Does the Koran preach intolerance & hate?

Muslim scholars teach that Muslims should generally be truthful to each other, unless the purpose of lying is to "smooth over differences."
There are two forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, taqiyya and kitman. These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause Islam - in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.

The Qur'an:
Qur'an (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can "compel" a Muslim to tell a lie.
Qur'an (3:28) - This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to "guard themselves."
Qur'an (9:3) - "...Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters..." The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway.
Qur'an (40:28) - A man is introduced as a believer, but one who must "hide his faith" among those who are not believers.
Qur'an (2:225) - "Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts"
Qur'an (66:2) - "Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths"
Qur'an (3:54) - "And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers." The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means deceit. If Allah is deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21)
Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be "compelled" to deceive others for a greater purpose.



From the Hadith:

Bukhari (52:269) - "The Prophet said, 'War is deceit.'" The context of this is thought to be the murder of Usayr ibn Zarim and his thirty unarmed men by Muhammad's men after he "guaranteed" them safe passage (see Additional Notes below).

Bukhari (49:857) - "He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar." Lying is permitted when the end justifies the means.

Bukhari (84:64-65) - Speaking from a position of power at the time, Ali confirms that lying is permissible in order to deceive an "enemy."

Bukhari (50:369) - Recounts the murder of a poet, Ka'b bin al-Ashraf, at Muhammad's insistence. The men who volunteered for the assassination used dishonesty to gain Ka'b's trust, pretending that they had turned against Muhammad. This drew the victim out of his fortress, whereupon he was brutally slaughtered despite putting up a ferocious struggle for his life.

From Islamic Law:

Reliance of the Traveler (p. 746 - 8.2) - "Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory... it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression...

"One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie.

Additional Notes:

Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them. The two forms are:

Taqiyya - Saying something that isn't true.

Kitman - Lying by omission. An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills "it shall be as if he had killed all mankind") while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of "corruption" and "mischief."

Though not called Taqiyya by name, Muhammad clearly used deception when he signed a 10-year treaty with the Meccans that allowed him access to their city while he secretly prepared his own forces for a takeover. The unsuspecting residents were conquered in easy fashion after he broke the treaty two years later, and some of the people in the city who had trusted him at his word were executed.

Another example of lying is when Muhammad used deception to trick his personal enemies into letting down their guard and exposing themselves to slaughter by pretending to seek peace. This happened in the case of Ka'b bin al-Ashraf (as previously noted) and again later against Usayr ibn Zarim, a surviving leader of the Banu Nadir tribe, which had been evicted from their home in Medina by the Muslims.

At the time, Usayr ibn Zarim was attempting to gather an armed force against the Muslims from among a tribe allied with the Quraish (against which Muhammad had already declared war). Muhammad's "emissaries" went to ibn Zarim and persuaded him to leave his safe haven on the pretext of meeting with the prophet of Islam in Medina to discuss peace. Once vulnerable, the leader and his thirty companions were massacred by the Muslims with ease, belying the probability that they were mostly unarmed, having been given a guarantee of safe passage (Ibn Ishaq 981).

Such was the reputation of Muslims for lying and then killing that even those who "accepted Islam" did not feel entirely safe. The fate of the Jadhima is tragic evidence for this. When Muslim "missionaries" approached their tribe one of the members insisted that they would be slaughtered even though they had already "converted" to Islam to avoid just such a demise. However, the others were convinced that they could trust the Muslim leader's promise that they would not be harmed if they simply offered no resistance. (After convincing the skeptic to lay down his arms, the unarmed men of the tribe were quickly tied up and beheaded - Ibn Ishaq 834 & 837).

Today's Muslims often try to justify Muhammad's murder of poets and others who criticized him at Medina by saying that they broke a treaty by their actions. Yet, these same apologists place little value on treaties broken by Muslims. From Muhammad to Saddam Hussein, promises made to non-Muslim are distinctly non-binding in the Muslim mindset.

Leaders in the Arab world routinely say one thing to English-speaking audiences and then something entirely different to their own people in Arabic. Yassir Arafat was famous for telling Western newspapers about his desire for peace with Israel, then turning right around and whipping Palestinians into a hateful and violent frenzy against Jews.

The 9/11 hijackers practiced deception by going into bars and drinking alcohol, thus throwing off potential suspicion that they were fundamentalists plotting jihad. This effort worked so well, in fact, that even weeks after 9/11, John Walsh, the host of a popular American television show, said that their bar trips were evidence of 'hypocrisy.'

The transmission from Flight 93 records the hijackers telling their doomed passengers that there is "a bomb on board" but that everyone will "be safe" as long as "their demands are met." Obviously none of these things were true, but these men, who were so intensely devoted to Islam that they were willing to "slay and be slain for the cause of Allah" (as the Qur'an puts it) saw nothing wrong with employing Taqiyya in order to facilitate their mission of mass murder.

The near absence of Qur'anic verse and reliable Hadith that encourage truthfulness is somewhat surprising, given that many Muslims are convinced that their religion teaches honesty. In fact, it is because of this ingrained belief that many Muslims are quite honest. When lying is addressed in the Qur'an, it is nearly always in reference to the "lies against Allah" - referring to the Jews and Christians who rejected Muhammad's claim to being a prophet.

