Islam do not Condone Killing of Non-Muslims?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is my argument on;
Islam per-se DO Condone Killing of Non-Muslims merely based on disbelief [KFR - kufr];

The Relevant Verses in Principle:

I am speaking based on objective facts.
I have provided you the factual evidences and the supporting reasons.
Note, it is in the Quran, Muslims who die for their religion in killing of infidels non-Muslims will receive a 10 fold reward in comparison other good deeds.
You have to read the Quran thoroughly to understand what I am insisting on.

There is no verse in the Quran that says Muslim who die for their religion in killing of infidels will receive 10 times more reward compared to other Muslims who didn't do such a thing though. If there is, please show us.

Yes, there are no single verse in the Quran that assert the said point but one has to link the various relevant verses to arrive at the above conclusion.

I arrived at that conclusion based on the context of the ethos of the whole Quran and the relevant verses in context.

Here are the verses in context - this is a rough one, not precise until I dig through the whole Quran, but I believe these are sufficient for a start.

• 2:245. Who [Muslim] is it that will lend unto Allah a goodly [ḥasanan; HSN; ] loan, so that He [Allah] may give it increase manifold? Allah straiteneth and enlargeth. Unto Him ye [Muslim] will return. [on Judgment Day] [goodly loan refer property or life].
  
  6:160. Whoso [Muslims] bringeth a good deed [HSN; bil-ḥasanati] will receive tenfold the like thereof, while whoso [infidels] bringeth an ill deed [SWA: sayi-ati] will be awarded [punished] but the like thereof; and they will not be wronged. [reward and punishment fairly merited/meted]
  
  5:33. The only reward [punishment] of those [infidels] who make war [HRB: yuḥāribūna] upon Allah and His messenger and strive [S3Y: wayasʿawna ] after corruption [FSD: fasādan; mischiefs, wronged, disbelief] in the land - will be that they [infidels] will be killed or crucified, or have their [infidels'] hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their [infidels] degradation [KhZY: khiz'yun] in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs [infidels] will be an awful doom;
  
  Note: In the above, [FSD: fasādan;] include disbelieving Allah and Muhammad as per Ibn Kathir, one of the most credible Islamic Scholar to the Muslims.
  
  (The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land.) `Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil.
  http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option ... &Itemid=60

In 5:33 [FSD: fasādan;] include disbelieving Allah and Muhammad, i.e. those who disbelieve and they are to be killed or crucified.
Thus those Muslims who deal with [FSD: fasādan;] i.e. kill disbelievers [5:33] are doing a good deed [HSN; bil-ḥasanati] and thus will receive tenfold the rewards. 6:160

The above is the rough compilation of verses but sufficient to support my point. To be more conclusive, I can bring the whole 6236 verses to support the point. But this will take time.
viewtopic.php?p=428766#p428766

I do not think you even understand what i'm saying. Most of the verses you mention are not really about the main problem in your argument, and "fitnah" isn't properly defined in that verse.

In other words, your argument basically amount to this:
1) Premise: Muslims* should do good deeds per Quran if they believe in Islam.
2) Premise: Killing infidels is an instance of combating fitnah.
3) Premise: Combating fitnah is a good deed from an Islamist perspective.
4) Therefore, Muslims* should kill infidels (or wage war on them or whatever you think that means.) if they believe in Islam.

The rest of the argument -the bridge between "Muslims should kill infidels if they believe in Islam." and "Islam is, in it's essence, bad."- isn't really my problem as i think the rest follows. So, since the argument is valid, you merely have to defend the premises. I object only to the second premise, and it's up to you to provide the verses. "Look at Quran" doesn't count as a verse, by the way.

You are off tangent here.
I did not mention "fitnah" which mean slander, "temptation, trial; sedition, civil strife"
Rather I stated 5:33 leveraging on fasadan [FSD] with emphasis on 'disbelief' [ibn Kathir]. Fasadan also include fitnah [not emphasized here] and other threats to the religion of Islam.

Thus the syllogism;

• 1) Premise: Muslims should do good deeds per Quran if they believe in Islam.
  2) Premise: Combating fasadan by killing infidels [5:33] is a good deed from an Islamist perspective.
  3) Premise: Disbelief in Islam, i.e. disbelievers is a fasadan [Ibn Kathir]
  4) Therefore, Muslims [as defined] should combat the fasadan of disbelief by killing infidels (or wage war on them per the Quran's 6236 verses).

* Muslim as defined;
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=27652

Not all Muslims will feel compelled or be inspired by the above rationale but if only 20%, that would be 360 million desperate and evil prone Muslims activated in that mode.

This is why the ideology of Islam is inherently toxic, malignant, evil and violent.

The Contract Between Allah and the Muslim
as such the Muslim is obligated to obey ALL the commands of Allah in the Quran.

Also, what are those supplementary texts -ahadith and sira- you speak of? If you meant "hadith" and "surah", then you probably never actually read Quran as surahs are literally parts of Quran. Al-Bukhara is one example of such a "surah". Hadiths, on the other hand, are supplementary but they're also important. But, if you can provide the verses, we do not need to look them up anyways.

There is an implied contract between Allah and Muslims and the contractual terms are stipulated only in the 6236 verses of the Quran DIRECTLY from Allah via Gabriel to Muhammad. Thus the sole ultimate authority of Islam is the Quran.

The Quran is primary and the Ahadith and Sira are secondary and valid only if they are in alignment with the 6236 verses of the Quran.

viewtopic.php?p=429075#p429075

The Muslim is obligated to obey ALL the commands of Allah in the Quran such as the above of which the consequences is the divine duty of a Muslim to war against and kill non-Muslims.

[Veritas Aequitas]

But you never supported it properly, making your premise based entirely on Ibn Kathir. You need to provide the verses instead of saying "Ibn Kathir says 'fasadan' includes disbelief."

There is no specific verse that stated 'disbelief' is a fasadan [threats to Muslims and Islam].

However in the context of the 6236 verses of the Quran disbelief [KFR - Kufr] is a fasadan [FSD] as represented by 3400++ verses that condemned the disbelievers.

I refer to Ibn Kathir [as a convenience] because he was a very reputable Islamic Scholar and reasonable credible in his interpretation of the Quran.

Here is a sample of the 100s of significant verses, i.e.;

• 2:120. And the Jews will not be pleased with thee [O Muhammad], nor will the Christians, till thou follow their creed [MLL; millat -millatahum]. ...
  
  2:217. They [Muslims] question thee (O Muhammad) with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say [O Muhammad]: Warfare therein [in the sacred month] is a great (transgression), but to turn (men) from the way of Allah, and to disbelieve in Him and in the Inviolable Place of Worship, and to expel his people thence, is a greater [matter] with Allah; for persecution [fitnah - idolatory, non-believers threats ] is worse than killing. And they [the infidels -Quraysh] will not cease from fighting against you [Muslims] till they [infidels] have made you [Muslims] renegades from your religion [deenihi Islam], if they [the infidels] can. ...
  
  3:100. O ye [Muslims] who believe! If ye [Muslims] obey a party of those [Christians - infidels] who have received the Scripture they [infidels] will make you disbelievers [kuffar] after your belief.
  
  18:20. For they, if they [disbelievers] should come to know of you, will stone you or turn you back to their religion [millatihim]; then ye will never prosper.
  
  47:1. Those [kafaru; disbelievers] who disbelieve and turn (men) from [SDD: ṣaddū] the way of Allah, He [Allah] rendereth their [infidels] actions vain [of no spiritual value that will please Allah].
  
  58:16. They [disbelievers] make a shelter [cover, pretext] of their oaths and turn [FSD: faṣaddū: hinder] (men) [Muslims] from the way of Allah; so theirs [infidels] will be a shameful doom.

As you will note the disbelief of the disbelievers is a very serious threat to the Muslims' faith and Islam which to the extreme is worst than killing - 2:217.
Note 58:16 the term fasaddu [FSD] a verb re fasadan is used.

