Shootings and explosions in Paris.
- Thread starter Dennisch
- 915 comments
- 43,462 views
- 6,344
- Nantes
- P308R
Some info from this morning and one thing stood out:
* 11.000 have a "badge" S in France which means radicalised
* 11.000 have a "badge" S in France which means radicalised
- 44,184
- Blackburn
- Furinkazen_54
Ok the hypocrisy here is Grade A.
So a muslim is worthless. Lets tell 99%+ of them that. Then you'll get some bad tempered responses.
Then attempting to make Australia sound like some tough as nails establishment:
Oh wait, your "freeze em all out!" policy works doesn't it?
- 5,619
- Hampshire
- Spurgy777
@Furinkazen that's exactly the opposite of what he's trying to say 
What the hell are you replying about.Ok the hypocrisy here is Grade A.
So a muslim is worthless. Lets tell 99%+ of them that. Then you'll get some bad tempered responses.
Then attempting to make Australia sound like some tough as nails establishment:
Oh wait, your "freeze em all out!" policy works doesn't it?
Hes telling the story in third person. Its not him that do it. Read the post more carefully next time.
- 31,456
- Hilversum
- Dennisch
We are asking for tighter security. To stop free travel in Europe. Better screening. That doesn't work when services are being swamped. If we all think Muslims are the enemy, why aren't the Geert Wilders' of Europe our Prime Ministers? If Muslims were the enemy we would already be in trouble, but for now it's France that gets the lid on the nose, because of their stance.
Of course we need to help the refugees, but not the way it goes now. Half arsed problem solving as it is happening now doesn't help. If we want to get rid of IS and the stream of refugees it creates, the USA, Russia, and Europe need to work together.
For example. The Netherlands only bomb IS in Iraq. Why? Because they don't know who they can bomb in Syria.
I've posted this in the IS thread to mark to stupidity of the war in Syria :
And it's a matter of time before that becomes even more complicated.
Do tell.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
I didn't say that. I said that's the way that it will be interpreted by Muslims worldwide.
No, it doesn't. A month ago, a radicalised fifteen year-old shot and killed a civilian police contractor. A year ago, a radicalised man took hostages in a Sydney cafe and claimed allegiance to ISIS.
We might not have seen an attack on the same scale as Paris, but that doesn't mean that the "freeze 'em out!" policy works. Youth radicalisation is a genuine concern here. It's getting to the point where Hizb ut-Tahrir, a hardliner group that many believe are dangerously close to fundamentalist, are openly holding seminars on what they see as the targeted persecution of Muslims by the government and police forces. So don't be deceived by the idea of Australia being an idyllic nation separated from the rest of the world's problems - there is latent tension in the community, a direct result of the kind of policies that European conservatives are kicking around.
That was the point of the policies: the government loves to play the "tough on national security" card because it wins votes with the conservatives and is impossible to counter. At its height, they would announce the next national security crackdown before the last one had even finished. We have some of the most stringent and pervasive anti-terror legislation in the world; if America tried half of what we're doing, it wouls be shot down as unconstitutional.
- 31,456
- Hilversum
- Dennisch
@prisonermonkeys
Is Australia's stance on Muslims that hard?
Here the stance isn't against Muslims. We have a Moroccan Muslim as major of the second largest city in our country,who is always one of the first to speak hardcore anti IS speeches. And nobody has had a problem with that, apart from the occasional nutjob. The majority of sane people here know it isn't the Muslims we need to be afraid of.
Is Australia's stance on Muslims that hard?
Here the stance isn't against Muslims. We have a Moroccan Muslim as major of the second largest city in our country,who is always one of the first to speak hardcore anti IS speeches. And nobody has had a problem with that, apart from the occasional nutjob. The majority of sane people here know it isn't the Muslims we need to be afraid of.
Jawehawk
Premium
- 4,652
- Denmark
- Yohansen_92
I completely agree that we need a better system for dealing with the refugees. I'm just opposed to shutting down the borders, as I don't see it as a solution. Of course, France might need to do so for a short while, which makes perfect sense given their situation.
I won't attempt to give any kind of solution to the problem in Syria, as it is far too complex for me to have any idea what to do. IS isn't the only problem there, and frankly, I don't much care for either the Syrian government or the various rebel factions operating in the country. I would hope that this incident brings Russia and the West closer to each other, as I believe combining our forces to be the best bet on dealing with this situation. If and when Russia and the West come to an agreement on how to handle Syria, that is when we can start solving the problem.
- 31,456
- Hilversum
- Dennisch
VolkswagenX
(Banned)
- 1,532
- Netherlands
- 2,726
- England
- ECGadget
- Eh???
Alright, let me address every single point I can then; every sentence I can to be as fair as possible to Mr Harris.
"I want to talk about Islam for a moment... I think we are wise to be concerned about it"
Okay, fair enough, he want to be concerned about Islam (and religion in general). Nothing wrong with that, having concern over something is fine.
"There is I'm happy to say a religion of peace in this world, but it's not Islam"
Okay, you want to believe that and that is fine as well. However, the word Islam in itself in arabic broken down into its root letters is the root of the word "Salam" which means peace. There is a reason that we say Islam is a religion of peace (but don't get me wrong, I am not saying all Muslims are peaceful) and if we really were to study the core of Islamic beliefs, you would actually agree with that statement. Perhaps not as far as Jainism, sure, or maybe in Bhuddism, but can there only be one religion of peace? Anyway, we'll move on from this.
"Extremism is not a problem, if your core beliefs are truly non violent[...]The only problem with Islamic fundamentalism is the fundamentals of Islam."
Okay, let's take a look at the pure fundamentals of Islam (again something every Muslim child will know from the age of five or six).
There are five pillars of Islam. The core foundations if you will.
1) Testimony of faith: That is to say there is one God, and the Prophet Muhammad is his final messenger.
2) Prayer: To pray to God in the way instructed (i.e. to establish the ritual of sallah)
3) Fasting: To fast in the month of Ramadhan
4) Charity: To give a percentage of your wealth to those who need it most
5) Pilgrimige: To go for the Hajj, once in your lifetime
Now barring the first pillar, the other four have a whole bunch of tolerances around them, accounting for everything from lack of money to age to illness etc. Anyway, I don't see a problem with any of those fundamentals of Islam, and I doubt anyone in this thread will. There is nothing there that could ever harm someone.
So let's now look at a bit more of "Islam in detail".
1) To believe in God: this is to have faith in one God, the God of all the worlds.
2) To believe in his Angels: Every single one, from the Holy Spirit Gabriel to the Angels who just roam the Earth day to day.
3) To believe in his books: Not just the Qur'an. This is to believe that Jesus was given revelations too, the tablets given to Moses, the books of Abraham, of David, of Soloman, etc etc.
4) To believe in his messengers: Not just Muhammad. To disregard any other messager is against Islam. So a Muslim believes in Adam, Noah, Jacob, Jonah, Muhammad, Jesus, Abraham, Moses, David, Soloman, Ishmael, Issac, Joshua, Aaron, etc etc.
5) To believe in the final day: Pretty simple, it is to believe there will be a day of reckoning
6) To believe in Taqdeer (predestination to find the closest English word): This is basically to believe all good and bad is ultimately a test by God. Let's be clear though, this is not to say that a Muslim should sit back and take whatever they are dealt, because that is not what it means. Nor does it mean a Muslim should act recklessly and if he gets hurt because of it or someone else gets hurt they say "Oh, it was going to happen anyway", because that isn't how it works.
7) To believe in another life after death: again simple enough, to believe that after you die (which could be in itself regarded as a last day) there will be another life, that will be eternal.
Okay, we've now got the very fundamentals of Islam. I don't see anything wrong with them. Does anyone else here? Sure, they may seem to put an emphasis on a being we cannot see nor hear but there is no harm in any of those. The five pillars are sound, the seven aspects of detail are sound.
Maybe the fundamentals that are being referred to is the "five elements"?
1) Protection of Life
2) Protection of Religious Liberty
3) Protection of Intellect
4) Protection of Heritage
5) Protection of Property
Nope, I don't see it there either. In fact, those five elements (which were written hundreds and hundreds of years ago) are rather similar to the basis of our laws here, which do exactly that.
But then what could Mr Harris be talking about?
"The problem is they are giving a very plausible version of the faith"
Let's stop there for a moment, and look back up to the fundamentals that he has a problem with. I cannot see anything there that says 'terrorise communities', 'kill people everywhere', 'force conversions to Islam', 'wreak havoc across the world'. Does anyone else here somehow translate any of what is said in those fundamentals to anything related to terroristic activities?
"Bin Laden is not the Reverend Jim Jones of the Muslim World."
Okay, I'll agree with him there. Bin Laden is not a Jim Jones of the Muslim World. Why? Because he was no religious leader of any kind. Apart from that, the fact that he murdered people and committed the acts he did does make him very much like Jim Jones, in the fact that they both were after something that did not conform to what others wanted.
"He is giving a truly straightforward version of Islam and you really have to be an acrobat to figure out how he's distorting the faith."
Really? Because it seems that once you get the first set of facts correct you really have to be an acrobat to figure out how he is not!
"It is not obvious by the light of Islam, and this is just a fact"
No, it is not a fact. It is an opinion of Mr Harris (and others of course) that is driven by lack of knowledge, the coverage of media AND the actions of those who call themselves Muslim. Let's not beat around the bush here, this is not a one sided problem and nobody should ever say it is. This is a problem that the whole world collectively has to deal with, regardless of religion. And the problem is not caused just by one part of the world, or one person, or one news station, or one country, or one organisation. It is caused by a combination of all of these and always has been, no matter who the enemy was on that day.
"And no one should be speaking more honestly about this [...] than moderate Muslims"
Alright, so according to his train of thought, 'moderate Muslims' should be speaking up that people like ISIS are following a simple form of Islam that actually allows this? But how can they if that is a lie? And again, let's get one thing straight here, that is a lie. There is NO form of Islam that allows anything the likes of Bin Laden, ISIS, Al Qaeda (sp?), have done. The other thing I want to throw out there is why 'moderate Muslims'? Why do we have to give all these titles?
"To say [...] Bin Laden is David Koresh is just a lie, and a dangerous lie at this point"
Now you cannot tell me that he still knows a lot about Islam by the time you have got to this point (if indeed you have managed to read this far down without getting bored) because everything I have just said is exactly against what he is saying. And I have had 18 years of study in the religion, so I think I know a little about it.
"I want to rehearse for you what these core beliefs are [...]"
This is where he says that Muhammad got the Qur'an from God through the Holy Spirit in a cave during the 7th century. It was stated here that this is a simple oversimplification, but it not just a simple oversimplification. By stating this, you throw out the window the very way in which the Qur'an is interpreted. Because (and this is not something I can do directly, I am no scholar of Islam) the Qur'an is not just a book to read. Yes, Muslims believe this is the word of God. Well done Mr Harris, you're on point there. Yes, it was given by Gabriel. Again, bang on point. No arguments from me. No, it was not all revealed in a cave, and that changes everything. Because suddenly the book has context and reasoning. There is no explanation here as to why Mr Harris feels it is a mediocre book, in fact I noticed he jumps from point to point without really explaining any of his points. At this point, I can only now assume this is the case because of
A) He was on a tight schedule
B) He cannot explain them because he does not know
I'd like to take option (A) as the most viable one, but every sentence he says points further towards the latter option. This is a mediocre book that he seems to not have even bothered to read, let alone go into its explanation. Lastly, the Qur'an is not the only thing Muslims go to for everything. The Qur'an is the guide, but the explanation of it (known as Tafsir) and the ways of the Prophet Muhammad as narrated by his family, companions and friends (known as the Hadith) is how a Muslim follows the Qur'an. So again, his knowledge of core beliefs is woefully incomplete and incorrect.
"Spain translates more of the worlds literature and learning into Spanish every year, than the entire Arab world has translated into Arabic since the 9th century"
Interesting fact he states there (and he does say this is a fact). What he fails to take into account is that During the 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th centuries, Arab countries were at the forefront of science and literature. Our knowledge of space, chemistry, medicine? Guess who helped it along? And note, I did not say who started it, because we know, especially with regards to chemistry, that it was the fantastic work of the Greeks who really got the ball rolling. Did Mr Harris stop to consider just for one moment that there was a period of HALF A MILLENIA where Islam was the forefront of science? Now I am not saying the contributions made by Spain, England, USA, Germany, Japan or indeed any other country in the world is not significant, because they clearly are. But the fact does remain (and you can ask any well versed Historian this) that if it were not for the Greek, Roman and Muslim empires, our knowledge would be far limited than it is today.
"Worshipping at a shrine containing a single beard hair of the Prophet Muhammad"
You do know that this is actually against Islam, right? This was an advent from culture, that people flocked to see things like a single beard hair and started praying towards it etc, which is actually against the very first pillar of Islam. This is actually why images of Muhammad are not allowed in Islam. Can you imagine if a single beard hair causes that, what an image would cause? So he is wrong there, and odds are they are not worshipping that hair anyway, but more so flocking to see it as a hope for good luck. In a place like Kashmir, would you blame them?
All in all, that is the best I could break down his seven and half minutes. And I hope that you guys now have a better understanding of why I say his entire reasoning fell apart. He started on a good point about concern, and then just went off on a half baked rant that people WILL undoubtedly listen to full of misinformation. So, instead of working to find a solution to terrorism, he is in fact aggravating the problem.
And as a final note (I shall put this in spoiler tags to make easier reading) I shall now explain the Qur'an using a quote from part of a response in the Islam thread, which will show exactly why the fact that it was revealed over 23 years in different places is key to understanding it. If you managed to get this far, thanks for reading.
Islam is based on two fundamental parts. The first is the Qur'an, which is the word of God. It is split into three sections, with 30 volumes, 114 chapters, in two eras (Makkan and Madyan) and was revealed over the course of 23 years or so. The order it is read in (Starting with "Al Fatiha" - The Opening, and ending with "An Naas" - The Mankind) in the Mushraf (this is what a physical copy of the Quraan is referred to) is not the order the Quraan was revealed but an order that was given to Muhammad by the Archangel Gabriel. The first revealation in the cave on the mountain of Hira is actually one of the last chapters in the Quraan as it is in physical form.
Now the 30 volumes of the quraan do not really matter so much, it is more for reading, but the timing of the chapters revealations (and some were not revealed altogether) and where they were revealed is the key to understanding the Qur'an. Shem, you said it yourself when you put out the fact (and this is a fact) that there are parts of the Qur'an that talk about war, and conquest and rule. No doubt about it. But like I said, it is the situation, the time and place that the verses came out. But how does a Muslim understand that part? See if you wanted to give Islam a, shall we say a critisism, it is that it is not just a religion but more of a way of life. And this is where the problem comes about in todays world. Because it is a way of life in many ways the questions arise about the letter of the Qur'an and how is it that Muslim scholars can ignore it, whilst others follow it to the letter and end up using the Qur'an to go about killing and bombing etc, what I am going to refer to in post (lecture, rant, rave?) as "terrorism" or maybe "Islamic terrorism" if I need to specifically differentiate, but we can talk about that later. For us to understand that we need to start looking at the Qur'an in more depth, starting with the two eras.
Era One is the Makkan period. The chapters/verses that are dated to this time are mostly calls to Islam. Era Two is the Madyan period and these is more where rules and regulations came about. This is not to say one or the other period did not have aspects of the other in it.
The three parts of the Qur'an are roughly translated to be "Oneness", "Laws and By-laws" and "Stories". The Oneness verses you can guess are exactly that. They reinforce the worship of one God, and ascribing no partners to him. This third of the Qur'an is actually perfectly highlighted in Chapter 112, titled "Ikhlaas" - Oneness. But I won't start providing any explanation for that very short chapter because it is very simple in understanding and thank goodness is cannot be interpreted in any other way than it is.
"Laws and By-laws" appear in many places in the Qur'an, but more so in the Madyan chapters. We need to come back to these, because these are the parts of the Qur'an that are often twisted or used.
"Stories" is pretty self explanatory. Story of Moses and the Pharoh, Mary the mother of Jesus, Adam and Satan, Noah's Ark, Jonah and the Whale etc etc.
So now we have worked out what the Qur'an contains roughly. Next we need to look at the second fundamental part of Islam: the Hadith. The Hadith are a collection of narrations which highlight the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad. This is how a Muslim learns how to practise his religion. In a nutshell, the Qur'an is the guide, the Prophet (and indeed Prophets BEFORE Muhammad, as shown in the Qur'an itself) are the role models. We look at the Hadith in 4 categories. "Strong", "Good", "Weak", "Fabricated". This is something that the Western media/political figures (note I am not saying the people, and most certainly not pointing at all of the media or political figures) often misses out, which is what we need to make clear. Amazingly, the one that was mentioned just a couple of posts ago about the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and Zainab, who was originally the wife of the adopted child of the Prophet (which again I am not going to explain for otherwise this post will not be finished for the next week, but the video in my previous post will explain that if you have seven minutes).
So now we have got the Qur'an and we have the Hadith, which forms the guide for a Muslim. Then we have "Sunni and Shia" (and other, much smaller groups) but that is something I may touch on later. I am going to focus more on the Sunni side, simply because my knowledge of Shia Islam is far far more limited than Sunni Islam, sadly. Time to now break it down to what we call the "Fiqh", which is where we get to the different "Schools of thought". There are 4 primary schools of thought that are agreed upon in Islam. "Hanafi", "Shafi", "Humbali", "Maliki". The leaders of these schools of thought are known as the four great Imams of Islam, and all four schools follow the same fundamental principles, with the differences occurring lower down in the more trivial matters. An example of this is the rulings regarding the shortening of prayer, or the way one should fold their hands when praying. And there is some differences of opinions on how the Hadith (particularly the "good" or "weak" ones). I myself am a Sunni Muslim, following the Hanafi school of thought. Does that mean I believe the other schools of thought are incorrect? Not at all. You see, the idea of different interpretations of Islam IS allowed within certain limitations. Am I saying ISIS is a valid interpretation of Islam? Oh gosh, no. Am I saying that a Muslim who prays his/her prayer in a slightly different way incorrect in Islam? No. If they follow a particular school of thought, that is what they should follow. But let's make clear that these schools of thought are established centuries ago. Not new creations. For example, Abu Hanifa (the father of the Hanafi school of thought, who is also considered the great imam in some parts of Shia Islam) was actually the teacher of Imam Shafi (father of the Shafi school of thought). The idea behind the different schools of thought was the areas they were in. There was no fighting between them, and the followers of any of them were not meant to be slated by any other Muslim. All those schools of thoughts are valid and correct, something that again the west likes to play on at times.
Now we have a rough (because I am not an expert) explanation of how Islam works. Time for us to start looking at what the media like to play upon.
I want to start with that verse 2:190, 2:191 and 2:192:
"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God does not love transgressors"
"And fight them wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they turned you out, for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque, unless they fight you there; but if they fight you, fight them. Such is the rewards of those who supress faith."
"But if they cease, God is the most forgiving, most merciful"
Immediately we can see from this that with the verse before and after it, the actual verse in between (which is the one quoted usually alongside "Islam - A religion of hate" or something of the sort) has far more meaning around it than it seems. These particular verses (and nobody can deny the verses clearly state mortal fighting. The word "kitaal" (which is the Arabic word for wounding with intent to kill by the way, not Jihad as it seems to have been made to be) is used in these three verses EIGHT times. So we have the clear instruction of the Qur'an here, and if we left it at that then the media is right, Islam is a warlike religion with the Qur'an itself saying to kill people. But, unlike parts of the media, we cannot leave it just there because we're not sensationalists and we do not have to sell a story. So we need to further explore this circumstance of these verses.
These verses are from the time of a treaty being struck called the Treaty of Hudaybiyah. This treaty was in simple terms the conditions which allowed the Muslims to visit Makkah from Madinah to perform the pilgrimage. One of the treaty points was about no fighting between the Muslims and the Quraish, but there was a very tense sense of mistrust between the two communities. As such, many of the Muslims were asking what they could do if they were attacked, with regards to the treaty. So the verse was revealed that if they fight you then you fight them back but NOT a step more than they fight you. The instruction was clear that only if they attacked first. And then the next verse was explaining what was happening. So if they were trying to kill you then the Muslims were to kill them. Take the next verse now; the moment they stopped the Muslims were to also stop. Three verses, all related to one incident in which the circumstances do not exist, and have not existed for a good 1400 years or so. We're starting to understand a little more about the Qur'an now than we did before from the media.
Now the 30 volumes of the quraan do not really matter so much, it is more for reading, but the timing of the chapters revealations (and some were not revealed altogether) and where they were revealed is the key to understanding the Qur'an. Shem, you said it yourself when you put out the fact (and this is a fact) that there are parts of the Qur'an that talk about war, and conquest and rule. No doubt about it. But like I said, it is the situation, the time and place that the verses came out. But how does a Muslim understand that part? See if you wanted to give Islam a, shall we say a critisism, it is that it is not just a religion but more of a way of life. And this is where the problem comes about in todays world. Because it is a way of life in many ways the questions arise about the letter of the Qur'an and how is it that Muslim scholars can ignore it, whilst others follow it to the letter and end up using the Qur'an to go about killing and bombing etc, what I am going to refer to in post (lecture, rant, rave?) as "terrorism" or maybe "Islamic terrorism" if I need to specifically differentiate, but we can talk about that later. For us to understand that we need to start looking at the Qur'an in more depth, starting with the two eras.
Era One is the Makkan period. The chapters/verses that are dated to this time are mostly calls to Islam. Era Two is the Madyan period and these is more where rules and regulations came about. This is not to say one or the other period did not have aspects of the other in it.
The three parts of the Qur'an are roughly translated to be "Oneness", "Laws and By-laws" and "Stories". The Oneness verses you can guess are exactly that. They reinforce the worship of one God, and ascribing no partners to him. This third of the Qur'an is actually perfectly highlighted in Chapter 112, titled "Ikhlaas" - Oneness. But I won't start providing any explanation for that very short chapter because it is very simple in understanding and thank goodness is cannot be interpreted in any other way than it is.
"Laws and By-laws" appear in many places in the Qur'an, but more so in the Madyan chapters. We need to come back to these, because these are the parts of the Qur'an that are often twisted or used.
"Stories" is pretty self explanatory. Story of Moses and the Pharoh, Mary the mother of Jesus, Adam and Satan, Noah's Ark, Jonah and the Whale etc etc.
So now we have worked out what the Qur'an contains roughly. Next we need to look at the second fundamental part of Islam: the Hadith. The Hadith are a collection of narrations which highlight the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad. This is how a Muslim learns how to practise his religion. In a nutshell, the Qur'an is the guide, the Prophet (and indeed Prophets BEFORE Muhammad, as shown in the Qur'an itself) are the role models. We look at the Hadith in 4 categories. "Strong", "Good", "Weak", "Fabricated". This is something that the Western media/political figures (note I am not saying the people, and most certainly not pointing at all of the media or political figures) often misses out, which is what we need to make clear. Amazingly, the one that was mentioned just a couple of posts ago about the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and Zainab, who was originally the wife of the adopted child of the Prophet (which again I am not going to explain for otherwise this post will not be finished for the next week, but the video in my previous post will explain that if you have seven minutes).
So now we have got the Qur'an and we have the Hadith, which forms the guide for a Muslim. Then we have "Sunni and Shia" (and other, much smaller groups) but that is something I may touch on later. I am going to focus more on the Sunni side, simply because my knowledge of Shia Islam is far far more limited than Sunni Islam, sadly. Time to now break it down to what we call the "Fiqh", which is where we get to the different "Schools of thought". There are 4 primary schools of thought that are agreed upon in Islam. "Hanafi", "Shafi", "Humbali", "Maliki". The leaders of these schools of thought are known as the four great Imams of Islam, and all four schools follow the same fundamental principles, with the differences occurring lower down in the more trivial matters. An example of this is the rulings regarding the shortening of prayer, or the way one should fold their hands when praying. And there is some differences of opinions on how the Hadith (particularly the "good" or "weak" ones). I myself am a Sunni Muslim, following the Hanafi school of thought. Does that mean I believe the other schools of thought are incorrect? Not at all. You see, the idea of different interpretations of Islam IS allowed within certain limitations. Am I saying ISIS is a valid interpretation of Islam? Oh gosh, no. Am I saying that a Muslim who prays his/her prayer in a slightly different way incorrect in Islam? No. If they follow a particular school of thought, that is what they should follow. But let's make clear that these schools of thought are established centuries ago. Not new creations. For example, Abu Hanifa (the father of the Hanafi school of thought, who is also considered the great imam in some parts of Shia Islam) was actually the teacher of Imam Shafi (father of the Shafi school of thought). The idea behind the different schools of thought was the areas they were in. There was no fighting between them, and the followers of any of them were not meant to be slated by any other Muslim. All those schools of thoughts are valid and correct, something that again the west likes to play on at times.
Now we have a rough (because I am not an expert) explanation of how Islam works. Time for us to start looking at what the media like to play upon.
I want to start with that verse 2:190, 2:191 and 2:192:
"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God does not love transgressors"
"And fight them wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they turned you out, for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque, unless they fight you there; but if they fight you, fight them. Such is the rewards of those who supress faith."
"But if they cease, God is the most forgiving, most merciful"
Immediately we can see from this that with the verse before and after it, the actual verse in between (which is the one quoted usually alongside "Islam - A religion of hate" or something of the sort) has far more meaning around it than it seems. These particular verses (and nobody can deny the verses clearly state mortal fighting. The word "kitaal" (which is the Arabic word for wounding with intent to kill by the way, not Jihad as it seems to have been made to be) is used in these three verses EIGHT times. So we have the clear instruction of the Qur'an here, and if we left it at that then the media is right, Islam is a warlike religion with the Qur'an itself saying to kill people. But, unlike parts of the media, we cannot leave it just there because we're not sensationalists and we do not have to sell a story. So we need to further explore this circumstance of these verses.
These verses are from the time of a treaty being struck called the Treaty of Hudaybiyah. This treaty was in simple terms the conditions which allowed the Muslims to visit Makkah from Madinah to perform the pilgrimage. One of the treaty points was about no fighting between the Muslims and the Quraish, but there was a very tense sense of mistrust between the two communities. As such, many of the Muslims were asking what they could do if they were attacked, with regards to the treaty. So the verse was revealed that if they fight you then you fight them back but NOT a step more than they fight you. The instruction was clear that only if they attacked first. And then the next verse was explaining what was happening. So if they were trying to kill you then the Muslims were to kill them. Take the next verse now; the moment they stopped the Muslims were to also stop. Three verses, all related to one incident in which the circumstances do not exist, and have not existed for a good 1400 years or so. We're starting to understand a little more about the Qur'an now than we did before from the media.
- 31,456
- Hilversum
- Dennisch
French police have so far raided 168 different places, arrested 23 people, 104 have been placed under house arrest, 31 weapons have been seized.
Belgian police are still combing out the Brussels neighbourhood of Molenbeek,several no arrests have been made.
Belgian police are still combing out the Brussels neighbourhood of Molenbeek,
Last edited:
- 4,464
- Azle, TX
- supermanfromazle
- SanjiHimura
The hacker group Anonymous is retaliating against ISIS in revenge for the Paris attacks, according to Maxim and NBC. The group targeted suspected radical Islamic social media accounts back in January in retaliation for the Charlie Hebdo attack, disrupting a major recruiting arm for ISIS.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
- 31,456
- Hilversum
- Dennisch
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
- 2,726
- England
- ECGadget
- Eh???
Sorry Johnny, I didn't mean any offence, but it does seem that whenever things like this happen things become tougher on the communities it is related too, some places worse, some places better. I mean, I am walking around town here at present and everything seems normal, which is great. I apologise if my comment came out harsh and judgemental, it was not my intention.
mister dog
(Banned)
- 8,396
- Spain
- misterdog
- misterdog7
- Belgian authorities have released one of the Abdeslam brothers with no charges pressed...
- One refugee held for questioning as he has an identical Syrian passport as one of the terrorists, same name and credentials but with another picture (same counter fitter in Turkey one would suppose).
I sincerely hope they at least start properly screening all 'Syrian passports' now...
- One refugee held for questioning as he has an identical Syrian passport as one of the terrorists, same name and credentials but with another picture (same counter fitter in Turkey one would suppose).
I sincerely hope they at least start properly screening all 'Syrian passports' now...
