Libertarian Muslim
-
Posts
528 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Store
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Articles
Posts posted by Libertarian Muslim
-
-
We cannot remove that, because we are at war with Islam, or at least with the parts of Islam that makes it necessary for us to defend ourselves.
See if that were the case and you were at war with Islam, rather than just terrorism, you'd be at war with more than 1.6 billion people and you'd lose that war even quicker than you're losing this one I can assure you of that..
Giving Bin Laden a trial would have done little more than provide a grandstand for the jihad cause - the cause will go on in life or in death. You really want us to believe that people who are out to impose Sharia, who will kill merely for someone drawing a cartoon, care about individual rights and the US constitution? Look at whose eyes you're trying to pull the wool over and then ask yourself what chance you have of success.
Jefferson said it's better to allow people with ideas you would consider wrong to be able to voice their opinion rather than try and shut them up and to instead defeat their ideas with better opinions.. The very fact that he would have been given a fair trial would have defeated a lot of the arguments of the Islamist narrative..
Terror is a tactic. A war against terror can neither be won nor lost.
LM has always been essentially disingenuous. Well educated he must come from a fairly well off family or gets sponsorship elsewhere. That's my guess. He has to be careful of his rear in a way you and I don't have to. His opinions are too well oiled and manage to get through any crack. One thing for sure, his is not an independent soul.
--Brant
That's funny!
I suppose in a way that I should find it flattering that you think so. But actually, nothing could be further from the truth.
-
If that was indeed the case then I believe that it was completely wrong to do so because not only was he not able to be held fully accountable in a US Court for the crimes that he was accused of which would have subsequently won the war on terror..
Is that some kind of a joke?
Not at all.. The war on terror can't be won with bombs, it has to be won by removing the initiative of the enemy to fight.. When that enemy believes that dying from this war gives them paradise it encourages them to fight even if they will die..
If you instead remove the reasons for them to fight, such as the Islamist narrative that the US is at war with Islam and wants to destroy it and that the US is hypocritical and would discard the justice and democratic ideals that it claims to stand for when it suits it then you destroy the Islamist narrative and then the islamists won't be able to get people to fight for them as easily..
Giving bin Laden a fair trial and due process would have destroyed much of the narrative, but instead the Obama administration has just proven it right. Now the US will, without a doubt lose the war on terror.
-
Something is rotten in the State of Denmark.
--Brant
Ditto..
-
I think, LM, my understanding of US military special operations is fairly knowledgeable and sophisticated without claiming the status of an expert. If the mission was to capture BL they would have done their best to capture him. If they were told it was optional it is likely they would have killed him. If to kill, not capture, that's not a mission I could go on. In the case of Admiral Yamamoto in WW II they had to kill him or let him go--that is, there was no option possible exercisable in the field. That choice was purely made higher up--to shoot him down. I could have gone on that mission, albeit with some regret.
--Brant
not regular infantry
Brant, that's my point.. It doesn't sound right..
The fact is that the Obama administration has stated that the SEALs were ordered to capture him if possible. I however, don't believe that they were ordered to capture him and if they were ordered to do so, there needs to be a full investigation as to why they couldn't capture an unarmed Osama bin Laden which is common practice if I understand it correctly.
If instead the Administration ordered him killed in the Rules of Engagement for the mission even if there was ample opportunity to capture him then that should be made public. If that was indeed the case then I believe that it was completely wrong to do so because not only was he not able to be held fully accountable in a US Court for the crimes that he was accused of which would have subsequently won the war on terror..
But I also think in terms of intelligence value it was a waste because there is no doubt, that he would be the real treasure trove of information for the things that weren't written down.. The intelligence value of him would be far more than anything taken out of the house..
If however they were afraid he would release some very uncomfortable truths about his relationship to the CIA and the Bush family then it would make more sense to have killed him without a trial. But then that makes me even more suspicious about what they're hiding..
The last option which I believe is a real possibility is that he was indeed captured and is still alive and is being interrogated as we speak for information relating to Al Qaeda and the Taliban and they don't want to make it public because they're afraid of the terrorist attacks that might take place to get him back..
-
LM should understand that soldiers are primarily trained to destroy and kill. That's the default. In the context of an operation that's what they usually try to do. They may be given a rescue mission--and kill any who try to stop them. They may be asked to gather intelligence behind enemy lines and avoid fighting, but they'll go in with assault rifles--guess why for. They may be asked to capture, not kill, Bin Laden. Obviously they weren't, but if that were the mission everybody between BL and them would be immediately killed out of hand--no surrenders accepted--until they got their hands on him and had him under their control. Why? So they wouldn't be delayed. The same thing on the way out to the extraction.
After more than 40 years I still have that kill mind-set. It is not the mind-set of a properly trained police officer nor most never-been-in-the-military civilians. Now, this mind-set varies in intensity throughout the ranks and is probably strongest in the Marines, followed by the army. Many military are support personnel and their mind-sets are more pacific, less warrior like. But even those, because of their initial training, can pick up a rifle and blast away if necessary. In fact, those are least capable of doing anything other than kill in combat because their skills are so poor. They aren't sent into combat; combat comes to them, sometimes. They aren't sent to capture anybody. Etc.
Perhaps you should understand that the mission of SEAL Team 6 is not only to destroy and kill.. That may be the role of a regular infantry soldier but when it comes to SEAL Team 6 their role is far more complex and they are a highly trained unit that has a history of being tasked to go and capture and extract hostile high value targets.. They did this in Bosnia and were very successful.
Now you may have a kill kill mindset.. That's fine.. But the SEALs aren't trained to just kill.. They don't spend that much money on training them for something a regular grunt could have done..
The U.S. military is not run by the FBI or answerable to it. The FBI, on the other hand, might do the bidding of the military in some situations as per the instructions of the President, such as being "wanted." It can "wanted" all it wants without those instructions, but if the Seals had captured Bin Laden you won't find the FBI banging on the door of the DOD demanding his custody. Some stupid Federal judge might make such a demand, risking impeachment, but to no effect.
--Brant
he deserved worse than he got
No, but the whole justification of attacking Afghanistan and staying there for what will be more than 10 years is the criminal acts of 9/11 of which Osama bin Laden was blamed. It was about us trying to get justice and hold him accountable..
Obama himself stated that they were trying to capture Osama in the operation, so then it brings the question..
If there was ample opportunity to capture him, which it seems more and more likely as each new report comes out.. Then why was he killed? If he was killed when he could have been captured then why are they saying they were trying to capture him..
The "affidavit"--I'd bet the ranch--was written by his slick American lawyer.
