LinkBack URL
About LinkBackshow many of u think that terrorism is supported by islam..?? i am not talking about muslims.i mean about islam and its teachings?
yes
no
20Likes
1
Post By stander-j
2
Post By gottspieler
1
Post By laizla
1
Post By Lynx_Fox
1
Post By Lynx_Fox
1
Post By laizla
2
Post By Tara
2
Post By dmwyant
1
Post By skeptic
1
Post By skeptic
1
Post By Lynx_Fox
1
Post By skeptic
1
Post By halorealm
1
Post By skeptic
1
Post By EddyBearr
1
Post By jrmonroe
1
Post By skeptic
March 31st, 2012, 01:43 AM
how many of u think that terrorism is supported by islam..?? i am not talking about muslims.i mean about islam and its teachings?
I think terrorism is supported by complex indoctrination methods. I think religions, in general, are a very nice tool for this - but I wouldn't blame the religion, or say its teachings advocate that kind of behaviour. It's very easy to take religious scripture out of its context, and because of this it is very easy to exploit it for your own ideological purposes. This is only my opinion however - I am no expert in the field of theology.Originally Posted by laizla
This is a no brainer, just take a look around your own country.
I don't think there is a difference between Muslims and Islam. The interpretation of the holy books really depends on who is reading them and what they think the books mean. As an example, most people nowadays do not think their holy books condone slavery. Except perhaps for guys like this.
Author of Saudi Curriculums Advocates Slavery | Islamopedia Online
laizla,
If you have the time, cast your eyes over Jihad Watch.
Jihad Watch
Both suicide and the murder of innocents are frowned upon in the Koran. One who commits suicide is doomed to die repeatedly by the selfsame instrument they killed themselves with. Yet extremists ignore this: in the case of al-Qaeda, Abu Hajer looked back to 13th Century scholar Ibn Tamiyyah, who wrote that, although the Mongols had converted to Islam, they were still not true believers and could be killed. He saw the Americans as non-believers (even though there are many practicing Muslims here) and issued two fatwas: American troops can be killed and innocents can be murdered, if necessary.
Source: Lawrence Wright, Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11
i reeally feel sorrow full on reading ur coments..if we see american actions in afgan war..does it mean christianity supports it?? i cant say any thng abt christianity bcz i respct all religions as it is ordered in quran..excpt idle worshipping.
with a great respect i want to say that the people who murder innocents on the name of islam are regarded out of circle of islam.even during war muslims are forbidden to destroy the property of non.muslims..if u study history then u will know behaviour of muslim emperors with non.muslims.specialy in d reign of holy prophet ,hzrat umar.muhammad bin qasim.even hindu comunity built the statues of M.bin qasim..u cant blame the whole community due to activities of specific ppl.y were muslims killed in america after 9/11?? they were american citiznz and innocent.y they were violently treated?
Muslims were killed in America? Which Muslims are you referring to?with a great respect i want to say that the people who murder innocents on the name of islam are regarded out of circle of islam.even during war muslims are forbidden to destroy the property of non.muslims..if u study history then u will know behaviour of muslim emperors with non.muslims.specialy in d reign of holy prophet ,hzrat umar.muhammad bin qasim.even hindu comunity built the statues of M.bin qasim..u cant blame the whole community due to activities of specific ppl.y were muslims killed in america after 9/11?? they were american citiznz and innocent.y they were violently treated?
"
Muslim Victims of 9/11
- Shabbir Ahmed - 47 years old - Windows on the World Restaurant
- Tariq Amanullah - 40 years old - Fiduciary Trust Co.
- Michael Baksh - 36 years old - Marsh & McLennan
- Touri Hamzavi Bolourchi - 69 years old - retired nurse on United #175
- Abul K. Chowdhury - 30 years old - Cantor Fitzgerald
- Mohammad Salahuddin Chowdhury - 38 years old - Windows on the World
- Jemal Legesse De Santis - 28 years old - World Trade Center
- Simon Suleman Ali Kassamali Dhanani - 63 years old - Aon Corp.
- Syed Abdul Fatha - 54 years old - Pitney Bowes
- Mon Gjonbalaj - 65 years old - Janitor, World Trade Center
- Nezam A. Hafiz - 32 years old - Marsh & McLennan
- Mohammed Salman Hamdani - 23 years old - NYPD Cadet
- Zuhtu Ibis - 25 years old - Cantor Fitzgerald
- Muhammadou Jawara - 30 years old - MAS Security
- Sarah Khan - 32 years old - Forte Food Service
- Taimour Firaz Khan - 29 years old - Carr Futures
- Abdoulaye Kone - 37 years old - Windows on the World
- Abdu Ali Malahi - 37 years old - WTC Marriott
- Nurul Hoque Miah - 35 years old - Marsh & McLennan
- Boyie Mohammed - 50 years old - Carr Futures
- Ehtesham U. Raja - 28 years old - TCG Software
- Ameenia Rasool - 33 years old - Marsh & McLennan
- Mohammad Ali Sadeque - 62 years old - newspaper vendor at WTC, reported missing
- Rahma Salie & child - 28 years old (7 months pregnant) - American #11
- Khalid M. Shahid - 25 years old - Cantor Fitzgerald
- Mohammed Shajahan - 41 years old - Marsh & McLennan
- Nasima Hameed Simjee - 38 years old - Fiduciary Trust Co.
- Michael Theodoridis - 32 years old - American #11
- Abdoul Karim Traore - 41 years old - Windows on the World
- Karamo Trerra - 40 years old - ASAP NetSource
- Shakila Yasmin - 26 years old - Marsh & McLennan
It mostly comes down to various interpretations. Muslim appolygist will explain that the references to killing unbelievers expressed in the Koran, Surri, and Hadiths only apply to narrow circumstances of Mecca being under direct threat and only after enormous efforts to negotiate a more peaceful accommodations--obviously most of the Islamic terrorist apply their religious scriptures much more broadly. Christian history shows similar wide swings in interpretations across many issues as well (e.g., genocide/ethnic cleansing, slavery etc).
Did you even read my comments?
I REALLY FELT PLEASED ON READING UR VIEWS.I JUST WANT TO TELL ANTI.ISLAM PPL THAT EVERY ACTION HAS A REACTION.INNOCNTS R BEING KIILLED IN DRONE ATTACKS BY AMERICA.THEY R FULL OF FIRE OF REVENGE FOR ASSASIN OF THEIR FAMILIES.WHEN GOVT. DONT PROTECT THEM THEY STAND TO DO IT BY THEMSLVS..ANTI.ISLAM TERRORISM AGENCIES DO THEIR BRAIN WASH AND USE THEIR utmost desire of revenge and passion of jihad in a wrong way.then y ppl blame islam??islam has noth to do with it.u must research on it.then u will know that ayats abt killing non.believers were specific to that time bcz they had broken a treaty with muslims..and have attacked on them..when any other community or religion is mis treated u call it violence of human rights,while when sm2 attack the dignity of our holy prophet,u say it Freedomy? of expression??Did you even read my comments?
I think the problem dealing with Islam is its doctrine on forced conversion. Christians have forced people to convert in the past, but it's not in their doctrine. None of the writers of the Bible (especially the New Testament that lays out the specifically Christian teachings) ever forced anyone to convert against their will. However, Muhammad did force people to convert during his lifetime, making it impossible to seriously argue that Islamic teachings don't support the practice.
Islam and Forced Conversion
Jihadists can justify whatever they do as an attempt to follow in the prophet's footsteps by attempting to force unbelievers to convert or be "slaves of Allah." It's not "argued by some" or "subject to interpretation" if Muhammad himself is setting an example. That's just BS. It's central doctrine if the founder does it.
The OT certainty does...or just does genocide against them. You're right about the NT, but it threatens with enternal pain and suffering which through most of Christianity's history, was used again and again as an excuse to do many atrocities to save their souls and other nonsense. As I've explained, Mohammad's example is interpret very narrowly as direct defense of mecca and holy lands by moderate Muslims.None of the writers of the Bible (especially the New Testament that lays out the specifically Christian teachings) ever forced anyone to convert against their will.
Last edited by Lynx_Fox; April 2nd, 2012 at 03:38 AM.
its quite wrong concept abt forced conversion..it is not allowed in islam to force sm1.order is to behave so well with evry 1 that ppl get impressed by islam.but now muslims have 4gotten this.
How about killing apostates? That is a pretty mainstream Muslim principle, is it not?
Quran itself donot prescribe any earthly punishment4 apostasy.based on interpretation of certain hadiths to no punishment at all unless they are involved in anti-islam activities..Quran advocate free will, just extremist scholars favors itQuran does not.as u know extremists r found every where. Quran is the mainstream of islamic teachings and it even dont allow to disturb non.blvrs untill they disturb.u must consult every confusion 4m Quranic teachings not by a column written by any 1.if i get rude smwhere then i apologise.u must watch dr.Naik on apostate(u tube)
2008 Mumbai attacks.
" The 2008 Mumbai attacks (sometimes referred to as 26/11) were 11 coordinated shooting and bombing attacks across Mumbai, India's largest city, by Islamist terrorists[5][6] who came from Pakistan.[7] The attackers allegedly received reconnaissance assistance before the attacks. Ajmal Kasab later claimed upon interrogation that the attacks were conducted with the support of Pakistan's ISI.[8][9]The attacks, which drew widespread global condemnation, began on Wednesday, 26 November and lasted until Saturday, 29 November 2008, killing 164 people and wounding at least 308. "
Terrorist attacks, carried out by Pakistani Muslims in the name of Islam, on their next door neighbours.
2008 Mumbai attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Then it seems that Saudia Arabia, among others, is full of extremists.
Blasphemy law in Saudi Arabia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I don't judge people by what you think the Quran says, or what some guy on youtube says. I look at what they do.In 1994, an Ismaili, Hadi Al-Mutaif (also Al-Mutif), a teenager, made a remark that a court deemed blasphemous. The court sentenced Al-Mutaif to death for apostasy. In May 2009, Al-Mutaif was still in prison. He has spent long periods of time in solitary confinement, and has made numerous suicide attempts.[3]
On 3 September 1992, Sadiq 'Abdul-Karim Malallah was publicly beheaded by sabre in al-Qatif in Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province after being convicted of apostasy and blasphemy.
ok....i m not forcing u to believe on Quran..look at what they do.most welcome..i m just saying whtever they do is against islam..u will know the reality,when it will b too late to believe..
Just think please for a while about this case (without getting any side) which this subject made by some politician persons to create problems between folks and peoples in the world and making war among them. Then just some special persons can rule on the world without any problem...
As this term that you all know: "
: Schismatize and rule!"
So in fact, all of these things are about politics not about truth between peoples in the world, we are all friend and in peace together...
'twasn't about people though people were involved
'twasn't about islam though islamists were involved
'twas about a perspective of the negative aspects of world trade as currently conducted
Bin Laden had a point to make, and an economic war to wage
and he found a few "heroes" willing to give their lives for an ideal
and it cost him $1/2 million to cost us $3 trillion and counting
in the war he wished to fight, he won handily
point being --do not behave with such arrogance it is offensive
have we learned from this?
one man's terrorist is another man's heroe
know both sides
In general, Muslims do not support terrorism. They are like your normal Christian, just a regular person who holds a certain faith.
However, the question really isn't about the people who practice and interpret doctrine; its about the doctrine itself.
So, does Islamic doctrine support terrorism? To an extent, yes. But in the sense we give "terrorism", no. A better answer would be "Islam supports extremism, but not necessarily terrorism". I'll explain now.
When we say terrorism, we essentially mean acts of violence and terror to emphasize some political/religious message, usually with a lot of media attention. That's not really what extremism is (i.e. all terrorism is definitely extremist, but not all extremism is really "terrorism" in the way we picture terrorism). 9/11 was terrorism. The usual killing of a convert out in the desert though, is not terrorism but just an act of extreme religious practice.
So, now that we differentiate extremist acts vs acts of terrorism, we understand that Islamic doctrine does, in most interpretations, support rather radical practices, but it does not condone mass killings of innocent people and torture.
Apostate killing, in most peoples' interpretations, is taught in the Qur'an. Though of course it's not practiced by most ordinary Muslims, it is unfortunately taken seriously by extreme fundamentalists. Here are two verses that are interpreted as related to how to deal with apostates. I'm not aware of their contexts, but, you yourself may find the message clear.
Qur’an (4:89) – “They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them"
Qur’an (9:11-12) – “But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion. We detail Our revelations for a people who have knowledge. And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief – Lo! they have no binding oaths – in order that they may desist.”
If these verses really do in their sincere intention demand the death of apostasy-committers, then Islamic doctrine is in fact extremist. But is it pro-terrorism? I don't think so. Terrorism is extremism taken to an immense scale on different moral grounds, and I have never come across any text in the Qur'an that would support such acts.
By the way, though I condemn extremist practice in Islam, I'm also aware that it is not special in the case of radical, violent acts.
Christianity has provided humanity with some of the bloodiest and most gruesome times in history (yes, it has had extremist moments). This does not make me hate every single Christian I know. Why? Because I'm a rational man and I know better. The properties of small proper subset does not represent the properties of the entire set.
Yes, but they make a very large mark, and need rubbing out.
Should this thread not reside in Politics?
I assume (and hope) you mean rubbing out just the extremists and terrorists, and not all Muslims. If so, I definitely agree. May I say, these people are the old smelly crust of Earth's asshole, and as stubborn as the stains they are, need to be pressure washed with some potent Clorox.Yes, but they make a very large mark, and need rubbing out.
Yes, I do mean the bad guys.I assume (and hope) you mean rubbing out just the extremists and terrorists, and not all Muslims. If so, I definitely agree. May I say, these people are the old smelly crust of Earth's asshole, and as stubborn as the stains they are, need to be pressure washed with some potent Clorox.Yes, but they make a very large mark, and need rubbing out.
Maybe not terrorism per se but definitely religious war. The Koran was written during a time where numerous civilizations were jockeying for establishment. The only way the culture would survive was through war so they sought land, power, and resources. That is why we see similar war related scriptures in the old testament, ancient Greece, Egypt, Babylonia, etc. Fighting was necessary in order to survive but is not necessary anymore. People still willing to kill for the cause are called Fundamentalists but these represent a minority as most are simply content in living their daily lives. People will always motivate a political agenda based on religion and I think that, unfortunately, those pushing this agenda are ruining an otherwise cohesive religion.
However, in all honesty, there are I think 100 verses pertaining to killing nonbelievers. Although this represents a very small percentage of the total Quaran, it definitely does mean that war is a definite part of Muslim theology. This has always been the way of Muslim run countries. When they were a powerhouse under Ramses and numerous kings before, they literally would take over a land and decimate it completely. This is no different than the Jews did under King David and the likes because that was required to establish a kingdom. With Jesus, however, Judaism received an update more akin to the changing demands of society and have received a wealthy status as a benefit of a comparatively wealthy Western society. Many Muslim nations are still impoverished and easily manipulated by fundamental leaders.
Not for the first 1700 years or so; secularism and disconnecting religion from the reins of political power are more responsible for Western wealth than anything else--well that and the wide-scale ethnic cleansing of Africa and the Americas done in Jesus' name.With Jesus, however, Judaism received an update more akin to the changing demands of society and have received a wealthy status as a benefit of a comparatively wealthy Western society.
I have sympathy for the view that laizla is putting forward. Christianity is supposed to be about peace, love, forgiveness and so on. Yet the history of Christianity is one of death, war, torture and assorted horrors perpetrated by Christians against others, supposedly in the name of religion. Obviously that was very wrong. All forms of terrorism are very wrong.
Muslims are no more united in their beliefs than Christians were, and there are always extremists. In addition, religion is often an excuse to carry out general nastiness for personal reasons, but blame it on religion. I read somewhere that Osama bin Laden first became enraged at westerners because he hated seeing American military bases in his homeland, Saudi Arabia. From this viewpoint, we can see the formation of Al Qaeda as something other than Islam - just a hate filled man's excuse to commit violence.
There was an article on the psychology of suicide bombing in New Scientist a few years back. It appears that the true reason why those guys kill themselves to wreak havoc is social. They are pressured into it over a long period of time. Their comrades expect it of them, and eventually, the bombers cannot do anything else, and suicide in response to that social pressure. My guess is that this is also the true reason extremists commit all acts of terrorism. They form strong social bonds and cannot back out, or else betray their comrades. Ultimately, it has little or nothing to do with religion.
That statement is sooo wrong. Do you remember the bombings in London on 7th July 2005 ?
7 July 2005 London bombings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Videotaped statements
Two of the bombers made videotapes describing their reasons for becoming what they called "soldiers". In a videotape broadcast byAl Jazeera on 1 September 2005, Mohammad Sidique Khan, described his motivation. The tape had been edited and also featuredal-Qaeda member — and future leader — Ayman al-Zawahiri:[8]
“ I and thousands like me are forsaking everything for what we believe. Our drive and motivation doesn't come from tangible commodities that this world has to offer. Our religion is Islam, obedience to the one true God and following the footsteps of the final prophet messenger. Your democratically-elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people all over the world. And your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters. Until we feel security you will be our targets and until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people we will not stop this fight. We are at war and I am a soldier. Now you too will taste the reality of this situation. "
Dave,
I am sure you know the difference between a rationalisation and a reason.
Religion makes a good rationalisation when people do not face up to the truly ignoble reasons for what they do. Terrorists are mostly motivated by hate and anger, and by the social aspects of cameradierie with fellow terrorists. It is better for their self image, though, to tell themselves they do it for God.
Yes its about often about hate and anger...but all war has components like that. Terrorism is also often used simply because it is the only tactic available to carry out war against an enemy or to make change.
Lynx
What is the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter?
Easy. The freedom fighter is on our side.
(nods)
Ah, I agree that anything can be taken out of context; especially when people are not allowed to reason through religion on their own. We're fortunate now that texts such as the Bible or the Quaran are available for everyone in their language. However, years ago, this was not the case. The Bible was only available to those who spoke Latin or those privileged to actually study the text (either rich or religious). The same is the case for Arabic with the Quaran. It is easy to see how people could manipulate passages in order to achieve political goals because no one actually knew what it said. The more people grow to understand such texts, the less we allow people in power to manipulate it in the name of religion. Whether or not you agree with the supposed teachings of Jesus, you will find nothing declaring it right to kill people in any of his teachings. This is a fallacy. Many of the justifications for these murders come from the Old Testament. Americans justified slavery for years due to OT teachings and nearly all of the dark ages teachings justify their actions using OT passages. You will probably be delighted to discover that nothing in Mathew, Mark, Luke, or John (the books of Jesus' life) speak about murdering people. Most of his teachings actually go against traditional OT teachings! If education or the transmission of language could have happened sooner, such conclusions could have been reached without any formal secularism! Indeed what we witness today in Muslim countries is a continuance of this same manipulation. Where people are not educated or taught to pursue truth, they will be manipulated by those who claim to have an understanding.
Any teaching can be used to motivate a political agenda. Hitler used Darwin incorrectly to justify his actions much like Political leaders borrowed intermittently from religious texts to justify their actions. Unfortunately, for religious people at least, the NT relies on the writings of the OT to prove its worth. Western societies have successfully used the NT in dealing with internal affairs while using the OT for external affairs. This philosophy has generated wealth and allowed an environment where things like commerce could flourish from the blood of others. What we enjoy today is the direct descendant of this way of thinking
All the more reason, Brisk, why government should be secular. Get away from the madness that is religion.
You beat me to it... I was going to mention that during the second world war the nazis called the french resistance terrorists. I am certain that the Brits used a similar term for us bloody rebels during America's war for independence. In many ways it is a matter of perspective.
Honestly that's BS. I challenge you to even find a single quote by Hitler that mentions Darwin. He considered himself Christian as did most Germans and regularly justified his beliefs (his earliest private writings as well) and actions with reference to being a Christian. He led one of the most Christian, and fully literate nations on Earth to commit genocide based on those anti-semitic beliefs. I'll also remind you anti-semitic beliefs go deep in Christianity--from the anti Jewish inferences in the Gospel of John, to much stronger anti antisemitism of Martin Luther, and later groups such as the KKK and even some modern Evangelicals. Also it's a bit early to confirm Godwin's Law.
Interesting spin that I've not heard before; I don't disagree that the brotherly love seems to extend mostly to other Christians who fit a narrow set of morals, sexual orientation etc.Western societies have successfully used the NT in dealing with internal affairs while using the OT for external affairs. This philosophy has generated wealth and allowed an environment where things like commerce could flourish from the blood of others.
Last edited by Lynx_Fox; June 11th, 2012 at 05:32 PM.
Brisk, there might be some questionable statements in the NT concerning murder. I'm trying to remember some examples, but it's been along time since I read NT, let alone a Bible, let alone anything religious! But maybe later I could find them. I know they're there; I'll look when my mind's clearer. Right now, my mind is much too fatigued.
forget "religion" for a moment...
if the other guy has the bigger/better army, it is folly to engage him in a conventional war
so you use other tactics
and then the guy with the bigger/better army calls you a terrorist
forgetting(or pretending to forget) for a moment that the bigger/better army is a terror machine
Honestly that's BS. I challenge you to even find a single quote by Hitler that mentions Darwin. He considered himself Christian as did most Germans and regularly justified his beliefs (his earliest private writings as well) and actions with reference to being a Christian. He led one of the most Christian, and fully literate nations on Earth to commit genocide based on those anti-semitic beliefs. I'll also remind you anti-semitic beliefs go deep in Christianity--from the anti Jewish inferences in the Gospel of John, to much stronger anti antisemitism of Martin Luther, and later groups such as the KKK and even some modern Evangelicals. Also it's a bit early to confirm Godwin's Law.
Interesting spin that I've not heard before; I don't disagree that the brotherly love seems to extend mostly to other Christians who fit a narrow set of morals, sexual orientation etc.Western societies have successfully used the NT in dealing with internal affairs while using the OT for external affairs. This philosophy has generated wealth and allowed an environment where things like commerce could flourish from the blood of others.
I must confess I have never read Hitlers work but you did spark my interest so I took it as an opportunity for learning as that is something I have often heard. There are 2 famous passages very much akin to evolution although he never actually says "Darwin." I don't want to plagiarize (and its an open source doc) but if anyone is interested, it is here. From my research, perhaps the most concrete verse from NT states "His blood be on us and our children" taken from Matthew 27:25 when Jews opt to release Barabus and punish JC. Other than that much of the antisemitism you are referring to comes from Jesus calling out hypocritical Jews hiding behind tradition. I can definitely see how much of this can be used to fuel animosity toward Jews (but then again you would think people would celebrate Jews since JC had to put to death anyway in order to become a savior
My point, however, was that people will interpret anything to align with the desires they already have. Consequences are even worse if that person just so happens to have power. Prior to religion people would interpret happenings in nature (the classic eagle & snake). Or even kill animals and interpret markings of their ribs. People will use the same resources to cause harm that others will use to do good.
@Skeptic: Our dialogue has changed to methods of government so, yes, I definitely agree with you. Religions do seem like madness but some poor Muslim farmer simply working his field in the Middle East does not benefit at all by having his religious foundation destroyed. He obtains a non-quantifiable spiritual comfort from his religion much like the other 99.991% of Moslem's who would never cause harm. The same could be said for most other religions as well. I see no reason to take that from anyone.
Brisk
My interest is not really about promoting or destroying religion. My interest is more in teaching people to think. If our education systems teach proper rational and critical, or evidence based thinking, then people can choose for themselves whether to go religious or not, and make a reasonable choice.
Not going to happen overnight, but the rise of science, and scientific thought, is the first excellent step along the way.
Skeptic,Dave,
I am sure you know the difference between a rationalisation and a reason.
Religion makes a good rationalisation when people do not face up to the truly ignoble reasons for what they do. Terrorists are mostly motivated by hate and anger, and by the social aspects of cameradierie with fellow terrorists. It is better for their self image, though, to tell themselves they do it for God.
I can see your point of view, but these dudes keep saying ( again and again ) that they are doing this stuff, in the name of Islam. I believe them.
Hitler himself differed slightly in perspective from the Nazi party at large. That's why so many Nazis would go on to say "If only he hadn't written that silly book" about Mein Kampf.Honestly that's BS. I challenge you to even find a single quote by Hitler that mentions Darwin. He considered himself Christian as did most Germans and regularly justified his beliefs (his earliest private writings as well) and actions with reference to being a Christian. He led one of the most Christian, and fully literate nations on Earth to commit genocide based on those anti-semitic beliefs. I'll also remind you anti-semitic beliefs go deep in Christianity--from the anti Jewish inferences in the Gospel of John, to much stronger anti antisemitism of Martin Luther, and later groups such as the KKK and even some modern Evangelicals. Also it's a bit early to confirm Godwin's Law.
.
However, the doctrine of Eugenics was pushed pretty forcibly on the academic community. I don't know how one could reasonably assert that Eugenics isn't an offshoot of Darwinism.
Nazi eugenics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yeah. The Early Catholic christian church pretty much used the Bible as a "suggestion box".
Also the Old Testament and New Testament are very very different books. I think the Christians were shrewd politicians in claiming legitimacy from the earlier belief system, but the disconnect between the moral systems is so strong, I'm surprised it worked.
In the Old Testament, the religion was for Israelites only. No effort whatsoever was put into teaching the religion to anyone outside their number, which explains the lack of forcible conversions. There was simply no attempt at conversion of any kind, forcible or voluntary.
Doesn't the US base in Saudi Arabia give them that? Or would we also have to march directly on Mecca itself?As I've explained, Mohammad's example is interpret very narrowly as direct defense of mecca and holy lands by moderate Muslims.
Good description of the great cognitive dissonance of Christianity. How anyone could simultaneously believe both the OT and the NT is beyond me.
If you go off the Old Testament, Christianity would be almost identical to Islam in most respects (except the aforementioned lack of forcible conversion due to racial preference). That's actually my big problem with Islam. It has no New Testament teachings. Christianity without the New Testament would be utterly worthless in every imaginable respect.
I'm not arguing that Eugenics didn't have an impact on Nazi Germany or the whole slew of nationalistic nonsense (that lingers even today--aka Syria). Nor was eugenics even really associated with Darwin--he hardly mentioned human evolution at all. My point was Hitler never used Darwin to justify his beliefs but did use Christianity as justification for his personal thoughts, a view shared by a Christian nation who often read scripture and agreed with his anti-antisemitism.
It worked as a viral meme that would take over Europe in the vacuum of a fading empire--and later by force and youth indoctrination after Europeans shattered native populations with disease, war, ethnic cleansing or more subtle things like free alcohol (as one of my missionary ancestors did in Wisconsin) etc. On the other hand, it utterly failed from the perspective of developing a unified moral code that society could use to guide its actions--Christianity's interpretations continuously shifted over the past 2000 years--from mellow and peaceful to abhorrently intolerant and sometimes even eager to commit the worst atrocities imaginable.Also the Old Testament and New Testament are very very different books. I think the Christians were shrewd politicians in claiming legitimacy from the earlier belief system, but the disconnect between the moral systems is so strong, I'm surprised it worked.
The ones doing in the name of religion were the Spanish, and they had just barely gotten over quite a long period of Muslim rule over their lands. 1492 - The same year Columbus sailed, was the year the last remaining Muslim governed area was retaken by the Spanish crown. You've got to figure that's going to shape some of their perspective. Culturally, I'm sure they had learned a lot from their conquerors.
Reconquista - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Besides, as previously mentioned, at least the Christians had a book that told them to be nice (in the New Testament, anyway). Islam has a book that appears to not tell them to be nice. One group falls short of its ideals. The other group doesn't even have any ideals to fall short of.
While they are probably among the worse...but hardly the only ones-- severe religious oppression, atrocities, and what today would only be considered ethnic cleansing were pretty common fair.The ones doing in the name of religion were the Spanish,
Actually there is a great deal about love in the Qoran and Hadiths.Islam has a book that appears to not tell them to be nice
Leave us not to forget that Indiana passed eugenics laws in 1907-14 (followed shortly by 30 other states), and soon started castrating the mentally ill, non-english speaking immigrants, and any other "social undesireables" ---these indiana laws were quoted by fervent ethnocentric nazis as justification for the death camps.
Last edited by sculptor; June 14th, 2012 at 09:23 PM.
Yes, Islam supports terrorism. Yes, Jihadists are at least partially fueled by their religion.
Similarly, both Christianity and Judaism also support terrorism. (Judaism for the old-testament, Christianity for Revelations 2:22-23)
Heck, even Hinduism supports terrorism ("Saffron Terror.")
Almost all religions support evil deeds. We're better off without religion. However, things like Buddhism might result in more positive than good, but do we really need religion to have philosophy?
With all this said, however, I'm not the type of rampant, apologetic nationalist who runs around blaming the Muslims for all their problems. I put the blame of Jihad mostly on the mistreatment of Muslim people throughout history. Every Muslim cleric says, "If you bomb them, then they're going to bomb you back.""Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg
Is the Islamic faith more likely than other faiths to bring up terrorist groups and fundamentalists? Most definitely, mainly because whereas a religion like Christianity has changed their writings to get with the program and get with the times---to be less primitive and adhere to modern morality---a religion like Islam, which hasn't been altered throughout history, isn't up to date with the concept that, "an eye for an eye will only make the world go blind," or other similar concepts.
I say religion is a significant flaw of our species, most notably Abrahamism, and I also say that Islam causes more problems than Christianity and Judaism (I'm actually not all that educated on Judaism, though..) However, I actually sympathize more with the Muslim countries in most of their conflicts.
TL;DR: Yes, Islam supports terrorism. All religions support terrorism. However, Muslims are people just like everyone else, and they're not some form of inferior or primitive sub-species of human. Jihadists are fueled partially by their religion, but mostly because of their persecution.
Let's review who exactly we've been bombing then. There's Palestine, and.... Palestine..... and Palestine.... I guess we could count Iraq, if you count the first gulf war, but I'm pretty sure we mostly hit military targets that time.
So, why was the most damaging terrorist group ever based in Afghanistan? When did the USA ever bomb Afghanistan before 911? Certainly the Russians bombed them plenty, but I don't recall the USA ever bombing them. If anything I thought we helped them out a bit by giving them weapons to defend themselves with during their last previous war.
Or.... let me guess: bombing any Muslim anywhere is the same as bombing every Muslim everywhere? So we've got to unconditionally avoid military skirmishes of any kind with every one of the godzillion population groups that worship that religion? Goodness. We can't even avoid fighting other Christians perfectly. And... it seems perfection in this area is going to be the only thing that's good enough, isn't it?
The Taliban didn't bomb us, Al Quida did. But there was definitely a strong relationship between the two as well as huge support from Saudi Arabian citizens and other Arab muslims for Bin Ladens activities. As for Taliban angst against the US- we never supported the Taliban and were pretty vocal against their draconian fundamentalist crackdown on music, reading, frequent stonings, destruction of historic places (I recommend reading the Bookseller of Kabul for some gritty personal view of how things were) etc. We supported pre-Talliban groups against the Soviets much early and in between provided at least some intelligence, moral and advisory support to Massoud, the leader of the Northern Alliance, who was fighting against the Taliban. And as you already know Al Quida's grips weren't based in what we did to Afghanistan, they were based on our jistorical and continued interference with the Arab Islamic nations particularly in Saudi Arabia.So, why was the most damaging terrorist group ever based in Afghanistan? When did the USA ever bomb Afghanistan before 911?
Last edited by Lynx_Fox; June 28th, 2012 at 01:32 AM.
not all Christians are alike
not all Muslims are alike
not all TAOist are alike
not all Gaians are alike
.....
Osama was tapped and trained by the earlier musllim brotherhood which grew in power as our help strengthened Israel.
and the later support was primarily from the Wahhabis
true?
and then we fund Pakistan, who fear India so they will always want potential radical muslim allies just incase they need them for a possible confrontation with India.
true?
If so then we need to always look at each individual in context, and understand what it is that they want.
however: I am reminded of the Edsel, Henry Ford asked consumers what they wanted, and came up with something that few actually bought.
It also doesn't really matter if they're all alike or not. No negative force in all of history was ever perfectly homogeneous. I'm sure there was at least one peace loving Hun under Attila's rule, or Mongol under Ghengis Khan's rule. It doesn't mean we should just stand back and let them ransack us.
Which goes back to the six day war. I think it has more to do with the Muslims of the World realizing they are powerless than it does with sympathy for Palestine in particular or even dislike of Saudi secularism......
Osama was tapped and trained by the earlier musllim brotherhood which grew in power as our help strengthened Israel.
They used to be a force that inspired fear in every world power they dealt with. Now they're a laughing stock that all came together in a coordinated effort and couldn't even defeat a tiny Western power like Israel. They know if they had gone toe to toe with one of the bigger powers their humiliation would have been even more severe.
So, as is typical for war mongers who can't win an honest battle, they go home and beat their wives, while looking for an underhanded way to get revenge on us for not letting them win.
It's definitely problematic when we can't decide whether we want them to be violent or peaceful. We need to make up our minds. Clearly Pakistan wants them to be as violent as possible.and then we fund Pakistan, who fear India so they will always want potential radical muslim allies just incase they need them for a possible confrontation with India.
true?
The act of terrorism - Was it written in the Quran to execute the 9/11 act? No. Does it encourage slaughter and killing? I don't know, I've never read it.
But this is something that I do know, after years of learning bible chapters and interpreting: Everyone has his own interpretation of a said sentance. For example, one could interpret a sentance to a bad thing, such as hurting the other for his peculiarness and differency, triggering the terrorism. And the other one could interpret it to something else, something rather neutral.
Up to the person.
If a religion has need of a "standing army" to ensure its' continuation, like many nations and religious institutions of historical significance. Then perhaps yes. If not then no.
Muslims have often slaughtered each other during Hajj, one of their most holy obligations.
Islam teaches that Muslims are born perfect, but are corrupted by the world, and can re-attain perfection by ridding the world of the evil. This is an important distinction from Christianity which teaches that Christians are born imperfect and can persevere toward perfection, although never attaining it here on Earth. Christianity teaches that the struggle against evil is a spiritual one, not a physical one, but Islam teaches that the struggle against evil can certainly be a physical one. The Arabic word for "struggle" is jihad.
The Islamic ridding-the-world-of-evil mentality leads Muslims to slaughter each other during Hajj. One of the rites during Hajj is the Stoning of the Devil, at a location where the devil had been represented by three pillars, each representing the Devil in the instances where he tempted Abraham, Hagar, and Ishmael, respectively. If anything, this teaches Muslims that their struggle against evil is very physical. Unfortunately, some Muslims would miss a pillar and hit Muslims on the other side of the pillar, so in 2004, three walls, about 85 feet long, were built to replace the pillars.
If mistakenly striking each other with stones wasn't bad enough, Muslims did much, much worse over and over and over again. Muslims get into such a frenzy to engage in this physical activity of stoning that, when the gates would open to allow them to the area to stone these devils, they would sometimes stampede, slaughtering their fellow Muslims by trampling and/or suffocating them. The statistics from Wikipedia:
1990 — 1,426 Muslims slaughtered,
1994 — at least 270 Muslims slaughtered,
1998 — at least 118 Muslims slaughtered and at least 180 injured,
2001 — 35 Muslims slaughtered,
2003 — 15 Muslims slaughtered,
2004 — 251 Muslims slaughtered and 244 injured, and
2006 — at least 346 Muslims slaughtered and at least 289 injured.
These stampedes total at least 2,461 Muslims slaughtered and at least 713 injured. These 2,461 deaths are of similar magnitude as the 2,996 deaths caused by the September 11 terrorist attacks perpetrated by Muslim extremists.
The same kind of frenzy and stampeding was present at Ayatollah Khomeini's funeral in Iran in 1989, where eight Muslims were killed, 438 hospitalized, and another 10,879 treated for injuries. Frenzied mourners also stampeded the ayatollah's coffin, caused it to fall to the ground and break open, caused the ayatollah's body to fall part way out, and tore the funeral shroud to pieces. When the authorities finally put the body into the ground, they covered it with concrete slabs and a large freight container to prevent mourners from exhuming the body.
khomaeni-dead-body.jpg
source
Furthermore, some Muslims kill relatives who dishonor their Muslim faith, typically young women who refuse a pre-arranged marriage, date non-Muslim men, engage in marital infidelity, or wear western clothing and cosmetics.
This is the reputation that Muslims have made for themselves, and terrorism against infidels is not that far removed from how they treat themselves with their disregard for human life based on their Islamic beliefs. There are plenty of Muslims trying to tell the world that Islam is a peaceful religion; however, how Muslims actually practice Islam speaks for itself.
Last edited by jrmonroe; July 5th, 2012 at 02:24 PM. Reason: Minor re-formatting.
So for me then the question is not a question of faith, "Does Islam support terrorism?" , but rather a question of force. I am then led to believe that if a faith must use force to implement itself on its' believers, then it must follow that Islam does in fact not deny use of force or terrorism in support of its' faith. If that be true then the answer must be yes.
It is sometimes difficult, in relation to those atrocities, to judge which are due to Islam, and which are tribal customs. After all, it is not that long ago that Christians did as much or worse. Think of the conquistadores and their treatment of American natives. One thing I know is that muslims from some parts of the world never get involved in that general nastiness.
thats exactly what i m trying to explain..muslims have now forgotten the true spirit of islam..but islam is not what they do at present...i agree that no traces of islamic teachings are found in muslims of present era.i m just saying what they do is not promoted by islam.these all are self creations.
| « Horror Films | People getting more boring with age. » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
