Terrorism and Islam

[KevinG]

The following comments started the discussion of terrorism and Islam...

1. You mentioned the crusades and religious extremism being present in all religions. You are correct. However, this does not describe Islam. Islamic terrorists are not "extremists" they are "fundamentalists." The Koran calls for the conversion of all non-Muslims and those who do not convert are to be killed. You can read it yourself.

2. Islam is inherently dangerous and violent. The Koran promotes violence against everyone who is non-Muslim and not a believer in Allah, especially Christians and Jews.

3. Islam is the only religion that currently trains terrorists, runs countries that fund terrorism world wide, and teaches children to hate Christians and Jews during religious studies.

4. In the last fifty years, no major organized terrorist attacks have been carried out by non-Muslims anywhere in the world. Whether they are blowing up our buildings, flying planes into our towers, blowing themselves up in market places, shooting children in the back, or attacking our embassies, 99% of every terrorist attack in the world has ties to Islam.

5. Islam is the only religion that has a call to holy war. No other religion has anything equal to the "jihad."

6. The Koran claims that Islam's "end of days" will not take place until everyone on Earth is converted to Islam. If you put 2 and 2 together you will see that the Koran calls for all non-Muslims to be converted and those who do not convert shall be killed. What does this lead us to?

Name one ORGANIZED terrorist attack by a group of people in the last 50 years that was not perpetrated in the name of Islam.

[KevinG]

Amadeus Wrote...

Islam is not a religion of peace.

[4] Generally speaking, the classic jihad policy involves giving non-Muslims a choice: (1) convert to Islam, or else (2) remain a non-Muslim but become a (subjugated) dhimmi and pay the jizya "protection" tax to the Muslim authorities, or else (3) be put to death. The chief basis for this policy is most clearly captured in verses 9:5 and 9:29:

9:5: "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful

The Hanbali jurist Ibn Taymiyya (d. 132 wrote that captive non-Muslim non-combatants, including women and children, could be executed if they merely engaged in verbal or written opposition to Islam:

"As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed unless they actually fight with words [e.g. by propaganda] and acts [by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare]. Some jurists are of the opinion that all of them may be killed, on the mere ground that they are unbelievers, but they make an exception for women and children since they constitute property for Muslims."

5:33 "The only reward for those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom..."
See Ibn Kathir's tafsir of 5:33 here: Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir.

Verse 48:29 - "Muhammad is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another."

Verse 66:9 - "Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and deal sternly with them. Hell shall be their home, evil their fate."

Let's try verse 9:111 - "Allah has purchased from the faithful their lives and worldly goods, and in return has promised them the Garden. They will fight for the cause of Allah, they will slay, and be slain."

Let's start with verse 4:74 - "Let those who would exchange the life of this world for the hereafter, fight for the cause of Allah; whoever fights for the cause of Allah, whether he dies or triumphs, on him We shall bestow a rich recompense.

[KevinG]

Originally Posted by RedPanda

The Munich Massacre of Israeli Olympic athletes in 1972

Muslims

The October 1984 bombing in Brighton, England, by the PIRA in an unsuccessful but lethal attempt to kill then-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher

Not a major terrorist attack.

The June 1985 bombing of Air India Flight 182 originating from Canada

The arrest of Ajaib Singh Bagri and Ripudaman Singh Malik on Friday caps a 15 year investigation, described as the most expensive and most complicated criminal investigation ever undertaken by Canadian police.

You say those aren't Muslims?

The Omagh bombing in Northern Ireland (August 15, 1998)

This was during a war between factions, not a planned terrorist attack against a certain country.

The August 31 – September 22: Russian Apartment Bombings

Lol. Who was responsible? Chechen seperatists. Chechens are Sunni Muslims.

The Passover Massacre on March 27, 2002 in Netanya, Israel

Hamas claimed responsibility for this attack. Hamas is a Muslim group.

The Moscow theatre siege and the Beslan school siege in Russia

Again, Muslims were the perpetrators at the Beslan school in Russia and the Moscow Theater Seige.

That do you? To save time, yes, I'm including attacks committed by Muslims which were not in the name of Islam.

All Muslim attacks are in the name of Islam. They are killing infidels which the Koran calls on them to do.