--Brant
I have experience with Islamic Extremism, I've seen it not only in terrorist suspects held in prison but also with Islamists in several different countries in the world.
What the affidavit states is what Islamists believe..
You are justified in using your "we", LM, if you feel you are now an American, regardless of where you live. Being an American is primarily a state of mind.
Do you think of yourself as an American? If you don't, then "we" is not appropriate here the way you've been using it.
--Brant
I suppose I do see myself as an American now that you mention it.
This wouldn't have made the least bit of difference.
Bin Laden declared war on the U.S. long before 9/11, and he openly conceded and bragged about his role in 9/11. He was a prime enemy combatant, and he was dealt with properly.
Ghs
It would have made a huge difference.. It would have won the war because the majority of the Islamists believe in the same narrative which has just been reinforced because Osama bin Laden was not given the chance to have a fair trial like our values state a criminal like him should have, they believe we are hypocrites when it comes to the application of our values and of justice, that we will discard these values when it suits us and apply them when it is beneficial for us to do so.. We proved them right in killing an unarmed Osama bin Laden.. I believe without exaggeration that act has lost the war for us..
I'll tell you what would have happened if Osama bin Laden were to have been given a chance to face a court for his actions and be held accountable in a fair trial..
If he were found guilty, he probably would have been executed.. And no one could say we were hypocrites..
I might also state this..
You talk about Osama bin Laden declaring war on the US.. A state can declare war and a war can ensue, but a group can not as they are not acting within the laws of a particular nation and have no authority as a sovereign state to declare war.. So who are they representing?
In such a case, their actions, not representing a sovereign nation were in fact a criminal action breaching the laws of the state where the crime was committed (the USA).. Therefore, as a suspect in a crime Osama bin Laden should have been indicted, charged with and gone to trial for the attacks on 9/11 and not subject to extrajudicial execution..
-
LM,
According to the stories I have read, bib Laden was going for his guns that were nearby when he was shot--but he was acting in a confused manner. He also threw one of his wives at a Seal.
You are going on a premise that an unarmed man was executed by the military almost like in a firing squad--and treating this as if it were a fact.
The stories I have been reading and hearing from credible sources contradict that understanding.
Michael
There's been many reports Michael, each report puts bin Laden as being less and less aggressive.. They initially said he was shooting at the SEALs and so the SEALs shot back and killed him, they then said he was going to grab a gun so they shot him.. The most recent story states that when asked whether he was reaching for a gun or not is not that he was reaching for a gun, but that he didn't surrender.. So they won't even say that he was reaching for a gun now..
I find it very concerning that people would accept that in the 30 minutes of the raid leading up to him coming face to face with the SEALs that Osama bin Laden did not arm himself when he had ample opportunity to do so in that time as there was a Kalashnikov assault rifle and a Makarov pistol in the room with him. If he wanted to grab a firearm then surely he'd have done so long before coming face to face with them, yet he didn't. He peered at them from the balcony and went back inside, they followed him in, they shot his wife in the leg and then shot him in the head and possibly the chest..
I agree that the facts all aren't 100% clear, but this is all rather suspicious..
Nevertheless, I do believe that there should be some investigation as to the circumstances of his death and whether he was reaching for a firearm or not, if he was not then I see no real justification for shooting him as he was not a threat..
It brings into question the White House's claim that they were trying to capture him.. SEALs and in particular this SEAL team, SEAL Team 6 are incredibly well trained in this type of operation and definitely know how to capture people, they're experts at capture and extraction of high value and hostile targets.. If they wanted to do so and he wasn't reaching for a firearm then they'd have done so.. The fact that the reports are now not saying he reached for a firearm but that he was shot anyway indicates to me that their intention was to kill him, not to capture him..
-
LM,
You start a message to me with "oh, please," and say you were actually talking about Obama?
Hmmmmmm...
I'll take you at your word, but I don't understand the reasoning.
Back to point. My understanding about war is not just revenge.
When you are attacked, you have to go in and dismantle the attacker's capacity to continue--infrastructure, military, etc.
If you can demoralize him, even better. Killing the leader and confiscating the leader's intelligence traditionally does a pretty good job of it.
Oh, the fanatics will bluster for a while, but let's see what happens medium-to-long term. In my opinion, Al Qaeda is going the way of the Ku Klux Klan as a major player.
Like I said, revenge is within retaliation somewhere, but I don't believe for a minute that it was the major component driving the USA military campaign against bin Laden and his cohorts. I think neutralizing him for good was the main focus.
(And I fully recognize the stupid bullying and patronizing of bloody dictators America has done in Islamic lands. I do not condone that, but that is beside my point here, which was to characterize war instead of justice.)
Michael
I said 'oh please' to the same old excuse that somehow, the fact that the innocent victims of 9/11 not having a trial gives us the right to then deny it to those we accuse of being responsible for their death.. I also said it to the fact that you said we have no jurisdiction in Pakistan and therefore, laws don't apply.
What I was talking about regarding justice was referring to Obama's assertion that it was about justice.
In terms of killing bin Laden, he hadn't been found guilty in a court of law and he was wanted for committing the crime of terrorism and should have been brought in to face a fair trial. That was the right thing to do.
In addition to that, the intelligence value of having him alive would be profound.
For the life of me I could not understand why they would kill him when he was unarmed and so valuable. Unless of course they had something to hide which they didn't want make public in a trial like his relationship to the CIA and how he was directly trained by them and the British..
Or maybe it's something even crazier.. Maybe he's not dead at all and is locked away somewhere and they're getting the intelligence from him and doing that so that attacks don't happen to get him back.
If it's as transparent as it seems I feel that there is not justice done and that this will only further recruit more terrorists.. It's the perfect way to lose a war.
And of course it's about revenge.. It's the whole reason for the war and why we're there.
LM,
Who is this "We", you keep mentioning?
Have you switched allegiances since that protracted argument we had about Israel's right to exist?
Remember? Suicide bombing is tactically justifiable?
Then, you stood for Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas.
Of course, you used 'justice' a lot then, too.
I didn't trust your double standards then, but decided to give you the benefit of the doubt.
It was right to do so, even though I've been proven wrong.
Reading what you have to say here, makes my blood run cold.
Tony
(Oh, yes; and the 'just' thing to do would have been to kill bin Laden with a gun in his hand, so he could have gone out like the hero we know him to be, not like a craven psychopath.)
1. I never stated that suicide bombing was justifiable tactically nor religiously. I've maintained that tactically it's counter productive because it only serves to create hate and resentment in a guerrilla war when support and propaganda is needed to win and I've also stated that suicide bombing is forbidden in Islam.
2. I don't stand with Hamas, nor Iran, nor Hezbollah. I don't condone one particular group or another because that would be condoning all of their actions.. None of them are fault free.. I don't believe in targeting non combatants and I don't believe in breaking Islamic laws to achieve goals. I may state that a particular action was justified but never give condone as a whole an organization, if I've done so in the past (which I don't believe I have) then I have recognized that such views were wrong and have changed my views and am not to proud to admit I was wrong..
If it were the case that I did believe as you assert that I do and have indeed changed my tune, surely I would have thought this would be cause for encouragement to continue on this path rather than what you've just stated.
3. You seem to fail to understand my point. We being the West assert that we are better than bin Laden and Al Qaeda, and if we are indeed better, then we don't kill unarmed people who we believe are guilty of a crime. We bring them in front of a court and give them a fair trial..
I'd have preferred that bin Laden had died fighting not because it would make a martyr out of him, but because it would show that he died when engaged in a firefight in an attempt to capture him, which was unavoidable and the best thing we could say is that we still respected his dead body when Al Qaeda didn't give the same respect to their victims.. That would have been a huge PR win..
Yet then I find out that he didn't have a gun, he wasn't using his wife as a human shield and he was instead shot in the head.. That doesn't sound like they're trying to capture him.. That's why I've called for an investigation, to make clear the facts.. Was he reaching for a gun? Was he doing something else? What level of resistance did he offer and was it necessary to shoot him in the head and kill him to protect the lives of the SEALs?
I find it so disgusting that people have no issue with the the possibility that he may have been executed for a crime that we believe he committed without facing a trial simply because we believe that he wouldn't have given us the right to a fair trial also.. Surely those that sincerely believe in natural rights and freedoms wouldn't give those up just to make themselves feel safer or out of hate or emotion.. Instead we'd stick to the right thing and give him a fair trial..
It's as Benjamin Franklin said "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Those that would be comfortable with executing an unarmed man who should have been held accountable in a court of law when there was ample opportunity of doing so are traitors to the ideas of liberty and natural rights.. Those people are the very proof to the radical Islamists that like bin Laden and others have stated in the Islamist narrative, the US doesn't care about standing up for the things they say they do like justice and liberty for all people in situations where it doesn't suit the US' interests..
-
This was nothing to do with justice Michael.. It's never been about justice since 9/11.
LM,
You are not reading my posts, either. You should read them before making a statement like that.
I have been saying--over several posts now--precisely that it is not about justice.
It is about war.
In fact, I have said I am bothered by so many people saying it is about justice. Here's a direct quote from a post just a few before yours:
Justice demands a trial and defense in a court of law.Killing Osama bin Laden was not an act of justice.
It was an act of war.
You mentioned revenge. Maybe a little, but that isn't what I see.
I see war. pure and simple.
Once the war stops, then justice, revenge and whatnot become important. Until then, war is war.
Michael
Michael, I don't believe I was referring to what you said. I was referring to Obama's comments that it was about justice.
And of course it's about revenge.. It's the whole reason for the war and why we're there.
-
I didn't see where the 3,000 people in the World Trade Center received a "fair trial," much less fair warning.
I have no sympathy for the rights of Osama bin Laden, nor do I believe they are valid. Since when does American jurisprudence apply to Pakistan?
Osama bin Laden declared war on the US and the world. So he got what he sought.
This guy slaughtered Muslims, too, not just Americans.
Michael
Oh please, we've extradited many foreign monsters to US soil to try them for their crimes, we've given them their day in their court.. This should be no different, whether it was 1 victim, 3,000 victims or 3,000,000 victims..
Each person deserves their day in court and to have a fair trial and if they are found guilty based on the evidence and by a jury, then we can execute them because it's been proven, beyond all reasonable doubt that this person is guilty of their crimes.. That is what makes us better.. That is what makes our beliefs more valid and credible than theirs..
This was nothing to do with justice Michael.. It's never been about justice since 9/11.. No matter how much we say it is it'll never be true..
If it was about justice.. We would have given the Taliban the evidence that he was guilty and then they would have extradited him like they promised and avoided 10 years of war, many thousands of lives, losing our rights and spending many trillions of dollars..
But we didn't, we shouldn't have to right? Because we're America and we have all the guns.. Following the law and concepts of justice doesn't matter when it is not convenient for us..
If it were about justice we would have taken him into custody when he was found unarmed and held him accountable of his crimes in a court of law.. But we didn't, because he didn't deserve it.. A president made that decision without a court of law and a jury finding him guilty.. The president said he could be killed..
This has never been about justice, it will never be about justice.. It's about revenge and that is the only thing that it is..
It's like if a snake bites your child, you don't go out there looking for the snake that did it and check the fangs of every snake to see if it has your child's blood on it.. You go out and kill every snake you find..
If the US wants to play that way, then it should never be talking about justice.. It shouldn't even attempt to take that high ground.. It should admit that it was about revenge.. I could respect that honesty at least..
-
It was a legitimate act of war, LM, not murder, which is mostly a legal, not a moral concept. It might be proper to call it an assassination. Snipers do that sort of thing all the time. The U.S. targeted and assassinated Admiral Yamamoto in WWII. Shot him out of the sky with long-range P-38 twin-engined fighters.
It's ironical he was mostly a de facto prisoner in that compound for six years. I read he never left it.
--Brant
You can't compare the two.. He wasn't just an enemy commander..
He was wanted by the FBI and was accused of committing the greatest crime of the 21st Century that justified nations to be invaded and many thousands of people to be killed as a result including our own soldiers..
He deserved a fair trial like any other criminal that perpetrates crimes against another, especially when we use that accusation of a crime for launching wars..
Do you all forget the reaction of the 20th hijacker? Zacarias Moussaoui sometime after pleading guilty and sentenced to 6 life terms in prison for being the so called 20th hijacker? He filed to remove his guilty plea asking for a trial to prove he wasn't involved in 9/11 and stated in an affidavit in 2006:
"At the time I entered my guilty plea, my understanding of the American legal system was completely flawed"... "I was extremely surprised when the jury did not return a verdict of death because I knew that it was the intention of the American justice system to put me to death. I had thought that I would be sentenced to death based on the emotions and anger toward me for the deaths on September 11 but after reviewing the jury verdict and reading how the jurors set aside their emotions and disgust for me and focused on the law and the evidence that was presented during the trial, I came to understand that the jury process was more complex than I assumed. Because I now see that it is possible that I can receive a fair trial even with Americans as jurors and that I can have the opportunity to prove that I did not have any knowledge of and was not a member of the plot to hijack planes and crash them into buildings on September 11, 2001, I wish to withdraw my guilty plea and ask the Court for a new trial to prove my innocence of the September 11 plot".
Don't you see!? The Islamist narrative is that the US is engaged in a war against Islam, that the so called values of democracy and freedom are conveniently dropped when it suits the US.. That the US has no interest in justice but only wants to oppress Muslims and steal our land and forbid us from living Islamic lives..
The ultimate nail in the coffin of bin Laden's ideology would have been if he was given a fair trial and held accountable for his actions in a court of law, and being given the opportunity to speak for himself and his actions and to have a jury decide.. Everyone would have seen then that his claims about the West and the US were lies.. That he was given every chance to defend himself.. This would have won the war..
Instead, we murdered him and danced and paraded on the street about it, showing those that once only dangled their legs over Osama's side of the fence that he was right..
And it will only create more terrorists..
Great work!
-
Hmmmm..
I'll admit, when I initially heard the news I was rather happy that he was dead.. However, whilst I didn't like bin Laden nor what he stood for I find it greatly concerning to hear now that he was unarmed at the time of his death. I believe that this requires a full investigation of the facts because if he was no real threat, then surely the value of capturing him would be better for the intelligence and moral victory..
If he was no real threat and was killed then no doubt he was murdered which is a crime.. If that is the case then we should admit it and give restitution to his family and apologize for our actions.
Otherwise, we're almost as bad or maybe even just as bad as the terrorists themselves..
We're supposed to be better than that.. That's what we say right? In a democracy there aren't arbitrary killings, there aren't kangaroo courts, every person has the right to a fair trail..
That is what is supposed to make us better than them.. Well, at least I thought it did..
Now I'm just not so sure..
Maybe it was just too convenient to just kill him and tie off loose ends..
Or did he know something that the US Government didn't want him speaking about in a trial..
I find this all very concerning..
-
LM,
This is true in Objectivism, also. Both about the wonderful and sincere people (believe it or not, including folks who give their only dollar to help you--I've seen it), and about their sincerity turning into an element dangerous to themselves and others from being so black and white. Maybe not so much dangerous since initiating force is explicitly a no-no in Objectivism, but in one sense, even more dangerous since certain Objectivists have preached using nukes and asking questions later. (This variety gives me the creeps, just as I imagine the architects of suicide bombers give you the creeps.)
The mistake is, just because some issues are black and while, people with a dogmatic bent start believing that everything is black and white and context goes right out the window. Here is an example. You hold that Allah is a black and white issue. Objectivists hold that the reality axiomatic concepts refer to is (existence, identity and consciousness are the big three axiomatic concepts).
You say how to interpret Allah is not absolute since men are prone to err. In Objectivism, it is written often that man is not omniscient, so his interpretation of reality (called concept formation) must remain open-ended and open to correction.
I see many parallels when good character becomes a priority. Including the dogma issue. Dogmatic people are a major problem in any culture and system of thought.
Michael
Hi Michael..
I agree with you 100% on what you've just stated. I suppose we all have our extremists and as long as we don't let them represent us then that is good.
-
Yes, for murder, adultery, aspostasy, all of which are considered to have crossed the line. Objectivism judges one of those to have crossed the line, but not all of them. Objectivism measures things on a rational basis, rather than divine law, which is not in the slightest bit rational. If justice is truly what concerns you, then why not ditch Sharia altogether and adopt a rational standard of justice?
You refer to Shariah law as if it is something set in stone, it is not.
Rational law is using the reason we as human beings have developed and the standards we currently have, not long ago, rational law stated that it was quite okay to keep a slave and rape a female slave. Now we don't think that is right.. Why is that? It's because we develop and our understanding of what is right and wrong develops too as society develops.
It's the same with our interpretation of he Shariah, we are, as humans, imperfect by nature and our interpretation and application of what God intends for us will never be perfect. That is why, I find it important to revisit interpretations made in the past and to see whether they conform to what we now know, with our greater understanding of the revealed sciences etc.
As you know, Sharia isn't just derived from the Qur'an, it is also derived from the Hadith. If Muhammad applied stoning only once for adultery, then obvioulsy it's good enough to apply it across the board for adultery. Hanbali, Hanafi, Maliki etc certainly thought so.
It may be the case that Hanbali, Hanafi, Maliki and Shaafi and the others have believed that this was appropriate, however as I've stated previously, they were, like their predecessors and their successors, only men (and women) and therefore were not perfect. Thus their interpretations weren't. So to follow it simply because they did without re examining it is irresponsible. I believe that is a huge problem within the Muslim community today.
As I said just above, that really does not matter. What matters is that it was. That it was is obviously a good enough basis on which to derive Sharia so far as Islam's great scholars were concerned.
As above.
In other words, it's essential to be meticulous and thorough. The mark of a great Scholar.
Exactly. Hence the need to re evaluate interpretations made in the past with the knowledge that we have today.
I'm only going by what the guy working on them said. He played down any idea that they are revising the Hadith.
I can appreciate that. But as I stated, the Ottomans were the center of the Muslim world for almost 600 years. They have all of these texts.
I might also mention, that generally with classifications also come a classification of how authentic these texts are. I think this will be part of it even if they won't state it.
Maybe so, but Turkey is not becoming more secular, it is becoming less. Well see what becomes of this Hadith project when it reaches its conclusion.
Turkey becoming less secular is a good thing. It needs to become freer like the USA. One extreme leads to another and Turkey has been extremely secular for a long time which has involved serious infringements on the rights of people to practice their religion. If it does not become less secular to respect religious freedoms and expression then one day it will hit the opposite extreme where it is like Saudi Arabia.
It's full of muslims, many of who take Islam very seriously. It's not what you'd call a radical website, but it certainly has its share of radical sympathizers. A bit disturbing when you think that those people are in downtown Melbourne, Perth, Sydney etc.
I used to post on AussieMuslims and I've met some of the people on there, ate with them, listened to sermons with them and prayed with them.
In my more black and white days as a much newer Muslim (pre 2006) I was quite popular with them for just how black and white I was.
However, when I realized the error of my ways and challenged their ideas, they did not like it at all.
That is not to say they are bad people, most of them are wonderful and sincere and would give their only dollar to help you if you needed it. However their sincerity becomes their downfall and in some cases even dangerous for themselves and others when their understanding of Islam is so black and white.
-
Which would imply - if true - a problem with the culture and tradition, not the religion(s)?
That's exactly what I'm saying. In fact, honor killings occur in other places too, except when committed in the West by non Muslims they are called 'Crimes of Passion'. Both are disgusting practices and there needs to be more education and enforcement in the world. The perpetrators should be punished in an incredibly severe way so as to act as a deterrent where education doesn't work. It is not an Islamic practice and didn't begin with the Arabs either.
