French church attacked by terrorists

[epeeist]

I didn't see any comments about what strikes me as one of the most ridiculous things, one murderer was on house arrest as a terrorist suspect but was given several hours per day free of monitoring his location (deliberately; and it was during this time he acted).

Hindsight is 20/20 and you can't and shouldn't lock up all suspects, but if they're dangerous enough to monitor, shouldn't it be 24/7?!

"...One of the assailants was identified as Adel Kermiche, a 19-year-old who grew up in the town and tried to travel to Syria twice last year using family members’ identity documents, but was arrested outside France and handed preliminary terrorism charges.

Kermiche was put under house arrest with an electronic surveillance bracelet after a judge overruled prosecutors and agreed to free him, Molins said. However, the bracelet was deactivated for a few hours every morning as part of the surveillance agreement, said a police official familiar with the investigation who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release details of the investigation. Those hours corresponded to the time of Tuesday's attack...." [emphasis added]

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/07/26/hostage-killed-in-france-church-attack.html

 

[Hlafordlaes]

I point out that the maker of your linked video flat-out lied about what her cited sources actually said, and what you get from my post is only that it confirms her statement that Muhammad was a warlord because his city was being beseiged by attacking Meccan armies?

What you wrote and what I already know are enough, actually. Are you going to tell me that all the battles were defensive? I repeat the description of Mohamed as most definitely a warlord, and originator of the fighting words referred to as Takbir.

Maybe he was good at it, and let's suppose even somehow justified. This means we have, via the hadith, used to depict Mohamed's life and how he lived out the commands in the Koran as example, with violence directly incorporated in them. This has consequences that should not and cannot be glossed over. Most readers don't get the import, but I am sure you do, that a single-prophet faith that includes his life as example leaves very little room for major re-interpretation. The school of thought is Mohamed himself.

To end on a positive note, here's one form of Islam (persecuted) that sounds promising on first blush. Anything that opens the lockdown on new knowledge preached by Mohamed as final-close-the-door prophet is good news.

 

[A'isha]

What you wrote and what I already know are enough, actually. Are you going to tell me that all the battles were defensive?

No. The Battle of Badr occurred when Medinan forces marched out to meet an approaching Meccan army after back and forth raids between the two sides.

I repeat the description of Mohamed as most definitely a warlord, and originator of the fighting words referred to as Takbir.

"The Takbīr (تَكْبِير), also transcribed Tekbir or Takbeer, is the term for the Arabic phrase Allāhu Akbar (الله أكبر), usually translated as "God is [the] greatest".[1][2] It is a common Islamic Arabic expression, used in various contexts by Muslims; in formal prayer, in the call for prayer (adhān),[3] as an informal expression of faith, in times of distress, or to express resolute determination or defiance."

That's your "fighting words"?

Most readers don't get the import, but I am sure you do, that a single-prophet faith that includes his life as example leaves very little room for major re-interpretation. The school of thought is Mohamed himself.

Except it's not. There's an entire tradition of contentious and different views of what Muhammad's "school of thought" was, tafsir, because Muslims haven't exactly been able to agree on one single interpretation since the very moment he died and there was a power struggle over who they thought he wanted to succeed him.

And, as I pointed out above, even your video's maker certainly had no problem making an extremely major "re-interpretation" of what Ibn Ishaq said regarding Muhammad's actions.

 

[Arcade22]

Is that all they can muster? Cutting the throat of some defenseless old man because they can't make it to die in Syria?

I say let them. Let this trash kill themselves here while their precious caliphate is being reduced to rubble and their "illustrious leader" is forced to hide like a rat. How many can they kill? A hundred? Maybe a couple of thousands? That's nothing in comparison their own losses. It's only a matter of time before they are completely defeated.

 

[GlennB]

Except it's not. There's an entire tradition of contentious and different views of what Muhammad's "school of thought" was, tafsir, because Muslims haven't exactly been able to agree on one single interpretation since the very moment he died and there was a power struggle over who they thought he wanted to succeed him.

None of which helps the innocents who are being schooled in mainstream, conservative Islamic teaching. The innocents who don't know, and probably never will, the cherry-picked liberal interpretations.

Thus we end up with a goodly stock of 'true believers' who think that death for apostasy (among many other hard-line, traditional Islamic beliefs) is right and proper. Once you have that stock it really isn't so hard to radicalise the weaker elements.

Tell me, A'isha, is there an interpretation of the Quran, another of the Hadith and another of the Sira that is considered authoritative? Or will you forever regale us with specific interpretations every time a specific subject is raised?

Muslim kids rarely have the benefits of your scholarship.

 

[A'isha]

None of which helps the innocents who are being schooled in mainstream, conservative Islamic teaching. The innocents who don't know, and probably never will, the cherry-picked liberal interpretations.

It's not "cherry-picked liberal interpretations", but an aspect of "Islamic teaching" that's been there right from the very beginning.

Take the various tafsir over the last 1500 years of Islamic scholarship of Q 9:5, for instance, the infamous "Verse of the Sword" that's cited so often by those who assert that there's only one "straightforward' interpretation, jihadist fundamentalist and "critic of Islam" alike.

al-Dahhak (d. 723 AD) and as-Suddi (d. 749 AD) both say that it applied only to the polytheists of Mecca, and was in fact abrogated by Q 47:4.

Malik ibn Anas (d. 795 AD) thought that it applied only to hostile polytheists, not polytheists in general.

al-Tabari (d. 923 AD) also thought it applied only to the polytheists of Mecca, and that it and Q 47:4 were linked together to create a single protocol for dealing with enemy prisoners.

al-Wahidi (d. 1075 AD) and al-Zamakhshari (d. 1143 AD) likewise asserted that it applied specifically and only to the polytheists of Mecca.

al-Razi (d. 1209 AD) and ibn Kathir (d. 1373 AD, who is the first one to have actually called it the "Verse of the Sword") thought that it applied to not just all unbelievers, but also Muslims who are delinquent in their religious obligations.

al-Qurtubi (d. 1273 AD) considered it to apply to any polytheist anywhere, but specifically exempted women, children, non-combatants, and the People of the Book from it.

al-Suyuti (d. 1505 AD) considered it to apply to any polytheist anywhere.

Maududi (d. 1979 AD) believed it to apply to any unbeliever.

Tabataba'i (d. 1981 AD) believed that it applied only to the polytheists of Mecca during Muhammad's time.

And finally, al-Bouti (d. 2013 AD, killed during the Syrian Civil War) considered it to be abrogated by Q 9:6.

Tell me, A'isha, is there an interpretation of the Quran, another of the Hadith and another of the Sira that is considered authoritative?

Not really, no. Muslims tend to pick one that they consider authoritative to them, but that can differ wildly from Muslim to Muslim.

Muslim kids rarely have the benefits of your scholarship.

Jihadist recruiters focus their attention specifically on nonreligious youths and those who know the least about their religion, specifically because those people are less likely to reject their message than more religious individuals, because they're easier to convince to follow the recruiters' own brand of Islam since they don't know any better.

 

[metacristi]

I see. Warlord.

Indeed. The evidence does not support the idea that Banu Qurayza ACTED against Muhammad, actually they were curiously inactive for three weeks before the Nuaym deceit. They probably wanted Muhammad demised but wanting and doing are two different things. Finally nothing justifies the later total annihilation of the Qurayza tribe, an act not worthy of a prophet indeed (he ought to have opposed that of course). Actually the fate of the Jewish tribes was sealed long before that, Muhammad only waited for a meagre excuse to act. Indeed Sahih Bukhari has Muhammad telling the Jews: "O assembly of Jews! Surrender to Allah and you will be safe!" and "Know that the land is for Allah, and I want to exile you from this land. Whomever among you has property he should sell it; otherwise, know that the land is for Allah and His Apostle"*. It is quite clear that Muhammad intended to force the Jews to convert to Islam, leave, or fight the Muslims. It was only a matter of time until the land was 'for Allah and his Messenger'.


* interestingly I remember that one muslim asked to say something about Trump before the New York republican elections earlier this year mentioned something about 'the land does not belong to Trump'. It belongs to muslims of course, Muhammad said so

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Is that all they can muster? Cutting the throat of some defenseless old man because they can't make it to die in Syria?

I say let them. Let this trash kill themselves here while their precious caliphate is being reduced to rubble and their "illustrious leader" is forced to hide like a rat. How many can they kill? A hundred? Maybe a couple of thousands? That's nothing in comparison their own losses. It's only a matter of time before they are completely defeated.

