Conservative Colloquium

An Intellectual Forum for All Things Conservative

Violent and Intolerant Qur’an Verses

Posted by Tony Listi on March 11, 2008

How many of you have actually taken the time to read the Qur’an and see what it says? You might be surprised at what you find. I wish it weren’t so, but I find it hard to believe that Islam in its purity is a peaceful and tolerant religion.

2:89-“Therefore, the curse of Allah is upon the unbelievers!”

2:97-“Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and messengers, to Gabriel and Michael, lo! Allah is an enemy of the unbelievers.”

2:191-“Kill them (unbelievers) wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you, for persecution is worse than slaughter…. Such is the reward of those who reject faith.”

2:193-“Fight against them (unbelievers) until there is no dissension, and the religion is for Allah.”
Fight until no other religion exists but Islam.

2:218-“But those who believe and those who migrate and struggle in the way of Allah, those, have hope of the mercy of Allah.”
Those who fight for Allah may have hope of forgiveness.

3:10-“Those who disbelieve, neither their riches nor their children shall save them from Allah. They shall become the fuel of the fire.”

3:19-“The only true faith in God’s sight is Islam. Those to whom the book was given disagreed among themselves only after knowledge had been given to them, being insolent among themselves. He who disbelieves the verses of Allah indeed Allah is swift in reckoning.”

3:28-“The believers should not take the unbelievers as friends or helpers in preference to the believers. He who does this does not belong to Allah in anything, unless you have a fear of them.”

3:110-“You are the best nation ever to be brought forth for people. You order honor and forbid dishonor, and you believe in Allah. Had the people of the book believed, it would have surely been better for them. Some of them are believers, but most of them are evildoers.”
Most Jews and Christians are wrongdoers.

3:151-“We will throw terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve.”

4:76-“And those who believe fight in the way of Allah, but those who disbelieve fight in cause of evil. therefore, fight against those guided by Satan.”

4:89-“”Seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and in any case take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”

4:95-“Those of the believers who sit still…are not on an equality with those who strive in the way of Allah with their wealth and lives. Allah hath conferred on those who strive with their wealth and lives a rank above te sedentary. Unto each Allah hath promised good, but He hath bestowed on those who strive a great reward above the sedentary.”
Muslims who fight in jihad are better than those who don’t.

4:101-“”For the unbelievers are to you open enemies.”

5:12-16-“Allah made a covenant with the children of Israel…. But because they broke their covenant, we cursed them and hardened their hearts. They changed the words from their places and have forgotten a portion of what they were reminded…. With those who called themselves Christians, we made a covenant, but they have forgotten much of what they were reminded. Therefore, we stirred among them enmity and hatred till the day of resurrection.”

5:51-“O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them in friendship is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.”

5:64-“They [the Jews] are cursed for what they said!… As often as they light a fire for war, Allah extinguishes it. Their effort is for corruption in the land, and Allah loveth not corrupters.”

7:4-“How many a village have we laid in ruin! In the night our might fell upon it, or at midday when they were drowsy.”

8:12, 14-“I shall cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. Strike them above the necks, smite their finger tips…. the punishment of the fire is for the unbelievers.”

8:39-“Fight them (unbelievers) until persecution is no more and the religion of Allah reigns supreme.”

8:59-60-“Do not suppose that the unbelievers have outstripped Allah. They cannot frustrate me. Against them make ready your strength to the utmost power, including steeds of war, so that you strike terror into the enemies of allah and your enemy, and others besides them whom you do not know but Allah does.”

8:65-“O Prophet, urge the believers to fight. If there are twenty patient men among you, you shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred, they shall overcome a thousand unbelievers, for they are a nation who do not understand.”

8:74-“Those who believe and migrated from their homes and fought for the Way of Allah, and those who have sheltered them and helped them they are truly the believers.”
The jihad warriors are the true believers.

9:1, 3, 5-“For four months you shall journey freely in the land. but know that you shall not render Allah incapable, and that Allah will humiliate the unbelievers…. And give glad tidings to the unbelievers of a painful punishment…. When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Take them and confine them, then lie in ambush everywhere for them.”

9:14-“Fight them (unbelievers), Allah will punish them with your hands and degrade them. He will grant you victory over them and heal the chests of a believing nation.”

9:19-“Do you consider giving drink to the pilgrims and inhabiting the sacred mosque is the same as one who believes in Allah and the last day, and struggles in the Way of Allah? These are not held equal by Allah. Allah does not guide the harmdoers. Those who believe, and migrated, and struggle in the Way of Allah with their wealth and their persons are greater in rank with Allah.”

9:26-“Then, Allah caused his tranquility (sechina) to descend upon his messenger and the believers; he sent legions you did not see and sternly punished the unbelievers. Such is the recompense of the unbelievers.”

9:29-“Fight those who neither believe in Allah nor the last day, who do not forbid what Allah and his messenger have forbidden, and do not embrace the religion of the truth, being among those who have been given the book (Bible and the Torah), until they pay tribute out of hand and have been humiliated (or feel themselves subdued).”

9:30-“The Jews say Ezra is the son of Allah, while the Christians (who follow Paul) say the messiah is the son of Allah. such are their assertions, by which they imitate those who disbelieved before. Allah fights them! How perverted are they!”

9:33-“It is he who has sent forth his messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to uplift it above every religion, no matter how much the idolaters hate it.”
Islam does not seek equality with other religions. Islam must be above all others.

9:38-“Believers, why is it that when it is said to you: ‘march in the way of Allah, ‘ you linger with heaviness in the land? Are you content with this life rather than the everlasting life? Yet the enjoyment of this life in (comparison to) the everlasting life is little. If you do not go forth, he will punish you with a painful punishment and replace you by another nation.”
Those who refuse to wage jihad will face terrible punishment.

9:41-“Whether lightly or heavily, march on and fight for the way of Allah, with your wealth and your persons. This will be best for you, if you but knew.”

9:44-“Those who believe in Allah and the last day will not ask your permission so that they may struggle with their wealth and their selves.”
True believers do not refuse to fight and risk their lives and property for Islam.

9:49-“Hell shall encompass the unbelievers.”

9:73-“O Prophet, struggle with the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh with them. Their abode is Hell, an evil refuge indeed.”

9:111-“Allah has purchased from the believers their selves and possessions, and for them is paradise. They fight in the way of Allah, slay, and are slain.”
Muslim believers fight and so gain paradise.

9:123-“Believers, fight the unbelievers who are near you. Let them find firmness in you. Know that Allah is with those who are cautious.”

47:4-“Therefore, when you meet the unbelievers smite their necks, then, when you have killed many of them, tie the bonds…. As for those who are killed in the Way of Allah, he will not let their works to go astray.”
More commands to violence and praise for violent martyrs.

47:8-“But the unbelievers shall be the destroyed losers. He will bring their deeds to nothing.”

47:20-“The believers ask: ‘has a chapter been sent down? ‘ but when a clear chapter is sent down and fighting is mentioned in it, you see those in whose hearts is sickness looking towards you as one who swoons at death.”
The Qu’ran even says that it itself contains chapter mentioning fighting! And it mocks and chastises those not willing to die in battle.

48:28-29-“It is he who has sent his messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, so that he exalts it above all other religions. Allah is the sufficient witness. Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. Those who are with him are harsh against the unbelievers but merciful to one another.”

59:2-3-“It was he who expelled the unbelievers among the people of the book from their homes into the first exile. You did not think that they would go out, and they thought their fortresses would protect them from Allah. But Allah came upon them from where they did not expect, casting terror into their hearts that their homes were destroyed by their own hands as well as by the hands of the believers. Therefore, take heed you that have eyes. Had it been that Allah had not decreed that they should be dispersed, he would have surely punished them in this world. and in the everlasting life the punishment of the fire awaits them….”

60:1-3-“O you who believe, you shall not befriend My enemies and your enemies, extending love and friendship to them, when they have disbelieved in the truth that has come to you. They persecute the messenger, and you, just because you believe in Allah, your Lord. If you mobilize to struggle in My cause, seeking My blessings, how can you secretly love them? I am fully aware of everything you conceal, and everything you declare. Those among you who do this have indeed strayed off the right path…. They want you to disbelieve. Your relatives and children can never help you. On the Day of Resurrection, He will judge among you. Allah is Seer of everything you do.”
Muslims are not to take non-Muslims as friends. Leniency is not to be shown to unbelieving friends and family. The spread of Islam through “struggle” takes priority over these relationships.
61:9-“He has sent His messenger with the guidance and the true religion, and will make it dominate all religions, in spite of the idol worshipers.”

98:6-“The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the idolaters shall be for ever in the fire of gehenna (hell). They are the worst of all creatures.”

111:1-5-“In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful perish the hands of abilahab, and perish he! His wealth will not suffice him, neither what he has gained; he shall roast at a flaming fire, and his wife, laden with firewood shall have a rope of palmfiber around her neck!”

Read the Qur’an for yourself at

85 Responses to “Violent and Intolerant Qur’an Verses”

  1. […] Islam because it is more likely to sew its own lips shut, silencing needed criticism of the more violent and questionable aspects of Islam and its traditions and history. (This includes the death penalty […]

  2. Alec said

    All out of context..well..ask Bush..who is his enemy? does Bush loves his enemy..the context of war in those who fight give affection to those who kill your family..common sense!

    About Abu lahab..can you do it better? He was the leader of non-muslim who was violence against Muhammad(pbuh)..he staged few assassination program to kill muhammad(pbuh) and abu lahab was his uncle..

    Please..put quran in context..

    • All I have to say is that all of you “good muslims” are allowing a few bad muslims to give all of you a bad name. In the time between your post and this reply, these “bad muslims” have slaughtered over 100,000 in your name. You continue to let it happen showing your complicity and culpability in these murderous and criminal acts. It has been long enough and the jihad movement has grown enough that all those who aren’t advocating for the removal of the very real threat of jihad are advocates for the death and destruction wrought upon the world by self-professed jihadist’s are just as guilty as the jihadist’s themselves!

  3. Rafeh said

    Whoa, I honestly wonder why people like you like to manipulate words to distort the actual ones. Please, have some respect and why don’t you put what came in the …’s that you put in the middle of 2:191 and stop judging the entire book by a few random sentences you found. You cant understand lord of the rings by just picking a bunch of sentences in the middle, can you? All readers of the website, please buy a Quran and read it before making any judgments. Thank you.

    • Ryan Asurlekar said

      That’s the most stupid comment I read, I haven’t gotta clue why I am even replying to ignorance of your kind, however its people like you that populate(polute) this planet…either way…You F@%@#%G Infidel This earth belongs to Allah and his followers and thus all Muslim have waged a religious war against unbeliever’s. Understand that all they are trying to do is reclaim their Gods kingdom, and you are just a impostor, Any one who has read the Quran objectively cannot deny the call for war against the rest, however Id like you or any other whould like to know more to download few clips from preacher john Robbins where he talks about Islam, its roots, etc, and how Mohammad Ripped the Bible from the jews and gave it is own violent twist….eitherway you seem like the person who hasnt read the Bible either…so this msg is for the elect

      • michael Delaney said

        You have seen the result of your violence! The problem is for everyone that is killed perpetrating violence, there are 2 more willing to die for your child molesting prophet!!

