|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Islam & Terrorism
Unfortunately more and more often, Islam has been associated with terrorism and violence due to the actions of a few extreme individuals who’ve taken it upon themselves to do the most heinous crimes in the name of Islam.
Tragic events such as the attack on the twin towers in New York, the bombings of Bali, Madrid and London are assumed to be justified by Islam in the minds of some people. This idea has been fueled further by many media channels which defame Islam by portraying these bombers as ‘Islamists’ or ‘Jihadists’, as though they were sanctioned by Islam, or had any legitimate spokemenship on behalf of Muslims. The actions of a few fanatical individuals who happen to have Muslim names or ascribe themselves to the Muslim faith should not be a yardstick by which Islam is judged. For the same reason, that one would not do justice to Christianity if it where perceived as sanctioning the genocide of the Native Americans, the atrocities of world war II or the bombings of the IRA.
To understand Islam’s stance on terrorism, one must refer to its original sources, the Quran and the teachings of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him,which are explicit in their prohibition of any form of injustice including that of wanton violence which seeks to instill fear, injury or death to civilians.
The Quran turns our attention to the high value of human life, whether it is Muslim or Non-Muslim and makes it absolutely forbidden to take an innocent life unjustly. The gravity of such a crime is equated, in the Quran, with the killing of all humanity.
“On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.” ( 5:32 )
Not only is human life sacred in Islam but the property, wealth, family and dignity of all individuals in society are to be respected and protected. Those who transgress these rights and sow fasad (corruption) as the Quran describes it, incur the wrath of Allah.
"…and seek not corruption in the earth; lo! Allah loveth not corrupters " (28:77)
Likewise in another verse
“The blame is only against those who oppress men and wrong-doing and insolently transgress beyond bounds through the land, defying right and justice: for such there will be a penalty grievous” (42:42)
Islam goes further than just prohibiting oppression and safeguarding rights, it commands its faithful to deal kindly and compassionately to all those who seek to live in peace and harmony
"Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for your faith, nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: For Allah loves those who are just" (60:
In times of war and conflict, where enmity can obstruct an individual’s judgement to act morally, Islam commands that justice be upheld even towards one’s enemies.
"O ye who believe! stand out firmly for Allah, as witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to piety: and fear Allah. For Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do" (5:
Centuries before the Geneva Convention was drawn up, Muslims were bound by a code of conduct which the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, set. He forbade the killing of women, children and elderly in war. In an authentic narration the Prophet (pbuh) warned that he who kills anyone who has a covenant of peace with the Muslims will not smell the scent of Paradise. In fact, he taught that justice is not only to humans but must be shown to animals and all living things. In a narration the Prophet (pbuh) informed us about how a lady was sent to hell because of a cat she had locked up until it starved and died. If such is the sanctity which Islam places on the soul of an animal, how much more grave is the killing of hundreds of innocent humans?!
Abu Bakr the first Calipha of the Muslims reflected these prophetic teachings when he advised his general Yazid, who was confronting Roman armies,
"I advise you ten things, Do not kill women or children or an aged, infirm person. Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees. Do not destroy an inhabited place. Do not slaughter sheep or camels except for food. Do not burn bees and do not scatter them. Do not steal from the booty, and do not be cowardly."
The message of the Quran is clear as we have seen, that the sanctity of any human life is to be respected and any violation in that regard is paramount to the worst crime. Mercy is at the heart of the Islamic call, “We sent thee (O Muhammad) not save as a mercy for the peoples” (21:107); a totally different message to what the terrorists are sadly imparting to humanity.
After what you read? what do you think about Islam and its relation to Terrorism?
Tragic events such as the attack on the twin towers in New York, the bombings of Bali, Madrid and London are assumed to be justified by Islam in the minds of some people. This idea has been fueled further by many media channels which defame Islam by portraying these bombers as ‘Islamists’ or ‘Jihadists’, as though they were sanctioned by Islam, or had any legitimate spokemenship on behalf of Muslims. The actions of a few fanatical individuals who happen to have Muslim names or ascribe themselves to the Muslim faith should not be a yardstick by which Islam is judged. For the same reason, that one would not do justice to Christianity if it where perceived as sanctioning the genocide of the Native Americans, the atrocities of world war II or the bombings of the IRA.
To understand Islam’s stance on terrorism, one must refer to its original sources, the Quran and the teachings of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him,which are explicit in their prohibition of any form of injustice including that of wanton violence which seeks to instill fear, injury or death to civilians.
The Quran turns our attention to the high value of human life, whether it is Muslim or Non-Muslim and makes it absolutely forbidden to take an innocent life unjustly. The gravity of such a crime is equated, in the Quran, with the killing of all humanity.
“On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.” ( 5:32 )
Not only is human life sacred in Islam but the property, wealth, family and dignity of all individuals in society are to be respected and protected. Those who transgress these rights and sow fasad (corruption) as the Quran describes it, incur the wrath of Allah.
"…and seek not corruption in the earth; lo! Allah loveth not corrupters " (28:77)
Likewise in another verse
“The blame is only against those who oppress men and wrong-doing and insolently transgress beyond bounds through the land, defying right and justice: for such there will be a penalty grievous” (42:42)
Islam goes further than just prohibiting oppression and safeguarding rights, it commands its faithful to deal kindly and compassionately to all those who seek to live in peace and harmony
"Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for your faith, nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: For Allah loves those who are just" (60:
In times of war and conflict, where enmity can obstruct an individual’s judgement to act morally, Islam commands that justice be upheld even towards one’s enemies.
"O ye who believe! stand out firmly for Allah, as witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to piety: and fear Allah. For Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do" (5:
Centuries before the Geneva Convention was drawn up, Muslims were bound by a code of conduct which the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, set. He forbade the killing of women, children and elderly in war. In an authentic narration the Prophet (pbuh) warned that he who kills anyone who has a covenant of peace with the Muslims will not smell the scent of Paradise. In fact, he taught that justice is not only to humans but must be shown to animals and all living things. In a narration the Prophet (pbuh) informed us about how a lady was sent to hell because of a cat she had locked up until it starved and died. If such is the sanctity which Islam places on the soul of an animal, how much more grave is the killing of hundreds of innocent humans?!
Abu Bakr the first Calipha of the Muslims reflected these prophetic teachings when he advised his general Yazid, who was confronting Roman armies,
"I advise you ten things, Do not kill women or children or an aged, infirm person. Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees. Do not destroy an inhabited place. Do not slaughter sheep or camels except for food. Do not burn bees and do not scatter them. Do not steal from the booty, and do not be cowardly."
The message of the Quran is clear as we have seen, that the sanctity of any human life is to be respected and any violation in that regard is paramount to the worst crime. Mercy is at the heart of the Islamic call, “We sent thee (O Muhammad) not save as a mercy for the peoples” (21:107); a totally different message to what the terrorists are sadly imparting to humanity.
After what you read? what do you think about Islam and its relation to Terrorism?
Relgion, is, in my honest opinion, the cause of much war and evil in the world. All of the mayor religions...Islam, Christianity, Budhism etc. all propose treating everyone else like you yourself want to be treated (in one form or the other).
All of them (appart from Buddhism) however, with equal importance it might seem, claim that they are right, and everyone else are wrong. Considering how central religion is to many people in the world, this kind of dissagreement would no doubt lead to war and fighting.
The crusades is the ultimate christianity example.
20th century terrorism is a good Islam example.
jews have always been treated badly because of their religion (pretty much).
Atheists, agnostics and believers in alternative religions have historically speaken usually been burned on a fire.
Where is the love and compassion in all this? This is not single individuals - it is entire societies of religious people who believe persecuting other people for their beliefs is a good thing. Religion, which genetically speaking was created to keep humans hoping even at "dark times" has truly, in the latest 500 years turned on us and become one of the biggest problems we face.
All of them (appart from Buddhism) however, with equal importance it might seem, claim that they are right, and everyone else are wrong. Considering how central religion is to many people in the world, this kind of dissagreement would no doubt lead to war and fighting.
The crusades is the ultimate christianity example.
20th century terrorism is a good Islam example.
jews have always been treated badly because of their religion (pretty much).
Atheists, agnostics and believers in alternative religions have historically speaken usually been burned on a fire.
Where is the love and compassion in all this? This is not single individuals - it is entire societies of religious people who believe persecuting other people for their beliefs is a good thing. Religion, which genetically speaking was created to keep humans hoping even at "dark times" has truly, in the latest 500 years turned on us and become one of the biggest problems we face.
The poll is a meaningless exercise. The three choices offered are partial (in both senses of that word).
Islam is the source of all evil today
Obviously not. What about 'some evil'?
Islam is understood in the wrong way by some muslims only
And which Muslims decide which is the wrong or right way?
Islam seeks peace everywhere and not related to Terrorism
If you mean that YOUR version of Islam is peaceful then that is fine. The statement that Islam, per se, is not related to terrorism is, however, clearly untrue.
Islam is the source of all evil today
Obviously not. What about 'some evil'?
Islam is understood in the wrong way by some muslims only
And which Muslims decide which is the wrong or right way?
Islam seeks peace everywhere and not related to Terrorism
If you mean that YOUR version of Islam is peaceful then that is fine. The statement that Islam, per se, is not related to terrorism is, however, clearly untrue.
No single thing is the source of all "evil" in this world. Islam is as "evil" as the other eight billion religions. That ones out.
--------------------------------------------------------
Islam is not misunderstood. Who's misunderstanding it? The overwhelming majority of halfway intelligent people can recognize that not all 1.6 billion Muslims want every non-Muslim to be slaughtered. Most people recognize the average Muslim has the same goals and desires as any average person on this planet: provide for their family, be loved, be successful, enjoy life, etc.
Misunderstood? No, not at all. Interpreted in harmful ways by specific groups/people? Yes. Generally it's interpreted by those groups in a way that it will grant them justification for carrying out acts of violence that are politically motivated. It is also interpreted by those groups in ways that will allow them to recruit young people who have little good direction in their lives and are easily influenced into thinking non-Muslims are out to kill them all.
