The qur'an and Islamic terrorism

[Autodidact]

Here is a view of Muhammad from an Islamic website:

The idea of Muhammad as a military man will be new to many. Yet he was a truly great general. In the space of a single decade he fought eight major battles, led eighteen raids, and planned another thirty-eight military operations where others were in command but operating under his orders and strategic direction. Wounded twice, he also twice experienced having his positions overrun by superior forces before he managed to turn the tables on his enemies and rally his men to victory. More than a great field general and tactician, he was also a military theorist, organizational reformer, strategic thinker, operational-level combat commander, political-military leader, heroic soldier, and revolutionary. The inventor of insurgency warfare and history’s first successful practitioner, Muhammad had no military training before he commanded an army in the field.

Refuting lies about Islam

 

[Wotan]

Tasha: I really expect you to post your own arguments, not long essays by someone else. Think what a disadvantage I'm at, how much more you know about the subject than I, and how long you have studied it. Surely you can make an argument yourself, not just spout propaganda.

Based on what we've seen posted here in recent weeks - I don't think you need be all that concerned.

 

[A-ManESL]

did not muhammad invaded and conquered mecca? did not muhammad destroyed idols used by pagans for their worship? cant it be concluded those were the justification seen by muslims to conquer and destroy others civilization and monuments?

nb: now i think im not going off topic as already life of muhammad is being discussed here.

Well, this is becoming silly. What you percieve as wrong is not universally wrong. And just like Lord Rama invaded and conquered Lanka and Kishkindha for a right purpose so did Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) do so for a right purpose. This was because of a violation of a pact with the Pagan Arabs. Nameless, I invite you to read about the life of Prophet Muhammad from some good book, maybe Muhammad : His Life Based on the Earliest Sources by Martin Lings.

As for how some Muslims justify their violence is some thing that is a different issue. I was pointing out that it isnt in the Quran or Prophets Muhammad's teachings to invade without just cause.

I agree that this is all off-topic.

Regards

 

[YmirGF]

As for how some Muslims justify their violence is some thing that is a different issue. I was pointing out that it isnt in the Quran or Prophets Muhammad's teachings to invade without just cause.

And yet these "just cause(s)" were often paper thin and occasionally based on little more than an insult toward Muhammad.

I agree that this is all off-topic.

It isn't off topic, in the slightest, rather, it is central to the discussion, as Muslims seek to emulate every action of their prophet in a demented form of outright hero worship.

Further to your comment to nameless, I would suggest reading several different biographies of the "prophet", as that is the only way to approach a well rounded view of the man and his actions. Even in the biography by Karen Armstrong, who many Muslims speak very highly of, there are times that Muhammad does not come across looking very good. I remember one particular passage where she glosses over his more violent actions, stating that he was like other "petty warlords" of his time.

 

[A-ManESL]

And yet these "just cause(s)" were often paper thin and occasionally based on little more than an insult toward Muhammad.

If these just causes were just only in name then I condemn them too. The main thing is the intention, and if that is unjust, then it deserves to be condemned.

It isn't off topic, in the slightest, rather, it is central to the discussion, as Muslims seek to emulate every action of their prophet in a demented form of outright hero worship.

lol...I was under the impression that the topic was whether the terrorists derive legitimacy from verses of the Quran and not whether they derive legitimacy from the life of the Prophet.

Further to your comment to nameless, I would suggest reading several different biographies of the "prophet", as that is the only way to approach a well rounded view of the man and his actions. Even in the biography by Karen Armstrong, who many Muslims speak very highly of, there are times that Muhammad does not come across looking very good. I remember one particular passage where she glosses over his more violent actions, stating that he was like other "petty warlords" of his time.

I agree, with your view that several biographies are needed to form a good opinion of the person. However in this regard, I would also like to say that it is very very important to also read writings of a spiritual person when dealing with a supposedly religious personality. Because many things might appear different when appeared through the prism of spirituality, many wrongs might hide right actions beneath them (like Lord Buddha abandoning his family).

Regards.

