It's time to put this one in the refrigerator

From EO:

Boonton,

Of course because at that moment the focus was on the upcoming battle. It is not clear, though, that those commands must apply for all of time after that one battle.

Without textual evidence limiting the command, it is intellectually dishonest to claim the command is limited.

Besides, Allah said, "...fight them on until...there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere..." (Qur'an 8:38, 39).

...why were other commands such as for Muslims to behave peacefully when they find themselves in non-Muslim lands that are not abusing Muslims left in the Koran?

The early "revelations" on cooperation with non-Muslims came to Mohammed while the (false) prophet was militarily weak. Later, after he and his forces were strong enough for open war, the commands came for offensive jihad to make the world Islam.

But that was noted already.

...except the quoting of famous scholars of Islam tells us that this way is not quite as new as you would imply when you write "a way in which has never been understood"

What "famous scholars"? An apostate or two do not a major school of Islamic thought make.

I'll ask again, what major schools of Islam reject offensive warfare against the Infidel? The implication that non-violent readings of Qur'an have been popular throughout Islam's history (except with heretics) is false.

Again you play into the Islamists hands when you reinforce their contention that suicide bombing, attacks on civilians etc. are nothing new. Yes civilians have always ended up getting killed in wars and the ancient world worried less about 'collateral damage' than our modern world does but it is a disservice to the truth (as well as Islam & good policy in general) to give terrorists a credibility they don't really have.

Stop pretending.

-Denying the source and sustenance of Jihad does nothing to slow it; it only aids the enemy by keeping witless Infidels ignorant of its intentions until it is too late.
-Implying that telling the truth about the enemy helps them is false and foolish.
-Misrepresenting the exposing of Allah and his apostle's support for Jihad as "a disservice to the truth" is a disservice to the truth.

(Here's a new Boontonian "argument" I don't recall seeing before: attributing to me the deception in which he indulges. That's worthy of Jihad's most skilled apologists.)

That the jihadists have credibility with Muslims is because they have the words of Allah and the example of Mohammed on their side. You have only logical fallacies, half-truths, and bad analogies.

Your chief characteristic of the difference supposedly between God and Allah is that God has a son but Allah does not.

Another (intentional?) distortion.

YHWH is not Allah. Jesus said of Himself that He is the Son of God. Allah said he had no son.

Except in Boontonia, those two claims are mutually-exclusive. Both cannot be true, unless YHWH and Mohammed's Allah are different deities.

Several other clear contradictions between the two were provided earlier.

...let's make it one shared characteristic; creating the universe at the beginning of time. Now tell me again about the 'mountain' that you're going to stack up in front of that?

You cannot see the mountain for the pebble, so a pebble is enough: YHWH is Allah is Chiconahuiehecatl?

Hmmmm, so if God also has two thumbs (after all, it says humans are made 'in his image') Am would assert that God shares the 'essential qualities' of a monkey?

Another false statement, another false conclusion.

"Boonton is a monkey" is the conclusion required using your logic, not mine.

I have pointed out your reading does not appear to match the behavior of a significant portion of Muslims. Your explanations for this discrepancy are unconvincing.

No, you've demonstrated that words mean whatever you want them to mean until the false assertion in which they've been used is demolished.

As noted previously, your "significant portion of Muslims" is a "tiny minority of extremists" compared to the millions of Muslims who support Jihad with their bodies, words, wealth, ballot, and will.

I have pointed out respected scholars of the religion who have taken a radically different reading than you have throughout history. You have not addressed how this can be if your reading is so obviously the correct one.

Cherry-picking from a Wikipedia article statements convenient for your "argument" and ignoring the rest is not as strong a position as you'd like to imply.

What major schools of Islam reject Jihad against the Infidel to make the world Islam, again?

I have pointed out that all major religions require that their texts be read in context of the understandings and traditions that have built up around them. You have dismissed this objection and continue to embrace the idea that a 'sterile reading' can be accurate.

