Islamic reaction to radical Muslims

[ozymandias]

^That is not Arabic, we Pashtuns speak Pashto and he wrote in Pashto.

Well then, that explains that.

Thanks!

[abubaker]

No one is expecting you to be quiet. They are expecting you to act civilized, and not resort to terrorism. Big difference.

read my post buddy i did not say to start terrorism.

1) Free speech means I can say what I want. It's a basic human right.
2) No special treatment for any religion.

() that doestn mean you have the right to offend any one you want, there should be a limit, now i dont know if your muslim or not but if, but if some one made of your relegion or your prophet would you just site on your ass and do nothing ''now am not talking about starting fires and busting your own loacal businesses'' but speaking out against such an act and condemnign it, but offcourse now people cant even do that because you they are labled as wahabis an alqaeda

() i treat all relegions with respect, but if they want to make fun of thier reletion they are free to do so, for as long as they keep away from mine


Not at all. You can not agree -- in a civilized way, and you are fine. It's only when you act like barbarians and radical religious nut cases are you labeled radical.

explain what a radical religious nut is in your eyes?


radical relegious nut? people are calling taliban radical muslim were i see them as nothing less then freedome fighters, sure they have done some horrible things during thier reign but at this moment i will take them over any thing the west has to offer.


From what I understand the violent attacks on modern society and modern changes to islam *IS* wahhabism, at least in part. I could be wrong, but that was my interpretation of what wahhabi means -- but this is second hand from a muslim friend. Feel free to correct this part.

its a lable the west likes to use against those who appose thier rule and domination of muslim countries, the correct trm here is SALAFI, its a group that follows the teachings of '' Muhammad ibn abdul Wahhaab'' within sunni islam, thier beleifs are based on the quran and sunnah and are against innovations in islam such as grave worshiping and so on, thats why people disagree with them.


yaw shir da, thori au speeni tapi tha sara di, chana ausama au chana khalil zad golda wi[samiullah tarun]

then what are you doing debating on an Afghan/Pashtun forume, could it be that you are one of those so called experts on islam, you cant even tell the diference between arabic and pashto

[ozymandias]

No one is expecting you to be quiet. They are expecting you to act civilized, and not resort to terrorism. Big difference.

read my post buddy i did not say to start terrorism.

It's the topic of the thread. Sorry if I offended you when I got confused and thought that was what you were trying to say.

1) Free speech means I can say what I want. It's a basic human right.
2) No special treatment for any religion.

() that doestn mean you have the right to offend any one you want,

Actually, it does. Well, it means I have the right to *try* with my *words*.

there should be a limit,

That would not be free speech then. That would be bound or limited speech.

now i dont know if your muslim or not but if, but if some one made of your relegion or your prophet would you just site on your ass and do nothing

I would not get violent. I might get upset or angry and try to address my concerns in a civilized manner, though.

''now am not talking about starting fires and busting your own loacal businesses'' but speaking out against such an act and condemnign it, but offcourse now people cant even do that because you they are labled as wahabis an alqaeda

That's where you are wrong. I have not once seen a vocal but non-violent muslim associated with Al-Qaeda. it is only the radical violent muslims and their supporters that get that label -- and usually they are only called radical, violent muslims.

() i treat all relegions with respect, but if they want to make fun of thier reletion they are free to do so, for as long as they keep away from mine

I treat all religions with the same amount of respect -- even though I have no religion of my own. As a member of the human race, however, I have the basic human right to say what I want about any of them, regardless of whether or not you approve.

Not at all. You can not agree -- in a civilized way, and you are fine. It's only when you act like barbarians and radical religious nut cases are you labeled radical.

explain what a radical religious nut is in your eyes?

I pretty much reserve that term for fanatical members of a faith that are on the extreme fringes of their faith. In my eyes, once you assume that you have the right to make others obey your religious rules, you are a religious nut. This obviously includes all religious terrorists, of all faiths, as well as all people that try to pass laws based on their religious beliefs.

I usually only apply the term to people that make irrational choices and decisions, typically because they are founded in their religion -- and the choices tend to need to cause harm to someone. Refusing medicine for your child due to religious doctrine will get you labeled a nut, in my eyes.

radical relegious nut? people are calling taliban radical muslim were i see them as nothing less then freedome fighters, sure they have done some horrible things during thier reign but at this moment i will take them over any thing the west has to offer.

And we have another open, self admitted terrorist supporter.

