Post Reply
Page 1 of 12  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 12 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Islamists destroy rival holy shrines in Timbuktu, a UN heritage site
2 years ago  ::  Jun 30, 2012 - 6:58PM #1
rocketjsquirell
Posts: 16,603
About that whole Islamaphobia thing . . . some more explanation . . .

Islamists destroy rival holy shrines in Timbuktu, a UN heritage site

Adama Diarra

BAMAKO — Reuters

Al-Qaeda-linked Mali Islamists armed with Kalashnikovs and pick-axes destroyed centuries-old mausoleums of saints in the UNESCO-listed city of Timbuktu on Saturday in front of shocked locals, witnesses said.
. . .
The Islamist Ansar Dine group backs strict Islamic law, and considers the shrines of the local Sufi version of Islam to be idolatrous. Sufi shrines have also been attacked by hardline Salafists in Egypt and Libya in the past year.

The attack came just days after UNESCO placed Timbuktu on its list of heritage sites in danger and will recall the 2001 dynamiting by the Taliban of two 6th-century statues of Buddha carved into a cliff in Bamiyan in central Afghanistan.
. . .
full article:
www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/islam...

It is not a phobia when there is reason to be worried. Are the people who do these things representative of the majority of Muslims? No. But even if they represent 1% of the world's Muslim population (est 2.2 Billion) that is still a whole lot of people (2.2 million).  
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 01, 2012 - 5:18PM #2
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301

The ridicule and low regard these villains display not just for other cultures but also the international community -- it's saddening. A disgrace for our species.


Btw, a little correction in the calculation... 1% of 2.2 billion is 22 million, not 2.2 million...

tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 01, 2012 - 8:29PM #3
TRUECHRISTIAN
Posts: 1,284

There is no such thing as Islamism.  


community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/4... 


Feb 28, 2012 --  2:52PM, Ibn wrote:

As has been said many times, there is only one Islam. There is no such thing or religion called "political Islam" or "religious Islam" or "secular Islam" or Arabian Islam" or "Christian Islam" or Atheist Islam" or even "Neutral Islam".


At best, it is a term used to describe Muslim who are ignorant of Islam.  Otherwise, it is descibing fanatical Muslims.


Feb 27, 2012 -- 10:03PM, Miraj wrote:

"Islamism" is a term intended to be an insult to Muslims.  We don't have to accept it, we don't have to use it.  I educate people about this each time it's used.  If they don't like it, tough.


Ibn Feb 27, 2012 -  3:34AM Post # 743


First the roots of "Islamism" were in "Islam" despite whole of the "Islam" being included in "Islamism".


Now roots of Islamism is only one of the branches of the tree called Islam but its trunk is also called Islam. So far, "Islamism", the branch, has roots in Islam, the trunk of the tree, that has Allah as the roots.


Finally, how can the roots be a branch that is in the trunk when the whole trunk is included in the branch (Islam in Islamism)?


First the roots of "Islamism" were in "Islam" despite whole of the "Islam" being included in "Islamism".


Now roots of Islamism is only one of the branches of the tree called Islam but its trunk is also called Islam. So far, "Islamism", the branch, has roots in Islam, the trunk of the tree, that has Allah as the roots.


Finally, how can the roots be a branch that is in the trunk when the whole trunk is included in the branch (Islam in Islamism)?


First the roots of "Islamism" were in "Islam" despite whole of the "Islam" being included in "Islamism".


Now roots of Islamism is only one of the branches of the tree called Islam but its trunk is also called Islam. So far, "Islamism", the branch, has roots in Islam, the trunk of the tree, that has Allah as the roots.


Finally, how can the roots be a branch that is in the trunk when the whole trunk is included in the branch (Islam in Islamism)?


Miraj is both a moderator in the Disscuss Islam Forum but more importantly she is a scholar


Sep 21, 2011 --  8:50PM, Miraj wrote:


"I happen to be a scholar myself, but this is not about what scholars might say, because they don't define Islam.  Islam defines Islam, and a philosophy that distills Islam and its directives down into something as dark, bitter and destructive as Islamism is not what I've spent 50 years studying."


The same "reasoning" applies to the word "Islamist". 


I have heard "estimates"  of how many Muslims there are on the planet range from 1.2 billion to 2.2 billion.  


 If 1% is a tiny minority.  And if Non-Muslims should be......concerned about a tiny minority of Muslims.  Then Non-Muslims should be....concerned about between 12 million and 22 million Muslims.  If Non-Muslims should only be phobic about a tiny minority-1% of Muslims between 12 and 22 million Muslims who Non-Muslims are concerned about, then Non-Muslims should be phobic of between 120,000 and 220,000 Muslims?


 


 


 


 

I could be wrong.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 01, 2012 - 9:39PM #4
LeahOne
Posts: 16,478

However these troglodyte barbarians label themselves, they are only doing evil to destroy what is not theirs.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 02, 2012 - 9:46AM #5
TemplarS
Posts: 6,926

It makes no difference what these people call themselves, or what others call them.


People (and groups) are defined by their actions, not labels.


As to how many of them there are, that is also irrelevant, in a world where 19 people with box cutters can bring down 4 airplanes and two buildings.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 02, 2012 - 10:32AM #6
Ebon
Posts: 10,148

"Islamist" is just an attempt to distinguish between the terrorist fanatics and the vast majority of Muslims who neither take part in nor encourage such acts. We could just as easily describe the Klan as Christianist.

He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. ~ Proverbs 14:31

Fiat justitia, ruat caelum

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 02, 2012 - 11:06AM #7
BDboy
Posts: 6,215

As I Muslim, I do not like the label "Islamist". Because the last revelation came to Muslims over 1400 years ago. Therefore, last 1400+ years Muslims did not harm the shrine.


TODAY, we watch similar things happened in Afghanistan as well.


Any Muslim can pholosophically "Reject" or "Questions" the relevance of such shrine to Islam. However I do not see any need to destroy it.


To me, it looks a lot to do with politics than religion.


Two groups (Both happened to be Muslims) are fighting. One values the shrine, so the other felt the need to destroy it albeit for last 1400+years their forefathers and scholars of Islam did not see the need to do so.


Like Jewish people, Muslims are strict monotheists. But most Jews and Muslims do not see the need to destroy some shrines (Which also belongs to Muslims!). And Sufi tradition does NOT promote any different ideology either. They also conform with fundamentals of Islam but little more liberal in social issues.


To me It looks like an ideological war between two groups. One had to go to this extreame to make their point.


It could have been saved for it's historical value alone.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 02, 2012 - 11:13AM #8
TRUECHRISTIAN
Posts: 1,284

Jul 2, 2012 -- 9:46AM, TemplarS wrote:


It makes no difference what these people call themselves, or what others call them.



I disagree.  I think that it does make a difference.   People get very upset when other people call them, villians,  troglodyte barbarians, or Islamist. 


Jul 2, 2012 -- 9:46AM, TemplarS wrote:

 


People (and groups) are defined by their actions, not labels.



What people(and groups)obect to is when they are sterotyped. 


Muslims get upset when they are stereotyped as "terrorist".   


American get upset when they are stereotyped as "terrorist."  


 


Jul 2, 2012 -- 9:46AM, TemplarS wrote:


As to how many of them there are, that is also irrelevant, in a world where 19 people with box cutters can bring down 4 airplanes and two buildings.




I think it is relevant.  While it is true that only 19 people actually involved in 9/11 more than 19 people were involved in the planning and financing of 9/11.   


What Muslims, especially Muslim-Americans object to is being steroetyped with those Muslims who were involved in 9/11.   And I do agree with their objection to being stereotyped as Muslim terrorist. They would point out that of the appox. 3,000 people who were murdered by Muslim terrorist appox. 6o of them were Muslims who were not Muslim terrorist.  


 I agree with Ebon that the KKK who engage in terrorist activites could be called Christianist. 


I would also add that Christians who engage in terrorist activities like the bombing of abortion clinics or the shooting people who work there could also be called Christianists.  


 But I would be willing to bet more than a dollar that Christians who do not engage in terrorism and those that oppose "terrorism" would strongly object to be labled-stereotyped as Christian-terrorist. 


And I would be willing to bet more than a dollar that like Muslims who object to the term Islamist there are Christians who wold object to the label Christianist for the same reasons that Muslims would. 


 




 

I could be wrong.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 02, 2012 - 12:06PM #9
BDboy
Posts: 6,215

Jul 2, 2012 -- 11:13AM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:


Jul 2, 2012 -- 9:46AM, TemplarS wrote:


It makes no difference what these people call themselves, or what others call them.



I disagree.  I think that it does make a difference.   People get very upset when other people call them, villians,  troglodyte barbarians, or Islamist. 


Jul 2, 2012 -- 9:46AM, TemplarS wrote:

 


People (and groups) are defined by their actions, not labels.



What people(and groups)obect to is when they are sterotyped. 


Muslims get upset when they are stereotyped as "terrorist".   


American get upset when they are stereotyped as "terrorist."  


 


Jul 2, 2012 -- 9:46AM, TemplarS wrote:


As to how many of them there are, that is also irrelevant, in a world where 19 people with box cutters can bring down 4 airplanes and two buildings.




I think it is relevant.  While it is true that only 19 people actually involved in 9/11 more than 19 people were involved in the planning and financing of 9/11.   


What Muslims, especially Muslim-Americans object to is being steroetyped with those Muslims who were involved in 9/11.   And I do agree with their objection to being stereotyped as Muslim terrorist. They would point out that of the appox. 3,000 people who were murdered by Muslim terrorist appox. 6o of them were Muslims who were not Muslim terrorist.  


 I agree with Ebon that the KKK who engage in terrorist activites could be called Christianist. 


I would also add that Christians who engage in terrorist activities like the bombing of abortion clinics or the shooting people who work there could also be called Christianists.  


 But I would be willing to bet more than a dollar that Christians who do not engage in terrorism and those that oppose "terrorism" would strongly object to be labled-stereotyped as Christian-terrorist. 


And I would be willing to bet more than a dollar that like Muslims who object to the term Islamist there are Christians who wold object to the label Christianist for the same reasons that Muslims would. 


 




>>>>>>>> I agree.


I have spoken to a man who braggged to me about firing from a home made cannot attacking an abortion clicnic. Obviously (A Christian man) he was following his way not the way of Jesus.


To Muslims of Iraq, Mali, Tunisia, Afghanistan, Azarbizan, Iran........ they see a "Christian nation --America" attacked Iraq for no apparent reason and murdered over 400K innocent civilians for no apparant reason.


Still it would be unfair to blame "Christianity" or "Jesus" for it. Global politics dictated (Lobby groups, oil companies, US policy makers etc) Iraq invasion. Christianity had little or no part in idiotic adventure of "Dubya" in Iraq.


Similarly the attack to the old shrine was motivated by war between two Muslim groups. If it was an "Islamic" requirement, it would be been removed over a thousand years ago.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 02, 2012 - 12:14PM #10
mecdukebec
Posts: 14,833

Jul 2, 2012 -- 12:06PM, BDboy wrote:


Jul 2, 2012 -- 11:13AM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:


Jul 2, 2012 -- 9:46AM, TemplarS wrote:


It makes no difference what these people call themselves, or what others call them.



I disagree.  I think that it does make a difference.   People get very upset when other people call them, villians,  troglodyte barbarians, or Islamist. 


Jul 2, 2012 -- 9:46AM, TemplarS wrote:

 


People (and groups) are defined by their actions, not labels.



What people(and groups)obect to is when they are sterotyped. 


Muslims get upset when they are stereotyped as "terrorist".   


American get upset when they are stereotyped as "terrorist."  


 


Jul 2, 2012 -- 9:46AM, TemplarS wrote:


As to how many of them there are, that is also irrelevant, in a world where 19 people with box cutters can bring down 4 airplanes and two buildings.




I think it is relevant.  While it is true that only 19 people actually involved in 9/11 more than 19 people were involved in the planning and financing of 9/11.   


What Muslims, especially Muslim-Americans object to is being steroetyped with those Muslims who were involved in 9/11.   And I do agree with their objection to being stereotyped as Muslim terrorist. They would point out that of the appox. 3,000 people who were murdered by Muslim terrorist appox. 6o of them were Muslims who were not Muslim terrorist.  


 I agree with Ebon that the KKK who engage in terrorist activites could be called Christianist. 


I would also add that Christians who engage in terrorist activities like the bombing of abortion clinics or the shooting people who work there could also be called Christianists.  


 But I would be willing to bet more than a dollar that Christians who do not engage in terrorism and those that oppose "terrorism" would strongly object to be labled-stereotyped as Christian-terrorist. 


And I would be willing to bet more than a dollar that like Muslims who object to the term Islamist there are Christians who wold object to the label Christianist for the same reasons that Muslims would. 


 




>>>>>>>> I agree.


I have spoken to a man who braggged to me about firing from a home made cannot attacking an abortion clicnic. Obviously (A Christian man) he was following his way not the way of Jesus.


To Muslims of Iraq, Mali, Tunisia, Afghanistan, Azarbizan, Iran........ they see a "Christian nation --America" attacked Iraq for no apparent reason and murdered over 400K innocent civilians for no apparant reason.


Still it would be unfair to blame "Christianity" or "Jesus" for it. Global politics dictated (Lobby groups, oil companies, US policy makers etc) Iraq invasion. Christianity had little or no part in idiotic adventure of "Dubya" in Iraq.


Similarly the attack to the old shrine was motivated by war between two Muslim groups. If it was an "Islamic" requirement, it would be been removed over a thousand years ago.




I tend to see that Christians have done a two-step, with regard to Iraq:  "God told us to do it." Then, when Iraq was wrecked, and thousands dead and maimed (and the Iraqi Christian community decimated), then the excuse became, "It's not our fault.  God told us to do it."  Give it a few years, and the Wingos will be blaming the dead military. 



 

*******

"Wesley told the early Methodists to gain all they could and save all they could so that they could give all they could. It means that I consider my money to belong to God and I see myself as one of the hungry people who needs to get fed with God’s money. If I really have put all my trust in Jesus Christ as savior and Lord, then nothing I have is really my own anymore."
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 12  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 12 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook