Interesting idea: 12 step "Islamic Terrorist Detox" program in Canada

[dzheremi]

offcourse , it’s very good step to mentions the verses of quran , that’s exactly what i’m asking about
let us discuss the verses and exchange our view for it

Alright. I think you’ve been here long enough to know the verses I’ll bring, and you probably already have your answers (because you’ve probably posted about them before), so I don’t think it will help, but I’ll do it anyway. Here are a few:

There is the verse I posted earlier, (2.216), which says: “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.”

There is also (3:151), which says: “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”.

And also (8:12), which says: “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”

This is enough. There are many more, and frankly I am tired of this. My point was not “Oh, look how full of violence the Qur’an is!” (there is violence in many religious scriptures, after all), but rather that I am suspicious of how “traditional teachings of the Qur’an” can be expected to reform terrorists when it is their dedication to what those scriptures are telling them to do that causes them to fight “kuffar” around the world in the name of Allah and spreading the Islamic religion, just as Muhammad commanded of them and just as traditional Islamic leaders (included the lauded “Rightly-Guided Caliphs”, so unless they were wrong too…) understood those commands since the beginning of Islam.

yes quran contain violence verses , but against whom ?

Against plenty of people. Against Christians and Jews for not believing in Muhammad and his revelation, against the Christians for “associating partners with Allah”, against polytheists of Arabia, against Abu Lahab for writing a poem that Muhammad was offended by, etc.

your government judge the country with some violence , but against whom ?

I’m not sure I understand the question, but if you’re asking who the government of the United States commits violence against and for what reasons, I don’t know what to say to this because I don’t know what it has to do with anything. Islam is not a government in the sense that the United States government is a government, even though it may contain plenty of rules within which an Islamic theocracy may be established, and if you want to start bringing up Islamic governance then I can only say that if Islam would present itself as a political project only, I would have much less of a problem with it. It is the “political religion” of Islam that I have a problem with.

quran talked about violence , but in which context ?

You tell me. I know that’s why you’re asking this, so that you can claim that context neutralizes verses that say “I will terrorize non-Muslims for what I say they believe” so that they really mean something completely different.

this is the correct questions which you have to ask muslims about , but offcourse if you allready choosed to trust the terrorists , then it’s okey it’s your own choice , and if you have problems with thier views then search about one of them and start you argument with .

Nope, I’d much rather engage regular Muslims, not extremists. It seems that you think I made this thread to say that all Muslims are terrorists or something like that. This is not the case.

i think that most of muslims you will communicate with are the muslims who are against the terrorism , in the fact they are in your side but you don’t want to trust that

They are most certainly not on my side, but they are also not terrorists, so it’s okay to me if we have theological disagreements. We will see who is right in the end, the Savior Jesus Christ, or Muhammad.

so that muslims in thiere arguments about terrorism trying to clarify the misconception , not trying to find justification

I think there are some legitimate misconceptions about Islam, but the amount of time spent trying to correct those here vs. saying “that is not true Islam” or “you’re being unfair to Muslims” or something like that is pretty heavy tilted towards the “denial of the fundamental problem” (Muhammad and the Qur’an) corner.

what is the problem with this verse either
the war was imposed upon muslims from the mekkans , read the history and you will find out this fact , and muslims didn’t want to fight their families but they have to defend themselfs and their religion

Of course the Mekkans “imposed” some war on the Muslims, right? Muslims never start any war, ever. No, but seriously, I have read a little bit of this history, and I can see the context, but then so can the people who look for a “wide application” of this verse, because it is not only about the context it is also about the PRINCIPLE that is established by the verse, which was certainly followed by all the Muslim conquerors who would later overrun the Middle East. I even remember one Muslim here (who I won’t name out of respect since they don’t post here anymore) who echoed the “wisdom” expressed in the verse when trying to rebuke me when I brought up abuses of non-Muslims as a standard means of government in the newly Islamic territories. The poster said something like “the Muslims didn’t WANT to fight anybody, but conflict broke out more often as the empire expanded and some leaders lost control of their subjects and military. It became necessary to preserve order.” In other words, they didn’t like it but they HAD to for the good of the Islamic society! Blah blah blah, more justification of the unjustifiable!

 

[Hadi]

*“but rather that I am suspicious of how “traditional teachings of the Qur’an” can be expected to reform terrorists”

*Then how do you explain the success of the scholars in these programs ? Did you even read their counter arguments and explanations ?

 

[franki_rulz]

Saudi Arabia has been doing this with some success. The Saudi Government and Clerics have worked with each other to create religious schools specifically for imprisoned members of Al Qaeda/Taliban. The Clerics would show the extremists how their ideology of violence has no traditional nor scriptural support and would then go on to teach them about mainstream Islam and how they can come back to traditional Islam.

