Make no mistake, I'm not a fan of 'conservative' Christianity. As I mentioned elsewhere, the problems are ideologies, in particular those that promote totalitarianism and unreason - whether or not they are religious in nature is incidental to me.
However, note that no beheadings have been staged in Vatican City in recent years.
> However, note that no beheadings have been staged in Vatican City in recent years.
True, but I think it's more complex than that.
First, I do not think the Vatican automatically represents the most conservative brand of Christianity; not at all times, anyway. Not now, for example. Second, beheadings seem rightfully barbaric and horrendous to us, but as terrible as they are, I think their impact is superficial in a way (though obviously not to their victims, and please make no mistake: I do not wish to live in a country that beheads people!). ISIS beheadings are a matter of form, a propaganda tool; a way to shock the West into action, and the local population into compliance.
But as for actual damage, compare their beheadings with the damage caused by some Christian leaders of First World countries who have been bombing cities in the Middle East and causing a lot of deaths. These conservative Christians sometimes describe themselves as "born again", surround themselves with religious phraseology, describe their wars as Crusades and name them with Biblical sounding names (Righteous Fury, Infinite Justice, etc, etc), feel their countries have a God-given right to shape the world as they see fit. Wouldn't people living in a city bombed by a Western country consider themselves the victims of Western religious zealots?
And if, say, we know Obama and Bush are NOT the same, are we not making the mistake of thinking every bellicose Muslim is exactly the same terrorist fundamentalist that cannot be reasoned with and must be exterminated? Maybe there are shades of gray with them, just like it happens in the West?
Wouldn't people living in a city bombed by a Western country consider themselves the victims of Western religious zealots?
Absolutely, and from my perspective, some western nations (in particular the US) do have the problematic tendency of voting Christian fundamentalists into positions of power.
There's a debate to be had how much of the blame for past actions should go to religion, and how much to worldly motivations, but there clearly was an element of that (remember Gog and Magog?).
But talking the long-term perspective, religious 'nones' are on the rise in the western world, even in the US.
> ISIS beheadings are a matter of form, a propaganda tool
Wrong. The beheadings are the things Mohammad did, as written in their holy books, so they just do that, following their role model even without the cameras.
Exactly. Their prophet raided caravans, fought against anybody who did not want to convert to his new religion or even sanctioned slave owning and stoning of women (it's all in authentic hadith that belong to mainstream Islam). So how can muslim distance themselves from such things? They really can't but they try anyway by saying "has nothing to do with my religion" to avoid the argument.
A better solution would be that they would acknowledge that their prophet isn't a good role model and that some sacred verses and teachings must be discarded as they are not compatible with human rights. But no, they repeat the great marketing slogan that "Islam is a religion of peace" and hope that one day it really is.
But without self-criticism it will never be one.
I read your comment and could apply the exact same thing to Christianity. The problems you described are not exclusive to Islam, so it seems very short sighted to blame their prophet.
It does have something to do with religion, but only because that is being used as _motivation_ to do bad things which isn't inherit to just Islam. I mean, Klu Klux Klan
> Klan members had an explicitly Christian terrorist ideology, basing their beliefs in
> part on a "religious foundation" in Christianity. The goals of the KKK included,
> from an early time onward, an intent to "reestablish Protestant Christian values in
> America by any means possible", and they believed that "Jesus was the first Klansman."
What this is about is radical _people_ finding whatever motivation they can do to force _their own views_ onto the world.
Well, I'am an atheist, but I wouldn't directly compare Christianity to Islam just because they are two Abrahamitic Religions. For example a huge difference is the way the "holy" books of those religions were created and are treated. The content of the Koran is more or less dictated by one person and is seen as the direct word of the religion's god (this is a mainstream islamic view). Bible was written over centuries and is only seen by a fringe group as the direct word of god.
What is your motivation in protecting islam? Why the finger pointing to Christianity and other religions? Sure, they also got problems, but do we currently really have a huge problem with those religions? What you are doing is like saying: "Well national socialism isn't that bad because other totalitarian ideologies also are stupid. Look at communism and how many dead people resultet because Stalin distorted the true teachings of marxism. See, national socialism isn't the problem."
