The following is a rehash of an exchange which was originally in the comment section of Planet Grenada under mccain's spiritual advisor hates muslims and islam between myself "A" and someone using the username Muslims Against the Sharia "B". I'm reposting it mainly because the person behind the username apparently disappeared along with their comments (fortunately they were preserved in e-mail). Also, since that initial exchange, I've learned that Pamela Geller is one of the main people behind Muslims Against Sharia and she has also been popping up in the news for various Islamophobic activities (trying to stop Cordoba House, putting anti-Islamic messages on buses in major cities, etc). Another figure behind the site is named Khalim Massoud who serves as president of the organization. I'm not sure who exactly is the person behind the username in this exchange.
see also:
muslims against shariah? (part one)
muslims against sharia? (part two)
A: Isn't Muslims against the Sharia kind of like saying Jews for Pork?
B: No. "Muslims Against Sharia" is more like "Christians Against the Inquisition".
A: I understand that that may be the intention but the term "shariah" basically refers to the commandments of Islam, even when they are not also enforced by the state.
B: And which commandments would they be, Abdul-Halim V.?
A: All of them.
B: Could you be more specific? "All of them" is an answer of the person who has no idea what he is talking about.
A: [online definitions deleted]
So the Shariah includes all the commandments of Islam, dietary restrictions, rules about fasting, prayer, the rest of the pillars, inheritance law, performing dhikr, hygine etc.
So even a "liberal"/"progressive" Muslim who views religion as a fundamentally private affair and prays and fasts on their own is still following part of "the shariah"
So to say you are against the Shariah suggests a rather thorough kind of anti-nomianism.
B: Do those commandments include "kill them [infidels] wherever you find them"?
A: well here's a little bit more of the passage:
[2.190] And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.
[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
[2.192] But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
So if you see more of the context, this passage is definitely not telling Muslims to fight against peaceful non-Muslims who are minding their own business. It is talking about fighting back against non-Muslims who have attacked the Muslims and driven them from their homes.
If you check out
http://www.twf.org/Library/Violence.html
You could see more discussion of the verses which Islamophobes typically cite on the issue of violence and Islam.
B: What a bunch of crap! How about 9.5? What context is that in?
A: same thing. In my experience, every single time a non-Muslim points to an isolated verse which seems to command towards violence, all one has to do is read a couple of verses before and a couple of verses after and it becomes clear that the verse is talking about the Muslims protecting themselves from a group which has already attacked the Muslims. There is no Quranic justification for attacking peaceful tax-paying non-Muslims who mind their own business.
9:4 says to keep ones treaties with the pagans who have not attacked the Muslims or helped their enemies.
9:5 says one can attack the other pagans but if they repent the Muslism should leave them alone.
9:6 says: 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.
9:13 gives more description of the pagans being described whom the Muslims have permission to fight:
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!
So given the tone of your response I have to wonder if you are even Muslim?
B: I don't know what Koran you have, but 9.5 is the infamous Verse of the Sword: "Once the Sacred Months are past, you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make. If they repent and observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), you shall let them go. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful."
A: Yes, I read that and summarized that previously. But what kind of pagans. Does it talk about pagans who are peacefully living with the Muslims minding their own business. No. That's clarified by the later 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?
So is Muslims Against Sharia not really run by Muslims?
B: Again, that's a bunch of crap. Anything non-Muslims do can be interpreted as an attack on Islam. Mere presence of non-Muslims in the Arabian Peninsula is often interpreted as such.
Muslims Against Sharia consists of Muslims, but we let anyone become our blog contributors.
A: So in other words, you are actually a non-Muslim and opposed to Islam per se.
B: That's another one of your idiotic assumptions. Every MASH blogger who has "Muslim" in his/her screen name is a Muslim. Every MASH blogger whose screen name is "Muslims Against Sharia" is a member of Muslims Against Sharia. I hope the explanation is not too complicated for you.
A: So you are actually a Muslim and believe that the Quran is a revelation from God?
B: Yes / Most of it
A: So which passages would you not consider revelation from God?
B: http://www.reformislam.org/verses.php
A: I don't know what it would mean to claim to be Muslim and at the same time reject several whole surahs and other passages from the Quran. What makes you a Muslim and not just some Unitarian.
