So the writer of this text succeeded in coming up with a very solid legal-quality text, that is not open to opposite interpretations. Also the writer of the text managed to cover his track as to not come right out and state that you are allowed to lie.
In achieving his goals, the writer came up with stellar grammar.
I fail to see what is wrong in lying in the particular circumstance that the writer needed to cover his track.
Take it with the writer of the koran why he needed to obfuscate lying. Also take it with the translators why they tried to obfuscate it in their translations as well.
IMO It is a clear distinction, between religions that permit lying (mostly tribal religions) and those that exhort truth even if causing death (moslty agrarian religions). Islam always tries to hold both ends of the stick. But its tribal roots seem to always win.
As to 'this particular circumstance'. What is this 'particular circumstance'? This verse can be used just as offensively as it can be used defensively. The verse states that you can lie 'only if you are made to do something you hate'. But the reality is, when else would we lie?
*Not lying* is only pertinent, when you *are* forced to lie. Unless someone is a compulsive liar which is an issue not covered under religions or morals.
These verses don't speak of killing or tormenting unbelievers although there are many such verses in the Quran.
Strawman. Why are you bringing those verses into your reply to me? And the verse does speak of tormenting unbelievers. It also does not specify if the torment will be on earth or after death.
All it tells a believer is that he or she is allowed to lie or renounce Islam if there is threat to his life or limb. A person of any faith or no faith would most likely prefer to lie if their lives are threatened. By giving devout believers an assurance that there's nothing wrong in lying to save their skins, the Quran actually gives a pretty humane and practical suggestion.
I understand the logic of the verse. It permits lying to further the goals of islam. It can be, and it was, used offensively and defensively. Here is how this verse can be used (or interpreted) as people are very open to multiple interpretations:
"I need this money because I have Three good muslim kids who need to grow and become good wealthy muslim citizens. So I am going to lie about taking this money from the kaffirs asking me about it, even though I hate lying, but I can not risk going to jail. Think of the Three muslim kids I have at home."
You either prevent lying. Or you either permit it. The door can not be left in the middle. A half open door is an open door, specially when it comes to human nature.
Now on the very rare circumstance where life or limb, will be at risk, that person can and will lie regardless of text. Don't worry about him. He will not care if the door to lying is open or closed.
Of course, then it states what has been said plenty of times in the Quran that anyone who willingly renounces Islam will suffer the torments of Hell.
Suffer torments. Hell is not specified.
So why couldn't the writer state this clearly- A believer is allowed to pretend to disbelieve if his life is threatened, but if he willingly disbelieves after having accepted the faith, he''l burn in Hell. As a non Arabic speaker, I'm relying on the translations, and the Gujarati translation of this verse is just as weak. I just checked.
The koran always prefers to keep the bad stuff in the exceptions:
i.e. You are not allowed to inherit a widow *Except* is she was witnessed committing fahisha.
i.e. You are not allowed to enjoy the proceeds of prostitution *except* if the slaves are willing.
Keeping the bad stuff in the exceptions, makes the text look to be 'mostly' on the side of good. Even if the exceptions are the norm.
i.e. You can not lie *except* when you are made to do something you hate.
Topic: Very Eloquent Quran