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

Could Muslims do more against terrorists? Watch

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    How do they not say it's forbidden? If God tells me not to kill someone, then I can't do it right?

    You're right they don't say whether that person has left Islam or not but like I was saying, going against the commands of God show whether you are a good Muslim or not. Whether you are "submissive" to God or not.

    5:33 -- It doesn't say kill the people who disbelieve. If the disbeliever causes mischief, then he should be killed: "`Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil." - This is from Ibn Kathir. Also, from what I can see the verse says, "those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land"; hence, the use of "and" instead of "or" tells us the people who disbelieve need to tick certain boxes (commit crime) in order to be punished. Otherwise, there would be no non-Muslims coming to visit Makkah at the time it was taken over by Islam, Muslims and Non-Muslims would not be living side by side under the ruling of the Ottomon Empire etc.

    When I mentioned the UK, I meant there is a punishment for treason (regardless of whether it is by death or not). I was applying the same logic to this ayah. Going against the Islamic state is a form of treason.
    I'm not sure what you think you're arguing against because you're in fact agreeing with me. My initial claim was that a Muslim who kills doesn't stop being a Muslim. I also did not say that there aren't Quranic verses proclaiming that murder is a bad thing, there are. But there are also verses justifying and encouraging murder, the text is contradictory and conflicting like virtually all holy scriptures. You are now saying that murder is justified in certain circumstances, ergo you are justifying murder, which just proves my point that the Quran does have verses that encourage it.

    Also, I don't agree with your interpretation as it appears you are taking it far too literally. Waging war in itself means causing corruption and problems, there's nothing to truly indicate that you need an exact combination of the two to be punished and I think you're reading too much into the word "and" which probably is not actually making that requirement.

    But if you're hung up on this word then you can read a bit further on in the same tafsir:

    This Ayah does not save a Muslim from punishment if he kills, causes mischief in the land or wages war against Allah and His Messenger and then joins rank with the disbelievers, before the Muslims are able to catch him.

    Very clearly indicating that punishment is meted out to anyone who does any of these things, not necessarily all of them.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FluffyCherry)
    Firstly let me remind you that Islam, is a religion of mercy & does not permit terrorism!!
    Islam makes no mention of terrorism. In fact, Muhammad himself would have been a terrorist, if terrorism is defined as the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. Muhammad didn't arm himself with love-hearts and rainbows - one can't slaughter a merchant caravan with a rainbow.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    I'm not sure what you think you're arguing against because you're in fact agreeing with me. My initial claim was that a Muslim who kills doesn't stop being a Muslim. I also did not say that there aren't Quranic verses proclaiming that murder is a bad thing, there are. But there are also verses justifying and encouraging murder, the text is contradictory and conflicting like virtually all holy scriptures. You are now saying that murder is justified in certain circumstances, ergo you are justifying murder, which just proves my point that the Quran does have verses that encourage it.
    You said earlier on the Qur'an does not forbid murder. I said earlier I was arguing against that point. Not about whether terrorists are Muslims or not.
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    But murdering does not go against the Quran, nowhere in it does it say that a Muslim who murders stops being a Muslim.
    However, I made the point about whether they are 'true' Muslims or not, meaning whether they are carrying out the duties of being Muslims. Going against God's commands is not fulfilling a Muslim's duties.
    Where you say I am justifying "murder", I'm confused by what you mean by that. When I said the Qur'an prohibits murder I meant it doesn't allow me to walk about killing innocent non-muslims on the street. My question is, what do you mean by "murder", when the Qur'an (and myself) seems to justify it?

    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Also, I don't agree with your interpretation as it appears you are taking it far too literally. Waging war in itself means causing corruption and problems, there's nothing to truly indicate that you need an exact combination of the two to be punished and I think you're reading too much into the word "and" which probably is not actually making that requirement.

    But if you're hung up on this word then you can read a bit further on in the same tafsir:

    This Ayah does not save a Muslim from punishment if he kills, causes mischief in the land or wages war against Allah and His Messenger and then joins rank with the disbelievers, before the Muslims are able to catch him.

    Very clearly indicating that punishment is meted out to anyone who does any of these things, not necessarily all of them.
    OK, like I said, it was my own analysis of the verse, and I admit I was mistaken. My apologies.