      • Alom said

        The earth does not belong to allah and you have no right to reclaim anything. You are basing that ideology on a book dictated by a man. A mad, murdering man that married a child. Great role model. I was a Muslim, I am now an apostate. What should my punishment be according to the quran? Death. How does that bode with Islam being a religion of peace? Quite a contradiction you must admit. Why is there abrogation? Because a man did not have the foresight that a deity would so he had to change his words.

      • Dave Libson said

        I can’t trust a God (“Allah”) who cannot get it right the first time…A god who is incapable of defending his message and words from getting corrupted…what makes you think he didn’t F!@# Up again with the Quran. There is no excuse for anyone calling themselves muslim, anyone sane person can read through this doctrine of hate

      • Chameleon said

        The idiocy is running rampant here. Ryan, Michael, Alom and Dave, you are doing nothing but making fact-free claims and expressing your bigotry and hate against others. I am laughing because I am looking at four buffoons who have vomited on themselves and don’t even realize it. I would suggest you read my other posts first if you intend to reply.

      • Alom said

        So Chameleon, what is the punishment for apostacy? Is it a tolerant, accepting and peaceful punishment? What is the punishment prescribed by God or Muhammed? If there is no compulsion in religion then why is there a punishment for leaving Islam?
        What is the Qurans take on dhimmitude? Why is there a need for Dhimmis? Why was Muhammed the only “prophet”(or profit is perhaps more in keeping) to take a war booty and then demand his own percentage? Is it ok to take slaves as concubines? Surely that is rape as a woman that has been taken from her lands by force and sold into slavery is hardly likely to wan to have sex wih her new “master”… Is that rape like that really ok?

      • Chameleon said

        Alom, you are embarrassing yourself. I already destroyed your argument in this thread that there is a death penalty for apostasy. Instead of rebutting my argument with your own facts, all you can do is parrot your same claim again with no facts. There is zero support for it in the Quran. In fact, the Quran makes it exceedingly clear that apostates can become Muslims again with no mention whatsoever of any penalty, let alone death! You are conflating serious treason during war (which generally leads to the death of innocents) for apostasy. Even in modern democracies, the penalty for treason can be death. Only in secondary sources outside of the Quran is there some indication that treasonous activities could be punished by death.

        Your use of the word dhimmi shows once again how much you have been overdosing on hate site Kool-Aid. “Dhimmi” in Arabic literally means “the protected”, which is referring to the non-Muslims in a Muslim-majority state who are not obligated to fight for their own protection, since the Muslims will fight for them. Even the anti-Islam hate prophet Robert Spencer has acknowledged this unavoidable truth. I suggest that you read the series of articles on Loonwatch covering this so-called “dhimmitude” nonsense, which utterly destroys the argument that “dhimmi” is someone who is supposed to be oppressed by Islam or some other propaganda BS. If you have any difficulty finding these articles, let me know. Start with the “Popular” tab on the home page, since this is one of the most popular references on the site and represents a total annihilation of Robert Spencer’s claims.

        As for the war booty, your ignorance as an “ex-Muslim” is stunning here. The 20% portion “for God and his prophet” was not for Muhammad personally, but to be distributed by Muhammad to the poor and weak in the community who would otherwise not be entitled to any because of their inability to participate in battle. By all accounts, Muhammad led a fairly austere lifestyle, so much so that his wives rebelled as a group against him because of this self-imposed austerity. According to traditional cultural practice, they expected to live a lavish lifestyle being married to a great leader, but they could not. He formally separated from all of them for a whole month to resolve this crisis, at which time they came back to him on his terms of austerity, which is actually even detailed in the Quran itself!

        As for the concubines garbage, I already told you in my May 1 post here that I will provide a link to that rebuttal in 4-6 months once I can set up a website for this and pull at least one or two more key articles together (not on this topic, but others). I have already completely debunked that mythology in a very thorough analysis. In short, rape of any woman is not permitted in Islam, nor are concubines, contrary to unsupportable popular opinion.

      • Alom said

        Still waiting for you to talk about the contradictions listed. You are sliming your way around them.

      • Alom said

        So it is ok to invade another town or city or country and steal their posessions and women and take slaves? That is what war booty is. Is that really ok? You justify the austerity shown after taking someone elses posessions like it is ok…. Care to explain why it is ok to be austere after pillaging?

      • Alom said

        As for apostacy Qur’an 4:89 [46] states that “They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing: But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades(apostates), seize them and slay them wherever ye find them”. This command to kill or slay is in all mainstream translations.

        Within the Sahih al-Bukhari collection, worldly punishments are described in the following Hadith:

        “2171. Narrated ‘Abdullah: The Prophet said, “The blood of a Muslim, who confesses that Lâ ilâha ill-Allâh (there is no god but Allâh), cannot be shed except in three cases: 1. Life for life (in cases of intentional murders without right i.e., in Al-Qis̩âs̩ – Law of Equality in punishment); 2. A married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse; and 3. The one who turns renegade from Islâm (apostate) and leaves the group of Muslims. [9:17-O.B]”[49]

        The Sahih Muslim collection, reiterates and confirms that which is in the Sahih al-Bukhari collection:

        “(4152) ‘Abdullah (b. Mas’ūd) reported Allah’s Messenger as saying: It is not permissible to take the life of a Muslim who bears testimony (to the fact) that there is no god but Allah, and I am the Messenger of Allah, but in one of the three cases: the married adulterer, a life for a life, and the deserter of his Din (Islam), abandoning the community.”

      • Chameleon said

        Alom, I already destroyed your argument that verse 4:89 implies a death penalty on apostates. See my May 1 post on this thread or just search for “4:89” on this page. Please rebut my argument instead of parroting your same nonsensical claim again. In fact, as I explained, this verse and its immediate context support exactly the opposite conclusion, since fighting is commanded to cease when those “renegades” stop attacking the Muslims. So why would ceasing aggression be the criterion to stop fighting and killing renegades if the real motive was to kill anyone who simply changed their religion? Are you trying to make the ridiculous argument that all renegades who cease fighting Muslims magically become Muslims again at the same moment they cease fighting Muslims? If so, according to you, even this ridiculous assumption does not allow them to escape the death penalty, since they did in fact become apostates. And yet the Quran clearly allows them to escape this imaginary death penalty of yours – now isn’t that funny?

        As for your hadiths, both are second-hand accounts after the fact of what Muhammad supposedly said, which makes them less reliable than a first-hand account of what Muhammad actually did when he encountered an apostate outside of the context of one who was a renegade (i.e., an active participant in war or political oppression against Muslims). That said, both of these hadiths I have seen quoted by Islamophobes many times, and both of them include not one but TWO criteria: 1) being an apostate AND 2) being a renegade by joining another community presumably at war with the Muslims (as explicitly implied in the one hadith version by the use of the word “renegade”). Once again, this is in full compliance with modern democratic standards as a punishment for treason.

        Incidentally, I think your Bukhari source is suspect, since I could not find that hadith or that wording. Here is a Bukhari quote on this same incident from Bukhari 60:134: “Narrated Abu Qilaba: That he was sitting behind Umar bin Abdul Aziz and the people mentioned and mentioned (about At-Qasama) and they said (various things), and said that the Caliphs had permitted it. ‘Umar bin ‘Abdul ‘Aziz turned towards Abu Qilaba who was behind him and said. “What do you say, O ‘Abdullah bin Zaid?” or said, “What do you say, O Abu Qilaba?” Abu Qilaba said, “I do not know that killing a person is lawful in Islam except in three cases: a married person committing illegal sexual intercourse, one who has murdered somebody unlawfully, or one who wages war against Allah and His Apostle.”

        Note how the last case is very clear in defining what “renegade” means in the other version of this hadith: “one who wages war against Allah and His Apostle”. Also, as an aside, the penalty noted for adultery was based on Jewish law being applied at the time. The penalty for adultery (Zina) per the Quran as later revealed (24:2) is now 100 lashes, but even that is based on the extreme requirement of having four witnesses first, which turns it into much more of a symbolic penalty to protect the integrity and respect for the family unit when it is so openly violated in the eyes of several community members at once.

        And here is another very interesting quote from Bukhari 89:318: “Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah: A bedouin gave the Pledge of allegiance to Allah’s Apostle for Islam. Then the bedouin got fever at Medina, came to Allah’s Apostle and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Cancel my Pledge,” But Allah’s Apostle refused. Then he came to him (again) and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Cancel my Pledge.” But the Prophet refused. Then he came to him (again) and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Cancel my Pledge.” But the Prophet refused. The bedouin finally went out (of Medina) whereupon Allah’s Apostle said, “Medina is like a pair of bellows (furnace): It expels its impurities and brightens and clears its good.”

        Note how this is not a second-hand account of what Muhammad said. It is an actual first-hand account of what Muhammad DID with a real life apostate who was clearly not a renegade, which is exactly the scenario you are claiming warrants the death penalty. In this situation, Muhammad had not one, but three, chances to inflict your imaginary death penalty on this apostate, but he did not. In fact, he let this apostate leave the community without any penalty or harassment whatsoever while also noting that it was better for the Muslim community that he does so. After all, as Muhammad’s words imply, how could it possibly make logical sense to keep a bunch of closet apostates locked into the Muslim community out of fear of a penalty for leaving? This argument is utterly absurd, since all that would do is create a bunch of antagonists and spies within the Muslim community given the existing conflict with the pagan Meccans.

        Finally, note this hadith from Bukhari 30:108: “Narrated Zaid bin Thabit: When the Prophet went out for (the battle of) Uhud, some of his companions (hypocrites) returned (home). A party of the believers remarked that they would kill those (hypocrites) who had returned, but another party said that they would not kill them. So, this Divine Inspiration was revealed: “Then what is the matter with you that you are divided into two parties concerning the hypocrites.” (4.88) The Prophet said, “Medina expels the bad persons from it, as fire expels the impurities of iron.”

        This last hadith exactly supports the previous hadith as the general policy of Muhammad. It even references the Quranic verses of 4:88 onwards as the criterion in how to deal with apostates: if they are renegades attacking Muslims, fight and kill them, but if they cease and seek peace, then leave them alone and don’t kill them. It is really that simple and 100% in compliance with modern ethical standards of warfare.

      • Chameleon said

        “Still waiting for you to talk about the contradictions listed.”

        And I am still waiting on you to accept my challenge. All you have to do is pick three – any three – from the so-called “contradictions” that you noted. Is it really that difficult to put your ass on the line? I am not going to reply to a vomit list just so that you can vomit another list again. This is a classic “moving the goalposts” strategy of Islamophobes — sorry, not falling for it.

      • Alom said

        Sorry but I have a life outside of this debate brother. Is patience not one if the virtues bestowed upon muslims. Was muhammed not described as a patient man. Sunnah my friend. Not very islamic behaviour brother.

        You can wait until I am ready as I did you.

      • Chameleon said

        Ad hominem is always the final recourse of those who have nothing intelligent left to say or who are afraid of a challenge that they know they cannot win. Thank you for conceding.

      • Chameleon said

        “So it is ok to invade another town or city or country and steal their posessions and women and take slaves? That is what war booty is. Is that really ok?”

        If that is how you define “war booty”, then what you are saying is that “war booty” is an incorrect translation of the Arabic, since that is not what the Quran says or implies. You are conflating “booty” with how such assets were acquired. If it was acquired through pillaging the innocent or attacking non-combatants, then this is wrong and not Islamic. Perhaps you could provide an example of a town or city or country that was supposedly “pillaged” by Muhammad instead of making hypothetical allegations of fact.

