From trueislam.com it say,
The core foundation of believing Islam is not terrorism is as follows:
- Allah prohibits Muslims to create disorder
- Allah said, he that kills an innocent person is as though he kills the whole mankind
- Allah prescribed Muslims during when they are weak to emigrate to other places whenever oppressed
Now, that is to the effect that they are peaceful enough to be terrorists! Note though that these are their opinion, nowhere did allah said, unambiguously that Muslims are not terrorists, bec in fact, if we are too be more comprehensive, indeed Islam is terrorism, so as how allah intended it to be.
Firstly, Muslims claim they don’t do terrorism bec muhammad exemplary cowardice of running away from oppression is not a compulsory injunction but only a matter when they are weak and helpless, bec when tyrrany is on their side, their developed confidence, privileged them to retaliate in the worst possible terror they could inflict as it say,
There niceties, good-natured shrinking coward whenever they are weak are transformed to monstrosity and appalling, frightening predators, and terror-bent protagonists.
Even recklessly, compromising innocent people just so to satiate their bloodlust war-stricken revenge, preferring to kill enemies than compassion for possible collateral damage. Would you war enemies knowing the possibility of collateral damage? Even if you did not deliberately kill innocent people, but bec you pursue an ambush, you preferred still to have collateral damages, which proves that, Islam has no concern for innocent lives as long as they would possibly be killed as collateral damages.
Therefore, this is Islam: When Muslims are weak, they will not fight, but when they are in power, they would kill oppressors regardless of innocent people killed as collateral damage, in that aspiration of worst treatment against enemies in combat–to sow terror, in its most appalling nature.
I don’t say that is terrorism! Its war.
Secondly, Allah don’t approves that Muslims cause disorder. In context, a disorder that is not in the cause of allah, whereas, in the cause of allah, atrocity is allowed as how muhammad battles oppressors.
As it say, killing is disallowed unless it is for a just cause. Therefore, with just cause, disorder through killings and war is permitted. What just cause is that?
I’ll show later.
It means there are times that allah allows muslims to kill even to the point of terrorism.
Thirdly, Allah said, he that kills an innocent person is as though he kills the whole mankind. The question is, who are innocent? Is this woman consented by muhammad as worthy of death not innocent?
As you can see, persistent insult against muhammad merits death, so as how muhammad consented of it. Its a shallow offense for someone to be killed. This manifest the integral onion-skinned sensitivities of muslims, even to deadly intolerance. Therefore, even from shallow persistent offense, such as insult one is regarded already as guilty of death, and regarded not innocent.
Therefore, when anyone is persistently spreading false news against Islam to that effect of insulting Muslims, you are not innocent even if shallow offense is your crime such as spreading, “allah is demonic”, “muhammad is false prophet”, etc… or, spreading offensive cartoon depiction of muhammad as charlie hebdo etc… If it insults Muslims, you are not innocent, but must be hunted wherever you are, to be killed, as it say,
Who declares who are guilty or innocent, and who declares punishment?
Obviously, the leader determines the crime and punishment as exemplified above regarding the killing of the woman insulting muhammad. The leader must always have the decision if such crime is allowed or not, therefore, he is the one that have the authority to declares who are innocent or not. None else! It was exemplified when muhammad decided who among teenage warriors are guilty and innocent. He decided that teens with pubic hair are guilty and those warriors without pubic hair are innocent even without Allah’s permission from the universal law contained in the Quran. As I said in my other blog, Quran is the complete book of universal laws, thus, killing prepubescent boys with pubic hairs, bec it is a universal law as a deed, as pattern of good conduct for Muslims, must be in Quran bec it is a universal law but in reality, is nowhere in quran. Therefore, muhammad bec allah required that he is the pattern of good conduct, apparently, condone these killing acts, though allah said, he will kill muhammad if he follow other than what is revealed to him which muhammad disobeyed and kill people even if allah did not reveal any permission, we could conclude, Muhammad’s decision of killing pubic haired boys, and deciding by his personal judgment, who is innocent or not, is exemplary of how leaders of true Islam must do! As muhammad, presumption of guilt is one reason for death penalty as I elaborated here.
Leaders of true Islam must therefore follow that sunnah, to be the authority, to decide who among alleged offenders are innocent or not even by mere hunches or guess as muhammad did, even if it is without Allah’s order.
What offenses would merit one to be eligible as criminal worthy to be presumed guilty of death?
Firstly, an oppressor as presented above. Secondly, a persistent insult-bent person such as Christians who keep falsifying Islam or even, cartoon makers negatively depicting Islam, allah and muhammad. It doesn’t matter how shallow a crime is, like insult, as long as the leader presumed you guilty of death, you must die. Therefore, it doesn’t matter how shallow a crime is as long as it is bent for insulting Islam like in the case of the woman, or in spreading alleged false news, it is tantamount to being “not innocent”.
Who are innocent therefore?
Logically, anyone the leader construe as innocent.
If insult is shallow, spreading false news must likewise be shallow, its content no matter how shallow if it is insulting enough, for the leader to declare you guilty, they would hunt and kill you, wherever you are in the world.
Therefore true Islam, has these distinction: Firstly, PRESUMPTION OF GUILT AS BASIS FOR DEATH PENALTY as leaders right to declare an alleged offender, as guilty or innocent by mere presumption, by how muhammad did to the teens of banu quraisha, even without any sanction of any universal law in the Quran. Leaders have right to decide anyone guilty or innocent even if they have no basis from Allah or Quran! Secondly, SHALLOW OFFENSE AS INSULT MERITS DEATH PENALTY!
