I see what you did there! You tried to reverse what I said there. I was addressing cherry picking done by people who don't claim to believe in a particular doctrine. These unaffiliated individuals without understanding the true context of such verse - only points out verses that could mean something controversial. My comment was actually about original poster and maybe you as well since you are also finding verses to show the religion is a violent one.
No it wouldn't, because he specifically referenced "the terrorists responsible for the attacks".
I was talking about someone a 1000 years in the future can misunderstand what president Bush was saying if he tried to take one line out of his speech without properly understanding all the different context. If he superficially listens to only one line from the speech and have very slight idea about what Bush was talking about he would misunderstand. Maybe all he knew was Bush was talking to some people who claim to be Muslims. So, that someone (in the future) can generalize that Bush was talking about killing Muslims and not just who were behind 911.
Of course you are from the 21st century. You knew Bush, you may have heard the entire speech and you also know the context Bush was speaking from. That's why it was so easy for you to understand that he was not talking about all Muslims. But that guy in the future may not have all that background knowledge. He may barely know who Bush was!
Similarly when you are taking a verse from Quran - you are that someone 1400 years in the future who don't have any clue when or why anything was said. You don't have any clue in what context a verse was revealed to those followers of Muhammad. You don't have any background to anything! Some verses came at war time and its about specific incident and specific people. Of course there are ways to investigate and figure out the context but it is a lengthy process and you have to learn the history behind each verse and when it was revealed. You also have to learn Arabic. I am pretty sure you are not doing that!
If you don't want to research then it is better to stop taking certain verses at face value and decide what you think it meant because chances are you will misunderstand. Just like the guy in the future may misunderstand President Bush. Remember without fully knowing what Bin laden did and why Bush went after him and what part religions played in the whole thing - it is very easy to come to a wrong conclusion. I hope you understand what I meant through the Bush analogy!
Two problems with this.
1. There are passages that are general and universal (like 5:32-22)
2. Why would Allah include instructions about a specific historical event in his final, perfect, timeless and universal guide for all humanity - unless it had some relevance to future Muslims?
I try not to linger on verse that require background check (sort of speaking) because there are many good teachings to concentrate on that are easy to understand and easily make sense without any need to dive into a lengthy process to find their context. Good teachings are easy to understand!
Anyhow in this case it seems the verse 32 and 33 are in contradiction. So, common sense dictates that an exception must have been offered for a certain kind of criminals in verse #33 and it is mentioned right after reminding that killing in general - is bad! So, common sense says that - verse 33 must be about a specific group of people who must have done something really bad. I see you think it is telling all Muslims to go and kill randomly... Right? You are wrong because countless verse in the Quran teaches otherwise. Even verse #32 teaches otherwise. So, common sense should tell anyone that -this verse (#33) must have a history behind it. It is not general or universal as you claim.
Anyhow, a slight check via google suggests that it is about a group of tribe men who came and claimed to be ill from the weather and Muhammad and his men took them in and helped them recover and then after recovering they killed the host (herder) and stole all his Camels and ran away. I am not sure what else they did but the punishment seemed to be sanctioned for their killing of their host, stealing his Camels and the deceptions. I would imagine this kind of punishment was norm for that era. What else were Muhammad men supposed to do? Just catch and release them? Wouldn't they come back and kill and and steal again? That's how that era was!
It is common sense that you are not required to catch and kill a guest who kills your family members and steals from you and runs away these days. Now we have police and a court system. But wouldn't you still like to go after that ungrateful guest if the law allowed you to do so?
Something like that happened - why worry about this verse? Of course some uneducated Muslims might be also misreading this verse you provided but what is the different between you and those fake Muslims if you also misread these same verse without checking the background?
Historical and moral relativism doe not work with god's final, unchangeable message for all mankind. If "things were different then" applies to some passages, it must apply to them all.
Why so? The historical parts and parts dealing with dogma are easily distinguishable. It is not hard to find good moral teachings. Believing in the one God concept seems to be the primary concept of the religion. Nothing wrong with that! The verse Quran 2:62 suggests believing in Judgment day and leading a righteous life is very important as well. What is wrong with that? Of course for the believers there are five pillars to maintain. But there are enough good teaching for everyone rather than looking for verses that don't add up according to you and may seem like advocating violence in your opinion.
