Law Proposed Because 'God Would Not Go Around With Pants Down'

[Smellin Coffee]

'God Would Not Go Around With Pants Down'

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Pants Up Don't Loot!!

While I hate the pants down thing, the phrase "God would not" (or worse, "God would never") tells me there's a 99% chance I'm about to hear something that has no basis in scripture. 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Pants Up Don't Loot!!

While I hate the pants down thing, the phrase "God would not" (or worse, "God would never") tells me there's a 99% chance I'm about to hear something that has no basis in scripture.

Not to mention making a law using a religious reference. Separation of church and state, anyone?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Pants Up Don't Loot!!

While I hate the pants down thing, the phrase "God would not" (or worse, "God would never") tells me there's a 99% chance I'm about to hear something that has no basis in scripture.

Not to mention making a law using a religious reference. Separation of church and state, anyone?

Except, since there's no scriptural basis for it, it's not really using a religious reference. 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Pants Up Don't Loot!!

While I hate the pants down thing, the phrase "God would not" (or worse, "God would never") tells me there's a 99% chance I'm about to hear something that has no basis in scripture.

Not to mention making a law using a religious reference. Separation of church and state, anyone?

Except, since there's no scriptural basis for it, it's not really using a religious reference. 

Well, if a law were proposed based on the Koran, same thing even though it wouldn't be considered 'scriptural basis'.

 

[brianb]

I've seen the girl short shorts fashion in Canada but never the guy saggy pants fashion. I guess it never caught on.  Personally I think the law is stupid. Why not just get these kids off the street and give them a reason to dress better.  Give them jobs or job training/skills.

 

[subllibrm]

I've seen the girl short shorts fashion in Canada but never the guy saggy pants fashion. I guess it never caught on.  Personally I think the law is stupid. Why not just get these kids off the street and give them a reason to dress better.  Give them jobs or job training/skills.

And how do we do that in a free country (we can't kidnap them)? And who would be doing this? And what if they don't want to? And there are hundreds (if not thousands) of programs already designed to do exactly what you propose. So why do these young fellas not respond to the very thing you suggest?

I get your point but it is kind of like saying "why not just have everyone be rich" to solve the poverty problem.

 

[Bruh]

Pants Up Don't Loot!!

While I hate the pants down thing, the phrase "God would not" (or worse, "God would never") tells me there's a 99% chance I'm about to hear something that has no basis in scripture.

Not to mention making a law using a religious reference. Separation of church and state, anyone?

Except, since there's no scriptural basis for it, it's not really using a religious reference. 

Well, if a law were proposed based on the Koran, same thing even though it wouldn't be considered 'scriptural basis'.

Except the Koran tells the present day Muslims to kill the infidels.

 

[Bruh]

I've seen the girl short shorts fashion in Canada but never the guy saggy pants fashion. I guess it never caught on.  Personally I think the law is stupid. Why not just get these kids off the street and give them a reason to dress better.  Give them jobs or job training/skills.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Pants Up Don't Loot!!

While I hate the pants down thing, the phrase "God would not" (or worse, "God would never") tells me there's a 99% chance I'm about to hear something that has no basis in scripture.

Not to mention making a law using a religious reference. Separation of church and state, anyone?

Except, since there's no scriptural basis for it, it's not really using a religious reference. 

Well, if a law were proposed based on the Koran, same thing even though it wouldn't be considered 'scriptural basis'.

Except the Koran tells the present day Muslims to kill the infidels.

This is absolutely not true and it is quite easy to prove.

<snip>

The word used most often in Quran, that is so often mistranslated as kill; slay; or slaughter is not jihad, it is Qital and if you look to the Arabic, you will quickly understand this word in today's usage would clearly be combat.

Naturally, just as here in the U.S. we must stand up for righteousness and strive to prevent oppression, aggression and tyranny. This is the proper usage and understanding for this term, as you will discover while passing through the Tafsir and explanations by top scholars today.

Scholars of Quran tell us the verses dealing with this topic are specific and not intended to imply a general meaning for just anyone to decide to go around combating non-Muslims. The early Muslims had been driven out of their homes and turned out into the desert to starve. After finally, relocating in Medina, verses came in Quran instructing them to make hajj (pilgrimage) back to Makkah. Finding their way blocked and after several years of making agreements and treaties that the others continually broke, the Muslims were at last, told they could now fight in combat against the tyrants who had so horribly mistreated and abused them in the past. However, this would only be acceptable to Allah if they remained within very specific limitations. The word "Qital" in Arabic in this instance refers to "combat" rather than what some have used "kill" because the word "kill" is far to general, while the word "combat" appropriately describes what is intended by the usage in this passage. Allah Knows Best.

It should also be noted the usage of the word "Fitnah" in the same verse denotes a horrible condition, not unlike what we find today when there is terrorism and tyranny against the moral and just society at large. It would be easy to properly understand the meaning as, "Engage them in combat, even killing them, until the state of "Fitnah" (terrorism) no longer exists in the society and people are free to worship Allah by their choice."

We can see these verse are not designed to promote terrorism, but rather these are very orders from Above to the Muslims to be the first of those who stand out aggressively against all forms of terrorism and oppression.

Just ask Islam.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Pants Up Don't Loot!!

While I hate the pants down thing, the phrase "God would not" (or worse, "God would never") tells me there's a 99% chance I'm about to hear something that has no basis in scripture.

Not to mention making a law using a religious reference. Separation of church and state, anyone?

Except, since there's no scriptural basis for it, it's not really using a religious reference. 

Well, if a law were proposed based on the Koran, same thing even though it wouldn't be considered 'scriptural basis'.

Except the Koran tells the present day Muslims to kill the infidels.

This is absolutely not true and it is quite easy to prove.

<snip>

The word used most often in Quran, that is so often mistranslated as kill; slay; or slaughter is not jihad, it is Qital and if you look to the Arabic, you will quickly understand this word in today's usage would clearly be combat.

Naturally, just as here in the U.S. we must stand up for righteousness and strive to prevent oppression, aggression and tyranny. This is the proper usage and understanding for this term, as you will discover while passing through the Tafsir and explanations by top scholars today.

Scholars of Quran tell us the verses dealing with this topic are specific and not intended to imply a general meaning for just anyone to decide to go around combating non-Muslims. The early Muslims had been driven out of their homes and turned out into the desert to starve. After finally, relocating in Medina, verses came in Quran instructing them to make hajj (pilgrimage) back to Makkah. Finding their way blocked and after several years of making agreements and treaties that the others continually broke, the Muslims were at last, told they could now fight in combat against the tyrants who had so horribly mistreated and abused them in the past. However, this would only be acceptable to Allah if they remained within very specific limitations. The word "Qital" in Arabic in this instance refers to "combat" rather than what some have used "kill" because the word "kill" is far to general, while the word "combat" appropriately describes what is intended by the usage in this passage. Allah Knows Best.

It should also be noted the usage of the word "Fitnah" in the same verse denotes a horrible condition, not unlike what we find today when there is terrorism and tyranny against the moral and just society at large. It would be easy to properly understand the meaning as, "Engage them in combat, even killing them, until the state of "Fitnah" (terrorism) no longer exists in the society and people are free to worship Allah by their choice."

We can see these verse are not designed to promote terrorism, but rather these are very orders from Above to the Muslims to be the first of those who stand out aggressively against all forms of terrorism and oppression.

Just ask Islam.

I guess Islamic terrorists just don't know how to read Arabic.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Pants Up Don't Loot!!

While I hate the pants down thing, the phrase "God would not" (or worse, "God would never") tells me there's a 99% chance I'm about to hear something that has no basis in scripture.

Not to mention making a law using a religious reference. Separation of church and state, anyone?

Except, since there's no scriptural basis for it, it's not really using a religious reference. 

Well, if a law were proposed based on the Koran, same thing even though it wouldn't be considered 'scriptural basis'.

Except the Koran tells the present day Muslims to kill the infidels.

This is absolutely not true and it is quite easy to prove.

<snip>

The word used most often in Quran, that is so often mistranslated as kill; slay; or slaughter is not jihad, it is Qital and if you look to the Arabic, you will quickly understand this word in today's usage would clearly be combat.

Naturally, just as here in the U.S. we must stand up for righteousness and strive to prevent oppression, aggression and tyranny. This is the proper usage and understanding for this term, as you will discover while passing through the Tafsir and explanations by top scholars today.

