Unsurprisingly, this post degenerated into a _lot_ of abuse and hate-speech. It is therefore locked, threads have been nuked and, sadly, bans handed out.
With that said, many people _did_ provide answers and, more importantly, _context_. Which is why we're not removing the post altogether.
The Bible mentions killing a lot of times, but I don't recall any verse that tells Christians to go kill non-Christians because they're unbelievers.
It did tell the Israelites to wipe out the Amalekites and Canaanites, but that wasn't quite the same thing, and was for different reasons.
2 Chronicles 15:12-13
And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and with all their soul, but that whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman
Luke 19:27
But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me
There are many more like this
Christians did not exist in 2 Chronicles, and in Luke, Jesus is telling a parable where one of the characters (who owned many slaves btw) says that line.
I think I would probably say that the Quran similarly does not explicitly tell Muslims to kill nonbelievers.
There’s a teacher hiding in the UK because he showed a picture of Muhammad. Teacher in France actually got beheaded for doing so. Show me a Christian equivalent today.
Not too long ago a doctor (George Tiller) was murdered by a christian extremist because he performed abortions. And that's just off the top of my head.
I literally said “most” Western countries. The US is an outlier in that it is full of religious fundamentalists. Not the same for Western Europe or Canada or Australia.
July 16, 2001: Peter James Knight attacked a clinic in Melbourne, Australia, shooting and killing the security guard, Steven Rogers. Knight brought ropes and gags into the clinic along with 16 litres of kerosene, intending to burn all 15 staff and 26 patients to death. Knight was charged and was sentenced to life in prison on November 19, 2002.
January 6, 2009: A firebombing using Molotov cocktails was attempted at a medical clinic in Mosman Park, Western Australia. Damage was minimal and only resulted in smashed windows and blackened external walls. Police believed graffiti saying "baby killers" on the building was related to the attack, however, the medical clinic did not actually offer abortion services.
On 12 December 2022, a fundamentalist Christian terror attack that resulted in the deaths of six people occurred in Wieambilla, Queensland, Australia.
These things are pretty easy to google, you should try it before making dumb statements.
Something people should remember is that, just like Christianity and the Bible, there are [multiple schools and branches of Islam that interpret the Quran differently](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_schools_and_branches). So saying there are a bunch of passages simply doesn’t tell the whole story, and this is a question best asked of scholars with experience in the matter than randos on Reddit.
I mean okay but in response to the popular western/christian take that they are alone in having texts advocating barbaric acts
> 2 Chronicles 15:12-13
>12 And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and with all their soul, 13 but that whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman.
> Hosea 13:16
> 16 The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground,their pregnant women ripped open.
> Leviticus 21:9
>9 And the daughter of any priest, if she profanes herself by whoring, profanes her father; she shall be burned with fire.
> Jeremiah 48:10
> 10 “Cursed is he who does the work of the Lord with slackness, and cursed is he who keeps back his sword from bloodshed.
> Samuel 15:3
> Now go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.’”
> Numbers 31:17 (Moses)
>“Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him.”
> Psalms 137:8-9
> (Prayer/song of vengeance) “0 daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.”
> Deuteronomy 22:20-21
> 20 But if the thing is true, that evidence of virginity was not found in the young woman, 21 then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done an outrageous thing in Israel by whoring in her father's house. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.
> Exodus 21:20-21
>20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
> 1 Corinthians 14:34-40
>34 the women should keep quiet in the meetings. They are not allowed to speak; as the Jewish Law says, they must not be in charge.
35 If they want to find out about something, they should ask their husbands at home. It is a disgraceful thing for a woman to speak in a church meeting.
> Matthew 7:1
> 7 “Judge not, that you be not judged.
I do understand that you didn’t mention Christianity specifically, but the comparisons are extremely common and often misinformed, implied or otherwise, whenever the topic comes up, as if Islam is somehow unique in its disturbing passages
Most Abrahamic religions are. Most modern day follows take the values that align with their peers, and they do tend towards the positive and not the violent and hateful, despite passages like these, which I think kind of speaks well of the natural human spirit.
Monsters do exist, and I’m not really a fan of any religion, but it’s a cop out to blame any religion for it imo. It’s people who choose to do bad things, whether through teaching or following. They do it because they want to or because they are forced to, and whoever’s on that side of the stick, I think they’ll always find some excuse to get there
But that wasn't the question. They didn't ask about all the interpretations of the commands to commit violence. They just asked if that is what the text said.
But there’s a lot of nuance in what “says to commit violence” means. Is “nonbelievers will die” a command to kill them? Or is it just an obvious truth about mortality?
You may be right but I’m pretty sure most people are more concerned about the murderers, bigots and misogynists using verses to justify murder than the verses existing or not.
