Serious 150+ dead in Paris terrorist attack

Soul Fly

IMMA TEACH YOU WHAT SPLASHIN' MEANS
is a Contributor Alumnus
jumpluff 's argument for all intents and purposes probably includes Russia as a "western power" also. It's not geography you pedant lol. And your argument is (ironically) a fine extension to her post
If jumpluff disagrees, then that's a different story.
 
Right, but terrorists do.
This is facile, many ideologies and subsets of ideologies, including explicitly secular ideologies, support and justify various types of violence against humans and structures for various particular reasons. What we conventionally consider terrorists typically are religious extremists, terrorist acts which we have seen recently have been inspired by radical and generally nationalist sects of the following: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, atheism, secularism in general. I mean, some people consider PETA and Greenpeace ecoterrorists (I'm not comparing what happened in Paris to anything PETA's done). A lot of people would consider communist insurgents terrorists and indeed they are marked as terrorists in certain countries (India has a pretty big movement of Maoists and some of these are considered by the Indian government to be terrorists, none of these groups hold to a singular religion and their principal philosophy is grounded in secularism). 'Anti-terrorism' 'factsheets' in Australia released this year is aimed roughly 50% at Islam and anyone, Islamic or not, who aids Palestine, 25% at radical leftism, and 25% at white nationalism.

If you hold terrorism to be explicitly religious then you ignore many of what the US government considers 'terrorist' acts (I don't agree with their definition either but yknow I think you're likelier to), and I think mass hate crime counts as terrorism too. I'd argue that many 'religious' terrorist attacks are motivated heavily by nationalism, distaste for Western ideology (which does not require you to be religious), as well as religion, all in tandem, and to put it down to religion is both exacerbating the problem and marginalising innocents. If you want me to cite stats I will, but many American studies have demonstrated much of terrorism is secular and/or at least not wholly religiously-motivated; I don't think oversimplifying it is very helpful to anyone.

But, you know, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you weren't just referring to a singular religion, we all know what that is. And even in this case I do 100% believe as religious as the causes they were, they also boil down to nationalism, and that is a politically complex thing that requires examining global power dynamics.

Trax This is a derail. I am happy to have this argument with you in PM tomorrow as I wrote an essay to debunk your post and then realised nothing you had said had actually been devised with either historical accuracy (do you know what a proxy war is and why they're bad) or pertinence to this event or what had been said, but if you really want to be taught history I am happy to oblige.

edit: Soul Fly is correct somewhat, I consider Russia an often Western-allied power that generally, when it is not too destabilising, opposes US imperialism for its own interest (imperial interest -- I consider opposing US imperialism to be in the interest of the majority of the world), which leads to proxy wars and sometimes actually good outcomes for the victims of US imperialism. I don't consider there to be much redeeming about late stage USSR but it's worth considering Russia is a product of the Cold War and the dissolution of the USSR, which was devastating for living conditions there (the dissolution of). That is, I consider the USSR to be a different entity to modern capitalist and thus imperialist Russia. I don't consider Russia a serious threat to the West right now, the most Russia and America are opposed on is proxy wars and sovereignty. Trax however is vastly misinformed about nearl yall the events he described or asking me to defend things that I wouldn't and aren't nearly as relevant. Russia is not a third side to this argument, basically, and Soul Fly summed that up neatly for me. I really don't want to debate Trax about Russia itt because I think it's an absurd derail from the issues of a) the events within France right now and b) the circumstances surrounding the belligerents and those who will be further unjustly harmed by this (since in no way am I saying ppl in Paris deserved their deaths like that, I just think hurting refugees or any semi-war-like shit is adding to the injustice).

eta: LMAO I thought Trax adn doublenikesocks are the same ppl, my bad.
 
Last edited:
jumpluff 's argument for all intents and purposes probably includes Russia as a "western power" also. It's not geography you pedant lol. And your argument is (ironically) a fine extension to her post
If jumpluff disagrees, then that's a different story.
Okay. That should have been made clear then, but their post exclusively talked about NATO/France/US so that's why I assumed they were talking about the West. Cause no one regards the Soviet Union/Russia as the West in context of their geopolitical position.
 

