Yep, definitely falls in line with the majority of attacks since that report too. Makes complete sense given how much of the religious teachings refer back to compassion and mercy.
Gun shots outside Parliament: Police shoot assailant following car attack on Westminster Bridge
- Thread starter Untied
- Start date
I'm going to ask the question again. Where is the Islamic terrorism here?
Try to understand my question this time.
Are you trying to say that 'terrorism' cannot be 'Islamic' by definition?
I actually think these attacks are gradually bringing communities closer together rather than pull them apart.
Yes. Don't you think that?
Just like I would say that his previous crimes and attempted murders and psychopathic behaviour was not Chrisitan terrorism.
Even the police came out with any link to him and ISIS/Daesh/ISIL it would not make it Islamic. And the fact that he was raised a Christian and read the bible does not make him a Christian terrorist?
It is clear from the police reports and interviews friends/relatives he was disturbed because of feeling racially discriminated against and lashing out when he felt this was being done to him. Should we call him a black terrorist?
Islam is open to interpretation. There is no central authority or defined accepted linear practice. Jihad is a legitimate part of Islam. What constitutes an enemy and holy war is again subjective.
I do believe that the majority of the terrorist attacks we see are carried out with religious sincerity.
The fact they never leave messages is the thing that i find disconcerting and makes me lean towards these attackers being mentally challenged individuals that grasp on to a clause. If you want to terrorise wouldn't you leave a video that would get played over and over.
Not only that but he's knocked the US civilian bombing scandal off the news which should be huge but is now barely reported.
Not only that but he's knocked the US civilian bombing scandal off the news which should be huge but is now barely reported.
The same could be said for Christianity, could it not?
Also, many of those denominations above ended up fighting "holy wars" among one another, in addition to fighting "holy wars" against people of different religions.
I see where you are coming from. There is a central authority imo and its called the Quran also the hadith. Also in every country, the ruling power does not advocate for terrorist acts. There is and has been a deliberate and insidious attempt by certain parties to hijack the word Jihad.
Jihad means the spiritual struggle within oneself against sin. So in an accidental way you are right in that "Jihad is a legitimate part of Islam". The linguistic meaning is as follows:
- The Arabic word "jihad" is often translated as "holy war," but in a purely linguistic sense, the word "jihad" means struggling or striving.
- The arabic word for war is: "al-harb"
if someone decided to use the word "struggle" in the context of a horrendous act despite being told explicitly and implicitly with grave warnings, both by his Spiritual and Legal Authority does that mean the Authority legitimises the very act it warns gravely against?
In no other sphere of existence would someone use this argument against any peoples unless it was a double standard or a deliberate misinformation campaign based on an aggressive agenda. We would all be rolling on the floor laughing if the shoe was on the other foot and someone tried to equivocate secularism or democracy or even Christianity with war because certain groups plan/plot and make up demonstrable and proven lies about countries in order to invade and steal their resources whilst killing millions across the globe yet it happens.
The problem I have is that people are jumping to the most negative possible interpretation despite the actual facts of any aspect of Islam which is due to both an inner dislike or hate for it and the constant and deliberate legitimisation of that ill will via propaganda from elements in places of power. Just because someone saw a bbc news clip or read a website and saw the word "Jihad" on it suddenly they are an expert in The Arabic language and what Islam teaches.
Thankfully there are a good and steadily rising number of people who actually use their reasoning and rationale to investigate the subjects pertinent to the topic and don't rely on the manipulated mainstream media owned by the very parties that seek to spread these lies and hate. There are others who are just misinformed and can't really be blamed for being lost in the myriad of BS.
I wish you posted this earlier, would have saved me the time I used to write the essay I just didThe same could be said for Christianity, could it not?
Also, many of those denominations above ended up fighting "holy wars" among one another, in addition to fighting "holy wars" against people of different religions.
It is a problem with religious philosophy in general.The same could be said for Christianity, could it not?
Also, many of those denominations above ended up fighting "holy wars" among one another, in addition to fighting "holy wars" against people of different religions.
yep that much is clear (Your opinion of it) But you should not loose your reasoning as a result of it.
Agreed, which leads to this...
Are they Christians who call themselves terrorists or are they terrorists who call themselves Christians?
