First Tabuk: You obviously take what you want from historic events and present as “facts” because many propagandists do exactly that.

The Muslim army of 30,000 was going to Tabuk in response to the claims that the Byzantine Empire is planning a decisive attack against Muslims as they were gaining fame and power in the region. Even if this was not the case, non Muslim historians have written that no battle or war actually took place. The Muslims assumed the Byzantines withdrew and therefore that was a victory in itself. The Byzantines in other accounts came to “somewhere” but necessarily Tabuk. Waiting for days or weeks and not facing this little army of 30,000 (as compared to Roman’s) they too assumed that the Muslims were “defeated” by not showing up and withdrew to Syria.

So Mr. VH, get your facts straight. Your lies and “militant” attitude, again, remind me of pre Holocaust events that led to the Holocaust. In other words, you are evil.

Second: I’ll just post these verses (since you don’t read – and that has been proven) and let’s hear your “educated” explanation:

2 Kings 2

23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. “Go on up, you bald head!” they said. “Go on up, you bald head!”
24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD . Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths. (What do we call this, VH?)

Numbers 31:17-18/ 31:35-40

“Now kill all the boys [innocent kids]. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.”

According to the historical elaborations about Numbers 31:17-18 Biblical Verses in the Jewish Talmud, the girls in “every girl who has never slept with a man” were AS YOUNG AS 3 YEARS OLD, and were forced into SEX!

Said Rabbi Joseph, “Come and take note: A girl three years and one day old is betrothed by intercourse. And if a Levir has had intercourse with her, he has acquired her. And one can be liable on her account because of the law prohibiting intercourse with a married woman. And she imparts uncleanness to him who has intercourse with her when she is menstruating, to convey uncleanness to the lower as to the upper layer [of what lies beneath]. If she was married to a priest, she may eat food in the status of priestly rations. If one of those who are unfit for marriage with her had intercourse with her, he has rendered her unfit to marry into the priesthood. If any of those who are forbidden in the Torah to have intercourse with her had intercourse with her, he is put to death on her account, but she is free of responsibility [M.Nid. 5:4].
Sanhedrin 7/55B

17
Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that has known a man by sleeping with him.
18
But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves.

I will not even attempt to comment on the above verses as it’s quite obvious that if you were a person of knowledge, you would not throw stones when your house is made of glass!

Now do us all a favor. Please get lost and disappear. You’re not worthy of further time and response.

ATW

I was not justifying anything. My comment was in response to your statement “Hitler, was supposedly Catholic. Should Christianity be accused of the Holocaust?”

“Oh and the Japanese (including Christian and Buddhist)? How come you didn’t include them?”

Because foolish man/woman, I was addressing the topic of Islam

If you even dare to think I am as hateful as Hitler you are kookier than I thought.

Considering your hatred of Christianity. Should you be deemed a racist? Or does that only apply to those who speak out against Islam?

History proves that Islam, Mohammad included waged their crusades against Christianity well before the Christian Crusades.
Beginning in the year 630 – Two years before Muhammad’s death of a fever, he launches the Tabuk Crusades, in which he led 30,000 jihadists against the Byzantine Christians.

And while we are at it lets compare Christianity and Islam in todays world. Would that not be more relevant?
Christians in present times do not commit acts of:
genocide,
suicide bomb attacks (including the warped 72 virgin reward)
[BTW Are you aware that when virgin Muslim females are put to death, they are raped by guards for their (supposed) criminal act that led to their sentence, which makes them not worthy do die a virgin.]
church burning,
stoning,
rape in large numbers (ie: European females),
hanging,
lashing,
imprisonment for crimes that should not exist. No freedom of speech in sharia land.
female genitalia mutilation,
violent riots:
set fires (ie:cars etc. France)
burn embassy’s,
sell their children into marriage,
force their children into marriage,
kidnap – rape – marry ( In that order)
force conversions,
or honor kill.

When you use a tyrant to justify your hatred towards Muslims, not much can be said to a moron like you. Oh and the Japanese (including Christian and Buddhist)? How come you didn’t include them?

