Does Islam support terrorism?

luv4all_71

Unfortunately, political use of Islam by opportunist Muslim leaders and bias propaganda of anti-Muslin media has given a very militant face to the religion of Islam. Islam never allows you to go and fight just to impose your religion. This has been a totally wrong interpretation and most of the non-Muslims have been led to believe this. As a cruel action by a Hindu, Christian, Buddhist or a Jews does not imply that the Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism or the Jewish religion is bad, similarly, horrific acts of some Muslims do not mean that Islam is a ruthless religion. In reality, Islam preaches love and peace among fellow human beings and it is one of the most secular religion in this world.


[MiCr0 edit to remove add for a different forum]

Xterminator

One response.

"Actions speak louder than words"

X

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Xterminator
One response.

"Actions speak louder than words"

X

What do you mean by that?

Saruman

Originally posted by Xterminator
One response.

"Actions speak louder than words"

X

Xterminator obviously believes then that Christianity supports Terrorism if thats his response... no offense but thats very small minded.

In fact Islam not only does not support it.. it goes AGAINST their beliefs. The Koran, like the bible has rules and not killing is one of them. The Term Jihad which is seen as Holy war actually means struggle, as far as i know its an inside struggle! In otherwords say you have impure thoughts.. you have a Jihad or struggle against those thoughts.. thats what i was told by a Muslum i know and i read about it on the net.

If you were to put Christianity and Islam side by side and see who has caused more terrorist attacks and general atrocities.. Well Christianity wins hands down im afraid but it certainly is NOT supported by the Bible.

flyz

Originally posted by Xterminator
One response.

"Actions speak louder than words"

X

Does that mean that Catholicism supports terrorism because of the IRA? :rolleyes:

Talliesin

Originally posted by Frank_Grimes
What do you mean by that?

Presumably since the vast majority of Muslims have never engaged in any terrorist activity he means that there is therefore no connection between Islam and terrorism.

bugler

Does Catholicism support child abuse?

sceptre

Originally posted by bugler
Does Catholicism support child abuse?

Oooh, that one shot home. Being a non-Catholic (non-anything to be precise), I won't get all huffy but here's what you do: take Talliesin's post and insert the words: "Catholics", "child abuse", "Catholicism" and "child abuse" in place of "Muslims", "terrorist activity", "Islam" and "terrorism". There now, wasn't that easy?

(I assume you didn't mean to ask "does the Catholic church aid and abet child abuse"? The answer to that one seems to be "yes" btw)

bugler

I have no idea what you were trying to say there. Obviously, Catholicism itself does not support child abuse, just as Islam itself does not support terrorism. All religions are great, and terrible.

flyz

Originally posted by bugler
All religions are great, and terrible.

I prefer to think of it as that all religions are great, but it's the human element that causes the corruption.

DeVore

All organised religions are wrong. People should find their own "beliefs" rather then substituting fanaticism for rational thought.

You cannot extrapolate from the actions of individuals to the groups they claim membership of.

The first quote in my sig kinda says it all...

DeV.

Nagilum

Yes, it does.

Some english translations:


(Koran 2:216) "Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that you hate a thing which is good for you and it may happen that you love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, you knew not."

(Koran 69:30-37) "It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. You desire the lure of this world and Allah desires for you the hereafter and Allah is Mighty, Wise.. Now enjoy what you have won as lawful and good and keep your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is forgiving, merciful."


