What is wrong with you?

[robinvanpersie]

[COLOR="Black"]
https://quran.com/4/76
-You seem to not realize that no one really fought in the "cause of satan"...ever if I'm correct. It's a free-license to fight people you you deem to be satanic, not who are actually satanic.

No it does not, and this is the reason why you should read the verse in context of the chapter, previous verse:
And what is [the matter] with you that you fight not in the cause of Allah and [for] the oppressed among men, women, and children who say, "Our Lord, take us out of this city of oppressive people and appoint for us from Yourself a protector and appoint for us from Yourself a helper?" – 4:75

https://quran.com/4/89
-Fight those who want to change your belief. Same thing Islam would be doing. In other words, fight those who are not of your faith. Don't be naive.

[2:256] There shall be no compulsion in religion:
[18:29] Proclaim: "This is the truth from your Lord," then whoever wills let him believe, and whoever wills let him disbelieve.
[16:125] You shall invite to the path of your Lord with wisdom and kind enlightenment, and debate with them in the best possible manner. Your Lord knows best who has strayed from His path, and He knows best who are the guided ones.

https://quran.com/9/5
-Actually its saying "if they surrender"

9:5"And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."

9:6"And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah . Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know."

Never read a verse without it's context:

Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him]. -9:4

And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. -9:5

And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah . Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know. -9:6

How can there be for the polytheists a treaty in the sight of Allah and with His Messenger, except for those with whom you made a treaty at al-Masjid al-Haram? So as long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him]. -9:7

How [can there be a treaty] while, if they gain dominance over you, they do not observe concerning you any pact of kinship or covenant of protection? They satisfy you with their mouths, but their hearts refuse [compliance], and most of them are defiantly disobedient. -9:8

They have exchanged the signs of Allah for a small price and averted [people] from His way. Indeed, it was evil that they were doing. -9:9

They do not observe toward a believer any pact of kinship or covenant of protection. And it is they who are the transgressors. -9:10



Posting verses from the Quran out of context proves no point. You see the verses out of context and because that is what you want Islam to be, you accept the verses. Without questioning or critically thinking about the sources where you are getting these verses out of context from, and what their agenda is.

[nevs666]

Posting verses from the Quran out of context proves no point. You see the verses out of context and because that is what you want Islam to be, you accept the verses. Without questioning or critically thinking about the sources where you are getting these verses out of context from, and what their agenda is.

^That part made me laugh a little.

But on a serious note none of that has anything to do with your first point. Which was saying.

No it was clear from all of the verses that you are only allowed to fight if someone else wages war on you or oppresses you or forces you to believe something.

You even emboldened it for me, you quoted it yourself, it is telling you, no, commanding you to kill the pagans when the treaty time was up. So yeah I don't really get your point here. I'm not sure if your trying to say that if they had a treaty that they wouldn't be able to fight them or what because from what I'm reading, from what you are presenting me is that if they agree to a treaty (I'm assuming on the Muslims terms of course, which can be a whole separate issue depending on what they demanded) then they would be safe, for a time, and then when the time is up it's raids, death, slavery, and forced conversions.

[robinvanpersie]

You even emboldened it for me, you quoted it yourself, it is telling you, no, commanding you to kill the pagans when the treaty time was up. So yeah I don't really get your point here. I'm not sure if your trying to say that if they had a treaty that they wouldn't be able to fight them or what because from what I'm reading, from what you are presenting me is that if they agree to a treaty (I'm assuming on the Muslims terms of course, which can be a whole separate issue depending on what they demanded) then they would be safe, for a time, and then when the time is up it's raids, death, slavery, and forced conversions.

Everyone group have their good and their bad. They had a treaty to ensure peace but some of the polytheists broke it later on when they started oppressing Muslims again. The verse is saying to go kill only those polytheists because they killed and oppressed innocent Muslims, after they promised they wouldn't. That was when the verse was revealed to prophet Muhammad pbuh:

How [can there be a treaty] while, if they gain dominance over you, they do not observe concerning you any pact of kinship or covenant of protection? They satisfy you with their mouths, but their hearts refuse [compliance], and most of them are defiantly disobedient. -9:8

They do not observe toward a believer any pact of kinship or covenant of protection. And it is they who are the transgressors. -9:10

It doesn't mean all polytheists and the reason it says to fight them isn't because they are polytheists.