Are they Muslims who call themselves terrorists or are they terrorists who call themselves Muslims?
I believe it to be the latter, and just because you call yourself something, it doesn't make it true.
What reasoning have I lost?
I think they would call themselves freedom fighters, or something in that vein.
Just consistency with logic around the things I wrote. It is easy to get slack when there is an obvious bias against something as a whole when dealing with specifics if that makes sense?
not meant as an insult.
And yes on your second sentence. Thats what they would call themselves.
@Carolina Red what you say is true. I thought I was the best footballer of all time in my youth
And what of your bias for Islam. Should your opinion and representation of the religion not be treated with scepticism because of the profound love that you have for it?Just consistency with logic around the things I wrote. It is easy to get slack when there is an obvious bias against something as a whole when dealing with specifics if that makes sense?
not meant as an insult.
And yes on your second sentence. Thats what they would call themselves.
@Carolina Red what you say is true. I thought I was the best footballer of all time in my youth
Fair point.
I think I would still refer back to my assessment of them though and say in the hypothetical that they're both terrorists who call themselves something they're not.
I think frequently, we (the outside observer) also call the terrorists things they are not as well when we attribute a religious title to their act of terrorism.
One does not have a bias when talking about the facts that can be verified. I think I have proven that I know both sides of the storey so to speak and the facts speak for themselves. One example would be your understanding of Jihad.
I agree with you in that you should treat it (or anything for that matter) with scepticism but you should afford the same approach to your own opinion. Because I am giving you the actual meaning from the source which is more valid than an opinion based on an incorrect assumption based on a lack of understanding (Due to the reasons I mentioned before). What I have given you is the exact translation of a word used wrongly by people. It can't be moe straight warded than that.
For example, let's draw a parallel around the incorrect translation of words (Literally). If all my life I was taught that the french word for holy war was "lutte" then I would be incorrect to say that holy war was central to whatever the religious or political feeling of that person.
I don't think you can skew or undermine my argument by suggesting it is based on "profound love for Islam" when all I have done is to demonstrate that your understanding of a core belief is based on misinformation. You are simply not correct on the meaning of the word and there is no embarrassment in it. The question is will you take that which I suspect is new information for you on board or continue down the same line despite being shown otherwise?
I often see people trying to tell Muslims or Arabic speakers what their words mean as if they are an authority over them. I find it ludicrous that someone should tell another people that words in their language actually mean this or that to fit a particular narrative of their own. This particular approach (where people will not accept the meaning of a word from the source of the language lexicons and linguistic heritage) can only come from a supremacist worldview. "I am superior to you, therefore, I can tell you what your own words mean. "you are inferior to me and don't know your own language, I will tell you what your own words mean".
I recommend if you truly care about this subject and want to know about specifics in relation to either this thread topic or another topic along the same lines that you be very sceptical about EVERYTHING and do your own thorough research.
Thank you for this good discussion!
agree fully.
This part is amusing, it isn't 'their' word. It's a word that has a definition accessible to anybody and everybody. I am an English speaker, but there's probably an Arabic speaker out there who can tell me what an English word means that I might not know. Just because that's your language doesn't mean you know and understand every word in it, nor does it mean that nobody else can understand what a word means. You don't have to go to a high priest to gain insight into what a word means, you can find out anywhere.
@EyeInTheSky
So you are saying that there is no military context to Jihad in Islam, historically or semantically?
So you are saying that there is no military context to Jihad in Islam, historically or semantically?
What is amusing is that you have completely misunderstood what I have said and at the same time proven my point.
The fact that the meaning of the word is "accessible to anybody and everybody" as you yourself admit should make it even less likely that people should actually find out what it means rather than accepting a meaning that the press gives them.
Your example is not analogous to the point we are discussing. If I had said that his understanding of the definitive meaning of the word was wrong when in fact the dictionary says his definition of the word is accurate then you would have a point.
If the linguistic founders and experts of a particular language say a word has a particular meaning as is understood by its native speakers as such then that is what the word means.
So, in this case, the word "Jihad" is misunderstood DESPITE the meaning being freely available from the source lexicon.
I can't believe I am even having this discussion. I am now going to go tell the authors/publishers of the Oxford dictionary that their definition of the words contained therein are wrong and impose my own opinion of what they should mean.
