Basic questions about Islam

[smaneck]

One source says the "verse" of the Qur'an about cutting off heads is

Qur'an 8:12 which is claimed to say >

"When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them."

And one writer claims this means for battle, as a measure psychological to scare an enemy away from aggressing against Muslims who have not started the fight . . . if I understand the writer right

Not exactly. This is reference to the Battle of Badr where Muslims were hopelessly outnumbered and yet still they were victorious. What the verse is saying is that God called upon the angels to help the Muslims. It is these angels, not people who are being told to chop off people's heads.

And, to go with this, I understand that certain if not all Muslims consider Arabic land to be their divine land to be defended at all costs.

The only part of Arab territory which is considered holy is the hijaz which is the area right around Mecca and Medina. But of course, Arabs don't like imperialism anymore than anyone else. And Israel to them is the result of Western imperialism.

So, this could motivate ISIS people to seek to have Arabic land where there is only Sharia law.

They got a weird definition of the shariah.

And, since they could consider other activity on their divine land to be blasphemous, they could readily consider non-Sharia behavior to be an aggressive occupation of their divine land > and therefore to be "dis"-belief, aggressive by having what ISIS considers to be anti-Qur'anic. What I mean is I can see that they could see it that way.

You'd be seeing it wrong because the shariah demands that religious minorities living in Islamic lands be protected.

Therefore, anyone, I would say, is capable of justifying whatever we want to be true, which suits our purpose. ISIS has not started some new thing that was not in history done by certain Americans and others in past history!

That much is true. The fact of the matter is we all live on the edge of barbarism.

Ones might argue that America needed land for people to live on, so they could survive; and so it was justified to move out the "Indians". But, then, it could also be justified that Muslims and Central Americans are fine to move into the United States, without permission, even, if that was justifiable for Europeans to do with the tribal peoples. I "think" I will trust God in His all-control to decide

Nearly all Muslims who immigrate to America do so legally. Hispanics, of course, are another question. But if we didn't give them jobs, they would not come.

 

[smaneck]

Here is another basic question: why should Muslims be hostile to non-Muslims, so that they should either be converted to Muslims or be conquered or killed? Yes, I do mean "kill". I guess not only there should be verses in Quran for that, but it could be a fundamental teaching in Islam. This attitude is not passive (defense), but is active (offense). This troubled me a lot.

They should not be. As has been pointed out, Muslims are only authorized to fight when their religious community is being persecuted, exiled and attacked.

 

[juvenissun]

They should not be. As has been pointed out, Muslims are only authorized to fight when their religious community is being persecuted, exiled and attacked.

OK. Assume all you said are true. Then explain this:

Why are Muslims the dominant group of people who caused much more violences and killings in this world today? Why not Buddhists? Is this partially originated from a comparatively more violent nature of the Islamic doctrine? All major religions like to spread all over the world. But it seems only Islam which includes the methods of conquer, enslave, and kill in its doctrine.

Any religion could be misunderstood and misused to support violence. Why is it more easily happened in Islam?

My interpretation is: In Quran, there are more verses phrased like: "you should kill, IF .....". And people misused it by only read the first part, and misinterpret the second part of the teaching. That is a mistake. But this type of mistake happened among Muslims much more easily than people in other religions (Judaism, Buddhism and Christian). The Islamic doctrine is much easier to makes Muslims misinterpret the message. Hence, it also suggests that Islam is a more violent type of religion.

 

[LoAmmi]

Why are Muslims the dominant group of people who caused much more violences and killings in this world today? Why not Buddhists? Is this partially originated from a comparatively more violent nature of the Islamic doctrine? All major religions like to spread all over the world. But it seems only Islam which includes the methods of conquer, enslave, and kill in its doctrine.

I would honestly assume the same reason that Christians were the dominant group of people who caused much violence and death in the Middle Ages. Why do you suppose Christians did it back then?

 

[smaneck]

OK. Assume all you said are true. Then explain this:

Why are Muslims the dominant group of people who caused much more violences and killings in this world today?

