RELIGIOUS Debate on Terroristm-who, why, etc.

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Yes but you also said something about anyone linking it to Iraq at all is just following an agenda (implying its wrong). And others here have suggested that trying to understand the mind of the bomber is almost condoning the bombing.

I didn't mean to imply that following an agenda is wrong, but that it's unavoidable. We all have views which will be brought to bear on an issue like this - it's not really possible for anyone to be neutral.

[The Gaffer]

I've never read the Koran nor have I any intention to. I prefer to listen to the majority Islamic view, which is that people who perpetrate these acts are not true Muslims.

I read an article at the weekend which commented that the Koran contains many contradictory passages which can be interpreted in many ways. Which of course makes it totally unlike the Bible which is consistent at all times.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

I'd like someone with a bit more acquaintance with the Koran to list some verses calling for peace. I am acquainted with the ones declaring all non-Islamics to be fair game and to be converted at pain of death. NOT that they really mean that, of course, because the events in London are all peaceful explosions, RIGHT?

Pardon my cynicism, but where's the Koran say turn the other cheek?

Or is that too cheeky and not politically correct enough?

i don't think it does say to turn the other cheek... but it doesn't condone the slaying of innocents either... it takes a different view of defending one's self against wrongdoing than christian texts most definitely... this article states it fairly well

especially this quote...

"Religion, after all, speaks to our most basic and ultimate convictions, and if you are wanting to use violence, if you can find a religious justification, then you can find a very powerful motivation," says Rodier.

pinning middle eastern violence on muslim beliefs alone would be like pinning violence in northern island on catholicism as a belief system... something i would not do... religion is certainly a part of the picture, but it is not "the problem" (unless you want to say that the whole idea of a rigid "belief system" period is the problem )... rather, it's a method of framing the real social, economic and political problems that do exist in that part of the world... if they were all catholics, or hindus, or seventh-day adventists, i don't think the situation would be terribly different... even if they were agnostics

[Spock]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I read an article at the weekend which commented that the Koran contains many contradictory passages which can be interpreted in many ways. Which of course makes it totally unlike the Bible which is consistent at all times.

YOU gotta a good point there; examples below:

"Do not resist one who is evil, but if anyone strikes you on. the right cheek,
turn to him the other also" (Matthew 5: 39-40).
and
Matthew 5:44-45 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy

However, as a rule, that sort of acting on scripture went out with the middle ages. Those fundamentalist Moslems are still living in the dark ages by using such an interpretation. According to the Koran you can own slaves too.

Omar ibn al-Khattab, "Divinely Guided One", did not convert people to Islam by evangelistic preaching, but by giving them a choice of convert or die. Within 100 years after the death of Muhammad, the "Divinely Guided Ones" took Islam to the borders of China in the east; to the coast of the Atlantic in the west; and to the gates of Vienna in Europe. This was all done by violent conquest, not by preaching a message of peace.

[The Gaffer]

Right. I am still waiting to spot the difference with Christianity (which conquered and converted entire continents, condones slavery, [as long as they're from neighbouring nations, IIRC,] etc).

Acting on scripture is making a bit of a comeback in some quarters. Like the feckin Oval Office.

[Spock]

Well, GW has faith and isn't ashamed to mention it but I seriously doubt this can be compared to the fundamentalists who routinenly blow up there fellow muslims in addition to the military forces in the name of Islam.

[Insidious Rex]

Hey so Timothy McVeigh was associated with the Christian Identity movement. Does that mean we should castigate the bible for being a fundamenalist violent document?

[Insidious Rex]

hmm this is interesting...

http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm

Hitler wrote: "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.." As a boy, Hitler attended to the Catholic church and experienced the anti-Semitic attitude of his culture. In his book, Mein Kampf, Hitler reveals himself as a fanatical believer in God and country.

[Spock]

My reply does not imply that nor say that. Being affiliated with anything doesn't make that thing bad. However, when that thing proposes death to anyone who doesn't subscribe to its tenents, then it is to be feared and dealt with.

[Insidious Rex]

so is this pissing contest being helpful for you guys then? Or is this stupid and pointless and moderately off topic...

[Spock]

..Actually I thank you for saying it first....this really belongs to 2005 How Do We Deal With Terrorists thread

in that no other thread applies save Religion possibly, but this thread is supposed to be about the London bombings only

[Lief Erikson]

Okay, mates. There are several points to make here.

First of all I would like to point out that people can be untrue Muslims or untrue Christians. They can do this simply by not following the doctrines correctly, by not behaving in accord with the religion they claim to adhere to.

Originally Posted by Spock

Matthew 5:44-45 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy

Nowhere in the scripture is a command given that says, "hate thy enemy." Jesus was not quoting from scripture, but attacking a common Jewish philosophy of the time.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

condones slavery, [as long as they're from neighbouring nations, IIRC,] etc).

A few points I'd quickly make on this.

First of all, Jesus' purpose was to reach to people's souls, not to attack the accepted economic system of the day.

Second, you might take heed of the fact that all the surrounding cultures also took slaves. Any of those people that were enslaved would have been happy to have Israelite slaves also. It was what was done, at that time.

Third, Israel treated its slaves with a good deal of respect, something highly abnormal for its time. Israeli laws in the Old Testament forbade certain ways of badly treating slaves. Paul did everything he could to encourage the good treatment of slaves. He actually went so far against slavery that he condemned those men that kidnap people to take them as slaves, saying that such people were bound for hell.

Also, not always is slavery a bad thing. Sometimes people might be starving, or unable to look after themselves. Occasionally a potential employer can't afford to pay the laborer. In such cases, the person selling himself into slavery might be a benefit to both concerned. The employer couldn't have afforded to hire the person naturally, but in this other way it works. In circumstances such as these, and other cases that might come up, slavery can actually be a good thing. There are places in Leviticus where it talks about people "selling themselves" into slavery, which implies that some people thought it a worthwhile arrangement. Too often we see through the lens of modern perspective, and can't understand what things were like back then.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I am still waiting to spot the difference with Christianity, which conquered and converted entire continents

The New Testament clearly condemns violence repeatedly. Repeatedly. The Old Testament is different. Different times, different circumstances. I can get into that later, if you wish. But the New Testament condemns violence.

To understand what the religion is, you should look at its origins. Look at those who started the religion, and see what they intended and what they did. There you will see the core of the religion.

The early Christians were known for good works. They were non-violent, though they were persecuted ruthlessly by the Roman Empire. They took the Roman Empire over slowly and through peaceful means. The non-violence and goodness of the early Church expresses how they acted upon their beliefs. It is plainly recorded in history. Look at the doctrines, the epistles, the writings of the Early Church Fathers, and at history itself and you will see a religion with good moral teachings rising through entirely peaceful means to dominate a huge territory.

In later centuries, Christianity became political, and as it became political, it became more harsh, more ruthless. But this is not Christianity we're talking about anymore. The doctrines had not changed.

When you look at the Medieval Ages, you may be tempted to look at the kings warring against one another. It's easy to overlook the subtle blessing to the land that was being administered through the monastic orders.

When you look at the European expansion of the nineteenth century, you may be tempted to look at the missionaries and European culture that imposed their beliefs upon those about them. It's easy to overlook the Spanish missionaries that did their utmost to protect South American natives from the encroachments of the Spanish government, and the protesters in England that argued against the ill-treatment of slaves in the mines.

The Church has been responsible for many, many good works that are fully in line with what Jesus preached. We can see some atrocities committed in the name of Christianity, but when one looks at the doctrines themselves and at the actions of the Early Christian Church, one can see what the true nature of Christianity is.

Originally Posted by Spock

However, as a rule, that sort of acting on scripture went out with the middle ages. Those fundamentalist Moslems are still living in the dark ages by using such an interpretation. According to the Koran you can own slaves too.

Omar ibn al-Khattab, "Divinely Guided One", did not convert people to Islam by evangelistic preaching, but by giving them a choice of convert or die. Within 100 years after the death of Muhammad, the "Divinely Guided Ones" took Islam to the borders of China in the east; to the coast of the Atlantic in the west; and to the gates of Vienna in Europe. This was all done by violent conquest, not by preaching a message of peace.

YES, Spock, you know your history. Here lies my point as to where Christianity visibly differs from Islam.

My point is that you can see what a religion is by looking at its roots and at its doctrines. With Christianity, you can see in its scriptures moral teachings rejecting violence, and you can see in the actions of the Early Church much that is exemplary. Christianity spread like wildfire, and without violence. Islam too spread like wildfire, but through violence.

I look at Early Islam, and I see Muhammad and all his immediate followers carving an empire for themselves out through right of conquest. Muhammad's successors attacked the Byzantine and Sassanid Empires at the same time, were bold, fearless, and won! The Sassanid Empire crumbled, and a huge chunk of Byzantine territory went over to Islam. The main thing that stemmed Muslim progress was their second ridda war, a civil war between Muslims and Muslims.

This was all early, early Muslim history. YES, THE MUSLIM FUNDAMENTALISTS OF MODERN TIMES ARE IN THE DARK AGES! They are behaving precisely the way Muhammad and his followers behaved. The Dark Ages, the earliest time of Islam. Modern Muslim extremists are behaving in accord with the Koran. I've read some of those scriptures. I've written a report on the rise of Early Islam.

Modern Muslims claim jihad is meant to be a personal war, an inner spiritual conflict. That view is not supported by history. Look at the history, and you will see how Muhammad interpreted Jihad. You can see how his followers interpreted Jihad. They invaded nations. They declared that Islam must be in a constant state of war with all infidels. Islam is capable of making "truces" with other nations, but never peace. From birth, Islam was a religion of violence rather than peace. The difference between true Islam and true Christianity could not be more clear.

I am forced to the conviction that most modern Muslims are not true Muslims. They don't believe what Muhammad believed- the "extremists" do. Most modern Muslims are good and decent. The extremists are not. Islam is not.

[Insidious Rex]

So the pissing contest continues then?

[Lief Erikson]

This belongs in two other threads, I agree .

[brownjenkins]

well, if nothing else, we've settled the point that it is not about religion

[Hanza]

well i havent been on the moot in quite awhile but just wanted to come in here and say how i feel. tbh it was just all too close to home. i live 45 minutes outside london and go there often. i hvave several friends down there and so obviously was worried for them. but when they started finding out where the terrorists had come from it turned out the one who did the kings cross bomb came from aylesbury. aylesbury the town i live in and go to school in. suddenly everywhere you got theres extra policemen patrolling. now that there were more explosions yesterday we are just hping that its not gonna become a regular scare. its the holidays and i intend to go and be a proud brit like many others and visit our capital to show we arent and shall not be scared. not sure wat the point of this post was. just wanted to express how it feels to be cuaght right int he midst of it.

[brownjenkins]

very best wishes hanza... i remember here, especially in the northeast after 9/11... it's one thing to read about it, and quite another to actually have to live with it

[Spock]

This is now where we post about Christianity and the evils of it vs the Koran/Muslims and the evils therein, etc. ad infinitum
as it relates to terrorist bombers, homicide bombers, etc. in todays world

[inked]

www.mcj.bloghorn.com 7/22/05

NOTES FROM A PEACEFUL RELIGION
Recently in Great Britain, 56 people lost their lives when four radical Muslim suicide bombers blew themselves to hell in London. The other day, four more London bombs thankfully failed to explode. Today, the BBC reports that a suspected suicide bomber was shot dead by London police:
A man has been shot dead by police at Stockwell Tube station in south London, as officers hunt four bombing suspects.
Police are also searching an address in London’s Harrow Road. Resident Patricia Osbourne said she heard six shots.
Mr Whitby, told BBC News: "I was sitting on the train reading my paper.
"I heard a load of noise, people saying, ’Get out, get down!’
"I saw an Asian guy run onto the train hotly pursued by three plain-clothes police officers.
"One of them was carrying a black handgun - it looked like an automatic - they pushed him to the floor, bundled on top of him and unloaded five shots into him.
"I saw the gun being fired five times into the guy - he is dead," he said.

BBC Home affairs correspondent Margaret Gilmore said officers had challenged a known suspect they had been following.
"He ran, they followed him. They say they gave him a warning, they then shot him."
Police had warned they would shoot to kill if they believed somebody to be a threat, she added.

Another passenger on the train, Anthony Larkin, told BBC News the man had been wearing a "bomb belt with wires coming out".
"I’ve seen these police officers shouting, ’Get down, get down!’, and I’ve seen this guy who appears to have a bomb belt and wires coming out.
"People were panicking and I heard shots being fired."

Former Flying Squad officer, John O’Connor, told BBC News: "The man shot must either be one of the bombers or a potential suicide bomber."
Bombers "don’t always carry sports bags" and the man could easily have been wearing a bomb belt, he added.
If he had been challenged by police and failed to stop they "have not got a lot of alternative", Mr O’Connor told BBC News.

Britain's Muslim community is gravely concerned about all this, of course. Guess why.
British Muslims fear police are operating under a "shoot to kill" policy after a man was gunned down at an Underground train station following a second wave of bomb attacks.
The Muslim Council of Britain called on police to explain why the Asian man, reported as a "suspected suicide bomber" by Sky News, was shot dead at Stockwell station in south London.
Police have confirmed officers pursued and shot a man, who was pronounced dead at the scene, but have offered no explanation for the shooting.
The incident came a day after another apparent wave of would-be bombers hit London’s mass transport system, two weeks after four suspected Islamists blew themselves up on trains and a bus, killing 56 people.

A Muslim Council spokesman said Muslims were "jumpy and nervous", and feared reprisal attacks.
"I have just had one phone call saying: What if I was carrying a rucksack?," Inayat Bunglawala said, referring to the rucksack bombs used in the London attacks.
"It’s vital the police give a statement about what occurred (at Stockwell) and explain why the man was shot dead," Mr Bunglawala said.
"We are getting phone calls from quite a lot of Muslims who are distressed about what may be a shoot-to-kill policy."

It would be regrettable if any innocent person died as the result of this policy. But with eight bombs in the last couple of weeks, four of them successful, shoot-to-kill is an entirely reasonable policy for the British police to implement. No government worthy of the name should passively accept the butchery of its citizens.

It would be much easier to sympathize with a religion that had done more than merely condemn the mass-murderers who worship in its mosques. However the Islamic faith is titanically self-centered and does not yet appear to be capable of that kind of altruism.

Posted on 7/22/2005 11:01:26 AM , 5 comments
Submitted by Paula at 7/22/2005 11:46:57 AM
--------------
Muslim leaders would do better to remind their followers not to run from the police, ignoring repeated warnings and commands to stop. Especially during a time of alert for terrorists. The police did the right thing. There are some good posts on Free Republic and Sky News has updated information. It might be a good idea for public transport in London to allow only clear backpacks to be carried on by passengers.
Submitted by observer at 7/22/2005 12:18:10 PM
--------------
Muslim leaders would also do better to remind their followers not only to not run from police, but also not to jump barriers into train stations and grab any commuter while carrying a backpack and while wearing heavy jackets in July, with a bomb belt underneath. And they should be particularly reminded--if choosing to ignore all such heretofore advice, they should find themselves tackled and subdued with said bomb belt--to by all means obey the police's instructions to not move a muscle; for then they shall surely assist one's compliance in the same.

All these details come from eyewitnesses in BBC's reporting--although there no doubt will be clarifications along the way. source: news.bbc.co.uk
Submitted by Prophet Micaiah at 7/22/2005 12:28:37 PM
-------------
Chris, aside from the usual suspects expressing their collective fears while ignoring all the evidence that this was very, very far from a "random" occurrence, there is something else about this incident that troubles me. I read somewhere that this person may have been one of the bombers that escaped yesterday. Excuse me? Escaped? I've since read that when the detonators went off yesterday, the people in the tube and on the bus turned and ran away. My goodness, has nanny-statism driven people to think that only the government can take action to protect them? The Americans on Flight 93 certainly didn't cower or run away. Granted, there's not exactly anyplace to run on a plane, but they acted decisively to protect others knowing that they were probably going to die. I would think that if someone had a rucksack that just had a little boom, if I was still able I'd be moving towards that person immediately to separate him from the rucksack as quickly as possible before he could rectify his problem. Then I'd try to separate him from the land of the living post haste. Perhaps this is unfair to the people in Great Britain. Alas, I fear we'll have an opportunity soon enough to see how American's act in a similar circumstance.
Submitted by Philip at 7/22/2005 3:26:42 PM
------------
Charles, not too long ago, the British government forced all honest, law-abiding citizens to turn in their firearms, be they antiques, war prizes from grandad's time in WWII, or simply protective weapons.
Since that time of course, violent crime has escalated, home invasions have mushroomed and the ever patient Brits have merely become used to a growing list of victims within their society.
Not content with disarming the population, the courts in Britain actually have the stupid habit of blaming a victim, who may visit some damage on a perp while simply protecting themselves from the violence offered by the perp.
If you disarm a population and then punish them if they defend themselves from violent crime, it is no wonder that in general a mentality of *sauve qui peut* will develope and potential victims will simply hightail it out of the area rather than emulating the heroes of Flight 93.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by inked

www.mcj.bloghorn.com 7/22/05

Since that time of course, violent crime has escalated, home invasions have mushroomed and the ever patient Brits have merely become used to a growing list of victims within their society.

Points of information: no it hasn't. Overall crime has fallen in recent years. Reported violent crime has incresased, though people's experiences of it have decreased. (British Crime Survey, 2005)