True Islam is radical Islam. The fact that Muhammad said it is okay to kill Christians and Jews makes the religion a violent religion.

@Northwest That's all First Commandment stuff that has been universal behavior in just about all cultures.

The Koran does have many verses directing believers to fight for Allah and to kill non-believers. I believe that historically very few Muslims have ever followed that directive.

Overall, the Bible is far more racist and violent than the Koran. Some people claim that the Koran is worse because a higher percentage of verses are violent and cruel. But everyone is welcomed to be a Muslim whereas the Bible is all about how special the Jews are and how the world was created just for them while everyone else are beasts, animals, dogs, swine, and spit.

@Diotrephes

[quote]The Koran does have many verses directing believers to fight for Allah and to kill non-believers. I believe that historically very few Muslims have ever followed that directive.[/quote]

[quote]Qur'an - Surat Al Atwba (the repentance Sura, or Chapter 9) verse 5: And when the forbidden months have passed, kill the idolaters wherever you find them and take them prisoners, and beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent and observe Prayer and pay the Zakat, then leave their way free. Surely, Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.[/quote]

This was very specific to idolaters, and the context is very specific, the worshipers of idols that Muhammad was fighting in Arabia.

As to Christians and Jews, the Qur'an is very specific: they are people of the book, and believers, and are not to be harassed. Muhammad instructed his followers to bury in a specific spot, and to leave a plot next to his for Jesus.

In terms of competition, all religious books alternate between violence, extreme violence, rape/enslavement/war, repentance and love.

@Northwest Surah 4:89 = "They would love to see you disbelieve, just as they disbelieve, so you would become equal. So do not befriend any of them, unless they emigrate in the way of God. If they turn away, seize them and execute them wherever you may find them; and do not take from among them allies or supporters."
https://www.clearquran.com/004.html

@Diotrephes Again. It’s about idolators.

@Northwest Read the entire chapter.

@Diotrephes I have, in the original Arabic. Nothing should be translated without the proper historical context.

@Northwest You're going down the wrong road. If you take a few minutes to read the chapter you will see that it is about hypocrites. If they return to the faith they are good to go but if they don't, execute them.

It continues in verses 90 & 91 =
"90. Except those who join people with whom you have a treaty, or those who come to you reluctant to fight you or fight their own people. Had God willed, He would have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. If they withdraw from you, and do not fight you, and offer you peace, then God assigns no excuse for you against them.

91. You will find others who want security from you, and security from their own people. But whenever they are tempted into civil discord, they plunge into it. So if they do not withdraw from you, nor offer you peace, nor restrain their hands, seize them and execute them wherever you find them. Against these, We have given you clear authorization."
https://www.clearquran.com/004.html

It also says that there is no compulsion in religion (as long as you toe the line).

Since you have said that you read the Koran in Arabic, maybe you can answer this question:
When was the Koran revised to format it into numbered chapters and verses like the Bible and who did it?

@Diotrephes You keep on quoting English language bits and pieces, without context.

Muhammad was illiterate, so he was "reciting" text to the "souhaba", a term that somewhat equates to the "Apostles" in Christian tradition.

There is no question in my mind that Muhammad was influenced by the Christian and Jewish (various) traditions, so the Qura'an covers the same territory, when it comes to Prophets, connecting in the Old Testament, picking up parts of the New Testament, and adding his own formula as an extension of those who came before him.

This is why he ordered that a plot be reserved next to his, where Jesus will be buried, as in his prescribed timeline, Jesus did not die at the cross, and instead he ascended to heaven, and will be brought back to earth as part of the 2nd coming, where he will live, marry, have children and be buried next to Muhammad as a precursor to the end of days.

The difference between the New Testament and the Bible, that various New Testaments were codified decades after the death of Christ, by people who were not contemporaries of Jesus, while the Qur'an was codified by the Souhabas, who became Qalifas #1, #2 and #3, between 632 and 644, and that would be right after Muhammad died in 632 and before Uthman (the 3rd Qalif) was assassinated in 644.

Further, the Quran is organized by specific "themes", not "timeline", and what you're quoting comes from the Nis'a' Surah (or the Women Surah), which is dedicated to what God, as "dictated" to Muhammad, say about women.

@Northwest Thanks for the info. This is an English language forum and the rule on such forums is that all posts have to be in English.

It is doubtful if Mohammed actually existed as depicted. He was just a character that the Uthman committee cooked up to sell their new religion to compete with Judaism and Christianity. No reputable outsider ever saw Mohammed, although the fairy tale does describe him somewhat.

The hadiths were pulled out of thin air because they were written hundreds of years after Mohammed supposedly lived. The writers were in areas he never visited.

So, when was the Koran revised into numbered chapters and verses and who did it?

@Diotrephes [quote]Thanks for the info. This is an English language forum and the rule on such forums is that all posts have to be in English.[/quote]

There is no "rule" requiring all posts be in English. I've had multiple conversations on SW, on the open forums, in different languages.

More importantly though, I am talking about the context, where an Arabic word, as it was intended to mean during the early 7th century, is translated into English.

[quote]It is doubtful if Mohammed actually existed as depicted. [/quote]

It's not really about what individuals may think, it's about well documented history, and that history is extensive and well documented.

[quote]He was just a character that the Uthman committee cooked up to sell their new religion to compete with Judaism and Christianity. [/quote]

No historical reference considers this as a theory. Muhammad created the religion, not his disciples.

[quote]No reputable outsider ever saw Mohammed, although the fairy tale does describe him somewhat.
[/quote]

Yes, because there were iPhones at the time. If you have a reference that disputes he ever existed, then by all means quote it.

[quote]The hadiths were pulled out of thin air because they were written hundreds of years after Mohammed supposedly lived. [/quote]

Muhammad died in the 7th century. The Hadiths were compiled in the 8th and 9th centuries. Sort of like the various books of the New Testament were written, starting around 75 years to 150 years after Jesus's death. The Old Testament is a collection of works by hundreds to thousands of contributors, over a period of nearly 1,000 years.

But we're talking about the Qur'an here, not the Hadith.

[quote]So, when was the Koran revised into numbered chapters and verses and who did it?[/quote]

And I already gave you the answer, but you don't seem to get the point: you're using English designations, when the Qur'an was never codified that way. It has always been organized by Surahs, but you insist on comparing it to how the New Testament is organized. They are not the same.

@Northwest OK, most, if not all forums, I have seen have an English language rule. Maybe some forums you are acquainted with allow posters to used intergalactic languages but I haven't had that experience.

Can you explain how mullahs cite chapter and verse in their preaching?

If you were going to create a religion, why wouldn't you tie it back to the distant past where no one could easily dispute your lies. A few characters in the Bible actually existed, such as Darius, but others such as Moses, Abraham, Lot, Samson, and Jesus are a stretch. One thing is for sure and that is there was no one around them recording every word they said and what they did.

@Diotrephes [quote]OK, most, if not all forums, I have seen have an English language rule. Maybe some forums you are acquainted with allow posters to used intergalactic languages but I haven't had that experience.
[/quote]

Fortunately, we don't have to play make believe. We're on SW, and on SW there are no such rules.

As to your claim that:

[quote]most, if not all forums[/quote]

I'm sure you did't just pull this claim out of thing air, right?

[quote]Can you explain how mullahs cite chapter and verse in their preaching?
[/quote]

[quote]Can you explain how mullahs cite chapter and verse in their preaching?
[/quote]

You're joking, right? What sect? What Mosque? What community? However, the traditional way to call our something form the Qura'n is to call the specific Surah first. This, however, is an individualized as the way priests, rabbis, etc. preach.

All of the Mosques I've been to in person, are not in the US, and for historical purposes only, and not during a live session, like the Aqsa Mosque.

[quote]If you were going to create a religion, why wouldn't you tie it back to the distant past where no one could easily dispute your lies. [/quote]

I have no idea what this means.

[quote]A few characters in the Bible actually existed, such as Darius, but others such as Moses, Abraham, Lot, Samson, and Jesus are a stretch. [/quote]

Again, I have no idea how this is connected to what I said, or you said for that matter. You claimed that Muhammad was an invention, yet there is nothing to back that up. With no Staples in the vicinity, to stock up on pens and paper, historical records are sketchy when it comes to Moses, Abraham, Lot and Samson, but tradition is usually connects to actual events. There seems to be some dots in the sand, connecting an Abraham, who migrated from Iraq, to (at the time) a lush land with plenty of water and green scenery, and once he got there, he said that the land is his, because "God" commanded it.

Lot may have stood out, because he liked to fuck boys. The Aramaic term for a homosexual, which morphed into similar sounding names in Hebrew and Arabic, is Loti.

Jesus: there seems to have been a guy, who today might be diagnosed with a multitude of mental disorders. He's Jewish for sure, and my evidence is simple: he thinks his mother is a virgin, and she thinks her son is God. Seems the guy was a genius, and a charismatic speaker, but he overpromised, and when he did not deliver the victory over the Romans that the Jews were expecting, they dumped him.

He spoke Aramaic, not Hebrew, and he was born as Yashu Ben Maryam. For westerners, the transition from Yashu to Jesus is phonetically understandable. That he can walk on water, or turn water into wine, is obviously debatable.

[quote]One thing is for sure and that is there was no one around them recording every word they said and what they did.[/quote]

Right.

@Northwest Thanks for your comments.