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

[vetuste_ennemi]

Er, well, um, I don't know. Because it's more fun perhaps, Jordyboy? My "nasty" remarks on this thread are intended to wind Khandro up. He loves it and dishes out just as good as he gets, which you will know if you've read any his posts in R&S.

[Peter Pedant]

Khandro: q 2 191 ( al baqarra )

the arabic is "qatluhum..." and I think this can only mean 'kill them'

admittedly - the mention of the "mazjid al-haram" - does NOT mean the huddled masses on Mt Sinjal
but presumably means those- who-- should be- converted

but then sort of wrecks it with - this is the lot of kafirun
er which I think I am as a christian.....

and remember the viddie - whatever q says
Beatle John when he was beheading Foley clearly thought the books DID say kill them....

[Khandro]

It would be interesting to know which version people are reading, there have been many translations into English, but Yusif Ali's and Marmaduke Pickthall's generally seem to be the best accepted by both Sunni and Shia.
I have not studied classical Arabic, but I am informed that it is 'one of the most ambiguous languages in the course of human history. This allows any translator to interpret the text for the unsuspecting reader however they want. Ali and Pickthall both stuck very closely to what the mainstream scholars of their time believed which is what gives their translations so much respect.
In many ways it is similar to the multitude of English translations of the Bible, were bias has been added for effect. Just as most of the original Hebrew manuscripts for the early books of the bible no longer exist, Islamic tradition states that Uthman (who compiled the Koran after Mohamed's death) systematically destroyed all the source material so that no one in the future could contradict his personally favoured version.
Certainly, one shouldn't trust any translation of the Koran published after 1976, when Maurice Bucaille published his lies claiming that the Koran contains many scientific miracles that could not have been known at the time of Mohamed (demonstrably false) and contains no scientific errors (also demonstrably false). Bucaille was under the pay of the Saudi royal family and despite the claims of his book, never found them convincing enough to convert to Islam. Since this time, many translations have been increasingly dubious in order to boost Bucaille's spurious claims.
As with the Bible (and any other translated text) always look for one that uses the earliest source material available and has been produced by dedicated academic linguists, not apologists or proselytisers.'

[vetuste_ennemi]

My reference, Birdie, was to Khandro's post on this thread dated 9.58 Sunday in which he accuses critics of ignoring the historical context of the so-called sword verses. My little rant was about the ambiguity of these verses: they can mean whatever you choose them to mean. Not that I'm complaining that the majority of Muslims choose to put the same scholarly gloss on such verses as Dr. Hathout: it shows that basic humanity can survive the most unfortunate start in life. Unfortunately the Koran memorized by believers contains neither scholarly gloss, helpful comment from Khandro, nor description of historical context.
I might enlarge on all this in a future thread by citing amongst other things the forward to the Penguin Classics translation of the Qur'an in which Tarif Khalidi describes the exegetical disciplines of Koranic scholarship. Among them he mentions: historical context, harmony of laws, linguistic obscurities(!), variant readings(!), grammar,, metaphor, rhetorical excellence (eh?) and (wait for it) divinely ordained inimitability. I might call it "Why is God a monoglot?", or possibly "Why can't God make himself understood - what school did he go to for Heaven's sake?".
My apologies to the doctor for putting words in his mouth. Having re-read Khandro's post I see that it was Khandro who defined the "duty" of a Muslim:
"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".

[sandyRoe]

That, "It is the duty of Muslims...", is surely inimitable. It could serve as a guide for any decent person.

[vetuste_ennemi]

Let's replace the word Muslim with the word Christian in Khandro's description of duty, Sandy. I think it would be difficult (though not impossible) to interpret Christian duty using Khandro's words as a justification for, say, holy war. There is nothing in the example of Christ as recorded in the gospels to make such an interpretation plausible. But if we take the example of the Prophet there is every justification for those so inclined to interpret duty that way.
That is why, although I'm hostile to all religions and most especially the Abramic ones, I can still judge some religious teaching as more toxic than others.

[Khandro]

قاتلوهم... = qatluhum. Peter, Google Translate says it means "Fight them",
and in turn, my Oxford dictionary definition of 'Fight' is; 'Contend or struggle..'
Rather like one can fight against poverty, disease - or even ignorance!

[Hypognosis]

I refrained from posting something last night because I was so eager to see Khandro's response to Birdie's question and didn't want to divert K's attention.

But what the heck?

Khandro's take on the verses in question was that it was all about the historical period where Medina was on its own as the (first ever?) Muslim city state and was in a perpetual land squabble with the Meccan city state.
My take on this: -
i) Opening: Allah hates transgressors. We might interpret the operative word as 'trespassers'. Therefore, all wars of conquest are forbidden by God.
ii) All the rest: You may (or must) defend yourself, your lands and may chase away invaders and oppressors (the latter
condition implies your land has been successfuly conquered)
iii) The mosque must be defended at all costs; if attacked inside it, you may kill in defence of it.
iv) In an ideal world you do not conquer the lands of other cities and nations - the idea os that you go out, preach and convert them without violence or coercion.

The flaw in "no conquest" is that, to have lands and a mosque to defend, you must have had to conquer somewhere in the first place. (Mere pedantry, of course and maybe Mohammed won over the Medinans using words not swords???)

The flaw in winning over the world by preaching to them is that a lot of them just aren't interested.

Anyway, all told, my conclusion is that Muslims are only entitled to the city of Medina and some land around it (historical records of the borders will undoubtedly have been lost or purposely destroyed). All the other lands they conquered militarily are against the "transgressors" clause. Lands won over by proselytising alone (yeah, right?) are legitimate but I don't see historical Israelites converting voluntarily. Who would?

So, Khandro, do you concur with my interpretation? Conquest is against God's will but that's exactly what the Arabs did when they invaded the Holy Land and North Africa.

[Khandro]

birdie; It is clear that despite your claim to have been recently been reading "much about Islam", that you have little understanding of it, this is highlighted by your idiotic question about an Islamic Caliphate "system".
You seem to be completely lacking in any understanding of the schism which exists between the Shia and Sunni and more.
Your posts are, as always, filled with hatred and ignorance, the latter may be removed by learning, but the sad fact is that hatred harms less the person to whom it is directed, than the person directing it.
As Nietzsche pointed out; 'Stare into the abyss long enough and the abyss begins to stare back'.

[Henrietta]

Is it a possibility that it was purposefully written to have 2 meanings? One that meant do good and one that meant do bad?

Almost like a riddle?

So essentially a test within a test?

[Hypognosis]

By the way, I did read that article you linked to, Khandro.

I am still chuckling at the oxymoron, "radical moderatism".

Birdie got there first but it is just apologist flim-flam.
The stuff about the US$15 billion spend on the worldwide proselytising of radical Islam is speculative. It has to be a guesstimate as he would need to have gathered reams of evidence of the recruitment of radical teachers installed in thousands of educational establishments across the globe, in order to do actual calculations and/or publish the data for everyone else to see.
In essence, it is currently on the same level as any other hard-to-falsify conspiracy theory.

I'm not claiming it is untrue, I'm just saying we've only got his word for it. He is free to say what he likes, the rest of us have to be careful not to upset the Saudis…

[Khandro]

Hypo. //The stuff about the US$15 billion spend on the worldwide proselytising of radical Islam is speculative//
Yes, it would have to be wouldn't it? but for a start, how do you think the world-wide building of new mosques is funded? The cost of the East London Mosque alone is staggering, with the pretence that it is being funded by local Muslims;

"How can an organisation that, according to the Charity Commission, records an income of just £500,000 a year, afford to build a mosque that will cost anything between £100 million and £300 million?”

Michael Gove MP, House of Commons speech,
28 November 2006.

I would suggest the search begins with Saudi Arabia.