Roels and Michael on Islam

AND FIGHT in God’s cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression - for, verily, God does not love aggressors.167 (2:191) And slay them wherever you may come upon them, and drive them away from wherever they drove you away - for oppression is even worse than killing.168 And fight not against them near the Inviolable House of Worship unless they fight against you there first;169 but if they fight against you, slay them:such shall be the recompense of those who deny the truth

But if they desist - behold, God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace.

Hence, fight against them until there is no more oppression and all worship is devoted to God alone;170 but if they desist, then all hostility shall cease, save against those who [wilfully] do wrong.

Fight during the sacred months if you are attacked:171 for a violation of sanctity is [subject to the law of] just retribution. Thus, if anyone commits aggression against you, attack him just as he has attacked you - but remain conscious of God, and know that God is with those who are conscious of Him.172

167 This and the following verses lay down unequivocally that only self-defence (in the widest sense of the word) makes war permissible for Muslims. Most of the commentators agree in that the expression la ta’tadu signifies, in this context, “do not commit aggression”; while by al-mu’tadin “those who commit aggression” are meant. The defensive character of a fight “in God’s cause” - that is, in the cause of the ethical principles ordained by God - is, moreover, self-evident in the reference to “those who wage war against you”, and has been still further clarified in 22:39 - “permission [to fight] is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged” - which, according to all available Traditions, constitutes the earliest (and therefore fundamental) Qur’anic reference to the question of jihad, or holy war (see Tabari and Ibn Kathir in their commentaries on 22:39). That this early, fundamental principle of self-defence as the only possible justification of war has been maintained throughout the Qur’an is evident from 60:8, as well as from the concluding sentence of 4:91, both of which belong to a later period than the above verse.

168 In view of the preceding ordinance, the injunction “slay them wherever you may come upon them” is valid only within the context of hostilities already in progress (Razi), on the understanding that “those who wage war against you” are the aggressors or oppressors (a war of liberation being a war “in God’s cause”). The translation, in this context, of fitnah as “oppression” is justified by the application of this term to any affliction which may cause man to go astray and to lose his faith in spiritual values (cf. Lisan al-'Arab).

169 This reference to warfare in the vicinity of Mecca is due to the fact that at the time of the revelation of this verse the Holy City was still in the possession of the pagan Quraysh, who were hostile to the Muslims. However - as is always the case with historical references in the Qur’an - the above injunction has a general import, and is valid for all times and circumstances

170 Lit., “and religion belongs to God [alone]” - i.e., until God can be worshipped without fear of persecution, and none is compelled to bow down in awe before another human being. (See also 22:40.) The term din is in this context more suitably translated as “worship” inasmuch as it comprises here both the doctrinal and the moral aspects of religion: that is to say, man’s faith as well as the obligations arising from that faith.

171 This is a free rendering of the phrase “the sacred month for the sacred month”, which is interpreted by all commentators in the sense given above. The “sacred months” during which, according to ancient Arab custom, all fighting was deemed utterly wrong, were the first, seventh, eleventh and twelfth months of the lunar calendar.

172 Thus, although the believers are enjoined to fight back whenever they are attacked, the concluding words of the above verse make it clear that they must, when fighting, abstain from all atrocities, including the killing of non-combatants.

1 Like

This shows that Allah and Yahweh are buddies when it comes to violence. Yahweh told the Jews to do similar things to pagan cities around them. Smash their idols to bits and slaughter the lot of them.

Yet Muhammad raised an army to conquer his opposers?

The Quran encourages adherents to fight unbelievers until all and sundry submit to the dictates of Islam. See some verses:

2:193 - “Fight them until there is no persecution (fitna) and the religion be only for God.”

2:190-191 - “Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but do not transgress. God does not love those who transgress. And slay them wherever you find them, and drive them out of the places from where they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter.”

1 Like

170 Lit., “and religion belongs to God [alone]” - i.e., until God can be worshipped without fear of persecution, and none is compelled to bow down in awe before another human being. (See also 22:40.) The term din is in this context more suitably translated as “worship” inasmuch as it comprises here both the doctrinal and the moral aspects of religion: that is to say, man’s faith as well as the obligations arising from that faith.

