Muslims That Condemn Terrorism

[QUENTIN]

CAIR is certainly not an advocate for the abolition of terrorism. CAIR is affiliated with the Islamic Association for Palestine which was started by Hamas, a terrorist group.

Perhaps you missed this:

By the way...

Nearly every major American (and many, many foreign) Muslim group issues an official condemnation of every major terrorist attack. They're just not aired on Fox News or talked about on USMB.

Statements by Muslim leaders condemning terrorism

Why are there no condemnations from Muslim sources against terrorists?

A common complaint among non-Muslims is that Muslim religious authorities do not condemn terrorist attacks. The complaints often surface in letters to the editors of newspapers, on phone-in radio shows, in Internet mailing lists, forums, etc.

Actually, there are lots of fatwas and other statements issued which condemn attacks on innocent civilians. Unfortunately, they are largely ignored by newspapers, television news, radio news and other media outlets.

Overview:

The problem is not that condemnations do not exist; it is that they are not well publicized in the media. Allie Shah wrote in the Star Tribune in Minnneapolis, MN:

"The fact is that many prominent American Muslim groups have clearly and publicly denounced acts of terror in the name of Islam as barbaric, heinous and just plain wrong. Though they religiously send out press releases and e-mail statements after every attack, somehow their message doesn't seem to penetrate."

Two of the largest Muslim groups in the U.S. -- the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) regularly issue statements. However, they rarely appear in local newspapers, on TV or radio.

Allie Shaw continues:

"Last fall, CAIR launched a national petition drive as part of a campaign by Muslims called 'Not in the Name of Islam.' To date, nearly 700,000 Muslims have signed the petition condemning terrorism committed in the name of Islam, and many newspapers have covered the petition drive. As part of the same campaign, CAIR also created and paid for public service announcements set to air on television stations nationwide....."

"If all that wasn't enough, last Thursday the Fiqh Council of North America issued a fatwa, or religious ruling, against terrorism and extremism. Endorsed by more than 100 U.S. Muslim authorities, the fatwa boldly and unequivocally forbids terrorism and admonishes those who commit terrorist attacks....."

"The lengthy fatwa continues with references to the Qur'an that support the ruling. It may not be enough to dissuade a minority of extremists hellbent on destruction, but it is the right thing to do."

"In the meantime, we will continue to react with the same shock and dismay and, yes, anger, at the misguided people who continue to show no regard for human life. And we'll continue to speak out against terrorism in the hopes that someone is listening."

There's a lot more at that site about how frequently, seriously, and uniformly almost all Muslim organizations (especially the two biggest ones) are about condemning all acts of terrorism carried out by people who claim to be Muslim. It's simply a lack of awareness, not a lack of the condemnations, that leads certain people to believe Muslims don't speak out against terrorism.

So it's a major group that has categorically condemned terrorism, like the OP was looking for.

I don't play into McCarthyite guilty by association stuff. It's worth noting and knowing that CAIR, was partially founded by two people who were previously affiliated with the Islamic Association for Palestine, which was founded by Hamas before Hamas had carried out any suicide attacks or been labeled a terrorist organization. It's also worth knowing that Hamas is more than "just" a terrorist organization. Among its many working parts, it has a military wing who attack civilians, but also fairly legitimate political leaders and those who do humanitarian and social services work.

Similar to something like, say, the Black Panthers, the fact that parts of a large group are violent does not entirely discount the fact that other parts, in the Panthers case, served breakfast to 20,000 poor children a day or started schools in impoverished neighborhoods or, in Hamas's case, provide food, hospitals, orphanages, schools, etc to the people of Gaza. Many humane people can support humanitarian efforts anywhere by anyone while still condemning the violence of their associates.

And anyway, they were formerly associated with the IAP before they started CAIR and before Hamas was a terrorist organization. And as they made explicit, as they have grown to include thousands of members and changed in the last 20 years, they have condemned all violence against civilians and acts of terrorism with their "Not in Our Name" campaign.

Should Israel's Likud party be classified as terrorists or advocates of terrorism because they are affiliated and merged with Herut which was founded by the Irgun, a terrorist group? Is Rahm Emanuel a terrorism advocate because his father was a member of the Irgun?

According to your guilty by association logic, yes. But while it's worthwhile to consider the manner in which organizations were formed and what skeletons they have in their closet, they should be judged primarily on their current actions and affiliations.

Also, if the quotes in Kalam's signature are honest and accurate quotes of yours, I got nothing more to say. If you think Palestinians are genetically inferior and deserve en masse to be "stopmed out," then there can't be any point to a conversation on the subject. I don't deal with racists.

