Andrew has argued that the Quran does not require Muslims to wage war against non-Muslims; and that I am taking certain verses out of context. He says those verses refer to warmaking and therefore are not a call to murder. Because I was tired and felt I should choose my battles I conceded the point. I am now ready to consider the link he provided as argument.
9:5 …slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way.
The link doesn't comment on that verse but does a related one...
9:29. Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
Or to paraphrase, "fight all non Muslims until they submit (or die.)" But wait, the link doesn't claim these refer to war, it says, "fighting unbelievers by the tongue." Frankly, the warmaking argument makes more sense. Here's the argument... God revealed this verse so that the Muslims could defend themselves... But what it's actually saying is a perpetual state of war exists between Muslim and non. By that logic, it's not murder... simply the result of war!!!
How can I possibly claim war is a perpetual state? Simple, it says "until [they all submit.]" All being people of the book and those not (all non Muslims.)
Note the convenient sleight of hand. It both refers to war and it doesn't. You simply pick the argument that most befuddles your opponent.
This verse clarifies that the fight is not just some internal struggle. Fight might refer to an internal struggle, but slay never does. In context (2:190) the argument that this refers to self defense is sound.
So does the Quran require Muslims to wage war? If non Muslims don't submit, absolutely it does. The game being played is if everyone submits there is no requirement for war (providing a technical out for their argument.) Extremely misleading at the very least.
I've only read the link Andrew provided. I'm sure there are other links that do a much better job than I did here. Here I've just discussed the text, but real world context is extremely important as well. A large percent of Muslims interpret the text exactly as I have. Andrew claims they are not representative. What percent is required before they are?
I see no reason not to continue to believe that Islam requires all non Muslims to either submit or die. Terrorist justify their acts because it is a war that Allah demands until every last person submits.
No matter how much peaceful time goes by they can always point to some wrong somewhere in the past (going back to the crusades if they have to) and claim we started it, so they are justified. Andrew claims it's only the terrorists making this claim, but his sentiments are clear.
Some Muslims are probably peaceful, but those that are not means we are in a war whether we like it or not. You don't have to fight a war, but someone has to lose.
Otherwise, slay the idolaters wherever you find them!
It's pretty damned clear. A final word.