LM,
Like most readers of this forum, I'm not terribly familiar with the customs—or with the social pathologies—prevalent among Maronites in Lebanon, Copts in Egypt, Assyrians in Iraq, or Palestinian Christians.
If you are, then provide some statistics on honor killings in those communities.
And what percentage of practicing Muslims in Jordan publicly denounce honor killings when they hear of them? In Pakistan?
Again, if you know, please tell us.
And if you don't know, please have the grace to admit that you don't.
Robert Campbell
I think you'll be hard pressed to find any reliable statistics on honor killing and who supports it. It's usually done within the family and is often made to look like an accident or swept under the rug. The families that it occurs in usually all keep their mouths shut whether they approved of the killing or not.
These practices, as mentioned earlier were in place long before Islam spread throughout the Middle East and do occur amongst other religious groups too. These are tribal practices and not the fault of Islam.
If some Muslims support it then that is disgusting, but is not a reflection on Islam. Islam doesn't allow for such behavior.
Below are some articles I've found online by simply google searching Christian Honor Killings and some other terms.
Murdered in name of family honour
Chris McGreal in Ramallah reports on a rise in killings of Palestinian women
* The Guardian, Thursday 23 June 2005 00.01 BST
* Article history
Faten Habash's father wept as he assured his daughter there would be no more beatings, no more threats to her life and that she was free to marry the man she loved, even if he was a Muslim. All he asked was that Faten return home.
Hassan Habash even gave his word to an emissary from a Bedouin tribe traditionally brought in to mediate in matters of family honour, a commitment regarded as sacrosanct in Palestinian society. But the next weekend, as Faten watched a Boy Scouts parade from the balcony of her Ramallah home, the 22-year-old Christian Palestinian was dragged into the living room and bludgeoned to death with an iron bar. Her father was arrested for the murder.
"He gave me his word she would not be harmed," said Ibrahim Abu Dahouq, the Bedouin mediator. "He was crying and begging her to come home. They were even telling me that for their daughter to leave their house as a bride would be an honour for them. We never believed that love would lead to death in this ugly way."
Two days later, another ritual of killing unfolded a few miles away in Jerusalem.
Maher Shakirat summoned three of his sisters to discuss a family uproar after one of them, Rudaina, was thrown out by her husband for an alleged affair. Maher listened to Rudaina's denials, and her sisters' pleas that they were not covering up the affair. Then he forced the three women to drink bleach before strangling Rudaina, who was eight months pregnant. The other sisters tried to flee but Maher caught and strangled Amani, 20. The third, Leila, escaped but was badly injured by the bleach.
Maher, a bus driver in his 30s, is in hiding but his parents were arrested for allegedly ordering the murders and his wife was detained as an accomplice. As he was taken into custody, Rudaina's father, Amin, was asked why his daughters were killed. "Because they dishonoured the family," he said. "A married woman who goes with another man isn't good."
The murders of Faten Habash and the Shakirat sisters last month were the latest in a series of brutal "honour killings" that have shaken the Palestinian community over recent weeks. The deaths have prompted demands for a change to laws inherited from the days of Jordanian rule that deem all women to be "minors" under the authority of male relatives and that provide a maximum of six months in prison for killings in defence of "family honour."
But those calls have met with resistance in parliament where religious Palestinian MPs argue that reform will lead to a collapse in the moral fabric of society. According to the Palestinian women's affairs ministry, 20 girls and women were murdered in honour killings last year and about 50 committed suicide - often under coercion - for "shaming" the family through sex outside marriage, refusing an arranged marriage or seeking a divorce. Another 15 women survived attempts to kill them.
The ministry says that dozens of other killings are covered up each year. "We had one woman of 26 who was certified as dying of old age," said Maha Abu Dayyeh Shamas, director of the Women's Centre for Legal Aid and Counselling. "Putting 'falling into well' on the death certificate is very common. We find that the women were strangled and then dumped in the well."
Faten Habash's murder was unusual because she came from the Christian minority in the Palestinian territories. Her desire to marry a young Muslim, Samer Hamis, so infuriated her family that the couple decided to elope to Jordan.
Faten's father enlisted the family priest to stop his daughter on the grounds that, even though she was 22, all women are legally regarded as minors under the authority of their male relatives. The Palestinian authorities returned Faten to her home where she was beaten and her pelvis broken as she was either thrown from a window or jumped trying to escape. She spent six weeks in hospital. She sought protection under an ancient Bedouin formula for resolving disputes, known as Tanebeh. Abu Dahouq, a lawyer for the Dawakuk tribe, negotiated with the Habash family.
Mr Dahouq said: "Faten believed she had received a guarantee of security." Two days later she was murdered. "This family had no honour, no manners, no ethics," he said. "And the girl was as honourable as could be. All she wanted to do was marry this man she loved. I think the people in her church also have responsibility for this killing. They told this family that their daughter brought shame, so that makes them part of the crime."
The family priest, Father Ibrahim Hijazin, declined to talk about Faten's killing other than to say he called the Palestinian authorities to prevent her from reaching Jordan. But he says other families would have reacted as hers did. "There is no interfaith marriage among Arabs. Catholics here are Christian by faith and Muslim by culture, and in this community it is forbidden for Christians to marry Muslims. It's not good. It's a tribal mentality. I don't accept it, but it is the culture," he said.
After Faten's murder, several hundred Palestinian women held a vigil in Ramallah to demand an end to honour killings.
The Palestinian women's affairs minister, Zuhaira Kamal, called for a change to the law to allow women over 18 to marry without the consent of a male relative and reform of the old Jordanian legislation that frees the killers after a few months. But MPs have resisted the move.
"They're very traditional there," said Mrs Abu Dayyeh Shamas. "They say these are our traditions, that a man who is in a moment of anger is driven to do these things. It gives a message to the community that you can kill without punishment. We have a lot of complaints from women that their husbands are having affairs. We ask these MPs if they think these women should be allowed to kill their husbands. They can't answer that question."
Although honour killings have a long history in Palestinian society, women's rights groups say the rise in these murders cannot be separated from the resurgent violence of the past four years of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. "Things are breaking down because of the changing relationship between men and women. Increased numbers of women are the main source of income while her husband sits around. That is the kiss of death for that family," said Mrs Abu Dayyeh Shamas.
"Men feel they have lost their dignity and that they can somehow restore it by upholding the family's honour. We've noticed recent cases are much more violent in nature; attempts to kill, rape, incest. There is an incredible amount of incest."
