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.
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.
"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 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.
each man thinks of his own fleas as gazelles
question authority
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.
Ėk Gusā Alhu Mėrā
The One Lord, the Lord of the World, is my God Allah.
Dhan Guru Arjan Dev Mahraaj Ji!
Kal Meh Bėḏ Atharbaṇ Hū Nā Kẖuḏā Alhu Bẖa.
In the Dark Age of Kali Yuga, the Atharva Veda became prominent; Allah became the Name of God.
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.
Ėk Gusā Alhu Mėrā
The One Lord, the Lord of the World, is my God Allah.
Dhan Guru Arjan Dev Mahraaj Ji!
Kal Meh Bėḏ Atharbaṇ Hū Nā Kẖuḏā Alhu Bẖa.
In the Dark Age of Kali Yuga, the Atharva Veda became prominent; Allah became the Name of God.
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.
"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."
Someone said to the Prophet, "Pray to God against the idolaters and curse them." The Prophet replied, "I have been sent to show mercy and have not been sent to curse." (Muslim)
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.
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.
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