Islamic reaction to radical Muslims

[ozymandias]

Ozymandias,

my people are being tortured and killed innocently on a daily basis.

And this current war started... why again? Oh yeah, terrorism. Funny how that works.

then the same west turns around and makes fun of our prophet.


How do you explain this?

That 'same west' makes fun of *every religion*. Deal with it like civilized people!

[Master Khan]

And again, he unashamedly supports terrorists.

Still going to claim no one in this thread is supporting terrorists?



Yes, those are terrorist, assuming you are talking the groups of *actual* terrorists, and not the military response *to* the terrorists -- but they are not the only terrorists.



I'm not sure why you do -- that is what I am asking.

Its not terrorist that wants to kill him , but Angry muslims.
If the terrorist wanted to kill him then he would have been death by now.

You think if a muslim becomes angry then thats it "he is a terrorist", which is not the case here.

[Roshina]

Can you provide a source that says 60percent of our Intellects are Athiests?

That is more like your opinion and fantasy.

Uhh, no, I don't have a source to guide you to, unfortunately, because I happen to know some of them personally and others online. And like I said, most of them don't publicize their choice to be atheist.

And note that I said 60% of the Pashtun intellectuals that *I* know; that's to mean that I don't know of all of them, of course. Perhaps the ones you know are different. But this is strictly based on *my* observations, which may -- and should -- be different from yours or anyone else's.

And believe me that it's not a fantasy, 'cause it doesn't matter to me if they believe in God or not; it matters to me only what they do for Pashtuns and/or the rest of the humanity and how educated they are.

[Roshina]

Ozymandias,

my people are being tortured and killed innocently on a daily basis.

By non-Muslims only, I suppose you mean? ... because if you are keeping up with the relationships between Muslims with OTHER Muslims, you should know that Muslims basically hate each other just as much as they hate the west and all kaafirs, no matter how peaceful the kaafirs might be.

I see NO reaction towards the atrocities committed by Muslims against Muslims, but everyone's against ALL non-Muslims becuase of the small group of anti-Muslim non-Muslims who have no sense of humanity, fighting not just against Muslims but against all others as well.

[ozymandias]

Afghans/Pashtuns had nothing to do with terrorism.

How can you make that claim when so many of the people posting in this thread have openly admitted their support of terrorism?

We are fighting against invaders, who have invaded our land.


So just because they make fun of other religions, we should allow them to make a drama out of our religions.

Yes and no. They have every right to do so, and you have every right to *request* that they stop. You do not have the right to demand, threaten, or terrorize them until they do. You do not have the right to special treatment.

[ozymandias]

Its not terrorist that wants to kill him , but Angry muslims.
If the terrorist wanted to kill him then he would have been death by now.

So your definition of terrorist is 'someone that succeeds at terrorizing' but those that fail at terrorizing are 'merely' angry muslims?

You are making up definitions and splitting hairs my friend. By all definitions one who attempts terrorism is a terrorist.

You think if a muslim becomes angry then thats it "he is a terrorist", which is not the case here.

Please stop lying about my position or what I have said -- it is not helping your case or this thread. I have stated until I am blue in the face that not only do I support the right to get angry, I actually encourage it.

You do not have to be violent and attempt to instill fear just because you are angry. I think you have a lot of growing up and maturing before you have anything constructive to add to the conversation.

[ozymandias]

By non-Muslims only, I suppose you mean? ... because if you are keeping up with the relationships between Muslims with OTHER Muslims, you should know that Muslims basically hate each other just as much as they hate the west and all kaafirs, no matter how peaceful the kaafirs might be.

I see NO reaction towards the atrocities committed by Muslims against Muslims, but everyone's against ALL non-Muslims becuase of the small group of anti-Muslim non-Muslims who have no sense of humanity, fighting not just against Muslims but against all others as well.

Well said.

[Roshina]

You are going off topic.

stick to the topic.

Who's going off-topic, me? 'Cause I was only replying to your comment. So if my post was off-topic, then yours must have been so, no? :D
And it's still on topic since it had to do with terrorism, intolerance, injustice, hating non-Muslims, the killing of Muslims (which I said is done not just by non-Muslims but more so by Muslims).

Hm...

And the other one was also an answer to your question.

[ozymandias]

You are going off topic.

stick to the topic.

That was very much on topic, considering the number of people advocating terrorism against the 'west' because of what the west has done. How can you ignore the others that do the same to you?

[ozymandias]

ozymandias,

We are not brutal warriors that want to kill everything on sight.

All we ask for is to leave our religion alone. Simply that. Nothing more nothing less.

All 'the west' asks for is that you respect our right to free speech. Simply that. Nothing more nothing less.

[tor_khan]

I'm a bit of a latecomer to this thread and am actually here by invite - thanks to Afghanlady for that.

I've read every posting here and there appears to be a clash between one of a self-declared athiest (what's one of those anyway?? - definition please) vs people on the whole who think that the Muslim world comes in for a unfair press.

I am not demanding special treatment. All we are asking is to leave our religion alone, its merely a request. Its more like a, Don't pick on someone on the streets for no reason.

I think that that is a fair request. Not everything is in the public domain and there are responsibilities that we must show each other in order to keep the freedoms that we cherish.

A request for special treatment -- which is backed by terrorism and support of terrorism if it is not granted. How is that different than a demand?

I'm curious to understand how the leap between a request to "be left alone" is made into a support for terrorism. I think that this statement is perhaps influenced by more than a response to the first quote.

I said that your religion supports and harbors your religion -- and this forum is proof that muslims do support terrorism, and a quick look at the news will show you many cases of muslim terrorists. This is 100% true -- your religion has terrorist members. I am not saying every member of the religion is a terrorist, or supports them, and it is a low down dirty move to imply I did.

I'll take my words back when you prove that not a single terrorist, ever, was muslim, and that no muslim, ever, supported terrorism.

You may have to take back your words, because if Master Khan can make emotive statements, here's a classic example of one made by someone who claims to see things objectively.

I detect a slightly desperate sense of the contributor wanting to distance themselves from Muslims with the overuse of the personal possessive pronoun "Your" e.g. Your Religion. In saying "your religion", the writer, is implying that the religion in question here - Islam - is not his - and therefore he has nothing to do with terrorists.

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.

Ozy

Freedom of Speech does not mean freedom of character assasination. You may diasgree with certain actions or views of Muhammad or even refute all of them,you may also express your disagreement in an academic style but it is immoral to humiliate someone based on difference of opinion.

...

Muhammad has intellectual fans both in orient and occident. Personalites like H.G.Wells,Micheal Hart,M.N.Roy,Gandhi etc all have paid tributes to him.

Right. Most of us are willing to defend the principle of freedom of speech, but in order for it to mean anything, it will come with boundaries. Can we say anything and do anything all in the public domain? How many of us are willing to defend every aspect of freedom? For example, take an image of someone you know and love - is it then ok for someone else to photoshop their faces, stick them on a naked body and post it up to the internet? It's freedom, but are we willing to defend it?

[ozymandias]

^how do you explain freedom of speech?

I explain it as the universal human right, as acknowledged in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

It is the right to free political or religious speech that all human beings have. They have the right to speech freely without fear of reprisal, as long as they are not using their free speech in the commission of a crime.

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." -- Article 19, Universal Declaration of Human Rights



The countries in dark green have all agreed and ratified the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which defines the right of freedom of speech as : "the right to hold opinions without interference. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression".

It's a pretty darn simply concept -- no matter who you might offend -- you still have the right to say what you want.

Similar rights exist granting people the freedom to be free from terrorism and fear of physical harm.

Since when is causing offence freedom of speech,intentionally.

