Yes
18% (5 votes)
Yes
18% (5 votes)
No
25% (7 votes)
No
25% (7 votes)
I don't know
7% (2 votes)
I don't know
7% (2 votes)
Total votes: 28
User login
Author Information
Poll
Why have you visited this website?
To check for updates
11%
Read posts
39%
Contribute to discussions
6%
Share content
3%
Social media brought me here
6%
Tis fate
35%
Total votes: 633
Active forum topics
Recent blog posts
Upcoming Events
- 30 Nov 2024 - 11:30 to 16:30
- 30 Nov 2024 - 11:30 to 16:30
- 7 Dec 2024 - 11:30 to 17:00
- 8 Dec 2024 - 11:30 to 16:30
- 15 Dec 2024 - 11:00 to 16:00
Quick Links
Who's online
There are currently 0 users online.
Okay contorversial.
Give reasons if you say yes. Be articulate and never insulting.
Lets stand together on this one and see how many 'No' votes we can get!
Er Admin, I accidentally clicked 'Yes' instead of 'No' would you mind changin it please. :!: [/b]
Gentleness and kindness were never a part of anything except that it made it beautiful, and harshness was never a part of anything except that it made it ugly.
Through cheating, stealing, and lying, one may get required results but finally one becomes
i dont agree with it no. but the person who uses a rifle, granade or tank isn't more humane as is often depicted.
silly brother Dawud lol, admin don't change it :roll:
The problem with suicide bombing is that you are taking the decision to end your own life before you even enter combat.
Plus using it as a tactic means that eventually you'll run out of troops.
I found a website that catalogues various islamic scholar's opinions of Suicide bombings, both against civilian targets and military targets:
[url=http://mac.abc.se/~onesr/ez/isl/0-sbm/Condemnations%20of%20Suicide%20Bom...
It seems the the problem runs afoul at killing civilians, but in more general terms runs afoul at suicide itself.
...so perhaps the question is really whether suicide is ever justified at all.
dawud u shud have a 3rd option: 'dunno'. (wel i do know, but its too complex to give that typa one-word answer)
[size=9]I NEVER WORE IT BECAUSE OF THE TALIBAN, MOTHER. I LIKE THE [b]MODESTY[/b] AND [b]PROTECTION[/b] IT AFFORDS ME FROM THE EYES OF MEN.[/size] [url=http://www.adherents.com/lit/comics/Dust.html]Dust, X-Men[/url]
i don't think it's permitted. But i've never been desperate, when ppl are desperate they do things they wouldn't otherwise do. Some resort to suicide, other forms of violence and torture, and some remain very peaceful.
I'm not trying to justify it, but think about it psychologically. How the circumstances in which you are raised in, can positively or negatively effect you.
We live in comfort here we can't fathom what the lives of ppl living in war torn countries are like, muslim or otherwise.
In general - what's the point of the question?
You aren't genuinely asking a question... but rather recruiting as many 'no's as you can to prove something either to yourself or someone else.
Just doing a brushby on the internet it seems for every "no" i'm getting from a scholar there is a "yes" by somebody of equal authority.
It doesn't appear that the muslim world has decided on this matter - especially in those areas it affects most, and asking for a unified no on the question will prove too much.
The muslim world is too unsure (and perhaps angry) to make a general commitment to the world yet, and too afraid to admit it.
Maybe Dawud is being 'sensible' and having this debate before it becomes illegal.
If he was to start such a thread in a few months time then he - and all the participants in the debate - would be deemed to have acted 'irresponsibly' at least and be held responsible for 'inciting' and/or 'glorifying' terrorism at most. And they would be locked up unless they're not Muslim.
Yea seriously - you don't think they'd actually pass that do you? That and the "inciting hatred" law are two of the most dangerous ideas i've ever heard. It's going to be abused left right center and forward.
well... House of lords rejected it.
Then the incumbent Gordon Blair erm I mean Brown forced it through parliament again.
It will be rejected again by the Lords, and then the PM whoever it is then will take up 'emergency' commons powers and force it through... or may allow it to run one more cycle through HoL...
Blair has done this before with other legislation.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Sounds authoritarian.
Salam
I don't think any country is against hitting military targets.
Even the Pope would condone acts of self-sacrifice against any army who may invade his Vatican.
And even President Bush would praise his soilders if they were to give their life in destroying an enemy bunker.
In a BBC newsnight interview, the Iraqi rebel leader Moktada Sadr said that Bush would be the first to take up arms and resist if America was invaded tomorrow.
His point was that why is Washington now criticising me for defending my country.
One thing is for sure, all sensible people condemn targeting and killing of innocent civilians.
Those who go and kill ordinary population are the true terrorists. Groups like Al Qaeda, the London bombers, and Palesltinians bombers who put bombs in disco clubs and buses.
Omrow
MoqtadrAl Sadr IMO gave Bush too much respect.
Afterall we know about Bush's military record already...
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Suicide is a sin in Christianity - a Cardinal and unforgivable sin in Catholicism.
The Pope would and can not sanction it.
Why would he need to? He's got the Swiss guard.
They're like a bionic secret service that wear strange clothing to prove they're crazy.
I wouldn't mess with them.
Admin. I don't think Sadr knew that American people had elected a coward !
Some veteran Senators reminded Bush of his fear of going to Vietnam.
Salam
Suicide for unnoble cause is a sin for Catholics.
However, it is not a sin if it is an act of self-sacrifice done for sake of other people.
In that case it is is not called a suicide but an act of martyrdom.
Christians do have a concept of martyrdom.
Infact, they had it before Islam came on the scene.
Omrow
Suicide is the act of killing ones-self it is a sin. There are no circumstances in which it is not a sin.
that so true!
Heracleus (I thought I would get ahead of the curve so this post makes sense in a few months time...I was getting bad vibes off Marcus Aurelius and Nero persecuted Christians, so...), You have a point, that i was looking for a solidarity in this issue.
However I was also looking for thoughtful responses too.
Minhaj ul Qur'aan Founder Shaykh Tahir ul Qadri says:
Suicide bombing is never justified. Suicide is wrong anyway, but indescriminantly killing memebers of mankind whether Muslim, jew, christian, child, man, woman et cetera is unislamic.
Those who suicide bomb are terrorists, that is terrorism has become their religeon and Not Islam. I.e. these terrorists are not in Islam.
Astaghfirullah (not a refutation but an honest prayer.)
Shaykh ul Islaam then goes on to say, by Islamic law those suicide bombers should be killed (obviously before the bomb goes off). Western law may say that is harsh, but Islam believes in dignity of human life, and that those who defile this dignity loose their own.
Islam says, don't kill mankind, but kill the 'killer's of mankind'. That is Shaykh's explicit view.
He then goes on to say, but look at the reasons they do these bombings.
Yes there are extremist preachers, but extremism can only take root where the ground is fertile for it. It is not nourished by peace, prosperity or even the sacred well being a human being is entitled to from his fellow man (or woman).
The west (Europe and USA) make laws that are supposed to stop and kurb terrorism. But they will never stop a demonic ideology. A determined bomber is not looking to follow the law. Whereas a normal (non-extremist) citizen is, so where is the redundancy of the bomber and where is the redundancy of the law.
Shaykh Tahir ul Qadri says: "paper laws and political speel, may impress and reassure the people...albeit until the next bomb, but it is not the long term solution, nor is any answer to the problem of suicidal extremists.
He says: if we and national leaders are serious about stopping terrorist, then [color=white]bright sparkling new[/color] legislation alone will not go anywhere solve the problem, relieving the oppression and tyranny that these extremists see and may suffer themselves is the only true solution.
The cure lies in taking away poverty groomed by blood crazy capatilism, by removing crippling sanctions from state citizens as a means to punish the state. By stopping funding Israel billions of Dollars each year for arms and the capabilities to raze Muslim and Christian settlements.
By listening to the call of the people when they say Israel is in breach of the 1967 (I think) UN resolution and is criminally occupying certain terratories.
also...
[b]by not succumbing to the vices of the Human soul, The CIA and MI5 know where some the most dangerous extremist terrorists live and have the ability to kill them, but they don't do it. Beast please elaborate more on this point please.[/b]
The media tends to ignore the moderate Islam and focus on extremism, it increases tensions between the civillisations; Shaykh says: he and some othe scholars were staying in this hotel [specif but I can't recall all the details] never once did the news crews camped with them interview them, despite Shaykh and others offering, however whenever they saw a person a huge Bin Laden beard and towering Imama Shariif spouting anti western slogans, they would rush towards them and be only to eager to interview them!
If anyone wishes to state any mistakes in this and correct them feel free to do so, the connference was almost a year ago and I didn't make notes. Then as now, I was quite tired. Also I feel certain I have mispelt Israel, if I have, I am Sorry.
Peace out. May God Bless you all.
Aameen thum' Aameen.
Gentleness and kindness were never a part of anything except that it made it beautiful, and harshness was never a part of anything except that it made it ugly.
Through cheating, stealing, and lying, one may get required results but finally one becomes
:shock:
[size=9]I NEVER WORE IT BECAUSE OF THE TALIBAN, MOTHER. I LIKE THE [b]MODESTY[/b] AND [b]PROTECTION[/b] IT AFFORDS ME FROM THE EYES OF MEN.[/size] [url=http://www.adherents.com/lit/comics/Dust.html]Dust, X-Men[/url]
I voted YES, I'm referring to Palestine
...I don't understand
who DOES understand Dawud...?
[size=9]I NEVER WORE IT BECAUSE OF THE TALIBAN, MOTHER. I LIKE THE [b]MODESTY[/b] AND [b]PROTECTION[/b] IT AFFORDS ME FROM THE EYES OF MEN.[/size] [url=http://www.adherents.com/lit/comics/Dust.html]Dust, X-Men[/url]
I was trying to keep this post relevant in a few months.
