Top Menu

France: #Nice Massacre

France-terror-attack

Another horrific massacre, this time in Nice, France. This is on top of massacres in the Muslim majority world, (Bangladesh, Turkey, Iraq, Saudi Arabia) where hundreds have been killed in bombings by individuals supposedly acting in the name of ISIS. Once again proving that the greatest victims of terrorist violence continue to be Muslims.

Of course this individual who perpetrated the attack fits the pattern of a non-religious, wife-beating, life-long petty criminal who all of a sudden got “religion.” Sadly, there will be no real discussion of the factors that lead to such violence. Khaled Beydoun however lays out the facts.:

, , , , , ,

  • 786 None of what you have asserted is remotely true. Please educate yourself.

  • Awesome

    I studied Islam at university, and for nearly 8 years informally since.

    You should have studied harder if these polemics are all that you have learned.

    If you want to learn about Muhammad’s religion – and why it inspires terror groups of murderous rapists around the world – you have to be prepared to look at it as if you don’t follow it, and someone has just told you to investigate the claims of a 7th century warlord. I understand looking objectively at a religion you consider part of your identity is incredibly difficult of course.

    Interestingly enough, that is probably also what a lot of these “terror groups” do – look at the religion as if they don’t follow it (because they don’t), and therefore do not truly understand it, and then make their own absurd, self-serving conclusions about it. To them, the religion is just a facade, and a means to their own self-serving ends, so they could care less about it actually says or what it actually means.

    Truly learning about Islam objectively is not about trying to make dubious connections between the behavior of criminal groups and Islam’s religious texts. It’s about understanding the religious texts themselves, and what they are actually saying, rather than what criminal behavior by Muslims you think you can attach it to, if it has the right words for it.

    Btw, I came to Islam to defend it from what seemed outrageous charges after 9/11. I can guarantee you, studying Islam has not been fun – in fact it’s depressing.

    When all that you are interested in learning are polemics, then what exactly would you expect?

  • Awesome

    Ignorant comment. Obviously you know nothing about Islam, and nothing about how any of those groups came into being. Please do your homework before you comment.

    If he truly knew anything about Islam, he would probably not be commenting at all.

  • Awesome

    No, Muhammad knew he was committing crimes, so he pretended “Allah” would say things like “thou mayst be free from BLAME” after Muhammad had called captive women “SPOILS OF WAR” (in his Koran 33.50) – with all that implies…

    Incorrect. Being free of blame does not necessarily mean that there was any crime being committed in the first place. In fact, the Qur’an is replete with examples of this phrase being used in various instances without any reference to any actual crime. The verse (Qur’an 33:50) is just one such example. There are more obvious ones:

    Qur’an (English Translation) 4:101-102: When you [believers] are travelling in the land, you will not be blamed for shortening your prayers, if you fear the disbelievers may harm you: they are your sworn enemies. When you [Prophet] are with the believers, leading them in prayer, let a group of them stand up in prayer with you, taking their weapons with them, and when they have finished their prostration, let them take up their positions at the back. Then let the other group, who have not yet prayed, pray with you, also on their guard and armed with their weapons: the disbelievers would dearly like you to be heedless of your weapons and baggage, in order for them to take you in a single assault. You will not be blamed if you lay aside your arms when you are overtaken by heavy rain or illness, but be on your guard. Indeed, God has prepared a humiliating punishment for the disbelievers.

    Shortening prayers while traveling is a crime? Laying aside arms during heavy rain or illness is a crime?

    Qur’an (English Translation) 9:90-93: Some of the desert Arabs, too, came to make excuses, asking to be granted exemption. Those who lied to God and His Messenger stayed behind at home. A painful punishment will afflict those of them who disbelieved, but there is no blame attached to the weak, the sick, and those who have no means to spend, provided they are true to God and His Messenger––there is no reason to reproach those who do good: God is most forgiving and merciful. And there is no blame attached to those who came to you [Prophet] for riding animals and to whom you said, ‘I cannot find a mount for you’: they turned away with their eyes overflowing with tears of grief that they had nothing they could contribute. The ones open to blame are those who asked you for exemption despite their wealth, and who preferred to be with those who stay behind. God has sealed their hearts: they do not understand.

