Islam, the Religion of Peace

[AabiruSabeel]

So here are the questions to you Muslims:
Are his views align with Islam?
He justifies the actions of terrorists as based in the Quran.
At about 00:02:54 of the video he said:
In chapter 8 verse 60 (of the Quran) he (the prophet-pbuh) said prepare as much as you can steeds of warto terrorize the enemy, so terrorizing the enemy is in fact part of Islam.
If I was to believe in all he said I would conclude that Islam indeed is a violent religion.
As Muslims what is your take?
Please explain to the non-Muslims where is he wrong, if he is?

Read in context.

​

Read more at http://spiritualperception.org/top-five-misquotations-of-the-quran/

 

[Raymann]

If the only violent people in this world were Muslims, then you would be justified in starting this thread. Your prejudice seems to leave you blind to the greater violence committed in this world.

Again, you're generalizing which is something I don't do.
I do not think Muslims are the only violent people in the world.
But I do believe that most terrorist groups today claim to be Muslims.
Name the equivalent of Al Qaeda, ISIS and Boko Haram in Christianity, Judaism or any other religion.

9/11 was wrong, but the American response to 9/11 was far worse. They held all of Afghanistan responsible for the action of a few terrorists.

The Taliban (the group in power in Afghanistan) hosted Al Qaeda (the group responsible for 9\11) so they were both attacked.
The people in Afghanistan (civilians) were not attacked. I was 100% behind their actions and considered it reasonable.

We have to face the problems by talking about it and not trying to silence it, which is what you're doing.
Are you saying we should just get used to get suicide attacks every week and not point fingers at the ones responsible?

 

[Raymann]

Here nobody supports any terrorist group which misinterpret Quranic verses to justify them killing people.

Very nice but ... is not true. There are many polls conducted that show in some cases up to 25% of the ones asked support (or at least justify) the actions of terrorists.
These people that support the actions of radicals claim they wouldn't participate in those actions but still it is a surprisingly high number of supporters.

The next verse (Quran 8:61), Allah orders Muslims that if the enemy were to ‘incline to peace’, then Muslims have incline to peace as-well. But, if the enemy does not want peace, then Allah gives Muslims to engage the enemy until there is no more persecution against Muslims. Let’s Read 8:61,

The Christians would show the other cheek but Islam prefers to take the more logical approach (an eye for an eye) and retaliate.
The problem is that radical groups think they're always at war against the west because of Afghanistan, Iraq, the Crusades or any other excuse.
They claim to follow strict Islamic law and that these laws justify what they doing, after all Israel is still there and Western forces still occupy Muslim territories.
So this is the dilema, is Islam responsible?
How would you condemn the actions of terrorists when they claim they're still under attack?

 

[AabiruSabeel]

The Taliban (the group in power in Afghanistan) hosted Al Qaeda (the group responsible for 9\11) so they were both attacked.

Taliban asked for evidence and were ready to hand over Osama, but Bush refused because all evidence pointed to insider job. He was intent on forcibly destroying Muslim nations.

Read for yourself https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5

The people in Afghanistan (civilians) were not attacked. I was 100% behind their actions and considered it reasonable.

Stats say something really different.

https://visual.ly/community/infographic/human-rights/civilian-death-war

https://waitbutwhy.com/2013/08/the-death-toll-comparison-breakdown.html​

 

[Raymann]

Afghanistan's deputy prime minister, Haji Abdul Kabir, told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US.

So you host an international terrorist group in your land and have the audacity to require evidence for one of the hundreds of terrorist attacks planned and executed by the organization.
No sir, no deal, hand them over and then we talk.

The war in Afghanistan was primarily done by Afghan forces on the ground (The northern alliance) and supported by US and allies by air. The allies would supply the Northern Alliance who in turn would fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda on the ground.
How can anyone seriously blame all the civilian casualties on the US? You have no shame.
So where is the brake down? I fail to see the details on your conveniently chosen graphic.
How many civilians killed by the Taliban?
How many civilians killed by the Northern Alliance?
How many civilians killed by Al Qaeda?
So you rounded them all up and blame ONLY THE US. Nice.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Raymann,

The people in Afghanistan (civilians) were not attacked.

