Philosophy Now Forum

HereToDiscuss wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2019 12:00 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
I arrived at that conclusion based on the context of the ethos of the whole Quran. Problem is I did not compile them for ready presentation. So I will have to search for them, if you are familiar with the Quran, you will understand this is not easy.
Here are the verses in context - this is a rough one, not precise until I dig through the whole Quran, but I believe these are sufficient for a start.

Well, those aren't verses in context though. I do not know what you understood when i said "in context", but it surely wasn't what i actually meant. Those verses have verses behind and in front of them. Anyways:

I understand, i.e. in context to the paragraph, chapter, section and the whole Quran's 6236 verses.

The Quran contains 6236 verses or 77,400++ words and they are aligned to one single theme of Allah.

The verses I listed are in alignment with the context of the whole Quran's 6236 verses which automatically align with the section, chapter, and paragraph.

Have you read the Quran thoroughly to understand all the verses in the context of the whole Quran?

Veritas Aequitas wrote:

• 2:245. Who [Muslim] is it that will lend unto Allah a goodly [ḥasanan; HSN; ] loan, so that He [Allah] may give it increase manifold? Allah straiteneth and enlargeth. Unto Him ye [Muslim] will return. [on Judgment Day] [goodly loan refer property or life].

While this is a bit of a weird wording -Quran is weirdly worded in general, so whatever-, it is more about giving money to the poor etc. than killing infidels. Since there definitely are verses that encrouage giving money in such a way, i would say that it isn't related to infidels at all.
You're probably trying too much to find violent verses.

I am NOT trying to find violent verses. I don't need to because the aggressive and violent nature is right in front of any objective reader of the Quran's 6236 verses.
Again, have you read the Quran 6236 and noted every of the 77,400++ words carefully?

Goodly loan, refer to money, property and the Muslim's life.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: 6:160. Whoso [Muslims] bringeth a good deed [HSN; bil-ḥasanati] will receive tenfold the like thereof, while whoso [infidels] bringeth an ill deed [SWA: sayi-ati] will be awarded [punished] but the like thereof; and they will not be wronged. [reward and punishment fairly merited/meted]

Well, the verse is just "Do good deeds, expect good results, do bad deeds, expect bad results (in proportion to your bad deed)." Where did you get the infidel from? Muslims can do ill deeds too.

Whatever is "good deeds" for a Muslim must be in compliance with whatever is in the 6236 verses of the Quran and no where else. The Ahadith and Sira are merely supporting texts.

A Muslim commit bad deeds or sins when they do not comply to the commands in the 6236 verses of the Quran.

If the Quran's 6236 verses command Muslims to war against and kill infidels, then it is a good deed for a Muslim when s/he war against and kill infidels.

There are loads of verses in context of the whole Quran which exhorts Muslims to war against and kill non-Muslims under conditions of fasadan [FSD], i.e. threats against Islam which include 'disbelief' [note Ibn Kathir and the context of the Quran's 6236 verses].

Veritas Aequitas wrote: 5:33. The only reward [punishment] of those [infidels] who make war [HRB: yuḥāribūna] upon Allah and His messenger and strive [S3Y: wayasʿawna ] after corruption [FSD: fasādan; mischiefs, wronged, disbelief] in the land - will be that they [infidels] will be killed or crucified, or have their [infidels'] hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their [infidels] degradation [KhZY: khiz'yun] in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs [infidels] will be an awful doom;

Note: In the above, [FSD: fasādan;] include disbelieving Allah and Muhammad as per Ibn Kathir

(The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land.) `Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil.
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option ... &Itemid=60

Fasadan can mean anything from "declaring war on the Muslims" to "cause instability" and is a pretty vague word with no clear meaning. You can compare it with "distrupting order" used by governments, which is the almost the same thing but more secular. If and only if you think disbelieving implies disrupting order can you punish infidels in such a way, but you do not have to.
Of course, the verse is problematic since it is vague, but, that's another problem -or a problem for Muslims since Allah allowing such an abusable verse doesn't seem to be something the absolute good god would do-.

That is the point, "fasadan can meant anything" which include 'disbelief' by non-Muslims as confirmed by the very famous Islamic scholar Ibn Kathir.

In the context of the whole Quran's 6236 verses, what is included as 'fasadan' [FSD] is not vague at all. Fasadan [FSD] include 'disbelief'. Therefore 'disbelief' is a justification for non-Muslims to be killed as per 5:33.
5:33 is the central principle and passport for non-Muslims to be killed merely because they are disbelievers. There are tons of other verses within the 6236 verses that support this principle and justification.

It is not a problem for Muslims!
It is a problem for humanity when Muslims act on the command of Allah as in the Quran to war against and kill non-Muslims which include you [since you're not a Muslim].

A religion [good and compassionate by default] should not have its main texts filled with terrible evil and violent commands against non-believers.

Example of a good religion is one like Buddhism, Jainism which is essentially [in totality] compassionate & peaceful and do not condone evil and violence against non-believers in anyway [directly or indirecly].
Christianity is also a good religion, i.e. it has an overriding pacifist maxim, 'love all - even enemies' thus no room within the Christianity itself for Christians to hate and kill non-Christians.

As such, Islam as represented by the 6236 verses of the Quran is inherently evil and violent in nature that compelled Muslims to war against and kill non-Muslims. While the majority of Muslims are good human being there is a potential pool of 360 million Muslims who are evil prone and will act of the evil commands of Allah zealously as a religious duty to gain salvation and eternal life in paradise as promised.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Btw, note;
if you are to counter the above which is accepted by many Muslims, WHO ARE YOU and what divine authority do you have to insist they are wrong?
If you insist they are wrong and you are right, then you are making your own judgement to override Allah's authority.

Well, i'm not a Muslim, so...

If you are not a Muslims, it would be more obvious you don't have any divine right to insist your interpretation of the Quran is the right one.

Even for Muslims there is a dilemma, i.e.

For any contentious violent verse, out of the 1.8 billion Muslims;

• 1. 1.440 billion Muslims insist the verse is not violent but contextual
  
  2. 360 million Muslims who are evil prone insist the verse is to act against non-Muslim

Because no Muslim can insist and judge they are absolutely right in their interpretations, thus the stalemate will leave each Muslim to do what they misinterpret as what Allah command them to do as a good Muslim.

The group of Muslims from the pool of 360 million will carry out Allah commands based on their interpretations as doing what a good Muslims should do. However the reality is their supposedly "good" acts turn out to be the terrible evil and violent acts committed on non-Muslims.

In the above case, we should not blame those Muslims since they were carrying out Allah's command as good Muslims with hope of eternal life in paradise and avoiding perdition & hell.
The root cause for all the evil and violent acts committed by SOME Muslims is therefore due to the evil and violent elements within the ideology of Islam, i.e. within the 6236 verses of the Quran.

Thus the solution to the problem of evil and violence committed by SOME Muslims is to address the evil and violent elements within the 6236 verses in the Quran.

However, the Quran has secured itself against deletions and editing because Allah has declared the Quran 6236 verses to be immutable.

So we are caught in catch-22 situation.

What is the ultimate solution to the above catch-22?

Whatever the case, Do not Blame Muslims!

SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2019 8:32 pm I'm not one of those fool enough to subscribe to groupism. If someone does harm to another, I only blame the individual that did such harm. I mean I'm sure they might belong to many groups, such that if a man does harm to another, I'm not going to blame all men. Neither will I blame all diabetics if the culprit is insulin resistant.

To be more effective, we cannot assign primary blame the individual[s] because there could be other root causes that compelled the individual[s] to commit evil and violent acts.

Example in the case of Nazism, we do not blame the individual[s] nazi or even the whole of the German army of that time.

Yes those nazi individual[s] who committed atrocities during WWW II must be held accountable for their acts.
But the focus must be on the root cause, i.e. the ideology of Nazism introduced by one individual, i.e. Hitler.
So the blame of the terror, evil and violent acts of Nazism should rest squarely on the ideology of Nazism and Hitler. It is very logical if not for Hitler and his evil ideology of Nazism there would be no holocaust by the Nazis.
Thus when we get rid of Nazism and prevent it from being active, there is no more extensive Nazi-related evil and violence.

