Textcritical discussion on Islamic theology

[Infidel144]

Tangent discussion split off from here. Feel free to edit the title to your liking. ~Iskar

edit: adding in context from the other thread:

[ http://zentralrat.de/3037.php ]
Point 11: TheQuran forbids any compulsion or coercion in matters of faith.
Clear a lie.

Point 11. Quran does forbid any compulsion or coercion in matters of faith. There is even a verse that explicitly that there is no compulsion in religion.

2:256
There is no compulsion in religion. Righteousness is now distinct from error. He who disbelieves in the idol and believes in Allah has grasped the firmest tie that will never break. Allah is Hearing, Knowing.

No compulsion in religion.

9:5
When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Take them and confine them, then lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and establish the prayer and pay the obligatory charity, let them go their way. Allah is Forgiving and the Most Merciful.

Kill idolaters until they become muslim.

9:29
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.

Kill Jews and Christians (and possibly others) until they willingly submit and pay the dhimmi tax. Alternatively they can convert and become Muslim.

What is there to learn from this?
The quran says no cumpulsion in religion. The quran allows for killing people until they become muslim or (for some) pay the jizya in order to maintain their own faith.
Killing unbelievers, or forcing a second class status on some, unless or until they become muslim, must not be considered compulsion.

[Harith]

2:256
There is no compulsion in religion. Righteousness is now distinct from error. He who disbelieves in the idol and believes in Allah has grasped the firmest tie that will never break. Allah is Hearing, Knowing.

No compulsion in religion.

9:5
When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Take them and confine them, then lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and establish the prayer and pay the obligatory charity, let them go their way. Allah is Forgiving and the Most Merciful.

Kill idolaters until they become muslim.

9:29
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.

Kill Jews and Christians (and possibly others) until they willingly submit and pay the dhimmi tax. Alternatively they can convert and become Muslim.

What is there to learn from this?
The quran says no cumpulsion in religion. The quran allows for killing people until they become muslim or (for some) pay the jizya in order to maintain their own faith.
Killing unbelievers, or forcing a second class status on some, unless or until they become muslim, must not be considered compulsion.

Clearly my "misbehavior" last time didn't hammer home the point.

Care to provide the context for each of these verses?

[Infidel144]

Clearly my "misbehavior" last time didn't hammer home the point.

Care to provide the context for each of these verses?

Do I care to? No. What I have stated is correct.

Do you dispute that 2:256 says no compulsion in religion?
Do you dispute that 9:5 allows for the killing of polytheists until they accept Islam?
Do you dispute that 9:29 allows for the killing of the People of the Book until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and that as an alternative to dhimmi status they can become muslims?

[Harith]

Do I care to? No. What I have stated is correct.

Do you dispute that 2:256 says no compulsion in religion?
Do you dispute that 9:5 allows for the killing of polytheists until they accept Islam?
Do you dispute that 9:29 allows for the killing of the People of the Book until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and that as an alternative to dhimmi status they can become muslims?

Then your points are incorrect and invalid. Completely.

[Infidel144]

Then your points are incorrect and invalid. Completely.

That would be for you to demonstrate.

Until you are able to demonstrate otherwise, then 2:256 says no compulsion in religion, 9:5 allows for the killing of idolaters until they convert, and 9:29 allows for the killing of the people of the book until they pay the jizya, or as an alternative convert.

[bigdaddy1204]

How boring. Infidel144, you have raised this quote countless times before, and each time it has been explained to you in context. As far as I am concerned, there is nothing further to discuss.

[PointOfViewGun]

Tangent discussion split off from here. Feel free to edit the title to your liking. ~Iskar

edit: adding in context from the other thread:

2:256
There is no compulsion in religion. Righteousness is now distinct from error. He who disbelieves in the idol and believes in Allah has grasped the firmest tie that will never break. Allah is Hearing, Knowing.

No compulsion in religion.

9:5
When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Take them and confine them, then lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and establish the prayer and pay the obligatory charity, let them go their way. Allah is Forgiving and the Most Merciful.

Kill idolaters until they become muslim.

9:29
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.

Kill Jews and Christians (and possibly others) until they willingly submit and pay the dhimmi tax. Alternatively they can convert and become Muslim.

What is there to learn from this?
The quran says no cumpulsion in religion. The quran allows for killing people until they become muslim or (for some) pay the jizya in order to maintain their own faith.
Killing unbelievers, or forcing a second class status on some, unless or until they become muslim, must not be considered compulsion.

What is there to learn from this? That you took things out of context and lied left and right about what Quran says. If you actually read chapter 9 you'd realize that it's about a specific conflict at the time of Muhammad when a number of polytheists, not Jews or Christians, basically pagans broke their treaty and Quran told Muslims to fight only those that attack them.

Now, let's see. I can do the same:

kill idolaters

Wow, you want idolaters to be killed. That's cold...

[Infidel144]

How boring. Infidel144, you have raised this quote countless times before, and each time it has been explained to you in context.

That would be for you to demonstrate.

As far as I am concerned, there is nothing further to discuss.

Your choice.

What is there to learn from this? That you took things out of context and lied left and right about what Quran says.

Both of those are nothing more than assertions. Your assertions are not evidence.

If you actually read chapter 9 you'd realize that it's about a specific conflict at the time of Muhammad when a number of polytheists, not Jews or Christians, basically pagans broke their treaty and Quran told Muslims to fight only those that attack them.

Accepting, ad arguendo, this (for now), it has no relevance to what was said above.
Setekh stated: "Quran does forbid any compulsion or coercion in matters of faith. There is even a verse that explicitly that there is no compulsion in religion."

I provided the evidence of this by quoting Quran 2:256.

I note that the Quran allows for the killing of non-believers until they convert or (for some) pay the jizya (with an alternative to avoid this by converting.
I evidence this by quoting 9:5 and 9:29 (and 9:29 is about Jews and Christians, the people of the Book).

Assertions are made about 'context'. Claims are made that I am lying.
Yet these verses exist and state what I have said.
The supposed context Setekh provides (that 9:5 in particular is about polytheists who broke their treaty) does not change the fact that 9:5 allows for the killing of those polytheists until convert.

Hence, killing people until they convert does not equal compulsion.

Now, let's see. I can do the same:


Wow, you want idolaters to be killed. That's cold...

You need to add something for the analogy to be accurate.

Here let me:

"Killing is forbidden."

"Kill idolaters."

Hope that helps...

[PointOfViewGun]

That would be for you to demonstrate.

Your choice.

Both of those are nothing more than assertions. Your assertions are not evidence.

Accepting, ad arguendo, this (for now), it has no relevance to what was said above.
Setekh stated: "Quran does forbid any compulsion or coercion in matters of faith. There is even a verse that explicitly that there is no compulsion in religion."

I provided the evidence of this by quoting Quran 2:256.

I note that the Quran allows for the killing of non-believers until they convert or (for some) pay the jizya (with an alternative to avoid this by converting.
I evidence this by quoting 9:5 and 9:29 (and 9:29 is about Jews and Christians, the people of the Book).

Assertions are made about 'context'. Claims are made that I am lying.
Yet these verses exist and state what I have said.
The supposed context Setekh provides (that 9:5 in particular is about polytheists who broke their treaty) does not change the fact that 9:5 allows for the killing of those polytheists until convert.

Hence, killing people until they convert does not equal compulsion.

You need to add something for the analogy to be accurate.

Here let me:

"Killing is forbidden."

"Kill idolaters."

Hope that helps...

You are still telling us to kill idolaters! Please, it's not a good thing to demand that.

[kamikazee786]

infidel144 please i beg you to read up on the treaty of hudaybiyyah, this verse is not on about non muslims other than those who break treaties, as the quraysh did, in fact in chapter 60 it says quite the opposite:

"God does not forbid you from being kind and just towards those who do not persecute you because of your religion and who have not driven you out of your homes, indeed God loves those who act with justice.

God only forbids you from making alliances and friendships with those who persecute you because of your faith and expel your from your homes and aid in your expulsion, and whosoever makes friendship with them then indeed it is they who are the oppressors"

Quran [60:8-9]

Its right there clear cut that muslims are not forbidden from being kind towards non muslims, so long as they dont persecute us because of our faith and kick us out of our homes, we aint a pacifist religion though, if you come to us looking for a fight then you'll find us more than happy to oblige you, we will never be walked over, and even if we end up dying in the end then still 1 day as a lion is better than a hundred years as a sheep.

