Quantity or Quality

[Thinker]

I read a post on this forum which is a clip from a Muslim convert where he waxed lyrical about Muslim land and the Taliban. The author of that piece is David Myatt. That post prompted me to investigate who David Myatt is and that in turn posed the question for me as to whether Islam would be better served if it had a vetting process for would be converts? I also wonder how comfortably some Muslims are with the concept of the Ummah which some believe should provide blind support for anything any Muslim says or does just because he is a Muslim?

David Wulstan Myatt aka Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt is a British Muslim convert. He is a former neo-nazi, he was the first leader of the British National Socialist Movement and was described as the "ideological heavyweight" behind Combat 18. Together with Simon Keeler aka Sulayman Keeler he is a leading light in Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah, a British Islamist organization which replaced Al-Muhajiroun, a designated and banned terrorist organization.

I wonder whether people like Myatt take up Islam because it provides the framework (in particular the Ummah described above) enabling them to pursue a way if life which gives them what they need rather than because they have ‘seen the light?’

And, like I said above, I also wonder whether Muslims would be better served if they had a vetting service for Muslim converts i.e. someone who examines their mental state, knowledge if Islam and reasons for converting before allowing them into the fold?

http://www.davidmyatt.info/

[Thinker]

Whilst thinking about my questions above and reading through some posts here other questions occurred to me . . . . .

Is it possible for a good Muslim to be a bad person? (By ‘good Muslim’ I mean one who follows Islamic teachings and by ‘bad person’ I mean a person who does bad things to others).

Answering my own question . . . From what I have learned here, I have formed the view that Muslims believe that the Qu’ran and sunnah provide all the answers to all the questions on how a Muslim should lead his/her life. And, as Muslims believe that is the words of God, it must be ‘good.’ It would logically seem to follow that if Muslims follow Islamic teachings in the manner in which they live their life then all actions must be good and consequently it would not be possible for a good Muslim to be a bad person. If we then identify a Muslim who perpetrates some horrific act (e.g. someone teaching and coercing a child to slit the throat of a captive) does that make him a bad person and someone who is excommunicated. Or is my understanding of what I have learned wrong?

[Thinker]

Another question. . . .

Do Muslims consider any Muslim no matter what they say or do preferable to a non-Muslim?

[Thinker]

Is Jamal Miftah:
1. a good Muslim and a good person
2. a good Muslim and a bad person
3. a bad Muslim and a good person
4. a bad Muslim and a bad person

Now living in Tulsa, Miftah had a column published in the Tulsa World newspaper that called on all Muslims to speak out against al-Qaeda and terrorism. For this act, he was kicked out of his local mosque (the al-Salam mosque) by its leaders.

http://frontpagemag.com/articles/Rea...0-506C8C069723

[aamirsaab]

I wonder whether people like Myatt take up Islam because it provides the framework (in particular the Ummah described above) enabling them to pursue a way if life which gives them what they need rather than because they have ‘seen the light?’

It's a multitude of reasons for different people. I for instance follow Islam because:
A) I agree with what it teaches
B) The teachings have proven to be better than any other teachings I have seen or learnt through human interaction (i.e not turning the other cheek, being an obnoxious scumbag etc)
C) I practice the teachings and I benefit sociologically and pscyhologically.

So basically, I win.

Is it possible for a good Muslim to be a bad person? (By ‘good Muslim’ I mean one who follows Islamic teachings and by ‘bad person’ I mean a person who does bad things to others).

To be a good muslim is to be a good person. You cannot be a good muslim and be a bad person. Nice and easy.

Another question. . . .

Do Muslims consider any Muslim no matter what they say or do preferable to a non-Muslim?

Nope. Blind loyalty is BS. Being a muslim doesn't mean you get respect instantly - it's not one of those instant-win scratch cards you know. Plenty of muslims I know of that are right prats and don't have my respect (don't worry, it's none of you losers on LI ). There are also plenty of non-muslims that I know that DO have my respect (for many reasons which I shall not write...cus I'm lazy).

Edit:

Is Jamal Miftah:
1. a good Muslim and a good person
2. a good Muslim and a bad person
3. a bad Muslim and a good person
4. a bad Muslim and a bad person

Now living in Tulsa, Miftah had a column published in the Tulsa World newspaper that called on all Muslims to speak out against al-Qaeda and terrorism. For this act, he was kicked out of his local mosque (the al-Salam mosque) by its leaders.

He'd fit number 1 category based on what you have written. However, like all things, these matters are not always as simple as they seem. I don't have enough background info on Miftah and his situation so I cannot comment further in relation to him being kicked out of his masjid. But, I will err on the side of caution and end with: not everything is black and white.

[Thinker]

To be a good muslim is to be a good person. You cannot be a good muslim and be a bad person. Nice and easy.

OK, so does it follow then, in the example I have given above, where a Muslim perpetrates some horrific act (e.g. someone teaching and coercing a child to slit the throat of a captive) he can no longer call himself a Muslim as he is acting contrary to Islamic teachings and is excommunicated? Or, can you be a bad person and remain a Muslim? And if bad people are allowed to remain and call themselves Muslim can they expect the support of other Muslims just because they are Muslim?

[aamirsaab]

OK, so does it follow then, in the example I have given above, where a Muslim perpetrates some horrific act (e.g. someone teaching and coercing a child to slit the throat of a captive) he can no longer call himself a Muslim as he is acting contrary to Islamic teachings and is excommunicated?

Well it's not for me to say if that person is excommunicated. However, coercing a child to slit the throat of a captive is a pretty big moral sin!

Or, can you be a bad person and remain a Muslim?

You can get bad muslims and you can get good muslims. Just like you can get bad hindus, jews, sikhs or good hindus, jews, sikhs etc.

And if bad people are allowed to remain and call themselves Muslim can they expect the support of other Muslims just because they are Muslim?

As much as they could were they a member of any other religious demonination.

[Dawud_uk]

Well it's not for me to say if that person is excommunicated. However, coercing a child to slit the throat of a captive is a pretty big moral sin!


You can get bad muslims and you can get good muslims. Just like you can get bad hindus, jews, sikhs or good hindus, jews, sikhs etc.


As much as they could were they a member of any other religious demonination.

the prophet muhammad (saws) allowed mujahideen as young as 9 in the armies, is that a pretty big moral sin also?

our determination of what is good and bad is what Allah loves and hates, what is taught to us by the Quran and sunnah not what the disbelievers with their ration have decided for themselves.

[aamirsaab]

the prophet muhammad (saws) allowed mujahideen as young as 9 in the armies, is that a pretty big moral sin also?
....

Participating in a war and slitting the throat of a captive are two very different things.

[Dawud_uk]

Participating in a war and slitting the throat of a captive are two very different things.

but killing the prisoners of war is permissable and in accordance with the sunnah, i dont see a difference.

[crayon]

but killing the prisoners of war is permissable and in accordance with the sunnah, i dont see a difference.

I thought prisoners of war were supposed to be treated well, as well as any regular person, given food, clothes, etc. How is killing them treating them well?

[Dawud_uk]

I thought prisoners of war were supposed to be treated well, as well as any regular person, given food, clothes, etc. How is killing them treating them well?

the amir of a given battle or if he is available to seek a ruling from, the khalif, has several choices with the prisoners of war.

he can free them, randsom them, or kill them. for the women and children he has the choice of freeing, randsoming or enslaving.

if you doubt the permissability of killing the prisoners of war see how Rasoolullah (saws) dealt with the traitorous jews after the battle of the trench and what the ruling of islam is in accordance with them.

or how after one battle Rasoolullah (saws) assigned Ali (ra) to kill the prisoners, putting another sahabah as his assistant so if Ali (ra) tired the job would still get done.

also read an account of the campaigns of khalid bin al waleed (ra) to see how the sahabah dealt with those who opposed islam after the death of Rasoolullah (saws). there understanding is better than our own on what is or isnt permissable under the rulings on jihad and how khalid bin al waleed attempted to turn the tigres red with blood from all the prisoners who were beheaded after one of the battles.

[crayon]

Wa alaikum asalam

if you doubt the permissability of killing the prisoners of war see how Rasoolullah (saws) dealt with the traitorous jews after the battle of the trench and what the ruling of islam is in accordance with them.

And that's the key word. Not every prisoner of war is a criminal, or is hostile, or is lying and deceiving.

also read an account of the campaigns of khalid bin al waleed (ra) to see how the sahabah dealt with those who opposed islam after the death of Rasoolullah (saws). there understanding is better than our own on what is or isnt permissable under the rulings on jihad and how khalid bin al waleed attempted to turn the tigres red with blood from all the prisoners who were beheaded after one of the battles.

Do you mean this one?
The Prophet sent Khalid bin Al-Walid to the tribe of Jadhima and Khalid invited them to Islam but they could not express themselves by saying, "Aslamna (i.e. we have embraced Islam)," but they started saying "Saba'na! Saba'na (i.e. we have come out of one religion to another)." Khalid kept on killing (some of) them and taking (some of) them as captives and gave every one of us his Captive. When there came the day then Khalid ordered that each man (i.e. Muslim soldier) should kill his captive, I said, "By Allah, I will not kill my captive, and none of my companions will kill his captive." When we reached the Prophet, we mentioned to him the whole story. On that, the Prophet raised both his hands and said twice, "O Allah! I am free (or innocent or not responsible for) from what Khalid has done."

So the killing does not apply to all captives, it only applies to certain people, in certain circumstances. It is the exception, not the norm.

As much as I dislike this site, here's a link to it, points 2 and 4 discuss this.
http://www.answering-christianity.co...ers_of_war.htm

[Dawud_uk]

Wa alaikum asalam

And that's the key word. Not every prisoner of war is a criminal, or is hostile, or is lying and deceiving.

Do you mean this one?
The Prophet sent Khalid bin Al-Walid to the tribe of Jadhima and Khalid invited them to Islam but they could not express themselves by saying, "Aslamna (i.e. we have embraced Islam)," but they started saying "Saba'na! Saba'na (i.e. we have come out of one religion to another)." Khalid kept on killing (some of) them and taking (some of) them as captives and gave every one of us his Captive. When there came the day then Khalid ordered that each man (i.e. Muslim soldier) should kill his captive, I said, "By Allah, I will not kill my captive, and none of my companions will kill his captive." When we reached the Prophet, we mentioned to him the whole story. On that, the Prophet raised both his hands and said twice, "O Allah! I am free (or innocent or not responsible for) from what Khalid has done."

So the killing does not apply to all captives, it only applies to certain people, in certain circumstances. It is the exception, not the norm.

As much as I dislike this site, here's a link to it, points 2 and 4 discuss this.
http://www.answering-christianity.co...ers_of_war.htm

no that wasnt the instance i was referring to, but his campaigns in iraq and syria where he would come to a town or army, giving them three choices, islam, jiziya or the sword.

none of the companions differed in his giving this choice, they were a people at war with islam, completely different circumstances to what you are saying.

besides which, i am not sure this is even appropiate to the discussion as the captive the taliban killed was a spy and judged upon that so even according to your own analysis on when someone can be killed it would still apply would it not?

[crayon]

Wa alaikum asalam

Well of course, that's what the prophet peace be upon him did as well, to live under muslim rule nonmuslims must pay the jizyah, or else they are considered hostile.

I wasn't discussing what the taliban did, I was just talking about general cases. In the battles before a muslim state was established, and even after if they payed the jizyah, regular non muslim soldiers that were captured were not to be killed.

And yes, if the person was a spy, I guess he would come under the hostile category.

[aamirsaab]

but killing the prisoners of war is permissable and in accordance with the sunnah, i dont see a difference.

It depends on the circumstance ultimately.

However, we are missing the vital point of Thinker's question. He asked if it was bad to coerce a 9 year old into slittting a captives throat. As a trainee psychologist, I say it is very bad!

If that captive is indeed to suffer his/her throat being slit (for whatever reason), it should most certainly NOT be done by coercing a child!

I seriously doubt there was anything in the history of Islam (i.e sunnah, hadith etc) that would allow one to coerce a CHILD into slaying a captive. This is the crux of the matter - not if captives can be slayed, but can one coerce a child into slaying a captive (answer is NO).

[Thinker]

Actually I asked several questions at one time which may have caused confusion.

The questions I asked was to help me try to understand some things which to me appear anomalous.

The first stated what I believe to be true and that is that anyone can declare themselves Muslim unlike Christianity and Judaism where your have to go through a process and satisfy certain requirements before an official of that religion allows you to become a ‘member.’ So what? Because it impacts on my other questions . . .

1. Are Muslims obliged to support / defend the actions of every other Muslim? I asked that question because I have seen comments from Muslims on this forum criticising Muslim members who have criticised other Muslims saying that Muslims shouldn’t criticise the actions of other Muslims.

2. The question then occurred to me, apart from saying I am Muslim, what must a Muslim do to be accepted by other Muslims as a Muslim? Let’s say for example that I am a closet Nazi and I hate Jews as much as Adolf Hitler did and I decide that, in the political and social climate that exists today, I am going to get nowhere in my quest to kill Jews whilst I am dressed as a Nazi so I declare myself a Muslim and set about my personal Jihad on Jews under the banner of Islam. Surely that can’t be allowable? But if there is no structure within Islam to excommunicate people who bring the religion into disrepute and Muslim can kill anyone they like on their chosen Sheik’s interpretation of the Qu’ran and if every other Muslim is required to support and defend their actions isn’t that a problem to Islam?

[aamirsaab]

....
2. The question then occurred to me, apart from saying I am Muslim, what must a Muslim do to be accepted by other Muslims as a Muslim? Let’s say for example that I am a closet Nazi and I hate Jews as much as Adolf Hitler did and I decide that, in the political and social climate that exists today, I am going to get nowhere in my quest to kill Jews whilst I am dressed as a Nazi so I declare myself a Muslim and set about my personal Jihad on Jews under the banner of Islam. Surely that can’t be allowable?

You are correct - it wouldn't be allowed. Killing innocents is a sin in Islam. A very big sin!

But if there is no structure within Islam to excommunicate people who bring the religion into disrepute and Muslim can kill anyone they like on their chosen Sheik’s interpretation of the Qu’ran and if every other Muslim is required to support and defend their actions isn’t that a problem to Islam?

We, as muslims, aren't required to support or defend the actions of all muslims. Whilst unity is encouraged in Islam, so to is standing up against injustice (forbid what is evil etc) - especially if it is coming from within.

[doorster]

I thought prisoners of war were supposed to be treated well, as well as any regular person, given food, clothes, etc. How is killing them treating them well?

I believe you thought correctly (Free the captives as an act of kindness or ransom, such as in exchange for your men in their captivity. There is no third option)

Muhammad Asad born Leopold Weiss explains al-Quraan 47:4 thusly:

NOW WHEN you meet [in war] those who are bent on denying the truth, [Sc., "and on barring [others] from the path of God" - thus connecting with verse 1 and laying down the fundamental condition which alone justifies physical warfare: namely, a defence of the Faith and of freedom (cf. in this connection see note on 2:190). In other words, when "those who are bent on denying the truth" try to deprive the Muslims of their social and political liberty and thus to make it impossible for them to live in accordance with the principles of their faith, a just war (jihad) becomes allowable and, more than that, a duty. The whole of the above verse relates to war actually in progress (cf. note on the first part of 2:191); and there is no doubt that it was revealed after 22:39-40, the earliest Quranic reference to physical warfare.] smite their necks until you overcome them fully, and then tighten their bonds; [Lit., "tighten the bond". According to almost all the commentators, this expression denotes the taking of prisoners of war. In addition, it may also refer to any sanctions or safeguards which would make it unlikely that the aggression could be resumed in the foreseeable future.] but thereafter [set them free,] either by an act of grace or against ransom, so that the burden of war may be lifted: [Lit., "so that (hatta) the war may lay down its burdens". The term "ransom" comprises also, in this context, a mutual exchange of prisoners of war (Zamakhshari, quoting an opinion of Imam Ash-Shafi).] thus [shall it be]. And [know that] had God so willed, He could indeed punish them [Himself]; but [He wills you to struggle] so as to test you [all] by means of one another. [I.e., so as to enable the believers to prove by actual deeds the depth of their faith and their readiness for self-sacrifice, and to enable the aggressors to realize how wrong they have been, and thus to bring them closer to the truth.] And as for those who are slain in God's cause, never will He let their deeds go to waste.

smite their necks: could be taken as severing their communications with their command and control centres

[Uthman]

Regarding Justice, the Holy Qur'an says:

"O ye who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor: for Allah can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest ye swerve, and if ye distort (justice) or decline to do justice, verily Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do." [An-Nisa 4:35]