Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Two men kidnap priest, take hostages in church near the French Rouen Watch

    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TercioOfParma)
    Ok, so?
    There are passages in the Qur'an which don't ban the consumption of alcohol, saying "there is benefit in alcohol...". Does it mean a random group can come along and interpret that as permission to make halal that which has been made haraam by the Prophet and the ulema? No, how stupid.

    Maybe, yet a very large proportion of terrorists are university educated. Jihadi John, the Tunisian shooter, and many others are extremely bright people.
    Educated in Islam? Probably not. Practising Muslims who give precedence to the mystical prayer side? Nope. Gullible, alienated fools with built up anger and hatred? Most likely.

    It isn't, but my issue is with the fundamentalists as well as ISIS. They're both horrible.
    The fundamentalists are usually the ones who pray 5 times a day, spend their time meditating (dhirk), and generally follow the rules holistically. I don't have an issue with them.

    I can't, but I don't have to since the guy I provided you with does.
    That's unfortunate.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blah3210)
    There are passages in the Qur'an which don't ban the consumption of alcohol, saying "there is benefit in alcohol...". Does it mean a random group can come along and interpret that as permission to make halal that which has been made haraam by the Prophet and the ulema? No, how stupid.
    .
    Potentially they could. It just means that the mainstream interpretation states that Alcohol is not to be consumed.

    (Original post by blah3210)
    Educated in Islam? Probably not. Practising Muslims who give precedence to the mystical prayer side? Nope. Gullible, alienated fools with built up anger and hatred? Most likely.
    You cannot be certain on this, It literally says things in the texts that are antithetical in the extreme to western society.

    (Original post by blah3210)
    The fundamentalists are usually the ones who pray 5 times a day, spend their time meditating (dhirk), and generally follow the rules holistically. I don't have an issue with them.
    I do, since they're the people who perform FGM, honour killings and will often actively attempt to subvert the west.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blah3210)
    Hey genius, you seem to be an expert of Islamic warfare. Can you please show me where these people think the hostilities are on-going?
    That would be in Dar al Harb.
    http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/.../opr/t125/e490

    Remember, these verses were composed within an environment where Muslims faced an existential threat from different tribes?
    Not by the time sura 8 was revealed. By then, it was the other tribes who faced the existential threat from the Muslims - was was demonstrated by their conquest by Muhammad.

    Can you show me where a Muslim has claimed to be inspired to kill priests from this verse?
    You claimed that such killings went against Islam. It has simply been demonstrated that it is not necessarily the case. The actual motivation for this attack could be from other verses, or from passages from the sunnah. Only the attackers know which.

    Can you also show me any verses which say killing non-combatant civilians is justified?
    5:33. Ibn Kathir explains that the people referred to in the verse include those who "oppose, contradict and disbelieve". He also defines "fasad" as including "disobedience of god's law". As you have already quoted Ibn Kathir, you doubtless accept his authority on Quranic exegesis.

    The episode of the Banu Qurayza is also a clear example of Muhammad killing defenceless civilians and prisoners.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TercioOfParma)
    Potentially they could. It just means that the mainstream interpretation states that Alcohol is not to be consumed.
    Sure they could, it doesn't mean the interpretation is "just as valid" as the clear, mainstream interpretation.

    You cannot be certain on this, It literally says things in the texts that are antithetical in the extreme to western society.
    Antithetical to the social practises perhaps, and?

    I do, since they're the people who perform FGM, honour killings and will often actively attempt to subvert the west.
    FGM isn't permitted in Islam. At best, you have something like the clitoral hood reduction. No honour killings allowed in Islam; vigilantalism is condemned and there are strict rules when it comes to capital punishment. I'm going to need more info on how fundamentalist subvert the West.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blah3210)
    Sure they could, it doesn't mean the interpretation is "just as valid" as the clear, mainstream interpretation.
    There is strong evidence in the texts to support it, it is hardly invalid. Sure, maybe not as strong as the mainstream interpretation

    (Original post by blah3210)
    Antithetical to the social practises perhaps, and?
    Antithetical to most western thought.

    (Original post by blah3210)

    FGM isn't permitted in Islam. At best, you have something like the clitoral hood reduction. No honour killings allowed in Islam; vigilantalism is condemned and there are strict rules when it comes to capital punishment. I'm going to need more info on how fundamentalist subvert the West.
    Then why are all these things happen all the time then?

    If you want to see the evidence, switch on the tv. Terrorism and no go zones are a thing.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    "Allegedly".

    Check the data for Coalition vs Russia, and for confirmed casualties.
    https://airwars.org/data/
    Considering that there have been nearly 15,000 airstrikes, casualties in the hundreds clearly shows that the strikes are "surgical".

    Truth is, some people will support any claim or organisation as long as it is anti-west. Perhaps you rather the west left ISIS to get on with things undisturbed?
    If we factor in total deaths then i'm sure its much higher.

    Was waiting for this "anti-west" comment. So predictable.

    Never been a fan of airstrikes (as you might guess) and more in favour of alternative methods such as troops on the ground to target a group like ISIS. The effectiveness of airstrikes is questionable (unless you don't mind civilians being bombed). Tactical teams, infiltration etc.

    Of course its easy to critique a method and offer alternative options but in my opinion a different approach needs to be taken because if airstrikes continue, then these civilians are doomed either way.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blah3210)
    Except it's not out of place. It's a simple command to self-defense.
    The "only self-defence" claim has been regularly and thoroughly refuted.

    I've seen his videos. If ISIS has grounding in Islam, why would the mainstream scholars condemn them?
    http://www.lettertobaghdadi.com/
    A while back, I showed why that letter was an execrcise in disingenuity and misinformation. Feel free to search for it.

    Why would Al-Azhar call for the execution of ISIS members?

    http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News...rrorists-.html
    "Barbaically kill those who follow a different interpretation of Islam, because that is what Islam demands"...sound familiar?
    And that is part of your defence? You couldn't make it up. It would be funny if it wasn't tragic.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    And the scholars now agree the concept is outdated; after Muhammad's death, the scholars clarify there was no need to migrate and invade.

    Not by the time sura 8 was revealed. By then, it was the other tribes who faced the existential threat from the Muslims - was was demonstrated by their conquest by Muhammad.
    Nope. The verses make it clear these were defensive battles.


    You claimed that such killings went against Islam. It has simply been demonstrated that it is not necessarily the case. The actual motivation for this attack could be from other verses, or from passages from the sunnah. Only the attackers know which.
    But it is the case.

    5:33. Ibn Kathir explains that the people referred to in the verse include those who "oppose, contradict and disbelieve". He also defines "fasad" as including "disobedience of god's law". As you have already quoted Ibn Kathir, you doubtless accept his authority on Quranic exegesis.
    The Christian monks disbelieve and contradict; perhaps Ibn Kathir wasn't contradicting himself, and you're misinterpreting again.

    The episode of the Banu Qurayza is also a clear example of Muhammad killing defenceless civilians and prisoners.
    They chose to be judged by their laws.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Surgical Strike: a military action designed to destroy a particular target without harming other people or damaging other buildings near it. - Collins Dictionary

    This lists all the recent operations by the RAF. Every one used precision guided munitions, not conventional bombs. Therefore they fit the definition of "surgical strike".
    Civilian casualties of even several hundred from 15,000 air strikes is clear evidence of "surgical precision". No amount of equivocating will change that.

    The truth, remember - not what you want to have happened.
    Causally forgetting "damaging other buildings near it".
    Have you seen the state of Syria and these other countries subject to the 'surgical strikes'.

    Ponder on this statement my friend- “When so-called surgical strikes end up hitting surgical wards, something is deeply wrong".
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TercioOfParma)
    Then why are all these things happen all the time then?

    If you want to see the evidence, switch on the tv. Terrorism and no go zones are a thing.
    Culture
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blah3210)
    Different interpretations are acceptable in Islam
    Except the literalist, retentionist, reactionary ones, obviously.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blah3210)
    Culture
    Sure. Sure it does, It isn't like this is happening worldwide in many muslim countries with varying culture.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    The "only self-defence" claim has been regularly and thoroughly refuted.

    A while back, I showed why that letter was an execrcise in disingenuity and misinformation. Feel free to search for it.
    Why would Al-Azhar call for the execution of ISIS members?

    http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News...rrorists-.html
    [/quote] "Barbaically kill those who follow a different interpretation of Islam, because that is what Islam demands"...sound familiar?
    And that is part of your defence? You couldn't make it up. It would be funny if it wasn't tragic.[/QUOTE]

    A basic reading of the context is enough to dispel any notion of aggression.

