Can religion produce a terrorist? How?

Could this be one way?:

Have the trainee participate in jihad and become a mujahid as a man named Shazad did? :

"One has to understand where I'm coming from," Shahzad said in a long speech frequently interrupted by U.S. District Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum seeking clarification. "I consider myself a Mujahid, a Muslim-soldier."
Reuters June 21, 2010


Mujahid. What's that?

"Noun 1. mujahid - a Muslim engaged in what he considers to be a jihad
mujahadeen, mujahadein, mujahadin, mujahedeen, mujahedin, mujahideen, mujahidin - a military force of Muslim guerilla warriors engaged in a jihad; "some call the mujahidin international warriors but others just call them terrorists"
Moslem, Muslim - a believer in or follower of Islam"
The Free Dictionary by FARLEX (freedictionary.com)


Jihad?

" (pronounced /dʒɪˈhɑːd/; Arabic: جهاد‎ [dʒiˈhæːd]), an Islamic term, is a religious duty of Muslims. In Arabic, the word jihād is a noun meaning "struggle. Jihad appears frequently in the Qur'an and common usage as the idiomatic expression "striving in the way of Allah (al-jihad fi sabil Allah)".[1][2] A person engaged in jihad is called a mujahid; the plural is mujahideen. Jihad is an important religious duty for Muslims."
Wilkipedia


This vicious loop must be erroneous. What is the flaw?

Can we talk about that? Or does Freedom of Religion trump Freedom of Speech?

The answer is yes... and we see it every day in Islamic countries.

They are taught to say one thing to none muslims and another to their own kind. They teach its good to kill non-muslims... but not their own kind, even if they are radical terrorists.

Freedom of speech does have its limits... you for example can not incite a riot, or shout fire in a crowded building.

Religion is not a shield for terrorism or the support of terrorism. You have no freedom in the name of religion to do or say anything you want when it violates the law of the land, and the rights of those you choose to oppress.

Basiclly... you can't claim your religion requires you to evade taxes... commit pedophillia, kill others, or deprive them of their civil rights.

Its also important to specify WHAT country you indicate the rights about. Not every country offers the same rights to its citizens. Some offer as little as none... and others are quite generous.

The question asks about "religion," but immediately jumped into Islam and Muslims.

I know from personal experience that fundamentalist Christianity can breed fear and suspicion of those who are different. Terrorism? It isn't called that, but many of those who are different in some way have lost their lives or suffered in some way because of the actions of fundamentalist Christians.

Anytime a person or a group of people or a sect or a religion feels it has lost control of a situation and its place in the greater scheme of things, there is the danger of "terrorism" (or bullying or abuse or reprisal or whatever name you want to give it).

Name another religion on the plantet TODAY, where the religious leaders call for terrorism, and forced subjugation of all people of a different faith.

The only name that will come up is Islam. Wiccas don't do it... Buddists, Taoists, Christians, Jews... etc... don't do it as a organized practice. Only Islam do you find Religious leaders cultivating this sort of mindset, with no objections by the higher leaders of that church, and in fact, a nodding approvale. And THAT makes it a hallmark of that religion.

Don't forget the Christian Crusade to the Holy Land 11-13th Century.

So it's not just Muslims that partake in this activity.
Crusades - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades)

Don't forget the Christian Crusade to the Holy Land 11-13th Century.

So it's not just Muslims that partake in this activity.
Crusades - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades)

That's why I said on the planet TODAY. But the Crusades were in direct response to Islam conqureing historically CHristian lands FIRST... so that again falls to ISLAM beiung the terrorists since they forced conversion and killed those who would not, and the Christians were just defending their historical brothers...

Now the only point in Christianity where that MIGHT apply, would have been during the Spanish Inquisition... but not the Crusades.

Big difference between what happened in the middle ages (and was limited to that era)... vs what has been happening with a particular religion non-stop for 1,300 years and continues to this day. People were illiterate and didn't know what happened in the next town back then... today with radio, TV and internet there is no excuse for blindly believing radial Church leaders rants. Today its willful ignorance... and the fault of the individual as much as the Church leader that preaches that hatred. Sort of like the Rev Jeramiah Wright has. However his rants have not led to innocent people being killed, and as much as he preached hatred... he never called on his followers to kill others.

Smearcase, you know better than that!!
You made NO mention of era of reference in your OP.

I was merely pointing out, from your OWN title, that Islam is NOT the only religion that has used these tactics.

Can terrorism be cultivated by religion?
Remember one person's terrorist is another person freedom fighter.
It's all a matter of perspective.

I'll accept your apology now, thanks.