You’re not worth a response but I had to remind you that you too are just as hateful as Hitler.

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:

National Socialism and religion cannot exist together…. The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity…. Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941, midday:

Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)

14th October, 1941, midday:

The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death…. When understanding of the universe has become widespread… Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity…. Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity…. And that’s why someday its structure will collapse…. …the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little…. Christianity [is] the liar…. We’ll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)

19th October, 1941, night:

The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

Besides Hitler admired Islam.

“Hitler usually concluded this historical speculation by remarking, ‘You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness….”5 (A. Speer, Inside the Third Reich, pp. 142-143)

Hitler and Muslim leaders of the time both shared a hatred for Jews.

Then by all rights it is muslims who are true ‘kafirs’.

The verses apply to any time: paraphrasing: “Thou Shalt Not Be The Aggressor..” so-to-speak.

Bin Laden, Khomeini and others do not represent the Islamic faith. Hitler, was supposedly Catholic. Should Christianity be accused of the Holocaust?

I am not sure where the word Infidel came from. Apparently these days it’s used differently. Wikipedia’s definition is interesting but also a bit inaccurate:

[An infidel (literally "one without faith") is an offensive English word meaning "one who doubts or rejects central tenets of a religion or has no religious beliefs", especially in reference to Christianity or Islam. When used in an Islamic sense it serves as a translation of the Arabic word kafir (literally "one who denies the blessings of God") referring to all non-Muslims..] – this part, referring to all non-Muslims is erroneous. It actually contradicts how it’s mentioned in the Quran. The word “Kafir” in the Quran referred to all Arab pagans at the time.

The word infidel does not exist in the Arabic language. But the word Kafir does. The word “Cover” in English, is derived from the word “Kafir!” Arabs often use the term for peasants who plough fields: “he’s a kafir… ” as in he covers the seeds with the soil.

And that is the true meaning of the word Kafir: one who covers. Nowadays it implies one who covers the Truth.

In any case, it appears that I could summarize your position and interpretation of the verses I cited as not relevant to current times unless a Muslim body (person, nation, facility, etc.) were actually attacked…that is, when people like Khomeini or BinLaden use them to incite aggressive fighting against infidels, they are misconstruing the text. Is that correct?

I noticed that when I included many links in a response, even here in my own blog, that the message does not get posted. This is an issue to be raised with WordPress but I think it’s to prevent spammers and spam links.

Regarding the verses, the way you shared them are different from my source. I refer to IslamiCity.com under Quran Search. And sorry to disappoint you, but like you I am no scholar on any religion. However, I read, analyze, ask, explain and try to learn.

9:29 as stated, is taken out of context. This was my point when mentioning that Jesus stated he did not come in peace but with a sword: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” So am I to believe that Jesus came to kill anyone who did not believe in his message? Or do I need to understand the circumstances for which he uttered those words and against whom?

When one reads the Quran, one needs to understand the history of Arabia and earlier times of Roman and Persian empires. The pagans of Mecca, rejected the message of Islam and were initially tortured, terrorized, killed and expelled from Mecca. Later, God allowed the Muslims to fight ONLY when attacked and in self defense. The injunction to fight is relevant only in the event of aggression committed against the Muslim community (or state), or in the presence of an unmistakable threat to its security: a view which has been shared by that great Islamic thinker, Muhammad `Abduh. Commenting on this verse, he declared: “Fighting has been made obligatory in Islam only for the sake of defending the truth and its followers…. All the campaigns of the Prophet were defensive in character; and so were the wars undertaken by the Companions in the earliest period [of Islam]”

So when people refer to Islam spreading by the Sword, they neglected to mention that it was the Romans from the North and Persians from the East attacking and threatening the Muslims. Why? They saw the influence of Muhammad growing and “assumed” that he was going to share the power. Not only that, but the message Muhammad brought was that of peace and no aggression, no compulsion in religion, forbidding adultery, alcohol, usury, corruption, tribal wars, etc. and giving people back their rights. Did you know any of this? The Romans and Persians did not like this as their infrastructure was based on stealing from people and ruling with an Iron Fist! They became the aggressors.

Muslims then would send messages and messengers (as they did to Hercules then and the King of Persia) that they should accept Islam and Muslims and let them be, or they will face a war – in self defense. How? If, for the sake of simplifying an example, I sensed that you are being aggressive as a neighbor (throwing your trash in my backyard) and I were to approach you and request that you refrain from “attacking” my property or else I will report you (or even throw the trash back in your yard) then you begin to understand the concept. If you continue, you have giving me the rightful reason to throw the trash back in your backyard, sue for damages and get a monetary penalty imposed as a judgment. Assuming you do live in the States, then this last part is clear.

Back to our discussion. The Muslim messengers in all of these cases were simple, poor but proud people (because of their Arabic traditions and now, Islam as their religion). They would not bow to another human as was the practice then. Some would be killed on the spot for daring to approach the king in such a manner. Some were jailed and some actually accepted the peace treaty. And when the messengers were killed, armies on both sides would be prepared and wars began. Incredibly, this small group of Muslims won almost every war. First against the pagans, then against the Romans and Persians. In the midst of this, if Muslims were also attacked by the people of the book (Jews and Christians), they were authorized to fight back. This happened with some Jewish tribes as they sided with either the pagans or Persians and even the Romans. Why you may ask? They too rejected the message of Islam and Muhammad, just like they rejected Jesus and his message.

A long response but I hope this clarifies some of the historic parts. If you like to read, there are many books available that explain the above.

In reference to the EARLIER verse 9:5, even when Muslims were allowed to fight in self defense, they were still forbidden from fighting, period, during the Holy months! According to a pre-Islamic custom prevalent in Arabia , the months of Muharram, Rajab, Dhu ‘l-Qa’dah and Dhu ‘l-Hiijah were considered “sacred” in the sense that all tribal warfare had to cease during those months. It was with a view to preserving these periods of truce and thus to promoting peace among the frequently warring tribes that the Qur’an did not revoke, but rather confirmed, this ancient custom. Regardless, the verse is part of the whole chapter and a continuation of the previous verses: that the verse relates to warfare already in progress with people who have become guilty of a breach of treaty obligations and of aggression.

Regarding verse 8:39 –

Again the previous verses must be taken into an account. One does not read the story from, say page 173 and argue that the author is not clear about that part! Likewise, one does not go to school and learn to be a doctor by “jumping” right into Sophomore and dismissing the earlier “years” as irrelevant.

Here, One of the ordinances of the Quran is “There shall be no coercion in matters of faith” (2:256), lays down categorically that any attempt at a forcible conversion of unbelievers is prohibited – which precludes the possibility of the Muslims’ demanding or expecting that a defeated enemy should embrace Islam as the price of immunity. Secondly, the Qur’an ordains, “Fight in God’s cause against those who wage war against you; but do not commit aggression, for, verily, God does not love aggressors” (2:190); and, “if they do not let you be, and do not offer you peace, and do not stay their hands, seize them and slay them whenever you come upon them: and it is against these that We have clearly empowered you [to make war]” (4:91). Thus, war is permissible only in self-defence (see surah 2, notes 167 and 168), with the further proviso that “if they desist-behold, God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace” (2:192), and “if they desist, then all hostility shall cease” (2:193). Now the enemy’s conversion to Islam – expressed in the words, “if they repent, and take to prayer [lit., "establish prayer"] and render the purifying dues (zakah)”-is no more than one, and by no means the only, way of their “desisting from hostility”; and the reference to it in verses 5 and 11 of this surah certainly does not imply an alternative of “conversion or death”, as some unfriendly critics of Islam choose to assume. Verses 4 and 6 give a further elucidation of the attitude which the believers are enjoined to adopt towards such of the unbelievers as are not hostile to them.

I think this was long enough but had to be shared.

Peace.