Comment deleted by Site Moderator
"Hi Kung Fu Cantona,
Would you not be willing to consider that - however unpleasant - radical Islam is just another variation on the interpretation of doctrine? Just because you might not agree with their interpretation, could it not be said that they are no more/less Muslim that you are; after all that is how they identify themselves, and the only difference between them and you is in the details.
Forgive my ignorance of your religion, but from an outside perspective this looks like another schism akin to the difference between Shias and Sunnis. Both groups identify, and are acknowledged as Muslims (I think).
I don't mean to disrespect your religion. It just that as someone not very familiar with Islam I consider this trend towards 'radical Islam' (hate that tag but don't know what else to call it) as something of a third variance of Islam, akin to the variety of sects you get in Christianity - Presbyterian. Lutherian, Methodist, Quaker etc."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Lambeau Leap!
Ok so I can finally answer!
This is going to be loooooooooong so please forgive me.
Let me start off by saying that I don't recognise the terms radical Islam or moderate Islam, only Islam.
I also don't subscribe to the notion that Islam is a religion of peace because it isn't pacifistic in the sense that it allows for defensive warfare (Jihad).
You must have heard the term Jihad a lot, it is now a dirty word because it has been misrepresented by the media and of course extremists. In reality it refers to two things, defensive warfare and the spiritual battle between the soul and sinning.
I will be using the Islamic concept of defensive warfare to illustrate my points.
People (I'm not saying you) usually use the word 'interpretation' in a debate when they reach a dead end because they don't what the Quran says and therefore can't confirm if Islamic text forbids or permits a certain act.
God in the Quran states that there are ambiguous verses that are hard to interpret and also clear ones...
"It is He Who has sent down to you the Book. In it are verses that are entirely clear, they are the foundations of the Book; and others (verses) that are ambiguous. So as for those in whose hearts there is a deviation (from the truth) they follow (only) that which is not entirely clear thereof, seeking Al-Fitnah, and seeking its Ta'wil (true reality of things), but none knows its Ta'wil except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in it; all of it is from our Lord.'' And none receive admonition except men of understanding."
Part of the reason some parts are ambiguous, is to force the reader not to look at the verses in isolation and to read up on the historical context of each verse.
You can find more info on that here…. https://www.quora.com/Why-are-so-many-things-ambiguous-in-the-Quran
May I point out that as far as the Quran is concerned, historical context is very important and this is something 10 year olds are taught. It IS a fundamental part of understanding the Quran.
The biggest crime organisations like Daesh and Al Qaeda commit is killing innocent people. So lets analyse Quranic scripture and academic evidence.
The following is I feel the violence being carried out by these people is more political than religious.
Let’s look at what the Quran says which forbids the actions of Daesh.
"Come, I will recite what your Lord has prohibited to you. [He commands] that you not associate anything with Him, and to parents, good treatment, and do not kill your children out of poverty; We will provide for you and them. And do not approach immoralities - what is apparent of them and what is concealed. And do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden [to be killed] except by [legal] right. This has He instructed you that you may use reason" (Al-Ana'am, 6: 151)
Notice that verse says you can only kill legally, I will get into that in a bit.
O you who have believed, do not consume one another's wealth unjustly but only [in lawful] business by mutual consent. And do not kill yourselves (or one another). Indeed, Allah is to you ever Merciful (Al-Baqara, 2: 29).
In the above verse it explicitly says not to commit suicide.
Both of these condemn killing and suicide, therefore suicide bombings are unjust and are not Islamic. As a non Muslim can you show me how these verses cab be interpreted differently? Maybe the ‘killing legally bit’ right, ok lets jump into that.
The following rules were summarised by the Prophets companion who later became the first Caliph.
“Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone.”
Can these rules be misinterpreted, is this in anyway ambiguous? There comes a point where you have to admit that these people fighting for Daesh are either liars and using the religion for political gain or people without knowledge.
By the way, that is what the Quran meant by legally, including the requirement of it being defensive and not aggressive warfare i.e. they have attacked you or are going to attack you first. And not the Tony Blair style evidence of they are going to attack us first, more like the oh crap they are amassing an army outside of our border style of attacking first.
Daesh have been killing Christians, read this letter from Muhammad (pbuh) to the monks of St Catherine Monastery in Mt Sinai and tell me if it can be misinterpreted but before you read it remember this is the Prophet the people in Daesh profess to follow.
“This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them.
Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them.
No compulsion is to be on them.
Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries.
No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses.
Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate.
No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight.
The Muslims are to fight for them.
If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray.
Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants.
No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world).”
How can they be followers of a man that said that? What’s to be confused or misinterpreted?
Here’s the cherry on top.
“Whoever kills a person [unjustly]…it is as though he has killed all mankind. And whoever saves a life, it is as though he had saved all mankind.” (Qur’an, 5:32)
Ok so lets move on to Jihad and historical evidence….
