Does Radical Islam and their terrorism exist? If so, where's the proof?

[Toureg89]

yes. as one who has done research from various sources, muslim and non muslim, radical islam, and muslims terrorists exist. the origin of radical islam, ironicallz, is with the mongolian invasions of the middle east, and the resulting radicalization of the religion by the likes of ibn tamiyya. there is quite a history of recorded islamic njust war doctrine predating ibn tamiyya, and still practiced by many religious leaders today in their opinions.

and likewise, dont be fooled that radical islam and terrorism doesnt exist. it does. but its the reason for its existence that we should look at, which is an ongoing 250 ish year imperialization by western christian countries, first by britain, france, italy, spain, and russia, then by the us following progressivism and its foreign interventionism.

dont get so swept up in being skeptical of the status quo to start thinking that our enemies, dont exist. they do, and its because mostly (though i cant say completely, because there is a degree of dislike of our culture that both sayyid qutb expressed before being imprisoned, and that bin laden expressed before our stationing of troops in saudi arabia) because of our, and our imperialist forebears, foreign policies

 

[Toureg89]

i can post mz research paper later if you would like.

 

[Toureg89]

and while radical islam represents a big enough threat for us to be reevaluating our foreign policy, i would say the middle east itself is more suspetible to socialist impoverishment and general statism than radical islam in particular.

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

Zoroastrianism, indigenous religion of Persia that was reduced to a fringe minority after the Islamic conquest. Many fled to India. To this day, one cannot convert to Zoroastrian, you must be born within a Zoroastrian family.


Christian persecution in Iran:




http://www.persecution.org/2012/02/...ent-condemn-iran-on-pastors-execution-orders/



Ex-Muslim Hindu reverts back to Hinduism, shows historical paintings depicting Muslims torturing, slaughtering Hindus in India.

Islamic extremism is a real threat to the world. Since the birth of Islam, we have seen this religion inflict terror on many cultures that surrounded it. Long, long before there was an American Empire or British Empire fooling around in the Middle East. Thankfully they are becoming more secular as these nations become westernized. We can't foresee how Iraq's freedom of religion will change the Middle East 20 or so years from now.

Just replace Islam with Christianity. It's religious extremists in general.

 

[oyarde]

Does Russia have the right to send troops to America to take out MS-13 because they may be a threat to them in the future?

Screw Putin anyway , but Islam and MS 13 have something in common , if you leave , you must die .Apostacy . Is that radical enough for you ? It is for me . If what you have is so great , would not people leave , realize this and come back to the fold ? Yes ? , but if it is not so great , you need strict rules to protect ? Disclaimer , nobody must feel compelled to kill me , I have never joined such organizations as these...

 

[Lishy]

Is Avalanche in FF7 mere environmental extremism?

 

[JuicyG]

Screw Putin anyway , but Islam and MS 13 have something in common , if you leave , you must die .Apostacy . Is that radical enough for you ? It is for me . If what you have is so great , would not people leave , realize this and come back to the fold ? Yes ? , but if it is not so great , you need strict rules to protect ? Disclaimer , nobody must feel compelled to kill me , I have never joined such organizations as these...

Apostasy is clear example as to why Islam is totally incompatible with the very idea of freedom and why it`s a dangerous religious export.

 

[Toureg89]

Apostasy is clear example as to why Islam is totally incompatible with the very idea of freedom and why it`s a dangerous religious export.

many would argue against that, especially sinse there is even a version of Islam that once was Natural-Rights/Natural-Law friendly. lets not lump an entire religion as having any single uniform characteristic: Islam and how it is practiced changes with the culture, the people, the region, and the era-time.
http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=8469

there ARE LIBERTARIAN muslims out there, many of whom just don't know they are libertarian yet.

are there muslim terrorists today? yes. but putting it into context, thats because the predominate arabic-speaking muslim population (and those perhaps most effect by ibn tamiyyas teachings from syria and the qutb family in egypt and modern saudi evangelicals) feels it has been under siege for hundreds of years.

for hundreds of years, Muslims acted as traders between Christian Europe and Hindu/Buddhist far East, in mostly peace punctuated by extreme conflict. that doesn't scream incompatible with freedom to me.