[msd]

I'm going to delete this entry

[ludlow]

LOL @ KevinG, you need to do a bit more research.

1. People called Singh don't tend to be Islamic, generally...! They're Sikhs. Still, brown-skinned foreigners, so, fair enough maybe.

2. It's ridiculous to suggest that terrorism during the Northern Irish troubles wasn't terrorism. There was terrorism on both sides, explicitly defined as terrorism by the governments of Britain and the Republic of Ireland as well as all unionist and republican factions in NI. If you really believe that wasn't terrorism, you pretty much have to say the same about Palestinians bombing Israeli buses, since the circumstances were essentially analogous. Of course, Palestinians bombing buses ARE terrorists, just like the IRA and the UVF.

The Oklahoma bombings

The Washington sniper

The London nail bombings

And on and on

[RedPanda]

Originally Posted by KevinG

The following comments started the discussion of terrorism and Islam...

Name one ORGANIZED terrorist attack by a group of people in the last 50 years that was not perpetrated in the name of Islam.

I did that. But apparently attacks by non-Muslims (& Sikhs) don't count. You actually meant "Name one organized terrorist attack by a group of Muslims in the last 50 years that was not perpetrated by Muslims." Amazingly, that's not possible. Except perhaps for the Russian Apartment Bombings, which might have been carried out by the Russian secret service (Russians are mainly white, so even though they have funny names, I'm pretty sure they're mostly non-Muslims).
Anyway, this isn't a genuine debate, just an arena for you to air your prejudices & ignore or misrepresent arguments to the contrary, so I'll take no further part in it.

[Brutha]

2. Islam is inherently dangerous and violent. The Koran promotes violence against everyone who is non-Muslim and not a believer in Allah, especially Christians and Jews.

Books can't do such things, people need to interpret them.
And most muslims don't interpret them the way you interpret them.

4. In the last fifty years, no major organized terrorist attacks have been carried out by non-Muslims anywhere in the world. Whether they are blowing up our buildings, flying planes into our towers, blowing themselves up in market places, shooting children in the back, or attacking our embassies, 99% of every terrorist attack in the world has ties to Islam.

You have the Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subways by a buddhist sect.

In Germany we had the RAF.
We had Baskish seperists in Spain, Corsican seperists in france, Irish seperists in Irland.
Each of those groups has carried out multiple Terrorist attacks in which people died.

5. Islam is the only religion that has a call to holy war. No other religion has anything equal to the "jihad."

What would you call the crusades?

6. The Koran claims that Islam's "end of days" will not take place until everyone on Earth is converted to Islam. If you put 2 and 2 together you will see that the Koran calls for all non-Muslims to be converted and those who do not convert shall be killed. What does this lead us to?

Their are also passages of the christian bible that can be interpreted in a fundamental way that most people oppose, but most Christian and most Muslims don't interpret their books that way.

As a sidenode, who does this topic fit into the forum Character & Contribution?

[Michael Chui]

Personally, I like the idea of a jihad.

Jihad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Brutha

As a sidenode, who does this topic fit into the forum Character & Contribution?

It doesn't, but it doesn't really fit anywhere else. "Villifying a major religion" isn't a listed topic anywhere. But I never liked Islam anyways.

[KevinG]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Books can't do such things, people need to interpret them.
And most muslims don't interpret them the way you interpret them.

You have the Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subways by a buddhist sect.

In Germany we had the RAF.
We had Baskish seperists in Spain, Corsican seperists in france, Irish seperists in Irland.
Each of those groups has carried out multiple Terrorist attacks in which people died.

What would you call the crusades?
Their are also passages of the christian bible that can be interpreted in a fundamental way that most people oppose, but most Christian and most Muslims don't interpret their books that way.

As a sidenode, who does this topic fit into the forum Character & Contribution?

None of the terrorists groups you are describing are active around the world.

When I originally asked people to tell me about terrorist attacks I meant international - not in-state terrorist organizations setting off a car bomb here or there.

I meant a terrorist group organized and attacking multiple countries.

You guys are hanging on by a thread trying to cite terrorist attacks "in-country" that killed one or two people.

So let's try this again.

Major terrorist attacks organized by a terrorist group (not simply a crazy white guy or black guy who should have been on medication) that have been committed internationally. The IRA fighting a separate sect is more like a gang war than a terrorist attack. If you are going to say the sniper in D.C. is a terrorist then you need to claim all serial killers are terrorists. You are grasping at straws.

The Oklahoma City Bombing I will give you because that was a major terrorist attack - though it was a single attack. Muslims commit attack after attack after attack. It never ends.

[KevinG]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Books can't do such things, people need to interpret them.
And most muslims don't interpret them the way you interpret them.

Books have no power of influence? I feel that is intellectually dishonest.

You have the Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subways by a buddhist sect.

12 people died. This is not a major terrorist attack. I will give it to you because I had not heard about it though - so you get points for furthering education.

In Germany we had the RAF.
We had Baskish seperists in Spain, Corsican seperists in france, Irish seperists in Irland.
Each of those groups has carried out multiple Terrorist attacks in which people died.

Like I said, I'm not concerned with a car bomb here or there. I'm concerned with epidemics.

What would you call the crusades?

The crusades were carried out by Christian extremists. The Bible does not advocate what the Crusades were about.

Islamic Terrorism is carried out by Muslim fundamentalists. The Koran advocates violence against non-Muslims.

You see the difference?

[msd]

Originally Posted by KevinG

Islamic Terrorism is carried out by Muslim fundamentalists. The Koran advocates violence against non-Muslims.

You see the difference?

You are spreading ignorance and hate about a religion that you obviously don't know jack about. You don't deserve to be a moderator, not on a personal development forum like this one. Tell me how your 'hate speech on islam' is making this a better place?

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by KevinG

The crusades were carried out by Christian extremists.

Um, what? Most of the Crusades were begun by the Pope with a call to arms. The central tenet of the Crusades were to take back the Holy Land from the Muslims. This is the Catholic Church we're talking about: fundamentalism is listening to the Pope. They were not extremists.

Originally Posted by KevinG

The Bible does not advocate what the Crusades were about.

Except maybe the chapters on how great taking over Canaan was. Or the part where Elijah calls for a genocide.

Maybe they were after the oil, too?

[KevinG]

Originally Posted by msd

You are spreading ignorance and hate about a religion that you obviously don't know jack about. You don't deserve to be a moderator, not on a personal development forum like this one. Tell me how your 'hate speech on islam' is making this a better place?

I'd delete your post for attacking me but I believe in free speech more than I care about what you have to say about me.

Anyway, I'd like you to read this if you disagree:

Originally Posted by Amadeus

[4] Generally speaking, the classic jihad policy involves giving non-Muslims a choice: (1) convert to Islam, or else (2) remain a non-Muslim but become a (subjugated) dhimmi and pay the jizya "protection" tax to the Muslim authorities, or else (3) be put to death. The chief basis for this policy is most clearly captured in verses 9:5 and 9:29:

9:5: "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful

The Hanbali jurist Ibn Taymiyya (d. 132 wrote that captive non-Muslim non-combatants, including women and children, could be executed if they merely engaged in verbal or written opposition to Islam:

"As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed unless they actually fight with words [e.g. by propaganda] and acts [by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare]. Some jurists are of the opinion that all of them may be killed, on the mere ground that they are unbelievers, but they make an exception for women and children since they constitute property for Muslims."

5:33 "The only reward for those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom..."
See Ibn Kathir's tafsir of 5:33 here: Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir.

Verse 48:29 - "Muhammad is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another."

Verse 66:9 - "Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and deal sternly with them. Hell shall be their home, evil their fate."

Let's try verse 9:111 - "Allah has purchased from the faithful their lives and worldly goods, and in return has promised them the Garden. They will fight for the cause of Allah, they will slay, and be slain."

Let's start with verse 4:74 - "Let those who would exchange the life of this world for the hereafter, fight for the cause of Allah; whoever fights for the cause of Allah, whether he dies or triumphs, on him We shall bestow a rich recompense.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by msd

You are spreading ignorance and hate about a religion that you obviously don't know jack about. You don't deserve to be a moderator, not on a personal development forum like this one. Tell me how your 'hate speech on islam' is making this a better place?

That's unfair. He might not be terribly good at holding a discussion, but he's expressing an opinion which you are completely welcome to disagree with him by pointing out what you feel are facts. Neither have I seen evidence that he's abusing his moderator powers, though if anyone has, then you really ought to PM Steve about it.

If you think KevinG is wrong, and he's publicly spreading his incorrect beliefs, then the best response, especially on a forum on personal development, is to deliver a rebuttal so that other people can see why he's wrong.

[KevinG]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Um, what? Most of the Crusades were begun by the Pope with a call to arms. The central tenet of the Crusades were to take back the Holy Land from the Muslims. This is the Catholic Church we're talking about: fundamentalism is listening to the Pope. They were not extremists.

The pope is not the Bible.

And the Crusades were far different from what today's Jihad is.

Except maybe the chapters on how great taking over Canaan was. Or the part where Elijah calls for a genocide.

Maybe they were after the oil, too?

Could you locate these passages and post them please. I am not defending Christians and the Crusades by the way.

[RT Wolf]

I think that this thread should be in the General forum. This thread will likely not materially improve the lives of anyone who reads it.

[copla]

Originally Posted by KevinG

The pope is not the Bible.

And the Crusades were far different from what today's Jihad is.

Yeah, the Muslims really need to get on the ball with that whole raping and pillaging thing.

[belugagirl]

Hello, everyone. Don't blame KevinG for placing this thread here. I asked him to. I was involved when it got started elsewhere, and I suggested the new thread here under the general category of "changing the world."

And so, in respect to "changing the world" for the better, I pose two questions:

1) IF KevinG and Amadeus are correct, and there is something about Islam that provokes violence against non-Muslims, then how can we change/prevent this? (If, as I think more likely, it is actually Islamic "fundamentalism" warping the teachings of the Koran to falsely justify violence for other reasons, then how do we discourage such dangerous "fundamentalism"?)

2) Or, if they are wrong, and Islam "proper" does not encourage violence against non-Muslims, then how do we change the "hearts and minds" of people who are misinformed/prejudiced in this way?

I believe they are mistaken.

I have done a little research on one of the passages of the Quran that Amadeus has claimed advocate killing the "infidel." The gist of the sources I have consulted is that such passages are often removed from context to supposedly prove that Islam advocates killing non-Muslims. However, these sources have explained that this particulare invocation of violence in the Quran, for example, is given in the context of a description of a war--a war against an enemy force that happened to be of another religion. Thus when Allah commands the Muslims to kill their enemies in the war, the command is given as kill the ___________ (Jews, Christians, something else).

The other major point that I believe and that most sources I have found in my brief search support is that the Quran is interpreted by many (most?) Muslims within its cultural context, just as the Bible is interpreted by many (most?) Christians as inspired sacred literature produced within a specific cultural context. So just as I could call myself a Christian even if I do not believe that God created Adam and Eve without going through hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, a Muslim can believe in the tenets of the Quran without literally interpreting every word of it.

True, my research has not been of a scholarly caliber, because I'm in the middle of the last few weeks of a very busy semester. However, information and impressions that I have accumulated over the years that I am not able to cite this very moment support my interpretation, which is that "pure" Islam advocates submission to God, not subjection of others. The fact that a minority of Muslims warp certain tenets and practices to suit their personal, educational, or cultural prejudices no more defines the body of Islam than a Christian is defined by the KKK or those cruel so-called "Christians" who show up at soldiers' funerals protesting homosexuality.

Minnie, I am looking forward to an eventual post from you offering an explanation of the Quranic verses. I believe this will be the kind of thing I read about, and you are more qualified than I to explain it "from the inside."

[Michael Chui]

*chuckles* I was surprised it took this long for a Muslim to speak up, until I looked at the time KevinG started this thread. Eight hours is pretty quick.

Originally Posted by minnie

When my finals are done, I'll do a post on the quranic verses mentioned above and hopefully show that the quran does NOT advocate killing innocent people.

I would like that very much.

Originally Posted by KevinG

The pope is not the Bible.

And I suppose Mein Kampf was more responsible for World War 2 than Hitler? In the Catholic Church, the Pope has just as much authority as the Bible. (source) Also, off the Wikipedia entry on the Pope:

"by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a preeminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that the jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate" and that "clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world."