Does Qur'an Teach Violence?

[Ram]

What do you think are the terms of partition ?

The king of Kashmir wanted to join India, simple. The rulers have the choice to make their decisions at the time of partition. Places like Karachi, Lahore etc were not under kingly domonion and became part of Pakistan due to muslim majority. It is immaterail what the people want. Assamese Bodos are asking for their own country, so are many Punjabi Sikhs, and some Dravidians parties like DMK would like to demand a Tamil country. So? Can we just keep satisying their demands just because people want it? Would America offer a christian country to them if majority of christians demand it?

Pakistan won the 1947 war with control of Jammu and Kashmir and almost a million people.

Oh, my, my...That was India's magnanimity in allowing Pak to intrude into our territories without destroying Pakistan. I hope you are aware of history. In 1971, India had completely regained Kashmir and even parts of Paksitan and were infact bent on siezing Islamabad. Pakistan exists today only because of India's magnanimity. And Pak is not even grateful for that. After the war, they forgot that India had left it in peace and still went about its pursuit of Kashmir.

Do you know that Pakistan was not in the Common Wealth? Do you know why?

The second war was a stale mate (sorry for saying it was a win, as I consider it victory, but then so may Indians)

Ignoramus.

 

[ghazirizvi]

The king of Kashmir wanted to join India, simple. The rulers have the choice to make their decisions at the time of partition. Places like Karachi, Lahore etc were not under kingly domonion and became part of Pakistan due to muslim majority. It is immaterail what the people want. Assamese Bodos are asking for their own country, so are many Punjabi Sikhs, and some Dravidians parties like DMK would like to demand a Tamil country. So? Can we just keep satisying their demands just because people want it? Would America offer a christian country to them if majority of christians demand it?



Oh, my, my...That was India's magnanimity in allowing Pak to intrude into our territories without destroying Pakistan. I hope you are aware of history. In 1971, India had completely regained Kashmir and even parts of Paksitan and were infact bent on siezing Islamabad. Pakistan exists today only because of India's magnanimity. And Pak is not even grateful for that. After the war, they forgot that India had left it in peace and still went about its pursuit of Kashmir.

Do you know that Pakistan was not in the Common Wealth? Do you know why?




Ignoramus.

First of all sorry for saying Balochistan, it was a typo.

Secondly, Do you have any idea how horribly propagandized your statement about Kashmir is. The History of the Pak-Indo divide goes like this, after the Indian Mutiny of 1857, there was a rising class of Hindu Burgoise, which began to gain serious power, this left the muslim populus without much representation (though efforsts were made) in the government. Hence the formation of the Muslim League, after Muhammed Iqbal came up with the idea of an independent Pakistan, troubles began. This idea started to gain favour with the muslim population, soon violence broke out on the street. So Jinnah demanded the establishment of a muslim state in areas of India where there was a muslim majority. The League won most of the Muslim constituencies in the 1946 elections, and Britain and the Congress party reluctantly agreed to the formation of Pakistan as a separate dominion under the provisions of the Indian Independence Act, which went into effect on Aug. 15, 1947.

Still... There was trouble in the land. Three Princley states of Junagadh, Hyderabad and Kashmir were being disputed as they were Princley Kingdoms. Junagadh and Hyderabad along with the majority of muslims wanted to join Pakistan. But India dismissed the wishes of the rulers and disputed based on geography. The last one Kashmir was on all accounts geographically "synchronised" with Pakistan. But there was one problem it had a Hindu Ruler with a muslim majority and, in this case India said geography did not matter as the Ruler wanted to join with India whereas in the other two provinces it said the wishes of the Rulers do not matter only geography. That was a hypocritical stance, hence since then the Kashmiri's and Pakistani's have wanted Kashmir, which is only fair.

Even to this day fact remains Pakistan has control of Azad Kashmir because of the 1st War

The second war produced no land on either side and it was arbitrated by the UN near a time of a stale mate

The third war produced Balochistan

Indias Magnamity... If they just lost the war then say so.... jeez and you call me an ignaramus

 

[Ram]

First of all sorry for saying Balochistan, it was a typo.