It is the same with the terrible carnage, evil and violent acts committed by SOME [from a pool of 300+ millions ] where we should not assign primary blame to individual or groups of Muslims.
What we need to do is to find the root cause which is the evil ideology of Islam as introduced by one man, Muhammad in the 7th century.
The primary blame is on the evil ideology of Islam and not the Muslims.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2019 11:30 pm

HereToDiscuss wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2019 10:17 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2019 8:32 pm I'm not one of those fool enough to subscribe to groupism. If someone does harm to another, I only blame the individual that did such harm. I mean I'm sure they might belong to many groups, such that if a man does harm to another, I'm not going to blame all men. Neither will I blame all diabetics if the culprit is insulin resistant.

It's good that you consider yourself "not foolish enough to subscribe to groupism" and all, but, unlike insulin resistant murderers, Muslim terrorists do it based on Islam. The religion certainly has an impact here, along with culture. To suggest otherwise, i would say, is irrational. The main problem is the nature of the impact-or, to put it another way, whetever the reason is Islam in it's essence, meaning we have to eradicate it, or Islam mixed with culture and history.

First I understand that the Quran has been misunderstood by many, that context of any particular verse has to be considered before passing judgement. Scholars agree that there is no passage that instructs Muslims to kill all non believers of their faith.

Scholars?

With regard to Islam there are two main dichotomy of views regarding the Quran's 6236 verses as the root cause of the terrible carnage, evil and violent acts committed by SOME Muslims since 1400 years ago, i.e.

• 1. Muslims and apologists who believe Islam is a religion of peace
  
  2. Non-Muslims [anti-Islam] and even Muslims who agree the ideology of Islam [not Muslims] is the root cause of all Islamic-related evil and violent acts.

Both groups will have their reasons for their respective stance.
But the point is while group one comprised of billions of Muslims, the group that agree the ideology of Islam is at fault is also a very large groups in millions. The anti-Islam group is not merely 100s or thousands but many millions.
As such one cannot simply ignore the justifications of the anti-Islam group and accept only one view who are likely to be very bias [threatened with hell if they do not agree].

Within the 1.8 billion of Muslims there are two main groups, i.e.

• A. 1.440 billion [roughly] those who ignored the 'evil and violent' verses as contextual.
  
  B. 360 million [roughly 20%] who accept the supposedly 'evil and violent' as Allah's command thus to them these are good verses for them thus they are duty bound to carry out these commands to please Allah to gain their rewards of eternal life in paradise.

The inherent stalemate is no Muslims can judge and insist the other group's view is wrong.
As such, to each their own, and thus the inevitable consequences of terrible carnage, evil and violent acts committed upon non-Muslims in the name of God by those in group B.

The effective solution as I had stated in my above posts is to find the root cause, i.e. which is the evil ideology of Islam which compelled SOME evil prone Muslims to commit terrible "evil and violent" [to them is good and a duty] acts on non-Muslims as a religion duty to be assured of eternal life in paradise.

In psychology, as to child abuse, it is said that, 'It's not true that all abused children become child abusers, but it is true that all child abusers were abused children.'

I see that your words have no necessarily real understanding of psychology, that your belief simply makes it easy for you. You know, 'Kill them all and let god sort them out!'

Do you really want me to list all the terrorism and unjustified death that the Christian church has dealt?

Hopefully you will not veer off to a 'whataboutery' deflection.
Christianity itself has a God commanded overriding maxim, i.e. 'love all - even enemies' thus there is no room within Christianity itself to permit Christians to hate and kill non-Christians.

That the Church and 'Christians' who had committed atrocities, carnage, evil and violent acts, they cannot be doing such in the name of Christianity [even if they claimed to be] due to the overriding maxim 'love all - even enemies'.

One can guess what would have happened to those "Christians" who killed non-Christians when they meet God and Jesus of Judgement Day. This is very likely;

• Jesus to Christians who had killed: WTF!! you have committed a heinous sin against the ultimate limit I have commanded you, 'love all - even enemies.' You will be sent to Hell for what you have done to humanity.

Here, I have a few links for you to check out if you feel so inclined to understand my position.
The first 5 are just snippets for the sixth, and the seventh is the icing for the cake.

