To what extent are Islamic terrorists inspired by Muhammad and the Quran?

[Wasp]

No, I'm looking at the intertextual references between related scriptural traditions.



What makes you think that?

She laughs right after.

 

[Dawnofhope]

You seek evidence beyond what scholars have established that Muhammed personally murdered or had murdered rivals, Jews and infidels?

I suspect you confuse Christian apologists for scholars. There are undoubtedly passages in the Sira and Hadiths that refer to Muhammad as being violent, but scholarship concerns the reliability of such accounts, not just taking these accounts at face value when it suits.

 

[Milton Platt]

In todays world generally the government. So not just any scholar. Though there certainly is a definition for that as well. Yes, the concept itself is not violent.

the concept itself is violent if it includes violence and military action is violence.

 

[Wasp]

the concept itself is violent if it includes violence and military action is violence.

Do you think the concept of self defence is violent?

 

[Milton Platt]

Do you think the concept of self defence is violent?

It can be, yes. Do you believe killing civilians with bombs is self defense?

 

[sooda]

the concept itself is violent if it includes violence and military action is violence.

Do you recall that King David was considered the "bandit king" and why?

Or why tiny Jerusalem had a wall around it with gates that closed at dusk?

Caravan raiding was a way of life in the Middle East.

Muhammed wasn't too popular with the Quraysh.. The pilgrimage produced a lot of revenue until Muhammed destroyed the idols.

 

[Wasp]

It can be, yes. Do you believe killing civilians with bombs is self defense?

No. Do you believe killing civilians with bombs fits the concept of Jihad?

Actually I wasn't intentionally drawing a connection from Jihad to self defence. I meant that self defence is not violent as a concept, but it can include or lead to violence.

 

[Augustus]

She laughs right after.

So a guess?

Given the strong intertextual relationship between the Quran and the Judaeo-Christian traditions can't say that seems most probable to me.

 

[Augustus]

There are undoubtedly passages in the Sira and Hadiths that refer to Muhammad as being violent, but scholarship concerns the reliability of such accounts, not just taking these accounts at face value when it suits.

While I agree that people often cherry-pick which parts of Sira/hadith they consider reliable in accordance with their ideological agenda, there is some evidence of violence.

For example, an early source the Doctrina Jacobi (c634):

When the candidatus was killed by the Saracens, I was at Caesarea and I set off by boat to Sykamina. People were saying "the candidatus has been killed," and we Jews were overjoyed. And they were saying that the prophet had appeared, coming with the Saracens, and that he was proclaiming the advent of the anointed one, the Christ who was to come. I, having arrived at Sykamina, stopped by a certain old man well-versed in the scriptures, and I said to him: "What can you tell me about the prophet who has appeared with the Saracens?" He replied, groaning deeply: "He is false, for the prophets do not come armed with a sword. Truly they are works of anarchy being committed today and I fear that the first Christ to come, whom the Christians worship, was the one sent by God and we instead are preparing to receive the Antichrist. Indeed, Isaiah said that the Jews would retain a perverted and hardened heart until all the earth should be devastated. But you go, mas- ter Abraham, and find out about the prophet who has appeared." So I, Abraham, inquired and heard from those who had met him that there was no truth to be found in the so- called prophet, only the shedding of men's blood. He says also that he has the keys of paradise, which is incredible.

Now obviously the above source isn't neutral as it is a work of Christian apologetics, but it significantly predates any Muslim source, other than the Quran.

The source is discussed in this article if you are interested:
Muḥammad, the Keys to Paradise, and the Doctrina Iacobi: A Late Antique Puzzle - Sean Anthony

 

[Wasp]

So a guess?

Given the strong intertextual relationship between the Quran and the Judaeo-Christian traditions can't say that seems most probable to me.

Yeah. I don't think we can know for sure. I also think it's not important. I also think there is no relationship to speak of.

 

[Dawnofhope]

While I agree that people often cherry-pick which parts of Sira/hadith they consider reliable in accordance with their ideological agenda, there is some evidence of violence.

For example, an early source the Doctrina Jacobi (c634):

When the candidatus was killed by the Saracens, I was at Caesarea and I set off by boat to Sykamina. People were saying "the candidatus has been killed," and we Jews were overjoyed. And they were saying that the prophet had appeared, coming with the Saracens, and that he was proclaiming the advent of the anointed one, the Christ who was to come. I, having arrived at Sykamina, stopped by a certain old man well-versed in the scriptures, and I said to him: "What can you tell me about the prophet who has appeared with the Saracens?" He replied, groaning deeply: "He is false, for the prophets do not come armed with a sword. Truly they are works of anarchy being committed today and I fear that the first Christ to come, whom the Christians worship, was the one sent by God and we instead are preparing to receive the Antichrist. Indeed, Isaiah said that the Jews would retain a perverted and hardened heart until all the earth should be devastated. But you go, mas- ter Abraham, and find out about the prophet who has appeared." So I, Abraham, inquired and heard from those who had met him that there was no truth to be found in the so- called prophet, only the shedding of men's blood. He says also that he has the keys of paradise, which is incredible.

Now obviously the above source isn't neutral as it is a work of Christian apologetics, but it significantly predates any Muslim source, other than the Quran.

The source is discussed in this article if you are interested:
Muḥammad, the Keys to Paradise, and the Doctrina Iacobi: A Late Antique Puzzle - Sean Anthony

I thought the paper was useful for all sorts of reasons. The main point is the paucity of any reliable and contemporaneous sources in regards the life of Muhammad.

Of course there was violence as we know the Muslims needed to defend themselves (most likely against being destroyed). He also united various tribes including His enemies. The Quran itself is clear about the limits and restrictions of warfare in regards self defence. What objective evidence do we have that He was a blood thirsty tyrant as portrayed by His critics?

 

[Milton Platt]

No. Do you believe killing civilians with bombs fits the concept of Jihad?

Actually I wasn't intentionally drawing a connection from Jihad to self defence. I meant that self defence is not violent as a concept, but it can include or lead to violence.

True...self defense could be non-violent (building a wall or running away) or violent (striking, knifing, shooting, bombing). I believe some Islamists believe violence against civilians fits the definition of Jihad, and that is what actually matters. You need to debate them.......not me.

 

[Wasp]

I believe some Islamists believe violence against civilians fits the definition of Jihad,.

But I don't believe that.

 

[Milton Platt]

But I don't believe that.

Obviously you don’t. But your beliefs don’t mesh with reality. Islamists can and do commit violence against civilians “innocents”. You can try and relabel them all you want but they clearly take their cues from the Islamic religion.

 

[Wasp]

Obviously you don’t. But your beliefs don’t mesh with reality. Islamists can and do commit violence against civilians “innocents”. You can try and relabel them all you want but they clearly take their cues from the Islamic religion.

How is it clear to you? Have you made the connection all by yourself? Based on what?

 

[Milton Platt]

How is it clear to you? Have you made the connection all by yourself? Based on what?

It is clear that there are islamists who use passages in the Quran to justify their violence by their own statements. Whether you choose to interpret those passages another way has no bearing on the fact that there are those of the Islamic faith that declare they are fighting a Jihad and base it on their interpretation. If they are in error, it is those Islamists you need to convince, not me.

 

[Wasp]

It is clear that there are islamists who use passages in the Quran to justify their violence by their own statements. Whether you choose to interpret those passages another way has no bearing on the fact that there are those of the Islamic faith that declare they are fighting a Jihad and base it on their interpretation. If they are in error, it is those Islamists you need to convince, not me.

It is significant - no matter how many times you say it isn't - that the terrorists are wrong, as well as the fact that some of them have openly admitted they always knew they were false interpretations... But if you possess the information why don't you convince them? Do you know that some of the future terrorists are around on the Internet reading such things as you write as well?

It seems to me you ran out of arguments and decided to resort to "hey why are you even telling this to me?" Well, it's because you very recently expressed clear misconceptions regarding several issues.

 

[Milton Platt]

It is significant - no matter how many times you say it isn't - that the terrorists are wrong, as well as the fact that some of them have openly admitted they always knew they were false interpretations... But if you possess the information why don't you convince them? Do you know that some of the future terrorists are around on the Internet reading such things as you write as well?

It seems to me you ran out of arguments and decided to resort to "hey why are you even telling this to me?" Well, it's because you very recently expressed clear misconceptions regarding several issues.

They are wrong by YOUR interpretation. They are RIGHT by their interpretation. And frankly, I don’t care which one is right. It does not change the fact that they believe they are correct in murdering people in the name of their religion.

 

[Augustus]

I also think there is no relationship to speak of.

The text assumes knowledge of the Biblical characters and narratives.It doesn't introduce/explain many Biblical characters/events it just assumes people are already familiar with them.

Also a significant portion of the Quran is a commentary on Judaism/Christianity.

Of course there is an intertextual relationship.

 

[BilliardsBall]

FWIW, the same scholars also claimed he split the moon in half.

You mean, "The same scholars who noted Muhammed's brutality also remarked that Muhammed made claims about splitting the Moon."