Indeed, but rejection of their interpretation of any given idealogy does not negate the connection to whatever religion or belief structure that said fundamentalists ascribe to.
Obama defends ground zero mosque plans
- Thread starter GJ02
- Start date
Indeed, but rejection of their interpretation of any given idealogy does not negate the connection to whatever religion or belief structure that said fundamentalists ascribe to.
That is a cover, which is to do with their desire for power, not any legitimate relation to Islam.
It's a subjective thing.
There's a connection in their minds, as they claim, yes, for reasons that remain ambiguous.
Last edited:
Legitimate or not, the connection remains.
Religion in it's entirety is subjective.
My point exactly. The connection is there. Al Qaeda is an Islamic Fundamentalist Organistion, whether you agree or disagree with their ideology that fact is incontrovertable.
Then your argument for a connection is insufficient.
Last edited:
The question is how strong and credible that link is.
For example, if a member of the Labour party assassinated David Cameron "in the name of the Labour party" would be condemn the Labour party for his actions?
It is considerably stronger than your counter argument which seems to be "Because I refuse to believe there is a connection."
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 4,936
- Location
- Manchester.
If someone was to bomb the London underground in the name of Ronald McDonald would we have to remove all McDonald's from London?
Or would most people think they have nothing to do with McDonalds like 99.9999% of Muslims have nothing to do with Al-Qa'ida or terrorism.
There is just no real link. The Koran doesn't promote violence any more than the Bible.
These people say they are Muslims but they aren't at all which is proved quite well by the fact they killed hundreds of people.
Or would most people think they have nothing to do with McDonalds like 99.9999% of Muslims have nothing to do with Al-Qa'ida or terrorism.
There is just no real link. The Koran doesn't promote violence any more than the Bible.
These people say they are Muslims but they aren't at all which is proved quite well by the fact they killed hundreds of people.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 16,379
- Location
- 38.744281°N 104.846806°W
That implies there are (or have only ever been) ~ 1250 Islamic 'terrorists' in the world.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 4,936
- Location
- Manchester.
thanks for working that out. It obviously wasn't intended to be accurate, but you get the idea.
No and I am not saying that just because an Islamic terrorist kills someone that all Muslims should be condemned.
Simply that the link between Islam, however it is interpreted and Al Qaeda exists.
The very fact that adherents to fundamental Islam follow it's five pillars is sufficent proof of a connection.
How they interpret Ji'had is a separate issue.
They are still Muslim, they just interpret the Qu'ran differently. Whether they are right or wrong doesn't mean that the connection between moderate and radical Islam doesn't exist.
To simply ignore this connection as irrelevent only serves to increase the chances of radicalisation within the Muslim community.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 4,936
- Location
- Manchester.
I would say persecuting the majority of muslims who aren't terrorists is more likely to cause radicalisation.
If I was a Muslim and my local mosque was closed down or they wouldn't open any more I would be understandably slightly annoyed.
I don't ascribe to persecution of any group whatsoever and that isn't what I am saying.
Radical Islam exists, moderate Muslims who simply state that they are not real Muslims are ignoring the very real politization of it's own youth in the name of Islam and by doing so are increasing the enmity being shown toward Islam in general.
Ignoring the link exists does no one any good.
OK then, but would you take seriously a Labour politician's assertion that he was acting in the name of the Labour party if he killed Cameron? And would you believe the link to the Labour party was credible or even relevant?
You know what, Castiel? I concede the link point to a reasonable degree, but let me explain. Firstly, I'm not a Muslim, nor am I religious at all. I'm, admittedly, parroting a lot of what some Muslim friends of mine convinced me of. They are indeed amongst those that often say something like "they aren't true Muslims and that's all there is to it".
I've been of two minds, and the one I was siding with here is obvious. I agree that for those nearly 2 billion adherents to properly handle these things, they need to have an open, honest discussion instead of callously ignoring the problem (and, yes, it is an extremely real problem), and that includes accepting and moving forward with what you brought up.
As has been thought of countless times before I'm sure, all religious leaders of the world should perhaps get together and work towards a universal constitution of sorts. That, and no doubt thoroughly recognising and dealing with the complex conditions through which radicalisation forms.
Anyway, I'll be sure and have a conversation with my friends on this again, and from a much better position.
Go ahead and think lesser of me for not being afraid of admitting wrong and growing as a person, I can take it.
I've been of two minds, and the one I was siding with here is obvious. I agree that for those nearly 2 billion adherents to properly handle these things, they need to have an open, honest discussion instead of callously ignoring the problem (and, yes, it is an extremely real problem), and that includes accepting and moving forward with what you brought up.
As has been thought of countless times before I'm sure, all religious leaders of the world should perhaps get together and work towards a universal constitution of sorts. That, and no doubt thoroughly recognising and dealing with the complex conditions through which radicalisation forms.
Anyway, I'll be sure and have a conversation with my friends on this again, and from a much better position.
Go ahead and think lesser of me for not being afraid of admitting wrong and growing as a person, I can take it.
Last edited:
Go ahead and think lesser of me for not being afraid of admitting wrong and growing as a person, I can take it.
Ha, give over, more people on this forum (and the whole Interwebs) need to learn to admit it when they're wrong.
That would depend entirely on the Labour parties policies at any given time.
Currently it is unreasonable to say that any Labour politician who assassinated Cameron would be acting on the explicit orders or indeed that any link between his actions and the Labour party has any relevence beyond the fact that he was a Labour politician and interpreted their manifesto in such a way as to believe that he was doing what the manifesto required.
Interestingly a related story in some ways has surfaced in today's papers over the supposed suicide of Dr David Kelly. Would there be a link to the Labour Party in this case if it is found that he was indeed murdered for political reasons.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7947544/David-Kelly-was-not-murdered.html
The problem is that Islam has a history of radical and fundamentalist interpretations which have been used to the advantage of certain groups to forward their political ambitions or religious ideals. The Labour Party has no such history.
If it were a BNP member who assassinated a minority MP, would you still say there was no link between an extreme ideology based on a largely moderate political system.
I do not, for one minute, equate fundamentalist or radical Islamic actions with the majority of Islamic belief, but if we ignore the fundamental and basic belief structures which both radicalism and moderatism share then we are in danger of ignoring many of the tools that fundamentalists use to radicalise their adherents.
Last edited:
