a muslim's view on killing non muslims

Jings

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 6, 2012
Messages
36,049
Sadly, with firms like Bell Pottinger ruling the word, I cannot argue against your statement that "the West has deliberately created Muslim Extremist groups".

As for the rest, I think people should try their very best to abandon religion in favour of reason.
Don't you consider it's the outcome of these types of sermons shown in the OP that creates extremists?

According to Muslim religious leaders, the penalty for shirk is hell, as an example. Hell is communicated as a situation that is eternal, the sum of all fears for most Muslims. Along comes an extremist leader, in a position that is respected and offers an absolution to the sin, ie, killing of infidels guarantees a position in heaven. There is a saying that nobody is absolved from sin except for mujahideen (warriors for the faith). Muslim scriptures mention each person has their own kingdom and throne in heaven.

Often when people read about terror attacks, they don't question the reason for indoctrination by extremists. In reality, in minds of terrorists the majority of them are killing infidels to avoid hell.
 
Last edited:

copacetic

King of the Hippies
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
56,183
the narrative on this forum is that muslims have been given the divine right to kill non muslims, take note
Well, not quite - more along the lines those that do are no less Muslim that those that don't.

As distasteful as you might find the murder of non-Muslims and feel it goes against your core beliefs, well, those maniacs last night who yelled "For Allah!" while stabbing people to death in London somehow managed to derive a somewhat opposing message from the very same religion. There would not be anything to say about the topic if it didn't happen regularly enough to be problematic.

I am also, of course, not blind to the fact that Muslims are often willy-nilly bombed to death in parts of the world by the so-called good guys, so the issue as a whole is obviously a bit nuanced...
 

Xarog

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
19,041
Well, this is really the problem with religion - This gentleman quite reasonably says "true believers do not kill those who do not believe" while other believers may say "kill the infidel". Why is one any more correct than the other? The bottom line is that ANY sort of dogmatic and interpretable ideology is dangerous: if you need it to be good, what is stopping you from being good without that ideology, and if a given ideology causes a person to commit a universally accepted moral wrong, then would we not be better off discarding it altogether?
You're not really paying attention. In order for people to co-operate non-violently there has to be a set of rules which allows people's behaviour to be predictable to the other parties. That requires a certain degree of familiarity. Tribal identity is the realisation of this need.

Much like other fictional concepts such as "zero", we still need this particular symbol in our lexicon of interpersonal communication, because without it we invariably become ensnared in violent conflict. Likewise the convenient fiction of a "universally accepted moral wrong". There is as much evidence for this notion as there is for realised utopia.

So if you want to discard this whole mode of operating, you should be able to give a coherent description of what an alternative looks like. The cynic in me says no such thing exists. Personally, I think a superior approach is to make peace with our natural limitations and to seek to harmonise our strategies with those limitations rather than trying to ignore them. An instinct ignored is an instinct that asserts itself with no consideration whatsoever, and teaching people to behave in that fashion is to incubate pathological behaviour within them.
 

Xarog

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
19,041
Ok. So wtf are you doing about these damn ****ers with "their atrocious devastation"?
Why don't you tell us what you're doing about these damn fsckers besides whining anonymously on a forum Mr Internet Tough Guy?
 

adrianx

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
3,450
The Czech Republic, where most people identify as non-religious isn't exactly hell on earth.
 

Xarog

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
19,041
Perhaps I just don't have the requisite level of word salad to make it seem so.
Word salad?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_Plato,_sed_magis_amica_veritas

But perhaps it is desirable that we should examine the notion of a Universal Good, and review the difficulties that it involves, although such an inquiry goes against the grain because of our friendship for the authors of the Theory of Ideas. Still perhaps it would appear desirable, and indeed it would seem to be obligatory, especially for a philosopher, to sacrifice even one's closest personal ties in defense of the truth. Both are dear to us, yet 'tis our duty to prefer the truth.
In what meaningful way is your moral principle that is univerally accepted in any way distinct from a "universal good"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_of_the_Good
Plato describes "The Form of the Good", or more literally "the idea of the good" (ἡ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ἰδέα), in his dialogue the Republic (508e2–3), speaking through the character of Socrates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plotinus#Christianity

Plotinus' philosophy had an influence on the development of Christian theology. In A History of Western Philosophy, philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote that:

To the Christian, the Other World was the Kingdom of Heaven, to be enjoyed after death; to the Platonist, it was the eternal world of ideas, the real world as opposed to that of illusory appearance. Christian theologians combined these points of view, and embodied much of the philosophy of Plotinus. [...] Plotinus, accordingly, is historically important as an influence in moulding the Christianity of the Middle Ages and of theology.[22]
And now back to the first link:

Bacon's reference to the Nicomachean Ethics and a book of secrets is the pseudo-Aristotelian compilation, the Secretum Secretorum, translated into Latin from the Arabic in the twelfth or early thirteenth century. Henry Guerlac points out that the proverb appears in differing forms in a Life of Aristotle [2] found in three distinct mediaeval manuscripts, two Greek and one Latin. Thomas Aquinas relies on the same source while proving the point in Sententia libri Ethicorum, Liber 1, Lectio 6, n. 4-5:[3]

That truth should be preferred to friends he proves in this way. He is the greater friend for whom we ought to have the greater consideration. Although we should have friendship for both truth and our fellow man, we ought rather to love truth because we should love our fellow man especially on account of truth and virtue, as will be shown in the eighth book (1575-1577). Now truth is a most excellent friend of the sort to whom the homage of honor is due. Besides truth is a divine thing, for it is found first and chiefly in God. He concludes, therefore, that it is virtuous to honor truth above friends.
Andronicus, the peripatetic, says that piety makes men faithful to and observant of the things of God. Along the same line is the judgment of Plato who, in rejecting the opinion of his teacher Socrates, says a man ought to care more for truth than anything; and elsewhere says: "though Socrates is a friend, truth is a greater friend"; and in another place: "with Socrates concern yourself but little, but with truth much".
Christianity is nothing less than an attempt to philosophically explicate what a Universal Good is. Aquinas had to create another world (the supernatural world) to bring Platonism and Aristotileanism together. You're crapping on the very foundations you rest your argument upon and you don't even realise it.

Here's the preface to Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil:

SUPPOSING that Truth is a woman—what then? Is there not ground for suspecting that all philosophers, in so far as they have been dogmatists, have failed to understand women—that the terrible seriousness and clumsy importunity with which they have usually paid their addresses to Truth, have been unskilled and unseemly methods for winning a woman? Certainly she has never allowed herself to be won; and at present every kind of dogma stands with sad and discouraged mien—IF, indeed, it stands at all! For there are scoffers who maintain that it has fallen, that all dogma lies on the ground—nay more, that it is at its last gasp. But to speak seriously, there are good grounds for hoping that all dogmatizing in philosophy, whatever solemn, whatever conclusive and decided airs it has assumed, may have been only a noble puerilism and tyronism; and probably the time is at hand when it will be once and again understood WHAT has actually sufficed for the basis of such imposing and absolute philosophical edifices as the dogmatists have hitherto reared: perhaps some popular superstition of immemorial time (such as the soul-superstition, which, in the form of subject- and ego-superstition, has not yet ceased doing mischief): perhaps some play upon words, a deception on the part of grammar, or an audacious generalization of very restricted, very personal, very human—all-too-human facts. The philosophy of the dogmatists, it is to be hoped, was only a promise for thousands of years afterwards, as was astrology in still earlier times, in the service of which probably more labour, gold, acuteness, and patience have been spent than on any actual science hitherto: we owe to it, and to its "super-terrestrial" pretensions in Asia and Egypt, the grand style of architecture. It seems that in order to inscribe themselves upon the heart of humanity with everlasting claims, all great things have first to wander about the earth as enormous and awe-inspiring caricatures: dogmatic philosophy has been a caricature of this kind—for instance, the Vedanta doctrine in Asia, and Platonism in Europe. Let us not be ungrateful to it, although it must certainly be confessed that the worst, the most tiresome, and the most dangerous of errors hitherto has been a dogmatist error—namely, Plato's invention of Pure Spirit and the Good in Itself. But now when it has been surmounted, when Europe, rid of this nightmare, can again draw breath freely and at least enjoy a healthier—sleep, we, WHOSE DUTY IS WAKEFULNESS ITSELF, are the heirs of all the strength which the struggle against this error has fostered. It amounted to the very inversion of truth, and the denial of the PERSPECTIVE—the fundamental condition—of life, to speak of Spirit and the Good as Plato spoke of them; indeed one might ask, as a physician: "How did such a malady attack that finest product of antiquity, Plato? Had the wicked Socrates really corrupted him? Was Socrates after all a corrupter of youths, and deserved his hemlock?" But the struggle against Plato, or—to speak plainer, and for the "people"—the struggle against the ecclesiastical oppression of millenniums of Christianity (FOR CHRISTIANITY IS PLATONISM FOR THE "PEOPLE"), produced in Europe a magnificent tension of soul, such as had not existed anywhere previously; with such a tensely strained bow one can now aim at the furthest goals. As a matter of fact, the European feels this tension as a state of distress, and twice attempts have been made in grand style to unbend the bow: once by means of Jesuitism, and the second time by means of democratic enlightenment—which, with the aid of liberty of the press and newspaper-reading, might, in fact, bring it about that the spirit would not so easily find itself in "distress"! (The Germans invented gunpowder—all credit to them! but they again made things square—they invented printing.) But we, who are neither Jesuits, nor democrats, nor even sufficiently Germans, we GOOD EUROPEANS, and free, VERY free spirits—we have it still, all the distress of spirit and all the tension of its bow! And perhaps also the arrow, the duty, and, who knows? THE GOAL TO AIM AT....

Sils Maria Upper Engadine, JUNE, 1885.
Since mathematical realism is predicated upon Platonic realism in some form from a philosophical standpoint, it's not at all clear why there is a meaningful distinction between Platonic realism in mathematics and Platonic realism in morality. If you're a Platonic realist with respect to morality, you're effectively a Christian in all but name because of the way Christianity has been so heavily influenced by Platonism.

Aristotle discusses the Forms of Good in critical terms several times in both of his major surviving ethical works, the Eudemian and Nicomachean Ethics. Aristotle argues that Plato’s Form of the Good does not apply to the physical world, for Plato does not assign “goodness” to anything in the existing world. Because Plato’s Form of the Good does not explain events in the physical world, humans have no reason to believe that the Form of the Good exists and the Form of the Good is thereby irrelevant to human ethics.[3]
You question dogmatic behaviour and criticise it, but you don't seriously address the degree to which civilisation actually depends upon such behaviour for its very survival. The fact of the matter is that even our capacity to generate mathematical statements depends in part upon our capacity to behave dogmatically. Religion is no better or worse than any other expression of human behaviour when it comes to the follies of dogmatic belief. A necessary evil is still necessary.
 

adrianx

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
3,450
Slightly off topic, but as an atheist, I believe that I have more right to speak out against Islam than a Christian. So, if you are a Christian then STFU!
 

FrankCastle

Executive Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2010
Messages
6,896
Why the necro.
I while ago I had a discussion with a muslim and warned him to fact check his mullas and scholars especially when they dont give references. Whilst scrolling through the threads I came across this one and decided just to do a random check. The verse he cites in the OP appears in 17:33 of the koran.

Nor come nigh to adultery: for it is a shameful (deed) and an evil, opening the road (to other evils). 32
Nor take life - which Allah has made sacred - except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, we have given his heir authority (to demand qisas or to forgive): but let him not exceed bounds in the matter of taking life; for he is helped (by the Law). 33
Come not nigh to the orphan's property except to improve it, until he attains the age of full strength; and fulfil (every) engagement, for (every) engagement will be enquired into (on the Day of Reckoning). 34

Full Explanation:

We know that muslims resort to the context defense when challenged so here within these contexts do you think these verses refer to the killing of non-muslims?
The story of the Jew dying in his arm also sounds suspicious as it contradicts the central message of the koran.

Good talk but be honest.
 

Electra88

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 5, 2016
Messages
203
some people just want an excuse to kill and to live out their psychopathic fantasies - in this case - the MUSLIM FAITH is the scapegoat.
 

Electra88

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 5, 2016
Messages
203
the point of the post was to clarify Islam's view on murder, not to question the validity of Islam, go do that in your own thread
ISLAM does not have a view, the psychopath behind the harmful ideology has
 

TysonRoux

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
5,396
some people just want an excuse to kill and to live out their psychopathic fantasies - in this case - the MUSLIM FAITH is the scapegoat.
BS

Just about every terrorist attack on innocent civilians these days is by muslim terrorists, ........HTF can that be called a "scapegoat"?
 

Brenden_E

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
4,238
yes which is why I rarely express my opinion, but prefer to work with facts, scientific methodoly and opinions of people who are experts in their field
LOL! Well this is everything you need to know about the truthfulness (or delusion) of this fella.
 
Last edited:
Top