Does Quran teach peace or war?

[Mystic]

I know Ayatollah's are writing books about what Islam teaches regarding war and peace, you can find them on http://www.al-islam.org. And protesters come out with signs that Islam teaches peace and condemn terrorism.

Your position is fucked. How can you use 'protesters come out with signs that Islam teaches peace' while supporting the proposition that Islam is a religion of peace. If it were, then why do Muslims have to 'protest' the religion for peace?

They are not protesting against Islam or against peace, they are protesting against misrepresentation of Islam in the media.

[Cato]

They are protesting against Islam or against peace, they are protesting against misrepresentation of Islam in the media.

Exactly my fucking point. If Islam was a religion of peace then why are there Muslims protesting the religion on the behalf of PEACE????

[Mystic]

Well, as Min said, they should do their best to condemn the extremist who misrepresent Islam.

[paulpablo]

It really doesn't matter what you type, muslims sometimes do repeatedly intemperate the quran to say terrorism is ok and so is killing infidels and apostates. I don't see how you can believe you have a leg to stand on when arguing against this, it's historically proven.
I can't remember any muslims specifically coming on here and saying they want to kill infidels but the type of muslims who want to do that don't generally care about coming onto atheist forums, they can normally be found in islamic forums, i myself have spoke to a female muslim who said executing witches was a good thing and that terrorism is ok against america because they themselves are terrorists.
Arguing with atheists that muslims are peaceful is a waste of time you should visit mosques and argue with the imams who preach hatred towards homosexuals and apostates.

[Mystic]

Some Muslims do teach that. No doubt. Are they the majority? No.

Can I judge Atheists by a minority of Atheists? How would you like that?

It's not fair.

Anyways, the goal posts are being moved.

Quran teaches a spirit of keeping peace and to resort to war only as a last resort. This is what the opening post was meant to prove.

Even if majority of Muslims believed it taught otherwise, it would not be due to the Quran being unclear regarding the issue, but being mislead by leaders who inherited from violent rulers in history.

But majority of Muslims believe it teaches peace.

Then the goal posts are moved further, in that, they should do something against those misrepresenting Islam with teachings of war and violence.

Then they are shown they do.

Then it's stated if Islam was a religion of peace, then why do they have to protest and work against those teaching violence....

It's stated why, then, lastly, it's emphasized some Muslims do believe it teaches to kill all disbelievers.

The most followed tafsir of Quran with Sunnis (majority sect) is that of Ibn Katheer, and he explains the verses in the same way as I do. That they are situation and the peace verses are not abrogated in an absolute sense, but were only abrogated in the situation (due to the fact the disbelievers had no intention of keeping peace).

Anyways, it seems people rather have misconceptions of Quran, Islam, Muslims, their scholars, etc, then find the truth.

Lastly you mentioned the "beat" verse, and yes that can be interpreted differently, it can be translated as "separate from" or "keep a distance from".

While I was Muslim, I didn't believing in beating your wife or killing infidels.

[paulpablo]

Some Muslims do teach that. No doubt. Are they the majority? No.

Can I judge Atheists by a minority of Atheists? How would you like that?

It's not fair.

Anyways, the goal posts are being moved.

Quran teaches a spirit of keeping peace and to resort to war only as a last resort. This is what the opening post was meant to prove.

Even if majority of Muslims believed it taught otherwise, it would not be due to the Quran being unclear regarding the issue, but being mislead by leaders who inherited from violent rulers in history.

But majority of Muslims believe it teaches peace.

Then the goal posts are moved further, in that, they should do something against those misrepresenting Islam with teachings of war and violence.

Then they are shown they do.

Then it's stated if Islam was a religion of peace, then why do they have to protest and work against those teaching violence....

It's stated why, then, lastly, it's emphasized some Muslims do believe it teaches to kill all disbelievers.

The most followed tafsir of Quran with Sunnis (majority sect) is that of Ibn Katheer, and he explains the verses in the same way as I do. That they are situation and the peace verses are not abrogated in an absolute sense, but were only abrogated in the situation (due to the fact the disbelievers had no intention of keeping peace).

Anyways, it seems people rather have misconceptions of Quran, Islam, Muslims, their scholars, etc, then find the truth.

Lastly you mentioned the "beat" verse, and yes that can be interpreted differently, it can be translated as "separate from" or "keep a distance from".

