Is Koran a Book of Peace, Not War?

[paarsurrey1]

Is Koran a Book of Peace, Not War?

"In order for them* to generate support beyond their small group, they have to latch onto universal symbols, and this is where Islam becomes a target of convenience for them," says Nyang

People combine pieces of verse from the Koran and use it to justify their actions, says Khouj. "But to understand the full meaning of the verse," he says, "you have to read the one before it, the one after it, maybe five to six verses to get the full picture."

The "full picture" of Islam and the Koran, say Khouj and Nyang, is captured by Chapter 5, Verse 32: "f anyone slew a person—unless it be for murder or spreading mischief in the land—it would be as if he slew the whole people. And if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ran_2.html
* The terrorists

One may like to read the full article titled "Koran a Book of Peace, Not War, Scholars Say" by Peter Standring, National Geographic Today, September 25, 2001

Regards

[paarsurrey1]

I was talking in terms of the Article 18: UNITED NATIONS:"Universal Declaration of Human Rights"
http://www.un.org/en/universal-declarat ... an-rights/

Right, what of it? Perhaps you should pay more attention to the other 29 articles.

Which one did I forget, please?
Muhammad and his followers were denied all humans rights by the Meccans, please.

Regards

[Bust Nak]

Which one did I forget, please?

Articles 29 and 30 springs to mind:

"In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society."
 
"Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein."

Muhammad and his followers were denied all humans rights by the Meccans, please.

Yes, I can give you that much, then Muhammad returned the favor when he had an army at his back. Or are we still limiting the time line to pre-conquest?

[marco]

The "full picture" of Islam and the Koran, say Khouj and Nyang, is captured by Chapter 5, Verse 32: "f anyone slew a person—unless it be for murder or spreading mischief in the land—it would be as if he slew the whole people.Regards

Fine, but the conditional clause should worry us. I agree we should kill those who are trying to kill us; that is self-defence, or defence of others. But killing for "spreading mischief in the land" is EXACTLY what those involved in the Charlie Hebdo shooting think they did, courtesy of the Quran.

[Al-Fatihah]

Fine, but the conditional clause should worry us. I agree we should kill those who are trying to kill us; that is self-defence, or defence of others. But killing for "spreading mischief in the land" is EXACTLY what those involved in the Charlie Hebdo shooting think they did, courtesy of the Quran.

Response: The mischief mentioned in the verse is synonymous to killing, meaning it refers to those plotting or conspiring to commence violence. In other words, if a known killer is gathering people to kill you, than such mischief should be condemned and to attack them before they attack you is just and self-defense, making the verse in the Qur'an reasonable and just.

[marco]

Response: The mischief mentioned in the verse is synonymous to killing, meaning it refers to those plotting or conspiring to commence violence. In other words, if a known killer is gathering people to kill you, than such mischief should be condemned and to attack them before they attack you is just and self-defense, making the verse in the Qur'an reasonable and just.

That is perfectly sensible. If everyone takes your interpretation then we are all smiling. Sadly, there are other interpretations as reality has demonstrated. So I am cheered by your theory, worried by today's realities.

[benkunz234]

[Replying to paarsurrey1 in post #1]

a study at Dartmouth u found 1871 violent verses in bible vs 91 in quran .....in bible god kills innocent babies in cribs of Egypt [passover]. this not found in quran exodus story. this slander has been removed

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to post 1 by paarsurrey1]

I think it depends on who you ask lol. It's not one or the other. Just like the Bible. The danger is that there are some radical Islamic terrorists who do think it is a book of war. This can't be said about the Bible (well at least not in this century).

This can't be said about the Bible

Even-though it is written in the Bible that Moses killed 3000 Jews:
Exodus 32:28
New International Version

The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died.
http://biblehub.com/exodus/32-28.htm
Regards

Bible and Book of Mormon are Storybooks

Quran and Book of the Law of the Lord are behaving books

Behaving books tend rather to be more peaceful than storybooks.

[JoeyKnothead]

Bible and Book of Mormon are Storybooks

Quran and Book of the Law of the Lord are behaving books

Behaving books tend rather to be more peaceful than storybooks.

It's a shame them evil folks that flew them planes into them buildings were reading the bible before they did.

Books are merely a collection of words and ideas.

For them predisposed to violence, a call for peace is an act of war.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #58]
Perhaps "them evil folks" also studied the Hadiths, and these are storybook collections.