Another terrorist attack

[Kreeshsheesh]

Priest has been murdered. Apparently IS had threatened to target churches in France.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36892785

But moon you've just talked about context.

The original context as I've just pointed out concerned warfare by the muslims against the non-believers, to convert them to Islam.

All well and good that you and others have taken it to use in whatever spirit you wish to see it in, however the jihadis are actually the ones who are interpreting and acting on this correctly.

You can't have it both ways. Trot out context and then ignore it when it doesn't fit with your narrative.

yes context is important and Id urge others to read that verse couched with the others preceding and after it and see if there is mention of fighting within them or if it is interpreted as the orthodox teach it that verse is an example of how orthodox muslims themselves shut down the arguments of those who try to use the marginalised and alienated young men and women to become their henchmen. It is a stern warning that one cannot commit wrongdoing and stand before God saying they themselves were wronged so that's why they did those Sins. 'Get thee to hell' is the reaction rather than sympathy to the grievance narrative they hold. No excuse for any supposedly downtrodden young men who commit terror attacks and torture

So for the others, here is a different link that explains the context and meaning of that verse by a number of different recognised Islamic authorities. quranx.com/Tafsirs/4.95

Here's what the influential Indo/Pak cleric Maulana Maududi has to say about it:

In this passage, the relative status of true Muslims has been assigned according as they behave when they are asked to go to Jihad on a voluntary basis, when the leader of the Islamic forces does not require the whole Muslim force. Those who offer themselves and their wealth and go to Jihad have been assigned a higher rank than those who stay at home, even though the latter might have been engaged in other good works; moreover, there is, for the former a `promise of a good reward.' As regards those who stay at home, when they are ordered to go to Jihad, by making excuses or even those who shirk Jihad, when a general order is given for Jihad and Jihad becomes an obligatory duty in these two cases those who are engaged in other works and do not go to Jihad are hypocrites and are not entitled to the benefit of the 'promise of a good reward' except that they stay behind for any genuine excuse

Maududi's views in the UK are mainly promoted by UKIM - UK Islamic Mission. A large long standing organisation that runs a number of mainstream mosques and Islamic centres throughout Britain.

Here's an extract on a conference attended by British muslim women explaining concepts from Maududi's seminal book, Al-Jihad fil Islam, & expanding on the context surrounding the above verse:

“The Messenger of Allah (saw) invited the Arabs to accept Islam for 13 years. He used every possible means of persuasion, gave them incontrovertible arguments and proofs, showed them miracles and put before them his life as an example of piety and morality. In short, he used every possible means of communication, but his people refused to accept Islam.”

“When every method of persuasion had failed, the Prophet took to the sword.”

“That sword removed evil mischief, the impurities of evil and the filth of the soul. The sword did something more—it removed their blindness so that they could see the light of truth, and also cured them of their arrogance; arrogance which prevents people from accepting the truth, stiff necks and proud heads bowed with humility.”

tifrib.com/2013/11/08/uk-islamic-mission-jihad-sistas/

Instead, I would make it a condition that this speaker is followed by another speaker presenting a different viewpoint so that people, and especially children, realise that there are different viewpoints and alternatives (a position more accurately reflective of the complexity of social life)

If your talking about Imam Muhammed Asim Hussain he is an Imam. As far as I am aware, he isn't billed as a hate preacher. Why would there be another speaker coming on after when no one thinks his views are wrong? Are UK Muslims relaxed about blasphemy to the extent Christians are?

The issue is not snipets of the Koran is that an ideology based on Islam and the Koran is behind Islamic terrorism that is attracting many young Muslims to support Isis and carry out attacks

sorry to keep banging on about this, but we have an imam popular in the UK who apparently deplores ISIS but has spoken out about the execution of a man who murdered the politician he was supposed to be guarding, because that politician was trying to help a lady put to death herself over so called blasphemy?
He has spoken out passionately about this murderers own death and flew to the funeral.

what am I supposed to be getting from this? He has a huge following. You can quote verses at each other till the cows come home, but surely someone is a little bit worried about this mans extreme views??? Do you not think perhaps whipping up such hate and hysteria all helps to lay the ground for ISIS? Even though this Imam supposedly deplores ISIS?

This man isn't living in croft in Scotland either.

