It takes a nation to protect the nation
[This comment was posted by ECAW]
Here's a suitable subject for the Theology Room. I recently found myself at odds with some knowledgeable counter-jihad people. After long believing that the source of Islamic supremacism was in the Koran I realised that I was wrong and those who say the jihad verses were all contextual were right. NB by supremacism I mean the eternal, global kind, not just the local ambitions of a rather nasty provincial warlord.
I looked at all the jihad verses and their surrounding ones. The idolaters to be ambushed and slain and so on in 9:5, 9:29 etc are unspecified leading us to assume they refer to us in the whole of the world and 1400 years later. But when the surrounding verses do specify it's always local idolaters Mohammed happened to be fighting at the time in the Mecca area. I see no reason why the unspecified idolaters should not not mean the same people.
Likewise, when Allah/Mo talks about making Islam superior over all religion there is nothing to indicate all the religions all over the world forever. Those verses could plausibly be seen as being fulfilled when he destroyed the 360 other gods in the kaaba.
I am not saying that Mohammed was not globally supremacist, I think he was, but the evidence is elsewhere.
No reasonable refutation refused.
Tags: 9.5:, Quran, not?, or, qualified
Kinana – You debate with Muslims? You deserve a medal! From now on (when debating with non-Muslims) I intend to surrender the “jihad verses are universal” argument as a position which can’t be defended and jump straight to the scholars, hadiths, sira etc as it seems you do. I am also particularly struck by the evidence for Mo’s supremacism in his threatening letters to the surrounding kings and emperors:
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Invitations_to_Islam_Prior_to_Violence
“When choosing context how wide is allowed? Why only the verse before or after? Why not 10 or 20 verses; or even the whole Quran?”
It doesn’t have to arbitrary. It is usually clear where a particular passage about a particular topic starts and ends. I only looked at verses within such passages for verses which specify which idolaters or religions are being referred to in it. If you’re interested there are some more examples here which explains my approach. Or perhaps it doesn’t cos I couldn’t get the gang at Jihad Watch to understand the very limited point I was trying to make:
https://ecawblog.wordpress.com/2016/05/18/the-koran-is-innocent/
I agree with you about the importance of the Perfect Man thing. The example of Mohammed provides a credible link between Mo’s local exploits and the expectation in the Islamic tradition of jihad wherever Muslims happen to be and whenever. That’s one theme from the Koran which I will try to use more in future.
ECAW, so the Quran is innocent?!
I think you are on to a winner with Quran-only-Muslims, but there are not many of them.
As you know Islam is more than the Quran - and the jihad thing is supported by the texts of the Quran, Hadith and Sira (or the Quran texts and Mohammed) and other recognised texts like 'the reliance of the traveler'. But of course for the Quran-only-Muslims those texts are not worthy of consideration. But these texts are interlocking and like a three legged stool, Islam would collapse if one was taken away.
But just looking at 9:28 polytheists are still unclean simply because they are still polytheists. and in 9:30 Christians still say the Messiah is son of God/Allah. and so therefore the phrase 'May Allah destroy them' seems to be still applicable and supports the 9:29 injunction for polytheists and Christians and Jews to be either converted, killed or pay the jizyah.
In my thinking therefore, though the words were of course thought up and spoken by Mohammed at a particular time and place, the case for their extended meaning in time and place seems very clear to me because the conditions that applied then are still applicable today, because polytheists and Christians still abound. Polytheists remain unclean and Christians still go on about the Messiah being the son of God!
Islam has to be looked at in its entirety. I do not trust tame muslims because their intention is always going to be to lie and deceive infidels, as Mohammed taught them to do. It is what muslims talk about among themselves that is interesting.
The real honest muslims are the islamist-jihadist terrorists, because they do not guard what they say and want people to hear. Their main interest is to kill us and to destroy everything that offends Islam. They are the ones that understand Mohammed because he was just like them.
Kinana –
1. I intended the title to be provocative (I was thinking of George Davis who was only innocent in a fairly limited sense) but I do think that the jihad verses provide no evidence for (global, eternal) supremacism, only the local ambitions of a provincial warlord of his time.
