Ted Cruz torches Tim Kaine for describing God-given rights as 'very, very troubling'

Fervent said:

That is not to say every, or even a majority, of muslims believe their religion is inherently violent, but that is largely because most Muslims aren't particularly religious(as is true of a majority of Christians)...but as religiosity increases, the likelihood that they will support or even engage in violence increases because doing so is in keeping with the life and actions of Muhammad.

Click to expand...

You have it backward; study after study done on the subject of Islamic extremists and why they join extremist groups shows that the majority lack even a basic understanding of Islam. While it's true that many of the leaders of these organizations are well versed in Islam, they only use their extensive knowledge of Islam to deceive those who are ignorant in order to get them to join their ranks and carry out atrocities in the name of Islam.

From the UN:

UN study finds foreign fighters in Syria 'lack basic understanding of Islam'
“Most saw their religion in terms of justice and injustice rather than in terms of piety and spirituality,” said the authors of the report, which was based on interviews with 43 people from 12 countries.
“Religious belief seems to have played a minimal role in the motivation of this sample,” the report found, saying economic factors had become more important as terrorist groups promised wages, homes and even wives.

From MI5 in the UK:

Research, carried out by MI5's behavioural science unit, based on in-depth case studies on "several hundred individuals known to be involved in, or closely associated with, violent extremist activity" ranging from fundraising to planning suicide bombings in Britain found that far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could actually be regarded as religious novices. Very few have been brought up in strongly religious households, and there is a higher than average proportion of converts. Some are involved in drug-taking, drinking alcohol and visiting prostitutes. MI5 says there is evidence that a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalisation.

In the Philippines:

Cocoy Tulawie, a politician and member of an influential family in Sulu, said this has long been the norm and local government officials have been in connivance with Abu Sayyaf for decades.
He said younger members are ignorant of Islam, yet they are extremely fanatical about representing it. Their version of Islam is flawed simply because the dawas - or Islamic schools - are usually in the main towns and they do not get the chance to study the Quran "properly".
That ignorance, he said, is what makes them dangerous.


And a couple more reports:

Thousands of leaked Islamic State documents reveals most of its recruits from its earliest days came with only the most basic knowledge of Islam. A little more than 3,000 of these documents included the recruits’ knowledge of Shariah, the system that interprets into law verses from the Quran and “hadith” — the sayings and actions of the Prophet Muhammad.
According to the documents, which were acquired by the Syrian opposition site Zaman al-Wasl and shared with the AP, 70 percent of recruits were listed as having just “basic” knowledge of Shariah — the lowest possible choice. Around 24 percent were categorized as having an “intermediate” knowledge, with just 5 percent considered advanced students of Islam.
The group preys on this religious ignorance, allowing extremists to impose a brand of Islam constructed to suit its goal of maximum territorial expansion and carnage as soon as recruits come under its sway.


From Cradle to Grave: The Lifecycle of Foreign Fighters in Iraq and Syria

Combating Terrorism Center at West Point United States Military Academy

Less than 15% of fighters coded by religious background had any formal religious education. Additionally, individuals who made the decision to become a foreign fighter tended not to be lifelong strict adherents to Islam, but also rarely appeared to be recent converts. Those who were Muslims since childhood (but not overly religious), as well as those who were converts (but not too recent), were well-represented in the data.

One other way to parse out the role of religion is to try to assess the level of each fighter’s religious education. In an attempt to code religious education, we asked coders to code both formal types of religious education (at a madrasa or other religious institute of higher education) as well as informal types (indications that they had been part of a study group or sought religious guidance at a local mosque). Much like the data related to the coding of an individual’s conversion to the Islamic faith, the sample in the case of religious education was also very small (n = 203). The results of this breakdown can be seen in Figure 3.9, which shows that a small minority of the foreign fighters had any formal religious education (less than 15%), while the majority of them had no religious guidance (or just basic guidance) before their travel.

Both findings indicate that the majority of the foreign fighters had limited familiarity with the tenets of the Islamic faith. This is consistent with the findings from the CTC’s earlier report, which showed that very small numbers of foreign fighters reported having any religious education and that approximately 70% of fighters reported having a basic knowledge of Shari`a law.

Given these findings, it seems that the ability of the foreign fighters to develop an emotional and cognitive attachment to the jihadi community is based on other factors, which may be more related to cultural and political dimensions of their identities as Muslims in non-Muslim societies than religious triggers. The ability of jihadi groups to recruit foreign fighters is thus based on creating a narrative that is focused on the ongoing deprivation of Muslims, both in specific Western polities, as well as in the international arena. While convincing them that joining the jihadi movement based on specific religious imperatives may be important, it seems to play a secondary role. Moreover, our findings also correspond with primary sources indicating that jihadi groups in general prefer to recruit individuals who have limited religious education since they are less capable of critically scrutinizing the jihadi narrative and ideology, in addition to being less familiar with contrasting Islamic schools of thought.

