Quote:It doesn't say anywhere in the Quran that Muslims should go around killing atheists and people of other religions. If you think that, then you are undoubtedly misinformed on this issue, and perhaps you never even read the Quran other than merely looking at bits and pieces which are taken out of context.

Sigh.

Sadly, it seems that the OP is in broad company here, including many people who claim to be muslims.

The Quaran seems to share this with the Bible. There are disparate groups who interpret it differently. Each thinks that the other groups have it wrong, and probably that those groups are taking bits out of context to fit with their previous convictions.

Good job we're not like that huh?

(March 16, 2014 at 5:02 pm)tor Wrote: Did those pagans pose threat to the muslim lives? if not then they violated then those muslims violated your principle you posted above.

Yes they did - which is recorded in history as well - and that's why the Muslims had the right to retaliate per the Quranic revelations.

In light of the context of Surah 9:05, if you read the previous and next verses, it becomes clear that the pagans were not being fought just because of rejecting Islam. The surah itself was revealed after a number of treaties over a period of years between the Quraysh and the Muslims which had been broken by the pagans of the Quraysh. In it, the Muslims are commanded to hold to their side of the treaty with those pagans who have not betrayed them for the duration of the treaty. There is then to be a grace period of 4 months (in the months of Dhul-Qa'dah, Dhul-Hijjah, Muharram and Rajab which are the sanctified months in the Islamic calendar), and only then, if there is still no sign of them stopping their treachery and persecution of Muslims, then war is declared after the grace period is over.

So the reason why Muslims fought the pagans is not because they didn't want to convert to Islam, but rather, it's only because the pagans (who were a group of people amongst the Quraysh) waged a war against Muhammad and his followers and thus broke the peace treaty as mentioned in verse 9:01 in the same chapter.

There is also these verses in the Surah:

إِلَّا الَّذِينَ عَاهَدْتُمْ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ ثُمَّ لَمْ يَنْقُصُوكُمْ شَيْئًا وَلَمْ يُظَاهِرُوا عَلَيْكُمْ أَحَدًا فَأَتِمُّوا إِلَيْهِمْ عَهْدَهُمْ إِلَىٰ مُدَّتِهِمْ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُتَّقِينَ {4}
[Shakir 9:4] Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up any one against you, so fulfill their agreement to the end of their term; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty).

كَيْفَ يَكُونُ لِلْمُشْرِكِينَ عَهْدٌ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ وَعِنْدَ رَسُولِهِ إِلَّا الَّذِينَ عَاهَدْتُمْ عِنْدَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ ۖ فَمَا اسْتَقَامُوا لَكُمْ فَاسْتَقِيمُوا لَهُمْ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُتَّقِينَ {7}
[Shakir 9:7] How can there be an agreement for the idolaters with Allah and with His Messenger; except those with whom you made an agreement at the Sacred Mosque? So as long as they are true to you, be true to them; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty).

كَيْفَ وَإِنْ يَظْهَرُوا عَلَيْكُمْ لَا يَرْقُبُوا فِيكُمْ إِلًّا وَلَا ذِمَّةً ۚ يُرْضُونَكُمْ بِأَفْوَاهِهِمْ وَتَأْبَىٰ قُلُوبُهُمْ وَأَكْثَرُهُمْ فَاسِقُونَ {8}
[Shakir 9:8] How (can it be)! while if they prevail against you, they would not pay regard in your case to ties of relationship, nor those of covenant; they please you with their mouths while their hearts do not consent; and most of them are transgressors.

(March 16, 2014 at 4:56 pm)Rayaan Wrote:

(March 16, 2014 at 4:37 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Interesting admonition for a group which stormed out of Arabia and attacked everyone in sight, isn't it? Perhaps they weren't "True Muslims?"

Muslims stormed out of Arabia only to preach the religion, not to attack. And they established peace treaties as well.

Um...that's horseshit, Rayaan. I hope you're joking.

Quote:Rashidun army crossing the Egyptian border
Pyramids of Gizah.

In December 639 'Amr ibn al-'As left for Egypt with a force of 4,000 troops. Most of the soldiers belonged to the Arab tribe of 'Ak, although Al-Kindi mentions that one third of the soldiers belonged to the Arab tribe of Ghafik. The Arab soldiers were also joined by some Roman and Persian converts to Islam. However, 'Umar, the Muslim caliph, reconsidered his orders to Amr, thinking it foolhardy to expect to conquer such a large country as Egypt with a mere 4,000 soldiers. Accordingly, he wrote a letter to 'Amr commanding him to come back.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Egypt

(March 16, 2014 at 3:50 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Alright. Well Quran has general verses and specific verses.

When it comes to verses regarding war, there are more general, then there are more specific. But over all, they are specific verses with a general application.

What I mean by that is take for example the verse saying "And if they incline to peace, you too incline to peace". This is a verse, but if it's universal, then enemies of Mohammad would've been able to take advantage of it, and incline to peace whenever it suits them and fight back when it suits them. So it has interpretation that there must be somewhat of a sincere inclination to peace.

The verses you are thinking of that talks about killing polytheists or disbelievers, the same Surah says those who remained true to their treaties were not to be fought.

