Muslim Renounces Terror [W:7]

[calamity]

We need more of this. Much more.


I'm a Muslim, and I hate terrorism - CNN.com

I'm an American-Muslim and I despise Islamic terrorists. In fact, despise is not even a strong enough word to convey my true feelings about those who kill innocent people in the name of Islam. I hate them with every fiber of my being.

I'm not going to tell you, "Islam is a religion of peace." Nor will I tell you that Islam is a religion of violence. What I will say is that Islam is a religion that, like Christianity and Judaism, is intended to bring you closer to God. And sadly we have seen people use the name of each of these Abrahamic faiths to wage and justify violence.

The unique problem for Muslims is that our faith is being increasingly defined by the actions of a tiny group of morally bankrupt terrorists. Just to be clear: The people who commit violence in the name of Islam are not Muslims, they are murderers. Their true religion is hatred and inhumanity.

 

[spud_meister]

We need more of this. Much more.

I've never met a Muslims who thinks otherwise.

 

[calamity]

I've never met a Muslims who thinks otherwise.

If someone writes a book mocking Mohammed, makes a movie exposing the mistreatment of young women in Islamic society or makes a movie mocking the faith, their life is ruined. They need to hire body guards. And, it's not just a small minority of radical Muslims they have to fear.

There is a relatively large contingent of Muslim population that dislikes freedom of speech.

 

[MaggieD]

We need more of this. Much more.

I'm a Muslim, and I hate terrorism - CNN.com

Radical Muslims are no different than "Radical Christians" would be if they adopted the Old Testament and acted upon it:

the Bible also contains the horrific account of what can only be described as a "biblical holocaust". For, in order to keep the chosen people apart from and unaffected by the alien beliefs and practices of indigenous or neighbouring peoples, when God commanded his chosen people to conquer the Promised Land, he placed city after city 'under the ban" -which meant that every man, woman and child was to be slaughtered at the point of the sword.
”
The extent of extermination is described in the scriptural passage Deut 20:16-18 which orders the Israelites to "not leave alive anything that breathes… completely destroy them …" thus leading many scholars to characterize the exterminations as genocide. Arthur Grenke claims that the view or war expressed in Deuteronomy contributed to the destruction of Native Americans and to the destruction of European Jewry.[20]

Nut cases. Every last one of them.

 

[Fallenangel]

I've never met a Muslims who thinks otherwise.

Hey,

I did meet people that think otherwise. But i also met perfectly normal people that only want to work and live their lives in peace.

However, imo his renouncement of terror is quite irrelevant because;
A. He was born and raised in the US (as far as i understand), his words might have some value to CNN readers, but that is all. He is not a prominent leader or imam, he can say what ever he wants and call others "non muslim", those who support and condone terrorism would say the same about him.
B. The usage of the reference to the words of a Chechen terrorist organisation, as a barometer for any kind of truth, just shows that he actually knows very little about the issue.

Cheers,
Fallen.

 

[American]

Radical Muslims are no different than "Radical Christians" would be if they adopted the Old Testament and acted upon it:



Nut cases. Every last one of them.

I guess the recent record speaks for itself. Holding a scale in the balanced position with one side empty, does not constitute equal guilt.

 

[Serenity]

Moderator's Warning:

Moving from the ME Forum to General Discussion. OP is discussing American Muslims and U.S. Muslim organizations who have unequivocally denounced terror attacks whilst discussing the Boston bombings and terror plots in the United States. Not ME specific.

 

[DDD]

... He is not a prominent leader or imam, he can say what ever he wants and call others "non muslim", those who support and condone terrorism would say the same about him...

There is no such leader in Islam sadly. A prominent leader in catholic religion is the Pope in the Vatican. Orthodox Christianity differs and have their base and leaders in Istanbul.

Islam is not as organized. There isn't a centralized structure where one prominent leader would speak upon every living Muslim on earth. Islam itself is very divided in Sunni and Shia and many others. Those divisions are divided further with many prominent leaders amongst them who could easily say what they want and be condemned from others.

This is entirely different structure. Extremists benefit from this vacuum and influence would be criminals so well that the criminals deny that they were influenced later.

Bomb suspect influenced by mysterious radical

Tsarnaev

 

[ThePlayDrive]

No, we don't need "much more" of this, for two reasons.

1. There already is a lot of it. It just gets ignored.

2. Muslims have absolutely zero responsibility to speak out against things in which they did not participate. What spud said is true for me as well: I've never met Muslims who think otherwise. Because of that, any Muslim publicly declaring their opposition to any terrorist attack is unnecessary for me - it's meaningless because I wouldn't assume anything else.

I don't expect Christian organizations to denounce every act of terrorism motivated by a perverse interpretation of Christianity. I don't expect Muslims to denounce every act of terrorism motivated by a perverse interpretation of Islam. If I did expect that and if I thought we "needed" that, then I would be the problem.

 

[Fallenangel]

There is no such leader in Islam sadly. A prominent leader in catholic religion is the Pope in the Vatican. Orthodox Christianity differs and have their base and leaders in Istanbul.

Islam is not as organized. There isn't a centralized structure where one prominent leader would speak upon every living Muslim on earth. Islam itself is very divided in Sunni and Shia and many others. Those divisions are divided further with many prominent leaders amongst them who could easily say what they want and be condemned from others.

This is entirely different structure. Extremists benefit from this vacuum and influence would be criminals so well that the criminals deny that they were influenced later.

Bomb suspect influenced by mysterious radical

Tsarnaev

Hey,
That is not entirely correct, you are right that there isn't a single person that would speak upon every Muslim.
However, there are imams and regional and community leaders that can speak upon and on behalf of very large Muslim countries, communities and congregations.
He is not one of these people, and it is very unclear to me who (accept himself) he can actually represent.

Cheers,
Fallen.

 

[Ray410]

Important to remember that Muslims only have one book of their faith and that book is the Koran. They do not have a separate book for Sharia Law, Jihad or any other radical practices, it's all in the Koran that they all worship.

 

[Gardener]

Wouldn't this be a case of a Muslim denouncing terror rather than renouncing it?

A person renounces something they once accepted, while denouncing something carries no such implication.

 

[calamity]

No, we don't need "much more" of this, for two reasons.

1. There already is a lot of it. It just gets ignored.

2. Muslims have absolutely zero responsibility to speak out against things in which they did not participate. What spud said is true for me as well: I've never met Muslims who think otherwise. Because of that, any Muslim publicly declaring their opposition to any terrorist attack is unnecessary for me - it's meaningless because I wouldn't assume anything else.

I don't expect Christian organizations to denounce every act of terrorism motivated by a perverse interpretation of Christianity. I don't expect Muslims to denounce every act of terrorism motivated by a perverse interpretation of Islam. If I did expect that and if I thought we "needed" that, then I would be the problem.

So Muslims sitting on their hands while someone who made a movie showing Islam in a bad light is murdered is just fine by you? Muslims should do nothing while Islamic extremists blow up buses, markets, synagogues, airports, and bleachers at a foot race. They should treat that stuff like just another day at the park.

A global Muslim outcry denouncing cartoons is OK, but one denouncing terror attacks is not warranted? WTF?

 

[calamity]

Wouldn't this be a case of a Muslim denouncing terror rather than renouncing it?

A person renounces something they once accepted, while denouncing something carries no such implication.

my bad, thanks.

 

[DDD]

However, there are imams and regional and community leaders that can speak upon and on behalf of very large Muslim countries, communities and congregations.

How many countries do you think that they could be representing? Which countries are those? And who elected those representatives then?

 

[Fallenangel]

How many countries do you think that they could be representing? Which countries are those? And who elected those representatives then?

Hey,
If you want to talk about country leaders specifically, they represent their own countries and communities.
These may be kings, presidents, religious leaders, prime ministers, etc... you can correlate the titles to Arab-muslim and other Muslim countries around the world.
Some of them elected some of them are not, nonetheless, even the non-elected ones have greater numbers of followers and devoted supporters than the person in the OP.

You also forgot to mention the religious authorities and leaders, and the community leaders that i mentioned before.

Cheers,
Fallen.

 

[DDD]

Hey,
If you want to talk about country leaders specifically, they represent their own countries and communities.
These may be kings, presidents, religious leaders, prime ministers, etc... you can correlate the titles to Arab-muslim and other Muslim countries around the world.
Some of them elected some of them are not, nonetheless, even the non-elected ones have greater numbers of followers and devoted supporters than the person in the OP.

You also forgot to mention the religious authorities and leaders, and the community leaders that i mentioned before.

Cheers,
Fallen.

Ok, thanks. Now I think we implicitly agree on the size of the population that follow those representatives. Before it sounded far more that this what you state now.

 

[Rainman05]

I've never met a Muslims who thinks otherwise.

Check dawahfilms on youtube.

 

[Rainman05]

There is no such leader in Islam sadly. A prominent leader in catholic religion is the Pope in the Vatican. Orthodox Christianity differs and have their base and leaders in Istanbul.

Islam is not as organized. There isn't a centralized structure where one prominent leader would speak upon every living Muslim on earth. Islam itself is very divided in Sunni and Shia and many others. Those divisions are divided further with many prominent leaders amongst them who could easily say what they want and be condemned from others.

This is entirely different structure. Extremists benefit from this vacuum and influence would be criminals so well that the criminals deny that they were influenced later.

Bomb suspect influenced by mysterious radical

Tsarnaev

First off. Orthodox Christianity does not have a base and leaders in Istanbul.

The Orthodox Church has primarily always been subjected to the state. It has always been unique to each state. For instance. There is the Romanian Orthodox Church, its leader is in Romania... and has no power outside of Orthodoxy in Romania. That's all he has. There is one in Russia. one in Modlavia, Ukraine, everywhere where there are Orthodox religious establishments. None subjected to the other, all independent.

Islam is also in the same principle... but doesn't islam have a difference? Isn't Saudi Arabia like the beacon for sunni islam? And Iran for shia islam? Aren't the islamic figures present in those country more important than those elsewhere?

 

[DDD]

First off. Orthodox Christianity does not have a base and leaders in Istanbul.

The Orthodox Church has primarily always been subjected to the state. It has always been unique to each state. For instance. There is the Romanian Orthodox Church, its leader is in Romania... and has no power outside of Orthodoxy in Romania. That's all he has. There is one in Russia. one in Modlavia, Ukraine, everywhere where there are Orthodox religious establishments. None subjected to the other, all independent.

Islam is also in the same principle... but doesn't islam have a difference? Isn't Saudi Arabia like the beacon for sunni islam? And Iran for shia islam? Aren't the islamic figures present in those country more important than those elsewhere?

I think the Orthodox Church in Russia has more influence in other churches than vice versa. Russia's claim to defend Orthodox Christianity is as old as 13-14th century if I remember correctly.

As for the Islamic one Saudi Arabia has no power on other Mosques and countries and they claim to be independent as well. But the influence is always there. Plus all should go to Mecca, and that is in Saudi Arabia. So I think there is a "Better behave if you want to be Haji!" with that! But not a lot more.

For one thing they lack support. Which reminds me. If Romania was in a difficult situation and would seek out help from other countries that are more oriented in Orthodox Christianity, would they come for help (e.g., would Serbia, Russia, Belarussia come for help?) or would they exploit the situation to gain something from it at your demise?

 

[Rainman05]

I think the Orthodox Church in Russia has more influence in other churches than vice versa. Russia's claim to defend Orthodox Christianity is as old as 13-14th century if I remember correctly.

As for the Islamic one Saudi Arabia has no power on other Mosques and countries and they claim to be independent as well. But the influence is always there. Plus all should go to Mecca, and that is in Saudi Arabia. So I think there is a "Better behave if you want to be Haji!" with that! But not a lot more.

For one thing they lack support. Which reminds me. If Romania was in a difficult situation and would seek out help from other countries that are more oriented in Orthodox Christianity, would they come for help (e.g., would Serbia, Russia, Belarussia come for help?) or would they exploit the situation to gain something from it at your demise?

Maybe the Orthodox Russian Church has more influence over other slavic Orthodox churches like in Ukraine or Belarus... but in Romania, Greece, Macedonia and others, not really.

And no. Romania is a secular state. We do not have religion influence public political policies and none of the other countries we have agreements or disagreements with are in any way shape or form brought on by religious homogeneity or plurality.
We pay the most expensive price in the EU for natural gas that we import from Russia because our President is a moron.
So religion plays no part in politics in Romania and in most European nations. And relationships between Orthodox churches from each given country have no input on public life.