No Compusion?

[simplegifts]

There is a rule of Qur'anic interpretation which states that verses of the Qur'an are interpreted by references to other verses of the Qur'an itself. There is an abundance of other verses speaking against forcing others to believe. Here is just one example:

"And if your Lord had enforced His will, surely all who are in the earth would have believed together. Will you then force people to become believers? [10:99]

The Qur'an contradicts and corrects the Bible on a number of issues, though it is in agreement on some matters. However, it is not standard practice to look to the Bible to interpret the Qur'an. It is something which is to be done with utmost caution, as the Bible is not considered wholly trustworthy.

Just as it is wrong to interpret the Qur'anic verses prohibiting wine according to the whims and fancies of those who drink wine, it is wrong to interpret Qur'anic verses on fighting and it's regulations according to the whims and fancies of those who love violence.

However, I can understand that those who wish to attack the Qur'an out of enmity towards it would like to misinterpret the Qur'an in the manner of those who violate it's teachings.

Peace.

You seem to have misunderstood my post. The first part is what I have been told by violent Muslims.

Once again my thoughts on the compulsion verse copied from above:
My thoughts on this - Mohammad realized that you can not change what a person believes - a person can not be coerced to change their faith, they either believe something or not which = no compulsion. This verse was not an order to carry out but an observation.

 

[smaneck]

You seem to have misunderstood my post. The first part is what I have been told by violent Muslims.

Really? What violent Muslims have you been hanging out with?

 

[Dialogues]

You seem to have misunderstood my post. The first part is what I have been told by violent Muslims.

... My thoughts on this - ...

'My' indicates 'your own', not that of others.

Peace.

 

[simplegifts]

'My' indicates 'your own', not that of others.

Peace.

Not sure what you are saying. Do you disagree with this?
Mohammad realized that you can not change what a person believes - a person can not be coerced to change their faith, they either believe something or not which = no compulsion. This verse was not an order to carry out but an observation.

 

[simplegifts]

Really? What violent Muslims have you been hanging out with?

Why in the world would I reveal such information?

 

[ContraMundum]

a) I see no evidence that Syrian rebels are executing Christians or anyone else by means of crucifixion.

b) There is evidence that some people deemed guilty of acts of terrorism were executed and afterwards their bodies were displayed on a cross.

..and my question still remains.....WHY? Why the Cross? What's the significance?

 

[Huntun]

ou seem to have misunderstood my post. The first part is what I have been told by violent Muslims.

Did an anonymous person on the internet who claimed to be a terrorist/ killer and a Muslim tell you this or do you actually hang out with such people in person where the identity can be verified? Or by "you" do you just mean the public in general like if Al Qaeda started a web page and had that information of it?

 

[Dialogues]

Not sure what you are saying. Do you disagree with this?
Mohammad realized that you can not change what a person believes - a person can not be coerced to change their faith, they either believe something or not which = no compulsion. This verse was not an order to carry out but an observation.

First of all, I believe the Qur'an is the word of Allah, not that of Muhammad a.s.

Secondly, it is an instruction that: there should be no compulsion at all in religion.

Besides, the Polytheists were indeed compelling Muslims to discard their belief in One God, and were persecuting Muslims for this very purpose. This is why they declared war on Muslims after Muslims had migrated over 200 miles from Makkah to Madinah.

So, it is not just an 'observation'. It is an instruction that whereas others were fighting to compel, Muslims were not doing so, and indeed should not do so. Numerous other verses give the same message and clear instruction, such as:

You are only an admonisher, you are not to compel them. [88:21,22]

Hence, I cannot agree with your statement that it was merely an 'observation'.

Peace.

 

[smaneck]

Why in the world would I reveal such information?

Perhaps to establish your veracity?

 

[WoodrowX2]

..and my question still remains.....WHY? Why the Cross? What's the significance?

Just my opinion, not an attempt to answer for Smaneck.

I have no idea why they are doing such. The significance is known only to those doing it.

Perhaps because crucifixion was the form of Roman punishment reserved only for those convicted of the worse crimes.

It is not a form of execution generally used by Muslims.

 

[cloudyday2]

Just my opinion, not an attempt to answer for Smaneck.

I have no idea why they are doing such. The significance is known only to those doing it.

Perhaps because crucifixion was the form of Roman punishment reserved only for those convicted of the worse crimes.

It is not a form of execution generally used by Muslims.

From what I read, the people were simply strung-up on the crosses after they were already dead. I imagine this was designed to send a message to the Muslim non-combatants: if you oppose us (the Islamists) then you are an enemy of Muslims and therefore you are no better than a Christian.

 

[ContraMundum]

From what I read, the people were simply strung-up on the crosses after they were already dead. I imagine this was designed to send a message to the Muslim non-combatants: if you oppose us (the Islamists) then you are an enemy of Muslims and therefore you are no better than a Christian.

That's what I'm taking from it too. I just wanted to know if anyone else had a thought or a different answer.

 

[smaneck]

From what I read, the people were simply strung-up on the crosses after they were already dead. I imagine this was designed to send a message to the Muslim non-combatants: if you oppose us (the Islamists) then you are an enemy of Muslims and therefore you are no better than a Christian.

Uh, I don't think so. The sign behind the person who got strung up said just the opposite, that he was guilty of planting bombs on cars.

 

[smaneck]

..and my question still remains.....WHY? Why the Cross? What's the significance?

That's just it. You are assuming it is the Cross, while to a Muslim it is just a cross. Throughout history Muslims have displayed bodies of the executed on sometimes on crosses. They don't however, typically execute them this way though there are some spectacular exceptions the most famous being the crucifixion of al-Hallaj. It wasn't crucifixion that killed al-Hallaj, however. His body was dismembered while he was being crucified and he finally died when they chopped off his head.

Crucifixion was a common form of punishment in the Near East except among the Christian community, which generally found other ways to torture and display bodies. The Qur'an explicitly calls for it in the case of those who murder in the course of trying to 'spread corruption in the land.'

 

[cloudyday2]

Uh, I don't think so. The sign behind the person who got strung up said just the opposite, that he was guilty of a terrorist bombing.

I think you misunderstood my post.

Saying it another way, the government (which is apparently ISIS in this town) killed one of their opponents. They displayed the body on a cross to symbolize the idea that anybody who opposes ISIS also opposes Islam and should not be considered a Muslim.

That's just a theory of course.

 

[Dialogues]

That's just it. You are assuming it is the Cross, while to a Muslim it is just a cross. Throughout history Muslims have displayed bodies of the executed on sometimes on crosses. They don't however, typically execute them this way though there are some spectacular exceptions the most famous being the crucifixion of al-Hallaj. It wasn't crucifixion that killed al-Hallaj, however. His body was dismembered while he was being crucified and he finally died when they chopped off his head.

Poor Mansoor al-Hallaj. He was advised not to repeat his statements, even though he never meant them in a literal sense, as far as I can tell. But the ignorant mullahs were not willing to consider metaphorical usage. Besides, there is no punishment for blasphemy in the Qur'an. The Qur'an mentions the blasphemy of attributing a son to Allah as a monstrous assertion which might well cause the sky to fall to pieces, but no punishment is prescribed for those who make such an assertion.

Crucifixion was a common form of punishment in the Near East except among the Christian community, which generally found other ways to torture and display bodies. The Qur'an explicitly calls for it in the case of those who murder in the course of trying to 'spread corruption in the land.'

Yes, but it is correctly understood as a form of equitable retaliation, i.e. a punishment for those who themselves had crucified others unjustly in opposition to their faith.

Peace.

 

[ContraMundum]

That's just it. You are assuming it is the Cross, while to a Muslim it is just a cross. Throughout history Muslims have displayed bodies of the executed on sometimes on crosses. They don't however, typically execute them this way though there are some spectacular exceptions the most famous being the crucifixion of al-Hallaj. It wasn't crucifixion that killed al-Hallaj, however. His body was dismembered while he was being crucified and he finally died when they chopped off his head.

Crucifixion was a common form of punishment in the Near East except among the Christian community, which generally found other ways to torture and display bodies. The Qur'an explicitly calls for it in the case of those who murder in the course of trying to 'spread corruption in the land.'

OK.

Isn't it time people stopped torturing and displaying bodies? It's all very medieval. I know some cultures are more um..."backward" than others but still, time to move on I think. I could never understand why Muslim terrorists like filming their tortures, beheadings and so forth, but I guess your post got me as to thinking about why.

Anyway....

 

[simplegifts]

Perhaps to establish your veracity?

Yet you believe the uttering of a self proclaimed prophet, Mohammad.

It is becoming more and more obvious to the world that there is something hugely wrong with parts of Islam.

Usually left leaning people Clive Davis, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Jay Leno, Frances Fisher, Ellen DeGeneres, Sharon Osbourne, Stephen Fry, etc. are beginning to see the evil parts of Islam and what it can bring in the hands of some.

 

[ContraMundum]

Yet you believe the uttering of a self proclaimed prophet, Mohammad.

It is becoming more and more obvious to the world that there is something hugely wrong with parts of Islam.

Usually left leaning people Clive Davis, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Jay Leno, Frances Fisher, Ellen DeGeneres, Sharon Osbourne, Stephen Fry, etc. are beginning to see the evil parts of Islam and what it can bring in the hands of some.

Well, it does seem to be getting worse and worse. Boko Haram recently and now more troubles in Kenya today. It's like the Islamists don't want anyone to live in peace- and they claim to represent the religion of peace?

Something's amiss. I think the Muslims on this forum for the most part would want nothing to do with this stuff but the reality they face is that many of people claiming to follow the same religion are ruining their peaceful intentions and estabilishing a reputation for Islam that is getting harder and harder to shake off. You're right I think- there is something wrong in parts of Islam and it doesn't look like there is a solution coming any time soon.

 

[dlamberth]

You're right I think- there is something wrong in parts of Islam and it doesn't look like there is a solution coming any time soon.

I think parts of it are broken myself. That seems pretty clear at this point.

.