Debate on the so called "Islamic Terrorism"

[blain2]

I have only said that the Muslims have as much blood as the does the 'civilised world'.

Nobody is morally superior here.

Agreed thus debunking Bull's statement "Muslims ( a section of it ) continues to..."

 

[Samudra]

Agreed thus debunking Bull's statement "Muslims ( a section of it ) continues to..."

Are you sure ?

If the Muslim world were to accept that then they can't complain about non-Muslims in the ME, conspiracies against the Ummah...no nothings. They're as evil/good as any other group/country/religion. And they have nothing to complain about in the context of Islam versus the world..

However I'm glad you've acknowledged.

 

[blain2]

Are you sure ?

If the Muslim world were to accept that then they can't complain about non-Muslims in the ME, conspiracies against the Ummah...no nothings. They're as evil/good as any other group/country/religion. And they have nothing to complain about in the context of Islam versus the world..

However I'm glad you've acknowledged.

Not sure what I am acknowledging here aside from the fact that Muslims alone are not terrorising others. They are on the receiving end as well.

 

[Adux]

If wishing for Akhand Bharat is Hindutuva Xenophobia then what is wishing for the Ummah?

 

[Samudra]

Not sure what I am acknowledging here

Oh nothing much. Just that the Muslims are terrorising others. Ofcourse, its not them bad bad Muslims alone.

They are on the receiving end as well.

So is everybody.

 

[joey]

I dont understand the topic of this thread.

WTF is there to debate when there is no TOPIC?

Islamic terrorism? what you want to debate? its bull to say this is debate because it aint.

Debate should evolve under one topic, debate can be 'Are terrorists of today created by civilised peoples of today' and vice versa!! not this way.

Read my very first post,

1> Terrorism
2> Riots
3> Fundamentalism

These are very different, Terrorism is direct result of fundamentalism, I daresay the Saudi wahhabi movement has more extremist ideology than a few suicide bombers, because it is the former that creates the second.

To uproot terrorism, education can only solve and fundamentalism needs to be taken down.
This fundamentalism exists more or less among all society but it is extremely seen among organised faiths, HISTORY proves this right from Crusades to now.

what happened to Gujrat is a RIOT, What happened during 47 is a RIOT,what happened during US civil war is RIOT what happened to 9/11 is terrorism, what motivates the terrorists into this is fundamentalism!!!

Adux your last part is well said, intellectual debate is quite hard thing to do.

 

[blain2]

If wishing for Akhand Bharat is Hindutuva Xenophobia then what is wishing for the Ummah?

I don't know much about Akhand Bharat but do know a thing or two about the concept of Ummah. The concept of Ummah pertains to the people in the Islamic brotherhood no matter where they may be residing and as such is not tied to a specific land. It does not deal with the idea of a "specific territory" as such, which if I am not mistaken is what Akhand Bharat (or greater Bharat) addresses.

The idea of Ummah does not entail conquering the world. It does suggest uniting the Muslims and putting more efforts into proselytizing in the non-Muslim world instead of taking over the world by force of arms (as is usually misunderstood and mis-quoted by detractors of Islam and Muslims).

 

[Awesome]

Islamic terrorism cannot literally translate into "terrorism done under the pretext of Islam".

When someone says Islamic terrorism, that spells out, terrorism done Islamically, which is wrong since the religion does not contain any dogma for terrorism.

 

[joey]

I don't know much about Akhand Bharat but do know a thing or two about the concept of Ummah. The concept of Ummah pertains to the people in the Islamic brotherhood no matter where they may be residing and as such is not tied to a specific land. It does not deal with the idea of a "specific territory" as such, which if I am not mistaken is what Akhand Bharat (or greater Bharat) addresses.

The idea of Ummah does not entail conquering the world. It does suggest uniting the Muslims and putting more efforts into proselytizing in the non-Muslim world instead of taking over the world by force of arms (as is usually misunderstood and mis-quoted by detractors of Islam and Muslims).

