Acts17apologetics open the Bible; Jesus allows indiscriminate killing?

In answer to the video "The Truth about Ramadan (David Wood)"

In the HB and as corroborated by Jesus in the NT when he said to abide by it to the minute details, several types of wars are promulgated. Jesus by the way, is the one to have promulgated these laws in the first place, prior to his incarnation. So among these laws the pre-turn the other cheek Jesus instructed upon his subjects, is the compulsory command/mitzva among the 613 revealed at Sinai, binding on Jews of all times to destroy Amalek's seed Deut25:19 without showing any pity whenever the opportunity is there, and exterminate the remaining Canaanite nations from the land of Israel whenever any of them or their descendants are identified Deut20:16.

This is a timeless ordinance, as already said, part of the 613 binding commandements, and is thus an explicit order to genetically exterminate a certain people. Every command within the Torah is understood as eternally binding and those that are inapplicable today due to the absence of a Temple will be reinstated in the utopian messianic era, where every nation will be forcefully subdued to the Jewish God Mal3:4,Deut30,Ezek11,36,37,Isa56:6-8,Zech14:16,Jere33:15-18,Ezek43:18-46:24. The eternally binding command to blot out Amalek's seed and other Canaanites, if one fails acting upon this law anytime a descendant of such tribes is genetically identified, then one becomes subject to divine anger as what happened to king Saul 1Sam28:18,1Chr10.

Saul suffered a violent and dishonourable death. His household was decimated at the hands of the Philistines who also dispossessed his community.

The same happened prior to the entire Israelite community that was sent for a 40 years desert wandering for their refusal to engage the promised land's natives in battle.

Along with those known, compulsory genocidal warfare as described earlier, during which no atrocities towards men, women, children, cattle and plants may be spared, there are laws relating to optional warfare, for the sole purpose of Israel's "national glory" as labelled by their rabbis. In such cases any random nation the Israelites arbitrarily choose, and set themselves out to conquer can either be "peacefully" submitted, resulting in the enslavement and taxation of its population, or in case of their rejection of the "peace offer", a military subjugation resulting with the execution of all adult males, the capture as spoils of war of their women, children, and livestock

Deut20:10-14"When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby".

In addition, should it be necessary to completely subdue that nation

2Kings3:19"you shall fell every good tree, and you shall stop up all springs of water, and you shall clutter every good field with stones".

In the land of Canaan, those natives that werent driven out or exterminated as per the Torah's injunctions during the invasion, were subdued into slavery Josh17:13. Their descendants suffered the same fate under Solomon's rule 1Kings9:20-1. After all and as stated in both the HB and the Talmudic writings (Eleazar ben Shammua)  the purpose of creation and the reason why the heavens and earth are maintained is for the chosen race to observe Torah.

All these citations werent made to disparage the Bible, rather at pointing what would have been the outcome had the Quran been the product of human base desires, whims, greed and lust. The fact is the Ishmaelites went through almost identical situations as the Israelites in their confrontations with opposing tribes and nations, and yet we do not find anything remotely similar in terms of abuse and excess as is seen throughout the Hebrew writings, and by the hands of true prophets of God.

It is to be further noted that the Quran does allude to some episodes where the Israelites were confronted to, or were about to engage the Canaanites. Everytime, it refrains from mentionning the shocking acts which the Israelites have comitted. The Quran could have used these incidents as divinely sanctionned precedents allowing unrestricted bloodshed and abuses. Yet we keep on reading in the context of warfare, verses stressing self-restraint in retaliation, or the non-materialistic goals of fighting in Allah's way.

Acts17apologetics open their eyes; Islamic war ethics?

In answer to the video "The Truth about Ramadan (David Wood)"

Even though the object of the enemies of Islam when they take on arms and engage Muslims in war is to exterminate them entirely, the Muslims are told that the Divine object in assisting the believers in punishing the disbelievers at war is not to exterminate them, but to deliver a blow that would deter them from continuous agression 3:127. They are therefore told to fight only the people who attack them

60:9"those who made war upon you on account of (your) religion, and drove you forth from your homes and backed up (others) in your expulsion".

Defensive warfare cannot be predicated on personal whims or desires. War ethics also include not fighting near the Kaaba except if initially attacked. If the enemy desists from deliberate aggression then fighting must stop. This in turn indicates that there should be no rancor against the enemy when they correct themselves or even when they end the hostility. The Muslims, even though oppressed should not seek blind revenge at all costs, rather they should try engaging in peaceful negotiations before 8:39-40. In a dominant position, Muslims must remain conscious of their past weakness before Allah strengthened them and not refuse the hand of peace from non-muslims 4:94. In all cases retaliation must be

22:60"with the like of that with which he has been afflicted and he has been oppressed".  

2:194"Thus, if anyone commits aggression against you, attack him just as he has attacked you - but remain conscious of God".

This means that even while seeking just and equal retribution, one must remain conscious of God's limits. The Quran's supreme realism reflects even in such situations, telling those whose spirituality is of a high degree, that if they are able to be patient and forgive for Allah's sake, instead of exercising their legitimate right to retaliation when they have taken the upper hand then Allah will compensate them for their magnanimity

42:39-43,16:126-8"but if you are patient, it will certainly be best for those who are patient..Surely Allah is with those who guard (against evil) and those who do good (to others)". 

The sensitivity of the issue is pictured in God's address to David, the prophet-king 34:10-11. As he was given mastery over a crucial component in warfare -iron-, he and all those after him are told that in their use of that martial technology, God is ever seeing of what they do, indicating that they should use this means in the path of righteous deed, not in the way of oppression, cruelty, and sin.

Fighting cannot be directed at those

60:8"who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes..show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice".

Al-Tabari states that this applies to people of “all ways of life and religions". Nothing abrogates this principle. This is because being friendly and lenient with non-Muslims does not contradict severing ties with those same ones and even fighting them if it is to establish justice and claim one's rights. The Arabic birr/compassion is the same one the Quran uses when instructing Muslims on how to treat their own parents 17:23-4. Others towards whom defensive jihad cannot be directed are those who come in peace without any desire to fight 4:90. Not all of Islam's opponents are alike, some do not strive actively for the extermination of Muslims and should therefore not be fought in the same way as one would engage an armed enemy. They, as well as others could have been deliberately misinformed and are thus given the benefit of the doubt

60:7"It may be that Allah will bring about friendship between you and those whom you hold to be your enemies among them; and Allah is Powerful; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful". 

We see how the Quran engages the issue of warfare in the most sublime and pragmatic of ways. The very foundations of the divine law, as taught by all Prophets, is the establishment of justice and to argue a person has no right to seek his rights is an absolute wrong. The Quran has taught the best attitude, and that is to forgive and continue calling people to right and goodness, even if the people try and persecute another but when the persecution becomes unbearable and life threatening, hindering one from religious freedom then retaliation is permitted, but never above and beyond what a person has himself received.

Acts17apologetics forget the Semitic pattern; fighting in God's name?

In answer to the video "The Truth about Ramadan (David Wood)"

Accepting to fight in Allah's way results in reward in this world as well as the next 48:18-21, but turning one's back to the enemy and refusing to shoulder that duty makes a person

48:16,8:16"deserving of Allah's wrath"

in this world as well as the next. Here are the prophet Jeremiah's words

Jer48:10"A curse on anyone who is lax in doing the Lord’s work! A curse on anyone who keeps their sword from bloodshed".

As already pointed, history bares testimony to this fact with the example of the Israelites who had refused to put their trust in the prophet Musa to go forth and fight in Allah's way. Their wordly reward was consequently taken away and they were forbidden entry into the blessed land and sent to wander 40 years in the desert until the last one of those who had shown cowardice was dead. A new generation was then raised instead, one that would willingly take up arms, fight and conquer as divinely ordained. See the Quran in 2:243,5:21-26 as well as the Hebrew Bible in Numbers13:28-33,14:1-35,21:14-35,26:64-65 and Deut2:7,14-19,Josh5:6.

The Muslims are warned that the very same fate awaits those who turn their backs to the prophet when they are called to struggle in Allah's way

9:38-39"If you do not go forth, He will chastise you with a painful chastisement and bring in your place a people other than you, and you will do Him no harm; and Allah has power over all things".

True Believers rejoice at any opportunity of serving God's cause, like Joshua and Caleb who rent their clothes telling the remaining cowards among the Israelites to stand up for battle. In the end, what God wishes to accomplish is independant of the direct addressees of a prophet. As demonstrated with Musa and the Israelites, He could easily uproot them in case of disobedience and rise another people instead.

However, those who followed the prophet Muhammad in times of peace and war are the opposite example. Contrary to the majority of Israelites in Moses' time who refused to march forth despite witnessing all kinds of divine miracles, the majority of Muhammad's followers fought when ordered to. This is corroborative of their desperate situation, leaving them no choice but to fight for their survival, the survival of their families and their rights to worship Allah. Because of all their sacrifices and because they went forth when they were commanded to, they were made successors in the land 6:133-134 and they earned Allah's rewards in this world as well as, God wills, in the next.
In addition, the Muslims are commanded not to neglect the obligatory prayers, even when facing the enemy at the battlefield 4:101-3.

This shows the true objective of these warriors fighting to free themselves and their people from religious bondage; fighting was not their primary occupation for when the time of holding the timed and ordained communion with their Lord arrived, they performed their spiritual obligations despite the imminent danger.
  

Acts17apologetics expose murderers; Jihad without ethics?

In answer to the video "The Truth about Ramadan (David Wood)"

2:190-5 allowed retaliation for the first time 

"And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you" 

the root qaf-t-l means to kill. But used in the form qaatilu entails interaction, killing opposite killing or killing against killing. Literally speaking it should be rendered "engage in killing opposite killing" and because of a lack of non-Arabic word conveying that sense, the interactive word "fight" has been preferred and used by both Muslim and non Muslim translators, in all instances where the same form is used. In 9:111 for example, the consequence of qaatilu/"engage in killing opposite killing" either results in killing the opposite party, or being killed and that is because there is a clear will to kill from the opposite side. When the original order to qaatilu was issued in 2:190, it came with 2 important messages:
- do it against those who yuqaatilunakum
- do not transgress the limits when applying the command to qaatilu

What constitutes transgression in that context? To apply the command of qaatilu in a different way than prescribed in the verse, ie against people other than those who "yuqaatilunakum".
This again, not only agrees with what was said about the verb being interactive in nature, as attested by its usage and the dictionaries stating that the word is used "in a context of a counter-effort to kill", but also with the Quran's overall message, which is to live at peace with anyone, Muslim or else, that does not aggress the Muslims unjustly, and defend against those that engage in hostilities without any reason other than hatred for the religion.

The ethics of war as laid down in the verse is to remain within the bounds of 

"and do not exceed the limit. Verily, Allah loves not those who exceed the limit".

At that point it became inevitable that the early persecuted Muslims should fight in self-defense or they would be destroyed. It is the natural right of all Muslims and every human being to

26:227"defend themselves after they are oppressed".

The divinely sanctionned right, throughout the ages and nations, of jihad in self defense has a clear objective. It isnt for any material gain or territorial expansion, but to dispel mischief, and corruption/fasad on the earth and stop religious oppression 2:251,22:40. 

It is inadmissable that man be prevented from choosing or practicing Islam due to pressure and fear. In such a society, war is justified until one is free to choose or reject Islam 

2:256"There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error". 

This shows that under no circumstances should be forced in spiritual matters, whether it is to accept or reject Islam.

The Quran would therefore stir up the believers for battle based on the reality of their physical and spiritual opression, whether men, women, old and young alike 2:217,4:75,8:26,22:39-40,28:57,60:1,85:8-10,96:9-10. God commands to fight for justice. Any other reason to fight is oppression and fighting

"in the way of the devil" 4:76.

This was an undeniable reality and necessity. They had to overcome any fear and trust that Allah's help will come at the battlfield. He will weaken the struggle of the oppressors no mater the forces they can muster 4:84. Even when this was established, the prophet still did not expect the Muslims to shed their blood for a decision from which they were excluded. Consensual agreement always preceded the final decision to go to war, as here stated in the context of the battle of Uhud

3:159"and seek their advise in all matters of public policy".

Once the decision is attained by common agreement, the plan must be launched with an absolute trust in God

3:159"then when you have decided upon a course of action, trust in Allah; for surely Allah loves those who place their trust in Him".

Even the prophet after that point may not revoke the covenant and act according to his whims 3:161-4. It is to be noted that in that particular context of Uhud, the prophet was the minority opinion. He advised confronting the Meccan alliance within Medina, instead of meeting them at Uhud. Yet he never protested the decision once it was mutually agreed upon, nor did he blame the majority once the battle was over and the Muslims were defeated. No matter how supreme the wisdom of the Muslim community's ruler is, in this case a prophet of God, the right of the remaining members of society to be consulted can never be waved off. We see here that in this defeat of the Muslims at Uhud, an important lesson was implemented as to the conduct of a Muslim leader.

Once everybody is set to leave with a full trust in their decision and the will of God, then their physical, mental, financial capacities as compared to their enemies only become secondary issues. Only if these conditions would result in overburdening and harming the person and the people depending on him, even before engaging in fighting, then such person is justified in holding back from fighting 9:91,48:17.

The others rely on Allah, who knows their material and physical limits, and will assist them 8:66. They are fully justified in fighting back, and will be helped in the process

22:38"Surely Allah will defend those who believe; surely Allah does not love any one who is unfaithful, ungrateful".

Part of the 613 Jewish commandments is to similarily be fearless in battle and fully trust in God Deut3:22,7:21,20:3. It was their failure to trust in God's capacity to defeat, through a weak army, a much stronger adversary that caused their 40 years desert wandering prior to entering the land promised to Abraham. God calls mankind to fight in His way first to solve the wordly obstacles to which a particular people is confronted, but these worldly obstacles are connected to the spiritual aspect of man's existence. This means that fighting in God's way liberates man from both physical and spiritual obstacles. That is why those who fear wordly losses in the process, are told that this world is ultimately ephemeral whether in case of victory or loss. They would thus have certainly reason to fear should their battle be solely aimed at achieving wordly objectives. But since fighting in God's way includes spiritual objectives, then one has no reason to fear because the Hereafter in which the benefits of that struggle will be certainly found, is everlasting 4:74.

Choosing to serve God in this way, putting one's own life on the line to defend the oppressed and advance the cause of truth is the most selfless material and spiritual sacrifice one can do. Every culture and civilization in history has owed its survival in the face of oppression to these types of honored individuals. But even then, as in any army, there are degrees among soldiers, hence the prophet saying that military participation is ranked 3rd in terms of divine appreciation

"I asked the Prophet 'Which deed is loved most by Allah?" He replied, 'To offer prayers at their early (very first) stated times.' " `Abdullah asked, "What is the next (in goodness)?" The Prophet said, "To be good and dutiful to one's parents," `Abdullah asked, "What is the next (in goodness)?" The Prophet said, "To participate in Jihad for Allah's Cause." `Abdullah added, "The Prophet narrated to me these three things, and if I had asked more, he would have told me more".

However those among the volontaries going to such extent in their selfless sacrifice that they are martyred, the prophetic sayings describe them as meriting the highest reward. Wordly gains certainly follow as a collateral result of wars, and although are certainly the just compensation of those sacrificing their wealth and resources on the way, the Quran stresses that these wordly gains must never be the motive. In a hadith the prophet even answered about someone fighting in God's cause but also seeking material reward, that in the herafter "He would receive no reward" (sunan Abu Dawud).