Scholars of Quran tell us the verses dealing with this topic are specific and not intended to imply a general meaning for just anyone to decide to go around combating non-Muslims. The early Muslims had been driven out of their homes and turned out into the desert to starve. After finally, relocating in Medina, verses came in Quran instructing them to make hajj (pilgrimage) back to Makkah. Finding their way blocked and after several years of making agreements and treaties that the others continually broke, the Muslims were at last, told they could now fight in combat against the tyrants who had so horribly mistreated and abused them in the past. However, this would only be acceptable to Allah if they remained within very specific limitations. The word "Qital" in Arabic in this instance refers to "combat" rather than what some have used "kill" because the word "kill" is far to general, while the word "combat" appropriately describes what is intended by the usage in this passage. Allah Knows Best.

It should also be noted the usage of the word "Fitnah" in the same verse denotes a horrible condition, not unlike what we find today when there is terrorism and tyranny against the moral and just society at large. It would be easy to properly understand the meaning as, "Engage them in combat, even killing them, until the state of "Fitnah" (terrorism) no longer exists in the society and people are free to worship Allah by their choice."

We can see these verse are not designed to promote terrorism, but rather these are very orders from Above to the Muslims to be the first of those who stand out aggressively against all forms of terrorism and oppression.

Just ask Islam.

I guess Islamic terrorists just don't know how to read Arabic.

Don't know. I know nothing about Muslim beliefs. Just found the link to see the response of the other side.

 

[Bruh]

Pants Up Don't Loot!!

While I hate the pants down thing, the phrase "God would not" (or worse, "God would never") tells me there's a 99% chance I'm about to hear something that has no basis in scripture.

Not to mention making a law using a religious reference. Separation of church and state, anyone?

Except, since there's no scriptural basis for it, it's not really using a religious reference. 

Well, if a law were proposed based on the Koran, same thing even though it wouldn't be considered 'scriptural basis'.

Except the Koran tells the present day Muslims to kill the infidels.

This is absolutely not true and it is quite easy to prove.

<snip>

The word used most often in Quran, that is so often mistranslated as kill; slay; or slaughter is not jihad, it is Qital and if you look to the Arabic, you will quickly understand this word in today's usage would clearly be combat.

Naturally, just as here in the U.S. we must stand up for righteousness and strive to prevent oppression, aggression and tyranny. This is the proper usage and understanding for this term, as you will discover while passing through the Tafsir and explanations by top scholars today.

Scholars of Quran tell us the verses dealing with this topic are specific and not intended to imply a general meaning for just anyone to decide to go around combating non-Muslims. The early Muslims had been driven out of their homes and turned out into the desert to starve. After finally, relocating in Medina, verses came in Quran instructing them to make hajj (pilgrimage) back to Makkah. Finding their way blocked and after several years of making agreements and treaties that the others continually broke, the Muslims were at last, told they could now fight in combat against the tyrants who had so horribly mistreated and abused them in the past. However, this would only be acceptable to Allah if they remained within very specific limitations. The word "Qital" in Arabic in this instance refers to "combat" rather than what some have used "kill" because the word "kill" is far to general, while the word "combat" appropriately describes what is intended by the usage in this passage. Allah Knows Best.

It should also be noted the usage of the word "Fitnah" in the same verse denotes a horrible condition, not unlike what we find today when there is terrorism and tyranny against the moral and just society at large. It would be easy to properly understand the meaning as, "Engage them in combat, even killing them, until the state of "Fitnah" (terrorism) no longer exists in the society and people are free to worship Allah by their choice."

We can see these verse are not designed to promote terrorism, but rather these are very orders from Above to the Muslims to be the first of those who stand out aggressively against all forms of terrorism and oppression.

Just ask Islam.

I guess Islamic terrorists just don't know how to read Arabic.

Don't know. I know nothing about Muslim beliefs. Just found the link to see the response of the other side.

It's not a peaceful religion like Christianity.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Pants Up Don't Loot!!

While I hate the pants down thing, the phrase "God would not" (or worse, "God would never") tells me there's a 99% chance I'm about to hear something that has no basis in scripture.

Not to mention making a law using a religious reference. Separation of church and state, anyone?

Except, since there's no scriptural basis for it, it's not really using a religious reference. 

Well, if a law were proposed based on the Koran, same thing even though it wouldn't be considered 'scriptural basis'.

Except the Koran tells the present day Muslims to kill the infidels.

This is absolutely not true and it is quite easy to prove.

<snip>

The word used most often in Quran, that is so often mistranslated as kill; slay; or slaughter is not jihad, it is Qital and if you look to the Arabic, you will quickly understand this word in today's usage would clearly be combat.

Naturally, just as here in the U.S. we must stand up for righteousness and strive to prevent oppression, aggression and tyranny. This is the proper usage and understanding for this term, as you will discover while passing through the Tafsir and explanations by top scholars today.

Scholars of Quran tell us the verses dealing with this topic are specific and not intended to imply a general meaning for just anyone to decide to go around combating non-Muslims. The early Muslims had been driven out of their homes and turned out into the desert to starve. After finally, relocating in Medina, verses came in Quran instructing them to make hajj (pilgrimage) back to Makkah. Finding their way blocked and after several years of making agreements and treaties that the others continually broke, the Muslims were at last, told they could now fight in combat against the tyrants who had so horribly mistreated and abused them in the past. However, this would only be acceptable to Allah if they remained within very specific limitations. The word "Qital" in Arabic in this instance refers to "combat" rather than what some have used "kill" because the word "kill" is far to general, while the word "combat" appropriately describes what is intended by the usage in this passage. Allah Knows Best.

It should also be noted the usage of the word "Fitnah" in the same verse denotes a horrible condition, not unlike what we find today when there is terrorism and tyranny against the moral and just society at large. It would be easy to properly understand the meaning as, "Engage them in combat, even killing them, until the state of "Fitnah" (terrorism) no longer exists in the society and people are free to worship Allah by their choice."

We can see these verse are not designed to promote terrorism, but rather these are very orders from Above to the Muslims to be the first of those who stand out aggressively against all forms of terrorism and oppression.

Just ask Islam.

I guess Islamic terrorists just don't know how to read Arabic.

Don't know. I know nothing about Muslim beliefs. Just found the link to see the response of the other side.

It's not a peaceful religion like Christianity.

I'm sure victims of the Crusades would disagree with you.

 

[Bruh]

Pants Up Don't Loot!!

While I hate the pants down thing, the phrase "God would not" (or worse, "God would never") tells me there's a 99% chance I'm about to hear something that has no basis in scripture.

Not to mention making a law using a religious reference. Separation of church and state, anyone?

Except, since there's no scriptural basis for it, it's not really using a religious reference. 

Well, if a law were proposed based on the Koran, same thing even though it wouldn't be considered 'scriptural basis'.

Except the Koran tells the present day Muslims to kill the infidels.

This is absolutely not true and it is quite easy to prove.

<snip>

The word used most often in Quran, that is so often mistranslated as kill; slay; or slaughter is not jihad, it is Qital and if you look to the Arabic, you will quickly understand this word in today's usage would clearly be combat.

Naturally, just as here in the U.S. we must stand up for righteousness and strive to prevent oppression, aggression and tyranny. This is the proper usage and understanding for this term, as you will discover while passing through the Tafsir and explanations by top scholars today.

Scholars of Quran tell us the verses dealing with this topic are specific and not intended to imply a general meaning for just anyone to decide to go around combating non-Muslims. The early Muslims had been driven out of their homes and turned out into the desert to starve. After finally, relocating in Medina, verses came in Quran instructing them to make hajj (pilgrimage) back to Makkah. Finding their way blocked and after several years of making agreements and treaties that the others continually broke, the Muslims were at last, told they could now fight in combat against the tyrants who had so horribly mistreated and abused them in the past. However, this would only be acceptable to Allah if they remained within very specific limitations. The word "Qital" in Arabic in this instance refers to "combat" rather than what some have used "kill" because the word "kill" is far to general, while the word "combat" appropriately describes what is intended by the usage in this passage. Allah Knows Best.

It should also be noted the usage of the word "Fitnah" in the same verse denotes a horrible condition, not unlike what we find today when there is terrorism and tyranny against the moral and just society at large. It would be easy to properly understand the meaning as, "Engage them in combat, even killing them, until the state of "Fitnah" (terrorism) no longer exists in the society and people are free to worship Allah by their choice."

We can see these verse are not designed to promote terrorism, but rather these are very orders from Above to the Muslims to be the first of those who stand out aggressively against all forms of terrorism and oppression.

Just ask Islam.

I guess Islamic terrorists just don't know how to read Arabic.

Don't know. I know nothing about Muslim beliefs. Just found the link to see the response of the other side.

It's not a peaceful religion like Christianity.

I'm sure victims of the Crusades would disagree with you.

Do you mean the catholic crusades?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Pants Up Don't Loot!!

While I hate the pants down thing, the phrase "God would not" (or worse, "God would never") tells me there's a 99% chance I'm about to hear something that has no basis in scripture.

Not to mention making a law using a religious reference. Separation of church and state, anyone?