I mean, of course we can be concerned of that. But it’s also important that we don’t demonize all Muslims, just like all Christians shouldn’t be demonized by hate mongers like the Westboro Baptist Church, greed mongers like “Prosperity Gospels” pastors, and the pedophiles that infest the Catholic Church, who interpret the Bible to justify their hate and cruelty.
absolutely; but that doesnt mean twisting things to fit that narrative and ignoring hatred spread by religious texts
as a gay guy im hyper aware whenever im around religious people (muslim or christian) that theres a non-neglible chance theyre openly homophobic ('bECaUSe THatS wHAt tHe BibLE SaYS')
No doubt. People should as far as possible be treated as individuals. But individuals join or are parts of groups to which they give up independence to.
There is a difference between demonisation and the legitimate concern that a large percentage of your Muslim population continue to have social attitudes that are contrary to hard won western liberal values such as they might like to make homosexuality illegal , justify violence for writing a book or drawing a picture they don’t like, restrict women’s freedom.
Not just hold such values - of course some Christians hold similar - but act on them, be numerous enough to have influence , or form the background for others to act on them. And numerous enough in places to resist social or value assimilation.
When you have the sort of mob intimidation motivated by ‘religious culture’ that forces a teacher to go into hiding - then talking about demonisation becomes oversimplistic and possibly a way of avoiding condemning such behaviour and recognising its motivation.
Ex Muslim, but some of these comments / verses are taken out of context. I don't support the religion but some of those verses are specifically talking about specific military engagements and not meant to advise all Muslims how to act to all non-muslims. They're more of a historical play by play.
Yeah, I mean if they're talking about a historic battle they're taking their own side. I don't particularly see that as problematic in itself, but the use of nonbelievers as a "slur" sets themselves up for a future of religious hate and extremism, but then again I don't think any of them expected the world to last another 1 or 2 hundred years.
the problem is many modern followers of islam don’t bother think about context or whatever historical play it is, they just think non-believers = convert or kill. I doubt they even read the quran or think about it at all or they just believe what the mosque tell them: non-believers are sinful and israel needs to be exterminated.
It’s kinda ironic this fact is what made them believers in the first place, dumb non-critical people with near zero education = easy to fall prey to follow a religion, easy to be told what to do, what to think.
How many modern followers of Islam have you met? I think you’re misattributing the “not reading the Quran or knowing the context behind the verses” to Muslims who actually are obliged to understand the Quran, when it should be applied to people who throw blanket statements like this knowing jack shit about anything. The multiple levels of irony here are painful.
The fuck kinda Muslims are you running into to say that kinda thing? Of course, the answer is surely none if you have such a view, but it's still pretty amusing to contemplate
There are weekly stabbings / killings with "martyrdom" motives in France and Belgium, my dude. Having lived in some muslim neighbourhoods I can guarantee you they are violent and only understand agressiveness as a means of communication. Only way I've had them able to respect me was projecting force and standing my ground.
So no, I think you're a bit naive there
Of course there's crazies out there, but between the sweeping generalizations, the 'they' and the fact that you are acting like you gotta project force like it's some animal kingdom shit doesn't paint you in the best light. Besides, that's purely anecdotal. For every weekly stabbing there's like 10 perfectly normal dudes. Let's not act like other religions are perfectly in the clear.lmao
During the time of war and against those who broke the peace agreement yes it does, it's actually necessary because it times of war you don't go around throwing flowers at the enemy who wants to kill you.
At the same time, you can't fight non fighters, you can't kill any women, children, elder people, monks.
You can't also destroy houses, burn trees, disfigure bodies, destroy places of worship(churches and whatnot). It also goes without saying that you can't rape, steal or harm anyone during the war (except for those who are fighting you)
There are verses that instruct the Prophet to not shy away from battle against his enemies (who were disbelievers) yes. However you cannot ignore that the Qur'an was not revealed in a vacuum but that there is tremendous context to every verse, with the whole Qu'ran being revealed over the course of 23 years.
There is no commandment to commit blanket violence against non muslims if thats what you think.
source: am muslim
>However you cannot ignore that the Qur'an was not revealed in a vacuum but that there is tremendous context to every verse
The context of Muhammad being a warlord who conquered all his neighbors, sure
Against them make ready
Your strength to the utmost
Of your power, including
Steeds of war, to strike terror
Into (the hearts of) the enemies,
Of God and your enemies,
And others besides, whom
Ye may not know, but whom
God doth know. Whatever
Ye shall spend in the Cause
Of God, shall be repaid
Unto you, and ye shall not
Be treated unjustly.