Finally, the circumstances by which Muhammad allowed a believer to lie are limited to those that either advance the cause of Islam or enable a Muslim to avoid harm to his well-being (and presumably that of other Muslims as well). Although this should be kept very much in mind when dealing with matters of global security, such as Iran's nuclear intentions, it is not grounds for assuming that the Muslim one might personally encounter on the street or in the workplace is any less honest than anyone else.
 
Muslim scholars teach that Muslims should generally be truthful to each other, unless the purpose of lying is to "smooth over differences."
There are two forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, taqiyya and kitman. These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause Islam - in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.

The Qur'an:
Qur'an (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can "compel" a Muslim to tell a lie.
Qur'an (3:28) - This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to "guard themselves."
Qur'an (9:3) - "...Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters..." The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway.
Qur'an (40:28) - A man is introduced as a believer, but one who must "hide his faith" among those who are not believers.
Qur'an (2:225) - "Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts"
Qur'an (66:2) - "Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths"
Qur'an (3:54) - "And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers." The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means deceit. If Allah is deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21)
Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be "compelled" to deceive others for a greater purpose.



From the Hadith:

Bukhari (52:269) - "The Prophet said, 'War is deceit.'" The context of this is thought to be the murder of Usayr ibn Zarim and his thirty unarmed men by Muhammad's men after he "guaranteed" them safe passage (see Additional Notes below).

Bukhari (49:857) - "He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar." Lying is permitted when the end justifies the means.

Bukhari (84:64-65) - Speaking from a position of power at the time, Ali confirms that lying is permissible in order to deceive an "enemy."

Bukhari (50:369) - Recounts the murder of a poet, Ka'b bin al-Ashraf, at Muhammad's insistence. The men who volunteered for the assassination used dishonesty to gain Ka'b's trust, pretending that they had turned against Muhammad. This drew the victim out of his fortress, whereupon he was brutally slaughtered despite putting up a ferocious struggle for his life.

From Islamic Law:

Reliance of the Traveler (p. 746 - 8.2) - "Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory... it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression...

"One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie.

Additional Notes:

Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them. The two forms are:

Taqiyya - Saying something that isn't true.

Kitman - Lying by omission. An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills "it shall be as if he had killed all mankind") while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of "corruption" and "mischief."

Though not called Taqiyya by name, Muhammad clearly used deception when he signed a 10-year treaty with the Meccans that allowed him access to their city while he secretly prepared his own forces for a takeover. The unsuspecting residents were conquered in easy fashion after he broke the treaty two years later, and some of the people in the city who had trusted him at his word were executed.

Another example of lying is when Muhammad used deception to trick his personal enemies into letting down their guard and exposing themselves to slaughter by pretending to seek peace. This happened in the case of Ka'b bin al-Ashraf (as previously noted) and again later against Usayr ibn Zarim, a surviving leader of the Banu Nadir tribe, which had been evicted from their home in Medina by the Muslims.

At the time, Usayr ibn Zarim was attempting to gather an armed force against the Muslims from among a tribe allied with the Quraish (against which Muhammad had already declared war). Muhammad's "emissaries" went to ibn Zarim and persuaded him to leave his safe haven on the pretext of meeting with the prophet of Islam in Medina to discuss peace. Once vulnerable, the leader and his thirty companions were massacred by the Muslims with ease, belying the probability that they were mostly unarmed, having been given a guarantee of safe passage (Ibn Ishaq 981).

Such was the reputation of Muslims for lying and then killing that even those who "accepted Islam" did not feel entirely safe. The fate of the Jadhima is tragic evidence for this. When Muslim "missionaries" approached their tribe one of the members insisted that they would be slaughtered even though they had already "converted" to Islam to avoid just such a demise. However, the others were convinced that they could trust the Muslim leader's promise that they would not be harmed if they simply offered no resistance. (After convincing the skeptic to lay down his arms, the unarmed men of the tribe were quickly tied up and beheaded - Ibn Ishaq 834 & 837).

Today's Muslims often try to justify Muhammad's murder of poets and others who criticized him at Medina by saying that they broke a treaty by their actions. Yet, these same apologists place little value on treaties broken by Muslims. From Muhammad to Saddam Hussein, promises made to non-Muslim are distinctly non-binding in the Muslim mindset.

Leaders in the Arab world routinely say one thing to English-speaking audiences and then something entirely different to their own people in Arabic. Yassir Arafat was famous for telling Western newspapers about his desire for peace with Israel, then turning right around and whipping Palestinians into a hateful and violent frenzy against Jews.

The 9/11 hijackers practiced deception by going into bars and drinking alcohol, thus throwing off potential suspicion that they were fundamentalists plotting jihad. This effort worked so well, in fact, that even weeks after 9/11, John Walsh, the host of a popular American television show, said that their bar trips were evidence of 'hypocrisy.'

The transmission from Flight 93 records the hijackers telling their doomed passengers that there is "a bomb on board" but that everyone will "be safe" as long as "their demands are met." Obviously none of these things were true, but these men, who were so intensely devoted to Islam that they were willing to "slay and be slain for the cause of Allah" (as the Qur'an puts it) saw nothing wrong with employing Taqiyya in order to facilitate their mission of mass murder.

The near absence of Qur'anic verse and reliable Hadith that encourage truthfulness is somewhat surprising, given that many Muslims are convinced that their religion teaches honesty. In fact, it is because of this ingrained belief that many Muslims are quite honest. When lying is addressed in the Qur'an, it is nearly always in reference to the "lies against Allah" - referring to the Jews and Christians who rejected Muhammad's claim to being a prophet.

Finally, the circumstances by which Muhammad allowed a believer to lie are limited to those that either advance the cause of Islam or enable a Muslim to avoid harm to his well-being (and presumably that of other Muslims as well). Although this should be kept very much in mind when dealing with matters of global security, such as Iran's nuclear intentions, it is not grounds for assuming that the Muslim one might personally encounter on the street or in the workplace is any less honest than anyone else.

Typical right wing tactic. Never actually quote the Koranic verse but actually quote the HADITH.

Anyways taqiya is a Shia concept. Its also common among Jews. Minority issue. Sunnis were the majority so no need for taqiya. Shias especially had to hide their faith sometimes for fear of persecution. Anyways many Koranist practice taqiya also in Sunni lands. Also many Americans practice taqiya in public. Can you imagine people in this forum speaking like this in public?

So I am not against taqiya if there is some harm that can be avoided. But verse of the Quran must be quoted and not the number of the verse. The actual verse. This is what I don't like about many Christians and Jews. Is this not taqiya? Its like they always try to misquote the Koran hoping no one will actually bother looking up these verses themselves.
 
Typical right wing tactic. Never actually quote the Koranic verse but actually quote the HADITH.

Well lets talk about this
8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world[]]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do.

[ 2:193.. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allâh) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allâh (Alone).[] But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc

And lets not worry about the fitnah(arabic word with many meanings) and go to the second part the what does that tell muslims to fight until when ?
 
C'mon windy, which part of the bible is the technical part? How to part the red sea? How to hold a resurrection?

If I remember correctly, the building of the arc read like a technical manual :)

The Ark of the Covenant was described in great detail, as was the Tabernacle. Everything was laid out directly by God, right down to the alternating pomegranates and bells on the hem of the High Priest's robe.

But feel free to join Hister in mocking. I know it makes him feel intelligent, and if it does the same for you than you obviously need all the help you can get.

I'm not certain how pointing out a part of the bible which does, in fact, read like a technical manual is mocking you.
 
Typical right wing tactic. Never actually quote the Koranic verse but actually quote the HADITH.

Well lets talk about this
8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world[]]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do.

[ 2:193.. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allâh) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allâh (Alone).[] But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc

And lets not worry about the fitnah(arabic word with many meanings) and go to the second part the what does that tell muslims to fight until when ?

They always seems to scat ???
 
The Koran confirms the Gospel but attacks the Trinity. The Trinity was introduced three centuries after Jesus. It has no basis in the Gospel and contradicts it.

You will not find anything in the Koran to contradict what I stated. The Sects believe these verses about freedom were ABROGATED by verse 9-29. But to show that they had to rely on sources OUTSIDE the Koran. Sources that secular historians deemed unreliable and too sectarian to trust. After all Sunnis have conflicting oral traditions than Shias do with each accusing the other of lies and fabrication. Yet they have the same Koran.

But in recent years, probably after 9-11, these oral sources found new audience in the West. Probably because its easier to attack Islam from them than the Koran.

Wanna bet I cannot contradict it?

Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. - 2:191

Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme. (different translation: ) Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is God's entirely. - Sura 2:193 and 8:39

Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. - 2:216

Another person that thinks they know what I think, I love it. Where did I say anything about the Trinity? What I said was that, compared to the Quran, the Bible is well plotted and contains only minor errors. Anyone that has ever had to deal with a tech manual knows that they are almost always full of errors, and make statements that contradict reality, not to mention itself.

Regardless, the Quran is worse.

The Bible has tens of thousands of errors. Contradictions abound and it has more than enough hate to satisfy all but the truly perverse.

Thousands. Hmmmm... wow, that's a lot.:eusa_whistle:

Or maybe it is just the dimwhits reading it. ;)
 
Lately, I have been asking if the Bible taught tolerance..actually I know it does, but I hate when people hide behind it with horrible acts.

(Wait for the mosque burning, its coming.) We are back in brumingham in the 60's again.

Yes, it does teach tolerance. It teaches tolerance for people not for wickedness. G-d don't tolerate other religions and don't tolerate the worship of other gods.
 
Typical right wing tactic. Never actually quote the Koranic verse but actually quote the HADITH.

Well lets talk about this
8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world[]]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do.

[ 2:193.. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allâh) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allâh (Alone).[] But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc

And lets not worry about the fitnah(arabic word with many meanings) and go to the second part the what does that tell muslims to fight until when ?


Its sunny how "but if they cease" has been bracketed to imply "till they cease to worship idols" rather than "if they cease to fight you".

BIG difference. The Koran talks about if they cease to fight you and not if they cease to be pagans. Many parts of the Koran explains that EXPLICITLY. It seems the translation is a wahhabi one.

The job of a messenger is limited to warning and bringing the good news about judgement day. However the Sects claim the job of Muhammad was to establish an "Islamic state". A conscpt that is not found in the Koran.
 
Typical right wing tactic. Never actually quote the Koranic verse but actually quote the HADITH.

Well lets talk about this
8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world[]]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do.

[ 2:193.. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allâh) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allâh (Alone).[] But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc

And lets not worry about the fitnah(arabic word with many meanings) and go to the second part the what does that tell muslims to fight until when ?


Its sunny how "but if they cease" has been bracketed to imply "till they cease to worship idols" rather than "if they cease to fight you".

BIG difference. The Koran talks about if they cease to fight you and not if they cease to be pagans. Many parts of the Koran explains that EXPLICITLY. It seems the translation is a wahhabi one.

The job of a messenger is limited to warning and bringing the good news about judgement day. However the Sects claim the job of Muhammad was to establish an "Islamic state". A conscpt that is not found in the Koran.

No you skipped the part about until all religion is for allah


Compared Translations of the meaning of the Quran - 8:39

and all worship is devoted to God alone
and religion is all for Allah
and religion should be only for Allah
and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere
replaces discord and Allah's system of faith and worship prevails,
and so that the entire system is God's.
and all worship is devoted to God alone:
and their obedience be wholly unto Allah.


did you miss that part ?
Its in all the translations


So muslims are to fight until whatever ( there is no more fitnah) until what happens????
Can you fill in the blank?______________
 
Well lets talk about this
8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world[]]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do.

[ 2:193.. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allâh) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allâh (Alone).[] But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc

And lets not worry about the fitnah(arabic word with many meanings) and go to the second part the what does that tell muslims to fight until when ?


Its sunny how "but if they cease" has been bracketed to imply "till they cease to worship idols" rather than "if they cease to fight you".

BIG difference. The Koran talks about if they cease to fight you and not if they cease to be pagans. Many parts of the Koran explains that EXPLICITLY. It seems the translation is a wahhabi one.

The job of a messenger is limited to warning and bringing the good news about judgement day. However the Sects claim the job of Muhammad was to establish an "Islamic state". A conscpt that is not found in the Koran.

No you skipped the part about until all religion is for allah


Compared Translations of the meaning of the Quran - 8:39

and all worship is devoted to God alone
and religion is all for Allah
and religion should be only for Allah
and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere
replaces discord and Allah's system of faith and worship prevails,
and so that the entire system is God's.
and all worship is devoted to God alone:
and their obedience be wholly unto Allah.


did you miss that part ?
Its in all the translations


So muslims are to fight until whatever ( there is no more fitnah) until what happens????
Can you fill in the blank?______________

And who should all the religion be for? Who should we pray. fear, praise and give thanks to?

Baal?

Funny remark really.

Or are saying that the verse says that Muhammad and his followers should fight until the "other" gives his worship to God alone and not, say, to other gods and idols etc? The problem with that is that its an attempt to interpret the Koran by looking at verses in isolation. There are many ways you can interpret a verse if you look at it in isolation of the other verses in the Koran. This is Sunni style of interpretation. A Koranist will look at all the verses regarding a subject. The Koran tends to have very consice(short) verses and often many ways can be interpreted. But if we look at the context the verse appears and the over all arguments the Koran gives regarding wars and fighting its pretty clear. Meaning there are EXPLICIT verses in the Koran that outlines the picture for us such as:

16:82 But if they turn away from you, your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message .

6:107 Yet if God had so willed, they would not have ascribed Divinity to aught besides Him; hence, We have not made you their keeper, nor are you a guardian over them.

4:79-80 Say:'Whatever good betides you is from God and whatever evil betides you is from your own self and that We have sent you to mankind only as a messenger and all sufficing is God as witness. Whoso obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys God. And for those who turn away, We have not sent you as a keeper."

88:21 22; And so, exhort them your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe.

Also we have EXPLICIT verses that tells us when the Koran sees fighting as justified:

As for such who do not fight you on account of faith, or drive you forth from your homelands, God does not forbid you to show them kindness and to deal with them with equity, for God loves those who act equitably. God only forbids you to turn in friendship towards such as fight against you because of faith and drive you forth from your homelands or aid in driving you forth. As for those from among you who turn towards them for alliance, it is they who are wrongdoers. 60:8-9

There are many such verses that limits the job of Muhammad to preaching and warning but gives him the right to fight to defend himself. But of course Muhammad was whom the Koran was inspired to. So I don't even think many of the so called "sword verses" are relevant any more anyways. The Koran is finished and has been revealed and its everywhere in the world. It ended with Muhammad's death. So why should these verses be relevant to us anyways.

Now when we talk about Sunnis and Shias its very complicated as they see the banner being passed from Muhammad to his companions and then to the Muslim ruler. So for them its an ongoing thing. They believe verse 9-29 abrogated most of the verses that limits the job of Muhammad to preaching. Hence they believe in the "Islamic conquest". Thats not a Koranic term or concept.
 
