Muslims dying daily

[KAding]

The killing won't stop when the West retreats, but it will get a whole lot less attention from both sides. There was plenty of killing in Iraq and Afghanistan before the US invaded, after all there were civil wars going on in both countries. The only real difference is that there were no cameras and journalist to report on it back then. Heck, there are still civil wars going on in those countries. This whole idea of 'the Muslims' vs. 'the kafirs' is a complete myth. Nobody really cared about the millions of deaths from Saddam's wars and oppression. Muslims killing Muslims usually embarrasses Muslims, so they stay quiet. Similarly, the West usually cares little when there is a civil war going on and none of the Western nations are involved.

So I suppose in a way I agree with you, lets retreat from the region. Everybody will be happy, except the victims of Muslim infighting course. But then again: "If a tree falls in the forest, and there is no one to hear it, does it make a sound?"

 

[Gangster No.1]

When one muslim suffers, all muslim suffers. I don't wanna break the rules, so i'm not gonna go deep into this discusion. But i think everyone should show their support to Mujahideens all over the world. But i dislike it when Muslims target civilians, they should not lower themself to the same level as the soldiers of America/Russia/Israel/etc.

Exactly!
when a muslim is hurt the other muslims should be hurt for him, he should help him in any mean so he woudnt be hurt again, how can you actually say that when muslims are being killed we shouldnt do anything and we should correct ourselves first. No No No

Fair enough we all no that no one is perfect!

even if your a sinner, and there is another brother/sis who is being hurt/killed that you wouldnt do nothing for them, you wouldnt fight for them, AND THEN YOU SAY WE SHOULD CORRECT OURSELVES FIRST?

No, that is totally wrong!

 

[Zman]

I think the greatest injustice is here, we are doing it to ourself.

Look around, the average Mr Khan, Mr Usman and Mr Khalid what are their main concerns?

Instead of spending extra money purifyin ourselfs we spend it on razorz to alter our faces, instead of spending the time learning arabic we spend it at home watchin the FA Cup (oh well at least am not down the pub is the escuse we hear) instead of learning the basic meanings of the Shahada, the conditions of Salaah and knowledge otherwise obligatory upon us, we are not only imposing ourself but also our children to learn about Business and Finanace (all the time, not half and half but 24/7)

I find nothing wrong with doing both, as long as it's in moderation and not going to either extremes.

"Altering our faces," is considered hygiene. Allah (SWT) Is Beautiful and likes beauty.

I'd rather present myself with a trimmed beard than go out donning an unkept beard (no disrespect to the brothers with large beards). As long as it's well kept. This is Just my preference.

Besides, having a beard is a Sunnah, and not obligatory. IMHO, mastering the "Fard" outweighs my concentration on certain Sunnah's (don't get me wrong, it's not as negative as it sounds. I'm not saying that we should totaly disregard the Sunnah. Just to get our priorities straight).

Because, I've found brothers who have turned these upside-down. Where they concentrate on the beard, the siwak and above the heals pants, and don't perform their daily prayers, fasting, zakat, consistently, etc (that's what I meant).

And there is also nothing wrong with concentrating on the sciences along with the religion.

One of the reasons Muslims fell behind is due to the over-concentration on religious aspects (not talking about Ibadah) and forgoing our duty to the scientific field.

It's like many Muslim parents urge (sometimes, demand) that their children "choose" to become physicians, lawyers, engineers and pharmacists. What about the other fields that they're neglecting. And they choose those particular fields due to their monetary gains and worldly status.

Moderation is the key to our daily lives...

 

[England]

Exactly!
when a muslim is hurt the other muslims should be hurt for him, he should help him in any mean so he woudnt be hurt again, how can you actually say that when muslims are being killed we shouldnt do anything and we should correct ourselves first. No No No

Fair enough we all no that no one is perfect!

even if your a sinner, and there is another brother/sis who is being hurt/killed that you wouldnt do nothing for them, you wouldnt fight for them, AND THEN YOU SAY WE SHOULD CORRECT OURSELVES FIRST?

No, that is totally wrong!

Go to the battlefields and fight then... :rollseyes Don't forget to leave us your measurements for your coffin.

 

[don532]

if two groups of muslims are fighting, the ruling is that you should not interfere as both of them will be going to hell as it is not permissible for muslims to fight muslims.

That brings to mind a question I have been pondering. In the muslim view, should the coalition have stayed out of Kuwait and let Iraq take that country over? Was then Saudi Arabia wrong, in the muslim view, for being a part of the coalition that fought against Iraq in Kuwait?

 

[Cognescenti]

That brings to mind a question I have been pondering. In the muslim view, should the coalition have stayed out of Kuwait and let Iraq take that country over? Was then Saudi Arabia wrong, in the muslim view, for being a part of the coalition that fought against Iraq in Kuwait?

Not to mention Syria........."Does not compute, does not compute.....<smoke begins to issue from overloaded transistors>

 

[aamirsaab]

That brings to mind a question I have been pondering. In the muslim view, should the coalition have stayed out of Kuwait and let Iraq take that country over? Was then Saudi Arabia wrong, in the muslim view, for being a part of the coalition that fought against Iraq in Kuwait?

Not to mention Syria........."Does not compute, does not compute.....<smoke begins to issue from overloaded transistors>

This is exactly why I hate the world affairs section: everyone gets a headache and I have to clean up the mess .

What ''muslim'' countries do nowadays is not neccesarily always what is the Islamic thing to do. Sometimes they interfere when they shouldn't (Iraq part 2 - The fall of saddam and/or Afghanistan) and sometimes they don't intefere when they should (Israel and Palestine) - which is largely to do with the fact that the ruling parties don't actually give a flying rat's assparagus about the other people really and just do whatever they feel like.

 

[don532]

This is exactly why I hate the world affairs section: everyone gets a headache and I have to clean up the mess .

What ''muslim'' countries do nowadays is not neccesarily always what is the Islamic thing to do. Sometimes they interfere when they shouldn't (Iraq part 2 - The fall of saddam) and sometimes they don't intefere when they should (Israel and Palestine) - which is largely to do with the fact that the ruling parties don't actually give a flying rat's assparagus about the other people really and just do whatever they feel like.

The reason I asked was I had a muslim tell me in another forum the US should have kept their assparagus out of Kuwait and the country was worse off now that the Iraqi army is gone. I figured that guy was a nutter, but when the idea of never interfering in a muslim vs muslim conflict came up, I thought maybe that's where he got the idea.

 

[Cognescenti]

This is exactly why I hate the world affairs section: everyone gets a headache and I have to clean up the mess .

What ''muslim'' countries do nowadays is not neccesarily always what is the Islamic thing to do. Sometimes they interfere when they shouldn't (Iraq part 2 - The fall of saddam and/or Afghanistan) and sometimes they don't intefere when they should (Israel and Palestine) - which is largely to do with the fact that the ruling parties don't actually give a flying rat's assparagus about the other people really and just do whatever they feel like.

That was a pretty good answer aamirsaab

 

[Akil]

Muslims are dying daily . . .. At the hands of those who would call themselves Muslims.

Focus on the plank in your own eye, before the spec in your brother’s eye.

 

[Zman]

That brings to mind a question I have been pondering. In the muslim view, should the coalition have stayed out of Kuwait and let Iraq take that country over?

Actually, the Arab nations were in the process of mediating between Iraq & Kuwait, and the U.S. government didn't want those efforts to succeed. That is why they moved so fast to rush in troops to Saudi Arabia.

Also, Cheney and Powell took doctored satellite photo's of a fabricated Iraqi military machine massing on the Kuwati/Saudi border, which didn't exist.

The U.S. government then scuttled the Arab League meeting in Cairo, and pressured the Mubarak government into siding with the "Coalition," against Iraq.

Without prior Egyptian/Saudi approval (a guaranteed Arab umbrella coverage for the attack on Iraq), the US wouldn't have been able to enter Saudi Arabia or to attack & destroy Iraq in such a manner.

Saddam Hussein once said that his biggest strategic surprise was that Egypt sided with the US against Iraq.

By bringing Egypt & Saudi Arabia into the "Coalitions fold, the U.S. guaranteed itself an Arab Umbrella, which it then claimed that this wasn't an attack on an Arab/Islamic nation, nor was it an occupation of Saudi Arabia, nor did it seek hegemony over the number 1 exporter of Oil in the world.

Ironically, the massive military bases in Saudi Arabia weren't really built for the Saudi's. They were way too large for their armed forces. Egypt, and Iran don't even have bases that large.

After the Arab oil boycot that was instituted against the West for its support for Israeli aggression, after the 1973 war with Israel was over, the U.S. started to plan on having large and permanent military bases in the region (for interventions). That's how those bases came into being.

Was then Saudi Arabia wrong, in the muslim view, for being a part of the coalition that fought against Iraq in Kuwait?

Yes. it aided in the destruction of a fellow Arab state.

With hind sight, the basing of U.S. troops in Arabia (even after the "liberation" of Kuwait) was one of reasons that heralded in the rise of terrorism and anti-Americanism.

That led to 9/11, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq (and it's utter destruction, and its unravelling as a society), the GWOT, Rendition, Guantanamo, and the instrusiveness of state security into our personal lives, and the curtailing of some freedoms.

Every action begets a reaction and a consequence.

 

[don532]

Actually, the Arab nations were in the process of mediating between Iraq & Kuwait, and the U.S. government didn't want those efforts to succeed.

Mediating between Iraq and Kuwait? How? Iraq took Kuwait over militarily.

 

[don532]

Was then Saudi Arabia wrong, in the muslim view, for being a part of the coalition that fought against Iraq in Kuwait?

Yes. it aided in the destruction of a fellow Arab state.

I wonder what the people of Kuwait would say about that.

 

[Zman]

Mediating between Iraq and Kuwait? How? Iraq took Kuwait over militarily.

I know that. But Egypt was perfoming shuttle diplomacy at the time.

Mubarak had asked Bush Sr. for some time, in order to let the Arabs solve that crisis diplomatically and amongst themselves. Bush refused.

Egypt was tackling several issues at once:

1. Iraq's debts to Kuwait (specifically, since they were in debt to a few Arab countries).

2. Kuwait's theft of Iraqi oil (they were parallel drilling, from the Kuwaiti side, and going underneath the internationally recognized border, into Iraqi territory and withdrawing their oil).

3. And the military invasion of Kuwait, and Iraq's withdrawal.

Saddam also offered to withdraw, but Bush Sr. ignored it and proceeded with the attack...

 

[Zman]

I wonder what the people of Kuwait would say about that.

Of course they were thrilled at being liberated. But, the Orthodox Muslim organizations weren't happy at was was done to Iraq & it's civilian population as a whole. They could care less about what happened to Saddam and his government.

And you gotta look at the bigger picture. The entire Arab/Islamic World. How do THEY feel about that. Their opinion does count, and their actions carry weight...

 

[wilberhum]

Saddam also offered to withdraw, but Bush Sr. ignored it and proceeded with the attack...

Woooooo nelley. One: Saddam always lied. Two: It wasn't Bush, it was the UN.

 

[Cognescenti]

I know that. But Egypt was perfoming shuttle diplomacy at the time.

Mubarak had asked Bush Sr. for some time, in order to let the Arabs solve that crisis diplomatically and amongst themselves. Bush refused.

Egypt was tackling several issues at once:

1. Iraq's debts to Kuwait (specifically, since they were in debt to a few Arab countries).

2. Kuwait's theft of Iraqi oil (they were parallel drilling, from the Kuwaiti side, and going underneath the internationally recognized border, into Iraqi territory and withdrawing their oil).

3. And the military invasion of Kuwait, and Iraq's withdrawal.

Saddam also offered to withdraw, but Bush Sr. ignored it and proceeded with the attack...

The time for the Arab League to solve a long-standing, festering problem between Iraq and Kuwait was before an Iraqi invasion. Here is my question....has the Arab League ever solved a serious international dispute? It always seem they spend the first day arguing about seating arrangements and the second day calling each other names...then the ambassador of X or Y storms out, offended. The only thing they seem to be able to agree on is the usual condemnation of Israel.

Saddam had absolute power, he was a tyrant, he was impulsive, he lacked awareness of (or contempt for) the subtleties of international relations (not surprising for a proven, lying sociopath). Once he had what he wanted in Kuwait, he wasn't going to give it back by having cucumber sandwiches with Mubarak. You say the threat to the Saudi was trumped up? Clearly they saw him as a threat.

As for Saddam's last minute offer to withdraw..:rollseyes ...great, so he could stall for a year or do it again in 6 months somewhere else withhis military intact?

 

[Zman]

The time for the Arab League to solve a long-standing, festering problem between Iraq and Kuwait was before an Iraqi invasion.

Solutions come after problems arise.

Also, once Iraq hurled its accusation that Kuwait was stealing its oil (before the invasion took place), certain Arab nations were addressing this. It may not have been a top priority, nonetheless, it was being addressed.

Here is my question....has the Arab League ever solved a serious international dispute?

No, the Arab League has never solved an international dispute. That is because it is a regional organization.

It has conducted successful mediations and resolutions to crisis, disputes and wars.

One recent event was the ending of the Lebanese civil war (with the aid of Egypt and Saudi Arabia).

 

[Cognescenti]

Solutions come after problems arise.

Also, once Iraq hurled its accusation that Kuwait was stealing its oil (before the invasion took place), certain Arab nations were addressing this. It may not have been a top priority, nonetheless, it was being addressed.

I dare say there was a problem before the invasion of Kuwait. The real problem was the debts accumulated from the disastrous war with Iran which had been partially funded with loans from other Arab states. Clearly, the measures taken were insufficient.

No, the Arab League has never solved an international dispute. That is because it is a regional organization.

It has conducted successful mediations and resolutions to crisis, disputes and wars.

One recent event was the ending of the Lebanese civil war (with the aid of Egypt and Saudi Arabia).

Ah you mean the Lebanese Civil War that went on for 15 years! Quite an urgent action by the Arab League then, wasn't it? You can't on one hand fault the US (through the UN) for addressing the crisis in Kuwait while offering the Arab League (or even Mubarak acting "alone") as a solution on the other. Quite likely, Mubarak was sent with the full assent of the US Government. It wasn't really his fault he failed. It was Hussein's fault. Hussein thought he could get away with it. He seriously miscalcualted.

BTW..the Lebanese Civil War was arguably an international problem, given the involvement of the Syrians.

 

[beespreeteam]

if two groups of muslims are fighting, the ruling is that you should not interfere as both of them will be going to hell as it is not permissible for muslims to fight muslims.

errr..

Narrated by Anas:
Allah’s Apostle said: “Help your brother whether he is an oppressor or an oppressed,” A man said, “O Allah’s Apostle! I will help him if he is oppressed, but if he is an oppressor, how should I help him?” The Prophet said, “By preventing him from oppressing (others), for that is how to help him.”
[Al-Bukhari: 85, 84]

Also, I'm sure I've read a hadith where it was stated that solving a problem between brothers was more worthy of reward than itikaf.

correct me if I'm wrong, just wondering.