While it is difcult to ascertain whether the recruiter or potential foreign fighter initiates the connection, it seems that religious figures play a relatively minimal role in this process, a fact that provides support for previous findings indicating that political and cultural aspects of jihadi ideology play a greater role in the radicalization of foreign fighters than strictly religious ones.


As can be seen in the above articles, Most recruits of Islamic extremists groups are not well versed in Islam and ignorance of Islam is a common theme.

Fervent said:

It's not simply about being able to explain it, as I said it's not just that violence exists within the Koran. It's that the "best of people" according to Islam embraced the violence when he had the power to, and that the context and proper interpretive framework(where ayah conflict the later ayat abrogates the earlier one) renders the violent verses the final word on the matter.

Click to expand...

The Muslims that were being spoken to in the Qur'an lived in a different culture, at a different point in time, and were facing unique situations. You can't read the Qur'an from a modern perspective, you have to read it through a historical lens, if not, you will continue to misinterpret what it's saying.

The violent verses found in the Qur'an don't abrogate the verses of peace because of the context they were written in. There are certain situations where the verses of peace apply, and others where the verses of violence apply, therefore, each verse has a specific context and application. In other words, each verse in the Qur'an is to be applied to its appropriate situation. For example, when Qur'an 9:5 says "When the Sacred Months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them. And capture them, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every ambush," it is dealing with a specific event at a point in history when Meccan pagans were breaking their peace treaties and declaring war on the Muslims, so that verse would not negate the peaceful verses in the Qur'an since it is very specific to it's intent and the point in history it was to be applied.

Textual and historical context are key to interpreting religious scriptures, and if someone reads them without knowing the backstory, they will almost certainly misinterpret their true meaning.

Fervent said:

I am not saying this based on an ignorant appraisal of how a minority of Muslims act, but based on actually reading the koran, hadiths, and sira. It's not that violence is present in the texts, but that everything the terrorists do are in keeping with the life and teachings of Muhammad.

Click to expand...

Fervent said:

Muhammad was a warlord, and is taken to be the best of humanity by Islam. He tortured people for wealth, took slaves by violence, had multiple sex slaves, beheaded people for not recognizing his prophecy and accepted converts at the threat of beheading. In short, Muhammad was everything that Islam is criticized for.

Click to expand...

Fervent said:

You keep avoiding addressing my main point as if it isn't there, which is that the "correct" version of Islam is always going to be the one practiced by Muhammad, and anyone with knowledge of the hadith and sira knows that Muhammad was a very evil man who used Islam to satisfy his every evil desire.

Click to expand...

Fervent said:

No, I'm pointing out that the central figure of Islam, Muhammad, acted far more in line with the terrorists than with those who don't wage war.

Click to expand...

Muhammad and his companions were warriors. If we look at Muhammad and his actions through a historical lens, while they appear bad from our modern perspective, they were normal for the point in history at which he lived. In other words, he was no worse than anyone else who was in a position of leadership in his day, whether they be Jew, Christian, Muslim, or Pagan.

The verses found in the Qur'an were revealed during specific battles that took place during the 7th century. There's not a command found anywhere in the Qur'an that instructs Muslims to kill non-believers forever; once the battles during the days of Muhammad were over, that was it. That point in history and those being spoken to have long passed, and the verses commanding that unbelievers be killed or converted to Islam are no longer applicable to Muslims today.

Fervent said:

There can be no harmony between Christ and Belial. Islam, at its core, is a violent religion.

Click to expand...

Since there aren't millions of Muslims going around killing people, we know this statement isn't true. If Islam taught as you believe it does, there would be countless Muslims taking whatever weapons they could get their hands on to kill non-believers every single day in every corner of the globe. This is not happening. Instead, what we see is Muslims living in peace and harmony with their neighbors, working and playing together with non-Muslims, fighting against violence and extremism in tandem with non-Muslims, and working alongside non-Muslims in their communities to address poverty, homelessness, and other injustices through charitable giving and advocacy.

JosephZ said:

You have it backward; study after study done on the subject of Islamic extremists and why they join extremist groups shows that the majority lack even a basic understanding of Islam. While it's true that many of the leaders of these organizations are well versed in Islam, they only use their extensive knowledge of Islam to deceive those who are ignorant in order to get them to join their ranks and carry out atrocities in the name of Islam.

From the UN:

UN study finds foreign fighters in Syria 'lack basic understanding of Islam'
“Most saw their religion in terms of justice and injustice rather than in terms of piety and spirituality,” said the authors of the report, which was based on interviews with 43 people from 12 countries.
“Religious belief seems to have played a minimal role in the motivation of this sample,” the report found, saying economic factors had become more important as terrorist groups promised wages, homes and even wives.

From MI5 in the UK:

Research, carried out by MI5's behavioural science unit, based on in-depth case studies on "several hundred individuals known to be involved in, or closely associated with, violent extremist activity" ranging from fundraising to planning suicide bombings in Britain found that far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could actually be regarded as religious novices. Very few have been brought up in strongly religious households, and there is a higher than average proportion of converts. Some are involved in drug-taking, drinking alcohol and visiting prostitutes. MI5 says there is evidence that a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalisation.

In the Philippines:

Cocoy Tulawie, a politician and member of an influential family in Sulu, said this has long been the norm and local government officials have been in connivance with Abu Sayyaf for decades.
He said younger members are ignorant of Islam, yet they are extremely fanatical about representing it. Their version of Islam is flawed simply because the dawas - or Islamic schools - are usually in the main towns and they do not get the chance to study the Quran "properly".
That ignorance, he said, is what makes them dangerous.


And a couple more reports:

Thousands of leaked Islamic State documents reveals most of its recruits from its earliest days came with only the most basic knowledge of Islam. A little more than 3,000 of these documents included the recruits’ knowledge of Shariah, the system that interprets into law verses from the Quran and “hadith” — the sayings and actions of the Prophet Muhammad.
According to the documents, which were acquired by the Syrian opposition site Zaman al-Wasl and shared with the AP, 70 percent of recruits were listed as having just “basic” knowledge of Shariah — the lowest possible choice. Around 24 percent were categorized as having an “intermediate” knowledge, with just 5 percent considered advanced students of Islam.
The group preys on this religious ignorance, allowing extremists to impose a brand of Islam constructed to suit its goal of maximum territorial expansion and carnage as soon as recruits come under its sway.


From Cradle to Grave: The Lifecycle of Foreign Fighters in Iraq and Syria

Combating Terrorism Center at West Point United States Military Academy

Less than 15% of fighters coded by religious background had any formal religious education. Additionally, individuals who made the decision to become a foreign fighter tended not to be lifelong strict adherents to Islam, but also rarely appeared to be recent converts. Those who were Muslims since childhood (but not overly religious), as well as those who were converts (but not too recent), were well-represented in the data.

One other way to parse out the role of religion is to try to assess the level of each fighter’s religious education. In an attempt to code religious education, we asked coders to code both formal types of religious education (at a madrasa or other religious institute of higher education) as well as informal types (indications that they had been part of a study group or sought religious guidance at a local mosque). Much like the data related to the coding of an individual’s conversion to the Islamic faith, the sample in the case of religious education was also very small (n = 203). The results of this breakdown can be seen in Figure 3.9, which shows that a small minority of the foreign fighters had any formal religious education (less than 15%), while the majority of them had no religious guidance (or just basic guidance) before their travel.

Both findings indicate that the majority of the foreign fighters had limited familiarity with the tenets of the Islamic faith. This is consistent with the findings from the CTC’s earlier report, which showed that very small numbers of foreign fighters reported having any religious education and that approximately 70% of fighters reported having a basic knowledge of Shari`a law.

Given these findings, it seems that the ability of the foreign fighters to develop an emotional and cognitive attachment to the jihadi community is based on other factors, which may be more related to cultural and political dimensions of their identities as Muslims in non-Muslim societies than religious triggers. The ability of jihadi groups to recruit foreign fighters is thus based on creating a narrative that is focused on the ongoing deprivation of Muslims, both in specific Western polities, as well as in the international arena. While convincing them that joining the jihadi movement based on specific religious imperatives may be important, it seems to play a secondary role. Moreover, our findings also correspond with primary sources indicating that jihadi groups in general prefer to recruit individuals who have limited religious education since they are less capable of critically scrutinizing the jihadi narrative and ideology, in addition to being less familiar with contrasting Islamic schools of thought.

While it is difcult to ascertain whether the recruiter or potential foreign fighter initiates the connection, it seems that religious figures play a relatively minimal role in this process, a fact that provides support for previous findings indicating that political and cultural aspects of jihadi ideology play a greater role in the radicalization of foreign fighters than strictly religious ones.


As can be seen in the above articles, Most recruits of Islamic extremists groups are not well versed in Islam and ignorance of Islam is a common theme.



The Muslims that were being spoken to in the Qur'an lived in a different culture, at a different point in time, and were facing unique situations. You can't read the Qur'an from a modern perspective, you have to read it through a historical lens, if not, you will continue to misinterpret what it's saying.

