Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
As @RAYYAN has already pointed out, the Quran can be interpreted in many different ways, but it doesn't take much of an imagination to see how "And if ye gain mastery over the enemy, deal harshly with them as a lesson for those who might follow" could lead to beheading prisoners and posting the videos online.
Many Muslims don't know much about Islam. Millions have never read the Quran - yet no one claims they are "not true Muslims".
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.
Now let me ask you this; how do you know which is the "wrong interpretation"?
"Fight until all religion is for Allah"?
The preceding verses are talking about the hypocrites (people who pretend to be Muslims but only for their own gain) although he does say to cut their hearts out.
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.
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)
That's right !
PhD in Islamic studies - must be interpreting it wrong.
But you are ignoring the vital element. It doesn't say "Fight them until we have repulsed them from our borders" - it says "Fight them until all religion is for Allah".
So it's ok to invade and conquer if it is to spread Islam, but not for financial gain.
His years studying Islamic law and the Quran seem to have helped shape his role as leader of the Caliphate.Politics..
Our hearts are affected by what goes on in the world.
It doesn't mean that.
How did verse 107 mitigate the call to fighting and martyrdom for Allah in 111?
But it says that. So how do you know it means something different? And how do you know what that different meaning is if the Quran doesn't say it?It doesn't mean that.
Which part of that suggests that if the disbelievers stop fighting, there is to be no more ideological expansionism?
PhD in Islamic studies - must be interpreting it wrong.
Bahai on the internet - must be interpreting it right.
On what grounds? And how do you know your c=source is accurate?
My sources are varied and partly corroborative. And the historical facts cannot be denied.
You are simply assuming that whatever some bloke said must be true - even though some of it is demonstrably untrue.
The history of the expansion of the Muslim empire was recorded by various sources, some eye-witnesses. There is also archaeological evidence. You don't seem to uxnderdstrand how the study of history works.
Also, Bahaullah was not there so you can't use what he said as an argument, especially as he doesn't cite any supporting evidence.
What are you taking about? There is plenty of evidence to show the Islamic empire expanding massively over the years during and after Muhammad's reign.
Unfortunately for your argument, you cannot even show that a god exists, so you can't claim that Bahaullah was anything to do with that god. The usual circular logic claims made by Bahais are obvious nonsense.
Which is why your position is untenable.
"Burden of proof" dear thing. You are claiming that a god exists, and that Bahaullah was his messenger. Therefore it is your responsibility to show said god exists before you can make any further claims involving it. And you can't do that. You simply resort to circular logic.
lol. Don't need to. I just need to show that my explanation is more likely, or my argument better supported than your god claim. And it clearly is.
But as you cannot provide anything to support your claim, it can be dismissed.
You believe it to be true, but you are unable to show that your belief is true.
I could post a number of passages on how other groups or individuals have a very different view of Islam. Not sure what your point is?
I claim that, and I read the Quran day in and day out