I'm not comparing the two because they're both Abrahamic. I compare the two because if you're looking hard enough in both texts you'll find justification for evil. Extremist 'Muslims', ISIS, (I say in quotes, because IMHO they're not 'real Muslims') find justification in their text. Extremist 'Christians' (I say in quotes, because IMHO they're not 'real Christians') found justification in the Bible.
I'm not trying to protect Islam or bring Christianity down. I honestly don't care either way about any of them. What I'm trying to explain that blaming Islam is the wrong thing to do, is pointless, and if anything it helps disenfranchise the at-risk, on-the-fence-extremeists who are (getting) upset at how everyone else deals with their religion.
> I compare the two because if you're looking hard enough in both texts you'll find justification for evil.
Wrong again. You're not actually comparing. Go to the sources. It's not about "looking hard" it is on almost every page of Quran. Please try the reading sample, Sura 9:
All those are considered to be the direct words of god by Muslims. As long as they declare them so, the problems will remain. But suggesting them not to declare that is probably worse than suggesting to the Catholics to give up having the Pope. They surely need some kind of reformation. Unfortunately, "back to the original texts" can't be the basis of reformation as they are really filled with violence and intolerance. The only reformation that isn't disastrous for humanity can only be "don't take these original texts too seriously." Other Abrahamic religions managed to move in that direction, for Islam it's going to be much harder.
What I don't understand is that effectively not a single person of those who claim that there is equivalence in the holy texts of different religions try to read them themselves, because once they'd read they would not be able to even say such sentences like "if looking hard enough."
If this was true, how come the vast majority of Muslims are not blood-thirsty maniacs? They believe in the Prophet, do they not? Why aren't they killing infidels left and right? Are they simply not "true" Muslims? Or maybe they modernized their religion, just like the Old Testament is no longer followed to the letter?
> If this was true, how come the vast majority of Muslims are not blood-thirsty maniacs?
What "this" you mean? What I've written is true, specify what you doubt. Now...
> Or maybe they modernized their religion
There's no "modernization" as such but not every branch is as fanatic as the Wahhabis, the official branch in Saudi Arabia, and the direct religious base for ISIS. Saudis Invest billions in spreading their fanatical Islam branch.
> Why aren't they killing infidels left and right?
"The death penalty can be imposed for a wide range of offences[4] including murder, rape, false prophecy, blasphemy, armed robbery, repeated drug use, apostasy,[5] adultery,[6] witchcraft and sorcery[7][8][9][10] and can be carried out by beheading with a sword,[11] or more rarely by firing squad, and sometimes by stoning.[12][13]"
> Recommended reading: "The Phony Islam of ISIS"
Balderdash, the whole article. One more writer speaking from his ash instead of reading any primary source. How do I know? Because "the Quran is" "a complex and nuanced text that deals with legal, moral, and metaphysical questions in a subtle and multifaceted way" can be claimed only somebody who never read it himself. Nuanced my foot.
I've given one link (Sura 9). Read it and say what's nuanced there. Here another, Sura 111:
"The power of Abu Lahab will perish, and he will perish.
His wealth and gains will not exempt him.
He will be plunged in flaming Fire,
And his wife, the wood-carrier,
Will have upon her neck a halter of palm-fibre."
That's the whole Sura 111. What's nuanced about that? Reading Hadith, you can find that Abu Lahab was Mohammad's uncle who didn't believe in Mohammad's "I've received the message form god" pitch.
And that Sura was from the "peaceful part" of Quran(!). Fire of hell for unbelievers is preached in almost every Sura! Almost only those which are bad retellings of some less drastic Old Testament stories can happen not to mention at least "fire" or "hell" for "unbelievers." I don't care how nuanced is if they should pray five or 18 times per day, the view of unbelievers, Christians and Jews is very clear and repetitive.
> 27 Then he said to them, “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.’” 28 The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. 29 Then Moses said, “You have been set apart to the Lord today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day.”
For another,
> 20 When the trumpets sounded, the army shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the men gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so everyone charged straight in, and they took the city. 21 They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.