As much as I'd like your scenario to be true, we seem to have a renewable resource upstream.

 

[A'isha]

Finally nothing justifies the later total annihilation of the Qurayza tribe, an act not worthy of a prophet indeed (he ought to have opposed that of course).

As Martin Lings noted in his Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources, Sa'd's judgment on the Qurayza coincided exactly with Moses' commands in Deuteronomy 20:12-14: "And if [a city] will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it. And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword. But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee."

 

[GlennB]

As Martin Lings noted in his Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources, Sa'd's judgment on the Qurayza coincided exactly with Moses' commands in Deuteronomy 20:12-14: "And if [a city] will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it. And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword. But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee."

Mindless savagery, in other words.

I gather Muhammad availed himself of the "take the women .. unto thyself" option after this slaughter.

 

[pipelineaudio]

As Martin Lings noted in his Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources, Sa'd's judgment on the Qurayza coincided exactly with Moses' commands in Deuteronomy 20:12-14:

Oh well in that case, I guess its OK

 

[cullennz]

Considering the severity of attrocities made in the name of Islam lately I'm surprised all these Muslims who abhorr violence and consider it blashpemus and insulting to suggest their holy texts justify the deeds haven't come out in droves to demonstrate against those who usurp their religion.

France has what? 4 million Muslims? If they truly are shocked by the attacks in Nice, why don't they pour out in the streets of France, call for destruction of ISIS and burn an effigy of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, for example?

I'm sure the French government would allow such a display of loyalty to France and hostility towards it's enemy. A million participans should be reasonable goal, twice that is achievable. Why the reluctance? Why the excuses?

McHrozni

The leaders have spoken.

Do you want a sort of quasi BLM group thing?

What excuses?

 

[cullennz]

Is that all they can muster? Cutting the throat of some defenseless old man because they can't make it to die in Syria?

I say let them. Let this trash kill themselves here while their precious caliphate is being reduced to rubble and their "illustrious leader" is forced to hide like a rat. How many can they kill? A hundred? Maybe a couple of thousands? That's nothing in comparison their own losses. It's only a matter of time before they are completely defeated.

Yeah.

Just a matter of time.

How's Iraq and Afghanistan going?

 

[McHrozni]

It's not "cherry-picked liberal interpretations", but an aspect of "Islamic teaching" that's been there right from the very beginning.

Take the various tafsir over the last 1500 years of Islamic scholarship of Q 9:5, for instance, the infamous "Verse of the Sword" that's cited so often by those who assert that there's only one "straightforward' interpretation, jihadist fundamentalist and "critic of Islam" alike.

al-Dahhak (d. 723 AD) and as-Suddi (d. 749 AD) both say that it applied only to the polytheists of Mecca, and was in fact abrogated by Q 47:4.

Just so we know what that verse is about:

Q 47:4 So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens. That [is the command]. And if Allah had willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them [Himself], but [He ordered armed struggle] to test some of you by means of others. And those who are killed in the cause of Allah - never will He waste their deeds.

This interpretation basically means Muslims are allowed to take prisoners or "other favors" instead of killing religious enemies.
I don't see how this would constitute an improvement.

So yeah:

al-Tabari (d. 923 AD) also thought it applied only to the polytheists of Mecca, and that it and Q 47:4 were linked together to create a single protocol for dealing with enemy prisoners.

Muslims are not obliged to kill the unbelievers. They can also ransom or enslave them - or, as 9:6-7 say, convert them. This is not sufficiently far from the demand to "convert or die" to constitute any sort of meaningful improvement.

You'd be making a better favor for Islam if you had just kept quiet. If that's the very best defense of Islam one can offer, then it really has no redeeming features that would be worth mentioning.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

The leaders have spoken.

Do you want a sort of quasi BLM group thing?

What excuses?

Excuses like "their leaders have spoken", for example. I've seen it used on occasion, take my word for it. That would imply, for example, the people of USA stood firmly behind George Bush, when he decided to invade Iraq in 2003.

Can you please explain why do they deserve such excuses to be made for them?

McHrozni

 

[cullennz]

Excuses like "their leaders have spoken", for example. I've seen it used on occasion, take my word for it. That would imply, for example, the people of USA stood firmly behind George Bush, when he decided to invade Iraq in 2003.

