Killing for apostacy is against Quran.

[epronovost]

Nope. The verse says hypocrites before that.

Indeed and they are hypocrites specifically because they are heretics and/or apostates. An apostate/heretic can be a hypocrite and will most often be called as such by their enemy. Apostates and heretics are, by necessity, hypocrites from the point of view of the faithful/orthodox.

It does say earned. Kasaba means earned.

And it doesn't have any other usage? If no, it doesn't change anything as I mentioned before "What they earned" would be a turn of phrase to mean "what their actions have brought upon them".

It doesnt say anything of that. You have inserted it.

It actually does in the very next verse (Surat An-Nisaa 4 : 89). They don't believe in the message of the Quran and are eager to convince others to follow their way and its useless to try to convince them of their error for Allah wanted them to be in error and only He can bring them back. The fact that this verse uses specifically the term "disbelief" to refer to the conduct of the "hypocrites" and that they desire to make others like them "disbelievers" pretty much define the hypocrites of the prior verse as apostates/heretics.

 

[firedragon]

Indeed and they are hypocrites specifically because they are heretics and/or apostates.

Nope. Before that. Were they hypocrites anyway? Maybe I am saying this for the third or fourth time. They are called hypocrites prior to the regression from what they earned etc etc. I can see you are trying your best to make them hypocrites because of the other thing you want it to be, about apostates, but it does not say that. You are imposing your own predisposition on the verse. And that is also because you have never read the Qur'an so you dont know the context of the Quran. Thats fine. Most of the apologists have never read the book. But understand the question.

And it doesn't have any other usage? If no, it doesn't change anything as I mentioned before "What they earned" would be a turn of phrase to mean "what their actions have brought upon them".

No. In this case, their so called regression is because of their deeds. So are you saying that they regressed because of their deeds or their apostasy? See, your case is that the regression itself is the apostasy, but the cause of that regression in this verse is their deeds. So are you saying they apostatised because their deeds were not good?

It actually does in the very next verse (Surat An-Nisaa 4 : 89). They don't believe in the message of the Quran and are eager to convince others to follow their way and its useless to try to convince them of their error for Allah wanted them to be in error and only He can bring them back. The fact that this verse uses specifically the term "disbelief" to refer to the conduct of the "hypocrites" and that they desire to make others like them "disbelievers" pretty much define the hypocrites of the prior verse as apostates/heretics.

Can you show me the word "muslim" there?

 

[epronovost]

Nope. Before that. Were they hypocrites anyway? Maybe I am saying this for the third or fourth time. They are called hypocrites prior to the regression from what they earned etc etc. I can see you are trying your best to make them hypocrites because of the other thing you want it to be, about apostates, but it does not say that. You are imposing your own predisposition on the verse. And that is also because you have never read the Qur'an so you dont know the context of the Quran. Thats fine. Most of the apologists have never read the book. But understand the question.

They are called hypocrites prior in the text, but then the reason as to why they are called hypocrites and of which hypocrites we are talking about is exposed at length in the following sentences since this isn't about any of your garden variety of hypocrites. It's not about Abdul who always complains about people not being punctual and who is always late. We are talking about the hypocrites who have turned their back on their religion and regressed to disbelief despite their prior claim to piety and faith.

This is a text, you can split each sentence and attribute it a meaning completely independent of the context and what follows. That's what we call quote mining. The hypocrites are clearly referred as disbeliever whom it's useless to try to bring back to the faith since they want others to disbelieve like them. That makes those particular hypocrites apostates and they are hypocrites because they believe they are good or are otherwise duplicitous in some ways. I don't see how you could think these people should be anything else than apostate or heretics of some sort and "hypocrites" is basically just an ad hominem because, visibly, from the content of that paragraph, these people are to be hated or at the very least mistrusted and perceived as liars and bad people. It doesn't make any sense to me, reading that paragraph that the person to be killed on sight except in a series of circumstances mentioned bellow are hypocrites of unspecified nature or even that the main reproach we have of the people who should be killed on sight except in some circumstances is their hypocrisy while much more attention and emphasis is brought upon their status as disbelievers who want others to disbelieve.

No. In this case, their so called regression is because of their deeds. So are you saying that they regressed because of their deeds or their apostasy? See, your case is that the regression itself is the apostasy, but the cause of that regression in this verse is their deeds. So are you saying they apostatised because their deeds were not good?

Almost, I'm saying that their apostasy is demonstrated, or evident to the faithful, because of the deeds (or behavior if you prefer). "We know they are apostate because they act like apostates" sort of deal.