 

[Marc39]

CAIR is certainly not an advocate for the abolition of terrorism. CAIR is affiliated with the Islamic Association for Palestine which was started by Hamas, a terrorist group.

Perhaps you missed this:

Perhaps, you missed that CAIR refuses to acknowledge Hamas and Hezballah as terrorist groups and CAIR former members have been arrested for terrorist-related activities.

 

[QUENTIN]

CAIR is certainly not an advocate for the abolition of terrorism. CAIR is affiliated with the Islamic Association for Palestine which was started by Hamas, a terrorist group.

Perhaps you missed this:

Perhaps, you missed that CAIR refuses to acknowledge Hamas and Hezballah as terrorist groups and CAIR former members have been arrested for terrorist-related activities.

So is the Likud party terrorists? It merged with Herut, which was founded by the Irgun. Begin was a primary member of Irgun and founded Herut before becoming prime minister. The party refused to classify him as a terrorist, even though his organization bombed hotels and carried out massacres and other terrorist-related activities. By your rationale, they're a group of terrorism advocates.

 

[Kalam]

Perhaps you missed this:

Perhaps, you missed that CAIR refuses to acknowledge Hamas and Hezballah as terrorist groups and CAIR former members have been arrested for terrorist-related activities.

So is the Likud party terrorists? It merged with Herut, which was founded by the Irgun. Begin was a primary member of Irgun and founded Herut before becoming prime minister. The party refused to classify him as a terrorist, even though his organization bombed hotels and carried out massacres and other terrorist-related activities. By your rationale, they're a group of terrorism advocates.

Don't be silly... they're Jewish. It's different.

 

[Marc39]

Perhaps you missed this:

Perhaps, you missed that CAIR refuses to acknowledge Hamas and Hezballah as terrorist groups and CAIR former members have been arrested for terrorist-related activities.

So is the Likud party terrorists? It merged with Herut, which was founded by the Irgun. Begin was a primary member of Irgun and founded Herut before becoming prime minister. The party refused to classify him as a terrorist, even though his organization bombed hotels and carried out massacres and other terrorist-related activities. By your rationale, they're a group of terrorism advocates.

You're not very intelligent.
Likud does not engage in the intentional targeting of civilians for violence to achieve an ideological objective, which defines terrorism.

Irgun was denounced by the Zionist movement at the time and only constituted a couple hundred individuals.

Irgun also fought against the British army who were, in effect, enemy combatants in undermining the establishment of the Jewish homeland under the terms of the Palestine Mandate.

Wise up.

 

[Marc39]

Perhaps, you missed that CAIR refuses to acknowledge Hamas and Hezballah as terrorist groups and CAIR former members have been arrested for terrorist-related activities.

So is the Likud party terrorists? It merged with Herut, which was founded by the Irgun. Begin was a primary member of Irgun and founded Herut before becoming prime minister. The party refused to classify him as a terrorist, even though his organization bombed hotels and carried out massacres and other terrorist-related activities. By your rationale, they're a group of terrorism advocates.

Don't be silly... they're Jewish. It's different.

We're superior. After all, we had real prophets who performed real miracles. Unlike the charlatan Muhammad. Heh heh.

 

[QUENTIN]

You're not very intelligent.
Likud does not engage in the intentional targeting of civilians for violence to achieve an ideological objective, which defines terrorism.

Irgun was denounced by the Zionist movement at the time and only constituted a couple hundred individuals.

Irgun also fought against the British army who were, in effect, enemy combatants in undermining the establishment of the Jewish homeland under the terms of the Palestine Mandate.

Wise up.

CAIR does not engage in targeting civilians for violence to achieve an ideological objective either. That's why Irgun and the military wing of Hamas are terrorist organizations, but CAIR and the Likud, even though they're associated with them, are not.

Hamas also fights against the Israeli army who are, in effect, undermining the establishment of a Palestinian land in violation of numerous accords , UN resolutions, and international law.

But by killing civilians, all sides render themselves morally and legally in the wrong no matter what apologists use to justify their violence.

We're superior. After all, we had real prophets who performed real miracles. Unlike the charlatan Muhammad. Heh heh.

My religion's right, your religion's wrong comes with all monotheistic territory. If you genuinely believe Jewish people are superior to Palestinian or Muslim people though, you're just a garden variety racist and... to risk invoking Godwin's law, have an uncomfortable affiliation of your own.

At the end of the day, CAIR has routinely condemned terrorism and violence against civilians. Smear 'em all you like with associations, they're a legitimate mainstream group that fits what the OP was looking for.