But otherwise its peace, tea and biscuits, endless little get togethers with good food to every bringer and seeker of peace, be he muslim or non muslim.

Now when hudaybiyyah was signed after 8-9ish years of war between the oppressed muslims and the oppressive Qurayshi clans, it was stipulated that for 10 years neither party nor its allies/proxies would wage war against each other. Muhammad and the muslims had an alliance with the tribe known as the the tribe of Khuza'ah who had accepted to become vassals of Muhammad. The non muslim idolatrous persecutors from Quraysh had as their allies a tribe known as the tribe of Bakr both parties and their allies were named it the treaty.

2 years into the treaty the Quraysh supplied its ally and proxy (the tribe of Bakr) with weapons and information about a bedouin caravan near the wells of Al Watir and instigated their proxies to attack. The caravan itself belonged to the tribe of Khuza'ah who were the allies and proxies of Muhammad and the muslims. This was a direct violation of the treaty and it lead to deaths of some 70 muslim men women and children from the tribe.

It was after this that chapter 9 was revealed, proclaiming that god and his messenger have absolutely disassociated themselves from the treaty of hudaybiyyah due to this violation and there would now be a four month grace time for the Quraysh to get its armies in order, for war was now the only just answer the treacherous oath-breakers would have and that it would only be the oath breakers who would be at the receiving end of this aggression, not any other non muslim. The evidence of all this is clear except to the blind or stubborn in the first 10 verses of chapter 9:

Verse 1,2 and 3: "This is a declaration of disassociation from God and his messenger to those with whom you had made a treaty from amongst the polytheists. So travel freely throughout the land during the four months but know that you will never cause failure to god and that he will disgrace the unbelievers. And it is an announcement on the day of the greater pilgrimage from God and his messenger that God is disassociated from the disbelievers and so is his messenger. And if you repent then it's better for you but if not then know that you will never cause God any failure and give news of a painful punishment to those who disbelieve."


Its right there, clearly telling you who this set of verses are for, not for everyone, just with those who the muslims had made a treaty with.

Verses 4: "An exception to this are those with whom you made a treaty with the polytheists and then they have not diminished anything from you nor have backed anyone against you; so complete your treaties with them till the end of their terms, lo, God most certainly loves those who are careful of their duty.


Its right there again, that a Muslim government is to fight against the breakers of treaties only, those non muslims who are in alliances with the muslims and who haven't been unjust to us or 2 faced liars going behind our backs to support our destruction should always be treated nicely and have all the terms of their respective treaties completed, this is a duty of the Muslims and is rewarded with Gods love !

Verse 5: "So when the four months have passedthen fight the idol worshippers wherever you find them and take them captives and lay for them every ambush but if they repent, perform prayer and give regular charity then leave them alone, for indeed your lord is most forgiving and merciful."

Once the grace period of four months is over and the oath breakers have had a chance to gather their forces then the order is to fight them wherever they are found and and to take them captives and lay ambushes for them, once they repent, offer prayers and give regular charity then we should leave them alone, once again this is only for those the tribe of Quraysh who had persecuted the muslims from the very start with killings, beatings and torture, tried to assassinate the prophet and had waged open war on them with the sole purpose of annihilating them, when they failed they opted for a peace treaty with the muslims which they then violated and killed over 70 men women and children. So given all the horrible things they did, i completely believe that war against them on this basis was completely justified, just as it would be justified for any nation of the west to declare war on a muslim nation if the muslim nation did the same i.e. persecuted non muslims and broke treaties, which is why i support any and every move against ISIS though some are more effective than others.

Verse 6:"and if anyone from amongst the pagans comes to you seeking safety and protection then grant them safety and protection, so that he may hear the word of God, then escort him to a place of safety because they are a people who do not know"

Once again rather clear, if anyone from the non muslims comes to the muslims seeking refuge then he/she should be granted asylum and protection so that he may learn what true Islam is, its supreme extreme kindness to the kind hearted and an unrelenting war to anyone who wants one. Once he/she has heard then escort them to a place where they feel safe. It is the duty of the muslims to look after refugees and grant them safe accommodation in times of war, a duty unfortunately which were are failing at miserably and it seems the west is taking on for us, though there have been some efforts by small organisations within Islam to help. And the whole reason for looking after refugees is given in this verse: they're a people who dont know whats going on, they have nothing to do with war and government, they're civilians who need help and Islam offers that help happily, no charge, except perhaps kindness towards others and charity to the poor.