I am going to let you give me an example if you have one.
I haven't read any of your argument with him, and have no idea what you're arguing with him about. I was calling you out on your notion that comes across in your post that speakers of a language by default know more about what words mean than somebody else and that none speakers of that language are for some reason not able to understand or allowed to know what a word means. Which is bullshit. Perhaps you worded it badly originally, but that's the message that comes across in your post. Just because somebody is Arabic does not mean they understand what an Arabic word might mean more than somebody else. There's no innate link there besides a probability.What is amusing is that you have completely misunderstood what I have said and at the same time proven my point.
The fact that the meaning of the word is "accessible to anybody and everybody" as you yourself admit should make it even less likely that people should actually find out what it means rather than accepting a meaning that the press gives them.
Your example is not analogous to the point we are discussing. If I had said that his understanding of the definitive meaning of the word was wrong when in fact the dictionary says his definition of the word is accurate then you would have a point.
If the linguistic founders and experts of a particular language say a word has a particular meaning as is understood by its native speakers as such then that is what the word means.
So, in this case, the word "Jihad" is misunderstood DESPITE the meaning being freely available from the source lexicon.
I can't believe I am even having this discussion. I am now going to go tell the authors/publishers of the Oxford dictionary that their definition of the words contained therein are wrong and impose my own opinion of what they should mean.
Just quickly
http://islamicsupremecouncil.org/un...misunderstood-concept-from-islam.html?start=9
- If military jihad is required to protect the faith against others, it can be performed using anything from legal, diplomatic and economic to political means. If there is no peaceful alternative, Islam also allows the use of force, but there are strict rules of engagement. Innocents - such as women, children, or invalids - must never be harmed, and any peaceful overtures from the enemy must be accepted.
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/11/12/how-afghan-jihadwentglobal.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad
In classical Islamic law, the term refers to armed struggle against unbelievers,[2][3] while modernist Islamic scholars generally equate military jihad with defensive warfare.[
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/beliefs/jihad_1.shtml
Muslims use the word Jihad to describe three different kinds of struggle:
- A believer's internal struggle to live out the Muslim faith as well as possible
- The struggle to build a good Muslim society
- Holy war: the struggle to defend Islam, with force if necessary
You could not have possibly gotten that from my post if you read it with any sort of care. I literally said verbatim that you should go to the source of the language via its lexicon and dictionary definitions. I don't think people should blindly get their understanding of any words let alone foreign ones with absolutely no common root from places like /insert mainstream media outlet here. For some reason, certain people seem to take offence to that.
As you have stated you have not read any of the discussion with the other poster you just jumped in with a false assumption. You took one sentence out of my whole post and decided to focus in on that because of that misunderstanding.
You said: "Perhaps you worded it badly originally" when I could not have made it clearer in my conversations. Is there any possibility that rather you read it wrong and via confirmation bias due to not reading the other posts in this discussion formed an opinion that was incorrect?
Also, let us break it down further. Although this is not my original point as I have shown clearly let us discuss what you said. You interestingly wrote that you were "calling me out on my notion" that "native speakers of a particular language by default know more about what words mean than somebody else"
- The vast majority of the time native speakers of a language know the meanings of the words they use.
- There are a relatively small number of cases where some non-native speakers may know what a foreign word means and where the native speaker doesn't.
The word Dog in the English dictionary:
A domesticated carnivorous mammal that typically has a long snout, an acute sense of smell, non-retractable claws, and a barking, howling, or whining voice.
Once again you mistakenly extrapolated that from my post. Although how you did I fail to see.
Random guy on the internet says:
The word dog means:
A water-based mammal that lives off the west coast of Jupiter
One is right one is wrong. I used a clearly ludicrous example to underline the main point. One definition is correct one is incorrect. It has nothing to do with if the random guy on the internet is more of an expert in English than the committee that produces the Oxford English dictionary. It has everything to do with being correct or incorrect.
Also in regards to what you wrote:
"I was calling you out on your notion that comes across in your post that speakers of a language by default know more about what words mean than somebody else and that none speakers of that language are for some reason not able to understand or allowed to know what a word means. Which is bullshit."
Yes, I agree that notion is bullshit. Where you found that in any of my posts remains to be seen. Where on earth did I say that non-native speakers were not able to understand or allowed to know what a word means???
Absolutely nuts that you would even suggest that let alone to someone who is a living example of it and knowing that there are people who do it for a living
Thank you
Now were are getting somewhere. And how is this any different to any religious or non-religious code of conduct?
If someone threatens the faith i.e as in the examples you provided show by threatening the faith is a "holy" or "unholy war" against a Muslim country what do you propose they do? Would you like so many others think they should not defend themselves?
The meaning of Jihad and its interpretation as you have illustrated is far better than the unilateral aggressive wars against any nation correct?
I don't need a 1500 word essay back to my post nor do I need the exaggeration that you're putting into all your replies. You said "I often see people trying to tell Muslims or Arabic speakers what their words mean as if they are an authority over them." This sentence can come across as you believe that Muslims know more about their words than none Muslims, i.e that you believe there's an innate link between speaking a language, and therefore knowing more about every word in it than anybody else could or that a none Muslim would start from a disadvantage when discussing a particular word where the definition is freely available. "I find it ludicrous that someone should tell another people that words in their language actually mean this or that to fit a particular narrative of their own." This statement backs up the previous sentence, which is based on nothing to begin with. It is entirely possible that somebody could tell somebody that words in their language actually mean something and there's nothing innately wrong with that. You're right in that somebody shouldn't make up their own definition of a word that has a definition contrary to the dictionary, but there's no weight in the statement that you actually made that because the person doesn't speak that language that they don't have any right to know or tell somebody what a word means because you can find the definition in seconds.You could not have possibly gotten that from my post if you read it with any sort of care. I literally said verbatim that you should go to the source of the language via its lexicon and dictionary definitions. I don't think people should blindly get their understanding of any words let alone foreign ones with absolutely no common root from places like /insert mainstream media outlet here. For some reason, certain people seem to take offence to that.
As you have stated you have not read any of the discussion with the other poster you just jumped in with a false assumption. You took one sentence out of my whole post and decided to focus in on that because of that misunderstanding.
You said: "Perhaps you worded it badly originally" when I could not have made it clearer in my conversations. Is there any possibility that rather you read it wrong and via confirmation bias due to not reading the other posts in this discussion formed an opinion that was incorrect?
Also, let us break it down further. Although this is not my original point as I have shown clearly let us discuss what you said. You interestingly wrote that you were "calling me out on my notion" that "native speakers of a particular language by default know more about what words mean than somebody else"
So I am struggling to see what relevance this has when we are talking about the dictionary and lexical definitions of a word. It is either right or wrong. for example:
- The vast majority of the time native speakers of a language know the meanings of the words they use.
- There are a relatively small number of cases where some non-native speakers may know what a foreign word means and where the native speaker doesn't.
The word Dog in the English dictionary:
A domesticated carnivorous mammal that typically has a long snout, an acute sense of smell, non-retractable claws, and a barking, howling, or whining voice.
Once again you mistakenly extrapolated that from my post. Although how you did I fail to see.
Random guy on the internet says:
The word dog means:
A water-based mammal that lives off the west coast of Jupiter
One is right one is wrong. I used a clearly ludicrous example to underline the main point. One definition is correct one is incorrect. It has nothing to do with if the random guy on the internet is more of an expert in English than the committee that produces the Oxford English dictionary. It has everything to do with being correct or incorrect.
Also in regards to what you wrote:
"I was calling you out on your notion that comes across in your post that speakers of a language by default know more about what words mean than somebody else and that none speakers of that language are for some reason not able to understand or allowed to know what a word means. Which is bullshit."
Yes, I agree that notion is bullshit. Where you found that in any of my posts remains to be seen. Where on earth did I say that non-native speakers were not able to understand or allowed to know what a word means???
Absolutely nuts that you would even suggest that let alone to someone who is a living example of it and knowing that there are people who do it for a living
I don't care about the argument you're having with the other guy, that bit you posted is nonsensical and has no merit. Going to dictionary citations has nothing to do with my post to you.
To use your dog analogy, it's nothing like what I brought up because I didn't quote somebody taking a contrary stance to the dictionary, I brought up your post about non Muslims trying to speak to Muslims. A better analogy would have been:
Spanish speaking guy: A dog is a water animal living off the coast of Jupiter.
