Mumbai under siege

[Samurai]

Mumbai was under siege from the so-called fidayeen terrorists for the last 2.5 days. Almost 250+ dead and 400+ injured.

Over 20+ terrorists entered Mumbai via inflatable rafts and since then it was hell for around 60 hours. The mother ship from which they were launched ....caught off the waters of India....captain be-headed. Found GPS trackers and SAT phones on board.....apparently...the terrorists came from Karachi.

Pathetic.....what a shame and what a waste of human life.

For those wanting to see live coverage....go here: hxxp://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/video/video.aspx?id=0 (replace xx with tt)

[trailboss]

Yep, it's a mess. At least two Aussies among those dead, eight still missing. Even more with tales of how they would be among the dead if not for the bravery of locals helping them to escape. I don't know who's lost how many appart from the Aussie toll but it hardly matters anyway. This is shear insanity in a country inhabited by some realy nice people. India has allways been a contrast of incredible beauty and unspeakable crueality but this tops the lot.

Col.

[sidak]

These are terrible times we live in.

Mumbai has a reputation in India of being a resilient city - but the mood here in the last few days has been one of sullen anger, paranoia and fear.

As wishes pour in from around the world we ask ourselves how this happened and what will the results be.

Indians are easy going people - trusting by nature and tending to shy away from conflict. THis is why it is a country remarkably easy to penetrate with some ill will as has been the case historically.

It is these easy going and non-violent aspects that are the long term targets of this attack. And it is these very aspects of the national character that we should now fight to preserve, or else these terrorists would have won.

Peace.

[gran]

Maybe part of the answer is that there are some really angry people out there that are tired of big nations arrogance...some want revenge...some want to prove they can die for their GOD...some have been manipulated into this...they seem to want to fight and die for their case no matter how crazy and missguided it may seem to us...young "idealistic" people that want to change the world can be quite dangerous

Example picture of how missguided and cowardly some of these paople are:

[Samurai]

I say....identify the terrorists.....then go wipe out their near and dear ones.....send out a message....you kill 1.....get ready to lose 10 of your own. Perhaps thats the only language these jerks will understand.

Am [censored] off and am venting.

[gran]

Killing is not going to help anyone

[RobbieG]

I feel for you frustration but it wouldn't work. They would just be happy that their loved ones went to the promised land with honor. That is why it is so difficult to fight radical religious fanatics - Islamic or otherwise. It has nothing to do with Islam of course, they are just fu*king nuts. I mean what the h*ll did the Indians ever do to anyone? Such gentle people. What a shame. One could even rationalize why they would attack us if one looked for enough idealistic reasons, but India? It just goes to show how twisted those ideals really are. All should say a prayer for them. So very, very sad are these times.

I say....identify the terrorists.....then go wipe out their near and dear ones.....send out a message....you kill 1.....get ready to lose 10 of your own. Perhaps thats the only language these jerks will understand.

Am [censored] off and am venting.

[TeeJay]

The really sad thing, is if these idiots actually bothered to read the Qur'an, they would know that such actions are utterly forbidden. They have no right to call themselves Muslims, as their behavior is totally against the tenets of Islam

[Pugwash]

The really sad thing, is if these idiots actually bothered to read the Qur'an, they would know that such actions are utterly forbidden. They have no right to call themselves Muslims, as their behavior is totally against the tenets of Islam

The problem with religion is that it leaves itself (by design) open to interpretation.

What you really need, and what you'll never get, is for the leaders of religions to stand up and say this is against their religion. Until the heads of religions actually say this, and loudly, the killings will continue.

And yes, there's no way around it. This is about religion.

[zzipy]

Really sorry to hear/see what is going on in Bombay. I have visited all the 3 places that the Jihadis targeted (in 1992). It kinda shakes you more.

Islam will cause the 3rd world war. I am convinced. It has been hijacked by the extremist wing and sadly the liberals do not stand against them as at some level they tacitly agree. And if someone from other religion says anything, it is met with violence.

Islam belongs in 10 century and it will not rest untill the world looks like Afganistan.

[TeeJay]

The problem with religion is that it leaves itself (by design) open to interpretation.

What you really need, and what you'll never get, is for the leaders of religions to stand up and say this is against their religion. Until the heads of religions actually say this, and loudly, the killings will continue.

And yes, there's no way around it. This is about religion.

To a degree, yes and no. Yes, people can interpret a text in a certain way, but also, the scriptures themselves (be it the Bible, the Qur'an or the dead sea scrolls) remain consistent and unchanging. Even with differing interpretations, it is impossible to actually change the text itself. This is what is so disheartening about these Islamic extremists: They are acting in ways which are so contrary to the nature of the Qur'an, they are beyond what could be considered 'differing interpretations'. Then, as you say, there a the issue of religion itself (as in organized doctrine) which itself can be radically different to the actual nature of the original text. That's why I've said before, I am a fundementalist, In that I follow the fundementals of Islam: The Qur'an. It is this kind of indoctrination which is a problem, because that is not actually educating the person, or allowing them to educate themself by actually reading the text properly themself, and that, combined with cultural/social issues, is the true problem.

[iceberg1459]

the whole thing is a vicious cycle....to break the cycle one of the things you need PROPER education imo...in whole world

the terrorists mostly driven by manipulated religion...

religion is powerful...its easy to teach, hard to manipulate.... but if you succeed and use in a bad way it can be very dangerous....on uneducated people..

and thats only one part..we should ask ourselves WHY do terrorists become terrorists....they must have nothing more to lose

it takes much more to KILL someone than you think..what makes them go into such situation...

the worst thing is, terrorists are not country or race, they consist of individuals....

they should find the mastermind whos behind them, whos controlling them...terrorists are just brainwashed pawns of his game..

IMO

[Pugwash]

To a degree, yes and no. Yes, people can interpret a text in a certain way, but also, the scriptures themselves (be it the Bible, the Qur'an or the dead sea scrolls) remain consistent and unchanging.

Now you don't really believe that, do you? I'm not an expert on the Qur'an[1], but I can assure you that the bible has undergone a vast amount of edits and changes, mostly of a political nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha

That's just scratching the surface.

[1] As far as I know, the Qur'an is mostly unchanged since the 7th century, yet scholars still find swathes of text to disagree about.

[KB]

Just to let everyone know the team is keeping a close eye on this thread, no noteworthy breaches yet but it will be closed if it goes the wrong way.

Ken

[chronoluvvv]

lets see how the lame Indian government responds to the activities of their dastardly neighbors

[JohnG]

and thats only one part..we should ask ourselves WHY do terrorists become terrorists....

Yes, but too few people ask this question.

[coolfire]

1 young Singaporean lawyer dead.

Godammit, [censored] terrorism!

[Samurai]

Quote from BBC:

"While the vast majority of victims were Indians, at least 22 foreigners are known to have died, including victims from Israel, Germany, Japan, Canada, Australia, Italy, Singapore, Thailand and France. One Briton, Andreas Liveras, was also killed."

Where is the sense in all of this????

[coolfire]

Quote from BBC:

"While the vast majority of victims were Indians, at least 22 foreigners are known to have died, including victims from Israel, Germany, Japan, Canada, Australia, Italy, Singapore, Thailand and France. One Briton, Andreas Liveras, was also killed."

Where is the sense in all of this????

Terrorism makes no sense.

Those who kill in this manner are plain COWARDS.

[Pugwash]

Just to let everyone know the team is keeping a close eye on this thread, no noteworthy breaches yet but it will be closed if it goes the wrong way.

It's a fine line we're treading. Nice to know the mods are keeping it civil.

I'm not sure what the Indian government can do about this. There's no sovereign state they can avenge themselves upon, much like there was no country[1] behind the Al Quaeda attacks.

Precedent shows the country of origin of the terrorists isn't held accountable.

[1] I didn't hear of tanks rolling into Saudi Arabia, and that's where all the AQ guys came from.

[TeeJay]

the whole thing is a vicious cycle....to break the cycle one of the things you need PROPER education imo...in whole world

the terrorists mostly driven by manipulated religion...

religion is powerful...its easy to teach, hard to manipulate.... but if you succeed and use in a bad way it can be very dangerous....on uneducated people..

and thats only one part..we should ask ourselves WHY do terrorists become terrorists....they must have nothing more to lose

it takes much more to KILL someone than you think..what makes them go into such situation...

the worst thing is, terrorists are not country or race, they consist of individuals....

they should find the mastermind whos behind them, whos controlling them...terrorists are just brainwashed pawns of his game..

IMO

Absolutely so, I couldn't agree with you more.

Now you don't really believe that, do you?

I absolutely believe that, but in a way I shall clarify below. I cannot stress enough how utterly forbidden it is to deliberately alter or mis-transcribe the Qur'an, so moving onto the next point:

I'm not an expert on the Qur'an[1], but I can assure you that the bible has undergone a vast amount of edits and changes, mostly of a political nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha

That's just scratching the surface.

