UN plan to combat "violent extremism" doesn't mention Islam

From the UN:

On 15 January 2016 the Secretary-General presented his Plan of Action to Prevent Violent Extremism to the General Assembly.

In recent years, terrorist groups such as ISIL, Al-Qaida and Boko Haram have shaped our image of violent extremism and the debate about how to address this threat. Their message of intolerance – religious, cultural, social – has had drastic consequences for many regions of the world. Holding territory and using social media for real-time communication of their atrocious crimes, they seek to challenge our shared values of peace, justice and human dignity.

In the Plan, the Secretary-General calls for a comprehensive approach encompassing not only essential security-based counter-terrorism measures but also systematic preventive steps to address the underlying conditions that drive individuals to radicalize and join violent extremist groups.

The plan itself does not mention Islam at all, except in reference to the "Islamic State."

Here is the UN's overview of its plan.



You can see that according to the leading world experts, Islamic terror doesn't exist. Terrorists are simply people who are disadvantaged and who suffer from lack of socio-economic opportunities and poor governance. (The "unresolved conflict" part seems to be aimed to justify Palestinian terror.) This is what drives them to "extremism. "

The UN provides the framework to solve a problem that they refuse to define.

Ludicrous, do you accept the premise that the problem here is Islam? If so, it's a problem afflicting 1.5 billion people, most of them more or less your average slob like the rest of us, and yet the U.N. has to take urgent action to ... stop it ... somehow?

So, that's awesome -- now, in response to Christian terrorists who blow up abortion clinics and murder doctors in the name of Jesus, the U.S. and maybe even the U.N. needs to take urgent action against the 40 percent of Americans who attend church regularly?

Ben_Reilly wrote:Ludicrous, do you accept the premise that the problem here is Islam? If so, it's a problem afflicting 1.5 billion people, most of them more or less your average slob like the rest of us, and yet the U.N. has to take urgent action to ... stop it ... somehow?

So, that's awesome -- now, in response to Christian terrorists who blow up abortion clinics and murder doctors in the name of Jesus, the U.S. and maybe even the U.N. needs to take urgent action against the 40 percent of Americans who attend church regularly?

According to that chart, they're victims who have been marginalised and discriminated against.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Ludicrous, do you accept the premise that the problem here is Islam? If so, it's a problem afflicting 1.5 billion people, most of them more or less your average slob like the rest of us, and yet the U.N. has to take urgent action to ... stop it ... somehow?

So, that's awesome -- now, in response to Christian terrorists who blow up abortion clinics and murder doctors in the name of Jesus, the U.S. and maybe even the U.N. needs to take urgent action against the 40 percent of Americans who attend church regularly?

According to that chart, they're victims who have been marginalised and discriminated against.

What, you think they became terrorists after their first read through the Quran? They were ordinary people, read a book and decided to crash a plane into an American building or blow themselves up in a pizzeria in Jerusalem?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

According to that chart, they're victims who have been marginalised and discriminated against.

What, you think they became terrorists after their first read through the Quran? They were ordinary people, read a book and decided to crash a plane into an American building or blow themselves up in a pizzeria in Jerusalem?

Christians who blow up abortion clinics? I doubt they read the Quran at all.

corraltaion not causeation
what elese corralates to majority Mulsim nation?
ohh yeah poverty and exploitation by international corporations, corruption in governace, poor social services and Basically EVERY OTHER FACTOR we know breeds violent radicals!!


SO YES the UN is 100% correct in not falsely identifying Islam as a cause of terrorism and extermism and more than any other fundamental religous faith.

To suggest that it is Islam and not the Suffering, economic disadvantage and death present in their lives, is like saying a car's performance is because of the paint job not the engine

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

According to that chart, they're victims who have been marginalised and discriminated against.

What, you think they became terrorists after their first read through the Quran? They were ordinary people, read a book and decided to crash a plane into an American building or blow themselves up in a pizzeria in Jerusalem?

Christians who blow up abortion clinics? I doubt they read the Quran at all.

No, they read the Bible, and neither it nor being brought up in a mainstream Christian church made a terrorist out of them.

So what happened to make them that way? Well, a combination of the factors you see in the leftmost column in that chart. Probably a heavy dose is that "distortion and misuse of beliefs."

Ben_Reilly wrote:Ludicrous, do you accept the premise that the problem here is Islam? If so, it's a problem afflicting 1.5 billion people, most of them more or less your average slob like the rest of us, and yet the U.N. has to take urgent action to ... stop it ... somehow?

So, that's awesome -- now, in response to Christian terrorists who blow up abortion clinics and murder doctors in the name of Jesus, the U.S. and maybe even the U.N. needs to take urgent action against the 40 percent of Americans who attend church regularly?

Yes your answer was

Tell me about martydom and suicide bombings and how its not connected to Islam with Islamic terrorism?
Tell me how people are not convicened they will be rewarded with a free pass into heaven within their beliefs?