        What the Arabic word actually relates to is the following: 1) war reparations, which are standard even in modern warfare as an imposition on the opposing side, particularly when it is the aggressor; 2) reclaiming assets from those who stole from others, which again is universally accepted according to modern standards of ethical warfare (and which was the case with respect to the Muslims in attacking pagan Meccan caravans after the Meccans stole their homes and property and forced them out of the city); and 3) as an accepted modern military strategy to disrupt the supply chains and economy of those who war against you, as again was the case of the pagan Meccans vs. the Muslims in Medina. Note how your “pillaging” theory of Islamic warfare falls completely flat: when the Muslims later conquered Medina, there was no aggressive killing, no enslaving and no pillaging whatsoever – instead, a complete amnesty was given to the Meccans. So how does that fit with your bigoted depiction?

        As for “taking of slaves”, this did not occur. You are referring to “those whom your right hands possess”, which are simply temporary captives of war in this context. Once again, I will post my article on this topic within 4-6 months as a full rebuttal.

      • Tony Listi said

        Muhammad financed the spread of Islam through pillaging and looting of non-aggressors, especially the citizens of Mecca in the beginning. These are facts of history according to authoritative Islamic texts:

      • Chameleon said

        Tony, it is funny that you referenced an article that I already debunked in the comment section on Sept. 3, 2011. This all circles back to the same fact that it was the Meccans who started the war by persecuting the Muslims and eventually driving them out of the city because of this persecution and religious oppression, and then later “seizing”/stealing the Muslims’ homes, land, crops, and other property (without any compensation) that they could not take with them. Moreover, if the Muslims’ ultimate goal was just to conquer Mecca so that they could take its loot (per your other post), then why did they not take any loot or go around ‘killing unbelievers’ when they eventually did conquer it with an overwhelming force that could not possibly lose? Instead of taking revenge against the pagan Meccans as he could easily have done according to Arabian tradition, Muhammad instead gave a blanket amnesty. This is an historical fact, and an extremely embarrassing one indeed, with respect to the claim that both you and Alom are making.

      • Tony Listi said

        “after the Meccans stole their homes and property and forced them out of the city”
        What evidence/proof can you offer for this?

      • Chameleon said

        Tony, you ask (after quoting me), ““after the Meccans stole their homes and property and forced them out of the city”
        What evidence/proof can you offer for this?”

        I think you answered your own question in your later post, where you found the facts and concluded “It seems that the Meccans seized the property that the Muslims left behind after emigrating to Medina.” Yes, seizing = stealing when it is not yours and taken unjustly without any compensation. As for the evidence of Muslims being forced out of Medina, the persecution of Muslims in Mecca is extensively documented in biographies and historical accounts. For reasonably objective accounts (by non-Muslims), try reading the biographies of Muhammad by Martin Lings, Karen Armstrong, Lesley Hazelton, W. Montgomery Watt, Deepak Chopra, etc., all of which make this point abundantly clear. I don’t have time to give a full history lesson.

      • Tony Listi said

        Did the Meccans force the Muslims out of the city? That doesn’t seem to be the case. Muhammad wanted and encouraged an emigration. It seems that the Meccans seized the property that the Muslims left behind after emigrating to Medina.

        And then the Muslims in Medina, led by Muhammad, raided Meccan caravans because they were poor and because they and Muhammad wanted to conquer Mecca. The Meccans did not attack Medina until after the Muslims and Muhammad started raiding Meccan caravans.

      • The world is full of unbelievers, yet when we need education we go to them, when we need business we run to them for business, when we are ill we run to them for treatment. What kind of hypocrites we are?

    • Alum Muhammed APOSTATE said

      What is not to understand about the words, kill, fight and treat harshly. It is not difficult to see an eternal call to fight until Islam is the only master religion and those that do not believe are converted, subjigated and made to pay jizya or slain. I am a convert away from islam, What should my punishment be? That is right, death. Where is the “No obligation in religion”, where is the tolerance of religious freedom in my death sentence?

      • Chameleon said

        I am sorry to hear about your very twisted upbringing, as evidenced by your very twisted interpretation of Islam. Clearly you have not properly read my posts in this thread, where all of your incorrect interpretations have already been addressed.

  4. foospro86 said

    I put a link to the whole Quran at the end of my post. Over 45 verses hardly constitutes “a few random sentences.” And the history of Muhammad that does provide context does indeed confirm the violent, intolerant, and imperial nature of these verses. No one would read a post that countered every single groundless objection though.

    • geofrey said

      Put these verses in context you say? Okay; 300 years of violent Islamic imperial conquests under the rule of both Muhammed and his succeeding Caliphates. The massacre of hundreds of thousands of Orthodox Christians and Jews during the Ottoman empire. The more recent slaughtering of Christians by Muslims in East Timor and Sudan. Terrorist acts committed by Muslims today throughout the world, and their encouragement by innumerable Imams and Clerics. How can you say that it’s a religion of peace? That argument simply doesn’t make sense to me, at all.

  5. learnquranonline1 said

    mashallah keep it up is a good site where people could learn more about quran and islam i have also seen a site where people could learn quran online and learn quran with tajweed on
    learn quran online, learn quran

  6. Abujamal said

    Yes, Islam did come to obliterate all falsehood, prescribed Jihad to convey Islam to the world to bring mankind out of darkness and decadence od disbelief (secularism included) and into the light of Islam, to save man from the fire if he disbelieved and warn him of the consequences if he disbelieved ie the hell fire.

    And so what? Islam is the truth, the Quran is the apeech of the Creator as a matter of fact 🙂

    • Mati said

      God warns us of a false prophet and false religions. He that denies that Jesus is the son of God , is the Antichrist.
      it even says in the quran to obey the people of the Book and do as the Book tells them to do.Book referring to the Bible.
      You are muslim!? Havent you red quran?!
      Bible teaches that love is the greatest and all quran talks about is violence and murder of those who love!?
      You believe in God- now believe that quran is of satan.You will be all proven on the day of rapture.

  7. ali said

    the books of the old and new testament were written by numerous persons who were led by the spirit of God.. when muslims speeak about the same stories originating from the bible the stories they sound the same, but when you listen a little bit better you realise its totally different story, can mohammed change the history?.. i dont know why the stories are different.. the word of God has sufficient knowledge and wisdom to last us for eternity.. there was no need to rewrite all the books written by so many different pple through Gods spirit delivering one whole message .. Gods word, book full of prophecies never mentions one person rewriting His word.. even Jesus Gods son did not have the authority to rewrite it, no he just added books and by this continuing to deliver the message..
    REVELATION last verse: 18 I testify to the one who hears the words of the prophecy contained in this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19 And if anyone takes away from the words of this book of prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city that are described in this book.

    • bloodfarmer said

      Also according to the Quran, the last warner before Mohammed was Jesus, which is approx 500 years before Mohammed, however there has been no warner since, Since The Bible is a corrupted Text, which Allah was aware that is will eventually get corrupted,(Which means He intentionally intended such a text to exist in the first place) how is it, that He stopped the Quran from getting Corrupted.
      Revelation verse you were talking about, how is it that still there exist many different versions of the Bible (+/- Books)…according to the Bible he is also the preserver of his word, which will complete its intended purpose, no matter what man does with the bible or how he manipulates his word.

      I have noticed that no matter what a man can understand of the gospel(no matter what version he understands or believes) Only one makes sense and leaves absolutely no contradictions in the text.
      Its like a puzzle. For example that the bible is predominantly meant and directed to the elect, and not for all…like man is unable to choose God, as salvation is a gift from God and it cannot be earned or inherited. there is a lot left to be corrected…eitherways read the Bible and read the Quran yourself, look for contradictions…
      I have read the surah’s and find it absolutely subjective, There will be a justification for all sins, depending on the situation. There is no such thing as the absolute truth or an absolute God, as Allah may choose to do whatever he wishes, whenever he wishes, the Kuran propagates peace and war both at the same time, depending on your situation you may choose any.

      • Alom Islam said

        If he stopped the quran being corrupted why did Uthman burn copies that did not match his. Quran was different and he standardised it and burned all other copies to hide the fact that there were differences.

      • Bloodfarmer said

        Allah couldn’t stop the message from being corrupted before in regards to the Bible, how can you be sure he did it with the Quran? The stories from the Quran and the Bible are not the same, many characters are though. In regards to adding to the Bible, the Roman catholic church has already added few books to their translation of the Bible…however many translations are available other than the roman catholic version. Why the stories are similar? Assume you wrote a book named “Whatever” in 2001, now in the year 2003 there is a new book named “Whenever” by the author “Whoever” which includes most of the character from your book, in similar scenarios/situations Just like your book but the difference is the number of time the word “Fear” is added,+ Violence + etc What would conclude? PLAGIARISM? The Quran was written more than 500 years after the Bible! The Quran is Mohammed’s version/interpretation of the Bible/Doctrine he was exposed to at a early age. If Allah was unable to preserve his message to his followers in regards to the Bible, how can you be sure he was able to do it with the Quran? Can you even call him a God when he has no control over his creation?

      • Tony Listi said

        “the Roman catholic church has already added few books to their translation of the Bible”
        The Catholic Church did not add any books to the Bible. Martin Luther removed books from the Bible. Bibles before Luther included the deuterocanon. These are historical facts. The Catholic Church uses the Bible of the Twelve Apostles; Protestants use the Bible of the Jews who rejected Jesus and rejected the deuterocanon in response to Christianity. (can start at 6:40)

  8. Yacub Riaz said

    when muslims cant accept the violence in quran they come up with this typical answer of putting them in proper context. im an ex-muslim and i fully acknowledge that islam is NOT a peaceful religion and Mohammad is a liar.

    • Alom Islam said

      I too am an apostate. The “religion of peace” would deem we should be killed. How peaceful is that?

    • Thullukan Ikup said

      Kudos to you, Yacub Riaz – you are one of those enlightened few…you managed to see the dawn of truth and the falsehood perpetrated by Islam. Islam is not areligion of peace, period. Thank God for the Serbs and the Myanmaresese Buddhists (way to go,U Wirathu of ‘969’ fame!) – they have sent a chillingly clear and firm message…”Do not mess with us!” Matter of time, before the Hindus in India and the Christians in Europe and Africa start kicking ass. Once the threshold of patience and tolerance is reached, all hell will break loose…the fundamentalists and jihadists will be consumed by hellfire. The ones who have been misled may be forgiven PROVIDED there is no blood on their hands. History is replete with several examples where Truth has eventually triumphed over Falsehood and Evil

      Listen up, guys – you cannot ram your ideology down someone’s throat. That someone will vomit on your face one day and in all likelihood you will drown in your own vomit …

      God Bless!