 

[Marc39]

You're not very intelligent.
Likud does not engage in the intentional targeting of civilians for violence to achieve an ideological objective, which defines terrorism.

Irgun was denounced by the Zionist movement at the time and only constituted a couple hundred individuals.

Irgun also fought against the British army who were, in effect, enemy combatants in undermining the establishment of the Jewish homeland under the terms of the Palestine Mandate.

Wise up.

CAIR does not engage in targeting civilians for violence to achieve an ideological objective either. That's why Irgun and the military wing of Hamas are terrorist organizations, but CAIR and the Likud, even though they're associated with them, are not.

CAIR is connected with Hamas, which is why CAIR supports HAMAS, and, Hezballah, which are terrorist groups.

Irgun existed three-quarters of a century ago. Hamas exists now.

Wise up.

Hamas also fights against the Israeli army who are, in effect, undermining the establishment of a Palestinian land in violation of numerous accords , UN resolutions, and international law.

Hamas targets Israeli civilians for violence. That constitutes terrorism.

There is no Palestinian land.

Hamas is in flagrant violation of international law and binding UN resolutions prohibiting acts of terrorism.

Israel is in violation of neither.

Wise up.

But by killing civilians, all sides render themselves morally and legally in the wrong no matter what apologists use to justify their violence.

There is no moral equivalence between Hamas terrorism and Israeli self-defensive countermeasures in protection of its population.

Wise up.

My religion's right, your religion's wrong comes with all monotheistic territory. If you genuinely believe Jewish people are superior to Palestinian or Muslim people though, you're just a garden variety racist and... to risk invoking Godwin's law, have an uncomfortable affiliation of your own.

Islam and its Pallie suicide monkeys represent racism. All non-Muslims are infidels who must be murdered, in Islam.

It doesn't get more racist than that.

Wise up.

At the end of the day, CAIR has routinely condemned terrorism and violence against civilians. Smear 'em all you like with associations, they're a legitimate mainstream group that fits what the OP was looking for.

CAIR is affiliated with terrorist groups and its own members have been convicted and deported for acts of terrorism....

Ismail Royer, who was CAIR's communications specialist and civil rights coordinator, was convicted on terrorism-related charges.

Ghassan Elashi, founder of CAIR's Texas office, was convicted with his four brothers of illegally shipping computers to state-sponsors of terrorism Libya and Syria. He and two brothers were convicted, separately, of knowingly conducting business with Mousa Abu Marzook, a senior Hamas leader. Elashi was convicted on twenty-one counts, including conspiracy, money laundering, and dealing in the property of a designated terrorist. He was also charged with providing $12 million to Hamas while he was running the Holy Land Foundation, the US's largest Islamic charity

Bassem Khafagi, CAIR's former community relations director, pleaded guilty to lying on his visa application and passing bad checks, resulting in his deportation.

Rabih Haddad, a CAIR fundraiser, was arrested on terrorism-related charges and deported due to his work as executive director of the Global Relief Foundation, a charity he cofounded which was designated by the U.S. Treasury Department as financing Al-Qaeda.

Siraj Wahhaj, a CAIR advisory board member, was named in 1995 by U.S. attorney Mary Jo White as a possible unindicted coconspirator in the plot to blow up New York City landmarks led by the blind sheikh, Omar Abdul Rahman.

Wise up.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Terrorism is the targeting of innocent civilians. Over time this term has become more political and less descriptive. Typically both side of a conflict call the other side terrorists. The term has been rendered meaningless.

There still is real terrorism though. The question becomes who is a legitimate target and who is an innocent civilian? Foreign troops are always legitimate targets. Babies and children are always illegitimate targets. Then we get into grey areas.

George Bush was the civilian Commander in Chief of the military. When that Iraqi journalist threw his shoes at Bush, would Bush be considered a civilian or a legitimate target? If Bush was considered a legitimate target then it would be a legitimate action for the journalist to use a gun. But, what if the journalist targeted Bush with a grenade knowing that many civilians could be killed. Would that still be a legitimate action?

What about civilian contractors, like Blackwater, working for the occupation? Legitimate targets or no? What about civilian militants or militias defending Iraq? What about the Iraqi government and military that many Iraqis consider an arm of the occupation?

In the Israel/Palestine conflict things get more confusing. Palestine has no military. All the people defending Palestine are civilian militants or civilian militias. On the Israeli side, most Israelis are or have been in the military. Many remain armed after their service is concluded. They could be considered civilian militants or civilian militias. Also, Israeli settlers physically occupy the land which is a necessity for the occupation to survive. This makes them an active part of the military occupation.

The military is obviously a legitimate target but what about the militants and militias?
Legitimate targets or no?

