Insulting the prophet

[nazz]

Whatever, I have personally read the Quran and read those verses. I am just being honest, don't shoot the messenger now.

Ultimately a religion consists of how the members of that faith interpret their sacred texts.

In the Qur'an many verses dealing with war must be understood in the context of the defensive* jihad Muslims were waging against the pagan aggressors and their allies.

(*redundant as a legitimate military jihad is ALWAYS defensive in nature)

 

[Surya Deva]

Ultimately a religion consists of how the members of that faith interpret their sacred texts.

In the Qur'an many verses dealing with war must be understood in the context of the defensive* jihad Muslims were waging against the pagan aggressors and their allies.

(*redundant as a legitimate military jihad is ALWAYS defensive in nature)

Yes I understand the historical context behind those verses, but the fact that the verses are there explicit in the Quran does indeed give some sciptural justification for some Muslims to feel violence is justified when they perceive their religion is under attack.

 

[nazz]

Yes I understand the historical context behind those verses, but the fact that the verses are there explicit in the Quran does indeed give some sciptural justification for some Muslims to feel violence is justified when they perceive their religion is under attack.

Yes, but most Muslims also look to the Ahadith for guidance and as I said before there are very explicit rules for waging a legitimate military jihad. Terrorism just does not meet those criteria.

 

[Surya Deva]

Yes, but most Muslims also look to the Ahadith for guidance and as I said before there are very explicit rules for waging a legitimate military jihad. Terrorism just does not meet those criteria.

What are those specific rules?

 

[nazz]

What are those specific rules?

BBC - Religions - Islam: Jihad

Holy war

When Muslims, or their faith or territory are under attack, Islam permits (some say directs) the believer to wage military war to protect them.
However Islamic (shariah) law sets very strict rules for the conduct of such a war.
In recent years the most common meaning of Jihad has been Holy War.
And there is a long tradition of Jihad being used to mean a military struggle to benefit Islam.

What can justify Jihad?

There are a number of reasons, but the Qur'an is clear that self-defence is always the underlying cause.

Permissable reasons for military Jihad:

• Self-defence
• Strengthening Islam
• Protecting the freedom of Muslims to practise their faith
• Protecting Muslims against oppression, which could include overthrowing a tyrannical ruler
• Punishing an enemy who breaks an oath
• Putting right a wrong

What a Jihad is not

A war is not a Jihad if the intention is to:

• Force people to convert to Islam
• Conquer other nations to colonise them
• Take territory for economic gain
• Settle disputes
• Demonstrate a leader's power

Although the Prophet engaged in military action on a number of occasions, these were battles to survive, rather than conquest, and took place at a time when fighting between tribes was common.

The rules of Jihad

In recent years the most common meaning of Jihad has been Holy War A military Jihad has to obey very strict rules in order to be legitimate.

• The opponent must always have started the fighting.
• It must not be fought to gain territory.
• It must be launched by a religious leader.
• It must be fought to bring about good - something that Allah will approve of.
• Every other way of solving the problem must be tried before resorting to war.
• Innocent people should not be killed.
• Women, children, or old people should not be killed or hurt.
• Women must not be raped.
• Enemies must be treated with justice.
• Wounded enemy soldiers must be treated in exactly the same way as one's own soldiers.
• The war must stop as soon as the enemy asks for peace.
• Property must not be damaged.
• Poisoning wells is forbidden. The modern analogy would be chemical or biological warfare.

 

[yourhopeboundheart]

Any author that knowingly provokes 1.5 billion people in the world who are known to be historically militant against those who attack their religion, should not complain when they face the consequences. The incident regarding the insulting of the Prophet should make Western media more responsible in dealing with sensitive issues like religion. The wrong way to go about this is to be self-righteous about it.

first off, the person who made the video did not "face the consequences" when american embassies were attacked.

secondly, western media had nothing to do with the delivery of the "insult", since it was uploaded to an internet site used by people all over the world and the admissions are made by users, not exclusively media organizations.

thirdly, a group of people being historically militant should not discourage free expression. individuals who stand up to 'historically militant' groups do so in order to show the groups inability to stifle free expression, and the embarrassing result of trying to.

and lastly, people need to chill out, tho. if you have a belief that you're confident in, dont get all phased out by people trying to poke fun at you. how are 'yo mama' jokes okay, but 'yo diety' jokes are totally off limits?

 

[F0uad]

Well i wonder which countries did burn and became violent and which ones didn't does someone have a list?

 

[nazz]

Well i wonder which countries did burn and became violent and which ones didn't does someone have a list?

Reactions to Innocence of Muslims - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Riverwolf]

Ready your molotovs, because "Krishna is a smurf". Has that statement whipped you up into a frothing rage? Have you taken to the streets? No? Then reflect upon that for a moment.

That's the best you got?

Come on! I'm a Hindu, and even I've sometimes thought of Krishna as the Pimp God.

Look up his story. I'm not kidding.

 

[F0uad]

I think the people are fed up with America...

 

[Riverwolf]

The rules of Jihad

In recent years the most common meaning of Jihad has been Holy War A military Jihad has to obey very strict rules in order to be legitimate.