...I'm afraid that your crusade of trying to prove Muslims violent by reading passages from Quran is not terribly persuasive, to anyone who have read the Old Testament. If you really want to persuade others, you will have to search harder.
I know Old Testament, but you obviously don't know Quran. Read it and compare, that's all I can tell you. One describes what happened in some ancient times, ancient times even for the first reader of these texts. Another gives pure "instructions." Read and compare.
Or read the "Gospels" from New Testament for the "deeds of Jesus" especially related to stoning:
"This" means that if Islam is so obviously blood-thirsty, and this is the only possible mainstream interpretation of this religion, then how come the vast majority of Muslims are NOT killing the infidel?
Yes, many Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia support ISIS; it's well-known this is a major source of funding. But how is this a counter to the fact the vast majority of Muslims -- are you aware that not all Muslims are Wahhabis, live in Saudi Arabia or, for that matter, are Arabs? -- are NOT trying to murder nonbelievers?
"Balderdash", you say about the article "The Phony Islam of ISIS". But what you say flies in the face of everything we know about religious texts; that they are anachronistic and self-contradictory in multiple places, and there is NO single interpretation of them. Evidently most Muslims choose not to acknowledge the part about spreading the word of Mohammed by the sword, or maybe you secretly believe they do -- all of them! -- and that they are biding their time?
The author argues that some parts of the Quran contradict other parts; that there are treatises and purported quotations of Mohammed that are meant to explain the Quran, but themselves are subject to interpretation and to varying degrees of reliability. I don't know about you, but I tend to trust the word of someone who studies religion for a living and specifically Islam to have read the Quran. Are you sure it's all "balderdash" and that this professor who teaches religious studies at college "has never read [the Quran] himself"?
But mostly I trust the reality of a world in which most Muslims are not trying to murder non-Muslims. I don't even need to appeal to authority here, just to reality.
Just read the Quran. See for yourself if a reader who decides to actually read the "actual words of god" would get that "contradictory" feeling or not.
After you read enough to have your view based on your own experience, also try to find out how many of those who believe claim those aren't the actual words of god but "some old contradictory texts." (As far as I know, only "apostates" dare to do so, once you read the original, you'll know why.)
In the Islamic invasions of India in the middle ages, ghazni and Timur, used that verse, to "slay the idolaters" to slaughter hundreds of thousands of Hindus - even after Indian cities surrendered. In Delhi alone, Timur slaughtered a hundred thousand men. He threatened his own court poet to slaughter idolaters or face execution.
So, you are saying that they (ISIS, Hamas, Boko Haram, Hizbollah, Al Qaida etc.) are not real muslims? They are also followers of Allah, see Mohammed as their Prophet and the Koran is their holy book. What makes them not real muslims in your eyes? Because they have a different (wrong?) interpretation of verses and hadith?
Morally wrong, sure, from my PoV. From their PoV they are the good guys.
Islam is a religion that teaches a few good things in verses and hadith from the early times of the religion when it was weak and had few members. So they needed to be tolerant and also wanted the Jews and Christians to be tolerant towards them.
Later, after the immigration to Mekka Mohammed changed his teachings and they become more and more intolerant and violent. The religion became more political as the teachings contained more and more text/rules about how to treat non-muslims. According to the koran, "Allah" knew that some verses contradict others, the later (more intolerant verses) abrogate (replace) the earlier peaceful verses (sura 16:101 and 2:106) - so you see that there is a bit of a problem with different verses telling different things.
Don't get me wrong, I would hope that all muslims would only follow the earlier peaceful teachings (and ignore the concept of abrogation) and many already do. But I don't think it helps in telling the others are simply "wrong" becaus that helps avoiding a much needed discussion (self-criticism). It would be better to acknowledge that there are intolerant verses and to understand why they are there and finally to come to the agreement that such intolerant teachings should no longer be accepted as part of the doctrine (well, only as some kind of "rejected part").
> Muslims are overwhelmingly the victims of fundamentalist attacks
The Muslims from the another "sects" are also considered "unbelievers" by the fundamentalists (unless they join them), so it perfectly fits their ideology to do to them "what Mohammad did."
