Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 General Annoyance wrote:
Well of course

You say this like it's obvious. How can you pretend to know basically any possible religion better than it's very own practitioners? Would you even contradict the founder/prophet of a religion on what his or her religion actually preach?
It's important to realize that some religions being at least partly responsible for horrors committed in its name doesn't mean the practitioners are innocents, and neither does the practitioners being guilty means the religion is innocent. For instance, I wouldn't give a religion that openly order it's practitioners to do ritual murders, like the Thug religion, a pass because it's the practitioners “misinterpreting” it. Ritual murder is part of the Thug religion, and that religion is morally wrong because of it.
To go back at Islam, while the case for terror attack is definitely not clear cut, I, especially as a non-Muslim, would never argue against terror apologists based on religious arguments, only on moral grounds, and I wouldn't comment on whether or not they are “Islamic-compliant”. If someone believe that terror attacks are something he or she should do because of his or her religion, I'll argue about why those things are actually morally bad. Whether or not it's approved by Islam is theirs to decide. As long as I convince them not to do it I don't care about their conclusion on the Islamic-compliance of terror attacks.
I would definitely argue, though, that Islam is inherently sexist because of, for instance, the very clear inheritance rules in the Quran. I would make a case about why sexism is bad in a way that is entirely separate to religion, and then argue that this means there are obvious problem with Islam that should lead one to apostatize. I would also do the same with Christianity, though sadly the fact the Bible is the equivalent of the Hadith rather than the Quran (i.e. not one unique text that was directly sent by god, but rather a collection of texts related by human narrators, that can be considered canon or apocryphal) makes it harder to have such a clear-cut case.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

You say this like it's obvious. How can you pretend to know basically any possible religion better than it's very own practitioners? Would you even contradict the founder/prophet of a religion on what his or her religion actually preach?

You asked a question regarding Islam (or at least using Islam as an example of your point) - I happen to know a fair amount about it, having lived in two Islamic states for half my life, and living with one of my brothers pledging to be a Muslim. You don't need to be a practitioner to have a valid point, or to point out invalidity.

Would I contradict the prophet Muhammad if he was still alive? No I wouldn't - his teachings are immortalised in the Quran. Would I contradict a so called scholar based on a misinterpretation of that text? Yes I would.

It's important to realize that some religions being at least partly responsible for horrors committed in its name doesn't mean the practitioners are innocents, and neither does the practitioners being guilty means the religion is innocent. For instance, I wouldn't give a religion that openly order it's practitioners to do ritual murders, like the Thug religion, a pass because it's the practitioners “misinterpreting” it. Ritual murder is part of the Thug religion, and that religion is morally wrong because of it.

So the religions you know enough about set such things in stone? I know Islam doesn't. Responsibility for your actions is always entirely with you, unless you suffer from a mental illness, or you were otherwise lead by circumstance.

To go back at Islam, while the case for terror attack is definitely not clear cut, I, especially as a non-Muslim, would never argue against terror apologists based on religious arguments, only on moral grounds, and I wouldn't comment on whether or not they are “Islamic-compliant”. If someone believe that terror attacks are something he or she should do because of his or her religion, I'll argue about why those things are actually morally bad. Whether or not it's approved by Islam is theirs to decide. As long as I convince them not to do it I don't care about their conclusion on the Islamic-compliance of terror attacks.

I am not religious either, and I agree that terrorism is morally wrong. I also know that the Quran does not condone acts of terrorism, unless you pull verses from it enough out of context to justify it. To call someone an Islamic terrorist would be the same as calling them a terrorist who plays tabletop wargames; correlation does not equal causation, and to narrow it down to one single motive is being ignorant to everything that actually would have motivated that person to kill - their physical and mental health, their political standpoints, their education, their previous empathy towards other people.

I would definitely argue, though, that Islam is inherently sexist because of, for instance, the very clear inheritance rules in the Quran. I would make a case about why sexism is bad in a way that is entirely separate to religion, and then argue that this means there are obvious problem with Islam that should lead one to apostatize. I would also do the same with Christianity, though sadly the fact the Bible is the equivalent of the Hadith rather than the Quran (i.e. not one unique text that was directly sent by god, but rather a collection of texts related by human narrators, that can be considered canon or apocryphal) makes it harder to have such a clear-cut case.