 

[nameless]

And just like Lord Rama invaded and conquered Lanka and Kishkindha for a right purpose so did Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) do so for a right purpose. This was because of a violation of a pact with the Pagan Arabs.

could you pls explain it a bit, A-ManESL?
To my understanding, muhammad were born into quraish tribe of mecca, and those quraish pagan arabs worshipped multiple gods and used idols for that, it was all peace. Then what happened? how did this pact came into being?

Nameless, I invite you to read about the life of Prophet Muhammad from some good book, maybe Muhammad : His Life Based on the Earliest Sources by Martin Lings.

thanks for suggestion A-ManESL, i will refer that book when it is available to me.

As for how some Muslims justify their violence is some thing that is a different issue. I was pointing out that it isnt in the Quran or Prophets Muhammad's teachings to invade without just cause.

As we know A-ManESL, life of great personlities is indeed their message. If their life was not peaceful, so would be the lives of their followers.

 

[A-ManESL]

could you pls explain it a bit, A-ManESL?
To my understanding, muhammad were born into quraish tribe of mecca, and those quraish pagan arabs worshipped multiple gods and used idols for that, it was all peace. Then what happened? how did this pact came into being?

What they worshipped was not properly, it was a religion in name only and in reality only external rituals with no inner spirituality. All this was accompanied by social oppression: Burial of girl-child, oppression of women (no limit on wives, women couldnt normally own property etc) and violence was part of the lives of pagan Arabs.

However a point to be noted is that if we understand the word religion as it is done today then Islam was not a new religion in the Prophet's time. In fact, I believe that Prophet Muhammad(pbuh), above all people perhaps, would have been horrified at any suggestion that he was starting a new religion. As I have already pointed out in previous threads that Arabic doesnt have a word for religion in the modern sense, the word din in the Quran is more appropriately translated as way of life. A book which discusses this topic at great length and uses linguistic evidence and other sources to establish all this is The Meaning and End of religion by one of the most reputed scholars of Comparative religion of the twentieth century: W.C. Smith.

As we know A-ManESL, life of great personlities is indeed their message. If their life was not peaceful, so would be the lives of their followers.

Not quite agreeing with you there, not entirely anyway. Some people are good, some are bad. Those who are true followers will indeed follow the masters and those masquerading as true followers will follow their own selfish goals while claiming to follow the masters. To club them all together is wrong and unfair. Anyway, do read a good biography.

Regards

 

[arimoff]

The argument between what is radical Islam and what is moderate Islam will never be clear as long as Muhammad remains at the core teachings of Islam. He lied, murdered, raped. He was a war lord who waged wars against everybody who did not want to follow him.

 

[.lava]

The argument between what is radical Islam and what is moderate Islam will never be clear as long as Muhammad remains at the core teachings of Islam. He lied, murdered, raped. He was a war lord who waged wars against everybody who did not want to follow him.

thank you for summing up all the lies about MUHAMMED (PBUH) briefly. May God help me to follow his footsteps because he never lied, he never murdered, he never raped. he did not even hate those who tried to kill him. he only defended his life and lives of who dared to chose Islam only after years of tortures and murders. no power to take him away because he is Qur'an on feet so we shall follow his footsteps..oh you don't like it, no problem. you hate Muslims already, so..

.

 

[beenie]

thank you for summing up all the lies about MUHAMMED (PBUH) briefly. May God help me to follow his footsteps because he never lied, he never murdered, he never raped. he did not even hate those who tried to kill him. he only defended his life and lives of who dared to chose Islam only after years of tortures and murders. no power to take him away because he is Qur'an on feet so we shall follow his footsteps..oh you don't like it, no problem. you hate Muslims already, so..

.

i would like to know where all these people are getting their information from that the Prophet lied, murdered, and raped. i can imagine what sources those would be.

 

[Wotan]

thank you for summing up all the lies about MUHAMMED (PBUH) briefly. May God help me to follow his footsteps because he never lied, he never murdered, he never raped. he did not even hate those who tried to kill him. he only defended his life and lives of who dared to chose Islam only after years of tortures and murders. no power to take him away because he is Qur'an on feet so we shall follow his footsteps..oh you don't like it, no problem. you hate Muslims already, so..

.

Victimization is so-o-o charming.

All together now, 3 tears for Islam.

