Blogging the Qur’an: Sura 9, “Repentance,” verses 6-14
posted at 8:00 am on November 18, 2007 by Robert Spencer
According to the twentieth century Islamic scholar Muhammad Asad, verses 4 and 6 of Sura 9 belie the impression that many take from v. 5: that pagans are to be offered the choice of “conversion or death.” V. 4, however, only specifies that if non-Muslims honor the terms of their existing treaties with Muhammad and the Muslims, the Muslims will honor those treaties to the end of their term. And v. 6, according to Ibn Kathir, gives pagans “safe passage so that they may learn about the religion of Allah, so that Allah’s call will spread among His servants….In summary, those who come from a land at war with Muslims to the area of Islam, delivering a message, for business transactions, to negotiate a peace treaty, to pay the Jizyah, to offer an end to hostilities, and so forth, and request safe passage from Muslim leaders or their deputies, should be granted safe passage, as long as they remain in Muslim areas, until they go back to their land and sanctuary.” The reference here to paying the Jizyah refers to the tax specified for the People of the Book under Islamic rule in v. 29; thus the choice, at least for those who have received a written scripture (mainly Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians), is not conversion or death, but conversion, subjugation or death.
The Tafsir al-Jalalayn, As-Suyuti, and Ibn Juzayy agree with this view of v. 6. Ibn Juzayy says that it means that Muslims should “grant them security so that they can hear the Qur’an to see whether they will become Muslim or not. (then convey them to a place where they are safe) If they do not become Muslim, return him to his place.” He notes, however, that this is not a unanimous view: “This is a firm judgment in the view of some people while other people say that it is abrogated by fighting.”
The treaty that the Muslims concluded with the pagans “near the sacred Mosque” (v. 7) refers to the Treaty of Hudaybiyya. In 628, Muhammad had a vision in which he performed the pilgrimage to Mecca — a pagan custom that he very much wanted to make part of Islam, but had thus far been prevented by the Quraysh control of Mecca. But at this time he directed Muslims to prepare to make the pilgrimage to Mecca, and advanced upon the city with fifteen hundred men. The Quraysh met him outside the city, and the two sides concluded a ten-year truce (hudna), the treaty of Hudaybiyya.
Some leading Muslims were unhappy with the prospect of a truce. After all, they had recently broken a Quraysh siege of Medina and were now more powerful than ever. Were they going to bargain away their military might for the sake of being able to make the pilgrimage? According to Muhammad’s first biographer, Ibn Ishaq, a furious Umar went to Abu Bakr and said, “Is he not God’s apostle, and are we not Muslims, and are they not polytheists? Then why should we agree to what is demeaning to our religion?” The two of them went to Muhammad, who attempted to reassure them: “I am God’s slave and His apostle. I will not go against His commandment and He will not make me the loser.”
But it certainly didn’t seem as if the treaty was being concluded to the Muslims’ advantage. When the time came for the agreement to be written, Muhammad called for Ali and told him to write, “In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful.” But the Quraysh negotiator, Suhayl bin ‘Amr, stopped him: “I do not recognize this; but write ‘In thy name, O Allah.” Muhammad told Ali to write what Suhayl had directed.
But Suhayl was not finished. When Muhammad directed Ali to continue by writing, “This is what Muhammad, the apostle of God, has agreed with Suhayl bin ‘Amr,” he protested again. “If I witnessed that you were God’s apostle,” Suhayl told Muhammad, “I would not have fought you. Write your own name and the name of your father.” Again the Prophet of Islam, to the increasing dismay of his followers, told Ali to write the document as Suhayl wished.
In the final form of the treaty, Muhammad shocked his men by agreeing to provisions that seemed disadvantageous to the Muslims: those fleeing the Quraysh and seeking refuge with the Muslims would be returned to the Quraysh, while those fleeing the Muslims and seeking refuge with the Quraysh would not be returned to the Muslims.
Yet soon Muhammad broke the treaty. A woman of the Quraysh, Umm Kulthum, joined the Muslims in Medina; her two brothers came to Muhammad, asking that they be returned “in accordance with the agreement between him and the Quraysh at Hudaybiya.” But Muhammad refused: Allah forbade it. He gave Muhammad a new revelation: “O ye who believe! When there come to you believing women refugees, examine and test them: Allah knows best as to their faith: if ye ascertain that they are believers, then send them not back to the unbelievers” (60:10).
In refusing to send Umm Kulthum back to the Quraysh, Muhammad broke the treaty. Although Muslim apologists have claimed throughout history that the Quraysh broke it first, this incident came before all those by the Quraysh that Muslims point to as treaty violations. The contemporary Muslim writer Yahiya Emerick asserts that Muhammad based his case on a bit of legal hair-splitting: the treaty stipulated that the Muslims would return to the Quraysh any man who came to them, not any woman. Even if that is true, Muhammad soon – as Emerick acknowledges – began to accept men from the Quraysh as well, thus definitively breaking the treaty.
The breaking of the treaty in this way would reinforce the principle that nothing was good except what was advantageous to Islam, and nothing evil except what hindered Islam. Once the treaty was formally discarded, Islamic jurists enunciated the principle that truces in general could only be concluded on a temporary basis of up to ten years, and that they could only be entered into for the purpose of allowing weakened Muslim forces to gather strength to fight again more effectively.
Nevertheless, Ibn Kathir and others maintain that the Quraysh broke the treaty first. And verses 8-14 certainly give the impression that they did indeed break it, excoriating the pagans for selling “the signs of Allah” for a “miserable price” (v. 9) and for violating oaths they made with the Muslims (vv. 12, 13). Thus because of all their enormities, Allah exhorts the Muslims to fight them (vv. 13-14). According to Ibn Juzayy, “Allah will punish them at your hands” (v. 14) means “killing and capture. That is a promise of victory for the Muslims.” The Tafsir al-Jalalayn concurs: “Fight them, and God will chastise them, He will have them killed, at your hands and degrade them, humiliate them through capture and subjugation, and He will give you victory against them…”
Next week: How Allah will comfort the Muslims in their distress.
(Here you can find links to all the earlier “Blogging the Qur’an” segments. Here is a good Arabic/English Qur’an, here are two popular Muslim translations, those of Abdullah Yusuf Ali and Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, along with a third by M. H. Shakir. Here is another popular translation, that of Muhammad Asad. And here is an omnibus of ten Qur’an translations.)










Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Another short reading this week. Thanks for the history behind these crucial passages. But I have the feeling what we are witnessing here is not so much history, but ancient blood feuds, grudges and spin-doctoring. These stories change depending on who one wishes to break an ancient treaty first. But v12 makes clear what side Allah is on in this feud:
*************************
This is truly hilarious – and tragic. I am sure somebody can find some twisted logic in this.
*************************
Mr Spencer, Ibn Kathir lived 700 years ago. How do Muslims incorporate verse 6 in these days of electronic communications?
HeIsSailing on November 18, 2007 at 9:18 AM
But, Catholics! /sarc
Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
DannoJyd on November 18, 2007 at 9:33 AM
Kill ‘em
Keep ‘em
or
Convert ‘em
The simple gospel of Mohammad.
Mojave Mark on November 18, 2007 at 9:47 AM
While reading the back and forth between Mo and Suhayl, I can picture Suhayl walking back to his camp and saying “Boring conversation anyway. LUKE, WE’RE GONNA HAVE COMPANY!”
Tony737 on November 18, 2007 at 10:46 AM
It’s so hard to believe this ridiculous religion crap just keeps on keepin on.
With all the education and communication we enjoy today, it’s just so hard to believe this nonsense is stronger than ever.
KMC1 on November 18, 2007 at 11:09 AM
Enlightening – Mo had to demonstrate to his own followers just how corrupt his dealings were. They never imagined he had no intention of actually following the terms of the treaty. So much easier to allow the opponent much latitude in the language you’ve already decided to ignore!
Such dishonesty is highly prized to this day.
T J Green on November 18, 2007 at 11:14 AM
“nothing was good except what was advantageous to islam, and nothing evil except what hindered islam”
or more like-
nothing was good except what was advantageous to Muhammad, and nothing evil except what hindered Muhammad. and what Muhammad claimed allah demanded.
.
Robert,
Other than converting more people and control of the large amount of wealth that came with incorporating the journey to Mecca into islam, is there any other reasons Muhammad chose to do so? Other than the obvious lie that allah told him so. Or maybe allah did tell him so, allah being possibly an evil spirit, fallen angle or Satan himself, after all he is the god of the moon (darkness). Please correct me or explain further. Thanks.
abinitioadinfinitum on November 18, 2007 at 12:23 PM
I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ’s heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it is meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it.
