Islamists abduct more than 100 girls from Nigeria school: Security official

[SarthakGanguly]

You seem to only associate or link Islam to radicalism. You do realise that there is a huge world of Muslims out there, including Indian Muslims, who do not fit the tailored version of your Muslim? Radicalism in a population of nearly 1,5 billion people is bound to happen. Can you unequivocally state that there are no radical Dharmic followers who will not lift up a gun to defend their so called cause ? As I pointed out earlier, the mere fact that Boko Haram claims to fly the Muslim flag does not make them the voice of Nigerian Muslims. If that wasn't the case, a large majority of their fighters would be Nigerian Muslims and not hired guns from AQ

1. First being a radical is NOT being a terrorist. Swami Vivekananda was also a radical. Prophet Muhammad was also a radical.

2. Their is no my Muslim/your Muslim.

3. If there is radicalism in any population, it is bound to be scrutinized and subject to criticism. Without criticism we would probably be burning widows today. Criticism is vital for reform. In any case, I have always found the one up man ship of Abrahamic faiths awkward to say the least.

4. Dharmic radicals are there and like I said - being a radical is not necessarily bad.

5. Lifting a gun to defend a cause is one thing and can be justified in some occasions. But what cause is being furthered by kidnapping girls, pray?

6. I don't claim Boko Haram is the perfect numainda for Muslims in Nigeria. But it does not matter what you feel about it. The victims are those who matter here.

7. Hired guns from AQ? You underestimate the motivation of a child soldier indoctrinated at an young age. The cadre is not out there for money, riches etc - but driven to a large extent by religious zeal.

8. You are welcome to brand me a fascist and withdraw into your comfort zone, but you can whitewash it at your own peril. Then again, no offence but you are not YET at the receiving end. Those Pakistanis who considered some folks as the strategic assets are being forced to turn their guns on them - no it's not simple power politics here.

Hope I am not being rude, so please don't take offence.

 

[KingMamba]

They are doing thr holi jihad against non-Muslims and Muslims who not follow sharia . They made the gang on religious ideology , and p joined them too. Boko haram, Al-quida , taiban , Pakistan taliban, jaish-e-Mohammed , jamat-ul-dawa . No matter what.motive thr leaders had when they.made these but they used religion as base and ppl who joined joined only because of religious ideology of finish the non Muslims from earth
. I didn't bring the religion it was always thr.

That is not true, contrary to public belief most fighters are not full of religious zeal and willing to kill all infidels. Most fighters are dirt poor and these groups offer them a means to feed their families. The Taliban hands out cash per day for a lot of their fighters, others are motivated by revenge as their fathers brother or uncles may have been killed by those the Taliban are fighting.

Boko haram recruits mainly young unemployed Muslims and they also do prison breaks where the prisoners then join their ranks.

 

[PlanetWarrior]

If Dharmic followers would lift up a gun, they would be seen in the same light as the Muslims are, not to mention they are not few in number.

Well on that point, when certain Sikhs lifted up their guns for their cause, did we label them as Dharmic or Sikh terrorists or did we label them as Khalistan militants ?

1. First being a radical is NOT being a terrorist. Swami Vivekananda was also a radical. Prophet Muhammad was also a radical.

2. Their is no my Muslim/your Muslim.

3. If there is radicalism in any population, it is bound to be scrutinized and subject to criticism. Without criticism we would probably be burning widows today. Criticism is vital for reform. In any case, I have always found the one up man ship of Abrahamic faiths awkward to say the least.

4. Dharmic radicals are there and like I said - being a radical is not necessarily bad.

5. Lifting a gun to defend a cause is one thing and can be justified in some occasions. But what cause is being furthered by kidnapping girls, pray?

6. I don't claim Boko Haram is the perfect numainda for Muslims in Nigeria. But it does not matter what you feel about it. The victims are those who matter here.

7. Hired guns from AQ? You underestimate the motivation of a child soldier indoctrinated at an young age. The cadre is not out there for money, riches etc - but driven to a large extent by religious zeal.

8. You are welcome to brand me a fascist and withdraw into your comfort zone, but you can whitewash it at your own peril. Then again, no offence but you are not YET at the receiving end. Those Pakistanis who considered some folks as the strategic assets are being forced to turn their guns on them - no it's not simple power politics here.

Hope I am not being rude, so please don't take offence.

Points noted. Let's just agree to disagree

 

[Kloitra]

First of all no one is blamming all Muslims or Islam in general. Secondly if tomorrow some Hindus form an extremist militant group and starts doing holy war by killing people, I wouldn't shy away from calling them Hindu terrorists.

Even if how they interpret the religion is different from you? Even if you think they are not following the religious teachings?

 

[PlanetWarrior]

Then let me put my question in other words. Is it right to call them Muslim, when majority do not agree with them?



How would I determine which interpretation is the right one?

How do we determine which interpretation is the right one in any scripture. Isn't it always a case of differing whether God meant half a dozen or six in any scripture? Why should Islam be any different ?

 

[Kloitra]

Well on that point, when certain Sikhs lifted up their guns for their cause, did we label them as Dharmic or Sikh terrorists or did we label them as Khalistan militants ?

Terrorism in India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 1985, Sikh terrorists bombed an Air India flight from Canada to India, killing all 329 people on board Air India Flight 182. It was the worst terrorist act in Canada's history.

How do we determine which interpretation is the right one in any scripture. Isn't it always a case of differing whether God meant half a dozen or six in any scripture? Why should Islam be any different ?

Normally we would not care about interpretations of other religion, that should be their own business. But here the interpretations effect the life of people not following that religion. That makes Islam different.

 

[paritosh]

Sad.
Is there anything written against female education in the Quran?

 

[SarthakGanguly]

How do we determine which interpretation is the right one in any scripture. Isn't it always a case of differing whether God meant half a dozen or six in any scripture? Why should Islam be any different ?

A very interesting question.

You are confusing the different strains of Dharmic though with Abrahamic faiths. For example, there are multiple strains of Hindu philosophy - most popular being Shaivism and Vaishanivism. Now a Shaivaite or a Vaishnavite can't claim to be the sole correct follower.
But on the other hand, Abrhamic faiths don't have multiple acceptable interpretations. For example the sects are there, but each claim as the correct one. The interpretation of the Qu'ran for example is only one, theologically speaking - in this regard, it may sound illogical but @Zarvan does know about it all.

I have only read the Qu'ran and not the Hadiths so can't explain the context of several passages.

Sad.
Is there anything written against female education in the Quran?

No

Anyway let's keep religious discussion out of the domain of this discussion

 

[illusion8]

The issue is simply that they are seeking concessions on mineral rich regions in Nigeria using the argument that since those areas are predominantly Muslim, then they represent the Islam and are therefore entitled to the wealth in those areas. Subsequently they came out with their own version of Shariah and a whole lot of other whacky ideas. The majority of Muslims in Nigeria do not support these nutcases. They recruit a large number of people from out of Nigeria and they are affiliated to AQ. Can we then conclusively state that AQ is the representative and mouthpiece of Muslims ?? I think not. These people are similar to any other greedy rebel group. Their cause is simply to milk the government using terror and Islam was a convenient label for them.

Terrorist groups have economic interests as well - just so that you know - the whole jihadi movement has huge economic interests ranging from mines, minerals, oil, kidnappings, extortion's, gun running, overthrowing regimes, drugs, smuggling, prostitution, human trafficking, NGO's, piracy, trade routes, money laundering, hawala etc.

This is how they sustain their global jihad fueling it with man, material and power, they are well organized today and operate under an umbrella organization. They hunt for resources and sources of funding just like any organization would - but don't for even a second get misled into believing that do not pursue a higher ideology - and that is violent spread and implementation of their belief.

 

[paritosh]

No

Anyway let's keep religious discussion out of the domain of this discussion

The title says "Islamists". I dont want start any flamewars but after the numerous threats in Kashmir against female education and the famous Malala yusufzai incident, I am curious.

 

[jaunty]

Even if how they interpret the religion is different from you? Even if you think they are not following the religious teachings?

The thing is even if a fraction of Hindus start blowing up people as Muslims are doing around the world I would start questioning the ideology, the teachings or the teachers of the religion rather than hiding behind the convenience of "oh they are not true Hindus" as many Muslims tend to do, which we saw in this thread itself. Everything changes with time, people must adapt to those changes.

The title says "Islamists". I dont want start any flamewars but after the numerous threats in Kashmir against female education and the famous Malala yusufzai incident, I am curious.

I am sure there would be many interpretations, as is the case generally, with folks here claiming how Islam actually promotes girls education and folks living in the tribal areas claiming something completely opposite of that.

 

[A.Rafay]

This is sick and criminal acts, it has got nothing to do with islam.

 

[Kloitra]

The thing is even if a fraction of Hindus start blowing up people as Muslims are doing around the world I would start questioning the ideology, the teachings or the teachers of the religion rather than hiding behind the convenience of "oh they are not true Hindus" as many Muslims tend to do, which we saw in this thread itself. Everything changes with time, people must adapt to those changes.

There is a contradiction. You have firm faith in the teachings, that they are not wrong but those people are interpreting it wrong. You can only question them when you have doubt, that means you think that your interpretation might be wrong.

 

[illusion8]

Everything changes with time, people must adapt to those changes.

Muslim clerics oppose change and it's not allowed in Islam, according to them Islam is perfect and beyond change - anyone talking about change is called fiq or fitna or something.

Therein lies the issue, these groups vie for that perfect Islamic state everywhere (even in non Muslim and western countries) and anyone advocating adaptation or change in Islam is considered against it.

 

[himalayah]

Islamism is a filthy virus.