Anyone can claim that violence is justified by their faith. Many ‘Christian’ leaders used the Bible as justification to employ violence to further their goals. Ask yourself what happened to all of the Native American people who were murdered by the English, French, Portuguese, and the Spanish? And I’m not refereeing to the introduction of diseases but war. Much more recently the radical Christian organization the KKK employed terrorism to further its goals. Again they claimed the Bible and their faith was justification for their violence. Try reading Deuteronomy 20:10-17, 1Samuel 15:2-3, 2Kings 10:6-7, and Timothy 1:20. And the history of ‘Christian Leaders’ over the past 1600 years is riddled with violence.

Now I noticed a recurring theme that I noticed from your last post and the posts of others are references to the Koran that are misspelled. I point this out because when I go to the sites that are provided by you and others the misspellings are identical. Are you just cutting and pasting passages from someone’s website or are you actually reading the Koran? It’s appears that you are doing the former. Perhaps you should try actually reading the Bible and the Koran before you write an opinion about either religion.

http://shrinkwrapped.blogs.com/blog/2009/11/on-interpretation-camels-and-straws.html

It’s a good article with some really good comments as well. I like MaxedOutMama’s idea that Islam may provide a framework that allows a person with a damaged psyche, a background of failure, to keep functioning. “It’s remarkable how many of these people have seemed to use Islam as their individual security blanket to cover their own failings and fears, especially sexual. That weakness is one which can be easily exploited in Islam. This guy’s life was falling apart – he was transferred to Fort Hood, and after his bad OER his career in the military was ended. I think he just had enough and decided to commit a very flamboyant suicide.” And, of course, if you pretend to yourself you’re doing it “to advance Islam” you can believe your “martyrdom” will gain you entrance to that bordello-in-the-sky which is the Islamic paradise.

“You seem to think … that the cause of terrorism is Islam. It’s not. Many posters on this site frequently cite passages from the Koran that imply violence against non-Muslims is ordained by God. From that, many commentators across the right take that as conclusive proof that Islam causes terrorism.”

====================================
Mohammed said “… I am made victorious by terror”.
(Interesting site: http://prophetofdoom.net/Islamic_Quotes_Terrorism.Islam )

A slight tweak to your argument: while Islam does not CAUSE terrorism, it certainly does EMPLOY terrorism to further its goals. It has done so for about 1400 years. (Qur’an:3:150 “… We shall strike terror into the hearts of the Infidels …”)

Your first question is very interesting. I would answer it by pointing out that almost 2/3 of all Muslims live in dictatorial countries. Those countries routinely use the clergy in their country to deflect attention from their failings. If countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan were to stop encouraging terrorism how long would it be before those regimes fail?

On your second question if any ‘decent religion would have officially parted ways with such misunderstanders long ago’; what took US clergy so long to disavow the Christian terrorist organization the KKK? Or a little more recently, what took the Irish so long to disavow the IRA.

On your final point about ‘their books’, have you ever read the Bible? Check out 1st Samuel 15:2-3.

The problem lies in following their books, get it?

The problem is the terrorists. If we were having this conversation in the 1920’s, we would be discussing radical Christianity and the terrorist organization the KKK. Now do you think there is something inherently evil with Christianity? Of course not. But that doesn’t change the fact that terrorist organizations frequently use religion to justify their acts of violence. The KKK doesn’t represent Christianity and by the same token Al-Qaeda doesn’t represent Islam. Even if klansmen and jihadists say that it does, it doesn’t.

Consider this; if 1.5 BILLION people were being instructed to murderer non-believers don’t you think there would be a lot more terrorism in the world than there is now? Here’s another interesting fact, the majority of all acts of terrorism that have occurred over the past 40 years were committed in Latin America by organizations that had no religious agendas. I’m talking about the FARC (the so called Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia). Over the past 40 years the FARC has been responsible for the murderess of over 300,000 people. These people weren’t killed for religious beliefs; they weren’t even really killed for political beliefs.

