Akbar

[Flintlock]

I think u never get my pont. U cant refer terrorism with religion. In our religion Islam Terrorism has not been permitted. So how can u refer the word muslim terrorist. Did u get the ponit?

Well, if the terrorist is a self-proclaimed muslim, then we have to call him a muslim terrorist right?

Islam may have nothing to do with terrorism and all may be well and good.

But the terrorist is still a muslim.

Another example: If the terrorist is from Japan, he'll be called a Japanese terrorist. Does that make Japan a terrorist country?

 

[Flintlock]

Well today they are not called this. Indeed what you have said is true but things have changed these groups fall under the old definition of terrorist. The point I am trying to make is that when we turn on the T.V today they say "Islamic Terrorists." Why do they have to say "Islamic." No religion allows terrorism and especially not Islam. Terrorists are just terrorist they belong to no religion. if they really want to win the war they must isolate these people. The best example is of South Africa. Where the government isolated these people and convinced the people that these people indeed were not like them and had nothing to do with them.

Look, the news channels have to give some identity to these terrorists.

If they simply say "Terrorists detonated a bomb", no one will know what sort of terrorists we are talking about.

These terrorists call themselves muslims, hence they use the word "Islamic terrorists".

Sometimes, in order to keep moderate muslims like you from protesting, they use words like "Islamic Extremists" or simply "Extremists".

I really don't think there is anything we can do about this. Religious extremists will always be identified by the religion they claim to follow.

 

[mujahideen]

Look, the news channels have to give some identity to these terrorists.

If they simply say "Terrorists detonated a bomb", no one will know what sort of terrorists we are talking about.

These terrorists call themselves muslims, hence they use the word "Islamic terrorists".

Sometimes, in order to keep moderate muslims like you from protesting, they use words like "Islamic Extremists" or simply "Extremists".

I really don't think there is anything we can do about this. Religious extremists will always be identified by the religion they claim to follow.

I am sorry but I dont agree. I believe terrorist are terrorist and belong to no religion.

 

[Nafees]

Well, if the terrorist is a self-proclaimed muslim, then we have to call him a muslim terrorist right?

Islam may have nothing to do with terrorism and all may be well and good.

But the terrorist is still a muslim.

Another example: If the terrorist is from Japan, he'll be called a Japanese terrorist. Does that make Japan a terrorist country?

If any muslim proclaim himself as muslim terrorist then he is liable for that statement. Islam doesn't have nothing to do as Islam never permit terrorism.

 

[mujahideen]

If any muslim proclaim himself as muslim terrorist then he is liable for that statement. Islam doesn't have nothing to do as Islam never permit terrorism.

With all due respect I dont agree with you. Even if he proclaims himself, in my opinion by doing so he is leaving that religion. Like I have said no religion allows terrorism.

 

[Nafees]

With all due respect I dont agree with you. Even if he proclaims himself, in my opinion by doing so he is leaving that religion. Like I have said no religion allows terrorism.

You are right. I'm also try to make understand that guy who mixed up Islam with Terrorism.

 

[Flintlock]

With all due respect I dont agree with you. Even if he proclaims himself, in my opinion by doing so he is leaving that religion. Like I have said no religion allows terrorism.

I'm glad you think this way.

Ultimately, your religion becomes what you want it to become. If muslims want their religion to be an extremist one, it will become an extremist one.

If they want it to be moderate, it can be interpreted in a moderate fashion.

 

[salman nedian]

I get the point that you are a devout Moslem, who will accept NO deviation even if its is good for mankind.

any thing deviated from Islam is good for mankind????????

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

No, deviation would not be good for the world.

But a rationale interpretation does help mankind.

One does not have to follow the rigidity of the Wahhabis and Deobandis!

How is it that people of all religions respect and worship at the Dargah of Chisti?

Was Chisti not a Moslem?

He, for sure, was not an American!

 

[roadrunner]

Thanks!!

By the way, if you want to know why Britain is wrong, check the immigration policies of Switzerland and Sweden.

They don't allow you to become citizens unless you understand the Swedish/Swiss culture, learn their language, and stay there for a long period of time.

That is the right way to maintain your culture and prevent conflict.
Thanks

P.S. Try reading up about Indonesia, Malaysia, and Kerala, to understand why you don't get any Muslim terrorists from these parts of the world.

Afaik, you need to take and pass a "Britishness" test before even being considered for citizenship into the UK. Do you think they translate it into Hindi or Urdu before letting them take this test? Problems of language are created by refugees or by certain marital practises. But the only way you can get citizenship in the UK is by knowing the British language and culture fairly well. Adding on a period of years to determine how nation-friendly a person is, isn't going to add much information unless you can monitor their movements, and certainly doesn't prevent later radicalization of an individual. Stop picking out dumb points to back dumb points.

Indonesia
Terrorism Havens: Indonesia - Council on Foreign Relations
Indonesia - Terrorism - Islam - Worldpress.org

Kerala
The Hindu : Kerala / Thiruvananthapuram News : All-round vigil can help check terrorism

the list is endless.

Oh and did I say that multiculturalism is short-sighted? What I am saying, is that the British version of multiculturalism is going to cost them dearly.

From what I've seen out of most countries in Europe, British multiculturalism is one of the most integrated in Europe. Compared with the Dutch, the Swedes, and so on.

Cultures have to develop a degree of commonality and understanding of each other, before they can coexist.

BS. India has a lot of sectarian violence associated with religion. They have had millenia to find something common and co-exist, but they do not. Failed multiculturalism is worse in India than anywhere in Europe from what I've seen. Gujerat would be very difficult to do within Europe, but in India, the perpetrators were able to get away with it and get the backing of the Indian government.

And one more thing: Kindly don't misuse the rep function.

You were very lucky not to have received a second helping of negative reps after your foolish comments that would fit in well on Stormfront, until they found out you as Dravidic as the common Indian. You probably deserve more.

 

[Flintlock]

Afaik, you need to take and pass a "Britishness" test before even being considered for citizenship into the UK. Do you think they translate it into Hindi or Urdu before letting them take this test? Problems of language are created by refugees or by certain marital practises. But the only way you can get citizenship in the UK is by knowing the British language and culture fairly well. Adding on a period of years to determine how nation-friendly a person is, isn't going to add much information unless you can monitor their movements, and certainly doesn't prevent later radicalization of an individual. Stop picking out dumb points to back dumb points.

Its not a dumb point. The British immigration policies are one of the most liberal in the world.

Mullahs, especially, are imported from Islamic country with hardly any background checks.

Their refugee policies are extremely liberal, and many foreigners already living in Britain get their extended families to come over.

BBC NEWS | UK | British immigration map revealed

British immigration policy, race relations, and national identity crisis

Government attacked for lax stance on illegal workers | Special Reports | Guardian Unlimited Politics

Anthony Milne: Immigration, The Identity Crisis Deepens in Multi-Racial Britain

Indonesia
Terrorism Havens: Indonesia - Council on Foreign Relations
Indonesia - Terrorism - Islam - Worldpress.org

Indonesia can hardly be called a "terror haven". There have been a few minor incidents and there is almost no support for extremist organizations.

Edit: If there have been a few radical organizations springing up, its because of the propaganda originating from foreign shores, not from the Indonesian version of Islam.

Kerala
The Hindu : Kerala / Thiruvananthapuram News : All-round vigil can help check terrorism

From what I have read, only in the last decade or so, Saudi sponsored Madarassas are opening in Kerela.

This is disturbing the social harmony which has existed for a thousand years between Hindus and Muslims.

Another example of what Saudis are doing to Islam.

But apart from a few "anecdotal" cases, Kerelite are muslims are beautifully integrated with the local population.

From what I've seen out of most countries in Europe, British multiculturalism is one of the most integrated in Europe. Compared with the Dutch, the Swedes, and so on.