The Prophet's conflict with his tribe was not because of any worldly reason; it was only for the freedom to practice the religion of God 4:74,94 in the place originally dedicated for it. The Quraysh had to fulfill their obligations towards the Kaaba because they were its custodians. If they were not ready for this, then they had no right to keep it in their custody nor did they have any right to prevent people from returning to the pure Arbrahamic legacy through intimidations, or stopping others from worshiping on a land settled for that purpose since the days of Ibrahim 22:25-9.

This was Allah's way before in regards to Canaan, even prior to the Israelites settling in it, when its natives progressively abandonned the ways of righteousness, despite knowing it, perverted it beyond recognition Gen15:16,Deut9,1Sam4:7. The Israelites were sent in precisely to purge the sacred land from its unworthy custodians. When the prophetic warnings materialized upon the Quraysh and their grip on the lives and freedom of the people was loosened, then the people hastened to accept Islam in multitudes now that they were suddenly afforded with the liberty to choose their own religion. 110:2 predicted this reality long before the conquest of Mecca

"And you see men embrace the religion of God in multitudes",

and this was through the guidance of the Heavenly Book that transcended all obstacles to give life to the spiritually dead 6:122. 

Acts17apologetics prefer Ghandi; can revenge be justified?

In answer to the video "The Truth about Ramadan (David Wood)"

In case of murder, there are several aspects of wisdom in leaving the life of the killer directly at the mercy of the heirs of the murdered person. It firstly compensates to some extent the tremendous loss caused, because once the justice system has done its job of exposing the guilty, true justice consits in compensating emotionaly or materialy for those first and foremost concerned, ie the victims themselves.

The other wisdom in leaving the punishment of the killer in the heirs of the slain person's hands is that in case they adopt the preferred issue of being magnanimous, they do a big favour to the murderer and his family, resulting in many other benefits. The prophet waived his right for equal retribution many times against his opponents once he had the power to execute justice

"Whoever suffers an injury done to him and forgives (the person responsible), Allah will raise his status to a higher degree and remove one of his sins” (Sunan al-Tirmidhi).

  There are countless traditions about his life illustrating his forgiveness to others, even those caught red handed attempting to murder him. But he had no right to force the believers to be forgiving in similar situations, it would be contrary to the spirit of the law as he would be negating their rights to resort to it should they desire.

As already said, although the Quran encourages magnanimity in these cases it can only be from the victim, on his or her own accord, without any pressure or influence from anyone, or without any interference from the authorities. This way, because it is an unexpected, benevolent act, it heals both the victim and the criminal.

When a group of armed men feinted conversion from the tribe of Ukl/Uraina/Urayna, taking advantage of the prophet's hospitality then captured his shepherd, tortured and murdered him before leaving with the camel herd, the prophet, as an embodiement of the state, could not force his penchant for leniency in case of a crime committed on someone else. Beyond being a crime against the shepherd, this was also a direct attack against the state and its citizen among whom these criminals had sought protection. The Islamic state was at that time subject to attacks from all sides, yet its leader and citizen had generously offerred shelter to foreigners who not only abused from their hospitality, in addition infiltrated the community, spreading violence and bloodshed. The prophet could neither impose magnanimity on the victim's family nor on a state which represents its citizen.

He therefore inflicted the law of equal retribution upon these cold blooded murderers in its full force; they were tortured the same way they did to the innocent hospitable shepherd who had given them food, drink and medicine when they were hungry, thirsty and ill, then they were left to die of thirst in the desert. Although many later Quran commentators have linked this incident to the revelation of 5:33-4, there actually is no report that proves it.

Ibn Umar even denies that this verse that limits the harshness of punishments upon criminals, is in anyway a divine disapproval of the prophet's severity. The law of equal retribution still stands and can be used in case one is subject to the same gruesome murder circumstances of the prophet's shepherd. 5:33-4 is unrelated to qisaas, the law of equal retribution, which concerns all members of a community. This passage rather it is a set of punishments for crimes which only the state has the final word for, committed against governement institutions, interests, laws, etc.