Support NeoGAF

[Maninthemirror]

That probably becomes a bit difficult to separate when almost 100% of the country are part of Islam and it's the official religion of the state.

On the other hand, some people try so hard to make excuses.

the country was 99% Islamic in 1947 and 199% Islamic now. the country's official religion was Islam in 1947 and its now. the constitution became more fundamentalist comparatively in 1973 and Taliban formed in 1988. Who were the terrorists in pakistan between 1947 and 1999 (when Pakistan Taliban was formed)?

The only one of the few who WANTS this to be about religion of the children is you. instead of it being outraged at the Taliban

if 1 Pakistani is bad and 9 Pakistanis are not, you seem to be saying the whole situation hinges on the fact that the 1 Pakistani belief and by proxy the belief of the other 9 is bad too and thus if 10 out of 10 Pakistanis in a group are muslim and 1 of them attacks the other 9, you are blaming the faith of the other 9 instead of the ideology of the 1.


Thats pretty blatant ignorance and if its not ignorance, well we know what it is then

 

[Deleted member 17706]

the country was 99% Islamic in 1947 and 199% Islamic now. the country's official religion was Islam in 1947 and its now. the constitution became more fundamentalist comparatively in 1973 and Taliban formed in 1988. Who were the terrorists in pakistan between 1947 and 1999 (when Pakistan Taliban was formed)?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that Islam the religion is solely to blame for triggering these violent acts. Honestly, none of this would be happening if the country were relatively prosperous and no groups were being particularly marginalized. It's why, as I believe you've pointed out, later generations of Muslim immigrants in developed countries are more or less the same as anyone else living there and not violent terrorists.

I'm not a fan of any religion, but I do think that Islam is particularly inflammatory in its teachings. You don't have to look far to find justifications for acts of violence against those that you perceive as enemies of god. For an enterprising "leader," it's an easy tool to manipulate the oppressed into attacking your enemies.

So, while the religion is certainly not the root cause, I think it's definitely a major contributing factor in moving people to terrorism.

 

[badb0y]

Take the religious bullshit out of here, this attack was in retaliation to the Pakistani Army's recent operations against the Taliban. I'm not sure why religion is being brought up here since the victims and the perpetrators are all probably Muslims.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

The British decision to divide Pashtunistan in two with the Durand Line and place them under the rule of two sovereigns who cared not an iota for them probably hasn't helped with the development or temperament of the communities there.

 

[Maninthemirror]

Take the religious bullshit out of here, this attack was in retaliation to the Pakistani Army's recent operations against the Taliban. I'm not sure why religion is being brought up here since the victims and the perpetrators are all probably Muslims.

opportunism more than anything else seeing that the attacker and victim share the same faith.

 

[Maninthemirror]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that Islam the religion is solely to blame for triggering these violent acts. Honestly, none of this would be happening if the country were relatively prosperous and no groups were being particularly marginalized. It's why, as I believe you've pointed out, later generations of Muslim immigrants in developed countries are more or less the same as anyone else living there and not violent terrorists.

I'm not a fan of any religion, but I do think that Islam is particularly inflammatory in its teachings. You don't have to look far to find justifications for acts of violence against those that you perceive as enemies of god. For an enterprising "leader," it's an easy tool to manipulate the oppressed into attacking your enemies.

So, while the religion is certainly not the root cause, I think it's definitely a major contributing factor in moving people to terrorism.

religion itself or the perverse ideology rooted from it.

again:

it shows pretty clearly good muslims (and non muslims) and bad muslims (and non muslims) divided into who interprets it with a good heart

 

[Stereogatari]

the country was 99% Islamic in 1947 and 199% Islamic now. the country's official religion was Islam in 1947 and its now. the constitution became more fundamentalist comparatively in 1973 and Taliban formed in 1988. Who were the terrorists in pakistan between 1947 and 1999 (when Pakistan Taliban was formed)?

Pakistan's problems today are largely down to Secular non-religious Military elites fucking around with power and manipulating the population. The people who changed the country to an Islamic Republic were Secular figures. So tragic, because Pakistan has a beautiful culture, beautiful music, tasty food etc.

The British decision to divide Pashtunistan in two with the Durand Line and place them under the rule of two sovereigns who cared not an iota for them probably hasn't helped with the development or temperament of the communities there.

Exactly, many of the geopolitical issues of today are rooted in arbitrarily drawn lines.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Take the religious bullshit out of here, this attack was in retaliation to the Pakistani Army's recent operations against the Taliban. I'm not sure why religion is being brought up here since the victims and the perpetrators are all probably Muslims.

I agree! All the Muslims in this thread should not entertain these arguements; who can say that these kids consent to these killings because they are Muslim, with a straight face? You can not argue against people like that, they are only here to further and confirm their own ideology, not to be educated.

 

[B.O.O.M]

I have no words ..I'm just incredibly sad. This is not an issue of religion but about humanity

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

I agree! All the Muslims in this thread should not entertain these arguements; who can say that these kids consent to these killings because they are Muslim, with a straight face? You can not argue against people like that, they are only here to further and confirm their own ideology, not to be educated.

Uhhh, who said that?

 

[Deleted member 17706]

who can say that these kids consent to these killings because they are Muslim, with a straight face?.

What in the fuck are you talking about? There's not a person on this planet saying that, straight face or not.

 

[Ogimachi]

Uhhh, who said that?

Not one user. But it doesn't matter, if you say religion had something to do with this you're islamophobic by default, I guess.

 

[Maninthemirror]

Not one user. But it doesn't matter, if you say religion had something to do with this you're islamophobic by default, I guess.

here you go again, lumping it all together instead of separating those who were killed and those who killed. you are essentially blaming the faith of the attacked 400 attacked because the 6 attackers shared it. blissful ignorance. smh

 

[DoktorEvil]

Not one user. But it doesn't matter, if you say religion had something to do with this you're islamophobic by default, I guess.

Because it doesn't make sense!

There were also Muslim children in that crowd.

This is more of a nationalistic attack than religious.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Uhhh, who said that?

No one said it that way, I am calling out the "their religion encourages this so they should have seen this coming" folks. Classic victim blaming.

It explains in the OP that there is a war in part of the country, and some of the people in that part of the country joined the Taliban to take vengeance on the country - they attack a military school for children of soldiers. What more do you need to know?? They throw their own localized ideology into this thread for what?

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

here you go again, lumping it all together instead of separating those who were killed and those who killed. you are essentially blaming the faith of the attacked because the attacker shared it. blissful ignorance. smh

What the fuck are you talking about!?

Nobody is saying that, nobody is blaming the killed because of their faith, you're literally making shit up to support your idea that the religion and faith of those who committed the attack had nothing to do with it, which is wrong.

 

[Stinkles]

here you go again, lumping it all together instead of separating those who were killed and those who killed. you are essentially blaming the faith of the attacked 400 attacked because the 6 attackers shared it. blissful ignorance. smh

It's not about some inherent problem with Islam but saying "religion has nothing to do with it" misses the point that the Taliban's tortured understanding of religion is, in their own words, used to justify this and other atrocities.

Of course it is about religion. Or rather the abuse of religion.

 

[Seventy70]

here you go again, lumping it all together instead of separating those who were killed and those who killed. you are essentially blaming the faith of the attacked 400 attacked because the 6 attackers shared it. blissful ignorance. smh

I wouldn't even bother. Some people just really have the need to feel superior to anyone else. You just aren't going to get anywhere with the argument.

 

[Maninthemirror]

It's not about some inherent problem with Islam but saying "religion has nothing to do with it" misses the point that the Taliban's tortured understanding of religion is, in their own words, used to justify this and other atrocities.

Of course it is about religion. Or rather the abuse of religion.

Yes its about abusing the religion that the parents and children killed today had. so do you say they are applying the abused faith or do you say they are applying the actual faith. both roads lead to different views as to how you view things. and giving weight to the abused faith is essentially saying "this has meaning and its valid because they believe in it" instead of saying "this is abused and its invalid because they abused the faith". its pretty blatant ignorance looking at it from a 3rd person perspective

 

[Deleted member 17706]

No one said it that way, I am calling out the "their religion encourages this so they should have seen this coming" folks. Classic victim blaming.

You've certainly got a victim complex going. I don't think anyone is saying that the kids or the school or anyone should have "seen this coming." No one's blaming the kids for getting killed. That's completely ridiculous.

and giving weight to the abused faith is essentially saying "this has meaning and its valid because they believe in it" instead of saying "this is abused and its invalid because they abused the faith"

You seem to think this is very important, but it doesn't matter in the slightest. Do you think the radicals give a damn whether anyone else thinks their interpretation of the Quran is correct? Saying that they are not Muslims because they murder people does nothing but deny the reality that they are Muslims murdering people.

 

[RustyNails]

Take the religious bullshit out of here, this attack was in retaliation to the Pakistani Army's recent operations against the Taliban. I'm not sure why religion is being brought up here since the victims and the perpetrators are all probably Muslims.

This is 100% correct. People who have no fucking clue about Pakistan Army's operations in NWFP for a year now suddenly appear out of nowhere and start pulling verses out of Quran.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

Yes its about abusing the religion that the parents and children killed today had. so do you say they are applying the abused faith or do you say they are applying the actual faith. both roads lead to different views as to how you view things. and giving weight to the abused faith is essentially saying "this has meaning and its valid because they believe in it" instead of saying "this is abused and its invalid because they abused the faith"

Objection, leading the witness with logical fallacy violation black-or-white with a strawman argument.

 

[Maninthemirror]

Objection, leading the witness with logical fallacy violation black-or-white with a strawman argument.

So you are giving weight to the Taliban view. that is absolutely disgusting. how can anyone tolerate that here? by proxy you are saying that Taliban view could be the right one and they were right to kill AS PER their book.

This is 100% correct. People who have no fucking clue about Pakistan Army's operations in NWFP for a year now suddenly appear out of nowhere and start pulling verses out of Quran.

opportunism

 

[Deadly Cyclone]

My dad's family is originally from Sialkot. But they live in different areas now. My cousin was in Hyderabad when she was killed at six months pregnant. It sucks, since she's Christian, no one will touch the case. We've sent money, I reached out to friends who are foreign diplomats there and work in non profits, all to no avail.

:/

 

[MrOogieBoogie]

I just don't understand. I really, really don't.

It's hard to imagine we've come far from medieval times with stories like this one.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

So you are giving weight to the Taliban view. that is absolutely disgusting. how can anyone tolerate that here? by proxy you are saying that Taliban view could be the right one and they were right to kill AS PER their book.

What the fuck are you talking about.

You're saying that religion has NOTHING to do with this, and by saying it does, that means I am by default saying the kids deserved to die because of their faith.

Which is a fucking retarded argument, based on multiple logical fallacies, and wasn't even remotely what I was saying, but in your incredibly warped view that's how you chose to interpret or warp it to fit your insane narrative of attacking those who don't agree with you.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

So you are giving weight to the Taliban view. that is absolutely disgusting. how can anyone tolerate that here? by proxy you are saying that Taliban view could be the right one and they were right to kill AS PER their book.

I think you're about to cross a line with accusations like that.

Maybe you should consider the possibility that the book is not infallible, and in fact, it does contain a lot of passages that can easily be interpreted in a way that encourages violence against others. How do you know that was not actually the original intent?

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

It's not just their view. You see these kind of horrific acts happening all the time in many different regions across the world. Even if they don't represent the majority, the fact that such an interpretation is possible at all and is being acted upon at a terrifying rate says all you need to know. There's no argument about the text encouraging the fucking crucifixion and murder of enemies. The only difference in interpretation lies in "who" are the enemies.

.

I disagree Zefah. I believe many of the people who are with the taliban are frustrated brainwashed young men who can't read or write. they wouldn't know truth from lie if you told them that muhammed was a flying spaghetti monster. There is endless interpretation. about anything. What you have here are fanatics who are not rooted in reality. if it had not been this, it would have been something else. religion is just the tool of choice. you could have spinned it an endless amounts of ways.

condemn the act. the people. not the mask they are wearing. terrorism fuels on making chaos and unstability so don't give them the satisfaction by making muslims a war mongering people.

 

[Maninthemirror]

I think you're about to cross a line with accusations like that.

Maybe you should consider the possibility that the book is not infallible, and in fact, it does contain a lot of passages that can easily be interpreted in a way that encourages violence against others. How do you know that was not actually the original intent?

What the fuck are you talking about.

You're saying that religion has NOTHING to do with this, and by saying it does, that means I am by default saying the kids deserved to die because of their faith.

Which is a fucking retarded argument, based on multiple logical fallacies, and wasn't even remotely what I was saying, but in your incredibly warped view that's how you chose to interoperate or warp it to fit your insane narrative of attacking those who don't agree with you.

oh im not letting you go of the blatant ignorance that easily. you are saying religion has something to do with it thus giving the taliban argument weight, you are saying essentially and correct me if I am wrong, that Taliban's religious view is valid and thus as per their view they did have the right to kill as per their view.

If you believe their views are invalid then you would obviously agree they are distorting their own religion. You are trying your level best to lay it on religion by giving validity to the Taliban view.

so its a pretty simple question, do you think the Taliban are abusing the faith or applying the faith?

 

[Ogimachi]

I think you're about to cross a line with accusations like that.

Maybe you should consider the possibility that the book is not infallible, and in fact, it does contain a lot of passages that can easily be interpreted in a way that encourages violence against others. How do you know that was not actually the original intent?

They can be interpreted in a way that encourages violence, as they have been for centuries, but his point is that whoever says such a thing is doing so out of opportunism and/or discrimination.
In a nutshell, his argument is: "You're saying religion had something to do with this, therefore you're an opportunist/islamophobe."

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I disagree Zefah. I believe many of the people who are with the taliban are frustrated brainwashed young men who can't read or write. they wouldn't know truth from lie if you told them that muhammed was a flying spaghetti monster. There is endless interpretation. about anything. What you have here are fanatics who are not rooted in reality. if it had not been this, it would have been something else. religion is just the tool of choice. you could have spinned it an endless amounts of ways.

condemn the act. the people. not the mask they are wearing. terrorism fuels on making chaos and unstability so don't give them the satisfaction by making muslims a war mongering people.

Oh, I agree with you and this post.

I just feel that Islam happens to be a more convenient tool than many of the alternatives when it comes to inspiring terrorism.

You're absolutely right that religion is not the root cause of this, though.

 

[xbhaskarx]

I just don't understand. I really, really don't.

It's hard to imagine we've come far from medieval times with stories like this one.

That's because Islamic fundamentalist terrorists ARE living in medieval times.

See also ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Qaeda, etc. etc.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

Oh, I agree with you and this post.

I just feel that Islam happens to be a more convenient tool than many of the alternatives when it comes to inspiring terrorism.

You're absolutely right that religion is not the root cause of this, though.



With this, I agree.



This, not so much.

I think you are right.


It reminds me of this brave young man who stopped a suicide bomber at his school:

16 years old.

The incident took place on Monday in Ibrahimzai, a Shia-dominated region of Hangu, in north-western Pakistan. There were almost 2,000 students in attendance at the time of the attack, media reports say.

Jump media playerMedia player helpOut of media player. Press enter to return or tab to continue.
"My cousin sacrificed his life saving his school and hundreds of students and school fellows," his cousin Mudassar Hassan Bangish told the BBC's Aleem Maqbool.

"The suicide bomber wanted to destroy the school and school students. It was my cousin who stopped him from this...destruction."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-25663992



It's such a heartbreaking story.

He then described the sequence of events as related to him by witnesses at the school.

Aitzaz's friends had urged him not to confront the suicide bomber but he ignored their pleas and decided to confront the man with the intention of halting him.

"So he told them 'I'm going to stop him. He is going to school to kill my friends'. He wanted to capture this suicide bomber. He wanted to stop [him]. Meanwhile the suicide bomber blasted himself which resulted in the death of my cousin," Mr Bangish said.

I feel so sad!

 

[Terra Firma]

That's because Islamic fundamentalist terrorists ARE living in medieval times.

See also ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Qaeda, etc. etc.

Except this isn't about Islamic fundamentalism. TTP has been condemned by even the Afghan Taliban as well as the ultra conservative clerics in Pakistan.

These animals would have done the exact same thing if they were secular. The TTP rationalized this attack as a twisted revenge attack, not something rooted in any religious rhetoric.

 

[Maninthemirror]

Except this isn't about Islamic fundamentalism. TTP has been condemned by even the Afghan Taliban as well as the ultra conservative clerics in Pakistan.

These animals would have done the exact same thing if they were secular. The TTP rationalized this attack as a twisted revenge attack, not something rooted in any religious rhetoric.

actually it is about fundamentalism and Islamic fundamentalism to be precise. they view their interpretation as the right one through delusions of grandeur and the only counter is to push for education and making more and more people understanding the moderate interpretation even if the ones with the fundamentalist view are small even 1 is more than acceptable.

You are right that as an evil person they would have another excuse if they were secular but at least cutting them off fundamentalism or mullahism is the first step.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

They can be interpreted in a way that encourages violence, as they have been for centuries, but his point is that whoever says such a thing is doing so out of opportunism and/or discrimination.
In a nutshell, his argument is: "You're saying religion had something to do with this, therefore you're an opportunist/islamophobe."

I have lived in a Muslim country before, they do a lot of things I don't agree with but they do not kill kids! The only way that verse can be interpretted that way is maybe if you read it upside down or reversed the audio like in those illuminati videos. It wasn't you in particular, but a lot of the people who are trying to link these actions to mainstream Islam are also the same people that were trying to justify themselves in the European racism thread; what worries me is that this connects to a larger ideology of dehumanization of Muslims, which is Islamophobia. No way Islam justifies killing children, that shouldn't be the first conclusion people come to!

 

[Ninja Of Chaos]

it has only to do with religion if YOU believe Taliban view of Islam is what Quran says is the true interpretation....Quran makes it pretty clear difference so unless you believe the perverse and creating disording in the land were the 132 children and their parents and the army, then go ahead. we know what you believe.

This is such utter nonsense. Your arguments are logically incoherent.

It has nothing to do with "him", as he probably doesn't believe in the philosophy of islam. It has to do with the POSSIBILITY of a person A being able to read the text in such a way to justify an act like this. Nobody is arguing that it's the right thing to do, just that it's a POSSIBLE thing.

 

[Maninthemirror]

This is such utter nonsense. Your arguments are logically incoherent.

It has nothing to do with "him", as he probably doesn't believe in the philosophy of islam. It has to do with the POSSIBILITY of a person A being able to read the text in such a way to justify an act like this. Nobody is arguing that it's the right thing to do, just that it's a POSSIBLE thing.

if a person reads a Text saying "Kill them where you find them" and ignores every other verse which says dont harm women and children and elderly and only defend against thoseand not attack those who are armed and never attack those who are unarmed and ignores the context of kill them where you find them being only to those who are armed and directly attacking you with arms and only when the religion itself under threat of existence then yes, its delusions of grandeur and not even reading their own book and thus abusing the faith not applying the faith which doesn't make it about the religion, it makes it about being ignorant and plain evil

Same applies to non muslims who interpret it in the same method as Taliban to justify their viewpoint

 

[Ninja Of Chaos]

if a person reads a Text saying "Kill them where you find them" and ignores every other verse which says dont harm women and children and elderly and only defend against thoseand not attack those who are armed and never attack those who are unarmed and ignores the context of kill them where you find them being only to those who are armed and directly attacking you with arms and only when the religion itself under threat of existence then yes, its delusions of grandeur and not even reading their own book and thus abusing the faith not applying the faith which doesn't make it about the religion, it makes it about being ignorant and plain evil

Same applies to non muslims who interpret it in the same method as Taliban to justify their viewpoint

So what you are saying is that there is no possible interpretations of an incomplete and inconsistent set of rules (Islam) that can justify what they did? Yes, that is logically incoherent. Everything can be justified by it and they would be correct. The problem is not the people observing this and pointing it out, it's the religion itself and the choice those people made to interpret it that way.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

oh im not letting you go of the blatant ignorance that easily. you are saying religion has something to do with it thus giving the taliban argument weight, you are saying essentially and correct me if I am wrong, that Taliban's religious view is valid and thus as per their view they did have the right to kill as per their view.

If you believe their views are invalid then you would obviously agree they are distorting their own religion. You are trying your level best to lay it on religion by giving validity to the Taliban view.

So you are giving weight to the Taliban view. that is absolutely disgusting. how can anyone tolerate that here? by proxy you are saying that Taliban view could be the right one and they were right to kill AS PER their book.

First off, fuck you with insulting so many people who disagree with you. You are by far the most vile, insane, person I've come across on this board who is so clearly deranged that you can only view things through a tiny hole, and is incapable of having any type of objective view point to where you must personally attack and warp other peoples arguments to fit your narrative, thus continuing the cycle of ad hominem attacks.

Calling me ignorant for pointing out you so blatantly warping peoples opinions and arguments, and creating arguments out of thin air that haven't even happened, where do you get off? Everything that comes out of your mouth is a logical fallacy, purposefully designed to attempt to make those arguing you look like intolerant idiots or "If you're not with me you're a monster who is condoning the killing of kids".

I'm not giving any credence to the views of the Taliban, because I'm not a moron, so maybe you need to read what people are actually saying, say it out loud and properly identify it is they are saying before you put your own personal spin on it.

I've been called many thing, but I'll be fucking damned if you're gonna call me ignorant or intolerant on the killing of 80+ kids and the religion of 1.6 billion people, let alone condoning it from your point of view.

 

[Maninthemirror]

So what you are saying is that there is no possible interpretations of an incomplete and inconsistent set of rules (Islam) that can justify what they did? Yes, that is logically incoherent. Everything can be justified by it and they would be correct. The problem is not the people observing this and pointing it out, it's the religion itself and the choice those people made to interpret it that way.

again:

you apply the entire Quran to each verse itself. if the Quran says dont kill children who can justify it ? if the Quran says dont kill women? who can justify it? If the Quran says dont kill any unarmed person, who can justify it? if the Quran says only use violence as defense and never offense and only against those attacking your faith's existence, who can justify it? You are assuming because a verse says one thing, we can ignore its context which completes the set of rules and is actually as per the verse above understood by only those who are NOT intending to create disorder. Any person who is evil will use any other excuse if it were not islam and in this its a lot more political than religious anyway so that makes the wholy religious revenge out of the window anyway.

First off, fuck you with insulting so many people who disagree with you. You are by far the most vile, insane, person I've come across on this board who is so clearly deranged that you can only view things through a tiny hole, and is incapable of having any type of objective view point to where you must personally attack and warp other peoples arguments to fit your narrative, thus continuing the cycle of ad hominem attacks.

Calling me ignorant for pointing out you so blatantly warping peoples opinions and arguments, and creating arguments out of thin air that haven't even happened, where do you get off? Everything that comes out of your mouth is a logical fallacy, purposefully designed to attempt to make those arguing you look like intolerant idiots or "If you're not with me you're a monster who is condoning the killing of kids".

I'm not giving any credence to the views of the Taliban, because I'm not a moron, so maybe you need to read what people are actually saying, say it out loud and properly identify it is they are saying before you put your own personal spin on it.

I've been called many thing, but I'll be fucking damned if you're gonna call me ignorant or intolerant on the killing of 80+ kids and the religion of 1.6 billion people, let alone condoning it from your point of view.

thats rich coming from someone who gives the Taliban view so much weight and validity. that is sick. you are trying your level best to make this about applying faith rather than abusing faith. no sane person is falling for the tricks. on a day when 132 children are killed, those people who are trying to make it about faith are who need to be educated, again and again.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

the Quran says only use violence as defense and never offense and only against those attacking your faith's existence

Does this one supersede the others? Why or why not?

 

[Maninthemirror]

Does this one supersede the others? Why or why not?

no it doesnt. murder is the worst offense. there is only one thing which supercedes everything in islam is the belief in one God and Muhammad as the messenger. everything is through logic and understanding

 

[Deleted member 17706]

no it doesnt. murder is the worst offense. there is only one thing which supercedes everything in islam is the belief in one God and Muhammad as the messenger. everything is through logic and understanding

What does believing in "the one God and Muhammad as the messenger" have to do with using violence against those who attack the faith's existence, which is apparently permissible. Is there a chart that dictates the priority of the various rules and passages?

Also, wouldn't it not be considered "murder" if the killing were done in defense of your faith? Obviously, that's completely open to personal interpretation, and we're back at square one.

 

[Maninthemirror]

What does believing in "the one God and Muhammad as the messenger" have to do with using violence against those who attack the faith's existence, which is apparently permissible. Is there a chart that dictates the priority of the various rules and passages?

is Islam dying when the army is Attacking the Taliban? Is Islam being attacked militarily, it is to only the Taliban and if you believe the Taliban view, which is a 1 in 100 people kind of question, are the Taliban abusing the faith or applying the faith.

oh my. do you consider armed battles as murder? is one armed person attacking another armed person attacking the other murder or a battle. you seem to be pushing for an answer which you wont get as are saying that wont it be considered murder if killing is done in defense of your faith? are your purposely missing the part where it says defending from armed attacking people?

 

[Ninja Of Chaos]

again:

you apply the entire Quran to each verse itself. if the Quran says dont kill children who can justify it ? if the Quran says dont kill women? who can justify it? If the Quran says dont kill any unarmed person, who can justify it? if the Quran says only use violence as defense and never offense and only against those attacking your faith's existence, who can justify it? You are assuming because a verse says one thing, we can ignore its context which completes the set of rules and is actually as per the verse above understood by only those who are NOT intending to create disorder. Any person who is evil will use any other excuse if it were not islam and in this its a lot more political than religious anyway so that makes the wholy religious revenge out of the window anyway.





thats rich coming from someone who gives the Taliban view so much weight and validity. that is sick.

Are you being obtuse on purpose? The fact that the rules deny their own previous (or later) points is WHY it's inconsistent. Just because you like the idea of interpreting it one way, does not mean it's true. It can be interpreted in any way person A wants BECAUSE of what you just said. And that is a problem with the philosophy itself.

Also, to your reply of the other guy: The Taliban view HAS as much weight because the philosophy allows for that. Just because you are incapable of distinguishing between "people approving of what they did" from "people noting they aren't wrong", does not make him sick. It just makes you look illogical and dogmatic.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

again:

thats rich coming from someone who gives the Taliban view so much weight and validity. that is sick. you are trying your level best to make this about applying faith rather than abusing faith. no sane person is falling for the tricks

Where did I ever say any of this? Oh wait I didn't.

 

[Ogimachi]

no it doesnt. murder is the worst offense. there is only one thing which supercedes everything in islam is the belief in one God and Muhammad as the messenger. everything is through logic and understanding

Wrong.

"And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)"

Not only it says disbelief is worse than murder, it's not a call to "defensive warfare" either.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

is Islam dying when the army is Attacking the Taliban? Is Islam being attacked militarily, it is to only the Taliban and if you believe the Taliban view, which is a 1 in 100 people kind of question, are the Taliban abusing the faith or applying the faith.

I would hope it's far, far less than 1 in 100, and while I certainly do not agree with them, the existence of the text seems to allow for that interpretation.

 

[Maninthemirror]

Wrong.

"And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)"

Not only it says disbelief is worse than murder, it's not a call to "defensive warfare" either.

are you teaching a Muslim about Islam? holy shit lol

Are you being obtuse on purpose? The fact that the rules deny their own previous (or later) points is WHY it's inconsistent. Just because you like the idea of interpreting it one way, does not mean it's true. It can be interpreted in any way person A wants BECAUSE of what you just said. And that is a problem with the philosophy itself.

Also, to your reply of the other guy: The Taliban view HAS as much weight because the philosophy allows for that. Just because you are incapable of distinguishing between "people approving of what they did" from "people noting they aren't wrong", does not make him sick. It just makes you look illogical and dogmatic.

so you are saying Taliban view of Islam could be the valid?