Disgusting attack on Sri Lankans and Christians during Easter Sunday :(

Again, American and Israeli funded/trained ISIS is causing havoc on innocent people, and people will blame the Muslims. Muslims in Negombo are already sheltered to avoid reprisal attacks.

I am writing this post to shed some light on this matter from an Islamic Perspective insha Allah so that non-muslims and the muslims(who may not have much insight or knowledge regarding this matter) can understand.

In Islam the general ruling is that the killing of Innocent non-combatants is not allowed.

One of the evidences used by the Ulema'(Scholars of Islam) is from the Qur'an, in Surah Maaidah(Surah number 5), Verse 5, where Allah(swt) says:
"whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land – it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one – it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. " - Sahih International Translation(Most Popular English translation source of the Qur'an).
So this is the general ruling in Islam regarding killing innocent people regardless of whether they are Muslim or a Kafir(non-muslim).

I am not going to go too far into depth of the Islamic Sciences in explaining this ruling such as Usul ul Fiqh etc, as they are extremely complicated and require years of study to master. Usul ul fiqh is a science which every scholar who passes rulings must have studied, know, understand and have an ijaazah in.

I am now going to shed some light to those who do not have as much insight on why some scholars have given a specific ruling against the general ruling which I have explained above that killing innocent non-combantants is Haraam(not permissable) in Islam. This is a touchy subject and I disagree with this opinion, so as I explain please don't think I support this, it is just to explain so others can really understand, and I will refute this opinion in my final paragraph at the end on why we should also reject this opinion(I am a peaceful Moderate muslim).

We must understand Islam is moderate and Allah(swt) does not burden any soul with anything it cannot bear as he says in Surah Baqarah, verse 286.

The general ruling for eating pork and drinking alcohol is that it is haraam for a muslim. However, if the muslim is in a situation whereby there is no water at all, there is no other drink, and he/she is extremely thirsty, the ruling in this specific case is that it halal(permissable). They can drink alcohol enough to just remove their thirst so they will not die. Similarly, if there is no food around except pork and the muslim would die of hunger if he did not eat the pork, then it is permissable for him to eat pork.

Similarly, in recent times, after the US invasion, intervention and wars on the muslim world, Afghanistan, Iraq etc. and their intervention in the muslim world in order to destabilise and maintain their petro-dollar system, there have been a lot of killing of innocent muslim civillians non-stop at the hands of america and it's allies. Therefore, scholars of the muslim world who are located in these areas who are experiencing first hand what is occuring, have explained that this is a crusade by the americans and it's allies, and it is a war between the muslims and them. The killing of innocent muslim civillians has meant that some scholars who have studied usul ul fiqh, have given fatawah(rulings) that the general ruling regarding the killing of innocent non-combatants is abrogated by the verse in the qur'an in Surah Baqarah(Surah number 2) verse 194:

"So whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you. And fear Allah and know that Allah is with those who fear Him." - Sahih International.

I am not going to name the small minority of scholars who have given this ruling as it is for your own safety I don't want you to search them up and read more from there as I want you to avoid these individual scholars who hold these extremist idealogies.

Now, I will explain why these fatawah(rulings) are invalid and no one living in the west should act upon these extremist rulings, rather they should be disregarded.
Firstly, it is that we muslims who live in the west have signed an agreement with the non-muslim governments to live in their lands peacefully, abiding by their laws in exchange for being able to live, work, having access to food and shelter and other baisc human needs and being able to practice Islam freely without being oppressed aswell as having a police force for our security/safety. If you have a passport then that means you are in this contract. It is haraam(not permissable) in Islam to break your contracts. Therefore, to break this contract will mean you are incurring a great sin. The evidence given by the scholars for this is in Surah Al-Ma’idah(surah number 5) verse number 1:

"O you who believe, fulfill all contracts."

Another evidence used is Surah An-Nahl (surah number 16) verse number 91:

Fulfill the covenant of Allah when you have taken it, and do not break oaths after their confirmation while you have made Allah a witness over you. Verily, Allah knows what you do.

