What's new

Debate on the so called "Islamic Terrorism"

No there is difference only in volumptous terms not others, because one is fundamentalistic part of another. The bad side of the good side when causes problems, let the side be x, it is named as good x and bad x, but x is included.

you mean to say that terrorism is the fundametalist part of Islam?


This is twist of tongue, on one hand one is claiming he follows Islam and on another hand one is using suicide bombings, what do you want general public to say that terrorism or islamic terrorism uh oh?

a person claiming to follow Islam and committing terrorism is the same as a person claiming to be a truthfull person and lying. you can either be a follower of Islam or a terrorist. you cant be both.

What is happening is East Timur is known as Evangelical terrorism, same in the case of 7/7, it is Islamic terrorism however not Islamic it might be but it is fact they are influenced by certain Islamic groups.

terrorism committed by christian/Muslim groups is not same as Islamic/Evangelical terrorism. when you say that one person is a Muslim terrorist or a Christian terrorist, you are talking on an individual level. when you use the term Islamic Terrorism, you are generalizing.

Read the two articles above, however you can be right the selective word of islamic terrorism can be used only in certain perspective where Islamic fundamentalism is present as the motivation.

Your mixing up Islamic terrorism with Islam, dont do that, just like Islam and Islam-ism (that seeks political power) are different so are Islam and Islamic terrorism.

im not mixing up anything. im saying that a religion should not be associated in any way with terroirism irrespective of what its followers do. this applies not only to Islam but all other religions.
 
How does one terrorists claim to be something in the name of Allah, make it Islamic? Did you ever consider the possibility that the moron may be wrong?

Point to me one school of thought in Islam that decrees a terrorist the right to declare something Islamic or not?

Let me be on your side and say this " I know the moron is wrong" and let me continue

Its not about the school of thought or not. In which Hindu scripture's has it said that non-hindu's were to be killed. When idiots killed muslims in gujarat, what did we all call them "hindutva miltants, hindu terrorist"; it is as simple as that....
Various school of thought have issued fatwa's and the like's on various people's.
Non-muslims shouldnt have to read the quran, my friend. If someone blows up in the name of allah, mohammed or quran, he is a islamic terrorist.. non-muslims will take it at face value.

Its your duty to question your own kind who defame islamic values and terrorize. Not non-muslim's. As long as you dont do that, expect the world to take action
 
you mean to say that terrorism is the fundametalist part of Islam?




a person claiming to follow Islam and committing terrorism is the same as a person claiming to be a truthfull person and lying. you can either be a follower of Islam or a terrorist. you cant be both.



terrorism committed by christian/Muslim groups is not same as Islamic/Evangelical terrorism. when you say that one person is a Muslim terrorist or a Christian terrorist, you are talking on an individual level. when you use the term Islamic Terrorism, you are generalizing.



im not mixing up anything. im saying that a religion should not be associated in any way with terroirism irrespective of what its followers do. this applies not only to Islam but all other religions.

you are mixing up everything and going round and round. And i am begining to think either your complelty a fool or you are doing it on purpose.
 
you are mixing up everything and going round and round. And i am begining to think either your complelty a fool or you are doing it on purpose.

i think you lack the basic understanding skills. and listen kid, next time watch your mouth.
 
Let me be on your side and say this " I know the moron is wrong" and let me continue

When idiots killed muslims in gujarat, what did we all call them "hindutva miltants, hindu terrorist"; it is as simple as that....

is this the only thing which you have based your arguments on? some Muslims do use the term hindu terrorists, but the main term used for Gujrat is RSS/BJP/Shiv Sena terrorists. even if they use the term hindu terrorists, does it makes it right?

like someone said, if 50 million people say a stupid thing, its still a stupid thing.
 
since you called me fool, i will call you b*****e.

oh, is that all you can come up, i thought you were going to bash me up or something.since i am lil kid.
ps: what is bhangee; really would like to know
 
is this the only thing which you have based your arguments on? some Muslims do use the term hindu terrorists, but the main term used for Gujrat is RSS/BJP/Shiv Sena terrorists. even if they use the term hindu terrorists, does it makes it right?

like someone said, if 50 million people say a stupid thing, its still a stupid thing.