The problem is the terrorists. It doesn’t matter if there KKK, IRA, FARC, Al-Qaeda, or any other group. When individuals and organizations decide to use violence to achieve political goals, that’s the problem.

Sooo…if any Muslim ever shoots anyone ever again, it’s automatically going to be a terrorist assault.”

Actually, according to Islamic law, if the person a Muslim shoots is a non-Muslim, then it’s not a terrorist incident or even a murder, it’s a non-event. If, on the other hand, a Muslim shoots another Muslim it’s a murder unless it was over a matter of faith and the shooter is on solid ground whereas the Muslim who was shot is apostate or on questionable Islamic theological ground. The individual Muslim who is shot due to an Islamic dispute will be tried to see whether or not there was a real theological issue, and only if it is found that the Muslim who shot him is lying, will the shooting be classified as an assault with intent or a murder (as the case may be at that point). Naturally, if the shooter is alive and the target is dead, it’s pretty hard to prove that the shooter wasn’t defending the faith, hence, a great many times the shooter gets off.

All the above is based on trial statistics from Saudi Arabia, the statistics in Pakistan being somewhat more likely to classify the shooter as someone guilty of assault with intent and sentence them to several years in jail. Pakistan, however, is considered an apostate Islamic state by the majority of Muslims these days since it doesn’t follow strict Islamic law and therefore cannot be considered as definitional when defining Islamic attitudes to shootings and such.

So, no, a Muslim shooting someone isn’t always a terrorist attack or even an attack of any kind. The Ft Hood shooter, for example, would not be found guilty of anything in a Pak or Saudi court since the worst thing he could possibly be charged with is following the tenants of the faith at an inappropriate time.

have a nice day

“It’s much better to ignore nitwits such as moho and kochevnik. They are what are known as trolls. Any sane person can recognize their ignorance. They are both stuck in their ideology. It’s best to simply let them troll alone and fade away.”

Maybe you are right. But the fact is, although I find moho’s manner unpleasant, he doesn’t come off as dumb. And if he is a Muslim, why not treat his presence here as an opportunity? In general, my experience has been that people will respond to civility in kind, even when the discussion goes somewhere they find unpleasant.

With this in mind, I say let’s try civility and see what happens. Who knows — maybe moho has it in him to de-trollify himself.

I hope you are right. But the truth is, when you say that Islam is not the problem, I must ask you, what is the problem? The list of Muslim attacks in the West, with Muslims declaring in no uncertain terms that they are acting per the directives of their faith, is so long at this point, and even longer is the list of failed plots for attacks, that I don’t see how you can say that Islam isn’t tied up in all of this.

In a nutshell, if radical Muslim clerics are quoting the Koran to justify violence, and their radical Muslim followers are carrying out acts of violence while shouting “Allahu Akbar!” and the like, on what basis do you say this is not about Islam? It is for them. Very clearly, Maj. Hasan felt that it his duty as a Muslim was at odds with his responsibilities as a soldier. I don’t want to sound sarcastic — I want to keep the discussion rational, and focused on the facts — but to me it seems self-evident that this man, Maj. Hasan, killed all those people (and would have killed more) in the name of Islam. Furthermore, his old Imam, now in Yemen, believes this was the case, and that Maj. Hasan is a hero for what he did. And this is only the worst of events that have been taking place for years: Muslims committing and plotting attacks in the name of Islam. *They* say this is about Islam. Of course, they don’t view it as a problem, they see it as the proper course, but the bottom line is, if you asked them, “Are you doing this for Islam?” they would say yes.

So if these people say it is about Islam, if they quote from the Koran, and if the acts are ongoing all over the world — that is, if Muslims are waging violent jihad in the name of Islam, and polls show Muslim populations approving of their violent actions as justified per Islam, how is these men’s acts not about Islam?

I have said before, I can easily understand how a Muslim, someone just living his life, would find it abhorrent to hear it suggested that his relgion inspires acts of terrorism around the globe. It is such an ugly thing to have to hear about one’s faith. But ugly or not, if what I have written above accurately describes what is happening, ugly or not, the facts simply *are*.

Aren’t they?