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.
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?
Last edited by Grace Seeker; 12-29-2007 at 06:35 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.
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"?
Last edited by Grace Seeker; 12-29-2007 at 06:59 AM.
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
Peace glo
Here I stand.
I can do no other.
May God help me.
Amen.
Come, let us worship and bow down •
and kneel before the Lord our Maker
[Psalm 95]
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.
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.
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.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
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.
each man thinks of his own fleas as gazelles
question authority
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
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.
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?
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.
ابو نعيمة علي البريكي
Islam's Think Tank: Deciphering Antagonist Jargon, Heretical Doctrines, Extracting the Principles of Shariah, Information in all the Islamic Sciences
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.
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).
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.
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...
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.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Quote
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks