Why is Islam blamed for terrorism?

truthbetold wrote:Cd
The world citizen of today is living today. He/she is going to work today. So recent history guides people to formulate their risks and actions.  
A Londoner or new yorker or mumbaikar or Moscow resident or Bali resident or Pakistani citizen who walks out of his front door is confronting a non trivial risk of being targeted.  At a minimum his daily life is interrupted or modified by some security precaution or other.
Is Islam always violent is another discussion but it does not change the basis of perception of today's world citizen. The second sentence is a flawed formulation that is irrelevent without context.

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:Cd
The world citizen of today is living today. He/she is going to work today. So recent history guides people to formulate their risks and actions.  
A Londoner or new yorker or mumbaikar or Moscow resident or Bali resident or Pakistani citizen who walks out of his front door is confronting a non trivial risk of being targeted.  At a minimum his daily life is interrupted or modified by some security precaution or other.
Is Islam always violent is another discussion but it does not change the basis of perception of today's world citizen. The second sentence is a flawed formulation that is irrelevent without context.

I guess obsessive slandering of Islam & holding every single muslim responsible for recent turn of events will bring solace to victims families.

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:Cd
The world citizen of today is living today. He/she is going to work today. So recent history guides people to formulate their risks and actions.  
A Londoner or new yorker or mumbaikar or Moscow resident or Bali resident or Pakistani citizen who walks out of his front door is confronting a non trivial risk of being targeted.  At a minimum his daily life is interrupted or modified by some security precaution or other.
Is Islam always violent is another discussion but it does not change the basis of perception of today's world citizen. The second sentence is a flawed formulation that is irrelevent without context.

I guess obsessive slandering of Islam & holding every single muslim responsible for recent turn of events will bring solace to victims families.

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:Cd
The world citizen of today is living today. He/she is going to work today. So recent history guides people to formulate their risks and actions.  
A Londoner or new yorker or mumbaikar or Moscow resident or Bali resident or Pakistani citizen who walks out of his front door is confronting a non trivial risk of being targeted.  At a minimum his daily life is interrupted or modified by some security precaution or other.
Is Islam always violent is another discussion but it does not change the basis of perception of today's world citizen. The second sentence is a flawed formulation that is irrelevent without context.

I guess obsessive slandering of Islam & holding every single muslim responsible for recent turn of events will bring solace to victims families.

>>You  keep throwing in this straw-man to dilute the discussion and change its course. I am not saying this is intentional but it certainly makes for a very flawed basis to analyze the scenario. The idea behind trying to identify the culprits and figuring out what motivates them is to preempt similar moves in the future. It is not only a tit-for-tat for the victims' suffering. By your logic, there would be no point trying murderers as that won't bring back the people they killed. TBT's point is valid. This idea of not judging Islam based on the short term happenings is another red herring. If the population that is posing the questions is in the here and now, that is their most immediate concern. If a guy is holding a gun to you head, you don't rationalize by saying Charles Manson did much worse.

truthbetold wrote:On more than one occasion different such posters claimed that Islam cannot be blamed for terrorism. An argument I read on such   was summarized below followed by my two cents: 

 'Other religions also have terrorists. Recent example was LTTE is an example of Hindu terrorism.  IRA is an example of Christian/catholic terrorism.' 

(a) People belonging to any faith can be a terrorist.  But only followers of Islam have achieved a record that is the envy of terrorists of all other religions. EXhibit:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamic_terrorist_attacks

These attacks were for a period of more than twenty years and in different geographies of the world and under different types of political systems.

(b) LTTE and IRA are terrorist/extremist organizations and need to be condemned for their tactics. But they have political goal and limited to geographic location. Primary target is the state of those local areas. So world understands them differently from Islamic terrorists.

(c) Wider support for the Terrorist leaders.  Note a 20% of a large number is still large. Pakistan and Indonesia show a significant support to Osama (2003).




As you can guess, I got more comments and my twocents.  I do not expect 'Islam cannot be blamed for terrorism' crowd to be quiet. I presented enough data for a reasonable person to ponder and say, people associated with Islam seem dangerous. 

What do you think?

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:Cd
The world citizen of today is living today. He/she is going to work today. So recent history guides people to formulate their risks and actions.  
A Londoner or new yorker or mumbaikar or Moscow resident or Bali resident or Pakistani citizen who walks out of his front door is confronting a non trivial risk of being targeted.  At a minimum his daily life is interrupted or modified by some security precaution or other.
Is Islam always violent is another discussion but it does not change the basis of perception of today's world citizen. The second sentence is a flawed formulation that is irrelevent without context.

I guess obsessive slandering of Islam & holding every single muslim responsible for recent turn of events will bring solace to victims families.