B: My parents are Muslim, I believe in Five Pillars, and , most importantly, I consider myself Muslim.
A: I would say your parents don't matter. And believing in pillars is nice. But if there are whole sections of the Quran which you don't just question or doubt, but actually kick to the curb that's a more serious issue.
B: The whole point is that we DO question those sections. Perhaps you should read our our Manifesto before continuing this discussion.
A: No, you don't understand. It would be one thing if you believed that the entire Quran were valid as revelation and then struggled to understand it. You've apparently stopped struggling and have decided to reject some of it.
I was raised Christian but when I reached the point of actually rejecting parts of the Bible, I knew it was time to shop for a new religion.
Also, your manifesto is incorrect. There are definitely passages in the Bible which clearly call for genocide of certain ethnic groups and capital punishment for certain religious violations.
B: "I was raised Christian but when I reached the point of actually rejecting parts of the Bible, I knew it was time to shop for a new religion."
So you were smart enough to find inconsistencies in the Bible, but you're too dumb to find inconsistencies in the Koran?
The Bible does not call for murder of people based solely on the infidel status.
A:
Deuteronomy 13
[6] "If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son, or your daughter, or the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, entices you secretly, saying, `Let us go and serve other gods,' which neither you nor your fathers have known,
[7] some of the gods of the peoples that are round about you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other,
[8] you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him;
[9] but you shall kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
[...]
[12] "If you hear in one of your cities, which the LORD your God gives you to dwell there,
[13] that certain base fellows have gone out among you and have drawn away the inhabitants of the city, saying, `Let us go and serve other gods,' which you have not known,
[14] then you shall inquire and make search and ask diligently; and behold, if it be true and certain that such an abominable thing has been done among you,
[15] you shall surely put the inhabitants of that city to the sword, destroying it utterly, all who are in it and its cattle, with the edge of the sword.
So I'd invite you to reconsider your claims about the Bible. And also remember that there are some Reconstructionist Christians who actually do consider these old commandments to be valid even though they are in the OT.
To be honest though, this wasn't the worst aspect for me. The most objectionable commands (from my perspective) are the genocidal ones:
Deuteronomy 7
[1] "When the LORD your God brings you into the land which you are entering to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Gir'gashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Per'izzites, the Hivites, and the Jeb'usites, seven nations greater and mightier than yourselves,
[2] and when the LORD your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them; then you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them.
[3] You shall not make marriages with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons.
[4] For they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods; then the anger of the LORD would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly.
[5] But thus shall you deal with them: you shall break down their altars, and dash in pieces their pillars, and hew down their Ashe'rim, and burn their graven images with fire.
[6] "For you are a people holy to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for his own possession, out of all the peoples that are on the face of the earth.
And then you can read about how these commands were implemented later on in the Bible in the historical sections. For example most of the Book of Joshua.
In that last verse note that it says to totally eliminate those particular nations. It doesn't even give them a chance to convert. Whatever else you may say about the Quran, it certainly doesn't justify genocide. Interestingly enough, Jewish rabbis have actually come up with a detailed list of all the commandments in the Torah (the traditional list itemizes 613 commandments) and the genocidal ones are still there.
And again, if you look at the verses in context, the Quran does not justify attacking peaceful tax paying non-Muslims who mind their own business.
For example (4:90) "...if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them."
Your comment regarding the Bible seemed odd. Are you sure you are not Christian?
B: Deuteronomy 13 - my bad. Apparently the Bible also calls for murder of infidels. That must have been the basis for the Inquisition. However, I haven't heard this verse recited by either Jewish or Christian religious figures, while Koran 2.191 or 9.5 are repeated constantly.
"Your comment regarding the Bible seemed odd. Are you sure you are not Christian?"
If I were, wouldn't I know what Deuteronomy 13 says?
A: I make very few assumptions about how well people know the books of their own traditions. And in particular, I've seen a wide variation in how well Christians know the Bible.
So are you going to correct what your Manifesto says about the Bible?
B: Absolutely. "While neither Testament calls for mass murder of unbelievers, the Koran does." will be removed.