Secondly, the other refutation point is that we are suppossed to be taking our religion regarding matters of Fiqh(rulings) from the scholars in our area/country. The explanation is that they are the ones who understand the entire situation better because they live here and understand how the west works so they are better qualified to use a principle called 'urf in usul ul fiqh to make more correct rulings. This is why during the time of the Classical Islamic Scholars, when a Man was visiting the Maghreb(Morroco etc) where they followed mostly the fiqhi rulings of Imam Malik(rh), if he were to ask a scholar from there regarding a matter of fiqh, this scholar would tell the man to ask the scholar of his own land of his own country and get his fiqhi rulings from there. Because there may be differences in some of the fiqh(rulings) so as not to confuse the layman. This is why these extremely minor weak extremist opinions held by a handful of scholars who live in a land extremely far away from the west should not be acted upon and rather should be disregarded. The scholars of the west have spoken and they have all said it is haraam.

Hopefully, this sheds some light on this issue to everyone insha Allah.

Although I haven't yet read your post, hopefully I will be able to clear up some of the errors, misrepresentations and misunderstandings you will undoubtedly make. (Don't worry, everyone does. The Quran and sunnah are so ambiguous, inconsistent and contradictory that it is impossible to make statements about Islam without someone taking exception to something, myself included. It's one of the reasons for the unholy mess Islam finds itself in)


While this is technically true, it is important to understand the Islamic concept of "innocent". It is not what most people today would consider as "innocent".


And you will no doubt be aware that the key term here is "unless for corruption" or "fasad" (along with a similar caveat in 5:33). Fasad is a vague term to which scholars ascribe a wide range of meanings. I tend to stick with Ibn Kathir as his is the most widely used and generally regarded as the most authoritative of all the tafsir.
He describes "fasad" to include disbelief and disobeying Allah's law. He specifically explains 'wage war against Allah and his messenger' to include "opposition, contradiction and disbelief".

So we can see that the verse you cite as forbidding killing actually allows the killing of pretty much anyone who knowingly rejects Islam.


Quick question.
Why did Allah reveal Islam in such a way that it is virtually impossible for it to be definitive and objective? Men have been able to fashion legal systems that although possibly complex, are clear and unambiguous and not open to wildly different interpretations. Why couldn't Allah do that?


As if on cue, you perfectly illustrate the problem. It really does seem unlikely that this was the work of an infallible, omniscient, omnipotent being who was revealing his final and perfect guide for the remainder of humanity.


This is just a meaningless platitude. There are clearly millions of people who are burdened beyond their ability to cope.
If you want your arguments to be taken seriously you need to do more than simply present passages of the Quran as is they were axiomatic.


Notwithstanding that Islamist attacks on western targets by groups like al Qaeda pre-date the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, you accept that the Quran can certainly be interpreted as allowing and justifying attacks on enemy interests.


Although you have admitted that they are rulings based on interpretations that have some theological validity.


1. UK citizens do not sign a contract with the government.
2. So if any Muslim renounces this "treaty", then the ruling you presented earlier comes into operation.

Your argument merely seems to confirms that there is some doctrinal and scholarly support for the extremists' actions.


This merely confirms that Islamic ideology is subjective and fractured, and for you to attempt to impose your opinion on others is as pointless as them attempting to impose theirs on you.


It basically confirmed what many of us already know. The Islamists can find justification just as you can find prohibition. Islam is fundamentally unfit for purpose.

1. In Islam, there is concensus among the scholars that although the kuffar(non-muslims) are criminals in the eyes of Allah(swt) as they commit the biggest crime one can commit, shirk and kufr,

One cannot punish someone for kufr/shirk.

The word innocent here means that they are abiding by the law and not oppressing muslims etc. They are innocent in this manner.

Moreover, now you will probably say - "What about apostates" the punishment for apostasy applies only in an Islamic State, there is no punishment if they apostate in another non-muslim land rather some great figures in the past during the Khilafaat have advised those people to go to leave the muslim lands to apostate. Therefore, you are incorrect and I suggest you read up more and stop making ignorant arguments.

2. There is only one correct understanding of al Islam regarding basic matters in 'Aqeedah. There is no different interpretation.

Regarding matters of fiqh, this is something different and there are islamic sciences that one must have mastered in order to understand them and pass fatawah and give fiqhi rulings etc.

There are only those who "try" to interpret differently for their own goals and aims such as the Ahmadiyyah Religion who claim to be muslims whilst believing in another prophet after Muhammad(saw).

