This is what Islamic extremists teach, not the religion of Islam. Suicide and killing innocent people are forbidden in Islam, so suicide attacks can't possibly be acceptable.
I have already stated many times,
Islam do not condone suicide-in-general as committed by the depressive and suicide prone people. However sacrificing one live [martyrdom] for the cause of Allah is not considered suicide-in-general but [a war strategy] something of merit.
There are many verses in the Quran praising and promising greater rewards for martyrdom.
WHO ARE YOU, me or anyone who can judge their interpretation is wrong if they believe that is their divine duty to sacrifice themselves?
There is only one circumstance and that circumstance is well defined in the Qur'an as to when a lie is permissible.
Below is the ONLY verse found in the Qur'an that suggests that lying is acceptable and even then it is better to choose death rather than to lie as the hadith below it states:
"As for anyone who denies God after having once attained to faith - and this, to be sure, does not apply to one who does it under duress, the while his heart remains true to his faith, but only, to him who willingly opens up his heart to a denial of the truth upon all such falls God's condemnation, and tremendous suffering awaits them" (Qur'an 16:106)
"There is a consensus that whomsoever is forced into apostasy and chooses death has a greater reward than a person who takes the license to deny one's faith under duress, but if a person is being forced to eat pork or drink wine, then they should do that instead of choosing death." (Sahih al-Bukhari)
I agree again, general lying in ordinary circumstance is wrong. Note in the particular case, it was more of "pretending" rather than deliberately telling a lie.
The verses aren't the problem, it's the individuals who alter them from their original course or meaning that are the problem. Christian extremists also twist and distort the scriptures to justify committing atrocities.
Again,
WHO ARE YOU, me or anyone who can judge their interpretation is wrong.
Note what is at stake here is 'salvation for eternal life in paradise' and no believers would dare to twist God's word deliberately.
The 3400++ verses of antagonistic and hatred loaded on non-Muslims is so obvious and thus will influence Muslims to follow their God in hating non-Muslims [a pool of 320 million is likely to do so].
Thus some % will be influenced to kill non-Muslims via 9:5 and other verses with evil and violent motives.
Note Christians may twist the words of God and Jesus in the Gospels, but that has nothing to do with Christianity because Christianity has protected itself from blame with the overriding pacifist maxim of 'love all - even enemies'.
Do you feel that I should also be condemning the Bible verses that extremists or Christian terrorist organizations have used their actions?
There are not many verses in the Gospels that are 'grey' in terms of evil and violence.
You can regret they are there BUT you should praise your religion, Christianity, God and Jesus as having the wisdom and moral for including the overriding pacifist maxim within the Gospels.
You mean I haven't countered the above to your impossible standards.
What impossible standards.
I have demonstrated it very objectively and you can verify the verses to the Gospels, i.e. the core of Christianity.
The Qur'an was written 1,400 years ago. What you are reading in the Qur'an are verses that were supposedly revealed at different times in Muhammad’s life. Some verses answered specific questions at a specific time or during a specific historical event such as a battle. Many verses have specific messages intended for specific people, while others give general guidelines to be used for future generations. So when you read the Qur’an it's important to understand what was happening at the time that resulted in a particular verse to be revealed to Muhammad.
The Bible is similar in the fact that each book was written to a specific audience, who were facing specific circumstances, at a specific point in time. The Bible wasn't written to Christians living in the year 2019, but it was written for us in 2019.
Historical context means everything when trying to understand and properly interpret religious texts. You are obviously having a difficult time in doing this in regards to the Qur'an, and this is why I suggested you take some courses in Islamic Studies in the other thread.
When you bring the historical context, then it become very subjective, contentious and flimsy.
We can consider the history perspective, but one has to note the various related
contentious issues, and we cannot put too much weight on the history criteria.
What is more objective is to take whatever as presented in the Quran and delivering the doctrines and principles for Muslims to comply with as terms of their covenant with Allah.
Here is Qur'an 5:3 in full context:
Prohibited for you are carrion, blood, the flesh of swine, and animals dedicated to other than God; also the flesh of animals strangled, killed violently, killed by a fall, gored to death, mangled by wild animals—except what you rescue, and animals sacrificed on altars; and the practice of drawing lots. For it is immoral. Today, those who disbelieve have despaired of your religion, so do not fear them, but fear Me. Today I have perfected your religion for you, and have completed My favor upon you, and have approved Islam as a religion for you. But whoever is compelled by hunger, with no intent of wrongdoing—God is Forgiving and Merciful.
It's ironic that you would use this verse to defend your position that the the Qur'an is saying that disbelievers are a threat to Islam.
This verse was supposedly revealed to Muhammad when Islam had finally developed into a complete way of life for Muslims and is referred to as the Ikmal al-Din or "perfection of the religion" in English. This verse says that non-Muslims had now reached a point of no hope in destroying Islam and it tells Muslims that they no longer needed to fear non-Muslims; they should only fear God. This verse is considered by most Muslims to be the final verse revealed to Muhammad and in essence it tells Muslims that non-Muslims are no longer a treat to them which is the exact opposite of what you believe it's saying.
Which brings us to this:
What I meant is the Quran is perfected by Allah as claimed in 5:3.
There are many verses []3400++ of the perfected Quran that sent the message to Muslims, disbelievers are a threat to Islam, thus their salvation. This is why SOME believers will do whatever Allah advise them to do against the disbelievers.
Note the quote I referred directly from IS which claimed they killed non-Muslims because they are disbelievers as the primary reason, and the others, e.g. political interference and occupation are secondary reasons.