A: It's unfortunate (for you) I think. I probably shouldn't even give you advice but your group would have been a lot better off not talking about the Judeo-Christian aspect at all. Instead you went over the top in defending the Bible and you ended up putting things in your manifesto which you've basically acknowledged are not true (which then speaks to the integrity of your organization). It also makes it easier to make the claim that you don't just want Muslims to be better Muslims, but you actually would like for Muslims to convert to believing in the Bible.
B: "you've basically acknowledged are not true (which then speaks to the integrity of your organization)."
It does. If we were assholes like you, we'd never acknowledge to making a mistake. We'd keep pressing on that something like 2.191 or 9.5 or Deuteronomy 13 is an acceptable concept for the Holy Text.
A "hypocrite" rather than an "asshole" would be a better description.
A: [20.44] Then speak to him a gentle word haply he may mind or fear.
in any case, hypocrisy isn't an issue. I'm actually following the Quranic verses in question as I understand them. (i.e. I haven't been subject to violent attacks, I have the right to practice my religion freely, so I have no reason to fight) I just think that you are misinterpreting those verses uncharitably for your own reasons.
In terms of the Biblical verses, I'm not sure why you are being difficult. It seems like an easy fix. *You* as an individual have admitted that the verses are problematic (which is great) but since the manifesto hasn't been changed, your organization still isn't "acknowledging mistakes" (to borrow one of your slogans) If you had said to me "We have to have a Muslims Against Sharia committee meeting before changing the manifesto but we are considering it" that would have been fine, at least for a while.
Also, no need for name calling (I've noticed that, not just here but in other blogs where you or other group members have been posting)
Also I think I've given you explanations for 2:191 and 9:5 by bringing in the surrounding context. If you disagree, just say why. Otherwise just let the matter drop.
B: "We have to have a Muslims Against Sharia committee meeting before changing the manifesto but we are considering it"
As we wrote before, that line will be removed, because it is factually incorrect. There is no reason for considering that. If you can't keep your panties on, there is nothing we can do.
As for 2.191 and 9.5 you can't e more full of shit even if you tried. However, there is a distinct possibility that you're really THAT stupid and don't see anything wrong with them. I that case, we'd see no reason for trying to show you the light either.
"Also, no need for name calling"
Don't flatter yourself. Calling you a "hypocrite" or "full of shit", is an accurate description.
A: For a decent discussion of 4:90 which I already mentioned, and which provides a context for the verses you've been mentioning, we could check out:
http://www.juancole.com/2006/03/quran-quote-of-day-on-peace-fourth.html
If you are really serious about reading the Quran intelligently, a big part of that is to not just cherrypick verses, but to actually read the different verses together.
B: Yeah, that's exactly what we need, to consider an opinion of another degenerate apologist for radical Islam. Let's skip Cole and go straight to al-Zawahiri for interpretations. At least we won't get apologetic bullshit from him.
A: Juan Cole's credentials and experience when it comes to Middle Eastern history and current events are pretty considerable and you can't easily dismiss him.
Also, he's never been a Muslim. In fact, for many years he was a Bahai. And if you knew anything about the Bahai faith you would realize that the Bahai faith, in some respects, is more radical than Muslims Against Shariah in the sense that the Bahais will openly say that the laws of Islam are no longer valid and have already been replaced by other codes of law.
B: "Juan Cole's credentials and experience when it comes to Middle Eastern history and current events are pretty considerable and you can't easily dismiss him."
One dumbshit is prasing another. What a surprise!
"Also, he's never been a Muslim."
So what? Neither has John Esposito. Or Gordon England. Or Jeremiah Wright. Or Noah Feldman. Or Jonathan Powell. Etc. You don't have to be an Islamist to be an apologist for radical Islam. You can be a Christian, a Jew, or anything else. Degenerates come in all shapes and sizes.
If you had enough brains to make judgments based on several articles, rather than a single one, you wouldn't be coming off dumber than you look.
A: articles?!? Sometimes I even read books. And again, you still haven't given an actual counter-argument.
B: "counter-argument"? Arguing with Cole's ideas is like arguing with a person who claims that humans have three legs. It's just a waste of time. Which we have done enough here.
A: Cole was just a convenient reference. The basic argument is clearly there in the Quran. If you just read wholistically instead of taking verses in isolation it is obvious that the Quran puts all sorts of caveats and conditions and constraints on the use of force.
For example (4:90) "...if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them."