wellcome to the world, if you are a terrorist yelling allah and killing someone expect non-muslims to call them islamic terrorism. If you dont like it make sure those guy's dont do it in the first place. rather than telling non-muslims what to call them
 
wellcome to the world, if you are a terrorist yelling allah and killing someone expect non-muslims to call them islamic terrorism. If you dont like it make sure those guy's dont do it in the first place. rather than telling non-muslims what to call them

ok, so your argument is based on what people say due to what they hear on the TV. explains alot.......
 
oh, is that all you can come up, i thought you were going to bash me up or something.since i am lil kid.
ps: what is bhangee; really would like to know

dont u knw what is a bhangee? you dont even knw ur own vocabulary, b*****e is a word used for low caste hindus in india.
 
you mean to say that terrorism is the fundametalist part of Islam?
No, here fundamental is not fundamentalism as I mean, What I claim is there are certain thing in all religion that is practiced in literal sense goes against the present real-politik and it promotes fundamentalism which promotes terrorism.

Saudi wahhabi movement to many such things has direct efects in terrorism.


a person claiming to follow Islam and committing terrorism is the same as a person claiming to be a truthfull person and lying. you can either be a follower of Islam or a terrorist. you cant be both.
You are not getting what I'm saying at all, This topic is not about whether a Muslim who is terrorist is a true Muslim or not, this topic is about If you can name Terrorism committed by follower of Islam motivated by certain part of it (howmuch mis-interprated it might or might not be which is immaterial) can be termed as Islamic terrorism or not.

Again read my bold part, I said, In absolute term "terrorism sponsored by fundamentalism can be termed as x terrorism, because fundamentalism in easier term is the blind practice of one faith"

So dont say that I'm claiming all terrorism done by muslims can be termed as Islamic terrorism.

terrorism committed by christian/Muslim groups is not same as Islamic/Evangelical terrorism. when you say that one person is a Muslim terrorist or a Christian terrorist, you are talking on an individual level. when you use the term Islamic Terrorism, you are generalizing.
Highly Highly Misleading and totally wrong.

Islamic/Evangelical fundamentalism are the direct reason why some Christian/muslim group commits terrorism.

Islamic terrorism is not generalizing Islam, but is in simple term means Terrorism commited in the name of Islam.

I repeat Read my previous article specially the Red part of the articles.

im not mixing up anything. im saying that a religion should not be associated in any way with terroirism irrespective of what its followers do. this applies not only to Islam but all other religions.
No religion is associated to terrorism, but the practices done by them in the name of it has some way or other association with it because it provides them the safe place.

I have told here clearly with a example, the cocnept of ummah itself spreads communal problem, Ask a turk here if you dont believe me.
There are many problems of that concept, if you want to discuss rationally I'll , no matter how good it looks on paper, practically wrong and history stands for it.

Lets see a case on Hinduism, Sati, do you know who started it? It was started by Padmini, I dont know if your aware or not during 1900 it became a Social Dogma for Hinduism and a highly disgusting one, It was uneducated Hindus only who were associated with the practice, and does that makes it immune from Hinduism? NO! Sages like Raja Rammohan Roy to Vidyasagar deanounced such practice by raising awareness, so see, even if it has nothing to do with hinduism it was followers of hinduism only who commited such acts, mind thinks why?
 
dont u knw what is a bhangee? you dont even knw ur own vocabulary, b*****e is a word used for low caste hindus in india.

then it would be right, i am a low caste; finally i dont see difference from you and bjp/rss high caste fucks after all...
I always stand vindicated and right.

All the ******* xenophobic in the world are same, though they maybe from different religions
 
Joey

if you interpret Islamic terrorism as terrorism wrongly carried out in the name of Islam, not terrorism carried out because of Islam, then your judgment is quite fair. but this is how you interpret it, not how the general public in non-Muslim countries view it. and this is definitely not what this term reflects to the people who are unaware of the teachings of Islam.
 
then it would be right, i am a low caste; finally i dont see difference from you and bjp/rss high caste fucks after all...
I always stand vindicated and right.

All the ******* xenophobic in the world are same, though they maybe from different religions

:flame: :flame: :flame: :rofl:
 
Back
Top Bottom