Except, since there's no scriptural basis for it, it's not really using a religious reference. 

Well, if a law were proposed based on the Koran, same thing even though it wouldn't be considered 'scriptural basis'.

Except the Koran tells the present day Muslims to kill the infidels.

This is absolutely not true and it is quite easy to prove.

<snip>

The word used most often in Quran, that is so often mistranslated as kill; slay; or slaughter is not jihad, it is Qital and if you look to the Arabic, you will quickly understand this word in today's usage would clearly be combat.

Naturally, just as here in the U.S. we must stand up for righteousness and strive to prevent oppression, aggression and tyranny. This is the proper usage and understanding for this term, as you will discover while passing through the Tafsir and explanations by top scholars today.

Scholars of Quran tell us the verses dealing with this topic are specific and not intended to imply a general meaning for just anyone to decide to go around combating non-Muslims. The early Muslims had been driven out of their homes and turned out into the desert to starve. After finally, relocating in Medina, verses came in Quran instructing them to make hajj (pilgrimage) back to Makkah. Finding their way blocked and after several years of making agreements and treaties that the others continually broke, the Muslims were at last, told they could now fight in combat against the tyrants who had so horribly mistreated and abused them in the past. However, this would only be acceptable to Allah if they remained within very specific limitations. The word "Qital" in Arabic in this instance refers to "combat" rather than what some have used "kill" because the word "kill" is far to general, while the word "combat" appropriately describes what is intended by the usage in this passage. Allah Knows Best.

It should also be noted the usage of the word "Fitnah" in the same verse denotes a horrible condition, not unlike what we find today when there is terrorism and tyranny against the moral and just society at large. It would be easy to properly understand the meaning as, "Engage them in combat, even killing them, until the state of "Fitnah" (terrorism) no longer exists in the society and people are free to worship Allah by their choice."

We can see these verse are not designed to promote terrorism, but rather these are very orders from Above to the Muslims to be the first of those who stand out aggressively against all forms of terrorism and oppression.

Just ask Islam.

I guess Islamic terrorists just don't know how to read Arabic.

Don't know. I know nothing about Muslim beliefs. Just found the link to see the response of the other side.

It's not a peaceful religion like Christianity.

I'm sure victims of the Crusades would disagree with you.

Do you mean the catholic crusades?

They would be considered a form of "Christianity".

See? Broad brush works for all kinds of religious descriptions.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I'm sure victims of the Crusades would disagree with you.

I doubt if they have anything to say about it now.  They're dead.

The crusades weren't a "everyone on the world must convert to Catholicism so we can establish a world Catholic caliphate or else we'll chop off all your heads" kinda thing. 

And it was Catholic, not generic Christian.  There is no command to convert the world or else in the Bible.  (Or else kill them, or charge them a non-conversion tax.)

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I'm sure victims of the Crusades would disagree with you.

I doubt if they have anything to say about it now.  They're dead.

The crusades weren't a "everyone on the world must convert to Catholicism so we can establish a world Catholic caliphate or else we'll chop off all your heads" kinda thing. 

And it was Catholic, not generic Christian.  There is no command to convert the world or else in the Bible.  (Or else kill them, or charge them a non-conversion tax.)

Still doesn't negate what I implied.

 

[Bruh]

Pants Up Don't Loot!!

While I hate the pants down thing, the phrase "God would not" (or worse, "God would never") tells me there's a 99% chance I'm about to hear something that has no basis in scripture.

Not to mention making a law using a religious reference. Separation of church and state, anyone?

Except, since there's no scriptural basis for it, it's not really using a religious reference. 

Well, if a law were proposed based on the Koran, same thing even though it wouldn't be considered 'scriptural basis'.

Except the Koran tells the present day Muslims to kill the infidels.

This is absolutely not true and it is quite easy to prove.

<snip>

The word used most often in Quran, that is so often mistranslated as kill; slay; or slaughter is not jihad, it is Qital and if you look to the Arabic, you will quickly understand this word in today's usage would clearly be combat.

Naturally, just as here in the U.S. we must stand up for righteousness and strive to prevent oppression, aggression and tyranny. This is the proper usage and understanding for this term, as you will discover while passing through the Tafsir and explanations by top scholars today.

