may i ask, which scholars thought muslims to kill and bomb the murika/jews?

Ask those who did the bombing.
Most of us muslims here don't go around bombing others. So we would not know which scholar did.

perhaps the one who got their son,daughters and family killed and bombed by the murika/jews.

test test
The strong is not the one who overcomes the people by his strength, but the strong is the one who controls himself while in anger - Muhammed "Salallahu 'alayhi wa salam" (Sahih Al-Bukhari 8.135)

that's because of modern islam scholars. but my religious muslim friends told me that actually is the core and basic foundation of islam. which is to defeat infidels and sacrifice yourself by any means by the name of allah. but as time changes and muslims became modernised, many are afraid to die nor sacrifice . which is why those who sacrificed themself to infidels are highly looked upon and saluted by many muslims.when 9-11 was bombed many of my muslim friends say they get what they deserve and only a few modern muslims like u think it is not right

muslim laws are implemented for muslims to abide by and if u go against it for example converting, close proximity, rape, etc, they will be punished dearly. those intruders or disbelivers who interrupts the muslim law are considered infidels and will also be punished by any means. which gives them a good reason to be supported by suiciding and creating chaos all over the world. this gives a very good opportunity for the devil

That is what I refer to when I say "traditional teachings".

But let's be clear, the rational and "modern" thinking is not new, and not limited to modern scholars only. Rational thinking has been going on since long ago in the past also. It's just that the traditionalism, the wahabbis, taqleed, grow faster, unfortunately.

Not a matter of become afraid. Its because people come to THINK rationally. Those who salute the suicide bombers, the plane hijackers, they are not thinking, they're just romanticized by the traditional teachings.

Your muslim friend is wrong. There is no need to defeat any infidels if the infidels do not have any intention to harm you. Yes, muslims are allowed to take arms and defend themselves but it's just the same as in other community, be they religious or not. 'Turning the other cheek' is neither practical not logical. However, even in the events of war muslims are commanded to show restrained. Why there are verses of war in he Qur'an ? Because there were no such thing as Geneva Convention back then and warfare was conducted without restrained. From 6k+ verses in the Qur'an however, only around 10 are about war.

While I do not condone 9/11, I did admit that when I watch CNN that very morning it happened, my first though was "Now the Americans understand how Iraqi civillians felt". (It happened after the first Desert Storm). However, even if the deeds were done by muslims (or people who happened to eb born as muslims / conspiracy theorist aside) their actions were not the conduct commanded by the Qur'an. The basic principle according to Islam is simple. Only fight those who fight you (actual combatant). While the Pentagon may be a valid military target, using civilian plane is not a valid method. In Islam, the end does not justify the means.

In my opinion. Bombing is a NO in islam. If I remember correctly, among the rule in war thought by the messenger muhammad is to not attack children, women, and old people who can not fight. Another is not to attack the face. Sudden mass killing is not the way of islam.
To me using a sword for war is much more civillized than bombing, sniping, chemical weapons. You get to see the enemy face to face, feel the heavy burden of killing, and at least have the last chance to ucap 2 kalimah syahadah.
The mordern warfare takes out the humanity in war. What's left is destruction and senseless killings.

so as u mentioned traditional teachings. which is the core and foundation of islam. many of the majority of muslims still follow islam foundation and only a minority of modern muslims changed the core of islam.

That is not entirely correct. Muhammad's form of warfare is only applicable during Muhammad's time. However the principle is the same. All non combatants (including women, children, old people and people who takes sanctuary in places of worship) are never to be harmed. However how one fight should not be strictly medieval. It's idiotic.

The core of islam must never be change! Your understanding of the core of islam seems to extend into the tradition and culture of race/ethnics.
Some ethnics' tradition change their interpretation of the teachings of islam but that does not mean the core is changed. Overtime some of their traditions became synonym with islam that they thought that it is a must.
For example in Malaysia Malay weddings have adat bersanding and malam berinai. At the end of the 80's these traditions were still thought to be islam teachings but in reality it is just a Malay tradition based from the Indian wedding.

Indeed. What is the core of Islam ? The 5 Rukun Islam and the 6 Rukun Iman. That is all. The rest are mere details with differences are between the schools of thoughts.

No. That is NOT how I define traditional teachings (that it is a "core & foundation of Islam"). I am talking about sects. Don't misunderstand these terms. Its because of misunderstanding like this that people got defensive and die die defend the traditional and taqleed way.

Awesome. You get it. I agree with you. Except the swords thing, I see it more "barbaric".

The problem is, people today refuse to modernize their thinking in many issue because they believe they should go back to the times 1,400 years ago.

When they hear "Islam sesuai dipakai di setiap era / abad", they think it means what was done 1,400 years ago is also 100%, exactly, suitable now. Which is a naive belief.

Modern muslims are NOT trying to change Islam. This is what the traditionalist muslims fail to understand.

then let me ask, is it right for the muslims to suicide and bomb murika Israeli?

Nope. The same that the jews, Christians, hindus, Buddhist, murika and what ever faith followers or atheists don't have the right to bomb/ use WMD/ICBMS, Provoking/insulting caricatures, economic sanctions, tractors, lorries, pistols, knives, swords, ak47s, glock, f16, f14, f117a, f22, f35, sukhoi, typhoon, apaches, b15, desert eagle, sarin, anthrax, television, radios, cd, dvd, blu ray, film, dramas, documentaries, tobacco, youtube, instagram, linked, wordpress, blogspot, fbook, lowyat.net againts muslims.

... I feel that this post will be deleted.

Edit: whoops forgot the tanks, mortars, rapes, tortures, harrasments, ships, aircraft carriers, telcos, foods, dress, books, magazines, debates, pets.

This post has been edited by xein: Feb 12 2015, 11:41 AM

Yeah, its right for muslim to kill everyone and destroy the world and conquer the galaxy. It's absolutely right.

Are you stupid, bigoted, or trolling?

inilah cabaran dia berdialog dengan orang bukan Islam

Nabi kena lagi dasyat

kita berhujah dengan dia dengan cara ilmiah

we dont lower ourselves by resorting to name-calling, insults or violence

at the end of the day dia terima ke tak hidayah, itu dia dengan Allah

Why always our group kena hijack even
there are several religious group in serious /k?
Group atheists dpt bincang dgn aman.
But our group?
Asik2 ada butthurt dtg kacau.

People who wanna fight that way should just play mediaval MMO and Mediaval total war and settle everything digitally

Mind to enlighten me what is The core of islam?