Can terrorism be justified?

Valid point. As well as the fact that there is again, no reason to kill the same religion if they have the same beliefs as each other. If they are killing me Muslims how is this a "holy war"?

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 2, 2016, Original Post Date: Jun 2, 2016 ---

This is also a fantastic point I might add

 

No, they kill anyone who doesn't agree with them. It's still persecution, but you have to realize that they kill many more Muslims (Shia and other sects, but Sunnis that don't swear allegiance).

Well, I think we've already established that they are almost insane in their ideology.

 

On your "holy war" statement, they are fighting sunnis and shites (Probably misspelled) so its like catholics and protestants murdering and burning each other.

 

In reality it isn't a religious war. It's people using religion to gain power.

 

Congraultions, @Deinen ! Thank you for contributing to our internet 'Watch List'. You have been added to our systems.

Sincerely,

The NSA.

 

It's a war for power, gaz, petrol and land...
Religion has nothing to do with this whole thing

 

Jihadi John -- An immigrant to the UK, arriving at the age of 6. Someone who was educated at the 'Quintin Kynaston Community Academy' in St John's Wood, north London. Who was reported a "reasonably hardworking" and "quiet" young man. He graduated from the University of Westminster in 2009.

Do you think that this man saw the political grievances of fellow Muslims in the Middle East and thought to himself... "Yeah. I do think it's a good idea to indiscriminately slice off the heads of innocent men and women. This makes me want to slaughter hundreds of people in the most savage death-cult in recent memory, becoming the posterboy for Islamic terrorism."?

Where are the other forms of ISIS throughout history, if this is just an expression of the fight over land and resources? Why are terror attacks always reliably from adherents to the Islamic faith?

When an avowed racist goes into a black church and shoots a bunch of black people, we don't usually question his motives. We take him as his word, having seen his actions, and attribute racism as the cause. But when religion is involved, it seems as if people will do anything to deflect blame away from it. Why?

A group of men gun down artists that caricature their prophet. They specifically target people that criticize their faith, screaming 'Allahu Akbar' (praise be to god) in the streets. When later questioned, both the perpetrators as well as many religious authorities worldwide ascribe religious motives to the attackers. There are even swathes of text in their holy books to support such actions. How can you see this, and come to the conclusion that religion played no role in their actions?

 

Nobody is saying that, but Islam itself is not the sole reason. Islam in itself is not a promotion of terrorism. It is a vehicle being used to motivate people to take action that benefits a geopolitical force.

In the 90s the IRA was the Al-Qaeda of the world. Nobody thought that Catholicism or Protestantism was the reason.

 

I wouldn't think about blaming Islam if a group of Muslims decided to steal money from a bank. Because their actions almost certainly arn't religiously motivated. The same cannot be said for an overwhelming majority of religious terrorism.

Can you point me to 1 single thing that ISIS does, that isn't condoned/promoted in the Islamic scripture? Is there a good reason as to why Saudi law and ISIS law are so similar?

I've never claimed that it's solely religious. Primarily, I believe so.

If I could cite you sections of the Q'uran that command you to destroy non-believers, would you concede that it promotes terrorism? What if I could cite passages that condoned violence as a means to promote Islam, the benefits of martyrdom?

I don't follow your analogy. Claiming a nationalistic ideology was to blame for the actions of the IRA would be completely justified. In this instance, with Islamic terrorism and ISIS, it's a religious ideology.

 

Do you think mass genocide, ethnic cleansing, or racism can be justified?

 

• Qur'an 2:257 - “There shall be no compulsion in religion.”
• Qur’an 6:151 says, “and do not kill a soul that God has made sacrosanct, save lawfully.” (i.e. murder is forbidden but the death penalty imposed by the state for a crime is permitted).
  
• Qur’an 5:53 says, “… whoso kills a soul, unless it be for murder or for wreaking corruption in the land, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind; and he who saves a life, it shall be as if he had given life to all mankind.”
  
• Quran 5:69, “Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and the Christians, and those Sabeaans, whoso believes in God and the Last Day, and works righteousness–their wage waits them with their Lord, and no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow.”
  