No one has the right to impose Islam on others. You are too melancholy and consume too much raw media discrediting Islam.

Quran Surah 2: 256 THERE SHALL BE no coercion in matters of faith.249 Distinct has now become the right way from [the way of] error: hence, he who rejects the powers of evil 250 and believes in God has indeed taken hold of a support most unfailing, which shall never give way: for God is all-hearing, all-knowing.

For us Islam is perfect, but Muslims are like all humans, their behavior is not perfect.

Yes, of course they will fight if they continue to be persecuted. Islam allows it. Islam is not a gentle way of life, but also has many ways of addressing life’s challenges. So nothing is too strange for a people who are fighting for the safety of their people so that they do not become extinct during times of war and chaos. Sir William Wallace in the film Braveheart also gathered soldiers to fight the persecution of the British Empire.

This shows that Allah and Yahweh are buddies when it comes to violence. Yahweh told the Jews to do similar things to pagan cities around them. Smash their idols to bits and slaughter the lot of them.

You can read the explanation of the verses above in full along with the context. If you cannot understand it, I understand, but assume that simply quoting a verse or two without context and interpretation shows that you are imposing an understanding that is contrary to what has been studied by many of the leading Muslim commentators.

This is historically false. Islam was established mostly via conquest. After his ideas failed to take root in Mecca, he fled to Medina where he was better received. After years of building a large and well-organized army, he set out to take control of Mecca. In Northern Nigeria, Islam was established via the Jihad led by Usman Dan Fodio, in which he practically got rid of the local religious practices at the time. Usman imposed Islam on the Hausa’s. The history of your religion is soaked in blood (not saying Christianity is any better, but it has a less bloody history).

Those my friend, are glaring examples of trying to force your beliefs on others. Islamic Jihadists today are following in Muhammad’s footsteps.

This is exactly why I put Allah and Yahweh in a set for warmongering gods. Yahweh promised to give Canaan to the Jews by vanquishing the other nations present in the area. Muhammad, supposedly under Allah’s guidance, wanted to conquer the entire Arab region and beyond.

I have to ask, if Islam isn’t to be imposed on others, why did Muhammad seek to rid Mecca of its indigenous religious practices and institute Islam as the de facto religion? Yes he was persecuted by Meccan authorities, but why did he choose to shed blood, instead of seeking peaceful methods to propagate his new teachings? If he had God’s backing, don’t you think he would have persisted without resorting to violence?

I am fully in support of religious freedom, but if your religion’s founder did not resort to warfare to propagate Islam, it would have been relegated to some dusty background. In addition, Islamic nations are markedly less tolerant of religions other than Islam.

I see nothing wrong in self-defense.

Thanks for admitting this. That’s why I can never be a Muslim. Its also why its easy to brainwash many Muslims into acts of terrorism.


I can understand wanting to fight back if you think your family and community, or country, or way of life is being threatened. What I can’t understand is how this can motivate someone to run into a French nightclub and mow down 90 civilians with machineguns. Or go into the Moroccan mountains to cut off the heads of two random innocent hikers.

I really wish that Islamic religious leaders had more luck in their attempts to de-radicalize, or prevent radicalization of young muslims from joining extremist terrorist organizations such as ISIL/ISIS. And yet it seems like once these people have joined these organizations, it’s become effectively impossible to convince them that they’ve got their theology wrong.

This has apparently become so much of a problem that even the Indonesian president has seen fit to label the radicalization of young muslims an “ideological terrorist virus”, and revealing that they effectively see zero hope of being able to deprogram these people of their insane fanaticism by locking out the return of indonesian citizens who have traveled abroad to join ISIS.

1 Like

This is the reason:

Hence, fight against them until there is no more oppression and all worship is devoted to God alone;170 but if they desist, then all hostility shall cease, save against those who [wilfully] do wrong.

