The qur'an and Islamic terrorism

[Autodidact]

Nothing was enforced. It is against the teachings of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to force or coerce one to change his religion. The Quran says, "There is no compulsion in religion". Nor was it demanded, that everyone should follow Islam, did you not read the letter I put in my previous post and the verse 2:62 I quoted.

Historically, the way Islam has dealt with conquered peoples is that they must submit to the rule of Islam, and either convert or pay jizyah and acknowledge the sovereignty of the Caliph.

 

[Autodidact]

any source about The Prophet of Islam you could find on-line or here and there use Islamic source as starters. do you know why? let me tell you, sweet thing. because humans can not travel in time. Islamic sources hold the information about Islam. the rest of sources take whatever suits their personal opinions. Christians believe in Bible. in case a Christian claim Jesus PBUH to be space alien then i would ask for verse from Bible at least to see it is written there. i am not obligated to believe it or not. and, unlike you i am not claiming Christians or Christianity to be this or that. we believe differently and everybody knows that.

Historians use Islamic and non-Islamic sources. My point is that there is a difference between History and apologetics. They use different standards. It's not about the individual's religion, but their methodology.

In general, when someone has an agenda to push, a propaganda mission, that must be taken into account when using their writings as a historical source. It doesn't mean you throw them out the window, but that you need to take into account why they wrote what they wrote--what their goal or purpose was.

In general, the Bible is not a reliable direct source for history, because they people who wrote it did so with a specific purpose that motivated them to distort (not to mention see differently). Yet we can use it to establish certain things, as long as we take that into account.

For example, if we see Greek ways of thinking or speaking, then we know the people encountered Greek ways of seeing things.

In trying to learn about the life of Muhammad, the qur'an is a source, but we need to take into account when it was written and why. To verify any allegation in it, we need to find a non-Muslim source that doesn't share the motive to spread Islam.

The best sources are those that are written for other, more nuetral reasons. For example, if someone is making business records, and mentions that they paid so much tax to such an authority, that's very good evidence of that authority and that tax.

geez. i am not even sure if Prophet ever left Arabia. what empire are you talking about?

Wow, why is this so hard? None of this is the least bit controversial. Muhammad attacked Meccan caravans, defeated and occupied Mecca, and united the tribes of Arabia. He led battles himself, and sent others into battle.

Soon after his death, the united Muslim tribes conquered Egypt, Syria, Palestine, Mesopotamia. Eventually, this empire stretched from Pakistan to Spain. (more on this later, as I think it is another significant contributing factor to the present situation.)

as long as you consider Islam to be their true reason to ack fascistic and cruel and since all Muslims believe in Qur'an....yes, that's what you are doing IMO.

I have said over and over I have no opinion and don't care what is "true Islam" or whether what they are doing is Islamic or not. All that I am saying (so far) is that one of the reasons they do what they do is the actual words of the qur'an. Another reason is the life of their model, Muhammad.

Islam has ended a few old pre-Islamic traditions and slavery was one of them. it was long before West side of the world started selling people.

What a crock. Arab Muslims dominated the slave trade from the 8th to the 18th century, capturing, enslaving, and selling literally millions of human beings. Again--non-controversial historical fact.

Are you trying to assert that there was no slavery in the Muslim empire?

Again, have you ever read any actual history, as opposed to Muslim apologetics?

 

[A-ManESL]

Historically, the way Islam has dealt with conquered peoples is that they must submit to the rule of Islam, and either convert or pay jizyah and acknowledge the sovereignty of the Caliph.

If you read my posts in sequence, this statement was in context of what Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did, and not in general of what Muslims did. Secondly, jizyah was originally a tax which was payed so that Muslims become responsible for your safe-keeping, and after paying it you were not obligated to fight, and to pay Zakat both of which was mandatory for normal Muslims. Although this has to be understood in context of the nature of life in 7th C Arabia, you can sort of relate it to taxes which people pay today to their governments. Moreover all of these comments are in context of what Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did.

 

[Autodidact]

If you read my posts in sequence, this statement was in context of what Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did, and not in general of what Muslims did. Secondly, jizyah was originally a tax which was payed so that Muslims become responsible for your safe-keeping, and after paying it you were not obligated to fight, and to pay Zakat both of which was mandatory for normal Muslims. Although this has to be understood in context of the nature of life in 7th C Arabia, you can sort of relate it to taxes which people pay today to their governments. Moreover all of these comments are in context of what Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did.

Isn't it lovely how Islam has all these euphemisms that disguise reality? So that thieving raids on other people's caravans is called self-defense, locking women up in their homes is called respecting them, and extorting other people's money in exchange for not imprisoning them or killing them is called protecting them.

No, you can't relate it to taxes that people pay to their governments, because it it's not their government, it's an invading, conquering army.

 

[YmirGF]

If you read my posts in sequence, this statement was in context of what Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did, and not in general of what Muslims did. Secondly, jizyah was originally a tax which was payed so that Muslims become responsible for your safe-keeping, and after paying it you were not obligated to fight, and to pay Zakat both of which was mandatory for normal Muslims. Although this has to be understood in context of the nature of life in 7th C Arabia, you can sort of relate it to taxes which people pay today to their governments. Moreover all of these comments are in context of what Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did.

The red line sticks out like a sore thumb, A-ManESL. Given that non-Muslims were now under the benevolent guidance of their Muslims overlords, what on earth did they need to be kept safe from? Who did they need protection from?

 

[A-ManESL]

The red line sticks out like a sore thumb, A-ManESL. Given that non-Muslims were now under the benevolent guidance of their Muslims overlords, what on earth did they need to be kept safe from? Who did they need protection from?

You need to think of in context of the semi-barbaric society of the 7th C, where wars were commonplace. In fact the word dhimmi itself means "responsible for".
Similarly for Autodiact.

Regards

 

[Autodidact]

You need to think of in context of the semi-barbaric society of the 7th C, where wars were commonplace. In fact the word dhimmi itself means "responsible for".
Similarly for Autodiact.

Regards

You need to think that if they fail to pay the jizyah, they're imprisoned, and if the whole country fails to pay it, the Muslim army conquers you and makes you pay it. Protection does not enter into it, except in the mafia sense of the word.

 

[YmirGF]

What a crock. Arab Muslims dominated the slave trade from the 8th to the 18th century, capturing, enslaving, and selling literally millions of human beings. Again--non-controversial historical fact.

Are you trying to assert that there was no slavery in the Muslim empire?

Again, have you ever read any actual history, as opposed to Muslim apologetics?

Yes, it is indeed a crock, Auto. One wonders if .Lava has heard of the pirates of the Barbary coast. The Barbary pirates were doing precisely what Muhammad himself did. They raided virtually anything that came within striking distance. This was a major thorn in the side to all vessels in the region for many years, just as it was on the Arabian peninsula after Muhammad had holed up in Medina. If you think of it, it is a great way to get the support of strong young psychopaths. Just kill innocent civilians, plunder all they have, give a percentage to the "Prophet" and all is good. Allah knows best, after all. *wink, wink*

 

[YmirGF]

You need to think of in context of the semi-barbaric society of the 7th C, where wars were commonplace. In fact the word dhimmi itself means "responsible for".
Similarly for Autodiact.

Regards

I am fully aware of what dhimmi means, A-manESL. I'm sorry, you will have to do much better than this glossing over. In essence, you have just made your "prophet" little more than a common thug. Good work.

 

[A-ManESL]

You need to think that if they fail to pay the jizyah, they're imprisoned, and if the whole country fails to pay it, the Muslim army conquers you and makes you pay it. Protection does not enter into it, except in the mafia sense of the word.

You have a misconception. Firstly, as many Muslims have told you on this thread already it isnt permitted to invade and conquer. Thats unjust, and wrong. War is permitted when it is just, and in no other cases. If some Muslim ruler had conquered for the purpose of gaining wealth and spreading his religion he has done wrong. Although it seems to me you have made already made up your mind and are ignoring this fact.

 

[YmirGF]

Although it seems to me you have made already made up your mind and are ignoring this fact.

And you are ignoring the fact that the ends often justified the means. I recall one battle where an opposing leader simply tore up the "peace treaty" offered by Muhammad and that was the pretext for Muslims to attack. The reason was that the "Prophet" had been insulted. So much for "just" cause.

In many ways, Muhammad is no different from a successful businessman who got his start stealing cars for seed capital.

 

[A-ManESL]

And you are ignoring the fact that the ends often justified the means. I recall one battle where a opposing leader simply tore up the "peace treaty" offered by Muhammad and that was the pretext for Muslims to attack. The reason was that the "Prophet" had been insulted. So much for "just" cause.

In many ways, Muhammad is no different from a successful businessman who got his start stealing cars for seed capital.

Which battle are you talking about?

Secondly, dont ignore the fact that I just said that if Muslims didnt have just cause, (or pretended to have a just cause while not having one in reality), it was wrong. I am talking of Prophet Muhammad's actions. You dont blame Marx for what the Soviet Union did, do you?

Regards

 

[YmirGF]

Which battle are you talking about?

I'll have to look the exact one up. Give me a wee bit to do so.

Secondly, dont ignore the fact that I just said that if Muslims didnt have just cause, (or pretended to have a just cause while not having one in reality), it was wrong.

Understood.

I am talking of Prophet Muhammad's actions. You dont blame Marx for what the Soviet Union did, do you?

To a degree, yes, but totally, of course not.

 

[Autodidact]

You have a misconception. Firstly, as many Muslims have told you on this thread already it isnt permitted to invade and conquer. Thats unjust, and wrong. War is permitted when it is just, and in no other cases. If some Muslim ruler had conquered for the purpose of gaining wealth and spreading his religion he has done wrong. Although it seems to me you have made already made up your mind and are ignoring this fact.

Well, whatever is permitted, in point of fact Muslims did it A LOT for the first thousand years or so of their religion. That is the fact.

For the fifth or so time, this thread is not about what True Islam is or is not. This thread is about why Islamic terrorists do the things they do.

Here, my point is that one of the reasons is that their religion was founded by a war general.

And we are now getting into the history of Islam, which is also a history of conquest, so we may as well turn to that subject.

 

[Autodidact]

Which battle are you talking about?

Secondly, dont ignore the fact that I just said that if Muslims didnt have just cause, (or pretended to have a just cause while not having one in reality), it was wrong. I am talking of Prophet Muhammad's actions. You dont blame Marx for what the Soviet Union did, do you?

Regards

It's not about blame, it's about trying to actually figure out what's going on. Obviously, if you were trying to understand why the Soviets did what they did, you would read Marx, because Marx's philosophy is one of the reasons.

 

[Autodidact]

Which battle are you talking about?

Secondly, dont ignore the fact that I just said that if Muslims didnt have just cause, (or pretended to have a just cause while not having one in reality), it was wrong. I am talking of Prophet Muhammad's actions. You dont blame Marx for what the Soviet Union did, do you?

Regards

Well of course it's wrong. So much of what Muslims do is wrong. But that's not the point. The point is, why do they do it? Has that question never occurred to you? When you read about a Muslim strapping explosives to his chest and blowing up a few dozen Muslim men waiting in line, don't you wonder why the heck they do things like that?

 

[A-ManESL]

Well Autodidact, the simple answer to your question is that muslims are like other people. Some are good and some are bad. The bad ones use religion for their own ends. They twist and misinterpret the verses of the Quran. I dont believe, that to make use of an way of thought for your own benefits is something new and uncommon.

I had actually no intention of going into this of what is true Islam or not, it is only because someone else, brought Prophet Muhammad in the discussion and said that his actions are relevant, and started discussing his actions, that I turned towards that. Otherwise as far as the original OP (verses in the Quran) goes, I believe I gave my opinion in the first post.

Regards

 

[Autodidact]

Well Autodidact, the simple answer to your question is that muslims are like other people. Some are good and some are bad. The bad ones use religion for their own ends. They twist and misinterpret the verses of the Quran. I dont believe, that to make use of an way of thought for your own benefits is something new and uncommon.