The violent verses found in the Qur'an don't abrogate the verses of peace because of the context they were written in. There are certain situations where the verses of peace apply, and others where the verses of violence apply, therefore, each verse has a specific context and application. In other words, each verse in the Qur'an is to be applied to its appropriate situation. For example, when Qur'an 9:5 says "When the Sacred Months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them. And capture them, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every ambush," it is dealing with a specific event at a point in history when Meccan pagans were breaking their peace treaties and declaring war on the Muslims, so that verse would not negate the peaceful verses in the Qur'an since it is very specific to it's intent and the point in history it was to be applied.

Textual and historical context are key to interpreting religious scriptures, and if someone reads them without knowing the backstory, they will almost certainly misinterpret their true meaning.






Muhammad and his companions were warriors. If we look at Muhammad and his actions through a historical lens, while they appear bad from our modern perspective, they were normal for the point in history at which he lived. In other words, he was no worse than anyone else who was in a position of leadership in his day, whether they be Jew, Christian, Muslim, or Pagan.

The verses found in the Qur'an were revealed during specific battles that took place during the 7th century. There's not a command found anywhere in the Qur'an that instructs Muslims to kill non-believers forever; once the battles during the days of Muhammad were over, that was it. That point in history and those being spoken to have long passed, and the verses commanding that unbelievers be killed or converted to Islam are no longer applicable to Muslims today.



Since there aren't millions of Muslims going around killing people, we know this statement isn't true. If Islam taught as you believe it does, there would be countless Muslims taking whatever weapons they could get their hands on to kill non-believers every single day in every corner of the globe. This is not happening. Instead, what we see is Muslims living in peace and harmony with their neighbors, working and playing together with non-Muslims, fighting against violence and extremism in tandem with non-Muslims, and working alongside non-Muslims in their communities to address poverty, homelessness, and other injustices through charitable giving and advocacy.

Click to expand...

While I lack the time to address everything you've brought up, I will point out that you can't use the "different time" with regard to the actions of Muhammad given his role in the religion. He wasn't just a warrior, he was a warlord. And with the hadith every time a moral situation crops up, his advice is the opposite of what is moral. As an example is the case where his warriors wanted to r*pe their captives, but some hesitated because many of the women they had captured were married. Then an ayat was "revealed" to him saying that slave women were fair game even if they were married.

Fervent said:

.He wasn't just a warrior, he was a warlord.

Click to expand...

Muhammad was undoubtedly a warrior.

Fervent said:

And with the hadith every time a moral situation crops up, his advice is the opposite of what is moral.

Click to expand...

Can you provide a few examples that you believe show the opposite of what is moral besides the one you already gave?

Fervent said:

As an example is the case where his warriors wanted to r*pe their captives, but some hesitated because many of the women they had captured were married. Then an ayat was "revealed" to him saying that slave women were fair game even if they were married.

Click to expand...

Again, you have to view Islamic texts through a historical lens. Sexual use of slaves acquired through warfare was a widespread practice among all cultures in the 7th century, even in the Christian Byzantine Empire, where Roman law was followed. What we see as unacceptable today was the cultural norm then.

I assume this is what you are refering to:

Reference: Sahih Muslim 1456a
In-book reference: Book 17, Hadith 41
USC-MSA web (English) reference: Book 8, Hadith 3432

Chapter: It is permissible to have intercourse with a female captive after it is established that she is not pregnant, and if she has a husband, then her marriage is annulled when she is captured.

Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (Allah her pleased with him) reported that at the Battle of Hanain Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah's Messenger (may peace te upon him) seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that:

" And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (iv. 24)" (i. e. they were lawful for them when their 'Idda period came to an end).


Roman law allowed sexual relationships with slaves without consent, waiting periods, or consequences, unlike Islamic law, which required accountability. In the case of the hadith above, a waiting period was required to prevent acts of adultery and to ensure that the woman was not already pregnant to prevent any confusion over lineage. The child of a slave woman would be born free from slavery and could have inheritance rights of the father if the woman wasn't already pregnant at the time of capture. Under Roman law at the time, adultery wasn't considered a factor, and a child born of a slave had no rights and became a slave regardless of who the father is.

JosephZ said:

Muhammad was undoubtedly a warrior.

Click to expand...

Not just a warrior, a warlord

JosephZ said:

Can you provide a few examples that show the opposite of what is moral besides the one you already gave?

Click to expand...

The torturing of Kinana, the beheading of the majority of the Meccan leaders and the acceptance of the head of Mecca's conversion at the threat of beheading, the betrayal of the Medina jews by abrogating the treaty he had with them, the renunciation of his adopted son so he could marry his wife...I could go on.

JosephZ said:

Again, you have to view Islamic texts through a historical lens. Sexual use of slaves acquired through warfare was a widespread practice among all cultures in the 7th century, even in the Christian Byzantine Empire, where Roman law was followed. What we see as unacceptable today was the cultural norm then.

Click to expand...

We can't view it through a historical lens, because the koran and sunnah are meant to be timeless truths with Muhammad as the best of humanity. The way he and his compatriots behaved is supposed to be the pinnacle of humanity. What they engaged in is meant to be the gold standard, so claiming thats just how things were historically doesn't wash.

Fervent said:

We can't view it through a historical lens,

Click to expand...

Why not? Muslims do.

JosephZ said:

Why not? Muslims do.

Click to expand...

How could he be the model for all of humanity if he has to be whitewashed through claiming he is a product of historical circumstance?

Fervent said:

Not just a warrior, a warlord

Click to expand...

Most historians would disagree.

Fervent said:

How could he be the model for all of humanity if he has to be whitewashed through claiming he is a product of historical circumstance?

Click to expand...

According to Islamic teachings, Muslims are to emulate Muhammad's character traits like honesty, compassion, and humility and his ethical principles. They don't have to whitewash Muhammad's actions as a warrior, because Muslims understand the historical context in which the Qur'an was written. They see his actions as a warrior to have been appropriate for situations Muslims faced in the 7th century and not as mandates for Muslims to follow in 2025.

Fervent said:

The way he and his compatriots behaved is supposed to be the pinnacle of humanity. What they engaged in is meant to be the gold standard, so claiming thats just how things were historically doesn't wash.

Click to expand...

It's important not to dismiss or ignore the historical context and circumstances surrounding the creation of any religious texts. Ignoring the intended audience, cultural norms, and historical events surrounding them will always lead to misinterpretation. I find it odd that someone with a Masters of Divinity like yourself would disregard the importance of historical context, knowing how crucial it is for accurate interpretation of religious texts.

JosephZ said:

Most historians would disagree.

Click to expand...

Based on what?

JosephZ said:

According to Islamic teachings, Muslims are to emulate Muhammad's character traits like honesty, compassion, and humility and his ethical principles. They don't have to whitewash Muhammad's actions as a warrior, because Muslims understand the historical context in which the Qur'an was written. They see his actions as a warrior to have been appropriate for situations Muslims faced in the 7th century and not as mandates for Muslims to follow in 2025.

Click to expand...

So 'honesty" like intentionally entering into contracts and then voiding them the minute it is expedient? humility, like putting his name into the defining creed? And what historical circumstances excuse r*pe , slavery, pedophilia, sex slavery, bigamy, and on an on?

JosephZ said:

It's important not to dismiss or ignore the historical context and circumstances surrounding the creation of any religious texts. Ignoring the intended audience, cultural norms, and historical events surrounding them will always lead to misinterpretation. I find it odd that someone with a Masters of Divinity like yourself would disregard the importance of historical context, knowing how crucial it is for accurate interpretation of religious texts.

Click to expand...

Excusing the aggression and immoral conduct Muhammad engaged in because of "historical cirumstances" is just making an excuse, and a rather weak one at that.

Fervent said:

Based on what?

Click to expand...

The available historical accounts of Muhammad.

Fervent said:

The torturing of Kinana, the beheading of the majority of the Meccan leaders and the acceptance of the head of Mecca's conversion at the threat of beheading, the betrayal of the Medina jews by abrogating the treaty he had with them, the renunciation of his adopted son so he could marry his wife...I could go on.

Click to expand...

Fervent said:

So 'honesty" like intentionally entering into contracts and then voiding them the minute it is expedient? humility, like putting his name into the defining creed? And what historical circumstances excuse r*pe , slavery, pedophilia, sex slavery, bigamy, and on an on?

Excusing the aggression and immoral conduct Muhammad engaged in because of "historical cirumstances" is just making an excuse, and a rather weak one at that.

Click to expand...

Again, it's important to remember that what we may consider today to be aggressive and immoral conduct, such as tribal warfare, slavery, sex with slaves, and harsh punishments like beheadings, would have been the cultural norm and practiced among adherents of all three Abrahamic religions and others in the 7th century. Nothing Muhammad did would have been seen as unusual at that point in history. That's not excusing it, that's just reality.

What sources are you using to learn about Muhammad and the teachings of Islam? The reason I ask is because much of what you have posted doesn't align with what Islam teaches and the historical accounts of Muhammad.

JosephZ said:

The available historical accounts of Muhammad.

Click to expand...

Have you read the sira or the hadith? Because they very clearly paint Muhmmad as a warlord, and the early commentators like Tabari and Talib take the violence as a point of pride. It's only when confronted with modern western values that his violence is whitewashed.

JosephZ said:

Again, it's important to remember that what we may consider today to be aggressive and immoral conduct, such as tribal warfare, slavery, sex with slaves, and harsh punishments like beheadings, would have been the cultural norm and practiced among adherents of all three Abrahamic religions and others in the 7th century. Nothing Muhammad did would have been seen as unusual at that point in history. That's not excusing it, that's just reality.

Click to expand...

There's no excusing the "excellent exemplar" for being a product of his times. Either his conduct is the pattern to be followed, and modern sentiments are incorrect, or modern sentiments are correct and he was a moral monster.

JosephZ said:

What sources are you using to learn about Muhammad and the teachings of Islam? The reason I ask is because much of what you have posted doesn't align with what Islam teaches and the historical accounts of Muhammad.

Click to expand...

Sahih al bukhari, sahih muslim, ibn ishaq, ibn tabari, ibn Hisham...which claim do you want me to show the source for?

Fervent said:

Have you read the sira or the hadith?

Click to expand...

I have spent well over a decade of my life immersed in Islamic culture. My knowledge on this subject comes from taking several courses in Islamic Studies from various schools of thought spread out over a period of almost four decades, living and working among Muslims in different parts of the world, and being a missionary to Muslims for the past 13+ years. There are multiple sirahs and Hadiths; I have not read or studied every single one of them in detail.

Fervent said:

Sahih al bukhari, sahih muslim, ibn ishaq, ibn tabari, ibn Hisham...which claim do you want me to show the source for?

Click to expand...

Great! Those are some of the sources I was hoping you would provide. Since you are using the exact same sources that Muslims use, why don't Muslims consider Muhammad to be a Warlord as you do? Why are 99.99% of the estimated 2 billion Muslims in the world not engaging in violent jihad? Muslims have access to the same exact sources that you do, yet they are coming away with a completely different intrepretation and understanding of their religion than you are.

Earlier in the thread you mentioned that this was because most Muslims aren't particularly religious or have never read any of their religious texts in a language they understand, but a large percentage of Muslims are deeply religious, have attended madrasas where they study the Qur'an, Hadith, and other Islamic texts, and many have read and studied these Islamic texts in their native language. While an exact number is impossible to determine, even if only 1 in 4 Muslims are knowledgeable of their religion, that would be around 500 million Muslims. Why are fewer than 1% of these knowledgeable Muslims practicing violent jihad?

If Islam taught and was anything like what you posted in this thread, the entire world would be in chaos, Islam would be looked upon the same as Nazism rather than praised by historians and world leaders as one of the world's great religions, few if any people would voluntarily become a Muslim, and it certainly wouldn't be the second largest religion in the world today with close to 2 billion followers.

JosephZ said:

I have spent well over a decade of my life immersed in Islamic culture. My knowledge on this subject comes from taking several courses in Islamic Studies from various schools of thought spread out over a period of almost four decades, living and working among Muslims in different parts of the world, and being a missionary to Muslims for the past 13+ years. There are multiple sirahs and Hadiths; I have not read or studied every single one of them in detail.

Click to expand...

Are you aware of the doctrine of dar al-harb and dar al-Islam? Or taqiyya? If you aren't, I'd suggest you read up on it.

JosephZ said:

Great! Those are some of the sources I was hoping you would provide. Since you are using the exact same sources that Muslims use, why don't Muslims consider Muhammad to be a Warlord as you do? Why are 99.99% of the estimated 2 billion Muslims in the world not engaging in violent jihad? Muslims have access to the same exact sources that you do, yet they are coming away with a completely different intrepretation and understanding of their religion than you are.

Click to expand...

There's a playbook, the behavior and teachings depend on the population. When they are few in number, Medina verses are heavily emphasized. These are the ones like "you have your religion, I have my religion" As they grow in numbers, they shift to the Meccan verses "slaughter the pagans" sort of verses.

JosephZ said:

Earlier in the thread you mentioned that this was because most Muslims aren't particularly religious or have never read any of their religious texts in a language they understand, but a large percentage of Muslims are deeply religious, have attended madrasas where they study the Qur'an, Hadith, and other Islamic texts, and many have read and studied these Islamic texts in their native language. While an exact number is impossible to determine, even if only 1 in 4 Muslims are knowledgeable of their religion, that would be around 500 million Muslims. Why are fewer than 1% of these knowledgeable Muslims practicing violent jihad?

Click to expand...

What makes you think it is only 1%? Are you aware of where the Zakat goes? Who do you think funds the ones who actually engage in violent jihad?

JosephZ said:

If Islam taught and was anything like what you posted in this thread, the entire world would be in chaos, Islam would be looked upon the same as Nazism rather than praised by historians and world leaders as one of the world's great religions, few if any people would voluntarily become a Muslim, and it certainly wouldn't be the second largest religion in the world today with close to 2 billion followers.

Click to expand...

You keep mentioning 2 billion followers, and seem to be ignoring the political landscape of the majority muslim world. Why do you think there are so many Islamic refugees?

Fervent said:

Are you aware of the doctrine of dar al-harb and dar al-Islam? Or taqiyya? If you aren't, I'd suggest you read up on it.

When they are few in number, Medina verses are heavily emphasized. These are the ones like "you have your religion, I have my religion" As they grow in numbers, they shift to the Meccan verses "slaughter the pagans" sort of verses.

Click to expand...

I'm aware of everything you mentioned here, and you bringing these specific subjects up as an attempt to show that Islam teaches intolerance and violence proves that you didn't learn about Islam from the sources you mentioned earlier.

Fervent said:

the doctrine of dar al-harb and dar al-Islam

Click to expand...

In very simple terms, Dar al Islam (House of Islam) historically was a Muslim land with a Muslim government where Islamic law governed. Dar al Harb (House of War) was a land not under an Islamic government or Islamic law, which was openly hostile towards Muslims. Since there are no countries that fit these definitions today, the terms are rarely used by Muslims, with the exception being primarily Islamic extremist groups to justify their actions.

Fervent said:

taqiyya

Click to expand...

Let's take a look at what the Qur'an says about taqiyya.

First off, the word taqiyya isn't found anywhere in the Qur'an, But here is the definition:

Takiya (taqiyyah, taqiyya); “The principle of dissimulation of one’s religious beliefs in order to avoid persecution or imminent harm, where no useful purpose would be served by publicly affirming them.”

That definition is very specific as to when a lie is permissible.

Below is the ONLY verse found in the Qur'an that mentions lying as being acceptable and even then it is better to choose death rather than to lie as the hadith below it states:

"As for anyone who denies God after having once attained to faith - and this, to be sure, does not apply to one who does it under duress, the while his heart remains true to his faith, but only, to him who willingly opens up his heart to a denial of the truth upon all such falls God's condemnation, and tremendous suffering awaits them" (Qur'an 16:106)

"There is a consensus that whomsoever is forced into apostasy and chooses death has a greater reward than a person who takes the license to deny one's faith under duress, but if a person is being forced to eat pork or drink wine, then they should do that instead of choosing death." (Sahih al-Bukhari)

This following hadith makes it clear that lying is forbidden:

"Avoid falsehood, for falsehood leads to wickedness, and wickedness to Hell; and if a man continues to speak falsehood and makes falsehood his object, he will be recorded in God's presence as a great liar. And adhere to the truth, for truth leads to good deeds, and good deeds lead to Paradise. If a man continues to speak the truth and makes truth his object, he will be recorded in God's presence as eminently truthful." (Sunan Abu Dawood vol. 3, no. 4971)

So as you can see a Muslim is only permitted to lie about one’s religious beliefs in order to avoid persecution, imminent harm or death. In all other cases lying is forbidden and will lead to condemnation.

The following hadith says it is one of the greatest of sins.

"Beware I inform you regarding the greatest of the mortal sins: Associating anything with Allah, disobeying parents and lying!" (Wasaelush Shia)

So based on the above, what do you thing the average Muslim's position would be on lying?

Fervent said:

There's a playbook, the behavior and teachings depend on the population. When they are few in number, Medina verses are heavily emphasized. These are the ones like "you have your religion, I have my religion" As they grow in numbers, they shift to the Meccan verses "slaughter the pagans" sort of verses.

Click to expand...

You can't take single verses from the Qur'an and apply them without including the surrounding verses and the historical and cultural context they were written in, as I mentioned earlier. The verses were revealed during specific battles that took place around 1400 years ago and are not applicable to Muslims living today. There's also not a single verse in the Qur'an that calls for the killing of non-Muslims simply for being non-Muslims. I'll provide a couple examples of what you would call "'slaughter the pagans' sort of verses" to show this below:

Qur'an 2:191: "And kill them wherever you find them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you... kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers."

The historical context behind Qur'an 2:191 and its surrounding verses came after the followers of Muhammad were forced to Migrate from Mecca to Medina due to persecution from the Meccan idolaters leaving everything behind in the process. These verses were instructions to Muhammad's followers telling them that it's permissible to fight back, not just to reclaim what they had lost, but to also insure that the Meccan idolaters could never oppress others in the future.

And fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not commit aggression; God does not love the aggressors.

And kill them wherever you find them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and persecution is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.

And if they cease, then indeed, God is Forgiving and Merciful.

Fight them until there is no more persecution and until worship is acknowledged to be for God . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors. (Quran 2: 190–193)

These instructions were self-defensive and restrictive in nature and clearly don't advocate the killing of non-Muslims simply for the act of disbelief.


Qur'an 9:5: "kill the polytheists wherever you find them and take them prisoners, and beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush."

Verse 9:5 was also revealed to address particular groups of people and their relationship with the Muslims at that time. Qur'an 9 starts by saying "A declaration of immunity from God and His Messenger to the polytheists with whom you had made a treaty." This was addressed to Quraysh who broke the terms of treaty that was made between Muhammad, representing the state of Medina, and the Quraysh tribe in Mecca in March 628 AD.

The verse in Chapter 9 where it says "Once the sacred months have passed kill the polytheists wherever you find them" is referring to a very specific group of non-Muslims, the Quraysh which Muhammad had made a treaty with. It's not talking about all non-Muslims.

At the beginning of Chapter 9 we can see which polytheists are being talked about.

1. A declaration of immunity from God and His Messenger to the polytheists [the Quraysh] with whom you had made a treaty.

4. Except for those among the polytheists with whom you had made a treaty, and did not violate any of its terms, nor aided anyone against you. So fulfill the treaty with them to the end of its term. God loves the righteous.

As seen in these two verses, it's not talking about all polytheists. Since verse 4 says "Except for those among the polytheists with whom you had made a treaty, and did not violate any of its terms, nor aided anyone against you," then this automatically tells us that some of the polytheists have broken their treaties.

7. How can there be a treaty with the polytheists on the part of God and His Messenger, except for those with whom you made a treaty at the Sacred Mosque? As long as they are upright with you, be upright with them. God loves the pious.

8. How? Whenever they [the Quraysh] overcome you, they respect neither kinship nor treaty with you. They satisfy you with lip service, but their hearts refuse, and most of them are immoral.

10. Towards a believer they respect neither kinship nor treaty. These are the transgressors.

In the above verses we again see a distinction between polytheists, Those who upheld their treaties (Verse 7) and those who didn't respect their treaties (Verses 8 & 9). Those who didn't keep their treaties are the transgressors.

13. Will you not fight a people who violated their oaths, and planned to exile the Messenger, and initiated hostilities against you? Do you fear them? It is God you should fear, if you are believers.

The above question wouldn't have been asked had there not been polytheists who had already broken their treaty. So when you read verse 5:

When the Sacred Months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them. And capture them, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayers, and pay the alms, then let them go their way. God is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful.

When it says "Once the sacred months have passed kill the polytheists wherever you find them," it's obvious that it's only talking about those who have already broken their treaties, the Quraysh, and not all polytheists.

When you take verse 5 out of context it sounds like a command to kill all non-Muslims:

9:5 kill the polytheists wherever you find them and take them prisoners, and beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush.

But with the added context, it's clear that it's not saying that at all. It also becomes clear that Qur'an 9:5 is not a command for Muslims living in 2025.

Fervent said:

What makes you think it is only 1%?

Click to expand...

Simple math. In 2021, 580,000 people in the world died violently. This includes conflict deaths, intentional homicides, and killings during legal interventions. If every violent death in 2021 came at the hands of a Muslim, they would represent only 0.025% of the Muslim population. Also, if you add up all the members of ISIS, al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Hamas, Jemaah Islamiya, and even the lesser-known groups like Gama’a al-Islamiyya and Jaysh Rijal Al-Tariq Al-Naqshabandi from the US Department of State Country Reports on Terrorism 2023, there are less than 1,000,000 known Islamic terrorists in the world. Even if you double that number to 2,000,000 just to be sure every single terrorist is counted, like lone wolves, etc., it would only add up to 0.1% of the Muslim population. To reach 1%, there would need to be 20 million violent jihadists.

Using common sense, if less than 1% of the followers of Islam are engaging in violence, then this must not be what Islam teaches.

Fervent said:

Are you aware of where the Zakat goes?

Click to expand...

Where do you think it goes?

Fervent said:

Who do you think funds the ones who actually engage in violent jihad?

Click to expand...

Based in The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Comprehensive Update on Terrorist Financing Risks, most lone wolf actors are self funded. Large terrorist groups rely on a mix of state sponsorship, illegal activities, and donations, and smaller ones through criminal activities like kidnapping, piracy, and extortion. Private donations only account for between 10-30% of the funding and these donations mainly go to long established terror groups like Hamas.

Fervent said:

You keep mentioning 2 billion followers, and seem to be ignoring the political landscape of the majority muslim world. Why do you think there are so many Islamic refugees?

Click to expand...

War and conflict are the primary factors.