Wrong to attack non-Muslims

[Ramadhan]

There are some Muslims that carry out attacks against western countries and even Muslim countries, targeting US embassies. Some westerners believe that these Muslims are attacking non-Muslims because of Islam. However, this is not the case. These people can continue to believe this, but end of the day, they are only fooling themselves.

In fact, the so-called western-branded "muslim extremists slash muslim terrorists" who committed suicide bombings in Indonesia have killed more muslims than non-muslims.

All muslim groups in Indonesia have publicly condemned the terrorists acts, saying that Islam certainly does not teach to kill innocent civilian people, let alone innocent civilian muslims.
However, this does not mean that it weakens strong condemnations by those same groups against injustices done on muslims worldwide by non-muslims.
There are infinitely more innocent civilian muslims killed by non-muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan and palestine than non-muslims killed by muslims in western countries, but have we ever heard the term "western terorrists"? certainly NOT in all mainstream media.

As unc. Woodrow said, a terrorist is a terrorist, and there has been strong concerted efforts to make the term terrorists synonimous with Islam. why were IRA terrorists not called Catholic terrorists? etc etc.

Hence, I don't get the rants by non-muslims in this thread. As another poster has asked earlier:
So, what do you want people (I'm pointing finger at you, Laura, GS and the likes)??

 

[سيف الله]

Salaam

As unc. Woodrow said, a terrorist is a terrorist, and there has been strong concerted efforts to make the term terrorists synonimous with Islam. why were IRA terrorists not called Catholic terrorists? etc etc.

Just a little aside on the prejudice the Irish experienced in the UK during the time of the 'troubles' and the similarities to the experience of Muslims

Anti-Irish racism in the late 20th century because there are so many parallels with the recent experience of the Muslim population. Racism occurs in a political context; in the case of the Irish in Britain it was the war in the North rather than IRA attacks on civilians (e.g. the Birmingham pub bombings) that gave it legs. The Prevention of Terrorism Act, pushed through after the bombings, had little effect on ‘terrorism’ but, by stigmatising the Irish population, effectively silenced criticism of British actions in Ireland.

To speak out was to be identified as a ‘terrorist sympathiser’. Long held notions of the primitive backwardness of Irish Catholicism were often invoked to explain the ‘fanaticism’ of Republicans and their supporters. A great deal of media time was spent examining the ways in which Catholic theology could be seen as justifying IRA actions – for example, the idea of a ‘just war’.

Demonisation of Republicans was common: media headlines often used the word ‘evil’ to describe both actions and the people who carried them out. Most venom was reserved for the small number of priests who were IRA supporters. Finally, and most importantly, the deeply held and particularly English view of the Irish as ‘thick Paddies’ came into its own in police or Special Branch-inspired media commentary on the methods, especially the mistakes, of IRA members.

http://www.islamicboard.com/world-affairs/134292337-europe-hostile-muslim-world-4.html post #49

So yeah what Muslims are experiencing is not a new phenomena.

 

[sister herb]

I am member of one Irish forum. In cause what I know about British occupation in Northern Ireland, I wouldn´t call IRA as terrorist but freedom fighters. If someone really wants to label IRA as terrorist, then British occupy troops are also terrorist?

 

[glo]

^
Isn't that always the way? That one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter?

What's interesting about the Northern Ireland conflict is that a reasonable peace and living/working together and reconciliation was actually achieved. And Protestants and Catholics, who were at war with each other for generations are relearning to live side by side.
That's very encouraging!

By the end of the day everybody wants the same - a peaceful community to raise ones children, and the same rights and freedoms as everybody else.

 

[سيف الله]

Salaam

I think the Northern Ireland conflict is a bit more complicated than that.

Theres no doubt that there has been British oppression, prejudice in Northern Ireland (see above post). But much of the prejudice faced by the Irish Catholics were actually from the Irish Protestant side of the population. (they had access to the best jobs etc etc). In fact during the late 1960s Irish Catholics initially wanted the British army to come in to protect them but as usual when you have an occupying force, atrocities are going to happen so the conflict escalated.

In fact there are many in the British establishment who would be quite happy if Northern Ireland went its own way so to speak.

However there is a substantial Protestant population in northern Ireland and they wish to remain part of the UK, so its not such a clear cut conflict and you have to remember atrocities were committed by both sides.

 

[glo]

^
You are right, the Northern Ireland conflict was much more a political conflict than a religious one.
It just so happened that - for historical reasons and loyalties - the Catholics sided with the Republic of Ireland and the Protestants saw their allegiance with Britain.
Hence what might appear like a religious conflict on the surface was really about political loyalties.

 

[GuestFellow]

^
Isn't that always the way? That one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter?

I think the word terrorist should not be used, especially by politicians and academics. There is a reason why people carry out attacks. Labeling these people terrorists tends to portray an inaccurate picture of what is actually happening.

 

[سيف الله]

Salaam

I never liked the use of the word 'religion' or 'religious' what on earth does it mean? whenever I ask I get a hundred, thousand different definitions. the word is actually a recently invention of the 18th C when European colonisers came into contact with other people who had vastly different world views but I'm digressing (maybe I should make a topic about it ).

so to say 'religion' is not involved in the conflict, I'm not to sure what to think - I think the reasons for the conflict are multifaceted, 'religion' is in there somewhere.

 

[sister herb]

I didn´t claim that conflict in there is by religion - they both are Christians, right? But why to call only other side as terrorists and other side not? Ok ok then call other side simply terrorist and others as state terrorism? Are they both then Christian etxremist or Christian terrorist as they are Christians and attack against another Christians?

 

[glo]

Are they both then Christian etxremist or Christian terrorist as they are Christians and attack against another Christians?

Yes, they are.
I guess people try to differentiate by breaking the group 'Christans' into sub-groups - Protestants and Catholics.
Similar to making a distinction between Sunni and Shia Muslims in those places where the two groups are feuding.

 

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Yes sister Harb, I don't think anybody called the IRA or its opposite numbers 'extremists', 'terrorists' yes but not extremists. Certainly not 'Christian extremists'.

 

[IAmZamzam]

Do I really have to be the first to make the common sense suggestion that we all drop all these labels and just talk about the issues? What is it with people and labels??

 

[sister herb]

Yes, they are.
I guess people try to differentiate by breaking the group 'Christans' into sub-groups - Protestants and Catholics.
Similar to making a distinction between Sunni and Shia Muslims in those places where the two groups are feuding.

Peace my sister in humanity

(actually I respect humanity the most)

I think you understood meaning of my post. Not sur if some muslims understood it at all as to many shias are not muslims at all.

Any ways, we are sisters and brothers together like all humans are. Allah doesn´t create us to attack each others without very good reason. This is what Islam teach to us.

To me glo you are respected sister by humanity and my sister of Eve.

 

[Watcher888]

I think depending on what madhab you are. you should follow the scholar (not interpret hadith or quran yourself)

if your hanafi you should beleive Imam Hanifa's theory of Darl al harb.

All 4 imams believed that muslims should fight non muslims in an offensive war. because they are non muslim (this is called jihad al talab).

But they disagreed on whether they should be attacked or given dawah first. all 4 schoalars believed (from what i have seen) have the view that they should be asked to pay jizyah first


(also, this offensive war can not be carried out without a muslim ruler)

""They would not invade you, but you invade them."" [Quote of the prophet]

Muhammad Sa'id Ramadan al-Buti, Jurisprudence in Muhammad's Biography (Damascus: Dar al-Fikr, 2001), pp. 242
(Link removed.)

This lets the cat out of the bag!
And if non muslims are killled/murdered, how does anyone know if they would or would not have submitted in the future?

 

[جوري]

This lets the cat out of the bag! And if non muslims are killled/murdered, how does anyone know if they would or would not have submitted in the future?

It isn't not up to 'someone' to decide folks are all resurrected and judged on their intent have you any basic background in Islam at all past the inane drivel they feed you at Zionist training camps?

 

['Abd-al Latif]

:salamext:

Have a break, have a kit kat.