(Surat Al-Anfal 8:12-14). "Verily I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks and smite over all their fingers and toes. This is because they defied and disobeyed Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad). And whoever defies and disobeys Allah and His Messenger, them verily, Allah is Severe in punishment. This is (the torment), so taste it; and surely, for the disbelievers is the torment of the Fire"

(Surat Al-Maidah 5:33)."The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad) and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter"

(Surat At-Taubah 9:5). "Kill the Mushrikun (polytheists, Christians and non-Muslims), wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But, if they repent and perform As-salat (public prayer with Muslims) and give Zakat (Islamic alms), then leave their way free. Allah is oft-forgiving, most merciful"

(Surat An-Nisa 4:88,89). "Then what is the matter with you that you are divided into two parties about the apostates? Allah has cast them back (to disbelief) because of what they have earned. Do you want to guide him whom Allah has made to go astray? And he whom Allah has made to go astray, you will never find for him any way (of guidance). They wish that you reject Faith, as they have rejected (Faith), and thus that you all become equal (like one another). So take not Aouliya (protectors or friends) from them, till they emigrate in the Way of Allah (to Muhammad). But if they turn back (from Islam), take (hold of) them and kill them wherever you find them, and take neither Aouliya (protectors or friends) nor helpers from them"

(in other words, changing your mind about being a muslim is grounds for execution)

Note: Surat An Nisa is a specific part of the Koran, like new testament.

neuro-praxis

Nagilum, are you a Muslim scholar or did you lift some quotes from an anti-Muslim website?

I ask because, being a Christian, it is obvious to me when a skeptic has done some study of the bible, and when he just thinks he has caught me out by finding "contradictory" verses.

If you are a scholar, then I'd like to see you demonstrate your interpretation of these verses. Convince me you're right about Islam encouraging terrorism.

If you're not a scholar, then I would warn you: like the bible, the Qur'an is a script of extraordinary depth and it is quite possible that you've quoted entirely out of context. Therefore you are doing a great injustice to the Islamic religion - not to mention to your own intellectual capacity.

Xterminator - I understand your sentiments but you've got it wrong. Humans are horribly corrupt by nature (read any historical document of any historical period for evidence of this) and no matter how good a system (religious or secular) that they employ, it will be flawed and corrupted.

DeVore - finding "ones own beliefs" is an impossibility in a world where every opinion you have is formed by your outside influences. You do not have experience of all organised religions - in fact I'd be surprised if you have experience of even two or three of them. Therefore I would politely suggest that you are talking through your behind.

Nagilum

Originally posted by neuro-praxis
If you're not a scholar, then I would warn you: like the bible, the Qur'an is a script of extraordinary depth and it is quite possible that you've quoted entirely out of context. Therefore you are doing a great injustice to the Islamic religion - not to mention to your own intellectual capacity.

I am not a scholar, but I have read parts of the Koran in an attempt to understand it.

My interpretation in a general sense, is that the Koran completely condones killing the infidel (that's us) or those who would blapspheme Allah or Islam.

And yes, I realize that the bible has more than its share of verses that one could use to say christianity or judiasm supports terrorism. The difference and the problem, you see, is that certain practitioners of Islam actually DO what the Koran tells them to do and believe they are acting in Allah's will by doing it.

My point is that these religions were developed centuries ago, and what is important is NOT what the scholars would tell you (ie. Islam is a peaceful religion, blah, blah blah). Christianity, Judiasm, and Islam ALL the ancient religions have certain very violent elements. What is important is the ACTIONS of the people who PRACTICE the religion as that is what affects the world. I could care less if someone thinks that I, as an infidel, should be killed because it is Allah's will. When someone ACTUALLY DOES KILL the infidel because they believe their religion tells them to, it becomes something else entirely.

flyz

Originally posted by Nagilum
I am not a scholar, but I have read parts of the Koran in an attempt to understand it.

My interpretation in a general sense, is that the Koran completely condones killing the infidel (that's us) or those who would blapspheme Allah or Islam.

Well my understanding of the the Koran has been that the Koran both accepts and acknowledges both the Bible and Jesus.
And does not support the killing of anybody.

Plus the only way the Muslims can declare a war (Jihad) is if all the Islam countries are united as one under one leader

My point is that these religions were developed centuries ago, and what is important is NOT what the scholars would tell you (ie. Islam is a peaceful religion, blah, blah blah). Christianity, Judiasm, and Islam ALL the ancient religions have certain very violent elements.

The original Koran still exists. Plus the majority of Muslims can speak Arabic (The language which the koran was written)




You have extremists in all Religions.

"people see what they see and disregard the rest"

This is the same for Religion.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Nagilum
My interpretation in a general sense, is that the Koran completely condones killing the infidel (that's us) or those who would blapspheme Allah or Islam.

The bible does somewhere in there too doesn't it? (about the Blasphemy anyway)

And yes, I realize that the bible has more than its share of verses that one could use to say christianity or judiasm supports terrorism. The difference and the problem, you see, is that certain practitioners of Islam actually DO what the Koran tells them to do and believe they are acting in Allah's will by doing it.

Are the Christians who bomb abortion clinics and shoot the staff reading the Koran too?

When someone ACTUALLY DOES KILL the infidel because they believe their religion tells them to, it becomes something else entirely.

Not exactly the same, but being the wrong religion can still get you shot up North.


There's violent elements in most if not all religions. People just find it easy from what I've seen to (mis)quote things like that from the Koran.

Tom Dunne

Post September 11th, I read a few books anbout Islam. Trying, I suppose, to understand what would make somebody do something like this. (I am a non-practising Catholic, btw).

I learned a great deal about Islam, and one thing that stuck out is the quoting out of context that a lot of extremist Muslim groups seem to do.

For example, on part of the Koran tells the story about a Muslim city under siege by a Jewish army (I can't remember the specifics). The Muslims manage to break free and kill the Jews to end the siege. Some extremist groups use this passage to justify the killing of Jews.

I for one don't believe Islam encourages terrorism.

EnigmasWhisper

Obviously Islam doesnt support terrorism. Does Christianity support every act of terror carried out by the IRA, Loyalists, KKK etc, etc? While we are on the subject........

A Minute of Silence For Everyone!

If you are still shaken by the horrifyingly disgusting scenes of September 11, please observe a minute of silence for the 3,000 civilian lives lost in the New York, Washington DC and Pennsylvania attacks.

While we're at it, let's have 13 minutes of silence for the 130,000 Iraqi civilians killed in 1991 by order of President Bush Sr.

Take another moment to remember how Americans celebrated and cheered in the streets.

Now another 20 minutes of silence for the 200,000 Iranians killed by Iraqi soldiers using weapons and money provided to young Saddam Hussein by the American government before the great eagle turned all its power against Iraq.

Another 15 minutes of silence for the Russians and 150,000 Afghan civilians killed by troops supported and trained by the CIA.

Plus 10 minutes of silence for 100,000 Japanese killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the Atomic bombs dropped by the USA.

We've just kept quiet for one hour : one minute for the Americans killed in NY, DC, and Pennsylvania, 59 minutes for their victims throughout the world.

If you are still in awe, let's have another hour of silence for all those killed in Vietnam, which is not something Americans like to admit.

Or for the massacre in Panama in 1989, where American troops attacked poor villagers, leaving 20,000 Panamanians homeless and thousands more dead.

Or for the millions of children who have died because of the USA embargoes on Iraq and Cuba.

Or the hundreds of thousands brutally murdered throughout the world by USA-sponsored civil wars and coups d'etat (Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Bolivia, Guatemala, El Salvador to name a few).

Maybe, and although the memory of Americans claims otherwise, someone may remember the USA attack on Bagdad where 18,000 civilians were killed. Did someone see it on CNN? Was justice ever served? Or was there even any retaliation?

I am neither Islam or a terroist. The dead in other places should hurt as much as the dead of the Towers. Now, let's talk about terrorism, shall we? PEACE!

Xterminator

Oh but you forgot to blame america for world poverty, for famine in africa, and for promoting a promiscious lifestyle, which makes them responsible for all aids deaths too.

Sure the tobacco compaines are often America, so they are responsible for all cancer related deaths.

Now another 20 minutes of silence for the 200,000 Iranians killed by Iraqi soldiers using weapons and money provided to young Saddam Hussein by the American government before the great eagle turned all its power against Iraq.

For fecks sake, your are portioning all the blame on america for this war. Sure america wanted a strong ally in the Middle East against the crazy Aytolla who encouraged terrorism openly, calling for the deaths of anyone who he disliked. (e.g Rushdie, and all the people who worked for the publishing house of the company who published the satanic verses)!

But the blame for war must mainly lie with the protananists!
And war crimes carried out by saddam and his forces, must be laid firmly at his door.

Plus 10 minutes of silence for 100,000 Japanese killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the Atomic bombs dropped by the USA.

Ah yes the innocent Japanese! Of course America was to blame for, bombing Japan in order to force her unconditional surrender.

What they should have done is allow american soldiers to die fighting from island to island against a fierce japanese army. Or accept a conditional surrender of Japan , which wouldnt have led to the apprehension of the war criminals, or democracy being implemented, etc,.

Yeh right!

Another 15 minutes of silence for the Russians and 150,000 Afghan civilians killed by troops supported and trained by the CIA.

Again amerca totally at fault here.
Not the russians, or the tribes of Aganistan, who chose to fight for their freedom.

I mean that had America could have allowed the cold war empirically orientated russians to overrun the barely armed Muja-hadin, and take control of a strategicly important part of the middle east, and try to force Nato's downfall by controlling more of the worlds oil supply!

Sure if america didnt use oil so much, then the whole war would have been averted.

How about applying some reason here? If you see america as the root of all the following problems then your just a sad biased fool.

1. the ending of WW2,
2. the repulsing of Iraq from Kuwait,
3. the Russian invasion of Afganistan,
4. the Ian Iraq war
5. The sanctions on Iraq (which failed to observe UN resolutions)
6. Every war and coup that takes place around the globe.


X

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Xterminator
Ah yes the innocent Japanese! Of course America was to blame for, bombing Japan in order to force her unconditional surrender.

What they should have done is allow american soldiers to die fighting from island to island against a fierce japanese army. Or accept a conditional surrender of Japan , which wouldnt have led to the apprehension of the war criminals, or democracy being implemented, etc,.

Yeh right!

err, who dropped the bombs?
What they should have done was picked pure military targets, not slaughter innocent civilians.

Xterminator

Originally posted by Frank_Grimes
err, who dropped the bombs?
What they should have done was picked pure military targets, not slaughter innocent civilians.

In an ideal world, yes I agree.

But in WW2 both the allies and the axis powers bombed civilian targets.

Its not very practical for 1 side to unilaterally implement a 'moral' code of conduct.

X

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Xterminator
But in WW2 both the allies and the axis powers bombed civilian targets.

True, but the scale of destruction the 2 bombs caused was beyond excuse.
I've never been able to understand the 'reasoning' that it prevented the loss of military life, it's generally understood that soldiers sometimes get killed in wars.
People being literally vaporised by atomic weapons isn't something that normally happens.

Its not very practical for 1 side to unilaterally implement a 'moral' code of conduct.

It's something they should have considered in this case.

EnigmasWhisper

"If you see america as the root of the following problems then your just a sad biased fool"

While I risk being called "A sad biased fool" for having an oppinion, by the 'Xterminator', he that has posted 1102 oppinions in Boards.ie, ill take my chances. Oh dear, what could have I been thinking of....... As for your oppinion 'Xterminator' I indeed respect it as much as I would anyone elses, but can obviously disagree.

However, I certainly dont feel the need to suggest you may be a 'sad biassed fool'. In doing so surely I would be lowering myself and any possible respect another may have for my own views.

Anyway, does anyone else have an oppinion on Americas role in the world we live in today, and the injustices that they have commited and continue to commit throughout the world (yer man Xterminator seems to think we are all just anti american and are 'sad' to differ with his view on history or Americas foreign policy, sounds rather familiar to the attitude of a certain superpower)

Pause to think what the real motive behind removing Saddam Hussein from power and imposing a U.S.-friendly government is. As Henry Kissinger admitted in an op-ed piece published by The Washington Post, the real motives are ‘essentially geopolitical.’

