Muslim extremists recruiting from UK jails

[GabonX]

I consider this kind of thing to be the primary danger presented by integrating terrorists into the US prison system..

LONDON (AP) - Two of Britain's most high-profile Muslim extremists have been given free rein to recruit fellow inmates in prison and are spreading propaganda from behind bars, a think-tank founded by two former Islamic radicals said Monday.

London-based Quilliam Foundation said in a report that Muslim cleric Abu Qatada—once described as Osama bin Laden's ambassador in Europe—managed to smuggle out extremist propaganda from prison with the help of visitors, who then spread his message on the Internet.

It said that another radical preacher, Abu Hamza al-Masri—the one-eyed, hook-handed cleric whose extradition is being sought by the United States—was able to hold sermons through the pipes that link cells. It said another inmate used his allotted phone calls to speak to an Islamic TV station.

Britain holds convicted terrorists in several high-security prisons, including the notorious Belmarsh prison in London. A Ministry of Justice spokeswoman said the conditions under which they are held depend on individual cases.

In a statement reacting to the report, the ministry said British prisons are "extremely skilled in managing all challenging and dangerous criminals."

James Brandon, the report's author, said the government needs to create a specialized de-radicalization center which can "de-program" extremists—a practice that has seen some success in Egypt and Yemen.

"We need to take leading extremists out of the mainstream prison population and to make sure they don't radicalize other people," he said.

Quilliam bills itself as a think tank dedicated to stamping out extremism. It was founded by Maajid Nawaz and Ed Husain, two activists in the Islamist party Hizb ut-Tahrir who left the group and renounced radical Islam.

The report said most prison staff lack the training to recognize or tackle Islamist extremists—sometimes treating them as representatives of all Muslim prisoners and even allowing them to lead Friday prayers.

The report is based largely on the testimony of prisoners, smuggled out by their supporters. It said there are now around 100 Muslims held in British prisons on charges relating to Islamist terrorism, but provided no statistics on how many people have converted to Islam while in prison. The Ministry of Justice said such information is not collected.

Maha Azzam, a specialist in political Islam at Chatham House, said the report's claims may be exaggerated and could spark further distrust of the U.K.'s Muslim community.

"What's clearly happening is that there is anger within prisons and Muslims feel they are picked on—this is also happening outside prisons. But will they go on to be terrorists? I don't really think so," Azzam said.

"The number of those who later go on to become terrorists is very difficult to quantify," she said.

The Ministry of Justice said Quilliam did not apply to visit any prisons or speak to prison staff.

"We run a dedicated, expert unit which leads work to tackle the risk of extremism and radicalization in prison," the statement said. "Staff are supported with the information and training they need to deal with these individuals."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

[BigBallinStalin]

The report said most prison staff lack the training to recognize or tackle Islamist extremists—sometimes treating them as representatives of all Muslim prisoners and even allowing them to lead Friday prayers.

The report is based largely on the testimony of prisoners, smuggled out by their supporters. It said there are now around 100 Muslims held in British prisons on charges relating to Islamist terrorism, but provided no statistics on how many people have converted to Islam while in prison. The Ministry of Justice said such information is not collected.


"The number of those who later go on to become terrorists is very difficult to quantify," she said

This reminds me of Al-Qaeda's message being breadily available on the internet. All the propaganda you can imagine that advocates taking up arms against the west is there; all one has to do is google it. It's already out there, and I don't think this will corrupt many people--it'll most likely just encourage the ones that are already interesting in joining (just like the ones in that prison).

If you're really concerned about the spread of terrorism directed at the West and particularly the United States, then US foreign policy needs to be completely changed.

[GabonX]

If you're really concerned about the spread of terrorism directed at the West and particularly the United States, then US foreign policy needs to be completely changed.

This position is based on a rather dangerous assumption that terrorism is the result of US policy as opposed to a radical Islamic ideology which is much more deeply rooted..

[BigBallinStalin]

If you're really concerned about the spread of terrorism directed at the West and particularly the United States, then US foreign policy needs to be completely changed.

This position is based on a rather dangerous assumption that terrorism is the result of US policy as opposed to a radical Islamic ideology which is much more deeply rooted..

If you read the words of Osama bin Laden and if you read what the these terrorists have read, a lot of it casts the blame on the United State's past actions. Much anti-American comes from what we do to other countries and have been doing; to ignore that fact and say that terrorism is the result of just terrorism itself, is a bit ridiculous.

