UK “terror” plot: Another absurd publicity stunt?

[adi8putra]

Show me a post where a Muslim has sopken out against a Muslim who has done evil. They will just say he is not a Muslim or blaim some one else for the problem. Most Muslims just refuse to accept any responsibility.

u wanna a posts....? sure no problem! just read through d links provided below:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3059365.stm
http://www.islamfortoday.com/khan09.htm
http://www.islamfortoday.com/qaradawi02.htm

and some excerpts:

"Hijacking Planes, terrorizing innocent people and shedding blood constitute a form of injustice that can not be tolerated by Islam, which views them as gross crimes and sinful acts."
Shaykh Abdul Aziz al-Ashaikh, Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia and Chairman of the Senior Ulama, on September 15th, 2001
"The terrorists acts, from the perspective of Islamic law, constitute the crime of hirabah (waging war against society)."
September 27, 2001 - Fatwa, signed by:
Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Grand Islamic Scholar and Chairman of the Sunna and Sira Countil, Qatar
Judge Tariq al-Bishri, First Deputy President of the Council d'etat, Egypt
Dr. Muhammad s. al-Awa, Professor of Islamic Law and Shari'a, Egypt
Dr. Haytham al-Khayyat, Islamic scholar, Syria
Fahmi Houaydi, Islamic scholar, Syria
Shaykh Taha Jabir al-Alwani, Chairman, North America High Council

"Neither the law of Islam nor its ethical system justify such a crime."
Zaki Badawi, Principal of the Muslim College in London. Cited in Arab News, September 28, 2001.

"It is wrong to kill innocent people. It is also wrong to praise those who kill innocent people."
Mufti Nizamuddin Shamzai, Pakistan. Cited in the New York Times, September 28, 2001.

"What these people stand for is completely against all the principles that Arab Muslims believe in."
King Abdullah II, of Jordan; cited in the Middle East Times, September 28, 2001.

The above statements by high ranking international Muslim scholars and leaders appeared in an advertisement placed by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, in the New York Times, October 17th, 2001 (p. A 17)

"I'm a Muslim. I've been a Muslim for 20 years. I want the world to know the truth about Islam. I wouldn't be here to represent Islam if it were the way the terrorists make it look...Islam is for peace."
Former World Heavyweight boxing champion, Muhammad Ali, at the telethon benefit concert, September 21, 2001.

"Those terrorists must be reading a completely different Quran than the rest of us. This isn't about Islam. It's about terrorism."
US Marine Corps Captain Aisha Bakkar-Poe.

"Terrorists claiming to act in the name of Islam is like a knife through my heart - that people would practice Islam, but do deeds like what they've done. It's not true faith. Some people twist religion to the way they think."
US Army Captain Arneshuia Balial, a convert to Islam since 1987.

so, wilberhum...open ur hearts 2 all of these events and search partially 4 ur queries. most muslims r not ignorance, and neither they r arrogance!

 

[adi8putra]

Show me a post where a Muslim has sopken out against a Muslim who has done evil. They will just say he is not a Muslim or blaim some one else for the problem. Most Muslims just refuse to accept any responsibility.

One more thing. Terrorists who committed the acts should have been name accordingly and not be associated with islam. When the Ku Klux Klan claimed credit for terrorist attacks in the 1960's, they were not identified by religion as "Christian Fundamentalists" or "Christian Terrorists." Although they identified themselves as a Christian movement, media never labeled them as Christians because their terrorism was regarded as a basic violation of Christian principles. We owe the same respect to the Muslim religion.

 

[lavikor201]

it's kind of ironic that they just happened to 'go for the kill' at this time, oh and there's also a war going on at the same time....some sort of diversion? distract the people? take the attention away from the 'war' somewhat?
oh and 10 odd planes they say? well it's not like going and stealing bikes now isit? So 10? a bit sensationalised?
ma'salama

Maybe they were doing this because of the war. Hmmmm.... think for a second, then get back to us.

 

[Isaac]

if one is to expect condemnation of a terrorist attacks from muslims, there must be condemnation from both sides. Why is it that muslims are expected to condems acts of terror, but jews are for not expected to condem the actions of the bombing of 15+ disbaled children, christians are not asked to condemn the actions of hitler, hindus are not asked to condemn the action of the gujrat massacres?

I will clearly condemn any action carried out by a muslim which if in the case firstly is not islamic and could have easily been directed towards another target but i will never denounce or reject their reaoson for it. It is to know the cause of ones probelm, can and only then 1 put together positive steps to root the cause out.

So can I re-direct 2 questions to the non-muslims -

[1] Do you accept terrorism?

*If No then please move onto question number 2

[2] Then why do you accept the bombings of at least 1 000 dead lebanese

Might help you answer the question!

WHAT IS TERRORISM?

*defined by the US Department of Defense as "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."

*Any act including, but not limited to, the use of force or violence and/or threat thereof of any person or group(s) of persons whether acting alone or on behalf of, or in connection with, any organisation(s) or government(s) committed for political, religions, ideological or similar purposes, including the intention to influence any government and/or to put the public or any section of the public in fear.

 

[Isaac]

if one is to expect condemnation of a terrorist attacks from muslims, there must be condemnation from both sides. Why is it that muslims are expected to condems acts of terror, but jews are for not expected to condem the actions of the bombing of 15+ disbaled children, christians are not asked to condemn the actions of hitler, hindus are not asked to condemn the action of the gujrat massacres?

I will clearly condemn any action carried out by a muslim which if in the case firstly is not islamic and could have easily been directed towards another target but i will never denounce or reject their reaoson for it. It is to know the cause of ones probelm, can and only then 1 put together positive steps to root the cause out.

So can I re-direct 2 questions to the non-muslims -

[1] Do you accept terrorism?

*If No then please move onto question number 2

[2] Then why do you accept the bombings of at least 1 000 dead lebanese

Might help you answer the question!

WHAT IS TERRORISM?

*defined by the US Department of Defense as "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."

*Any act including, but not limited to, the use of force or violence and/or threat thereof of any person or group(s) of persons whether acting alone or on behalf of, or in connection with, any organisation(s) or government(s) committed for political, religions, ideological or similar purposes, including the intention to influence any government and/or to put the public or any section of the public in fear.

*Acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed against civilians or military in non-military situations.

*a psychological strategy of war for gaining political ends by deliberately creating a well-founded climate of fear among the civilian popuation. Such a strategy may be used by an OCCUPYING army on the occupied population. Many terrorist acts, especially against an occupying military or against illegal occupants are acts of war or resistance, and not terrorism.

NOTE TO THE READER: No where in any definition of the word terrorism in the academic field has there ever been or included the following words: Islam, muslim, Muhammed, Koran, Arabs, Pakistanis.

 

[Isaac]

Hello, My Non-muslim Posters, And Those That Try To Make Every Muslim To Be A Terrorist, Im Still Waiting!!!!!!!

 

[Keltoi]

You have to ask yourself though. Did Hitler makes statements saying he did this or that for the glory of Christianity? No, he did not. That being said, I don't know why you assume that Christians didn't hold him responsible for mass murder and genocide....

 

[scentsofjannah]

You have to ask yourself though. Did Hitler makes statements saying he did this or that for the glory of Christianity? No, he did not. That being said, I don't know why you assume that Christians didn't hold him responsible for mass murder and genocide....

Yes he did..read his books. Hitler was a christian.

 

[Cloe]

Yes he did..read his books. Hitler was a christian.

I have some doubt in this statement.
Hitler was inspired by his own book "Мein Kampf" not by The Gospel.
He declared himself as a new messiah.
And in fact, he felt symphaty towards Muslims and Islam.
Nazis even had Muslim division in Third Reich headed by Mufti Amin Al - Husseini.
This Muslim nazi division was named "Hanzar".

Some facts about them:

Bosnian ethnic cleansing under Amin al Husseini:

. Orthodox Christian Serbs: 200,000 killed

. Jewish Bosnians: 22,000 killed

. Gypsies: over 40,000 killed

Besides Jews and Gipsies, Hitler also treated Slavic nations as sekond-sort people, however they are christians(mostly orthodoxes).
Hitler was obsessed by nations and races, not by religion.
He had the only one "religion" - FASCISM.

And in fact, there was soldiers mostly from christian countries(eastern/western europeans, russians, americans), who destroyed nazi.

 

[Geronimo]

I have some doubt in this statement.
Hitler was inspired by his own book "Мein Kampf" not by The Gospel.
He declared himself as a new messiah.
And in fact, he felt symphaty towards Muslims and Islam.
Nazis even had Muslim division in Third Reich headed by Mufti Amin Al - Husseini.
This Muslim nazi division was named "Hanzar".

Some facts about them:


Besides Jews and Gipsies, Hitler also treated Slavic nations as sekond-sort people, however they are christians(mostly orthodoxes).
Hitler was obsessed by nations and races, not by religion.
He had the only one "religion" - FASCISM.

And in fact, there was soldiers mostly from christian countries(eastern/western europeans, russians, americans), who destroyed nazi.

He mostly used christianity as a propaganda tool during his rise to power. In all honesty he punished all those pretty severely that didn't worship him.

 

[Fishman]

And in fact, there was soldiers mostly from christian countries(eastern/western europeans, russians, americans), who destroyed nazi.

The Russians were atheist communists (like Mr Egg), not Christians.

 

[Cloe]

The Russians were atheist communists (like Mr Egg), not Christians.

When communist and bolsheviks ovethrew official goverment they became a leading power in Russia. Christianity(official religion) and other religions were banned, many priests were graved alive.
But people kept practicing in secret.
I know this, because my grandfather was russian and struggled there too.
When so called "communists" soldiers burried their dead friends they put crosses under grave.

P/S/ I forgot to say, there also was Algerians and Moroccans fighting with nazi.

 

[wilberhum]

Zulkiflim
So brotherhood is in Islam,,,ONE UMMAH,.,.

Since we are talking about terrorism, I see what you think Islam stands for.

Durrah
why should muslims be collectivly held responsible for the actions of others?

No one is responsible for the actions of others, unless that is if you inspire there actions.

I don't give a hoot what some wacko does, thats doesnt mean I agree with it, but its not my problem.

If the wacko is killing people, you should give a lot more than a hoot. Like it or not, it is your problem. It is a problem for everyone. No man is an Island.

adi8putra
I have seen many times where Islamic organizations condemn terrorism. My point remains though. They almost never name those they condemn; if they do it is only OBL.
Almost always, undefined terms are used. “Innocent civilians” is the most common. There are those that claim that there are no “Innocent Civilians” and I have never seen this challenged by those organizations. What I’m talking about is condemnation of individuals that commit evil in the name of Islam.
Your recollection of how the KKK was described is different than mine. Where were you and how old were you in the early 60’s?

Isaac
Why is it that muslims are expected to condems acts of terror, but jews are for not expected to condem the actions of the bombing of 15+ disbaled children

I guess it all depends on what you want. Do you want to do the least possible? Do you want to take the “Moral High Ground”? Do you only want to do what is right if everybody does what is right?
As far as your terrorism questions, I think Israel has the right to exist. I condemn how they do it.
But I noticed that you had no condemnation. That is the basis of my criticism.

 

[Geronimo]

Since we are talking about terrorism, I see what you think Islam stands for.


No one is responsible for the actions of others, unless that is if you inspire there actions.

If the wacko is killing people, you should give a lot more than a hoot. Like it or not, it is your problem. It is a problem for everyone. No man is an Island.

adi8putra
I have seen many times where Islamic organizations condemn terrorism. My point remains though. They almost never name those they condemn; if they do it is only OBL.
Almost always, undefined terms are used. “Innocent civilians” is the most common. There are those that claim that there are no “Innocent Civilians” and I have never seen this challenged by those organizations. What I’m talking about is condemnation of individuals that commit evil in the name of Islam.
Your recollection of how the KKK was described is different than mine. Where were you and how old were you in the early 60’s?


I guess it all depends on what you want. Do you want to do the least possible? Do you want to take the “Moral High Ground”? Do you only want to do what is right if everybody does what is right?
As far as your terrorism questions, I think Israel has the right to exist. I condemn how they do it.
But I noticed that you had no condemnation. That is the basis of my criticism.

I think one of the points for you and also one of mine is all condemnation has to have a but in it. "It's sad all those people died but...", "suicide bombing is against Islam but...".