Ahmadis are all kuffar(non muslims).

Therefore, there is no difference in the basic foundations of 'Aqeedah such as the 6 pillars of faith, or the 5 pillars of Islam etc. These are made evident by clear-cut ayaat in the Qur'an and Ahadith. Hence, your point here is invalid.

3. This is an irrelavant emotional argument with no logic.

4. Again a lack of intellect from your end - I apologise. You are viewing the burden of other people from your perspective. Other people may be able to live with something in their life which you would not be able to. That is why Allah said in this ayah that he did not burden any soul with anything more than it could bear. Other people can bear some things which you will not be able to bear. Whilst you may be able to bear some things which others would not be able to bear. So, your point here is flawed again, and you made another false emotional argument that did not make sense.

5. Yes. Islam is not a religion of Pacifism. Opinions from the ijtihad of scholars who are qualified are valid and although you disagree with them, they will have their evidences using the time we live in now and apply it to this time and come to the ruling. Secondly, the attacks by the group which calls itself Al-Qaeda do not predate the attacks on the muslim world by America and it's allies. Invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan were just examples I mentioned. There are also other things even such as forceful take over and creation of the state of israel upon palestinian land and the oppression of palestinians etc since 1947.

I have now refuted your "points" and answered your "questions".

Finally, I would like to say, I am a muslim and I am not an apologist.

As Allah has said to the believers to say: You have your religion and I have my religion.

Not off to a good start, are we - admitting that Allah, and therefore Islam, considers those who reject Islam to be "criminals". And if we are "criminals", we cannot be "innocent". And if we are "not innocent" then those passages that forbid killing "innocent" people do not apply to us.


Debatable, but it is clear that there is no protection for the kufar. As Muhammad repeatedly said in sahih hadith, it is submitting to Islam that "protects their blood and property".


Not according to the Quran, sunnah and classical tafsir. However, I accept that, like on most things Islamic, opinion differs depending on the agenda.


I didn't mention apostates, but it is good of you to admit that where Islam is in authority, apostates are killed. Likewise adulterers and homosexuals I presume (only under appropriate conditions of course - I mean, you're not monsters! )


One thing I have learned from my years of studying and debating Islam is that even regarding aqidah, there are differences of opinion. I suspect what you mean is that you reject any positions other than your own. I must admit that you do sound somewhat dogmatic.


Why do you think Allah made Islam so complicated that almost no one can understand it? Perhaps it isn't really that difficult and like the Christian clergy of times past, "scholars" are merely protecting their interests?


So you believe that Allah cannot send another messenger if he so wished, and is therefore not omnipotent. How do you know Allah has not changed his mind since revealing the Quran? And don't say "he wouldn't" or "he couldn't" because I'm sure even you can see how fatally flawed that argument is.


They seem like Muslims to everyone else. Why are Sunnis and even Shia so salty about Ahmadis?


Mere assertions.
And you need to link your replies to mine (like this) so I know what you are responding to.


Ditto.
However, simply saying "your argument is wrong" is not a rebuttal. You need to explain why, and present supporting evidence.


You really can't construct an argument outside the realms of dogmatic rhetoric, can you.
You really think that no one ever has to cope with more than they can bear? Try working an evening for the Samaritans, or in a refugee camp with men who have seen their wives and children raped and murdered. In fact, just pull your head out of your arse.


Ah, so you argue that 9/11 was justified because of Israel. Good for you.


No you haven't. You have merely presented your argument, which essentially confirmed mine - that there are elements of Islamic ideology that can be interpreted as justification for attacks on certain non-Muslim interests.


They are not mutually exclusive. Look it up in a dictionary. What you have been doing is the very definition of apologetics.


He also said "fight the idolators until there is no more disbelief" and "enmity and hatred for disbelievers is a good example to follow", so he clearly doesn't approve of other religions and wants them gone.

Straw-manning is a common philosophical fallacy many laymen such as yourself evidently fall into sadly. You should read the answer I have given above again as they refute your "points", I cannot do anything if you are lacking in the intellect department and keep making emotional illogical arguments.

So you aren't going to address my points individually and point out where I have attacked a straw man, been "emotional" or "illogical".

Quelle surprise!

