Muslim Groups Cheer Aquittal of Cheerleader of Islamic Terrorism

[MMMMMM]

Nicky, I don't have the three-fold translations handy (although I did post a link and examples in another thread perhaps a couple weeks ago or so; those are translations by three Islamic scholars who are also Muslims; I'd recommend that for comparative purposes. And the verse I posted above was from another source; I wish I'd had the three-fold translations available instead when I posted).

What do you think about the general point, though, Nicky: that the warlike verses in the Koran are likely best taken literally as per the example of Mohammed himself? Jihad and fighting the unbelievers for him was a very active thing and he made much war on the unbelievers; led a great many military campaigns against them. Who should know what the Koran means better than Mohammed himself? Should not his example count a great deal?

[nicky g]

But part of the point is that those verses don't make much sense outside of their context. Also that the translators are Muslim does not mean we have to accept their translations; different Muslims make different translations. The Saudis supported the propogation of new translations that took deliberately aggressive and arguably distortive lines for example; I don;t know if the ones you refer to are amongst them. It is ironically notable that extremist Muslims often use the same arguments, translations and interpretations as extremist anti-Muslims. So I don't accept the premise of your question that they are necessarily warlike; at least not ion an expansionist sense. Also there is an argument to be made that it is good that the Quran establishes rules of war, in that it forbids excesses that might otherwise occur.

I think it is a bit much to cite Quranic verses demonstrating the irredeemable belligerency of Islam, and then when I go to a lot of effort to show how those verses do not necessarily demonstrate the agrression they appear to out of context in specific translations, turn around and say "well look at Mohammed's life instead." Can we have one argument at a time? Let's say I think your characterisation of him as something worse than a war-crazed pirate is a little exaggerated. And if we re going to simply use him as an "example", what of the examples of the warrior kings and prophets of the Old Testament? If you take its word, they got up to a lot worse than Muhammed ever did.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it is a bit much to cite Quranic verses demonstrating the irredeemable belligerency of Islam, and then when I go to a lot of effort to show how those verses do not necessarily demonstrate the agrression they appear to out of context in specific translations, turn around and say "well look at Mohammed's life instead."

[/ QUOTE ]

Nicky, I'm sorry, but I didn't have time to address at length any of the specific points you raised. Also, I think I raised the example of Mohammed's actions in this thread before your response.

[ QUOTE ]
Can we have one argument at a time? Let's say I think your characterisation of him as something worse than a war-crazed pirate is a little exaggerated. And if we re going to simply use him as an "example", what of the examples of the warrior kings and prophets of the Old Testament? If you take its word, they got up to a lot worse than Muhammed ever did.


[/ QUOTE ]

Mohammed led over 20 military campaigns and participated in over 60. He promised and allowed his warriors spoils from the conquests.

Also, Mophammed is just not "another king" or "another example." He is the founder of the religion. Now, if Jesus himself had gone on war-party raids and led military campaigns against unbelievers, I'd say you would have a legitimate parallel example.

The point I was trying to make (to ACPlayer) is that Mohammed might be considered the ultimate authority on Islam, seeing as he was the founder of the entire religion and is considered the Final Prophet. Mohammed's real-life example is that of making many wars against unbelievers. This at least should make one think it more likely than not that the belligerent interpretations of the Koranic passages dealing with fighting infidels, are also most likely the correct interpretations.

I'll return to your post and try to address some of the specific points you raised at a later time (when I have the time and energy to do some web-searching for multiple comparative translations--I've found such things to be time-consuming in the past, and I'm afraid I don't save links for this stuff).

[BluffTHIS!]

nicky, the point was already made to you by both MMMMMM and myself in that other thread, that it is not important how you wish to interpret the Quran in the most favorable light to avoid the plain meaning of its words, but how Moslems interpret and act on it. You seem to intentionally be refusing to make this distinction.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
nicky, the point was already made to you by both MMMMMM and myself in that other thread, that it is not important how you wish to interpret the Quran in the most favorable light to avoid the plain meaning of its words, but how Moslems interpret and act on it. You seem to intentionally be refusing to make this distinction.

[/ QUOTE ]

And since a vast majority of Muslims (99% +) are not engaged in terrorism, or acts of terrorism, this is a fantastic point. I couldn't agree more. Glad we're on the same side of this now.

[tripp0807]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
nicky, the point was already made to you by both MMMMMM and myself in that other thread, that it is not important how you wish to interpret the Quran in the most favorable light to avoid the plain meaning of its words, but how Moslems interpret and act on it. You seem to intentionally be refusing to make this distinction.

[/ QUOTE ]

And since a vast majority of Muslims (99% +) are not engaged in terrorism, or acts of terrorism, this is a fantastic point. I couldn't agree more. Glad we're on the same side of this now.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. Most Muslims aren't terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslim.

Your 99%+ figure is deceiving, at best. Just because they aren't engaged in terrorism or acts of terrorism (redundant) doesn't mean anything. I would venture to guess that the amount who support terrorism is significantly more than >1%. Otherwise, it wouldn't still be going on.

Who danced in the streets on 9/11? I saw those pictures of the Palestinians.

Who holds soccer tournaments with teams named after suicide bombers? The Saudis.

I could go on, but I hope you understand how personal non-involvement with terrorist acts does not make one anti-terrorism.

Most terrorists are muslim? Look up the stats for terrorism in the U.S.

[tripp0807]

[ QUOTE ]
Most terrorists are muslim? Look up the stats for terrorism in the U.S.

[/ QUOTE ]

Listen:

Don't deliberately mischaracterize what I said. I didn't say that most terrorism in the United States has been committed by Muslims - I said most terrorists are Muslim. So instead of challenging what I didn't say, why don't you respond to what I actually said?

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
LOL. Most Muslims aren't terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslim.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Please do provide empirical evidence here. Remember to include all historical instances of terrorism as well.

Forgive me, but I did actually "laugh out loud" when I read what you wrote here. But I'll be anxiously awaiting the results of your inquiry nonetheless.

[ QUOTE ]
Your 99%+ figure is deceiving, at best. Just because they aren't engaged in terrorism or acts of terrorism (redundant) doesn't mean anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't mean ANYTHING?!?!?!?

[ QUOTE ]
I would venture to guess that the amount who support terrorism is significantly more than >1%. Otherwise, it wouldn't still be going on.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by 'support'?

That is the distinction I'm making between "terrorism" and "acts of terrorism". Let's include 'funding' and other direct assistance of terrorism as constituting 'acts of terrorism' -- or, at least, let's call it actions that we would legitimately call criminal. Just for simplicity's sake -- as I'm not claiming 'acts of terrorism' is necessarily the best way to describe the various direct support mechanisms that could aid terrorism.

Let's exclude 'sympathize with terrorists' or 'agrees with their ends' or even 'agrees with their means'. Surely you can make a distinction between merely sympathizing with terrorism, and with participating in terrorism itself -- or more succinctly, you can make a distinction between thoughts and actions, correct?

Now, how many Muslims would you guess are engaged in acts of terrorism? -- keeping in mind that no statistics exist which are even close to accurate -- but ALSO keeping in mind that, as there are 1 billion estimated Muslims in the world, TEN MILLION of those Muslims would have to be engaging in terrorism to equal 1% of the world's Muslims -- and lastly, of course, keeping in mind that 'engaging' in terrorism implies some kind of action, and not merely thought or sympathy.

Clearly you mean something by 'support', but I'm just not sure what. I'm all ears as to how you propose we define 'support' of terrorism.

If we're talking about Bluff's OP, I don't have anything relevant to add on whether or not we should condemn Muslim groups cheering the acquittal of a terrorist sympathizer. It's a legitimate debate to have, and I think it's more than valid to debate the condemnation of those who support terrorism, etc. But it's a debate I'm not concerned with here.

But getting back to the point at hand: when BluffTHIS says lets "look at Muslims and how they interpret it (it=Koran) and act on it" -- let's do just what Bluff asks we do.

We can probably say, with great confidence, that 99% + of Muslims have not participated in terrorism in any kind of significant way.

So, using Bluff's standard, by looking at the actions of Muslims, I think we're forced to conclude that there's nothing inherent about Islam or the Koran that would lead us to claim it's intrinsically belligerent or violent.

-------------------

On side note, let's take apart your argument that if 'support' weren't significantly greater than '1%', 'terrorism' wouldn't be happening.

How many Americans support the neo-Nazis like Timothy McVeigh? Did the Oklahoma City Bombings 'still go on'?

[ QUOTE ]
Who danced in the streets on 9/11? I saw those pictures of the Palestinians.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's say, for instance, you're correct: Palestinians dance in the streets after hearing of 9/11. What exactly are the implications here?

Nuke em'? Outlaw dancing?

Was there some political reason why Palestinians may have been dancing? Or is it only because they're Muslim?

[ QUOTE ]
I could go on, but I hope you understand how personal non-involvement with terrorist acts does not make one anti-terrorism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay -- again, was not Bluff's claim that we should look at actions ? Most Muslims aren't terrorists. So I think I've got my answer, if we're using Bluff's standard.

[tripp0807]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
LOL. Most Muslims aren't terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslim.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Please do provide empirical evidence here. Remember to include all historical instances of terrorism as well.

Forgive me, but I did actually "laugh out loud" when I read what you wrote here. But I'll be anxiously awaiting the results of your inquiry nonetheless

[/ QUOTE ]

Very well. I can't prove that Islamic terorism has intentionally killed more innocent people than any other group, but I'd be hard pressed to disbelieve it, and I'd suspect most educated common-sense people would as well.

Perhaps you can come up with a list demonstrating that a group other than Islamists have intentionally (and successfully) targeted more civilians for death in the last twenty five years:

9 November 2005 - 2005 Amman bombings, over 60 killed and 115 injured, in a series of coordinated suicide attacks on Hotels in Amman, Jordan. Four attackers including a husband and wife team were involved,
7 July 2005 - Multiple bombings in London Underground, 53 dead killed by four suicide bombers.
4 February 2005 - Muslim militants attacked the Christian community in Demsa, Nigeria, killing 36 people, destroying property and displacing an additional 3000 people.
11 March 2004 - Multiple bombings on trains near Madrid, Spain. 191 killed, 1460 injured. (alleged link to Al-Qaeda)
16 May 2004- Casablanca Attacks - 4 simultaneous attacks in Casablanca killing 33 civilians (mostly Moroccans) carried by Slafaia Jihadia.
12 October 2002 - Bombing in Bali nightclub. 202 killed, 300 injured.
24 September 2002 - Machine Gun attack on Hindu temple in Ahmedabad, India. 31 dead, 86 injured
7 May 2002 - Bombing in al-Arbaa, Algeria. 49 dead, 117 injured
March 9, 2002 - Café suicide bombing in Jerusalem; 11 killed, 54 injured
March 3, 2002 - Suicide bomb attack on a Passover Seder in a Hotel in Netanya, Israel. 29 dead, 133 injured
February 26, 2002 - Train of Hindu pilgrims bombed in Gujarat, India; 59 dead
11 September 2001 - 4 planes hijacked and crashed into World Trade Center and Pentagon by 19 hijackers. Nearly 3000 dead.
7 August 1998 - Embassy bombing in Tanzania and Kenya. 225 dead. 4000+ injured
25 June 1996 - Khobar Towers bombing, 20 killed, 372 wounded.
26 February 1993 - First World Trade Center bombing. 6 killed.
18 April 1983 - Embassy in Lebanon bombed. 63 killed.

Source: Wikipedia

Most followers of current events will notice that a only a small number of suicide bombings in Israel are listed here.

I would also like to add that my putting "LOL" in my original post was unnecessary and rude. My apologies.

[ QUOTE ]
Your 99%+ figure is deceiving, at best. Just because they aren't engaged in terrorism or acts of terrorism (redundant) doesn't mean anything.

That doesn't mean ANYTHING?!?!?!?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, perhaps I shouldn't have said it meant nothing. I'd prefer that they be passive supporters than active human bombs.

[ QUOTE ]
I would venture to guess that the amount who support terrorism is significantly more than >1%. Otherwise, it wouldn't still be going on.

What do you mean by 'support'?

That is the distinction I'm making between "terrorism" and "acts of terrorism". Let's include 'funding' and other direct assistance of terrorism as constituting 'acts of terrorism' -- or, at least, let's call it actions that we would legitimately call criminal. Just for simplicity's sake -- as I'm not claiming 'acts of terrorism' is necessarily the best way to describe the various direct support mechanisms that could aid terrorism.

Let's exclude 'sympathize with terrorists' or 'agrees with their ends' or even 'agrees with their means'. Surely you can make a distinction between merely sympathizing with terrorism, and with participating in terrorism itself -- or more succinctly, you can make a distinction between thoughts and actions, correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course there is a distinction, but I think that you place far too much reliance on it. Do you really think that there would be such a significant amount of terrorism in the Middle East if there was no support for it?

[ QUOTE ]
Now, how many Muslims would you guess are engaged in acts of terrorism? -- keeping in mind that no statistics exist which are even close to accurate -- but ALSO keeping in mind that, as there are 1 billion estimated Muslims in the world, TEN MILLION of those Muslims would have to be engaging in terrorism to equal 1% of the world's Muslims -- and lastly, of course, keeping in mind that 'engaging' in terrorism implies some kind of action, and not merely thought or sympathy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I know why you included this. I acknowledged in my post that less than 1% of Muslims were actively involved in terrorism. Where you and I differ is the role that those cheering them on and encouraging them play.

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly you mean something by 'support', but I'm just not sure what. I'm all ears as to how you propose we define 'support' of terrorism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I defined this above. When there are people cheering you in the streets, encouraging the hatred that leads to terrorism and condoning the acts/means of the terrorists, that's what I mean by support. I think we agree that financial support isn't support of terrorism, rather, it is terrorism.

[ QUOTE ]
If we're talking about Bluff's OP, I don't have anything relevant to add on whether or not we should condemn Muslim groups cheering the acquittal of a terrorist sympathizer. It's a legitimate debate to have, and I think it's more than valid to debate the condemnation of those who support terrorism, etc. But it's a debate I'm not concerned with here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with most of this.

[ QUOTE ]
But getting back to the point at hand: when BluffTHIS says lets "look at Muslims and how they interpret it (it=Koran) and act on it" -- let's do just what Bluff asks we do.

We can probably say, with great confidence, that 99% + of Muslims have not participated in terrorism in any kind of significant way.

So, using Bluff's standard, by looking at the actions of Muslims, I think we're forced to conclude that there's nothing inherent about Islam or the Koran that would lead us to claim it's intrinsically belligerent or violent.

[/ QUOTE ]

What we can do is look at the type of things that people have done in its name, which can be said for any major religion.

-------------------

[ QUOTE ]
On side note, let's take apart your argument that if 'support' weren't significantly greater than '1%', 'terrorism' wouldn't be happening.

How many Americans support the neo-Nazis like Timothy McVeigh? Did the Oklahoma City Bombings 'still go on'?

[/ QUOTE ]

It did. Does it occur with the alarming frequency at which incidents of Islamic terrorism occur? No.


[ QUOTE ]
Who danced in the streets on 9/11? I saw those pictures of the Palestinians.

Let's say, for instance, you're correct: Palestinians dance in the streets after hearing of 9/11. What exactly are the implications here?

Nuke em'? Outlaw dancing?

Was there some political reason why Palestinians may have been dancing? Or is it only because they're Muslim?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's not say that I EVER advocated nuclear warfare. I do think the fact that they're Muslim plays a significant role in the way we look at this. I didn't notice any Tibetian monks or Eastern Orthodox Russians doing it - the fact that it was constrained to one religious group, in my opinion, says something.

[ QUOTE ]
I could go on, but I hope you understand how personal non-involvement with terrorist acts does not make one anti-terrorism.

Okay -- again, was not Bluff's claim that we should look at actions ? Most Muslims aren't terrorists. So I think I've got my answer, if we're using Bluff's standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that the fact that Palestinians were dancing in the streets on 9/11 after the worst terrorist attack in US history, which was perpetrated by their fellow Muslims in the name of Islam, does not constitute an "action?"