Reisen

Translations Project Creator
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
What happened this night in our city is indescribable during 5 long hours it was the total chaos we had to call our friends and family to be sure that they were all safe, I personally live not that far from the 10th department of Paris, I thought at the beginning that it was fireworks but I also heard a lot of screams and then I've realized something was wrong. Fortunately, I live in a flat in the 5th floor but I assisted to everything. From 10pm to 3am it was horrible I really feel insecure in Paris right now. Thanks god all my friends and family are alright but my thoughts are with the victims and their relatives, this is a terrible day.

Also I wanted to thanks all the people that supported us in the french room of the smogon server this night, you can't imagine how much we have appreciated your support, your kind words and your presence. Thank you everyone for that.
 
I honestly can't imagine the kind of anxiety and terror you would have had to go through Awu, I've been personally glad for mass internet connectivity and social media to ensure my French friends are safe but to try to get into contact with family in a chaotic city at the time of the attack must've been terrifying. I really hope you can feel safer soon and know also that its okay to seek frontline psychological support in crises like these, especially if you've been assisting, to help deal with the effects of the terror and any hypervigilance etc, I think its natural to feel emotions both for yourself and grief for others. I'm really glad to hear your loved ones are okay (and Lord Outrage's friend).
 
But seriously Trax: Only if America, France, and NATO allies stop fucking with the homes of refugees. Most of these 'terrorist' groups do not pop out of nowhere, they are used as domestic agents for US imperialism in the Middle East, armed and funded while their countries are torn apart and the rest of the world either a) shrugs b) makes it worse. I'm pretty sure the majority of them would be happier where they were if it was a safe place to live without gross global inequality, which we as Australians benefit from, even poor Australians.

It's not the individual fault of anyone who died today that things are the way they are. But it's absurd to blame refugees as well, since the rest of the world is the reason they have so many problems, and the vast majority of them are utterly innocent, as innocent as we can presume the French. A lot of the countries suspected for 'terrorist activity' have been fucked with recently by the Americans and British redrawing the borders in their areas, provoking civil conflicts and turbulence, interfering with the political will of the masses (and using the opportunity to instil Western-sympathetic leaders), had their regional allies armed or aided by America as threats, been threatened or embargoed, had their wars exacerbated by America, live under the threat of American drones and advanced American military technology being employed in the civil war. Furthermore I would say that given that America, France, etc. are so wealthy is due to the exploitation of poorer countries's resources, money, and labour, the least they can do is take in refugees. How can you seriously look at the disparities and death tallies in Syria and other countries, and the cruel way Western countries treat refugees (who are clearly desperate), and say their problems are theirs alone, when global inequality is the way it is because of Western military and imperial conquest?

Your post is repulsive, sorry. Innocent Parisians don't deserve to die, neither do millions of innocent Syrians. It's very easy for you to sit from where you are in Australia and say refugees should just go back home, while a lot of refugees around Australia itself are the result of Australian imperial intervention and are subject to further barbarity by coming here. Congrats on winning the capitalism lottery by being born in Australia.

And yes I do not differentiate between economic migrants here because their countries cannot remotely hope to better in this state, and if they were stable they would still be at the losing end of US imperialism. How are they to challenge NATO? How do we decide what is an acceptable living standard for people in Syria and then decide we deserve grossly better?
Well, now we're getting a good way off into the weeds.

While it's true most of the current refugees are seeking a better life, and while it would be completely immoral to begrudge them that desire it does not make others morally required to assist them in any way whatsoever. France may not be improved by more people inclined toward the sort of activities that happened here, therefore French people could not reasonably be begrudged for saying no for precisely the same reason -- it's their nation, their society, and theirs to decide what to do with.

