Atheism, Religion and related discussion


No, I think you misunderstood my point since you choose to present a new argument when I elaborated. No need to try to be passive agressive.

I think it is much more likely that Islam is extremely incoherrent in its teachings which is what EVERY critic argues. Islam becomes ingrained in the arabic culture and people live by the more peaceful concepts because that is what normal people would do. The founder presented peaceful advice in his early days but became more and more violent. Again, how do we handle the concept of ababrogation? Nobody wants to discuss this issue.

Ahh, a site critical of an IDEOLOGY is a hate-site. I guess it is very easy to refute these violent quotes. Stop acting like an ideology suddenly deserves the same treatment and protection as groups of people. It is nothing more than a tactic to make a connection with the term hate-crimes and therefore try to label your opponent as evil. Rather just say that the site is misrepresented Islam in a negative way.

Lets make it easier, how do we handle the quotes that explicitly advocate torture in the earthly life and never-ending torture in the afterlife?

Interesting way to try to justify many of his violent actions. I would be very careful of using this line of thought since it can be applied to the actions of hitler, stalin, mao and pretty much every prominent figure on the war-scene. I have seen it myself. EVERYTHING can be justified.

I see the same arguments from other sources as well. When is it “hate” and when is it truth. All sites present the exact same quotes but the main difference is that some justify the quotes. How do you justify quotes that call for torture in the earthly and heavenly realms?

Let me give you this advice. Do not bring racism into this. Well, several claim that his call of forgives are abrogated by later quotes. At least, hopefully we can agree on that he was extremely incoherent in this regard.

The problem is what about the sources that say Muhammad went much further beyond the protection of his people?
What are your viewpoints on people like Sam Harris? I know that he is not a scholar but that is maybe a good thing?

Of course, just like it may have happened to you.

I understand what you mean. The problem is that we are creating a foundation based on half-truths. We can always argue which side is the worst under which conditions.

I am not downplaying any acts, I referred to the incident but not the whole story because I could not remember the whole story. The point that you also write is that he did it passively.

I am not interesting in dismissing the old testament, the thing is that we are having a discussion about islam and not the old testament. The thing is that people are more than willing to bash the old testament and they are free to do so. But when it comes to islam, it is a no-go because it advocates islamophobia. Not difficult to see the double standards.


WTF does “Every critic” mean? Every over privileged white guy who rambles on about how a religion he’s never seen is the problem with the world? 'Cause if you want to expand that actual theologians then no - there is no consensus. It turns out people are complicated.

“Every critic” has been a concept used to argue against basic hygiene (getting poo out of the streets) and for pseudo sciences like phrenology and eugenics. It relies upon the idea that we all agree that everyone with something worth saying agrees with x stance… which is very, very rare on any complex topic.

Probably because it’s not an actual issue but one you invented to try to make yourself seem informed. Muslims, like Christians and Jews, are required by their faith to obey the laws of the land in which they live. Again you seem only interested in the modern sensationalism.

It’s not critical of it. Critical of it would require it take an actual careful analysis of it - what it does is spread misinformation about it with the intention of creating a feeling of hatred towards it. For someone who talks about other people deceiving themselves you don’t seem very willing to examine your own stance.

An argument made from ignorance does not contribute to any conversation and one made in bad faith with manufactured information and willful misinterpretation is actively detracting from the conversation.

Not really no. Nazi Germany’s campaign against the USSR can never be justified morally or strategically since it was simply an act of megalomania by Adolph Hitler. Leopold II of Belgium’s campaign into the The Congo can never be justified morally since it was literally he wanted a colony for Belgium and didn’t care who had to bear the cost of it.

That’s quite a bit different to having to conquer all the lands between your current homeland and Mecca so that the nations there will stop murdering pilgrims and hanging their bodies up as a warning or having to build an army because your neighbour is literally promising to kill every last person who’s ever referred to you as a Prophet.

Please provide the details of specific campaigns and the lead up to them.

Don’t really care about him, he is yet another over privileged white guy who wants to lecture on things he has no in depth understanding of but claims a profound knowledge of due to spending too much time in Academia and building up connections with Islamaphobic media like Bill Maher. His primary concern of the travel ban is “it won’t actually stop Islamism spreading” - not any concern over how it actually effects people with lives, families, etc.

Further more, he’s not relevant to this conversation in any way shape or form because he doesn’t actually have any influence in the Muslim world, he just sells books to people who are scared of Muslims. The fact that he’s arrogant enough to think he can reform 1.6 billion people and dishonest to say “but I can’t talk about it” while publishing books about it confirms he has no value to any conversation.

So far I have yet to see you do anything to correct “half-truths” other than to insist the other side is deceived because they don’t agree with you - this is a strategy that is equally viable whether you want to argue that the sky is blue or that Obama is secretly a space lizard from Alpha Centauri.

You did - it’s in the forum above. You claimed he flipped a table when he chased business men out of a market with a whip because he condemned their business. There’s nothing passive about that. Also if you don’t actually know about this story that you’re referring to - should I assume you don’t actually know about the stories that you’re referring to when it comes to Muhammad?

Fun fact: The people who most frequently and effectively challenge ideas about the modern practice of Islam are in fact Muslims and Muslim scholars - because the Quran is quite clear that each individual is ultimately answerable to God at the end of their life, regardless of what they were told. Thus there are many and varied interpretations of God’s will and a great diversity among Muslims about what it means to be a Muslim today.

The difference between them and your go-to sources is they actually understand what they are talking about and are concerned about the souls and well being of the people who practice Islam - not about creating the scariest image of it possible through wilfull misrepresentation of particular parts of text.

Add to this, attempting to analyse a text with an agenda to prove a religion is good or terrible (as so much of New Atheism is prone to do) is a terrible idea. There is, for example, a lesser known faith called Tengrism which believes that it is wrong to force conversions, that other religions are also paths to wisdom and that practitioners should keep in mind that everyone is having a difficult journey and nobody actually knows what’s ultimately best (literally has the phrase “Only Tengri knows”)

The most famous practitioner of this faith in history: Genghis Khan

People, belief systems, institutions and the way they all mix together is an infinitely complicated affair and not one where you should rely upon a hack tv host, a guy who publishes books telling people what they want to hear and a web site that doesn’t even realize that Muhammad had a finite number of wives (and they have all been dead for centuries).


The incoherency is brought up everywhere because you can not discuss abrogation without admitting there is incoherence.
Abrogation is basically a statement of incoherence in the teachings in the books and that the incoherence is resolved by following the updated versions. This is what critics say and what theologians say when they discuss the subject. This is islams way of making its teachings become much clearer. This is why you hear the argument that peaceful quotes of the quran are outdated because they are overwritten due to abrogation.

Well, its a good thing that there are some underpriviliged non white-people that are also critical. Do you have any idea of how crazy and racist that statement sounds. Besides its a genealogical fallacy.

I have not invented this issue, abrogation is brought up pretty much every time when criticising islam. When discussing the issue of obeying the laws of the land I have heard the argument that it only applies when it is not in conflict with the law of Allah. I do not know what is true.

Well, I can easily find other sources which do “thorough” analysis and comes to the same point and so would you because you know they exist. The question is if you agree with some of the main points concluded during the analysis. I have examined by own stance and have of course looked at multiple sources. My problems is that people are not able to refute some of the problems I have with it. Like for instance you are not willing to refute or even accept the consequences of abrogation.

I can justify the campaign against the USSR as a means of recovering vital recourses (oil in the caucasus). The cause of protecting the german people and building the reich justified the means of invading the USSR.

But does this really justify torturing your enemies and calling for the torture on future enemies as well as beheading your enemies and enslaving their women and children? I have sources on this from answering islam but I do not if it is truely a thorough analysis.

What is up with you and white guys with academic backgrounds? Isn´t quite easy to dismiss harris this way?

It is quite easy to say the other side is deceived when they have a hard time discussing fundamental concepts in Islam such as abrogation. When you bring it up and I have seen this on multiple accounts people go into complete defence mode and will not discuss it which is a sign of self-deception.

Well, if you want to compare the flipping of tables/chasing with a whip with full frontal military conflicts followed by torture of enemies then you are welcome to do so. You are more than welcome to assume I do not know anything about muhammad or his justifications of killing and torturing. The problem is we have a very questionable man that people are willing to accept was a messenger of god and that is dangerous.

Interesting point but that also shuts down conversation and critical approach because it is only the ones that practice the faith that understand it and they are 100 % sure its good because they say so. With that exact mindset you can justify and protect all groups with all possible ideologies whether it is communism or nazism.


Silent reader here, giving his two cents on this whole thread regarding Islam and terrorism. (LONG READ WARNING!)

I am a Singaporean ex-Muslim. I grew up around a very pious pair of Muslim parents. I was taught everything I needed to know about being a Muslim, including the Quran verses, the values, taboos, what have you. I also learned a bit of Jawi along the way. The people who raised me and taught me about being a Muslim are extremely serious about it and would sometimes go to extreme lengths to make sure I don’t “stray from the path”.

Being within the Muslim community for years and knowing full well what the religion is capable of, I will say this: The religion is outdated, flawed and in serious need of a change to better adapt to the ever changing world. In fact, many of the verses can be used to manipulate fellow Muslims into committing horrific acts in the name of Islam or Allah and I personally have seen other Muslims do really screwed up shit and they feel very justified in doing so.

But does the religion as a whole encourage such behaviors? I don’t believe so. I was taught many times by my religious teachers to be kind and gentle to others, including non-Muslims, and when dealing with homosexuals (which is a taboo within Muslim communities), my parents told me to treat them like how I would anyone else. Many of the Muslims I met were simple; your average everyday person. They only ever preach about the religion when the day calls for it, like Ramadan or Friday prayers but only to other Muslims. I was taught as a kid that if I want to convert someone, I need to be absolutely certain that the person is interested. I must never force it upon them, be it violently or not, because the religion, and Allah for the matter, does not want unwilling followers. And unwilling followers are, logically speaking, not even Muslims to begin with.

So regarding terrorists or ISIS, are they Muslims? They definitely preach about Allah and Islam a lot. Hell, they probably even believe they’re Muslims. But based on what I was taught, no. They go against everything I was taught about the religion. I believe that if any of my Muslim friends and family were told to take arms against Islamic terrorists or ISIS, they will not hesitate to do so.

Sure, the Quran talks a surprising lot about war and mention that we punish sinners and non-believers very severely. But committing war crimes, stoning people to death, murdering gays and lesbians or taking over the whole world does not make you a Muslim. Praying, fasting a month yearly, believing in Allah and simply being fair and kind to others are what makes a Muslim. You can be a lady not wearing a hijab or a man who has tattoos all over his body (and I’ve met many of these types of people in Muslim mosques) and still be a Muslim but start murdering people for a selfish and unworthy cause and, based on what I was taught, you’re not a Muslim anymore. It does not matter if your actions were “inspired” by the religion or faith. Your intentions matter, not your faith.

As for me, I left the religion because it isn’t for me. The religion is too traditional and outdated and these issues will take a long time to fix. I am an atheist at this point so I am open to people criticizing the religion, so long as it is kept fair and without much raging and insults. At the same time, I do not hate the religion or its followers and I still have friends and family who are very loyal and pious who have not given me hell at all for leaving.

But I do sympathize with those who live in a Muslim-ruled countries like those in Saudi Arabia who cannot leave the religion without getting themselves hurt or killed in the process. Like I said, the religion has issues and needs to change.


So far you can’t actually state what the issue is without resorting to a single word repeatedly and then pretending it explains everything - that’s incoherence due to a lack of substance.

Basically your argument is “some people might read bits they like, and I want us to assume the tiny minority who focus on the worst possible interpretation are the majority” because of a concept which you don’t seem to fully understand or understand in regards to the culture of Muslim scholars.

Much like “all critics” this is a statement that carries no weight, the topic wasn’t even raised before you brought it up in this thread for instance. Stating this simply tries to invent a consensus where none exists.

Muhammad was very clear about which rules in the Quran were the mandatory ones that Mulims must follow - if you don’t know which they are then you should probably stop announcing abrogation like it’s a magical phrase that means your side has to be taken as well informed.

This also contributes nothing to the conversation and we’re back to the point of people promising there’s important authorative work out there that proves something - but unable or unwilling to provide it for scrutiny. There is of course, no shortage of other web sites by people who are as poorly informed on Islam as those you’ve cited where the authors claim to be experts, but that doesn’t make them an authority.

But you were unable to identify The Religion of Peace as a hate site that spreads misinformation and are now unable to provide alternative sources, simply to advice they exist. This is an odd stance for someone concerned about abrogation and people deceiving themselves.

That would apply if they’d had a snowball’s chance in Hell of achieving it - they did not and it was painfully obvious to everyone who analysed the situation. Instead it led to the slaughter of the German people as they were deployed on a fool’s errand. See, it’s the level of scrutiny that makes the difference - you have to move beyond just throwing out a statement and assuming it will be accepted as fact.

They occupy a disproportionate amount of academia, media and influence in the industrial world due to people’s inherent biases and gullibility. No, it’s not - Sam Harris has never contributed anything revolutionary or even insightful to the world, the best he can pitch as is being “honest”. Meanwhile there are scholars across the world who have attended dozens of meetings with different types of Muslims, ranging from modernist to Salafists, who are largely ignored because they don’t tell the people with money what they want to hear (and what they think the public want to hear).

Also, name dropping like this leads to the exact problem you’re trying to raise with Islam. If you base your opinion on something based off whether Sam Harris tells you it’s good or not, then you’re potentially locked into everything Sam Harris has said - whether it makes sense or not. As a side note, it’s also basically what Daesh have been doing to promote anti-Muslim sentiment - looking for self-appointed scholars and claiming them to be the “real” experts even though their arguments are flimsy and they’re primarily just engaging in transparent acts of confirmation bias.

Indeed, the most damning evidence is you ask my opinion of him and then want to know why I’d have that opinion, rather than simply citing some of Harris’ work and letting it speak for itself. That way you’d be contributing something to the conversation rather than putting forward a hypothesis with no evidence, then complaining that you don’t like any other ideas (but can’t supply any reason why or why not).

I did not do so, you are now trying to reinvent the conversation. I pointed out two critical issues: Jesus was a lot more aggressive than you credited him with and that Jesus, unlike Muhammad, had almost no input into the faith built around him - you’re now pretending I said Jesus was as violent as Muhammad.

This is a tad ridiculous since, as mentioned, Jesus didn’t actually survive long enough to become the kind of figure that had to make tough decisions like how to prevent his followers being slaughtered and tortured to death. Also his particular approach didn’t seem to worry too much if his own people did get tortured to death en mass (but again, he never had to live to see it with his own eyes).

Also, this largely ignores that there are two main groups who say Islam supports torture: Islamaphobes and Salafists, both of whom are considered to be opposed to Muslims. Many Muslims tend to agree that Muhammad was living in a primitive time and was fighting war within the rules of engagement at the time (his soldiers were, after all, only mortal men). Some of them even argue that such things could only be approved if ordered by The Prophet himself - and thus cannot be acceptable in the modern day (as the Prophet is no longer alive to give his approval)

Jesus was, indeed, a very questionable man - there’s a massive gap in his personal history and he advocated sabotaging the works of the government in place with no real plan other than promising people that if they did what he said they’d get to go to Heaven. So depending on how you look at it he was either advocating enabling atrocities through inaction or advocating for reckless sabotage of the state in a way that could lead to thousands of innocent deaths.

Christianity, as we know it, was however formed by a far more dangerous and questionable man - a tax collector who claimed to have been struck blind in a miracle nobody saw, then recovered before anyone found him, and to have a better understanding of Jesus’ intent than the people who’d actually met him.

What’s far more dangerous still: People who today, in this age of reason and information, insist that their favorite television personalities are the ones who have the right idea because they use a fancy word.

It actually opens up the topic to criticism, it’s just you need to start actual criticism. That means examining the entire issue, breaking it down into parts, examining how those parts interact, etc. You can’t just announce that one group is bad because you found a web site that says so and tells you their book tells them to do bad things.

It’s almost like… Nazism first took rise under a very specific set of circumstances where a dishonest leader was able to manipulate people into believing that he could enact massive reforms if they gave him the power to - and that all other groups couldn’t be trusted because of abrogation and conspiracies. Like some guy told people they didn’t really need to think about things, or to understand what was going on for themselves, or look too closely at what he was saying - but rather just believe that he could fix it and it was someone else’s fault.

Communism is like Islam in that it’s an massive umbrella term which people tend to misapply without understanding. Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc are all different brands of it that had their own problems and there are many people today who argue it is a preferable solution to say… America’s Ultra-Capitalism.

The world is very complex and hence one should be careful before throwing out a massive generalization and pretending it’s a well informed fact.


Thanks for this input and i found it interesting and what you said here is my idea/opinion how Islam really is :smiley:.

And what you are saying here, is something i find everywhere when i really start to dig into Islam and Quran:

Muslim code of behaviour

  1. According to Islamic teachings, apart from having the right belief how important is it for a person to do good deeds?

Doing good and having the right belief go hand in hand in Islam. In fact, doing good in practice is the proof of having the right belief in the heart. This is why the Holy Quran speaks of true Muslims very often as “those who believe and do good deeds”. Both the Quran and the Holy Prophet have told Muslims that the best among them is that person who shows the best behaviour towards other people.
115. Please give a list of some of the good qualities a Muslim must try to acquire.

Below we give, in the words of the Holy Quran and the Holy Prophet Muhammad, the chief qualities a Muslim should display:

  1. Truthfulness:

“O you who believe! keep your duty to Allah and speak straight, true words.” (Holy Quran 33:70)
“O you who believe, keep your duty to Allah, and be with the truthful people.” (9:119)
“Be maintainers of justice and bearers of true witness for Allah, even if it (the truth) goes against your own selves or parents or relatives or someone who is rich or poor.” (4:135)
2. Sincerity:

“Serve Allah, being sincere to Him in obedience.” (39:2)
“It is most hateful in the sight of Allah that you say things which you do not do.” (61:3)
“Woe to those who pray but are unmindful of their prayers, who do good to be seen.” (107:4-6)
3. Unselfishness:

“You cannot attain to righteousness unless you spend (in charity) out of those things which you love.” (3:91)
“They (the true believers) give food, out of love for Allah, to the poor, the orphan and the slave, saying: We feed you only for Allah’s pleasure - we desire from you neither reward nor thanks.” (76:8-9)
“Do no favour seeking gain.” (74:6)
4. Humility:

“The servants of the Beneficent (Allah) are those who walk on the earth in humility.” (25:63)
“Do not turn your face away from people in contempt, nor go about in the land exultingly.” (31:18)
“Do not ascribe purity to yourselves. Allah knows best who is righteous.” (53:32)
5. Patience:

“Allah loves those who are patient.” (3:145)
“Give good news to the patient, who, when a misfortune befalls them, say: We are Allah’s and to Him do we return.” (2:155-156)
6. Forgiveness:

“Pardon (people) and overlook (their faults). Don’t you love that Allah should forgive you.” (24:22)
"(The dutiful are) . . . those who restrain their anger and pardon people. Allah loves those who do good to others." (3:134)
“Whenever they (true believers) are angry they forgive.” (42:37)
“The recompense of evil is punishment like it. But whoever forgives (an evil committed against himself) and amends (matters), his reward is with Allah. . . . Whoever is patient and forgives, that is a matter of great resolution.” (42:40, 43)
When the Holy Prophet Muhammad defeated his enemies in Makka and returned to that city as its conqueror, he forgave them in the following words:
“No reproof be against you this day; Allah may forgive you, and He is the most Merciful of those who show mercy.” (12:92)
7. Purity and cleanliness:

“He indeed is successful who purifies himself (in mind and body), and remembers the name of his Lord, then prays.” (87:14-15)
“Purify your garments and shun uncleanness.” (74:4-5)
8. Honesty:

“Don’t go near the property of an orphan, except in a goodly way, till he attains maturity. And fulfil the promise (you make) . . … Give full measure when you measure out, and weigh with a true balance.” (17:34-35)
“Do not swallow up your property among yourselves by false means, nor offer it as a bribe to the officials so that you may swallow up other people’s property unlawfully while you know.” (2:188)
9. Goodness and kindness to others:

“Allah commands you to uphold justice and to do good to others and to give to the relatives.” (16:90)
Three degrees of doing good are mentioned here: “justice,” which means returning any good that someone has done you with equal good; “do good to others,” which means taking the initiative in doing good to others; and “give to the relatives,” which means doing good to people instinctively and naturally just as one does good to one’s close relatives.
“Do good to others, surely Allah loves those who do good to others.” (2:195)
10. Consideration and respect for others:

“O you who believe! do not enter houses other than your own until you have asked permission and greeted the inmates . . . and if it is said to you, ‘Go back’, then go back.” (24:27-28)
“O you who believe! avoid most of suspicion (against others), for surely suspicion in some cases is sin; and do not spy (into other people’s affairs), nor let some of you backbite others.” (49:12)
“When you are greeted with a greeting, greet with one better than it, or return it (in the same terms at least).” (4:86)
11. Courage:

Speaking of a small number of Muslims facing a big and powerful enemy, the Quran relates:
“Those to whom men said: people have gathered against you, so fear them; but this increased their faith, and they said: Allah is sufficient for us and He is an excellent Guardian.” (3:173)
12. Moderation:

“Eat and drink, but do not be immoderate.” (7:31)
“Do not chain your hand to your neck (so that you are mean in spending), nor stretch it out to the utmost limit (so that you waste everything).” (17:29)
Regarding the performance of religious duties, the Holy Prophet has given the following advice:
“Religion is easy, but any one who exerts himself too much in religious devotions will get overcome by it; so you should just act rightly, and keep to the mean, and be of good cheer, and ask for Allah’s help morning, evening, and a part of the night.” (Bukhari.)
13. Cheerfulness:

“Be of good cheer.” (Holy Prophet in Bukhari.)
“It is an act of charity to meet your fellow with a cheerful face.” (Holy Prophet in Mishkat.)
Finally, we give a verse of the Holy Quran mentioning a number of qualities a Muslim, man or woman, should try to acquire:
“The truthful men and the truthful women, the patient men and the patient women, the humble men and the humble women, the charitable men and the charitable women, the fasting men and the fasting women, the men who guard their chastity and the women who guard their chastity, the men who remember Allah much and the women who remember Allah much - for all these Allah has prepared forgiveness and a great reward.” (33:35)
116. How does Islam require a Muslim to treat the people around him?

The Holy Quran and the Hadith mention various categories of people that one has to deal with, and give a great deal of guidance on how to behave towards them.

  1. Parents and the elderly:

“Your Lord has commanded that you worship none but Him, and do good to parents. If one or both of them reach old age with you, do not say ‘Fie’ to them, nor chide them, but speak to them a generous word . . . and say, My Lord, have mercy on them as they brought me up when I was little.” (17:23-24).
“The Holy Prophet said, It is one of the greatest sins that a man should curse his parents. Someone said, How can a man curse his own parents? He said, If a man abuses the father of another, that person will abuse his parents (in return).” (Report in Bukhari.)
2. Other Near Relatives:

“Do good to the near relatives.” (4:36)
"Give to the near relative his due, and also to the needy and to the traveller (in need of help). (17:26).
3. Children:

“Do not kill your children for fear of poverty - We (Allah) provide for them and for you.” (17:31)
“A man came to the Holy Prophet and said, You kiss children but we do not kiss them'. The Holy Prophet said,Do I have any control over you if Allah has taken away mercy from your heart’.” (Report in Bukhari.)
4. Orphans and destitute children:

“Maintain the orphans out of their property and clothe them and give them a good education. Test them when they reach the age of majority, and if you find them to be mature, hand over their property to them.” (4:5-6)
“I and the man who brings up an orphan will be in paradise like this,” said the Holy Prophet, putting together his forefinger and middle finger. (Report in Bukhari.)
5. Poor and needy:

“Righteous is he who . . . gives away wealth out of love for Him to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and to those who ask and to set slaves free.” (2:177)
“What will make you understand what the uphill road (to success) is? (It is) to free a slave, or feed at a time of hunger an orphan who is a relative or the poor man lying in the dust.” (90:11-16)
“Have you seen him who goes against religion? That is the one who is rough to the orphan and does not urge the feeding of the needy.” (107:1-3)
"(The true believers are those) in whose wealth there is a known right for the beggar and the destitute." (70:24-25)
“The person who manages things for the widow and the poor is like the one who strives hard in the way of Allah.” (Holy Prophet in Bukhari.)
6. Neighbours:

“Be good to . . . the neighbour belonging to your people and the alien neighbour.” (4:36)
“He is not a believer who fills his stomach while his neighbour is hungry.” (Holy Prophet in Hadith.)
“The angel Gabriel continued to enjoin upon me good treatment of the neighbour, so much so that I thought he would make him heir to one’s property.” (Holy Prophet in Bukhari.)
7. Wives/Husbands:

“They (your wives) are a garment for you, and you are a garment for them.” (2:187)
“Of His (Allah’s) signs is that He created spouses for you from yourselves so that you might find quiet of mind in them, and He put between you love and compassion.” (30:21)
“The best of you are those who are kindest to their wives.” (Holy Prophet in Tirmizi.)
A man related:
“I asked Aishah (Holy Prophet’s wife): What did the Prophet do when in his house? She said, `He served his wife’, meaning that he did work for his wife.” (Report in Bukhari.)
8. Employers/Employees:

“(The true believers) are those who are keepers of their trusts and covenants.” (23:8)
“Trusts” include the duties and the other things with which an employee is entrusted by his employer; “covenants” include the contract by which both the employer and the employee are bound.
“Allah says: There are three persons whose opponents I shall be on the Day of Judgment . . . (the third is) the person who employs a servant and receives fully the labour due from him, but does not pay his wages.” (Holy Prophet in Bukhari.)
Ans, a companion of the Holy Prophet, related:
“I served the Holy Prophet for ten years, and he never said to me, Fie', nor did he ever sayWhy have you done this’, or `Why have you not done that’.” (Report in Bukhari.)
9. Animals

“There is no animal in the earth, nor a bird flying on its two wings, but they are communities like yourselves (O people).” (6:38)
Someone asked the Holy Prophet, “Is there a reward for us (from Allah) for doing good to beasts?” He replied:
“In every animal having a liver fresh with life there is a reward.” (Holy Prophet in Mishkat.)
“Be careful of your duty to Allah in the matter of dumb animals; ride them while they are in a fit condition, and eat them while they are in a fit condition.” (Holy Prophet in Abu Dawud.)
“Whoever tills a field, and birds and beasts eat from it, it is an act of charity.” (Holy Prophet in Musnad of Ahmad.)

  1. Authorities:

Regarding electing and appointing people to positions of authority, the Quran says:
“Allah commands you to make over trusts (or positions of trust and authority) to those worthy of them.” (4:58)
Some other principles are as follows:
“Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from among you; then if you quarrel about anything (with your authorities) refer it to Allah and the Messenger” (4:59), i.e. settle the disagreement by means of the Holy Quran and the Holy Prophet’s example.
“Obedience (of authority) is due only in good matters”, i.e., orders to do wrong must not be obeyed. (Holy Prophet in Bukhari.)
The first head of state of the Muslims after the Holy Prophet, the famous Hazrat Abu Bakr, said in a speech after his election:
“Help me if I am in the right. Correct me if I am in the wrong. Obey me as long as I obey Allah and His Messenger; in case I disobey Allah and His Messenger, I have no right to obedience from you.”
“The most excellent jihad is to speak the truth in the face of an unjust ruler.” (Holy Prophet in Mishkat.)
11. Muslims:

“Hold fast by the covenant of Allah all together and be not disunited. And remember Allah’s favour to you when you were enemies, then He united your hearts, so by His favour you became brethren.” (3:103)
“The believers are brethren, so make peace between your brethren . . . Do not find fault with your own people, nor call one another by (bad) nick­names.” (49:10-12)
“Help one another in good and righteous works, and do not help one another in sin and aggression.” (5:2)
“Do not hate one another and do not be jealous of one another and do not boycott one another, and be servants of Allah, as brothers; and it is not lawful for a Muslim to sever his relations with his brother for more than three days.” (Holy Prophet in Bukhari.)
“You will see the believers in their having mercy for one another, and in their love for one another, and in their kindness towards one another, like the human body: when one limb is ailing, the whole body feels it, one part calling out the other with sleeplessness and fever.” (Holy Prophet in Bukhari.)
“None of you has faith until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself.” (Holy Prophet in Bukhari.)
12. Those who abuse Muslims:

“Bear patiently what they (abusers) say.” (20:130)
“Disregard their annoying talk.” (33:48)
“When you hear Allah’s messages disbelieved in and mocked at, sit not with them until they enter into some other talk.” (4:140)
“And if you invite them to guidance, they hear not; and you see them looking towards you, yet they see not. Take to forgiveness and enjoin good and turn away from the ignorant.” (7:198-199)
“The Messenger of Allah and his Companions used to forgive the idolaters and the followers of the book (Jews and Christians), as Allah had commanded them, and they used to show patience on hearing hurtful words.” (Report in Bukhari.)
13. Enemies:

“Repel evil with what is best, when lo! he between whom and you there is enmity will be like a warm friend.” (41:34)
“Many of the people of the book wish that they could turn you back into disbelievers after you have believed, out of envy from themselves. . … But pardon and forgive.” (2:109)
“And you will always find treachery in them, except a few of them. So pardon them and forgive. Surely Allah loves those who do good to others.” (5:13)
14. Non­Muslims:

“Allah does not forbid you concerning those people who do not fight you because of your religion, nor expel you from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly… . . Allah forbids you only concerning those people who fight you for your religion, and drive you from your homes and help others to expel you, that you make friends of them.” (60: 8,9)
“Whatever good they (people of other religions) do, they will not be denied it (by Allah), and Allah knows who the righteous are.” (3:115)
“O you who believe, be upright for Allah, bearers of witness with justice; and do not let the hatred of a people incite you not to act with justice. Be just; that is nearer to observance of duty.” (5:8)
“Call (others) to the way of your Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and argue with them in the best manner.” (16:125)
“Argue not with the people of the Book (Jews, Christians, and other people having scriptures) except by the best (means), save those of them who act unjustly. But say: We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our God and your God is One, and to Him we submit.” (29:46)
A companion of the Holy Prophet relates:
“A funeral procession passed by the Holy Prophet, and he stood up for it. People said to him: It was the funeral of a Jew. He said: Was it not a human life?” (Report in Bukhari.)
15. Mankind generally:

“Mankind is a single nation.” (2:213)
“O mankind! We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into races and families so that you may know each other. The most honoured of you in Allah’s sight are those who best keep their duty.” (49:13)
“We (Allah) have not sent you (O Muhammad) except as a mercy to the nations.” (21:107)
“Speak good words to all people.” (2:83)
“Allah commands you that . . . when you judge between people (i.e., of any race, religion, family, class, etc.), you judge with justice.” (4:58)


Pretty funny that this religion war started because i talk about big cliche in Easter


Is this not the case with all abrahamic religions, to begin with?


