Quote:


Gandalf get's upset when I do quote bombs. He has started deleting my posts again. In any case, it was Brian who cited it. I'm happy to leave it at "you'd have to be an idiot to conclude that NT verse is instructing Christians to use violence to impose their religion". If you have a different interpretation, feel free to take up the cause.

http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=8&verse=39

Mohsin Khan:

DR. GHALI
And fight them, till there is no temptation (Or: sedition, persecution)

YUSUF ALI
And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression

MUFTI TAQI USMANI
And fight them until there is no Fitnah (mischief)

ABDUL HALEEM
[Believers], fight them until there is no more persecution

DR. MUSTAFA KHATTAB, THE CLEAR QURAN
Fight against them until there is no more persecution

Lane, in his monumental Arabic-English Lexicon compiled from various traditional Arabic lexicographical sources available in Cairo in the mid-19th-century, reported that "to burn" is the "primary signification" of the verb.[2] The verb then came to be applied to the smelting of gold and silver. It was extended to mean causing one to enter into fire and into a state of punishment or affliction. Thus, one says that something caused one to enter al-fitna, i.e. trial, affliction, etc., or more generally, an affliction whereby some good or evil quality is put to the test.[2] Lane glosses the noun fitna as meaning a trial, a probation, affliction, distress or hardship, and says that "the sum total of its meaning in the language of the Arabs" is an affliction whereby one is tried, proved or tested.[3]

The definitions offered by Lane match those suggested by Badawi and Haleem in their dictionary of Qur'anic usage. They gloss the triliteral root as having the following meanings: "to purify gold and silver by smelting them; to burn; to put to the test, to afflict (in particular as a means of testing someone's endurance); to disrupt the peace of a community; to tempt, to seduce, to allure, to infatuate."[4]

Persecution
Fitna as persecution appears in several of the verses commanding Muslims to fight the unbelievers (specifically referring to the Meccan polytheists who had persecuted Muhammad and his early followers, thus leading to the hijra). For example, in Qur'an 2:191, the command to fight is justified on the grounds that "persecution (al-fitnatu) is worse than slaying." Similarly, in Qur'an 2:193, Muslims are forbidden from fighting unbelievers around the Holy Mosque in Mecca unless the unbelievers attack first, in which case Muslims are to fight "until there is no persecution (fitnatun) and the religion is God's." The hijra is mentioned in Qur'an 16:110 as having occurred because of the persecution believers had suffered in Mecca. Other examples are Qur'an 85:10, which promises the chastisement of Hell for those who have persecuted Muslims, and Qur'an 4:101, which provides that one's daily required prayer may be shortened if, when on a journey, one fears that the unbelievers may attack if one remains in a place long enough to complete the full prayer.

freediver wrote on Mar 7^th, 2018 at 12:08pm:


We've been through all the verses, FD, you know the answer to that.

Why do you ask?

freediver wrote on Mar 6^th, 2018 at 2:01pm:


The last post I deleted wasn't because it was a quote bomb. It was because you (once again) lifted a whole heap of quotes from one thread and tried to continue the discussion in a completely new thread.

You can't complain that I haven't warned you enough times about doing that. I also invited you to repost the quotes in the thread from which it came from.

You can't complain that I haven't warned you enough times about doing that.

I also invited you to repost the quotes in the thread from which it came from.

Interesting. I wonder why FD chooses one of the more obscure translations, and one of the only ones that specifically defines 'fitnah' as 'disbelief and polytheism'?

Because of your absurd efforts to claim that "fight them until all religion is for allah and there is no more oppression" is actually saying that war may only be fought in self defence.

freediver wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 7:49pm:


The problem arises only if its continuing an existing debate, especially with quotes, in a different thread - irrespective of whether or not its a 'quote bomb'. Although historically, quote bombs are typically presented as new threads. My beef is when I attempt to track someone's argument through the course of a particular debate, and find myself having to traverse 3, 4, 5 or even more separate threads. But you know all this because I've told you all this before.

freediver wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 7:49pm:


The rate at which you did it just became absurd. I had to do something.

freediver wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 7:49pm:


You are administrator of this board. If you don't have easy access to a backup, then you are not a very good administrator. If it was anyone else, I wouldn't have deleted it.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 11:05am:


So you only deleted my post because I am the site owner and you think it is easy to go into the website backups and retrieve it? How often do you think those backups are made?

Also, are you now saying there is not actually a rule against these quote bombs, but against exceeding some kind of quota for them?