Also where do you think I do not think there is also not a problem with Christian terrorism? Though it pails into comparrison with Islamic extremism?

The cause are all mentioned here. You cannot just point at socio-economic conditions. Other countries suffer from similarly bad economic conditions (south Asia, South East Asia, parts of sub-Saharan Africa etc) and do not have large minoroties who radicalise into violent extremists. There must be another factor on top of that.

And there is- Islam. A religion born in a war torn period. Of course Islam alone doesn't cause extremist but it mixes with those bad societal conditions to create a deadly cocktail that can sometimes lead to terrorism.

If it was only Islam we'd see more terrorism.
If it was only socio-economic conditions we'd see a lot more terrorism.

It requires both. And it is irresponsible of the UN to ignore the religious factor.

What the Un is doing is pandering to pressure from the Gulf states, which is the problem here, by not mentioning what they have said everything but connecting but mentioning the actual word of Islam, they are being decietful to where a big part of the problem is.
Again islamic terrorism existed in the time of the Ottoman Empire, when there was no colonialism there. What there certainly is within Islamic circles is doctrines where there is hardline Islamic teachings which evern view other Muslims as infideles, which is one of the main reasons Muslims are the main victims of Islamic extremism.

I mean we call far right terrorism, becuse it is based and influenced on far right ideologies.

The same with far left terrorism..

Christian terrorism is fundementally influenced by biblical text though the threat is in no way as severe as Islamic

To not even mention something where a mass of Islamic doctrine is used to justfiy and back up beliefs for islamic terrorism, is not understanding Islamic terrorism at all.

Eilzel wrote:The cause are all mentioned here. You cannot just point at socio-economic conditions. Other countries suffer from similarly bad economic conditions (south Asia, South East Asia, parts of sub-Saharan Africa etc) and do not have large minoroties who radicalise into violent extremists. There must be another factor on top of that.

And there is- Islam. A religion born in a war torn period. Of course Islam alone doesn't cause extremist but it mixes with those bad societal conditions to create a deadly cocktail that can sometimes lead to terrorism.

If it was only Islam we'd see more terrorism.
If it was only socio-economic conditions we'd see a lot more terrorism.

It requires both. And it is irresponsible of the UN to ignore the religious factor.

Some see a lot more terrorism already,
the thing is it depends on which view you take.
I am sure many Islamic peoples view the group that has death robots dropping bombs on their nations as the terrorists. And to be fair no Islamic fanatic has come close to producing the sheer level of terror that has been sustained for YEARS in their nations By Western powers using drones.

to say south east asia is the same or even the India suncontient is as wrong they BOTH have GROWTH
growth is hope, as there is change things are improving...

Sub Sarahan Africa DOES have Huge amount of terrorism but it normally doesn't kill Whites so you dont hear about it.

Also South east Asia Doesn't have the nations that invaded and terrorised most of the globe for a couple of centuries Calling them Terrorists... And South east asia has largley slipped out from under the Heel of Euroepan Oppression.
Quite frankly the Hypocrisy of Europe Validates the islamic complaints.  Europe Cannot Pretend to have the moral high ground as other people rigthfully don't want to listen to hypocrites.  even as another Westerner You and didge make it sound like we have some inanate goodness and they do not. that we are definatly in the right and that we are superiour... whether these are true of not is debatable, but as far as most people can see a bunch of fundamentalist crusaders out of europe have just changed the name of their Cause but much like the christans before them the secularist Do not practice the values they preach.

they are right to be suspicious of our claims that 'equality is good', we have yet to prove it's value and you have our own conservative RW that reject it. we promoted freedom of religion, claim laws should not be made to discriminate... but as soon as there is a slightest test.. we hear the calls of the cowards, we need protection from this group that is differnet than us, all of them. let's pass laws that will isolate and criminalise this SPECIFIC group of people that we disagree with....  the speed by which some people have forgetton the problem... hate the one that you fear, dehuamnise and discriminate, 'they' are not individuals 'they' are the problem we cannto help any of 'them'...

Again more absurd arguments based on greviences, where many African nations and Asian nations were under colonical rule, which we do not see any levels of terrorism against the west today. The telling point is we have seen Christians, Kurds, Yazidi, Druze suffer and no comparable terrorism carried out bar the Kurds, which has been an ongoing nationalism conflict that has last centuries. You just do not see Christian terrorism in the middle east which should if this was based off social injustices and greivance. The biggest driving factors for ISIS ideology is not even really social conditions as many of the people flocking to ISIS are very educated, so it is nothing to do with poverty in any aspect like that all in regards to ISIS either. It has been easily shown that mainly are highly educated. There is 4 fundemental reasons for ISIS ideology.

1) A fear of Islam losing control in Muslim majority contries

2) A narative of hate based off the above that claims the west is out to destroy Islam.

3) Islamic doctrine itself, you will find more in comparability to the acts of Muhammad to the acts of ISIS today. As he fundementally had slaves, gave sex slaves to his generals, beheaded people he classed as the enemy. You will find all of what ISUS follows is in Islamic text, based off an extreme Salafist doctrine

4) A belief in a Caliphate

No attacks by the west caused 9/11
Now there is many reasons Muslims are lurded to extremism, but one things is for sure, they are inactive in the main to any islamic extremism, to the point we have never seen numbers, accept from the Kurds stand up to this extremism and actually fight them, so the claim on western actions, is a complete falsehood. Fundementally only in some cases would social economics play a part, but it plays little in the lure to ISIS itself being that many are highly educated. It certainly plays a part for the likes of Boko Haram and the taliban where there is less education and higher illiterate rates of education.

But even in the Taliban and Boko Haram, the driving factor that fuels people to turn to their cause, is again based off islam and a narative of hate.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Christians who blow up abortion clinics? I doubt they read the Quran at all.

No, they read the Bible, and neither it nor being brought up in a mainstream Christian church made a terrorist out of them.

So what happened to make them that way? Well, a combination of the factors you see in the leftmost column in that chart. Probably a heavy dose is that "distortion and misuse of beliefs."

That's what I said - according to the chart they're victims who have been marginalised and discriminated against.

If Islam and the Quran is the issue, then you have to ask yourself why are the remaining billion or so adult Muslims not strapping a bomb to themselves and seeking martyrdom?

Smelly Bandit had an answer for this: the vast majority of Muslims are not true adherents of their faith. And therefore do not follow the Quran as they should.

Surely others are not as absurd as SB.

I'd love to know the verses in the Quran that condones the killing of children and other innocents and even suicide. In fact, both are condemned.

The NYC report was on the right track. It's not a coincidence that most perpetrators are gang members, drug addicts with a criminal record. Or the socially disenfranchised.

Absurd reasoning again, what is more the point is why Muslims are not defending against these extremists, but are lured instead to commit violent acts based off islamic doctrine?
What you should also be asking is why then not Christians for example in the middle east have not formed extremist groups and committing terrorism? To go off people who are either indifferent or are not violent again misses the point and the fact many of these Muslims have the extra problem of many of these extremists being in their country.
So to say all should be terrorists is like saying why did not all Europeans join the crusades, is a flawwed and illogical view point. As the crusader ideology wqas fundementally based on biblical text and things like catholic ideologies like Just and Holy war What is relevant is the very fact Islam doctrine is being used to justify and make barbaric acts aceptable, and these all come from islamic text, whether you agree with them or not

I think that Islamic extremism is covered by "Distortion and misuse of beliefs". However, that comes under "processes of radicalisation" rather than being cited as a cause. Quite frankly, the whole chart is so silly that I doubt anyone takes much notice of it anyway.

Except Zack is not being honest to the extent of the problem of Islam namely how they elevate Muhammad to the same staus as their deity Allah, through deifying the hadiths, as they most certainly do. I have stated time and again the historicity of Islam is lacking any sound evidence and thus countless stories have been taken as if Laws themselves because they are claimed to come from Muhammad. That is very problematic and why there is so much text to justify violence and easily nulify the Quran. As stated as soon as you claim something is a final message to then have so called deeds deified, renders the Quran redundent. The fact is there is countless islamic text that backs up rape and sex slaves, of which there is no evidence to prove in a historical sense does not matter to believers, who will believe it is true. As to killing children again this can easily be shown to find islamic text to back and justify


Saheeh Muslim


Book 019, Hadith Number 4321.

Chapter : Permissibility of killing women and children in the night raids,

It is reported on the authority of Sa'b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them.

 

Saheeh Bukhari


Volumn 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 256.

Narated By As-Sab bin Jaththama : The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." I also heard the Prophet saying, "The institution of Hima is invalid except for Allah and His Apostle."



 

These are just some of the Quranic verses ISIS used to justify their acts:

10. Qur'an 3:32
"Say: Obey Allah and His Messenger; But if they turn back, then surely Allah does not love the unbelievers."
9. Qur'an 48:29
"Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves."
8. Qur'an 4:24 -
"And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of Allah for you."
7. Qur'an 5:33
"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"
6. Qur'an 9:5
"So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them."
5. Qur'an 9:29 -
"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
4. Qur'an 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."
3. Qur'an 9:111 -
"Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme."
2. Qur'an 47:35 -
"Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (Shakir: "have the upper hand") for Allah is with you,"   
1. Qur'an 2:106 -
"Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better that it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?"



The verses are vile and violent enough on there own and the point is these are taken in a literal view by ISIS and other Islamic extremists, hence why fundementally Islam is at the core at their beliefs and the major aspect of their violence. And whilst a majority of Muslims will view and disagree with ISIS on these verses, they are fundementally losing the propaganda war as to who is right as ISIS are continuing to grow, not diminish and that again is problematic more so for the Muslim world.

