Islam

[stevecanuck]

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.

Thanks for admitting you're 100% close-minded. It was obvious, but nice to hear it from you anyway.

However, that wasn't the question. I asked for a link to show that the Byzantines tried to attack the Muslims. Do you realize it's about 1000 kms from Tabuk to Mecca? Do you realize that the Byzantines and Persians had spent the past 4 decades beating the crap out of each other in a war over the holy land, and that the last thing they needed was to make a new enemy? Nope. You don't.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes.

Why?
What non-religious motivation would people have to go on a suicide mission and kill innocent civilians in that way?

Can you point to a precedent?
Can you point to secular equivalents of islamist suicide bombings?

To be honest, I'm surprise more nations haven't pulled 9/11's with how much we meddle in other nation's affairs.

Reading between those lines, it seems you answer my questions. And the answer is "no, I can't point to equivalents".

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.

And yet, you can only point to religiously motivated Islamist suicide bombings to find such examples.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

Exactly.

Any of the verses that the "moderates" use to condemn the "radicals", can be just as easily used by the radicals the other way round - or at least argued against that there is "context" that the other just doesn't understand. Or indeed, as you say, with vaguery that is neither her nor there.

"hide their adornments, except that which is apparant".

What is "apparant"?
The general outline of the body? Yes, a woman in a burka is "recognizable" as a humans, since the overall "shape" is clearly a human body.

Are the hands "apparant"?
The face? The feet? The ancles? The boobs?

Anyone can read into that whatever they want.

This is the problem.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Whatever version exonerates Muhammad is the correct one because the Word of God confirms His infallibility.

And you use your own personal beliefs to "judge" that. Making it exactly the circular argument that I'm talking about.

For you "exonerates" means perhaps "whatever makes him look like a peace loving pacifist hippy".
To another, it might mean "whatever makes him look like a macho man's-man who will punch you in the nose or even cut your head off if you don't treat him like a holy messenger from god and kiss his feet".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

It seems you are not comprehending the point I'm making.
What you are calling "good priests and clergy" is based on your own value judgement.
The religion itself does NOT give you the tools to discern such.

You can argue against them on humanitarian grounds, but not on islamic grounds. For every islamic reference you give to argue against them, they'll give you others in return and / or say that the references you gave don't mean what you say they mean.

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)

Perfect example.
Those "not good" priests and clergy as you call them, will tell you these do not apply to the "enemies of Islam".

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.

Sure. But not towards the "enemies of islam".

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)

You never had a talk with extremist preachers, have you?
I have. You are incorrect.

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.

But it is very possible to read it into other verses.
Radical preachers do it every day.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

What non-religious motivation would people have to go on a suicide mission and kill innocent civilians in that way?

Well, like I said. Our occupation of the Middle East. You're trying to "read between the lines" and force a Religious example from me, stating that's what I've pointed to, yet I have done no such thing. I'd advise not doing that.

The fact of the matter is that we are occupying their countries. We have forced situations on their countries, and destabilized much of them. There isn't a pushback against Christianity, or an effort to uproot Islam in the Middle East. This isn't a redo of the Crusades where we're trying to "claim the Holy Land for Jesus" or anything like that. We're there for money and oil and control.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Thanks for admitting you're 100% close-minded. It was obvious, but nice to hear it from you anyway.

However, that wasn't the question. I asked for a link to show that the Byzantines tried to attack the Muslims. Do you realize it's about 1000 kms from Tabuk to Mecca? Do you realize that the Byzantines and Persians had spent the past 4 decades beating the crap out of each other in a war over the holy land, and that the last thing they needed was to make a new enemy? Nope. You don't.

I always enjoy our dialogue too but certainly don’t consider you closed minded just unaware of the true station of Muhammad and Islam. That’s where you’re at and I’m the opposite so just believe what you like.

 

[loverofhumanity]

And you use your own personal beliefs to "judge" that. Making it exactly the circular argument that I'm talking about.

For you "exonerates" means perhaps "whatever makes him look like a peace loving pacifist hippy".
To another, it might mean "whatever makes him look like a macho man's-man who will punch you in the nose or even cut your head off if you don't treat him like a holy messenger from god and kiss his feet".