>>You  keep throwing in this straw-man to dilute the discussion and change its course. I am not saying this is intentional but it certainly makes for a very flawed basis to analyze the scenario. The idea behind trying to identify the culprits and figuring out what motivates them is to preempt similar moves in the future. It is not only a tit-for-tat for the victims' suffering. By your logic, there would be no point trying murderers as that won't bring back the people they killed. TBT's point is valid. This idea of not judging Islam based on the short term happenings is another red herring. If the population that is posing the questions is in the here and now, that is their most immediate concern. If a guy is holding a gun to you head, you don't rationalize by saying Charles Manson did much worse.

truthbetold wrote: I presented enough data for a reasonable person to ponder and say, people associated with Islam seem dangerous.

According to the SPLC, “registered Stormfront users have been disproportionately responsible for some of the most lethal hate crimes and mass killings since the Web forum became the first hate site on the Internet in 1995, a month before the Oklahoma City bombing.

Two of the deadliest non-Islamic acts of terrorism in recent years—the 2012 shooting at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek Wisconsin that killed six, and the Norwegian bombing and subsequent shooting on Utoya that killed a combined 77 people in 2011—were carried out by Stormfront users. Over the past five years in particular—since President Obama’s inauguration—active users of the site have been responsible for the murders of nearly 100 people, suggesting that Stormfront is the online breeding ground for right-wing extremist violence"

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/17/where-white-supremacists-breed-online.html

confuzzled dude wrote:Has Islam always been this violent? any reasonable person won't jump to conclusions based on short term samples.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:Has Islam always been this violent? any reasonable person won't jump to conclusions based on short term samples.

Yes... from the days of Babar and Chenghiz Khan and moors and Ottomans.

They live by the book, act by the book, and live by the book. And, if this is how they live, then the book must be at fault.

Rashmun wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:Has Islam always been this violent? any reasonable person won't jump to conclusions based on short term samples.

Yes... from the days of Babar and Chenghiz Khan and moors and Ottomans.

They live by the book, act by the book, and live by the book. And, if this is how they live, then the book must be at fault.

Chinghiz Khan was not a Muslim. Also, Babur was secular in his outlook as is evident from his letter to Humayun in which he says all religions must be respected and nobody should be persecuted on account of his religion. In contrast the Hindu king Sasanka cut down the sacred tree under which the Budha had attained Enlightenment.

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:Has Islam always been this violent? any reasonable person won't jump to conclusions based on short term samples.

Yes... from the days of Babar and Chenghiz Khan and moors and Ottomans.

They live by the book, act by the book, and live by the book. And, if this is how they live, then the book must be at fault.

Chinghiz Khan was not a Muslim. Also, Babur was secular in his outlook as is evident from his letter to Humayun in which he says all religions must be respected and nobody should be persecuted on account of his religion. In contrast the Hindu king Sasanka cut down the sacred tree under which the Budha had attained Enlightenment.

he cut down the whole tree, did he? was buddha still under it?

indophile wrote:Wasn't it Babur who built that mosque in Ayodhya over a preexisting temple?

indophile wrote:Wasn't it Babur who built that mosque in Ayodhya over a preexisting temple?

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

indophile wrote:Wasn't it Babur who built that mosque in Ayodhya over a preexisting temple?

...History of Babri MASJID... all four versions....

indophile wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

indophile wrote:Wasn't it Babur who built that mosque in Ayodhya over a preexisting temple?

...History of Babri MASJID... all four versions....

Right! no matter what ASI finds there (under a Supreme Court order). Sure one can come up with theories that Somnath and Mathura were not destroyed and ransacked umpteen times, Varanasi was not destroyed (you can see there that Nandi outside faces the Masjid   ), Jehangir was the next best thing to sliced bread, Shajahan was god's gift to mankind, and may eveb paint Aurangzeb as the best that happened to India, and on and on.

Rashmun wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:Has Islam always been this violent? any reasonable person won't jump to conclusions based on short term samples.

Yes... from the days of Babar and Chenghiz Khan and moors and Ottomans.

They live by the book, act by the book, and live by the book. And, if this is how they live, then the book must be at fault.

Chinghiz Khan was not a Muslim. Also, Babur was secular in his outlook as is evident from his letter to Humayun in which he says all religions must be respected and nobody should be persecuted on account of his religion. In contrast the Hindu king Sasanka cut down the sacred tree under which the Budha had attained Enlightenment.

he cut down the whole tree, did he? was buddha still under it?

Yes the whole tree was cut down on the order of the evil Hindu king Sasanka who hated Budhism. This happened long after the Budha had died.

truthbetold wrote:It is a waste of time to discuss history as it is assertion based sandbagging. facts are buried under debris of time. no one has real information.

Islam is an idea. it is not on trial. but the people who follow Islam are causing  immense harm to innocent people using the flag of Islam. try as he might, rashmun cannot refute the monstrous deeds of Islamic terrorists.

let us see if he can justify terrorist acts. let us see if he can explain why swathi was murdered? let us ask him why 200 innocent young school girls were kidnapped ?