--------------------------------------------------------
Islam does seek peace, but not everywhere. Obviously Al-Qaeda and the like aren't seeking peace even if they might preach it. And it's obviously related to terrorism...there's no getting around that. I wouldn't say Islam itself is the root cause of terrorism, but they're obviously related to one another as Islam is used as a justification/recruitment tool more than anything for these extremist groups.
What's in the Quran is irrelevant
Nothing is practiced exactly as it is preached...which is probably a very good thing considering some of the things found in these holy books (not just the Quran).
--------------------------------------------------------
Islam is not misunderstood. Who's misunderstanding it? The overwhelming majority of halfway intelligent people can recognize that not all 1.6 billion Muslims want every non-Muslim to be slaughtered. Most people recognize the average Muslim has the same goals and desires as any average person on this planet: provide for their family, be loved, be successful, enjoy life, etc.
Misunderstood? No, not at all. Interpreted in harmful ways by specific groups/people? Yes. Generally it's interpreted by those groups in a way that it will grant them justification for carrying out acts of violence that are politically motivated. It is also interpreted by those groups in ways that will allow them to recruit young people who have little good direction in their lives and are easily influenced into thinking non-Muslims are out to kill them all.
--------------------------------------------------------
Islam does seek peace, but not everywhere. Obviously Al-Qaeda and the like aren't seeking peace even if they might preach it. And it's obviously related to terrorism...there's no getting around that. I wouldn't say Islam itself is the root cause of terrorism, but they're obviously related to one another as Islam is used as a justification/recruitment tool more than anything for these extremist groups.
What's in the Quran is irrelevant
Nothing is practiced exactly as it is preached...which is probably a very good thing considering some of the things found in these holy books (not just the Quran).But the thing is, groups such as Al-Qaeda aren't following Islam or the rules of the Quran; the Quran doesn't say to kill any non-believer on site, it only means that if they show aggression on you first, then you may fight back. This is called a Jihad, now a scary word, or fighting for justice/your rights; not going on a killing frenzy.
95% of what Islam is, is the Quran.
| liljp617 wrote: |
| What's in the Quran is irrelevant Nothing is practiced exactly as it is preached...which is probably a very good thing considering some of the things found in these holy books (not just the Quran). |
95% of what Islam is, is the Quran.
| TrueFact wrote: |
| Unfortunately more and more often, Islam has been associated with terrorism and violence due to the actions of a few extreme individuals who’ve taken it upon themselves to do the most heinous crimes in the name of Islam.
Tragic events such as the attack on the twin towers in New York, the bombings of Bali, Madrid and London are assumed to be justified by Islam in the minds of some people. This idea has been fueled further by many media channels which defame Islam by portraying these bombers as ‘Islamists’ or ‘Jihadists’, as though they were sanctioned by Islam, or had any legitimate spokemenship on behalf of Muslims. The actions of a few fanatical individuals who happen to have Muslim names or ascribe themselves to the Muslim faith should not be a yardstick by which Islam is judged. For the same reason, that one would not do justice to Christianity if it where perceived as sanctioning the genocide of the Native Americans, the atrocities of world war II or the bombings of the IRA. |
It seems a little hypocritical to me, to be condemning people for judging Islam by its extremists on the one hand, and then be concerned with the opinions of the extremist anti-Muslim rhetoric in the media on the other. You don't seriously believe that open-minded, rational people think Islam = terrorism, do you? i would hope not. Only far-right cranks really believe that. Just like only far-out Muslims strap bombs around their chests and kill civilians.
If it is wrong to judge Muslims by the actions and beliefs of its minority of extremists, then it is also wrong to judge critics of Islam by the actions and beliefs of the minority of extremist critics.
But you cannot deny the fact that Islamic terrorists exist, and that they do use Islam as a justification for their actions. You may not agree with their interpretation... but so what? The fact is, they do interpret Islam in that way.
Furthermore, according to a poll mentioned here before, 7% of Muslims worldwide are crazy, bloodthirsty bastards. So this is not some tiny fringe group or "a few fanatical individuals". This is a major subsection of Muslims, numbering in the millions.
So yes, of course Islam does not mean terrorism, and of course not all (or even most) Muslims are not terrorists. But Islamic terrorists or those who believe that Islam allows for or even encourages terrorist acts do exist, and while they may be a minority, they are not an insignificant minority.
Now, are all of those Muslims who do believe that terrorism is ok wrong? Does the Qur'an really prohibit terrorism? i say no. The Qur'an may not require killing non-believers, but it most certainly does not forbid it. And, the way it is written makes it very easy to interpret it in a way that promotes incredibly horrific acts of violence, such as those we now associate with Islamic terrorism. So... why does my interpretation differ so significantly from yours? Read on....
| TrueFact wrote: |
| To understand Islam’s stance on terrorism, one must refer to its original sources, the Quran and the teachings of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him,which are explicit in their prohibition of any form of injustice including that of wanton violence which seeks to instill fear, injury or death to civilians.
The Quran turns our attention to the high value of human life, whether it is Muslim or Non-Muslim and makes it absolutely forbidden to take an innocent life unjustly. The gravity of such a crime is equated, in the Quran, with the killing of all humanity. “On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.” ( 5:32 ) |
Now, let's look more carefully at the first part of that verse. In plain English, it says: "If anyone kills a person, that's really bad... unless the person is a murderer or is spreading mischief in the land."
That little exception there i've highlighted... that is one of the most important parts of Islam's belligerence toward non-Muslims. It is far more important to that verse than the part about "like killing all humanity" that you are hung up on (that part is just colourful prose - you can take it out and replace it wilth "killing is bad" without changing the meaning - but that bit about spreading mischief is vital to the meaning of that verse).
What does "spreading mischief in the land" mean? Who "spreads mischief in the land"? Ah, there's the rub! The answer is: unbelievers (and "false believers", as in 2:6-12). In other words, if a Muslim wants to, they can decide that i - as a non-Muslim critical of Islam - am "spreading mischief in the land", and voilà! The law against killing me no longer applies. They are free to kill me if they want.
And not just kill me! Oh, heavens no, that would be too merciful for a mischief making unbeliever! You so kindly quoted 5:32, please, do us the favour of quoting the next verse, 5:33.
| TrueFact wrote: |
| Not only is human life sacred in Islam but the property, wealth, family and dignity of all individuals in society are to be respected and protected. Those who transgress these rights and sow fasad (corruption) as the Quran describes it, incur the wrath of Allah.
"…and seek not corruption in the earth; lo! Allah loveth not corrupters " (28:77) |
But, as i explained above, a Muslim has a great deal of latitude in how they interpret "corrupter". A would-be terrorist has little or no problem deciding that whoever is not Muslim is a "corrupter", and the Qur'an certainly lends itself to that interpretation.
The same logic applies to the other verses you have quoted, and indeed in general. Provided someone is not considered to be a "threat" to Islam, these laws apply. The problem is the incredible latitude in deciding who or what is a "threat" to Islam. The Qur'an theoretically allows Muslims to say that any non-believer that has not submitted to Islam (for example, by becoming a slave, or simply allowing themselves to be extorted and humiliated by Muslims, see pretty much all of sura 9) is a "threat".
| TrueFact wrote: |
| Centuries before the Geneva Convention was drawn up, Muslims were bound by a code of conduct which the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, set. He forbade the killing of women, children and elderly in war. In an authentic narration the Prophet (pbuh) warned that he who kills anyone who has a covenant of peace with the Muslims will not smell the scent of Paradise. In fact, he taught that justice is not only to humans but must be shown to animals and all living things. In a narration the Prophet (pbuh) informed us about how a lady was sent to hell because of a cat she had locked up until it starved and died. If such is the sanctity which Islam places on the soul of an animal, how much more grave is the killing of hundreds of innocent humans?!
Abu Bakr the first Calipha of the Muslims reflected these prophetic teachings when he advised his general Yazid, who was confronting Roman armies, "I advise you ten things, Do not kill women or children or an aged, infirm person. Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees. Do not destroy an inhabited place. Do not slaughter sheep or camels except for food. Do not burn bees and do not scatter them. Do not steal from the booty, and do not be cowardly." |
Now this is just absurd. ^_^;
Dude, seriously, this is not a statement of compassion, and it is damned insulting to compare it to a really compassionate document like the third and fourth Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Conventions say things like: "Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated." And what does the Qur'an say about those women who were so mercifully not murdered? Are they to be treated humanely? (Hint: start with 4:24.) Reality check. According to the Qur'an, everything belongs to Muslims (as in, Allah and his followers). That includes other people (as in, non-believers). The directive to not kill women prisoners of war is about on the same level of logic as the directive to not kill captured sheep. In both cases, the spoils are theoretically gifts given to the Muslim by Allah, and he should be respectful of that. That is why women should not be killed outright. Because they are property given to Muslims by Allah as a reward for the victory, and the Muslims are free to do with them as they wish, including, but not limited to, raping them into submission. That's a far cry from Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
| TrueFact wrote: |
| The message of the Quran is clear as we have seen, that the sanctity of any human life is to be respected and any violation in that regard is paramount to the worst crime. Mercy is at the heart of the Islamic call, “We sent thee (O Muhammad) not save as a mercy for the peoples” (21:107); a totally different message to what the terrorists are sadly imparting to humanity.
After what you read? what do you think about Islam and its relation to Terrorism? |
After what i read? i found dozens of verses that allow for the killing of unbelievers of various stripes, and several that even order the killing of certain types of unbelievers (just a small sampling: 4:76, 4:89-91, pretty much all of 9). Hell, for challenging Islam, i'm fair game according to 33:61, aren't i?
terrorism is just of all religions, every religion has its fase that they have a lot of terrorism... christianity had it during the crusades... islam's terorists now speak of the jihad...
so i supose its just a fase that a religion goes trough
so i supose its just a fase that a religion goes trough
| Indi wrote: |
|
But you cannot deny the fact that Islamic terrorists exist, and that they do use Islam as a justification for their actions. You may not agree with their interpretation... but so what? The fact is, they do interpret Islam in that way. |
A note here, if they do NOT follow Islam as they suppose to, they are not Muslims anymore. But internationally, they are recognized as Muslims while Islam itself refuses them.