    But here you say what 'waging war' means. Without reading on about the next part of the ayah and without making a combination, I still don't see how it allows the "murder" of those who disbelieve but do not cause corruption and problems. I'm guessing you read the hadith about the men who came to the prophet claiming they were Muslims but ended up killing an innocent sheperd (and a few more crimes).
    What I'm saying is, this specific tafsir does not seem to condone any acts of killing against innocent, harmless non-believers. Other tafsirs can be compared and the outcome will be the same. Killing innocent believers is not allowed.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    However, I made the point about whether they are 'true' Muslims or not, meaning whether they are carrying out the duties of being Muslims. Going against God's commands is not fulfilling a Muslim's duties
    This is a slippery slope. All Muslims sin so by this logic no one is a true Muslim because every Muslim has gone against Allah's commandments at one point or another. That would just make someone a bad Muslim, not a non-Muslim.

    Besides, they go against the quotes you posted, but they completely obey others, such as 8:39, where it commands to fight until there is no religion except that for Allah. As I mentioned, the Quran is a book of opposites, people can cherry pick the nice verses, but they can also cherry pick the violent, hateful verses which is what ISIS does.

    Where you say I am justifying "murder", I'm confused by what you mean by that. When I said the Qur'an prohibits murder I meant it doesn't allow me to walk about killing innocent non-muslims on the street. My question is, what do you mean by "murder", when the Qur'an (and myself) seems to justify it?
    That's a very narrow and dishonest definition of murder. Murder is simply the voluntary killing of anyone else. It doesn't matter if you kill someone because they committed treason or whether they were trying to destroy your country, it's still murder regardless of whether you think you had the right to do it.

    But here you say what 'waging war' means. Without reading on about the next part of the ayah and without making a combination, I still don't see how it allows the "murder" of those who disbelieve but do not cause corruption and problems. I'm guessing you read the hadith about the men who came to the prophet claiming they were Muslims but ended up killing an innocent sheperd (and a few more crimes).
    What I'm saying is, this specific tafsir does not seem to condone any acts of killing against innocent, harmless non-believers. Other tafsirs can be compared and the outcome will be the same. Killing innocent believers is not allowed.
    It's not a question of actively conding it, rather permitting it, but thankfully most Muslims either haven't read this verse properly with the accompanying tafsir or if they have then don't take it seriously.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    This is a slippery slope. All Muslims sin so by this logic no one is a true Muslim because every Muslim has gone against Allah's commandments at one point or another. That would just make someone a bad Muslim, not a non-Muslim.
    No, that's actually true. If, for example, someone refuses to pray but is a Muslim, he may not be considered a true Muslim. When I say 'good' Muslim, I mean 'true' Muslim. Several speakers actually use this logic when giving a speech about avoiding sin. They don't plainly say "you are not a true Muslim because... 'xyz'" but say they "might fall into that category". Hence, we don't have the right to call out people who we think are not true/good Muslims , because they may have repented, been forgiven, and are considered true Muslims by Allah. This is a complicated situation overall.

    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Besides, they go against the quotes you posted, but they completely obey others, such as 8:39, where it commands to fight until there is no religion except that for Allah. As I mentioned, the Quran is a book of opposites, people can cherry pick the nice verses, but they can also cherry pick the violent, hateful verses which is what ISIS does.
    I'm pretty sure you've heard the whole "people have the wrong interpretation of this verse, due to context (etc)". So technically, the Quran is not a book of opposites.



    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    That's a very narrow and dishonest definition of murder. Murder is simply the voluntary killing of anyone else. It doesn't matter if you kill someone because they committed treason or whether they were trying to destroy your country, it's still murder regardless of whether you think you had the right to do it.



    It's not a question of actively conding it, rather permitting it, but thankfully most Muslims either haven't read this verse properly with the accompanying tafsir or if they have then don't take it seriously.
    So basically you're against capital punishment? I'm pretty sure the definition murder is killing without a valid reason (backed up by law).
    WhiIst the Quran of course permits capital punishment, I was going along the lines of ISIS members killing innocent people, in which the Qur'an does not permit.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    I'm pretty sure you've heard the whole "people have the wrong interpretation of this verse, due to context (etc)". So technically, the Quran is not a book of opposites.
    How is it not a book of opposites if it has verses both lambasting and encouraging murder?

