'Pulling the rug' from under the feet of "peacecful believers"?

[The Grand Nudger]

Pretext Mystic, pretext.  It's utility has never been lost.  What are -all- of the jihadis claiming to be doing?  

I don't disagree with the hypothetical conclusion if your question and as such I'm not going to claim that religion doesn't kill people, but do you think it is a coincidence that certain environments create more Jihadists? Do you believe the fact environments where you can find more Jihadists often suffered military interventions, civil wars/conflicts and had to deal with corrupt politicians like Saddam Hussein?

I don't think that it's coincidence at all.  You'd probably find me remarkably sympathetic (given my background and service).  However, that doesn't change the utility of pretext, and it's utility isn't limited to "legitimate" cause for armed conflict - nor is it primarily leveraged as such, at present.  
In the very best of scenarios, where a legitimate grievance exists - shouting "alla hu akbar" at the top of ones lungs isn't going to get anyone any closer to resolution. Pandering to crusade mentality is, as always, a bad idea.

[Minimalist]

The Quran is full of violence but towards those who oppressed the believers

Yep.  Just like Mein Kampf...and the bible.

[Dystopia]

The Quran is full of violence but towards those who oppressed the believers

Yep.  Just like Mein Kampf...and the bible.

We should never underestimate the power of books. Books are awesome, and full of underlying ideas and messages. Some of the worst people who walked the earth didn't kill anyone with their bare hands, they just gave lectures, speeches and wrote books  (+ had a group of people to do the dirty work for them)

[ReptilianPeon]

We should never underestimate the power of books. Books are awesome, and full of underlying ideas and messages. Some of the worst people who walked the earth didn't kill anyone with their bare hands, they just gave lectures, speeches and wrote books  (+ had a group of people to do the dirty work for them)

Yes, books are extremely powerful. The reason I created this topic was because I was annoyed that people have been saying that by saying ISIS follow the Quran properly we somehow give them credibility and undermine believers who don't support the actions of ISIS. The Tafsir (commentary) often agree with my face-value interpretation of the verse, but believers have tried to wriggle out of this by saying, for example, that you "need to consider the time period that people were writing in". People don't want to acknowledge what the Quran says and want to put their fingers in their ears and make the "la-la" sound.

[Dystopia]

I say it doesn't matter much, as long as they become secular they could even burn half of the Quran in the process. Just get the job done. I don't care about what the book says as long as it doesn't impact legislation. I have read parts of Sharia and I found it incompatible with western societies (and any democratic country at all).

[Mystic]

How do you know the true interpretation of the Quran when you don't even believe in it? How do you know so much that you go telling people who believe in the Quran that their interpretation is wrong and the minority of terrorists have the right interpretation?

[Mudhammam]

The Quran is full of violence but towards those who oppressed the believers and fought them just because they believe in a religion that opposed their religions, it specifically is peaceful to those who stayed true to the treaties and to those who didn't fight them. And even while fighting them, it was calling for peace, saying if they incline to peace or stop their prosecution and allow people to have whatever religion they want for the sake of God, then to stop fighting them. And verses after later about those who had no intention of keeping peace, but would keep breaking the treaties, and attack believers, it said to fight them till they die or submit. But even that was a temporary command, and as the Seerah shows, after the victory, they were forgiven.

I must have trouble interpreting the parts of the Qur'an where Muslims are primarily victims and not shameless offenders. Perhaps you can help poor ol' illiterate Mo out?

(4:89) - "They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper."

(9:11-12) - "But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion. We detail Our revelations for a people who have knowledge. And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief - Lo! they have no binding oaths - in order that they may desist."

See also verses 2:217, 9:73-74, 5:54, and 9:66.

[Dystopia]

How do you know the true interpretation of the Quran when you don't even believe in it? How do you know so much that you go telling people who believe in the Quran that their interpretation is wrong and the minority of terrorists have the right interpretation?

I'm not actually claiming to be a scholar and I don't know how to interpret it, I haven't even read most of the Quran - I have another question though, how do you think Sharia can be compatible with secularism when it is so clear and straight to the point?