With that said, I completely agree that many of the interventionist policies of some countries in the last decade have not been wise or just, though I disagree with your assertion that the terrorist groups are plants, and attributing the refugees to western powers (who with few exceptions are barely present), rather than the likes of ISIS, Bashar al-Assad, and other entities within the region is extremely dubious.

From the outside we can easily look at the problems in Syria and say "that's a Syrian problem" because that's exactly what they are unless they are either made our problem or we choose to accept them as our problem, we're fortunate to be in this position, no doubt, but we would also be exceptionally arrogant to assume the role of problem solver for the entire world -- in the long run Syrians must overcome their own troubles.

Your description of my post as "repulsive" prefaced by a non-apology is nothing more than a judgement, and the paragraph that follows can be reversed to you in near identical terms, as easy as it is for me to support what you consider an unfair position, it's just as easy for you to hold the position that one group should sacrifice to benefit another. You're entitled to that opinion, but acting as though it comes from some vastly more difficult position is just sanctimony.

As for living standards; Syria not going well in parts is not necessarily a problem mandatory us to resolve (or a problem we *can* resolve), harsh as it may seem.
 

EV

Banned deucer.
Yo Soul Fly if you can't contribute to this discussion without hurling ad hominems at people you disagree with then don't contribute.
 
There is no such thing as a "local" conflict anymore.

Edit: ISIS kill Muslims everyday, and as one I sympathize with the French and thank them for their involvement in taking down these mafia, because that is all they are. They are a terrorist group who has taken use of the hopelessness of the Syrian situation and the nostalgia for Muslim glory past (however you may define that) to gain money. Their whole law is shock value, which is why living under their rule you will probably die if you committed any "crime". Or sometimes just die anyway for nothing at all (scapegoats are hot items apparently).

Edit2: If it is public denunciation you are looking for from Muslims (which is weird since most of us were asleep at that time and the whole ISIS kills Muslims daily part), I sure hope you know how to use Google Search and translate.
 
Last edited:
I know this was the work of extremists, but on both the Dutch/ Belgian and French news I saw muslims (primarily young people) "celebrating" the attacks, making shooting gestures with their hands and dancing during interviews. This makes me even more upset then the attack itself :/
 

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
Edit2: If it is public denunciation you are looking for from Muslims (which is weird since most of us were asleep at that time and the whole ISIS kills Muslims daily part), I sure hope you know how to use Google Search and translate.


It doesn't matter what people say if they don't record it in english because it will get mistranslated intentionally, especially if it's in arabic. The mainstream media translates arabic deliberately in order to make stories that conform to established understandings of violence in the region. It's really common to hear something (arabic) like 'we're going to kick their asses' be translated to "we are going to spill their blood in the streets" the key to this mistranslation is the insertion of the term 'blood' which is to suggest a racial or sectarian motivation to conflict, which is always a simplification and a way of fomenting instability through division. Whoever 'they' were before, after the mistranslation, the 'they' that had been ambiguous before is 'their blood', implying that their blood makes 'them' them. Thus the mistranslation makes it appear that there is a sectarian division driving the violence/conflict.

Asking people to condemn the obviously condemnable implies that their moral code is in question, that implicitly they do share the same moral code as the perpetrators. Which reveals everything about the party demanding that these events be denounced by Muslims, those who demand such proclamations of allegiance share the same moral code as the terrorists. They share identical impulses to collectively blame, the intent to precipitate division, the intent to eradicate an entire population (which has become the enemy) or generation thereof, the intent to foment an us vs them siege mentality, etc.

http://www.alternet.org/media/not-bigots-will-care-muslims-around-world-are-condemning-paris-attacks

They bombed beirut just a few days ago, but no one made a thread about it. Beirut, a former french colonial administration, is just across the way from the levant, thats where syria and iraq are (I know you didnt already know this stuff). I guess there wasn't enough 'humanity' for all these western politicians in beirut to be outraged about crimes against, and no one saw them getting up in the middle of the night to discuss what a shame it all was. it appears not all lives actually matter, once one admits a structural perspective, and thats what has to change if terrorism is to be eradicated.