Can you please explain why do they deserve such excuses to be made for them?

McHrozni

Because as a society (for want of a better word) they know having protests are pointless when it comes down to mentally ill Europeans and a few Americans being manipulated by ISIS

 

[McHrozni]

Because as a society (for want of a better word) they know having protests are pointless when it comes down to mentally ill Europeans and a few Americans being manipulated by ISIS

You know, I'm not really that interested in how many bizzare excuses you can think of. I am somewhat interested in why do you make these excuses at all.

It would be a very effective way of fighting Islamophobia you know. Instead, more French Muslims and Arabs demonstrate for Palestine than against ISIS.

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/7/19/paris-gaza-police.html

I would suggest this strongly implies they're more concerned about making Palestine an independent state than they are about defeating ISIS. If their priorities like that, they don't suffer from Islamophobia. They stuffer from a very rational fear of the danger they pose to civilized society.

So, why do you make excuses for them?

McHrozni

 

[cullennz]

You know, I'm not really that interested in how many bizzare excuses you can think of. I am somewhat interested in why do you make these excuses at all.

It would be a very effective way of fighting Islamophobia you know. Instead, more French Muslims and Arabs demonstrate for Palestine than against ISIS.

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/7/19/paris-gaza-police.html

I would suggest this strongly implies they're more concerned about making Palestine an independent state than they are about defeating ISIS. If their priorities like that, they don't suffer from Islamophobia. They stuffer from a very rational fear of the danger they pose to civilized society.

So, why do you make excuses for them?

McHrozni

I'm not.

I'm saying why hoards of Muslims don't protest en masse.

They have enough grief at airports.

Strangely some groups don't feel the need to apologise for an American nutter

 

[A'isha]

Q 47:4 So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens. That [is the command]. And if Allah had willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them [Himself], but [He ordered armed struggle] to test some of you by means of others. And those who are killed in the cause of Allah - never will He waste their deeds.

This interpretation basically means Muslims are allowed to take prisoners or "other favors" instead of killing religious enemies.

No, it means to "confer favor" on the prisoner, ie let them go without any consideration or recompense. Almost all translations, including the official Saudi Khan and al-Hilali one, use phrasings like "release them out of grace/generosity" or "release them freely".

al-Tabari (d. 923 AD) also thought it applied only to the polytheists of Mecca, and that it and Q 47:4 were linked together to create a single protocol for dealing with enemy prisoners.

Muslims are not obliged to kill the unbelievers. They can also ransom or enslave them

Per 47:4 (and especially as al-Tabari understood it), the additional choices are ransom them or freely let them go.

- or, as 9:6-7 say, convert them. This is not sufficiently far from the demand to "convert or die" to constitute any sort of meaningful improvement.

9:6 says, in the words of the same al-Suyuti from above, "And if any one of the idolaters (ahadun, ‘one’, is in the nominative because of the [following] verb [istajāraka, ‘seeks your protection’] that validates it) seeks your protection, requests security from you against being killed, then grant him protection, provide security for him, so that he might hear the words of God — the Qur’ān — and afterward convey him to his place of security, that is, the dwelling-places of his folk, if he does not believe, so that he might reflect upon his situation — that, which is mentioned, is because they are a people who do not know, the religion of God, and so they must [be made to] hear the Qur’ān in order to [come to] know [religion]."

That is, if a polytheist surrenders, ensure his safety, tell him about Islam, then take him to his "place of safety" in his homeland to think about it.

9:7 says, using the same Sahih International translation you were using, "How can there be for the polytheists a treaty in the sight of Allah and with His Messenger, except for those with whom you made a treaty at al-Masjid al-Haram? So as long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him]."

IE, if you've made a treaty at the Sacred Mosque with polytheists, as long as those polytheists stay true to the treaty, you stay true to it too.

You'd be making a better favor for Islam if you had just kept quiet. If that's the very best defense of Islam one can offer, then it really has no redeeming features that would be worth mentioning.

Well, it helps when one doesn't make a total dog's breakfast of things, like you did.

 

[Belz...]

Strangely some groups don't feel the need to apologise for an American nutter

And again, one wouldn't ask Americans to apologise for lone nutters in other countries.