Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The 'believe' part is understood. That's what makes them Muslims in the first place. There is no doubt that the Qur'an commands Muslims to fight unbelievers. We know that because it says, "Fight those who believe not in God".
Selective quoting and ignoring the context such as that is a primary weapon of those who would attack the religion that has 1.8 billion followers.
The true answer is totally and absolutely NO.
The question covers a subject that is much more broad than just the one attack. Does Islam encourage physical jihad against unbelievers is the real question, and the answer is absolutely yes it does. Verses 9:29 (one of the last in Islam's 22-year evolution) says, "Fight those who believe not .......".
This is an interfaith discussion section, not an attack another religion section or debate between positions. There's nothing to debate here. Someone can and should use "whataboutism" in an interfaith section. Because here what standard is being used to measure any can/will be used for all. It's totally reasonable and fair in a discussion area like this. So, what about it?So? How does that change the fact that whataboutism is being used here?
Well, no. They believe they're following direct orders from God. Whether they are is, obviously, highly dubious. IMO at least.
The vast majority of Muslims in the world do not understand the passage to mean that they should fight just any unbeliever anywhere anytime for any reason. You concede that, yes?
In context, for one thing, "unbeliever" there means a polytheist. Were there a lot of pagans working in the Twin Towers I never knew about?
For those who know, the Quran only permits self defense.
The Quran bases all battle upon the prerequisite of being attacked first. The Quran clearly states that Muslims were only permitted to fight non believers who attacked them first but if non believers offered peace then so too were Muslims to reciprocate with peace.
Just so it is clear below are different translations of sura 2:190.
2: 190 And fight for the religion of GOD against those who fight against you; but transgress not by attacking them first, for GOD loveth not the transgressors.
2:190 And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you: but commit not the injustice of attacking them first: God loveth not such injustice:
J M Rodwell
2:190 Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love aggressors.
N J Dawood
2:190 Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.
This is an interfaith discussion section, not an attack another religion section or debate between positions.
There's nothing to debate here. Someone can and should use "whataboutism" in an interfaith section. Because here what standard is being used to measure any can/will be used for all. It's totally reasonable and fair in a discussion area like this. So, what about it?
Islam has never justified the attacks concerning the OP. Muslims in general did not attack.
Islam never justified the attacks.
Only a widely rejected minority rationalized and justified the brazen acts of mass murder.
Islam has never justified the attacks concerning the OP.
Look above this post. You're in an interfaith discussion section. Not a debate section.xcuse me? This is a discussion/debate website
And those who killed about 3000 people "for Islam" were tragically mistaken.Muslims specifically attacked. They killed about 3,000 people for Islam. Sorry you don't like that
I have come to conclude that to find the proper answers to this kind of question one should take a closer look at what Islam teaches at, so to speak, "street level", and what exists (or fails to) to course-correct the more violent takes on their theocentric doctrine.Can islam truly justify the september 11th attacks on america? If so, how?
The subject of the thread is not really just about Islam but asks if Islam can justify 9/11.
Islam is used in the thread title by itself with no hint of what the OP is about until it's read. It, Islam in general, has not and does not condone the attacks.
"Whataboutism" and "whatifism" are acceptable in non-debate informal discussion, BTW. They can be used to illustrate a point such as the above Indiana question.
I have come to conclude that to find the proper answers to this kind of question one should take a closer look at what Islam teaches at, so to speak, "street level", and what exists (or fails to) to course-correct the more violent takes on their theocentric doctrine.
The same perspective, as a matter of fact, should be used for any other movement. But Islam really stands out.
Please tell me why Muslims felt the need to capture the Holy Land, sweep across north Africa in a war of conquest, and end up battling in Tours, France in the name of self defense. I await your next deflection with bated breath.
Why did you stop at 2:190? Is it perhaps because 2:191 adds "fitnah" to the list of reasons for Muslims to kill people? It states that fitnah is WORSE than killing, which means that anything labeled "oppression" (anything non-Islamic) is reason enough to start swing swords.
That said, it is very much worthwhile to actually look at the Qur'an and to learn of the teachings of the Muslim schools of thought.Agreed. Reminds me of something Lawrence Krauss once said in a debate with a muslim.
I really don't care what, according to you or anyone else, Shariah law is "supposed" to be like. What I care about is how it is actually implemented in practice. How it actually impacts people's lives and society at large. And what I see in the middle east, is that every Islamic theocracy implementing it turns into a hellhole with lots of suffering, lots of trampling of human rights, lots of misery, lots of oppression, lots of barbarism. Your "theory" does not matter to me. Because it's the practice that actually impacts the world. And it isn't doing it in a good way by any means.