Extremists: a question and a talk

[Angrboda]

I read what you wrote.   The context was examined in great detail in the video.  The surahs you brought in reply weren't even relevant to the argument presented in the video, so what in fuck are you even babbling about?  If you had watched the video, you'd know why your arguments were irrelevant.  I noticed you didn't address specific claims made in the video, you just dismissed them outright and repeated your standard defense.  I don't believe you actually watched the video.  Either you didn't watch the video, and you're a liar, or you're so incompetent you can't even reply coherently to an argument.

The only intellectual problem I see is yours.

To be honest, I didn't complete it. I watched the first 2 minutes or something, and felt so disgusted by the childish, low method of reading 43435345345 verses in 2 seconds and expect me to answer that, a biased video made for biased people -like you-.
That is a biased man, who ignores the contexts and cherry picks to prove his biased opinion. Sorry Jormungander, but I always thought that these types of videos are made by atheists for atheists, made to bash and listened to by people who also want to bash.
Bring me the verses one by one like a real scholar, read them one by one, detail their explanation, and then maybe you'll be worthy of convincing me.
We humans do that to any other field. But we don't do it to the Quran? consider it another piece of history.

So, in other words, by pretending you were responding to the video, you were essentially lying.  Gotcha.  I think I understand what you call honest scholarship now.

I'll repeat the points for the benefit of the stupid.


No, they do not. Surah 9:29, the verse in question does not. And even those verses you've presented simply give permission to fight defensively, they do not forbid fighting when defense is not an issue, as in 9:29, so your defense doesn't even work. The context of 9:29 was clear. The only person distorting context is you.

You're sure? Let's see the verses with their context:

Yes, let's....

Sura 9, The Quran:
( 7 )   How can there be for the polytheists a treaty in the sight of Allah and with His Messenger, except for those with whom you made a treaty at al-Masjid al-Haram? So as long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].

( 8 )   How [can there be a treaty] while, if they gain dominance over you, they do not observe concerning you any pact of kinship or covenant of protection? They satisfy you with their mouths, but their hearts refuse [compliance], and most of them are defiantly disobedient.

( 9 )   They have exchanged the signs of Allah for a small price and averted [people] from His way. Indeed, it was evil that they were doing.
( 10 )   They do not observe toward a believer any pact of kinship or covenant of protection. And it is they who are the transgressors.
.

.
.
( 25 )   Allah has already given you victory in many regions and [even] on the day of Hunayn, when your great number pleased you, but it did not avail you at all, and the earth was confining for you with its vastness; then you turned back, fleeing.
( 26 )   Then Allah sent down His tranquillity upon His Messenger and upon the believers and sent down soldiers angels whom you did not see and punished those who disbelieved. And that is the recompense of the disbelievers.
( 28 )   O you who have believed, indeed the polytheists are unclean, so let them not approach al-Masjid al-Haram after this, their [final] year. And if you fear privation, Allah will enrich you from His bounty if He wills. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Wise.
( 29 )   Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.
( 30 )   The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah "; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah." That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?
( 31 )   They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah, and [also] the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him.

Did you see, how he cherry picked verse 29 and ignored the other verses that prove torture and a war being the context of all of this?

What I see is that the context you provided, surah 9:8, refers to the polytheists, whereas surah 9:29 is referring to those who "were given the scripture," which refers to the Jews and Christians, not the polytheists.  Moreover, even with respect to the polytheists, Mohammad says, "So fulfill the treaty with them to the end of its term....[but] When the Sacred Months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them. And capture them, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every ambush."  That isn't any kind of defensive action at all, and the surahs you quote as "context" are merely justification for open warfare.  Regardless, this is about surah 9:29, and the context you provided is talking about a different group.   The context is clear, Mohammad is denying the polytheists access to the sacred mosque, and in order to make up the lost income, he proposes war on the Jews and Christians.

So, no, he didn't cherry pick anything.

That is the saddest story I ever read!
The crimes of this man are so violent, it makes Vlad the Impaler -the Christian European- and the Cannibal medieval European knights and the American Slavers and Joseph Stalin and Hitler look like angels !

Wikipedia talks about an assassination that targeted Mohammed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Quray...the_Trench

Tensions quickly mounted between the growing numbers of Muslims and Jewish tribes, while Muhammad found himself at war with his native Meccan tribe of the Quraysh. In 624, after his victory over the Meccans in the Battle of Badr, Banu Qaynuqa threatened Muhammad's political position and assaulted a Muslim woman which led to their expulsion from Medina for breaking the peace treaty of Constitution of Medina.[32][33] The Qurayza remained passive during the whole Qaynuqa affair, apparently because the Qaynuqa were historically allied with the Khazraj, while the Qurayza were the allies of the Aws.[34]

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza#cite_note-34][/url]

Could you read history before debating me, please?
Your sources are biased, and has nothing to do with the truth about Islam's history.

It's always somebody else's fault, isn't it, Atlas?  I'm getting sick of your tu quoque arguments, your lies, and your attempts to twist scripture to fit your modernist narrative.  You're full of shit.  You didn't watch the video.  You didn't refute his arguments.  You didn't provide any justifying context for surah 9:29.  And you didn't provide any justification for Mohammad's ruthless behavior ("There has certainly been for you in the Messenger of Allah an excellent pattern for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Last Day and [who] remembers Allah often." Surah 33:21).

You're full of shit to the core, Atlas.

Btw, I could care less whether you think I'm "worthy of convincing you." That's just stupid arrogance talking on your part. Maybe if you'd asked nicely for a summarization of the points in the video, I might have obliged. But seeing as you pretended to have watched the video, pretended to have rebutted its arguments, and only now are demanding the argument be presented differently, I think you can go fuck yourself.