All religions consider certain doctrines beyond question. Heresy is defined as deviation from those clear doctrines. You've not provided any major Islamic tradition that rejects Jihad, Shari'a, and Dhimma.

Chris wrote:

This is especially true in Islam since the Koran is a confused document. And what do virtually all of the commentators claim about jihad warfare? They claim that it is required. They just provide different sets of when, where, and how it is allowed. History proves how it was originally interpreted.

Which Boonton characteristically distorted into:

Thank you for making my point. I agree that the Koran is a much more difficult document than the Bible both to read and understand.

Let's not forget, though, that our argument is whether or not a non-violent reading of Islam is possible.

Changing the argument again.

The argument has been whether or not Islam requires Jihad. That this is clear from Islam's "sacred" texts and history is dubious only to the ignorant and the deceitful.

Those who wish for a "non-violent reading of Islam" will always be disappointed by passages like: "...fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)..." (Qur’an 9:5), "Fight those who believe not in Allah...nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29), and, "A single endeavor of fighting in Allah’s Cause is better than the world and whatever is in it" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 50).

...historically both types of readings have prevailed at different times and places.

That Jihad has varied in intensity depending upon a variety of circumstances should not be confused for a justifiably "peaceful" reading of Islam.

Christianity was quite intolerant up until maybe a few hundred years ago...

That some Christians at some times and in some places were unjust is true. That their behavior was against Christ's commands is clear from--Christ's commands. (Or will you lie and say that some "Christians" were right in reading His command to "Love your enemy" as "Do whatever you want to your enemy, even if it causes him pain and humiliation"?)

...and the bulk of the effort to make it less intolerant did not come from good Christians themselves but ones that were either quite borderline (such as Thomas Jefferson) or openly hostile (our friend Voltaire).

That the (allegedly) "borderline" and "openly hostile" can change a religious body to which they belong only nominally (if at all) is silly. Christians practicing Christ's commands made the changes.

...All the major religions are consistent with those basic desires. If they were not then they would never have become a major religion. The religion of the terrorist, endless hate, endless violence against just about everyone (because even faithful Muslims will be ideologically impure in some way to the typical Islamist) does not make for a self-sustaining religion that is capable of handling millions of faithful.

But Allah says, "...kill the unbelievers wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5).

Am's "their either all terrorists or all ignorant of their faith" argument...

That false dichotomy is Boonton's argument.

...essentially fails no matter how much he quotes the Koran because a religion is always more than its scripture. Scripture must be read in context of how its believers follow it.

No, one can interpret a religion in the "context of how its believers follow it" (but that doesn't look good for Allah either).

Scripture must be read the way it is written, and Allah says, "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).

Simply because it never says Jesus got married does not prove in itself that he never did.

Boonton's willing to speculate about what the Bible does not say, but unwilling to admit what Qur'an and Hadith do say. That's curious.

I wrote, "...you've demonstrated that words mean whatever you want them to mean until the false assertion in which they've been used is demolished," to which Boonton replied:

If I demonstrated that then there would be no point in debating the issue with you.

There is no point in debating since Boonton is unwilling to admit basic facts, and he repeatedly attributes to me his own (intentionally?) flawed arguments, employs a variety of logical fallacies, and redefines words mid-thread.

The best I could do is say words mean what you want them to mean and words mean what I want them to mean. You like coke and I like pepsi, there can be no real debate about subjective evaluations.

That is the best he can do.

What I demonstrated is that words, especially from ancient scriptural texts, have meaning that is not easy to derive.

No, Boonton has demonstrated "that words have meaning that is not easy to derive" for him. He is unwilling to approach the texts (and simple statements of fact) in an honest, consistent, and logical manner.

Even things that may seem simple are not necessarily so. We saw this with your assertion that seperation of Church and state is endorsed in the Bible....

