Muslims - the Day of Islam and another 911

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

xris
 
Reply Sun 13 Sep, 2009 01:03 pm
@ahmedjbh,
ahmedjbh;89868 wrote:
xris,

I think you have oversimplified. Bin Laden and his type have very little support, where as their is a general feeling of sympathy towards the Palestinians, Iraqies, Chechens, Kashmiris, Lebanese, Iran etc etc who have been wronged over the years.

Bin Laden is just using the genuine sympathy to try and justify his wacko plans.
How have i simplified the suicide bomber problem ,its more that Bin Laden using the suicide bomber. Iraq and Afghanistan have there share without Bin Laden's influence. When you consider he has probably been dead for five years and the shia bombing of the Sunni and the Taliban bombing the allies has nothing to do with him.

I notice you have not shown your views on this phenomena, is it allowed in your opinion?
 
Pangloss
 
Reply Sun 13 Sep, 2009 01:43 pm
@Arjuna,
Arjuna;90017 wrote:
Doesn't he claim to be a holyman?


There are all sorts of people in this world who claim to be some type of 'holyman' or prophet. That does not mean that they are recognized as such by the majority of followers of the religion they claim to be authoritative about. Osama is about as much of a mainstream "Islamic Leader" as David Koresh was a "Christian Leader". Thus why we distinguish 'islamic extremists' from muslims.
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Sun 13 Sep, 2009 02:09 pm
@Pangloss,
Pangloss;90023 wrote:
There are all sorts of people in this world who claim to be some type of 'holyman' or prophet. That does not mean that they are recognized as such by the majority of followers of the religion they claim to be authoritative about. Osama is about as much of a mainstream "Islamic Leader" as David Koresh was a "Christian Leader". Thus why we distinguish 'islamic extremists' from muslims.


Neither Jesus nor Muhammad studied at a seminary. They both started having visions, turned to their societies and exhorted them to stop acting like a bunch of fools. What happened next is how they differ: Muhammad left Mecca and became a guerilla warrior. He later returned to Mecca, but this time he was in charge. As we all know, Jesus was executed. A religious leader doesn't have to look important at the outset.

I think we got onto a tangent here.
 
Pangloss
 
Reply Sun 13 Sep, 2009 02:17 pm
@Justin,
Are you actually trying to make a comparison between Osama Bin Laden, Mohammed, and Jesus? :sarcastic:
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Sun 13 Sep, 2009 02:34 pm
@Pangloss,
Pangloss;90031 wrote:
Are you actually trying to make a comparison between Osama Bin Laden, Mohammed, and Jesus? :sarcastic:

In spite of the politeness, the effect is the same. I haven't been saying anything. I've been asking questions and exploring. Believe it or don't.
 
ahmedjbh
 
Reply Sun 13 Sep, 2009 03:06 pm
@xris,
xris;90018 wrote:
How have i simplified the suicide bomber problem ,its more that Bin Laden using the suicide bomber. Iraq and Afghanistan have there share without Bin Laden's influence. When you consider he has probably been dead for five years and the shia bombing of the Sunni and the Taliban bombing the allies has nothing to do with him.

I notice you have not shown your views on this phenomena, is it allowed in your opinion?


Yes you have clearly over simpliefied it yet further.

Its not a "suicide bombing problem", if Bin Laden started using other methods would that be ok by you then? The point is, if Islam really did encourage people like Bin Laden, then the world would look very different. The reality is Islam doesnt, and so the Muslims that follow Islam are not supporting or copying Bin Laden en mass. You can either choose to accept this reality, or substitute it for the one you want to believe.

The rest of your post I can not understand.
 
xris
 
Reply Mon 14 Sep, 2009 03:03 am
@ahmedjbh,
ahmedjbh;90042 wrote:
Yes you have clearly over simpliefied it yet further.

Its not a "suicide bombing problem", if Bin Laden started using other methods would that be ok by you then? The point is, if Islam really did encourage people like Bin Laden, then the world would look very different. The reality is Islam doesnt, and so the Muslims that follow Islam are not supporting or copying Bin Laden en mass. You can either choose to accept this reality, or substitute it for the one you want to believe.

The rest of your post I can not understand.
Islam has more examples of his attitude than just him. He is one of thousands who think suicide jihad has authority. I asked you if you think suicide jihad is allowed in Islamic scripture and do you agree? I have asked more than once.
 
chad3006
 
Reply Mon 14 Sep, 2009 09:12 am
@Arjuna,
Arjuna;89746 wrote:
The speculative bubble that recently popped has been estimated to represent in excess of $55 trillion dollars. The global economy is not sound right now... it's circling the drain. And since it's still in the midst of floating on bail-out funds, it's not clear at this point if stability is in the near future. We may have to agree to disagree on what the detonation of a suitcase bomb in NYC would do. But NYC, Los Angeles and Chicago? Forget about it.:perplexed:


The whole "global" economy is a giant bubble that will eventually break. It's completely unsustainable.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Mon 14 Sep, 2009 12:08 pm
@Arjuna,
Arjuna;90017 wrote:
Doesn't he claim to be a holyman?
So did Charles Manson. I mean Bin Laden can claim what he wants, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether we regard him as representative.

Arjuna;90017 wrote:
1) hypotheticals suck because it's not real life, 2) comparing different human stories has limits: car-bombers, clinic-bombers, federal arsenal-raiders. They're not the same. 3) I have a lot of respect for you, Aedes, I hope you don't forget that.
Much appreciated, Arjuna, and likewise I respect you and your perspective, thanks for the kind word.

The problem with understanding epochs in humanity is there is no "control" group. All we can do is look at scenarios that have some commonality and see what the common denominator is.

The common denominator between clinic bombers and Al Qaeda is that they both are willing to kill civilians and innocent bystanders, against any sort of local legal framework, because their targets are morally abominable on essentially religious grounds. We can debate about this language, but it's something like this.

So can't we look at these and other similar situations and ask whether the thought process of such extremists should be generalized to their religious community at large? (by this I mean all Muslims or all Christians)

---------- Post added 09-14-2009 at 02:10 PM ----------

xris;90018 wrote:
When you consider he has probably been dead for five years the shia bombing of the Sunni has nothing to do with him.
Yeah, particularly because he is Sunni. :listening:
 
xris
 
Reply Mon 14 Sep, 2009 12:28 pm
@Aedes,
If you continue to be purposely obtuse I will ignore you. I was making the point that Muslims have this mind set about suicide Jihad. Most maintain it is their right by scripture. Its not the isolated few who act on this authority, that alarms me but the majority that dont condemn its use.

Sunni or shia, its a weapon of choice and many poor souls are convinced by their teachers that they are doing gods will. If the Muslim community stood up against its use, we , I , might be convinced of their sincerity.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Mon 14 Sep, 2009 12:40 pm
@Justin,
So the "majority" of Muslims don't condemn terrorism you say. To your knowledge has the majority of Christians condemned Bosnia yet?
 
xris
 
Reply Mon 14 Sep, 2009 01:12 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes;90160 wrote:
So the "majority" of Muslims don't condemn terrorism you say. To your knowledge has the majority of Christians condemned Bosnia yet?
I would openly condemn it , without a moments thought and you only have to ask me once.

I dont hear any Christians saying, i dont approve but i can understand why those muslims where killed. I have no love of certain christians either, you might have noticed,but we are debating the Muslim attitude towards terrorism and suicidal jihad, not Christians double standards.
 
josh0335
 
Reply Mon 14 Sep, 2009 02:24 pm
@xris,
I see the OP as propaganda. I don't believe any of his testaments as I am of the opinion that Sept 11th was a false flag operation. Islam does allow terrorism, or violence against non-combatants.

