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?