 

[JuicyG]

many would argue against that, especially sinse there is even a version of Islam that once was Natural-Rights/Natural-Law friendly. lets not lump an entire religion as having any single uniform characteristic: Islam and how it is practiced changes with the culture, the people, the region, and the era-time.
http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=8469

there ARE LIBERTARIAN muslims out there, many of whom just don't know they are libertarian yet.

are there muslim terrorists today? yes. but putting it into context, thats because the predominate arabic-speaking muslim population (and those perhaps most effect by ibn tamiyyas teachings from syria and the qutb family in egypt and modern saudi evangelicals) feels it has been under siege for hundreds of years.

for hundreds of years, Muslims acted as traders between Christian Europe and Hindu/Buddhist far East, in mostly peace punctuated by extreme conflict. that doesn't scream incompatible with freedom to me.

You`ve totally dodged addressing the issue of apostasy. There is currently a christian sentenced to death in Iran for the "sin" of apostasy, which is converting from Islam to Christianity or other religions. How would Islam feel about killing everyone who converts to Islam? http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/22/christian-pastor-sentenced-to-death-in-iran-for-abandoning-islam/

Thread starter asked the wrong question. There is no such thing as radical Islam because all Islam is radical.

 

[Muwahid]

[...]
for hundreds of years, Muslims acted as traders between Christian Europe and Hindu/Buddhist far East, in mostly peace punctuated by extreme conflict. that doesn't scream incompatible with freedom to me.

People like you are insane, attributing violence to Sheikh Ibn Taimiyyah? He was a Sufi.

There is terrorism out there, but it's not rooted in religion. People don't come here because Allah told them to, they come here because America bases it's troops on Muslim lands and supports Israel, so there are reactions to this. If you replace Islam with any other religious, or ethnic, or ideological driven group the response would be the same. If the middle east were comprised of a bunch of atheist, America would still be attacked for supporting Israel - an apartheid state which infringes on the rights of the indigenous population.

I've made this case a lot here which is, even though Islam is attributed to the conflict, it's not the reason for the conflict. The war and fighting would happen either way, it's just since people are facing life and death situations they reference their God, which is normal. The real cause of conflict is interventionism in the Middle East and propping up dictators for the sake of geopolitics.

You can't rape and pillage across the globe then shout "extremism" when you get bitten for it. This is common sense.

 

[Toureg89]

People like you are insane

no, i'm quite sane...

attributing violence to Sheikh Ibn Taimiyyah?

no, i am attributing him to a reintinterpretation of Islam that allows for easier terms of initiation of conflict.

and, as i said, the cause of this, was the Mongolian invasions, i.e., we are STILL experiencing blowback from that event hundreds of years ago. his interpretations of when, how, and whom must go to war were a stark contrast to previous Islamic Just War doctrine, and it is understandable given the context of the Mongolian invasions. but the same deviations are what people like the anti-american, albeit extremely victimized Sayyid Qutb, and Saudi evangelicals have grasped onto to also justify conflict with us.

but, in end, i am laying the reason for conflict on the INTERVENTIONISM that makes such interpretations favorable. no reason to trip over one part of my statement when you clearly have not comprehended the rest.

He was a Sufi.

uh, you must be talking about another Tamiyya. the person i am speaking of was a member of the Hanbali school

"Ibn Taymiyyah was engaged in intensive polemic activity against:

the Kasrawan Shi'a in Lebanon,
the Rifa'i Sufi order,
the ittihadiyah school, a school that grew out of the teaching of Ibn Arabi, whose views were widely denounced as heretical."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Taymiyyah

There is terrorism out there, but it's not rooted in religion.

this WAS my point. the extremist element of Islam is historically caused be, and continues to be agitated by, foreign interventionism: first by the Mongolian, then by the Europeans, no by us. hence, why i said in the very quote you outlined not to lump all muslims together. and as i said before that, socialism poses a bigger danger to the middle east in the future than their desire to wage war against non-radicals.

People don't come here because Allah told them to, they come here because America bases it's troops on Muslim lands and supports Israel, so there are reactions to this. If you replace Islam with any other religious, or ethnic, or ideological driven group the response would be the same. If the middle east were comprised of a bunch of atheist, America would still be attacked for supporting Israel - an apartheid state which infringes on the rights of the indigenous population.

do you plan on refuting everything i say by using my own arguments in your own words?

I've made this case a lot here which is, even though Islam is attributed to the conflict, it's not the reason for the conflict. The war and fighting would happen either way, it's just since people are facing life and death situations they reference their God, which is normal. The real cause of conflict is interventionism in the Middle East and propping up dictators for the sake of geopolitics.

You can't rape and pillage across the globe then shout "extremism" when you get bitten for it. This is common sense.

uh...yes i can. despite the fact that most muslims are the victims of horrible Western policies, they dont react by killing innocent people, and many versions of Islam actually condemn the kinds of terrorist attacks perpetrated against innocent people who aren't the root cause of the bad policies. in my book, that is extremist.

 

[Toureg89]

You`ve totally dodged addressing the issue of apostasy. There is currently a christian sentenced to death in Iran for the "sin" of apostasy, which is converting from Islam to Christianity. How would Islam feel about killing everyone who converts to Islam? http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/22/c...tenced-to-death-in-iran-for-abandoning-islam/

Thread starter asked the wrong question. There is no such thing as radical Islam because all Islam is radical.

Iran is one variant of an Islamic state with at least half a dozen other states that have Islamic-based laws that don't discriminately punish non-Muslis. Iran is not synonomous with Islam.
you are diverting the topic of radical Islam trying to say, quite inaccurately, that Iran symbolizes all variants of Islam.

Iran is more STATIST than it is Islamic: the religious authorities in power are absolutist and radical, and there are plenty of learned religious authorities who aren't in power because of their liberal, more freedom-friendly views. and, from what i've read, most of the people who supported the current religious establishment did so only because it was the most anti-american political force vying for power, not because they agreed with their policies. in fact, from the current protests, i would gather most Iranians are religiously and politically opposed to the establishment.

 

[Toureg89]

yes. as one who has done research from various sources, muslim and non muslim, radical islam, and muslims terrorists exist. the origin of radical islam, ironicallz, is with the mongolian invasions of the middle east, and the resulting radicalization of the religion by the likes of ibn tamiyya. there is quite a history of recorded islamic njust war doctrine predating ibn tamiyya, and still practiced by many religious leaders today in their opinions.

and likewise, dont be fooled that radical islam and terrorism doesnt exist. it does. but its the reason for its existence that we should look at, which is an ongoing 250 ish year imperialization by western christian countries, first by britain, france, italy, spain, and russia, then by the us following progressivism and its foreign interventionism.

dont get so swept up in being skeptical of the status quo to start thinking that our enemies, dont exist. they do, and its because mostly (though i cant say completely, because there is a degree of dislike of our culture that both sayyid qutb expressed before being imprisoned, and that bin laden expressed before our stationing of troops in saudi arabia) because of our, and our imperialist forebears, foreign policies

many would argue against that, especially sinse there is even a version of Islam that once was Natural-Rights/Natural-Law friendly. lets not lump an entire religion as having any single uniform characteristic: Islam and how it is practiced changes with the culture, the people, the region, and the era-time.
http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=8469

there ARE LIBERTARIAN muslims out there, many of whom just don't know they are libertarian yet.

are there muslim terrorists today? yes. but putting it into context, thats because the predominate arabic-speaking muslim population (and those perhaps most effect by ibn tamiyyas teachings from syria and the qutb family in egypt and modern saudi evangelicals) feels it has been under siege for hundreds of years.

for hundreds of years, Muslims acted as traders between Christian Europe and Hindu/Buddhist far East, in mostly peace punctuated by extreme conflict. that doesn't scream incompatible with freedom to me.

idk how you could have interpreted it as any other way than the root cause being foreign interventionism.

 

[Muwahid]

but, in end, i am laying the reason for conflict on the INTERVENTIONISM that makes such interpretations favorable. no reason to trip over one part of my statement when you clearly have not comprehended the rest.

You've provided no proof.

uh, you must be talking about another Tamiyya. the person i am speaking of was a member of the Hanbali school

Hanbalis can by Sufis, he wasn't a sufi like Ibn Arabi who was a kaafir. He's buried in a Sufi graveyard and he emphasized ذكر الله in his writings, so by that definition he is a Sufi who follows the Fuqaha of the Hanbalis.

this WAS my point. the extremist element of Islam is historically caused be, and continues to be agitated by, foreign interventionism

No that wasn't your point, my point is militant action is a normal response to intervention, and it's not extremism. War is just as much a part of Islam as peace, and for Muslims who are being preyed upon, it is halaal, and in some cases fardh for them to repel aggressors.

uh...yes i can. despite the fact that most muslims are the victims of horrible Western policies, they dont react by killing innocent people, and many versions of Islam actually condemn the kinds of terrorist attacks perpetrated against innocent people who aren't the root cause of the bad policies. in my book, that is extremist.

That's a straw-man argument. If you want to isolate your argument to attacks like the September Eleventh attacks then you would be right but this conflict goes on much longer than this. The majority of this battle has been on the front lines whether it be in Israel, or the Soviets (convenient how they weren't "extreme" in that war), or uprisings like what happened in Libya, Syria, and Egypt.

So to say, the response to interventionism was, killing innocent civilians, in some cases it was, but in the grand scheme of things it wasn't, this conflict is more than 9/11 or the London Bombings.

 

[JuicyG]

Iran is one variant of an Islamic state with at least half a dozen other states that have Islamic-based laws that don't discriminately punish non-Muslis. Iran is not synonomous with Islam.
you are diverting the topic of radical Islam trying to say, quite inaccurately, that Iran symbolizes all variants of Islam.

Iran is more STATIST than it is Islamic: the religious authorities in power are absolutist and radical, and there are plenty of learned religious authorities who aren't in power because of their liberal, more freedom-friendly views. and, from what i've read, most of the people who supported the current religious establishment did so only because it was the most anti-american political force vying for power, not because they agreed with their policies. in fact, from the current protests, i would gather most Iranians are religiously and politically opposed to the establishment.

I was just giving Iran as an example. Also, keep in mind that Iran is more "moderate" than other Islamist countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam

The majority of Muslim scholars hold to the traditional view that apostasy is punishable by death or imprisonment until repentance, at least for adult men of sound mind.

 

[Toureg89]

You've provided no proof.

www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ssi/islam_warfare.pdf

Hanbalis can by Sufis, he wasn't a sufi like Ibn Arabi who was a kaafir. He's buried in a Sufi graveyard and he emphasized ذكر الله in his writings, so by that definition he is a Sufi who follows the Fuqaha of the Hanbalis.

and? being a Sufi means one is a pacifist or a non-radical?

No that wasn't your point, my point is militant action is a normal response to intervention, and it's not extremism. War is just as much a part of Islam as peace, and for Muslims who are being preyed upon, it is halaal, and in some cases fardh for them to repel aggressors.

uh...yes, that WAS my point. that's why i explicitly said, the problem we are dealing with in radical Islam (Muslims willing to circumvent Just War doctrine) goes back to Muslims during the Mongolian invasions whom, when the Mongolians established an "Islamic" state over them, they had to create a more flexible interpretation to overturn their overlords.

this same interpretation is lending itself today to the likes of Sayyid Qutb and AQ to label innocent civilians as enemies and to strike at them. i am not talking about Iraqis defending their homes from what they see, and what is, an American invasion. I am talking about Muslims using an interpretation to back the retaliation from American interventionism (which is bad) not against America, but against innocent civilians. the AQ attacks in NYC themselves overproportionately targeting fellow Muslims than it did Christians, and all victims were innocent of being soldiers.

and killing innocent people is definitely extremist. i am not talking about Hezbollah kidnapping an Israel soldier. i'm talking about the bombing of cafes, schools, discos. I am not talking about Iraq or Afghanistan. I'm talking about Morocco, Spain, Lebanon, exc. I am talking about the targeting of civilians. i am talking about the rhetoric transforming jihad from a community responsibility to an individual responsibility.

it is this kind of Islam, with its carnage spilling over or even directly targeting civilians, that i label radical and extremist, and that i say is pr

and i acknowledge peace is just as much a part of Islam as war is. Muhammad said that God said that should your enemy sue for peace, do so, because it is God's will. i explicitly referred to an Islamic Just War doctrine several times. and in it, the destruction of private civilian property, and civilians, is expressly prohibited, earning the perpetrators that title of being radical.

don't confuse my label of muslims willing to violate Islamic Just War doctrine as skirting America, and before us European, and before them Mongolian, responsibility for antagonating the attacks. we did, we are, and we should stop. but that doesn't change the fact that there is, however small it may be, an interpretation of Islam that drops Just War doctrine, in the stead of labeling all those not friendlies as enemies, including fellow Muslims.

That's a straw-man argument. If you want to isolate your argument to attacks like the September Eleventh attacks then you would be right but this conflict goes on much longer than this. The majority of this battle has been on the front lines whether it be in Israel, or the Soviets (convenient how they weren't "extreme" in that war), or uprisings like what happened in Libya, Syria, and Egypt.

how is that a straw man argument? the question posed :"is there really radical islam"?

my response: "yes, those muslims who take liberties to widen the interpretation of Just War doctrine to the point of targeting innocent people is radical".

i then qualified my statement by saying: " the main reason radical islam exists, is because the interpretations it uses began with the Mongolian invasions, carried on through European imperialism, and continues today with American imperialism"

the point being, the foreign interventionist stimulus should remove most of the motivation for the support of such radical interpretations.

where is the straw-man argument? if you don't think the targeting of innocent civilians exists, i can take a picture of a cafe that was bombed within a couple kilometers from my house most likely by an AQ affiliate operating in north africa. are the kings and governments of north africa despotic, evil, immoral, unislamic, and deserve to be gotten rid of, even by military action of the subjectss? sure. did the diners, many muslim and many non-muslim, deserve to be blown up? probably not. that is radical to me...

So to say, the response to interventionism was, killing innocent civilians, in some cases it was, but in the grand scheme of things it wasn't, this conflict is more than 9/11 or the London Bombings.

its also the point of re-orienting jihad from a community duty to an individual duty that helps to perpetuate terrorism and radicalism. like i said earlier, this specific reinterpretation followed after the Mongolian invasion, i.e., the part of islam that is radical (Which is a small part), started with mongolonian interventionism and continues today with american interventionism. the fact that interventionism is being responded to in both moral and immoral ways, doesnt not detract from the immorality of dropping Just War doctrine and targeting of innocents, through health or property.

I was just giving Iran as an example. Also, keep in mind that Iran is more "moderate" than other Islamist countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam

it's not more moderate than the Islamic country I am in now...

 

[oyarde]

Iranian leadership is nothing more than a bunch of punk , statist commies , they cry and whine , but they should not, they would fit right in with the rest of the world like them if they chose to join , I hope they do not , no more room left on the barbarian , retarded , statist , commie bandwagon .