British version of multiculturalism is making them pay dearly...mark my words.

BS. India has a lot of sectarian violence associated with religion. They have had millenia to find something common and co-exist, but they do not. Failed multiculturalism is worse in India than anywhere in Europe from what I've seen. Gujerat would be very difficult to do within Europe, but in India, the perpetrators were able to get away with it and get the backing of the Indian government.

Thanks, I was living under the illusion that India was a wonderfully integrated society.

Infact, wait and watch...India is going to get much worse....the lower castes are waking up.....muslims are turning radical....and so are Hindus....its gonna be an interesting next couple of hundred years.

Oh and by the way, the only reason India is holding itself together, is because there is a degree of cultural commonality between Indians in different parts of India. Without this, it would be impossible to hold a country with the size and diversity of India together for long.

You were very lucky not to have received a second helping of negative reps after your foolish comments that would fit in well on Stormfront, until they found out you as Dravidic as the common Indian. You probably deserve more.

My comments were not foolish. I stand by them.

As for your language, please mind it.

What do you mean by "Dravidic"? I'm from Maharashtra...not even Dravidian.

Thanks.

 

[mujahideen]

I'm glad you think this way.

Ultimately, your religion becomes what you want it to become. If muslims want their religion to be an extremist one, it will become an extremist one.

If they want it to be moderate, it can be interpreted in a moderate fashion.

Well look all religions have elements who are extremists. But we must learn to differentiate between the religion and these extremists elements.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

RR,

Maharastrans are not from South.

Check the map.

I am sure if one would adopt your supercilious manner to use word with racial intent, then one would have been surely been pulled up or banned.

So, just remember, it takes two hands to clap!

Please get slightly civil and don't take advantage of the Moderators, you being a Pakistan and so banking on luck that your misdemeanour will be overlooked!

I would take it as the height of cowardice and bad manners to be crude and crass, just because the forum is run by my countrymen.

 

[Logic note]

Logic:

If the evidence in that article is so cut and dry, you should have no problem pasting the relevant section here.

Dear Agno
does it really matter ? I mean truth is truth , how does it matter . I am not posting it here because it is a very big article . it is not written by any Non muslim but by a muslim .

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Dear Agno
does it really matter ? I mean truth is truth , how does it matter . I am not posting it here because it is a very big article . it is not written by any Non muslim but by a muslim .

"Truth is Truth" and here Stealth was arguing that polytheism and "secular" religions do not encourage absolutism, let alone being absolutist without engaging in discourse. The identity of the author does not mean that his claims cannot be flawed.

I do not want you to post the entire article, that is no different than me going to the link and reading all twenty pages of it. But if the article seeks to make the point that the Quran authorizes brutality and atrocities unilaterally when conquering lands (trying to stay within the bounds of the Akbar-Mughal-Islamic "barbarities" context), then I am sure that the author has quoted the relevant sections of the Quran that validate his argument. That is what I am asking you to do - find the relevant sections out of those twenty pages (I am assuming you have read it in its entirety, and therefore that should not be an issue), that support the argument.

To paraphrase my discussion with Stealth - the argument is whether Islam explicitly authorized the more brutal acts of invaders into South Asia. I understand that one easy counter to that is that Islam was "misinterpreted" (and in a lot of ways I think it is still misinterpreted), but that allows anyone to argue that anything they do not agree with is a "misinterpretation", and therefore not true Islam. Now while that argument is still valid in terms of showing that the problem is not the religion itself, but how its interpretations become subject to the cultural and other biases inherent in the scholars doing the interpreting - for the purposes of showing that Islam does or does not sanction XYZ, the views of a majority of its adherents (or interpretations by a majority of scholars) at the time of the events in question should suffice.

So if you can show that the interpretations by the majority of Muslim scholars in that era supported the actions of the invaders, I'll take the statement that it was an "Islamic invasion" (distinct from the spiritual Islamic invasion) to be correct.