(At least three times.)

A toast (Gimlet or Gewurztraminer):

“To the the end of militant Islam, everywhere!“

I might go so far=I might not go so far

You will look in vain.

“Muhammad is the apostle of Allah. Those who follow him are merciful to one another but ruthless to the unbelievers.” (Qur’an 48:29)

Robert Spencer on September 3, 2007 at 8:56 AM

Thank you, I needed to ask an expert.

That is as I always understood it to be, I Also feel the inability to forgive unbelievers is a very specific reason why every society which is not Muslim should not just be aware but also place strict sanctions on the practice of Sharia Islam.

In my view, forgiveness promotes closure and peace, disallowing forgiveness promotes vengeance and violence, forever.

I might go so far to say that turn the other cheek provided the thread to modern civilized society in the west but I would say it is a very important part of the weave.

“Muhammad is the apostle of Allah. Those who follow him are merciful to one another but ruthless to the unbelievers.” (Qur’an 48:29)

Robert Spencer on September 3, 2007 at 8:56 AM

Religion of peace.

Thanx Robert Spencer for your work!

I guess what I’m looking for is anything that might equate to “turn the other cheek”.

You will look in vain.

“Muhammad is the apostle of Allah. Those who follow him are merciful to one another but ruthless to the unbelievers.” (Qur’an 48:29)

Thank you

but whom Allah doth know.” — Qur’an 8:60

since Allah is everything, that’s pretty all encompassing.

I suppose the more proper question might be, is any form of attack prohibited?

I’ve been been doing a little research into Qur’anic mechanisms for forgiveness.

“Nor can Goodness and Evil be equal. Repel (Evil) with what is better: then will he between whom and thee was hatred become as it was thy friend and intimate!” (Quran: 41:34).

“Never aspire for confronting your enemies (in a fight). Pray to God to be among those who seek living peacefully with others.” (Bukhari).

And let not hatred of a people, having prevented you [O you who believe!] from visiting the al-Haram [1] mosque, cause you to commit transgression. And help one another in [practicing] righteousness and dutifulness, and do not help one another in [committing] sin and transgression. And act dutifully toward Allah. Surely, Allah is severe in punishment (from 5.2).

O you who believe! Stand firm for Allah, [as] witnesses with justice. And let not hatred of a people cause you not to act equitably; act equitably; that is nearer to dutifulness. And act dutifully toward Allah. Surely, Allah is aware of what you do (5.8).

And fight in the way of Allah those who fight you [O you who believe!], and do not transgress. Surely, Allah does not love the aggressors (2.190). And kill them wherever you find them and drive them out whence they drove you out; persecution is severer than killing. And do not fight them at the al-Haram mosque until they fight you in it, but if they do fight you, then kill them. Such is the reward of the disbelievers (2.191). But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful (2.192). And fight them until there is no persecution and religion is Allah’s. But if they desist, then there should be no hostility, except against the wrongdoers (2.193).

I guess what I’m looking for is anything that might equate to “turn the other cheek”.

Thanks again

Is there anyplace in the Qur’an that defines the form that a Jihad should take or is any method of attack permissible?

There is wide latitude:

“Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know.” — Qur’an 8:60

And Muhammad himself is quite clear about the necessity to obey earthly rulers: “You should listen to and obey your ruler even if he was an Ethiopian (black) slave whose head looks like a raisin.”

But what if he was a Jooooooo? Or what if he was a she?

“And so if they stay away from you and do not fight you, and offer you peace, reconciliation, that is, [if] they submit, then God does not allow you any way against them, [He does not allow you] a means to take them captive or to slay them.”

So much for running away to hide and expecting that Muslims will then leave us alone.

Is there anyplace in the Qur’an that defines the form that a Jihad should take or is any method of attack permissible?

They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah’s way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.

Except those who reach a people between whom and you there is an alliance, or who come to you, their hearts shrinking from fighting you or fighting their own people; and if Allah had pleased, He would have given them power over you, so that they should have certainly fought you; therefore if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them.

In verse 89, it says to kill them, even if they turn back. But in verse 90, it exempts these killings if an “alliance” is formed. How can the Muslims form any alliance with an enemy and not be in contradiction to verse 89? Or the previous verses that we’ve studied here? That the “non-believers” must submit to Islam, or face consequences…

This is the line that I don’t quite get: “…therefore if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them.”

Still find that contrary to what the previous verse states.

I guess the betty ford mosque is out of the question. But monkey stomping him to death is halal. Isn’t murder a sin somewhere in this koran?

Ol mo better watch his back though. Race riot Al will skewer him for those bigot ‘raisin head’ statements. Haram!

You know, I think I got this applied muslim philosophy down pat: if in doubt, resort to death & destruction – even against fellow believers – cause they got an ‘out’ for that one too.

I’m sorry. I’m not feeling too generous this morning. Thank you, Robert Spencer for another interesting lesson.

PS: a poster mentioned ‘coral ridge ministries.’ They have a great online audio library for down load with messages from Phillip Johnson, Duane Gish, Ravi Zacharrias, David Barton, et al. Great stuff for those who like applied Christian philosophy. I’m outta here…………

v. 94. V. 95 says that those believers who stay home and risk no injury are not equal to those who wage jihad.

So if some Muslims disagree with the jihad declaration, or they prefer a peaceful and/or diplomatic approach to issue resolution, then they are deemed lower than the Muslims who want to kill.

Yet, we’re somehow suppose to implement a foreign policy to improve relations with those who prefer jihad.

Is the above description valid? Assigning partners to Allah may be the rough equivalent to deifying those partners, if the understanding is that they are equivalent to God.

It seems to be to be an obvious attack on the Islamic redefinition of the Trinity into 3 separate gods. And/or on the deity of Jesus, if the former definition is also valid.

On a semi-related note, Howard Dean is telling American muslims to run for office to “achieve their goals”. CAIR’s goal is to replace the Constitution with the koran. Do we need any more proof that the Dems are on the wrong side of islam’s war of world domination?