Canada may pull troops from Dubai base
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hamburg - Germany
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr. Contacted & Six7driver
My comment is specifically to the negotiation case with Canada. It is quoted on many web sites that UAE –Canada relations will be affected by the latter’s refusal to grant more landing rights to Emirates. As this was a statement by UAE Ambassador in Canada and irrespective of the outcomes , Isn’t that a sort of blackmail, threating and lacking diplomatic courtesy? The tribal failed to twist the arm of Canada , and so opted for a muscle stretching show.
Please read my previous posts on this site, all will give you the necessary information. No need for duplicate comments.
My comment is specifically to the negotiation case with Canada. It is quoted on many web sites that UAE –Canada relations will be affected by the latter’s refusal to grant more landing rights to Emirates. As this was a statement by UAE Ambassador in Canada and irrespective of the outcomes , Isn’t that a sort of blackmail, threating and lacking diplomatic courtesy? The tribal failed to twist the arm of Canada , and so opted for a muscle stretching show.
Please read my previous posts on this site, all will give you the necessary information. No need for duplicate comments.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder what response this will elicit from the Canadian government...
UAE closes airpsace to MacKay, blocks his flight from Afghanistan
Jane Taber and Daniel Leblanc
Ottawa— Globe and Mail Update
Last updated Monday, Oct. 11, 2010 11:58AM EDT
The United Arab Emirates has closed its airspace to Defence Minister Peter MacKay and Chief of the Defence Staff General Walt Natynczyk as they were on their way back from a visit in Afghanistan, according to a senior government source.
The pair had landed at Camp Mirage in the UAE as they were on their way to Kandahar on Thursday. But as they prepared to return, Mr. MacKay and Gen. Natynczyk were informed that they could not land at Camp Mirage or even fly over the UAE, according to a senior government official.
The incident is the latest in a diplomatic spat between Canada and the UAE...
Article here...
Jane Taber and Daniel Leblanc
Ottawa— Globe and Mail Update
Last updated Monday, Oct. 11, 2010 11:58AM EDT
The United Arab Emirates has closed its airspace to Defence Minister Peter MacKay and Chief of the Defence Staff General Walt Natynczyk as they were on their way back from a visit in Afghanistan, according to a senior government source.
The pair had landed at Camp Mirage in the UAE as they were on their way to Kandahar on Thursday. But as they prepared to return, Mr. MacKay and Gen. Natynczyk were informed that they could not land at Camp Mirage or even fly over the UAE, according to a senior government official.
The incident is the latest in a diplomatic spat between Canada and the UAE...
Article here...
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LAX-DXB is a long way if you have to go around Canada, not to mention HOU, SFO, and JFK. Just ask the Russians how it worked for them.
Last edited by jurassicjockey; 11th Oct 2010 at 17:22.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: out there somewhere...
Posts: 763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Canadian reg GIV landed in AUH this aft and pax were given a police escort out of the VIP ramp...where is our new GG and could it be the Min Def et al here to smooth it all over with the UAE? Enquiring minds want to know!
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally, I hope not. Canada should not do anything; the best way of dealing with petulent, spoiled brats is to ignore them. Why should Canada feel it needs to smooth things over? I would be seriously disappointed if Canada gave so much as an inch to the UAE over tihs.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: out there somewhere...
Posts: 763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure about that? Watched it happen from just across the ramp...as to the reason? Maybe blocking a Canadian C130 from the airspace and all the sabre rattling needs a little diplomacy to keep cooler heads in the game...
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: any where that will have me.
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UAE retaliates against Canadian armed forces due to a failed Buisness venture. Canada's top military man , the Defense Minister and Veterans Affairs minister were denied landing in the UAE on their trip home from Afghanistan.
Emirates and Etihad airlines wanted more landing rights in Canada for their carriers. UAE Ambassador to Canada had threatened that failure to reach a deal would affect bilateral relationships and now they have acted on their threat.
By Jonathan Montpetit, The Canadian Press
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan - Canada's top soldier and two cabinet ministers were up in the air Monday, their flight plans disrupted after the United Arab Emirates denied them landing in retaliation for a failed business deal.
Defence Minister Peter MacKay, Veterans Affairs Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn and Chief of the Defence Staff, Gen. Walt Natynczyk were flying home from a three-day visit in Afghanistan when the wealthy Gulf nation closed its air space to their plane, a military source in Ottawa confirmed to The Canadian Press.
The plane had to detour and it was unclear where it was headed afterwards. Government officials were not willing to confirm the location of the three senior officials, but one media report suggested a city in Europe.