I would make it a condition that this speaker is followed by another speaker presenting a different viewpoint

Thinking about it, I want to see the legislation that is proposed for this. Are you proposing licensing all public meetings? All private meetings? Does it only apply to Muslims (will there be a test? How do you know they are Muslim) or will it apply to Christian churches as well? Catholics can have a mass, but only if there's an Anglican priest on hand afterwards to deny the physical reality of transubstantiation? Anglicans can get married, but only if there's a Catholic available to tell them their marriage is invalid? What about political meetings? Will the SWP have to book a member of the National Front, or indeed vice versa, to provide balance?

It's all a fascinating idea. It would be tremendous fun.

How curious. IV looked up the links you've put up mistress, neither of the cut and paste jobs you've done back up what you said i misrepresented of 4:97. how critical it is in its ramifications on the culpability of henchmen made up of maladjusted youth as well as other alienated/disenfranchised souls. if i follow this spamming script then i would get bogged down in having to point out each bit of misdirection in the quotations you put, and the thread would get lost in the minutiae of fact checking. i dont have time for that and nor is this thread the place for that.

i came on to put verses very rarely seen on these threads that show up the aberration of the behaviour of ISIS and their ilk vis a vis the quran. on the subject of apostasy, of religious mockery, of freedom of faith, on killing etc.
many might scoff, and I understand why because it is so opposite to what most hear of those purported muslims who say they kill for religion. I am so deeply sorry and ashamed that an elderly priest is the latest victim of these terrorists who say 'Allah' and 'islam' as they maim and kill. the scourge that is ISIS is less concerned with what is in the Quran even recently ordering disabled babies and children to be euthanised according to their 'sharia law judge' www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3358840/How-depraved-ISIS-Group-s-Sharia-judges-order-children-s-syndrome-disabilities-killed-chilling-echo-Nazis.html

and they kill in the name of muhammad those christian monks and priests who he wrote centuries ago should be protected...

www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3493741/How-ISIS-going-against-Islam-s-teachings-Texts-suggest-Muslim-prophet-wanted-Christians-protected-defended-claims-expert.html

in the commonly known muslim history it was a christian king Najashi who gave the early muslims refuge from the persecution of their own people.

again some little quoted verses from the Quran on jews and christians;

"Of the people of Moses there is a section who guide and do justice in the light of truth." (Quran 7:159)

"And We caused Jesus, the son of Mary, to follow in the footsteps of those (earlier prophets), confirming the truth of whatever there still remained of the Torah; and We sent him the Gospel, wherein there was guidance and light, confirming the truth of whatever there still remained of the Torah, and as a guidance and admonition unto the God-conscious." (Quran 5:46)

"Verily, those who have attained to faith [in this divine writ], as well as those who follow the Jewish faith, and the Christians, and the Sabians – all who believe in God and the Last Day and do righteous deeds-shall have their reward with their Sustainer; and no fear need they have, and neither shall they grieve." (Quran 2:62)

"Among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) is he who, if entrusted with a Cantar (a great amount of wealth, etc.), will readily pay it back; and among them there is he who, if entrusted with a single silver coin, will not repay it unless you constantly stand demanding, because they say: "There is no blame on us to betray and take the properties of the illiterates (Arabs)." But they tell a lie against Allah while they know it." (3:75)

"Not all of them are alike: Of the People of the Book are a portion that stand (For the right): They rehearse the Signs of God all night long, and they prostrate themselves in adoration. They believe in God and the Last Day; they enjoin what is right, and forbid what is wrong; and they hasten (in emulation) in (all) good works: They are in the ranks of the righteous."(Quran 3:113-114)

And there are, certainly, among the People of the Book, those who believe in God, in the revelation to you, and in the revelation to them, bowing in humility to God. They will not sell the Signs of God for a miserable gain! For them is a reward with their Lord, and God is swift in account. (Quran 3:199)

"Then We sent following their footsteps Our messengers and followed [them] with Jesus, the son of Mary, and gave him the Gospel. And We placed in the hearts of those who followed him compassion and mercy and monasticism, which they innovated; We did not prescribe it for them except [that they did so] seeking the approval of Allah. But they did not observe it with due observance. So We gave the ones who believed among them their reward, but many of them are defiantly disobedient."
(57:27)

"As for such [of the unbelievers] as do not fight against you on account of [your] faith, and neither drive you forth from your homelands, Allah does not forbid you to show them kindness and to behave towards them with full equity: for, verily, Allah loves those who act equitably." (Quran 60:8)

"Allah only forbids you to turn in friendship towards such as fight against you because of [your] faith, and drive you forth from your homelands, or aid [others] in driving you forth: and as for those [from among you] who turn towards them in friendship; it is they, they who are truly wrongdoers!" (Quran 60:9)

The argument about what verses really mean in the Koran can go on and on and not all Muslims agree

It detracts from the issue of why are so many young Muslims (mainly men) are attracted to and support an ideology that is based on Islam and are willing to murder others, Muslims and non Muslims in the name of Islam

If all those joint ISIS and other Islamic terror groups had little or no knowledge of Islam I would understand they arguement it has nothing or little to do with the religion

I agree Enthusiasm. Religious texts can be taken out of context and misinterpreted. Twas ever thus. But what can be done to stop the rising tide of radicalisation and extremism?

I heard a report on the radio earlier today that likened the radicalisation process to that of grooming for the purpose of sexual abuse/exploitation. Should we be educating our youngsters in how to spot radicalisation attempts? Should more be done by the moderate branches of the religions? I’d favour the latter, because the state will never convince anyone that their god’s wrong.

We are just reminding that while it's completely fine to disagree, we ask everyone to do so respectfully - even with topics as difficult as this.

Thanks, all.

As I said earlier you can debate interpretations of the texts, of course this is exactly what it seems leaders in Islam are doing because they are open to interpretation.

But we have a main stream Muslim community leader agreeing with MURDER for Blasphemy.

I would like to know what we can do about that. That is real, that is out in the community that is a subversive influence on many people.

Good point allthemadmen

If I stood on Hyde Park Corner and demanded that as a Sagittarius, I call for the murder of all Capricorns, I’d probably be ignored. But if I managed to start a grassroots movement whose followers began to carry out such murders, would I be held responsible? I hope so.

I treat astrology and religion with equal contempt. Why aren’t these hate preachers being rounded up and prosecuted/jailed for their crimes?

Allthemadmen I was just responding to Cuboidal's post:

I would make it a condition that this speaker is followed by another speaker presenting a different viewpoint

I was thinking more along the lines of enabling social conditions, which would allow this to happen. Creating a social sphere where our society is tolerant of individual freedoms and freedom of ideas. Oh, it is. In that case, all we have to do is be insistent on the expectation that everyone signs up to this. In such a society, we would not have to tolerate, as an example, my DD's Jewish friends at school being allowed to not take part in certain activities or getting special dispensation to miss school on certain days. Ditto all others (which is what happens now). But, like you, thinking about it further, it may indeed be an interesting experiment to ensure, somehow, that children are exposed to everything in terms of ideas. Nothing should be out of bounds.

But in response to yours, I would continue that thought and suggest that there needs to be a strong counterargument to this. At the moment, Imams are not teaching respect for English law so that children are brought up thinking that killing for blasphemy outweighs not killing for blasphemy - that certain groups deserve certain dispensations. This is entirely wrong. We need people to stand up and say, 'The Koran says here that killing for blasphemy is the right course. However, English law states this... while a philosopher such as... wrote about blasphemy in this way...At the same time, atheism suggest that...You decide".

I would obviously want to give more weight to certain interpretations than others but that isn't actually realistic given that competing definitions and explanations are a feature of everyday life. The next best thing we can do is to expose people to as much variety as possible.

I agree fourmummy but I imagine in some areas where this sort of Imam has much control, how do we expose those listeners to other logic and pov?

Some communities and areas are not multicultural they are mono cultural.

I am positive and quite sure, many would not agree with this preacher, probably the majority don't believe killing for blasphemy. It cannot however be denied that it must be extremely confusing for some Muslim children brought up in majority Muslim areas perhaps going to special schools, then hear this sort of talk from "respected" community leaders.....

How on earth do we - Muslims from more open families, areas, and we - as in non Muslims penetrate this type of thinking?

Surely it has to come from other moderate leaders, with swift put downs?

We do not believe in killing for blasphemy,
we do not subscribe to this

we say it has no place in the world, and certainly no place in the Uk and so on....

Its so sad that this man in Pakistan risked his life for this christian lady...and he paid with his life.

I imagine if Archbishop Welby suddenly came out with such tosh he would be widely condemned and removed from his post.

But, like you, thinking about it further, it may indeed be an interesting experiment to ensure, somehow, that children are exposed to everything in terms of ideas.