There are verses anti Islamic webpages and Islamophobes use often in an effort to call the Islamic faith violent.
These segments are usually ripped away from a verse a whole, erasing it’s context, missing it’s historical context or both.
"And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing…”
That’s one of the most popular ones and has been copy and pasted to death on here by some posters who think they have backed me into a corner.
This is why historical evidence is important and taught to Muslims as children.
Here is the entire verse to analyse:
"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors. And kill them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for persecution and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, kill them. Such is the reward of those who reject faith. But if they cease, God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression. The prohibited month, for the prohibited month, and so for all things prohibited, there is the law of equality. If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, transgress ye likewise against him. But fear (the punishment of) God, and know that God is with those who restrain themselves."
Lets look at the context of the verse.
"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits”
Limits being the rules of engagement.
The Historical context confirms this as well.
The Mekkans at the time conducted a public crucifixion of one of the companions of the prophet Khubaib bin Adi. This broke the peace the Mekkans and Muhammad
“Historically, fighting back against the aggressors was prohibited during the thirteen years of the Meccan period. After the migration to Medina and the establishment of the Islamic state, Muslims were concerned with how to defend themselves against aggression from their enemies.”
Because up until then killing was illegal so revelations were revealed like the one above to legalise killing in self defence.
More from the verse:
“But if they cease, God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.”
This an indication to forgive the enemy if they give up safe guarding against massacres of the civilian population once the battle is one.
“But fear (the punishment of) God, and know that God is with those who restrain themselves."
"If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure that is because they are men without knowledge." [Noble Quran 9:6]
Not only does the Quran tell us to forgive enemies but to escort them to safety and let them go.
http://www.aboutjihad.com/terrorism/quran_misquote_part_2.php
That’s just the tip of the ice berg as far as rules of engagement go and how to treat enemy combatants.
I follow these rules and believe in them because they are far more merciful then any current rules of engagement in the world.
Our government have gone on record on saying they wouldn’t launch a nuke first, if somebody fires nuke on us they are willing to incinerate around 1 million people (trident missile capability) who had nothing to with a psychos decision to kill us.
Islam safe guards against such abominations like the nuke because it’s indiscriminate.
You are correct when you say we are all Muslims but there is a difference between a practicing Muslim and a Muslim who transgresses limits as Allah put it.
Daesh constantly transgress limits, why is that?
First of all you have to recognise the fact that the people at the top of the food chain are secularists from Saddam Husseins baathist party.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421370/saddam-loyalists-running-isis-are-true-believers-not-secularists
One of many sources.
These people are lying and using Islam as a device to persuade ignorant young muslims to join there ranks.
Some of these guys are buying Islam for dummies books.
http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2014/08/what-jihadists-who-bought-islam-dummies-amazon-tell-us-about-radicalisation
One of the terrorists “the mastermind” was found drinking whisky after the atrocity in France.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/paris-terror-mastermind-of-attacks-seen-drinking-outside-saint-denis-flat-after-atrocities-witnesses-a6741441.html
He just killed innocent people to enter paradise and then starts drinking? Some thing doesn’t add up.
The so called Caliph of Daesh is illegitimate, all Muslims must consent to a new Caliph in a democratic process.
If you flip to page two in this link signed by various scholars you will see it.
http://www.lettertobaghdadi.com/
Who gave consent to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to become Caliph except for his hooligans?
This is getting long but I can assure you there are more inconstancies
Lets look at what the academics say.
Robert P@pe is Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago specialising in international security affairs. He is the Director of the Chicago Project on Security and Terrorism and his current work focuses on the causes of suicide terrorism and the politics of unipolarity.
This guy put together a complete database of suicide attacks from around the world from the early 1980s to 2003 and studied them.
“What 95 percent of all suicide attacks have in common, since 1980, is not religion, but a specific strategic motivation to respond to a military intervention, often specifically a military occupation, of territory that the terrorists view as their homeland or prize greatly. From Lebanon and the West Bank in the 80s and 90s, to Iraq and Afghanistan, and up through the Paris suicide attacks we’ve just experienced in the last days, military intervention—and specifically when the military intervention is occupying territory—that’s what prompts suicide terrorism more than anything else.”
Please read his paper, it’s very enlightening.
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/journalism/stille/Politics%20Fall%202007/readings%20weeks%206-7/Strategic%20Logic%20of%20Suicide%20Missions.pdf
I have provided evidence from the Quran and Academic evidence based on tangible, empirical evidence. So even if people don’t believe in God or trust the word of a murderer that he is practising Islam surely they can believe scientific methods?
Remember all of this evidence is just the tip of the iceberg and all people that blame Islam have is that “he shouted Allah Akbar before he did it” or that Daesh call themselves an “Islamic State”
I will ask you what I asked LQ, if I shout out Allahu Akbar before I eat a bacon sandwich is pork then permissible to consume in Islam.
If Daesh are practising Islam because they are called Islamic State does that then mean The Democratic Peoples Republic of North Korea is Democratic?
These are cries of individuals who have no evidence to fall back on and don’t have the intellect to do any research for themselves.
So to conclude I’m not willing to consider that what Daesh are doing is another variation of Islam because of the above.
It’s impossible to misinterpret the sections about killing and warfare because the historical context is made available and every Muslim knows that it should be taken into consideration otherwise it would just be page after page of contradictions.
The younger recruits in Daesh probably think it’s islamic but we have entered an era, especially in the islamic world where people don’t study their chosen philosophies and just rely upon the word of scholars which is a stupid thing to do. It’s these twisted scholars who are manipulating the Quran and only providing sound bites to the ignorant who are to blame along with western foreign policy which fuels the hate.
Pardon me for any spelling errors etc
I’m hoping at this point Admin haven’t deleted the article.
Take my advice and never trust anybodies information without verifying it first through your own research. Don't even trust me, read up but make sure you use sources that are sincere at heart.
Salam and I will leave you with a quote from the Quran which about sums up todays leaders, Muslim and Non Muslim.
“And when it is said to them, Do not make mischief in the land, they say: We are but peace-makers.”
RDD show me the quotes, if they are sweeping generalisations of Brits or westerners then it is anti British/Western.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by ABU - Babes, You Brex my heart! (U8613)
posted 14 hours, 37 minutes ago
comment by ManUtdDaredevil (U9612)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by ABU - Babes, You Brex my heart! (U8613)
posted 1 hour, 8 minutes ago
Saudi Arabia does not want Iran to muscle in on the oil market and Iran does not want Saudi Arabia to control the market.
---
What Saudi Barbaria's oil got to do with killings of innocent people in Nice and northern Nigeria? Regular killings in Afghan and Pakistan? Or the Japanese in Bangladesh?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There's a term called Wahhabism. Look it up.
Hopefully, all will become clear then
----
Be it Wahaabism or Salafsim, the truth is it spread by the fake Mullahs and feudalistic landlords.. That is what I was trying to explain it to you..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where does this Wahhabism come from? Think before responding
King Fu
It is a pleasure to have people like you on this board
I have learnt so much from you and I am grateful
Whilst I have my issues with religion, I respect your patience in dealing with some of these people.
comment by Reddevilsdouble - give peace a chance (U12215)
posted 13 hours, 54 minutes ago
So many on this board criticise the west as a way of justifying their defence of Islam as they are obliged to whether they like it or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Please give examples
comment by redmisty (U7556)
posted 14 hours, 8 minutes ago
comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
comment by redmisty (U7556)
posted 38 minutes ago
I can find a million examples of how these people contradict Islam
___________________
I don't doubt this but I would personally like to see more Muslims preaching this stuff to the violent terrorists proclaiming to be Muslims. I don't believe we see enough of that. If we did, I think it would go a long way to making the public distinction between true Islam and terrorism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is plenty of it, I'm only aware of it because I'm Muslim and I have a network to tap into to know it is going on.
If I was a non Muslim and only relied on mainstream media I would also think it's non existent.
_________________
I still think there should be more of this. As much as I hate the media, I think that the Muslim community can do more to manage its own PR. As I alluded to earlier, I think both Western and Muslim countries need to take more responsibility for their actions and relations in general.
If you need to tap into a secret network to find this stuff out then it ain't happening publicly enough or loudly enough. I always see plenty of complaints from Muslims about how they are portrayed by the western media but I rarely, if ever, see Muslims complaining about Extremists or their behaviour. If there was more of the latter, there would be less of the former imo.
The problem is that when you point this out, a lot of Muslims will get defensive and adversarial. Just like many Westerners get defensive when you point out the things they've done wrong - like that idiot who argued with me earlier when all I did was state a fact.
This is why I say that both sides need to be more honest and take more responsibility for their actions - and for those who act in their name.
It is not sufficient to just say that Islamic extremists are not following Islam. I don't agree with what Blair and Bush did but that won't stop me from getting blown up on a bus...We have to loudly condemn those actions we disagree with on both sides. Only then is there any chance of finding common ground imo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Some really excellent points here misty but the challenge as always is the "system."
This is why institutionalised racism is a much bigger problem than someone shouting racist epithets on the streets or RDD doing his usual on here.
The media in the west is controlled by a racist Australian with neo conservative beliefs and ideology.
Fighting that machine is very difficult and before the truth makes it way to the populace, his lies have done the damage.
There are startling similarities between what is happening with muslims now that happened with Jews, Blacks and Immigrants.
I agree that more can be done but the issue is that people immediately jump on muslims and Islam as the problem when the issue is far more complicated
Kung Fu - we have many people on this board blaming the west and their historic actions for the problems we see in the Middle East. Is it not possible therefore that ISIS see their actions as defensive warfare which appears to be allowed?
Mud - examples of what, people criticising the wests actions or examples of how Muslims are obliged to stick together?
Go read The Turkey for examples of both
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
United we win, I wouldn't worry about what will happen to us in England although the minority that really hate us is growing more and more. I'd worry about what's going to happen in America, Trump now stands a real chance of winning. Did you see his speech yesterday? It was like the Nerumberg rally in colour.
Mudd it's also a pleasure having people like you on here who make an effort to understand the perspective of Muslims. It's a two street though and obviously Muslims have to understand the confusion in non Muslims minds as they know very little about Islam, well the majority don't anyway.
This mentality can close a widening gap between alienated Muslims and non Muslims.
Curly I agree with your friend, it is difficult to translate the Arabic into other languages and can cause confusion.
That fact that the Quran is in its original Arabic means that it has remained uncorrupted which is why Muslims are encouraged to learn Arabic to understand it completely.
English translation etc in some circumstances bring different meanings to verses and the Saudi government have also been found out to have purposefully manipulated translations for their own agenda. Something they can't do with the Arabic version, because everybody knows it.
The Quran being in Arabic is a positive in this regard not to mention the contributions the language makes to the poetic nature of the scripture.
RDD defensive ware fare against who? Iraqi and Syrian civilians who's land they have invaded?
Are the innocent people of France who were celebrating in the streets enemy combatants invading the Middle East?
How can it be defensive warfare?
Did you read my long post RDD, it goes into detail about the requirements of taking a life.
RDD read it and answer me honestly, do the Islamic rules of engagement in my long lost sound more merciful to than western rules of engagement.
Ignore what's going on in the world and only read the black and white text and tell me your answer....
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Reddevilsdouble - give peace a chance (U12215)
posted 1 hour, 16 minutes ago
Mud - examples of what, people criticising the wests actions or examples of how Muslims are obliged to stick together?
Go read The Turkey for examples of both
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of people being Anti-West RDD
You see it and claim it is written all the time.
Please give me examples
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by ManUtdDaredevil (U9612)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Reddevilsdouble - give peace a chance (U12215)
posted 1 hour, 16 minutes ago
Mud - examples of what, people criticising the wests actions or examples of how Muslims are obliged to stick together?
Go read The Turkey for examples of both
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of people being Anti-West RDD
You see it and claim it is written all the time.
Please give me examples
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't day rhrybwere written all thr time. I said that kind of language is creeping I over thr last seek or so. Go team thr Turkey thread and tell me if there is an us and thr tone to it.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 42 minutes ago
RDD defensive ware fare against who? Iraqi and Syrian civilians who's land they have invaded?
Are the innocent people of France who were celebrating in the streets enemy combatants invading the Middle East?
How can it be defensive warfare?
Did you read my long post RDD, it goes into detail about the requirements of taking a life.
RDD read it and answer me honestly, do the Islamic rules of engagement in my long lost sound more merciful to than western rules of engagement.
Ignore what's going on in the world and only read the black and white text and tell me your answer....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Defensive warfare against the west and members of the coalition
Mud, I dont hate muslims or any ethnic groups. Only those that seek to harm us or those that sympathise with these groups but don't have the bollox to admit it and therefore blame everyone else
comment by Reddevilsdouble - give peace a chance (U12215)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 42 minutes ago
RDD defensive ware fare against who? Iraqi and Syrian civilians who's land they have invaded?
Are the innocent people of France who were celebrating in the streets enemy combatants invading the Middle East?
How can it be defensive warfare?
Did you read my long post RDD, it goes into detail about the requirements of taking a life.
RDD read it and answer me honestly, do the Islamic rules of engagement in my long lost sound more merciful to than western rules of engagement.
Ignore what's going on in the world and only read the black and white text and tell me your answer....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Defensive warfare against the west and members of the coalition
----------------------------------------------------------------------
RDD I try my best to answer all questions so please don't pretend I just asked you one.
Please also take notice of the information I am providing you.
The Islamic rules of engagement clearly stipulate you can't kill women, children or elderly men. So the actions of Daesh are illegal in that regard.
They are invaders, which means they are not engaged in defensive warfare.
Read the rest of the points in the long post, I'm just repeating my self, I can't believe how hard it is for you to digest simple information.
Another day another nutter on the Rampage
Page 7 of 10
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 20/7/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 20/7/16
"Hi Kung Fu Cantona,
Would you not be willing to consider that - however unpleasant - radical Islam is just another variation on the interpretation of doctrine? Just because you might not agree with their interpretation, could it not be said that they are no more/less Muslim that you are; after all that is how they identify themselves, and the only difference between them and you is in the details.
Forgive my ignorance of your religion, but from an outside perspective this looks like another schism akin to the difference between Shias and Sunnis. Both groups identify, and are acknowledged as Muslims (I think).
I don't mean to disrespect your religion. It just that as someone not very familiar with Islam I consider this trend towards 'radical Islam' (hate that tag but don't know what else to call it) as something of a third variance of Islam, akin to the variety of sects you get in Christianity - Presbyterian. Lutherian, Methodist, Quaker etc."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Lambeau Leap!
Ok so I can finally answer!
This is going to be loooooooooong so please forgive me.
Let me start off by saying that I don't recognise the terms radical Islam or moderate Islam, only Islam.
I also don't subscribe to the notion that Islam is a religion of peace because it isn't pacifistic in the sense that it allows for defensive warfare (Jihad).
You must have heard the term Jihad a lot, it is now a dirty word because it has been misrepresented by the media and of course extremists. In reality it refers to two things, defensive warfare and the spiritual battle between the soul and sinning.
I will be using the Islamic concept of defensive warfare to illustrate my points.
People (I'm not saying you) usually use the word 'interpretation' in a debate when they reach a dead end because they don't what the Quran says and therefore can't confirm if Islamic text forbids or permits a certain act.
God in the Quran states that there are ambiguous verses that are hard to interpret and also clear ones...
"It is He Who has sent down to you the Book. In it are verses that are entirely clear, they are the foundations of the Book; and others (verses) that are ambiguous. So as for those in whose hearts there is a deviation (from the truth) they follow (only) that which is not entirely clear thereof, seeking Al-Fitnah, and seeking its Ta'wil (true reality of things), but none knows its Ta'wil except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in it; all of it is from our Lord.'' And none receive admonition except men of understanding."
Part of the reason some parts are ambiguous, is to force the reader not to look at the verses in isolation and to read up on the historical context of each verse.
You can find more info on that here…. https://www.quora.com/Why-are-so-many-things-ambiguous-in-the-Quran
May I point out that as far as the Quran is concerned, historical context is very important and this is something 10 year olds are taught. It IS a fundamental part of understanding the Quran.
The biggest crime organisations like Daesh and Al Qaeda commit is killing innocent people. So lets analyse Quranic scripture and academic evidence.
The following is I feel the violence being carried out by these people is more political than religious.
Let’s look at what the Quran says which forbids the actions of Daesh.
"Come, I will recite what your Lord has prohibited to you. [He commands] that you not associate anything with Him, and to parents, good treatment, and do not kill your children out of poverty; We will provide for you and them. And do not approach immoralities - what is apparent of them and what is concealed. And do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden [to be killed] except by [legal] right. This has He instructed you that you may use reason" (Al-Ana'am, 6: 151)
Notice that verse says you can only kill legally, I will get into that in a bit.
O you who have believed, do not consume one another's wealth unjustly but only [in lawful] business by mutual consent. And do not kill yourselves (or one another). Indeed, Allah is to you ever Merciful (Al-Baqara, 2: 29).
In the above verse it explicitly says not to commit suicide.
Both of these condemn killing and suicide, therefore suicide bombings are unjust and are not Islamic. As a non Muslim can you show me how these verses cab be interpreted differently? Maybe the ‘killing legally bit’ right, ok lets jump into that.
The following rules were summarised by the Prophets companion who later became the first Caliph.
“Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone.”
Can these rules be misinterpreted, is this in anyway ambiguous? There comes a point where you have to admit that these people fighting for Daesh are either liars and using the religion for political gain or people without knowledge.
By the way, that is what the Quran meant by legally, including the requirement of it being defensive and not aggressive warfare i.e. they have attacked you or are going to attack you first. And not the Tony Blair style evidence of they are going to attack us first, more like the oh crap they are amassing an army outside of our border style of attacking first.
Daesh have been killing Christians, read this letter from Muhammad (pbuh) to the monks of St Catherine Monastery in Mt Sinai and tell me if it can be misinterpreted but before you read it remember this is the Prophet the people in Daesh profess to follow.
“This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them.
Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them.
No compulsion is to be on them.
Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries.
No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses.
Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate.
No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight.
The Muslims are to fight for them.
If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray.
Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants.
No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world).”
How can they be followers of a man that said that? What’s to be confused or misinterpreted?
Here’s the cherry on top.
“Whoever kills a person [unjustly]…it is as though he has killed all mankind. And whoever saves a life, it is as though he had saved all mankind.” (Qur’an, 5:32)
Ok so lets move on to Jihad and historical evidence….
There are verses anti Islamic webpages and Islamophobes use often in an effort to call the Islamic faith violent.
These segments are usually ripped away from a verse a whole, erasing it’s context, missing it’s historical context or both.
"And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing…”
That’s one of the most popular ones and has been copy and pasted to death on here by some posters who think they have backed me into a corner.
This is why historical evidence is important and taught to Muslims as children.
Here is the entire verse to analyse:
"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors. And kill them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for persecution and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, kill them. Such is the reward of those who reject faith. But if they cease, God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression. The prohibited month, for the prohibited month, and so for all things prohibited, there is the law of equality. If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, transgress ye likewise against him. But fear (the punishment of) God, and know that God is with those who restrain themselves."
Lets look at the context of the verse.
"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits”
Limits being the rules of engagement.
The Historical context confirms this as well.
The Mekkans at the time conducted a public crucifixion of one of the companions of the prophet Khubaib bin Adi. This broke the peace the Mekkans and Muhammad
“Historically, fighting back against the aggressors was prohibited during the thirteen years of the Meccan period. After the migration to Medina and the establishment of the Islamic state, Muslims were concerned with how to defend themselves against aggression from their enemies.”
Because up until then killing was illegal so revelations were revealed like the one above to legalise killing in self defence.
More from the verse:
“But if they cease, God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.”
This an indication to forgive the enemy if they give up safe guarding against massacres of the civilian population once the battle is one.
“But fear (the punishment of) God, and know that God is with those who restrain themselves."
"If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure that is because they are men without knowledge." [Noble Quran 9:6]
Not only does the Quran tell us to forgive enemies but to escort them to safety and let them go.
http://www.aboutjihad.com/terrorism/quran_misquote_part_2.php
That’s just the tip of the ice berg as far as rules of engagement go and how to treat enemy combatants.
I follow these rules and believe in them because they are far more merciful then any current rules of engagement in the world.
Our government have gone on record on saying they wouldn’t launch a nuke first, if somebody fires nuke on us they are willing to incinerate around 1 million people (trident missile capability) who had nothing to with a psychos decision to kill us.
Islam safe guards against such abominations like the nuke because it’s indiscriminate.
You are correct when you say we are all Muslims but there is a difference between a practicing Muslim and a Muslim who transgresses limits as Allah put it.
Daesh constantly transgress limits, why is that?
First of all you have to recognise the fact that the people at the top of the food chain are secularists from Saddam Husseins baathist party.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421370/saddam-loyalists-running-isis-are-true-believers-not-secularists
One of many sources.
These people are lying and using Islam as a device to persuade ignorant young muslims to join there ranks.
Some of these guys are buying Islam for dummies books.
http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2014/08/what-jihadists-who-bought-islam-dummies-amazon-tell-us-about-radicalisation
One of the terrorists “the mastermind” was found drinking whisky after the atrocity in France.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/paris-terror-mastermind-of-attacks-seen-drinking-outside-saint-denis-flat-after-atrocities-witnesses-a6741441.html
He just killed innocent people to enter paradise and then starts drinking? Some thing doesn’t add up.
The so called Caliph of Daesh is illegitimate, all Muslims must consent to a new Caliph in a democratic process.
If you flip to page two in this link signed by various scholars you will see it.
http://www.lettertobaghdadi.com/
Who gave consent to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to become Caliph except for his hooligans?
This is getting long but I can assure you there are more inconstancies
Lets look at what the academics say.
Robert P@pe is Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago specialising in international security affairs. He is the Director of the Chicago Project on Security and Terrorism and his current work focuses on the causes of suicide terrorism and the politics of unipolarity.
This guy put together a complete database of suicide attacks from around the world from the early 1980s to 2003 and studied them.
“What 95 percent of all suicide attacks have in common, since 1980, is not religion, but a specific strategic motivation to respond to a military intervention, often specifically a military occupation, of territory that the terrorists view as their homeland or prize greatly. From Lebanon and the West Bank in the 80s and 90s, to Iraq and Afghanistan, and up through the Paris suicide attacks we’ve just experienced in the last days, military intervention—and specifically when the military intervention is occupying territory—that’s what prompts suicide terrorism more than anything else.”
Please read his paper, it’s very enlightening.
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/journalism/stille/Politics%20Fall%202007/readings%20weeks%206-7/Strategic%20Logic%20of%20Suicide%20Missions.pdf
I have provided evidence from the Quran and Academic evidence based on tangible, empirical evidence. So even if people don’t believe in God or trust the word of a murderer that he is practising Islam surely they can believe scientific methods?
Remember all of this evidence is just the tip of the iceberg and all people that blame Islam have is that “he shouted Allah Akbar before he did it” or that Daesh call themselves an “Islamic State”
I will ask you what I asked LQ, if I shout out Allahu Akbar before I eat a bacon sandwich is pork then permissible to consume in Islam.
If Daesh are practising Islam because they are called Islamic State does that then mean The Democratic Peoples Republic of North Korea is Democratic?
These are cries of individuals who have no evidence to fall back on and don’t have the intellect to do any research for themselves.
So to conclude I’m not willing to consider that what Daesh are doing is another variation of Islam because of the above.
It’s impossible to misinterpret the sections about killing and warfare because the historical context is made available and every Muslim knows that it should be taken into consideration otherwise it would just be page after page of contradictions.
The younger recruits in Daesh probably think it’s islamic but we have entered an era, especially in the islamic world where people don’t study their chosen philosophies and just rely upon the word of scholars which is a stupid thing to do. It’s these twisted scholars who are manipulating the Quran and only providing sound bites to the ignorant who are to blame along with western foreign policy which fuels the hate.
Pardon me for any spelling errors etc
I’m hoping at this point Admin haven’t deleted the article.
Take my advice and never trust anybodies information without verifying it first through your own research. Don't even trust me, read up but make sure you use sources that are sincere at heart.
Salam and I will leave you with a quote from the Quran which about sums up todays leaders, Muslim and Non Muslim.
“And when it is said to them, Do not make mischief in the land, they say: We are but peace-makers.”
posted on 20/7/16
RDD show me the quotes, if they are sweeping generalisations of Brits or westerners then it is anti British/Western.
posted on 20/7/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 20/7/16
comment by ABU - Babes, You Brex my heart! (U8613)
posted 14 hours, 37 minutes ago
comment by ManUtdDaredevil (U9612)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by ABU - Babes, You Brex my heart! (U8613)
posted 1 hour, 8 minutes ago
Saudi Arabia does not want Iran to muscle in on the oil market and Iran does not want Saudi Arabia to control the market.
---
What Saudi Barbaria's oil got to do with killings of innocent people in Nice and northern Nigeria? Regular killings in Afghan and Pakistan? Or the Japanese in Bangladesh?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There's a term called Wahhabism. Look it up.
Hopefully, all will become clear then
----
Be it Wahaabism or Salafsim, the truth is it spread by the fake Mullahs and feudalistic landlords.. That is what I was trying to explain it to you..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where does this Wahhabism come from? Think before responding
posted on 20/7/16
King Fu
It is a pleasure to have people like you on this board
I have learnt so much from you and I am grateful
Whilst I have my issues with religion, I respect your patience in dealing with some of these people.
posted on 20/7/16
comment by Reddevilsdouble - give peace a chance (U12215)
posted 13 hours, 54 minutes ago
So many on this board criticise the west as a way of justifying their defence of Islam as they are obliged to whether they like it or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Please give examples
posted on 20/7/16
comment by redmisty (U7556)
posted 14 hours, 8 minutes ago
comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
comment by redmisty (U7556)
posted 38 minutes ago
I can find a million examples of how these people contradict Islam
___________________
I don't doubt this but I would personally like to see more Muslims preaching this stuff to the violent terrorists proclaiming to be Muslims. I don't believe we see enough of that. If we did, I think it would go a long way to making the public distinction between true Islam and terrorism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is plenty of it, I'm only aware of it because I'm Muslim and I have a network to tap into to know it is going on.
If I was a non Muslim and only relied on mainstream media I would also think it's non existent.
_________________
I still think there should be more of this. As much as I hate the media, I think that the Muslim community can do more to manage its own PR. As I alluded to earlier, I think both Western and Muslim countries need to take more responsibility for their actions and relations in general.
If you need to tap into a secret network to find this stuff out then it ain't happening publicly enough or loudly enough. I always see plenty of complaints from Muslims about how they are portrayed by the western media but I rarely, if ever, see Muslims complaining about Extremists or their behaviour. If there was more of the latter, there would be less of the former imo.
The problem is that when you point this out, a lot of Muslims will get defensive and adversarial. Just like many Westerners get defensive when you point out the things they've done wrong - like that idiot who argued with me earlier when all I did was state a fact.
This is why I say that both sides need to be more honest and take more responsibility for their actions - and for those who act in their name.
It is not sufficient to just say that Islamic extremists are not following Islam. I don't agree with what Blair and Bush did but that won't stop me from getting blown up on a bus...We have to loudly condemn those actions we disagree with on both sides. Only then is there any chance of finding common ground imo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Some really excellent points here misty but the challenge as always is the "system."
This is why institutionalised racism is a much bigger problem than someone shouting racist epithets on the streets or RDD doing his usual on here.
The media in the west is controlled by a racist Australian with neo conservative beliefs and ideology.
Fighting that machine is very difficult and before the truth makes it way to the populace, his lies have done the damage.
There are startling similarities between what is happening with muslims now that happened with Jews, Blacks and Immigrants.
