Christian-Muslim Relations In the Middle-East

Rafidi

Rafidi

Legendary Member
My poor Christian brothers :(

Notice how they say they DON'T hate Israelis and just want peace. Striking difference from their Muslims counterparts, who want to genocide all Israelis.

Look, I'm quite familiar with Bethlehem's Christians and their history, I talk to people from there. The reason they 'resent' Israel is because Israel DIDN'T annex them, they WANTED to become part of Israel and enjoy the same rights and freedom as other Christians do in Israel. The vast majority was AGAINST the Palestinian Authority taking over the town and preferred the status quo than that. Keep in mind when Israel 'occupied' Bethlehem, Christians made up 80-90% of the population and were thriving. But since 1995 when the Palestinian Authority took over, due to the Oslo accords, the Christian population shrank to just 10-20%. The birthtown of Christ lost all its Christian identity in just 20 years and became a hotspot of Islamic extremism. Christians barely make up 2% of the population of the West Bank as a whole and are heavily persecuted, they can't really say what they really think out loud, otherwise they seriously face being lynched.
I'm not going to question your cooked up figures or blame sharing.

But isnt it ironic Israehell didnt object to trading Bethlehem in the Oslo Accord? Doesnt that indicate they'd rather have the town symbolic to Christians out of their domain? I just want you to think.
 
  • Advertisement
  • Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    So, it's called sarcasm.

    But anyways, let me explain further. You actually doubted your "holy scripture", which portrays Jesus, a single man, holding a whip and chasing a crowd out of the temple and over turning their tables and driving their animals. You said that a man cannot intimidate a crowd. He either intimidated a crowd with a whip or your scripture is wrong. Choose your pill. 😄
    I do not doubt the Scriptures. It's your interpretation of them that is at issue.
     
    CitizenOfTheRepublic

    CitizenOfTheRepublic

    Legendary Member
    You are a biased cheerleader.

    The fact is violence is violence and using the threat of violence to achieve one's objective speaks volumes and is reflective of the person's will. Jesus didn't turn the other cheek when a house of worship was desecrated. Instead, he sought the use of force to cleanse it. But Christians dont tend to be this reasonable sounding when it involves Muhammad and the cleansing of the Kaabah from idols. Instead, they use prejudices and indifference to judge.

    You sound so reasonable and you care much about image and how one sounds if it has to do with pointing out that Jesus was not all lamb, dove and peace. He was also a man of blood and sweat. He could not have raised an army or fight a battle because he didnt have the means to. His people rejected him according to the New Testament. If he had the means and he was tested, he would have done the needed to defend himself. At a point he asked for swords to be bought to defend himself against the Jews. When the Jews brought along Roman soldiers, he retreated and asked his men to sheath their swords; after someone's ear was chopped off by a disciple. Would you tell us the chopping off of an ear by a disciple of Jesus and in Jesus presence of Jesus was not violence or did not cause pain to that human being?

    Undoubtedly, Jesus was an oppressed man in his time and even to this day through the falsifications attributed to him. But my point in bringing up these points and persisting is to point out the hypocrisy involved. Christian proselytizers incriminate self defense and what Christianity refers to as "righteous indignation" when Muhammad and Islam are involved. But when your religion is called out, you become all reasonable and caring about image and implicitly begging for others to tamper justice with mercy. If you have to criticize my methodology here, this is exactly the methodology used by your people, if not in a worse form, when attacking Islam in order to propagate pagan trinitarianism. The game of character assassination and painting others bad are the main selling points when it comes to preaching Christianity. The logic is always that others are bad so that automatically means you are good. So dont see the sawdust in my eye while you ignore the plank on your eyes. 🙂
    Fact remains, Jesus killed no one and the prophet Mohammad killed many. There is nothing disrespectful in this nor is it even my intent, these are historical facts. Your tirades if anything clearly show that after all those years of debating you never read the new testament. Own the facts and move on, being thick has hurt and still is hurting your cause.
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    Fact remains, Jesus killed no one and the prophet Mohammad killed many. There is nothing disrespectful in this nor is it even my intent, these are historical facts. Your tirades if anything clearly show that after all those years of debating you never read the new testament. Own the facts and move on, being thick has hurt and still is hurting your cause.
    The fact remains that Jesus was described in the New Testament as someone who came to his own people and his own people rejected him. On the other hand, the elites of Makkah with money and power rejected Muhammad, while the commoners embraced him and formed with him a state. The elites, with all the money and power at their disposal failed to use violence to silence the voice of revelation. So in layman's term, Jesus was a failure of a prophet. I dont mean to commit a sin by describing a prophet as such, but I am judging by the overwhelming rejection he received from his people and up to the point they wanted to crucify him. Even one of his own betrayed him. Such a man couldn't fight to defend himself or his people. How can he raise an army? Impossible. Nonetheless, he didnt fail to show his own other side of his humanity that he was capable to use force to promote his rights or defend his rights. He used his hands to flog people. He asked for swords. One of the sword was used to chop off someone's ear. Again, you cant tell me there is nothing disrespectful by you, when you are trying to compare apples to oranges. Muhammad (s) was a successful messenger of God. He succeeded by coming only once. Jesus (as) failed sin his first spell on earth. The reason he needed a second coming. There is no parallel between the two for you to make examples. The reason a Christian author, Michael Hart in his book about the most important men in the history of humanity regarded Muhammad (s) as the most important or influential man to have stepped the earth. In second place, he ranked Paul the Impostor. In third place, he ranked Jesus (as). I do not want your faith to be shaken but these are the facts. Embrace them or avoid them, it is your choice.
     
    CitizenOfTheRepublic

    CitizenOfTheRepublic

    Legendary Member
    The fact remains that Jesus was described in the New Testament as someone who came to his own people and his own people rejected him. On the other hand, the elites of Makkah with money and power rejected Muhammad, while the commoners embraced him and formed with him a state. The elites, with all the money and power at their disposal failed to use violence to silence the voice of revelation. So in layman's term, Jesus was a failure of a prophet. I dont mean to commit a sin by describing a prophet as such, but I am judging by the overwhelming rejection he received from his people and up to the point they wanted to crucify him. Even one of his own betrayed him. Such a man couldn't fight to defend himself or his people. How can he raise an army? Impossible. Nonetheless, he didnt fail to show his own other side of his humanity that he was capable to use force to promote his rights or defend his rights. He used his hands to flog people. He asked for swords. One of the sword was used to chop off someone's ear. Again, you cant tell me there is nothing disrespectful by you, when you are trying to compare apples to oranges. Muhammad (s) was a successful messenger of God. He succeeded by coming only once. Jesus (as) failed sin his first spell on earth. The reason he needed a second coming. There is no parallel between the two for you to make examples. The reason a Christian author, Michael Hart in his book about the most important men in the history of humanity regarded Muhammad (s) as the most important or influential man to have stepped the earth. In second place, he ranked Paul the Impostor. In third place, he ranked Jesus (as). I do not want your faith to be shaken but these are the facts. Embrace them or avoid them, it is your choice.
    You really need to review the definition of a fact, loooooooool!
    In any case, prophet Mohammed killed and Jesus did not. Prophet Mohammed's disciples killed, Jesus' did not (With the exception of Judas who killed himself). These are facts not interpretations. Own them and move on, this is not disrespectful it is the truth.
    On a related note, if you want your opinion about a book to be taken seriously you might want to read it. It's been years you have attempted to debate the NT and it is glaringly obvious you still have not.
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    You really need to review the definition of a fact, loooooooool!
    In any case, prophet Mohammed killed and Jesus did not. Prophet Mohammed's disciples killed, Jesus' did not (With the exception of Judas who killed himself). These are facts not interpretations. Own them and move on, this is not disrespectful it is the truth.
    On a related note, if you want your opinion about a book to be taken seriously you might want to read it. It's been years you have attempted to debate the NT and it is glaringly obvious you still have not.
    Is violence only acted out by killing?
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    Habibi, "quick spread" of Christianity doesnt necessarily mean attaining majority status in the old world or in rhe Levant, as some have claimed in this thread. For the fact that pagan towns remained and pagan practices persisted up till the 5th century, after which the persecution of the pagans upped, and paganism faded into extinction, shows Christianity was not embraced by all. You guys are undoubtedly quick in setting up dioceses in every foreign and distant land. Do you know those small African countries, which I was opportune to visit, with majority Muslim populations like Guinea, Burkina Faso, Sierra Leone, Gambia, Senegal...etc. Go to those countries. You will find the Catholic Mission very active. They have a bishop per district. Europeans. They build churches and schools and pastoral centres. Of course they have some followers from the locals. But by no means have those cities, towns and countries become "Christian". There are Christian congregations and presence. But not to the extent of claiming majority status or pretending like the others didnt or dont exist. In fact, we can never know the percentage of those who became Christian and those who remained pagan and for how long because there was no official count in the ancient world. But we can see from the pages of history that paganism persisted up until the 5th century in the Levant. Your first Maronite missionary (Abraham Cyrrhus) came from syria to Lebanon and was still preaching to pagans in Afqa in the 5th century. Paganism persisted. and even when Roman emperors forcefully/violently imposed their adopted faith (trinitarian Christianity), the pagans still at different points in time revolted and resisted. The point? I still maintain that had Constantine not adopted Christianity, and it was imposed violently on pagans in the Levant and later on in pagan Europe, Christianity would have NEVER attained majority status or become a major religion of the world. In the Levant itself, where you guys have claimed that Christianity "only" spread "peacefully", we have already seen two examples in this thread of ancient pagan temples destroyed or shut down in Afqa and Tyr. Christianity spreads and thrives through "pious fraud" and "saying one thing and doing another thing entirely the opposite".
    you are still having a one track mind. i do not recall reading anywhere anyone mentioning anything about the majority state prior to the third century. yet you always keep reverting to that straw-man argument. what we said is simple: Christianity spread without causing a single drop of blood, to the contrary, the only blood that was running was that of persecuted Christians. the point being that ideas and truth have no need for a sword, and every idea that comes towards you holding a sword in hand is an idea that is being compromised.

