Man plows car into crowd in Westminster Bridge (London)....Definitely a Terror Attack!

RO7 said:
This is so stupid, we have attacks here in Saudi Arabia as well as other Muslim majority countries and you don't see us blame Islam, it is utterly idiotic to even suggest that.

What is really strange, is how people would with no doubt in their mind blame Islam and start to questioning the believes of those people, but when anyone does a crimes of any sort they don't question their faith or whatever they believe in. Seriously wtf.

My condolences to the families, it is truly sad seeing two children, a women and an officer pass away.

Lobinde said:
The attacker was born in the UK. This exposes the tricky situation European countries face regarding terrorism. If you adopt an open borders policy, islamists will send in attackers within the crowds of refugees, if you close the borders or threaten to do so with something like Brexit, then islamists will radicalise some Muslims born inside the country as they can make the argument that the country is "against them" or something along those lines.

RO7 said:
@omfgplzstop What I mean by it had nothing to do with Islam, is the fact it goes against clear and explicit rules in it.

The whole region is unstable and plagued with political issues and wars with Islam sadly used as a tool to control the masses.

Muslim are just people, you will get the good and the bad, that I find reasonable, but to point to Islam every time one of these happen is absurd.

Jaln said:
When a ton of my friends were tagging themselves as "safe from the Westminster attacks" on Facebook I was worried what had happened. yet again it looks like something blown out of proportion. one crazy person means it's a terror attack apparently .

Immahnoob said:
Yeah, a single person can commit a terror attack, that's not "blown out of proportion", it can fit the definition of a terror attack.

RO7 said:
@omfgplzstop What I mean by it had nothing to do with Islam, is the fact it goes against clear and explicit rules in it.

The whole region is unstable and plagued with political issues and wars with Islam sadly used as a tool to control the masses.

Muslim are just people, you will get the good and the bad, that I find reasonable, but to point to Islam every time one of these happen is absurd.

RO7 said:
@omfgplzstop It does.

The surah does talk about war among other things , but not holy war.

Those hypocrites were forgiven when they repented in the same sura in verse 118, friendly to the non-believer who were coming to kill the Muslims, I think if that happened to a country in our time it would be an act of betrayal against the state punished by death in most countries. Another thing to note is these so called hypocrites as long as they didn't take up arms, they were unharmed.

Sure, that is how sects work. I suppose context is in order for who and what were the non-believers, hypocrites in the verses you are pointing to as well as what is the definition of martyrdom according to the Islam.

What I said about controlling the masses could be said about any religion through history

many people have declared suicide in Islam an unforgivable sin let alone suicide bombing.

A police officer dying doing his job, is called a martyr, a mother protecting her children from a killer is called that as well. It is the problem of misunderstanding such a concept that leads people into doing such things as well as ignorance of Islam in general among people.

Salvatia said:
why atacker called 'asian-looking' by witnesses tho
maeks slawa think chinese initialy

RO7 said:
@omfgplzstop you are using verses that are in the times of war to say they apply in times of peace, which is wrong, since they are contextualized to fit that time only.

first, the verse you quoted has a condition, if you actually paid attention, it said until they pay the Jizyah. It is as known to many Muslims, a tax in an Islamic state, only for the able of people, meaning it excludes, the poor, worshipers, women, children and the elderly. If those people pay it, they have protection in times of war and they are free to live their lives as they please. Moreover, fight which in the Qur'an Jahido/جاهدوا isn't limited to physical fighting, but even reasoning with people or fight them with wisdom.

"If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbors in it but a little while. Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter."

Again, those were forgiven, but the ones that kept on boasting that the Muslims will lose in the fight with the coming enemy and were trying to cause disturbance in the community were told to cease doing that, they were warned. You just ignored the warning and jumped to the conclusion.

For the befriending non-believers issue:

O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of you taketh them for friends, such are wrong-doers"

It is a matter of allies rather than friends, since the word translated as friends in the original verse is Awliyaa or Guardian. Otherwise, Islam tells Muslims to be good to their parents even if they want them to disbelieve.
Verse 60:13 proves it even further by using the same root of the word in the original Arabic. Thinking that being friends with non-Muslims is not okay is plainly false.

Many Muslim scholar say that this hadith talks about khawarj, those who rebelled against Muslims in the time of successors of the prophet as well as until the end of times. Even da'esh or Isis can be included in this hadith as well as other hadiths that talk about the nature of these people.

The other verse are in other contexts which you are free to follow them through.

For the most important issue of all, suicide.

And spend in the way of Allah and do not throw [yourselves] with your [own] hands into destruction. And do good; indeed, Allah loves the doers of good "

2:195.

Another evidence but from the hadiths, from Bukhari
Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "He who commits suicide by throttling shall keep on throttling himself in the Hell Fire (forever) and he who commits suicide by stabbing himself shall keep on stabbing himself in the Hell-Fire."

2:23:446

Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "Whoever purposely throws himself from a mountain and kills himself, will be in the (Hell) Fire falling down into it and abiding therein perpetually forever; and whoever drinks poison and kills himself with it, he will be carrying his poison in his hand and drinking it in the (Hell) Fire wherein he will abide eternally forever; and whoever kills himself with an iron weapon, will be carrying that weapon in his hand and stabbing his abdomen with it in the (Hell) Fire wherein he will abide eternally forever."

7:71:670


To actually say or even suggest that Islam encourages killing yourself is absurd by now, if you actually took the time to look into it in totality, not cherry pick what you find to fit your own understanding of what might be Islamic or not.

Anyway, I do not take offence in you saying what you said, you are entitled to your opinion and you are free to disagree with me. I do not want to turn this into something else than intended.

For Jizyah, as I said it is for people able to pay ie the wealthy , excluding women, children, elders and worshipers as in a priest or a nun in our time would be considered as such, since they can not possibly pay when they use all their time to WORSHIP. You are again mistaken, protection from people attacking the Muslims and they are not required to join in the process in an Islamic state, on the other hand Muslims have pay Zakat, which is much greater. Jizyah is next to nothing in comparison with Zakat.

Historians do not record any act of aggression by the Meccan Quraish against the Muslims during the time at which the second sura was narrated by Muhammad. There were no armies marching against them, nor any plans for such. The Meccans had little influence in this far-away town, and Muslims were not under persecution at the time by any stretch of the term, as it is understood today.

According to the sequence of events in the Sira (biography), the Meccans were quite content with leaving Muhammad alone following his eviction (even though he had made a pledge of war against them). Ibn Kathir narrates one of the adversaries as saying, "Once he has gone, we shouldn't care where he ends up or what happens to him. So long as he is gone, we'll be rid of him and we'll be able to restore our affairs as they were before." (Vol.2 p.152). And they did... or tried to, anyway.

Chronology according to Muslim historians:
There is absolutely no record of Meccan aggression against the Muslims at Medina in the first three years after their arrival in 622.

Muhammad ordered the first raids against the Meccans a year after the hijra in February of 623, which eventually proved deadly. There is no record of Quraish aggression during this time.

Word of an impending Muslim attack on a particularly rich caravan, prompted the Meccans to send an army out in defense, where they were goaded into battle and routed by the Muslims at Badr in March of 624.

The Meccans avenged their loss at Badr (and the hostages that were cruelly executed by Muhammad) by routing the Muslims at Uhud, near Medina, in March of 625. If their ultimate objective had been to kill Muhammad and his followers, then they surely would have invaded the defenseless city and defeated them. They obviously did not have any interest in doing this.

Muhammad behaved himself with the Meccans for one year, choosing to support himself instead by evicting local Jewish tribes and confiscating their property. Then he began attacking caravans in April of 626.

After a year of renewed Muslim aggression, the Meccans responded by sending an army to Medina a year later in April of 627, where they failed in a siege that is known as the 'Battle of the Trench.'

All knowledge of the battle at Badr comes from traditional Islamic accounts, both hadiths and biographies of Muhammad, recorded in written form some time after the battle. There is little evidence outside of these of the battle. There are no descriptions of the battle prior to the 9th Century.