 

[.lava]

Victimization is so-o-o charming.

All together now, 3 tears for Islam.

what victimization?

if one is a victim, he is only victim of his own ego by hating others. noone needs you to cry or to pretend to cry. but i personally do expect you to offer some understanding and tiny piece of friendly approach towards Muslims if you have good intentions. if not, please don't "pretend" conversing with me because all you've done so far is to keep going on a childish monologue which you use to insult Islam alone and nothing more

.

 

[Wotan]

what victimization?

if one is a victim, he is only victim of his own ego by hating others. noone needs you to cry or to pretend to cry. but i personally do expect you to offer some understanding and tiny piece of friendly approach towards Muslims if you have good intentions. if not, please don't "pretend" conversing with me because all you've done so far is to keep going on a childish monologue which you use to insult Islam alone and nothing more

.

". . . he only defended his life and lives of who dared to chose Islam only after years of tortures and murders... . ."

 

[.lava]

". . . he only defended his life and lives of who dared to chose Islam only after years of tortures and murders... . ."

that's the truth. so i am victimizing (God knows who??) by saying it...well, that is just a very funny accusation, sorry

.

 

[Wotan]

that's the truth. so i am victimizing (God knows who??) by saying it...well, that is just a very funny accusation, sorry

.

I don't believe you are actually this dense. I suspect a quite deliberate and conscious refusal to get the point. And any further explanation by me or anyone else will have no effect whatever on your "understanding."

BUT​

For the benefit of any others who might be reading:

You and your fellows have claimed that this religion as an ideology and its followers as individuals have been the VICTIMS of hatred, oppression, murder, rape, torture, colonization, imperialism - I could go on my fingers tire of typing.

You are PROFESSIONAL victims. Appealing to the world to have sympathy for you because you have been so mistreated and misunderstood by a host of Evil Islam haters. And all so unjustly because you are just good honest folk who want nothing but the best for ALL. And your religion is one of peace, filled with a love for mankind, brotherhood, respect, tolerance and charity toward all.

expletive deleted​

But for the prophet you follow and the book you hold sacred your pity party is no different than Pat Robertson's or Father William Donahue's. And just as devoid of substance.

 

[Autodidact]

What they worshipped was not properly, it was a religion in name only and in reality only external rituals with no inner spirituality.

What an arrogant, imperialist, self-justifying load of clap-trap. You don't know anything about those people or their inner spiritual lives. All you know is that they were not Muslim. They have exactly as much chance of being right as you do--does that give them the right to invade, conquer and murder you?

All this was accompanied by social oppression: Burial of girl-child, oppression of women (no limit on wives, women couldnt normally own property etc) and violence was part of the lives of pagan Arabs.

Wow, that sounds like modern Iran or Saudi Arabia.

 

[Autodidact]

The argument between what is radical Islam and what is moderate Islam will never be clear as long as Muhammad remains at the core teachings of Islam. He lied, murdered, raped. He was a war lord who waged wars against everybody who did not want to follow him.

thank you for summing up all the lies about MUHAMMED (PBUH) briefly. May God help me to follow his footsteps because he never lied, he never murdered, he never raped. he did not even hate those who tried to kill him. he only defended his life and lives of who dared to chose Islam only after years of tortures and murders. no power to take him away because he is Qur'an on feet so we shall follow his footsteps..oh you don't like it, no problem. you hate Muslims already, so..

I suggest you both provide some sources for your allegations. I think you're both out to lunch. Preferably relatively neutral sources. arimoff: not anti-Muslim hate sites, but actual historians. .lava, not Muslim sites, but actual historians.

Although of the two of you, .lava, your assertions are the more ridiculous. I mean, Muslims agree and revere Muhammad as one of the greatest generals/commanders/leaders in history. The man founded a dynasty that lasted for centuries, conquered vast lands and united their people into a fighting force that eventually occupied most of the inhabited world, and you're trying to portray him as some kind of pacifist? That's absurd.

The fact that Muhammad is "Qur'an on feet" is part of the problem. Muslims seek to emulate a great warlord, and that legacy continues to bear violent fruit today.

The fact is that Islam was born of war as well as words, its revered founder was a general, a brilliant war leader, one of the greatest in history, and Muslims know and recognize that fact. I don't know where you're getting your stuff, but it's not even consistent with what the Qur'an itself relays.

I mean, raiding merchant caravans is just not self-defense, and there's no way to paint it as such.

 

[Autodidact]

that's the truth. so i am victimizing (God knows who??) by saying it...well, that is just a very funny accusation, sorry

.

No it's not and all of Islam knows it. He founded the religion by establishing, uniting and sending into combat a great army. Every victory of that army confirmed his followers in their faith and struck fear into his enemies, persuading many of them to convert, not just out of fear, but to join the side that was blessed by God in battle. If you doubt my assertions, I will be happy to provide solid, neutral, even Muslim sources for everything I say.

 

[nameless]

What they worshipped was not properly, it was a religion in name only and in reality only external rituals with no inner spirituality.

so muhammad demanded them to worship one god and not use idols, isn it? And when they were not ready to accept that, muhammad conquered them and destroyed idols in kaaba temple and made it a mosque....what right muhammad have to evaluate others faith? the idols placed in kaaba temple was that of jesus and mary, and muhammad did believed to worship them is wrong..... If you justify muhammad for this, how can you blame the mughals who destoryed innumerable temples of india? hindus were polythiestic and idol worshippers like pagans...

However a point to be noted is that if we understand the word religion as it is done today then Islam was not a new religion in the Prophet's time. In fact, I believe that Prophet Muhammad(pbuh), above all people perhaps, would have been horrified at any suggestion that he was starting a new religion.

he demanded to pagans to worship one god and destroy idols in kaaba temple, muhammad was not at all peaceful on that.

Not quite agreeing with you there, not entirely anyway. Some people are good, some are bad. Those who are true followers will indeed follow the masters and those masquerading as true followers will follow their own selfish goals while claiming to follow the masters. To club them all together is wrong and unfair. Anyway, do read a good biography.

After those wars, the women of opponents were taken as slaves by muhammad, there were instances where those women complain to muhammad about the harassment and torture from his soldiers, and begging to leave them free, and muhammad refused all their requests. So muhammad had no problems with his followers harassing women, means they were true followers of muhammad. How can we say the later muslims who conquered and raped women were not true followers of muhammad?

 

[TashaN]

Tasha: I really expect you to post your own arguments, not long essays by someone else. Think what a disadvantage I'm at, how much more you know about the subject than I, and how long you have studied it. Surely you can make an argument yourself, not just spout propaganda.

Be patient, what i have posted was about number 3 ...

I believe there are 3 ways to do this:

1- We can go into great depth of what these verses mean, but then you will have no excuse to reject my explanation because it's supported by verses from the Quran, not just mere speculations in my part.

2- We can ignore the verses all together and focus into the reasons for why some Muslims interpret these verses and exploit them in order to justify murder and violence.

3- We can dive into the story of Islam and violence from the beginning, starting with Mohammed till today.

So, how do you want us to do this? because we want to focus on something, not to go back and forth.

Thank you.

Whatever you like.

It's the only point which i intended to use articles at. I quoted two Jews. One of them in the past, a religious one, and the other one is an atheist Jew of today, and what they thought about Mohammed and Islam. That was the purpose of the two articles.

Not that these resources mean anything to me, because i already know my Prophet, but it's just to present you with some facts about Mohammed by non-Muslims. Many Non-Muslims i have debated with prefer non-Muslims opinions and resources because it's more inclined to be unbiased than if it was written by Muslims themselves.

I hope you would understand now my position.

So one factor we have is all these warlike, anti-infidel koranic verses. Another factor is that Muhammad, the founder of Islam, was a warrior and a general who united disparate tribes under Islam and went to war against, and conquered, surrounding tribes.

Not only is Muhammad the founder of the religion, he is held up as the example of the best possible man, whom all Muslims should emulate. He conducted raids on merchant caravans, ransomed prisoners. These raids and victories were instrumental in persuading Arab tribespeople to convert to Islam. They also strengthened the Muslims' belief that Allah favored them--that, because of their devotion to Allah, He granted them victory in battle. Muhammad himself led troops into battle. When they lost, they saw this as evidence of Allah's disfavor due to insufficient piety.* In victory, men of the losing army were beheaded, and women and children taken as slaves.