    And the interpretation point is pretty subjective as there appears to be no such thing as the correct interpretation. Just as you may say ISIS is wrong, they'll say you are etc.

    So basically you're against capital punishment? I'm pretty sure the definition murder is killing without a valid reason (backed up by law).
    WhiIst the Quran of course permits capital punishment, I was going along the lines of ISIS members killing innocent people, in which the Qur'an does not permit.
    That's most certainly not the legal definition. Most murders are committed with reasons such as anger, jealousy, revenge etc.

    And yes, of course I'm against capital punishment. It just seems very hypocritical to me to teach someone that the murder they committed was wrong by murdering them!

    The Islamic definition of innocence can be different though. I've seen people on here post tafsir or scriptural verses of some kind stating that some Muslims don't consider non-Muslims as innocent and I think it's pretty obvious that ISIS believes this or some version of this. It's likely that they don't even consider Muslims those who don't have the exact same interpretation as them.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Given that we've probably seen more condemnation from Muslims on TSR and pretty much all other social media for that idiot in Croydon harassing that Muslim woman after the Brussels attack than we have for the actual attack itself, I think the answer might be yes..........
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I have no idea where this convo has gone:dontknow: The rest of the thread seems quiet...

    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    How is it not a book of opposites if it has verses both lambasting and encouraging murder?

    And the interpretation point is pretty subjective as there appears to be no such thing as the correct interpretation. Just as you may say ISIS is wrong, they'll say you are etc.
    It's not because I don't believe it encourages the killing of innocent people.

    Considering we have many more scholars who have studied Islam for centuries tells me that we have the correct interpretation. And to be fair, ISIS don't really take an interpretation. For example they'll take the verse, "kill them wherever you find them", as kill every non-believer you see no matter what; whereas, the rest of the Muslim population actually have interpretations backed up with evidence and linked to other ayahs as well as hadith.



    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    That's most certainly not the legal definition. Most murders are committed with reasons such as anger, jealousy, revenge etc.
    The legal definition of murder is 'the unlawful killing of a human being in the Queen's peace, with malice aforethought'.

    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    And yes, of course I'm against capital punishment. It just seems very hypocritical to me to teach someone that the murder they committed was wrong by murdering them!

    The Islamic definition of innocence can be different though. I've seen people on here post tafsir or scriptural verses of some kind stating that some Muslims don't consider non-Muslims as innocent and I think it's pretty obvious that ISIS believes this or some version of this. It's likely that they don't even consider Muslims those who don't have the exact same interpretation as them.
    I know what you mean. The word innocence can mean different things regarding this life and the next. E.g. If I don't pray but abide by the state law, I won't go jail but may go Hell in the afterlife. So I was obviously referring to innocence in this life.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    I have no idea where this convo has gone:dontknow: The rest of the thread seems quiet...



    It's not because I don't believe it encourages the killing of innocent people.

    Considering we have many more scholars who have studied Islam for centuries tells me that we have the correct interpretation. And to be fair, ISIS don't really take an interpretation. For example they'll take the verse, "kill them wherever you find them", as kill every non-believer you see no matter what; whereas, the rest of the Muslim population actually have interpretations backed up with evidence and linked to other ayahs as well as hadith.
    But that's just argumentum ad populum and ultimately just the interpretation of those scholars. ISIS will say their interpretation is correct and that of modern scholars isn't. As an impartial non-Muslim, I see no reason to believe why your interpretation is intrinsically more correct than theirs. I obviously prefer your interpretation, but that has no bearing on its legitimacy compared to ISIS's.

    The legal definition of murder is 'the unlawful killing of a human being in the Queen's peace, with malice aforethought'.
    Reason, or lack thereof has no bearing on whether it's murder. As long as you deliberately killed someone then you will be arrested and prosecuted, regardless of having a so-called valid reason.

    I know what you mean. The word innocence can mean different things regarding this life and the next. E.g. If I don't pray but abide by the state law, I won't go jail but may go Hell in the afterlife. So I was obviously referring to innocence in this life.
    Yes, but surely a group like ISIS wouldn't consider others as innocent in this life either? I mean, if they take the verse about disbelievers waging war literally then in their eyes anyone who doesn't believe what they do probably isn't innocent as presumably they believe they're insulting Allah and God knows what else.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    But that's just argumentum ad populum and ultimately just the interpretation of those scholars. ISIS will say their interpretation is correct and that of modern scholars isn't. As an impartial non-Muslim, I see no reason to believe why your interpretation is intrinsically more correct than theirs. I obviously prefer your interpretation, but that has no bearing on its legitimacy compared to ISIS's.
    You can. One provides a better argument/explanation than the other, by the means of looking at context, other evidences etc. The best ulama gather, make rulings, write reports, discuss between one another. One reason why I don't follow the wahabi/salafi sect either. This is similar to how the world of science works, in a way.