I think it is largely a consequence of the chaos and disruption that resulted in Western Imperialism. Africa is having the same sort of problems whether the nations are Muslim or Christian. Do you remember Rwanda. There is a book on this that I think applies. It is entitled "When Victims become Killers."

Why not Buddhists?

In Burma Buddhists are violently aggressive. But other Buddhists countries are prosperous. People who are prosperous are less desperate.

Is this partially originated from a comparatively more violent nature of the Islamic doctrine?

No.

All major religions like to spread all over the world. But it seems only Islam which includes the methods of conquer, enslave, and kill in its doctrine.

Islam doesn't include any methods of conquest, although Muslim people have certainly conquered as have Christians. Enslaving is likewise not part of Islamic 'doctrine' although like the Bible, the Qur'an allows slavery. We've already discussed the circumstances where killing is allowed, so I won't belabor that point.

Any religion could be misunderstood and misused to support violence. Why is it more easily happened in Islam?

It didn't. Christianity has historically done more than this. It is only after the bloody wars of religion in the 16th 17th century which finally got the West sick and tired of fighting over religion. Islam's day will come.

My interpretation is: In Quran, there are more verses phrased like: "you should kill, IF ....."

Maybe than the New Testament by not more than the Bible as a whole.

.

The Islamic doctrine is much easier to makes Muslims misinterpret the message. Hence, it also suggests that Islam is a more violent type of religion.

Except there has been more killing done in the name of Christianity than in Islam, historically speaking.

 

[com7fy8]

About if Islam is inherently more violent than Christianity and Buddhism and Hinduism - - like was said, there was the time when certain European church people used some pretty nasty methods to promote and enforce their religion.

But now it seems that secular authority people have enough power to limit religious ones who claim to be Christian and might use force and fear and torture and murder. So, tyrannical religious leaders now might act like they want "peace" and beg the seculars to use military power in certain situations. So, the secular military, which can be quite barbaric and imperialistic, can somehow more or less serve certain religious people's purpose, so that the religion does not get blamed.

For only one example, I would say a number of religious people favored and promoted the conquest of Iraq, by the United States; and the military killed a lot of noncombatants . . . not exactly what I would call civil. But in the U.S. churches I heard only or mostly about "our soldiers" and not much if at all about the Iraqis . . . even though Jesus wants us to love any and all people, including our enemies.

But it was "God bless America", and not a sign about blessing the Iraqis and loving them as ourselves. So, we need the blessing of much correction to find out how to love!

I think religious people do what suits their purpose, at the time, then.

And I would say there always are psychopaths ready to go, in any situation. So, like in Germany, if someone nasty rises up, there are psychos ready to go so serve as S.S. people or whatever in some other situation.

"Even" David might have had this to deal with > 1 Samuel 30 > after the Jews with David had a great military victory, certain nasty ones wanted to take things the wrong way; they were ready to go with bad leadership if David was.

So, in any situation and culture, I think there are the ones ready to go if it suits their purpose and they think they can get away with it.

 

[juvenissun]

I would honestly assume the same reason that Christians were the dominant group of people who caused much violence and death in the Middle Ages. Why do you suppose Christians did it back then?

I am talking about NOW. I am not a historian. I only know NOW better. Why should NOW be different from then?

 

[juvenissun]

I think it is largely a consequence of the chaos and disruption that resulted in Western Imperialism. Africa is having the same sort of problems whether the nations are Muslim or Christian. Do you remember Rwanda. There is a book on this that I think applies. It is entitled "When Victims become Killers."

In Burma Buddhists are violently aggressive. But other Buddhists countries are prosperous. People who are prosperous are less desperate.

No.

Islam doesn't include any methods of conquest, although Muslim people have certainly conquered as have Christians. Enslaving is likewise not part of Islamic 'doctrine' although like the Bible, the Qur'an allows slavery. We've already discussed the circumstances where killing is allowed, so I won't belabor that point.

It didn't. Christianity has historically done more than this. It is only after the bloody wars of religion in the 16th 17th century which finally got the West sick and tired of fighting over religion. Islam's day will come.

Maybe than the New Testament by not more than the Bible as a whole.

Except there has been more killing done in the name of Christianity than in Islam, historically speaking.

