Sorry Aldebaran - on two counts actually. Firstly, with hindsight I was overboard there earlier with my post regarding you hi-jacking this thread. Secondly, I spelt your name incorrectly, not once but twice - and it was a genuine mistake on my part. I know my right eye has been playing up lately, but I didn’t realise it was affecting my spelling so badly.
Mehitabel,
No I’m not European with some Arab ancestry.
My mother was Belgian. I did the greatest part of my studies in Belgium (oh forget: I’m still a teenager… Must be a wonder child).
I have residence in Belgium, I have family from mother’s side in Belgium in France in Italy and in Spain.
I’m also a citizen of Belgium via my late mother.
That is my European part.
My Arab part is to be traced down to Mecca and the Prophet Muhammed.
I’m born in my late fathers country and have my citizenship, my family and main residence there.
Nevertheless you are partially right in the sense that when I write on message boards like this, it is usually my European side and views which are expressed in my writings.
And of course I’m very often in Belgium and when I’m not, I always have a line open with Belgium.
So I live constantly in two worlds at the time which is now and then driving me close to lunaticism.
Salaam. A
Thank you for the explanation.
Salaam. A.
I agree with much of your post, including the “what’s done is done” part, and not living in the past.
But I don’t get why you would consider an insult to your country a personal insult. That’s surely the OPPOSITE of democracy - because democracy is what allows you to disagree with and vote against your country’s government.
Eg: I totally disagreed with Blair’s stance on Iraq. I certainly didn’t take it as a personal insult when colleagues made comments or jokes against Britain for that reason. At most, I would gently point out that we don’t all feel that way, and we didn’t all vote that way.
But even on issues where I do agree with Britain, and others don’t, that’s still not a personal insult. It’s just their opinion, right/wrong, reasonable/unreasonable. Coming from a democracy, I understand and support their right to hold and express that opinion, at no personal slight to me.
There’s a difference between my country and my government (and its policies). I can easily accept criticism of my government - God knows I do it enough myself - but the poster I was responding to seemed to imply that my country was inherently evil, and that it would be better if it didn’t exist. That I can take personally, because my country is not my government, it’s me, personally, along with all my fellow citizens.
That’s not to say that you can’t say bad things about Israelis, as a people… but it’s problematic. It’s one of those things that insiders do all the time (remember, we’re Jews - the most intensely self-critical race on the planet), but outsiders should take care. There’s a yhin line between that kind of criticism and actual racism, and it’s often hard to tell where the speaker stands.
Alessan,
Attributing words or intentions to other posters while they didn’t even came close to express such is about as far as one can get from being honest and decent.
Salaam. A
If I was wrong, then I apologize.
You were wrong.
Apologies accepted.
And maybe you could reflect on it that both Jews and Arabs go back to the same origin.
Salaam. A
Aldebaran said:
Uh?
How do you work that out then?
Please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong but my understanding is as follows:
According to Islam, violence can be used if one is protecting one’s house (and by extension one’s country). In other words violence can be used as self-defence.
What you are saying is that Islam does not advocate opening hostilities - you are equating terrorism with pro-active violence rather than defensive violence.
Therefore, you say, terrorism does not exist in Islam because Islam does not advocate pro-active violence.
Am I correct?
Where (I think) you are making a mistake is that you are ignoring the fact that humans interpret things differently from each other. OBL and his cronies believe that muslim countries are under attack from the outside world and the US in particular. So therefore they believe they are justified in fighting back.
They do not see themselves as carrying out pro-active violence (which is banned in Islam). They see themselves as carrying out defensive violence (which is allowed under the rules of Islam).
You disagree with OBL because you do not think that muslim countries are under attack, at least not to the point where physical violence is required to fight back.
If you thought that physical violence was required then that still wouldn’t be terrorism because it would be defensive violence.
This boils down to the fact that one muslim may think defensive violence is justified while another muslim may think violence isn’t justified. Both however consider themselves to be acting within the strictures of Islam.
What do you suggest we call it then when somebody flies a plane into a building? OBL would call it self-defence and therefore allowable within Islam, he would claim it’s not terrorism because it’s not pro-active violence it’s defensive violence.
What is your definition of terrorism?
Hell, I’ve always known that. I only wish other people would accept it - both the racist dickheads in my own country, and certain neighbours who call my countrymen “colonialists” and “crusaders”, as if this wasn’t our home.
I have the genealogy of the family I’m born into as first source. I can also trace back using the science of Isnad and a variety of related sources. (These are detailed upto the extreme)
Not completely. Islam forbids actions undertaken against parties and persons not actively = in person participating in a conflict.
And that is exactly what terrorists do.
So that is why their claim that they rely on Islam as justification is easily refuted by anyone who has a bit of understanding of Islam.
One can hardly state that people working in the WTC or the Pentagon or those who were passengers on those planes, or not matter which civilians that got murdered elswhere, were busy with actively undermining or attacking no matter which Muslim nation or interest.
One of my friends died in the WTC. He wasn’t Muslim, yet I know for sure that he wasn’t attacking or undermining Islam or any Muslim nation. And there were indeed Muslims among the victims.
Which forms on its own already a case for condemning those murders within Islamic teachings and jurisdiction.
Call them whatever you want without linking Islam to it.
If he would say that in my presence I would give him a lecture about Islam and Al Qur’an. (See above)
Using acts of violence or terror aimed at civilians or civil or public property in order to achieve your goals or to make a point.
It doesn’t need to be in defense of an illegal cause, yet the use of terrorism makes the action itself illegal and moraly completely unaceptable. This counts for everyone, if the terrorists adhere to a religion or not.
I’m sure there are more complete definitions to be found in dictionaries.
Salaam. A
I depends on which part of the population you talk about.
It depends also if you exclude or include the government and its policy.
I never heard the word “crusaders” used in this context though.
Are you sure you don’t (mis)quote Mr. Bush here?
Salaam. A
I completely understand that the motives are pure. Whatever the motive, however, disclosing all of the US’s Top Secret documents would assuredly give away many national security secrets that we wouldn’t want anyone to have. Releasing our documents to the world community would compromise our security. I know that “It would compromise security” is an excuse used often, but this time it is real. I don’t want OBL to know that one of his closest advisors is a US informant. I don’t want Kim Jong Il to know that the US is prepared to offer North Korea economic aid if he would only decommission one of his plants. I don’t want Canada to know the particulars, times, dates, and methods of the United States’ “Secret Invasion of Canada [sup]TM[/sup],” AKA “Operation Hoser.” 
Screw the business interests. Get rid of terrorism.
Sounds good. Unfortunately, that’s not what you said.
Opening all secret documents would also compel your tribe to revealing things that no country can afford to reveal. Spies, troop info, contingency plans, etc.
I agree with your idea that we should stop doing stupid things in the ME. I proposed developing clean, renewable, domestic energy for this express purpose. Yes, we should reveal our broad strategy, though I believe we’ve already done that.
- We want Israel to be safe. It is, by far, the most advanced democracy in the region. (Though that’s not saying much. Of course, Israel could be improved.)
- We want terrorists to be captured/arrested/killed.
- We now know that we must be proactive, as Middle Eastern terrorists have not only killed many of our Israeli allies, but have also killed a number of our own in the biggest act of terrorism ever in the US.
- We need to protect a source of energy, as it is the basis of much of the United States’ economy. Yes, I also believe that this counts as a National Security concern. Our country cannot operate without energy. Oil is a major source, at least it is right now.
- The Palestinians need a homeland. The cycle of violence has gotten too out of hand for too long.
I do not agree with some of the solutions the US government has tried to implement to resolve these issues. I do, however, consider all of them legitimate concerns.
On the semantics of “Islamic terrorists,” I think that, although Aldebaran is technically correct that nothing in the Qur’an permits terrorism, it is much simpler to dub these folks “Islamic terrorists” rather than “Terorrists who call themselves Muslims, but really aren’t.”
How about a compromise of “Ostensibly Islamic Terrorists?”
Aldebaran said:
Did I mention that I am related to King Arthur? Sorry, you’ll have to forgive my scepticism.
But OBL would claim that ordinary civilians are participants in the conflict since they elected the government and pay taxes and they work inside the capitalist system. It’s ordinary civilians who keep the western economies and systems afloat.
Ordinary Israelis are participants simply by continuing to live there supporting the state of Israel.
What are your thoughts on this guy’s understanding of Islam?
Some quotes from that link:
Armed conflict? Bring it on bad boy.