That is true - the Quran does not favour the female when it comes to equal rights and inheritance. However, we should keep in mind that the Quran is an ancient text written in a time where sexism was the accepted norm in practically every human community in the world. That doesn't make it really excusable, but consider the ramifications of changing a holy text to reflect more modern society, and how that would be treated. Besides that, Muslim families are typically becoming less conservative; I know a collection of Muslim families who are both conservative and more modern - big names like the Al Thanis like to remain as conservative as possible, but even so I know a decent handful of their children who have been allowed more free reign than generations before might have been used to.

All that said, I will stress again that the Quran does not condone or recommend acts of terrorism in any way. There are questionable beliefs in that text to the modern society, but nothing that would go as far as physically harming innocent human beings.

 General Annoyance wrote:
I also know that the Quran does not condone acts of terrorism, unless you pull verses from it enough out of context to justify it.

So, yeah, white-washing Islam in full force.

 General Annoyance wrote:
To call someone an Islamic terrorist would be the same as calling them a terrorist who plays tabletop wargames; correlation does not equal causation, and to narrow it down to one single motive is being ignorant to everything that actually would have motivated that person to kill - their physical and mental health, their political standpoints, their education, their previous empathy towards other people.

Oh, so I guess I can't call Brigitte Mohnhaupt a communist terrorist either, then. I will do it nonetheless, and I'll talk about Islamic terrorists too, and anarchist terrorists, and far-right terrorists, etc. It isn't something exclusive to Islamism but neither should Islamism be exempted.

 General Annoyance wrote:
That is true - the Quran does not favour the female when it comes to equal rights and inheritance. However, we should keep in mind that the Quran is an ancient text written in a time where sexism was the accepted norm in practically every human community in the world. That doesn't make it really excusable, but consider the ramifications of changing a holy text to reflect more modern society, and how that would be treated. Besides that, Muslim families are typically becoming less conservative; I know a collection of Muslim families who are both conservative and more modern - big names like the Al Thanis like to remain as conservative as possible, but even so I know a decent handful of their children who have been allowed more free reign than generations before might have been used to.

Okay, most of the discussion is off-topic but this is becoming extra off-topic (and yeah, I am partly responsible). If we want to continue this discussion I guess it's either for another thread or for MP. And given the risks of, hum, very heated debate I'd favor PM so we can stay among, I hope, responsible people ^^.

 General Annoyance wrote:
All that said, I will stress again that the Quran does not condone or recommend acts of terrorism in any way. There are questionable beliefs in that text to the modern society, but nothing that would go as far as physically harming innocent human beings.

I don't think anyone would dispute this, but I am sure people would disagree on what is considered an “innocent human being” though. Afaik that is how the Islamists that call for violent Jihad (i.e. not all Islamists) justify their deeds: they are only striking back in a just war. And I could totally see some verses justifying killing for instance any vocal apostate that would encourage people to leave Islam, without the need for too much interpretation…

(For Christian dakkanauts that would agree with me, it's okay, but remember that maxim about rocks and glass houses )

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
So, yeah, white-washing Islam in full force.

How? If taking it out of context is the only way to justify what you want to do, then that's a misinterpretation.

And again:

 General Annoyance wrote:
I'd be foolish to think that religion only does positive things and creates positive people - I've experienced first hand Muslims who are not good people, and Muslims who have said some really irrational things. Even so, I like to think that it's more the responsibility of the individual who has those beliefs rather than the religion they follow.

Oh, so I guess I can't call Brigitte Mohnhaupt a communist terrorist either, then. I will do it nonetheless, and I'll talk about Islamic terrorists too, and anarchist terrorists, and far-right terrorists, etc. It isn't something exclusive to Islamism but neither should Islamism be exempted.

Ahh, but now you are correlating to political views - a factor that could easily and clearly justify hatred from a party of people. Not that that's right of course, but the justification is... well I wouldn't say reasoned. Objectively clear(?)

Islam doesn't correlate as well since none of its teachings in context justify acts of terrorism. Acts of war/violence yes, but even then it is very strict in saying that no harm may be done to innocent bystanders, and that damage to their property is also not acceptable.

Okay, most of the discussion is off-topic but this is becoming extra off-topic (and yeah, I am partly responsible). If we want to continue this discussion I guess it's either for another thread or for MP. And given the risks of, hum, very heated debate I'd favor PM so we can stay among, I hope, responsible people ^^.

Heated? I doubt it - I only come here to discuss, not to incite flame. Pity others can't do the same...

But yes, a PM for this point, and in fact any point I've raised (since really it's all OT now) is welcome

I don't think anyone would dispute this, but I am sure people would disagree on what is considered an “innocent human being” though. Afaik that is how the Islamists that call for violent Jihad (i.e. not all Islamists) justify their deeds: they are only striking back in a just war. And I could totally see some verses justifying killing for instance any vocal apostate that would encourage people to leave Islam, without the need for too much interpretation…

(For Christian dakkanauts that would agree with me, it's okay, but remember that maxim about rocks and glass houses )

It should be anyone who has committed acts of violence against you, or who bears arms against you; it doesn't cross over into being opposed to Islam, which is where the radicals twist it to serve their ideals.

The Quran does not shy away from war, but it is pretty clear on what is acceptable during wartime and what isn't. I'll find the relevant verses for you if you haven't already, and PM them over

 General Annoyance wrote:
To call someone an Islamic terrorist would be the same as calling them a terrorist who plays tabletop wargames; correlation does not equal causation,

It doesn't automatically equal it, but it certainly doesn't disprove it either. Correlation is often present when there is causation.

Speaking about 'religion' though is the wrong way, it's too broad. Religions have practiced human sacrifice, have openly condoned wars of aggression as well as called for peace and practiced non violence to the point of self sacrifice. The fact is the content of a given religions doctrines matter. Those are what are interpreted and those are what forms people's beliefs, which inform and direct their actions.

A religion which states it's highest, most sacred, highest tenet is 'It is better to suffer and die than ever spill blood of another person' is going to be extremely difficult to interpret into a call to violence. Conversely:

Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward."

What's the meaning of this? Who should you fight? When to fight? That's certainly debatable all I'm not going to speculate exactly, but it is clear that fighting is something to be done, at least in some context, in the way/name of Allah. That in infinitely easier to interpret into fighting than the previous tenet of non violence.

The difference in content matters so much and Islam has it's fair share not only of dangerous ideas but a good number of people who support them.

 Kojiro wrote:
It doesn't automatically equal it, but it certainly doesn't disprove it either. Correlation is often present when there is causation.

Well of course there is always a reason for something happening, but linking religion to violence because there are passages in its holy text that talk about war, and how war can be acceptable, is no different to linking violence to violent video games; it's such a flimsy theory of explanation compared to more scientifically valid psychological explanations, such as social identification and integration.

Speaking about 'religion' though is the wrong way, it's too broad. Religions have practiced human sacrifice, have openly condoned wars of aggression as well as called for peace and practiced non violence to the point of self sacrifice. The fact is the content of a given religions doctrines matter. Those are what are interpreted and those are what forms people's beliefs, which inform and direct their actions.

I'm not sure which ones practised human sacrifice, but Islam certainly has condoned war and continues to do so. The point is it never has condoned acts of terrorism, which are very different to waging war.

A religion which states it's highest, most sacred, highest tenet is 'It is better to suffer and die than ever spill blood of another person' is going to be extremely difficult to interpret into a call to violence. Conversely:

Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward."

What's the meaning of this? Who should you fight? When to fight? That's certainly debatable all I'm not going to speculate exactly, but it is clear that fighting is something to be done, at least in some context, in the way/name of Allah. That in infinitely easier to interpret into fighting than the previous tenet of non violence.

Here's that verse in context with the verses following it:

4:74 So let those fight in the cause of Allah who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter. And he who fights in the cause of Allah and is killed or achieves victory – We will bestow upon him a great reward.
4:75 And what is [the matter] with you that you fight not in the cause of God and [for] the oppressed among men, women, and children who say, “Our Lord, take us out of this city of oppressive people and appoint for us from Yourself a protector and appoint for us from Yourself a helper?”
(this is the important one - the verse before is now saying to take up arms against those who oppress you and your families, not simply to wage war as and when it suits)
4:76 Those who believe fight in the cause of God, and those who disbelieve fight in the cause of Taghut. So fight against the allies of Satan. Indeed, the plot of Satan has ever been weak.
(this one could also be taken out of context to say "fight the disbelievers of Islam, as they are all allies of Satan". But again, the point of this is to fight those who use violence against you and your followers in an attempt to oppress you, not to initiate violence against non believers)
4:77 Have you not seen those who were told, “Restrain your hands [from fighting] and establish prayer and give zakah”? But then when fighting was ordained for them, at once a party of them feared men as they fear God or with [even] greater fear. They said, “Our Lord, why have You decreed upon us fighting? If only You had postponed [it for] us for a short time.” Say, The enjoyment of this world is little, and the Hereafter is better for he who fears God. And injustice will not be done to you, [even] as much as a thread [inside a date seed].

The difference in content matters so much and Islam has it's fair share not only of dangerous ideas but a good number of people who support them.

Questionable? Yes. Dangerous? No. The danger is coming from the individuals who, for whatever reason, lack the moral restraint to realise that what they're doing is inhumane.

Even in context, those passages can still be used to justify acts of terrorism.

A common narrative of Islamists is that Muslims everywhere are being persecuted and oppressed by the West..(something which, sadly, has some degree of credibility given our disastrous military interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria and our interference in many other places). And therefore, the Islamists claim, these passages apply and condone acts of terror as a response to this "oppression" of Muslims by the West.


To Islamists, this is a Holy War, and all Muslims have a duty to fight the West.

The difference in content matters so much and Islam has it's fair share not only of dangerous ideas but a good number of people who support them.

Questionable? Yes. Dangerous? No. The danger is coming from the individuals who, for whatever reason, lack the moral restraint to realise that what they're doing is inhumane.

They lack moral restraint? Oh gee, I wonder why...

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The risk we run in just declaring religion evil (for the record I'm not religious at all, born and raised atheist) is that we alienate people in the end providing fertile grounds for people twisting religion for their purposes.

I'll stick to call religion false, and specifically call out the bad part of it as noxious to society and morally repugnant while acknowledging the rest as morally neutral or even positive preposterous claims with no basis in reality, then.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Anyone citing Pastafarians clearly is not intending to be serious.

Nice try, but I am quoting those Rastafarian you were talking about.

As I said, lighten up Francis.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Even in context, those passages can still be used to justify acts of terrorism.

A common narrative of Islamists is that Muslims everywhere are being persecuted and oppressed by the West..(something which, sadly, has some degree of credibility given our disastrous military interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria and our interference in many other places). And therefore, the Islamists claim, these passages apply and condone acts of terror as a response to this "oppression" of Muslims by the West.


To Islamists, this is a Holy War, and all Muslims have a duty to fight the West.

They're still wrong, since Islam does not condone the harming of innocents or bystanders during war, or the destruction of their property, deliberate or not; since terrorism is all about doing those two things, it makes no sense in terms of justification from the Quran.

In addition, Muslims should be forgiving of any opponent who seeks peace with them after war, as in verses 2:192 and 8:61 - But if they stop, God is most forgiving, most merciful; Now if they incline toward peace, then incline to it, and place your trust in God, for God is the all-hearing, the all-knowing

Obviously it's up for debate whether the major Western powers are really at peace with some Islamic states like Iraq and Afghanistan when there are still troops stationed there (a fraction of what was there before, but still a presence that indicates conflict is continuing), but even so, it doesn't justify Islamists to attack civilian structures and kill innocents to make a point.

They lack moral restraint? Oh gee, I wonder why...

Education, perhaps? Having studied psychology myself it is difficult to tell exactly what makes a person's moral compass, but evidence does seem to correlate to political and economic strife, as well as a lack of a full education.

 General Annoyance wrote:
They're still wrong, since Islam does not condone the harming of innocents or bystanders during war, or the destruction of their property, deliberate or not; since terrorism is all about doing those two things, it makes no sense in terms of justification from the Quran.

In addition, Muslims should be forgiving of any opponent who seeks peace with them after war, as in verses 2:192 and 8:61 - But if they stop, God is most forgiving, most merciful; Now if they incline toward peace, then incline to it, and place your trust in God, for God is the all-hearing, the all-knowing

Well, how do you reconcile that with Islam explicitly allowing to take the wives of infidels who have fought you as slave, and with events from the life of Muhammad like when he executed all the male members of the Banu Qurayza tribe and reduced the women and children to slavery, even after they had surrendered, and all this despite the fact the Banu Qurayza never even attacked Muslims in the first place.
I sure see how some Imam can make a good case for terror attacks if the treatment of the Banu Qurayza is considered A-ok.

A bit more context about the verse you are quoting.

That is the grace from Allah, and sufficeth Allah as Knower! (70) O Ye who believe! take your precaution then sally forth in detachment or sally forth all together. (71) And verily there Is among you he who laggeth behind, and if an ill befalleth you, he saith: surely Allah hath bestowed favour on me in that I was not Present with them. (72) And if there betideth you grace from Allah, then, as though there had been no tenderness between you and him, he saith: would that I had been with them! then I would have achieved a mighty achievement. (73) Let them wherefore fight in the way of Allah those who have purchased the life of this world for the Hereafter: And whosoever fighteth in the way of Allah, and is then slain or overcometh, We shall vouchsafe unto him a mighty hire. (74) And what aileth you that ye fight not in the way of Allah and for the oppressed among men and women and Children who say: our Lord! take US forth from this town whereof the people are Wrong-doing, and appoint us from before Thee a patron, and appoint us from before Thee a helper! (75) These who believe fight in the way of Allah and those who disbelieve fight in the way of the devil. Fight then against the friends of Satan; verily the craft of Satan is ever feeble. (76) Hast thou not observed those unto whom it was said; withhold your hands, and establish prayer and give the poor-rate; but when thereafter fighting was prescribed unto them, lo! there is a party of them dreading men as with the dread of Allah, or with greater dread; and they say: our Lord! why hast Thou prescribed unto us fighting! Wouldst that Thou hadst let us tarry a term nearby! Say thou: the enjoyment of the world is little, and the Hereafter is better for him who feareth God; and ye shall not be wronged a whit. (77)

That's one translation from http://quranexplorer.com/quran/ (great website to compare translation, for those that can't read Arabic). The message is very clear, it's about telling people that they should go to war when asked to go to war, much more so than describing when to go to war. They'll get candy and stuff after they die, it's a great deal! Totally worth it.

 General Annoyance wrote:

Well of course there is always a reason for something happening, but linking religion to violence because there are passages in its holy text that talk about war, and how war can be acceptable, is no different to linking violence to violent video games; it's such a flimsy theory of explanation compared to more scientifically valid psychological explanations, such as social identification and integration.

That's disingenuous argument at best. Video games are not, nor do they claim to be, moral proscriptions for how to live your life- religions do. A mentally incompetent, confused or damaged person may transpose the games goals with real life goals but that is their failing. Conversely a religious commandment or law is explicitly to be followed in real life.

Now religion may not be the only factor in leading someone to violence. But just like it being night time, and there's a storm might help me get lost while driving, a bad road map is going to be a large part of it. Eliminate the bad map or better yet replace it with a good one, and I might just find my way despite the conditions.

I'm not sure which ones practised human sacrifice, but Islam certainly has condoned war and continues to do so. The point is it never has condoned acts of terrorism, which are very different to waging war.

Christianity has the ultimate human sacrifice- Jesus, but I was thinking more of the Aztecs and others.

But see, if you condone war, you have to define war. My grandfather flew 44 missions for the RAF during WW2 in a lancaster, and I have his Distinguished Flying Cross in a vault. He also died when he was just 66 years old from heart failure. He stressed himself into an early grave we were told and I believe it. He carried around immense guilt for his actions during the war, specifically the bombing of civilians. That's a war, in living memory, where the 'good guys' bombed cities. Not arms factories or munition dumps. And for that, my grandfather was awarded very highly. What is absolutely indisputable though is that at that time, that's how we defined war.

So you see the line between 'war' and 'terrorism' starts to blur rapidly. Certainly if a group got a hold of a transport plane, loaded it with bombs and flew over Berlin dropping them we'd label that terrorism. 70 years ago it was war though. And that's where the extremist position lies- how you define war. Because even you have admitted the Koran calls for war, you're already one step down the path.

Here's that verse in context with the verses following it:

You seem to have missed the point, which was not to debate a specific verse but to show that the texts can be interpreted several ways, and some of those ways are more at odds with western civilisation than others. There's a reason we see Palestinian Islamic suicide bombers but no Palestinian Christian ones, despite them living in the same environment with the same grievances.

Questionable? Yes. Dangerous? No. The danger is coming from the individuals who, for whatever reason, lack the moral restraint to realise that what they're doing is inhumane.

And you believe it was with sociopolitical and economic arguments and ideas they were convinced to commit atrocities?

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:Well, how do you reconcile that with Islam explicitly allowing to take the wives of infidels who have fought you as slave, and with events from the life of Muhammad like when he executed all the male members of the Banu Qurayza tribe and reduced the women and children to slavery, even after they had surrendered, and all this despite the fact the Banu Qurayza never even attacked Muslims in the first place.
I sure see how some Imam can make a good case for terror attacks if the treatment of the Banu Qurayza is considered A-ok.

This is a contradiction that has always confused me; why would Muhammad condone violence after war when he had previously preached that such an act is wrong? Unfortunately I've never been able to extract a clear answer from the Muslims I know when I've asked them, so I can't really argue this point. But should we really judge the whole teaching of Islam based on one action of Muhammad?

A bit more context about the verse you are quoting.

Spoiler:

That is the grace from Allah, and sufficeth Allah as Knower! (70) O Ye who believe! take your precaution then sally forth in detachment or sally forth all together. (71) And verily there Is among you he who laggeth behind, and if an ill befalleth you, he saith: surely Allah hath bestowed favour on me in that I was not Present with them. (72) And if there betideth you grace from Allah, then, as though there had been no tenderness between you and him, he saith: would that I had been with them! then I would have achieved a mighty achievement. (73) Let them wherefore fight in the way of Allah those who have purchased the life of this world for the Hereafter: And whosoever fighteth in the way of Allah, and is then slain or overcometh, We shall vouchsafe unto him a mighty hire. (74) And what aileth you that ye fight not in the way of Allah and for the oppressed among men and women and Children who say: our Lord! take US forth from this town whereof the people are Wrong-doing, and appoint us from before Thee a patron, and appoint us from before Thee a helper! (75) These who believe fight in the way of Allah and those who disbelieve fight in the way of the devil. Fight then against the friends of Satan; verily the craft of Satan is ever feeble. (76) Hast thou not observed those unto whom it was said; withhold your hands, and establish prayer and give the poor-rate; but when thereafter fighting was prescribed unto them, lo! there is a party of them dreading men as with the dread of Allah, or with greater dread; and they say: our Lord! why hast Thou prescribed unto us fighting! Wouldst that Thou hadst let us tarry a term nearby! Say thou: the enjoyment of the world is little, and the Hereafter is better for him who feareth God; and ye shall not be wronged a whit. (77)

That's one translation from http://quranexplorer.com/quran/ (great website to compare translation, for those that can't read Arabic). The message is very clear, it's about telling people that they should go to war when asked to go to war, much more so than describing when to go to war. They'll get candy and stuff after they die, it's a great deal! Totally worth it.

Which part are you citing that from? It's a little confusing for me to read. In the Quran, the permission to fight is described in this verse:

"Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged... Those who have been driven out from their homes unjustly only because they said, ‘Our Lord is God’ — And if God did not repel some men by means of others, there would surely have been pulled down temples and churches and synagogues and mosques... (22:40-41)."

This would suggest that Muslims should only go to war when the freedom of their religion is being threatened by people trying to oppress it. And I can hear the counter to that now - "exactly G.A, that's exactly what the radicals think is happening in the world!". Doesn't make them right in thinking on such a narrow spectrum of international affairs, especially when the Western world is permissive of Islam existing in our societies.

Kojiro wrote:That's disingenuous argument at best. Video games are not, nor do they claim to be, moral proscriptions for how to live your life- religions do. A mentally incompetent, confused or damaged person may transpose the games goals with real life goals but that is their failing. Conversely a religious commandment or law is explicitly to be followed in real life.

Now religion may not be the only factor in leading someone to violence. But just like it being night time, and there's a storm might help me get lost while driving, a bad road map is going to be a large part of it. Eliminate the bad map or better yet replace it with a good one, and I might just find my way despite the conditions.

Indeed it does, but it's still within the bounds of being grossly misinterpreted, just like radicals do. And is the Quran really a bad map when it says such acts of terrorism are not excusable?

Christianity has the ultimate human sacrifice- Jesus, but I was thinking more of the Aztecs and others.

Silly me, how did I not even think of Jesus although to be fair, the context of his sacrifice is different to perhaps a practice that may have been undertaken by the Aztecs.

But see, if you condone war, you have to define war. My grandfather flew 44 missions for the RAF during WW2 in a lancaster, and I have his Distinguished Flying Cross in a vault. He also died when he was just 66 years old from heart failure. He stressed himself into an early grave we were told and I believe it. He carried around immense guilt for his actions during the war, specifically the bombing of civilians. That's a war, in living memory, where the 'good guys' bombed cities. Not arms factories or munition dumps. And for that, my grandfather was awarded very highly. What is absolutely indisputable though is that at that time, that's how we defined war.

So you see the line between 'war' and 'terrorism' starts to blur rapidly. Certainly if a group got a hold of a transport plane, loaded it with bombs and flew over Berlin dropping them we'd label that terrorism. 70 years ago it was war though. And that's where the extremist position lies- how you define war. Because even you have admitted the Koran calls for war, you're already one step down the path.

I'm sorry to hear that your Grandfather passed earlier than expected. That kind of story is very similar to what I've studied with Second Vietnam war veterans, who carried the burden of the civilian casualties they inflicted long after the war was over. Vietnam was quite different to the Second World War though; whereas carpet bombing was intentional in Vietnam, there simply wasn't any way to guide the bomblets that WW2 era bombers used to military targets, nor was there any IR or Thermal Imaging to see through the darkness that the air raids were conducted in. Civilian causalities were therefore inevitable with that bombing policy.

Even so, the Quran does not justify such an action - if collateral damage is a potential through a certain action, then you should not carry it out; "O people! I charge you with ten rules; learn them well... 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"

It is no secret that Islam calls to its followers to fight whenever the freedom of religion is threatened, of any form. However, it has never allowed collateral damage to be an acceptable parameter.

You seem to have missed the point, which was not to debate a specific verse but to show that the texts can be interpreted several ways, and some of those ways are more at odds with western civilisation than others. There's a reason we see Palestinian Islamic suicide bombers but no Palestinian Christian ones, despite them living in the same environment with the same grievances.

If you interpret it without context, sure, which is exactly what terrorists like to do; take the words literally and the Quran is a book of hate, but read it fully and you realise that it really isn't (although, as Hybrid noted, it does contradict itself from time to time).

And you believe it was with sociopolitical and economic arguments and ideas they were convinced to commit atrocities?

It's always the root of the problem - the people who are convincing the young and the angry that Islam says it's okay to murder are typically people who are fed up with both domestic and international happenings. Islam's just the easiest form of defence when someone questions why they are doing it, since being Muslim is typically what the radicals will have in common.



I think from here this will be easier if we continue the debate via PM; I feel like this sidetrack is taking away from the tragedy of what's happened in favour of something that really isn't important over paying respects, and it's probably a debate that could go on for another 2 or 3 pages at least. Let's just hope that attacks such as these become less frequent in the future, whatever the cause of them may be.

G.A

 General Annoyance wrote:
This is a contradiction that has always confused me; why would Muhammad condone violence after war when he had previously preached that such an act is wrong? Unfortunately I've never been able to extract a clear answer from the Muslims I know when I've asked them, so I can't really argue this point.

Because in his early years his cult was small and weak, so he preached peace and tolerance. But by the end of his life, he was a powerful Warlord with many followers and so could afford to preach and condone violence. Haven't you heard of the Islamic doctrine of Abrogation? The earlier, more peaceful passages of the Quran are often superseded by the later, more violent passages.

However, preaching peace whilst weak, then acting more violently when strong is, of course, not unique to Islam. The early Christians were largely peace loving hippies too, until Christianity gained power across Europe. Which of course led to the Crusades (many of which were a response to Muslim aggression btw. The Holy Land was largely Jewish and Christian until the Muslims conquered it, and continued pushing West attempting to conquer Constantinople too).

But should we really judge the whole teaching of Islam based on one action of Muhammad?

Considering that his teachings and actions form the entire core and foundation of Islam, yes.

Muhammad is Islam. That's the whole point of it. It's the final unaltered word of God delivered to the world through him and him only as the final messenger of God. So yes, we can judge Islam on Muhammad. In fact we pretty much have to.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Muhammad is Islam. That's the whole point of it. It's the final unaltered word of God delivered to the world through him and him only as the final messenger of God. So yes, we can judge Islam on Muhammad. In fact we pretty much have to.

Indeed, not judging Islam on Muhammad is probably tantamount to blasphemy or something.

 General Annoyance wrote:
But should we really judge the whole teaching of Islam based on one action of Muhammad?

I'd say we should not say the terrorists are going against Islam's teaching. And I don't mean that we should say they do follow those teachings. I am saying we should just STFU about whether or not they do follow Islam's teaching, and focus on showing why they are wrong regardless of whether they follow Islam's teaching.

 General Annoyance wrote:
Even so, the Quran does not justify such an action - if collateral damage is a potential through a certain action, then you should not carry it out; "O people! I charge you with ten rules; learn them well... 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"

What's the Surah and verse number here? I always like to check both context and alternative translation. Alternative translation can make a world of difference, see 4:34.

 General Annoyance wrote:
If you interpret it without context, sure, which is exactly what terrorists like to do; take the words literally and the Quran is a book of hate, but read it fully and you realise that it really isn't (although, as Hybrid noted, it does contradict itself from time to time).

I don't understand. I can read it fully, and still take the words literally and whitout context. I can also consider context, but the context is, well, Muhammad's life, and as you agreed yourself, it basically just make it worse...

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
The early Christians were largely peace loving hippies too, until Christianity gained power across Europe. Which of course led to the Crusades [i]

Nah, that came WAY latter. What happened was the forced conversion of people all around Europe and North Africa, and the mindless destruction of previous religions, and stuff. Basically repeating the persecution they suffered, tenfold.

 Peregrine wrote:
When Muslims do something awful it's Islam at fault. When Christians do something like supporting the military targeting civilians (AKA "state sponsored terrorism") at a far higher rate than Muslims we don't blame Christianity for it. If we apply the same standard to Islam that we use for Christianity we find all kinds of explanations for things like ISIS that have far more to do with the general economic/government situation of the region than the particular religion involved.

I'm pretty sure Christianity has had its share of blame during the past 2000 years. To my knowldedge at least this has mostly stopped in the last centuries however, christians are no longer the fanatics they used to be. I can argue this is due to higher education, but that's my personal point of view and by no means do I say this to insult the Muslim populations that don't get the same chances as we westerners do (i.e. less fortunate than us in the Middle East, Africa, etc, just take a look at what's happening over at Nigeria, affecting its 170,000,000(!) inhabitants)

Rosebuddy wrote:
Violence in the Middle East is better explained by political and economic factors than religious.

True that.