Still denying the truth

Which can only mean trouble for the Infidel and Apostate. Here's more:

The reality of language is that while it is very hard to squeeze definite meaning from text it is also very hard to declare a text meaningless. Hence two sects can both have ideas about the meaning of their sacred texts that are contradictory.

It can be difficult to squeeze definite meaning from some text, but it is not too hard to find some texts meaningless.

So, we can't know what meaning(s) an author intends to convey? If so, then all attempts at communication are useless.

That some are unwilling or unable to accurately represent a particular text does not reflect on the text itself; it does reflect on those misrepresenting that text. The contradictory teachings within Christendom are not due to any sort of deficiency in the Biblical texts or to God's inability to express Himself coherently; they are the fault of those who (for their own reasons) add to or delete from His word. Jesus said, "Father...Your word is truth."

In the example cited here it was argued that the Sura 9 was a historical 'prep talk' to troops before an upcoming battle.

Maududi makes the point that the Jihad waged in conquering Arabia was expanding to the non-Muslim world.

More importantly, there is nothing in the text to limit the command to only that battle. That Mohammed and his followers understood the command was to conquer the non-Muslim world for Allah is evident from Islam's explosive expansion into non-Muslim lands upon the (false) prophet's death.

The apparent lack of violence in which some so desperately want to put their hope is only a lull between storms and only in lands where at this moment Islam is too weak to fight openly.

The objection you mounted was when do we know something is only in there for historical reference versus being an eternal commandment. The fact is we don't...

The clear words of Allah, the example of his (false) prophet, and one and one-half millennia of global jihad would indicate the "objection...mounted" comes from "moderate" Muslims and gullible Infidels wishing to re-interpret Islam in a way in which has never been understood.

if we did easily there would be no need for theologians, philosophers, commentators or educators in any of the three great monotheisms. You'd just have to give students the book and let them go.

Need for instruction is not evidence of ambiguous documentation. If learning any subject were as easy as "give the students the book and let them go," there would be no teachers.

Hmmmm so what to make of Jewish belief in the Old Testament? They do not believe God has a son so are they worshipping a different God?

Jews who believe the Old Testament but reject Jesus of Nazareth are, in spite of the clear testimony of the Law and Prophets, rejecting the promised Messiah. Jesus told His fellow Jews in response to their question, "Where is your father?" this: "You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also" (John 8:19).

We've been down this road before. The best way to determine if one is referring to the same person is to note the most important qualities of the person in question. In Islam Allah is the God who created the universe and revealed himself to Abraham as the one and only God. These are the essential characteristics of God shared by all three major mono-religions (Judism, Christianity and Islam).

So, two shared characteristics mean the same identity, and the mountain of contradictory characteristics, words, and actions matter not at all? That's some careful analysis!

Limiting "essential qualities" to only two similarities (and ignoring hundreds of other contradictions) in order to arrive at one's predetermined outcome does not a strong argument make: "Boonton has thumbs and can use a keyboard. A monkey has thumbs and can use a keyboard. Therefore, Boonton is a monkey."

Since Christ said He is the Son of God, and Allah said he has no son, it is silly to claim that both Christ and Allah are the same god.

When Christians protest something they find offensive are they 'subduing' non-Christians?

Of course! Christians are always rioting, burning, and killing over cartoons!

Since subdue means to "conquer and subjugate; vanquish, quiet or bring under control by physical force or persuasion; make tractable," if Christians were to successfully intimidate others into silence using death threats, promises of terrorism, and actual violence, then "subdue" would be an appropriate term.

Since Islam commands the subduing and humiliating of the People of the Book, and Muslim violence and the threat of violence are clearly intimidating Western non-Muslims into silence over the cartoons, "subdue" is rightly applied here.

Our point of concern is violence, not advocacy. As I pointed out one has a right to advocate that everyone should be a particular religion, or even that the law should be changed to be religious rather than secular.

Again, Muslim threats of murder and terrorism being excused as "advocating" civil rights, when in fact they are threats of murder and terrorism is immoral.

On whether Am is smarter than Muslims: More ad hominem.

First an ad hominem attack is one that is based on personal insult. My "On the strange fact that Am. seems to know more about Islam than Muslims" is not a personal insult.

When speaking of logical fallacies, argumentum ad hominem refers to attacking the person rather than their argument in an attempt to discredit the argument. It in no way reflects on the merits of the argument itself.

It applies here because there's been no addressing Islam's "sacred" texts commanding (and praising) Jihad against the Infidel or its fourteen hundred years of carrying out those commands.

Second it is perfectly fair to ask this point. Does Am really speak with authority on Islam? It is not unreasonable to note that one must do more to know a religion than simply read its sacred text (or selected parts of it) and go from there. All major religions have built up a huge volumn of traditions and commentaries that make such simple readings hazardous.

How can one accuse me of falsehood when one unacquainted with Islam's authoritative texts, history, and tradition hasn't engaged in even "simple (but hazardous) readings"?

There's been no demonstration that I've misrepresented Qur'an, Hadith, or fourteen hundred years of Jihad, Shari'a, and Dhimma.

At this point one needs to remind ourselves what the argument is. The argument is not that there are violenct schools of Islamic thought. The argument put forth is that any Islamic school of thought must be violent because the violence i fundamental to Islam and no school of thought could be both non-violent and Islamic.

Says Boonton. But Mohammed said, "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty..." (Qur'an 9:38, 39).

What major schools of Islam reject Jihad against the Infidel as heresy? What major schools of Islam reject Surah 9 as false revelation?

In that case the fact that the US Muslim population is only a small portion of the world's Muslims is irrelevant. 2 million is more than enough to not be some bizaar splinter group.

So, two million people are enough to make their truth claims on Allah's will valid.

Using that logic, the millions of Muslims around the world who support (even lionize) bin Laden are "not some bizaar splinter group." Neither are the millions of Muslims who democratically aid Islamic terrorists to power in "Palestine" and Egypt. And the millions of Muslims who in poll after poll express their desire for more terrorism against the United States and Israel must also be an accurate representation of Islam.

Allah's word and his messenger's example are clear. The Infidel dismisses it to his own harm (and the harm of those he loves).

Then they would be leaving Islam but your suggestion is positively bizaar. They keep going to services, keep reading the Koran...yet don't want to know what their religion is?

Making unsupported claims about Western Muslims and attributing them to me is not sportsmanlike. I have not suggested Western (especially American) Muslims attend mosque and read Qur'an regularly. Even if they did (what evidence of this exists?), there are a number of other reasons for refraining from open violence here.

Ok, but this would be like Christian ignorance that Christ rose from the dead. Imagine a Christian that was ignorant of this but reads the Bible and attends Church services and even reads Christian articles/commentary but for some reason 'avoids' that fact because it makes him uncomfortable. Out of the hundreds of millions of Christians I'm sure you might find such a creature but millions of them? Nope, not on your life.

Here again is the false implication that Western Muslims who refrain from violence do so only because they are ignorant of Islam's texts, traditions, and history.

There are also commands not to use violence, are they irrelevant simply because they came before Sura 9 and were 'repealed' by it?

What commands? Surah and ayah, please. Does Wiki "delve" that deeply?

There are Qur'anic commands for cooperation with non-Muslims. There is a verse that speaks of "no compulsion in religion."

Unfortunately for Infidel and Apostate, as Mohammed's political and military power grew, so did Allah's belligerence. Over the course of Allah's revelations to Mohammed warfare evolved from cooperation, to allowing defensive war, to requiring defensive war, to finally requiring offensive war. This explains why Mohammed said things like:

"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).

“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).

"Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home)...But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward..." (Qur'an 4:95).

“A man came to Allah’s Apostle and said, ‘Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad in reward.’ He replied, ‘I do not find such a deed’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 44).

"Say to [those]...who lagged behind: "Ye shall be summoned (to fight) against a people given to vehement war: then shall ye fight, or they shall submit. Then if ye show obedience, Allah will grant you a goodly reward, but if ye turn back as ye did before, He will punish you with a grievous Penalty. No blame is there on the blind, nor is there blame on the lame, nor on one ill (if he joins not the war)...and he who turns back, (Allah) will punish him with a grievous Penalty" (Qur'an 48:16, 17).

"O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least. For Allah hath power over all things" (Qur'an 9:38, 39).

Boonton continued...

If so then why were they even put in the Koran? Wouldn't putting such no longer relevant orders in it serve to confuse those trying to follow it?

Yes. This question exemplifies a dangerous misunderstanding under which many Westerners operate: Islam is not like Christianity. The Bible is consistent. Qur'an is not. (And this inconsistency is another evidence of Christ and Allah being very different deities.)

It is confusing until the Doctrine of Abrogation is understood. (Ordering Qur'an's surahs by length and not by topic or in chronological order can also be difficult for the novice).

And this was not the only time Allah gave certain "revelations" that just happened to fit Mohammed's circumstances (and lusts): divorce for wives who complained about a new "interest," one-fifth of all the spoils of war going to him, and Allah ordaining his raping of his nine-year-old "wife" Aisha are three examples.

Or perhaps the orders apply in certain situations, such as in a religious war. Situations that do not necessarily have to happen (in other words, a Muslim must fight for other Muslims in a religious war but there is no obligation to start a religious war when non-exists).

But what does Allah say? What did his apostle say and do?

Allowing for defensive war and commands for offensive war are both found in Qur'an.