Terrorist attack in France

Post Reply New Topic

So if the Isis dogs reason as you they can follow a bloody interpretation and deny any authority of Islam? Certainly you would not defend such actions, nor would the leaders of Islam (who you do not bow to), so my question is: Do the leaders not condemn because they would not deny even such people, as long as they are Muslim, their right to interpretation?

If the above question is overly insensitive please forgive, but I am trying to understand the implication of your statement.

It is the virtues of tolerance, empathy and understanding that we all look for in others. But I wonder how others lives and minds interpret these words. I hope we're close.

So why do you only recognise extremists views on what a muslim is? Do you think extremists are superior? Wouldn't suprise me as you seem to share much in common with them...

It's maybe late night revision-brain, but I couldn't understand your wording. Care to rephrase/clarify?

Yes, Islam is far less centralised ideologically than an organisation such as the Catholic church, although modern day protestantism is also quite decentralised and so could probably have parallels drawn.

Yes of course. Killing members of ISIS and similar organizations is undoubtedly the right thing to do. It's a non-controversial practice. Only obscure fringe elements (and the barbarians themselves) would disagree.


The word of Allah, according to Muhammad, as laid out in the Quran, is the foundation of Islam. A follower of Islam is called a Muslim. Someone who rejects the doctrine is not a Muslim, by definition.

Certainly.

You say: "... I am a Quranist muslim and so do not believe in organised religion or the legitimacy of anyone to claim more authority on interpreting the word of God than another." I hope this is not out of context.

I'm trying to understand the meaning of "legitimacy of anyone to claim more authority on interpreting the word of God than another."

Unless I am missing something it seems "another" might be someone who believes a "less peaceful purpose" is what the Quran teaches and so lives their life accordingly. Although there may be violence involved a "Quranist muslim " as you describe yourself, should not condemn such, as it arises from their interpretation of Mohammed's words? I could be way off here.

And would you say someone's interpreting "the word of God" which then leads to violence and death should not be condemned? It's this condemnation by the leaders of Islam against those who kill the innocent, that westerners want to hear.

I'm rather vocal about my views, sometimes even dangerously so lol

Wudhu is just washing, I don't tend to talk while washing but it doesn't take that long anyway. In the mosque I frequented before I moved house though there used to be a lot of talk and friendly debate, as well as one day a week there would be talks by different people about subjects they are knowledgeable about, whether about Islam or - perhaps more controversially - about historical topics such as the history of Palestine.

The management of that mosque has changed since then though and the times I go up there does seem to be a sort of tension, perhaps as there have been more attacks on the local Islamic community in the past few years (leaving many people afraid), and there has been a change of Imam since to someone who seems a bit less liberally minded to me. In fact there was a schism around that, as there was an influx of people from a certain country who seemed to not like the previous Imam and kinda forced him out...

Even with that though, last year when there was a controversy where the first minister of the country practically incited racial hatred against muslims, they handled it like pros (with maturity and liberalism) and he had to eat his words (even going to visit the mosque and pose for press photos lol).

There was once two guys that came to the mosque trying to recruit for Al Qaeda, and they were promptly reported to the police and as far as I know went to prison, so I think it's clear to say the local muslim population in NI is quite against extremism.

YOU SAY: Yes of course. Killing members of ISIS and similar organizations is undoubtedly the right thing to do. It's a non-controversial practice. Only obscure fringe elements (and the barbarians themselves) would disagree.[/quote}




But I say: Only in your head my friend.

It isn't that I haven't heard fringe elements from time to time suggesting we "nuke" them. But I don't agree with these people either. I imagine your statement was supposed to sound stupid and shallow because of long standing hatreds you may harbor which would then bring your hatred to the fore. You've succeeded. But, I believe, most are not interested.

There's a difference between interpreting the Quran independently and willfully manipulating and promoting a violent interpretation for political purposes, as done by Saudi Arabia with Wahhabism. While many people are manipulated by the leaders of organisations such as ISIS - even believing what they are doing is in some warped way "right" - the ultimate goal of the leaders of such organisations is not religion but power.

It's almost as if they are weaponising the religion as a way to control masses of weak-minded individuals who don't realise they are being manipulated. It's a problem that can happen in socially minded species such as us humans, as the less intelligent of us often externalise their moral compass to the moral code of the society around them (how people like the Nazi's where able to rise to power and commit atrocities).

I personally feel any violence by any person should be condemned. I also feel that the muslim community as a whole has condemned these things more than we get credit for.

Last edited by eleventhirtytwo on 11 Jan 2015, 6:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

There's no 'almost' about it. You just described a fundamental problem with all dogmatic religions.

Most people fully support the ongoing military operations against ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Taliban, and similar organizations.

Same is probably true of many political philosophies as well, or in fact any way in which people define themselves. How many times have people marched to war to defend their "culture" or the "supremacy" of their "nationality"?

You won't get any argument from me. Jingoism is on a par with religiosity.

It really depends on which branch of Protestantism you're talking about.

That's an interesting perspective. So it's perception that the portrayal of Christ (representing the christian Jesus) is not their prophet Jesus? (muslims call him Nabi Isa). Of course that's pretty ignorant and illogical if they believe that but stomp their feet over caricatures of Mohammed.

I've read some fairly spirited defense by muslim scholars about how Shariah Law is not mentioned in the Al-Quran but instead there is reference to a "just society" (which they leave deliberately vague).

I've dug up my English translation of the Quran, the following Surah states the issue of law clearly!!
"Shall I seek other than God as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed?" 6:114
Surah 6:114 contains clear confirmation that:
- God is the only source of law.
- The Quran has all the details.

This means two things i) a true muslim must follow the Quran in all matters relating to law and ii) cherry picking what Surahs in the Quran to follow is not acceptable for a true muslim. It's fairly self-evident that a true muslim MUST follow ALL the Quranic teaching, including how to deal with non-believers.

To conclude the only law a true muslim can follow is "shariah law" which codifies the instructions of Allah directly from the Quran. For example
- requiring that prisoners be punished through amputation of limbs
- adultery punished by 100 lashes and/or execution by stoning
- a muslim not practicing the 5 pillars of islam punishable by death
- where a society is predominantly muslim then secular law (non-Quranic) is not permitted
- in a muslim majority society you are permitted to exclude all non-muslims from positions of government, administration or policy
- non-muslims are required to pay a tax (even if they are starving) in order to live with muslims until such time they convert, the Jizya tax is actually referred to as a symbol of humiliation on non-believers.
- in islam a muslim female is forbidden to marry a non-muslim (this is exactly the same as modern christian cults in order their numbers increase)
- non-muslims are not permitted to testify legally against a muslim (this basically means a muslim can rape or torture a non-muslim such as happens in Egypt or Pakistan and not face legal prosecution on the basis their victim has no legal rights)

Basically, the command of non-Muslims over Muslims in never admissible, because God Almighty said: 'Allah will not give access to the infidels (i.e. Christians) to have authority over believers (Muslims) {Qur'an 4:141}. For God - Glory be to Him - has elevated Muslims to the highest rank (over all men) and foreordained to them the might, by virtue of the Quranic text. Furthermore the Quran is EXPLICIT
- muslims must not dress like non-muslims (this alone means most muslims are not following the Quran)
- attend non-muslim festivals (i.e. Christmas)
- work for non-muslims in a role where they must obey (again plenty not following this Quranic edict)

In light of the Charlie Hebdo attack, many muslims claim they support western freedom of speech. Once again this is against their Quranic teaching. Infact the Quran makes it clear that

Surah 33:57 Those who insult [aa-dh-aa] God and His Messenger will be rejected by God in this world and the next—He has prepared a humiliating punishment for them— 58 and those who undeservedly insult [aa-dh-aa] believing men and women will bear the guilt of slander and obvious sin.

Surah 9:61 There are others who insult [aa-dh-aa] the Prophet by saying, "He will listen to anything." [Muhammad,] Say, "He listens for your own good" . . . An agonizing torment awaits those who insult [aa-dh-aa] God’s Messenger

Quranic law applies to non-believers the same, so transgression involving slandering the prophet is technically a punishable offense. A true muslim is therefore vindicated by the Quran for seeking retribution such as committed against Charlie Hebdo's cartoonists....