I would like to see the Muslim World condemn the concept of martyrdom.

[KlatooBNikto]

Especially when it involves suicide bombing against innocent civilians.This initiative should come from religious leaders, political leaders and other parts of society. A general disawoval of that concept would earn Muslims untold goodwill from all of us and would make our task easier in condemning our own bombing of civilians, as in Fallujah, the torture at Abu Ghraib and other practices.

If we can all move together away from barbarism, we can work together using our common humanity to alleviate suffering everywhere.In this season of peace and goodwill, I cannot think of a better step we can take to assure peace.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

1. Excellent points..... I don't know if it's true, but I had heard somewhere

that the 72 virgin thingy was something that either Faux Snooze or some other "news" source took and ran with it... and that there is little or nothing to it. In other words... not true. I will try to google it and find something on it... It seemed at the time that this 72 virgin thing was something used to try and paint their faith in an extremely bad light....

[HysteryDiagnosis]

2. Got it!

Need to finish reading this short expose at the link to get the FULL explanation.


http://www.islamfortoday.com/firestone01.htm
>>The queries have come in steadily since the great increase in suicide bombings by Muslim Palestinians during the past year, but since Sept. 11, they have come virtually non-stop. "Does Islam condone suicide? Does Islam condone killing noncombatants? Does Islam teach that a martyr who enters heaven gets the pleasure of 70 virgins? Does Islam really teach the universal doctrine of ‘Islam or the sword?’ Does Islam hate Jews and Judaism?" or, "Does Islam fundamentally hate anyone and anything not Muslim or Islamic?"

About a week before the suicide massacres and destruction of the World Trade Center towers in New York, "60 Minutes" claimed to have interviewed a Palestinian working for and with suicide bombers intending to kill Israelis. Interviewed in Arabic, the English voice-over translation had the man claiming that a martyr who enters Paradise will enjoy the sexual pleasures of 70 or 72 virgin women.

A number of self-proclaimed Muslim scholars accused "60 Minutes" of distorting the transcript and demanded an apology. They claimed to have heard the original Arabic in spite of the loud English voice-over and emphatically stated that he said nothing of the sort. They even went further, to claim that Islam would never teach such a thing.<<

[unotrohombre]

32. Islam for today article

That is the best summation of the problem I have ever read.
If you combine the knowledge in that article with the knowledge that envy creates hate it is a potent stew indeed.
The USA may be much better served with hands off in the Middle East.
GTF out of there and deal at arms length or not at all.
We really don't need their oil---do we??
But, wouldn't they sell it to us anyway if we pulled out and left them alone?

[the_outsider]

33. it's more about control than access

they would sell it to us anyways, but we wouldn't be able to control how other competing economies like China and EU fulfill their energy needs. That control is a huge leverage and will become a very powerful bargaining tool as we approach peak oil and with Iraq having 2/3rd of world's known untapped oilfields.

[VioletLake]

34. We sure are in control. Mission accomplished.

:eyes:

[the_outsider]

35. was explaining their motivation, not that I agree or they're successful

or they will ever be successful. Sorry if it wasn't clear from the post.

[VioletLake]

37. you brought up points that are worth exploring

the motivation is as real as their lack of vision

[HysteryDiagnosis]

53. We really don't need their oil---do we??

oil we use comes from somewhere else.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pnutchuck]

82. Part of the reason we didn't go after Saudi Arabia is because of their oil

In 1948 or so, the US signed an agreement or treaty with OPEC for rights and price structuring for their oil. It's still in place today.

[KG]

3. I would like to see the christian world condemn the concept of martyrdom."

also.

see: Pat Tillman.

[KlatooBNikto]

4. I agree. All of us need to stop granting martyr status to killers.

[KG]

7. so, why call out the muslim world?

nobody is dealing out more death and destruction worldwide than the modern day crusaders: christian america.

[KlatooBNikto]

9. The reason I brought this up was that the concept of individual martyrdom

is unique to Islam. Christians practise it collectively as Armies but individual martyrdom is not so common among other religions: Christians, Jews or Hindus.

I also brought this up because two other religious groups, Hindus and Jews, are also the targets of religious extremists in Israel and India.There is no crusade against Muslims in either of these two societies.

[KG]

12. the palistinians aren't crusading against jews. they are resisting

illeagal occupation and oppression by isreali/jewish extremists bent on stealing their land and destroying thier society. if anything, there is a crusade against the palistinians.

