• 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!

Regarding Islamic terrorism, what does 'radicalized' mean?

BrightShadow

Active Member
I've seen many stories about acts of Islamic terrorism in which the perpetrator is said to have been 'radicalized'. Okay, but what does that even mean?

To me, there are only two choices:

1). They have been enticed to commit murder by lies of what Islam demands of them, or
2). They have been enticed to commit murder by the truth of what Islam demands of them.

What do you think it means?

I've been reading the Qur'an for over two decades, so I know that the answer is number 2. I've quoted the murder-inducing verses many times, and will probably do so many more times.

I am surprised to see no real Muslim came forward to respond to your inquiry. I guess there are no real Muslim roaming around in these threads.

Maybe, Muslim here are tired of you and already know you are not sincerely asking the question but just propagating what you already believe in.

My suggestion to you is:
Go and seek real Muslim scholars. I am sure they will tell you committing murder is a grave sin in Islam. So no one can entice anyone to commit murder and yet claim to be a Muslim. IMO.

So, if anyone tries to radicalize anyone to commit murder then neither of them would be a Muslim. IMO.

Check out this verse from the Quran:
[Quran 5:32] "On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people........"

The verses that you normally post to justify your position are all taken out of context. You need to look at the historical context and see when the verses were revealed and who were the verses about. Context is the key! Historical context! You also need to take into account the socio-cultural conditions of the time.

In your original post - you have claimed that you have been reading Quran for two decades - but that doesn't make you an unbiased Historian nor does it make you a Linguistic Specialist!
You can read the same verse with your preset notions a 1000 times - and you will come to the same conclusion. That won't mean you got it right! ;)
 

BrightShadow

Active Member
One of my Egyptian Muslim coworkers told me that he admired Hitler for what he did to the Jews. In your experience, how prevalent is that sentiment?

If Hitler went after Muslims - you would have been that guy you spoke about!
You would have been your Egytian coworker!
After watching your crusade against Islam - I think what I just wrote - is an fair assessment!
Just because someone puts on a Muslim label - doesn't make him a Muslim. Killing innocent people is wrong. Every real Muslim knows that!
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I am surprised to see no real Muslim came forward to respond to your inquiry. I guess there are no real Muslim roaming around in these threads.

Maybe, Muslim here are tired of you and already know you are not sincerely asking the question but just propagating what you already believe in.

My suggestion to you is:
Go and seek real Muslim scholars. I am sure they will tell you committing murder is a grave sin in Islam. So no one can entice anyone to commit murder and yet claim to be a Muslim. IMO.

So, if anyone tries to radicalize anyone to commit murder then neither of them would be a Muslim. IMO.

Check out this verse from the Quran:
[Quran 5:32] "On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people........"

The verses that you normally post to justify your position are all taken out of context. You need to look at the historical context and see when the verses were revealed and who were the verses about. Context is the key! Historical context! You also need to take into account the socio-cultural conditions of the time.

In your original post - you have claimed that you have been reading Quran for two decades - but that doesn't make you an unbiased Historian nor does it make you a Linguistic Specialist!
You can read the same verse with your preset notions a 1000 times - and you will come to the same conclusion. That won't mean you got it right! ;)
This is why in Islam it's important to not to follow any political leader who calls to arms, but to follow someone with knowledge and piety in this regard.

The Imams (a) praised people who for example followed Zaid ibn Ali (r) and Mukhtar (r) and other hadiths show it's because they had knowledge and piety and would return the government to the Imam of time if they were victorious.

The reason is because "killing in God's way" is "not murder", but killing not in God's way would be murder. So there is a necessity to assess the leadership, cause, and conditions of the war.

Someone calling to fight in God's way, doesn't mean that is fighting in God's way.

However, at the same time, missing Jihaad in God's way, is a sure way to earn God's wrath.

So assessment of the truth and political situation and recognizing the truthful and just strivers, is important.

Remember Rasool (s) started his military operations on merchants because of the embargo that was on Medina.
 
Last edited:

stevecanuck

Well-Known Member
... committing murder is a grave sin in Islam ....

Murdering a fellow Muslim is a grave sin. As to the rest of us, just read 9:29 and 9:111 and get back to me.

Btw, the order to kill is given dozens of times in the Qur'an, but I'm sure you know that.
 

stevecanuck

Well-Known Member
Check out this verse from the Quran:
[Quran 5:32] "On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people........"

I notice you (as do all Islamoapologists) conveniently left out the second half of that command contained in verse 5:33.
 

stevecanuck

Well-Known Member
The verses that you normally post to justify your position are all taken out of context.