Why has Islamic theology become so radicalized? Most of it is the direct reaction to foreign intervention, occupation, etc. Middle Eastern history can explain that one, and the history of US-Middle East relations can also explain why.

[GabonX]

I'm aware that bin Laden tried to justify his actions partially due to the policy of the US. With that said, Islamic aggression is much older than bin Laden, or even the United States. Islam was spread by the sword from the very beginning under the direction of Mohamad himself. For centuries there were attempts to spread Islam to Europe by force. Even today there are talks in radical circles of a long term effort to reestablish the caliphate and instate world wide Sharia law. I don't think that these things will happen, but the people who want these things are dangerous regardless of whether or not they are successful.

Even if the modern incarnation of radical Islam is the result of US policy, to assume that the people who have devoted their lives to terror are going to stop if we lay down our arms is naive.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm aware that bin Laden tried to justify his actions partially due to the policy of the US. With that said, Islamic aggression is much older than bin Laden, or even the United States. Islam was spread by the sword from the very beginning under the direction of Mohamad himself. For centuries there were attempts to spread Islam to Europe by force. Even today there are talks in radical circles of a long term effort to reestablish the caliphate and instate world wide Sharia law. I don't think that these things will happen, but the people who want these things are dangerous regardless of whether or not they are successful.

And Christian aggression is much older than Islamic aggression, and for centuries Christianity was also spread by force, but none of this really addresses the issue at hand.

Even if the modern incarnation of radical Islam is the result of US policy..., to assume that the people who have devoted their lives to terror are going to stop if we lay down our arms is naive.

I agree only about the part I put in bold. However, by drastically reducing our intervention in the Middle East, we will spare ourselves of much of their hatred and thereby reduce ourselves as a reasonable target. This would decrease anti-American sentiment and hate not only from the radicals but also from the rest of the world; thereby, decreasing the credibility of the justificiations that terrorists use in order to drum up financial support and recruitments. Also this would also make popular the favorable view that America is actually a peaceful country interesting in promoting liberty and democracy for all nations. This would bring about much more pro-American environment in the Middle East in which the extremists who still hate American would be further ostracized and discouraged because their views would be considered ridiculous.

Even if the modern incarnation of radical Islam is the result of US policy...,

Do you or do you not agree that the consequences of our reinstating the shah back into Iran in 1953 as well as our past and current military, economic, and political support for oppressive dictatorships and kingdoms like Egypt and Saudi Arabia (as well as many others) contribute to an increase in terrorism and/or to the radicalization of this modern version of Islam to which the terrorists are labelled under?

[GabonX]

Parallels can be drawn between Islam and Christianity, but the differences in both history and thought are profound. Aggression and violence are contrary to the teachings of Christianity (despite what people have done in the name of Christ) while they are supported in many cases by the teachings of Islam. Christ was a pacifist in life, Mohammad was a conqueror and their are fundamental differences in Christianity and Islam which reflect this.

Reducing our intervention in the Middle East can be a good thing only so long as people are not actively plotting against us there. If the Middle East continues to be used as a planning ground for attacks against the US as it has been in the past, we would be better off identifying threats and terminating the problems prior to the culmination of an attack.
Admittedly both the Iraq and Afghan wars have been poorly managed. The United States should invest in increasing intelligence capabilities so that we can identify threats and eliminate them with precision strikes when opportunities arise. Interestingly enough, Clinton had the opportunity to capture or kill bin Laden but did not have the fortitude to carry out such an action.

I don't think it was the reinstating of the shah which was problematic. Rather Carter's lack of decisive action in the 70's to preserve the authority of the Shah has led to the current predicament. I think that the claim that the United States is responsible for the actions of terrorists because we have had dealings with a given government at a certain time is misguided as well. This may not be a universal truth, but it is certainly the case with Nasser. Also, bin Laden's assertion that Americans deserve to be killed in their home because the United States positioned troops on the Arabian peninsula durring the Gulf War (with the consent of the Government of Saudi Arabia nonetheless) is absurd.

[xelabale]

Parallels can be drawn between Islam and Christianity, but the differences in both history and thought are profound. Aggression and violence are contrary to the teachings of Christianity (despite what people have done in the name of Christ) while they are supported in many cases by the teachings of Islam. Christ was a pacifist in life, Mohammad was a conqueror and their are fundamental differences in Christianity and Islam which reflect this.

Reducing our intervention in the Middle East can be a good thing only so long as people are not actively plotting against us there. If the Middle East continues to be used as a planning ground for attacks against the US as it has been in the past, we would be better off identifying threats and terminating the problems prior to the culmination of an attack.
Admittedly both the Iraq and Afghan wars have been poorly managed. The United States should invest in increasing intelligence capabilities so that we can identify threats and eliminate them with precision strikes when opportunities arise. Interestingly enough, Clinton had the opportunity to capture or kill bin Laden but did not have the fortitude to carry out such an action.

I don't think it was the reinstating of the shah which was problematic. Rather Carter's lack of decisive action in the 70's to preserve the authority of the Shah has led to the current predicament. I think that the claim that the United States is responsible for the actions of terrorists because we have had dealings with a given government at a certain time is misguided as well. This may not be a universal truth, but it is certainly the case with Nasser. Also, bin Laden's assertion that Americans deserve to be killed in their home because the United States positioned troops on the Arabian peninsula durring the Gulf War (with the consent of the Government of Saudi Arabia nonetheless) is absurd.

You are misguided.Christianity is peaceful in principle and sometimes violent in practice (crusades anyone?). Islam is peaceful in principle and sometimes violent in practice. Go figure, messages get misinterpreted on all sides, sometimes (shock) willfully. Don't hate the religion, hate the people perverting it. Please examine the Pillars of Islam for violent intent and report back to me.

Why do you continue to believe that meddling in other countries helps the US and is morally acceptable? No other "civilised" country does this unilaterally. There is good grounds for moving the USA into the "uncivilised" category along with the countries you believe you are better than.

[waseemalim]

I'm aware that bin Laden tried to justify his actions partially due to the policy of the US. With that said, Islamic aggression is much older than bin Laden, or even the United States. Islam was spread by the sword from the very beginning under the direction of Mohamad himself. For centuries there were attempts to spread Islam to Europe by force. Even today there are talks in radical circles of a long term effort to reestablish the caliphate and instate world wide Sharia law. I don't think that these things will happen, but the people who want these things are dangerous regardless of whether or not they are successful.

Even if the modern incarnation of radical Islam is the result of US policy, to assume that the people who have devoted their lives to terror are going to stop if we lay down our arms is naive.

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." Matthew 26:52

"When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are about to enter and occupy, he will clear away many nations ahead of you: the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. These seven nations are all more powerful than you. When the LORD your God hands these nations over to you and you conquer them, you must completely destroy them. Make no treaties with them and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them, and don't let your daughters and sons marry their sons and daughters. They will lead your young people away from me to worship other gods. Then the anger of the LORD will burn against you, and he will destroy you." (Deuteronomy 7:1-4 NLT)

These are not quotes from the Quran, but from the Bible. Almost every religion is violent if you are looking for justification of violence.

And the talks about Shariah and Caliphate, how are they any different from the Bush Doctrine? The Bush Doctrine sought justification of force by convincing people that it was necessary to maintain global peace. The Shahriah doctrine stems from the belief that peace can only exist when an Islamic legal structure and an empire is in place.

Both of these are really ploys for the people who use them to gather more power. The difference being one of them is wielded by a State, and another by non-state actors. So the question is: why are killings by the state more justified that killings by non-state actors? The Bush doctrine was sold on the basis of 9/11. The Shahriah doctrine is being sold because of continuous US presence in the Middle East, and the impression that the Middle East is being exploited.

The power dynamics of the world are pretty complex, and an avid risk player such as yourself should recognize that it really is a long damn game of risk out there. Wake up, its a dangerous world with dangerous people and you just have to live with it.

[BigBallinStalin]

Parallels can be drawn between Islam and Christianity, but the differences in both history and thought are profound. Aggression and violence are contrary to the teachings of Christianity (despite what people have done in the name of Christ) while they are supported in many cases by the teachings of Islam. Christ was a pacifist in life, Mohammad was a conqueror and their are fundamental differences in Christianity and Islam which reflect this.

As I've said before in one of your other threads, when you label a certain religion as peaceful or not you are ignoring the factor of the certain group's use of the religion for their own means. (This is also becoming off-topic). [Edit: thank you, xelabale]

Reducing our intervention in the Middle East can be a good thing only so long as people are not actively plotting against us there. If the Middle East continues to be used as a planning ground for attacks against the US as it has been in the past, we would be better off identifying threats and terminating the problems prior to the culmination of an attack.
Admittedly both the Iraq and Afghan wars have been poorly managed. The United States should invest in increasing intelligence capabilities so that we can identify threats and eliminate them with precision strikes when opportunities arise. Interestingly enough, Clinton had the opportunity to capture or kill bin Laden but did not have the fortitude to carry out such an action.

There will always be people actively plotting against us in the Middle East and even in Europe, but that does not justify such blunt military, economic, and political intervention in the Middle East.

An increase in intelligence capabilities is a great idea, but it isn't a good solution for significantly decrease the source of terrorism directed against the United States. Also, eliminating the opposition with precision strikes isn't a sure-fire way of solving this problem. Remember the CIA's unsuccessful cruise missile assassination attempt on Osama bin Laden at Al-Qaeda compound in Afghanistan around the late 90s? Didn't work.

Such assassination attempts like the ones in Pakistan only harden the hatred towards us. That also great contributes in destablizing Pakistan, which never had such an extreme problem of terrorist attacks before 2002, maybe even 2003.

Don't you see how America brashly acts as a destablizing force and significantly contributes to so many problems? Do you not understand how such consequences of our foreign policy are viewed very negatively and are highly destructive? These negative views create a environment that becomes dangerously anti-American and creates a great breeding ground for terrorists.

I don't think it was the reinstating of the shah which was problematic. Rather Carter's lack of decisive action in the 70's to preserve the authority of the Shah has led to the current predicament.

How can the undermining of democratic movement in 1953 by the United States not contribute to anti-American sentiment? The shah is by no means a good man nor was his rule to his people good. By supporting such despots, we make a lot of enemies and deservedly so.

Hey, had we not even intervened in the first place, there would most likely have been a more democratic and less oppressive government in place. Either way, regardless of what that government may have become, their people wouldn't still be feeling that hate they felt when we crushed their democratic movement.

I think that the claim that the United States is responsible for the actions of terrorists because we have had dealings with a given government at a certain time is misguided as well. This may not be a universal truth, but it is certainly the case with Nasser.

You obviously don't understand the consequences of our actions and the reactions of many in those countries when we bolster the undemocratic regimes that suppress their own people. Are you truly ignoring the consequences of our providing the means necessary for a country like Saudi Arabia to further oppress and maintain its power over its people? Those people will see us supporting the very despots that suppress them. This brings about an intense amount of anti-American sentiment. The same can be seen to a more or less degree in the other Gulf States and in varying degrees in other Middle Eastern countries.

Also, bin Laden's assertion that Americans deserve to be killed in their home because the United States positioned troops on the Arabian peninsula durring the Gulf War (with the consent of the Government of Saudi Arabia nonetheless) is absurd.

(With the consent of a government that does not represent its people). Never mind the king; his actions in no way represent the views of his own people.

It is absurd to justify killing American civilians in their homes for that reason you mentioned, but it seems to me that you simply don't understand the consequences of placing a foreign military with a bad reputation for destabilizing whole regions next to a religion's most holy of cities. Granted the military has been moved, but still not too many people like a foreign military force within their country influencing the politics of their neighbors or even their own country.

Furthermore, that Gulf War is another good reason why our foreign policy is highly destructive, breeds anti-American sentiment, and encourages terrorism. Did you not forget the decade of harsh economic sanctions placed on Iraq afterwards? It in no way toppled Saddam Hussein, but only made the people more reliant upon his aid. Those economic sanctions indirectly and the later bombing sprees by Yours Truly the United States directly killed a lot of civilians by restricting access to basic needs and by further destroying their infrastructure, which was just about completely demolished after that war. Surely, there was a diplomatic solution to such a problem that could have been negotiating among its Arab neighbors had it been given more time. But, time and time again, our foreign policy got us in tons of problems and has cast much more anti-American sentiment towards us.

The Arabs (hah, even the world except for many Americans) have a long, long memory.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Bottomline (literally ), you have yet to provide anything credible that supports the notion that our current and past foreign policy in the Middle East is a good way to deal with terrorism.

[GabonX]

Parallels can be drawn between Islam and Christianity, but the differences in both history and thought are profound. Aggression and violence are contrary to the teachings of Christianity (despite what people have done in the name of Christ) while they are supported in many cases by the teachings of Islam. Christ was a pacifist in life, Mohammad was a conqueror and their are fundamental differences in Christianity and Islam which reflect this.

Reducing our intervention in the Middle East can be a good thing only so long as people are not actively plotting against us there. If the Middle East continues to be used as a planning ground for attacks against the US as it has been in the past, we would be better off identifying threats and terminating the problems prior to the culmination of an attack.
Admittedly both the Iraq and Afghan wars have been poorly managed. The United States should invest in increasing intelligence capabilities so that we can identify threats and eliminate them with precision strikes when opportunities arise. Interestingly enough, Clinton had the opportunity to capture or kill bin Laden but did not have the fortitude to carry out such an action.

I don't think it was the reinstating of the shah which was problematic. Rather Carter's lack of decisive action in the 70's to preserve the authority of the Shah has led to the current predicament. I think that the claim that the United States is responsible for the actions of terrorists because we have had dealings with a given government at a certain time is misguided as well. This may not be a universal truth, but it is certainly the case with Nasser. Also, bin Laden's assertion that Americans deserve to be killed in their home because the United States positioned troops on the Arabian peninsula durring the Gulf War (with the consent of the Government of Saudi Arabia nonetheless) is absurd.

You are misguided.Christianity is peaceful in principle and sometimes violent in practice (crusades anyone?). Islam is peaceful in principle and sometimes violent in practice. Go figure, messages get misinterpreted on all sides, sometimes (shock) willfully. Don't hate the religion, hate the people perverting it. Please examine the Pillars of Islam for violent intent and report back to me.

Why do you continue to believe that meddling in other countries helps the US and is morally acceptable? No other "civilised" country does this unilaterally. There is good grounds for moving the USA into the "uncivilised" category along with the countries you believe you are better than.

It's been a while since I looked at them so I did have to look them up again.

The first pillar of Islam, the Shahada, states that "There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his Prophet", so in order to determine whether or not the 5 pillars are peaceful in nature, we would need to take a detailed look at the life and teachings of the prophet Mohammad...

The Islamic principles of Jihad, Jizya and other concepts of Sharia Law, as well as the elements of the life story of Mohammad cast doubt on the claim that Islam is a religion of peace.

Frankly the texts are irrelevant as it is the actions of modern Muslims which matter. Some Muslims are violent while most are not, but those who are can (and do) find support for their actions in the teachings of Muhammad.

[GabonX]

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." Matthew 26:52

"When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are about to enter and occupy, he will clear away many nations ahead of you: the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. These seven nations are all more powerful than you. When the LORD your God hands these nations over to you and you conquer them, you must completely destroy them. Make no treaties with them and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them, and don't let your daughters and sons marry their sons and daughters. They will lead your young people away from me to worship other gods. Then the anger of the LORD will burn against you, and he will destroy you." (Deuteronomy 7:1-4 NLT)

These are not quotes from the Quran, but from the Bible. Almost every religion is violent if you are looking for justification of violence.

You may have a point with the first quote. The second one is irrelevant in regards to talks about Christianity as it is from the Old Testament.

The amount of passages which resemble violence in Christian texts don't really compare in quantity or clarity to their Islamic counter parts. The full passage of the sword quote makes it unclear whether the it was referring to a literal or metaphorical object.

The most telling difference however is that while Christ advocated pacifism (turn the other cheek etc.) to the extent that he allowed his own execution, Mohammad was a conqueror who preached armed conflict to spread his faith.

And the talks about Shariah and Caliphate, how are they any different from the Bush Doctrine? The Bush Doctrine sought justification of force by convincing people that it was necessary to maintain global peace. The Shahriah doctrine stems from the belief that peace can only exist when an Islamic legal structure and an empire is in place.

Both of these are really ploys for the people who use them to gather more power. The difference being one of them is wielded by a State, and another by non-state actors. So the question is: why are killings by the state more justified that killings by non-state actors? The Bush doctrine was sold on the basis of 9/11. The Shahriah doctrine is being sold because of continuous US presence in the Middle East, and the impression that the Middle East is being exploited.

I'm not sure that comparing Shariah law to the Bush Doctrine is really applicable as the Bush doctrine was instituted as a result of aggression against the United States, it is not religious in nature, and the Bush Doctrine was only relevant for a very brief time while radical Islam has existed for more than 1,000 years.
Bush was not exactly our most peaceful President, so I'm not sure that comparing Islam and Bush will create the image of a peaceful religion...

The power dynamics of the world are pretty complex, and an avid risk player such as yourself should recognize that it really is a long damn game of risk out there. Wake up, its a dangerous world with dangerous people and you just have to live with it.

I think you're right about this. Recognizing who these people are and what they believe is key.

[waseemalim]

You may have a point with the first quote. The second one is irrelevant in regards to talks about Christianity as it is from the Old Testament.

The amount of passages which resemble violence in Christian texts don't really compare in quantity or clarity to their Islamic counter parts. The full passage of the sword quote makes it unclear whether the it was referring to a literal or metaphorical object.

The most telling difference however is that while Christ advocated pacifism (turn the other cheek etc.) to the extent that he allowed his own execution, Mohammad was a conqueror who preached armed conflict to spread his faith.

See we can not make reasonable guesses as to the quantity of violence in text. But I suggest you try -- for every quote that you can show me from the quran, I could find one from the Bible, and one from the vedas (hindu text).

More often than not, religion is just a pretext. And my point with the Bush doctrine was that it also used a pretext. People need to find moral high grounds to support their thirst for power, and whether it comes as jihad, crusade, white man's burden, communism or bush doctrine, is only a function of time and place.

[GabonX]

It sounds to me as though you don't think any of these religions are peaceful. You can make a strong case for this based on actions which have been carried out in the name of this religion or that one.

With that said, a person who looks to Christ and tries to emulate him will arrive at a fundamentally different conclusion on how to do this than someone who tries to emulate the Prophet Mohammad. Christ was a pacifist while Mohammad was a conqueror.

Once again, this is all irrelevant, as it is the actions of people who are alive today which affect us. This is true regardless of what the teachings may have actually been.

[xelabale]

It sounds to me as though you don't think any of these religions are peaceful. You can make a strong case for this based on actions which have been carried out in the name of this religion or that one.

With that said, a person who looks to Christ and tries to emulate him will arrive at a fundamentally different conclusion on how to do this than someone who tries to emulate the Prophet Mohammad. Christ was a pacifist while Mohammad was a conqueror.

Once again, this is all irrelevant, as it is the actions of people who are alive today which affect us. This is true regardless of what the teachings may have actually been.

True - therefore we can say that whether you do something reprehensible under the banner of Islam, Christianity, democracy, or anything else, it is still wrong and reprehensible.
Further we can say that it is not the banner it is done under that is wrong, rather the action itself.
It therefore follows that we should ignore the banner and focus on the individuals and organisations involved.
It also follows that we should leave out the banner and focus on the action.
Thus "terrorist" is enough. Adding "Islamist" in front of it is provocative, misleading and in itself a reprehensible act. By acknowledging the banner you legitimise the action.

[Snorri1234]

With that said, a person who looks to Christ and tries to emulate him will arrive at a fundamentally different conclusion on how to do this than someone who tries to emulate the Prophet Mohammad. Christ was a pacifist while Mohammad was a conqueror.

Sure but why would anyone want to emulate teh Prophet Mohammad?

[GabonX]

It sounds to me as though you don't think any of these religions are peaceful. You can make a strong case for this based on actions which have been carried out in the name of this religion or that one.

With that said, a person who looks to Christ and tries to emulate him will arrive at a fundamentally different conclusion on how to do this than someone who tries to emulate the Prophet Mohammad. Christ was a pacifist while Mohammad was a conqueror.

Once again, this is all irrelevant, as it is the actions of people who are alive today which affect us. This is true regardless of what the teachings may have actually been.

True - therefore we can say that whether you do something reprehensible under the banner of Islam, Christianity, democracy, or anything else, it is still wrong and reprehensible.
Further we can say that it is not the banner it is done under that is wrong, rather the action itself.
It therefore follows that we should ignore the banner and focus on the individuals and organisations involved.
It also follows that we should leave out the banner and focus on the action.
Thus "terrorist" is enough. Adding "Islamist" in front of it is provocative, misleading and in itself a reprehensible act. By acknowledging the banner you legitimise the action.