Also the Crusades where NOT just against Muslims, but many other religions stand points as well.
It was Rome (and others) stamping their own view point on the rest of the world.

Post #5 indicates that you were replying to smoothy. I didn't mention era. He asked a question and your answer dropped back 1,000 years from his TODAY qualifier. I debated where to put this question but history wasn't on my mind. There are recent, actual quotes from an alleged terrorist at NYC. That's pertinent while your comments about it are not.
You assume a lot of things like me knowing better than that, that I know what elicited your comments, and that any apology is being offered for you to accept.
I do respect the administrators of this site even when they close a thread while a simple debate is in progress. Actually it should have been closed when it stopped making any progress. My analysis indicated that about 68% of replies to Ex's Mosque at ground Zero were against or leaning against the mosque as of page 76 and I haven't found anything to change that since. No new responders and nobody switching sides on the issue at hand.
Maybe administrators shouldn't be permitted to take a position on a thread or if they do, another in authority should take actions when needed.

Post #5 indicates that you were replying to smoothy. I didn't mention era. He asked a question and your answer dropped back 1,000 years from his TODAY qualifier.

I was responding to your own comments are putting things into perspective.
Currently, mostly due to the increased media coverage, Islam has gotten a very bad name for itself. So it was more of a balancing comment.

You assume a lot of things like me knowing better than that, that I know what elicited your comments, and that any apology is being offered for you to accept. Yep referring to your reddie, but I accept.


I do respect the administrators of this site even when they close a thread while a simple debate is in progress. Actually it should have been closed when it stopped making any progress. My analysis indicated that about 68% of replies to Ex's Mosque at ground Zero were against or leaning against the mosque as of page 76 and I haven't found anything to change that since. No new responders and nobody switching sides on the issue at hand.
I purposely stayed out of that one so I could watch things unfold.



Maybe administrators shouldn't be permitted to take a position on a thread or if they do, another in authority should take actions when needed.
And that's how things do indeed happen.
If a Mod or Admin does have a position on a subject then they are not permitted to take any action on that thread. The official hats are off for the purpose of the subject in hand.

Hope that clears up a few things.

No new responders and nobody switching sides on the issue at hand.By my calculations no one ever switches sides on these political/religious issues. If you can point me to a few instances that would be interesting.

By my calculations no one ever switches sides on these political/religious issues. If you can point me to a few instances that would be interesting.

Being on the opposite side of NeedKarma in many cases... I'll agree with this statement as well.

Check for yourself, karm. It's your claim, your calculations-not mine.

That why these threads are kind of pointless, aren't they?

By my calculations no one ever switches sides on these political/religious issues. If you can point me to a few instances that would be interesting.
I have.

Karm
Sounds like you missed one. Post your calculations for all to see.

Let's see now: 1
Link Wondergirl?

let's see now: 1
Link Wondergirl?
No link, but reading one of these threads did change my mind and soften my stance.

Duly noted. But most of these types of threads are pure ranting mixed with spreading of FUD.

Duly noted. But most of these types of threads are pure ranting mixed with with spreading of FUD.
Being the intelligent person I am, I was able to wade through the morass of nastiness and misspellings and bad grammar and find the grains of truth beneath the surface.

I only gave facts and quotes, if the all were accurate as they were placed on the quoted sites. Should I accept your undocumented sound bites or my own lying eyes?

Sorry. I should have said--For karm
I only gave facts and quotes, if the all were accurate as they were placed on the quoted sites. Should I accept your undocumented sound bites or my own lying eyes?

Thats why I said on the planet TODAY. But the Crusades were in direct responce to Islam conqureing historically CHristian lands FIRST....so that again falls to ISLAM beiung the terrorists since they forced conversion and killed those who would not, and the Christians were just defending their historical brothers...

Now the only point in Christianity where that MIGHT apply, would have been during the Spanish Inquisition.....but not the Crusades.

Big difference between what happened in the middle ages (and was limited to that era)...vs what has been happening with a particular religion non-stop for 1,300 years and continues to this day. People were illiterate and didn't know what happened in the next town back then...today with radio, TV and internet there is no excuse for blindly believing radial Church leaders rants. Today its willful ignorance....and the fault of the individual as much as the Church leader that preaches that hatred. Sort of like the Rev Jeramiah Wright has. However his rants have not led to innocent people being killed, and as much as he preached hatred...he never called on his followers to kill others.

Is it not Christian groups who are blowing up abortion clinics today? Or is that not really "terrorism..." I know, I know, you may say that it's not the Christian faith dictating this, but a select handful of people acting in the extreme. That extremist view is certainly terrorism stems in all matters of religion or any other difference of opinion.