    Qur’an (English Translation) 48:16-17: Tell the desert Arabs who stayed behind, ‘You will be called to face a people of great might in war and to fight them, unless they surrender: if you obey, God will reward you well, but if you turn away, as you have done before, He will punish you heavily––the blind, the lame, and the sick will not be blamed.’ God will admit anyone who obeys Him and His Messenger to Gardens graced withflowing streams; He will painfully punish anyone who turns away.

    The unable asking for exemptions is a crime?

    In reality, “no blame” has nothing to do with excusing criminal behavior, but excusing people based on special circumstances or for things that are not actually wrong. In addition, the fact that it is used in reference to others besides Prophet Muhammad further demonstrates the fact that it is not a self-serving declaration of blamelessness for any alleged criminal behavior.

    Also, all captives were “spoils of war”, so it signifies nothing. As for the verse (33:50), here is its textual context for everyone’s convenience:

    Qur’an (English Translation) 33:49-51: Believers, you have no right to expect a waiting period when you marry believing women and then divorce them before you have touched them: make provision for them and release them in an honorable way. Prophet, We have made lawful for you the wives whose bride gift you have paid, and any slaves God has assigned to you through war, and the daughters of your uncles and aunts on your father’s and mother’s sides, who migrated with you. Also any believing woman who has offered herself to the Prophet and whom the Prophet wishes to wed––this is only for you [Prophet] and not the rest of the believers: We know exactly what We have made obligatory for them concerning their wives and slave-girls––so you should not be blamed: God is most forgiving, most merciful. You may make any of [your women] wait and receive any of them as you wish, but you will not be at fault if you invite one whose turn you have previously set aside: this way it is more likely that they will be satisfied and will not be distressed and will all be content with what you have given them. God knows what is in your hearts: God is all knowing, forbearing.

    As it should be obvious to everyone, these verses are in regards to women who are lawful for marriage. In this case, the obligation of the dowry was alleviated for Prophet Muhammad only with regards to women who offered to marry him, while it remained obligatory for everyone else who were offered marriage. Thus, there was “no blame” if Prophet Muhammad opted not to give a dowry to those women whose marriage offers he accepted. However, Prophet Muhammad did not accept any of those marriage offers that were given to him anyway. All of his wives were therefore all women who he offered marriage to and thus gave a dowry to. Therefore, these verses are not even in regards to anything Prophet Muhammad actually did, or didn’t do, but only in regards to what he was permitted to do and not to do.

    Naturally, if the verse was about caring for orphans, or some other *good* deed, Muhammad would have no need for pretending he was “free from BLAME”.

    If there is a question of permissibility, then it is absolutely necessary for the phrases “free from blame” or “no blame” to be used, which is exactly the case in all of the instances the phrase is used.

    Similarly when Muhammad decreed his men must have adulterous sex with MARRIED captive women (his Koran 4.24) – Muhammad said “there is no BLAME on you”

    In reality, Prophet Muhammad never decreed that anyone must have sex with married captive women. That is an exaggeration, and the verse itself says no such thing.

    For everyone’s convenience, here is the verse in its textual context:

    Qur’an (English Translation) 4:22-24: Do not marry women that your fathers married–with the exception of what is past––this is indeed a shameful thing to do, loathsome and leading to evil. You are forbidden to take as wives your mothers, daughters, sisters, paternal and maternal aunts, the daughters of brothers and daughters of sisters, your milk-mothers and milk-sisters, your wives’ mothers, the stepdaughters in your care––those born of women with whom you have consummated marriage, if you have not consummated the marriage, then you will not be blamed––wives of your begotten sons, two sisters simultaneously––with the exception of what is past: God is most forgiving and merciful––women already married, other than your slaves. God has ordained all this for you. Other women are lawful to you, so long as you seek them in marriage, with gifts from your property, looking for wedlock rather than fornication. If you wish to enjoy women through marriage, give them their bride-gift––this is obligatory––though if you should choose mutually, after fulfilling this obligation, to do otherwise [with the bride-gift], you will not be blamed: God is all knowing and all wise.

    As it should be obvious, these verses are establishing those women who are lawful and not lawful for marriage. In this case, it is establishing that already married POWs are lawful for marriage. However, it is only lawful as long as they are not with their husbands or pregnant when captured in war. At that time, slave women were often unclaimed war captives, who would not be in a position to dissolve any previous marriage. Hence, their previous marriages would have been automatically nullified and in which case, marriage with them was thus permitted.

