Muslims, why should only the peaceful verses of the Qur'an and the Hadith be taken at face value?

Question

Unlike many Islamic critics, I have read the Qur'an and much of the Hadith. I'm aware of the numerous peaceful and tolerant verses in them, such as “There shall be no compulsion in religion.” (Sura 2:256). However, I am also well acquainted with the many, many violent versus (e.g. “Slay the unbelievers wherever ye shall find them” (Sura 9:5), “Any person who has changed his religion, kill him” (Bukhari, vol. 9, no. 57), “Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends” (Sura 5:51) and “A man will not be asked why he beat his wife.” (Abu Duwad, Book 11, No. 2142). Why do Muslims always explain away the violent versus, claiming they are “taken out of context/only for self-defense,” and attempt to refute them with peaceful verses that apparently should be taken at face value? Isn’t it the Qur’an and Hadith that are actually out of context with the modern world? Are all the “kills” allegorical? Is the history of Islamic nations more characterized by peace or violence?

Answer 1

This is your opinion? there is no debate nor converstation hay think what you wish!
and if you are not a muslim then you cant and wont understand and so mind your business!
i read it believe it every word at face value so I know not what you speak of! do this scare you? this is not of your concern is it!
and talk about killing have you read the bible? dont try what you are attempting to try here!
all you have quoted is there and should be abided by! now you didnt expect this response did you well you bubble is busted!
HAAAAAAA
that's how we do! how do you do with what you are?
ha ha!

Answer 2

there are different kinds of muslims, some are very evil. in understanding koran there is a rule mensioned in koran which the stricted (mu'hkamat) verses, or the mother of the book. these verses make the strictions so the other verses won't be generalised in a wrong mannar.
for example the verse you mensioned (2:256) is strecting that no one should force any one to change his religion what ever it is. it's supported by sura: alkaferun. bukhari is a hanbalist sunni turkish liar who lived 150 years after muhamed. many sunni muslims believe follow him and will go to hell for that.
another example the aya that said moslims should not be agressive and that god dosent love agressors, in sura albakara, this is also a mother of the book. so any war verse is calling for violence against agressors not peacful people.
to hit a wife is a sin, what ever she did, even adultry, and she has the right to hit him back infront of the judge. the aya that many muslims understand as allowing hitting wives is mis understood. in classical arabic no good writer will use (d'araba) to mean hit or beat. (d'araba) means stop money allowence from wives who refuse to do their share of the marriage life. the word (ed'rab) came from it wich means to refuse to do some thing like work. (d'ariba) means tax, refuse to give whole salary to employees, in koran (d'arab fi elard) traveled, rfuse to make distance stand between him and another place. abu daoud is another turkish liar.
your translation of (5:51) is wrong. it's talking about mriage, and that when muslims marry a muslim or people of the book, it should be a real mriage not sex or girlfreinds.

Answer 3

Because these are taken out of context !!

Okay !! I m not Giving the peacful verses in responce to these..though can explain all the verses in detial.......but taking one about beating the wife...so they are allowed to beat the wife, infact a slight beaitng with broom when they get disloyal and cheat on the man......but after discusing and trying to make them understand that they are wrong.and in second step to seperate the beds from them and the last source would be a slight beating......Umm just tell me when a kid gets wrong, does the father slap not him to get him correct and telling him that he is wrong? Ofcourse he does because he loves his kids....Anyways not giving any explaination .just want to discus some facts !!
Mr, LordEdward !! let me tell you who is more violent this time in the world and whome history would remeber as most violent community !!

The Only bombings in england where the muslims millitants were the 'suspects' is 7/7 which killed 54 peoples........the 9/11 whcih i believe is the inside job but just considering it, killed few thousans peoples.inculding muslims.....and there few more.but the number of muders run in thousands overall !! Agree??
Being a muslim I condemn that all strongly and i hate this and every peaceful muslim hate such kind of terrorism where the innocents were killed .....!!

Now what happend that great britain and America have combinely invaded the Iraq and Afghanistan....won't say in responce because that was muslim responce to their acts , becuase the terrorists never called american are britain to islam, and they were fighting in responce to their acts.though in a wrong way......anyways .And what these great powers did is they started killing innocents in these areas.....and one the average 100 iraqis / day are being killed in Iraq.and and again if you see in palestine , they number is even more.........

Again if you deny this , are claim that i m aggerating it being a muslim.so just giving a small list of american invasions and bombing of non muslims areas as well, this is a list after WW2
1945-46-China
1950-53-Korea,China
1954-Guatemala
1958-Indonesia
1959-61-Cuba
1960-Guatemala
1964-Congo
1965-.Peru
1964-73-Laos
1961-73-Vietnam
1969-70-Cambodia
1967-69-Guatemala
1983-Grenada
Want some more...
1983-84-Lebanon
1980's-El Salvador-Nicaragua
1986-Libya
1987-Iran
1989-Panama
1991-Iraq
1993--Somalia
1998Sudan
1998-Afghanistan
1999-Yugoslavia


This time the killings of chrisrains run in millions My friend !! and do you have a courrage to accept this fact and to compare it with muslims one?? see who is more violent !!

if the verses are violent(if you say which look violent when taken out of context) what about the practice?

this time if i show you few verses taken out of context from Bible would you believe me?? But don' t talk about the scripture if you dont accept, see the reality dude !

peace !