Apparently, it’s had some success in converting some radicals back to Muslim orthodoxy.

what an irony! The saudis practise wahabbi islam which the say is completely based on the quran.It is the most radical form of islam. People are stoned to death.there is the concept of blood money. A woman cant leave her house without a man, women cant drive, non islamic music is banned,people cant freely practise other religions … the list is endless. It surprise me as to how a country that promotes the radical wahabbi form of islam around the world can actually foster peace .

 

[seraphime2008]

My two cents about this is:
Muhammad never understood the world and even couldn’t see what happened to islam and muslims, he prescribed so many violent verses thinking that muslims and islam will always win at the battle for God will be in their side. But reality now shows that islam and muslims are not in the most favorable situation due to their own mistakes. They couldn’t of course rely on themselves, they should rely on others too, they cannot make all other people submit to them any longer. That’s why the modern interpreter of islam should try to make a new approach to those violant verses to have different meaning for them to live with others. Once they are getting more power, I don’t think they will have those verses interpreted in a different light.

They are not brave enough to free themselves from the subjugation made by Muhammad through the invented religion of Islam. It has been rooted so deep, sadly speaking.

 

[Jay53]

you said that "Under fard kafiyah they are not obligated to physically fight themselves. "
that’s absolutly correct , i don’t know what is the problem of that either
if you think that most muslims are peacfull because they are under fard kafiyah so you have to know that fard kafiyah is islamic teaching , consequently it means that most muslims are peacfull becuase of the islamic teaching .
so you just proofed my point not yours

No, my point is that there are exhortations of violence in the Quran, but fard kafiyah gives the normally peaceful Muslims an “out” so to speak, as long as they support the others who *are *fighting. If there were no Muslims anywhere fighting the jihad against the unbelievers, then under this same principle, the whole ummah would be sinning. That’s why I think the peaceful Muslims don’t care about the insurgents and we generally don’t see large organized protests - because it takes the burden off of the peaceful Muslims who don’t want to actually follow those verses.

If I understand this concept correctly (and I may not), if this jihad was fard al ayn, the world would be in big trouble, because then every Muslim would be obligated to physically fight.

I’d also like to know what the universal Muslim definition of “innocent” is - like I said, I fear that the Muslim view differs greatly from the definition the rest of the world uses.

 

[elwill]

There is the verse I posted earlier, (2.216), which says: “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.”

well , i will try my best to help you understnad our insight

don’t you think that fighting was prescribed for ameicans against afghanistn while they (americans ) dislike it ?

There is also (3:151), which says: “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”.

And also (8:12), which says: “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”

well , you allready knows my answer for that , i will say to you that the verses are talking in the situation of physical fighting in the battlefield
and my proofs is those two verses . beside , actually the verses are talking about battlefield .
60-8 Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion nor drove you out of your homes. Verily, Allah loves those who deal with equity.
60- 9 It is only as regards those who fought against you on account of religion, and have driven you out of your homes, and helped to drive you out, that Allah forbids you to befriend them. And whosoever will befriend them, then such are the Zalimun (wrong-doers - those who disobey Allah).

is the violence in such situations are not acceptable to you

This is enough. There are many more, and frankly I am tired of this. My point was not “Oh, look how full of violence the Qur’an is!” (there is violence in many religious scriptures, after all), but rather that I am suspicious of how “traditional teachings of the Qur’an” can be expected to reform terrorists when it is their dedication to what those scriptures are telling them to do that causes them to fight “kuffar” around the world in the name of Allah and spreading the Islamic religion, just as Muhammad commanded of them and just as traditional Islamic leaders (included the lauded “Rightly-Guided Caliphs”, so unless they were wrong too…) understood those commands since the beginning of Islam.

terrorists are exist in every religion . and if someone depended on his assumptions and expectations in his judging on the relegions , it will make all the relegions are violent and produce some terrorists within it’s followers

and anyone can use any scripture out ot it’s context to preach the poor and ignorants such lies to serve his desire

so that it depends on you , if you are seeker for the truth ( i mean by the truth , the actual meaning of the context ) then you will discuss and explore the verses . and if you are not seeker for the truth , you will take action of the terrorists as a facts which quran teach and you will consider peacfull of muslims of them as the ones who disobey such teaching

Against plenty of people. Against Christians and Jews for not believing in Muhammad and his revelation, against the Christians for “associating partners with Allah”, against polytheists of Arabia, against Abu Lahab for writing a poem that Muhammad was offended by, etc.

i said to you agianst whom the violence are . read the two verses i qutoed above

I’m not sure I understand the question, but if you’re asking who the government of the United States commits violence against and for what reasons, I don’t know what to say to this because I don’t know what it has to do with anything. Islam is not a government in the sense that the United States government is a government, even though it may contain plenty of rules within which an Islamic theocracy may be established, and if you want to start bringing up Islamic governance then I can only say that if Islam would present itself as a political project only, I would have much less of a problem with it. It is the “political religion” of Islam that I have a problem with.

i meant to say that sometimes the violence brings the peace or that sometimes the purpose of violence it to bring the peace
my example was about the violence in general which agianst the criminals , it’s violence but it’s kind of violence which bring the peace
violence isn’t absolute action which always means intolerance
so that you can’t spot the light in the violence in quran out of context , then claiming that the book preach the violence