From what I understand the violent attacks on modern society and modern changes to islam *IS* wahhabism, at least in part. I could be wrong, but that was my interpretation of what wahhabi means -- but this is second hand from a muslim friend. Feel free to correct this part.

its a lable the west likes to use against those who appose thier rule and domination of muslim countries, the correct trm here is SALAFI, its a group that follows the teachings of '' Muhammad ibn abdul Wahhaab'' within sunni islam, thier beleifs are based on the quran and sunnah and are against innovations in islam such as grave worshiping and so on, thats why people disagree with them.

Fair enough.

yaw shir da, thori au speeni tapi tha sara di, chana ausama au chana khalil zad golda wi[samiullah tarun]

then what are you doing debating on an Afghan/Pashtun forume, could it be that you are one of those so called experts on islam, you cant even tell the diference between arabic and pashto

Not only have I repeatedly answered this question, I have never claimed that to be an expert in anything. I have been trying to pick up some arabic terms in an effort to be able to discuss and understand the concepts and religion of some of my friends and coworkers. Most of what I know is single words or short phrases that I can use to guess the context of a sentence -- I am far from an expert, but I find that the language you speak and think in can and does shape your thoughts, and the only way to fully understand someone is to think in their language.

[abubaker]

I pretty much reserve that term for fanatical members of a faith that are on the extreme fringes of their faith. In my eyes, once you assume that you have the right to make others obey your religious rules, you are a religious nut. This obviously includes all religious terrorists, of all faiths, as well as all people that try to pass laws based on their religious beliefs.

isnt that exactly what the american army is doing, they are imposing theire own way of life on an entire country and yet the call us fanatics, we did not invade the US and forced them to become muslims rather its the opposite they are the ones who are distributing pashto and dari bibles in afghanistan, but we are the fanatics and terrorists because we stand against them, mind you the very people your governments are calling radicals and fanatics were on theyre payroll and were hailled as heroes and freedome fighters but as soon as they found out they werent dance to theyre tune any more they decided to get ride of them and replace them.

[ozymandias]

I pretty much reserve that term for fanatical members of a faith that are on the extreme fringes of their faith. In my eyes, once you assume that you have the right to make others obey your religious rules, you are a religious nut. This obviously includes all religious terrorists, of all faiths, as well as all people that try to pass laws based on their religious beliefs.

isnt that exactly what the american army is doing,

... no? Do you not see the difference between insuring safety for the American nation while at the same time insuring that all people are allowed to practice basic human rights -- and a group of religious terrorists trying to deprive people of basic human rights?

they are imposing theire own way of life on an entire country and yet the call us fanatics,

It only seems that way if you expect the right to deprive others of their rights. You are still allowed to practice your own way of life, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.

we did not invade the US and forced them to become muslims

What exactly do you think the terrorists are trying to do?

rather its the opposite they are the ones who are distributing pashto and dari bibles in afghanistan,

Uh... no. It's not the American Army -- that is illegal, and if the Army is caught doing such stuff, they get in big trouble.

Besides, that's just that freedom of speech thing you hate so much.

but we are the fanatics and terrorists because we stand against them,

No, the terrorists are terrorists because they engage in terrorism. Stand against whomever you want -- just do so in a civilized way. I feel like a broken record...

mind you the very people your governments are calling radicals and fanatics were on theyre payroll and were hailled as heroes and freedome fighters but as soon as they found out they werent dance to theyre tune any more they decided to get ride of them and replace them.

I guess you have never made a mistake then?

[ozymandias]

That is the American Army Ozymandias.


Do you want to see proof of the U.S Army ?

It may be members of the American Army -- but it is illegal for the Army to do such things. Did you miss the fuss about the guns that had bible verses on the scopes?

"Defending the American nation"

I would love to see you debate that here in a civil manner.

Might need a new thread though.

At least we from Britain don't have such an attitude and actually 70percent of us now support a pull out for this very reason.

Did I say I did not support pulling out? The reason the war started was exactly what I stated.

The U.S.A has missionaries running around attempting to convert innocent people.

That does not make them members of the Army. Not to mention the muslims running around the USA trying to convert innocent people.

The U.S.A kills hundreds of thousands of my Pashtuns and then when you mock and disrespect our religion you say "Its freedom of speech".

I'm sorry, but what is your point? Regardless of history, it *IS* freedom of speech.

I might not post, but I sure did read all of your posts.

[abubaker]

... no? Do you not see the difference between insuring safety for the American nation while at the same time insuring that all people are allowed to practice basic human rights -- and a group of religious terrorists trying to deprive people of basic human rights?
() from whome and what basic human rights, you kill innocent women and chuilderen at night are you defending your nation from these helpless women and children or from the taliban whome havnt even seen what america looks like, plus you have not yet proven that 9/11 was caused by thaliban so the above statement doesnt work here, you might be able to fool some poor villiager but not us, as far your concerned huan rights only exists for your kind and not us thats you kill innocent women and childeren and then dig bullets out of them so that no one woul notice and then you try to cover it up


It only seems that way if you expect the right to deprive others of their rights. You are still allowed to practice your own way of life, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.

you are infringing on my right by invading my country and killing my people.



What exactly do you think the terrorists are trying to do?



Uh... no. It's not the American Army -- that is illegal, and if the Army is caught doing such stuff, they get in big trouble.

are you stupid or what they have invaed our country but they are not illegal, we are because we have been living in that part of the world for centuries, man you are delusional, word of advice stop watching fox and cnn and digest proper information

Besides, that's just that freedom of speech thing you hate so much.

and now you have freedome to kille in the name of terror



No, the terrorists are terrorists because they engage in terrorism. Stand against whomever you want -- just do so in a civilized way. I feel like a broken record...

so what would you say the american are, bare in mind that most of the afghan population is against them being the country

I guess you have never made a mistake then?

course i have made mistakes every one does, but not as huge and stupid as you do

[pir_Rokhan]

At worst, it is disrespectful, or libelous -- not terrorism.

Let me not use the word terrorism as you have copyrights of that word.You expect that one should not respond to disrespect,humiliation etc that too when they are muslims who consider the love of their prophet as a part of their faith while not worshipping him at the same time?.

The difference does not matter -- it still was not terrorism.

It was provocative and blasphemous and orthodox muslim [arab] scholars cosider death penalty for blasphemy.

No, that is what it takes to be in a free society. No one is threatening harm or torture if they don't agree with what free speech is -- they are just asking them to return the same respect they are given!

The so called free society guarantees freedom as long as people beleive in those notions which are considered correct by the power elite. The moment you say something against their notions the reality of their freedom is exposed.

Common sense. There is nothing in the images or cartoons that is a threat of harm, nor is there any physical harm caused by the images, thus it is not terrorism.

Terrorism, as I have repeatedly said, is not just physical harm [ which I condemn]. Terror, itself is a psychological phenomenon. Physical acts cause a certain percentage of terror in mind not all of it. The rest of it is caused by words, body language,social attitudes etc. This is what your free society does when they hurt the feelings of others by such provocative acts.


Please tell me -- other than the artists, or those supporting the artists, or innocents caught up in the riots, one single person that died because of these images, and not their own reaction to the images. I dare you.

How superficial can you guys get. Tell me, if someone shows you the nude pic of your wife, for example, to you , so this picture doesnot kill you ofcourse but it agravates the feelings of anger and hatred as a reaction and one might even kill the person. Multiply those feelings of anger and hatred by 100 and muslims feel [are indoctrinated to feel] that when they see any act or picture or show or video or audio which is demoralising and blasphemous. Ozy this is simple psychology, and it does not take the IQ of a genius to understand it.


... what? Please explain to me how an image is terrifying to you.

You are exhibiting the same lack of understanding again and again and again.

I'll be honest. I see no difference between an image of Tom and Jerry, Mohammed, Jesus, or any other cartoonified figure.

This is the clash of values and ideologies. Dont blame Huttington then. The clash of values and cultures and civilisation ,then is, impending. Thanx to the superficiality and lack of deep understanding of human nature by the "modern world".


WHAT TERRIFYING ACT?!?

Ozy, in your excitment, you even dint read the full sentence.Hold your horses and read the full sentence. I appreciate your enthisiasm for defending basic human rights but I dont appreciate your understandign of those basic rights.

They fully expected that response. That was the point of the cartoon. It is available online for free. I suggest you go watch it. They make a big fuss out of refusing to display his image out of fear of retaliation -- and they got that exact retaliation.

And in the free world, nothing is more sacred than free speech. The same cultural relativism applies -- only we are asking you to let us live in peace free from terrorism, and you are asking us to follow your ways and rules -- or be threatened with terrorist acts.

Well I support you on this. You may follow your ways of life and it should not clash with others' ways of life and if they do then find out a solution by discussing over the table. But the stubbornness of the modern world and the manipulative and exploitative nature of the elite class of the west or rest will not let you do that. Hence suffering is unavoidable. It is sad.

Simple, that's the way modern society in a free world works.

I am sure you know my response which I posted earlier.

Who cares how many are offended? If you are offended and don't watch, they stop doing it due to the loss of revenue, but other than that how many people they offend is not at all important.

Well they will use the same argument against your modern world. So you keep offending them and they keep offending you. Never let the grey matter be utilised in these affairs. They will be myrtors in the way of their God and your will be myrtors in the way of Freedom of speech.

I'll say it again: YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT NOT TO BE OFFENDED.


I will predict it again to you. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT NOT TO SUFFER [DEPENDIGN UPON THE QUALITY OF OFFENCE,IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER] AFTER OFFENDING OTHERS.


As a man with multiple MSes and working towards my first Ph.D, I am pretty sure I have one.Then again, maybe I should take the word of a man defending terrorism and confused by the very word 'terrorism' and go get an education. Or not.

I appreciate your multiple MS degrees but would have appreciated more if you had another thing which is not necessarily associated with multiple degrees. Anyway I was referring to the relevant education not just education though my words did not reveal that. Good luck in your PhD.

[tor_khan]

No misplaced negative. I'll try and rephrase:

I doubt that you can prove that not a single terrorist, ever, was a muslim. There have been many high-profile terrorists that were muslim, and you would have to prove that they were not.

... And there have been many high-profile terrorists who were NOT Muslim ... As for "proof" - I quote myself somewhat reluctantly, as it would always be better to cite another source, but I simply want to re-emphasise a point that may have been missed:

It's a very simplistic view.

Terrorism is complex, and most here including me, see it for the harmful, indiscriminate and destructive thing that it is. Nelson Mandela opposed apartheid and took up arms against the state. He was arrested and imprisoned for 27 years under South African terrorism laws. Until two years ago, in 2008, it was still technically illegal for Nelson Mandela to enter the US because US laws don't allow convicted terrorists to pass through immigration.

Martin McGuinness, First Deputy Minister of Northern Ireland and Gerry Adams (President of Sinn Fein) are two examples of high-standing Roman Catholic politicians with know IRA connections.

Not all known terrorists are Muslims - some like the Irishmen are Catholic. Others, like Nelson Mandela are declared athiests. Oh, and Adolf Hitler, is still not declared a terrorist.

I'm still not sure about your wording, but I think you meant that your starting basis is that terrorists are Muslim until proven otherwise?

[abubaker]

dont bother with the fool he is obiulsy stuffed to mouth with the cnn and fox bull****, the irish catholics who murdered so manyh innocent people in the name of catholcism are never refered to as christian/chatholic terrorists but yet they stress the word ''muslim terrorist''

[imb706]

Well, talking of reactions to cartoons, I personally think you have some serious issues if you're willing to kill someone over a simple cartoon. It's just a drawing.

[Master Khan]

this ozymandias is so ignorant.
We got the right for freedom of speech aswell, if someone insult us then we will insult them back.
The American Army kill innocent people but they are not terrorist, we get angry and thats it "we are terrorist", dude just sort yourself out, you are just a troll here.
Just go and make fun of your religion, culture and people and leave our alone.

[Master Khan]

Well, talking of reactions to cartoons, I personally think you have some serious issues if you're willing to kill someone over a simple cartoon. It's just a drawing.

It was more then a drawing, the pictures he draw was really insulting and disrespecting

[ozymandias]

Yes, but the U.S Army has made churches and foundations in Afghanistan attempting to convert Afghans.

US law prohibits this. Members of the military may have done so, or the military may have done so as part of a larger campaign to rebuild *all* infrastructure, but the military is prohibited from organized proselytizing, or supporting any one religion.

They even went as far as printing Bibles in Pashto and handing them out.

Again, not the military. I took a look, and googled this, and it appears that a church privately funded the printing of these bibles and then mailed them to church members in the service. This is *NOT* the military, or a military supported action. The news stories I found about this discussed the fact that the soldiers doing so were brought before their commander and had to discuss the fine line they were walking.

2)Ok. That will come later, It is interesting how you defend the honour of the U.S Army after many solders of the Army admitted to atrocities. We do need a new thread for that.


3)Okay. I do disagree, It started cause Pashtuns did not sign the gas deal with you Americans.

That old claim? Seriously? I guess we will just have to disagree on that one.

I hope you don't mind me just randomly logging in and quoting you but I just think I now have bones to pick.

As long as you don't pull a 'master' khan, and start ignoring the points I make, and selectively quoting me out of context, we are fine.

I am chuffed to bits however.

..?

[ozymandias]

course i have made mistakes every one does, but not as huge and stupid as you do

Could you please refrain from the groundless personal attacks? They are disruptive to any sort of useful conversation.

Could you please cite these huge and stupid mistakes that I have *personally* made? I am not personally responsible for the American country, 'the west', or even the American military complex, nor do I support every action taken by any or all of those categories of people.