Can you show me the word "muslim" there?

It's not mentioned neither did I used it in the paragraph you quoted so I don't understand the question.

 

[firedragon]

They are called hypocrites prior in the text, but then the reason as to why they are called hypocrites and of which hypocrites we are talking about is exposed at length

Nope. Thats absolutely false.

It's not mentioned neither did I used it in the paragraph you quoted so I don't understand the question.

Strange you dont understand that question.

Basically, hypocrites refer to the people who are apostates and/or heretics, who claim to be good, but are not because they don't behave like proper Muslims and have rejected the teachings of the Quran or the authorities of the Islamic Empire. "What they earned" would be a turn of phrase to mean "what their actions have brought upon them", in that case being qualified of hypocrites, traitors and apostates because they don't believe in the message of the Quran.

Thats what YOU said. Forgetting that you just "MADE UP" a false assertion that "refer to the people who are apostates and/or heretics, who claim to be good, but are not because they don't behave like proper Muslims and have rejected the teachings of the Quran or the authorities of the Islamic Empire" which is absolutely just made up, so show me the word Muslim in that verse.

You are making things up. What kind of evangelist are you? What missionary group do you belong to? Im asking a serious question.

 

[epronovost]

Nope. Thats absolutely false.

That's just an assertion. Back it up. Who are the hypocrites? Why did the very next sentence, obviously referring to the same people, then describes them as people who regressed to unbelief? How are who regress to unbelief not apostates (or heretics)? You didn't provide a single reasonable excuse for that. It doesn't refer to the conditions in which you should kill hypocrites of the garden variety like my Abdul example.

so show me the word Muslim in that verse.

It's the religious identity of the person writing those verses. It does not bear a quotation mark meaning it's a Muslim, writing it down. I don't think the Quran needs to remind its readers every two lines that it's indeed written by Muslims for the intent of transmitting their faith. If a text written by Muslims for Muslims talks about abandoning a faith or reverting back to unbelief, the faith abandoned in such a context is the Muslim faith of course.

You are making things up. What kind of evangelist are you? What missionary group do you belong to? Im asking a serious question.

I'm an atheist and you know it. It's written on my profile. What's your problem?

Nothing can prevent me from reading a paragraph and try making sense out of it. This paragraph is pretty clear. Kill those traitorous, lying apostates in those conditions [proceeds to mention the proper condition], but not in those [proceeds to mention the proper conditions]. It doesn't talk about any hypocrites nor does it talk about dishonest people in general. It talks about people who are hypocrites either because they are "false converts", apostates or heretics. I will also call you out on bull**** apologetics if I see it too since I think that's rather hypocritical.

 

[firedragon]

That's just an assertion. Back it up. Who are the hypocrites?

I have told you already. Maybe you didnt read.

A hypocrite is a Munafiq in arabic. Thats someone who pretends to be righteous. Is that clear?

It's the religious identity of the person writing those verses. It does not bear a quotation mark meaning it's a Muslim, writing it down. I don't think the Quran needs to remind its readers every two lines that it's indeed written by Muslims for the intent of transmitting their faith. If a text written by Muslims for Muslims talks about abandoning a faith or reverting back to unbelief, the faith abandoned in such a context is the Muslim faith of course.

So bottomline is there is nothing about being a Muslim in it. So you just came up with it.

I'm an atheist and you know it. It's written on my profile. What's your problem?

Sorry I didnt see your profile. I have never looked at someones profile to find out what they are. Which is why sometimes I call ladies "brother'.

But I am surprised you are an atheist because its generally some kind of evangelist with a religious agenda who makes things up with a religious scripture like this.

Nothing can prevent me from reading a paragraph and try making sense out of it. This paragraph is pretty clear. Kill those traitorous, lying apostates in those conditions

Thats actually a bogus story you are telling. You are just making things up.

Never mind. Even if this verse is all about an apostate, still you can't kill them for apostasy because the Quran is against it. Generally other missionaries do cherry pick verses they find on a Christian, anti islamic site type of thing and create stories around one verse and that's exactly what you are doing. I find it strange when atheists do it who are supposedly rational people, not people make things up with their emotional needs and wants.

Nevertheless, if you read the Quran, the apostates cannot be harmed unless they participate in a war against muslims (2:256). For the basic principles of war see 8:19; 60:8,9, and 9:29.

Anyway, just to add to your missionary attempt, read the next verse.