Amira Abu Hanhan Qaoud murdered her daughter, Rafayda, because she became pregnant after being raped by two of her brothers.
"My daughter fell over and broke her knee. I took her to hospital and there the doctor told me she was pregnant. So I killed her. It's as simple as that," said Mrs Qaoud on her doorstep in Ramallah. Mrs Qaoud waited until the baby was born and given up for adoption. Then she presented her 22 year-old daughter with a razor blade and told her to slash her wrists.
She refused so her mother pulled a plastic bag over her head, sliced her wrists and beat her head with a stick. The brothers were sentenced to 10 years for the rape. Mrs Qaoud spent two years in prison for killing her daughter. She has purged her home of all pictures of her older children, and declines to discuss the killing, saying all she wants is to forget about it.
The repercussions of Faten Habash's murder are still being felt; the man she loved is in protective custody after threats from the Habash family.
The Bedouin mediator says the Habashes have dishonoured his tribe by breaching the pledge that Faten would not be harmed. "The crime is not against the girl, the crime is against our family," said Mr Abu Dahouq. "Since they have broken their word, we have the right to retaliate. There will be a reaction for betraying their religion and betraying us."
Funeral of Muslim murdered by Christian in-law held under heavy securityBy Abdel-Rahman Hussein
First Published 10/9/2008
CAIRO: Hundreds lined up for the funeral of a Muslim man killed by his Christian brother-in-law, which was held amid tight security Wednesday night.
Security forces shut off the street from both ends and ordered the closure of all the shops lining the funeral’s pathway.
Ahmed Saleh was killed by his wife’s brother Rami Atef Khella, 28, who was angered by his sister’s conversion to Islam three years earlier. Khella also shot his sister, Miriam, 25, and the couple’s 18-month daughter, Nora, who are in critical condition in the hospital.
The shooting occurred in the suburb of Al-Ameriya Tuesday when Khella cut the electricity of Ibrahim Abdulrahman street causing a blackout before descending on the couple’s apartment and opening fire on the family.
Khella was arrested in the early hours of Wednesday morning and confessed to the killing. He stated that his father and uncle did not participate in the actual crime, but it was his uncle, Raafat Khella, who drove him away from the scene after waiting for him in a car at the end of the road.
The accused told police that he had purchased the gun used in the crime after failing to convince his sister to divorce Saleh.
AFP had reported that “Khella had been searching for his sister for about two years, after she left her home province with her Muslim husband and came to Cairo.”
Saleh's father told Al-Dostour newspaper, "I want justice for my son because he did nothing wrong. All he was guilty of was marrying the woman he loved."
He added that after his son married Miriam her family threatened to kill them which caused him to report the affair to the state security apparatus, which made Miriam's family sign an affidavit to not come near her or her husband.
"I am waiting for the government’s response," he said, "and if it does not give us our rights then it wants people to kill each other. The execution of the killer and his uncle is the only justice [i will accept]."
The defendant and his uncle have been detained for four days pending further investigations.
Sectarian tensions between Muslims and Christians have again come to the forefront recently and a Christian was shot dead in Southern Egypt last week after Muslim-Christian clashes which were sparked by accusations of a Muslim flirting with a Coptic girl and a Copt attempting to sell his house within an neighborhood dominated by Copts to a Muslim.
Source:http://dailystaregypt.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=16978
Honor killings not a 'Muslim' problem as many claimby Hanania, Ray
Comments
If you relied on the Islam-bashers like Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity, Brigitte Gabriel and others, you would believe the practice of "honor killings" is typically a Muslim and "Arab" problem.
But of course, the truth lies well beyond that simplistic and racially motivated claim.
"Honor killings" are not only committed by Muslims and Arabs, but also by Jews and Christians, too.
It is a gender-driven crime that occurs in many Third World nations and particularly in countries where poverty-stricken families cling to male-dominated cultural traditions.
An act of violence that is almost always fatal, the victim is always female, the victim of a male usually either a member of the victim's family, a relative or even a family friend.
The purpose or "justification" for the killing is to redress a dishonor that has been brought upon a family such as one involving women accused of infidelity, premarital sex, and more often than not, rumors that regardless of veracity have so embarrassed a family that even women not guilty of the allegations are none-the-less victimized.
The crime becomes even more pernicious because the societies in which these crimes occur often condone the crimes, usually by minimizing the punishment of the killers. In many cases, the killers serve only a few months in prison.
Tragically, those convicted of theft or corruption or even making slanderous statements against the governments or the religion, are punished far more severely, some being executed.
Recently, an alleged "honor killing" occurred in Damascus, Syria, involving a 16-year-old girl who died at the hospital in January after she was brutally attacked by her brother. Prosecutors charged the killing was a premeditated act organized by her family who suspected her of having an affair out of wedlock, dishonoring the family.
Zahra, according to reports, allegedly fled her family with another man who told her that her father was having an extra-marital affair. To protect her father, the daughter agreed to leave with the man.
If convicted under Syria's "honor killing" law, the brother would only be forced to serve three months, although a prominent Syrian sheik has denounced the possibility and the crime as "un-Islamic."
A similar killing may have occurred more than 9,000 miles away in the United States, in the city of Chicago, just this past week.
There, an Assyrian Christian immigrant from Iran, Daryoush Ebrahimi, was charged this week with murdering his wife, his wife's sister and his mother-in-law, after they allegedly criticized him and questioned his manliness.
Ebrahimi was denied bond in a Chicago court Monday. He reportedly told police he killed his wife, sister-in-law and mother-in-law because "they disrespected" him. Disrespect is a major motivation behind "honor killings."
Ironically, the Ebrahimi family came to the United States in November seeking asylum from Iran. They claimed they feared persecution in Iran because they are Christians. The family was granted asylum because of the anti-Iranian hysteria whipped up by President Bush and other Islamophobes.
Typical of male killers of women, Ebrahimi said he wanted to kill himself. He was reportedly found after the slayings by police "hitting himself" with a hammer. Despite much bleeding, Ebrahimi was treated and released from a hospital the same day.
Police said his wife, Karmin Khooshabeh, 44, and her stepsister, Karolin Khooshabeh, 40, had been bludgeoned to death and stabbed repeatedly with a 16 inch knife. They died at the scene. Ebrahimi then walked to the home of his 60-year-old mother-in-law and killed her.
There are approximately 100,000 Assyrians living in Chicago. Assyrians are often mistaken for "Arabs" because many speak both Arabic and Aramaic. They are a Christian minority group living primarily in Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria. Ebrahimi speaks Farsi, the language of Iran.
The family lived in an apartment in Rogers Park, a north side neighborhood of Chicago and attended the Assyrian Church of the East, St. George Parish. A priest at the church told a local television station that the alleged killer and his now deceased wife attended a baptism at the church only a week before.
Under American laws, the perpetrators of "honor killings" are not given special protections and Ebrahimi could face the death penalty unless a jury finds that he was "insane" at the time of the murder.
While a convicted "honor killing" perpetrator in another country could be released after only three to six months imprisonment, it is very likely that if convicted in the Chicago slayings, Ebrahimi will spend years behind bars, if not given a death sentence.
"Honor killings" are a problem in the Arab and Muslim World, but they are also a problem in many other countries, too.
Rather than using these tragedies to advance political agendas, the focus should be on the criminal act rather than on the race, ethnicity or religion of the perpetrators and the victims.
By Ray Hanania
The Arab American News
-
There's never been a Christian abortion doctor murdered by a Christian protester? I honestly don't know, but I bet there has.
A very rare occurrence which is overwhelmingly denounced by main-line Christians. Such acts are individual acts and not an implementation of Christian doctrine either in theory or practice. Christianity gave up burning heretics hundreds of years ago. It is not longer done.
The abortion clinic bombers are routinely denounced as madmen and thugs, even by Christians who oppose abortion.
Ba'al Chatzaf
And people who commit honor killings are routinely denounced as madmen and thugs by Muslims, even those that don't want their daughters to be porn stars.
Again, you didn't address my point. Are you under the impression that the Christian community in that region don't also have a problem with honor killings?
-
Stonings aren't against the spirit of the Qur'an, though, if they were, they would never have been included in the Sharia.
Stoning as a punishment, and certainly also the "crimes" that it is dished out for, hasn't been shown to be false. If you are not suggesting it be tossed out because it's not 100% certain, then you're suggesting it be tossed out because it's not in the spirit of the Qur'an. The great scholars have obviously believed that it is in the spirit of the Qur'an.
Stoning is a hudood punishment, a capital punishment for a crime. Therefore there is the need to be extra careful due it's obvious seriousness. If it is not mentioned in the Qur'an as a punishment that is supposed to be carried out each and every time then I would be careful about applying it in each and every situation. If anything the Qur'an only mentions lashings for the punishment of adultery and so far as I can tell, the Prophet pbuh was reluctant to stone anyone for the crime and very rarely allowed it.
Although Allah knows and ye know not.
That is correct. Therefore it's better to err on the side of caution so as not to make something haram for someone when it is not, that is oppression.
No, they are simply classifying them and translating them to Turkish. They are not revising them in any way. Here's an article, originally from Islam Online, but that link is broken,because it's a few years old now. But here's the article, still up at Aussiemuslims.com
http://www.aussiemuslims.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22308
Here's a couple of snippets:
He shrugged off media suggestions that Turkey was re-writing the Hadith and creating a new Islam.
"They made too much fuss and took the project out of its real context.
"We are neither fashioning a new Islam nor dare to alter the fixtures maxims of Islam," Gormez said emphatically.
"The Western media have read what are doing from a Christian perspective and understood it in line with their Christian and Western cultures."
And...
Gormez also refuted claims they would and edit out some hadiths, especially about women.
"No Muslim in the right mind would dare delete any hadith or tamper with the Prophet's heritage."
You think they haven't already been classified and translated into Turkish? When the Ottoman Empire ruled the Muslim world for almost 600 years? Oh please...
I think more is going on behind the scenes than they are making people aware of.. Oh and I really can't stand AussieMuslims.. It's full of crazy people.
-
If the hadiths can't be verified with 100% validity, then why throw out just one practice based on them? Why not throw out all of the practices? If you want to single out some over others, then on what Islamic basis do you make that decision?
If the hadiths are not in the spirit of the Qur'anic message and contradict Qur'anic teachings then we abandon them and don't follow it. If the hadiths are not against the teachings or spirit of the Qur'an then we are not obligated to abandon the practice until the hadiths in questions have been shown to be false.
In Islam there is not only Halal (permissible) and Haram (forbidden), instead there are many things which are between and if people wish to practice them then that is their choice. We are not allowed to make something haram for ourselves or others simply if it can't be proven to be haram and we certainly can't force people not to do it. We don't have that right no matter what the Wahhabis think they can do. It comes down strictly to an individuals personal choice as to what they practice.
There is currently an initiative by the Turks to sort through the Islamic texts and see how relevant and authentic they are. I am excited at this prospect and hope it clears a lot of things up.
LM:
The nice interpretation is that Ayn, Nathaniel, et. al. who were the "founders" of the Objectivist movement happened to be Jewish,
The not nice interpretation is that Jewish folks are superior to the rest of us.
Your choice. I also do not get the "There are Muslims who do this. They are called Jews" statement, but I am referring above to the hint section.
Thank you for your reply Selene. I'm really glad that I was not the only person who didn't get what he meant by his comment.
If Baal is proud of being a Jew then all power to him, it's great to be proud of who you are, if however he thinks that he is better than others because he is a Jew then well I think that says something about his character.
-
Is this really so different from some conservative Christian turned stripper being denounced by her mother? The voice of my inner cynic is suggesting that this is all staged to boost magazine sales and to raise this actress's profile.
One big difference. There would not be a Fatwah declared on a Christian by Christians.
Ba'al Chatzaf
You obviously have no understanding of Christians that are in the Middle East then do you? You don't think they partake in honor killings too?
-
There are Muslims who do this. They are called Jews.
Hint: Think of the people that started the Objectivist Movementy.
Ba'al Chatzaf
I don't get it sorry?
-
Thanks again Ninth Doctor!
Your welcome, of course. I didn’t notice your post until now, I’m afraid it was followed by a post by someone I’ve taken to ignoring, so I didn’t click the thread.
There was a viewpoint Akyol put forward that I’m interested to see your comments on. He discussed reform of the Sharia, and made a good comparison to English common law, which used to call for torture, and execution methods like drawing and quartering, nasty stuff. I gather that Akyol is against the old punishments like stoning, and many OLers will vividly recall that you defended it in specific circumstances. Are you in disagreement with him? Does this make him more “liberal” than you?
Here’s a gratuitous reminder of what drawing and quartering looked like circa 1305, though they don’t show the disemboweling in all its glorious gory detail.
Thank you for your reply.