English speaking guy: A dog is a four legged domesticated animal.
The second statement is not true because the person is English, it's true because that's the definition of the word. His country of origin is irrelevant, just as your original statement of non Muslims is irrelevant.
Last edited:
My whole point is that the specifics of that are subjective. ISIS claim that they are defending the faith.Thank you
Now were are getting somewhere. And how is this any different to any religious or non-religious code of conduct?
If someone threatens the faith i.e as in the examples you provided show by threatening the faith is a "holy" or "unholy war" against a Muslim country what do you propose they do? Would you like so many others think they should not defend themselves?
The meaning of Jihad and its interpretation as you have illustrated is far better than the unilateral aggressive wars against any nation correct?
What of this point from the Wiki explanation
'In classical Islamic law, the term refers to armed struggle against unbelievers'
That is a very broad and dangerous brushstroke if accurate.
The distinction is made from modern school of thought, however.
while modernist Islamic scholars generally equate military jihad with defensive warfare.
But ISIS choose to reject modernisers on the basis that Mohammed's time was purist time for Islam.
Once again, read my posts where I said the exact opposite of what your implying. The fact that "you don't care" makes no difference. It's like saying "I was wrong but I don't care about why I was incorrect". Also it is a fact that I do often see and hear people trying to dictate to native speakers what their words mean especially in a political or theological context. So there is no argument there. The understanding you got from what I said, in my opinion, has not got a natural place in the discourse.
One thing we can agree on is that people can understand words in foreign languages correctly and all I did was add that it has to be from the correct source
No, it's not like that at all it's just you trying to deflect. I didn't at any point say I was wrong and don't care about why I was incorrect, that's just a very immature way of point scoring in a debate, the kind of thing a little brother comes out with. I snuck a few edits in before you replied:Once again, read my posts where I said the exact opposite of what your implying. The fact that "you don't care" makes no difference. It's like saying "I was wrong but I don't care about why I was incorrect". Also it is a fact that I do often see and hear people trying to dictate to native speakers what their words mean especially in a political or theological context. So there is no argument there. The understanding you got from what I said, in my opinion, has not got a natural place in the discourse.
One thing we can agree on is that people can understand words in foreign languages correctly and all I did was add that it has to be from the correct source
Simply put, there is nothing inherently wrong with a non native speaker telling somebody what a word means. It doesn't require any kind of special intelligence or inside secret to understand and there's no upper echelon you must ascend to in order to be then able to tell somebody what a word means. I am not a native Spanish speaker, but I'd laugh if you told me I couldn't tell a Spanish person what 'señorita' means. If you agree with me that people can understand words in foreign languages correctly then you'd have no reason to mention anything to do with native vs none native speakers because it would be irrelevant. Your statement should have been that a person could not come up with their own interpretation of a word that contradicts its actual definition, not that a non-native could not come up with a definition that differed to a natives because in that instance you're giving greater weight to one persons opinion than another based on nothing. Knowing what a word means has nothing to do with that and it's just a poor way of discrediting somebody and if you agree with me on that then you wouldn't have had any reason to type those words to begin with. To be honest I'm not really sure why such a small quote and small post prompted these essay replies, had I known you'd take it so seriously and I'd have to explain something so small in so many words making it look like a bigger deal than it was then I wouldn't have bothered.
* This was a struggle against unbelievers is in reference to those who had attacked and killed the early founding Muslims and ran them out of their homes where they had to migrate to another part of the country. A usefull thing to note is that rules in the text did not all come at once. Something would happen then laws were introduced. So when the Quraysh tribe (unbelievers) did what they did then the laws were given in response to that. When the Muslims gathered strength they came back and defeated their enemy who at the time were the "unbelievers" that were being referred to. It is perfectly reasonable to use in this context. you surely can't have a problem with that?
Let's use the same words in a different scenario:
The French resistance struggled against the occupying Nazi forces.
The French had an armed struggle against an enemy who had murdered their fellow people, violated their Land, property etc etc.. The words "resistance" and "struggle" are not negative words and when applied logically to the context it is surely a righteous thing?
