To what extent are Islamic terrorists inspired by Muhammad and the Quran?

[Dawnofhope]

And I Gotcha!
A Muslim in disguise!
No Christian will ever speak this way when they are asked to
1. Tell me, do you agree that Muhammad was not a prophet of YHWH.
2. Do you worship Jesus as God?
3. Do you believe that Jesus was crucified, killed, and rose from the dead for your salvation?

How long did you pretend to be a Christian?
For over 10 years I visited Forums like these in South Africa, and I unmasked hundreds of Muslims such as you who either pretended to be Atheist or Christian.

I have the right to ask those 3 questions to anyone who I think are misusing the Spirit.
Look how easy it is for me to answer.
1.Muhammad is not a prophet of YHWH.
2.Jesus is God.
3. Yes Jesus died for my salvation.

Nothing will ever get a Christian upset to answer this!
Only the false spirit will hate those statements.

I call this the "Masked Muslim Check Mate"

To be clear I deplore Islamic extremism. Its core isn’t Muhammad or the Quran, though the Hadiths and Quran are certainly used as justification. Rather is an ‘us and them’ tribalism. In that sense I see parallels between your worldview, that IMHO isn’t even remotely inspired by Christ, and the views of Jihadists who in reality have nothing to do with Muhammad.

Islamic extremism - Wikipedia

 

[Wasp]

38. The Prophet Muhammad said, “There will come a time on the people when there will re- main nothing of the Islam ex- cept its [ism] name and nothing will remain of the Qur’ān except its [rasm] outward form. Their masjids will be full of people/very well built but will be empty of guidance. Their scholars will be the most evil under the heavens; from them [fitnah] turmoil will emanate from them and to them will it return.”
Source: Baihaqi, Shu’bul Iman no. 2/788

That's not an authentic hadith. Probably not even from Muhammad but from Ali.

 

[Milton Platt]

They didn't become what they are because they were called jihadists. They started doing and the ignorant started calling them jihadists.

They call themselves Jihadists, do they not?

 

[Wasp]

They call themselves Jihadists, do they not?

I don't know. They call themselves all kinds of things. But they don't do Jihad so use it as you may, it doesn't apply.

 

[Milton Platt]

I don't know. They call themselves all kinds of things. But they don't do Jihad so use it as you may, it doesn't apply.

So Jihad means something like "to strive" or "struggle" and is used in more than one way, correct? And in this particular instance they are conducting a "holy war" are they not?

 

[sooda]

To be clear I deplore Islamic extremism. Its core isn’t Muhammad or the Quran, though the Hadiths and Quran are certainly used as justification. Rather is an ‘us and them’ tribalism. In that sense I see parallels between your worldview, that IMHO isn’t even remotely inspired by Christ, and the views of Jihadists who in reality have nothing to do with Muhammad.

Islamic extremism - Wikipedia

The terrorists LOVE this reaction of blaming and fearing all Muslims .. It dovetails with their agenda against the West AND other Muslims.. Its the icing on the cake.. the cherry on top.

Calling Muhammed a violent, raping warlord makes them very happy. It helps their cause.

 

[Wasp]

So Jihad means something like "to strive" or "struggle" and is used in more than one way, correct?

And in this particular instance they are conducting a "holy war" are they not?

No.

"If military jihad is required to protect the faith against others, it can be performed using anything from legal, diplomatic and economic to political means. If there is no peaceful alternative, Islam also allows the use of force, but there are strict rules of engagement. Innocents - such as women, children, or invalids - must never be harmed, and any peaceful overtures from the enemy must be accepted.

In case military action appears necessary, not everyone can declare jihad. The religious military campaign has to be declared by a proper authority, advised by scholars, who say the religion and people are under threat and violence is imperative to defend them. The concept of "just war" is very important."

Jihad: A Misunderstood Concept from Islam - What Jihad is, and is not

 

[Milton Platt]

No.

"If military jihad is required to protect the faith against others, it can be performed using anything from legal, diplomatic and economic to political means. If there is no peaceful alternative, Islam also allows the use of force, but there are strict rules of engagement. Innocents - such as women, children, or invalids - must never be harmed, and any peaceful overtures from the enemy must be accepted.