------------------------------------------
| Indi wrote: |
|
Furthermore, according to a poll mentioned here before, 7% of Muslims worldwide are crazy, bloodthirsty bastards. So this is not some tiny fringe group or "a few fanatical individuals". This is a major subsection of Muslims, numbering in the millions. So yes, of course Islam does not mean terrorism, and of course not all (or even most) Muslims are not terrorists. But Islamic terrorists or those who believe that Islam allows for or even encourages terrorist acts do exist, and while they may be a minority, they are not an insignificant minority. |
7% of 100'000'000 Muslims around the world is 7'000'000, yes it is in millions. But if there are 7 million Muslims want kill every non-believer, wouldn't they wipe entire countries? I guess this 7% is not correct or otherwise we would, at least, see massive violent events than just two towers and some bombings. Don't you agree?
------------------------------------------
| Indi wrote: | ||
|
Now, are all of those Muslims who do believe that terrorism is ok wrong? Does the Qur'an really prohibit terrorism? i say no. The Qur'an may not require killing non-believers, but it most certainly does not forbid it. And, the way it is written makes it very easy to interpret it in a way that promotes incredibly horrific acts of violence, such as those we now associate with Islamic terrorism. So... why does my interpretation differ so significantly from yours? Read on....
Now, let's look more carefully at the first part of that verse. In plain English, it says: "If anyone kills a person, that's really bad... unless the person is a murderer or is spreading mischief in the land." That little exception there i've highlighted... that is one of the most important parts of Islam's belligerence toward non-Muslims. It is far more important to that verse than the part about "like killing all humanity" that you are hung up on (that part is just colourful prose - you can take it out and replace it wilth "killing is bad" without changing the meaning - but that bit about spreading mischief is vital to the meaning of that verse). What does "spreading mischief in the land" mean? Who "spreads mischief in the land"? Ah, there's the rub! The answer is: unbelievers (and "false believers", as in 2:6-12). In other words, if a Muslim wants to, they can decide that i - as a non-Muslim critical of Islam - am "spreading mischief in the land", and voilà! The law against killing me no longer applies. They are free to kill me if they want. And not just kill me! Oh, heavens no, that would be too merciful for a mischief making unbeliever! You so kindly quoted 5:32, please, do us the favour of quoting the next verse, 5:33. |
The verse you are talking about is:
"The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and his messenger, and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off from opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the hereafter." 5:33.
The speak here doesn't describe the Islam, but it talks about what happened long before Islam came in the 7th century. There's a separation in the speech. Look into the history of Islam, and you'll know that crucification for example was never applied to anyone and so are cutting hands and feet of non-Muslims. This speak is not about Islam at all.
Those who spread mischief in land are first determined by Muslim leaders. A man, a regular man, like me can not determine who does and who doesn't spread mischief.
Muslim leaders in Quran means the presidents and kings of Islamic countries. Bin Laden is no Muslim leader, that Al-Qa'eda has no right to do what they do. And again, among us Muslims, Al-Qa'eda and its members are no more Muslims.
Using your words, mischiefers can be young kids lying or kids didn't finish their meal not only murderers, drug dealers and every other sort of criminals. Use your logic. We are asked to apply Islam on our side before others and of course there's no man with no sin. Sinners are mischiefers, and they can be Muslims and they should be killed as well in this sense. It is a complete nonsense then. Islam never allowed killing others but if and only if it is a war, and a war that came to Muslims on their own land.
Colorful prose? Okay, which forbid killing more, saying 'killing is bad' or saying 'killing one is like killing millions'? In Arabic it is called 'extreme description' that means the 'absolute of this description'. That is, when Quran says 'Like killing all humanity' means the extreme forbidding of killing...
--------------------------------------------
| Indi wrote: |
|
But, as i explained above, a Muslim has a great deal of latitude in how they interpret "corrupter". A would-be terrorist has little or no problem deciding that whoever is not Muslim is a "corrupter", and the Qur'an certainly lends itself to that interpretation. |
Once more, to interpret Quran, you have to learn Arabic first. Even me, a native Arabic speaker, can not interpret it due the lack of enough knowledge of Arabic language. And a much better it would be, if a history study is made before you do interpret, as Quran some times mention historical events happened long before Islam within the text as mentioned earlier.
At the end of this point, Prophet Mohammed said:
"The greatest sins are: 1- to join others as partners in worship with Allah, 2- to murder a human being, 3- to be undutiful to one's parents, 4- to make a false statement or said 'to give a false witness', 5- to eat up usury, 6- to eat up the property of orphan, 7- to show one's back to the enemy and fleeing from the battle field at the time of fighting and 8- accuse chaste women who never even think of anything touching their chstity." From this you can see that killing, in every sort, is completely forbidden.
-----------------------------------------
| Indi wrote: | ||
|
The same logic applies to the other verses you have quoted, and indeed in general. Provided someone is not considered to be a "threat" to Islam, these laws apply. The problem is the incredible latitude in deciding who or what is a "threat" to Islam. The Qur'an theoretically allows Muslims to say that any non-believer that has not submitted to Islam (for example, by becoming a slave, or simply allowing themselves to be extorted and humiliated by Muslims, see pretty much all of sura 9) is a "threat".
Now this is just absurd. ^_^; Dude, seriously, this is not a statement of compassion, and it is damned insulting to compare it to a really compassionate document like the third and fourth Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Conventions say things like: "Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated." And what does the Qur'an say about those women who were so mercifully not murdered? Are they to be treated humanely? (Hint: start with 4:24.) Reality check. According to the Qur'an, everything belongs to Muslims (as in, Allah and his followers). That includes other people (as in, non-believers). The directive to not kill women prisoners of war is about on the same level of logic as the directive to not kill captured sheep. In both cases, the spoils are theoretically gifts given to the Muslim by Allah, and he should be respectful of that. That is why women should not be killed outright. Because they are property given to Muslims by Allah as a reward for the victory, and the Muslims are free to do with them as they wish, including, but not limited to, raping them into submission. That's a far cry from Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. |
Starting with your hint, I'll go with verse 23 through 24 verses of Sura 4:
"Forbidden to you (for marriage) are: your mothers, your daughters, your sisters, your brother's daughters, your sister's daughters, your foster mothers who gave you suck, your foster milk suckling sisters, your wives' mothers, your step-daughters under your guardianship, born of your wives to whom you have gone in - but there's no sin on you if you have not gone in them (to marry their daughters), - the wives of your sons who (spring) from you own loins, and two sisters in wedlock at the same time, except for what has already passed; verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. (23) Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (slaves) whom your right hands possess. Thu Allah ordained for you. All others are lawful, provided you seek (them in marriage) with Mahr (bridal-money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage) from your property, desiring chastity, not committing illegal sexual intercourse, so with those of whom you have enjoyed sexual relations, give them their Mahr as prescribed; but if after a Mahr is prescribed, you agree mutually (to give more), there is no sin on you. Surly, Allah is Ever All-Knowing, All-Wise. (24)"
You need to study history before you judge what Quran says. It is known at era Islam has rose in that captured women in wars were inslaved. Women at that time had no rights at all and were being humiliated so you can imagine what can be done to female slave. So when Islam came, it had to change this to the better which can not be done in one step. You can imagine what can happen if your country forbid smoking or drinking alcoholics and pass a law active the day it is announced, what would happen? Of course many people will consider it a granted right and dis-obey it. So Allah planned it on the long run. Hear you asking how? Ok, every woman been captured and had a sexual relation with the man captured her and got pregnant, shall be liberated and the child shall be announced as a son or daughter of the man (children born from slaves weren't declared as sons or daughters of the master and remain slaves in addition to the new born). Years passed and showed that the number of slaves has been reduced in the Arabian and Islamic areas and no more sexual intercourse is made with captured women in wars. They are not killed, they are not raped and they are humanly treated.
And for your information only, there were Muslim slaves as well. Some of them joined Islam after they were captured and others were slaves to non-Muslims but they joined Islam.
Another step Islam has made to reduce slavery was encouraging Muslims to liberate slaves in several means such as liberating slaves for the sake of Allah only (many wealthy Muslims paid money and bought slaves just for the sake of liberating them), liberating slaves for the sake of earsing their sins, etc.
Yes, everything belong in the end to Allah and Muslims. But this end would be on judgment day when all mankind would be Muslims and thus everything belong to Muslims and Allah.
In the end, I think it is clear now that Islam was long before Geneva Convention calling the same.
-------------------------------------------
| Indi wrote: | ||
After what i read? i found dozens of verses that allow for the killing of unbelievers of various stripes, and several that even order the killing of certain types of unbelievers (just a small sampling: 4:76, 4:89-91, pretty much all of 9). Hell, for challenging Islam, i'm fair game according to 33:61, aren't i? |
You read a verse and leave others right after them explaining exceptions like the one you were talking about earlier, lets's take 4:89-91 for example. They are long, so I'll cut it short.
from 4:90: "Had Allah willed, indeed He would given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they withdraw from you, and fight not against you, and offer you peace, then Allah has opened no way for you against them."
From 4:91: "If they withdraw not from you, nor offer you peace, nor restrain their hands, take (hold of) them and kill them ... In their case, We have provided you with a clear warrant against them."
I wonder why you didn't read 4:94: "O you who believe! When you go (to fight) in the Cause of Allah, verify (the truth), and say not to anyone who greets you (by embracing Islam): 'You are not a believer'; seeking the perishable goods of the worldly life. There are much more profits and booties with Allah..."