- Pope Urban II
MB4 on November 18, 2007 at 3:08 PM
How does a man love according to divine precept his neighbor as himself when, knowing that his Christian brothers in faith and in name are held by the perfidious Muslims in strict confinement and weighed down by the yoke of heaviest servitude, he does not devote himself to the task of freeing them?
- Pope Innocent III
aengus on November 18, 2007 at 5:06 PM
HeIsSailing:
The era of easy international travel and communications has disrupted many traditional understandings — and not just among Muslims, of course. The modern application of this verse is further complicated by the fact that most Muslim states do not implement Sharia in its fullness. In Saudi Arabia, a strict Sharia state, non-Muslims are allowed to live and work as long as they do not practice their religions (which restriction comes from Muhammad’s commands for Arabia) — they are there, of course, to perform “business transactions,” which is one thing Ibn Kathir allows for.
Robert Spencer on November 18, 2007 at 5:30 PM
abinitioadinfinitum,
The principal reason seems to be that Muhammad very much wanted to win over the Quraysh. He was, after all, of the Quraysh himself. By incorporating the Shrine and the pilgrimage into Islam — and Islamizing the rest of Arabia — he guaranteed that conversion to Islam would not destroy the Quraysh economically.
Robert Spencer on November 18, 2007 at 5:33 PM
MB4:
Did you get that quote out of my book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)? You might be interested in my discussion of it there, or in my book Religion of Peace?, which discusses at greater length and detail what you are trying to do here: assert that Christianity and Islam are equally likely to incite believers to religious violence.
People present quotes like these to me about ten times a day, and I never have quite grasped the thought process behind doing so. Are you suggesting that I don’t know or don’t want others to know that Christians have committed violence in the name of their religion? That would be absurd, since I’ve now written two books (the ones mentioned above) about various aspects and implications of that fact.
Or is your point that because Christians committed violence in the name of their religion in the past, therefore Muslims are somehow excused for doing so today? Does the use of Christian Scripture for bad purposes in the past free peaceful Muslims and non-Muslims of good will from any obligation to confront the use of Islamic Scripture for bad purposes today?
But you’ll note in any case that Urban II didn’t actually point to any Christian Scripture that mandated warfare against unbelievers, so his words aren’t really the equivalent of the Qur’anic passages discussed in this week’s Q-Blog.
Or do you mean something else?
Robert Spencer on November 18, 2007 at 5:43 PM
aengus:
Please see my questions to MB4 above.
Robert Spencer on November 18, 2007 at 5:44 PM
Robert, I got the quote from Wikipedia after a “google” search. I don’t recall what prompted me to look it up, but it may well have been your book,”The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)” as I bought that book and read it some moons ago.
MB4 on November 18, 2007 at 6:45 PM
Robert,
I just today read an article, The Real History of the Crusades, by Thomas F. Madden linked to in a thread on your site entitled “Fitzgerald: Persecution of Christians in the Muslim world”.
I am a Catholic and was posting the words of Pope Innocent III because I agree with him. The Crusades may have been immoral in the way that they were fought (or so I’m told) but their purpose of freeing Christian slaves and trying to save Byzantine Christians from annihilation by Muslims was entirely worthy.
Popes Urban and Innocent were justified in calling for the self-defense of Christians in the the face of centuries of Muslim expansion. I myself would hope to be rescued if I were ever taken hostage. I could understand your confusion though, I don’t talk to a lot of apologists for the Crusades either.
I’m reading a book at the moment that might interest you. It’s called The Stolen Village: Baltimore and the Barbary Pirates by Des Ekin. From the back cover: “In June 1631 pirates from Algiers and armed troops of the Turkish Ottoman Empire, led by the notorious pirate captain Morat Rais, stormed ashore at the little harbour village of Baltimore in West Cork. They captured all the villagers and bore them away to a life of slavery in North Africa.”
I read your site every day and understand your frustration. My sister cannot discuss the violence implicit in the Muslim Qua’ran without mentioning the violent passages in the Bible.
I haven’t read any of your books but will do so when I get around to ordering them. Keep up the good work.
P.S. From talking to MB4 on this blog I know that he feels this way also, often to the bemusement of other commenters. I only felt myself fully in agreement on the necessity of the Crusades after reading the Madden article.
aengus on November 18, 2007 at 6:56 PM
Robert, you have misread me completely. Sometimes I think that seems to be catching.
I take the quote as simply a self defensive “call to arms”, and as such find it, well, rather inspiring.
MB4 on November 18, 2007 at 6:58 PM
MB4 on November 18, 2007 at 7:26 PM
lol
MB4 on November 18, 2007 at 7:26 PM
Khomeini used electronic communications to spread the faith of Islam, mostly through tapes, to Iranians while in exile in Paris. It works both ways as you can tell from reading blogs written by disaffected Iranian students and whatnot.
Hahaha!
aengus on November 18, 2007 at 7:48 PM
MB4 and aengus:
My apologies. I hear with mind-numbing frequency from “Christianity and Islam are morally equivalent” types, and so assumed you were arguing more of the same.
Robert Spencer on November 18, 2007 at 9:47 PM
From Robert’s “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)”, page 12:
Muhammad issued a blanket command: “Kill any jew that falls into your power.” This was not a military order. the first victim was a Jewish merchant, Ibn Sunayna, wo had “social and business relations” with the Muslims. The murderer, Muhayissa, was rebuked for the deed by his brother Huwayissa, who was not yet a Muslim. Muhayissa was unrepentant. He told his brother, “Had the one who ordered me to kill him ordered me to kill you I would have cut your head off”.
Huwayissa was impressed, “By God, a religion which can bring you this is marvelous!”. He became a Muslim. The world is still witnessing such marvels to this day.
MB4 on November 18, 2007 at 10:15 PM
You’re correct aengus, every single time I’ve discussed the inherent violence found in the qua’ran and hence islam (I dislike capitalizing those words) the other person never fails to bring up the violence found in the Bible and how Christians were sooo violent back in the time of the Crusades. It’s maddening.
4shoes on November 18, 2007 at 10:57 PM
I’m sanguinary and sanguine about a military solution to the threats muslims pose to our lives and liberties. Thus, my own frustration with the Bible is that, for the most part, it’s insufficiently expressive of the Lord God’s support for military solutions even when reason plainly calls for them. It’s true that His commandments to the Israelites to expropriate the Canaanites by eradication are fine testimony that He can be even more of a killer than may be required in our own situation. The problem is that much of the rest of the Bible, the New Testament especially, can be misread to support a heresy that the Lord has mellowed with the passing millennia. I think our cause may be helped by our re-examining the Jewish and Christian Scriptures and assembling all the evidence that the Lord God is more than a match in bloody-mindedness for Allah, His pale caricature.
Kralizec on November 19, 2007 at 12:09 AM
Now I could be mistaken somehow, but I think that this may well be the comment that you were “looking” for earlier Robert.
MB4 on November 19, 2007 at 12:20 AM
Dude. Seriously. Are you insane???
All this talk of religions being “better” than another, or so easily dismissing the violence that was suffered under Christianity is ridiculous. And to actually call for us to go back and
– is absolutely insane!
First of all, the only thing good to come from religion are some basic tenents which allowed society to evolve. That’s it. Whether it be Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or any of the other mulitudes of religions (some may find it hard to even believe there actually ARE other religions, many of which have been around a LOT longer than Christianity or Islam when listening to our Islam Vs. Jews MSM) Other than that, they ALL have at their core, a way to consolidate the nexus of power for the enrichment of the few at the expense of the many, and that’s NOT good. ALL religion has been written and conceived of by MAN, and that’s not good either, in particular when you have people advocating we should all go back and study more scripture so we can all understand how vengeful He can be………………..
WHAT is wrong with people? This isn’t rocket science!
KMC1 on November 19, 2007 at 12:26 AM
The good news is that Christianity has evolved a great deal of “cognitive dissonance”, particularly as concerns the Old Testament.
The bad news is that Islam has not.
Therein lies the problem.
MB4 on November 19, 2007 at 1:23 AM
I disagree with you completely.
I urge you to study the I.R.A. and the terror attacks perpetrated by them, for a direct comparison between an Islamic society struggling through political upheaval, and a Christian one.
ANYTIME a man purports himself to be acting on behalf of “Him”, and begins pointing at scripture to justify his actions, is doing so out of selfish, fearful motivations. It doesn’t matter if it is Jews, Catholics, Muslims, shintoism, syncretism, or any combination thereof.
The basic fact that religion of all kinds, was created by man as a way to consolidate power, is at it’s core, the real issue.
