islamul denunta violenta si teroarea??

beren spune:

FOOD for THOUGHT:
-------------------
[...]
Blaming foreigners has become a convenient excuse in Pakistan , and elsewhere in the Muslim world, to avoid condemning the extremist Jihad ists' ideology of hatred. It is not necessary for everyone in Europe or the Muslim world to agree with all aspects of US or British policy to acknowledge that many Muslims have been so consumed by hatred of the West that they have lost their moral compass. Terrorism is reprehensible. Extremist ideologies that feed, justify or condone terrorism deserve unequivocal condemnation.

A booklet by the Lashkar-e-Toiba declares the U.S. , Israel and India as existential enemies of Islam and lists eight reasons for global Jihad. These include the restoration of Islamic sovereignty to all lands where Muslims were once ascendant, including Spain , Bulgaria , Hungary , Cyprus , Sicily , Ethiopia , Russian Turkistan and Chinese Turkistan, and even parts of France. Blaming the US for the delusions of these admittedly small groups confers a degree of legitimacy on Islamist extremists and undermines moderate Muslim struggling for the soul of their faith.

The deliberate ignorance of blame-the-U.S. commentators is pervasive. Left-wing activist Tariq Ali wrote in The Guardian the day after the London bombings that ‘‘the principal cause of this violence is the violence inflicted on the people of the Muslim world.'' He suggested, and other critics of the U.S. agree, that ‘‘it is safe to assume that the cause of these bombs is the unstinting support given by New Labour and its prime minister to the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.''

The truth is that some Muslims have interpreted Islamic teachings to include hatred of non-believers and, especially since the decline of Muslim power, advocated unconventional warfare against the disproportionately more powerful West.

In the 19th century, the first anti-modernity Jihad ist group called Tehrik-e-Mujahedeen emerged in India and operated in the country's northwest frontier, including parts of present-day Pakistan and Afghanistan . This puritanical militant movement first fought the region's Sikh rulers and later targeted the British.

The movement's founder, Sayyid Ahmed of Bareili (d. 1831) organised cells throughout India to supply the frontier movement with men and money. Calling themselves mujahedeen , the movement's followers interpreted the Islamic concept of jihad in its literal sense of holy war. India 's Jihad ists killed British officials and civilians and their campaign of terror lasted for several decades. That 19th century movement spawned the contemporary ideology of jihad and serves as the prototype for subsequent the jihad network of Al Qaeda and its associated groups in the region.

Sayyid Ahmed was influenced by the ideas of the founder of the Wahabi movement in present-day Saudi Arabia. Islamic revivalist movements have been active through much of the Muslim world long before America 's engagement with the greater Middle East.

If the Islamists' ideology precedes U.S. involvement in the region by more than a century, how can Britain 's support for U.S. security policy alone be the instigator of Islamist violence in London ?

From Jihad and Jihadism, by Husain Haqqani, THE INDIAN EXPRESS, 8/3 2005

_
"All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

Adela99 spune:

hannen

beren spune:

FOOD for THOUGHT: REFORMING ISLAM



A peculiar conference, taking place on the West coast of Florida drew the attention of many observers of the War of ideas: The first Secular Islam Summit. [...] But this meeting, unlike many other Muslim intellectual conferences in the West or even worldwide was aimed against Jihadism and for a secular and liberal expression within Islam.

What went wrong (in the Muslim world) wrote Bernard Lewis? “Why do they hate us” titled the press after the 2001 attacks. And since, many among the public asked without convincing answers: but where are the moderates (within the Muslim world)?

The opening remarks were given by two famous Western-based Muslim dissidents. The first to speak was Ibn Warraq, the author of several volumes on Secular Islam. [...] He advocated universal values and a global reform of education. On political grounds, he called for a regime change in many countries, including in Iran, the formation of Human Rights centers, and in an interesting and new twist he asked to “take Mullahs to courts for issuing fatwas.” His conclusion was simple: “they hate us because they were taught to do so.”

The second to address the summit was the “refuznik” Irshad Manji. Born in Africa and raised in Canada, the best selling female author told the audience that the response to Jihad is Ijtihad. In short, reinterpretation of the religious texts (and the Koran), according to Manji would defy the Fundamentalists. Unlike Ibn Warraq, Irshad said she is still a Muslim and she will fight for her “Islam.” She argued that there are many verses in the texts that can help a new interpretation defeat the tight reading by the Islamists. In conclusion, Manji invited non-Muslims to take part in the debate along side with reformist Muslim: “If they tell you have no business in Muslim affairs, tell them they have no business meddling in non-Muslim affairs.”

by Dr. Walid Phares, History News Network.


FOOD for THOUGHT: WOMEN and ISLAM
_

Freedom and Islam
By T. O. Shanavas, M. D., Vice President, Islamic Research Foundation International, Inc.

Recently, I read an article, “Women in Islam” describing the liberation of women by Islam and Prophet (s). In reality women cannot travel alone to Hujj or visit Mecca (the safest place for any one), and women cannot drive a car in Saudi Arabia. It is not a secret that Muslims in general and Muslim women in particular in the world are the least free and least educated. So, I wonder: Oh Islam! You are a great theory but no practical value, unless you live in the West.

http://www.islamfortoday.com/shanavas01.htm

_
"All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

cait spune:

Si criminalul civililor omorati de aceasta fata cine este?Nu stiu cum poti scrie asa.Adica Hamas e atat de inocent cc ca trimite oamenii la moarte si in plus mai omoara si cativa civili israelini in trecere?
Nu sunt oarba si citesc si eu ce se intampla de ambele parti dar nici sa ajungem sa luam apararea unei grupari teroriste cc in fond si la urma urmei asta sunt.
Asta era un pic off topic

Cait
Home is where heart is...
http://picasaweb.google.com/caitlin83490/HainuteInscriptionate#

batool67 spune:

Criminalii civililor omorati de aceasi fata este tot Israelul. In 48, 59, 67, 70, 80, 90 nu exista Hamasul si cu toate acestea in Palestina era razboi. Cum iti explici? Curios e ca se incearca mistificarea conflictului si transformarea lui intr-un conflict dintre o grupare si un stat. Voua chiar nu va este rusine sa fiti atat de subiectivi? Si Beren eu nu faceam spune, eu incercam sa transmit acelasi mesaj pe care mai apoi l-au transmis si forurile internationale despre acel razboi, pe care eu inca nu l-am uitat, iar cei care l-au trait pe propria lor piele sunt inca si mai marcati decat mine. Halal atitudine masculina Beren, ma refer la limbajul tau care denota un oarecare grad de nervozitate. Inca odata ma mir ca nimeni nu a comentat ce am posta vizavi de atitudinea islamului fata de terorism si violenta. Din pacate unii usseri vad aspecte ale terorismului numai din lumea islamica. Cum putem cataloga atrocitatile armatei americane in Iraq, Afganistan? Cum putem cataloga atrocitatile coloniastilor? Sau poate cei care i-au exterminat pe amerindieni erau musulmani.

cait spune:

Pai Batool daca noi suntem subiectivi tu cum mai esti ca vezi victime doar dintr-o singura parte?Din ce am citit eu pe aici si pe celalalt subiect nu ai prea pomenit si de victimele israeline care au fost si acolo.Incearca sa nu sii atat de subiectiva si apoi se poate discuta.
Oricum realitatea nu o stim nici unii dintre noi caci nici tu si nici eu nu am fost acolo sa vedem de fapt ce se intampla.
Si toate astea sunt cam off topic asa cc eu ma opresc aici.


Cait
Home is where heart is...
http://picasaweb.google.com/caitlin83490/HainuteInscriptionate#

ladyJ spune:

Extrem de simplu.


In mai ´48, a doua zi dupa proclamarea statului Israel,israelienii erau in transee cu 19.000 de soldati pentru a tine piept vecinilor arabi (5 STATE arabe au atacat deodata)veniti in numar covarsitor la granitele noului stat. Arabii n-au reusit sa-i ´´azvarle pe evrei in mare´´ asa cum tot trambitau.

In ´56, octombrie,pe frontul di Sinai se duceau lupte contra egiptenilor care avusesera ideea de a trimite anterior trupe speciale(fedaini) peste granita, pentru a da foc la casele oamenilor.(evrei, se-ntelege)
Armata israeliana a ajuns pana aproape de Cairo, in 3 zile de lupte. La 1 noiembrie, egiptenii se retrag, dezorganizat, parasiti fiind de ofiterii lor....

In ´64 apare O.E.P. Stii cine erau da?

In ´67 iar este atacat Israelul de Siria apoi de Egipt...apoi de Husein al Iordaniei.
Razboiul de 6 zile.



In ´73,octombrie, Egiptul si Siria ataca iar Israelul. Israelul se apropiase de Damasc.

Etc si etc si etc......

Desigur, printre razboaiele astea, mai numara si atacurile teroriste initiate de OEP plus problema acestei organizatii in Iordania unde au facut stat in stat, si de unde atacau linistiti Israelul.

Ti-am raspuns la intrebare?

batool67 spune:

Tu nu ai fost acolo, eu insa da.....

cait spune:

Daca ai fost scuze atunci dar din ce imi aduc eu aminte in celalalt subiect spuneai ca ai familia pe acolo dar nu mai conteaza acum.Oricum eu raman la parerea mea cc ca nu stim ce se intampla exact acolo .

Cait
Home is where heart is...
http://picasaweb.google.com/caitlin83490/HainuteInscriptionate#

batool67 spune:

Anul trecut nu eram acolo, cand spun ca am fost ma refer la faptul ca am trait o perioada acolo. Eu cred ca nu e neaparat necesar sa fii intr-un loc ca sa intelegi ce se intampla acolo. Nici eu nu am fost in Etiopia de exemplu, dar asta nu inseamna ca neg ca exista o criza alimentara acolo. Cred ca ar fi cazul sa revenim strict la subiect si sa nu mai incercati unii dintre voi sa atacati persoane. Puteti sa insinuati ceea ce doriti unii dintre voi, eu nu am intrat la acest topic ca sa ma cert cu usserii. Ii las pe agitatii deja cunoscuti sa se agite si sa ne demonstreze cat de cunoscatori sunt ei in domeniul religiei islamice. Pentru unii dintre voi se pare ca e mai comod sa demonstreze ca ei cunosc islamul mai bine decat musulmanii.Daca cineva este interesat de punctul de vedere islamic in ceea ce priveste terorismul si islamul are cateva dovezi din sursele primare ale islamului: Coranul si Sunnah. Interiorizarea informatiei nu mai este problema mea. Cine vrea sa ma insulte e liber sa o faca, desi in treacat fie spus si aceasta nu e o atitudine tocmai nonviolenta.