Answer 4

May the peace, blessings and mercy of God be upon you

I answered your previous question thoroughly (I hope you read it), and by the knowledge God has allowed me to have I shall answer this one as well.

No the the Qu'ran should not be taken as allegorical, unless the parable is clearly stated, there are some astray Sufis whos try and find "hidden meanings". The duty of Muslims, on this Earth is believe in God alone with no partners, pray 5 times day, give charity, fast the month of Ramadan, and make pilgrimage to Mecca if one can afford to do so (once in their lifetime). How is the out of context of the modern world? Do we not live on the same Earth of which God created? the same Earth of God has told us is a "place of worship".

Ok so for this much misunderstood verse 9:5 ( It was explained in that link I gave you about Terrorism and Suicide Bombing) but here is the explanation of this verse

If it is said: "What about the verse of the Qur'an which says {kill the unbelievers wherever you find them} and the Sahih Hadith which says 'I have been ordered to fight against the people until they testify'?"

We say: It is well known among scholars that the following verse,

{kill the idolaters wherever you find them}(al-Tawba, 9:5)
is in reference to a historical episode: those among the Meccan Confederates who breached the Treaty of Hudaybiyya [Sulh al-Hudaybiyya] which led to the Victory of Mecca [Fath Makka], and that therefore, no legal rulings, or in other words, no practical or particular implications, can be derived from this Verse on its own. The Divine Irony and indeed Providence from the last part of the Verse, {wherever you find them} - which many of our mufassirs understood in reference to place (i.e., attack them whether inside the Sacred Precinct or not) - is that the victory against the Meccans happened without a single battle taking place, whether inside the Sacred Precinct or otherwise, rather, there was a general amnesty [wa-mannun 'alayhi bi-takhliyati sabîlihi or naha 'an safki d-dima'] for the Pagan Arabs there. Had the Verse not been subject to a historical context, then you should know that it is of the general type ['amm] and that it will therefore be subject to specification [takhsîs] by some other indication [dalîl]. Its effect in lay terms, were it not related to the Jahilî Arabs, is that it can only refer to a case during a valid war when there is no ceasefire.

Among the well known exegeses of "al-mushrikîn" from this Verse are: "al-nâkithîna khâssatan" [specifically, those who have breached (the Treaty)] [al-Nawawi al-Jawi, Tafsîr, 1:331]; "al-ladhîna yuharibunakum" [those who have declared war against you] [Qâdi Ibn 'Arabi, Ahkâm al-Qur'ân, 2:889]; and "khâssan fî mushkrikî l-'arabi dûna ghayrihim" [specifically, the Jâhilî Arabs and not anyone else] [al-Jassâs, Ahkâm al-Qur'ân, 3:81].

As for the meaning of "people" [al-nâs] in the above well-related Hadith, it is confirmed by Ijmâ' that it refers to the same "mushrikîn" as in the Verse of Sura al-Tawba above, and therefore what is meant there is only the Jâhilî Arabs [muskhrikû l-'arab] during the closing days of the Final Messenger and the early years of the Righteous Caliphs and not even to any other non-Muslims.

In sum, we are not in a perpetual state of war with non-Muslims. On the contrary, the original legal status [al-asl] is a state of peace, and making a decision to change this status belongs only to a Muslim authority who will in the Next World answer for their ijtihâd and decision; and this decision is not divinely charged to any individuals - not even soldiers or scholars - and to believe otherwise would go against the well-known rule in our Law that a Muslim authority could seek help from a non-Muslim with certain conditions, including, for example, that the non-Muslim allies are of goodwill towards the Muslims

I already explained the apostasy rules, in the previous answer.

As for this hadith you reference, I am not a Scholar of Hadith (to be able to Grade its Chain of Narration and give it classification). But you cannot use the Qu'ran or Sunnah exclusive of each other, and the person who is wrongfully abusing their wife, God knows the deeds he does.

Peace Be With You

Answer 5

Many Muslim readings are interpreted as "kill all infidels," aka all people who isn't Muslim, or maybe as some variations mutually such as your lil blurb there spout hatred, others are curiously thoroughly non violent... besides the actual shown reality that i does no longer understand because i have not in any respect study any Muslim literature. it really is actual, there's a tremendous variety of hatred accessible, yet be careful no longer to generalize.

Answer 6

The History of Islamic Nations are characterized by both peace and violence. There is no short cut, no softening of words that's the way it is. That is how life goes peace and violence.

Answer 7

islam is a peacfull relegion
but those terrorist who claims that they are muslims or
maby understood islam wrong those who are making
it sound like a violence religion

and actully some of the hadithes that you put
never heard about them before

like the last one!!

maby it's not saheeh

and salam

Answer 8

The same could be said about Christians and their history..Islam is 1300 yeas old... Do you know what Christianity was doing at that age of the religion? was that not the Dark Ages?