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/21/movi ... wrong.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTOWNwtdN3o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-u2ZoPTPwM
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2294551/
https://www.creatingfreedom.info/film.html
https://tubitv.com/movies/321234/creati ... y_of_birth <---The actual movie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical ... ates#1950s

If you fail to check out link 6 & 7 you'll really miss America's role. Keep in mind that the essence of the movie is not really sided, as it illuminates a much larger perspective. Humanity!

Whatever terrible evil and violent acts that had arisen from the above, the effective approach is to find their root [prenultimate and ultimate] causes then deal with the critical root causes.

The ultimate root cause should end up within the brain of the individual[s], thus the requirement of the neurosciences.

I do not think you even understand what i'm saying. Most of the verses you mention are not really about the main problem in your argument, and "fitnah" isn't properly defined in that verse.
In other words, your argument basically amount to this:
1) Premise: Muslims should do good deeds from if they believe in Islam.
2) Premise: Killing infidels is an instance of combatting fitnah.
3) Premise: Combatting fitnah is a good deed from an Islamist perspective.
4) Therefore, Muslims should kill infidels (or wage war on them or whatever you think that means.) if they believe in Islam.
The rest of the argument -the bridge between "Muslims should kill infidels if they believe in Islam." and "Islam is, in it's essence, bad."- isn't really my problem as i think the rest follows. So, since the argument is valid, you merely have to defend the premises. I object only to the second premise, and it's up to you to provide the verses. "Look at Quran" doesn't count as a verse, by the way.


Also, what are those supplementary texts -ahadith and sira- you speak of? If you meant "hadith" and "surah", then you probably never actually read Quran as surahs are literally parts of Quran. Al-Bukhara is one example of such a "surah". Hadiths, on the other hand, are supplementary but they're also important. But, if you can provide the verses, we do not need to look them up anyways.

HereToDiscuss wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2019 1:01 pm I do not think you even understand what i'm saying. Most of the verses you mention are not really about the main problem in your argument, and "fitnah" isn't properly defined in that verse.

In other words, your argument basically amount to this:
1) Premise: Muslims* should do good deeds from if they believe in Islam.
2) Premise: Killing infidels is an instance of combatting fitnah.
3) Premise: Combatting fitnah is a good deed from an Islamist perspective.
4) Therefore, Muslims* should kill infidels (or wage war on them or whatever you think that means.) if they believe in Islam.

The rest of the argument -the bridge between "Muslims should kill infidels if they believe in Islam." and "Islam is, in it's essence, bad."- isn't really my problem as i think the rest follows. So, since the argument is valid, you merely have to defend the premises. I object only to the second premise, and it's up to you to provide the verses. "Look at Quran" doesn't count as a verse, by the way.

You are off tangent here.
I did not mention "fitnah" which mean slander, "temptation, trial; sedition, civil strife"
Rather I stated 5:33 leveraging on fasadan [FSD] with emphasis on 'disbelief' [ibn Kathir]. Fasadan also include fitnah [not emphasized here] and other threats to the religion of Islam.

Thus the syllogism;

• 1) Premise: Muslims should do good deeds from if they believe in Islam.
  2) Premise: Combating fasadan by killing infidels [5:33] is a good deed from an Islamist perspective.
  3) Premise: Disbelief in Islam, i.e. disbelievers is a fasadan [Ibn Kathir]
  4) Therefore, Muslims [as defined] should combat the fasadan of disbelief by killing infidels (or wage war on them per the Quran's 6236 verses).

* Muslim as defined;
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=27652

Not all Muslims will feel compelled or be inspired by the above rationale but if only 20%, that would be 360 million desperate and evil prone Muslims activated in that mode.

This is why the ideology of Islam is inherently toxic, malignant, evil and violent.

Also, what are those supplementary texts -ahadith and sira- you speak of? If you meant "hadith" and "surah", then you probably never actually read Quran as surahs are literally parts of Quran. Al-Bukhara is one example of such a "surah". Hadiths, on the other hand, are supplementary but they're also important. But, if you can provide the verses, we do not need to look them up anyways.

There is an implied contract between Allah and Muslims and the contractual terms are stipulated only in the 6236 verses of the Quran DIRECTLY from Allah via Gabriel to Muhammad. Thus the sole ultimate authority of Islam is the Quran.