Im basing my judgement on the fact that I believe in God. You do not believe in God not so you will believe I’m wrong. That’s to be expected.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, like I said. Our occupation of the Middle East. You're trying to "read between the lines" and force a Religious example from me, stating that's what I've pointed to, yet I have done no such thing. I'd advise not doing that.

The fact of the matter is that we are occupying their countries. We have forced situations on their countries, and destabilized much of them. There isn't a pushback against Christianity, or an effort to uproot Islam in the Middle East. This isn't a redo of the Crusades where we're trying to "claim the Holy Land for Jesus" or anything like that. We're there for money and oil and control.

But somehow, you aren't able to point to a single example or precedent of an equivalent attack on civilians going about their business.

How is 9/11 different from what happened in Bataclan? Zaventem?

You are just making assumptions here and not supporting them at all.
You are completely ignoring the motivations that all these terrorists themselves are expressing. You are also completely ignoring these people's backgrounds and how they went from their "normal" lives to becoming mass murderers in the name of radical islam.

Al-qaida, Isis, al-nusra, boko haraam,....
Their entire raison d'être is religious radicalism.
Their battle is "holy war".


You have no argument at all.

I guarantee you that Mohammed Atta, an Egyptian who had a life as an architect, was motivated solely by his radical islamist beliefs. Do you even know his story? And the story of other terrorists?
He radicalized in Hamburg, Germany. Not in the middle east. He was studying at a university in Germany. There he came into contact with radial muslims and got taken in by them. He had a normal life until he was recruited into radical Islam. In 1999 he wanted to go to Chechnya to fight against the Russians. But he ended up in Afghanistan where he was immediately recruited by Bin Laden and given the mission for 9/11.

It was 100% radical islam that motivated him to do what he did.

What about Salah Abdeslam and his buddies from Molenbeek, Belgium? Born and raised in Belgium. No affinity at all with the middle east. Just normal city guys. A bit ghetto, but normal nonetheless given the context of Brussels / Molenbeek at the time. I even used to hang with them through mutual friends for a while. Totally normal folks. Loved hollywood. Loved partying and drinking. Weren't anti-america or anti-west at all.

Enter radical Islam. Next thing you know, they are involved in killing hundreds in Paris. Literally within the span of a year or 2, they went from smoking weed and drinking beer to killing innocents while yelling "allahu akbar".


Sorry, but to state that this is all just the result of geo-politics that would also occur if it wasn't for radical islamist beliefs, is just simply and plainly delusional and pure denial of reality.

 

[loverofhumanity]

It seems you are not comprehending the point I'm making.
What you are calling "good priests and clergy" is based on your own value judgement.
The religion itself does NOT give you the tools to discern such.

You can argue against them on humanitarian grounds, but not on islamic grounds. For every islamic reference you give to argue against them, they'll give you others in return and / or say that the references you gave don't mean what you say they mean.



Perfect example.
Those "not good" priests and clergy as you call them, will tell you these do not apply to the "enemies of Islam".



Sure. But not towards the "enemies of islam".



You never had a talk with extremist preachers, have you?
I have. You are incorrect.



But it is very possible to read it into other verses.
Radical preachers do it every day.

I believe there is good in ever culture religion and race but there are those who have evil intent. But it does not come from Islam. It comes from bad intentions. All the Prophets taught good. If Christ teaches to love and people choose to hate that is not His fault. People are free to choose their path in life.

 

[loverofhumanity]

It seems you are not comprehending the point I'm making.
What you are calling "good priests and clergy" is based on your own value judgement.
The religion itself does NOT give you the tools to discern such.

You can argue against them on humanitarian grounds, but not on islamic grounds. For every islamic reference you give to argue against them, they'll give you others in return and / or say that the references you gave don't mean what you say they mean.



Perfect example.
Those "not good" priests and clergy as you call them, will tell you these do not apply to the "enemies of Islam".



Sure. But not towards the "enemies of islam".



You never had a talk with extremist preachers, have you?
I have. You are incorrect.



But it is very possible to read it into other verses.
Radical preachers do it every day.

Every religion has its Sprin, Summer, Autumn and Winter then a decline and God renews it by sending a new Manifestation.

This tradition of Islam predicts that the day will come when it will fall into decline.

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)

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

But somehow, you aren't able to point to a single example or precedent of an equivalent attack on civilians going about their business.