Roel’s scholarly sources interpret this to mean just self-defence, but it seems they ignore the “all worship is devoted to God alone” part. This is what Muhammed did, eliminating every other religion to fully establish Islam. Its like successfully protecting your home from invasion by a neighbor across the street, then turning around to invade the homes of other neighbors in your block.

1 Like

I have very little insight into Islamic theology, so I can’t comment on what parts of the Qu’ran or Hadith terrorist organizations like ISIS try to derive from, to justify these heinous acts.

I just have to note that even within Islamic-majority countries they appear to have very little confidence in the ability of their Islamic scholars and theologians to deprogram or prevent radicalization of their citizens. They’d rather try to prevent people who hold such theological views from entering their countries in the first place, presumably to try to stave off the spread of these ideas, which honestly seems like a hopeless endeavor in the internet age.

And I have to note the irony that apparently there are people who describe these theological ideas as a form of mind-virus that can infect people. It’s a classic meme-theory view of religious belief. Much maligned by religious people, and here we find one using that very language to describe terrorist theology.

1 Like

In the past, in times of chaos and war, if the peaceful method did not work, then the other way to be taken was to defend yourself from people who would shed your blood too. In times of war, yes be killed or killed. In the past, it was not the era of democracy, where we were free to express our voice without risk or small risk.

Even in Indonesia today, you are not free to express your opinion without the threat of imprisonment or persecution. If the risks you take are proportional to the benefits of the survival of your people, I think it is a wise choice, although not necessarily in accordance with the universal values ​​that exist today.

Even the Prophet Muhammad’s wife was a Christian and Muhammad’s uncle was a Christian. Adhere to Islam without persecution or threat of “death”. Not necessarily true, that only a peaceful way, all problems can be resolved. The brute force required or required to solve a problem may be necessary.

And to think that God has thoughts like human beings, that only our thoughts or consensus is right is wrong, without ever knowing or feeling what people have experienced or lived at one time or another.

Religion, Violence, Tolerance & Progress: Nothing to do with theology. It is about cultural “identity” and norms.

We are not the people you should be trying to convince of this. If you can persuade people who join terrorist organizations that they’ve got their understanding of Islam wrong, then all the power to you.

I just don’t believe you can.

Now this is exactly what I mean. If you label a group of terrorists then you also have to refuse when Trump with drones bombs other generals of other countries labeled as terrorists or fighting like Muhammad Ali, rejecting the acts of terror committed by America against Vietnam, and so on. Terrorists are a new label nowadays. There is no difference between the past and the present who have power, money, power will tend to terrorize the weak.

The issue of whether I can or not is another matter. I’m just issuing my opinion.

If you run into a nightclub and gun down 90 cilivilians, I will label you a terrorist. If you behead a school teacher for showing a caricature, I will label you a terrorist.

I have zero love for Donald Trump, and I don’t support him bombing civilians, or spontaneously bombing other countries. But even if Trump does do that, that still does not justify running into a nightclub and gunning down 90 civilians with machineguns.
Two wrongs does not make a right. One guy being a murderer does not justify becoming a murderer yourself. Murder is still wrong. If I murder one of your family members, I should be thrown in jail. You are not justified in murdering members of my family, because that would be murder too. Then we’d be two people who are murderers, instead of just one.


Totally agree with this. The universal value is that killing other human souls is bad. Even with self-defense reasons, so as not to get killed or accidentally kill someone else. For this reason, there are rules that must be applied whether derived from religion, culture, and a universal consensus made by humans, the punishment for the killer.

Quran Surah 5:32
Because of this did We ordain unto the children of Israel that if anyone slays a human being unless it be [in punishment] for murder or for spreading corruption on earth - it shall be as though he had slain all mankind; whereas, if anyone saves a life, it shall be as though he had saved the lives of all mankind.40 And, indeed, there came unto them41 Our apostles with all evidence of the truth: yet, behold, notwithstanding all this, many of them go on committing all manner of excesses on earth.42

1 Like

No, no, no. Muhammed established Islam through conquest. He turned from being a persecuted man to the leader of an army united under one ideology: which was to replace other religions with Islam by force or diplomacy. Jesus was persecuted too, but nowhere do we see Jesus raising armies to conquer Jerusalem or drive out the Romans.