    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Reason, or lack thereof has no bearing on whether it's murder. As long as you deliberately killed someone then you will be arrested and prosecuted, regardless of having a so-called valid reason.
    Even if it's done by the state after sentencing a death penalty?

    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Yes, but surely a group like ISIS wouldn't consider others as innocent in this life either? I mean, if they take the verse about disbelievers waging war literally then in their eyes anyone who doesn't believe what they do probably isn't innocent as presumably they believe they're insulting Allah and God knows what else.
    Yeah pretty much. That basically sums up the actions of ISIS and their reasoning behind it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If I ever found out someone was a terrorist i'd snitch on them like Randal from recess mate! I'd probably beat the **** out of them too! These sick *******s make being a Muslim a challenge. & Because they hide out in Muslim areas doesn't mean we all know theres a terrorist on the block. Ofcourse we condemn it, but do we really have to walk around with signs condemning them, as if they're going to listen to us! & as if we're too blame?! Doesn't matter if theres an attack in Paris, Brussels, Pakistan or Nigeria, we all are affected by it and angered about the blemishes Islam gets. ALSO, ISIS kill Muslims!! Doesn't that say it all?! They don't care of creed or colour, they just hate the west. Me being a Muslim born and raised in the West have the same fears as non-muslims!
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    You can. One provides a better argument/explanation than the other, by the means of looking at context, other evidences etc. The best ulama gather, make rulings, write reports, discuss between one another. One reason why I don't follow the wahabi/salafi sect either. This is similar to how the world of science works, in a way.
    I disagree, it's not really how science works imo. The interpretations that scholars have may depend a lot on what university they studied, which school of jurisprudence and who they studied under and even their upbringing and social + political views. A self proclaimed "religious scholar" like Reza Aslan or anyone else who studied in the Kafirland may have a liberal interpretation (and pretend this is the standard), but there's nothing that suggests this is the case for Al-Azhar university or even more Salafi university of Medinah. One would hope that the ulema would consist mainly of Reza Aslanites' "explanations" but with the way funding and institutions works in the Muslim world, I wouldn't hold my breath.

    There are more scriptural evidence for Salafi interpretation than you think.

    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    Even if it's done by the state after sentencing a death penalty?
    I know this isn't aimed at me, but I think even the death penalty is a murder of sorts, specially for apostasy.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chemting)
    I disagree, it's not really how science works imo. The interpretations that scholars have may depend a lot on what university they studied, which school of jurisprudence and who they studied under and even their upbringing and social + political views. A self proclaimed "religious scholar" like Reza Aslan or anyone else who studied in the Kafirland may have a liberal interpretation (and pretend this is the standard), but there's nothing that suggests this is the case for Al-Azhar university or even more Salafi university of Medinah. One would hope that the ulema would consist mainly of Reza Aslanites' "explanations" but with the way funding and institutions works in the Muslim world, I wouldn't hold my breath.

    There are more scriptural evidence for Salafi interpretation than you think.



    I know this isn't aimed at me, but I think even the death penalty is a murder of sorts, specially for apostasy.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    True but scholars of a certain sect follow a similar path or way which helps them to build on their knowledge and understanding regarding the quran, hadith and fiqh. Like you have explained the way of interpreting a certain scripture requires learned individuals and depends on many factors. It's more complex than just reading from the book (e.g. modern salfis). This is what I think the terrorists/extremists don't have: a solid foundation for discussing fiqh and giving fatwas.

    I can see why you would think the death penalty is murder but it doesn't exactly fit the description of murder. It's more metaphorical in your reasoning.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by reinaadira)
    Are you from Luton? I am a Muslim too and it is frustrating how Islam is associated with these things, when the truth is this is not Islam at all and what they are doing is pure and complete wrong and evil.
    Hey, yes I am. & trust me, I understand
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    True but scholars of a certain sect follow a similar path or way which helps them to build on their knowledge and understanding regarding the quran, hadith and fiqh. Like you have explained the way of interpreting a certain scripture requires learned individuals and depends on many factors.
    So there's a distinct lack of objectivity behind the "right interpretation", so it really can't be like science.

    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    It's more complex than just reading from the book (e.g. modern salfis). This is what I think the terrorists/extremists don't have: a solid foundation for discussing fiqh and giving fatwas.
    Salafis don't just read the Quran you know, they read the tafsirs, apply extensive knowledge of the sunnah, consult the hadiths. Some of the biggest scholars (and preachers) are salafis e.g. sheikh al-albani, sheikh al-aziz ibn baz, sheikh ibn al-uthaymeen, sheikh al-munajjid, yasir qadhi (remember that evolution vid you posted hehe), zakir naik, Tarik Ramadan so it has heavy backing in tbe Muslim world. It really depends what you mean by "extremists" if you're going to say they don't have solid foundations...

    You're right, most of the terrorists (who actually commit the acts) only read verses and gets "inspired/riled up" (some probs don't even believe in it) but even for a lot of these verses, reading tafsirs and consulting other sources don't make it too much better imo, but yes many terrorists just read the verses.

    However I think there's a bigger issue here, considering there is 40-50% illiteracy in the Muslim world (some sources go up to 60%), they're all gonna listen to these Sheikhs and preachers and the fact they've grown up in a different culture to us (not inferior necessarily, but different), they're gonna think that this "extreme" is True Islam (tm) and you, being in Kafirland, are committing bidah regardless of whether you agree or disagree from growing up here. I'm not saying education will magically make them think salafism/wahabbism is the "wrong interpretation" (I doubt there is such a thing) but a secular education, imho, would definitely help.

    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    I can see why you would think the death penalty is murder but it doesn't exactly fit the description of murder. It's more metaphorical in your reasoning.
    Yes I must admit it is more metaphorical. When the state comes into the equation, it all depends on "enemy of the state" - and that can have loose definitions. In an Islamic State, if the death penalty is applied according to the schools of jurisprudence, apostates would be considered enemies of the state.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    You can. One provides a better argument/explanation than the other, by the means of looking at context, other evidences etc. The best ulama gather, make rulings, write reports, discuss between one another. One reason why I don't follow the wahabi/salafi sect either. This is similar to how the world of science works, in a way.
    But "better" is in itself subjective. ISIS and their scholars will say their extreme interpretation is the best one. And it isn't at all like science as those are interpretations, science is based on objective evidence.

    Even if it's done by the state after sentencing a death penalty?
    Yes, as I said, I'm against the death penalty.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Shutup.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by ckingalt)
    The problem isn't that muslim communities deliberately ignore known terrorists. The problem is that the radical muslim terrorists have an entire community of radical muslim non-terrorsits to blend in with. For a larger part of these communities the only thing differentiating them is the will to act with violence. The beliefs and rhetoric are are identical.

    What the Islamic community could do against terrorists is this: Accept that there are many nations that believe secularism to be a nonnegotiable principle. Any person from any faith who wishes to reside in one of those nations must embrace that principle. There are many Muslims who do exactly that, and they are welcome. The ones who can't or won't, should leave. If they do that, then radical terrorists won't be so easily able to hide.
    You sure about that?
    ICM Poll: 20% of British Muslims sympathize with 7/7 bombers
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...law-in-UK.htmlNOP Research: 1 in 4 British Muslims say 7/7 bombings were justified
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...ate=2011-04-06
    http://www.webcitation.org/5xkMGAEvYChannel Four (2006): 31% of younger British Muslims say 7/7 bombings were justified compared to 14% of those over 45.
    http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/ima...20jan%2007.pdfPeople-Press: 31% of Turks support suicide attacks against Westerners in Iraq.
    http://people-press.org/report/206/a...after-iraq-warYNet: One third of Palestinians (32%) supported the slaughter of a Jewish family, including the children:
    http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/...t-infanticide/
    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...053251,00.htmlWorld Public Opinion: 61% of Egyptians approve of attacks on Americans
    32% of Indonesians approve of attacks on Americans
    41% of Pakistanis approve of attacks on Americans
    38% of Moroccans approve of attacks on Americans
    83% of Palestinians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (only 14% oppose)
    62% of Jordanians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (21% oppose)
    42% of Turks approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (45% oppose)
    A minority of Muslims disagreed entirely with terror attacks on Americans:
    (Egypt 34%; Indonesia 45%; Pakistan 33%)
    About half of those opposed to attacking Americans were sympathetic with al-Qaeda’s attitude toward the U.S.
    http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pi..._Feb09_rpt.pdfPew Research (2010): 55% of Jordanians have a positive view of Hezbollah
    30% of Egyptians have a positive view of Hezbollah
    45% of Nigerian Muslims have a positive view of Hezbollah (26% negative)
    43% of Indonesians have a positive view of Hezbollah (30% negative)
    http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/musl...and-hezbollah/Pew Research (2010): 60% of Jordanians have a positive view of Hamas (34% negative).
    49% of Egyptians have a positive view of Hamas (48% negative)
    49% of Nigerian Muslims have a positive view of Hamas (25% negative)
    39% of Indonesians have a positive view of Hamas (33% negative)
    http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/musl...and-hezbollah/Pew Research (2010): 15% of Indonesians believe suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified.
    34% of Nigerian Muslims believe suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified.
    http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/musl...and-hezbollah/16% of young Muslims in Belgium state terrorism is "acceptable".
    http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/1275/Islam/...aardbaar.dhtmlPopulus Poll (2006): 12% of young Muslims in Britain (and 12% overall) believe that suicide attacks against civilians in Britain can be justified. 1 in 4 support suicide attacks against British troops.
    http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005...itish-islamistPew Research (2007): 26% of younger Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are justified.
    35% of young Muslims in Britain believe suicide bombings are justified (24% overall).
    42% of young Muslims in France believe suicide bombings are justified (35% overall).
    22% of young Muslims in Germany believe suicide bombings are justified.(13% overall).
    29% of young Muslims in Spain believe suicide bombings are justified.(25% overall).
    http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/mu...ns.pdf#page=60Pew Research (2011): 8% of Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified (81% never).
    28% of Egyptian Muslims believe suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified (38% never).
    http://www.people-press.org/2011/08/...for-extremism/Pew Research (2007): Muslim-Americans who identify more strongly with their religion are three times more likely to feel that suicide bombings are justified
    http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/mu...ns.pdf#page=60ICM: 5% of Muslims in Britain tell pollsters they would not report a planned Islamic terror attack to authorities.
    27% do not support the deportation of Islamic extremists preaching violence and hate.
    http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005...-islamist.htmlFederation of Student Islamic Societies: About 1 in 5 Muslim students in Britain (18%) would not report a fellow Muslim planning a terror attack.
    http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005...itish-islamistICM Poll: 25% of British Muslims disagree that a Muslim has an obligation to report terrorists to police.
    http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005...itish-islamistPopulus Poll (2006): 16% of British Muslims believe suicide attacks against Israelis are justified.
    37% believe Jews in Britain are a "legitimate target".
    http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005...itish-islamistPew Research (2013): At least 1 in 4 Muslims do not reject violence against civilians (study did not distinguish between those who believe it is partially justified and never justified).
    http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFile...ull-report.pdfPew Research (2013): 15% of Muslims in Turkey support suicide bombings (also 11% in Kosovo, 26% in Malaysia and 26% in Bangladesh).
    http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFile...ull-report.pdfPCPO (2014): 89% of Palestinians support Hamas and other terrorists firing rockets at Israeli civilians.
    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/08/poll-89-of-palestinians-support-jihad-terror-attacks-on-israelyPew Research (2013): Only 57% of Muslims worldwide disapprove of al-Qaeda. Only 51% disapprove of the Taliban. 13% support both groups and 1 in 4 refuse to say.
    http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/09/10/muslim-publics-share-concerns-about-extremist-groups/BBC Radio (2015): 45% of British Muslims agree that clerics preaching violence against the West represent "mainstream Islam".
    http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/bbc-ra...y-muslim-poll/Palestinian Center for Political Research (2015): 74% of Palestinians support Hamas terror attacks.
    http://www.timesofisrael.com/support...ar-poll-shows/Pew Research (2014): 47% of Bangladeshi Muslims says suicide bombings and violence are justified to "defend Islam". 1 in 4 believed the same in Tanzania and Egypt. 1 in 5 Muslims in the 'moderate' countries of Turkey and Malaysia.
    http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/01/concerns-about-islamic-extremism-on-the-rise-in-middle-east/The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015): 19% of Muslim-Americans say that violence is justified in order to make Sharia the law in the United States (66% disagree).
    http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.o...-Poll-Data.pdfThe Polling Company CSP Poll (2015): 25% of Muslim-Americans say that violence against Americans in the United States is justified as part of the "global Jihad (64% disagree).
    http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.o...-Poll-Data.pdfThe Sun (2015: Following Nov. 2015 attacks in Paris, 1 in 4 young Muslims in Britain (and 1 in 5 overall) said they sympathize with those who fight for ISIS.
    http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...s-in-poll.htmlSee also: http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_(Terrorism) for further statistics on Islamic terror.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chemting)
    So there's a distinct lack of objectivity behind the "right interpretation", so it really can't be like science.
    Salafis don't just read the Quran you know, they read the tafsirs, apply extensive knowledge of the sunnah, consult the hadiths. Some of the biggest scholars (and preachers) are salafis e.g. sheikh al-albani, sheikh al-aziz ibn baz, sheikh ibn al-uthaymeen, sheikh al-munajjid, yasir qadhi (remember that evolution vid you posted hehe), zakir naik, Tarik Ramadan so it has heavy backing in tbe Muslim world. It really depends what you mean by "extremists" if you're going to say they don't have solid foundations...
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    But "better" is in itself subjective. ISIS and their scholars will say their extreme interpretation is the best one. And it isn't at all like science as those are interpretations, science is based on objective evidence.
    Yes, as I said, I'm against the death penalty.
    Sorry, I was using science more like an example or a (bad) analogy, rather than a distinct resemblance. What I meant was science uses evidence and theories require discussions, reports and criticisms (I assume you guys know more about how this works lol). But anyways, Islam uses a similar approach as in, it too requires discussions, reports and criticisms when giving rulings. Evidence wise, I meant it uses hadiths, tafsirs, historical context, compares the actions of sahabah etc. And these terrorists (/"extremists") will most likely not do this to this extent. Also, considering how small their population is compared to the rest of us, they won't really have enough scholars, if any, to actually do this.
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Yes, as I said, I'm against the death penalty.
    Fair enough. You're entitled to your own opinion.
    (Original post by chemting)
    You're right, most of the terrorists (who actually commit the acts) only read verses and gets "inspired/riled up" (some probs don't even believe in it) but even for a lot of these verses, reading tafsirs and consulting other sources don't make it too much better imo, but yes many terrorists just read the verses.However I think there's a bigger issue here, considering there is 40-50% illiteracy in the Muslim world (some sources go up to 60%), they're all gonna listen to these Sheikhs and preachers and the fact they've grown up in a different culture to us (not inferior necessarily, but different), they're gonna think that this "extreme" is True Islam (tm) and you, being in Kafirland, are committing bidah regardless of whether you agree or disagree from growing up here. I'm not saying education will magically make them think salafism/wahabbism is the "wrong interpretation" (I doubt there is such a thing) but a secular education, imho, would definitely help.
    That's true, but lets not forget social media has had a massive impact in targeting the literate ones too. And what do you mean by a "secular education"? Btw, I know I haven't got round to the evolution thread lol. And yeah, there are salafis that are more grounded in knowledge but imo the younger generation would find it easier to follow a 'school of thought'. Some young salafis today may learn from their teachers to only take action based on Qur'an and Sunnah, which can be harmful as it's most likely what terrorists organisations are doing.
    (Original post by chemting)
    Yes I must admit it is more metaphorical. When the state comes into the equation, it all depends on "enemy of the state" - and that can have loose definitions. In an Islamic State, if the death penalty is applied according to the schools of jurisprudence, apostates would be considered enemies of the state.
    I see what you mean when you're referring to apostasy and other acts which may not be considered justification in sentencing someone to death. In which case, I can see why one would imagine this specifically as murder. Overall, apostasy is very complicated (e.g. ambiguities in hadith, lack of evidence in Qur'an, abolishment of the punishment many times in history etc.). Hence, many people, including myself, lack the understanding to actually dictate what the punishment is.
 
 
 
  • 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

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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.