    Historically, this was revealed when already married women were captured, and their captors were averse to having sexual relations with them, and in which the verse was revealed permitting them to do so.

    Furthermore, as it should also be obvious from reading this passage, the phrase “not be blamed” has nothing to do with sexual relations with POWs, but with what is done with the dowry, by mutual consent, after it is given.

    Or when Muhammad wanted to “marry” his own daughter-in-law – see his Koran 33.37 So when Zeyd had performed that necessary formality (of divorce) from her, We gave her unto thee in marriage, so that (henceforth) there MAY BE NO SIN for believers in respect of wives of their adopted sons

    Again, here is the verse in its textual context for everyone’s convenience:

    Qur’an (English Translation) 33:36-39: When God and His Messenger have decided on a matter that concerns them, it is not fitting for any believing man or woman to claim freedom of choice in that matter: whoever disobeys God and His Messenger is far astray. When you [Prophet] said to the man who had been favored by God and by you, ‘Keep your wife and be mindful of God,’ you hid in your heart what God would later reveal: you were afraid of people, but it is more fitting that you fear God. When Zayd no longer wanted her, We gave her to you in marriage so that there might be no fault in believers marrying the wives of their adopted sons after they no longer wanted them. God’s command must be carried out: the Prophet is not at fault for what God has ordained for him. This was God’s practice with those who went before––God’s command must be fulfilled––[and with all] those who deliver God’s messages and fear only Him and no other: God’s reckoning is enough.

    As it should be clear to everyone, this is defining what is lawful in regards to marriage by way of example. It is unlawful in Islam for a man to marry his biological son’s ex-wife, but it is lawful in Islam for a man to marry his adopted son’s ex-wife. The Arabs at that time traditionally regarded adopted sons and biological sons as the same in all respects. God ended this tradition, both in the Qur’an (33:4) and by way of example through Prophet Muhammad, as it clearly explains in the above passage.

    Zayd was Prophet Muhammad’s adopted son, whose marriage Prophet Muhammad arranged with Zaynab, who was Prophet Muhammad’s cousin. The marriage proved to be an unhappy one due to Zayd being held in low esteem by Zaynab due to Zayd being an ex-slave. Zayd intended to divorce her and when he confided his intentions to Prophet Muhammad, the Prophet advised him to: “Keep your wife and be mindful of God”. However, the marriage was unsustainable and eventually Zayd divorced her and she married Prophet Muhammad by God’s decree.

    He had to pretend Allah specifically advised him there was no “sin” in what he did

    In reality, there was no pretense, only the setting of a precedent, as it is clearly stated in that passage from the Qur’an. The archaic Arab belief that regarded marrying an adopted son’s ex-wife as the same unlawfulness and/or sinfulness as marrying a biological son’s ex-wife – was false and was derived from their baseless archaic traditions that regarded adopted sons as the same as biological sons. God ended this verbally in the Qur’an (33:4) and practically with having Prophet Muhammad marry his adopted son’s ex-wife. Thus, it was demonstrated for the believers that there was indeed “no sin” in doing so.

    Or when Muhammad preached slaughter of captives in cold-blood and theft from them – see

    8.67-69 
’It is not for any Prophet to have captives until HE HATH MADE SLAUGHTER IN THE LAND. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise.

    Had it not been for a previous ordainment from Allah, a SEVERE PENALTY penalty would have reached you for the (ransom) that YE TOOK.

    But (now) ENJOY WHAT YE TOOK in war, lawful and good: but fear Allah: FOR ALLAH Oft-FORGIVING, Most Merciful.’

    Again, Muhammad knew theft was wrong, and felt there would naturally be a “severe penalty”, but he made it okay through speaking as “Allah”.

    In reality, these verses aren’t even pertaining to theft or killing captives in cold blood, but to the ransoming of POWs amidst a war:

    Qur’an (English translation) 8:67-69: It is not right for a prophet to take captives before he has conquered the battlefield. You [people] desire the transient goods of this world, but God desires the Hereafter [for you]––God is mighty and wise––and had it not been preordained by God, a severe punishment would have come upon you for what you have taken. So enjoy in a good and lawful manner the things you have gained in war and be mindful of God: He is forgiving and merciful.

    The context of these verses is the “Battle of Badr”, rebuking those Muslims for ransoming their POWs (who were arch-criminals of war) back to the enemy – before victory was achieved against them – for financial gain and because of their family and/or kinship ties with them. It pertains only to enemy combatants taken captive from the battlefield amidst a war, which, for the Muslims, was about defense and security.

    If Muhammad thought what he was preaching was good or lawful, there wouldn’t have been the necessity for him to pretend he was “free from blame” or “sin” or “severe penalty” for what he did.

    On the contrary, there absolutely is a need if what is good and lawful was not clear to his followers. A lot of them clung to baseless superstitions and invalid traditions to define what was “good” and “lawful”. Thus their assessments of both were inaccurate to an extent. Therefore, it was necessary when explaining and demonstrating both, to reassure them that there was “no blame” or “sin” for the lawful things that some of them were unsure about or might have mistakenly thought were “unlawful”.

    Finally, I asked for a crime committed by Islamic State or the other Islamic terror groups which wasn’t first practiced and preached by Muhammad. Please name one, or we can agree these groups do in fact accurately represent Muhammad.

    The targeted killing of uninvolved non-combatants is one. There’s also their general encroaching on the rights of both Muslims and non-Muslims. Their treachery with regards to their oaths, agreements and treaties is another. Daesh are the Zalimoon by any other name and who Prophet Muhammad prophetically warned against:

    ‘Ali bin Abu Talib narrated that the Prophet said:

    “If you see the black flags, then remain on the ground and do not move a hand or a leg. A group of weaklings will appear… their hearts are like iron. They are the owners of the state (dawla). They fulfill neither a contract nor a covenant. They call to the truth, but they are not its people. Their names are a kunya (teknonym) and their lineages (surnames) are a town. Their hair is unwinding, like the hair of a woman. (Do this) until they differ in it between themselves, then Allah will give the right to whomever He desires.”

    (Nu’aym bin Hammad, Kitab Al Fitan, p. 157, No. 557)

  • Awesome

    ‘…the term “terrorism” is meaningless’ – I know you want to deny the existence of the multitudes of real human victims of Islamic terrorism. And you want to deny the existence of all the Islamic terror groups across the world as well.

    Actually, I am talking about semantics and the difference between the meaning (or lack thereof) of the word “terrorism” and the word “terror”. Anyone can clearly see that if they actually bothered to properly read what I have posted.

    But think. If you’re that opposed to the term, why follow someone who boasted so much of his technique of bringing “TERROR” to people, to achieve his desired conquest?

    I don’t care about the term. It has as much meaning as the term “assault weapon” does. I simply understand the difference between inducing the feeling of “terror” (“intense fear” – an emotion) into someone’s heart/mind vs. committing an actual crime (an action) against someone. I am not sure if you are familiar with the difference between an emotion and an action. Emotions are things that are felt. Actions are things that are done.

    Also, there is nothing said about instilling that fear into the hearts of people in general, but only into the hearts of hostile enemies. Perhaps you do not understand or appreciate the difference between combatants and non-combatants, but reasonable people do. That difference is certainly recognized in the Qur’an. Of course, you would have to actually read it to understand that.

    Conquest is simply the inevitable end-result of one warring faction defeating another, and given the plight of the situation for Prophet Muhammad and his followers, it’s purpose was defense and security

    On Muhammad’s Koran 7.4, Muhammad indeed spoke of his RAID. See ulema-certified Pickthall – viewable at http://www.islam101.com/quran/

    Except there is nothing mentioned in that verse about Prophet Muhammad or any of his followers in regards to any “raid”, and in fact the term “raid” is only even used in the Pickthall translation, which is very inconsequential for it to be the basis for such an assertion.

    Also, as I already mentioned before, the whole chapter was revealed before Prophet Muhammad migrated to Yathrib (Medina), which means it was revealed before permission to fight was even given and therefore, before any of their “night raids” ever occurred. This further demonstrates the fact that these verses have nothing to do with fighting or night raids.

