FrontPageMagSymposium: A New Koran?

Bigmo

http//www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=a00f3895-42bb-4a7d-9fa5-4a19f3286ead

Hope I'm not duplicating this if it's been posted elsewhere - but thought it was worth discussing - Khalim Massoud, Edip Yuksel, Thomas Haidon, and three anti-muslims. Khalim Massoud goes further than most reformists in advocating the removal of violent passages from the Quran, for which he is flamed by Edip and basically everyone else on the 'Symposium'.

Khalim's chief gripe is what he refers to as the 'the doctrine of Islamic supremacy'. He is also very critical of attempts to reform certain passages of the Quran, specifically 2.191 and 9.5, which explicitly refer to killing certain groups of people, which he describes as "nothing more than whitewashing of genocide".

Thoughts?

After 9-11 there has been various debates about Islam. Some have said that the terrorist are Islam's true spoken. The so called moderates practice taqiya. Taqiya is the deliberate lying for the faith. They say Islam is a violent religion that commands Muslims to kill non Muslim. Non Muslims have 3 choices, either they convert, pay the jizya(tax) or die. They say Muhammad was peaceful for PR reasons and once strong showed his true colors and preached violent jihad. They say all the peaceful verses were abrogated after his final victory with this verse

9.5. But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

And also this verse

9.29. Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

This verses are chosen for a reason. When read alone it implies a command to attack until they convert. Of course there are other verses in the Koran that talks about fighting. But why do they tend to focus on this one? Its simple, the other verses tend to show the defensive nature of the jihad and also the malicious intent and behavior of the pagans. Thus never cited. Lets look at some of them

2.190. Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors

2.191. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith

2.193. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God, but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression

Also

2.217. They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say "Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of God to prevent access to the path of God, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members." Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein.

All these verses talks about fighting, however within these verses the defensive nature of the verses and the malicious behavior of the pagans is cited. Thus those who wish to attack Islam never cite those verses. Its a deliberate attempt to hide what the Koran as saying and using selective verses to imply what they know the verses does not mean.

Lets however look at the verse that is often cited. This time we will take the verses before and after it to see what is the context this verse is talking.

9.4. (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term for God loveth the righteous.

9.5. But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

However in the same chapter in explains the intention behind this verse

9.13. Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is God Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!

The Koran must be quoted fully and not selectively.

Alen

http//www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=a00f3895-42bb-4a7d-9fa5-4a19f3286ead
Hope I'm not duplicating this if it's been posted elsewhere - but thought it was worth discussing - Khalim Massoud, Edip Yuksel, Thomas Haidon, and three anti-muslims. Khalim Massoud goes further than most reformists in advocating the removal of violent passages from the Quran, for which he is flamed by Edip and basically everyone else on the 'Symposium'.
Khalim's chief gripe is what he refers to as the 'the doctrine of Islamic supremacy'. He is also very critical of attempts to reform certain passages of the Quran, specifically 2.191 and 9.5, which explicitly refer to killing certain groups of people, which he describes as "nothing more than whitewashing of genocide".
Thoughts?

Peace,
Respectfully.

God said in the Quran that no falsehood can enter the Quran in the past or the future.
I trust God and i believe in GOd and i know that God can do anything and everything.
Quran is complete.
God says Himself that today (time of prophet
Muhammad, end of revelation) He has completed the religion of Islam.

Glory be to God, The Most Wise.

Peace.

Mahmud_H

Hi Bigmo, I do apperciate the context, but none of that context undermines that the text is generalising on the basis of religion and advocating aggression on this basis.

I agree 2.190-3 do not do this in the same way. It is 94-5 that are the problem. Even in the context of 913 it is still implying killing people for not changing their religion.

This is an extreme example of a fundamental problem - I do not believe God sent the Messanger to divide up the world into believers and unbelievers so there can be a great big war between them. That isn't what religion is about.

95 is not saying react to aggression. It doesn't say "When they attack, defend yourself" - it says "when the forbidden months are past" (presumably a treaty expiring?) "then fight and slay the Pagans". That isn't self defence. It isn't self defence at all. It's descriminating on the basis of religion and advocating sectarian violence.

Bigmo

Hi Bigmo, I do apperciate the context, but none of that context undermines that the text is generalising on the basis of religion and advocating aggression on this basis.

I agree 2.190-3 do not do this in the same way. It is 94-5 that are the problem. Even in the context of 913 it is still implying killing people for not changing their religion.

This is an extreme example of a fundamental problem - I do not believe God sent the Messanger to divide up the world into believers and unbelievers so there can be a great big war between them. That isn't what religion is about.

95 is not saying react to aggression. It doesn't say "When they attack, defend yourself" - it says "when the forbidden months are past" (presumably a treaty expiring?) "then fight and slay the Pagans". That isn't self defence. It isn't self defence at all. It's descriminating on the basis of religion and advocating sectarian violence.

Mahmud, first study the Koran. Lets look at what the job of the prophet is and what is his mission.

1682 But if they turn away from you, your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message .

6107 Yet if God had so willed, they would not have ascribed Divinity to aught besides Him; hence, We have not made you their keeper, nor are you a guardian over them.

479-80 Say'Whatever good betides you is from God and whatever evil betides you is from your own self and that We have sent you to mankind only as a messenger and all sufficing is God as witness. Whoso obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys God. And for those who turn away, We have not sent you as a keeper."

1128 He (Noah) said "O my people! think over it! If I act upon a clear direction from my Lord who has bestowed on me from Himself the Merciful talent of seeing the right way, a way which you cannot see for yourself, does it follow that we can force you to take the right path when you definitely decline to take it??

1753-54 And tell my servants that they should speak in a most kindly manner. Verily, Satan is always ready to stir up discord between men; for verily; Satan is mans foe .... Hence, We have not sent you with power to determine their Faith.

21107-109 (O Prophet?) 'We have not sent you except to be a mercy to all mankind" Declare, "Verily, what is revealed to me is this, your God is the only One God, so is it not up to you to bow down to Him?' But if they turn away then say, "I have delivered the Truth in a manner clear to one and all, and I know not whether the promised hour is near or far."

2267 To every people have We appointed ceremonial rites which they observe; therefore, let them not wrangle over this matter with you, but bid them to turn to your Lord. You indeed are rightly guided. But if they still dispute you in this matter, `God best knows what you do."

24.54. Say "Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger. but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance. The Messenger's duty is only to preach the clear (Message).

8821 22; And so, exhort them your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe.
4828 He it is Who has sent forth His Messenger with the Guidance and the Religion of Truth, to the end that tie make it prevail over every religion, and none can bear witness to the Truth as God does.

3616 17 (Three Messengers to their people) Said, "Our Sustainer knows that we have indeed been sent unto you, but we are not bound to more than clearly deliver the Message entrusted to us.'

3941 Assuredly, We have sent down the Book to you in right form for the good of man. Whoso guided himself by it does so to his own advantage, and whoso turns away from it does so at his own loss. You certainly are not their keeper.

426 48 And whoso takes for patrons others besides God, over them does God keep a watch. Mark, you are not a keeper over them. But if they turn aside from you (do not get disheartened), for We have not sent you to be a keeper over them; your task is but to preach ....

6412 Obey God then and obey the Messenger, but if you turn away (no blame shall attach to our Messenger), for the duty of Our Messenger is just to deliver the message.

6725 26 And they ask, "When shall the promise be fulfilled if you speak the Truth?" Say, "The knowledge of it is verily with God alone, and verily I am but a plain warner."

109.1-6 Say O ye that reject Faith,! I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship, And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship, To you be your Way, and to me mine.

74.11-17 Leave Me with whom I created alone!, To whom I granted resources in abundance, And sons to be by his side, To whom I made (life) smooth and comfortable, Yet is he greedy-that I should add (yet more);- By no means! For to Our Signs he has been refractory!, Soon will I visit him with a mount of calamities!

These verses spell the job and duty of the messenger. As far as verse 9-4, lets look at it.

(But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term for Allah loveth the righteous.
But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

Here you seem to think that the condition is placed on establishing regular prayers and practice charity. Yet its not this that places the condition but verse 9-8.

If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.
How can there be a league, before Allah and His Messenger, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them for Allah doth love the righteous.
How (can there be such a league), seeing that if they get an advantage over you, they respect not in you the ties either of kinship or of covenant? With (fair words from) their mouths they entice you, but their hearts are averse from you; and most of them are rebellious and wicked.
In a Believer they respect not the ties either of kinship or of covenant! It is they who have transgressed all bounds.

The condition of peace is not when the establish regular prayers and charity, thats the condition of brotherhood. Its stated in verse

But (even so), if they repent, establish regular prayers, and practise regular charity,- they are your brethren in Faith (thus) do We explain the Signs in detail, for those who understand.
But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and taunt you for your Faith,- fight ye the chiefs of Unfaith for their oaths are nothing to them that thus they may be restrained.
Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is Allah Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe

What the koran is saying if the pagans seize on fighting you then you seize on doing so. This is because for the prophet to do his job he needs to either stay alive or have freedom to preach. This is why the pharoah chased Moses out of Egypt and the Jews and Romans crucified jesus. By killing or chasing the prophet out they think they can hamper his job and mission.

The Koran says that if they seize and leave you to be then so be it. However they are not your brethren in faith till they abandon paganism. You are mixing between peace and brotherhood.

Mahmud_H

If what you're saying is correct, then it is simply a very badly written passage.

If fact, I do agree with you, that is the most likely meaning when you study the text and interpret it properly. But Chapter 9 is still an awful passage, which when read by any ordinary person sounds like an instruction to religious violence. It still categories people into believers and pagans in a way which has not reflected the realities of the world for the past 13 hundred years+ since the Prophet's life.

With regards to your quotes as to the truth of the Quran, yes, they all clearly say the Prophet's recitation was true. They do not say that God will direct the people who recorded it and handed it down to us. This is a very important point to understand. This is where the early Christians went wrong, they thought God was looking after them so they could commit no sin. There is absolutely no logic in believing that God will prevent those in power from altering and perverting the scriptures, when you study how they were codified.

Wakas

peace Mahmud,

95 is not saying react to aggression. It doesn't say "When they attack, defend yourself" - it says "when the forbidden months are past" (presumably a treaty expiring?) "then fight and slay the Pagans". That isn't self defence. It isn't self defence at all. It's descriminating on the basis of religion and advocating sectarian violence.

This is only possible if one ignores what came before and you dont mind a contradiction to be present in your understanding. I assume you do mind having a contradiction in your understanding, so you may find the following article interesting
http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/disproved_traditional_salat.htm

Bigmo

peace Mahmud,

This is only possible if one ignores what came before and you dont mind a contradiction to be present in your understanding. I assume you do mind having a contradiction in your understanding, so you may find the following article interesting
http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/disproved_traditional_salat.htm

Exactly! He fails to realize the battle was already taking place. He also seems to read the verses without looking at the rest of the Koran. Which is why we always say the Koran explains itself, not the verses explain themselves. Without the rest of the Koran you would not be able to understand. The standards for who to fight and why has already been established, and who to amke peace with is already established. Also who to befriend and consider as brethren. They are not the same.

As for such who do not fight you on account of faith, or drive you forth from your homelands, God does not forbid you to show them kindness and to deal with them with equity, for God loves those who act equitably. God only forbids you to turn in friendship towards such as fight against you because of faith and drive you forth from your homelands or aid in driving you forth. As for those from among you who turn towards them for alliance, it is they who are wrongdoers. 608-9

Permission (to fight) is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged, and verily, God has indeed the power to aid them. Those who have been driven from their homelands in defiance of right for no other reason than their saying, ?Our Lord is God.? 2239-40

4.75. And why should ye not fight in the cause of God and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated ?- Men, women, and children, whose cry is "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!"

Edip_Yuksel

You may look at the 10th Chapter of my debate with Ali Sina on this topic

To the Factor of 666 If Muslims are Terrorists, then Jews and Christians are Terrorists to the Factor of 666!

http//19.org/index.php?aid=207

Peace,
Edip

Bigmo

You may look at the 10th Chapter of my debate with Ali Sina on this topic

To the Factor of 666 If Muslims are Terrorists, then Jews and Christians are Terrorists to the Factor of 666!

http//19.org/index.php?aid=207

Peace,
Edip

Good discussion, however you said the Koran only allows war for self defense. However I do not see the verses as a blanket permission to fight for self defense since the prophet was entrusted with a job to do. This job is not entrusted for us. For the prophet to do his job he has to fight back and give himself the freedom not only to preach but also to move.

You also claim to accuse the previous scriptures of violence. However violence is a relative word. The Koran never accused the previous scriptures of violence or anything else but indeed one of the job of the Koran was to confirm, not abrogate or attack, the previous scriptures. We may find crocodiles as violent, however no crocodile would consider itself to be violent. We may see placing convicts in jails as prisoners as a civilized act, however some in the future might see it as barbaric and animalistic to place humans in cages. God's law and human law are not to be equated. Just as God's law and the law of the jungle are not to be equated. This is one of the problems of sectarian Islam is they confuse human law and God's law as the same. What God brought to humans is for humans and not for God. What God revealed to Bani Israel maybe different from what he revealed and guided Muhammad and his followers in terms of how to organize themselves, but God's law is eternal and never changing. Human is always changing, however the sectarian islamist have created from Muhammad's biography an idol where God's law adapts to and to nothing else. So there is God's law in Mecca and God's law in Medina all following the shadows of Muhammad and his circumstances. God's law does not adapt or take into account anyone.

unknownuser

I think that this series is most fitting for this thread

047.020
YUSUFALI Those who believe say, "Why is not a sura sent down (for us)?" But when a sura of basic or categorical meaning is revealed, and fighting is mentioned therein, thou wilt see those in whose hearts is a disease looking at thee with a look of one in swoon at the approach of death. But more fitting for them-
PICKTHAL And those who believe say If only a surah were revealed! But when a decisive surah is revealed and war is mentioned therein, thou seest those in whose hearts is a disease looking at thee with the look of men fainting unto death. Therefor woe unto them!
SHAKIR And those who believe say Why has not a chapter been revealed? But when a decisive chapter is revealed, and fighting is mentioned therein you see those in whose hearts is a disease look to you with the look of one fainting because of death. Woe to them then!

047.021
YUSUFALI Were it to obey and say what is just, and when a matter is resolved on, it were best for them if they were true to Allah.
PICKTHAL Obedience and a civil word. Then, when the matter is determined, if they are loyal to Allah it will be well for them.
SHAKIR Obedience and a gentle word (was proper); but when the affair becomes settled, then if they remain true to Allah it would certainly be better for them.

047.022
YUSUFALI Then, is it to be expected of you, if ye were put in authority, that ye will do mischief in the land, and break your ties of kith and kin?
PICKTHAL Would ye then, if ye were given the command, work corruption in the land and sever your ties of kinship?
SHAKIR But if you held command, you were sure to make mischief in the land and cut off the ties of kinship!

047.023
YUSUFALI Such are the men whom Allah has cursed for He has made them deaf and blinded their sight.
PICKTHAL Such are they whom Allah curseth so that He deafeneth them and maketh blind their eyes.
SHAKIR Those it is whom Allah has cursed so He has made them deaf and blinded their eyes.

047.024
YUSUFALI Do they not then earnestly seek to understand the Qur'an, or are their hearts locked up by them?
PICKTHAL Will they then not meditate on the Qur'an, or are there locks on the hearts?
SHAKIR Do they not then reflect on the Quran? Nay, on the hearts there are locks.

Straight and to the point.

Mahmud_H

Exactly! He fails to realize the battle was already taking place. He also seems to read the verses without looking at the rest of the Koran. Which is why we always say the Koran explains itself, not the verses explain themselves. Without the rest of the Koran you would not be able to understand. The standards for who to fight and why has already been established, and who to amke peace with is already established. Also who to befriend and consider as brethren. They are not the same.

Hi Bigmo, I do see the contradictions, and I do see the overwhelming emphasis of the Quran upon peace, justice and harmony. The problem I have is that insisting that somehow the verses that seem to be advocating terrible brutality are actually completely just and normal when put into context is purely academic. Last time I checked, "The most academic" was not a Quranic name for God.

And it shouldn't be. I have complete faith in God. I have a fair amount of confidence in Muhammad as his messenger, but no messenger is perfect. I have very little confidence in his 7th Century wives, mistresses and companions, who played a major role in compiling the Quran.

The way you want to treat the Quran, as the infallible word of God, is up to you. I don't personally think having unrealistic expectations is helpful. The way I approach religion is to interpret holy books in the light of my own experiences, my own studies, the advice given to me by people I trust, and my own conscience. These are all sources, and as I see it, they are all fallible, but nonetheless legitimate and valuable.

Wakas

It's descriminating on the basis of religion and advocating sectarian violence.

You still never clarified the above, after I referenced the article. Did you read it?

Is it or is it not a FACT that the "believers" had a peace treaty with "non-believers", thus what they believed was irrelevant as to whether to attack them or not.... they were attacked because something changed. All we need to do is look at the context to see what changed, and it soon becomes obvious those who attacked them could be attacked, i.e. self defence. If you want to call that "purely academic" that's up to you.

It is not a matter of how you or I wish to interpret AQ, or see it, at least not for me. It is all about what is most accurate and your statement above was way off, hence providing a counter argument to weigh up and consider.

Mahmud_H

You still never clarified the above, after I referenced the article. Did you read it?

Is it or is it not a FACT that the "believers" had a peace treaty with "non-believers", thus what they believed was irrelevant as to whether to attack them or not.... they were attacked because something changed.

No, not a fact. It is impossible for "The Believers" to be at war or at peace with "The Pagans/Non-Believers" as neither of these two are states. You cannot have a peace treaty unless you are a hierarchically defined territorial organisation, i.e. a state. This is why so many religious leaders have criticised Bush for talking about a "war on terror" -you cannot have a 'war' without a specific enemy. The tribes that Muhammad and his companions were fighting were indeed pagans, but this does not mean that he was fighting all the pagans in the world! He was only at war with some Arabian tribes.

Therefore to say "Kill the pagans/unbelievers wherever you find them" is completely wrong. It is being unspecific, it is generalising on the basis of religion. It fails to specify which pagan tribes, or which individuals from a specific tribe (i.e. combatants/non-combatants). A statement like that from a Serb general in the Bosnian or Kosovo wars - "When the treaty runs out, kill the Muslims wherever you find them" - would land them in a war crimes tribunal in the Hague. It is completely unfitting in the Quran.

Wakas

It is impossible for "The Believers" to be at war or at peace with "The Pagans/Non-Believers" as neither of these two are states.

Are you implying both sides must be states to be in a "war"? Evidence from AQ (or somewhere) please?
Also, what is the Arabic word for "war" here?

In any case, from what AQ says, even in this chapter, it strongly suggests the believers were in a position of authority for the community/land.

Therefore to say "Kill the pagans/unbelievers wherever you find them" is completely wrong. It is being unspecific

Yes, unspecific if you completely ignore the context. Interesting methodology.

It fails to specify which pagan tribes, or which individuals from a specific tribe

Oh, thanks for clarifying, so you would like it to say something like...

"slay the Bonkers tribe, the Jimmychoo tribe, little Dave down the road, big Sam on 4th street, one eyed Sajid in the yellow tent...."

Did it occur to you that maybe not everyone in a tribe may have broken the treaty so naming a specific tribe would be illogical? Here is a game I like to play when I think my thinking is better than AQ's thinking/wording/guidance, work out how it should have been done, then test it, scrutinise it, pick holes in it etc to see if it holds... why not post what you consider to be the better way of doing it so we can all see?

Mahmud_H

I think the whole chapter is out of place, it adds no value, why does God need to send a message to tell 'the believers' to revoke a treaty? But if I were to give an example of something that wouldn't be violent and sectarian -

"Regardless of whether the 'forbidden months' are past, do not attack anyone who has not attacked you. If the organisational hierarchy of another tribe initiates violent attacks against you, regardless of their religion, you should respond with lethal force to eliminate the threat with the minimum level of violence practicable. Apprehend those responsible and put them on trial for their crimes. This is not a war, it is an operation to end a humanitarian crisis"

Of course, I'm not trying to make up a passage for the Quran. Just showing that those who made up 95 did a pretty bad job of it.

Bigmo

I think the whole chapter is out of place, it adds no value, why does God need to send a message to tell 'the believers' to revoke a treaty? But if I were to give an example of something that wouldn't be violent and sectarian -

"Regardless of whether the 'forbidden months' are past, do not attack anyone who has not attacked you. If the organisational hierarchy of another tribe initiates violent attacks against you, regardless of their religion, you should respond with lethal force to eliminate the threat with the minimum level of violence practicable. Apprehend those responsible and put them on trial for their crimes. This is not a war, it is an operation to end a humanitarian crisis"

Of course, I'm not trying to make up a passage for the Quran. Just showing that those who made up 95 did a pretty bad job of it.