• The opponent must always have started the fighting.
• It must not be fought to gain territory.
• It must be launched by a religious leader.
• It must be fought to bring about good - something that Allah will approve of.
• Every other way of solving the problem must be tried before resorting to war.
• Innocent people should not be killed.
• Women, children, or old people should not be killed or hurt.
• Women must not be raped.
• Enemies must be treated with justice.
• Wounded enemy soldiers must be treated in exactly the same way as one's own soldiers.
• The war must stop as soon as the enemy asks for peace.
• Property must not be damaged.
• Poisoning wells is forbidden. The modern analogy would be chemical or biological warfare.

I wish the American military had those rules... secularized, of course. ^_^

 

[Riverwolf]

I think the people are fed up with America...

Even many Americans (myself included) are fed up with America.

 

[lunakilo]

I guess I should learn not to start threads in the middle of the night just before I go to bed.
It is a little difficult to keep track of i that way

Thank you for answering, but I am not sure I heard any specific answeres as to why some people act violently.

From wikipedia:

Deaths and injuries

75 deaths[hide]​

• 33 (Afghanistan)[1][2]
• 23 (Pakistan)[3][4][5]
• 4 (Yemen)[6]
• 4 (Tunisia)[7]
• 4 (Israeli border)[8]
• 3 (Sudan)[9]
• 3 (Lebanon)[9][10]
• 1 (Egypt)[11]

At least 687 injured[hide]​

• At least 280 (Pakistan)[5][12][13]
• 250 (Egypt)[14]
• 46 (Tunisia)[7]
• 35 (Yemen)[6]
• 25 (India)[15]
• 25 (Australia)[16]
• 15 (Lebanon)[9][10]
• At least 1 (Afghanistan)[1]

I can understand that people react and protest, but that some of the protests turn so violent that I don't understand.
Is this really worth killing/dying for?
And what do people think they gain from attacking an embassy?
75 people dead over a stupid film, that is just stupid.

And this is not the first time this has happened, violent protests bacause someone insulted the prophet Muhammed I mean.

Anyway, are these protests so violent because of the protesters or is it more a sign that the police is violent?
Many people have been killed by police as far as I can tell, and though I don't know the circumstances surrounding all the death I could imagine that the response of the police could be a relevant factor in this.
Police is supposed to protect people not kill them after all.
But then again maybe the police had to use force because the protesters were violent.

I don't know. What do you think?

 

[lunakilo]

Another thing that I remember someone telling me once was that in many countries the rulers are actually happy that the people are angry at someone other than the rulers for once, so they encourage people to protest.

I guess reports like "Ghulam Ahmad Bilour Minister of Railways, offered a $100,000 award for killing the maker of the film." support claims like that

 

[jazzymom]

I think the people are fed up with America...

I am not fed up with America, I am fed up with the last 12 years of Republican/Christian conservative leaders and their policies of war we had prior to the current president.

The leaders run a country and even in a democracy there are limits to elections and who gets the majority of votes.

We don't always get the folks in office we want.

 

[Father Heathen]

That's the best you got?

Come on! I'm a Hindu, and even I've sometimes thought of Krishna as the Pimp God.

Look up his story. I'm not kidding.

This is my point. Had I called Mohammad a smurf (even though that makes no sense, given his lack of blue skin) there would be people out there thirsting for my blood.

 

[Father Heathen]

I think the people are fed up with America...

Elaborate.

 

[sandandfoam]

One of the main reasons I want to embrace Islam is because I see in it a religious path that is non-violent and simple. Badshah Khan is, in may ways, my role model.

People say moronic things the world over. When people say hateful things it makes me feel a little sad, but hey, what can I do.

 

[nazz]

I guess I should learn not to start threads in the middle of the night just before I go to bed.
It is a little difficult to keep track of i that way

Thank you for answering, but I am not sure I heard any specific answeres as to why some people act violently.

From wikipedia:

Deaths and injuries

75 deaths[hide]​

• 33 (Afghanistan)[1][2]
• 23 (Pakistan)[3][4][5]
• 4 (Yemen)[6]
• 4 (Tunisia)[7]
• 4 (Israeli border)[8]
• 3 (Sudan)[9]
• 3 (Lebanon)[9][10]
• 1 (Egypt)[11]

At least 687 injured[hide]​

• At least 280 (Pakistan)[5][12][13]
• 250 (Egypt)[14]
• 46 (Tunisia)[7]
• 35 (Yemen)[6]
• 25 (India)[15]
• 25 (Australia)[16]
• 15 (Lebanon)[9][10]
• At least 1 (Afghanistan)[1]

I can understand that people react and protest, but that some of the protests turn so violent that I don't understand.
Is this really worth killing/dying for?
And what do people think they gain from attacking an embassy?
75 people dead over a stupid film, that is just stupid.

And this is not the first time this has happened, violent protests bacause someone insulted the prophet Muhammed I mean.

Anyway, are these protests so violent because of the protesters or is it more a sign that the police is violent?
Many people have been killed by police as far as I can tell, and though I don't know the circumstances surrounding all the death I could imagine that the response of the police could be a relevant factor in this.
Police is supposed to protect people not kill them after all.
But then again maybe the police had to use force because the protesters were violent.

I don't know. What do you think?

Simple answer: human nature. Muslims are human. Not more or less than anyone else.

 

[Looncall]

Simple answer: human nature. Muslims are human. Not more or less than anyone else.

This doesn't wash. It is muslims who are rioting over religion these days, not other people, even though religions get insulted all the time.