Disproving the link between Islam and Terrorism

Yasir Qadhi

Ok, so, let's review what we're learning so far about the Paris attackers:

Two of them owned a bar. One was a regular hashish user. Another never prayed in the mosque and grew up in a life of petty crimes and a series of girlfriends. None of them studied the Islamic tradition. Disenfranchised, isolated, ignorant. (And before people start saying that this is what the media says, realize that most of this information is being relayed from family and friends).

Oh, and of course: they intentionally left a fake Syrian passport at the scene of the crime so as to make it even more difficult for innocent Syrian refugees to find asylum in Europe.

And these are the people leading the 'jihad' to free Muslim lands?!?
Yup, fits the bill perfectly actually. In all cases, the stereotype of a 'radical terrorist' is exactly as above.

Why is it that only such people are recruited by the extremists? Because they have absolutely nothing to begin with. No knowledge. No intelligence. No education. No life. Because if they had *any* of these characteristics to begin with, they would know how utterly vile and counterproductive such actions are.

Already, dozens of Islamophobic attacks have been reported across the Western world. Many countries and states have announced plans to stop any more asylum seekers from entering their lands. Mosques have been burned or vandalized. More attacks against Muslim lands have already been launched, and no doubt others will continue to follow. And the mood in many circles becomes even more irrational as it spires maddeningly closer to calls for total surveillance, or curtailing of religious rights, or mass expulsion, or perhaps even genocide of all Muslims.

Truly, as our Prophet (salla Allahu alayhi wa sallam) said of such groups: their speech is beautiful, yet their actions are ugly, they quote the Quran, yet have absolutely no understanding of it, and those whom they fight in the name of Islam (ie., the majority of the Muslim world!) are closer to Islam than they are.

https://www.facebook.com/yasir.qadhi/posts/10153454093413300

And yet some were French nationals, which why would there be any other reason that they would murder French people?

Connections

Islam
Martydom
A belief of Jihad
Transgression


So the case against them is in regards to if they were praticing Muslims

What a poor apologetic argument denying the fact with out the above connections I gave, no such attack would have been committed by them

Didge wrote:And yet some were French nationals, which why would there be any other reason that they would murder French people?

Connections

Islam
Martydom
A belief of Jihad
Transgression


So the case against them is in regards to if they were praticing Muslims

What a poor apologetic argument denying the fact with out the above connections I gave, no such attack would have been committed by them

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:And yet some were French nationals, which why would there be any other reason that they would murder French people?

Connections

Islam
Martydom
A belief of Jihad
Transgression


So the case against them is in regards to if they were praticing Muslims

What a poor apologetic argument denying the fact with out the above connections I gave, no such attack would have been committed by them

 

So this is what Muslims are doing desperate to disassociate any connection, for example:

People who knew Aitboulahcen, seen posing in a photograph, making V signs to the camera, described her as an 'extrovert' who drank alcohol and said she was nicknamed 'the cowgirl' for her habit of wearing cowboy hats.
A former acquaintance in the town of Creutzwald, near Metz, where she frequently visited her father, told the Républicain Lorrain newspaper: "She was an extravert, a bit lost .She didn't really look like a suicide bomber and she drank alcohol."

They miss the vital points like this:

However, neighbours said he had not been seen in the town in the past five years. Since she was last seen in Creutzwald she has clearly been radicalised, judging by her Facebook page, which Belgian news website DH.be has seen.
In it she can be seen wearing a niqab and brandishing firearms. She also wrote messages praising Hayat Boumeddienne - the wife of Amedy Coulibaly, the Jewish supermarket killer in Paris last January - who fled to Syria.
Like Boumeddienne she tried to travel to Syria, but never managed to. She is said to have written on her Facebook page in pigeon French: "I’ll soon by on my way to Syria God willing. Soon leaving for Turkey.”
Having failed to join IS overseas she subsequently "offered her services to commit terrorist attacks in France", according to French police sources.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/12004720/Paris-attacks-female-suicide-bomber-shouted-Help-me-Help-me-to-police-during-Saint-Denis-raid.html


Clearly radicalized and I think it is very disingenuous for some Muslims to try and yet again make poor views it has nothing to do with Islam when core beliefs are fundemental to the extremists like Martydom, trangression, Jihad.

Zack, can I ask you a question?

Do you think ISiS works for someone other than an extremist Muslim group?