Why it is all about Quran? Quran is the book of our lives and the law we follow. 4:105 says: "Surely, We have sent down to you (O Mohammed) the Book (this Quran) in truth that might judge between men by that which Allah has shown you..."
And please, review 33:61 again, as Sura 61 is only 14 verses.
It's a pleasure to talk with you and answer any questions or clarify anything you like.
| TrueFact wrote: | ||
A note here, if they do NOT follow Islam as they suppose to, they are not Muslims anymore. But internationally, they are recognized as Muslims while Islam itself refuses them. |
Who exactly determines how Islam is "supposed to be followed"? That's nonsense. The Quran can be interpreted multiple ways as present situations show. It may not be the way you see it or the way the majority of Muslims see it, but their actions are still completely based on their interpretations of the Quran. Indi went through that quite clearly.
It's irrelevant if you or anyone think they're following Islam in the wrong way. That isn't the point. The point is Islam is related to terrorism, they're Muslims in their own eyes, and they're doing the work of Allah based on their interpretation of the Quran. Again, there's no getting around it. Whether you like it or not, Islam and the terrorism we're seeing are related. Is Islam the root cause of this terrorism? No.
| liljp617 wrote: |
|
Who exactly determines how Islam is "supposed to be followed"? That's nonsense. The Quran can be interpreted multiple ways as present situations show. It may not be the way you see it or the way the majority of Muslims see it, but their actions are still completely based on their interpretations of the Quran. Indi went through that quite clearly. It's irrelevant if you or anyone think they're following Islam in the wrong way. That isn't the point. The point is Islam is related to terrorism, they're Muslims in their own eyes, and they're doing the work of Allah based on their interpretation of the Quran. Again, there's no getting around it. Whether you like it or not, Islam and the terrorism we're seeing are related. Is Islam the root cause of this terrorism? No. |
Very precisely formulated. Very true, in my opinion.
| TrueFact wrote: | ||
A note here, if they do NOT follow Islam as they suppose to, they are not Muslims anymore. But internationally, they are recognized as Muslims while Islam itself refuses them. |
i have no idea what any of this is supposed to mean. ^_^; i just finished explaining to you that they are following Islam - at least their interpretation of it. It just so happens that their interpretation is not the same as yours. The Qur'an is not specific about how to determine who or what is an enemy of Islam, and it allows a great deal of latitude in deciding who is "spreading mischief" (and if you want to object that that's just how it translates in one version, fine - other translations for the phrase include "spreading corruption", which doesn't really change anything much).
| TrueFact wrote: | ||
7% of 100'000'000 Muslims around the world is 7'000'000, yes it is in millions. But if there are 7 million Muslims want kill every non-believer, wouldn't they wipe entire countries? I guess this 7% is not correct or otherwise we would, at least, see massive violent events than just two towers and some bombings. Don't you agree? |
Um no? ^_^; i didn't say 7% of Muslims want to kill every non-believer, now did i? i said that 7% of Muslims were crazy and bloodthirsty - nothing more, nothing less. And actually, the poll results pretty much provide proof of what i'm saying. 7% of Muslims think bin Laden did just fine by killing thousands of innocent Americans on 9/11. That means 7% don't agree with your interpretation and interpret the Qur'an in such a way as to allow for terrorism.
As for killing every non-believer, i don't know how many Muslims want to do that. But what i do know is that if they really want to, it is not hard to interpret the Qur'an in such a way as to allow for it.
| TrueFact wrote: | ||
The verse you are talking about is: "The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and his messenger, and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off from opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the hereafter." 5:33. The speak here doesn't describe the Islam, but it talks about what happened long before Islam came in the 7th century. There's a separation in the speech. Look into the history of Islam, and you'll know that crucification for example was never applied to anyone and so are cutting hands and feet of non-Muslims. This speak is not about Islam at all. |
Alright, this is complete nonsense. Utter crap.
You are literally pulling the interpretation you want out of thin air. Nowhere in that text does it say anything about the past, or "before Islam", or anything like that.
There is a bit of a separation between 5:32 and 5:33, but it is not a complete change of topic. But let's look at surah 5 as a whole. It starts with some instruction to believers about what they can eat and how they should go about eating it (1-6). Then it starts to go on about how Allah provides for the believers (and how he will punish the disbelievers), and that believers should be thankful for everything Allah provides (6-11). Then it starts in on how bad Jews and Christians are all cursed (12-19). Then it tells a story of Moses, where Moses stirred the people to follow Allah, and how they were rewarded while the non-believers suffered (and deserved the suffering, too) (20-26). Then it tells a story about Cain and Abel (27-31). And then we come to 32, which is the ending of the story of Cain and Abel, where - because Cain has killed Abel - the Jews (Children of Isreal) were given the commandment not to kill (with the exception of murderers and "mischief-makers"). 32 continues on, telling what happened after this commandment was given - Allah sent messengers to tell everyone how great he was and not everyone listened.
The separation in the speech you are talking about is not between 32 and 33 - it is within 32. The story of Cain and Abel ends, and it goes back to the previous topic: unbelievers suck. 33 then follows very naturally from that. It follows very smoothly and naturally from the verse you like and want to apply today (that is actually a story about the past) into that one that you don't like and want to pretend only applied in the past (that is actually a command for all time).
| TrueFact wrote: |
| Those who spread mischief in land are first determined by Muslim leaders. A man, a regular man, like me can not determine who does and who doesn't spread mischief.
Muslim leaders in Quran means the presidents and kings of Islamic countries. Bin Laden is no Muslim leader, that Al-Qa'eda has no right to do what they do. And again, among us Muslims, Al-Qa'eda and its members are no more Muslims. |
*facepalm*
Ok, time for another reality check. Bin Laden may not be a cleric... but wake up, man. Seriously. Do you really believe that there are no clerics that agree with him? Remember the 7%? By your own calculation, that's over 7 million Muslims (by my calculation, 91 million, given that there are 1.3 billion, but i'll use your number if you like). And... you think none of them are leaders? Not a one?
You know, i live just down the street from a real live example of how out of touch with reality you are. A Muslim leader in my area - the mosque where he led prayers was just down the road - was arrested in 2006 for a terrorist plot. He (allegedly) used the mosque to recruit 16 other would-be terrorists.
So yeah... the plain fact is there are people who interpret the Qur'an as a recipe for terror, and there are Muslim leaders who are willing to point out innocent people as targets. They may not be your kind of Muslims, but they are, indisputably, Muslims.
| TrueFact wrote: |
| Using your words, mischiefers can be young kids lying or kids didn't finish their meal not only murderers, drug dealers and every other sort of criminals. Use your logic. We are asked to apply Islam on our side before others and of course there's no man with no sin. Sinners are mischiefers, and they can be Muslims and they should be killed as well in this sense. It is a complete nonsense then. Islam never allowed killing others but if and only if it is a war, and a war that came to Muslims on their own land. |
No, you are wrong. Young kids lying or kids that didn't finish their meal would not be "spreading mischief (or corruption) in the land". There is no "spreading" of anything going on there, just some misbehaviour. And young kids lying or not eating their peas do not undermine Islam or its teachings, so they could not be considered to be spreading mischief in the land. Sinners are also not spreading mischief in the land. Really, you should read up more on how Muslim leaders interpret the Qur'an. Unless someone is impeding, distorting or undermining the practice of Islam, they cannot be considered to be mischief-makers.
i could, though - as could anyone that criticizes the Qur'an. Christians and Jews are both explicitly named as troublemakers, too. That means that a terrorist could easily justify killing me, or anyone who criticizes Islam, or even just Christians and Jews in general.
| TrueFact wrote: | ||
Once more, to interpret Quran, you have to learn Arabic first. Even me, a native Arabic speaker, can not interpret it due the lack of enough knowledge of Arabic language. And a much better it would be, if a history study is made before you do interpret, as Quran some times mention historical events happened long before Islam within the text as mentioned earlier. |
Or, you know, i could just not bother with any of that, and just read the works of respected Muslim scholars who do speak Arabic (in its many forms, ancient and modern), and who do know the history of Islam and its interpretations. Their interpretations are plenty good enough for me, and every one that i've read or seen on TV all say that the Qur'an allows for a wide latitude in interpretation of what constitutes a "attack" on Islam.
| TrueFact wrote: |
| And please, review 33:61 again, as Sura 61 is only 14 verses. |
Er... yes... and surah 33 is 73 verses. What's your point?
Truthfully I did not read the much of the main post or the replies to the topic yet as I want to show my true and raw opinions on the matter. The only thing I am basing this reply on is the title of the post and:
In my opinion these Islamic terrorists basically have their own goals and only use terrorism as an excuse to justify their rights are correct. Much like any other racial stereotype, people begin to associate terrorists with the Islamic religion as at the moment the United States army is battling terrorists in the Middle-East that claim they are true followers of the Islamic religion. This corruption spreads between other terrorists as believers of "extreme" terrorism begin to persuade others to think of the same beliefs and believe what they are doing is for a good cause. But you also have to think of the situation these Islamic extremists are in. In Iraq the country has been in dismay for a long time and their government has been corrupt and unstable, even before the United States went in. Also with the territorial disputes between Israel and Palestine, Palestinians have been segregated from their original homeland in Israel and can no longer return due to check points. Because of the Arabs feeling a sense of loss and disrespect, the result is the status of the Middle-East countries today with terrorist acts like suicide bombing, shoot outs, etc. When human life comes to a point where they have lost everything and have fallen into a desperate situation, sometimes they may resort to desperate actions... in this case that would be terrorism. In conclusion, the main religion of the Middle-East is Islam and then these extremists then use their religion as an excuse to make false belief that what they are doing is just. Islam should not be associated with terrorism and vise versa. Terrorism is simply the use of threats and violence to prove that the terrorist beliefs are correct and should be recognized. Terrorism can be sought out by anyone, not just Islamic people, and terrorism can be found anywhere around the world.