  9. bloodfarmer said

    Even with Democracy being the new trend in the east, least to say countries like Egypt, Pakistan will never know freedom until they are free of religion, nobody in these and similar countries want separation of law and religion. The dominant reason for US tumble downhill is because of its immigration policies, which allow citizenship to parasites who know nothing about nor value freedom. People who studied from their respective government funded education (Thanks to the hardworking Taxpayer)to finally getting a job abroad for a better salary. These socialist parasites come to US as doctors, engineers taxi drivers and want the US Constitution to change to accommodate them…Infact the US have themselves forgotten the concept of Freedom of Speech, where they fail to respect other peoples right to hold their own racist, democratic, fascist etc VIEWS. Remember Potential is not an Absolute, Just because i match your perception of how a serial killer should/may look, it dosent still make me one…There are way too many Americans who are anti-islam than anti-religion

  10. Chameleon said

    In the perhaps unlikely event that someone is actually interested in an intelligent discussion and not just ad hominem attacks or venting (i.e., attacking the poster or banging the demonization drums as a comforting substitute for thinking), I will address the verses above as evidence to the charge that Islam is not a “peaceful and tolerant religion”. There are many verses quoted (roughly 50), so I will try my best to be brief on each and to bundle related ones together.

    As an aside, I am using a specific, highly respected translation of the Quran, which I heartily encourage others to seek out (Amazon and other sources have it for a very reasonable price). It is by Ahmed Ali, with the latest publication being in 2001, I believe. For example, one of the most noticeable differences is the use of the English word God instead of Allah. For those who think that the name “Allah” is some strange proper name like Zeus, Krishna or Big Al, please keep in mind that it is not derived from any proper name at all. It is merely a contraction of the words “al illah”, meaning “the God” with a capital G (i.e., the one and only God), as opposed to “a god” (possibly one of many gods). In fact, Arab-speaking non-Muslims say ‘Allah’ to refer to God just as Muslims do.

    Overall, I do find it quite ironic that the whole point of the post was to show the message of Islam as being one of aggression and terrorist/fear-mongering by Muslims against non-Muslims, when in fact it demonstrates exactly the opposite: aggression and fear-mongering against Muslims. Below are my comments corresponding to the verses noted in the post above.

    2:89, 2:93, 2:97, 3:10, 3:151, 9:19, 9:49, 47:8, 98:6, 111:1-5: All of these verses simply emphasize the same basic message that being a believer is good, and being an unbeliever is bad. This is the same message of every religion on planet earth. The only difference is that Islam places extra emphasis on how bad dying as an unbeliever really is. The consequences in the hereafter are most certainly severe, which the Quran makes exceedingly clear without any sugarcoating. These verses have absolutely nothing to do with violent or aggressive actions of Muslims on earth, which the poster was clearly trying to highlight somehow by association.

    3:19: This is misquoted in the first sentence. The correct translation is as follows: “The true way with God is peace.” It is quoted above as “The only true faith in God’s sight is Islam.” What the rest of the verse is pointing out is that those of the people of the Book (generally considered to be Jews and Christians) who deny the message of the Quran are in fact denying the message of their own religion because of differences that they created after their own book was revealed, which had the same message as Islam. It is not saying that only Islam is right and what Jesus or other prophets taught is wrong. How could that possibly be the case, since Jesus and all key Jewish prophets are considered revered prophets of Islam?

    3:110, 9:30: Again, a misquote. When referring to the people of the Book, it says that “only some believe, and transgressors are many”. The fact that Islam acknowledges that some of them could be considered believers is much more than mainstream Christianity would ever acknowledge about Muslims (i.e., ALL Muslims would not be saved because they don’t believe that Jesus is God and Savior). Given that Muslims believe that there is no god but God (the core tenet of the religion) and that God has no partner, son, mother, etc., how could it possibly be otherwise that Islam would consider most Christians to be transgressors? As a side note, there are some denominations of Christianity that reject the godhood of Jesus and his dying on the cross for everyone’s sins, since they know the true history of how the teachings of Jesus were changed. The “son of God dying for everyone’s sins” story is verifiably derived from numerous pagan religions, which is how Jesus was turned from a prophet into a savior god. It is too much to cover here, but please read up on how the contents of the Bible were decided upon at the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325 under the direct political oversight of emperor Constantine, who was primarily interested in uniting the Roman empire comprising many fragmented pagan religions under one powerful religion — Christianity. To do so, he had to force compromises onto the official religion of Christianity to make it as attractive as possible to those who worshipped pagan human savior gods, such as Mithras and others. This same message is repeated in verse 9:30, where the Quran categorically condemns any assertion that God has a son, which some sects of Jews were guilty of as well, in referring to Ezra as the son of God. Finally, 9:30 does not say “Allah fights them” for attributing sons to God, since God does not engage in “fights”, which is an act in this world. It says “May they be damned by God”, which is God’s punishment in the hereafter.

    4:76, 4:89, 4:95, 3:28, 5:51, 8:74, 9:38, 9:41, 9:44, 9:111 and 47:20: These verses essentially state that one should fight against oppression and in self-defense against unbelievers and not make friends with hypocrites who are capable of fighting but refuse to fight for selfish reasons or fear of grave responsibility (47:20). Since when is fighting against oppression and in self-defense in any way immoral, and how could it not be more honorable and rewarding to fight for a just cause than to shirk your responsibility and let others fight for you (which is the basic message of 4:95, 8:74, 9:38, 9:41, 9:44 and 9:111)? You may be an idealistic pacifist if you believe this philosophy (in which case I accept your view as at least being consistent), but, if not, you are contradicting the views of just about every American or other national patriot who honors the soldiers who fight for their country. The justification for fighting in the Quran here is clarified in 4:75, where it says “What has come upon you that you fight not in the cause of God and for the oppressed?” and in 4:84 where it says “You cannot compel anyone except your own self: but urge the believers to fight. It may well be that God will keep back the might of the infidels” (i.e., in defending against their attack). And again, in 4:90, where it refers to the hypocrites who refuse to fight for a just cause: “If they keep aloof and do not fight, and offer peace, God has left you no reason to fight them.” Fighting hypocrites simply because they are hypocrites is categorically not allowed, but fighting them when they openly oppose and fight against you is allowed (i.e., when they fight against resistance of oppression and want to make friends or allies with the oppressors instead). This is the same message of both 3:28 and 5:51, where it emphasizes not to prefer unbelievers as friends (better translated as “allies”) in preference to (i.e., to the disadvantage of) believers. The context for verse 3:28 is quite clear, but for verse 5:51, it becomes more clear in the context of verses 5:54 and 5:59, where it emphasizes that it is wrong to give a preference in alliance to those who despise you and “mock and make a sport of your faith” over those who share your faith. How is this natural affiliation not logical or morally consistent in the same way that just about any normal human being would and should behave?

    4:101, 60:1-2: The opening part of this verse was conveniently omitted by the poster, where it qualifies when unbelievers are “your open enemies”. It is as follows: “When you travel in the land there is no sin if you curtail your service of prayer if you fear the unbelievers may harass you, for indeed your open enemies are the infidels”. Once again, it is emphasizing that unbelievers are not enemies simply because they are unbelievers, but because (i.e., if and when) they harass you, such as when you are vulnerable, traveling out in the open. This is the same message as 60:1-2, where it emphasizes that you should not take God’s enemies or your enemies as your friends. It makes clear here that they have deserved the title of “enemy” not simply because they are unbelievers, but because of their oppression of Muslims in the past and their likely oppression of Muslims in the future. This sounds merely like common sense to me and the same advice that any human being should follow, Muslim or not.

    48:28-29: The word “harsh” should actually be translated instead as “firm”, which makes a huge difference to the meaning. “Harsh” implies active, even unilateral, aggression; whereas “firm” implies strong resistance – for example, in the way I am being firm here in my rebuttal. Moreover, based on the clear and unambiguous rules of engagement outlined in suras 2, 9 and elsewhere, as well as the strong call to fight to resist persecution and oppression in the immediate context, unilateral aggression implied by the mistranslated word “harsh” has no contextual support whatsoever. That interpretation would be completely contradictory to all Islamic doctrine.

    61:9 and 9:33: Another misquoted word is at issue in verse 61:9, where “dominate” is substituted by the poster to imply active aggression. Notice how the meaning changes completely with the correct translation: “It is He who sent His Apostle with the guidance and the true way to raise it above all faiths, however the idolaters may dislike it.” Historically, this is exactly what happened in Mecca, where the Kaaba housed hundreds of idols and numerous idolatrous faiths until Islam came to displace them all. The comparison is to idolaters, not Christians or Jews. Moreover, even in a non-historical context, it clearly implies a meaning of higher status or esteem in terms of recognition by God (“raise it above all faiths”), not domination or oppression by Muslims. Once again, there is no support in the Quran or in the practice of any prophet of Islam for domination or oppression of other faiths. Almost the same wording is repeated in 9:33, where it emphasizes that Islam came “with guidance and the true faith in order to make it superior to other systems of belief” (particularly Christianity and Judaism mentioned immediately before in 9:30). These beliefs had gone astray from their original teachings, per 9:30, by creating partners with God, in contradiction of the First Commandment common to both Jews and Christians: “You shall have no other gods before me”. This commandment is, of course, the same one that transcends all others in Islam: “There is no god but God”. Now isn’t that an interesting connection?

    60:3: This emphasizes, like many other verses in the Quran, how everyone is responsible for their own faith and actions, and that no one can bear the spiritual burden of anyone else. No one will be able to help you on the Day of Judgment/Resurrection, not even your family. We are all 100% accountable — no original sin baggage before birth and no free pass from a god who has to commit suicide and be resurrected in order to forgive humans of sin after their death. In Islam, God is the Most Gracious and the Most Merciful, which is emphasized over and over and over again in the Quran, so there is still a “pass” of grace, but it is not “free” in the sense of irresponsibly free. One must be truly repentant and ask for forgiveness to earn it, not simply accept a man-god as a savior at one point in time in one’s life.

    59:2-3: This is clearly referring to an historical incident due to the referencing of specific events in the past tense. Although one doesn’t need historical context to get the basic message of the verse, it is quite helpful in getting the full message and in preventing misinterpretations implied by the poster above. In this historical incident, the faith of the Muslims was tested severely by nothing less than outright treason from one of their sworn allies, which caused Muslim lives and property to be lost. It has nothing to do with a generalized prescription of aggression. In the end, after a period of siege, those who committed the treason against Muslims were banished. However, before leaving, they destroyed many of their own homes and palm trees out of spite so that they could not be used by the Muslims.

    2:191, 2:193: This is an egregious case of the poster both misquoting and taking quotes completely out of context to imply a totally opposite meaning: intolerance and injustice instead of unequivocal tolerance and justice. First of all, anyone who is violently attacked via oppression or persecution is fully entitled to defend themselves by fighting back. To believe otherwise is simply pacifist folly. If you believe that fighting back in any way equates to terrorism, then you should be the first to denounce the Declaration of Independence as a terrorist manifesto, since most of it is a laundry list of oppressions by the British as a justification for fighting back; moreover, you should be even more staunchly opposed to the unilateral, non-defensive military actions of the U.S. around the world. Second, verse 193 does not say keep fighting until “religion is for Allah”. It says “Fight them until persecution (or ‘sedition’) comes to an end, and the law of God prevails.” Does this mean in any way to keep fighting until Islamic law dominates? The final part of verse 193, which the poster conveniently omitted, answers that very question: “If they desist, then cease to be hostile, except against those who oppress.” The “law of God” is simply referring to the law of justice against persecution, which just happens to be also the law of every democratic country. Third, the poster also conveniently started with verse 191 and omitted verse 190, which puts into context why and when such fighting is allowed, and what are the strict limits put upon the definition and response to “persecution”: “Fight those in the way of God who fight you, but do not be aggressive: God does not like aggressors.” Please explain to me what part of terrorism, the most aggressive form of violence, is even remotely implied here.

