Colt
Well-Known Member
Neo Islamic Fundamentalist justify terrorism. Mainstream Muslims don't support the attacks.
-
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!
Islam
- Thread starter erikag
- Start date
Unfortunately blind belief is the culprit here for the Quran, if studied by Muslims independent of their scholars and clergy, does not support shariah law. Corrupt leaders instituted many laws for self interest. The solution is for Muslims to think with their own minds not follow blindly. By not doing so they have allowed Islam to be abused by self serving leaders.
Their own traditions predict this sorry state:
There will come a time upon the people when nothing will remain of Islam except save its name and nothing will remain of the Quran save its inscription. Their mosques will be splendidly furnished but deprived of guidance. Their divines will be the worst people under the heavens and strife will issue from and avert to them.” (Mishkatul Masabih, Kitab al-Ilm)
Baha’u’llah states with regard to shariah law.
In the religion of Islam, similarly, not every ordinance was explicitly revealed; nay not a tenth part of a tenth part was included in the Text; although all matters of major importance were specifically referred to, there were undoubtedly thousands of laws which were unspecified. These were devised by the divines of a later age according to the laws of Islamic jurisprudence, and individual divines made conflicting deductions from the original revealed ordinances.
Bahá’u’lláh, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 5
Altfish
Veteran Member
Yes sir, 3 bags full sir
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Sure. And what I see is ambiguity to boot. It's all so vague and ambiguous that it really always comes down to how the individual reading it chooses to understand it.
Half my family (everyone on my dad's side) is muslim.
Even within that little set of data, I see these differences.
My dad "celebrates" the end of the Ramadam with pork chops and whiskey.
Which is a fact that he hides from certain others within the family, knowing it will lead to uncomfortable verbal fights.
I remember one such "fight". It was a very heated discussion about me.
It was around the time of Ramadam and they were making plans for a family feast which included a visit to the mosque also. They all knew I'm not a muslim and it was a subject that usually was avoided. But that time, one of my dad's cousins asked him, in a rather strict -and almost attacking- tone why I never joined them in the mosque. And by extension, why he never got me cirumcised and in general: why I wasn't raised a muslim.
I'll never forget my dad's answer...... "He's too intelligent for that."
Made me so proud LOL
Later on he clarified what he meant though... What he meant was that I had this annoying habit of never simply accepting what "authorities" say and that I always questioned everything and by doing so, would drive everybody nuts. And that for the "reputation" and "look" of the family in that context, it was better for everyone that I simply wasn't there. So he presented it as kind of the "lesser of two evils". Not being there didn't look good, but not as bad as it would have looked if I were and "behaved badly".
lol
But I digress....
My larger point here: I'm pretty familiar with muslim culture and know have seen first hand the ambiguity and what it can lead to. It can tear families apart even though they read the exact same book and even visit the exact same mosque.
The "Islam" of Afghanistan is NOT the "Islam" of Iran or the Islam of Pakistan or the Islam of 3rd generation muslim immigrant in Brussels.
It's one book, but read in a bazillion different ways.
So much so that I can only conclude that there really is no "right" way to read it.
So whenever someone suggests that "Islam justifies terrorism", I disagree.
But I'll equally disagree when someone suggests that "Islam condemns terrorism".
It does neither. And it does both.
And as far as I am concerned, that is exactly what the problem with Islam is.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
"self serving leaders"?
You think Osama Bin Laden, for example, is a "self-serving leader"?
I disagree extremely.
What did he win by doing what he did?
The guy was a son of a billionaire family. His destined life path was to inherit that business empire. He already had all that most people can only dream of. Instead, he gave all that up and choose for a life of hiding in caves to wage his holy war.
I think it's far to easy and cheap to simply state that all those who profess an Islam that you disagree with that they are all "fooled" by "blind belief" and that those who profess an Islam you agree with are "intelligent" and "rational".
By going down that route, I feel like you are simply ignoring the actual problem.
As if all those other muslims that aren't radicals don't hold their beliefs because they simply believe what they were told.
I'll say that most religious people simply believe what they are taught to believe. And when they read those texts, they validate for themselves what they already believe. For the simple reason that it's so ambiguous that you can read whatever you want into it.
The "moderate" thinks he is right and will argue his position with quranic references.
And the "radical" will do the exact same.
And both will be correct. And wrong.
I've had my run-ins with preachers from both sides. I've had talks with the moderate imam from Antwerp. I've also had talks with Belkacem, the main leader of Shariah4Belgium and main recruiter for foreign fighters that were sent to Syria to join al-nusra and ISIS.
They are both sides of the very same coin.
Perfect example of that ambiguity I was talking about.
Referring back to my previous paragraph where I said that I talked to both moderate imams as well as radical preachers like Belkacem.
