Is Islam responsible for 9/11?

[SaberBob]

Anabib,

Many of us (including myself) have taken great pains to point out that most Muslims are not terrorists or particularly sympathetic to Jihad via terrorism or other violence but this is the simple fact: the foundational texts of Islam, the example of it’s founder, his followers,and multiple centuries of followers and interpreters say that the primary goal of Islam is subdue all humanity under dar-al-Islam, the rule of Sharia, by whatever means, including warfare without restrictions, aka Jihad.

In some posts there is this vague but popular claim that “extremism” is the actual threat, and generic.“extremists” will latch onto any convienent ideology to justify their extreme violence. While all humanity shares common inclinations for hatred, avarice, domination, lust, etc…not all religions or ideologies are equal in justifying, or even amplifying these tendencies. Islam uniquely among religions has IN CONTEXT the greatest and most explicit sanctions promoting war and less formal violence in the ultimate goal of establising dar-al-Islam.

All four of the Sunni religious-legal schools agree Jihad means explicit warfare against unbelievers, the Shia equivalents concur. The often repeated “Haddith” where Muhammad supposedly talked about the Greater Jihad" of personal character building is a FALSE Haddith of no legal standing in any of the religious-legal schools of Islam, save the 1% of Ahimsa who are largely regarded as apostates by Sunni and Shia alike.

 

[LilyM]

Anabib,

Many of us (including myself) have taken great pains to point out that most Muslims are not terrorists or particularly sympathetic to Jihad via terrorism or other violence but this is the simple fact: the foundational texts of Islam, the example of it’s founder, his followers,and multiple centuries of followers and interpreters say that the primary goal of Islam is subdue all humanity under dar-al-Islam, the rule of Sharia, by whatever means, including warfare without restrictions, aka Jihad.

In some posts there is this vague but popular claim that “extremism” is the actual threat, and generic.“extremists” will latch onto any convienent ideology to justify their extreme violence. While all humanity shares common inclinations for hatred, avarice, domination, lust, etc…not all religions or ideologies are equal in justifying, or even amplifying these tendencies. Islam uniquely among religions has IN CONTEXT the greatest and most explicit sanctions promoting war and less formal violence in the ultimate goal of establising dar-al-Islam.

“IN CONTEXT” according to who exactly? There is no real centralised infallible religious leadership or authority in Islam to provide definitive and binding interpretations or context. It was said upthread that even fatwas are not considered morally binding.

And the splits among Muslim sects, for example Shia v Sunni, started almost immediately on the death of Mohammed. So there never was any real period of unified leadership among Muslims.

 

[Conspiracy_Theorist]

“This man will be like a wild donkey. His hand will be against everyone, and everyone’s hand will be against him; he will settle near all his relatives.” (Genesis 16:12)

So true.

 

[SaberBob]

Lily,

If there is NO "real centralized infallible religious authority’ for Muslims, then ANY Jihadists’ interpretation is just as valid as say, Irshad Manji’s. At best they rhetorically cancel each other out, except the Jihadists will have the force of violence.

No Muslim is “on his own”. He is part of the Ummah, the community of believers, with a heirarchy less apparent than most Churches, but an authority to enforce orthodoxy and practice as the % of Muslims increase in any area.

PS: Does anyone else see the contradiction between “there is no infallible religious authority over Muslims” vs. “Jihadi terrorism is a perversion of true Islam”.

 

[LilyM]

Lily,

If there is NO "real centralized infallible religious authority’ for Muslims, then ANY Jihadists’ interpretation is just as valid as say, Irshad Manji’s. At best they rhetorically cancel each other out, except the Jihadists will have the force of violence.

No Muslim is “on his own”. He is part of the Ummah, the community of believers, with a heirarchy less apparent than most Churches, but an authority to enforce orthodoxy and practice as the % of Muslims increase in any area.

But the question is not “can Muslims in an area enforce their beliefs on others”, of course they can.

