Terrorism Is Alien to Islam

[ferdie]

Maybe I am asking asking too much for my peaceful muslim brothers, (no sarcassam intended). You see I just like what I see here in Chicago every year. The white supremacists march every year and as always the peaceful loving christians make their counter march to show the world that christianity is not what this white supremacist group preaches.
Maybe that is what I and ther rest of the posters here want to see. Maybe the Nation of Islam group can make another march to D.C. speaking against the extremist.

 

[tequilamac]

Sure it has jihad, but these fatwas also say that killing unarmed civilians IS NOT permissible in Jihad. Read them.

Jihad is warfare that is permissible under Islamic law. That means warfare that is, roughly:

-Declared by a legitimate authority
-Carried out only in self defense or defense of other Muslims
-Carried out only against armed combatants, and only so long as those combatants continue to attack.

It’s quite similar to the “just war” theory, except that the just war theory sees war as a necessary evil, where the islamic tradition sees self-defense through warfare as a positive good and an obligation.

Problem is pro universal that anyone who can issue a fatwa is a legitimate authority. Therefore according to you they can wage holy jihad. Which means that bin Laden is not a terrorist but a jihader. Correct? He has the authority to issue a fatwa. Then he must also have the authority to wage jihad.
Like Isaid earler- a big fatwa loophole- no central authority.

 

[pro_universal]

Problem is pro universal that anyone who can issue a fatwa is a legitimate authority. Therefore according to you they can wage holy jihad. Which means that bin Laden is not a terrorist but a jihader. Correct? He has the authority to issue a fatwa. Then he must also have the authority to wage jihad.
Like Isaid earler- a big fatwa loophole- no central authority.

Wait, he has “authority”? What do you mean by that?

Anyone can write words on a piece of paper and call it a “fatwa.” That doesn’t mean anyone else will accept it as a fatwa.

The fact that no other Muslims accept these “fatwas” is pretty good evidence that they have no authority whatsoever.

Think of this comparison: Some guy in Kansas can declare himself the Pope. Since there are no Papal Police to go around arresting false Popes, does that mean that anyone has the authority to be a Pope?

The validity of a fatwa depends on its theological justifications…given that Islam is quite clear about Jihad, and that virtually all scholars of Islam agree on these rules for Jihad, no fatwa to the contrary would be valid. And you can see that for yourself if you simply read from the list I gave you.

Anyone can claim almost anything. That doesn’t make it an “authoritative” claim.

 

[jburgherr]

The “Meccan/Medinan” verses argument is a total farce. Get yourself a copy of the Quran that identifies which verses are Meccan and which are Medinan. I use Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s. Read them for yourself, and you’ll be surprised at how badly in error your websites are.

This is why Islam has so many kookie ideas flying about. Any Imamm or Mullah can say…This is the true teaching…changing their scripture to say anything they want it to say. And God forbid that they be challenged on it.

They don’t have a Magisterium to provide un-impeachable guidence as to what is and what is not “Authentic” teaching. This is why Islam fails.

 

[Booklover]

Oh the poor misunderstood Muslims. They riot and kill Christians without let and hindrance, but when they move to the USA they can’t do it anymore. But if someone even looks at their mosque wrong then suddenly they are again the VICTIMS. It is amazing how Muslims insist they are the victim while they chop off Christian heads.

Exactly!

 

[tequilamac]

Wait, he has “authority”? What do you mean by that?

Anyone can write words on a piece of paper and call it a “fatwa.” That doesn’t mean anyone else will accept it as a fatwa.

The fact that no other Muslims accept these “fatwas” is pretty good evidence that they have no authority whatsoever.

Think of this comparison: Some guy in Kansas can declare himself the Pope. Since there are no Papal Police to go around arresting false Popes, does that mean that anyone has the authority to be a Pope?

The validity of a fatwa depends on its theological justifications…given that Islam is quite clear about Jihad, and that virtually all scholars of Islam agree on these rules for Jihad, no fatwa to the contrary would be valid. And you can see that for yourself if you simply read from the list I gave you.

Anyone can claim almost anything. That doesn’t make it an “authoritative” claim.

Garbage- no other Muslims. No other Muslims. Are you trying to tell us bin Laden is an army of one? Nazrallah is an army of one? No other Muslims? Nonsense.

Now you say that Jihad has to be declared by a legitimate authority. Who is that authority, pro universal?

 

[pro_universal]

This is why Islam has so many kookie ideas flying about. Any Imamm or Mullah can say…This is the true teaching…changing their scripture to say anything they want it to say. And God forbid that they be challenged on it.

They don’t have a Magisterium to provide un-impeachable guidence as to what is and what is not “Authentic” teaching. This is why Islam fails.

Haha, how many non-Catholic Christian sects are there? Are they in agreement that the Magisterium defines “authentic” teaching?

And whose to stop other Christians from disobeying the Pope or declaring his statements “false christianity”, and issuing their own claims about what the bible teaches?

This is really just plain funny. There are 30 some odd thousand sects of Christianity, and you’re talking about how the Pope sets everyone straight.

Newsflash: Nearly half the Christian population in the world doesn’t agree with you that the Pope defines teaching. I guess that means there’s “no real central authority”, since no one can go around forcing these people to accept the Pope’s teaching, right?

 

[pro_universal]

Garbage- no other Muslims. No other Muslims. Are you trying to tell us bin Laden is an army of one? Nazrallah is an army of one? No other Muslims? Nonsense.

Now you say that Jihad has to be declared by a legitimate authority. Who is that authority, pro universal?

A legitimate Islamic state, ie, a Caliphate.

All other wars would be national self defense only, which Hizbullah would clearly fall under in jus ad bellum terms (though not in jus in bello).

Bin Laden is an army of few, yes. And Nasrallah is no more a terrorist than any government (including Israel’s) that engages in carpet bombing from the sky.

Comparing Hizbullah and Osama is apples and oranges.

 

[cestusdei]

A caliphate. Oh yes, thats what we need. A worldwide dictatorship imposing sharia law on us dhimmi. We all yearn for slavery under Caliph bin Laden.

Every fatwa I have seen has an escape clause for them to prevent it actually meaning anything. Otherwise the good Muslims of Pakistan would have already turned over bin Laden. As for jihad. They seem to feel that the jihad means conquering Rome and hanging the Pope. Defensive? I think not.

Btw, hezbullah is a TERRORIST organization. They appreciate your support. This is a perfect example of what I am saying. “Oh we hate terrorism…but we love terrorist groups like that.” When push comes to shove they will NOT really condemn their jihad.

 

[jburgherr]

I guess that means there’s “no real central authority”, since no one can go around forcing these people to accept the Pope’s teaching, right?

No The Church doesn’t. Islam is much better at using force when dealing with non-believers. Upto and including beheading!

 

[tequilamac]

Haha, how many non-Catholic Christian sects are there? Are they in agreement that the Magisterium defines “authentic” teaching?

And whose to stop other Christians from disobeying the Pope or declaring his statements “false christianity”, and issuing their own claims about what the bible teaches?

This is really just plain funny. There are 30 some odd thousand sects of Christianity, and you’re talking about how the Pope sets everyone straight.

Newsflash: Nearly half the Christian population in the world doesn’t agree with you that the Pope defines teaching. I guess that means there’s “no real central authority”, since no one can go around forcing these people to accept the Pope’s teaching, right?

What in the world does that have to do with anything? The Catholic world follows the Pope supposedly. If you want to discuss the others, go there. This is a Catholic forum, it is the Pope burning in effigy, and you should stop trying to skirt the issues with non catholic christians. I do not see any Muslim burning Jack Chick in effigy, no. So your point is a red herring.

 

[pro_universal]

What in the world does that have to do with anything? The Catholic world follows the Pope supposedly. If you want to discuss the others, go there. This is a Catholic forum, it is the Pope burning in effigy, and you should stop trying to skirt the issues with non catholic christians. I do not see any Muslim burning Jack Chick in effigy, no. So your point is a red herring.

No it’s not. You’re claiming that there is a central authority to guide people in interpreting the bible.

In reality, this authority only extends as far as people are willing to accept it. The same is true in Islam: fatwas are as binding as the number of people willing to accept them.

 

[tequilamac]

No it’s not. You’re claiming that there is a central authority to guide people in interpreting the bible.

In reality, this authority only extends as far as people are willing to accept it. The same is true in Islam: fatwas are as binding as the number of people willing to accept them.

Are you deliberately attempting to deceive people here pro? There is a central authority to guide catholics in interpreting the bible. The Pope. I am not discussing other christian religions- you are. Muslims are not burning Jack Chick in effigy. We are discussing Catholicism and Islam. And you repeatedly throw in red herrings.
This is a catholic forum, I am a catholic, it is the Catholic Pope with the authority to interpret the Bible who was burned in effigy and I am asking you which fatwa would you like Catholics to believe? Which Turkish parliament condemnation, which effigy burning, which calls for execution, which fatwa against the Pope, all items done all around the globe everywhere, not just Al Qaeda were not accepted and not authoritative? Which group of muslims all around the planet were not speaking for Islam as a whole? If it was just bin Laden’s group, pro, you might have a point. But it was muslims everywhere all around the globe including a full turkish parliament. So now what? They do not speak for Islam either? Then who does, pro? who does?

 

[exoflare]

Are you deliberately attempting to deceive people here pro? There is a central authority to guide catholics in interpreting the bible. The Pope. I am not discussing other christian religions- you are. Muslims are not burning Jack Chick in effigy. We are discussing Catholicism and Islam. And you repeatedly throw in red herrings.

LOL I told you guys… Just save yourselves the trouble, and put ol’ pro_sharia on the ignore list like I did.

 

[pro_universal]

Are you deliberately attempting to deceive people here pro? There is a central authority to guide catholics in interpreting the bible. The Pope. I am not discussing other christian religions- you are. Muslims are not burning Jack Chick in effigy. We are discussing Catholicism and Islam. And you repeatedly throw in red herrings.
This is a catholic forum, I am a catholic, it is the Catholic Pope with the authority to interpret the Bible who was burned in effigy and I am asking you which fatwa would you like Catholics to believe? Which Turkish parliament condemnation, which effigy burning, which calls for execution, which fatwa against the Pope, all items done all around the globe everywhere, not just Al Qaeda were not accepted and not authoritative? Which group of muslims all around the planet were not speaking for Islam as a whole? If it was just bin Laden’s group, pro, you might have a point. But it was muslims everywhere all around the globe including a full turkish parliament. So now what? They do not speak for Islam either? Then who does, pro? who does?

This is the same story…you’re grabbing a large group with different ideas, then putting them all into one.

Find me a fatwa that says killing the Pope is okay, and I’ll show you a Somali Warlord or a Bin Ladenite.

The people who speak for Islam are the ones who follow the traditions of interpreting the Quran and who represent the consensus of Islamic scholars on those points. If you look, you’ll find more than enough consensus on condemning religious violence.

But you don’t want to do that…you just want to pick a group that serves your purpose, and then say “Hey, how come they don’t represent Islam!”

For the same reason that Cristeros terrorists didn’t represent Christianity.

 

[Wolseley]

Well, are you saying that all those Muslims who’re risking their lives in the American army as we type this are the same as these folks?

No. I’m saying that “all those Muslims” whom I see dancing in the streets every time something like 9/11 happens or who stand out in front of Catholic churches burning the Pope in effigy or who riot and blow up cars and burn down buildings every time somebody breaks wind in front of a mosque are the same as “those folks”, in spirit if in nothing else. They prove by their actions that they wouldn’t lift a finger to prevent another terrorist attack, and in fact, they’d support it in any way they could. And I think it’s pretty much a given that those people, by sheer number alone, far outweigh the number of moderate Muslims in Western armies.

 

[ferdie]

Haha, how many non-Catholic Christian sects are there? Are they in agreement that the Magisterium defines “authentic” teaching?

And whose to stop other Christians from disobeying the Pope or declaring his statements “false christianity”, and issuing their own claims about what the bible teaches?

This is really just plain funny. There are 30 some odd thousand sects of Christianity, and you’re talking about how the Pope sets everyone straight.

Newsflash: Nearly half the Christian population in the world doesn’t agree with you that the Pope defines teaching. I guess that means there’s “no real central authority”, since no one can go around forcing these people to accept the Pope’s teaching, right?

Judaism has many sects, Christianity has many sects, Islam has many sects. Each sects has different interpretation of their religion. But… What is good about Christain-Judeo values is we disagree with each other in a peacful manner.

 

[ferdie]

This is the same story…you’re grabbing a large group with different ideas, then putting them all into one.

Find me a fatwa that says killing the Pope is okay, and I’ll show you a Somali Warlord or a Bin Ladenite.

The people who speak for Islam are the ones who follow the traditions of interpreting the Quran and who represent the consensus of Islamic scholars on those points. If you look, you’ll find more than enough consensus on condemning religious violence.

I admit I’m not looking around, I am waiting for the media to find these moderates so that they can report to us and tell us, Hey people of the western world, we finally found the peaceful majority of muslims, marching in a peaceful mannner, condenming their terrorist borthers.

 

[Brian_C]

Really? Let’s see Osama’s speech where he says this.

It’s well-documented that Osama was upset with the Saudi Arabian govt. because they allowed the US to set foot on Saudi soil in the 90-91 Gulf War. Bin Laden had approached the govt and offered his mujahadeen to repulse Iraq in the event of an invasion and was politely declined.

It’s even discussed in the 9-11 report: gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/fullreport.pdf

Here’s an excerpt from page 68:

He urged Muslims to read the Qur’an and the Hadith for themselves, not to depend solely on learned interpreters like himself but to hold one another to account for the quality of their observance.

Sounds like among other things he was for private interpretation. Now, we all know how that can lead to erroneous beliefs. I don’t think he wanted people to know what passages Islamic clerics put more or less weight in.

 

[cestusdei]

Okay, let’s say pro is right for the sake of argument. Let’s say that Islam has absolutely uniquivocally condemned terrorism and is peaceful as a lamb.

Then explain why here is so MUCH terrorism perpetrated by Muslims. Why they riot at the drop of a turban and call for the death of the pope or a cartoonist? Why they persecute and kill Christians in their countries? If, as pro claims, it is so clear that violence is right out then why are most terrorists in the world today Muslim?

This shows it ain’t clear to them at all. They want to “condemn” terrorism while still supporting it, as we see with pro’s support of hezbullah. After all it’s just kaffir they are killing, right?