by Furthermore, Paarsurrey has also repeatedly asserted that it is a matter of common sense. This I feel is a contradiction as common sense clearly is not an absolute. If common sense is requited to interpret the Quran "correctly", this is tantamount to an admission that it is indeed ambiguous.
Anyhoo, I am starting this thread in the hope that Paarsurrey will actually respond in detail to the charge of ambiguity, rather than just ignoring it or handwaving it away with some of his trademark, vacuous oneliners. Needless to say, please feel free to contribute your own examples to challenge this assertion of no ambiguity. To start the ball rolling, this is a post from another thread that did not receive a response for our "peaceful Muslim":
UnderConstruction wrote:paarsurrey wrote:Hi friends
Further to my post above.
I think anyone who reads the verses clearly, in particular, the following words in the text of Chapter [9:1 to 9:11]:
Idolaters, promises, four months, on the day of the Greater Pilgrimage, treaty, So fulfil to these the treaty you have made with them till their term., forbidden months, kill the idolaters wherever you find them, if anyone of the idolaters ask protection of thee, grant him protection, place of security,
One would know clearly that these refer to Idolaters of Mecca; they had made a treaty and the verses are clearly addressed to them.
Jews, Christians and Atheists are not idolaters, in my opinion; at least they don't declare it. Do they?
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim
Nice try but no.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/idolatorsi·dol·a·ter or i·dol·a·tor (ī-dŏl'ə-tər)
n.
1. One who worships idols.
2. One who blindly or excessively admires or adores another.
Although a case may be perhaps made that they are not worshipping the idol itself, idols are certainly used in Christian worship rather a lot. The Catholic church seems particularly fond of them. Not sure about Jews and atheism itself certainly does not involve idol worship. However, there are far more religions around that just Islam, Christianity and Judaism. Plenty of them use idols. In the loosest possible sense of the word, it could be taken to mean anyone who idolises anyone or anything. I doubt many would take it to the possible extremes this allows for but there is certainly a fair bit of wiggle room.
So the idea that "idolators" could only possibly apply to Meccans of that time period is laughable at best.
So the only treaty ever made in the history of Islam was with the Meccans? One would rather have thought that killing those you have a peace treaty with is somewhat frowned upon. But then, like I already pointed out, other Muslims have seemed quite proud of Mo's supposed mercy in dealing with them. As such, the instruction was not obeyed very much in that context anyway.
Tell me, was the author of the Quran totally incapable of using the word "Meccans", to remove any doubt as to his intentions?
No Paarsurrey, at best what you have is a mass of ambiguity. At best, if we are being excessively generous, the author of your favourite book was too incompetent to make the extent of the violence he was sanctioning crystal clear. At worst, we have an open ended instruction to make war on those of other beliefs.
I also cannot help but notice and appreciate the irony of the fact that you are trying to defend against out of context quotes with, well, an out of context quote.
So how about it Paarsurrey, do you feel up to defending your assertion?