Just hours earlier in Kandahar, MacKay indicated that Canada was being forced to vacate a military base in the UAE following the failure of negotiations to expand aviation links between the two countries.
"There have been discussion going on between the minister of foreign affairs and his counterpart. These discussions have been going on for some time," MacKay said a short time before he boarded the plane.
"And at this point, we will abide by the wishes of the Emirates, and... we will be leaving the base."
The UAE has been seeking more landing rights in Canada for its fast-growing state carriers, Emirates and Etihad. Amid strenuous objections by Air Canada, the talks stalled recently.
The UAE has blamed Canada for the failure of the five-year-long negotiations.
UAE's ambassador to Ottawa, Mohammed Abdullah Al-Ghafli, had warned Sunday that the failure to clinch a deal will "undoubtedly affect" bilateral relations.
By forcing Canada to vacate its base in Dubai, a once-secret installation known as Camp Mirage, the UAE will disrupt the Canadian military's principal supply line to Afghanistan.
Camp Mirage is Canada's only logistical hub in the Middle East. The only other regular re-supply route for the military in Kandahar is an overland crossing from Pakistan, which to date has been reserved for low-priority items.
Convoys travelling from Afghanistan's neighbour usually hire private security to fend off Taliban attacks.
The impending closure of Camp Mirage has left officials scrambling for an alternative. It was to play a major role in the withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan following the July 2011 end to the combat mission.
"We'll always act in Canada's best interests and one thing I know about the Canadian forces, they're very adaptable," MacKay said.
"They have alternative plans, they have contingency plans. With that in mind we're going through the various options that are before us right now.
"And we'll continue to do our mission here in Afghanistan... and we'll find other ways to support this mission through other hubs in the region," he added.
Natynczyk acknowledged the military was preparing to cope with upcoming changes to the Dubai base.
"We always have contingency plans in place," he said after serving Thanksgiving dinner to troops at a Canadian operating base in the Panjwaii district of Kandahar.
Canada had a years-old right to operate out of Camp Mirage under an agreement that expired in June. But each party was also allowed to give a one-month notice to end the agreement.
Media reports have suggested the UAE invoked that right last week.
At the heart of the dispute are demands by the two UAE airlines to increase the frequency and destinations of their flights to Canada. They currently operate a total of six flights a week to Toronto from Dubai and Abu Dhabi.
Air Canada has argued against increasing the flights, saying there is very little passenger traffic originating from the UAE and the two airlines are merely taking Canadians to third countries with stopovers in Dubai and Abu Dhabi.
But Ambassador Al-Ghafli said with 27,000 Canadians living in the UAE, six flights per week do not service the economic needs of both countries.
"It is unfortunate that this process has been so protracted and frustrating," he said.
"The UAE entered negotiations in good faith on the understanding that a solution would be reached and that constructive ideas would be brought to the negotiating table. The fact that this has not come about undoubtedly affects the bilateral relationship."
Prior to being denied the right to land — which will likely be considered a major diplomatic snub — MacKay attempted to strike a conciliatory note to the UAE.
"We are very grateful for what the United Arab Emirates have allowed us to do within their country," MacKay said.
"They have been very supportive of the Canadian mission, supportive of the mission writ large, and for that we thank them."
The UAE is Canada's largest trade partner in the Middle East and North Africa with bilateral trade of over $1.5 billion.
UAE orders Canada out of its base, airspace - Yahoo! Canada News
Emirates and Etihad airlines wanted more landing rights in Canada for their carriers. UAE Ambassador to Canada had threatened that failure to reach a deal would affect bilateral relationships and now they have acted on their threat.
By Jonathan Montpetit, The Canadian Press
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan - Canada's top soldier and two cabinet ministers were up in the air Monday, their flight plans disrupted after the United Arab Emirates denied them landing in retaliation for a failed business deal.
Defence Minister Peter MacKay, Veterans Affairs Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn and Chief of the Defence Staff, Gen. Walt Natynczyk were flying home from a three-day visit in Afghanistan when the wealthy Gulf nation closed its air space to their plane, a military source in Ottawa confirmed to The Canadian Press.
The plane had to detour and it was unclear where it was headed afterwards. Government officials were not willing to confirm the location of the three senior officials, but one media report suggested a city in Europe.
Just hours earlier in Kandahar, MacKay indicated that Canada was being forced to vacate a military base in the UAE following the failure of negotiations to expand aviation links between the two countries.
