I guarantee you that every "violent" verse is take

Post Reply New Topic

I guarantee you that every "violent" verse is taken out of context in the Quran. Example: People quote verse 2:216 of the Quran where God orders the Muslims to fight as a reason why Islam is barbaric, but forget to quote verse 2:190-192, which is before 2:216 where God explains that fighting is only for self defense. Every so called "barbaric" verse in the Quran doesn't seem so barbaric when quoted in context rather than out of context.

Tell the Taliban

1. The Quran is dangerous because it has barbaric verses in it.

or

2. The Quran is dangerous because it has verses in it can be readily interpreted in barbaric fashions.

It's like having to choose between a douchebag and a turd sandwich.

Okay, but is it a good idea to have a god who allows his subjects to kill in self defense?

It seems like cultures are less barbaric the less of a role the Koran plays in their lives.

As much as I hate agreeing with you on anything. This ^

You'd rather not be allowed to kill in self-defense? Really? And what do you think is the moral thing to do if some thug breaks into your house, for instance? Hug them? Call the police who won't get there for ten minutes, so they can very nicely, peacefully, and calmly arrest the guy?

And what if I told you that the peaceful verses were the ones taken out of context?

It is interesting that you quote verses from Sura 2 as examples of violent verses in the Qur'an. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to focus on Sura 9 - and the famous "sword verse", Sura 9:5?

Sura 9 was the penultimate Sura to be revealed to Muhammad in the year 631, only surpassed by the much shorter Sura 110. This has serious implications for its interpretation vis a vis other parts of the Qur'an.

1. Muhammad was at the height of his power in 631, having defeated all of his enemies. He had no reason to restrict his religious message for diplomatic reasons, as he had done previously with Sura 2:256, for instance shortly after arriving in Medina. In this sense, the earlier verses (especially the Meccan verses) are in fact those that need to be seen in context.

2. In accordance with the first principles of Islam (Uṣūl al-fiqh) later revelations take precedence over earlier revelations. Given that Sura 9 is one of the last Suras revealed, its authority is thus higher than almost all other Suras in the Qur'an.

3. Sura 9 stands in direct contradiction to several earlier verses, especially those advocating tolerance towards non-Muslims. Those earlier verses are thus reinterpreted to be in accordance with Sura 9 or abrogated (Naskh), which means they are suppressed completely. There isn't complete scholarly agreement of the number of verses abrogated in the Qur'an (this is one of the differences between the 4 Sunni Madhhabs, for instance). Some sources however list as many as 124 verses which have been abrogated by Sura 9:5.

4. A claim that the violent verses of the Qur'an are taken out of context contradicts the Sunni Hadith, which clearly supports the violent interpretation.

5. History supports the violent interpretation of the Qur'an. It was used as a pretext for the expansion of the Rashidun Caliphate following Muhammad's death, thus invalidating the claim that war was only for defensive purposes.

So in order to arrive at the conclusion that the violent verses are taken out of context, one would pretty much have to reject many of the most authoritative verses of the Qur'an and the entire Sunni Hadith. For a Muslim living in a Islamic-majority country, I wouldn't recommend doing that in public, though.

I came across this piece, BTW, which describes the effect abrogation has on the interpretation of peace and violence in the Qur'an:
http://www.meforum.org/1754/peace-or-ji ... n-in-islam

As much as I would *like* the peaceful Qur'anic verses to be the authoritative ones, this is not supported by the Islamic legal traditions. At best, the peaceful verses can be considered on par with the violent verses in the strict Qur'anist tradition. But this is a very small faction within Islam with little or no influence on the practice of the religion worldwide.

Last edited by GGPViper on 15 Jan 2013, 12:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.

What did America do to iRAQ AND aHGHANISTAN? Literally wipe the map out of both places.
What did America do during the American Revolution? Fight against the British
What honorary title is given to an American soldier who defends his land? a veteran
What is the greatest honor in America? being a veteran

need I say more?

Last edited by salad on 14 Jan 2013, 11:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

THIS is an example of what the "intellectual" person appears vs the ignorant. An intellectual person uses common sense and thinks before speaking.

Did the Americans try to invade Britain in the 18th century and try to covert Britons into being Americans? That would be a more apt way of putting it.

The Islamic "self-defence" excuse is a lie, as GGPViper points out. It's a religion of war and conflict, started by a 7th century Arab warlord.

Islam never ONCE forced someone to accept Islam in history, as in go to peoples houses and say "convert or die". Muslims did invade lands conquered by the Romans and Persains, considering that they were at war with them and both empires were threats to the Muslims and .literally attempted annhiliation on the Muslims i.e. battle of Mutah., but never throughout history have Muslims actually went to peoples houses and said convert or die, and if they did, it probably wasn't during the Caliphate of the 4 righteous: Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali. Study the Caliphate of those 4 and tell me what you learned about their justice in dealing with Non Muslims. Remember, their names are Abu Bakr, Umar ibn Al Khattab, Uthman ibn Affan, and Ali ibn Abi Talib.

BTW, Muslims are terrorists for invading other lands? I never knew that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were non existent. oh wait......

I do hate liars. Islamic or Islamised liars even more so:

From Wikipedia:


I'm sure that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Now, off with you, you lying liar.

Last edited by Tequila on 14 Jan 2013, 11:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

There's not anything in the bible violent at all,oh no it's all tripping down the primrose path,no smiting your enemies,people being turned into salt,first born babies dying, bears eating children,Oh it's just the most peaceful book in the world!! !

And when have I ever pretended that it isn't? The Bible is riddled with violence, torture, murder and death. The difference is, not many Christians in Britain still behave like that, because they've moved on from all that. The Pendle Witch Trials happened not far from where I sit now.

That's why it's so horrifying watching people in Islamic hellholes behaving like we used to. It turns the stomach and sickens us.

All three religions are Middle Eastern imports that we could well do without.

Some rabid Christians in America try to blow up abortion clinics.I can't tell you how many times a bible thumper has told me I'm going to Hell because of a thing so simple as the T -shirt I had on(Led Zepplin),or the music I listened to,or my ideas.

And there is Christian Identity, a bunch of violent, evil sob's

I'm sure some Islamic areas are backward and violent,but I can judge only on how I have been treated by the few Muslims I have met.They were very nice people and I very much enjoyed their company.Most were Sufi.