I guess it depends if you think those who don't follow Islam are innocent, or are guilty by default.

Some of it is open to interpretation as well, like the bit about waging war against Allah and his messenger. The invasion of Iraq was seen by some as an attack on Islam.

Raggamuffin wrote:I guess it depends if you think those who don't follow Islam are innocent, or are guilty by default.

Some of it is open to interpretation as well, like the bit about waging war against Allah and his messenger. The invasion of Iraq was seen by some as an attack on Islam.

Which is one of the main points I have been saying that within the Muslim world is a narative of hate played around and off islam itself Rags.
Muslims will argue forever over religious text and its meanings, but what matters is how is gaining ground over their views, which ISIS has not diminished it its propaganda. The fact is for a couple of years near 200,000 people have been killed in Syria of which the West n ever dropped any bombs or invaded the country, so why are we not seing thousands of Muslims flock to fight against ISIS? If we go based off the methodology of an invasion of Iraq, we should see the same replicated against ISIS and othewr extremist groups. The fact is there was never many civillian casulties from the invasion of iraw, but the insurrection that followed, yet again Muslims played off a narative of hate against the west. The Taliban murdered countless children in a school and yet many still support them and that can only come off the connection of Islam itself to justify such acts, no matter if other Muslims disagree. This is why Islam is problematic and it is because they have allowed it to be problematic through how it is gone mainly off traditions and not any real historicity. So what needs to be asked is why are educated Muslims, who can go from being peace loving then think its acceptable to rape and enslave girls? Only one thing can make them believe that and that is islamic doctrine.

I don't know Didge. I think people could go round and round with this one and discuss the definition of "innocent" until the cows come home.

What's absurd is the implication that people decide to "misuse" their beliefs because they're poor or because they feel discriminated against. Either they believe what they're reading, and think they should act on it, or they don't. I don't see what it has to do with anything else.

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't know Didge. I think people could go round and round with this one and discuss the definition of "innocent" until the cows come home.

What's absurd is the implication that people decide to "misuse" their beliefs because they're poor or because they feel discriminated against. Either they believe what they're reading, and think they should act on it, or they don't. I don't see what it has to do with anything else.

Again which is another problem, as on either side of this each will be claiming the other is in misuse of the beliefs and more importantly we are not seing ISIS diminish but increase in support. It is driven by the four points raised rags a combination with ISIS, where in other like the Taliban as Eilzel has pointed out social-economics plays a part, but the problem is some Muslims fundementally do not believe its misuse of their faith but the correct aspects of their faith and that is what is even more shocking. They think that such a deity would endorse such barbarity onto society

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't know Didge. I think people could go round and round with this one and discuss the definition of "innocent" until the cows come home.

What's absurd is the implication that people decide to "misuse" their beliefs because they're poor or because they feel discriminated against. Either they believe what they're reading, and think they should act on it, or they don't. I don't see what it has to do with anything else.

Again which is another problem, as on either side of this each will be claiming the other is in misuse of the beliefs and more importantly we are not seing ISIS diminish but increase in support. It is driven by the four points raised rags a combination with ISIS, where in other like the Taliban as Eilzel has pointed out social-economics plays a part, but the problem is some Muslims fundementally do not believe its misuse of their faith but the correct aspects of their faith and that is what is even more shocking. They think that such a deity would endorse such barbarity onto society

Yes. In fact, some Islamic extremists might take offence at the UN saying they're acting as they do because of a distortion of their beliefs, or because they're misusing their beliefs. They will say it's not up to the UN to decide what the correct belief is. The same is true for any extremist who has strong beliefs. For the UN to then attempt to "educate" the people they just offended is a bit of a non-starter.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

Again which is another problem, as on either side of this each will be claiming the other is in misuse of the beliefs and more importantly we are not seing ISIS diminish but increase in support. It is driven by the four points raised rags a combination with ISIS, where in other like the Taliban as Eilzel has pointed out social-economics plays a part, but the problem is some Muslims fundementally do not believe its misuse of their faith but the correct aspects of their faith and that is what is even more shocking. They think that such a deity would endorse such barbarity onto society

Yes. In fact, some Islamic extremists might take offence at the UN saying they're acting as they do because of a distortion of their beliefs, or because they're misusing their beliefs. They will say it's not up to the UN to decide what the correct belief is. The same is true for any extremist who has strong beliefs. For the UN to then attempt to "educate" the people they just offended is a bit of a non-starter.

