What's the reality of the situation, that western terrorism is the good kind, that there are distinctions to be made?
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is ISIS a disaster for all muslims?
- Thread starter Looncall
- Start date
outhouse
Atheistically
Of course it's unsubstantiated, our terrorism and their terrorism is unsubstantiated. What point are you trying to make?
gnostic
The Lost One
The only historical sources about the fates of Banu Qurayza, all come from Muslim sources, and blaming the Jewish Qurayza for treachery, without independent sources, only confirmed that the sources were biased, and nothing more than propaganda by Muhammad and his biographers.
Can you name a single contemporary Jewish source, that the Banu Qurayza were at fault?
There are none.
Also from Muslim sources, is that Muhammad condoned assassinations. Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf, for instance, only come from Muslim sources. For a prophet, who supposedly be a law-maker, in which the Quran supposedly prohibited murder, it seemed ok to have someone else to murder another.
Such double standard, only showed that the prophet, scripture and religion are based nothing more than hypocrisy.
Can you name a single contemporary Jewish source, that the Banu Qurayza were at fault?
There are none.
Also from Muslim sources, is that Muhammad condoned assassinations. Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf, for instance, only come from Muslim sources. For a prophet, who supposedly be a law-maker, in which the Quran supposedly prohibited murder, it seemed ok to have someone else to murder another.
Such double standard, only showed that the prophet, scripture and religion are based nothing more than hypocrisy.
Avi1001
reform Jew humanist liberal feminist entrepreneur
I like the way you think.
I am not here to criticize Mohammad or Moses. We should discuss peace.
I am not here to criticize Mohammad or Moses. We should discuss peace.
gnostic
The Lost One
avi1001 said:
I actually don't believe in any prophets, but I do find the scriptures (Whether they be Tanakh, gospels, Qur'an) to be interesting myths, legends, folklore, parables or allegories, semi-historical accounts, etc, but it doesn't mean I have to believe in them to be true.
What I see in Muhammad's life from biographers and historians, is a one-sided propaganda. It seemed that everyone is at fault, but not Muhammad's or the Muslims' faults.
They can't provide sources for the other side or from independent sources.
And the utter BS propaganda, about the Banu Qurayza asking for a Muslim-converted Jew to pass judgment on them, is nothing but a biased Muslim would write about, so that Muhammad doesn't stain his hands with blood. He allowed for the beheading to take place, so is he any better than any terrorist acting today, when these terrorists behead their victims?
No. They are just following what their prophet has done, since Muhammad is their role-model, so it is ok to behead enemies in time of wars.
I don't see any difference to what Muhammad have done to Banu Qurayza to what ISIS is doing in Iraq. Murder is murder, and genocide is genocide, but making excuses that it is not or that it is the other side is at fault, is nothing more than hypocrisy and condoning murder.
Last edited:
Except that it was freaking 1400 years ago for God's sake. The world was different than what it is today. Regarding sources, feel free to bring to the table non-Muslim sources. Who prevented you from doing so? go a head please.
And how is that the Muslims' problem?
outhouse
Atheistically
Has lack of credibility ever been a problem?
Nope, at least when it comes to Islam we don't have any credibility issues.
outhouse
Atheistically
Do you think that is a source for fundamentalism and fanaticism?
MD
qualiaphile
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
You mean besides the fact that this is a group that is not recognized by the UN or any other nation as sovereign, and yet are illegally killing innocent citizens, and committing acts of terror to extort demands and usurp power and land in nations that are sovereign and recognized? This isn't about "killing." It's about terrorism.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Yeeeah. The Coalition provided more surgical strikes that minimized civilian casualties. ISIS beheads reporters for no good reason. Time has already told.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
You need better glasses.
Can you elaborate please?
outhouse
Atheistically
If you think everything in your religion is credible including history, and has no fault, does that breed fanaticism and fundamentalism?
gnostic
The Lost One
The problem is that you only get one-biased collection of sources, and Muslims get to write and rewrite history how ever they want to.tashaN said:
They can embellish his life story. These embellishments can be clearly seen in the various traditions of Muhammad's life in the hadiths.
Or leave out parts his closest disciples or biographers or historians don't want people to know.
Or make whatever excuses for his actions.
What we have is not objective history, but distortions that you would expect to get, then you conflated legends or traditions, and propaganda.
I'm sure you have heard of the saying that go something like this - "The victor get to shape and rewrite history."
How are Muslim historians/biographers of the 7th and 8th centuries any different to the 20th century historians from the Cold War Soviet Union or United States, or communism China?
They each get to write all sorts of propaganda pieces of $#i@, on what they pass as history.
But even with biased biographies and history of Muhammad, one can pierce through the propaganda to get some sorts of semblance of fact. It is possible, if not impossible, to shift through and sort out the lies, distortion and apologetic excuses from the truth.
gnostic
The Lost One
sojourner said:
There are number of reasons:
- To get revenge for the US air attacks.
- To set a visual example of what they would do to civilians, if anyone should oppose them.
- To show how serious their intentions are.
- To extort 150 millions for release of other hostages. Money that they can use to buy more weapon.
- To get media attention. Terrorists love get media attentions. Why else would they video record their actions and put them on-line?
- And lastly, they are doing for their religion.