"Except for those who join a people between whom you have a covenant, or those who come to you with reluctance in their chests to fight you or to fight their own people. Had God willed He would have given them strength and they would have fought you. But if they retire from you, and did not fight you, and they offer you peace; then God does not make for you a way against them."

So just the immediate next verse is very clear that this is about people who fight you, and even if they are apostates as you wish it to be, its still said that if they do not fight you then God does not make for you a way against them.

 

[epronovost]

I have told you already. Maybe you didnt read.

A hypocrite is a Munafiq in arabic. Thats someone who pretends to be righteous. Is that clear?

How does that explains all the "reverted to unbelief" of the following sentence and of course the unspoken assumption you are trying to hide. What's a righteous person according the Quran? Can an unbeliever who acts as an unbeliever be righteous? Is an apostate righteous?

So bottomline is there is nothing about being a Muslim in it. So you just came up with it.

So you are saying the Quran wasn't written by a Muslim? That's not something "i just came up with" it's something that's self evident from the context of the text. That's called "external criticism" that's when you use information about the book to inform your reading of the content of the book. It's one of the ABC of critical reading.

Sorry I didnt see your profile. I have never looked at someones profile to find out what they are. Which is why sometimes I call ladies "brother'.

Weird, you can see on the right, just bellow my number of post and my rating. I can't see your location or gender, but it says that your religion is Islam. No need to

Never mind. Even if this verse is all about an apostate, still you can't kill them for apostasy because the Quran is against it. Generally other missionaries do cherry pick verses they find on a Christian, anti islamic site type of thing and create stories around one verse and that's exactly what you are doing. I find it strange when atheists do it who are supposedly rational people, not people make things up with their emotional needs and wants.

It does say you cannot kill them in many situation like if they demand pardon or "come in peace" or seek refuge amongst allies or cause problems to enemies, but if they do try to subvert the faith of others, you can and should exile them and if they return kill them. That's pretty much the only time you can kill an apostate as far as I can tell from that paragraph. It also state you should not be friends with them nor employ them. And it's definitely about apostate, particularly about vocal apostates who would wish to convince others to be apostates either through their actions or their words. The passage obviously doesn't refer to unrighteous people who pretend to be in general nor common criminals either (who are pretty much always deceivers and and unrighteous by definition). It refers to a more specific type of unrighteous people who pretend to be: apostate, heretics and "false converts".

 

[firedragon]

reverted to unbelief

the verse doesnt say that. Its just made up. You know this but you insist in using a made up sentence.

So you are saying the Quran wasn't written by a Muslim?

No. Quran is Gods word. So unless you want to get into that discussion, this is a moot point. Since you have not read the Quran, let me enlighten you. Read it rather than cherry picking and quote mining.

Quran begins, the second chapter, Zalikal Kithaba la raiba fee hi, hudhallil muttaqeen. This book, where there is no doubt for the righteous. It doesnt say "to the Muslim".

So rather than making things up, ask your question to know more.

Weird, you can see on the right, just bellow my number of post and my rating. I can't see your location or gender, but it says that your religion is Islam. No need to

Maybe its weird for you, and also maybe you think others are hypocrites. Its all upto you. I dont know who you are, so I asked because of the manner in which you are making things up for apologetics.

It does say you cannot kill them in many situation like if they demand pardon or "come in peace" or seek refuge amongst allies or cause problems to enemies, but if they do try to subvert the faith of others, you can and should exile them and if they return kill them. That's pretty much the only time you can kill an apostate as far as I can tell from that paragraph. It also state you should not be friends with them nor employ them. And it's definitely about apostate, particularly about vocal apostates who would wish to convince others to be apostates either through their actions or their words. The passage obviously doesn't refer to unrighteous people who pretend to be in general nor common criminals either (who are pretty much always deceivers and and unrighteous by definition). It refers to a more specific type of unrighteous people who pretend to be: apostate, heretics and "false converts".

You are just making things up.

Even if this verse is all about an apostate, still you can't kill them for apostasy because the Quran is against it. Generally other missionaries do cherry pick verses they find on a Christian, anti islamic site type of thing and create stories around one verse and that's exactly what you are doing. I find it strange when atheists do it who are supposedly rational people, not people make things up with their emotional needs and wants.

 

[epronovost]

the verse doesnt say that. Its just made up. You know this but you insist in using a made up sentence.

And you insist on cherry picking. The OP and the linked translation clearly states that it's talking about unbelievers. You keep trying to deflect for some reason, but it's very clear that we are talking about people who don't believe in the "word of God" as defined and recorded in the Quran.

