Contradiction in the Qur'an.

[Spirit of Light]

But you said earlier that a true Muslim does not harm others...

Yes i did say that, and i do think that to harm others show that one still holds a form of ego. to accept once faith no matter what happen without harming others is in my understanding a better way to be a muslim. But again if other muslims see it differently that is not up to me to judge them for.

 

[stevecanuck]

Thats made up. I didnt expect that.

See Steve, making things up and using them as an argument is kind of absurd.

 

[stevecanuck]

A Muslim is permitted to do harm to others, or to kill, under certain circumstances, i.e. in accordance with Islamic law, e.g. in a just war.

Correct. And a just war is any war that spreads Islamic rule. Again, France, 732 CE. Why were they there if not to conquer?

 

[stevecanuck]

Yes i did say that, and i do think that to harm others show that one still holds a form of ego. to accept once faith no matter what happen without harming others is in my understanding a better way to be a muslim. But again if other muslims see it differently that is not up to me to judge them for.

Verse 5:33 (to name just one of many) - "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 .....".

How you rationalize that to NOT mean harming others is a feat of magic.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Verse 5:33 (to name just one of many) - "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 .....".

How you rationalize that to NOT mean harming others is a feat of magic.

Since i see the teaching of Islam as an internal (inward) path i do not hold any individ in this world as enemies, the only enemy i do have is my own ego. So i can not answer why someone would want muslims to kill those who say against the religion.

 

[firedragon]

What, the five or so explanations aren't enough for you?

Respond to my post if you could.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Yes i did say that, and i do think that to harm others show that one still holds a form of ego. to accept once faith no matter what happen without harming others is in my understanding a better way to be a muslim. But again if other muslims see it differently that is not up to me to judge them for.

So why do you accept that killing in a war scenario is appropriate? Would that also not be a case of holding onto a sense of ego?

 

[Spirit of Light]

So why do you accept that killing in a war scenario is appropriate? Would that also not be a case of holding onto a sense of ego?

I personally would not kill in a war, but i do understand the islamic teaching do accept that it happen in a war.
Personally i am a pasifist.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Correct. And a just war is any war that spreads Islamic rule. Again, France, 732 CE. Why were they there if not to conquer?

I don't believe a just war should be about unadulterated conquest. War is far from ideal, but it is sometimes necessary. What Muslims did after the demise of Muhammad (pbuh) should not necessarily be taken as representative of the ideals of Islam.

 

[stevecanuck]

I do not judge others for their action.

Respond to my post if you could.

Read any of my previous explanations if you could.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

I personally would not kill in a war, but i do understand the islamic teaching do accept that it happen in a war.
Personally i am a pasifist.

So just to be clear, you accept the legitimacy of killing in a just war scenario (even if you personally are a pacifist) but are less inclined to accept the legitimacy of other forms of killing, even if those are also in accordance with Islamic law?

 

[stevecanuck]

I don't believe a just war should be about unadulterated conquest. War is far from ideal, but it is sometimes necessary.

Correct, and I am asking you what of the necessity was of a Muslim army being in France (and many other places).

What Muslims did after the demise of Muhammad (pbuh) should not necessarily be taken as representative of the ideals of Islam.

So, God and Mohamed failed to correct the course of mankind as the qur'an was intended to do?

 

[Spirit of Light]

So just to be clear, you accept the legitimacy of killing in a just war scenario (even if you personally are a pacifist) but are less inclined to accept the legitimacy of other forms of killing, even if those are also in accordance with Islamic law?

I do not see killing as a right thing to do. But i do not go against Allah and his law.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Correct, and I am asking you what of the necessity was of a Muslim army being in France (and many other places).

I never said that was necessary.

So, God and Mohamed failed to correct the course of mankind as the qur'an was intended to do?

God revealed the Qur'an as the Ultimate Guide-Book, but has nevertheless given us free will and will reward or punish us in accordance with what we believe and how we act in this world.

Muhammad (pbuh) was only a man. He is not responsible for the actions of other Muslims.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

I do not see killing as a right thing to do. But i do not go against Allah and his law.

These two statements seem mutually contradictory (given that Allah has clearly permitted killing under certain circumstances).

 

[Spirit of Light]

These two statements seem mutually contradictory (given that Allah has clearly permitted killing under certain circumstances).

I do have free will to not kill. many sufi practitioners are pasifists. Love and compassion is my focus, not killing

 

[The_Fisher_King]

I do have free will to not kill. many sufi practitioners are pasifists. Love and compassion is my focus, not killing

I get that your personal inclination and the focus of your belief and practice is pacifist in nature, I'm just wondering how you square that with traditional Islamic law, given that you have said that you do not go against Allah and His Law.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I get that your personal inclination and the focus of your belief and practice is pacifist in nature, I'm just wondering how you square that with traditional Islamic law, given that you have said that you do not go against Allah and His Law.

I give up explaining. I do follow sufism as a pasifist.

 

[firedragon]

We've already been through this. I told you a few times, and each time you call me a liar.

Im sorry I cannot recall what ever the previous interaction was. But I would like to focus on this particular thing.

You quoted a verse here, and that's what I responded to in this particular case.

1. In this Surah, who exactly is it talking about and why is this "fighting" prescribed?
2. Which particular group are you supposed to quarrel with if any?

Any one who has read the Surah, just the plain text would tell you these two things.

 

[firedragon]

Read any of my previous explanations if you could.

None of them address what I said because they were all based on a fundamental misunderstanding.

So let me cut and paste my post again.

I cannot see what this contradiction is. Can you explain further?

9:43 is speaking of "God pardons you; why did you give them leave before it became clear to you, who are truthful and who are lying?
9:44 Anyone who believes in God and the last day will not ask leave. They strive with their money etc.
9:45 Those who ask are the ones who Dont believe in God and the last day.
9:46 If they wanted to go they would have taken all precautions for it, but got made them stay.

Basically, the asked leave because they do not believe in God and the last day. They did not stay because the believed in God and last day, but because God made them stay.

Whats the contradiction?