In case military action appears necessary, not everyone can declare jihad. The religious military campaign has to be declared by a proper authority, advised by scholars, who say the religion and people are under threat and violence is imperative to defend them. The concept of "just war" is very important."

Jihad: A Misunderstood Concept from Islam - What Jihad is, and is not

Thanks for the link. It's very informative. But I do see that it says that military action is one form of Jihad. As to the parameters of when it is declared.....who is and who is not a "scholar" and who is a "proper authority"? Where is this specifically spelled out? Doesn't that depend upon opinion? Also, after saying that military action is permissible, it then says that Jihad is not a violent concept. That is contradictory.
It appears that what is or what is not Jihad is very much dependent upon personal interpretation. so it is easy to say this or that group are not Jihadists when they don't agree with your opinions.

 

[LuisDantas]

Is there any specific reason why you are replying to me?

It should be clear that I do not agree with your analysis, therefore I do not see the point.

(...)

The Quran forbids all forms of violence except in self defence, calls its followers to return good for evil and to seek peace with all. (These are all verses I can find if required)

That I file under "lip service", given the exact content.

Terrorists are not true Muslims. They do not obey the Quran’s calls to peace and goodwill but use mainly fabricated hadiths which have nothing whatever to do with Muhammad or the Quran.

(...)

What the world sees of terrorism on the nightly news comes neither from Muhammad nor the Quran but from evil Mullas who treat themselves as gods and have no real allegiance to Muhammad or the Quran who incite death and destruction.

That is one narrative. Not a particularly convincing one, given the evidence. Quite on the contrary really.

We Baha’is believe that every religion has its Spring, Summer, Autumn and Winter and this includes Islam.

Interestingly, in so doing you deny the self-imposed constraints of Islaam, which is presumably valid to the end of times.

 

[Wasp]

Thanks for the link. It's very informative. But I do see that it says that military action is one form of Jihad. As to the parameters of when it is declared.....who is and who is not a "scholar" and who is a "proper authority"?

In todays world generally the government. So not just any scholar. Though there certainly is a definition for that as well.

after saying that military action is permissible, it then says that Jihad is not a violent concept. That is contradictory.

Yes, the concept itself is not violent.

 

[BilliardsBall]

And what evidence would support such claims about Muhammad?

You seek evidence beyond what scholars have established that Muhammed personally murdered or had murdered rivals, Jews and infidels?

 

[sooda]

You seek evidence beyond what scholars have established that Muhammed personally murdered or had murdered rivals, Jews and infidels?

Muhammed interrupted the revenue stream from the pilgrims when he destroyed the idols at the Kaaba. That alone made him unpopular with the Quraysh.

There was a lot going on in Arabia at the time. Various pagan groups, Nestorian Christians and small groups of Jews.. There was lots of trade from Yemen to Persia and Egypt so there was a lot of exposure to other beliefs. Ancient folklore has mother Eve buried in Jeddah.

Arabian religion | ancient religion

Archaeologists Discover that Earliest Known Arabic Writing ...
https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/archaeologists-discover...
Mar 21, 2016 · According to ancient Christian sources, the Christians of the nearby city of Najran suffered a wave of persecution by the Himyarites in 470. The name of Thawban son of Malik appears on eight inscriptions, along with the names of other Christians.

 

[Augustus]

You seek evidence beyond what scholars have established that Muhammed personally murdered or had murdered rivals, Jews and infidels?

FWIW, the same scholars also claimed he split the moon in half.

 

[sooda]

FWIW, the same scholars also claimed he split the moon in half.

They demanded evidence of his Prophethood in the form of miracles.

 

[Augustus]

They demanded evidence of his Prophethood in the form of miracles.

The sirah gets more detailed the later in time it gets and 'consensus' occurs long after the fact,

Hadith and sirah often looks very much like an attempt to explain Quranic verses. Also, if you look at early exegesis you can often find numerous contradictory explanations for the same passage.

A settled tradition there was not...

According to various Muslim sources Muhammad "was born in the Year of the Elephant, or fifty days after the attack of the troops of the Elephant, or thirty years after the Year of the Elephant, or forty years after the Year of the Elephant Many traditions are recorded in Ibn N~ al-Din's Jami' al-iithiu, fols. 179b-180b:the Prophet was born in the Year of the Elephant, he received the Revelation forty years after the Elephant (The fight at - K.) 'Ukaz took place fifteen years after the Elephant and the Ka'ba was built twenty-five years after the Elephant; the Prophet was born thirty days after the Elephant, or fifty days, or fifty-five days, or two months and six days, or ten years; some say twenty years, some say twenty-three years, some say thirty years, some say that God sent the Prophet with his mission fifteen years after the Ka'ba was built, and thus there were seventy years between the Elephant and the mission (mab'aJh) of the Prophet; some say that he was born fifteen years before the Elephant, some say forty days or fifty days, some say thirty years before the Elephant, and finally, some say that there were ten years between the expedition of the Elephant and the mission"

Muslims, of course, believe that Divine guidance was given to the early generations to allow them to establish the truth. If one uses a standard critical method of historiography though analysis may well differ from one driven by theological imperatives.

It's similar to treating the Gospels through a secular historical rather than theological lens.

 

[Wasp]

The sirah gets more detailed the later in time it gets and 'consensus' occurs long after the fact,

Hadith and sirah often looks very much like an attempt to explain Quranic verses. Also, if you look at early exegesis you can often find numerous contradictory explanations for the same passage.

A settled tradition there was not...

According to various Muslim sources Muhammad "was born in the Year of the Elephant, or fifty days after the attack of the troops of the Elephant, or thirty years after the Year of the Elephant, or forty years after the Year of the Elephant Many traditions are recorded in Ibn N~ al-Din's Jami' al-iithiu, fols. 179b-180b:the Prophet was born in the Year of the Elephant, he received the Revelation forty years after the Elephant (The fight at - K.) 'Ukaz took place fifteen years after the Elephant and the Ka'ba was built twenty-five years after the Elephant; the Prophet was born thirty days after the Elephant, or fifty days, or fifty-five days, or two months and six days, or ten years; some say twenty years, some say twenty-three years, some say thirty years, some say that God sent the Prophet with his mission fifteen years after the Ka'ba was built, and thus there were seventy years between the Elephant and the mission (mab'aJh) of the Prophet; some say that he was born fifteen years before the Elephant, some say forty days or fifty days, some say thirty years before the Elephant, and finally, some say that there were ten years between the expedition of the Elephant and the mission"

Muslims, of course, believe that Divine guidance was given to the early generations to allow them to establish the truth. If one uses a standard critical method of historiography though analysis may well differ from one driven by theological imperatives.

It's similar to treating the Gospels through a secular historical rather than theological lens.

What early generations?
What kind of contradictions have you found?

 

[Augustus]

What early generations?

Companions and successors

What kind of contradictions have you found?

Another case is the Qur’an’s reference to the laughter of Sarah (a name that does not appear in the text; the only woman given a name in the Qur’an is Mary). In Genesis, Sarah laughs after she hears the annunciation of Isaac’s birth, but the Qur’an refers to her laughter first. Accordingly, Muslim commentators struggle to explain why she laughed. One famous commentator, the tenth-century al-Tabari, wonders if she laughed out of frustration when the visitors would not eat the food she prepared or if she laughed out of relief when she realized that the visitors did not have the habits of the Sodomites. Yet the reader who knows the Bible will understand that Sarah laughed out of surprise at the promise of a son in her old age, even if the Qur’an—for the sake of a rhyme in Arabic—reports these events in reverse order.

Reading the Qur’an Through the Bible | Gabriel Said Reynolds

Most mufassirūn, however, do not arrive at this conclusion Inf act, they are remarkably uncertain about this allusion to the laughter of Abraham’s wife, whom we might now confidently refer to as sarah... Aṭ-Ṭabarī(d 310/923),for example, provides six different, and mutually exclusive, explanations for the laughter, proposing one thereof as “more correct,” but not ruling out the others Abū Isḥāq ath- Thaʿlabī (d 427/1036) also offers six different explanations 8 Fakhr ad-Dīn ar-Rāzī (d 606/1209) lists nine

GS Reynolds - The Case of Sarah's Laughter

 

[sooda]

The sirah gets more detailed the later in time it gets and 'consensus' occurs long after the fact,

Hadith and sirah often looks very much like an attempt to explain Quranic verses. Also, if you look at early exegesis you can often find numerous contradictory explanations for the same passage.

A settled tradition there was not...

According to various Muslim sources Muhammad "was born in the Year of the Elephant, or fifty days after the attack of the troops of the Elephant, or thirty years after the Year of the Elephant, or forty years after the Year of the Elephant Many traditions are recorded in Ibn N~ al-Din's Jami' al-iithiu, fols. 179b-180b:the Prophet was born in the Year of the Elephant, he received the Revelation forty years after the Elephant (The fight at - K.) 'Ukaz took place fifteen years after the Elephant and the Ka'ba was built twenty-five years after the Elephant; the Prophet was born thirty days after the Elephant, or fifty days, or fifty-five days, or two months and six days, or ten years; some say twenty years, some say twenty-three years, some say thirty years, some say that God sent the Prophet with his mission fifteen years after the Ka'ba was built, and thus there were seventy years between the Elephant and the mission (mab'aJh) of the Prophet; some say that he was born fifteen years before the Elephant, some say forty days or fifty days, some say thirty years before the Elephant, and finally, some say that there were ten years between the expedition of the Elephant and the mission"

Muslims, of course, believe that Divine guidance was given to the early generations to allow them to establish the truth. If one uses a standard critical method of historiography though analysis may well differ from one driven by theological imperatives.

It's similar to treating the Gospels through a secular historical rather than theological lens.

Yes? And? So what? As far as I know from Muhammed's early sermons he made it clear he wasn't divine and didn't do miracles. So I have no clue as to whether splitting the moon is a real test or an insider joke. I have read several versions.

 

[Wasp]

Companions and successors



Another case is the Qur’an’s reference to the laughter of Sarah (a name that does not appear in the text; the only woman given a name in the Qur’an is Mary). In Genesis, Sarah laughs after she hears the annunciation of Isaac’s birth, but the Qur’an refers to her laughter first. Accordingly, Muslim commentators struggle to explain why she laughed. One famous commentator, the tenth-century al-Tabari, wonders if she laughed out of frustration when the visitors would not eat the food she prepared or if she laughed out of relief when she realized that the visitors did not have the habits of the Sodomites. Yet the reader who knows the Bible will understand that Sarah laughed out of surprise at the promise of a son in her old age, even if the Qur’an—for the sake of a rhyme in Arabic—reports these events in reverse order.

Reading the Qur’an Through the Bible | Gabriel Said Reynolds

Most mufassirūn, however, do not arrive at this conclusion Inf act, they are remarkably uncertain about this allusion to the laughter of Abraham’s wife, whom we might now confidently refer to as sarah... Aṭ-Ṭabarī(d 310/923),for example, provides six different, and mutually exclusive, explanations for the laughter, proposing one thereof as “more correct,” but not ruling out the others Abū Isḥāq ath- Thaʿlabī (d 427/1036) also offers six different explanations 8 Fakhr ad-Dīn ar-Rāzī (d 606/1209) lists nine

GS Reynolds - The Case of Sarah's Laughter

So.... You're taking the bible as the real thing and the problem is the Quran doesn't follow the bible?

I thought you meant there were contradictions in the old Interpretations compared to new ones.

She laughed probably because they had come for the people of Lot.

 

[Augustus]

So.... You're taking the bible as the real thing and the problem is the Quran doesn't follow the bible?

No, I'm looking at the intertextual references between related scriptural traditions.

She laughed probably because they had come for the people of Lot.

What makes you think that?