KMC1 on November 19, 2007 at 10:38 AM
Ummm…
Proof of fact, please. Otherwise, dogmatic. I assert that mankind has the unique ability to twist/spin Truth to support his own needs/desires.
BNCurtis on November 19, 2007 at 11:36 AM
You actually dispute that religions were created by man??? lol…. Seriously?
KMC1 on November 19, 2007 at 2:31 PM
I urge you to look at the forest and not just an individual tree.
MB4 on November 19, 2007 at 2:55 PM
No, No, No!!!
The real issue is who it is that wants to part the rest of me from my head!!!
MB4 on November 19, 2007 at 2:58 PM
LOL!
OK. you win! Whatever you believe is the best and whatever you believe is what we all have to believe. Even when presented with a modern comparison you still stick to your guns and keep repeating the same things….
Am I missing anything? LOL.
KMC1 on November 19, 2007 at 3:02 PM
KMC1, this is taken from Mr Spencer’s introduction to this ‘Blogging the Quran’ series:
In other words, whether you are a Christian or not, whether you believe in the divine inspiration of the Christian Scriptures or not, the fact is that those Scriptures do, undeniably contain a human element. No Christian that I know of will argue against that. However, that is not the case with the Islamic Quran. This text is not taken as merely inspired, but transcribed from the very command of Allah himself. And if you have taken the time to actually read along in the Quran, you will see what vast differences exist between these two beliefs. You will also understand why the Islamic ideology of transcription vs the Christian of inspiration has the potential to make Muslim adherants more fanatical towards their beliefs.
Remember, just my lousy opinion. But I think I am right about this.
May I remind you KMC1, that right now, this very moment, you believe something that is wrong, misguided and false. I don’t know what that something is, but you do. So do I. I believe things that are flatly wrong. I can do my best to be as clear thinking as I can, but I can only go so far. So does everyone. Every person reading this comment is wrong about something.
So I am urging you to read and to learn along with us. Learn about what is a potential danger to you, and a present danger to millions of others in this world. That is the whole point of this series.
HeIsSailing on November 19, 2007 at 4:09 PM
Yes. A lot.
MB4 on November 19, 2007 at 4:12 PM
The Great Spirit of North America 600 years ago = a religion not interested in worldly power?
dingbat on November 19, 2007 at 5:10 PM
LOL! You guys are cracking me up!
You basically bookend my point that religion is the work of man, and then go on to point out how I should sit back and
. Don’t you realize that you’re just making my point?
I don’t really care if it fanatical Jews, fanatical Christians, or anyone else. Trying to explain the “difference” lies in the percieved origin of the respective texts, is folly. I know that Muslims believe the Koran is literally the word of God, it’s a big part of why they are so far behind in intellectual pursuits today. (even if they do repeatedly try to blame the West for their problems) And yes, it is part of why some of them are so fanatical in their actions. However, to just repeatedly say that “we’re better than you are” and then sit there pointing at more scripture…. DUH. That’s a HUGE part of the problem with the Jews NEVER letting go of their History, and henceforce, continually being caught up in the same old Islam vs. Judaism violence. You can’t just sit back smug pointing at “your” book and expect everyone to come around to “the truth”. (MB4 notwithstanding of course, cause I knoooow he’s right LOL)
Furthermore, I completely agree on your very well thought out points that noone knows the real truth. None of us know where we really come from, or where we exist, and that is the real issue. I just don’t understand how it is that with the level of education and communication available to the world today, people are still playing the religious warfare games. It would seem that we should all be able to sit back and realize how small the Earth really is, and that we need to all work together to help preserve our little slice of Heaven. (pun intended :) Instead, we continually sit back and try to have seperate little Kingdoms and individual warlords, each adhering to whatever the proletariat is willing to believe in.
I mean, really, this isn’t rocket science.
Also, it would seem there is an awful lot of mud-slinging on this here website whenever ANY conflicting viewpoints are brought up. So, should I just slap everyone on the back and agree with everyone on every single point being made or face the wrath? Seems that way comrade……….
KMC1 on November 19, 2007 at 5:10 PM
KMC1.
Sounds like you don’t know where you really come from. You don’t speak for all of us. Plus you LOL! a lot which indicates to me that you have very strong forgone conclusions. You’re here to argue with the nasty, scared religious folks with this neat schemata in your head. Religion rules man, man makes religion to rule. That’s your baseline, which is cool I guess but rather limiting. Many, many people are better for having religion in their lives, even muslims, LOL!
dingbat on November 19, 2007 at 5:50 PM
LOL!
VERY well said!
Well, except for that part where you basically start making stuff up as you go along, and pretend to know anything about me, or my views, or what my motivations are. OH, and that part about thinking that
being rather limiting is sort of funny since you then go on to say that we need religion (“even Muslims” – LOL!) because people are “better off for it”….. LOL!
Oh and that part where you seem to think I pretend to believe I am speaking for everyone……..
Oh, and that I have foregone conclusions………
Other than that, very well said!!! LOL!
KMC1 on November 19, 2007 at 6:09 PM
You’re urging people to study the IRA despite your complete ignorance of the subject. Did you know they are a Marxist-Leninist terrorist organisation? Have you heard of Wolfe Tone?
aengus on November 19, 2007 at 6:38 PM
You sound like some kind of commercial.
MB4 on November 19, 2007 at 9:46 PM
BTW, too much use of “LOL” tends to devalue “LOL”, just as too much “You’re a Great American” tends to devalue “You’re a Great American”. You know, kind of like what has been done to “Have a nice day”. Are you Sean Hannity?
MB4 on November 19, 2007 at 9:51 PM
MB4 on November 19, 2007 at 9:51 PM
LOL!
Excellent points, all! LOL!
Spirited, well thought out debate! LOL!
Good to see you’ve come such a long way! (Intellectually speaking, of course! LOL!)
KMC1 on November 20, 2007 at 7:08 AM
Let me answer your (rather insulting, simplistic, diversionary) question, with a question.
Why is it, that within the exact same thread, people are so conveniently willing to dismiss the tyranny perpetrated under Christian edict “because it’s so long ago”, yet you’re more than happy to point to a figure from the 1700′s to throw in a red herring about my point comparing the terror tactics of a Catholic / Protestant nation? The politics of the I.R.A. were not and are not my point.
KMC1 on November 20, 2007 at 7:15 AM
It may be convenient to whoever argued “because it’s so long ago” but that’s not the point I made. You told MB4 to study the IRA as an example of contemporary of Christian religious warfare. But there are complex elements of Irish tribalism, Ulster-Scots identity and Marxism-Leninism. There is also the precarious double minority issue. It was you who was being simplistic and now you’ve backed away from your positions. I referenced Wolfe Tone because he was the father of Irish nationalism and a prominent Protestant not because he lived in the 1700s (which isn’t even that long ago in historical terms).
aengus on November 20, 2007 at 9:30 AM
Always use the proper tool for the proper job.
MB4 on November 20, 2007 at 2:37 PM
Again, you are not making any sense referencing the politics of the I.R.A.
I’m not in anyway backing down from my comparison, I’m just refusing to get dragged into the pseudo-political arguments you’re trying to turn the comparison into. In essence, what you are trying to do, is justify, through political obfuscation, terrorist tactics in a Christian society. You haven’t explicitely done so, but in the context that you are posting your position in this particular thread, I can only assume it’s because you support the behavior “for the right reasons”, ie NOT for an Islamic cause.
Additionally, this conversation is precisely the point I make, in pointing out that religion as a form of government is not a helpful entity, and in fact, it surprises (depresses) me that we as a global community, have not grown beyond it’s usefulness.
It’s precisely this type of supremacist nonsense that allows people of one religion to be unapologetically xenophobic, to the point of chopping off the head of a “non-believer”, or allowing 11 million people to be “stateless”, among other atrocities.
KMC1 on November 20, 2007 at 3:23 PM
KMC1
Now you’re dropping all of these overused labels to define your opposition. What do you know about aungus, or MB4, or their views and motivations? Let us discuss. Dont be so snarky.
Islam appears to be violent and bent on world domination. There might be a little cultural machoism intertwined in there…but hey, they’re pushing. What do you want us (the secular/christian west) to do in response?
dingbat on November 20, 2007 at 4:48 PM
Wtf? I was just trying to say that it wasn’t a religious war in the same sense as jihad. There are other factors. I never even mentioned terrorist tactics let alone expressed support for them. KMC1 you need to remove the plastic wrapping from your cigar before you begin to smoke.
aengus on November 20, 2007 at 6:57 PM
You have really gotten yourself confused now.
Perhaps when I said “Always use the proper tool for the proper job”, I should have said “Always use the proper tool on the proper fool”. It rhymes better too.
MB4 on November 20, 2007 at 8:28 PM