Seems limited to the nation of Israel here, not other nations.
Again, it seems clear to me that it is speaking about those within the Jewish community only.
Seems both limited to a people and a time. Keep working your way back.
Does Israel mean all humans then?
Does that seem like kill everyone where ever you find them?
I think it’s pretty clear that it was limited to Israel, and that it was perpetual upon certain conditions being met by Israel.
Maybe you read a different Koran…but that would be contradicting Mohammedean idology in a one perfect koran with no errors anywhere in the world.
Not quite turn the other cheek kind of thing is it?
Mohamed gets 20% of all booty!!!
For one, and I am doing this right off the top of my head in a rush on of the scribes who transcribed the Quran for the prophet used to change things and then noticed that the prophet didn’t notice. He got a death sentence but I think it was reprieved because he was related to Uthman somehow (foster brother or something). If I am remembering correctly, he was one of the few under a death sentence at the conquest of mecca.ya Isa ya Isa, ezzayyak?
what did you mean by your reply?
that’s why i asked him to back up his claim that pagan arabs were not able to write as eloquently and i asked who the judge is. If the judge is a Muslim then : circular reasoning
Maybe the term show trial is more appropriate.that’s why i asked him to back up his claim that pagan arabs were not able to write as eloquently and i asked who the judge is. If the judge is a Muslim then : circular reasoning
BTW I first read the Quran in 1999 in an effort to find what/how God speaks to the many different peopel who say He spoke to them. I did this for other religions to include but not limited to Momons, JW, Hindu, Jewish authors… in my study that brought me back to the Church. I prefer books and have quite a few, using the internet only for quick reference and to save time typing the same thing over and over again. What do you think of Sura 72?
I’m quite surprised by the fact that you are quick to read context into “Kill anyone who worships a different God”, but when you see this text telling Muslims not to fight anyone who hasn’t attacked them, you apparently ignore it.
It might refer to the Roman and Persian empires, in their attempt to subjugate the Arabs.
I am familiar with most of them, especially the Spencer piece. You do realize that none of what you cited is scholarship, and it is all polemics, right? With one exception, you cited mostly anti-Islam apologia. I commend you for wanting to read, but you don’t learn about other beliefs by reading tracts put out by non-scholars.
I recognize you are not claiming to be a scholar, but the problem is that you have cited books that tell you zero about Islam, Muslim history, or Arab history. Reading polemics alone leaves you very nearly totally uninformed.
It’s not ignored, it’s understood other than you take it to mean.
I’m not too surprised you ignore the 800lb gorilla in the room. There is no happy medium here. Who attacked Mohamed? Who did Mohamed attack?
Don’t forget I am Catholic. I accept the OT having been fulfilled with a new and everlasting Covenant. I offered an explaination to the OT text you quoted as problematic for you. Take it or leave it, but it is plausible, and less irrational than your view.
Disbelief in allah is worse than killing. How do you square that at all?
So my claim then that my poetry is more profound, and finer than the Koran could not be contested by you!
I doubt you are. Calling it polemics is like calling me a racist. Glubb is not anti-Mohammedean, and if you did know his book you’d realize it’s a fair history overly respectful to Mohamed. Gabriel was a Muslim scholar, and is now a Christian one. Spencer’s book looks at Islamic history. Your weak dismissal is dismissed.
How smug do you want to be? List any history you want as they all work for me. Some things are just that simple…that obvious. Why does “your” Phd paper trump “mine”? This is neither grade school or Grad school- get over yourself and offer some rebuttal with substance.
Thanks for the unqualified review. It’s my second history actually in the last decade. The author of this one isn’t Catholic. Something wrong about getting other views than the one one personally holds?
You’re almost funny, but becoming rather dull.
Because that’s what it plainly says. You can come up with your own theories of warfare in the time of Muhammad if you want, but the text is there for you to read. I realize that you think that Robert Spencer and “Mark Gabriel” (Not his real name) are informing you about this, but as we covered, they are not.
They are quite clear: fight those who fight you, and don’t trangress limits in doing it. I don’t think that standard is very complicated or nuanced at all.
I’m sorry, but there is no source you can find anywhere that paints a rosy picture of pre-Islam Arabia. It was a savage and brutal place-they degraded women, buried daughters alive, and killed each other indiscriminately. There’s really no debate to be had on this point: Arabia after Muhammad was a far, far better place to live.
My view is only this: That you are quick to condemn the Quran for fairly moderate statements on warfare, and equally quick to excuse blatantly violent verses in the Bible. If you want your explanation of Bible verses commanding the killing of all who worship another God, you should be more willing to consider that a Muslim might have a point when he explains Surah 9 to mean specific conditions can lead to war.
??? I think perhaps you are confused by the word “Al Fitnah”.
Well, where to start?
Certainly you should be relying on works by scholars in the field of Arab history if you want information about Arab history. It isn’t a game, you’re right-it’s just common sense.
Well, if you read only apologetics, you don’t get good information. So yes, I am disputing that your summary above constitutes anything remotely approaching an honest historical evaluation of what was going on during the man’s life.
You don’t need to take my word for it-look at the bios of Mark Gabriel and Robert Spencer. Then tell me what work they’ve done that is-
Being honest is a good place.
And the reason you have failed to enlighten me as to your source of superior expertise is…?
Dispute it with anything other than your opinion.
Forget the apologist for either altogether and just keep common sense. Your defense of Mohamed is curious and familiar. Is your ‘unbiased information’ secret?
If you will tell me what you think I’m not being honest about, I will be happy to clarify.
I have not relied on any of my own expertise-what I did was point out that you did not use good sources for information on the subject. That doesn’t take expertise, it just takes common sense. People who do not speak the language, have no credentials in the subject matter, and who are writing apologetics pieces aren’t good sources for unbiased, accurate historical accounts. That is not controversial.
That “Mark Gabriel” (not his real name) and Robert Spencer have absolutely zero credentials in ancient Arabic history, and are not recongized as authorities, is not my opinion. You can verify this for yourself by looking at their own biography pages.
Like I said, no secret: the authors you cited are not experts on ancient Arabic history. One of them doesn’t even reveal his own identity-the other does not speak Arabic, has absolutely no training in the subject matter, and has been uniformly condemned by experts in the field as a polemicist and not a researcher. (He brags about this on his own bio page-see Spencer’s website for yourself.)
Maybe because you are shown an objection that you make, that defeats your own side’s arguments and you just press on regardless.
‘Sura’ is the Arabic term commonly used to mean a chapter in the Qur’an.
Yes, I’m aware of that (btw its unclear where the term sura comes from).
There is absolutely nothing complicated about this challenge at all.