For the most part, yes. All Abrahamic religions could use a reform. I tend to lean towards reforming Islam because it is the religion I am most familiar with.


Again and again and again I bring forth the argument that it is a huge issue that more violent quotes overwrite more peaceful ones because of abrogation. Instead of actually answering the problems your argument is that its not really a problem because a “tiny” majority just follows the more peaceful ones either way. How many ways is it possible to angle a question without it being understood. Are you truly interested in what the book says and how it was meant to be understood or are you interesting in the edition that keeps on changing due to people reforming their understanding of it?

Ok, lets say that abrogation is not being talked about, we still have a concept which is in the quran ITSELF which people overlook because it is convenient

Ok, lets stop talking about abrogation, you have absolutely no intention in discussing it and its an absolute waste of time. Just be aware that people are getting pissed when all defendants of islam shrugs it off like nothing.

Again, which people are the authoritarians to go to. Who are truly poorly informed. I have seen websites and sources being put forth in defence of islam. Are they poorly informed as well? Should I trust a scholar who takes a peaceful version or should I trust one who takes a brutal one.

For christ sake, stop using the term hate-site, its an ideology, not a human being. Again, we can discuss whether its actual misinformation, but thats up for interpretation just like any religion?
I also gave you answering-islam, is that an ok site?

It does not matter if you think whether or not they had a chance. It matters if THEY thought they had a chance because that would justify THEIR cause. Are you seriously saying that the germans would not have beaten the russian forces and captured resources if America had not entered the war? Scrutiny has absolute nothing to do with the statement. Its all about potential moral justification - that was your point.

Wait, are you saying that more white people are in academia because of bias? Are you by any chance in academia?
Well harris is a neuroscientist which has to count for something?
When I ask what you think of harris, I am not talking about his personality, thats irrelevant, I am talking about his arguments. As you say so yourself you are very interested in the sources themselves because you just argued that the nature of the ones making the source matters a lot. Hence why these white people in academia should not really be taken seriously.

I never pretended to make a direct comparison of the two, I am sorry if it comes across that way.

Regarding torture, can I have your comment on this.
The recompense of those who fight Allah and His messenger, and seek to make corruption in the land, is that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from alternate sides or that they be banished from the land; that is their disgrace in this world and in the Hereafter they will have a great torment." (Qur’an 5:33)

“As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.” – Quran 3:56

There are many more that talk about eartly and after-life torture such as burning victims and replenishing their skin. So from this, there is a clear indication that torture in either realm is a thing.

Interesting point but an extremely dangerous point as well. This line of thought bridges the gap between men committing brutality for whatever reason with men that through passive action has let evil happen. In some ways it is an extreme and twisted case of the “Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do”

But again we arrive at the problem where there are critics of Islam that have written books, given lectures and so on where they bring forth the exact same criticism as these sources you call hate-sites.

That also means that every ideology (at least an idea from a single source) can be twisted any way you want by different people. When it comes to stuff like religion I do not care about reformation, I care about the actual source, because at the inception of the idea, there was a clear intention of how that idea should be implemented into the real. Everything else is phantom creation - living on a lie.


And he gazed down at all that he had created and his heart wept :broken_heart::sob:


From what i understand, it’s not that simple to just take verses out of contex, if you want to learn about the verse 3:56 you can read this:

Quran 5:33 Execute, Crucify or Cutting off hands and feet

“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.” 5:33 Quran
Peace on those who wish for Peace. Guidance to those who wish otherwise.

Few months back I received a list of verses from the Quran alleging that they propagate terrorism. I list them out here one by one in these series of articles with a hope of presenting the correct explanation and context of those verses. I openly state that my aim is to defend the Quran, truth as the truth and falsehood as falsehood.

Verse 5:33 quoted above DOES NOT incite Terrorsim or Violence of any sort for the following reasons –

It is Quoted out of Context
The Punishment prescribed is perfectly justified once you know the crime.
The punishment is not linear. The nature of the scope of crime mentioned in the verse is not limited to a few specific named crimes but instead a wide range of crimes are inferred . The verse then mentions a set of punishments varying from a high to low severity proving again this point. Hence it is ignorant (or mischievous) to highlight only the severe punishments in a tone giving a false impression that “look this is the punishment for ALL crimes according to the Quran”.
The aim of Punishment is to achieve public security and peace for the community as well as the retribution for the criminal minority.
There is nothing barbaric about the verse once you know the kinds of punishment your own laws prescribe for similar crimes.
The immediately following verse i,e 5:34 mentions a clear way out to the criminal to avoid the punishment which is the MOST LENIENT in comparison with the laws of any constitution of the world.
The magnitude of “killing a life” or “saving a life” is explained in the highest standards in the verse immediately preceding this verse i.e 5:32 making it among the MOST PEACEFUL teachings for mankind.

  1. Quran 5:33 is Quoted out of context

Once again this verse is quoted out of context. To understand this we should read verses before and after it. Also, it is important to realize that this verse comes in a legal context. Prophet Muhammad is laying down the law. The verse is not a parable or an illustration. It is intended to be carried out in real life, and it was then and it is today. There are severe conditions that need to be fulfilled for this verse to be implemented. One cannot simply cherry pick it and say Quran supports terrorism without comprehending the legal background. The context of this verse itself will clear any negative perceptions against Islam. One cannot quote verse 5:33 without quoting verse 5:32 (prohibition of murder) and verse 5:34 (command to forgive). Let us examine the verse in its proper context:

“Because of that We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind. And indeed, there came to them Our Messengers with clear proofs, evidences, and signs, even then after that many of them continued to exceed the limits in the land!” –Quran 5:32
Your God shows us the highest standard of morality. He says “if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he killed all mankind.” and “if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind.” These are the teachings of peace and harmony. Then God answers the Question “who are the criminals who deserve this punishment?“. We should not simply brush aside the verse and merely concentrate on the punishment forgetting to look at why such a punishment is given.

“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.” -Quran 5:33
2. The Punishment prescribed in Quran 5:33 is perfectly justified once you know what the crime is.

If Quran is really the book of Your God, the God of the Universe and if Muhammad (peace on him) is really a Prophet from him, then what greater sin is there than those who wage war against God and one of his prophets! This is one of the greatest sins you can do.

But yes, if you do not believe that Quran is from God or in the Prophethood of Muhammad, peace on him, then this is an entirely different matter altogether and we are at crossroads with each other. Allah has prepared a special day called the Day of Judgment where he will raise each and every human being back to life and tell them the truth in the matters they differed. But yes, you may not believe that God would raise you up also. No matter.