 

[Marc39]

Terrorism is the targeting of innocent civilians. Over time this term has become more political and less descriptive. Typically both side of a conflict call the other side terrorists. The term has been rendered meaningless.

There still is real terrorism though. The question becomes who is a legitimate target and who is an innocent civilian? Foreign troops are always legitimate targets. Babies and children are always illegitimate targets. Then we get into grey areas.

George Bush was the civilian Commander in Chief of the military. When that Iraqi journalist threw his shoes at Bush, would Bush be considered a civilian or a legitimate target? If Bush was considered a legitimate target then it would be a legitimate action for the journalist to use a gun. But, what if the journalist targeted Bush with a grenade knowing that many civilians could be killed. Would that still be a legitimate action?

What about civilian contractors, like Blackwater, working for the occupation? Legitimate targets or no? What about civilian militants or militias defending Iraq? What about the Iraqi government and military that many Iraqis consider an arm of the occupation?

In the Israel/Palestine conflict things get more confusing. Palestine has no military. All the people defending Palestine are civilian militants or civilian militias. On the Israeli side, most Israelis are or have been in the military. Many remain armed after their service is concluded. They could be considered civilian militants or civilian militias. Also, Israeli settlers physically occupy the land which is a necessity for the occupation to survive. This makes them an active part of the military occupation.

The military is obviously a legitimate target but what about the militants and militias?
Legitimate targets or no?

The meanderings of a mental midget.
You're the Forum Dunce.

 

[QUENTIN]

Terrorism is the targeting of innocent civilians. Over time this term has become more political and less descriptive. Typically both side of a conflict call the other side terrorists. The term has been rendered meaningless.

There still is real terrorism though. The question becomes who is a legitimate target and who is an innocent civilian? Foreign troops are always legitimate targets. Babies and children are always illegitimate targets. Then we get into grey areas.

George Bush was the civilian Commander in Chief of the military. When that Iraqi journalist threw his shoes at Bush, would Bush be considered a civilian or a legitimate target? If Bush was considered a legitimate target then it would be a legitimate action for the journalist to use a gun. But, what if the journalist targeted Bush with a grenade knowing that many civilians could be killed. Would that still be a legitimate action?

What about civilian contractors, like Blackwater, working for the occupation? Legitimate targets or no? What about civilian militants or militias defending Iraq? What about the Iraqi government and military that many Iraqis consider an arm of the occupation?

In the Israel/Palestine conflict things get more confusing. Palestine has no military. All the people defending Palestine are civilian militants or civilian militias. On the Israeli side, most Israelis are or have been in the military. Many remain armed after their service is concluded. They could be considered civilian militants or civilian militias. Also, Israeli settlers physically occupy the land which is a necessity for the occupation to survive. This makes them an active part of the military occupation.

The military is obviously a legitimate target but what about the militants and militias?
Legitimate targets or no?

The meanderings of a mental midget.
You're the Forum Dunce.

Nah, it's called consistency.

Applying the same standards and judging based on what actions are taken, rather than determining rightness or wrongness based on who is doing them.

It's the only way to be intellectually honest and avoid being a hypocrite.

C-o-n-s-i-s-t-e-n-c-y.

You should try it some tome.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I see you thanked the post about CAIR. USMB has a whole, whole lot of racists who start these kind of threads rhetorically, merely in the effort to point out how subhuman those sand-******* are and dealing with them has led me to be somewhat defensive in my interactions on the subject.

If you truly started it in earnest looking for important Muslims and Muslim organizations that have condemned terrorism, then cool. I'm always happier to have a discussion than an argument.

CAIR is certainly not an advocate for the abolition of terrorism. CAIR is affiliated with the Islamic Association for Palestine which was started by Hamas, a terrorist group.

Muslims oppose terrorism. They just have a different list of terrorists.

 

[Marc39]

I see you thanked the post about CAIR. USMB has a whole, whole lot of racists who start these kind of threads rhetorically, merely in the effort to point out how subhuman those sand-******* are and dealing with them has led me to be somewhat defensive in my interactions on the subject.

If you truly started it in earnest looking for important Muslims and Muslim organizations that have condemned terrorism, then cool. I'm always happier to have a discussion than an argument.

CAIR is certainly not an advocate for the abolition of terrorism. CAIR is affiliated with the Islamic Association for Palestine which was started by Hamas, a terrorist group.

Muslims oppose terrorism. They just have a different list of terrorists.

Except, you're a mental midget clueless about Islam.
A Muslim not obeying Quranic doctrine ordering jihad against all non-Muslims is not a true Muslim.

 

[Kalam]

Terrorism is the targeting of innocent civilians. Over time this term has become more political and less descriptive. Typically both side of a conflict call the other side terrorists. The term has been rendered meaningless.

There still is real terrorism though. The question becomes who is a legitimate target and who is an innocent civilian? Foreign troops are always legitimate targets. Babies and children are always illegitimate targets. Then we get into grey areas.

George Bush was the civilian Commander in Chief of the military. When that Iraqi journalist threw his shoes at Bush, would Bush be considered a civilian or a legitimate target? If Bush was considered a legitimate target then it would be a legitimate action for the journalist to use a gun. But, what if the journalist targeted Bush with a grenade knowing that many civilians could be killed. Would that still be a legitimate action?

What about civilian contractors, like Blackwater, working for the occupation? Legitimate targets or no? What about civilian militants or militias defending Iraq? What about the Iraqi government and military that many Iraqis consider an arm of the occupation?

In the Israel/Palestine conflict things get more confusing. Palestine has no military. All the people defending Palestine are civilian militants or civilian militias. On the Israeli side, most Israelis are or have been in the military. Many remain armed after their service is concluded. They could be considered civilian militants or civilian militias. Also, Israeli settlers physically occupy the land which is a necessity for the occupation to survive. This makes them an active part of the military occupation.

The military is obviously a legitimate target but what about the militants and militias?
Legitimate targets or no?

The meanderings of a mental midget.
You're the Forum Dunce.

Nah, it's called consistency.

Applying the same standards and judging based on what actions are taken, rather than determining rightness or wrongness based on who is doing them.

It's the only way to be intellectually honest and avoid being a hypocrite.

C-o-n-s-i-s-t-e-n-c-y.

You should try it some tome.

"Consistency" is anti-Semitic.

 

[Marc39]

The meanderings of a mental midget.
You're the Forum Dunce.

Nah, it's called consistency.

Applying the same standards and judging based on what actions are taken, rather than determining rightness or wrongness based on who is doing them.

It's the only way to be intellectually honest and avoid being a hypocrite.

C-o-n-s-i-s-t-e-n-c-y.

You should try it some tome.

"Consistency" is anti-Semitic.

Islam is anti-Semitic...
Qur'an 33:26...

Allah made the Jews leave their homes by terrorizing them so that you killed some and made many captive. And He made you inherit their lands, their homes, and their wealth. He gave you a country you had not traversed before

Muhammad was a sociopath.
Allah is a loser.

 

[Kalam]

Nah, it's called consistency.

Applying the same standards and judging based on what actions are taken, rather than determining rightness or wrongness based on who is doing them.

It's the only way to be intellectually honest and avoid being a hypocrite.

C-o-n-s-i-s-t-e-n-c-y.

You should try it some tome.

"Consistency" is anti-Semitic.

Islam is anti-Semitic...
Qur'an 33:26...

Allah made the Jews leave their homes by terrorizing them so that you killed some and made many captive. And He made you inherit their lands, their homes, and their wealth. He gave you a country you had not traversed before

Muhammad was a sociopath.
Allah is a loser.

Reality is anti-Semitic. Making up Qur'anic passages is kosher.

 

[Marc39]

"Consistency" is anti-Semitic.

Islam is anti-Semitic...
Qur'an 33:26...

Allah made the Jews leave their homes by terrorizing them so that you killed some and made many captive. And He made you inherit their lands, their homes, and their wealth. He gave you a country you had not traversed before

Muhammad was a sociopath.
Allah is a loser.

Reality is anti-Semitic.

Reality is Islam is a scam.
Muhammad was a pedophile.

 

[Marc39]

"Consistency" is anti-Semitic.

Islam is anti-Semitic...
Qur'an 33:26...

Allah made the Jews leave their homes by terrorizing them so that you killed some and made many captive. And He made you inherit their lands, their homes, and their wealth. He gave you a country you had not traversed before

Muhammad was a sociopath.
Allah is a loser.

Reality is anti-Semitic. Making up Qur'anic passages is kosher.

Quoting from the Quran and Hadith and Islamic scholars is kosher.

 

[Kalam]

Actual quotes are anti-Semitic; they have to be altered to be considered kosher. Honesty is anti-Semitic.

 

[Marc39]

Actual quotes are anti-Semitic; they have to be altered to be considered kosher. Honesty is anti-Semitic.

Dishonesty is halal...

Bukhari:V7B67N427

The Prophet said, 'If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath.

Qur'an 9:3

Allah and His Messenger dissolve obligations.

Islam is a lie. Muhammad invented Allah to screw women, including children, steal from caravans and get the booty, and, get the jizya.

Muslims are suckers.