Islamic Terrorism: is religion/belief no matter how misguided, the main motivator?

[Millennium]

I don't mean to get at you as I have a few Muslim friend's, but I am allowed to have Muslim friend's. According to the Koran you are not allowed to have non Muslim friends.

One word; bullshit
Muslims are allowed to have friends with any body. This is really joke

 

[MadchesterCity]

Why? Worried about opposing views?

 

[Ancient Citizen]

I have always felt those who follow religion are also hedging their bets, wanting to believe there is something else after this short time spent on a freak of nature.

I remember reading about a philosopher, I think, on his deathbed, when asked by the priest at his bedside ;-
'Do you reject the devil and all his works?'

'This is no time to be making enemies!'

 

[Machiavelli]

Because it's a fight we won't win, we have already lost the battle of the minds and Islam will continue to dominate every country it reaches and wishes to destroy. Our only hope will be to flee when this terror reaches our shores with the increase of Muslims in the UK

What a load of bollocks. You clearly have a deep rooted issue with Islam and ALL muslims, the rest of us only have an issue with the radicalised ones who seek to harm innocent people and our way of life. No wonder you "didn't want to have this discussion on here", it's pretty obvious from this post you have some radicalised views yourself, the funny thing is you are sounding as fascistic as those who seek to divide us. I'd love to know how Islam is dominating the UK?

 

[domalino]

Aye but that will surely be in no small part down to your upbringing and moral standards that are based on the ten commandments?

I'm not religious and my parents were from different faiths (so obviously not deeply religious) but I was brought up a as a christian and that has undoubtedly set my moral compass.

Without wanting to be too philosophical, I don't think the 10 commandments set moral standards, Buddhists don't go around killing everyone, and Pagans seemed to cope.

I know there's been some research about babies having innate morality as well.

 

[Machiavelli]

Without wanting to be too philosophical, I don't think the 10 commandments set moral standards, Buddhists don't go around killing everyone, and Pagans seemed to cope.

I know there's been some research about babies having innate morality as well.

The 42 principles of Ma'at from the Egyptian book of the dead, predate the story of Moses and the Ten Commandments. A lot of stuff in the Old Testament can be found in earlier sources from the region.

 

[Magicpole]

The 42 principles of Ma'at from the Egyptian book of the dead, predate the story of Moses and the Ten Commandments. A lot of stuff in the Old Testament can be found in earlier sources from the region.

As can 'gods' with the same SP as Jesus. Mithras for one and Horus together with about 20 others most pre dating Jesus.

 

[cucumberman]

Without wanting to be too philosophical, I don't think the 10 commandments set moral standards, Buddhists don't go around killing everyone

As with many other religions, this is not representative of what Buddhism is but it goes to show that the evil that a few outliers of the religion can easily be construed as relative.

Mr. Wirathu has been accused of inciting violence with hate-filled, anti-Islamic rhetoric in this Southeast Asian, Buddhist-majority country of about 55 million. Buddhist-led riots left more than 200 people dead in 2012 and forced hundreds of thousands more to flee their homes, most of them Muslim Rohingya in Rakhine state.

and Pagans seemed to cope.

I'm not sure we should gloss over their ritualistic child sacrifices for their gods, several pagan offshoots also have a dedicated God of child sacrifices. Moloch, Kronos, Tophet, you appease them by sacrificing children. The abrahaman religions at least got rid of a majority of these rituals.

I know there's been some research about babies having innate morality as well.

Yes it was a research done together by Alfred Wallace and Charles Darwin. They found that babies had glimmers of morality. Wallace attributed this to the voice of God to which Darwin scoffed at the idea and told Wallace some bad things. This was the research that made both great minds parted ways. One to the evidence of God, another to the evidence of evolution. When Wallace suggest that we do good deeds because there is a divine moral compass in us, Darwin suggest that this moral compass was because we evolve to have vested interest. For example, a child who protects his pet from harm, is because he doesn't want to lose his pet. Wallace then argued with the help of a theologist disciplined D'Souza that evolution cannot account for these because not everyone exhibit them (you know like birds with wings, tigers with stripes) to which Darwin replied, well, sometimes evolution doesn't work.

It is an interesting topic which has been research by both branches of knowledge today.[/QUOTE]

 

[Machiavelli]

As can 'gods' with the same SP as Jesus. Mithras for one and Horus together with about 20 others most pre dating Jesus.

Blasphemer! ;)

 

[Magicpole]

Blasphemer! ;)

I know. :)

 

[cucumberman]

The 42 principles of Ma'at from the Egyptian book of the dead, predate the story of Moses and the Ten Commandments. A lot of stuff in the Old Testament can be found in earlier sources from the region.

Indeed there are arguably similarities between the 10 commandments and the 42 principles. I will leave this to anyone who knows what's going on in this area as I myself was never prescribed these commandments. In terms of Islam, the ten commandments is not as emphasised and not even explicitly mentioned. When it is mentioned once, it is in the instances of Tawwhid, as is the narratives of previous individuals in Arab and Egyptian history. Tawwhid is not 'practice' in Islam but 'historical knowledge', knowledge that is recognised as drawn from previous narratives. What Islam pivots on is Ibadah which is the practice. We don't have a '10 commandments' to guide us, these moral values are instilled inherently throughout the readings of the narratives, like how we as children read books and are asked the moral to the story.

In Islam the ibadah is the ruukun, and there are two, ruukun Islam and ruukun Iman. Reckon Islam is the practice adhered today which are 1) syahadah, 2) pray, 3) fast, 4) pay zakat, 5) perform hajj (if able). Which is what you see muslims practice in their lives.

 

[Machiavelli]

Indeed there are arguably similarities between the 10 commandments and the 42 principles. I will leave this to anyone who knows what's going on in this area as I myself was never prescribed these commandments. In terms of Islam, the ten commandments is not as emphasised and not even explicitly mentioned. When it is mentioned once, it is in the instances of Tawwhid, as is the narratives of previous individuals in Arab and Egyptian history. Tawwhid is not practice in Islam but historical knowledge, knowledge that is recognised as drawn from previous narratives. What Islam pivots on is Ibadah which is the practice. We don't have a '10 commandments' to guide us, these moral values are instilled inherently throughout the readings of the narratives, like how we as children read books and are asked the moral to the story.

In Islam the ibadah is the ruukun, and there are two, ruukun Islam and ruukun Iman. Reckon Islam is the practice adhered today which are 1) syahadah, 2) pray, 3) fast, 4) pay zakat, 5) perform hajj (if able). Which is what you see muslims practice in their lives.

So that's 5 commandments or virtues.
Nothing new under the Sun, or in your case the moon.

 

[cucumberman]

So that's 5 commandments or virtues.
Nothing new under the Sun, or in your case the moon.

Yes thats right, 5 commandments if you want to put it that way. It's nothing new. No one in the history of Islam said it was as elements of culture is borrowed from one to another. It's called cultural transcendence. No human culture has manifested in its own accord, including your culture of questioning faith, it exists because of your curiosity of something scientific beyond the divine. That itself is a culture that has transcended even before religion was recorded. Your questioning of ideas is a relic of an ancient religion.

 

[ccr]

One word; bullshit
Muslims are allowed to have friends with any body. This is really joke

Take not the Jews and the Christians as Awliyaa' (Friends, protectors, helpers ) Quran 5:80. I'm trying to understand not criticize.

 

[shemnel]

Take not the Jews and the Christians as Awliyaa' (Friends, protectors, helpers ) Quran 5:80. I'm trying to understand not criticize.

https://www.islamicity.org/4659/can-muslims-be-friends-with-jews-and-christians/

this sheds a bit more light on the whole friends thing.

and guess what, like any other religious book, it's interpreted a million ways :)

really, anyone who needs a book to tell them who and who not to be mates with needs a good long look at themselves.

 

[nellyonthewing]

........................and the usual emotional cycle is almost complete! Horror, then shock, then passive cathartic expressions of solidarity, some debate and vilification of anyone who suggests there might be a problem, then we blame ourselves ... next stage is completely forget until the next one. Wash rinse repeat.

 

[ccr]

https://www.islamicity.org/4659/can-muslims-be-friends-with-jews-and-christians/

this sheds a bit more light on the whole friends thing.

and guess what, like any other religious book, it's interpreted a million ways :)

really, anyone who needs a book to tell them who and who not to be mates with needs a good long look at themselves.

Although they can sway your opinions. The last book's I read put me off being friends with anyone called Denis or Minnie.

 

[cucumberman]

Take not the Jews and the Christians as Awliyaa' (Friends, protectors, helpers ) Quran 5:80. I'm trying to understand not criticize.

I applaud you in your attempt to translate Arabic into English. It shows a curious mind. May I correct your translation? Because in 5:80 there is no mention of Jews (Al-Yahudi) or Christian (Al-Masihi). The verse goes like this, I will try my best to translate it to coherent letters:

Taara Kathiraminhum Ya Tawallau nallazi na kafaru, Labi' sarma Qadda matlahum an fusuhum an sakhithallah.

As you can see, nowhere in 5:80 does it say Yahudi or Masihi, there is not even an auditory semblance of the semantic involved (e.g. Yahda, etc.)

It did however mention kafaru which is 'disbeliever'. Disbelievers are the polytheists (pagans). Jews and Christians are not polytheists, they are monotheists whose books, places of worship and clergies are respected by Islam then.

And also, since you lifted this 5:80 out of the context that it was meant, it talks of the polytheists deep-rooted reluctance of not abandoning their ways (killing neighbours and family members for lands, personal justice, human sacrifices, etc.) and those who collude with the polytheists (of any faith) are themselves regarded as disbelievers. But again if they see the right way (repent) they will be forgiven and those who believe will see the right way. Some Jews collude with these pagans, but these are all for political gains.

I commend on your interest in using verses from the book, but perhaps next time you would want to extract from the book itself that has been stamped inside the front cover by the council whose jurisdiction is of that region; Usually the council of muftis. Don't copy and paste from the internet because that is like arguing your dissertation based on a collection of wikipedia articles.

Hope this helps.

Edit: It's not Taara, its Taraa. I made a mistake in the harqat of the first word, so it should read "Taraa Kathiram minhum..."

 

[ccr]

I applaud you in your attempt to translate Arabic into English. It shows a curious mind. May I correct your translation? Because in 5:80 there is no mention of Jews (Al-Yahudi) or Christian (Al-Masihi). The verse goes like this, I will try my best to translate it to coherent letters:

Taara Kathiraminhum Ya Tawallau nallazi na kafaru, Labi' sarma Qadda matlahum an fusuhum an sakhithallah.

As you can see, nowhere in 5:80 does it say Yahudi or Masihi, there is not even an auditory semblance of the semantic involved (e.g. Yahda, etc.)

It did however mention kafaru which is 'disbeliever'. Disbelievers are the polytheists (pagans). Jews and Christians are not polytheists, they are monotheists whose books, places of worship and clergies are respected by Islam then.

And also, since you lifted this 5:80 out of the context that it was meant, it talks of the polytheists deep-rooted reluctance of not abandoning their ways (killing neighbours and family members for lands, personal justice, human sacrifices, etc.) and those who collude with the polytheists (of any faith) are themselves regarded as disbelievers. But again if they see the right way (repent) they will be forgiven and those who believe will see the right way. Some Jews collude with these pagans, but these are all for political gains.

I commend on your interest in using verses from the book, but perhaps next time you would want to extract from the book itself that has been stamped inside the front cover by the council whose jurisdiction is of that region; Usually the council of muftis. Don't copy and paste from the internet because that is like arguing your dissertation based on a collection of wikipedia articles.

Hope this helps.

Edit: It's not Taara, its Taraa. I made a mistake in the harqat of the first word, so it should read "Taraa Kathiram minhum..."

Sorry if I made a mistake. I took this from Islamic Q and A. Which I was told was a Muslim site. Again apologies.

 

[cucumberman]

https://www.islamicity.org/4659/can-muslims-be-friends-with-jews-and-christians/

this sheds a bit more light on the whole friends thing.

and guess what, like any other religious book, it's interpreted a million ways :)

really, anyone who needs a book to tell them who and who not to be mates with needs a good long look at themselves.

Which is why we look beyond the prescribed and observe from practice because every type of text known to man can be misinterpreted not because of the text but because of the interpreter and their inferential capacity to understand. That's why interpreting the book is left to the muftis and ulamas assigned to such roles, not self-declared.

I think it's appropriate to use one example. Muhammad's closest friend was Bilal ibn Rabah. Bilal was a polytheist and a slave to his polytheist master a high leader and keeper of idols Umayah. Muhammad befriended Bilal and he was soon exalted as the first ever muezzin in Islam history; a polytheist. Having heard Bilal leaving polytheity, Umayah the master tortured Bilal which included a series of tying and dragging him around town, whipped and beaten and burnt with hot boulders on his chest. Muhammad upon hearing this instead of physical retaliation, he instructed his aide to buy Bilal off Umayah and make him a free him. Soon as he was free, he could no longer be tortured by polytheity and was exalted as the first man to call the prayers in the history of Islam. From a slave to a dignified member of the community. This to me is one testament of friendship.

There are many others, of how the Christian king helped Muhammad in times of need, and how Muhammad being leader of the state provided alms for Christians who could not afford. He visited Abu Talib (a pagan and uncle to Muhammad) during his sickness and his death. Muhammad visited a boy from a Jewish tribe during his sickness in a time when that tribe colluded with the pagans to put poison in his food. Again, it was only that tribe. Other Jewish tribes were not recorded as having any displeasure of the state. So to paint that religion with a single brush is wrong. They did not collude because they are of Jewish faith, they colluded because they had resentment driven by materialistic and political intent. As it was, people of all faith lived in harmony. Even the polytheists were given some grace period to warm into monotheity and abandon their unlawful ways.






I do enjoy reading all these enquiries of what Islam really is. There has been a lot of misinterpretation written by the internet. Put 'islam' in the URL address and it instantly bears authority of the knowledge and the book. Trustworthiness is not only a problem faced by Islam but the internet in general which is why there has been thousands of academic articles on internet trustworthiness. This is just one study on internet trustworthiness:

People increasingly rely on Internet and web-based information despite evidence that it is potentially inaccurate and biased. Therefore, this study sought to assess people's perceptions of the credibility of various categories of Internet information compared to similar information provided by other media. The 1,041 respondents also were asked about whether they verified Internet information. Overall, respondents reported they considered Internet information to be as credible as that obtained from television, radio, and magazines, but not as credible as newspaper information. Credibility among the types of information sought, such as news and entertainment, varied across media channels. Respondents said they rarely verified web-based information, although this too varied by the type of information sought. Levels of experience and how respondents perceived the credibility of information were related to whether they verified information. This study explores the social relevance of the findings and discusses them in terms of theoretical knowledge of advanced communication technologies.
Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2000). Perceptions of Internet information credibility. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(3), 515-540.

If we really want to know the truth of information, we should not be blasé of where our sources come from. For Islam, it is the hardcopy book itself approved and stamped by a regulating authority of muftis and ulamas, and together with a person verbose not only in the Arabic language that it is written in but who has attained years long training in the art of 'tafsir'. There is nothing wrong in challenging and questioning beliefs, it is certainly even encouraged when the understanding is not nuanced.