No. Quran is Gods word. So unless you want to get into that discussion, this is a moot point. Since you have not read the Quran, let me enlighten you. Read it rather than cherry picking and quote mining.

Quran begins, the second chapter, Zalikal Kithaba la raiba fee hi, hudhallil muttaqeen. This book, where there is no doubt for the righteous. It doesnt say "to the Muslim".

So rather than making things up, ask your question to know more.

Nice semantic dodge here. The Quran is undoubtedly the holy book of the Muslim faith. The people who wrote it, and it's people who wrote it down, were Muslims. They believed it was inspired or dictated by an angel on behalf of God, but the words where written by human hands and recited by human voices to a public of humans we now call "the Muslims". The nice thing though is that your little quotation let's me think that one of the answer to my question is that no, an unbeliever cannot be righteous since an unbeliever doesn't read nor respect the Quran and the Quran is made for the attention of "the righteous".

Now, that we have established that the Quran is the holy book of the Muslims that when Quran talks of the "believers", it refers to those we call today the Muslims. Can you tell me honestly if an apostate can be righteous? Can you tell me if an unbeliever can be righteous?

Even if this verse is all about an apostate, still you can't kill them for apostasy because the Quran is against it. Generally other missionaries do cherry pick verses they find on a Christian, anti islamic site type of thing and create stories around one verse and that's exactly what you are doing. I find it strange when atheists do it who are supposedly rational people, not people make things up with their emotional needs and wants.

It specifically says you can kill them in one narrow condition. If they were exiled, come back and give you trouble again. In that case killing them is righteous since they are "attacking you". You would have to be an idiot, reading that paragraph and then claim that it says nobody is to be killed for any reason whatsoever. It might be contradicted by other passages in the Quran, but that's not what's discussed right now.

 

[Spirit of Light]

And you insist on cherry picking. The OP and the linked translation clearly states that it's talking about unbelievers. You keep trying to deflect for some reason, but it's very clear that we are talking about people who don't believe in the "word of God" as defined and recorded in the Quran.





Nice semantic dodge here. The Quran is undoubtedly the holy book of the Muslim faith. The people who wrote it, and it's people who wrote it down, were Muslims. They believed it was inspired or dictated by an angel on behalf of God, but the words where written by human hands and recited by human voices to a public of humans we now call "the Muslims". The nice thing though is that your little quotation let's me think that one of the answer to my question is that no, an unbeliever cannot be righteous since an unbeliever doesn't read nor respect the Quran and the Quran is made for the attention of "the righteous".

Now, that we have established that the Quran is the holy book of the Muslims that when Quran talks of the "believers", it refers to those we call today the Muslims. Can you tell me honestly if an apostate can be righteous? Can you tell me if an unbeliever can be righteous?




It specifically says you can kill them in one narrow condition. If they were exiled, come back and give you trouble again. In that case killing them is righteous since they are "attacking you". You would have to be an idiot, reading that paragraph and then claim that it says nobody is to be killed for any reason whatsoever. It might be contradicted by other passages in the Quran, but that's not what's discussed right now.

If it say "you can" do it, does not mean it should be done
During war, there are to my knowledge a few different rules applying in mostly all religions. You can techincally defend but not attack ( my understanding can be wrong)

 

[firedragon]

And you insist on cherry picking. The OP and the linked translation clearly states that it's talking about unbelievers.

But you know that verse doesnt say what you want it to say. It does not have those in parenthesis, you know it.

I can cut and paste this a million times if you want. Well, when people use made up things it is probably necessary to cut and paste a million times.

What is the matter with you that you are divided into two groups over the hypocrites, while God has allowed them to regress for what they have earned? Do you want to guide those whom God misguides? Whoever God causes to be misguided, you will never find for him a way.

No religion there. If you want to look for a word for word analysis, refer to this link. I mean if you want to of course.

The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Word by Word Grammar, Syntax and Morphology of the Holy Quran

Nice semantic dodge here.

Nope. Its just a verse. Its no semantics dodge which of course is your apologetic tactic.
2:2 This Book, is without doubt, a guide for the righteous.

It specifically says you can kill them in one narrow condition. If they were exiled, come back and give you trouble again. In that case killing them is righteous since they are "attacking you". You would have to be an idiot, reading that paragraph and then claim that it says nobody is to be killed for any reason whatsoever. It might be contradicted by other passages in the Quran, but that's not what's discussed right now.

Yeah. but this is one book so rather than quote mining dishonestly, you can read the full book and understand its context. Dont make things up.


Nevertheless, if you read the Quran, the apostates cannot be harmed unless they participate in a war against muslims (2:256). For the basic principles of war see 8:19; 60:8,9, and 9:29.

Anyway, just to add to your missionary attempt, read the next verse.

"Except for those who join a people between whom you have a covenant, or those who come to you with reluctance in their chests to fight you or to fight their own people. Had God willed He would have given them strength and they would have fought you. But if they retire from you, and did not fight you, and they offer you peace; then God does not make for you a way against them."

 

[firedragon]

And you insist on cherry picking. The OP and the linked translation clearly states that it's talking about unbelievers. You keep trying to deflect for some reason, but it's very clear that we are talking about people who don't believe in the "word of God" as defined and recorded in the Quran.





Nice semantic dodge here. The Quran is undoubtedly the holy book of the Muslim faith. The people who wrote it, and it's people who wrote it down, were Muslims. They believed it was inspired or dictated by an angel on behalf of God, but the words where written by human hands and recited by human voices to a public of humans we now call "the Muslims". The nice thing though is that your little quotation let's me think that one of the answer to my question is that no, an unbeliever cannot be righteous since an unbeliever doesn't read nor respect the Quran and the Quran is made for the attention of "the righteous".

Now, that we have established that the Quran is the holy book of the Muslims that when Quran talks of the "believers", it refers to those we call today the Muslims. Can you tell me honestly if an apostate can be righteous? Can you tell me if an unbeliever can be righteous?




It specifically says you can kill them in one narrow condition. If they were exiled, come back and give you trouble again. In that case killing them is righteous since they are "attacking you". You would have to be an idiot, reading that paragraph and then claim that it says nobody is to be killed for any reason whatsoever. It might be contradicted by other passages in the Quran, but that's not what's discussed right now.

Why do you make missionary apologetics so religiously without reading a book mate? Is not that irrational?

You must fight if someone is weak, being persecuted and are oppressed.

4:75 And why do you not fight in the cause of God, when the weak among the men and women and children say: “Our Lord, bring us out of this town whose people are wicked, and grant us from yourself a Supporter, and grant us from yourself a Victor!”



You must fight on behalf of the weak

4:75 And why do you not fight in the cause of God, when the weak among the men and women and children say: “Our Lord, bring us out of this town whose people are wicked, and grant us from Yourself a Supporter, and grant us from Yourself a Victor!”



Charities to be used for just cause

9:60 The charities are to go to the poor, and the needy, and those who work to collect them, and those whose hearts have been united, and to free the slaves, and those in debt, and in the cause of God, and the wayfarer. A duty from God, and God is Knowledgeable, Wise.



You cannot kill unjustly



17:33 And do not kill, for God has made this forbidden, except in the course of justice. And whoever is killed innocently, then We have given his heir authority, so let him not transgress in the taking of a life, for He will be given victory. Just cause to kill is aggression, but you are not allowed to be the aggressor.


2:190 And fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but do not transgress, God does not like the aggressors.


2:191 And kill them wherever you overcome them, and expel them from where they expelled you, and know that persecution is worse than being killed. And do not fight them at the Sacred Temple unless they fight you in it; if they fight you then kill them, thus is the recompense of the disbelievers.


2:192 And if they cease, then God is Forgiving, Merciful.


2:193 And fight them so there is no more persecution, and so that the system is God’s. If they cease, then there will be no aggression except against the wicked.

 

[Link]

refer to the verse. Its speaking about hypocrites. So you cant just make stuff up like this. Its simply speaking about hypocrites.

Anyway. You missed this. I told you that this regression is from "what they earned". You speaking about regression from the evolved state, reducing in age etc etc and all kinds of most nonsensical so called "regressions" as if you didnt see this "what they earned".

So what did these hypocrites earn?

I'm talking about the verses as quoted in the OP.

 

[firedragon]

I'm talking about the verses as quoted in the OP.

Brother. Living in this world, I have seen all the apologetics brought forward to portray all muslims as a murderous gang.

I know this verse. Its pretty commonly used in Christian evangelical websites and by people like Sam. The atheists pick it up from them.

 

[Link]

Brother. Living in this world, I have seen all the apologetics brought forward to portray all muslims as a murderous gang.

I know this verse. Its pretty commonly used in Christian evangelical websites and by people like Sam. The atheists pick it up from them.

I'm trying to understand what you are trying to say but don't get it.

 

[firedragon]

I'm trying to understand what you are trying to say but don't get it.

