Why are most of the Muslims fundamentalists and terrorists?

Answer:
This question is often hurled at Muslims, either directly or indirectly, during any discussion on religion or world affairs. Muslim stereotypes are perpetuated in every form of the media accompanied by gross misinformation about Islam and Muslims. In fact, such misinformation and false propaganda often leads to discrimination and acts of violence against Muslims. A case in point is the anti-Muslim campaign in the American media following the Oklahoma bomb blast, where the press was quick to declare a ‘Middle Eastern conspiracy’ behind the attack. The culprit was later identified as a soldier from the American Armed Forces.

Let us analyze this allegation of ‘fundamentalism’ and ‘terrorism’:

1. Definition of the word ‘fundamentalist’
A fundamentalist is a person who follows and adheres to the fundamentals of the doctrine or theory he is following. For a person to be a good doctor, he should know, follow, and practise the fundamentals of medicine. In other words, he should be a fundamentalist in the field of medicine. For a person to be a good mathematician, he should know, follow and practise the fundamentals of mathematics. He should be a fundamentalist in the field of mathematics. For a person to be a good scientist, he should know, follow and practise the fundamentals of science. He should be a fundamentalist in the field of science.

2. Not all ‘fundamentalists’ are the same
One cannot paint all fundamentalists with the same brush. One cannot categorize all fundamentalists as either good or bad. Such a categorization of any fund amentalist will depend upon the field or activity in which he is a fundamentalist. A fundamentalist robber or thief causes harm to society and is therefore undesirable. A fundamentalist doctor, on the other hand, benefits society and earns much respect.

3. I am proud to be a Muslim fundamentalist
I am a fundamentalist Muslim who, by the grace of Allah, knows, follows and strives to practise the fundamentals of Islam. A true Muslim does not shy away from being a fundamentalist. I am proud to be a fundamentalist Muslim because, I know that the fundamentals of Islam are beneficial to humanity and the whole world. There is not a single fundamental of Islam that causes harm or is against the interests of the human race as a whole. Many people harbour misconceptions about Islam and consider several teachings of Islam to be unfair or improper. This is due to insufficient and incorrect knowledge of Islam. If one critically analyzes the teachings of Islam with an open mind, one cannot escape the fact that Islam is full of benefits both at the individual and collective levels.

4. Dictionary meaning of the word ‘fundamentalist’
According to Webster’s dictionary ‘fundamentalism’ was a movement in American Protestanism that arose in the earlier part of the 20th century. It was a reaction to modernism, and stressed the infallibility of the Bible, not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record. It stressed on belief in the Bible as the literal word of God. Thus fundamentalism was a word initially used for a group of Christians who believed that the Bible was the verbatim word of God without any errors and mistakes.

According to the Oxford dictionary ‘fundamentalism’ means ‘strict maintenance of ancient or fundamental doctrines of any religion, especially Islam’.

Today the moment a person uses the word fundamentalist he thinks of a Muslim who is a terrorist.

5. Every Muslim should be a terrorist
Every Muslim should be a terrorist. A terrorist is a person who causes terror. The moment a robber sees a policeman he is terrified. A policeman is a terrorist for the robber. Similarly every Muslim should be a terrorist for the antisocial elements of society, such as thieves, dacoits and rapists. Whenever such an anti-social element sees a Muslim, he should be terrified. It is true that the word ‘terrorist’ is generally used for a person who causes terror among the common people. But a true Muslim should only be a terrorist to selective people i.e. anti-social elements, and not to the common innocent people. In fact a Muslim should be a source of peace for innocent people.


6. Different labels given to the same individual for the same action, i.e. ‘terrorist’ and ‘patriot’
Before India achieved independence from British rule, some freedom fighters of India who did not subscribe to non-violence were labeled as terrorists by the British government. The same individuals have been lauded by Indians for the same activities and hailed as ‘patriots’. Thus two different labels have been given to the same people for the same set of actions. One is calling him a terrorist while the other is calling him a patriot. Those who believed that Britain had a right to rule over India called these people terrorists, while those who were of the view that Britain had no right to rule India called them patriots and freedom fighters.

It is therefore important that before a person is judged, he is given a fair hearing. Both sides of the argument should be heard, the situation should be analyzed, and the reason and the intention of the person should be taken into account, and then the person can be judged accordingly.

