Denial by non-Muslims of the Qur'an's commands to commit violence.

[stevecanuck]

@loverofhumanity made the following statements in post #2 of the thread 'Yusuf Ali or Pickthall':

- The Quran never teaches violence or harm but to do good not evil. So when I come across a translation not in that spirit I cross check it with other translations and inevitably discover something has been left out or not translated properly.

- it always promotes good not evil, peace not war and calmness never violence. That is what I believe and what guides me so I refer to many translations.

It only takes one quote to disprove the above (9:29 - "Fight those who believe not in Allah" by itself pricks that balloon), but I provided dozens. Those examples were met with the usual denials and evasions, which only goes to show that Islamopropagandists will happily sacrifice their own credibility to keep the lie alive. I understand their motivation.

What I will never get is why so many unbelievers bend over backwards to deny that which is right in front of them. They dust off the predictable, meaningless evasions that always include unsupported and unsupportable accusations of "cherry picking", "taking it out of context", and "wrong translation". Why? Are they so unwilling to acknowledge the hatred and calls to commit violence against them that they've chosen to bury their heads in the sand and to just pretend the problem of Islamic jihad away? I suppose the question answers itself.

There's not much here to actually debate. I've already provided dozens of examples to expose the Islam-means-peace lie, but they simply get waved away, so there's not much point in revisiting them. All serious replies will be acknowledged. The usual evasions will be ignored.

 

[Link]

Peace,

Language is contextual. You know that, but you ignore that.

The Quran has spoken about political situation, war, battles, peace, security, etc, in length. If you want to isolate and de-contextualize to suit your agenda, that might work for you, won't work for all non-Muslims.

 

[loverofhumanity]

The aim of the Quran is always peace.

If the enemy is inclined towards peace, make peace with them. And put your trust in Allah. Indeed, He ˹alone˺ is the All-Hearing, All-Knowing. (8:61)

 

[dybmh]

It only takes one quote

Newsflash: It's a book. I stopped reading the rest of your post after this. If cherry picking is OK for you, then you will understand when that tactic is employed in reverse. I found the one tidbit needed to make my point, and I am ignoring everything else you are saying.

What do you think? Is that a proper method for discerning your intended message?

 

[stevecanuck]

Newsflash: It's a book. I stopped reading the rest of post after this.

You're the first person I've ever conversed with who doesn't know the meaning of "never", and "always". The rest of your vocabulary seems fine though, so all you have to do is add those two and you'll be set.

 

[Link]

Peace,

It's not just some non-Muslims who do not know how to see everything together. The place of Ahlulbayt (a) in Quran would be clear to Sunnis, if they didn't ignore context, repeated themes about succession of the past to future, etc, and recited it as it ought to be recited.

There is a dark magic upon it that tries to keep humans from seeing the clear signs and clear recitation. Part of it's paradigm is that you need the family of the reminder to unlock it's locks and break the sorcery.

In this regard, you should read the famous letter of Imam Ali (a) to Malikal Ashtar.

 

[dybmh]

You're the first person I've ever conversed with who doesn't know the meaning of "never", and "always". The rest of your vocabulary seems fine though, so all you have to do is add those two and you'll be set.

You're making the same error here as you are making with the Quran. But this time you're cherry picking single words instead of individual verses.

I suggest reading for comprehension.

 

[stevecanuck]

Peace,

Language is contextual. You know that, but you ignore that.

"Never" and "always" are very simple words with exact meanings. If you want to discuss the context in which violence is required per the Qur'an, that's fine. What you can NOT do is say that violence is NEVER called for.

The Quran has spoken about political situation, war, battles, peace, security, etc, in length. If you want to isolate and de-contextualize to suit your agenda, that might work for you, won't work for all non-Muslims.

You're getting ahead of yourself. Again, read the statement, "the Qur'an NEVER teaches violence". Let's at least start by agreeing that is does teach violence at times. Besides, how can you talk about putting something into context if you don't even admit it exists?

 

[stevecanuck]

The aim of the Quran is always peace.

There's that lie again. How is "fight those who believe not in Allah" peaceful?

 

[Link]

"Never" and "always" are very simple words with exact meanings. If you want to discuss the context in which violence is required per the Qur'an, that's fine. What you can NOT do is say that violence is NEVER called for.

You're getting ahead of yourself. Again, read the statement, "the Qur'an NEVER teaches violence". Let's at least start by agreeing that is does teach violence at times. Besides, how can you talk about putting something into context if you don't even admit it exists?

I think he means when it talks about violence is reactive to violence, it's to stop violence, restore security and peace.

 

[stevecanuck]

You're making the same error here as you are making with the Quran. But this time you're cherry picking single words instead of individual verses.

I suggest reading for comprehension.

That's just more vague, meaningless gain-saying. It you ever want to discuss specifics, you know where to find me.

 

[Link]

There's that lie again. How is "fight those who believe not in Allah" peaceful?

It's done to restore order, peace, and security in the land in context of other verses. However, the same chapter says those who remained true to them in the treaties and didn't break the peace treaties, to remain true to them.

 

[loverofhumanity]

And the Quran praises good people and good deeds, anyone who serves humanity or who do good that they will be rewarded.

5:69 Those who believe (in the Qur'an) and those who are Jews, and the Sabians, and the Christians; whoever believes in God and the Last Day, and does works that benefit humanity, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they suffer from depression.

 

[stevecanuck]

I think he means when it talks about violence is reactive to violence, it's to stop violence, restore security and peace.

So, to be clear, you agree that sometimes violence is called for? If so, then the reasons for it can be discussed beyond the ridiculous claim that it never is.

 

[stevecanuck]

It's done to restore order, peace, and security in the land in context of other verses. However, the same chapter says those who remained true to them in the treaties and didn't break the peace treaties, to remain true to them.

And then attack them (9:5).

 

[Link]

And then attack them (9:5).

No.. That's insane way to read it. You need to study more how language works.

 

[stevecanuck]

And the Quran praises good people and good deeds, anyone who serves humanity or who do good that they will be rewarded.

5:69 Those who believe (in the Qur'an) and those who are Jews, and the Sabians, and the Christians; whoever believes in God and the Last Day, and does works that benefit humanity, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they suffer from depression.

I answered this in the other thread (from which I am banned for going off topic). The underlined is just another way of saying those who have accepted the Qur'an and Islam.

Btw, I find it amusing that accusations of "cherry picking" are selectively made.

 

[stevecanuck]

No.. That's insane way to read it. You need to study more how language works.

Tell that to Yusuf Ali (But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)).

 

[Link]

Tell that to Yusuf Ali (But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)).

كَيْفَ يَكُونُ لِلْمُشْرِكِينَ عَهْدٌ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ وَعِنْدَ رَسُولِهِ إِلَّا الَّذِينَ عَاهَدْتُمْ عِنْدَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ ۖ فَمَا اسْتَقَامُوا لَكُمْ فَاسْتَقِيمُوا لَهُمْ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُتَّقِينَ | How shall the polytheists have any [valid] treaty with Allah and His Apostle?! Except those with whom you made a treaty at the Holy Mosque; so long as they are steadfast with you, be steadfast with them. Indeed Allah loves the Godwary. | At-Tawba : 7

 

[Link]

Also, it explains through out why it commands to fight the other polytheists:

أَلَا تُقَاتِلُونَ قَوْمًا نَكَثُوا أَيْمَانَهُمْ وَهَمُّوا بِإِخْرَاجِ الرَّسُولِ وَهُمْ بَدَءُوكُمْ أَوَّلَ مَرَّةٍ ۚ أَتَخْشَوْنَهُمْ ۚ فَاللَّهُ أَحَقُّ أَنْ تَخْشَوْهُ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ مُؤْمِنِينَ | Will you not make war on a people who broke their pledges and resolved to expel the Apostle, and opened [hostilities] against you initially? Do you fear them? But Allah is worthier of being feared by you, should you be faithful. | At-Tawba : 13