Is Islam a threat to Christianity around the globe?

[spn82756]

Radical Christianity a threat around the globe!

(You have to watch past the first few seconds!!)

Hillarious!

 

[staffsgt7]

There is a post from a Muslim, #98, that lists the convictions of most Muslims today on the thread that covers the Muslims all having different interpretations of the Quran.

I would guess the different sects of Islam have different interpretations, but Sharia laws say that individual Muslims are not allowed to interpret it for themselves. (r.14) It goes into abrogation and all the hogwash about all the implications in the Koran and knowing it in Arabic. To me it is probably due to the fact that they don’t want Muslims to think for themselves.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

Yes and no.

I don’t think that there are many Christians who are becoming Muslim anywhere. There are more in sub-Saharan Africa than elsewhere, I think.

I don’t think Islam is a threat to Christianity as a religion. There are some places, notably Pakistan, where Christians are routinely persecuted by Muslims.

I saw a wonderful documentary on Jerusalem last night on PBS. It showed two Muslim men, who are the guardians of the Church of the Holy Sephulcher. Since the Christians could not agree on which denomination should control the Church, Saladin (Ibn Ayyub Salah ad-Din) gave control to disinterested Muslims.

 

[sedonaman]

The crucialy required, but almost impossible task here is to separate the humans beings who practice Islam from the ideas and principles that make up Islam. We seem almost incapable of making that distinction!
…

I see you noticed that too.

And to the rest of your post also.

 

[Contarini]

Is the rise of Islam in America and around the world going to be dangerous to the spread and livelihood of Catholicism. I’ve read that the ultimate goal of Islam is to rule the world and to convert every non-believer(infidel) to Islam

In this Islam and Christianity are identical.

and if they cannot be converted then murder is justified.

Murder of whom? How do you define murder? Are you a pacifist? Under what circumstances do you think warfare is justified?

Muslims are forbidden to convert other monotheists forcibly, although Muslims, like Christians, have often stretched this rule to the breaking point (in both Islamic and Christian cultures, people condemned to death might be given a chance to live if they converted to the dominant religion, for instance). Muslims have sometimes engaged in “conversion or death” tactics in dealing with “idolaters” such as Hindus, although this hasn’t been the rule even there.

Traditional Islamic law calls for war against non-Muslim governments with the goal of establishing shari’ah–the rule of God’s law as Muslims understand it–throughout the whole world. But this does *not *mean that all non-Muslims are to be forced to become Muslims. Monotheists who are not Muslims are to be allowed to practice their religion as long as they submit to Islamic rule (this is the way Jews were treated in medieval Europe, on the whole). And this general principle of waging war on countries not ruled by Islamic law allows for long periods of truce. This warfare for the purpose of extending the rule of God’s law is called “jihad,” a term which covers any kind of struggle do to God’s will and resist evil. Theoretically, jihad is the only kind of legitimate warfare for Muslims–they are not supposed to fight each other or to fight for purely earthly reasons (of course, they have often violated this rule). And it’s important to note that jihad doesn’t have to mean warfare, and many Muslims would argue that its primary meaning has nothing to do with warfare.

How to interpret these teachings in the modern world is a point on which Muslims differ. I think it’s fair to say that most Muslims today understand “jihad” (when it refers to war at all) as defensive warfare against governments that are actually persecuting Muslims or otherwise engaged in tyranny and injustice. As long as Islam can spread and be practiced peacefully, war is not necessary. Even Osama bin Laden justified his declaration of “jihad” on the United States by claims that the U.S. is engaged in aggressive actions against Islam. In other words, even an extreme Islamic radical is not saying “let’s go kill those people because they are not Muslims” but “let’s attack a country that is engaged in aggression against Islam and is supporting an imperialistic Western colony in our sacred lands, namely Israel.” Many Muslims, even if they don’t go as far as bin Laden, share some degree of his perception that the U.S. is an enemy of Islam and have some hostility to the U.S. Others do not.

This I’ve also read is derived from their “most holy texts” the Qur’an and the Hadith of Bukhari.

Bukhari’s collection of hadith is indeed one of the most respected. However, as you surely know, lots of things can be “derived” from sacred texts. Muslims have well-established traditions of law which interpret the Qur’an and the hadith. There are four major schools of law developed in the Middle Ages (for Sunnis), and they have somewhat differing interpretations but tend to agree on the main points. I believe that they all define jihad more or less as I’ve described it above, and they all have limits on jihad which are derived from the hadith. For instance, women, children, Christian clergy, and generally non-combatants cannot be killed.

Some Muslims today no longer accept the authority of traditional Islamic law. The problem is that you can depart from traditional law in different directions. Many Muslims depart from it by defining “jihad” as primarily an internal struggle against evil and as involving warfare only under the same circumstances in which most Christians would support “just war.” Unfortunately, bin Laden and other radicals depart from it in arguing that the traditional limits do not apply under modern conditions–hence 9/11, which was clearly forbidden by traditional Islamic law and roundly condemned by a chorus of Islamic scholars around the world (something many Westerners choose to ignore because it goes against their prejudices).

Many of the more liberal Muslims question not only the medieval law codes but even the hadith, seeing only the Qur’an as authoritative (and interpreting the Qur’an in a much gentler manner than the traditionalists do, let alone the radicals).

 

[Contarini]

If you ask a devout Muslim about such claims he is liable to say anything in order to placate the situation because derived from the same texts is that it is appropriate to deceive or lie to infidels for the spread of Islam.

Isn’t that convenient? You can say whatever you like about Muslims, and the Muslims can’t speak in their own defense because whatever they say is a lie. People used to say this about Catholics too, with about the same amount of justification.

From my minimal research on Islam it seems the epitome of being a Muslim is to spread the world dominance of the religion using whatever means possible. Murder, Deception, Theft, TERROR.

Why don’t you expand your research beyond the “minimal” before coming to conclusions?

Could Islam be a global threat to Christianity in the near future?

What do you mean: “near future”? Islam has been a major challenger to Christianity for the past 1400 years or so.

But we do not need to be afraid of Islam or anything else, as long as we follow the one who was crucified and rose again.

website I got most these claims
www.thereligionofpeace.com

Why do you trust this website so implicitly? Why not read some scholarly accounts? Here’s a bibliography of scholarly sources on Islam, and a list of websites dealing with Islam.

Don’t just trust one highly biased source.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

i get sick and tired of hearing how violent muslims are “misguided” and don’t really understand what their religion teaches. total, 100% b.s.

I get sick of hearing how peaceful Muslims are either clueless or liars.

But instead of saying how sick you are, how about making an actual argument?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Sam_777:

**Muslim expansion in the time of Muhammad:

/**quote]

Sam,

That map does not show the time of Muhammad but the time of the first four caliphs.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

When exactly did this Saudi Imam make this statement? Probably when Al-Qaeda started threatening the interests of the House of Saud which pays the upkeep of Mecca.

Evidence for this speculation?

Essentially it appears that when confronted with a fact that contradicts your prejudices, you invent an unfounded speculation that confirms your prejudices.

Not a very convincing form of argument, is it?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

if obama is president when it happens, you will be correct. eric holder will personally read the terrorists their miranda warnings

Exactly. The United States now has a government that respects the rule of law. What is terrifying is that you consider this a bad thing.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

If Islam can be spread by logic & sense, it wouldn’t be ordering its followers to just SUBMIT (blindly).

Christians have also often been told to “have faith” and not use their reason. Even Catholics, who at their best have exalted reason, have had centuries of telling the laypeople not to read certain books or think about certain issues because it would shake their faith.

Just think, if you are NOT born into a muslim family, nor in a muslim community, how many of you who are sane would accept islam as a religion? I think less than 0.1%. And that would likely be because you want some form of ‘justifications’ for killing people due to your in-ability to adapt socially.

It’s interesting how many people on this thread resort to wild speculation about other people’s motives when the facts are against them.

The plain facts are that lots of people convert to Islam freely. I don’t entirely understand it myself. Except for Sufism (and the things I like about Sufism don’t seem to me to be necessarily connected to Islam), Islam has little appeal for me. But clearly a lot of other people feel differently.

Edwin

 

[sedonaman]

Exactly. The United States now has a government that respects the rule of law. What is terrifying is that you consider this a bad thing.
…

This is true because it is following the law you want which is the law as the liberal intelligencia see it. “The difficulty with our system of representative self-government, as they [the intelligencia] see it, is that everyone gets to vote, with the result that the views of the unenlightened masses are likely to prevail. The function of constitutional law, in the view of our cultural elite and as it has largely operated in recent decades, is to keep this from happening. … Such policymaking is much preferred by our cultural elite to policymaking by the elected representatives of the people because judges, given a free hand in policymaking, can generally be relied on to serve as the mirror, mouthpiece, and enacting arm of liberal academia in general and liberal legal academia in particular.” – Constitutional Law Professor Lino Graglia.

The long battle to drag the terrorist cases into civilian courts was to ensure that the wishes of the masses [and long-standing precedents] are prevented from prevailing.

Customary International Law of Armed Conflict [LOAC, part of the Geneva Convention] binds every country in the world including the U.S.

However, what you said about the rule of law is not true because the US is not following the law of this treaty.

International collective security and U.S. national security may be achieved only through a steadfast commitment to the Rule of Law. For the U.S. to grant POW status to captured members of al-Qaeda or the Taliban would be an abdication of these international legal responsibilities and obligations. It would set a dangerous precedent contrary to the Rule of Law and LOAC, and to the highest purpose of the laws of warfare, the protection of civilians [and other non-combatants] during armed conflict.

This legal argument :

1. Explains how LOAC protects civilians through the enforcement of clear distinctions between lawful combatants, unlawful combatants, and protected noncombatants;

1. summarizes the four conditions of lawful belligerency under customary and treaty-based LOAC;

1. Instructs why combatants who do not meet these conditions do not possess combatant’s privilege; that is, the immunity provided to members of the armed forces for acts in armed conflict that would otherwise be crimes in time of peace;

1. Reviews why LOAC does not require that captured unlawful combatants be afforded POW status, and addresses specifically captured al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters. The practices and behavior of these fighters en masse in combat deny them privileges as lawful belligerents entitled to combatant’s privilege;

1. Argues that al-Qaeda unlawful combatants are most appropriately described as hostes humani generis, “the common enemies of mankind”;

1. Explains why al-Qaeda members, as hostes humani generis, are classic unlawful combatants, as part of a stateless organization that en masse engaged in combat unlawfully in an international armed conflict without any legitimate state or other authority;

1. Explicates al-Qaeda’s theocratic-political hegemonic objectives and its use of global terrorism to further those objectives;

1. Expounds as to why international law deems a transnational act of private warfare by al-Qaeda as malum in se, “a wrong in itself”;

1. Related to al-Qaeda’s status as hostes humani generis, describes one of the Taliban’s many violations of international law; that is, willfully allowing al-Qaeda hostes humani generis to reside within Afghanistan’s sovereign borders from where al-Qaeda could and did attack unlawfully other sovereign states;

1. Details a state’s inherent rights if and when attacked by such hostes humani generis.

Following this, the article,

1. Asserts that there is no doubt or ambiguity as to the unlawful combatant status of the Taliban and al-Qaeda … . As a result, … there is no need or requirement for proceedings under Geneva Convention III, Art. 5 to adjudicate their presumptive unlawful combatant status and non-entitlement to POW status pro forma; and,

1. Notes that al-Qaeda and Taliban detainees, as unlawful combatants, are subject to trial by U.S. military commissions for their acts of unlawful belligerency or other violations of LOAC and international humanitarian law.

