PDA

View Full Version : why is ok always for muslims to be arrested



sheerheart1
06-10-2006, 07:01 AM
:sl: ,
why in this day and age is it ok to just focus everything on people blaming islam and arresting muslims when ,you take alook around you the others are being terrorists also with women and childen being shot in palistine its seems perfectly ok for muslims to be the main target for everyone to blame and people like george bush and tony blair are innocent but they have innocent blood on thier hands also muslims being arrested in the uk then realeased without any charge what doe's it say alhamdulilah Allah is on our side or are we wrong in all this i don't think so at all :giggling: why does not the west understand anything thier goverments think they are superior to any other they find it hard to tolarate anyone from the east it seems perfetctly ok to have weapons of mass distruction in the west so they can blow anyone up even china has weapons also india but when it comes too my arab brothers having some they dont like it ( beging to think thier is double standards here) or what;D but what can u expect from non believers brothers and sisters lets stick together and good friends also because i know there is good people of other faiths around who hate this persicution also :w: :rollseyes
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Halima
06-10-2006, 07:03 AM
:sl:

May I add...

Why is it okay for people to judge!? Isn't it a sin in Christianity or in other faiths?

I'm just curious..btw
Reply

sheerheart1
06-10-2006, 07:08 AM
Originally Posted by Halima
:sl:

May I add...

Why is it okay for people to judge!? Isn't it a sin in Christianity or in other faiths?

I'm just curious..btw
yes it is but u know as muslims we are always guilty till we are proven innocent,,,,,i thought it was innocent to proven guilty but seems more and more muslim brothers are being arrested without charge these days i think the police have nothing better to do they need thier monthly quota for the home office:?
Reply

duskiness
06-10-2006, 08:06 AM
Originally Posted by sheerheart1
:sl: ,
but what can u expect from non believers
i guess You dont't expect any answer also?

and yes judging is a sin. saying someone is worst, less moral, sinfull then you are is a sin.
ad. judging in courts - they dont't judge morality, but only law. so many of us say this is not sin. But other (mennonites, quaker, ammish, anabaptists) say it is (they also don't work in police or army because, than they would have to use force against people)
n.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
submit
06-10-2006, 08:38 AM
:sl:

Look at what i found on the internet written by a Christian:

Imagine that you are Christian, from a moderate, mainline denomination... say Presbyterian. You wake up one morning and suddenly find that you are in a tiny religious minority. Almost everyone around you shares a faith different from yours, and you are suddenly distinct.

You surf the web a bit, and find strange and bizarre websites that talk about the "threat" of Christianity. These sites talk about the massacres in Rwanda, the Inquisition, Soviet Communism, the World Wars and Jonestown. As you try to wrap your head around the websites, they get even more bizarre... they quote the harsh punishments in Exodus and Leviticus and try to portray Christianity as a death cult, focused on the drinking of blood and cannibalism.
The sites list odd, seemingly unconnected events and present them as all being manifestations of the "plague" of Christianity. Essentially every bad event or problem that occurred somewhere, sometime in some remote corner of Christendom is presented... and Christianity itself, as well as Christians as individuals are blamed. Some are downright crazy... Soviet Communism? They were atheists for crying out loud! The website says that while that's true, the Russian Orthodox Church didn't speak out sufficiently against it to stop it, making them complicit, and in any case the Communists emanated from a demonstrably Christian culture.
Shaking your head, you go outside and start your day. You note the stares and odd glances that you receive. Smiling, you shrug them off and go about your business. You don't get far before someone asks you, out of the blue, why "you people" dance with poisonous snakes. You start to tell them that your denomination has never... but before you can answer, you're asked what you're going to do about Filipino Christians who sell their children into the sex trade. You've never heard that one before, but acknowledge that it might be true...you're about to ask why they are asking you about this when suddenly you're told that a straight answer can't be expected from the likes of you anyway, because afterall, you're probably a pedophile who burns witches.
Convinced that you've encountered someone with a severe mental illness, you get away fast. But not long afterward, the guys at work tell you how "lucky" you are, because as a Christian, everyone knows that you practice polygamy. You tell them no, I am Presbyterian, we don't do that... maybe your thinking of an obscure sect of Mormons. They reply that that can't be true, because it's clearly stated in the Bible that it's allowed. You defer to your Bible scholar colleagues, not wanting to create further trouble, and then you're asked to explain why, if Christianity isn't a death cult, that "you guys" start so many wars, and kill so many civilians? And what about those Christian-sponsored massacres in Guatemala where whole villages got wiped out? And why do you guys do that weird thing with the pig's head on your holiest day (Anglicans)? What's wrong with you people, you know Christians have the highest suicide rate in the world (Sweden), and why does the Bible say to abuse your children?
I think you get the drift...
Demonization
Scapegoating
Conspiracism
Collective guilt
These things are wrong."
Reply

MRR
06-10-2006, 09:22 AM
It is ok for a muslim to be arrested if they are guilty of something.
Reply

HeiGou
06-10-2006, 09:59 AM
Originally Posted by sheerheart1
why in this day and age is it ok to just focus everything on people blaming islam and arresting muslims
Who has blamed Islam? George Bush and Tony Blair have both gone to great length to say the problem is not Islam. And who else should they arrest? The profile of a typical suicide bomber is a young, male, pious Muslim. What is the point harassing 60-year-old nuns? You want to stop suicide bombing, you have to concentrate on the community that produces them.

when ,you take alook around you the others are being terrorists also with women and childen being shot in palistine
This is your only example of non-Muslim-related terrorism? I do not accept that the Israeli Army is acting as terrorists when it does that but let's suppose it does. The British police did, in fact, try to arrest an Israeli general for war crimes the other day - he fled the UK. But those crimes are not being committed on British soil. They are being commited in Israel. So what can the British police do? We are, however, coming up to the anniversary of the 7-7 bombings. They were commited in Britain by British people from a particular Faith community. Who should the police target to prevent such bombings? The Hare Krishnas?

You may not like what the police do, but what is the alternative? I am serious - if you have a better option let's hear it. Reassure me that you do not want these bombers to have free reign to kill as they please.

its seems perfectly ok for muslims to be the main target for everyone to blame and people like george bush and tony blair are innocent but they have innocent blood on thier hands
no Bush and Blair do not. And who is blaming Muslims except for some odd fringe people like Melanie Whatshername?

also muslims being arrested in the uk then realeased without any charge what doe's it say
It says that the British Muslim communities are not helping the police. They are not providing accurate information. They are not co-operating. They only say they are opposed to the bombings, but not in their actions. What do you think it says?

why does not the west understand anything thier goverments think they are superior to any other
Their governments are superior to any other. Which is why Muslims die trying to reach the West and no Western will move to a Muslim country except for vast sums of money.
Reply

afriend
06-10-2006, 10:06 AM
The reason why we're here is becuase the British Empire touched our own lands, and the reason why we come in our thousands is becuase the Empire stole our wealth, the reason why we think we should be able to come is becuase they took our countries, and we demand pay back!
Reply

HeiGou
06-10-2006, 01:05 PM
Originally Posted by Iqram
The reason why we're here is becuase the British Empire touched our own lands, and the reason why we come in our thousands is becuase the Empire stole our wealth, the reason why we think we should be able to come is becuase they took our countries, and we demand pay back!
The British did take a lot of lands - but they were God's to dispose of as He saw fit. Are you claiming it was wrong of God to give them to the British?

The Empire created vast amounts of wealth all over the world. The Muslims of the Empire were much better off because of it. No matter how much they took, they gave more back.

The reason so many Muslims came is because the British generously offered the hand of friendship. That was, it is clear from this site and the recent bombings, a mistake. Even I think so now.

You are certainly taking pay back now. Enjoy it while it lasts.
Reply

Malaikah
06-10-2006, 01:07 PM
Originally Posted by sheerheart1
yes it is but u know as muslims we are always guilty till we are proven innocent,,,,,i thought it was innocent to proven guilty but seems more and more muslim brothers are being arrested without charge these days i think the police have nothing better to do they need thier monthly quota for the home office:?
:sl:

Guess what.. under the new so called anti-terror laws in Australia, it really is bloody guilty until proven innocent! Talk about justice! :offended:
Reply

HeiGou
06-10-2006, 01:17 PM
Originally Posted by cheese
Guess what.. under the new so called anti-terror laws in Australia, it really is bloody guilty until proven innocent! Talk about justice! :offended:
Guess what - Terrorists don't care if you're guilty or not! They'll blow you up knowing that you are innocent. It doesn't matter to them.

Which is the bigger problem?
Reply

Malaikah
06-10-2006, 01:24 PM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
Guess what - Terrorists don't care if you're guilty or not! They'll blow you up knowing that you are innocent. It doesn't matter to them.

Which is the bigger problem?
So, becuase terrorist will blow up innocent people, we should act like people are guilty until proven innocent?

[EDIT: retorical question...]
Reply

SirZubair
06-10-2006, 01:28 PM
Originally Posted by cheese
So, becuase terrorist will blow up innocent people, we should act like people are guilty until proven innocent?
No.That is not right.

That is just as wrong as many muslims blaming America and Israel for all of the worlds problems.
Reply

afriend
06-10-2006, 01:32 PM
"Enjoy it while it lasts"

LOL

So called 'ethnic minority' gets kicked out, the country will be in turmoil, there aren't enough 'White' professionals such as Doctors, engineers etc.

Who's gonna do some vital jobs?

Yobs? ;D the wise/clever English people are already doing their jobs, and we all leave, there will be a huge short fall....
Reply

HeiGou
06-10-2006, 01:36 PM
Originally Posted by Alpha Dude
Not true in all cases, most of the muslims are here because many people were needed to work in poor working conditions with low pay - so it was'nt the generous "hand of friendship" you seem to paint it as.
But in no cases did they do what the Germans did, or what the Gulf States do, and offer guest-worker programs. They were allowed to come here as free and full citizens with full benefits that come with that. So it was extremely generous and a hand of friendship.
Reply

HeiGou
06-10-2006, 01:43 PM
Originally Posted by Iqram
So called 'ethnic minority' gets kicked out, the country will be in turmoil, there aren't enough 'White' professionals such as Doctors, engineers etc.
You think? Eastern Europe is full of doctors and engineers and anyway the only ethnic minority that is a problem is a particular Faith community. This particular Faith community does not do well at higher education, its young men are more likely to drop out of school and be unemployed. In fact they tend to be worse off than White boys. If all the Muslims were deported from Britain the British budget would probably be a nett beneficiary. Britain would still have all those Hindu and Sikh doctors after all.

Who's gonna do some vital jobs?
Lithuanians? Who cares as long as they obey the law and don't blow people up.

Yobs? ;D the wise/clever English people are already doing their jobs, and we all leave, there will be a huge short fall....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_r...gion/33539.stm

Bangladeshis and Pakistanis together have a long-term unemployment rate nearly three times greater than people of West Indian descent. In the inner cities, nearly half of all Bangladeshi and Pakistani adults are out of work.

Again, the number of Muslims in prison in England and Wales rose by 40% in the four years to 1995 to account for nine per cent of the prison population, although Muslims constitute only about four per cent of the entire British population.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4771233.stm


Muslim hardship under spotlight
Muslims at mosque
Muslims suffer high unemployment and deprivation
Many Muslims in England face bleak employment prospects and endure poor standards of housing, a government-backed study has found.

The report revealed Muslims were more likely than any other faith group to be jobless and living in poor conditions.

It said 14% of Muslims aged over 25 were unemployed, compared with the national unemployment rate of 4%.

University researchers in Birmingham, Derby, Oxford and Warwick also found Muslims had poorer levels of education.

The study, commissioned to review the prospects of faith communities in England, also said Muslims were more vulnerable to long-term illness.

And one in three lived in the most deprived areas of England.

'Multiple deprivation'

"Taking the Muslim population as a whole, they face some of the most acute conditions of multiple deprivation," the report said.

The bottom line is no matter what contribution British Muslims make to the UK, if peace coexistence is not possible, and clearly it is not, one of us has to go. I'd prefer it not to be the non-Muslim community.
Reply

HeiGou
06-10-2006, 01:46 PM
Originally Posted by cheese
So, becuase terrorist will blow up innocent people, we should act like people are guilty until proven innocent?

[EDIT: retorical question...]
No we should have a sense of proportion and perspective. We should weigh up the benefits and costs of any change. And we should view each and every law in terms of what it hopes to accomplish.

If you don't like it please feel free to offer any other viable alternative. No one has so far. The only other option seems to be to let them blow up as many kafirs as they like. I assume that is not your position.
Reply

afriend
06-10-2006, 01:48 PM
Some of the things said there are as though it's your country, nationalism is so easily identifiable, why don't you be a partiot for your country which has invaded and stole countries, it was like an unstopable land grab...

BUT, some things said was true, such as crime rates of the Muslims, although, they may be muslims by name, but in reality, they are nothings...

Very proud of your blood thirsty country of your's I see :)
Reply

HeiGou
06-10-2006, 01:54 PM
Originally Posted by Iqram
Some of the things said there are as though it's your country, nationalism is so easily identifiable, why don't you be a partiot for your country which has invaded and stole countries, it was like an unstopable land grab...
Well Britain is not my country, but my country has done that. As has yours (assuming you do not think Britain is your country). As has everyone's. This is not nationalism.

BUT, some things said was true, such as crime rates of the Muslims, although, they may be muslims by name, but in reality, they are nothings...
You say this and I can believe that. But the Muslim community does nothing about it except demand more money from the government with threats. Muslims say the same about the bombers. But again, in reality, they do nothnig except demand more with threats.

Very proud of your blood thirsty country of your's I see :)
Some countries have proud histories. Some do not. Britain is not my country but it hasn't done too bad on the whole I think. Have you ever read the Chachnama? Read it and come back to me and tell me how awful Britain was.
Reply

afriend
06-10-2006, 01:56 PM
I see....

I can't find the book:

Chachnama

Perhaps you could direct me to some sort of site where I can find out more.
Reply

HeiGou
06-10-2006, 02:11 PM
Originally Posted by Iqram
I can't find the book:

Chachnama
I think there is a partial translation: "Al-Kufi. The Chachnama, excerpts translated in H.M. Elliot and J. Dowson. A History of India As Told By Its Own Historians-The Muhammadan Period, 1867-1877 (reprinted 2001, Delhi), Vol. 1, pp. 157-211."

Perhaps you could direct me to some sort of site where I can find out more.
Any site that I could suggest would get me a ban. V S Naipaul talks about it in his "Among the Believers" chapter on Pakistan.

This is one reason I think I have had a "road to Damascus" moment. From Canada - a country that opposed the War in Iraq, refused to take part, gave asylum to American soldiers deserting to avoid the war,

Authorities confronted 'wall of silence'
CSIS, RCMP briefed Muslim leaders before going public with news of arrests

OMAR EL AKKAD

With a report from Colin Freeze

It may have been the most politically correct terrorism bust in history.

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the RCMP met with members of the Canadian Muslim community every month for a year to discuss security concerns before last Friday's 17 arrests. But the outreach program took an unprecedented turn during an 8 a.m. meeting last Saturday -- two hours before authorities briefed the world about the arrests -- when Toronto-area Muslim community leaders were told the details of the most high-profile terrorism sweep in Canadian history.

"It was a form of pre-emptive outreach, for lack of a better word," said spokeswoman Barbara Campion.

Canada's secret security apparatus has been putting serious effort into softening its image for much of the past year, conscious of the fact that for many Muslim immigrants, the phrase "secret police" is synonymous with violence and coercion.

Hussein Hamdani, a lawyer and member of the government's cross-cultural roundtable on security, said he and others tried to explain to police why they had to engage the Muslim community.

"We would say, 'Look, you're doing a negative job when doing outreach because you have this wall of silence,' " he said. "I don't think they listened for a long time."

But recently, CSIS has been listening. Under the tenure of Jim Judd, who took over as director in November of 2004, the spy agency has taken specific steps to bring the Muslim community onside.

For example, the agency has dropped phrases such as "Sunni Islamic extremist threat" from its lexicon. At last Saturday's news conference, agents very deliberately avoided using the words Muslim or Islamic when describing the arrests.

Agents also made sure to mention they'd received assistance in the investigation from the Muslim community. According to Mr. Hamdani, this served two purposes: It projected a "we're in this together" message to Muslims, and it indicated to other listeners that not all members of the religion are extremist sympathizers. Authorities also quickly translated the contents of the news conference and other news releases into Arabic and Urdu.

But the timing of Saturday's news conference was also very deliberate. The RCMP were able to communicate with reporters before any court appearance, thereby avoiding the possibility of a media ban.

Authorities were stung by such a ban in the case of Canadian Momin Khawaja, who is accused of a plot to kill British citizens. Mr. Khawaja was the first person charged under Canada's new anti-terrorism laws. While the media were not able to report details of the case because of a publication ban, they were able to report Mr. Khawaja's family asserting that he was a victim of racial profiling.

The RCMP's image was also hurt by an ill-fated investigation three years ago known as Project Thread, in which 20 Pakistani men were held on suspicion of terrorism. The case was later exposed as being highly circumstantial, and the terror charges didn't stick. The operation eventually earned the mocking nickname Project Threadbare.

But even though Canada's security apparatus has become much more savvy since then, it remains unclear whether the Muslim community's response will ultimately prove different.

Muslim Canadian Congress representative Tarek Fatah, who was at Saturday's meeting, said imams brought up a number of concerns after being told what had happened. One asked why authorities hadn't told them sooner about the suspects, so the religious leaders could have put a stop to their plot, Mr. Fatah said.

According to Mr. Fatah, another imam asked whether the authorities could keep the meeting a secret.

"If bishops were meeting regularly with the RCMP, what do you think their congregations would think?" Mr. Fatah said.

A Wall of Silence? Muslims refuse to talk to the police at all? A year of keeping the "community leaders" informed and they give nothing in return? They criticise the police for arresting these boys? The Imams are ashamed of talking to the authorities for what their congregations would think? What the hell is wrong with them and their congregations? They do not hate us because of Iraq or Afghanistan or Palestine. They hate us for who and what we are.
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
06-10-2006, 02:42 PM
Originally Posted by Iqram
The reason why we're here is becuase the British Empire touched our own lands, and the reason why we come in our thousands is becuase the Empire stole our wealth, the reason why we think we should be able to come is becuase they took our countries, and we demand pay back!

What are these demands brother?
Reply

KAding
06-10-2006, 02:56 PM
Originally Posted by sheerheart1
:sl: ,
why in this day and age is it ok to just focus everything on people blaming islam and arresting muslims when ,you take alook around you the others are being terrorists also with women and childen being shot in palistine its seems perfectly ok for muslims to be the main target for everyone to blame and people like george bush and tony blair are innocent but they have innocent blood on thier hands also muslims being arrested in the uk then realeased without any charge what doe's it say alhamdulilah Allah is on our side or are we wrong in all this i don't think so at all :giggling: why does not the west understand anything thier goverments think they are superior to any other they find it hard to tolarate anyone from the east it seems perfetctly ok to have weapons of mass distruction in the west so they can blow anyone up even china has weapons also india but when it comes too my arab brothers having some they dont like it ( beging to think thier is double standards here) or what;D but what can u expect from non believers brothers and sisters lets stick together and good friends also because i know there is good people of other faiths around who hate this persicution also :w: :rollseyes
I disagree. I think the Jews and Americans are being blamed for most problems in the world.

Muslims are targeted by law enforcement because they are most likely to want to blow stuff up.
Reply

KAding
06-10-2006, 03:16 PM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
Guess what - Terrorists don't care if you're guilty or not! They'll blow you up knowing that you are innocent. It doesn't matter to them.

Which is the bigger problem?
Well, to be honest. I think extended police powers may be the bigger problem. All in all the terrorists are few and attacks only happen sporadically. The state on the other hand is collosal and has the means to fundamentally trample our rights, even if they do not intend too.
Reply

Woodrow
06-10-2006, 03:36 PM
Police profiling is a necessary tool for any police force to use. On the surface it appears to be indiscrimanate prejudice and based on an assumption that "those" people are all criminals.

But the reality is that some high profile, reoccuring crimes are going to be committed by people with similatities. If there was suddenly a rash of widespread theft of Pork chops from butcher shops. Most likely Jews and Muslims would be eliminated as potential suspects.

Now let us look at terroristic bombers. Who is most likely to be a terrorist?

Somebody who feels wronged by the country he is residing in.
Somebody who has pride in his national origin
Most likely a young person Teens through 20s in age
Most likely male
Somebody with strong ties to his country of origin
Probably a member of a gang
Probably single and unemployed

Now with that said What groups in England would fit that profile? Do not even think in terms of religion. I think most people would narrow it down to being that the most likely suspects would be members of street gangs compossed of people of immigrant status or first generation. Who are the people that are members of street gangs in England? There are probably several distinct groups that would fit that discription. Some I can think of off hand would be Irish immigrants, Jamaican Immigrant groups, Immigrants from Mid-Eastern countries and probably more.

I do not think Muslims are singled out because they are Muslim, I think they are singled out because they match the profile of most terrorists.

What do we as Muslims need to do? I think for starters we need to do our best to end any gang mentality among the youth. We need to stop supporting any suspects simply on the basis they say they are Muslim. I think word needs to get out that any Muslim guilty of a crime will be dealt with harshly by the Muslim community.

I think some of us are begining to show a reverse prejudice. We are just as guilty by jumping to the defense of a person simply because he says he is Muslim as when other people assume guilt when someone is identified as Muslim.

Both are prejudice: assumption of Guilt because someone is Muslim and Assumption of innocence because someone is Muslim.

Yes, all people should be considered innocent until proven guilty, but not because of their religious persausion.
Reply

Muezzin
06-10-2006, 03:38 PM
Originally Posted by KAding
Well, to be honest. I think extended police powers may be the bigger problem. All in all the terrorists are few and attacks only happen sporadically. The state on the other hand is collosal and has the means to fundamentally trample our rights, even if they do not intend too.
Ding ding ding!

Nice to see another person with civil liberties on the brain. :)
Reply

Trumble
06-10-2006, 03:40 PM
Originally Posted by sheerheart1
... also muslims being arrested in the uk then realeased without any charge...
It's a lot better than them not being released, which happens in more than a few places. Determining whether they should be charged or released is the whole point of questioning (a.k.a "interrogating") them.

All sense of proportion seems to have been lost over this. Police arrest, question, and release without charge hundreds of people every month.. suspected burglars, rapists, drug dealers and others. The vast majority are not muslims. Nobody makes a fuss about those people if no evidence is found, or charges made. Dozens of premises are raided on the basis of intelligence every month.. sometimes drugs, weapons, stolen property etc is found and people are charged, sometimes it is not and they are not. By its very nature, you can only know whether intelligence is correct AFTER the event.
Reply

amirah_87
06-10-2006, 03:40 PM
I Live Near Forest Gate Where The Last Muslim Shooting Happened ..if Any Of You Guys Heard 'bout It!!

And Yesterday I Saw A Police Van Stop And Speak To A Group Of Asian Brothers...my Heart Just Stopped , I Was Like Here We Go Again!!!

I Mean They Realise They Ahve The Power And The Authority And They're Using It In A Different Way!!!
Reply

HeiGou
06-10-2006, 03:54 PM
Originally Posted by KAding
Well, to be honest. I think extended police powers may be the bigger problem. All in all the terrorists are few and attacks only happen sporadically. The state on the other hand is collosal and has the means to fundamentally trample our rights, even if they do not intend too.
The terrorists are a small problem now and mainly because the police keep arresting them. They are not very competent as yet. But they will learn. As we see with LI this week - the internet is being used to teach people how to avoid justice. The number of potential suicide bombers is probably enormous. So far we have not seen much, but if it grows and grows pretty soon Britain will be as bad as Israel. Mao says, the guerilla is like the fish in the sea. Either that sea has to become too hostile for the fish or it needs to be drained.
Reply

HeiGou
06-10-2006, 03:57 PM
Originally Posted by Muezzin
Ding ding ding!

Nice to see another person with civil liberties on the brain. :)
I would love to see another way. But I can't think of one except the obvious - massive co-operation from the Muslim communities of Britain including loud, clear and repeated denounciations of any violence as unacceptable. I was pleased to see Sheik Kutty in Canada speaking out, but he seems to be alone. The British Muslim communities have not yet begun. So with next to no support from the people who can do something about it, what other alternative is there?
Reply

HeiGou
06-10-2006, 04:04 PM
Originally Posted by Trumble
All sense of proportion seems to have been lost over this. Police arrest, question, and release without charge hundreds of people every month.. suspected burglars, rapists, drug dealers and others. The vast majority are not muslims. Nobody makes a fuss about those people if no evidence is found, or charges made. Dozens of premises are raided on the basis of intelligence every month.. sometimes drugs, weapons, stolen property etc is found and people are charged, sometimes it is not and they are not. By its very nature, you can only know whether intelligence is correct AFTER the event.
Let me suggest that it is not a sense of proportion. There is a total lack of support around here for any action by any kafir government against Muslims no matter what they have done. It seesm non-Muslims do not have the right to defend themselves in any circumstances whatsoever. America right to invade Afghanistan? Of course not. Kafirs may not defend themselves. Russia right to re-occupying Chechnya despite the Moscow bombings? Of course not. Kafirs may not defend themselves. Canada right to arrest 17 men for planning the behead the Prime Minister? Need I ask?

Here is a simple challenge, can any Muslim around here tell me of one instance where a non-Muslim government has justy defended itself against Muslims? In the whole history of Islam.
Reply

Woodrow
06-10-2006, 04:19 PM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
Let me suggest that it is not a sense of proportion. There is a total lack of support around here for any action by any kafir government against Muslims no matter what they have done. It seesm non-Muslims do not have the right to defend themselves in any circumstances whatsoever. America right to invade Afghanistan? Of course not. Kafirs may not defend themselves. Russia right to re-occupying Chechnya despite the Moscow bombings? Of course not. Kafirs may not defend themselves. Canada right to arrest 17 men for planning the behead the Prime Minister? Need I ask?

Here is a simple challenge, can any Muslim around here tell me of one instance where a non-Muslim government has justy defended itself against Muslims? In the whole history of Islam.
HeiGou,

Are you sure you wrote this in the tense you intended?

"Here is a simple challenge, can any Muslim around here tell me of one instance where a non-Muslim government has justy defended itself against Muslims? In the whole history of Islam."


I beleive every Non-Muslim country that has been engaged in a conflict with a Muslim country has believed they were justly defending themselves. I may disagree, but I believe much of the Western World, believes the United State Is "justly" defending itself in the current occupation of Iraq. It is all going to dependent on who's concept of justly you look at.

Now, To answer your question as you phrased it. No, as A Muslim I do not believe any Non-Muslim country has every defended itself justly against Muslims, in the whole history of Islam.
__________________
Reply

HeiGou
06-10-2006, 04:28 PM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
Are you sure you wrote this in the tense you intended?

"Here is a simple challenge, can any Muslim around here tell me of one instance where a non-Muslim government has justly defended itself against Muslims? In the whole history of Islam."
The tense sounds fine to me. What do you think is wrong?

I beleive every Non-Muslim country that has been engaged in a conflict with a Muslim country has believed they were justly defending themselves.
And yet that is not true. Most of the countries involved in the Iraq war did not agree with it and millions took to the street. Most colonial countries came to believe they were not acting justly and so withdrew. Britain was shocked over Suez when the truth came out.

Where are the Muslim equivalents?

Now, To answer your question as you phrased it. No, as A Muslim I do not believe any Non-Muslim country has every defended itself justly against Muslims, in the whole history of Islam.
So the Spanish had to right to defend themselves, nor the Indians, nor the Balinese? When the African Muslim states went on slaving sprees those non-Muslim Africans had not right to defend themselves at all?

OK. This is the problem. The solution is obvious.
Reply

duskiness
06-10-2006, 04:42 PM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
Now, To answer your question as you phrased it. No, as A Muslim I do not believe any Non-Muslim country has every defended itself justly against Muslims, in the whole history of Islam.
__________________
:? never ever???? it means that non-muslims have no right to defend their countries agains muslims? may i ask why?
n.
Reply

Woodrow
06-10-2006, 04:47 PM
In reply to this.
"So the Spanish had to right to defend themselves, nor the Indians, nor the Balinese? When the African Muslim states went on slaving sprees those non-Muslim Africans had not right to defend themselves at all?

OK. This is the problem. The solution is obvious."

They had the right to defend themselves against the Arab invaders and the North African slave traders. But they were not defending themselves against Muslims or Islam. They were defending themselves against invaders who were from another country. Although the Majority of the people were Muslim, the defense was against a National ideology and not against Islam or Muslims. There is never a need to defend against Islam or Muslims as Islam does not tolerate aggression.
Reply

KAding
06-10-2006, 05:02 PM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
Now, To answer your question as you phrased it. No, as A Muslim I do not believe any Non-Muslim country has every defended itself justly against Muslims, in the whole history of Islam.
Huh? Are you serious?

I must say this somewhat worries me as well. Clearly, the Crusades and say Imperialism are viewed negatively in the West, both by scholars and by ordinary people. How come Muslims have fought so many offensive wars, yet this period is considered as the greastest period in Islamic History? Surely, not all wars could have been just? Take the expansion of the Ottoman Empire for example?
Reply

Woodrow
06-10-2006, 05:14 PM
Now in reply to the first question>

Originally Posted by Woodrow
Are you sure you wrote this in the tense you intended?

"Here is a simple challenge, can any Muslim around here tell me of one instance where a non-Muslim government has justly defended itself against Muslims? In the whole history of Islam."


The tense sounds fine to me. What do you think is wrong?

The connontation I perceive is:
That would be the same as saying that during WW2 we fought Germany to defend ourselves against Christians.

I just feel it would make more sense if written as:

"Here is a simple challenge, can any Muslim around here tell me of one instance where a non-Muslim government has justly defended itself against a Muslim Government? In the whole history of Islam."



that would change the connontation and direct it against the actions of national ideology. To that question the answer would be yes, Many times. Begining with the some of the Tarter invasions into Eastern Europe.

Defending themselves against Muslims the answer is no, because if a person is engaing in aggression they are not acting in accordance with tolerance towards others, which would not be a Muslim trait.
Reply

HeiGou
06-10-2006, 05:35 PM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
So the Spanish had to right to defend themselves, nor the Indians, nor the Balinese? When the African Muslim states went on slaving sprees those non-Muslim Africans had not right to defend themselves at all?
They had the right to defend themselves against the Arab invaders and the North African slave traders. But they were not defending themselves against Muslims or Islam. They were defending themselves against invaders who were from another country. Although the Majority of the people were Muslim, the defense was against a National ideology and not against Islam or Muslims. There is never a need to defend against Islam or Muslims as Islam does not tolerate aggression.
Well for a start the invaders did not call themselves Arabs (and in Spain were originally Berbers anyway). They called themselves Muslims. Second, those in Northern Africa started out internally killing the pagans around them and then expanding. So that was not a foreign invasion. To describe this as nationalism is anachronistic. No one thought of it in those terms.

Islam clearly does tolerate aggression because, to return to the point, not a single Muslim here can point me to a single Muslim source that condemns any successful invasion of non-Muslim territory by Muslims. No one here can even think of a case they would condemn. The prohibition, if it does exist, clearly only exists on paper and the rule in practice is: if Muslims win it is just.
Reply

Woodrow
06-10-2006, 05:51 PM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
Well for a start the invaders did not call themselves Arabs (and in Spain were originally Berbers anyway). They called themselves Muslims. Second, those in Northern Africa started out internally killing the pagans around them and then expanding. So that was not a foreign invasion. To describe this as nationalism is anachronistic. No one thought of it in those terms.

Islam clearly does tolerate aggression because, to return to the point, not a single Muslim here can point me to a single Muslim source that condemns any successful invasion of non-Muslim territory by Muslims. No one here can even think of a case they would condemn. The prohibition, if it does exist, clearly only exists on paper and the rule in practice is: if Muslims win it is just.
There are many instances in the Qur'an were aggression is specificaly forbidden. No need in quoting them here as you are most likely aware of them.

Now, in cases of Muslims supporting Non-Muslims defending themselves against wrong doing Muslims. One area of difficulty we have in answering that is if the Muslims are doing wrong we do not see the act as being Muslim.

Now specifics as to when Muslims recognised unlawfull agression by people calling themselves Muslims and supported non-Muslim people. I'm not enough of a history buff. But, if memory serves me correctly The Bengalis in India who are Muslim, sided with the British against fellow Muslims in India that were trying to overthrow the British. The Bengali were some of Queen Victorias strongest allies against all nations be they Muslim or Non-Muslim.
Reply

lavikor201
06-10-2006, 06:23 PM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
Guess what - Terrorists don't care if you're guilty or not! They'll blow you up knowing that you are innocent. It doesn't matter to them.

Which is the bigger problem?
That is a very good point.
Reply

Woodrow
06-10-2006, 09:04 PM
Lavikoor201,

I have to agree that is a very good point. I just hope people could keep in mind that a Terrorist is a terrorist and does not represent any Race, Religion or National Origin.

HeiGou,
Just thought of something more up to date that Muslims will side against Muslims and side with Non-Muslim if they believe the Muslim is acting in a non-Islamic manner.

Do you have any idea as to how many Muslims are/have been in the US Army and are serving or have served against Muslims in Iraq?

Here is just one:

Sergeant Mohammed Omar Masry, Muslim US Soldier in Iraq
Subject US Muslim Soldiers in Iraq
Date Tuesday,Nov 11 ,2003
Time Makkah
From... 20:00...To... 23:59
GMT
From... 17:00...To...20:59


Name Host -
Profession
Question
Dear viewers,

The session has just started. You are invited to join us with your questions.

After the session, you could view the whole dialogue in the recent sessions.

We would like to apologize for the possibility of delayed replies as a translation process is taking place.

Yours,

Islamonline Live Dialogue Editing Desk


Answer -

Name Faizal - South Africa
Profession
Question
Assalaamu alaikum,

My name is Faizal and I am from South Africa, Johannesburg.

I wish to ask SGT Omar how does he feel when he sees his fellow Muslim
brothers and sisters being killed, maimed, shot at etc around him? Does it
move him, does he feel like leaving the US army. I want to know what his
thoughts on the battle field when the whole world (Muslim world) knows the
US to be waging a crusade in Muslim lands.


Answer
Thank you faizal for your question. First off, it hurts to see anyone being hurt Muslim or non-Muslim.

Because I have been able to help Muslims here in my capacity as a civil affairs reservist it does alleviate the suffering I do see, both caused as a result of war and the previous regime; and in that respect I feel I am working in a worthy endeavour.

If in Crusade you mean a war to take over a land so that Europeans can conquer, inhabit, and convert its citizens, then this war does not fall into that category.



Name Julie A. Belz - United States
Profession
Question
I would like to know, in what ways is the US Army accommodating the
religious rights of Sergeant Mohammed Omar Masry during the month of
Ramadan so that he might fulfill his religious obligations of prayer
and fasting?

I would also like to know, in what ways is the U.S. Army educating
its members about Islam and Muslims?

with best wishes, Prof. Julie A. Belz, Ph.D.


Answer
During Ramadan I am allowed to reduce my participation in early morning physical training. I am always offered MRE's (meals ready to eat) that do not contain pork by fellow soldiers in my unit.

I am also given time to pray and usually have my driver offer to stand guard if we are out in town and stopped for a moment.

Lastly I was also given contact information to a Muslim chaplain. All of these items were actually offered, to my suprise, without asking for them by fellow soldiers and commanders in my unit.

Recently all the soldiers here in Baghdad were issued informational pamphlets on Ramadan, its significance, as well as ways to both show appreciation and avoid any religious insensitivity. This includes prohibiting soldiers from eating or drinking in front of Iraqis. Many luncheons sponsored throughout Baghdad, such as a woman's small business luncheon, were changed to shorter meetings and many of the neighborhood council meetings were shortened and scheduled earlier.
Reply

Immunity
06-10-2006, 09:23 PM
Let's not forget that HeiGu's arguments are baseless and cannot be based on facts. Before you believe anything he says, make sure his information is accurate. Let me give you some examples:

1.) He believed that the United States have a low rape rate. I shot him down.
2.) He does not acknowledge the Golden Age of Islam and does not believe Muslims studied Greek works.
3.) He refuses to believe that Confucianism treats women as inferior.
4.) He claimed that members of the IRA are excommunicated, yet his sources hardly indicate this.
5.) He makes statements that are taken out of historical context (for example, he complains about Bangladesh, yet the country is ONLY 35 years old; the US and most Western nations are over 250 years old )
6.) He claims that the majority of the posters in this forum support terrorism.
7.) After providing an abundance of evidence, he still refuses to see that there is Buddhist terrorism.

I urge you to refrain from taking HeiGu seriously, because all he is trying to do is discourage Muslims through his lies and inaccurate political/historical statements. He does not see anything in context. Before answering him, make sure his information is accurate because what he posts is untrustworthy. Also, you must understand that he is close-minded. Whatever you say has no effect, because not even reality can save him from his prejudice.

You can check his previous posts as evidence.
Reply

HeiGou
06-11-2006, 11:46 AM
Originally Posted by Immunity
Let's not forget that HeiGu's arguments are baseless and cannot be based on facts. Before you believe anything he says, make sure his information is accurate. Let me give you some examples:

1.) He believed that the United States have a low rape rate. I shot him down.
Actually what I said is that your claim America has the highest rate in the world is not true. And so you changed it to the highest in the Western developped world. Which is also not true by the way but no matter.

2.) He does not acknowledge the Golden Age of Islam and does not believe Muslims studied Greek works.
Again this is not factually accurate. I believe there was a period that is referred to in that way and if you read what I said, I said no Muslim seems to have translated a Greek work. Christians did and obviously Muslims read them in translation.

3.) He refuses to believe that Confucianism treats women as inferior.
I have not said this either. I have said that I think that Confucius did not say women were morally or intellectually inferior. What Confucianists did with Confucianism is an issue I have not touched on.

4.) He claimed that members of the IRA are excommunicated, yet his sources hardly indicate this.
Actually it stated it clearly. And it is true.

5.) He makes statements that are taken out of historical context (for example, he complains about Bangladesh, yet the country is ONLY 35 years old; the US and most Western nations are over 250 years old )
As if this amounts to anything besides which, Bangladesh has existed for far longer than the United States as a civilisation and of course their religion even longer. No doubt you have some point but it escapes me.

6.) He claims that the majority of the posters in this forum support terrorism.
Really? Where did I say that?

7.) After providing an abundance of evidence, he still refuses to see that there is Buddhist terrorism.
I have not provided abundant evidence because there is none. Nor have you for the same reason. You have proved that Communists oppress Christians. Big deal.

I urge you to refrain from taking HeiGu seriously, because all he is trying to do is discourage Muslims through his lies and inaccurate political/historical statements. He does not see anything in context.
By all means, stop taking me seriously. But I notice of your seven points six of them are outright lies and the seventh is open to question. We will see who deserves to be taken seriously.

Before answering him, make sure his information is accurate because what he posts is untrustworthy. Also, you must understand that he is close-minded. Whatever you say has no effect, because not even reality can save him from his prejudice.
Actually I am pretty good when it comes to accuracy if I do say so myself. And the fact that you are incapable of putting a coherent, logical and factually accurate argument together (see above) is not proof that I am closed minded.

You can check his previous posts as evidence.
By all means. I would welcome any such examination.
Reply

HeiGou
06-11-2006, 11:49 AM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
There are many instances in the Qur'an were aggression is specificaly forbidden. No need in quoting them here as you are most likely aware of them.
How is "aggression" defined? And is it easy to get around through a legal strategm?

Now, in cases of Muslims supporting Non-Muslims defending themselves against wrong doing Muslims. One area of difficulty we have in answering that is if the Muslims are doing wrong we do not see the act as being Muslim.
Which is convenient isn't it? But I also doubt that. When it is successful no one has any problems in claiming it. Defeat is an orphan. Take the crushing of the indigenous people of Kafirstan in Aftghanistan. They held out against invasion for centuries and so remained non-Muslims. Until the King of Afghanistan got some Western weapons and Kafirstan fell and is now known as Nuristan - because of course they were all forced to convert. Care to find a single source that does not think this was a good thing?

Now specifics as to when Muslims recognised unlawfull agression by people calling themselves Muslims and supported non-Muslim people. I'm not enough of a history buff. But, if memory serves me correctly The Bengalis in India who are Muslim, sided with the British against fellow Muslims in India that were trying to overthrow the British. The Bengali were some of Queen Victorias strongest allies against all nations be they Muslim or Non-Muslim.
Surely you are referring to the Indian Mutiny which started in the Bangal Army? But that is irrelevant as well.
Reply

sheerheart1
06-14-2006, 11:04 PM
[S]
Originally Posted by MRR
It is ok for a muslim to be arrested if they are guilty of something.
[/S]

what if your have not done anything ?? this is a new trend hitting every where in the uk know arrest phewww!! what a life it says that a muslim will be tested 2 the limit :X :w:
Reply

Skillganon
06-14-2006, 11:28 PM
I have been stopped and search on the tube twice, and funnily it was when their was police present who decided to stop and search on that day. I was told it was a random search, but another funny thing is that you won't see a non-muslim with a bag not being stopped, or more specifically anyone who is not asian (Bangladeshi, pakistani). It is also funny how stupid and innefective it is, as a travell by the tube everyday going to uni, and obviousely it requires me to carry a back pack, and know how easy it is to ovoid the police. If I wanted to do something (god forbid) I could of done something for the 300 day's for the last 1 year if it was indeed my intention.
You have better chance of getting stabbed, robbed, beaten up than something like that.
Maybe the police are forced to do something and show they are doing their job, or maybe it only reaffirm's the fear (terror), and remind's the general public of the sad 9/11, so the public will be brainwashed into thinking muslim are terrorist, and the whole war is legal.

A common tactic, keep the general people away, distracted, from the truth, by constantly bombarding them with fear.

It has nothing to got to do with other religion, most people are ignorant of Islam, or don't know about their own religion e.g. christian teaching.
Reply

HeiGou
06-15-2006, 08:22 AM
Originally Posted by Skillganon
I have been stopped and search on the tube twice, and funnily it was when their was police present who decided to stop and search on that day. I was told it was a random search, but another funny thing is that you won't see a non-muslim with a bag not being stopped, or more specifically anyone who is not asian (Bangladeshi, pakistani). It is also funny how stupid and innefective it is, as a travell by the tube everyday going to uni, and obviousely it requires me to carry a back pack, and know how easy it is to ovoid the police. If I wanted to do something (god forbid) I could of done something for the 300 day's for the last 1 year if it was indeed my intention.
So what is your objection - to the searches which are ineffective, or to the targeting of Muslims? It is obvious that there is no point searching non-Muslims as they are unlikely to be carrying a bomb. It makes sense to search the high-risk groups - young Asian men of Muslim origin carrying backpacks. I agree it is probably not very effective, but it is better than nothing. And you have to remeber the last lot came down from Yorkshire so they would not have known how to avoid the police so well.

You have better chance of getting stabbed, robbed, beaten up than something like that.
True. But a lesser chance than being shot by the police.

Maybe the police are forced to do something and show they are doing their job, or maybe it only reaffirm's the fear (terror), and remind's the general public of the sad 9/11, so the public will be brainwashed into thinking muslim are terrorist, and the whole war is legal.
Perhaps. But if not this, what? An Israeli airline is in trouble for refusing to let Arabs fly on it. That seems a sensible precaution to me. Illegal of course but reasonable. So how about we segregate all Muslims into their own buses and their own trains, in fact their own suburbs and their own Universities. So that they will not have to deal with kafirs and poorly clad women and we will feel mroe secure? This is a policy, but not I think a better one. Still it is the way of the future unless another solution is found. What would you recommend?

It has nothing to got to do with other religion, most people are ignorant of Islam, or don't know about their own religion e.g. christian teaching.
True. But it has something to do with the bombers' values doesn't it?
Reply

north_malaysian
06-15-2006, 09:52 AM
wy it's ok always for muslims to be arrested by another Muslims (tyrant ones) and the whole Muslim world ... dont really care about it?
Reply

sheerheart1
06-15-2006, 12:55 PM
:sl: if i was a jew in a skull cap i would not be stopped or arrested if i was a preacher wearin a cross i would not be stopped either or even if i was a nun then why am i stopped and searched because i wear islamic dress and because i am a muslim good and bad come in all so let fair treatment be done even if i am a blackman i am stopped and searched maybe because i am driving a nice car wearing nice clothes why!!! they think i am dealing drugs have a un under my car seat:rollseyes ( i just have a few little pins fastning my hijaab i carry a spare incase i get confronted pinched (i am gonna make sure i stick the pin where it hurts:sister:if your gonna treat people like rubbish what do you expect enland is supposed to be fair but not so i am abused as a muslim even tho i am a law abbidding citizen who pays thier taxs :offended: :offended: :offended: :offended: :grumbling :thankyou: well mr blair if you read this foram make sure u treat all people the same:thankyou: :rant: ;D :w:
Reply

Ayesha Rana
06-15-2006, 01:29 PM
The thing is sis it comes down to steriotyping. You see Islam is perfect but the people who follow it arne't. So when something comes up about a muslim (true or not) all muslims are seen as bad even if they aren't.
But it's like this:
Don't say oh God i have a big problem say oh problem i have a big God
(a sister has that as her signiture)
Reply

MRR
06-28-2006, 07:06 AM
Originally Posted by sheerheart1
[S][/S]

what if your have not done anything ?? this is a new trend hitting every where in the uk know arrest phewww!! :
Yeah, right. "only" muslims are ever questioned for doing nothing. This NEVER happens to anyone else. It happens to everyone, deal with it.


Originally Posted by north_malaysian
wy it's ok always for muslims to be arrested by another Muslims (tyrant ones) and the whole Muslim world ... dont really care about it?
Exactly!


Originally Posted by sheerheart1
:sl: if i was a jew in a skull cap i would not be stopped or arrested if i was a preacher wearin a cross i would not be stopped either or even if i was a nun then why am i stopped and searched because i wear islamic dress and because i am a muslim good and bad come in all so let fair treatment be done even if i am a blackman i am stopped and searched maybe because i am driving a nice car wearing nice clothes why!!! they think i am dealing drugs have a un under my car seat:rollseyes ( i just have a few little pins fastning my hijaab i carry a spare incase i get confronted pinched (i am gonna make sure i stick the pin where it hurts:sister:if your gonna treat people like rubbish what do you expect enland is supposed to be fair but not so i am abused as a muslim even tho i am a law abbidding citizen who pays thier taxs :offended: :offended: :offended: :offended: :grumbling :thankyou: well mr blair if you read this foram make sure u treat all people the same:thankyou: :rant: ;D :w:
Oh boy. Here we go again. Yes, ONLY muslims and black men are ever stopped by police. What whiney drivel. Nonsense. Blacks, whites, jews, muslims, christians, all get questioned by police. Stop this pathetic "poor me" snivelling.
Reply

Asyur an-Nagi
06-28-2006, 08:26 AM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
Guess what - Terrorists don't care if you're guilty or not! They'll blow you up knowing that you are innocent. It doesn't matter to them.

Which is the bigger problem?
they also don't care if the moslems are guilty or not. and why talkin terrorist? Tim Mc Veigh blew a building and no one blame him in a frame of religion.
Reply

Isaac
06-28-2006, 08:50 AM
They do this because they are aginst the teachings of islam. They fear that this power hungry civiloization they have where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer will come to an end, and all the big politcians and money makers you see will be out of touch. Its clear from teir speeches, this a war of civlizations. they fear that the simple life of islam which provides justice for all will prevent them from their personal gains.

so far praise be to allah i have not been stopped and searched, maybe cos i dont travel into central much, but if i did, i would hopefuly like to think i would co-operate and act in a civilised manner, so we could show these steroritipcal peoplle that you are wrong, and just look them in their face and let them know, that your wrong this time. AGAIN.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-25-2014, 08:32 PM
  2. Replies: 63
    Last Post: 04-10-2013, 07:26 AM
  3. Replies: 25
    Last Post: 09-30-2012, 08:22 PM
  4. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-23-2008, 06:57 AM
  5. Replies: 26
    Last Post: 04-02-2007, 11:34 AM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!