is the muslim faith distorted by the terrorist?

[elwill]

Would you be so kind as to answer the OP’s question? Have the terrorists distorted Islam or are they following the Islam set forward by mohammad?

absolutly , distorted it

 

[Matthew_Holford]

As Catholics, we have to respect other religions. However, to be objective, Islam is a false religion, in the sense that Islam has an imperfect view of God. There are some truths found in the Koran and hadith, but without divine revelation – they are incomplete, in error.

In addition, Muhammad is a false prophet. He probably had good intentions, after all, he was surrounded by other tribes that worshipped polytheistic gods. Muhammad brought the concept of monotheism to the pagans. We must remember, that after Saint John The Baptist, there were no other prophets sent by God.

Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of the Word of God.

I agree that we should respect other religions.

The point I was trying to make is that we shouldn’t just be taking Muslims to task. From my perspective I see a lot of Muslim bashing on this thread.

If we as Catholics believe that our Faith is the one true Faith then we have to consider that (a) all non-Christian faiths (not just Islam) must be in error, and (b) all non-Catholic Christian churches and ecclesial communities are in error based on their interpretation of the Christian Faith.

 

[Thyme]

Is there a sort of official head in Islam on how things should be interpreted?

 

[autdrew]

I agree that we should respect other religions.

The point I was trying to make is that we shouldn’t just be taking Muslims to task. From my perspective I see a lot of Muslim bashing on this thread.

If we as Catholics believe that our Faith is the one true Faith then we have to consider that (a) all non-Christian faiths (not just Islam) must be in error, and (b) all non-Catholic Christian churches and ecclesial communities are in error based on their interpretation of the Christian Faith.

Can you please provide an example of the “lot of muslim bashing on this thread”?

 

[elwill]

Is there a sort of official head in Islam on how things should be interpreted?

there isn’t any central leader for the mainstream Muslims of the world.

 

[JHow]

the article is talking about jihad , not terrorism
if you think that they are equal , then you are mistaken

The article is talking about warfare and how it is acceptable to kill Israeli women and children:

“Therefore, he said, Israeli women may be killed because they are soldiers “in the army of the occupation” and participate in the war against Islam.”

 

[thedarknight]

I agree that we should respect other religions.

The point I was trying to make is that we shouldn’t just be taking Muslims to task. From my perspective I see a lot of Muslim bashing on this thread.

Please provide evidence of “Muslim bashing on this thread.”

If we as Catholics believe that our Faith is the one true Faith then we have to consider that (a) all non-Christian faiths (not just Islam) must be in error, and (b) all non-Catholic Christian churches and ecclesial communities are in error based on their interpretation of the Christian Faith.

You are right for points (a) and (b):

other religions are in error as they have an imperfect concept of God.

To clarify what I mentioned previously, as Catholics we must continue to respect other peoples’ beliefs, but let’s not fall under a false pretense that all religions have a perfect knowledge of God.

We then succumb to the dictatorship of relativism, when objective truth becomes subjective.

 

[thedarknight]

To answer the OP’s question:

Terrorists have not distorted the Islamic faith as they followed everything set forth in the Koran and hadith. Violence against infidels (non-Christians) are intrinsically written in the Koran and hadith.

The terrorists, according to the Koran and hadith are “good” Muslims.

Take note that Muslims [ex: Sunni and Wahhabi] believe the Koran is uncreated, perfect, and ahistorical. To interpret the Koran is heretical. Muslim terrorists, take the Koran literally, without the use of reason, perpetuating violence.

 

[woodland_poet]

It is my opinion, and I believe that others may agree with me, that Islam is a precondition for terrorism. Yes, there are other forms of terrorism apart from that which claims Islam as it’s authority. Their causes are clearly defined and largely political. However, one might ask themselves if September 11, 2001 could have happened without Islam? Was Islam a requirement for 9/11 to happen? I believe that anyone would have to say, yes. There is no separation of church and state in Islam. In Islam, Islam is the law of the land. There are no margins in the Muslims world for other religions, no plurality of views. These are no provisions for tolerance and diversity.

But what makes one a true authentic Muslim?

I propose this question to you instead.

What makes one a true authentic Catholic?

Does a Catholic not believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church?

Does a Catholic not believe in the real presense of Christ in the Eucharist?

Does a Catholic not object to birth control and abortion?

Does a Catholic object school prayer or public prayer or the name of Christ being spoken publically?

Does a Catholic advocate for gay rights **and **gay marriage?