Secondly, Do you have any idea how horribly propagandized your statement about Kashmir is. The History of the Pak-Indo divide goes like this, after the Indian Mutiny of 1857, there was a rising class of Hindu Burgoise, which began to gain serious power, this left the muslim populus without much representation (though efforsts were made) in the government. Hence the formation of the Muslim League, after Muhammed Iqbal came up with the idea of an independent Pakistan, troubles began. This idea started to gain favour with the muslim population, soon violence broke out on the street. So Jinnah demanded the establishment of a muslim state in areas of India where there was a muslim majority. The League won most of the Muslim constituencies in the 1946 elections, and Britain and the Congress party reluctantly agreed to the formation of Pakistan as a separate dominion under the provisions of the Indian Independence Act, which went into effect on Aug. 15, 1947.

Still... There was trouble in the land. Three Princley states of Junagadh, Hyderabad and Kashmir were being disputed as they were Princley Kingdoms. Junagadh and Hyderabad along with the majority of muslims wanted to join Pakistan. But India dismissed the wishes of the rulers and disputed based on geography. The last one Kashmir was on all accounts geographically "synchronised" with Pakistan. But there was one problem it had a Hindu Ruler with a muslim majority and, in this case India said geography did not matter as the Ruler wanted to join with India whereas in the other two provinces it said the wishes of the Rulers do not matter only geography. That was a hypocritical stance, hence since then the Kashmiri's and Pakistani's have wanted Kashmir, which is only fair.

Even to this day fact remains Pakistan has control of Azad Kashmir because of the 1st War

The second war produced no land on either side and it was arbitrated by the UN near a time of a stale mate

The third war produced Balochistan

Indias Magnamity... If they just lost the war then say so.... jeez and you call me an ignaramus

Huh, You are neither a Pakistani nor an Indian and you claim to have knowledge of Indian history? Where did you get this info from - I will check out and tell you. This one seems to be your personal version of history.

The case of Pakistan winning a war against India is like an ant claiming to crush an elephant. It sounds like Osama claiming victory over USA after his attacks on the WTC.

It is a miniscule country compared to India, with much less military might or defences. And you are silently bypassing my question on the 1971 war.

again, the third war produced Balochistan? Ha ha....

Pakistan's version of Kashmir is a lie. India agreed to give 55 crore in money to Pakistan after partition and they did not even wait to collect their money before attacking Kashmir.

After that India declined the payment of this amount. And Gandhi went on a fast to force the Indian Govt to settle this amount while Pakistan was busy attacking Kashmir. Pakistan has nothing in its policy that talks of gratefulness.And it has some supporters like you, without knowing any real facts. You are supporting it blindly because it is your muslim brother.


And even when India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapions, India has agrred to the international treaty of "no first use". And Pakistan has refused to sign the treaty. What does it speak for Pakistan? Do they really intend to use those weapons as a first attack, else what prevents them from signing the treaty?

Good, please go on supporting this mindless nuclear strategies of Pakistan. And you are just blinded by muslim idealogy not universal brotherhood.

 

[rahul_sharma]

First of all sorry for saying Balochistan, it was a typo.

The third war produced Balochistan

Once again,
hu la la ....confused?

Do you know Baluchistan is a part of Pakistan. Do you know Bangaladesh was a part of pakistan and it is different from Baluchistan? If yes, Why Baluchistan is a part of Pakistan? I hope you know the history of Baluchistan.... I dont think any war is needed for producing Baluchistan.

 

[ghazirizvi]

Once again,
hu la la ....confused?

Do you know Baluchistan is a part of Pakistan. Do you know Bangaladesh was a part of pakistan and it is different from Baluchistan? If yes, Why Baluchistan is a part of Pakistan? I hope you know the history of Baluchistan.... I dont think any war is needed for producing Baluchistan

Man do I feel like an a$$, again sorry Bangladesh, my mind is wandering but all the information is correct except for the typeo. Srry again man. Any ways care to dispute the rest of the info ? No, because that is what happened.

 

[rahul_sharma]

Man do I feel like an a$$, again sorry Bangladesh, my mind is wandering but all the information is correct except for the typeo. Srry again man.

Its Ok. Try to type with an active mind.

Any ways care to dispute the rest of the info ? No, because that is what happened.

No??? What no??
I hope you have read my and Ram's reply.

 

[ghazirizvi]

Huh, You are neither a Pakistani nor an Indian and you claim to have knowledge of Indian history? Where did you get this info from - I will check out and tell you. This one seems to be your personal version of history.

The case of Pakistan winning a war against India is like an ant claiming to crush an elephant. It sounds like Osama claiming victory over USA after his attacks on the WTC.

It is a miniscule country compared to India, with much less military might or defences. And you are silently bypassing my question on the 1971 war.

again, the third war produced Balochistan? Ha ha....

