why is ok always for muslims to be arrested

format_quote Originally Posted by Iqram

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

What are these demands brother?

Police profiling is a necessary tool for any police force to use. On the surface it appears to be indiscrimanate prejudice and based on an assumption that "those" people are all criminals.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

format_quote Originally Posted by KAding

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

Ding ding ding!

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

format_quote Originally Posted by KAding

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

The terrorists are a small problem now and mainly because the police keep arresting them. They are not very competent as yet. But they will learn. As we see with LI this week - the internet is being used to teach people how to avoid justice. The number of potential suicide bombers is probably enormous. So far we have not seen much, but if it grows and grows pretty soon Britain will be as bad as Israel. Mao says, the guerilla is like the fish in the sea. Either that sea has to become too hostile for the fish or it needs to be drained.

format_quote Originally Posted by Muezzin

Ding ding ding!

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

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

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

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

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

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

format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou

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

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

HeiGou,

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

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


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

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

format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow

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

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

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

I beleive every Non-Muslim country that has been engaged in a conflict with a Muslim country has believed they were justly defending themselves.

And yet that is not true. Most of the countries involved in the Iraq war did not agree with it and millions took to the street. Most colonial countries came to believe they were not acting justly and so withdrew. Britain was shocked over Suez when the truth came out.

Where are the Muslim equivalents?

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

So the Spanish had to right to defend themselves, nor the Indians, nor the Balinese? When the African Muslim states went on slaving sprees those non-Muslim Africans had not right to defend themselves at all?

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

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

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

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

Now in reply to the first question>

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

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


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

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

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

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



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

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

format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow

So the Spanish had to right to defend themselves, nor the Indians, nor the Balinese? When the African Muslim states went on slaving sprees those non-Muslim Africans had not right to defend themselves at all?

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

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

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

format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou

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

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

There are many instances in the Qur'an were aggression is specificaly forbidden. No need in quoting them here as you are most likely aware of them.

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

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

format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou

Guess what - Terrorists don't care if you're guilty or not! They'll blow you up knowing that you are innocent. It doesn't matter to them.

Which is the bigger problem?

That is a very good point.