Verse 7: "How can there be a pact between God and his messenger and the idolaters, except of course those who you made a treaty with at the sacred mosque, So long as they are true to you, be true to them, indeed God loves those who are careful of their duty"

and again, crystal clear, no pact between muslims and oath-breakers, those with whom a different treaty was signed have been true to the muslims so the muslims should be nothing but true to them, again this is another duty that muslims must uphold.

Now Im starving at the moment and its date night, my wife demands my attention so i will return soon and add more to this discussion, its a very simple case once everythings put in order

[Infidel144]

You are still telling us to kill idolaters! Please, it's not a good thing to demand that.

Gosh, not even a 'thank you' for my assistance...

Now, what readers should note is that Setekh has asserted that I "took things out of context and lied left and right about what Quran says". What he did not do is provide evidence for his assertions.

Perhaps a demonstation is in order:
Let us say I claim Setekh is lying.

That is simply an assertion with out evidence.

Thus I might provide evidence. Hypothetically lets say Setekh said something to the effect of:

If you actually read chapter 9 you'd realize that it's about a specific conflict at the time of Muhammad when a number of polytheists, not Jews or Christians, basically pagans broke their treaty and Quran told Muslims to fight only those that attack them.

I then make my claim: "Setekh is lying".
I then provide evidence by quoting Chapter 9 verse 29:
"Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
This is then evidence that Setekh was (hypothetically) 'lying' when he (hypothetically)said "If you actually read chapter 9 you'd realize that it's about a specific conflict at the time of Muhammad when a number of polytheists, not Jews or Christians", as Chapter 9 is also about Jews and Christians, not just polytheists.

Now, it could be argued, in this hypothetical, that Setekh is not lying, as a lie is knowingly, with intent, making false statements. It could, hypothetically of course, be argued that Setekh was ignorant of passages in chapter 9 regarding Jews and Christians. Though that would seem a bit odd considering Setekh's, hypothetical, assertion that "If you actually read chapter 9 you'd realize", which tends to lead a reader to infer that Setekh is indicating he as read chapter 9. All hypothetically, that is.

Now that would be a way to actually support a claim about lying.

This was not done. And the simple, unsupported assertion is worthless.

infidel144 please i beg you to read up on the treaty of hudaybiyyah, this verse is not on about non muslims other than those who break treaties, as the quraysh did, in fact in chapter 60 it says quite the opposite:

There are three verses I quoted, 2:256, 9:5 and 9:29.
You are, of course, welcome to provide the treaty, but note that the discourse here is that 9:5 allows the killing of idolaters until they convert, while 9:29 allows the killing of Jews and Christian until they submit to paying the jizya (or alternatively convert).
Accepting, ad arguendo, your assertion that the verse (9:5 is, I presume, the verse you are referring to) (and also, again ad arguendo, the other verses you quote, I do reserve the right to return to them) is only about the non-muslims who supposedly broke the treaty, that still does not obviate the fact that 9:5 allows the killing of idolaters until they convert. Despite there being a verse that says 'no compulsion in religion' (2:256).

Its right there clear cut that muslims are not forbidden from being kind towards non muslims.

It has not been argued that Muslims are forbidden from being kind to non-muslims. So I am not sure of your point here.

[PointOfViewGun]

Fight

No, Infidel144. I don't want to fight right now. Why are you telling me to fight?

[kamikazee786]

Infidel144, i just want to ask, did you read my entire post or only the first paragraph and the next line, because if you read the whole thing then you'll see that i adressed the point of compulsion. The killing of the people of Quraysh untill they converted was fair punishment for their repeated transgressions and oppression. They deserved far more than what they got !

9:29 and 9:5 are both referring to those from the Quraysh, the entire chapter was revealed as a response to a particular violation of a particular treaty. Its not talking about every non muslim in the world.

Otherwise the general rule to be followed for everyone else is as it is stated in 2:256, that there is to be no compulsion in religion.

