Question about coercion in the Qu�ran.

so I will rephrase: Just because a secularist performs an evil act, does not mean that the act is advocated by secularism.

Oh of this I am well aware, and I think I made that clear in the thread:

If we are to use this logic, then the LTTE which is the originator of suicide operations in Sri Lanka show the depreviaity of Secularism

If we are to use this logic, which as I suggested earlier to false to do so. Islam cannot be denegraded by some fanatics, nor can secularism be degraded by the same standard. Here is a excellent fatwa against Suicide bombings:

http://www.shaykhabdalqadir.com/content/articles/Art001_1702 2004.html

I disagree with this statement to the degree that to blame Islam for the acts of some Muslims is folly. What is problematic with Islam is Wahhabism which is sectarian in nature, and not encompassing as traditional, Sufi Islam is. I also was one to "blame Islam" before I started learning about classical Islam and modern Wahhabi perversions. Many of the people on this forum probably say they hate "Islam" but they hate Wahhabi's instead.

To be fair, those preachers are overwhelmingly Wahhabi who by its very nature is violent, and seeks to eradicate the reminents of the "Kufr" from the Ummah, and to get rid of Muslims they consider to be heretical (basically any Muslim who is not Wahhabi) especially targeting Sufi's, and Shi'a's. Historically speaking Islamic empires were much more tolerant of different religions and races then European culture until the 19th and 20 th centuries. I am not 100% sure by I would not be surprised if Catholic wars in the Levant, in Iberian Peninsula, or in the America's were justified by the scriptures as many people who justify their acts of violence throught scripture often ignore the message of the religion they suppoesdly believe in. I am not defending Islam by saying here that Catholics did it too, what I am saying is that historically speaking even the most pro-humanistic abrahamic religion (Christianity) can be manipulated in such a way to validate genocidal murder.

What I think is that the reason why the West see's Muslims in a negative light now is because the Ummah reminds us of a time when we were the same way, it almost brings up shame in our hearts. Likewise Muslims see the West in a generally negative light bc what we are is what they used to be, they are envious of a power they no longer have and they want to get it back at any cost. Civilization did a 180 in less then 500 years, we used to be them, and they used to be us.
Congratulations nico � you are beginning to see the contradictions and the evil in the qur�an for yourself:

Well to me the Qu'ran is not "evil", contradictory possibly if not yes. I believe that is a contradiction within the context which it was written, and that quote raises many questions for Muslims indeed. 

From numerous books on the issue of coercion in the faith, an exerpt from Abdelwahab Meddeb's book The Malady of Islam states:

Voltaire in his Traite sur la tolerance with two verses from the Qu'ran: 'No coercion in religion' Qu'ran 2:256. Razi comments on this: The interpretation (ta'qil) of this sentence is that God did not construct the question of faith on force (ijbar) and violence (qasr), but based it on the possiblity of persuasion (tamakkum) and free choice (ikhtiyar). God made clear and obvious the path that leads to faith. When all the ways to convince are exhausted in the Book, only coercion remains to lead the hesitant to truth, But recourse to constraint is unacceptable: The use of violence annuls the testing (imtihan) and effort prompeted by assiduous application (taklif) of the rules. To illustrate the line of argument that he borrows from a previous authority (al-Qaffal), Razi cites other Qu'ran verses:'May he who wants to believe, and may he who wants to, remain unbelieving 18:29'; 'If your Lord had wanted it, all those who people the Earth would believe. Is it up to you to force people to believe?' 9:99. Razi recalls that constraint is exercised as soon as the Muslim sats to the unbeliever:'Convert or I will kill you'....If they (dhimma) agree to pay the tax on minorities (jizyah), they earn the protection of the law (Meddeb 192)

Here is another interesting quote from the Qu'ran:

Discuss with the people of the Book only in the finest manner- except with those among them who are unrighteous. Say: 'We believe in what was revealed to us and in what was revealed to you. Our God as well as yours is unique. To him we submit" 29:43.

Its interesting to note that Islam does have two faces, one peaceful if not pantheistic and the other closeminded, violent, and seperatist. In the quote you presented from the Qu'ran needs further interpretation, I am not educated in the ways of Qu'ran interpretation but here is my truly amateur look at it:

"When you clash with the unbelieving Infidels in battle (fighting Jihad in Allah�s Cause),

Jihad in tradition Islam is to my knowledge defensive, and can only occur when the Kufr deny Muslims the right to practice within that said state. When Mohammed attacked and finally invaded Mecca he did not force conversion of the Meccans just that Muslims within the city would be able to practice their faith freely, likewise Mohammed mass murder of Jews who fought against the Jama'a shows a completely different side of the story. So from what I can derieve from all this is that only in a legitimate Jihad can forced conversion occur (which still contradicts the 'No coercion in religion' Qu'ran 2:256).

Jihad must be a legitimate Jihad, Jihad is not a struggle forever that sounds like a Qutbist manipulation of the religion if used in that context.

It is to coerce the dhimma into the state power of Islam (shari'a), but not the religion itself.