Red this and tell me if this is where you're thinking lies:http://www.newsfixboard.com/t12420-some-people-are-so-naive-and-stupid-as-to-think-that-no-government-would-kill-its-own-citizens-but-governments-do-so-all-the-time

eddie wrote:Zack, can I ask you a question?

Do you think ISiS works for someone other than an extremist Muslim group?

Red this and tell me if this is where you're thinking lies:http://www.newsfixboard.com/t12420-some-people-are-so-naive-and-stupid-as-to-think-that-no-government-would-kill-its-own-citizens-but-governments-do-so-all-the-time

There are a lot of conspiracies going around Eddie. Like all of us, we have no real evidence. There are already videos on YouTube trying to prove the attacks never happened.

But Isis really are a suspicious organisation. Notice how the Arab Spring stopped. Something the US wanted because they knew true democracy would mean leaders being elected who didn't share western values. Look at Egypt. Need I say more?

Then let's look at who started funding Isis. The Saudi's? Might look like that but then why were the US supplying arms to the Saudi's? Did the US want a proxy like Saudi to arm Isis?

Doesn't the leader of Isis have connections with the CIA?

So many questions. None of them lead to Muslims trying to dominate the world or Islam condoning terror.

Im beginning to think this way too Zack.
An ex-marine, Kenneth O'Keefe has spoken out (thread here in U.S. News)

I've been really looking into all this Zack. People say it's all conspiracies - but theses "stories" have to start somewhere! And what has an ex-marine got to gain from speaking out?

Some of these false flag events are highly suspect.

So 4 extremist groups all follow Wahhabism.
And some claim it has nothing to do with Islam, even though Saudi has been exporting this Islamic doctrine for sometime now.
Where do these extremists get the justifications for many of their acts?
Simply many hadiths of the life of Muhammad, which I have said many times islam needs to distance itself from, as they are unreliable and it gives not only reason to far right groups to discrminate against Muslins but it gives reason to extremists to commit violent acts.
The biggest problem of all though is a belief that the best and most glorified way into heaven in Islam is through death in the cause of islam.
Who qualified say what that cause is?

Didge wrote:So 4 extremist groups all follow Wahhabism.
And some claim it has nothing to do with Islam, even though Saudi has been exporting this Islamic doctrine for sometime now.
Where do these extremists get the justifications for many of their acts?
Simply many hadiths of the life of Muhammad, which I have said many times islam needs to distance itself from, as they are unreliable and it gives not only reason to far right groups to discrminate against Muslins but it gives reason to extremists to commit violent acts.
The biggest problem of all though is a belief that the best and most glorified way into heaven in Islam is through death in the cause of islam.
Who qualified say what that cause is?

These Smelly/Mentor arguments are so 2000 and as you can see, nobody is buying that narrative anymore.

As I've showed in the 10 rules of warfare prescribed by the prophet, Isis contradict the rules of Islam.

You clearly don't know your Hadith. You obviously haven't read the volumes, as you've barely read the Quran. So your point of view is based on the ignorance of anti Islamic websites.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:So 4 extremist groups all follow Wahhabism.
And some claim it has nothing to do with Islam, even though Saudi has been exporting this Islamic doctrine for sometime now.
Where do these extremists get the justifications for many of their acts?
Simply many hadiths of the life of Muhammad, which I have said many times islam needs to distance itself from, as they are unreliable and it gives not only reason to far right groups to discrminate against Muslins but it gives reason to extremists to commit violent acts.
The biggest problem of all though is a belief that the best and most glorified way into heaven in Islam is through death in the cause of islam.
Who qualified say what that cause is?

These Smelly/Mentor arguments are so 2000 and as you can see, nobody is buying that narrative anymore.

As I've showed in the 10 rules of warfare prescribed by the prophet, Isis contradict the rules of Islam.

You clearly don't know your Hadith. You obviously haven't read the volumes, as you've barely read the Quran. So your point of view is based on the ignorance of anti Islamic websites.

You see this is why you are too immature to understand many things and why you fail to grasp the problems. You may well believe that what you say is true, but the fundemental fact is ISIS as well as Al-Qaeda etc believe otherwise and we do not see you and many other Muslims condemn Wahhabism as contradicting Islam do we? Though who is going to be openly critical of Islam and thus ensure they are denied access to Mecca, which shows how Muslims prefer to be silent to wrongs within the faith. You then made the same mistakes with hadiths also. Where again it is one of the biggest fundemental errors and issues with Islam itself, where there is no originals from the time and not only that if they vary in any slight variance would contradict the Quran. Because how can something claim to be the final message and have anything omitted? As it would be governed within its pages. Its is one of the many flaws in the islamic belief and all of which allows some of the more outdated criminal punishments within Islam. You elevate Muhammad to God status, basing supposed claims to what Muhammad did as Sura's of Muhammad on a par with Sura's of Allah. I mean does it not strike you that he would place all things that are wrong and what is to be done about them in the Quran? Are you claiming Allah is complacent? I mean I thought Muslims believed he was perfect? So why is it Muslims take also what is in the hadiths to then create further laws and punishments off them? You see if you logically looked at your own faith are not the fables told around its history, you might start to question things.