Last edited:
Its sunny how "but if they cease" has been bracketed to imply "till they cease to worship idols" rather than "if they cease to fight you".

BIG difference. The Koran talks about if they cease to fight you and not if they cease to be pagans. Many parts of the Koran explains that EXPLICITLY. It seems the translation is a wahhabi one.

The job of a messenger is limited to warning and bringing the good news about judgement day. However the Sects claim the job of Muhammad was to establish an "Islamic state". A conscpt that is not found in the Koran.

No you skipped the part about until all religion is for allah


Compared Translations of the meaning of the Quran - 8:39

and all worship is devoted to God alone
and religion is all for Allah
and religion should be only for Allah
and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere
replaces discord and Allah's system of faith and worship prevails,
and so that the entire system is God's.
and all worship is devoted to God alone:
and their obedience be wholly unto Allah.


did you miss that part ?
Its in all the translations


So muslims are to fight until whatever ( there is no more fitnah) until what happens????
Can you fill in the blank?______________

And who should all the religion be for? Who should we pray. fear, praise and give thanks to?

Baal?

Funny remark really.

Or are saying that the verse says that Muhammad and his followers should fight until the "other" gives his worship to God alone and not, say, to other gods and idols etc? The problem with that is that its an attempt to interpret the Koran by looking at verses in isolation. There are many ways you can interpret a verse if you look at it in isolation of the other verses in the Koran. This is Sunni style of interpretation. A Koranist will look at all the verses regarding a subject. The Koran tends to have very consice(short) verses and often many ways can be interpreted. But if we look at the context the verse appears and the over all arguments the Koran gives regarding wars and fighting its pretty clear. Meaning there are EXPLICIT verses in the Koran that outlines the picture for us such as:

16:82 But if they turn away from you, your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message .

6:107 Yet if God had so willed, they would not have ascribed Divinity to aught besides Him; hence, We have not made you their keeper, nor are you a guardian over them.

4:79-80 Say:'Whatever good betides you is from God and whatever evil betides you is from your own self and that We have sent you to mankind only as a messenger and all sufficing is God as witness. Whoso obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys God. And for those who turn away, We have not sent you as a keeper."

88:21 22; And so, exhort them your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe.

Also we have EXPLICIT verses that tells us when the Koran sees fighting as justified:

As for such who do not fight you on account of faith, or drive you forth from your homelands, God does not forbid you to show them kindness and to deal with them with equity, for God loves those who act equitably. God only forbids you to turn in friendship towards such as fight against you because of faith and drive you forth from your homelands or aid in driving you forth. As for those from among you who turn towards them for alliance, it is they who are wrongdoers. 60:8-9

There are many such verses that limits the job of Muhammad to preaching and warning but gives him the right to fight to defend himself. But of course Muhammad was whom the Koran was inspired to. So I don't even think many of the so called "sword verses" are relevant any more anyways. The Koran is finished and has been revealed and its everywhere in the world. It ended with Muhammad's death. So why should these verses be relevant to us anyways.

Now when we talk about Sunnis and Shias its very complicated as they see the banner being passed from Muhammad to his companions and then to the Muslim ruler. So for them its an ongoing thing. They believe verse 9-29 abrogated most of the verses that limits the job of Muhammad to preaching. Hence they believe in the "Islamic conquest". Thats not a Koranic term or concept.

See the problem is not God, Its mohammad, he is not a prophet of God
Sane people will always be attacked by muslims because they refuse the mohammad and is his hateful band of lunatics so as you have proven yes the Quran teaches hate and intolerance.

33:21. Indeed in the Messenger of Allâh (Muhammad ) you have a good example to follow for him who hopes in (the Meeting with) Allâh and the Last Day and remembers Allâh much.


'Abdullah bin 'Umar, may Allah be pleased with them, reported:
Allah's Messenger said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, perform the Prayer, and pay Zakah. If they do that, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.


Who pays Zakah?
 
No you skipped the part about until all religion is for allah


Compared Translations of the meaning of the Quran - 8:39

and all worship is devoted to God alone
and religion is all for Allah
and religion should be only for Allah
and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere
replaces discord and Allah's system of faith and worship prevails,
and so that the entire system is God's.
and all worship is devoted to God alone:
and their obedience be wholly unto Allah.


did you miss that part ?
Its in all the translations


So muslims are to fight until whatever ( there is no more fitnah) until what happens????
Can you fill in the blank?______________

And who should all the religion be for? Who should we pray. fear, praise and give thanks to?

Baal?

Funny remark really.

Or are saying that the verse says that Muhammad and his followers should fight until the "other" gives his worship to God alone and not, say, to other gods and idols etc? The problem with that is that its an attempt to interpret the Koran by looking at verses in isolation. There are many ways you can interpret a verse if you look at it in isolation of the other verses in the Koran. This is Sunni style of interpretation. A Koranist will look at all the verses regarding a subject. The Koran tends to have very consice(short) verses and often many ways can be interpreted. But if we look at the context the verse appears and the over all arguments the Koran gives regarding wars and fighting its pretty clear. Meaning there are EXPLICIT verses in the Koran that outlines the picture for us such as:

16:82 But if they turn away from you, your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message .

6:107 Yet if God had so willed, they would not have ascribed Divinity to aught besides Him; hence, We have not made you their keeper, nor are you a guardian over them.

4:79-80 Say:'Whatever good betides you is from God and whatever evil betides you is from your own self and that We have sent you to mankind only as a messenger and all sufficing is God as witness. Whoso obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys God. And for those who turn away, We have not sent you as a keeper."

88:21 22; And so, exhort them your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe.

Also we have EXPLICIT verses that tells us when the Koran sees fighting as justified:

As for such who do not fight you on account of faith, or drive you forth from your homelands, God does not forbid you to show them kindness and to deal with them with equity, for God loves those who act equitably. God only forbids you to turn in friendship towards such as fight against you because of faith and drive you forth from your homelands or aid in driving you forth. As for those from among you who turn towards them for alliance, it is they who are wrongdoers. 60:8-9

There are many such verses that limits the job of Muhammad to preaching and warning but gives him the right to fight to defend himself. But of course Muhammad was whom the Koran was inspired to. So I don't even think many of the so called "sword verses" are relevant any more anyways. The Koran is finished and has been revealed and its everywhere in the world. It ended with Muhammad's death. So why should these verses be relevant to us anyways.

Now when we talk about Sunnis and Shias its very complicated as they see the banner being passed from Muhammad to his companions and then to the Muslim ruler. So for them its an ongoing thing. They believe verse 9-29 abrogated most of the verses that limits the job of Muhammad to preaching. Hence they believe in the "Islamic conquest". Thats not a Koranic term or concept.

See the problem is not God, Its mohammad, he is not a prophet of God
Sane people will always be attacked by muslims because they refuse the mohammad and is his hateful band of lunatics so as you have proven yes the Quran teaches hate and intolerance.

33:21. Indeed in the Messenger of Allâh (Muhammad ) you have a good example to follow for him who hopes in (the Meeting with) Allâh and the Last Day and remembers Allâh much.


'Abdullah bin 'Umar, may Allah be pleased with them, reported:
Allah's Messenger said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, perform the Prayer, and pay Zakah. If they do that, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.


Who pays Zakah?

"I have been commanded"? By whom? That hadith contradicts what the Koran commanded him unless you are saying Muhammad was getting his commands elsewhere.

Don't you read any of the verses I quote or are you stuck with a view point you can't leave.
 
talk 2 you later fool
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7yfISlGLNU]YouTube - I'm On A Boat (ft. T-Pain) - Album Version[/ame]
 
Who pays Zakah?

"I have been commanded"? By whom? That hadith contradicts what the Koran commanded him unless you are saying Muhammad was getting his commands elsewhere.

Don't you read any of the verses I quote or are you stuck with a view point you can't leave.
Who pays Zakah?

Zakat means to purify. Zakat is spoken about in the Koran as a means to purify ones self. Charity is one of such purifiers as Abraham used to do in the OT when he use to give away 10% of his annual earnings as charity.

Koran is peace! Haven't you heard?
 
16:82 But if they turn away from you, your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message

4:79-80 Say: ‘Whatever good betides you is from God and whatever evil betides you is from your own self and that We have sent you to mankind only as a messenger and all sufficing is God as witness. Whoso obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys God. And for those who turn away, We have not sent you as a keeper."

17:53-54 And tell my servants that they should speak in a most kindly manner. Verily, Satan is always ready to stir up discord between men; for verily; Satan is mans foe.... Hence, we have not sent you with power to determine their Faith

24.54. Say: "Obey God, and obey the Messenger, but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance. The Messenger's duty is only to preach the clear (Message).

88:21 22; And so, exhort them your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe.

42:6 48 And whoso takes for patrons others besides God, over them does God keep a watch. Mark, you are not a keeper over them. But if they turn aside from you (do not get disheartened), for We have not sent you to be a keeper over them; your task is but to preach

64:12 Obey God then and obey the Messenger, but if you turn away (no blame shall attach to our Messenger), for the duty of Our Messenger is just to deliver the message.

28.55-56 And when they hear vain talk, they turn away there from and say: "To us our deeds, and to you yours; peace be to you: we seek not the ignorant," It is true thou wilt not be able to guide whom thou lovest; but God guides those whom He will and He knows best those who receive guidance

39:41 Assuredly, We have sent down the Book to you in right form for the good of man. Whoso guided himself by it does so to his own advantage, and whoso turns away from it does so at his own loss. You certainly are not their keeper.

67:25 26 And they ask, "When shall the promise be fulfilled if you speak the Truth?" Say, "The knowledge of it is verily with God alone, and verily I am but a plain warner."

As we can clearly see, many of the verses that talks about obeying the prophet also emphasizes the prophet's limited authority, something that the Islamic sects (Sunni/Shia) do not recognize. The ruler to them has the authority to punish people for what they consider sins like drinking alcohol, eating pork, not fasting Ramadan, watching pornos etc.

