Is Koran a Book of Peace, Not War?

Argue for and against religions and philosophies which are not Christian

Moderator: Moderators

paarsurrey1
Sage
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:19 pm

Is Koran a Book of Peace, Not War?

Post #1

Post by paarsurrey1 »

Is Koran a Book of Peace, Not War?

"In order for them* to generate support beyond their small group, they have to latch onto universal symbols, and this is where Islam becomes a target of convenience for them," says Nyang

People combine pieces of verse from the Koran and use it to justify their actions, says Khouj. "But to understand the full meaning of the verse," he says, "you have to read the one before it, the one after it, maybe five to six verses to get the full picture."

The "full picture" of Islam and the Koran, say Khouj and Nyang, is captured by Chapter 5, Verse 32: "f anyone slew a person—unless it be for murder or spreading mischief in the land—it would be as if he slew the whole people. And if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ran_2.html
* The terrorists

One may like to read the full article titled "Koran a Book of Peace, Not War, Scholars Say" by Peter Standring, National Geographic Today, September 25, 2001

Regards

User avatar
JP Cusick
Guru
Posts: 1556
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:25 pm
Location: 20636 USA
Contact:

Re: Is Koran a Book of Peace, Not War?

Post #11

Post by JP Cusick »

Bust Nak wrote: Tell that to those wanting to kill cartoonists for making fun of the prophet Muhammad. Your argument is with them. Quote the specific verse of Quran where it says insulting the Quran is not qualifies as spreading mischief.

If the Quran doesn't say what counts and does not count as spreading mischief, then it's your interpretation against theirs.
It is true that "paarsurrey1" does not speak for the entire world, and I for one declares that not only the Muslims but every person has our right to fight back against ignorant hateful speech and religious bigotry.

The cartoonist (amongst others) have their own right to live in fear and to be assaulted for spewing their venom onto the world. See Galatians 6:7-8

That kind of hate crime by cartoonist (and their kind of trash) needs to be stopped by a Police action by the governing authorities, but as like in the USA we have the 2nd Amendment for people to defend our self when the government fails to do so.

The warriors who defend against evil - have every right to do so.
SIGNATURE:

An unorthodox Theist & a heretic Christian:

Online
Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9459
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Re: Is Koran a Book of Peace, Not War?

Post #12

Post by Bust Nak »

[Replying to post 11 by JP Cusick]

You are proposing shooting someone for spewing hate, that's worse than an eye for an eye. What happened to turning the other cheek?

User avatar
JP Cusick
Guru
Posts: 1556
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:25 pm
Location: 20636 USA
Contact:

Re: Is Koran a Book of Peace, Not War?

Post #13

Post by JP Cusick »

Bust Nak wrote: You are proposing shooting someone for spewing hate, that's worse than an eye for an eye. What happened to turning the other cheek?
Because I am being sympathetic to worldly people facing down entrenched evils.

It is true that non violent civil disobedience would be preferred, but other people in this world still have their right to fight back with violence against those who spew hate and bigotry even if it is not the preferred method.

Even the great Mahatma Gandhi said that to use violence was better than cowardice.

And you and spitting out doctrines as clichés which do not apply.

An "eye for and eye" meant the same retaliation as only an eye for an eye, and that would mean to make cartoons against those who made cartoons - an eye for and eye would be equivalent of = a cartoon for a cartoon - and that would be outrageously immoral to do.

The other thing of = "turning the other cheek" - is not to be a cliché because the doctrine means to push the aggressor into striking again = to strike the other cheek, and that is a nonviolent response to violence - it does not mean to do nothing about the ignorant cartoons.

Many people do wrongly spit out those clichés which make people weak and defenseless - and that was never the intention of those doctrines.
SIGNATURE:

An unorthodox Theist & a heretic Christian:

Online
Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9459
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Re: Is Koran a Book of Peace, Not War?

Post #14

Post by Bust Nak »

JP Cusick wrote: An "eye for and eye" meant the same retaliation as only an eye for an eye, and that would mean to make cartoons against those who made cartoons - an eye for and eye would be equivalent of = a cartoon for a cartoon - and that would be outrageously immoral to do.

