9/11: Have we had enough revenge yet?

[Kalam]

Asad tells us that it isn’t uncommon for all civilians who die in a political conflict to be esteemed as shuhada (plural of shahid). To connect shahada in some essential way to the ritual of sacrifice—to see it as a form of sacrifice, as Devji does—is to neglect this broader category of deceased people. Thus, for instance, the violent death of all Palestinians “in confrontation with Israelis … is regarded as a sign that they have died as witnesses (shuhada) to their faith—although there is no ritualized form to most of these deaths.”[49] Consequently, Asad suggests, “the shahid’s death constitutes a triumph rather than a sacrifice.”​

First of all, your passage simply discusses "civilians who die in a political conflict," not "civilians who are killed by Muslims in a political conflict." Secondly, I'm afraid that the word of Talal Asad is not tantamount to Islamic scripture. If you're going to put forth claims about the teachings of the Islamic religion itself, you'll have to back them up with actual scripture.

Your acceptance is not required. Muslims do indeed kill other Muslims. The victims are indeed regarded as shahid. Muslim extremists do indeed justify the death of innocent Muslims in this way.

You don't like it? Make 'em stop.

Earlier you implied that this was a teaching of Islam. All I ask is that you point to the scriptural source of this teaching if that is still your contention.

 

[ConHog]

First of all, your passage simply discusses "civilians who die in a political conflict," not "civilians who are killed by Muslims in a political conflict." Secondly, I'm afraid that the word of Talal Asad is not tantamount to Islamic scripture. If you're going to put forth claims about the teachings of the Islamic religion itself, you'll have to back them up with actual scripture.

Your acceptance is not required. Muslims do indeed kill other Muslims. The victims are indeed regarded as shahid. Muslim extremists do indeed justify the death of innocent Muslims in this way.

You don't like it? Make 'em stop.

Earlier you implied that this was a teaching of Islam. All I ask is that you point to the scriptural source of this teaching if that is still your contention.

so terrorist, simple question. Do you deny that terrorists consider innocent Muslims killled in their struggle to be martyrs? A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[Kalam]

Your acceptance is not required. Muslims do indeed kill other Muslims. The victims are indeed regarded as shahid. Muslim extremists do indeed justify the death of innocent Muslims in this way.

You don't like it? Make 'em stop.

Earlier you implied that this was a teaching of Islam. All I ask is that you point to the scriptural source of this teaching if that is still your contention.

so terrorist, simple question. Do you deny that terrorists consider innocent Muslims killled in their struggle to be martyrs? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Which groups and movements do you consider "terrorists"?

 

[ConHog]

Earlier you implied that this was a teaching of Islam. All I ask is that you point to the scriptural source of this teaching if that is still your contention.

so terrorist, simple question. Do you deny that terrorists consider innocent Muslims killled in their struggle to be martyrs? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Which groups and movements do you consider "terrorists"?

Eh, I'm not going to play stupid games with you . You know damned well what groups we consider to be terrorists.

 

[Kalam]

so terrorist, simple question. Do you deny that terrorists consider innocent Muslims killled in their struggle to be martyrs? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Which groups and movements do you consider "terrorists"?

Eh, I'm not going to play stupid games with you . You know damned well what groups we consider to be terrorists.

That's all you do, CornDog.

Ideology varies from group to group. In short, yes and no: some groups appear to have issued statements that say as much and others have not.

 

[daveman]

First of all, your passage simply discusses "civilians who die in a political conflict," not "civilians who are killed by Muslims in a political conflict." Secondly, I'm afraid that the word of Talal Asad is not tantamount to Islamic scripture. If you're going to put forth claims about the teachings of the Islamic religion itself, you'll have to back them up with actual scripture.

Your acceptance is not required. Muslims do indeed kill other Muslims. The victims are indeed regarded as shahid. Muslim extremists do indeed justify the death of innocent Muslims in this way.

You don't like it? Make 'em stop.

Earlier you implied that this was a teaching of Islam. All I ask is that you point to the scriptural source of this teaching if that is still your contention.

I made no such implication. I said:

Not always. If a Muslim kills another Muslim during jihad, the victim is considered a martyr and is rewarded with Paradise.

