• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Islam

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
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".

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?
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
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.

Sun rise you are always so just and fair. It’s prejudice that is responsible for these kinds of generalisations. For those who know, the Quran only permits self defense. It makes me mad that people prey on other’s ignorance of Islam to defame it.

Glad some souls like yourself speak the truth.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
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 .......".

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.


George Sale


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.
 

Viker

Your beloved eccentric Auntie Cristal
So? How does that change the fact that whataboutism is being used here?
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.

Here's a great "what about it". The greatest/only threat to my security and freedom is factional radicalized fundamentalist Christianity. Not all Christians. Not Christianity.

Why do you keep going on about something that is not a feasible threat to me or most of the people on this forum? Bias perhaps? What about that?
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
Well, no. They believe they're following direct orders from God. Whether they are is, obviously, highly dubious. IMO at least.

On what grounds because the Quran forbids aggression and pre meditated murder? If they listen and obey the religious leaders instead of the Quran then they have betrayed the Quran.
 

stevecanuck

Well-Known Member
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?

I'm just quoting the Qur'an. What "the vast majority of Muslims" understand about it is up to them.

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?

The word unbeliever is used countless times in the Qur'an, and ALWAYS means someone - anyone - who is not a Muslim.
 

stevecanuck

Well-Known Member
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.


George Sale


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.

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.
 

stevecanuck

Well-Known Member
This is an interfaith discussion section, not an attack another religion section or debate between positions.

Excuse me? This is a discussion/debate website.

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?

Then why bother labeling a thread? This one is called Islam, which means that Islam is the subject of discussion.

Islam has never justified the attacks concerning the OP. Muslims in general did not attack.

Muslims specifically attacked. They killed about 3,000 people for Islam. Sorry you don't like that.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Islam never justified the attacks.

Agreed.

Only a widely rejected minority rationalized and justified the brazen acts of mass murder.

Disagreed.

It was not a "widely rejected minority".
It was a minority, but really not a "widely rejected" one and the "minority" wasn't a marginal "minority" either.
We are talking double digits in plenty of countries.

There's a lot more support and understanding for such islamist attacks and terrorist groups in the muslim world then people seem willing to admit.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Islam has never justified the attacks concerning the OP.

True. But you can also say that Islam never condemned those attacks either and you would be just as correct.

Why? Because Islam is not an agent that justifies or condemns things. It's a religion. It's the followers of the religion that justify or condemn things, using the religion.

And the muslims that carried out those attacks, and those that support them, do justify those attacks with their islamic beliefs.

And the support / favorable views of the groups that planned, carried out and / or supported such attacks are far bigger in the muslim world then people are willing to admit.

Muslim Publics Share Concerns about Extremist Groups | Pew Research Center

Yes, they are a "minority". But please, let's be honest here and not talk about that "minority" as if they constitute a marginal 0.1% or something. The reality is that in plenty of countries, this "minority" constitutes double digits.

Support for al Qaeda was low before (and after) Osama bin Laden's death | Pew Research Center

From the article:

In addition to low support among Muslim publics for the al Qaeda organization, support for one of its common tactics, suicide bombing, is generally rejected among Muslims surveyed. Only 3% of Muslims in Pakistan, where bin Laden was living for most of the years after the 9/11 attacks, said suicide bombing was often or sometimes justified to defend Islam from its enemies. And less than two-in-ten Muslims said this in Indonesia (6%), Nigeria (8%), Jordan (12%), Tunisia (12%), Turkey (16%) and Senegal (18%).

However, as of last year, substantial minorities of Muslims in Lebanon (33%) and Egypt (25%) said that suicide bombing is an acceptable tactic in defense of Islam. And in the Palestinian territories, 62% of Muslims said this.



Except in Palestine, these are all "minorities". But these are not marginal minorities by any means.
In %, these constitutes groups that are LARGER then many, if not most, christian denominations within the larger christendom.


I'm all for honest discussion. I would not blame / accuse all muslims and generalize them as some people do. I would not go all islamophobic about this.

But I fail to see the use of misrepresenting these numbers. These numbers are substantial and deserve an explanation.

Imo, these numbers are far to big to just brush them of as being 100% "unislamic".

To me, it's like saying that homophobia among vast numbers of christians has "nothing to do with the bible".


Sorry - no.

