This will shake some people to their core...

[Spirit of Light]

As you guys know, I am trying to be a sufi who find peaceful ways in life, even I might have a spike of anger now and then, so in my search I found this.
An I hope I will explain a bit about the teaching, but don't worry I have no need to do proselytizing. This thread hopefully will give answer to why extremism is wrong and that in the text when it say "kill others" it is not the non Muslims, but terrorists them self.

What is your thoughts after reading it?

Yet the extremists trying to kill Muslims in Mecca pursued the Muslims to kill them in Medina. And now – finally – the Quran addressed fighting for the first time, permitting Muslims to fight in self-defence. The permission given in Quran 22:40-41 to fight was only given to “those against whom war is waged.” And fighting wasn’t just to defend Muslims from persecution – but to defend Christians, Jews, and people of all faiths. All subsequent verses addressing fighting are pre-conditioned on these clearly outlined rules of self-defense. Otherwise, it’s cherry picking, something the Quran forbids as perverse.

Additionally, Quran 2:193-194 declares that Muslims may only fight active combatants. Meaning, even if during battle an enemy combatant asks for amnesty, you must grant it. In Islam, there’s no such thing as “collateral damage,” mutilation, or torture. All this notwithstanding, fact three issues the death blow to Daesh and Islamophobe ideology.

You might now understand who the Quran refers to when it says “kill them where you find them”. The “them” are those terrorists who persecuted people for their faith, exiled them from their homes and then pursued to kill innocent people in their new homes.

Show this to anyone who believes the Quran teaches violence


And to those who think this an attack on Islam: no it is not, it is to explain that basic Islam is not extreme and harmful to others.

 

[Lain]

What is your thoughts after reading it?

I've heard this reading before, seems pretty common. I do not know enough about the Islamic history of interpretation or Islamic history at all to make a judgment as to whether or not it is truly how it should be read though, for I know from the experience of my own religion that you shouldn't really give credence to a MSM article about interpreting anything concerning... much of anything.

 

[sun rise]

10 hadiths, Quranic verses that forbid murder of non-Muslims is one site that has more information.

I found a translation of 5:32 that seems clearer:

Khalifa Because of this, we decreed for the Children of Israel that anyone who murders any person who had not committed murder or horrendous crimes, it shall be as if he murdered all the people. And anyone who spares a life, it shall be as if he spared the lives of all the people. Our messengers went to them with clear proofs and revelations, but most of them, after all this, are still transgressing.

 

[SalixIncendium]

The permission given in Quran 22:40-41 to fight was only given to “those against whom war is waged.”

Waged by whom?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Waged by whom?

Terrorists, those are the only ones Muslims should stop or even kill. Not the none believer

 

[SalixIncendium]

Terrorists, those are the only ones Muslims should stop or even kill. Not the none believer

But who is left to decide who is a "terrorist?" For example, the Taliban and other Muslim radical extremists consider many westerners to be be "terrorists."

It takes one person to call a group of people terrorists. Atrocities happen when that person is able to convince others and rally followers behind them, even if they're wrong about another group being "terrorists."

Is it the place of a holy book to give people permission to wage war against others without giving clear cut guidelines of which people are considered terrorists?

Right and wrong are subjective terms. Seems to me the Quran has left quite a bit to interpretation.

 

[Spirit of Light]

But who is left to decide who is a "terrorist?" For example, the Taliban and other Muslim radical extremists consider many westerners to be be "terrorists."

It takes one person to call a group of people terrorists. Atrocities happen when that person is able to convince others and rally followers behind them, even if they're wrong about another group being "terrorists."

Is it the place of a holy book to give people permission to wage war against others without giving clear cut guidelines of which people are considered terrorists?

Right and wrong are subjective terms. Seems to me the Quran has left quite a bit to interpretation.

Just following what the teaching says, to not kill who are not guilty of terror, one can only defend if attacked by others.

A question is do Taliban or isis actually following the teaching, asking me the answer is no.

 

[SalixIncendium]

A question is do Taliban or isis actually following the teaching, asking me the answer is no.