The Koran meanwhile focuses on crimes against another like stealing, killing, slandering of women falsely and oppression. It gave the believers the right to fight against those who fight them but not to transgress. It also gave people the right to defend themselves against evictions from their lands. There is no talk about punishing people for something that does not concern somebody else's right.

Adultery is the only place where the Koran diverted from this due to the fact that a adultery affects another party. Here the Koran sees adultery as affecting the other partner in a marriage. It’s a betrayal and a breaking of oath. But even then it placed strict standards on that but was lenient when it came to punishing slanders of women. Adultery needs four witnesses but the slander can get punished by flogging just from opening his mouth without four witnesses. It’s clear that the verse made it very difficult to implement on adultery but very easy to implement on the slanderer. Further reading of the verse about the Zani and Zania shows us that the issue came up concerning slandering of one of the prophet’s wife presumably. But adultery still affects another party as its a breaking of an oath between a man and a woman and is an act of betrayal.

The Koran cannot order the prophet to punish people for sins, that God's job. The Koran gave people the right and freedom to disbelieve let alone sin. Plus how the Koran understands sins is very different than how the sects understand sins.

In the end the sects had no choice but to abrogate many of these verses, usually invoking the "sword verse". They claim that many of these verses that gave the prophet limited authority(over those who chose to disobey him) has been abrogated by verse 9-5 or verse 9-29.

However these verses were about the wars with the pagans, and verse 9-13 and many other verses makes it clear who instigated these battles and why. The Jizya verse (9-29) also was claimed by the sects to be a tax to be paid by non Muslims in an Islamic state for protection. However Jizya never came concerning the Medina community where the prophet and his followers had a community. And only came upon the believers entering of Mecca. Jizya could have easily been compensation for the loss of property and homes that the believers suffered after being forced into exile. The Koran forbade prophets from seeking any form of reward. They can however accept charity on behalf of the believers.

But the Sunnah (oral traditions) claimed otherwise. In it the prophet was ordered to fight the people till they acknowledge monotheism and also in it the prophet ordered the execution of those who apostate. That’s why they abrogated many of the verses that limited his authority. Then they simply transferred that authority to the Muslim ruler by default. The Ridda war story about Abu Bakr is a case study of this. In that story Abu Bakr apparently fought people for not paying Zakat. Now the authority was transferred from God to the prophet to one of his companions. This made it very easy to then transfer that authority to the ruler. This is why you see places where Shariah law is implemented filled with such concepts like searching cars for alcohol or flogging people for watching pornos or not wearing proper attire. None of this should concern anyone but it has become a punishable sin. God only punishes those who did not get caught and punished in this world. The sects claimed that once punished the sin falls away and disappears. You will not find such a concept in the Koran. There God punishes in a million ways and does not need humans to punish for him. I think the sects introduced this conc3ept to make people more accepting of this by making them think its better for them since God's punishment is more severe. They also introduced stoning the adulterer by claiming the Zina verse in the Koran is concerning fornification and not adultery. They claimed that the verse about stoning was lost and is not included in the Koran but the ruling remains.

This of course violated not only the freedom aspect of the Koran but also an eye for an eye and a life for a life. In the Koran, any punishment must be reciprocal and proportionate to the crime and it also must be targeted towards the actual perpetrators of the crime and not someone else associated to the criminal as the case with tribal laws that simply targets anyone from that tribe. They broke this by lower the bar for executions. Some Sunni scholars also gave the authority to execute homosexuals and enslave female prisoners and execute male prisoners. Something the Koran forbade. The Koran gave two options for prisoners, either freedom or ransom of some sort. They gave this authority to the ruler. This is all very sad as the taking of someone’s life is no easy matter in the Koran. God should take life and not humans, but if a person takes a life then he lost his right to live, but even then the Koran gave exile from the community as another option for murder especially if the person shows repentance. So an eye for an eye and a tooth for tooth somehow ended up being an eye for an eye lash and a tooth for a jaw.

To be fair the Sunni orthodoxy rarely practiced some of these laws. We know of no time in history where adulterers were stoned to death. Apostasy was rarely practiced, unlike the Christians in Europe that practiced these laws left and right. So the Sunni jurist knew that some of these laws could be controversial. There is a rumor about Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab the founder or rather the revivalist of Salafism (some call it wahhabism) stoned a women to death. This was the only time in Islamic history that we heard such a thing.

Its very unfortunate the current Islamist in Iran and Sudan and the Salafis in generally never understood why these laws were controversial. But in doing so they exposed much aspect of the sects that people were not aware of. The Sufis provided a convenient cover as they shunned legalism. But even the clerics understood that these laws were controversial. Its not easy in Islam to execute outside of murder. But this wise tradition was broken. That’s very unfortunate as now we see the culture of death has spread among Muslims till Islam became synonymous with violence and killing. Once you lower the bar it spirals out of control.