They would take offence anyway, so that really does not matter, where the core problem is more to do with a narative of hate against the west, which has always been the case. This is what is fundementally wrong where many Muslims would look to cast blame or even buy into conspiracies that the West is behind everything from 9/11 to 7/11, to israel as well. The long list of conspiracies also plays a massive part in having Muslims have a system of lies, in order to not deal with the problem of extremism, but look to make out in anyway possible it is not really Muslims or islam, but either the West or Israel. Its the biggest problem that allows for Muslims to excuse these problems. So the Un is rightly wanted to tackle the problem but are being poor in not stating what are the problems which are extremist, which are easily identified with islamic texts.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes. In fact, some Islamic extremists might take offence at the UN saying they're acting as they do because of a distortion of their beliefs, or because they're misusing their beliefs. They will say it's not up to the UN to decide what the correct belief is. The same is true for any extremist who has strong beliefs. For the UN to then attempt to "educate" the people they just offended is a bit of a non-starter.

They would take offence anyway, so that really does not matter, where the core problem is more to do with a narative of hate against the west, which has always been the case. This is what is fundementally wrong where many Muslims would look to cast blame or even buy into conspiracies that the West is behind everything from 9/11 to 7/11, to israel as well. The long list of conspiracies also plays a massive part in having Muslims have a system of lies, in order to not deal with the problem of extremism, but look to make out in anyway possible it is not really Muslims or islam, but either the West or Israel. Its the biggest problem that allows for Muslims to excuse these problems. So the Un is rightly wanted to tackle the problem but are being poor in not stating what are the problems which are extremist, which are easily identified with islamic texts.

Well if they take offence, there's no point trying to educate them, and there's no point trying to "empower" or "engage" them, which is partly why I think the chart is nonsense anyway. I don't think there's any point in addressing their "grievances" either because they will simply say - when you stop bombing ISIS, or when you destroy Israel, we'll stop being extremists. They will say that their extremism is in defence of Islam, and that it's not because they hate the West per se.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


They would take offence anyway, so that really does not matter, where the core problem is more to do with a narative of hate against the west, which has always been the case. This is what is fundementally wrong where many Muslims would look to cast blame or even buy into conspiracies that the West is behind everything from 9/11 to 7/11, to israel as well. The long list of conspiracies also plays a massive part in having Muslims have a system of lies, in order to not deal with the problem of extremism, but look to make out in anyway possible it is not really Muslims or islam, but either the West or Israel. Its the biggest problem that allows for Muslims to excuse these problems. So the Un is rightly wanted to tackle the problem but are being poor in not stating what are the problems which are extremist, which are easily identified with islamic texts.

Well if they take offence, there's no point trying to educate them, and there's no point trying to "empower" or "engage" them, which is partly why I think the chart is nonsense anyway. I don't think there's any point in addressing their "grievances" either because they will simply say - when you stop bombing ISIS, or when you destroy Israel, we'll stop being extremists. They will say that their extremism is in defence of Islam, and that it's not because they hate the West per se.

There is always a point in educating, as people can realise they were wrong or misled and wrong, Even more importantly to deny them a platform to recruit more to their cause, so even more there is every point in tryingt to educate to diminish and prevent those falling for extremism.
Agree on your later points

So now have Smelly Bandit tactic 2 and 3:

1. Say the vast majority of Muslims who do not commit or support terror are not true adherents of Islam

2. Say Muslims like me are lying (taqiyah)

3. Cherry pick 1'verse of the Quran from here and another from there. This ones quite funny becuase people like Didge used to counter this SB tactic by placing it in context. Seems Didge has dumbed down over the years. ;-)

And I asked for verses that condones the killing of innocents and suicide.

Still waiting....

Fuzzy Zack wrote:And I asked for verses that condones the killing of innocents and suicide.

Still waiting....

Can you define "innocents"?

As I said, some Muslims might think that merely not following Islam makes someone guilty.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:And I asked for verses that condones the killing of innocents and suicide.

Still waiting....

Can you define "innocents"?

As I said, some Muslims might think that merely not following Islam makes someone guilty.

Innocent are (according to the earliest rules of war by Islam):

1. Anyone not on the battle field (ie no war in civilian areas)
2. children, women, elderly, sick, priests/monks
3. Sheep, cow, camel, except for food
4. Palm and fruit trees

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Can you define "innocents"?

As I said, some Muslims might think that merely not following Islam makes someone guilty.

Innocent are (according to the earliest rules of war by Islam):

1. Anyone not on the battle field (ie no war in civilian areas)
2. children, women, elderly, sick, priests/monks
3. Sheep, cow, camel, except for food
4. Palm and fruit trees

Thank you. What does it mean when it says you should fight those who don't believe in Allah or his messenger?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:So now have Smelly Bandit tactic 2 and 3:

1. Say the vast majority of Muslims who do not commit or support terror are not true adherents of Islam

2. Say Muslims like me are lying (taqiyah)

3. Cherry pick 1'verse of the Quran from here and another from there. This ones quite funny becuase people like Didge used to counter this SB tactic by placing it in context. Seems Didge has dumbed down over the years. ;-)

1) Lie number one, at no point did I make any claim to who follows true Islam, as that is impossible for me to state historically, being as the works are in no way authenticated to say what is. Which again is the problem in Islam, as both you and and ISIS supporters will say you both follow true Islam. I can only claim as stated this is impossible to state based historically, as how could I decide based on dubious sources? Though I  could never deny you your right to say what you follow to you is correct. Its youir chocie whether you think what you follow is true Islam, of which is irrelevant to me. What is relevant is that ISIS follow an ideology based on islam.

