This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Is it fair to blame Muslims for terror attacks?

Scroll to see replies

Running over innocents in France on Friday, military coup in Turkey on Saturday, "honour" killing his own sister for wearing western clothing in Pakistan, axing up people on a train on Monday. Stabbing a mother and her daughters for wearing western clothes i.e. something that shows skin today. All done by Muslims, in the past 5 days. Something has fundamentally gone wrong with their religion.

no it hasnt- its something to do wars/Batman/Facebook/Twitter/mass hysteria. just double check with @tazarooni89

Reply 281

Reformed

Original post by tazarooni89

That's not for you to decide; the Qur'an gives its own instructions on how to interpret its meaning.

does it? surely this would require a handbook to the handbook

Reply 282

tazarooni89

Original post by Reformed

doesnt explain the pakistani terrorist, the indonesian terrorist, the nigerian terrorist, the american terrorist .... etc etc the list goes on and on. war is not the common factor in these cases - their exposure to islamist ideology is. if your thesis was correct - we'd have terrorist attacks a plenty in europe from those immigrants from sierra leone, congo, sri lanka, israel, Christian syrians and jordainians etc. But we do not. their ommission from the terrorism statistics is glaring as the repeated appearance of a variety of ethnicities that share one faith. Heck we had mass immigration after two of the biggest wars of all time 60 years ago and not the associated ' ptsd terrorism ' you are trying to claim. you are running out of straws to clutch.

The people you call "terrorists" are people who think they're fighters for a particular cause and are committing acts of warfare. Germans used to attack us during WWI and WWII. People from (or with links to) any country will commit attacks during war - that's exactly what war is.
***

but the fact remains that murder and killing to an end was acceptble practice of mohammed - and he is a more relevant spokesman of islam than you or i

The Qur'an is the most relevant "spokesman" of anybody when it comes to Islam, and the fact remains that the type of attacks under consideration are without doubt contrary to it. *

Reply 283

tazarooni89

Original post by Reformed

no it hasnt- its something to do wars/Batman/Facebook/Twitter/mass hysteria. just double check with tazarooni89

Obvious straw man is obvious.

does it? surely this would require a handbook to the handbook

Yes, the Qur'an contains its own verses to explain how to interpret it, and also Tafseer (equivalent to a handbook of the handbook) also exists.*

Reply 284

Reformed

Original post by tazarooni89

Obvious straw man is obvious.

Yes, the Qur'an contains its own verses to explain how to interpret it, and also Tafseer (equivalent to a handbook of the handbook) also exists.*

but surely there should be aTafseer for the tasfeer, in case muslims people misunderstand how to understand the quran.

Reply 285

Good bloke

Original post by tazarooni89

That's not for you to decide; the Qur'an gives its own instructions on how to interpret its meaning.

That's my point entirely. But here's a supposed expert on the matter, Muhammad Asad:

By ‘making war on God and His apostle’ is meant a hostile opposition to, and wilful disregard of, the ethical precepts ordained by God and explained by all His apostles, combined with the conscious endeavour to destroy or undermine other people’s belief in God as well.

That is definitely me that it's talking about.

Reply 286

tazarooni89

Original post by Reformed

but surely there should be aTafseer for the tasfeer, in case muslims people misunderstand how to understand the quran.

No, there isn't; by that point it's quite obvious.

Reply 287

tazarooni89

Original post by Good bloke

If that is definitely you, then of all the Muslims that you know, why have none of them come and crucified you yet, as the verse suggests?

Reply 288

Reformed

Original post by tazarooni89

***the people i call 'terrorist' were those shooting people. blowing themselves up, driving cars into people and trying to behead them, after reading various islamist rhetoric and doctrine online. presumabley you have an issue with calling these people terrorists. again i refer you to those who didnt come from 'war torn countries - what was your apologist excuse for their islamist terrorism ties again? ( the batman one is no longer available btw)

Original post by tazarooni89

The Qur'an is the most relevant "spokesman" of anybody when it comes to Islam, and the fact remains that the type of attacks under consideration are without doubt contrary to it. *

but i think you mentioned before noone understands it hence why muslims go around doing these things. So a failure of the islamic system then. i referred you to mohamed , about whom you seem to not want to comment - you are sugesting what he did then was in contrary to what the quran is saying

Reply 289

Craig1998

IMO it isn't fair to blame all muslims because of the such tiny proportion (0.0125% is the statistic I recall) that commit terror attacks. It takes a really sick person to start killing people like this, so while there will be muslims with a distorted view on issues like homosexuality and rape, most of these wont commit terror attacks.

