This is not the Koran, have you ever opened the book?
That is a satirical book.
If Muslims were 'ordered' to do that shit, they would have done that after defeating Persia and Rome and invading the Byzantine Empire. If they would have done that, they wouldn't have been alive today themselves.
And why would anyone think of doing that because it's written in a dark humor book?
Actually they DID do it in Iran and eastern & southern Rome, hence why there's only 150,000 Zoroastrians left (once the Worrld's largest religion) - and mostly in India where they fled to - and, um, how many Christians in Turkey again? Oh. wait, Armenians - what's left of them - aren't part of Turkey any more.
Oh, and that IS the koran.
Sucks, I know. REAL bad.
Tell that to ISIL then, or Turkey, or the Saudis, Whahabists, terrorists, and whatever other disgusting vile miscreants who go around killing MY people for not being followers of that foul book, and give them a 'correct' copy.
Ye, I read the whole book and not incomplete phrases to figure out what it means.
So for example:
Verse 2 : 191 is the only mentioned while the whole story and context is written from verse 2 : 190 to about 2 : 195.
It's about the time when war is imposed upon the State. And yes, it was not 'obvious' for Muslims 1400 years ago in Arab to kill anyone, so they had to be given a written permission to do that.
From 2 : 190 to 195, it sets limits for the State in wartime and for the individual saying that one should 'respond in kind to the offense' and not exceed limits. Meaning, it is illegal for a Muslim State today, to use nuclear weapons in a conventional war.
It's quite clear if you open a book and read instead of reading half a sentence and concluding a whole religion.
The options formally granted are : Fight or accept Islamic government.
They think that an Islamic State is fair and just.
But the Koran never asked them to kill civilians for their faith (it was imperatively wrong if they did it).
If this was Islam, then Muhammad had a right over the lives of those that killed and persecuted Muslims in Makka. But nobody was executed after the invasion of Makka. This is a strong example for Muslims because it directly involves their Prophet. If a Muslim kills an innocent person, Islamic law, regardless of the victims' faith, orders the criminal's execution.
We could judge Islam by the book and the prophet's teachings instead of looking at Muslims. It's like judging a car by it's driver.
Bruh, I'm in class right now 😅
Gosh damn, we're not just talking 1400 years ago, we're talking TODAY. You know, terrorism? ISIL?
Dodging the sick vile things moslems STILL do in the name of their religion and as commanded by it doesn't negate that it did and that it does happen. Like I said, right now, today in France. Is there a war going on in France? Against whom?
Oh, wait, there is. A war against the French by sad widdle 'refugees' who left their families behind to make money and rape French women.
Exactly, what would an atheist State do when war is imposed on it?
God doesn't need Muslims to fight for him, humans need to fight to defend themselves.
And 'infidels' cannot be killed until they attack a Muslim State. Muslims must be killed if they attack other Muslims. Animals must be killed if they attack humans. It's a survival instinct for when you are mortally threatened and it works the same for humans and microorganisms, and probably Muslims too if you count them in.😊
Or would you like Muslims to die when they're attacked?
40,000 Arabs on horseback invaded and took over Iran who had an army of a million (granted, they were in the middle of their over internal strife at the time) 1400 years ago and forced everyone to convert or die. There are currently 1.8 billion Moslems in the World, and somewhere between 100,000 to 200,000 Zoroastrians. You do the math.
There was no provocation for this, nor for its subsequent invasion of Rome from Anatolia all the way to its farthest reaches of North Africa.
Then again, like with any war, it was someone else's fault, because "We started it because we we're the bad guys" is something no one said ever.
Remember, Hitler starting WWI was purely 'defensive' as well, acoording to the Nazis, anyways.
ISIL was purely 'defensive' as well too.
As was 9/11.
As was the terrorist attack in Nice being reported right now.
I said, if a Muslim commits a crime, he must be punished. And that Islam hasn't taught him what he does.
Muslims are obligated to follow their prophet's example so if they commit a legal crime, they aren't being Muslims and aren't practicing Islam. They're being terrorists and should be dealt with like terrorists.
And ISIL ain't spreading Islam, it's literally spreading blood. Can't be Muslim.