Condemn the attacks on Paris .... But

[syed_z]

There's no need to apologize from your end. You did nothing wrong and your response was perfectly fine. It fit within the context of the discussion. My response to you was uncalled for and severely lacked adab. I am at fault and there is no excuse for my behavior. It is I who needs to apologize. Please forgive me.

hahah I love you for the sake of Allah

 

[syed_z]

This is a good article that endorses Taliban's role in eliminating drugs from Afghanistan.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/may/20/taliban-destroy-poppy-afghan-opium

 

[Logikon]

Nothing is more horrific than hundreds of innocent civilianskilled in cold blood as we saw in the terrorist attacks in Paris.
Not one day had elapsed, and the talk across the Muslimcommunities worldwide had already turned from showing solidarity to the victimsof Paris attack to talking about the "hypocrisy of the West" for notshowing equal sympathy to the regular attacks in Beirut, Syria and Iraq.

It isn't the terrorist attacks, but this ability to shiftthe discourse in a matter of hours that really represents the strength andsuccess of Islamic State and numerous other Islamist groups.

Hence, while it is true that of 1.6 billion Muslims in theworld a very small percentage takes up arms against the West, a largeproportion of Muslims throughout the world are unconsciously drip fed theIslamists' radical ideology of "Islam under attack" and "usversus them" notions.

It is not a surprise, then, that the Muslim world todaystands divided on whether groups like al-Qaeda, Islamic State, the Taliban andmany more represent a threat to Islam or to the West – hence resulting inreluctant condemnations arguing that such groups don't represent Islam.

Who does actually represent Islam is a debate that hascaused much bloodshed in the Muslim world in itself.

With each terrorist attack, the convergence of Islamistradical ideology with that of an average Muslim is growing and with thebackdrop of Iraq war, the mess in Syria and the unresolved Palestine issue,radicalisation is soaring.

The Islamist organisations thoroughly understand that theydo not carry popular support of Muslims, but they do also realise that theydon't carry popular resistance from the majority of Muslims either

Which has been noticed by many in the West. Which is why we come to these forums - Logikon

Restraint must be shown by the Western governments so as notto fall for the militants' scheme.

At the same time there is a need for the Muslims to cut the confusion and start taking Islamic State and other militant groups as the foremost threat to Islam – until such clarity is prevalent, groups like Islamic State will continue to breed

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/the-reluctance-to-blame-islamic-state-alone-for-paris-terror-attacks-plays-into-their-hands-20151116-gl0d0o.html#ixzz3sThYIRzP

 

[Search]

:bism:

My responses are in green!

Nothing is more horrific than hundreds of innocent civilianskilled in cold blood as we saw in the terrorist attacks in Paris.
Not one day had elapsed, and the talk across the Muslimcommunities worldwide had already turned from showing solidarity to the victimsof Paris attack to talking about the "hypocrisy of the West" for notshowing equal sympathy to the regular attacks in Beirut, Syria and Iraq.

Muslims all over the world feel both sympathy and empathy for both Muslims and non-Muslims dying senselessly. Period. Full Stop. Dot. That said, yes, some do feel that there is an extant hypocrisy, whether unintended or not.

It isn't the terrorist attacks, but this ability to shiftthe discourse in a matter of hours that really represents the strength andsuccess of Islamic State and numerous other Islamist groups.

I think what you say is interesting, and probably at least a little true.

Hence, while it is true that of 1.6 billion Muslims in theworld a very small percentage takes up arms against the West, a largeproportion of Muslims throughout the world are unconsciously drip fed theIslamists' radical ideology of "Islam under attack" and "usversus them" notions. Probably at least a little true.

It is not a surprise, then, that the Muslim world todaystands divided on whether groups like al-Qaeda, Islamic State, the Taliban andmany more represent a threat to Islam or to the West – hence resulting inreluctant condemnations arguing that such groups don't represent Islam.

Reluctant condemnations? Please wait a second while I roll my eyes. You're absolutely kidding, right?! Height of absurdity here to tell Muslims that they make "reluctant" condemnations. There is nothing "reluctant" about it; it is very real, and it feels heartbreaking that there even needs to be a condemnation as the ignorance of the terrorists and extremists in understanding orthodox Islam's position on their actions is superseded by ignorance of most non-Muslims about how Muslims really "feel" about the evil perpetrated. Also, whether you recognize it or not, you too are feeding into the "Islam under attack" and "us versus them" rhetoric with your post here. You know how the saying goes: "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." So, tell me: Are you going to be part of the solution or part of the problem?

Who does actually represent Islam is a debate that hascaused much bloodshed in the Muslim world in itself.

With each terrorist attack, the convergence of Islamistradical ideology with that of an average Muslim is growing and with thebackdrop of Iraq war, the mess in Syria and the unresolved Palestine issue,radicalisation is soaring.

"Soaring"? What the? You know we can count the number of people to join groups like Daesh, right? And you do realize that they do not represent "soaring" numbers by any stretch of the imagination. Btw, do you have the market cornered on exaggeration, or don't you?

The Islamist organisations thoroughly understand that theydo not carry popular support of Muslims, but they do also realise that theydon't carry popular resistance from the majority of Muslims either

Define "resistance." Muslims worldwide condemning the actions as un-Islamic is not "resistance"? Islamic scholars bringing proofs to unequivocally show the actions are haram (forbidden) is not "resistance"? Muslims using social media as platform to show solidarity with non-Muslims is not "resistance"? Some European Muslims flying to fight on the side of the Kurds to fight Daesh is not "resistance"? Muslims exercising vigilance in their communities to ensure that authorities are information if there's a potential radical in their midst is not "resistance." OKAY, got it!

Which has been noticed by many in the West. Which is why we come to these forums - Logikon

Muslims are happy to welcome non-Muslims in their communities as brothers and sisters in humanity within their wider communities and on the Forums to meet one another with understanding and respect and unite with solidarty in times of hardship and tribulations, and yet the type of suspicion and shaming and blame game you play is not conducive for that purpose (at least in regards to your position). Think about you: Are you part of the solution or part of the problem?

Restraint must be shown by the Western governments so as notto fall for the militants' scheme.

At the same time there is a need for the Muslims to cut the confusion and start taking Islamic State and other militant groups as the foremost threat to Islam – until such clarity is prevalent, groups like Islamic State will continue to breed

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/the-reluctance-to-blame-islamic-state-alone-for-paris-terror-attacks-plays-into-their-hands-20151116-gl0d0o.html#ixzz3sThYIRzP

 

[Physicist]

I very much don't like definitions "radical islamists" for ISIS and "moderate muslims" for most of the rest.

Such definitions create a very wrong image about Islam.
Makes some to think that "moderate muslim" is just a soft version of "radical islamist".
To believe that secular control is needed to prevent "moderate" from turning into "radical".

That's why people, having such image in their heads, pushing Muslims to apologize for terrorists.
Which in turn very much annoying Muslims, since they don't feel any identity with terrorists.

What world really need is a good example of independent and peacefull Islamic State,
Sharia Law without abusing human rights, with the eviction as the maximal punishment for non-victim crimes like apostacy.

 

[ardianto]

I very much don't like definitions "radical islamists" for ISIS and "moderate muslims" for most of the rest.

Such definitions create a very wrong image about Islam.
Makes some to think that "moderate muslim" is just a soft version of "radical islamist".
To believe that secular control is needed to prevent "moderate" from turning into "radical".

That's why people, having such image in their heads, pushing Muslims to apologize for terrorists.
Which in turn very much annoying Muslims, since they don't feel any identity with terrorists.

The term "moderate Muslims" is referring to "Muslims in the middle" who interpret Islam not so strict and hyper literal like the puritan, but also do not separate religion from daily non-worship matters like the secular. One popular product of the moderate Muslims is sharia bank.

If government in the West use term "moderate Muslims" it's because which expected to co-operate to softening the radical are the moderate. The secular don't have power for it since they are not involved in Islamic teaching. But seem like people in the West regard the moderate and the secular as same.

Muslims who against ISIS in this forum are the moderate because the secular are not interested to join Islamic forum like this.

What world really need is a good example of independent and peacefull Islamic State,
Sharia Law without abusing human rights, with the eviction as the maximal punishment for non-victim crimes like apostacy.

Sharia province in Aceh, Indonesia, is created as the "moderate version of Islamic state". But the puritan refuse to recognize the law in Aceh as sharia because there's no hand cutting, there's no stoning, there's no punishment for apostasy. Whipping still implemented in softer version which the punished use protector.

The sharia law in Brunei Darussalam take reference from Aceh.

 

[Physicist]

Sharia province in Aceh, Indonesia, is created as the "moderate version of Islamic state". But the puritan refuse to recognize the law in Aceh as sharia because there's no hand cutting, there's no stoning, there's no punishment for apostasy. Whipping still implemented in softer version which the punished use protector.

The sharia law in Brunei Darussalam take reference from Aceh.

Wow, thanks for reference, may be i will visit Aceh one day.

I don't understand, why those puritan thinks strict Islam is incompatable with softer punishments for victimless crimes?
Imagine, some rich muslim mecenates bought an island or a peace of desert and claimed it Islamic State. Everybody welcome to immigrate and participate in building the country if they are agreed to follow Sharia. But for victimless crimes, like adultery, apostasy, maximal punishment is deportation.