I don't think you know much about the Koran. Quite frankly I don't understand your analysis. What do you mean don't fight them unless they fight you? You mean this

2.190. Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors.

2.191. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

2.192. But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

2.193. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God. but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression

What is this nonsense you are talking about you should not just fight them after the months are gone? What does these months have to do with fighting in the koran? And who are those guys who came up with verse 9-5? Are they the same guys who came up with verses 2.190-2.193?

You're confused. nope

Wakas

To say it adds no value would be to presume one knows exactly what it adds and every angle. Are you saying you know this?

Re why mention revoking a treaty. AQ is for all times, thus the examples it cites are usually to set precedents for future generations/situations.

"Regardless of whether the 'forbidden months' are past, do not attack anyone who has not attacked you. If the organisational hierarchy of another tribe initiates violent attacks against you, regardless of their religion, you should respond with lethal force to eliminate the threat with the minimum level of violence practicable. Apprehend those responsible and put them on trial for their crimes. This is not a war, it is an operation to end a humanitarian crisis"

Do not attack anyone who has not attacked you is enshrined in AQ as it is, see here for example.
What if there is no organisational hierarchy of another tribe making the decisions to commit attacks, i.e. what if it is individuals? What if they are not violent attacks, what if they are just actively undermining / causing property/crops damage etc?
Contradiction first you say use lethal force then immediately follow with apprehend those responsible which is it?
What if those attacking initially change their minds and repent, what is the protocol? do they have a punishment? What is the punishments?
What if I ignore the context like you do and just quote "you should respond with lethal force to eliminate the threat" to the people?
What if a scholar says the literal minimum level of violence practicable is a light slap on the wrists, is that ok? What if another says it is killing everyone involved, is that ok?

Mahmud_H

I don't think you know much about the Koran. Quite frankly I don't understand your analysis. What do you mean don't fight them unless they fight you? You mean this

2.190. Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors.

2.191. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

2.192. But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

2.193. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God. but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression

What is this nonsense you are talking about you should not just fight them after the months are gone? What does these months have to do with fighting in the koran? And who are those guys who came up with verse 9-5? Are they the same guys who came up with verses 2.190-2.193?

You're confused. nope

Yes, I do know about those verses, thats the whole point! 95 does not fit in. You're claiming that verses that a verse that says "kill the polythiests" must be taken in the context of verse that say the opposite. Thats not context! That's contradiction!

Contradiction first you say use lethal force then immediately follow with apprehend those responsible which is it?

To quote myself, minimum level of violence practicable, that means apprehend if you can. It is in contrast to

"Kill the pagans/unbelievers wherever you find them" . What do you think "wherever you find them" means? Do you think it means "only when they fight you"? Of course not. It means the opposite. It is advocating unprovoked aggression.

Wakas

Mahmud,

Should I consider keeping a tally of the questions of mine you do not answer?

It is advocating unprovoked aggression

I agree, IF you completely ignore the context. Are you implying even with the context read and understood, it still advocates the above?

Mahmud_H

We need to avoid circular reasoning. If you take for granted that the whole Quran is the absolute word of God, then where there are contradictions, you force an answer that doesn't properly fit in. So if you say as an absolute must, 95 must be taken in the context of all the other bits of the Quran that say don't kill civilians, don't be aggressive, don't force your beliefs on others, then what you are doing is abrogating the most obvious meaning. You are saying that "kill the pagans wherever you find them" does not mean what it says. You are not really contextualising the passage, but arbeitrarily overruling it. What you're doing is saying

"Because the Quran is the absolute word of God, 95 must have a just, proportionate, peaceful meaning

"and;

"Because 95 has a just, proportionate and peaceful meaning, the Quran must be the absolute word of God"

But what if you do not start with the assumption that the Quran is the absolute word of God. If you ask the question;

"Does 95 fit in with the rest of the Quran, or does it contradict them?"

Then the answer you get it that it contradicts them. If you take as the context of 95 only Chapter 9, and not the rest of the Quran, then the honest answer is that it advocates excessive violence. If you do not have the starting presumption that there are no errors or inconsistancies in the Quran, then you see this as an error, an inconsistancy, it does not fit in.