@ApostateProphet tried to correct Professor @KhalilAndani when he stated that the Quran forbids aggression in the following verse:
[Q 2:190]
Fight in God’s cause against those who fight you, but do not aggress (lā taʿtadū), for God does not love aggressors (muʿtadīn). 1/
AP looked at an English translation, which translated it as "transgression." But, this translation only works if by this one means transgression against the law of peace/sanctity (ḥurmat al-nafs), which then triggers qiṣāṣ (proportionate retaliation). 2/
In other words, it is a first transgression, or, in other words, aggression. In any case, AP could simply have looked at an Arabic dictionary, even the many online resources, as follows: 3/
The Quranic word, taʿtadū, is form VIII of the word iʿtadā, which means "commit a violation of, commit an aggression against." (Notice: commit violation of here refers to violating the peace/sanctity). 4/
"Muʿtadī is a participial form of the verb iʿtadā which means approximately ‘to pass beyond one’s proper limit’, and thence ‘to act aggressively and unjustly against someone.’ ..." (Ethico-Religious, 172) 6/
Izutsu further argues that the words “do not aggress” (lā taʿtadū) in verse 2:190 "put in a more concrete way, would mean, ‘Do not challenge your enemy to fight from your side.’" (Ibid.) In other words, do not initiate hostilities. 7/
This is obvious from the Quranic passage itself; see the very next verse:
[Q 2:191] But do not fight them near the Sacred Masjid until they fight you with you there. But if they fight you, then fight/kill them.
In other words, if they initiate the fighting against you...
8/
There are so many other verses that reinforce this that it is amazing to me that @ApostateProphet was not familiar with them: Q 22:39, 42:41, & 2:85, the last of which, for example, uses a similar word, ʿudwān (aggression). 9/
I discuss this in depth on @DerekPodcast's Mythvision show:
I also debated Robert Spencer on this topic & he withered in front of me such that he did not even try to contest my Quranic reading. 10/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In regards to slavery, the Quran evinces an emancipatory ethic, calling emancipation "the steep path," i.e. the meritorious path of the pious:
"And what will explain to you the steep path? It is the freeing of the slave..." (Q 90:12-13) 1/
What is righteousness according to the Quran? It is to FREE THE SLAVE:
"It is not piety to turn your faces toward the east and the west. Rather, piety is he who... gives wealth, despite loving it... for [the emancipation of] slaves." (Q 2:177) 2/
Islamic modernists since the 19th century have argued that it is simply nonsensical to argue that the Quran calls for the emancipation of slaves while simultaneously calling for enslavement. This would be making the Quran contradictory. 3/
Sigh, once again arguments go over this guy's head & also he is dishonest. I specifically say in the discussion that abolition was brought about in the Islamic world by both external & internal factors. I literally acknowledged British/European pressure... 1/
but the point that I made, which Harris fails to appreciate, is that there were genuine Islamic reformers who were simultaneously calling for the abolition of slavery on religious grounds. 2/
A point I failed to make, which I should have, is that there were in fact Islamic reformers who INSPIRED Western abolitionists. For this, I would refer to the work of historian Rudolph Ware, "Slavery and Abolition in Islamic Africa"... 3/
After reading this, it becomes clear that viewers who thought many of my arguments went over your head were absolutely right. I have always said that slavery was both attacked & defended by Christians, often using the same biblical passages, no less! 1/
This, my friend, was the exact point. Do you really not see this? Is this really so hard for you to grasp? My entire point this entire time to you has been that religions are internally diverse, which explains why both sides were Christians making religious arguments. 2/
This reinforces my view, not yours. Neither does this change the fact that the abolitionist movement was heavily Christian, certainly not atheists.... unless of course you use your imaginary cooptation of the Enlightenment. 3/
Harris -- The discussion stands on its own. No need to clip a 60 second clip where you not only talked over me -- as you did throughout the discussion, but you were clearly off topic & intentionally so. This was because you were having a hard time justifying your arguments. 1/
So, of course, you could randomly insert this or that embarrassing ḥadīth in our conversation, but it hardly advances the case for you. My entire argument was that liberal/modernist/reformist Islam defies the criticisms you levy against Islam en toto. 2/
You very well know that liberal/modernist/reformist Muslims were amongst the first to criticize Ḥadīth-- well before New Atheists like you existed. So, what mileage this does for you, I have no idea. It's simply a scattergun shock approach. 3/
In "The Case Against the Sexual Revolution," Louise Perry argues that "consent is not enough." She critiques the (extreme) liberal/libertarian/libertine view: "Everything & anything goes as long as you choose or consent to it at the time..." 1/
"What this misses out, of course," she writes, "is that people can be pressured -- by peers or partners or wider cultural forces -- into believing that they want things which later they come to recognize as bad for them..." 2/
"In a culture dominated by male sexuality, there's an obvious interest in convincing women that they want to have sex like men do, and many women go along with things they later come to regret." (ix) 3/
Having read all of Aga Khan III's memoirs for a research paper, I can tell you that this is an incredibly misleading & false representation. Throughout his writing, he valued peace over war, promoted democracy, & stood for progressive values. He stood against fascism. 1/
This quote is merely a reflection of his commitment to peace. Aga Khan III supported the Allies against the
Nazis, giving the lie to this tweet. Also, it is even more misleading to talk about the concentration camps, which were not known at that time to the world. 2/
It was only in 1942 that the concentration camps became publicly known to the world. I have a question, @FullmetalTheist, do you feel that it is permissible to use any argument whatsoever, no matter how deceptive, against your sect's theological opponents? 3/ @KhalilAndani