Yes, because if there's one thing that we know, it's that schools have ample spare time in order to incorporate creationism into biology lessons, claims of pi being an algebraic number into maths lessons, assertions that you can fuse deuterium at room temperature into physics lessons and the rest of the wild world of crackpot delusions. Oh, you didn't mean everything then.

But I have got this brilliant construction for trisecting angles with a straightedge and compass...

Anyway, I thought the usual claim (which seems reasonably accurate) was that the people from Muslim backgrounds blowing shit up weren't observant Muslims and don't attend mainstream mosques. How would improving the quality of religious teaching in mosques help, given the people who attend the mosques aren't blowing shit up anyway?

Cuboid it's the deafening silence from the mainstream mosques. They seem to be doing a great impression of the 'three wise monkeys'.

To be fair, I can't blame them, they don't want to become targets for the extremists either, and as we've seen on this thread, the extremists can easily trot out enough religious texts to support their actions.

Cuboidal I am working on the notion that if you expose people to multiple ideas and let them see for themselves that some things work and some things don't, then that is better than either suppression or mono-culture (same thing, really). I used to think that I'd ban all religions, etc. and leave just STEM (because these subjects work in relation to quality of life) but I've changed my mind on this. Now, I'd expose people to as much as possible in the hope that they'd see that trying to solve a problem a la Father Ted (The Milkfloat episode) will not get us far as using STEM. They will then, hopefully, naturally step away from certain beliefs. This is happening with religiosity. We are, in the West, becoming less religious (admittedly, it's taking its time, but there's not much we can do about that apart from educational exposure) with each generation. Generally, there are millions of ideas, crackpot and otherwise, and we can't suppress them all. Al we can do is expose people to as many as possible and let them naturally choose to embrace some while turning away from others.

perhaps a good step would be to keep repeating in schools from primary age that we choose whether or not to follow religion? Its not the done thing, its not what we have to do because our parents do, or tell us to do, we are all free to choose and the LAW OF THE LAND backs this up.
If anyone forces us to do anything we can go to the law - the police and report them?

Cuboidal You are right in that we don't have time to teach everything to everyone - but we don't need to because we live in a society where pretty much everything is available (I am talking in terms of knowledge). It seems to me that our current problem is not that we can't expose all members of our society to multiple ideas but that we have allowed certain groups to opt out from this exposure. This is our problem.

If anyone forces us to do anything we can go to the law - the police and report them?

"Forces" is such a loaded word. Are you saying that a parent saying "if you leave my church I will never speak to you again" is a police matter? Pretty effective blackmail for many people, nonetheless. "If you don't raise your child as a whatever, I will cut you out of my will?" "If you don't continue to go to church I won't make the payments to top up your maintenance loan so you will find university difficult?" Or more subtly "it's so nice to get married in church, I would help you fund that?"

None of these things are illegal, surely?

It seems to me that our current problem is not that we can't expose all members of our society to multiple ideas but that we have allowed certain groups to opt out from this exposure.

Not "certain groups". Everyone. Everyone can opt their children out of religious observance in schools. The alternatives aren't much better, and involve usually heavy controls on home and private education where the cure is worse than the disease (oddly, about the only legislation Germany retains from the Nazi era is that banning home education).

I know this thread has moved on a bit but I just had to comment on those calling it a Muslim attack - tbh I feel a bit sick reading that.

Who remembers the knife attack in the London Underground and when the attacker was disabled by the brave public and police, someone
Shouted "you ain't no Muslim". ?

Same here. FFS when will folk realise that we are dealing with terrorists fuelled by hatred? Nothing to do with Islam, nothing to do with being a Muslim.

Don't fucking confuse the two. This shouldn't need saying again and again.

Keep saying it and your hurt, insult, anger nearly 2 billion men, women and children and I wonder what the end results of that will be.

I know this thread has moved on a bit but I just had to comment on those calling it a Muslim attack - tbh I feel a bit sick reading that.

Who remembers the knife attack in the London Underground and when the attacker was disabled by the brave public and police, someone
Shouted "you ain't no Muslim". ?

Same here. FFS when will folk realise that we are dealing with terrorists fuelled by hatred? Nothing to do with Islam, nothing to do with being a Muslim.

Don't fucking confuse the two. This shouldn't need saying again and again.

Keep saying it and you risk hurting, insulting and angering nearly 2 billion men, women and children and I wonder what the end results of that will be.