Another misrepresentation. My assertion was that Christ taught of a distinction between the spiritual and civil realms. The "seperation of Church and state" to which Boonton refers is another matter.

...yet it oddly took Christian thinkers nearly two thousand years to realize it (and then only at the prompting of those hostile to orthodox Christianity).

Though I would prefer to discuss the doctrines of Christ (in this context, the Two Kingdoms), since Boonton appears eager to continue misusing the "Separation of Church and State," I will address that instead.

The "wall of separation" between Church and State was an assurance by Jefferson to some Danbury Baptists that the Federal government was prohibited from denying or limiting their God-given, unalienable right to religious Liberty. The wall was in place to limit the Federal government, not the Church.

On the subject of Church and State Jefferson also wrote:

"[N]o power over the freedom of religion...[is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution" (Kentucky Resolution, 1798).

"In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government" (Second Inaugural Address, 1805).

"[O]ur excellent Constitution...has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary" (Letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1808).

"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions...or exercises" (Letter to Samuel Millar, 1808).

And neither was Jefferson "hostile to orthodox Christianity," as evidenced by his response to the Danbury Baptists and his reflection on the Source of American Liberty:

"I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem."

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?"

That the Founding Fathers never intended free religious expression to be separated from public life is obvious also from the many official State Churches throughout America's early history. (And Jefferson also wrote, "...power to prescribe any religious exercise. . . . must rest with the States.")

Thanks to Americans ignorant of their own history and the subversion of Liberty by America's enemies within, the "Separation of Church and State" has come to mean the opposite of its original intent.

Cherry picking is sufficient to counter your argument.

That says a lot.

You're argument is...namely that no reading of Islam can both be Islamic and anti-violence.

Allah's argument is: "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not" (Qur'an 2:216).

Traditional, Qur'anic Islam is "anti-violence" for the faithful Muslim. It is "anti-violence" for the subdued and humiliated Infidel living obediently as a dhimmi (if you don't include public humiliation and oppression as "violence," but watch out if you get out of line!). It is "anti-violence" (well, at least "non-violent") when in a position of weakness.

To refute such a point I only have to show that at least one respected Islamic thinker maintained as much.

To refute his own (false) point.

No, Boonton would have to show that the majority of traditional Islamic thought agreed with him, which it does not. The exception proves the rule.

And his lonely "respected Islamic thinker" (respected by whom?) is no match for Allah's (false) prophet who said, "A single endeavor of fighting in Allah’s Cause is better than the world and whatever is in it” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 50).

In other words, if you tell me there are no white elephants I only have to show you a single white elephant. That the book I pulled it out of may have twenty other pictures of gray elephants is of no importance.

Boonton has argued there are no white elephants. I've argued, "The book has twenty other pictures of gray elephants" (or, for the irony-impaired, "What does Allah and his apostle say?")

At least Boonton's finally admitted that mountains of contradictory evidence are irrelevant to him!

So Jefferson and Voltaire were not important contributors to our modern thinking of religious tolerance and respect for free speech?

Boonton's changed his argument--again. He earlier described them as reforming Christianity (despite all those pesky, ignorant, rebellious, intolerant Christians); now they're "important contributors to our modern thinking of religious tolerance and respect for free speech" (at least he's getting closer to the truth on this point).

I wonder, if Boonton keeps typing will he eventually end up admitting that Allah and his apostle require the fighting against, subduing and humiliating, and killing of non-Muslims to make the world Islam?

Or are you saying that these two were 'Christians practicing Christ's commands'?...If you do then you have, through the back door, allowed text to mean just about anything you want it to mean yourself.

At least this time Boonton had the decency to ask (even if it was rhetorical) before attributing his own non-sensical statement to me.

Of course, he's tried to slip in through the back door all along, which is why I've felt the need to point out the deceptions in his arguments.

The refrigerator door is closed, the lights are out, the eggs are cooling, the butter's gettin' hard, and the Jell-O's jigglin'.