    As it should be obvious to anyone with basic reading comprehension skills, this isn’t Prophet Muhammad referencing night raids, but is in fact God addressing Prophet Muhammad and the people in reference to how many towns in the past that God’s divine punishment came down on while they were asleep, either in the day or at night, which is obviously being referenced as an example, as a warning and as a reminder rebuking those who reject God’s messages.

    See also 7.97 Are the people of the townships then secure from the coming of Our wrath upon them as a NIGHT-RAID while they sleep?

    Again, the use of the term “raid” doesn’t exist in all of the translations, and again it is from the same chapter 7, which was revealed years before there were any night raids against enemy factions or any fighting in general.

    Here is the textual context for 7:97 for everyone’s convenience:

    Qur’an (English translation) 7:94-102: Whenever We sent a prophet to a town, We afflicted its [disbelieving] people with suffering and hardships, so that they might humble themselves [before God], and then We changed their hardship into prosperity, until they multiplied. But then they said, ‘Hardship and affluence also befell our forefathers,’ and so We took them suddenly, unawares. If the people of those towns had believed and been mindful of God, We would have showered them with blessings from the heavens and earth, but they rejected the truth and so We punished them for their misdeeds. Do the people of these towns feel secure that Our punishment will not come upon them by night, while they are asleep? Do the people of these towns feel secure that Our punishment will not come upon them by day, while they are at play? Do they feel secure against God’s plan? Only the losers feel secure against God’s plan. Is it not clear to those who inherit the land from former generations that We can punish them too for their sins if We will? And seal up their hearts so that they cannot hear? We have told you [Prophet] the stories of those towns: messengers came to them, and clear signs, but they would not believe in what they had already rejected––in this way God seals the hearts of disbelievers. We found that most of them did not honor their commitments; We found that most of them were defiant.

    Clearly, this is in reference to past generations, and past Prophets being sent to various peoples and townships, which were destroyed thereafter for rejecting the divine messages that those Prophet conveyed to them. Therefore, the terms “raid” and “night” are inconsequential. The word “raid” simply refers to a sudden surprise attack or assault. When this occurs at night, it is referred to as a “night raid”. These terms, therefore, cannot mean anything more specific than that without further context being provided, which is probably why Pickthall used the term “raid” in his English translation. Hence, when God destroyed the people that Prophet Noah was sent to with a flood (Qur’an 25:37), it was a “raid”. When God destroyed the cities that Prophet Lot was sent to with stones of baked clay and turned them upside down (Qur’an 11:82), it was a “raid”. When God destroyed the people of Thamud that Prophet Salih was sent to with a storm (Qur’an 69:5), it was a “raid”. When God destroyed the people of ‘Ad that Prophet Hud was sent to with wind (Qur’an 69:6), it was a “raid”. Those are the only types of “raids” that verses (Qur’an 7:4) and (Qur’an 7:97) are in reference to.

    10.50 Say: Have ye thought: When His doom cometh unto you as a RAID by night, or in the (busy) day; what is there of it that the guilty ones desire to hasten?

    Again, a translator’s inconsequential choice of wording is emphasized, and again it is only referring to the doom from God coming upon those who disbelieve.

    For everyone’s convenience, here is the verse in its textual context:

    Qur’an (English Translation) 10:48-52: Every community is sent a messenger, and when their messenger comes, they will be judged justly; they will not be wronged. 48They ask, ‘When will this promise be fulfilled, if what you say is true?’ Say [Prophet], ‘I cannot control any harm or benefit that comes to me, except as God wills. There is an appointed term for every community, and when it is reached they can neither delay nor hasten it, even for a moment.’Say, ‘Think: if His punishment were to come to you, during the night or day, what part of it would the guilty wish to hasten? Will you believe in it, when it actually happens?’ It will be said, ‘Now [you believe], when [before] you sought to hasten it?’ It will be said to the evildoers, ‘Taste lasting punishment. Why should you be rewarded for anything but what you did?’

    There is literally nothing in those verses about any military raids by Prophet Muhammad or his followers, and it is clearly in reference to destiny and divine judgment in the hereafter.

    100.3 And scouring to the RAID at dawn

    Finally a reference from the Qur’an is provided to an actual military raid. Yet, it signifies nothing and again has no reference to any of Prophet Muhammad’s military raids at all. In fact this whole chapter, like chapter 7, was revealed in Mecca, years before any of Prophet Muhammad’s military raids even took place.

