Islamic jihad: the genocide in the Sudan

Its the dark ages with advanced weaponry and communications. Islam is 600 years behind Christianity is as far as theocratic concepts go. If history repeats itself hopefully the oppressed will revolt. It would be nice if the communications and advanced weaponry would work to their advantage (ie revolt and the rest of the world helps), but I think most people are smart enough to know that the rest of the world will only a help a bit, and then possibly withdraw that help unexpectadly.So the revolution will take some time yet I'm afraid, perhaps as long as it took for Europe to throw the oppressive theocracies off (all in all nearly 20 centuries and the idea isn't entirely dead yet).A peaceful moderate Muslim East would be absolutely wonderful, but those in power will do anything to stay there. And if that means bullying people with threats of Allah's wrath, the destruction of culture, rape and bullets in the head, then they will if they can get away with it.Re Sudan particularly - some of the people are trying to get out from the yoke of oppression, but the cost is so high they have to think of their lives and their families' lives as well as the rest of the innocent people that could die in civil war/revolution. Hopefully, the struggles will continue and the situation will be favourably stabilized. I don't have much confidence that it will be any time soon...though there is some cautious optimism from other quarters.

If someone saying that they are Christian uses passages from the Holy Bible to justify murder or other atrocities, you would retort that they clearly were not Christian and provide passages that would indicate why.The same happens when some people saying they are Muslim use passages from the Holy Qu'ran to justify atrocities.Why is it right for you, but not right for Muslims?Careful, though! You may be tempted to say that the Qu'ran *is* violent or *does* espouse violence. Yet you are not a Muslim, so you are not able to interpret what the Qu'ran says properly any more than an atheist can interpret properly what the Bible says.In essence: Either the 'not a true Christian' argument works for Muslims (with suitable word replacement) as well as for Christians. Or it works for neither. I propose that it is surely hypocrisy to have it both ways. It is nought but special pleading.

Clearly these Muslims aren't actually Muslims any more than the Christians who committed atrocities (yet claimed they were Christians) were Christians. If no true Christian commits atrocities then no true Muslim does either.See the bind? According to a non-Muslim's interpretation. An non-christian might say that the Christian texts are not violated but fulfilled by violence...but you would suggest that since they are not Christians they don't understand the Bible etc.The same argument works both ways.In short: Many Muslims condemn terrorism and say that it is a corruption and perversion of Scripture. So either:1) The Muslims you mentioned are not true Muslims (like violent Christians aren't true Christians) and the ones I mention are.2) The Muslims you mentioned are true Muslims and the ones I mention aren't.3) They are both true Muslims.As a non-Muslim who has not had the grace of Allah open your eyes to the holiness of the Qu'ranic scripture...how can you assign yourself as a judge as to who is a True Muslim and who isn't? You can't - or if you can, then non-Christians are able to judge who is a True Christian and who is not, and you find yourself in a twist because then Christianity can be claimed to be violent. I'm equating the argument of no true Christian to the argument of no true Muslim. I never mentioned their history was the same. And it certainly wouldn't be politically correct to do so, since politically correct things are designed to cause no offense whereas such a comment is very likely to cause offense.

---

http://canberra.usembassy.gov/hyper/2002/1011/epf504.htm Spanish Muslims decry Al Qaeda - CSMonitor.com 403 Forbidden

Which is standard fare for any 'self defense' scenario. The person who aggresses will always claim it was in self defense. Famously and recently the Iraq war comes to mind. The claim was that we attacked them because they were trying to get weapons to attack us with. Justified or not, it's the same kind of reasoning that extremists use all over.I suppose it is possible to justify killing everybody using the Bible as a guide. You can't murder, but plenty of 'true christians' have gone to war and killed. Why? Because they were fighting evil. If evil is sin and we are all sinners, all killing is justified.Obviously this requires twisting the text, which is precisely what Islamic extremist leaders do. Their version is more polished and convincing of course, otherwise it wouldn't stick.

I am making no moral equivalence arguments. I am not saying what is right or wrong, or that there is no right and wrong. For the purposes of my argument it doesn't even matter if the Qu'ran does justify murder. What matters is your qualifications in regard to judging the matter. If you aren't qualified you have to cease the debate, if you are qualified what makes you qualified to make this decision where others are not qualified to make the decision about Christianity?What makes you so special? You seem to be ignoring me.According to some people's interpretation the Qu'ran justifies terrorism. According to others it does not. According to you, only Christians who have come to Jesus etc can understand the Bible. I put it to you that you cannot judge what the Qu'ran justifies or not. If you think you can, then the same applies for non-Christians and the Bible. Or you are special pleading. Your choices:1. The Qu'ran can only interpreted by the true believers. The same applies for the Bible. If you disagree that the same applies to Qu'ran and the Bible go to number 3.2. The Qu'ran can be interpreted by anybody. The same applies for the Bible. If not option 1 or 2, go to number 3.3. Special plead that either Islam or Christianity is an exception.If you can name another option, go for it, but I'm sure that's exhaustive. I'm lumping hypocrisy and special pleading in the same bucket by the way...for ease. Very good. So am I to believe that a non-Muslim has authority to decide who is a true Muslim and who isn't? Does this also apply to Christianity? If it doesn't apply to both then you are special pleading/hypocritical.Of course you could be saying that they are both true Muslims, in which case you have yet another can of worms to deal with.Its not a nice choice to make, I know Faith, but I see nothing else for it...you can't have it both ways without special pleading. And the special pleading defense works for both parties so it doesn't get us anywhere.

---

In the end, I don't expect you to actually address the issues, because to do so would undermine at least one of your main arguments in a critical manner. If you want to respond by simply asserting that my argument is bogus and then misrepresenting it as some kind of 'moral equivalence' argument...without any supporting argumentation, then there is no debate. You are simply avoiding my points and technically breaking forum rules. At this point you must either1. Continue stating I am wrong with no rational argumentation behind it.2. Stop responding to my points and let others decide who's point is stronger.3. Concede that you are not qualified to make a judgement on what the Qu'ran says and who is a true Muslim.4. Concede that non-Christians are qualified to make a judgement on what the Bible says and who is a true Christian.5. Demonstrate, using rational argumentation, an alternative option to choose. Rebutting my point and putting the ball in my court.Since I don't want to go around in circles. Can you choose one now, and if you choose option 1, I can just refer you to my previous posts until you choose something else.

I went looking. I thought it might be from Surah 2: or perhaps Edited by Modulous, : needed a decent subtitle

Ignoring for a moment that this is under debate, why does it mean the character of Islam won't change? Christianity changed from Christ's time to the Dark Ages through the Crusades and the Inquisition and then into the Rennaisance and Age of Reason. Why can Islam not do likewise? I'm sure some Muslims will hang about moaning that the scripture is being translated for convenience (much like literalist/fundamentalists in the Christian community do now), but it doesn't mean that Islamic culture won't change.Of course, the ignoring the bit about what the Qu'ran says is a pretty important thing to ignore. I can see why people think that it is violent - but only in the same way Christianity is (well a little different which I'll come to). We don't stone women to death because that instruction does not apply anymore...the same goes for the Qu'ran. Everytime I look at the Qu'ran I keep seeing references to leaving people alone unless they bother you, and retaliating in kind. I see tolerance for other religions as long as those religions are peaceful to Muslims.The big difference is that Christianity explicitly forbids retaliation. Indeed, it espouses a combat style which would allow your enemy a free shot whenever he hits you. That is where the difference lies. Islam is closer to Judaism than Christianity - eye for an eye and all that...but with a higher dose of Mercy and Forgiveness.Of course, many Muslims ignore the spirit and content of the Qu'ran and attempt to use it to justify the acts you speak of. Oddly, Christians go to war in the name of their neo-pacifist God (he used to be all vengeful but now the rules change). But hey, followers of religions aren't perfect. I don't intend to special plea for Christianity because I happened to be one for a long time, or that I happen to like Christianity more than Islam. I am not going to special plea for Islam because it is somehow 'politically correct' either, or because I dislike my former religion. I just look to basic selfish human behaviour for the answers...religion is just a good excuse as far as I'm concerned, to twist and manipulate those that are gullible or who are crazy enough to enjoy being given any old justification for murdering people that they perceive have ruined their lives.I'm glad we can all agree on one thing though - it's a sorry state of affairs and if there is a God, I hope he has mercy on the souls of the victims of this madness.

So are you saying that the current majority of people that claim they are Christians are adhering more strongly to the Bible than they were centuries ago? I thought you thought the opposite and that in the current world most people have corrupted the meaning of the Bible to suit themselves...ie non-literal interpretation of vastly important sections that you think should be considered literal. Right - oppressive theocracy. It happened with Christianity too, but there were revolutions. That was kind of my point. I also discussed the possibilities (or impossibilities) of successful revolution in the modern era. Check out the post Buz was replying to. OK, so continuing from our previous discussion you have decided to go for the Both option - and have decided to also opt for the 'Non-Muslims are able to understand and interpret what the Qu'ran says and means' option. The question now remains - are you going to special plead for Christianity, or are non-Christians (or those who clearly dislike Christianity) able to understand and interpret what it says? We can use a non-violent section if you'd prefer. How about Genesis? Is an atheist (for example) able to correctly interpret what it means and how it should be read? You've been asked to actually substantiate this by myself, jazzns and jar (in fact jar has asked for a specific reference to a quote you posted several times now). Which parts are not the tolerant parts? I see lots of passages that say retaliate against that that oppress you. Bad people justify killing innocent people because they believe government of these people oppresses them and they reason that in a democracy the government is the people.I'm not sure how they justify killing foreign nationals, children and others not elligible to vote.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I think the point is, that it isn't a literal reading - they (and you) just claim it is. However, even more to the point is this little gem: Does this mean that jar's reading of the Bible is just as valid as yours? Is my reading of the Bible as valid as yours?

I didn't say literal words, I said literal reading - where context is important. Otherwise we can easily indict Christians as violent on the basis that their book tells them to stone women and children to death. That's hardly inciting people to kill Jews or engage in terrorism. The bible too condemns unbelievers.

quote:

---

Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

---

That is not Surah 98:6.

quote:

---

YUSUFALI: Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures.
PICKTHAL: Lo! those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings.
SHAKIR: Surely those who disbelieve from among the followers of the Book and the polytheists shall be in the fire of hell, abiding therein; they are the worst of men.

---

That is. I couldn't find anywhere that recommends 'no mercy'. Is incomplete. If we look at what it is talking about we find discussions of taking prisoners and letting them free as a favour or ransoming them (not cutting off their heads). We also find that smiting of the unbelievers only during war.

quote:

---

(As for) those who disbelieve and turn away from Allah's way, He shall render their works ineffective.
And (as for) those who believe and do good, and believe in what has been revealed to Muhammad, and it is the very truth from their Lord, He will remove their evil from them and improve their condition.
That is because those who disbelieve follow falsehood, and have given them their dowries, taking (them) in marriage, not fornicating nor taking them for paramours in secret; and whoever denies faith, his work indeed is of no account, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers.
So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish.
He will guide them and improve their condition.
And cause them to enter the garden which He has made known to them.

---

see Message 78 for how that elipses skips an important mercy clause (that is - don't be friends with them, and if they leave so be it. If they come back, kill them). And its not unbelievers - its people that try and make Muslims disbelieve (They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved). ...so be careful when you turn your back on them in prayer. Indeed, its probably wise to keep pray short when near those that are enemies lest they take advantage.

quote:

---

And when you journey in the earth, there is no blame on you if you shorten the prayer, if you fear that those who disbelieve will cause you distress, surely the unbelievers are your open enemy.

---

---

So yeah, once again I say - where in the Qu'ran does it justify terrorism...or are such interpretations made by those who would incite Muslims to violence or discredit Islam?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

If we consider two parties. Masterminds and terrorists. Masterminds convince terrorists to kill other people, possibly themselves at the same time...but don't often do the killing directly.The Mastermind's tactic goes something like this:Find someone who is already angered at intended target (perhaps the IDF killed their innocent family or perhaps their child was killed by a stray American bomb). Then convince them that these people must be made to pay for what they have done, lest they continue. Justify it by quoting parts of the Qu'ran out of context to suggest that Allah himself wills it. Get the person riled up with righteous anger, promise to pay their still living families a good amount of money, and point them at a target.Voila! Insta-terrorist.The masterminds prey on impressionable young minds using authority and religion and turning that person's pain around to homicidal and suicidal anger. It helps if the future terrorist was already unbalanced/psychotic by the time the Mastermind comes along.In this scenario the reason they never see through this is because they don't want to. Often they are driven by a desire for vengeance, at any cost. Vengeance can make you do stupid things at the best of times. When a bunch of authority figures are positively encouraging you into vengeance and giving you the means to achieve your goal...In short - the answer is probably psychological in nature rather than theological. (religion is being used as a psychological weapon to convince someone to kill innocent people).In the course of writing this post I found an interesting book that I am adding to my wishlist THE MAKING OF A TERRORIST
Recruitment, Training, and Root Causesbut

Well, not quite. My thinking comes from reading and listening to the reports of experts in the field. I only discussed a limited number of scenarios (one in particular). Psychotics were a small subset of the scenario. I was mostly talking about pissed off people with an axe to grind. Yes. But their motivation comes from elsewhere, and the reason why they don't realise that their God won't reward them for it is psychological in nature...they don't want to - their anger clouds their mind. Whether that anger comes from something specific like a family member (or friend of the family) being killed, or just general disaffection enflamed by charismatic rhetoric from our Masterminds. I even mentioned greed (Masterminds paying the terrorists families a handsome sum).Muslims don't just look at the Qu'ran and say 'Oh right, I'll blow myself up then'. Why do you think these masterminds spend so much time trying to recruit new members? You mentioned Wahabbi infiltration into US Mosques. Why do that? Because then they can begin with the grand sounding rhetoric, sewing the seeds of discontent before offering a way to fix things. All the while trying to convince people that it is justified/encouraged by their holy book. It doesn't matter whether or not it is...as long as they can convince people it is.You asked a question - why don't these people see through all of this brainwashing and realise that their God doesn't say this or that. The answer is most of them do, but the masterminds don't need to convince everybody, just a percentage of angry, gullible, or homicidal people will do. Most people that are already homicidal do this anyway...but I don't think that terrorists start as homicidal. I think they are angry and possibly they would like to kill people for it, but in an abstract way that most people do when they have been wronged. If you catch someone like this at the right time, and give them the means, most of the time it won't happen. But even a 1% success rate will result in a legion of terrorists.Plenty of people have killed and died crying "Deus Vult!" and similar things - in spite of the fact that the religious texts in question don't actually say that He will it at all.You know that 1% of people are schizophrenic, as many as 5% are sociopathic and about the same amount of psychopathic. I wasn't using the technical term for psychotic...I was just using it as a synonym for 'nutter' 'loon' 'maniac' 'extremely antisocial. That is to say I was talking about something more akin to sociopaths/psychopaths rather than psychotic. Heh - if it didn't cost $300 I would, I'll have to hope someone buys it for my birthday.

---

You know that one of the favoured recruitment centres for extremists is in prison: Why prison? Could it be filled with anti-social dissaffected people? And more: from here. The theme wherever I look at experts on terrorism is not "Islam teaches violences that's why", but "Islam can easily be used to justify violence and it is easier to squeeze a radical message from the Qu'ran...so people who are dissafected, anti-social and willing to commit violence (violent criminals for example), find the Imam's words make sense..."The question is - why do they need to do all this to recruit terrorists...why can the Qu'ran not speak for itself? The reason is because the Qu'ran does not proscribe such acts, but a charismatic orator can convince a certain percentage of a certain kind of audience that the Qu'ran does tell people to commit terrorism. Voila!Edited by Modulous, : a few clarifications is all

The same answer applies to this statement as it did the last time. This is based on the reports of experts in terrorism that I have seen. No, which is why not all Terrorists are Muslim. Terrorists can be Christian (IRA), Jewish (Irgun), Hindu (Tamil Tigers) or mixed (LRA/UPDCA). One thing you'll find in common with all these groups is some kind of political agenda by the masterminds. You may also find a strong element of dissaffection with authority. Yes - exactly, that is what I am saying. These people do think that they are murdering people God is against. The question you asked was why do these people not realise that their Holy Book does not condone such actions. No, not at all. What I am saying is that these people want to attack America/authority because they are really upset about them. Islam and corrupt imam's give them an excuse, the means, and the encouragement to give their anger form and make those that hurt them pay. I quoted you earlier - you didn't mention the brainwashing specifically, but I was putting your question into context of my posts. The exact quote I was responding to was:

quote:

---

If you think you can separate terrorism from the teachings, why can't the terrorists? They are absolutely convinced that they are obeying Allah, and it looks to me like they have good reason to think so.

---

And my response can be found in Message 121 where I introduced the idea that they are convinced they are obeying Allah because of the brainwashing (I don't like the term 'brainwashing' incidentally, because it sounds so vague, that's why I detailed a specific scenario rather than a generic brainwashing. For convenience I shortened it to brainwashing later). Almost identical opinion here - the difference is that it is a corrupted and twisted teaching of Islam about what Allah wants (in my opinion, and in the opinion of many millions of Muslims) that requries out of context quotes and charismatic rhetoric to stand up - the recruits are often ignorant of the historical context of the verses quoted (like what happens when people quote the Bible out of historical context), or don't care to look into it. That is to say: the people who are given this twisted lesson believe it because they want to believe it, not because it is true. Perhaps it is a sincere belief. I think its more like both. A political belief that has stemmed from their culture and religion. A bit like some Televangelists - I believe they are truly sincere in their belief of God...yet they still make a profit from it all. Many Christians would say that these televangelists are twisting the Bible for their own ends - yet they may still sincerely believe what they are saying. Touche, and with that joint concession we should turn it over to the terrorism experts and let the Qu'ran speak for itself. I've looked to the experts, and reported what they say, and quoted the Qu'ran and what it says. So far I've seen nothing from terrorism experts or the Qu'ran which says anything about Islam being murderous/rapist in nature. True. I noticed the error after my edit and didn't feel like doing another one. It's one of those words where a spelling error (no - I'm not going to pretend it was a typo) can change the intended meaning drastically. I figured you would know what I meant though

Of course not, indeed if we want to push it I don't think anybody can possibly know anything.However, we can look at what the masterminds are saying by sitting in and listening. We can learn their tactics by confiscating the CD-ROMS and booklets. We can observe what is happening and make conclusions based on it.Its not KNOWING something, but they are the most educated hypothesis based on evidence that we have...better than your uninformed 'armchair' opinion of terrorism. These experts are the ones who earn a living combating and understanding the recruitment techniques of terrorists. The recruitment techniques are fairly well documented - but I suppose it could all be misinformation placed by the evil Islamists to make leftish politically correct secular atheists sympathize so much with them that it cripples the political process used to combat them. Or some other explanation. I don't think that's the case though.But we'll never know. No - its the truth. I have seen nothing from terrorism experts or the Qu'ran which says anything about Islam being murderous/rapist in nature. Maybe you are suggesting these people who spend all their time trying to apprehend terrorists, and the people that read terrorist literature and listen to terrorists speeches are fearful of judging people, and are wracked with pcness.I don't think that is true, but you are entitled to your opinion. Precisely. And when you are trying to understand your enemy I find it is dangerous to settle on the first and most obvious conclusion: They are Muslims so it must be their religion.I tend to try and look past such Fisher-Price answers. Such things are generally massively complex and religion is just one factor. In almost every case of religiously inspired extremism we find that the religion in question has been twisted and torn into a perversion. I don't see any reason to treat Islam any differently. Well - I've tried to find it, but all I see are a bunch of people taking single lines of the Qu'ran horribly out of context. I've seen a few people bring up translations which has been mangled deliberately to incite violence or smear Islam. I am very skeptical about jumping to the conclusion that Islam is as crazy as people make it out to be, and I've read the Qu'ran and seen none of it.I won't special plead - I consider other religions in the same way. I assume extremism comes from perverting the Holy Books, not from the Holy Books themselves, until evidence is provided to the contrary. I have been lied to by Muslims about what the Qu'ran says, in an attempt to convert me (and it almost succeeded), so you can trust that I have no love for Islam, and do not take the word of a Muslim about what the Qu'ran says without double checking for myself. No worries, Faith, I'm not going to chase you all over the place about it. I'm genuinley interested in the subject and would happily change my mind - but I'm a tough cookie to convince. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I don't dismiss something for being conservative, though I do tend to question sources that are trying to advance some kind of opinion/political point using empty good sounding rhetoric. The source you listed was fine (it might be wrong it might right, I didn't care to look into it), and I don't doubt that people that are self-proclaimed Muslims engage in Bad Things.However, I find equating Islam with the brutal theocracies that were/are self-proclaimed Islamic states is not good. Likewise with extremists. The question with Islam centres around only one thing, the Qu'ran - the written Word of God according to Muslims. Everything else in Islam is ancillary. Unfortunately, over the centuries some very bad people who claim to be an authority on the issue have used the religion to their own ends to increase their power or wealth. This has left us with a right royal mess. But the Qu'ran says that if we quarrel about anything we should refer it to Allah and the Apostle.It's difficult to generate any kind of trust given the issues under debate here, but all I can do is give you my assurances that all I seek is the truth in this regard and have no desire to be all nice and whitewashy with any religion since I disagree with them all equally (except one, of course). I am against anti-Jewish propaganda and anti-Christianity propaganda just as much as I am anti-Islam propaganda.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.