That's why they don't mind collateral damage.​

And I showed you that yes, the victims are considered martyrs and are rewarded with Paradise.

As I said, your acceptance is not required.

 

[The Infidel]

Which groups and movements do you consider "terrorists"?

Eh, I'm not going to play stupid games with you . You know damned well what groups we consider to be terrorists.

That's all you do, CornDog.

Ideology varies from group to group. In short, yes and no: some groups appear to have issued statements that say as much and others have not.

I think this is a good discussion.... So I'm just curious. Is there any way you, Kalam, can tell us which terrorist groups do and do not consider their own kind martyr's, because in my eyes a terrorist is a terrorist any way you turn him/her.

Im not trying to be silly and play any games here.... Im seriously curious.



Im at work, so I will check back in a short bit

 

[The Infidel]

 

[eots]

Your acceptance is not required. Muslims do indeed kill other muslims. the victims are indeed regarded as shahid. Muslim extremists do indeed justify the death of innocent muslims in this way.

you don't like it? Make 'em stop.

earlier you implied that this was a teaching of islam. All i ask is that you point to the scriptural source of this teaching if that is still your contention.

i made no such implication. I said:

not always. If a muslim kills another muslim during jihad, the victim is considered a martyr and is rewarded with paradise.

That's why they don't mind collateral damage.​

and i showed you that yes, the victims are considered martyrs and are rewarded with paradise.

As i said, your acceptance is not required.

really is that why I have seen these muslim woman crying in anguish over "collateral damage"...and what of these parents here that console their loss saying "they died for their country doing gods work and are now with jesus in a land of milk and honey" ..milk and honey!! Well..I guess it is all cool then

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's something that people like to bring up. If it's such a good idea, by all means, go through with it.

the people i have seen bring it up in this thread are only using it as an example of what revenge would be

You can't help but notice what's on peoples' minds.

Sane people do not go around killing people who offend them. They might fantasize about it, but they do not do it.

Why are so many Muslims so obviously not sane? Is it something in the water they drink? The air they breathe? The food they eat? That seems a bit unlikely, as they are spread over most of the planet.

The only thing I can see in common is that they all follow the tenets of Islam. That leads me to the inescapable conclusion that Islam causes insanity.

 

[daveman]

really is that why I have seen these muslim woman crying in anguish over "collateral damage"...

I've lost loved ones whom I know went to Heaven. The loss is still painful.

...and what of these parents here that console their loss saying "they died for their country doing gods work and are now with jesus in a land of milk and honey" ..milk and honey!! Well..I guess it is all cool then

Your acceptance isn't required, either.

 

[eots]

the people i have seen bring it up in this thread are only using it as an example of what revenge would be

You can't help but notice what's on peoples' minds.

Sane people do not go around killing people who offend them. They might fantasize about it, but they do not do it.

Why are so many Muslims so obviously not sane? Is it something in the water they drink? The air they breathe? The food they eat? That seems a bit unlikely, as they are spread over most of the planet.

The only thing I can see in common is that they all follow the tenets of Islam. That leads me to the inescapable conclusion that Islam causes insanity.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKX6luiMINQ&p=B228D97A7160573D&playnext=1&index=2]YouTube - Bush Jokes about WMD[/ame]

 

[The Infidel]

earlier you implied that this was a teaching of islam. All i ask is that you point to the scriptural source of this teaching if that is still your contention.

i made no such implication. I said:

not always. If a muslim kills another muslim during jihad, the victim is considered a martyr and is rewarded with paradise.

That's why they don't mind collateral damage.​

and i showed you that yes, the victims are considered martyrs and are rewarded with paradise.

As i said, your acceptance is not required.

really is that why I have seen these muslim woman crying in anguish over "collateral damage"...and what of these parents here that console their loss saying "they died for their country doing gods work and are now with jesus in a land of milk and honey" ..milk and honey!! Well..I guess it is all cool then

Not all muslims believe that collateral victims are martyrs.... there a ton of moms over there that celebrate their sons/daughters martyrdom.

Thats a fact!

Plus why is it so important that you impune the families of our soldiers and make fun of their beliefs?

"Milk and honey".... its just a phrase saying that it is heavenly where they are.... there are'nt literal rivers of "milk and honey"! (at least I hope not.... guess I will have to wait and see)