What you are doing is finding a negative instance for where a particular use of a word (In this case "Struggle" which is a flexible noun), in a different scenario and then equivocating it to another context. For example, we used the words "armed struggle" above. Why are they bad words in one context and good ones in another? We have to look at the detail.
** To the contrary. If ISIS actually wanted to follow the basis and explicitly stated laws they would not have grounds to do so.
The laws even go further to define the term. For example, if we had a law in our country that said:
Do NOT do the following or a great punishment awaits:
- A
- B
- C
then how can someone interpret it as "well you can see why they did it, it's so ambiguous".
Also on a side note mate, I do hope you are not under the impression that my viewpoint as some sort of justification for their crimes? Its sad but I have to ask...
Usually we accept identity at face-value as long as we don’t have good reason to believe that someone is deliberately lying. People who try to deny your right to choose your own identity are the last people we should listen to, when it comes to these issues, because they are fundamentalists.
It reminds me a lot of discussions in football forums about who is a “real fan”. There are Manchester United fans all over the world and some of them never were in the stadium to watch the team play. Many of them might not even watch every match in TV or buy merchandise. They are still fans. Yet there are those people who struggle to accept that. For them you are only a “real fan”, if you go the stadium each week and if you have been a supporter since you were 2 years old (exaggeration!).
The same is true for political ideologies or religions.
There is no evidence that the majority of these people are actually lying when it comes to their own identity and the theory that they usually have mental health problems is debunked (at least there is no evidence that supports this claim). It is quite telling, when somebody argues at great length, that these people are no “real Muslims”.
To avoid any confusion. It is obviously legitimate to analyze why people start to believe extremist interpretations of religions and answer this question with other factors (socio-economic circumstance; personal experiences; et.al.)
But there are rules in Religion, you are not Christian because you say so, you have to respect basic rules. The same goes with Islam, someone that doesn't respect basic rules isn't a believer, you can't pick and choose.
" simply put, there is nothing inherently wrong with a non-native speaker telling somebody what a word means"
I have been saying the complete opposite time and time again yet you refuse to acknowledge the fact
"put, there is nothing inherently wrong with a non-native speaker telling somebody what a word means"
Nobody has said that but yet again you are having an argument with yourself.
I will add that there IS something wrong however with someone who does not know the meaning of a word or has been given the wrong information telling someone else who DOES know it or arguing against a dictionary definition meaning that word. This I thought that much would be obvious.
your trying to argue water is not wet. And argument no one should try and prop up IMO???
its like you are having a conversation with someone behind me and I am trying to tell you there is no one there.
talk about deflecting... You're the one got an obscure interpretation from what I said and despite admitting that you had not read any of the contexts have persisted in childish nonsensical responses. It is bizarre that you have gone down some sort of rabbit hole of answering your own questions on my behalf because you someone know what I meant better than I did.
You're having a meltdown mate. I won't waste any more time on this. bye.
@EyeInTheSky
No I do not think you are trying to justify ISIS's crimes.
No I do not think you are trying to justify ISIS's crimes.
The problem being that the rules are open to interpretation.
And herein lies the problem - what system of metrics defines extremism?
In other words, where is the agreed baseline from where we can all say something is a perversion or indeed the truest, purist interpretation of an ideology?
If your measuring it from a cosy, diluted secular perspective (as we are) then everything appears extreme. From an 'extremist''s point of view, we are heretics who just don't get it, despite our greater numbers.
Except most people claiming to be Christians or Muslims most likely break a lot of rules.
You can't tell someone they are not Christian or Muslim because you don't like what they do. Or if you do that apply it to everyone not just people who's interpretation of the religion is different to you.
Yes, but is that not the same for any set of rules? Be it theologcal, banking, driving etc...
Also, I am interested in your opinion on the following. What overarching "Rule set" would you name as those of the UK or wherever you live?
Here is a good article on how Muslims have understood jihad in history. The author makes no claims as to what the correct interpretation is - for a historian that is a largely irrelevant exercise:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-europe_islam/jihad_4579.jsp
https://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-europe_islam/jihad_4579.jsp
I think it's to due to the simplicity of the Salafi message which rejects taqlid and the complex scholarly traditions of the various madhahib and encourages a direct, literal engagement with the core texts. Without wishing to pass judgement on the intelligence of all converts, many will just not have the intellectual capacity to understand things like qiyas.