Islamic reaction to radical Muslims

[ozymandias]

Like America does?

Well, as you believe, America has no god on their side.

If you are not going to put any effort into a well thought out response, why should I?

[akbarkhan]

Well, as you believe, America has no god on their side.

If you are not going to put any effort into a well thought out response, why should I?

The plethora of straw man & red herrings you have demonstrated don't substitute for 'well thought out responses', plus the last one was a loaded question hence similar question posed.

[ozymandias]

Given your outright lies concerning what I have said in the past in this thread:http://www.pashtunforums.com/showthr...ed=1#post46918 , I am choosing to not respond to you for a time. I see no way that you can legitimately misconstrue what I have said, and thus you are nothing more than a deliberate troll -- someone I do not respect enough to reply to.

That said, any other posters have any comments they would like to share?

[akbarkhan]

given your outright lies concerning what i have said in the past in this thread:http://www.pashtunforums.com/showthr...ed=1#post46918 , i am choosing to not respond to you for a time. I see no way that you can legitimately misconstrue what i have said, and thus you are nothing more than a deliberate troll -- someone i do not respect enough to reply to.

That said, any other posters have any comments they would like to share?

lol, what you are really saying is that you don't have the capacity to argue beyond schoolish tantrums.

[ozymandias]

I have a few comments to share, First of its sad to see the debate between you and Akbar Khan turned out that way, I did learn something from it.

But ya, Ozymandias I just feel as though religion should be an exception when it comes to free speech.


For example, At work, When you work for a company, You can not tell a customer, "Hey Nigguh, how may I help you?" They would say its wrong right?

It would be 'wrong' if the company felt it was not in their best interest -- and they have the ability to reprimand employees for failing to work for the best interests of the company. No matter what that 'n' word gets replaced with this is true.

I feel same applies for religion.

It is the same. A religion can 'fire' any of it's members that works against the best interest of the religion. You don't like what a leader is teaching? Reject them from your community. You don't like the terrorists? Reject them and their teachings and show the world that they are not part of you, and how wrong they are.

[Maiwand]

Today according to the American defintion of the words radicals, extremist and fundamentalist, they are actually the real muslims, who do not compromise on their religion. They adhere to their religion as the prophet and the sahaba did. But those apostates, hypocrites and watered-down version of muslims are called moderates and they are popularised by the west.

[ozymandias]

Ozymandias, do you have time so we can talk here?

I try to find time to reply to posts 3-5 times a day, 6 days a week (for now) -- I can make time.

[ozymandias]

Ozymandias, Has it ever occured to you that it is the west that is responsible for their reaction. I am sure Psychology plays a role in this.

The victim is *NOT* responsible for the irrational reactions of the aggressor, even if psychological issues are at play. Killing civilians, terrorist acts, and infringing on human rights is not justifiable that way -- let alone when people claim that your religion is the most peaceful and most humane one!

[ozymandias]

Ozymandias. Blame the USA for radical responses.

How so? It's the 'wests' fault that people are being beaten and murdered for exercising their human rights -- both in and out of the 'west'? It's the 'wests' fault that Islamic countries have repressive laws?

I don't follow that reasoning.

Its because of the west there mindsets have transformed. What is exactly are you against, and what does Islam have to do with this?

[ozymandias]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/africa/10307512.stm

Just another example of the rights being violated that we are discussing.

It is not enough for these Muslims not to watch the world cup, but they think that no one else should watch it, either.

[ozymandias]

^Why are you using the world Muslim for it?

Is not the word 'Muslim' an appropriate word to use to describe a member of the Islamic faith?

If you read the news story, two of the major gangs promoting this violence are Hizbul-Islam, and al-Shabab -- both described as 'Islamist' groups. A third group was quoted as stating "saying young men should not watch football - even in the privacy of their own homes - because it would "distract them from pursuing holy jihad." "

Furthermore this violence is based on laws passed when the Islamic Courts Union was in charge of the country and passed laws that 'It bans Somalis from all forms of entertainment considered un-Islamic under the courts' strict interpretation of Sharia law".


As I understood it Sharia was an Islamic concept/term describing 'religious law', as well as 'jihad' being an Islamic term concerning a Muslim's religious duties and responsibilities.

Feel free to explain how these terms led me to a false conclusion, but I feel that the article, if read, makes it very clear that these are people of Islam working in the name of their faith -- in an organized fashion, at that.

[ozymandias]

Those are not Muslims who decide to kill innocent civilians. call them terrorists,please but not Muslims. Those are extremists who are using weak Ahadiths to justify there ignorance.

I agree that these are terrorists -- but they are Muslim terrorists. They do what they do out of their honest belief that according to Islam, this is what they need to do.

[ozymandias]

Its not according to ISLAM!

It is not according to *your* interpretation of Islam. It has been made quite clear to anyone that pays any attention to the news, or even these forums, that not all Muslims agree.

Heck, there is a very heated thread on this forum where several members of this forum advocate the murder of innocent people in the name of Islam.

[ozymandias]

What do you mean not according to my interpretation? Like I said before Ozy, they are misinterpreting the Ahadith to justify there own wars for nonsense.

And they would say (and honestly believe) that you are the one misinterpreting. You are trying to invoke the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy here. Just because they believe something different than you, as long as it is based on the same teachings, writings, and books, and comes to the same basic conclusions, it is close enough to call 'Islam' -- even if it is for lack of a better term. It walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, floats like a duck, smells like a duck, and is born from a duck -- it's still a duck, even if it is a perverse mutation of some sort.

Islam does NOT promote killing innocent civilians.

Sadly, not even everyone on this forum agrees with you. Look up Sangar and Akbarkhan if you don't believe me. They have argued for page after page that Islam not only promotes killing innocent civilians, but requires it.

[ozymandias]

But its based on teachings that are weak. The Quran does not say to kill innocent civilians.

They disagree.

Obviously they will not debate this. They are too busy getting paid by the CIA to kill innocent civilians.

I believe it is against the forum rules to accuse fellow members of murder, or being CIA agents.

They are only 2 members out of a thousand +

But they exist, which proves my point. Not only that, but not everyone here is a Muslim -- and there are far more than a thousand Muslims in the world. If I can find 2 out of a thousand members (Muslim and non-Muslims combined), how many do you think I can find in the whole of Islam? Quite a few for a group whose very existence you reject.