The other thing of = "turning the other cheek" - is not to be a cliché because the doctrine means to push the aggressor into striking again = to strike the other cheek, and that is a nonviolent response to violence - it does not mean to do nothing about the ignorant cartoons.
That's the point, Jesus commands Christians to not even draw a cartoon for a cartoon, you on the other hand, want to escalated it to deadly violence.

User avatar
JP Cusick
Guru
Posts: 1556
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:25 pm
Location: 20636 USA
Contact:

Re: Is Koran a Book of Peace, Not War?

Post #15

Post by JP Cusick »

Bust Nak wrote: That's the point, Jesus commands Christians to not even draw a cartoon for a cartoon, you on the other hand, want to escalated it to deadly violence.
I do object to misusing the Bible or any scripture to tell people that they must surrender and bow in servitude while evil walks over top of them.

The USA is not really a true Christian society - so if you want to teach or preach the virtues of Christ to this Country of infidels then you go for it - for me I preach what I believe and not what you expect.

I do not preach violence - I just preach the justification of those who do fight back.

To defend the defenseless is a big aspect of my morality.
SIGNATURE:

An unorthodox Theist & a heretic Christian:

Online
Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9459
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Re: Is Koran a Book of Peace, Not War?

Post #16

Post by Bust Nak »

JP Cusick wrote: I do object to misusing the Bible or any scripture to tell people that they must surrender and bow in servitude while evil walks over top of them.
Does non violent protest counts as surrender and bow in servitude while others walks over top of them? It doesn't in my book.
The USA is not really a true Christian society - so if you want to teach or preach the virtues of Christ to this Country of infidels then you go for it - for me I preach what I believe and not what you expect.
My expectation is justified because you call yourself a Christian, yet you preach against the virtues of Christ when you justify violence.
I do not preach violence - I just preach the justification of those who do fight back.

To defend the defenseless is a big aspect of my morality.
What exactly is the difference between preaching violence and preaching the justification for violence?

User avatar
JP Cusick
Guru
Posts: 1556
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:25 pm
Location: 20636 USA
Contact:

Re: Is Koran a Book of Peace, Not War?

Post #17

Post by JP Cusick »

Bust Nak wrote: Does non violent protest counts as surrender and bow in servitude while others walks over top of them? It doesn't in my book.
I do not approve of protesting whether it be violent or non violent.

Other people can do that because that is their business - not mine.

And the only way a protest itself can be successful is when it is BIG enough to intimidate the focus of the protest, so protesting is not my idea of a morally upright activity.

Now "civil disobedience" is different, and if that is done correctly then that is a morally upright activity.
Bust Nak wrote: My expectation is justified because you call yourself a Christian, yet you preach against the virtues of Christ when you justify violence.
I do qualify that claim by attaching the adjectives of being an unorthodox and a heretic form of Christian.

If the violence is justified then (I say) I am preaching the virtue of Christ.

As like the government and the Police are to be working for God, so the Police shoot some madman attacking civilians - which is thereby the Police serving God by violently shooting the criminal(s), Romans 13.

So when we do civil disobedience correctly then it is to be a call to God.

Much like Jesus who willingly went to be executed by the governing Police of that time.
Bust Nak wrote: What exactly is the difference between preaching violence and preaching the justification for violence?
Justice is the difference and the distinction.

Not all violence is justified - and most acts of violence are not justified.

We need to judge what happens, and our judgments need to be accurate, and so I try to judge by the highest of principles = of truth and justice and righteousness.
SIGNATURE:

An unorthodox Theist & a heretic Christian:

Online
Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9459
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Re: Is Koran a Book of Peace, Not War?

Post #18

Post by Bust Nak »

JP Cusick wrote: I do not approve of protesting whether it be violent or non violent.

Other people can do that because that is their business - not mine.

And the only way a protest itself can be successful is when it is BIG enough to intimidate the focus of the protest, so protesting is not my idea of a morally upright activity.

Now "civil disobedience" is different, and if that is done correctly then that is a morally upright activity.
Then you should be preaching "civil disobedience" instead of "justification of violence." You are justifying the shooting cartoonists as a mere less preferable alternative to civil disobedience.
I do qualify that claim by attaching the adjectives of being an unorthodox and a heretic form of Christian.

If the violence is justified then (I say) I am preaching the virtue of Christ.

As like the government and the Police are to be working for God, so the Police shoot some madman attacking civilians - which is thereby the Police serving God by violently shooting the criminal(s), Romans 13.

So when we do civil disobedience correctly then it is to be a call to God.

Much like Jesus who willingly went to be executed by the governing Police of that time.
That's all the more reason to not shoot people over cartoons. Police shooting a madman attacking civilian is not an escalation of force; shooting people over cartoons is. Jesus told his disciples to stand down when the temple guard came to arrest him, that sounded a lot like what you called "surrender and bow in servitude while others walks over top of them" doesn't it?
Justice is the difference and the distinction.

Not all violence is justified - and most acts of violence are not justified.

We need to judge what happens, and our judgments need to be accurate, and so I try to judge by the highest of principles = of truth and justice and righteousness.
Then you are preaching violence despite your objection. Everyone who preaches violence says their violence is in the name of justice.

paarsurrey1
Sage
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:19 pm

Post #19

Post by paarsurrey1 »

Let us come to peace and to the topic:
Is Koran a Book of Peace, Not War?

I quote the verse 5:32/33 with the verses in the context, some verses preceding it and some verses following the verse under discussion/debate:

[5:28] And relate to them truly the story of the two sons of Adam, when they each offered an offering, and it was accepted from one of them and was not accepted from the other. The latter said, ‘I will surely kill thee.’ The former replied, ‘Allah accepts only from the righteous.
[5:29] ‘If thou stretch out thy hand against me to kill me, I am not going to stretch out my hand against thee to kill thee. I do fear Allah, the Lord of the universe.
[5:30] ‘I wish that thou shouldst bear my sin as well as thy sin, and thus be among the inmates of the Fire, and that is the reward of those who do wrong.’
[5:31] But his mind induced him to kill his brother, so he killed him and became one of the losers.
[5:32] Then Allah sent a raven which scratched in the ground, that He might show him how to hide the corpse of his brother. He said, ‘Woe is me! Am I not able to be even like this raven so that I may hide the corpse of my brother?’ And then he became regretful.
[5:33] On account of this, We prescribed for the children of Israel that whosoever killed a person — unless it be for killing a person or for creating disorder in the land — it shall be as if he had killed all mankind; and whoso gave life to one, it shall be as if he had given life to all mankind. And Our Messengers came to them with clear Signs, yet even after that, many of them commit excesses in the land.
[5:34] The reward of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive to create disorder in the land is only this that they be slain or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on alternate sides, or they be expelled from the land. That shall be a disgrace for them in this world, and in the Hereafter they shall have a great punishment;
[5:35] Except those who repent before you have them in your power. So know that Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.
https://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/s ... 5&verse=27

What I get from the above verses of Quran is:
1. Innocent persons who are not involved in the killing are not to be killed in any case.
2. If somebody has killed a person then the action could be different as per the law of the land.
3. If it is a tribal system then the tribe will demand from the other tribe that the person who has killed should be killed or to compensate for the loss as per the custom of that tribe.
4. If it is under a democratic rule, then proper criminal lawsuit should be initiated.
5. No person is entitled to take the law of the land in one’s own hand.

Regards

Online
Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9459
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Post #20

Post by Bust Nak »

paarsurrey1 wrote: Let us come to peace and to the topic:
...

What I get from the above verses of Quran is:
1. Innocent persons who are not involved in the killing are not to be killed in any case.
2. If somebody has killed a person then the action could be different as per the law of the land.
3. If it is a tribal system then the tribe will demand from the other tribe that the person who has killed should be killed or to compensate for the loss as per the custom of that tribe.
4. If it is under a democratic rule, then proper criminal lawsuit should be initiated.
5. No person is entitled to take the law of the land in one’s own hand.
What you got from the verses appears to be different from what they actually says:
1. Innocent persons who are not involved in killing, waging war against Allah, nor creating disorder in the land are not to be killed in any case.
2. If somebody has killed a person, or waged war against Allah, or created disorder in the land then there are 4 options: repent, execution, mutilation or exile.

It is unclear what "waging war against Allah" or what "creating disorder in the land" means. For far too many Muslim, insulting Islam qualify as such and thus believe their retribution is sanctioned by God.

Post Reply