Who is terrorist and who isn't?

Metin

Active member
Actually, islam is the most dynamic and military spirited religion in the World. And easiest to corrupt. Because, nobody lives now who knows 7th century Arabic. And it's different from present Arabic. You say a common man "There (Qur'an) writes kill the infidels!" he believes. Over 200 years of consumption by the western world brought them to this point. I understand why western leaders do that, it is easy to rule the ignorant. But if you lose control over them someone'll make'em believe what he says and convince them to attack you.

There is a misunderstanding between civilizations. Not every muslim is terrorist. Especially if they weren't consumed by the westerners.

My country, for example, Turkey. %99 of the population is muslim. As a nation our warcry is "Allah Allah..." and we are having one of the hardest fights with terrorism. Because of some religious fundamentalist terrorists, you can't tell every muslim is terrorists. If you tell them, theywon't react kindly. If you say terrorist in here you mean rude and crackheaded PKK militias. (a.k.a. baby killers)

Something is terribly wrong... I saw some people just swearing at muslims. This isn't true man.

I say this as a human being (homo sapiens:)) and a deist.
 
Well Metin.

Fact is that every kind of -ism or religion represent a danger to the humanity in some way or another when some followers turn to fanatic or fundamentalistic ideas.

I believe Mustafa Kemal (Atatürk) understood the connection, and that's why he made the old Ottoman empire into a modern secular state with a democratic foundation.

As for muslims, just like hindus, jews, catholics, protestants and any other religion or belief, you will find good people and bad people.
Just look at the "Troubles" in Northern Ireland, and how Mahatma Ghandi got assasinated, or the Middle East, or....the list goes on.

I avoided some Pakistani youths who was probably celebrating the 911 by turning into a small alley, there I meet an middle aged Pakistani who was busy stacking crates of fresh vegetables outside his little grocery shop at the corner.
He looked at me, and then looked out in the main street at the cheering youths, and just shook his head.
He prayed 5 times a day, went to the Mosque, and was probably a true believing muslim, but his main battle was focused upon making a living for himself and his family, and to provide for his children to get an education.
His war couldn't be won by bombs and terrorism, only by hard work, and thus he found no pleasure in knowing that thousands of people was killed.
 
I have asked this before- what is the true definition of terrorist? If the situation in the Middle East was reversed, and was happening here, I guarantee you us Americans would be fighting just as hard if not harder. But then it gets one to wonder how far are we from that situation arising?

Terrorism is using violence and the threat of violence to intimidate and manipulate the people and political establishments to perform as the persons committing the violence or threatening the violence wish. So when you look at it from that perspective, you'll see that terrorism is happening as we speak in America and most if not all nations in some form or fashion.

As for Islam, I have difficulty with it because I know that in the Quran it talks of how it's ok to lie so the muslums can kill infidels. Muslums can literally do nearly anything, in the name of Allah for Allah.

So Metin, someone such as yourself could be telling us the truth. Or you could be lying. Both of which is permissible by Allah (or so says tha Quran).

Coincidentally, Allah is the Arabic word for God. When you break it down to the very origin of religion, Islam and Christianity appears to have the same God. But then it has been a few years since I read up on that and compared scriptures and history, so who knows.
 
I agree, but islam had an invisible reform during 9th and 10th centuries.

At first, for islam, there was a Dar-ul Harb(home of war) and dar-ul islam(home of islam) but when the arabic siege on Constantinople failed, muslims agreed there is another home. It was something like home of caesefire...

This is important because arabs lost their spirit to fight then. Actually islamic regions was rich enough and nobody wanted to fight. So my ancestors came, nomadic tribes of the Turks, accepted religious conversion, became their soldier-servants. But they had potential and agility to rule, so the used their manpower to push into chistian lands. They crushed a huge Byzantine army at Manzikert, annexed Anatolia and dominated the population. Settled down and asserted their dominion.

Arabs wasn't in the fight for that moment. they lived. they even didn't paid their taxes decently. They rebelled. But Ottomans tolerated them and let them do what they want.

Jihad spirit for the Arabs went to sleep. Now thanks to Israel and CIA, it is awoken...

In islam, many things are uncertain. You can say whatever you want, and show some words from the book to make people agree. That book is really an epic fail...
 
the terrorist stereotypical ideas are so stupid. i have heard that on a flight to New York, some of the passengers were scared that two people dressed in full Islamic attire, were terrorists so they complained to the air plane hostess and the two Islamic people in question were thrown of the plane and forced to go on another flight- they were heading to an multi-religious peace meeting. oh i forgot to mention that this was after the us special forces bumped off Osama bin laden

:bravo: American air passengers ( :sorry: )
 
Let's just be happy that most of those terrorists are stuck with ideology based in the 1400's and still haven't got their focus away from blood, gore, and self-sacrifice.
 
" Either slain thou shalt go to heaven; or victorious thou shalt enjoy the earth; therefore arise ,O son of Kunti (Arjun), resolved in battle."
Bhagavafgita (II,37)


1. That above is from the Hindu scripture. There are similar verses in scriptures of all religions - although I am not sure about Buddhism.
2. The Holy Quora'n, which is compulsory for all Muslims to follow, requires Muslims to protest when wronged, and evict a trespasser in your abode. The Holy Quora'n states clearly that the greatest Jihad is Jihad e Akbari, which requires one to struggle against the evil within. It is difficult to explain all these in simple terms in a short writing, but I am hoping that I have conveyed the general idea.
3. Islam is an inclusive religion where Shias, Sunnis and other varieties are treated equal. They intermarry, for instance. Islam also accepts that followers of other faiths are free to practice their religion with hindrance. If living in a Dar ul Islam (literally meaning home of peace - where Muslims are in majority), the non-Muslims are protected.
4. The factor here is not religion. The factor is the politician. He has been creating situations throughout history to reap benefit out of it.
 
" Either slain thou shalt go to heaven; or victorious thou shalt enjoy the earth; therefore arise ,O son of Kunti (Arjun), resolved in battle."
Bhagavafgita (II,37)


1. That above is from the Hindu scripture. There are similar verses in scriptures of all religions - although I am not sure about Buddhism.
2. The Holy Quora'n, which is compulsory for all Muslims to follow, requires Muslims to protest when wronged, and evict a trespasser in your abode. The Holy Quora'n states clearly that the greatest Jihad is Jihad e Akbari, which requires one to struggle against the evil within. It is difficult to explain all these in simple terms in a short writing, but I am hoping that I have conveyed the general idea.
3. Islam is an inclusive religion where Shias, Sunnis and other varieties are treated equal. They intermarry, for instance. Islam also accepts that followers of other faiths are free to practice their religion with hindrance. If living in a Dar ul Islam (literally meaning home of peace - where Muslims are in majority), the non-Muslims are protected.
4. The factor here is not religion. The factor is the politician. He has been creating situations throughout history to reap benefit out of it.
 
If living in a Dar ul Islam (literally meaning home of peace - where Muslims are in majority), the non-Muslims are protected.

That's why Coptic churches are being burnt in Egypt and Christians being forced out of Iraq, among other things?
 
That's why Coptic churches are being burnt in Egypt and Christians being forced out of Iraq, among other things?

The term Dar ul Islam implies that Islam is followed in that land in totality. Although a Muslim majority, Egypt did not follow Islamic jurisprudence. It was a corrupt oppressive dictatorship compliant to the West. The common man having been suppressed for decades by this stooge of the West has taken the Copts and Christians as personification or agents of the West. But whatever has happened has no sanction in Islam. In fact it is strictly forbidden.
 
@rocky71: just in regards to your comment nr. 4: do you mean to say that, G-d forbid, there should be no politicians, or that, also, G-d forbid, politicians should bow to the prevailing religion ? I hope not. Modern contemporary politicians (since I will not go back in time to before the Industrial age) are just a profession like all others, serving the current state-nations, hopefully most of them having a modern democratic system of government, whatever the form of government, republic or monarchy.

I take objection to blanket-vilifying all modern politicians, even if we know maybe some of them are corrupt, or motivated by pure human greed, thirst for power, etc. What matters is that the overall system is as democratically balanced as possible(meaning with checks and balances), so that no one politician can ever be absolute ruler or dictator, so that there is a rule of modern, and civilized law, with human rights to be respected, including freedom of religion, of speech, and all that entails.

I would not like the idea of a primitive system of law which is derived solely upon religious concepts, or a pre-Magna Charta type of law. I like modern laws. Maybe they are not perfect, but they are better, and they seem to me more ethical.

In a similar vein I think I like modern politicians...even though one can visibly see with the naked eye that many are not always very "moral" people, but they too, if in a democratic state, are subject to the rule of law.

I also believe that most current day modern states find themselves on some form of a continuum, an evolutive sort of line from less democratic to more democratic. One can even find some measures of this, for example the Index of Democratisation, the "IDEM", the one which has been, BTW, also correlated with the authentic (not just written) democratic and social freedoms bestowed and potentially used by women in a society. One could maybe say that that type of "measure" of "democracy" and that "index" are maybe biased...it may be possible...I am not good at statistics, maths, and stuff like that, especially not when applied to "soft sciences", like sociology, for example. All I know is that when girls are not encouraged to go to school and read and learn and feel free to debate and say their opinion..that does not bode well for a social group or a society. If I were a courageous politician I would advocate AGAINST such a society, but I do not have political inclinations, nor am I too brave by nature.

I would never dare be a dissident, for example, were I to live in a nondemocratic society without freedom of speech...

...what I wanted to say...I don't wish to cast a bad name to all politicians out there like it seemed to me you were doing in that point nr. 4. Not ALL politicians are corrupt. Not ALL politicians are mean or "evil manipulative evil doers". I just cannot believe that...but I do realize that I hold these beliefs because I was lucky that I grew up in a family where I felt free to discuss politics with my parents, then I lived most of my life in places where I felt protected by the rule of law, where I also never felt that religion weighed too much or too heavily upon my daily choices, and was just an individual factor to take into consideration in my personal life, not something imposed upon me by an outside society. I do realize that realistically NOT many are so lucky.

I also realize that, as we speak, there are out there some dissident ethical "politicians", (or at least politically inclined people), that actually wish that their fellow citizens could also enjoy these types of freedoms, and that they actually are active in spite of the real dangers that they face.

I also know what political regime change means for a country, and I know how difficult that is, and how it takes time, and how it may bring in some cases disappointments, shattered hopes, or even other types of real dangers. In some countries it may even be ethical and legal as well to help bring about regime change by outside intervention, just when you put in balance the need to actually PROTECT human lives and human freedoms. These are NOT easy decisions to take.

Maybe I am SO very naive when I say that there IS such thing as an Ethical Politician and Ethical Politics, and there are Ethical Policies as well. But I PREFER actually being so naive, because it brings HOPE, and an Optimistic voice, not a dark pessimistic one. And so many people around the world need Hope. I like at times to say that I am actually candidly naive more than I like to say that I am ethically naive...just because the word "ethical" WEIGHS so heavy at times. And when I say "candid"...I smile because I remember the book "Candide" by M. Francois Marie Arouet aka Voltaire...a book that was banned at one time, a book in which the author himself made a little FUN of stubborn "optimists"...like myself maybe (!)...but also making fun of certain very starched religious or autocratic despotic ruling figures who thought they knew it all and must have the ultimate say, making also fun of corruption at the same time ! I say that a professional modern day politician who KNOWS how to remain HUMAN, authentic, and, on top of that, who knows also how to communicate this to the PUBLIC in an educative manner, is truly an ethical politician of the present and of the future.

Sorry for the somewhat off topic ramble. I just couldn't help it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candide
 
Last edited:
islam is a great religion which bond everyone even if non muslim acts on the principles of islam they can also get much benefit .
 
:bravo:

We should remember that there are terrorists in every religion, even those that are viewed as nonviolent like buddism.
 
islam is a great religion which bond everyone even if non muslim acts on the principles of islam they can also get much benefit .

Especially from the UK benefit system.

:bravo:

We should remember that there are terrorists in every religion, even those that are viewed as nonviolent like buddism.

Absolutely.

The Khmer Rouge wanted a Buddhist state, with Niradoum Sihanouk as the vicegerent of God and Buddha.

So-ko-ga-ki represented a radical part of Buddhism. Emperor Hirohito of Japan represented the Sun God and head of all Buddhists and Taoist. Of course the Buddhist Japanese Army was not having bake sales in Korea (when they abducted 300,000 Korean women to serve the Buddhist Japanese Army) and they were not distributing Hail Mary candies during the rape of Nanking
 
Last edited:
islam is a great religion which bond everyone even if non muslim acts on the principles of islam they can also get much benefit .

That's why they are killing each other in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia.
That's why they are killing others in Thailand, India, Philippines, Sudan, Nigeria.
Both lists are not complete.
 
Actually the fear of Allah that if you follow other's then you are subjected to punishment is what making them not to think logically.I think Islam in general is very insecure about its own existence cause throughout it's history their cry has been that Islam is in danger from other's.It's like preparing for exam some student's study from the same book for a given subject while other's follow books from other authors and expand their understanding of the subject.The subject and the exam here is God and to pass in that exam their are different authors and their different approach but the final result is the same.
Other religions have evolved during the time period while Islam still fancied it's so called absoluteness till today.

Also Islam imo emphasize on fear of Allah while other religion believe in love of God.
 
islam is a great religion which bond everyone even if non muslim acts on the principles of islam they can also get much benefit .

That's the problem you want other's to follow your principles while you defy their principles.Every religion is great and every religion bond's everyone it's not only the prerogative of Islam.Every one benefit from his religion if he follows it logically and not radically.
 
Back
Top