I had actually no intention of going into this of what is true Islam or not, it is only because someone else, brought Prophet Muhammad in the discussion and said that his actions are relevant, and started discussing his actions, that I turned towards that. Otherwise as far as the original OP (verses in the Quran) goes, I believe I gave my opinion in the first post.

Regards

That's way too vague. I mean, it's an important starting point. Muslims are exactly like other people. People of all kinds all over the world are basically the same.

But if we're going to figure out the causes of this specific group--radical Islamists--behavior, of people we have to look at what happened to them that is different, because they are behaving differently from other people. This group as a whole--radical Islamists--are one of the largest and most violent group of terrorists the world has ever seen. To figure this out, we need to look at their history, their upbringing, their beliefs, to figure out why they are behaving differently from other people.

Yes, I know they are not the only terrorists in the world, and actually that's a hint. What do terrorist groups have in common?

This has lessons for all of humanity. Any one of us could be a terrorist, just as any country could become fascist. To guard against this, (to continue my example) it helps to understand what fascism is and what conditions cause it to grow and take power.

Similarly, to understand how to prevent terrorism, it helps to understand the root causes of terrorism.

I brought Muhammad in, because his actions are relevant. Actually, to be more accurate, what Muslims believe about what he did.

It's frustrating to me that Muslims are so reflexively defensive that I have to argue about the simplest and most uncontroversial facts, such as that Muhammad was a general who led troops into battles, or that Muhammad conquered Mecca. C'mon people, we're never going to get anywhere denying reality. These are simple, well-established historical facts that Muslims and non-Muslims both know. But suddenly, when I try to connect the obvious dots between these facts and what is going on today, they disappear into a swamp of lies. What's up with that?

It really makes me despair of Muslims being any use in solving this problem. And believe me, you don't want to leave the problem to us non-Muslims to solve, because we have no interest in ensuring that Islam survives.

 

[Autodidact]

Well Autodidact, the simple answer to your question is that muslims are like other people. Some are good and some are bad. The bad ones use religion for their own ends. They twist and misinterpret the verses of the Quran. I dont believe, that to make use of an way of thought for your own benefits is something new and uncommon.

I had actually no intention of going into this of what is true Islam or not, it is only because someone else, brought Prophet Muhammad in the discussion and said that his actions are relevant, and started discussing his actions, that I turned towards that. Otherwise as far as the original OP (verses in the Quran) goes, I believe I gave my opinion in the first post.

Regards

Also, to say they "twist religion for their own ends" is arrogant and disingenuous. Every religionist tries to determine what their religious beliefs are to the best of their abilities. Without the scientific method, there is no way to determine who is right. According to them, you are twisting Islam for your own ends. I refuse to get caught up in such a useless, unresolvable argument. The fact is, they have a version of Islam. It's different from yours, it may even be a minority view, but it's just as valid as yours.

And we see from the quranic verses that it can be argued to be consistent with the quran.

btw, the fact that this book can be used to argue opposite sides pretty much tells us it's useless as a guide to anything, and is not from God. Because obviously an all-powerful, all-wise God could write a book that was more clear on these key points.

 

[A-ManESL]

Also, to say they "twist religion for their own ends" is arrogant and disingenuous. Every religionist tries to determine what their religious beliefs are to the best of their abilities. Without the scientific method, there is no way to determine who is right. According to them, you are twisting Islam for your own ends. I refuse to get caught up in such a useless, unresolvable argument. The fact is, they have a version of Islam. It's different from yours, it may even be a minority view, but it's just as valid as yours.

And we see from the quranic verses that it can be argued to be consistent with the quran.

btw, the fact that this book can be used to argue opposite sides pretty much tells us it's useless as a guide to anything, and is not from God. Because obviously an all-powerful, all-wise God could write a book that was more clear on these key points.

lol...I guess you see what you want to see. I disagree that terrorism can be argued to be consistent with the Quran, and the fact that terrorists are "religionists". IMHO its only few people like you who see it that way. I agree however that this has become a useless argument.

Regards