But if the Quran gives permission to fight terrorists, and the Taliban and ISIS consider westerners to be terrorists, how are they not justified in their actions according to the Quran?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Just following what the teaching says, to not kill who are not guilty of terror, one can only defend if attacked by others.

A question is do Taliban or isis actually following the teaching, asking me the answer is no.

As long as you understand what principle you are using behind the bold one. You are doing this: "Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." Protagoras. And that means, in the standard versions of right and wrong to you, they are not following the teaching as you understand it and to them, they are following the teaching in their understanding.

We can do a lot of fancy words, but it ends like this. You accept that right and wrong is to you and you don't claim right and wrong from God or any other objective source. Now if you want to claim an objective source, I will "fight" you.

 

[Spirit of Light]

But if the Quran gives permission to fight terrorists, and the Taliban and ISIS consider westerners to be terrorists, how are they not justified in their actions according to the Quran?

Because western are not Muslims ( this is my understanding) that Muslims should not kill foreign people, Christians, Jews and so on.

My understanding is that the terrorists today making a huge error.

 

[Audie]

Just following what the teaching says, to not kill who are not guilty of terror, one can only defend if attacked by others.

A question is do Taliban or isis actually following the teaching, asking me the answer is no.

No surprise, we've heard it before.

I dont know that book, but i expect it leaves a great deal to interpretation, not having been written by lawyers.

Just following the Bible gives literal world wide flood, or, its pure metaphor Or so some say.

Theres no mortal who is the final authority.

 

[Spirit of Light]

As long as you understand what principle you are using behind the bold one. You are doing this: "Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." Protagoras. And that means, in the standard versions of right and wrong to you, they are not following the teaching as you understand it and to them, they are following the teaching in their understanding.

We can do a lot of fancy words, but it ends like this. You accept that right and wrong is to you and you don't claim right and wrong from God or any other objective source. Now if you want to claim an objective source, I will "fight" you.

I have no use of "fight"
What I speak of here is my understanding of the teaching, that means other Muslims and non Muslims alike will probably disagree with my understanding, and that's ok

 

[Spirit of Light]

No surprise, we've heard it before.

I dont know that book, but i expect it leaves a great deal to interpretation, not having been written by lawyers.

Just following the Bible gives literal world wide flood, or, its pure metaphor Or so some say.

Theres no mortal who is the final authority.

I can say 100% certain, I am not an authority of any religion or non religious topic, and feel free to disagree with the OP.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No surprise, we've heard it before.

I dont know that book, but i expect it leaves a great deal to interpretation, not having been written by lawyers.

Just following the Bible gives literal world wide flood, or, its pure metaphor Or so some say.

Theres no mortal who is the final authority.

Yeah, that applies to all world views apparently and not just the religious ones.

 

[Valjean]

The Arab Golden Age occurred when the various tribes united, under a single religion. But this was lost when their innate, primitive tribalism again reëmerged. Their solidarity split into loyalty -- to family, tribe and the artificial 'turfs' we call countries.
Loyalty to person or group is always problematic. Loyalty should be to principle only.

If we're ever going to achieve peace and prosperity in the world, we must stop coveting the wealth of others or exploiting them, or supporting those persons and organizations who do. We must abandon differential moral obligation and treat everyone as brothers, just as the Abrahamic holy books seem to recommend (in some parts. ).

...end of rant.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I can say 100% certain, I am not an authority of any religion or non religious topic, and feel free to disagree with the OP.

If they do, they cannot vocalize it. We're in a non-debate forum.

 

[Spirit of Light]

If they do, they cannot vocalize it. We're in a non-debate forum.

Oh crap.....

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Oh crap.....

Yeah, this morning when I read your OP, I thought it belonged in debate. But whatever.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Yeah, this morning when I read your OP, I thought it belonged in debate. But whatever.

The reason I don't put my OP in debate is that I have bad experience with it, to much poo flinging will occur.

 

[SalixIncendium]

The reason I don't put my OP in debate is that I have bad experience with it, to much poo flinging will occur.

The fact that it wasn't in a debate forum shook me to my core.