    Here is the entire chapter for everyone’s convenience:

    Qur’an (English Translation) – Surah 100:

    In the name of God, the Lord of Mercy, the Giver of Mercy

    By the charging steeds that pant and strike sparks with their hooves, who make dawn raids, raising a cloud of dust, and plunging into the midst of the enemy, man is ungrateful to his Lord––and He is witness to this––he is truly excessive in his love of wealth. Does he not know that when the contents of graves burst forth, when the secrets of hearts are uncovered, on that Day, their Lord will be fully aware of them all?

    As it is clear in this chapter, God is swearing by the warhorses that He has subjected to man’s use (which man uses to make military raids with), that man is ungrateful and misguided.

    It is a reflection on man – the main subject matter of the Qur’an – and an exposition of reality in that regard, which ties into its central theme of guidance for mankind. The reference to the military raids is one of the most obvious uses of warhorses and something most people can reflect on when mentioned.

    You know Muhammad made *many RAIDS* on tribes – sometimes more than 100 miles from his camp – and that raiding and stealing from others was how he made his living, according to Islam’s own texts. Naturally, Muhammad’s way of life (even including the foods he ate) and especially his values, infuse his Koran.

    Military raids against enemy factions during an ongoing war are to be expected from a potentate who is in charge of managing public affairs and is responsible for the defense and security of the state he governs. Removing hostilities is always about defense and security. It has nothing to do with “making a living”, but with the responsibilities of a ruling authority. A successful military raid or battle tends to produce spoils, which inevitably come into the possession of the victors.

    The pre-Islamic practice with war spoils was that everyone gained whatever he can get his hands on. God ended that practice by declaring, in (Qur’an) that all the spoils gained by the Muslim army belonged to God and God’s Messenger (Prophet Muhammad). Four-fifths were allotted to the army. The fifth of the gains allotted to Prophet Muhammad went to the public treasury, from which it was used for public welfare and the general use of the state. Prophet Muhammad himself lived in poverty, and whatever he had, he tended to freely give away to anyone who needed it or asked for it.

    I was interested to see you dismiss Muhammad’s pride in his terror technique by saying “that [i.e. using terror] has been known…throughout history”. Do you think Muhammad was an ignorant warlord then, to take such pride in spreading terror?

    What I actually said was:

    The only thing that is clear about the “value of terror”, is that striking intense fear (“terror”) into the hearts of hostile enemy combatants is useful and helpful in defeating them in an armed conflict. But then, this is something that has been known about and practiced by virtually every military or warring faction throughout history up until the present day, so the emphasis on “terror” is utterly meaningless.

    Instilling intense fear into the hearts of his enemies, allowing victory to be gained over them, was one of God’s many favors given to Prophet Muhammad, which he was simply mentioning. Being able to successfully scare an enemy enough into gaining victory over them is something any military commander would value. It still doesn’t change the fact that it was known about and practiced by virtually all military forces and warring factions throughout history.

    I understand the difficulty of looking at the invention of a religion clearly, when you feel it’s part of your own identity. But Islam represents Muhammad’s identity, not yours, and you are no more responsible for it (or for anything Muhammad did) than I am.

    The poorly-crafted polemics, which you have presented are not exactly convincing. Believing in and following Islam is not about “identity”. It is about being in harmony with God to attain true peace and salvation in the hereafter and enter a state of eternal bliss in God’s Paradise. Islam represents the truth and guidance for humanity, as divinely revealed to Prophet Muhammad, and which he subsequently conveyed to people publically, explained it in detail and practiced it for them to follow his example and teach it to others. Everyone is responsible for seeking, adhering to and speaking the truth.

    If you leave Muhammad’s religion, you actually become *more* yourself – more your own person, expressing your *own* values – than when following a 7th century warlord.

    In reality, the only thing anyone ever actually becomes when they leave Islam is an apostate, and not everyone has enough of a sound mind to craft their own code of ethics based only on their own ways of thinking. That’s one of the many reason why successful societies have teachers.

    Btw, I have my own copy of Muhammad’s Koran, so no need to paste slabs. Just keep it to what you think is particularly relevant.

    It doesn’t matter if you have a copy of the Qur’an, or several copies of the Qur’an, because I am posting what is relevant for the benefit of anyone who is interested in reading and understanding what is being said. Clearly, this is not you otherwise you would not be repeating the same discredited polemics.