    5:12-16: Once again, the poster has conveniently omitted crucial wording. Verses 5:12-13 are referring to the “people of Israel” and its 12 tribes, which includes not just Jewish descendants, but Christian and Muslims ones as well. It states that these people “…distort the words of the Scripture out of context, and have forgotten some of what they were warned against. You will always hear of treachery on their part except that of a few. But forbear and forgive them, for God loves those who do good.” Did it say to attack or terrorize them because of this treachery, or simply because they are unbelievers? No, quite the opposite — it said to “forbear and forgive them”, which was totally omitted from the post above. As for the quote regarding Christians, it states that the “enmity and hatred” was caused “among them” (i.e., between Christians themselves, not between Muslims and Christians, which could be implied by the poster’s translation above); the bloody history of Christians fighting amongst themselves certainly validates this verse to date.

    5:64: So why are some Jews cursed “for saying what they say”? The poster omitted this: They said “Bound are the hands of God.” Clearly, saying that God is “bound” in any way would be considered anathema to just about any Jew or Christian even today, so I don’t see what objection there could be to this verse. The verse is not implying that all Jews are corrupt, but that many are, not because they are Jews or non-Muslims, but because they are no longer following the original teachings of their own prophets, who are also prophets of Islam (verses 5:65-66 immediately after this verse clearly emphasize this explanation).

    7:4: The way this verse has been translated makes it sound like God is committing random acts of terror in destroying villages — kind of like a Chief Terrorist Officer bogeyman leading by example for all the “Muslim” terrorists out there. Omitted from this wording, of course, are the key words “retribution” (in this actual verse) and “punishment” in the very next verse (7:5). In fact, it was not just a punishment, but it was a punishment so well deserved that those who were punished acknowledged it as such just before it “overtook them”: “And when our punishment overtook them they had nothing to say except crying out: ‘We have indeed been sinners.'””

    8:12, 8:14, 8:39, 8:59-60, 8:65 and 47:4: I sound like a broken record here, but yet again, crucial verses were both omitted and mistranslated. Verse 8:13 (omitted between 8:12 and 8:14 quoted above) makes it clear that once again fighting is “in retribution” for those who have persecuted Muslims. Moreover, verse 8:15, also omitted immediately after, makes it clear that fighting with extraordinary courage is advocated “when you meet unbelievers on the field of battle; do not turn your backs on them.” Without these verses, it could be interpreted that Muslims are to attack unbelievers whenever and wherever they can, unilaterally. With these verses, however, such an interpretation has no possible validity. Possessing strong courage in a just and fair battle is honorable in any culture that has ever survived in history, so please tell me what is wrong with such a virtue in military combat? Verse 8:39 makes it clear once again that fighting is to stop once persecution of Muslims ends. It does not say “until the religion of Allah reigns supreme”, but “until the law of God prevails” (i.e., justice prevails), just like my note above for verse 2:193. Verses 8:59-60 do not advocate terrorism, but rather military deterrence, which is what every country on earth does to protect itself — i.e., to prepare for possible war and to make your preparations known to your enemies (both those you know and don’t know) so that they are deterred from attacking out of fear and so that you don’t have to fight. This message is exactly the opposite of aggression, let alone terrorism! Verse 8:65 hints at the historical reality of early Islam, where Muslims were almost always heavily outnumbered in battles, which is both why extraordinary courage was advocated to overcome such odds (even up to 10:1 in ratio of combatants) and why verse 8:60 emphasized deterrence strategies to avoid fighting if at all possible. Verse 47:4 continues on the same theme as the verses in sura 8. It is clearly permissible to fight against the unbelievers not because they are unbelievers, but because they “obstruct (others) from the way of God” (i.e., persecute Muslims because of their faith), per verse 47:1. According to the full wording of 47:4 (omitted, of course, yet again), fighting must stop after the unbelievers have been “overpowered” after which it says to “…hold them in bondage. Then either free them graciously or after taking a ransom, until war shall have come to an end.” This is no different from the rules of war and peace of modern democratic nations. By contrast, the mistranslated and partial quote above implies some sort of absurd non-stop rampage that Muslims are commanded to pursue until everyone else is dead.

    Sura 9 (verses 1, 3, 5, 14, 26, 29, 73, and 123): Sura 9 elaborates extensively on the “rules of engagement” of Islam in warfare, among other themes. Contrary to the perception painted by the poster above, it is by no means a free-for-all attack on everything non-Muslim — it is quite the opposite. Under no circumstances is a unilateral attack warranted, even against idolaters, per verse 6, which — you guessed it — was conveniently omitted by the poster: “If an idolater seeks protection, then give him asylum that he may hear the word of God, then escort him to a place of safety, for they are people who do not know.” And, further, in verse 7, also omitted: “Therefore as long as they are honest with you, be correct with them, for God loves those who are godly.” Verse 9:1 does not say “Allah with humiliate the unbelievers”, but that “God can put the unbelievers to shame” (note “can” instead of “will”, since it is a consequence that the idolaters should be made aware of as a warning if they break a treaty, not what will happen regardless of their choices). Treaties are a key point of sura 9, in general, as verse 1 immediately introduces to the reader. When an ally openly breaks a treaty to your detriment and suffering and becomes your enemy, this is an act of treason and open war requiring proportionate retaliation. Verses 12 and 13, again omitted above, state this very clearly: “If they break their pledge (treaty) after giving their word and revile your faith, fight those specimens of faithlessness, for surely their oaths have no sanctity: they may haply desist. Will you not fight those who broke their pledge and plotted to banish the Apostle, and who were the first to attack you?” Even in modern democracies such as the U.S., acts of treason are punishable by death. In Islam, they are punishable by retaliation, though not necessary by death, since retaliation must stop when traitors desist and are subdued. Verses 1, 3, 5, 14, 26, and 29 of sura 9 emphasize this punishment as retaliation on those who break treaties and attack first. Verse 9:73 is mistranslated and should say instead: “Strive, O Prophet, against the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and deal with them firmly.” Once again, it emphasizes “firmly”, not “harshly”, which implies strong resistance rather than aggression, and it emphasizes to “strive against”, not attack. This verse is also directed specifically to the Prophet and therefore his historical experience, which was one of constant persecution and oppression by unbelievers, who were in much greater numbers than Muslims. To interpret this as a generalized command for all future Muslims to be harsh with all non-Muslims, let alone attack them unilaterally and indiscriminately, is patently absurd. Verse 9:123 presents essentially the same message. It urges firm resistance against unbelievers who “gird you about” (i.e., surround or besiege you), per Yusuf Ali’s more nuanced translation, when it becomes inevitable that fighting must occur to escape. It is almost shocking how drastically this changes the meaning vs. the translation of the poster above, from one of injustice and intolerance to one of universally accepted justice in resisting oppressive intolerance.

    I have now gone through every last one of the verses above. In every case, without exception, the argument that Islam is not peaceful or tolerant is completely unsupported by the evidence presented. If these counter-arguments are not enough, let me now present just two new quotes from the Quran as arguments to add to the mix to leave no doubt about the unequivocal message of peace and tolerance in Islam:

    “Whosoever kills a human being, except (as punishment) for murder or for spreading corruption in the land, it shall be like killing all humanity; and whosoever saves a life, saves the entire human race.” (5:32).

    “Permission is granted those (to take up arms) who fight because they were oppressed. God is certainly able to give help to those who were driven from their homes for no other reason than they said: ‘Our Lord is God.’ And if God had not restrained some men through some others, monasteries, churches, synagogues and mosques, where the name of God is honoured most, would have been razed. God will surely help those who help Him. Verily God is all-powerful and all-mighty.” (22:39-40).

    Please explain how these two verses fit into a terrorist worldview of Muslims who, as the poster states, must “fight until there is no other religion but Islam”. How could such an unparalleled value placed on human life vs. any other religion in the world possibly permit killing of innocent individuals via terrorism or any other means? How does it possibly make sense that non-Muslims should be attacked at every opportunity, when in fact the Quran not only forbids unilateral attacks, but also enjoins fighting against oppression to protect monasteries, churches, and synagogues too? Not only that, Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) even allowed Christians to share and pray at a mosque when their church was destroyed. Please tell me, what non-Muslim religion returns such a favor of tolerance in its doctrine to advocate fighting to protect mosques or to share its houses of worship with Muslims under extraordinary circumstances?

    • Muralidhar said

      Clearly u have no knowlege on the concept of abrogation

    • Alom Islam said

      Is 5:32 not addressed to the children of Israel directly and only them?

      fight until there is no other religion but Islam, is this not a universal and timeless call to fight anyone that is no muslim? Is that ok? It does no sound peaceful to call to fight against someone that is different to you. Imagine if a white supremacist went on TV and said,” fight anybody that is not white”. Is that not a terrible and non-peaceful thing to say? That is a call to war and cannot be stopped until islam is the only religion.

      Sorry I cannot seem to find your comments regarding verses 2:191 and 4:89. Forgive me if I have missed your comments.

      And finally, I am an apostate. By order of the quran I should be put to death. Can you explain where my freedom of religion is in this situation? Is that a contradiction? Would a book given to us by a deity not be perfect and not have such contradictions? Thats right, it would not. Right there is my proof it was dictated by a man and not a deity. Please feel free to refute this statement with proof it was given by God and no a man.

      • Alom Islam said

        Sorry I see 2:191 now. So does not being allowed to have Islam as the only religion constitute persecution? If the quran says there should be no other religion but the infidel countries repress your supposedly god given right to this then surely you are persecuted daily and in that case must fight. Are muslims not told to over throw non-muslim nations or else face the same fate as non-believers? What is the best kind of Jihad according to the quran?

    • Xena said

      Chameleon, you certainly have a vast amount of patience (this also applies to the ongoing thread that follows below… I’m still reading and will keep doing so). I’m generally critical of most of the major world’s religions, and the Abrahamic ones in particular, but it’s always good to see an enlightened ambassador for any of these faiths – which you certainly seem to be. It appears to me, from this thread and many others that I have scanned, that the major problem here (and one that leads to endless arguments – as is so clearly demonstrated on this page) is the ambiguity of many of these oft-quoted verses within the Quran. Again, from what I have read, this is probably true of the verses even within their broader context (you might argue against such a point, and honestly I am not equipped to go up against you, though it would be fun!) – but especially when the verses are isolated ‘out of context’. Perhaps the book’s often praised poetic style is partially to blame?

      In any case, would that more interpreters (both advocates of Islam, and Islamophobes) could take your slant. The fact that there are many who do not share your interpretation – as is evident from Islamophobe threads such as this, on the one hand, and from the impressive amount of blood that has been shed due to what would you might term ‘misinterpretations’ of the original text, on the other – leads me to believe that even though I am not a scholar of the book itself, and regardless of its intentions, it is a very dangerous text in the so very fallible hands of humans. That said, in the wake of what has happened yesterday (22 May) in London, very close to where I live, I am again taking up my old copy of the Quran and trying to understand how all this works. In the words of another kind of prophet (forgive me – us agnostics have a pretty shallow Pantheon!): Lord, what Fools these Mortals be.

      I would welcome your response, though it does seem you have your hands full!