 So if as you believe ISIS contradict Islam, then why are you and not millions of Muslims openly critical of Wahhabism? Its not based on any ignoirance because Islam is nothing more than works than are unreliable and if you are going to base it on anything then the vast majority of Muslims contradict their own faith by using other written works not substanciated. Which could easily have been written way after having no relevance to the time of Muhammad and then would be again based on faith alone.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

These Smelly/Mentor arguments are so 2000 and as you can see, nobody is buying that narrative anymore.

As I've showed in the 10 rules of warfare prescribed by the prophet, Isis contradict the rules of Islam.

You clearly don't know your Hadith. You obviously haven't read the volumes, as you've barely read the Quran. So your point of view is based on the ignorance of anti Islamic websites.

You see this is why you are too immature to understand many things and why you fail to grasp the problems. You may well believe that what you say is true, but the fundemental fact is ISIS as well as Al-Qaeda etc believe otherwise and we do not see you and many other Muslims condemn Wahhabism as contradicting Islam do we? Though who is going to be openly critical of Islam and thus ensure they are denied access to Mecca, which shows how Muslims prefer to be silent to wrongs within the faith. You then made the same mistakes with hadiths also. Where again it is one of the biggest fundemental errors and issues with Islam itself, where there is no originals from the time and not only that if they vary in any slight variance would contradict the Quran. Because how can something claim to be the final message and have anything omitted? As it would be governed within its pages. Its is one of the many flaws in the islamic belief and all of which allows some of the more outdated criminal punishments within Islam. You elevate Muhammad to God status. So if as you believe ISIS contradict Islam, then why are you and not millions of Muslims openly critical of Wahhabism? Its not based on any ignoirance because Islam is nothing more than works than are unreliable and if you are going to base it on anything then the vast majority of Muslims contradict their own faith by using other written works not substanciated. Which could easily have been written way after having no relevance to the time of Muhammad and then would be again based on faith alone.

What makes you think Wahabism is a problem?

Becuase people on the internet say so? Lol!

Wahabis don't get involved in any thing other than religion. They don't get involved in politics or social injustice. But you didn't even know that. Lol!

You are thinking of another type of ideology. Do you even know it's name? Please tell me so I can be assured you're not totally naive.

If the Wahabis are so evil, why do the US fund them? Let's see you answer that.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


You see this is why you are too immature to understand many things and why you fail to grasp the problems. You may well believe that what you say is true, but the fundemental fact is ISIS as well as Al-Qaeda etc believe otherwise and we do not see you and many other Muslims condemn Wahhabism as contradicting Islam do we? Though who is going to be openly critical of Islam and thus ensure they are denied access to Mecca, which shows how Muslims prefer to be silent to wrongs within the faith. You then made the same mistakes with hadiths also. Where again it is one of the biggest fundemental errors and issues with Islam itself, where there is no originals from the time and not only that if they vary in any slight variance would contradict the Quran. Because how can something claim to be the final message and have anything omitted? As it would be governed within its pages. Its is one of the many flaws in the islamic belief and all of which allows some of the more outdated criminal punishments within Islam. You elevate Muhammad to God status. So if as you believe ISIS contradict Islam, then why are you and not millions of Muslims openly critical of Wahhabism? Its not based on any ignoirance because Islam is nothing more than works than are unreliable and if you are going to base it on anything then the vast majority of Muslims contradict their own faith by using other written works not substanciated. Which could easily have been written way after having no relevance to the time of Muhammad and then would be again based on faith alone.

What makes you think Wahabism is a problem?

Becuase people on the internet say so? Lol!

Wahabis don't get involved in any thing other than religion. They don't get involved in politics or social injustice. But you didn't even know that. Lol!

You are thinking of another type of ideology. Do you even know it's name? Please tell me so I can be assured you're not totally naive.

If the Wahabis are so evil, why do the US fund them? Let's see you answer that.

