Another terrorist attack

Originally Posted by pencil shavings

Right, Im not Muslim, but Im going to have to stand up for the MAJORITY of non-violent, peaceful Muslims.

About to start massive simplifications

The Quran (not Koran, thats a persons name) is a book that is fundamnetaly different to the Bible and the Torah and any other book that has ever been writen. This is becasue it is the word of God directly as prophosised by Mahammed, not a collection of stories, those are recorded in the Sharia.

The probelm with this is that God, as in all monolithic religions, has many faces. This includes tolerance and intolerance, violence and peace, promotion and repression of interlectual discovery etc. This is over come by Christianty by have an old testiment (an eye for an eye) which was then replaced by the new testiment (turn the other cheak)

Islam does not have this luxuary and the result is the Quran is unclear, there are even passages in it that state that they are unclear, if they wanted to be clear, God would have made them clear. Therefore there will always be conflict within Islam (you can see this by the Sunni/ Shiite split over)

Ok, on to terrorism. Firstly Jihad. Who knows what it meens? Holy War? no, im afriad that is wrong. It translates to strugle.
there are two forms of Jihad, one Greater Jihad, the other minor Jihad. The Greater Jihad refers to the internal struggle that takes place within the soul of every Muslim, and it is infact a duty of every Muslim. This strugle is overcoming personal demons of lust, hate, gread etc in order to lead a moral and virtuious life. So you can see it is ilogical to expect Muslims not to practice this greater Jihad.
The Minor Jihad on the other hand is the violent defence of the faith, and the only time that war is permisable under Islam. However, it is explictly stated that when conducting a minor jihad you cannot harm women or children or non-combantants as well as inflicting damage on the infrastructre. In other parts of the Quarn it again explicitly states that suiside is forbiden.

THEREFORE it stands to reason that a suicide bomber cannot be acting on behalf of Islam.

Next I would like to touch on Fundamentalism, which has since the 9/11 attacks, has taken on a derogatory slant. It simply is an umbrella term for the inplimentation of the law according to Islam, and a return to fundamental Islam. This doesnt meen killing everyone that isnt Muslim. Islamism is another term that is overlapping with fundamentalism and is simply the political movement of Islam. I could go into alot more detail here about how Islam and politics are inseparable, but I wont, as Im sure most people have stoped reading now.

Good points there But whilst I write incriminating Islam, don't assume that by association I see Christianity as innocent. As far as it goes; the first testament is about as brutal as a book can get (before any Christian asks me where I get my morals from; I ask them to please read their beloved scriptures first before commenting).

You argue that the Islamic terrorists are not performing their acts of terrorism in the name of Islam; why are they killing people in the name of Allah then?

Even the latest attack has been tracked down to links with Al-Qaeda already. Surprise surprise, with Saudi money.

Originally Posted by pencil shavings

Finally, I read somewhere on the thread that terroism is inherently wrong, or somthing along those lines.

I would like to raise my hand and stand up for terroism. Hear me out before you judge.

Cast your mind back a few years, South Africa, aparthid, and the ANC. The ANC was an illegal and terrorist organisation, they were denied political legality by the South African government. They were ILLEGAL therefore they could not partake in any democratic process (much in the same way that the Muslim Brotherhood is banned from partaking is Egypts 'democratic' elections. Is this topic genuinly interest you, have a read about the history of the MB, it is from them where this contempory Islamic fundamentalism stemed from in 1939 IIRC)
Because of thier illegal status, they had to resort to other tactics to attempt to overthow the rasist and oppressive South African government. Nelson Mandela was the founder and leader of the ANCs terrorist wing. I am currently writing my disertation on this topic and would be more than willing to engage in a proper debate with anyone about the chance the ANC had of gaining power without the use of terrorism, which I think is practically none, therefore, in this case, terrorism was vital and necessary in the overthrow of a rasist and oppresive regime.

therefore it is not sencible to denounce terrorism, which is fundamentaly just a tactic of battle/war.


All I can say to sumerise is if you want to have an informed opinion, please do some reading and not take everything from the media. I know this is a media artical, but it highlights the issue so please read it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...raq-daily-mail

thank you for reading if you did, im now off to watch MOTD and will face the storm when I return!

Regardless of Mandela (I don't condone a lot of his actions either); how do the actions of killing innocent people going about their days, going to raise any kind of respect for their cause? One reason Islam has such a tarnished imagine is precisely because of these extremists fighting this ridiculous, bloodthirsty battle.

Originally Posted by northwind

If you actually think that's in any way a useful analogue for british islam, there's no point in continuing to discuss this.

Good argument.

Originally Posted by Dangerous Dave

Maybe, but the teachings are coming from a person not from the religion.

That right there folks, is the point. Read it carefully, twice if you must.

Religion is used as the excuse, when I can't think of a single battle actually fought for religious reasons. Due to the ambiguity in every religion I can think of, the teachings that are used, are the interpretation of someone, someone whom has twisted the religious texts to fit their own ends.

Originally Posted by gettin2dizzy

Do you really think Islam has no input whatsoever in these terror actions?

Islam itself, I believe, has no input whatsoever. Some people calling themselves "muslims" are the ones orchestrating the terror attacks.

Originally Posted by pencil shavings

Because of thier illegal status, they had to resort to other tactics to attempt to overthow the rasist and oppressive South African government. Nelson Mandela was the founder and leader of the ANCs terrorist wing. I am currently writing my disertation on this topic and would be more than willing to engage in a proper debate with anyone about the chance the ANC had of gaining power without the use of terrorism, which I think is practically none, therefore, in this case, terrorism was vital and necessary in the overthrow of a rasist and oppresive regime.

As a good friend of mine will have you believe, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter! But then, he's biased, as he was a freedom fighter in Brazil, aged 8.

[yorkie_chris]

See now south africa is even hungrier and poorer than before... good move.

Originally Posted by gettin2dizzy

You argue that the Islamic terrorists are not performing their acts of terrorism in the name of Islam; why are they killing people in the name of Allah then?

Even the latest attack has been tracked down to links with Al-Qaeda already. Surprise surprise, with Saudi money.

Again with blaming Islam. No, they do it in the name of what they believe to be Islam. Much in the same way Christians act because that's how they believe the bible says to act.

It's not because either book says so, it's because they've been told to by someone else that's read the book!

As for Al-Qaeda financing the attack - that wouldn't surprise me in the least. They shell out a little money & take non of the risk. It'll be chalked down to them anyway, so they might as well give a hand.

Originally Posted by Baph

Again with blaming Islam. No, they do it in the name of what they believe to be Islam. Much in the same way Christians act because that's how they believe the bible says to act.

It's not because either book says so, it's because they've been told to by someone else that's read the book!

As for Al-Qaeda financing the attack - that wouldn't surprise me in the least. They shell out a little money & take non of the risk. It'll be chalked down to them anyway, so they might as well give a hand.

I'm not questioning Islam as a whole (in this thread at least). I'm questioning why choose to ignore the extremists on our home turf. It's impossible to ignore Islam as a factor in the rise of these brutal idiots.

Religion has always been one man's interpretation of a fairy tale.

Originally Posted by gettin2dizzy

Religion has always been one man's interpretation of a fairy tale.

LOL, actually agree with that one!

Originally Posted by gettin2dizzy

I'm not questioning Islam as a whole (in this thread at least). I'm questioning why choose to ignore the extremists on our home turf.

EU Regulations. Can't "persecute" people of a certain colour as we're part of the EU now.

Anyone gets stopped in the street & forced into a search (of any nature), and they'd be screaming a breech of human rights. Sad fact.

[northwind]

Originally Posted by gettin2dizzy

Good argument.

The only argument possible, when your own is so absurd. The example you put up was either irrelevant (if you don't believe it's an analogue for british islam) or completely wrong (if you do believe it's an analogue for british islam). Either way, it's not a basis for a discussion.

Originally Posted by northwind

The only argument possible, when your own is so absurd. The example you put up was either irrelevant (if you don't believe it's an analogue for british islam) or completely wrong (if you do believe it's an analogue for british islam). Either way, it's not a basis for a discussion.

Maybe not as a representative model for every Muslim in Britain. But you can't deny that doesn't exist in Britain today. Women are treated worse than animals, and Imams preach hate towards the UK.

It is true that some people say that they have interpreted the Qu'ran in such a way that woman are classed as basically slaves, there are however many more who have not and see their wives and children as equals. Again it has come down to the individual and not the religion!