    Feel free to post it again

    You have a problem with mainstream Muslims rejecting ISIS? loool
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TercioOfParma)
    Sure. Sure it does, It isn't like this is happening worldwide in many muslim countries with varying culture.
    You can look up what the texts say about those issues. Conflating behaviour of some muslims with the teachings of Islam is so idiotic, it doesn't merit a response.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blah3210)
    You can look up what the texts say about those issues. Conflating behaviour of some muslims with the teachings of Islam is so idiotic, it doesn't merit a response.
    Using the cultural argument is stupid. It happens in Saudi Arabia, Iran, The west, Bangladesh, South east asia.

    I don't need to look it up, if the religion forbade such things Muslims wouldn't be doing it so much everywhere.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blah3210)
    Say to those who have disbelieved that if they cease hostilities, what has previously occurred will be forgiven for them. But if they return to hostility - then the precedent of the former rebellious peoples has already taken place.

    Clear enough?
    Verse 8:39 is in the context of those non-Muslims who were hostile to the Muslims back then. Islam is not just a spiritual entity but also a political entity. With the advent of Islam and the Muslim empire most non-Muslim tribes and kingdoms around it began attacking and waging a war against it. All seemingly "violent" verses refer to those who were at war with Muslims/Islam. As for general non-Muslims, the Quran clearly states that they must be treated with kindness and justice. Have a look at this verse:

    Surah Mumtahana 60:8-9
    Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.
    Allah only forbids you from those who fight you because of religion and expel you from your homes and aid in your expulsion - [forbids] that you make allies of them. And whoever makes allies of them, then it is those who are the wrongdoers.
    Unless the Arabic conceptions of 'fighting', 'hostility', 'making allies' and 'aiding in expulsion' are considerably narrower in scope than than their English counterparts, it should be plainly obvious to any halfway-competent student of rhetoric how someone more belligerent than you could effectively construe the above passages to serve a militant agenda.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Profesh)
    Unless the Arabic conceptions of 'fighting', 'hostility', 'making allies' and 'aiding in expulsion' are considerably narrower in scope than than their English counterparts, it should be plainly obvious to any halfway-competent student of rhetoric how someone more belligerent than you might interpret the above passages to serve a militant agenda.
    The verses were revealed during war-times; the context makes it clear where "fight" and other such terms are used in the literal, physical warfare sense or as in simply "oppose".
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    A few issues here
    (Original post by blah3210)
    I'll repeat:
    In the commentary on the verse which says, “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.”

    “Meaning, ‘Fight in Allah’s path and do not transgress when doing it. Entering into that (transgression) is the committal of the forbidden acts just as Al-Hasan Al-Basri stated. [Those forbidden acts include] Mutilation,
    The Quran authorises the mutilation of enemies (5:33) and Muhammad authorised the mutilation of people (camel thieves)

    stealing from the war booty,
    So it is ok to steal from non-Muslims during war (that's where "war booty" comes from) but it is forbidden to take it from Muhammad. Convenient!

    killing women and children,
    Yet when Muhammad was asked about the problem of killing women and children during night raids on the pagans, he permitted it saying "they are from them".

    Old folk who have no notion about them and do not having fighting within them,
    Apart from the mad old woman of the Banu Qurayza that Muhammad had executed.

    the burning of trees,
    Apart from when Muhammad burned the date palms of the Banu Nadir as psychological warfare.

    ISIS have violated all rules of warfare; they are by no means using common sources and interpretations.
    Looks like Muhammad broke quite a few as well. How does that work?

    (Sorry I haven't included hadith numbers, but they are all from memory. If you doubt any of them, feel free to look them up yourself.)
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Saying you'd prefer soldiers on the ground in Syria than targeted drone strikes is a bit concerning.

    Do you value the life of a terrorist remotely equal to a British soldier?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blah3210)
    Using the religion argument is stupid. It's not condoned in the texts, like, at all.

    It's up to you. Continue with your ignorance. Yesterday a bunch of Muslims were smoking shisha; OBVIOUSLY Islam is to blame for that. Most sikhs in india commit female infactcide; OBVIOUSLY sikhism is to blame for that despite clear instructions in Sikh texts to NOT kill female infants. most christians I know have sex outside of marriage; OBVIOUSLY the Bible condones that.
    WHATS THE COMMON THING? Maybe it is because they are not committed, religious people.

    With FGM, it is in the public discourse in Saudi Arabia, so then how would it be unIslamic?

    OH LOOK, turns out some islamic sects consider it "obligatory": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religi...ion#Sunni_view
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 7, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.