Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AncientGlory" data-source="post: 7734354" data-attributes="member: 262433">Thanks.Lets forget the quran for a moment. My question was (1) Why do you think ordaining  fighting(Regardless its defensive or offensive) is not promoting  violence? Please come up with your sources. Then we can understand things better without questioning the authenticity of this story.However the the physical violence is directly mentioned there. It says you must fight. So you saying defense is how you understand it, since it is not directly mentioned. There's no way to say what the act is right? By researching through some of the hadiths, I found that this particular verse was spoken by Muhammad to motivate muslims to raid meccan caravans.That's what I thought. One might get a different idea that when you say 'others', you were talking about all humans. Of course that is not the case.Thanks for bringing this up. This leads to another question I asked which was not answered. Obviously I think it is clear to you that we have not resolved anything yet. So my argument stays the same. To sum up what I was trying to say, here are my points.(1) Quran 2:216 does not talk about any defensive act directly. However SOME Muslims think it(2:216) talks about defending themselves in means of physical violence. (2)The direct meaning of the verse(Ordaining fighting) implies a means of promoting violence. (4) However since there is a dispute to understand the true meaning of the verse, we can look at the historical background of the verse.The story it seems is that the verse was used as a way to motivate muslims to raid meccan caravans. This shows no defensive act but an offensive behaviour.(4) Therefore it still seems to that quran is promoting violence. </blockquote>

Verification: Winadiyakata thappara keeyak tibeda?

Top Bottom