Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins 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, //Mibn – Thanks for confirming that you are selective when it comes to use your brain.//
While for the most part I do try to be selective with regards to efficient and effective use of valuable albeit limited resources, in your case, exception noted. In the interest of refraining from personally contributing to reducing this thread to a mindless, pointless chain of ad hominem exchanges I'll simply let your reputation speak for itself and simply add . . . your welcome.
While for the most part I do try to be selective with regards to efficient and effective use of valuable albeit limited resources, in your case, exception noted. In the interest of refraining from personally contributing to reducing this thread to a mindless, pointless chain of ad hominem exchanges I'll simply let your reputation speak for itself and simply add . . . your welcome.
I'll try a different approach. (Current agenda is to get an apology from my second favourite Wagnerian for the foul slurs "writes in cliches" and "misinformed bigot" levelled at me.)
I'm assuming from the many posts of yours I've read over the last three years, Khandro, (some with frustration, but most with interest and amusement) that you are reasonably bright, are probably reasonably concerned about truth and have a sense of fair play. Without these mental and moral competences debate is nothing more than point-scoring or an attempt to belittle one's opponent. You agree with that, don't you?
Can we then get back to the original post and my subsequent answer to it.
The thing everybody agrees on is that the answer to the question AS ASKED LITERALLY is yes, the Koran does exhort the killing of non-Muslims. The question then becomes In what context are these exhortations made? And your challenge to me was to give an example where this exhortation is in any other context than warfare when Muslims were under threat and therefore had the right to defend themselves. You subsequently made the bold assertion that no such examples could be found. I say bold because I see nothing in your posts to suggest that you've actually read the Koran yourself. However, in order to continue the dialogue I'll concede your point to this extent: that no such examples exist which COULD NOT be explained as legitimate resorts to violence (I'll concede further that there may be other justifiable cases apart defensive warfare, e.g. aggressive war to remove oppressors).
So, for the time being, I withdraw that criticism and am left to defend the first of my two "cliches": that the Koran is infused with hatred for those who reject Mohammed's claims. I've explained why I said this. I've given just a few examples from Suras 8 and 9. These are not atypical. Now it is possible that I am seeing hatred where only sweetness and light were intended (I'm sure Sandy would interpret these passages quite differently from me - "To the pure all things are pure", eh, Sandy?), but I am not "misinformed" because my source is the Koran itself, so please withdraw that part of attack and replace it with the accusation of "misinterpretation". When you read the Koran yourself you will find that Mohammed is constantly defending his claims of revelation against Meccans (some I think mentioned by name - can't recall) who rejected those claims. The book even quotes more or less verbatim the arguments of his enemies. The language and tenor of the prophet's attacks are (AS I SEE IT) unremittingly vile: they are enemies of God, they are evil, they are transgressors and a terrible punishment awaits them. (As an aside modern instances of people who reject the claim that the Koran was revealed to Mohammed by God through the archangel Gabriel inlude: you, me and Sandy Roe). Now can you explain by what definition of the word this criticism OF A BOOK makes me a bigot? If I were to criticise Joshua or Samuel 1 in similar terms (as well I might), would I be a bigot then, and if so more or less of a one? If I were to criticise the book of Mormon as the plagiarised invention of a man on the make who was a sexual predator, would that in your eyes make me a bigot?
Peace be upon you.
I'm assuming from the many posts of yours I've read over the last three years, Khandro, (some with frustration, but most with interest and amusement) that you are reasonably bright, are probably reasonably concerned about truth and have a sense of fair play. Without these mental and moral competences debate is nothing more than point-scoring or an attempt to belittle one's opponent. You agree with that, don't you?
Can we then get back to the original post and my subsequent answer to it.
The thing everybody agrees on is that the answer to the question AS ASKED LITERALLY is yes, the Koran does exhort the killing of non-Muslims. The question then becomes In what context are these exhortations made? And your challenge to me was to give an example where this exhortation is in any other context than warfare when Muslims were under threat and therefore had the right to defend themselves. You subsequently made the bold assertion that no such examples could be found. I say bold because I see nothing in your posts to suggest that you've actually read the Koran yourself. However, in order to continue the dialogue I'll concede your point to this extent: that no such examples exist which COULD NOT be explained as legitimate resorts to violence (I'll concede further that there may be other justifiable cases apart defensive warfare, e.g. aggressive war to remove oppressors).
So, for the time being, I withdraw that criticism and am left to defend the first of my two "cliches": that the Koran is infused with hatred for those who reject Mohammed's claims. I've explained why I said this. I've given just a few examples from Suras 8 and 9. These are not atypical. Now it is possible that I am seeing hatred where only sweetness and light were intended (I'm sure Sandy would interpret these passages quite differently from me - "To the pure all things are pure", eh, Sandy?), but I am not "misinformed" because my source is the Koran itself, so please withdraw that part of attack and replace it with the accusation of "misinterpretation". When you read the Koran yourself you will find that Mohammed is constantly defending his claims of revelation against Meccans (some I think mentioned by name - can't recall) who rejected those claims. The book even quotes more or less verbatim the arguments of his enemies. The language and tenor of the prophet's attacks are (AS I SEE IT) unremittingly vile: they are enemies of God, they are evil, they are transgressors and a terrible punishment awaits them. (As an aside modern instances of people who reject the claim that the Koran was revealed to Mohammed by God through the archangel Gabriel inlude: you, me and Sandy Roe). Now can you explain by what definition of the word this criticism OF A BOOK makes me a bigot? If I were to criticise Joshua or Samuel 1 in similar terms (as well I might), would I be a bigot then, and if so more or less of a one? If I were to criticise the book of Mormon as the plagiarised invention of a man on the make who was a sexual predator, would that in your eyes make me a bigot?
Peace be upon you.
Dear v-e; I see and feel you have exchanged your bag of peas for a sack of ball-bearings. Lying abed, staring at the ceiling, and like GKC wishing I had some very long coloured pencils, it did cross my mind that I have perhaps shown a little too much chutzpah to old v-e.
In place of misinformed I thought of misconstrued, but as you propose misinterpretation, I will accept that change with an unreserved apology.
As for bigoted, well it's not such a bad word actually, my dictionary defines it as 'being obstinate and intolerant of a creed or view', and I therefore, will happily accept that I am one; certainly against some of the views held by my fellow man, but not against any creed.
If you feel strongly that this definition does not apply to you, and can explain why, then I will remove it and pass you the calumet for a second puff.
In place of misinformed I thought of misconstrued, but as you propose misinterpretation, I will accept that change with an unreserved apology.
As for bigoted, well it's not such a bad word actually, my dictionary defines it as 'being obstinate and intolerant of a creed or view', and I therefore, will happily accept that I am one; certainly against some of the views held by my fellow man, but not against any creed.
If you feel strongly that this definition does not apply to you, and can explain why, then I will remove it and pass you the calumet for a second puff.
Thankyou for your gracious note, Khandro.
I don't mind "intolerant of a creed or view": we are all bigots in that sense. To be otherwise would imply that all all views are equal and I for one am no moral relativist. What I object to is "blindly and obstinately devoted to a particular set of ideas, creed or political party and dismisive of others" (Chambers). The future success of the human race will depend on an intelligent discourse about a number of things where answers are unclear and there are many uncertainties (civil polity, global finance, management of resources to mention just three),, I think that religions which claim to have a final answer are a hindrance to that discourse.
Enjoy.
I don't mind "intolerant of a creed or view": we are all bigots in that sense. To be otherwise would imply that all all views are equal and I for one am no moral relativist. What I object to is "blindly and obstinately devoted to a particular set of ideas, creed or political party and dismisive of others" (Chambers). The future success of the human race will depend on an intelligent discourse about a number of things where answers are unclear and there are many uncertainties (civil polity, global finance, management of resources to mention just three),, I think that religions which claim to have a final answer are a hindrance to that discourse.
Enjoy.
Not being an Arabic scholar I cannot say what the message of the koran is.
However there are a great many people who can read Arabic perfectly and indeed have spent much of their formative years assiduously reading the koran and nothing else. In their later years they spend a lot of time assiduously killing one another and non-muslims too. I think it not unreasonable to deduce that the koran exhorts muslims to kill pretty well anybody that takes their fancy.
How to tell which of two animals is a carnivore and which is a herbivore? Put them in the same cage, no need to examine their teeth and digestive systems. It is that simple.
However there are a great many people who can read Arabic perfectly and indeed have spent much of their formative years assiduously reading the koran and nothing else. In their later years they spend a lot of time assiduously killing one another and non-muslims too. I think it not unreasonable to deduce that the koran exhorts muslims to kill pretty well anybody that takes their fancy.
How to tell which of two animals is a carnivore and which is a herbivore? Put them in the same cage, no need to examine their teeth and digestive systems. It is that simple.
Keyplus - "... V-e - I never really thought that you were that much disturbed..."
He isn't disturbed in the slightest. He's simply read the Koran and come to the only logical conclusion. The same (correct) conclusion that the Jews had over a century and a half ago - that Mohammed was a mad-man inventing a violent, twisted, perverted version of Judaism with him as a messianic figurehead.
The fact that you can't see that says much about you and your capacity for logic and reasoning.
He isn't disturbed in the slightest. He's simply read the Koran and come to the only logical conclusion. The same (correct) conclusion that the Jews had over a century and a half ago - that Mohammed was a mad-man inventing a violent, twisted, perverted version of Judaism with him as a messianic figurehead.
The fact that you can't see that says much about you and your capacity for logic and reasoning.
Someone should address the elephant in the room and just say it.
Muslims are sooo irritating. Islam is the worst thing to come from humans since the creation of our species. The list is literally endless but to name a few things that really get under my skin.....
Making women wear clothing that covers up their entire body incase another man dares looks at them apart from their husband - insecure much??
Basically women's rights in general being treated like rats instead of human beings.
Being stoned to death for adultery, actually probably just looking at another man or showing some skin. (Insecure much?????)
Sharia law, which complete mug thought this one up? Just the phrase sharia law makes me want to punch something and the Islamic fools who enforce it. God forbid a Muslim women wants to do something er.... un sharia. Yes let's stone her to death - love that don't we muslims.
On top of that you have these hate preachers in the UK putting up posters saying "you're in a sharia controlled zone, sharia laws must be adhered to" as if they think British people are seriously going to live like these Stone Age barbarians who murder people for insanely mundane things!
Islamic fanatics - " they give Islam a bad name" that old chestnut! Do me a favour! Islam is the most cruel, violent, horrific "religion" there is.
What makes me laugh is that all these countries in the Middle East are only civilised because they were lucky enough to sitting on the biggest oil reserve on the planet. And they pretend they're so civilised. As Matt Damon said in the film Syriana - without the oil beneath you the entire Middle East would be a third world slum with people lopping off other peoples heads like the Stone Age. It's just so irritating.
Terrorism - Islamic terrorists! Haven't got the energy to go into this. Palestine Government - actually terrorists and think they're neighbours (Israel) are just going to sit quietly and do nothing about that??!
Maybe the most irritating of all, intolerance of other religions. If Muslims had their way all other religions would be banished from the earth and every "non believer" decapitated and hanged to then be stoned.
I would go a far to say that if I had 3 wishes my first would be for every Muslim on the planet to drop dead simultaneously. The world would be 9th tenths of the way to peace!
Islam? What a *** farce!!!
Muslims are sooo irritating. Islam is the worst thing to come from humans since the creation of our species. The list is literally endless but to name a few things that really get under my skin.....
Making women wear clothing that covers up their entire body incase another man dares looks at them apart from their husband - insecure much??
Basically women's rights in general being treated like rats instead of human beings.
Being stoned to death for adultery, actually probably just looking at another man or showing some skin. (Insecure much?????)
Sharia law, which complete mug thought this one up? Just the phrase sharia law makes me want to punch something and the Islamic fools who enforce it. God forbid a Muslim women wants to do something er.... un sharia. Yes let's stone her to death - love that don't we muslims.
On top of that you have these hate preachers in the UK putting up posters saying "you're in a sharia controlled zone, sharia laws must be adhered to" as if they think British people are seriously going to live like these Stone Age barbarians who murder people for insanely mundane things!
Islamic fanatics - " they give Islam a bad name" that old chestnut! Do me a favour! Islam is the most cruel, violent, horrific "religion" there is.
What makes me laugh is that all these countries in the Middle East are only civilised because they were lucky enough to sitting on the biggest oil reserve on the planet. And they pretend they're so civilised. As Matt Damon said in the film Syriana - without the oil beneath you the entire Middle East would be a third world slum with people lopping off other peoples heads like the Stone Age. It's just so irritating.
Terrorism - Islamic terrorists! Haven't got the energy to go into this. Palestine Government - actually terrorists and think they're neighbours (Israel) are just going to sit quietly and do nothing about that??!
Maybe the most irritating of all, intolerance of other religions. If Muslims had their way all other religions would be banished from the earth and every "non believer" decapitated and hanged to then be stoned.
I would go a far to say that if I had 3 wishes my first would be for every Muslim on the planet to drop dead simultaneously. The world would be 9th tenths of the way to peace!
Islam? What a *** farce!!!
naomi; Let's start with the country's history, - cut and paste warning! "The region between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers is often referred to as Mesopotamia and thought to be the birthplace of writing and the world's oldest civilizations. The area has been home to continuous successive civilizations since the 6th millennium BC. At different periods in its history, Iraq was the center of the indigenous Akkadian, Sumerian, Assyrian, and Babylonian empires. It was also part of the Median, Achaemenid, Hellenistic, Parthian, Sassanid, Roman, Rashidun, Umayyad, Abbasid, Mongol, Safavid, Afsharid, and Ottoman empires, and under British control as a League of Nations mandate.
Iraq's modern borders were mostly demarcated in 1920 by the League of Nations when the Ottoman Empire was divided by the Treaty of Sèvres. Iraq was placed under the authority of the United Kingdom as the British Mandate of Mesopotamia. A monarchy was established in 1921 and the Kingdom of Iraq gained independence from Britain in 1932. In 1958, the monarchy was overthrown and the Republic of Iraq was created. Iraq was controlled by the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party from 1968 until 2003. After an invasion by the United States of America and its allies, Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party was removed from power and multi-party parliamentary elections were held. The American presence in Iraq ended in 2011 but the Iraqi insurgency continued and intensified as fighters from the Syrian Civil War spilled into the country."
Then geography, I can't do that here, so take a look at a map of the middle east and ask why there are so many straight-line borders bearing little or no relationship to ethnicity, tribes, religions and their different factions races and creeds, languages and history.
Iraq's modern borders were mostly demarcated in 1920 by the League of Nations when the Ottoman Empire was divided by the Treaty of Sèvres. Iraq was placed under the authority of the United Kingdom as the British Mandate of Mesopotamia. A monarchy was established in 1921 and the Kingdom of Iraq gained independence from Britain in 1932. In 1958, the monarchy was overthrown and the Republic of Iraq was created. Iraq was controlled by the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party from 1968 until 2003. After an invasion by the United States of America and its allies, Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party was removed from power and multi-party parliamentary elections were held. The American presence in Iraq ended in 2011 but the Iraqi insurgency continued and intensified as fighters from the Syrian Civil War spilled into the country."
Then geography, I can't do that here, so take a look at a map of the middle east and ask why there are so many straight-line borders bearing little or no relationship to ethnicity, tribes, religions and their different factions races and creeds, languages and history.
/ask why there are so many straight-line borders bearing little or no relationship to ethnicity, tribes, religions and their different factions races and creeds, languages and history. /
I don't think it is possible to have a border that conforms to all of the listed criteria,that is why the imposed borders are mostly straight. Most of the traditional borders follow natural features that are difficult to fight across and easy to defend and since fighting is how borders are normally established then that is how they are what they are. Perhaps a little more effort should have been put into discussing with the protagonists what criteria they would have preferred to have been used to establish practicable/borders.
I don't think it is possible to have a border that conforms to all of the listed criteria,that is why the imposed borders are mostly straight. Most of the traditional borders follow natural features that are difficult to fight across and easy to defend and since fighting is how borders are normally established then that is how they are what they are. Perhaps a little more effort should have been put into discussing with the protagonists what criteria they would have preferred to have been used to establish practicable/borders.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
News4 mins ago
ChatterBank64 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles104 mins ago
Is Anyone Expecting The Unexpected From...
Politics188 mins ago
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.