Is it not Christian groups who are blowing up abortion clinics today? Or is that not really "terrorism..." I know, I know, you may say that it's not the Christian faith dictating this, but a select handful of people acting in the extreme. That extremist view is certainly terrorism stems in all matters of religion or any other difference of opinion.Show a Christian religious leader that is calling for the bombings of abortion clinics...

It can be and has been shown that Islamic Terrorism is not occurring in the absence of Imam guidance and encouragement or higher, it is written into the Quaran, KORAN or however you want to spell it and is part of that religions docterine. The Bible does not call for assasinating non-christians... or for those diametrically opposed to a belief of christianity (since we are speaking of Christianity, I refer to the New Testiment). Where it IS part of widely taught Islamic Doctorine and it is in the Koran, and it is preached and supported by for more than a few isolated radical Imams. And the percentages of Muslims that hold to that belief is quite high numerically, even though percentages do vary greatly by country.

Pew Poll numbers... Where Terrorism Finds Support in the Muslim World - Pew Research Center (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/26/where-terrorism-finds-support-in-the-muslim-world)



Thus arguments its individuals taking it upon themselves does not hold water when it comes to radical Islam... while the very isolated incidents with abortion clinics proves it is in that case. Otherwise it would be a chargible offence, solicitation of murder to start with. There is a difference between supporting something and actively aiding in it... and those who know anything and do nothing to prevent it... are guilty of aiding it as well.

If a Priest or Reverand was actively organising or soliciting the bombing of a clinic or killing of a doctor... he could and should be charged. Or vice-versa, if someone attacks those picketting a clinic are not free to do as they wish either. The right of free speech after all goes both ways. But isn't unlimited.

Show a Christian religious leader that is calling for the bombings of abortion clinics...
You mean the Christian version of imams?

The Bible does not call for assasinating non-christians
Let me see. Let's begin with Joshua 1:1ff.

You mean the Christian version of imams?

Lemme see. Let's begin with Joshua 1:1ff.



With the Well known hate monger Rev Jeramish Wright who we all know preaches hate... he hasn't to my knowledge been guilty of trying to blow people up. The same wit Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton... two more blowhards and hate mongers... but again... they aren't advicating blowing people up.

Louis Farakhan... bigot, racist, blowhard, and just a waste of human flesh. But even HE hasn't been soliciting blowing people up, that I am aware of anyway.

Incidentally here is that text..

Joshua 1:1-9 (New International Version)

Joshua 1
The LORD Commands Joshua
1 After the death of Moses the servant of the LORD, the LORD said to Joshua son of Nun, Moses' aide: 2 "Moses my servant is dead. Now then, you and all these people, get ready to cross the Jordan River into the land I am about to give to them—to the Israelites. 3 I will give you every place where you set your foot, as I promised Moses. 4 Your territory will extend from the desert to Lebanon, and from the great river, the Euphrates—all the Hittite country—to the Great Sea [a] on the west. 5 No one will be able to stand up against you all the days of your life. As I was with Moses, so I will be with you; I will never leave you nor forsake you.
6 "Be strong and courageous, because you will lead these people to inherit the land I swore to their forefathers to give them. 7 Be strong and very courageous. Be careful to obey all the law my servant Moses gave you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, that you may be successful wherever you go. 8 Do not let this Book of the Law depart from your mouth; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful. 9 Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be terrified; do not be discouraged, for the LORD your God will be with you wherever you go."

Joshua 1:1-9 - PassageLookup - New International Version - BibleGateway.com (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua+1%3A1-9&version=NIV)


#1, that is Old Testiment... I specified NEW testiment as that is uniquely Christian. Even then... where does that literally say you should kill all non-Jewish people, being the Book of Joshua predates the birth of Christ and thus christianity and can't possibly even insinuate Non-christians into the meaning.

So we can throw out the old testament as a source for christian belief?

So we can throw out the old testament as a source for christian belief?

The old testimate isn't unique to christians...

You still haven't pointed out where in that passage it calls for the killing of non-jews? After all, the old testiment can't possibly call for the killing of non-christians when there were no christians during the time of the old testiment. And that's WHAT this part of the discussion is about after all.

I specified NEW testiment
No, you didn't. You said "Bible." And it's "testament," not "testimate" etc.

And the order to take over the land is in Josh.1:1ff. (P.S. There were people living there.)

And there were more promised than 27 virgins, or virginias, as some call them.

No, you didn't. You said "Bible." And it's "testament," not "testimate" etc.

And the order to take over the land is in Josh.1:1ff. (P.S. There were people living there.)

And there were more promised than 27 virgins, or virginias, as some call them.

Go back to post #25...

It can be and has been shown that Islamic Terrorism is not occuring in the absense of Imam guidance and encouragement or higher, it is written into the Quaran, KORAN or however you want to spell it and is part of that religions docterine. The Bible does not call for assasinating non-christians...or for those diametrically opposed to a belief of christianity (since we are speaking of Christianity, I refer to the New Testiment). Where it IS part of widely taught Islamic Doctorine and it is in the Koran, and it is preached and supported by for more than a few isolated radical Imams. And the percentages of Muslims that hold to that belief is quite high numerically, even though percentages do vary greatly by country.

So... somehow YOU interpret to take over a nearly unpolulated desert means "Kill everyone in it thats not Jewish"... by exactly what definition?

Well they like to reffer to "27 Virgins" so that's what I was using. Most couldn't get one in real life (a woman, virgin or not) in real life... what makes them think they can get them after they die.

So... is that what is Islamic "Hell" for the women? And did it actually refer to female women that were even remotely attractive? It could mean, vigin boys... it might mean virgin livestock, it might mean women that remained virgins because they were so ugly not even a drunk man would touch them... even in an arrainged marriage.

Not all virgins are even remotely attractive.

I'd rather have one average looking woman that knows what she is doing... than 27 butt ugly virgins myself any day, or lifetime.

So... somehow YOU interpret to take over a nearly unpolulated desert means "Kill everyone in it thats not Jewish"... by exactly what definition?
The Hebrews slaughtered entire villages and cities -- men, women, children, animals -- tens of thousands of them.

Well they like to reffer to "27 Virgins" so that's what I was using.
It's 72, not 27. Are you dyslexic?

The Hebrews slaughtered entire villages and cities -- men, women, children, animals -- tens of thousands of them.

It's 72, not 27. Are you dyslexic?

Got proof of those numbers other than wild unproven claims by Hamas?. particularly since a big town in those ages was 50 - 100 people, and pretty far apart.

Got proof of those numbers other than wild unproven claims by Hamas?....particularly since a big town in those ages was 50 - 100 people, and pretty far apart.
Hamas? I don't know anything about Hamas. Googling got me this about Jericho (similar info on several other archaeological sites) --

"Twentieth-century excavations have shown that the level of Jericho at the end of the fifteenth century had a retaining wall 12 to 15 feet high topped by a mud-brick wall an additional 20 to 26 feet in height and 6 feet thick. Outside the retaining wall was a second wall of mud bricks. Rahab lived between the walls in what has been regarded as the poorer quarters of the city, which numbered perhaps 1,200 within the 6 acres enclosed by the interior walls."

I'll Google for info on the entire area's population.

Those Canaanites and Philistines were no slouches. One site says this (btw, the conquest took about 200 years) --

"The Hebrews entered a land with its own highly developed culture. During the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages, Canaan was dotted with strong, walled, industrial and trade centers surrounded by orchards, vineyards, grain fields and pasture land. Wool and flax were woven and dyed with the rich purple obtained from the Murex shellfish. Wine, dried fruits, grain and milk products were also produced. Minerals from the Wadi Arabah were smelted and fashioned into ornaments, tools and weapons for sale and exchange. The rich lived in magnificent villas built around central courts; the poor dwelt in hovels massed together. Slaves captured in battle, and the poor who sold their families and themselves to meet debts, contributed to the power and wealth of the few.

Canaanite religion, a fertility or nature religion, reflected the major concerns of the populace — increase and productivity. Until recently, information about Canaanite belief was drawn largely from the negative statements in the Bible, but since 1928 new data has been forthcoming. While plowing a field, a farmer discovered a Canaanite necropolis at Ras es-Shamra in northern Syria at a point along the seacoast to which the "finger" of Cyprus appears to be pointing. Excavations began in 1929 under the direction of Claude F. A. Schaeffer of France and have continued since with only a brief interruption during World War II."

Got proof of those numbers other than wild unproven claims by Hamas?....particularly since a big town in those ages was 50 - 100 people, and pretty far apart.
You're wrong about the "big town." Wikipedia says that "within the area known as the Land of Israel and prior to the establishment of the Israelite civilization, the Land of Israel was dominated by Phoenician, Philistines, and Canaanite tribes." If you search Wikipedia et al. under those tribe names, you'll learn how sophisticated, well-traveled, educated, and even wealthy they were. They weren't low-life, unwashed herders wandering around in an arid wilderness.

Curlyben
I have reread the posts several times and find that my evidence was insufficient. I have no right to tell you where your post was directed. Nobody but the poster knows that and that was you. I do apologize for that erroneous assumption.