  • hadin

    Fair enough.

  • Awesome

    Hi, the evidence is Islam’s own texts. Name a crime and I’ll provide Muhammad’s practice of it and preaching of it. Remember, all crimes against humanity committed by Islamic State, Boko Haram, al-Shabaab, the Taliban, al Qaeda etc are derived from Muhammad’s practices and teachings.

    In reality, everything that Prophet Muhammad preached and practiced was lawful, and the crimes of Daesh, Boko Haram, etc. are in fact contrary to those teachings and practices, and are in reality derived from other sources.

  • Awesome

    Ideally. In reality it is defined by the actions of those who claim to adhere to it.

    On the contrary, the religion isn’t defined by the actions of its adherents. Only its image is.

  • Awesome

    On the contrary, Muhammad valued terrorism as one of his most potent techniques, as it often meant his victims froze, or gave up the “booty” that he lived on with fewer casualties to Muhammad’s thugs. Naturally Muhammad also promoted terrorism in his Koran.

    As already explained, the term “terrorism” is a meaningless contemporary political buzzword that is useless in any coherent discussion. Therefore, there is not a single act by Prophet Muhammad or any of his companions that can legitimately be defined using an illegitimate term.

    Muhammad speaking of his successful career (my caps):

    Bukhari 52,220 Allah’s Apostle said “..I have been made VICTORIOUS with TERROR (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping the treasures of the world were brought to me”

    In fact, what Abu Hurayrah narrated Prophet Muhammad as saying was: “I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand.”

    (Sahih Bukhari, Book 52, No. 220)

    Removing the added caveat “cast in the hearts of the enemy” doesn’t change the meaning of the text, because “terror” in this case can only refer to intense fear, and not a sensationalized criminal act that is exploited for some political agenda, as that is a relatively modern definition for “terror”. The “enemy” in this case, refers to those who had initiated war against Prophet Muhammad and his followers at that time.

    Muhammad, Koran 7.4 How many a township have We destroyed! As a RAID by night, or while they slept at noon, OUR TERROR came unto them

    Here is the textual context of this verse:

    Qur’an (English translation) 7:1-9: This Book has been sent down to you [Prophet]––let there be no anxiety in your heart because of it––so that you may use it to give warning and to remind the believers: ‘Follow what has been sent down to you from your Lord; do not follow other masters beside Him. How seldom you take heed!’ How many towns We have destroyed! Our punishment came to them by night or while they slept in the afternoon: their only cry when Our punishment came to them was, ‘How wrong we were!’ We shall certainly question those to whom messengers were sent––and We shall question the messengers themselves––and, with full knowledge, for We were never far from them, We shall tell them what they did. On that Day the weighing of deeds will be true and just: those whose good deeds are heavy on the scales will be the ones to prosper, and those whose good deeds are light will be the ones who have lost their souls through their wrongful rejection of Our messages.

    As it should be obvious to anyone, this isn’t Prophet Muhammad referencing night raids, but is in fact God addressing Prophet Muhammad and the people in reference to how many towns in the past that God’s divine punishment came down on at night, which is obviously being referenced as an example, as a warning and as a reminder rebuking those who reject God’s messages. There is nothing in these verses pertaining to committing acts of “terrorism” by Prophet Muhammad or any of his followers.

    8.12 I will instill TERROR into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their fingertips off them

    Here is the translation of the entire verse with its textual context:

    Qur’an (English translation) 8:7-14: Remember how God promised you [believers] that one of the two enemy groups would fall to you: you wanted the unarmed group to be yours, but it was God’s will to establish the truth according to His Word and to finish off the disbelievers––to prove the Truth to be true, and the false to be false, much as the guilty might dislike it. When you begged your Lord for help, He answered you; ‘I will reinforce you with a thousand angels in succession.’ God made this a message of hope to reassure your hearts: help comes only from God, He is mighty and wise. Remember when He gave you sleep as a reassurance from Him, and sent down water from the sky to cleanse you, to remove Satan’s pollution from you, to make your hearts strong and your feet firm. Your Lord revealed to the angels: ‘I am with you: give the believers firmness; I shall put terror into the hearts of the disbelievers––strike above their necks and strike all their fingertips.’ That was because they opposed God and His Messenger, and if anyone opposes God and His Messenger, God punishes them severely––‘That is what you get! Taste that!’––and the torment of the Fire awaits the disbelievers.