I repeat we are not a pacifist faith, we will give kindness to everyone who wants it and we will never try to force your conversion, but if you repeatedly attack muslims (physically ofcourse, if verbally then its just a debate which is cool), kill our families, attack our houses, persecute, drive us out, make peace treaties and then violate them as the Quraysh did then don't cry when the muslims do to persecutors what they did to Quraysh !

[Infidel144]

Previously I showed how to demonstrate that a 'lie' was told. Now to address out of context.
Lets, hypothetically say that Setekh is claiming I am telling him to fight. And offering as evidence a quote from me saying fight.

No, Infidel144. I don't want to fight right now. Why are you telling me to fight?

I could simply assert that Setekh "took things out of context".
I could also then show the correct context:
For example in that post (#11), where the quote was taken from, I was actually quoting the Quran 9.29:
"Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
That would demonstrate that I was not telling Setekh, to fight, but providing a quote related to the discussion (compulsion in the quran).


There is, of course, an (hypothetical) alternative, since the Quran is the direct and unaltered word of God, hypothetically, Setekh could, for example, believe that I am actually Allah, and that 9:29 is thus my injunction.

Infidel144, i just want to ask, did you read my entire post or only the first paragraph and the next line,

Yes, I read your entire post.

because if you read the whole thing then you'll see that i adressed the point of compulsion. The killing of the people of Quraysh untill they converted was fair punishment for their repeated transgressions and oppression. They deserved far more than what they got !

I presume you are referring to this portion of your prior post:
"the order is to fight them wherever they are found and and to take them captives and lay ambushes for them, once they repent, offer prayers and give regular charity then we should leave them alone"
I needed a more direct clarification, which is why I stipulated (ad arguendo) to the context you provided and your assertions. You seem to have given that.
I thank you.
====
The initial assertion that I responded to was "Quran does forbid any compulsion or coercion in matters of faith". However "killing of the people of Quraysh untill they converted was fair punishment". Thus, if killing (or capturing, imprisoning, executing, or compelling the jizya on) people with an option to avoid the "punshiment" by converting is compulsion or coercion then the Quran does not "forbid any compulsion or coercion", there are exceptions.
====

9:29 and 9:5 are both referring to those from the Quraysh, the entire chapter was revealed as a response to a particular violation of a particular treaty.

Odd.
Are you actually claiming that 9:29, which refers to the people of the Book, Jews and Christians, is only(?) about the Quraysh and not any others (this also seems to contradict Setekh's assertion in post #7 that the sura 9 is about "...polytheists, not Jews or Christians...")? I would need to see your evidence of that.


In fact, I will now withdraw my ad arguendo acceptance of your other assertions and claims and address them in following posts. I will however, give you an opportunity to review and revise your other claims in post 10 and 13, should you so wish. If you do decide revise anything, I would ask that you do so in following posts rather than editing 10 or 13.

[PointOfViewGun]

Previously I showed how to demonstrate that a 'lie' was told. Now to address out of context.
Lets, hypothetically say that Setekh is claiming I am telling him to fight. And offering as evidence a quote from me saying fight.

I could simply assert that Setekh "took things out of context".
I could also then show the correct context:
For example in that post (#11), where the quote was taken from, I was actually quoting the Quran 9.29:
"Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
That would demonstrate that I was not telling Setekh, to fight, but providing a quote related to the discussion (compulsion in the quran).

There is, of course, an (hypothetical) alternative, since the Quran is the direct and unaltered word of God, hypothetically, Setekh could, for example, believe that I am actually Allah, and that 9:29 is thus my injunction.

Sure, you did previously demonstrate some stuff, but it wasn't really what you were aiming for. For example, I didn't really specify what you lied about. You claimed that Quran tells us to kill idolaters till they become Muslims. That's false, which is based on you taking things out of context. If you read the previous and latter verses you'd realize the conditions of a fight being one of defense that seeks peace for peaceful people... The Christian and Jewish part comes from the origin of this thread where the claim was that 9:5 was about all non-Muslims.

That said, we've also explained and showed you countless times how you took Quran out of context. Yet, that didn't stop you from continuing to take things out of context.

And, now, you're telling us that you're Allah. Tsk tsk tsk. That's an odd claim to make...

[Infidel144]

Sure, you did previously demonstrate some stuff, but it wasn't really what you were aiming for.