"There have been discussion going on between the minister of foreign affairs and his counterpart. These discussions have been going on for some time," MacKay said a short time before he boarded the plane.
"And at this point, we will abide by the wishes of the Emirates, and... we will be leaving the base."
The UAE has been seeking more landing rights in Canada for its fast-growing state carriers, Emirates and Etihad. Amid strenuous objections by Air Canada, the talks stalled recently.
The UAE has blamed Canada for the failure of the five-year-long negotiations.
UAE's ambassador to Ottawa, Mohammed Abdullah Al-Ghafli, had warned Sunday that the failure to clinch a deal will "undoubtedly affect" bilateral relations.
By forcing Canada to vacate its base in Dubai, a once-secret installation known as Camp Mirage, the UAE will disrupt the Canadian military's principal supply line to Afghanistan.
Camp Mirage is Canada's only logistical hub in the Middle East. The only other regular re-supply route for the military in Kandahar is an overland crossing from Pakistan, which to date has been reserved for low-priority items.
Convoys travelling from Afghanistan's neighbour usually hire private security to fend off Taliban attacks.
The impending closure of Camp Mirage has left officials scrambling for an alternative. It was to play a major role in the withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan following the July 2011 end to the combat mission.
"We'll always act in Canada's best interests and one thing I know about the Canadian forces, they're very adaptable," MacKay said.
"They have alternative plans, they have contingency plans. With that in mind we're going through the various options that are before us right now.
"And we'll continue to do our mission here in Afghanistan... and we'll find other ways to support this mission through other hubs in the region," he added.
Natynczyk acknowledged the military was preparing to cope with upcoming changes to the Dubai base.
"We always have contingency plans in place," he said after serving Thanksgiving dinner to troops at a Canadian operating base in the Panjwaii district of Kandahar.
Canada had a years-old right to operate out of Camp Mirage under an agreement that expired in June. But each party was also allowed to give a one-month notice to end the agreement.
Media reports have suggested the UAE invoked that right last week.
At the heart of the dispute are demands by the two UAE airlines to increase the frequency and destinations of their flights to Canada. They currently operate a total of six flights a week to Toronto from Dubai and Abu Dhabi.
Air Canada has argued against increasing the flights, saying there is very little passenger traffic originating from the UAE and the two airlines are merely taking Canadians to third countries with stopovers in Dubai and Abu Dhabi.
But Ambassador Al-Ghafli said with 27,000 Canadians living in the UAE, six flights per week do not service the economic needs of both countries.
"It is unfortunate that this process has been so protracted and frustrating," he said.
"The UAE entered negotiations in good faith on the understanding that a solution would be reached and that constructive ideas would be brought to the negotiating table. The fact that this has not come about undoubtedly affects the bilateral relationship."
Prior to being denied the right to land — which will likely be considered a major diplomatic snub — MacKay attempted to strike a conciliatory note to the UAE.
"We are very grateful for what the United Arab Emirates have allowed us to do within their country," MacKay said.
"They have been very supportive of the Canadian mission, supportive of the mission writ large, and for that we thank them."
The UAE is Canada's largest trade partner in the Middle East and North Africa with bilateral trade of over $1.5 billion.
UAE orders Canada out of its base, airspace - Yahoo! Canada News
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Go to the second sand dune, then turn right.
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
damn. people are all werried about iran but we nee d to keep our eyes open for emerging spokes on the axis of evil (now that uae aint any longer an emerging economy). 
maybe canada atc can put a little virus in its computer. "emirats xxx this is gander oceanic, confirm you are 7500?"
"negative gander"
"emirats xxx we sho you are a terrorist fligth. you must turn back. coordinate with shanwick for your return."
"negative gander, no problem here."
"emirats xxx this is not my fault. it is the system. turn back now or norad will be alerted."
few days of this mite nock some sense back into em.
maybe canada atc can put a little virus in its computer. "emirats xxx this is gander oceanic, confirm you are 7500?"
"negative gander"
"emirats xxx we sho you are a terrorist fligth. you must turn back. coordinate with shanwick for your return."
"negative gander, no problem here."
"emirats xxx this is not my fault. it is the system. turn back now or norad will be alerted."
few days of this mite nock some sense back into em.
Last edited by wastafarian; 12th Oct 2010 at 05:08.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: pit
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not a friend of any of these childish tactics. I thought the Middle Easterners were masters of double standards and bullying, but the North Americans really reach new lows when they join into that game instead of convincing others of their own highly proclaimed values of free trade.
Remember the American argumenting and rhethorics about the Airbus/Boeing offers for a tanker? Pure protectionism.
Now the Canadians join in protecting their cr*ppy airline. Try it with matching competition, as you always proclaim!
I wonder what we would read if a huge order for regional jets from Brasil or Japan would be on the table and Bombardier would be excluded from competing due to "national asset interests".......
As long as AC could fly into the UAE with as many flights as they want, a restriction for UAE carriers to Canada or any other place is ridiculous if set up in the name of consumer interests. If the argument is unfair advantage of economic conditions, then stop buying from any low cost country, especially China, or face double standard indictment.
Again, I am no friend of the local proceedings, but a tit for tat puts one in the very same low corner.
Remember the American argumenting and rhethorics about the Airbus/Boeing offers for a tanker? Pure protectionism.
Now the Canadians join in protecting their cr*ppy airline. Try it with matching competition, as you always proclaim!
I wonder what we would read if a huge order for regional jets from Brasil or Japan would be on the table and Bombardier would be excluded from competing due to "national asset interests".......
As long as AC could fly into the UAE with as many flights as they want, a restriction for UAE carriers to Canada or any other place is ridiculous if set up in the name of consumer interests. If the argument is unfair advantage of economic conditions, then stop buying from any low cost country, especially China, or face double standard indictment.
Again, I am no friend of the local proceedings, but a tit for tat puts one in the very same low corner.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Post-Pit and Lovin' It.
Posts: 863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Protecting your own countries interests is pretty much the mandate of any government. I don't recall Canada ever signing a free trade agreement with the UAE (a la NAFTA) so waving that flag is irrelevant. For your information both Bombardier and Embraer HAVE had multiple disputes go to the WTO for arbitration. Seems more like you just want to rant about North Americans. Try to stick to the specific situation here.
By what logic or legality? Simply, the UAE needs access to Canadian cities more than Canada needs access to the UAE. This has been borne out by the UAE attempting to use a military base for leverage. They wouldn't have gotten very far by threatening to take away Canada's landing rights in the UAE, would they? There is a bilateral agreement in place and negotiations have failed to change that. I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that's because changing it would benefit one party far more than the other, and both parties know it. Yes, Air Canada is lobbying furiously, but that doesn't change the fact that it is about protecting Canadian interests at large more than those of Canada's "crappy" airline. And the UAE has definitely been the one to expand the debate beyond landing rights by using Minhad as a pawn.
We'll see how far any "tit-for-tat" goes. Canada denying the UAE overflight privileges would have far greater consequences for Emirates than the UAE diverting one Canadian Forces aircraft. But putting a diplomatic snub on like that - it was the Minister of Defence and Chief of the Defence on board - will not exactly make the Canadians more open to negotiation.
Great "allies" we have in the Middle East...
As an aside, the Canadian Air Force operates Challengers for executive transport, not Gulfstreams. I highly doubt a GIV in the UAE has anything to do with the proceedings. Possible, but unlikely.
As long as AC could fly into the UAE with as many flights as they want, a restriction for UAE carriers to Canada or any other place is ridiculous
We'll see how far any "tit-for-tat" goes. Canada denying the UAE overflight privileges would have far greater consequences for Emirates than the UAE diverting one Canadian Forces aircraft. But putting a diplomatic snub on like that - it was the Minister of Defence and Chief of the Defence on board - will not exactly make the Canadians more open to negotiation.
Great "allies" we have in the Middle East...
As an aside, the Canadian Air Force operates Challengers for executive transport, not Gulfstreams. I highly doubt a GIV in the UAE has anything to do with the proceedings. Possible, but unlikely.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hamburg - Germany
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air France CEO calls for EU curbs on Gulf carriers' expansion
Join Date: May 2008
Location: pit
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Protecting your own countries interests is pretty much the mandate of any government.
I don't recall Canada ever signing a free trade agreement with the UAE (a la NAFTA) so waving that flag is irrelevant
You quoted me: As long as AC could fly into the UAE with as many flights as they want, a restriction for UAE carriers to Canada or any other place is ridiculous
And the UAE has definitely been the one to expand the debate beyond landing rights by using Minhad as a pawn.
Canada denying the UAE overflight privileges would have far greater consequences for Emirates than the UAE diverting one Canadian Forces aircraft
Agree again, however there is a big and distinct difference between overflights of civil aircraft and military ones. Denying traffic rights is far easier than denying overflight rights for civil traffic.
I completely understand Canada's reaction, but is is better than the UAE's politics?
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: who cares?
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
America Jr. .......ooops I mean Canada will eventually skip to the beat of whatever the UAE tells them. Canada is not going to move to another base. End of story. Ethiad and Emirates will be flying to Vancouver and Calgary in the very near future.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting info I have never seen before.
Anyone of the Muslim faith care to confirm this?
Note the above is from the discussion area of one of the Canadian national newspapers addressing this issue.
Not trying to fan any flames; just trying to substantiate whether this an accurate interpretation of the Islamic view on contracts.
Anyone of the Muslim faith care to confirm this?
To an outsider the behavior on behalf of the UAE may appear curious. Islam and a free democracy are incompatable. The Qur'an permits moslyms to break agreements and treaties with infidels if they find better options elsewhere.
Qur’an 47:33 “Believers, obey Allah, and obey the Messenger. Do not falter; become faint-hearted, or weak-kneed, crying for peace.” Any treaties with Infidels can be broken anytime for any reason, they have no meaning.
Qur’an 9:3 “Allah is not bound by any contract or treaty with non-Muslims, nor is His Apostle.”
NOTE: In other words, it is acceptable to break treaties and obligations with infidells and make war on them whenever strong enough to do so
Read more: UAE, Canadian relations 'frosty' as Forces base deal yanked
Qur’an 47:33 “Believers, obey Allah, and obey the Messenger. Do not falter; become faint-hearted, or weak-kneed, crying for peace.” Any treaties with Infidels can be broken anytime for any reason, they have no meaning.
Qur’an 9:3 “Allah is not bound by any contract or treaty with non-Muslims, nor is His Apostle.”
NOTE: In other words, it is acceptable to break treaties and obligations with infidells and make war on them whenever strong enough to do so
Read more: UAE, Canadian relations 'frosty' as Forces base deal yanked
Not trying to fan any flames; just trying to substantiate whether this an accurate interpretation of the Islamic view on contracts.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: South of North
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pool--agree, except that the concept of consumer interest is much deeper than the simple concept that more flights, choice equals cheaper.
As I wrote in my last post, increased EK flights will mean other services (ie. YYC-FRA) get dropped if they siphone off the pax on those flights that continue beyond Europe. Those 10-15% of pax that continue on often make or break a route. In this case a few consumers gain and lots lose.
As I wrote in my last post, increased EK flights will mean other services (ie. YYC-FRA) get dropped if they siphone off the pax on those flights that continue beyond Europe. Those 10-15% of pax that continue on often make or break a route. In this case a few consumers gain and lots lose.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Pakistan
Age: 61
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting info I have never seen before.
Anyone of the Muslim faith care to confirm this? Quote:
To an outsider the behavior on behalf of the UAE may appear curious. Islam and a free democracy are incompatable. The Qur'an permits moslyms to break agreements and treaties with infidels if they find better options elsewhere.
Qur’an 47:33 “Believers, obey Allah, and obey the Messenger. Do not falter; become faint-hearted, or weak-kneed, crying for peace.” Any treaties with Infidels can be broken anytime for any reason, they have no meaning.
Qur’an 9:3 “Allah is not bound by any contract or treaty with non-Muslims, nor is His Apostle.”
NOTE: In other words, it is acceptable to break treaties and obligations with infidells and make war on them whenever strong enough to do so
Read more: UAE, Canadian relations 'frosty' as Forces base deal yanked
Note the above is from the discussion area of one of the Canadian national newspapers addressing this issue.
Not trying to fan any flames; just trying to substantiate whether this an accurate interpretation of the Islamic view on contracts.
Anyone of the Muslim faith care to confirm this? Quote:
To an outsider the behavior on behalf of the UAE may appear curious. Islam and a free democracy are incompatable. The Qur'an permits moslyms to break agreements and treaties with infidels if they find better options elsewhere.
Qur’an 47:33 “Believers, obey Allah, and obey the Messenger. Do not falter; become faint-hearted, or weak-kneed, crying for peace.” Any treaties with Infidels can be broken anytime for any reason, they have no meaning.
Qur’an 9:3 “Allah is not bound by any contract or treaty with non-Muslims, nor is His Apostle.”
NOTE: In other words, it is acceptable to break treaties and obligations with infidells and make war on them whenever strong enough to do so
Read more: UAE, Canadian relations 'frosty' as Forces base deal yanked
Note the above is from the discussion area of one of the Canadian national newspapers addressing this issue.
Not trying to fan any flames; just trying to substantiate whether this an accurate interpretation of the Islamic view on contracts.
Dune,
I don't know who has given these misinterpreted verses of the Quran. Here are the correct translations of the quoted verses:
47:33 O ye who believe! Obey Allah and obey the messenger, and render not your actions vain.
It doesn't say anything about contractual obligations so the reference to this verse is simply out of context in this case.
9 : 3 And a proclamation from Allah and His messenger to all men on the day of the Greater Pilgrimage that Allah is free from obligation to the idolaters, and (so is) His messenger. So, if ye repent, it will be better for you; but if ye are averse, then know that ye cannot escape Allah. Give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom to those who disbelieve.
For fully understanding the meaning if the verse, it is important that we read the preceding and the following verses of 9 : 3
“A declaration of the dissolution of agreements from God and His messenger to the idolaters with whom you have made [no-war] agreements. Thus, you [O polytheists] may freely traverse in the land for four months, but know that you shall not escape God’s judgment and that God shall surely humble the unbelievers. A proclamation [should be made] to these people from God and His messenger on the day of Hajj-e-Akbar, [declaring] that God and His messenger are no longer under any obligation toward these polytheists. If you repent, [O polytheists,] it shall be better for you but if you turn your backs [paying no heed], then know that you shall not be able to escape God’s judgment. Give these rejecters the glad tidings of a painful punishment, except those polytheists who have not dishonored their treaties with you and have not aided anyone against you. With these, fulfill your treaties till the appointed term. Indeed, God loves the righteous. When the sacred months are over, slay the polytheists wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them and lie in ambush for them.” (Al-Taubah 9: 1 – 5)
The Qur’an further says: “How can there be any responsibility of these agreements on God and His messenger, except those with whom you made agreements at the Sacred Mosque? Thus, so long as they uphold their part of the treaty, you should uphold yours. Indeed God loves the righteous.” (Al-Taubah 9: 7)
A close look at the above verses shall suffice as evidence to the fact that the directive, “Arrest them, besiege them and lie in ambush for them” is given against those polytheists with whom the Muslims, under the leadership of the Prophet (pbuh), had entered into an agreement and who had disregarded this agreement and aided others against the Muslims. Obviously, these qualities cannot be generalized on all the polytheists of the world. The Qur’an further says:
“Will you not fight against those who have broken their oaths and have conspired to banish the messenger? They were the first to attack you.” (Al-Taubah 9: 12)
Thus, a further qualification of those against whom the directive is given is that besides breaking their oaths with the Muslims, they conspired to banish the Prophet (pbuh) and were the first to attack the Muslims. It is obvious that the referred directive implies to take action against a particular people. It cannot be generalized to the whole world and to all times to come. The Qur’an further clarifies that the directive is mainly against those particular polytheists who were the custodians of the Haram – the Ka`bah.Yes, I am a Muslim and my aim is not to start an inter-religious debate or to prove something but just to put the misquoted verses in the right perspective.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: who cares?
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guru8904: Thank you so much for blessing all of us with such wisdom! However, you left out many other profound quotes from the Koran such as:
"Young Conan...What is best in life?
To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women. Al-Taubah 9:16
"Crom, I have never prayed to you before. I have no tongue for it. No one, not even you, will remember if we were good men or bad. Why we fought, or why we died. All that matters is that two stood against many. That's what's important! Valor pleases you, Crom... so grant me one request. Grant me revenge! And if you do not listen, then to HELL with you! Al-Taubah 9:17
"Young Conan...What is best in life?
To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women. Al-Taubah 9:16
"Crom, I have never prayed to you before. I have no tongue for it. No one, not even you, will remember if we were good men or bad. Why we fought, or why we died. All that matters is that two stood against many. That's what's important! Valor pleases you, Crom... so grant me one request. Grant me revenge! And if you do not listen, then to HELL with you! Al-Taubah 9:17
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Pakistan
Age: 61
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Guru
Quote:
God loves the righteous. When the sacred months are over, slay the polytheists wherever you find them.
Sounds a bit harsh doesn't it? I notice you quoted the "Lie in ambush bit" but left out the slaying bit.
(Lucky I am an atheist and not a polytheist.
)
(Actually I am an anti-theist)
Quote:
God loves the righteous. When the sacred months are over, slay the polytheists wherever you find them.
Sounds a bit harsh doesn't it? I notice you quoted the "Lie in ambush bit" but left out the slaying bit.
(Lucky I am an atheist and not a polytheist.
)(Actually I am an anti-theist
)
Read my original post again. I have not edited/deleted anything. The slaying part was always there.