"All Males who reached puberty and 1 woman beheaded"
Directly from the holy texts:
"No woman of Banu Qurayza was killed except one. She was with me, talking and laughing on her back and belly (extremely), while the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) was killing her people with the swords."
(The "Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him)" is how Muhammad is referred to in the texts. Whenever we write just "Muhammad" it already sounds "improper" to his believers.)
The fundamentalists know the content of the holy books of Islam.
Yes, we do currently have massive problems with other religions. But when I list those problems you're going to say things like "but those aren't christians" or "those are a distortion of christian teachings" -- exactly what the vast majority of Muslims will tell you.
In what sense is this wrong? Everyone from all sides is saying this: that ISIS is different from other radical Muslims in their effective use of propaganda. Have you seen some of their videos? They are crazy, and I'm not talking about the beheadings. They use "Western" techniques, including stuff like slow-motion for dramatic effect.
Public beheadings, whether televised or not, are always propaganda, a show of force, a message to the common people. Public punishment is sometimes a barbaric form of entertainment, which is a form of propaganda as well. Historically this was the case in most countries, including those in Europe.
In the case of ISIS, I also think they are meant to shock Europe and the US into action. A war between Islam and the West is just what ISIS needs.
I find your explanation about Mohammed utterly unconvincing, because most Muslims don't go around beheading people, only some. ISIS and people from backwards, poverty-stricken countries/communities do, but that's a different issue.
> I find your explanation about Mohammed utterly unconvincing, because most Muslims don't go around beheading people, only some. ISIS and people from backwards, poverty-stricken countries/communities do,
Saudi Arabia is not poverty stricken, and they actually behead people for, for example, "adultery" or "homosexuality"(!) They invest 56 billion dollar per year for education, out of that billions for "exporting" their view of Islam, exactly the one with which I have problem.
Salafists don't "represent" but they surely attempt to become majority and the Wahhabis are the biggest financier of Muslim education abroad, which is especially surprising for Europeans as most people just now learn what was happening for decades among them.
Even in Saudi Arabia, support for ISIS isn't universal. According to this ( http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/isis... ) there is only 5% grassroots support for ISIS there. Now, even 5% is certainly worrying, but that's nowhere near universal.
I speak about Wahhabism, the official religious view in the whole Saudi Arabia, promoted abroad with their immense capital, so instead limiting the arguments to just "ISIS" is a major misdirection. Like that ISIS are the only one dangerous. They aren't.
Agreed, ISIS is not the only Muslim terrorist group.
But not all Muslims identify with Wahhabism (which percentage of the total Muslim population is Wahhabi?), nor live in Saudi Arabia. It's also not automatically true that all Wahhabis, even if more intolerant, want to murder the infidel.
Again, your conclusion about Muslims being fundamentally blood-thirsty is unsupported. The fact remains that most Muslims don't want to kill you.
> Again, your conclusion about Muslims being fundamentally blood-thirsty is unsupported.
I've certainly never concluded that, you can verify all what I wrote. What I wanted to point out is that there is real danger that once Muslims attempt to read the "primary sources" themselves discover inspiration for immense intolerance, really not comparable to such present in Old or New Testament (and I've met some very radical and unpleasant Christians too). Not to mention that most "converts" are sucked in over their acquaintances, independently of the will of their families.
> most Muslims don't want to kill you
One of my best friends from childhood from basically secular Muslim family later converted to more fundamental Islam and he specifically isn't fighting except intellectually, at least as far as I know about him now, so you don't need to explain me that. Still I personally saw the fundamentalism rising and was actually close enough to atrocities of different kinds and directions. A member of my family had the luck just by accident to avoid one Islamic bomb attack. A few generations ago more neighboring (Christian) villages of my relative were wiped out by Muslims, women and children included. The world isn't for everybody as nice as is maybe for you so that you can just turn the head away and pretend that dangerous and disgraceful things don't exist and in some periods don't ugly grow.
"The Indian historian Professor K.S. Lal estimates that the Hindu population in India decreased by 80 million between 1000 AD and 1525 AD, an extermination unparalleled in World history" [3]" (at the time of Muslim invasions and rule)
The Christians in the areas controlled by the Islamic law had the periods of "relatively quiet times" (with always much worse treatment than Muslims) and another periods of extreme suffering performed by the Muslim ruling minority. Note: just the minority of the population in their area were Muslims, and that was enough for extreme suffering. The biggest proof: Hindus.
