Compareing Islam and Christainty

[Grace Seeker]

I understand what you're saying, but why aren't thousands of Tibetans blowing themselves and other people up? Why don't Native Americans strap on bombs and blow up the local Wal-Mart? Pointing to injustice can only go so far. Do you believe suicide terrorism is strictly a by-product of oppression, or is there something within Islam(either politically or religiously) that promotes such actions?

Keltoi, first Tibetans have done some of those things in their fight with China.

Second, as far as I am concerned, if it was really about religion alone, then we would see a global proliferation of Muslims blowing themselves up not only in the middle east, but throughout the world. I have yet to meet a single American born Muslim who had an interest in this, and who did not think it was both utterly foolish and completely foreign to his/her understanding of Islam. The same could be said for Muslims I personally know in Turkey, but they do have to deal with the PKK who supposedly are Muslims as well and they have done some of these things.

But, I will go one step further and make what some will think is an outrageous suggestion, and that is should all the Muslims of the middle east suddenly become Christians overnight, that it would not change the incidents of bombings we see there. I think the roots of it are in the culture and the history of the land, more than they are in the religion of the people.

Now, I am no longer a religious bigot. Instead, I find myself to be an ethnic bigot.

 

[Qingu]

Keltoi, first Tibetans have done some of those things in their fight with China.

Grace, I have to disagree. There is simply nothing comparable in Tibet to the level of violence in Palestine or in other Muslim countries occupied by foreigners.

Second, as far as I am concerned, if it was really about religion alone, then we would see a global proliferation of Muslims blowing themselves up not only in the middle east, but throughout the world.

...........

Do you watch the news?

Yes, evil kufr biased Western media. Nevertheless, Muslims are blowing themselves up almost daily, in Iraq, in Israel, in Afghanistan, most recently in Algiers.

I have yet to meet a single American born Muslim who had an interest in this, and who did not think it was both utterly foolish and completely foreign to his/her understanding of Islam.

This is likely because American Muslims have integrated into Western society and morals more effectively than the vast majority of other Muslims in the world.

But, I will go one step further and make what some will think is an outrageous suggestion, and that is should all the Muslims of the middle east suddenly become Christians overnight, that it would not change the incidents of bombings we see there.

Perhaps not. Christians have the same death-obsession as Muslims. Like Muslims, the Bible promises eternal, unverifiable rewards for true believers who prove their faith. While there's not much in the New Testament to justify violence, the Old Testament is filled with commands to violence—it's the only religious text that actually commands ethnic cleansing. And indeed, Christians have historically killed just as much for Jesus as Muslims are currently killing for Allah.

I think the roots of it are in the culture and the history of the land, more than they are in the religion of the people.

First of all, I don't distinguish between religion and culture. Religion is cultural, it's not some free-floating entity.

Secondly, I think the roots of violence are very much in the religious texts of Muslims (and Christians and Jews). The Quran explicitly tells you to fight unbelievers until they submit to dhimmi status. It proudly promises that Muslims should, and will, rule the world. It repeatedly says unbelievers are liars, are evil, are worth less than nothing, and deserve to be tortured forever in hell while Muslims are up in heaven enjoying their flowing gardens after they die.

Is it any surprise that people who take this text seriously sometimes blow themselves up to kill unbelievers?

Now, I am no longer a religious bigot. Instead, I find myself to be an ethnic bigot.

I don't think there's anything bigoted about what you said. Criticizing a belief does not make you bigoted, whether it's a religious belief or a familial tradition, or both.

 

[Grace Seeker]

This is likely because American Muslims have integrated into Western society and morals more effectively than the vast majority of other Muslims in the world.

So, whether you realize it or not, you agree with me. If being "American" or "integrated into Western society and morals" is what keeps someone from blowing themselves up, but they can still be a Mulsim, then it isn't their religion, but the society in which they live that is the contributing factor in these actions of blowing one's self up.



It's called the scientific method, take two people of identical faith and put one in environment X and another in environment Y and observe their behavior. If they remain the same, we might be able to attribute that to having the same faith, and that it is dominant over the environment. If different, we have to look for other explanations beyond faith and to either the environment or individual human developemental differences.

In this case we have one group of Muslims blowing themselves up and another not. It appears to me that if Islam was the major determinate, then both groups would be blowing themselves up equally. As they are not, then there must be something else which is the key contributing factor.

I'm not saying that Islam has no impact, human motivation is a difficult thing to quantify, but simply being Islamic does not appear to be enough of a factor by itself. And we ought not to label it as such for we may then miss some of the other causes and thus not be prepared to address them in appropriate ways so as to prevent them.

 

[MustafaMc]

I understand what you're saying, but why aren't thousands of Tibetans blowing themselves and other people up? Why don't Native Americans strap on bombs and blow up the local Wal-Mart? Pointing to injustice can only go so far. Do you believe suicide terrorism is strictly a by-product of oppression, or is there something within Islam(either politically or religiously) that promotes such actions?

Thank you for understanding my point. My understanding of Buddhism is that it is a pacifist turn-the-cheek kind of religion as exemplified by the Dali Lama. The Native American of history has suffered as great an injustice as the Palestinians of today. Until they were pacified, they commited acts (massacres and scalpings) that we would consider terroristic.

I believe that neither suicide nor terrorism have a place in Islam. It is unacceptable to deliberately kill one's self in any circumstance; however, to go to a legitimate battleground and to fight to the death or victory is a different story. To indiscriminately kill women, children and other non-combatants is also unacceptable. I can think of no example where Muhammad (saaws) authorized the killing of women and chidren - actually, I am certain that he forbade it. The blowing up of public markets, buses, subways, and airplanes and flying airplanes into public buildings is completely unacceptable. Prophet Muhammad (saaws) also forbade the mutilation of the enemy soldiers as had been done to his Uncle Hamza. Therefore, the hanging of burned corpses at Fallujah and the dragging of dead soldiers behind a vehicle are un-Islamic acts.

I don't deny that some Muslims have done such as I have described, but it is not in accordance with Islam.

 

[Keltoi]

Thank you for understanding my point. My understanding of Buddhism is that it is a pacifist turn-the-cheek kind of religion as exemplified by the Dali Lama. The Native American of history has suffered as great an injustice as the Palestinians of today. Until they were pacified, they commited acts (massacres and scalpings) that we would consider terroristic.

I believe that neither suicide nor terrorism have a place in Islam. It is unacceptable to deliberately kill one's self in any circumstance; however, to go to a legitimate battleground and to fight to the death or victory is a different story. To indiscriminately kill women, children and other non-combatants is also unacceptable. I can think of no example where Muhammad (saaws) authorized the killing of women and chidren - actually, I am certain that he forbade it. The blowing up of public markets, buses, subways, and airplanes and flying airplanes into public buildings is completely unacceptable. Prophet Muhammad (saaws) also forbade the mutilation of the enemy soldiers as had been done to his Uncle Hamza. Therefore, the hanging of burned corpses at Fallujah and the dragging of dead soldiers behind a vehicle are un-Islamic acts.

I don't deny that some Muslims have done such as I have described, but it is not in accordance with Islam.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I wasn't trying to suggest suicide terrorism is in accordance with Islam in any way. I've learned enough about Islam to know better than that. The issue I was trying to raise, and perhaps did it badly, was where this suicide bombing phenomenon comes from. If we agree it isn't dictated by the Qu'ran, why are so many Muslims, many of whom have never lived in Palestine, so willing to blow themselves up to achieve the label "martyr"? Is this simply a product of bad religious guidance or are there really two Islams out there. Just from this board alone, I think it is evident that many young Muslims are a little confused about how they should feel about it. On one hand they will say suicide is against Islam, and on the other they will justify it.

I don't expect you to have the answer by the way... Just something I've pondered for awhile.

 

[Resigned]

...but do you disagree that you sound as what I said?

Yes, I disagree. The claim doesn’t apply for several reasons: 1) I preach no faith or ideology. Also, as I noted previously:

I hold no religious faith or politico-religious affiliation which explicitly sets forth that those who do not believe as I do are worthy only of hate and revulsion.

I am a Muslim American and I don't claim to be a victim. I was trying to get you to see that living in a refuge camp in Palestine after being kicked off of your land can make one do desparate things that are not in agreement with one's faith.

Firstly, I note that others have described that suicide bombing is not a universal response to the circumstances of the Palestinians.

There are the motivations other than land disputes that cause Palestinians to immolate themselves while purposefully slaughtering innocent women and children in a fireball of shrapnel. It’s not a simple matter of turf that causes a parent to happily strap a bomb vest on their child and send that youngster off to glorious martyrdom.

You seek to defer responsibility from those who chose a specific action, calculated to inflict as much damage and death as possible. It’s important to ask what motivates someone to fly a jetliner into a building and destroy themselves while attempting to maim or destroy innocent civilians. I suggest the answer to that question is:

1.) the religious convictions throbbing away and,

2.) Indoctrination in a belief that paradise awaits in the afterlife. The decision was taken consciously and with explicit calculation to bypass non-violence in their struggle. Many, many other peoples have desperate circumstances but do not resort to mass murder/suicide to try to alleviate them.

You obviously have no empathy for people in desparate circumstances.

Oh, I do. And the U.S. does, also. Here’s a take-home quiz for you. How much financial aid (in round numbers), has the U.S. donated to the Palestinians?

Part two of your quiz is this: When Palestinians danced in the streets and handed out candy to children at the news of 9-11, what message does that send?

Lastly, I couldn’t help but notice your silence as to the desperate measures that Christians, Jews and others faiths are presented with in Muslim majority nations. You make no mention of the policies of Muslim governments that explicitly discriminate against non-Muslims. Where is your rightcheous indignation at the policies of Muslim governments that are forcing out Christians in Palestine, in Egypt, in the KSA, in Algeria, in Malaysia? The list goes on but the points been made. Kindly list for me the Christian suicide bombers who have curried favor with their god by splodin’ in a bright orange flash?

I don't believe you want empathy, rather, you want excuses for hellacious behavior.

 

[Jayda]

Thank you for understanding my point. My understanding of Buddhism is that it is a pacifist turn-the-cheek kind of religion as exemplified by the Dali Lama. The Native American of history has suffered as great an injustice as the Palestinians of today. Until they were pacified, they commited acts (massacres and scalpings) that we would consider terroristic.

I believe that neither suicide nor terrorism have a place in Islam. It is unacceptable to deliberately kill one's self in any circumstance; however, to go to a legitimate battleground and to fight to the death or victory is a different story. To indiscriminately kill women, children and other non-combatants is also unacceptable. I can think of no example where Muhammad (saaws) authorized the killing of women and chidren - actually, I am certain that he forbade it. The blowing up of public markets, buses, subways, and airplanes and flying airplanes into public buildings is completely unacceptable. Prophet Muhammad (saaws) also forbade the mutilation of the enemy soldiers as had been done to his Uncle Hamza. Therefore, the hanging of burned corpses at Fallujah and the dragging of dead soldiers behind a vehicle are un-Islamic acts.

I don't deny that some Muslims have done such as I have described, but it is not in accordance with Islam.

hola MustafaMc,

i am becomming less certain of that (bold), for a number of reasons.

the first reason is that i think to a large extent terrorism is a matter of perspective and the result of our delusions about 'clean wars.' for example isn't this the same thing as this? in both cases their actions were punitive... and in both cases they acted without regard for the deaths of innocent civilians. so if their actions and intentions are the same... why do we call one example terrorism and another example something else?

and why do we insist that there are such things as clean wars... the idea that one could fight a war in civilian areas, with the chaos, explosions, weapons and hatred, and only the bad people will be harmed and nobody else; or that there are 'generous conquerors' seems to me inherently illogical... it seems to me like throwing a tomato into a blender and expecting the tomato to come out unscathed.

but we still have this delusion of a clear war today... where only soldiers die and the attacking army treats the civilians well... we live under the delusion of video game warfare today... where our technology for some reason gaurantees that only the bad people will be killed and for that reason it is okay to attack bad people when they are in cities or crowded streets or around civilians. but haven't we learned that this is not so? the united states bombed a remote location in pakistan to kill ayman al zawahiri, but in the end only killed women and children (source). so our idea of a clean war is largely myth... a myth that conceals the very unfortunate reality that we sometimes choose to kill innocent people in wars, and just because we have a nicer myth than they do does not mean our armed forces are committing acts of terrorism.

but it is not just modern examples, historically we create these myths as well. muslims tend to talk about mohamed and his successors as fighting these kinds of 'clean wars,' again where all the good people are spared and nobody but the bad people are harmed. and of course they (like we do) have their white washed history of events. but just like today it is impossible to completely silence the conquered.

like the reports which come in from Pakistan of families being killed in our airstrikes, we have local information from the people of this time living in the conditions of the wars muslims, like you Mustafa, now look back to as examples of righteous combat.

In the year 945, on Friday 7 February (634 ad) at the ninth hour, there was a battle between the Romans and the Arabs of Muhammad in Palestine twelve miles east of Gaza. The Romans fled, leaving behind the patrician bryrdn, whom the Arabs killed. Some 4000 poor villagers of Palestine were killed there, Christians, Jews and Samaritans. The Arabs ravaged the whole region.

In the year 947 (635—36ad), the Arabs invaded the whole of Syria and went down to Persia and conquered it. The Arabs climbed the mountain of Mardin and killed many monks there in the monasteries of Qedar and Bnata. There died the blessed man Simon, doorkeeper of Qedar, brother of Thomas the priest.

In January the people of Hims took the word for their lives and many villages were ravaged by the killing of the Arabs of Muhmd and many people were slain and taken prisoner from Galilee as far as Beth.

On the twenty-sixth of May the Saqilara went from the vicinity of Hims and the Romans chased them.

On the tenth of August the Romans fled from the vicinity of Damascus and there were killed many people, some ten thousand. And at the turn of the year the Romans came. On the twentieth of August in the year nine hundred and forty-seven there gathered in Gabitha a multitude of the Romans, and many people of the Romans were killed, some fifty thousand.

i think as our sense of war evolves perhaps we will lose this illusion that there is some war to fight a war without harming people who should not be harmed. it is good (i think) to see that we need to delude ourselves into believing that we do not commit acts of terrorism in the course of wars... because that shows we believe such things to be evil and we do not want to associate ourselves with evil things.

but on the cynical side i think intelligent tactitions understand the importance of terrorism in war... and while the general public wishes to live under the myth that there is terrorism and separate there is war, the wise tactition secretly knows just how related these things are. whether it is sun tzu, mohamed or our own american military commanders... we have statements and see the actions of their armies that confirm they value terror in warfare... as a useful tool and even (and especially) against civilian populations.

i think it is all really just one big jumble... some people are willing to become more depraved than others to achieve their military goals, but nobody really escapes the necessity of killing innocent people. when that happens it's a matter of perspective or spin... to the attacker it is a casualty of war or an unfortunate incident, to the person attacked it is an act of terrorism. either way until we stop perpetuating the myth that somewhere, somehow 'nice wars' have been or are being fought, we will continue to wrestle with defining elastic terms...

and as a consequence it is difficult for me to take seriously the claims of people who believe in the importance of war while they say they are against 'terrorist activities' which are really just a part of war.

que Dios te bendiga

 

[Keltoi]

Jayda, you make a good point as far as civilians being in the crossfire of most wars. There is no denying that. However, I believe we are talking about something quite different here. Forget about the word "terrorism" for the time being. Concentrate on the act itself.

Call it suicide bombing, homicide bombing, whatever.

The question raised is where does this come from? If the Qu'ran doesn't justify suicide murder, which I would hope we all agree it does not, why has this become such a "popular" act in many Muslim circles? You cannot simply point to Palestine, as suicide murder has become something of a global Muslim phenomenon. Obviously someone is teaching these people that suicide attacks on civilians equates to "martrydom".

Then you have the Muslim reactions to these events, which range from disgust to praise. Personally I have seen alot of confusion on this matter from Muslims. It's just something I can't quite get my head around.

 

[Jayda]

Jayda, you make a good point as far as civilians being in the crossfire of most wars. There is no denying that. However, I believe we are talking about something quite different here. Forget about the word "terrorism" for the time being. Concentrate on the act itself.

Call it suicide bombing, homicide bombing, whatever.

The question raised is where does this come from? If the Qu'ran doesn't justify suicide murder, which I would hope we all agree it does not, why has this become such a "popular" act in many Muslim circles? You cannot simply point to Palestine, as suicide murder has become something of a global Muslim phenomenon. Obviously someone is teaching these people that suicide attacks on civilians equates to "martrydom".

Then you have the Muslim reactions to these events, which range from disgust to praise. Personally I have seen alot of confusion on this matter from Muslims. It's just something I can't quite get my head around.

hola,

i'm going to betray my inner geek, but did you see the last episode of star trek voyager? captain janeway infects herself and then boards the borg space ship to spread the disease to them.

if you think about it... how many movies have we seen with such heroic endings? the hero bravely crashes their fighter into the enemy encampment to destroy everything, the hero marches into an insurmountable enemy crowd holding a live grenade... et cetera. more generally you have any number of variations of 'custers last stand,' where the heros decide to commit to a mission they know they will never survive. while they are not actively killing themselves like in the above examples, they are deliberately placing themselves in a suicidal situation... how is that different?

the only thing that justifies these suicidal acts of bravery is the intention... if the public judges that the intention is good then the act is brave... but if the public judges an intention to be evil then it is mania. what makes it any different with suicide bombers? i do not not know if you saw the taliban video that was posted here a little while ago but they had a suicide bomber in and among the taliban. they mentioned how he had chosen to do this, and they all viewed him reverently... the same reverence we have when we cheer on the brave hero of those movies. the only difference is the intent. the suicide bomber's intentions are only good to the like minded jihadis, our intentions are only good to americans and like minded countries.

you say suicide they say dying for a cause, and vice versa...

but from a third party perspective, i don't think the chinese or russians consider afghani terrorists or american soldiers who sacrifice under suicidal conditions very brave, regardless of how those terrorists or soldiers meet their ends. that is because the intention is meaningless to those countries. it's all subjective, whether suicide in this manner is 'moral.'

so i think with regards to your question the eye of the beholder is everything... if it is a muslim with heavy ties to the West they are probably going to believe this is not heroic but instead sinful. because the cause does not justify the action in their estimations... but if you ask a muslim sympathetic to suicide bombers they would probably consider their activities heroic, or at the very least not immoral.

obviously when it is civilians we are talking about it is more complicated... but even there i see subjectivity. when we bomb in cities it is to create shock and awe... when they bomb in cities it is to create terror. when civilians are killed to create shock and awe in cities then they were 'suspected terrorists' 'al qaida sympathisers' or 'unfortunate casualties' when they kill civilians to create terror in cities they are civilians, women and children etc. they do it with 'suicide bombers' or 'sacrificing heros under insurmountable odds' (depending upon your perspective) and we do it with airplanes... simply because we have them.

but what's the difference in the end? it seems to me almost completely a matter of subjectivity.

que Dios te bendiga

 

[Keltoi]

hola,

i'm going to betray my inner geek, but did you see the last episode of star trek voyager? captain janeway infects herself and then boards the borg space ship to spread the disease to them.

if you think about it... how many movies have we seen with such heroic endings? the hero bravely crashes their fighter into the enemy encampment to destroy everything, the hero marches into an insurmountable enemy crowd holding a live grenade... et cetera. more generally you have any number of variations of 'custers last stand,' where the heros decide to commit to a mission they know they will never survive. while they are not actively killing themselves like in the above examples, they are deliberately placing themselves in a suicidal situation... how is that different?

the only thing that justifies these suicidal acts of bravery is the intention... if the public judges that the intention is good then the act is brave... but if the public judges an intention to be evil then it is mania. what makes it any different with suicide bombers? i do not not know if you saw the taliban video that was posted here a little while ago but they had a suicide bomber in and among the taliban. they mentioned how he had chosen to do this, and they all viewed him reverently... the same reverence we have when we cheer on the brave hero of those movies. the only difference is the intent. the suicide bomber's intentions are only good to the like minded jihadis, our intentions are only good to americans and like minded countries.

you say suicide they say dying for a cause, and vice versa...

but from a third party perspective, i don't think the chinese or russians consider afghani terrorists or american soldiers who sacrifice under suicidal conditions very brave, regardless of how those terrorists or soldiers meet their ends. that is because the intention is meaningless to those countries. it's all subjective, whether suicide in this manner is 'moral.'

so i think with regards to your question the eye of the beholder is everything... if it is a muslim with heavy ties to the West they are probably going to believe this is not heroic but instead sinful. because the cause does not justify the action in their estimations... but if you ask a muslim sympathetic to suicide bombers they would probably consider their activities heroic, or at the very least not immoral.

obviously when it is civilians we are talking about it is more complicated... but even there i see subjectivity. when we bomb in cities it is to create shock and awe... when they bomb in cities it is to create terror. when civilians are killed to create shock and awe in cities then they were 'suspected terrorists' 'al qaida sympathisers' or 'unfortunate casualties' when they kill civilians to create terror in cities they are civilians, women and children etc. they do it with 'suicide bombers' or 'sacrificing heros under insurmountable odds' (depending upon your perspective) and we do it with airplanes... simply because we have them.

but what's the difference in the end? it seems to me almost completely a matter of subjectivity.

que Dios te bendiga

I'm afraid exploring moral relativism isn't the point either. What we are talking about is deeply mixed in with religion, i.e. Islam. As I've said before, I do not believe that Islam promotes suicide murder. However, there is no escaping the reality that these actions are intertwined with religious fervor. Simply stating that these things are a matter of "perspective" may sound logical if one has no moral fiber at all. If any military intentionally and actively engages in the murder of civilians, I will condemn it without pause or a "but monkey" justification. If some people believe that strapping on a bomb filled with nails and ball bearings and setting it off in a crowd of shoppers or teenagers is "heroic"....well, that says more about them than it does anything else. Is charging a machine gun nest with a hand grenade "heroic?" Possibly. However, that is a situation where both sides are actively and knowingly engaged in real time combat. They both know the stakes. Comparing this to the intentional murder of civilians is a fallacy.

In any event, this topic isn't about moral relativism or perspective. The original question was about suicide terrorism and its connection to Islam. Granted, the question isn't easily answered.

 

[Grace Seeker]

I'm afraid exploring moral relativism isn't the point either. What we are talking about is deeply mixed in with religion, i.e. Islam. As I've said before, I do not believe that Islam promotes suicide murder. However, there is no escaping the reality that these actions are intertwined with religious fervor. Simply stating that these things are a matter of "perspective" may sound logical if one has no moral fiber at all. If any military intentionally and actively engages in the murder of civilians, I will condemn it without pause or a "but monkey" justification. If some people believe that strapping on a bomb filled with nails and ball bearings and setting it off in a crowd of shoppers or teenagers is "heroic"....well, that says more about them than it does anything else. Is charging a machine gun nest with a hand grenade "heroic?" Possibly. However, that is a situation where both sides are actively and knowingly engaged in real time combat. They both know the stakes. Comparing this to the intentional murder of civilians is a fallacy.

In any event, this topic isn't about moral relativism or perspective. The original question was about suicide terrorism and its connection to Islam. Granted, the question isn't easily answered.

I disagree, Keltoi, and completely agree with Jayda on this one. Moral relativism is the whole point. Look back at Mustafa's post:

I believe that neither suicide nor terrorism have a place in Islam. It is unacceptable to deliberately kill one's self in any circumstance; however, to go to a legitimate battleground and to fight to the death or victory is a different story. To indiscriminately kill women, children and other non-combatants is also unacceptable. I can think of no example where Muhammad (saaws) authorized the killing of women and chidren - actually, I am certain that he forbade it.

Now some here have highlighted the first sentence: I believe that neither suicide nor terrorism have a place in Islam. The idea is to make this particular form of fighting the issue. But what if another person chooses to highlight the second sentence: It is unacceptable to deliberately kill one's self in any circumstance; HOWEVER, to go to a legitimate battleground and to fight to the death or victory is a different story.

This shifts the focus from the actual acts to determining what is a "legitimate" battleground vs and illegitimate one. And some have simply answered that, at least in their own mind, by saying we will not sit back and be content to have to fight defending our homeland from attackers, we will take the battle to the enemy wherever he is in the world. That is not just a paraphrase of what George W. Bush said post 9/11; I believe that is also what was in the mind of Osama binLaden pre 9/11, and in his mind the rational and justification for it. But as to which is right and which is wrong, the answers one finds to that question are entirely relative to how one sees the world and the wrongs that have been perpetrated in it across the course of our shared, but not common, history. And every single suicide/homicide bomber/freedom fighter makes that same determination in their own mind before strapping on the bombvest, just as every regular army soldier makes that same determination before putting on a standard issue uniform.

The point being, that before you attempt to answer a question about terrorism and its connection to Islam, you have to understand that many who commit what you and I might call acts of terror, don't see them as acts of terror at all, but simple defiance in the face of oppression and occupation, and therefore, in their mind, entirely justified. Hence, it isn't connected to Islam, but to one's life situation.

Anyone who says that the issue isn't relative, has just never had the experience of standing in the other person's shoes is all.

 

[Keltoi]

I disagree, Keltoi, and completely agree with Jayda on this one. Moral relativism is the whole point. Look back at Mustafa's post: Now some here have highlighted the first sentence: I believe that neither suicide nor terrorism have a place in Islam. The idea is to make this particular form of fighting the issue. But what if another person chooses to highlight the second sentence: It is unacceptable to deliberately kill one's self in any circumstance; HOWEVER, to go to a legitimate battleground and to fight to the death or victory is a different story.

This shifts the focus from the actual acts to determining what is a "legitimate" battleground vs and illegitimate one. And some have simply answered that, at least in their own mind, by saying we will not sit back and be content to have to fight defending our homeland from attackers, we will take the battle to the enemy wherever he is in the world. That is not just a paraphrase of what George W. Bush said post 9/11; I believe that is also what was in the mind of Osama binLaden pre 9/11, and in his mind the rational and justification for it. But as to which is right and which is wrong, the answers one finds to that question are entirely relative to how one sees the world and the wrongs that have been perpetrated in it across the course of our shared, but not common, history. And every single suicide/homicide bomber/freedom fighter makes that same determination in their own mind before strapping on the bombvest, just as every regular army soldier makes that same determination before putting on a standard issue uniform.

The point being, that before you attempt to answer a question about terrorism and its connection to Islam, you have to understand that many who commit what you and I might call acts of terror, don't see them as acts of terror at all, but simple defiance in the face of oppression and occupation, and therefore, in their mind, entirely justified. Hence, it isn't connected to Islam, but to one's life situation.

Anyone who says that the issue isn't relative, has just never had the experience of standing in the other person's shoes is all.

To tell you the truth, I'm quite shocked to see you embrace the idea of moral relativism on this issue. Strapping on a bomb with the sole intention of killing as many non-combatants as possible is not dictated by "perception". At least not in my world. I'm afraid I also don't buy into the argument that these actions are taking place outside of a religious context. Take a look at the number of suicide bombers and would-be suicide bombers who were born and raised in the West and had no personal connection to any form of oppression(if you want to use that as justification for murder). What is the tie that binds them together? Islam. As much as I want to make the point that I do not believe proper Islamic guidance justifies suicide terrorism, the reality still exists there is an obvious and blatant connection.

 

[Grace Seeker]

To tell you the truth, I'm quite shocked to see you embrace the idea of moral relativism on this issue. Strapping on a bomb with the sole intention of killing as many non-combatants as possible is not dictated by "perception". At least not in my world. I'm afraid I also don't buy into the argument that these actions are taking place outside of a religious context. Take a look at the number of suicide bombers and would-be suicide bombers who were born and raised in the West and had no personal connection to any form of oppression(if you want to use that as justification for murder). What is the tie that binds them together? Islam. As much as I want to make the point that I do not believe proper Islamic guidance justifies suicide terrorism, the reality still exists there is an obvious and blatant connection.

I don't agree that moral relativism is right.


I agree that what is going on is moral relativism. And I believe that it is what is being engaged in by everyone involved in the present set of conflicts: USA, Iraqi soldiers, Iraqi insurgents, Iranian infiltrators, CIA pot-stirrers, Taliban "freedom fighters", Al-Queda "terrorists", Palestian suicide bombers, Israeli soldiers, and presidential candidates.

 

[Jayda]

hola keltoi,

i don't think grace or i are moral relativists... my morals are based completely on my religion.

and i'm not some sort of monster... i just hate war, in general. i have nothing against the troops... i am quite fond of one in particular but i think that their belief they should kill people to obtain peace is misguided... that is also the worst i have for the taliban, terrorists or iraqi insurgents... misguided. i don't believe in this nonsense that we are right and everything we do is just and they are like the physical embodyment of evil. they're people too... they can fall prey to the same mistakes we all do. in fact i think one of the most useful things i gleened from that taliban video somebody posted was confirmation that we, in fact, fighting people. and not the drooling slaves of evil the media paints the taliban out to be... people who have unfortunatelly fallen into sin and misguidance.

anyway...

i was commenting on this issue from a third person perspective... for me, militant muslim ideology ('terrorists') versus secular nationalism (us), aren't different. they are both human attempts at supplanting God's preordained moral code (Christianity) and they are completely subjective...

in the world of subjectivity the best we can do is understand people's motivations, forgive them for what they do in ignorance, and hope for their eventual redemption... we cannot draw any conclusions about what is objectively right and wrong. in this case both subjective systems create illusions to justify their actions which in the end are really the same thing, sweet lies one tells ones self to make taking a life more palatable.

added to this is the illusion of war itself... the assertion, if it were not so dangerous i would call it laughable, that there is 'good warfare' and 'bad warfare.' people who fight 'dirty' and people who fight 'nice,' notice how it's always the other person who fights dirty while you are the one who fights nice? if killing innocent civilians is the sole measure of terrorism the united states committed the two largest acts of terrorism in the history of mankind at the end of world war II when we bombed nagasaki and hiroshima, or when the allies firebombed germany.

yet when the same happens to us with cruder weapons it's terrorism... that's a little inconsistent isn't it? it would seem to me that if this instrinsic objective moral code everybody appeals to really did exist then an act of terrorism doesn't depend on which flag is flown.

que Dios te bendiga

 

[Jayda]

if i may ask... how many people here have been in a war? or in an area in which a war has just occurred?

 

[Jayda]

To tell you the truth, I'm quite shocked to see you embrace the idea of moral relativism on this issue. Strapping on a bomb with the sole intention of killing as many non-combatants as possible is not dictated by "perception". At least not in my world. I'm afraid I also don't buy into the argument that these actions are taking place outside of a religious context. Take a look at the number of suicide bombers and would-be suicide bombers who were born and raised in the West and had no personal connection to any form of oppression(if you want to use that as justification for murder). What is the tie that binds them together? Islam. As much as I want to make the point that I do not believe proper Islamic guidance justifies suicide terrorism, the reality still exists there is an obvious and blatant connection.

what is the difference between strapping on a vest with the sole intention of killing as many non combatants as possible and strapping into an airplane with the sole intention of killing as many non combatants as possible? what makes haifa and hiroshima different?

 

[Grace Seeker]

what is the difference between strapping on a vest with the sole intention of killing as many non combatants as possible and strapping into an airplane with the sole intention of killing as many non combatants as possible? what makes haifa and hiroshima different?

Just a point of clarification: While it was known that civilians were going to be killed, the purpose of Hiroshima was NOT to kill as many non-combatants as possible. If that had been the only factor, or even the prime factor, then there were several other cities that would have been higher on the priority list than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. But I will agree that terror, what President Bush likes to call "shock and awe", was behind the use of the atomic bomb.

Also for a point of information: I did serve in the military (US Navy), but was never in a field of combat. My father served in WW2, he was to have mined the harbors of Honshu prior to August 6, 1945 in a mission that even the Navy anticipated to have higher than 50% casualties (and that was for loss of the ship, not just the men on it), but was prevented by a typhon. As a result he did not arrive there until August 10 and was instead stationed at Nagasaki.

 

[Keltoi]

if i may ask... how many people here have been in a war? or in an area in which a war has just occurred?

I spent quite a bit of time in a little country called Kuwait a few years back.

 

[Keltoi]

I don't agree that moral relativism is right.


I agree that what is going on is moral relativism. And I believe that it is what is being engaged in by everyone involved in the present set of conflicts: USA, Iraqi soldiers, Iraqi insurgents, Iranian infiltrators, CIA pot-stirrers, Taliban "freedom fighters", Al-Queda "terrorists", Palestian suicide bombers, Israeli soldiers, and presidential candidates.

Thanks for the clarification. This isn't exactly the point I'm trying to get at, but I'll just let it go for now.

 

[Keltoi]

what is the difference between strapping on a vest with the sole intention of killing as many non combatants as possible and strapping into an airplane with the sole intention of killing as many non combatants as possible? what makes haifa and hiroshima different?

Grace Seeker addressed the primary point, which is that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not executed with the intention of killing as many non combatants as possible. If that was the case why stop at two?

That being said, to the poor people on the ground it didn't make much difference what the intent was. I don't argue that point. The point I'm attempting to address doesn't involve two world powers on the brink of destruction. It doesn't even involve nations. It is about individuals, many of whom live or have lived in the West, and who carry out suicide attacks in the name of their religion. Yes, sometimes they join groups. Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, whatever. My original question was where this phenomenon comes from. Oppression isn't the answer.

As for the idea of a "clean" war vs. a "dirty" war, I'm inclined to agree. Killing is killing, whether it is an individual wearing a uniform or not. That being said, I think most people would agree that if war is inevitable, it is more "clean" to keep the bloodshed between the military factions involved. That is about as "clean" as war can get.