format_quote Originally Posted by
HeiGou
Actually they can do more: they can clearly explain precisely why it is that terrorism is unacceptable in their religion, they can tell their followers to co-operate wholeheartedly with the police, they can do so themselves by displaying understanding and common sense when the police don't get things quite right and they can launch a program to prevent their own young men being led astray.
All these steps are being undertaken by Muslim organizations, despite the lack of acknowledgement or support they recieve from the non-muslim community. Many
Islamic Institutes in the west teach their students to reject extremism and violence and thus aid in promoting the true Islamic teachings amongst the younger generation.
As for Muslim countries, since Saudi Arabia is often accused of being the source of of extremism and violent ideologies, I'll post the following report from Saudi:
http://www.saudiembassy.net/ReportLi...mism_May04.pdf
If one goes through the above report it becomes apparent how nonsensical the accusations against Saudi are, given the fact that they are probably doing more than anyone else to combat this extremism and have provided the absolute condemnation of such violence from all their scholars.
If it was clear cut that this was not a problem with a sub-section of the British Muslim community but of the wider non-Muslim community I would agree with you. But I do not think it is nor can I see any evidence that it is.
Actually that negates nothing. The fact that it is a political problem does not contradict in anyway that Muslims are the subjects of that problem. The political situation in the Muslim world is the source of this conflict and that is obvious when one looks at the causes of all the violence. The same places are always referenced; clean up the political problems in those places, and you can remove the source of the problem.
So you are saying that Westerners brought this on themselves?
Not all or even most westerners. But many, including politicans, are using anti-islamic rhetoric and domestic and foreign policies to isolate the Muslim community, to instill isolationist intolerant views towards Muslims (which has been successful in your case), and to instigate conflicts in the Muslim world.
As for strangling the moderate and temperate voices in the Muslim world, the West has empowered such people within the West, given them government jobs, asked them to speak up.
It has certainly not. Instead, it empowers secularist "muslims" in the west who are rejected by mainstream Muslims, people who say that the trouble is with Islam, or that Islam is in need of reform, and that we need to reject our Muslim scholars and become 'moderates', by which they mean people who do not pray salah, follow the Islamic regulations and prohibitions. On almost a daily basis we see these people in the western media slandering Islam or Muslim scholars.
What I do see is large scale and wide spread support among Muslims for terrorists although I admit it is dropping.
In the face of all these condemnations, for you to say something like this sheer obstinance.
It is not rejected by everyone around here. I agree it is a khariji organisation from what I understand although my opinion obviously does not count, but they described themselves otherwise and whatever else they are they are pious.
Of course they superficially appear pious, that is what the Prophet Muhammad pbuh warned us about them. They recite the Qur'an but it does not go beneath their throats.
I would love some dialog, but I do not see much.
How can someone who calls for the isolation of all Muslims from the west and the elimination of all young Muslim males complain that there are no efforts for dialogue? You have to be prepared to dialogue and share understanding.
You cannot talk with people who will not even accept that 9-11 was the work of Muslims.
There are many Non-muslims who believe the same thing. I don't see how it should be an obstacle to dialogue if both sides agree that it was a despicable act and that we need to foster understanding.
If a Christian kills because he thinks Christ wants him to, then either he is insane or he is killing from Christian reasons.
These terrorists have not killed because they think God wants them, but because of the political climate in the world they mistakenly feel their actions are justified.
I am happy to agree that they are not orthodox Muslims, I am happy to agree they represent a small part of the Muslim world.
And yet you call for blanket rejection of the entire Muslim world and any dialogue with Muslims.
So there are no honour killings in the Muslim world?
Totally unislamic:
http://islamtoday.com/show_detail_se...&main_cat_id=6
No corruption? No murders?
Found in every country, especially third world countries.
There is a contradiction between the condemnations of terrorism as unIslamic and the tolerance shown towards people I would call terrorists.
There is no tolerance shown to terrorists, we reject them fully.
There is also something clearly wrong with their definition of "terrorism". If suicide bombings against British people are acceptable in Iraq, I can see why a young man might think they are acceptable against British people in Britain. Can't you?
They are not acceptable anywhere.
We find criminals who happen to be Buddhists and even Buddhist monks.
And yet no Muslim scholars.
Just as crime in the Muslim world says nothing about Islam, crime in the Buddhist world says nothing about Buddhism.
Exactly. So why decieve yourself by attempting to draw a fictitious link?
Sorry but I could only find one rape case on that website.
I was referring to the ideology of mass-murder, actually.
If it is discrimination. Sikhs and Hindus do not have these problems in Britain
And yet how many times do we see Sikhism and Hinduism maligned in the media? How many times do we see Guru Nanak depicted as a terrorist? Discrimination is against Muslims.,
And yet the people who ran the mosque are happy to say they knew what was being preached.
Where have any facts been provided about what was being preached? Only unsubstantiated allegations. One rabid muslim in the community took the opportunity to lash out at
one Islamic institute, blaming them for extremism and violent ideologies imported from Saudi, despite the fact that both denounce extremism:
http://www.almaghrib.org/documents/statementJune9.pdf
http://www.saudiembassy.net/ReportLi...mism_May04.pdf
But what links young Muslim men in Britain, Spain, Pakistan, Iraq, Turkey, Afghanistan, Thailand, Indonesia, and perhaps Canada? To me it looks like suicide bombs, young men, and their flawed understanding of their religion. What other causes can you pinpoint?
Let me ask you this: where were young Muslim men a few decades ago? Did they not exist? We Muslims have been here for 1400 years; why then has this phenomenon of "Muslim terror" only emerged in the past few decades after the spread of warfare, and political and societal corruption in Muslim countries? Could there be any connection? "Of course not!", The bigot would say. "Sheer coincidence!"
You make it sound as though young Muslim men are some strange alien phenomenon that have come from outerspace to earth during the past few years! Look at the largest wars in this past century - world war 1 and world war 2, the causes of the most war casualties. Where were the young Muslim men there?? The west was involved there, but not the Muslims.
format_quote Originally Posted by
KAding
Sure it is political. But who ever said that religions can't be political?
As is explained in the 'Basics of Islam' section:
http://www.islamicboard.com/basics-i...hat-islam.html
Isn't this seperation between a political problem and a religious problem a false seperation?
You're confusing two things - on one hand you have the political situation of Muslims in the world, and on the other hand you have Islam's guidance in political governmental affairs. Since the latter is not being implemented anywhere in the world, raising it here is a null point.
Regards