We all agree, but he’s not backing down from that statement and the discussion isn’t progressing, so I just dropped it.
Yet it seems to be people who are opposed to Muslims who are unable to follow this simple guideline.
So how are we supposed to discuss if that phrase was considered offensive? And you don’t have to ridicule as well @Jarbinger, I find that offensive actually.
If you ask a person from ISIS if he’s a terrorist or a Muslim, do you think he would say that he’s a terrorist? Or do you think he would say that he’s a Muslim? Quinn didn’t understand this, but it’s important to understand what they perceive themselves as, not what we see them as.
The way people have been discussing it by talking about facts, circumstances, complexities, etc. Not by simply announcing that your opinion is the only valid once and that anyone who needs you to substantiate it wrong. If you can’t talk about these topics like a grown up, stay out of the threads - it’s very simple.
This for example, is complete and utter nonsense that contributes literally nothing to the conversation because it’s a fantasy scenario you’ve invented in your own imagination that you think is somehow going to be a trump card. It is, however nonsense since you can never produce the result and the outcome depends entirely on the imaginary personality you assign and the imaginary circumstances you assign too.
Nobody understands it because it is literally a hypothetical that exists nowhere but in your own imagination and reduces literally every member of Daesh (to a singular person with a singular mindset and motivation because it is convenient to you.) It is, essentially, no different from when members of Daesh go out and make bold declarations about everyone who is not in Daesh being decadent or worshipping false gods etc.
It fails to account for the strategic basis behind the idea or just inherent dishonesty. For example, that by misrepresenting themselves as representative of Muslims (even if a lot of them are atheists, they did do a lot of recruiting out of Saddam’s secular forces)) they create a situation where people persecute Muslims thus both reducing their effectiveness in hunting Daesh members and increasing the alienation that Muslims feel (and the number of angry, disenfranchised members who can then be recruited either because they are desperate or just thirsty for revenge)
Add to that, if a requirement of being a terrorist is to identify yourself as one to the enemy then you basically have no terrorists in the world. Applying this standard to other identities you also have virtually no thieves, no rapists, no arsonists and pretty much no liars ever.
So if you, as evidence suggests, have nothing to contribute to the conversation: Stay out of it.
Or even better: Just read and maybe learn something.
Whether or not a religion has basis in peace comes down to its origins and the examples set by its founders. Several people say that ISIS hijacks islam and that islam is a religion of peace. Why can it not be the other way, that more peaceful minded people make islam much more peaceful because they unconsciously can not cope with its original brutality. Which might by the reason why islamic abrogation is such a hard thing to discuss for many muslims.
I think it is a defence mechanism so that their worldview wont collapse.
Interestingly, a lot of people defend muslims and islam while proclaiming human decency meanwhile their beliefs are utterly incompatible with the examples set by islam and its founders leading to an apparent case of cognitive dissonance. .
In which case, the people who play violent video games and go on killing sprees are the ones actually doing things correctly. The majority who just play the game and have fun are doing it wrong.
Anway, I have long been morbidly curious about this bizarre statement you made a while back and now appears to be the perfect time to revisit it:
Continuing the discussion from The United States Presidential Election 2016:
Unfair and flawed. That’s if, the game tells you to do that. Otherwise, that person have interpreted the game to his own liking. No one tells you, that if you run over people in GTAV, you should do it in real life. You don’t agree? Religion, for example Islam, tells you to give horrible agony to the Unbelievers.
Do game developers want you to go kill people? Really???
I am referring to the teachings of for instance Christ. The guy who preached and lived by peace.
The interesting thing is that the arabic culture also has many of these values, but I do not attribute them to any teachings you find in islam.
Then why do a lot of modern Christians in America actively campaign against the human rights of others, using those same teachings from the Bible to justify doing so?
It is the same reason why you see peaceful muslims disregarding islamic abrogation. People have opinions that may or may not be compatible with a religion but they shoe-horn these in so that their world-view appears intact. Often this is self-deception or some people claim it is islamic taqiya. I think self-deception is the most common one.
Christians in America are probably fine with taking the human rights of others in the case of abortion because they see this as an active act of violence against the fetus/child. I do not know how well these actions are justified if you read the old testament.
Firstly: Daesh’s brand of Islamism is a variant of Salafism - an indeology that comes from the 18th century rejection of western colonialists and is widely rejected by Muslim scholars around the world because it is places it’s own values ahead of those put forward by The Prophet. It’s like saying that Christianity is pro-racism because of the Ku Klux Klan being Christian means that’s why they’re racist, and not their history going back to the slave powered agricultural industry of The South.
Secondly: If it was Islam we would all be dead because one point six billion people would be participating in the hostilities, instead of roughly thirty to fifty thousand.
If you want to put forward a hypothesis like this: You should bring forward evidence to support that rather than just say “why can’t it be this way” (and just assume it’s everyone else’s problem)
Also worth noting is that a lot of ISIS leaders are former Sadaam era Baathists.
I think you may be misunderstanding my point.
I am referrring to the point that it might as well be peaceful people that hijack Islam and turn its ideas into something they are not.
I base islam on what its founder did and preached (muhammad). You are more than welcome to try to defend his military agression and his views as well as his brutality.
I am getting annoyed that people are defending true islam as it was conceived by ITS FOUNDER, thereby the one and true version of islam.
Thanks for the pep talk, God.
Yes i will continue to defend Islam and i’m not even a Muslim. I read a lot about Islam and i can’t find anything about Islam is allowing the things terrorists is doing, if you have info where you can truly blame Islam for all terror attacks, please share it with us.
Top Ten Ways Islamic Law forbids Terrorism
By Juan Cole | Apr. 17, 2013 |
Erik Rush and others who hastened to scapegoat Muslims for the Boston Marathon bombing are ignorant of the religion. I can’t understand why people who have never so much as read a book about a subject appoint themselves experts on it. (Try this book, e.g.). We don’t yet know who carried out the attack, but we know they either aren’t Muslims at all or they aren’t real Muslims, in the nature of the case.
For the TLDR crowd, here are the top ten ways that Islamic law and tradition forbid terrorism (some of these points are reworked from previous postings):
Terrorism is above all murder. Murder is strictly forbidden in the Qur’an. Qur’an 6:151 says, “and do not kill a soul that God has made sacrosanct, save lawfully.” (i.e. murder is forbidden but the death penalty imposed by the state for a crime is permitted). 5:53 says, “… whoso kills a soul, unless it be for murder or for wreaking corruption in the land, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind; and he who saves a life, it shall be as if he had given life to all mankind.”
If the motive for terrorism is religious, it is impermissible in Islamic law. It is forbidden to attempt to impose Islam on other people. The Qur’an says, “There is no compulsion in religion. The right way has become distinct from error.” (-The Cow, 2:256). Note that this verse was revealed in Medina in 622 AD or after and was never abrogated by any other verse of the Quran. Islam’s holy book forbids coercing people into adopting any religion. They have to willingly choose it.
Islamic law forbids aggressive warfare. The Quran says, “But if the enemies incline towards peace, do you also incline towards peace. And trust in God! For He is the one who hears and knows all things.” (8:61) The Quran chapter “The Cow,” 2:190, says, “Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! God loveth not aggressors.”
In the Islamic law of war, not just any civil engineer can declare or launch a war. It is the prerogative of the duly constituted leader of the Muslim community that engages in the war. Nowadays that would be the president or prime minister of the state, as advised by the mufti or national jurisconsult.
The killing of innocent non-combatants is forbidden. According to Sunni tradition, ‘Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, the first Caliph, gave these instructions to his armies: “I instruct you in ten matters: Do not kill women, children, the old, or the infirm; do not cut down fruit-bearing trees; do not destroy any town . . . ” (Malik’s Muwatta’, “Kitab al-Jihad.”)
Terrorism or hirabah is forbidden in Islamic law, which groups it with brigandage, highway robbery and extortion rackets– any illicit use of fear and coercion in public spaces for money or power. The principle of forbidding the spreading of terror in the land is based on the Qur’an (Surah al-Ma’ida 5:33–34). Prominent [pdf] Muslim legal scholar Sherman Jackson writes, “The Spanish Maliki jurist Ibn `Abd al-Barr (d. 464/ 1070)) defines the agent of hiraba as ‘Anyone who disturbs free passage in the streets and renders them unsafe to travel, striving to spread corruption in the land by taking money, killing people or violating what God has made it unlawful to violate is guilty of hirabah . . .”
Sneak attacks are forbidden. Muslim commanders must give the enemy fair warning that war is imminent. The Prophet Muhammad at one point gave 4 months notice.
The Prophet Muhammad counseled doing good to those who harm you and is said to have commanded, “Do not be people without minds of your own, saying that if others treat you well you will treat them well, and that if they do wrong you will do wrong to them. Instead, accustom yourselves to do good if people do good and not to do wrong (even) if they do evil.” (Al-Tirmidhi)
The Qur’an demands of believers that they exercise justice toward people even where they have reason to be angry with them: “And do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness.”[5:8]
The Qur’an assures Christians and Jews of paradise if they believe and do good works, and commends Christians as the best friends of Muslims. I wrote elsewhere, “Dangerous falsehoods are being promulgated to the American public. The Quran does not preach violence against Christians.
Quran 5:69 says (Arberry): “Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and the Christians, and those Sabeaans, whoso believes in God and the Last Day, and works righteousness–their wage waits them with their Lord, and no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow.”
In other words, the Quran promises Christians and Jews along with Muslims that if they have faith and works, they need have no fear in the afterlife. It is not saying that non-Muslims go to hell– quite the opposite.
When speaking of the 7th-century situation in the Muslim city-state of Medina, which was at war with pagan Mecca, the Quran notes that the polytheists and some Arabian Jewish tribes were opposed to Islam, but then goes on to say:
5:82. ” . . . and you will find the nearest in love to the believers [Muslims] those who say: ‘We are Christians.’ That is because amongst them are priests and monks, and they are not proud.”
So the Quran not only does not urge Muslims to commit violence against Christians, it calls them “nearest in love” to the Muslims! The reason given is their piety, their ability to produce holy persons dedicated to God, and their lack of overweening pride.
Muhammad’s religious career is often divided into two periods: the Meccan Period which lasted for thirteen years, from the start of his revelations to his emigration to Medina; and the Medinan period, which lasted the remaining ten years of his life.
The Meccan Period is characterized by the more elliptical and otherworldly portions of the Qur’an, and by the story of the rejected and persecuted prophet. Had the assassination plot against him in 621 succeeded, his religious career would have been similar in broad outline to that of Jesus.
However, Muhammad escaped the trap set for him and went to live in the oasis of Medina. There he evolved from the charismatic head of a small group to the political and spiritual director of a large community. For the first time he had to wrestle with the challenges of creating a new society. The Qur’an continued to be revealed to him, but the focus of the message broadened now from the purely spiritual to include the more temporal issues of community building, lawmaking, and social institutions. Muhammad also came under formal military attack for the first time in Medina. Consequently, the Qur’an and Muhammad’s teaching also focused on delineating the concept of the just war. Formal permission to fight is first applied in the Medinan Period:
“They will question you concerning the holy month, and fighting in it. Say: 'Fighting in it is a heinous thing, but to bar people from God’s way, to disbelieve in Him and the Holy Mosque and to expel its people from it - that is more heinous in God’s sight; and persecution is more heinous than fighting.” (Qur’an 2:217)
Through most of the Medina period, the Muslim community was in mortal danger and surviving in a defensive mode. Between 624 and 627 especially, the Muslim community was often quite literally fighting for its life. It is no accident that the concepts of jihad and martyrdom were developed at this time.
Though the Qur’an takes on more temporal issues in the Medinan Period, it does not abandon the notions of spiritual striving and God consciousness that were hallmarks of the Meccan Period. Even the concept of defensive warfare is placed within the larger concept of jihad as striving for what is right. Though jihad might involve bloodshed, it has the broader meaning of exerting an effort for improvement, not only in the political or military realm, but also in the moral, spiritual, and intellectual realms. Muhammad is often cited in Islamic tradition for calling the militant aspect of jihad the “minor” or “little” jihad, while referring to the improvement of one’s self as the “greater” jihad.
Other revelations and rulings during this period concerned the proper treatment of prisoners of war and non-combatants, the sanction against killing innocent civilians, and the respectful treatment of enemy corpses (in contrast to the custom of the time, which was mutilation.) The wanton destruction of property or agricultural resources was put off limits too. Even words of consolation for prisoners of war are found in the Qur’an:
“Prophet, tell the captives you have taken: 'If God finds some good in your hearts, He will reward you with something better than was taken away from you, and forgive your sins, for God is forgiving and kind.” (Qur’an 8:70)
Various Muslim traditions define the time and place when the concept of martyrdom first appeared. One tells the story of a young man who becomes a Muslim and is killed the next morning in a skirmish. The young man’s distraught wife comes to Muhammad, asking what will be the fate of her husband’s soul, as he never prayed or performed even one act of worship. Muhammad answered that dying in defense of faith is the sign of ultimate submission to God. A person dying this way would be considered a martyr and go to heaven. At the same time, the Prophet warned against those who claim to be fighting for the sake of righteousness, but in fact are fighting for selfish or unjust reasons. Such a person will not be rewarded. Those who die in certain other ways, including women who die in childbirth and people who die in natural catastrophes including burning buildings, are considered martyrs too.
With many of the billion-plus Muslims living in poverty or oppression, Islam has become a rallying point for independence movements worldwide. Since jihad and martyrdom were placed within a religious context during the Medinan period, some of these independence movements have deployed the same concepts as sanctified tools for motivating combatants in the face of overwhelming odds. Thus, some seek a military solution to their political aspirations.
At the far end of the spectrum lies a fairly recent tendency to justify acts of terror with quotations from the traditions of Islam. This exercise in legal sleight of hand, placed beyond the pale by all except the terrorists themselves, has bred enormous doubt throughout the world about the essentially peaceful nature of Islam.
Especially since the tragic events of September 11, most religious scholars around the world have rejected these interpretations as spurious. Rather, they have re-emphasized the Prophet’s saying that “the true jihad is only that which exalts God’s word, which is truth.” The Qur’an condemns as an ultimate act of blasphemy actions that attempt to dismantle the very fabric of existence by destroying and spreading ruin on the Earth. Elsewhere it states that God has willed Muslims “to be a community of moderation.” (Qur’an 2:143)
tl;dr, already decided it is violent and you are wrong
Hahaha, oh god and i have read pages and pages and pages, so i can be able to discuss this properly , i could link many more sites about Islam, but it would be extreme long didn’t read kinda thing .
I know, i’ve just sorta lost patience at the standard of discourse in the thread. Should probably bow out as I am getting flippant
Well, I can also link to sites that present stories and quotes in Islam of hideous violence against other human beings.
The thing I hear from multiple sources is that Muhammad started out as a relatively peaceful man but grew more and more violent while in Islam the concept of abrogation was introduced that effectively overwrites all peaceful quotes.
How can you justify instances of such brutality, especially from a prophet?
Quinn, how come you are such an advocate for humanity and compassion while at the same time you wont stand up against such violent acts and quotes from Islam?