      • Chameleon said

        Xena, contrary to popular propaganda, there is no real ambiguity in the verses when one looks at the original Arabic — certainly not enough to change the meaning from one of justice to one of injustice. I have challenged others on many occasions to prove me wrong, and so far no one has succeeded. The real problem is framing the issue in terms of violence = evil, which is a false dichotomy, or Islam as a “religion of peace” rather than the more appropriate “religion for peace”. Sometimes war and violence are necessary to defend the innocent, to protect peace or to stop persecution and oppression because of the aggression of others. Any ideology that bans all violence is a foolish and impractical ideology. These principles of justice are enshrined in what is called “Just War Theory” (Wikipedia has a pretty good summary of it), the most modern and ethical standard of warfare. Islam is 100% in compliance with this standard.

  11. […] […]

  12. jhem said

    these verses really shocked me.. i’m living and friend with a muslim family. i eat with them, im staying in one place with them for more than 2 years now. Im a catholic christian. my muslim friend even send me to church every saturday to attend mass. but they never tell me a thing about non believer of their religion. all they say is that be good to non muslims. they also told me things about Jesus (Isa), who is Jesus according to Quran. I cannot debate on them about religion because honestly, for now, i dont have yet the deeper knowledge of the religion as well as the bible, all i know is that I accept Lord Jesus as my God and Savior who will give us eternal life, I pray to Jesus every seconds i have and to Jesus whom I surrendered myself and everything about me. but despite living in a Islam dominated country, i was never discouraged to love Jesus. In fact, it inspires me more to study the Word of God because I love what the bible says about Jesus. Being with Jesus gives me peace, not war. He teaches us to love one another, believers or not. Im not a hater of non believer of Jesus. But it just made me sad what i just read above.

  13. Chameleon said

    I haven’t been on this site in a very, very long time. I don’t have time to address all the points now, but I am trying to put some writings of mine on a web site for easier access once I pull everything together and flesh out some of the discussions a bit. It will take a few months at least, but let me know if anyone is interested, and I will try to circle back to this website to post the link. Nevertheless, I will try to quickly address a few points here:

    Jhem: I am glad you have found peace. However, I would encourage you to read up on the history of how Jesus became God, and how that then became the new de facto version of Christianity, via the political machinations of Constantine in the early 4th century. The historical facts are undeniable if you dare to read them. Also, with respect to your pacifist views on war, I hope you do realize that war is sometimes a necessity to protect the weak, the oppressed, and persecuted, and as a justified means of self-defense when attacked. This is what is called Just War Theory (Wikipedia summarizes it fairly well), which is the most just, ethical and modern standard of warfare in the world today. This is the standard that Islam complies with. I have challenged many individuals to show me where in the Quran Just War Theory is violated, and so far not a single individual has ever succeeded. That is why I don’t want to waste more time regurgitating these points. I just want to pull them all together, put them on a web site and just link to them in the future. That said, I will give you the chance to give me your one best example of a set of integrated, contiguous verses in the Quran that you strongly believe violates Just War Theory. Please respect the fact that I don’t have all day to entertain more than that.

    Muralidhar: I have similarly challenged many people to show me where even one verse in the Quran contradicts another verse to prove that some verses are nullified and “abrogated” by other verses. So far not a single person has been able to win this debate against me either. This is nonsense invented by so called “scholars” of Islam so that they can justify their paychecks in giving phony opinions to politicians/monarchs on how some parts of Islam can be ignored. It was then seized upon by Islamophobes in a very large propaganda campaign. Clearly you have been imbibing some serious amounts of their Kool-Aid. I will give you the chance to give me your one best example of a contradiction. Please respect the fact that I don’t have all day to entertain more than that.

    Alom Islam: You say you are an apostate from Islam, but it is quite clear that you have no idea what you became an apostate from. For one, there is no penalty at all, let alone the death penalty, for mere apostasy in the Quran. In Islam, your choice of faith is absolute and free, which is very clear. You say that this apostasy verse exists, but I assure you it does not, and I challenge you to find it. Quite the contrary, indeed, I can point you to verses in the Quran that acknowledge one can not only become an apostate without punishment noted, but also become a believer (i.e., Muslim) AGAIN after becoming an apostate. There is also not even a hint of punishment implied if someone remains an apostate. How could becoming a Muslim again be possible after a person is executed for being an apostate? So are you making the argument that Muslim zombies must exist, coming back as the undead? As for verses 2:191-3, there is nothing in these verses mentioning the word “Islam” or “until everyone is Muslim”. It uses the Arabic words “dinu lillahi”, meaning “way of life is for God”, which implies when law and order are restored after “fitna”, which means wanton chaos, destruction and oppression in opposition to the basic laws of God under all religions. Note that both Jews and Christians have always called God “Allah” too, since that is just the Arabic word for God. Therefore, there is no implication that “for God” means “for Islam only”. If the Quran would have meant that, then it would have specifically used the word Islam, but it did not. Also, there are ELEVEN times in these verses where it emphatically constrains all fighting to be for the sake of nothing more than self-defense and re-establishing basic law and order. There is simply no possible way to twist an aggressive kill order out of these verses just because someone has another religion besides Islam. That interpretation is utterly absurd. You also ask some silly questions like “Are muslims not told to over throw non-muslim nations or else face the same fate as non-believers?” Please reference verses that supposedly say this nonsense so that you don’t waste my time. The short answer, of course, is No. As for the “proof” that you ask for, I have none to prove that God exists or that Islam is the only correct religion. If God had intended to give us any proof, then it would no longer be called “faith”, now would it? We are here to make that choice, not to prove it.

    • Alom Islam said

      Qur’an Surah 4. An-Nisaa, Ayah 89 or Qur’an 4:89 [45] states that “They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing: But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they (Apostate) turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them”. This command to kill or slay is in all mainstream translations.

      • Chameleon said

        Alom: The word “apostate” does not exist in the Quran here. You added it in parentheses, which is a blatantly false interpolation. The fight here is not against mere apostates, but against traitors who joined those who fought against the Muslims.

        Also, the word “friends” is wrong, and it should be “protective allies” according to the Arabic meaning, implying a political/military alliance, not a personal relationship. The word “flee” is also incorrect, since it should be “emigrate” (“yuhajiru”), referring to the Muslims who joined the emigrants to Medina after being forced out of Mecca. This verse has a very specific historical context that you are completely ignoring. Many of the “Muslim” hypocrites who remained behind decided to stay and side with the Meccans instead, who were fighting and oppressing the Muslims. That is why these hypocrites are called “renegades”, because they turned against the Muslims and joined the enemy, not because they had a simple change of spiritual conscience or faith. In fact, it is not even referencing a change of faith at all in this verse, just the fact that they were renegades in joining the enemy. Even in modern democratic societies, the penalty for treason is death. However, in this case, there is not even a death penalty or any unconditional command to kill just because the hypocrites chose to remain behind with the enemy. How do we know this? Just continue reading, which apparently you forgot to do.

        It is obvious what you are missing here is verse 4:90, which comes immediately next and is actually a continuation of the same sentence started in verse 4:89. It states, “Except those who take refuge with a people allied to you, or those who, weary of fighting you or their people, come over to you. If God had so willed He would surely have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. If they keep aloof and do not fight, and offer peace, God has left you no reason to fight them.” In other words, fight those who fight you, and desist when they stop, which is a universally ethical standard of warfare. Moreover, your claim is utterly ignorant of the fact that verses 4:89-91 address the fighting of combative Muslim hypocrites within the existing Muslim community, not the fighting of mere apostates. And even if you irrationally insist in your own imagination that this verse is referring to mere apostates, then you still shoot yourself in the foot by trying to argue that all apostates should be killed. Why? Because in the very next verse it unambiguously states, “If they keep aloof and do not fight, and offer peace, God has left you no reason to fight them”. In other words, as long as your imaginary “apostates” keep aloof and stop fighting the Muslims, Muslims cannot even fight them, let alone kill them! So much for the so called “death penalty”, eh?

        You also omitted the entirety of verse 4:91 — including the precondition of self-defense in the same sentence as that phrase. Here is the entire verse: “You will find persons who, while wishing to live in peace with you as well as with their own people, turn to civil war the moment they are called to it. If they do not keep away from you, nor offer you peace nor restrain their hands, seize them and kill them wherever they are. We have given you a clear sanction against them.” Again, fight those who insist on fighting you is the message, which is a universally valid justification for war — once again, in full 100% compliance with Just War Theory.

      • Alom Islam said

        Is it ok to marry a child?

      • Chameleon said

        No, I definitely do not believe it is OK to marry a child. Quran verse 4:6 is very clear in defining when a child has “grown up” (“yakbaru”), i.e., when he or she is no longer considered a child by the community. What may be quite surprising to you is that the Quran also happens to agree with modern social criteria for adulthood. This is, quite naturally, the same time when such individuals have “reached the age of marriage” (“balaghū l-nikāḥa”).

        So when is that time? It is when a child has “grown up” (implying relatively complete physical growth) to have “sound judgment” (“rush’dan”) sufficiently enough that they are now able to manage ALL of their wealth and finances. Not only that, per verse 4:6, they must also be “tested” (“ib’talu”) first to demonstrate that they do in fact have sound judgment to act independently as an adult. Finally, note how this verse specifies that this is exactly the same time that the wealth of orphans is formally handed over to them to manage on their own, as a genuine gesture of their recognized independence and adulthood. How could that possibly fit the definition of any child? It is quite simple, really, and the Quran shows tremendous wisdom in not nailing down an absolute age, which could be severely abused if an arbitrary age were specified before a child’s maturity could be proven or too late after many individuals have long been ready for a marital relationship. Therefore, per the Quran, there is a very objective test and demonstration of adulthood: 1) proven sound judgment, 2) responsibility over ALL of one’s own wealth and maintenance (or at least the capacity to do so for those who are not orphans), 3) having physically “grown up”, and 4) being in a state of independence to make the marital choice that one wants. Note how the “age of marriage” is reached concurrently with the wealth being formally transferred to an orphan, thereby clearly implying independence and adulthood being achieved PRIOR TO the marriage ceremony.

        It is quite funny, really, how predictable you guys are, almost right on cue, in bringing this up. You are no doubt alluding to what I call the “holy grail of Islamophobes” or the “ad hominem nuclear weapon against Islam” — or what you more likely call the “pedophile prophet” argument, that Ayesha was married when she was six years old. This is a bunch of rubbish based on a phony set of hadiths all narrated through the same Iraq community (led by a father and son who emigrated from Medina), which was later labeled as quite unreliable by scholars. Based on other historical sources, Ayesha was most likely between 18-20 years old at marriage, and she was the daughter of the next leader after Muhammad and a strong leader of Muslims long after Muhammad’s death, not some sexually abused child. Unfortunately, even most Muslims are ignorant on this point and resort to defending the incorrect age of marriage based upon provably flawed hadiths. The logic and facts are unmistakable, as discussed in depth on You can also find the same arguments from the original author of the analysis in a more summary form at the following link: Sorry – the arguments are too long to copy here.

        In addition to the research and analysis on the website I just referenced, I have done some of my own to put what I believe is going to be the final nail in the coffin in this falsehood. I still need some primary source proof, though, which will require obtaining some ancient but fairly well known historical books no longer in print.

      • Alom Islam said

        6 or 9 is too young no matter what period in time. Fondling someone that age in the bath and using her thighs is not right.

