Contxt of 2:191

1« Previous thread | Next thread »
- justperusing
- Pub Regular
- offline
Contxt of 2:191
OP - December 12, 2014, 02:52 AM

"And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers."

In the Quran there really is no context here. This verse doesn't refer to who these people are that need to be slaughtered or whether or not this is an ongoing command to kill anyone who persecutes you.

I haven't looked into the tafsirs or the hadiths, but vague verses like this that call for extreme violence are very dangerous to have in religious books. This verse has probably provided justification for all kinds of suicide bombers and various other "martyrs." All one has to think is that they are being oppressed and they read this verse which makes them think its ok to kill people you perceive as "persecuting" you.

If this book was written by a God, wouldn't the God have the foresight to carefully qualify this call to violence?

"I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
-Thomas Paine
- billy
- Pub Regular
- Tripitaka ~ Closet Juice
- offline
Contxt of 2:191
Reply #1 - December 12, 2014, 11:34 AM

the context is that it was only for that moment, when Muslims were under attack.

Which begs the question, if so, why did Allah include it in his eternal instruction book and manual?

and why didn't he leave a coda saying, 'this is only for the moment, a historical document and description, don't follow it forever please, thanks guys'?

"we can smell traitors and country haters"

Quote from: arX on May 01, 2011, 03:33 AM
God is Love.
Love is Blind. Stevie Wonder is blind. Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.
- justperusing
- Pub Regular
- offline
Contxt of 2:191
Reply #2 - December 12, 2014, 06:21 PM

That's precisely what I'm saying. Especially if you're a quranist there really is no context to say "this was just for a certain time and place." No we have to rely on documents written more than 200 years afterward that are garbled and contradict to interpret it. All the while, some sick psychopath can easily take this verse to mean he can kill innocent people as long as he feels that they are (or their government is) oppressing them.

If anyone wrote laws regarding capital punishment that were this vague, we would think that lawmaker a dangerous idiot

"I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
-Thomas Paine
- serpentofeden
- Pub Regular
- offline
Contxt of 2:191
Reply #3 - December 12, 2014, 06:53 PM

Quote from: billy on December 12, 2014, 11:34 AM
the context is that it was only for that moment, when Muslims were under attack.

It doesn't actually say that WITHIN the quran though. So basically islamic apologists are saying MY OPINIONS on this part of the quran superceeds Allahs divine words that are IN the quran.

Whenever I ask islamic apologists to show me where in the quran it says that any verse "was only for that time" or "only within context" they haven't been able to provide my NO evidence of it saying that in the quran.
- laico
- Member
- offline
Contxt of 2:191
Reply #4 - December 12, 2014, 08:12 PM

Quote from: serpentofeden on December 12, 2014, 06:53 PM
It doesn't actually say that WITHIN the quran though. So basically islamic apologists are saying MY OPINIONS on this part of the quran superceeds Allahs divine words that are IN the quran.

Whenever I ask islamic apologists to show me where in the quran it says that any verse "was only for that time" or "only within context" they haven't been able to provide my NO evidence of it saying that in the quran.

Don't the verses before and after it provide a context?
- justperusing
- Pub Regular
- offline
Contxt of 2:191
Reply #5 - December 12, 2014, 08:19 PM

2:190 Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.
2:191 And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.
2:192 But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
2:193 And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers.
2:194 The forbidden month for the forbidden month, and forbidden things in retaliation. And one who attacketh you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you. Observe your duty to Allah, and know that Allah is with those who ward off (evil).

Who are the people you are allowed to slay? What constitutes beginning hostilities? What constitutes persecution?

You can always say people are persecuting you or being hostile

"I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
-Thomas Paine
- Nikolaj
- Pub Regular
- Yes, I have a duck fetish!
- offline
Contxt of 2:191
Reply #6 - December 12, 2014, 08:24 PM

Hizb ut-Tahrir Denmark got a sentence in 2004 for using that verse back in 2002 in one of their campaigns here and spokesperson Fadi Abdullaitif got a 2 months suspended sentence for threats against Jews.

Another threat of "exterminate the regent" did in the eyes of the appeals court not constitute a threat against then prime minister (and later NATO Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen) and it lowered the sentence given in the city court from three to two months.

Danish Never-Moose adopted by the kind people on the CEMB-forum
Ex-Muslim chat (Unaffliated with CEMB). Safari users: Use "#ex-muslims" as the channel name. CEMB chat thread.
- Skywalker
- Pub Regular
- offline
Contxt of 2:191
Reply #7 - December 12, 2014, 08:44 PM

justperusing

I think that you could make a good argument that you can fight only those who fight you

2:190 Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you , but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.

The context argument would be that 191 is explained by 190, even when looking from quran only perspective.
- justperusing
- Pub Regular
- offline
Contxt of 2:191
Reply #8 - December 12, 2014, 08:54 PM

Well it is so vague it easily allows terrible violence. For example a Muslim could justify killing a Jew because Israel is "fighting against them." There's no specification of the time period and the vagueness can lead to tragic consequences.

This is not just the case with Islam. Some Orthodox Jews argue over whether the command to purify Canaan of non-Jews apply to today.

This is why holy scripture is so terrible. It is so vague and when it uses violent language it can cause horrible atrocities to be justified. Any God would have been careful to be clear when so much is at stake (and I think this verse in the Quran is one of the worst offenders)

"I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
-Thomas Paine
- moi
- Pub Regular
- offline
Contxt of 2:191
Reply #9 - December 12, 2014, 09:28 PM

How can God speaking ex cathedra to his holy prophet the final revelation have possibly meant any of it for a specific time and place?

If it is context specific it isn't perfect....

When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.

A.A. Milne,

"We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
1« Previous thread | Next thread »