I really had the impression that I responded to every major points you made. now if there are things left without an answer, you can list them. I did not ignore any points you made, if it seemed so ... i'm sorry. and by listing all the 'ignored' points , it will be easier for me if i have forgot something on the way to come back to it and respond to it.
Very well, let me go back and map out two of the most prominent aspects of the debate for you.
I. The first point of contention was *TRUSTING IN GOD OR TRUSTING IN WEAPONS*.
You originally claimed:
a Muslim will not submit to anyone else beside God, a Muslim will not take other Protector beside God. Some people for exemple put their trust in Nuclear Weapons, they believe it will provide them security, and if that is the case... then they have tooked others as Protectors beside God.
So you said a Muslim does not look to anyone other than God as their protector. But some people do put their trust in nuclear weapons.
Later, you tried to switch this around and said "
when you put back my sayings in their context, you can SEE that I was pointing out the finger to the muslims when I was speaking about nuclear weapons" (post #21).
But the context doesn't support your later assertion at all. You were talking about Western military vs. Muslims. Thus, you said "
It's like a mice VS an Elephant" (post #2). And, you said that a Muslim does not put their trust in anything other than Allah. Obviously then you intended to say that those who are trusting in nuclear weapons are non-Muslims.
So your later claim in post 21 that you were pointing the finger at Muslims is an obvious lie. You weren't talking about two classes of Muslims (those who put their trust in Allah and those who put their trust in nuclear weapons), you were talking about Muslims fighting Western military powers.
But concerning your claim that Muslims only trust in God, I gave a counter-example to this:
Some Muslims who use car-bombs and use human bombs are putting their faith in these bombs rather than Allah.
You said this counter-example would not work because "
that one is willing to Die" (post 6).
I responded to this that your objection will not work, because I referred to the Muslim who
uses a car-bomb and
uses a suicide bomber and not the person who blows himself up. So it's not necessarily the case that the person who uses a car bomb is willing to die and it is not necessarily the case that one who sends off a suicide bomber is willing to die. (Post 7).
You responded that I should not be focusing on the one who sends the suicide bomber or who uses the car bomb (post 11).
I pointed out in post # 12 two things in response to this:
(1) Why should I have to focus on the Muslim blowing himself up rather than on the Muslim telling the other Muslim to blow himself up? They are both Muslims and, thus, I can focus on the one
sending the suicide bomber and use him as an example of someone trusting in himself rather than Allah. Your attempt to switch the focus from one Muslim to another Muslim is just a red-herring fallacy.
(2) Even if I do focus on the suicide bomber himself, your objection will not work for another reason: the person who blows himself up is trusting in his suicidal action to change society rather than trusting in Allah to change society. So even if the suicide bomber is willing to die, he might still be trusting in his bomb rather than in Allah.
You did not respond to either of these points in your follow-up post (post # 21). Instead you said "Yes, whoever put his Trust in something else than God is among the wrong-doers." and then this is where you tried to say that, in context, you meant to refer to Muslims trusting in nuclear weapons. But I've already shown, above, how the context does not support this reading. The context was Muslims fighting non-Muslims
with superior weapons and that Muslim only look to God as protector, but some people (obviously intending some non-Muslims) look to nuclear weapons as protector.
In my follow-up post (# 25), I pointed out that your assertion about you pointing the finger at Muslims who were not trusting in God by their nuclear weapons is not obvious (the context doesn't seem to support what you are claiming).
you did not respond to this. I also tried to get this particular debate point back on track by pointing back to my counter-argument about the Muslim using car bombs and suicide bombers and (in light of post 12) the suicide bomber himself. I showed how it's possible that they are also trusting in their bomb mechanisms rather than Allah.
You did not respond to this. You didn't even bother quoting it in your next post (# 26).
II. The second point of contention was *SOLDEIRS GETTING PAID*.
This is something you brought up in post 6.
You presented it as an example as to how a Muslim who blows himself up (or sends someone to be blown up) is not looking for security.