We should be fair. But we should also have the courage to put our finger on the wound.
 

Viker

Your beloved eccentric Auntie Cristal
xcuse me? This is a discussion/debate website
Look above this post. You're in an interfaith discussion section. Not a debate section.
Muslims specifically attacked. They killed about 3,000 people for Islam. Sorry you don't like that
And those who killed about 3000 people "for Islam" were tragically mistaken.

If someone from Indiana attacks me, without clear authorization from Indiana's government and people, did Indiana attack me? Does Indiana have to explain or apologize to me ( though not obligated they would likely apologize anyway)? What if Indiana, for the most part, condemns such the attack?

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.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Can islam truly justify the september 11th attacks on america? If so, how?
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.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
The subject of the thread is not really just about Islam but asks if Islam can justify 9/11.

Again.... Islam is a religion. It doesn't justify or condemn anything. It just is.
Followers do things and condemn or justify things using Islam.

And those who planned, carried out and supported such attacks most definitely felt like they could justify them using Islam. They acted out of religious conviction.

In the same way, christians use the bible to justify homophobia while other christians use the exact same bible to condemn homophobia.

Who is right? Is there even a right and wrong here?

The point is: clearly these muslims believed that their actions were justified by Islam, and were even inspired by it. Plenty of other muslims agree with them also. Minorities, sure, but as explained in my previous post, not "marginal" minorities at all.


These numbers tell me that there definitely is at least an ambiguity present within the core tenants of Islam that make one capable of justifying such actions.

Just like there is in the bible when it comes to homophobia.

I don't see the point of denying such.


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.

Right. Because, as said, religions aren't agents that condone or condemn or justify. Followers of religions do that.

"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.

Or the homophobia in many christian circles.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
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.


Agreed. Reminds me of something Lawrence Krauss once said in a debate with a muslim.

Paraphrasing:

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.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
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.

After the passing of Muhammad, the Umayyad and Abbasids broke their covenant with Quran by disobeying the laws against aggression and became conquerors. Many fabricated hadiths were used to try and convince their followers that aggression was acceptable. That doesn’t mean that Islam did not make significant contributions to civilisation but the leadership had become corrupt and that has filtered down to the present day. If you look at the violence it is provoked and instigated by a corrupt leadership. True Islam is about brotherhood and peace. That is why God renews religion from time to time.

Baha’u’llah states that:

“Muhammad, the Apostle of God, bewaileth, in the all-highest Paradise, their acts." (Baha'u'llah)

And again

O concourse of Muslim Divines! Because of you the people were abased, and the banner of Islam was hauled down, and its mighty throne subverted."
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
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.

There is context to the war which needs to be considered if we are to be just and fair. Muslims became outcasts and persecuted because they believed there was only one God at a time when the wealth and income of Mecca relied largely upon tributes to some 360 gods and idols. When the Muslims would not recant their belief in one God they were first offered bribes but refused then they were tortured, killed and oppressed so much that they fled to Abyssinia to seek refuge with a Christian King Nagus who granted them refuge. It did not stop there. They were hunted with genocide in mind so they had no choice but to defend themselves. However the Quran records that they did not want to defend themselves.

Sura 2 was revealed after Muslims had fled 13 years persecution in Medina. They did not want to defend themselves but when the Meccans pursued them this verse was revealed.

2:216

Fighting is ordained for you, though you dislike it. You may dislike something although it is good for you, or like something although it is bad for you: God knows and you do not.’


And if they leaned towards peace, then lean towards it and rely upon Allah, for He is the most knowledgeable and the most listening.” Holy Quran, Surat (Al Anfal) Ch (8), verse (61)


“Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who did not fight you for your religion and did not drive you out of your homes. Verily, Allah loves those who deal justly” [8] “It is only in regards to those who fought you for your religion, have driven you out of your homes, and helped to drive you out, that Allah forbids you to take them as allies. And whoever takes them as Allies, then those are the oppressors” [9] Holy Quran, Surat (Al Mumtahina) Ch (60), verses (8-9)

So the command was not to kill all non believers but only to fight against those who had attacked, oppressed, tortured and driven the Muslims out of their homes just for believing in one God.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Agreed. Reminds me of something Lawrence Krauss once said in a debate with a muslim.

Paraphrasing:

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.
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.

The results are surprising, if nothing else.
 
Top