Many things that it allows to view other Muslims as infidels that do not follow the Wahhbis doctrine, or have you never read of the early butchers carried out by people of this sect? Have you read any of the history. It is a very neo conservative form of islam, so to claim they do not get involved is a complete fabrication. The Saudi law is based on Wahhabism doctrine, so I guess you did not know that. Llike I say you refuse to speak out on any belief system in Islam. Why because the Saudi's control Mecca and if you do not think Wahhabism is derisive, then you clearly back the worst forms of punishemnt invented from Hadiths in  Islam.
I do not think the west should have anything to do with Saudi, until they progress their form of Islam, but nice to see you many points made. I mean has it not even crossed your mind that the 4 biggest groups of etremists in islam are adherants of Wahhabism? Those that kill many Muslims?
Talk abouyt having your head firmly stuck in the sand and it backs my view of why Muslims fear to even speck out on wrongs within Muslim sects themselves

Some researchers are pointing out that Iran is one of only three countries left in the world whose central bank is not under Rothschild control. Before 9-11 there were reportedly seven: Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, North Korea and Iran. By 2003, however, Afghanistan and Iraq were swallowed up by the Rothschild octopus, and by 2011 Sudan and Libya were also gone. In Libya, a Rothschild bank was established in Benghazi while the country was still at war.

Since the Rothschilds took over the Bank of England around 1815, they have been expanding their banking control over all the countries of the world. Their method has been to get a country’s corrupt politicians to accept massive loans, which they can never repay, and thus go into debt to the Rothschild banking powers. If a leader refuses to accept the loan, he is oftentimes either ousted or assassinated. And if that fails, invasions can follow, and a Rothschild usury-based bank is established.

The Rothschilds exert powerful influence over the world’s major news agencies.

Try reading something that is not Muslim biased based for a change


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/isis-wahhabism-saudi-arabia_b_5717157.html


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-yousaf-butt-/saudi-wahhabism-islam-terrorism_b_6501916.html

eddie wrote:Some researchers are pointing out that Iran is one of only three countries left in the world whose central bank is not under Rothschild control. Before 9-11 there were reportedly seven: Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, North Korea and Iran. By 2003, however, Afghanistan and Iraq were swallowed up by the Rothschild octopus, and by 2011 Sudan and Libya were also gone. In Libya, a Rothschild bank was established in Benghazi while the country was still at war.

Since the Rothschilds took over the Bank of England around 1815, they have been expanding their banking control over all the countries of the world. Their method has been to get a country’s corrupt politicians to accept massive loans, which they can never repay, and thus go into debt to the Rothschild banking powers. If a leader refuses to accept the loan, he is oftentimes either ousted or assassinated. And if that fails, invasions can follow, and a Rothschild usury-based bank is established.

The Rothschilds exert powerful influence over the world’s major news agencies.

This is what I think it's all about

Sorry Eddie, but I do not really have much views on the paranoid views of conspiracy theorists when they are based on assumptions.
No disrespect meant either to you

Didge wrote:Sorry Eddie, but I do not really have much views on the paranoid views of conspiracy theorists when they are based on assumptions.
No disrespect meant either to you

Which bit is bullshit?

The global power of the Rothschilds?

Their dominance in world banking?

That Iran were not signatories?

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

What makes you think Wahabism is a problem?

Becuase people on the internet say so? Lol!

Wahabis don't get involved in any thing other than religion. They don't get involved in politics or social injustice. But you didn't even know that. Lol!

You are thinking of another type of ideology. Do you even know it's name? Please tell me so I can be assured you're not totally naive.

If the Wahabis are so evil, why do the US fund them? Let's see you answer that.

Many things that it allows to view other Muslims as infidels that do not follow the Wahhbis doctrine, or have you never read of the early butchers carried out by people of this sect? Have you read any of the history. It is a very neo conservative form of islam, so to claim they do not get involved is a complete fabrication. The Saudi law is based on Wahhabism doctrine, so I guess you did not know that. Llike I say you refuse to speak out on any belief system in Islam. Why because the Saudi's control Mecca and if you do not think Wahhabism is derisive, then you clearly back the worst forms of punishemnt invented from Hadiths in  Islam.
I do not think the west should have anything to do with Saudi, until they progress their form of Islam, but nice to see you many points made. I mean has it not even crossed your mind that the 4 biggest groups of etremists in islam are adherants of Wahhabism? Those that kill many Muslims?
Talk abouyt having your head firmly stuck in the sand and it backs my view of why Muslims fear to even speck out on wrongs within Muslim sects themselves

So if Wahabis see Orthodox Sunni Muslim as aspostates, why do you think they will listen to any Sunni? See how ridiculous your early demand on moderates is now?