We’ve tossed this one around before. I understand your logic that a terrorist can not legitimately claim Islamic support. However, and it’s a big HOWEVER. There are people who call themselves Muslims who engage in violent acts on behalf of the religion. They choose “Muslim” as a descriptive term of themselves. The victims choose “terrorism” to describe the violent acts against them. The 2 words go together to define a demographic group of people.
To use the term “Islamic terrorist” is to acknowledge that the people involved believe themselves Muslims, and the acts of violence are the result of terrorism based on their belief that it is religiously sanctioned.
Magiver,
That is beside the point.
I can say that I’m Christian, become some lunatic who claims to have justification for killing innocent people in the Bible and them claim I act according the teachings of Christianity.
That doesn’t mean I’m a “Christian Terrorist” since this term would as impossible to use as the term Islamic Terrorist is.
There is no “however” involved. It is as impossible to be an Islamic terrorist as it is impossible to be an Islamic Christian.
Salaam. A
Jojo,
I’m not going to debate my genealogy here.
And I’m sorry, but I don’t have time to read for an hour or so some lengthy article written by someone I never heard of before. The more since it is to be found on some website.
Why do you think it has any authority?
Salaam. A
With that logic there was never a Christian Crusade.
I present 2 examples of Christians:
Timothy Mcveigh blew up a building in Oklahoma City killing hundreds of people in a terrorist attack. He never sighted his belief in God as a driving force or even mentioned God. There is no connection to Christianity.
Paul Hill murdered an Abortion doctor and was just executed today for it. He made his beliefs clear:
*“I expect a great reward in heaven,” he said in an interview Tuesday, during which he was cheerful, often smiling. “I am looking forward to glory.”
Hill suggested others should take up his violent cause.*
There was a clear connection to Christianity in his eyes.
Do his words sound familiar? They are almost exactly the same words of Muslim terrorists.
I agree that one person does not make a terrorist organization. However, 1,000 people acting together do. And if they specifically associate their religion as a reason for their actions then that is demographic identity. Osama Bin Ladin is a Muslim, His followers are Muslims. Hamas, Al Queda, and a dozen other organizations with the same philosophy are all Muslims. If you walked up to them and said they weren’t Muslims you would certainly get an argument.
Nobody on this board associates Islam with terrorism. Nobody with any brains associates Islam with terrorism. However. Everybody, including Muslims, associates Bin Laden, Hamas and the all the other organizations as having a common denominator, and that is Islam.
Make no mistake, the Crusaders were Christians. They killed maimed and destroyed in the name of Christianity. They were not very Christian-like, but they were surely Christians.
Heav’n but the Vision of fulfill’d Desire.
And Hell the Shadow from a Soul on fire.
Aldebaran said:
Oh ok, whatever you say, chief.
I’m just a wee bit sceptical that you think you can trace your family tree back 1400 years. If you can then you’re the only person in the world who can (apart from maybe the Queen of England).
I think that’s kinda the idea of this forum. It’s called Great Debates. The idea is that I put forward a statement and you either refute it or concede the point.
And it’s not that long - only one page.
I don’t particularly, I just asked you what your thoughts were.
My question is simple - is he right that the final stage of Jihad is armed conflict?
A yes or no answer will suffice.
He rationalises it thusly:
What he seems to be saying is that once the muslim umma are strong enough then they should wage war against everyone else in order to force islam on them.
Personally I don’t think the muslim umma will ever be strong enough to defeat the rest of the world in a military conflict so the argument is moot.
But I’m just interested to know whether your religion teaches that ultimately muslims should impose islam on people by force. If it does teach this then can you see that there is a danger that some wrong-headed people (like OBL) will take this as a green light to commit acts of terrorism?
OBL probably thinks he’s done the other eight stages of Jihad and is ready to press on with the military conflict bit.
I would not be a muslim myself (for about 1000 reasons which I’ll list if you like) but I can respect people who do choose to be muslim. I have no particular problem with islam or any other religion as long as it doesn’t impinge on my life or freedom. I usually consider it to be none of my business.
However if islam is proposing to wage an armed conflict against me (or my descendants) then it becomes my business.
Comprende?
This is defenitely the most importatnt question. If the answer is yes, we’re really in trouble. Because this would mean, that also those who - let’s put it this way - don’t mind muslims (because they generally mind their own business) have to reasses their opinion.
Aldebaran?