Islam and suicidal terrorism:Analysing connections

[Aldebaran]

As the article above suggest Islamic Fundamentalism is a term we are stuck with. I think Lewis makes several mistakes here that reflect the debate at the time he was writing.

I can’t judge that since I don’t know where, when and in which context the text you quoted from was published.

perhaps you need to grow up amongst austere fundamentalist Christians as I did to see why its inexact but resonant.

Being “resonant” among Christians does not make it any more accurate, let alone acceptable. On the contrary: That only underscores it can only be used for Christians

I entirely agree that the Radicals have strayed very far from the mainstream of Islamic thought, this should be obvious to a Muslim.

It is obvious to every Muslim.

The Faithful have been rather too quiet about that.

Correction:
1. “the faithful” have first of all no obligation to be vocal about anything else then the shahada.
2. They have no obligation whatsoever to convince the world that when someone acts like no Muslim would, this is a violation of the commands of Islam. The only obligation is to try to convince a Muslim perceived as doing wrong about the fact that he is wrong.
3. On top of this: Muslims who do make public declarations about that have no obligation to spoon-feed that in English to the rest of the world, or in any other language but their own, for that matter.
4. On top of all that: If a Western audience doesn’t want to read what in fact is stated or translated into a language they understand, that can hardly be the responsibility of anyone else but these Westerners.

In that context: Did you open the link in my essay, leading to links about statements made by a variety of scholars and other Muslims, spoon-fed to the West in English or English translations?
What do you think: Should we set up a satellite TV station and day and night transmit such messages in Western languages and how many Westerners do you think would even bother to look at it, if they first of all want to bother to find out that it exists?

I don’t feel any call to de-brainwash a Western audience wilfully poisoned by false ideas and perceptions. Anyone with a brain can inform himself about Islam.

Some Christian have erred from Christian principles almost as spectacularly turning an unwordly, quietist religon into a manifesto for mamon and beligereant hatred. My impression here is that Muslims in general have a far clearer shared understanding of what being a good Muslim requires than the chaos of Christian sects have of being a good Christian.

In my view one of the causing factors behind this wild grow of sects (especially in the USA) is because many Christians seem to live with the strange idea that a religion must serve them, instead of them serving God. If “the church” they attend is not cosy or self-serving enough, they go religion shopping. I would call that Capitalist-inspired Christianity.

This piece on Koranic Duels comes back to mind.

What is described in that article is what I say since so long that I don’t even remember when I first said or wrote it. Give me any Radical and I silence him when I make him read Al Qur’an and explain him what is said there.
The reactions of the USA described in that article are telling once again that they have no clue what it is all about (or maybe they don’t want to have a clue).

Christians have always made assumptions based in Christianity about Islam, it took the Byzantines 50 years to notice the followers of The Prophet weren't just another Christian sect and it still goes on.

(That is a rather strange claim you make there about the Byzantines)
About “general view” on Christians among the Muslims… I have of course an non-conventional background when it comes to that. I would say that in general “common Muslims” do seem to have a few misconceptions about certain Christian dogmas but I wouldn’t call that “cartoonish”. Rather a fundamental misunderstanding of - for example - the concept of the Trinity. (even Christians themselves didn’t come to agreement about all the problems of Christology)

In making a fair point your being a bit condescending yourself here and have chosen a bad example:
Quote:
When non-Muslims hear a reference to the “Pharaoh” they can’t see much in this. Christians could think about the Bible and the story of Joseph at best. Every Muslim can immediately connect with that word in Al Qur’an and what it represents: The greatest tyrant one can imagine to be possible.

You take that out of the context of the chapter and there is nothing “condescending” about it to make this correct comparison.
Your experience with what “some” Christians eventually make of one passage in the Bible has no comparison with the direct, immediate link made by Muslims all over the world when they hear such a reference made by Radicals. That is purely done to convince them immediately, even on sub-conscience level, of the depth of the “evil” they talk about. You can’t do that with Christians all over the world.

Lewis is right that the legalism of Islam is an important distinction.

No, he is absolutely wrong. The Radicals have no legal foot in Islam to stand on. Saying you have a legally sound argument doesn’t make it miraculously legal only because you dream of it to be legal.

Its the dangerously imoderate nature of Christianity that leads to our separation of Church and state and the French attachment to a secular republic.

The French have a very different historical background and set of reasons to become a secular republic.

Incidentally I'm aware there is considerable debate within Islam about what living under Sharia means.

Actually, the debate is more about where Shari’a can or should be integrated in constitutional or other laws.

It's a point Sardar (who shares your liberal or modernist approach to the Qur'an) makes in his amusing tour of Muslim attitudes Desperately Seeking Paradise.

I don’t know this writer. You have it wrong when you think I have a “liberal” or “modernist” approach of Al Qur’an if that implies that I am like the Radicals, but then in a “Westernised” hence in Western eyes “liberal and modern” way. I do no such thing. I study and explain Al Qur’an relying on my academic education.

salaam.

 

[oi2002]

What do you think: Should we set up a satellite TV station and day and night transmit such messages in Western languages and how many Westerners do you think would even bother to look at it, if they first of all want to bother to find out that it exists?

I'm well aware of the increasing hill of scholarly denunciations and have said so on U75 several times. Many are available in English or French. But like Jews, who set up Hollywood and still dominate it, Muslims would be wise to think about how all this plays in Kansas.

In my view one of the causing factors behind this wild grow of sects (especially in the USA) is because many Christians seem to live with the strange idea that a religion must serve them...

I agree; I'd have to say that sincere delusion plays a large part though people really feel they have a mission from God.

What is described in that article...

Yes and I think Islam is the solution in this case.

(That is a rather strange claim you make there about the Byzantines)

I read a book on medieval Christian views of Islam recently which I lost on a train. It's not so strange when you understand how alienated the Byzantines were from Syrian Christians and how much both influenced Islamic thought.

Your experience with what “some” Christians eventually make of one passage in the Bible has no comparison with the direct, immediate link made by Muslims all over the world when they hear such a reference made by Radicals. That is purely done to convince them immediately, even on sub-conscience level, of the depth of the “evil” they talk about. You can’t do that with Christians all over the world.

There are a very large group of evangelical Protestants numbered in hundreds of millions who would get it instantly and it amounts to far more than one book of the bible, there's a mountain of mad scholarship based on a few old testament stories and symbolically Pharaoh features near as large as Babylon. A Catholic might not, they have a Priesthood to dictate in certainty what scripture means.

I don’t know this writer. You have it wrong when you think I have a “liberal” or “modernist” approach of Al Qur’an if that implies that I am like the Radicals, but then in a “Westernised” hence in Western eyes “liberal and modern” way. I do no such thing. I study and explain Al Qur’an relying on my academic education.

That was not what I intended as a meaning, merely that having read him I thought his views would intrigue you.

And don't take each impolite criticism as an attack. I don't share your world view but do seek to understand it.

 

[laptop]

Lewis is right that the legalism of Islam is an important distinction.

No, he is absolutely wrong. The Radicals have no legal foot in Islam to stand on. Saying you have a legally sound argument doesn’t make it miraculously legal only because you dream of it to be legal.

Just another pointer to the language of the debate: "legalism" has nothing to do with "having a valid legal case" - or even a valid legalistic one.

It's a lot like the scholasticism / scholarship distinction (see above) and see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalism_(theology) ... In Xtian discourse legalism is the opposite of faith or grace or "doing things in the right spirit".

In that sense it seems to me that Islam contains a spectrum of teachers from the excessively legalistic - the "is it haram to lick one's lips if it rains on them while one is fasting" school - and the less obsessive-compulsive. I can see why scholarly commentators from an Xtian background would focus on the former - every scholar has to have a teeny obsessive-compulsive streak, especially when they're doing references

Hope this doesn't derail - it's an interesting discussion and I am interested to know how wide that spectrum is.

 

[Aldebaran]

Muslims would be wise to think about how all this plays in Kansas.

Why?

I read a book on medieval Christian views of Islam recently which I lost on a train. It's not so strange when you understand how alienated the Byzantines were from Syrian Christians and how much both influenced Islamic thought.

"Alienated" from Syrian Christians? Which time period do you refer to? Both Byzatium and Syrian Christians influenced "Islamic thought"? Which "thought" do you refer to and in which time period?
I think you brush here with a strange tone of uni-colour and in addition lump one and another together. (If you are interested in discussing the history of Byzantium we can do that in an other thread.)

There are a very large group of evangelical Protestants numbered in hundreds of millions who would get it instantly

Interesting. I would like to talk to them to see how they look at this symbolism.

merely that having read him I thought his views would intrigue you.

I looked it up and found something he published.
I don't know. He seems to have good intentions and came with some points of critic I would raise too... yet about issues of Islamic scholarschip he showed general lack of educational background, hence lack of correct in-depth insight.
Yet when overlooking that... I can only applaud those Muslim writers who adventure to look explicitely beyond the current fashion of static, suffocating and hence devastating Wahhabi-induced, Wahhabi-style influences.

It is however one of the dangers in Sunni Islam that in theory everyone can claim to be "scholared" or "to know" since even the authority of Al-Azhar is dependent of the individual's agreement and intend to follow their explanation or advice.

And don't take each impolite criticism as an attack. I don't share your world view but do seek to understand it.

It was not perceived as an attack. I got a bit impatient (it is with reason that I chose the red burning star as my internet-name) because I felt - again, happened on the US other board too at the very same spot - misinterpreted or misunderstood in my intentions.

salaam.

 

[Fruitloop]

Nothing to add at the moment but I am following this thread with interest

 

[Aldebaran]

Just another pointer to the language of the debate: "legalism" has nothing to do with "having a valid legal case" - or even a valid legalistic one.

Legalism still needs Law. Islamic Law doesn't give any support to what Radicals construct. Hence they can't resort to "legalism" within traditional Islam and its Law. (By this do not overlook that Islam = Law.)

In that sense it seems to me that Islam contains a spectrum of teachers from the excessively legalistic - the "is it haram to lick one's lips if it rains on them while one is fasting" school - and the less obsessive-compulsive.

What you perceive comes down (generally) to differences between (Sunni) Islamic Law school (Ar.madhab) and their interpretations and of course the differences between Sunni and Shia Islam.

In theory every (Sunni) Muslim is free to chose which madhab to follow and is free to seek advice somewhere else too, just like he is free to choose which scholar he asks for advice and is then also free to follow it or not.
In today's situation the madhab depends on the country you live in. Advice of a trusted scholar is most of the time followed by the individual who asked the question.
In Shia Islam the authority of a scholar depends on where he stands in the typical Shia hierarchy of scholarship.

In my experience the question of authority in Islam is one of the most confusing aspects for outsiders. Cause of the (Christianity influenced) Western cries about where the "voice of Islam" is, to declare this or that. Not knowing that Sunni Islam does not have the equivalent of a Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, priests. Even when Shia Islam has the equivalent of a hierarchal structure that is not comparable with the Christian idea of a "Church".

salaam.

 

[kyser_soze]

Nothing of what they promote can be found in genuine Islam.

'Genuine Islam'? Isn't that the sort of talk that leads to schisms in religions in the first place? Hell, I'd bet a load of cash that were you to have this discussion with an Iranian theologian they'd cane your ass.

You seem to be on a mission to disavow any violent act carried out by those who believe themselves to be Islamic as being 'against Islam' where any quick look at the history of religion and conflict shows that scripture can be interpreted in any number of ways and used to justify incredible violence on behalf of any God.

Just as Christianity has those who go against the basic teaching of 'thou shalt not kill' (which is about as prescriptive as you can get - there isn't some sub-clause saying 'Except the heathen hordes'), there are Islamists who believe that violence is a solution and who also believe that it is a sacred duty to convert the world to (what they, and you, believe is the one true faith)

And I'd suggest reading about the Puritans and the gathered Churches to see that Christianity also has threads that aren't hierachical - Protestantism is partly based on this idea, and even the Catholic Church is undergoing internal conflicts about the role of the Papacy - often over issues like contraception, but more often over localisation issues.

 

[Aldebaran]

'Genuine Islam'? Isn't that the sort of talk that leads to schisms in religions in the first place?

No, it is the sort of talk that leads to discussions about the subject among scholars, like me.

Hell, I'd bet a load of cash that were you to have this discussion with an Iranian theologian they'd cane your ass.

I don't quite understand all the genuine subtleties of this phrase, but I bet you don't have enough money to pay your debt if I would challenge you, so you better retrack this foolish attempt to "impress" me.

You seem to be on a mission to disavow any violent act carried out by those who believe themselves to be Islamic as being 'against Islam'

You seem to lack any form of understanding about what this thread was set up for.

where any quick look at the history of religion and conflict shows that scripture can be interpreted in any number of ways and used to justify incredible violence on behalf of any God.

Yes. That is what we are talking about (so you do have a sense of understanding after all).
Where does the fact that anything can be twisted to serve anything or anyone make acts of those who commit such violence to become miraculously underscored by the teachings and laws of their religion?

Just as Christianity has those who go against the basic teaching of 'thou shalt not kill' (which is about as prescriptive as you can get - there isn't some sub-clause saying 'Except the heathen hordes'), there are Islamists who believe that violence is a solution and who also believe that it is a sacred duty to convert the world to

So? Where does that make what they think is true miraculously true if it isn't true?

(what they, and you, believe is the one true faith)

You do not know what I believe or don't believe, do you.

And I'd suggest reading about the Puritans and the gathered Churches to see that Christianity also has threads that aren't hierachical - Protestantism is partly based on this idea, and even the Catholic Church is undergoing internal conflicts about the role of the Papacy - often over issues like contraception, but more often over localisation issues.

1. What on earth has this to do with anything?
2. I don't hear of any "conflicts" in the Catholic Church with regards of the authority of the Pope. There was a lot of disagreement over who was chosen for the function recently, yet nevertheless nobody made a claim he shouldn't be installed properly.
3. Discussion - including but not always starting from or leading to - disagreement is part of every religion's theology and its processus. Maybe you don't know that.

salaam.

 

[oi2002]

In my experience the question of authority in Islam is one of the most confusing aspects for outsiders. Cause of the (Christianity influenced) Western cries about where the "voice of Islam" is, to declare this or that. Not knowing that Sunni Islam does not have the equivalent of a Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, priests. Even when Shia Islam has the equivalent of a hierarchal structure that is not comparable with the Christian idea of a "Church".

This is certainly true. Much of the American and very Protestant perception of Islam has sources in a previous deep hatred for hierachies of the Catholic and Established Churches which are entirely alien to the movement Luther started. There's also an element of this in in the post-papist French attitude to the Beards. That the Islamic idea is something entirely different from Roman Church is obscured by atavistic assumptions.

 

[oi2002]

Anti-Islamic bigotry grows in the US

Juan

Some 25% of Americans now say they personally are prejudiced against Muslims. And 33% think that Islam as a religion helps incite violence against non-Muslims, up from 14% after September 11.

Why?

The hatemongers are well known. Rupert Murdoch's Fox Cable News, Rush Limbaugh's radio program and its many clones, telebimbos like Ann Coulter, Evangelical leaders like Franklin Graham, Congressmen like Tom Tancredo, and a slew of far rightwing Zionists who would vote for Netanyahu (or Kach) if they lived in Israel-- Frank Gaffney, Daniel Pipes, Michael Rubin, David Horowitz, etc., etc. And finally, there are many Muslims who have an interest in whipping up anti-Islamic feeling. Ahmad Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress helped maneuver the US into a war against Iraq with lies about a Saddam-al-Qaeda connection and illusory WMD.

I do find this appalling; after 9-11 angry Yanks could be forgiven for confusing Bin Laden, Saddam and The Prophet we're several years on now and they are still swallowing these lies.

Dubya did foolishly call the GWOT a Crusade at the beginning but has at least made a little effort to present it as something other than a clash of faiths or civilizations. Bin Laden would be very happy with that definition.

 

[ZAMB]

Dubya did foolishly call the GWOT a Crusade at the beginning but has at least made a little effort to present it as something other than a clash of faiths or civilizations. Bin Laden would be very happy with that definition.

What little effort? He can't unring that bell. Apparently he will not do anything to prevent his Evangelical buddies going into Iraq, with aid in one hand and the bible in the other, to convert the poor natives. It reminds me of the attitude of British colonisers a few centuries ago - and, well, the Crusades.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0417-03.htm

As Christian relief agencies prepare to enter Iraq, some have announced their intent to combine aid with evangelization. They include groups whose leaders have proclaimed harshly negative views of Islam. They are also friends of the president. The White House has shrugged its shoulders, saying it can't tell private groups what to do, though legal experts disagree.

Yet to many Muslims and Christians alike, proselytizing at this highly volatile moment in the newly liberated country, with Muslims worldwide questioning US motives, could only spur outrage and undermine US policy in the region as well as in Iraq.

Iraq is particularly volatile, because it has just emerged from a dictatorship and is under military occupation. And those planning to proselytize are known in the region: the former leader of the Southern Baptist Convention has called the prophet Muhammad a "demon-possessed pedophile," and Mr. Graham, head of Samaritan's Purse, has termed Islam "an evil religion."

Their remarks flew across the Muslim world with such effect that a group of Baptist missionaries working in 10 predominantly Muslim countries sent a letter home calling for restraint and saying such comments "heighten animosity toward Christians," affecting their work and personal safety.

Graham's close ties to the administration - he gave the prayer at Mr. Bush's inauguration and is invited to give the Good Friday prayer at the Pentagon - give Muslims the impression, some say, that evangelization efforts are part of US plans to shape Iraqi society in a Western image.

 

[oi2002]

What little effort?...

Well he's done some rhetorical spadework on a few occasions.

Last time I was back in N.Ireland I met a devout couple off to do missionary work... in Kabul.

 

[PrinceToad]

Why there are no western suicide-bombers.

This is from that infamous Israeli anti-semitic cartoon contest. I have to admit, there are some genuinely funny ones there:
So few Jews become suicide bombers ...

How can you post a picture at a reasonable size here?

 

[ZAMB]

Well he's done some rhetorical spadework on a few occasions.

that is a very little spadework - has no-one ever told him that actions speak louder than words, and his actions have shown no respect for Islamic people.

Last time I was back in N.Ireland I met a devout couple off to do missionary work... in Kabul.

This makes me sick, it is so arrogant - the devout Christians giving up their 'valuable' time to free the Islamic 'heathens' from their own religion. Unfortunately, other than the USA, N. Ireland is a prime recruiting ground for these evangelical kooks. As a Buddhist I have first hand experience of how people of a different religion are looked at here in Belfast - first as a potential convert, and eventually as an incorrigible sinner bound for hell. [When my late husband died, my own sister used to phone me every week to remind me that he was burning in hell because he wasn't 'saved'.]

However, to try to get back on topic, I would like to ask Aldebaran to explain the differences between the Islamic sects - the news reports recently seem to be blaming all the current violence on 'Islamic sectarianism' - without bothering to explain exactly what that is, or what the issues are between the different sects?

 

[TAE]

I don't hear of any "conflicts" in the Catholic Church with regards of the authority of the Pope. There was a lot of disagreement over who was chosen for the function recently, yet nevertheless nobody made a claim he shouldn't be installed properly.

Many christians would make that claim, but they have already left the roman catholic church, or never joined in the first place.

However, to try to get back on topic, I would like to ask Aldebaran to explain the differences between the Islamic sects - the news reports recently seem to be blaming all the current violence on 'Islamic sectarianism' - without bothering to explain exactly what that is, or what the issues are between the different sects?

Seconded.

 

[kyser_soze]

No, it is the sort of talk that leads to discussions about the subject among scholars, like me.

The debate about what variant of Islam is 'genuine' is not just some kind of intellectual debate, it's been the cause of war and death within Islam for centuries, just as the schisms within Christianity have caused incredible suffering.

I don't quite understand all the genuine subtleties of this phrase, but I bet you don't have enough money to pay your debt if I would challenge you, so you better retrack this foolish attempt to "impress" me.

My second comment was simple - clearly too simple for your elevated conciousness - in that in discussion with an Iman from say, the Taliban or the Iranian Theocracy, they would not see you arguement as being 'genuine Islam', hence my bet. Much as those who claim that evangelical Christianity is the 'true path' for Christians, simply because someone advocates a pacific or agressive line in their faith doesnot mean that one is more 'genuine' than the other - it's entirely dependent on the viewpoint of the observer.

You seem to lack any form of understanding about what this thread was set up for.

Yes. That is what we are talking about (so you do have a sense of understanding after all).

3. Discussion - including but not always starting from or leading to - disagreement is part of every religion's theology and its processus. Maybe you don't know that.

You're a patronising twat aren't you? You are indeed a scholar - and in common with many who claim that lofty title, you think that your opinions are necessarily more valid and 'right' than others.

This thread was set up to look at the connection between Islam and suicide bombing, and from what I read has been expanded to include other faiths. My point is that you seem to be in denial that there could be any kind of connection between Islam and suicide bombers - which is bollocks. Just as GWB believes he is doing God's work, so does someone of any faith who would martyr themselves for their beliefs.

Where does the fact that anything can be twisted to serve anything or anyone make acts of those who commit such violence to become miraculously underscored by the teachings and laws of their religion?

Because religions, like any form of human thinking, are open to interpretation and internally contradictory - especially religions that believe that they need to proselytise (Catholicism, Islam, Jehovah's Witness, Evangelism, Scientolgy etc.). By actively seeking out adherents, a faith is saying 'We are the one true path'

So? Where does that make what they think is true miraculously true if it isn't true?

Because someone, somewhere in the history of that faith interpreted that specific commandment to mean precisely what I said. Now this may have happened as a response to external aggression, internal discord, a desire for power or, most likely, a combination of all three over time.

You do not know what I believe or don't believe, do you.

I don't know what you believe, but I do know that the majority of Muslims I've worked with and socialised with have at some point, when discussing issues of faith, told me that it is part of a Muslim's duty to God to try and convert others to the faith. Proselytise & convert. Both signs of a faith whos followers believe that it is the Truth.

1. What on earth has this to do with anything?
2. I don't hear of any "conflicts" in the Catholic Church with regards of the authority of the Pope. There was a lot of disagreement over who was chosen for the function recently, yet nevertheless nobody made a claim he shouldn't be installed properly.

1. You mentioned that one of the problems with Western understanding of Islam is that there is no centralised hierarchy - organisationally it's distributed rather than centralised and because this is an alien concept to Catholics and High Church Prots there can never be an understanding. Again, clearly my point was too simple for you to understand, but I was simply pointing out that the reformed and gathered Churches that started under Luther believed in the same structure - even to the point that building a specific place of worship was a form of idolatry. Which is why it's strange that someone like Bush (who evangelism is based on the teachings and beliefs of those who worshipped in gathered Churches) does not see that the two strands of belief are similar in structure.

2. JP (John Paul) spent much of his tenure are Pope centralising the organisation, management and theological development of Catholicism, which is causing quiet but big tensions the the global congregation - much as the debate over women bishops and gay priests is in the CofE (indeed, the homophobic response from the Evangelist movement in the UK/US and African congregation of the CofE to the issue could well be a final nail in a schism in the CofE) - particularly with regard to it's terachings on contraception, the non-involvement of the Church in socially progressive movements and resistance to oppressive governments (viz Central and South America). Benedict is seen as more conservative than JP and it will be very interesting to see how he moves the RCC forward globally - it's being punished in the US for all the CSA scandals, many of the bishops and priests in South America see Rome as some kind of distant, remote and uot of touch dictator etc.

It's not about the authority of the office, it's about the management style that's being used. That you are 'unaware' of these things says much about your ecumenicism and knowledge of the internal workings and politics of other faiths - something someone who claims to be a theological scholar should be aware of surely?

 

[kyser_soze]

Re-reading one of your posts I find exactly what I'm looking for:

I stand where Al Qur’an, its exegeses and Islamic theology stand on it: wounding or killing those who do not start - and engage in - warfare must be avoided whenever that is humanly possible since it is prohibited to wound or kill the innocent.

Not a huge theological leap to go from that to 'anyone who isn't a Muslim can't be considered an innocent' is it? in fact, it's the same justification that Catholicism used for the Inquisition - we can't kill believers but we can kill heretics.

So there you have it - by including a word like 'innocent' the phrase becomes interpretive and thus open to abuse, and yet still have a realistic theological claim on being 'right' and 'true'.

 

[oi2002]

The Colonel on ijtihad.

The prospect of the re-opening of the Gate of Ijtihad is incredibly important to both the Sunni World and to the West. The specifics of religious law upon which the Jihadis base their justification of unrelenting war against the West are presently held to be effectively immutable by Sunni scholars because of the closure of the Gate of Ijtihad long ago. A re-opening of the gate would make basic and transformative re-interpretations of the "Roots of the Law" possible in Sunni Islam.

I just wondered where Aldebaran stood on this. I've understood that your postion is that scripture clearly outlaws the killing of the innocent, it seems very explicit on this to me, and I'm aware that the great theological colleges have spoken very clearly on such subjects as takfir but the radicals still seem able to appeal to the margins of the Umma. Is there any need for a clarification of scriptures meaning?

 

[editor]

*Given a nudge as the thread's worth looking at again in view of recent events

 

[moono]

Setting fire to oneself in Glasgow probably isn't an extraordinary event in itself. It's the 'international' component of the airport which clarifies the 'message'.
However, the 'message' is already abundantly clear to just about everybody in the UK who is capable of rational thought.

We also know that these 'attacks' are fuck-all to do with 'al-Qaeda'. They are just the expression of an enraged religious underclass. Al-Qaeda was an intelligent an effective force and their choice of targets, the WTC, the Pentagon and the White House, were hardly indiscriminate attacks on 'civilians', although many civilians were killed and injured.

 

[8ball]

Al-Qaeda was an intelligent an effective force and their choice of targets, the WTC, the Pentagon and the White House, were hardly indiscriminate attacks on 'civilians', although many civilians were killed and injured.

True.

When I think of decadent Western capitalism, the first words that spring to mind are seldom 'Glasgow Airport'.

 

[warren]

Setting fire to oneself in Glasgow probably isn't an extraordinary event in itself. It's the 'international' component of the airport which clarifies the 'message'.
However, the 'message' is already abundantly clear to just about everybody in the UK who is capable of rational thought.

We also know that these 'attacks' are fuck-all to do with 'al-Qaeda'. They are just the expression of an enraged religious underclass. Al-Qaeda was an intelligent an effective force and their choice of targets, the WTC, the Pentagon and the White House, were hardly indiscriminate attacks on 'civilians', although many civilians were killed and injured.

Not an underclass. Islamic rage that has been occurring since Ibn Tamiya.

 

[Zeppo]

Aldebaran - apologies if this is off thread. Some commentators have put a link between Islam theology and Marxism. In that they share similar methods/aims. I would be interested on your take on this.

There is plenty on Marxist views on terrorism and individual terrorism i.e. they are against this terrorism.

 

[moono]

warren;

Not an underclass.

Do you get an echo, with your head up your arse, or a sense of claustrophobia ?

 

[Aldebaran]

Aldebaran - apologies if this is off thread. Some commentators have put a link between Islam theology and Marxism. In that they share similar methods/aims. I would be interested on your take on this.

Contemporan comments tried and try to establish a link between socialism and the Message of Al Qur'an, pointing out similarities in ideals/ideology.

Being only superficially informed the writings of Marx but having some experience with political socialism and its ideas, I think there are certainly similarities with regard to the social aspects of Al Qur'an, but to claim that Al Qur'an is some sort of "pre-Marxist" text is in my idea taking things too far.
The same happens when talking about what is understood by Universal Human Rights. Many Muslims claim all of that is to be found already in Al Qur'an. This can also be supported upto a certain point (the same can be said about other religious texts) but I can fully understand the (mostly Western) objections to that.

salaam.

 

[tangentlama]

All religions, in their fundamental form, (note, not 'fundamentalist' as used to describe intractable, literal interpretations of religious texts) are socialist in their message to some extent.

Each religion attempts to define man's relationship with G-d, and man's relationships to others in his community, from neighbours to wider society as well as to nature and the environment.

In this sense, there is a socialist element in every religion, as there is an environmentalist element in every religion, as well there being a spiritual element (relationship to both G-d and one's ancestors).

Organised religion attempt to define and fulfill these elements - spiritual - social - environmental, as well as invariably getting caught up in the political, whether that be personal politics, community politics, or inter/national politics.

Unfortunately, the political part seems inescapable since that often is the form that man's relationship to one's fellow man takes.

 

[mr_eko]

Al-Qaeda was an intelligent an effective force and their choice of targets, the WTC, the Pentagon and the White House, were hardly indiscriminate attacks on 'civilians', although many civilians were killed and injured.

how was the attack on the WTC not an indiscriminate attack on civilians? And while the Pentagon isn't a civilian target they did fly a random plane load of civilians into it.

 

[moono]

Yes, there were many civilian casualties on the aircraft but I fancy that the al-Qaeda leadership would have considered many of the WTC people to be the enemy. Perhaps they couldn't plan to hit the World Bank members all at the same time.

Did you think that the WTC was just full of enterprising ecologists and humanitarian foreign equity traders ? Or maybe al-Qaeda didn't rate the architecture ?

 

[mr_eko]

Yes, there were many civilian casualties on the aircraft but I fancy that the al-Qaeda leadership would have considered many of the WTC people to be the enemy. Perhaps they couldn't plan to hit the World Bank members all at the same time.

Did you think that the WTC was just full of enterprising ecologists and humanitarian foreign equity traders ? Or maybe al-Qaeda didn't rate the architecture ?

You may not like what they do but a foreign equity trader is a civilian and the WTC was full of civilians. In my opinion Al Qaeda always deliberately seek to maximise civilian casulties.

 

[moono]

From the al-Qaeda perspective those raping Islamic countries were legitimate targets, just as Haliburton in Iraq was always part of the military machine.

To say that ' You might not like Haliburton's method of rape, but they are civilians' wouldn't go down too well with your atypical 'insurgent'. There has to be corporate responsibility. The WTC demolition , one might argue, was a reaction to that message being ignored over a long period of time.