The concept of 'free speech' is first formally recognized in the Bill of Rights of England, written and ratified in 1689, and this very first formally recognized, legal description of free speech does not place restrictions on 'offense', and in fact, I can think of no case where the freedom of speech is limited by who you may offend.


Realistically speaking, since free speech is a universal human right, and has been so even before it was formally recognized by any government, the freedom of speech has included the right to offend before humans even existed on this planet, and will continue to do so long after we are gone.

[ozymandias]

I'm a bit of a latecomer to this thread and am actually here by invite - thanks to Afghanlady for that.

I've read every posting here and there appears to be a clash between one of a self-declared athiest (what's one of those anyway?? - definition please) vs people on the whole who think that the Muslim world comes in for a unfair press.



I think that that is a fair request. Not everything is in the public domain and there are responsibilities that we must show each other in order to keep the freedoms that we cherish.

I agree whole heartedly. If it were a simple request, we would have no problem, however it is not a request -- it has been turned into a demand through the threat of terrorism -- which the majority of posters in this thread are supporting.

I'm curious to understand how the leap between a request to "be left alone" is made into a support for terrorism. I think that this statement is perhaps influenced by more than a response to the first quote.

It very much does include more than the first quote. Throughout this thread posters have made the statement that if people do not comply with the demand 'to be left alone', terrorists are justified in targeting people.

You may have to take back your words, because if Master Khan can make emotive statements, here's a classic example of one made by someone who claims to see things objectively.

I very much doubt that you can prove that no terrorist in the history of the world was ever a muslim.

I detect a slightly desperate sense of the contributor wanting to distance themselves from Muslims with the overuse of the personal possessive pronoun "Your" e.g. Your Religion. In saying "your religion", the writer, is implying that the religion in question here - Islam - is not his - and therefore he has nothing to do with terrorists.

Islam is not my religion. I have *no* religion, so the distancing myself from your religion is justified.

I am not saying that I have nothing to do with terrorists -- there is the possibility that I may share a race with a terrorist, or a terrorist may share my political, ethical, or religious stances. I, however, do not share the faith of Islam with them. Furthermore, I decry any and all terrorists, regardless of the justification given, the creed of the terrorist, the targets attacked, or the goals the terrorists wished to achieve. In any and all cases of terrorism, I state that the terrorists were wrong to do what they did.

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

No one is claiming that.

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



Right. Most of us are willing to defend the principle of freedom of speech, but in order for it to mean anything, it will come with boundaries. Can we say anything and do anything all in the public domain? How many of us are willing to defend every aspect of freedom? For example, take an image of someone you know and love - is it then ok for someone else to photoshop their faces, stick them on a naked body and post it up to the internet? It's freedom, but are we willing to defend it?

Yes.

[ozymandias]

But Ozymandias,

does that justify insulting and hurting someones feelings intentionally?

How many times do I have to answer this question?
Yes. Here is a spare 'yes' for the next few times you ask this downright asinine question: Yes. Yes. Yes. YES.

Why are you downplaying this issue, you and I both know the Muslim world is under constant attack, innocent beings are being alled and the one thing that brings us Joy and happiness, the west goes as far as insulting that as well?

Who is downplaying that? *IT IS FINE TO BE ANGRY, OFFENDED, OR UPSET*.

I feel like I have to repeat myself a ton of times for this to sink in.

Being upset does not have to result in violence. Ever. The inability to realize this is starting to become downright frightening. Should I start to fear that just because we do not agree on the internet, you might wish to do me physical harm? This makes sense to you? If so, I feel bad for the sorry shape your life is that you have been raised to believe that barbaric responses are appropriate when you are upset.

[tor_khan]

I very much doubt that you can prove that no terrorist in the history of the world was ever a muslim.

Is there is a misplaced negative in the sentence? The grammar is confusing.

Do you mean "no terrorist in the history of the world was .... a muslim"?

In which case, why the debate?