As it stands, the root provider of support to ISIS and Al Qaeda throughout SWANA/MENA is the U.S.A which assures the fundamentalist monarchy of the rich Gulf (Saud, Kalifah, etc) which is where islamic fundamentalism is exported from. oh and isis emerged from networks begun within u.s.a prisons in the levant. fundamentalist right wing terrorists have spread their ideology across the globe, from america to the rest of the world. each side's cruelty becoming justified by the cruelty of the other.

edit: http://www.thenation.com/article/after-paris-attacks-a-call-for-justice-not-vengeance/
 
Last edited:

cookie

my wish like everyone else is to be seen
is a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
just a reminder to keep this shit civil and on-topic, this is a big subject that people can and will get fired up about. I've already handed out one infraction.
 
Wasn't really level headed when I posted then. Guess my temper got better of me, sorry about that. Kind of happens when people hold entire religions culpable accessory to terrorism and shit.
I don't think any of us were level-headed yesterday. I will still hold steadfast by my opinions but I can agree that an immense amount of denouncing has happened with this attack. Its irresponsible that media and the internet is not reporting on these denouncements. I don't think I was particularly clear in my last post either. I did not mean for my post to come off as offensive but in retrospect it did.

I was not personally expressing my opinions on Islam in that post but rather trying to say that I want people to understand that in a case like this terrorism does have a religion. Insane fundamentalism but nonetheless a religion. I want society to learn how to separate the two.

I need some more time to build my opinion on this issue. I have different opinions on Islam and all religions as a whole and its difficult to keep them separated from this incident.
 
I want people to understand that in a case like this terrorism does have a religion.
It is official that the attackers were confirmed to be ISIS, I read their statement where they claimed that the terrorist attacks were their doings but it shows exactly why we shouldn't consider what they did related to Islam

While reading the statement I noticed that they used a bunch of Quranic verses to justify their doings and I can tell you that these verses were understood wrong. I read the Quran many times and I tell you that there isn't any single verse that approves killing other people in the name of religion and the only verses who are close to that were about the incursions that happened during the era of Muhammad (pbuh) so they aren't applicable atm, heck in the Quran there is a verse that says that killing an innocent person that did nothing wrong is the same as killing the whole mankind and whoever helped someone survive it's like if he had given life to all mankind (Surat Al-Maidah, Verse 32).

So yeah, even though ISIS may be claiming to be "muslims" but they're understanding the religion wrong and it's a thing that was said by every Fiqh (islamic jurisprudence) savant in every islamic country who totally oppose their doings, so saying that this terrorism was related to Islam is wrong and unfair since what these "people" are doing is actually against the instructions of Islam.

EDIT: asterat, this post goes for you too, hope it was made clear.
 
Terrorism has no religion.
Islam is not a religion of terrorism, but it is the religion of terrorists. Islam contains a violent extremist sect in a way that other religions do not - you would have to be an idiot to blame all Muslims for terrorism, but you would also have to ignore the evidence to claim there is no correlation. Other religions have totally done this in the past, and it was equally bad then.
 
And just when I couldn't find out anything more about this people that could make me feel sick! BTW, was it confirmed that those tweets about the terrorists murdering their victims at the Bataclan one by one were indeed true? That would make me even more disgusted. This wasn't some minor attack like the Charlie Hebdo incident: it was a major attack that must've taken at least weeks to plan, probably months.