Reply 290

Reformed

Original post by tazarooni89

No, there isn't; by that point it's quite obvious.

no it isnt, you seem now to moved your strategy to suggesting muslims dont understand the quran so they commit terrorism. im asking whats the guarantee they can understand tasfir - who wrote it? sounds like a patch up job

I blame Islam

Original post by Craig1998

thanks for that

Reply 293

username2393237

Original post by Reformed

Muhammad was a warlord who murdered Christians and Jews, raped women and married a 9 year old. Muslims are only following his lead.

Reply 294

tazarooni89

Original post by Reformed

A lot of Muslims have links to war torn countries even if they're not physically from they're. Not least, Muslims often get angry about wars in countries that they have no relation to at all (Palestine being an obvious example) because it's other Muslims being attacked there.*

but i think you mentioned before noone understands it hence why muslims go around doing these things. So a failure of the islamic system then.

No, I didn't, this is actually your failure to read. I have said repeatedly that the Qur'an condemns these things very obviously.

i referred you to mohamed , about whom you seem to not want to comment - you are sugesting what he did then was in contrary to what the quran is saying

No, I'm saying that the Qur'an is a higher authority than him. Referring to him becomes irrelevant when the matter is made clear in the Qur'an.

There's a completely separate debate to be had about whether what Muhammad did was contrary to the Qur'an or not, which gets complex because people it is easily misrepresented, misunderstood, some historical sources are inaccurate etc. But it's moot either way.*

Reply 295

username1044970

Original post by Good bloke

If you're going to quote Asad, why not quote his full commentary on the verse?

Most of the classical commentators regard this passage as a legal injunction, and interpret it, therefore, as follows: "The recompense of those who make war on God and His apostle and spread corruption on earth shall but be that they shall be slain, or crucified, or that their hands and feet be cut off on opposite sides, or that they shall be banished from the earth: such shall be their ignominy in this world." This interpretation is, however, in no way warranted by the text, and this for the following reasons:

a) The four passive verbs occurring in this sentence -"slain", "crucified", "cut off" and "banished" -are in the present tense and do not, by themselves, indicate the future or, alternatively, the imperative mood.

(b) The form yuqattalu does not signify simply "they are being slain" or (as the commentators would have it) "they shall be slain", but denotes -in accordance with a fundamental rule of Arabic grammar -"they are being slain in great numbers"; and the same holds true of the verbal forms yusallabu ("they are being crucified in great numbers") and tuqatta'a ("cut off in great numbers"). Now if we are to believe that these are "ordained punishments", it would imply that great numbers -but not necessarily all -of "those who make war on God and His apostle" should be punished in this way: obviously an inadmissible assumption of arbitrariness on the part of the Divine Law-Giver. Moreover, if the party "waging war on God and His apostle" should happen to consist of one person only, or of a few, how could a command referring to "great numbers" be applied to them or to him?

(c) Furthermore, what would be the meaning of the phrase, "they shall be banished from the earth", if the above verse is to be taken as a legal injunction? This point has, indeed, perplexed the commentators considerably. Some of them assume that the transgressors should be "banished from the land [of Islam]": but there is no instance in the Qur'an of such a restricted use of the term "earth" (ard). Others, again, are of the opinion that the guilty ones should be imprisoned ina subterranean dungeon, which would constitute their "banishment from [the face of] the earth"!

(d) Finally -and this is the weightiest objection to an interpretation of the above verse as a "legal injunction" -the Qur'an places exactly the same expressions referring to mass-crucifixion and mass-mutilation (but this time with a definite intent relating to the future) in the mouth of Pharaoh, as a threat to believers (see 7:124, 20:71 and 26:49). Since Pharaoh is invariably described in the Qur'an as the epitome of evil and godlessness, it is inconceivable that the same Qur'an would promulgate a divine law in precisely the terms which it attributes elsewhere to a figure characterized as an "enemy of God".

In short, the attempt of the commentators to interpret the above verse as a "legal injunction" must be categorically rejected, however great the names of the persons responsible for it. On the other hand, a really convincing interpretation suggests itself to us at once as soon as we read the verse -as it ought to be read -in the present tense: for, read in this way, the verse reveals itself immediately as a statement of fact -a declaration of the inescapability of the retribution which "those who make war on God" bring upon themselves. Their hostility to ethical imperatives causes them to lose sight of all moral values; and their consequent mutual discord and "perverseness" gives rise to unending strife among themselves for the sake of worldly gain and power: they kill one another in great numbers, and torture and mutilate one another in great numbers, with the result that whole communities are wiped out or, as the Qur'an puts it, "banished from [the face of] the earth". It is this interpretation alone that takes full account of all the expressions occurring in this verse -the reference to "great numbers" in connection with deeds of extreme violence, the "banishment from the earth", and, lastly, the fact that these horrors are expressed in the terms used by Pharaoh, the "enemy of God".

Reply 296

Casserole

Original post by Reformed

no it hasnt- its something to do wars/Batman/Facebook/Twitter/mass hysteria. just double check with @tazarooni89

I wonder what it would take, how many terrorist incidents, how many casualties inflicted, before people like you finally recognise the obvious.

Reply 297

ChaoticButterfly

Original post by Plantagenet Crown

Invoking the No True Scotsman fallacy every time a member of your religion does something you don't like is childish as well as futile, because it's essentially ignoring the problem at its root cause: the ideology.

I feel this also applies to people who try to paint all Muslims with the same brush.

I also disagree the route cause of the problem is the ideology. I bet that most recent terrorist who attack in France couldn't even tell you many verses from the Quran, peaceful or barbaric.

Most of the attackers in the west are not very good Muslims...Which suggests to me there is something else that is the route cause.

I'm sure the leaders of ISIS are devote Muslims and have a scholarly knowledge of the Quran etc but I bet a load of their grunt fighters do not. To me this seems to represent a pattern in history where a load of disgruntled peons are the pawns of the leaders how actually know the ideology of the force ind depth beyond propagandist slogans. See the history communism and fascist barbarity as non religious based examples.

That is not to say the peons have no agency and there will be more educated a self aware ones. But I just don't think it is what is in the book that is the problem. IT is a more deeper part of human nature and herd mentality at work imo. Which is why it is stupid and counter productive to try and make the troubles we face now as a "the liberal west" vs "Muslims" that many seem to want. It should be liberals vs Islamists and terrorists, where Muslims can be on the liberal side.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 298

Reformed

Original post by tazarooni89

lol you say that so blazenly like its normal. it isnt, its function of a flawed system. again a muslim in uk getting so angry about a muslim in palestine or iraq that he travels to pakistan to learn how to bomb 50 of his fellow countrymen - may make sense to you in an islamic perspective - it does not from any moral, logical or indeed humanistic one. im explaining to you that its the islamic persective that is flawed- ad what essentially leads to terrorist attacks. islamist doctrine instils a primitive form of tribalism that is not even instinctive to human psyche - ie a drip drip effect that eventually makes you hyper sensitive to the political agendas of islamic leaders and de-sensitises you to violence toward fellow countrymen, ethnicity, even family assuming they dont follow the same islamic agenda. Point being- i or anyone normal has some sort of loose 'nationalistic feeling ' toward where i grew up, family, the people that surrounded me, that i became familiar with, supported me etc. Islam teaches opposite, ie to turn back on close ones, familiar and native surroundings if they are not islamic. and in fact to create an almost violent obsession with islamic causes over and above even your own family. it is unhealthy and unnatural - and indeed leads to murders.

This is not new revolutionery thinking btw, people have known this for decades - but banked perhaps on the ability of western society and its benefits to overcome backward thinking. in the case of islamist ideology ( and the use of internet etc) - as a result the islamic world has a lot more confused nutcases within that are susceptable to extremism. Note that the attack you see are tip of the iceberg - you have heard little about the attacks that were foiled, the ones that never got off the ground, and indeed the ones that play out in the heads of the gullible Ummah.com or suchlike islamic chat forum users. the real damage islamist rhetoric is not i the political sphere, its inn the minds of the all the future problems of suggestable youth pre-programmed at childhood to adopt whatever is islamic in nature and reject else

Original post by tazarooni89

No, I didn't, this is actually your failure to read. I have said repeatedly that the Qur'an condemns these things very obviously.No, I'm saying that the Qur'an is a higher authority than him. Referring to him becomes irrelevant when the matter is made clear in the Qur'an.There's a completely separate debate to be had about whether what Muhammad did was contrary to the Qur'an or not, which gets complex because people it is easily misrepresented, misunderstood, some historical sources are inaccurate etc. But it's moot either way.*

it amuses me the way you suggest noone can read anything without 'mis-interpretating' funny how its only the messages of violence that get mis-interprets in islamic world. whereas all other elements are practiced ' to a perfect understanding' Anyway without digressing, mohammed was clearly written to have ' tow female satirsts killed after his conquest of mecca. There isnt much to mis-interpret. and dont forget we arnt talking about the notes on the Double Helix here, but the tales of a arabian warlord going to war with some other arabian warlords. You seem to keep asserting that mohammed has gone agaisnt the quran - but you forget for billion odd muslims, mohammed is the perfect muslim and knows the quran better than anyone. so their actions can follow his ( in their minds)

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 299

Good bloke