More terrorism uncovered!

[AionPhanes]

Muhammad himself did commit violent acts and lead an army to conquer and destroy. Why would his followers not think that they should do the same?

You seem to be conflating war and terrorism. I'm sure most Muslims do accept some version of just war theory and are not pacifist. Muhammad certainly did respond to attacks with force of arms. His theory of just war might even be problematic. War and terrorism are two different issues though.

 

[AionPhanes]

As I have said before, I don't have any interpretations of anything in the Quran, I have never read it.
You see the Muslims kept a history of their leader Muhammad, that is all I need to know, how Muhammad lived his life, which I have to assume was by Islam and I'm quite sure Muslims would agree.


Well if you can explain to me why the Apostles didn't sell all their belonging, house, boats, and give to the poor you might have an argument for your interpretation of a command given to one young man. If you can explain how Peter could tell Ananias that he could have kept his land if he had chosen to, he didn't have to sell it and give the proceeds to the church, then you may have an argument for your interpretation of one single verse.

Any understanding of a text involves interpretation. If you employed a literal reading of the text then you would come away with a literal interpretation. If you draw any conclusions from what you read that would involve another level of interpretation. Others may claim that a literal hermeneutic isn't called for and would be misleading. Still others might think your undestanding wasn't as literal as you thought it was. Others might reject the very authority of your source for determining Islamic teaching.

You can't magically skip the need for interpretation. You also shouldnt deny Muslims the right to alternate ones

 

[JGG]

Never mind, if I couldn't make myself clear to you in my other posts then I don't care to keep trying. I'm not on a mission.

I am on a mission. I'm trying to make a point. People will characterize Jesus, or any other religious figure in a way that suits their needs, the same way you are characterizing both Jesus and Mohammed to suit your needs.

I have no love for Muhammed, or the Koran, but it stands to reason that if your book takes interpretation, context, nuance, and selective characterizations to get to the conclusion you need it to make, then so does every other holy book.

It's okay if you want me to ignore the characterization of Jesus in Revelation, I'm not particularly fond of that book, I would have done it anyway. But, should we not offer the benefit of the doubt to Muslims as well? Should we not show nuance and and respect context when reading it?

And in who's interest is it to say that True Muslims are terrorists? Does that benefit us? Does it benefit terrorists? Is that the message we want to send to Muslims? You're not a terrorist? Well then you're not following the Koran, or Muhammed properly. Honestly, that's just stupid.

 

[smaneck]

As I have said before, I don't have any interpretations of anything in the Quran, I have never read it.
You see the Muslims kept a history of their leader Muhammad, that is all I need to know, how Muhammad lived his life, which I have to assume was by Islam and I'm quite sure Muslims would agree.

If you haven't read the Qur'an I doubt very much if you have read the dozens of volumes of ahadith which purport to tell you Muhammad's life. And ahadith, were not compiled until centuries after the Prophet's passing and are far less reliable.

 

[smaneck]

Jesus didn't commit violent acts against people.

Against people, huh? I'm guessing you are one of those who came up with that far-fetched notion that Jesus only whipped animals? If so, talk about violence against innocents!

He didn't kill anyone.

No, he didn't kill anyone.

Muhammad did. He and his army did.

That is true. His situation was much closer to Moses than to Jesus. He had a community to protect.

Are you a complete pacifist then?

 

[smaneck]

My understanding of history is different. Mohammad gained power and territory by waging war across a wide range of targets. If you have anything to substantiate your above comment , I'd like to see it.

Here is the justification given for jihad in the Qur'an:

"Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

They believed that if they died in battle for God, they would become martyrs, rewarded for eternity in paradise.

That conclusion is based on the Qur'anic verse "Say not of those who die in the path of God, that they are dead, nay verily they are alive." I'm not sure Christians believe any differently about this.

Those Arab warriors who survived battle benefited from the loot, women, and slaves they captured. The caliph was always entitled to one-fifth of the spoils of war.

And ironically that is precisely the percentage the rulers of Spain demanded of their conquests in America. But I'm not sure what that proves about Muhammad. He didn't establish the Caliphate, the muhajirun did so in direct contradiction of the Prophet's wishes.

In any war, non-combatants die.

That doesn't mean they should be targetted.

In wars of the times, women were often taken.

Yes, they were. The alternative would have likely been to allow them to starve to death.

If you have anything to substantiate your above comment , I'd like to see it.

According to the hadith, these are the rules of engagement in Islam:

"Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone."

 

[smaneck]

And what has that got to do with Jesus' teaching to Christians as to how they are to live their lives on this earth? Or how Jesus, as the Son of Man, lived His life as an example to us? Or how the Apostles lived their lives as an example to us?

Like this?

Then Jesus said to them, “When I sent you out with no money bag, or traveler’s bag, or sandals, you didn’t lack anything, did you?” They replied, “Nothing.” 36 He said to them, “But now, the one who has a money bag must take it, and likewise a traveler’s bag too. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me is being fulfilled.” 38 So they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” Then he told them, “It is enough.” (Luke 22)

 

[smaneck]

What terrorist group was he associated with?

A terrorist is someone who targets non-combatants for political reasons. It matters not whether they are part of a group or a lone wolf.

 

[smaneck]

His theory of just war might even be problematic.

It is virtually identical to St. Augustine's.

 

[smaneck]

I never said that. Please tell me in which post I said that?

You demanded to know the following:

"So if these people who are committing terrorist acts are not Muslims why don't the real Muslims stand up and say that the terrorists are not Muslims? That they are not following their founder Muhammad teachings? Why don't they do that, it would go a long way to help their cause?"

That's certainly infers that you don't believe Muslims are standing up and condemning terrorists when in fact, you couldn't be further from the truth.

What is ISIS doing that Muhammad didn't do?

Muhammad never beheaded anyone for belonging to another religion.

 

[G54]

So you would agree that Christians, like Christ in Revelation, should bring war to unbelievers? Or are you rejecting the characterization of Christ as a warrior in that book?

Never mind, if I couldn't make myself clear to you in my other posts then I don't care to keep trying. I'm not on a mission.

Yep. That's why I gave up. Titus 3:10

 

[Hank77]

Like this?

Then Jesus said to them, “When I sent you out with no money bag, or traveler’s bag, or sandals, you didn’t lack anything, did you?” They replied, “Nothing.” 36 He said to them, “But now, the one who has a money bag must take it, and likewise a traveler’s bag too. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me is being fulfilled.” 38 So they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” Then he told them, “It is enough.” (Luke 22)

So you think that He was telling them to kill people with their swords so that He would be counted with the transgressors?
Isa 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by the knowledge of himself shall my righteous servant justify many; and he shall bear their iniquities.
Isa 53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors: yet he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

He was telling them that He was sending them out on their own, He wouldn't be there to protect them FOR/Because,
He was going to die and die as a criminal, with criminals.

 

[ecco]

Muhammad authorized war against those who persecuted and exiled Muslims.

My understanding of history is different. Mohammad gained power and territory by waging war across a wide range of targets. If you have anything to substantiate your above comment , I'd like to see it.

Here is the justification given for jihad in the Qur'an:

"Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."​

What Muhammad ascribed to Allah and what Muhammad did were not necessarily the same. You quoting a passage from the Koran does not refute history. Muhammad did begin hostilities in order to spread his religion and gain power – repeatedly and often. Your statement... "Muhammad authorized war against those who persecuted and exiled Muslims" is misinformed or misleading.

They believed that if they died in battle for God, they would become martyrs, rewarded for eternity in paradise.

That conclusion is based on the Qur'anic verse "Say not of those who die in the path of God, that they are dead, nay verily they are alive." I'm not sure Christians believe any differently about this.

Many religions do. But that does not detract from the fact that it is part of Islamic beliefs that are stated in more verses than just the one you posted. Dying in the name of god has led to many acts of violence from all religions. It is the most powerful argument one can make - to believers.

Those Arab warriors who survived battle benefited from the loot, women, and slaves they captured. The caliph was always entitled to one-fifth of the spoils of war.

And ironically that is precisely the percentage the rulers of Spain demanded of their conquests in America. But I'm not sure what that proves about Muhammad. He didn't establish the Caliphate, the muhajirun did so in direct contradiction of the Prophet's wishes.

Your response focused on the tribute.

Your response failed to address “warriors who survived battle benefited from the loot, women, and slaves they captured” which was the important part in response to your “He prohibited the targeting of non-combatants including women children and the elderly”.

In any war, non-combatants die.

That doesn't mean they should be targetted.

That distinction isn't really important to those who die. In any case, leaders of wars know there will be “collateral damage”, so in a sense they are targeted.

In wars of the times, women were often taken.

Yes, they were. The alternative would have likely been to allow them to starve to death.

Yeah. I've heard that copout from people defending OT atrocities too.

• Oh my, those poor women will die of starvation. What shall we do?
• Kill the older women. Kill the boys. Rape and enslave the young girls.

According to the hadith, these are the rules of engagement in Islam:

"Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone."​

​

Again... What Muhammad ascribed to Allah and what Muhammad did were not necessarily the same. You quoting a passage from the Koran does not refute history.

 

[ecco]

A terrorist is someone who targets non-combatants for political reasons. It matters not whether they are part of a group or a lone wolf.

Shouldn't that be "political or religious" reasons?

 

[ecco]

Muhammad never beheaded anyone for belonging to another religion.

Alfred Guillaume's authoritative translation of the Sira of Ibn Ishaq presents in English the complete history of the life of Prophet Muhammad.

From page 464 (690 in the Arabic) of the earliest Muslim biography of Muhammad:
Then [the Banu Qurayza tribe]surrendered, and the apostle[Muhammad] confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of B. al-Najjar. Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy b. Akhtab and Ka`b b. Asad their chief. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the apostle they asked Ka`b what he thought would be done with them. He replied, 'Will you never understand? Don't you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return? By Allah it is death!' This went on until the apostle made an end of them.​

 

[AionPhanes]

Alfred Guillaume's authoritative translation of the Sira of Ibn Ishaq presents in English the complete history of the life of Prophet Muhammad.

From page 464 (690 in the Arabic) of the earliest Muslim biography of Muhammad:
Then [the Banu Qurayza tribe]surrendered, and the apostle[Muhammad] confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of B. al-Najjar. Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy b. Akhtab and Ka`b b. Asad their chief. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the apostle they asked Ka`b what he thought would be done with them. He replied, 'Will you never understand? Don't you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return? By Allah it is death!' This went on until the apostle made an end of them.​

"Authoritative" to whom? That work isn't accepted as a source for the determination of doctrine. It's on par with a book a Christian historian wrote 100 years after the life of Christ. You could accept or reject the accounts found therein and still be Christian. Same thing with Muslims and that history book.

While I would disagree with the actions (if they did in fact occur) it still wouldn't be a call for terorism either. It would be an example of executing people who turned traitor and switched sides in battle.

 

[Hank77]

Any understanding of a text involves interpretation. If you employed a literal reading of the text then you would come away with a literal interpretation. If you draw any conclusions from what you read that would involve another level of interpretation. Others may claim that a literal hermeneutic isn't called for and would be misleading. Still others might think your undestanding wasn't as literal as you thought it was. Others might reject the very authority of your source for determining Islamic teaching.

You can't magically skip the need for interpretation. You also shouldnt deny Muslims the right to alternate ones

LOL, you make sooooo.....many assumptions and you know what they say about that, don't you.
I really don't have any problem with Muslims having alternate readings of the Quran, in fact I understand why they do. Christians have alternate interpretations of the Bible on somethings, too. That is to be expected and even that those interpretations can change over time.
Like I said, I have never read the Quran so I cannot comment on it's interpretations. Frankly, I don't have the years of study it would take to do it justice.

That is true. His situation was much closer to Moses than to Jesus. He had a community to protect.

Are you a complete pacifist then?

Once he went beyond his community, into places that did not practice Islam, he became a conqueror of people. He was no longer just protecting his believers.
No I am not a pacifist in the sense that one is not allowed to protect their own life or someone else's life from imminent death or great harm.

Against people, huh? I'm guessing you are one of those who came up with that far-fetched notion that Jesus only whipped animals? If so, talk about violence against innocents!

You obviously don't know anything about driving livestock.

According to the hadith, these are the rules of engagement in Islam:

I thought you said that I shouldn't judge Muhammad life by the hadith because it isn't reliable. The thing is the Muslims do believe the hadith is reliable. Just as most Jews believe the Talmud is reliable.

And ironically that is precisely the percentage the rulers of Spain demanded of their conquests in America.

Not so ironic seeing the Spain was ruled by the Muslims for what 100 yrs. and there was a Muslim population in Spain until the early 1600s. So to have picked up this custom is not so unusual.

"So if these people who are committing terrorist acts are not Muslims why don't the real Muslims stand up and say that the terrorists are not Muslims? That they are not following their founder Muhammad teachings? Why don't they do that, it would go a long way to help their cause?"

That's certainly infers that you don't believe Muslims are standing up and condemning terrorists when in fact, you couldn't be further from the truth.

I said Exactly what I meant, no inferences.
I have heard them condemning terrorists and the defending Islam, but I have Not heard them saying these terrorist are Not Muslims. I have Not heard them say that the terrorists are 'Not Following Muhammad'.
Hmm...is that because they do believe the hadith and do believe that Muhammad did and said the things the hadith says he did, such as threatening death to people who would not accept Islam and following through with that threat?

 

[AionPhanes]

Hank77

If you haven't even read the Quran then many of your statements are coming from an incredibly uninformed background. To say that Muslims who don't commit terrorism aren't being true to their religion when you have yet to even read the defining scripture of the religion is silly.

Where did you copy and paste that quote from the history of Muhammad from? Is it from a hostile website that intends to "expose Islam" ? Maybe you could actually read the Quran with good explanatory notes like the Muhammad Assad translation. Michael Sells has a nice short book "Approaching the Quran." Check out some mainstream scholars who don't have an ax to grind like William Chittick, S.H. Nasr, John Esposito, Henry Corbin, Reza Shah Kazemi, Karen Armstrong etc... Then you might be able to discuss the Islamic religion more intelligently.

 

[AionPhanes]

"HANK77: "Your response failed to address “warriorswho survived battle benefited from the loot, women, and slaves they captured” which was the important part in response to your “He prohibited the targeting of non-combatants including women children and the elderly”."
​

He may have allowed that. Standard practice for conquering armies at the time. I dont expect someone from a medieval tribal warrior society to practice standards of war that have only recently been implemented in some modern societies. This event doesn't mean that Muslims are supposed to kill non combatants in war nor does it mean they are supposed to start aggressive wars.

This no more implies that Muslims must be terrorist than similar tactics used by the OT kings and patriarchs (kill all the women who have known men but the young virgins you may keep for yourself, etc..) implies that Jews and Christians must be terrorists. I'm a Christian and I reject the practice.

 

[smaneck]

So you think that He was telling them to kill people with their swords so that He would be counted with the transgressors?

No, I think He was telling them to carry a sword which allows for the possibility of someone getting killed.