This is my favorite deflection. You post 5:32 in isolation - utterly without context, and then you accuse me of doing just that. You apologists need to get a different play-book. That one is getting dog-eared.
 

stevecanuck

Well-Known Member
You need to look at the historical context and see when the verses were revealed and who were the verses about. Context is the key! Historical context!

Apparently not. Most of the Qur'an that deals with what was happening on the ground in the time of Mohamed is given without historical context. The verses appear to be revealed as general truisms, applicable for all time, and independent of history.
 

stevecanuck

Well-Known Member
In your original post - you have claimed that you have been reading Quran for two decades - but that doesn't make you an unbiased Historian nor does it make you a Linguistic Specialist!

Yup, just checked the apologist play-book, and the strawman is sent out onto the pitch right on cue.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Murdering a fellow Muslim is a grave sin. As to the rest of us, just read 9:29 and 9:111 and get back to me.

Btw, the order to kill is given dozens of times in the Qur'an, but I'm sure you know that.
Actually, believers can fight each other per Quran:

وَإِنْ طَائِفَتَانِ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ اقْتَتَلُوا فَأَصْلِحُوا بَيْنَهُمَا ۖ فَإِنْ بَغَتْ إِحْدَاهُمَا عَلَى الْأُخْرَىٰ فَقَاتِلُوا الَّتِي تَبْغِي حَتَّىٰ تَفِيءَ إِلَىٰ أَمْرِ اللَّهِ ۚ فَإِنْ فَاءَتْ فَأَصْلِحُوا بَيْنَهُمَا بِالْعَدْلِ وَأَقْسِطُوا ۖ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُقْسِطِينَ | If two groups of the faithful fight one another, make peace between them. But if one party of them aggresses against the other, fight the one which aggresses until it returns to Allah’s ordinance. Then, if it returns, make peace between them fairly, and do justice. Indeed Allah loves the just. | Al-Hujuraat : 9

The clause is important in the verse you quoted in 5:32. We have to assess which of the two are in the wrong and causing mischief.

وَالَّذِينَ إِذَا أَصَابَهُمُ الْبَغْيُ هُمْ يَنْتَصِرُونَ | those who, when afflicted by oppression, defend themselves. | Ash-Shura : 39

وَجَزَاءُ سَيِّئَةٍ سَيِّئَةٌ مِثْلُهَا ۖ فَمَنْ عَفَا وَأَصْلَحَ فَأَجْرُهُ عَلَى اللَّهِ ۚ إِنَّهُ لَا يُحِبُّ الظَّالِمِينَ | The requital of evil is an evil like it, so whoever excuses and conciliates, his reward lies with Allah. Indeed, He does not like the wrongdoers. | Ash-Shura : 40

وَلَمَنِ انْتَصَرَ بَعْدَ ظُلْمِهِ فَأُولَٰئِكَ مَا عَلَيْهِمْ مِنْ سَبِيلٍ | As for those who retaliate after being wronged, there is no ground for action against them. | Ash-Shura : 41

The word for defend, is a word that actually says they seek victory over their oppressors.

إِنَّمَا السَّبِيلُ عَلَى الَّذِينَ يَظْلِمُونَ النَّاسَ وَيَبْغُونَ فِي الْأَرْضِ بِغَيْرِ الْحَقِّ ۚ أُولَٰئِكَ لَهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ | The ground for action is only against those who oppress the people and commit tyranny in the land in violation of justice. For such there will be a painful punishment. | Ash-Shura : 42

There is two type of fassads, we can conclude on the verse 42:42. One is oppressing people and the other is "rebelling in the land without truth". So we have to assess, is the rebellion legitimate on truth or is it falsehood. That means we have to assess who is oppressors and who is oppressed. Because oppressed have right to seek victory over oppressor. Does this mean everyone should take up arms against every oppressing government?

This is where we need to fill a bit of details. The Quran shows Mohammad (s) was patient when oppressed in Mecca, but when he was kicked out and invited by Yathrib, he was invited to be leader in governmental sense. So Mohammad (s) then had to defend city.

This is because rising up is only to be done with support. Otherwise, you better play chicken till the right time. In the words of Imam Ali (a):

Sermon 5: O people, steer clear through the waves of mischief...​

Delivered when the Holy Prophet died and ‘Abbas ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib and Abu Sufyan ibn Harb offered to pay allegiance to Amir al-mu’minin for the Caliphate
ومن كلام له (عليه السلام) لمّا قبض رسول الله(صلى الله عليه وآله)
وخاطبه العباس وأبوسفيان في أن يبايعا له بالخلافة
(وذلك بعد أن تمّت البيعة لابي بكر في السقيفة، وفيها ينهى عن الفتنة ويبين عن خلقه وعلمه):
O People!1
Steer clear through the waves of mischief by boats of deliverance, turn away from the path of dissension and put off the crowns of pride. Prosperous is one who rises with wings (i.e. when he has power) or else he remains peaceful and others enjoy ease. It (i.e. the aspiration for Caliphate) is like turbid water or like a morsel that would suffocate the person who swallows it. One who plucks fruits before ripening is like one who cultivated in another’s field.
النهي عن الفتنة
أَيُّها النَّاسُ، شُقُّوا أَمْوَاجَ الفِتَنِ بِسُفُنِ النَّجَاةِ، وَعَرِّجُوا عَنْ طَريقِ الـمُنَافَرَةِ، وَضَعُوا تِيجَانَ الـمُفَاخَرَةِ. أَفْلَحَ مَنْ نَهَضَ بِجَنَاح، أوِ اسْتَسْلَمَ فَأَراحَ، مَاءٌ آجِنٌ، وَلُقْمَةٌ يَغَصُّ بِهَا آكِلُهَا، وَمُجْتَنِي الَّثمَرَةِ لِغَيْرِ وَقْتِ إِينَاعِهَا كالزَّارعِ بِغَيْرِ أَرْضِهِ.
If I speak out they would call me greedy towards power but if I keep quiet they would say I was afraid of death. It is a pity that after all the ups and downs (I have been through). By Allah, the son of Abu Talib2 is more familiar with death than an infant with the breast of its mother. I have hidden knowledge, if I disclose it you will start trembling like ropes in deep wells.
خلقه وعلمه
فَإِنْ أقُلْ يَقُولُوا: حَرَصَ عَلَى الـمُلْكِ، وَإنْ أَسْكُتْ يَقُولُوا: جَزعَ مِنَ المَوْتِ! هَيْهَاتَ بَعْدَ اللَّتَيَّا وَالَّتِي! وَاللهِ لاَبْنُ أَبي طَالِب آنَسُ بالمَوْتِ مِنَ الطِّفْلِ بِثَدْي أُمِّهِ، بَلِ انْدَمَجْتُ عَلَى مَكْنُونِ عِلْم لَوْ بُحْتُ بِهِ لاَضْطَرَبْتُمُ اضْطِرَابَ الاْرْشِيَةِ في الطَّوِيِّ البَعِيدَةِ!

Alternative Sources for Sermon 5

(1) Sibt ibn al-Jawzi, Tadhkirah, bab 6, 137;
(2) al-Tabarsi, al-'Ihtijaj, I, 127;
(3) al-Bayhaqi, al-Mahasin, II, 139, see ‘Arshi.
 

stevecanuck

Well-Known Member
You can read the same verse with your preset notions a 1000 times - and you will come to the same conclusion. That won't mean you got it right! ;)

Okay, let's try this: I think that verse 9:111 tells Muslims that in order to get into heaven, they must fight in the cause of Allah - kill and be killed.
How about if you read it and tell me what it 'really' means?
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Okay, let's try this: I think that verse 9:111 tells Muslims that in order to get into heaven, they must fight in the cause of Allah - kill and be killed.
How about if you read it and tell me what it 'really' means?
It means when the situation is right for it though. It doesn't mean go kill mindlessly or get killed mindlessly. When the situation is right is shown in Surah 42. See the post above you.
 

stevecanuck

Well-Known Member
If Hitler went after Muslims - you would have been that guy you spoke about!
You would have been your Egytian coworker!
After watching your crusade against Islam - I think what I just wrote - is an fair assessment!
Just because someone puts on a Muslim label - doesn't make him a Muslim. Killing innocent people is wrong. Every real Muslim knows that!

That leaves you with two choices regarding the massacre of October 7:

1. The murderers of 1200 people weren't 'real Muslims', or
2. Those 1200 people weren't innocent.

Which is it?
 

stevecanuck

Well-Known Member
This is why in Islam it's important to not to follow any political leader who calls to arms, but to follow someone with knowledge and piety in this regard.

The Imams (a) praised people who for example followed Zaid ibn Ali (r) and Mukhtar (r) and other hadiths show it's because they had knowledge and piety and would return the government to the Imam of time if they were victorious.

The reason is because "killing in God's way" is "not murder", but killing not in God's way would be murder. So there is a necessity to assess the leadership, cause, and conditions of the war.

Someone calling to fight in God's way, doesn't mean that is fighting in God's way.

However, at the same time, missing Jihaad in God's way, is a sure way to earn God's wrath.

So assessment of the truth and political situation and recognizing the truthful and just strivers, is important.

Remember Rasool (s) started his military operations on merchants because of the embargo that was on Medina.

All you've done is verify that 5:33 doesn't condone 'murder', rather Allah's justice, if the 'offender' does something un-Islamic. However, said 'offender' ends up as dead as if he were murdered for any other reason.

Do you even realize how much you support my arguments?
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
That leaves you with two choices regarding the massacre of October 7:

1. The murderers of 1200 people weren't 'real Muslims', or
2. Those 1200 people weren't innocent.

Which is it?
It was a mistake despite the fact the people they killed are oppressors (and also recall all Israelis must serve in military). Remember Rasool (s) attacked merchants heading from and towards Mecca after the embargo on Medina Al-Munuwara. Per your standards, since non-military targets, Rasool (s) would be a terrorist.

It was a mistake, not because who they killed were innocent, it was a mistake, because of the outcome it would cause. See the sermon 5 of Nahjul Balagha in this regard.

The reason Hamas did it, because Israel and Saudi were going to tie a deal which would make it game over for Hamas resistance. The hostages for people in jail is part of it, but not the big factor.

Their hope was to drag Hezbollah, Iran, and perhaps other countries such as Turkey into war with Israel.

Unfortunately, whether we want it or not, they are oppressed people and they take the brunt of colonialism. If the resistance falls in this regard, colonialism and dictators enforced by the west will continue against the Muslims.

Sometimes decisions whether right or wrong, you are stuck with it. But this might put an end to Israel as an apartheid regime or establish a two state solution.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
All you've done is verify that 5:33 doesn't condone 'murder', rather Allah's justice, if the 'offender' does something un-Islamic. However, said 'offender' ends up as dead as if he were murdered for any other reason.

Do you even realize how much you support my arguments?
We agreed Quran and Ahlulbayt (a) support who the west deems terrorists including yourself. I know how it supports you.

People like you see no more then the devil allows you to.

What's funny is Obama created ISIS and we defeated them, and we are still labelled the terrorist supporters.
 

stevecanuck

Well-Known Member
Remember Rasool (s) started his military operations on merchants because of the embargo that was on Medina.

Which verse tells you that? What? It isn't in the Qur'an, you say?

If it should be known, then why isn't it there? Allah used 6,236 verses to get his message out, so if we needed to know that, then it would have been 6,237 verses.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Which verse tells you that? What? It isn't in the Qur'an, you say?

If it should be known, then why isn't it there? Allah used 6,236 verses to get his message out, so if we needed to know that, then it would have been 6,237 verses.
The Quran calls Mohammad (s) a Rasool more then it calls him a Nabi. This is because the Sunnah is needed to clarify everything.
 

stevecanuck

Well-Known Member
Actually, believers can fight each other per Quran:

وَإِنْ طَائِفَتَانِ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ اقْتَتَلُوا فَأَصْلِحُوا بَيْنَهُمَا ۖ فَإِنْ بَغَتْ إِحْدَاهُمَا عَلَى الْأُخْرَىٰ فَقَاتِلُوا الَّتِي تَبْغِي حَتَّىٰ تَفِيءَ إِلَىٰ أَمْرِ اللَّهِ ۚ فَإِنْ فَاءَتْ فَأَصْلِحُوا بَيْنَهُمَا بِالْعَدْلِ وَأَقْسِطُوا ۖ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُقْسِطِينَ | If two groups of the faithful fight one another, make peace between them. But if one party of them aggresses against the other, fight the one which aggresses until it returns to Allah’s ordinance. Then, if it returns, make peace between them fairly, and do justice. Indeed Allah loves the just. | Al-Hujuraat : 9

Well, you got that exactly wrong. It doesn't say they're PERMITTED to fight each other. It tells you what to do IF they fight each other.

Big. Difference.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Well, you got that exactly wrong. It doesn't say they're PERMITTED to fight each other. It tells you what to do IF they fight each other.

Big. Difference.
No I agree with you. But the context with "can", is that the situation can arise where believers fight believers. The Quran also says regarding disbelievers "if they incline to peace, incline to it".

The only difference is that that the believers are only brethren and the Quran is showing this would be a rare occasion. While disbelievers are brethren in sense we humans, but they are also hostile towards truth, and we can't unite on their evil ways. So disbelievers are both brethren and enemies but we should always be vigilant against the enemies and their plots. While it's a big misunderstanding if believers fight each other.
 
Top