Scholars of Quran tell us the verses dealing with this topic are specific and not intended to imply a general meaning for just anyone to decide to go around combating non-Muslims. The early Muslims had been driven out of their homes and turned out into the desert to starve. After finally, relocating in Medina, verses came in Quran instructing them to make hajj (pilgrimage) back to Makkah. Finding their way blocked and after several years of making agreements and treaties that the others continually broke, the Muslims were at last, told they could now fight in combat against the tyrants who had so horribly mistreated and abused them in the past. However, this would only be acceptable to Allah if they remained within very specific limitations. The word "Qital" in Arabic in this instance refers to "combat" rather than what some have used "kill" because the word "kill" is far to general, while the word "combat" appropriately describes what is intended by the usage in this passage. Allah Knows Best.

It should also be noted the usage of the word "Fitnah" in the same verse denotes a horrible condition, not unlike what we find today when there is terrorism and tyranny against the moral and just society at large. It would be easy to properly understand the meaning as, "Engage them in combat, even killing them, until the state of "Fitnah" (terrorism) no longer exists in the society and people are free to worship Allah by their choice."

We can see these verse are not designed to promote terrorism, but rather these are very orders from Above to the Muslims to be the first of those who stand out aggressively against all forms of terrorism and oppression.

Just ask Islam.

I guess Islamic terrorists just don't know how to read Arabic.

Don't know. I know nothing about Muslim beliefs. Just found the link to see the response of the other side.

It's not a peaceful religion like Christianity.

I'm sure victims of the Crusades would disagree with you.

Do you mean the catholic crusades?

They would be considered a form of "Christianity".

See? Broad brush works for all kinds of religious descriptions.

Catholics do not preach the true gospel therefore they are not Christians.

How can you equate Catholics and Christians?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Pants Up Don't Loot!!

While I hate the pants down thing, the phrase "God would not" (or worse, "God would never") tells me there's a 99% chance I'm about to hear something that has no basis in scripture.

Not to mention making a law using a religious reference. Separation of church and state, anyone?

Except, since there's no scriptural basis for it, it's not really using a religious reference. 

Well, if a law were proposed based on the Koran, same thing even though it wouldn't be considered 'scriptural basis'.

Except the Koran tells the present day Muslims to kill the infidels.

This is absolutely not true and it is quite easy to prove.

<snip>

The word used most often in Quran, that is so often mistranslated as kill; slay; or slaughter is not jihad, it is Qital and if you look to the Arabic, you will quickly understand this word in today's usage would clearly be combat.

Naturally, just as here in the U.S. we must stand up for righteousness and strive to prevent oppression, aggression and tyranny. This is the proper usage and understanding for this term, as you will discover while passing through the Tafsir and explanations by top scholars today.

Scholars of Quran tell us the verses dealing with this topic are specific and not intended to imply a general meaning for just anyone to decide to go around combating non-Muslims. The early Muslims had been driven out of their homes and turned out into the desert to starve. After finally, relocating in Medina, verses came in Quran instructing them to make hajj (pilgrimage) back to Makkah. Finding their way blocked and after several years of making agreements and treaties that the others continually broke, the Muslims were at last, told they could now fight in combat against the tyrants who had so horribly mistreated and abused them in the past. However, this would only be acceptable to Allah if they remained within very specific limitations. The word "Qital" in Arabic in this instance refers to "combat" rather than what some have used "kill" because the word "kill" is far to general, while the word "combat" appropriately describes what is intended by the usage in this passage. Allah Knows Best.

It should also be noted the usage of the word "Fitnah" in the same verse denotes a horrible condition, not unlike what we find today when there is terrorism and tyranny against the moral and just society at large. It would be easy to properly understand the meaning as, "Engage them in combat, even killing them, until the state of "Fitnah" (terrorism) no longer exists in the society and people are free to worship Allah by their choice."

We can see these verse are not designed to promote terrorism, but rather these are very orders from Above to the Muslims to be the first of those who stand out aggressively against all forms of terrorism and oppression.

Just ask Islam.

I guess Islamic terrorists just don't know how to read Arabic.

Don't know. I know nothing about Muslim beliefs. Just found the link to see the response of the other side.

It's not a peaceful religion like Christianity.

I'm sure victims of the Crusades would disagree with you.

Do you mean the catholic crusades?

They would be considered a form of "Christianity".

See? Broad brush works for all kinds of religious descriptions.

Catholics do not preach the true gospel therefore they are not Christians.

How can you equate Catholics and Christians?

Because they teach people are to follow Jesus Christ. So yes, they are Christian.

http://catholicbridge.com/catholic/are_catholics_christian.php