Invitation to Mesmorial:

[antineoETC]

All the instances of fighting for the sacred mosque involved people preventing Muslims from entering.

Because the Muslims were intent on taking over the pagan temple for the sole use of their cult on the false premise that the site was originally built by "Ibrahim" and "Ismail" for the worship of Allah alone.

Again, "religion" is "religion" so there is no "rightful" right.

Again it was the MUSLIMS who were denying the MUSHRIKS' right to worship whatsoever they wished at what you have agreed was ALWAYS a polytheistic temple. If a group of Muslims started going into a Hindu temple, shouting at the congregation that they have no right to worship other gods than Allah and started performing Muslim prayers there the Hindus would have no right to eject them? And if they were so ejected the Muslims would have a right to launch a war against the hindus? After all "religion is religion" so there is no "rightful" right.

Whoever controls it controls it, and if you are using it as an excuse to say "Qur'an-alone" would attack people who "stole" it, that's fine.

You seem to have difficulty understanding that the Mushriks did not "steal" the Ka'aba from the Muslims whose claim to sole rights over the temple was based on false premises. You could only view things that way if you accept the Qur'anic story of Ka'aba origins, which you claim not to. It was the MUSLIMS who were intent on stealing the Ka'aba for their sole use and that is obviously why they were banned from using it. That being so, the war that Muhammad launched to gain access to the Ka'aba could only be regarded as "just" from a Muslim point of view. From a non-Muslim point of view it was an AGGRESSIVE war. Therefore, Qur'an-Only Islam does NOT, as you claim,only allow fighting in "self defense" as NON-Muslims understand the term "self defense". Understand?

It is not really relevant to people today, since no-one I know thinks about invading Mecca.

It is YOUR claim that the Qur'anic justification for fighting that the Muslims were banned from the Ka'aba established a general "defensive" principle for fighting in Islam that is applicable TODAY. This is nonsense if one accepts that the Ka'aba was ALWAYS a polytheistic shrine and the polytheists were therefore perfectly entitled to prevent from entering it those who were intent on preventing those who worshipped gods other than Allah from performing their rituals there.

As for the opening post, I think it safe to say that if non-Muslims do not make other arrangements, then they can be subject to that law. The precepts in 24:2-10 clearly assumed Muslims only (also study 4:25).

And there is a process, not a lynching.

As for the chronological order of the Qur'an, earlier ones such as 68:44, 73:10-11 bear the same implications as 60:8.

Cheers.

You have already stated elsewhere that Qur'an-Only Islam obliges Muslims to seek to set up Islamic states wherever they settle. This is bound to lead to escalating conflict with non-Muslims who do not wish to be subjugated under 'the law of Allah". Give it up man. Qur'an-Only offers nothing that differs in any way that matters TO NON-Muslims from orthodox Islam. Stop lying to yourself!

[MesMorial]

Hello;


No, the problem in the Qur'an was stopping Muslims from having equally valid faith-participation (at the mosque). Things happened, a party got them banned for that time (9:28).

Religion's religion. People can believe anything and be as equally valid. For instance, if Barry has a box, and he thinks it sacred, Harry has a right to consider it sacred in his own way. Since both beliefs are equally valid, Barry should share with Harry and not exclude him.

[antineoETC]

'

[antineoETC]

No, the problem in the Qur'an was stopping Muslims from having equally valid faith-participation (at the mosque). Things happened, a party got them banned for that time (9:28).

What "things" happened?

Religion's religion. People can believe anything and be as equally valid.

You or I may subscribe to that principle. A Muslim wouldn't.

For instance, if Barry has a box, and he thinks it sacred, Harry has a right to consider it sacred in his own way. Since both beliefs are equally valid, Barry should share with Harry and not exclude him.

So you think that if a group of Muslims were banned from the "box" of a Hindu temple because they were clearly intent on elbowing out the Hindu worshippers and turning the place into an Islamic mosque they would be morally entitled to resort to violence against their banners to regain access?

[antineoETC]

As for the chronological order of the Qur'an, earlier ones such as 68:44, 73:10-11 bear the same implications as 60:8.

More tendentious attempts to "contextualize" the violent passages of the Qur'an to further the utterly
absurd claim that Allah doesn't use the hands of the Muslims to inflict his worldly punishment on the disbelievers for their DISBELIEF ALONE, but only when that disbelief is combined with "persecuting"/oppressing/driving out the Muslims etc. Actually, 73:11 tells the Muslims to grant the disbelievers respite FOR A PERIOD OF TIME - in other words "don't attack them YET" (unless Memorial wants to suggest a plausible alternative explanation). "Quran Alonists" love to bandy about these and other "nice" passages like:

And the servants of the Beneficent Allah are they who walk on the earth in humbleness, and when the ignorant address them, they say: Peace. (25:63)

However SAYING something are meaning it are not the same thing ie:

So turn away from them and say, Peace, for they shall soon come to know. (43:89)

What were the disbelievers soon going to know? Unless Mesmorial wants to provide a more convincing explanation it clearly means that "peace" was the LAST thing the kafirs were going to be getting in the near future - which is confirmed by later passages.