

Also, which verse are you referring to where it is stated so clearly in the context of the holy months?

freediver wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 8:49am:


Sounds like its talking about civil/legal matters FD, not warfare. And furthermore I'm pretty sure you made the same point yourself.

Are you seriously saying this ambiguous verse is somehow clearer than 22:39-40 in terms of commanding warfare only in self defense?

The word that submission.org translates as "attack" is the arabic اعتدي - which is more commonly translated as "assault" or "violate". Quran.com translates it as 'transgressed' and 'violate', which certainly does fit in a a civil/legal context. Additionally, the phrase that gives permission for retribution describes the object in the singular, not the plural ("him" - as in 'you can retaliate the equivalent against 'him' - arabic عليه "upon him"). This would be a strange way to express how to retaliate against a pluarity - eg an attacking army.

In any case, my opinion is that it refers to both domestic/civil matters as well as external warfare. Since that particular verse is an equally applicable warning against aggression to both muslims (against other muslims) and non-muslims against muslims. As I said before, it makes no sense to be inconsistent between the two.

It doesn't. I believe thats the exact point I've been making in my last 3 posts.

But you knew that, and were deliberately being annoying - agreed?

Must be 'nothing better to do' Sunday again.