2) Lie number 2, at no point have I said anyone is lying until this post where you have no made two false accusations, none of which I have said at all.

3) Deflection, where you still fail to grasp the point as it is ISIS Muslins themselves that take the view os these verese to justify and back thier hatred and violence. Its not me cherry picking but something that the Muslim world has failed in resolving through its history being as there is different schools of Islam,

Agaiun this is a fine example where a poster is emotionally compremised with poor infantile insults and even fabricating accusations which have no validity.

Again what is important here is that systematically extremists based their ideology on islam, no matter if you disagree what is to you or them is the true Islam, of which again nobody can historically lay claim to based on works that are in the cases of the hadiths. That have no written evidence and also like the compilers of the bible in the New Testament have people centuries after the events decide themselves what is valid and what is not valid. That is flawed in every way possible. Again the hadiths are what is fundementally wrong in Islam, as you have unvalidated stories, which are used to deify deeds done by Muhammad which is used by extremists to back and justfiy their ideology. If you say you follow true Islam, good luck to you, that is not stopping ISIS claiming the same.

Next you are even being disingenuous to Rags claiming this:

1. Anyone not on the battle field (ie no war in civilian areas) That is your emphasis and false to claim, as battles often happened within civillian areas in towns and cities.

2. children, women, elderly, sick, priests/monks
3. Sheep, cow, camel, except for food
4. Palm and fruit trees

Show me where in the Quran it specifically states the above?
In fact show me in the Quran where it states not to kill women or children?

Didge wrote:Except Zack is not being honest to the extent of the problem of Islam namely how they elevate Muhammad to the same staus as their deity Allah, through deifying the hadiths, as they most certainly do. I have stated time and again the historicity of Islam is lacking any sound evidence and thus countless stories have been taken as if Laws themselves because they are claimed to come from Muhammad. That is very problematic and why there is so much text to justify violence and easily nulify the Quran. As stated as soon as you claim something is a final message to then have so called deeds deified, renders the Quran redundent. The fact is there is countless islamic text that backs up rape and sex slaves, of which there is no evidence to prove in a historical sense does not matter to believers, who will believe it is true. As to killing children again this can easily be shown to find islamic text to back and justify


Saheeh Muslim


Book 019, Hadith Number 4321.

Chapter : Permissibility of killing women and children in the night raids,

It is reported on the authority of Sa'b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them.

 

Saheeh Bukhari


Volumn 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 256.

Narated By As-Sab bin Jaththama : The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." I also heard the Prophet saying, "The institution of Hima is invalid except for Allah and His Apostle."



 

Read your first sentence. Dishonesty is an accusation of lying. D'UH!

Raggamuffin wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Innocent are (according to the earliest rules of war by Islam):

1. Anyone not on the battle field (ie no war in civilian areas)
2. children, women, elderly, sick, priests/monks
3. Sheep, cow, camel, except for food
4. Palm and fruit trees

Thank you. What does it mean when it says you should fight those who don't believe in Allah or his messenger?

https://youtu.be/DqtNOF2ecLg

Fuzzy Zack wrote:And I asked for verses that condones the killing of innocents and suicide.

Still waiting....

Still waiting Didge.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:So now have Smelly Bandit tactic 2 and 3:

1. Say the vast majority of Muslims who do not commit or support terror are not true adherents of Islam

2. Say Muslims like me are lying (taqiyah)

3. Cherry pick 1'verse of the Quran from here and another from there. This ones quite funny becuase people like Didge used to counter this SB tactic by placing it in context. Seems Didge has dumbed down over the years. ;-)

1) Lie number one, at no point did I make any claim to who follows true Islam, as that is impossible for me to state historically, being as the works are in no way authenticated to say what is. Which again is the problem in Islam, as both you and and ISIS supporters will say you both follow true Islam. I can only claim as stated this is impossible to state based historically, as how could I decide based on dubious sources? Though I  could never deny you your right to say what you follow to you is correct. Its youir chocie whether you think what you follow is true Islam, of which is irrelevant to me. What is relevant is that ISIS follow an ideology based on islam.

2) Lie number 2, at no point have I said anyone is lying until this post where you have no made two false accusations, none of which I have said at all.

3) Deflection, where you still fail to grasp the point as it is ISIS Muslins themselves that take the view os these verese to justify and back thier hatred and violence. Its not me cherry picking but something that the Muslim world has failed in resolving through its history being as there is different schools of Islam,

Agaiun this is a fine example where a poster is emotionally compremised with poor infantile insults and even fabricating accusations which have no validity.

Again what is important here is that systematically extremists based their ideology on islam, no matter if you disagree what is to you or them is the true Islam, of which again nobody can historically lay claim to based on works that are in the cases of the hadiths. That have no written evidence and also like the compilers of the bible in the New Testament have people centuries after the events decide themselves what is valid and what is not valid. That is flawed in every way possible. Again the hadiths are what is fundementally wrong in Islam, as you have unvalidated stories, which are used to deify deeds done by Muhammad which is used by extremists to back and justfiy their ideology. If you say you follow true Islam, good luck to you, that is not stopping ISIS claiming the same.

Next you are even being disingenuous to Rags claiming this:

1. Anyone not on the battle field (ie no war in civilian areas) That is your emphasis and false to claim, as battles often happened within civillian areas in towns and cities.

2. children, women, elderly, sick, priests/monks
3. Sheep, cow, camel, except for food
4. Palm and fruit trees

Show me where in the Quran it specifically states the above?
In fact show me in the Quran where it states not to kill women or children?

Still waiting Zack?

Also you want me to do something which when the onus is on you. This is the problem in Islam, who is counted as innocent, the point you miss, so that is your onus not mine, all I have to show is how innocents can be viewed as guilty in Islam. For example a homosexual is innocent of any crime and so is someone leaving your faith, that though is in many countries punishable by death, unless you think neither are innocent? Though I will prove how it can be easily interpreted to kill innocents because the problem is on how you view people.

As to your verse which is what Palestinians use and clearly what sexy uses to think Israeli's can be murdererd and is one of many used to justify.

"On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.  (The Noble Quran, 5:32)"

[5:74] They are surely disbelievers who say, ‘Allah is the third of three;’ there is no God but the One God. And if they do not desist from what they say, a grievous punishment shall surely befall those of them that disbelieve. (This making punishable by death Catholics as this in regard to the trinity, as is not a grevious punishment also death. )

This is the problem in Islam, who it classifies as guilty and unless you can prove to a deity exists that has said this, we hav e to go off international law on human rights who is innocent not some fairy tale, because its because of this fairy tale that many innocent people are classed as guilty. It also shows the Quran constantly contradicts with itself and why it is the word and hand of a man, nothing else


Now there is a word that can be loosely interpreted and that is all that is needed to allow for innocent people to be viewed as guilty and thus killed, which is what you fail to grasp. It is how Palestinians view and think its is acceptable to murder Israelis, as well as they also wrongly view Israelis have transgressed. There is no verses in the Quran that says anything on innocents, that is a complete myth, where again it is dependent on how Muslims view who is innocent and why as seen all I have to do is show how easily it is for Muslim exremists and Muslim supporters of palestinians terrorism, to think its not murder and justified to execute people.

Like I say, this is what is wrong when a Muslim or Christian lays claim to knowing the thuth when they cannot prove a God exists, as it renders their claim soely based on faith and not fact. Its up to you if you think its the truth, all I have to do is show in verse after verse how something can be viewed because its impossible to claim otheriwse to works you cannot authenticate

Now you lied twice with accusations none of which I even stated, which was you lying twice because at no point did I say what could be a true Muslims that was you. Hence only then did I say you were lying after you did actually lie
So stop allowing yourself to be emotionally compremised and understand the problems within your faith that allow as I have shown innocent people to be viewed as guilty and to be punished by death

Now answer my questions

I think it's wise for the UN to remain neutral.

Original Quill wrote:I think it's wise for the UN to remain neutral.

To extremism?
I would like to think everyone backs policies to combat extremism, whether political or religious, for the safe regard of citizens of many countries.
As to the UN being neutral, it lost that hashtag decades ago, as it is anything but neutral

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:And I asked for verses that condones the killing of innocents and suicide.

Still waiting....

Still waiting Didge.

Nice try burying this thread Didge.

Provide the evidence you claim to be true. Let me see the Quranic verses that condone the killing of innocents and suicide.

Failure to so so in your next post will mean you cannot. And were wrong.

Er I answered all your questions and the onus is on you, not me

You failed to answer a single point because you are completelyu defensive based on the fact your religion is problematic.

So stop making excuses and answer or run along because I am not bowing down to someone who has evaded all the points I made

So put up or run away

Also huge paranioia on claims to threads being buried

Didge wrote:

Didge wrote:


1) Lie number one, at no point did I make any claim to who follows true Islam, as that is impossible for me to state historically, being as the works are in no way authenticated to say what is. Which again is the problem in Islam, as both you and and ISIS supporters will say you both follow true Islam. I can only claim as stated this is impossible to state based historically, as how could I decide based on dubious sources? Though I  could never deny you your right to say what you follow to you is correct. Its youir chocie whether you think what you follow is true Islam, of which is irrelevant to me. What is relevant is that ISIS follow an ideology based on islam.

