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.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)