      • Chameleon said

        Yes, I agree that 6 or 9 could never meet the Quranic threshold for “age of marriage”, nor would it meet the threshold of the early Muslim community. There is no historical record of even a single child marriage of that age as the social norm at the time of the early Muslim community. What makes it even more absurd is that before Ayesha married Prophet Muhammad, she was engaged to another man a couple of years earlier (broken off due to his religion), so that would make her about FOUR years old when she entered into a marital agreement if these hadiths were true. All of these are still more reasons why the hadiths in question are bogus.

      • Tony Listi said

        Which hadiths do you consider authentic and authoritative? Bukhari? Ibn Ishaq?

      • Chameleon said

        All books of hadiths are seriously flawed, so none of them can be relied upon for Islamic law or when the entire meaning of a hadith could swing in totally the opposite direction by the inclusion or omission of a single word, as is usually the case when Islamophobe arguments are made. I consider Bukhari and Muslim hadiths the most reliable, but even those have serious issues, as the Ayesha incident proves — and that is just one example. Even Bukhari and Muslim would openly admit how flawed their narrations are, since almost every incident has multiple versions of hadiths covering it, and not all of them could possibly be right! As for the Sira, they are not even at the same level as hadiths, since there is no chain of authenticated narration behind them. Hadiths describe sunnah, the practice of the Prophet, but this is more or less just equivalent to what we call in modern societies “regulations” that implement the laws of the actual religious doctrine, the Quran. Only the Quran is the source of actual law in Islam. Hadiths provide historical context and flesh out some details of implementation/regulation, but they are not a source of establishing fundamentally new laws and punishments (especially major ones), at least in my opinion, and they certainly cannot contradict the Quran.

    • Alom Islam said

      What does Muhammed say is the best kind if Jihad?

      • Chameleon said

        Jihad literally means “struggle”, not Holy War, not war, and not even fighting. I think you are referring to the “greater jihad”, which is the struggle inside of our own souls/minds vs. the “lesser jihad”, which is the struggle against persecution, oppression and aggression of others. Since you are clearly not interested in Islam as a self-proclaimed apostate, I will not waste any further time answering basic questions about Islam. There are many sources on the Internet for that. I only have a bit of time to address your claims against Islam.

      • Alom Islam said

        Hadith states that the highest kind of Jihad as quoted by Muhammed as being, “The person who is killed whilst spilling the last of his blood.”(Ahmed 4/144)[26]. Why does blood have to be spilled? Is this why the blood of the Banu Querashi tribe was spilled. Any man or child that had reached puberty was slaughtered. Is that ok to do?
        Ibn Ishaq
        Then they surrendered, and the apostle confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of B. al-Najjar. Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy b. Akhtab and Ka`b b. Asad their chief. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the apostle they asked Ka`b what he thought would be done with them. He replied, ‘Will you never understand? Don’t you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return? By Allah it is death!’ This went on until the apostle made an end of them. Huyayy was brought out wearing a flowered robe in which he had made holes about the size of the finger-tips in every part so that it should not be taken from him as spoil, with his hands bound to his neck by a rope. When he saw the apostle he said, ‘By God, I do not blame myself for opposing you, but he who forsakes God will be forsaken.’ Then he went to the men and said, ‘God’s command is right. A book and a decree, and massacre have been written against the Sons of Israel.’ Then he sat down and his head was struck off

        Is it ok to marry a child? You seem to have missed this question time and time again.

        Is it ok to snatch a woman from her home and make her your slave? Sex with that which is a possession of your right hand is permissable to a muslm man. That pertains to his slave women, thereby legalising rape as she is a possession of his right hand. Is that ok? Is it ok to have sex with a woman that you snatched during war. Part of your booty. Did any other prophet ever take booty and insist on a percentage of all war booty. No other prophet went to war because they were truly men of peace.

        Why did Uthman burn copies of the quran, was it to destroy any proof that the quran was not standardised and the word of Allah differed from version to version?

        How did the caliphs get along? Was there always a nice hand over or was there murder and assassinations in the handover of the ruling of islam?

        I think you will notice Muhammed always took the fight to others. Attacking them. How many times in hadith is it mentioned an army marched on Muhammed.

      • Chameleon said

        You ask, “Why does blood have to be spilled?” It’s called war, an unfortunate necessity of stopping persecution and oppression and responding to aggression. Surely, you are not one of those love cult pacifists?

        As for the “those whom your right hands possess” topic, I have totally destroyed the Islamophobe argument that such women are concubines. Sorry, but since I am in the process of finalizing this as part of what I intend to publish, I cannot provide it now. However, let me know if you are interested, and I can circle back in a few months (I hope!) to post a link. Feel free to ping me if it goes beyond 4-6 months.

        You harp on burning unofficial copies of the Quran, but this is a moot point, in my view. There is no record of any significant historical disagreement about what the true Quran was. Why? Because the Quran has not been kept intact for history on stale pieces of paper. It has always been kept intact through memorization by many many individuals. It is protected by what today is called “the wisdom of the crowd”. Every last Quran in the world could be destroyed tomorrow, and I have zero doubt that a full copy could be reproduced from memory tens of thousands of times over the very next day. Even at the time of Uthman, there were hundreds of individuals who memorized the Quran in its entirety. The very name of the Quran and the very first word revealed of the Quran itself (“iqra”) makes this point emphatically: both come from the root word meaning to read/recite.

        You ask, “How did the caliphs get along?” Honestly, I really don’t care too much, since I am not an historian. I care about Islam, and their actions don’t define Islam.

        You state, “I think you will notice Muhammed always took the fight to others.” I think you need to educate yourself by reading some objective biographies of Prophet Muhammad. I don’t have the time to educate you on this issue, but suffice it to say that your portrayal of him as the aggressor is quite mistaken.

        Once again, right on cue, you roll into the Bani Qurayza incident, which is the most violent incident by far in the early Muslim community. This is a copy/paste of my reply to this in totally destroying the capstone argument of the editor and owner of the website After this exchange, he refused to debate me anymore:


        As for the Bani Qurayza, who had not only broken their treaty of mutual protection but had plotted to destroy the Muslims when they were at their most vulnerable, they had agreed to have their fate decided by the Chief of the Aws tribe, Sa’d ibn Mu’adh. The Bani Qurayza already rejected the option to pay the Jizya (“it was preferable to be killed” per the Martin Lings account of how the Bani Qurayza replied), so that was not an option for them. According to the treaty (per Wikipedia), “Jews having their religion and the Muslims having their religion excepting anyone who acts wrongfully and commits crime/acts treacherously/breaks an agreement for he but slays himself and the people of his house.” In other words, the penalty per the treaty of alliance agreed upon with the Muslims was death for criminal treason, and there was no doubt whatsoever by any historical account that the Bani Qurayza were guilty in their criminal act of treason to warrant the agreed upon punishment. They never denied their guilt, and they clearly understood the agreed punishment by all historical accounts. That said, the Bani Qurayza agreed to surrendeer on condition that their former allies, the Aws, be allowed to decide their fate, which was granted. Given the severity of the treachery and potential judgment, clearly it was the obligation of the Chief of the Aws to be appointed to decide the fate of the Bani Qurayza. Here is the account of the appointment of the Chief from Martin Lings, quoting mainly from Sira:

        “The clans of Aws sent a deputation to the Prophet asking him to show their former allies the same leniency that he had shown the Bani Qaynuqa, who had been the allies of Khazraj. He answered them saying: “Will it satisfy you, men of Aws, if one of yourselves pronounce judgement upon them?” And they agreed. So he sent to Medina for their chief, Sa’d ibn Mu’adh…. Some of his clansmen [of the Aws] went to him, and mounting him on an ass they brought him to the camp. “Do well by thy confederates,” they said to him on the way, “for the Messenger of God hath set thee in judgement upon them for no other purpose than that thou mayst treat them with indulgence [i.e., lenience].” (p. 231).

        Then, when Sa’d arrived, here is the account from Martin Lings of Sa’d’s decision against the Bani Qurayza, which had to be accepted by everyone given the unbreakable promises to do so in advance:

        “He [Sa’d ibn Mu’adh] said: “Do ye then swear by God and make by Him your covenant that my judgement shall be the verdict upon them?” “We do,” they [the Aws] said. “And is it binding upon him who is here?” he added, with a glance in the direction of the Prophet, but not mentioning him out of reverence. “It is,” said the Prophet. “Then I judge,” said S’ad, “that the men shall be slain, the property divided, and the women and children made captive.” (p. 232).

        As Martin Lings notes (and Sa’d affirmed, per Wikipedia), this exact verdict was not because of any Islamic doctrine, but rather Jewish doctrine, which the Jews were morally accountable to, per Deuteronomy 20:12: “When the Lord thy God hath delivered it unto thy hands, though shalt smite every male therein with the edge of the sword: but the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt though take unto thyself.” (p. 232 footnote). Also, even the Quran itself commands Muslims to judge Jews and execute their justice according to their own moral code per the Torah, not per the Quran (5:42-44). That is likely why Sa’d judged the way he did. That is also why he used the criterion of puberty to define which males were considered men, since that criterion of manhood is also per the Bible, not per the Quran.

        So how ironic indeed is this outcome. The Bani Qurayza’s fate was not decided by Muhammad, but by their own agreed and approved arbitrator– and not according to Islam, but according to the punishment prescribed by the Bible! Perhaps you need to start another website,, to reveal the lies of pure love in the Bible.

        That said, there are several academically persuasive claims, per Wikipedia, that the scale of the punishment did not take place as the Sira noted, since there is scant account of it anywhere else, including the Quran, which would certainly have made a substantial reference to it given how drastically it stands out vs. other historical incidents in the early Muslim community. At any rate, this is why Islamic doctrine comprises only the Quran and the sunnah, not the Sira. You love historical distractions from actual Islamic doctrine, don’t you? You can’t find any kill order in the Quran whatsoever, so you continue to try to derive one from history. But even here you fail miserably.

    • Marcus Rose said

      The Deity of Christ is written not only in the new testament. It is written in many prophetic scriptures in the Old testament as well. There is so much blood shed in this world by people calling themselves Muslims that it is impossible to describe Islam as a peaceful religion. If there is no instruction to kill why are so many innocent people dying? There are many good peaceful Muslims but that is because they have been taught the peaceful parts of the Quran.

      • Adam said

        How many died in the name of Christianity during the Crusades or the inquisition??

      • Tony Listi said

        The Crusades were a defensive action against Islamic imperialism whose pincers pushed through to modern-day Turkey and Greece in the east and Spain in the west. The abuses of a few crusaders were not intended or condoned by the popes who started and called for crusades. There was nothing wrong with the crusades in themselves.

        The Inquisition:

      • Adam said

        You have got to be kidding me. Yes crusades started out as a push of the Islamic armies whence they came but the slaughter that followed in the name of God against Jews was dealt out by more than just a handful. Put yourself in the blood thirsty, barbaric minds of warriors of that time.
        I am a professor of history and a recnogised expert in ancient documents. You are mistaken if you think the inquisition was anything less than centuries of murder on massive scale.

      • Tony Listi said

        Christianity and the Catholic Church cannot be blamed for any crusaders who disregarded the limited defensive mission given by the popes and who pursued their own greed and/or malice. This is not in any way comparable to a religion like Islam that constantly commands universal imperialism and who’s leader was an imperial military general.