The Ahadith and Sira are from secondary sources which are very dubious and they were compiled 200-300 years after the death of Muhammad.
Note the 7000++ hadiths [claimed to be genuine] by Al-Bukhari is filtered from 700,000 false hadiths. Common intellectual sense should tell us such 7000+ hadith should be taken with a pinch of salt.
The hadiths collected and filtered by without divine authority and they are more like blog, youtube or forum posts of this internet era.

Thus my point, the Quran is primary and the Ahadith and Sira are secondary and valid only if they are in alignment with the 6236 verses of the Quran.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 3:23 am

HereToDiscuss wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2019 1:01 pm I do not think you even understand what i'm saying. Most of the verses you mention are not really about the main problem in your argument, and "fitnah" isn't properly defined in that verse.

In other words, your argument basically amount to this:
1) Premise: Muslims* should do good deeds from if they believe in Islam.
2) Premise: Killing infidels is an instance of combatting fitnah.
3) Premise: Combatting fitnah is a good deed from an Islamist perspective.
4) Therefore, Muslims* should kill infidels (or wage war on them or whatever you think that means.) if they believe in Islam.

The rest of the argument -the bridge between "Muslims should kill infidels if they believe in Islam." and "Islam is, in it's essence, bad."- isn't really my problem as i think the rest follows. So, since the argument is valid, you merely have to defend the premises. I object only to the second premise, and it's up to you to provide the verses. "Look at Quran" doesn't count as a verse, by the way.

You are off tangent here.
I did not mention "fitnah" which mean slander, "temptation, trial; sedition, civil strife"

I apologize, it was a huge mistake on my part-especially since both of them are used in my native language. That doesn't make that much of a difference to the main point though.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 3:23 am Rather I stated 5:33 leveraging on fasadan [FSD] with emphasis on 'disbelief' [ibn Kathir]. Fasadan also include fitnah [not emphasized here] and other threats to the religion of Islam.

But you never supported it properly, making your premise based entirely on Ibn Kathir. You need to provide the verses instead of saying "Ibn Kathir says 'fasadan' includes disbelief."

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 3:23 am Thus the syllogism;

• 1) Premise: Muslims should do good deeds from if they believe in Islam.
  2) Premise: Combating fasadan by killing infidels [5:33] is a good deed from an Islamist perspective.
  3) Premise: Disbelief in Islam, i.e. disbelievers is a fasadan [Ibn Kathir]
  4) Therefore, Muslims [as defined] should combat the fasadan of disbelief by killing infidels (or wage war on them per the Quran's 6236 verses).

The third premise is unnecessary. Otherwise, it's good enough.

HereToDiscuss wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 12:14 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 3:23 am

HereToDiscuss wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2019 1:01 pm I do not think you even understand what i'm saying. Most of the verses you mention are not really about the main problem in your argument, and "fitnah" isn't properly defined in that verse.

In other words, your argument basically amount to this:
1) Premise: Muslims* should do good deeds from if they believe in Islam.
2) Premise: Killing infidels is an instance of combatting fitnah.
3) Premise: Combatting fitnah is a good deed from an Islamist perspective.
4) Therefore, Muslims* should kill infidels (or wage war on them or whatever you think that means.) if they believe in Islam.

The rest of the argument -the bridge between "Muslims should kill infidels if they believe in Islam." and "Islam is, in it's essence, bad."- isn't really my problem as i think the rest follows. So, since the argument is valid, you merely have to defend the premises. I object only to the second premise, and it's up to you to provide the verses. "Look at Quran" doesn't count as a verse, by the way.

You are off tangent here.
I did not mention "fitnah" which mean slander, "temptation, trial; sedition, civil strife"

I apologize, it was a huge mistake on my part-especially since both of them are used in my native language. That doesn't make that much of a difference to the main point though.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 3:23 am Rather I stated 5:33 leveraging on fasadan [FSD] with emphasis on 'disbelief' [ibn Kathir]. Fasadan also include fitnah [not emphasized here] and other threats to the religion of Islam.

But you never supported it properly, making your premise based entirely on Ibn Kathir. You need to provide the verses instead of saying "Ibn Kathir says 'fasadan' includes disbelief."

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 3:23 am Thus the syllogism;

• 1) Premise: Muslims should do good deeds from if they believe in Islam.
  2) Premise: Combating fasadan by killing infidels [5:33] is a good deed from an Islamist perspective.
  3) Premise: Disbelief in Islam, i.e. disbelievers is a fasadan [Ibn Kathir]
  4) Therefore, Muslims [as defined] should combat the fasadan of disbelief by killing infidels (or wage war on them per the Quran's 6236 verses).

The third premise is unnecessary. Otherwise, it's good enough.

There is no specific verse that stated 'disbelief' is a fasadan [threats to Muslims and Islam].

However in the context of the 6236 verses of the Quran disbelief [KFR - Kufr] is a fasadan [FSD] as represented by 3400++ verses that condemned the disbelievers.

I refer to Ibn Kathir [as a convenience] because he was a very reputable Islamic Scholar and reasonable credible in his interpretation of the Quran.

Here is a sample of the 100s of significant verses, i.e.;

• 2:120. And the Jews will not be pleased with thee [O Muhammad], nor will the Christians, till thou follow their creed [MLL; millat -millatahum]. ...
  
  2:217. They [Muslims] question thee (O Muhammad) with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say [O Muhammad]: Warfare therein [in the sacred month] is a great (transgression), but to turn (men) from the way of Allah, and to disbelieve in Him and in the Inviolable Place of Worship, and to expel his people thence, is a greater [matter] with Allah; for persecution [fitnah - idolatory, non-believers threats ] is worse than killing. And they [the infidels -Quraysh] will not cease from fighting against you [Muslims] till they [infidels] have made you [Muslims] renegades from your religion [deenihi Islam], if they [the infidels] can. ...
  
  3:100. O ye [Muslims] who believe! If ye [Muslims] obey a party of those [Christians - infidels] who have received the Scripture they [infidels] will make you disbelievers [kuffar] after your belief.
  
  18:20. For they, if they [disbelievers] should come to know of you, will stone you or turn you back to their religion [millatihim]; then ye will never prosper.
  
  47:1. Those [kafaru; disbelievers] who disbelieve and turn (men) from [SDD: ṣaddū] the way of Allah, He [Allah] rendereth their [infidels] actions vain [of no spiritual value that will please Allah].
  
  58:16. They [disbelievers] make a shelter [cover, pretext] of their oaths and turn [FSD: faṣaddū: hinder] (men) [Muslims] from the way of Allah; so theirs [infidels] will be a shameful doom.

As you will note the disbelief of the disbelievers is a very serious threat to the Muslims' faith and Islam which to the extreme is worst than killing - 2:217.
Note 58:16 the term fasaddu [FSD] a verb re fasadan is used.

Therefore fasadan includes 'disbelief' and the various acts of disbelievers that threaten the Muslims' faith and the religion of Islam.

If you have read the Quran thoroughly you would have agreed with the Ibn Kathir's reference.

Btw, if you are not Muslim, then you're a Christian, Hindu, Buddhist or freethinker?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 4:22 am

HereToDiscuss wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 12:14 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 3:23 am
You are off tangent here.
I did not mention "fitnah" which mean slander, "temptation, trial; sedition, civil strife"

I apologize, it was a huge mistake on my part-especially since both of them are used in my native language. That doesn't make that much of a difference to the main point though.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 3:23 am Rather I stated 5:33 leveraging on fasadan [FSD] with emphasis on 'disbelief' [ibn Kathir]. Fasadan also include fitnah [not emphasized here] and other threats to the religion of Islam.

But you never supported it properly, making your premise based entirely on Ibn Kathir. You need to provide the verses instead of saying "Ibn Kathir says 'fasadan' includes disbelief."

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 3:23 am Thus the syllogism;

• 1) Premise: Muslims should do good deeds from if they believe in Islam.
  2) Premise: Combating fasadan by killing infidels [5:33] is a good deed from an Islamist perspective.
  3) Premise: Disbelief in Islam, i.e. disbelievers is a fasadan [Ibn Kathir]
  4) Therefore, Muslims [as defined] should combat the fasadan of disbelief by killing infidels (or wage war on them per the Quran's 6236 verses).

