What's Eton Musk Really Up To ?.
News0 min ago
Does It Say In The Quran That You Should Kill Jews/christians/unbelievers?
218 Answers
Why would god create everyone and then tell one group to kill another? That makes no sense if it's true
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Henrietta. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Keyplus, I suspect you're being just a little facetious here. ;o)
Look, let's be serious. You know as well as I do that the God of Abraham allegedly made a covenant with the people of Israel, in recognition of which the foreskin of every male child would be lopped off. We can only speculate upon the rationality of such a ridiculous bargain being struck to please an omnipotent, all-powerful God….. but moving on……that idea, like many others, was adopted by Mohammed in his construction of a new religion - Islam – but it was only added after he’d realised the glaring error he’d made in not only omitting that requirement from the Koran (not that Muslims – not being Israelites - would have had a potential reason for lopping foreskins off) but in asserting that Allah had decreed that his creation (man) must not be altered in any way. Big mistake!! You have to admit, Keyplus, Mohammed was prone to tripping himself up - but in fairness, he couldn’t be expected to know that the future would bring people who aren’t afraid of superstition and who actually have the balls to scrutinise and challenge inconsistency.
Over to you.
Look, let's be serious. You know as well as I do that the God of Abraham allegedly made a covenant with the people of Israel, in recognition of which the foreskin of every male child would be lopped off. We can only speculate upon the rationality of such a ridiculous bargain being struck to please an omnipotent, all-powerful God….. but moving on……that idea, like many others, was adopted by Mohammed in his construction of a new religion - Islam – but it was only added after he’d realised the glaring error he’d made in not only omitting that requirement from the Koran (not that Muslims – not being Israelites - would have had a potential reason for lopping foreskins off) but in asserting that Allah had decreed that his creation (man) must not be altered in any way. Big mistake!! You have to admit, Keyplus, Mohammed was prone to tripping himself up - but in fairness, he couldn’t be expected to know that the future would bring people who aren’t afraid of superstition and who actually have the balls to scrutinise and challenge inconsistency.
Over to you.
v-e; //whole of the Koran is infused with hatred and exhortation to violence against those who reject Mohammed's claims//
Please, spare me the clichés !
I am not a Muslim, but I will fight against this type of misinformed bigotry.
I challenge you to give an example of this by quoting a passage IN FULL -not simply pasting in a sentence out of context- which exhorts hatred and overt violence against fellow men, other than in self-defence.
Please, spare me the clichés !
I am not a Muslim, but I will fight against this type of misinformed bigotry.
I challenge you to give an example of this by quoting a passage IN FULL -not simply pasting in a sentence out of context- which exhorts hatred and overt violence against fellow men, other than in self-defence.
Cliches, eh, Khandro? You could have knocked me over with a feather when I read that.
A bit of background. I first read the Koran a few years ago when I signed up to AB. It was a rather stilted translation which I got for nothing on my Kindle. I'll make a clean breast of it: I managed to get through only the first third of it (about the same proportion as I maged to get through the Book of Mormon which I read when I was about twenty). It was the sura devoted to the vexatious question of which women were allowed to see the prophet's genitalia which finally did for me. The answer as I recall was all his wives and all his female slaves. What a strange and unedifying pre-occupation for the transcendental Lord of the Universe I found myself wondering. You've read Aquinas and some of the Christian Fathers, haven't you? What is the Thomist and Patristic take on this important moral issue?
Anyway, what did I get from this reading? Well, the first thing I noted was that every sura begins with the mantra "Allah the compassionate, the all-forgiving..." and ends usually with a total contradiction of the earlier description of the divine character by promising a terrible punishment for anybody who rejects Allah/the message/God's apostle. The vilification of all who rejected Mohammed's claim to divine revelation and the threats to kill them in this life and torture them forever in the next are pervasive in that third of the Koran I read. If you doubt me try reading it for yourself, Khandro. (Yes, maybe you should get out less.) That is why I described the Koran as infused with hate. I could have gone further and commented on the Koran's endorsement of slavery and sex with minors as further reasons for viewing it as a morally repugnant book. ('d like to wheel in "killing two birds with one stone" at this point, but it doesn't seem to fit, does it?) To describe my opinions as bigotry is careless use of language unless I am deliberately misrepresenting the book. I think you've picked up something from Sandy Roe - the inability to conceive that anything with "God" on the label could possibly be toxic.
Quaintly, only three weeks ago I bought two books in hard copy from Amazon. One was Milton's Areopagitica and the other was the Penguin Classic's translation of the Koran. The first because of my bigot's interest in the freedom of the press, and the second for its scholarly introduction and the hope that it would read better in a modern transaltion.
Next post will use the Penguin Qur'an.
A bit of background. I first read the Koran a few years ago when I signed up to AB. It was a rather stilted translation which I got for nothing on my Kindle. I'll make a clean breast of it: I managed to get through only the first third of it (about the same proportion as I maged to get through the Book of Mormon which I read when I was about twenty). It was the sura devoted to the vexatious question of which women were allowed to see the prophet's genitalia which finally did for me. The answer as I recall was all his wives and all his female slaves. What a strange and unedifying pre-occupation for the transcendental Lord of the Universe I found myself wondering. You've read Aquinas and some of the Christian Fathers, haven't you? What is the Thomist and Patristic take on this important moral issue?
Anyway, what did I get from this reading? Well, the first thing I noted was that every sura begins with the mantra "Allah the compassionate, the all-forgiving..." and ends usually with a total contradiction of the earlier description of the divine character by promising a terrible punishment for anybody who rejects Allah/the message/God's apostle. The vilification of all who rejected Mohammed's claim to divine revelation and the threats to kill them in this life and torture them forever in the next are pervasive in that third of the Koran I read. If you doubt me try reading it for yourself, Khandro. (Yes, maybe you should get out less.) That is why I described the Koran as infused with hate. I could have gone further and commented on the Koran's endorsement of slavery and sex with minors as further reasons for viewing it as a morally repugnant book. ('d like to wheel in "killing two birds with one stone" at this point, but it doesn't seem to fit, does it?) To describe my opinions as bigotry is careless use of language unless I am deliberately misrepresenting the book. I think you've picked up something from Sandy Roe - the inability to conceive that anything with "God" on the label could possibly be toxic.
Quaintly, only three weeks ago I bought two books in hard copy from Amazon. One was Milton's Areopagitica and the other was the Penguin Classic's translation of the Koran. The first because of my bigot's interest in the freedom of the press, and the second for its scholarly introduction and the hope that it would read better in a modern transaltion.
Next post will use the Penguin Qur'an.
v_e: you may huff and puff as much as you like, but I didn't ask you to paraphrase your memories of the Koran, I asked (challenged) you to quote a passage "in full" which supports your assertion that //whole of the Koran is infused with hatred and exhortation to violence against those who reject Mohammed's claims//, - the subject of the OP.
Between huffer and puffer and misinformed bigot I prefer the latter: it seems a more honest way of attacking my character. I was going to reply which is why I prefaced the last post with "A bit of background..." and ended to post further using the Penguin translation. But I see you're hungry and impatient. ("What father when his children ask for bread willl give them a stone?".). So the examples I'd chosen to quote from are suras 8 and 9. * is the one iwith "chop their fingers off" and 9 is terrific on idolaters and how they should be treated. When you've read those you can go off to the Islamic web sites to see what fist the casuists can make of explaining these away, and then come back here to apologise to me for the accusation that I am a misinformed bigot. Peace be upon you.
Apparently some find it easier to conform to the lie than to have the courage to acknowledge the truth . . . while that option remains - http://
Naomi - I always thought that you had good knowledge about Islam. But I am happy to learn that you have disappointed me. Obviously you have no knowledge about Islamic teachings when it comes to all of the Prophets (buT) who came before Muhammad (pbuh).
Vetustee - Seems to me that you read something else and not Quran.
Vetustee - Seems to me that you read something else and not Quran.
Mibn – sorry pressed “submit”.
For example first verses quoted in your link are 191 to 193 of chapter 2. Do you know why your link did not give verse 190 of the same chapter? No, I don’t think you do, so here it is,
Quran 2: 190
“Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.”
Do you see why it was omitted? And I am still not talking about how the meanings of few words have also been twisted. “Zalimun”, which very clearly means Oppressor, has been translated into Polytheists etc.
For example first verses quoted in your link are 191 to 193 of chapter 2. Do you know why your link did not give verse 190 of the same chapter? No, I don’t think you do, so here it is,
Quran 2: 190
“Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.”
Do you see why it was omitted? And I am still not talking about how the meanings of few words have also been twisted. “Zalimun”, which very clearly means Oppressor, has been translated into Polytheists etc.
Keyplus, yes, I know. Adam was a Muslim, Abraham was a Muslim, Moses was a Muslim, Jesus was a Muslim – only none of them realised it because Islam had yet to be invented. You see, I understand enough about Islamic teachings to know that, subjected to the slightest smidgeon of rational scrutiny, they fall at every hurdle. And we've been here before with you trying to justify the horrors of your book, but it didn't work then and it won't work now. They’re there in black and white for everyone to read. I trust your disappointment is assuaged.
V_E, an excellent response in the face of a ridiculously irrational request – to quote just one passage in order to demonstrate that the whole is highly questionable. That would be *really* clever! ;o)
Khandro, to quote you ….”To gain entitlement to an opinion it must informed…”. Inform yourself. Read the book.
V_E, an excellent response in the face of a ridiculously irrational request – to quote just one passage in order to demonstrate that the whole is highly questionable. That would be *really* clever! ;o)
Khandro, to quote you ….”To gain entitlement to an opinion it must informed…”. Inform yourself. Read the book.
v_e; For the third time I ask you to substantiate your assertions in the form of a whole passage which exhorts violence against those who reject Mohammed's claims, but all you have done is quote random part-sentences about genitalia and finger-chopping.
I was about to state how you conveniently omit the commencing and qualifying; "Fight in the cause of God those who fight you ......" but I see Keyplus has already pointed this out.
I was about to state how you conveniently omit the commencing and qualifying; "Fight in the cause of God those who fight you ......" but I see Keyplus has already pointed this out.
Khandro, if you want verses, look at Mibs’ link – and whilst you’re at it you might also bear in mind that within Islam it is permitted to lie to the infidel, all of whom are considered to be enemies of Allah. The end, it appears, justifies the means.
I won’t post some of the more graphic instructions – Mibs has already linked to some of those, but here are some verses to have a think about this.
2:190 Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.
2:191 And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.
2:192 But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
2:193 And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers.
So what does that all mean?
//Begin not hostilities//
That sounds good until you understand that “those who fight against you” applies to anyone who is not Muslim. As the fellow says, “Such [slaughter] is the reward of disbelievers” – all of whom are automatically considered to be “wrongdoers” - and the only way the “wrongdoers” can “desist” from disbelief is to convert to Islam.
//fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there//
So the only place that Muslims are discouraged from slaughter is in a mosque – unless a visiting infidel happens to be present. [Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and His messengers and Gabriel and Michael - then indeed, Allah is an enemy to the disbelievers. Sura 2.98].
To quote Keyplus: “As far as the domination of Islam is concerned. Truth always come out on top, sooner or later. You believe it or not. Your problem.”
He’s right. It is our problem. Open your eyes, Khandro. Read the book – and think about what it really says.
I won’t post some of the more graphic instructions – Mibs has already linked to some of those, but here are some verses to have a think about this.
2:190 Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.
2:191 And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.
2:192 But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
2:193 And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers.
So what does that all mean?
//Begin not hostilities//
That sounds good until you understand that “those who fight against you” applies to anyone who is not Muslim. As the fellow says, “Such [slaughter] is the reward of disbelievers” – all of whom are automatically considered to be “wrongdoers” - and the only way the “wrongdoers” can “desist” from disbelief is to convert to Islam.
//fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there//
So the only place that Muslims are discouraged from slaughter is in a mosque – unless a visiting infidel happens to be present. [Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and His messengers and Gabriel and Michael - then indeed, Allah is an enemy to the disbelievers. Sura 2.98].
To quote Keyplus: “As far as the domination of Islam is concerned. Truth always come out on top, sooner or later. You believe it or not. Your problem.”
He’s right. It is our problem. Open your eyes, Khandro. Read the book – and think about what it really says.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.