Good things about Islam?

Do secular people, who no beliefs in afterlife’s/God, carry out suicide bombings?


Of course, secular people do both of these things, but do they do both at the same time i.e. blowing themselves up in order to kills others because they believe it is their duty to do so.

The mere fact that secular people are capable of committing suicide and capable of violent attacks does not mean they are capable of becoming suicide bombers.


Yes many people have been willing to die in battle for their country, but suicide bombings are about an ideology (many suicide terrorists are not from persecuted countries, nor are they killing themselves for their country, but rather their ideology, such as the Saudis with 9/11 and the Brits with 7/7). There is difference. Giving your life in order to save lives is a lot different to blowing yourself up in order to take as many lives as possible. You don’t see the US soldier look into the camera saying “we love death more than the infidel loves life” like you do with the Islamic terrorist.
 
Right here you prove your ignorance to the larger global picture or to the broader issues going on in the middle east. It is very important to understand the situation on the ground in Saudi Arabia to understand exactly why so many suicide bombers are coming from there.

Again I suggest reading:
Dying to Win, The Looming Tower, and Journey of the Jihadist

All of which will demonstrate the far more complex picture going on. Nationalism is a complex thing. Quite frankly you don't understand it. Which isn't your fault, a lot of people are ignorant about this stuff. The problem is you use "it's all about religion" as an excuse not to do the research.

Again I'll point to facts like 21% of Hezzbollah suicide bombers from 1982-1986 were communists/socialist. There's a lot more going on there than simply religion.

- Matt
 
The Holy Quran requires carefull study, it is not easy to understand it is certainly easy to quote the Quran our of context as it is the Bible.



You would do well to get yourself a decent translation of the Quran one with extensive commetries, you obviously have an interest in Islam why not deepen your knowledge,

May Allah guide you to the truth.
 
There is no intrensic difference between being willing to die for a cause and being willing to die for a cause while killing others. At it's most basic level, that would be war. Large industrial and post industrial countries, such as England and America or India, do not use terrorististic methods because they have more large scale and directly effective means open to them- mainly resources, numbers and money. Historically, all conflicts that involve large powers fighting smaller, weaker groups have been conducted in what we now call guerilla or terroristic methods.

Now then, your basic premise is that no one who does not believe in an afterlife will conduct a suicide bombing. Which is patently silly. There is no intrinsic need for belief in an after life to be willing to sacrifice your own life in the effort to make a political statement and in doing so, kill others. You seem to want to forget that the trouble in the Middle East is not a religious war at its heart, but a political one. Yes, it is couched in religious terminology, but it is done so to cater to ignorant, desperate people who's only connection to global and historical issues is through religion. Which is the main reason why stabilizing the region politically will end all other problems.

You also seem to forget that all the current anti-Westernism stems not from religion but from nationalism. Historically and politically speaking, it has only been a short while since almost the entire area was partitioned up by European countries. Much of the region's current instability is due to British Imperialism as well as current politics.

You continue to ignore actual history and current politics in favor of simplistic interpretations. Once again, with feeling, addressing fundamental religous interpretations WILL NOT change the politics of the area. Creating a stable infrastructure which provides for basic human needs and basic human rights will.
 
Again, I'm simply stating that people try to downplay the influence religion has. Of course religion is not always key factor; of course there are other factors. For example, to my knowledge the Tamil Tigers who carry out suicide missions don't have a religious affiliation, so obviously it is their strong political views and perhaps their unwillingness to a diplomatic approach which drives them. I don't deny this, but largely, especially in the world today, religion does have a massive influenced in getting people to act as they do.
 
That was the question I was asking - would people blow themselves up if they didn't believe in the afterlife or that it was their duty. As I replied to Matt, the Tamil Tigers don’t appear to have a religious affiliation, so here is one group who do just that without such a belief. I don't deny the politics of it all, but in many cases religion is a bigger influence than I believe many will admit.


I agree the politics is the motivation to attack, however go deep and ask why there is political diffrence....

The perception of reality of George Bush derives from Christianity. The perception of reality of bin Laden and those like-minded derives from Islam. These belief structures influence their political views. So why politics does have an influence I think the deeper issue is how each perceive the world, and that is religiously influenced.
 
Look at the issue of terrorism from a general point of view.

Why do acts of terrorism occur?

The most likely answer and one I've found to be a truism for almost all groups carrying out terrorist acts is: Someone somewhere wants something [Whatever that might be].

How do these act get carried out ?.. By exploiting one general truism.. Belief in something.. Often god, but just as often an ideology; communism, fascism, even racisms.

