The Terrorism Files - 2015, 2016

[My name geoff]

Where does it give the green light for Muslims to wage aggressive war?

Sura 9:29

Try and keep up, this was covered numerous times

 

[Malifice]

I take Wikipedia quotes with a grain of salt.

You were the one posting it (twice) as your authority!

The fact that any scholar deems ibn kathir's interpretation acceptable validates my argument.

Seeing as your argument was 'It is a universal commandment for all muslims to invade the world when they reach a mystical 1:2 ratio' it does everything but validate your argument.

 

[Number37]

Sura 9:29

Try and keep up, this was covered numerous times

Where in Sura 9:29?

 

[My name geoff]

How about this one (from the same source):

During some of the Ghazawat of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) a woman was found killed, so Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) forbade the killing of women and children.

Is that still practiced universally by Muslims?

Oooohhh the ol' swift chance of subject trick!

Concede that every point I have made has been valid, then we can assess some other contentious issues within Islam

 

[Malifice]

Sura 9:29

Try and keep up, this was covered numerous times

Same source cites Mohammed as commanding his followers not to kill women and kids.

Why arent Muslim extremists following that commandment?

 

[Malifice]

Oooohhh the ol' swift chance of subject trick!

Its from the same source. Your claims have been proved to be false several times now. Its not a change of topic at all. Youre the one claiming that the source you posted is a definitive statement of Islamic law, not subject to further interpretation, and invoilable.

In fact, you went as far as to claim It is an expressly divine commandment for muslims to invade the world when they are outnumbered 1:2 - when it says nothing fo the sort. You even posted the whole thing on here and it doesnt command Muslims to invade the world when they reach a certain number.

I put to you (from the same source) an unequivocal commandment from Mohammed himself (dont kill women and kids) and ask you: Why isnt it being followed by Muslims (and hasnt been followed since he uttered the words)?

 

[My name geoff]

You were the one posting it (twice) as your authority!



Seeing as your argument was 'It is a universal commandment for all muslims to invade the world when they reach a mystical 1:2 ratio' it does everything but validate your argument.

You clearly are having trouble getting a handle on what I am and what I'm not saying.

i claimed the intention of Islam is violent invasion based off sura 9:29

The 1:2 ratio was cited to counter the 'why aren't all Muslims fighting is now'

This is 1:2 ratio interpretation is a valid one and the fact that scholars are split on it validates that.

 

[Malifice]

i claimed the intention of Islam is violent invasion based off sura 9:29

And I am saying you are full of s**t. The passage (even taken out of context as you have done) says nothing of the sort. It contains no commandments to invade the world once a global population of Muslims are reached.

Not only does it not have that as an expicit command, its not even implicit in the text having regards to the texts context, and subsequent jurisprudence.

The 1:2 ratio was cited to counter the 'why aren't all Muslims fighting is now'

Your argument presumes that the reason Muslims 'arent fighting us now' is because 'they're holding themelves back on account of the passage you quoted' until they reach just over the 1.7 billion mark.

Which is utter fantasy.

This is 1:2 ratio interpretation is a valid one and the fact that scholars are split on it validates that.

Thats your interpretation, fine. Just dont pass it off as some kind of generally accepted interpretation that Muslims plan to 'Invade the world once they hit a divinely mandated magic ratio'

 

[My name geoff]

Same source cites Mohammed as commanding his followers not to kill women and kids.

Why arent Muslim extremists following that commandment?

This was abrogated

The only exception to this is where such people participate directly in the fighting or are so intermixed with the fighters that it is impossible to separate them from those who are fighting. This exception is indicated by the hadîth of al-Sa`b b. Jathâmah. The Prophet (peace be upon him) was asked about the women and children of the polytheists who were among them and who would be injured if the enemy was attacked. He said: “They are of them.”[Sahîh al-Bukhârî (3021) and Sahîh Muslim (1475)]

 

[My name geoff]

And I am saying you are full of s**t. The passage (even taken out of context as you have done) says nothing of the sort. It contains no commandments to invade the world once a global population of Muslims are reached.

Not only does it not have that as an expicit command, its not even implicit in the text having regards to the texts context, and subsequent jurisprudence.



Your argument presumes that the reason Muslims 'arent fighting us now' is because 'they're holding themelves back on account of the passage you quoted' until they reach just over the 1.7 billion mark.

Which is utter fantasy.



Thats your interpretation, fine. Just dont pass it off as some kind of generally accepted interpretation that Muslims plan to 'Invade the world once they hit a divinely mandated magic ratio'

Can you define who 'the people who do not believe' are?


"Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled."

 

[Malifice]

This was abrogated

The only exception to this is where such people participate directly in the fighting or are so intermixed with the fighters that it is impossible to separate them from those who are fighting. This exception is indicated by the hadîth of al-Sa`b b. Jathâmah. The Prophet (peace be upon him) was asked about the women and children of the polytheists who were among them and who would be injured if the enemy was attacked. He said: “They are of them.”[Sahîh al-Bukhârî (3021) and Sahîh Muslim (1475)]

Again, it is acceptable to accidentally injure civilians intermixed with soldiers. It is not permissable to detonate a bomb that only targets civilians.

 

[My name geoff]

Again, it is acceptable to accidentally injure civilians intermixed with soldiers. It is not permissable to detonate a bomb that only targets civilians.

Do you read the last line, when Mohammed was questioned about the women and children of the enemy? 'They are of them'

 

[My name geoff]

And I am saying you are full of s**t. The passage (even taken out of context as you have done) says nothing of the sort. It contains no commandments to invade the world once a global population of Muslims are reached.

Not only does it not have that as an expicit command, its not even implicit in the text having regards to the texts context, and subsequent jurisprudence.



Your argument presumes that the reason Muslims 'arent fighting us now' is because 'they're holding themelves back on account of the passage you quoted' until they reach just over the 1.7 billion mark.

Which is utter fantasy.



Thats your interpretation, fine. Just dont pass it off as some kind of generally accepted interpretation that Muslims plan to 'Invade the world once they hit a divinely mandated magic ratio'

The interpretation of Muslims entering battle with a ratio of 1:2 is just as valid as any other interpretation. Even more so as it is the accepted view of islams most authorative commentator.

 

[Malifice]

Can you define who 'the people who do not believe' are?

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled."

And again, you're ignoring historical and textual context just as much as the fundies do.

No Muslim (outside of ISIL and its supporters and a hardline minority) considers it an obligation to attack non-muslims who are not attacking them. There is a wealth of Islamic jurisprudence as to why the majority of Muslims consider (Jihad as war) as defensive war only. Jurisprudence you are intentionally ignoring.

Here:

Defensive conflict[edit]
According to the majority of jurists, the Qur’ānic casus belli (justification of war) are restricted to aggression against Muslims and fitna—persecution of Muslims because of their religious belief.[18] They hold that unbelief in itself is not the justification for war. These jurists therefore maintain that only combatants are to be fought; noncombatants such as women, children, clergy, the aged, the insane, farmers, serfs, the blind, and so on are not to be killed in war.[18] Thus, the Hanafī Ibn Najīm states: "the reason for jihād in our [the Hanafīs] view is kawnuhum harbā ‛alaynā [literally, their being at war against us]."[18][19] The Hanafī jurists al-Shaybānī and al-Sarakhsī state that "although kufr [unbelief in God] is one of the greatest sins, it is between the individual and his God the Almighty and the punishment for this sin is to be postponed to the dār al-jazā’, (the abode of reckoning, the Hereafter)."[18][20] War, according to the Hanafis, can't simply be made on the account of a nation's religion.[16] Abdulaziz Sachedina argues that the original jihad according to his version of Shi'ism was permission to fight back against those who broke their pledges. Thus the Qur'an justified defensive jihad by allowing Muslims to fight back against hostile and dangerous forces.[21]

Offensive conflict[edit]
Muhammad ibn Idris ash-Shafi`i (d. 820), founder of the Shafi'i school of thought, was the first to permit offensive jihad. He limited this warfare against pagan Arabs only, not permitting it against non-Arab non-Muslims.[16]

Javed Ahmad Ghamidi believes that after Muhammad and his companions, there is no concept in Islam obliging Muslims to wage war for propagation or implementation of Islam. The only valid basis for military jihad is to end oppression when all other measures have failed. Islam only allows jihad to be conducted by agovernment.[22][23][24]

According to Abdulaziz Sachedina, offensive jihad raises questions about whether jihad is justifiable on moral grounds. He states that the Qur'an requires Muslims to establish just public order, increasing the influence of Islam, allowing public Islamic worship, through offensive measures. To this end, the Qur'anic verses revealed required Muslims to wage jihad against unbelievers who persecuted them. This has been complicated by the early Muslim conquests, which he argues were although considered jihad by Sunni scholars, but under close scrutiny can be determined to be political. Moreover, the offensive jihad points more to the complex relationship with the "People of the book".[21]

Cue you stating that none of those scholars are right, all of those sources linked above are crap, and so forth.

 

[Malifice]

Ok, so under what circumstances can rape be justified

In my view, none.

That says nothing about objective truth though.

 

[My name geoff]

And again, you're ignoring historical and textual context just as much as the fundies do.

No Muslim (outside of ISIL and its supporters and a hardline minority) considers it an obligation to attack non-muslims who are not attacking them. There is a wealth of Islamic jurisprudence as to why the majority of Muslims consider (Jihad as war) as defensive war only. Jurisprudence you are intentionally ignoring.

Here:

You're ignoring the Hadith I put up.

When I asked you if you can find me a clear statement that aggressive jihad is prohibited under any circumstance. You couldn't.

 

[Malifice]

Do you read the last line, when Mohammed was questioned about the women and children of the enemy? 'They are of them'

Youre willfully ignoring the entire preceeding line that clearly makes it conditional.

 

[Number37]

You're ignoring the Hadith I put up.

LOL, the only the people that interpret the same way you want to attribute to ALL muslims are the nutters.

 

[Malifice]

You're ignoring the Hadith I put up.

No I am not, I am showing you the that the majority of Islamic jurists (with links) have interpreted that Hadith to mean something other than what you think it means, which you are ignoring.

Are you saying your interpretation is correct, and the current majority of Islamlic Jurists are incorrect?

Why should I accept your interpretation over theirs?

 

[My name geoff]

Youre willfully ignoring the entire preceeding line that clearly makes it conditional.

When we attack, the women and children of the enemy are 'of them'

That is the direct quote from the prophet himself.

 

[My name geoff]

No I am not, I am showing you the that the majority of Islamic jurists (with links) have interpreted that Hadith to mean something other than what you think it means, which you are ignoring.

Are you saying your interpretation is correct, and the current majority of Islamlic Jurists are incorrect?

Why should I accept your interpretation over theirs?

I didn't interpret it for you, I just posted the link. It speaks for itself.

Islamic jurists have their own agendas

 

[My name geoff]

LOL, the only the people that interpret the same way you want to attribute to ALL muslims are the nutters.

I would like someone to interpret what you just said.

 

[My name geoff]

No I am not, I am showing you the that the majority of Islamic jurists (with links) have interpreted that Hadith to mean something other than what you think it means, which you are ignoring.

Are you saying your interpretation is correct, and the current majority of Islamlic Jurists are incorrect?

Why should I accept your interpretation over theirs?

As I said, the jurists have their own agendas, but you still haven't proven, with evidence to support your claim.
Show me direct quotes from the jurists.
Show me evidence that it is a majority view.
You keep using them as evidence but are just putting the same Wikipedia page up.

 

[Malifice]

As I said, the jurists have their own agendas, but you still haven't proven, with evidence to support your claim.

No mate, you have an agenda. A blatant one at that.

I've posted links. Numerous times. I've posted arguments. Numerous times. You just ignore them or blame an 'agenda' as you do here.

Your claim is preposterous and it is not shared by anyone other than Islamic hardliners. It's certainly rejected by the majority of Muslims and the majority of Islamic jurists.

You're obviously pushing some kind of agenda here.

 

[Number37]

As I said, the jurists have their own agendas, but you still haven't proven, with evidence to support your claim.
Show me direct quotes from the jurists.
Show me evidence that it is a majority view.
You keep using them as evidence but are just putting the same Wikipedia page up.

You are the one that hasn't proven anything.
You cut & paste wiki's and then claim they say something which they DO NOT.

For example:
Women & children are the enemy = women & children can be killed.

That is complete and utter rubbish.

Quoting things you clearly don't understand reflects on you.