is the muslim faith distorted by the terrorist?

[men0wjv]

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.

I may be mistaken, although I got this from research by the erudite scholar Muhammad Afifi al-Akiti of Oxford University. Do you have a reference? Either way, the point I’m trying to make is it is not an Islamic practice, but a modern phenomena - 1983 is still very modern. Please read on…

 

[Reuben_J]

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.

Quranic verses can be applied when similar situation happen. Sure, that may not mean to kill all ‘idolaters’ but when similar situation happen today to the Muslims world, their ‘righteous’ plan of action would be no doubt to do what Mohammad would have done. To make matter worse, there is no central authority to make a ruling thus any Imams can interpret the Quran as how they see fit. And who can stop them for doing what they think is right?

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

I am sure you are as others too in this world. But you just have to listen to your brother Muslim poster here who said that Muslims had taken a religious course towards addressing the political struggle that the Muslims faced in the Middle East (or something to that effect) thus justifying their act.

 

[Thyme]

I find it difficult to believe that Islam is about an evil interpretation of Jihad.

After 9/11, My Muslim friend said that at his mosque, the leader was preaching about the evils of terrorism. One time I was explaining Quakers’ beliefs to him and he wished that everyone would respect other religions like them. His dad also went to a Christian school.

This is only one example, but after getting to know him, I do believe that the faith has been distorted by terrorists. The Qu 'ran may tell Muslims to kill the unbelievers, but clearly, this is interpreted a different way by many.

 

[JHow]

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

You are making the case that Islam, as muslims understand it, is tied to terrorism as westerners understand terrorism. They simply think it is right behavior, per islam.

But what is being argued here is that islam is not tied to terrorism as westerners understand it.

Killing non-combatant Israeli women and children is just the example that we found on the MEMRI site. It was useful because by nearly everyone’s standards (followers of mohammed possibly excepted) such an act fits the defnition of terror. Other examples are not hard to find.

 

[Reuben_J]

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)???

One of my frustration in dialoging with Muslims is that very often they make me as if I seem to know better than they are in their own religion. If I show you, then what?

Where is the openess?

 

[Reuben_J]

You are making the case that Islam, as muslims understand it, is tied to terrorism as westerners understand terrorism. They simply think it is right behavior, per islam.

But what is being argued here is that islam is not tied to terrorism as westerners understand it.

Killing non-combatant Israeli women and children is just the example that we found on the MEMRI site. It was useful because by nearly everyone’s standards (followers of mohammed possibly excepted) such an act fits the defnition of terror. Other examples are not hard to find.

Hmmm. Will this answer the title of the thread then?

 

[JHow]

I may be mistaken, although I got this from research by the erudite scholar Muhammad Afifi al-Akiti of Oxford University. Do you have a reference? Either way, the point I’m trying to make is it is not an Islamic practice, but a modern phenomena - 1983 is still very modern. Please read on…

Do I have a reference? How about I was alive in 1983 and read the newspapers?

Oh look, wikipedia has it: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing

The point I am trying to make is: terrorists are killing in the name of islam, and have been for many years. You would like to pretend that islam has nothing to do with it, but clealry you have fellow muslims who don’t feel that way. I’m not going to weigh in on which of you is “authentic”, it really doesn’t matter if you can’t see any way to oppose them, other than to tell me how I really don’t understand what “jihad” means.

Why do you think, by the way, that the gorup taking credit for the 1983 bomb called themselves “islamic jihad”? Wasn’t that weird how they didn’t get it either?

 

[John21652]

No. Every person, without exception, that I know who has lived in a muslim country will tell you that it is an oppressive environment for any and all non-muslims or muslim women (the women part they have no real way of knowing, since most of them are men. Several women I know enjoy/praise the muslim lifestyle).

Islam has been described by many as not being a religion so much as a complete world view that MUST be followed and I tend to agree. Every country, without exception, that has developed a majority muslim population has developed an intolerant attitude that I find reprehensible wherever I see it (Average fundamentalists, I am looking at you on this one too).

FSC

An interesting article by an Australian journalist on The Extremes of Moderate Islam, which highlights exactly the points you are making here. To the north of Australia is the most populous Muslim nation on Earth, Indonesia. Plenty of intolerance on display there towards Christians, more moderate practicioners of Islam and to a sect that believes Mohommad was not the final prophet.

 

[Kadaveri]

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.”

It’s not clear what is being referred to here. If he means the Islamic prohibition on killing women during war doesn’t apply to Israeli female soldiers (the IDF has an unusually high proportion of frontline female officers) occupying Arab lands then he has a fair point. If he’s justifying attacks on Israeli civilians then he is plain wrong.

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?

I think he was referring to the Afula bus suicide bombing in 1994, which was the first suicide bombing against Israeli civilians. Hezbollah did use suicide attacks against American/Israeli soldiers during their occupation of Lebanon such as the Beiruit Marine Barracks bombing, but they never attacked civilian targets like Hamas so they’re not really the same thing. There is a clear difference between Lebanese resisting American/Israeli occupation by bombing an American military base in Lebanon full of enemy soldiers, and Hamas bombing a restaurant full of civilians in Israel.

And actually car bombings, aircraft hijackings and most forms of modern terrorism were pioneered by the Israelis decades before any Muslim group started imitating their methods.

 

[JHow]

Hmmm. Will this answer the title of the thread then?

Your answer then would be “no”, islam is not distorted by terrorism, islam simply is what it is, and all the attacks and killing that we call “terrorism” are not understood as wrong-doing under islam, but are simply being true to Mohammed’s teaching.

But as I read the posts here, many are making the case that terrorists have a wrong understanding of islam and their evil deeds are in fact condemned by islam. Which is great news, except that none of the posters will answer directly if they feel killing non-combatant Israeli women and children is justified - which makes me nervous.

My personal opinion is that the terrorists represent a form of islam. Their interpretation of islam informs their actions. Whether or not it is “mainstream” islam, or whether most muslims agree with their interpretation is not important.

 

[woodland_poet]

Terrorism: inflicting violence to cause fear for a political objective

If I take the above as the definition of terrorism, am I to understand that 9/11 was not terrorism?

What was the political objective of 9/11?

 

[JHow]

It’s not clear what is being referred to here. If he means the Islamic prohibition on killing women during war doesn’t apply to Israeli female soldiers (the IDF has an unusually high proportion of frontline female officers) occupying Arab lands then he has a fair point. If he’s justifying attacks on Israeli civilians then he is plain wrong.

Thank for that last sentence! I was really starting to worry.

To your point though, I think it is very safe to assume that no children are serving in the military in any capacity?

I think he was referring to the Afula bus suicide bombing in 1994, which was the first suicide bombing against Israeli civilians. Hezbollah did use suicide attacks against American/Israeli soldiers during their occupation of Lebanon such as the Beiruit Marine Barracks bombing, but they never attacked civilian targets like Hamas so they’re not really the same thing.

Yes, this probably represents some kind of milestone in terrorist history. But suicide as a strategy is older than 1994. Bombing as a strategy is certainly much older.

And actually car bombings, aircraft hijackings and most forms of modern terrorism were pioneered by the Israelis decades before any Muslim group started imitating their methods.

I would like evidence of the first Israeli suicide bomber, if you have it.

Terrorism is a strategy of weakness. It surfaced when arab armies, after failing so often using conventional warfare, found new ways to continue the struggle. It’s roots as a strategy go back far beyond israelis.

The problem we keep coming back to, however, is that the modern islamic terrorists have found a way to square their terrorist tactics and strategy with their islamic faith.

 

[men0wjv]

Ruben J: We had a nice relationship on the thread ‘A Common Word,’ I would like that to continue . However, I have to say your comments baffle me??? You actually do not see a point to referencing your sources, to at least give a context let alone credibility? I refer to authoritative sources and spend my life studying this religion and you as a non Muslim with a surface (at best) understanding think it lacking ‘openness’ for me to correct your misunderstanding??? Also [9:5] was revealed before the conquest of Mekkah, where no blood was spilt - The Divine irony, so the Muhammadan example is not as you say. Please lets return to sense or I’ll have to ignore you.

JHow Do you honestly think Wikipedia is a source??? I’ll have ignore you as you have no knowledge of what a source is and what it is not. Thanks to Kadaveri for clarifying about civilian ('93) and military ('83) targets, I had been vague.

Just as a thought: even if Islam is exactly as you say, our scholastic community does not understand it that way at all, so why are you so paranoid?

Also why would His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI say: ‘Our hope that what we hold in common may serve to unite Christians and Moslems ever more closely, in true brotherhood,’ if we really were all terrorists? A real thought provoker; your Pope is an insightful and sincere person, perhaps you should listen?
vatican.va/phome_en.htm

The above has covered over - with rather unhelpful posts (save a few) - what I originally wanted to say, so I may just repeat it for a newcomer:

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/seaso…%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]

What was the political objective of 9/11?

Good question. No idea. Although it has given the US a ‘carte blanche’ to follow up certain interests in the Middle East despite UN and international protestation. This is the ultimate stupidity of terrorism, it achieves nothing, but aggravate more hatred and cause more bloodshed.

 

[Kadaveri]

Terrorism: inflicting violence to cause fear for a political objective

If I take the above as the definition of terrorism, am I to understand that 9/11 was not terrorism?

What was the political objective of 9/11?

The political objective of 9/11 was to goad the US into invading the Middle-east, which would naturally cause resistance movements to be formed in the country/countries under US occupation. Once this was achieved Al-Qaeda would then try to hijack these movements for their own means; since they understood their ideas had next to zero support in the Muslim world and decided the only way they’d get power would be to infiltrate and take control of popular movements created independently from them. In other words, classic Leninism.

Thank for that last sentence! I was really starting to worry.

To your point though, I think it is very safe to assume that no children are serving in the military in any capacity?

Well the direct quote only refers to Israeli women and is in the context of them being soldiers. (“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.”).

I would like evidence of the first Israeli suicide bomber, if you have it.

Terrorism is a strategy of weakness. It surfaced when arab armies, after failing so often using conventional warfare, found new ways to continue the struggle. It’s roots as a strategy go back far beyond israelis.

The problem we keep coming back to, however, is that the modern islamic terrorists have found a way to square their terrorist tactics and strategy with their islamic faith.

There weren’t any Israeli suicide bombers. But they carried out organised terrorist campaigns involving bus bombings, hotel bombings, assassinating foreign officials and hijacking civilian aircraft decades before any Arab group started using any of these tactics (the 1970s). The tactic of suicide bombings such as those carried out by Hamas from 1994-2005 were pioneered by the Tamil Tigers in the 1970s. The reason I brought up these facts was in response to the claim that such bombings are an ‘Islamic speciality’, they’re not.

Terrorism is not a strategy of weakness, virtually everyone uses it. The only correspondence between terrorism and strength I can work out is that the terrorism of the strong is just on a larger scale than the terrorism of the weak. The strong however also generally write history, so get to call their enemies’ actions ‘terrorism’ (and sometimes it is) and excuse their own terrorism as being something else.

 

[Reuben_J]

Ruben J: We had a nice relationship on the thread ‘A Common Word,’ I would like that to continue . However, I have to say your comments baffle me??? You actually do not see a point to referencing your sources, to at least give a context let alone credibility? I refer to authoritative sources and spend my life studying this religion and you as a non Muslim with a surface (at best) understanding think it lacking ‘openness’ for me to correct your misunderstanding??? Also [9:5] was revealed before the conquest of Mekkah, where no blood was spilt - The Divine irony, so the Muhammadan example is not as you say. Please lets return to sense or I’ll have to ignore you.

I was quite shock that you should deny the incidence where Mohammad caused a poet to be killed because he (the poet) has written a poem that was insulting to him. My apology if you really do not know about this.

**Kab b. al-Ashraf **
Angered by the poems, Muhammad had had enough. He asked, “Who would rid me of [Kab]?” Five Muslims volunteered, one of whom was Kab’s foster-brother named Abu Naila. They informed him, “O apostle of God [Muhammad], we shall have to tell lies.” He answered, “Say what you like, for you are free in the matter.” They set upon a clever plan.
The signal to kill was as follows: Abu Naila would run his hand through Kab’s hair, complimenting him on his perfume, three times. This he did, yelling, “Smite the enemy of God!” Kab mounted a strong defense, so their swords were ineffective. Finally, one of the conspirators remembered his dagger, stabbed Kab in the belly, and then bore it down until it reached Kab’s genitals, killing him.

They made it back to Muhammad, saluted the prophet as he stood praying, and he came out to them. They told him that the mission was accomplished. He spat on their comrade’s wound, and they returned to their families. Their attack on Kab sent shock waves into the Jewish community, so that “there was no Jew in Medina who did not fear for his life,” reports Ibn Ishaq.

Muslim historian Tabari reports that the five Muslim thugs severed Kab’s head and brought it to Muhammad.

Sources: Bukhari vol. 5, no. 4037; Muslim vol. 3, no. 4436; Ibn Ishaq 364-69 / 548-53; Tabari, The History of al-Tabari, Vol. VII, trans. W. Montgomery Watt (SUNYP, 1987), pp. 94-98 / 1368-73.

 

[thedarknight]

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.

Sounds like a great idea to put into action.

 

[croix_de_fer]

The bottom line is Muhammad was a false prophet and Islam is a lie. They deny the Divinity of Christ and they deny Him being the Son of God. They deny Him being our Savior. Forget what you might consider prejudices towards Islam but focus on the fundamental fallacies and deception of Islam.

 

[thedarknight]

Let us read Pope Benedict XVI’s recent opening address to the Middle East Synod:

This process, which took place over Israel’s long journey of faith, and is summed up here in a remarkable vision, is a true process of the history of religion: the downfall of the gods. And so the transformation of the world, the knowledge of the true God, the weakening of the forces that dominate the earth, is a process of suffering. In the history of Israel, we see how this liberation from polytheism, this recognition - “only he is God” - takes place amid much suffering, beginning with the journey of Abraham, the exile, the Maccabees, up until Christ. And it continues in history, this process of weakening spoken of in chapter 12 of Revelation; this speaks of the fall of the angels that are not angels, are not divinities on the earth. And it is truly realized precisely in the time of the emerging Church, where we see how with the blood of the martyrs there is a weakening of the divinities, all these divinities, beginning with the divine emperor. It is the blood of the martyrs, the suffering, the cry of the Mother Church that knocks them down and so transforms the world.

This downfall is not only the knowledge that these are not God. It is the process of the transformation of the world, which costs blood, costs the suffering of the witnesses to Christ. And, if we look closely, we see that this process is never finished. Even today, in this moment, in which Christ, the only Son of God, must be born for the world with the downfall of the gods, with suffering, the martyrdom of the witnesses.

We think of the great powers of today’s history, we think of the anonymous capitals that enslave man, that are no longer something belonging to man, but are an anonymous power that men serve, and by which men are tormented and even slaughtered. They are a destructive power that threatens the world. And then the power of the terrorist ideologies. Violence is done apparently in the name of God, but this is not God: these are false divinities that must be unmasked, that are not God. [emphasis mine] And then drugs, this power that, like a ravenous beast, stretches its hands over all parts of the earth and destroys: it is a divinity, but a false divinity, which must fall. Or even the way of life promoted by public opinion: today it’s done this way, marriage doesn’t matter anymore, chastity is no longer a virtue, and so on.

These ideologies that are so dominant that they impose themselves by force are divinities. And in the suffering of the saints, in the suffering of believers, of the Mother Church of which we are part, these divinities must fall, what is written in the letters to the Colossians and Ephesians must come true: the dominations and powers fall and become subjects of the one Lord Jesus Christ.

Take notice of Pope Benedict’s denouncement of terrorism:

And then the power of the terrorist ideologies. Violence is done apparently in the name of God, but this is not God: these are false divinities that must be unmasked, that are not God.

Source:
“It is the faith of the simple that knocks down false gods”
chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1345109?eng=y

 

[John_Paul_Jones]

Does islam proclaim that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God?

That is the much more important question then “is the muslim faith distorted by the terrorist?”

Sins against God are far more serious than sins against mankind.