The third premise is unnecessary. Otherwise, it's good enough.

There is no specific verse that stated 'disbelief' is a fasadan [threats to Muslims and Islam].

However in the context of the 6236 verses of the Quran disbelief [KFR - Kufr] is a fasadan [FSD] as represented by 3400++ verses that condemned the disbelievers.

I refer to Ibn Kathir [as a convenience] because he was a very reputable Islamic Scholar and reasonable credible in his interpretation of the Quran.

Here is a sample of the 100s of significant verses, i.e.;

• 2:120. And the Jews will not be pleased with thee [O Muhammad], nor will the Christians, till thou follow their creed [MLL; millat -millatahum]. ...
  
  2:217. They [Muslims] question thee (O Muhammad) with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say [O Muhammad]: Warfare therein [in the sacred month] is a great (transgression), but to turn (men) from the way of Allah, and to disbelieve in Him and in the Inviolable Place of Worship, and to expel his people thence, is a greater [matter] with Allah; for persecution [fitnah - idolatory, non-believers threats ] is worse than killing. And they [the infidels -Quraysh] will not cease from fighting against you [Muslims] till they [infidels] have made you [Muslims] renegades from your religion [deenihi Islam], if they [the infidels] can. ...
  
  3:100. O ye [Muslims] who believe! If ye [Muslims] obey a party of those [Christians - infidels] who have received the Scripture they [infidels] will make you disbelievers [kuffar] after your belief.
  
  18:20. For they, if they [disbelievers] should come to know of you, will stone you or turn you back to their religion [millatihim]; then ye will never prosper.
  
  47:1. Those [kafaru; disbelievers] who disbelieve and turn (men) from [SDD: ṣaddū] the way of Allah, He [Allah] rendereth their [infidels] actions vain [of no spiritual value that will please Allah].
  
  58:16. They [disbelievers] make a shelter [cover, pretext] of their oaths and turn [FSD: faṣaddū: hinder] (men) [Muslims] from the way of Allah; so theirs [infidels] will be a shameful doom.

As you will note the disbelief of the disbelievers is a very serious threat to the Muslims' faith and Islam which to the extreme is worst than killing - 2:217.
Note 58:16 the term fasaddu [FSD] a verb re fasadan is used.

Therefore fasadan includes 'disbelief' and the various acts of disbelievers that threaten the Muslims' faith and the religion of Islam.

If you have read the Quran thoroughly you would have agreed with the Ibn Kathir's reference.

Btw, if you are not Muslim, then you're a Christian, Hindu, Buddhist or freethinker?

Actually the above verses actually make it appear how there are worse things than violence, and on a second respect that violence is not always a good thing.

It is pretty much stating, using only the above context, that the worse thing that can happen is to leave Islam (with all religions stating that the worse thing one can do is leave there religion).

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:08 am Actually the above verses actually make it appear how there are worse things than violence, and on a second respect that violence is not always a good thing.

It is pretty much stating, using only the above context, that the worse thing that can happen is to leave Islam (with all religions stating that the worse thing one can do is leave there religion).

The point above is the existence of disbelievers [non-Muslims] and disbelief of Islam is a fatal threat when Muslims are influenced or force to leave Islam and thus the total destruction of the religion of Islam.

Thus 5:33 is a sanction by Allah for Muslims to kill non-Muslims to preserve the existence of the religion of Islam forever which is the priority.
This is the main and critical ethos of Islam that influence a pool of SOME 360 millions [not all] to war against and kill non-Muslims. But a minority 'SOME' comprising 360 million is a frightening quantum .

Note the point how I discussed with proper argument in syllogisms where there is a framework for anyone to counter argue. If you can do that, it will avoid all the off-tangents and nonsense you have been spewing.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:49 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:08 am Actually the above verses actually make it appear how there are worse things than violence, and on a second respect that violence is not always a good thing.

It is pretty much stating, using only the above context, that the worse thing that can happen is to leave Islam (with all religions stating that the worse thing one can do is leave there religion).

The point above is the existence of disbelievers [non-Muslims] and disbelief of Islam is a fatal threat when Muslims are influenced or force to leave Islam and thus the total destruction of the religion of Islam.
Thus 5:33 is a sanction by Allah for Muslims to kill non-Muslims to preserve the existence of the religion of Islam forever which is the priority.
This is the main and critical ethos of Islam that influence a pool of SOME 360 millions to war against and kill non-Muslims.

Note the point how I discussed with proper argument in syllogisms where there is a framework for anyone to counter argue. If you can do that, it will avoid all the off-tangents and nonsense you have been spewing.

No it isn't they are saying the same thing as other faiths... there faith is right and it better to die than leave it....they all say that.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:51 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:49 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:08 am Actually the above verses actually make it appear how there are worse things than violence, and on a second respect that violence is not always a good thing.

It is pretty much stating, using only the above context, that the worse thing that can happen is to leave Islam (with all religions stating that the worse thing one can do is leave there religion).

The point above is the existence of disbelievers [non-Muslims] and disbelief of Islam is a fatal threat when Muslims are influenced or force to leave Islam and thus the total destruction of the religion of Islam.
Thus 5:33 is a sanction by Allah for Muslims to kill non-Muslims to preserve the existence of the religion of Islam forever which is the priority.
This is the main and critical ethos of Islam that influence a pool of SOME 360 millions to war against and kill non-Muslims.

Note the point how I discussed with proper argument in syllogisms where there is a framework for anyone to counter argue. If you can do that, it will avoid all the off-tangents and nonsense you have been spewing.

No it isn't they are saying the same thing as other faiths... there faith is right and it better to die than leave it....they all say that.

Nope, Allah commanded, it is more rewarding to kill and die in protecting Islam.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:53 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:51 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:49 am
The point above is the existence of disbelievers [non-Muslims] and disbelief of Islam is a fatal threat when Muslims are influenced or force to leave Islam and thus the total destruction of the religion of Islam.
Thus 5:33 is a sanction by Allah for Muslims to kill non-Muslims to preserve the existence of the religion of Islam forever which is the priority.
This is the main and critical ethos of Islam that influence a pool of SOME 360 millions to war against and kill non-Muslims.

Note the point how I discussed with proper argument in syllogisms where there is a framework for anyone to counter argue. If you can do that, it will avoid all the off-tangents and nonsense you have been spewing.

No it isn't they are saying the same thing as other faiths... there faith is right and it better to die than leave it....they all say that.

Nope, Allah commanded, it is more rewarding to kill and die in protecting Islam.

Not the quotes you provided in the response....you are just making up interpretations. If anything your quotes just promote Islam. I mean if non muslims are like you, maybe the world should convert to islam.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 7:13 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:53 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:51 am
No it isn't they are saying the same thing as other faiths... there faith is right and it better to die than leave it....they all say that.

Nope, Allah commanded, it is more rewarding to kill and die in protecting Islam.

Not the quotes you provided in the response....you are just making up interpretations. If anything your quotes just promote Islam. I mean if non muslims are like you, maybe the world should convert to islam.

As usual off tangent again.
Read the syllogism I presented above!
The various quotes I provided are to support the argument I provided.
Your ignorance of the prove you don't have the proper-argument competence within you.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 7:23 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 7:13 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:53 am
Nope, Allah commanded, it is more rewarding to kill and die in protecting Islam.

Not the quotes you provided in the response....you are just making up interpretations. If anything your quotes just promote Islam. I mean if non muslims are like you, maybe the world should convert to islam.

As usual off tangent again.
Read the syllogism I presented above!
The various quotes I provided are to support the argument I provided.
Your ignorance of the prove you don't have the proper-argument competence within you.

"To support the argument you provided" so they are taken out of context and are bias.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 7:25 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 7:23 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 7:13 am

Not the quotes you provided in the response....you are just making up interpretations. If anything your quotes just promote Islam. I mean if non muslims are like you, maybe the world should convert to islam.

As usual off tangent again.
Read the syllogism I presented above!
The various quotes I provided are to support the argument I provided.
Your ignorance of the prove you don't have the proper-argument competence within you.

"To support the argument you provided" so they are taken out of context and are bias.

Show precisely how it is out of context and are bias?