I realised it wasn't an efficient use of my time to be addressing a najis kafir on the internet who is quite clearly suffering from a severe case of post-colonial stockholm syndrome.

Guys listen...Let's not argue about Islam or Christianity or anything ok .People's lives were lost.People were affected.In times like this we are meant to show support by standing together and helping those who have been affected not bashing each other's beliefs.

I realised it wasn't an efficient use of my time to be addressing a najis kafir on the internet who is quite clearly suffering from a severe case of post-colonial stockholm syndrome.

Guys listen...Let's not argue about Islam or Christianity or anything ok .People's lives were lost.People were affected.In times like this we are meant to show support by standing together and helping those who have been affected not bashing each other's beliefs.

agree we shouldnt target all Muslims, but step 1 is accepting that there is a evident problem, closely linked to Islam and its followers, a small but significant group, that leads to these events around the world and in governments...

I realised it wasn't an efficient use of my time to be addressing a najis kafir on the internet who is quite clearly suffering from a severe case of post-colonial stockholm syndrome.

agree we shouldnt target all Muslims, but step 1 is accepting that there is a evident problem, closely linked to Islam and its followers, a small but significant group, that leads to these events around the world and in governments...

Calling someone a dirty unbeliever kind of proves the whole point of this thread don't you think? Do you reckon Isis considered the 200 people they blew up on Easter Najis Kafir?

Don't compare me to those khawarij dogs ISIS please, they are worse than najis kuffar:

Anas ibn Malik reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “There will be division and sectarianism in my nation and a people (the Kharijites) will come with beautiful words and evil deeds. They will recite the Quran but it will not pass beyond their throats. They will leave the religion as an arrow leaves its target and they will not return to it as the arrow does not return to its bow. They are the worst of the creation. Blessed are those who fight them and are killed by them. They call to the Book of Allah but they have nothing to do with it. Whoever fights them is better to Allah than them.”

Source: Sunan Abī Dāwūd 4765, Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to Al-Albani

Ibn Kathir said, “If the Khawarij ever gained power, they would corrupt the entire earth, Iraq, and Syria. They would not leave alone a boy or a girl or a man or a woman, for in their view the people have become so corrupt that they cannot be reformed except by mass killing.”

Source: al-Bidāyah wal-Nihāyah 10/584

Secondly, In Islam non-muslims are considered less-clean than muslims actually. There is a proper method on how to purify and clean one's body in Islam which muslims must follow along with doing wud'u 5 times a day too. So naturally also muslims are cleaner. Cleaner in their hearts aswell as in the apparent speaking in general terms.

Secondly, In Islam non-muslims are considered less-clean than muslims actually. There is a proper method on how to purify and clean one's body in Islam which muslims must follow along with doing wud'u 5 times a day too. So naturally also muslims are cleaner. Cleaner in their hearts aswell as in the apparent speaking in general terms.

I'm not sure about that. Pacific Island nations aside, many of the most obese nations are predominately Muslim. Excess body fat and hot weather is not a good combination for cleanliness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_body_mass_index

Maybe Islamic societies should address their own decadence and gluttony before they accuse others of not being clean?

Don't compare me to those khawarij dogs ISIS please, they are worse than najis kuffar:

Anas ibn Malik reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “There will be division and sectarianism in my nation and a people (the Kharijites) will come with beautiful words and evil deeds. They will recite the Quran but it will not pass beyond their throats. They will leave the religion as an arrow leaves its target and they will not return to it as the arrow does not return to its bow. They are the worst of the creation. Blessed are those who fight them and are killed by them. They call to the Book of Allah but they have nothing to do with it. Whoever fights them is better to Allah than them.”

Source: Sunan Abī Dāwūd 4765, Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to Al-Albani

Ibn Kathir said, “If the Khawarij ever gained power, they would corrupt the entire earth, Iraq, and Syria. They would not leave alone a boy or a girl or a man or a woman, for in their view the people have become so corrupt that they cannot be reformed except by mass killing.”

Source: al-Bidāyah wal-Nihāyah 10/584

Secondly, In Islam non-muslims are considered less-clean than muslims actually. There is a proper method on how to purify and clean one's body in Islam which muslims must follow along with doing wud'u 5 times a day too. So naturally also muslims are cleaner. Cleaner in their hearts aswell as in the apparent speaking in general terms.