Again, the qur'an actually describes some of these battles, the results and lessons learned from them.

Muhammad gained the Muslim holy city, Mecca, by conquering it in battle. After conquering other Arab lands, when some tribes did not wish to convert to Islam, they were required to defer to its sovereignty and pay a tax.

To Muslims, this is not just history. This is the glorious tale of the beginning of establishing the reign of Allah on earth, and the model of what a Muslim should do--emulate Muhammad, dedicate their life to fighting and conquering on behalf of Allah.

My view is that radical Muslims take this to heart, and strive to emulate Muhammad with the weapons they have available to them, to fight and possibly die in battle on behalf of Allah.

So I think the early history of Islam and life of Muhammad is another significant factor in the violent actions of radical Muslims.

*(note what a primitive, superstitious world view this is. It is fundamental to Islam.)

Here is a view of Muhammad from an Islamic website:

Refuting lies about Islam

This is not entirely true. I'm tempted to refute your claims about the motivations of Prophet Mohammed and how he treated his enemies, the false statements about the details of wars and why these battles started. Nevertheless, i think if i started doing all of that we will need to put it in a new independent thread because we will lose our focus in your OP, unless you believe it's necessary for you to know the accurate information of Mohammed's history, then i would be more than happy to provide you with the details *using my own arguments*, not articles this time.

I think you are making it more difficult for me and for the other Muslims to focus on your OP, because you are doing the exact thing you have accused me of doing, spouting propaganda. That's why Muslims will feel that they need to correct the errors in your posts, which is really not that beneficial to the purpose of your OP, so instead of splashing quotations and verses, i hope you will focus more in reasoning, analyzing, and interacting with us.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt until now, but if you keep throwing at our face wrong information about Islam, your thread will either die in misery, or you will end up debating with yourself and with some bigots and your thread will turning into a propaganda which have no purpose but to bash Islam.

Therefore, for now, i feel that i need to address your main concern here, which i believe is, how these wars in the time of Prophet Mohammed whether they were justified or not play a vital role in inspiring some Muslims today to act similarly, which will also takes us to point number 2.

2- We can ignore the verses all together and focus into the reasons for why some Muslims interpret these verses and exploit them in order to justify murder and violence.

No one can deny that wars occurred in the past during the life of Prophet Mohammed and the Muslims after him but they were acting as a state which need to defend itself sometimes, and in some other times, they needed to expand and concur other lands.

On the other hand, Islam is extremely strict about the state affairs, that's why it's strictly prohibited in Islam for the normal citizens to rebel or act independently when it comes to the things which only the Caliph/King/President have a say on. Not only that, but also, those who rebel and act that way will be fought by the ruler and in our religion we will call them khawarij.

Allah said in the Quran:

[59] O ye who believe! obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day: that is best, and most suitable for final determination. (Quran 4:59)

I would like to point out too that Islam can't be held responsible for the acts of those who goes contrary to the teachings of the Quran and the laws of their state.

So, we conclude from the above that:

1- The Quran does contain verses about wars.

2- Muslims as individuals or groups can't act alone without the instructions and laws of the ruler.

3- Those who don't do so will be dealt with as traitors and they will be charged in court with treason.

But until now, we still didn't answer the golden question, why only Muslims behave in this way? why all of those Muslims are going against their countries, their own people, and their own religion.

I'll answer that in my next post because i need to sign out now. I hope you will try ponder on what i already have said in this post, and i hope you will try to be patient and respond wisely, not to post more verses and countless quotations and wrong information about Islam.

That's of course if you are interested in an honest and productive dialogue between us, and to have more understanding in this touchy subject. So, try to speak with us, not to us. But if your purpose was to just do the so called *exposing* of Islam as some might call it, i really wouldn't give a damn about your thread, because i only prefer to discuss and debate with those who want to interact with me, not with those who want to launch a propaganda against Islam and have some agendas about such a thing.


Peace.

EDIT: I'll try to finish some stuff i'm planning to do now then come back here later to continue. I'll try to come ASAP.