As stoning is not mentioned in the Qur'an and we can not verify 100% the validity of the hadiths then I am inclined to say that the punishment of stoning should be abandoned until such a time that a proper revision of Islamic texts including those hadiths has been done. As I stated before, I do not believe the doors of ijtihad have been closed like many Muslims and believe that as men, the scholars of their time were fallible and inclined to make mistakes, therefore I believe that as Muslims we must constantly put aside our pride and veneration for those scholars who did their best and to then review and reanalyze the rulings that have been made with the past with new information that comes to us and with the greater understanding of the revealed sciences (science, math, biology, philosophy etc) that we gain by God's Grace and see whether those rulings hold true to the spirit and message of the Qur'an and Sunnah.
Contrary to what many may say Ninth Doctor. I am not one so full of pride that I would hold beliefs as true when I believed they were incorrect, instead I abandon them without hesitation and acknowledge that something I may have believed or practiced in the past was incorrect. I have done this on many occasions and intend to do so for the rest of my life.
-
Ninth Doctor, I'd really like to thank you for posting this. It really warms my heart.
I really did enjoy this lecture and also watched some others on youtube of him. I'd never heard of Mustafa Aykol but what he has so eloquently articulated pretty much everything that I believe.
What a great lecture. I think I'll send him an email now!
Thanks again Ninth Doctor!
-
Perhaps you should be taking a different route if you'd like to see change.
Are you addressing me there, LM, or Mr Jasser? Mr Jasser, a muslim, is the one aiming to reform it, not me. My route in this is only to look at what people are saying and make a judgement as to who is making the most sense. 9/11 is what spurred me to investigate. If it wasn't for 9/11 and the other atrocities perpetrated in the name of Islam, I wouldn't be giving Islam a second thought. My interest is that people in the West have a clear view of the enemy that is coming at us. Why? Because I couldn't my Western way of life, and the values of liberty to be worth defending.
My comment was towards anyone who makes the claim that Islam needs to be reformed rather than man's understanding of Islam needs to be reformed which is also what Dr Jasser has stated. I agree with a great deal of what Dr Jasser has stated in the program, though I still prefer Dr. Imad Ad-Deen Ahmad from the Minaret of Freedom Institute.
I mean that the West needs to get its act together and relearn what Liberty means. It needs to get back to America being a shining light for freedom. That's the best thing that could happen for the Islamic world, in fact, for the whole world.
Richard
I agree, I believe that if the US would simply do that, the rest of the world would see the beauty of Liberty in a proper example that doesn't bomb their countries and harm them and then want to follow that example, there's no need for these wars or imperialism when you have the better ideas.. People will see the logic and come to it if you show them it in a way that appeals to their nature.
-
An excellent discussion between Walid Shoebat, Zuhdi Jasser (a liberty minded muslim, who founded the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, who has set himself the task of reforming Islam) and Robert Spencer. Unlike those here who work to blur distinctions, Zuhdi Jasser does admit there are problems with Islam that need fixing. He faces the arguments of Mr Spencer and others, admiting that they make good points, rather than resorting to name calling and shifting the focus.
Here's the link to Mr Zuhdi Jasser's website: http://www.aifdemocracy.org/
He is one of the very few who are working for reform. Personally, I think the best reform that can be done for Islam is a reform of the West. Anyway, it is over an hour long, so if the subject interests you, grab a coffee. It is worth the watch. I have linked the video from Youtube and it is part one of fifteen.
Here's the entire video from the organisation that produced it:
There's a giant mistake in the argument there that is often overlooked and causes Muslims to ignore these videos. I'm watching it now and will comment more in the future but just to start.
Yes, we believe that Islam is perfect because we believe it comes from God and that God is perfect. In fact in the Qur'an it states within one verse:
Forbidden unto you (for food) are carrion and blood and swineflesh, and that which hath been dedicated unto any other than Allah, and the strangled, and the dead through beating, and the dead through falling from a height, and that which hath been killed by (the goring of) horns, and the devoured of wild beasts, saving that which ye make lawful (by the death-stroke), and that which hath been immolated unto idols. And (forbidden is it) that ye swear by the divining arrows. This is an abomination. This day are those who disbelieve in despair of (ever harming) your religion; so fear them not, fear Me! This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favour unto you, and have chosen for you as religion al-Islam. Whoso is forced by hunger, not by will, to sin: (for him) lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
(Qur'an 5:3)
There is the belief because of this and other verses and hadith that Islam is the perfect religion and that God gave us something perfect.. If you state to Muslims that Islam itself needs reformation, then you'll be dismissed..
Perhaps you should be taking a different route if you'd like to see change.. What we will acknowledge however is that man is imperfect, and therefore, his interpretations are bound to have errors in them, thus we must always strive to reassess and again study with a deeper knowledge the Quran, Sunnah and Seerah with the revealed knowledge of the sciences etc today to ensure that in our development as humans, we are continually bettering our understanding of what God had meant in the texts that were revealed to us and in the example of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.
-
Ever been to the Middle East and spent time with Arabs? With Arab youth? Have you ever heard their dreams and aspirations? I can tell you that I have, and what I stated is what they've told me. What is the problem with them having that? Don't they have as much right to it as you do?
No. I have been to ground zero and I know what some Muslim youths can do.
Ba'al Chatzaf
Given what I know I choose the fact over your hyper stimulated hopes.
Fact. Sufficiently motivated Muslims males youths hijack planes and strap on the explosive.
They say Allah Hu Akbar and then they die. Taking many good people with them to Paradise.
The goes your Muslim; different mountain, different god.
Ba'al Chatzaf
Ah yes.. Another one of those "I learned everything I need to know about Islam on 9/11" people.. The willfully ignorant..
I'm not sure what made you such a bitter and hateful old man but I'm quite sure it' can't be healthy.
Osama bin Laden Killed
in Mideast
Posted
Please don't feel sorry for me.. I'm doing okay!
Born and raised in Melbourne, Australia of Greek and Turkish parents but not a Cypriot.
Also, I am in pursuit of a degree, though I find university study incredibly difficult as I have learning disabilities..
True, I don't like any form of sectarianism. It's unislamic.
The Prophet peace be upon him warned against it. I also find the labels of Sunni and Shia to be dangerous.. To claim one is Sunni means that they exclusively follow the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh and Shia means that you could claim to be of the people that supported Imam Ali, both claims are incorrect and make each group arrogant and full of pride to the extent where some can't accept the others as Muslim.
No, oddly enough I was raised Christian by my mother.
It's true that I condemn Wahhabism and aspects of Salafism and definitely terrorism..
True.
No, I denounce sectarianism..
I do accept criticism of Hamas and Hezbollah. I'll also criticize their actions too.
I don't think that is my utmost condemnation..
Thank you for saying you think I'm a good and decent man..
But I don't think that some of my beliefs are incompatible to others that I hold..
I don't know who that is sorry.