I am not saying anything to you. You responded to someone else's response.

 

[epronovost]

If it say "you can" do it, does not mean it should be done
During war, there are to my knowledge a few different rules applying in mostly all religions. You can techincally defend but not attack ( my understanding can be wrong)

I don't think this exception refers to conduct in war (though it certainly extend to that context indeed). The very next paragraphs talks about when you are allowed to kill believers (basically never except when it's an accident or if it was in self-defense and even then, if you still do you have to free slaves or give money to charity or the family of the deceased). If the rules were basically the same for both groups, you wouldn't need to treat them in two different categories to say basically the same thing twice in a slightly different matter. At least that's not what I would assume in that context. The "peace" broken by the apostates/false convert/heretics is probably more of a social peace sort of deal than a peace in the military sense of the term though that's just an assumption. I have no clue if in the Arab language there are clear differences between those concepts.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I don't think this exception refers to conduct in war (though it certainly extend to that context indeed). The very next paragraphs talks about when you are allowed to kill believers (basically never except when it's an accident or if it was in self-defense and even then, if you still do you have to free slaves or give money to charity or the family of the deceased). If the rules were basically the same for both groups, you wouldn't need to treat them in two different categories to say basically the same thing twice in a slightly different matter.

Look like sufis look at this a bit different, to always help, care and hold love and compassion for all, no matter Muslim or not.

 

[epronovost]

Look like sufis look at this a bit different, to always help, care and hold love and compassion for all, no matter Muslim or not.

To be frank those verses are a far cry from an allowance to kill non believers, but only in specific, rather limited circumstances which would be deemed criminal, especially in an authoritarian theocratic State and the Islamic Empire was such a State. Then again, Sufi have suffered persecutions at the hand of more orthodox groups of Muslims from the Middle-Ages to today. It all depends on the level of puritanism one has while reading those pages. I have no trouble picturing a puritanical Muslim reading the paragraph quoted in the OP and see an allowance to kill apostates and unbelievers, but I can also see where you are coming from and see something much more mild that limits severely the level of violence.

 

[epronovost]

Why do you make missionary apologetics so religiously without reading a book mate? Is not that irrational?

I did read the passages and large stretches of the book and I disagree with you. Hell, the Muslim world disagrees with you. There are numerous records of execution for apostasy in the Muslim world from the earliest days of your faith up to today with a severe drop in those case with the secularization of the governments of the various Middle Eastern States in after the fall of the Ottoman Empire

4:75 And why do you not fight in the cause of God, when the weak among the men and women and children say: “Our Lord, bring us out of this town whose people are wicked, and grant us from yourself a Supporter, and grant us from yourself a Victor!”



You must fight on behalf of the weak

4:75 And why do you not fight in the cause of God, when the weak among the men and women and children say: “Our Lord, bring us out of this town whose people are wicked, and grant us from Yourself a Supporter, and grant us from Yourself a Victor!”



Charities to be used for just cause

9:60 The charities are to go to the poor, and the needy, and those who work to collect them, and those whose hearts have been united, and to free the slaves, and those in debt, and in the cause of God, and the wayfarer. A duty from God, and God is Knowledgeable, Wise.



You cannot kill unjustly



17:33 And do not kill, for God has made this forbidden, except in the course of justice. And whoever is killed innocently, then We have given his heir authority, so let him not transgress in the taking of a life, for He will be given victory. Just cause to kill is aggression, but you are not allowed to be the aggressor.


2:190 And fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but do not transgress, God does not like the aggressors.


2:191 And kill them wherever you overcome them, and expel them from where they expelled you, and know that persecution is worse than being killed. And do not fight them at the Sacred Temple unless they fight you in it; if they fight you then kill them, thus is the recompense of the disbelievers.


2:192 And if they cease, then God is Forgiving, Merciful.


2:193 And fight them so there is no more persecution, and so that the system is God’s. If they cease, then there will be no aggression except against the wicked.

That's nice and all and pretty much every Holy Book says the same. Notice that your verse 17:33 leaves the biggest loophole in the history of loopholes "except in the course of justice". If a verse makes it legal to kill apostate if they are vocal about their apostasy and try to de-convert others, killing them is justice and thus allowed. A verse like 17:33 is basically meaningless without codes of law. A puritanical Muslim could see in such a verse the right to kill all those different then him because they are not just or righteous and it's right to fight injustice. That's why you can have people who are both devout Muslims and mass murderers and others who are equally devout Muslims be some of the most kind people on Earth.