This will make life even harder for refugees who want nothing to do with these lunatics (but probably would love to have their under their thumb, all the better to enslave, rape, and or use them for target practice, or whatever else tickles Assad's or ISIS's fancy). And I don't see how they can do anything to change the situation in Syria, since peaceful demonstrations have proven to only provoke force from Assad, and ISIS doesn't really seem like the kind of nation that negotiates (they seem more like thugs).
Quite frankly, the best thing to end this cycle that I can think we can do is try to find refugees who are willing to return and fight for their country, give them the necessary training and top-of-the-line equipment, and send them in to drive these fundamentalist fascists to the gates of hell, giving support in the form of additional troops, and armored divisions and air support as necessary from our NATO allies. The more people we can get away from these fundamentalist's claws, and the more people who share our more tolerable beliefs of...freedom and justice, the better. There are three sides to this conflict: us, the innocent victims, as illustrated by all those refugees, and those who haven't been able to flee, and either have to live under ISIS or Assad's brutal regimes or die, and ISIS, whose policies don't seem geared towards one of negotiation Those who center this life around killing those that don't agree with them/aren't of any use just need to go, because I get the feeling that showing any weakness will just encourage them to make more sucker punches like this, especially because of their inability to make any military victories.

However, we mustn't waiver in who we are, and give up our liberties, even if it could give us some temporary security. If we do, then that will just be a victory for the terrorists, because it is our rights and liberties that separate us from these cavemen.
I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but oh well.

Once again, as always, I can't help but think these suicide terrorists being used, and that the leaders at the tippity-top are just using religion as justification to expand their own idea of a state. Or do they hate our idea of a state or society that much?

Refugees should make their homes better, instead of bringing their problems to the rest of the world. Frankly, the risks are too high at this point.
They tried this, and Assad might of well have laughed, said "you and what army?!", and pretty much responded with bombings, military, and using Sarin on any areas of dissidence. They need enough guns to arm an army and armored assault vehicles, and not that the Russians and Chinese are propping that despot's regime up, now they would need a force of fighter jets as well. If you think they can peacefully make things better in Syria, you're deluded, because from what I've seen, the people who they are fleeing from can't be reasoned with, except for when their necks are on the line, only understand force, and will only stop their oppressive actions when facing down the barrel of a gun (or the perspective of).
 
Last edited:
As long as you wilfully misunderstand ISIL then you will only play into their hands. They are nationalist fascists more than radical literalist Muslims (Yagura and myzo are spot on) with a vested interest in provoking Western fascists, and in provoking Western libs towards sympathetic Western nationalist fascism. Their own domestic propaganda is clear that they wish to polarise the West towards Islam and thereby bring about a more direct-scale conflict. You don't have to endorse existing nation states to be religiously nationalist or fascist. Furthermore, ideologies work in tandem; white nationalism and Christian values are together responsible for the Ku Klux Klan because white nationalists often identify Christian values as a core part of the white American tradition they're upholding and as a sacred pretext for their actions, but we identify that as a white nationalist terrorism group before we identify it as a set of semi-Protestant terrorism. The KKK sees Christian values and American values as identical. Oddly, so do many national leaders who are responsible for drone strikes and other acts of state-sponsored terrorism. Do you think Christianity is the religion of terrorists? You can cite spiritual reasons for what you're doing but when it's based heavily on something else it's generally patent. Manifest Destiny anyone?

asterat you should read Yagura's post, honestly there is so much writing by Muslims on this topic that I cannot attribute your insistence on this to real interest in understanding Islam and the lives of everyday Muslims, but ISIL kill Muslims too ffs, for political reasons more than deeply spiritual ones.

I am grieving for Beirut as well, the attack was devastating and p much nobody cares when it comes to some deaths. I want to also add that the attack on Beirut is very telling, as myzo has indicated. The areas targeted, full of civilians, are places where Hezbollah members are known to be based. ISIL hate them, I'm too tired to go into this right now, it feels incredibly stupid to try to explain this when almost nobody can think of Beirut or mourn their loss or empathise with them the same way though they are also innocents, the news broke yesterday, basically just read myzo's post.

ISIL isn't a national liberation movement, I completely oppose the fascism and genocide of ISIL, but America needs to check itself here: ISIL has recruited many people that were trained and aided by NATO itself and defected from these movements. Why do I say check yourselves? Because jumping to further absurd conclusions and hawkishness will only continue to cause this cycle of regional meddling and destabilisation, at the cost of innocent people in the Middle East.

Sorry for the brief post but I'm exhausted, I also believe all of this is very easily fact-checked and there is even passable Western journalism on the subject.
 
Islam is not a religion of terrorism, but it is the religion of terrorists.
It's the same statement, don't try to sugarcoat a blanket generalization. Both are hilariously untrue if we want to take this into historical context or any context for that matter. Show me a region with ethnic conflict/racism, severe oppression and poverty without any terrorism/criminal activities taking use of said conflict (smugglers, militia trying to steal/claim funds, etc.) and I'll show you a unicorn. Of course terrorists in a Muslim region are gonna take the guise of religion to justify their cause or recruit delusioned assholes..no different the 969 terrorists in Myanmar taking a religious Buddhist guise or those during the Yugoslav war and Christian orthodoxy or Hindu extremists in India slaughtering people for allegedly having cow mutton in their fridge.

Oh and trax, refugees would love nothing more but to return home and make things better, except that in these days they can't exactly do that:





When you have a lunatic dictator trying to establish an Assad royal line and having unlimited weapons and funding yet somehow decides to punish any opposition with discriminate barrel bombings there is nothing to go back to until he's gone.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if my ID card is immun to explosives as well. It is really hard to believe that all the terrorist leave their ID cards behind in a scene of crime and that always in France.
 
I agree completely with this. Islam is a very peaceful religion and how these extremists interpert the Quran that way is beyond me.
This is where I draw the line. Though I cannot read the Quran in Arabic because I don't speak Arabic for every line that promotes peace in that book there's another one that encourages violence or at the very least discrimination.
5.33 The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter.

I'm fairly certain a lot of things can be interpreted as war or mischief.

21.98.
Certainly! You (disbelievers) and that which you are worshipping now besides Allah, are (but) fuel for Hell! (Surely), you will enter it.

Though not directly promoting violence this one literally says that all who do not worship Allah are nothing but fuel for hell.

Though Im not gonna direct this straight to Islam as all religious texts say fairly insane things do not say that Islam is a very peaceful religion or that these extremists had absolutely no material to inspire their actions off of. I will not judge the people. I will however, judge the religion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JES
i really hope we wont see such atrocities anymore, very naively... its quite sad some people actually think its in the name of religion that lkilling is a good thing..
 

Cresselia~~

Junichi Masuda likes this!!
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto...ws-_-278243526-_-Imageandlink&linkId=18763210

TWO of the gunmen who carried out Friday’s devastating attacks in Paris, which left at least 129 people dead, were among tens of thousands of Syrian refugees who have entered Europe through Greece.
Not sure how legitimate this is. But if this is true, then too bad.

But that said, do you guys hope to open the borders because you want to be a do-gooder, or are there legitimate political advantages of welcoming refugees?
I don't have a stance (yet), I just wanted to ask.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JES
http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=5&verse=27

(5:32) Therefore We ordained for the Children of Israel53 that he who slays a soul unless it be (in punishment) for murder or for spreading mischief on earth shall be as if he had slain all mankind; and he who saves a life shall be as if he had given life to all mankind.54 And indeed again and again did Our Messengers come to them with clear directives; yet many of them continued to commit excesses on earth.

(5:33) Those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, AND go about the earth spreading mischief55 -indeed their recompense is that they either be done to death, or be crucified, or have their hands and feet cut off from the opposite sides or be banished from the land.56 Such shall be their degradation in this world; and a mighty chastisement lies in store for them in the World to Come

"55. The 'land' signifies either the country or territory wherein the responsibility of establishing law and order has been undertaken by an Islamic state. The expression 'to wage war against Allah and His Messenger' denotes war against the righteous order established by the Islamic state. It is God's purpose, and it is for this very purpose that God sent His Messengers, that a righteous order of life be established on earth; an order that would provide peace and security to everything found on earth; an order under whose benign shadow humanity would be able to attain its perfection; an order under which the resources of the earth would be exploited in a manner conducive to man's progress and prosperity rather than to his ruin and destruction. If anyone tried to disrupt such an order, whether on a limited scale by committing murder and destruction and robbery and brigandry or on a large scale by attempting to overthrow that order and establish some unrighteous order instead, he would in fact be guilty of waging war against God and His Messenger. All this is not unlike the situation where someone tries to overthrow the established government in a country. Such a person will be convicted of 'waging war against the state' even though his actual action may have been directed against an ordinary policeman in some remote part of the country, and irrespective of how remote the sovereign himself is from him."

Mind you this is the same verse that is used by legal judges to condemn terrorists to death. Yet somehow Rugi has turned into a ISIS jurist and cut verses out of their contexts. Or maybe he has no idea wtf he is talking about. I'm drawing the line here, put some effort or leave.

tldr; This verse is called the Haraba verse, Haraba (kindly used google translate) being highway thievery, robbing and killing that was widespread at that time.
 
http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=5&verse=27

(5:32) Therefore We ordained for the Children of Israel53 that he who slays a soul unless it be (in punishment) for murder or for spreading mischief on earth shall be as if he had slain all mankind; and he who saves a life shall be as if he had given life to all mankind.54 And indeed again and again did Our Messengers come to them with clear directives; yet many of them continued to commit excesses on earth.

(5:33) Those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, AND go about the earth spreading mischief55 -indeed their recompense is that they either be done to death, or be crucified, or have their hands and feet cut off from the opposite sides or be banished from the land.56 Such shall be their degradation in this world; and a mighty chastisement lies in store for them in the World to Come

"55. The 'land' signifies either the country or territory wherein the responsibility of establishing law and order has been undertaken by an Islamic state. The expression 'to wage war against Allah and His Messenger' denotes war against the righteous order established by the Islamic state. It is God's purpose, and it is for this very purpose that God sent His Messengers, that a righteous order of life be established on earth; an order that would provide peace and security to everything found on earth; an order under whose benign shadow humanity would be able to attain its perfection; an order under which the resources of the earth would be exploited in a manner conducive to man's progress and prosperity rather than to his ruin and destruction. If anyone tried to disrupt such an order, whether on a limited scale by committing murder and destruction and robbery and brigandry or on a large scale by attempting to overthrow that order and establish some unrighteous order instead, he would in fact be guilty of waging war against God and His Messenger. All this is not unlike the situation where someone tries to overthrow the established government in a country. Such a person will be convicted of 'waging war against the state' even though his actual action may have been directed against an ordinary policeman in some remote part of the country, and irrespective of how remote the sovereign himself is from him."

Mind you this is the same verse that is used by legal judges to condemn terrorists to death. Yet somehow Rugi has turned into a ISIS jurist and cut verses out of their contexts. Or maybe he has no idea wtf he is talking about. I'm drawing the line here, put some effort or leave.

tldr; This verse is called the Haraba verse, Haraba (kindly used google translate) being highway thievery, robbing and killing that was widespread at that time.

aaaaaaaand ive been ninja'd
 
I think it's foolish to say that Islam solely is the cause of it, though places like Saudi Arabia (which is a monarchy, which is forbidden by Islam) have a messed up view of Islam. I'm not going to sit here and talk about whether they're real Muslims or not, people should really be focusing on why these terrorists still exist. The thing is, according to them and their distorted view, they are Muslim, and thus, whether we like it or not, we have to call it as such and not try to beat around the bush because of it potentially offending Muslims. As a man in a Muslim family, I can safely say that most Muslims are like this, but just like Christianity with the crusades, people can use bad interpretations/cherry picking to kill. If we don't even address that the problem is there, aka radical jihadis from these messed up countries are there, we can't actually fix the problem.

That being said, I'm proud of the rest of the Muslims here for actually providing evidence, it's freaking pointless to have this discussion without verses because it essentially sounds like a "I feel like it, therefore it is" argument, which is an incredibly dumb way to argue something and you should never do that.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JES

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top