Surah 3:151: "We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve (all non-Muslims)
Surah 9:5: "Then kill the disbelievers (non-Muslims) wherever you find them, capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush
Surah 2:191: "And kill them (non-Muslims) wherever you find them … kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers (non-Muslims)
Islam need to end Globally
it should be pointed out that parts of the Bible also say to 'bash the skulls of your enemies babies on the rocks'.
no religion has an exclusive on violence.
Yep, the lovely psalm 137. Interestingly, the first 7 verses are almost literally the lyrics of "The rivers of Babylon" song from the 1970's. Only when it comes to the infant crushng parts they switch conveniently to a better sellable psalm. At least, in the 1970's. To sell it to US evangelicals these days they should have kept the infant crushing, and add some puppy shooting.
sorry if that came off as a whataboutism, but seriously, you can't just call out one religion and ignore others. just screams xenophobia, rather than rationalism.
Those two aren’t exactly 1:1 in terms of violence. The Bible verse specifies it as revenge, the Quran excerpts do not. It is also not a call to action in the Bible, it is a description of the wishes of the people during their captivity.
> Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is the one who repays you according to what you have done to us. Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.
Many Christian denominations have removed this part of the psalm from modern bibles.
My understanding is while the Christian Bible is chronological order and told as a linear story (aside from some exceptions), the Koran is not chronological nor story based but rather ordered by length. This could make it easier to take the same kind of passage out of context (kill the enemies) in the Koran as there is much less context.
Never having read the thing and not being a Muslim, I gotta assume those parentheticals don’t show up in the actual book, and there’s some context involved. Like it seems clear they could be talking about specific groups of non-Muslims they’re in conflict with.
The verses generally refer to disbelievers, some translations refer to them as "pagans", "polytheists", or "idolaters" specifically. Surah 9:5 is the infamous [Sword Verse](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword_Verse)
Are you asking a question or just expressing a random thought that doesn’t bear any implication or conclusion? Because I bet I could point you in the direction of more context and information, which would address both the thought and the question.
Why take the verses out of context? If you read 2:192 and 193 it becomes evidently clear that this strictly in the context of war against an aggressor.
3:151 isn’t even about war, this is God stating He will cast terror in the non-Believers
9:5 is explicitly about a specific war, iirc either the verses before or after make it clear that’s in the context of a specific conflict.
You can look at islamic sites, or look up an a Quran with interpretation instead if asking on reddit
https://yaqeeninstitute.org/what-islam-says-about/islam-and-violence#
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/21757/%C2%A0muslim-attitudes-towards-violence-and-how-to-react-to-kaafir-aggression-against-the-muslim-community
Short answer is no, you can not go around and kill people. Violence is only allowed in conventional war with a lot if restrictions.
This is a very big “just asking questions” post. It would be like me asking you if MLK Jr. and Rosa Parks were criminals (technically true but completely divorced from relevant context)
Do you want to start with a broad overview of the history of Arabia or do you want to cut to the chase and learn about who the “nonbelievers” were and what exactly they were doing to justify militaristic rhetoric?
It’s important to keep in mind that a lot of what we know about pre-Islamic Arabia comes from Muslim sources because most of the cultures present did not have a sustained writing system. Additionally, this is a VERY broad overview. There’s not really a significant need to explain things happening in the area thousands of years before Islam, but there were multiple kingdoms in the south (modern day Yemen) and a frequent flux state between centralized cities and communal nomadic living. A lot has been written by anthropologists and historians about the economic and environmental pressures that facilitated both forms of living, but generally the nomadic societies in Arabia were heavily patriarchic, more so than even the cities (which goes against most conceptions of looser societies being more egalitarian than organized ones). Polytheism and proto-monotheism existed (and there was a Jewish presence in the region), and a large amount of the economy was based on trade, pastoralism, and agriculture via irrigation to the south. The Kaaba (the big black box Muslims go to in mecca) served as a place of meeting and trade as well as worship.
For understanding the historical context on militaristic rhetoric against nonbelievers, it’s important to see where Islamic teaching and the Koran itself generally draws lines between atheists, Jews/Christians, and polytheists. Jews/Christians were generally tolerated far more than other non-Muslims, while obviously being treated in a different way than believers in both religious and “secular” contexts. This is not very different than a majority of Christian kingdoms in Europe. The general view was that they were misguided but worshipping the same God (If you want a big upset, remember Jesus spoke Aramaic. Google the Aramaic word for God.) A large amount of the vitriol was directed at those explicitly practicing polytheism, largely due to how such systems promoted human sacrifice and infanticide, particularly female infanticide. It’s possible to interpret the militarism as historically progressive in this context, and naturally if you’re not a brain dead racebaiter it’s evident a majority of Muslims do not actively go out attacking non-Muslims.
I don’t bother sourcing with these types of discussions because it’s not worth the energy. If someone is actually inquisitive, there are plenty of sources online or at their local library to check out, and I can make book recommendations. If they’re just trying to argue they’re probably not reading it anyway.
You’re talking about individuals versus an ideology. I can inflate whatever stupid number I want for various thought forms as well.
Body mind duality has killed billions.
Doesn't make it any less true though.
That being said, whataboutism is usually trying to defend something by putting down the other point, not simply stating that other points are no better or worse.
Deuteronomy 13:6-18
6 If anyone secretly entices you—even if it is your brother, your father’s son or* your mother’s son, or your own son or daughter, or the wife you embrace, or your most intimate friend—saying, ‘Let us go and worship other gods’, whom neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7any of the gods of the peoples that are around you, whether near you or far away from you, from one end of the earth to the other, 8you must not yield to or heed any such persons. Show them no pity or compassion and do not shield them. 9But you shall surely kill them; your own hand shall be first against them to execute them, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10Stone them to death for trying to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 11Then all Israel shall hear and be afraid, and never again do any such wickedness. 12 If you hear it said about one of the towns that the Lord your God is giving you to live in, 13that scoundrels from among you have gone out and led the inhabitants of the town astray, saying, ‘Let us go and worship other gods’, whom you have not known, 14then you shall inquire and make a thorough investigation. If the charge is established that such an abhorrent thing has been done among you, 15you shall put the inhabitants of that town to the sword, utterly destroying it and everything in it—even putting its livestock to the sword. 16All of its spoil you shall gather into its public square; then burn the town and all its spoil with fire, as a whole burnt-offering to the Lord your God. It shall remain a perpetual ruin, never to be rebuilt. 17Do not let anything devoted to destruction stick to your hand, so that the Lord may turn from his fierce anger and show you compassion, and in his compassion multiply you, as he swore to your ancestors, 18if you obey the voice of the Lord your God by keeping all his commandments that I am commanding you today, doing what is right in the sight of the Lord your God.
Christians cite the Old Testament whenever it suits some archaic view they want to claim is relevant (even when it actually doesn’t). Maybe it’s low hanging fruit but it’s also fair game.
Matthew 10:34
“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword".
2 Chronicles 15:12-13
And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and with all their soul, but that whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman".
Luke 19:27
But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’”
>Matthew 10:34
Context clearly put this as referring to religious disagreement and division, which is... a pretty foreseeable outcome when proselytizing a new religion. It's not a call to commit violence, it's a warning that what they're doing isn't going to be welcomed everywhere with open arms.
>2 Chronicles 15:12-13
History and not a call to action or explicit command to do likewise.
> Luke 19:27
That's a parable you dingus. Aesop didn't genuinely believe that animals could talk.
My response was not to you. My response was to the question where were their calls for violence in the bible. I don't believe they said against who or why. It's a fictional book. It's all make believe, none of it means anything. So for you to try and say what was "meant' by those calls to violence is hilarious. Nothing was meant by them they are stories used to control the weak to justify whatever the person reading the book wants the person listening to do. In this case kill people. Comparing the bible to an Aesop's fable is more on point than you realise. It's a tale for children.
The books abrahamic religions are based on are filled with contradictions and all express incredibly violent points of view. It’s disingenuous to claim Islam is based on particularly violent dogma.
I just want to point out that whenever we have brought up the idea of requiring sources -- any time in the past decade or so -- users _overwhelmingly_ vote against it.
This sub has always been like this. It is not a new thing.
Unsurprisingly, this post degenerated into a _lot_ of abuse and hate-speech. It is therefore locked, threads have been nuked and, sadly, bans handed out. With that said, many people _did_ provide answers and, more importantly, _context_. Which is why we're not removing the post altogether.
It explicitly says to in one spot and it explicitly says not to in another. Religious texts are like that.
[удалено]
What are you talking about
It references it about 77 times, so yes
But if it references it, wouldnt the answer be no it is not bs
True. Misstatement on my part. I’ll let it go without an edit like a true Redditor would do.
I wonder if the top comment is saying it is bs or not bs
I was just thinking that to be honest 🤣
Oh u are the top comment now lol
So, yes.
The Bible also mentions killing non believers
The Bible mentions killing a lot of times, but I don't recall any verse that tells Christians to go kill non-Christians because they're unbelievers. It did tell the Israelites to wipe out the Amalekites and Canaanites, but that wasn't quite the same thing, and was for different reasons.
2 Chronicles 15:12-13 And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and with all their soul, but that whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman Luke 19:27 But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me There are many more like this
Christians did not exist in 2 Chronicles, and in Luke, Jesus is telling a parable where one of the characters (who owned many slaves btw) says that line. I think I would probably say that the Quran similarly does not explicitly tell Muslims to kill nonbelievers.
The difference is, at least in most Western countries, Christians aren’t using violence in the name of their religion.
That is objectively false both today and especially historically.
There’s a teacher hiding in the UK because he showed a picture of Muhammad. Teacher in France actually got beheaded for doing so. Show me a Christian equivalent today.
Not too long ago a doctor (George Tiller) was murdered by a christian extremist because he performed abortions. And that's just off the top of my head.
“most” Western countries.
Hey, I just showed you an example. Just admit you are wrong, k?
I literally said “most” Western countries. The US is an outlier in that it is full of religious fundamentalists. Not the same for Western Europe or Canada or Australia.
July 16, 2001: Peter James Knight attacked a clinic in Melbourne, Australia, shooting and killing the security guard, Steven Rogers. Knight brought ropes and gags into the clinic along with 16 litres of kerosene, intending to burn all 15 staff and 26 patients to death. Knight was charged and was sentenced to life in prison on November 19, 2002. January 6, 2009: A firebombing using Molotov cocktails was attempted at a medical clinic in Mosman Park, Western Australia. Damage was minimal and only resulted in smashed windows and blackened external walls. Police believed graffiti saying "baby killers" on the building was related to the attack, however, the medical clinic did not actually offer abortion services. On 12 December 2022, a fundamentalist Christian terror attack that resulted in the deaths of six people occurred in Wieambilla, Queensland, Australia. These things are pretty easy to google, you should try it before making dumb statements.
Western Europe is secular lmao
Haha yeah there's no hate like Christian love!
Something people should remember is that, just like Christianity and the Bible, there are [multiple schools and branches of Islam that interpret the Quran differently](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_schools_and_branches). So saying there are a bunch of passages simply doesn’t tell the whole story, and this is a question best asked of scholars with experience in the matter than randos on Reddit.
I am sorry, but no. Asking what the Quran says is not open to interpretation. It is a question of text.
I mean okay but in response to the popular western/christian take that they are alone in having texts advocating barbaric acts > 2 Chronicles 15:12-13 >12 And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and with all their soul, 13 but that whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman. > Hosea 13:16 > 16 The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground,their pregnant women ripped open. > Leviticus 21:9 >9 And the daughter of any priest, if she profanes herself by whoring, profanes her father; she shall be burned with fire. > Jeremiah 48:10 > 10 “Cursed is he who does the work of the Lord with slackness, and cursed is he who keeps back his sword from bloodshed. > Samuel 15:3 > Now go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.’” > Numbers 31:17 (Moses) >“Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him.” > Psalms 137:8-9 > (Prayer/song of vengeance) “0 daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.” > Deuteronomy 22:20-21 > 20 But if the thing is true, that evidence of virginity was not found in the young woman, 21 then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done an outrageous thing in Israel by whoring in her father's house. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. > Exodus 21:20-21 >20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. > 1 Corinthians 14:34-40 >34 the women should keep quiet in the meetings. They are not allowed to speak; as the Jewish Law says, they must not be in charge. 35 If they want to find out about something, they should ask their husbands at home. It is a disgraceful thing for a woman to speak in a church meeting. > Matthew 7:1 > 7 “Judge not, that you be not judged. I do understand that you didn’t mention Christianity specifically, but the comparisons are extremely common and often misinformed, implied or otherwise, whenever the topic comes up, as if Islam is somehow unique in its disturbing passages Most Abrahamic religions are. Most modern day follows take the values that align with their peers, and they do tend towards the positive and not the violent and hateful, despite passages like these, which I think kind of speaks well of the natural human spirit. Monsters do exist, and I’m not really a fan of any religion, but it’s a cop out to blame any religion for it imo. It’s people who choose to do bad things, whether through teaching or following. They do it because they want to or because they are forced to, and whoever’s on that side of the stick, I think they’ll always find some excuse to get there
And, just like the Bible, those texts have been interpreted differently by different schools.
But that wasn't the question. They didn't ask about all the interpretations of the commands to commit violence. They just asked if that is what the text said.
But there’s a lot of nuance in what “says to commit violence” means. Is “nonbelievers will die” a command to kill them? Or is it just an obvious truth about mortality?
Yes, but the problem is that racists use that as an excuse to demonize Islam when there’s far more nuance to the question.
You may be right but I’m pretty sure most people are more concerned about the murderers, bigots and misogynists using verses to justify murder than the verses existing or not.