Pakistan's version of Kashmir is a lie. India agreed to give 55 crore in money to Pakistan after partition and they did not even wait to collect their money before attacking Kashmir.

After that India declined the payment of this amount. And Gandhi went on a fast to force the Indian Govt to settle this amount while Pakistan was busy attacking Kashmir. Pakistan has nothing in its policy that talks of gratefulness.And it has some supporters like you, without knowing any real facts. You are supporting it blindly because it is your muslim brother.


And even when India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapions, India has agrred to the international treaty of "no first use". And Pakistan has refused to sign the treaty. What does it speak for Pakistan? Do they really intend to use those weapons as a first attack, else what prevents them from signing the treaty?

Good, please go on supporting this mindless nuclear strategies of Pakistan. And you are just blinded by muslim idealogy not universal brotherhood.

You know it is possible to have knowledge of Indian and Pakistani history, without bieng an Indian or Pakistani.

Ok instead of just making silly allegorical comments provide Historical Facts.

I have never heard of a Pakistan recieving 55 crore during Partition, and even then whats the point. 55 crore is almost nothing compared to what India got. India got all British machinery and technology left behind, it had a stable government and a well built infrastructure by British. Pakistan had to make a make shift capital in Karachi.

I dont doubt Indian military might, but now that both sides have made Long Range Warheads, military might is irrelevant. India may have the ability to destroy Pakistan 10 times over and Pakistan has the ability to destroy India once. Regardless it still has that ability.

 

[ghazirizvi]

No??? What no??
I hope you have read my and Ram's reply.

Ram's reply was just bashing pakistan and glorifying India. Ant and Elephant ? Did you guys read my post on history of partition ? Make specific rebuttals to what I said not just generalizations. Correct my history if its wrong ? Please dont just say "you are wrong".

 

[SKY80]

Yep, you're wrong. A person who kills innocent people is not a shadeed. A person who kills without provocation is not a martyr. Besides, God doesn't have hands, and everyone who does good will get lots of virgins in heaven, men and women.

then exlplain why the quran says something different then you are saying now?

why would a person need to get rewarded with virginsif they do good?

isnt being able to go to heaven reward enough for living a good life?

so a martyr is a person who kills with provocation?

what do you consider to be a acceptable provocation?

is this what "allah" wants?

who decides what is acceptable as far as provocation?

so homicide bombers who kill innocent people only to be caled martys is acceptable as they consider what ever they want to be provocation?

is killing people out of provocation really something that a faith that calls itself peaceful would do?

 

[SKY80]

I would also like to point out that in the last 100 years, muslims have never started a world war. We didn't orchestrate the holocaust, or participate in the Rwandan genocides. We weren't a party to Stalin's murder of 20 million of his own citizens, or to Pol Pot's madness. Nope, we didn't invade Tibet, or wage a war in Nepal.

Humanity is violent. The violence dejour is muslim violence, but we aren't the only community with blood on our hands.

I know for myself, I get up in the morning, I pray, I go to work, I pray some more, I come home, I pray, I eat dinner, I pray, I watch some tv, I pray, and then I go to bed. Never once, in my many years as a muslim, have I ever felt the urge to go out and kill a kafr. Even today, at the grocery store, when this creepy catholic guy decided to take it upon himself to tell me I'm going to hell and then wack me on the head and say "Muhammad blesses you." Yet again, I was assaulted in my very own neighborhood and no one stepped in to help. Still, I went home, I prayed, and I went on with my life. I didn't kill him. Shocker, I know, since I guess my religion tells me to kill everyone.

Yes humanity is violent but by saying that Muslims didnt start the holocaust and didnt start this or that why try and downplay the violence caused by the muslim faith and its followers bypointing fingers at other people? ( by the way there was a SS waffen force of arabs later in the war)
I am tired of people saying that Islam is a faith of peace IT IS NOT, all peopel need to do is research this for themselves and the facts will speak more then any politically correct talking head can....

 

[rahma]

Yes humanity is violent but by saying that Muslims didnt start the holocaust and didnt start this or that why try and downplay the violence caused by the muslim faith and its followers bypointing fingers at other people?

I only point to the violence of humanity because the recent trend is to act like muslims invented violence and that we are the only violent people on the face of the planet.

( by the way there was a SS waffen force of arabs later in the war)

Great, and there were also several thousands of muslims who fought with the British in India, Egypt and several other muslim countries. El Alamein in Egypt has a cemetary full of Egyptian muslims who gave their lives fighting for the allies, including some of my husband's family.

I am tired of people saying that Islam is a faith of peace IT IS NOT, all peopel need to do is research this for themselves and the facts will speak more then any politically correct talking head can....

Islam is a faith of submission to God. Through submitting to God, one finds peace. Our religion allows war. That is no secret. But with the ability to wage war, we are giveen strict rules to follow. There is no secret about that either.

 

[SKY80]

I only point to the violence of humanity because the recent trend is to act like muslims invented violence and that we are the only violent people on the face of the planet.




Great, and there were also several thousands of muslims who fought with the British in India, Egypt and several other muslim countries. El Alamein in Egypt has a cemetary full of Egyptian muslims who gave their lives fighting for the allies, including some of my husband's family.





Islam is a faith of submission to God. Through submitting to God, one finds peace. Our religion allows war. That is no secret. But with the ability to wage war, we are giveen strict rules to follow. There is no secret about that either.

then exlplain why the quran says something different then you are saying now?

why would a person need to get rewarded with virginsif they do good?

isnt being able to go to heaven reward enough for living a good life?

so a martyr is a person who kills with provocation?

what do you consider to be a acceptable provocation?

is this what "allah" wants?

who decides what is acceptable as far as provocation?

so homicide bombers who kill innocent people only to be caled martys is acceptable as they consider what ever they want to be provocation?

is killing people out of provocation really something that a faith that calls itself peaceful would do?

 

[rahma]

then exlplain why the quran says something different then you are saying now?

My statements are 100% Qur'anic

why would a person need to get rewarded with virginsif they do good?

isnt being able to go to heaven reward enough for living a good life?

Why is it wrong to get physical rewards in heaven? On the Simpsons last night, they had protestant heaven, where everyone was playing croquet, and catholic heaven, where people were having huge picnics, eating italian food, and doing river dance. Why shouldn't we get to do enjoyable things in paradise?

so a martyr is a person who kills with provocation?

Also, Sa`id ibn Zayd reported that the prophet (saws) said:

"He who is killed while guarding his property is a martyr, he who is killed while defending himself is a martyr, he who is killed defending his religion is a martyr, and he who is killed protecting his family is [also] a martyr." (Reported by Ahmad and Tirmidhi. The latter considers it a sound hadith.)

what do you consider to be a acceptable provocation?

If one is attacked. See above

is this what "allah" wants?

Allah (swt) wants us to live our lives according to the Qur'an and the Sunnah.

who decides what is acceptable as far as provocation?

We judge by the Qur'an and by the Sunnah.

so homicide bombers who kill innocent people only to be caled martys is acceptable as they consider what ever they want to be provocation?

I've never defended suicide bombers here.

is killing people out of provocation really something that a faith that calls itself peaceful would do?

Yes. Being peaceful is not the same as being pacifistic. One can be peaceful without being pacifistic.

peace·ful ( P ) Pronunciation Key (psfl)
adj.
Undisturbed by strife, turmoil, or disagreement; tranquil. See Synonyms at calm.
Inclined or disposed to peace; peaceable.
Of or characteristic of a condition of peace.

pac·i·fism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ps-fzm)
n.
The belief that disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully.

Opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes.
Such opposition demonstrated by refusal to participate in military action.

 

[caltulip]

I would also like to point out that in the last 100 years, muslims have never started a world war. We didn't orchestrate the holocaust, or participate in the Rwandan genocides. We weren't a party to Stalin's murder of 20 million of his own citizens, or to Pol Pot's madness. Nope, we didn't invade Tibet, or wage a war in Nepal.

You are absoulutely right. However, the diffrence bettween other religions and Islam is not that Islam has had more violent actions comminted by people who call themselves Muslims. Hundreds of thousands have died at the hands of those who claim to be Christians. The diffrence between Christiantiy and Islams fundamental diffrences are in their teachings. This is why Islam is a violent religion and Christianity isn't. Muslims are told to kill those have other religions by their holy book. Christians are not. That is a fact although in the old testament there are some verses that the ignorant can construe to say that, those verses were for a specific circumstance and that is made obvious when you read the entire passage. The verse in the koran that inspire Muslims to violent still apply today. The only thing that peace loving Muslims can do (by the way I believe the vast majority of Mulsims are peace loving) is "interpret" those verses in ways that they are not truely meant to mean.
Look at the founder of Christianity, kind teacher respected even by those who diagaree with Christianity.
Look at the founder of Islam, brutal warrior. He orginized over 80 military raids and lead approxamielty 26. On these raids innocents were killed and women and children were raped. Look it up it is clearly documented.

Again I do not think that Muslims are bad or evil. I think that there are breeds of Christianity that are as bad and some that are far worse. However, I think that they have left Christian doctrine while radical Muslims are simply following the example of their founder. I say again I do not think that muslims are evil or bad.

 

[rahma]

You are absoulutely right. However, the diffrence bettween other religions and Islam is not that Islam has had more violent actions comminted by people who call themselves Muslims. Hundreds of thousands have died at the hands of those who claim to be Christians. The diffrence between Christiantiy and Islams fundamental diffrences are in their teachings. This is why Islam is a violent religion and Christianity isn't. Muslims are told to kill those have other religions by their holy book. Christians are not.

Oh insta arm chair islamo scholar, under what scholars have you studied to make these statements? The Qur'an never tells muslims to kill non muslims simply because they do not believe in Islam.

That is a fact although in the old testament there are some verses that the ignorant can construe to say that, those verses were for a specific circumstance and that is made obvious when you read the entire passage.

And yet God still told the Israelites to kill children at certain points in history. Allah (swt) never told the Prophet (saws) to kill children.

The verse in the koran that inspire Muslims to violent still apply today. The only thing that peace loving Muslims can do (by the way I believe the vast majority of Mulsims are peace loving) is "interpret" those verses in ways that they are not truely meant to mean.

When muslims look to interpret the Qur'an, we look primarily at the sunnah (example) of the Prophet (saws) and then at the scholars who have intepreted these verses throughout history. Looking at war in the manner I and most muslims do is nothing new. It is firmly grounded in the manner of the Prophet (saws)

Look at the founder of Christianity, kind teacher respected even by those who diagaree with Christianity.

According to Exodus 15:3: The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

If you believe Jesus (as) is God, then you must believe Jesus (as) is a man of war.

And Exodus 22:24 And my (God's) wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless.

Look at the founder of Islam, brutal warrior. He orginized over 80 military raids and lead approxamielty 26. On these raids innocents were killed and women and children were raped. Look it up it is clearly documented.

His military exploits were in response to attacks on him and his followers. War is a necessity in this world. God allowed the Prophet (saws) to fight wars, even though He knew the Prophet (saws) hated it.

Again I do not think that Muslims are bad or evil. I think that there are breeds of Christianity that are as bad and some that are far worse. However, I think that they have left Christian doctrine while radical Muslims are simply following the example of their founder. I say again I do not think that muslims are evil or bad.

I follow the example of the Prophet (saws), and I have never gone to war. If muslims follow the example of the Prophet (saw), they will be bound by strict rules. If they ignore these rules, then they're acting unislamically.

 

[rahma]

Why was it ok for God in the Old Testament to command the Israelites to kill and fight, but it wasn't ok when God commanded the Prophet Muhammad (saws) to kill and to fight, but with more restrictions? Double standard much?

 

[arunma]

Why was it ok for God in the Old Testament to command the Israelites to kill and fight, but it wasn't ok when God commanded the Prophet Muhammad (saws) to kill and to fight, but with more restrictions? Double standard much?

It's probably because God's commands for the Israelites to wage war were not lasting ordinance. In fact, the New Covenant provides a lasting ordinance of peace. But in Islam, it is still permissible to wage holy war. That's why we don't justify Islamic holy wars.

 

[ghazirizvi]

It's probably because God's commands for the Israelites to wage war were not lasting ordinance. In fact, the New Covenant provides a lasting ordinance of peace. But in Islam, it is still permissible to wage holy war. That's why we don't justify Islamic holy wars.

The question still remains, do you justify the OT commands to holy war ? After all they were by god (SWT). Were the israelites justified ?

 

[rahma]

It's probably because God's commands for the Israelites to wage war were not lasting ordinance. In fact, the New Covenant provides a lasting ordinance of peace. But in Islam, it is still permissible to wage holy war. That's why we don't justify Islamic holy wars.

Many early christian thinkers seemed to think that war is justified in certain circumstances, thus the "Just War" theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war

 

[arunma]

Many early christian thinkers seemed to think that war is justified in certain circumstances, thus the "Just War" theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war

Before you edited your post, you cited this page:

http://www.monksofadoration.org/justwar.html

Saint Augustine is quoted as saying, "The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such things, all these are rightly condemned in war." In fact, he also points out that one's own right to life or personal property is not a just reason for violence. Augustine said that he was speaking of nations and not individuals. Since there's no such thing as a Christian theocracy, we still don't justify holy war.