Debate on the so called "Islamic Terrorism"

[Skull-Buster]

again you have failed to justify the use of the term "Islamic terrorism". if someone claims to be a Muslim and commits acts of terrorism, does that justify the use of the term? if yes, then if i claim to be a peaceful person, but i kill people, will i be called a peaceful terrorist? or if i claim to be a truthful person, and i lie, will i be called a truthful liar?

 

[Samudra]

maybe the mind is confused?

The believers mind could be as confused as those of a terrorist. There is enough confusion as it is.

Shia-Sunni.

The Prophet only had to die for the confusion to start.

 

[Skull-Buster]

The believers mind could be as confused as those of a terrorist.

then he is no longer a beliver.

 

[Samudra]

Right... then make the effort to write that paragraph rather than replace it with a wrong term like "Islamic terrorism"

Make the effort ? The rest of the non-Muslim world is not in a mood to take suggestions from Muslims.

if someone claims to be a Muslim and commits acts of terrorism..

....in the name of Allah, the holy Quran and intending to kill non-Muslims or anybody except the true believers will be labelled an Islamic fundamentalist/terrorist because he draws inspiration from Islam.

The West or the rest of the non-Muslim world will not care to understand if he drew the 'peacuful inspiration' or the violent inpiration - not when they're getting bombed and their throats slit. The fact that he was inspired by Islam is enough.

As I said non-Muslims do not take suggestions and orders from Muslims. They will use terms that they feel are right. In thier view it is perfectly correct to call somebody who meets the definition an Islamic fundamentalist.

 

[Samudra]

then he is no longer a beliver.

Not according to him.

 

[Skull-Buster]

The fact that he was inspired by Islam is enough.

interesting, how do you knw that he was inspired by Islam? if you say that he was inspired by Islam, then there must be some thing in Islam which inspired him to kill. can you point it out please. since you are so easily claiming that terrorists are inspired by Islam, you must have good knowlegde.

 

[joey]

This thread is becoming a mockerey, For those who dont understands from where terrorism comes from doesnt understands anything.

There is nothing to debate here because the topic is a misnomer with nothing in the table to debate.

Terrorism comes from Fundamentalism , fundamentalism is a phenomenon that uses religion to seek political identity and this has been proved throughout history. It seeks supremacy over others, which spreads communal hatred!

It is funny how no one has replied to my posts anyways, i hope suddenly peoples wont declare I won the debate because there is nothing to debate to begin with.

 

[Skull-Buster]

i dont knw how many times i have to post this but, any ways:

Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

on a separate note, this topic is not discussing the causes of terrorism. its to discuss wether its justifiable to use the term "Islamic terrorism" or not.....go and read my first post in this thread again.

 

[joey]

No Religion teaches terrorism, but any religion if practiced as it is given if it is interpreted with literal theology (which is what organised religions believes in, i.e. throw the book to others rule) then it spreads fundamentalism (because literal practice cannot be integrated into mass scale but can be differentiate on personal level only) which gives birth to terrorism.

thus whenever you try to integrate literal (x) using calculus, and the factor is religion, it spreads fundamentalism as it seeks political power.

 

[Skull-Buster]

your defenition of terrorism is incomplete. religious fundamentalism is a factor which gives birth to terrorism but is NOT the ONLY factor. other factors such as social and political factors which have nothing to do with religion also give bith to terrorism.

however, this is not the topic to discuss what is the source of terrorism, we are discussing wether it is justifiable to use the term "Islamic terrorism" or not.

 

[Skull-Buster]

you better read abt the causes of terrorism

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564344_2/Terrorism.html

 

[joey]

So your topic is only to discuss whether the name 'Islamic Terrorism' is justified or not?
Then why debate and make a mountain out of a molehill?

The thing is very simple,

Terrorism done in the name of Islam, thus Islamic terrorism, Terrorism done in the name of Christianity thus Christian Terrorism.

Wether the religion asks him to do it nor not is immaterial, material it he is doing it in the name of religion thus it is what that has provoked him to do that homuch mis-interprated way it might be, thus the name.

I mean c'mon what else do you want to define this?

What turned Mohammad Sidique Khan, a softly spoken youth worker, into the mastermind of 7/7? I spent months in a Leeds suburb getting to know Khan's brother. A complex and disturbing story of the bomber's radicalisation emerged

Many journalists who landed there after 7/7 saw its poverty and assumed that there must be a direct link to the bombings.But the more we learned about Beeston and its bombers, the more this hypothesis turned out to be a red herring. Although poverty and exclusion are themes that wound their way through the lives of the Beeston bombers, it is the internal frictions within a traditional Pakistani community in Britain that best explain the radicalisation that led to the deaths of 56 people.

This was something that the French sociologist Émile Durkheim identified nearly 100 years ago in Suicide: A Study in Sociology. Durkheim contrasted "egotistical" suicide—caused by a person feeling disconnected from society—with "altruistic" suicide, which occurs when "integration is too strong."

Gultasab told me that his brother had found that the traditional, community-run mosque on Hardy Street had nothing to offer him. The people who ran the mosque had no idea how to connect with the second generation, said Gultasab. They spoke and wrote in Urdu, and the only time they interacted with the younger Muslims was when they taught them to recite the Koran by rote—in Arabic.

The Wahhabis did things differently. They delivered sermons and printed publications in English. Sidique's Urdu was poor, so the only things on Islam he could read were Wahhabi-approved publications. Gultasab said that Sidique's progression to Wahhabism was reinforced by the fact that some of his friends, and future Mullah boys, were converting too.

(The government's official account of Sidique's radicalisation runs to a few paragraphs, and states: "after an incident in a nightclub, [Sidique] said that he turned to religion and it changed his life." Gultasab said that this was "bullshit." It was, he told me, a "gradual change," which happened over years.)

A second source of friction between Sidique and his family was his determination to marry for love. During the years of his conversion to Wahhabism, Sidique fell in love with his future wife, Hasina Patel. The pair met at Leeds Metropolitan University in 1997; Sidique was taking a one-year course to convert a business diploma from a local college into a degree, while Hasina was studying for a three-year sociology degree. Her family was from India, and she was a Deobandi Muslim—a South Asian Wahhabi-linked movement directly opposed to the Khan family's traditionalist Barelvi convictions.

Among those who study British race relations, there's an informal theory that states that 30 years after the establishment of any sizeable ethnic minority community, there will be riots. After Jewish migration into Britain in the 1900s, there were riots in the Jewish communities of east London during the 1930s. After the 1950s migration from the Caribbean, there were riots in 1981 in the Afro-Caribbean areas of Toxteth, Chapeltown and Brixton. And after the 1970s Pakistani immigration into northern England, in the summer of 2001, like clockwork, serious unrest kicked off in Oldham, then spread to Leeds, Burnley and Bradford.

On the other side, British fundamentalists and Islamists are centrally funded. It is estimated that over the last two decades, Saudi Arabia has set aside $2-3bn a year to promote Wahhabism in other countries. It is not known how much of that money has come to Wahhabi groups in Britain, but one major recipient has been the Leeds Grand Mosque.

I was sitting in his house for what would be the last time and we were going through the BBC script when Gultasab told me that he himself had become more religious over the last three years. For some reason, I translated my usual question of whether he thought what his brother had done was "good" or "bad"—he had said that it was a terrible thing several times—and instead asked him whether he thought 7/7 was halal (permitted) or haram (forbidden) in Islam. Only when a look of stunned surprise come over Gultasab's face did I realise that I must have been asking him an entirely different question. After a brief pause, he replied. "No comment."

Here, it seemed, was the perfect example of the division between two worldviews—secular ethics and an embattled Islamic faith. How long had Gultasab managed to function with these two conflicting positions fighting within him? Everyday morality told him that his brother had committed a cold-blooded act of terror, while his own Islamic theology told him that there was no clear answer and maybe his brother was a hero. How many thousands of young British Muslims are similarly conflicted?

It was the Khan family preacher who eventually revealed the secret behind Beeston's silence. The Khan family, and, it seems, at least a couple of dozen others, had known that Sidique was a potentially violent radical for at least six years before 7/7. In many ways, his transition from a westernised and Islamically indifferent teenager to fully-fledged jihadi followed a conventional pattern. The family's typical traditionalist efforts to stop him just made things worse.

In the end, the BBC drama was never made. The script was finished in good time, but the commissioners decided it wouldn't work as a drama. I was also told that the script was "anti-Muslim." But as we approach the second anniversary of 7/7, Beeston's story deserves to be told.

This euphoria is a well-documented phenomenon of suicide bombing. In the closing scenes of the BBC drama that never was, Jermaine Lindsay turns to Khan and says, "I want my children to be proud of me." Khan replies, "They will be." And as the four bombers move through King's Cross, Khan suddenly stops, turns to the rest of the group and says: "There are no goodbyes, only a lapse of time. We will see our families soon." The four then embrace and everyone moves off. As Khan sits on the train, the sounds of the underground fade away into silence, except for the rise and fall of a child's breath, his own child's breath, in his ear. He realises that this is a final test of his faith, and then, just before he blows the carriage apart, he sighs and smiles.

Read the full

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=9635

International Hertald Tribune : Ex-radical turns to Islam of tolerance

Read the Full in the website,

Now, with his book, Husain's personal story has become fodder for the percolating debate in Britain about how to combat terrorism, and how to narrow the divide between white non-Muslim Britons and Muslims from South Asia, Africa and the Caribbean. With the zeal of a true believer, Husain, 32, has denounced Hizb ut-Tahrir and called for it to be banned. With almost equal fervor he has upbraided the British government for being too soft on issues of Islamic extremism.

Some Muslims have called Husain,who is of Indian heritage, a traitor. Some leftist non-Muslims have questioned his get-tough approach. Others, mostly on the right, have hailed him as brave.

"The Islamist blogs are apologists," Husain said of his Muslim critics. Of the critics on the left, he said: "The left shouldn't be getting into bed with the Islamists. We've got a political correctness gone mad in Britain that says, 'How dare we white British tell them what to do.' "

It took him six years, he said, to free his head from the doctrine of Hizb ut-Tahrir. Along the way, he deliberately did two things that the group had forbidden. "I had to make non-Muslim friends, because they said don't do that," he said. He now counts several Jews among his circle, he said. "I joined the Labour party, because they say don't vote." He has found religious solace, he said, in the teachings of the California-based Hanson, a popular preacher in Britain, because his faith allows Islam to face the contemporary world.

"In traditional circles, Muslim women are not allowed to marry non-Muslim men. But in a pluralistic world in 2007, where non-Muslim men and Muslim women are marrying, you can't say, you can't do that," Husain said. "Hanson says Muslim women should be allowed to marry non-Muslim men as long as she can practice her faith."

I know it better what causes terrorism SB, if you say Osama is a domino effect of cold war, I shall say they need a reform just like the EU has undergone.

 

[Skull-Buster]

Wether the religion asks him to do it nor not is immaterial, material it he is doing it in the name of religion thus it is what that has provoked him to do that homuch mis-interprated way it might be, thus the name.

I mean c'mon what else do you want to define this?

there is a difference between someone claiming to be provoked by a religion and actually being provoked by an interpretation of a religion.

again, if i call myself a truthful person, and i lie, will i be a truthful liar?

 

[joey]

there is a difference between someone claiming to be provoked by a religion and actually being provoked by an interpretation of a religion.

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.

again, if i call myself a truthful person, and i lie, will i be a truthful liar?

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?

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.

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.

 

[Awesome]

my islamic xenophobia, or your BLANKET covering of all bad things done by muslims in one pretext or the other.
Any terrorist act done in the name of Allah and Islam is Islamic Terrorism.
The definition of Terrorisim widely available. The sheer number of beheading aid workers and journlaist, cuz of infidels is in their lands, it is thier lack of human sentiment, but then again you can blame americans.
tommrow asim, if you behead someone non-muslim or even muslim in the name of quran, allah or muslims. you will be branded a islamic terrorist.

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?