    i am curious though, why do you keep arguing this majority thing even when no one is discussing it? Christians can never be a majority even if every person on earth converted. i have explained this so many times to you before. being born to a Christian family is meaningless. Christianity is a personal relationship with God, it is not a birth certificate or a number in a state nor an automatic ritual performed in a church. yet you always revert back to these issues, possibly because among the many things that you have no desire to understand, is also this notion.

    now you can postulate all you want about whether or not Christianity would have became a majority religion "if" constantine himself did not convert, but is there something more futile than arguing such a postulate? you claim to know the unknown? is this not something reserved to allah even in your book? or you do not mind the trespass if at the end it was leading to an attack - albeit ridiculous - on Christianity?

    you have to revisit the very rules of communications. you write these huge paragraphs and you keep them coming at a weird rate, as if this is a contest about who can write the fastest or who can write the most. you have to stop every now and then to assimilate what is being written, pay some attention to veracity and reality, correct the points that you have gotten wrong before proceeding, otherwise this whole thing will be a meaningless waste of time.
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    You really need to review the definition of a fact, loooooooool!
    In any case, prophet Mohammed killed and Jesus did not. Prophet Mohammed's disciples killed, Jesus' did not (With the exception of Judas who killed himself). These are facts not interpretations. Own them and move on, this is not disrespectful it is the truth.
    On a related note, if you want your opinion about a book to be taken seriously you might want to read it. It's been years you have attempted to debate the NT and it is glaringly obvious you still have not.
    in some islamic circles people are really afraid of reading the New Testament. some even consider it a sin. debating the book however is permissible, regardless of whether or not you have read it.
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    you are still having a one track mind. i do not recall reading anywhere anyone mentioning anything about the majority state prior to the third century. yet you always keep reverting to that straw-man argument. what we said is simple: Christianity spread without causing a single drop of blood, to the contrary, the only blood that was running was that of persecuted Christians. the point being that ideas and truth have no need for a sword, and every idea that comes towards you holding a sword in hand is an idea that is being compromised.

    i am curious though, why do you keep arguing this majority thing even when no one is discussing it? Christians can never be a majority even if every person on earth converted. i have explained this so many times to you before. being born to a Christian family is meaningless. Christianity is a personal relationship with God, it is not a birth certificate or a number in a state nor an automatic ritual performed in a church. yet you always revert back to these issues, possibly because among the many things that you have no desire to understand, is also this notion.