    Clearly, these verses are in relation to an armed group of disbelievers, and not just anyone who happens to be a disbeliever. Historically, this was in reference to the “Battle of Badr”, and the disbelievers were the Meccans who were in conflict with Prophet Muhammad and his followers, and for the Muslims it was defensive. Also, again, the term “terror” clearly only refers to “intense fear”, which God, in these verses, is saying that He is going to put into the hearts of those armed enemy combatants in battle. It has nothing to do with a meaningless political buzzword like “terrorism”.

    8.60..strike TERROR into (the hearts of) the enemies…and OTHERS besides WHOM YE MAY NOT KNOW

    Here is the full verse in its textual context:

    Qur’an (English translation) 8:55-66: The worst creatures in the sight of God are those who reject Him and will not believe; who, whenever you [Prophet] make a treaty with them, break it, for they have no fear of God. If you meet them in battle, make a fearsome example of them to those who come after them, so that they may take heed. And if you learn of treachery on the part of any people, throw their treaty back at them, for God does not love the treacherous. The disbelievers should not think they have won; they cannot escape. Prepare whatever forces you [believers] can muster, including warhorses, to frighten off God’s enemies and yours, and warn others unknown to you but known to God. Whatever you give in God’s cause will be repaid to you in full, and you will not be wronged. But if they incline towards peace, you [Prophet] must also incline towards it, and put your trust in God: He is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing. If they intend to deceive you, God is enough for you: it was He who strengthened you with His help, and with the believers, and brought their hearts together. Even if you had given away everything in the earth you could not have done this, but God brought them together: God is mighty and wise. Prophet, God is enough for you, and for the believers who follow you. Prophet, urge the believers to fight: if there are twenty of you who are steadfast, they will overcome two hundred, and a hundred of you, if steadfast, will overcome a thousand of the disbelievers, for they are people who do not understand. But God has lightened your burden for now, knowing that there is weakness in you––a steadfast hundred of you will defeat two hundred and a steadfast thousand of you will defeat two thousand, by God’s permission: God is with the steadfast.

    Again, as is obvious from this passage, the prescribed fighting (in the historical context of the ongoing war between Muslim Medina and the rest of polytheist Arabia) is only against the enemies and treacherous belligerents among the disbelievers. Given that fighting them is only mandated in the Qur’an when they are openly hostile and belligerent, and not allowed when they incline to peace or cease hostilities against the Muslims, it becomes obvious that the fighting is about defense and security. Frightening off hostile enemies amidst an ongoing war is not “terrorism”. It is a necessary military tactic that has probably been used by virtually every military that ever existed.

    Interestingly, when Muslims began a war on the USA in 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams asked Tripoli’s ambassador why, and reported that he was told:

    “It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.”


    Tripoli’s Ambassador also told John Adams that the North Africans deemed themselves the “sovereigns of the Mediterranean; and that no nation could navigate that sea without a treaty of peace with them.”

    The Barbary pirates – like so many other, non-Muslim pirates – were state-sponsored privateers motivated by greed, which is why they always demanded ransom for everything they raided on the high seas. For the Barbary pirates, the ransom and the tribute money were used for state revenue for the governments of Algiers, Morocco, Tripoli and Tunis in the 1700s. Religion was never really the motive and it was rarely even mentioned. Rather, it only factored, at most, into which ships were targeted and which were not.

    “He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy’s ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck SUCH TERROR into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.”

    “Terror” (“intense fear”) and “terrorism” are not the same thing, and pointing out the use of the word “terror” proves absolutely nothing with regard to “terrorism”, which is a meaningless word anyway.

    Clearly, the value of terror, whether small-scale or large, has been understood by Muslims since Muhammad preached it up until the present day.

    The only thing that is clear about the “value of terror”, is that striking intense fear (“terror”) into the hearts of hostile enemy combatants is useful and helpful in defeating them in an armed conflict. But then, this is something that has been known about and practiced by virtually every military or warring faction throughout history up until the present day, and pointing that out is utterly meaningless.

Powered by Loon Watchers