It's a touchy subject undoubtedly. Ultimately you're right that the conclusions people will arrive at will vary from person to person. I don't have a problem with Muslims who truly want to live peacefully with their neighbors.

With that said, I find it difficult to ignore that there are a great many people in this world who commit heinous acts in the name of Islam by their own declaration. There are a number of Islamic principles outlined in the Koran, the Hadith and the Sunnah which seemingly support radical claims. I think it would be foolish to not acknowledge that there is a connection, but at the same time, you are right in stating that it would be a heinous act to categorize all Muslims as adhering to this mind set. This does not mean that the mind set does not exist, and it does not mean that it is not a manifestation of Islam...

In my view, there is a very real divide in the Islamic world with many Muslims who seem to be rational people, but a disproportionately high number who are not. If you are one of the rational Muslims I would like to see people who have an ideological stance similar to yours win out, but I am under no illusion that this is a guaranteed outcome.

With that said, a person who looks to Christ and tries to emulate him will arrive at a fundamentally different conclusion on how to do this than someone who tries to emulate the Prophet Mohammad. Christ was a pacifist while Mohammad was a conqueror.

Sure but why would anyone want to emulate teh Prophet Mohammad?

Faith, or I suppose in the case of Islam, submission to God.

[Snorri1234]

With that said, a person who looks to Christ and tries to emulate him will arrive at a fundamentally different conclusion on how to do this than someone who tries to emulate the Prophet Mohammad. Christ was a pacifist while Mohammad was a conqueror.

Sure but why would anyone want to emulate teh Prophet Mohammad?

Faith, or I suppose in the case of Islam, submission to God.

No I mean that trying to emulate Mohammad is neither required nor encouraged by the Islam. You don't have to be like him or do what he did. The concept is simply not a part of islam.


Don't forget that Mohammad was a prophet, not the son of God.

[xelabale]

It sounds to me as though you don't think any of these religions are peaceful. You can make a strong case for this based on actions which have been carried out in the name of this religion or that one.

With that said, a person who looks to Christ and tries to emulate him will arrive at a fundamentally different conclusion on how to do this than someone who tries to emulate the Prophet Mohammad. Christ was a pacifist while Mohammad was a conqueror.

Once again, this is all irrelevant, as it is the actions of people who are alive today which affect us. This is true regardless of what the teachings may have actually been.

True - therefore we can say that whether you do something reprehensible under the banner of Islam, Christianity, democracy, or anything else, it is still wrong and reprehensible.
Further we can say that it is not the banner it is done under that is wrong, rather the action itself.
It therefore follows that we should ignore the banner and focus on the individuals and organisations involved.
It also follows that we should leave out the banner and focus on the action.
Thus "terrorist" is enough. Adding "Islamist" in front of it is provocative, misleading and in itself a reprehensible act. By acknowledging the banner you legitimise the action.

It's a touchy subject undoubtedly. Ultimately you're right that the conclusions people will arrive at will vary from person to person. I don't have a problem with Muslims who truly want to live peacefully with their neighbors.

With that said, I find it difficult to ignore that there are a great many people in this world who commit heinous acts in the name of Islam by their own declaration. There are a number of Islamic principles outlined in the Koran, the Hadith and the Sunnah which seemingly support radical claims. I think it would be foolish to not acknowledge that there is a connection, but at the same time, you are right in stating that it would be a heinous act to categorize all Muslims as adhering to this mind set. This does not mean that the mind set does not exist, and it does not mean that it is not a manifestation of Islam...

In my view, there is a very real divide in the Islamic world with many Muslims who seem to be rational people, but a disproportionately high number who are not. If you are one of the rational Muslims I would like to see people who have an ideological stance similar to yours win out, but I am under no illusion that this is a guaranteed outcome.

Firstly can I say I am not Muslim but have lived in Islamic countries for over 6 years (Indonesia, Iraq and Turkey). There is NOT an ideological divide in Islam. There ARE extremists, there ARE bad people, but they are hated by Muslims and Christians alike. It is simply not true to say that it is a manifestation of Islam, religion is a channel of power that has gone in the Western world but is still prevalent in the East. When we look at history do we say that Christianity was to blame for Torquemada, or do we put blame at the feet of people who seek power? Thus it is today.

Control, power, greed, ego. These are the evils whether they are expressed through capitalism, religion, communism, atheism or any other medium.