So while it says disbelievers or polytheists, it's referring to particular people in a region in a certain time.

That said, the over all spirit of Quran with regards to war seems to prefer peace over war but fight when needed too as well. When and why they fought when they did is situational, and the war ethics in Islam to me, seems to remain like that, it remains situational and open to the situation and is not anything set in stone, but the general spirit is that of peace.

If it speaks to a small group of people at a particular time, then that's a serious strike against it being the word of Allah.

Sounds more like a product of humans.

Besides, it contains clear statements about doing violence to infidels. So there's that.

If you have to twist yourself into a pretzel to justify what's written, then there is the clear stink of intellectual dishonesty. Same for Christians and their Bible.

Those books are products of their times. They are certainly not to be taken literally (talking donkeys? flying horses?), but once you start interpreting them, there are as many meanings as there are readers.

(March 16, 2014 at 6:19 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

---

Quote:Rashidun army crossing the Egyptian border
Pyramids of Gizah.

In December 639 'Amr ibn al-'As left for Egypt with a force of 4,000 troops. Most of the soldiers belonged to the Arab tribe of 'Ak, although Al-Kindi mentions that one third of the soldiers belonged to the Arab tribe of Ghafik. The Arab soldiers were also joined by some Roman and Persian converts to Islam. However, 'Umar, the Muslim caliph, reconsidered his orders to Amr, thinking it foolhardy to expect to conquer such a large country as Egypt with a mere 4,000 soldiers. Accordingly, he wrote a letter to 'Amr commanding him to come back.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Egypt

---

Sometimes, in diplomacy, it takes a huge army to keep the conversation going.

(March 16, 2014 at 6:19 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Rashidun army crossing the Egyptian border
Pyramids of Gizah.

In December 639 'Amr ibn al-'As left for Egypt with a force of 4,000 troops. Most of the soldiers belonged to the Arab tribe of 'Ak, although Al-Kindi mentions that one third of the soldiers belonged to the Arab tribe of Ghafik. The Arab soldiers were also joined by some Roman and Persian converts to Islam. However, 'Umar, the Muslim caliph, reconsidered his orders to Amr, thinking it foolhardy to expect to conquer such a large country as Egypt with a mere 4,000 soldiers. Accordingly, he wrote a letter to 'Amr commanding him to come back.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Egypt

Well, they may have intended going there mainly for intellectual, materialistic, political, and/or nationalistic reasons, but such a military aggression is not justifiable just for the spread of Islam.

Expansion is not required by Islam. It is, however, allowed if the ruler of a Muslim state decides to do so. But that doesn't mean that it is attributable to Islam itself.

(March 16, 2014 at 9:35 pm)Rayaan Wrote:

(March 16, 2014 at 6:19 pm)Minimalist Wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Egypt

Expansion is not required by Islam. It is, however, allowed if the ruler of a Muslim state decides to do so. But that doesn't mean that it is attributable to Islam itself.

If expansion was not required by Islam, Islam wouldn't have been a known religion to begin with .

Quote:But that doesn't mean that it is attributable to Islam itself.

nope , it is . Ever hear of the "jihad" ? fighting in the name of allah ?
It is a part of Islam, even if its not said directly, all the Islamic teachings lean towards the same violent mindset .

example :
If I told you to not live with someone, not to ever talk to him and also tell you that he might attack you and you should be always prepared to defend yourself against him, cuz he is evil and wicked, won't your mind work in a pre-defensive way to protect yourself against that person and just attack him ?
Its true, I haven't told you to kill the dude , but I prepared your mind for it .

(March 16, 2014 at 4:56 pm)Rayaan Wrote:

(March 16, 2014 at 4:38 pm)Marsellus Wallace Wrote: Fighting is also allowed in the defense of the religion(islam) , don't you see how vague these rules are ? who decides what ?

Wrong.

We can teach people and preach to them the religion, but again, what we cannot do is fight anyone unless they pose a threat to our own lives.

(March 16, 2014 at 4:37 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Interesting admonition for a group which stormed out of Arabia and attacked everyone in sight, isn't it? Perhaps they weren't "True Muslims?"

Muslims stormed out of Arabia only to preach the religion, not to attack. And they established peace treaties as well.

They sent out armies to preach? Seriously?

It does indeed. Islam is established by default to coincide with a theocratic nation as it was intended to be. The technical term for this is Khalifa.
Some famous verses on this can be found in ahadith primarily Sahih Bukhari and Muslim. But the Qur'an also provides vast information on this.

A famous ayat about this is found in the 5th ayat of Surat at-Tawbah "And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."

The polytheist or Mushrikun are enemies in a historical context as they waged war with Muhammad but Muhammad wanted them killed during a time of war. This is fair of course since war is war and nothing can be done about it. The issue though is that Muhammad encourages their subjugation by demanding they give zakat and convert then they can leave. It is never established that the mushrikun are given options it only insists that they do all 3.
The phrase used to express the giving of zakat is أُوتُوا(l-wa'atawu) is only used in Classical Arabic to express events in chronological order. So there is no "or" in this sentence and it is made strictly clear that all three demands are mandatory.