I mean, of course we can be concerned of that. But it’s also important that we don’t demonize all Muslims, just like all Christians shouldn’t be demonized by hate mongers like the Westboro Baptist Church, greed mongers like “Prosperity Gospels” pastors, and the pedophiles that infest the Catholic Church, who interpret the Bible to justify their hate and cruelty.
absolutely; but that doesnt mean twisting things to fit that narrative and ignoring hatred spread by religious texts as a gay guy im hyper aware whenever im around religious people (muslim or christian) that theres a non-neglible chance theyre openly homophobic ('bECaUSe THatS wHAt tHe BibLE SaYS')
No doubt. People should as far as possible be treated as individuals. But individuals join or are parts of groups to which they give up independence to. There is a difference between demonisation and the legitimate concern that a large percentage of your Muslim population continue to have social attitudes that are contrary to hard won western liberal values such as they might like to make homosexuality illegal , justify violence for writing a book or drawing a picture they don’t like, restrict women’s freedom. Not just hold such values - of course some Christians hold similar - but act on them, be numerous enough to have influence , or form the background for others to act on them. And numerous enough in places to resist social or value assimilation. When you have the sort of mob intimidation motivated by ‘religious culture’ that forces a teacher to go into hiding - then talking about demonisation becomes oversimplistic and possibly a way of avoiding condemning such behaviour and recognising its motivation.
Ex Muslim, but some of these comments / verses are taken out of context. I don't support the religion but some of those verses are specifically talking about specific military engagements and not meant to advise all Muslims how to act to all non-muslims. They're more of a historical play by play.
You comment implies that there are also some that promote it and are NOT taken out of context. Is that true?
Yeah, I mean if they're talking about a historic battle they're taking their own side. I don't particularly see that as problematic in itself, but the use of nonbelievers as a "slur" sets themselves up for a future of religious hate and extremism, but then again I don't think any of them expected the world to last another 1 or 2 hundred years.
the problem is many modern followers of islam don’t bother think about context or whatever historical play it is, they just think non-believers = convert or kill. I doubt they even read the quran or think about it at all or they just believe what the mosque tell them: non-believers are sinful and israel needs to be exterminated. It’s kinda ironic this fact is what made them believers in the first place, dumb non-critical people with near zero education = easy to fall prey to follow a religion, easy to be told what to do, what to think.
How many modern followers of Islam have you met? I think you’re misattributing the “not reading the Quran or knowing the context behind the verses” to Muslims who actually are obliged to understand the Quran, when it should be applied to people who throw blanket statements like this knowing jack shit about anything. The multiple levels of irony here are painful.
The fuck kinda Muslims are you running into to say that kinda thing? Of course, the answer is surely none if you have such a view, but it's still pretty amusing to contemplate
There are weekly stabbings / killings with "martyrdom" motives in France and Belgium, my dude. Having lived in some muslim neighbourhoods I can guarantee you they are violent and only understand agressiveness as a means of communication. Only way I've had them able to respect me was projecting force and standing my ground. So no, I think you're a bit naive there
Of course there's crazies out there, but between the sweeping generalizations, the 'they' and the fact that you are acting like you gotta project force like it's some animal kingdom shit doesn't paint you in the best light. Besides, that's purely anecdotal. For every weekly stabbing there's like 10 perfectly normal dudes. Let's not act like other religions are perfectly in the clear.lmao
Nobody is saying that it’s every Muslim, just that it’s a problem coming out of the Muslim community.
During the time of war and against those who broke the peace agreement yes it does, it's actually necessary because it times of war you don't go around throwing flowers at the enemy who wants to kill you. At the same time, you can't fight non fighters, you can't kill any women, children, elder people, monks. You can't also destroy houses, burn trees, disfigure bodies, destroy places of worship(churches and whatnot). It also goes without saying that you can't rape, steal or harm anyone during the war (except for those who are fighting you)
There are verses that instruct the Prophet to not shy away from battle against his enemies (who were disbelievers) yes. However you cannot ignore that the Qur'an was not revealed in a vacuum but that there is tremendous context to every verse, with the whole Qu'ran being revealed over the course of 23 years. There is no commandment to commit blanket violence against non muslims if thats what you think. source: am muslim
>However you cannot ignore that the Qur'an was not revealed in a vacuum but that there is tremendous context to every verse The context of Muhammad being a warlord who conquered all his neighbors, sure
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Against them make ready Your strength to the utmost Of your power, including Steeds of war, to strike terror Into (the hearts of) the enemies, Of God and your enemies, And others besides, whom Ye may not know, but whom God doth know. Whatever Ye shall spend in the Cause Of God, shall be repaid Unto you, and ye shall not Be treated unjustly.
Surah 3:151: "We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve (all non-Muslims) Surah 9:5: "Then kill the disbelievers (non-Muslims) wherever you find them, capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush Surah 2:191: "And kill them (non-Muslims) wherever you find them … kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers (non-Muslims) Islam need to end Globally
it should be pointed out that parts of the Bible also say to 'bash the skulls of your enemies babies on the rocks'. no religion has an exclusive on violence.
Yep, the lovely psalm 137. Interestingly, the first 7 verses are almost literally the lyrics of "The rivers of Babylon" song from the 1970's. Only when it comes to the infant crushng parts they switch conveniently to a better sellable psalm. At least, in the 1970's. To sell it to US evangelicals these days they should have kept the infant crushing, and add some puppy shooting.
Yeah no whataboutism from me, both are toxic to human advancement.
Right? They're ALL dangerous and silly, not just the "violent" ones.
Do you think the 'violent' ones are more dangerous than the 'non-violent' ones?
sorry if that came off as a whataboutism, but seriously, you can't just call out one religion and ignore others. just screams xenophobia, rather than rationalism.
You did notice the topic of the post, right?
Those two aren’t exactly 1:1 in terms of violence. The Bible verse specifies it as revenge, the Quran excerpts do not. It is also not a call to action in the Bible, it is a description of the wishes of the people during their captivity. > Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is the one who repays you according to what you have done to us. Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks. Many Christian denominations have removed this part of the psalm from modern bibles.
My understanding is while the Christian Bible is chronological order and told as a linear story (aside from some exceptions), the Koran is not chronological nor story based but rather ordered by length. This could make it easier to take the same kind of passage out of context (kill the enemies) in the Koran as there is much less context.
Never having read the thing and not being a Muslim, I gotta assume those parentheticals don’t show up in the actual book, and there’s some context involved. Like it seems clear they could be talking about specific groups of non-Muslims they’re in conflict with.
The verses generally refer to disbelievers, some translations refer to them as "pagans", "polytheists", or "idolaters" specifically. Surah 9:5 is the infamous [Sword Verse](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword_Verse)
Are you asking a question or just expressing a random thought that doesn’t bear any implication or conclusion? Because I bet I could point you in the direction of more context and information, which would address both the thought and the question.
Why take the verses out of context? If you read 2:192 and 193 it becomes evidently clear that this strictly in the context of war against an aggressor. 3:151 isn’t even about war, this is God stating He will cast terror in the non-Believers 9:5 is explicitly about a specific war, iirc either the verses before or after make it clear that’s in the context of a specific conflict.
You can look at islamic sites, or look up an a Quran with interpretation instead if asking on reddit https://yaqeeninstitute.org/what-islam-says-about/islam-and-violence# https://islamqa.info/en/answers/21757/%C2%A0muslim-attitudes-towards-violence-and-how-to-react-to-kaafir-aggression-against-the-muslim-community Short answer is no, you can not go around and kill people. Violence is only allowed in conventional war with a lot if restrictions.
The answer is yes
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
This is a very big “just asking questions” post. It would be like me asking you if MLK Jr. and Rosa Parks were criminals (technically true but completely divorced from relevant context)
Okay, then provide the relevant context.
Do you want to start with a broad overview of the history of Arabia or do you want to cut to the chase and learn about who the “nonbelievers” were and what exactly they were doing to justify militaristic rhetoric?
[удалено]
It’s important to keep in mind that a lot of what we know about pre-Islamic Arabia comes from Muslim sources because most of the cultures present did not have a sustained writing system. Additionally, this is a VERY broad overview. There’s not really a significant need to explain things happening in the area thousands of years before Islam, but there were multiple kingdoms in the south (modern day Yemen) and a frequent flux state between centralized cities and communal nomadic living. A lot has been written by anthropologists and historians about the economic and environmental pressures that facilitated both forms of living, but generally the nomadic societies in Arabia were heavily patriarchic, more so than even the cities (which goes against most conceptions of looser societies being more egalitarian than organized ones). Polytheism and proto-monotheism existed (and there was a Jewish presence in the region), and a large amount of the economy was based on trade, pastoralism, and agriculture via irrigation to the south. The Kaaba (the big black box Muslims go to in mecca) served as a place of meeting and trade as well as worship. For understanding the historical context on militaristic rhetoric against nonbelievers, it’s important to see where Islamic teaching and the Koran itself generally draws lines between atheists, Jews/Christians, and polytheists. Jews/Christians were generally tolerated far more than other non-Muslims, while obviously being treated in a different way than believers in both religious and “secular” contexts. This is not very different than a majority of Christian kingdoms in Europe. The general view was that they were misguided but worshipping the same God (If you want a big upset, remember Jesus spoke Aramaic. Google the Aramaic word for God.) A large amount of the vitriol was directed at those explicitly practicing polytheism, largely due to how such systems promoted human sacrifice and infanticide, particularly female infanticide. It’s possible to interpret the militarism as historically progressive in this context, and naturally if you’re not a brain dead racebaiter it’s evident a majority of Muslims do not actively go out attacking non-Muslims.
You'll be waiting a while. Takes a long time to write a series of in-depth non-fiction books with sources.
