Why I'm not a terrorist

[WinterHold]

I admit I haven't been keeping up with this, so I apologise if it's been addressed; but there's one glaring thing about why Atlas isn't a terrorist missing from the OP which stands out like an iceberg at a Titanic convention:

"Because I don't want to be."

It's not an "interpretation of the interpretations" or an "opinion of the opinions".
It's actually a direct, explicit verse in the Quran that forces me into not being one:

Sura 5, The Quran:
(44 )   Indeed, We sent down the Torah, in which was guidance and light. The prophets who submitted [to Allah] judged by it for the Jews, as did the rabbis and scholars by that with which they were entrusted of the Scripture of Allah, and they were witnesses thereto. So do not fear the people but fear Me, and do not exchange My verses for a small price. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the disbelievers.

( 45 )   And We ordained for them therein a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds is legal retribution. But whoever gives [up his right as] charity, it is an expiation for him. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the wrongdoers.

Eye for an eye.
When ISIS kills 2 years old Sam; does that equates to punishing Mark for bombing Khalid?

Taking the soul of a child, in response to a grownup's crime against another child, is giving the real killer a go; it's not an eye for an eye.
An eye for an eye = Kill Mark for killing Khalid.

Do terrorists apply this holy rule? or at least govern their operations according to constraints dictated by the Quran?
It influenced how I think; that's for sure.

BTW; with the underlined verse, you can surround any Jihadi of the new era terrorist groups, and strip them off arguments. That's why they hate the guts of Quran readers.

---

It's not that "charity" was created out of commercialization; but it is used as a justification and a lubricant for stripping people off money.

In other words; your problem is not charity itself: your problem is the institution behind the charity.
Look at this verse from the Quran:

Magic books says: "grifty people are grifty".

Thx magic book!  We'd never have figured it out otherwise.  

What I find deeply amusing about this, is that in a pre-literate society (like the umma..lol) the statement amounts to one holy schmuck saying "Don't listen to those other holy schmucks, they're all conmen."  Yet here you are hundreds of years later, quoting one cons critique of other cons as if it were deep wisdom.......in response to the question of whether or not you really believe what you just said; that charity is always related to religion.

The whole world was pre-literal; and in terms of history, China and India have the oldest cultures; so nothing on early Arabs. And Mohammed Peace be Upon Him didn't know how to read; so..

If he's a con; then why did the book he authored stayed long after his death?
Many scientists believed in his book too.

For God's sake; Muslims got an inch close from dominating the whole world; even !