Pakistanis doesn't believe in God/Allah.?

[dust1n]

Well Pakistan is India. It shouldn't even exist. That was a bad move. It hasn't stopped Muslim aggression against Hindus or desecration of holy sites- the shame!

Yea, well it's a little late to go back on a geopolitical decision by the British Empire made 60 odd years ago.

 

[dust1n]

Except for Christianity, the main religions of Abraham say you can kill unbelievers, and even kill your own people that change religions - in their religious books.

*

Apparently, your religion doesn't have to have something in a book that okays killing people... religions can just do it.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Except for Christianity, the main religions of Abraham say you can kill unbelievers, and even kill your own people that change religions - in their religious books.

*

I assume "the main religions of Abraham" include Islam.

In that case, where exactly is it stated in the Qur'an that killing people just because they are unbelievers is allowed?

 

[Vinayaka]

I

In that case, where exactly is it stated in the Qur'an that killing people just because they are unbelievers is allowed?

Here's a compilation someone did. I'm not familiar with the Koran personally.

The Quran's Verses of Violence

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Yea, well it's a little late to go back on a geopolitical decision by the British Empire made 60 odd years ago.

Yes that's unfortunate.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Koran 9.5 Sorry- Kill the pagans where you find them. Seize them, harass them, and lie in wait at every ambush

 

[Debater Slayer]

Here's a compilation someone did. I'm not familiar with the Koran personally.

The Quran's Verses of Violence

I can't access that site.

If the entire list in the link is too long, then would you mind saying which ones particularly stood out to you?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Koran 9.5 Sorry- Kill the pagans where you find them. Seize them, harass them, and lie in wait at every ambush

This is the text of Qur'an 9:5 (from here):

Sahih International
And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.​

The verse is referring to a time of war, as explained in many commentaries including Ibn Kathir's. It doesn't apply to all non-Muslims, and certainly not to ones who aren't engaged in war with Muslims. You don't see most Muslims going out and killing non-believers because the Qur'an "told them so," and most Muslims I know, including devout ones, don't read the above verse that way either.

 

[Vinayaka]

I can't access that site.

If the entire list in the link is too long, then would you mind saying which ones particularly stood out to you?

Quran (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah." The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is thus disingenuous (the actual Muslim words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The actual Arabic comes from "fitna" which can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. Taken as a whole, the context makes clear that violence is being authorized until "religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Quran (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah." The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is thus disingenuous (the actual Muslim words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The actual Arabic comes from "fitna" which can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. Taken as a whole, the context makes clear that violence is being authorized until "religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.

This is similar to what I explained in my reply to Egyptian Phoenix: the verse specifically refers to a time of war between Muslims and polytheists. It seems that 2:190 was left out, too, which I suspect was probably deliberate on the part of the person who originally wrote the above "critique."

Sahih International
Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.​

(Source.)

Considering that and the context of the verses in question, it seems clear to me that killing non-believers who aren't at war with Muslims isn't encouraged anywhere in said verses.

 

[Vinayaka]

This is similar to what I explained in my reply to Egyptian Phoenix: the verse specifically refers to a time of war between Muslims and polytheists. It seems that 2:190 was left out, too, which I suspect was probably deliberate on the part of the person who originally wrote the above "critique."

(Source.)

Considering that and the context of the verses in question, it seems clear to me that killing non-believers who aren't at war with Muslims isn't encouraged anywhere in said verses.

I tend to agree, but history definitely shows it, and the current news about being a minority in an Islamic Nation like Bangladesh, Malaysia, and Indonesia is not fun at all. But you really don't see that much all out slaughter these days, fortunately.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

So why are Pakistani Muslims killing Hindus under the pretense of being Polytheists? So their clerics and they claim

 

[dust1n]

Because religious people hold on to religious things of historical importance, which often includes lands, relics, and most importantly, grudges that have lasted for centuries... But, it's social and political with financial interests as much as it is religious for some.

Don't think this is going to fix itself anytime soon...

 

[Sha'irullah]

All of the religions of Abraham have murdered people for believing differently.

*

That is not true and a blatant lie. We all know they murdered people for merely existing in the wrong culture

 

[Sha'irullah]

I'm pretty sure that applies to the majority of all religions.

Actually it does not. All religions have adherent to do acts of violence but not all religions accept such behavior.

 

[dust1n]

Actually it does not. All religions have adherent to do acts of violence but not all religions accept such behavior.

Which ones you referring to?

 

[Sha'irullah]

Well, Muslims definitely believe in God. They believe in the God of Abraham and Isaac just the same as Catholics and other Christians.

I think you do have to realize, though, that Muslim extremists are the ones who carry out terrorist attacks and they are not generally representative of Islam in general.

The issue is that violence is the natural state of Islam. Much like Christianity no Muslim has to commit acts of violence but it is not shunned on a theological level.
Many religions condone acts of violence but not all religious adherents accept it. Islam is in a position were it is accepted. The crackdown on Islamic extremist actually contains very little activity from the region that shelters this extremism. Only Western nations under attack actively engage in their tracking and neutralization.
Not all Muslims pick up guns to wage war but most Muslims within a region accept violence as a just act.

According tot he PEW research poll there are over 5 countries with an estimated percentage over 50 that support death for apostasy. So do understand that it is not a matter of the activity but the words and support the bystanders offer.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Which ones you referring to?

Dharmic religions for example. Jains wear masks so they will not even hurt flies by breathing.
Thuggees strangled people to offer to Kali but such practices are not permitted in the worship of Sri Kali.
This all goes back to religious acceptance and the nature of their source material.

 

[dust1n]

Dharmic religions for example. Jains wear masks so they will not even hurt flies by breathing.
Thuggees strangled people to offer to Kali but such practices are not permitted in the worship of Sri Kali.
This all goes back to religious acceptance and the nature of their source material.

Okay, okay, fine. Jains are one; I'd agree they be clean. Other Dharmic religions are not so clean as the Jains.

Certainly Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs... and even Zoroastrians! have a little blood on the ol' heritage.

 

[Sumit]

Curious what you mean by their belief is stronger than Hindus? I think Hindus are stronger. They've stood for the ways of their ancestors against invaders for centuries now.

No, today conditions are totally different. Hindus have lost much of their heritage and it still continues due to their ignorance and lack of belief. There are many such branches in Hinduism which are beyond imagination of common people and requires dedication to learn.