7. Islam means peace
Islam is derived from the word ‘salaam’ which means peace. It is a religion of peace whose fundamentals teach its followers to maintain and promote peace throughout the world.

Thus every Muslim should be a fundamentalist i.e. he should follow the fundamentals of the Religion of Peace: Islam. He should be a terrorist only towards the antisocial elements in order to promote peace and justice in the society.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


This answer was given by Dr.Zakir Naik a well known and knowledgable Islamic Scholar of this time who often appears on QTV( TV Channel) and gives lectures on Islam and comparitive religions.

Indians indeed have from the very beginning itself have fought against the British in India, and the anglo-sikh wars, the anglo-maratha wars, the campaigns of Marthanda Varma, Kerala Varma, Velu Thampy Dalava, Tipu Sultan, the Rani of Jhansi, Tatya Tope, Nana Sahib,the rajputs, the jats and others are proof of this. There is no terrorism at all involved in this, as these people were fighting to defend their country which they have every right to do so.

They were not involved in offensive warfare against Europe, Asia, Africa like the Islamic terrorists since the 7th century A.D.

Thank you for explaining " Fundamentalists" , it helps me much as l have limited words and try so hard to understand you all here and l must continually check the dictionary for meaning over and over again ,but halleelulia lol l have learned what a Fundamentalist is here and l sort of knew what it meant , l thought , but now l see l was wrong lol and l can back that up by telling you to check [my] posts here and you will not find the word " fundamentalist " ,,,who cares anyway lol that now l know what 'fundamentalist' means.

Whew , it is not easy being me lol . Or anybody ,,,l guess.

" He should be a terrorist only towards the antisocial elements in order to promote peace and justice in the society. "

Ouch ,, lol l think l know what you mean lol .

I think what Fahad is trying to say is that not all Mulims are terrorists. In fact most of them are peaceful giving people. But it should also be said that there are those people who will use the Muslim faith to get them to do unbelievable acts of cruelity.

Rev, you understood this post to great extent but not completely.

If muslims are used for terrorism than it doesnot mean that muslims are behind terrorism just as british dictators in india appointed indians in there army and used them against the indians of subcontinent. I hope you get my point.

As far as Niranjan is concerned, he has to prove that Muslims were terrorist since 7 A.D. You should prove that the chinese muslims who have the highest poplution even more than the muslims of middle east and subcontinent were the victim of Islamic Terrorism.

You have to rationally and with evidence prove that the Muslims of Malaysia and Indonesia were converted forcefully by the so called extremist and Islamic Terrorists.

Niranjan, you should prove with explicit evidences that all the residents(Quraishis) of Makkah and Ansars of Medina were forcefully converted to Islam by the Islamic Terrorists and Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) was behind it.

I have read some of your conservative and biased posts in this thread especially the links of winipedia that you posted which mentioned that muslims killed many sikhs.

Do you want me to post the links with clear pictures of 1000s of innocent muslims of Gujrat province of India who were brutely slaugtered by the extremist Hindu group called "Shiv Sinha" ,managed by the leader "Bal Dhakray".

Those pictures were posted on internet but the Western Media put curtain on it because there aim is "only to show that muslims are not innocent but are the villains of this century".

What would you like to say niranjan ,on the massacre of the kashmiri muslims for more than 50 years ,who are raped ,tortured and there young children are put to death by the indian forces in Kashmir?


The problem is that i am not here to start any conflicting and painful discussions, i donot want this forum to turn into a place of battle.

I am a Muslim and proud to be one and we believe in peace and harmony.

Regards,

Niranjan ,what would you like to say about the train in India which was carrying pakistani passengers and it was burned by your extremist, narrowminded and terrorist hindus.

Western Media puts curtain on it because they donot want their beloved India to be exposed .

I know what this world is man, i have great knowledge and experience about it, dont think i am a child or stupid.

Regards,

And where is the point in this ! There indeed were indians in the British army whom the Indians fought against. Does that mean the Indians who fought against the British from the very beginning are terrorists.

In fact these very soldiers in the British Indian army rebelled against them in 1857 and in 1946.



Go through my posts in the thread " The real cause of Islamic terrorism " , and you will find links and material showing islamic terrorism against the zoroastrians , Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs in Asia in medieval times.