God says in the Quran,

“They swear their strongest oaths by Allah, that Allah will not raise up those who die: Nay but it is a promise (binding) on Him in truth: but most among mankind realize it not. (They must be raised up), in order that He may make clear to them the Truth of that wherein they differ, and that those who disbelieved may realize that they were liars.” -Quran 16:38-39
Coming to verse 5:33, if you read the verse carefully you will notice that it puts several clauses for this punishment. It says “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land“. This is the first clause describing the gravity of the offense. This is punishment for “WAGING WAR“ against God and the Prophet of God and spreading evil and destruction. This is a crime amounting to declaration of War against the Creator which invariably also means a rebellion against all the laws which the creator has revealed for the harmony of the created. Speaking on a National context on a lesser degree this is equivalent to you waging war against your country. In modern terminology this would be considered as “high treason” or “terrorism” depending on the kind of media you have. Hence the Quranic verse prescribes punishment for such a severe offense of “terrorism” and hence the severity of the punishment. As Muhammad Asad, one of the translators of the Quran writes in his translation of the Quran on this verse:

“The present participle la-musrifun indicates their “continuously committing excesses” (i.e., crimes), and is best rendered as “they go on committing” them. In view of the preceding passages, these “excesses” obviously refer to crimes of violence and, in particular, to the ruthless killing of human beings.” – Asad, The Message of the Quran

It is quite shocking to see how many Islam-haters will place this verse under the heading of “inciting Muslims to kill and wage war”, whereas the verse commands nothing of this sort! In fact, it comes directly after a verse prohibiting murder in the highest possible way stating that anyone who takes one life is as if he has killed all mankind in the sight of Allah and if anyone saves someone’s life it is as if he has saved the life of all mankind! The Quran purposefully describes the gravity of the sin before describing the punishment. The crime of murder and committing terrorist activities is regarded as such a severe violation in Islam, that a severe retribution has been prescribed. Waging war against God’s prophet is tantamount to waging war against Our Creator Himself. It is ironic that Islam-haters will present this verse to justify their claim that Islam supports terrorism, whereas Muslim scholars have always presented this verse as proof that Islam is vehemently opposed to terrorism. For example, the Islamic Fiqh Council of Saudi Arabia writes about this verse:

“Obviously, in view of the enormity of such acts of aggression, which are viewed by the Islamic law as an act of war against the laws and the creatures of God, there is no stricter punishment anywhere in the manmade laws.” -Islamic Fiqh Council of Saudi Arabia, Terrorism – Islam’s viewpoint, Muslim World League Journal, Jumad al-Ula 1423/July 2002 CE

  1. The punishment in Quran 5:33 is not linear.

The nature of the scope of crime mentioned in the verse is not limited to a few specific named crimes but instead a wide range of crimes are inferred. The verse then mentions a set of punishments varying from a high to low severity proving again this point. Hence it is ignorant (or mischievous) to highlight only the severe punishments in a tone giving a false impression that “look this is the punishment for ALL crimes according to the Quran”.

Is it logical to inform someone about a certain punishment without telling them about the crime?

Yet, this is exactly what few brethren of other faiths have done to deceive people into thinking that Islam is a violent religion. They cite only verse 5:33 without verse 5:32 or verse 5:34, which brings me to my next point. God has prescribed multiple punishments in this verse using the word “or” between them, indicating various alternatives. The punishment depends on the circumstances and severity of the offence. As Muhammad F. Malik writes in his translation of this verse:

“The punishment for those who wage war against Allah and His Rasool and strive to create mischief in the land is death or crucifixion or the cutting off their hands and feet from opposite sides or exile from the land (based on the gravity of their offence)… ” -Malik, Al-Qur’an: Guidance for Mankind

Likewise, Abdullah Yusuf Ali who is another translator of the Quran comments in his translation:

“For the double crime of treason against State, combined with treason against God, as shown by overt crimes, four alternative punishments are mentioned, any one of which is to be applied according to circumstances…except that tortures such as “hanging, drawing, and quartering” in English Law, and piercing of eyes and leaving the unfortunate victim exposed to a tropical sun, which was practiced in Arabia, and all such tortures were abolished. In any case sincere repentance before it was too late was recognized as grounds for mercy.” -Yusuf Ali, The English Translation of the Holy Qur’an, emphasis added

Indeed, the verse AFTER 5:33 i.e 5:34 which was so conveniently skipped in the list of verses I received, immediately states that this punishment is not for those who repent. We will come to that.

  1. The aim of Punishment in Quran 5:33 is to achieve public security and peace for the community as well as the retribution for the criminal minority

“Shaykh Muhammad Abu Zahra, in his previously mentioned book [Al-Jarima wal-‘Uqba, pp. 6-11], explains the aim of both Islamic law, as well as the sacred Jewish law contained in the Torah, is to achieve public security and peace for the community as well as the retribution for the criminal minority; accordingly, the necessary means for the attainment of this latter end were prescribed both in the Torah and the Qur’an. The second question concerns the law of pardon for offenders who repent and whether the punishment for Hirabah should be considered a dead letter because of this law. To answer this question, one should again bear in mind that this punishment, and indeed all the hudud punishments in the Islamic penal system, are prescribed mainly to protect society from crime. In order to achieve this purpose, Islamic law, while prescribing punishment for criminals, makes it possible for them to be pardoned when they realize the evil of their conduct and desire to mend their ways…. While punishment may be withheld, provision must be made for all the injuries and harm resulting from the criminal’s act. In this way, society does not lose anything. On the contrary, it gains a new member who, if he had not been given the chance to repent, forever would have been considered an outlaw.” -El-Awa, Punishment in Islamic Law; US American Trust Publications, 1993, p. 13, emphasis added

  1. There is nothing barbaric about Quran 5:33 once you know the kinds of punishment your own laws prescribe for similar crimes.

English Criminal Code of 18th Century Prescribed MORE BARBARIC PUNISHMENT FOR LESSER CRIMES

Shaykh Abdul Majid Daryabadi writes the following on verse 5:33:

“Lest some of these penalties may appear ‘barbarous’ to some hypersensitive Western reader, let him cast a glance on ‘drawing and quartering’, a penalty of the English Criminal Code maintained as late as the 18th century, inflicted on those found guilty of high treason touching the king’s person or government. The person committed was usually drawn on a sledge to the place of execution; there he was hung by the neck from a scaffold, being cut down and disemboweled, while still alive, his head was cut from his body and his corpse divided into four quarters. With the profession of their faith declared as high treason by law many Catholics of England and Ireland suffered this death. ‘In this reign of Henry III and Edward I there is abundant evidence that death was the common punishment of felony; and this continued to be the law of the land as to treason and as to all felonies, except petty larceny, down to the year 1826’ (Stephen, History of the Criminal Law of England, I. p. 458). In contemporary English law, robbery is larceny with violence; and the guilty is liable to penal servitude for life, and in addition, if a male, to be once privately whipped. The elements of the offence are essentially the same under American law (EBr. XIX. p. 346).” -Daryabadi, The Glorious Qur’an, emphasis added

  1. The immediately following verse i,e Quran 5:34 mentions a clear way out to the criminal to avoid the punishment which is the MOST LENIENT in comparison with the laws of any constitution of the world.

“Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” -Quran 5:34
“Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful”. God’s infinite Mercy is truly clear when one considers that God is willing to forgive these ruthless acts of terror that deserve such harsh punishments, so long as the offender sincerely repents to Allah, seeking His Pardon and True Guidance. The repentance should be for the sake of realization of the crime and sincerity and not to escape for fear of punishment. This is the pinnacle of divine Mercy which is not present in the constitutions of any country of the world wherein once a criminal is established as guilty, the punishment is meted out and maybe slightly lessened if pleaded guilty but never a complete pardon. With this verse the Quran provides an opportunity for social reform for the criminal and a window to purify the soul and to continue seeking the good countenance of God almighty. The Muslim scholars have mentioned that whenever Allah warns us of a punishment, He always shows us a way out, a way to avoid the punishment. Many Muslim jurists also cite this verse in the case of punishment for Hirabah (armed robbery/highway robbery). In such instances, depending on the severity of the offence, the punishment is prescribed. When murder has been committed, then execution is prescribed as the punishment. Depending on the circumstances, the judge may choose a lesser punishment.

  1. The magnitude of “killing a life” or “saving a life” is explained in the highest standards in the verse immediately preceding this verse i.e Quran 5:32 making it among the MOST PEACEFUL teachings for mankind.

According to the Quran, the last and the latest revelation from your Creator, The sin of KILLING ONE PERSON is equal to KILLING ALL MANKIND and the reward of SAVING ONE PERSON is equal to the reward of SAVING ALL MANKIND

“…anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind…” –Quran 5:32
Any Muslim who sincerely follows these verses would be as far away as possible from unjustly taking any life because he knows that his Lord is strict and he cannot escape his punishment. If he dies after killing someone unjustly then death is but a prelude to the beginning of his punishment which is as if he has killed all Mankind. Likewise if he will eagerly look for the opportunity to SAVE LIVES as he knows that his Lord will give him incalculable reward as much as the reward of saving ALL MANKIND for as many times as many lives he has saved. In the Quran he has been told repeatedly that his Creator is the MOST BENEFICENT and MOST MERCIFUL. In fact every chapter of the Noble Quran begins with these verses constantly reminding us of the nature of our Creator encouraging to do good and to shun evil.

O Dear reader, is there any reward for good other than good? A revelation from heaven is not necessary to answer this. Yet God in his last book clarifies this in the following verse rhetorically asking you the same question and affirming the answer thereby.

“Is the reward for good [anything] but good?
So which of the favors of your Lord would you deny?” – Quran 55:60-61
In light of all the above mentioned points, we can clearly reject any claims of the verse 5:33 supporting “violence and warfare or terrorism” as baseless. The textual context, historical context, legal context, and comparative analysis of this verse all demonstrate that this verse enjoins perfect justice in return for grave offences, is preluded by the most peaceful verses that explain what it means to “take a life” or “save a life” and is followed by a verse which gives a way out to the criminal to avoid the punishment by way of repentance and thus by no means can support the lies of the deviants.

These are verses of Peace, Justice and Mercy and not Terrorism.

More about it here:

Verse 5:33 - “Cut off alternate hands and feet”

Verse 5:33 has frequently been quoted by disbelievers against the Qur’an. To understand the verse we need to be aware of the Qur’an as a whole - as well as be in possession of the necessary faith and wisdom provided by Allah. Initially, here is verse 5:33 on its own:

إِنَّمَا جَزَاءُ الَّذِينَ يُحَارِبُونَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَيَسْعَوْنَ فِي الأَرْضِ فَسَادًا أَنْ يُقَتَّلُوا أَوْ يُصَلَّبُوا أَوْ تُقَطَّعَ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَأَرْجُلُهُمْ مِنْ خِلافٍ أَوْ يُنْفَوْا مِنَ الأَرْضِ ذَلِكَ لَهُمْ خِزْيٌ فِي الدُّنْيَا وَلَهُمْ فِي الآخِرَةِ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌ

“The recompense of those who fight Allah and His messenger, and seek to make corruption in the land, is that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from alternate sides or that they be banished from the land; that is their disgrace in this world and in the Hereafter they will have a great torment.” (Qur’an 5:33)

The Qur’an has to be interpreted as a whole. A believer must use his or her Quranic wisdom and knowledge when reading a particular verse. This requires him to have read the Qur’an before-hand and be able to use wisdom in applying his knowledge of other verses.

The expression in verse 5:33 is very specifically defined. For example, “hands and feet be cut off from alternate sides.” i.e. left foot and right hand. Elsewhere in the Qur’an, we find that one of the greatest tyrants on the earth, ‘the pharaoh’ threatens the few true believers who had joined the Prophet Moses in the same manner:

قَالَ آمَنْتُمْ لَهُ قَبْلَ أَنْ آذَنَ لَكُمْ إِنَّهُ لَكَبِيرُكُمُ الَّذِي عَلَّمَكُمُ السِّحْرَ فَلأُقَطِّعَنَّ أَيْدِيَكُمْ وَأَرْجُلَكُمْ مِنْ خِلافٍ وَلأُصَلِّبَنَّكُمْ فِي جُذُوعِ النَّخْلِ وَلَتَعْلَمُنَّ أَيُّنَا أَشَدُّ عَذَابًا وَأَبْقَى

"He (Pharoah) said: ‘Have you believed in him before taking my permission? He is surely your great one who has taught you magic. So, I will cut off your hands and feet from alternate sides, and I will crucify you on the trunks of the palm trees, and you will come to know which of us is greater in retribution and more lasting!’ " (Qur’an 20:71)

This is repeated once again in the Qur’an:

قَالَ فِرْعَوْنُ آمَنْتُمْ بِهِ قَبْلَ أَنْ آذَنَ لَكُمْ إِنَّ هَذَا لَمَكْرٌ مَكَرْتُمُوهُ فِي الْمَدِينَةِ لِتُخْرِجُوا مِنْهَا أَهْلَهَا فَسَوْفَ تَعْلَمُونَ

{123} 'Pharaoh said: ‘Have you become believers before I have given you permission? This is surely some scheme which you have schemed in the city to drive its people out; you will reveal what you know".’ (Qur’an 7:123)

لأُقَطِّعَنَّ أَيْدِيَكُمْ وَأَرْجُلَكُمْ مِنْ خِلافٍ ثُمَّ لأُصَلِّبَنَّكُمْ أَجْمَعِينَ

{124} “…‘I will cut off your hands and feet from alternate sides, then I will crucify you all’.”

قَالُوا إِنَّا إِلَى رَبِّنَا مُنْقَلِبُونَ

{125} “They said: ‘It is to our Lord that we will return’.” (Qur’an 7:125)

The point to ponder over is, why is the specific threat pharaoh made repeated in the same manner by Allah in verse 5:33 (i.e. cutting alternate hands and feet and crucifixion)?

This is because Allah is not actually commanding the believers to carry out this punishment in verse 5:33. Rather, it is a statement against pharaoh’s quote who threatened the believers. More specifically, in 5:33 Allah is inferring that it is not the believers (who follow Allah’s messengers) who deserved that, rather those who fight against Allah and His messenger (how pharaoh did), who truly deserve the punishment they wish to inflict on the believers. This point is made in a striking way by referring ironically to pharaoh’s threats to the believers.

This interesting observation conforms further with the verse immediately before 5:33, which sets the context of the time of pharaoh! Both 5:32 and 5:33 are quoted below:

مِنْ أَجْلِ ذَلِكَ كَتَبْنَا عَلَى بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ أَنَّهُ مَنْ قَتَلَ نَفْسًا بِغَيْرِ نَفْسٍ أَوْ فَسَادٍ فِي الأَرْضِ فَكَأَنَّمَا قَتَلَ النَّاسَ جَمِيعًا وَمَنْ أَحْيَاهَا فَكَأَنَّمَا أَحْيَا النَّاسَ جَمِيعًا وَلَقَدْ جَاءَتْهُمْ رُسُلُنَا بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ ثُمَّ إِنَّ كَثِيرًا مِنْهُمْ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ فِي الأَرْضِ لَمُسْرِفُون.َ

{32} “It is because of this that We have decreed for the Children of Israel: ‘Anyone who kills a person who has not committed murder, or who has not committed corruption in the land; then it is as if he has killed all the people! And whoever spares a life, then it is as if he has given life to all the people.’ Our messengers had come to them with clarification, but many of them are, after this, are corrupting on the Earth.”