2. I wish Koran-only Muslims good luck but I think their chance of overturning the whole Islamic tradition is somewhere between slim and fat. I am interested in Koran-only non-Muslims ie those who know only of the Koran and see only local squabbles in it as I now do. My concern is to persuade them that Islam is supremacist despite the weak evidence of the Koran, not to persuade Muslims that it isn’t.
3. You say the jihad thing is supported by the Koran and all the other scriptures. I say this is not discriminating finely enough. I see the Koran only supporting the local, time-bound type jihad of a small time warlord. The other, later scriptures certainly support the idea of global, eternal jihad. Why the difference is another question, much larger and messier than the very specific and limited proposition I am putting forward.
To take up your example of 9:28:
“…The idolaters only are unclean. So let them not come near the Inviolable Place of Worship after this their year. If ye fear poverty (from the loss of their merchandise) Allah shall preserve you of His bounty if He will…”
The verse refers to a specific place of worship and a specific set of Muslims (those who may lose business). Also, this passage is full of references to specific groups of idolaters eg verses 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and particularly verse 36 “wage war on all of the idolaters as they are waging war on all of you”. But you think the idolaters who are unclean means all idolaters for all time. I think you have brought something extraneous to the text to conclude that.
Re. 9:30 I would ask if it means “May Allah destroy all Christians and Jews everywhere and forever” why did Muslims never do that in Allah’s name? Seems to me that Mo was just letting off steam and the phrase doesn’t constitute supremacism.
Hi ECAW, its been a hectic few days and I've just got back to this.
1. Re 9:1 Where does this "(but they broke it repeatedly)" come from? It’s not in the Arabic original or the great majority of translations:
http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/9/1/default.htm
And it is irrelevant. "the polytheists with whom you entered into a treaty" specifies the particular polytheists in question quite adequately. It is not a generic injunction.
It comes from a really nice printed copy of the Quran I have, with both Arabic and English, "as translated by Allamah Al-Hafiz Al-Hakim Nooruddin" in 1840. I didn't realise it deviated from the standard ones. Its not even in your list of known translations! I will have to be careful with it in future.
So I guess the clause isn't normally there. But if it was, the point I was making there is that I am not going to complain about an injunction to kill those that break treaties. It is harsh, but it is not as grossly unfair as saying "kill them anyway, and screw the treaty, even if they are keeping it".
As regards its generic application, we've been thru this before, but I'll try phrase it differently. Yes, I agree that that statement refers to a particular set of polytheists at a particular time. But I would challenge the Muslim/Quisling/Ansar/Leftist with these questions:
The meaning of a "model" for behaviour, is that the circumstances are similar, but take place in a different location and different time. Either Mohammed is a "model", and the thing he did is to be copied in similar circumstances but different times and places, or he is not a model for all Muslims. Muslims always want to have it both ways, and they use that to tie us up in knots. That's why one of Bill Warner's main themes is the Islam is DUALISTIC. Islam's dualism (holding 2 opposing views at the same time) is one of its nightmares. As he put it:
Statistical methods applied to the Islamic texts showed that:
- Islam is far more of a political system than a religion.
- There is no unmitigated good in Islam for the Kafir (non-Muslim).
- Islam’s ethical system is dualistic and is not based on the Golden Rule.
- Islamic doctrine cannot be reconciled with our concepts of human rights and our Constitution.
- The great majority, 96%, of all Islamic doctrine about women subjugates them.
- The Sunna (what Mohammed did and said) is more important than the Koran in a Muslim’s daily life.
Now your point 2.
2. I would never debate with Muslims. To try to debate with someone who has submitted to the appalling Allah would be to follow them into a black hole of deceit and irrationality. I only debate with non-Muslim neutrals and antis on the question of Islamic supremacism and my concern is to ditch weak evidence in hopes of convincing them that Islam is implacably supremacist.
I'm glad you are doing that, and I know it is hard work. I think that when Kinana and I talk about debating Muslims, its a kind of shorthand for "those defending an Islamic position with typical Muslim arguments". So Leftists and Islamic allies (like George Galloway) will use typically Muslim arguments. After all, anybody can use any argument or argumentation style, so I think one needs to consider how to address those positions. For example, how would you label a typical leftist Islam defender in the Guardian? Their position will be near identical to that of the Muslim Fundamentalist, even though they don't believe in Allah or the Prophet.
