Islamists abduct more than 100 girls from Nigeria school: Security official

[karan.1970]

The difference is that most people of other religions accepted their faults and brought changes either to their religion or social customs (like widow burning in India). That is the only way to solve any problem. The first step is to accept that there is a problem!!

The other issue is the separation (or lack there of) of religion and state. If state and religion are separate, the state can intervene in case any ill practices of a religion (like Sati in India ) infringe on fundamental rights. However if state and religion are mixed, then pointing out flaws may translate to blasphemy and execution.

 

[illusion8]

My fellow Indian members :

a majority of their victims are Muslims. Recently the Boko Haram placed a huge bomb in the center of Nigeria. They didn't send out any warnings to the Muslim community of that area to refrain from going there. They killed randomly and indiscriminately without consideration for religion or anything else.

That is true for all the groups that are fighting in the ME, Asia and Africa as well- Al Shabab, AQ, ISIS, ISIL. That doesn't mean they aren't fighting for a particular cause and is just another Naxal like movement. If it was it wouldn't be a 100% Muslim group and if their sole goal is to extract concessions as you say then non Muslims would have joined them as well.

You missed the part that Boko haram is aligned with AQ.

Your LTTE example doesn't make sense.

 

[jaunty]

Who exactly was being an "apologist" for the Boko Haram here ? I didn't come across any Muslim organisation or any Muslim member of this forum who put themselves out as "apologists" for the Boko Haram. In fact, at one stage, the Nigerian government accused Zimbabwe of funding this organisation. Zimbabwe by the way is a staunchly Christian nation, including its government. That was simply because Zim made statements to the effect that Nigeria should talk peace with the rebels. Now who was the apologist ?

Apologist was probably not the right choice of word and I wasn't accusing you of being one. My problem is the hesitation to call a spade a spade. Who cares where they get their funding from and what their ultimate motive is. They are using Islam as a tool to kill people and therefore they are Islamists. Your attempt to somehow equate that with LTTE is only laughable.

 

[PlanetWarrior]

That is true for all the groups that are fighting in the ME, Asia and Africa as well- Al Shabab, AQ, ISIS, ISIL. That doesn't mean they aren't fighting for a particular cause and is just another Naxal like movement. Id it was it wouldn't be a 100% Muslim group and if their sole goal is to extract concessions as you say then non Muslims would have joined them as well.

You missed the part that Boko harma is aligned with AQ.

Your LTTE example doesn't make sense.

The issue is simply that they are seeking concessions on mineral rich regions in Nigeria using the argument that since those areas are predominantly Muslim, then they represent the Islam and are therefore entitled to the wealth in those areas. Subsequently they came out with their own version of Shariah and a whole lot of other whacky ideas. The majority of Muslims in Nigeria do not support these nutcases. They recruit a large number of people from out of Nigeria and they are affiliated to AQ. Can we then conclusively state that AQ is the representative and mouthpiece of Muslims ?? I think not. These people are similar to any other greedy rebel group. Their cause is simply to milk the government using terror and Islam was a convenient label for them.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Yeah, so they claim. Their motive is simple...extract as much concessions for resources as possible using the Islamic tag. As I earlier pointed out, common sense would dictate that if these guys were genuinely Islamic, they would have knowledge of the concept of the Muslim Ummah and refrain from callously killing Muslims. Using the Muslim tag, doesn't make them automatically warriors of Islam. Therefore, by that consideration, the LTTE using the Tamil tag did not automatically make them warriors of Hinduism. Hope you get the drift

Wrong. Fundamental mistake.

The objectives of both organizations are vastly different. Though both are/were terrorist orgs - the distinction was clear.

1. LTTE wanted a Tamil Elam - period. Not a Hindu state etc. In fact Pravakaran and some others even converted to Christianity, asfaik. Boko Haram's objective is crystal clear - in their objectives, their manifesto, their motto, their targets, their specially chosen victims etc.

2. Boko Haram fights flying the banner of Islam. Now are they fighting for Islam? That's a tough question, but they believe they are. It matters not what you think. A dying man blown apart into two by a Boko Haram attack, or Christians or 'impure' Muslims slaughtered also won't be in a position to make the difference. On the other hand LTTE fought for land alone (using similar methods). But they did not fight for Hinduism at all. As for Boko Haram killing Muslims as well - well what do we see in the entire world? There is a concept of - good Muslim and bad Muslim. Some folks just can't tolerate a place without making it 'Pure'.

 

[PlanetWarrior]

Apologist was probably not the right choice of word and I wasn't accusing you of being one. My problem is the hesitation to call a spade a spade. Who cares where they get their funding from and what their ultimate motive is. They are using Islam as a tool to kill people and therefore they are Islamists. Your attempt to somehow equate that with LTTE is only laughable.

yes, LTTE was a loose analogy I admit but an analogy nonetheless. My point being that if the LTTE claimed to represent Hinduism since most of the Tamils in Lanka are Hindus, could we deem them to be Hindu warriors representing Hinduism.

 

[Kloitra]

Apologist was probably not the right choice of word and I wasn't accusing you of being one. My problem is the hesitation to call a spade a spade. Who cares where they get their funding from and what their ultimate motive is. They are using Islam as a tool to kill people and therefore they are Islamists. Your attempt to somehow equate that with LTTE is only laughable.