Indeed, you are absolutely right about that, in that the Bible has undergone numerous revisions for primarily political reasons. Modern-Day Christianity is not the message which Jesus taught... This is why, although Muslims (should) grant respect to the Bible and Christians as 'people of the book', it is not considered unquestionably as 'the word of God', because of the deliberate revisions which have taken place. Obviously, the Qur'an has been translated out of the original Classical Arabic (which is very different from the Arabic spoken today) and the Qur'an was first translated into English from French, although obviously today, there are translations direct from the original Arabic. Languages can be translated or, more accurately, mistranslated with no intention to be incorrect or misleading on the part of the interpreter. For example, have you seen the original movie Stargate? If so, do you remember the scene where Dr Jackson corrects the translation on the blackboard? The fundamental basics of the message were relatively unaltered, and it was essentially only the wording which was altered. Even the apparent differences in intent of the words, can be 'acknowledged but tollerated' as differences in how the two different languages were and are, used. This is how there can be occasional differences in wording between particular 'editions' of the Qur'an, simply because of the different translations, but the fundamental basics of the message itself, are unchanged, rather than the intentional revisions of the Bible, which as you correctly mention, have taken place. Now, if you were to read a Palastinian Qur'an, you would find parenthesis have been added to the text, referring to modern munitions. That is something which gives not only a false translation of the original text, but also a false interpretation of the message of the text, and, as I mentioned above, such conscious and deliberate actions, are utterly forbidden.

If you've ever read the Bible, you might enjoy reading the Qur'an. Before I read the Qur'an properly, I had lived my life as an Atheist, and held 'Muslims' (as I perceived them, or rather, as the Media told me to perceive them) in utter contempt. I'd heard all the Right-Wing rhetoric, heard quotes of particular passages which mentioned fighting and whatnot, but had not read the full text, so it was all too easy to accept those quotes as accurate, particularly when they tied in with what the media was showing about 'Islamic Extremism'. Taking individual passages out of context makes it all too easy to manipulate the message. When I then actually read the Qur'an myself, and the history of the life of the prophet Muhammad (PBUH), the context provided by all the other text, made all the difference to those individual passages which hate-mongers so frequently bandy about. I'm not saying that it will make you believe, but from an educational point of view, I believe you would find it an interesting read.

[1] As far as I know, the Qur'an is mostly unchanged since the 7th century, yet scholars still find swathes of text to disagree about.

Again, absolutely correct, in that the Qur'an has remained mostly unchanged. As I mentioned above, any changes which have ocurred are (or rather certainly should be) only down to differences in interpretations of translation, not intentional revision. Anyone who does intentionally mis-transcribe the Qur'an is, as mentioned, behaving in an utterly forbidden way, and in a way which no true Muslim would consider doing.

As for your point about the scholars still disagreeing with text, again, you are absolutely right. They do disagree. But, it is an essentially irrelevant point with regards the text itself, in that it does not matter if Scholar A feels a passage means one thing, and Scholar B feels it means something else, as those are simply their personal opinions, and they are entitled to have them. But. Regardless of what either of them believe, it does not change the message of the Qur'an itself.

The actual issue being faced, is how organized religion can be used to manipulate people into behaving in ways utterly forbidden by the Qur'an itself. It is all too easy for a scholar to say "This is the word..." as, if the people have not, or, as is sometimes the case, cannot read the text for themselves, then they will believe what the scholar says as true. It's like when Christianity was brought to the British Isles, and sermons delivered in Latin. That was not the language of the people, nor were the majority educated enough to actually read the text for themselves. It's the same issue with Islam (as an organized religion) There are 1.1 billion Muslims in the world, yet only 20% of them actually live in Arab countries, so it is certainly not a requirement for a Muslim to know Arabic simply to be a Muslim. How does that relate to the Latin problem? Well, in those days, there were no 'English translations' of the Bible, so the people simply had to believe what they were being told. In modern times, there are English (and other language) translations of the Qur'an (which are available to anyone) so the people can actually study the text for themselves, so they do not have to rely solely on the reciter (as the Qur'an is meant to be recited aloud) to be actually reading it correctly. However, even in modern countries, where education is not a universal matter, people can easily be manipulated by incorrect interpretations, simply because they cannot confirm the message themselves. Another situation, is if their opinion is somehow swayed by a particularly charismatic scholar, that is then because they choose to accept that scholar's interpretation, over their own knowledge of the text itself. Again though, if they chose to follow a scholar's interpretation of the Qur'an, rather than the Qur'an itself, then they are no longer following the Qur'an, and, when they then commit behaviors which the Qur'an specifically forbids (such as suicide) then they should no longer be viewed as Muslims, simply because they are no longer submitting themselves to God's Will, but are infact following 'another', which, as previously mentioned, is completely and utterly forbidden, and they are, to use the Arabic term, committing shirk.

The issue is not the (or any) religion itself, but the organization of religion, and how that organization can be used to manipulate people. This is why I always say that people (regardless of how the media 'use' the word) should always study the fundamentals of a religion, (the original source material) rather than simply following the word and 'traditions' of the organization of how the religion currently exists, as those two factors are not always in true harmony

Terrorism makes no sense.

Those who kill in this manner are plain COWARDS.

And as above, I could not agree with you more completely.

[Edit to clarify points]

[Pugwash]

Again, absolutely correct, in that the Qur'an has remained mostly unchanged. As I mentioned above, any changes which have ocurred are (or rather certainly should be) only down to differences in interpretations of translation, not intentional revision. Anyone who does intentionally mis-transcribe the Qur'an is, as mentioned, behaving in an utterly forbidden way, and in a way which no true Muslim would consider doing.

This is one of the key reasons Islam is referred to as a primitive religion. Some of the rules can be considered out of date, but if you wish to follow islam, you are trapped in a 7th century ruleset which can be demonstrated as being incompatible with a 21st century world. Many Islamist countries (like Iran and Nigeria) seem to be trying to revert civilisation to a pre-enlightened state. The way Islam treats its women is positively barbaric[1], for instance.

This still doesn't cover the point about religious leaders I made earlier. Why does a religion (be it the leaders or the members, be it christianity or islam) not condemn these acts of terrorism?

What do they fear?

[1] As a reader of the Qur'an, you may be in an informed position to tell us what the rules about wife-beating are.

Edit: Just before anyone decides to turn this into an anti-Islam rant using my posts as a launch platform, TJ is right on the peace aspect of Islam, whereby they want to be a religion of peace.

However, Islam has a PR issue and it's not helped by Islamic terrorists. Islam needs to disown them and it needs to do so loudly and it needs to do so fast. Unfortunately, Islamic leaders and members have not universally shunned or disowned terrorists before and show no willingness to do so in the future, much like Christian leaders didn't tell the Irish to stop killing each other. As long as terrorists can use the names of religions unchecked, we will continue seeing terrorists as emissaries of their religions. If you're doing it in His name, and no-one on your side is disagreeing, we'll judge your religion, and rightly so.

[mastergod]

The problem with religion is that it leaves itself (by design) open to interpretation.

An amazingly interesting point. Good observation, Pug.

I believe this is a design feature which is built into the religion in order to facilitate timelessness and thereby ensuring long-term relevance in the mind of the religion

[TeeJay]

This is one of the key reasons Islam is referred to as a primitive religion. Some of the rules can be considered out of date, but if you wish to follow islam, you are trapped in a 7th century ruleset which can be demonstrated as being incompatible with a 21st century world.

Why can they be considered 'out of date'? Has Allah said that His rules have been relaxed? Oh I do not deny, that social attitudes have changed, but that does not mean that the rules are 'out of date' or no longer applicable. To be honest, I have read nothing in the Qur'an which is incompatible with the 21st Century Western world. For example, the rulings on fornication and homosexuality:

[4.15] And as for those who are guilty of an indecency from among your women, call to witnesses against them four (witnesses) from among you; then if they bear witness confine them to the houses until death takes them away or Allah opens some way for them.

[4.16] And as for the two who are guilty of indecency from among you, give them both a punishment; then if they repent and amend, turn aside from them; surely Allah is Oft-returning (to mercy), the Merciful.

For the punishment to be applied, the 'crime' must be proven. For the 'crime' to be proven, then four witnesses must be called. If people are committing fornication, adultery, or committing homosexual acts within the confines of their own homes, how can there be four witnesses? There can't. Therefore, the acts themselves are not punishable (by Mankind) but judged by Allah alone. What these passages are particularly referring to, is a warning not to behave lewdly in public.

So, no incompatibility with today's 'tolerant and open' society there...

Many Islamist countries (like Iran and Nigeria) seem to be trying to revert civilisation to a pre-enlightened state.

Here's where the debate gets truly 'hair-splitting'. Countries such as those, no matter how devout they may claim to be, are not truly 'Islamic Countries', as they are not organized solely by the teachings of the Qur'an, but rather, combining pre-Islamic local cultural attitudes and behaviours with Islamic teaching, and then passing the two off as one and the same. As mentioned above, that is shirk, therefore utterly forbidden, and not something which any true Muslim should agree with.

The way Islam treats its women is positively barbaric[1], for instance.

Really? Granting a woman the rights to divorce and finances is barbaric?

I don't deny for an instant that there is a perception that Islam treats its women in a barbaric manner, but, as I mentioned above, this is truly a case of local cultural attitudes being blended with Islam and passed off as the same thing, in reality, something of a misconception. Female (or male, for that matter) circumcision, for example. Widely practiced in some African countries as 'religious obligation'. Absolutely nothing in the Qur'an about anyone (male or female) having to be circumcised for religious reasons. Equally, there is nothing whatsoever in the Qur'an which says a female must cover her face. Indeed, wearing a veil was quite likely a customary form of dress in Medina during the time of the Prophet, (PBUH) but that was nothing more than local conditions dictating practical clothing to protect from sandstorms, and again, absolutely nothing which is stipulated in the Qur'an.

This still doesn't cover the point about religious leaders I made earlier. Why does a religion (be it the leaders or the members, be it christianity or islam) not condemn these acts of terrorism?

Who is to say they do not? The media only reports the news it wants people to hear.

What do they fear?

Becoming targets themselves, perhaps.

[1] As a reader of the Qur'an, you may be in an informed position to tell us what the rules about wife-beating are.

Actually, this is one of those examples where differences in language can create differences in understanding and interpretation. Here's the passage in question:

[4.34] Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great

The word which, in Classical Arabic is the same as the modern Arabic word, which is then translated into English as 'beat', during the time of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was used to mean 'make a decision/come to an understanding'. It was not used to mean 'physically chastise', so despite the changes in how the word is currently understood, that does not mean that the message of the Qur'an has actually changed accordingly. To focus precisely on the passage:

"and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them"

How can a man leave his wife alone (by herself) in her bed, and beat her at the same time? A man cannot be in two places at once...

"then if they obey you"

Obey what though? What would they be obeying?

The intent of the passage, is to mean that during times of marital strife, there should be discussion, then if the discussion fails, then the man should leave the woman to sleep alone, so that, God willing, she may desire his company once more, which therefore, means there has been an understanding between them, so the husband need not 'seek a way against them' (divorce) (which is permitted in Islam, where Catholicism would not allow it, hence Henry VIIIth's creation of the Church of England...) It is not a case of reading the English text and thinking it means a husband has a 'God-given right to beat up his wife', (such as the above picture might suggest) but looking to the linguistic history involved as well... I hope that answers your question on that issue

[Pugwash]

Here's where the debate gets truly 'hair-splitting'. Countries such as those, no matter how devout they may claim to be, are not truly 'Islamic Countries',

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Bzzzt. You fail.

The intent of the passage, is to mean that during times of marital strife, there should be discussion, then if the discussion fails, then the man should leave the woman to sleep alone, so that, God willing, she may desire his company once more, which therefore, means there has been an understanding between them, so the husband need not 'seek a way against them' (divorce) (which is permitted in Islam, where Catholicism would not allow it, hence Henry VIIIth's creation of the Church of England...) It is not a case of reading the English text and thinking it means a husband has a 'God-given right to beat up his wife', (such as the above picture might suggest) but looking to the linguistic history involved as well... I hope that answers your question on that issue

http://www.islamicperspectives.com/Quran-4-34.htm

If even suspension of sexual relations fails to work, then it is suggested that men use dharb. This word has almost universally been translated here as "beating". Such a translation is supported by some passages in the Qur'an where the word does mean smiting or striking (2:60, 61, 73, 8:12, 50, 7:160 etc).

Yeah, not at all ambiguous. Hmm.

You can't argue interpretable passages as rock-solid dogma. Even your finest scholars mumble over some passages and hope no-one notices. In Christianity, it's the bits where Lot's daughters get him drunk and seduce him; in Islam it's ... well, I'll let you find the bits you read quieter than others.

Anyway, I digress. Islam has a PR disaster with terrorism and appears to be doing nothing about it. That's where I feel the real debate lies.