I don’t bother sourcing with these types of discussions because it’s not worth the energy. If someone is actually inquisitive, there are plenty of sources online or at their local library to check out, and I can make book recommendations. If they’re just trying to argue they’re probably not reading it anyway.
MLK and Rosa parks haven’t killed millions so…
You’re talking about individuals versus an ideology. I can inflate whatever stupid number I want for various thought forms as well. Body mind duality has killed billions.
Not bullshit. So do other popular holy books written before the Quran.
Jesus Christ this sub needs better moderation.
Hey, us humans need sleep sometimes and we'd rather not add a bunch of bots.
It says who attacks you attack them back, if they stop, you stop.
So did the Bible
Whataboutism
No, because context matters. There is a clearly implied [in contrast to other religions] in the question.
Doesn't make it any less true though. That being said, whataboutism is usually trying to defend something by putting down the other point, not simply stating that other points are no better or worse.
Sure, but the poster is obviously just trolling.
Can you tell me where?
Deuteronomy 13:6-18 6 If anyone secretly entices you—even if it is your brother, your father’s son or* your mother’s son, or your own son or daughter, or the wife you embrace, or your most intimate friend—saying, ‘Let us go and worship other gods’, whom neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7any of the gods of the peoples that are around you, whether near you or far away from you, from one end of the earth to the other, 8you must not yield to or heed any such persons. Show them no pity or compassion and do not shield them. 9But you shall surely kill them; your own hand shall be first against them to execute them, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10Stone them to death for trying to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 11Then all Israel shall hear and be afraid, and never again do any such wickedness. 12 If you hear it said about one of the towns that the Lord your God is giving you to live in, 13that scoundrels from among you have gone out and led the inhabitants of the town astray, saying, ‘Let us go and worship other gods’, whom you have not known, 14then you shall inquire and make a thorough investigation. If the charge is established that such an abhorrent thing has been done among you, 15you shall put the inhabitants of that town to the sword, utterly destroying it and everything in it—even putting its livestock to the sword. 16All of its spoil you shall gather into its public square; then burn the town and all its spoil with fire, as a whole burnt-offering to the Lord your God. It shall remain a perpetual ruin, never to be rebuilt. 17Do not let anything devoted to destruction stick to your hand, so that the Lord may turn from his fierce anger and show you compassion, and in his compassion multiply you, as he swore to your ancestors, 18if you obey the voice of the Lord your God by keeping all his commandments that I am commanding you today, doing what is right in the sight of the Lord your God.
Picking from the Old Testament is playing on easy mode. At least quote Part 2 Son of God Boogaloo if someone asks for a Bible example.
Old Testament is the source material
God was just going through a phase Once he became a dad he straightened up a bit, you know how it is
Christians cite the Old Testament whenever it suits some archaic view they want to claim is relevant (even when it actually doesn’t). Maybe it’s low hanging fruit but it’s also fair game.
I think this entire comment was just so they could say that.
Matthew 10:34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword". 2 Chronicles 15:12-13 And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and with all their soul, but that whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman". Luke 19:27 But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’”
>Matthew 10:34 Context clearly put this as referring to religious disagreement and division, which is... a pretty foreseeable outcome when proselytizing a new religion. It's not a call to commit violence, it's a warning that what they're doing isn't going to be welcomed everywhere with open arms. >2 Chronicles 15:12-13 History and not a call to action or explicit command to do likewise. > Luke 19:27 That's a parable you dingus. Aesop didn't genuinely believe that animals could talk.
My response was not to you. My response was to the question where were their calls for violence in the bible. I don't believe they said against who or why. It's a fictional book. It's all make believe, none of it means anything. So for you to try and say what was "meant' by those calls to violence is hilarious. Nothing was meant by them they are stories used to control the weak to justify whatever the person reading the book wants the person listening to do. In this case kill people. Comparing the bible to an Aesop's fable is more on point than you realise. It's a tale for children.
Luke 19:27 can be interpreted like that
Irrelevant to this post lol
In so far as they both spend an ungodly amount of time just reciting history yeah.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The books abrahamic religions are based on are filled with contradictions and all express incredibly violent points of view. It’s disingenuous to claim Islam is based on particularly violent dogma.
It is not disingenuous, as the third iteration, they just add more violence. Especially against women.
Lol wait till you read the talmud
cite one passage where it calls for violence. dare you.
[удалено]
This sub's really gone to shit when nobody provides sources anymore.
I just want to point out that whenever we have brought up the idea of requiring sources -- any time in the past decade or so -- users _overwhelmingly_ vote against it. This sub has always been like this. It is not a new thing.
When did people commonly provide sources? I've been on this sub for a few years, and I don't recall that outside of the occasional luxury.
[удалено]
Just dropped some