The question is “is ISLAM responsible for 9/11”. Not Muslims. Islam. So the very first thing one must do is answer the question “what is Islam”.

Is Islam simply what the 9/11 terrorist and their sympathisers happen to believe? Surely not, since a large number of equally devout Muslims condemn them, and condemn the idea of violent jihad against the West in general.

If the question were “was Christianity responsible for the Crusades” you can point to a centralised authority within Christianity - the Popes - who in fact called for Crusade. And to the fact that the majority of Christians listened to and supported the views of those Popes is evidence that the Popes were indeed speaking and thinking on behalf of Christianity, more or less.

If you can show the same overwhelming weight of opinion and action within the community of adherents of Islam in support of the philosophy and actions of the 9/11 terrorists, then you can properly say Islam itself (again, as distinguished from Muslims) is responsible for 9/11.

 

[SaberBob]

LilyM,

Okay, take a poll of all American Catholics, those who self-identity as Catholic regardless of their Mass attendence, regarding artificial contraception or even the doctrine of the Real Presence of the Eucharist. Does the majority determine what is Catholic doctrine on these or any other issue?

Likewise, what may be the opinion of the majority of cutrent Muslims has no bearing on what is in the foundational texts and the example of Muhammad and his followers through 1400 years. If we are Catholics, we should SO get the point that unlike the claims of deconstructionists of all stripes, foundational texts are not endlessly re-interpertable and malleable. This is how and why nominal or devout but “moderate” Muslims can be radicalized; they start to see the interpretations of Jihadists is actually more grounded in the Koran and aHaddith than the claims of moderate/liberal mullahs. For many years, most Muslims didn’t know about the Koranic basis of Jihad, of dhimmitude, or deception (taquiyaa). This is not surprising when to this day, 80% of Muslims do not know Arabic and a far smaller % know the classical Arabic the Koran and aHaddith. They generally don’t crack open the Koran even in translation because it is a mostly one sided monologue with references and context that are opaque, so most Muslims end up relying on their mullah–and here is where the Wahabbi issue does have legitimacy because they can and open how the Koran demands “kinetic” Jihad, ESPECIALLY when Abrogation becomes the key for interpreting the Jihad meta-narrative.

 

[upant]

To generalize an entire religion based on what a few terrorists did is not okay. If someone from your religion committed a crime, you wouldn’t like people to generalize you and paint you as someone that you’re clearly not. You wouldn’t like that blame put on you. Every religion will have bad members. Every religion will have good members. This is why some people are racist. They see a few people from a certain race doing wrongful things a generalize their entire race. Don’t be xenophobic.

read their book

Exactly! Imagine if Christianity as a whole were held accountable for, for example, the horrors of the Westboro Baptist Church. We would say that Westboro Baptists cherry pick or misinterpret verses of the Bible to justify their opinions, just as Muslims on this thread (and I defer to their superior knowledge of the whole of the Quran and Hadith) state that terrorists might cherry pick or misinterpret verses of the Quran or Hadith.

listen to their teachers,

“IN CONTEXT” according to who exactly? There is no real centralised infallible religious leadership or authority in Islam to provide definitive and binding interpretations or context. It was said upthread that even fatwas are not considered morally binding.

And the splits among Muslim sects, for example Shia v Sunni, started almost immediately on the death of Mohammed. So there never was any real period of unified leadership among Muslims.

history provides you the proof you seek, when was Islam peaceful?

Is Islam simply what the 9/11 terrorist and their sympathisers happen to believe? Surely not, since a large number of equally devout Muslims condemn them, and condemn the idea of violent jihad against the West in general.

can the words of the prophet be changed?

if terrorists make up only a small percentage of the Muslim religion and if terrorism is wrong per their book, why haven’t the majority cleaned house? they have the right to correct those who go astray.

 

[drac16]

No, I don’t believe that Islam is responsible for it. A corrupted offshoot of Islam was/is responsible. Islam is possibly the most misunderstood religion in the world. It has a lot of critics, but in my experience, the critics of Islam typically have no clue about what Shariah is, what it says or how it works.

 

[LilyM]

anabib:

To generalize an entire religion based on what a few terrorists did is not okay. If someone from your religion committed a crime, you wouldn’t like people to generalize you and paint you as someone that you’re clearly not. You wouldn’t like that blame put on you. Every religion will have bad members. Every religion will have good members. This is why some people are racist. They see a few people from a certain race doing wrongful things a generalize their entire race. Don’t be xenophobic.

read their book

Exactly! Imagine if Christianity as a whole were held accountable for, for example, the horrors of the Westboro Baptist Church. We would say that Westboro Baptists cherry pick or misinterpret verses of the Bible to justify their opinions, just as Muslims on this thread (and I defer to their superior knowledge of the whole of the Quran and Hadith) state that terrorists might cherry pick or misinterpret verses of the Quran or Hadith.

listen to their teachers,

“IN CONTEXT” according to who exactly? There is no real centralised infallible religious leadership or authority in Islam to provide definitive and binding interpretations or context. It was said upthread that even fatwas are not considered morally binding.

And the splits among Muslim sects, for example Shia v Sunni, started almost immediately on the death of Mohammed. So there never was any real period of unified leadership among Muslims.

history provides you the proof you seek, when was Islam peaceful?

Is Islam simply what the 9/11 terrorist and their sympathisers happen to believe? Surely not, since a large number of equally devout Muslims condemn them, and condemn the idea of violent jihad against the West in general.

can the words of the prophet be changed?

if terrorists make up only a small percentage of the Muslim religion and if terrorism is wrong per their book, why haven’t the majority cleaned house? they have the right to correct those who go astray.

All Christians read and believe in the same Gospels. Yet the words of Christ are interpreted very differently by different groups of Christians, each and every one of which thinks their interpretation is the superior and more “authentic” one as compared to the others.

What makes you think the words of Muhammad are any different or any less susceptible to widely varying interpretations? The very existence of Sunnis, Shias, Wahabbis and so on demonstrates that it is so.

Are there no Muslims fighting against terrorism? Quite literally? Have no Muslims fought against ISIS? Against the Taliban? Al-Qaeda? Are there no Muslim clerics and leaders using words and reason as a weapon against terrorism where they cannot take up arms? Is this not them trying to “clean house” as you put it?

Christianity has seen almost no true peace throughout its history either. 2,000 years of almost continual fighting. Does this mean Christ taught war and violence?

 

[CatholicELATeacher]

Ecumenism for fully formed, adult Catholics, maybe, who understand the boundaries. For children? No!
And I never said the Church requires all teachers to be Catholics. But my diocese does, and good on them. Evangelism and catechesis most certainly are of paramount importance to Catholic school kids!

 

[CatholicELATeacher]

Today I reminded my students that if the Koran is right, then the New Testament is wrong. Either Jesus Christ is a mortal–a prophet, or he is the Son of God.
And with that, we’re done with Islam for the year. Less “ecumenism,” and more Catholic prayer and teachings of the saints. Such as Saint Josemaria Escriva, whose writings we read daily.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Using numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we found that from 2001 to 2014, 440,095 people died by firearms on US soil. (2014 is the most recent year for which the CDC has data for deaths by firearms.) This data covered all manners of death, including homicide, accident and suicide.
Including 9/11; there have been 3,412 deaths attributed to terrorism during that same period up to 2014.

https://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/03/us/terrorism-gun-violence/index.html

If Islam is responsible for 3,412 deaths, who is responsible for the other 430,000 deaths in America?

It seems American ideology is far more dangerous than Islamic ideology.

 

[upant]

What makes you think the words of Muhammad are any different or any less susceptible to widely varying interpretations? The very existence of Sunnis, Shias, Wahabbis and so on demonstrates that it is so.

there is a difference in claiming people misinterpret something and denying it is in the book. the violence is in the book.

Are there no Muslims fighting against terrorism? Quite literally? Have no Muslims fought against ISIS? Against the Taliban? Al-Qaeda? Are there no Muslim clerics and leaders using words and reason as a weapon against terrorism where they cannot take up arms? Is this not them trying to “clean house” as you put it?

the words to digest are the Imam’s in the middle east. listen to them for the real picture of what’s going on. the Muslims in Europe will tell you exactly how they will subdue the continent. one terrorist said something like, our Political Correctness was their best weapon to defeat us.

Christianity has seen almost no true peace throughout its history either. 2,000 years of almost continual fighting. Does this mean Christ taught war and violence?

when was the last time the Christians fielded an army for the cross? what army does the Pope control?

no nation fields an army for the cross.

Islam is a total package: a religion, social and a political system which fields armies for the spread of Islam.

 

[upant]

If Islam is responsible for 3,412 deaths, who is responsible for the other 430,000 deaths in America?

It seems American ideology is far more dangerous than Islamic ideology.

you left out the rest of the story, Islamic ideology isn’t limited to the usa

but you have an agenda to push

 

[pnewton]

Ecumenism for fully formed, adult Catholics, maybe, who understand the boundaries.

Well, I never heard that. I would think, like all teaching, that which is age appropriate could be taught. My teenager has no problem understanding what ecumenism is and isn’t. Obviously the younger grades can’t be taught much, but I would not even think of mentioning Islam or the Koran to them. But I know that at our school the kids usual have a solid enough base by middle school. It is a very Catholic school.

Your use of quotes is odd. If I referenced the “divinity” of Jesus, would that be okay?

 

[CatholicELATeacher]

Divinity is not comparable to ecumenism even as an exemplar. Nor do I place the same value on divinity versus ecumenism. Particularly progressivist ecumenism as it is stretched to justify equating the teachings of Islam with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

My kids understand that the Koran is not in any way to be valued as divinely inspired, like Sacred Scripture is. I won’t teach them heresy.

 

[TC3033]

But my diocese does, and good on them.

Eh…I guess that can be. You could really be culling down the applicant pool and missing out on some really, really good teachers / employees.

Like I said, the Catholic school I worked at sought me out, I never applied. They didn’t care if I was Catholic or not, they wanted the best, most qualified person available.

 

[CatholicELATeacher]

Any Catholic school that employs people who aren’t devoutly Catholic is just asking for trouble. Trouble like getting sued by employees who have been terminated for disclosing their so-called same sex “marriages.”

 

[CatholicELATeacher]

Like I said, in my diocese all teachers are required to be Catholic catechists. Being a Catholic school teacher isn’t just a “job,” it’s a ministry. It says so right in my employment contract, too. Sad that more diocesan education departments don’t understand this fundamental truth.

 

[TC3033]

Any Catholic school that employs people who aren’t devoutly Catholic is just asking for trouble. Trouble like getting sued by employees who have been terminated for disclosing their so-called same sex “marriages.”

Like I said, in my diocese all teachers are required to be Catholic catechists. Being a Catholic school teacher isn’t just a “job,” it’s a ministry. It says so right in my employment contract, too. Sad that more diocesan education departments don’t understand this fundamental truth.

And some would want the best, most qualified, person for the job. I had (have) as very unique skill set and background where I was also a specialty coach. My “boss” went to school admin and said “I want him and this is why”. I was offered the job and never filled out an application.

Without going too far of topic, would you let a position sit open rather than hiring a non-Catholic? When my wife graduated from college and was interviewing for teaching jobs, she had 2 (or 3) on the table. The Catholic school offer was in the neighborhood of 2/3 of what the public school position (that she took) was. I think I was making about 1/2 of my counterpart at the public school.

IDK, I’ve known (and still do) some great people who have taken jobs within the Catholic school systems where I’ve lived and lived now. They would have missed on some great people and teachers had they passed up on them.

That’s your opinion though, and I can respect that.