Do Any Other Countries Hospitals Get...
News0 min ago
How Can This Really Be What Allah Intends?
82 Answers
http://
Surely, even the warped version if Islam that the Taliban subscribe to cannot justify the Peshawar masacre. Is there someone out there who can explain the thinking behind this? I am totally mystified.
Surely, even the warped version if Islam that the Taliban subscribe to cannot justify the Peshawar masacre. Is there someone out there who can explain the thinking behind this? I am totally mystified.
Answers
As always with these discussions there is some considerable confusion here solely because the western intellect continually fails to comprehend a mind-set that is driven wholly by religion. Islam dictates every aspect of a fundamentali
14:25 Wed 17th Dec 2014
As always with these discussions there is some considerable confusion here solely because the western intellect continually fails to comprehend a mind-set that is driven wholly by religion. Islam dictates every aspect of a fundamentalist Muslim’s life – it even instructs on how to go to the toilet! The latest atrocity in Pakistan took place at a military school, and although the victims were Muslim, they weren’t as Muslim as the Taliban would have liked them to be and were therefore perceived to be the enemy. With fundamentalist Islam, it’s their way or no way, and anyone who disagrees is worthy of slaughter – and it is justified through the verses of the Koran. For example, look at this:
//Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors. And slay them wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter... But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful... If they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression" (2:190-193).//
Muslims will tell you that the verse refers to those who attack Islam, but according to the Taliban - and ISIS - anyone who doesn’t agree with them is attacking Islam and therefore retaliation and slaughter is perceived to be justified. // If they cease, let there be no hostility…// is interpreted to mean “If they concede to your will”. The actions of ISIS and various other groups confirm that.
Make no mistake - this is about religion – a religion that seeks to dominate all – and one that will never cease in its quest. These people cannot be compared to Hitler, Stalin, or to anyone else. They are the world’s enemy and the sooner the world recognises that and acknowledges it, the better.
//Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors. And slay them wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter... But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful... If they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression" (2:190-193).//
Muslims will tell you that the verse refers to those who attack Islam, but according to the Taliban - and ISIS - anyone who doesn’t agree with them is attacking Islam and therefore retaliation and slaughter is perceived to be justified. // If they cease, let there be no hostility…// is interpreted to mean “If they concede to your will”. The actions of ISIS and various other groups confirm that.
Make no mistake - this is about religion – a religion that seeks to dominate all – and one that will never cease in its quest. These people cannot be compared to Hitler, Stalin, or to anyone else. They are the world’s enemy and the sooner the world recognises that and acknowledges it, the better.
Thanks Naomi, that is the first time I've heard sort of rationale. So essentially the clause meaning to attack islam is being used on any sort of dissent/apostostacy/simply not believing, and is taken as attacking Islam and thus mass murder is allowed.
"These people cannot be compared to Hitler, Stalin, or to anyone else. They are the world’s enemy and the sooner the world recognises that and acknowledges it, the better. " - yes I agree entirely. BA is yours.
"These people cannot be compared to Hitler, Stalin, or to anyone else. They are the world’s enemy and the sooner the world recognises that and acknowledges it, the better. " - yes I agree entirely. BA is yours.
I also see no hint of aologism AOG - only attempts to rationalise the intention behind this horrendous act of barbarism.
The fact is, if you attempt to look at the thoughts behind this behaviour with a rational mind, you are already bound to fail - these killings are not the acts of rational minds.
As jack has observed, fundamental fanatics regard anyone who do not observe their faith as they do are automatically enemies and must be destroyed.
There is no point looking for justifications in any holy books, they will not be there - this is fanaticism which is as deep and twisted as it is fortunately confied to a relatively few demonic souls who will insist on their way as the only way.
It's a level of superiority that extremists in almost all religions possess - the unshakeable belief that they and they alone are correct in their interpretations of scriptures, and anyone else does not deserve to live.
If you approach things from that perspective, the massacre of children becomes instantly feasible, not to say desirable, but once again, it is not possible to rationalise these actions, they are very very far beyond that.
The fact is, if you attempt to look at the thoughts behind this behaviour with a rational mind, you are already bound to fail - these killings are not the acts of rational minds.
As jack has observed, fundamental fanatics regard anyone who do not observe their faith as they do are automatically enemies and must be destroyed.
There is no point looking for justifications in any holy books, they will not be there - this is fanaticism which is as deep and twisted as it is fortunately confied to a relatively few demonic souls who will insist on their way as the only way.
It's a level of superiority that extremists in almost all religions possess - the unshakeable belief that they and they alone are correct in their interpretations of scriptures, and anyone else does not deserve to live.
If you approach things from that perspective, the massacre of children becomes instantly feasible, not to say desirable, but once again, it is not possible to rationalise these actions, they are very very far beyond that.
Zacs - "The DISAGREEMENT which we have discussed ad infinitum on here is HOW to tackle it."
The civilised world wrestles with this question hour by hour.
One thing we have established pretty much beyond doubt - although it has taken billions of pounds and thousands of lives to prove it - is that military action will always singularly fail to address this issue.
I would not claim to know what the solution is, but my experience of the warmongers who have tried their way have shown me beyond all doubt that I know what the solution is not.
The civilised world wrestles with this question hour by hour.
One thing we have established pretty much beyond doubt - although it has taken billions of pounds and thousands of lives to prove it - is that military action will always singularly fail to address this issue.
I would not claim to know what the solution is, but my experience of the warmongers who have tried their way have shown me beyond all doubt that I know what the solution is not.
Teachings of Islam are very clear and very easy to understand but if someone is brain washed in isolation without any link to the outer world, then that person takes whatever he is told as religion. Otherwise there have been (fatwas) opinions from almost every well known scholars in the world. But do these these people have access to that? No.
TTT, thanks. I would say though that the verse I gave is not the only example. There are others.
Zacs, I don’t think everyone does agree that these people are the world’s enemy simply because the motivation behind their actions is consistently misunderstood. We’ve had people here saying “It’s not about religion – it’s about power”, or words that that effect, thereby separating the two, but in the case of radical Islam the two are not separate. They are one and the same and the ambition emanates from the same source – fundamentalist Islam – Islam being the operative word - and the problem isn’t confined to a specific country, or to specific countries, as would be usual in a war situation – it is global because whatever their land of origin, fundamentalist Muslims are Islamists first, and patriots second.
How to tackle it? Death holds no fear for them, they have no intention of entertaining anything like the rules of the Geneva Convention, nor do they acknowledge Human Rights in any shape or form, and therefore until we stop pussyfooting around them with our well-intentioned but misguided values and acknowledge the brutal truth we will never halt this malignant blight upon the planet - and so it will continue to spread.
Keyplus, radicalised Westerners – many of whom have committed appalling atrocities in the name of Islam - are not isolated. Try again.
andy-hughes, // military action will always singularly fail to address this issue.//
Perhaps a rational little chat over a nice cup of tea would help?
Zacs, I don’t think everyone does agree that these people are the world’s enemy simply because the motivation behind their actions is consistently misunderstood. We’ve had people here saying “It’s not about religion – it’s about power”, or words that that effect, thereby separating the two, but in the case of radical Islam the two are not separate. They are one and the same and the ambition emanates from the same source – fundamentalist Islam – Islam being the operative word - and the problem isn’t confined to a specific country, or to specific countries, as would be usual in a war situation – it is global because whatever their land of origin, fundamentalist Muslims are Islamists first, and patriots second.
How to tackle it? Death holds no fear for them, they have no intention of entertaining anything like the rules of the Geneva Convention, nor do they acknowledge Human Rights in any shape or form, and therefore until we stop pussyfooting around them with our well-intentioned but misguided values and acknowledge the brutal truth we will never halt this malignant blight upon the planet - and so it will continue to spread.
Keyplus, radicalised Westerners – many of whom have committed appalling atrocities in the name of Islam - are not isolated. Try again.
andy-hughes, // military action will always singularly fail to address this issue.//
Perhaps a rational little chat over a nice cup of tea would help?
"I would not claim to know what the solution is, but my experience of the warmongers who have tried their way have shown me beyond all doubt that I know what the solution is not. " - perhaps Andy but we haven't treated this as what it is yet, WW3, as I have said on several threads, we have only tiptoed around, the civilised world needs to treat this like a word war and do it massively. Up to now we have not really scratched the surface.
OH and I agreed some time ago that WW3 had begun, but we don't as yet recognise it as such. How to fight it is unknown to me. Youngest J sprog says 'education' but that is proven wrong - all the educated young ones going out to join ISIL prove that. Reason certainly won't do it, there is no entity on which to impose sanctions. Hope we'll see Muslims on the streets condemning this, but I think a lot of them are scared.
TTT - " ... the civilised world needs to treat this like a word war and do it massively. Up to now we have not really scratched the surface."
I would disagree that this is a 'war' in the sense that I understand the term.
This is not a battle of armies, it is a battle of ideals and attitudes, and you cannot supress that with military force - as has clearly been proven already.
If you are sitting in Afghanistan or Pakistan as a fundamentalist, and you believe that the West is corrupt and hell-bound, is the invasion of your country by the West likely to underline, or eradicate your viewpoint?
As I say, I would not claim that I know what the solution is - but it is clear that simple butting of heads will always fail, so although Naomi is being sarcastic with her notion of a 'chat', I do believe that some sort of rati0nal exchage of communication is the only real way forward, because conflict simply hardens attitudes on both sides.
I don't think minds will be changed overnight, it may take a few generations to get it right, but we have to start somewhere.
If you approach a solider of faith in his own country with force, you will be met with force, and his belief that he is an invaded martyr will simply spread.
If you try and educate him in the notion that our ideas are different - not right, or wrong, just different, then you go some way towards reaching a level of understanding.
Those who huff and puff and say there is 'no reasoning with terrorists' are simply doomed to continue the waste of life and money with no result - and history has shown that to be the case.
Someone has to start making a move somewhere - and the trite media sound bite 'boots on the ground' is absolutely not the more to make.
I would disagree that this is a 'war' in the sense that I understand the term.
This is not a battle of armies, it is a battle of ideals and attitudes, and you cannot supress that with military force - as has clearly been proven already.
If you are sitting in Afghanistan or Pakistan as a fundamentalist, and you believe that the West is corrupt and hell-bound, is the invasion of your country by the West likely to underline, or eradicate your viewpoint?
As I say, I would not claim that I know what the solution is - but it is clear that simple butting of heads will always fail, so although Naomi is being sarcastic with her notion of a 'chat', I do believe that some sort of rati0nal exchage of communication is the only real way forward, because conflict simply hardens attitudes on both sides.
I don't think minds will be changed overnight, it may take a few generations to get it right, but we have to start somewhere.
If you approach a solider of faith in his own country with force, you will be met with force, and his belief that he is an invaded martyr will simply spread.
If you try and educate him in the notion that our ideas are different - not right, or wrong, just different, then you go some way towards reaching a level of understanding.
Those who huff and puff and say there is 'no reasoning with terrorists' are simply doomed to continue the waste of life and money with no result - and history has shown that to be the case.
Someone has to start making a move somewhere - and the trite media sound bite 'boots on the ground' is absolutely not the more to make.
Latest Posts
News1 min ago
P M Threatened With Libel Suit.......
News2 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.