Dublin imam takes on the fanatics

[AntonK]

Cast out by the majority Islamic community in Dublin for his outspokenness, the 50-year-old preacher says he has received death threats. 'I am standing firm in my beliefs,' Satardien says. 'The truth is more important than being popular or living a quiet life. Extremism has infected Islam in Ireland. It's time to get back to the spiritual aspect of my religion and stop it being used as a political weapon.'

Although his mosque is tiny, Satardien has attracted a loyal following from 20 nationalities of Muslims now living in Ireland. Haris Puskar, 19, fled from Bosnia to Ireland with his family while he was still at primary school. A victim of Serb ethnic cleansing in Banja Luka in the early 1990s, Puskar now speaks English with a Dublin accent and is an ardent Gaelic football fan.

'The imam preaches the same kind of tolerant Islam that my family grew up with back in Bosnia. He is a moderate voice against the extremists. I also like him because he preaches in English, which is the language I have grown up speaking since I came to Ireland at the age of eight,' he says.

Moshin Khan, a 35-year-old shopkeeper, originally from Lahore in Pakistan, agrees. 'I like the message this imam gives us. I don't like extremism - here, in this mosque, there is the teaching of true Islam.

Read the whole thing.

[FBI]

:sl:

I can see the "W" Sect is used there, I've addressed similar people with this view in this thread please visit

http://www.islamicboard.com/general-...tml#post621295

[Skillganon]

The geezer is talking bush crap.

You will notice all the familiar rethoric, Extremist, fanatic, Osoma bin Laden, Al-qaeda and most of all he comes up with *******.

This article is quite obvious if one looks carefully.

[Dawud_uk]

i wonder how much he cost?

or is he one of the genuine misguided fools who believes this crap and spreads it to please the kuffar?

either way he speaks rubbish and is a clear enemy of Allah and of islam, may Allah swt guide him.

such people should put up or shut up, they should either present their case in debate about whether they represent the true islam or they should shut up because their daleel and views can usually be destroyed as the falsehood it is with ease by genuine scholars of islam.

assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah

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

[FBI]

:sl:

true Islam

Why do people use this term instead of using daleel or is it that they know they have none?

[Dawud_uk]

:sl:

Why do people use this term instead of using daleel or is it that they know they have none?

assalaamu alaykum,

because it is an easy statement to make, i tend to take people how they come to me and not assume they are amongst the munafiq's and worse who have taken the dollar from the CIA.

so everyone believes what they are upon is true islam, and that others are either going to extremes or not doing enough.

the true islam is what the prophet Muhammad saws and the sahabah were upon, as in the haddith about the ummah splitting into many sects etc which i am sure most of us know but whom is really on it?

so people believe they are upon what is true islam, but they dont go deeper into islam for fear of finding themselves wrong and are not concerned with finding the truth or debating it as if they did they might find themselves having to change their views and behaviours and that is a frightening proposition to them,

it is easy to be selective in what haddith to follow or what tafsir to read, yet if we go deeper and read it all we will i am sure all find there are matters we should be doing but do not or are doing which we should not.

however not all are genuine, and yes some of them are munafiq's and worst, having taken bribes from the US to water down in islam in the name of moderate islam or modernist islam, may Allah swt guide the enemies of this ummah and strengthen us all upon the right course of islam, that which can be backed up by daleel and evidence.

assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah

[IzakHalevas]

such people should put up or shut up, they should either present their case in debate about whether they represent the true islam or they should shut up because their daleel and views can usually be destroyed as the falsehood it is with ease by genuine scholars of islam.

Do you know anything about this man? Yet you judge him like your some kind of authority on anything.

[FBI]

Do you know anything about this man? Yet you judge him like your some kind of authority on anything.

But he's right, it's the usual Rhetoric people give without actually presenting their case with valid points.

[MTAFFI]

Why is it that just because he thinks the violence should end, he has been "paid off". Personally I wish Islam had more people like this guy, he seems smart. The people blowing themselves up accomplish nothing, they take innocent lives and give Islam a bad name. If Muslims just rose up and helped to turn in those who have commited all of these crimes, the world wouldnt be "after" you anymore and you and everyone else could live in peace. Believe what you want, the west is evil, the world wants to get rid of Muslims, blah blah blah, truth is it is getting to be an excuse for murder and violence, the very thing I see so many on this site claim islam is against. I keep hearing it is a war against Islam, I think Islam is waging a war against us. Keep it up and you might just get exterminated, it wouldnt be that hard.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

wow, foul language is quite prevalent in this thread. let it be known that the loser of an argument uses foul language and i heard a narration in which the word "hypocrite" was used.

as for the article, i dont like moderates or liberals, without fundamentals islam will not be islam thats why i dislike any muslim being called an extremist because that word will only be used for the muslims who are sincerely trying hard (some maybe misguided) but nonetheless they are trying hard and its our duty to help them if we see any wrong in their actions not critisize and label them...

im talking from personal experience...

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Allahu Alam. The best thing we can do it present Islam the way it really is. Our sitting and just talking wont do anything.

Peace

[Muezzin]

The man makes good points about Islam as a peaceful religion.

No doubt I will now be called a hypocrite or my Islamic 'reputation' will otherwise be diminished as certain members who disagree with me (or that guy in the article) cannot simply accept that not everybody thinks alike.

[FBI]

The man makes good points about Islam as a peaceful religion.

No doubt I will now be called a hypocrite or my Islamic 'reputation' will otherwise be diminished as certain members who disagree with me (or that guy in the article) cannot simply accept that not everybody thinks alike.

:sl:

No one is disagreeing with islam being peaceful but if your gonna say u represent islam then u must also mention that it is also a militant religion instead of watewashing everyone who believes in Jihad as an extremist, The problem I have with the guy is that he generalized so much.

[Abdul Fattah]

i wonder how much he cost?

or is he one of the genuine misguided fools who believes this crap and spreads it to please the kuffar?

either way he speaks rubbish and is a clear enemy of Allah and of islam, may Allah swt guide him.

such people should put up or shut up, they should either present their case in debate about whether they represent the true islam or they should shut up because their daleel and views can usually be destroyed as the falsehood it is with ease by genuine scholars of islam.

assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah

I don't understand your reaction, are you implying that suicide bombing "is" ok, contrary to what this imam is saying?
Or was the "this crap" and "rubbish" referring to another point he made?
Don't judge a book by it's cover. The article only speaks about his stand on terrorism as far as I made out. As for the choice of words "extremists". I don't like it either but we should keep in mind that the precise use of words is usually left to the discretion of the writer of the article. Furthermore the word extreme has different semantic meanings from a western pov as from a muslim pov, so you don't know which pov the imam was talking about. Maybe he uses extreme as a way of expressing his favor for liberal views or maybe he uses the word extreme to refer to acts which go beyond Islam. We don't know. Only Allah subhana wa ta'ala knows. And even if we did know it is still far from us to judge him.

[Fishman]

:sl:
I agree with Muezzin on this one, this guy seems very smart. I think that the majority of the older Muslims in this country also agree with him, I've never met a first-generation Muslim who doesn't think like this.

as for the article, i dont like moderates or liberals, without fundamentals islam will not be islam

This guy is not going against the fundementals of Islam, he's going against people who support violence. No doubt he largely agrees with creed and fiqh of the people he's condemning, but he does not like their violent political views. We should also remember that the people he condemns have tried to kill him, which is uber haram.
:w:

[IbnAbdulHakim]

^ tru

[IzakHalevas]

Allahu Alam. The best thing we can do it present Islam the way it really is. Our sitting and just talking wont do anything.

Peace

What does that mean?

[MTAFFI]

:sl:
I agree with Muezzin on this one, this guy seems very smart. I think that the majority of the older Muslims in this country also agree with him, I've never met a first-generation Muslim who doesn't think like this.


This guy is not going against the fundementals of Islam, he's going against people who support violence. No doubt he largely agrees with creed and fiqh of the people he's condemning, but he does not like their violent political views. We should also remember that the people he condemns have tried to kill him, which is uber haram.
:w:

it gives non muslims hope for peace as well, thank god for people like you and muezzin who do not simply think violence is the only way and condemn anyone who doesnt take your direction:D

[Keltoi]

I think this is a step in the right direction as far as rhetoric goes. I don't see why some Muslims on this forum feel the need to attack anyone associated with Islam who denounces violence.

[Abdul Fattah]

Well I Imagen that the reason people reacted like this was not because he denounced violence, but rather because they assumed that he denounced strictness in religion under the guise of denouncing violence.

ps, how's that for putting a lot of info in a single sentence :p

[AvarAllahNoor]

Why is it that just because he thinks the violence should end, he has been "paid off". Personally I wish Islam had more people like this guy, he seems smart..

:statisfie

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

What does that mean?

Gee i didnt know i was hard to understand :X. i feel like bringing up the alien language again....:X

My point is if we want people to know what Islam is all about, show it in ur character. Dont just sit their behind the computer screen and talk.

Peace

[Dawud_uk]

assalaamu alaykum,

first of all he uses the w a h a b i label, always a sign of an extremist sufi or modernist, though i admit not a proof but anyone who uses one of Allah's names as a means of denegrating and denouncing other characters is in my viewpoint misguided.

next, yes i agree with suicide bombings under certain conditions, i.e valid target, no other means to attack the enemy with the same effectiveness, a valid jihad etc.

the next point...
the man is obviously no fan of history or he would see that the west has constantly tried to battle and attack islam, and i have absolute faith that Allah knows what he is talking about when he says of the jews and christians in the Quran 'they will never like you until you are like themselves'

i have faith and conviction that the Quran is 100% true and correct, that the disbelievers do hate islam, that this is their way since the earliest days of mankind until the end days of mankind that the disbelieves will have hatred in the heart for the true believers, that some of them can be shown the truth but others will always hate and belittle and dislike.

assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah

[SilentObserver]

i wonder how much he cost?

or is he one of the genuine misguided fools who believes this crap and spreads it to please the kuffar?

either way he speaks rubbish and is a clear enemy of Allah and of islam, may Allah swt guide him.

such people should put up or shut up, they should either present their case in debate about whether they represent the true islam or they should shut up because their daleel and views can usually be destroyed as the falsehood it is with ease by genuine scholars of islam.

assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah

Why? Suicide bombers are cool? Violence is cool? Hate and killing are cool?

Seems to me the 'true islam' that many muslims have presented to me, is a lot different from your 'true islam'. But there can only be one 'true islam'. So which is it? The peaceful, loving religion that Muezzin has presented? Or your hate filled, suicide bomber glorifying, war loving version?

I like Muezzin's version alot more.

[Dawud_uk]

Why? Suicide bombers are cool? Violence is cool? Hate and killing are cool?

Seems to me the 'true islam' that many muslims have presented to me, is a lot different from your 'true islam'. But there can only be one 'true islam'. So which is it? The peaceful, loving religion that Muezzin has presented? Or your hate filled, suicide bomber glorifying, war loving version?

I like Muezzin's version alot more.

did i use the words 'cool?'
i would not use such crass and crude language about such serious topics.

the truth is that the true islam is what was presented by Allah through the person of his messenger, saws, and that the best of interpretation of this comes from his companions and then the generations after them.

now did they hesitate to give their life if necessary to protect islam? no, though they didnt waste them either but nor were they affraid to die and were eager to meet death knowing their lord would be pleased with them if they did such.

now i dont love violence or war, but i recognise that if islam is under attack it should defend itself. we are peaceful with those who are peaceful with us, keep attacking islam and dont be suprised if some comes back the other way as we are not those who sit and take punishment without standing up and striking back.

Abu Abdullah

[Malaikah]

SilentObserver, just because you think he is presenting something, doesn't mean you really understood what either person is actually saying.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Dawud_uk;

next, yes i agree with suicide bombings under certain conditions, i.e valid target, no other means to attack the enemy with the same effectiveness, a valid jihad etc.

I have a huge problem with this line of reasoning, the human target of the bomber is also created by Allah. Why should Allah want part of his creation destroyed in this way?

It might be in the heart of the bomber that he wants to target another group of people, but how can the bomber know the 'target' is valid in the eyes of Allah?

i have faith and conviction that the Quran is 100% true and correct, that the disbelievers do hate islam,

I don’t hate Islam, I have a great respect for your beliefs, and also the beliefs of other faiths too. What I hate is violence and injustice even if it is from Christian origins.

In the spirit of striving for a greater interfaith friendship

Eric

[skhalid]

True Islam:? :? :skeleton:
Is there such a thing these days?:?
True Islam existed wen Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.) to lead Muslims through the right path!!!

[Dawud_uk]

Greetings and peace be with you Dawud_uk;



I have a huge problem with this line of reasoning, the human target of the bomber is also created by Allah. Why should Allah want part of his creation destroyed in this way?

It might be in the heart of the bomber that he wants to target another group of people, but how can the bomber know the 'target' is valid in the eyes of Allah?



I don’t hate Islam, I have a great respect for your beliefs, and also the beliefs of other faiths too. What I hate is violence and injustice even if it is from Christian origins.

In the spirit of striving for a greater interfaith friendship

Eric

peace eric,

i do not mean you personally, but i mean as a group of people the disbelievers will never accept our ways, dislike them and many of them if they could would see them destroyed.

the point of martyrdom operations is that the person doing it is not intending on killing themselves, this is a by-product, but their intention is to kill the enemies of Allah, according to the islamic law on who is or isnt a valid target in war, and having no other means available offers up their body as a means of delivering the explosive into the heart of the enemy position.

peace be upon those who follow righteous guidence,
Abu Abdullah

[Abdul Fattah]

assalaamu alaykum,

I would like to discuss these matters some more in depth.

first of all he uses the w a h a b i label, always a sign of an extremist sufi or modernist, though i admit not a proof but anyone who uses one of Allah's names as a means of denegrating and denouncing other characters is in my viewpoint misguided.

I can see why you find that term inappropriate, but it is a recognized group, so it's kind of difficult going around that. How can you discuss something without saying it's name?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/******
EDIT: due to auto-censorship I cannot write the correct URL, just replace the stars with Wa ha bi (without the spaces of course)

next, yes i agree with suicide bombings under certain conditions, i.e valid target, no other means to attack the enemy with the same effectiveness, a valid jihad etc.

How can an act of terrorism cannot be considered as striving in the way of Allah (s.w.t.) when by this act you revolt against the very rules of Allah (s.w.t.)?

1. The Qur’an states that killing an innocent person is like killing the whole of humanity. The ayah is:
   For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our messengers came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land. (Qur’an 5:32)
   And regardless the target of an act of terrorism it’s hard to imagine that not a single innocent bystander gets killed by it. It becomes especially challenging when you keep in mind the difficulty of establishing guilt of a person beyond reasonable doubt. In fact the only valid targets would be an army at the very time that they are attacking.
2. Even if victims aren’t that innocent. Jihad is still only allowed during oppression as a form of self-defense or to defend defenseless people. It cannot be an act of vengeance and retaliation; nor can people become oppressed trough it. Neither can one force non-believers to believe.
   Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. (Qur’an 2:256)
3. Suicide is a major sin, regardless the cause. And it’s even worse because even if a person believes, during the time of committing a sin he is considered a disbeliever. So during the act of suicide one dies as a disbeliever. The Messenger of Allah (p.b.u.h.) said: “Whoever purposely throws himself from a mountain and kills himself will be in the Hell-fire falling down into it and abiding therein perpetually forever.” (Reported by al-Bukhari and Muslim)
   Kindly show me a single verse or hadeeth that shows that jihad makes this an acception. When the sahabis fought in battles, did they purpesly walk into swords to become martyrs? No, even though they wanted it very bad they fought 'till their last breath and tried not to get killed.
4. It is forbidden for Muslims to kill by fire according to the following Hadith: Punishment by fire does not behove anyone except the Master of the Fire. (Reported by Abu Dawud)
   Explosion is the same as fire, it's just such an intense fire that it looks differently, but physically and chemically speaking it's the same thing.

the next point...
the man is obviously no fan of history or he would see that the west has constantly tried to battle and attack islam, and i have absolute faith that Allah knows what he is talking about when he says of the jews and christians in the Quran 'they will never like you until you are like themselves'

You mean this verse right?
Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion. Say: "The Guidance of Allah,-that is the (only) Guidance." Wert thou to follow their desires after the knowledge which hath reached thee, then wouldst thou find neither Protector nor helper against Allah. (Qur'an 2:120)
It's true, and a sad thing indeed, I have felt it myself from within my own environment as a revert. However this verse does not justify attacking them, it's only a warning to us that we shouldn't give in to their desires for the sake of peace. And yes; looking at history is sad to, but it's no excuse for a violent future either. Two wrongs don't make a right. Funny that you mention that verse, are you aware of this one? It comes 50 verses after the one you reffered to:
But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression. (Qur'an 2:192-193)
So that means we can not look at the past, we can only look at the actions of the present.

i have faith and conviction that the Quran is 100% true and correct, that the disbelievers do hate islam, that this is their way since the earliest days of mankind until the end days of mankind that the disbelieves will have hatred in the heart for the true believers, that some of them can be shown the truth but others will always hate and belittle and dislike.

Oh, they hate and belittle and dislike us, so let's nuke 'm? Just swallow it in and be the bigger person; but don't get all violent because of this.

[MTAFFI]

the point of martyrdom operations is that the person doing it is not intending on killing themselves, this is a by-product, but their intention is to kill the enemies of Allah,

here is the problem i have, the suicide bomber is not the only "by-product", which by the way is a disgusting way to regard human life. These guys kill themselves along with all the people around them and I guarantee you that some if not many of the people around them are not at war with Islam. So why is it martyrdom and not murder to you? Innocent people die because of a war were you cant even effectively identify the enemy. If they are American or from the west then that is just good enough, well to me it sounds like Islam wants to destroy the west, so why shouldnt the west destroy all of Islam? What would you say if instead of the west concentrating on a certain group of people who share your religion they just said any muslim in the US is to be put to death, and then proceeded to bomb and destroy all muslim countries. This would probably happen if all Muslims thought like the extremist do, and thank God they dont and for people like this man.

I am not trying to pick a fight with you or Islam, I am just saying that this sort of violence is not the way. Not only that bad it has given your people a really bad name, that is not deserved. You can try to justify these acts of violence all you want but to me and many others you are just using your religion as a sheild or excuse to kill those that do not believe the same as you. It is sad and may God guide you onto the right path

[FBI]

:sl:

Explosion is the same as fire, it's just such an intense fire that it looks differently, but physically and chemically speaking it's the same thing.

I strongly disagree with this, using explosives is common warfare, there is a diffrence as using a naked flame to burn someone intentionally and using C4 to take out a tank.

[aamirsaab]

:sl:

:sl:

I strongly disagree with this, using explosives is common warfare, there is a diffrence as using a naked flame to burn someone intentionally and using C4 to take out a tank.

Just a point I'd like to mention: any form of explosive is considered haram with regards to Islamic warfare due to it's indiscriminate splash damage and the fact that that it affects the environment adversely.

[Abdul Fattah]

:sl:

I strongly disagree with this, using explosives is common warfare, there is a diffrence as using a naked flame to burn someone intentionally and using C4 to take out a tank.

Just because it's common doesn't make it ok for us.
If it's common for soldiers to sodomize prisoners of war as a scare tactic, should we do the same?

If it's common to serve soldiers pork since it's cheaper, should we do the same so they don't have a economical advancement?

Just because they do it doesn't make it right for us, right?
We still have our religion to abide by.

[FBI]

:sl:


Just a point I'd like to mention: any form of explosive is considered haram with regards to Islamic warfare due to it's indiscriminate splash damage and the fact that that it affects the environment adversely.

The issue of 'ijtihad' would applied, what we to do fight with swords against armoured vehicles, if it applies to jihad then it's permissable as such other things as lying becomes permissable then.

[Skillganon]

assalaamu alaykum,

I would like to discuss these matters some more in depth.

I can see why you find that term inappropriate, but it is a recognized group, so it's kind of difficult going around that. How can you discuss something without saying it's name?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/******
EDIT: due to auto-censorship I cannot write the correct URL, just replace the stars with Wa-ha-bi

Assalamu alaikum, brother go to the "sect and devision" section and read the article on W'ahhabi myth first. It is a degetory label from the enemy of the Islam.
It is named after a scholar of Islam.

How can an act of terrorism cannot be considered as striving in the way of Allah (s.w.t.) when by this act you revolt against the very rules of Allah (s.w.t.)?

Secondly no one's advising something that is against the Quran and the Sunnah, although one must note that retaliation(Jihad) is allowable in Islam. I do not exactly agree with suicide methods, something that has to be advised against.

Not everything they do in the name of fighting terrorism is as such as they claim, and not everything they claim that it is extremism is as such. They probably will call our prophet as such.

Secondly one should note that this geezer made such claims that does not stand up to any viable scrutiny. It is a standard rethoric, same rethoric even by those who hate Islam.
Nothing new in Islam.

I hope that helps.

[FBI]

Just because it's common doesn't make it ok for us.
If it's common for soldiers to sodomize prisoners of war as a scare tactic, should we do the same?

If it's common to serve soldiers pork since it's cheaper, should we do the same so they don't have a economical advancement?

Just because they do it doesn't make it right for us, right?
We still have our religion to abide by.

:sl:

I never mentioned any of the above did I? Yes thats why muslim need to arm them selfs to defend our lands, ijtihad would be applied. we're being attacked what do u want us to do fight with stones.

[Skillganon]

:sl:

I never mentioned any of the above did I? Yes thats why muslim need to arm them selfs to defend our lands, ijtihad would be applied. we're being attacked what do u want us to do fight with stones.

Probably bend your nexk in subserviant to them and their way's. I do not think brother steve meant it that way or probably miss-understood him. He meant we should not do anything against the Quran and the sunnah no matter but rather by what it is prescribed. i.e. not to trangress.

[Dawud_uk]

assalaamu alaykum,

I would like to discuss these matters some more in depth.

I can see why you find that term inappropriate, but it is a recognized group, so it's kind of difficult going around that. How can you discuss something without saying it's name?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/******
EDIT: due to auto-censorship I cannot write the correct URL, just replace the stars with Wa ha bi (without the spaces of course)


How can an act of terrorism cannot be considered as striving in the way of Allah (s.w.t.) when by this act you revolt against the very rules of Allah (s.w.t.)?

1. The Qur’an states that killing an innocent person is like killing the whole of humanity. The ayah is:
   For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our messengers came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land. (Qur’an 5:32)
   And regardless the target of an act of terrorism it’s hard to imagine that not a single innocent bystander gets killed by it. It becomes especially challenging when you keep in mind the difficulty of establishing guilt of a person beyond reasonable doubt. In fact the only valid targets would be an army at the very time that they are attacking.
2. Even if victims aren’t that innocent. Jihad is still only allowed during oppression as a form of self-defense or to defend defenseless people. It cannot be an act of vengeance and retaliation; nor can people become oppressed trough it. Neither can one force non-believers to believe.
   Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. (Qur’an 2:256)
3. Suicide is a major sin, regardless the cause. And it’s even worse because even if a person believes, during the time of committing a sin he is considered a disbeliever. So during the act of suicide one dies as a disbeliever. The Messenger of Allah (p.b.u.h.) said: “Whoever purposely throws himself from a mountain and kills himself will be in the Hell-fire falling down into it and abiding therein perpetually forever.” (Reported by al-Bukhari and Muslim)
   Kindly show me a single verse or hadeeth that shows that jihad makes this an acception. When the sahabis fought in battles, did they purpesly walk into swords to become martyrs? No, even though they wanted it very bad they fought 'till their last breath and tried not to get killed.
4. It is forbidden for Muslims to kill by fire according to the following Hadith: Punishment by fire does not behove anyone except the Master of the Fire. (Reported by Abu Dawud)
   Explosion is the same as fire, it's just such an intense fire that it looks differently, but physically and chemically speaking it's the same thing.

You mean this verse right?
Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion. Say: "The Guidance of Allah,-that is the (only) Guidance." Wert thou to follow their desires after the knowledge which hath reached thee, then wouldst thou find neither Protector nor helper against Allah. (Qur'an 2:120)
It's true, and a sad thing indeed, I have felt it myself from within my own environment as a revert. However this verse does not justify attacking them, it's only a warning to us that we shouldn't give in to their desires for the sake of peace. And yes; looking at history is sad to, but it's no excuse for a violent future either. Two wrongs don't make a right. Funny that you mention that verse, are you aware of this one? It comes 50 verses after the one you reffered to:
But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression. (Qur'an 2:192-193)
So that means we can not look at the past, we can only look at the actions of the present.



Oh, they hate and belittle and dislike us, so let's nuke 'm? Just swallow it in and be the bigger person; but don't get all violent because of this.

assalaamu alaykum,

if you wish to discuss the topic of suicide bombings / martyrdom operations then please start a new thread i think rather than hijack this one thanks.

assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah

[Abdul Fattah]

:sl:

I never mentioned any of the above did I? Yes thats why muslim need to arm them selfs to defend our lands, ijtihad would be applied. we're being attacked what do u want us to do fight with stones.

I said no explosion, that doesn't mean all you got left stones and swords, there's still a million of weapons left. Just pick your battles smart.

[Dawud_uk]

here is the problem i have, the suicide bomber is not the only "by-product", which by the way is a disgusting way to regard human life. These guys kill themselves along with all the people around them and I guarantee you that some if not many of the people around them are not at war with Islam. So why is it martyrdom and not murder to you? Innocent people die because of a war were you cant even effectively identify the enemy. If they are American or from the west then that is just good enough, well to me it sounds like Islam wants to destroy the west, so why shouldnt the west destroy all of Islam? What would you say if instead of the west concentrating on a certain group of people who share your religion they just said any muslim in the US is to be put to death, and then proceeded to bomb and destroy all muslim countries. This would probably happen if all Muslims thought like the extremist do, and thank God they dont and for people like this man.

I am not trying to pick a fight with you or Islam, I am just saying that this sort of violence is not the way. Not only that bad it has given your people a really bad name, that is not deserved. You can try to justify these acts of violence all you want but to me and many others you are just using your religion as a sheild or excuse to kill those that do not believe the same as you. It is sad and may God guide you onto the right path

you only say it is a disgusting regard for human life but you do not obviously have the sincerity to die or indeed kill for your belief in God,

if someone attacks islam they get both barrels back right at them. be peaceful with us and we are peaceful with you.

Abu Abdullah

[Abdul Fattah]

assalaamu alaykum,

if you wish to discuss the topic of suicide bombings / martyrdom operations then please start a new thread i think rather than hijack this one thanks.

assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah

Oh so it's ok for you to claim that suicide bombings are allowed in here, but it's not ok for me to claim the opposite. I think it's vital to the tread since it's a large part of the reason you commented on this imam in the first place.

[Dawud_uk]

:sl:


Just a point I'd like to mention: any form of explosive is considered haram with regards to Islamic warfare due to it's indiscriminate splash damage and the fact that that it affects the environment adversely.

assalaamu alaykum,

where is your daleel for this statement?

when the prophet Muhammad saws and the companions were bombarding a town with a captured roman siege weapon some of them complained about the possible death and injury to women and children to which the prophet saws is reported to have said 'but they are of them'

also, it is well known point in the fiqh of jihad that if the enemies of Allah are using muslim hostages to stop the muslims firing on them and the amir of the battle judges there to be more harm in leaving these kuffar at liberty then it is permissable to aim for the kuffar knowing the muslims might be harmed also.

assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah

[Abdul Fattah]

you only say it is a disgusting regard for human life but you do not obviously have the sincerity to die or indeed kill for your belief in God,

if someone attacks islam they get both barrels back right at them. be peaceful with us and we are peaceful with you.

Abu Abdullah

He was talking about the suicide aspect and about the innocent bystanders, I don't see why you should bring up willingness to die or kill as that are two different things

[Abdul Fattah]

assalaamu alaykum,

where is your daleel for this statement?

when the prophet Muhammad saws and the companions were bombarding a town with a captured roman siege weapon some of them complained about the possible death and injury to women and children to which the prophet saws is reported to have said 'but they are of them'

also, it is well known point in the fiqh of jihad that if the enemies of Allah are using muslim hostages to stop the muslims firing on them and the amir of the battle judges there to be more harm in leaving these kuffar at liberty then it is permissable to aim for the kuffar knowing the muslims might be harmed also.

assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah

Interesting, could you give a hadeeth of that? and what were they bombarding with? as far as I know they didn't have bombs that far back in history.

also it's not a matter of hostages, it's a matter of terrorist attacking in civilian grounds

Edit: here's some other hadeeths

Saheeh Bukhari
Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 257.
Narrated By 'Abdullah : During some of the Ghazawat of the Prophet a woman was found killed. Allah's Apostle disapproved the killing of women and children.

Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 258.
Narrated By Ibn 'Umar : During some of the Ghazawat of Allah's Apostle a woman was found killed, so Allah's Apostle forbade the killing of women and children.

Saheeh Muslim
Book 019, Hadith Number 4319.
Chapter : Prohibition of killing women and children in war.
It is narrated on the authority of 'Abdullah that a woman was found killed in one of the battles fought by the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). He disapproved of the killing of women and children.

Book 019, Hadith Number 4320.
Chapter : Prohibition of killing women and children in war.
It is narrated by Ibn 'Umar that a woman was found killed in one of these battles; so the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) forbade the killing of women and children.

http://www.answering-christianity.co..._innocents.htm

[Keltoi]

I would think dying to protect someone is good in the eyes of God, obviously according to the situation, but dying to kill somebody? God knows, but that doesn't seem quite sane.

[FBI]

:sl:

Lets get back on topic guys, and lets leave the Jihad discussion for another thread.

[azim]

Asalaamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barkhatu.

To all the brothers who are currently insulting and passing judgement on the Imam from Dublin, I suggest you take a moment to consider what you're saying.

Be careful in who you call misguided and astray, perhaps this Imam is more liberal than yourselves on his view on violence and fighting, but perhaps when he prays he is full of fear of Allah and khushoor, and so perhaps Allah loves him for that.

It is not the place of anyone to call someone 'a clear enemy of Allah' when he says the shahada and strives to worship him - don't you see how big that statement is? If someone is an enemy of Allah, then do you think he is going to Jannah? Do you think someone who is an enemy of Allah will be rewarded? If someone is an enemy of Allah then isn't he a disbeliever?

"Whoever is an enemy to Allah, His Angels, His Messengers, Jibrael (Gabriel) and Mikael (Michael), then verily, Allah is an enemy to the disbelievers." 2:98

And I'm you're aware of the hadith where the beloved Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said that when one person calls anothe a kuffar, then surely one of the two is a kuffar (i.e. if you accuse someone of being a disbeliever, then that word will go to him/her, and if it finds iman in his heart, it will return down upon the one who said it and label him as a kuffar).

Words are heavy things, remember the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said that the main reason mankind will enter the hellfire is their tongue, and remember the hadith "you may say a thing to which you attach no importance, and because of it Allah grants you Jannah, and you may say a thing to which you attach no importance, and because of it Allah sweeps you into the hellfire".

May Allah save us from that.

People refer to the Quranic ayaah where we are warned that those who disbelieve will never truly be happy with us until we follow their way, and yet they are reading an article written by a non-Muslim and using it to say a Muslim is misguided, hoping to please the disbelievers and so forth.

We need a lot more maturity in our dealings with other Muslims. No one will ever have the exact views as another person, my views, no matter how similar they may be to my best friend - will never be exactly the same, and there will be issues on which we disagree. So within Islam - why do we expect everyone to have the same views? You will meet Muslims who will be more conservative than you, more traditional than you, more liberal than you and different from you and your views in dozens of ways - that doesn't mean one is on 'true Islam' and the other is 'misguided' - it is the plurarility of Islam that has existed since the Prophet's (pbuh) time among his sahabah.

No one is misguided unless there destination is other than the pleasure of Allah and his Jannah.

Asalaamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barkhatu.

[Dawud_uk]

Interesting, could you give a hadeeth of that? and what were they bombarding with? as far as I know they didn't have bombs that far back in history.

also it's not a matter of hostages, it's a matter of terrorist attacking in civilian grounds

Edit: here's some other hadeeths

Saheeh Bukhari
Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 257.
Narrated By 'Abdullah : During some of the Ghazawat of the Prophet a woman was found killed. Allah's Apostle disapproved the killing of women and children.

Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 258.
Narrated By Ibn 'Umar : During some of the Ghazawat of Allah's Apostle a woman was found killed, so Allah's Apostle forbade the killing of women and children.

Saheeh Muslim
Book 019, Hadith Number 4319.
Chapter : Prohibition of killing women and children in war.
It is narrated on the authority of 'Abdullah that a woman was found killed in one of the battles fought by the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). He disapproved of the killing of women and children.

Book 019, Hadith Number 4320.
Chapter : Prohibition of killing women and children in war.
It is narrated by Ibn 'Umar that a woman was found killed in one of these battles; so the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) forbade the killing of women and children.

http://www.answering-christianity.co..._innocents.htm

assalaamu alaykum,

insha'allah i will find you the daleel,

but non of the above contradict the haddith i read, as the intention is to attack the town and its fortifications and the enemies of Allah and some non combatants could be killed as a consequence but this is not the intention.

assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah

[azim]

Asalaamu alaykum.

One more thing.

12.This is not a Fiqh discussion board. Prolonged threads arguing over Fatwas and the details of Islamic law will be closed. Avoid asking questions that require a Scholar or Shaykh, as there is no one on the board qualified to answer your questions. Please use other knowledgeable means such as a scholar, Imam or knowledgeable person in your area or provide sources

[MTAFFI]

you only say it is a disgusting regard for human life but you do not obviously have the sincerity to die or indeed kill for your belief in God,

if someone attacks islam they get both barrels back right at them. be peaceful with us and we are peaceful with you.

Abu Abdullah

this is where you are wrong, I would die or kill for my beliefs just not kill those who are innocent. There is no amount of logic you can use to justify the actions of these people. They are murderers plain and simple and Allah or God or whoever you want to call him will judge them for what they do. No religion justifies innocent people dieing, and no religion would ever regard human life as a by-product. Point both barrels but at least point them at your enemy and not everyone or anyone in between

[Dawud_uk]

this is where you are wrong, I would die or kill for my beliefs just not kill those who are innocent. There is no amount of logic you can use to justify the actions of these people. They are murderers plain and simple and Allah or God or whoever you want to call him will judge them for what they do. No religion justifies innocent people dieing, and no religion would ever regard human life as a by-product. Point both barrels but at least point them at your enemy and not everyone or anyone in between

then re-read what i have put on this very discussion, i mention it has to be a valid military target according to islamic rules upon this, who mentioned killing innocents here?

Abu Abdullah

[Abdul Fattah]

assalaamu alaykum,

insha'allah i will find you the daleel,

but non of the above contradict the haddith i read, as the intention is to attack the town and its fortifications and the enemies of Allah and some non combatants could be killed as a consequence but this is not the intention.

assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah

Don't bother the hadeeth you were looking for is on the same page I linked to. Apearently you didn't read trough, so allow me to copy paste them here.
Saheeh Bukhari
Volumn 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 256.
Narated By As-Sab bin Jaththama : The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." I also heard the Prophet saying, "The institution of Hima is invalid except for Allah and His Apostle."
ps: I'm told Hima is arabic for "inviolate zones". Is that right? Doesn't that mean that this exception is only an exception permissable for Allah subhana wa ta'ala and his prophet peace be upon him?

Saheeh Muslim
Book 019, Hadith Number 4321.
Chapter : Permissibility of killing women and children in the night raids, provided it is not deliberate.
It is reported on the authority of Sa'b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them.

So some points to make here:

1. It wasn't bombarding it was a raid. The probability of innocent causalities is far lower with a night raid as it is with bombardments. No matter where you bomb, you 're bound to hit innocents because you cannot control the fire, you can however control your sword in a night raid even though you walked in the wrong room.
2. We don’t know the exact situation or what the Prophet truly meant. Maybe, maybe those particular women and children were planning to fight against the Muslims with the enemy.
3. The very fact that the companions of the Prophet asked the Prophet's permission shows that the Prophet used to be strict regarding his prohibition on the killing of women and children. However, when a situation arises and there is no choice, things could get ugly. The Prophet even forbade the cutting down of palm trees in war, however during the siege of Banu Nadir the Prophet had to make an exception. So exceptions do arise unfortunately. But that doesn't mean you and I have any authority to make a rule based on that exception.
4. Imam Ibn Hajar Al Asaqalani says in Fath Al- Baari that the point is not to target the women and children intentionally but if there is absolutely no other way to kill the enemy than by injuring the women and children because they are mixed with the men then there is no other choice. (Source: http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/D...Doc=0&Rec=4747)
5. Another possibility is that the hadith has been abrogated and that even if women and children accompany the enemy during war then they still should not be killed. (See http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/D...Doc=0&Rec=4747 for the evidence)
6. Imam Nawawi says in his tafseer of Saheeh Muslim that women and children are only killed only if they cannot be distinguished. But because it was so dark and they could not be distinguished, the Muslims had not choice. (Source: http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/D...Doc=1&Rec=4215)
7. The tafseer of Abu Dawud says the same thing here (Source: http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/D...Doc=4&Rec=3291)

[Dawud_uk]

Don't bother the hadeeth you were looking for is on the same page I linked to. Apearently you didn't read trough, so allow me to copy paste them here.
Saheeh Bukhari
Volumn 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 256.
Narated By As-Sab bin Jaththama : The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." I also heard the Prophet saying, "The institution of Hima is invalid except for Allah and His Apostle."

Saheeh Muslim
Book 019, Hadith Number 4321.
Chapter : Permissibility of killing women and children in the night raids, provided it is not deliberate.
It is reported on the authority of Sa'b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them.

So some points to make here:

1. It wasn't bombarding it was a raid. The probability of innocent causalities is far lower with a night raid as it is with bombardments. No matter where you bomb, you 're bound to hit innocents because you cannot control the fire, you can however control your sword in a night raid even though you walked in the wrong room.
2. We don’t know the exact situation or what the Prophet truly meant. Maybe, maybe those particular women and children were planning to fight against the Muslims with the enemy.
3. The very fact that the companions of the Prophet asked the Prophet's permission shows that the Prophet used to be strict regarding his prohibition on the killing of women and children. However, when a situation arises and there is no choice, things could get ugly. The Prophet even forbade the cutting down of palm trees in war, however during the siege of Banu Nadir the Prophet had to make an exception. So exceptions do arise unfortunately. But that doesn't mean you and I have any authority to make a rule based on that exception.
4. Imam Ibn Hajar Al Asaqalani says in Fath Al- Baari that the point is not to target the women and children intentionally but if there is absolutely no other way to kill the enemy than by injuring the women and children because they are mixed with the men then there is no other choice. (Source: http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/D...Doc=0&Rec=4747)
5. Another possibility is that the hadith has been abrogated and that even if women and children accompany the enemy during war then they still should not be killed. (See http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/D...Doc=0&Rec=4747 for the evidence)
6. Imam Nawawi says in his tafseer of Saheeh Muslim that women and children are only killed only if they cannot be distinguished. But because it was so dark and they could not be distinguished, the Muslims had not choice. (Source: http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/D...Doc=1&Rec=4215)
7. The tafseer of Abu Dawud says the same thing here (Source: http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/D...Doc=4&Rec=3291)

assalaamu alaykum,

jazakallah khairan for the link and the daleel, i think i am referring to a different instance but your's is just as valid in this case and would only be strengthened if i found further evidences of such instances.

i dont think anyone here is arguing we are allowed to rule about such exceptions ourselves, but the scholars of islam have done so in the past and today and said such matters are valid if no other means is available.

what is certain is that the mujahadeen fighting the christian crusaders used siege weapons and i trust salah ud deen and others like him over matters such as this and the fataawah of the scholars in the past as well, but i am at work and it is difficult to find daleel without just posting fataawah which we have been specifically warned not to do on this thread.

what we have a problem with here is that despite these exceptions the imam in question is willing to rule out such a tactic totally though it is possible he is doing so from a different point of objection, Allahu alim.

but he blindly condemns himself, and uses derogatory names himself but it is quite possible he was misqouted by the media.

Assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah

[MTAFFI]

then re-read what i have put on this very discussion, i mention it has to be a valid military target according to islamic rules upon this, who mentioned killing innocents here?

Abu Abdullah

tell me one suicide bomb that didnt kill at least one innocent

[Abdul Fattah]

assalaamu alaykum,
i dont think anyone here is arguing we are allowed to rule about such exceptions ourselves, but the scholars of islam have done so in the past and today and said such matters are valid if no other means is available.

Actually most scholars have ruled against these bombings. For various reasons, not just the innocent bystanders which besides these hadeeth still raises a lot of questions, but also because of the suicide aspect and the death by fire, and so on...

what is certain is that the mujahadeen fighting the christian crusaders used siege weapons and i trust salah ud deen and others like him over matters such as this and the fataawah of the scholars in the past as well, but i am at work and it is difficult to find daleel without just posting fataawah which we have been specifically warned not to do on this thread.

A siege weapon? that's just a device to brake down a fortwall, it has nothing to do with fire and innocent victems (unless civilians were taking refuge right next to the fort-wall during an invasion which seems pretty improbable) or suicide.

what we have a problem with here is that despite these exceptions the imam in question is willing to rule out such a tactic totally though it is possible he is doing so from a different point of objection, Allahu alim.

Yes and as I pointed out he is not the only one and there are a whole variety of reasons to do so. That exception b.t.w; seems to be a right only of Allah subhana wa ta'ala and his prophet peace be upon him according to one of those two hadeeth. All reasons I haven't seen responded so far, and the few response I did got only raised more questions rather then answering.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you all,

This is a very emotive subject and I feel we need to go away and pray before we post on this thread again. I feel we need to walk away and not reply for at least an hour without first reflecting on the effect we have on others. There is this great need to find peace in our own hearts, and peace for all our fellow brothers and sisters, no matter what faith they may be.

We are all created by the same Creator, and we shall all have to answer to the same creator.

I am away for twenty four hours, and I would love to come back and sense calm.

In the spirit of seeking justice, peace and reconciliation.

Eric

[SilentObserver]

SilentObserver, just because you think he is presenting something, doesn't mean you really understood what either person is actually saying.

Malaikah, just because you think I am presenting something, doesn't mean you necessarily understand what is actually being said.

[SilentObserver]

i wonder how much he cost?

or is he one of the genuine misguided fools who believes this crap and spreads it to please the kuffar?

either way he speaks rubbish and is a clear enemy of Allah and of islam, may Allah swt guide him.

such people should put up or shut up, they should either present their case in debate about whether they represent the true islam or they should shut up because their daleel and views can usually be destroyed as the falsehood it is with ease by genuine scholars of islam.

assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah

I have reread the article, slowly and clearly. I have read through the thread. And I come back to this post.

fools who believes this crap

Crap? This guy is preaching peace and tolerance. And you call it crap.
It is clear that you are not willing to live peacefully with nonmuslims. With that chip on your shoulder it is not possible. People will respond to your attitude accordingly, and then you will say, "see! I was right!" But I tell you, if I encountered you in the world with that chip on your shoulder, I wouldn't treat you very nice either. You don't want to get along, and so you make it happen that nonmuslims treat you differently with your bad attitude. That's fine just don't pout or be surprised when you are treated roughly by others.

I have known many muslims. Some have been wonderful people that I enjoyed being around, and we had a mutual respect. A few others were jerks. I was a nonmuslim and 'out to get them'. Real twits. Seriously. The paranoia was rediculous. I did treat them differently. It was true that I didn't like them. Not because they were muslim, because they were paranoid jerks.

either way he speaks rubbish and is a clear enemy of Allah and of islam, may Allah swt guide him.

I'm not a muslim, but I know that you have sinned with this statement. I think by definition, a muslim cannot be an enemy of islam. You accuse this imam of not being a muslim. I don't know the verse, but I have read it before in the Quran that you are not to say that one who claims to be muslim is not.

whether they represent the true islam or they should shut up because their daleel and views can usually be destroyed as the falsehood

Why do you think that he does not represent 'true islam'? What is it in his message that you don't like? Is it the peace or the tolerance?

[Malaikah]

^I didn't mean to offend you but neither person provided enough depth in his post for you to say that one person was talking more rightly than the other, or making more sense, because each post was highly generalised and not linked to a certain situation in which the post can be interpreted, nor was any evidence given from the Quran or sunnah. Both posts could have meant *almost* anything, which is why I suggested it was too early to make a conclusion since either person could have meant something totally different to what they seem to be saying.

And I have noticed that especially with dawud_uk's posts about suicide bombers, everyone just keeps disagreeing with him on the basis of killing civilians because they are obviously interpreting what he meant in the context of what they see on the news, i.e. people bombing civilians, whereas dawud_uk explicitly said that the target should be legit, and civilians are not legit.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

^^:thumbs_up

[SilentObserver]

^I didn't mean to offend you but neither person provided enough depth in his post for you to say that one person was talking more rightly than the other, or making more sense, because each post was highly generalised and not linked to a certain situation in which the post can be interpreted, nor was any evidence given from the Quran or sunnah. Both posts could have meant *almost* anything, which is why I suggested it was too early to make a conclusion since either person could have meant something totally different to what they seem to be saying.

And I have noticed that especially with dawud_uk's posts about suicide bombers, everyone just keeps disagreeing with him on the basis of killing civilians because they are obviously interpreting what he meant in the context of what they see on the news, i.e. people bombing civilians, whereas dawud_uk explicitly said that the target should be legit, and civilians are not legit.

I agree with what you have said here. The problem that I had, and maybe didn't articulate well enough, was that he jumped all over the imam's credibility. He said he was an enemy of islam and Allah. He said nasty things about the guy for what? Preaching that we should not kill other people? That islam is a peaceful religion?
I've been told that it is a peaceful religion many times by muslims. But whenever an imam teaches peace, many muslims jump up and call him an enemy, and some issue death threats.

[Malaikah]

The problem is about what do people think the religion of peace means? Does it mean that we will remain peaceful even if the consequence is that others will be oppressed, or will be denied the chance to have justice, or to hear the call of Islam? Is that peaceful? No, it's a waste of power and authority and is the means to more corruption. The reality is, that in Islam war is not 100% forbidden it is allowed for certain purposes (self-defence, helping the oppressed etc).

So when people say that Islam is the religion of peace, they are almost trying to imply that war has no place in Islam, though it does. But that does not mean that Islam is not a religion of peace, anyone practising Islam properly can feel the peace and content they have as a result of worshipping God and understanding their purpose in life, and from interacting with other people who are equally good Muslims and uphold a high standard of moral behaviour.

Lastly, not all types of violence are bad, what would a society be without a police force to keep trouble makers in check? It is force similar to this that exists in Islam, and that is NOT something that should be condemned.

[SilentObserver]

The problem is about what do people think the religion of peace means? Does it mean that we will remain peaceful even if the consequence is that others will be oppressed, or will be denied the chance to have justice, or to hear the call of Islam? Is that peaceful? No, it's a waste of power and authority and is the means to more corruption. The reality is, that in Islam war is not 100% forbidden it is allowed for certain purposes (self-defence, helping the oppressed etc).

So when people say that Islam is the religion of peace, they are almost trying to imply that war has no place in Islam, though it does. But that does not mean that Islam is not a religion of peace, anyone practising Islam properly can feel the peace and content they have as a result of worshipping God and understanding their purpose in life, and from interacting with other people who are equally good Muslims and uphold a high standard of moral behaviour.

Lastly, not all types of violence are bad, what would a society be without a police force to keep trouble makers in check? It is force similar to this that exists in Islam, and that is NOT something that should be condemned.

Fair enough, but that is not what this was all about. This imam is teaching peace and tolerance. He was pointing out that many focus too much on the militant ideas of the likes of Osama and others.
There is no defence of this militant thinking. It must stop.

[Malaikah]

^Actually too many people hide behind words like 'extremist' and so on, and when they do that it is really hard to figure out what they are trying to say, because all these words have been so loaded with emotion due to over use in the media, it just gets confusing...

But I admit that it isn't far to judge the guy based on one news article (the media tend to be notorious for misrepresenting people). More information is required.

[SilentObserver]

Let me ask you this, based on what is in the article, do you agree or disagree with what he says. I'll summarize;

-making a stand against those muslim ideas that are too sympathetic to Osama bin Laden and the cult of the suicide bomber

-warns his congregation against blaming other religions and the West in general for all Muslims' ills

-time to get back to the spiritual aspect of islam and stop it being used as a political weapon

-suicide bombing practices are un-islamic

-Satardien has applied to the local schools around Blanchardstown, which has the largest concentration of Muslims in the republic, to speak to students. 'I want to tell the kids from all faiths about true Islam, not the radicalised, false version they hear about in the media.'


What do you think of this message?

[Dawud_uk]

^I didn't mean to offend you but neither person provided enough depth in his post for you to say that one person was talking more rightly than the other, or making more sense, because each post was highly generalised and not linked to a certain situation in which the post can be interpreted, nor was any evidence given from the Quran or sunnah. Both posts could have meant *almost* anything, which is why I suggested it was too early to make a conclusion since either person could have meant something totally different to what they seem to be saying.

And I have noticed that especially with dawud_uk's posts about suicide bombers, everyone just keeps disagreeing with him on the basis of killing civilians because they are obviously interpreting what he meant in the context of what they see on the news, i.e. people bombing civilians, whereas dawud_uk explicitly said that the target should be legit, and civilians are not legit.

jazakallah khairan, my point exactly, the target should be legitimate.

[Dawud_uk]

I have reread the article, slowly and clearly. I have read through the thread. And I come back to this post.

Crap? This guy is preaching peace and tolerance. And you call it crap.
It is clear that you are not willing to live peacefully with nonmuslims. With that chip on your shoulder it is not possible. People will respond to your attitude accordingly, and then you will say, "see! I was right!" But I tell you, if I encountered you in the world with that chip on your shoulder, I wouldn't treat you very nice either. You don't want to get along, and so you make it happen that nonmuslims treat you differently with your bad attitude. That's fine just don't pout or be surprised when you are treated roughly by others.

I have known many muslims. Some have been wonderful people that I enjoyed being around, and we had a mutual respect. A few others were jerks. I was a nonmuslim and 'out to get them'. Real twits. Seriously. The paranoia was rediculous. I did treat them differently. It was true that I didn't like them. Not because they were muslim, because they were paranoid jerks. I'm not a muslim, but I know that you have sinned with this statement. I think by definition, a muslim cannot be an enemy of islam. You accuse this imam of not being a muslim. I don't know the verse, but I have read it before in the Quran that you are not to say that one who claims to be muslim is not.
Why do you think that he does not represent 'true islam'? What is it in his message that you don't like? Is it the peace or the tolerance?

observer,

if someone raped your sister would you get a little upset? angry even? maybe want to go sort the guy out?

now what if someone from your family was saying you shouldnt respond, you shouldnt even talk against that person never mind take action, you would be pretty upset with that family member would you not?

he is also contradicting the Quran and so therefore i feel free to tell it like it is and say he is talking rubbish, he might not like it, you certainly dont like it but i will continue to do so as he is calling towards tolerating those who are doing terrible things to our brothers and sisters and i have BIG issues with that.

Abu Abdullah

[FBI]

:sl:

making a stand against those muslim ideas that are too sympathetic to Osama bin Laden and the cult of the suicide bomber-Agree with what he's saying about suicide bombings but I agree with the afgan Jihad.

-warns his congregation against blaming other religions and the West in general for all Muslims' ills-Agree we shouldn't blame other religions but the west's is a major cause of conflicts in muslim lands, just their presence is fueling the Jihad.

-time to get back to the spiritual aspect of islam and stop it being used as a political weapon-Disagree 100% Islam is Politcal

-suicide bombing practices are un-islamic-Agree

-Satardien has applied to the local schools around Blanchardstown, which has the largest concentration of Muslims in the republic, to speak to students. 'I want to tell the kids from all faiths about true Islam, not the radicalised, false version they hear about in the media.-This is where my problem lies with the article he genralises too much and doesn't actually say what true islam is.

[Dawud_uk]

Let me ask you this, based on what is in the article, do you agree or disagree with what he says. I'll summarize;

-making a stand against those muslim ideas that are too sympathetic to Osama bin Laden and the cult of the suicide bomber[/B]

I disagree there is any such ‘cult’
I do disagree with some of the methods used by some Mujahadeen such as Osama Bin Laden but over all I agree with their aims and objectives and it is easy to criticise such mistakes from the comforts of our western lives, not knowing what steps the Mujahadeen used before taking such actions.

-warns his congregation against blaming other religions and the West in general for all Muslims' ills

Allah warns us in the Quran that the non-Muslims groups will never like us until we are like themselves, that they will plot against us and any unbiased reading of history would confirm this.

Allah warns us that the different groups will form up against us and asks us to ready ourselves, the prophet Muhammad saws warned us that at times the non muslims would come and attack us, inviting each other to come attack and take from the muslims but that we would be great in numbers but that wahan would be in our hearts. This wahan is fear of death and love of this world.

However such plotting would come to nothing and be useless if the Muslims were united and practicing their faith sincerely but people such as this who attack those who sincerely practice their faith by attacking the enemies of Allah are taking the disbelievers as their friends and protectors.

So no the ills of the Muslims are our own fault, we are being punished for our disobedience to Allah, but the West is attacking the Muslims and killing and raping as such they are doing terrible things and these matters need pointing out and to be spoken against, and for those living in those lands to be fought against even.

-time to get back to the spiritual aspect of islam and stop it being used as a political weapon

Islam has different aspects, it is spiritual aspect, it also has a political aspect amongst many other aspects. By speaking out against the use of Islam in a political manner he speaks against islam as a whole, we cannot do Dhikr (rememberence of God) and the world will right itself, it requires struggle and speaking out against evil and opposing evil with your hand even.

-suicide bombing practices are un-islamic

Disagree, in principle I believe them to be allowed but in practice I have issues with the Mujahadeen in the way they carry them out but I would prefer to make excuses for my suffering brothers and sisters and the actions they might feel forced to take, not excuses for the Kuffar who are the aggressors in this the latest war against Islam.

-Satardien has applied to the local schools around Blanchardstown, which has the largest concentration of Muslims in the republic, to speak to students. 'I want to tell the kids from all faiths about true Islam, not the radicalised, false version they hear about in the media.'

What do you think of this message?

I think doing islam awareness work in schools is a good thing, I wish him success in this but if he is just using it to push his agenda then he will only create confusion in the minds and hearts of the non muslims and muslims at those schools so I hope he wishes to spread the teachings of islam in a general sense not just to push his agenda on kids whether muslim or otherwise.

Abu Abdullah

[Akil]

as a means of delivering the explosive into the heart of the enemy position.

They don’t attack enemy positions. They intentionally attack civilians.

If they attacked enemy soldiers than I would agree that they were soldiers and freedom fighters instead of terrorists and criminals, but they don’t. In fact they intentionally avoid attacking hard targets.

Also note that “accidentally” killing women and children because they are mixed with the enemy is the same excuse Israel used for their injudicious killings in Lebanon last year.

[Dawud_uk]

They don’t attack enemy positions. They intentionally attack civilians.

If they attacked enemy soldiers than I would agree that they were soldiers and freedom fighters instead of terrorists and criminals, but they don’t. In fact they intentionally avoid attacking hard targets.

Also note that “accidentally” killing women and children because they are mixed with the enemy is the same excuse Israel used for their injudicious killings in Lebanon last year.

look a little more carefully at what the media portrays as a military target and what civilian? e.g they often report civilian casualties when meaning police or paramilitary police have been killed, or those who are lining outside military bases to sign up, such are not civilian as they are oppressive forces of a kaffir state and are used to attack and kill the muslims.

also, many martyrdom operations are rammed into military conveys, this is now an established tactic in both afghanistan and iraq and not all groups attack civilian targets, but that is what gets most coverage in the news media.

the point is these problems would not exist if the muslims were not under attack and occupation by both the kuffar and their apostate puppet regimes, remove that problem and the problem of your soldiers being attacked is removed.

Assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah

[Akil]

look a little more carefully at what the media portrays as a military target and what civilian?

Do the math. Iraq is a country of 27,000,000 and is about 98% Muslim, if just 1% of Iraq is engaged in armed struggle against the US then that would make around 270,000 in opposition to the US.

There are currently right around 140,000 US service folks in Iraq and in almost 4 years of war we have lost around 3000 US troops (only about 2500 to enemy activity) which means we are running just about 750 causalities a year compared to 6,000 a year in Vietnam and 13,000 a year in Korea.

US positions are not being attacked, Iraqi civilians are being killed instead.

The US service members who do die are killed by improved explosive devices (ie road side bombs), which are becoming more and more complicated and many contain shrapnel coated in blood thinner, meaning us medics have to use clotting factors because direct pressure wont stop the bleeding.

In Iraq we are forced to run over children because terrorists put them on the road to create a choke point meaning that if we stop, slow down or swerve we get hit by a IED’s and or rocket propelled grenades.

These are not the tactics of soldiers, these are the tactics of criminals.

[Dawud_uk]

Do the math. Iraq is a country of 27,000,000 and is about 98% Muslim, if just 1% of Iraq is engaged in armed struggle against the US then that would make around 270,000 in opposition to the US.

There are currently right around 140,000 US service folks in Iraq and in almost 4 years of war we have lost around 3000 US troops (only about 2500 to enemy activity) which means we are running just about 750 causalities a year compared to 6,000 a year in Vietnam and 13,000 a year in Korea.

US positions are not being attacked, Iraqi civilians are being killed instead.

The US service members who do die are killed by improved explosive devices (ie road side bombs), which are becoming more and more complicated and many contain shrapnel coated in blood thinner, meaning us medics have to use clotting factors because direct pressure wont stop the bleeding.

In Iraq we are forced to run over children because terrorists put them on the road to create a choke point meaning that if we stop, slow down or swerve we get hit by a IED’s and or rocket propelled grenades.

These are not the tactics of soldiers, these are the tactics of criminals.

keep believing that just like george bush and you will sleep walk into defeat.

for a start latest polls shown that for the first time a majority of shi'a support attacks against the US and the vast majority of sunni community has supported attacks against the occupiers for a long time.

also, the statistics on casualties hide another sick ugly truth, 1/3 of casualties died in vietnam, now it is 1/8 but many are brutally scared and crippled with injured limbs as the blast armour only protects the torso, neck and head.

so many of those injured and not killed will need to be supported by the west for decades to come, you will bleed your nations youth and hopes dry in the deserts of the muslim world.

Abu Abdullah

[Skillganon]

Do the math. Iraq is a country of 27,000,000 and is about 98% Muslim, if just 1% of Iraq is engaged in armed struggle against the US then that would make around 270,000 in opposition to the US.

There are currently right around 140,000 US service folks in Iraq and in almost 4 years of war we have lost around 3000 US troops (only about 2500 to enemy activity) which means we are running just about 750 causalities a year compared to 6,000 a year in Vietnam and 13,000 a year in Korea.

US positions are not being attacked, Iraqi civilians are being killed instead.

The US service members who do die are killed by improved explosive devices (ie road side bombs), which are becoming more and more complicated and many contain shrapnel coated in blood thinner, meaning us medics have to use clotting factors because direct pressure wont stop the bleeding.

In Iraq we are forced to run over children because terrorists put them on the road to create a choke point meaning that if we stop, slow down or swerve we get hit by a IED’s and or rocket propelled grenades.

These are not the tactics of soldiers, these are the tactics of criminals.

I disagree that, it is clearly an invasion and admitted illegal war by any intenrational standard. The responsibility of the death lies soley with the U.S goverment and the soldiers whatever their intention may be. It is also due noted that their are civilian death attributed to U.S army but are not all reported, it is naturaly expected they will control information coming out.
Secondly their is death of civilian with al war when the american troops are their in the city itself. Another thing to note is that many of the civilian can be deemed as part of the U.S as they are abeting with this war and killing, and by international standard that Iraqi people can defend their own country, regardless if their is any iraqi cohort agreeing with this occupation or more specifically this supposed goverment, which is agreed that has been established by illegal mean's i.e. a u.s. terrorist attack and occupation.

So I really do not care if their is any iraqi abeting and helping the american getting killed in the process of American terrorism or more ironicly lest say american extremism. What should be due noted is that when innocent bystanders get killed who are not particapating or don't see anything they can do getting killed in this war is sad.

War crime by the U.S abeting insurgent, U.S extremist and U.S terrorist should be acknowledge.

[Akil]

LOL I get the feeling we have had this discussion before Dawud_uk, do you have a similar name on myspace in the Muslim Unit forum? If so you know me as Seeker :P

I don’t believe the lies my country tells me and I don’t agree with many of its actions, I am very vocal about this in person and on the internet. I would not be surprised if I was on a few Homeland Security Watch lists. I overcame my programming, maybe you will too someday.

---------------

So I really do not care if their is any iraqi abeting and helping the american getting killed in the process

So when women and children die you sooth your conscience by supposing that they support the US somehow ?

Noncombatant’s allegiances and jobs aside, are not legitimate military targets for any reason.

by international standard that Iraqi people can defend their own country

Blowing up civilians is not defending your country.

it is naturaly expected they will control information coming out.

Cause haditha, Abu Graibe, secret CIA prisons, Abuses at Gitmo, these are things the US would not want to control? Are you saying the US let these reports go into the news paper when they had the option not too?

IT is a duely noted War crime by the U.S abeting insurgent, extremist and terrorist.

Ah so now lets play word games. I call the so-called Muslims who are blowing up children terrorists, you call soldiers terrorists. I’ve never seen thaaat before.




The legality or illegality of the conflict in Iraq aside (An obviously debatable topic) that wont change the fact that its there. I don’t believe in a pull out, in fact I believe that would lead to the death of many many Iraqi’s.

Our greatest victory in toppling Saddam was also our greatest crime. By taking the baddest bully off the block we created a power vacuum all the groups who used to be under the thumb of Saddam are trying to fill. Creating even more of a power vacuum by pulling out US forces would be an even greater crime.

On the flip side I certainly don’t believe that the US is going about Iraq correctly, the overall policy in Iraq is totally lacking and it seems some local commanders aren’t keeping control of their soldiers, America relied to heavily on inaccurate artillery and gunships we are utilizing counterproductive interrogation techniques.




Either way I am not going to get involved in heated and circular debate because I believe that would be counterproductive. Soooooooo there’s my two cents :P

[Dawud_uk]

LOL I get the feeling we have had this discussion before Dawud_uk, do you have a similar name on myspace in the Muslim Unit forum? If so you know me as Seeker :P

I don’t believe the lies my country tells me and I don’t agree with many of its actions, I am very vocal about this in person and on the internet. I would not be surprised if I was on a few Homeland Security Watch lists. I overcame my programming, maybe you will too someday.

no, dont know that forum but Daw'ud is a common name in islam and i know 5 or 6 other revert Daw'uds just in sheffield where i live.

i hope you overcome the rest of your programming and come back to the true way of life meant for mankind, that of Islam.

Abu Abdullah

[Skillganon]

So when women and children die you sooth your conscience by supposing that they support the US somehow ?

Of course women and children death is against my religion, (what you will call is causulty of War) but I was moer specifically talking about Iraqi men who help and abet them, not neccesarily the women and children.

Noncombatant’s allegiances and jobs aside, are not legitimate military targets for any reason.

Non-combatant corporate for the purpose of establishing control is a legit target as they are abeting in this war crime.

Blowing up civilians is not defending your country.

That can be said for U.S, but the point is I do not agree with it as one can see on the bottom of the page. That will be trangressing the limit.

Cause haditha, Abu Graibe, secret CIA prisons, Abuses at Gitmo, these are things the US would not want to control? Are you saying the US let these reports go into the news paper when they had the option not too?

Thank's to independent journalism. I really do not think they can totally controll the information that is out, but what they can do is limit it and edit.

[quote]Ah so now lets play word games. I call the so-called Muslims who are blowing up children terrorists, you call soldiers terrorists. I’ve never seen thaaat before.[/quote[
I really don't understand what you mean.
Anyway does U.S terrorism, extremism sound alien to you?

The legality or illegality of the conflict in Iraq aside (An obviously debatable topic) that wont change the fact that its there. I don’t believe in a pull out, in fact I believe that would lead to the death of many many Iraqi’s.

I really do not think their is any issue with the legality of the war. it is admitted and recognise it is an illegal war, regardless of U.S goverment and cohort agree or not.
I do believe in the pull out, that is the least that can be done. U.S is part of the problem. IF they don't I do believe they must be driven out.

Our greatest victory in toppling Saddam was also our greatest crime. By taking the baddest bully off the block we created a power vacuum all the groups who used to be under the thumb of Saddam are trying to fill. Creating even more of a power vacuum by pulling out US forces would be an even greater crime.

I do not care about your greatest Victory, it is nonsense to bring in the how bad was sadaam. The War was in the first base based on lies. It is worldy recognise. When you have a goverment that lies so outwardly and play's the 9-11 card on the hignorant masses has no credibility.

On the flip side I certainly don’t believe that the US is going about Iraq correctly, the overall policy in Iraq is totally lacking and it seems some local commanders aren’t keeping control of their soldiers, America relied to heavily on inaccurate artillery and gunships we are utilizing counterproductive interrogation techniques.

They never went to iraq for correctly or incorrect purpose, it is for their own interest. They are willing to sacrifice the cattle for the invested interest. Blanming on the innacurate artillery and this and that, to justify their action holds no water, whenit is in itself a criminal act.

Either way I am not going to get involved in heated and circular debate because I believe that would be counterproductive. Soooooooo there’s my two cents :P

It is not a heated circular debate, one is not keen on facing the reality for american terrorism and extremism.

[Abdul Fattah]

I see so far those that say that suicide bombings should be allowed in some cases have not answered any of the many points I raised against it so far. Yet on the other hand none of you seem to have any problem spreading that view and even attacking and insulting others who claim that it is wrong.

[Dawud_uk]

I see so far those that say that suicide bombings should be allowed in some cases have not answered any of the many points I raised against it so far. Yet on the other hand none of you seem to have any problem spreading that view and even attacking and insulting others who claim that it is wrong.

assalaamu alaykum steve,

i have answered some of your points but if you want to debate it in more detail i suggest you start a new thread as this thread is not specifically about this important debate.

assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah

[Hijrah]

as for suicide bombers, I personally think it's wrong, simply because suicide in itself is wrong and as for killing military units why not take an ak and just shoot until one of the enemies kill you, it;s a lot more messy and risky and probably haraam to just blow yourself up, I have seen both views of suicide bombing from scholars and I take it that it is def. bad and obviously a doubtful matter in a situation like this, I would also like to point out that there are some scholars being considered 'moderate' who are all for the suicide bombing

[MTAFFI]

Of course women and children death is against my religion, (what you will call is causulty of War) but I was moer specifically talking about Iraqi men who help and abet them, not neccesarily the women and children.

do you really think that they are attacking these other Iraqi men because they side with the US? This is ignorant on your part, they attack these men because of they are shia and they are sunni. Saddam was sunni and the sunni had it good and everyone else lived in fear. Now the shia have control of the government and the sunni do not want this, so with or without US presence these attacks will continue until they kill everyone in their way of gaining power.

Non-combatant corporate for the purpose of establishing control is a legit target as they are abeting in this war crime.

CONTROL being the key word here

Thank's to independent journalism. I really do not think they can totally controll the information that is out, but what they can do is limit it and edit.

crazy talk, believe me I live in America and there is no limit to what the press can say

I really do not think their is any issue with the legality of the war. it is admitted and recognise it is an illegal war, regardless of U.S goverment and cohort agree or not.
I do believe in the pull out, that is the least that can be done. U.S is part of the problem. IF they don't I do believe they must be driven out.

what makes you think the war is illegal? The US invaded Iraq after the sept 11 bombings based on a war that was against those who threatened peace in our country. Are you saying Saddam never threatened peace in America? Yes we did pick the wrong country, no we didnt catch the man behind it, yet, but the guy was a maniac who really didnt just threaten peace in America he threatened it around the world. There is nothing illegal about this war. And by the way Sunnis kill way more shia each day than american troops, why do you think that is? Personally I believe the Sunni are trying to do an religious cleansing, and if the US were to pull out the violence would not stop until all the shia were dead.

I do not care about your greatest Victory, it is nonsense to bring in the how bad was sadaam. The War was in the first base based on lies. It is worldy recognise. When you have a goverment that lies so outwardly and play's the 9-11 card on the hignorant masses has no credibility.

Why would bringing Saddam in have no credibility? Also 9/11 is not a "card" it is the reason that the US has occupied so many different places today, because the people that did it are cowards and hide with civilians in multiple countries.

They never went to iraq for correctly or incorrect purpose, it is for their own interest. They are willing to sacrifice the cattle for the invested interest. Blanming on the innacurate artillery and this and that, to justify their action holds no water, whenit is in itself a criminal act.

This is the same backwash I continue to read on this site, tell me what is the invested interest? A democratic Iraq? That is about the only interest the US has and I dont see why it is a bad one considering their previous government. Also regarding your inaccurate artillery, how accurate were the Sunni suicide bombers at the college in Iraq yesterday? Tell me how is the villan here?

It is not a heated circular debate, one is not keen on facing the reality for american terrorism and extremism.

I dont think you know what American terrorism or extremism is, do you know what happened to the Japanese back when Roosevelt was president? That was extreme, I would hate to see this happen to muslim americans because of the current events today, then I would say America was extreme

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

Right now the US is only in Iraq to save the shia and for no other reason.

[atha]

Assalam-u-alaikum and Hello

I totally agree with Steve. I think everyone who is in favour of suicide bombing should try to answer the points raised by Steve. He did a really good job at it and I think he deserves criticism, positive or negative, so he can learn or teach more. So anyone has the guts to take him on? I have discussions with Steve before and I have found him very thorough and to the point. He does his research and is open to new points and ideas. So, anyone (who is in favour of suicide bombing) care to try taking him on? It will only make this thread extremely interesting. And by the way, I know why you guys haven't answered him before. I think you don't know how to answer him b/c he speaks the truth. I am dissapointed in you people for still favouring suicide bombing even after so much evidence and proof against it.

Take care
Assalam-u-Alaikum

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you MTAFFI,

what makes you think the war is illegal? The US invaded Iraq after the sept 11 bombings based on a war that was against those who threatened peace in our country.

If Jesus was here today would he sanction the bombing of Afghanistan and Iraq?

In the spirit of seeking justice for the oppressed;

Eric

[MTAFFI]

Greetings and peace be with you MTAFFI,



If Jesus was here today would he sanction the bombing of Afghanistan and Iraq?

In the spirit of seeking justice for the oppressed;

Eric

Do you think he would want the people that are getting bombed to be able to do the things they do? I too disagree with bombing anyone or anything but at the same time if we left these countries and did nothing we would be attacked and thousands of lives would be lost because we let them run free, not just lives in america but in afganistan and everywhere else. God is peace but at the same time evil cannot be allowed to roam free with no one to stop it.

peace

[Akil]

but I was moer specifically talking about Iraqi men who help and abet them, not neccesarily the women and children.

Non-combatant corporate for the purpose of establishing control is a legit target as they are abeting in this war crime.

So you believe its ok to kill males indiscriminately so long as you think they belong to a political faction that is opposite your own? Regardless of whether or not they are armed? Regardless of whether or not they have ever been combatants? Regardless of whether or not they are Muslim?

Thank's to independent journalism.

All journalism (outside of fox news) is independent in America. My point is that the US does not limit journalism (Outside of common sense stuff, like not reveling troop locations or movements).

Anyway does U.S terrorism, extremism sound alien to you?

I’m Choctaw, of course not.

I really do not think their is any issue with the legality of the war. it is admitted and recognise it is an illegal war,

International law is slightly more complicated than the press makes it out to be. Firstly the US never went to the table in the UN, they called off the vote because they new several permanent members of the UN security council were going to veto the vote (ie because Saddam owed France and Germany billions and those respective countries knew that upon regime change they would be forced to forgive those debts).

Second, in the United Nations there are only two legal ways to declare war. The first is action that is sanctioned by the UN Security Council and the second is eminent self-defense. The Bush Doctrine is legalese that equates preemptive self-defense with eminent self-defense, thereby making preemptive self-defense a legal reason to declare war. It’s a backdoor policy and its as slimy as the lawyers that wrote it, but regardless of what I think about whether or not the US should have started the war, it is technically legal.

it is nonsense to bring in the how bad was sadaam. The War was in the first base based on lies. It is worldy recognise.

Governments lie, get over it. As for what I said, you didn’t understand it so I will state it again.

By taking Saddam out of power we have created a power vacuum. What I meant by him being the baddest bully is that Saddam kept his own forces, al Sadr and the Shia opposition, Salafi extremists and the Sunni opposition, the rebel Kurds, ethnic and religious minorities like the Assyrians, all under his thumb, tightly controlled where they had no potential to hurt his regime.

Now that he is gone all those lesser bullies he formerly repressed want to take his crown, trying to fill the void the Iraqi Baath party left when it went down. That’s why our greatest victory was our greatest crime.

Blanming on the innacurate artillery and this and that, to justify their action holds no water, whenit is in itself a criminal act.

Once again you look past the obvious meaning of my statement. I disagree with the way the war is being handled and that is one of the things I disagree with. We have destroyed targets that were not correctly identified and that is not acceptable in my opinion.

It is not a heated circular debate, one is not keen on facing the reality for american terrorism and extremism.

You always end with these word games, like it somehow punctuates your argument. Do you believe you have cemented your argument because you put the word American next to the word terrorism? I’ve seen it done before and it doesn’t shock me, people without an argument often resort to semantics.

Reflecting hate will not end this. All hate causes is violence which becomes death and then loss and then anger and then hate once again. We have to find a new reign of power, worldwide.

[Hijrah]

do you really think that they are attacking these other Iraqi men because they side with the US? This is ignorant on your part, they attack these men because of they are shia and they are sunni. Saddam was sunni and the sunni had it good and everyone else lived in fear. Now the shia have control of the government and the sunni do not want this, so with or without US presence these attacks will continue until they kill everyone in their way of gaining power.



CONTROL being the key word here



crazy talk, believe me I live in America and there is no limit to what the press can say



what makes you think the war is illegal? The US invaded Iraq after the sept 11 bombings based on a war that was against those who threatened peace in our country. Are you saying Saddam never threatened peace in America? Yes we did pick the wrong country, no we didnt catch the man behind it, yet, but the guy was a maniac who really didnt just threaten peace in America he threatened it around the world. There is nothing illegal about this war. And by the way Sunnis kill way more shia each day than american troops, why do you think that is? Personally I believe the Sunni are trying to do an religious cleansing, and if the US were to pull out the violence would not stop until all the shia were dead.


Why would bringing Saddam in have no credibility? Also 9/11 is not a "card" it is the reason that the US has occupied so many different places today, because the people that did it are cowards and hide with civilians in multiple countries.


This is the same backwash I continue to read on this site, tell me what is the invested interest? A democratic Iraq? That is about the only interest the US has and I dont see why it is a bad one considering their previous government. Also regarding your inaccurate artillery, how accurate were the Sunni suicide bombers at the college in Iraq yesterday? Tell me how is the villan here?



I dont think you know what American terrorism or extremism is, do you know what happened to the Japanese back when Roosevelt was president? That was extreme, I would hate to see this happen to muslim americans because of the current events today, then I would say America was extreme

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

Right now the US is only in Iraq to save the shia and for no other reason.

hmm..yess.America is protecting shias..this explains why Muqtadah Al-Sadr is anti-sunni as well as anti-american

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you too MTAFFI;

God is the creator of all that is seen and unseen and that means he created everyone living in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now I wonder how Mr Bush can be totally confident that only the evil and unjust people will be killed through his aggressive policies in these countries.

Can Mr Bush be totally sure that he is only having the people killed that God wants killed?

At some point we will all have to stand before God and he is eternal so he can easily wait another seventy years for some one to die of old age.

I struggle to understand how God benefits in any way when we bomb and kill a part of his creation?

This thread started off talking about a brave Muslim cleric standing up for peace, and I have to agree with him. The people in Iraq and Afghanistan need our prayers not our bombs.

In the spirit of striving to find peace in my heart,

Eric

[Abdul Fattah]

Ok, for all those claiming suicide bombings should be ok in some cases, I made a separate tread here: http://www.islamicboard.com/islamic-...tml#post629222

[Skillganon]

do you really think that they are attacking these other Iraqi men because they side with the US? This is ignorant on your part, they attack these men because of they are shia and they are sunni. Saddam was sunni and the sunni had it good and everyone else lived in fear. Now the shia have control of the government and the sunni do not want this, so with or without US presence these attacks will continue until they kill everyone in their way of gaining power.

I do indeed think and believe they do attack those Iraqi that are part of the american terrorist, and this is not solely got to do with Shia or sunni. For the simple reason even if they where sunni and shia who are helping the american terrorist, their are group who are naturaly have the right to defend their country and fight the invaders.
Secondly their is a tension between sunni and shia and by all means that is being tried to be aggrevated even more, but to solely trying to potray the fighting as a Shia and Sunni thing is ignorance on your part.

CONTROL being the key word here

Control was alway's been the of america's agenda, how else it will it serve their interest.

Crazy talk, believe me I live in America and there is no limit to what the press can say

One should differentiate between freedom of speech in america and the control of information by filtering information that comes out as much as possible (although they do come out not that they have not tried to stop it) aswell as what the editing that goes on by the EDITORS.

what makes you think the war is illegal? The US invaded Iraq after the sept 11 bombings based on a war that was against those who threatened peace in our country. Are you saying Saddam never threatened peace in America? Yes we did pick the wrong country, no we didnt catch the man behind it, yet, but the guy was a maniac who really didnt just threaten peace in America he threatened it around the world. There is nothing illegal about this war.

So the sept 11 bombing allows U.S to invade another country they like?
I am not suprised by how much indoctrination you got from that, if one noticed the bush was rewinding that message so many time. Are you also trying to say the the america's terrorist attack on Iraq was pure agression least to say?

If you wan't to potray an evil man going around the world terrorising everyone in the world does not hold no water. Iraq was no threat to the world, they did not have any considerable millitary power even if they had that so called agenda least to say the suppose WMD that apparently justifies this war.
Saddam is not a legit reason to terrorise another country, this was not true for so many years.

And by the way Sunnis kill way more shia each day than american troops, why do you think that is? Personally I believe the Sunni are trying to do an religious cleansing, and if the US were to pull out the violence would not stop until all the shia were dead.

If sunni's really wanted to wipe out the Shia's they easily could of cleansed them out anytime during the Islamic History.

Why would bringing Saddam in have no credibility? Also 9/11 is not a "card" it is the reason that the US has occupied so many different places today, because the people that did it are cowards and hide with civilians in multiple countries.

If you got some Idea in your head that it 9/11 justifies every attack by the U.s Goverment than you are living in a funny world and their will be alway's people who do not advocate 9/11 who will oppose america solely because they are going around on their will and killing and imposing their will by any mean's available to them as much as they think they can get away with.
If you want to chuck everyone who oppose american terrorism into your "terrorist boat" than one have a funny idea of the world.


[quot]This is the same backwash I continue to read on this site, tell me what is the invested interest? A democratic Iraq? That is about the only interest the US has and I dont see why it is a bad one considering their previous government.[/quote]
If the vested interest was somekind of democratic Iraq than imposing democracy in itself defeats the purpose of democracy. Secondly holding a democratic election under a foreign attack and occupation in itself defeats the purpose.
Also using ther word democracy to spread miscief around the world is pure evil.

Also regarding your inaccurate artillery, how accurate were the Sunni suicide bombers at the college in Iraq yesterday? Tell me how is the villan here?

I do not advocate the U.S terrorist attack of Iraq nor killing of women and children.
Secondly how many women, children & innocnent did the U.S & allies killed in this war?
Oyeah what was the word to justify it, casualty of war and Colatteral Damage.

I dont think you know what American terrorism or extremism is, do you know what happened to the Japanese back when Roosevelt was president? That was extreme, I would hate to see this happen to muslim americans because of the current events today, then I would say America was extreme.

I do not care about the Japanesse and Roosevalt, this is not the point of discussion but rather american terrorism, extremism. It seems like one is having a hard time swallowing such concept or that this thing exist in america.

Right now the US is only in Iraq to save the shia and for no other reason.

Is that the next spin?

[snakelegs]

This is where my problem lies with the article he genralises too much and doesn't actually say what true islam is.[/B]

who gets to determine what the "true islam" is?

[Skillganon]

who gets to determine what the "true islam" is?

The Quran and the Sunnah and obviousely this requires knowledge.

[snakelegs]

even among scholars, there is some diversity of opinion on some issues.

[Skillganon]

even among scholars, there is some diversity of opinion on some issues.

Yeah this are fiqh issues, mostly one take's the one that has the stronger evidence, it is negligble on some case. Their are things that fall in area of doubt and mostly one is advised that "if in doubt stay clear of it".
I am admittedly not an expert on this thing just like you learning. In Islam it is okay to have a different opinion.

[SilentObserver]

The Quran and the Sunnah and obviousely this requires knowledge.

even among scholars, there is some diversity of opinion on some issues.

Diversity?

I'll say. There is a HUGE range in how muslims interpret their religion. What one muslim calls true Islam can be very different from another muslim. This forum is full of examples.
One example is the 'Dublin imam takes on the fanatics' thread. Some consider him to be preaching the true meaning of islam. Peace and tolerance. Others have went as far as to say he is not a muslim, and an enemy of Allah and Islam.

These differences can be found among the scholars. So who gets to decide what is the true Islam? How do we know which is the true islam?

[snakelegs]

actually, i think this is one of the cool things about islam. no pope or ultimate authority figure. thinking is required.

[SilentObserver]

actually, i think this is one of the cool things about islam. no pope or ultimate authority figure. thinking is required.

Are you kidding?

[snakelegs]

no.
it could just be my "take" on it. but from what i understand, you check your motivation/intent, see what various scholars say and ultimately, based on the above, you make up your own mind.
at least, this is how it's supposed to be, i think.
like any other religion, you can't always judge a religion by its followers.

[Erundur]

actually, i think this is one of the cool things about islam. no pope or ultimate authority figure. thinking is required.

:salamext:

Until another Caliphate happens, then it will become more linear.

:sl:

[Muhammad]

Greetings,

Diversity?

I'll say. There is a HUGE range in how muslims interpret their religion. What one muslim calls true Islam can be very different from another muslim. This forum is full of examples.

To distinguish between truth and falsehood, we simply need to return to the sources of Islam: we should follow Islam as revealed by Allah in the Qur'an, explained by the Prophet (peace be upon him) through the Sunnah, and understood by the noble companions and early generations of Muslims.

Interpreting the Qur'an or the Sunnah is not left for any Muslim who chooses to do so; rather it is the responsibility of one who is qualified, thus demonstrating the need to refer to such individuals.

Many differences arise from ignorance and some people who claim to be experts in Islam have little qualification to be called so in reality. Some principles on adhering to scholars have been pointed out in the following threads:

http://www.islamicboard.com/biograph...lars-past.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/islamic-...-scholars.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/basics-i...-scholars.html

One example is the 'Dublin imam takes on the fanatics' thread. Some consider him to be preaching the true meaning of islam. Peace and tolerance. Others have went as far as to say he is not a muslim, and an enemy of Allah and Islam.

Many statements on this forum are simply opinions and often statements are made out of ignorance. If we look at two ore more differing opinions on this forum, then it does not represent two or more sides of equal research and investigation having reached an edcuated conclusion that can be seen as representing the differences among the whole Muslim nation. Many young and naive people are often behind posts, and therefore this comparison is inappropriate.

I hope that helps us to understand this issue. Anything wrong that I have said is from my own lack of knowledge.

Peace.

[Fishman]

:salamext:

Until another Caliphate happens, then it will become more linear.

:sl:

:sl:
And the next Caliphate will be under the Mahdi and Jesus (pbut), so it's not like we will just be obeying the whims of some ordinary guy either.
:w:

[SilentObserver]

I hope that helps us to understand this issue.

Yes, thank you. It was partially a clarification of what I suspected, and also helped my understanding.

Anything wrong that I have said is from my own lack of knowledge.

I am more likely to listen to the person that says this, than the person that says they know everything.

[Dawud_uk]

:sl:
And the next Caliphate will be under the Mahdi and Jesus (pbut), so it's not like we will just be obeying the whims of some ordinary guy either.
:w:

assalaamu alaykum fishman,

there is no real proof for this statement, there could be kalifates come and go 10 times before Isa (as) returns.

such a mentality leads people to doing nothing, believing all such problems will be solved with the return of Isa (as) when we do not know when that will be and the kalifate was destroyed before and returned before so dont fall into that mental trap of shaitan which leads us to inaction.

assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah