Islam Denounces Terrorism
gksh...@ucdavis.edu
> Nowadays people talk about "Islamic terrorism", but this is a
> contradiction in terms. Because terrorism of any kind is against the
> very foundation of Islam.
"Islamic terrorism" means "terrorism committed by Muslims in the
name of Islam".
Use of the term says nothing about the teachings of Islam, but only
about the religous identity of the perpetrators and their stated
motivation.
If you think that they are committing these actions through an
erroneous understanding of Islam, then you should instruct them or
seek them out and prevent them from acting. It is a waste of time
to complain about how they are being labeled in the media (especially
when the label is accurate as it is in this case).
Greg Shenaut
Kerim
Islam is Not the Source of Terrorism
Terrorism is a crime against humanity. It is a brutal attack on innocent
people.
Islam is a religion that means "peace". In the Koran, the Holy Book of
Islam, God commands believers to bring peace and security to the world.
Terrorism and all other mischief on Earth are the very acts that Muslims are
commanded by God to stand against. The Islamic morality is the cure for
terrorism, not the source of it.
Those who resort to or support terrorism in the name of Islam are in a great
error.
They are committing a crime which God has cursed in the Koran.
All true Muslims denounce terrorism of any kind, and share the sorrows of
its victims.
God Has Made The Killing Of Innocent People Unlawful
According to the Qur'an, one of the greatest sins is to kill a human being
who has committed no fault:
....If someone kills another person - unless it is in retaliation for someone
else or for causing corruption in the earth - it is as if he had murdered
all mankind. And if anyone gives life to another person, it is as if he had
given life to all mankind. Our Messengers came to them with Clear Signs but
even after that many of them committed outrages in the earth. (Surat
al-Ma'ida: 32)
Those who do not call on any other deity together with God and do not kill
anyone God has made inviolate, except with the right to do so, and do not
fornicate; anyone who does that will receive an evil punishment. (Surat
al-Furqan: 68)
As we can see in the verses above, those who kill innocent human beings
without a cause are threatened with evil punishment. God has revealed that
killing one person is as great a sin as killing all mankind. Anyone who
respected the prerogatives of God would not do harm to even one individual,
let alone murdering thousands of innocent people. Those who think that they
will escape justice and punishment in this world will never escape the
account they must give in the Presence of God on the Last Day. So, those
believers who know they will give an account to God after their death, will
be very careful about respecting the limits God has established.
So; the religion of Islam and the moral teaching of the Qur'an are not the
supporters of terrorism and the terrorists..
<gksh...@ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:9rndpb$1uo$1...@samba.rahul.net...
gksh...@ucdavis.edu
> news:9rndpb$1uo$1...@samba.rahul.net...
>> Kerim <keri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > Nowadays people talk about "Islamic terrorism", but this is a
>> > contradiction in terms. Because terrorism of any kind is against the
>> > very foundation of Islam.
>>
>> "Islamic terrorism" means "terrorism committed by Muslims in the
>> name of Islam".
>>
>> Use of the term says nothing about the teachings of Islam, but only
>> about the religous identity of the perpetrators and their stated
>> motivation.
>>
>> If you think that they are committing these actions through an
>> erroneous understanding of Islam, then you should instruct them or
>> seek them out and prevent them from acting. It is a waste of time
>> to complain about how they are being labeled in the media (especially
>> when the label is accurate as it is in this case).
Kerim <keri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dear Greg
> Islam is Not the Source of Terrorism
I agree completely: tell it to the Islamic terrorists.
> Terrorism is a crime against humanity. It is a brutal attack on
> innocent people. Islam is a religion that means "peace". In the Koran,
> the Holy Book of Islam, God commands believers to bring peace and
> security to the world. Terrorism and all other mischief on Earth are
> the very acts that Muslims are commanded by God to stand against. The
> Islamic morality is the cure for terrorism, not the source of it.
> Those who resort to or support terrorism in the name of Islam are in a
> great error. They are committing a crime which God has cursed in the
> Koran.
Tell them!
> All true Muslims denounce terrorism of any kind, and share the sorrows
> of its victims. God Has Made The Killing Of Innocent People Unlawful
> According to the Qur'an, one of the greatest sins is to kill a human
> being who has committed no fault:
"Let he who is without [fault] among you throw the first stone": all
human beings have faults--I don't like this restriction, it is an
"escape clause".
> ....If someone kills another person - unless it is in retaliation for
> someone else or for causing corruption in the earth - it is as if he
> had murdered all mankind. And if anyone gives life to another person,
> it is as if he had given life to all mankind. Our Messengers came
> to them with Clear Signs but even after that many of them committed
> outrages in the earth. (Surat al-Ma'ida: 32)
Again, I am uncomfortable with the provisos "retaliation for [killing]
someone else" and "for causing corruption in the earth". It should the
job of governments, through due process that protects the rights of the
accused, to devise a suitable response to murder, and, in my opinion,
killing a murderer should not be an option. And I have no idea what
"corruption in the earth" could mean--it sounds like one of those "if I
do it, it's OK, but if you do it, it's not" universal escape clauses.
Finally, the Islamic teaching that killing one person is the same as
killing all mankind is also a problem, since if followed literally it
would equate accidental death and mass murder. No practical legal system
could contain such a clause.
> Those who do not call on any other deity together with God and do
> not kill anyone God has made inviolate, except with the right to do
> so, and do not fornicate; anyone who does that will receive an evil
> punishment. (Surat al-Furqan: 68)
I'm sorry, but I can't parse that sentence. "Those who...fornicate"
appears to be a subject (or object?) but I can't find a verb; I
also can't tell what the antecedent of "that" in "anyone who does
*that*" is. But I *think* that the relevant part may be "do not
kill anyone God has made inviolate, except with the right to do
so", although the fact that this appears to be embedded in a relative
clause makes its interpretation unclear. If this clause is what
you are citing in support of your contention, I again have a serious
problem: who has God made "inviolate"? How can you tell? And if
someone is "inviolate", how can anyone have a right to kill them
(if that is even what "do so" refers to)?
> As we can see in the verses above, those who kill innocent human
> beings without a cause are threatened with evil punishment.
But only death from natural causes or by accident would be "without a
cause". If you won't give me all your money and I kill you to get it,
your death would not be without a cause. The question is, who decides
whether the cause is *adequate* or not.
> God has revealed that killing one person is as great a sin as killing
> all mankind. Anyone who respected the prerogatives of God would not do
> harm to even one individual, let alone murdering thousands of innocent
> people. Those who think that they will escape justice and punishment
> in this world will never escape the account they must give in the
> Presence of God on the Last Day. So, those believers who know they
> will give an account to God after their death, will be very careful
> about respecting the limits God has established.
I think that the source of so-called Islamic terrorism (and other
religious terrorism) lies in the existence of doctrinal "escape
clauses" such as those I pointed out in your citations above. They
end up not really saying anything. If I and others in my religious
community think that some particular government is causing "corruption
in the earth", then I could use the passages you cited to justify
acts of terrorism against that government. If we think that the
people in a certain group are the descendants of people who murdered
our descendents, then we can use those passages to justify killing
members of that group. If we think that members of a certain social
class have not been made inviolate by God, then we can commit
terrorism against them. And so on.
> So; the religion of Islam and the moral teaching of the Qur'an are
> not the supporters of terrorism and the terrorists..
I would argue that the religion of Islam rests on a bed of texts
and conventions that must be interpreted by humans, and that humans
have shown themselves to be more than capable of finding ways to
use them in justification the most heinous of acts. This is why
it seems very clear to me that secular government is required to
prevent malevolent interpretations of scripture from harming human
society.
If you disagree with this, then show how religious Muslims are
effectively working to prevent Islamic terrorism.
Greg Shenaut
Audil Virk
gksh...@ucdavis.edu wrote in message news:<9rndpb$1uo$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
> "Islamic terrorism" means "terrorism committed by Muslims in the
> name of Islam".
No it doesn't, let's not make up stuff. In your confused haste, you
falsely proclaim the meaning of 'Islamic' to be whatever action is
comitted by any follower of Islam under the guise of Islam. While
'Islamic' means that which is taught by Islam. Your combination of
the above two words ("Islamic terrorism") is an oxy-moron, similar to
saying "Courageous coward". As pointed out earlier, Islam means
peace. Peace and terror are opposites.
> Use of the term says nothing about the teachings of Islam, but only
> about the religous identity of the perpetrators and their stated
> motivation.
Use of the term immediately implicates the teachings of Islam. It is
ignorance and dishonesty to label anything "Islamic" if it is against
Islam.
> If you think that they are committing these actions through an
> erroneous understanding of Islam, then you should instruct them or
> seek them out and prevent them from acting.
I agree and so should you.
> It is a waste of time
> to complain about how they are being labeled in the media (especially
> when the label is accurate as it is in this case).
As mentioned above, the label is most inaccurate.
Additionally, you seem to disagree with acts of terrorism and the
killing of innocent individuals, however you care not one bit for the
murder of truth, that is, when Islam is being attacked and attempts
made on its life by the weapons of falsehood, fabrications, false
allegations, attempts to hide the truth, and to the contrary you jump
in and join falsehood and tell us it is a waste of time to complain
when the media is murdering the truth of the matter.
Was-Salam
Audil Virk
gksh...@ucdavis.edu
> As-Salamo alaikum,
> gksh...@ucdavis.edu wrote in message news:<9rndpb$1uo$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
>> "Islamic terrorism" means "terrorism committed by Muslims in the
>> name of Islam".
> No it doesn't, let's not make up stuff. In your confused haste, you
> falsely proclaim the meaning of 'Islamic' to be whatever action is
> comitted by any follower of Islam under the guise of Islam. While
> 'Islamic' means that which is taught by Islam.
No, "Islamic" is just the adjectival form of "Islam". You can say
"Islamic teachings" if you want, but you can also say "Islamic
history" or "Islamic calendar" or "Islamic art". Just as "Islamic
art" is art that is associated with or has to do with Islam, an
Islamic terrorist is a terrorist who is associated with or has to
do with Islam.
The specific definition I gave corresponds well to how the term is
used in the English-speaking world (in my experience), although it
could undoubtedly be improved.
> Your combination of the above two words ("Islamic terrorism") is an
> oxy-moron, similar to saying "Courageous coward". As pointed out
> earlier, Islam means peace. Peace and terror are opposites.
The word "islam" means "peace" in Arabic, perhaps, but in English,
"Islam" is the name of one of the world's great religions (note
the capital "I"). This kind of naming phenomenon is well known:
look at the former Soviet Union's newspaper named "Pravda" (truth),
the American bus company named "Greyhound", or even common English
surnames such as Smith, Cook, and Tailor.
>> Use of the term says nothing about the teachings of Islam, but only
>> about the religous identity of the perpetrators and their stated
>> motivation.
> Use of the term immediately implicates the teachings of Islam.
No it doesn't. It is possible to refer to a religion without
referring specifically to its teachings.
> It is ignorance and dishonesty to label anything "Islamic" if it is
> against Islam.
Consider the following material from an Internet history page:
In the 980s, Al Mansor, ruler of Moorish Spain, combated an Islamic
heresy called Mu tazilism, which asserted the primacy of reason
and the free will over predestination, by ordering the identification
of all dangerous works found in the Cordoba library of his
predecessor, the largest library in Europe. Almost one-tenth of
the collection was destroyed, over 40,000 manuscripts.
Note the phrase "Islamic heresy". It seems to me that this phrase
is perfectly clear, and far from "ignorant and dishonest", and yet
the writer has attached the word "Islamic" to something which is
by definition against Islam (or at least, against mainstream Islam).
No, I believe that "Islamic terrorist" can be used correctly to
state something that means, approximately, "a terrorist who is
associated with Islam". It doesn't say anything about whether
Islam approves of terrorism, just as "Islamic heresy" doesn't say
anything about whether Islam approves of heresy.
>> If you think that they are committing these actions through an
>> erroneous understanding of Islam, then you should instruct them or
>> seek them out and prevent them from acting.
> I agree and so should you.
>> It is a waste of time to complain about how they are being labeled
>> in the media (especially when the label is accurate as it is in this
>> case).
> As mentioned above, the label is most inaccurate. Additionally, you
> seem to disagree with acts of terrorism and the killing of innocent
> individuals, however you care not one bit for the murder of truth,
> that is, when Islam is being attacked and attempts made on its life by
> the weapons of falsehood, fabrications, false allegations, attempts to
> hide the truth, and to the contrary you jump in and join falsehood and
> tell us it is a waste of time to complain when the media is murdering
> the truth of the matter.
Suppose there existed in the world a number of individuals from
Muslim families and predominantly Muslim countries who were raised
as Muslims, and who considered themselves to be faithful Muslims.
These individuals come to believe that Islam demands that they
commit acts of terrorism, and indeed, they commit such acts while
saying "God is great", and are widely praised and honored within
certain segments of the Islamic community for doing so. This state
of affairs naturally does great harm to Islam, and to the world
outside of Islam. In English, these individuals come to be known
as "Islamic terrorists" due to their association with Islam, just
as "Irish terrorists" and "Basque terrorists" are so-called because
of their association with Ireland and Basque separatism.
The people who are most likely to be able to convince these
individuals to stop committing acts of terrorism are their fellow
Muslims: who else would they even listen to? However, instead of
focusing their efforts on working against terrorism through religious
teaching or by enforcement of civil laws, what these fellow Muslims
do instead is to focus their energies on those individuals outside
of Islam who have the temerity to utter the words "Islamic terrorist".
It seems to me that this effort will do nothing to prevent terrorist
acts, and, frankly, will do little to end the use of the adjective
"Islamic" with words like "terrorist".
That is why I think such an effort is a waste of time.
Greg Shenaut
P.S. If we in the West saw thousands of Muslims working against
terrorism, publicly denouncing acts of terrorism, and burning
effigies of Osama in huge public anti-terrorism demonstrations,
I'll bet that not only would "Islamic terrorism" be greatly reduced,
but the use of the phrase would be, too. (There have been several
statements recently by Muslim leaders that are very encouraging in
this regard.)
P.P.S. It occurs to me that a replacement phrase such as "unIslamic
terrorist" or "pseudoIslamic terrorist", if widely used, might have
a beneficial effect in several ways. Maybe there is an Arabic word
that could be used to express the concept of "pseudo Islamic" even
more effectively.
Geoff Wright
[snipping a fairly good description of why the term Islamic terrorist is
not an oxymoron]
>P.S. If we in the West saw thousands of Muslims working against
>terrorism, publicly denouncing acts of terrorism, and burning
>effigies of Osama in huge public anti-terrorism demonstrations,
>I'll bet that not only would "Islamic terrorism" be greatly reduced,
>but the use of the phrase would be, too. (There have been several
>statements recently by Muslim leaders that are very encouraging in
>this regard.)
>P.P.S. It occurs to me that a replacement phrase such as "unIslamic
>terrorist" or "pseudoIslamic terrorist", if widely used, might have
>a beneficial effect in several ways. Maybe there is an Arabic word
>that could be used to express the concept of "pseudo Islamic" even
>more effectively.
I am glad you said the above P.P.S. Because I'm sure you can appreciate the
fact that the association of Islam with terrorist acts carried out by
Muslims does do harm and engenders more prejudice against those who are
Muslim, but do not support this kind of terror. Many Muslims right here
have denounced it. Yet some of those who live in America and who do in fact
think that the destruction of the Twin Towers was a horrible and murderous
act are experiencing a reaction that unfairly paints them with the same
brush. So the use of the term, even though it is not incorrect
use of English, is still harmful. Those who are bigotted rejoice in such
associations. I've used the term myself, so I'm not casting stones here,
but I can certainly see why many Muslims object to it.
As to your P.S., fanatics are dangerous people. There are many fanatics
protesting against America in Islamic countries and they don't take too
kindly to those who protest on the other side. You need only look into
the peaceful marches by women who are protesting the treatment of women
in Afghanistan. They are commonly harrassed and even beaten by idiot
fanatics who support this suppression and consider it to be a cultural
expression of Islamic purity. Almost all male, of course. I don't think
I would have the courage to do the things that you recommend in most
Islamic countries today.
Geoff Wright
Saqib Virk
<gksh...@ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:9ruo1q$g8h$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> No, I believe that "Islamic terrorist" can be used correctly to
> state something that means, approximately, "a terrorist who is
> associated with Islam".
SV
That is true in the technical sense. However, the complaint would be that
the term is used not because of technical correctness but out of desire to
promote a particular view of Islam. The Western media is biased against
Islam and engages in what amounts to propaganda against it. The term
"Islamic terrorist" becomes a term used to paint all Muslims. Naturally
Muslims in general will complain and naturally the Western media will not
listen.
--
Peace,
Saqib Virk
Audil Virk
<gksh...@ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:9ruo1q$g8h$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> No, "Islamic" is just the adjectival form of "Islam". You can say
> "Islamic teachings" if you want, but you can also say "Islamic
> history" or "Islamic calendar" or "Islamic art". Just as "Islamic
> art" is art that is associated with or has to do with Islam, an
> Islamic terrorist is a terrorist who is associated with or has to
> do with Islam.
I am not interested in getting into a debate over technicalites.
My point is simple, since most people in the Western world are un-familiar
with the peaceful teachings of Islam, using ambigious wording like 'Islamic
terrorists' only goes to further confuse the truth, helping the cause of
falsehood. I advise using those words which clearly define and distinguish
between truth and falsehood.
Osama bin Laden is acting contrary to the teachings of Islam. It is not
justice to kill thousands of innocent people. This is common sense and not
a high level concept. In the same way, the U.S. and Britian are now killing
thousands of innocent people, sending millions fleeing hungry from their
homes out of fear of death. Islam does not teach terrorism. Islam teaches
justice, mercy and gracious behavior. Islam means peace.
Islam supports none of the above masters of deception who control their
ignorant masses, whether by inciting religious sentiments or by using
brainwashing propaganda via the media, polluting the truth.
Islam supports the cause of truth and encourages seekers of truth to make
proper investigation.
Those of nationalistic, tribal mentalities when it comes to their own
nation, or their own people, or themselves, justify their behavior
regardless of truth. Such people are found throughout the globe and it is a
universal phenomenon known as selfish behavior. Islam teaches justice, be
it against, your friends, your family and even yourself. Truth is
everything in Islam.
Was-Salam
Audil Virk
gksh...@ucdavis.edu
> As-Salamo alaikum,
> <gksh...@ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
> news:9ruo1q$g8h$1...@samba.rahul.net...
>> No, "Islamic" is just the adjectival form of "Islam". You can say
>> "Islamic teachings" if you want, but you can also say "Islamic
>> history" or "Islamic calendar" or "Islamic art". Just as "Islamic
>> art" is art that is associated with or has to do with Islam, an
>> Islamic terrorist is a terrorist who is associated with or has to
>> do with Islam.
> I am not interested in getting into a debate over technicalites.
Well, as you have probably noticed, I have at least some interest
in debating technicalities. But I take your point, and I believe
that in fact, in spite of its technical accuracy, we can come up
with a better term to use in place of "Islamic terrorism". I
suggested elsewhere that we find an expression that contains the
words "Islamic" and "terrorism", but which makes it explicit that
the two concepts are incompatible.
This expression must serve to identify what the speaker is talking
about, but must also make it clear that the speaker doesn't intend
to equate Islam and terrorism. The two examples I gave before were
"unIslamic terrorism" and "pseudoIslamic terrorism", but they are
probably too awkward.
Another approach would be to use an Arabic word in the place of
"Islam" that conveyed this meaning. I don't know Arabic, but there
must be something that would work.
In fact, as I recall it, the anglicization "Moslem" is no longer
used because it often was pronounced like the Arabic word "mazlum"
which means "unjust" or "wicked" or something along those lines.
So, perhaps "mazlum terrorist"--spelled like that, not like
"moslem"--would fit the bill as a way to refer Osama and his ilk.
But, it would probably just go over most people's heads.
Greg Shenaut
Audil Virk
<gksh...@ucdavis.edu> wrote in message news:9sauhh$ll$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> Well, as you have probably noticed, I have at least some interest
> in debating technicalities. But I take your point, and I believe
> that in fact, in spite of its technical accuracy, we can come up
> with a better term to use in place of "Islamic terrorism". I
> suggested elsewhere that we find an expression that contains the
> words "Islamic" and "terrorism", but which makes it explicit that
> the two concepts are incompatible.
>
> This expression must serve to identify what the speaker is talking
> about, but must also make it clear that the speaker doesn't intend
> to equate Islam and terrorism. The two examples I gave before were
> "unIslamic terrorism" and "pseudoIslamic terrorism", but they are
> probably too awkward.
>
> Another approach would be to use an Arabic word in the place of
> "Islam" that conveyed this meaning. I don't know Arabic, but there
> must be something that would work.
>
> In fact, as I recall it, the anglicization "Moslem" is no longer
> used because it often was pronounced like the Arabic word "mazlum"
> which means "unjust" or "wicked" or something along those lines.
> So, perhaps "mazlum terrorist"--spelled like that, not like
> "moslem"--would fit the bill as a way to refer Osama and his ilk.
>
> But, it would probably just go over most people's heads.
My desire is only that truth should be clearly distinguished from falsehood.
Therefore, any ambiguous wording which not only causes confusion, but also
gives a meaning completely opposite to that of the truth of the matter is
going to arouse ever seeker of truth's jealousy.
The truth is Islam does not teach, nor support terrorism and to the contrary
is dead against it. The two main teachings of Islam being the love of God
and sympathy for His creatures.
>From your above response it seems we are in agreement.
It is always nice to discuss with those who are here to discuss in an effort
to learn from one another, seeking the truth in all matters. As-Salamo
alaikum. (Peace be upon you.)
-Audil Virk