Another Terrorist attack

Darkoz said:

All we need to do is take a look at the constant conflict and war in the middle east through history and the present day to realise the insidious affect Islam has on people and nations.
And this goes for pretty much all religions.

Click to expand...

concur.

first good move for any progressive society is to downplay role religion can have through enlightened debate about all kinds of policy issues.

Bazza20 said:

when was the last time you went to America woody.

Click to expand...

A few months ago. Have been living very close to the northern US border for the last year so the news here is pretty much 80% US channels.

Currently in Belarus for the IPF world championships.

Yeah, I think you're right. They were desperate for a change and when trump went all "drain the swamp" and "I'm a business man, not a politician" they got all excited. Now it's like you just bought a new iPhone or TV but it's buggy and won't work properly. And on the back is a "Made in Russia" sticker.

[MENTION=12409]Los Lobos[/MENTION]; In response to those who are saying this thread is pointless, I'd like to vote my endorsement for it. I think it's an important question to address: "What (if any) degree of responsibility does the average Muslim in the street have for atrocities carried out [ostensibly] in the name of his religion?", which is a sub-set of a major issue which underlies social/political interactions in general, which is: "What responsibility (if any) does any one person (or group) have for the actions of another person (or group), and how might this vary according to the "relatedness" (in many possible senses) of the one to the other?"

If this thread doesn't decay completely, you'll get my thesis on the matter soon-ish (I hope ...).

But meanwhile, to add another stir to the possum, in response to

bull said:

Islam also has a very flat structure, there is no boss. The local preacher doesn't really have anyone to answer to.

Click to expand...

I'd say that Mr Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is trying his best to fix this situation!

Los Lobos said:

You haven't been leading us astray have you Fadi? The answer is Yes, but attempt to baffle us with bullshit.

Click to expand...

What was all that about now, since it was uncalled for?

Los Lobos said:

Once again;

Quran 47:3-6 "That is because those who disbelieve follow falsehoods, while those who believe follow the truth from their Lord. Allah thus cites for the people their examples. 4. When you encounter those who disbelieve, strike at their necks. Then, when you have routed them, bind them firmly. Then, either release them by grace, or by ransom, until war lays down its burdens. Had Allah willed, He could have defeated them Himself, but He thus tests some of you by means of others. As for those who are killed in the way of Allah, He will not let their deeds go to waste.He will guide them, and will improve their state of mind. 6. And will admit them into Paradise, which He has identified for them. "

Click to expand...

You've been rude to me twice on Ausbb now, the first time I thought you were simply drunk, and now you're lashing out again without a single provocation from me, so what is it with you exactly?

Despite your ill manners, I am still prepared to engage with you re the verse you've highlighted above, since you find it disturbing. The Qur'an was revealed in the Arabic language first and foremost, so everything else that you read is not the Qur'an, but a translation of it, which is usually followed by a commentary (interpretation).

Based on that, all Muslim scholars agree (and would quickly explain to the Muslim listener), that verse 47:4 speaks about an encounter during battle, and not an encounter along downtown George St Sydney! That point is emphasised and joked about a bit since it's a given that a sane human being, does not go on killing people, (innocent non-combatant people) when not engaged in battle.

If you insist in believing what you wish to believe; if you insist in writing about Islam from a Western/non-Muslim narrative, I will not accept what you have to say. If you still insist after that that you know about Islam more than the Muslim scholars, and that the verse you've quoted above does indeed call for a Muslim like myself to carry out this "striking at their necks" bit, then I would have to say I have failed Islam miserably. Because at nearly 52, I haven't fulfilled any of the instructions found in these Qur'anic verses you seem to be so hell bent on misinterpreting, as if you were dealing with little children on this forum.

Let me know when you decide to get serious...

There are never any winners in regards to religion.
It's extremely rare for a person to alter his or her beliefs regardless of the literature (fact or fiction), events or the preaching of leaders or so called extremists.
Debating it is probably a mute point at best.

Shrek said:

There are never any winners in regards to religion.
It's extremely rare for a person to alter his or her beliefs regardless of the literature (fact or fiction), events or the preaching of leaders or so called extremists.
Debating it is probably a mute point at best.

Click to expand...

Yep. As I have pointed out before, people's faith is based (in most cases) on what their parents taught them. So a believer's faith is based on birth, not logic or truth.

So, these people running around killing people in the name of some god would not be doing so if they had simply been born into a family with different beliefs.

You see it in other aspects of life. What sort of car you drive, where you live, who you follow in sport, who you vote for. While these are not as immovable as religious belief, it shows that it's a common human trait.

Further to that, once a person has had a way of thinking or belief indoctrinated into them at birth, it's very, very difficult to move that, to change belief. It usually takes a traumatic event, such as war, death, sickness, or some other trauma, such as child abuse, rape or other physical abuse.

If discrepancies pop up, they are excused or explained away, sometimes with very complex reasoning.

An example of that would be when something written in the Quran or the Bible is in conflict with a person's faith. No matter what you put forward as evidence, it's explained away. For example, the jihad in the Quran is used to justify terrorist attacks by some, but for those who are against such violence, the offending passages are softened or reinterpreted.

Same with the Bible. Should gay marriage be allowed? Well, how about going to the core of the issue. Should homosexuality be accepted? Not according to the bible. It's black and white. But in our society that is all explained away or ignored. Then there is the other extreme where you have people shooting up abortion clinics.

I'm talking here about people with a specific religious belief, not your average non religious westerner who has no need to justify their views based on a religion they don't follow.

Are these terrorist attacks based on Islamic belief? Yes. Do all Muslim follow the same way of thinking? No. So it is, essentially, a matter of theological interpretation. Pity people have to die for that.

Shrek said:

Debating it is probably a mute point at best.

Click to expand...

100% in agreement with you here Adrian.

A discussion (and not a debate) in a group made up of two individuals accomplishes the best outcome. Hence, this (and other) forums are not the appropriate platforms for such a discussion.

WoodyAllen said:

Pity people have to die for that.

Click to expand...

It's an even greater pity that people who have no stake, opinion, or interest, in the matter, die for it.

Fadi said:

... this (and other) forums are not the appropriate platforms for such a discussion.

Click to expand...

I have to differ on this point. If the killings were one-on-one - two people arguing, and then one killing the other (mano y mano), then this would be correct.

But when it is one (or a group) of people claiming subscription to an ideology that many people adhere to, and that invites others to embrace, and when the victims are people who who may have no stake in, adherence to, or even interest in or knowledge of, that ideology, then the question - and hopefully - the solution - becomes a general thing to discuss.

It is the responsibility of all of us.

Sandin Face said:

I have to differ on this point.

It is the responsibility of all of us.

Click to expand...

You've just proven my point regarding "discussions" on such matters on a platform such as this one. No one here is dismissing the fact that each individual member of society has a responsibility regarding that society in which he lives in.

I've just deleted about 400 words in my reply to you, as I find no point discussing this particular subject here. I'm speaking as a member of this society as well as a Muslim.

If you wish to discuss, and know exactly how I feel about this mess (from a Muslim's point of view), then a private discussion would have to do, otherwise it's futile (from my point of view), continuing any further on an open forum.

Just in case you're wondering why that is. It's because the majority of members here are simply not interested in such a discussion, and they're most certainly not interested in a Muslim's pointy of view...period!



Thank you.

Sandin Face said:

It's an even greater pity that people who have no stake, opinion, or interest, in the matter, die for it.

Click to expand...

True dat. I just spent 2 hours going through a war memorial museum. There were hundreds of photos of average joes and janes who just happened to be living in the wrong country at the wrong time and ended up either dead in their fields or in a labour camp mass grave. Most would have been more concerned about getting in the harvest than in what some rich phukkers where whining about up on the hill. Such a tragic waste. And for what? Scoring political points.

Fadi said:

... the majority of members here are simply not interested in such a discussion, and they're most certainly not interested in a Muslim's pointy of view...period!

Click to expand...

From the number of questions and comments by the forum members, I would suggest that they are interested in such a discussion. They just don't agree with you.

That doesn't make their questions or point of view invalid. It just means that they have a different opinion. Just as you may not agree with the points they are making, they may not agree with the points you are making.

Sharing thoughts in a clear and (hopefully) brief manner may not convince them, or they you, but at least you can put the information out there for all to see. You can't convince everyone, but you can educate them.

Knowledge is power.

WoodyAllen said:

From the number of questions and comments by the forum members, I would suggest that they are interested in such a discussion. They just don't agree with you.

That doesn't make their questions or point of view invalid. It just means that they have a different opinion. Just as you may not agree with the points they are making, they may not agree with the points you are making.

Sharing thoughts in a clear and (hopefully) brief manner may not convince them, or they you, but at least you can put the information out there for all to see. You can't convince everyone, but you can educate them.

Knowledge is power.

Click to expand...

It's not about agreeing or disagreeing with me, neither it is about having a different opinion. It's about members who believe it's an absurdity to be a believer in God (in this day and age), hence, the discussion ends before it starts.

If someone has a legitimate question or concern, please put it forth in a courteous manner, otherwise I'm simply not interested in a verbal boxing match with anyone. That's about it in a nutshell really.

Holy shit, miss one day one here and theres paragraphs after paragraphs of debate. Lol @ the drunk comment - that's [MENTION=7521]C_T[/MENTION]/@fudgey not me.

i am all for people believing in a god if they like; i just feel sorry for them.

i am also all for people having an opinion about any subject, unlike know alls who refer to supposed scholars having a monopoly on wisdom.

maybe we should return to a society when corrupt priests and monarchs ruled our wester societies. no thanks.

as for debate with someone on existence of god; not interested. it is a done issue for me, probably when I got to age 10.

I am jut worried about extent that obsession with messages from god will fuck up our society. that is all. I think many are worried.

Los Lobos said:

Holy shit, miss one day one here and theres paragraphs after paragraphs of debate. Lol @ the drunk comment - that's @C_T/@fudgey not me.

Click to expand...

If you were pissed you'd have half an excuse. 'Fudgey" is wishful thinking on your behalf, but that's ok. I'll take it as a compliment.

I make a habit of watching an hour of al jazeera and an hour of cnn news. I then draw my conclusion from halfway between the news. Again today it turns out everyone are confident they are in the side of righteousness. What did caych my eye though was the latest fatwas posted. Right there between salman rushdie and the george w. Bush senior was [MENTION=12409]Los Lobos[/MENTION];

Troll of the century my friend. Still wouldn't rush to open any mail without a return adress or evat home with the lights on. Some of these folks take their religion a bit too seriously.

spartacus said:

as for debate with someone on existence of god; not interested. it is a done issue for me, probably when I got to age 10.

I am jut worried about extent that obsession with messages from god will fuck up our society. that is all. I think many are worried.

Click to expand...

I respect that you manage to apply the rhetoric of atheism with the same gusto as religious zealots sell their message.

Bravo sir, in trying to become ther antithesis you have inadvertently become that which you hate.

Well less the hope of eternal joy post death. The god botherers at least get their fantasy.

Was watching Gorky Park when an emperor was mentioned. Thought I would follow that up.

Timur, historically known as Amir Timur and Tamerlane, was a Turco-Mongol conqueror.

To legitimize his conquests, Timur relied on Islamic symbols and language, referred to himself as the "Sword of Islam", and patronized educational and religious institutions. He converted nearly all the Borjigin leaders to Islam during his lifetime. "Temur, a non-Chinggisid, tried to build a double legitimacy based on his role as both guardian and restorer of the Mongol Empire." Timur also decisively defeated the Christian Knights Hospitaller at the Siege of Smyrna, styling himself a ghazi. By the end of his reign, Timur had gained complete control over all the remnants of the Chagatai Khanate, the Ilkhanate, and the Golden Horde, and even attempted to restore the Yuan dynasty in China.


Timur's armies were inclusively multi-ethnic and were feared throughout Asia, Africa, and Europe, sizable parts of which his campaigns laid to waste. Scholars estimate that his military campaigns caused the deaths of 17 million people, amounting to about 5% of the world population at the time.

Click to expand...

Sounds like the Taliban and ISIS are just a modern day Tamerlane.

Brick said:

I respect that you manage to apply the rhetoric of atheism with the same gusto as religious zealots sell their message.

Bravo sir, in trying to become ther antithesis you have inadvertently become that which you hate.

Well less the hope of eternal joy post death. The god botherers at least get their fantasy.

Click to expand...

ok, thanks.