[Empire]

No it does not, and this is the reason why you should read the verse in context of the chapter, previous verse:
And what is [the matter] with you that you fight not in the cause of Allah and [for] the oppressed among men, women, and children who say, "Our Lord, take us out of this city of oppressive people and appoint for us from Yourself a protector and appoint for us from Yourself a helper?" – 4:75



[2:256] There shall be no compulsion in religion:
[18:29] Proclaim: "This is the truth from your Lord," then whoever wills let him believe, and whoever wills let him disbelieve.
[16:125] You shall invite to the path of your Lord with wisdom and kind enlightenment, and debate with them in the best possible manner. Your Lord knows best who has strayed from His path, and He knows best who are the guided ones.




Never read a verse without it's context:

Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him]. -9:4

And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. -9:5

And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah . Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know. -9:6

How can there be for the polytheists a treaty in the sight of Allah and with His Messenger, except for those with whom you made a treaty at al-Masjid al-Haram? So as long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him]. -9:7

How [can there be a treaty] while, if they gain dominance over you, they do not observe concerning you any pact of kinship or covenant of protection? They satisfy you with their mouths, but their hearts refuse [compliance], and most of them are defiantly disobedient. -9:8

They have exchanged the signs of Allah for a small price and averted [people] from His way. Indeed, it was evil that they were doing. -9:9

They do not observe toward a believer any pact of kinship or covenant of protection. And it is they who are the transgressors. -9:10



Posting verses from the Quran out of context proves no point. You see the verses out of context and because that is what you want Islam to be, you accept the verses. Without questioning or critically thinking about the sources where you are getting these verses out of context from, and what their agenda is.

Well I'll respond to the "oppression" nonsense below, however it clearly does say to fight those who you deem satanic. The context is of "well they are oppressing" does not add to the fact that they called someone satanic to justify a war.*(which again, no one was satanic lol).

Again, there were tons of wars fought for the sake of conversion and false cries of "oppression" in Islam. Muhammed himself did so in Mecca, so i'm not sure where you are missing the point where that verse was used to justify war.

Oh and on the "there should be no compulsion" looks like you were taking it out of context, as any who disbelieve believe in tahgut! Which are the people who muslims fight according to the verse you respond to.*(and the allies of Satan, who could forget that part.)


AGAIN you make the mistake of thinking that "if they surrender" is a viable justification for an offensive war.
-Seriously, at this point I'm just going to call you a retard since you seem to have no reading comprehension of the verses you post.

Everyone group have their good and their bad. They had a treaty to ensure peace but some of the polytheists broke it later on when they started oppressing Muslims again. The verse is saying to go kill only those polytheists because they killed and oppressed innocent Muslims, after they promised they wouldn't. That was when the verse was revealed to prophet Muhammad pbuh:

How [can there be a treaty] while, if they gain dominance over you, they do not observe concerning you any pact of kinship or covenant of protection? They satisfy you with their mouths, but their hearts refuse [compliance], and most of them are defiantly disobedient. -9:8

They do not observe toward a believer any pact of kinship or covenant of protection. And it is they who are the transgressors. -9:10

It doesn't mean all polytheists and the reason it says to fight them isn't because they are polytheists.

Ah yes the "oppressing muslims" excuse. I always love this excuse. Not only because it's about as legit as the "fight the satanic" stuff, but it's just so easy to say muslims are being oppressed and then start a war over it.

Then(this is the best part) the laws that muslims laid down oppressed non muslims! It's complete hypocrisy!
---------------------------------------------

Btw, it doesn't say to fight them because they are polytheist no(although encouraging war is always wrong in offensive natures), but that mention of polytheist is the same as the mention of those who "fight in the cause of satan", it's propaganda so that people will believe the war is justified because the other side is a bad person.

[robinvanpersie]

Well I'll respond to the "oppression" nonsense below, however it clearly does say to fight those who you deem satanic. The context is of "well they are oppressing" does not add to the fact that they called someone satanic to justify a war.*(which again, no one was satanic lol).

There was no word, "you" in the verse. Oppressing people is a satanic thing to do, and when it said fight the allies of Satan it was referring to the previous verse, the people who oppress others.

Again, there were tons of wars fought for the sake of conversion and false cries of "oppression" in Islam. Muhammed himself did so in Mecca, so i'm not sure where you are missing the point where that verse was used to justify war.

Muslims were an overwhelming minority and it was against what most believed at the time, do you seriously think they were not oppressed? You haven't read the Quran so I don't expect you to have read about the life of Prophet Muhammad pbuh. That is your opinion based on ignorance.

Oh and on the "there should be no compulsion" looks like you were taking it out of context, as any who disbelieve believe in tahgut! Which are the people who muslims fight according to the verse you respond to.*(and the allies of Satan, who could forget that part.)

You are taking verses out of context I am posting the verses proving you wrong. You claimed Islam teaches to forcefully convert people, those verses clearly show there is no compulsion in Islam.

AGAIN you make the mistake of thinking that "if they surrender" is a viable justification for an offensive war.
-Seriously, at this point I'm just going to call you a retard since you seem to have no reading comprehension of the verses you post.

If you read my posts and actually wanted to learn about Islam instead of trying to win an argument, you would realise I said that ceasing to fight does not mean surrendering, and if you read the verses in context it meant fight till the polytheists who want all Muslims dead so they surrender from their oppressing of others. It does not mean so they surrender and are forced to believe in the one God because there is no compulsion in Islam, as I mentioned before.

Btw, it doesn't say to fight them because they are polytheist no(although encouraging war is always wrong in offensive natures), but that mention of polytheist is the same as the mention of those who "fight in the cause of satan", it's propaganda so that people will believe the war is justified because the other side is a bad person.

So after diplomacy has failed and the oppressors continue. Is it wrong to go help people who are being oppressed, being killed, and are not allowed to practice what they believe? None of the Iraqis were being oppressed like the early Muslims were but the USA government still decided to invade in order to "help." And the majority of Americans were fooled by their government at the time and they thought it was the right thing to do.

[Empire]

Again, no one was satanic. Using that phrase is propaganda.

I don't doubt they were "oppressed", 90% of everyone everywhere were "oppressed" in some way at that time. However using that as an excuse for war, which then would just lead to the Muslims oppressing others, is complete hypocrisy. and an unjustified cause.
-I have read the Quran, I just don't use the belief that Muhammed was good because it says he was good. I make my own decisions.


No actually I'm saying it uses propaganda to wage a war, then by the oppression of Islamic law and how they treated, people converted to Islam.(or put to the sword, depending upon the leader at that time).
- Hence the reason the Islamic empire converted through war. Again, I don't have to argue this. It's history, it's known.


"If you read my posts and actually wanted to learn about Islam instead of trying to win an argument, you would realise I said that ceasing to fight does not mean surrendering, and if you read the verses in context it meant fight till the polytheists who want all Muslims dead so they surrender from their oppressing of others. It does not mean so they surrender and are forced to believe in the one God because there is no compulsion in Islam, as I mentioned before."

1. I don't learn about Islam through biased sources.
2. Again, "polytheist are evil" is propaganda for war.
3. Saying there is no compulsion only means that the Quran contradicted itself.


4. Oppression is wrong, waging war against oppression could be the right action. Islam used "oppression" as propaganda to wage war. The people were not oppressing them, they were not even threatening them, yet they attacked them based on false notions of "they are oppressing us and are satanic", which the Quran fully supports the idea of.
----------------------


Lets be honest, the verses are self-evident. You can read 10 or twenty verses in either direction and still come to the same conclusion. If the Quran contradicts itself later or earlier that does not change the fact that these verses exist and were used to justify war.



Since you originally asked me....

Come on dude it is entirely those "muslims" fault. I will challenge you. If you post just one verse from the Quran in context where it talks about violence and it does not say stop fighting if the opponent stops fighting, then I will agree with you that Islam is violent. Just one verse.

And i provided 20 verses using propaganda to justify waging wars, I think this discussion was done from the start.

[robinvanpersie]

[COLOR="Black"]Again, no one was satanic. Using that phrase is propaganda.
You keep going in circles with this point. Killing people because of their beliefs and oppressing them is clearly a satanic thing to do.

That is why God warned the Muslims not to transgress:
[2:190] You may fight in the cause of GOD against those who attack you, but do not aggress. GOD does not love the aggressors.
[2:191] You may kill those who wage war against you, and you may evict them whence they evicted you. Oppression is worse than murder. Do not fight them at the Sacred Masjid, unless they attack you therein. If they attack you, you may kill them. This is the just retribution for those disbelievers.
[2:192] If they refrain, then GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.
[2:193] You may also fight them to eliminate oppression, and to worship GOD freely. If they refrain, you shall not aggress; aggression is permitted only against the aggressors.

-I have read the Quran, I just don't use the belief that Muhammed was good because it says he was good. I make my own decisions.

Come on dude. The number of times I have had to correct on the things you claim about Islam shows you haven't. You have just read some verses out of context. You and I both know you haven't, at least admit there is no shame in it. I have been a Muslim all my life and I didn't read the whole of the Quran until when I was 17 because of the things people claim about Islam. I read all of it and I knew that they were all wrong.

No actually I'm saying it uses propaganda to wage a war, then by the oppression of Islamic law and how they treated, people converted to Islam.(or put to the sword, depending upon the leader at that time).
- Hence the reason the Islamic empire converted through war. Again, I don't have to argue this. It's history, it's known.

It is not possible to convert people by force that is just propaganda. Put yourself in the situation, would you convert if someone tried to force you to convert to Islam? It would just make you more angry and make you not want to convert even more. Even if they threaten your life, you just lie but you would never really convert.

1. I don't learn about Islam through biased sources.
2. Again, "polytheist are evil" is propaganda for war.
3. Saying there is no compulsion only means that the Quran contradicted itself.
4. Oppression is wrong, waging war against oppression could be the right action. Islam used "oppression" as propaganda to wage war. The people were not oppressing them, they were not even threatening them, yet they attacked them based on false notions of "they are oppressing us and are satanic", which the Quran fully supports the idea of.

@1 You clearly know you do and I struck your guilty conscious, you decided to mention that all of sudden.
@2 It said the polytheists who kill people because of their beliefs, and oppress as evil. Which they were, it would have been propaganda if they were not.
@3 There are no contradictions in the Quran. It means that you don't understand the verses that you contradicts the Quran because you took them out of context.
@4 Earlier on you said you don't deny that they were oppressed. Now you are saying that they weren't.

Lets be honest, the verses are self-evident. You can read 10 or twenty verses in either direction and still come to the same conclusion. If the Quran contradicts itself later or earlier that does not change the fact that these verses exist and were used to justify war.

Reading verses mean nothing. If I posted random verses from a Harry Potter book, I could make the book be about whatever I want.

I think I need to make a thread to clear up where Islam stands on War, when it is justifiable and the rules of war.

[Empire]

That is why God warned the Muslims not to transgress:
[2:190] You may fight in the cause of GOD against those who attack you, but do not aggress. GOD does not love the aggressors.
[2:191] You may kill those who wage war against you, and you may evict them whence they evicted you. Oppression is worse than murder. Do not fight them at the Sacred Masjid, unless they attack you therein. If they attack you, you may kill them. This is the just retribution for those disbelievers.
[2:192] If they refrain, then GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.
[2:193] You may also fight them to eliminate oppression, and to worship GOD freely. If they refrain, you shall not aggress; aggression is permitted only against the aggressors.

Come on dude. The number of times I have had to correct on the things you claim about Islam shows you haven't. You have just read some verses out of context. You and I both know you haven't, at least admit there is no shame in it. I have been a Muslim all my life and I didn't read the whole of the Quran until when I was 17 because of the things people claim about Islam. I read all of it and I knew that they were all wrong.


It is not possible to convert people by force that is just propaganda. Put yourself in the situation, would you convert if someone tried to force you to convert to Islam? It would just make you more angry and make you not want to convert even more. Even if they threaten your life, you just lie but you would never really convert.


@1 You clearly know you do and I struck your guilty conscious, you decided to mention that all of sudden.
@2 It said the polytheists who kill people because of their beliefs, and oppress as evil. Which they were, it would have been propaganda if they were not.
@3 There are no contradictions in the Quran. It means that you don't understand the verses that you contradicts the Quran because you took them out of context.
@4 Earlier on you said you don't deny that they were oppressed. Now you are saying that they weren't.

Reading verses mean nothing. If I posted random verses from a Harry Potter book, I could make the book be about whatever I want.

I think I need to make a thread to clear up where Islam stands on War, when it is justifiable and the rules of war.

Yeah i'm not gonna repeat myself on the transgress thing. Its a contradiction and those verses were used as propaganda.
-Here is a tip: If you don't want people to use verses that are clearly meant to jusitfy war, don't make them. I mean really, what would the quran have lost without these verses? Less justification for violence? Ok then you have your answer on what the verses are for.


The number of times you've used irrelevant and completely different sources in the quran is astounding, i'll admit. But you seem to not understand that for every time you have to quote another verse that contradicts the verse of violence, you'll have someone in islam use that verse for justification of violence(aka muhammad originally). The fact that you have to quote one verse that wasn't even in the same chapter, context, or time period, to contradict the verses of violence, is enough for me to make the argument that Islam is not peaceful and these verses inspire violence.

EXAMPLE: I'm a dictator. I make a speech that says we should treat others peacefully, and not transgress. War-time comes around, and I make another speech, saying how we should fight those who fight in the cause of Satan, THEN i wage a war.

What does that say? That says that first speech was bullshit, and the fact that it contradicts the second war-speech does not override it.

LOOK WHERE YOU ARE QUOTING FROM. Of fucking course Muhammad preached of peace, he didn't have an army. As soon as he gained that military power he used propaganda(through Islam) to justify his war.

@1. No the point was that I didn't need to have my faith re-affirmed so I could learn about islam through objective sources.
@2. Ahahah, no. It didn't.
@3. Well you just pointed them out. Clearly one cannot inspire violence AND peace.
@4. I'm saying that technically they were, but not as muslims. And the fact that muslims oppressed others means that was not their goal.


Reading the verses mean nothing.
Claims I haven't read the Quran.

So yeah, you are an idiot.

[robinvanpersie]

Yeah i'm not gonna repeat myself on the transgress thing. Its a contradiction and those verses were used as propaganda.
-Here is a tip: If you don't want people to use verses that are clearly meant to jusitfy war, don't make them. I mean really, what would the quran have lost without these verses? Less justification for violence? Ok then you have your answer on what the verses are for.

No it is simple, read the Quran from beginning to end. No one does that with any other book so why do you do it with the Quran. Do you see Literature students analyse a book on random verses from the book? No, they read the whole book.

The number of times you've used irrelevant and completely different sources in the quran is astounding, i'll admit. But you seem to not understand that for every time you have to quote another verse that contradicts the verse of violence, you'll have someone in islam use that verse for justification of violence(aka muhammad originally). The fact that you have to quote one verse that wasn't even in the same chapter, context, or time period, to contradict the verses of violence, is enough for me to make the argument that Islam is not peaceful and these verses inspire violence.

All of the verses I posted to those 20 verses of violence were within the chapter. Most were just the verse before or the verse after. You are just running out of things to say, and starting to make things just for the sake of writing something.

EXAMPLE: I'm a dictator. I make a speech that says we should treat others peacefully, and not transgress. War-time comes around, and I make another speech, saying how we should fight those who fight in the cause of Satan, THEN i wage a war.

What does that say? That says that first speech was bullshit, and the fact that it contradicts the second war-speech does not override it.

Again you are making things up. Muslims only fought those who oppressed others.

LOOK WHERE YOU ARE QUOTING FROM. Of fucking course Muhammad preached of peace, he didn't have an army. As soon as he gained that military power he used propaganda(through Islam) to justify his war.

So much ignorance.

Reading the verses mean nothing.
Claims I haven't read the Quran.

So yeah, you are an idiot.

Simple yes or no question. Have you read the Quran from beginning to end? That is the answer to all your ignorance and why you believe the propaganda, that Muslims wanted to convert everyone, and they waged wars on innocent people. You won't read the Quran because of the fear that you are wrong about Muslims, or the fear of conversion. You don't want to educate yourself about Islam so stop talking about Islam with ignorance.

[Empire]

No it is simple, read the Quran from beginning to end. No one does that with any other book so why do you do it with the Quran. Do you see Literature students analyse a book on random verses from the book? No, they read the whole book.


All of the verses I posted to those 20 verses of violence were within the chapter. Most were just the verse before or the verse after. You are just running out of things to say, and starting to make things just for the sake of writing something.


Again you are making things up. Muslims only fought those who oppressed others.

So much ignorance.

Simple yes or no question. Have you read the Quran from beginning to end? That is the answer to all your ignorance and why you believe the propaganda, that Muslims wanted to convert everyone, and they waged wars on innocent people. You won't read the Quran because of the fear that you are wrong about Muslims, or the fear of conversion. You don't want to educate yourself about Islam so stop talking about Islam with ignorance.

Uh...people analyse verses from books all the time. Do you not have a language class in your school? Do you know nothing about literary study?
Also, you read books without accepting it as true all the time.(at least I hope you do). Try doing that with the Quran and see what you get.

Actually they weren't. You had to post verses from 2 for a lot of the later verses to contradict them.

Yes I have read the quran.

The funniest part about that "you don't want to know the truth" is that you don't even know Islamic history and how the Islamic Empire was formed. You don't accept that Muhammad used Islam for military reasons, you don't accept that after his death the Quran caused turmoil within the middle east because everyone was using the already existing propaganda verses, and you probably don't see the problem with a civil war with his "most beloved" wife Asha sending thousands of Muslims to hell and ending up being a traitor to the Islamic cause.


Truly, if you weren't so willfully ignorant, this discussion would have ended by now.

[robinvanpersie]

Uh...people analyse verses from books all the time. Do you not have a language class in your school? Do you know nothing about literary study?
Also, you read books without accepting it as true all the time.(at least I hope you do). Try doing that with the Quran and see what you get.

Actually they weren't. You had to post verses from 2 for a lot of the later verses to contradict them.

Yes I have read the quran.

The funniest part about that "you don't want to know the truth" is that you don't even know Islamic history and how the Islamic Empire was formed. You don't accept that Muhammad used Islam for military reasons, you don't accept that after his death the Quran caused turmoil within the middle east because everyone was using the already existing propaganda verses, and you probably don't see the problem with a civil war with his "most beloved" wife Asha sending thousands of Muslims to hell and ending up being a traitor to the Islamic cause.


Truly, if you weren't so willfully ignorant, this discussion would have ended by now.

People analyse verses from poems after they have read the whole poem, people analyse verses from books after they have read the whole book. You cannot analyse a book on just some random verses, you need to first read the whole book to get an idea of what it is about.

You have not read the Quran. Just go back and read some of your posts about Islam. Who do you seriously think you are fooling?

[Empire]

People analyse verses from poems after they have read the whole poem, people analyse verses from books after they have read the whole book. You cannot analyse a book on just some random verses, you need to first read the whole book to get an idea of what it is about.

You have not read the Quran. Just go back and read some of your posts about Islam. Who do you seriously think you are fooling?

So your argument boils down to this:

"Those verses don't contain violence because you haven't read the quran."?


Thanks for admitting you have nothing and your defeat.

Bye-bye!

[robinvanpersie]

So your argument boils down to this:

"Those verses don't contain violence because you haven't read the quran."?


Thanks for admitting you have nothing and your defeat.

Bye-bye!

Posting verses without the context of the chapter doesn't prove anything, it is only proof for the ignorant who believe anything they want to hear. No counter argument for you can't analyse a whole book based on some verses? Glad you accept that.

[Empire]

Posting verses without the context of the chapter doesn't prove anything, it is only proof for the ignorant who believe anything they want to hear. No counter argument for you can't analyse a whole book based on some verses? Glad you accept that.

You requested. verses, not me to link the entire book. If you want I could link 5 verses in any direction, but it seems almost pointless as your argument is again;
"You didn't read the quran so those verses don't count".

Look, if you think literary analysis isn't possible of the Quran, just say so. It's pointless to keep requesting that people show you proof when you deny it because you don't accept proof.
-------------------------------

The arguments of "you just don't understand", "you haven't read the quran", and listing verses that contradict the statements are in essence, just trying to apologize, not to correct. You are not proving me wrong or even trying to, but to try and convince people that I'm wrong "just because".
-------------------------------

The argument that people "just don't understand" is one of ignorance. If they don't understand then you need to be able to explain it. If you cannot then you yourself don't understand the concept either.

If you cannot explain something, then claim the other person is wrong because they have not read the entire book, then either you have not read the book either or you are wrong.

If you listed contradictory verses it only proves that there is a contradiction. You can also use evidence of time period and what Muhammad was using these verses for(time of war) compared to the times when Muhammad claimed for peace were in the majority, before he had an army/power. Meaning that if a person was in the state of war or pre-war, these verses gave propaganda-like justification for war. But in the time of peace, those verses only applied to what is essentially a meaningless-cause.

:/

Robin you really just defeat yourself here. You should not ask for proof, because you look like a bitch trying every trick in the book to dissuade it once it's posted.

What you should have done is argue for the case of modern first-world Muslims.

Arguing for Muhammad is pointless, he clearly led an offensive war, and the Islamic empire was founded through that mentality.

[robinvanpersie]

I asked you to post verses in the context of the chapter. You posted verses out of context. I explained the verses in the context showing when it is justified to fight:

https://quran.com/2/244
It says to fight in the cause of Allah and the next verses explains the cause:
They said, "And why should we not fight in the cause of Allah when we have been driven out from our homes and from our children?" – 2:246
https://quran.com/2/216
It says to fight those who try to force you to leave Islam, the next verse explains that:
And they will continue to fight you until they turn you back from your religion if they are able. – 2:217
https://quran.com/3/56
https://quran.com/3/151
Those verses state that God will punish those He deems worthy, it does not say anything about fighting anyone.
https://quran.com/4/76
It says fight the allies of Satan not innocent people; those who cause chaos and mischief in the world.
https://quran.com/4/89
This verse says to fight those who want to change your belief. The next verse says:
Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. 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
https://quran.com/4/95-96
This verse says that God loves those who fight for God’s cause not those who are cowards. Again, God’s cause is to fight those: who oppress you, force you to believe something, and who drive you away from your home.
https://quran.com/5/33
It says to fight those who wage war on you, start of the verse:
Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed. - 5:33
https://quran.com/8/12
That verse says God will punish those who disbelieve. It does not say anything about fighting.
https://quran.com/8/15
This verse says to not run away from battle by being a coward. From the previous verses it is clear you only fight someone else who wages war on you or oppresses you.
https://quran.com/8/39
Again it says to only fight if they fight you, the previous verse:
Say to those who have disbelieved [that] if they cease, what has previously occurred will be forgiven for them. But if they return [to hostility] - then the precedent of the former [rebellious] peoples has already taken place. -8:39
https://quran.com/8/57
Again it is talking about when the opponent has waged war on you. A couple of verses later:
And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah . Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing. – 8:60
https://quran.com/9/5
Again it is talking about when the polytheists are fighting you then you should fight to defend. The next verse:
And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah . Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know. – 9:6
https://quran.com/9/14
Again it says to fight those who fight you first, the previous verse:
Would you not fight a people who broke their oaths and determined to expel the Messenger, and they had begun [the attack upon] you the first time? Do you fear them? But Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are [truly] believers. -9:13
https://quran.com/9/29
Again it means to fight those who fight or oppress you as mentioned a few verses earlier that I posted, 9:14. Also here is the interpretation from a scholar:
These Ayat (Quranic verses) stress the necessity of fighting against the People of the Scripture, but under what conditions? We previously established the fact that the Islamic State is not permitted to attack non-Muslims who are not hostile to Islam, who do not oppress Muslims, or try to convert Muslims by force from their religion, or expel them from their lands, or wage war against them, or prepare for attacks against them. If any of these offenses occurs, however, Muslims are permitted to defend themselves and protect their religion. Muslims are not permitted to attack non-Muslims who signed peace pacts with them, or non-Muslims who live under the protection of the Islamic State. (Abualrub, Holy Wars, Crusades, Jihad)
https://quran.com/9/38-39
https://quran.com/9/41
https://quran.com/9/73
https://quran.com/9/88
https://quran.com/9/111
https://quran.com/9/123
Again all of these verses are from the same chapter and they teach to fight in the cause of Allah, which I hope by now is obvious. It is not to convert everyone to Islam, but to not be a coward and to fight those who oppress you, force you to believe something, wage war on you, and drive you from your home.

I then made the point that you cannot analyse a book based on verses taken out of context, which was your whole argument from the beginning. You had no counter argument. Now you are making things up that I have said or going back to the previous posts because you have run out of things to say. I am not saying literary analysis isn't possible of the Quran. I am saying you can't analysis it on verses taken out of context, the same with any book. If I post random verses from a book and ask you to tell me what it is about, you would never be able to tell me.