Anyway, keep up the good work. I admire your energy.
Alan – I agree with you and Kinana that the example of Mohammed is a strong argument to use with non-Muslims.
Re. debating with Muslims and non-Muslims, I wouldn’t bother trying to persuade either a Muslim or a hard-leftist, who I think of as the UAF types who have knowingly allied with Islamists in their joint hatred of Western civilisation. Presumably they both think that when they have succeeded in bringing it down that they will kill the other lot first. In Iran Khomeini’s lot showed which was the more deadly didn’t they?
I would only try to get to the soft-leftist or merely PC type Graun readers in the hope that they are still accessible to reason. I have found myself recently on forums in which the people I am ostensibly debating with are beyond reason but I’m hoping to reach the others reading.
That’s how it is with the appalling Considine eg:
https://craigconsidinetcd.com/2016/06/07/there-is-nothing-islamic-a...
I only bother with him because he has so many readers. It amazes me that he hasn't banned me.
He is interesting to me for another reason too. Going back to the example of Mohammed, he is one of a group of people trying to spread the benign example of Mo as shown in the (almost certainly forged) Covenants between Mo and Christians. For him that feeble source outweighs the traditional ones of the Koran, hadiths etc. and he uses his university position to spread it.
ATB
I believe Koran-only Muslims are chimeras, unicorns, fairies. They cannot even calculate Ramadan based on the Koran. The Koran says in 4 places where it defines halal requirements, that hungry Muslims can eat anything. But these supposedly Koran-only Muslims are not going to give up Ramadan nor will they start having bacon butties. They invoked the chimera of such beasts in order to limit the debate to the Koran - a jumbled-up mess where even abrogation/contradiction can't be determined without extra-Koranic texts.
Moreover, if there were Koran-only Muslims, then they would reject the Pact of Omar. This is what conveys the state of dhimmitude. The only place Koran-only Muslims would have for Kuffars would be death (9:5, 9:29). There is no later verse which permits dhimmitude as an option to the Kuffar.
Whilst Muslims think saying they are "koran-only" confers some non-violent, inscrutable, pure, buddhist/vegan state on them in the minds of libtards, to my mind they would be the most genocidal/slave-taking Muslims on the planet.
ECAW said:
2. I wish Koran-only Muslims good luck but I think their chance of overturning the whole Islamic tradition is somewhere between slim and fat. I am interested in Koran-only non-Muslims ie those who know only of the Koran and see only local squabbles in it as I now do. My concern is to persuade them that Islam is supremacist despite the weak evidence of the Koran, not to persuade Muslims that it isn’t.
Throwing Libtards and Alan Lake into consternation (for different reasons), Al Beebazeera's head of religious programming has conceded that IS are Islamic.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3621303/ISIS-jihadis-driven...
I have never thought that Leftard activists nor Muslims are worth converting. They are < 10% of UK population. It's the other 90% who I've always targeted. Part of bringing the 90% on-board, is being able to expose the Leftards/Muslims in a forum where the Leftards/Muslims can't delete the comments exposing them. Any site which can ban/delete is a waste of time.
ECAW said:
Alan – I agree with you and Kinana that the example of Mohammed is a strong argument to use with non-Muslims.
Re. debating with Muslims and non-Muslims, I wouldn’t bother trying to persuade either a Muslim or a hard-leftist, who I think of as the UAF types who have knowingly allied with Islamists in their joint hatred of Western civilisation. Presumably they both think that when they have succeeded in bringing it down that they will kill the other lot first. In Iran Khomeini’s lot showed which was the more deadly didn’t they?
I would only try to get to the soft-leftist or merely PC type Graun readers in the hope that they are still accessible to reason. I have found myself recently on forums in which the people I am ostensibly debating with are beyond reason but I’m hoping to reach the others reading.
That’s how it is with the appalling Considine eg:
https://craigconsidinetcd.com/2016/06/07/there-is-nothing-islamic-a...
I only bother with him because he has so many readers. It amazes me that he hasn't banned me.
He is interesting to me for another reason too. Going back to the example of Mohammed, he is one of a group of people trying to spread the benign example of Mo as shown in the (almost certainly forged) Covenants between Mo and Christians. For him that feeble source outweighs the traditional ones of the Koran, hadiths etc. and he uses his university position to spread it.
ATB
Since Muslims (or at least Sunni Muslims) rely on abrogation, they need to construct an extra-koranic chronology to resolve contradictions.
That chronology is the context. And whilst Ibn Ishaq is not considered to be the Hadiths, Ishaq provides the chronology. Therefore Ishaq is the context of the entire Koran. As I understand it, the Hadiths are simply collections of behaviours, examples to follow, a book of recipes. They fill out details of behaviour to copy, details which are not found in the Koran, but which are still considered to be the best examples of how to do things which the Koran does not prescribe.
Kinana said:
the context argument is interesting. When choosing context how wide is allowed? Why only the verse before or after? Why not 10 or 20 verses; or even the whole Quran? That is a logical context to discuss context too! The Quran in many many places holds up Mohammed as the perfect man and model for human behaviour for all time and all peoples.
Off topic - I suggested to someone who is interested in this sort of thing that they might join but I see the membership is now closed. Is there any way he could take part?
Straying from 9:5 I would like to mention a Deobandi sermon on the final sentence of Koran 2:286
The final sentence is:
You [Allah] are our protector, so give us victory over the disbelieving people.
The sermon says:
Unsurprisingly, this preacher/sermon thinks that when the Quran says ‘give us victory over the disbelieving people" it actually means: ‘Thus make us overwhelming upon transgressors and disbelievers – and emerge us victorious over them.’
And since they are holding the bombs and guns I am not going to argue with them!
In addition to the Quran-only Muslims there are the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community UK who are full of ‘love for all and hatred for none.’ This group is not considered Muslim by the vast majority of Muslims and are criminalised in Pakistan for declaring that they are faithfully following Mohammed and the Quran. I believe that their position on the issue of context that we are discussing here is that things have moved on since Mohammed.
So there are many interpretations of any particular text. So we need to use our thinking and analytical powers, incorporate a study of history, consider how it is understood over time, understand that one verse does not a theology make, and choose which authorities carry the most weight.
Thanks for starting this discussion Alan.
Welcome to 4 Freedoms!
(currently not admitting new members)
Just fill in the box below on any 4F page to be notified when it changes.
Most Western societies are based on Secular Democracy, which itself is based on the concept that the open marketplace of ideas leads to the optimum government. Whilst that model has been very successful, it has defects. The 4 Freedoms address 4 of the principal vulnerabilities, and gives corrections to them.
At the moment, one of the main actors exploiting these defects, is Islam, so this site pays particular attention to that threat.
Islam, operating at the micro and macro levels, is unstoppable by individuals, hence: "It takes a nation to protect the nation". There is not enough time to fight all its attacks, nor to read them nor even to record them. So the members of 4F try to curate a representative subset of these events.
We need to capture this information before it is removed. The site already contains sufficient information to cover most issues, but our members add further updates when possible.
We hope that free nations will wake up to stop the threat, and force the separation of (Islamic) Church and State. This will also allow moderate Muslims to escape from their totalitarian political system.
These 4 freedoms are designed to close 4 vulnerabilities in Secular Democracy, by making them SP or Self-Protecting (see Hobbes's first law of nature). But Democracy also requires - in addition to the standard divisions of Executive, Legislature & Judiciary - a fourth body, Protector of the Open Society (POS), to monitor all its vulnerabilities (see also Popper).
1. SP Freedom of Speech
Any speech is allowed - except that advocating the end of these freedoms
2. SP Freedom of Election
Any party is allowed - except one advocating the end of these freedoms
3. SP Freedom from Voter Importation
Immigration is allowed - except where that changes the political demography (this is electoral fraud)
4. SP Freedom from Debt
The Central Bank is allowed to create debt - except where that debt burden can pass across a generation (25 years).
An additional Freedom from Religion is deducible if the law is applied equally to everyone:
© 2023 Created by Netcon.
Powered by