Islam and terrorism

[virtuoussinner]

No, what I'm suggesting is that when texts like this are quoted, you must remember that if you don't take the book as a whole, you can come up with anything.

[TheWired724]

Originally Posted by randomdragoon

Scriptures like the Qur'an and the Bible are sufficiently long in that one can get them to say anything they want by interpreting specific passages in the way that they feel like. People can argue all they want about them, but in the end it's just the simple fact that they're way too long for any universally clear message to get through. It would have been nice if the Bible solely consisted of the Commandments and that was it (end of all Bible debates, yay!) but too bad, it's not.

There is a way to help Muslims intepret the Qur'an, it's abrogation. if two passages contradict each other, the newest of the passages is the one Muslims are to abide by. It's actually pretty simple. And the Qur'an isn't that long. It's about the size of the New Testament.

On that note, I have many Muslim friends who are quite peaceful (well, except for one ... but I attribute that not to Islam but to his too many readings of Communist texts).

Many are peaceful...in fact, most are.

[TheWired724]

Originally Posted by virtuoussinner

No, what I'm suggesting is that when texts like this are quoted, you must remember that if you take the book as a whole, you can come up with anything.

Well yes, especially with a book like the Qur'an(a book with no context or chronology). One could come to any conclusion if they only relied on the Qur'an. However, when one includes the Hadith, the Qur'an becomes much, much clearer.

[virtuoussinner]

"Hadith are traditions relating to the words and deeds of Muhammad."
"The overwhelming majority of Muslims consider hadith to be essential supplements to and clarifications of the Qur'an, Islam's holy book. In Islamic jurisprudence, the Qur'an contains many rules for the behavior expected of Muslims. However, there are many matters of concern, both religious and practical, on which there are no specific Qur'anic rules. Muslims believe that they can look at the way of life of Muhammad and his companions to discover what to imitate and what to avoid. Muslim scholars also find it useful to know how Muhammad or his companions explained the revelations, or upon what occasion Muhammad received them. Sometimes this will clarify a passage that otherwise seems obscure." --Quoted from Wikipedia

[talisman]

Your textual analysis is all well and good, but it does not support your premise. Islam does not "inspire terrorism". There is no doubt that terrorists justify their cause with their religion, and no doubt that they twist the Qur'an when converting new members. But it was not from Islam that terrorism was born. The idea of terrorism comes from a few members of a society looking to impose upon it a new social order. Hell, if you study the rise of the modern radical fundamentalist Muslim movement, it largely started as a reaction to Western society, and the perceived lack of social mores therein. No one sat down and went "Oh whoa, the Qur'an says I should attack non-believers. brb terrorism." But individuals did say "We want to change our society, but we need some way to justify it."

Religion does not found terrorist organizations, but individuals do use twisted views of religion to grant themselves moral authority and legitimacy.

[flamingspinach]

someone's going to call me insensitive, but, uh...

All religious scriptures were written by human beings, and are imperfect. The concept of religion and what is morally acceptable and what is not has also changed vastly over the centuries. Any religion that is foolish enough to follow some book written by pious ancients to the letter can be accurately said to "inspire behavior akin to what someone more than a thousand years ago thought was 'moral'". Whether that's a good thing or not of course depends on the circumstances - which usually even vary over the course of a scripture, since they often weren't written by only one person (case: the bible).

Basically all I'm saying is that you could pretty much find verses just as bad as each other in the Bible and in the Qur'an until the proverbial cows come home without proving anything about whether religion inspires terrorism or evil deeds.

[tha Guardians]

Spinach... thank you.

[TheWired724]

Originally Posted by virtuoussinner

"Hadith are traditions relating to the words and deeds of Muhammad."
"The overwhelming majority of Muslims consider hadith to be essential supplements to and clarifications of the Qur'an, Islam's holy book. In Islamic jurisprudence, the Qur'an contains many rules for the behavior expected of Muslims. However, there are many matters of concern, both religious and practical, on which there are no specific Qur'anic rules. Muslims believe that they can look at the way of life of Muhammad and his companions to discover what to imitate and what to avoid. Muslim scholars also find it useful to know how Muhammad or his companions explained the revelations, or upon what occasion Muhammad received them. Sometimes this will clarify a passage that otherwise seems obscure." --Quoted from Wikipedia

I just woke up, so please forgive me if i miss your point.

Isn't this just confirming what i said? The Qur'an is relient on the Hadith? Sorry, i'm a bit slow right now.

[TheWired724]

Originally Posted by talisman

Your textual analysis is all well and good, but it does not support your premise. Islam does not "inspire terrorism". There is no doubt that terrorists justify their cause with their religion, and no doubt that they twist the Qur'an when converting new members. But it was not from Islam that terrorism was born.

I suppose a more accurate charge would have been ''Islam inspires hostility torward those who reject it.'' Terrorism is a tactic, so of course it is not necessarly a Islamic method.

idea of terrorism comes from a few members of a society looking to impose upon it a new social order.

Yeah, it's called Islamic law.

study the rise of the modern radical fundamentalist Muslim movement, it largely started as a reaction to Western society, and the perceived lack of social mores therein. No one sat down and went "Oh whoa, the Qur'an says I should attack non-believers. brb terrorism."

Well actually, it did kinda start like that. It's not like it's only been recently that Muslims who been hostile. Within the first to years of the Islamic era, the first Muslims had set out on over a dozen raids- all offensively. Now in truth it was not because they were after non-Muslims, but after loot. Local caravans passing by were their targets. Then after the battle of Badr killing infidels become something Allah praised and later became a mandatory act for all Muslims. Eventually they conquered all of Arabia, Spain, and Egypt killing those who did not submit or pay the Jizyah tax. So you see, this really isn't a new thing for Islam.

Religion does not found terrorist organizations, but individuals do use twisted views of religion to grant themselves moral authority and legitimacy.

Why do you insist that they twist their scriptures? Did you ever think that maybe they're actually following their scriptures properly? Or simply emulating the example their prophet left behind?

[flamingspinach]

[TheWired724]

Basically all I'm saying is that you could pretty much find verses just as bad as each other in the Bible and in the Qur'an until the proverbial cows come home without proving anything about whether religion inspires terrorism or evil deeds.

Well of course..if you took them out of context. But in context, this is not the case. The Qur'an has many open ended verses, the Bible does not.

[Kil-]

istanbul

[flamingspinach]

Originally Posted by TheWired724

Well of course..if you took them out of context. But in context, this is not the case. The Qur'an has many open ended verses, the Bible does not.

<TheWired724> hehe he summarized it at the end I guess that means I can ignore the first paragraph and then make some totally irrelevant statement that even by itself is unfounded and idiotic and nobody will complain 8)

[TheWired724]

Sorry, sorry...didn't think it was a big deal.

All religious scriptures were written by human beings, and are imperfect.

I know that, and you know that. But a devoted Muslim really believes the Qur'an is the perfect word of God. This is why some follow it so attentively.

The concept of religion and what is morally acceptable and what is not has also changed vastly over the centuries. Any religion that is foolish enough to follow some book written by pious ancients to the letter can be accurately said to "inspire behavior akin to what someone more than a thousand years ago thought was 'moral'".

Allah's word, to a Muslim, is absolute. Regardless of time Allah's commands must be followed. Muslims are also ordered by the Qur'an to emulate their prophet, and his example doesn't change with time, it stays the same. Sin is still sin to Allah, Jihad is still the most noble cause, and Muhammad is still Muhammad.

Whether that's a good thing or not of course depends on the circumstances - which usually even vary over the course of a scripture, since they often weren't written by only one person (case: the bible).

This little issue right here that you've pointed out is how i know the claim that the Qur'an is inspired by God is false. It wasn't until the 8th century that the Qur'an was canonized into a book. Up until then it had been passed through oral recitation. By then most of those who personally heard the Qur'an from Muhammad, were dying on the battle fields; resulting in much of the Qur'an being lost or distorted.

[flamingspinach]

Straw man holy ****ing **** straw man out the wazoo dude I don't even

holy **** dude I don't even know what what
what

what

I mean uh

Let me address the one part of this post where you are NOT talking out of your ass about what muslims supposedly believe:

Originally Posted by TheWired724

This little issue right here that you've pointed out is how i know the claim that the Qur'an is inspired by God is false. It wasn't until the 8th century that the Qur'an was canonized into a book. Up until then it had been passed through oral recitation. By then most of those who personally heard the Qur'an from Muhammad, were dying on the battle fields; resulting in much of the Qur'an being lost or distorted.

Cool, you just established that it took approximately as long for the bible to be canonized into a book as it did the qur'an! Excellent! Heard of the Council of Rome? It took place almost 400 years after Jesus's death (and thousands of years after whatever happened in the old testament, presumably), and it was the first creation of an "official" set of books in the bible, as far as Christianity was concerned. Even that's a little iffy, since today's Catholic bible was only really finalized at the Council of Trent, which was in the 1500s if I recall correctly. And if you start saying that the Catholic bible is "not authentic", then, uh, well, there goes your justification for the bible as a more authoritative source than the qur'an - considering there's hundreds of versions of it. Great. At least the Qur'an is slightly more consistent since it was written by one person, supposedly.

BUT! Besides all this, you are still totally missing my point, which is that all relatively old scriptures are obsolete and should be discarded. Someone who "interprets the scriptures in their proper context" is what we call a "fundamentalist", you know. A progressive religious person tries to interpret the scriptures of their religion as far as possible from their ancient and outmoded "proper context" as possible.

[Kiro51]

The coran teach to love people, the respect ect...


But I've heard that it tells to destroy every other religion, or something like that... is it right?

[talisman]

Well actually, it did kinda start like that.

flatly incorrect.

I was talking about modern terrorism, which did begin largely as a reaction to the perceived lack of values inherent in the material Western culture. No one was reading the Qur'an and then decided to be a terrorist based upon what it said. Religion is USED by terrorists, but it does not endorse or somehow propagate terrorism.

[Maid]

Fact is, vast majority, if not all terrorists are Muslim(you may argue they aren't, but they profess they are. that's all you need for an avg joe), whether Islam a religion of peace or not, fact is most terrorists swear by Islam. Thus bringing it bad name, it doesn't have to be true for something to be perceived as such. You can look again at religions and faith for perfect example. In this case, people die everyday, a lot more concrete evidence isn't it?

[jewpinthethird]

Originally Posted by Maid

Fact is, vast majority, if not all terrorists are Muslim

What?

What?

What?

What?

What?

What?

Did you just make that up? Because it sounds like you just made that up. In fact, I am going to go as far to say that you did make that up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...rist_incidents

Do you realize how stupid that comment made you sound? You're from a Red state, aren't you?

Also, you all do realize that Allah is just the Muslim word for God, right? And that it's the same God of the Jews and Christians? And that Moses and Jesus are prophets of Islam? And that Muhammad had respect for all the people of the Book?

[flamingspinach]

hay jewpin yeah he may be "from a red state" but he's an Elite FFR Supporter okay;; don't be dissin :O

ps you're doing the "what" wrong