Quote:
I was making the point that Muslims have this mind set about suicide Jihad. Most maintain it is their right by scripture. Its not the isolated few who act on this authority, that alarms me but the majority that dont condemn its use.

Sunni or shia, its a weapon of choice and many poor souls are convinced by their teachers that they are doing gods will. If the Muslim community stood up against its use, we , I , might be convinced of their sincerity.


Well jihad is compulsory. Fighting is prescribed where fighting is necessary, i.e. when there is oppression or injustice. As for suicidal missions, this is debateable. There is no evidence in the Qur'an to show that suicide missions are prescribed, but there are accounts of early Muslims going to fight with no intention of returning. And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) allowed this. Scholars use this as evidence to suggest that martyrdom operations are indeed allowed, because if they were not, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) would not have allowed the early Muslims to go into battle with this intention. What is clear, however, is that suicide missions cannot be aimed at civilians. It may be acceptable for a soldier to strap a bomb to himself and detonate himself under an enemy tank, but certainly not acceptable to do the same in a nightclub.

It is interesting that you require Muslims to be more vocal in condemning terrorism. Is this guilt through association? I feel no need as a Muslim to condemn terrorism any more than my fellow non-Muslim human being, because it seems rather obvious. You do not see Muslims as victims in this, despite the majority of victims of global terrorism being Muslims themselves. Why should the victims be more vocal in condemnation of a phenomenon which is killing them the most? Seems quite strange.
 
Pangloss
 
Reply Mon 14 Sep, 2009 02:51 pm
@Justin,
This thread is going nowhere fast, and we can't say we didn't expect it... :Not-Impressed:
 
Aedes
 
Reply Mon 14 Sep, 2009 03:38 pm
@Justin,
Xris, as I've mentioned I have spent a lot of time in Muslim parts of sub saharan west Africa since 2001, and when people have learned that I was American they have uniformly spoken of 9/11 as an atrocity. You just aren't talking to normal people in Muslim lands. In Bolgatanga, Ghana in 2002 I met a kid maybe 12 years old who was wearing an Osama bin Laden shirt because it was cool, he said, but he ALSO spoke of 9/11 as a catastrophe. In other words, he was able to dissociate the cultural solidarity aspect from the question of whether or not terrorism is acceptable.
 
salima
 
Reply Mon 14 Sep, 2009 05:02 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes;90150 wrote:
So did Charles Manson. I mean Bin Laden can claim what he wants, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether we regard him as representative.

The problem with understanding epochs in humanity is there is no "control" group. All we can do is look at scenarios that have some commonality and see what the common denominator is.

The common denominator between clinic bombers and Al Qaeda is that they both are willing to kill civilians and innocent bystanders, against any sort of local legal framework, because their targets are morally abominable on essentially religious grounds. We can debate about this language, but it's something like this.

So can't we look at these and other similar situations and ask whether the thought process of such extremists should be generalized to their religious community at large? (by this I mean all Muslims or all Christians)

:listening:


hmm...also sounds like a certain president i recall not that long ago...
 
Aedes
 
Reply Mon 14 Sep, 2009 05:33 pm
@xris,
xris;90165 wrote:
I would openly condemn it , without a moments thought and you only have to ask me once.

I dont hear any Christians saying...
"Would", "have to ask", and "I don't hear".

That is EXACTLY the problem with your generalizations about Muslim attitudes.


Normal Muslims, living out there in the world -- the plain old people living their lives in Bangladesh, in French Guyana, in Mali, in Azerbaijan, in Bosnia, in Kyrgyzstan...

They talk amongst themselves -- they do not talk to you. No wonder you don't hear condemnations. Try asking them.
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Mon 14 Sep, 2009 06:04 pm
@Aedes,
salima;90185 wrote:
hmm...also sounds like a certain president i recall not that long ago...

Yes, except for the part of about the attack being on religious grounds:

"Despite close political ties to the Religious Right, President George W. Bush has sought to distance himself from anti-Islamic remarks recently offered by several of the movement's leaders."

"Some of the comments that have been uttered about Islam do not reflect the sentiments of my government or the sentiments of most Americans," Bush said"

On 26 September 2001, President George W. Bush held a substantive meeting with American Muslim leaders, and said that "the teachings of Islam are the teachings of peace and good."

"Former President George W. Bush made very public statements saying Islam was not a faith of violence in the immediate aftermath of the attacks in New York and Washington."

"My country desires peace," Bush told world leaders at the opening of the 61st session of the UN General Assembly, adding: "Extremists in your midst spread propaganda claiming that the West is engaged in a war against Islam. This propaganda is false... We respect Islam."

What I know about Islam isn't much. They're known for intricate patterns in their architecture. If it hadn't been for Muslims, a significant portion of greek philosophy would be unknown to us now.

I think where I come to land on this topic is this: if a person wants to see Islam as promoting violence, they can see it that way. If a person wants to see it as promoting brotherly love and tolerance (as Malcolm X did), then for that person, it does.

My favorite story from Richard Foltz's book: Religions of the Silk Road:

Around 1253 a Franciscan friar named William visited the court of Mongke Khan, the mongolian ruler of the Golden Hoard. There, he discovered that the Khan had a hobby: he enjoyed watching religious debates between Christians, Muslims and Buddhists. In an interview, Mongke told William: "We believe that there is only one God, through whom we have life and through whom we die, and towards him we direct our hearts... But just as God has given the hand several fingers, so he has given mankind several paths. To you God has given the Scriptures and you Christians do not observe them."
 
Aedes
 
Reply Mon 14 Sep, 2009 09:06 pm
@Arjuna,
Arjuna;90197 wrote:
What I know about Islam isn't much. They're known for intricate patterns in their architecture. If it hadn't been for Muslims, a significant portion of greek philosophy would be unknown to us now.
And astronomy, mathematics, medicine, navigation...

The issue is not really that this stuff was invented first in the Muslim world and later in the Christian world. That is a given, it's history. But critical to realize is how the Muslim world was a critical bridge between Rome and the European Renaissance. Byzantium was a huge bridge, the Carolingian kingdom in (now) France/Germany was a big bridge, but the Islamic lands of North Africa, southern Europe, and the Near East were enormous. There was an unbelievable degree of cross-fertilization and mutual benefit. Islam was truly in the middle of all these different major civilizations at the time -- it was the bridge between the Persians, the Mongols, the lands in South Asia, the sub-Saharan lands in Africa, Byzantium in Anatolia and southeastern Europe, and of course the huge void in southern Europe / North Africa left after the collapse of Rome.

Islamic lands benefited from their contact with outsiders, and outsiders benefited from their contact with Islam.

And to be honest this stuff is FAR more interesting to me than the news.
 
xris
 
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 03:27 am
@Aedes,
I am not here to praise islam or discredit it but to ask certain questions about the conflict that muslims find within their own faith. Christianity has its horror stories and its great acheivements but I am never questioned about my motives when criticising christianity, why is that?

Is Islam the holy cow, that should not be criticised? i am never replied to when debating christian dogma and asked why dont i critice muslims when debating with christians. Hear me, I am not comparing the two faiths nor praising christianity but questioning Islams conflict over suicidal jihad.

Suicide Jihad is for many muslims never allowed under any circumstances, even when killing enemy combatants. For other muslims suicide Jihad is allowed as a means of killing enemy, including civilians and other muslims who are classified as non believers. For Muslims to deny this conflict within its own community is part and parcel of the problem we have with Islam. How can we live in harmony, if you dont know your neighbour classsifies you as a legitimate target ? Be my enemy by all means, hate me for what my country has done but dont live with me, harbour anger and wish me dead.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 01/27/2023 at 07:19:47