Promotion of unnecessary violence under Islam

[The Vegan Marxist]

I'm not doing this out of any wish of becoming a Muslim, I'm still very much an atheist, but I'm very well interested in understanding Islam a bit better. I'm quite knowledgeable about Christianity, given that I once was a devout one, but Islam is something I don't necessarily know about very well.

So, I was wondering about where many say that the Quran contains around 109 verses of violence - violence I might add to be unnecessary - yet many Muslims claim no violence is asked of within the Quran, which, from what I've read, this isn't necessarily true. So can any Muslim comrade help me out here?

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/...olence.htm

[shakur420]

OK, first I'm just going to come out and shit on the site. I've seen it many times....and I've seen it misrepresent the verses it quotes. Mad bullshit. Many times, verses before or after are withheld to give the impression that violence is prescribed without warrant. For example, when retaliation against an attacker, or invader is mentioned. Or when it's written to go and kill those who are oppressing you, driving you from your homes, only the verse that says "kill them" is quoted, nothing before and nothing after. Shit like that. Sites like this (I've seen many) are quoting selectively, deliberately ignoring the context or the preceding and following verses in an attempt to demonize. I really laugh at this site and others like it. Seriously. It's really not even worth acknowledging. Really. I mean, I could discredit their country, society and culture in 5 min by showing the undisputed, documented record of mass murder committed by their countries throughout history. And I wouldn't be hiding anything. But in the interests of sticking to rationality, I've gotta respond to some of the claims.

But seriously. The notion that "Islam is violent" is just ridiculous. If you read the Quran, you laugh at shit like that. It's so blatantly unrepresentative of the verses and message contained within that this claim can be put into the same category as hitler's notion of a "higher race". Seriously. David Ike and Alex Jones make more sense than the motherfuckers that try to claim that Islam is violent. I know there are tree-hugging pussy motherfuckers that believe in "no violence", but a reasonable person is not going to say that people who are opposing oppression and attack are "wrong" if they respond with violence. It's just not serious to claim that you can't protect yourself and others (against real, credible acts of violence, not concocted shit like "the Russians" or "terrorists"). By the way, I'm calling those tree-huggers pussies because most of them probably are. They in no way would thug it out like Gandhi and when they claim the banner of "pacifism", they disrespect and do disservice to the idea of peace. They claim "peace" because they are scared of physical harm, not because they are tough enough to endure pain in order to achieve their goals.

TheReligionofPeace Wrote:Quran (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah." There is a good case to be made that the textual context of this particular passage is defensive war, even if the historical context was not. However, there are also two worrisome pieces to this verse. The first is that the killing of others is authorized in the event of "persecution" (a qualification that is ambiguous at best). The second is that fighting may persist until "religion is for Allah." The example set by Muhammad is not reassuring.

First quote. Now, they admit that the violence here is in the context of defense, but they claim that "persecution" is "ambiguous". lol. Well, let's just see what is included in the entirety of the verses they are claiming to quote from (Quran 2:191-193), and what they have omitted, including the verse that immediately precedes. Gross violation of scholarship. Check it, I'm including all 3 translations (in bold) given on the site they link to.

Quote:002.190
YUSUFALI: Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.
PICKTHAL: Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.
SHAKIR: And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.

002.191
YUSUFALI: And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.
PICKTHAL: And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.
SHAKIR: And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

002.192
YUSUFALI: But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
PICKTHAL: But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
SHAKIR: But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

002.193
YUSUFALI: And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.
PICKTHAL: And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers.
SHAKIR: And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/...ml#002.191

Do I really need to go down the list and show more examples? I mean, their own references disprove their claim that "Islam is violent", and they're blatantly switching between translations, quoting selectively and omitting pertinent verses. Is it really necessary for me to go on? The next 4-5 things that they quote, I don't even know why they picked them. I don't see any "violence" or anything that could be seen as "morally wrong", if you get what I'm saying.

By the way, you shouldn't be checking the Quran with the purpose of "becoming a Muslim", it just wouldn't make sense. You should be looking at it to scrutinize, so that you can understand for yourself, as it seems you are. Respect on that.

Again, we should stick to rationality, but I just don't see the point in going through this website to discredit it. It's not worth the time, cause it's too blatantly obvious. Like asking somebody to disprove the claim that the sky is purple. But if you have any specific verses that stick out to you, that you're wondering about, post them. I'll contribute what I can.