True Islam is likewise reflected on this: TO PRACTICE BEYOND WHAT ALLAH REVEALED as replicating Muhammad’s sunnah, making non-quranic judgments, whom allah consented by saying, muhammad is a pattern of good conduct.
What is terrorism?
To terrorize unlawfully.
Islam don’t do terrorism indeed as their apparently terroristic acts, as killing those who insult islam and those who spread false news, are lawful as allah condones it by saying muhammad is the pattern of good conduct. Thus when Muslims, hunts these who insult islam and spreading false news–shallow as it may be–and killed them, no matter who are killed as collateral damages, as I’ve shown above how muhammad is not concern of collateral damages, it is not terrorism bec it is lawful as per Islamic jurisprudence. Therefore, bombing or ambush, or killing, in whatever means, these alleged offenders as decided by the leader, the primary judge, it is not terrorism!
Therefore, the killing of charlie hebdo cartoonists is not terrorism. The bombing or massacre of Christians as alleged false news propagator against islam, if it insults the leader, and declared them guilty of death, when materialized, in forms of bombing, mutilation, or beheading is not terrorism.
Likewise, Maute group in our country occupying Marawi city, is not terrorism. It is Islamic, the government as an enemy, or oppressor must be dealt with, force and necessary of retaliation, as occupying a non military city, is stratagem of war, wherein islam is not concern of collateral damage pursuant to its goal, to fight its enemy as exemplified by muhammad.
Every strategy of war must be pursued regardless of collateral damages such as occupying a city pursuant to its cause: war against oppressors!
Sahih Muslim 4311
How is the government an oppressor, or an enemy of war?
Let’s look on history what Muslim armed groups were fighting for and what justifies rebellion. Here it say,
By this, we could deduce why Muslims took arms. Initially, as response to an alleged oppression against them–the jabidah massacre, as a platform for a bangsamoro autonomy as an objective of the armed group, MNLF. They feel like Bangsamoro is their ancestral domain which was taken out of their authority. Its like a Muslim land under dominion of foreigners. Thus the need for liberty thus the god given right to fight oppression–initially was genocide.
Having a valid reason for jihad, that is, liberty from dominion, it must necessitate a peace treaty for peace but without it, war is already declared, wherein, government mitigating rebellion through assault, it must be met in the same manner of aggression as it is Islamic for retaliation, blood for blood, in like manner and intensity.
This objective of Bangsamoro autonomy is valid reason for jihad, as claiming ancestral domain. The emergence of other Muslim armed groups like Maute are therefore as valid as the cause they are fighting for: Bangsamoro Autonomy, thus any war method they employ as strategy of war, even deceit, or breaking peace treaties are all Islamic in essence as exemplified by how muhammad broke the hubaydiyyah treaty thereby war progress, until these Muslims are satisfied.
War is deceit so as Muhammad said, thus any war strategy they employ such as occupying Marawi city are justified.
This is the time of war unless a peace treaty is made. Without it, war is a deceit. But even, with a treaty, Muslims are not trustworthy as exemplified by the breaking of hubaydiyyah treaty, wherein, muhammad broke it, and its ok, whereas when, the other party broke it, muhammad killed them!
This is Islam during war. It could break any treaty as long as it likes or it serves to their advantage. But if the other broke it, they must be killed.
I don’t say that is terrorism. It is Islamic–to kill, as by the leader’s discretion, as muhammad exemplified. Anything Islamic is not terrorism!
How about Abu sayyaf kidnap for ransom and beheadings?
Its likewise Islamic as akin to stealing, robbery and raiding caravan trade for booty.
Now, is terrorism Islamic?
Let me recap my arguments:
- The leader can decide if an alleged offender is guilty of death or innocent even by presumption of guilt, or by hunches or guess, like muhammad presumed guilt through pubic hair without Allah’s confirmation.
- The leader can sanction anything even if it is not written in the complete law–the Quran! Like how muhammad massacred pubic haired boys without Quranic sanction!
- Shallow offenses as spreading false news against Islam or even, shallow insults, merit death penalty, and the offender hunted or BOMBED anywhere regardless of innocent people killed as collateral damages as muhammad is not concerned of innocent people killed as collateral damages.
- In times of war, every strategy and deceit of war is employed.
- Treaties could be violated, such as the hubaydiyya treaty.
- Stealing, robbery and raiding other people’s property as booty, is akin to kidnap for ransom and beheadings! Why not? Raiding caravan trade, would be inevitable of killing, non combatant businessmen, in return, for their properties!
Now, may I ask again, is terrorism Islamic?
Is the killing on charlie hebdo, a cartoonist media, depicting muhammad with insult, terrorism?
NO! Its religious act. Anything, lawful is not terrorism! But of course, that is at the perspective of true Muslims (the terrorists) and not by the perspective of non Muslims (Medina sunni).
I, on the other hand, bec I am a christian, defines terrorism as Islamic and Islam as murderer of innocent people. But that is, speaking about true Islam which actions were by the authority of a leader, or caliph, in reference to ISIS. Sunni (mainstream), however, numerous they are lacks a leader, therefore, they are generally peaceful as no leader is there as commanding officer. But they, failing to be true Islam, are merely misguided.
Note: my sources supporting my argument are not mine. They are screenshots from various sites. They could be true or not. If you want to validate the reliability of this blog. Make your own validation.