BF2S Forums Muslim Scholar Condemns Terrorism

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

What difference will this make? Different interpretations of that bullshit religion and all ( remember?)

What makes this guys opinion the end all and be all of Islamic actions and practices and beliefs? Is this all that had to be done, some guy writes a letter condemning it and it all stops? Pardon me if I do not put much hope in this.

Well considering you basically say anything that claims Islam is less than an inherently evil and murderous religion is utter crap, of course not...

Only because Islam is nothing less than an "inherently evil and murderous religion". Actions speak louder than words, Spark, and the actions in the name of Islam pretty much speaks for itself.

all right then, how about we talk about islamic charities helping the needy and poor, in the name of islam (since if i remember correctly that is one of the central tenets of islam). or islamic schools teaching poor kids in indonesia, in the name of islam, or people being decent people in the name of islam.

lowing wrote:

ok, lets talk about them

The organizations have provided emergency and developmental assistance in Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Somalia, Lebanon, the Balkans, the former Soviet Union, Bangladesh, China, Pakistan, Turkey, and within the United States.  While the government has not yet issued an official statement about Friday's action, Treasury officials  previously acknowledged that a 'substantial amount' of the money raised (by HLF) does go to worthy causes.

The government action comes two days before the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, when most Muslims make their annual charitable contributions.  Muslims are required to pay 2.5 percent of their savings and assets in charity each year, a pillar of the faith called zakat (purification of wealth).

so what's your point?

Last edited by ruisleipa (2010-03-04 08:04:01)

ruisleipa wrote:

lowing wrote:

ok, lets talk about them

The organizations have provided emergency and developmental assistance in Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Somalia, Lebanon, the Balkans, the former Soviet Union, Bangladesh, China, Pakistan, Turkey, and within the United States.  While the government has not yet issued an official statement about Friday's action, Treasury officials  previously acknowledged that a 'substantial amount' of the money raised (by HLF) does go to worthy causes.

The government action comes two days before the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, when most Muslims make their annual charitable contributions.  Muslims are required to pay 2.5 percent of their savings and assets in charity each year, a pillar of the faith called zakat (purification of wealth).

so what's your point? I don't remember Christians being required by their religion to pay a certain percentage of savings and assets to charity.

2.5% laundered by a charity for terrorist support is hardly making your case.

lowing wrote:

2.5% laundered by a charity for terrorist support is hardly making your case.

All of their financial assets and records have been blocked, pending an investigation into possible ties to terrorism.

now you wouldn't be assuming guilt before an investigation would you?? Oh no, surely not

point being that if islam is so awful how come they say that part of being a good muslim is giving to charity? why do you think every muslim who gives does so unwillingly. Maybe they consider it...a GOOD THING???

Shahter wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

point being that if islam is so awful how come they say that part of being a good muslim is giving to charity? why do you think every muslim who gives does so unwillingly. Maybe they consider it...a GOOD THING???

and my point is that, regardless of how charity is viewed by islam, you are incorrect in bringing up christianity in comparison.
anyway, imo religion has nothing to do with that whole charity thing at all - religion exploits a lot of stuff, charity included, by associating itself with it, but that's about it.

ok fair enough, no point me bringing in christianity. since lowing's post was trying to make out how bad islam is (again) i should've just kept on that. edited my post now.

ruisleipa wrote:

Shahter wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

point being that if islam is so awful how come they say that part of being a good muslim is giving to charity? why do you think every muslim who gives does so unwillingly. Maybe they consider it...a GOOD THING???

and my point is that, regardless of how charity is viewed by islam, you are incorrect in bringing up christianity in comparison.
anyway, imo religion has nothing to do with that whole charity thing at all - religion exploits a lot of stuff, charity included, by associating itself with it, but that's about it.

ok fair enough, no point me bringing in christianity. since lowing's post was trying to make out how bad islam is (again) i should've just kept on that. edited my post now.

Islam does not need my help in looking bad. It does just fine on its own. Don't get pissed at me because I acknowledge it.

lowing wrote:

you bet your ass I would, I am not a judge jury or in a trial.

Thank God.

My opinions do need to pass muster against the constitution.

Or indeed logic, reality or rationality.

Don't get pissed at me because I acknowledge it.

No, I agree it can look very bad. So can almost any religion or school of thought, like your islamophobia rantings.

Anyway, I thought you'd left these forums? It was nice for a few weeks.

Turquoise wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

No, not really.  For an interpretation to be valid it has to pass a great amount of scrutiny.  Any practitioner of Islam will tell you that terror is never sactioned - just because we see varying degrees of 'Islam' practiced by different groups doesn't necessarily mean that Muslims themselves or the Muslim community at large (especially certain religious councils that are charged with interpreting the laws and core values of Islam) see these people as true practitioners.  To many Muslims, how they see themselves and other practitioners of Islam is much more important than what outsiders think.

I'd argue the opposite, actually.  How outsiders view Islam is a big factor for whether or not we decide to invade a majority-Muslim country.  If the majority of the outside world gets the impression that an Islamic state and culture is supportive of terror, then there's a much greater likelihood that a Western power will invade or otherwise meddle with them.

Beyond that, however, your last sentence above kind of confirms what I was saying.  How imams or other religious officials respond to terrorism affects perceptions within the Muslim community.

I don't think Muslims believe there is any Islamic State currently in existence.  From discussions and what I've read, the last one died with the advent of WW1 and the breakup of the Ottoman Empire.

My point is that an Imam or religious official would never condone terrorism - in their mind someone carrying out terrorist actions is not compatible with Islam.  There is no proof - no evidence, no scripture or theological guideline that allows for terrorism.  It is our error that we cannot understand what we commonly refer to as terrorism is against Islamic principles.  Imams and/or other religious figures that use Islam as a backdrop for terrorist actions are seen as illegitimate by the at-large Muslim community.  Most Muslims don't need to be told by their religious leaders that terrorism is against the teachings of Islam.  Unfortunately many in the West feel the need for Muslims to tell us that terrorism is against their religion.  But then people in the west that ask for condemnation of terrorism by Muslim leaders fail to understand that terrorism is against Islam.  We want to be told that by religious figures but then we refuse to accept it.  Look at responses in this thread - despite this scholars claim that terrorism is against Islam you still have people here disputing a Muslim scholar's dissection of his own religion.  Because obviously us as outsiders know more about his religion than he does.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Those decrees in support of terror hold no weight in Muslim communities.  They hold weight to fanatics that aren't true Muslims.  There is no evidence anywhere by any legitimate Muslim scholar that provides justification for terrorism or any offensive (as opposed to defensive) military act.

And since a lot of fanatics rationalize their position as defending their cultures from Western influence, they can easily use the Quran to support their cause.  This is how they also manage to trick naive, young Muslims into joining their cause.  Mohammed himself wasn't exactly a pacifist.  He and his successors engaged in a lot of conquests to spread their faith.

So whether or not someone is a "true Muslim" is a matter of perception.  The fanatics often regard themselves as the only true Muslims because they are the only ones defending against "Western aggressors."  From their perspective, this is a holy war.

There weren't many pacifist leaders in history.   I can think of maybe a handful of world or kingdom leaders that were pacifist.  Most religions were/are spread through conquering.  This isn't just an Islamic thing.  The 'true Muslim' perception only matters to us.  It is up to non-believers to understand that people acting 'in the name of Islam' aren't actually Muslims.  Why believe a terrorist?  To me, someone that blows up a cafe full of people is not in their right mind, so why should I believe when he says he does it in the 'name of Islam'?  It's ridiculous to take a terrorist's word over any other rational Muslim's.  Their (fanatical) perspective is important to understand in order to denounce and combat it, but it's also important to understand that their perspective has no weight in the Muslim community at-large.  The religious Muslims aren't the people that need convincing or introspection, it is the people who consistently lump terrorists and Scholars mentioned in the OP under the same umbrella.

Turquoise wrote:

But they do sometimes take the words of an imam or other religious official as true tenants.  They do this the same way that some Christians take what the Pope says as being "gospel" so to speak.  This particular vetting you speak of is no different from any other major religion.  It doesn't change the fact that clergy often wield a lot of power among the religious -- whether it's Christians, Muslims, or other followers of a faith.

There is a key difference in your comparison - the Pope is seen as infallible, divine (affirmed as recently as Vatican 1).  Imams are not seen as divine by any Muslim.  It is against one of the Five Pillars (there is only one God and Muhammed was his last prophet).  No Muslim takes an Imam's sermon as a direct line from God.  And this vetting actually is like no other religion - you have to have a direct line of evidence to support your arguments.  The bible is open to interpretation; it is not seen as directly transcribed from God.  Everyone acknowledges that the Bible isn't the exact directly spoken words of Christ.  In Islam the Q'uran is viewed as a direct text from God, given to Muhammed who then had it transcribed (because he himself could not read or write).  Any argument or dogmatic shift in ideology has to be linked by legitimate Muslim theologians.  And if any part of any of that religious scholar's studies do not pass scrutiny, the whole platform is thrown out.  This type of continuation of thought from scholars who have strictly passed this vetting process allows there to be a fairly decent amount of core values that do not and will not change (such as the idea of all Muslims growing a beard - there are varying degrees as to what is acceptable, but the basic tenant is that if you are capable you must grow at least some facial hair, whether it is just a goatee, a five o' clock shadow or a beard the length of your fist.  Terrorism as we know it today does not hold up to this scholarly scrutiny.

Turquoise wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

It is sort of like Pat Robertson or Fred Phelps - true Christians largely don't waste their breath railing against those types (except maybe to other Christians) because they don't view them as proper.  And we as a society don't sit with bated breath amid calls for Christian leaders to come out and denounce the platforms of Westboro.  Of course people will argue that is because the Phelps' don't blow people up in the name of their God, but then Muslims will tell you that anyone that does that isn't a true Muslim.  That's usually when a non-Muslim tries to teach a Muslim what the Muslim person's religious beliefs are.

Robertson and Phelps are clearly fanatics as well, but they're still Christian, because that's what they identify themselves as.  They still believe in Christ, so therefore, they are Christian.  It's just the same with terrorists who claim Islam as their faith.  They are Muslims, regardless of how they interpret the Quran.

That's absurd.  I am a Morman because I call myself one, ideology and basic religious definition be damned?  Like I said before, that group distinction is a problem for us to deal with and distinguish from, not Christians or Mormans.  Why should a religious person have to prove their basic religious principles to us?

Turquoise wrote:

Now, I'm not saying that Phelps or Robertson represent the average Christian anymore than Osama Bin Laden represents the average Muslim.  However, having high profile Muslims speak out against terror is just as important as when Christians speak out against things like abortion clinic bombings.  Yes, anyone with common sense and without fanaticism should know that terrorism is bad; however, in the current geopolitical climate, it's important for Muslims to remind each other and the outside world that terrorism is not what reasonable Muslims engage in.

The reasons why this is important relate back to the perceptions argument I mentioned at the beginning of this post and to the fact that some Muslim populations are more radical in their leanings.  Because of the suffering they experience, Palestinians tend to be more vulnerable to being taken in by extremism.  Those who sympathize with Palestinians also are vulnerable.  It doesn't mean that what Israel is doing is right, but it also doesn't justify becoming an extremist.  That's where guidance needs to come in from people like the one mentioned in the OP.

There are other vulnerable Muslim groups as well, like certain Iraqi, Afghani, and Pakistani groups.  Because they have had to deal with the suffering of war with the West, they are more likely to fall prey to extremism as well.

Yes it is in the best interest of Muslims for Muslim scholars to continue to shape and reiterate what is the belief of Islam.  It is in our best interest to learn what Islam is.  If you don't want to critically understand what Islam is then you hold no weight when you criticize it.  The best way to debunk any platform, hypothesis, theory, etc. is to demonstrate an understanding of the issue at hand.  Palestinians act the way they do because it is sanctioned through Islam - they literally are trying to repel attackers - they are doing their duty as Muslims in defending their land.  That's not an extreme view of Islam in the slightest - in fact it's one pretty much universally recognized among Muslims, which is why the Palestinians garner so much ideological support from the international Muslim community.  But I am not comparing 9/11 with that conflict because those are obviously two different instances with two very different meanings of the word "extremist".

lowing wrote:

Islam does not need my help in looking bad. It does just fine on its own. Don't get pissed at me because I acknowledge it.

They only report the bad.

Last edited by LostFate (2010-03-04 18:00:36)

destruktion_6143 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Islam does not need my help in looking bad. It does just fine on its own. Don't get pissed at me because I acknowledge it.

Ah lowing, i've missed your BS. Welcome back.

Fixed and.... This

LostFate wrote:

lowing wrote:

Islam does not need my help in looking bad. It does just fine on its own. Don't get pissed at me because I acknowledge it.

They only report the bad.

Don't see too many positive Christian stories in the news either. and I am quite certain the media will have no problem reporting Christians blowing up a school yard, or a train in the name of Jesus.

Any bets on which religion will be "honored" with the next terrorist attack? I will take Islam, how much can I put you down for?

Last edited by lowing (2010-03-06 15:05:10)