Whether you consider them attacked or not, they still died, see below....

During the war in Afghanistan (2001–present), over 31,000 civilian deaths due to war-related violence have been documented; 29,900 civilians have been wounded. Over 111,000 Afghans, including civilians, soldiers and militants, are estimated to have been killed in the conflict.

31.000 civilians dead, that is ten times the 9/11 death toll. If we are searching for true justice then we have to ask, how many of these 31,000 dead had anything to do with 9/11?

I was 100% behind their actions and considered it reasonable.

I can't understand how you can 100 % accept this and call it reasonable. I call it unjust, and the 100 % reason why I call it unjust is that out of those 31,000 dead civilians, at least half of them would have had nothing to do with 9/11.

How will the families of these 15,00 innocent dead civilians ever get justice?

Just consider that one countries freedom fighters are called terrorists by the occupying forces, France comes to mind during WW2.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people.

Eric

 

[Raymann]

I can't understand how you can 100 % accept this and call it reasonable.

How easy is to second guess when you're sitting behind a computer with no decisions to make and nothing to lose either way.
What would have happened if Osama Bin Laden had not been stopped and by now the terror attacks included the destruction of the Coliseum in Rome, the Eiffel Tower in Paris, thousands of deaths on subway attacks, train derailments, buildings explosions, etc?
What would have happened if ISIS had not been stopped and by now the whole Middle East was controlled by a monstrous force with the most powerful army and air force only comparable with the US, Russia or Israel?
We would have been on the edge of WW3 and you would be begging the US to do something about it, wouldn't you?
So yes, I feel bad for the collateral damage but someone had to do it, someone had to stop Osama Bin Laden and someone had to stop ISIS and guess what?
That someone as usual was the US and the allies?

 

[AabiruSabeel]

The Christians would show the other cheek

Was that a joke?

How can anyone seriously blame all the civilian casualties on the US? You have no shame.
So where is the brake down? I fail to see the details on your conveniently chosen graphic.
How many civilians killed by the Taliban?
How many civilians killed by the Northern Alliance?
How many civilians killed by Al Qaeda?
So you rounded them all up and blame ONLY THE US. Nice.

US started the war, so US is to blame, no matter whom they employ to kill on their behalf.

Look at that infographic once again, and you will see that US has the highest Civilian deaths ratio of 95.8%! For every militant they killed, they killed 23 civilians. Do you call that justice?

So you rounded them all up and blame ONLY THE US. Nice.

Don't you do the same when you blame Islam or all Muslims for the action of a few individuals?

What would have happened if Osama Bin Laden had not been stopped and by now the terror attacks included the destruction of the Coliseum in Rome, the Eiffel Tower in Paris, thousands of deaths on subway attacks, train derailments, buildings explosions, etc?
What would have happened if ISIS had not been stopped and by now the whole Middle East was controlled by a monstrous force with the most powerful army and air force only comparable with the US, Russia or Israel?
We would have been on the edge of WW3 and you would be begging the US to do something about it, wouldn't you?
So yes, I feel bad for the collateral damage but someone had to do it, someone had to stop Osama Bin Laden and someone had to stop ISIS and guess what?
That someone as usual was the US and the allies?

None of that would have happened had US and its allies not meddled in affairs of Muslim nations. Who created Osama and ISIS? Wasn't it the US itself? US supported Al Qaida against USSR, everyone knows that. And US destroyed Iraq which created a political vacuum giving rise to ISIS.

Tell me, was there ISIS before Iraq invasion? Was there Al Qaida before the cold war? You have to look at the cause instead of pointing fingers.


You have been banned for justifying violence against Muslims by playing the victim card.