Quran has the best guidance about war and peace.

[RAYYAN]

Also if you read it in conjunction with all the other verses that promote fighting to establish and spread Islam. It is beyond naive to claim that the Quran does not contain many passages that extol the virtues of fighting (and dying) in Allah's cause.

"Oh!" I hear the cry "But it isn't all about fighting. And it says that if the enemy want peace and submit to Islam, then Muslims can't fight them any more".
1. That just confirms the fighting bits.
2. Muhammad attacked people who wanted peace (read about the conquest of Mecca).

The thing is, moderates have to cherry-pick the Quran and write essays explaining why it often doesn't mean what it says. The extremists just point to the whole thing and say "look what it says, then follow it!".

I will just reply to specifics because I am not that good in general essay
conquest of Mecca! Looks like you are not aware that people of Mecca drove the prophet and his companions out of Mecca and looking to kill them!
The prophet went back to his city and took what is his

 

[RAYYAN]

Now let me ask you this; how do you know which is the "wrong interpretation"?

Simple;
1. The Quran usually answers itself if read complete without isolating verses
2. If any verse is not clear to you, you should not apply it, especially to decide the fate of others
3. We don't take the opinion of a minority 1% of Muslims who have no deep knowledge in Islam

 

[RAYYAN]

How did verse 107 mitigate the call to fighting and martyrdom for Allah in 111?
They seem unconnected, but if they are connected, 107-110 talk about enemies of Islam and cutting their hearts out. 11 then talks about fighting and dying in Allah;'s cause, in return for a place in paradise.

Now, if some disillusioned young Muslims in the West Bank or wherever reading the Quran and see that passage, think Allah is saying "There are people who pretend to be on our side, but are secretly against us. Islam won't be safe until we kill them, and then Allah will reward us with a place in Jannah, especially if we die" - how is that not a reasonable interpretation of the words in the book?
And if they don't go online and visit any moderate apologists sites and read the long essays explaining why those verses don't actually mean what they seem to mean, what do you think might happen?

Let's say the verses are not connected, then what!
There are countless times in the Quran that shows when and why Muslims have to fight

That would be the problem of that young man, not the problem of Islam

 

[RAYYAN]

So that's a terrorist army of 17 million. Yikes!

So you don't "know for a fact", you "recall that it might be".

How do you know that the 99% aren't interpreting it wrong? It's only your opinion, after all.

It is a fact since I read it


And while there may be only 17 million Muslims who are prepared to take up arms against the west and the kuffar, studies show that many millions more support terrorist acts and even more support the draconian intolerance in Islam. For example, 50% of British Muslims think homosexuality should be a criminal offence, while 9% of Pakistani, 14% of Nigerian and 11% of Malaysian Muslims have a favourable view of ISIS. 16% of Spanish Muslims believe suicide bombings can be justified. 81% of Egyptian muslims who favour Sharia, support stoning for adultery, etc... (Pew Research, IPSOS Mori)

There are not "insignificant" stats.[/QUOTE]

Wow, the 1% is 17 million
Islam and muslims must be doing something right by having 1.8 billion followers

 

[RAYYAN]

And the "But it is only referring to a specific past event" doesn't work because the Quran is a guide to the best way of life for all mankind, not a patchy history of early 7thC Arabia.

Are you saying there is no history mentioned in the Quran!

 

[RAYYAN]

Many Muslims don't know much about Islam. Millions have never read the Quran - yet no one claims they are "not true Muslims".

And your point?

 

[KWED]

Who is interpreting it wrong?

I was pointing out that there are highly qualified scholars who favour the literalist, retentionist interpretations of the Quran (like Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, ex leader of ISIS), so why must we assume that they are wrong just because a random Bahai on the internet has a different opinion.

 

[KWED]

God is the Eye Witness of all human history and is eternal.

Yeah, you're still missing the key issue here. You can't claim god as a source because you can't show that said god even exists.

Once it has been determined that someone like Baha’u’llah or Christ or Muhammad were sent by God,

Something that you have spectacularly failed to do.

I myself for myself have determined that Personages such as Baha’u’llah, Muhammad, Christ, Moses we’re all sent by God.

Yes, we understand that you believe their claims, but their is nothing to support them.

And I am absolutely certain beyond any doubt whatsoever. Unfortunately I can’t do your searching for you. Whether or not you receive confirmation whether Baha’u’llah or other Prophets are true or not depends upon your sincerity and purity of heart and if God wills it.

Ah, the old "god won't guide you until you believe in him" circular argument. Well done!

So it’s impossible to provide for you any words that can give you the proof you require as the proof is not in words but in spiritual confirmations.

So therefore my explanations (based on actual evidence, written accounts, archaeology, etc) are more reasonable than you "god chose me so I believe" claim.

 

[KWED]

Didn’t you understand that the verse indicated that there are both clear and allegorical verses in the Book? That one verse defined the contents of the entire Quran. That’s the Word of God to me so it’s truth.

 

[KWED]

There are too many to mention.

Nonsense. Mention three.

 

[ChristineM]

I was pointing out that there are highly qualified scholars who favour the literalist, retentionist interpretations of the Quran (like Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, ex leader of ISIS), so why must we assume that they are wrong just because a random Bahai on the internet has a different opinion.

Im not interested in whether they are right or wrong. I was discussing the Qur'an knowledge of terrorist's, it seems baghdadi was pretty knowledgeable.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

God is the Eye Witness of all human history and is eternal. ...

No, that is what you believe. Unless you actually don't believe and know. But it seems you know and thus this is the God for all humans.
So you claim in effect something universal for all humans.

 

[KWED]

You might have quoted this wrong, or you refer to another verse,

Sorry, 9:61, not 9:62.
Surely not that hard to figure out.
"And those who abuse the Messenger of Allah - for them is a painful punishment." Quran 9:61

This verse says God will punish them in the hereafter. So, no action is to be taken by Muslims here

No it doesn't. it says...
"Indeed, those who abuse Allah and His Messenger - Allah has cursed them in this world [/quote] Clearly referring to this world. They are cursed by Allah.

and the Hereafter and prepared for them a humiliating punishment."

That does not say where the punishment will take place, but he has already said that they are cursed in this world, so your claim that no action is to be taken in this world has no foundation.
Remember we are seeing if the Quran could be interpreted by those disaffected Muslim youths in Gaza or the banlieues of Paris as justifying attacks on people who insult Muhammad.

Also, I need a source for what Abu Dawud says to see if it is an authentic Hadith and see if there is more to the story

Sunan Abi Dawud 4362 - Prescribed Punishments (Kitab Al-Hudud) - كتاب الحدود - Sunnah.com - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم)

The verse doesn't say that. Sorry. the correct verse is
"Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,"

Er, what? You just repeated exactly what I posted. I merely left off the list of other barbaric punishments and some more invective.
The point (which we seem to agree on) is that there verse prescribes killing for those people described.

So, what do you expect Muslims do in this case? what does any country do if someone wages war against the president, and started kelling people, damaging properties, stealing,......etc.?

The verse says "wage war on Allah". Allah is immaterial and has no physical presence so "waging war" on him can only mean attacking the idea of him, attacking the concept of Islam.
Ibn Kathir explains that "wage war" includes "opposition, contradiction and disbelief".

I agree, less than 1% of Muslims justify terrorism with these verses

No. A small proportion of Muslims act on that interpretation of those verses. It is reasonable to assume that more accept those interpretations. As I pointed out, percentages in the teens claim that suicide bombings are justified. 80% of Egyptians who favour sharia believe that adulterers should be stoned to death. 50% of UK Muslims think homosexuality should be a crime. Half! You can't try to tell me that there is no support amongst ordinary Muslims for violence and intolerance against those they consider to de deserving of it.

the fact that 99.4% of Muslims don't interpret the Quran the wrong way, shows the problem is with those who interpret it wrong

More question begging. You are simply assuming that your interpretation is the right way. (not sure what that figure refers to).

I claim that, and I read the Quran day in and day out

Then you are in denial. You may not consider there to be such passages, but there are others who think there are. You are simply insisting that whatever your opinion is, is the only possible opinion. And if there is one absolute, verifiable, 100% stone cold fact about Islam - it is that there are differing opinions about what the Quran means. And everyone is convinced their is the correct one.

Remember, I am not saying that any one interpretation must be the correct one. I am simply pointing out that there are some Muslims who take the passages calling for violence at face value.
I mean though, 9:61 is pretty explicit - "A painful punishment for those who abuse Muhammad". How can you claim that it isn't saying that there is a painful punishment for abusing Muhammad?

 

[KWED]

Im not interested in whether they are right or wrong. I was discussing the Qur'an knowledge of terrorist's, it seems baghdadi was pretty knowledgeable.

That was my point. Although there is no right or wrong interpretation of vague, ambiguous and contradictory texts, some people have spent more time studying the source material than others.

 

[KWED]

conquest of Mecca! Looks like you are not aware that people of Mecca drove the prophet and his companions out of Mecca and looking to kill them!
The prophet went back to his city and took what is his

I see you have been fed the sanitised version of Islamic history.
Muhammad and his followers chose exile because they refused to abide by the rules of Meccan society. Many religions were practiced there, so another one was not a problem, but Muhammad insisted on blaspheming against the existing religions and gods, insulting ancestors, etc. The Quraysh even offered Muhammad a deal by which Islam would be the main religion on alternate years if he stopped the blasphemy and insults. He refused.
Despite all the stories about constant persecution, torture and death, in the 12 years of his preaching in Mecca only one (possibly two) Muslims were killed. The worst Muhammad suffered was having offal thrown at him and sand rubbed into his hair. Not all Muslims left Mecca, so it obviously wasn't that bad.

It wasn't "his city". He invaded a sovereign state despite its inhabitants wanting peace. The majority of his army were mercenaries and Bedouins, not people from Mecca. He had no justification in invading other than the desire for conquest. It is telling that after the conquest, he went back to Medina. He didn't live in Mecca. Even following the conquest, Muhammad made other conquered acknowledge Medina as the seat of Muslim governance, not Mecca.

You can find all this in Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasulallah, the earliest biography of Muhammad, written around 100 years after his death. Mubarakpuri's "The Sealed Nectar" is basically the same content but in more modern language. You should read it.

 

[KWED]

Simple;
1. The Quran usually answers itself if read complete without isolating verses

You mean that when you read the whole thing you can usually find a passage to suit any agenda, so if you find a verse you don't like, keep looking.

2. If any verse is not clear to you, you should not apply it, especially to decide the fate of others

So if those young Muslims believe that 9:61 is as clear as it seems, then they can act on it.

3. We don't take the opinion of a minority 1% of Muslims who have no deep knowledge in Islam

Argumentum ad populum fallacy. And who is "we"? Who appointed you spokesperson for the ummah?
And there are well qualified scholars who have a very different interpretation to you. Why do you think you know better than they? What are your qualifications. How long did you study, and under which sheiykh?

 

[KWED]

Let's say the verses are not connected, then what!
There are countless times in the Quran that shows when and why Muslims have to fight

That would be the problem of that young man, not the problem of Islam

Now you are simply ignoring my argument.
But I agree that there are many passages that call for fighting, violent punishments, etc, so it's not like its the odd, isolated verse.

 

[RAYYAN]

Now you are simply ignoring my argument.
But I agree that there are many passages that call for fighting, violent punishments, etc, so it's not like its the odd, isolated verse.

That is because Islamic history is rich, many tried to take it down but, of course failed miserably LOL
You have no argument

 

[RAYYAN]

You mean that when you read the whole thing you can usually find a passage to suit any agenda, so if you find a verse you don't like, keep looking.

Don't be silly. You know I don't mean that

So if those young Muslims believe that 9:61 is as clear as it seems, then they can act on it.

Again, 9:61 has no action to be taken by any human, it is talking about the punishment of God

Argumentum ad populum fallacy. And who is "we"? Who appointed you spokesperson for the ummah?
And there are well qualified scholars who have a very different interpretation to you. Why do you think you know better than they? What are your qualifications. How long did you study, and under which sheiykh?

Who appointed you to analyze the Quran and say what it means?
What is your qualification?

For me, I am a simple man who understand the Quran and learned it all of my life

 

[KWED]

It is a fact since I read it

No. It is a fact that you remember reading something. Whether or not what you recall is itself a fact is a different issue.

Wow, the 1% is 17 million

Er, yeah. They not teaching maths at your school?

Islam and muslims must be doing something right by having 1.8 billion followers

So despite previously claiming the there were insignificant numbers of Muslims prepared to engage in violence against their perceived enemies, you are now celebrating having an army of 17 million jihaddists. Wow!

And the reason for the large numbers of Muslims is the spread of the Islamic empires in medieval times. Kinda like how half the world is Christian. Empire and conquest. Nothing to be proud of.
Islam is growing faster than other religions because Muslim women generally have more children than any other group. At a time when overpopulation is one of the biggest crises facing the world, that is not a good thing either!