/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Does Islam Sanction Terrorism?



MustafaMc
12-27-2007, 09:52 PM
Short clip from lecture "Is Terrorism a Muslim Monopoly"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxk5AAA5FbI

Full set of lecture segments posted by Syilla:
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...tml#post888597

It is not fair to judge a lecture on a single quote in the first clip, but the title of the lecture by Dr. Naik "Is Terrorism a Muslim Monoply?" is not a good title. I watched most of the segments and saw that he pointed out terroristic acts done by others to show that Muslims were not the only terrorists of history. He skirts the issue that Islam and Muslim leaders are portrayed and perceived as promoting these acts as jihad, an integral part of Islam.

A better title would be, "Does Islam Sanction Terrorism?" This is a question that Muslims in general and Muslim leaders in particular avoid like the plague. I contend that suicide bombing, killing innocent women and children, and mutilation of dead bodies are not sactioned or approved as being consistent with the Qur'an and the Sunnah of Muhammad (swt). In fact, I contend that the teachings of Islam CONDEMN these acts. As a respected authority among Muslims, Dr. Naik could have a major impact on how Muslims feel about terrorism and how the world perceives Islam - if only he and others in positions of authority would speak in light of the Qur'an and the Sunnah regarding this issue.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
snakelegs
12-27-2007, 10:00 PM
from what i know, it does not.
but it seems that some (including some here)
think otherwise.
check out this thread
http://www.islamicboard.com/general/...en-muslim.html
Reply

MustafaMc
12-27-2007, 10:01 PM
This thread was started as a break off from "Why Christianity is Fake".
Reply

snakelegs
12-27-2007, 10:04 PM
i know that, but this topic is (sort of) being discussed on that thread, with one member seeming to believe that it is ok to kill innocents and muslims in non-muslim lands do not have to obey the law of the land. i think she is dead wrong.
in any case, it is better that you have started a thread on the subject specifically.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
MustafaMc
12-27-2007, 10:25 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
my question to you is do you make any distinctions? how do you define "warrior"?
someone fighting foreign troops in afghanistan
someone fighting foreign troops in iraq
someone blowing up a bus or a subway full of men, women and children

are they all "warriors of islam", comparable to the sahabas?
I did go to that thread and the person that you addressed the questions (listed in quote above) to danced around the subject and did not clearly voice her opinion. It disturbs me immensely that we Muslims are not more vocal in condemning acts of terrorism done in the Name of Islam.
Reply

snakelegs
12-27-2007, 10:30 PM
that is too frequently the problem - people dance around it, like on that thread, like with naik. though dancing, the opinion seemed pretty obvious.
Reply

MustafaMc
12-27-2007, 11:38 PM
Al-Bukhari hadith 3.624 Allah's Apostle said, "Help your brother, whether he is an oppressor or he is an oppressed one." People asked, "O Allah's Apostle! It is all right to help him if he is oppressed, but how should we help him if he is an oppressor?" The Prophet said, "By preventing him from oppressing others.

and 9.84 Allah's Apostle said, "Help your brother whether he is an oppressor or an oppressed." A man said, "O Allah's Apostle! I will help him if he is oppressed, but if he is an oppressor, how shall I help him?" The Prophet said, "By preventing him from oppressing (others), for that is how to help him."

Are not terrorists and suicide bombers in fact oppressors of innocent people?
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-28-2007, 03:49 AM
I'm hoping to see a great deal of response to this, not just from agnostics, atheists, and Christians, but our Muslims brothers and sisters as well.
Reply

Isambard
12-28-2007, 04:07 AM
As snakey said, the actions of certain muslims even here on the board, seem to indicate that Islam = terrorism.

Ill be the first to admit that your avg muslim is very different from the foamy-mouthed death to the kuffar type of folks you see on tv.

But there does seem to be silent consent with their crazy breathern.

I man strapped with bombs and yells "Allah Akbar" right before blowing himself and passangers up.

No response or outrage from the Islamic community

Terrorists bomb subways killing a bunch of civilians.

Little to no response from muslim community.

A man writes a controversial book that almost noone reads and even fewer understand.

"OMG! THE WORLD IS ENDING TAKE TO THE STREETS MY MUSLIM BREATHERN!"

Someone draws a lewd cartoon about your hero

"PROTEST DAY AND NIGHT! SHOW THE WORLD HOW MAD YOU ARE!@"

Me thinks the majority of muslims have their priorities mixed up
Reply

ranma1/2
12-28-2007, 04:51 AM
i think muslims,christians ( or just about any organization) sanction terrorism if they dont speak out againsts it when it is performed in the name of their religion(cause).

By themselves. No.
Reply

Isambard
12-28-2007, 04:54 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
i think muslims,christians ( or just about any organization) sanction terrorism if they dont speak out againsts it when it is performed in the name of their religion(cause).

By themselves. No.
There's a difference between never speaking out, and only speaking out for stupid reasons.
Reply

Malaikah
12-28-2007, 05:55 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Isambard
But there does seem to be silent consent with their crazy breathern.

I man strapped with bombs and yells "Allah Akbar" right before blowing himself and passangers up.

No response or outrage from the Islamic community

Terrorists bomb subways killing a bunch of civilians.

Little to no response from muslim community.

A man writes a controversial book that almost noone reads and even fewer understand.

"OMG! THE WORLD IS ENDING TAKE TO THE STREETS MY MUSLIM BREATHERN!"

Someone draws a lewd cartoon about your hero

"PROTEST DAY AND NIGHT! SHOW THE WORLD HOW MAD YOU ARE!@"
That is not a logical comparison. You are making it sound like only terrorism gets a mild response, but in reality it is everything else that gets a mild response, and the only exception being the slander of the Prophet or Islam.

And by the way there is always a response from the Muslim community when there is a terrorist attack. The community condemns it over and over again. Just because it doesn't make from page news world wide when a Muslim condemns terrorism doesn't mean it doesn't exist!

For example, did you know Muslim scholars have issues warnings and rulings against Osama bin Laden and his ideology from even before 9/11 happened?? No, you probably didn't.
Reply

Isambard
12-28-2007, 06:10 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Malaikah
That is not a logical comparison. You are making it sound like only terrorism gets a mild response, but in reality it is everything else that gets a mild response, and the only exception being the slander of the Prophet or Islam.


You are right. Someone expressing their freedom of speech to disagree with you is much worse than a man killig civilians in the name of your religion.

And by the way there is always a response from the Muslim community when there is a terrorist attack. The community condemns it over and over again. Just because it doesn't make from page news world wide when a Muslim condemns terrorism doesn't mean it doesn't exist!

Theres a difference between sending letters and telling ppl you disagree then ooo lets say firebombing a building, telling folks you are actively going to hunt down/kill a certain writer/cartoonist, amassing in huge numbers and going on about injustice.

Yes. I can see how the two are comparable :playing:

For example, did you know Muslim scholars have issues warnings and rulings against Osama bin Laden and his ideology from even before 9/11 happened?? No, you probably didn't.
Nice assumption.

Yes I do know. I also know there are many who still have Osama as a hero yet I dont see any marches agaisnt these muslims for "insulting the image of Islam" like there was with Rushdie.
Reply

Malaikah
12-28-2007, 06:51 AM
Well, I'm glad at least some people know. But most don't.
Reply

caroline
12-28-2007, 08:23 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
I did go to that thread and the person that you addressed the questions (listed in quote above) to danced around the subject and did not clearly voice her opinion. It disturbs me immensely that we Muslims are not more vocal in condemning acts of terrorism done in the Name of Islam.
I agree. It also disturbs me that Christians are not more vocal in condemning the acts of terrorism done in the Name of Christianity.
Reply

czgibson
12-28-2007, 10:46 AM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by Malaikah
And by the way there is always a response from the Muslim community when there is a terrorist attack. The community condemns it over and over again. Just because it doesn't make from page news world wide when a Muslim condemns terrorism doesn't mean it doesn't exist!
This is true. Unfortunately, too often these kinds of condemnation are ignored by the world's press, and indeed by some Muslims.

I think the main problem is this: there is much disagreement within Islam. If there was a world Muslim authority which all Muslims respected, things would undoubtedly be safer, as I take it for granted that the great majority of Muslims oppose terrorism.

What is the current ultimate Islamic authority? The Qur'an and Sunnah. Unfortunately, these can be interpreted in widely varying ways. Quotes can also be taken out of context. Imagine a Muslim who is not very well-informed reads some of the jihad verses and, for example, takes the injunction to "Fight the unbelievers wherever you find them" (9:5) literally. Now, we all know that verses like that apply to a specific historical context, but what if someone doesn't know that? They might well believe that they would be justified in killing kaffirs indiscriminately and would be serving the will of Allah by doing so. Then you get idiots like this filling the streets:

Behead&#3720those20who20say20Islam20is20violent -

[I have to say that I don't really know the provenance of this image, so it could be a fake; however, we have all seen similar ones, so you know what I'm talking about.]

For example, did you know Muslim scholars have issues warnings and rulings against Osama bin Laden and his ideology from even before 9/11 happened?? No, you probably didn't.
It's quite well known that you can find scholars who support bin Laden and scholars who oppose him, just as you can find fatwas that oppose suicide bombing and ones that support it.

Once again, I call for Islamic unification. If you are a Muslim, you will be aware that your people are in a deeply worrying situation. You must work together to ensure that the true message of Islam is brought to the world effectively. No-one else can do it for you.

Peace
Reply

Gator
12-28-2007, 02:26 PM
Religion is not the source of terrorism. People are going to do what they feel they have to do. In order to do that, they need to feel justified.

Given that, they will twist the belief system they have (no matter what it is) in order to sanction and justify the most horrible of acts (the mundane ones too).

I believe, people have been murdering and torturing each other since the human race evolved. It comes down to the inborn laws of survival fed by emotion and no intellectual/philosophical/religious overlay is going to stop it completely.

Just my 2 cents. Thanks.
Reply

Keltoi
12-28-2007, 06:57 PM
As to the question of whether Islam sanctions terrorism, I think the obvious answer is no. However, there are many Muslims that do. That is the problem.
Reply

Nájlá
12-28-2007, 07:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,


This is true. Unfortunately, too often these kinds of condemnation are ignored by the world's press, and indeed by some Muslims.

I think the main problem is this: there is much disagreement within Islam. If there was a world Muslim authority which all Muslims respected, things would undoubtedly be safer, as I take it for granted that the great majority of Muslims oppose terrorism.

What is the current ultimate Islamic authority? The Qur'an and Sunnah. Unfortunately, these can be interpreted in widely varying ways. Quotes can also be taken out of context. Imagine a Muslim who is not very well-informed reads some of the jihad verses and, for example, takes the injunction to "Fight the unbelievers wherever you find them" (9:5) literally. Now, we all know that verses like that apply to a specific historical context, but what if someone doesn't know that? They might well believe that they would be justified in killing kaffirs indiscriminately and would be serving the will of Allah by doing so. Then you get idiots like this filling the streets:



[I have to say that I don't really know the provenance of this image, so it could be a fake; however, we have all seen similar ones, so you know what I'm talking about.]



It's quite well known that you can find scholars who support bin Laden and scholars who oppose him, just as you can find fatwas that oppose suicide bombing and ones that support it.

Once again, I call for Islamic unification. If you are a Muslim, you will be aware that your people are in a deeply worrying situation. You must work together to ensure that the true message of Islam is brought to the world effectively. No-one else can do it for you.

Peace
i dont have any thing to say u have said it all i agree with u
Reply

MustafaMc
12-29-2007, 04:21 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
As to the question of whether Islam sanctions terrorism, I think the obvious answer is no. However, there are many Muslims that do. That is the problem.
I agree with your statement.
Reply

BlackMamba
12-29-2007, 06:28 AM
People that think Islam=Terrorism are jackasses
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-29-2007, 06:33 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Shakoor15
People that think Islam=Terrorism are jackasses
Quite true. And people that don't recognize that right now Islam has a problem with being co-opted by those who seek to use terror as a political weapon are ostriches.




In light of the recent agreement with regard to Islam NOT sanctioning terrorism, but that some Muslims do sanction acts of terror, what should Islam's response be to those acts? Especially if there is any truth in the following quote: "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Does such sanctioning, and the silence of others who don't become compliciant in the triumph of such evil? Or perhaps those individuals that sanction them and are silent in the wake of them don't even see these acts as evil?
Reply

BlackMamba
12-29-2007, 06:38 AM
The people in Ku Klux Klan and Timothy McVeigh, both were Christian and killed other people for Jesus. Spanish Inquisition was when the Christians tortured and killed all Muslims/Jews and drove them out of Spain. And that was after the Muslims let them stay there peacefully. The Crusaders in 1099 were die hard Christians. They killed all Muslims and Jews in Jerusalem for Jesus. All the civilians- The women and children all slaughtered. They say the blood was waist high and the stench stayed for years.
Are all these things not terrorism.
Now Im not saying that to put down a religion. I do not believe Christianity preaches terrorism but i believe people is what causes terrorism not any religion.
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-29-2007, 06:47 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Shakoor15
The people in Ku Klux Klan and Timothy McVeigh, both were Christian and killed other people for Jesus. Spanish Inquisition was when the Christians tortured and killed all Muslims/Jews and drove them out of Spain. And that was after the Muslims let them stay there peacefully. The Crusaders in 1099 were die hard Christians. They killed all Muslims and Jews in Jerusalem for Jesus. All the civilians- The women and children all slaughtered. They say the blood was waist high and the stench stayed for years.
Are all these things not terrorism.
Now Im not saying that to put down a religion. I do not believe Christianity preaches terrorism but i believe people is what causes terrorism not any religion.

You might be surprised why I am going to disagree with you. I think that things like the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the Conquistadores are a direct result of religion. People began to think of religion being something that was important and an end in itself, rather than as a means to connect them with God. The result is the religion became a perversion of the very purpose it was to promote. And I think it still happens. It isn't unique to Islam; Christianity has a terrible track record to run on, and few other religions have had their occassional problems too, but for Islam the time seems to be right now, that these things are coming to the fore. I'm hoping that true Islam will sweep the pretenders away, but for the moment, it seems the pretenders are making a bigger name for themselves and giving Islam a black eye in the process.

I think that Isambard was spot on with his analysis:
format_quote Originally Posted by Isambard
Ill be the first to admit that your avg muslim is very different from the foamy-mouthed death to the kuffar type of folks you see on tv.

But there does seem to be silent consent with their crazy breathern.

I man strapped with bombs and yells "Allah Akbar" right before blowing himself and passangers up.

No response or outrage from the Islamic community

Terrorists bomb subways killing a bunch of civilians.

Little to no response from muslim community.

A man writes a controversial book that almost noone reads and even fewer understand.

"OMG! THE WORLD IS ENDING TAKE TO THE STREETS MY MUSLIM BREATHERN!"

Someone draws a lewd cartoon about your hero

"PROTEST DAY AND NIGHT! SHOW THE WORLD HOW MAD YOU ARE!@"

Me thinks the majority of muslims have their priorities mixed up
Maliakah understandably objects, but I can't agree with her assessment:
format_quote Originally Posted by Malaikah
That is not a logical comparison. You are making it sound like only terrorism gets a mild response, but in reality it is everything else that gets a mild response, and the only exception being the slander of the Prophet or Islam.
Muslim may not see the logic in the comparison, but that is exactly part of the problem as far as many of us non-Muslims have with the response of the Islamic community. Somehow there is a "mild response" to everything, including terrorism and murder, everything except "slander of the Prophet". Somehow the Prophet's memory and reputation is seen as being more worthy of outrage than murder of innocents. I admit to not getting the logic behind that way of valuing people.

I was incensed by some of the vulgar portrayals of Jesus in recent works of "art", if you want to call them that. But I can't see how rioting would be a proper response. Whatever happened to "sticks and stones can break my bones, but words (and cartoons) can never hurt me"?
Reply

glo
12-29-2007, 06:56 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
You might be surprised why I am going to disagree with you. I think that things like the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the Conquistadores are a direct result of religion. People began to think of religion being something that was important and an end in itself, rather than as a means to connect them with God. The result is the religion became a perversion of the very purpose it was to promote. And I think it still happens. It isn't unique to Islam; Christianity has a terrible track record to run on, and few other religions have had their occassional problems too, but for Islam the time seems to be right now, that these things are coming to the fore. I'm hoping that true Islam will sweep the pretenders away, but for the moment, it seems the pretenders are making a bigger name for themselves and giving Islam a black eye in the process.

That's a wonderful post, Grace Seeker.
And a great reminder for all of us to seek God and his will in all situations.
Thanks for posting it. :)

Peace
Reply

BlackMamba
12-29-2007, 07:06 AM
Ya religions other than Islam do violent acts even now. Look at the KKK that is recent. Look at what McVeigh did. Look at that weirdo Cho Heung Sui that shot up the school in Virginia. These were all Christians in modern times killing other innocents in the name of Christianity. And Hindu extremeists do some weird stuff too They killed Ghandi.
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-29-2007, 07:18 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Shakoor15
Ya religions other than Islam do violent acts even now. Look at the KKK that is recent. Look at what McVeigh did. Look at that weirdo Cho Heung Sui that shot up the school in Virginia. These were all Christians in modern times killing other innocents in the name of Christianity. And Hindu extremeists do some weird stuff too They killed Ghandi.
OK. You've now repeated yourself. It is like you are trying to distract attention from the question under discussion by casting dispersions on others. Then, what? If everyone else is bad enough, Muslims can be excused for such behavior?


However, look at the examples you cite. I would question whether the individuals you cite are representatives of Christianity. Other than the KKK, none ever claimed that they did things because of their any Christian faith. And the Christian church has long ago repudiated any and everything associated with the KKK. Also, these people have been prosecuted when caught. I don't see such responses happening in Islam, rather I see the people in regions occupied by the Taliban actually provide aid and comfort to those who commit such crimes and effectively preventing those who are trying to pursue terrorist from being able to do so.

Maliakah has a point, that I don't hear about Islamic attempts to bring such violence to an end does not mean that it doesn't happen. And the lack of Western media reporting it, isn't Islam's fault. But we don't hear much of it. So, if you have more you can report of how Islamic leaders are speaking out against violence done in the name of Islam, I would like to hear it some more, please.
Reply

wilberhum
12-29-2007, 07:21 AM
Shakoor15,
Isn't wishing people would go to hell without even being judged sort of "Mental Terrorism"?

You seam to feel that Islam justifies that.
Reply

Keltoi
12-29-2007, 05:02 PM
I suppose the "problem" is the lack of a universal religious authority in Islam. There isn't a figure that all Muslims can look to who will stand up and give a clear cut doctrinal ruling on the matter. In my opinion that has led to confusion and extremist religious figures are taking advantage of that leadership vacuum.
Reply

snakelegs
12-29-2007, 11:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
I suppose the "problem" is the lack of a universal religious authority in Islam. There isn't a figure that all Muslims can look to who will stand up and give a clear cut doctrinal ruling on the matter. In my opinion that has led to confusion and extremist religious figures are taking advantage of that leadership vacuum.
yes, i think this is a major problem too. one of the things i like about islam is that it is decentralized but it has a downside.
as far as i know (which i admit is not a big pile), islam most definitely does not sanction terrorism. it has strict laws of warfare and is against the killing of innocents. it also requires muslims to obey the laws of the land (unless he is being prevented from practicing his religion and then he is to emigrate). it is also against suicide.
problem is, you can find imams to give fatwas that find ways to justify it and who is challenging their rulings?
i think it is sheer blasphemy to kill people in the name of islam - a far greater blasphemy that some ignorant remark about the prophet. if i were a muslim, i would be outraged. (i am outraged by what my country is doing)
horrible things are being done to muslims and many fight back in any way they can. fighting against an occupying force is not wrong. fighting injustice and oppression is not wrong.
but when innocent people are specifically targeted in the name of god - it is the ultimate blasphemy.
when a terrorist act happens, it is depressing to read comments here on the forum. there are attempts to justify it by pointing to all the evil things we are doing to muslims, there are excuses, there is a pious attitude of not speaking against our brothers, etc etc and mostly there is the roar of silence.
when someone uses the name of islam to commit these acts, many take it at face value and think that islam is OK with targeting schools, people in restaurants etc etc.
there are people who lost loved ones on 9/11 who are strongly opposed to what we are doing in revenge and they have an organization called "not in my name".
targeting innocent people is criminal, whether done by a state or done by an individual with a suicide vest. but when it is done in the name of god, it is even more vile.
Reply

BlackMamba
12-29-2007, 11:25 PM
LOL@mental terrorism
Reply

boriqee
12-30-2007, 02:27 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
Short clip from lecture "Is Terrorism a Muslim Monopoly"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxk5AAA5FbI

Full set of lecture segments posted by Syilla:
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...tml#post888597

It is not fair to judge a lecture on a single quote in the first clip, but the title of the lecture by Dr. Naik "Is Terrorism a Muslim Monoply?" is not a good title. I watched most of the segments and saw that he pointed out terroristic acts done by others to show that Muslims were not the only terrorists of history. He skirts the issue that Islam and Muslim leaders are portrayed and perceived as promoting these acts as jihad, an integral part of Islam.

A better title would be, "Does Islam Sanction Terrorism?" This is a question that Muslims in general and Muslim leaders in particular avoid like the plague. I contend that suicide bombing, killing innocent women and children, and mutilation of dead bodies are not sactioned or approved as being consistent with the Qur'an and the Sunnah of Muhammad (swt). In fact, I contend that the teachings of Islam CONDEMN these acts. As a respected authority among Muslims, Dr. Naik could have a major impact on how Muslims feel about terrorism and how the world perceives Islam - if only he and others in positions of authority would speak in light of the Qur'an and the Sunnah regarding this issue.

a present to the long dispared one my friend

here is a series of online e-books in clear refutations agaisnt terrorism and its proofs ISLAMICALLY

http://salafimanhaj.com/pdf/THEEVILSOFTERRRORISM.pdf

http://salafimanhaj.com/pdf/SalafiMa...AndBombing.pdf

http://salafimanhaj.com/pdf/SalafiManhaj_Saudi.pdf

http://salafimanhaj.com/pdf/SalafiManhaj_NYPD.pdf

and this one is the most recent and most prolific in nature and many pages.

http://salafimanhaj.com/pdf/SalafiMa...ism_In_KSA.pdf

enjoy
Reply

MustafaMc
12-30-2007, 03:05 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by al-Izaaree
a present to the long dispared one my friend

here is a series of online e-books in clear refutations agaisnt terrorism and its proofs ISLAMICALLY

enjoy
Thank you, brother. I was not aware of these e-books. I read the first one and I agreed whole heartedly. These links show that terrorism and suicide bombing is NOT sanctioned by Islam or by the Muslim scholars.
Reply

Grace Seeker
01-01-2008, 02:37 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
Thank you, brother. I was not aware of these e-books. I read the first one and I agreed whole heartedly. These links show that terrorism and suicide bombing is NOT sanctioned by Islam or by the Muslim scholars.
So, now, how does one get the word out to those that are committing such acts in the name of Islam that such actions are NOT sanctioned by Islam, no matter how much others tell them they will become marytrs and immediately go to Jannah? Will they listen to these opinions, or are they already committed to such actions and would respond, "Don't confuse me with the facts."? If the later is the case, is there a way for the remainder of Islam to disassociate themselves from such persons and declare that they are not truly Muslims after all?


And how should the non-Muslim community receive this information? Are we to believe the words that are unheeded or the actions that continue to take place on a nearly daily basis?
Reply

boriqee
01-01-2008, 08:39 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
So, now, how does one get the word out to those that are committing such acts in the name of Islam that such actions are NOT sanctioned by Islam, no matter how much others tell them they will become marytrs and immediately go to Jannah? Will they listen to these opinions, or are they already committed to such actions and would respond, "Don't confuse me with the facts."? If the later is the case, is there a way for the remainder of Islam to disassociate themselves from such persons and declare that they are not truly Muslims after all?


And how should the non-Muslim community receive this information? Are we to believe the words that are unheeded or the actions that continue to take place on a nearly daily basis?
1. the word is already out. the problem is more deeper than you think. which leads to point two

2. no, they will not listen, (well most will not) because now,a lot of them have ideological proofs, textually speaking, that they distort, so know it is a knowldege based matter, thus merely saying 'its not in the quran and sunnah" is not merely enough. there are two many issues interconnected with each other that it usually confuses the average muslims, and will definately confuse the non muslim.

3. the remainder of Islam is already in disassociation with the terrrorist. the problem only gets all the more disparaiging when your media only reports these tyrades constantly day in and day out for a particular agenda, so that the common world at large will feel compelled to make the muslims change their religion (which is something the elites want) therefore you willcontinue to perceive that the terrorist are everywhere, they are many, they are the most orthodox of Islam, and other such 20th century fallacies. you see when hitler commited his attrocities in the name of christianity (and he really did so under christian inspiration and this line of thinking was prevelant throughout most of christian history and it is only in modern times they have become the "wusses" of christian chronology so to speak) no one, including the jews did not wish to commit the oppression of attributing his actions to christianity, nor did muslims. We, being the people of objective reasoning and fair judgement were not dumb enough to accept his actions in the name of christians. The only thing we were stupid in was in thinking everyone other than us (well at least in the western world) was bright enough to see the same when the idiots did what they did in 9-11 in the name of Islam. boy were we had. And now we are paying the price for being had. Can you imagine if an entire super power managed to submit the rest of the "civilized world" in hitlers time to thinking and propagandizing to the world that christianity is a radical religion and pretty much whats being said of us now, only to you guys in that time. I wonder how you all would have reacted

4. the way we muslims handled them in the past was that we slaughtered them. thats how they are handled and there is no other way. The prophet ordered us as a command "when you see them then kill them" in Saudi arabia, if they did not do a crime of terror, but merelybeleive in the tenents of kharijiyyah (what you call terrorism) then he is imprisoned, if he made even a small crime, he is executed. which is kinda of funny how the west portrays saudi as the precursor and the intellectual rehabilatator to terrorism, when they are the most severist against them and have written by far, the most advanced works in refutation of them on a elementary and detailed level,moreso than any other Islamic country.

so please understadn, the only way the matter can get more worse than it is now, is the ever continuing campaign your western powers insist on performing. it is sadto say, but merely an analisis between what I know ofthese people, they arereactionary, they act on the onslought of your people.
Reply

Malaikah
01-01-2008, 09:34 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Muslim may not see the logic in the comparison, but that is exactly part of the problem as far as many of us non-Muslims have with the response of the Islamic community. Somehow there is a "mild response" to everything, including terrorism and murder, everything except "slander of the Prophet". Somehow the Prophet's memory and reputation is seen as being more worthy of outrage than murder of innocents. I admit to not getting the logic behind that way of valuing people.
Hi

No, it just doesn't make sense to protest over a murder; everyone is already condemning it! There is no need to protest because everyone who matters already agrees with you.

The point of a protest is get some message across or influence governments isn't it? Hence why there would have been protests against something like the cartoons because it was allowed by the government to happen.

As for actually riots and violence, I am of the opinion that it was only fools who used the protests as a excuse to act that way. Most protesters were outraged, yes, but not violent.

That is my understanding anyway.

Oh, and of course, the fact that Muslims are meant to love the Prophet more than they love their own selves plays a role.

Whatever happened to "sticks and stones can break my bones, but words (and cartoons) can never hurt me"?
It crumbled because it isn't true. Words hurt heaps, as do cartoons that portray the religion in a negative way, which increase negative feelings to Islam and Muslim and stand in the way of people becoming Muslim and saving themselves from the hell fire.
Reply

Malaikah
01-01-2008, 09:41 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
I think the main problem is this: there is much disagreement within Islam. If there was a world Muslim authority which all Muslims respected, things would undoubtedly be safer, as I take it for granted that the great majority of Muslims oppose terrorism.
I disagree. There is NO disagreement of the scholars that attacks on civilians, on purpose, is forbidden.

What is the current ultimate Islamic authority? The Qur'an and Sunnah. Unfortunately, these can be interpreted in widely varying ways.
It doesn't matter as long as it is being done by some one qualified, i.e. a scholar.

Quotes can also be taken out of context. Imagine a Muslim who is not very well-informed reads some of the jihad verses and, for example, takes the injunction to "Fight the unbelievers wherever you find them" (9:5) literally. Now, we all know that verses like that apply to a specific historical context, but what if someone doesn't know that? They might well believe that they would be justified in killing kaffirs indiscriminately and would be serving the will of Allah by doing so.
Ironically, as a Muslim, I think the only way Muslims will get such an impression is if they learn their religion only from the media or non-Muslim hate websites who false present those verses in isolation of their context to make it look like Islam supports such things.

It's quite well known that you can find scholars who support bin Laden and scholars who oppose him, just as you can find fatwas that oppose suicide bombing and ones that support it.
I don't know any scholars who support OBL, and the only difference on opinion that I know of regarding suicide bombing applies to military targets, not civilians, so it doesn't count as terrorism in the first place.

Once again, I call for Islamic unification. If you are a Muslim, you will be aware that your people are in a deeply worrying situation. You must work together to ensure that the true message of Islam is brought to the world effectively. No-one else can do it for you.
And when we try to do that we are called terrorists or extremists. But anyway, we don't need to be unified on the issues were the scholars have differed, we only need to tolerate different opinions (as long as the opinions are valid).
Reply

guyabano
01-01-2008, 10:01 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Shakoor15
Ya religions other than Islam do violent acts even now. Look at the KKK that is recent. Look at what McVeigh did. Look at that weirdo Cho Heung Sui that shot up the school in Virginia. These were all Christians in modern times killing other innocents in the name of Christianity. And Hindu extremeists do some weird stuff too They killed Ghandi.
Sorry to decieve you, but Seung-Hui Cho was not a christian.

Quote out these newslines:

He sent a large multi-media package outlining his grievances against religion
Besides, he carried a tatoo 'Ismail Ax' on his arm, and Ismail is a muslim name.
Reply

Malaikah
01-01-2008, 12:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by guyabano
Besides, he carried a tatoo 'Ismail Ax' on his arm, and Ismail is a muslim name.
No it isn't, not exclusively. It is the Arabic version of the Biblical Ishmail. He is Abraham's son. Unless someone is going to tell me that Christians don't respect Ishmail...
Reply

Woodrow
01-01-2008, 12:34 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by caroline
I agree. It also disturbs me that Christians are not more vocal in condemning the acts of terrorism done in the Name of Christianity.
that is true. But, we can not control the actions of others and the errors of others does not justify us to commit the same errors.

As Muslims we need to get the wrongs of other people out of our minds and concentrate on what wrongs within ourselves we can correct.

It should be of no concern of how much sin our neighbor commits, our first concern should be what we can do to stop committing the sins our self.

We do need to make every effort to let it be known that we do not approve of the actions by some. We need to truly understand how much harm those people do to the Ummah and stop shrugging it off with the statement 'OH, but you have the same type of people in (Insert any belief system or religion)"

Who gives a dippity dip if Purple Aardvarks have terrorists within their ranks. Our concern should be we have terrorists among our ranks and we do not want or need them. We need to stop being intimidated and held captive by terrorists that call themselves our brothers and sisters. We need to wake up and see that the terrorists within our own ranks do not give an owls hoot about our welfare, they are just as willing to kill you, your parents and your children as fast as they would kill a perceived enemy. Come to think of it with terrorists in our midsts helping us, we do not need any enemies, we have too many home grown ones that we protect through our inaction and than say, "Oh, but Christians/Jews/Hindus ad infintium ad nauseum have terrorist to" Yes they do but their terrorists are not Muslims and that should be our concern, Muslim terrorists are our enemy not our protectors.
Reply

mestiza
01-01-2008, 08:32 PM
Personally, I think Islam in itself does NOT sanction terrorism.

It's people's ignorance and/or false interpretation of texts that cause them to hold this idea. People only get this idea about Islam sanctioning terrorism purely because of lack of knowledge of Islam and this is fueled by the media, which in a lot of cases are biased against the religion..... can't remember what I was going to say next...imsad

Oh Yeah, if people looked more into what was going on in the history of each surah, text within it, it may change people's tainted view of islam and terrorism.
It's a shame not many people do it.
Reply

mestiza
01-01-2008, 08:40 PM
I really need to change my avatar..... I'll do it tomorrow.... woops! procrastinating again.....
Reply

snakelegs
01-02-2008, 10:05 PM
this may be of interest here

http://islambase.co.uk/index.php?opt...056&Itemid=181
Reply

MustafaMc
01-04-2008, 02:59 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
First, I don't doubt that the hadith in this audio clip are authentic. There is another hadith about some men that did not participate in an arduous expedition. Most of those who stayed made one excuse or another upon the return of the expedition and were "forgiven" on the spot. There were a couple of men however who told the truth to Muhammad (saaws) and admitted their error in staying. Muhammad (saaws) and the entire Muslim community ignored these truthful men for a long time. After some time, a Qur'anic passage was revealed to indicate they had been forgiven.

I think that this hadith and the ones of the audio clip illustrate that we should not ignore the known sins of Muslims, but rather let them know that they were in the wrong. My perspective is that they were punished with a kind of "internal exile" to let them and the community know that their behaviour was not to be tolerated. In the end after making clear the seriousness of the error and with repentence of the perpetrators, these Muslims were accepted back into the community.

Let me make an illustration. If a Muslim owns a convenience store and he is selling beer and lottery tickets, should I socialize with him and tolerate his haram behavior? No, I will not approve of his publicly sinful life, nor should I keep silent. At the same time I refuse to say that he is not a Muslim and that he is going to Hell.

This audio clip seems to be an example of taking authentic hadith and twisting them to fit an unintended interpretation. The hadith in no way showed approval of the haram acts that were committed, rather they showed the seriousness of them. My opinion is that this audio is an example of double-speak that ends up misleading some Muslims to commit even more haram acts. As Muslims we are commanded to promote the good and forbid the wrong. We are also to help our Muslim brother if he is oppressed and IF HE IS THE OPPRESSOR by preventing him from doing so.

And Allah knows best.
Reply

snakelegs
01-04-2008, 03:31 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
First, I don't doubt that the hadith in this audio clip are authentic. There is another hadith about some men that did not participate in an arduous expedition. Most of those who stayed made one excuse or another upon the return of the expedition and were "forgiven" on the spot. There were a couple of men however who told the truth to Muhammad (saaws) and admitted their error in staying. Muhammad (saaws) and the entire Muslim community ignored these truthful men for a long time. After some time, a Qur'anic passage was revealed to indicate they had been forgiven.

I think that this hadith and the ones of the audio clip illustrate that we should not ignore the known sins of Muslims, but rather let them know that they were in the wrong. My perspective is that they were punished with a kind of "internal exile" to let them and the community know that their behaviour was not to be tolerated. In the end after making clear the seriousness of the error and with repentence of the perpetrators, these Muslims were accepted back into the community.

Let me make an illustration. If a Muslim owns a convenience store and he is selling beer and lottery tickets, should I socialize with him and tolerate his haram behavior? No, I will not approve of his publicly sinful life, nor should I keep silent. At the same time I refuse to say that he is not a Muslim and that he is going to Hell.

This audio clip seems to be an example of taking authentic hadith and twisting them to fit an unintended interpretation. The hadith in no way showed approval of the haram acts that were committed, rather they showed the seriousness of them. My opinion is that this audio is an example of double-speak that ends up misleading some Muslims to commit even more haram acts. As Muslims we are commanded to promote the good and forbid the wrong. We are also to help our Muslim brother if he is oppressed and IF HE IS THE OPPRESSOR by preventing him from doing so.

And Allah knows best.
what you wrote in the last paragraph was pretty much my take too - it was a good example of how some people are talked in to making haram acts halal.

however, in one of the hadith (if i remember right) the actions were justified by saying that what the kufr did was worse.
in the other 2, it was recognized that the actions were wrong - or the prophet wouldn't have had to ask Allah's forgiveness for them.
at the end, he said that it is wrong to say that muslims who do such things are not muslims. (this could actually be technically correct) but he also goes on to tell those who do not support them should be silent, and of course, i disagree strongly.
Reply

snakelegs
01-04-2008, 03:32 AM
EDIT repeat post
Reply

BlackMamba
01-04-2008, 06:59 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by guyabano
Sorry to decieve you, but Seung-Hui Cho was not a christian.

Quote out these newslines:
Ya he was. What makes u think he was not? The link u posted had nothing to do with religion lol. Look at the link I posted.
http://bambino.wordpress.com/2007/04...ian-terrorist/
Reply

Keltoi
01-04-2008, 12:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Shakoor15
Ya he was. What makes u think he was not? The link u posted had nothing to do with religion lol. Look at the link I posted.
http://bambino.wordpress.com/2007/04...ian-terrorist/
Cho was a mentally deranged individual. The only context in which he brought up Christ was to point to what he percieved as his own crucifixion and torture at the hands of the world. Saying the words "Jesus Christ" doesn't equate to a religious motivation for mass murder. He is another in a long line of "kids" who felt the world was against them and committed a terrible crime. It doesn't matter anyway. If I actually thought he was a "Christian" terrorist as opposed to a mentally deranged terrorist, my condemnation would be the same.
Reply

guyabano
01-04-2008, 02:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Shakoor15
Ya he was. What makes u think he was not? The link u posted had nothing to do with religion lol. Look at the link I posted.
http://bambino.wordpress.com/2007/04...ian-terrorist/
Bambino's Krib ? Is that where you get your news from? And I'm pretty sure, there are very unbiased and reliable, right?

Well, if you play in that line, I can also tell you that he was a muslim:

Out of this webpage:

Certainly, more will be learned when (and if) police make public the "rambling manifesto" that was found in Cho's room. Allegedly, it is a diatribe against rich kids and religion. Already there is speculation about the "Ismail Ax" that Cho wrote in red ink on his arm and the significance of the reference to the Islamic interpretation of history. Releasing the note could dampen the speculation that Cho was a secret Muslim convert.

and there are a lot of other links which will tell you same.

So, what he was, nobody knows really.
Reply

Jayda
01-04-2008, 02:30 PM
hola,

it is probably more useful to ask whether individual muslims sanction terrorism... it seems to me that both islam and terrorism are subjective and both are subject to a great deal of interpretation. and i don't think there is very much uniformity on the issue... except that i think most muslims outright reject the use of the word 'terrorism' in connection with islam because it is deemed insulting... so it's not really accurate or fair to lump all muslims' opinions together and say 'muslims believe this' or 'muslims believe that.'

que Dios te bendiga
Reply

Gator
01-05-2008, 10:21 PM
here's an interesting review of a book about the sanctioning of Jihad. The book would probably be good too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/bo...ks&oref=slogin

The Book Review in this weekend's NY TIMES (1/5/08) is dedicated to books on Islam. Maybe of interest.
Reply

BlackMamba
01-05-2008, 11:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by guyabano
Bambino's Krib ? Is that where you get your news from? And I'm pretty sure, there are very unbiased and reliable, right?

Well, if you play in that line, I can also tell you that he was a muslim:

Out of this webpage:




and there are a lot of other links which will tell you same.

So, what he was, nobody knows really.
Is this a better source for you? http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article....4&in_a_source=
He was a Christian. And u can say he is mental or whatever, I can also say that about Saddam Husein right? From I know they are both very bad people and one claims to be Muslim while one claims to be Christian.
Reply

snakelegs
01-05-2008, 11:19 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gator
here's an interesting review of a book about the sanctioning of Jihad. The book would probably be good too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/bo...ks&oref=slogin

The Book Review in this weekend's NY TIMES (1/5/08) is dedicated to books on Islam. Maybe of interest.
thanks.
Reply

Grace Seeker
01-06-2008, 12:11 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gator
here's an interesting review of a book about the sanctioning of Jihad. The book would probably be good too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/bo...ks&oref=slogin

The Book Review in this weekend's NY TIMES (1/5/08) is dedicated to books on Islam. Maybe of interest.

Yes, thanks. Also, it was interesting that though the author of the book was not a Muslim, it seemed the reviewer was and still found much he agreed with regarding ideas that don't always get agreement.
Reply

snakelegs
01-06-2008, 02:52 AM
this is a quote from the article gator posted a link to.
can anyone tell me if there is such a verse, and if so, what is it? i've read the qur'an twice and cannot recall any such thing, but my memory is pretty lousy.
thanks!

"Muslim democrats will also have to confront Koranic passages that give militants an escape hatch. The most famous verse tells believers that slaying an innocent is like slaying all of mankind unless it is done to punish villainy."
Reply

BlackMamba
01-06-2008, 05:23 AM
Never seen a verse in Al-Quran like
Reply

Gator
01-06-2008, 11:54 AM
I think its this sura.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Al-Ma'idah (The Table Spread)

5:32 Because of this did We ordain unto the children of Israel that if anyone slays a human being-unless it be [in punishment] for murder or for spreading corruption on earth-it shall be as though he had slain all mankind; whereas, if anyone saves a life, it shall be as though he had saved the lives of all mankind. [40] And, indeed, there came unto them [41] Our apostles with all evidence of the truth: yet, behold, notwithstanding all this, many of them go on committing all manner of excesses on earth. [42]

Note [40] - This moral truth is among those to which the first sentence of verse 15 of this surah alludes, and its succinct formulation fully explains the reason why the story of Cain and Abel is mentioned in this context. The expression "We have ordained unto the children of Israel" does not, of course, detract from the universal validity of this moral: it refers merely to its earliest enunciation.(Quran Ref: 5:32 )



مِنْ أَجْلِ ذَلِكَ كَتَبْنَا عَلَى بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ أَنَّهُ مَن قَتَلَ نَفْسًا بِغَيْرِ نَفْسٍ أَوْ فَسَادٍ فِي الأَرْضِ فَكَأَنَّمَا قَتَلَ النَّاسَ جَمِيعًا وَمَنْ أَحْيَاهَا فَكَأَنَّمَا أَحْيَا النَّاسَ جَمِيعًا وَلَقَدْ جَاء تْهُمْ رُسُلُنَا بِالبَيِّنَاتِ ثُمَّ إِنَّ كَثِيرًا مِّنْهُم بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ فِي الأَرْضِ لَمُسْرِفُونَ (5:32)

Don't know if I pasted this correctly. Just wanted to incase there's a translation question.
Reply

snakelegs
01-07-2008, 03:51 AM
thanks, gator. it does seem a bit of a stretch, the way they put it in the article. but obviously there are some religious texts that are twistable because there are scholars (?) who do issue fatwas making terroism (deliberate targeting of innocents) as well as suicide kosher.
from all my reading (which is still a drop in the bucket) i've yet to come across anything that okays either act.
Reply

Gator
01-07-2008, 12:09 PM
I agree that it seems a bit of a stretch. The key word used in the article is "innocent" which did not appear in any of the translations I found (human being, soul) and the whether the acts were caused by the victim is unclear.
Reply

starrryeyes
01-08-2008, 11:08 PM
I think more could be done in Britian to allay anti muslim propoganda that is rife in the British press. I see the oppression of Muslims and it reminds me of the oppression of Jews in Nazi Germany. Many Nazi officers believed the hype that was set by one mans political agenda. The west believes that muslims are all extremists as it is being fed to us due to one states political (oil) agenda. I had to go out of my way to find out about Islam and I doubt I will ever get accurate information as to what is happening in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Most people have no idea of what is going on. In preventing oppressors from oppressing why not scream to the rooftops about what your faith is. I understand that Muslims speak out about acts of terrorism but it is a mere footnote in the British press. I beg that muslims try to be heard a little louder (i dont however believe they should have to) if the British people begin to see past what is being fed to them then a lot of atrocities will stop. There are anti muslim extreme right wing parties coming to power in Europe right now. There needs to be a spread in awareness as the muslim problem that is being banded about is dangerous to the whole of humanity.
Reply

wilberhum
01-09-2008, 08:10 PM
I see the oppression of Muslims and it reminds me of the oppression of Jews in Nazi Germany.
That is like comparing a paper cut to a beheading. :hiding:
Reply

BlackMamba
01-12-2008, 05:36 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
That is like comparing a paper cut to a beheading. :hiding:
EDIT Are u kidding me The Holocaust was exaggerated.
Reply

wilberhum
01-12-2008, 07:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Shakoor15
EDIT Are u kidding me The Holocaust was exaggerated.
Right!:hiding:
You see the smoke of burning Muslims in every corner of the Kingdom.:thumbs_do
Reply

Whatsthepoint
01-12-2008, 07:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Shakoor15
He was a Christian.
You have provided a single reliable evidence to support your claims. I suggest you reread Keltoi's post, equationg ones self with Jesus does not make one a Christian.

I agree though, that the media is biased towards when it comes to religious terrorism. If he had compared himself to Allah or Muhammed, everyone would have been talking about jihad, Islam etc.
Reply

Muezzin
01-12-2008, 07:27 PM
Most of these utter nutters' motives are more political in nature - they're responding to genuine political grievances in the absolutely most incorrect way imaginable.

Often, it appears they don't look to things such as the Quran to give credence to their crimes before they commit them, but rather, after the event, in the form of a video incorporating twisted verses as a disgusting taunt to their victims.

P.s. I'm disappointed at the mudslinging in this thread and people equating suffering worldwide to a papercut.

For those unable to read between the lines - stop doing the above or this thread will probably be locked.
Reply

wilberhum
01-12-2008, 07:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muezzin
Most of these utter nutters' motives are more political in nature - they're responding to genuine political grievances in the absolutely most incorrect way imaginable.

Often, it appears they don't look to things such as the Quran to give credence to their crimes before they commit them, but rather, after the event, in the form of a video incorporating twisted verses as a disgusting taunt to their victims.

P.s. I'm disappointed at the mudslinging in this thread and people equating suffering worldwide to a papercut.


For those unable to read between the lines - stop doing the above or this thread will probably be locked.
I'm not only disappointed, I'm angry that a mod would distort something to the point it is a lie. :raging::raging::raging::raging::raging::raging::r aging::raging::raging::raging::raging::raging::rag ing::raging::raging::raging::raging::raging

How would you comparing how British Muslims situation to the German Jews who were tortured and murdered by the millions to those poor Muslims that the press give a bad name to?

You compare bad press with seeing your whole family thrown in the ovens.

I think you need to take a long look in the mirror. :?:?
Reply

Muezzin
01-12-2008, 08:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
I'm not only disappointed, I'm angry that a mod would distort something to the point it is a lie. :raging::raging::raging::raging::raging::raging::r aging::raging::raging::raging::raging::raging::rag ing::raging::raging::raging::raging::raging

How would you comparing how British Muslims situation to the German Jews who were tortured and murdered by the millions to those poor Muslims that the press give a bad name to?

You compare bad press with seeing your whole family thrown in the ovens.

I think you need to take a long look in the mirror. :?:?
Sounds like you're doing a fair bit of distorting yourself.

The person you made the 'paper cut' reply to was talking of 'oppression against Muslims' not just 'bad press'. You then belittled this by calling it a 'paper cut' and the Holocaust (rightly) a 'beheading'. Another poster then (morally wrongly) said the Holocaust was 'exagerrated'.

I am truly sorry if I offended you. If I've misunderstood something, it's my fault. Let's just not be wantonly cruel to each other, eh? Makes the world a slightly nicer place to live in.

Chill pills. They're delicious.

Edit: I read the post in question again, and it was indeed talking about propaganda as opposed to genocide. My (very silly) bad.

Humble pie. Surprisingly salty.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
01-12-2008, 08:10 PM
It would seem the original poster DID compare the holocaust to the state of the muslim population in Britain.:
format_quote Originally Posted by starrryeyes
I think more could be done in Britian to allay anti muslim propoganda that is rife in the British press. I see the oppression of Muslims and it reminds me of the oppression of Jews in Nazi Germany.
Well, that's one way to interpret it...
She might have been refering to the pre-holocaust discrimiantion, which is still equating a papercut with something severely worse.
And she might have been talking about the oppression of muslims in general...even such comparison is inapropriate.
Later, another poster popped in and said the holocaust was exaggerated.
format_quote Originally Posted by Shakoor15
Are u kidding me The Holocaust was exaggerated.
Reply

wilberhum
01-12-2008, 08:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muezzin
Sounds like you're doing a fair bit of distorting yourself.

The person you made the 'paper cut' reply to was talking of 'oppression against Muslims' not just 'bad press'. You then belittled this by calling it a 'paper cut' and the Holocaust (rightly) a 'beheading'. Another poster then (morally wrongly) said the Holocaust was 'exagerrated'.

I am truly sorry if I offended you. If I've misunderstood something, it's my fault. Let's just not be wantonly cruel to each other, eh? Makes the world a slightly nicer place to live in.

Chill pills. They're delicious.
I like the blue ones best.

That aside, think you, kinda.

The Holocaust is the most inhuman action any group has done to another.

There is no comparison.

That does not lessen the suffering of anyone, anyplace else.
Reply

snakelegs
01-12-2008, 08:35 PM
i think the point was that there is an ugly backlash building against muslims in europe = muslims are becoming the most popular hate group. muslims are seen as a threat to the "christian character" of europe - a foreign presence on european soil - the jews were also seen as such. in theory, it could be compared to the building backlash against jews prior to the holocaust. politicians have a way of using/manipulating existing prejudices for their own ends. hitler didn't create anti-semiticism, he worked with what was already there.
is the opression of muslims in europe the same as the opression of jews in europe prior to WW2? no. could it get that bad? yes.
could it happen again? do we learn from history?
Reply

Muezzin
01-12-2008, 08:44 PM
Somehow I don't see people making lampshades out of Muslims' skin. It would probably be too brown for such people's 'Whiter-than-a-blacklight-in-your-teeth' tastes.

But more on topic, a lot of terrorists who call themselves Muslims have political problems and deal with them by killing civilians, contrary to law, morality and religion. It only tends to be after the event that they provide a few distorted religious verses, as if to taunt the people they just attacked. That is disgusting in and of itself - firstly, because such behaviour is viciously mean-spirited, and secondly because they're bending sacred texts into the shape of a middle finger to show people after committing crimes.
Reply

Amadeus85
01-12-2008, 11:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
i think the point was that there is an ugly backlash building against muslims in europe = muslims are becoming the most popular hate group. muslims are seen as a threat to the "christian character" of europe - a foreign presence on european soil - the jews were also seen as such. in theory, it could be compared to the building backlash against jews prior to the holocaust. politicians have a way of using/manipulating existing prejudices for their own ends. hitler didn't create anti-semiticism, he worked with what was already there.
is the opression of muslims in europe the same as the opression of jews in europe prior to WW2? no. could it get that bad? yes.
could it happen again? do we learn from history?
If we notice the demographic changes in Old Continent (especially the number of "youths"), we can ask, who would be able to make this Holocaust on whom in near future. But its off topic anyway.
And the topic is hard. Its hard because in muslim world its not easy to seperate politics from religion.Muslims often say that islam is not only religion but also law,political system and way of life etc etc. So sometimes political goals in muslim world are connected with religion and vice versa. On the other hand we can't deny that not only islam has its aggressive side, for example Judaism and its texts are also used by some to create violence in Middle East.As i said, its hard topic.
Reply

snakelegs
01-13-2008, 12:23 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aaron85
If we notice the demographic changes in Old Continent (especially the number of "youths"), we can ask, who would be able to make this Holocaust on whom in near future. But its off topic anyway.
And the topic is hard. Its hard because in muslim world its not easy to seperate politics from religion.Muslims often say that islam is not only religion but also law,political system and way of life etc etc. So sometimes political goals in muslim world are connected with religion and vice versa. On the other hand we can't deny that not only islam has its aggressive side, for example Judaism and its texts are also used by some to create violence in Middle East.As i said, its hard topic.
yes it is.
Reply

Keltoi
01-16-2008, 12:32 PM
History does tend to repeat itself, the difference is that it usually isn't repeated by the same people.

What I'm saying is that Judaism and Christianity have gone through the moral and ethical failures that have permanently scarred those faiths. In the case of Christianity there was reform(the Reformation). I think Islam will be forced to take a hard look at itself eventually and will also see some kind of reform. That doesn't mean Islam as a whole is a "problem", any more than the Crusades or the Inquisition were based on sound Christian doctrine. However, when people can use religion and religious zeal to justify inhuman acts of barbarism and cruelty, that points to a problem. In the case of Christianity the problem was centralized power under the Catholic Church, which held sway over an illiterate "flock" who took the word of the Pope as the Word of God. The Reformation changed this forever, and it had a major impact on Christian religious life.

I'm not sure what the source of the problem is in Islam...it is probably a situation similar to Christianity under a Pope, but decentralized to a large number of religious leaders who do not teach sound Islamic doctrine.

Of course there is politics in the mix too, just as there was during the Crusades, but if we didn't realize this already, politics and religion can lead to a very bad situation.
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
01-16-2008, 02:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
I like the blue ones best.

That aside, think you, kinda.

The Holocaust is the most inhuman action any group has done to another.

There is no comparison.

.
Sikhs in india 1984 - present!

Genocides of Native Americans in the United States...

The Black War refers to a period of conflict between the British colonists and Tasmanian Aborigines...

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki....

1971 Bangladesh atrocities, Operation Searchlight, and Bangladesh Liberation War....

Rawanda...

Sudan.....to name but a few.
Reply

Keltoi
01-16-2008, 02:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
Sikhs in india 1984 - present!

Genocides of Native Americans in the United States...

The Black War refers to a period of conflict between the British colonists and Tasmanian Aborigines...

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki....

1971 Bangladesh atrocities, Operation Searchlight, and Bangladesh Liberation War....

Rawanda...

Sudan.....to name but a few.
None of those can compare in scope to the genocide of 6 million Jews in a matter of a few years. Yes, there are other horrifying events in the world, past and present, but the Holocaust is and hopefully will remain the most horrifying single act of mass genocide the world has yet seen.
Reply

Grace Seeker
01-16-2008, 02:52 PM
If you are the one person who is being targeted, I hardly think it is comforting to know that there are not another 5,999,999 persons going to die along with you, so your death isn't going to somehow be as terrible of a tragedy.
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
01-16-2008, 03:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
None of those can compare in scope to the genocide of 6 million Jews in a matter of a few years. Yes, there are other horrifying events in the world, past and present, but the Holocaust is and hopefully will remain the most horrifying single act of mass genocide the world has yet seen.
Why because they happened to be Jews? What happened in Combodia? how many millions died there? It's a sad state of affairs when a person wants to compete with mass murder of a few to millions.