One thing is crystal clear from all this. The Koran's take on human authority and freedom is RADICALLY different than how the sects understand it. Therefore the biggest difference between a Koranic state and a Sunni or Shia state will come in the form of the state's authority over the masses. It is this, more than anything else, that separates the Koran from the Sunnah. That’s why the Abbasids championed the Sunnah over the Mutazilites. The Mutaziltes couldn't find the ink in the Koran to give them such draconian authority. The sects did that by first bringing the divine authority from God to prophet, then prophet to Caliph (companions) and now that authority is in Omar Al Bashir, Khamenei, Mullah Omar and Al Saud. And that’s very sad.
 
Does the Qur’an Teach Hate?

September 18, 2013 By Robert Spencer

terrkor.jpg


On September 11, 2013, a public information officer for Palm Beach County, Florida named John Jamason posted a message on his personal Facebook page: “Never forget. There is no such thing as radical Islam. All Islam is radical. There may be Muslims who don’t practice their religion, much like others. The Quran is a book that preaches hate.”

The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) immediately complained, and demanded that the county turn over to them everything that Jamason had written from a county computer over the previous month. County Administrator Bob Weisman assured CAIR that Jamason had not written the offending Facebook message from a county computer, and stated that county officials were determining whether or not to discipline him.

Left unexamined in the controversy was whether or not what Jamason said was true. In light of the Qur’an’s teachings about jihad and the subjugation of non-Muslims, he certainly had a case that “there is no such thing as radical Islam” and “all Islam is radical,” for there is no mainstream sect of Islam or school of Islamic jurisprudence that does not teach that the Muslim community must wage war against unbelievers and subjugate them under its rule.

Jamason was also correct that “there may be Muslims who don’t practice their religion, much like others.” Indeed, there are many people who identify themselves as Muslims who have no interest in waging jihad against unbelievers, but would prefer to hold down their jobs and take care of their families in peace in the same way as there are millions of people who identify themselves as believers in other religions who are not particularly concerned with living out every teaching of the religion with which they identify.

But what CAIR was most outraged about was not that, of course, but Jamason’s contention that the Qur’an teaches hate. They did not, however, provide any evidence showing that it doesn’t.

So does it?

The Qur’an teaches that Muslims must fight and kill unbelievers “wherever you overtake them” until “religion is Allah’s,” i.e. Islamic law rules all societies (2:190-193). They must fight unbelievers “until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah” (8:39). Muslims are to fight unbelievers and “prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know [but] whom Allah knows” (8:60).

Allah tells Muhammad to “fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched is the destination” (9:73). The followers of Muhammad should imitate him in this: “O you who have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness” (9:123). For “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah; and those with him are forceful against the disbelievers, merciful among themselves” (48:29).

...

Does the Qur?an Teach Hate? | FrontPage Magazine
 
The Koran confirms the Gospel but attacks the Trinity. The Trinity was introduced three centuries after Jesus. It has no basis in the Gospel and contradicts it.


The Koran emphatically confirms the Biblical Trinity.

One such Koranic ayah (which, ironically Muslims are trained to use all the time for their position) actually plainly states that the Trinity is not “three”, but instead, it is “one”, and then proceeds to list out Father, Son, and Spirit…


يأهل الكتب لا تغلوا في دينكم ولا تقولوا على الله
إلا الحق إنما المسيح عيسى ابن مريم رسول الله
وكلمته ألقيها إلى مريم وروح منه فءامنوا بالله
ورسله ولا تقولوا ثلثة انتهوا خيرا لكم إنما الله
إله وحد سبحنه أن يكون له ولد له ما في
السموت وما في الأرض وكفى بالله وكيلا


Ya ahla alkitabi la taghloo fee deenikum wala taqooloo AAala Allahi illa alhaqqa innama almaseehu AAeesa ibnu maryama rasoolu Allahi wakalimatuhu alqaha ila maryama waroohun minhu faaminoo biAllahi warusulihi wala taqooloo thalathatun intahoo khayran lakum innama Allahu ilahun wahidun subhanahu an yakoona lahu waladun lahu ma fee alssamawati wama fee al-ardi wakafa biAllahi wakeelan

4.171 You The Book's family, certainly do not go beyond the limits in your faith, and they do not say on “allah” except The Truth (is) only the Messiah Jesus, Mary's son, “allah’s” messenger, and his Word, cast forth to her, Mary, and Spirit from him; so believe on account of “allah”, and His messengers, and they do not say: "Three." Refrain (it is) agreeable certainly your only “allah” one god glory be to him, that He has certainly been his Son, truly His what is in the heavens and what is in the earth and He sufficed on account of “allah”, a witness.



Observe that this ayah is directed at ‘The Book’s family’ (ahla alkitabi) – which refers to the followers of the Holy Bible; i.e. Christians.

For the Muslim, it then gives instruction as to what the correct interpretation of the Holy Bible needs to be regarding (among numerous things), the concept of the Trinity.


In this classic Islamic one-hit-wonder we are told not to refer to the one “allah” as “Three”, as even his messengers do not say “Three” - because he is not the result of counted things (thalathatun)….and yet, in the very ayah itself it lists-out directly, Father, Son, & Spirit.

This is a classic Koranic example in which the authors display their understanding of the Biblical concept of the Holy Trinity, and give the example of what it is not by the usage of the word “Three”…and what it is, by the example of “one”.
 

Forum List

Back
Top