You tell me. I know that’s why you’re asking this, so that you can claim that context neutralizes verses that say “I will terrorize non-Muslims for what I say they believe” so that they really mean something completely different.

whatever the answer i will give . you can give refutation to (if you have any )

Nope, I’d much rather engage regular Muslims, not extremists. It seems that you think I made this thread to say that all Muslims are terrorists or something like that. This is not the case.

what you do with us , is the same as if you blame someone because of tradtion of catholic , then in the end he will tell you i’m not catholic . find someone catholic discuss with him your points

the same with us , you are blaming me becuase someone in somplace in the world used the quran to preach terrorism while majority of muslims preach peace by it

They are most certainly not on my side, but they are also not terrorists, so it’s okay to me if we have theological disagreements. We will see who is right in the end, the Savior Jesus Christ, or Muhammad.

are you agree to disagree ?

 

[dzheremi]

well , i will try my best to help you understnad our insight

don’t you think that fighting was prescribed for ameicans against afghanistn while they (americans ) dislike it ?

This is not a good comparison. Not only is this thread NOT about America (or Israel, or Palestine, or whatever other situation you want to bring up), but you are singling out ONE part of the verse and trying to apply it to today. I thought you were arguing earlier that the context of the verse nullifies any violent implication of it for today? If that is so, then why are you trying to apply it to the American armed forces to make me feel okay with it? The verse, by the way, seems to be saying that this fighting it is talking about is GOOD FOR YOU (“it is possible for ye to dislike a thing that is good for you”), which is certainly not what I would argue about United States involvement in Afghanistan. Whether or not it is necessary is another argument, but I refuse to engage that here (I stay out of the “Politics” forum for a reason). It is certainly not GOOD, but I can see how a terrorist reading it will think “Aha! Fighting is good! I am helping Islam! I have to go fight people because the Qur’an says it is good, and the Qur’an is the word of Allah!” So, once again, the Qur’an supports terrorism. It says fighting is good even if you hate to do it, and traditional Islamic understandings have certainly taken that to heart.

well , you allready knows my answer for that , i will say to you that the verses are talking in the situation of physical fighting in the battlefield
and my proofs is those two verses . beside , actually the verses are talking about battlefield .
60-8 Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion nor drove you out of your homes. Verily, Allah loves those who deal with equity.
60- 9 It is only as regards those who fought against you on account of religion, and have driven you out of your homes, and helped to drive you out, that Allah forbids you to befriend them. And whosoever will befriend them, then such are the Zalimun (wrong-doers - those who disobey Allah).

Why are you trying to argue for a contextual neturalization of the verse I posted by posting two verses from nowhere near the one I posted?

is the violence in such situations are not acceptable to you

No, it isn’t, because I know that the Qur’an engenders in Muslims very sensitive feelings about their religion, so that they perceive an “attack” on their religion even where there is not one. So I do not trust Muslims in general to be reasonable about these things when the only criteria for fighting against people is whether or not they’re oppressed your religion.

Did you ever see the video of Abuna Elias Chacour that I often post here? He is the Archbishop of the Melkite Catholic Church in Galilee, and he tells a story in the video about his family being forced from their home by Israelis when I was 10 (when the state of Israel was being created), and his father told him (paraphrasing) “It is okay, do not think badly of the Israelis for this”. He did NOT say “okay, now we have to fight against these people”. It is an uncommon sort of reaction, but one that is encouraged in Christianity (though not always followed!), which encourages forgiveness of offenders rather than revenge.

terrorists are exist in every religion . and if someone depended on his assumptions and expectations in his judging on the relegions , it will make all the relegions are violent and produce some terrorists within it’s followers

Okay. This is true, but so what? I didn’t start this thread to judge Muslims. That’s not my place. I started this thread because the program sounds interesting, but I have concerns about the way it is run. If it works, great, but any honest appraisal I can give of the source material used (the Qur’an) suggests that such success must be from going against stated methods, because there’s no way that I can believe that the Qur’an can be transformed into something entirely peaceful (as another poster wrote).It isn’t. It does inspire terrorism.

and anyone can use any scripture out ot it’s context to preach the poor and ignorants such lies to serve his desire

True

so that it depends on you , if you are seeker for the truth ( i mean by the truth , the actual meaning of the context ) then you will discuss and explore the verses . and if you are not seeker for the truth , you will take action of the terrorists as a facts which quran teach and you will consider peacfull of muslims of them as the ones who disobey such teaching

See, this is what I don’t like about this sort of reasoning (although I DO understand that it comes out of your sincere belief, so please do not think I am intentionally being rude): You are assuming that if I see the “truth” about Islam/Qur’an, I will automatically agree with your interpretation that the Qur’an has no problematic verses in it, that it can all be explained by context, etc. I do not think this is true at all. This is like me telling you “Once you HONESTLY look for the truth in the Bible, you will become a Christian/you will believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God”. I know this is not true. I have sought honestly, I have looked at context around offending verses, and you know what? I still do not think they are supportable! It has nothing to do with believing terrorists over regular Muslims, and everything to do with what the Qur’an ACTUALLY says, which says that it is right to terrorize people because of their beliefs, that disbelieving in Muhammad will send you to hell, etc. I do not believe any of these things. There is no justification for them.

