pls do not get me wrong, i have many muslim or malay friends.. and i know this is a sensitive issue. i just want to use the forum to clear my doubts. that's all.Originally posted by faroukalhadad:dear sir,
i find it berating that you have not replied to my request for tangible proof of your statement that "most terrorists are muslims" but yet expect a reply to another additional question on top of that instead.
making statements such as "most terrorists are muslims" are hate-inciting in nature in the context of a multi-religious society like Singapore, and the person making such statements must quantify it with evidence.
The IRA, ETA and LTTE are local guerrilla movements, unlike the Jihadists. The latter group have stronger networks.Originally posted by faroukalhadad:terrorism happens all over the world. sri lanka seperatist, FARC seperatist, palestine seperatist, Columbian rebels fighting for autonomous region, Maoist rebels in nepal, Basque rebel bombing in Spain - all these have performed terrorists acts and were in the headlines last year.
pls prove, by quoting statistics or other tangible evidence, that most terrorists are muslims - as according to you.
Well....I gotta agree with Googoomuck that Islam is not a religion of peace
Does the Qur'an really contain dozens of verses commanding violence?
Take the comment in Sura 4:89 about Non-Muslims:
"They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them"
And others
Sura 3:151
"Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority"
Sura 8:12
"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"
Take the comment in Sura 2:216 about fighting
"Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." (VERY IMPT)
Sura 9:73
"O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.";
I got many more examples
Maybe its the little itsy bitsy group of Muslims who choose terror
But where they get their motivation for terror?
Where else but the Quran?
The Quran contains dozens of verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers.
Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers, and kill the infidels wherever they may be hiding.
Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.
These verses are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not embedded within historical context (as are nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence).
They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything else in the Qur'an.
People, remember that even though there are many terror groups that exist with different names
99% have one thing in common
To establish Islamic rule on the face of the earth!
Too bad so sad, really thought we could live together in peace
terrorism happens all over the world. sri lanka seperatist, FARC seperatist, palestine seperatist, Columbian rebels fighting for autonomous region, Maoist rebels in nepal, Basque rebel bombing in Spain - all these have performed terrorists acts and were in the headlines last year.
pls prove, by quoting statistics or other tangible evidence, that most terrorists are muslims - as according to you.
Hard statistics?
Thank you for your quote but what you have given is just someone's opinion.
Similarly i can paste someone's opinion here to say that Tamil Tigers are the main perpetrators of terrorism last year - but can i prove it?
wat we need is hard statistics.
anyone can have an opinion.
Finally got chance to answer this last post...
4:89 They would love to see you deny the truth even as they have denied it, so that you should be like them. Do not, therefore, take them for your allies until they forsake the domain of evil Asad(4,108) for the sake of God; and if they revert to [open] enmity, seize them and slay them wherever you may find them. And do not take any of them Asad(4,109 for your ally or giver of succour
I would like to stress here on the identity of "they". Most people translate "they" as non-muslims so muslims have to kill non-muslims. But the thing is, the "they" here are anti-muslims. People who get out of their way to distory Islam and Muslims. And this verse specifictly say that only fight back if the anti-muslims tries to kill muslims. And kill the "anti-muslims who tries to kill you" where ever you find them. Usually in a war scenerio.
Suran 8:12
Too long to summarise: read this http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/surah8_12.htm
Suran 2:216
All SAF and NS men know, if Singapore kena war, touch wood, all soldiers have to fight, weather they like it or not, or else Singapore dies.
So, even if fighting is a bad thing, still have to fight to protect the ones you love.
This is all that I know of. The rest need to ask some who knows more than me...
So the fight and kill the "anti-muslim" is not justified at times..
For example, in Malaysia the government allows the islamic court to overwrite domestic court when for example a chinese or indian refuse to bury in islamic procedure, and at the end they are forced of doing so despite strong reluctance by their family members. In this case, these "anti-muslim" behaviours got to be killed ?
In another case, when someone commented about the war in Arghanistan and the previous Arghanistan government destroy the Buddha statue, the muslims will stare at commenter fiercely, are these commenters "anti-muslims" ?
there are many real life examples... the phrase "anti-muslim" is not the main reason ...
therefore i disagree with you on saying << To fight and kill the anti-muslim>> so what is the definition of anti-muslim ?
For every kafir or infidel killed, the retaliation must be multi-fold in order to balance the global infidel/muslim status quo.
There's no other way.
Originally posted by happieman:So the fight and kill the "anti-muslim" is not justified at times..
For example, in Malaysia the government allows the islamic court to overwrite domestic court when for example a chinese or indian refuse to bury in islamic procedure, and at the end they are forced of doing so despite strong reluctance by their family members. In this case, these "anti-muslim" behaviours got to be killed ?
In another case, when someone commented about the war in Arghanistan and the previous Arghanistan government destroy the Buddha statue, the muslims will stare at commenter fiercely, are these commenters "anti-muslims" ?
there are many real life examples... the phrase "anti-muslim" is not the main reason ...
therefore i disagree with you on saying << To fight and kill the anti-muslim>> so what is the definition of anti-muslim ?
Like I said earlier, only fight the "anti-muslims" who are attacked the muslims in the first place... And fight with equal retaliation... If they fight with words, fight with words... If they are fighting a war, we have to fight back...
Do you expect me to use a revolver at someone who simply "muslim sucks"? No right...
5:87 O ye who believe! make not unlawful the good things which Allah hath made lawful for you, but commit no excess: for Allah loveth not those given to excess
The right of private defence is lawful to everyone but god forbids killing when you can simple subdue the assailant with non-lethal force