| Quote: |
| Unfortunately more and more often, Islam has been associated with terrorism and violence due to the actions of a few extreme individuals who’ve taken it upon themselves to do the most heinous crimes in the name of Islam. |
In my opinion these Islamic terrorists basically have their own goals and only use terrorism as an excuse to justify their rights are correct. Much like any other racial stereotype, people begin to associate terrorists with the Islamic religion as at the moment the United States army is battling terrorists in the Middle-East that claim they are true followers of the Islamic religion. This corruption spreads between other terrorists as believers of "extreme" terrorism begin to persuade others to think of the same beliefs and believe what they are doing is for a good cause. But you also have to think of the situation these Islamic extremists are in. In Iraq the country has been in dismay for a long time and their government has been corrupt and unstable, even before the United States went in. Also with the territorial disputes between Israel and Palestine, Palestinians have been segregated from their original homeland in Israel and can no longer return due to check points. Because of the Arabs feeling a sense of loss and disrespect, the result is the status of the Middle-East countries today with terrorist acts like suicide bombing, shoot outs, etc. When human life comes to a point where they have lost everything and have fallen into a desperate situation, sometimes they may resort to desperate actions... in this case that would be terrorism. In conclusion, the main religion of the Middle-East is Islam and then these extremists then use their religion as an excuse to make false belief that what they are doing is just. Islam should not be associated with terrorism and vise versa. Terrorism is simply the use of threats and violence to prove that the terrorist beliefs are correct and should be recognized. Terrorism can be sought out by anyone, not just Islamic people, and terrorism can be found anywhere around the world.
| KeenEyes wrote: |
| In my opinion these Islamic terrorists basically have their own goals and only use terrorism as an excuse to justify their rights are correct. |
(i'm pretty sure that you don't actually mean what you said. ^_^; Terrorism is an excuse? Yeah... i don't think so. Perhaps you mean Islam is used an excuse for terrorism?)
| KeenEyes wrote: |
| Much like any other racial stereotype, people begin to associate terrorists with the Islamic religion as at the moment the United States army is battling terrorists in the Middle-East that claim they are true followers of the Islamic religion. This corruption spreads between other terrorists as believers of "extreme" terrorism begin to persuade others to think of the same beliefs and believe what they are doing is for a good cause. But you also have to think of the situation these Islamic extremists are in. In Iraq the country has been in dismay for a long time and their government has been corrupt and unstable, even before the United States went in. Also with the territorial disputes between Israel and Palestine, Palestinians have been segregated from their original homeland in Israel and can no longer return due to check points. Because of the Arabs feeling a sense of loss and disrespect, the result is the status of the Middle-East countries today with terrorist acts like suicide bombing, shoot outs, etc. When human life comes to a point where they have lost everything and have fallen into a desperate situation, sometimes they may resort to desperate actions... in this case that would be terrorism. In conclusion, the main religion of the Middle-East is Islam and then these extremists then use their religion as an excuse to make false belief that what they are doing is just. Islam should not be associated with terrorism and vise versa. Terrorism is simply the use of threats and violence to prove that the terrorist beliefs are correct and should be recognized. Terrorism can be sought out by anyone, not just Islamic people, and terrorism can be found anywhere around the world. |
i have a hard time understanding why people don't get that saying "Xs are Ys" doesn't mean that "Ys are Xs". Why is this so hard to understand? "Nickels are coins" doesn't mean that "coins are nickels", "boats are vehicles" doesn't mean that "vehicles are boats", and "Al-Qaida and their terrorist allies are Muslims" doesn't mean that "Muslims are Al-Qaida and their terrorist allies".
And i think it is incredibly hypocritical to accuse people of stereotyping a whole group when they are stating facts about a small part of that group and you are spreading those facts to be interpreted over the whole group. Look, i'll make this as clear as humanly possible. Read very carefully: "Al-Qaida and similar groups. Are. Muslims." That is all everyone has ever really said. No one (excepting a very, very small group of extremist bigots that doesn't even get any air time) has said that all - or even most! - Muslims are terrorists. No one. Ok? No one is stigmatizing Muslims. No one is stereotyping Muslims as terrorists.
What is happening is that Muslim groups and their supporters are upset that Islam is being "tainted" by association with those whackjob terrorists - and understandably so. But instead of putting their efforts into teaching people in Afghanistan, Iran, etc. that their interpretation of Islam is wrong, they are whining in the media about being marginalized and stigmatized. They are the ones who introduce the claims that "Muslims are terrorists" or that "Islam leads to terrorism". They are doing it as part of a straw-man attack on the legitimate concerns about the size and spread of dangerously extremist Islam.
Seriously, just watch/read the media carefully, and take careful note of who says what. You will see that it is not the people who are criticizing Islam that make those claims... it is the people arguing in support of Islam. The only time you will hear a critic of Islam make claims like that is when it's some nut like Pat Robertson or Fred Phelps.
Start with this thread, and read it carefully, and you will see what i mean. It is not the critics of Islam that are portraying Islam as a terrorist religion, or coming up with the claim that Muslims in general are terrorists. For example, all i've said is that the Qur'an can be interpreted to allow for terrorist acts (despite what some Muslims claim), and that a large number of Muslims do interpret it that way. That is not the same as saying that that is how the Qur'an should be interpreted (in other words, that all Muslims should be terrorists, if they're not already), and i specifically said that only 7% of Muslims interpret it that way (hardly "all" - not even "most").
-------------------------------------
The people who are concerned with the growth, size and spread of Islamic (and Islamist) terrorism have legitimate concerns, and should not be drowned out by the silly straw man claims of people who just want to protect their own (religious) interests at the expense of the truth. Muslims in general are not terrorists, and clearly it is possible to be a Muslim without being a terrorist, so it is possible to interpret the Qur'an in a peaceful way. Those are facts. But these are also facts: millions of Muslims do interpret the Qur'an in a way that is violent and bigoted, and they either are (i don't know how many) or openly support (7% of Muslims worldwide) terrorism. Denying that - as the original poster of this thread has tried to do - helps no one. A problem exists, and thus far the overwhelming Muslim response (by moderate Muslims) has been to pretend it's not there. Some of us are not quite so irresponsible, and we are trying to understand and solve this problem. Without the assistance of moderate Muslims, that job will be hard as hell... but with them actively trying to undermine the efforts, it will be damn near impossible.
| Indi wrote: | ||||
(i'm pretty sure that you don't actually mean what you said. ^_^; Terrorism is an excuse? Yeah... i don't think so. Perhaps you mean Islam is used an excuse for terrorism?)
i have a hard time understanding why people don't get that saying "Xs are Ys" doesn't mean that "Ys are Xs". Why is this so hard to understand? "Nickels are coins" doesn't mean that "coins are nickels", "boats are vehicles" doesn't mean that "vehicles are boats", and "Al-Qaida and their terrorist allies are Muslims" doesn't mean that "Muslims are Al-Qaida and their terrorist allies". And i think it is incredibly hypocritical to accuse people of stereotyping a whole group when they are stating facts about a small part of that group and you are spreading those facts to be interpreted over the whole group. Look, i'll make this as clear as humanly possible. Read very carefully: "Al-Qaida and similar groups. Are. Muslims." That is all everyone has ever really said. No one (excepting a very, very small group of extremist bigots that doesn't even get any air time) has said that all - or even most! - Muslims are terrorists. No one. Ok? No one is stigmatizing Muslims. No one is stereotyping Muslims as terrorists. What is happening is that Muslim groups and their supporters are upset that Islam is being "tainted" by association with those whackjob terrorists - and understandably so. But instead of putting their efforts into teaching people in Afghanistan, Iran, etc. that their interpretation of Islam is wrong, they are whining in the media about being marginalized and stigmatized. They are the ones who introduce the claims that "Muslims are terrorists" or that "Islam leads to terrorism". They are doing it as part of a straw-man attack on the legitimate concerns about the size and spread of dangerously extremist Islam. Seriously, just watch/read the media carefully, and take careful note of who says what. You will see that it is not the people who are criticizing Islam that make those claims... it is the people arguing in support of Islam. The only time you will hear a critic of Islam make claims like that is when it's some nut like Pat Robertson or Fred Phelps. Start with this thread, and read it carefully, and you will see what i mean. It is not the critics of Islam that are portraying Islam as a terrorist religion, or coming up with the claim that Muslims in general are terrorists. For example, all i've said is that the Qur'an can be interpreted to allow for terrorist acts (despite what some Muslims claim), and that a large number of Muslims do interpret it that way. That is not the same as saying that that is how the Qur'an should be interpreted (in other words, that all Muslims should be terrorists, if they're not already), and i specifically said that only 7% of Muslims interpret it that way (hardly "all" - not even "most"). ------------------------------------- The people who are concerned with the growth, size and spread of Islamic (and Islamist) terrorism have legitimate concerns, and should not be drowned out by the silly straw man claims of people who just want to protect their own (religious) interests at the expense of the truth. Muslims in general are not terrorists, and clearly it is possible to be a Muslim without being a terrorist, so it is possible to interpret the Qur'an in a peaceful way. Those are facts. But these are also facts: millions of Muslims do interpret the Qur'an in a way that is violent and bigoted, and they either are (i don't know how many) or openly support (7% of Muslims worldwide) terrorism. Denying that - as the original poster of this thread has tried to do - helps no one. A problem exists, and thus far the overwhelming Muslim response (by moderate Muslims) has been to pretend it's not there. Some of us are not quite so irresponsible, and we are trying to understand and solve this problem. Without the assistance of moderate Muslims, that job will be hard as hell... but with them actively trying to undermine the efforts, it will be damn near impossible. |
Haha yes I meant that terrorists use Islam as an excuse.
| Quote: |
| It is not the critics of Islam that are portraying Islam as a terrorist religion, or coming up with the claim that Muslims in general are terrorists. For example, all i've said is that the Qur'an can be interpreted to allow for terrorist acts (despite what some Muslims claim), and that a large number of Muslims do interpret it that way. |
That's what I meant by the Middle-East terrorist extremists using Islam as an excuse for justifying their actions. Almost any religious book people learn from can be adjusted to a person's opinions simply because the book is somewhat abstract and people have to read deeper into the text to find what they believe is the true meaning. People are only people and can look at things in different ways, thus resulting in different opinions and thoughts about a variety of unlimited things, not just in religious books. Basically these terrorists read the Koran and then twist it to justify their terrorist cause and objectives. You can't just say the Koran is the only holy book that can be "interpreted" to cause terrorist acts. I can find plenty of the verses in the Bible that I can see how people can interpret it as an influence for terrorism and you could probably find one in any other "abstract" book as well. Heck Jewish terrorists spin the Torah to justify their means of terrorism is right for the sake of Israel. That's the thing with language. Words can be seen in many ways, shapes, and forms, regardless of what the author's original intention was.
| Quote: |
| But these are also facts: millions of Muslims do interpret the Qur'an in a way that is violent and bigoted, and they either are (i don't know how many) or openly support (7% of Muslims worldwide) terrorism. |
Those are statistics, but do you have any idea what's BEHIND the statistics? People almost always have a reason. You can't just bluntly throw out a statistics and say, "This is proof these numbers support that the Koran influences terrorism" without even understanding what situation these Middle-Eastern Muslims are in. As I said in my previous post, there's unstable government in Iraq, people still believing that Saddam Hussein was the right leader and his cause should still reign for the sake of their survival regardless of what horrible events occur in the country, Palestinians wanting their land in Israel again, etc. As the majority of Muslims reside in the Middle-East (excluding Malaysia and its surrounding islands) they're in really bad conditions with conflicts over sides. All in all at the moment they've lost more than any other religion. Yes, Jewish people were persecuted in the Holocaust however the Holocaust has ended long ago and Jews have recovered much since that time. I can't think of any major religion that has the most people in a bad situation other than Islam because at a modern standpoint, the only religious people having political and territorial disputes are the Muslims. With so many of these Islamic people in bad situations, of course some are going to result in unjust acts such as terrorism. Then when they do this, they bend their religious teachings to justify their own actions. It's been repeated in history that whenever people are in horrible situations, they result in desperate actions. For example, back after World War I, Germany was in a state of instability and chaos. With a failing economy and countries blaming the country for the war, German citizens were suffering. Now when the Hitler came to power, people supported him just because at the situation they were in, they were willing to believe anyone with charisma would aid them. Yes it's actually true that Hitler did some good things for Germany like build a revolution in warfare, stabilize their economy, and influence nationalistic ideas about Germans, but I don't think many of the supporters in the beginning were thinking that Jewish containment camps where Jews were slain was going to be a necessary step to "revitalizing" their country. Of course when the time came and Hitler announced this mass killing of the Jews, the people that were not going to be sent to camps weren't going to disagree with Hitler's ideals and actions. He already rose them from being refugees after World War I and now they were all living peaceful lives. This support for an evil cause is an example of what these Middle-Easterners have to deal with. As propaganda spreads, it consumes the thoughts and opinions to other people have. With this tear in opinions and ideas, there's chaos in the Middle-East. Some people want to follow their government and believe their government is right. This causes terrorist acts on refugee camps. People that don't want to follow their government due to their past or present actions, usually the refugees, believe that a new reform is needed. This causes terrorist acts on the government. To back up their reasons, what's their usual excuse? Their religion. It just so happens that the main Middle-Eastern religion for Arabs is Islam. To back their causes they then twist and change what they believe the Koran is right. It just so happens that fate has pushed the majority of these Islams into these horrible situations today, however I bet you that any religion would have many more extremist terrorist groups in them if they were in the situations these Middle-Eastern Muslims are in today. It's always been the same and has been repeated in history. Desperate situations causes desperate actions, and these are then justified by twisted and corrupt morals and teachings of their religion.
| KeenEyes wrote: |
| You can't just say the Koran is the only holy book that can be "interpreted" to cause terrorist acts. |
BUT NO ONE IS SAYING THAT! ^_^; Not in the media in general and not here. That is a straw man fallacy - it is distorting what people are saying into something that is easier to shoot down, and then calling them wrong. (Excepting crazies like Fred Phelps), no one believes that! No one at all.
Of course other religious texts can be interpreted to support violence! i mean... duh. ^_^; Good grief just counting Christianity, there's the inquisitions, the witch trials, the abortion clinic murders and that crazy kid that murdered his atheist friend because he thought he was Satan.
i know you didn't read through this thread, but if you did you would see what i mean. The only people who made those ridiculous claims - that Islam causes terrorism or that only Islam can be interpreted to support terrorism - are you and the person who made the thread! ^_^; Everyone else that has said anything on the subject has said exactly what you have tried to argue - that not all Muslims interpret Islam in support of terrorism though some do (see liljp617's first post), that other religions also have people that interpret it in favour of terrorism (see LukeakaDanish's first post), etc. etc.
But the creator of the thread has introduced those false - and silly - claims to camouflage the argument he or she is trying to make. And that argument is that Islam does not have interpretations that allow terrorism, and that Islamic terrorists aren't really Muslims. Do you agree with that? Because i don't think you do, i think you have been suckered by those fake arguments into joining a side you don't really believe in. (Incidentally, this is why it's a good idea to read through an argument before jumping into it.)
(If you want an analogy of what's going on, consider herpes. This is what this thread looks like right now:
The original poster says: "Some people say that sex causes herpes. They're wrong, sex doesn't cause herpes - sex doesn't have anything to do with herpes."
i am saying: "Yes, obviously sex does not cause herpes. But obviously sex is a factor somehow in the spread of herpes. You are wrong to say sex has nothing to do with herpes."
Then you say: "Sex does not cause herpes. Lots of people have sex but don't get herpes."
So i replied: "Yes, we know sex does not cause herpes. No one really believes that. The original poster just said it to cause confusion. Obviously sex does not cause herpes, but just as obviously it is clearly a factor.")
| KeenEyes wrote: |
| Those are statistics, but do you have any idea what's BEHIND the statistics? People almost always have a reason. You can't just bluntly throw out a statistics and say, "This is proof these numbers support that the Koran influences terrorism" without even understanding what situation these Middle-Eastern Muslims are in. |
Oh, you're absolutely right! ^_^ So, let's dig a bit, and see if we can get a better grasp of the picture....
| KeenEyes wrote: |
| As I said in my previous post, there's unstable government in Iraq, people still believing that Saddam Hussein was the right leader and his cause should still reign for the sake of their survival regardless of what horrible events occur in the country, Palestinians wanting their land in Israel again, etc. As the majority of Muslims reside in the Middle-East (excluding Malaysia and its surrounding islands) they're in really bad conditions with conflicts over sides. All in all at the moment they've lost more than any other religion. Yes, Jewish people were persecuted in the Holocaust however the Holocaust has ended long ago and Jews have recovered much since that time. I can't think of any major religion that has the most people in a bad situation other than Islam because at a modern standpoint, the only religious people having political and territorial disputes are the Muslims. With so many of these Islamic people in bad situations, of course some are going to result in unjust acts such as terrorism. Then when they do this, they bend their religious teachings to justify their own actions. It's been repeated in history that whenever people are in horrible situations, they result in desperate actions. For example, back after World War I, Germany was in a state of instability and chaos. With a failing economy and countries blaming the country for the war, German citizens were suffering. Now when the Hitler came to power, people supported him just because at the situation they were in, they were willing to believe anyone with charisma would aid them. Yes it's actually true that Hitler did some good things for Germany like build a revolution in warfare, stabilize their economy, and influence nationalistic ideas about Germans, but I don't think many of the supporters in the beginning were thinking that Jewish containment camps where Jews were slain was going to be a necessary step to "revitalizing" their country. Of course when the time came and Hitler announced this mass killing of the Jews, the people that were not going to be sent to camps weren't going to disagree with Hitler's ideals and actions. He already rose them from being refugees after World War I and now they were all living peaceful lives. This support for an evil cause is an example of what these Middle-Easterners have to deal with. As propaganda spreads, it consumes the thoughts and opinions to other people have. With this tear in opinions and ideas, there's chaos in the Middle-East. Some people want to follow their government and believe their government is right. This causes terrorist acts on refugee camps. People that don't want to follow their government due to their past or present actions, usually the refugees, believe that a new reform is needed. This causes terrorist acts on the government. To back up their reasons, what's their usual excuse? Their religion. It just so happens that the main Middle-Eastern religion for Arabs is Islam. To back their causes they then twist and change what they believe the Koran is right. It just so happens that fate has pushed the majority of these Islams into these horrible situations today, however I bet you that any religion would have many more extremist terrorist groups in them if they were in the situations these Middle-Eastern Muslims are in today. It's always been the same and has been repeated in history. Desperate situations causes desperate actions, and these are then justified by twisted and corrupt morals and teachings of their religion. |
Alright, let's consider these claims - that Islam is totally innocent with regards to terrorism, and that the fact that so many Muslims support terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, it's just that Muslims have had it pretty rough.
i don't think so.
First, let's consider whether it could be that Muslims have had it so much tougher than everyone else, and that's what makes so many of them today violent - their violence is a product of their history, not their religion. You brought up Jews, so let's use them as a counter example. From about as far back as history records, Jews have been either enslaved or treated as second-class citizens - going all the way back to Ancient Egypt, all through Roman times, all through the European Middle Ages (where do you think Hitler got his ideas from? rounding up Jews into ghettos and putting little yellow stars on them are both inventions of the Vatican). From ancient times up until 1948, they were shat on by a stream of empires. By contrast, for hundreds of years Muslims had one of the most powerful and most advanced cultures in the world. And since then, up until today even, they have had complete and total control over one of the most resource-rich areas in the world. These are not poor countries - look at the top ten richest heads of state here and explain to me how Muslim nations are so hard done by when 9 of the top 10 are Muslim (and the first non-Muslim in the list has only a little more than half of the lowest Muslim, and is the head of state of over 15 countries). And of course the poorest countries in the world (the countries with the most people living in abject poverty) are mostly African - with a fairly liberal mix of religions (Nigeria and Tanzania are both split about 50-50 Islam/Christian, Burundi is ~70% Christian, Rwanda is like 95% Christian!) - and then a bunch of predominantly Hindi countries.
No, i'm sorry, if you're going to argue that the percentage of Muslims who support terrorism is so high because they have had it bad... it's not going to fly.
Not to mention that the most violently aggressive Muslim populations are those in Muslim countries under Muslim law and Muslim rulers. And most of the worst of the wars in the Middle East have been Muslim on Muslim (like Iran/Iraq, Jordan/Syria, Ethiopia, Libya/Egypt, etc.). If Muslims were being persecuted... they would be the ones doing it to themselves. ^_^; But of course, as i showed above, they haven't really had it all that bad, comparatively.
So, no, arguing that Islamic terrorism comes out of the long-term suffering of Muslim populations... doesn't work.
But there's even more proof! If it is true that Islamic terrorism is caused by the situation of Muslims in the Middle East, and Islam itself is totally innocent, then explain John Walker Lindh. Or David Hicks. Or, my favourite, shoe bomber Richard Reid. None of these people were raised in any kind of horrible poverty or repression. None - with the exception of Reid - showed any real signs of violence before they found Islam, the religion of peace. Would-be terrorists are not being recruited out of arcades, off of sports fields or even out of school, they are being recruited at mosques. That's what happened right here, just down the road from me - in Canada - for example.
These are the facts. We know Islam does not cause terrorism. i mean, duh. If Islam caused terrorism, then we'd have over a billion terrorists in the world right now. Clearly not, despite what US Homeland Security would have us believe. And clearly there are non-Muslim terrorists. Again, duh. But... there is a relationship between Islam and terrorism. The facts are there, plain as day. There is no other consistent cause that explains the abnormally high number of supporters of terrorism among Muslims, except the religion itself - poverty doesn't explain it (the poorest people are not Muslims), oppression doesn't explain it (there are people oppressed much worse, and most Muslims worldwide live in Muslim-ruled nations), history doesn't explain it (Muslims haven't had it that bad, historically)... nothing fits the pattern, except Islam. And this is a global phenomenon. Virtually every country in the world that shares borders with Muslim countries is perpetually at war with those countries - even including other Muslim countries! ^_^;
You want "the idea BEHIND the statistics", well i don't know what it is yet. But a blind fool can see that whatever the underlying cause is, Islam is definitely a factor. The only factor? Of course not. How big a factor? We don't know. But denying that it is indeed a factor is just silly at this point. Clearly there are other factors (or all Muslims would be terrorist crazies), but whatever those factors are, we'll have a better chance of pinning them down if we're honest about the one factor we have figured out so far.
Problem is not with books, religions or faiths. Problem is in human minds. With a dark glass, you just can see everything as dark only. Remove it. See the world as it is.
But unfortunately, some religions sometimes provide that dark glass.
I didn't deny that some groups of Muslims interpret Quran the way they like, or interpret it wrong. The dangerous thing that we follow leaders, these leaders can mislead a Muslim group with fake goals. And there's no different versions of Islam, it is only one... the different groups only argue about the minor points related to things like how to pray. But... Iranian and some Turkish follow something called Shea'a as well as some Iraqis and Lebanease, these for example are not Muslims and what they do is not civilized at all and you can see it clearly in Iraq and the recent conflict between Israel and Hezb Allah in Lebanon (Allah Party, political Party i mean)...
My point was that Islam has five major groups, four of them are very close and similar to each other, the fifth is Shea'a. Most Muslim countries follow these four which are greatly balanced. Of course there are more than these five, but they are minority to the degree make them effectless.
I will review all your replies at a later time, as I'm writing these words in a hurry...
Sorry for the delay...
My point was that Islam has five major groups, four of them are very close and similar to each other, the fifth is Shea'a. Most Muslim countries follow these four which are greatly balanced. Of course there are more than these five, but they are minority to the degree make them effectless.
I will review all your replies at a later time, as I'm writing these words in a hurry...
Sorry for the delay...
Wow... didn't notice your second reply Indi...
Just a short note before I leave
I'm the person created this thread... and I didn't claim that Islam is causes terrorism directly nor Islam supports it and didn't mean to claim Islam is not a factor causing terrorism leading some groups to take violent actions. I was talking about the Islam we learn in schools, universities and even mosques - the place you say they recruit terrorists in... Why did you forget at this point that mosques leaders are humans with their own intentions and political views? The first advice to new Muslims is to find a trustworthy Imam, leader of a mosque which are now listed in trusted sites to eliminate such leaders.
And another...
We've been talking about two different things here...
So you mean this verse:
"33:55 There is no fault in the Prophet's wives touching their fathers, their sons, their brothers, their brothers' sons, their sisters' sons, their women, and what their right hands own. And fear you God; surely God is witness of everything.
God and His angels bless the Prophet. O believers, do you also bless him, and pray him peace. Those who hurt God and His Messenger -- them God has cursed in the present world and the world to come, and has prepared for them a humbling chastisement. And those who hurt believing men and believing women, without that they have earned it, have laid upon themselves calumny and manifest sin.
O Prophet, say to thy wives and daughters and the believing women, that they draw their veils close to them; so it is likelier they will be known, and not hurt. God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.
33:60 Now; if the hypocrites do not give over, and those in whose hearts there is sickness and they that make commotion in the city, We shall assuredly urge thee against them and then they will be thy neighbours there only a little; cursed they shalt be, and wheresoever they are come upon they shall be seized and slaughtered all -- God's wont with those who passed away before; and thou shall find no changing the wont of God.
The people will question thee concerning the Hour. Say: 'The knowledge of it is only with God; what shall make thee know? Haply the Hour is nigh.'
God has cursed the unbelievers, and prepared for them a Blaze, ..."
The people will question thee concerning the Hour. Say: 'The knowledge of it is only with God; what shall make thee know? Haply the Hour is nigh.' "
This one is by A. J. Arberry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._J._Arberry)
and his translation is here http://arthursclassicnovels.com/arthurs/koran/koran-arberry10.html
Just a short note before I leave
| Quote: |
| i know you didn't read through this thread, but if you did you would see what i mean. The only people who made those ridiculous claims - that Islam causes terrorism or that only Islam can be interpreted to support terrorism - are you and the person who made the thread! ^_^; |
I'm the person created this thread... and I didn't claim that Islam is causes terrorism directly nor Islam supports it and didn't mean to claim Islam is not a factor causing terrorism leading some groups to take violent actions. I was talking about the Islam we learn in schools, universities and even mosques - the place you say they recruit terrorists in... Why did you forget at this point that mosques leaders are humans with their own intentions and political views? The first advice to new Muslims is to find a trustworthy Imam, leader of a mosque which are now listed in trusted sites to eliminate such leaders.
And another...
| Quote: |
| And please, review 33:61 again, as Sura 61 is only 14 verses. |
| Quote: |
| Er... yes... and surah 33 is 73 verses. What's your point? |
We've been talking about two different things here...
So you mean this verse:
"33:55 There is no fault in the Prophet's wives touching their fathers, their sons, their brothers, their brothers' sons, their sisters' sons, their women, and what their right hands own. And fear you God; surely God is witness of everything.
God and His angels bless the Prophet. O believers, do you also bless him, and pray him peace. Those who hurt God and His Messenger -- them God has cursed in the present world and the world to come, and has prepared for them a humbling chastisement. And those who hurt believing men and believing women, without that they have earned it, have laid upon themselves calumny and manifest sin.
O Prophet, say to thy wives and daughters and the believing women, that they draw their veils close to them; so it is likelier they will be known, and not hurt. God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.
33:60 Now; if the hypocrites do not give over, and those in whose hearts there is sickness and they that make commotion in the city, We shall assuredly urge thee against them and then they will be thy neighbours there only a little; cursed they shalt be, and wheresoever they are come upon they shall be seized and slaughtered all -- God's wont with those who passed away before; and thou shall find no changing the wont of God.
The people will question thee concerning the Hour. Say: 'The knowledge of it is only with God; what shall make thee know? Haply the Hour is nigh.'
God has cursed the unbelievers, and prepared for them a Blaze, ..."
The people will question thee concerning the Hour. Say: 'The knowledge of it is only with God; what shall make thee know? Haply the Hour is nigh.' "
This one is by A. J. Arberry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._J._Arberry)
and his translation is here http://arthursclassicnovels.com/arthurs/koran/koran-arberry10.html
| TrueFact wrote: |
| I didn't deny that some groups of Muslims interpret Quran the way they like, or interpret it wrong. |
There is a classic fallacy called the "no true Scotsman fallacy". Here's how it works.
i say: "Americans are so violent, but Scotsmen are non-violent. No true Scotsman would ever do what those Columbine kids, or that Virginia Tech twerp, did."
Someone objects: "But what about Thomas Hamilton?"
i reply: "i said no true Scotsman would do that. So, obviously Hamilton was not a true Scotsman. Therefore, i am still right."
They try again: "But he was born in Scotland to Scottish parents, raised in Scotland, and as far as we can tell, never left Scotland in his life!"
i reply: "But still, he was not a true Scotsman."
Sounds a little stupid, doesn't it? ^_^;
Well, let's look at what we have going on here.
You: "No true Muslim would commit or condone acts of terrorism."
Me: "But there are literally thousands of devout Muslims actively committing acts of terrorism every day, and millions who agree that what they are doing is right."
You: "I said no true Muslim would commit or condone acts of terrorism. Therefore, those people are not true Muslims."
