Here is the problem guys. The Koran is no longer the original Koran; same for every religious text out there today. Through many thousands of years, many people in power seeking to control how society runs to shape it in their favor have altered these texts. If you study religions as a whole instead of reading only your text, you will see that all serious religions are actually one-in-the same. The stories, tales, history, etc. all merge together.
In fact, words like "God", "Allah", "Holy", "Satan", "Heaven", "Hell", etc. were created well after these religions were founded, some of those words have actually changed definition over the years as well. For example, research the history of the word "Holy"; you will be very surprised what you find.
In the case of the Koran, let's use the central basis of the text; Allah. This word originally never existed anywhere in the religion. Originally, the word Allah was not a single entity but a group of entities called Anunnaki which means "Those from heaven who came down to Earth" or those who came from the sky.
So, if we are honest here, any individuals who follow the Koran today and especially if they use the word "Allah" are failing to follow the Koran as they are not reading the Koran.
@Unknown I'm not trying to get you to change your answer on this poll, but why should it matter if the "Islamic Church" has disowned them or not? Isn't there the possibility that they are correctly interpreting the Koran and that the Church doesn't want to admit it?
Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...
But if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)"
@debate_power Actually, most of those verses are not general, For example, one of the hadith shown in the "relgionofpeace" website (Bukhari 52:177) is from a very specific context. The prophet did not say in that hadith to openly kill the jews, but rather was discussing one of the signs of Judgement Day (this is seen in the begging of the hadith) when a war is said to break out between the Muslims and the Jews. The hadith was giving the context of a war.
@debate-power The link shows too many examples of verses for me to go over them all so I'll only go into the content of one of the verses. (2:191-193 or the "revelation of the sword" verse) Was given the historic context of defensive warfare, since the conquest of Mecca came in response to the boycott of the Quraysh. Hence leading to the Hijra. And after the Hijra the Prophet was still facing the outside threat of the Quraysh, therefore the context is towards defensive warfare.
@debate-power (2:191-193) The verse came after the Prophet's conquest of Mecca, the conquest was in response to the heavy persecution of Muslims done by the Quraysh (https://en.Wikipedia.Org/wiki/Meccan_boycott_of_the_Hashemites) Resulting in the Muslims fleeing to Medina. In Medina the Prophet still faced the outside threat of the Quraysh, hence why the Prophet took Mecca. Yet once taking Mecca, none of the civilians were killed. Instead they were given a 4-month grace period of leaving Mecca,converting to Islam, or being killed. Only after the 4 month period were the Meccans commanded to "kill them wherever you find them". Once more to repeat, this was in response to fierce persecution. If this does not give enough context then here is a video on the tafseer of that verse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2P9aXIPEWc
ISIS quotes it enough. There are a lot of terrible statements in the Koran that literalists can use. Aren't Muslims obliged to take it literally? Thank god most don't and follow the good teachings within it.