By this he meant that Saddam Hussein is not a threat to American citizens, but rather a threat to the profits of American oil corporations who are covetous of the huge amounts of oil that are inconveniently located in a country ruled by a leader who is not pro-American. It also means that establishing American hegemony in that oil-rich country is fundamental to the long term strategic -interests of multinational corporations (you know, the ones that have cheated investors out of billions of dollars) who want to increase their influence elsewhere in the world in order to hedge against the possibility of a total economic collapse in the U.S."

As the Bush administration seems almost set on launching a war against Iraq, the opposition of US "allies" and even a section of the American establishment is becoming more vocal. While many ordinary people question the purpose of inflicting further devastation on the Iraqi people, the ruling class "opposition" is focused on the danger of further international "destabilization", i.e. the threat to their economic and political interests from a policy which is driven by the right-wing ideologues who dominate the Republican administration.


Publicly, Bush is keeping "all options open" in order to achieve "regime change", i.e. the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. But a whole series of reports and leaks indicate that military planning is at a fairly advanced stage. Having excluded the idea of overthrowing Saddam through a CIA-sponsored coup, or simply relying on air power combined with an American-directed proxy as in Afghanistan, it has been decided by Mr Bush to prepare for a frontal assault by the US military.

The rationale for all this, of course, is that Saddam is trying to develop "weapons of mass destruction" including nuclear weapons. But at recent hearings in the Senate, one expert after another was unable to answer when the Iraqi regime would have this capacity. It was left to Caspar Weinberger, Ronald Reagan's secretary of defense, to explain the "logic" of the administration's position to the Senators: "If people are looking for an excuse for inaction, they can say 'We must have positive proof that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons or even nuclear weapons'. But the only real proof that we can really expect under this terminology is if we are attacked."

The US government is therefore planning to launch a full scale war against Iraq without any proof that the famed "weapons of mass destruction" exist or are even being built. They even have a new "doctrine" for this planned war based on "pre-emptive" action. Of course, there is no denying Baghdad's willingness not only to make but to use chemical weapons – as they did, for example, in the latter stages of the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s against both Iranian troops and the Kurdish population. But as recent reports indicate, the Reagan administration – which was giving tactical support to the Iraqis at the time – knew about the use of chemical weapons against Iranian troops and did not object because they saw this as necessary to win the war. This in itself shows the utter hypocrisy of Bush and Co. when they talk about the undoubtedly despicable Iraqi regime.

In fact, as with almost every US military campaign, the reason being given now has little to do with the government's real motivation. The Gulf War of 1991 was fought by Mr Bush Sr. allegedly to defend "poor, little Kuwait" which the Iraqis had invaded. But the real reason was that Washington decided that their former client Saddam Hussein now had bigger regional ambitions that needed to be checked. In particular, they believed that Iraq could wind up dominating the bulk of the Middle East's oil supplies. The underlying reason therefore was oil.

But for the past 11 years the US, using the fig leaf of the United Nations, has run a vicious regime of sanctions against Iraq which have killed at least a million ordinary Iraqis. There are "no-fly zones" over much of the northern and southern parts of the country. Saddam Hussein is pretty well boxed in. So why are Bush and some of his cabinet, especially Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, so focused on "regime change"?

The truth is that the right wing of the Republican Party, which dominates this administration, believes that it was a fundamental mistake not to "finish the job" in 1991 and enter Baghdad. They conveniently forget that Bush Sr. and Colin Powell's assessment at the time was that to proceed further would risk significant American casualties, and that if Saddam was overthrown it was not clear who would replace him. Their conclusion was that it was better to leave a weakened Saddam in place than to have to occupy the country for a long period of time.

The obsession with going back and "finishing the job" is an extension of the desire to reassert American military and political domination on a global level. This is what is referred to as "American prestige". It has absolutely nothing to do with protecting ordinary Americans from terrorism.

As Michael O'Hanlon and Philip Gordon, senior fellows at the Brookings Institution, recently pointed out, "A military operation to remove Mr. Hussein...would be the most momentous use of force by the United States since the Vietnam War. If President Bush undertakes such a mission, it will dominate the remainder of his term, radically reshape the politics of the Persian Gulf and Middle East, and have major repercussions for the global economy." (New York Times, 7/25/02)

Up until very recently, there was little sign of dissent in the political establishment. Many leading Democrats had publicly endorsed the goal of "regime change". However, thankfuly there are now clear indications that sections of the American ruling class may be getting cold feet. Some of these concerns were aired at the recent Senate hearings. It is also clear that the Pentagon brass has serious doubts. Secretary of State Powell and the State Department also fought this policy but they have been silenced. But the most dramatic public opposition to date was in a forceful article in the Wall Street Journal by Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser in the administration of Bush senior.

The basis of this "opposition" however is not disagreement with Bush's aims per se, or certainly with the need to maintain US global domination. It is based first and foremost on a well-founded fear of the effect of a war on Iraq on the Middle East as a whole, whose population is already inflamed by Bush's backing for Sharon in the Palestinian crisis. Regimes friendly to the US, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, could all be in danger from mass upheavals.

Im afraid that Iraq will not turn out to be another Afghanistan. It will require a far greater commitment of American ground troops, with a far greater risk of significant American casualties. Furthermore, the US would likely be forced to occupy Iraq for a long period of time. In a war the US, because of its overwhelming military superiority, will likely succeed in ousting Saddam. But Bush could quickly find himself in a full-scale quagmire that will make this victory look a lot more like defeat.

Obviously I oppose the vicious dictator Saddam Hussein, but I also absolutely oppose this proposed war. The Iraqi people have suffered enough from a decade of US/UN sanctions. In reality, these sanctions have actually helped Saddam keep his murderous grip on power. The Western powers have absolutely no interest in the fate of Iraqi workers or peasants, or the national rights of the oppressed Kurdish people. It is the job of the Iraqi working class to throw out Saddam as part of the struggle for a socialist federation of the Middle East.

I also oppose the mobilization of thousands of young Americans to go fight and possibly die for the prestige of the American ruling class. If Bush launches this war – and it is still very possible that events will prevent him from doing so – he may very well have popular support at first. But from the outset, there will be a far more significant opposition to this war than to the war in Afghanistan. And I have the feeling that as Bush's policy leads the US into deeper difficulties, increasing numbers of workers and youth in the US will stop swallowing the propaganda and waving there flags in the air. Perhaps they will draw the conclusion that the interests of US imperialism are not their interests, and that what is in their interests is kicking out the increasingly irrational gang of warmongers who run their country. Peace!

Xterminator

Originally posted by EnigmasWhisper
While I risk being called "A sad biased fool" for having an oppinion, by the 'Xterminator', he that has posted 1102 oppinions in Boards.ie, ill take my chances. Oh dear, what could have I been thinking of....... As for your oppinion 'Xterminator' I indeed respect it as much as I would anyone elses, but can obviously disagree.

You're powers of oberservation have deserted you, or you misrepresent me deliberatly.

I stated that to hold america as the chief culprit in all 6 situations I listed could only be done by a sad biased fool. Each of those situations was listed as american inspired, in your previous post.

I stand by that assertion. Just 2 examples would be

America to blame for the deaths in the Russian occupation of afganistan?

America to blame for the deaths caused by Saddam invading Kuwait, and subsequently being repulsed?

It beggars common sense!

X

EnigmasWhisper

Oh but you forgot to blame america for world poverty, for famine in africa, and for promoting a promiscious lifestyle, which makes them responsible for all aids deaths too.

No offence, but what on earth had that got to do with this topic of conversation?

Oh, and yes, you were suggesting that I and others may be a 'sad biased fool' but hey friend, thats ok!