Therefore, by moving the terrorists into civilian courts, the United States is not following the “rule of law”, the [LOAC] which was designed to ensure that deaths of non-combatants and damage to non war-related property are minimized during an armed conflict. By treating hostes humani generis as legitimate combatants, or worse, as accused of a civil crime, the US is encouraging more, not less, terrorism.

The conclusion is that your position is the more terrifying one.

 

[KyivAndrew]

Evidence for this speculation?

Essentially it appears that when confronted with a fact that contradicts your prejudices, you invent an unfounded speculation that confirms your prejudices.

Not a very convincing form of argument, is it?

Edwin

With all due respect, I thought you were taking a break from this forum because you felt you became way too argumentative with other posters, I seem to recall you posting. I do not know you Contarini, nor do you me. It would help us both as Christians if you do not jump on another poster with an accusation that he/she engages in unfounded speculation to confirm “prejudices”. Again, you do not know me and I do not like ad hominems coming from out of nowhere.

I have tried to be careful here. That’s why I specifically referred to Wahhabism (a strict Islamic school of thought) as opposed to Islam in general in making my remarks. I specifically set out to not tar the entire religion and all those who practice it. I was emphasizing Wahhabism because one poster was from Quatar, and Wahhabi money funds radical mosques in the West. I encourage you in the future to not be so quick to jump at another poster accusing him or her of “prejudices” and “unfounded speculations” on the basis of one thread.

And as for the timing of the statement in question, the Imam in question made it this year, after Al-Qaeda attacks became more of a threat to the Kingdom of Saud.

sources I read frequently to keep up with international affairs and the Middle East. I’ll quote them for your benefit so as to attempt to have you understand I am not engaged in unfounded prejudice. I really do attempt to understand this conflict.

Foreign Policy Magazine: foreignpolicy.com/

Foreign Affairs Journal. foreignaffairs.com/

The National Interest. nationalinterest.org/

The American Interest. the-american-interest.com/

The New York Review of Books. nybooks.com/

I read and have read for years these journals voraciously, among many others, because in University I loved studying International Relations. Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations and the works of Brzezinski, Bacevich, Pryce-Jones come to mind off the top of the head in speaking of the Middle East.

Happy New Year.

 

[manualman]

Contarini,

I respect your (name removed by moderator)ut and would welcome feedback on my post. I do tend to be a hothead, but in my mind you’ve more than earned the right to have your ideas considered fairly.

I DO think people over-react and over-generalize unfairly about muslims. As I noted above, it is crucial to avoid developing stereotypes about muslims when critiqueing Islam itself. The two are not the same thing.

 

[KyivAndrew]

. As long as Islam can spread and be practiced peacefully, war is not necessary. Even Osama bin Laden justified his declaration of “jihad” on the United States by claims that the U.S. is engaged in aggressive actions against Islam. In other words, even an extreme Islamic radical is not saying “let’s go kill those people because they are not Muslims” but “let’s attack a country that is engaged in aggression against Islam and is supporting an imperialistic Western colony in our sacred lands, namely Israel.”

Some Muslims today no longer accept the authority of traditional Islamic law. The problem is that you can depart from traditional law in different directions. Many Muslims depart from it by defining “jihad” as primarily an internal struggle against evil and as involving warfare only under the same circumstances in which most Christians would support “just war.” Unfortunately, bin Laden and other radicals depart from it in arguing that the traditional limits do not apply under modern conditions–hence 9/11, which was clearly forbidden by traditional Islamic law and roundly condemned by a chorus of Islamic scholars around the world (something many Westerners choose to ignore because it goes against their prejudices).

Yes, “unfortunately”. Thank you for giving us the murderer bin Laden’s justifications, and how clearly this is “forbidden by traditional Islamic law”. In this regard, I would encourage you to see if you can read Fouad Ajami, the prominent professor of Islam, who followed the arguments in Islam after 9/11 and pointed out how difficult it was for Islam’s most prominent imams and religious scholars in the Middle East itself to condemn suicide bombing unanimously. Ajami, an expert on this, noted that there was a widely-held view among many Islamic jurists that suicide attacks may be justified. There was no clear-cut, unanimous “this is forbidden” outcry from the world’s Islamic bigwigs. Ajami stated this clearly on CBS news as well as he was their go-to expert on Islam. (I wish I could find the transcript of the interview as well).

And please remember, not for my sake, when you respond to someone, you may be responding to a brand new member to CAF who has never, ever, posted here before, and wishes to learn, as is the case with the OP of this thread. It is the OP’s first and only post so far.

 

[Angel7]

What Does The Roman Catholic Church say about all of this on Islam? Is there a stance taken when talking about Islam or Other religions? Does The Church view Islam as a threat? Or any other Religion for that matter?

 

[Renko]

In my opinion, there isn’t a good Muslim in the bunch, you can’t trust any of them.

 

[planten]

Yes, “unfortunately”. Thank you for giving us the murderer bin Laden’s justifications, and how clearly this is “forbidden by traditional Islamic law”. In this regard, I would encourage you to see if you can read Fouad Ajami, the prominent professor of Islam, who followed the arguments in Islam after 9/11 and pointed out how difficult it was for Islam’s most prominent imams and religious scholars in the Middle East itself to condemn suicide bombing unanimously. Ajami, an expert on this, noted that there was a widely-held view among many Islamic jurists that suicide attacks may be justified. There was no clear-cut, unanimous “this is forbidden” outcry from the world’s Islamic bigwigs. Ajami stated this clearly on CBS news as well as he was their go-to expert on Islam. (I wish I could find the transcript of the interview as well).

And please remember, not for my sake, when you respond to someone, you may be responding to a brand new member to CAF who has never, ever, posted here before, and wishes to learn, as is the case with the OP of this thread. It is the OP’s first and only post so far.

contarini had given good information about the muslim minds and their prevalent thouhgts. It was as good as it could be without blindly accusing the muslims. Every one should present views and comment on whatever is presented by others. There is no need to discourage contarini.

The bad work of Bin Laden could never be supported by Islamic rules. Bin Lden is nobody to formulate an idea of Jihad and put it into action. He has been the cause of a lot of damage to Islam and mankind.

Bin Laden is nobody to permit attacks and call them Jihad because America was anti-Muslim. Also, the Muslim clergy were hesitant in giving their decision about the suicide bombing. That was bad too.

Suicide bombing is basically illegal under Islamic rules. So why the Mullas were hesitant to speak out against suicide bombings. That was their fault. In Islam, suicide is Haraam (illegal, bad deed). Any one who kills himself is supposed to go to hell. That is well known rule of Islam.

The 9/11 was a definite case of suicide. And a damage (death) to innocent non- civilian combatants. It was an attack without notice or decalration which is also disallowed by islam. Any secret un-announced attack is disallowd in Islam. The 9/11 was such a super secret attack. Could not be supported by any Islamic means.

Primarily, the real Jihaad is to correct oneself, to purify one’s deeds and even to suffer humilation without retaliation, without attack. The warlike Jihaad is Haraam in these days. It is forbidden. The Muslism are not practicing Islam in these days. So Islam and Muslims is not the same thing.

If Muslims are making mistakes and doing bad things, and if they are attacked, it does not mean Islam is attacked. The attack on Islam nowadays is verbal and need be replied verbally only. Of course we do not like that Muslims should be beaten unduly. That is a fact. But we should not permit beating of any one of other faiths too, i…e Hindu, Budhist, Jew and Christian. They should also not be killed or persecuted.

I will have to look into the posts of contarini again to reply properly. There were some very good ideas in those unbiased posts.

 

[KyivAndrew]

What Does The Roman Catholic Church say about all of this on Islam? Is there a stance taken when talking about Islam or Other religions? Does The Church view Islam as a threat? Or any other Religion for that matter?

From the Catechism 841 "The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm#839

One would have to read the part in whole on salvation to get the context.

From the Venerable Pope John Paul II’s Crossing the Threshold of Hope (written in 1994): In the Declaration Nostra Aetate we read: “The Church also has a high regard for Muslims, who worship one God, living and subsistent, merciful, and omnipotent, the Creator of Heaven and earth” As a result of their monotheism, believers in Allah are particularly close to us…

Whoever knows the Old and New Testaments, and then reads the Koran, clearly sees the process by which it completely reduces Divine Revelation. It is impossible not to note the movement away from what God said about Himself, first in the Old Testament through the Prophets, and then finally in the New Testament through His Son. In Islam, all the richness of God’s revelation, which constitutes the heritage of the Old and New Testaments, has definitely been set aside.

Some of the most beautiful names in the human language are given to the God of the Koran, but He is ultimately a God outside of the world, a God who is only Majesty, never Emmanuel, God-is-with-us. Islam is not a religion of redemption.. There is no room for the Cross and Resurrection. Jesus is mentioned, but only as a prophet who prepares for the last prophet Muhammad. There is also mention of Mary, His Virgin Mother, but the tragedy of redemption is completely absent. For this reason not only the theology but also the anthropology of Islam is very different from Christianity…

…concrete difficulties are not lacking. In countries where fundamentalist movements come to power, human rights and the principle of religious freedom are unfortunately interpreted in a very one-sided way – religious freedom comes to mean freedom to impose on all citizens the “true religion.” In these countries the situation of Christians is sometimes terribly disturbing. Fundamentalist attitudes of this nature make reciprocal contacts very difficult. All the same, the Church always remains open to dialogue and cooperation. (bolded emphasis the Pope’s, not mine).

books.google.ca/books?id=oIlL7AmxWc8C&dq=Crossing+the+Threshold+of+Hope&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=cmpqlu2Agk&sig=JxfEChphCTnVW0vKPEas2Krtczs&hl=en&ei=Zy48S-roNpLslAfu4O2jBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CA0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=&f=false

There is also this speech Pope Benedict made not too long ago, which didn’t have its focus on Islam, but resulted in the burning of Churches in the Muslim world and the killing of a nun. vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regensburg_lecture

It is sad at times but there can always be hope and, of course, there are millions of peaceful, virtuous, sincere Muslims all around us. It just seems to be what is being taught in the madrassas in Pakistan and Wahhabi schools elsewhere that is the problem. Some wag once declared there is a Civil War within Islam right now between the moderns and the ancients. This is true, with some of the Muslim posters here possibly belonging to the former. The Christian world seems to have been pulled into this Civil War now too, whether we like it or not. Let’s hope the Big Guy upstairs helps us out in the New Year away from terrorism and bloodshed.

 

[KyivAndrew]

Suicide bombing is basically illegal under Islamic rules.

So then when is suicide bombing legal under Islamic law, if it is only “basically illegal” under Islamic rules? That means you believe there are some places you seem to indicate where they are legal, or am I misreading. I appreciate your honesty planten in your remarks. Here’s what I got on this subject:
The Islamic Roots of Suicide Bombings

What is the connection between religious sources of over a millennium ago to the suicide bombings of today? There is a direct link between the jihadists of yesterday and contemporary jihadists. Many jihadists cite the works of Taqi al-din Ahmad Ibn Taymiya (1263-1328), an Islamic scholar born in Harran, in modern-day Turkey, who wrote extensively on the need for jihad and exalted it even above the Islamic obligations of fasting and pilgrimage (hajj).[66] He attacked many practices prevalent among Muslims of his time and favored a literal interpretation of the Qur’an. Modern jihadists have used his fatwas commanding Muslims to fight the Mongols as precedents legitimizing suicide bombing. Mawdudi, Banna, and Qutb have also developed Ibn Taymiya’s philosophy,[67] writing extensively on jihad as the means to fight the re-emergence of the age of ignorance, with its tribal savagery and anarchy. They also suggested that the Islamic order can be maintained and protected, if not expanded, through violence.

In recent decades, the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas has embraced suicide bombings to lethal effect. Its 1987 charter shows its intellectual and theological justifications. It cites the Qur’an[68] to promote the idea of Muslim exclusivity and hadith from Bukhari and the Sahih Muslim calling for the murder of Jews to hasten the Day of Judgment. More recent exegesis also influenced Hamas. The charter cites Banna’s call for Islam to obliterate Israel and is explicit about the violent nature of jihad: Article 13 argues that there is no solution to the Palestinian question but through jihad, and Article 15 declares the necessity to instill jihad in the heart of the Muslim nation.

The 9-11 suicide attacks sparked significant debate in the Islamic world about the merits of suicide attacks.[69] Sheikh Muhammad Sa’id al-Tantawi, head of Cairo’s Al-Azhar, the most prestigious university for Sunni jurisprudence, declared that the Shari‘a rejects all attempts on taking human life, and Sheikh Muhammad bin ‘Abdallah al-Sabil, a member of the Saudi Council of Islamic Clerics and imam at the Grand Mosque in Mecca, decried the suicide attacks on the basis that Islamic law forbids killing civilians, suicide, and protects Jews and Christians. But both Tantawi and Sabil sidestep the question of “martyrdom operations.” Because preserving the life of dhimmis (Jews and Christians) is conditional to their acceptance of Muslim rule, suicide attacks upon Israelis or Jews and Christians outside majority Muslim countries may be permissible. Indeed, other Al-Azhar scholars, for example, ‘Abd al-'Azim al-Mit’ani, say it is permissible to kill Israeli civilians in the cause of jihad.[70]

Today’s Al-Qaeda splinter and successor groups and their fellow travelers use the writings of Ibn Taymiya and those influenced by him. The linkage is concrete. They often cite the same Qur’anic passages and hadith that justified the violent jihad of the seventh century. Religious clerics issue fatwas citing them. Perhaps the most prominent of these is Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi,[71] who has built upon such interpretations to justify suicide bombing, other acts of terrorism, and the murder of civilians, all in the cause of jihad. He has called suicide bombing a supreme form of jihad for the sake of God and, therefore, religiously legitimate.[72] Those who object to his ideas he labels as agents of ignorance.[73] While he argues that the Qur’an does not allow attacks against the innocent,[74] his definition of innocence is so narrow as to obviate such assurances.

September 11 hijacker Muhammad Atta’s last will and testament[75] shows how deep such interpretations of jihad have penetrated Muslim life as his verbiage and instructions for burial showed how he believed himself a good Muslim, even as he participated in an event which murdered almost 3,000 civilian

meforum.org/1003/the-religious-foundations-of-suicide-bombings

What in your opinion would be the best method to stop the weekly suicide bombings of Muslims killing fellow-Muslims as in Pakistan two days ago or today in Iraq with a two suicide bombs. nytimes.com/2009/12/31/world/middleeast/31iraq.html

How can one help Muslims from blowing up one another now on such a regular, incredibly bloody frequency? I mean even in Palestine, it is not the Arab Christians who carry out suicide attacks (though they live under the exact same circumstances as their fellow Muslim Arabs) it is always Muslim Arabs who commit suicide attacks with blessings often for their martyrdom shaheed operations. If it was all the fault of the Occupation, then why aren’t Palestinian Christains rushing for bomb belts like their Muslim neighbours? Certainly religion plays a role in this.