I agree that more can be done but the issue is that people immediately jump on muslims and Islam as the problem when the issue is far more complicated
posted on 20/7/16
Kung Fu - we have many people on this board blaming the west and their historic actions for the problems we see in the Middle East. Is it not possible therefore that ISIS see their actions as defensive warfare which appears to be allowed?
posted on 20/7/16
Mud - examples of what, people criticising the wests actions or examples of how Muslims are obliged to stick together?
Go read The Turkey for examples of both
posted on 20/7/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 20/7/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 20/7/16
United we win, I wouldn't worry about what will happen to us in England although the minority that really hate us is growing more and more. I'd worry about what's going to happen in America, Trump now stands a real chance of winning. Did you see his speech yesterday? It was like the Nerumberg rally in colour.
posted on 20/7/16
Mudd it's also a pleasure having people like you on here who make an effort to understand the perspective of Muslims. It's a two street though and obviously Muslims have to understand the confusion in non Muslims minds as they know very little about Islam, well the majority don't anyway.
This mentality can close a widening gap between alienated Muslims and non Muslims.
posted on 20/7/16
Curly I agree with your friend, it is difficult to translate the Arabic into other languages and can cause confusion.
That fact that the Quran is in its original Arabic means that it has remained uncorrupted which is why Muslims are encouraged to learn Arabic to understand it completely.
English translation etc in some circumstances bring different meanings to verses and the Saudi government have also been found out to have purposefully manipulated translations for their own agenda. Something they can't do with the Arabic version, because everybody knows it.
The Quran being in Arabic is a positive in this regard not to mention the contributions the language makes to the poetic nature of the scripture.
posted on 20/7/16
RDD defensive ware fare against who? Iraqi and Syrian civilians who's land they have invaded?
Are the innocent people of France who were celebrating in the streets enemy combatants invading the Middle East?
How can it be defensive warfare?
Did you read my long post RDD, it goes into detail about the requirements of taking a life.
RDD read it and answer me honestly, do the Islamic rules of engagement in my long lost sound more merciful to than western rules of engagement.
Ignore what's going on in the world and only read the black and white text and tell me your answer....
posted on 20/7/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 20/7/16
comment by Reddevilsdouble - give peace a chance (U12215)
posted 1 hour, 16 minutes ago
Mud - examples of what, people criticising the wests actions or examples of how Muslims are obliged to stick together?
Go read The Turkey for examples of both
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of people being Anti-West RDD
You see it and claim it is written all the time.
Please give me examples
posted on 20/7/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 20/7/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 20/7/16
comment by ManUtdDaredevil (U9612)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Reddevilsdouble - give peace a chance (U12215)
posted 1 hour, 16 minutes ago
Mud - examples of what, people criticising the wests actions or examples of how Muslims are obliged to stick together?
Go read The Turkey for examples of both
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of people being Anti-West RDD
You see it and claim it is written all the time.
Please give me examples
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't day rhrybwere written all thr time. I said that kind of language is creeping I over thr last seek or so. Go team thr Turkey thread and tell me if there is an us and thr tone to it.
posted on 20/7/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 20/7/16
comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 42 minutes ago
RDD defensive ware fare against who? Iraqi and Syrian civilians who's land they have invaded?
Are the innocent people of France who were celebrating in the streets enemy combatants invading the Middle East?
How can it be defensive warfare?
Did you read my long post RDD, it goes into detail about the requirements of taking a life.
RDD read it and answer me honestly, do the Islamic rules of engagement in my long lost sound more merciful to than western rules of engagement.
Ignore what's going on in the world and only read the black and white text and tell me your answer....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Defensive warfare against the west and members of the coalition
posted on 20/7/16
Mud, I dont hate muslims or any ethnic groups. Only those that seek to harm us or those that sympathise with these groups but don't have the bollox to admit it and therefore blame everyone else
posted on 20/7/16
comment by Reddevilsdouble - give peace a chance (U12215)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 42 minutes ago
RDD defensive ware fare against who? Iraqi and Syrian civilians who's land they have invaded?
Are the innocent people of France who were celebrating in the streets enemy combatants invading the Middle East?
How can it be defensive warfare?
Did you read my long post RDD, it goes into detail about the requirements of taking a life.
RDD read it and answer me honestly, do the Islamic rules of engagement in my long lost sound more merciful to than western rules of engagement.
Ignore what's going on in the world and only read the black and white text and tell me your answer....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Defensive warfare against the west and members of the coalition
----------------------------------------------------------------------
RDD I try my best to answer all questions so please don't pretend I just asked you one.
Please also take notice of the information I am providing you.
The Islamic rules of engagement clearly stipulate you can't kill women, children or elderly men. So the actions of Daesh are illegal in that regard.
They are invaders, which means they are not engaged in defensive warfare.
Read the rest of the points in the long post, I'm just repeating my self, I can't believe how hard it is for you to digest simple information.
Page 7 of 10
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10