Demonstrating how to show 'lies' and 'context' (or lack there of) certainly was what I was aiming for.

For example, I didn't really specify what you lied about.

That is correct. You made unsupported assertions.

You claimed that Quran tells us to kill idolaters till they become Muslims. That's false, which is based on you taking things out of context.

It certainly does say that. And what I said also was "The quran allows for killing people until they become muslim or (for some) pay the jizya in order to maintain their own faith."
Or see also my questions regarding the 3 verses I quoted in post #3
You saying it is false and out of context are assertions. Your assertions are not evidence.

If you read the previous and latter verses you'd realize the conditions of a fight being one of defense that seeks peace for peaceful people...

An assertion. Your assertions are not evidence. And, I had, ad arguendo already accepted, your assertion that "basically pagans broke their treaty and Quran told Muslims to fight only those that attack them", pointing out that it was irrelevant to what I was addressing, see post #8.

The only thing relevant is does 9:5 and 9:29 allow for the killing of idolators and jews and christians until they convert or pay the jizya, as appropriate.
Whether they are the most evil nasty war-mongering raping murdering bastards ever has no relevance (which is why i stipulated to the assertion you made (again see post #8). It does not matter if it is all, some or even just one.

However, kamikazee has provided an answer:
"The killing of the people of Quraysh untill they converted was fair punishment for their repeated transgressions."

The Christian and Jewish part comes from the origin of this thread where the claim was that 9:5 was about all non-Muslims.

I made no such claim about 9:5. I specified, as the verse I quoted does, 'idolaters'. I did not use the word 'all'. The Jews and Christians 'part' comes 9:29, which I also quoted in my original post.

That said, we've also explained and showed you countless times how you took Quran out of context. Yet, that didn't stop you from continuing to take things out of context.

This is an assertion. Your assertions are not evidence.

[PointOfViewGun]

Demonstrating how to show 'lies' and 'context' (or lack there of) certainly was what I was aiming for.

That is correct. You made unsupported assertions.

It certainly does say that. And what I said also was "The quran allows for killing people until they become muslim or (for some) pay the jizya in order to maintain their own faith."
Or see also my questions regarding the 3 verses I quoted in post #3
You saying it is false and out of context are assertions. Your assertions are not evidence.

An assertion. Your assertions are not evidence. And, I had, ad arguendo already accepted, your assertion that "basically pagans broke their treaty and Quran told Muslims to fight only those that attack them", pointing out that it was irrelevant to what I was addressing, see post #8.

The only thing relevant is does 9:5 and 9:29 allow for the killing of idolators and jews and christians until they convert or pay the jizya, as appropriate.
Whether they are the most evil nasty war-mongering raping murdering bastards ever has no relevance (which is why i stipulated to the assertion you made (again see post #8). It does not matter if it is all, some or even just one.

However, kamikazee has provided an answer:
"The killing of the people of Quraysh untill they converted was fair punishment for their repeated transgressions."

I made no such claim about 9:5. I specified, as the verse I quoted does, 'idolaters'. I did not use the word 'all'. The Jews and Christians 'part' comes 9:29, which I also quoted in my original post.

This is an assertion. Your assertions are not evidence.

Yawn... This is too much cacophony to avoid admitting simple failures in your arguments. The crux of the matter is you're taking things out of context and basically lying by omission. I'll make it simple though, since I saw this exact dance too many times, are you suggesting killing idolaters till they convert is the only path?

[Infidel144]

Yawn... This is too much cacophony to avoid admitting simple failures in your arguments. The crux of the matter is you're taking things out of context and basically lying by omission.

These are unsupported assertions.

I'll make it simple though, since I saw this exact dance too many times, are you suggesting killing idolaters till they convert is the only path?

No. I said nothing about it being the only path. I said it is allowed. See the OP, "The quran allows for killing people until they become muslim or (for some) pay the jizya in order to maintain their own faith."

[PointOfViewGun]

These are unsupported assertions.

No. I said nothing about it being the only path. I said it is allowed. See the OP, "The quran allows for killing people until they become muslim or (for some) pay the jizya in order to maintain their own faith."

And you're denying that there are conditions that comes with that?

[Fardin]

How ignorant a person can be?
I'm completely surprised.

To everyone: