Islam and the Principal of Necessity

[Sagefrakrobatik]

So I’m taking this class called Modern Islamic Movements its pretty interesting and we just started talking about global Jihad. You see their are certain rules for engaging in Jihad, No civilians, women and children and the elderly are not to be killed. Supposedly Muhammud prohibited the killing of women when he saw a woman dead in battle. So why do some Islamic fanatics blow up school buses or kill hundreds of people in a tower even though a sizeable proportion of the people who died were Muslims themselves is because of the principal of necessity.

I dont have the verse with me but basically what it says is that you can disregard what the Quran says if its abosultely necessary. So for instance if your a Muslim who is starving to death and you see a pork chop you are permitted to eat that Pork Chop. The same thing if you are dying of thirst and all you have is a Budlight then you can drink it.

Well what does this have to do with innocent school children and non participatory civilians? Well the Muslim fanatics see it as an evil that is here to destroy Islam so there is a “necessity” to destroy it before it gets a chance to destroy Islam in all its manifestations. So basically what you have is a verse in the Quran that is used as a tool to allow for terrorism even though the

Quran also states that if one would kill one person it is like he killed a million but if one were to save a life it is as if he saved a million

Yes there are verses that either

a.) advocate Peace
b.)advocate violence but only in defense
c.)advocate violence as a form of spreading Islam

but violent interpretations can be extrapolated from all scriptures

One time Jesus said “turn the other cheek” in another verse he is quoted as saying “Ive not come to bring peace but a sword”

In the Bhagavata Gita we find Krishna is instructing Arjuna to kill his family members.

Is it possible that these verses can be explain within a contextual framework? Of course. Just as the violence used to justify the killing of Non Muslims can be argued against.

 

[thedavidwilson]

You see their are certain rules for engaging in Jihad, No civilians, women and children and the elderly are not to be killed.

The definition of a civilian is a hotly debated topic in islamic scholarship. In orthodox islam this definition does not apply to non-muslims. There is always a second standard for non-muslims vs muslims.

I dont have the verse with me but basically what it says is that you can disregard what the Quran says if its abosultely necessary.

I think this falls under taqqiya (sp?). Which is where a muslim can lie or even deny his faith in a time of necessity or if it would spread islam. The rational in killing muslims in these attacks, is that those muslims killed, if they were “true” muslims, would go to paradise so you did them a favor. If they were false muslims, or did not practice their faith correctly then they are apostates. And the hadith states that muhammed said anyone who changes from his islamic faith should be killed. So you would be applying sharia law. The killing of non-muslims is permitted because according to classical orthodox islam anything not islamic is an attack on islam so you would be defending islam and muslims (i.e. defensive war) The terrorists are the few muslims who are following the teachings of muhammed. They know their faith and the history of islam very well. They base their actions on a long history of islamic jurisprudence and are not making this up.

Well the Muslim fanatics see it as an evil that is here to destroy Islam so there is a “necessity” to destroy it before it gets a chance to destroy Islam in all its manifestations. So basically what you have is a verse in the Quran that is used as a tool to allow for terrorism even though the

Exactly. But they did not make up this interpretation. This has been taught for centuries. That is how/why islam almost conquered the known world.

Quran also states that if one would kill one person it is like he killed a million but if one were to save a life it is as if he saved a million

Traditionally this either only applied to muslims (remember the double standard) or is considered to be abrogated by other violent/later verse or by you being in war; even if someone being non-islamic is considered an act of war.

Yes there are verses that either

a.) advocate Peace
b.)advocate violence but only in defense
c.)advocate violence as a form of spreading Islam

You should research the concept of abrogation in islamic theology. Since there are so many contradictions the later revealed verses abrogate, or replace, the earlier ones. Unfortunately for civilization the later verses are more violent. These were “revealed” when muhammed was in power and exerted that power violently. The earlier peaceful verses were when he was not in power and could not afford to be aggressive.

but violent interpretations can be extrapolated from all scriptures

Umm not really. Check out the New Testament.

One time Jesus said “turn the other cheek” in another verse he is quoted as saying “Ive not come to bring peace but a sword”

He was not referring to his apostles taking up the sword like muslims do. He was talking about the violence that his apostles would be subjected to because they believed in Him. The vast numbers of martyrs demonstrate the putting into practice the first verse you quoted. There are violent verses in the Old testament but they are descriptive not prescriptive. They described a time in history to teach a lesson and were never interpreted as being instructions to go out and kill. The quran on the other hand is an instruction book as well is the hadith and syrah.

In the Bhagavata Gita we find Krishna is instructing Arjuna to kill his family members.

This is a pagan religion so all bets are off. But you should research whether these are prescriptive or descriptive and how they have been interpreted by hindus. I think the tens of millions of hindus murded by muslims over the centuries is a testament to their non-warlike nature verses the warlike nature of islam.

Trivia: Do you know what the Hindu Kush Mtn range is named after. Kush is a pashtun word thae means slaughter. So it means Hindu Slaughter. This is a testament of the treatment of hindus by the muslims in the area.

Is it possible that these verses can be explain within a contextual framework? Of course. Just as the violence used to justify the killing of Non Muslims can be argued against.

It is great that you want to bastardize islam into a peaceful religion. The civilized world needs that. A similar effort is being sponsored by the Turkish government. Unfortunaltly people who have tried to do this, or even discuss this, have been branded apostates according to sharia law and either threatened or killed (again according to sharia law).

When it can be stated by the majority of muslims that their religions teaches them to peacefully coexist as equals with non-muslims for an indefinite time then you have made some progress. Unfortunately that is not reality.

 

[Sagefrakrobatik]

He was not referring to his apostles taking up the sword like muslims do. He was talking about the violence that his apostles would be subjected to because they believed in Him. The vast numbers of martyrs demonstrate the putting into practice the first verse you quoted. There are violent verses in the Old testament but they are descriptive not prescriptive. They described a time in history to teach a lesson and were never interpreted as being instructions to go out and kill. The quran on the other hand is an instruction book as well is the hadith and syrah.

Thats nothing more than an interpretation, I mean cant you say the same thing about Muhammud. In fact that case is argued against apostates that during Muhammud’s time they needed to kill them because they were trying to kill the Muslims.

 

[thedavidwilson]

Thats nothing more than an interpretation, I mean cant you say the same thing about Muhammud. In fact that case is argued against apostates that during Muhammud’s time they needed to kill them because they were trying to kill the Muslims.

Thats nothing more than an interpretation, I mean cant you say the same thing about Muhammud. In fact that case is argued against apostates that during Muhammud’s time they needed to kill them because they were trying to kill the Muslims.

No, that is its actually meaning. Read it and you will see the context. Even if it is interpretation then why can we not consider the centuries of islamic interpretation by muslims of the quran, hadith and the life of muhammed as a call of muslims to conquer and subjugate non-muslims for allah today? That is how muslims have and do interpret it.

Sura (2:193) - “And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion be only for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers.” The key phrase is to fight until “religion be only for Allah.”

The currently exists no accepted interpretation of islamic teachings that instructs muslims to coexist peacefully with non-muslims as equals on an indefinite basis. If you would like to promote that then I thank you and wish you good luck, because in most of the muslim world you would be killed for apostasy. Since muhammed said:

“Whoever changes his (islamic) religion, kill him”. (Bukhari)

This is instilled in Sharia law and has been accepted by muslims since the begining of islam and still is accepted and practiced today.

 

[Sister_Amy]

If you can abandon your principles when convenient, what’s the point of having principles?

That doesn’t even make sense, really.

So, sage, first of all, I don’t know of any verses that permit the spread of Islam by violence, your category 3. Not one. Please read them in context and see that offensive war is not for spreading islam but rather to end oppression (including persecution because of religion.)

Killing women, children, elderly, other non-combatants–there isn’t really a necessity which is going to make that permissible.

But let’s talk about necessity…

Eating pork is forbidden for Muslims.

But what if a person is starving and has the option to eat some pork (no other food available) or else he’s going to die? What should he do? Answer is: eat pork. In fact he must eat it, if it will save his life. Why?

Because preserving life is of the utmost importance.