Quran 9.5: qualified or not?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by ECAW on June 3, 2016 at 15:03

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.

Permalink Reply by Kinana on June 4, 2016 at 13:17

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!

Permalink Reply by Philip Smeeton on June 4, 2016 at 16:01

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.

Permalink Reply by ECAW on June 4, 2016 at 16:27

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.

Permalink Reply by Alan Lake on June 9, 2016 at 3:13

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:

• Q: Was Mohammed the perfect man and model for all Muslims to copy in their lives? R: (Response) = Yes
• Q: Did he make a mistake here?  R: No
• Q: In a situation similar to this one, should a Muslim do as Mohammed did, or do the opposite?
  R: similar in what way? this was after all a particular situation at a particular point in time.
  Q: Similar in that there are polytheists with whom a Muslim has peace treaties and the sacred months have passed.
  Response = One should not kill them now.
  Q: So Mohammed was wrong to kill them then?
  R: No, this case is different
  Q: In what way is this different?
  R: The case where Mohammed killed them was a different time and place
  Q: In what way then is Mohammed a "model" for all muslims, for all times and places?  You cannot have it both ways. Either he made a mistake then (and if you say that, other Muslims will kill you). Or he did the right thing and it is a model.  If you say that the behaviour is not to be copied in similar circumstances just relocated to different times and geographical locations, then you are saying that Mohammed is not a model (and other Muslims will kill you for that).  

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.

Permalink Reply by ECAW on June 10, 2016 at 20:23

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

Permalink Reply by Joe on June 11, 2016 at 1:58

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.

Permalink Reply by Joe on June 11, 2016 at 2:03

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

Permalink Reply by Joe on June 11, 2016 at 2:14

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.

 

Permalink Reply by ECAW on June 11, 2016 at 22:01

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?

Permalink Reply by Kinana on June 12, 2016 at 22:38

ECAW, your friend has now joined 4Freedoms.

Permalink Reply by Kinana on June 12, 2016 at 23:10

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.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page