Talking to your family about being an Atheist

[Zarith]

Well, believe it or not I became very interested in my religion in my late teens, as a result I have amassed many many books on Islam, and also Arabic resources, and I have done pretty heavy research on these kind of issues, the kind of research that goes way beyond what any layman would probably understand, although far far below the level of the actual scholars of Islam obviously. But you can ask me pretty much anything and I can give you the Islamic viewpoint citing the sources and also tell you if there's a difference of opinion on a certain issue and what those differences are.

Both verses you stated obviously mean exactly what they say, but they have to be understood in light of the other verses also, they can't be isolated. Verse 5:32 for example, says that it is a major sin to kill someone unlawfully, it said so in the Torah before and it extends to the Qur'an as well, but unlawfully obviously does not cover the death penalty for example, which is a lawful killing according to 17:33.

OK, well, I'm going to take you up on this, because I'm actually interested to hear the opinion of someone who has studied this a lot.

So here are my questions, and I would be very interested to know what is the prevailing Islamic view and/or differences of opinion.

1) 5:32 makes an (often redacted) exception, saying it is OK to kill people for both manslaughter and something variously translated as 'mischief' or 'corruption in the land'. What is 'corruption in the land'? If somebody were to argue that any action taken against Allah constituted 'corruption in the land', how would you respond? You said that lawful killings are permitted. Yet if the law comes from Allah, isn't this verse basically saying, it's not OK to kill people, except when Allah says it's OK? Wouldn't this mean that understanding the scope of the exceptions is critical to whether or not 5:32 is actually a verse of tolerance or not?

2) Is it not the case that some Muslim scholars (eg ibn Kathir) believe that 5:32's injunction applies only to the killing of Muslims? How would you respond to this?

3) 5:33 states that people who spread 'corruption in the land' should be killed, crucified, or hands and feet on opposite sides amputated. Do you believe that these are the appropriate punishments for 'corruption in the land' today?

4) Do you consider 2:256 to be abrogated or not? If so, by which verses, if not, what do you understand it to mean?

5) Is rejection of Islam by itself ever sufficient grounds for engaging in violence against a person or group of people? On what basis can you say yes or no? Is it true or not that the first leaders of the Islamic community (7th and 8th centuries CE) engaged in wars of conquest on this basis?

6) What do you believe is the specific directive being given by 9:29 (and context), and to whom? Do you believe that it is still in force today?

Thanks I'm looking forward to hearing your point of view.