Is Islam synonymous with terrorism?

a reply to: Sahabi

Thanks for indulging me Sahabi, but you have committed the ultimate debate sin (lol)...
I read your posts often, and you have taught me a lot so it is good to speak with you.

However...
You have left out important information from Surah 9, after Ayats 1-5.

Specifically 9:13 which states "would you not fight people who broke their oaths and conspired to expel the messenger, and it was they who started fighting against you first"....

This is clearly, again, referencing self defence.



Now as for your first post, re the caravan assaults, I cannot, nor can you, confirm what we have heard about these attacks 1400 years later.
It is merely hearsay that it was unprovoked.

And all in all, it is not proscribed for us to get involved in ambushes in Quranic revelations.

So again I'd still like to see more from you regarding the Quran and non-selfdefence violence.

I've never found it in my 5 years of reading the Quran.
I certainly wouldn't have converted if I had.


The Farewell Sermon can be interpreted how you have, it can also be interpreted in the sense of no superiority besides "good actions"...
That is an important distinction, separate from Worship.
So I choose to see the good in it.

As for the Hadith...
Well you maybe correct that more followers adhere to them, however Quranist are the fastest growing sect by far in this day and age.

People are asking more and more questions of the Hadith.

I'll leave you with this...
"So in which hadith, other than this (Quran), do they believe?" Surah 77:50



Salam Alaikum.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

Assalaamu alaikum. Thank you for the kind words. I am honored that I may have helped you learn some things in the past, and I hope it is only love and compassion that results

Thank you for bringing up ayah 13. Verse 13 is indeed a verse directed toward those who broke their treaties first, but the rest of the chapter is inclusive, being directed at more groups than only treaty breakers.

Verse 3 is clearly a complete disassociation of Allah and Muhammad from all of the disbelievers, and verse 4 says to only honor treaties until the terms expire, then to go forth in alms tax, conversion, or war.

On one hand, Muslims are ordered to honor treaties until the terms of expiration come to pass, then verse 13 goes on to deal with treaty breakers. Clearly, there is a distinction here.

If we look a little further to verses 23 of the same chapter, we see that the Qur'an goes on to wedge a divide between family members simply on the merit of disbelief over belief:

"O you who have believed, do not take your fathers or your brothers as allies if they have preferred disbelief over belief. And whoever does so among you - then it is those who are the wrongdoers."

Then in verse 28, it goes on to mention that polytheists are an unclean people:

"O you who have believed, indeed the polytheists are unclean, so let them not approach al-Masjid al-Haram after this, their [final] year. And if you fear privation, Allah will enrich you from His bounty if He wills. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Wise."

We then have an overall and general ordination for war, conversion, or alms taxes against those who do not believe in Islam and break Islamic theocratic laws in verse 29:

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled."

While verse 13 is speaking about treaty breakers, the rest of the chapter mentions many other instances of non-believers. Verse 30 goes on to invoke Allah's destruction upon the Jews and Christians:

"The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah "; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah ." That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?"

"re the caravan assaults, I cannot, nor can you, confirm what we have heard about these attacks 1400 years later.
It is merely hearsay that it was unprovoked."

These are not my speculations or interpretation of the Caravan Raids, they are according to all Islamic historians. According to Islamic historic narratives and biographies, Muhammad and the Muslims attacked the caravans, unprovoked, as general revenge and retaliation against the non-muslim Meccans who harassed and terrorized the Meccan-Muslims, and against the pagan Meccans who gained the property of the emigrated Muslims.

This would be like,.... attacking and robbing international McDonald's restaurants because someone was an enemy or war-victim of the U.S. government or military. Would these attacks, robberies, and deaths of McDonald's employees and businesses be just acts of righteousness in retaliation against the U.S. government or military?

The Caravan Raid narrative is an Islamic narrative, not my own.

"The Farewell Sermon can be interpreted how you have, it can also be interpreted in the sense of no superiority besides "good actions"...
That is an important distinction, separate from Worship.
So I choose to see the good in it."

"Good Actions" are mentioned in the sermon, but as most philosophers have come to know, "good" and "evil" are relative and subjective terms. In this circumstance, the context is given to us by the the word preceding "good actions", i.e., Taqwa. [2] [3].

As we know, "Taqwa" is an all-encompassing word that means having a fear of Allah that directs one to obey Islam and reject Islamic sin. Therefore, "taqwa" is a quality that only a Muslim can have.

Muhammad's Farewell Sermon is specifically referencing the "good actions" of fearing and obeying Allah. It is hardly a call for universal goodness.

Quranist are the fastest growing sect by far in this day and age.

• When Muhammad left Mecca and emigrated to Medina, was it not Muhammad's forces who provoked the Meccans by launching caravan raids? Caravan Raids

• Was it not the Muslim Medinans who drew first blood against the Meccan pagans? Nakhla Raid

• Were not all military campaigns launched on foreign soil, outside the sovereignty of Medina? Military Campaigns of Muhammad

• Were not the assassinations & military campaigns of Muhammad launched offensively and preemptively, based upon rumor, alliance, and refusal to pay tribute and tax?

• Did not Muhammad practice offensive/preemptive assassinations and militarism up until his death?

• Did not Muhammad's immediate successors launch offensive/preemptive military campaigns against religious dissenters, apostates, and political dissidents? Ridda Wars.


You can be a Qur'anist all that you want. You can reject all Hadith, and you can even discard historic accounts. But this doesn't negate the fact that Muhammad and all of his successors used war to expand their realm, convert non-muslims, and increase their collection of alms taxes.

By only looking to the Qur'an and ignoring actual historic events is like a Neo-Neo-Nazi who touts Naziism and its good ideas by referring only to the book "Mein Kampf", while being in blind denial and disregarding the historic actions of Adolf Hitler, the Third Reich, and the events of World War II.

Actions speak louder than words, and while the Qur'an makes many mentions of self-defense, Muhammad is clearly a lying hypocrite and disobedient to those calls for self-defense, because his actions were outside the realm of self-defense. Speak self-defense but launch unprovoked preemptive war of expansion, conversion, and alms tax. Purely hypocritical.