But as I said before, regardless of their theology the Wahabis is not a terrorist ideology. Their ideology doesn't allow for politics which is why they work with the Saud family. D'UH!

The terrorist ideology is QUTBISM. Look that up and catch up.

h

eddie wrote:Some researchers are pointing out that Iran is one of only three countries left in the world whose central bank is not under Rothschild control. Before 9-11 there were reportedly seven: Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, North Korea and Iran. By 2003, however, Afghanistan and Iraq were swallowed up by the Rothschild octopus, and by 2011 Sudan and Libya were also gone. In Libya, a Rothschild bank was established in Benghazi while the country was still at war.

Since the Rothschilds took over the Bank of England around 1815, they have been expanding their banking control over all the countries of the world. Their method has been to get a country’s corrupt politicians to accept massive loans, which they can never repay, and thus go into debt to the Rothschild banking powers. If a leader refuses to accept the loan, he is oftentimes either ousted or assassinated. And if that fails, invasions can follow, and a Rothschild usury-based bank is established.

The Rothschilds exert powerful influence over the world’s major news agencies.

Don't let pseudo historians throw you off.

Look up the work of Niall Ferguson and the House of Rothschild.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:Sorry Eddie, but I do not really have much views on the paranoid views of conspiracy theorists when they are based on assumptions.
No disrespect meant either to you

Which bit is bullshit?

The global power of the Rothschilds?

Their dominance in world banking?

That Iran were not signatories?

What he said ^^^^

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:Sorry Eddie, but I do not really have much views on the paranoid views of conspiracy theorists when they are based on assumptions.
No disrespect meant either to you

Which bit is bullshit?

The global power of the Rothschilds?

Their dominance in world banking?

That Iran were not signatories?

All the ssumptions based off a group who is Jewish, which Muslims have a hatred for.
You see what do you have to go on here and what is there to back up that anything is wrong?
Paranoia

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:



Many things that it allows to view other Muslims as infidels that do not follow the Wahhbis doctrine, or have you never read of the early butchers carried out by people of this sect? Have you read any of the history. It is a very neo conservative form of islam, so to claim they do not get involved is a complete fabrication. The Saudi law is based on Wahhabism doctrine, so I guess you did not know that. Llike I say you refuse to speak out on any belief system in Islam. Why because the Saudi's control Mecca and if you do not think Wahhabism is derisive, then you clearly back the worst forms of punishemnt invented from Hadiths in  Islam.
I do not think the west should have anything to do with Saudi, until they progress their form of Islam, but nice to see you many points made. I mean has it not even crossed your mind that the 4 biggest groups of etremists in islam are adherants of Wahhabism? Those that kill many Muslims?
Talk abouyt having your head firmly stuck in the sand and it backs my view of why Muslims fear to even speck out on wrongs within Muslim sects themselves

So if Wahabis see Orthodox Sunni Muslim as aspostates, why do you think they will listen to any Sunni? See how ridiculous your early demand on moderates is now?

But as I said before, regardless of their theology the Wahabis is not a terrorist ideology. Their ideology doesn't allow for politics which is why they work with the Saud family. D'UH!

The terrorist ideology is QUTBISM. Look that up and catch up.

OMG you see this is why it is pointless trying to resolve the problem of extremism in Islam, when Muslims like yourself refuse to see the many problems and in worse refuse to condemn things like Wahhabism itself.
Tell kme are you from the school of wahhabism?
At the end of the day you fail to understand where the teachings of derisive views come from of the worst discrmination is found within Islam and most of that comes from Saudi itself and at every turn you fail to condemn this and you wonder why more and kore people come to see Islam as a problem when Muslims themselves fail to recognise these problems and as you do now poorly defend evenb wahhabism.

Truly shocking and its clearly is backing up my suspicion about you

eddie wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Which bit is bullshit?

The global power of the Rothschilds?

Their dominance in world banking?

That Iran were not signatories?

What he said ^^^^

All you need to understand about Zack is either he backs antisemitism or poorly buys into antisemtic conpiracies theories


http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/International_Jewish_conspiracy


http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rothschild_family


When the view is something also once promoted and started by the Nazi's Eddie, i would seriously take stock of what you are being mislead into believing

Be very careful what you buy into as you end up aiding antisemitism itself Eddie and I do not want to see you badly mislead.