It doesn’t matter whether you lived in a time of democracy or not, its about whether you had God’s backing. The fact that Muhammad used warfare to establish Islam is what contributes to the public perception of Islam as an inherently violent religion. I will ask you again, if Muhammad had God’s backing, wouldn’t he have established Islam without violence?


Exactly. This is why I regard Islam as a violent (mostly historically), man-made religion. Muhammad probably recognized this and canvassed an army to expedite his religious and political aims.

I have a brain, therefore I can scrutinize the moral ramifications of an act, whether it was performed by God or man. If you can judge certain actions as good, then you can judge other actions as bad, even if it is God who does them.

1 Like

This article doesn’t rescue Islam. The fact that Muhammad used military tactics to establish Islam, and the Koran encourages Muslims to vanquish unbelievers even after resisting persecution makes Islam an inherently violent religion. You cannot easily excoriate the religious component strongly intertwined with the political ambitions of Muhammed or Islamic extremists.

1 Like

All you can say is that the argument of Islam is only propagated by sword or conquest and so on, over and over again like an old broken radio. I think with all the arguments already listed above, you can review something else. If you just want to win the argument then so be it, the problem is not the truth being sought. You only want to discredit Islam. From the argument that the Prophet Muhammad’s wife was a Christian (Khatidjah) and Muhammad Uncle (Abu Thalib) was a Christian until the end of his life, your opinion is wrong.

Yes, all ideologies can be spread in many ways, not only in one way that you think is right. I doubt if you have ever had a reading curriculum on your ideology? In addition, why was the Prophet Muhammad able to gather masses or troops, because many followed him, while Prophet Isa only a few supported him. If you want to find another reason, you won’t end up making assumptions.

Which public? I doubt the public’s perception. Maybe it’s just your perception. By fueling a misperception about Islam, you are equal to Donald Trump, hating and phobia of something you do not understand.

It is because of the support of God that Islam can stand independently in a peaceful way or by using force if necessary. Everything is God’s will, right? Why do you think what you think is okay? Does all violence mean bad? Very funny…

Vala Morgulis… Vala Dohaeris… :grin:

All animals have brains too, monkeys have brains, dolphins have too, even neanderthals have, but I doubt you can determine good and bad moral values ​​just from your mind alone. Being naked in public or on television for some people in the world is not a good moral reflection, but for others like ancient Roman women, is that okay?

Islam is guaranteed salvation by God (My God) until the end of time, regardless of the possible difficulties and conveniences that Muslims have.

After all the explanations for the existing verses, your job is once again to just cut the Verses and interpret them as you like. Yes. Fine, it’s up to you. Up to extrimist around the world.

Again Old Broken Radio Arguments. :grin:

If stating historical facts, which undermine your claim that Muhammed was tolerant of other religions, makes me sound like a broken record, so be it.

If he tolerated other religions, he would not have raised an army to instate Islam as the only religion in Mecca and other parts of the Arab world. On conquering Mecca, he destroyed idols of the tribal gods, then he slew anyone who refused to accept Islam. Even today, only Muslims are allowed to enter Mecca. These are serious acts of religious intolerance.

This is false. Islam promotes certain things I would support like alms giving, but there are bad ideas and practices that need discrediting in Islam.

It seems you did not consult any historical source because your claims here are largely inaccurate. Khadijah was his first convert to Islam. Its true that his uncle refused to embrace Islam, but he tried to get his uncle to do so even on the man’s deathbed. That was watered down intolerance towards his uncle’s unbelief.

I disagree. Ideologies should only be spread through rational discourse. Otherwise, it would be easy for bad ideas to take root in society.

This is is just dead wrong. Jesus had a massive followership, even among non-Jews. Interestingly, he never raised any army to propagate his ideas despite the intense persecution he faced from the religious leaders of his day, but today the religion he founded is the largest in the world. Muhammad was just a warlord seeking power and he used Islam to control the minds of his followers for his political ambitions.

This is a false claim. I am not engendering any misperception of Islam, I am only stating things the way they are. Your religion had a bloody history and the Islamic extremists of today are replaying that history.

I guess your God also supported Muhammad’s military campaign to eliminate other religions. Its good the crusaders stopped the Islamic expansion.

I don’t know. I don’t think anyone even knows what God’s will is, or do you have a way of discerning what God’s will is? You also paint a broad brush stroke with your use of “everything”, or do you believe Covid-19, the Twin Tower crash were God’s will too?

Are you asking me why I think genocide and religiocide are not okay?

No. But it can be needless at times.

Our highly developed brain allows us to consider the moral implications of our actions. Our perception of morality is contingent on our brain.

People determined moral values thousands of years before Islam was even thought of and they did it from their minds alone.

Choice of clothing and nudity are not moral affairs, they are cultural.

How do you know?

Muhammad broke Allah’s rules then. If religious freedom is supported by Islam, tell me why he removed idols of the tribal gods in Mecca? When Boko Haram takes over a town in Nigeria, they forcibly enlist the young men, destroy any local religious worship center like church buildings or shrines dedicated to local deities, aren’t this what Muhammad did?

So be it.

1 Like

Tolerance means letting others worship freely according to their beliefs, but how can worshiping idols and worshiping Allah be done together in Mecca? Tolerance also has limits and respects existing boundaries. After a period of chaos of war and persecution, non-Muslims were prohibited from entering Mecca, and this was a policy taken for the common good. Places of worship that were built during the time of Prophet Ibrahim have been cleared of pagan practices.

Bad for u , not bad for us :grin:

Thas was not persecution Bro. Than was act to convince without violence. :grin:

Rational or not rational action is not you to decide or judge. No need to force something to anyone.

No You wrong again. Prophet Isa followers only a small numbers that called Nashara or Nasrani. Church follower yes a lot.

Yes you are. Certainly you are pushing your own agenda by repeating phobia and hate based on your own false claim. Very little we see anywhere in history that has not shed blood. Even Americans shed Indian blood. The Russian communists shed their own nation’s blood. When there is conflict, sometimes bloodshed cannot be avoided. Religion never sheds blood. Excessive fanaticism towards religion is possible.

You are talking about the military campaigns in the time of the Prophet and the Crusaders as separate things at different times. I am not talking about the crusader, but look at the history of other people’s versions, Jerusalem is calmer :grin:

Yea, why not? Either good or bad luck in us is God’s will. Why should the good be all right? Because what you understand, that God determines something “must” be good according to the thinking of creatures. No, not really. Everything is God’s will and provision and you are His object, even though you have free will.

War is not genocide and religiocide. War is war. A clash between two forces. Genocide and reliogiocide is another terms from the world of aliens.

Again Valar Morghulis Valar Dohaeris. I dont get it.

For us moral. You wrong again.

Believe. Faith.

Again contradicting arguments without evidence. Because before that it was the House of God which was built by Abraham to make worship for One God. So after being controlled again by Muslims, the House of Allah was cleaned of the practical idol worship that was there, returned to its original state. So that idol worship actually violates the tolerance limits of the belief of the one God.

Boko Haram is a stubborn fanatical movement with political and cultural aims. Just like the Kingdom of Saud Arabia today.

So be it. At least I have clarified many misconceptions in your mind about Islam and warded off the baseless attacks on Islam.

Dear readers, I hope you see he has clearly conceded here that Muhammed was intolerant of other religions. Muhammad could not tolerate the worship of other gods, so he had them removed. This is exactly what ISIS, All Qaeda, and Boko Haram do today.

This is why the Christian version of God is more palatable than yours. Your God is a monster if he voluntarily inflicts us with suffering.

I won’t bother replying to your other comments. Most of them missed the point and did not engage with the arguments I made. You are not someone to be taken seriously in this discussion. Once I sense this in a discussion, I immediately lose interest. I am done arguing. Thanks.