    now you can postulate all you want about whether or not Christianity would have became a majority religion "if" constantine himself did not convert, but is there something more futile than arguing such a postulate? you claim to know the unknown? is this not something reserved to allah even in your book? or you do not mind the trespass if at the end it was leading to an attack - albeit ridiculous - on Christianity?

    you have to revisit the very rules of communications. you write these huge paragraphs and you keep them coming at a weird rate, as if this is a contest about who can write the fastest or who can write the most. you have to stop every now and then to assimilate what is being written, pay some attention to veracity and reality, correct the points that you have gotten wrong before proceeding, otherwise this whole thing will be a meaningless waste of time.
    Much gibberish centred on one lie: that Christians did not persecute anyone in the first three centuries, in other words, the time after the disappearance of an alleged personage in the New Testament called jesus and up to the point of a pagan emperor adopting the so called xhristianity. This is fallacy. How could you carry out such persecution at that time when xhristians where apparently a minority, more or less an underground movement that was hunted? Will you be "persecuting" your own selves? :lol: :p You could only rely on peaceful preaching and as an underground movement because you had no state approval.

    On the other hand, immediately the religion became that of a pagan emperor, the entire story changed. So dont claim truth and attribute religious growth to what you call your truth. Talk to me about Constantine instead. Several posts have already been made in this thread that baeelssly claim that Christianity had attained majority status in the region before Constantine. A claim often repeated by @Ice Tea . I didn't say that. He did. Now you are refuting him because the evidence doesnt support such claim, and even after the adoption of xhristianity by a pagan emperor and it's violent imposition, paganism thrived and it still took the violent destruction of pagan temples some centuries later on to shut them down. Sad, isnt it? Dont cry in my shoulder. Save your tears. Cry on the shoulders of your mates who like throwing claims they cant substantiate, but even, claims that evidence shows or display the opposite of.
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    in some islamic circles people are really afraid of reading the New Testament. some even consider it a sin. debating the book however is permissible, regardless of whether or not you have read it.
    Another fallacy. So because some do, that means I also do. Another claim you are throwing without the ability to ever substantiate it. If you guys keep making claims and throwing them, who am I for you to blame for your actions? I dont have invisible strings through which I can control your minds. I only type posts. No magic here. Everything logically laid out for you to read, reason and think.
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    Much gibberish centred on one lie: that Christians did not persecute anyone in the first three centuries, in other words, the time after the disappearance of an alleged personage in the New Testament called jesus and up to the point of a pagan emperor adopting the so called xhristianity. This is fallacy. How could you carry out such persecution at that time when xhristians where apparently a minority, more or less an underground movement that was hunted? Will you be "persecuting" your own selves? :lol: :p You could only rely on peaceful preaching and as an underground movement because you had no state approval.

    On the other hand, immediately the religion became that of a pagan emperor, the entire story changed. So dont claim truth and attribute religious growth to what you call your truth. Talk to me about Constantine instead. Several posts have already been made in this thread that baeelssly claim that Christianity had attained majority status in the region before Constantine. A claim often repeated by @Ice Tea . I didn't say that. He did. Now you are refuting him because the evidence doesnt support such claim, and even after the adoption of xhristianity by a pagan emperor and it's violent imposition, paganism thrived and it still took the violent destruction of pagan temples some centuries later on to shut them down. Sad, isnt it? Dont cry in my shoulder. Save your tears. Cry on the shoulders of your mates who like throwing claims they cant substantiate, but even, claims that evidence shows or display the opposite of.
    no. that is a lie, you are trying to escape yet again. this was your original claim, and quoting:

    "@Dark Angel and others, who were claiming that Christianity claimed "majority status" in the Levant or in the Middle East in the first 2 or 3 centuries of Christianity or before the conversion of Constantine"​

    i didn't say that, and chances are that neither @Ice Tea nor others have said it either, and you are just making it up, given your history. why don't you reference these claims like i am doing yours right now, to see what was actually said? and keep in mind i am not saying that Christians could not have been a majority in some places prior to 300AD. i am simply pointing out that you making things up on the go, even attributing some of what you are making up to me and others to fake "credibility"?
     
    Last edited:
    T

    Thoma

    New Member
    No 3ayneh. El mas2aleh mish 3a zaw3ak. 2:217 was revealed before 2:194. V194 is further elaboration. You cant play a guess game and make up stories just as you imagine.

    The rule was: no fighting in the sacred months. No ifs and buts (see verse 9:5). You should not fight. There was no "what if" they attack. They had not. Until the pagans persisted, then subsequent clarifications were revealed. That simple. After ommitting a phrase clearly stating the pagans kept on assaulting the Muslims, and verse 197 also shows that, that Muslims are told to only attack the way they have been attacked... but you are hell bent, even through any dishonest means to portray the early Muslims and the Prophet to have been the ones assaulting the pagans and going on the offensive irrespective of the rule not to fight. That is not only desperate on your part, but funny because all the verses on this topic you have presented show the opposite. Why should I leave the evidence and take your word?



    Thanks for the rambling. We Muslims do not create scriptures to suit our doctrines like you have in Christianity. We do not tailor our scriptures to fit the doctrines we feel like adopting out of [y]our desires. If I am a munafiq, allow God to do His job and judge me. That is not your business. Do not try to play with scripture either by omission or by falsely claiming one verse was revealed before the other.
    Are you really changing the order of the verses within a surah of the Quran now? and then turning to me and accusing me of your own deed? This is well beyond the treachery and nifaq that the Quran allows for or condones, or is it? It is simply a nifaq that doesn't sell. Nobody would buy it. Upon what, other than a whim or wishful thinking, are you basing this change of otherwise unquestioned order of verses in the surah? Because it is only after several failed attempts at addressing the point that you suddenly realized and proclaimed 'the order of these verses must actually be reversed', thinking to yourself this would solve it and salvage the situation, of course without the slightest regard for veracity or truth.

    Even if we charitably go by that assumption of yours, while also basing ourselves on the Quran alone and discarding all hadiths, this would just push it up a notch, indicting Allah directly this time around rather than Muhammad. The same point that you've been crossing lands and seas trying to avoid would only come back at you and in a severer way this time.

    This is the later verse that we are going to assume it came first for the sake of argument, Quran 2:217: "They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: "Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members." Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein."

    This verse essentially means either one of two things. Either,

    A/ Allah is saying defensive fighting (against Meccans) during sacred months is a violation (against himself), but still less severe than that of Meccans kicking Mohammad outside the kaaba, and by that indict himself of positively commanding violations (against himself) anytime he commands defensive fighting during sacred months, (something we know he did later on as per the assumption).

    or

    B/ Allah is saying offensive fighting (against Meccans) during sacred months is a violation (against himself), but still less severe than that of Meccans kicking Mohammad outside the kaaba, and by that indict himself of justifying a violation against himself if it were to serve against a severer violation (or if it were less severe than some other violation) such as that of Meccans kicking Mohammad outside the kaaba.

    Which one should we go with?
     
    Last edited:
    NewLeb

    NewLeb

    New Member
    It’s no surprise that the Christians would ally with the Jews to defeat Islam. Unlike their Western counter-parts, Arab Christians really hate Islam. Trust me, I was born in a Christian family. I know.

    I think it’s mostly due to the fact that although they find Islam to be a barbaric and backward religion (they don’t even consider it to be a religion), they are forced to live in a reality where Islam has been dominating them in the region for centuries. That creates a lot of negative cognitive dissonance that manifests in a lot of internal and external resentment.

    One second they’re praising the love of Jesus, the next they’re wishing a thousand curses on the Prophet, and denigrating him the the most filthiest of ways. Strange people.

    According to the Prophet Muhammad, war will happen between the Muslims and the Christian/Jewish alliance. Of course, the Muslims will succeed and take over Rome (as they did in Istanbul). It’s just a shame that the Christians didn’t learn from the Judas episode....
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    no. that is a lie, you are trying to escape yet again. this was your original claim, and quoting:

    "@Dark Angel and others, who were claiming that Christianity claimed "majority status" in the Levant or in the Middle East in the first 2 or 3 centuries of Christianity or before the conversion of Constantine"​

    i didn't say that, and chances are that neither @Ice Tea nor others have said it either, and you are just making it up, given your history. why don't you reference these claims like i am doing yours right now, to see what was actually said? and keep in mind i am not saying that Christians could not have been a majority in some places prior to 300AD. i am simply pointing out that you making things up on the go, even attributing some of what you are making up to me and others to fake "credibility"?
    I think your problem is English. There is a comma in there. I don't know if you know what that means. Anyways, check the below and tender an apology, if you have an atom of honor left in you for accusing me of lying:

    Christianity became the official religion in Armenia, Georgia and Ethiopia BEFORE the Roman Empire earlier in the 4th century, when Christians were already the majority of the population in those regions.

    Christianity REACHED Armenia with Apostles Bartholomew and Thaddeus.

    Georgia with Apostles Simon and Andrew.

    And Ethiopia with Apostle Phillip.
    The below post was liked by @Indie :

    For the bazillionth time. By the time Rome adopted Christianity as the state religion, Christians already were the majority in Egypt, Levant, Mesopotamia and most of Anatolia. Not to mention areas beyond the empire like Armenia, Georgia and Ethiopia.

    Christianity spread through Baptism in the Middle East, Islam by the sword. Nothing you say will change this fact.

    And this is from our friend, @Thoma your fellow forumer who also seem not to have heard of the use of comma in the English language:

    Shall we go ~30 pages back to the post Muslim and multiculturalist participants (the cultural and the religious alike) equally have been distracting from (by filling pages and pages of regurgitated 19th propagandist anti-Christianity lies) just so they don't have to come to terms with reality and admit a difficult inconvenient truth?

    The point: Christianity established itself and spread exponentially during the first three centuries across the old world, without recourse to violence despite severe persecution. Given that Christianity appeals essentially the same then, now and tomorrow to the human being, it simply follows that violence isn't essential to Christianity. Can we say the same of Islam?

    While violence in and of itself isn't necessarily evil, adopting it as an essential element of one's existence is. Indeed, it is essential in the mindset of all the lowly creatures, but not so of human beings, and Christianity is a testament to that. Christianity goes far and beyond worldly power (whether that be states or empires) and is therefore inherently not dependent on it (rather, worldly power should depend on it, so long as humanity is concerned)

    -------

    Now, neither ..

    -
    the trivial fact that it can also grow more and faster when not persecuted,

    - nor the other trivial fact that later on, or at some point after that stage i.e. after Christianity had already - peacefully - a) been established b) started growing, and c) become a majority, an official religion of a state, or a worldly power to be worldly reckoned with, violence was resorted to under it its name, and that as a result of that it grew relatively even more or faster,

    - nor opining in a last desperate attempt that 'the only reason it was peaceful is because it was weak and when someone is weak they cannot resort to violence else they get crushed or eliminated, and so Christianity wanted to use violence (i.e. is violent too) but couldn't use violence at that time, and that's why it didn't', when in reality Christianity's very process of establishing itself and growing (becoming strong) was a peaceful one despite of persecution; the religion was being fulfilled without resorting to violence, and hence the latter not being essential to it.


    .. addresses let alone successfully tackles the aforementioned point.

    ----------

    Additional passing notes against the lies and imaginary tales thrown within the previous pages. The notes are easily ascertainable using simple google searches.

    - As Christianity was established and growing to become a majority - nonviolently despite persecution - pagan religions were waning and fading out organically as a result. There is no such thing as "Christianity genocided pagan europe". Majority of pagan temples were largely abandoned before and by the time Christianity had become the official religion of the empire, they were gradually converted and appropriated organically, and relatively rare are those that met a different fate and that after the empire had officially become Christian, and thus that was an exception not the norm. Most of the ancient learning was preserved and passed down and diffused in all directions including towards the Arabs, and this was because of Christians at that time (before and during early middle ages) being true to themselves by copying and preserving them, in the midst of a crumbling world hammered by relentless barbaric and Muslim invasions.

    - After that foundation stage, violence was resorted to arguably possibly unjustly at some instances, and justly at other instances when peaceful means (via truth and charity) have been exhausted and peace and the social order (self-preservation of society) was at stake at the time. I'd say that was specifically when lowly creatures, or human beings acting as such, had to be handled or dealt with, whether those being in society or those coming from outside. This is incontestable in principle and is at the foundation of any modern western state, what is contestable however is its particular applicability.

    - A further note regarding the Augustinian example in the fourth century and the Donatists who had become threatening and violent: 'compel' or 'coerce' doesn't necessarily mean 'kill and terrorize until they subdue and convert' especially given the relevant context, but rather more of a forced invitation to dialogue, to a dinner, as DA and The_FPMer have pointed out, and as evidenced by Augustine himself later protesting the treatment of the Donatists by the Roman authorities. As mentioned earlier, Violence isn't essential, but it is also not necessarily or inherently evil. Using it therefore isn't automatically a case of the 'end justifying the means', unless the 'means' here is demonstrated to be inherently evil (like 'murder', and not like 'killing in self-defense' for example). It is also worth noting that the Donatists survived in Christendom for further 2+ centuries until they got exterminated by a Muslim conquest. Can anyone not really notice the poetic irony here?
    So it seems you guys throw claims and then deny your very own claims and then ask where was those claims made.

    Presently, in a page or two, someone said jesus of the NT did not beat people with his whip. That he only "scared" or intimidated them. When I cited that the use of violence to intimidate others for certain objective is terrorism, @Indie then popped in and said a man could not have intimidated a crowd. So did he intimidate, did he beat up anyone? What exactly was a whip for? The "lamb of god" was beating others with a whip? Or was he terrorizing others? That's tremendous!!!! You guys should stick to one thing and make up your minds. It is very shameful to be this out of touch with your own claims.
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    Are you really changing the order of the verses within a surah of the Quran now? and then turning to me and accusing me of your own deed? This is well beyond the treachery and nifaq that the Quran allows for or condones, or is it? It is simply a nifaq that doesn't sell. Nobody would buy it. Upon what, other than a whim or wishful thinking, are you basing this change of otherwise unquestioned order of verses in the surah? Because it is only after several failed attempts at addressing the point that you suddenly realized and proclaimed 'the order of these verses must actually be reversed', thinking to yourself this would solve it and salvage the situation, of course without the slightest regard for veracity or truth.

    Even if we charitably go by that assumption of yours, while also basing ourselves on the Quran alone and discarding all hadiths, this would just push it up a notch, indicting Allah directly this time around rather than Muhammad. The same point that you've been crossing lands and seas trying to avoid would only come back at you and in a severer way this time.

    This is the later verse that we are going to assume it came first for the sake of argument, Quran 2:217: "They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: "Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members." Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein."

    This verse essentially means either one of two things. Either,

    A/ Allah is saying defensive fighting (against Meccans) during sacred months is a violation (against himself), but still less severe than that of Meccans kicking Mohammad outside the kaaba, and by that indict himself of positively commanding violations (against himself) anytime he commands defensive fighting during sacred months, (something we know he did later on as per the assumption).

    or

    B/ Allah is saying offensive fighting (against Meccans) during sacred months is a violation (against himself), but still less severe than that of Meccans kicking Mohammad outside the kaaba, and by that indict himself of justifying a violation against himself if it were to serve against a severer violation (or if it were less severe than some other violation) such as that of Meccans kicking Mohammad outside the kaaba.

    Which one should we go with?
    You are still trying to discard the clause of exception, which indicates the pagans would not cease fighting. There was NO offensive fighting commanded in the sacred months, and there was NO violation against any rule, which commands to halt fighting during the sacred months (in the then prevailing situation, whereby both sides honoured the tradition). You are still persistenting in your DISHONESTY. You will die one day in guilt for being a wonderful lying. You already presented a verse with an omitted clause. You are still typing BS and offering options that ignore the very same clause. That clause is the most important explanation for everything in this your silly discussion of a loser.

    As for the order of the verses, the Quran is not arranged in chronological order. But from the wording of the verses, you can use common sense. But common sense is not common. Verse 217 states by stating "they ask thee concerning the sacred months"...that indicates they did not know something. Had verse 194 being revealed then and they have heard it, they wont have asked. And if they hadn't heard of the verse, they would have been directed to V194, if it was already revealed. Verse 194 is already explanative enough that they should not fight but that if they are attacked, they should attack the way they were attacked. If you apply common sense you will get it clear enough.

    If you lack common sense, then get a tafseer and check the commentary on those verses and search for when they were revealed and in what occasions. Quite simple, right? No need to be charitable here. You cant give what you do not have.
     
    Top