Many may can call themselves Catholic. Many may call themselves Muslim. Othodoxy is the measuring stick however, adherence to religious teaching and doctrine. The truly secularized Muslim is no more a true Muslim than the secularized Catholic or the secularized Jew are true to their respective faiths. A Muslim in Detroit can no more speak for Islam than a Catholic in Jersey can speak for the Vatican. I’m not sure that a Muslim can say with much conviction that all Muslims do not support terrorism any more than a Catholic can say that not all Catholics oppose abortion. If a Muslim states that Islam does not encourage terrorism, by whose authority do they make this claim? Does Islam advocate terrorism? Perhaps not, but it certainly seems to not to object to terrorism. Those who claims authority in the east certainly do not appear to object to terrorism beyond occasional lip service. I personally do not accept Islam as a true faith in God but as to the question of whether Islam is a religion of peace or not, the jury I believe is still out. The evidence is not looking good however.

 

[elwill]

The article is talking about warfare and how it is acceptable to kill Israeli women and children:

“Therefore, he said, Israeli women may be killed because they are soldiers “in the army of the occupation” and participate in the war against Islam.”

then this article is talking clearly about the entire view of islam regarding terrorism or killing innocent people to be nonislamic , but Israil is a special case here in his openion

are you agree that he’s talking about Israil as an special case ?

because if you wanna to discuss his article , then it must to be clear that we are in agreement that killing innocents according to isalm is a crime
while our differences is about resestance of occupied countries

 

[JHow]

then this article is talking clearly about the entire view of islam regarding terrorism or killing innocent people to be nonislamic , but Israil is a special case here in his openion

are you agree that he’s talking about Israil as an special case ?

because if you wanna to discuss his article , then it must to be clear that we are in agreement that killing innocents according to isalm is a crime
while our differences is about resestance of occupied countries

I am not here to judge who is the “real” muslim, or what is the “authentic” islam. But I will judge actions taken and words spoken. The fact is you have a muslim cleric advocating the killing Israeli women and children because they are “soldiers in the war of occupation”. Specifically targeting a civilian population goes against the Geneva conventions and laws of war. It is not something that can be qualified by a special case for Israel. I’m glad you think islam also bans pracice this, but it didn’t stop this guy from inventing a “special case”. I’m also a little disturbed that you seem willing to defend and debate the special case, frankly. You sohuld not be surprised, when muslims say stuff like this guy, that Islam gets bad P.R.

The fact of the matter is, the page I linked to has a series of translated articles from muslim sources with similar sentiments. Here’s another shot:

Al-Barrak said that the proof that jihad is mighty today is that it has become “what the infidels fear most of all about the Muslims, and [therefore] they use it to malign Allah’s shari’a and the Muslims, past and present.” He added that, at this time, the infidels are enjoying economic superiority, while the Muslims are divided, and most neglect their religion. This, he said, forces the Muslims into sycophancy towards the infidels with regard to the laws of jihad: they have to say that jihad in Islam is strictly defensive – to the point where the infidels are demanding that the Muslims remove the subjects of jihad and al-wala wa al-bara[3] from their school curricula, or at least correct them. The infidels, Al-Barrak noted, think that that this will void the shari’a, but has Allah preserved his shari’a in the Koran and in the Sunna, and they are the source of theoretical and practical knowledge for the seekers of the right path in every generation.

Al-Barrak set out several laws of jihad for the sake of Allah: Muslims must make ready their strength to the utmost of their power for jihad against the infidels;[4] Muslims may take infidel fighters captive, but only after they smite them with the sword and bind a bond firmly on them;[5] in the event that the Muslims are victorious over the infidels in war, they may take booty and captives – including the wives and children of the infidel fighters – and may enslave them. Here, Al-Barrak noted that today, the U.N. has forced the Muslims to abolish the law of slavery which is one of the laws of jihad – “while the countries of unbelief and tyranny that arbitrarily control the U.N.'s laws subjugate the weak peoples in the name of reform… and colonialism still exists in every Muslim country where there is occupation.”[6]

It is clear from the comments here that “jihad” is not some internal struggle against sin, but in fact he means warfare, else why would he be talking about “smite with sword” and “booty” and “captives”?

There is no way to spin this stuff. You can only try and say that this isn’t the “real” Islam, (which really only means it isn’t your brand of islam). We could then potentially debate how widespread is this not-real islam, but it is not hard to discern that there are clearly large numbers of muslims who sympathize with the above sentiments.

 

[elwill]

I am not here to judge who is the “real” muslim, or what is the “authentic” islam. But I will judge actions taken and words spoken. The fact is you have a muslim cleric advocating the killing Israeli women and children because they are “soldiers in the war of occupation”. Specifically targeting a civilian population goes against the Geneva conventions and laws of war. It is not something that can be qualified by a special case for Israel. I’m glad you think islam also bans pracice this, but it didn’t stop this guy from inventing a “special case”. I’m also a little disturbed that you seem willing to defend and debate the special case, frankly. You sohuld not be surprised, when muslims say stuff like this guy, that Islam gets bad P.R.

simply i can give you articles for the same person where he condemns acts of terrorism

The fact of the matter is, the page I linked to has a series of translated articles from muslim sources with similar sentiments. Here’s another shot:

It is clear from the comments here that “jihad” is not some internal struggle against sin, but in fact he means warfare, else why would he be talking about “smite with sword” and “booty” and “captives”?

i didn’t said that jihad means only some internal struggle against sin
all what i said is that jihad ( jihad which refer to wars involved ) isn’t equal to terrorism

There is no way to spin this stuff. You can only try and say that this isn’t the “real” Islam, (which really only means it isn’t your brand of islam). We could then potentially debate how widespread is this not-real islam, but it is not hard to discern that there are clearly large numbers of muslims who sympathize with the above sentiments.

if these sentiments are told by people of language , relegion , background and envirnment differ than the one you have , then you can’t to interpret thier words by your own
if these articles talking about jihad then you need to make some research about jihad in islamic point of view
believe me , when you do that you will find out that it dosn’t fit the acts of terrorists by any means

 

[MJE]

Inform yourselves re: Sharia law. The New Jersey judge who refused to prosecute the Muslim man for beating his wife, because Sharia law forbids a woman to deny sex to her husband for any reason. He, the judge, excused the beating. Honor killings have happened USA. non-muslim women being jailed, even killed, in Muslim countries because of Muslim dress-code?

 

[Sufjon]

I am not here to judge who is the “real” muslim, or what is the “authentic” islam. But I will judge actions taken and words spoken. The fact is you have a muslim cleric advocating the killing Israeli women and children because they are “soldiers in the war of occupation”. Specifically targeting a civilian population goes against the Geneva conventions and laws of war.

Perhaps we shouldn’t take the words of particular clerics to reflect any faith in general. In October of 2004, the Rev Jerry Falwell said this of Muslims on CNN in front of a national audience:

“If it takes 10 years, blow them all away in the name of the Lord.”

Now, if we have a Christian cleric with a lot of television background (which means he should know better) saying that on TV, I can imagine what was being said in the privacy of churches. Jerry Falwell was no isolated fringe renegade of Christianity. He had a huge following. That in mind, what are we to think of that?

I see these threads all the time here on CAF and I don’t think it’s constructive. I might start my own thread asking Christians and Muslims to discuss ideas on how they can frame a way forward in advancing better relations between the two.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[JHow]

…if these articles talking about jihad then you need to make some research about jihad in islamic point of view
believe me , when you do that you will find out that it dosn’t fit the acts of terrorists by any means

I didn’t misunderstand him because he threw the word “jihad” in there. He is clearly talking about targeting women and children as part of warfare with Israel. I am telling you that targeting non-combats is counter to the Geneva conventions and laws of war. Targeting non-combatants is also known as terrorism. None of this requires any special knowledge of islam. You are so intent on not equating the words “jihad” and “terrorism” that you are ignoring the bigger picture, which is that when muslim clerics make these kinds of statements around the world, non-muslims can be forgiven if they conclude that islam has something to do with terrorist motives.

But why don’t you tell me: In your opinion, as a muslim, are muslim soldiers justified in launching rockets at civilian targets in Israel?

 

[men0wjv]

Pax vobiscum one and all,

I am a Muslim and have been fortunate to study Islam to some extent. Forgive me, I have not had time to read through all the posts, but I thought I’d try and answer the original question and maybe a couple of points that struck me when I scrolled through the posts.

Islam as a religion does not condone terrorism (I’ll define it as inflicting violence to cause fear for a political objective). It can be said from a:

historical perspective: No cases of suicide attacks have been recorded by a Muslim before 1994 when a Hamas blew himself up on a bus in Jerusalem.

religious perspective (since no religion would condone terrorism): the Joint Intelligents Committee researched what were the causes conducive to membership of terrorist organisations in April 2006. They found that main causes were: opposition to the war on Iraq, economic deprivation, social exclusion and disaffection with community leaders. None of these are religious causes.

Islamic Law perspective: terrorist attacks are something that contradict Islamic Law since: it does not defer to authority (i.e. no vigilantism), goes against clear commands to not kill innocents, causes suicide - a mortal sin. Non experts use verses like: ‘kill the idolaters wherever you find them.’ [2:191] to ‘justify’ their actions, which means they are also heretics and blasphemers since this verse is understood by consensus (ijma) to be specific to a genocidic Arab tribe of the 7th Century only.

I am more angry with these terrorists than anyone here because they mock my religion, so yes they distort Islam. If you wish to understand a traditional Islamic perspective toward jihad and suicide bombing then see these two credible resources:
zaytuna.org/seasons/seasons2/53-64%20Seasons.pdf
livingislam.org/maa/dcmm_e.html

Someone brought up the interesting point of authority in Islam since who has the right to say this is, and that is not correct. This is a problem in the Islamic World, but because we don’t have a single figure of authority it doesn’t mean we don’t have any authority. The main sources of authority are: tradition, consensus and reprehensible innovation.

Tradition: After Muhammad’s death the companions (disciples if you like) travelled to different parts of the world, for example ibn Masud went to Kufa in Iraq. Schools were initiated by these companions. They appointed successors to the head of the school and this continued. A generation after the companions there was a concern that the knowledge of Islam may become lost. As a result the heads of these schools went about codifying the vast corpus of hadith, legal ruilings etc. This has continued to the present day in a preserved tradition (like the Papacy).

Consensus: The Prophet (pbuh) said: “Verily God will not make my Community agree on error” [Tirmidhi]. This brings about a definitive legal proof; if the scholarly community agree on something it is binding (something like a sacred synod). This is also a guiding principle in that the vast majority have the true understanding of Islam; the Prophet (pbuh) said: “God’s hand is over the group and whoever dissents from them departs to Hell,” [Tirmidhi]. The terrorists and their sympathisers are in a small minority.

Reprehensible innovation: The Prophet (pbuh) said: “Beware of matters newly begun, for every matter newly begun is innovation, every innovation is misguidance, and every misguidance is in hell.” [Bukhari]. Things introduced that go against the principles of the religion are rejected, so modern ideas like suicide bombing and political agendas reminiscent of Marxism are rejected as they go against principles of preservation of life, honour and religon.

I hope that helps, much more could be said but I am wary that people have to read all this.

All the best and Dominus vo biscum

PS: May I hold out a hand of friendship and support against all the vile media coverage of Catholicism. Islam gets a bad press, but it still can hide behind phrases like ‘Islamophobia,’ but you guys seemed to get grossly misrepresented and it seems socially acceptable!?!

 

[men0wjv]

Oh and by the way some of the sources cited in previous threads like Qaradawi’s ‘fatwa’ are Islamist propaganda and so should be ignored since they are in contradiction to the above… is it fair to judge the Catholic Church by the violence that resulted after Lutherism? [rhetorical]

 

[Reuben_J]

JHow:

I am not here to judge who is the “real” muslim, or what is the “authentic” islam. But I will judge actions taken and words spoken. The fact is you have a muslim cleric advocating the killing Israeli women and children because they are “soldiers in the war of occupation”. Specifically targeting a civilian population goes against the Geneva conventions and laws of war. It is not something that can be qualified by a special case for Israel.

Perhaps Westerners need to understand the mind of Muslims in Islam. Geneva Convention is of no meaning to them as they take direct command from Allah. We often make the mistake of putting them at our level of seeing things. They don’t.

What we call terrorist act may not at all in their understanding.

As Christians put Jesus as the ultimate role model in character and deed for Christians to follow, it is equally true that Muslims see Mohammad in the same light. They would therefore study his life and his deeds. What he would have done in a similar situation, Muslims are called to do the same.

Let take the example of what should they do to the cartoonist who did the caricature of Mohammad in Denmark. There was one time when a poet did the same to Mohammad. And what was Mohammad action? The poet was murdered. It is not surprising if Muslims take it upon themselves to do what Mohammad had done in a similar situation. Since following Mohammad’s action is of the highest order in being a good Muslim, Muslims have no choice but to be like him if they want to be good Muslims.

Thus to them they are Not terrorists. Terrorism as defined today is a Western definition set from a Western mind.

 

[JHow]

…Islam as a religion does not condone terrorism (I’ll define it as inflicting violence to cause fear for a political objective). It can be said from a:

historical perspective: No cases of suicide attacks have been recorded by a Muslim before 1994 when a Hamas blew himself up on a bus in Jerusalem.
…

This was as far as I read before I encountered an inaccuracy. You are perhaps a young student, but in 1983 suicide bombers detonated a truck bomb outside US marine barracks in Beirut. The group responsible was called “islamic jihad” (I wonder why didn’t they realize jihad had nothing to do with suicide bombing when they named their group?) and was probably Hezbollah-sponsored.

I’m not claiming that that was even the first suicide bomb, but it was a well-known incident and occurred long before 1994.

The truck and car-bomb, by the way, has been an islamic-terrorist speciality. Kind of makes you wonder where McVeigh got his inspiration?

 

[men0wjv]

There was one time when a poet did the same to Mohammad. And what was Mohammad action? The poet was murdered.

Do you have a reference for this very strange piece of evidence that is not mentioned in any of the major works of Seerah (Life of the Prophet)???