Terrorism Is Alien to Islam

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

I know I’m on Pro’s ignore list but how is between 0 to 500 US troops a permanent garrison to prop up the Saudi Arabian government?

Why do you keep on lying, Muslim?

 

[exoflare]

I know I’m on Pro’s ignore list but how is between 0 to 500 US troops a permanent garrison to prop up the Saudi Arabian government?

Why do you keep on lying, Muslim?

I don’t know, but he’s definitely on my iggy list. The only person I have done so for in all my time on CAF. Sometimes I deal with these clowns if I think they might be deceiving people, but this guy- I don’t think anyone is foolish enough to take him seriously by now.

 

[demerzel85]

Why do you keep on lying, Muslim?

Surely one should be more charitable than this…

 

[pro_universal]

I don’t know, but he’s definitely on my iggy list. The only person I have done so for in all my time on CAF. Sometimes I deal with these clowns if I think they might be deceiving people, but this guy- I don’t think anyone is foolish enough to take him seriously by now.

Interesting. Instead of engaging my posts and making a point, you choose to insult and then “ignore” with a neener neener.

It’s an interesting pattern on this board. First come the cries of “Muslims don’t condemn terrorism!”

Then when someone comes with articles about Muslims condemning terrorism: “Those are Muslim lies! TU QUOQUE/AL TAKKYA/ABROGATION!”

And finally: “Islam is bad, therefore, anyone who says anything reasonable about Islam is ignored.”

 

[demerzel85]

And finally: “Islam is bad, therefore, anyone who says anything reasonable about Islam is ignored.”

Yet it is undeniable that some Muslims are more violent than others. Blanket statements like ‘Islam is a religion of peace’ just do not hold.

 

[pro_universal]

Yet it is undeniable that some Muslims are more violent than others. Blanket statements like ‘Islam is a religion of peace’ just do not hold.

Well, if you mean to say “every Muslim is peaceful”, then no, of course not.

But by that same standard, Christianity is not a religion of peace either, since there are certainly violent Christians.

I think it’s best to focus on the teachings…Christianity forbids aggression, and so does Islam. Christianity allows for self-defense, Islam encourages it. But neither has a theological justification for terrorism.

 

[demerzel85]

I think it’s best to focus on the teachings…Christianity forbids aggression, and so does Islam. Christianity allows for self-defense, Islam encourages it. But neither has a theological justification for terrorism.

In the very first place, the conditions of dialogue must be fulfilled. Critical scholarship has to be applied to sacred text, there must be a denial of the use of violence and Reason must be applied in the discussions.

 

[pro_universal]

In the very first place, the conditions of dialogue must be fulfilled. Critical scholarship has to be applied to sacred text, there must be a denial of the use of violence and Reason must be applied in the discussions.

There’s certainly a long tradition of critical scholarship on the text in Islam which we can learn from.

I’m not sure what you mean by “the conditions of dialogue must be fulfilled.”

 

[demerzel85]

I’m not sure what you mean by “the conditions of dialogue must be fulfilled.”

1. Critical scholarship has to be applied to sacred text,
2. there must be a denial of the use of violence and
3. Reason must be applied in the discussions.

 

[Lance]

Surely one should be more charitable than this…

Not with pro_universal. He has an excuse for every bad thing a Muslim has ever done and it is usually because of something the west did to Islam. He is an ex Catholic, or so he says, and refuses to see the light that many Muslims a violent people and believe they are following Mohhamid, He refuses to accept that Islam is now and was spread by the sword. So, no, I don’t think one should be more charitable towards him.

 

[demerzel85]

Not with pro_universal. He has an excuse for every bad thing a Muslim has ever done and it is usually because of something the west did to Islam. He is an ex Catholic, or so he says, and refuses to see the light that many Muslims a violent people and believe they are following Mohhamid, He refuses to accept that Islam is now and was spread by the sword. So, no, I don’t think one should be more charitable towards him.

Regardless of what has transpired, it really is not up to us to judge. It is St Paul who says in one of his epistles ‘if I have not charity, I am nothing’. In this context that statement still applies. Yes one can can rant about ‘they have eyes but they do not see, they have ears but they do not hear’, but there is no need to be nasty. The God who judges justly will pass the sentence, so there really is no need for us to worry. St Augustine also preaches that the victory of truth is charity

 

[tequilamac]

Regardless of what has transpired, it really is not up to us to judge. It is St Paul who says in one of his epistles ‘if I have not charity, I am nothing’. In this context that statement still applies. Yes one can can rant about ‘they have eyes but they do not see, they have ears but they do not hear’, but there is no need to be nasty. The God who judges justly will pass the sentence, so there really is no need for us to worry. St Augustine also preaches that the victory of truth is charity

You are both correct to a point. Here is where the issue lies:

The spiritual works of mercy are:

To instruct the ignorant;
To counsel the doubtful;
**To admonish sinners; **
To bear wrongs patiently;
To forgive offences willingly;
To comfort the afflicted;
To pray for the living and the dead.

In this case, the admonishment is public as pro universal has publicly declared his sin which is apostasy.
Mercy demands an attempt at fraternal correction out of concern for his soul. Am I my brother’s keeper? However, there must be a reasonable expectation that it is useful, that the person is receptive. In pro universal’s case, this does not appear to be the case and he appears set in his action. Therefore, continued admonsihment would result in obstinacy. None of us want that.
There is charity in the spritual works of mercy. However, to continue when the person has made it clear the correction is unwanted is neither charitable or merciful. It becomes a power struggle and bad for both.

 

[demerzel85]

You are both correct to a point. Here is where the issue lies:

The spiritual works of mercy are:

To instruct the ignorant;
To counsel the doubtful;
**To admonish sinners; **
To bear wrongs patiently;
To forgive offences willingly;
To comfort the afflicted;
To pray for the living and the dead.

In this case, the admonishment is public as pro universal has publicly declared his sin which is apostasy.
Mercy demands an attempt at fraternal correction out of concern for his soul. Am I my brother’s keeper? However, there must be a reasonable expectation that it is useful, that the person is receptive. In pro universal’s case, this does not appear to be the case and he appears set in his action. Therefore, continued admonsihment would result in obstinacy. None of us want that.
There is charity in the spritual works of mercy. However, to continue when the person has made it clear the correction is unwanted is neither charitable or merciful. It becomes a power struggle and bad for both.

My reaction however was geared more at the name calling, which was more than anything else intended to insult. Fraternal correction yes, but it should be in the first place fraternal.

And I did quote St Augustine. That quote actually came from a sermon he preached against heretics. The victory of truth is charity. This short statement in itself has many layers to it already.

 

[cestusdei]

According to pro Osama bin Laden condemns terrorism. I feel so much better now. The point is when a group like Hezbullah, which is terrorist and commits terrorist acts, says they condemn terrorism they don’t mean it. They condemn Jews and Americans etc., but see no problem with killing civilians or torturing people to death. One of the keys to victory is identifying who we are fighting. People like pro try to obfuscate that issue. Do not be fooled.

I know for sure I am on pro’s ignore list, lol.

 

[Lance]

If Muslims are so peaceful, why this:

islamicawakening.com/haveyoursay.php?hysid=46&
Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s comments that Israel should be â€کwiped off the map’ have been met with international condemnation, including from Palestinian quarters.

Despite claiming the voice of the Iranian people, they were, however, followed up days later by the Iranian foreign ministry, who reassured the world that they would respect UN charter commitments, and that the comment did not imply an intention to attack Israel.

Arab press has been split over these comments, though for reasons of diplomacy rather than outright condemnation of Ahmadinejad’s comments.

Was the Iranian president correct in making the comments he made? Did it serve any purpose? What should be the response of the Arab and Muslim countries, government as well as media? How will this impact upon any negotiations with Iran over the production of nuclear capability? Send us your views.

The following comments reflect the balance of the opinions we have received:

What the Iranian President said is the truth. The whole of Israel is an occupied land from the river to the sea, all is Historical Palestine and Palestinians lived there before Israel was established in 1948. May the Ummah rise and remove the cancer of Israel in our midst (ameen).
Abu Qital, Dar ul Harb

I am pretty sure that if Iran illegally occupied someone else’s land and carried out relentless ethnic cleansing and genocide, it would be fair for any sane person to suggest that it should leave the land that it stole and its people may live there in peace amongst the natives and carry on their worship but under the government of the indigenous people.
Rustam al Feroz, Bam, Iran

Whatever comment Mr Ahmedinejad made about Israel is not wrong in any way and I congratulate him on his courage when every other country is fearing America/Israel instead of Allah Almighty. Go on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, we are with you and if you find there is no one with you then carry on, as Allah the Almighty is with those people who walk on his way and not on the footsteps of the Devil.
Kaif, Bombay,India

Those comments were widely condemned and deemed ‘unnacceptable’. Which is precisely why they should be made more often and made to be more acceptable. Reason being they surely do represent a genuine feeling amongst the masses of people living in the Middle East and the wider Muslims world. In a region which is accused of having undemocratic, despotic and unrepresentative government, at last a President of this part of the world said something the majority of his population would surely agree with. It is only ‘unnacceptable’ to say such things because no Muslim leaders ever say it. Remember, it is meant to be unnaceptable (according to the UN) to invade a sovereign country…so what happened? A lot of people have a problem with Israel and would like to see the destruction of the political state of Israel, not the destruction of the Jews.
Abu Ilyas, Luton

I agree with many of the comments here, but what exactly do we want Iran to ‘go on and do’? Such comments will only seeks to bring Iran under the torch, and its not as if such comments are likely to be intended as a precursor to translate them into some sort of military action! I suppose credit must be given where due; to say such a thing is suicide for a Muslim leader today, but saying is easier still than doing anything of benefit to the Palestinians.
Umer, London, UK

He has courage to say this, but when he takes a military stand against Israel and the US if they want to help Israel, we’ll know he’s a lion-hearted man. Israel is a white supremacist, genocidal, anti-Islamic entity at this point, despite the average Israeli’s lack of love or hate. Fight those who fight against you, and when they incline towards peace, relent.
Blak Lion, Southeastern US

What President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that Israeli should be wiped from the map needed saying. Bush and his Zionist cronies have Syria and Iran next in their cross-hairs and plan to invade these Islamic lands regardless. I know many think that this just adds fuel to the fire but I do believe war against the Terrorist State of Israeli and the Zionist forces is inevitable. It is far better to stand Strong in the face of the enemy than to hide ones face in the sand in fear! There are a growing number of us here in America that are in support of holy jihad against these Zionists and their cronies. We are educating and preparing our kinsman for all out war against them. They not only make war against peaceful Islamic nations but against “anyone” that does not go along with their plans of conquering the world in the name of Judaism. Christianity and democracy are nothing more than tools of the jew in which they use toward their own end. - August Kreis
August B. Kreis III, Lexington, South Carolina - America

 

[Ridgerunner]

It’s a fact. Hassan Nasrallah is the most popular figure in Lebanon, and in the entire middle east now. Look at any poll you want, look at any article from a middle east paper (even the ones that don’t like Hizbullah.)

I expect you to believe it because it’s a fact.

I’m not Muslim. But anyway, here I am acknowledging that Muslims do not support terrorism.

During Stalin’s era, he always garnered 90+ % of any vote, even among those against whom he was then practicing genocide. So did Saddam during his reign. So those polls and any articles of the sort you say are published in the middle east papers, mean nothing. If the head of a billion-plus-member church who has a skilled and dedicated personal guard and the protection of Italian police forces and who does not live in a muslim land, is threatened with death for something he didn’t even do, why do you expect us to believe people in muslim lands who have no protection at all, are going to say something that really is critical of a terrorist organization or its leader? This so much reminds me, as it should remind anyone, of those mass meetings, at which, when the obligatory cheers for Stalin started, people were so afraid to stop that the applause could easily go on for an hour or more. Here and there someone would faint or have a heart attack and the applause would still go on and on, and why? Because the first one to stop applauding would be taken away by Stalin’s terrorists that very night. There’s your popularity of Hezbollah and its evil leader.

I am not saying every muslim supports terrorism. I am sure many, in their hearts, do not, just as I believe many Germans did not approve of Nazism and many Soviet citizens did not approve of Bolshevism. But terrorism is pervasive in, and dominates Islamic society, just as it dominated Germany in the 1930s and early 1940s and just as it dominated the Soviet Union from the October Revolution on. And, as in those societies, huge lies get told, and some believe them and some do not, but no one can dare to call those lies what they really are.

And you are a muslim. Stop saying you’re not.

 

[pro_universal]

During Stalin’s era, he always garnered 90+ % of any vote, even among those against whom he was then practicing genocide. So did Saddam during his reign. So those polls and any articles of the sort you say are published in the middle east papers, mean nothing.

What!? Hassan Nasrallah doesn’t control anywhere except South Lebanon, and the other Arab states are anti-Hizbullah (have been for a long time.) So if anything, government control of politics would work against Nasrallah in these places…and he’s still showing as the most popular figure in the Arab world.

If the head of a billion-plus-member church who has a skilled and dedicated personal guard and the protection of Italian police forces and who does not live in a muslim land, is threatened with death for something he didn’t even do, why do you expect us to believe people in muslim lands who have no protection at all, are going to say something that really is critical of a terrorist organization or its leader?

Because supporting Nasrallah anywhere other than a Hizbullah controlled zone in South Lebanon is dangerous. The other Arab dictators are strongly anti-Hizbullah, and cooperating with them or supporting them could very easily land a person in the torture-seat.

This so much reminds me, as it should remind anyone, of those mass meetings, at which, when the obligatory cheers for Stalin started, people were so afraid to stop that the applause could easily go on for an hour or more.

This only makes obvious that you do not understand the situation. Nasrallah does not control the other Arab states. He has zero power there. He doesn’t even control pieces of Lebanon…so how exactly would this situation apply?

And you are a muslim. Stop saying you’re not.

I am not Muslim. Please refrain from calling me a liar.

 

[Lance]

My son in law is from Lebanon and his father still lives there. I believe him when he says the Christians hate Hassan Nasrallah and all Hezbollah members. They blame them for starting the war with Israel.

 

[pro_universal]

My son in law is from Lebanon and his father still lives there. I believe him when he says the Christians hate Hassan Nasrallah and all Hezbollah members. They blame them for starting the war with Israel.

Certainly, some Christians do hate Nasrallah. But Christians aren’t any longer the majority in Lebanon, and not all Christians hate Nasrallah (Michel Aoun, a notable example.)

Nasrallah himself has done a good job of encouraging Shiites to forgive Lebanon’s Christians for their murderous behavior during the Lebanese civil war.

 

[Ridgerunner]

What!? Hassan Nasrallah doesn’t control anywhere except South Lebanon, and the other Arab states are anti-Hizbullah (have been for a long time.)

I am not Muslim. Please refrain from calling me a liar.

Well, now we’re beginning to make a little progress in truth-telling. So you admit, then, that Nasrallah DOES control South Lebanon; part of a supposedly sovereign state, supposedly ruled by its government. But, of course, Nasrallah rules in south Lebanon with an iron fist, so that even the Lebanese army has been afraid to go there. He has his own army, rockets, etc., not to mention his agents in South Beirut and elsewhere, and his terrorist agents everywhere, supplemented by those of Syria and Iran. “The other Arab states are anti-Hezbollah” Perhaps, except, of course, for Syria which provides it with arms and money. Iran, of course, is not an “Arab” state (though it rules a good number of Arabs by force) but it also finances and provides weapons to the terrorist “state” of Hezbollah. With its assassins everywhere, including in the U.S., Hezbollah can intimidate many, and does. Of course, it is a mistake to think of Hezbollah separate from Iran, or which it is a wholly-owned subsidiary. But I don’t doubt the Arab leaders do fear Iran’s proxy, Nasrallah, as they rightly fear domination by Iran.

So, when you get right down to it, Nasrallah, as a “foreign-agent- occupier” of south Lebanon, really has no legitimate complaint against Israel, which he accuses of being what Hezbollah, in fact, is.

You’re right. I cannot know the degree to which you have assented to the religion of Islam, nor can I know the degree, if any, to which you know the falsity of what you say. I can only know that you assent unreservedly to the lies of Islamic/Iranian propaganda. Of that, there can be no doubt.