Therefore fasadan includes 'disbelief' and the various acts of disbelievers that threaten the Muslims' faith and the religion of Islam.

[Age]

Killing non-believers or non-muslims is NOT an evil nor violent act at all.

Now this will EXPOSE the ones who are OPEN from those who are CLOSED.

[Eodnhoj7]

The bagadvatgita (not spelled right) observes when and when not violence is appropriate and how it can be a moral action within certain contexts.

Violence is not always evil.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Killing non-believers or non-muslims is NOT an evil nor violent act at all.

Now this will EXPOSE the ones who are OPEN from those who are CLOSED.

So you are so OPEN that it is not evil nor violent for a jihadist to kill [as sanctioned by Islam] your whole family just because all your family members are disbeliever of Islam?

[Veritas Aequitas]

The bagadvatgita (not spelled right) observes when and when not violence is appropriate and how it can be a moral action within certain contexts.

Violence is not always evil.

As usual, you are off tangent again.
The OP is about the sanction by a God for the killing of non-Muslims merely because they disbelief in Islam. Is that an evil or not?

The Bhagavad-Gita do not condone any form of violence directly.
The fighting scenes involve close-kins in the early chapters are merely allegorical to the battles of one's internal forces of good over evil impulses.

[Arising_uk]

Killing non-believers or non-muslims is NOT an evil nor violent act at all.

Now this will EXPOSE the ones who are OPEN from those who are CLOSED.

Well it's definitely a violent act?

[Age]

Killing non-believers or non-muslims is NOT an evil nor violent act at all.

Now this will EXPOSE the ones who are OPEN from those who are CLOSED.

So you are so OPEN that it is not evil nor violent for a jihadist to kill [as sanctioned by Islam] your whole family just because all your family members are disbeliever of Islam?

YES. I WANT them ALL killed.

[Age]

Killing non-believers or non-muslims is NOT an evil nor violent act at all.

Now this will EXPOSE the ones who are OPEN from those who are CLOSED.

Well it's definitely a violent act?

Not necessarily so.

It certainly is NOT in context of Allah and islam.

[Atla]

Killing non-believers or non-muslims is NOT an evil nor violent act at all.

Now this will EXPOSE the ones who are OPEN from those who are CLOSED.

So you are so OPEN that it is not evil nor violent for a jihadist to kill [as sanctioned by Islam] your whole family just because all your family members are disbeliever of Islam?

YES. I WANT them ALL killed.

You WANT yourself, your family, the Australian Aboriginals, and 6 billion more people, to be killed?

[Age]

So you are so OPEN that it is not evil nor violent for a jihadist to kill [as sanctioned by Islam] your whole family just because all your family members are disbeliever of Islam?

YES. I WANT them ALL killed.

You WANT yourself, your family, the Australian Aboriginals, and 6 billion more people, to be killed?

This is three CLOSED and non OPEN so far.

Yes. I want ALL non-believers killed [as sanctioned by islam]

[Arising_uk]

Not necessarily so.

It certainly is NOT in context of Allah and islam.

You said "at all"?
In general if you are killing someone it will be an act of violence hence it will be a violent act.

[Age]

Not necessarily so.

It certainly is NOT in context of Allah and islam.

You said "at all"?

Yes I did.

In general if you are killing someone it will be an act of violence hence it will be a violent act.

"In general", hitherto when this is written, yes what you said here is very true.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I don't know why everyone is pandering to your mangled 'English'. Your thread title is gibberish, and why the capitals in the middle of a sentence? 'Islam' is singular, and is there any reason for the question mark? It doesn't even look like a question.

[Dachshund]

I don't know why everyone is pandering to your mangled 'English'. Your thread title is gibberish, and why the capitals in the middle of a sentence? 'Islam' is singular, and is there any reason for the question mark? It doesn't even look like a question.

Well said, Veggie. We all know what a stickler you are for Received fucking English.

You're such a stupid little burk.


Dachshund