• Quran 5:82. ” . . . and you will find the nearest in love to the believers [Muslims] those who say: ‘We are Christians.’ That is because amongst them are priests and monks, and they are not proud.”
  
• Quran 5:2 "Do not let your hatred of a people incite you to aggression."
  
• Quran 5:8 "And do not let ill-will towards any folk incite you so that you swerve from dealing justly. Be just; that is nearest to heedfulness"
  
• Quran 16:90 God commands justice and doing good and giving to relatives. AndHe forbids indecency and doing wrong and tyranny. He warns you so that hopefully you will pay heed.
  
• Qur’an 22:40: “Permission to fight is given to only those against whom war is made,because they have been wronged.”
  
• Quran, 2:143“We made you to be a community of the middle way, so that (with the example of your lives) you might bear witness to the truth before all mankind.”---> Not the extreme way, but the Middle path. Of neither too much nor too less.

These are a few examples, and I could imagine @DangitAnas could provide much more.

No, because of a few things.

1. Like the Bible, the Qur'an was written so long ago that the fundamental way it was read and understood is vastly different than ours. What this means is that the Bible is not meant to be read the way we read literature today, but shares a much closer relation to the stories of Zeus/Jupiter, and other ancient gods. It's a mythology and the words written are not literal, but contain a meaning or moral that is universally true.
2. You quoting me English lines from a book written in high-form Arabic 1500 years ago is inherently an issue, just like the Kings James version bible vs. the original stories in Hebrew. A lot of meaning is quite lost. For example a verse from above was given but it doesn't discriminate anything further than that. What we don't instantly think of is how fight is used originally, because this would give that verse very different meanings.
3. I'm honestly not sure when making blanket statements about a section of people has ever worked out or have been correct.

I can accept that the conflict in the 90s between those parties were nationalistic, and religion one, of many, justifications used to justify the hatred and actions taken by both sides against eachother. I think the same thing applies to the issues we see today and Islam. I see ISIS as more of a barbarian group, fighting for power / land / influence, and any of the other things that caused conflicts in tribe-driven societies.

Also in tribe driven societies, there is a very real lack of cohesive force to keep a people together. One clear cohesive force is their religion, and that mirrors the mentality found in Europe during the middle ages. Religion was what kept society together and going forward, and that is the same today in the Middle East. One downfall is that people can use religion to justify really horrendous things. I believe those in power in ISIS do not hold any real religious motivation in their actions, but their motivation lies with what has driven many men to such actions; power and wealth.

I do not believe Islam promotes terrorism, I believe humans are very adept at using religion as a tool to influence ignorant people. We do not see these issues in Christianity, or Judaism currently, and these religions promote "terrorism" and other horrendous acts just as much as Islam does.

 

To @TheDebatheist

No religion, over time, has promoted violence or terrorism.. tho history had shown us how many wars started in the name of christianity, judaism, and now islam, because we're talking about humans here.

See, most terrorists being arrested in France were people with criminal background (thieves, carjackers, armed robbers, drug dealers, banlieue gangs..). So these people were violent, before even turning into Islamists.. They came from some really poor neighborhoods, they don't have a proper education, they were a social problem France couldn't deal with and now they're becoming worse than ever with some very wrong ideologies controlling them. If you were a criminal with no futur, everything you see in life was black in black that at some point you stopped caring and you could do anything, just imagine how many people are like that (if you need a number go check for those who commit suicide) So if you just needed a getaway plan, you hated yoursekf hated your life you felt so useless then I came to you and told you "My brother this life isn't meant to be eternal, you can erase all your mistakes with only one thing".. I mean, you're desperate, you never read Quran or understood it, you were a bad person and now you were given the opportunity to change it all, would you say no to my offer? only someone who knows the true islam would say no! but as the criminal you were you'd be happy and smiling and you'd think it's finally over, you'll be so escited to accomplish that thing I am gonna tell you..
This is how ISIS choose its soldier in Europe, it targets the criminals, non educated, desperate people, psychos.. this is why those people bomb themselves in the name of an Islam they really know little about..

so to get back to my point, religions are just religions.. it depends on what you bring to it. i don't know if you ever saw that before, but ISIS that are fighting in the middle east today, most of them aren't local people, liek most of them are people who escaped their natural countries because they were treated as criminals there. they escaped France to join ISIS not for the glory of Islam but to build something new, they needed somewhere where they're unknown where they can start from dust..

and to create a total new STATE you need not only soldiers, but people with wealth and people seeking power.. that's why I said that this whole thing is about land power gaz and petrol.. why are ISIS fighting muslims if they were muslims? and don't tell me about that sunny/chiaa story because i know better about it, and when i hear that ISIS claims to be sunnist but then sell petrol to russia that are fighting side to side with bachar in syria with iranian help.. no the whole sunnist/chi'iit story doesn't make any sense and that's what confirm it's all about gaz petrol and land..

Edit: Excuse my english i tried to focus more on the message than the language..

 

These are a few examples, and I could imagine Anas could provide much more.

Do you know of the principle Naskh?

Not to mention, many of these are incredibly ambiguous. What constitutes "good" or "innocent"? In the eyes of an Islamist, almost every non-Muslim isn't.

No, because of a few things.

Then I think we're done here. With one hand, you ascribe the "positive" passages you list to the Q'uran. With the other, when "negative" passages crop up? You're all too quick to whip out the apologetics. You're having it both ways. When it's seemingly peaceful? Sure, you cite it. When it's seemingly violent? We get reams of excuses.

You literally just quoted the Q'uran while ignoring the fact that it was [1] "written so long ago", [2] that you quoted it in English, while also [3] making blanket statements. Could you explain how this isn't a contradiction?

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 3, 2016, Original Post Date: Jun 3, 2016 ---

This is so factually incorrect, I don't think it's worth a conversation here.

One could easily just say, "Nazism never promoted violence. History has shown us that wars started in the name of Nazism. Because we're talking about humans here."

Ideologies promote ideas. Ideas influence beliefs. Beliefs dictate actions. Actions have real-world consequences.

That is all you need to accept, to see that religion as a causal factor to much violence worldwide.

Please, tell me... 5 things that ISIS are doing that arn't Islamic. Explain to me how burning supposed witches, and the slave trade arn't influenced by Christian doctrine.

Heck, you have the Pope disagrees with you, and demonstrably proves your claims wrong. The freakin' Pope! Saying that insulting his faith is akin to insulting his mother. And if you were to do so, you should expect a punch in the face. Where are you getting this idea from that religions arn't violent? They are ideologies just like any other, with the addition of a god. Some ideologies promote violence.

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 3, 2016 ---

Can you guys please explain how/why Westernized Muslims are so homophobic? Where are they getting this belief from?
https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/4e7frg/half_of_british_muslims_think_homosexuality/

 

I wouldn't go that far, you asked for examples, I provided them. Nor did I state them in any factual way, or in any literal sense.

Fundamentalists of a religion are not indicative of the entire religion.

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 3, 2016, Original Post Date: Jun 3, 2016 ---

What does this have to do with terrorism? I understand that you essentially loathe religion, but let's not turn this into a religion bashing thread.

 

Noooo Denien. Your examples of favourable verses in the Q'uran are invalid. Allow me to explain.

1. The Qur'an was written so long ago that the fundamental way it was read and understood is vastly different than ours.
   
2. You['re] quoting me English lines from a book written in high-form Arabic 1500 years ago.
   
3. I'm honestly not sure w̶h̶e̶n̶ making blanket statements about a section of people has ever worked out or have been correct.

Okay, that's your conclusion. What are your reasons?

I think the opposite is true.

If following the fundamentals of your religion leads to terrible results, what does this say about the rest of it?

How would you feel sitting next to a Buddhist-fundamentalist? Or an extremist Jain? Okay, now how about a radical-Christian or radical-Muslim? The difference here is not due to luck. Both are fair reflections of the vast difference between genuinely peaceful religions, and religions that purport to be peaceful, yet are anything but.

The more extreme you are a Jain, or a Buddhist? The less we have to worry about you as a society. The complete opposition is true for Islam and Christianity (Abrahamic religions). 1 guess as to why.

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 3, 2016, Original Post Date: Jun 3, 2016 ---

Allow me to show you where I'm going with this. I'll explain once I get an answer, I promise. But an underlying important 'point' follows here. All I'd like you to do is answer the question.

Where do 'intergrated'/Westernized Muslims get their homophobia from? Why is that the majority of British Muslims want to ban homosexuality?

[Note: We're not talking about civil partnerships or gay-marriage here. We're talking about Muslims desiring a blanket ban of homosexuality, period. Why is it over 50% with this demographic, compared to less than 5% nationwide?]

 

It's completely wrong to compare religion with its main objective which is worshiping God, and a doctrine that came with one statement: Germans are superiors and the fuhrer is the supreme.. That's very wrong. Nazism was made as an image of revenge and it's pretty normal that it was violent, and it didn't last long not the same for religions...

I, at first didn't want to bring Quranic verses, as you're not muslim I thought you woudn't take them under consideration.. I thought maybe I should just talk about logics and I brought the scene where ISIS kills sunnist Muslims, and helps Chi'yit muslims but then claims to be Sunnist, and I brought the social problem and where does ISIS go find their soldiers, all this to show you by logic how these groups of people are so retarded and has nothing to do with real islam and that they're violent by nature not because of Islam but man bringing Nazism? You're supposed to be the more logical guy here when you debate @TheDebatheist ... Dude, You want examples of what ISIS Islam never thought me? Alright then I'll use them verses and please don't be that guy who debate just to debate and be against something..

Quran 22:40: "Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged."

this verse was the very first ever in Quran to talk about fighting, yet it didn't allow all muslims to fight at their will, only those being wronged and fought have the permission to fight back.. When this verse came, Muslims were in both Medina and Mecca, but only those living in Medina had the permission to fight back and defend themselves and God promised their victory. Meanwhile, ISIS are the ones starting fights, they kill in Syria, they kill in Iraq, they kill in Lybia, in Tunisia, in Algeria, in Mali, in Lebanon, in France, in Belgium, killing children, doctors, journalists, women, civilians in general, muslims more than any other religion.. Please remind me when was this Islamic? Do you think this is Islam?

let's continue with the next verse

Quran 22:41: "Those who have been driven out from their homes unjustly only because they said, ‘Our Lord is God’ — And if God did not repel some men by means of others, there would surely have been pulled down cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques, wherein the name of God is oft commemorated."

So to fight back, Quran has put 2 rules, one you're driven out of your home, second you're driven out of a faith account.. If you noticed, it's not only defending Islam and Muslims, it's meant to defend every religion where people believe in God existence.. To add to this verse Muslims in Mecca asked the Prophet Mohamed SAW permission to fight those fighting Muslims in Madina, he answered them: "I have not been given permission to fight. I have been admonished to remain patient." Tho, at that time, Muslims in Mecca were more powerful than any other tribe in the Arabia they could just finish every other tribe, instead the prophet, that person you're all picturing into a barbarian conqueror simply said I am not permitted? They waited till being wronged to fight back.. Where is ISIS in this whole situation? Oh they're the one starting it everywhere, we saw and still watching the numbers of those being diven out of their homes in the Middle East by ISIS.

The word fight in the whole Quran never meant to be as barbarian as ISIS are, but to simply fight in self defense those who fight you. And even when you fight or start a war, you have rules to respect in Islam, you're not allowed to kill kids, women, elders, sick people. You're not allowed to practice mutilation, not allowed to chop down fruitful trees or burn palms. You're not allowed to slaughter a sheeps and others except for food, you're not allowed to touch either places or people of faith, we're asked not to destroy the villages and towns, not to spoil the cultivated fields and gardens, not slaughter the cattle, we're asked to never wish to encounter the ennemy but to pray God for security and if we're forced to face the ennemy we're asked to remain patient, we're strictely asked to never punish people with fire or burning. In Islam they teach us to do good if people are good, but if they commit evil we're not asked to wrong them, only God can judge them. Do you recognize any of those rules being respected by ISIS?

My last verse came later when Muslims ruled the Arabia under Prophet Mohamed SAW, Muslims were the majority, the superiors in the region, like they could just go around and tell people they either convert to Islam or they gonna chop off their head like ISIS do and most westerns think that's Islam, tho God send this verse to put another rule that should be respected:

Quran 2:257: "There shall be no compulsion in religion."

The Quran condemns religious compulsion, freedom or consciences remains free for everyone.. Either you're a person or faith (muslim, christian, jude) or a person of no faith.. Those who doesn't believe in God, only God can judge them and punish them, no Human has the right to..

Do you still believe ISIS goes hand to hand with Islam? I am muslim and I hardly condemn those barbarian groups, they're not me and they are not allowed to speak of my Islam. They're a group of ignorant, non educated, criminals, psychos.. I hardly condemn the ranked ISIS commanders because those are the real criminals, the rest of them people are used as tools, and will soon be left over.

Oh, I don't think I need to mention that ISIS made way, way, way way way, more muslim victims than any other group of people.. ISIS has nothing in common with Islam, if you gonna tell me they pray 5 times a day like I do and say Allahu akbar, well I pray 5 times a day to keep me, my familly, friends and related safe in a world full of insecurities when they just do exercice 5 times a day, I say Allahu akbar praising God, the one and only, Greatest, they say Allahu Akbar when bombing themselves in the middle of civilians, not only killing innocent is a sin in Islam but also suiciding, when you commit suicide you just got yourself a free ticket right to Hell on a fast private jet.

 

What does that have to do with this debate?
Next time just stay off the thread if it offends you or you don't want to participate in the debate.

 

Something right and reasonable is different in someone else's mind than it is in your mind. Of course we may not think it is right and reasonable based on what we think and know, but the terrorists have some reason to do it. Though killing innocent civilians in our minds is outrageous, the terrorists believe that their methods of getting their image out there is reasonable. As insane as it may sound to us, they think they're doing something right.

 

Do you know of and understand Naskh?

I'll entertain almost any position. But this notion that religion is never causal to violence? It really *is* like the idea that the world is flat. It's just so demonstrably untrue from 1 glance at human history, that there's almost no chance that I'll change your mind. Because the modus operandi of your conclusion clearly doesn't fit with anything I understand about the world.

Even Maajid Nawaz, founder of the Quilliam foundation for Islamic deradicalization concedes that ISIS is Islamic.

I'mma jump ship. Religions are ideologies. Ideologies promote ideas. Ideas influence beliefs. Beliefs influence our actions. Our actions have consequences. Unless you believe every religion promotes nothing but amazing positive values, what are they exactly?

There's a reason it's almost always Muslims committing acts of terror. Boko Haram. ISIS. Al-Qaeda. Al Shabaab. Hamas. Hezbollah. The Taliban. The list goes on. Endless studies showing that it's not cultural. That the more educated you are? The *more* likely you are to go and join ISIS. Western Muslims having incredibly high rates of intolerance and advocacy for backwards barbaric practices. While our Sikh, Buddhist and Hindu brothers and sisters integrate without so much as a peep, relatively speaking.

 

Yes, it can, but just about everything can be justified under a certain circumstance.

What if the government goes south and becomes a totalitarian regime headed by His Lordship Bernie Sanders(lol)? Acts of terrorism might seem justified to those living under his control, as they would resist him, and start blowing up things (dams, bridges, etc.)

Do I think Islamic terrorism is justified? Not from our point of view, but from their's? Absolutely. That doesn't make them right, though.

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 4, 2016, Original Post Date: Jun 4, 2016 ---

Think about it this way. People commit acts of terror, and they cite their religion as the reason. That's reason enough. If Buddhists started slaughtering people, and cited their religion as the reason, it wouldn't matter how we interpreted their holy works, would it?