That's not a matter of credentials or being an "apologist for radical Islamism". It's just a matter of reading comprehension.
see also:
muslims against shariah? (part one)
muslims against sharia? (part two)
A: Isn't Muslims against the Sharia kind of like saying Jews for Pork?
B: No. "Muslims Against Sharia" is more like "Christians Against the Inquisition".
A: I understand that that may be the intention but the term "shariah" basically refers to the commandments of Islam, even when they are not also enforced by the state.
B: And which commandments would they be, Abdul-Halim V.?
A: All of them.
B: Could you be more specific? "All of them" is an answer of the person who has no idea what he is talking about.
A: [online definitions deleted]
So the Shariah includes all the commandments of Islam, dietary restrictions, rules about fasting, prayer, the rest of the pillars, inheritance law, performing dhikr, hygine etc.
So even a "liberal"/"progressive" Muslim who views religion as a fundamentally private affair and prays and fasts on their own is still following part of "the shariah"
So to say you are against the Shariah suggests a rather thorough kind of anti-nomianism.
B: Do those commandments include "kill them [infidels] wherever you find them"?
A: well here's a little bit more of the passage:
[2.190] And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.
[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
[2.192] But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
So if you see more of the context, this passage is definitely not telling Muslims to fight against peaceful non-Muslims who are minding their own business. It is talking about fighting back against non-Muslims who have attacked the Muslims and driven them from their homes.
If you check out
http://www.twf.org/Library/Violence.html
You could see more discussion of the verses which Islamophobes typically cite on the issue of violence and Islam.
B: What a bunch of crap! How about 9.5? What context is that in?
A: same thing. In my experience, every single time a non-Muslim points to an isolated verse which seems to command towards violence, all one has to do is read a couple of verses before and a couple of verses after and it becomes clear that the verse is talking about the Muslims protecting themselves from a group which has already attacked the Muslims. There is no Quranic justification for attacking peaceful tax-paying non-Muslims who mind their own business.
9:4 says to keep ones treaties with the pagans who have not attacked the Muslims or helped their enemies.
9:5 says one can attack the other pagans but if they repent the Muslism should leave them alone.
9:6 says: 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.
9:13 gives more description of the pagans being described whom the Muslims have permission to fight:
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!
So given the tone of your response I have to wonder if you are even Muslim?
B: I don't know what Koran you have, but 9.5 is the infamous Verse of the Sword: "Once the Sacred Months are past, you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make. If they repent and observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), you shall let them go. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful."
A: Yes, I read that and summarized that previously. But what kind of pagans. Does it talk about pagans who are peacefully living with the Muslims minding their own business. No. That's clarified by the later 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?
So is Muslims Against Sharia not really run by Muslims?
B: Again, that's a bunch of crap. Anything non-Muslims do can be interpreted as an attack on Islam. Mere presence of non-Muslims in the Arabian Peninsula is often interpreted as such.
Muslims Against Sharia consists of Muslims, but we let anyone become our blog contributors.
A: So in other words, you are actually a non-Muslim and opposed to Islam per se.
B: That's another one of your idiotic assumptions. Every MASH blogger who has "Muslim" in his/her screen name is a Muslim. Every MASH blogger whose screen name is "Muslims Against Sharia" is a member of Muslims Against Sharia. I hope the explanation is not too complicated for you.
A: So you are actually a Muslim and believe that the Quran is a revelation from God?
B: Yes / Most of it
A: So which passages would you not consider revelation from God?
B: http://www.reformislam.org/verses.php
A: I don't know what it would mean to claim to be Muslim and at the same time reject several whole surahs and other passages from the Quran. What makes you a Muslim and not just some Unitarian.
B: My parents are Muslim, I believe in Five Pillars, and , most importantly, I consider myself Muslim.
A: I would say your parents don't matter. And believing in pillars is nice. But if there are whole sections of the Quran which you don't just question or doubt, but actually kick to the curb that's a more serious issue.
B: The whole point is that we DO question those sections. Perhaps you should read our our Manifesto before continuing this discussion.
A: No, you don't understand. It would be one thing if you believed that the entire Quran were valid as revelation and then struggled to understand it. You've apparently stopped struggling and have decided to reject some of it.
I was raised Christian but when I reached the point of actually rejecting parts of the Bible, I knew it was time to shop for a new religion.
Also, your manifesto is incorrect. There are definitely passages in the Bible which clearly call for genocide of certain ethnic groups and capital punishment for certain religious violations.
B: "I was raised Christian but when I reached the point of actually rejecting parts of the Bible, I knew it was time to shop for a new religion."
So you were smart enough to find inconsistencies in the Bible, but you're too dumb to find inconsistencies in the Koran?
The Bible does not call for murder of people based solely on the infidel status.
A:
Deuteronomy 13
[6] "If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son, or your daughter, or the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, entices you secretly, saying, `Let us go and serve other gods,' which neither you nor your fathers have known,
[7] some of the gods of the peoples that are round about you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other,
[8] you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him;
[9] but you shall kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
[...]
[12] "If you hear in one of your cities, which the LORD your God gives you to dwell there,
[13] that certain base fellows have gone out among you and have drawn away the inhabitants of the city, saying, `Let us go and serve other gods,' which you have not known,
[14] then you shall inquire and make search and ask diligently; and behold, if it be true and certain that such an abominable thing has been done among you,
[15] you shall surely put the inhabitants of that city to the sword, destroying it utterly, all who are in it and its cattle, with the edge of the sword.
So I'd invite you to reconsider your claims about the Bible. And also remember that there are some Reconstructionist Christians who actually do consider these old commandments to be valid even though they are in the OT.
To be honest though, this wasn't the worst aspect for me. The most objectionable commands (from my perspective) are the genocidal ones:
Deuteronomy 7
[1] "When the LORD your God brings you into the land which you are entering to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Gir'gashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Per'izzites, the Hivites, and the Jeb'usites, seven nations greater and mightier than yourselves,
[2] and when the LORD your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them; then you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them.
[3] You shall not make marriages with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons.
[4] For they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods; then the anger of the LORD would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly.
[5] But thus shall you deal with them: you shall break down their altars, and dash in pieces their pillars, and hew down their Ashe'rim, and burn their graven images with fire.
[6] "For you are a people holy to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for his own possession, out of all the peoples that are on the face of the earth.
And then you can read about how these commands were implemented later on in the Bible in the historical sections. For example most of the Book of Joshua.
In that last verse note that it says to totally eliminate those particular nations. It doesn't even give them a chance to convert. Whatever else you may say about the Quran, it certainly doesn't justify genocide. Interestingly enough, Jewish rabbis have actually come up with a detailed list of all the commandments in the Torah (the traditional list itemizes 613 commandments) and the genocidal ones are still there.
And again, if you look at the verses in context, the Quran does not justify attacking peaceful tax paying non-Muslims who mind their own business.
For example (4:90) "...if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them."
Your comment regarding the Bible seemed odd. Are you sure you are not Christian?
B: Deuteronomy 13 - my bad. Apparently the Bible also calls for murder of infidels. That must have been the basis for the Inquisition. However, I haven't heard this verse recited by either Jewish or Christian religious figures, while Koran 2.191 or 9.5 are repeated constantly.
"Your comment regarding the Bible seemed odd. Are you sure you are not Christian?"
If I were, wouldn't I know what Deuteronomy 13 says?
A: I make very few assumptions about how well people know the books of their own traditions. And in particular, I've seen a wide variation in how well Christians know the Bible.
So are you going to correct what your Manifesto says about the Bible?
B: Absolutely. "While neither Testament calls for mass murder of unbelievers, the Koran does." will be removed.
A: It's unfortunate (for you) I think. I probably shouldn't even give you advice but your group would have been a lot better off not talking about the Judeo-Christian aspect at all. Instead you went over the top in defending the Bible and you ended up putting things in your manifesto which you've basically acknowledged are not true (which then speaks to the integrity of your organization). It also makes it easier to make the claim that you don't just want Muslims to be better Muslims, but you actually would like for Muslims to convert to believing in the Bible.
B: "you've basically acknowledged are not true (which then speaks to the integrity of your organization)."
It does. If we were assholes like you, we'd never acknowledge to making a mistake. We'd keep pressing on that something like 2.191 or 9.5 or Deuteronomy 13 is an acceptable concept for the Holy Text.
A "hypocrite" rather than an "asshole" would be a better description.