While I was Muslim, I didn't believing in beating your wife or killing infidels.

Haha, yes i know about the different interpretations of the wife beating verse, it can mean beat as if you were stopping her from jumping out of a window, it can mean beat with a toothpick, it can mean beat with an idea or beat using extreme words.
We have skipped arguments now, so now you do admit some muslims interprete the quran in way that promotes killing infidels and apostates.
You're just moving the goal posts of the argument after losing one point just move onto the next. First you say I'm wrong when i say muslims CAN intemperate the quran to promote terrorism then you say I'm right but a lot of muslims don't, well i never said a lot of muslims do, i say they can and some of them have.
So you admit now i was right when i said muslims can interpetate the quran to promote terrorism?

Just as an additional side note i hate this type of thing in arguments, I've had it before arguing with a muslim about evolution, they say evolution can't be true because if it were man would have evolved fur, then I said no because man has clothing fire and shelter, then the muslim said right well it's all speculation anyway. Get proved wrong in the argument then just retract to another point which has to be argued, its a common tactic which is so annoying.

[Mystic]

Your argument is basically since a minority of Muslims believe in killing all infidels and support terrorism, then Quran doesn't really teach peace. Your words were "Quran doesn't teach anything.." and talked about how you can interpret different things.

I would have to say, some of Quran is unclear, and I think this disproves it being divine, since what is the point of being unclear when you can be clear and all knowing wise creator can be clear all the time, he won't screw up like humans.

But some verses are definitely clear. And the verses saying "if they incline to peace, then incline to peace" are definitely clear. Further more, it's obvious that not all disbelievers were meant when it specifically said not to attack those who remained true to their treaties.

It's like some people fail a math test, not only to the teachers and teacher assistants get blamed, but the text book itself for not teaching them correctly.

This is rather unfair. If some people fail calculus because they didn't study well, then it's their fault. You don't blame the teacher or the TAs or the text book.

[paulpablo]

Your argument is basically since a minority of Muslims believe in killing all infidels and support terrorism, then Quran doesn't really teach peace. Your words were "Quran doesn't teach anything.." and talked about how you can interpret different things.

I would have to say, some of Quran is unclear, and I think this disproves it being divine, since what is the point of being unclear when you can be clear and all knowing wise creator can be clear all the time, he won't screw up like humans.

But some verses are definitely clear. And the verses saying "if they incline to peace, then incline to peace" are definitely clear. Further more, it's obvious that not all disbelievers were meant when it specifically said not to attack those who remained true to their treaties.

It's like some people fail a math test, not only to the teachers and teacher assistants get blamed, but the text book itself for not teaching them correctly.

This is rather unfair. If some people fail calculus because they didn't study well, then it's their fault. You don't blame the teacher or the TAs or the text book.

I would blame the teacher if he claimed to have not only created the TAs and the text book but also claimed to have created the student who failed.

[Muslim Scholar]

No of course not. It's the situation. If nations truly want peace, and incline to it, Muslims must accept peace.

Of course all this is conditional, it's another thing if a nation invades your land and then tells you, after conquering your land, it wants peace. That's a different situation.

But the commands of peace obviously show the spirit of Quran with regards to war. It seeks peace primarily and only war if the other side is inclined to violence or oppression.

This is my understanding of Quran. I don't believe in Quran but I feel people are dishonest when they say Islam doesn't teach peace but to kill all infidels and what not.

Hi MysticKnight,
I'm glad that you are reading about Quran and Islam
This is the full view of Islam about war and peace

Muslim can engage is wars in 2 situations
1- To fight back against invasion or assault

2- To initiate war against a "Non-Islamic" Country to spread Islam
with some restrictions:
There is no valid treaty with this country
The system is opposing Islamic activities or oppressing Muslims
The Muslim country is powerful enough

In this case an Islamic country is allowed to invade this country and either
Force Islamic laws over it
or
Take a tax (Gizia) the rulers in this case are allowed to keep their system and independence but guarantee to take care about Muslims living among them and not to stop them from spreading or practicing Islam

[Mystic]

If an Islamic country doesn't allow people to convert out of Islam (ie. apostate), do you feel another country has the right to invade to implement freedom of religion? If not, isn't that a double standard?