TRTL spotted it first.

>>Call me cynical, but my suspicion is that polycarp is hoping to draw this toward Islam, cite some section of text in the qu'ran which he will then interpret in a manner he deems appropriate, disregard the fact that the vast majority of muslims are not violent, then proceed to outline why some piece of text from thousands of years old is more valid evidence as to why they are evil, despite the reality today that there's millions of muslims living harmoniously with others.<<

Boaz' response?

>>For TRTL who is salivating and chafing at the bit waiting for me to turn this thread into some whack-a-mozzie episode... he will be dissappointed. So many who inhabit these corridors of ideas have such woolly thinking on this issue (and that includes well educated folk like David F) that a thread dedicated JUST to the principle is in order.<<

But we know our man too well, don't we?

>>Now..the true context for surah 9 was a war of MOHAMMAD'S MAKING. This is where it is different from Surah 2's social/historic conditions. If you read Maududi's commentary you would have seen this. He was threatening ALL non Muslims with death if they did not convert. Yes..that is exactly what he was doing.<<

It is the self-deception that continues to be so remarkable.

Dear Foxy
I had a feeling it might get to that point. It's ok. I know you don't like to find ill in anyone.
If you can excuse.. I wish to make a few points further about your posts, so that anyone who has possibly been following the discussion can see angles which still need to be tidied up.

Foxy said:

You keep pointing the finger at Muslims, but is the
Spanish Inquisition something Christians should be proud
of? And the Crusades?

But what concerns me about Foxy's approach is this:

<<Again, I repeat, view things in their historic
context - don't simply select what suits you. And, Surah
2 and 9, were both revealed - at the time of war - where
Muslims were directed to fight.>>

2 things worry me about Foxy's post.

1/ She condemns the Crusades but seems to legitimize the wars of Mohammad.

2/ She uses the term 'revealed' and that Muslims were 'directed' to fight.

Why would the Muslims be told by God to fight, but the Crusaders not?

I suggest that due to the reality of erosion of the so called "Holy Roman Empire" (ChristenDOM) by Islamic expansion (which was a direct fulfillment of 9:29 "Fight those who do not believe in Allah"etc....
Therefore the Crusades (using this reasoning) were entirely justified by Foxy's reasoning about the Muslims.

Personally, I reject the idea that any war can or should be fought in the 'Name of Christ'...and that any war to extend 'Christian rule' is totally spurious.

Now..to all those others who have obviously declined the challenge about a serious examination of Surah 9, I can only conclude they have now read it, understand it and realize that it is exactly as I've described.(with the support of Muslim commentators)

HISTORICALLY

Surah 2
The greater part of Al-Baqarah was revealed during the first two years of the Holy Prophet's life at Al-Madinah. (Maududi) AD 617

Surah 9 The first discourse (vv. 1-37), was revealed in Zil-Qa'adah A. H. 9 or thereabout. (Maududi) AD 622

5 YEARS and a lot of crushing_of_opposition after surah 2.

Come on, what about this Santa character? Is he worth believing in?

Dear Polycarp,

You have again misread me.

I am not trying to legitimize Mohammad.
I was merely trying to point out that
every religion has history that can be
questionable.

What I am trying to do is remind you that
Christianity believes in forgiveness, even
of an enemy.

This is the real core of Jesus' moral teaching.
Everything else is secondary.

There are many non-violent Jews and Muslims who
are committed to peace.

Thanx for that Foxy...I appreciate the clarification.. for future reference.. I'll be less confused if you used terms like "Mohammad wrote" rather than 'was revealed'.. as I take you at ur word :)

I have a slightly different perspective on 'enemies'.. we are called to love our enemies, and if I read about forgiveness (a separate issue) rightly.. it is dependant on repentance.

Luke 17:3-6 Take heed to yourselves; if your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him; and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, and says, I repent,' you must forgive him."

The HUGE GULF of difference..and this is the CRITICAL CORE difference between Islam (as a faith/practice) and what our Lord brought, is this.

CHRISTS TEACHING.
Even if our enemy has not repented, we STILL love them. (Romans 5:8)

But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

MOHAMMAD'S EXAMPLE 9:5 "Kill them wherever you find them, if they repent, ..., leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

I think it is just your good nature and loving attitude which doesn't want to see such things as they are. i.e.. that in the case above, the threat of death hung over the unrepentant non Muslim in THIS world...I suggest it is your gracious Christian upbringing that this comes from.

Yes..there are 'Christians' who say some very UNbiblical things.

Example Pat Robertson.. on the assasinate Chavez thing. I myself (among many others) wrote to rebuke him for that. But no one can rebuke a Muslim who says "Allah says such and such, and our prophet did this very thing" for being "UN"Quranic when they say the same thing as Robertson. The simple reason is that Mohammad DID actually order 'hits' on people he considered enemies.

Making such points, does not mean a lack of love for Muslims. It does however indicate a passion for truth, even the unpalatable kind.

You're not going to comment on Santa either are you?