Islamic statements condemning terror

[Stratos]

There's some very dubious part in the Quran just like in most other religious scriptures. ALL religions claims they're a religion of peace, but most of them have a skeleton or two in their closet.

Islamic terrorists wouldn't do what they were doing if there weren't a political reason. Religion alone is not enough.

[Aerich]

Originally posted by Stratos: There's some very dubious part in the Quran just like in most other religious scriptures. ALL religions claims they're a religion of peace, but most of them have a skeleton or two in their closet. Islamic terrorists wouldn't do what they were doing if there weren't a political reason. Religion alone is not enough.

I couldn't agree more, Stratos. I tend to view most conflicts as a struggle for power and dominance (otherwise known as "political" ), of a group or of a viewpoint. Religion comes into it as a focus point for differences between groups, and also as a method for some people to control others. I'm aware that's a simplistic comment as it stands, but I don't have time right now to go into examples, counter-examples, and shades of complexity.

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: Agreed, it certainly has a bloody history, but that's largely because if Muhammed hadn't raised a makeshift army sharpish their band would have been hunted down and killed for their beliefs. I have to take issue with one point of yours regarding the action they should take: quote: the faithful of Islam should be ont he front lines dying with the Infidel Americans and British and others to stop the so called "People who pervert the peaceful religion of Islam"

Surely you're not suggesting they should have signed up to the war on Iraq for this privelege? Where else would they have the opportunity to do this if I've misunderstood you?


No, I wasn't speaking specificly about Iraq here. Im talking about the so called "Palistinians" and the "peacful arabs" in other areas where we see atrocities in the name of Allah. The suicide bombers who are killing innocent civilians, men, women and children are being harbored and sheltered among the "peacful people" of Islam....if they were all that peacful, they would turn the mad men out...Im just saying that if the people who are horrified by the violence and blood shed were really all that horrified..they would rise up together and squash the upstarts....but they don't...and that is because on some level they identify and to an extent approveof the actions being taken in Islams name.


I would also suggest that it is Muslims who are on the front line and dying because of these madmen. I would hazard a guess that a good 80% of Islamic terrorist attacks kill exclusively or mainly Muslims. Witness the latest explosion outside a Sunni mosque yesterday for example...


Yes you are quite correct. And yet we don't see the general populaces rising up to stop these attacks. Perhaps they have spent too many generations as slaves to the politcal and religious leaders to know how to fight for themselves...I really don't know the answer to that.


As for the wider question, I've read both accusative and apologist literature on the issue of Islam being inherently violent and I'm still utterly undecided. For every example of a Muslim that would 'conform' to Western views on civilization I should imagine there is one who doesn't.

The question is, should we impose our culture on them, even if we believe that theirs is morally wrong? I'll always remember the Muslim woman clad in the hijab who asked "have you ever asked a Muslim woman if she's opressed?"


LOL Actually the woman in Afghanistan who was polled while standing in line to vote adressed just this issue. She said, "I will still wear the Burkah(sp?) but now I do not "HAVE" to wear the Burkah...this is a great difference!"

Just a brief foray into the Israeli-Arab conflict to respond to your point about that: Muslim's saying that they want to kill Jews is not much different from some of the Jewish writings and ideologies at the time of the first Arab-Israeli conflict. Ben-Gurion's diary springs to mind for example. Definitely Muslims do not have a monopoly on hatred in that region, and you will likely find voices on both sides that would gladly wish the other dead. For each of them, I would imagine there would be ten more who just want the violence to stop and to leave in peace.


Oh yes you will find individuals on both sides with despicable attitudes however (and this is a biggie) Israel does not and has not ever declared their goal to be "to push the Arabs into the sea and to kill every last one of them"....a founding goal of the Arab League and the goal for all their offensives in the last 40 or 50 years. The isrealis are fighting to survive..the arabs face no such extinction. (note that I am not Jewish and have no jewish affiliations, these are just the results of my own readings on the subject...and several specials on the History Channel.

[/QUOTE]

You are on target with those comments Stratos.

[Azred]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: Excuse the possibly silly question, but are you a Muslim? Or were you just attending ceremonies for curiosity and to observe? It's something I've wanted to do (in the same way you can wander into a church for example) but I find the mosque far more intimidating and therefore have never ventured. If you got a welcome and you're not a Muslim, maybe I shall pluck up the courage.

No, not a Muslim. The mezzo-soprano with whom I was involved back in college had many Muslim friends, one of whom invited us to attend a service; naturally, we accepted. Not much different from Christian services, except no singing; well, one person was singing, but it was all Arabic to me.
If you have any Muslim friends/associates, tell them you would like to attend (even if only once); I doubt they'll say no.

Hint: take some house slippers or wear clean socks. [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img]

See, I'm not so bad after all. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

[ 11-04-2004, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: Azred ]

Yeah, I wouldnever have figured you for a clean sock type

[shamrock_uk]

Thanks for that Azred. And thanks Magic, Aerich and Stratos - some very thoughtful comments there. So much so that I'm not even gonna argue with ya Magik Well apart from this one point: You are quite correct in that Israel has never stated its aims to be to 'drive the Arabs into the sea', but I would put it to you that their aim was at least to 'drive them out of their land.'

A few mini pieces of evidence (because I really don't to sidetrack into another debate about this particularly; not in this thread anyway) to argue that Israel has always had an expansionary undercurrent to its policies, beyond simply the establishment of an Israeli state.

Three and a half months into the Palestinian exodus (which, like it or not, was done at the barrel of a gun) Ben-Gurion wrote:

“They, the decisive majority of them, do not want to fight us, and all of them together are unable to stand up to us”

I haven't got time to re-write this so I'll just swipe a paragraph from an essay I wrote:

The legacy from this partition might not have been so damaging in the long-term had it not been for the manner in which it was carried out. The massacre of 250 Palestinians in the village of Deir Yassin was a prime example, and Israeli trucks with loudspeakers drove into villages telling them to “run for your lives unless you want another Deir Yassin”. Whilst the frequency of massacres such as this has been exaggerated, virtually the entire populations of two major Palestinian towns – Lydda and Ramle – were forced out by the Yishuv's army, the Haganah, as a result of a direct order from Ben-Gurion. Considering that they contained approximately 50,000 to 70,000 inhabitants, the scale of the Israeli actions becomes clear.

The 'loudspeaker' claims were made by Erskine Childers, later to become Irish Prime-Minister. He did research after Israeli propoganda said that the Palestinian's left voluntarily and were even encouraged to leave by other Arab states. He found (and, according to the vast body of literature available, was able to prove virtually beyond doubt) that not a single order to evacuate came from surrounding states and that it was the Israeli's who were extorting them to leave.

And finally, Israeli military estimates at the time estimated that

"84 percent left in direct response to Israeli actions”

[ 11-04-2004, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

PM for ya Shamrock...as I didn't want to drag this off topic ...I know..an unusual move for me

[Azred]

Originally posted by MagiK: Yeah, I wouldnever have figured you for a clean sock type

I'm not. I am an unwashed heathen. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

[shamrock_uk]

Thanks Magik, much appreciated. Reply waiting for ya. Do let me know if you haven't got it, because it timed out the first time...