Oh, you mean like the murder of Lee Rigby, who was killed directly because of British occupation?

You've got a lot of extrapolating to try and pigeon-hole me into nothing but religious cause.

Sorry, but to state that this is all just the result of geo-politics that would also occur if it wasn't for radical islamist beliefs, is just simply and plainly delusional and pure denial of reality.

Mhmm. I would say that in equal measure to your sentiments, claiming it's so overly simplistic as "Religion made them do it" is delusional and a denial of the complexities of reality. Someone screaming "god is good" while trying to force out an occupying force, or even while carrying out retaliatory actions, does not pin the entire blame on a religious matter. But anything to kick an easy horse, right?

 

[Augustus]

The word unbeliever is used countless times in the Qur'an, and ALWAYS means someone - anyone - who is not a Muslim.

Historically at least, this is very debatable. The word Muslim in the Quran doesn't even seem to mean Muslim in the current sense of the term.

The term that is predominately used for Muhammad's followers is 'believers' (mu'minun), and the extent to which they were a clear and distinct new religion "Islam" that was distinct from Judaism/Christianity is again debatable. The community of 'believers' may well have included other Abrahamics as long as they met certain criteria.

The original shahada doesn't seem to have mentioned Muhammad either, so there is a reasonable case to be made that it was only after the Arabs had created an empire that Islam became reified and started to become mutually exclusive from the other faiths.


To start, we notice that the Qur'an addresses overwhelmingly people whom it calls "Believers" (mu'minun). In this, it differs from the traditional Muslim narratives and from modern scholarly practice, both of which routinely refer to Muhammad and his followers mainly as "Muslims" (muslimun, literally, "those who sub- mit") and refer to his movement as "Islam."

This later usage is, how- ever, misleading when applied to the beginnings of the community as reflected in the Qur'an. It is of course true that the words islam and muslim are found in the Qur'an, and it is also true that these words are sometimes applied in the text to Muhammad and his followers. But those instances are dwarfed in number by cases in which Muhammad and his followers are referred to as mu'minun, "Believers"-which occurs almost a thousand times, compared with fewer than seventy-five instances of muslim, and so on.

Later Muslim tradition, beginning about a century after Muhammad's time, came to emphasize the identity of Muhammad's followers as Muslims and attempted to neutralize the importance of the many passages in which they are called Believers by portraying the two terms as syn- onymous and interchangeable. But a number of Qur'anic passages make it clear that the words mu'min and muslim, although evidently related and sometimes applied to one and the same person, cannot be synonyms.

For example, Q. 49:14 states, "The bedouins say: 'We Believe' (aman-na). Say [to them]: 'You do not Believe; but rather say, "we submit" (aslam-na), for Belief has not yet entered your hearts.'" In this passage, Belief obviously means something different (and better) than "submission" (islam); and so we cannot simply equate the Believer with the Muslim, though some Muslims may qualify as Believers.

The Qur'an's frequent appeal to the Believers, then- usually in phrases such as "0 you who Believe .. .''-forces us to conclude that Muhammad and his early followers thought of them- selves above all as being a community ofBelievers, rather than one of Muslims, and referred to themselves as Believers. Moreover, the notion that they thought of themselves as Believers is corroborated by some very early documentary evidence dating from several decades after Muhammad's death.

Muhammad and the believers - F Donner

 

[Rival]

"0 you who Believe .. .''

Is... this a zero?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I believe there is good in ever culture religion and race but there are those who have evil intent. But it does not come from Islam. It comes from bad intentions. All the Prophets taught good. If Christ teaches to love and people choose to hate that is not His fault. People are free to choose their path in life.

And I'm saying that that comes from within you. Those are your own beliefs.
Islam does not provide you with the tools to come to that conclusion.

As I said previously in this thread: yes, Islam does not justify such evil acts.
But it doesn't condemn them either.

It does BOTH. Or rather, it can do both.

So, while the islamophobe is wrong by saying that Islam is an evil religion that pushes people into violent intolerance....
The "defenders" are equally wrong by saying that Islam condemns such behavior.

It does not. It does neither.
Islam isn't guilty.
It's not innocent either.

Instead, it's vague and ambiguous. And by being such, it allows for both.

You can't use Islam / the Quran to argue that radical Islamists are "wrong" islamically (is that a word? lol)

They are just as wrong AND right as their opponents.


So in conclusion.... if you ask me what I am blaming Islam / the Quran for...
Then my answer is: for that ambiguity. It allows for such behavior and interpretation. It gives that wiggle room.

 

[Augustus]

Do you realize it's about 1000 kms from Tabuk to Mecca?
Do you realize that the Byzantines and Persians had spent the past 4 decades beating the crap out of each other in a war over the holy land, and that the last thing they needed was to make a new enemy? Nope. You don't.

And do you know that the Byzantines and Persians were already involved throughout Arabia because the Arabs were a significant part of their forces and the region was economically and strategically important? Nope. You don't (although you should because I've told you several times already. Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick tocriticise others for being closed minded and resistant to reason and evidence ).

For both political and economic reasons, the Byzantines and Sasanians felt a need to maintain a presence in Arabia-if only to thwart the other from gaining too much influence there. Yet, the dearth of resources in northern Arabia discouraged them from trying to establish direct control over this area, for it would have cost more to garrison and administer it than they could hope to secure in taxes. Instead, they adopted the stratagem of establishing alliances with the chiefs ofArabian tribes, who then served the empires' inter- ests in exchange for cash subsidies, weapons, and titles; such indirect rule was much cheaper, in money and men, than trying to control the area directly with their own troops...

[A lot of trade was carried out by] by Axumite shippers hailing from their main port, Adulis [note position on map]. The Byzantine and Sasanian empires both aspired to control this commerce and the taxes that they could collect on it, with the result that Arabia became a focus of serious competition between the em- pires. The Byzantines, for example, maintained a customs station on the island of Iotabe in the straits of Tiran (at the mouth of the Gulf of Aqaba), and a few stray reports hint that both the Byzantines and the Sasanians attempted, and perhaps succeeded, in establishing special ties with local leaders to collect taxes in Yathrib or Mecca on the eve of Islam in an effort to draw this region into their spheres of influence.

Muhammad and the believers - F Donner

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Every religion has its Sprin, Summer, Autumn and Winter then a decline and God renews it by sending a new Manifestation.

This tradition of Islam predicts that the day will come when it will fall into decline.

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)

There's nothing there that identifies the radicals as being that decline.
It could just as well be referring to the moderates.

 

[Augustus]

Is... this a zero?

No. It's Arabic for O, just like Germans have that silly lollipop B letter which means "ss".

Come to think of it, why don't we call the SS the ß?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Oh, you mean like the murder of Lee Rigby, who was killed directly because of British occupation?

????????????

Murder of Lee Rigby - Wikipedia

On 3 June 2018, Rigby's murderer Michael Adebolajo said he regretted the act and apologised for the first time, according to prison sources. Adebolajo added that he "misinterpreted" the Koran to justify his actions and that he was brainwashed

You've got a lot of extrapolating to try and pigeon-hole me into nothing but religious cause.

Now you are misrepresenting me.
I said those acts are done out of religious motivations.

Your very own example above, has the attacker himself say exactly that, as per the quoted part.



His quote literally means that if it wasn't for his islamist beliefs, he wouldn't have done what he did.

Mhmm. I would say that in equal measure to your sentiments, claiming it's so overly simplistic as "Religion made them do it" is delusional and a denial of the complexities of reality. Someone screaming "god is good" while trying to force out an occupying force, or even while carrying out retaliatory actions, does not pin the entire blame on a religious matter. But anything to kick an easy horse, right?

So you are just going to ignore the information I gave you about Atta and Abdeslam?
Neither had any anti-western or anti-US feelings before they entered radical Islam - or at the very least not to the extent that they would be prepared and feel justified to kill anyone over it, let alone hundreds or thousands.

The Salah Abdeslam I knew would have never done what he ended up doing.
He did what he did under the influence of Islamist beliefs. That was his motivation.

Your very own example of Adebolajo even says so literally. He did what he did because he believed it was his religious islamic duty - his very own words.

Yet here you are, pretending that he would have also killed Rigby if it wasn't for those islamist beliefs.


Ow well.

You're going to believe what you're going to believe I guess.

 

[Ella S.]

I don't believe that anything can be "truly" justified. I think that whatever we considered justified or unjustified is a matter of personal opinion, not truth.