Both of them can point to that exact quote and claim that "the other" is one of those "bad people" preaching in a mosque "deprived of guidance".
And there is NOTHING in that quote, or any other text, that clearly shows which one of them would be correct.
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
Wild conspiracy theories aside, do you really think 9/11 was about religion?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
No, but I also think you ask the wrong question.
Let's ask it differently:
Do you think 9/11 would have occurred without religion?
To that, I also say NO.
As the saying goes: religion poisons everything.
I think that at the very bottom of that barrel, there might actually be a valid argument for resentment towards the US from that part of the world. But the poison of religion took that and turned it into the slaughter of thousands of innocent citizens just going about their day.
Last edited:
How do you define religion for the purpose of your question?
I'm more inclined to say that hateful people poison everything -- from government to religion and beyond.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Dude.... Or gal...
You know not what you speak off.
I actually knew the Abdeslams before they turned into radical islamist terrorists. Smoked weed with them. We had mutual friends.
They were not "hateful people". Salah was fun to be around. Always smiling, joking. Always up for a party and giggles.
Radical Islam turned them into hateful people.
I almost fell of my chair from shock when I saw their names and faces appear in the media after those attacks.
Now another saying comes to mind:
Good people will do good things.
Bad people will do bad things.
But to get good people to do bad things, that takes religion.
Again, the way you approach this is just easy and cheap. For some reason you just assume that they are all sociopaths who barely needed an excuse to commit such heinous crimes that they just used islam as an excuse, in such a way that they could have used just about anything else in the same way.
This is simply not true.
What happened at Bataclan, at Zaventem, at Maalbeek,... it wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for the islamist beliefs of those guys. It's that simple.
You can't just explain away those events by saying "ow they were just hateful people".
Just, no.
Last edited:
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
Yes. To be honest, I'm surprise more nations haven't pulled 9/11's with how much we meddle in other nation's affairs. Our greed for resources and wealth on the backs of other nations has slaughtered more innocents than ten 9/11's. I'm not saying the people that died that day deserved to die, and it is still a tragedy, but the more I grow and age the less surprised I am that it happened.
stvdv
Veteran Member
I fail to see how anyone can still believe the "official" story of 9/11.
and Daesh are creations of Western intelligence). It's all a scam.
Nicely put
Despite your condescension, I'll mention briefly that Salah Abdeslam appears to have already been a troubled individual with a prior history of criminal arrests who eventually linked up with some genuinely bad dudes -- the kind who give themselves permission to do the terrible things they do because they are fanatics.
The self-granting of that kind of permission to do terrible things is not exclusive to religion and religious fanatics. If it were, we would not also have seen the results of equally "right-minded" superiority from political fanatics (such as Hitler and Stalin) through the violence of their totalitarian regimes.
"self serving leaders"?
You think Osama Bin Laden, for example, is a "self-serving leader"?
I disagree extremely.
What did he win by doing what he did?
The guy was a son of a billionaire family. His destined life path was to inherit that business empire. He already had all that most people can only dream of. Instead, he gave all that up and choose for a life of hiding in caves to wage his holy war.
I think it's far to easy and cheap to simply state that all those who profess an Islam that you disagree with that they are all "fooled" by "blind belief" and that those who profess an Islam you agree with are "intelligent" and "rational".
By going down that route, I feel like you are simply ignoring the actual problem.
As if all those other muslims that aren't radicals don't hold their beliefs because they simply believe what they were told.
I'll say that most religious people simply believe what they are taught to believe. And when they read those texts, they validate for themselves what they already believe. For the simple reason that it's so ambiguous that you can read whatever you want into it.
The "moderate" thinks he is right and will argue his position with quranic references.
And the "radical" will do the exact same.
And both will be correct. And wrong.
I've had my run-ins with preachers from both sides. I've had talks with the moderate imam from Antwerp. I've also had talks with Belkacem, the main leader of Shariah4Belgium and main recruiter for foreign fighters that were sent to Syria to join al-nusra and ISIS.
They are both sides of the very same coin.
Perfect example of that ambiguity I was talking about.
Referring back to my previous paragraph where I said that I talked to both moderate imams as well as radical preachers like Belkacem.
Both of them can point to that exact quote and claim that "the other" is one of those "bad people" preaching in a mosque "deprived of guidance".
And there is NOTHING in that quote, or any other text, that clearly shows which one of them would be correct.
Maybe I was not clear enough. Sincere apologies. By self serving leaders I meant the Muslim clergy and priests who instigated wars, conflict and promoted hatred and prejudice but only the corrupt ones. There are very good priests and Muslim clergy too.
The problems to me clearly arise from disobedience to the Quran which forbids all forms of pre meditated murder and aggression and teaches to return good for evil. (41:34)
In general Muslims know that the Quran teaches upright and good character, to be humble and kind and so on. it is not possible to study the Quran thoroughly and not come to the conclusion that it calls humanity to peace and brotherhood.