2) Lie number 2, at no point have I said anyone is lying until this post where you have no made two false accusations, none of which I have said at all.

3) Deflection, where you still fail to grasp the point as it is ISIS Muslins themselves that take the view os these verese to justify and back thier hatred and violence. Its not me cherry picking but something that the Muslim world has failed in resolving through its history being as there is different schools of Islam,

Agaiun this is a fine example where a poster is emotionally compremised with poor infantile insults and even fabricating accusations which have no validity.

Again what is important here is that systematically extremists based their ideology on islam, no matter if you disagree what is to you or them is the true Islam, of which again nobody can historically lay claim to based on works that are in the cases of the hadiths. That have no written evidence and also like the compilers of the bible in the New Testament have people centuries after the events decide themselves what is valid and what is not valid. That is flawed in every way possible. Again the hadiths are what is fundementally wrong in Islam, as you have unvalidated stories, which are used to deify deeds done by Muhammad which is used by extremists to back and justfiy their ideology. If you say you follow true Islam, good luck to you, that is not stopping ISIS claiming the same.

Next you are even being disingenuous to Rags claiming this:

1. Anyone not on the battle field (ie no war in civilian areas) That is your emphasis and false to claim, as battles often happened within civillian areas in towns and cities.

2. children, women, elderly, sick, priests/monks
3. Sheep, cow, camel, except for food
4. Palm and fruit trees

Show me where in the Quran it specifically states the above?
In fact show me in the Quran where it states not to kill women or children?

Still waiting Zack?

Also you want me to do something which when the onus is on you. This is the problem in Islam, who is counted as innocent, the point you miss, so that is your onus not mine, all I have to show is how innocents can be viewed as guilty in Islam. For example a homosexual is innocent of any crime and so is someone leaving your faith, that though is in many countries punishable by death, unless you think neither are innocent? Though I will prove how it can be easily interpreted to kill innocents because the problem is on how you view people.

As to your verse which is what Palestinians use and clearly what sexy uses to think Israeli's can be murdererd and is one of many used to justify.

"On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.  (The Noble Quran, 5:32)"

[5:74] They are surely disbelievers who say, ‘Allah is the third of three;’ there is no God but the One God. And if they do not desist from what they say, a grievous punishment shall surely befall those of them that disbelieve. (This making punishable by death Catholics as this in regard to the trinity, as is not a grevious punishment also death. )

This is the problem in Islam, who it classifies as guilty and unless you can prove to a deity exists that has said this, we hav e to go off international law on human rights who is innocent not some fairy tale, because its because of this fairy tale that many innocent people are classed as guilty. It also shows the Quran constantly contradicts with itself and why it is the word and hand of a man, nothing else


Now there is a word that can be loosely interpreted and that is all that is needed to allow for innocent people to be viewed as guilty and thus killed, which is what you fail to grasp. It is how Palestinians view and think its is acceptable to murder Israelis, as well as they also wrongly view Israelis have transgressed. There is no verses in the Quran that says anything on innocents, that is a complete myth, where again it is dependent on how Muslims view who is innocent and why as seen all I have to do is show how easily it is for Muslim exremists and Muslim supporters of palestinians terrorism, to think its not murder and justified to execute people.

Like I say, this is what is wrong when a Muslim or Christian lays claim to knowing the thuth when they cannot prove a God exists, as it renders their claim soely based on faith and not fact. Its up to you if you think its the truth, all I have to do is show in verse after verse how something can be viewed because its impossible to claim otheriwse to works you cannot authenticate

Now you lied twice with accusations none of which I even stated, which was you lying twice because at no point did I say what could be a true Muslims that was you. Hence only then did I say you were lying after you did actually lie
So stop allowing yourself to be emotionally compremised and understand the problems within your faith that allow as I have shown innocent people to be viewed as guilty and to be punished by death

Now answer my questions

So I will bump up again the countless problematic points Zack ran scared from answering.
And why is Zack running scared?
Because his question was irrelevant and moot when as seen the problem is on who is cast as guilty innocent. The problem is fundementally on elevating Muhammad to parity to Allah on claims to deeds in his life which are clearly unreliable of as historical source.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:I think it's wise for the UN to remain neutral.

To extremism?

I don't think that's what is being said by the UN.  The UN is being neutral as to the sources and causes of extremism.  I think it's wise to remain neutral and divorce its issue from any current geopolitical issue.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

To extremism?

I don't think that's what is being said by the UN.  The UN is being neutral as to the sources and causes of extremism.  I think it's wise to remain neutral and divorce its issue from any current geopolitical issue.

Really?

Appointing a saudi to head up the United Nations Human rights Council
Biased to make countless resolutions against Israel but again none again Saudi, who constantly abuse human rights
Its clearly in the pocket of the gulf states and has been for a very long time