From enef, concerned about my focus on certain less-than-palatable aspects of Islam:
Amillennialist,those verses r hadeeth,im not an expert in it so im not gonna speak about it but Ill check on it.im sure theres good explanation behind it,I want to know it as well.i think so coz ive came across lots of other hadeeth saying good things,these few about terror must hv good reasons.maybe its in context of war.words cannot be interpreted just by words right?need to look at it from various angles
if all info u have about islam is actually from the media,or what u see by the actions of the bad muslims,MOST of the info actually are LIES.try to explore islam by urself objectively,no emotional bias.read the Koran (not the fake 1 of course) n then judge by urself.read it AS A WHOLE,not just taking pieces that show as if islam is terror.coz u wont understand it in the right context.
but i see that u just take piesces from Quran that shows as if islam is very bad,u dont take it as a whole.
btw,have u read the whole quran?
there is no compulsion in religion.the right direction is henceforth distinct from error al-baqarah, 2:256
Here are the "various angles":
In the early days of his prophetic career, when Muhammad was militarily weak, the revelations he received spoke peacefully regarding the "People of the Book."
Later, as Muhammad grew in strength -- and he met continued resistance to his message and movement -- his revelations
permitted self-defense/retaliation.
Then came the third stage.
Here Muhammad's revelations made violence in self-defense/retaliation/revenge
mandatory. In fact, 2:191 uses the same language as The Verse of the Sword -- "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them" -- but in the context of retaliation.
Regrettably, this verse is neither moral nor as innocuous as non-Muslims might hope, since it ranks "persecution/tumult and oppression [as]
worse than slaughter"!
Because of passages like this, Islam considers even "unbelief" an offense against Allah. Consider:
"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter . . . " (Qur'an 5:33).
According to this verse, one of the crimes for which a non-Muslim is to be "executed, crucified, or have his hand and foot from opposite sides cut off" is "
mischief."
Defense of self and others is moral and the desire for revenge understandable, but violence over religious belief?
The final stage in the evolution of jihad was the mandate for offensive warfare against all who refuse both the "invitation" to Islam and slavery as dhimmis (second-class, door-mat, punching-bag status, allowed primarily to Jews and Christians), until the whole world is under Islamic law.
Some people unfamiliar with its context will interpret The Verse of the Sword as a command to kill all non-Muslims indiscriminately. That would be taking the passage out-of-context, for non-Muslims are first to be offered conversion to Islam. If they refuse, then they are to pay jizya and submit themselves to degradation and humiliation at the hands of Muslims (see the Pact of Umar).
The third, and last, option is war.
As for your questions about where I get my information on Islam, they are telling. Does my writing sound like someone who's just "copying and pasting" from . . . where, exactly? Not CNN. Not Fox. Not the U. S. government.
If anything, our media, politicians, and academics are too deferential to Islamic sensibilities, too willing to bury their heads in the sand regarding the "theological" foundation of jihad. Too afraid to be called a name.
You're engaging in what's called an "ad hominem" attack; Instead of addressing whether or not what I write is true, you're questioning my integrity.
You know what's curious? You ask me if I've read the whole Qur'an, implying that if I do, I'll discover the context of the passages in question, and then they'll be no longer Verses of Blood and Death. You talk about reading it like someone who has no idea of what it contains.
Anyone who's studied Qur'an knows that it doesn't read like any other book: It's contents are arranged neither chronologically nor by topic; instead, its chapters are arranged
by size and filled with statements possessing frequently no obvious connection to those that precede or follow them. And since Qur'an is supposed to be Allah's own words, there is little or no historical context to be discerned from surrounding verses, which is why ahadith and sira play such an important role in putting Qur'an "in context."
And all the Islamic quotations I use are taken from Islamic sources.
As for "no compulsion in religion," you have two problems. First, it is true that no one can force inner belief, but one can coerce, control, regulate, and punish overt behavior and speech. Second, if one considers "no compulsion" contradicted by, "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them," and, "Fight against . . . the People of the Book . . . until they feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya" (Qur'an 9:5 and 29), then you've got the Islamic doctrine of naskh, which says that when two revelations contradict each other, the more recent one abrogates that which preceded it.
Why have a "Doctrine of Abrogation" if verses are not abrogated?
Regardless, The Verse of the Sword is Allah's last word on jihad.
Finally, as to your concern that I "just take piesces from Quran that shows as if islam is very bad,[I] dont take it as a whole," I would make two points: First, I am concerned about the passages that command the faithful to enslave, rape, and slaughter me and mine. Second, "those pieces" are not about how to wear your hair, or what kind of ingredients to use to make really great soup.
Shouldn't commands for genocide, murder, rape, slavery, and oppression of non-Muslims, apostates, women, and children demand everyone's attention and condemnation?
To claim that it is unreasonable to focus on Allah's malevolence and bloodlust because there are some good parts in Islam is like saying, "How can you condemn Adolph Hitler? He was a great speaker! And he liked kittens!" or, "Sure, Ted Bundy tortured and slaughtered a bunch of innocent people, but what hygiene! And what a charmer!"
Allah's "mercy," "kindness," and being "oft-forgiving" are for only those non-Muslims who convert.
The rest are "fuel for the fire."
Instead of asking why I'm bothered by Muhammad and his allah's perverse and bloody dictates, you should be asking yourself why you are not.
So, enef, do you denounce Muhammad and Allah's commands to enslave or slaughter all who refuse Islam?