Rashmun wrote:

truthbetold wrote:It is a waste of time to discuss history as it is assertion based sandbagging. facts are buried under debris of time. no one has real information.

Islam is an idea. it is not on trial. but the people who follow Islam are causing  immense harm to innocent people using the flag of Islam. try as he might, rashmun cannot refute the monstrous deeds of Islamic terrorists.

let us see if he can justify terrorist acts. let us see if he can explain why swathi was murdered? let us ask him why 200 innocent young school girls were kidnapped ?

First you tell me if there is any religion in the world other than Hinduism which declared a section of its own adherents as "untouchables". Islam is going through a phase which hinduism and Christianity have gone through before, and are still going through to a lesser extent. Nothing more to it. So take it easy.

Further, is it not true that Chaddi fanatics killed the Jesuit missionary Graham Staines and his young son in the jungles of Orissa? The Murder of Staines and his son should make all Chaddis like Uppili and Propagandhi hang their heads in shame rather than point fingers at others.

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

truthbetold wrote:It is a waste of time to discuss history as it is assertion based sandbagging. facts are buried under debris of time. no one has real information.

Islam is an idea. it is not on trial. but the people who follow Islam are causing  immense harm to innocent people using the flag of Islam. try as he might, rashmun cannot refute the monstrous deeds of Islamic terrorists.

let us see if he can justify terrorist acts. let us see if he can explain why swathi was murdered? let us ask him why 200 innocent young school girls were kidnapped ?

First you tell me if there is any religion in the world other than Hinduism which declared a section of its own adherents as "untouchables". Islam is going through a phase which hinduism and Christianity have gone through before, and are still going through to a lesser extent. Nothing more to it. So take it easy.

Further, is it not true that Chaddi fanatics killed the Jesuit missionary Graham Staines and his young son in the jungles of Orissa? The Murder of Staines and his son should make all Chaddis like Uppili and Propagandhi hang their heads in shame rather than point fingers at others.

new theory! it's just islam's time of the month. christianity and hinduism are old and menopausal hence more stable.

Rashmun wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

truthbetold wrote:It is a waste of time to discuss history as it is assertion based sandbagging. facts are buried under debris of time. no one has real information.

Islam is an idea. it is not on trial. but the people who follow Islam are causing  immense harm to innocent people using the flag of Islam. try as he might, rashmun cannot refute the monstrous deeds of Islamic terrorists.

let us see if he can justify terrorist acts. let us see if he can explain why swathi was murdered? let us ask him why 200 innocent young school girls were kidnapped ?

First you tell me if there is any religion in the world other than Hinduism which declared a section of its own adherents as "untouchables". Islam is going through a phase which hinduism and Christianity have gone through before, and are still going through to a lesser extent. Nothing more to it. So take it easy.

Further, is it not true that Chaddi fanatics killed the Jesuit missionary Graham Staines and his young son in the jungles of Orissa? The Murder of Staines and his son should make all Chaddis like Uppili and Propagandhi hang their heads in shame rather than point fingers at others.

new theory! it's just islam's time of the month. christianity and hinduism are old and menopausal hence more stable.

Hinduism has undergone reforms like allowing widows to remarry, abolishing sati, abolishing untouchability although remnants of these barbaric traditions still remain and the caste system still remains in place.
Reforms in Islam have taken place in Turkey but these have not yet spread to India and other places.

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

truthbetold wrote:It is a waste of time to discuss history as it is assertion based sandbagging. facts are buried under debris of time. no one has real information.

Islam is an idea. it is not on trial. but the people who follow Islam are causing  immense harm to innocent people using the flag of Islam. try as he might, rashmun cannot refute the monstrous deeds of Islamic terrorists.

let us see if he can justify terrorist acts. let us see if he can explain why swathi was murdered? let us ask him why 200 innocent young school girls were kidnapped ?

First you tell me if there is any religion in the world other than Hinduism which declared a section of its own adherents as "untouchables". Islam is going through a phase which hinduism and Christianity have gone through before, and are still going through to a lesser extent. Nothing more to it. So take it easy.

Further, is it not true that Chaddi fanatics killed the Jesuit missionary Graham Staines and his young son in the jungles of Orissa? The Murder of Staines and his son should make all Chaddis like Uppili and Propagandhi hang their heads in shame rather than point fingers at others.

new theory! it's just islam's time of the month. christianity and hinduism are old and menopausal hence more stable.

Hinduism has undergone reforms like allowing widows to remarry, abolishing sati, abolishing untouchability although remnants of these barbaric traditions still remain and the caste system still remains in place.
Reforms in Islam have taken place in Turkey but these have not yet spread to India and other places.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2014/0409/Erdogan-s-missed-opportunity-to-mix-Islam-and-democracy-in-Turkey

Fast-forward 2-1/2 years, and the mood has changed radically. Social media platforms have been banned. New laws have eroded legal checks and balances, and antigovernment protests have been met with a harsh police crackdown.
As Erdogan spews fiery rhetoric against "terrorists" and "traitors" and denounces plots by Western enemies, to many observers he more closely resembles the Arab autocrats whose ouster he celebrated than he does a democratic hero. The West has lost a leader it thought could provide a bridge to the Middle East.
"The AKP were given the mission to prove that Islam and democracy were compatible," says Yavuz Baydar, a liberal newspaper columnist and former supporter. "They were right to be given that opportunity, but they blew it."

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

truthbetold wrote:It is a waste of time to discuss history as it is assertion based sandbagging. facts are buried under debris of time. no one has real information.

Islam is an idea. it is not on trial. but the people who follow Islam are causing  immense harm to innocent people using the flag of Islam. try as he might, rashmun cannot refute the monstrous deeds of Islamic terrorists.

let us see if he can justify terrorist acts. let us see if he can explain why swathi was murdered? let us ask him why 200 innocent young school girls were kidnapped ?

First you tell me if there is any religion in the world other than Hinduism which declared a section of its own adherents as "untouchables". Islam is going through a phase which hinduism and Christianity have gone through before, and are still going through to a lesser extent. Nothing more to it. So take it easy.

Further, is it not true that Chaddi fanatics killed the Jesuit missionary Graham Staines and his young son in the jungles of Orissa? The Murder of Staines and his son should make all Chaddis like Uppili and Propagandhi hang their heads in shame rather than point fingers at others.

new theory! it's just islam's time of the month. christianity and hinduism are old and menopausal hence more stable.

Hinduism has undergone reforms like allowing widows to remarry, abolishing sati, abolishing untouchability although remnants of these barbaric traditions still remain and the caste system still remains in place.
Reforms in Islam have taken place in Turkey but these have not yet spread to India and other places.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2014/0409/Erdogan-s-missed-opportunity-to-mix-Islam-and-democracy-in-Turkey

Fast-forward 2-1/2 years, and the mood has changed radically. Social media platforms have been banned. New laws have eroded legal checks and balances, and antigovernment protests have been met with a harsh police crackdown.
As Erdogan spews fiery rhetoric against "terrorists" and "traitors" and denounces plots by Western enemies, to many observers he more closely resembles the Arab autocrats whose ouster he celebrated than he does a democratic hero. The West has lost a leader it thought could provide a bridge to the Middle East.
"The AKP were given the mission to prove that Islam and democracy were compatible," says Yavuz Baydar, a liberal newspaper columnist and former supporter. "They were right to be given that opportunity, but they blew it."

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

First you tell me if there is any religion in the world other than Hinduism which declared a section of its own adherents as "untouchables". Islam is going through a phase which hinduism and Christianity have gone through before, and are still going through to a lesser extent. Nothing more to it. So take it easy.

Further, is it not true that Chaddi fanatics killed the Jesuit missionary Graham Staines and his young son in the jungles of Orissa? The Murder of Staines and his son should make all Chaddis like Uppili and Propagandhi hang their heads in shame rather than point fingers at others.

new theory! it's just islam's time of the month. christianity and hinduism are old and menopausal hence more stable.

Hinduism has undergone reforms like allowing widows to remarry, abolishing sati, abolishing untouchability although remnants of these barbaric traditions still remain and the caste system still remains in place.
Reforms in Islam have taken place in Turkey but these have not yet spread to India and other places.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2014/0409/Erdogan-s-missed-opportunity-to-mix-Islam-and-democracy-in-Turkey

Fast-forward 2-1/2 years, and the mood has changed radically. Social media platforms have been banned. New laws have eroded legal checks and balances, and antigovernment protests have been met with a harsh police crackdown.
As Erdogan spews fiery rhetoric against "terrorists" and "traitors" and denounces plots by Western enemies, to many observers he more closely resembles the Arab autocrats whose ouster he celebrated than he does a democratic hero. The West has lost a leader it thought could provide a bridge to the Middle East.
"The AKP were given the mission to prove that Islam and democracy were compatible," says Yavuz Baydar, a liberal newspaper columnist and former supporter. "They were right to be given that opportunity, but they blew it."

irony ofcourse here is that the secularists (read: islamic apologists in india) will yell murder and fascism if there's someone in india that does anything close to what this "progressive muslim leader" aka mini tyrant does in turkey

Rashmun wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

First you tell me if there is any religion in the world other than Hinduism which declared a section of its own adherents as "untouchables". Islam is going through a phase which hinduism and Christianity have gone through before, and are still going through to a lesser extent. Nothing more to it. So take it easy.

Further, is it not true that Chaddi fanatics killed the Jesuit missionary Graham Staines and his young son in the jungles of Orissa? The Murder of Staines and his son should make all Chaddis like Uppili and Propagandhi hang their heads in shame rather than point fingers at others.

new theory! it's just islam's time of the month. christianity and hinduism are old and menopausal hence more stable.

Hinduism has undergone reforms like allowing widows to remarry, abolishing sati, abolishing untouchability although remnants of these barbaric traditions still remain and the caste system still remains in place.
Reforms in Islam have taken place in Turkey but these have not yet spread to India and other places.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2014/0409/Erdogan-s-missed-opportunity-to-mix-Islam-and-democracy-in-Turkey

Fast-forward 2-1/2 years, and the mood has changed radically. Social media platforms have been banned. New laws have eroded legal checks and balances, and antigovernment protests have been met with a harsh police crackdown.
As Erdogan spews fiery rhetoric against "terrorists" and "traitors" and denounces plots by Western enemies, to many observers he more closely resembles the Arab autocrats whose ouster he celebrated than he does a democratic hero. The West has lost a leader it thought could provide a bridge to the Middle East.
"The AKP were given the mission to prove that Islam and democracy were compatible," says Yavuz Baydar, a liberal newspaper columnist and former supporter. "They were right to be given that opportunity, but they blew it."

In the matter of liberalization of a religion it is ten steps forward, then a few steps back, then again five steps forward and then a step back and so on. The net affect is progress in the long run while there are brief phases of reaction ( to progress ) but these are temporary in nature. So no need to worry or get worked up about this phenomenon. Be detached like a philosopher.

Rashmun wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

new theory! it's just islam's time of the month. christianity and hinduism are old and menopausal hence more stable.

Hinduism has undergone reforms like allowing widows to remarry, abolishing sati, abolishing untouchability although remnants of these barbaric traditions still remain and the caste system still remains in place.
Reforms in Islam have taken place in Turkey but these have not yet spread to India and other places.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2014/0409/Erdogan-s-missed-opportunity-to-mix-Islam-and-democracy-in-Turkey

Fast-forward 2-1/2 years, and the mood has changed radically. Social media platforms have been banned. New laws have eroded legal checks and balances, and antigovernment protests have been met with a harsh police crackdown.
As Erdogan spews fiery rhetoric against "terrorists" and "traitors" and denounces plots by Western enemies, to many observers he more closely resembles the Arab autocrats whose ouster he celebrated than he does a democratic hero. The West has lost a leader it thought could provide a bridge to the Middle East.
"The AKP were given the mission to prove that Islam and democracy were compatible," says Yavuz Baydar, a liberal newspaper columnist and former supporter. "They were right to be given that opportunity, but they blew it."

irony ofcourse here is that the secularists (read: islamic apologists in india) will yell murder and fascism if there's someone in india that does anything close to what this "progressive muslim leader" aka mini tyrant does in turkey

See this:

https://such.forumotion.com/t22959-turkey-s-supreme-court-has-its-own-indra-gandhi-moment#154139

And now stop whining.

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

new theory! it's just islam's time of the month. christianity and hinduism are old and menopausal hence more stable.

Hinduism has undergone reforms like allowing widows to remarry, abolishing sati, abolishing untouchability although remnants of these barbaric traditions still remain and the caste system still remains in place.
Reforms in Islam have taken place in Turkey but these have not yet spread to India and other places.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2014/0409/Erdogan-s-missed-opportunity-to-mix-Islam-and-democracy-in-Turkey

Fast-forward 2-1/2 years, and the mood has changed radically. Social media platforms have been banned. New laws have eroded legal checks and balances, and antigovernment protests have been met with a harsh police crackdown.
As Erdogan spews fiery rhetoric against "terrorists" and "traitors" and denounces plots by Western enemies, to many observers he more closely resembles the Arab autocrats whose ouster he celebrated than he does a democratic hero. The West has lost a leader it thought could provide a bridge to the Middle East.
"The AKP were given the mission to prove that Islam and democracy were compatible," says Yavuz Baydar, a liberal newspaper columnist and former supporter. "They were right to be given that opportunity, but they blew it."

In the matter of liberalization of a religion it is ten steps forward, then a few steps back, then again five steps forward and then a step back and so on. The net affect is progress in the long run while there are brief phases of reaction ( to progress ) but these are temporary in nature. So no need to worry or get worked up about this phenomenon. Be detached like a philosopher.

you must be a blind asshole to not see that the so called "liberal and secular" turkey is/was an artificial imposition by a military that exercised iron control over their population's rabid islamic and more natural impulses over the past 40 yrs. and that control is fast waning with erdogan undercutting their power in the past few years. no matter, you fools will keep harping about progressive islam from the safety of countries that can afford you such a view. that's why I wish you and CD would relocate to communist and arab countries for about 5 yrs and we'll see if the tune changes. take the admin with you or maybe since he love tax tax tax he should move to france.

Rashmun wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Hinduism has undergone reforms like allowing widows to remarry, abolishing sati, abolishing untouchability although remnants of these barbaric traditions still remain and the caste system still remains in place.
Reforms in Islam have taken place in Turkey but these have not yet spread to India and other places.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2014/0409/Erdogan-s-missed-opportunity-to-mix-Islam-and-democracy-in-Turkey

Fast-forward 2-1/2 years, and the mood has changed radically. Social media platforms have been banned. New laws have eroded legal checks and balances, and antigovernment protests have been met with a harsh police crackdown.
As Erdogan spews fiery rhetoric against "terrorists" and "traitors" and denounces plots by Western enemies, to many observers he more closely resembles the Arab autocrats whose ouster he celebrated than he does a democratic hero. The West has lost a leader it thought could provide a bridge to the Middle East.
"The AKP were given the mission to prove that Islam and democracy were compatible," says Yavuz Baydar, a liberal newspaper columnist and former supporter. "They were right to be given that opportunity, but they blew it."

In the matter of liberalization of a religion it is ten steps forward, then a few steps back, then again five steps forward and then a step back and so on. The net affect is progress in the long run while there are brief phases of reaction ( to progress ) but these are temporary in nature. So no need to worry or get worked up about this phenomenon. Be detached like a philosopher.

you must be a blind asshole to not see that the so called "liberal and secular" turkey is/was an artificial imposition by a military that exercised iron control over their population's rabid islamic and more natural impulses over the past 40 yrs. and that control is fast waning with erdogan undercutting their power in the past few years. no matter, you fools will keep harping about progressive islam from the safety of countries that can afford you such a view. that's why I wish you and CD would relocate to communist and arab countries for about 5 yrs and we'll see if the tune changes. take the admin with you or maybe since he love tax tax tax he should move to france.

Instead of barking loudly, did you even read the news item I posted about Turkey's Supreme Court cutting Erdogan to size? Turkey's modernization has been institutionalized and there is no going back now. Try talking to Turkish people in the US and all of them will say how highly they think of Ataturk.

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2014/0409/Erdogan-s-missed-opportunity-to-mix-Islam-and-democracy-in-Turkey

Fast-forward 2-1/2 years, and the mood has changed radically. Social media platforms have been banned. New laws have eroded legal checks and balances, and antigovernment protests have been met with a harsh police crackdown.
As Erdogan spews fiery rhetoric against "terrorists" and "traitors" and denounces plots by Western enemies, to many observers he more closely resembles the Arab autocrats whose ouster he celebrated than he does a democratic hero. The West has lost a leader it thought could provide a bridge to the Middle East.
"The AKP were given the mission to prove that Islam and democracy were compatible," says Yavuz Baydar, a liberal newspaper columnist and former supporter. "They were right to be given that opportunity, but they blew it."

In the matter of liberalization of a religion it is ten steps forward, then a few steps back, then again five steps forward and then a step back and so on. The net affect is progress in the long run while there are brief phases of reaction ( to progress ) but these are temporary in nature. So no need to worry or get worked up about this phenomenon. Be detached like a philosopher.

you must be a blind asshole to not see that the so called "liberal and secular" turkey is/was an artificial imposition by a military that exercised iron control over their population's rabid islamic and more natural impulses over the past 40 yrs. and that control is fast waning with erdogan undercutting their power in the past few years. no matter, you fools will keep harping about progressive islam from the safety of countries that can afford you such a view. that's why I wish you and CD would relocate to communist and arab countries for about 5 yrs and we'll see if the tune changes. take the admin with you or maybe since he love tax tax tax he should move to france.

Instead of barking loudly, did you even read the news item I posted about Turkey's Supreme Court cutting Erdogan to size? Turkey's modernization has been institutionalized and there is no going back now. Try talking to Turkish people in the US and all of them will say how highly they think of Ataturk.

hey asshole, do you think secularism in turkey is imposed by their supreme court or by their army?

what does that bolded statement even mean? talk to CD and he'll tell you how great his dead uncle was and how pure the hugging nephew is. what does that mean in the big scheme of things?

Rashmun wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:Has Islam always been this violent? any reasonable person won't jump to conclusions based on short term samples.

Yes... from the days of Babar and Chenghiz Khan and moors and Ottomans.

They live by the book, act by the book, and live by the book. And, if this is how they live, then the book must be at fault.

Chinghiz Khan was not a Muslim. Also, Babur was secular in his outlook as is evident from his letter to Humayun in which he says all religions must be respected and nobody should be persecuted on account of his religion. In contrast the Hindu king Sasanka cut down the sacred tree under which the Budha had attained Enlightenment.

he cut down the whole tree, did he? was buddha still under it?

Yes the whole tree was cut down on the order of the evil Hindu king Sasanka who hated Budhism. This happened long after the Budha had died.

Rashmun wrote:
The idea of secularism is enshrined in the constitution of Turkey. The Supreme Court of Turkey in upholding the constitution is also upholding the banner of secularism. It is true though that if any religious fanatic tries to usurp power and somehow succeeds then the army may possibly step in and get rid of him.

The bolded statement means that the turkish people you are likely to meet and converse with in the US at least are in full support of the moderate/liberal kind of Islam promoted officially since they all express the deepest respect for Ataturk who initiated these reforms.

Looking forward to seeing you discussing this issue in a cool manner instead of your usual behavior.

smArtha wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
The idea of secularism is enshrined in the constitution of Turkey. The Supreme Court of Turkey in upholding the constitution is also upholding the banner of secularism. It is true though that if any religious fanatic tries to usurp power and somehow succeeds then the army may possibly step in and get rid of him.

The bolded statement means that the turkish people you are likely to meet and converse with in the US at least are in full support of the moderate/liberal kind of Islam promoted officially since they all express the deepest respect for Ataturk who initiated these reforms.

Looking forward to seeing you discussing this issue in a cool manner instead of your usual behavior.

So you are claiming that a)Hindus can go and live in turkey in large numbers and b) build temples and other religious structures and c) organize large scale religious events and lastly d) organize mass conversion programs all without any disturbance from the locals and full support from the administration and law enforcement.

indophile wrote:Wasn't it Babur who built that mosque in Ayodhya over a preexisting temple?

indophile wrote:Before Buddhism arrived in Andhra didn't sanatana dharma (what people now call Hinduism) predominate in what is now called Andhra?

truthbetold wrote:On more than one occasion different such posters claimed that Islam cannot be blamed for terrorism. An argument I read on such   was summarized below followed by my two cents: 

 'Other religions also have terrorists. Recent example was LTTE is an example of Hindu terrorism.  IRA is an example of Christian/catholic terrorism.' 

(a) People belonging to any faith can be a terrorist.  But only followers of Islam have achieved a record that is the envy of terrorists of all other religions. EXhibit:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamic_terrorist_attacks

These attacks were for a period of more than twenty years and in different geographies of the world and under different types of political systems.

(b) LTTE and IRA are terrorist/extremist organizations and need to be condemned for their tactics. But they have political goal and limited to geographic location. Primary target is the state of those local areas. So world understands them differently from Islamic terrorists.

(c) Wider support for the Terrorist leaders.  Note a 20% of a large number is still large. Pakistan and Indonesia show a significant support to Osama (2003).




As you can guess, I got more comments and my twocents.  I do not expect 'Islam cannot be blamed for terrorism' crowd to be quiet. I presented enough data for a reasonable person to ponder and say, people associated with Islam seem dangerous. 

What do you think?

Idéfix wrote:

truthbetold wrote:On more than one occasion different such posters claimed that Islam cannot be blamed for terrorism. An argument I read on such   was summarized below followed by my two cents: 

 'Other religions also have terrorists. Recent example was LTTE is an example of Hindu terrorism.  IRA is an example of Christian/catholic terrorism.' 

(a) People belonging to any faith can be a terrorist.  But only followers of Islam have achieved a record that is the envy of terrorists of all other religions. EXhibit:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamic_terrorist_attacks

These attacks were for a period of more than twenty years and in different geographies of the world and under different types of political systems.

(b) LTTE and IRA are terrorist/extremist organizations and need to be condemned for their tactics. But they have political goal and limited to geographic location. Primary target is the state of those local areas. So world understands them differently from Islamic terrorists.

(c) Wider support for the Terrorist leaders.  Note a 20% of a large number is still large. Pakistan and Indonesia show a significant support to Osama (2003).




As you can guess, I got more comments and my twocents.  I do not expect 'Islam cannot be blamed for terrorism' crowd to be quiet. I presented enough data for a reasonable person to ponder and say, people associated with Islam seem dangerous. 

What do you think?

In addition to these, there is the fact that the Quran exhorts believers to kill nonbelievers. And those exhortations are specifically cited by terrorists as scriptural sanction for their actions.

There are lots of awful things said in the religious books of the world. There are several verses in the Bible that call for killing infidels, stoning adulterers and rape victims to death, and killing your own family members if they try to talk to you about other gods. But the IRA doesn't cite those verses to justify its violent deeds. When Christian fundamentalists advocate adherence to these loony notions in the Bible, there is usually a strong negative reaction from the majority of Christians. When Islamic fundamentalists advocate adherence to the loony notions in the Quran, the reaction from the Muslim community is more muted. This needs to change in order for the rest of the world to stop blaming Islam for inspiring and justifying terrorism.

Idéfix wrote:
In addition to these, there is the fact that the Quran exhorts believers to kill nonbelievers. And those exhortations are specifically cited by terrorists as scriptural sanction for their actions.

There are lots of awful things said in the religious books of the world. There are several verses in the Bible that call for killing infidels, stoning adulterers and rape victims to death, and killing your own family members if they try to talk to you about other gods. But the IRA doesn't cite those verses to justify its violent deeds. When Christian fundamentalists advocate adherence to these loony notions in the Bible, there is usually a strong negative reaction from the majority of Christians. When Islamic fundamentalists advocate adherence to the loony notions in the Quran, the reaction from the Muslim community is more muted. This needs to change in order for the rest of the world to stop blaming Islam for inspiring and justifying terrorism.

Rashmun wrote:

indophile wrote:Before Buddhism arrived in Andhra didn't sanatana dharma (what people now call Hinduism) predominate in what is now called Andhra?

Was there any violence involved in the removal of Budhism from the Andhra region? We know that Budhism did not spread through violence in Andhra; it spread through peaceful means.

confuzzled dude wrote: they're tired of providing proof that Islam doesn't prescribe violence

indophile wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

indophile wrote:Before Buddhism arrived in Andhra didn't sanatana dharma (what people now call Hinduism) predominate in what is now called Andhra?

Was there any violence involved in the removal of Budhism from the Andhra region? We know that Budhism did not spread through violence in Andhra; it spread through peaceful means.

Was there violence by Shankaracharya when he defeated Buddhists and their theories fair and square in moderated arguments (in one case moderated by his Buddhist opponent's wife) and later accepted the Buddhist philosophers as his students, and thus caused the death of Buddhism in India?

Propagandhi711 wrote:
you must be a blind asshole to not see that the so called "liberal and secular" turkey is/was an artificial imposition by a military that exercised iron control over their population's rabid islamic and more natural impulses over the past 40 yrs. and that control is fast waning with erdogan undercutting their power in the past few years. no matter, you fools will keep harping about progressive islam from the safety of countries that can afford you such a view. that's why I wish you and CD would relocate to communist and arab countries for about 5 yrs and we'll see if the tune changes. take the admin with you or maybe since he love tax tax tax he should move to france.

Idéfix wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote: they're tired of providing proof that Islam doesn't prescribe violence

The problem is that the holy book does prescribe violence in no uncertain terms. So they can't possibly provide proof that Islam doesn't prescribe violence. In this situation, the best that moderate Muslims can do is interpret those verses in a less loony manner. Christianity went through the same process with the extreme stupidity in the Old Testament. But this process of "changing the meaning by interpreting the words differently" works only if the majority of adherents buy into the less loony meaning.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote: they're tired of providing proof that Islam doesn't prescribe violence

The problem is that the holy book does prescribe violence in no uncertain terms. So they can't possibly provide proof that Islam doesn't prescribe violence. In this situation, the best that moderate Muslims can do is interpret those verses in a less loony manner. Christianity went through the same process with the extreme stupidity in the Old Testament. But this process of "changing the meaning by interpreting the words differently" works only if the majority of adherents buy into the less loony meaning.

If that is the case, how come vast majority of that faith can keep their composure and behave like other normal human beings that share the planet?

Idéfix wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote: they're tired of providing proof that Islam doesn't prescribe violence

The problem is that the holy book does prescribe violence in no uncertain terms. So they can't possibly provide proof that Islam doesn't prescribe violence. In this situation, the best that moderate Muslims can do is interpret those verses in a less loony manner. Christianity went through the same process with the extreme stupidity in the Old Testament. But this process of "changing the meaning by interpreting the words differently" works only if the majority of adherents buy into the less loony meaning.

If that is the case, how come vast majority of that faith can keep their composure and behave like other normal human beings that share the planet?

Because the vast majority lives in today's world, and are able to disregard / ignore the extreme stupidity in the holy book when it comes to how they live their lives.

indophile wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

indophile wrote:Before Buddhism arrived in Andhra didn't sanatana dharma (what people now call Hinduism) predominate in what is now called Andhra?

Was there any violence involved in the removal of Budhism from the Andhra region? We know that Budhism did not spread through violence in Andhra; it spread through peaceful means.

Was there violence by Shankaracharya when he defeated Buddhists and their theories fair and square in moderated arguments (in one case moderated by his Buddhist opponent's wife) and later accepted the Buddhist philosophers as his students, and thus caused the death of Buddhism in India?
Buddhism did not spread through violence but by royal sponsorship, and later died because of its inferior philosophy. In contrast, Islam spread through royal sponsorship of violence, skewed laws propounded by muslim priests serving muslim kings, and survives by skewed laws of a different kind.