Angela84, do you have references for this?

>>Some people trying to prove that terrorism in Islam is devided to two types: 1. Halal terrorism 2. Haram terrorism. Their reason is : If there is discrimination for anti terrorism law between Muslim suspect and Non Muslim suspect (as the Australian cleric has mentioned) will result in creating the division of Haram terrorism and Halal terrorism by the Australian government.<<

I have seen nothing to suggest that terrorism is defined any way other than "bad". Do you have evidence to the contrary?

And Boaz, you really should know better by now.

>>Rather than seek to wax eloquent myself about the reasons and justifications which inevitably draw flack, criticism, charge of 'obession' etc.. why not look at an actual letter.. written by [Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar]<<

There is absolutely no justification for this.

It is clear that the man is unbalanced. When people are unbalanced, they do really stupid things - sometimes, really bad things:

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

I deliberately chose a non-religious nutter, to show that when it comes to mad acts, they aren't invariably based on one's religion.

Some are, of course

http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0196/9601059.html

And here's a bunch of fun:

"So the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building was carried out by persons allied with the extreme right in the US, and in addition to McVeigh and Nichols, there were probably several other participants who most likely had ties to the neonazi underground, Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nations, Christian Identity, or the Christian Patriot movement.<

http://www.publiceye.org/rightist/ok_intro.html

Oh, and who are these "Christian Identity" folk?

http://kelticklankirk.com/militias_christian_identity.htm

You see, Boaz, it isn't just Islam we should be concerned about. There are extremists in every imaginable group or sect, prepared to do really stupid things in the name of ...whatever.

By trawling for every bit of anti-Islamic scuttlebutt you can find - including incidents where no-one was seriously damaged - you are becoming increasingly responsible for the very acts that you pretend to despise.

I think you must get a secret thrill, every time you find something horrid to regale us with... you do, don't you?

>>Yes we have Halal and Haram terrorism.
If anyone wants to deny it or doesn't know what is the definition for Halal terrorism or what is the difference between Haram terrorism and Halal terrorism , I can explain all these things.<<

I think it would be a really good idea if you did just that, ALJAZEERA_OZ, otherwise there will be a great deal of unnecessary and potentially damaging supposition going on.

>>but there is an important point that we should consider it. "Halal terrorism in Australia" is different with Halal terrorism in Islam" , so if anyone has question about "Halal terrorism" , must specify "in Australia" or "in Islam".<<

Now there's a classic example. This is either deliberately or accidentally confusing, which leaves the way open for every man+dog to apply their own interpretation on it. Presuming that you do actually know what you are talking about, now would be a good time to let us all know.

>>I think it is better I post a new thread about it and answer the questions about this important topic.<<

No need. This is as good a place as any. Please, go right ahead.

Pericles

Why do you make it difficult for others to understand a very simple thing? Why do you go so far? It is very simple:

If the anti terrorism law in Australia will be only for a part of citizens (say Muslims for example), not for all citizens, this means we will have two kinds of terrorist acts:
1. Halal terrorist acts.
2. Haram terrorist acts.

I must be a bit thick too, then.

"If the anti terrorism law in Australia will be only for a part of citizens (say Muslims for example), not for all citizens, this means we will have two kinds of terrorist acts:
1. Halal terrorist acts.
2. Haram terrorist acts."

As I understand it, 'halal' is an Arabic word that means something like 'permitted under Islam', whereas 'haram' means something like 'not permitted under Islam'. In which case, I would have thought that 'halal terrorist acts' would denote those terrorist acts that are allowed under Islam, while 'haram terrorist acts' would refer to those that contravene Islamic principles.

However, ALJAZEERA_OZ seems to be saying that if Australia's anti-terrorism laws only apply to Muslims (and that's a very big if), then that means that there are two kinds of terrorist acts, some of which are proscribed and some of which are not (but without saying which is which).

Sorry, I still don't get it. As somebody else once said, please explain.

ok I will make the questions and answers one by one to explain.

Question:
What is "Halal terrorist acts in Australia"? And what is the difference between "Halal terrorist acts in Australia" and "Haram terrorist acts in Australia?"

Answer:
Halal terrorist acts in Australia are those terrorist acts that the government is silent and quiet if happen, and the victims living free and enjoy of life even after the reports and evidences have been given to the authorities.
Haram terrorist acts in Australia are those terrorist acts that the government immediately will response to them and arrest the suspects even if there is not enough evidence.

Dear Perilous.....

I was thinking to myself when writing that piece "How is Pericles going to minimize and make impotent..a serious issue".. of all the ways I imagined.. the one you came up with was not on my list.

You reveal a fundamental weakness in all you write about Islam or in response to informed people writing about it.. 'Lack of knowledge'.

I don't say that to be cruel or to mock...I'm simply relfecting your own words "I know about as much about the Islamic scriptures as I do about the Christian..not much" something along those lines.. I can't find the exact post.

But this is the thing.. you criticize from ignorance..things written from an informed, broad database of knowledge and real world experience.

That is also why I rip into you and CJ when you take issue with 'me' rather than the actual issue.
At least you do try... CJ has a way to go on that.

The problem with your response, is that..it's wrong. Why? because you call someone 'unbalanced' for doing what 1000s of people are doing:
1)Becoming Muslims
2)Feeling grieved at the treatment of Muslims in trouble spots.
3)Taking the initiative to 'exact revenge'

Your misdirected passion, completely neglects the key point.. which was explained by the Iranian, who referred to the Quran.....copiously.
This is not 'imbalance' it is TYPICAL radical Islamic behavior...and across language and cultural barriers.

You then take isolated cases.. McVeigh, Unibomber.. neither of which can be connected to Christian scriptural teaching in any coherant way.

I still appreciate the challenge to my views, as it does help :)