I condemn violence in any form. But it should be understood that the Gujarat violence started after Islamic terrorists put petrol bombs in a train containing hindu pilgrims and 59 people were killed, mainly women and children.
What happened was an instinctive public outrage against Islamic fundamentalists, and in the mob violence that followed many islamic fundamentalists were killed.

However I do not condone this as we are against all violence, and this should have been handled by the police and government.

Anyway the armed forces came to Gujarat and crushed all mob violence.


The so-called massacres were committed by Islamic terrorists trained by Pakistan and the ISI,( which incidentally trained and aided the taliban as well).

Many Kashmiri Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs were killed by these islamic terrorists.

However the Indian armed forces, have had tremondous success against Islamic terrorists from Pakistan, and hence they are highly demoralized and confused.

The Indian army also comprehensively defeated the Pakistanis in the 1999 Kargil war, where Pakistanis and terrorists cunningly occupied territory in kashmir, and the Indian army , in spite of heavy odds against them, still defeated them and thrashed them out of Kashmir. Even the Pakistani PM Nawaz Sharif, was awed by the prowess of the Indian soldiers and praised them in an interview.

The Indian army has created many welfare projects in Kashmir, and there are many kashmiri muslims in the Indian army as well.

Our own president , A.P.J.Abdul Kalam, the supreme commander of the armed forces of India, which is the third largest in the world , and which boast of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, which makes Kalam one of the most powerful men on earth and the most powerful muslim on earth, has condemned the Islamic terrorist activities of Pakistan, and has again and again exhorted the armed forces to be vigilant and alert and to constantly improve themselves , in order to destroy Islamic terrorism.

You have to understand that it is the Indian hindus themselves who had given visas to numerous pakistani muslims to visit their relatives in India.
Many pakistani muslims have come and gone without any problem.

What has happened is an aberration, and even then there is no evidence whatsoever to prove that hindus were behind the blasts, because we don't have a culture of bomb blasts and suicide bombings unlike Islamic terrorists.

And we also know that Islamic fundamentalists and terrorists in Pakistan is opposed to any ties with India, which the Indians had initiated. So we have reason to suspect this is their work, and indeed bomb attacks and suicide bombings occur almost every day in Pakistan.

Also the Indian police is working intensely to capture those involved in this tragedy.


We also wish to state that many patients from failed Islamic states like Pakistan and Afghanistan and Bangladesh has come to India for medical treatment, which we are gracious to provide ,as we believe in humanity, and we are still helping them.

A classic example is that of the baby Noor, who came to India from Pakistan for heart surgery ,which was successful.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz...urismindia.htm

Odd, but I fundamentally disagree.

Certainly, a good doctor should know and practice the fundamentals of medecine. But when faced with a new situation and not enough time, the very good doctor would be flexible enough to use all knowledge and experience to tease out new answers where none now exist. A fundamentalist would not do so, because the new answers are not contained with the old doctrine.

Similarly, Kurt Godel confounded Betrand Russell when he branched completely out of the known mathematics to show that there were theorems that could not be formed or proved within the context of Principia Mathematica. Russell never could quite understand what Godel had done, because Russell could not break out of his fundamental understanding of his own construct.

Darwin was not a good scientist, he was a great scientist, because he dared to see beyond the "dogma" of the science that existed until he observed the finches and tortoises of the Galapagos Islands, and made sense of the subtleties that he found.

I don't argue that it isn't necessary to know and understand the fundamentals. Of course it is. Where I have a problem is when people transform the fundamentals into dogma in the face of situations that require new thinking. This is something that religion is usually very loathe to do.

And I'll give you a good example. It was once thought that all men and women were heterosexual by nature, and that it was only their willful, evil nature that caused them to take up homosexual practices. So of course, the "fundamentals" of religion carried bans against those practices. Now, it is very well understood by everyone actually working in the human psychological and sexual sciences that homosexuality is a naturally-occuring and basically unalterable orientation.

Unfortunately, many religions cannot give up their fundamentals, which in the face of new knowledge has turned into hurtful dogma.

And that's where fundamentalism leads.

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.

I am glad that I understood to some extent. I am almost done with a World Religions class in college, and I must say that the chapter on Islam was very disappointing. It went more into the politics surrounding Islam than the religion itself. So, while I understand some about Islam, there is much that I don't understand.