Since Qur'an 5:3 is considered to be the final revelation to Muhammad, using your own theory of abrogation and how the verses revealed later in Muhammad's life override previous ones, the war between Muslims and non-Muslims is over. That verse tells Muslims that non-Muslims have lost hope in the fight against Islam and that Muslims no longer need to fear them.
Nope, 5:3 is not the final revelation. It is just a report and in any case the Allah already had the perfected religion beside his 'throne'.
The significance of 5:3 is that the Quran is perfected by God thus cannot be changed by believers and humans.
Do you believe we should ignore them? Why shouldn't we judge extremists and point out how they are morally wrong in their interpretations? Should we just allow their perverted ideologies spread without consequence?
As long at the perfected and immutable Quran and Islam exists there is no way you can do anything effectively to change the minds of the 320 million evil prone Muslims, especially when what is at stake is salvation for eternal life in paradise. They are like drowning people grabbing at straws or anything to save themselves.
Note again,
WHO ARE YOU, me or anyone who can judge their interpretation is wrong?
What is critical is to recognize is Islam as it is, i.e. it has perverted elements in its ideology which are supposedly from a God and thus cannot be changed. These evil laden ideology has influenced, inspired and compelled [subliminally] to commit terrible evil and violence to please Allah and be assured of their salvation.
In Islam these stories are important in telling how the Muslim faith came into existence.
So it is the same with those stories of wars committed by Muhammad against the innocent Jews, Christian and infidels.
Point is those stories from the Bible are to highlight the necessary principles, thus it the same with those stories of war mongering and killing by Muhammad and his gang.
If history;
the people of Mecca before Muhammad started preaching, were living harmoniously among themselves practicing different religions with tolerance.
It was Muhammad the false prophet with a false religion [note you agreed on this] that started to preach and condemn the practices of the Meccan people then in 610 CE. These people warned Muhammad not to preach but he insisted, thus obviously the Meccan people then were angry especially when their religions is being insulted.
So in terms of history, it was Muhammad who initiated the historical horror since 1400 years ago to the present.
There are so many controversies within the historical perspective and you are not likely to have any solid grounding from your arguments.
Christian extremists alter verses from the Bible from their original course or meaning to justify their actions, therefore; Christian extremism is inconceivable without reference to Christianity.
In a very loose way, yes, those people were identified as Christian.
But in principle, the evil and violent acts by Christians on their own free will has nothing to do with Christianity which has an overriding clause and maxim of "love all - even enemies" to absolve itself from any evil acts of Christians.
Example, it a pedophile Christian priest raped children, surely you cannot blame Christianity the religion for such acts. You can blame the church management skills but not Christianity the religion.
This mythical pool of yours is very weak. Since the inception of Islam, less than 1% of Muslims have participated in violent jihad. Today fewer than 1/10th of 1% of Muslims are doing so and there is no evidence that this number is presently increasing. If there are 320 million evil prone Muslims, why aren't there more of them acting out violently towards non-Muslims since this is what you believe the Qur'an commands Muslims to do? There isn't even 1% of your mythical 320 million doing this.
Mythical??
I have provided provided objective argument to substantiate the existence of a 20% of evil prone humans within ALL of humanity. Thus 20% or 320 million of Muslims are evil prone.
Note I stated evil
prone thus a strong potential of evil from a pool of 320 evil prone Muslims.
I believe it is stupid to expect ALL or 100% of the 320 million to commit terrorist attacks at the same time or at all times.
Note if 0.01% that is 160,000.
In terms of terrorist attacks even 16,000, i.e. 0.001% is a very serious concern.
Terrorist attacks are the usual mentions and referenced because these are very glaring but what i am more concern with is the
whole gamut and range of evil and violent acts from mild to extreme from the potential pool of 320 million. I suggest you be more aware and mindful to the whole range of terrible evil and violent acts committed by evil prone Muslims around the world.
You seem to have difficulty comprehending what is being said in that article.
Until Western intelligence, military, and law enforcement personnel are provided with accurate information about the history and core religious doctrines of Islam and the intrinsically extremist nature of Islamism, and until they are taught how to distinguish between Muslim moderates and Islamist extremists (including those who are posing as moderates) and learn how to recognise the many telltale signs of Islamist ideological radicalisation, they will generally be unable to identify prospective jihadist terrorists in advance.
The above is talking about people like you who can't differentiate between the religion of Islam and what it teaches and the extremist ideology and what it teaches. Until you can can make a distinction between the religion of Islam and extremism, you will continue to be in error.
I think you are having the problem due to confirmation bias.
Note I have already argued the Muslims of IS are >90% Islamic as demonstrated objectively based on their compliance to the 6236 verses of the Quran.
You have been able to counter this point convincingly using the historical excuses.
It should also go without saying that relying on Islamist activists for “advice” about how to deal with the threat posed by Islamism is not only preposterous but utterly self-defeating.
Once again, the above is talking about people like you. The sources you have been using and relying on to support your position in these threads have been coming from extremists and anti-Islamic propagandists.
Dr. Bale differentiates between the religion of Islam and Islamism (Extremism) in his articles. Your failure to do this is what leads you to have a misunderstanding of what Islam teaches.
You are waving silly excuses.
I derived by views and conclusion mainly based on the direct sources of Islam, i.e. the Quranic verses which I had researched and analyzed in great details.
While the present group of anti-Islamist are reasonable and objective with their critique of Islam based on Islamic sources, they have not dug deep enough into human nature.
Bale agreed Islamism is a part and parcel of Islam but he is unable to find the direct correlation like what I did because he missed out on the critical human factors.
What counts ultimately is a rational objective basis to support one's view.