Islam

[Electra]

Actually, terrorists act in intention to kill people. Thats why they are terrorists. Terrorists who 'didn't mean to hurt anyone' is an oxymoron, no?

 

[humblemuslim]

Actually, terrorists act in intention to kill people. Thats why they are terrorists. Terrorists who 'didn't mean to hurt anyone' is an oxymoron, no?

Electra I'm going to have to respectful disagree with your defintion of Terrorism.


You think Terrorism is "an act with intention to kill people"

Is murder terrorism?
Is sucide self-inflicted terrorism?
Is war terrorism?

Come on, did you even read what I had to say on the subject of terrorism and how I defined it?

I don't think intention for an action to result in death or harm is a condition an action must meet to be terrorism.

Peace

 

[thestudent7000]

'Was Muhammad a good role model for future generations when he married a six year girl?'

lets look at some facts:
the hadiths state that they were married at the age Aisha started puberty which was nine. there are no hadiths which state when they first had 'relations'. there is also a hadith where Aisha states that she never saw Muhammeds private parts or that she saw his. what is also fact is that most of his wives were widows, who (excluding aisha) ranged from the ages of 17 to 40 (im sure someone here can give accurate ages for each wife). what is also fact is that aisha grew to be a well respected member of the islamic world whos opinion was saught far and wide. this is a fantastic example for women and equal rights everywhere. everything else you say is SPECULARATORY.
what is also fact is that Muhammed taught that IDEALLY a man should find a wife his own age, height and build. what is also fact is that muhammed was married multiple times to quicken the spread of islam and build bridges between Islam and the tribes he was trying to reach.

what is also fact is that according to jewish law a girl may be married at 12. please tell me, was jesus a jew? did he not say that he 'came not to change the law'? so please tell me, as christians, whos laws do you follow?
and please tell me, how old was Mary when she was pregnant with Jesus?

you complain of the number of wives he had. please tell me, how many wives AND concubines did Solomon have?

non-muslims, i urge you. before you criticise Islam, look at the teachings of the Books you deem HOLY. we are not so different.

 

[farside]

The Quran provides an excellent definition of a terrorist.

Quran 007.004PICKTHAL: How many a township have We destroyed! As a raid by night, or while they slept at noon, Our terror came unto them.

Kind Regards,
Farside

 

[stone]

solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines, but fact is that as David's son, woman were giveing themselves to him in hopes of giveing birth to the messiah, and of course, that is not how things work.

 

[Electra]

Electra I'm going to have to respectful disagree with your defintion of Terrorism.


You think Terrorism is "an act with intention to kill people"

Is murder terrorism?
Is sucide self-inflicted terrorism?
Is war terrorism?

Come on, did you even read what I had to say on the subject of terrorism and how I defined it?

I don't think intention for an action to result in death or harm is a condition an action must meet to be terrorism.

Peace

I was not refering to the deffinition of terrorism per se. I was refering to your post of saying that when a terrorist group, attacks has no intention of killing people. They do, thats why they are terrorists.

Like Chechnya school hostage situation. They went in there with the intention to kill children/adults. They are wanting to get the attention of the goverment, and they are doing so by harming other beings.

 

[rahma]

The Quran provides an excellent definition of a terrorist.

Quran 007.004PICKTHAL: How many a township have We destroyed! As a raid by night, or while they slept at noon, Our terror came unto them.

Actually, that's God speaking of the towns He destroyed for their sins, such as Sodom and Gomorroah. And, the arabic word Pickthall has translated here as terror is better understood as punishment.

 

[humblemuslim]

I was not refering to the deffinition of terrorism per se. I was refering to your post of saying that when a terrorist group, attacks has no intention of killing people. They do, thats why they are terrorists.

Ummm, I can tell by this that your understanding of my post isn't as I meant or you have only read a select few of my later posts and are not up to speed on my inital posts which hold alot of the details that seem to be bugging you. (My posts on terrorism start at post #71 on this thread, infact this post is where I mentioned most of the details)

I labeled terrorism under two categories: Simple and Complex. Or did you not read this? The type of terrorism you seem to think isn't terrorism is "Simple" although I haven't seen anything discrediting such an action as terrorism...Intentional death or harm is complex terrorism which I already stated twice is never morally permissible.

Like Chechnya school hostage situation. They went in there with the intention to kill children/adults. They are wanting to get the attention of the goverment, and they are doing so by harming other beings.

This would be a case of Complex Terrorism (Assuming the action met the basic requires of Terrorism in general).

 

[farside]

Six is the number!

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236:Narrated Hisham's father: Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64: Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65: Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death)." what you know of the Quran (by heart)'

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3309: 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Messenger married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house at the age of nine.

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310:'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.

P.S. The magical numbers of Islam are 19, 66, 99, 6184, and now 6.

Kind Regards,
Farside

 

[farside]

Actually, that's God speaking of the towns He destroyed for their sins, such as Sodom and Gomorroah. And, the arabic word Pickthall has translated here as terror is better understood as punishment.

Allah is the quintessential terrorist. Is he not?

Kind Regards,
Farside

 

[humblemuslim]

The Quran provides an excellent definition of a terrorist.

Quran 007.004PICKTHAL: How many a township have We destroyed! As a raid by night, or while they slept at noon, Our terror came unto them.

Thank you farside for revealing your anti-Islamic biased nature. Why don't you try, just attempt, to appear knowledgable on what you speak of and at least TRY to use the context. By not using the context you either show that you are one of the following:

1. A copy/paster with no knowledgable standing on the subject

2. A person who goes to websites (Anti-Islamic perhaps) sees an article and rips out a quoted verse and proclaim a false interpertation ignoring the context

3. Someone who is purely anti-Islamic and will go to any lengths to make Islam look bad, even if it means intentially lying about meanings when you know better

4. Possibly something else


007.004
YUSUFALI: How many towns have We destroyed (for their sins)? Our punishment took them on a sudden by night or while they slept for their afternoon rest.
PICKTHAL: How many a township have We destroyed! As a raid by night, or while they slept at noon, Our terror came unto them.
SHAKIR: And how many a town that We destroyed, so Our punishment came to it by night or while they slept at midday.

007.005
YUSUFALI: When (thus) Our punishment took them, no cry did they utter but this: "Indeed we did wrong."
PICKTHAL: No plea had they, when Our terror came unto them, save that they said: Lo! We were wrong-doers.
SHAKIR: Yet their cry, when Our punishment came to them, was nothing but that they said: Surely we were unjust.

So farside you believe terrorism targets Unjust,wrongdoers? Otherwise evil people? I thought it targeted innocent people.


CONCLUSION:

This post specifically has the stinch of arogance and ignorance. Please clean up this horrible behavior before it gets out of control!

Also read what rahma stated if you are still in doubt. (Even though I doubt you could be sound of mind and still be in doubt from the given CLEAR context.)


Peace!

 

[humblemuslim]

Allah is the quintessential terrorist. Is he not?

Learn what terrorism is then we can have an intelligent discussion.


Peace!

 

[Electra]

I labeled terrorism under two categories: Simple and Complex.

And I can tell you right now that there is no such thing as 'simple' or 'complex' terrorism. Terrorism is terrorism, and all acts of violence against civilians are equally wrong and spine chilling.

I have read your original post after seeing it being quoted, and you were in a subtle kind of way trying to justify violence. Terrorism is called that because it is terrorising civilians - acts of terror. There is no such thing as complex or accidental terrorism.

Anyone who blows anything up where the civilians will be killed, shoots any person who is a civilian or puts civilians in any danger is a terrorist.

In case you are confused, here is the dictionary explanation of terrorism -

''The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons''

 

[humblemuslim]

And I can tell you right now that there is no such thing as 'simple' or 'complex' terrorism. Terrorism is terrorism, and all acts of violence against civilians are equally wrong and spine chilling.

There is a difference Electra. Unless you are a Moral consquentialist (Only the outcome matters) then there is a very valid distinction being made. Is the intention to kill or harm life or not? If you feel otherwise please give me a good moral argument why and not some baseless opinions.

I have read your original post after seeing it being quoted, and you were in a subtle kind of way trying to justify violence. Terrorism is called that because it is terrorising civilians - acts of terror. There is no such thing as complex or accidental terrorism.

You still don't understand? Yes you're correct there is no "Accidental Terrorism". Don't put words in my mouth.

I clearly defined terrorism: Do you feel my definiton of TERRORISM (Simply my base defintion) is flawed? If so specify what and how using a good moral argument, not opinions.

If you feel my base defintion is ok then I ask the following:

Do you feel Simple terrorism is possible? Yes or no and reasoning

You obviously agree with complex terrrorism as currently that's all you have your mind and posts on.

Anyone who blows anything up where the civilians will be killed, shoots any person who is a civilian or puts civilians in any danger is a terrorist.

A murderer is a terrorist? Please your defintion is too vague and broad. If you wish to have a worthwhile conversation we need to distinguish WHAT IS TERRORISM. Currently your dinstinction isn't very interesting, as even a street thug is a terrorist. Do you honestly think that?

In case you are confused, here is the dictionary explanation of terrorism -

''The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons''

So you agree with the dictionary defintion? Funny, I actually did impliment this into my model for terrorism but added more specifics. And this definition supports my position on SIMPLE terrorism by the following:

"threatened use of force or violence"

Threats are one form of simple terrorism, no intention to cause death or harm. Therfore EVEN BY THE DICTIONARY your position on terrorism is false (Which isn't surprising to me, as I did look up the definition and interagted it into the model I came up with)


I REPEAT:

PROVE MY MODEL TO BE FALSE BY FACT NOT OPINION!

Peace

 

[farside]

''The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons''

From the Quran, we have

003.151YUSUFALI: Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority: their abode will be the Fire: And evil is the home of the wrong-doers!

Clearly, Allah is the quintessential terrorist.

Kind Regards,
Farside

 

[rahma]

[/color]

Allah is the quintessential terrorist. Is he not?

Kind Regards,
Farside

No, not really. The God of the Old Testament did the same thing in destroying Sodom and Gamorah. God raining down fire and brimstone to punish people isn't anything new. He did flood the earth at one point too.

 

[ghazirizvi]

Anyone who blows anything up where the civilians will be killed, shoots any person who is a civilian or puts civilians in any danger is a terrorist.

So the US, not to mention every other government which has waged war in the 20th century (including UK) is a terrorist

 

[Electra]

"threatened use of force or violence"

Threats are one form of simple terrorism, no intention to cause death or harm. Therfore EVEN BY THE DICTIONARY your position on terrorism is false (Which isn't surprising to me, as I did look up the definition and interagted it into the model I came up with)


I REPEAT:

PROVE MY MODEL TO BE FALSE BY FACT NOT OPINION!

Peace

Your model is very false. It is you basing it on the opinion of your own - please do not accuse me of something you're doing.

Educate yourself first - find your model in the official documents and quote it to me.

http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2001/20010024.htm
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/terrorism/govprotect/legislation/ptb.html

Read up on the terrorist organisations here -

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/terrorism/threat/groups/

Here is another interesting list

http://www.terrorism.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=TGroups&file=index

http://www.terrorism.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Attacks&file=index

And finaly you can have a look here at 'deffinitions' at the most accepted deffinition of terrorism - and the one I have posted.
There isnt a single deffinition for all, so that discards all your other posts
Read -
http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/terror2000_2001.htm

 

[Electra]

So the US, not to mention every other government which has waged war in the 20th century (including UK) is a terrorist

American and British bombing of civilians were acts of terrorism, of course.
All war is terrorism. Agressors are terrorists. And if you care to read the links above, in american constitution, the ''second model of terrorism'' is the model where the 'counter terrorism' is used by goverment to stop the known terrorist group and/or activity like Al Qaeda for example.

Meaning its not ''simple terrorism'' as humblemuslim seem to think, its counter terrorism as they call it - deffence.
My personal view is that this kind of constitution can be abused easely...too easely.

 

[ghazirizvi]

American and British bombing of civilians were acts of terrorism, of course.
All war is terrorism. Agressors are terrorists. And if you care to read the links above, in american constitution, the ''second model of terrorism'' is the model where the 'counter terrorism' is used by goverment to stop the known terrorist group and/or activity like Al Qaeda for example.

Meaning its not ''simple terrorism'' as humblemuslim seem to think, its counter terrorism as they call it - deffence.
My personal view is that this kind of constitution can be abused easely...too easely.

Well I guess you are entitled to your opinion, ofcourese.

But I tend t agree with brother humblemuslim in that there ARE two forms of terrorism.

I however have the opinion that war and simple terrorism are ok venues when all other options are exhausted.