In fact, however, the that soldiers get paid does nothing to show that Muslims are not trusting in their weapons or looking to their weapons for security. This was just another red-herring on your part. But I provided a counter-example to it anyway:
In post 7 I gave the rejoinder that the Muslim suicide bomber may think he is getting paid with 72 virgins. I admitted that this may be a caricature, but that your own assertion that soldiers are only in the military because they are getting paid is itself a caricature. So one good caricature deserves another.
You gave three responses (in post 11) as to why the suicide bomber isn't blowing himself up to "get paid" in any sense:
1. The idea that the suicide bomber gets 72 virgins is anti-Muslim propaganda.
2. Killing people for carnal pleasures in heaven is nobler than killing people for carnal pleasures on earth.
3. Islam teaches that a person should only fight "
to establish the religion of Islam in its totality"
My three rejoinders in post 12 were:
1a*. The idea that persons in the military are there simply to get paid is anti-American propaganda.
1b*. The hadith Sunan al-Tirmidhi in conjunction with Surah 61 and 55 can provide sufficient grounds for a suicide bomber to think he will receive (at least) 72 virgins (as wives) in heaven.
2*. Why is it nobler to kill persons for carnal pleasures in heaven? Why is it nobler to kill yourself because you think you'll get a lot of sex in heaven?
You never responded to this.
3*. There is always a divide between a religion in its theoretical form and folk form. While Islam in theory may not support revenge, it's clear that the conflicts which constantly occur in Asia and the Middle-East between Muslims and non-Muslims are motivated by revenge. I provided six reports to substantiate this.
You never responded to this.
In post # 21 you responded to 1a* with the simple assertion "
no It ain't!" and gave as your rationale the fact that American soldiers are getting paid, whereas Muslims terrorists are not getting paid.
I responded, in post # 25, to this with two points: (a) the mere fact that soldiers are getting paid does not mean that their only motivation is to get paid (and I might add as an illustration here the fact that both Imams and pastors/priests get paid via donations). So simply pointing out that soldiers are paid is insufficient. (b) It is not true that suicide bombers are not paid. According to several sources, the families of the suicide bombers are paid and the suicide bombers themselves receive several perks prior to carrying out their mission.
In regard to (a) you gave the personal anecdote of your friend (post 26). In regard to (b) you never responded except to say "
that's ugly."
In regard to your anecdote, I pointed out that this is a hasty generalization fallacy. The fact that your friend wants to join the military for money is not sufficient to justify the claim that soldiers are fighting simply for the pay.
Now this brings us up to date with this contention. Now you have claimed in your latest post that "
my statements are not based on what my buddy told me only, it is based on news articles, tv documentary, american soldiers testimony … " (post 37).
Well if your statements weren't based on what your friend said, why did you bother mentioning it? And if they are based on news articles, documentaries, and so forth, please provide us with these sources so that we can check them. Where are the news articles that demonstrate persons are only joining the military for pay? Remember, as I mentioned in (a), it's insufficient to merely point out that soldiers are getting paid. Their pay may be coincidental.
Now if you want to trim your claim down to "some persons join the military for selfish reason" fine… that's an uninteresting claim and doesn't justify your rant against soldiers getting paid, which you originally tried to bring up in order to show how Muslim suicide bombers are not looking for security or reward. As I already pointed out, the fact that soldiers get paid is utterly irrelevant to whether or not suicide bombers have their own selfish motives and the scaled back claim that "some persons join the military for selfish reasons" becomes nothing more than a red-herring fallacy on your part. We can also claim that some Muslims join terrorist organizations and blow themselves up for selfish reasons. I gave evidence for this in (b),
which you never gave a rebuttal to.
Now, in regard to 1b*. You tried to refute this with three counter-points (in post # 21):
1''. The hadith I quoted is not a valid hadith.
2''. The hadith I quoted doesn't mention virgins or suicide bombers.
3''. All of the talk about pleasure in heaven may be metaphorical.
In regards to 1'' I pointed out that not all Muslims agree on which hadith are valid and which ones are invalid. Furthermore, at least one Muslim scholar, Reza Aslan, believes it is almost impossible to authenticate hadith.
In your next reply (post # 26)
you completely ignored this rebuttal. Instead of giving a response you simply repeated your claims about "valid" hadith!
It wasn't until my last post (# 35), where I called you out for repeatedly ignoring my rejoinders that you finally attempted to give some sort of response to this. And now your response is this: (a'') there is a science to distinguishing valid from invalid hadith and (b'') this isn't really important as long as we follow the Quran.
So, this brings us up to date again. Here is my response. In regards to (a''): that there is a "science" is irrelevant to the debate since various schools in Islam still don't agree on which hadith are valid and which are invalid. So either there are various sciences being employed, in which case you need to have a science of the science (a metascience), or else the "science" is insufficient to determine which hadith are valid and which are invalid. In order for my point about Muslim suicide bombers blowing themselves up to get (at least) 72 virgins to be valid I don't need to show that all Muslims accept the hadith I quoted, I only need to show that some Muslims consider it a valid hadith and, as I understand it, the Sunni regard it as being in the top six hadith.
In regard to (b''): this seems obviously false. As Reza Aslan notes, the hadith are "an indispensible tool in the formation of Islamic law" (No God but God 67). The Quran is a document that is underdetermined by itself. Without the Hadith, the Quran can be taken to mean virtually anything by virtually anyone. It has no actual narrative (though it records some in a minimalist fashion) to provide much needed context and it has no chronology.
In regards to 2'' I pointed out (in post # 25) that it doesn't matter whether it says virgins. It says wives. I then joined this with Surah 55:74 which says the companions in heaven will have not been touched by man or jinn. Obviously this is referring to "touching" in a sexual way. So if we look at the hadith I quoted and the Surah I quoted it's obvious that the person fighting in the way of Allah will get (at least) 72 wives and it seems warranted to say these wives are virgins. Do you expect us to believe that they will be given wives who have had premarital sex? Or perhaps wives that have been married before? That seems a silly inference to draw.
You never responded to this. Instead, you just repeated yourself that it doesn't say "virgins".
I also pointed out that it doesn't matter whether or not it mentions suicide bombers. I pointed out that the hadith says that everyone who goes to heaven receives at least this reward of 72 wives (who we have excellent reason for believing to be virgins). I then pointed out that the Quran says everyone who fights or strives for God go to heaven. Therefore, suicide bombers who fight for God get to go to heaven and receive 72 wives.
You still haven't responded to this
In regard to (3'') I pointed out that this looks like a cheap escape route. But this is irrelevant since you cannot demonstrate that every Muslim takes it to be metaphorical.
You tried to respond to this by saying that it must be metaphorical because if it were physical, it could be surpassed by this earthly life. But since the pleasures of heaven won't be surpassable by this earthly life, there can't actually be 72 virgins in heaven.
But, as I pointed out, it seems very implausible that acquiring 72 wives and 80,000 servants in this life is a realistic goal for 99% of Muslims in this life. Plus, they are going to be in an environmental paradise (Surah 55). So it is simply not the case that if these 72 wives were physical that the pleasure gained from them would be surpassable.
You still haven't responded to this.
And I might add to this, does the Quran itself or any of the hadith suggest that this is all metaphorical and non-physical? If so please provide the references.
Now, this doesn't cover everything, but it does cover the two major contentions and the sub-arguments involved. There were smaller instances of you not responding or interacting with me. For example, at one point you claimed that the majority of Muslims outside of the West have never heard about receiving 72 wives/virgins. I then asked you "
Could you point me to some survey that was conducted in the Middle East and Asia?" You never responded, but this is not as major a point as the others.