        I don’t care who you are. I’ve provided a link that cites non-Catholic historians that focus specifically on the Inquisition. The Inquisition was not on a “massive scale” at all relative to Islamic imperialism (and many other historical atrocities committed by Protestants, atheists, etc.). You are welcome to read the link and comment on it.

  14. Alom Islam said

    Contradictions :

    The quran makes the following statements regarding the food that unbelievers will have in hell:
    No food will there be for them but a bitter Dhari S. 88:6 Y. Ali
    Nor hath he any food except the foul pus from the washing of wounds, S. 69:36 Y. Ali

    Should Muslims Show Kindness to Parents?
    On the one hand, the quran commands all Muslims to show kindness to their parents, even if they are disbelievers [17:23-24, 31:14-15, 29:8, etc.]. On the other hand, it demands not to show any love or friendship to those who oppose Muhammad, even if they are their parents [9:23, 58:22]

    How many mothers does a Muslim have? Only one [58:2, the woman who gave birth and none else], or two [4:23, including the mother who nursed him], or at least ten [33:6]?

    How many days did Allah need to destroy the people of Aad? One day [54:19] or several days [41:16; 69:6,7]

    Six or eight days of creation? Sura 7:54, 10:3, 11:7, and 25:59 clearly state that God created “the heavens and the earth” in six days. But in 41:9-12 the detailed description of the creation procedure adds up to eight days.

    The list of contradictions goes on and on and on, I could be here all evening. These are but a few. One is enough to show prove no deity had a hand in this jumbled up mess of a book.

    Do you want me to list the abrogations too?

    • Chameleon said

      There is no contradiction at all between 88:6 and 69:36, since they refer to different or specific types of sinners and different times (note use of word “Today”, for example, in verse 69:36).

      There is also no contradiction in verse 41:9-12 vs. the other verses, since this section of verses describes the number of periods or eras (not days!) in each major part of creating/evolving the universe. There is absolutely nothing in these verses to imply that these major parts of creation were done in linear sequence rather than overlapping over time. In fact, science clearly supports that they would have overlapped one another.

      Your other examples are the same, where the context is different, thereby explaining the apparent contradiction. I don’t have all day. If you really believe you are right on something after looking at this context, then pick your best one or two more, and the same for abrogation verses if you like. I don’t have time to waste.

  15. Mitchina said

    I am truly appreciative of all those who came forward that converted away from the cult of Islam and have vlidated that which we already knew as facts. I hve been looking for the verse in the Quran that instructs followers that when there is a contraction within the Quran that the most recently written instruction should be followed and not the instructions from the earlier writtings of the Quran. Is this in the Hadth or Sura and not the Quran?

    • Chameleon said

      Clearly you did not bother to read the above comments. There are no contradictions in the Quran. If you claim otherwise, then the burden of proof is on you. Present your best 1-2 examples of a contradiction within the next week if you accept my challenge.

      • Alom said

        Is this enough contradiction?

        What was man created from, blood, clay, dust, or nothing?
        “Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood,” (96:2).
        “We created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape, (15:26).
        “The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: “Be”. And he was,” (3:59).
        “But does not man call to mind that We created him before out of nothing?” (19:67, Yusuf Ali). Also, 52:35).
        “He has created man from a sperm-drop; and behold this same (man) becomes an open disputer! (16:4).
        Is there or is there not compulsion in religion according to the Qur’an?
        “Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things,” (2:256).
        “And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith,” (9:3).
        “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful,” (9:5).
        Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued,” (9:29).
        The first Muslim was Muhammad? Abraham? Jacob? Moses?
        “And I [Muhammad] am commanded to be the first of those who bow to Allah in Islam,” (39:12).
        “When Moses came to the place appointed by Us, and his Lord addressed him, He said: “O my Lord! show (Thyself) to me, that I may look upon thee.” Allah said: “By no means canst thou see Me (direct); But look upon the mount; if it abide in its place, then shalt thou see Me.” When his Lord manifested His glory on the Mount, He made it as dust. And Moses fell down in a swoon. When he recovered his senses he said: “Glory be to Thee! to Thee I turn in repentance, and I am the first to believe.” (7:143).
        “And this was the legacy that Abraham left to his sons, and so did Jacob; “Oh my sons! Allah hath chosen the Faith for you; then die not except in the Faith of Islam,” (2:132).
        Does Allah forgive or not forgive those who worship false gods?
        Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with Allah is to devise a sin Most heinous indeed,” (4:48). Also 4:116
        The people of the Book ask thee to cause a book to descend to them from heaven: Indeed they asked Moses for an even greater (miracle), for they said: “Show us Allah in public,” but they were dazed for their presumption, with thunder and lightning. Yet they worshipped the calf even after clear signs had come to them; even so we forgave them; and gave Moses manifest proofs of authority,” (4:153).
        Are Allah’s decrees changed or not?
        “Rejected were the messengers before thee: with patience and constancy they bore their rejection and their wrongs, until Our aid did reach them: there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah. Already hast thou received some account of those messengers,” (6:34).
        “The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfillment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all, (6:115).
        None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?” (2:106).
        When We substitute one revelation for another,- and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages),- they say, “Thou art but a forger”: but most of them understand not,” (16:101).
        Was Pharaoh killed or not killed by drowning?
        “We took the Children of Israel across the sea: Pharaoh and his hosts followed them in insolence and spite. At length, when overwhelmed with the flood, he said: “I believe that there is no god except Him Whom the Children of Israel believe in: I am of those who submit (to Allah in Islam). (It was said to him): “Ah now!- But a little while before, wast thou in rebellion!- and thou didst mischief (and violence)! This day shall We save thee in the body, that thou mayest be a sign to those who come after thee! but verily, many among mankind are heedless of Our Signs!” (10:90-92).
        Moses said, “Thou knowest well that these things have been sent down by none but the Lord of the heavens and the earth as eye-opening evidence: and I consider thee indeed, O Pharaoh, to be one doomed to destruction!” So he resolved to remove them from the face of the earth: but We did drown him and all who were with him,” (17:102-103).
        Is wine consumption good or bad?
        O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination,- of Satan’s handwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper,” (5:90).
        (Here is) a Parable of the Garden which the righteous are promised: in it are rivers of water incorruptible; rivers of milk of which the taste never changes; rivers of wine, a joy to those who drink; and rivers of honey pure and clear. In it there are for them all kinds of fruits; and Grace from their Lord. (Can those in such Bliss) be compared to such as shall dwell for ever in the Fire, and be given, to drink, boiling water, so that it cuts up their bowels (to pieces)?” (47:15).
        Truly the Righteous will be in Bliss: On Thrones (of Dignity) will they command a sight (of all things): Thou wilt recognize in their faces the beaming brightness of Bliss. Their thirst will be slaked with Pure Wine sealed,” (83:22-25).

      • Chameleon said

        Please engage your brain and learn to read instead of vomiting hate site lists. I said pick your best 1-2 examples that you personally stand behind. I don’t have time to wasted on hate site BS.

      • Alom said

        But they are legitimate contradictions which is why you will not address them lol. You can’t. It just happens I cooked and pasted just a couple of contradictions. They may be cut and pasted but they are contradictions none the less. If guessed you wiukd find an excuse not to talk about them.. Thank you for iving up to my expectations.

      • Chameleon said

        Alom, I already refuted your “contradictions” in another post. What a joke – now you are coming back for another round, and you don’t have the guts to put your name behind even one of these arguments? What is so difficult about the concept of putting your ass on the line by giving me your best rock solid examples? I will even give you three chances (i.e., examples of “contradictions”) if that makes it more palatable to you. I have scanned through all of your so-called “contradictions”, and they are ridiculously easy to rebut as not contradictory at all. All I am asking for is for you to step up to the plate so that I can strike you out – 1, 2, 3. It is easy to run away when you are just blindly regurgitating and don’t stand behind the arguments being made. I have better things to do than to debate a parrot.

  16. IVY said

    It beat my heart to know that is islam is a religion of war. The muslims were mislead from the beginning. I see the way people condem islam say all sought of things against muslims then I was eager to see what is that quran, when I read some verses I almost share tears. Then I know that the crisis we are facing around the world is not just politica but religion battle. Well I blame the prophet not the fighter because they were brain wash. Islam is a religion of war other religion should be careful with muslims because they see unbeliver (christian) as thire enemy they were told to fight and slay them wherever they see them. With muslims around the world is not a save, I pray Almight God help his children and reduce thire enemies by number in Jesus Name, Amen.

  17. Marcus Rose said

    I have heard that a Muslim is allowed to lie to defend his faith…. I can see a very good examples of that above. To deny that the Quran incites violence is a bare faced lie. We see the evidence all over the world of that shows Islam as a very aggressive bloodthirsty religion.

  18. The best part of Islam is, it is the most liberal religion, how? we can translate the Arabic sermons in our language to suit our needs Each to his own When I bring my translation to challange you, you do not accept it and fish out your own translation by any scholar This has been going on for ages and has created over 72 sects in Islam, each one with his own translation and style of rituals. Whatever is in the Holy Quran is sacred for the Muslims OK. Does muslims follow their Holy Books in toto?
    We see unbelievers in everyone, but the same unbelievers are respected by we Muslims everywhere. When we have to send our children for education, we go to the unbelievers and missionary schools, we even send them to the land of unbelievers for education When we are ill, the unbelievers treat us. We even go to the lands of the unbelievers for treatment For business we are after unbelievers to pass on business to us. Religions only teach hypocrisy Be a good human being and love mankind and animals, this is the road to peace and happiness, otherwise keep blogging and kill yourself with hatered and anger

  19. oli said

    why do Muslims hate Christians and Jews?bus Satan hate Christians and Jews Muslims are making the job easier for Satan.

  20. GO FUCK YOURSELVES, STEREOTYPES!!!!!!!!!!!!!! said

    And I can thing of a million quotes from the Quran that preach love. Don’t believe me? Here are 5 of them
    -“There is no compulsion where the religion is concerned.” (Holy Quran: 2/ 256)
    -“God does not forbid you from being good to those who have not fought you in the religion or driven you from your homes, or from being just towards them. God loves those who are just.” (Surat al-Mumtahana, 8)
    -“You cannot guide those you would like to but God guides those He wills. He has best knowledge of the guided.” (Holy Quran/28: 56)
    -“We have appointed a law and a practice for every one of you. Had God willed, He would have made you a single community, but He wanted to test you regarding what has come to you. So compete with each other in doing good. Every one of you will return to God and He will inform you regarding the things about which you differed.” (Surat al-Ma’ida, 48)
    -“God does not love corruption”. (Surat al-Baqara, 205)

  21. Truth Revealed said

    • Tony Listi said

      She is not an historian and is clearly ignorant of the authoritative history of Muhammad and his early followers/successors as found in the sunna/hadith. Muhammad as a violent imperialist is not something the West made up; it is the image of Islam’s own authoritative historical/traditional texts (sunna/hadith), which are the necessary context for the Quran, which is merely a collection of the sayings of Allah at different points in the history of Muhammad and his followers.

      The notion that one could take the Book of Revelation in a literal or violent manner is pretty laughable to anyone who has read it. Moreover, the early Christian leaders never interpreted it that way, when they mentioned it all. But it’s pretty clear how Muhammad’s successors interpreted the Quran: violence and imperialism for Allah.

  22. […] […]

  23. […] […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: