" No Terrorism in Islam "

Started by Fatima13 pages

" No Terrorism in Islam "

Hope that make sense ..

By Zafarul-Islam Khan

Terrorism and resistance are two different things. Resistance by the people of an occupied country like Palestine, Golan and Iraq today and South Lebanon yesterday, is a sacred and fundamental right and duty in all cultures, old and new, and enjoys sanction even in international law laid down by western countries although this right will be invoked only when a western country will fall under occupation. Palestinians have every right to take recourse to all forms of resistance against the West-backed zionist zealots who have stolen their lands and do not let them live in peace in even the remaining 22 per cent of their historic homeland.

Apart from this there is senseless violence by some Muslims which is justified in various ways, political, religious and historical. This violence has received moral and material support from some wealthy and influential people in Muslim majority societies, especially the Gulf and Pakistan. Insurgencies in places like the Philippines, Pattani, Valley of Kashmir, have no meaning and have no hope of success either. These senseless movements have only succeeded in butchering their own youth and offering local governments a handle to unleash a reign of terror against their innocent Muslim populations.

It is a matter of shame for people in Muslim majority states that when sons of Muslim minorities approach them for help to build modern institutions like colleges, universities, research and media houses and the like, there is no response except for funds meant to build mosques and madrasahs. But if a few insane hotheads form a guerrilla organisation and go begging for funds with concocted tales of persecution they would not be disappointed until very recently. The correct approach should have been to tell these youth to go back to their homelands and make adjustment with their majority communities and governments, join civil society groups working for non-violent change, and live as useful and law-abiding citizens and try to earn respect and rights through hard work and dedicated service to their societies and countries. But, alas, this did not happen.

The Muslim press all over the world was and continues to be agog with stories of Muslim persecution, some purely concocted. When I personally checked some of these cases, including the Valley of Kashmir, they turned out to be incorrect and grossly exaggerated. I do not deny that there is persecution and human rights violation. But rights are denied to Muslims not just because of their religion but because they are the weak, uneducated and poor in their societies. They need to wage a long-term "greater jihad" against their illiteracy and poverty. But this is a long and tiring Jihad which is practiced only by healthy societies like Japan and Germany after the Second World War. Bereft of a long-term vision, some disgruntled Muslim youths take the shorter and easier path of "lesser jihad" and in turn bring ruin and disrepute to their religion and co-religionists and only add new problems. This is not the Islamic path. Indeed this is imitation of leftist movements led by Mao and Che Guevara in the 1950s and '60s which were lapped up first by Arab communists in the 1970s, a decade later tiny groups of "Islamists" in places like Egypt and Algeria emulated them bringing disrepute to Islam by killing foreign tourists and even slaughtering their own co-relgionists. Algerian terrorists freely, literally, slaughter Muslims who do not share their ideology. Organisations like Takfir wa'l-Hijra which killed the Egyptian Awqaf Minister Shaikh Dahabi in 1977 and Jihad Organisation which killed President Anwar Sadat in 1981 have only brought shame to Islam and pain to millions of law-abiding Egyptian Muslims who are not free now to offer even their basic Islamic duties as a result of this lunacy. Today all mosques in Egypt have been nationalised and imams receive official khutbas (sermons) to deliver, rather recite, on Fridays. Harmless Islamic activities, including freedom of expression, have been severely restricted.

At the present time this lunacy has been hijacked by Osama bin Laden’s Al-Qaidah outfit and tiny scattered groups allied to him. Very recently, Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi [real name: Fadeel Nizar Al-Khalayleh of Jordan], said to be one of Osama group's ideologues, has issued a statement which justifies killing Shias [who in Salafi belief are not "Muslims", indeed most Muslims around the world are not "Muslims" in the eyes of these lunatics] and condones killing even innocent Muslims since killing will hasten their entry into Paradise [text in Al-Hayat Arabic newspaper, 12 Feb. 2004]. This perverted and insane logic which justifies murder is behind the senseless criminal acts of mass murder seen last Ashura in Karbala, Baghdad and Quetta.

It is high time Muslim leaders and scholars around the world take a clear and strong stand that these insane elements are galaxies away from the Islamic message of universal peace, compassion and tolerance, that anyone fanning Shia-Sunni hatred is an enemy of Islam and friend of the enemies of Muslims. We totally disown these fanatics, condemn their ideology and their supporters whoever and wherever they may be.

http://noterrorisminislam.com/index.htm

in scripture maybe. but you can interpret it in many ways. consider, that in islam one can not harm "innocents" directly. ofcourse that is a fact, but many suicide bombers etc, consider, CIVILIANS to be guilty too, they say that americans{or israelis or whomever u want to take an example of} pay taxes, support their government and openly critisice islam/ridicule the prophet/allah{a crime for which orders are given in islam to kill any1 who does so, and it is the "duty" of the entire muslim population of the world}, in the eyes of many, they are ACTIVE CONTRIBUTORS to the things america does and do not even oppose it{ofcourse that is a generalisation, but many citizens of the mentioned staes infact do}, not only that, but they support the illegal wars in iraq/palestine etc and even fund it{some}.

hence, they can be interpreted as being ACTIVE combatants to a suicide bomber. HOW will you then try to tell them that they are wrong in their interpretation? infact, as far as quran/hadith go, there is no definitive argument against their way of interpreting scriptures.

so you see, it isnt really wrong from the islamic viewpoint, to be a suicide bomber.{to some}

however, i do think you are blamin the muslims too much, most of the reports of "suicide" bombings are gross misrepresentations by the western media. a lot f it is propaganda and inside work. the muslims are no different than any other relegion. all have extremists, all have good and bad people and all have suicide bombers. a few muslims{far less than the media makes it out to be} kill a few civilians by blowing themselves up. while israel and america kill hundreds of thousands of innocents by waging all out illegal wars. there no differnece, infact , we should be more concentrated on christian or jewish terrorism in this day and age."the only reason mulims have to blow themselves up is because they lack the resources to wage an all out war}.

baseline,relegions SUCK. and none of the organised large ones{except buddhism probably}, are better than the others.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
in scripture maybe. but you can interpret it in many ways. consider, that in islam one can not harm "innocents" directly. ofcourse that is a fact, but many suicide bombers etc, consider, CIVILIANS to be guilty too, they say that americans{or israelis or whomever u want to take an example of} pay taxes, support their government and openly critisice islam/ridicule the prophet/allah{a crime for which orders are given in islam to kill any1 who does so, and it is the "duty" of the entire muslim population of the world}, in the eyes of many, they are ACTIVE CONTRIBUTORS to the things america does and do not even oppose it{ofcourse that is a generalisation, but many citizens of the mentioned staes infact do}, not only that, but they support the illegal wars in iraq/palestine etc and even fund it{some}.

What the heck?Islam even forbid to kill war hostages let alone civillains !!I will bring some verses from Quran ..Dont worry , the scholars agreed to interpret it in one way ..especially about killing the innocents ..

Are u really 18 ??I feel you're older ...

war hostages are not active combatants and victory or defeat has been stated after the battle. it is a very different situation than what i described. the suicide bombers can interpret the so called civilians to be ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS IN AN "ONGOING" BATTLE. see what im talking about. bringing in verses does not change that{n ive prolly read them before}. also, there is the fact that the jewish prisoners of war did have their men killed and their women and children sold as slaves when the jewish spokesperson decided that they shud be treated according to jewish law when asked by the prophet. so u do have presidence{reguardless of how confined} to possibly do bad things to prisoners of war.

oh, n im 19 and a half. gonna be 20 in july.

No terrorism in Islam.

Brainwashing. But don't worry there are plenty of those who'll believe you in the West, so creation of 'ummat al-mu'minin' is still at a reach.

What about Jahiliya and the corruption of Islamic leaders?

Did Qutb not say that once a Islamic leader had been corrupted by Jahiliya it was ok to promote violence against them and their nation?

You said earlier on these boards that you thought Qutb was a prominent and respectable Islamic scholar. He calls directly for actions that would be deemed as "Terrorist". (I guess that is me presuming that Jahiliya doesn't exist)

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
No terrorism in Islam.

Brainwashing. But don't worry there are plenty of those who'll believe you in the West, so creation of 'ummat al-mu'minin' is still at a reach.

I doubt there are many people in the west that do not believe that there are islamic terrorists.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
war hostages are not active combatants and victory or defeat has been stated after the battle. it is a very different situation than what i described. the suicide bombers can interpret the so called civilians to be ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS IN AN "ONGOING" BATTLE. see what im talking about. bringing in verses does not change that{n ive prolly read them before}. also, there is the fact that the jewish prisoners of war did have their men killed and their women and children sold as slaves when the jewish spokesperson decided that they shud be treated according to jewish law when asked by the prophet. so u do have presidence{reguardless of how confined} to possibly do bad things to prisoners of war.

oh, n im 19 and a half. gonna be 20 in july.

Look , debating without an evidence is useless..you just repeating the same words about killing civilians ..jeez at least show these verses that might be interpret incorrectly by muslims and I will explain it to you ..

This verse stresses that permission is given for ONLY those who are being oppressed to fight their oppressors:

*{To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;— and verily, God is most powerful for their aid;— (They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right,— (for no cause) except that they say, "our Lord is God." Did not God check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of God is commemorated in abundant measure. God will certainly aid those who aid His (cause);- for verily God is full of Strength, Exalted in Might, (able to enforce His Will).}* (Al-Hajj 22:39-40)

See.. the above verses do not lend any support to extremism or terrorism. And NO Muslims can believe that the killing of innocent humans can earn rewards in Heaven, as such killings are categorically prohibited in Islam.

Thus, all other types of extremities such as hostage taking, hijacking and bombs in public places, are clearly forbidden in Islaam.

Back to that Jewish tribe you mentioned -Banu Quraizhah, they did not keep their word and breached the agreement. They helped a confederate army consisting of Quraish and other Arab idolaters who came to attack Madinah.

The Muslims had to dig a trench in attempt to defend themselves, and all of a sudden, they discovered that their fellow citizens (the Jews), who were entrusted to defend from the back, were actually helping the enemy.

It was the mercy of Allah that the confederates left without fighting . The kind Prophet went to them and asked them to choose someone who would issue a judgment in their case. Banu Quraizhah chose Sa'd ibn Mu`adh because they knew he was their friend and would be fair with them. Sa`d chose a verdict from their own holy scriptures, the Torah: that the men were to be killed and the women and children were to be enslaved.

So , some of them chose to seek forgiveness and were exempted from killing, but many others chose to die to apply the Torah. If they had chosen the Prophet, he would have forgiven them.

Fatima:

In Islamic philosophy, if someone suffers from Jahiliyyah, are they innocent any longer?

Is it ok for a devout Muslim to kill someone who spreads Jahiliyyah or who suffers from Jahiliyyah as an act of Jihad?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
No terrorism in Islam.

Brainwashing. But don't worry there are plenty of those who'll believe you in the West, so creation of 'ummat al-mu'minin' is still at a reach.

As long as they dont get their info from a youtube star like Wafa Sultan they will do fine ..

THere are terrorists in Islam. Though, to be fair, terrorism isn't an Islam thing.

Originally posted by inimalist
Fatima:

In Islamic philosophy, if someone suffers from Jahiliyyah, are they innocent any longer?

Is it ok for a devout Muslim to kill someone who spreads Jahiliyyah or who suffers from Jahiliyyah as an act of Jihad?

ok ..wait plz I kinda skip the pray 🙂

Look , debating without an evidence is useless..you just repeating the same words about killing civilians ..jeez at least show these verses that might be interpret incorrectly by muslims and I will explain it to you ..

This verse stresses that permission is given for ONLY those who are being oppressed to fight their oppressors:

*{To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;— and verily, God is most powerful for their aid;— (They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right,— (for no cause) except that they say, "our Lord is God." Did not God check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of God is commemorated in abundant measure. God will certainly aid those who aid His (cause);- for verily God is full of Strength, Exalted in Might, (able to enforce His Will).}* (Al-Hajj 22:39-40)

See.. the above verses do not lend any support to extremism or terrorism. And NO Muslims can believe that the killing of innocent humans can earn rewards in Heaven, as such killings are categorically prohibited in Islam.

but fatima. isnt that what i was saying. only act when war is MADE AGAINST YOU. to the people i mentioned, it may well mean that war{intellectual/economic/ideological} is being faught against the muslims{not to mention physical war in israel/iraq/afghanistan}. and as i explained before, you can interpret the apparently innocent citizens of the participating countries to be active agressors as well, so according to that version, the above verse wud make them fair game.

also, people are being threatened and made to leave their homes/protection etc etc all the time in afghanistan/iraq/paletine/kashmir etc.
also, you did not reply to the fact that it is mandatory on every muslim to kill any1 who does blasphemy anywhere in the world against the prophet or allah. wudnt that make it very legible for a muslim to kill people in other countries who quite often ridicule islam/prophet/allah etc? there is also the fact that people percieved to be spreading "mischief"in the land{blasphemy/anti islamic activites/deception against islam etc}


Thus, all other types of extremities such as hostage taking, hijacking and bombs in public places, are clearly forbidden in Islaam.

not for one who is taking the above interpretation i think.


Back to that Jewish tribe you mentioned -Banu Quraizhah, they did not keep their word and breached the agreement. They helped a confederate army consisting of Quraish and other Arab idolaters who came to attack Madinah.

The Muslims had to dig a trench in attempt to defend themselves, and all of a sudden, they discovered that their fellow citizens (the Jews), who were entrusted to defend from the back, were actually helping the enemy.

It was the mercy of Allah that the confederates left without fighting . The kind Prophet went to them and asked them to choose someone who would issue a judgment in their case. Banu Quraizhah chose Sa'd ibn Mu`adh because they knew he was their friend and would be fair with them. Sa`d chose a verdict from their own holy scriptures, the Torah: that the men were to be killed and the women and children were to be enslaved.

So , some of them chose to seek forgiveness and were exempted from killing, but many others chose to die to apply the Torah. If they had chosen the Prophet, he would have forgiven them.

erm, i have taken islamiat u know. i know this already. but i havent read anywhere that the INDIVDUALS of banu qraiza had the choice. it only says{tell me if i am mistaken} that one person chose uninimously, their fate. also, im not saying that they did not betray the muslims etc. what IM saying is that reguardless, the muslims/prophet did not have the sense to see that it was a wrong law and went through with it{obviously a muslim parent wudnt say that cutting of hand for stealing is WRONG. because obviously theyr MUSLIMS. doesnt mean you[as sum1 more logical] SHUD cut the hands of their children for petty theft even if the parents have no choice but tp agree} anyway. see, the children didnt have enough sense to decide for themselves, and you know very well, the opressed state of women at the time. they wudnt contradict the judgement. also, man of the young men wud oblige only due to fear/faith in their relegion. doesnt mean they deserved to be given that fate does it. they are deluded people beleiving in a fallacious relegion. shudnt the muslims and the prophet know better.

Originally posted by inimalist
Fatima:

In Islamic philosophy, if someone suffers from Jahiliyyah, are they innocent any longer?

Is it ok for a devout Muslim to kill someone who spreads Jahiliyyah or who suffers from Jahiliyyah as an act of Jihad?

1-If they have never heard of Islam or prophet Muhammed at that time ..they might not be punished ..

2 - No .. only consider him/her as infidle- kafir-

Originally posted by Fatima
1-If they have never heard of Islam or prophet Muhammed at that time ..they might not be punished ..

2 - No .. only consider him/her as infidle- kafir-

My understanding of the work by Qutb is that he was in favor of killing those who suffer from Jahiliyyah, including Egyptian President Nassr.

Now, in no way am I trying to implicate Islam as a religion of terror or violence, but is it not true that the philosophies that are behind various militant Islamic movements have their basis in the theological interpretations of the Qu'ran?

I'm not a Muslim nor an Islamic scholar, but from what I have learned, it seems that the second point is more of a matter of opinion. I will admit that most Muslims probably believe the same as you, and are absolutly peaceful, but don't those who are dangerous to Westerners (and fellow Muslims) have a theological position that argues against it?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
but fatima. isnt that what i was saying. only act when war is MADE AGAINST YOU. to the people i mentioned, it may well mean that war{intellectual/economic/ideological} is being faught against the muslims{not to mention physical war in israel/iraq/afghanistan}. and as i explained before, you can interpret the apparently innocent citizens of the participating countries to be active agressors as well, so according to that version, the above verse wud make them fair game.

also, people are being threatened and made to leave their homes/protection etc etc all the time in afghanistan/iraq/paletine/kashmir etc.
also, you did not reply to the fact that it is mandatory on every muslim to kill any1 who does blasphemy anywhere in the world against the prophet or allah. wudnt that make it very legible for a muslim to kill people in other countries who quite often ridicule islam/prophet/allah etc? there is also the fact that people percieved to be spreading "mischief"in the land{blasphemy/anti islamic activites/deception against islam etc}

not for one who is taking the above interpretation i think.

erm, i have taken islamiat u know. i know this already. but i havent read anywhere that the INDIVDUALS of banu qraiza had the choice. it only says{tell me if i am mistaken} that one person chose uninimously, their fate. also, im not saying that they did not betray the muslims etc. what IM saying is that reguardless, the muslims/prophet did not have the sense to see that it was a wrong law and went through with it{obviously a muslim parent wudnt say that cutting of hand for stealing is WRONG. because obviously theyr MUSLIMS. doesnt mean you[as sum1 more logical] SHUD cut the hands of their children for petty theft even if the parents have no choice but tp agree} anyway. see, the children didnt have enough sense to decide for themselves, and you know very well, the opressed state of women at the time. they wudnt contradict the judgement. also, man of the young men wud oblige only due to fear/faith in their relegion. doesnt mean they deserved to be given that fate does it. they are deluded people beleiving in a fallacious relegion. shudnt the muslims and the prophet know better.

Now I'm busy have dozen of homeworks.. I will replay tommorow or any time sooner inshallah

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
No terrorism in Islam.

Brainwashing.

No terrorism in Christianity.

Brainwashing

No terrorism in Judaism.

Brainwashing

No terrorism in religion.

Brainwashing

Bottom line: All religion is brainwashing.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
But don't worry there are plenty of those who'll believe you in the West, so creation of 'ummat al-mu'minin' is still at a reach.

🙄

Regardless to the above, the extremists are doing what most people do with their religion. They pick the texts that they agree with and use them to justify their reasoning. I highly doubt that any of you follow the scripts of your religion 100%. These people look in the Koran and see one of the more violent texts and use that as their justification.
On the subject of actual terrorism, a terrorist is someone that uses scare tactics (in the case violence) to make the public submit to their demands (in this case political). Therefor, the insurgents in Iraq are not all terrorists, however the ones who are blowing themselves up in the name of God are.
Many call the US troops in Iraq terrorists. This is not true. Is this conflict tearing up the country? Yes. Is the use of mercenaries a terrible idea? Very. Are the civilians scared? Shitless. Does this make the US troops terrorists? No. Most of these people are just regular people, many of which do not even WANT to fight in this war. If they blow up a housing complex without reason, they get punished. If an Islamic extremist blows himself up in a preschool, he is exalted as a hero.

Originally posted by Devil King
No terrorism in Christianity.

Brainwashing

No terrorism in Judaism.

Brainwashing

No terrorism in religion.

Brainwashing

Bottom line: All religion is brainwashing.

🙄

w00t

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
No terrorism in Islam.

Brainwashing.

Whats wrong with that? You submit to it too.

Originally posted by Devil King
No terrorism in Christianity.

Brainwashing

No terrorism in Judaism.

Brainwashing

No terrorism in religion.

Brainwashing

Bottom line: All religion is brainwashing.

Bottom Line: Terror is a legitimate tactic that has been in use for millenia by a wide array of religious and non-religious groups.