The problem is that much of what we're seeing is essentially institutionalised behaviour installed into people by their own communities. It doesn't matter who were talking about, what sector of the community we're from, we're all subjected to institutionalised behaviour. When we get people who are then additionally open to the suggestion (and conditioning) they must act against their 'enemy' then we have terrorism in the making.

In general terms, professional soldiers don’t “hate” their enemy, they’re empowered with the job of defending a nation however, terrorism isn’t war, its “terrorism” and for people to conduct themselves this way they have to be programmed to believe what their doing is right and just, often acts of terrorism are directed at the civilian population simply because they are “soft” targets which attract big media response; the exact form of response terrorist’s , sorry I actually meant to say.. cowardly bastards.. wish for themselves.

Regards

Dave
 
no,

You would need to ask a scholar or better still do some research yourself, it would take some effort but if you bother you may learn something.

Quoting out of context is easy, any idiot can do that, learning and understanding takes effort and is not so easy to accomplish.

May Allah Guide you to the truth.
 
Do you know the context 8:12 is allegedly supposed to be in?

If so why can't you simply just tell me what it is?

Unless of course it is exactly how I posted it - a call to behead infidels, which is not unique to the Koran.
 
Why would you think the Bible is easy to quote out of context? You've just demonstrated your willingness to quote out of context with your choice of passage:

Three of the quotes you have chosen were from the OT: the whole point of the NT was that Christ wanted to change the teachings of the OT to enable people to be forgiven. He was not recommending following the OT barbaricism. The Matthew quote is also way out of context, and most of Christ's rabble-rousing speeches can be taken as political rather than calls to arms.

Besides, you then have fallen into a typical trap of 'Orientalism' which is that Eastern (and Middle Eastern) cultures cannot be defined, and therefore understood. This is a common thread in Asian culture from the Nihonjinron arguments, to the racism of the Chinese saying foreigners couldn't understand kung fu, to your statement that Homer should research the context himself through 'talking to a scholar' instead of explaining it yourself. Is the context really so difficult that it takes a trained scholar to explain it? Or is it just obfuscation? No wonder so many Middle Eastern cultures are so in thrall to atavistic shamans! Of course, that's a provocative statement, but it is an anthropological observation that poor and badly educated people's will always look to mystery and esoteric leaders over practicality and logic.

So, as a non-Christian, pronounced agnostic, and with a definite tendency in fact to take them to task on their idiotic beliefs, I've given you a brief context for the passages you quoted... any chance of you, a believer, doing the same for us for 8:12?

Another serious question: could you recommend a good one for Westerners/British people? I wouldn't know if the commentaries were decent.
 
i'm late, coming onto this thread, but i never thought that the way to win an argument was to bury your opponent with a load of bulk, cut and pasted directly from the encyclopedia. i have to admit, any thread that is trying to praise Islam as the benchmark of moderation and tolerance is lost on me, but at least try to digest and condense information, and spit it out. reading slip the jab's posts make my head hurt. it's not like i'm getting paid for this.
 
this is so much BS, why can't you people just accept that your special book promotes some bad ideas. among them being what homer said. of course not, its bad, so its out of context.
 
You mean like your inability to admit that you don't know enough about history to make interpretive evaluations on current events and your unwillingness to even self educate?

You can hardly throw stones there, son.
 
Ok, once again, you are taking a factor of the current Middle East conflict (religion) and declaring it to be the primary reason for the conflict. History does not support your statement. You appear to know nothing about the historical background for the current conflict and apparently refuse to even attempt to educate yourself about it.

The same religion you are currently harping on is also the same religion that existed during at least a century of religious tolerance and stability within the same area. It is the religion that existed when pagan documents and early Christian documents were not only saved, but studied. Where significant advancements in mathmatics, science and liturature were made.

Same religion, different political environment. Your argument has no historical validity. Period.
 
You're making an assumption based on my responses to tekkengods posts. Most of which are so uniformed they'd be laughable if they weren't so bloody sad. You can look at this thread alone and easily see an example of exactly what I'm talking about simply by perusing his idiotic posts.

He's done nothing more than to carry over the same monotonous posts that you guys seem to love so much in the religion forum. Sorry if I've trampled all over your sidekick - but if he bothered to post something germain to the subject of the thread then he wouldn't be getting verbally bitch-slapped with every post he makes.

For someone who's spot on in with the nature of their responses but a tad more diplomatic than me.... please review Wrydolphins responses to tekkengods posts.

As for my religious affiliation... I'm not really sure what that has to do with this thread? Oh that's right.... nothing.
 
Yes. I believe this has been addressed elsewhere on the thread.




Yes it does. If someone is both capable of killing themselves and capable of killing others, then logically they are capable of killing themselves whilst killing others.



I don't get it, is this a critique of the media? Are the U.S troops all presented as heroes in the media where you live? The first image I can remember in the media covering the ground invasion of Iraq, was of a U.S soldier firing a GPMG blindly into a village at dusk. When the camera operator asked him if he was scared, he replied: "Nah, this is kinda fun!" The village did not seem to be offering any resistance, except for the occasional scream audible between GPMG bursts.



I think you will find that religion is never the key factor in conflict analysis; religion is never the protagonist, it is a means to motivate, legitimise, and exacerbate the friend-enemy distinction. This role can be filled by any overarching ideology however; nationalism and fictitious notions of ethnicity (such as the Hutu/Tutsi distinction in Rwanda), all just as intangible yet motivating as religion is, have often been used to legitimise the friend-enemy distinction. A benign version of the friend-enemy distinction (perhaps called 'otherness') is present in all human beings, these ideological mechanisms simply bring it to the foreground and make it accutely felt.

This is why I take issue with people who define conflict solely in terms of religion, it is the most superficial of analyses possible and is not in the least bit helpful, except to those who wish to perpetuate the conflict. As Wrydolphin has repeatedly pointed out, conflict is the result of political circumstance. In the Critical Security Studies project, we acknowledge only one consistent cause of conflict: Insecurity.



This statement is correct when applied to many situations of conflict, both today and historically. The key is that you said religion plays a role in 'getting people to act' rather than religion is the protagonist reason for the action.



I think this is exactly what people on this thread are asking you to do. You need to look at the historical events that underwrite the conflict (once again, as has been suggested by Wrydolphin and others) if want to understand why such political difference exists.



I would argue that not only is terrorism war, but it is the perfect expression of 'new war'. I would like to follow up this idea more, but I fear I would move the thread completely off topic. I find your distinction between terrorists and professional soldiers interesting: You stated that terrorists "have to be programmed to believe what their doing is right and just." The same rings true of professional soldiers, and I'm not sure how effective they would be if this was not the case. Some groups that I would also define as terrorists are also "empowered with the job of defending a nation," such as the militant wing of Haofftopics. Professional military operations may also be directed against a civilian populace, and I'm not talking about unintentional civilian casualties, but civilians whose security is directly violated as a result of counter-insurgency measures (also a consequence of 'new war').

I'm not saying that the two groups are not at all different, I was just surprised by your points of distinction.

From your earlier post it sounds like you have military peacekeeping experience, I'd love to hear more about it, if you don't mind that is.



I have agreed with everything you have posted on this thread, except for this one point. 'Terrorist methods' does not just denote suicide bombings, but any method in peace or wartime that incites terror to achieve a particular end. The great powers use both sophisticated and traditional terroristic methods to pursue their foreign policy objectives around the globe (ironically, this includes fighting 'Terror'). Having resources, numbers and money is not particularly useful for fighting 'new wars'; these are the trappings of trying to apply 'old war' concepts such as the traditional realist theory of 'overwhelming force' to a 'new war' reality in which conflict is complex, multi-dimensional and asymmetric.



Lol, you're diplomatic in your own unique way Slip.
 
Originally Posted by Homer J Simpson
Do secular people, who no beliefs in afterlife’s/God, carry out suicide bombings?

Yes, its called psychosis and people can be programmed to do such things if they are susceptible to the conditioning which is why, not everyone within our community regardless of how strongly they feel about a particular subject becomes a murderer.

There are many levels or unreasonable behaviour and we're all capable of such from time to time however where most of us will regain our sensibility there are those who are capable of crossing that threshold, indeed I could draw comparisons with cult like behaviour and the social programming involved with the suicide bombers, its just a matter of believing in something[whatever that might be] so badly you'll be willing to subdue rational thought because of the conditioning (brain washing)

Murder, suicide et al are not rational acts of behaviour, training on both a physical and mental level needs to be undertaken for unreasonable and un-rational to seem appropriate.

Regards

Dave
 
Well, my wife is the product of a Muslim upbringing and I'd say she turned out pretty good.

Well, with the exception of marrying an infidel.
 
Brad,

You obviously haven't being paying attention.

If our resident Islamaphobes are to be believed, your wife is really an evil fanatic who just wants to kill you.

Sorry to be so blunt, but I felt you deserved to know.
 
Back
Top