That’s why extremists and terrorists usually do not quote the Quran but fabricated hadiths because there is no passage in it which supports aggression. (2:190)
Reflection No. 157 on Q 41:34 – Repelling evil with good – The Academy for Learning Islam
The commentary is regarding returning good for evil which is taught by the Quran. It’s impossible to read into verses like this any form of violence and there are many, many identical verses which call for peace and reconciliation.
stevecanuck
Well-Known Member
Nope. They were following Mohamed's lead. He tried to start a war with the Byzantine Empire when he tool his army north to Tabuk. Surah 9 was revealed at the time and is a naked call for war. But, please keep pretending that's not true if it helps you get by.
We are just trying to examine the reports to determine what transpired. No one is pretending.
First the conquest of Mecca was peaceful. There was no aggression. When the Muslims led by Muhammad had overcome their oppressors and persecutors, the Romans grew nervous at the successes of Muhammad and sent out a well equipped army to launch a surprise attack against the Muslims. This constituted an act of war and when Muhammad got news of a surprise attack about to be launched on Him He prepared His army to counter their offensive. This was completely defensive and protective in nature.
But it was an act of war provoked by the Byzantines not Muhammad. The Quran upholds the impeccable character of Muhammad and is the only historical recorded account of the Life of Muhammad while He lived.
33:21
Ye have in the apostle of GOD an excellent example, unto him who hopeth in GOD, and the last day, and remembereth GOD frequently.
stevecanuck
Well-Known Member
When you determine that the army arrayed against you outside the city walls is unbeatable, then the smart thing to do is surrender. You can fool yourself into pretending that that is what a "peaceful" conquest is, then knock yourself out.
Btw, read the highlighted as many times as it takes you to see the inherent contradiction in it. A 'peaceful conquest' is self contradictory.
stevecanuck
Well-Known Member
Link?
stevecanuck
Well-Known Member
Sure. And what I see is ambiguity to boot. It's all so vague and ambiguous that it really always comes down to how the individual reading it chooses to understand it.
Half my family (everyone on my dad's side) is muslim.
Even within that little set of data, I see these differences.
My dad "celebrates" the end of the Ramadam with pork chops and whiskey.
Which is a fact that he hides from certain others within the family, knowing it will lead to uncomfortable verbal fights.
I remember one such "fight". It was a very heated discussion about me.
It was around the time of Ramadam and they were making plans for a family feast which included a visit to the mosque also. They all knew I'm not a muslim and it was a subject that usually was avoided. But that time, one of my dad's cousins asked him, in a rather strict -and almost attacking- tone why I never joined them in the mosque. And by extension, why he never got me cirumcised and in general: why I wasn't raised a muslim.
I'll never forget my dad's answer...... "He's too intelligent for that."
Made me so proud LOL
Later on he clarified what he meant though... What he meant was that I had this annoying habit of never simply accepting what "authorities" say and that I always questioned everything and by doing so, would drive everybody nuts. And that for the "reputation" and "look" of the family in that context, it was better for everyone that I simply wasn't there. So he presented it as kind of the "lesser of two evils". Not being there didn't look good, but not as bad as it would have looked if I were and "behaved badly".
lol
But I digress....
My larger point here: I'm pretty familiar with muslim culture and know have seen first hand the ambiguity and what it can lead to. It can tear families apart even though they read the exact same book and even visit the exact same mosque.
The "Islam" of Afghanistan is NOT the "Islam" of Iran or the Islam of Pakistan or the Islam of 3rd generation muslim immigrant in Brussels.
It's one book, but read in a bazillion different ways.
So much so that I can only conclude that there really is no "right" way to read it.
So whenever someone suggests that "Islam justifies terrorism", I disagree.
But I'll equally disagree when someone suggests that "Islam condemns terrorism".
It does neither. And it does both.
And as far as I am concerned, that is exactly what the problem with Islam is.
This is a really interesting topic. Some verses are NOT open to interpretation, but others are - at least in the sense of determining what sort of activity rises to the level of that which is being discussed. Take verse 5:33 for example. It prescribes the death penalty for those who "spread corruption in the land". Okay, what exactly does that mean? Two Iranian lesbians are on death row for "spreading corruption in the land", so clearly other verses have to be found to support that judgement.
Veiling is another case where commands for women to cover themselves to the extent that they can be differentiated from other women are not defined well enough to be universal in the Islamic world. They must "hide their adornments, except that which is apparent". Was that even a sentence? What the hell does that mean?
Last edited:
I can only speak for myself.
Because I accept that Muhammad is a Messenger of God, I concur with the Quran that He is an example to humanity so He did no wrong.
Whatever version exonerates Muhammad is the correct one because the Word of God confirms His infallibility.