Does It Say In The Quran That You Should Kill Jews/christians/unbelievers?

[Henrietta]

Why would god create everyone and then tell one group to kill another? That makes no sense if it's true

[naomi24]

jourdain2, welcome. Excellent post. I think many people continue to fail to recognise the extent of the rise in the country of fundamentalist Islam.

Khandro, there’s something very wrong with parents who teach their children that it’s acceptable for them to shout a teacher down.

[Khandro]

naomi; You are absolutely right, children can be naturally unruly and need correcting, but this form of behaviour can only stem from radical indoctrination from their parents and family, and must be addressed.
Do you know Fuad Nahadi? he would agree, he was on Ch.4 news the other night but didn't get a lot of opportunity to speak; it would seem that moderation is not as newsworthy as radicalism, you can see what he has to say here;
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/canada602/interview_nahdi.html

[jourdain2]

Khandro, I did not allow myself to be shouted down and I dealt with the situation by isolating the group within the class and then speaking to them very firmly after class. The point was that they had been indoctrinated, despite years of being taught in a co-operative, tolerant atmosphere, and that there was an underlying shift in attitude. We discussed the change endlessly in the staffroom, everyone was conscious of it.

[vetuste_ennemi]

I'm delighted to cite some of the Fuad Nahdi interview (if the same point had been made by an atheist it would be shouted down by the bien pensants as paranoia, bigotry, Islamophobia, or whatever):

"Q: How did this extremist thinking become so prevalent in a faith and culture that tends not to be extremist?
A: It's not something that happened overnight. It has taken decades to develop. According to intelligence reports during the last 30 years, investment has been put into this extremist ideology. We are talking estimates of over US$15 billion. To the best of our knowledge, there is no ideology in the history of mankind that had such massive resources put into it on a global level.
...
The crux of the matter is the theology. Islam is a belief system. It's a series of mistakes, one after another -- of bad analyses, reactionary negative responses and just total misunderstanding. To counter, we're trying to sustain and nurture a mainstream form of Islam that has been lost for decades now. We want to define Islam, not by the terms given it by the extremist and the radical elements".'

[emmie]

you are dealing with people, don't expect sanity.

[venator]

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out.

[Henrietta]

""And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out"

Does this actually say this in the language it was written in which to my knowledge was Arabic or was this a bad translation taken out of context by members of this faith?

[beso]

No not a bad translation. That is what it says.

The Bible also preaches killing of those who do not conform. Most devotees prefer to pretend that this instruction does not exist.

Apologists like to pretend that the extremist have maliciously reinterpreted good advice and twisted it into bad things.

The fact is that the advice in these books is being followed by the true believers. It is the modern so called "moderates" who have reinterpreted the holy books to fit what they would like them to say.

[Khandro]

"And slay them wherever ye catch them.." (2:191)
A classic and popular example of what Muslim scholars, like Dr. Jamal Badawi, call a ‘cut and paste’ approach. Everything becomes so much easier for the Anti-Islamists when they remove the context. The solution for the Muslim [ and anyone else wishing to understand] is to simply replace the verse in its context:

2:190-194 Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors. And kill them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for persecution and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, kill them. Such is the reward of those who reject faith. But if they cease, God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression. The prohibited month, for the prohibited month, and so for all things prohibited, there is the law of equality. If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, transgress ye likewise against him. But fear (the punishment of) God, and know that God is with those who restrain themselves.

How many times do we see the above verse repeating the message to make it clear? These verse were revealed at a time when Muslims of Madinah were under constant attack from the Makkans. An example would be when the Makkans conducted the public crucifixion of the companion of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), Khubaib bin Adi. These would be classified as 'terrorist activities' according to the modern usage of the term. So what does this verse say in this context? "Fight in the cause of God those who fight you", "unless they (first) fight you there" - the context of this verse applies to those who initiate the attack against Muslims. And even after they attack, the verse makes it clear: "But if they cease, God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." And it also makes clear the purpose for what Muslims fight: "fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God". It is the duty of Muslims to defend humanity from oppression and persecution and to establish justice. Muslims believe that God has placed us here on earth as his deputy or viceroy, and thus, it is our duty to enjoin the good and forbid the evil, to establish peace and justice in the land. Dr. Maher Hathout writes the following on verses 2:190-194:

These verses were applicable to a particular situation or if, hypothetically, the same situation was to be repeated… Historically, fighting back against the aggressors was prohibited during the thirteen years of the Meccan period. After the migration to Medina and the establishment of the Islamic state, Muslims were concerned with how to defend themselves against aggression from their enemies. The aforementioned verses were revealed to enable them to protect the newly formed state by fighting in self-defence against those who fought them. However, the Qur’an clearly prohibits aggression. The verses explain that fighting is only for self-defence. Thus, a Muslim cannot commit aggression and kill innocent men, women, children, the sick, the elderly, monks, priests, or those who do not wish to fight...."

The fact that some deranged highly financially subsidised cretins presently act against these directives should not be levelled at the Islamic religion as a whole.

[Hypognosis]

@jourdain2

Your excellent post (on page 7) couldn't have been better timed, for this thread anyway.

What you were able to relate to us might be unique to your town or could be a widespread experience for teachers across the nation: who knows?

If I had to quibble, it would only be about the bit where you thought it was parents radicalising their kids, whereas I would hypothesise that it was one of these 'radical clerics' that we hear so much about.

Christian nations have had their 'hellfire and damnation' priests, in the past and this is their equivalent.

Except, instead of drumming into the congregation stuff about good behaviour, their version seems to be a "them and us" approach. Their more fanaticàl followers seem to start their sentences with "The West {perceived sleight}…", followed by their proposed method of exacting revenge.

I must admit I have been taken in by some of the apologists , it's a good thing turned bad etc etc but, as Birdie points out, the "soft, peacible" Islam actually is the false image, meant to quell our fears of it.

Oops, did I say fear? Does that mean I've committed an offence?

[Hypognosis]

@peter_pedant, 2 pages back…

//Oh if you wanna learn to read Arabic part time - it is a five to ten year suck.//

I can recognise many of the letters but, I gather, many words are routinely written without vowels so a native speaker knows what word is intended (from sentence context) but an outsider is faced with the equivalent of txt spk or an unexplained acronym.

My interest only goes as far as being able to understand what protest banners say, since news broadcasters never subtitle them. As an atheist, I'm not going exactly going to risk going there, on holiday.
;-)

[Khandro]

Hypo. Did you manage to read my link above; 07:59 Fri. 15th ?
Only v_e has responded to it so far, I wonder what you think.
birdie; You too ?

[Hypognosis]

Working my way through it, Khandro.

//Q: What are these issues?

A: Very simple. It's that the world is black and white, divided into them and us -- a very George Bush understanding. Anybody who is not like us, who does not think like us, is wrong.//

This is not a recent development. Have some deliciously appropriate lyrics:

http://www.metrolyrics.com/dumb-all-over-lyrics-frank-zappa.html

[jourdain2]

Hypognosis, thank you for your interest. I don't think I actually put the radicalisation down to the parents, that was someone else. In my experience the parental generation were in general fearful because their children were moving out of their control. I mentioned in another post that the timing coincided with the arrival of young immams from Saudi in Bradford mosques. Many of our pupils were involved in the 'Bradford Riots' and one father recognised his son's photo in the paper and turned him in despite the boy's denials. Next day the father withdrew his statement to the police and asserted that his son has been at home. We heard in roundabout ways that pressure had been brought to bear. We (school staff) were quite busy for a few days studying photographs and identifying culprits.

[vetuste_ennemi]

Birdie/Hypognosis, you should read Khandro's more recent thread. The gymnastics of K's scholarly authority in "explaining" Sura 2 are impressive. But as someone who believes that this vile rubbish is the word of God (and to quote Mandy) - he would say that, wouldn't he? The mystery to me is why Khandro (who has never read the Koran and is ignorant of the hadiths) should support this tendentious reasoning. The scholar doesn't explain what "end of oppression" and "until there is justice and faith in God" mean (we know what he wants us to think they mean, of course), nor why the people whom Khandro calls cretins might not quite legitimately interpret these verses as a call to religious war and forced conversion, nor why these same people could not possibly interpret the scholar's definition of Muslim duty in the same way. Decent Muslims will share the scholar's interpretation; indecent Muslims will interpret them as IS, Al Shabab, Boko Haram etc. do. In fact I would go further and say that there is nothing that lot have done which could not be justified quite plausibly by reference to the Koran and the actions of the Prophet himself. That includes beheading, the murder of non-Muslims and the enslavement and sexual exploitation of young girls.
On your point about context, Khandro, have you heard any of Churchill's war time speeches? Better still, have you seen Henry V (I refer, of course, to the Agincourt speech)? As calls to arms in a "just" cause they read rather better than the tawdry injunctions of the desert god to behead them and chop their fingers off. Or do you think otherwise?
Did you know, by the way, that Muslims are encouraged to read and memorize this stuff? A man of real culture ought to find this at very best depressing.

[Hypognosis]

@vetuste_ennemi

//the tawdry injunctions of the desert god to behead them and chop their fingers off.//

I saw that bit about finger chopping yesterday but, by the time it unfolded into a 7-8 pager, I'd forgotten what I intended to say, which was…

…that the instruction would make more sense if "fingers" was a mistranslation of a word meaning "limb(s)" and did anyone else think that?

Earlier, the discussion was of incapacitating archers for battle but letting them live. The rendition above, which I quoted from your post today, is even more bizarre - what is achieved by cutting off fingers if they're already beheaded?

Or is this some variation of ritual humiliation by abuse of the corpse?


Rule 1. Know your enemy.