Gentleness and kindness were never a part of anything except that it made it beautiful, and harshness was never a part of anything except that it made it ugly.
Through cheating, stealing, and lying, one may get required results but finally one becomes
lol who are you Michael Hayek - what's going to happen in the future?!
Dave is it the Catholics who refuse to give those who commit suicide proper ceremonial burials? Or am i confused :?
I'm not sure what the present status of this is, but as far as I know that's still the case. Suicide is a Cardinal sin. But in the Catholic church grace is attained through faith and works, since you are murdering yourself you are no longer capable of works and therefore cannot repent and are damned.
Consequently for a very long time suicides were not allowed to be buried with everyone else. That might have changed with Vatican II or the reforms in the 20th c.
[size=18]Seminar on Suicide Bombings Held in Iran[/size]
An Iranian group that claims its members are dedicated to becoming suicide bombers warned the United States and Britain on Saturday that they will strike coalition military bases in Iraq if Tehran's nuclear facilities are attacked.
Mohammad Ali Samadi, spokesman for Esteshadion, or Martyrdom Seekers, boasted of having hundreds of potential bombers in his talk at a seminar on suicide-bombings tactics at Tehran's Khajeh Nasir University.
"With more than 1,000 trained martyrdom-seekers, we are ready to attack the American and British sensitive points if they attack Iran's nuclear facilities," Samadi said.
"If they strike, we have a lot of volunteers. Their (U.S. and British) sensitive places are quiet close to Iranian borders," Samadi said.
Samadi reviewed the history of suicide bombing as a weapon, praising it as the most effective Palestinian tactic in their confrontation with Israel.
The organizers showed video clips of suicide attacks against Israelis, including one in the Morag settlement near Rafah in Gaza strip in February 2005. One settler, three Israeli soldiers and the two attackers were killed in the attack.
Hasan Abbasi, a university instructor and former member of the elite Revolutionary Guards, told the audience of about 200 that Iran was not seeking nuclear weapons as claimed by the United States and some of its allies.
"Our martyrdom-seekers are our nuclear weapons," said Abbasi, the event's main speaker.
After his speech, about 50 students filled out membership applications.
"This is a unique opportunity for me to die for God, next to my brothers in Palestine. That was why I signed up," said Reza Haghshenas, a 22-year-old electrical engineering student.
A 23-year-old woman student, Maryam Amereh, said: "We are trying to defend Islam. It's a way to draw the attention of others to our activities."
But Rahim Hasanlu, a 22-year-old industrial management student, declared himself not interested in joining.
"I just attended to learn what they're saying, thats all."
[url=http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1637008]ABC News[/url]
i have to be careful in my comments as i dont want to break the law by being categorised as glorifying terrorism
i voted yes and will justify my decision
suicide bombing is a an effective war tactic
here is a brief history from the top of my head- ill refrence it later if i can be bothered
first recorded terrorist attacked occured by christians in the crusades (1200s) they blew up a ship and crashed into a muslim ship.
ww2- (1939-1945) japaneese sucessfully used suicide bombings agaisnt americans, they called it kamakaze, they would fly into american ships and bases, it was so successful the americans had two drop 2 nuclear bombs to win
russains used it agaisnt germans in stalingrad
vietnam war- the vietnameese used it agaisnt the americans
afghans used it agaisnt the russains
iranians used it agaisnt the iraqis
and palestinians use it agaisnt the israelis as im sure everyone is aware due to the wide bias publicity
all in all suicide bombings have been a successful tactic agaisnt bigger more equipped armies, it definately helped vietnam defeat america and helped afghanistan defeat russia
so its a valid war tactic throughout history
however since muslims have used it to defend themselves against their oppressors it has been called terrorism
erm......interesting
but they would claim if they target civillians its terrorism-i totally agree
lets define terrorism
n the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear [syn act of terrorism, terrorist act]
question- when israel uses calculated use of violence agaisnt palestinian civilians in order to attain the political goals, like taking land, destroying houses to build settlements ect is that not terrorism.
or when america uses calculated use of violence agaisnt iraqi prisoners and civilians and intimidates instilling fear into the iraqi civilians, as well as killing thousands of civilians, is this not terrorism. (or is it 'collateral damage)
what about russia who blatently target the chechen ciivilians , not to mention the indian army in kashmir, serbians, etc
the point i am making is all terrorism targeting innocent civilians is wrong, not just the suicide bombers, yet suicide bombing is only demonised and publicised while the bias media ignore all the other world terrorism
as for islamic perspective, im sure thats for the scholors to decide, i see no reason why muslims using suicide bombings against oppressors is wrong, they are the bravest among us and may allah be pleased with them.
Seeing as they already have been I don't really understand this threat 0 nor do I understand why they would do it in light of all the political currency they have been attempting to buy in the muslim world. Sending suicide bombers to destroy Iraq would certainly disrupt that.
Pages