Are you sure this would be a correct statementÉ

If the majority followers of Islam do not agree, can the claim of a minority be acceptableÉ

 

[jaunty]

yes, LTTE was a loose analogy I admit but an analogy nonetheless. My point being that if the LTTE claimed to represent Hinduism since most of the Tamils in Lanka are Hindus, could we deem them to be Hindu warriors representing Hinduism.

Are you sure this would be a correct statementÉ

If the majority followers of Islam do not agree, can the claim of a minority be acceptableÉ

First of all no one is blamming all Muslims or Islam in general. Secondly if tomorrow some Hindus form an extremist militant group and starts doing holy war by killing people, I wouldn't shy away from calling them Hindu terrorists.

 

[PlanetWarrior]

Wrong. Fundamental mistake.

The objectives of both organizations are vastly different. Though both are/were terrorist orgs - the distinction was clear.

1. LTTE wanted a Tamil Elam - period. Not a Hindu state etc. In fact Pravakaran and some others even converted to Christianity, asfaik. Boko Haram's objective is crystal clear - in their objectives, their manifesto, their motto, their targets, their specially chosen victims etc.

2. Boko Haram fights flying the banner of Islam. Now are they fighting for Islam? That's a tough question, but they believe they are. It matters not what you think. A dying man blown apart into two by a Boko Haram attack, or Christians or 'impure' Muslims slaughtered also won't be in a position to make the difference. On the other hand LTTE fought for land alone (using similar methods). But they did not fight for Hinduism at all. As for Boko Haram killing Muslims as well - well what do we see in the entire world? There is a concept of - good Muslim and bad Muslim. Some folks just can't tolerate a place without making it 'Pure'.

You seem to only associate or link Islam to radicalism. You do realise that there is a huge world of Muslims out there, including Indian Muslims, who do not fit the tailored version of your Muslim? Radicalism in a population of nearly 1,5 billion people is bound to happen. Can you unequivocally state that there are no radical Dharmic followers who will not lift up a gun to defend their so called cause ? As I pointed out earlier, the mere fact that Boko Haram claims to fly the Muslim flag does not make them the voice of Nigerian Muslims. If that wasn't the case, a large majority of their fighters would be Nigerian Muslims and not hired guns from AQ

 

[Kloitra]

yes, LTTE was a loose analogy I admit but an analogy nonetheless. My point being that if the LTTE claimed to represent Hinduism since most of the Tamils in Lanka are Hindus, could we deem them to be Hindu warriors representing Hinduism.

A better analogy would be likes of Bajrang Dal blowing people up for celebrating valentines day and all. It would be a tough call to not consider them Hindu warriors.
Difference being there is no fixed Hindu ideology. You don`t have to act a particular way to be Hindu, so no analogy would be correct.

 

[KingMamba]

Are you sure this would be a correct statementÉ

If the majority followers of Islam do not agree, can the claim of a minority be acceptableÉ

Islamist is a derogatory statement that pretty much infers that someone is a psycho jihadi, I see nothing wrong with labeling Boko Haram as such. Now whether what they believe is right or now is pretty much irrelevant what matters is that they are willing to butcher people over it and as such need to be dealt with.

 

[Kloitra]

You seem to only associate or link Islam to radicalism. You do realise that there is a huge world of Muslims out there, including Indian Muslims, who do not fit the tailored version of your Muslim? Radicalism in a population of nearly 1,5 billion people is bound to happen. Can you unequivocally state that there are no radical Dharmic followers who will not lift up a gun to defend their so called cause ? As I pointed out earlier, the mere fact that Boko Haram claims to fly the Muslim flag does not make them the voice of Nigerian Muslims. If that wasn't the case, a large majority of their fighters would be Nigerian Muslims and not hired guns from AQ

If Dharmic followers would lift up a gun, they would be seen in the same light as the Muslims are, not to mention they are not few in number.

 

[jaunty]

Islamist is a derogatory statement that pretty much infers that someone is a psycho jihadi, I see nothing wrong with labeling Boko Haram as such. Now whether what they believe is right or now is pretty much irrelevant what matters is that they are willing to butcher people over it and as such need to be dealt with.

Exactly. I don't see why other Muslims should feel offended by that.

 

[PlanetWarrior]

A better analogy would be likes of Bajrang Dal blowing people up for celebrating valentines day and all. It would be a tough call to not consider them Hindu warriors.
Difference being there is no fixed Hindu ideology. You don`t have to act a particular way to be Hindu, so no analogy would be correct.

Well, the point is that Islam like any other religion does have scriptures capable of being misinterpreted for selfish purposes and indeed those scriptures are being abused by certain people including these Boko Haram monsters and the TTP of Pakistan. Can we then condemn Islam and all Muslims? The attitude which emanated from certain Indian members at the start of this thread was certainly indicative of such a shortsighted judgment.

 

[Kloitra]

Islamist is a derogatory statement that pretty much infers that someone is a psycho jihadi, I see nothing wrong with labeling Boko Haram as such. Now whether what they believe is right or now is pretty much irrelevant what matters is that they are willing to butcher people over it and as such need to be dealt with.

Then let me put my question in other words. Is it right to call them Muslim, when majority do not agree with them?

Well, the point is that Islam like any other religion does have scriptures capable of being misinterpreted for selfish purposes and indeed those scriptures are being abused by certain people including these Boko Haram monsters and the TTP of Pakistan. Can we then condemn Islam and all Muslims? The attitude which emanated from certain Indian members at the start of this thread was certainly indicative of such a shortsighted judgment.

How would I determine which interpretation is the right one?