*Nods head in dismay*
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
01-16-2008, 03:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
If you are the one person who is being targeted, I hardly think it is comforting to know that there are not another 5,999,999 persons going to die along with you, so your death isn't going to somehow be as terrible of a tragedy.
Rwandan Genocide Tutsis spring to mind as the exact same thing happned to them. Only, they were clubbed to death and butchered with machetes, on the streets like seals going to the slaughter! :cry:
Reply

Grace Seeker
01-16-2008, 05:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
Rwandan Genocide Tutsis spring to mind as the exact same thing happned to them. Only, they were clubbed to death and butchered with machetes, on the streets like seals going to the slaughter! :cry:

Yes, it was just as bad. I had friends living in Rwanda at the time. I've also had friends living in the Congo (formerly Zairie) and Liberia, members of my church, during their bloody uprisings. They were fortunate that all of their family survived, but they lost friends and co-workers, and young man that had lived with me for a few weeks got the news that his finance had been raped and mutilated but survived.



I think that the reason that Keltoi said that nothing can compare to the genocide of 6 million Jews in the Europe is simply because 6 million is a larger number than the roughly 2 million that Pol Pot's Khmer Rogue murdered, and didn't have anything to do with nationality, race, or religion.

But for me, the horror of genocide seems, at the personal level, to be the same regardless of numbers. It was only a few thousand Arawaks that suffered as a result of the arrival of the Spanish in the New World, but I don't imagine that their misfortune was any less tragic just because there were less of them, or even that Columbus didn't come with the intent to commit genocide. That was nonetheless the result of his stumbling upon them. And for those who suffered through it, the tragedy of one is as great as the horror of millions.
Reply

Keltoi
01-16-2008, 07:20 PM
Okay, to clarify, The Killing Fields in Cambodia, the Rwandan genocide, the current situation in Sudan, they are all horrible acts of barbarity and are just as "bad"(for lack of a better word) as the Holocaust in terms of that barbarity. My point was that the Holocaust remains the single most horrifying example of mass genocide orchestrated by a government entity. What made it the most striking was the ruthless efficiency in which it was carried out.

Pointing out that the Holocaust was(fortunately) a unique crime, doesn't equate to me not recognizing the mass killings elsewhere. All mass killings should be condemned, and to those being killed it is small consolation that the numbers of their dead aren't nearly as high as the Holocaust.

However, from an historical perspective, the Holocaust was the single most horrifying case of systematic mass genocide in history.
Reply

snakelegs
01-16-2008, 07:53 PM
i think what makes the holocaust the most horrific and unique is that germany was the heighth of western civilization and scientific achievement. it was carried out with a scientific, methodic orderliness by a bunch of regular people who could've been accountants. it is said more than 20 million people were killed by the germans.
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
01-16-2008, 07:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
i think what makes the holocaust the most horrific and unique is that germany was the heighth of western civilization and scientific achievement. it was carried out with a scientific, methodic orderliness by a bunch of regular people who could've been accountants. it is said more than 20 million people were killed by the germans.
True. They say 20 million russians ALONE died during the war.
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
01-16-2008, 08:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Yes, it was just as bad. I had friends living in Rwanda at the time. I've also had friends living in the Congo (formerly Zairie) and Liberia, members of my church, during their bloody uprisings. They were fortunate that all of their family survived, but they lost friends and co-workers, and young man that had lived with me for a few weeks got the news that his finance had been raped and mutilated but survived.



I think that the reason that Keltoi said that nothing can compare to the genocide of 6 million Jews in the Europe is simply because 6 million is a larger number than the roughly 2 million that Pol Pot's Khmer Rogue murdered, and didn't have anything to do with nationality, race, or religion.

But for me, the horror of genocide seems, at the personal level, to be the same regardless of numbers. It was only a few thousand Arawaks that suffered as a result of the arrival of the Spanish in the New World, but I don't imagine that their misfortune was any less tragic just because there were less of them, or even that Columbus didn't come with the intent to commit genocide. That was nonetheless the result of his stumbling upon them. And for those who suffered through it, the tragedy of one is as great as the horror of millions.
Ethnic cleansing amounts to the same, no? Bosnia, Panjab, Rawanda again.

True about the methods used to execute the 'Final Solution' plan. It should not be denied, yet it should not be made out to be he ONLY worst attrocity to be carried out.
Reply

Keltoi
01-16-2008, 10:39 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
Ethnic cleansing amounts to the same, no? Bosnia, Panjab, Rawanda again.

True about the methods used to execute the 'Final Solution' plan. It should not be denied, yet it should not be made out to be he ONLY worst attrocity to be carried out.
Perhaps the better way to put it is that the Holocaust isn't the only atrocity...I would argue that it was and is, and hopefully will be, the worst.
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
01-16-2008, 11:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Perhaps the better way to put it is that the Holocaust isn't the only atrocity...I would argue that it was and is, and hopefully will be, the worst.
Let me guess, you're an evangelical Christian? explains alot.....
Reply

Keltoi
01-16-2008, 11:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
Let me guess, you're an evangelical Christian? explains alot.....
...and what exactly would that have to do with anything?
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
01-16-2008, 11:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
...and what exactly would that have to do with anything?
Those nuts believe Jews are the chosen people don't they? Yet they denied Jesus....hmmm they make it up as they go along don't they.....

*Speaks in tongues
Reply

aamirsaab
01-16-2008, 11:50 PM
:sl:
''We seem to be swaying from the topic, scotty''
''Ay, I'm settin' phazer to kill!''
Reply

Keltoi
01-17-2008, 12:02 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
Those nuts believe Jews are the chosen people don't they? Yet they denied Jesus....hmmm they make it up as they go along don't they.....

*Speaks in tongues
Right....:hmm:
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
01-17-2008, 12:04 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Right....:hmm:
Can you justify it? Or do you not believe the above?
Reply

Grace Seeker
01-17-2008, 12:04 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
:sl:
''We seem to be swaying from the topic, scotty''
''Ay, I'm settin' phazer to kill!''


Very true. But what will be the final message if a Muslim mod "kills" a thread on terrorism?


Hey, guys, let's give aamirsaab a break and try to get back on topic. Maybe take the above to another thread?
Reply

Keltoi
01-17-2008, 12:08 AM
Gladly, I didn't really wish to respond to the above anyway, as it wasn't meant as an honest question.
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
01-17-2008, 12:09 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker


Hey, guys, let's give aamirsaab a break and try to get back on topic. Maybe take the above to another thread?
Please. I'm intrigued to what the answers are. :D

Sorry Amirsaaaab Ji!
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
01-17-2008, 12:10 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Gladly, I didn't really wish to respond to the above anyway, as it wasn't meant as an honest question.
Que?
Reply

Grace Seeker
01-17-2008, 12:17 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
Those nuts [i.e. evangelical Christians] believe Jews are the chosen people don't they? Yet they denied Jesus....hmmm they make it up as they go along don't they.....

*Speaks in tongues
For a more appropriate place to discuss what is or is not an evangelical, you might try the thread where I just made this post:

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
It might be helpful to define what is meant by the term "evangelical". My experience is that it has different meanings and connotations depending on who is using it and what they are describing. It could be that each person here has their own unique understanding of that term and is using it accurately from their vantage point, but are still talking about completely different concepts than anyone else in the thread.
Reply

IntroC
01-23-2008, 08:43 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by caroline
I agree. It also disturbs me that Christians are not more vocal in condemning the acts of terrorism done in the Name of Christianity.
The reason for that is simple, Christian acts of terrorism are an anomaly.
Reply

Grace Seeker
01-23-2008, 10:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IntroC
The reason for that is simple, Christian acts of terrorism are an anomaly.

I would give a different answer. There are plenty of acts of terrorism done by people who are supposedly Christian. But when said people do such things, rarely do they claim to have done them in the name of Christ or as an aspect of their Christian faith. Rather, Christians who commit terroris generally cite reasons other than their faith for their actions. Thus, the connection is not made in the same way that it is when someone shouts Allah's name just before they blow themselves up taking a dozen innocent bystanders with them.

However, I would agree if a person did claim that he was doing something terrible in the name of Christ, that the rest of Christianity should repudiate those acts as not being truly Christian. That is why I think you will see most Christians say that the Inquisition was wrong.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 11-24-2014, 11:34 PM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-15-2011, 03:22 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-22-2009, 07:20 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-21-2008, 09:35 AM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!