{This sets the context of pharaoh’s response to Moses}

إِنَّمَا جَزَاءُ الَّذِينَ يُحَارِبُونَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَيَسْعَوْنَ فِي الأَرْضِ فَسَادًا أَنْ يُقَتَّلُوا أَوْ يُصَلَّبُوا أَوْ تُقَطَّعَ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَأَرْجُلُهُمْ مِنْ خِلافٍ أَوْ يُنْفَوْا مِنَ الأَرْضِ ذَلِكَ لَهُمْ خِزْيٌ فِي الدُّنْيَا وَلَهُمْ فِي الآخِرَةِ عَذَابٌ عَظِيم

{33} “The recompense of those who fight Allah and His messenger, and seek to make corruption in the land, is that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from alternate sides or that they be banished from the land; that is their disgrace in this world and in the Hereafter they will have a great retribution.”

The Number 19 - Has God authorised its use?
Thus, the immediate context of Pharaoh’s time also supports the understanding that this verse is in relation to pharoah’s threat described in other verses. Lastly, note that even grammatically, the verse is not worded in the imperative (as an order or command). It is written in the manner in the translation (“that they be killed or crucified…”). This compares with pharaoh’s “i will do”, commanding sentence.

Therefore, this verse makes the powerful point that those disbelievers who threaten ‘Allah and His Messenger’ with punishment and persecution, they are actually the ones who truly deserve the same retribution - not Allah’s messengers or the believers who invite mankind to the ways of peace - to know their Creator and the existence of the Hereafter.


I agree with everything you said until I got here. This is one of those weird statements that sounds great but it’s just not true in how the real world works.

The Klu Klux Klan was absolutely a Christian organization/group despite going against the teachings of the Bible directly.

ISIS is absolutely a religious Islamic group.

You don’t fall out of the group entirely because you fail to live up to the teachings. One would be a bad Christian or a bad Muslim in those cases.


Question: “Is the KKK a Christian organization?”

Answer: On a recent national radio program, the host interviewed several Muslims about Islam and terrorism. He asked, “What is it about Islam that seems to attract or instigate violence?” One of the guests immediately responded, “We could ask the same thing about Christianity. After all, the KKK is a Christian organization.”

The issue of the KKK (Ku Klux Klan) and Christianity is somewhat complicated by the fact that the KKK has changed and evolved over the years. There are no KKK groups today that have direct ties to the KKK of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

It is generally recognized that the KKK has had three or four different manifestations. The original Klan was organized after the Civil War during Reconstruction. Many Confederate veterans and other Southerners saw their way of life evaporating before their eyes with “Yankee carpetbaggers” and former slaves taking what they felt to be rightfully theirs. They organized to try to prevent the decline of their culture. That specific incarnation of the Klan faded after Reconstruction.

The second incarnation of the Klan started around the time of World War I. Jobs were scarce in some areas, and many whites felt “their” jobs were being taken by black workers. The Klan was reborn as an organization of intimidation—trying to scare off black workers so that white workers could have the jobs. The intimidation often took the form of violence, including lynchings. The federal government began to focus on and prosecute Klan crimes, and once again the organization faded.

The third incarnation of the Klan came about in the 1950s and ʼ60s as a response to integration and civil rights legislation, seen by many white Southerners as federal intervention. Today’s Klan, which may or may not be directly traceable to the Klan of the ʼ50s and ʼ60s, operates much more like a political party.

KKK is not a trademarked term. Any group can call themselves “KKK” and hold a wide variety of beliefs and practices—just as many divergent groups today would call themselves “Christian.”

The largest KKK-affiliated group today, the Knight’s Party, clearly promotes some themes that would seem to be in line with evangelical Christianity. Their Annual Faith and Freedom Conference is held at Soldiers of the Cross Bible Camp and is billed as “3 Family-Friendly Days.” Activities include Bible studies and gospel music concerts. Guests at the camp are expected to exhibit “Christian behavior.”

The Knights Party website also states that they want to extend the blessings of Christianity to all, regardless of color or race. The Knights require all members to “profess a belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.” The group is pro-life, supports traditional marriage, and promotes home schooling.

The group states that they do not hate other races or religions but emphasizes that the United States was founded as a white Christian (Protestant) nation. They want to restore the foundation that is, in their eyes, being eroded by the increase in the non-white, non-Christian population. Unlike the KKK groups of the past, they disavow hatred and violence. They also disavow white supremacy. They feel that all people and all races in the U.S. will benefit by a return to the foundation—however, they make it clear that the foundation should include a majority white population firmly in control of all aspects of government, society, and culture.

Yes, the Knights Party (and most other KKK groups) claims to be Christian. However, claiming to be Christian is a far different thing from being Christian. Jesus said in Matthew 7:22–23, “Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’” Simply claiming the name of Christ does not mean an individual or an organization is truly Christian.

If the KKK were still involved in lynching, bombing, and blatant white supremacy, it would be easier to answer questions about whether the KKK is a Christian organization. Since most modern KKK groups disavow these things, the answer has to be more carefully nuanced.

Can a group that is truly practicing biblical Christianity exclude people based on their ethnic or racial background? The answer is a definitive “NO.” Central to the truth of the gospel is the acceptance of all races based on faith in Christ. Galatians 2 mentions an incident in which Peter had separated himself from Gentile believers. Paul confronted him, pointing out that Peter’s conduct was contrary to the truth of the gospel (Galatians 2:14). The central issue is that God accepts all people based on faith in Christ, regardless of race or ethnic background. To indicate anything different is essentially a denial of the efficacy of the gospel. The New Testament envisions a church made up of people from every ethnic group joining in praise: “I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. And they cried out in a loud voice: ‘Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb’” (Revelation 7:9–10). If this heavenly diversity is God’s goal, no truly Christian organization can make distinctions based on ethnicity.

Christians are admonished to have the same humility and generosity as Jesus: “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others” (Philippians 2:3–4). If there is anything that comes through loud and clear from today’s Ku Klux Klan groups, it is that they are fighting for the rights of “their people—white people.” A focus on one’s own rights to the neglect or exclusion of the rights of others is inherently unchristian.

To summarize, the KKK of the 19th and 20th centuries was decidedly anti-Christian in its beliefs and actions. While it disavows violence, the modern/current KKK still holds some blatantly unbiblical/unchristian beliefs, and is soundly rejected by every significant Christian denomination.


First, I fucked up.

Second, I should have used the word “was” because the KKK as far as I know is far less violent these days. They still do hate marches / parades, but I don’t think they lynch people on a weekly basis.

My point was that they were absolutely a Christian organization while they were committing murders against black people, despite the Bible forbidding any Christian of committing murder.


We still have the moral highground if we want to punch a member of the KKK in the face, though.


There’s not a justifiable moral argument for punching another citizen in the face for espousing different political opinions, no matter how extreme.

That Richard Spencer guy shouldn’t have been punched for being a Nazi, even if I think he’s truly the scum of the universe.

Once their rhetoric becomes violent action, then we’re on to something and you might be able to make an argument, but until then, they are like you or me, a citizen who has committed no crime and should not be harmed.


Incorrect, it’s always morally justifiable to punch Nazis in the face.


Don’t tell me I’m incorrect when you’re taking an absurdly extremist position, what a ridiculously arrogant thing to say.

You would not accept being punched in the face for your words either.


No, but i’m not a Nazi.