Me: "But they read from the Qur'an every day! They pray towards mecha, they believe in Allah and that Muhammad was his prophet! Some of them are even imams!"
You: "But they are not true Muslims."
Here's what's happening. For whatever reason, it is vitally important to you that Islam's image not be tainted. Thus, to protect your beloved Islam, you have dreamed up a totally fabricated ideal of what Islam is... and ideal that has nothing to do with the reality of Islam. (In reality, a person is Muslim if they believe in Allah and that Muhammad was his prophet, and you get bonus points if you actual live by the strictures of the Qur'an and Hadith.) Then you can simply cherry pick those people and groups that you agree with and say they are true Muslims, and call the rest frauds.
That's just religious intolerance, in it's most basic and pure form. It's hate, pure and simple. Disagree? Then explain this:
| TrueFact wrote: |
| But... Iranian and some Turkish follow something called Shea'a as well as some Iraqis and Lebanease, these for example are not Muslims and what they do is not civilized at all... |
And... you know what the most idiotic thing about it is? ^_^; Osama bin Laden is not Shi'a (or Shea'a, as you spell it). He's Sunni. ^_^; Extremely and devoutly Sunni! The man has even listed Shi'a as non-Muslim heretics... just like you did!!! ^_^;
Ba-dum-ching. ^_^;
Most Muslims aren't terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims.
That, by no means, invalidates a religion - it's just what seems to be going on right now. Should we let a few bad apples spoil the bunch? I suppose we'll see, but until there is a wide-scale movement to denounce terrorist within the Muslim community, I think we'll see things the same way we see them now..
That, by no means, invalidates a religion - it's just what seems to be going on right now. Should we let a few bad apples spoil the bunch? I suppose we'll see, but until there is a wide-scale movement to denounce terrorist within the Muslim community, I think we'll see things the same way we see them now..
| Soulfire wrote: |
| Most Muslims aren't terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims. |
Well, i can't say that for sure... but if you say "most terrorists and supporters of terrorism", then yes, hands down, Islam is number one in the world today.
| Soulfire wrote: |
| That, by no means, invalidates a religion - it's just what seems to be going on right now. |
No, of course it doesn't mean that Islam is rotten to the core. Once upon a time most Inquisitors and supporters of Inquisition tortures were Christian. Once upon a time most witch burners and supporters of witch burning were Christian. Of course that doesn't mean that Christianity itself is sour, it just means that the way Christianity was being interpreted at the time was bad for civilization. Christianity grew up, i'm sure Islam can, too.
| Soulfire wrote: |
| Should we let a few bad apples spoil the bunch? I suppose we'll see, but until there is a wide-scale movement to denounce terrorist within the Muslim community, I think we'll see things the same way we see them now.. |
i don't think this is a simple matter of bad apples in the bunch - and the example i would give is the witch burning and Inquisitions in Christianity. It wasn't just a few jerks in the Christian crowd that allowed those things to happen - support for those crimes was widespread (almost universal, in some cases), and they were all justified (and caused!) by quoting Bible verses and doctrine.
i see Islam now as Christianity was then - not inherently bad, but not even close to innocent. Christianity itself - the religion - was guilty of all the murders that occurred during the witch trials and Inquisitions - that cannot be reasonably denied. But clearly Christianity - the religion - can be interpreted in such a way as to make those kinds of things reprehensible.
Islam is guilty of every act of murder and terrorism carried out in its name today, and to hell with the deniers who want to "blame a bad few apples" and let their beloved religion off scot-free. No, Islam is guilty. But that doesn't mean that Islam itself is flawed. It just needs to be reinterpreted in a more peaceful and neighbourly way.
But until we are honest about the fact that Islam is at fault, and that the interpretation must be changed, nothing is going to get better. And the people who should be taking responsibility for this revival - the moderate Muslims - are not only not taking that responsibility, they are actively hindering progress. They are making the situation worse. There are far too few courageous Muslims speaking up about the cancer in their religion, and far too many trying to deflect blame away onto things where it does not belong.
i'm sorry to say it, but i see in the future only two possible outcomes: either Muslims get their house in order... or the rest of the world will get fed up and put it in order for them. i'd very much prefer to see the first happen, because if it comes down to the second... well, al Qaida will get their jihad for real, which will probably make them very happy (at first, at least), but no one else.
Everyone knows terrorism does not equal Islam. So it is not really right to refer to Islamic terrorists. Terrorists are terrorists. And their deeds are evil. I believe that those terrorists who originated from Saudi Arabia are no longer welcome there. Most Islamic countries do not want anything to do with terrorists. Possibly the terrorists are using Islam as a tool, and interpreting it to their own ends to serve many purposes, as yes, every religion can be interpreted a million ways to serve a million ends. I wish those countries who are harbouring these terrorists can do more to expel them.
| deanhills wrote: |
| Everyone knows terrorism does not equal Islam. So it is not really right to refer to Islamic terrorists. Terrorists are terrorists. And their deeds are evil. I believe that those terrorists who originated from Saudi Arabia are no longer welcome there. Most Islamic countries do not want anything to do with terrorists. Possibly the terrorists are using Islam as a tool, and interpreting it to their own ends to serve many purposes, as yes, every religion can be interpreted a million ways to serve a million ends. I wish those countries who are harbouring these terrorists can do more to expel them. |
They're terrorists who practice their interpretations of Islam and commit their violent acts in the name of Islam...thus, it's still Islamic terrorism. I don't see how that's a problem.
Again, (in this discussion) Al-Qaeda and the other associated terrorist groups are Muslim. Not all Muslims are terrorists. Any remotely intelligent person recognizes and knows this.
| liljp617 wrote: |
| Not all Muslims are terrorists. Any remotely intelligent person recognizes and knows this. |
And yet there are still many who do not recognize this...as a Muslim, I see examples of this every day in life. Once at school some little kid came up to me and said "you're a moose-limb terrorerrorist!" I know it's just a little kid, but who taught it to him? His parents, I believe.
Unfortunately the world contains its fair share of bigots and fools. There are certain parts of the world where (as a Brit or, mistaken for a US citizen) a lot worse than name-calling could happen to me if I visited. People tend to blame individual members of a group (be it a religious grouping or a national grouping) for the actions of other members of that group (no matter how unrepresentative the action and no matter how little control the individual had over that action). This is, unfortunately, a fact of life.
In the case of Muslims, in most western democracies you have lots of people, like me, who will stand up for your civil and human rights - which includes right to religious freedom. That does not mean that there is no discrimination - there is - but it does mean that such discrimination is generally illegal and, for most people, socially unacceptible.
In the case of Muslims, in most western democracies you have lots of people, like me, who will stand up for your civil and human rights - which includes right to religious freedom. That does not mean that there is no discrimination - there is - but it does mean that such discrimination is generally illegal and, for most people, socially unacceptible.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: | ||
And yet there are still many who do not recognize this...as a Muslim, I see examples of this every day in life. Once at school some little kid came up to me and said "you're a moose-limb terrorerrorist!" I know it's just a little kid, but who taught it to him? His parents, I believe. |
Those would be examples of the unintelligent people (I don't mean intelligent in the sense of formal education ie reading, writing, math, etc.). I mean intelligent in the sense that they've mentally evolved to a point where stereotyping, bigotry, racism, xenophobia, and so on are reprehensible thoughts and attitudes. Unfortunately, I think the people who are intelligent in that sense of the word are a minority.
| deanhills wrote: |
| Everyone knows terrorism does not equal Islam. So it is not really right to refer to Islamic terrorists. Terrorists are terrorists. |
It is perfectly right to refer to Islamic terrorists when one is talking about Islamic terrorists. If we were talking about FARC terrorists or FLQ terrorists, then we would be wrong to say Islamic terrorists. But we were not. We were talking about Islamic terrorists.
See, this is precisely what i mean when i talk about undermining any understanding of Islamic terrorism. We can't even call Islamic terrorists "Islamic terrorists" without someone raising a stink. Come on. Get over it.
| deanhills wrote: |
| Possibly the terrorists are using Islam as a tool, and interpreting it to their own ends to serve many purposes, as yes, every religion can be interpreted a million ways to serve a million ends. I wish those countries who are harbouring these terrorists can do more to expel them. |
No, not possibly. This has already been discussed and dismissed. It just does not make sense.
And yes, i am aware that most Muslim countries have official policies against terrorism. So what? The fact remains that the percentage of Muslims that support terrorism is one of the highest for any group, anywhere in the world. This is real. This is a statistical fact. This cannot be disputed without rejecting reality (at least reality as determined by dozens of third-part polling groups).
We need to understand this link better. Lives depend on it. Denial of Islam's involvement in Islamic terrorism is... absurd! And it doesn't help anyone, anywhere, anyhow. If Islam really is innocent, then it will be cleared when we investigate this link properly.
And if it's not... then you covering for a killer.
Most likely it is an enabling factor - in which case if we want to disable it as a factor, we need to study it, and find out how and why it facilitates terrorism. So, let's study it. But we can't study it with an army of deniers standing between us and the truth, ruining our chances of seeing the big picture.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| The poll is a meaningless exercise. The three choices offered are partial (in both senses of that word).
Islam is the source of all evil today Obviously not. What about 'some evil'? Islam is understood in the wrong way by some muslims only And which Muslims decide which is the wrong or right way? Islam seeks peace everywhere and not related to Terrorism If you mean that YOUR version of Islam is peaceful then that is fine. The statement that Islam, per se, is not related to terrorism is, however, clearly untrue. |
Agreed with all of the above and well put. I have a problem with the poll and could not put a tick behind any of the questions. For starters it should have an "Other" at the bottom of the list to cover all eventualities. I also have a problem with the second question about Islam being misunderstood by some Muslims only. What about the rest of the world or is it not necessary for them to understand? In the last question it is people who choose to seek peace or to advocate terror. They may or may not be Muslim. Maybe the question needs some rephrasing.
Related topics
 |