(continued below).

 

[dzheremi]

i meant to say that sometimes the violence brings the peace or that sometimes the purpose of violence it to bring the peace
my example was about the violence in general which agianst the criminals , it’s violence but it’s kind of violence which bring the peace
violence isn’t absolute action which always means intolerance
so that you can’t spot the light in the violence in quran out of context , then claiming that the book preach the violence

I can, and I’m pretty sure I just did! I resent the accusation that I am taking things out of context, however, as I do not believe that context excuses the violence in the Qur’an. But, for the sake of argument, let us look at the verses around one of the offending verses that I posted earlier. Maybe then you can explain why it is okay, because I still don’t see it. The verse is 3.151, which I will put in bold below so that we can keep track of it. The verses around it are taken from 3.146 to 3.152. I hope that will be enough context to establish what the verse is saying.

How many of the prophets fought (in Allah’s way), and with them (fought) Large bands of godly men? but they never lost heart if they met with disaster in Allah’s way, nor did they weaken (in will) nor give in. And Allah Loves those who are firm and steadfast.

All that they said was: “Our Lord! Forgive us our sins and anything We may have done that transgressed our duty: Establish our feet firmly, and help us against those that resist Faith.”

And Allah gave them a reward in this world, and the excellent reward of the Hereafter. For Allah Loveth those who do good.

O ye who believe! If ye obey the Unbelievers, they will drive you back on your heels, and ye will turn back (from Faith) to your own loss.

Nay, Allah is your protector, and He is the best of helpers.

Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority: their abode will be the Fire: And evil is the home of the wrong-doers!

Allah did indeed fulfil His promise to you when ye with His permission Were about to annihilate your enemy,-until ye flinched and fell to disputing about the order, and disobeyed it after He brought you in sight (of the booty) which ye covet. Among you are some that hanker after this world and some that desire the Hereafter. Then did He divert you from your foes in order to test you but He forgave you: For Allah is full of grace to those who believe.

Where is the context that makes the offending verse okay? First it is is saying that God loves steadfast believers (true), then it says that the unbelievers will be terrorized for “joining partners with Allah” (I know that this is a thinly-veiled reference to Christians, since Muhammad thought that this is what the Christian Trinity does), then it ends by incredibly saying that God was going to give you the power to annihilate people for being disbelievers, but then you flinched in sight of the “booty which ye covet”! I didn’t know God was such a help to pirates. And am I supposed to believe that coveting things is NOT a sign of “hankering for the world”, while refusing to annihilate people IS? The context of this verse, like so many other verses that I am told are explainable by context, just makes it look worse! More petty, more worldly, and less like something that could be the word of God.

what you do with us , is the same as if you blame someone because of tradtion of catholic , then in the end he will tell you i’m not catholic . find someone catholic discuss with him your points

No it isn’t. Where do you get this idea that I even requested that anyone come to this thread and start some argument about whether or not the Qur’an is violent? I wrote it in the OP because it really self-evident to everyone who isn’t a Muslim (and I suspect many who are) that the Qur’an contains violence that inspires Islamic terrorism. I sure didn’t start this thread to do anything with or to you, beyond wondering if anyone here had heard of the program, or experienced it.

the same with us , you are blaming me becuase someone in somplace in the world used the quran to preach terrorism while majority of muslims preach peace by it

Well, I’m sorry that you are feeling so persecuted. That was not my intention. Perhaps after I extract jizya from you with humiliation because you are of a minority faith on this board which does not accept my Holy Book and threaten to cut off your fingertips for believing as you do, then you will see why I do not buy this argument that peace is preached BY the Qur’an (certainly you can preach peace WITH the Qur’an, but that involves at least some careful re-imagining or ignoring of the verses that are not peaceful)

are you agree to disagree ?

Certainly. I will always agree to that, because it is better than carrying this on for many pages when I know I won’t convince you and you know you won’t convince me.

 

[Hadi]

dzheremi*, can you briefly answer my questions in #22

BW, show me how the scholars in these programs use modern western interpretation of the Quran and not from the classical scholars…you know most of these programs are run by Salafis who are known to strongly advocate going back to the way of the Salafs (earliest Muslims generation). *

 

[dzheremi]

Sorry, Hadi. I missed your question earlier. I’m not sure I understand what you’re asking me there: How I explain the success of the SCHOLARS in the programs, or the success of the programs themselves? I don’t know how to answer that in either case, since the story in the OP is the first I’ve heard of any such programs. Here is the original source of the Canadian story. If you are talking about some other program in some other location, then I’d appreciate a link to it so that I can read about it for myself before answering your question.

 

[Hadi]

Sorry, Hadi. I missed your question earlier. I’m not sure I understand what you’re asking me there: How I explain the success of the SCHOLARS in the programs, or the success of the programs themselves? I don’t know how to answer that in either case, since the story in the OP is the first I’ve heard of any such programs. Here is the original source of the Canadian story. If you are talking about some other program in some other location, then I’d appreciate a link to it so that I can read about it for myself before answering your question.

Yes the one in Canada as well as the ones in Egypt , Algeria, Morocco and SA. But I don’t think you will find enough materials in English from these countries.

Anyway, this “detox” has been part of the traditional mainstream Islam since around 30AH to counter the Khawarijs (ancestors of modern day terrorists) and many of these Khawarijs actually returned back to Ahl Alsunnah Wal Jammah (Mainstream Islam) by engaging them in debates and discussions.

 

[dzheremi]

Well, Hadi, I did a little search on Google and found an article on the Christian Science Monitor website about the program in SA. It is here, if you wish to read it.

It is interesting that amidst all this talk of the program’s claimed “success” (claiming that the recidivism rate is “less than 5% if it’s not 1%”), there is this very telling line:

Hard-core militants, who Dr. Hadlaq says make up about 10 percent of Saudi security detainees, have mostly declined to participate in the program. “We don’t force anyone,” he said, “because you are dealing with ideology.”

So it seems that if it does appear successful, it is mostly because those that most need the program are the least likely to participate in it. After all, we wouldn’t want to FORCE anyone to stop killing people, would we? That’s not what SA is about!

In all seriousness, though, I am unmoved.

 

[Hadi]

It is interesting that amidst all this talk of the program’s claimed “success” (claiming that the recidivism rate is “less than 5% if it’s not 1%”), there is this very telling line:
.

You misread it …
*
“Those who have backslid into militancy are “very few, I am sure less than 5 [percent], if it’s not 1 percent,””*

please read the article carefully…

also look at the Algerian experience, i believe it had much more success

 

[dzheremi]

Umm…no. I did not misread it. “Recidivism” refers to relapse/backsliding into crime. That is not the line I was bringing up, however, and you know that if you followed my post. Do you have anything to say about the article or are you just going to continue to reference other programs in other parts of the world without providing any supporting article for discussion? I found an article about the program in SA after you mentioned it, but now you suddenly have nothing to say about it other than your claim that I misread the article. This is not a very good way to engage in a conversation, Hadi.

 

[elwill]

This is not a good comparison. Not only is this thread NOT about America (or Israel, or Palestine, or whatever other situation you want to bring up), but you are singling out ONE part of the verse and trying to apply it to today. I thought you were arguing earlier that the context of the verse nullifies any violent implication of it for today? If that is so, then why are you trying to apply it to the American armed forces to make me feel okay with it?

i did that to desribe for you what the quran meant by saying “Fighting is prescribed for you” which means to me iposed upon you . and what it meant by saying that they hate it , which for me is something logical to hate the war

** The verse, by the way, seems to be saying that this fighting it is talking about is GOOD FOR YOU **(“it is possible for ye to dislike a thing that is good for you”), which is certainly not what I would argue about United States involvement in Afghanistan. Whether or not it is necessary is another argument, but I refuse to engage that here (I stay out of the “Politics” forum for a reason). It is certainly not GOOD,

if you insist that fighting is always not good , then tell me if fighting taliban in your view good or not ?

but I can see how a terrorist reading it will think “Aha! Fighting is good! I am helping Islam! I have to go fight people because the Qur’an says it is good, and the Qur’an is the word of Allah!” So, once again, the Qur’an supports terrorism. It says fighting is good even if you hate to do it, and traditional Islamic understandings have certainly taken that to heart.

another assumption
well , they are ignorants in thier understanding , you can do for them a favour and tell them to study their religion and asking the schoars of islam and majority of muslims about the true understanding of this verse

Why are you trying to argue for a contextual neturalization of the verse I posted by posting two verses from nowhere near the one I posted?

to show you that we can’t fight peacefull nonmuslims , we can just fight those who fight us
by realizing that , you can understand that every verse talking about physical fight are refereing to nonmuslims who are not peacefull

So I do not trust Muslims in general to be reasonable about these things when the only criteria for fighting against people is whether or not they’re oppressed your religion.

it means that i have to not trust in christians in general once i find one of them fighting agianst others because they oppressed his religion

if people lives with your way of thinking , it will means that all the people will lose the trust of each other
what a peacefull way of thinking !