Historical facts are full of human mistakes and misinterpretations. They should not be used to illustrate the nature of religious doctrine.

Why is the Islamic "terrorism" such a big issue today? Was there any event of Christian "terrorism" happened in Islamic countries? What makes the difference? Why don't fanatic Europeans or Americans go to Iran and be suicide bombers to explode people up there? I have never heard a single case like that. But there were hundreds of fanatic Islamic suicide bombers or killers. What makes the difference?

One of the reasons is most likely on the difference in the religious doctrine. Please do not use other reasons, even they may be true, to dilute or even disguise this particular difference. I am not interested in history or politics. I am interested in the Islamic doctrine or theology.

 

[juvenissun]

So, in any situation and culture, I think there are the ones ready to go if it suits their purpose and they think they can get away with it.

Sure, that is a human nature.
But why are there more Muslims than Christians? Have you heard any Christian suicide bomber at anywhere? Why not?
Why were there dozens of fanatic Muslims hit US cities with planes, but there is not a single airplane tried to hit the palace of Ayatollah at Tehran? What makes Muslims more likely to do this kind of thing? At the final moment of killing, why do Muslim killers desperately call the name of Allah, but Christians almost never call the name of Jesus in such an occasion? Don't tell me there is no religious factor involved in this. Muslims kill in the name of Allah. Buddhists do not kill in the name of Buddha. And Christian never kill in the name of Jesus.

 

[LoAmmi]

I am talking about NOW. I am not a historian. I only know NOW better. Why should NOW be different from then?

Denial of history doesn't make it go away.

 

[smaneck]

Historical facts are full of human mistakes and misinterpretations. They should not be used to illustrate the nature of religious doctrine.

The present is full of human mistakes and misinterpretations as well. There is no essentialist 'nature of religious doctrine.' People define doctrine in dialogue with their scriptures, and it therefore changes with the people involved.

Why is the Islamic "terrorism" such a big issue today? Was there any event of Christian "terrorism" happened in Islamic countries?

Well, there was the Crusades. "Crusader" or Firangi is the common name for Westerners and don't forget that after WWI European powers divided the Middle East between themselves. The entire 19th century and half of the twentieth century nearly the entire Middle East was occupied by Europeans, both Christian and Jewish.

What makes the difference? Why don't fanatic Europeans or Americans go to Iran and be suicide bombers to explode people up there?

We find drones and aerial bombing much more effective. They don't have those things. They are trying to inflict the maximum damage with far fewer resources.

One of the reasons is most likely on the difference in the religious doctrine.

Nope, sorry. There is absolutely nothing in the Qur'an, ahadith or the Shariah that allows for suicide or the deliberate targeting of non-combatants. In fact both of those things are explicitly forbidden. The targeting of non-combatants is something they borrowed from Western Total War theories.

Please do not use other reasons, even they may be true, to dilute or even disguise this particular difference. . I am not interested in history or politics. I am interested in the Islamic doctrine or theology.

So you've already made up your mind and don't want it to be confused by the facts?

 

[smaneck]

I am talking about NOW. I am not a historian. I only know NOW better. Why should NOW be different from then?

If you are talking about current events then look at the current political situation instead of religious doctrines that existed centuries ago.

 

[juvenissun]

So you've already made up your mind and don't want it to be confused by the facts?

It is only my suspicions. What I want is to see if the text of Quran that actually show that. I know it is there. I just like to read it.

Unfortunately, what you quoted me is significantly less than what Christians who converted from Islam have said. I understand what you quoted and said, and I agree with you. But I do think there are more on what you didn't say, because I have heard of them.

 

[juvenissun]

If you are talking about current events then look at the current political situation instead of religious doctrines that existed centuries ago.

That is where all the misunderstanding started. Social and political situations are made by human and they DO NOT really show what the religion truly is. Human misinterpret Scriptures. So we can not read the news and understand the religion. That is why I posted the OP here. I want to hear from people who understand Quran. You obviously do. But you only give me one side of the story which can not explain the behaviors of people who believed in it. There must be teachings on the other side, so they do what what they did.

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

What you explained about the veil and niqab is fine. It is another issue.
What disturbs me is the Sura 2.191. Why should an unbelievers deserve a death in Islam? What is the exact wording of Sura 2.191?

If a faithful Muslim obey what Sura 2.191 said and killed a Buddhist, Is there any teaching in Islam which can be used to criminalize him?

Trust me, if Surah 2:191 said that all disbelievers must be killed, there would be a whole lot less non-Muslims today.

Again, if an unfaithful person is going to the hell anyway, why would Allah want to tell a Muslim to kill that bad person?
What is the difference in Islam if an unfaithful lived 30 years or 60 years on the earth?
Noticed that the unfaithful may not be a bad person who does evil things. He just does not believe in Allah.

1.) Shirk is the gravest sin in Islaam and the only unforgivable one if one dies without repenting from it after the message of Islaam had reached him/her.

2.) Just copy & pasting this from another post of mine:

Ibn al Qayyim said,

"Killing is only obligatory when facing warfare and armed combat not when facing kufr (disbelief). For this reason, neither women are to be killed nor children, or the elderly, nor the blind nor those worshippers who do not fight, rather we fight against those who fight us. This was the way of the Messenger of Allaah in dealing with the people of the earth, he used to fight those who fought against him until they either entered into the deen, make an agreement or treaty with him or came under his authority via paying the jizya. This is what he used to instruct his armies if they fought against their enemies, as has preceded from the Hadeeth of Buraydah". ("Ahkaam ahl adh-Dhimmah", Vol 1, Page 17).

One of our earliest caliphs ('Umar ibn Abdul Aziz) said,
About the saying of Allaah: "Fight in the way of Allaah against those who fight you and do not trangress the limits. Indeed, Allaah does not love those who trangress". (Qur'an 2:190). The killing of women and children is included within this, and so are those who are not involved in warfare". ("An Nawaadir wa'z-Ziyaadaat", Vol 3, Page 57).

Ibn Katheer wrote in his exegesis for verse 2:190 of the Qur'aan:

This Ayah means, `Fight for the sake of Allah and do not be transgressors,' such as, by committing prohibitions. Al-Hasan Al-Basri stated that transgression (indicated by the Ayah), "includes mutilating the dead, theft (from the captured goods), killing women, children and old people who do not participate in warfare, killing priests and residents of houses of worship, burning down trees and killing animals without real benefit.'' This is also the opinion of Ibn `Abbas, `Umar bin `Abdul-`Aziz, Muqatil bin Hayyan and others.

 

[juvenissun]

Trust me, if Surah 2:191 said that all disbelievers must be killed, there would be a whole lot less non-Muslims today.



1.) Shirk is the gravest sin in Islaam and the only unforgivable one if one dies without repenting from it after the message of Islaam had reached him/her.

2.) Just copy & pasting this from another post of mine:

Ibn al Qayyim said,

"Killing is only obligatory when facing warfare and armed combat not when facing kufr (disbelief). For this reason, neither women are to be killed nor children, or the elderly, nor the blind nor those worshippers who do not fight, rather we fight against those who fight us. This was the way of the Messenger of Allaah in dealing with the people of the earth, he used to fight those who fought against him until they either entered into the deen, make an agreement or treaty with him or came under his authority via paying the jizya. This is what he used to instruct his armies if they fought against their enemies, as has preceded from the Hadeeth of Buraydah". ("Ahkaam ahl adh-Dhimmah", Vol 1, Page 17).

One of our earliest caliphs ('Umar ibn Abdul Aziz) said,
About the saying of Allaah: "Fight in the way of Allaah against those who fight you and do not trangress the limits. Indeed, Allaah does not love those who trangress". (Qur'an 2:190). The killing of women and children is included within this, and so are those who are not involved in warfare". ("An Nawaadir wa'z-Ziyaadaat", Vol 3, Page 57).

Ibn Katheer wrote in his exegesis for verse 2:190 of the Qur'aan:

This Ayah means, `Fight for the sake of Allah and do not be transgressors,' such as, by committing prohibitions. Al-Hasan Al-Basri stated that transgression (indicated by the Ayah), "includes mutilating the dead, theft (from the captured goods), killing women, children and old people who do not participate in warfare, killing priests and residents of houses of worship, burning down trees and killing animals without real benefit.'' This is also the opinion of Ibn `Abbas, `Umar bin `Abdul-`Aziz, Muqatil bin Hayyan and others.

Do you think Islam teaches and encourages people to fight more often and more strongly than other religions do?

If I committed some crimes in a non-Islamic country, I may be put into jail. But if I committed the same crime in a Muslim country, I may pay for it by losing some of my body parts. Does this difference illustrates the violent nature of Islam?

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

Do you think Islam teaches and encourages people to fight more often and more strongly than other religions do?

If I committed some crimes in a non-Islamic country, I may be put into jail. But if I committed the same crime in a Muslim country, I may pay for it by losing some of my body parts. Does this difference illustrates the violent nature of Islam?

Firstly, do you acknowledge that Islaam doesn't tell Muslims to kill all disbelievers for disbelieving?

As for your question, nope, my religious texts never mention any commandment for us to commit genocide while your religious texts do. What Islaam has are guidelines for war since Islaam is a way of life. I think Christianity would have benefited from such guidelines since I don't think total pacifism in all circumstances was very practical judging by how bloody Christian history has been against innocents.

Islaamic rules of war include not intentionally targeting non-combatants (the quote in my previous post by al-Hasan al-Basri mentions some types specifically), abiding by treaties/covenants and never breaking them first (i.e. not being treacherous), agreeing to peace if the other side agrees to it also, and to never be unjust and, instead, remove injustice.

 

[smaneck]

Do you think Islam teaches and encourages people to fight more often and more strongly than other religions do?

If I committed some crimes in a non-Islamic country, I may be put into jail. But if I committed the same crime in a Muslim country, I may pay for it by losing some of my body parts. Does this difference illustrates the violent nature of Islam?

What does fighting 'more strongly' mean? Does it mean using a nuclear weapon. Because as of now, only one country has ever done this and it wasn't Muslim. And even if we confine our discussion to the Muslim world, we've killed a hundred times more Muslims than Muslims have killed Americans. So what exactly are we talking about? What I think is true is that Islam does strongly encourage people to resist oppression.

As for Hudud (corporal) punishments, very few Muslim countries impose Hudud punishments and of those which do, most of them don't impose them on non-Muslims. Aside from that, cutting off the hand of a thief applies only to three-time losers. And it doesn't apply at all to those who steal food because they are starving. In many states in the US three-time losers receive a life-sentence with no possibility of parole. I'm betting if you asked them if they would give up their hand to get out, many would say yes.

 

[juvenissun]

Do you think Islam teaches and encourages people to fight more often and more strongly than other religions do?

If I committed some crimes in a non-Islamic country, I may be put into jail. But if I committed the same crime in a Muslim country, I may pay for it by losing some of my body parts. Does this difference illustrates the violent nature of Islam?

Firstly, do you acknowledge that Islaam doesn't tell Muslims to kill all disbelievers for disbelieving?

As for your question, nope, my religious texts never mention any commandment for us to commit genocide while your religious texts do. What Islaam has are guidelines for war since Islaam is a way of life. I think Christianity would have benefited from such guidelines since I don't think total pacifism in all circumstances was very practical judging by how bloody Christian history has been against innocents.

Islaamic rules of war include not intentionally targeting non-combatants (the quote in my previous post by al-Hasan al-Basri mentions some types specifically), abiding by treaties/covenants and never breaking them first (i.e. not being treacherous), agreeing to peace if the other side agrees to it also, and to never be unjust and, instead, remove injustice.

You quoted the rule of war to me. I accept it. So, I can say according to the rule of war, Muslims do not kill everyone in a war.

However, I do not know Quran, so I do not know what does it say somewhere else.

However, you did not answer my question.

Theologically, I have a simple question for you: If a religion is more violent, does that say this religion is a bad one or is a wrong one?

 

[James Is Back]

Mod Hat On

Thread closed for staff review.

Mod Hat Off​