Dont get me wrong, in pure intellectual terms ummah is nothing more than yesterdays Communism!! the idea of borderless brotherhood goes against the spirit of human-genomatics. You cannot change human greed by law can you? so adaptive sorrounding is what differentiates a Communism to Humanism.

It is good as cocnept, as theory it has been proved that it seeks political aspirations, which goes against the spirit of it as well.

Akhand Bharat address to undivided India.

 

[joey]

Islamic terrorism cannot literally translate into "terrorism done under the pretext of Islam".

When someone says Islamic terrorism, that spells out, terrorism done Islamically, which is wrong since the religion does not contain any dogma for terrorism.

Agree....n................

 

[blain2]

Dont get me wrong, in pure intellectual terms ummah is nothing more than yesterdays Communism!! the idea of borderless brotherhood goes against the spirit of human-genomatics. You cannot change human greed by law can you? so adaptive sorrounding is what differentiates a Communism to Humanism.

It is good as cocnept, as theory it has been proved that it seeks political aspirations, which goes against the spirit of it as well.

Akhand Bharat address to undivided India.

Nothing to do with past, present or future communism in any way. If anything, the concept of Ummah is closer to progressive socialism which is still current and holds sway in many of the western European countries.

The idea of borderless brotherhood has been around for a very long time and predates the idea of nation states by many many centuries. That is the form in which Humans inhabited this planet and eventually will return to eventually (even Europe is already getting over this limiting idea of nation states now by seeking to unify under a greater body which allows all of the citizens of Europe to be able to claim the entire continent as theirs instead of a small country the size of Baltimore as an example). Not sure why others can't aspire to and succeed in this?

 

[Samudra]

since the religion does not contain any dogma for terrorism.

It is only a matter of interpretation.

To a terrorist - a book may be the guarantee from God that by killing another fellow human he may reach heaven and what not. To a saintly Sufi - the book may be the sign of gods grace.

 

[joey]

Nothing to do with past, present or future communism in any way. If anything, the concept of Ummah is closer to progressive socialism which is still current and holds sway in many of the western European countries.

The idea of borderless brotherhood has been around for a very long time and predates the idea of nation states by many many centuries. That is the form in which Humans inhabited this planet and eventually will return to eventually (even Europe is already getting over this limiting idea of nation states now by seeking to unify under a greater body which allows all of the citizens of Europe to be able to claim the entire continent as theirs instead of a small country the size of Baltimore as an example). Not sure why others can't aspire to and succeed in this?

See my middle paragraph, It seeks political leadership and thats where the problem lies, What EU does is under a democratic society, and laws based on humanism other than some of nuisances by Churches, What will happen if you create a ummah type system in a EU type place?, They'll breed faste, then tomorrow They'll demand a Islamic government on the basis of majority, next they will change history (just like communism does), all these has been proved through centuries and not merely what I'm saying.

Absolute seperation of religion and state goes against the idea of Ummah, the Ummah will try to install it and that will give rise to communal hatred.

No offence but a society like Us is vary hard to find, even with all the problems, American Dream is what I personally feel is a right society for ultimate humans albeit without the problems of some capitalistic practices.

 

[Awesome]

There by making the thread starter's argument valid that there's no such thing as Islamic terrorism.

 

[Ababeel]

I have used the term Islamic terrorism to point at terrorism done under the pretext of fighting for Islam. I never assumed or thought 'Islam= Terrorism', its your guilty consiousness that makes you feel so.

So I am using the term Hindu terrorism for those who destroyed the Babari masjid in the pretext of fighting for the cause of Hinduism.

The difference is that..Hindus denounce Hindu extremists..and so do Christians. On the ohter hand Muslims are symphatetic towards it.

That's why they elect like of Modi's again and again.
That's why the most religious Evanglist Christians are supporting the terrorist Bush in the pretext that its the command of the Bible to the faithfuls.