Terrorism and the Quran

Would terrorism exist if the quran did not? is the Muslim religion directly responsible for terrorism? Sure there are a few crazy people throughout history who do bad things that can be considered terrorism but it seems like the muslim religion through out history were the main or direct cause of organized terrorism.
youtube.com/watch?v=VRFKKWbxcQ4&lc=z12gdh2pssezcffu5232x3kjlnrlsfr1w.1486940855395171
TL;DR Is the muslims religion directly linked to causing terrorism?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/t_Qpy0mXg8Y
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Terrorism existed before the Quran.

There'd probably be a lot less of it though.

Why do the twin towers have "islam means" written on the rooves?

Actually it means 'submission'.

Islams Means and the plane is the peace sign.

>"religion of peace"

i didn't come to debate the picture, disregard it.

>organized terrorism
key words.

>Would terrorism exist if the quran did not?

Yes

>is the Muslim religion directly responsible for terrorism?

It's only responsible for Muslim terrorism. But as cliche as it's going to sound, not all Muslims are terrorists. I'm not saying the vast majority doesn't believe in Islamic law, or that they don't believe Islamic law supersedes all other laws. Does that mean they will go and blow up a subway in a non-Muslim nation? Most of them won't. Does it mean that most of them will feel conflicted when an authoritative figure within the Islamic community calls them to wage hard Jihad? Absolutely, but most will not act on it until they absolutely have no choice or are in or close to the majority.

>seems like the muslim religion through out history were the main or direct cause of organized terrorism.

Organised terrorism is a possible doctrine for any group. Radical leftists were very organised in the US during the 70s for example. Muslims aren't the direct cause of organised terrorism, but there are Islamic groups that wage Jihad through organised terrorism/military action.

True, i would say they took the cake on this one but terrorism is such a vague word used now a days for any attack on anything. i feel like the media really diluted the meaning to use it as a blanket term.

There was no "terrorism" per se before the zionists entity was allowed to ethnically cleanse the antive population of Palestine and establish their Jewish supremacist state. A lot of the terrorism at the time was political in nature, not religion. George Habasch, a Christian Palestinian, was the head of Palestinian nationalist movement that committed a lot of terrorist attacks against civilians. They were also involved in the Black september group who perpetrated the Munich Olympic massacre. Also a Palestinian Christian by the name of Sirhan Sirhan assassinated JFK's brother, Robert F. Kennedy because of poltiical (Arab/Israeli) conflict reasons. So it is well established that Middle Eastern terrorism, at first, was secular and the motives were political, not religious.

This obviously changed later in the 20th century due to a number of reasons. Firstly, there was a coup in Iran in 1953, instigated by the CIA and MI6 because a democratically elected Iranian leader refused to sell oil to a little known company, which is now British petroleum. This coup ultimately resulted in the Islamic revolution and Iran hatred for the United States for wrecking their chance at piece and sabotaging their country. Then, in the mid 70s the United States decided to fund the religiously driven Mujahideen against the Soviet union who had decided to invade Afghanistan. Pic related is how Bin Laden, who was part of the Mujahideen, was viewed in the Western world. Needless to say, this policy of constant meddling, sabotage, and arming and funding of tribal religious fanatics came to bite the West back in the ass major league on September the eleventh.

So to answer the question whether terrorism would exist if the Quran is laying the problem too simplistically. It categorically relieves the West of any blame at all and embraces a superficial understanding of history and geopoltiics.

TLDR: Yes.

Here we have the best example of someone who sucked so much muslim propaganda that he really thought it wasn't worth his time to look what they did the other 1300years before the last 100 years..

youtu.be/t_Qpy0mXg8Y

Muslim here. You know that burning the quran is a good way to dispose of it? As a kafir, you have no use for it so its better that you burn it. But since you did it out of spite, then Allah will burn you more than this if you do not repent.

>unironically linking a Bill Warner video who can't tell the difference between Crusades and Conquests.

Name me an empire under the sun in the history of the planet that hasn't gone imperial once they had the numbers and the finances. The Spanish did it, the Brits did it, the Portugese did it, the Dutch did it, the French did it, the Japanese did it. Why do you think whole continents like Australia, Africa, North and South America speak European languages? Because they went there and conquered them and changed their culture and converted the indigenous population to Christianity. That has how history has always been. Why then sit there and whine when the Arabs did EXACTLY what is expected of empires, that is to expand their terriotry and conquer lands? Bill Warner is a fucking nut who believes in creationism despite being a so called "physicist" and you should be ashamed of linking just a silly video which literally compares Christian Crusades to Muslim conquests, conviniently glossing over Christian conquests around the fucking planet which resulted in 70% of the fucking world getting colonialised

Oh, and look up the meaning of terrorism. You seem to not know what it means.

So you're saying Islam has been a political force for most of it's existence?

Of course, it was the offical religion of the Caliphates and Empires Muslims established. You can compare it to how Christianity was the official religion of many European empires and played an enormous role in governance.

Islam means unification, combination. Its in the sense that it is the final combination of all semetic religions.

Islam is at war with the world.

Why did you post a picture of 9/11?

(You)

Here your (You).

Just making sure we were on the same page. It was a political force long before the modern concept of terrorism became a method of waging Jihad.

>Would terrorism exist if the quran did not?
No.

>is the Muslim religion directly responsible for terrorism?
>TL;DR Is the muslims religion directly linked to causing terrorism?
Yes.

>does a tree make a sound if it falls and no one hears it.
This is pretty much the question you asked? Do YOU think terrorism would exist without islam?

Do you not know o kafir, that islam will spread until the word of Allah is the highest and the word of the infidel is lowest?

>"Would terrorism exist if the Quran did not?"
Yes. There would be maybe less but would still exist. The thing is that Islamist terorrism nowadays is the one causing more damage. But even here in Europe, there is far-right and basque separatists terrorist attacks (terrorist attacks: murdering at least one person.

The thing is that Islam is the most recent of the three abrahamic religions and was born near Middle East, so taking Islam as an excuse for terrorism is like an easy way to justify terrorist actions.

>"Is the Muslim religion directly responsible for terrorism?"
Nop. We could tell that Islam is directly responsible for terrorism if at least 50% of Muslims were terrorists. But since 0,07% are terrorists...

you can make all the excuses and word play you want, Islam is direct cause of organized terrorism.

Wrong.
Its interpretation. But not the religion itself directly.

There is a huge problem on amerifat brains : seeing the world as "we're the good" and "they're the bad"
World isn't as simple as that unfortunately.

>Its interpretation.
of Islam

...

>Is the muslims religion directly linked to causing terrorism?

>of Islam
of some verses of the Quran*
5 pillars of Islam (aka the most important things in Islam in order to get to Paradise) are : Fasting, Praying, Giving money to the poor, Believing in one and only God and Hajj (going to mecca).

I can do the same with the Bible :
About people worshipping other deities : >17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

So I can basically go out tomorrow and kill everyone that doesn't worship the same God as me in the name of the Bible while shouting "Deus vult!" as much as Jihadi terorrists are shouting "Allahu akbar"

Okay, where does it states that Christians and Jews have to be killed?
The arab word for "allies" is waliy meaning "the one who guides".
Muhammad told Muslims to fight for endangered christians until the end of times too.

>I can do the same with the Bible
You can, and would still make me right.

I'm not making excuses, I'm saying there is a link between Islamic terrorism and Islamic law. If you don't consider the other ways they fight Jihad you will get tunnel vision and not appreciate the full threat of Islamic groups. But you also can't rule out organised terrorist activity by other groups. What about Mossad? Operation GLADIO? The fact that other groups have and do use organised violent action to achieve a political goals makes your statement false.

Islamic terrorists cite the koran and other Islamic texts by Islamic authorities. It's not a matter of interpretation, it's a matter of which stage of Jihad any particular Muslim or Islamic group is in on their mission to bring Islamic law to the land.

>The fact that other groups have and do use organised violent action to achieve a political goals makes your statement false.
no it doesn't

Wrong. As I said before, it's the interpretation that is dangerous.

It's a matter of interpretation since the 120 sheikhs that condemned ISIS used to cite the Quran too in order to tell ISIS that they're behaving wrong.
There are two type of Jihad, but the type of Jihad lead by islamists terrorists is the 'holy war' Jihad which has no place since Jihad can only be started under some circumstances (waging war on Muslims for example or invading Muslim countries), otherwise, they have no reason to start Jihad.

> islam doesnt institutionalize terrorism
> it's just bad interpretations

thanks mustafa.
ive never heard that taquiyya before, except EVERY TIME A MOSLEM SPEAKS

ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun
noun: terrorism
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

mohammed himself (piss be upon him as he burns in hell) exhorted his followers to use violence to compel "unbelievers" to join up, or die

Koran 2:

191. And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing. And fight not with them at Al-Masjid-al-Haram (the sanctuary at Makkah), unless they (first) fight you there. But if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.

192. But if they cease, then Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

193. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allah (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)

since anyone who doesnt submit to your shitty moon god and his opium addicted pederast "prophet" is a "wrongdoer" EVERYONE EXCEPT MUZZIES is to be killed, even in "the holy month"

as an unbeliever who despises your bullshit sandy faggy cult, i prefer my fitna to submission, and will shoot you in the face if your beard starts flapping at me.

of Islam, can't even finish the sentence yourself

your dusty pederast opium addicted illiterate camel stealing goat fucking founder used violence and terror as weapons in his "totally internal struggle to find the will of god" which "peacefully" resulted in him "mercifully" slaughtering thousands of people for declining his " generous offer"

and since he is your "excellent example" it behooves you to fuck 9 years olds, engage in the slave trade, murder anyone who doubts your holiness and beat your many (and highly unsatisfied) wives.

nobody believes your lies anymore you dirty sand nigger.

go back to somalia where your filthy kind belong.

Brainless amerifat at its finest.

Taqiyya = hiding faith in the face of persecution. I don't see why a Muslim would use taqiyya right now since we're on 4chins.

Yup, it was a war context since the Quran commands too to be nice towards those who did not wage war on Islam and Muslims. Plus, do you even know Mohamed's story lol ? Of course he was a warrior since he was outcasted of Medina by Idolaters.

Bible commands to kill non-believers too:
>If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die."

>moon God
Do you know that Middle Eastern christians says "Allahu akbar" too ? Allah is the arabic word for "God".
Jesus talked in Aramaic, and guess what, "God" in aramaic is "Aalah". So Jesus probably said "Allah" too.

Who said I was Muslim ? I know as much about Islam as Christianity.

Calm down amerifat, go swallow some burgers. Your ass doesn't even belong in America it's not your land at first. Go suck Trump's dick

no u

So you agree there are other types of Jihad but you're trying to say that the violent kind is forbidden even when radical Muslims cite correctly authoritative texts like Medina verses relating to non-believers. There's really no room for misinterpretation of the verses they cite, they're very clear. From my understanding that could mean only one of two things. They are either using taqqiya to fool non-believers in the non-Islamic world. Or they are truly opposed to the use of violence to force non-believers to submit to Islamic law. Which would make them bad Muslims.

But regardless there are still sects of extremists that accurately cite authoritative texts and fight Jihad through violent means which is the only link that really matters when you're talking about the relation between Islamic law and terrorism.

Only one other type of Jihad that is considered as the most important and that consists in fighting yourself in order to empower your faith: stop yourself from lying for example.
The thing is that radical Muslims have the same strategy as anti-Islam people; they only quot what they want to quote from the Quran and the hadith without quoting other verses/hadith that explains why the 'holy war' Jihad can't be done without any legit reason. Plus, radical muslims usually don't study the Asbab al-Nuzul or the Tafsir that are basically the two keys to understand verses/hadith. For example about some verses that deals with the fighting of non-believers, they have a specific Asbab al-Nuzul (reason of the revelation). The 8:12 for example was revealed after the battle of Badr where the Quraysh were fighting Muhammad's army. This is why this verse about killing non believers was revealed.

Yes, unfortunately there are still sectcs of extremists that justifies their deeds with authoritative texts, even if they don't completely understand it.

But Mohammed himself stated that the revelations were revealed over time and the later revelations supersede the earlier ones did he not? Let's not pretend groups like al-Qaeda are just dumb hillbillies. Their leadership comes from the upper crust of Islamic societies. We're talking medical students, real upper middle class suburbanite type upbringings.

Yes. Why because apparently people forget that the vast majority of Americans get killed by other fellow Americans than muslims. Not to mention that all the muslim terrorists groups were funded by the USA. So in reality the question should be, would terrorism exist if the usa did not?

The Quran is 1000+ years old, so of course it can be interpreted in multiple ways, so is the Bible. In the end, the "true" meaning does not really matter, you will always find extracts that encourage violence (after all these books were written in times when religion was repressed).

What does matter is that Islam is shared between many people in unstable regions of the world, so extremist views can spread far and fast and create sizeable groups of fanatics.

Would terrorism exist without Islam? Yes. There will always be people finding a cause to die for. It would be much less serious an issue though.

...

>There was no "terrorism" per se before the zionists entity
Stop right there! You are displaying dangerously American levels of historical awareness.

>Kublai... once displayed extreme annoyance at the obligation imposed upon muslims by the Koran to wage a Holy War against the "infidels"
0-8135-0627-1 page 297
It's the 1270s, Kublai manages a continent-sized empire including subject peoples from all manner of faiths. But he has a problem, and that problem is his muslim subjects waging everything from riots and pogroms, to outright war, against his non-muslim subjects. Israel doesn't exist yet but here's islamic terrorism and jihadism. On a related note, the Iranian Horde(aka the Ilkhanate) started out secular, but was constantly suppressing the muslims when said muslims wanted to go wipe out the non-muslims the next town over. Eventually the Ilkhan Mongols converted to islam, and promptly celebrated by engaging by massacring entire villages of Armenians. Perhaps the Armenians were colonialist oppressors?

My point: the jihad has been happening on and off since the very origins of islam. Blaming their behavior on recent slights is silly and it looks like you're grasping at straws to find any reason except the obvious one which looms in the back of your mind.

>and promptly celebrated by massacring entire villages of Armenians.
fixed

Quran (3:54) - "And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers."

Sahih Bukhari (52:269) - "The Prophet said, 'War is deceit.'"

Sahih Bukhari (49:857) - "He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar."

Reliance of the Traveler (p. 746 - 8.2) - "Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory... it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression...

taquiyya is not 'hiding the faith"
it is LYING about the basic tenets of your cult to conceal your perfidy

taquiyya includes making treaties you intend to break as soon as the other guy turns his back, making alliances that are intended to get you into position for treachery, and staging fake atrocities and blaming it on your opponents to gain sympathy points or frame your opponent as the villain for a third party

literally all the shit muzzies do every goddamned day.

lying about your rules for lying is retarded.
nobody believes a thing muzzies say for this very reason