Now, in regards to the rest of what you say in your latest posts:
His testimony really enlightened me, but my statements are not based on what my buddy told me only, it is based on news articles, tv documentary, american soldiers testimony …
Please provide us with the news articles and which TV documentaries have claimed that soldiers only join the military for money. (There is no way for us to verify claims of personal testimony.)
and without making any generalization, just by taking the Salary out of the equation ... I wonder what kind of person would still volunteer for being sent to death (the battlefield) ? and for what kind of motives, reasons ? .... and I see almost none.
You'll find that there are always people in every culture that are willing to fight to protect their country on principle alone. I'm pretty sure that if you approached WWII vets (or any other war vet) and suggested to them that they wouldn't have fought were it not for the money they would sock you in the nose. Of course, this doesn't mean that they didn't necessarily join the military for money, but you really have no way of knowing. You're just guessing here.
Quran being the ‘Word of God’ if one reads the Quran as a whole, then he will be taught all the ways to make it to heaven, and he will also be taught that suicide is prohibited and that the killing of the innocent is prohibited and that those are ways that leads to the Hell fire. So how does one deal with that ? … How can one Listen to the full speech given by God and NOT be fearfull of doing things that without the shadow of a doubt will earn him God’s wrath and anger? How can one still find suicide bombing appealling while hearing that God’s promise to someone who does such an action (suicide bombing) is Hell ? of course, this is assuming that one has read the Quran.
First of all, your later tactic of arguing that suicide bombings are not looked favorably upon by Islamic teaching is very interesting
in light of your initial claim:
Suicide is forbidden and the killing of innocent is forbidden in Islam ... UNLESS, you are on the battlefield facing the enemy and you have no other mean to fight with ... then your ownself. then it is ALLOWED !
Gee, somewhere between post # 2 and post # 21 you seem to have made a complete 180. Which is it? Is suicide bombing permissible as you originally indicate or is suicide bombing condemned? If it is permissible under the conditions you list, then your entire diatribe about how the Quran and certain hadith condemn suicide is irrelevant and yet another red-herring fallacy. If it is impermissible under any conditions, then how do you harmonize this with your initial claim which clearly appears contradictory?
But there is more to be said here. The only portion of the Quran you have quoted does not unequivocally condemn suicide. It could be taken to qualify those suicides which are a result of rancor or are unjust. The Muslims who blow themselves up
clearly don't believe they are violating the Quran. They would probably say that their suicides are just because they are fighting for Allah (Surah 61.11-12) and because those who "die" in the cause of Allah don't actually die at all (Surah 2.154). So suicide bombers probably don't even think they are committing suicide.
Now since hadiths (Islamic teaching) are being involved and assuming one has read the Quran, the ‘Word of God’. Does the teachings of the hadiths make a way to encouter the problem of ‘suicide prohibition’ and the problem of ‘prohibition of killing innocents’ that are to be found in the Quran, in order to make 'lawfull' what is unlawfull in the Quran (i.e suicide bombing)? … Nop !
That’s why the ‘argument’ you provide witch assumes taking the teachings of the hadith IN CONJUNCTION with the Quran
Except, as I've demonstrated above, you appear to be contradicting yourself. When a person starts speaking out of both sides of their mouth it appears they are just making any desperate attempt to win the argument, hoping that no one is keeping track of what's been said before. Either you've abandoned ship to try and see if this new boat will float better than the last one or else maybe one of your fellow Muslims on this site nudged you in the right direction.
Nevertheless, as I've explained above, the persons blowing themselves up don't think they are violating the Quran. Al-Qaradawi, a Muslim scholar and Egyptian cleric, said "It's not suicide, it is martyrdom in the name of God, Islamic theologians and jurisprudents have debated this issue. Referring to it as a form of jihad, under the title of jeopardising the life of the mujahideen. It is allowed to jeopardise your soul and cross the path of the enemy and be killed" (source:
BBC NEWS | Programmes | Newsnight | Al-Qaradawi full transcript)