[KlatooBNikto]

13. Let us face it. Both in Iraq and in Palestine, the Arabs are outgunned

and overmatched by superior military adversaries. Unless the Muslims are totally suicidal ( I hope not) they have everything to gain by appealing to the sense of justice of the Israelis and the Americans.Without that change, even those who are right about their arguments are doing the people they support a disservice.

[KG]

14. the whole world has been trying to appeal to the sense of justice

of america and isreal. they have been ignored.

[KlatooBNikto]

15. All I am saying is let us stop the violence first and give reason a chance

[The Straight Story]

36. What would Ghandi or MLK do?

Killing leads to more killing. People find it hard to sympathize with the palestinians when they are blowing up others. Personally I think their cause needs more peace and less death.

The solution, no idea personally. But I don't think it lies with killing others.

[VioletLake]

38. I can think of a few causes that could use more peace and less death. n/t

[the_outsider]

39. it's very difficult to remain nonviolent when you're completely outmatched

by the oppressor in military and economic might. The oppressed people are never listened to as they have almost no bargaining power. They feel completely powerless and violence seems the only way out.

Even Gandhi couldn't keep India's independence movement against the British colonialists completely non-violent. Though his non-cooperation and peaceful civil disobedience movements were instrumental in building popular mandate against the British and in mobilizing a lot of Indians, he couldn't keep the movements completely non-violent. There were groups that did not follow Gandhian principles. They were engaged in armed resistance against the British and were quickly branded as "terrorists". Even though they were crushed, they made very important contribution to the success of the freedom movement.

[The Straight Story]

44. Perhaps it is reminiscent of an earlier time

ie, the age of the apostles and the early church versus rome. It took time but change was made.

I see your ideal and get what you're saying, just not sure what the best course of action is here. Keep killing kids/parents/non-military folks and hope to get your enemy to concede or try a new strategy.

[VioletLake]

45. Assuming that peace is the actual goal

in a given conflict, how should responsibility for said goal be apportioned?

[The Straight Story]

46. Good question

do you have an answer, cause I sure don't.

[VioletLake]

47. It seems to me that the party with the upper hand

has a larger share of responsibility.

[The Straight Story]

55. But what solution does that present

Suppose we take an evolutionary one - ie, survival of the fittest, no supereme being exists, and might makes right - then the one with upper hand could be seen as being 'superior' in a evolution sort of way and any methods they deploy would be 'sound' (as survival of themselves and their ideals would prove strongest, et al).

Then too, if they continue to cause others to hate them, how will that solve anything - ala the USA and middle east, terrorism etc. Should we crush those that would kill innocent people and whom we see as our enemies or should we engage in discussion with them - and if we do and they still don't buy peace but insist on killing anyone they can what do we do.

So many questions, I can only hope for answers - and I am not sure there are any.

[VioletLake]

56. I have to step out for a few hours. Will continue later... n/t

[The Straight Story]

60. No problem , in and out myself

Glad to have an intelligent discussion on it all. Thanks for the input and welcome more insight!

[VioletLake]

76. It presents the possibility of a tenable solution -

assuming that the actual goal of a given conflict is peace. Is peace important from an evolutionary perspective?

It seems to me that people who try to prove that they're superior usually end up proving the opposite.

Perhaps the optimal approach "in a evolution sort of way" is to achieve one's ends by means that others can accept (i.e. morals, ethics, laws). That's where the art (and love) is.

If life is simply "survival of the fittest, no supreme being exists, and might makes right," then let the killing begin. Why continue caring about each other? Let's discard our morals, ethics, and laws. That's what our homegrown fascists would like.

Tell me about humanity's strongest ideals.

[the_outsider]

50. I agree that new strategy is needed

and it's a very hard problem. Historically colonialism or imperialism has been defeated only when the cost-benefit equation changed and the occupation was no longer profitable. It always took some resistance which increased the economic cost of maintaining the empire (British Empire). In some cases like Vietnam, Algeria, the cost was more in terms of human cost as the number of soldiers killed was no longer acceptable. I do not think there is a precedence where the occupiers just changed their mind as a result of a peaceful and non-violent non-cooperation movement.

In middle east the biggest parameter in the cost-benefit equation cannot be evaluated. How important control of oil will be in the next 100 years depends on how quickly and effectively alternative energy sources will be discovered. As long as that is unresolved, I do not see fundamental changes in US foreign policies regarding middle east.

Another unique problem with the middle east is that it's isolated from the global economy. Their only connection to the rest of the world's economy is oil, but very few of the middle-eastern people are involved in the oil economy. The giant US/British oil companies run the oil business with the help of unpopular proxy regimes. They employ a lot of foreign workers - Europeans and Indians. So vast majority of the middle-eastern people are not engaged in any economic activity that are important to the world economy. It becomes even harder for them to raise the economic cost of US/Israel aggression by non-violent non-cooperation movements. They are not useful enough for that kind of movement to be quickly successful.

[sweetheart]

48. The indian pogroms against muslims are deplorable

The government endorsed the killing of 2000 muslims in an incident
a coupla years back... the indian government has definitely been
a bit lax on institutional racism and religious hatred.

[the_outsider]

52. India is a secular Hindu-majority country with a Muslim president

150 million Muslims, more than any other country except Indonesia, live all over India and they are totally integrated into Indian culture and life. Hindus and Muslims have been living together in India for 700 years without exterminating or proselytizing each other.

The question of "racism" is moot as Indian Hindus and Muslims are the same race. Hindus have been living in India for about 5000 years. Some of them decided to convert (there were some forced conversion as well) to Islam in the last 700 years (currently about 15% of Indian population ), but that does not change their "race", culture or Indian-ness. Indian central government did not endorse the killing of Muslims. The government that ruled the state of Gujrat did less than enough to stop the riot in time, but they never endorsed or supported the killings. The BJP government that was in power during that time lost the next national election and that incidence was one of the biggest factors in their loss even though they were doing well on the economic front.

The Godhra incident you referred to was triggered by Muslim mobs burning a train of Hindu pilgrims. Such communal incidents have happened in Indian history from time to time, but phrases like "Indian pogroms", "institutional racism", "religious hatred" are extreme generalizations at best and offensive at worst. The situation is far from perfect, but the rest of the world, middle east in particular, can learn a few tricks about tolerance and secular co-existence from the Indians.

[sweetheart]

64. Your avatar might disagree

Miss god of small things has some tough words for the indian BJP
regarding those pogroms.

I've travelled for quite a bit in india and have great respect for
the place. As well, i respect that it is a bit corrupt, as anyone
who has been about the place is well aware.

That it is the world's largest democracy goes undisputed, and that
it has impressive cultural diversity... indeed. That said, there is
i a bit of work to do... massive poverty. Never in my life except in
india have i been hounded by packs of poor children asking for
handouts.... packs! Serious issues of womens equality, caste
equality and all sorts of concerns.

I don't think any ameircan feminist who's really aware of the
situation of womens rights in india would choose to be born there.
I agree that there is some credit due... as well, there is a long
long road to hoe before india can teach liberalism.

[the_outsider]

67. BJP is no longer in power. I hate the way they were using religion

as a divisive strategy. But they became powerful only very recently and are more of an aberration than the mainstream Indian political traditions of Gandhi-Nehru's non-violent non-aligned socialist democracy. India also has a strong presence of leftist parties. BJP lost the last election to Congress-Left coalition because Indians were smart enough to see through their shenanigans. Democracy worked.

I have traveled quite a bit in India myself and agree wholeheartedly about all the problems you mentioned. But I thought that to someone who is not that familiar with India, the tone of your first post may paint a somewhat inaccurate picture of the country. I have a similar problem with some of Arundhati's writings as well. I also did not agree with the post you responded to. I do not see Indian Hindus as victims or targets of Muslim religious fundamentalist groups. Your second post is very close to how I feel about India.

Since its independence in 1947 India has been a secular democratic government with equal rights for minorities. Indian Muslims did better than how Hindus and other minorities fared in Muslim countries like Pakistan or Bangladesh. I like India's democratic and secular principles and the rich heritage of Gandhian non-violent movements and tolerance for diversity.

But yes, India faces huge problems in terms of poverty, primary education, health care, Hindu casteism, evil of patriarchal traditions, increasing disparity in wealth distribution etc.. But I do not see religious bigotry as one of the biggest problems there. Hindus and Muslims have been living together for 700 years and have figured out a way to do it in spite of constant provocations from the right on both sides.

[sweetheart]

73. I'm glad they're out

The congress party is more just. That the BJP were mimicing bush's
rhetoric further evidenced their inappropriateness for power.

I've heard the muslim hatred from all sides inside india, from
religious hindu's, from people concerned that muslims are bent on
having at least 5 children to overpopulate their politics, and all
sorts of bent thinking.

As well, i recall a conversation with a business owner in uttar pradhesh, who felt that his future was limited due to institutional
corruption in government. When the average family business operator
has no confidence that the police are not out for bribes, the
situtation is difficult at the least.

That the country is the population and cultural equivalent of 2-3
european unions is powerful and impressive... that no comment can
possibly brand the whole place, just one state. I love india
and wish all india lovers godspeed. :-)

namaste,
-s

[Darranar]

58. No, it is not. Ever heard of Jesus? n/t

[the_outsider]

61. Muslim rulers ruled most of India for 500 years, India is still 82% Hindu

If those rulers wanted they could start a genocide or forced conversion of all Hindus in India. American right-wing media loves to say that every Muslim believes in either killing or converting all infidels. If that were so, there wouldn't be a single Hindu or Buddhist left in the Indian subcontinent after 500 years of Muslim rule. The extremist groups that operate in India today and target Hindus are exploited in the name of religion by vested interest for their own political gains.

[Art_from_Ark]

70. I wouldn't be so sure of that

I remember being told by "counselors" at a bible camp that if I died "for God", then I'd go straight to heaven.

[The Stranger]

88. Wrong. Martyrdom originated in Christianity during the Crusades,

when Crusaders were believed to achieve great status in heaven by dying fighting "the infidel." Please educate yourself before posting again on this topic.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

16. let's see the difference here

The POPE spoke out against the war (arguably the leader of the largest christian denomination)

The Methodist Church spoke out against it.

The Lutheran Church Spoke out against it.

Could we go on? I think so.

The problem that you have here is that Christianity hasn't started this war. A little man and his little group started this war and are using his supposed Christian faith partly as a justification. And this little war isn't about the spread of Christianity or killing those who oppose Christianity...there are dozens on this board that see it as a war for resources...not religion...religion is just a handy cover-up.

The Muslim jihadists of the militant sort are not out for oil...they are not out for other resources...they are out for the blood of the infidels. They ARE about spreading religion. They ARE about the destruction of those who do not share their faith. And I have yet to hear of one (ok, maybe ONE) Muslim cleric from the middle east speaking out against this practice...hell, most of them praise it.

So...many christians and LEADERS of christian denomination speak out against the war. Almost NO Muslim leaders speak out about the suicide bombings...and THIS is equal to you?

Hmmmmm...

theProdigal

[KlatooBNikto]

19. I want to see an equivalent initiative on the part of Muslim Clergy and

political leaders in Islamic countries.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

21. that would be lovely

below a poster advocates the ending of ALL religious conflict! I am all for that...hell let's see if we could find a way to end all conflict...

[KG]

24. so - some xtian religious leaders 'spoke out' - big deal

but rest assured the xtians fundies of the militant sort in this country are not out for oil...they are not out for other resources...they are out for the blood of the heathens. They ARE about spreading religion. They ARE about the destruction of those who do not share their faith. And I have yet to hear one of fundies from this country speaking out against this crusade...hell, most of them praise it.

we're talking about extremism here. plenty enough blame for both sides.

but only one side has the power to bring it's full military might to the home of the other. no, there is no doubt it a chistian crusade.

[theHandpuppet]

8. Thank you -- it needed to be said

How many times throughout every day and night do I hear our own troops referred to as heroes making sacrifices in the cause of "fighting evil", not only by the media but from countless pulpits across this land? Even as we level their cities and kill thousands of their men, women and children when we drop bombs and napalm on civilian areas.

We don't belong in Iraq. Of course, the Iraqis who don't want us in their country don't have helicopter gunships, bombers, tanks, missiles, humvees, APCs, aircraft carriers et al, so they use what they have -- their cars and their own bodies as weapons. Please tell me who can claim the high road in this despicable war, when our most high-profile Christian leaders cheer on the slaughter?

[KlatooBNikto]

10. I agree that Iraq presents a different problem.There we are fighting an

unjust and illegal war against a country that we invaded.They have every right to resist us.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

18. name one CHRISTIAN leader who praises the war...

name a leader of the lutheran church...name a leader of the methodist church...name a leader of the episcopal church...

There are plenty of christian leaders speaking out against the war.

now name me some muslim clerics/leaders speaking out against suicide bombings. I am not talkign about some little mosque in Charlotte, NC. I am talking about a leader of a sect...

theProdigal

[ulysses]

69. Jerry Falwell. n/t

[PsychoDad]

86. Leaders of a sect?

I cannot speak for my Shia Brothers and Sisters, but in Sunni Islam we do not have a clergy or leaders, say as in Priests, Bishops and Cardinals. We have Scholars, lots of Scholars, all with their own viewpoints.

Many if not most have denounced suicide bombings and other forms of Violence.

As far as little mosques go, those are the best places to teach true Islam and tolerance.

Just as little churches are the best place to teach Christ's love and tolerance.

Salaams

[theHandpuppet]

89. Please re-rerad my post before you blow

I said HIGH-PROFILE Christian leaders, the ones with their own networks, the ones constantly "guesting" on TV shows and on radio. You know EXACTLY who I'm talking about -- Falwell, Robertson, Dobson et al. Name me on high-profile Christian leader in this country who has taken to the airwaves to denounce this war.

[Tinoire]

43. Should have guessed you'd be on it!

:toast:

Thank you.

[mitchum]

66. Absolutely!

[Pepperbelly]

5. Here is the Islamic belief on the subject ...

It's all about HOW one dies apparently. There are "good" deaths and I suppose, "bad" deaths. Anyway, from this, I do not see suicide bombers coming to an end anytime soon.


http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=141

[KlatooBNikto]

6. If we cannot move past these old time dogmas, we are screwed.

[gottaB]

11. I would like to see the religious world condemn religious conflict

No justifications. No excuses.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

20. THIS is something we should get behind

not the selection of one sect or another...ALL religions should renounce violence as a means of spreading itself.

theProdigal

[blondeatlast]

40. Jesuss did it, as did many others:

This is a quote that the wacko Christians conveniently ignore from Jesus:

"Do not use me, do not use any vision of what is true or good, to keep yourself from recognizing the real and potential evil within you. Don't cling; follow. Take the next step, putting your feet in the gap I have cleared, conscious of how you may make mistakes, but trusting that I can restore you and lead you further, that I can deal with the residues of evil in your heart and in every heart."

[Deja Q]

17. Then we need to replace corrupt leaders with compassionate, human ones.

And how do you go about doing that?

[Deja Q]

22. I'd like to see the civilized world condemn the concept of hypocrisy.

Won't happen either. Our leaders need hypocrisy to rule. Always has been the case. Is the case. Always will be the case unless the majority figures it out that we're no better than disposable commodities (aka pawns) in their game.

Edit: Spelling

[Darranar]

62. Now THAT would be nice to see!

Especially if it were acted upon....

[ck4829]

23. I'm a Muslim, and here is my take on martyrdom and suicide bombings

They is not acceptable, plain and simple. I wished though, that the Muslims in high places believed as I do.

[leftyandproud]

25. unfortunately..

the way I see it...most muslims in the middle east view the world in a muslim/non muslim or arab/non arab prism, rather than through a good/bad prism. Even muslims who don't like the violence are extremely reluctant to condemn a fellow muslim...It's treasonous in their culture.

[Beam Me Up]

26. I'd like to see US repudiate FIRST STRIKE and our

'divine right' to militarily corner the market on hydrocarbon resources.

But I don't expect we WILL.

[markomalley]

27. Martyrdom is a legitimate concept, as is Jihad

but they have both been perverted by the crop of mullahs out there. These people are being used by their leaders, placing a muslim veil over their actions, to achieve the leaders' goals.

A far better option is for us to stop acting like the new Roman empire and to embrace true justice for all. If we actually acted like the Christians most claim to be, we'd be in a far better position in the world today.

[Guarionex]

28. I'm not sure I agree...

What's the difference between martyrdom and "safricing one's life for your country?" Both are forms of martyrdom in service of a higher cause.

I stand with Frantz Fanon on this issue...colonial violence is brutal, therefore the resistance to it will be even more brutal.

I refuse to condemn those that resist by any means necessary...they are defending themselves...if we don't want suicide bombings, don't occupy them (that goes to you Israel and the U.S/Britain).

If after occupations are lifted, they keep suicide bombing, then that's a different context of legitimacy...at this point, though, we got no moral authority to tell the colonized how and in what degrees they should resist.

I won't condemn martyrdom.

[VioletLake]

29. Jesus was a martyr. n/t

[blondeatlast]

42. Excellent point. nt

[durutti]

30. Truly silly.

1. There is no monolithic "Muslim World", anymore than there's a monolithic Christian world or monolithic secular world.

2. Several Muslims clerics have condemned attacks on civilians.

3. The concept of martyrdom applies not just to suicide bombers, but to all people who give their lives to the cause. Innocent bystanders who get killed are called martyrs, are are those who get killed participating in legitimate military resistance. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with the concept.

4. While attacks on civilians are wrong, they cannot be understood without context. In particular, one must acknowledge that: a.) deliberate attacks on civilians are also frequently carried about by the states targeted by "terrorists" -- for example, by the Russians in Chechnya -- though we don't hear about it; b.) that insurgents attack "soft targets" only because they don't have access to the tanks and the like; and c.) suicide bombings and similar tactics are a product of forcing people to live a life that few would want to live.

5. As a taxpaying citizen, you are personally responsible for the suffering endured in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the Occupied Territories, and elsewhere. As such, it is hardly your place to demand that the oppressed should renounce their tactics. You can't expect someone to acknowledge your humanity when your boot is on his or her neck.

6. Political, religous and cultural backwardness is largely an effect of oppression and repression, not a cause.

[VioletLake]

31. Excellent rebuttal to this nebulous nonsense.

:toast:

[Media_Lies_Daily]

51. Hey, now! Don't try to trump a good rant with the facts!

[NuttyFluffers]

75. You are the Voice of Sanity.

and if there was an award ceremony to give you something i would.

[mike_c]

83. EXCELLENT response....

Thank you.

[Tinoire]

41. I'd like to see the imperialist world, well-represented by US and Israel

condemn the concept of land theft, resource theft, racial/cultural superiority and exploitation of other people's labor.

Now wouldn't THAT be a good start towards peace? Think of all the good will THAT would earn us! It might even stop jets from flying into our high rises!

A general disawoval of those immoral concepts would earn us goodwill from most of the ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD WHICH IS CONDEMNING US. Interesting to note that most of the entire rest of the world is not condemning the Muslims for resisting us. Remind me who needs to earn the world's good will again please :shrug:

[Cocoa]

49. it may "earn our goodwill"

but it won't stop us from killing them, occupying their lands, and stealing their oil, in fact it would make it easier for us to do it.

So it's not really in their interest...

[CoffeeAnnan]

72. Good point.See my post below on "Return Ticket Liberalism".

[Bridget Burke]

57. Name those "religious leaders" of the "Muslim world"

There's no Muslim pope, you know. And there hasn't been a "Muslim world" since the end of the Abassid caliphate.

Bombing civilians--especially in an illegal war--is wrong. What happened at Abu Ghraib is wrong. Let's withdraw from Iraq. And convince Israel to stop making the Palestinians pay for what the Nazis did. Then, we can talk.

[CoffeeAnnan]

71. I think it is immoral for us to be sitiing in the comforts of our homes in

Michigan, Missouri or California and ask the Palestinian women and children to be fighting and dying in a cause that seems to be heavily weighted against them.This is what V.S.Naipaul has aptly called "Return ticket Liberalism". Our overriding concern is to avoid bloodshed and be able to convince Israel or the U.S. to listen to reason and do what is moral and just. We can do that better if we stop the bloodshed first.

[Darranar]

59. "I cannot think of a better step we can take to assure peace."

How about the Western World condemning (sincerely) imperialism?

[Malikshah]

63. Yet another thread putting the onus on Islam

Regardless of later posts that say "Yeah, treat all religions the same.." the thread was started by placing the emphasis on Islam alone.

Sorry, that's bogus bullshit.

Poorly decorated anti-Islamic meme.

Think about the though processes that would put the onus on Islam first...

Oh well, we're living in a world where enemies must be manufactured...historical inquiry be damned.

Oh, and before folks start stumbling over themselves to explain that all religions need to be taken to task...remember-- What was the POST that started this thread?

There
Is
No
Excuse
For
That!

[JVS]

65. Martyrdom isn't such a bad idea.

MLK was a martyr and I don't see anything about his death that would inspire people to destructive acts. Similarly a good number of Christian martyrs St. Stephan, St. Paul, and St. Peter were all martyrs who had lived in a non-violent manner (Well Peter cut some guys ear off once, but that was in an incident unrelated to his martyrdom). Gandhi could also be considered a martyr for the cause of peace among the peoples of the Indian subcontinent. Martyrdom is not the problem here, the problem is that violent assholes like to claim martyrdom as a justification for their violent acts.

[ulysses]

68. you're asking a huge religious/cultural entity

to speak with one mind on a political reality that members don't all share. That's unrealistic, no matter the religion or culture.

[KlatooBNikto]

74. I think it is possible for Muslim clergy to issue a fatwa condemning

martyrdom.They were able to issue a fatwa to kill Salman Rushdie at very short notice.Why can't they do the same in the reverse case of stopping the killings in the name of the religion?

[Djinn]

78. the muslim world DID NOT ISSUE THAT FATWA

the Ayatollah of Iran did - there are over a BILLION Muslims throughout the world - there is no "supreme leader" of Islam as there is in many Christian sects.

HUNDREDS of Imans and other prominent Muslims have done EXACTLY what yourself and other people unaware of the facts have demanded they do.

They have also explained how suicide bombings and the killing of innocents is ANTITHETICAL to Islam.

Before condemning a billion plus people perhaps you should be a little more informed of that which you speak.

[Malikshah]

79. And is a fatwa binding? I always thought a qadi's judgement was

but a mufti's fatwa was legal advice-- that could be taken or not--

In other words, a fatwa is a legal opinion, not a judgement that must be followed.

Of course that's the technical case-- w/ the Ayatollahs of Iran and their new form of govt (never before seen in Islamic history) all the rules/laws seem to go out the window.

[Bridget Burke]

77. Condemning suicide bombing is one thing....

But quite a few cultures support martyrdom. Did you ever hear of Bobby Sands?

[Larkspur]

80. I would like to see all Jews condemn building illegal settlements

on Palestinian land.

[pnutchuck]

81. I agree

but we have to keep in mind the poverty of the people being suppressed. In their minds the only way to fight the strength of the West is through individuals sacrificing themselves for the greater good. These people have no hope for their future and nothing to lose. I believe that all acts of violence are heinous, but until the West broaches the societal issues of these people, terrorist organizations are going to continue to prey on the most impoverished and disenfranchised people.

[mike_c]

84. how about starting in your own backyard...

...and condemning the concept of forcibly exporting our cultural values to others and indenturing them to fill our shopping malls with cheap goods before you condemn their response to U.S. oppression.

[PsychoDad]

85. Martyrdom in Islam...

Involves simply dying in the faith.

It was explained by the Prophet Muhammad(saw)that simply dying in the faith, or for the cause of the faith, was the same as martydom. thus,

To die while helping to feed the poor was Martyrdom.
To die in childbirth was Martyrdom.
To die while saving a life was Martyrdom.
To die while teaching someone to read was Martyrdom.
To die from an illness was was Martyrdom.
etc.

To die under any condition while retaining the faith during hard times, or while placing your faith into action is martyerdom according to the words of the Prophet.

Secondly, Islam, no more than any other religion "Teaches" you to blow yourself up. (Some in America teach you to "do unto others" and blow someone else up in the name of Jesus). In fact the Quran explecetly warns against the oppression of people or prostolizing by force, or even the harming of innocents during war.

And as always, there is no compulsion in Religion: Sura 2:255

Salaams

[RUDUing2]

87. many have..but like in the US the vocal minority of the fundie extremist

is who gets the press...

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

[leftofthedial]

90. I would like to see the "Judeo-Christian" World

condemn the concept of bombing the living shit out of the rest of the world.

[PsychoDad]

91. Here is the opinion of a Sunni Scholar

Al-Azhar condemns suicide attacks
Grand Sheikh Mohammed Sayed Tantawi of the Al-Azhar mosque of Cairo - which is seen as the highest authority in Sunni Islam - said groups which carried out suicide bombings were the enemies of Islam. Speaking at the conference in the Malaysian capital, Kuala Lumpur, Sheikh Tantawi said extremist Islamic groups had appropriated Islam and its notion of jihad, or holy struggle, for their own ends.
BBC News, 11 July, 2003