Islam Forbids Aggression Against Innocent People

lolz ok? It seems I need to tackle this before it goes out of hand. The above quoted surah->verse, was delivered during a particular time, thats why it is necessary to know the historical attachments of the revelations of the Quraan before you just pick it up and stand blabbering.

Its as easy as when someone says something at a particular time, under a particular condition and after that event you tend to look back at that specific verse that serve that particular purpose at that time and just assume. Besides that, sometimes there is a misconception on what fight might imply, because it is translated from the word Jihad, which is actually known as evangelism, if translated based from classical arabic and what it signifies. Thats why you have a certain group of muslims such as the "IPCI" founded by the late Ahmed Deedat, still doing that. That is Jihad(Holy war), which is literally Evangelism if properly compared to historical associations besides use.

Now the fight here as said does not mean kill, or go and perform suicide, it means preach the word of God, in relation to what evangelism is all about, and thats why there is reference to those things required for them to believe in, and if they do not, let them pay taxes rather than zakat, because they are under the islamic rulers protection, this is generally during conquest of those threatening their peace and harmony. Now Zakat is the amount of money that every adult, mentally stable, free, and financially able Muslim, male and female, has to pay to support specific categories people.

IF fight means kill in this verse, how would you take taxes from those already dead?

This shows that Islam allows them to use the other conventional system if they do not accept the faith, and hence during the prophets time, you find jews and christians living under the rule, and thats why today if you go to Iraq, Iran you still find christians and jews.

Islam strictly forbids suicide, murder and all sort of atrocities.

Any other question or argument feel free to raise it besides I don't know the translator, whether he is an acceptable one like Pikthall or Yusuf Ali, but nevertheless its relatively ok.

its translated from the word Jihad.  Jihad is used many times in the Quraan and sometimes the translators tend to have difficulties getting the actual word, thats why they check the historical link.

Jihad has two basic meanings, holy war(for self defence) and evangelism.

But did you even take your time to read my post in full and ponder on other points i raised?

I thought I should give you other translations as well of the same verse in Surah 9:29:
YUSUFALI: 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.
PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

You know, this is some of the hyprocicy I see in Islam.  You guys claim christianity is polluted because of the many translations we have, and here you have so many translations as well.  You also pick and choose the one that best fits your pre-determined conclusion, or how else would you say:That's one of the other problems I find with respect to Islam.  Revelations come at will to the Prophet based on the circumstance, like someone said recently that the Prophet married the underaged girl because of some tribes that marry young girls.  Doesn't God predate every circustance?  Does He make laws just to fit into the system?  So if theProphet were alive today, would he receive a new revelation sanctifying gay and lesbian marriage in order to be acceptable to those perverts?  I find in life that to live by principle, you better not be moved by circumstances.  I choose to love everybody not because of what they do to me now or in the future, but based on the principle of 'Love thy neighbour as thyself". 
When your Qu'ran says that you should "fight,  until a group of people become subdued" do you really think it's talking about evangelism?  Don't insult our intelligence.  there is nothing within the context or post-text of that verse that suggests anything but a armed conflict, at least that is what your Prophet practised too. 

And by the way, I only quoted your scriptures because somone asked for one verse in it that advocates violence.

There is no doubt I have a mindset.  This mindset was established through experience and education.  I have no doubt that you are muslims and you practice your religion the best way you deem fit.  However, I do believe the other moslems who believe that if they die killing other "unbelievers" are also practicing what they find in their holy scriptures.  To them, that is a guaranteed way to get into heaven and practice a wild orgy with the blonde Harem that Allah promised them. 
Now if such promise really comes from the Qu'ran, how say ye then it does not promote violence, when in fact, it rewards it?

Please Belloti calm down.
TayoD, all the approved translators of the Quran are accepted by all muslims unlike the bible, I guess you didnt know that. The difference is just the use of the english word, Pickthall for example was british and Yusuf Ali was Indian.

Your other post are deviating from the topic at hand but nevertheless I would pick and answer the ones of relevance.


When we say something like "fight for a cause" and thereafter in that same sentence we describe it do we necessarily mean violence. As i said in every language there is two to three meanings for a single word and so is classical arabic for the word Jihad, and thus applies.

Quran was compiled based on recorded revelations during the lifespan of the prophet, for your clarification. Every single translation that is approved, is accepted by every muslim and hence as i mentioned before although I didnt know the translator , the translation is cool with me.

On the issue of destiny in Islam, it is different from christianities interpretation of destiny. I tackled that in one of the threads here, you might want to read my explanation.

Besides you choose to avoid my point which point towards the interpretation of a word based on the circumstances and having two different meanings. The time frame is recorded and hence used if explanation is needed for use of a particular subject.

Since when fighting for a cause became necessarily violent and thus indicate murders and killings of innocent people?

If I say fight a war, that might indicate violence, but if i say fight for a cause, with conditions explained, that does not necessarily mean violence. Or you don't agree?

We can say leadership based on Democracy. If you live in the USA, you would know better to pay your taxes. Or you would call that a willingly acceptable tax payment? Then why do people fight hard to evade?


Didnt know that, I taught muslims where actually the ones always curious to know . Anywayz it is all good.

Common, be serious.   Moslems more open to critisms and questioning about their faith?  You are joking, right?

The mere fact that an 'unbeliever' is seen carrying a Bible in some Islamic countries, will see them dead.  Why so much fear about the Bible in these lands?  Why do they supress the Bible so much in the Middle East?  It's all because of fear of people finding out that the Qu'ran might not be what it says it is afterall.

Say anything about Mohammed that Moslems don't want to hear, and you turn into their enemies immediately.  Recently in Naija, a riot broke out because a contestant said Mohammed would have probably chosen one of them as a bride he he was alive.  It was God who delievered me from the hands of those Islamo-fanatist that day.  Was anything wrong with what she said?  Is there no posibility of truth in that staement?  I wonder.

Reinhard Bonkke will not be allowed in the North also because of this fear of openess to the truth.  We are not allowed in Saudi to preach our Gospel as it pleases us, yet an image of Mohammed is on the Supreme Court building in America to show his contribution to the development of Law.  Your assertion definitely has no backing.

I understand your stand about all religion should preach peace, but where are the leaders of islam who should be at the fore-front of the crusade?
Recently, a well respected man of God, Pat Robertson made a very stupid statement in the public.  Christians were at the fore-front to run him down and he was voted out of a christian body that he had been part of for a long time.  that is what we are saying.
But what I see on the part of Islamic leaders is consent through silence.  And when they talk, they are issuing fatwa to kill people like rushdie and the cartoonist who are only expressing their God-given right to free speech.

Define what you mean by education? Because from what I know he was just unlettered, which does not imply lack of education or knowledge?

@ idekeson,
Yeah, right. I know you and your Western "crying baby" crusaders would like to see more beaten, down-trodden, and silly Muslims that you could push around at will. Some of us are sent here by Allah as the vanguards of our Deen. And we shall not relent on our efforts, so you crusaders can call us whatever you want, it's all good.

@ Idekeson,
LOL! For real, why is it that you crusaders love to dish out insults, woes, death and what have you but, obviously, don't want the same done to you? Insulting the Muslims and their Prophet, killing their stone-throwing youths, denying their nations of every human right and, when they dare talk, you start calling them "millitants" and "terrorists"? Why? Please, can one crusader just tell me the reason?

The crusading christians "kill innocent people- other people's children, mothers, brothers, fathers, friends"