Did you ever see the video of Abuna Elias Chacour that I often post here? He is the Archbishop of the Melkite Catholic Church in Galilee, and he tells a story in the video about his family being forced from their home by Israelis when I was 10 (when the state of Israel was being created …

it’s a great story but i don’t agree
i can encourage forgivness of offenders rather than revenge only when i get my rights back , only then i can forgive
that true forgivness is remarkable only when you have the ability to revenge

Okay. This is true, but so what? I didn’t start this thread to judge Muslims. That’s not my place. I started this thread because the program sounds interesting, but I have concerns about the way it is run. If it works, great, but any honest appraisal I can give of the source material used (the Qur’an) suggests that such success must be from going against stated methods, because there’s no way that I can believe that the Qur’an can be transformed into something entirely peaceful (as another poster wrote).It isn’t. It does inspire terrorism.

so how many of muslims are terrorsits and how many of them are peacefull in your view , sorry i just can’t swallow your proclaims that quran inspire terrorism

See, this is what I don’t like about this sort of reasoning (although I DO understand that it comes out of your sincere belief, so please do not think I am intentionally being rude): You are assuming that if I see the “truth” about Islam/Qur’an, I will automatically agree with your interpretation that the Qur’an has no problematic verses in it, that it can all be explained by context, etc. I do not think this is true at all. This is like me telling you “Once you HONESTLY look for the truth in the Bible, you will become a Christian/you will believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God”. I know this is not true. I have sought honestly, I have looked at context around offending verses, and you know what? I still do not think they are supportable! It has nothing to do with believing terrorists over regular Muslims, and everything to do with what the Qur’an ACTUALLY says, which says that it is right to terrorize people because of their beliefs, that disbelieving in Muhammad will send you to hell, etc. I do not believe any of these things. There is no justification for them.

no i didn’t tell you that you have to see the truth which i view , read my sayings agian

if you are seeker for the truth ( i mean by the truth , the actual meaning of the context ) then you will discuss and explore the verses .

my issue wan’t about your convincing with my view , it was about discuss it
for example if terrorist used some quranic verses to justify their action , the un-biased person will firstly explore this verse and read it in it’s context and read the interpretations of other muslims to it , then he will judge
others , will just say " look , the quran inspired them to commit crime and to be terrorist , this book is evil and it preach the terrosim all the time "

 

[dzheremi]

if you insist that fighting is always not good , then tell me if fighting taliban in your view good or not ?

This is a very complicated issue and I’m not entirely sure I am qualified or comfortable passing those judgments. I have family members who have served in Afghanistan, and I would not want to dishonor their service or the service of any other person. I will say that to me, personally, there are more effective ways to fight terrorism than militarily. Terrorism comes from ideologies, so to replace a bad ideology you must have some better ideology to offer.

to show you that we can’t fight peacefull nonmuslims , we can just fight those who fight us
by realizing that , you can understand that every verse talking about physical fight are refereing to nonmuslims who are not peacefull

Even if that is the case, it matters very little! Where are the “not peaceful non-Muslims” in Iraq who are the Christians and the only ones without a militia (and who are being denied the right to start their own police force to protect themselves by the Kurdish government), so they are being slaughtered? Sorry, I do not buy this for a second, because I recognize that it is not the NON-MUSLIM who gets to decide what “fighting” is, and to the Muslim terrorist just BEING a non-Muslim on what they see as “Muslim land” is an act treason, blasphemy, and aggression.

it means that i have to not trust in christians in general once i find one of them fighting agianst others because they oppressed his religion

if people lives with your way of thinking , it will means that all the people will lose the trust of each other
what a peacefull way of thinking !

This sort of objection would make sense if the Holy Bible commanded Christians to fight militarily against people for not accepting Christianity and to oppress them and cut their fingers or heads or whatever, but it DOESN’T, so I think you’re stretching your credibility by bringing it up.

it’s a great story but i don’t agree
i can encourage forgivness of offenders rather than revenge only when i get my rights back , only then i can forgive
that true forgivness is remarkable only when you have the ability to revenge

I understand what you are saying, but I think you are deeply misguided in this area because that attitude creates a mindset of “give me what I want or I will keep killing/hurting/threatening until I get it”. Abuna Chacour makes the great point that the rights of the Palestinians and the Jews alike are not to be granted by man - they can’t be! They’re given by God to all alike. So by murdering people like terrorists do, you don’t guarantee rights. You become another person in the never-ending line of cannon-fodder for a world conflict. Abuna Chacour gets it. It’s a shame you do not.

so how many of muslims are terrorsits and how many of them are peacefull in your view , sorry i just can’t swallow your proclaims that quran inspire terrorism

Of course you can’t swallow it, you’re a Muslim and you’re brought up to think that there can’t possibly be anything wrong with it, so you won’t seriously look at it. If you were a Christian or a Jew or a Hindu or an atheist or anything but a Muslim, you start to see it.

And I don’t know how many Muslims are terrorists. This is not important. Other people here make this argument from numbers, but I won’t because I think ideologies say more than numbers. Every single Muslim I have ever gotten to know has been completely peaceful, kind, gentle and caring. That makes me love Muslims as PEOPLE, but I hate the sick ideology of their religion that says all these terrible things about me and my brothers and sister in Christ just because we refuse to ever give up the cross. We will simply have to agree to disagree, you and I.

no i didn’t tell you that you have to see the truth which i view , read my sayings agian

if you are seeker for the truth ( i mean by the truth , the actual meaning of the context ) then you will discuss and explore the verses .

my issue wan’t about your convincing with my view , it was about discuss it

Yes, but to what end? I also said in my reply that I have looked at these verses in their context, and I remain completely unconvinced. So what more can I do? I don’t see the justification that you apparently see in the contextual readings of the verses.

for example if terrorist used some quranic verses to justify their action , the un-biased person will firstly explore this verse and read it in it’s context and read the interpretations of other muslims to it , then he will judge
others , will just say " look , the quran inspired them to commit crime and to be terrorist , this book is evil and it preach the terrosim all the time "

Or they do like I do and say neither. They will say “the Qur’an INSPIRES terrorism with its violent verses that have no justification” and brace themselves for the onslaught of “that’s not true Islam!”, “You’re biased!”, “You hate Muslims! You say we are all terrorists”, etc. Save it! I’ve heard it all by now. We are dealing with the QUR’AN and its words - don’t you care about it enough to address the WORDS OF THE QUR’AN? When the Qur’an says “terrorize these people because of what they believe”, you turn around and say “oh, well, the context means something else”, and when I provide you the context (which I did in post #28) you say NOTHING. You say everything BUT what you need to say to address the verse! Please address the verse as given there or at least stop acting like I haven’t provided the context. I’m not just pulling this stuff out of thin air, my friend. These are the offending verses as they are written in the Qur’an. I did not put them there to make Islam look bad.

 

[Hadi]

Umm…no. I did not misread it. “Recidivism” refers to relapse/backsliding into crime. That is not the line I was bringing up, however, and you know that if you followed my post. Do you have anything to say about the article or are you just going to continue to reference other programs in other parts of the world without providing any supporting article for discussion? I found an article about the program in SA after you mentioned it, but now you suddenly have nothing to say about it other than your claim that I misread the article. This is not a very good way to engage in a conversation, Hadi.

I apologize, my very decent English sometimes puts me in ugly situations…that’s why I usually don’t want to extend the conversation… I gave the example of the Khawarijs without a reference or added an explanation to it because it would be explained better in other sites if you search about them in google.

From my understanding, the article mentions that the failure rate is around 5%… so I call that a success to the program…I also just read in Arabic that out of the thousands who entered these programs, only 7 went back to terrorism…

I don’t really know much about the English speaking world, but I have read and listened to the arguments that some of the well respected scholars bring to this topic, and no , they don’t use modern westren-influenced interpretation of the texts…they mention the writings of the classical Sunni scholars in the first centuries of Islam…that’s why they are called “Salafis”

Again, I’m sorry if I misunderstood you or something…I don’t do well in explaining myself clearly and that’s why I try to leave these discussions…but sometimes I feel the need to participate because nobody has given any answer or something has to be corrected…

 

[dzheremi]

I apologize, my very decent English sometimes puts me in ugly situations…that’s why I usually don’t want to extend the conversation…

It is okay. No need to apologize. Your English is far, far better than Arabic will ever be. I figured that might be the problem, that’s why I defined the word in my reply. I should have just chosen a different word. I was not thinking at the time. I apologize.

I gave the example of the Khawarijs without a reference or added an explanation to it because it would be explained better in other sites if you search about them in google.

I will do that when I have the time to read the articles. I have heard this name (“Khawarij”) before, but I cannot remember in what capacity.

From my understanding, the article mentions that the failure rate is around 5%… so I call that a success to the program…I also just read in Arabic that out of the thousands who entered these programs, only 7 went back to terrorism…

Yes, that certainly is a good result, but that is why I brought up the other line that said that the most hardcore terrorists simply refuse to participate. If that is the case, then can we really determine the success of the programs by the mere numbers alone? It is like this problem that we have in the USA for many years now surrounding our voting system. Because of very, very low turnouts in overall voters (voting is not compulsory in the USA like it is in other countries), some people wonder if the officials we elect really represent the “will of the people”. They may win over 50% of the popular vote, but if that 50%+ is out of a total of only 30% of the population, then what about all of those who remain outside of it completely? It is in an imperfect analogy, but hopefully you see how it fits the situation with the program in SA.

I don’t really know much about the English speaking world, but I have read and listened to the arguments that some of the well respected scholars bring to this topic, and no , they don’t use modern westren-influenced interpretation of the texts…they mention the writings of the classical Sunni scholars in the first centuries of Islam…that’s why they are called “Salafis”

Okay. Well, perhaps it is better to leave this part of the conversation for a while to some people who have been Muslims, like Byzantine Wolf (if he chooses to participate in this thread again). They would certainly know more than I do about the history of this or that group of Muslims. I have read translations of some old documents (the 'Pact of Umar" and some other things), but I generally don’t know much about what is connected to which group. There is enough confusing history in Christianity to keep me busy just in my own religion for the rest of my life! But I will try to find some information on these “Salafis” at some point in the future. I am not against learning, even though I can’t promise to change my mind even after I’ve read it.

Again, I’m sorry if I misunderstood you or something…I don’t do well in explaining myself clearly and that’s why I try to leave these discussions…but sometimes I feel the need to participate because nobody has given any answer or something has to be corrected…

It is okay. I didn’t mean to make you feel bad. I know that there can be some conflict between two people who have very different cultures and ideas.

 

[elwill]

I can, and I’m pretty sure I just did! I resent the accusation that I am taking things out of context, however, as I do not believe that context excuses the violence in the Qur’an. But, for the sake of argument, let us look at the verses around one of the offending verses that I posted earlier. Maybe then you can explain why it is okay, because I still don’t see it. The verse is 3.151, which I will put in bold below so that we can keep track of it. The verses around it are taken from 3.146 to 3.152. I hope that will be enough context to establish what the verse is saying.

this is very Good step into the argument dzheremi , but it’s 12 AM now in my country , i will respond to both of your posts tomorrow , i have to sleep now , i’m sorry

see you tomorrow

 

[elwill]

I can, and I’m pretty sure I just did! I resent the accusation that I am taking things out of context, however, as I do not believe that context excuses the violence in the Qur’an. But, for the sake of argument, let us look at the verses around one of the offending verses that I posted earlier. Maybe then you can explain why it is okay, because I still don’t see it. The verse is 3.151, which I will put in bold below so that we can keep track of it. The verses around it are taken from 3.146 to 3.152. I hope that will be enough context to establish what the verse is saying.

with my pleasure

by the way , these verses revealed after the battle of Uhud ( you can read about the details of this battle ifyou want )
it’s important to know the situation which the verses revealed in

Where is the context that makes the offending verse okay? First it is is saying that God loves steadfast believers (true), then it says that the unbelievers will be terrorized for “joining partners with Allah” (I know that this is a thinly-veiled reference to Christians, since Muhammad thought that this is what the Christian Trinity does),

**No , it’s actually refereing to anyone joining partner with allah , specifically the pagans ** , actually the verse historically taking about mikkans in the battle of Uhud

why you feel offness when God say that he will punish unbelievers in the hearafter ?
i didn’t ever denied that Quran warns the unbelievers from the bunishment in hearafter , my objection was about if quran preach muslims to be violent (unless within battlefield offcourse )

then it ends by incredibly saying that God was going to give you the power to annihilate people for being disbelievers, but then you flinched in sight of the “booty which ye covet”! I didn’t know God was such a help to pirates. And am I supposed to believe that coveting things is NOT a sign of “hankering for the world”, while refusing to annihilate people IS? The context of this verse, like so many other verses that I am told are explainable by context, just makes it look worse! More petty, more worldly, and less like something that could be the word of God.

so your critical issue starts here
let me just quote the verse you used again and i will give you our understnading for this verse based on knowledge , i will insert my interpretation inside brackets

Allah did indeed fulfilled His promise to you ( in the beginning of the day of Uhud) when ye with His permission Were about to annihilate your enemy ( or be victories in the battle ),-until ye flinched** ( or lost courage)** and fell to disputing about the order , and disobeyed it (such as the mistake made by the archers)after He brought you in sight (of the booty) which ye covet. Among you are some that hanker after this world **( referring to those who sought to collect the booty when they saw the enemy being defeated) ** and some that desire the Hereafter.
Then did He divert you from your foes in order to test you but He forgave you: For Allah is full of grace to those who believe.
(This Ayah means, Allah gave pagans the upper hand to try and test you, O believers,)

do you know this battle? in this battle muslims were defeated
it’s very clear for anyone have simple knowledge about islam that the verse talking about the events of this battle

one thing yet we didn’t discuss , the " booty "
so tell me what is your view about booty of the war , i can’t imagine that the army which gain the victory will leave the booty of the wars , tell me your suggestions towards it

No it isn’t. Where do you get this idea that I even requested that anyone come to this thread and start some argument about whether or not the Qur’an is violent? I wrote it in the OP because it really self-evident to everyone who isn’t a Muslim (and I suspect many who are) that the Qur’an contains violence that inspires Islamic terrorism. I sure didn’t start this thread to do anything with or to you, beyond wondering if anyone here had heard of the program, or experienced it.

i wasn’t talking about OP , i said that when you backed up your proofs from the culture of terrosist . the action of people not necessery represnt the religion , thier are always many factors other than the relegion which influence one’s behaviour

anyway , nevermind . neglect this point

Well, I’m sorry that you are feeling so persecuted. That was not my intention. Perhaps after I extract jizya from you with humiliation because you are of a minority faith on this board which does not accept my Holy Book and threaten to cut off your fingertips for believing as you do, then you will see why I do not buy this argument that peace is preached BY the Qur’an (certainly you can preach peace WITH the Qur’an, but that involves at least some careful re-imagining or ignoring of the verses that are not peaceful)

do you know that the taxes taken from nonmuslims (jeziah) are less than the taxes taken from muslims themselfs (zakaht)