A: [20.44] Then speak to him a gentle word haply he may mind or fear.
in any case, hypocrisy isn't an issue. I'm actually following the Quranic verses in question as I understand them. (i.e. I haven't been subject to violent attacks, I have the right to practice my religion freely, so I have no reason to fight) I just think that you are misinterpreting those verses uncharitably for your own reasons.
In terms of the Biblical verses, I'm not sure why you are being difficult. It seems like an easy fix. *You* as an individual have admitted that the verses are problematic (which is great) but since the manifesto hasn't been changed, your organization still isn't "acknowledging mistakes" (to borrow one of your slogans) If you had said to me "We have to have a Muslims Against Sharia committee meeting before changing the manifesto but we are considering it" that would have been fine, at least for a while.
Also, no need for name calling (I've noticed that, not just here but in other blogs where you or other group members have been posting)
Also I think I've given you explanations for 2:191 and 9:5 by bringing in the surrounding context. If you disagree, just say why. Otherwise just let the matter drop.
B: "We have to have a Muslims Against Sharia committee meeting before changing the manifesto but we are considering it"
As we wrote before, that line will be removed, because it is factually incorrect. There is no reason for considering that. If you can't keep your panties on, there is nothing we can do.
As for 2.191 and 9.5 you can't e more full of shit even if you tried. However, there is a distinct possibility that you're really THAT stupid and don't see anything wrong with them. I that case, we'd see no reason for trying to show you the light either.
"Also, no need for name calling"
Don't flatter yourself. Calling you a "hypocrite" or "full of shit", is an accurate description.
A: For a decent discussion of 4:90 which I already mentioned, and which provides a context for the verses you've been mentioning, we could check out:
http://www.juancole.com/2006/03/quran-quote-of-day-on-peace-fourth.html
If you are really serious about reading the Quran intelligently, a big part of that is to not just cherrypick verses, but to actually read the different verses together.
B: Yeah, that's exactly what we need, to consider an opinion of another degenerate apologist for radical Islam. Let's skip Cole and go straight to al-Zawahiri for interpretations. At least we won't get apologetic bullshit from him.
A: Juan Cole's credentials and experience when it comes to Middle Eastern history and current events are pretty considerable and you can't easily dismiss him.
Also, he's never been a Muslim. In fact, for many years he was a Bahai. And if you knew anything about the Bahai faith you would realize that the Bahai faith, in some respects, is more radical than Muslims Against Shariah in the sense that the Bahais will openly say that the laws of Islam are no longer valid and have already been replaced by other codes of law.
B: "Juan Cole's credentials and experience when it comes to Middle Eastern history and current events are pretty considerable and you can't easily dismiss him."
One dumbshit is prasing another. What a surprise!
"Also, he's never been a Muslim."
So what? Neither has John Esposito. Or Gordon England. Or Jeremiah Wright. Or Noah Feldman. Or Jonathan Powell. Etc. You don't have to be an Islamist to be an apologist for radical Islam. You can be a Christian, a Jew, or anything else. Degenerates come in all shapes and sizes.
If you had enough brains to make judgments based on several articles, rather than a single one, you wouldn't be coming off dumber than you look.
A: articles?!? Sometimes I even read books. And again, you still haven't given an actual counter-argument.
B: "counter-argument"? Arguing with Cole's ideas is like arguing with a person who claims that humans have three legs. It's just a waste of time. Which we have done enough here.
A: Cole was just a convenient reference. The basic argument is clearly there in the Quran. If you just read wholistically instead of taking verses in isolation it is obvious that the Quran puts all sorts of caveats and conditions and constraints on the use of force.
For example (4:90) "...if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them."
That's not a matter of credentials or being an "apologist for radical Islamism". It's just a matter of reading comprehension.
2 comments:
La Latif!! That was a long winded. Allah reward you for your stamina. Do you think it was worth it? I am glad, however, that you did preserve the conversation. I usually find their banter so circular that there's no possible way to have any meaningful dialog. I would say there's no room for argument but in fact, it would seem that's all there is to do!
Well, it was "worth it" in the sense that I got them to change their mission statement so that it is slightly less saturated with falsehoods and bad presuppositions.
On the other hand, the change also makes it slightly less obvious that they prefer the Bible to the Quran.
I suppose I could say that the exchange made it clearer to me what their nature was.
Post a Comment