[Quranic Reflection]: The tolerance the Quran gave non-believers

[Mister Agenda]

It's more a criticism of some Muslim nations under sharia law than of the Quran itself, I think.

[The Grand Nudger]

Isn't it just swell to know that we're tolerated? LOL

Your silly religion can go fuck itself Atlas, you're lucky anybody tolerates you.

[no one]

You're like a bad case of Herpes, you just don't quit.

[LadyForCamus]

So, rather than address the explicit problem of your circular argument (using the book to prove the book) that were raised in your last OP, you just ignore it, and make another thread about stuff book says? That seems reasonable.

[WinterHold]

'And slay them wherever ye find them' is an exhortation to do murder, solely on the basis of unbelief, full stop.  The 'cease and desist' is no expiation of it.

Boru

No. That is not the way to read any book; and that is stripping a specific text from its context to prove a point; i.e "Cherry Picking".

---

persecution is worse than slaughter

Is it?

It is. Ever saw Nazi concentration camps?

---

Help me understand this: so Muslims have no right to deter aggression by fighting back with the condition of ceasing if the other side ceases, as 2:192 of the Quran stated?

It doesnt say "fight back" and no ,it doesnt say "deter agression". It says "slay them wherever ye find them" and then repeats by saying "but if they attack you then slay them".
How do you reconcile that with "but do not transgress"?

Say a warrior shot at you and began the aggression, you shoot him back; thus slaying him.

But you stop right there and don't transgress by butchering their family or bombing his/her country civilians.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Hello.

Just a question to you AtlassS33?

I am gathering/understanding that English is not your native language, yes?

[WinterHold]

Isn't it just swell to know that we're tolerated?  LOL

Your silly religion can go fuck itself Atlas, you're lucky anybody tolerates you.

At least I believe that bombing people with atomic weapons, spraying fields with Agent Orange and using tactical bombing at civilians is highly forbidden.

Tell you what Gae: you're lucky yourself that the world is still silent to the barbarism humanity witnessed in WW1 and WW2.

---

At work.

Hello.

Just a question to you AtlassS33?

I am gathering/understanding that English is not your native language, yes?

Yes. My first language is Arabic.

---

So, rather than address the explicit problem of your circular argument (using the book to prove the book) that were raised in your last OP, you just ignore it, and make another thread about stuff book says? That seems reasonable.

I didn't ignore it. But I did reply that you need to read the Quran and observe the universe and observe the experiences you take from life.

[Deesse23]

It is (Deesse, for clarity: slaughter being preferable to persecution. ). Ever saw Nazi concentration camps?

Thank you for your honesty, and to admit how twisted your moral compass is, by claiming that slaughter is preferable to persecution. Its a convenient way to outright slaughter other people to "spare" them being persecuted, is it?

As to your rather cynical (and ill informed) question: Yes i visited KZs, twice. Buchenwald and Flossenbürg. People were put there in order to get killed after they had been persecuted and arrested. Thats why slaughter is worse than persecution, but your twisted moral compass probibits you to see this simple truth. After all you need to defend your (un)holy book before all. Its sad to see how you have given up your humanity for your book, but its a powerful warning to any observer.

How many KZs have you visited?

Just to show how twisted your (and the Qurans) moral compass is:

Persecution is the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group by another individual or group. The most common forms are religious persecution, racism and political persecution, though there is naturally some overlap between these terms. The inflicting of suffering, harassment, imprisonment, internment, fear, or pain are all factors that may establish persecution, but not all suffering will necessarily establish persecution. The suffering experienced by the victim must be sufficiently severe. The threshold level of severity has been a source of much debate.[

According to your twisted morality, getting slaughtered is better than any of these.
Do you, personally, prefer to get slaugherered or rather: Imprisoned? Harassed? Interned?

---

It doesnt say "fight back" and no ,it doesnt say "deter agression". It says "slay them wherever ye find them" and then repeats by saying "but if they attack you then slay them".
How do you reconcile that with "but do not transgress"?

Say a warrior shot at you and began the aggression, you shoot him back; thus slaying him.

False anylogy. Its not about 1v1 combat, its about entire (ethnic) groups fighting.
It says: "slay them wherever ye find them". It doenst even say: "But spare the women and children/innocent". Of course, slaying is better than just persecuting them, and putting them into prison or whatever, is it? And when someone attacks you, you fight back by slaying him, rather than handing him over to the authorities, if possible, right?

But you stop right there and don't transgress by butchering their family or bombing his/her country civilians.

No, you dont. It says: "slay them wherever ye find them". It seems to make no exceptions for their flaimies and civilians, does it?

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

*Nods*

I thought so AtlasS33.

Sadly a lot of nuanced understanding can become lost or otherwise cluttered when ideas are attempted to cross such language barriers.

I've found myself frustrated in conversations with those who converse normally in languages other than mine own simple tongue as our efforts to transpose ideas from one mind to another fall astray.

That the other interlocutor in the conversation could literally not seem to even grasp the concept of "No diety" (Insert Red Dwarf "What about toaster heaven" style skit here) did not help matters.

Cheers.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Help me understand this: so Muslims have no right to deter aggression by fighting back with the condition of ceasing if the other side ceases, as 2:192 of the Quran stated?

My rule of "SO": Any response that begins with "so" should be examined for a strawman argument.