I guarantee you that every "violent" verse is take

Post Reply New Topic

salad said the verse refers to pagans declaring war on Muslims and violating their treaty numerous times. That no longer applies. So the point of the verse is what now? What is Allah telling the Muslims now through that verse?

Must be Fox news but seriously though I live near a lot of muslims in my area and we get along fine.

That's because a lot of Muslims in the West are still calling themselves such but ignore nearly most (or all) of the major commandments because it inhibits on their own freedom. Needless to say, I don't have any problem with this. There seems to be a gulf emerging between those who have pretty much stopped practicing due to lack of belief and people who have gone the other way.

Last edited by Tequila on 26 Jan 2013, 6:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

Well, precisely. There's a lot of stuff in the Quran and other books that is fairly clearly of the time that it was written.

I mean, fresh water and fruit when they go up to Heaven is not quite the same draw now that it would have been in the arid, 7th century Arabian desert.

Its probably because they dont take the commandments literally and have common sense.

IDK, that one should not hesitate to kill in defense of one's nation or faith, if necessary (meaning when in a similar situation, not THAT GUY IS EATING BACON IT'S MY DUTY TO KILL HIM)? That waging war in such a manner and situation is not sinful? Doesn't seem meaningless or barbaric to me. How does it no longer apply? Are treaties no longer violated, at least not more than once or twice? Is war no longer a problem?

Why does there have to be a verse promoting war anyway? Is Allah out there to discriminate between Muslims and non-Muslims and treat non-Muslims as potential enemies that deserve war waged on them if they don't go along with his divine plans?

It's bad enough that this verse and similar others are used as an excuse by Muslims to wage war for practically anything that is even perceived as a threat to their faith.

Surely devotion to Allah cannot be forced, and they cannot spread love for Him by war, murder, killing, subjugation and conquering foreign lands?

If Islam was a true religion of peace, it wouldn't really have gone past Muhammad and his little band of followers.
And the same for Christianity (historically).

I'm getting it from the Qu'ran. I don't really have enough time to do a thorough job of documenting every reference, but at the moment I'm reading through Surat At-Tawbah 9. One trait of hypocrites is they discourage believers from fighting unbelievers. So either the Muslims living near us are "lying in wait" and "using every stratagem of war" and will turn against us when the ideal opportunity arises, or they are hypocrites who will die alongside us in the coming invasion.

And, by the way, I don't hate Muslims. I don't really harbor any hatred towards anyone, for that matter. Like you, I've known a number of Muslims and we get along just fine as well. I'm just saying that when it comes to the concept of holy war, one fundamental difference between Jews/Christians and Muslims is that holy war is an Islamic mandate whereas it is not in Judaism or Christianity. The only prescribed war in Judaism was the conquest of Canaan. Beyond that it became a matter of securing Israel's borders, and even then war could only be carried out once the high priest or prophet was consulted. War is NEVER a component of Christian religion. Christians are simply asked to carry out their civic duties (as long as it doesn't compromise their values) and are commended for giving their lives to save their friends. But these are national security issues, not wars fought to force conversion or submission to our religion.

You could say that the Crusades were "Holy Wars" but they really only were in name only. Everyone knows that they became about power and wealth. Had they really been about seeking God's will, they'd either have never happened or they'd have been conducted properly and succeeded. Christians back then had the perfect opportunity to restore peace to the Holy Land and they blew it (power struggles in the Near and Middle East have gone on all through recorded history. Did they honestly think they could stop it?). The ways portions of the Inquisitions were carried out were also unbiblical and epically failed. In fact, I can't find one single rationale for the Crusades or the Inquisitions anywhere in the New Testament. That came from an unhealthy alliance between a group of states that shared political power with a colossal religious institution. The Protestant Reformation and diminishing power of the Catholic Church shows what happens when too much authority is vested in an institution and not in God. And it is a God who wants believers to come willingly, not by force. And it is not our place if we can't persuade someone to believe in God to force them to pay us a penalty tax in order for them to show their submission to us and thereby acknowledge that our faith is superior to theirs. Like it or not, these are concepts that are built into Islam.

I was reading an ex-Muslim forum and one of the posters on there pretty much came to the same conclusion that you did.

The problem with Christianity's use of violence was mainly due to the religious institutions, the superstition of the time and their wicked use and abuse of power in Christianity's name. The core message of Jesus was (and is) fine and not a problem, and the teachings of the religion itself are not explicitly warlike.

The problem with Islam is inherent in the religion itself and, unfortunately, this cannot be changed with any credibility due to the sheer unchanging fanaticism that forms the basis of the religion. It's not to do with clergy, or the religious institutions - they're just following the commandments and texts in the holy books.