What is your problem with Islam? Think about it

[Fake Messiah]

Malaysia police arrest 15 terror suspects, including housewife & a 17 years old student, for planning attacks during election. The woman was planning to launch attacks using a car, targeting non-Muslim voters during the general election and non-Muslim places of worship. “She exhorted her fellow ideological supporters … to reject the democratic system (in Malaysia) and to choose a Caliphate system instead,” said the source

Malaysia police arrest 15 terror suspects, including housewife, for planning attacks during election

Yeah that's the problem with Muslims that their violent Koran makes them want to kill people. When I just remember London in 2013 and killing of British soldier Lee Rigby who was stabbed and hacked to death in broad daylight by Muslims and one of his killers Michael Adebolajo, referenced the holy book to justify his actions. "We are forced by the Qur’an in … Surah Al-Tawbah and many, many other ayahs [verses], which state we must fight them as they fight us," he said in a video made by a witness.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/le...me-2943281

You can't deny that Koran inspires people to kill other people and do other violent stuff because it is violent toward people.

[yragnitup]

Mauritania: Mandatory Death Penalty for Blasphemy

Law Passed even as Country Hosts African Human Rights Body

(Tunis) - Mauritanian authorities should reverse the recent adoption of a law on apostasy related crimes making the death penalty mandatory for “blasphemous speech” and “sacrilegious acts,” 21 national and international nongovernmental organizations said today. The authorities should also end the arbitrary detention and guarantee the safety of a blogger, Mohamed Cheikh Ould Mkhaïtir, whose case appears to be related to the timing of the law.  Mkhaïtir was convicted of apostasy and sentenced to death in December 2014 before a court reduced his punishment to two years imprisonment. Although his sentence has expired, the authorities continue to detain him.

[Mystic]

Yeah, you and them have a similar way of understanding Quran. That tells me something about you as it does them.

[Fake Messiah]

It is telling me that good Muslims aren't good people because of their holy book; they are good people in spite of it. They are unwilling to accept at face value any verse or passage that doesn't align with their personal ethics and morality.
Question is why not cut out the middleman? You already have what you're hoping to get from a book that tells you that you need the book in order to get what you already have without the book in the first place.

[Mystic]

So if you discovered it was from God and knew it to be, you would interpret it like the extremist terrorists. Again, tells me more about you and them, then it does about the book.

[Fake Messiah]

So if you discovered it was from God and knew it to be, you would interpret it like the extremist terrorists. Again, tells me more about you and them, then it does about the book.

Even if you approach it, as you say, thinking that it's from god there are still two interpretations of it. The Quran contains numerous verses of prescribed violence: amputation of hands for theft, the slaying of polytheists, eternal torture and hellfire for vocal disbelievers, and so on. But it also contains peaceful verses urging believers to care for orphans, provide for the poor, and treat others well. Meaning like the Bible and other holy texts, the Quran is full of contradictions.
Those that approach it as the perfect, infallible word of God have powerful defense mechanisms to see it as "good". Some simply deny the presence of any contradictions outright and go to great lengths to interpret contradictory verses in a way that makes the violent verses seem peaceful, bringing what they see as some consistency. More often than not, these are distortions, not interpretations.

Also there are those who read the violent verses much more literally. They may employ traditional, recognized techniques of Quranic exegesis such as naskh, using the more violent verses from Muhammad's later life in Medina to nullify the more peaceable earlier verses from Mecca.

Of course second group is the most dangerous, but it isn't because they chose a more violent interpretation of the religion. It is because their approach was much more plausible. If you focus on the more violent verses, the contradictions are much easier to reconcile. Here's why: The good things in the Quran are not unique to Islam. Giving charity, being kind to others, and not stealing predate the Quran by centuries. From Confucius to the Greeks people wrote about it.

The violence in the Quran, however, is relatively unique to Islam or to the Abrahamic religions in general. Muslims who revere concepts like jihad and martyrdom don't have to jump through hoops to reconcile the peaceful stuff with the violence the way apologists do. This is for two reasons. Violent interpreters see everything they're doing as good. To them, feeding a hungry orphan is at par with eliminating the blasphemer from their ranks. Both actions, to them, serve to make their society more righteous, and are pleasing to Allah. They simply believe that the prescription to do good only applies to like-minded Muslims. They are to execute apostates and adulterers in their midst for their sins, to enslave Yazidi women, and to slay the polytheists. But they are also to ensure that their own orphans are fed, the believing women protected, and the poor given their due. It's actually quite simple. The fighting verses are about how to deal with the outsiders and the sinners; and the benevolent verses about how to deal with their own. No contradiction.

This is one of the only way that a Quran, seemingly full of contradictions, can be deemed both infallible and consistent, making it both plausible and compelling. And that's why it's dangerous.

[Mystic]

Whether we go to great lengths or not, you would interpret like extremist way and say that is the honest way to see if it if you knew it was from God.

Again, tells me more about you and them, then the book.

[Fake Messiah]

Whether we go to great lengths or not, you would interpret like extremist way and say that is the honest way to see if it if you knew it was from God.

Again, tells me more about you and them, then the book.

If you approach the Quran like any other book, with no partiality to faith or divinity, you find it easy to appreciate the good, criticize the bad, and move on.

[Mystic]

Whether we go to great lengths or not, you would interpret like extremist way and say that is the honest way to see if it if you knew it was from God.

Again, tells me more about you and them, then the book.

If you approach the Quran like any other book, with no partiality to faith or divinity, you find it easy to appreciate the good, criticize the bad, and move on.

But I don't approach like any other book because it's a book like no other.  Per it's paradigm, it clarifies itself but needs us to reflect.

Yet here you both are not reflecting and then blaming Quran for the dumb conclusions you and terrorist come up with about it.

[Fake Messiah]

But I don't approach like any other book because it's a book like no other.  Per it's paradigm, it clarifies itself but needs us to reflect.

Yet here you both are not reflecting and then blaming Quran for the dumb conclusions you and terrorist come up with about it.

MK, so you're going No True Scotsman fallacy on me. The obvious issue here is, there is never any consensus on who trully understands the Koran. To a moderate Muslim in the West, the Islamic State don't understand Koran. To the Islamic State, Shias butcher Koran. To both the Shias and the Sunnis, Ahmadis don't understand Koran. And to the Ahmadis, the Islamic State is distorting the Koran.

This is why it is problematic to define Islam by the actions of its adherents, and better to define it by the contents of the Quran, which each of these sects holds as foundational to their faith.

So when it comes to religious violence, there is a direct line that can be drawn from a verse that says "beat your wife if you fear disobedience" (verse 4:34) to the actual action of hitting one's wife. Similarly, a verse that directs you to fight the Jews and Christians until they convert or pay a heavy tax (9:29–30) can directly be connected to the actual action of fighting Jews and Christians until they convert or pay a heavy tax. No one is saying that those who don't hit their wives aren't faithful Muslims. But those who do it aren't being un-Islamic in any sense. They are acting in accordance with the verse that allows it.

In the same way, while it is clear and obvious that all Muslims are not violent jihadists, it is also true that all violent jihadists are Muslims, and use plausible interpretations of scripture to justify their actions.