So what the "most" of Muslim population does isn't even important. Even small number of determined oppressors (claiming to do just what their religion gives them right to do) is enough to make huge damage. And this can't be downplayed.
Ok, so this is a personal issue for you. My apologies if I offended you. I won't push this any further. I disagree with your position, but we're running in circles now.
PS: I know about the Armenian Genocide, and it's terrible. But as I'm sure you're aware, at other times Christians killed plenty of Muslims (and other Christians, while we're at it) and were decidedly intolerant of Jewish people. Ahem, I don't even want to go there. So I'm not sure what we can conclude from this about the current world-wide Muslim population.
I don't conclude anything "about the current world-wide Muslim population." Do quote when I ever wrote anything about the "world-wide Muslim population." I wrote about Islam as religious doctrine (which has more elements of a fight manual than of a spiritual text) about Islam's primary holy texts and about the violence and intolerance that they provably contain and can nurse and inspire. If they inspire it in minority, but minority with a lot of means of producing enough fighters and fanatic believers, that's more than enough to produce huge problems to this world. The another minority necessary are the ideological leaders. Only these two minorities are enough. The fanatics know that already: their prophet and his army are their role model for that (together with always-available case studies in Hadith). Even the Muslim women who didn't have to cover their hair until recently in a lot of Muslim countries know what it means the rule of "more religious" Muslims (as the smallest thing that changed to them in the last decades -- we had more secular societies in different now already again more and more "dark-age" Muslim countries). Only the people from the parts of the world where Muslims weren't effectively present aren't aware of the danger. It's not some ancient history, it never stopped. There was just a more quiet period.
I heard you. I contend that Islam is not the problem at heart. Every holy text can inspire hatred and violence. It's very likely the Quran was a fight manual like you said -- for understandable historical reasons -- but what matters is what it is now for most of the world's Muslims. And it's not a fight manual. The slide to religious fundamentalism is a threat in all religions; I wouldn't welcome any theocracy.
Sorry, you can quote the Quran all you want, and I can quote it back with verses promoting peace (or verses from other holy texts promoting violence; or even violence from other religions which are not frequently linked to terrorism).
There is no inherent danger from Islam. There is real danger in the world, but I think you're mistaken in placing the source. And Western countries are oblivious to their own historical contributions to violence in the Middle East. All too easy to blame it all on weird raving fundamentalists.
In the end, you think I'm mistaken. I think you're mistaken. Let it rest.
Oh, yes, it is, absolutely is, especially combined with Hadith. Both together are the primary holy texts of Islam. Read it, read the historical materials, compare the texts and the history (what is written as the "words of god to Muslims" and what was done in the name of Islam in the last 1400 years -- the instructions and the actions match, and why wouldn't, if the "believers" performed them following the "manual") then you can try to give arguments how it is not. Right now you have no real arguments. And you know you won't have, since I'll recognize if you try to give something out of the context, that's why you don't even try.
What is your background in claiming what you claim? What do you actually know about Islam and Muslims, personally? Who tortured your ancestors? Or whom your ancestors tortured? You must have ancestors and they must have been involved in something. I've given you my background. Do you know anybody who's not Muslim but who's parents and grandparents lived in the Muslim country? Try to talk to such people.
> There is no inherent danger from Islam.
Yes there is, whoever isn't a Muslim and reads Quran immediately understands. It's totally not comparable to the texts of any other religion, that's why we see what we see now every day. Muslims "behaving normal" (never having read Quran themselves before and being more in the secular environment) and then in short time becoming suicidal bombers or mass shooters or even "just" "mad" car drivers after somebody (a friend or a relative) just shows them what's really there:
So everybody should read himself what's in Quran. Especially non-Muslims.
"The Koran teaches fear, hatred, contempt for others, murder as a legitimate means for the dissemination and preservation of this satanic doctrine, it talks ill of women, classifies people into classes, calls for blood and ever more blood. Yet, that a camel trader sparks uproar in his tribe, that he wants to make his fellow citizens believe that he talked to the archangel Gabriel; that he boasted about being taken up into heaven and receiving a part of that indigestible book there, which can shake common sense on every page, that to gain respect for this work, he covers his country with fire and iron, that he strangles fathers, drags away daughters, that he leaves the beaten a free choice between death and his faith: now this is certainly something that no-one can excuse, unless he came as a Turk into the world, unless superstition has stifled any natural light of reason in him."
Sorry, you're being unreasonable. I agreed the Quran was likely born as a fight manual (you chose to ignore that part and instead quoted out of context the next part). The fact is that it's not a fight manual now. Very similarly to how the Old Testament was born, out of desperate times, and which is not to be interpreted literally now.
You can quote the Quran all you want. I can quote back verses preaching tolerance and understanding, even of unbelievers. The fact remains that, like all holy texts, it's contradictory and open to interpretation. Islam is what modern-day Muslims choose it to be. And the vast majority of Muslims choose it not to mean a perpetual war against the unbeliever.
The notion that as soon as a reasonable Muslims picks up the Quran and "really reads it" (as I assume you imply you've done, and that all Muslims who disagree with you haven't... how condescending can you be?) he/she will turn into a murderous jihadist is so patently absurd it merits no further discussion.
Sorry, quote Voltaire all you want, but the real world contradicts you. Yes, some vocal fanatics are intent on murdering the infidel, but the vast majority of Muslims just want to live their lives. Repeat after me: "no, my Muslim neighbors are not biding their time for the moment they can kill me."
If you think ISIS doesn't have a carefully planned PR strategy, I have a bridge or two to sell you. Of course they're using medieval methods, since their branding is "pure, original, undiluted Islam". But it's absolutely calculated.
> their branding is "pure, original, undiluted Islam"
That's actually true, and it's not just "branding," nobody can deny them that they are qouting the words in the primary holy books. And still some people believe in "peacefulness" of that "pure, original, undiluted Islam." It's the opposite: only by "diluting" (honestly reforming) it can the violence induced by it be avoided long-term. But it's easy to imagine how those that don't want the reform will behave: more "pure, undiluted" acts.
Yes: pure, unreformed Abrahamic religions are not very peaceful. They are quite blood-thirsty and vengeful. Let's for a second agree that everyone reasonable wants their religion modernized and adapted to the current world (and ISIS, religious white supremacists, and abortion clinic bombers are not "reasonable"). We can disregard everyone who wants pure, unadulterated, literal Islam or Christianity.
That said, there's a reasonable case to be made that this is ISIS "branding". What their leaders truly believe is unknowable, but we can see their masterful use of propaganda, with smiling jihadis next to happy-looking children, and of course also the brutal beheadings shot in high-definition using modern techniques. I doubt the Prophet approved of HD cams.
There's also a good case to be made, as in this article from The Atlantic, "The Phony Islam of ISIS" ( http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/wha... ) that "literal" intepretations of the Quran and other Holy Texts are a red herring. You cannot claim there is a literal interpretation; just an interpretation that claims to be literal. But holy texts are rife with ambiguous and contradictory paragraphs, as explained in the article -- you can find an equivalent of "You Shall Not Kill" and in a different verse "Kill The Infidel", and you need some Wise Man to explain to you "ok, you shall not kill believers, but you can kill the unbeliever, unless there is a full moon (as mentioned in verse XYZ), in which case you can only kill goats". But this is the Wise Man's interpretation; by definition there is no single valid "literal" interpretation. And once you accept there is some degree of interpretation at play, you can no longer claim ISIS is evidence that Islam is fundamentally more blood-thirsty and terrorism-prone than other religions; just that some of the current high profile terrorist organizations are using their reading of the Quoran to justify their actions, and that they claim their interpretation is the "purest".
Even within ISIS and Al-Qaeda there is doctrinal dispute, as evidenced in this other article from The Atlantic, "What ISIS really wants" ( http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isi... ), which shows fundamentalist clerics disagree, and this creates splits. How can this be, if all of them believe they are following "pure, unadulterated Islam"?
No. You haven't read Quran. You would not be able to write what you do. Even in "Letter To Baghdadi" those who signed quote:
www.lettertobaghdadi.com/14/english-v14.pdf
"God says in the Qur’an: ‘Because of that, We decreed for the Children of Israel that whoever slays a soul for other than a soul, or for corruption in the land, it shall be as if he had slain mankind altogether; and whoever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers have already come to them with clear proofs, but after that many of them still commit excesses in the land.’ (Al-Ma’idah, 5: 32)."
And that is actually cherry picking. If you read the sentence before and the few sentences after together with 5:32 you get what was said:
"32 For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth.
33 The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom; "
That's 5:32 and 5:33 together. Is there some nuance? The command is the "old" one given to the Jews but they became "prodigals," says "god" speaking in plural about him (as he does on other places in Quran too). The "reward" is specified one verse afterwards.
Or even better read the whole Sura 5, to get the whole message. One clearer translation (start from the verse 1 and beware the following side is behind the left arrow):
To the assertion that holy texts need interpretation?
That there is a doctrinal dispute between factions of ISIS and Al-Qaeda, therefore showing there can be no single interpretation?
All of it?
You're so hell-bent in replying "wrong" and "no" to every post you disagree with, it's really hard to understand what you actually mean, beyond "here are some horrible passages from the Quran".
The claims you make aren't based on even attempting to read Quran. So it's "no, you haven't read anything from the sources" you just try to make the case based on some bad articles, bad because they also haven't read from the sources or distort the facts enough to give a false impression. How do I know? I've read not only the line with the quote that is claimed to be peaceful but the whole chapter. You can do that too. Please read, then I'd like to see you writing with straight face what you wrote. Because it's not "some places." Just try reading that book, like, at least 20 percent. If you manage 20% then you'll be able to recognize the rest, as it's quite repetitive. I don't see why not reading? If it's really beautiful, peaceful and "nuanced" you'll feel good reading it, even the whole of it. It anyway inspires 1.5 billion people of the world. Find out how yourself.
But I didn't attempt to read the Quran, so that cannot be the basis for your disagreement. I claimed that, since most Muslims aren't raving fanatics attempting to slay the infidel, there must be something more to Islam. I've also shown that people who have read the Quran (like a professor of religious studies who specializes in Islam) think it's open to interpetation.
I also think that understanding a religious book isn't as simple as sitting down one day and reading end to end. It's not just the Quran anyway; there is a huge body of followups that must be read in order to understand it. Some of them contradictory, some open to interpretation, some of varying degrees of reliability.
Go away. If you aren't willing to read it yourself, your arguments are just the arguments of "intentional unwillingness" to even consider the original material I try all the time to discuss with you. You ignore the primary holy books of Islam and ignore the history of Islam conquest, some 1400 years. What's left? Your vain "argument" that not every Muslim blew himself up with the bomb belt already should prove that the religion isn't violent? Not everybody has to blow himself up, just a percentage of young men willing to fight (and die) or just oppress is more than enough to make the permanent damage to this civilization (as proven through the history). They do the dirty work, the clerics will just rule. That just a few are enough, ask Malala
It's not something exclusive for this period in history, the motives, principles and methods can be traced through all the 1400 years of the existence of Muslim faith.
I think reading the full Quran is immaterial to this discussion (I haven't read the Holy Bible fully either... gasp!). I rely on the testimony of experts on Islam, which you fully disregard even though you are not an expert yourself. I also haven't read every issue of The Watchtower but I still have an opinion about Jehovah's Witnesses. I don't find reading holy books about religions whose beliefs I don't share all that interesting.
I understand there are Islamic extremist groups; I've never disputed that. I'm arguing here that it's the extremism and not the Islamic that's worrying. I've read about Islamic culture and its history, and much like Christendom, it has both admirable and reprehensible parts. It's simply not true that the majority of the Muslim world do or support violent terrorist acts. Your position simply doesn't stand a reality check.
Have you read the Quran back to back, fully, including the verses that preach tolerance and compassion?
Well, that's religion for you: the C++ of ideological systems, where you pick the components that work for you, and then claim that's the only way to do it.
However, note that no beheadings have been staged in Vatican City in recent years.