A Religion of Terror?

[*noor]

I would also like to add something else, most scholars who agree with the tactic of suicide bombings , say that this is not suicide.
Because the objective is to kill the enemy not to kill one self.

yes but these bombings which I personally don't call suicide bombings are a means of self defense.

i think its wrong to do it in a place where its only civilians

i find it right to do it targeting tanks and the fighters

 

[Fishman]

I would also like to add something else, most scholars who agree with the tactic of suicide bombings , say that this is not suicide.
Because the objective is to kill the enemy not to kill one self.

The objective of terrorist suicide bombings is to kill innocent people intentionally, which is forbidden. Attacking armies via this means is a different matter, which I will not go into.

 

[Cherub]

yes but these bombings which I personally don't call suicide bombings are a means of self defense.

i think its wrong to do it in a place where its only civilians

i find it right to do it targeting tanks and the fighters

Of course but when these terrorists target civilians , they consider them enemy combatants because they pay and support the armies and governments which cause what they consider oppression.

Take for example the bombings in Madrid and London.
Also they consider Muslims who live in the West to be like them.
Because they also pay taxes and the like.

 

[Fishman]

Of course but when these terrorists target civilians , they consider them enemy combatants because they pay and support the armies and governments which cause what they consider oppression.

Take for example the bombings in Madrid and London.
Also they consider Muslims who live in the West to be like them.
Because they also pay taxes and the like.

Westerners can't help pay taxes. It's not their fault that they are supporting the armies.

 

[*noor]

Of course but when these terrorists target civilians , they consider them enemy combatants because they pay and support the armies and governments which cause what they consider oppression.

Take for example the bombings in Madrid and London.
Also they consider Muslims who live in the West to be like them.
Because they also pay taxes and the like.

who said that was correct?

 

[Cherub]

who said that was correct?

I think they take it from the Qu'ran or hadith.
I recall there being a verse which says something like
if one lives with the non believers he is one of them.
Also there is a clear order in the Qu'ran that one is obligated to wage Jihad if and when the Islamic state is under attack.
They consider you like the people that stayed behind in Medina when Muhammed marched out for some battle with the Romans.

 

[- Qatada -]

I think they take it from the Qu'ran or hadith.
I recall there being a verse which says something like
if one lives with the non believers he is one of them.

The hadeeth “I have nothing to do with every Muslim who settles among the mushrikeen” may be interpreted as referring to those who cannot practise their religion openly in the place where they settle, and those who are able to practise their religion openly are not included in this hadeeth.


http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=2296&ln=eng&txt=settle among mushrikeen

Also there is a clear order in the Qu'ran that one is obligated to wage Jihad if and when the Islamic state is under attack.

We don't have an islamic state anywhere in the world today.

They consider you like the people that stayed behind in Medina when Muhammed marched out for some battle with the Romans.

It was an obligation upon the believer's at that time to make hijrah to Medinah, because there was an islamic state. We don't have one.



Allaah Almighty know's best.



Peace.

 

[Cherub]

The real question i think everyone should ask himself is in what way can we stop this bloodshed from happening?
It's like you have two choices.

1. You destroy Islam, totally and completely.
2. You allow the establishment in all current and former Muslim lands of Taliban like states.

But the question at 2 is will that actually stop these people from fighting non-Muslims and Muslim and extending what they consider the only just and proper way to live?
I think we can safely say no it would not stop them because Islam is meant to rule the entire earth.
So even if you do not consider Islam a religion of terror, and do not agree with a Taliban like form of Islam.
They sure do, and thats if i may say so a frightful thing indeed.

 

[- Qatada -]

Muslim's class the introducing of democracy a form of terror because first of all, the muslim's are seeing their own family member's being killed - so that they can 'enjoy' democracy.


Secondly, the people in the west are actually realising that their voice isn't being heard by the 'democratic' governments - because whenever they do any form of rally to stop the war, the government chooses to ignore them and go against the public anyway, even though - this is what democracy's supposed to be.


Thirdly, muslim's love islaam and they choose to follow it because the law within islaam is just, for all people. You can read about how islaam gave freedom to the people who were oppressed, how islaam break's the barrier between the rich and the poor etc. whereas this is the norm in society today, even though not all people realise this.


Islamic History
http://www.load-islam.com/indepth.php?topic_id=12


I really hope you look into that, because it explain's how when islamic law was implemented within a nation - prosperity and justice was widespread.



Allaah Almighty know's best.


Peace.

 

[Hijrah]

I think we can safely say no it would not stop them because Islam is meant to rule the entire earth.

There are different views on what you are talking about here

http://www.islamonline.net/english/Contemporary/2003/10/Article02.shtml

This article addresses that...I think you should read it...

as far as what you are saying concerning Suicide Bombing, a particular scholar that supports what is going on in Palestine, that is the same scholar that wrote what is in the link.

 

[Fishman]

It is hypocritical to force democracy on people. This does not mean that I disagree with democracy, it just means that I don't like the 'If you don't come to democracy, democracy will come to you!' approach.

 

[Hijrah]

Muslim's class the introducing of democracy a form of terror because first of all, the muslim's are seeing their own family member's being killed - so that they can 'enjoy' democracy.


Secondly, the people in the west are actually realising that their voice isn't being heard by the 'democratic' governments - because whenever they do any form of rally to stop the war, the government chooses to ignore them and go against the public anyway, even though - this is what democracy's supposed to be.


Thirdly, muslim's love islaam and they choose to follow it because the law within islaam is just, for all people. You can read about how islaam gave freedom to the people who were oppressed, how islaam break's the barrier between the rich and the poor etc. whereas this is the norm in society today, even though not all people realise this.


Islamic History
http://www.load-islam.com/indepth.php?topic_id=12


I really hope you look into that, because it explain's how when islamic law was implemented within a nation - prosperity and justice was widespread.



Allaah Almighty know's best.


Peace.

could you post that article on here, load islam isn't working for me. But I think I might have read that article, very good articles on that site masha'allah

 

[*noor]

It is hypocritical to force democracy on people. This does not mean that I disagree with democracy, it just means that I don't like the 'If you don't come to democracy, democracy will come to you!' approach.

yeah who is "so and so" to decide what's right for another group of people??

 

[Cherub]

Muslim's class the introducing of democracy a form of terror because first of all, the muslim's are seeing their own family member's being killed - so that they can 'enjoy' democracy.


Secondly, the people in the west are actually realising that their voice isn't being heard by the 'democratic' governments - because whenever they do any form of rally to stop the war, the government chooses to ignore them and go against the public anyway, even though - this is what democracy's supposed to be.


Thirdly, muslim's love islaam and they choose to follow it because the law within islaam is just, for all people. You can read about how islaam gave freedom to the people who were oppressed, how islaam break's the barrier between the rich and the poor etc. whereas this is the norm in society today, even though not all people realise this.


Islamic History
http://www.load-islam.com/indepth.php?topic_id=12


I really hope you look into that, because it explain's how when islamic law was implemented within a nation - prosperity and justice was widespread.



Allaah Almighty know's best.


Peace.

I wonder if this is true why Islamic lands stopped being governed according to these perfect laws?
And why you have such a diverse interpretation?
Isn't it more like a utopian idea that one can establish such a state?
Something that like communism is nice in theory but in practise does not work?

 

[- Qatada -]

:wasalamex


subhan Allaah.. sorry bro - it's not working for me either now. will post later inshaAllaah, once it start's working


:salamext:

 

[- Qatada -]

I wonder if this is true why Islamic lands stopped being governed according to these perfect laws?

That's because the people stopped obeying Allaah, and gave up on them law's due to the hunger of this world. How many time's has a nation fallen, due to the fact that the leader became corrupt?

And why you have such a diverse interpretation?

Of what exactly?

Isn't it more like a utopian idea that one can establish such a state?
Something that like communism is nice in theory but in practise does not work?

These state's actually lasted for a really long time, so their not just theory - but were actually put into practise, and succeeded. Once that link above start's working, you'll realise that insha'Allaah (God willing.)



Peace.

 

[Cherub]

That's because the people stopped obeying Allaah, and gave up on them law's due to the hunger of this world. How many time's has a nation fallen, due to the fact that the leader became corrupt?

How does Islam deal with a corrupt leader?

Of what exactly?

Of what constitutes a Islamic state. Clearly Muslims have different views on this. Let alone the Shia / Sunni thing.

These state's actually lasted for a really long time, so their not just theory - but were actually put into practise, and succeeded. Once that link above start's working, you'll realise that insha'Allaah (God willing.)

Peace.[/QUOTE]

Yes but how then did they stop to be? You can't say something was succesful unless it survives to this day.
Corrupt leaders is why democracy is a good thing.
Because you can choose to remove a leader who does not behave properly.

 

[Woodrow]

Democracy is a very poor form of government. But, it appears to be the only one that will work when the population is composed of people of varying religious beliefs.

I belief Islamic Law is the best form of government, however people who are not Muslim will not accept or abide by it. In my way of seeing things I believe democracy is the only government that will cause the least amount of harm to both Muslims and non-Muslim. Or perhaps I should say equal levels of harm.

So far I have not found any major restriction for me to practice Islam here in the USA. I may not like all the things that are permitted, but that does not prevent me from being Muslim. Actually a Muslim here could live in an all Islamic community and have little or no contact with non-Muslims if they so desired.

 

[Fishman]

Yes but how then did they stop to be? You can't say something was succesful unless it survives to this day.

Utter rubbish. There are loads of successful things that have not survived to this day. Dinosaurs, the Roman Empire, the Aztecs, passenger pigeons...

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

http://www.load-islam.com/artical_d...ection=wel_islam&subsection=Misconceptions#29

Misquoted Narration #8
​

When asked about the possibility of women and children of the polytheists being exposed to danger during a night raid, the Prophet Muhammad said, "They are from them."
​

Before addressing the specific narration in question, let us first emphasize the fact that Islam prohibits the killing of women and children.

Narrated Ibn 'Umar: A woman was found killed in one of these battles, so the Messenger of God forbade the killing of women and children. (Sahîh Bukhârî, Sahîh Muslim)

Ibn `Abbas says: The Messenger of Allah, when dispatching his troops, would tell them, " ..Do not behave treacherously, nor misappropriate war-booty, nor mutilate [those whom you kill], nor kill children, nor the people in cloisters." (Musnad Ahmad, Sunan At-Tirmidhî)

Another narration records that he said, "…Do not kill a woman, nor a child, nor an old-aged man’ (Sharh as-Sunnah Al-Baghawî)

Narrated Anas ibn Malik: The Prophet said: Go in Allah's name, trusting in Allah, and adhering to the religion of Allah's Apostle. Do not kill a decrepit old man, a young infant, or a child, or a woman; do not be dishonest about booty, but collect your spoils, do right and act well, for Allah loves those who do well. (Sunan Abî Dawûd)

And again, "Do not kill a child, nor a woman, nor an old man, nor obliterate a stream, nor cut a tree…" (Sunan Al-Bayhaqî)

The strict conditions that Islam has laid out in the event of warfare are referred to in the verse:

2:190 Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.
​

The companions of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) continued to abide by these conditions in all the military campaigns they undertook after his death. The first caliph, Abu Bakr, advised his military commander:

"I advise you ten things: Do not kill women or children or an aged, infirm person. Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees. Do not destroy an inhabited place. Do not slaughter sheep or camels except for food. Do not burn bees and do not scatter them. Do not steal from the booty, and do not be cowardly."
(Muwatta Mâlik)
​

Having established that Islam forbids the killing of women and children and all devastation during war, the narration concerning the night raid may now be examined. In this narration the Prophet Muhammad was asked about the potential injuries which may unintentionally befall non-combatants during a night raid. The narration is as follows:

Narated By As-Sab bin Jaththama : The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the polytheist warriors at night with the possibility of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them." (Sahîh Bukhârî)
​

In other words, the Prophet (peace be upon him) acknowleged the unfortunate yet inescapable possibility of what is today referred to as "collateral damage". In military campaigns, women and children are never to be targeted and their deaths are to be avoided at all costs. Nevertheless, it remains a fact that such deaths do occur as an unintentionally during the fighting. As Shaykh Abdullah Al-Manî'î writes concerning the narration in question:

Those who are not generally engaged in fighting – like women, children, the elderly, the handicapped, and others who do not participate in the fighting – are not to be killed. The Prophet (peace be upon him) prohibited this. His prohibition of the killing of women and children is clearly related by Ibn `Umar in Sahîh al-Bukhârî (3015) and Sahîh Muslim (1744).

The only exception to this is where such people participate directly in the fighting or are so intermixed with the fighters that it is impossible to separate them from those who are fighting. This exception is indicated by the hadîth of al-Sa`b b. Jathâmah. The Prophet (peace be upon him) was asked about the women and children of the polytheists who were among them and who would be injured if the enemy was attacked. He said: “They are of them.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî (3021) and Sahîh Muslim (1475)]

In short, non-Muslims living in Muslim lands, those who are under covenant, and those with whom we have peace cannot be attacked. As for those who are at war with us, the combatants may be fought and killed. Those who are not combatants cannot be killed or targeted for killing. The only way that they can be killed is as an unintentional consequence of fighting against the enemy combatants.

Indeed, the hadîth in question actually shows us that the general rule is not to kill non-combatants, even when they are present on the battlefield. The only exception is when the non-combatants are so mixed in with the fighters in the theatre of combat that it is impossible to fight against the combatants without the possibility of some non-combatants inadvertently being killed. This is only out of dire necessity.

Ibn Hajar writes in his commentary on this hadîth in Fath al-Bârî (6/146):

His statement “They are of them” means that they are construed as such under those circumstances. It does not mean that it is permissible to deliberately target them.

It is a matter of agreement among scholars that a person’s unbelief is not reason for that person to be killed. There is considerable evidence for this. Aside from the Prophet’s prohibition of killing non-combatants, we have where Allah says: “Let there be no compulsion in religion.” [Sûrah al-Baqarah: 256]

And Allah knows best.
​

Imâm Abu Zakariyyah An-Nawawî (d. 1300CE) explains that this may occur during a night raid because one's ability to see is impaired by the dark (Sharh Sahîh Muslim 2790). This does not negate the fact that such unfortunate accidents remain just as abhorrent.