[Mystic]

The Quran is full of violence but towards those who oppressed the believers and fought them just because they believe in a religion that opposed their religions, it specifically is peaceful to those who stayed true to the treaties and to those who didn't fight them. And even while fighting them, it was calling for peace, saying if they incline to peace or stop their prosecution and allow people to have whatever religion they want for the sake of God, then to stop fighting them. And verses after later about those who had no intention of keeping peace, but would keep breaking the treaties, and attack believers, it said to fight them till they die or submit. But even that was a temporary command, and as the Seerah shows, after the victory, they were forgiven.

I must have trouble interpreting the parts of the Qur'an where Muslims are primarily victims and not shameless offenders. Perhaps you can help poor ol' illiterate Mo out?

(4:89) - "They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper."

(9:11-12) - "But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion. We detail Our revelations for a people who have knowledge. And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief - Lo! they have no binding oaths - in order that they may desist."  

See also verses 2:217, 9:73-74, 5:54, and 9:66.

Instead of getting verses from anti-islamic sites and their translations, you might want to read the Surahs they are in, and see the context. I addressed both of the verses in a post before. I copy paste it here:

It's not about mental gymnastics. It's about being charitable in your reading to a book and trying to understand what it says and giving it the benefit of the doubt as opposed to separating one verse from another and giving it the worse possible meaning. In this case, if the verse was stated alone, it would be a huge problem and I would disbelieve that this verse was revealed by God. However let's read the verse right after:



إِلَّا الَّذِينَ يَصِلُونَ إِلَىٰ قَوْمٍ بَيْنَكُمْ وَبَيْنَهُمْ مِيثَاقٌ أَوْ جَاءُوكُمْ حَصِرَتْ صُدُورُهُمْ أَنْ يُقَاتِلُوكُمْ أَوْ يُقَاتِلُوا قَوْمَهُمْ ۚ وَلَوْ شَاءَ اللَّهُ لَسَلَّطَهُمْ عَلَيْكُمْ فَلَقَاتَلُوكُمْ ۚ فَإِنِ اعْتَزَلُوكُمْ فَلَمْ يُقَاتِلُوكُمْ وَأَلْقَوْا إِلَيْكُمُ السَّلَمَ فَمَا جَعَلَ اللَّهُ لَكُمْ عَلَيْهِمْ سَبِيلًا {90}[Shakir 4:90] Except those who reach a people between whom and you there is an alliance, or who come to you, their hearts shrinking from fighting you or fighting their own people; and if Allah had pleased, He would have given them power over you, so that they should have certainly fought you; therefore if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them.


Do you see?


I'll take another example. 


 Quran (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them."  


It is clear however this verse is not all inclusive meaning from the verse before:

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).


As the verses show those true the treaties were not to be attacked:


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.



And verse 9:8 shows the logic, these people were breaking treaties, and had no intention of keeping the peace.


لَا يَرْقُبُونَ فِي مُؤْمِنٍ إِلًّا وَلَا ذِمَّةً ۚ وَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْمُعْتَدُونَ {10}

[Shakir 9:10] They do not pay regard to ties of relationship nor those of covenant in the case of a believer; and these are they who go beyond the limits.



As it was shown, they showed constantly that they had no intention of keeping the peace. Thus the Quran didn't let them play a game with "we want peace now" "now we attack" "we want peace now" "ok now we attack".


This is clear if you read the verses all together and holistically.

---

And as you can see with the verse you quoted, all you had to do was read the next verse.

As for other verses, they should be interpreted a long side the verses I posted.  They don't contradict.

[Minimalist]

How do you know the true interpretation of the Quran when you don't even believe in it? How do you know so much that you go telling people who believe in the Quran that their interpretation is wrong and the minority of terrorists have the right interpretation?

You act as if that matters, M/K.  It doesn't.  Your koran is so crystal clear that there are a myriad of sects each at each others throats because of it.  It provides cover for barbarism in the case of ISIS.  And it isn't too much of a stretch to see the same in Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Pakistan,Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Syria....ad nauseam.