I posted the following as a comment-reply on one of my posts on Facebook:
My position is that it is un-Islamic (per the sword verses in the Qur'an) to let treaty breakers continue to afflict and persecute Muslims without all able-bodied Muslim males in the world violently fighting those treaty breakers until those treaty breakers submit.
I believe that you are correct in that were the so-called moderates to fight, they would likely adhere more closely to the rules of war in the Qur'an. First though, to be Muslim, they must fight the treaty breakers everywhere those treaty breakers are in the world until those treaty breakers submit.
The so-called extremists are fighting in some places but are going beyond the limits (some of the rules of war, which are still debated between and among Muslim scholars).
Which is closer to what Mohammed thought? I'd say the "extremists" in that it would be easier for Mohammed to pull them back in line regarding adhering to the rules of war than it would be to get the "moderates" to fight in the first place.
Of course, Mohammed would run into many issues (including weapons of mass destruction) he probably never contemplated or concerning which he didn't care, as he would be long gone.
I put all of this in front of the "moderates" and was attacked for being a "troll." My argument was not refuted. They didn't even try. They tried to refute me up until I connected the last dot (that treaties are being broken right now). Then they turned solely to attacking me personally. Not one addressed the full picture I laid out for them.
They had been standing on that the sword verses were being taken out of context (that they applied to treaty breakers). How they hadn't already reached the position that the verses apply right now because treaties are being broken right now is beyond me other than to say that they are slow while others appear quite disingenuous or suffering from extreme denial or both.
By the way, I think "moderate" doesn't cover them all. "Cultural liberal" fits many.
Tag: Ahmed Rehab
Ahmed Rehab replied around an hour later:
Your continued insistence to conflagrate minority terrorists with majority Muslims doing backward flips to fit in the same sack will not get you far. Discuss terrorists and terrorism and their interpretations. Don't spill over into analyzing Muslims. You are in no position to analyze us
My response, which has gone unanswered as of this posting:
As of this post, that was nearly 18 hours ago. Perhaps he'll yet answer. If he does, I'll post it here. If he doesn't, consider it ducking in the hope that the issue will simply disappear, as if Islam isn't on trial and won't remain so until there are no more Muslims on the Earth or amongst humanity wherever it goes.
Ahmed, if you would simply deal with my point that the verses apply now, I would appreciate it. If you disagree that they do, please explain why they don't (without simply saying it's because the "moderate" majority says they don't).
Why would treaty breakers (international-law breakers, and they clearly are) afflicting and persecuting Muslims back then not be the exact same cause for war now?
So far, all you've done in my eyes is obfuscate/run from the issue/question.
What I have raised is valid.
I'm not on your FB Wall where you might consider this trolling. This is my post, and I have tagged you in an attempt to get you to focus in on what I said about the verses and the context back then and now.
If you refuse to discuss it, that's up to you; but if do refuse, I can't see where that would benefit you in any lasting way. It's not going to simply go away.