Do people blame Islam for Manchester bombing?

[Zafran]

Yes, there is definitely a pragmatic alliance system that is going on that is not "moral" but due to convenience. The West does tend to think that it has the moral high-grounds, though, and the anti-Russia sentiment in the media has been running quite high lately.

There is definitely a geopolitical struggle between Saudi Arabia and Iran to gain the upper hand on the region, but I do think that the reason behind SA and Iran being so opposed to one another in the first place is chiefly due to differences in faith. If Iranians were Sunni (or conversely, if Saudis were Shia), I think that the two countries would get along much better.

Every country in the world believes it has higher moral ground be it the Russians, the Iranians or the Saudis. They clearly believe that they are right and other side is wrong - even if they have morally dubious positions. this goes for the west and the rest.

No I think that the saudis are against the Iranians and vice versa is not due to religion a prime motivator. I believe its more to do with geopolitics and which power is willing to back them. Religious differences doesn't explain why Iran has better relations with Pakistan and Afghanistan (mostly sunni). They dont have much of a problem with any Muslim country except for the Saudis and there allies.

Turkey and Israel and how they view Iran also shows that religion isnt a prime motivator.

 

[Karl]

I suppose Islam is a religion of peace unlike the worship of Mars or Odin. But it is not pacifist, so it would really suit the imperialist Zionist warmongers for Islam to be pacifist, so they could bomb and slaughter Muslims with no retaliation in any form at all. Maybe that is the "win the hearts and minds" propaganda program. It worked after they nuked Japan.
What about the "troubles" in Northern Island. Are Roman Catholics "terrorists" too?

 

[fromelsewhere]

Every country in the world believes it has higher moral ground be it the Russians, the Iranians or the Saudis. They clearly believe that they are right and other side is wrong - even if they have morally dubious positions. this goes for the west and the rest.

No I think that the saudis are against the Iranians and vice versa is not due to religion a prime motivator. I believe its more to do with geopolitics and which power is willing to back them. Religious differences doesn't explain why Iran has better relations with Pakistan and Afghanistan (mostly sunni). They dont have much of a problem with any Muslim country except for the Saudis and there allies.

Turkey and Israel and how they view Iran also shows that religion isnt a prime motivator.

Iran shares borders with both Afghanistan and Pakistan and Farsi is very close to Pashto and Dari (Afghanistan's official languages, and many Pakistanis speak Pashto). Also, Iranians, Afghans, and Pakistanis are not Arabs; they are ethnically-speaking closer to Iranians. So while it's true that Afghans and Pakistans are Sunni in majority, they share other things in common with Iran, so they are less anti-Iran than Saudi Arabia and its allies. As for Turkey, they are also not Arabs, but if there was to be a war between Iran and Saudi Arabia (may that never happen), I am sure that they would side with Saudi Arabia. As for Israel, Iran has had relatively good ties with it prior to the 1979 Revolution. After that, things went down into the pits, and I suggest the reason was that having Israel and the US as enemies was convenient for the Khomeini regime, as they were hoping to find common ground with the rest of the Muslim world by having an enemy in common, and it helped with their propaganda efforts and in justifying the existence of the regime.

So, of course, I am simplifying by saying that the Saudi Arabia-Iranian conflict is primarily religious, but I do think that if there wasn't a religious difference, they wouldn't be constantly fighting one another.

 

[fromelsewhere]

What about the "troubles" in Northern Island. Are Roman Catholics "terrorists" too?

The IRA is definitely considered to be a terrorist organization.

 

[Simple_Person]

Are just revolutions which return to the guidance of Allah good? Or will you only speak on behalf of tyrants?
Please bear in mind that I have a duty to clarify when I see a seemingly faulty premise.

How can something be called a revolution, when it is NOT on the haq? I mean think about it. We say we are Muslims, the Muslims among us that have done their research to compare the so called "free democratic western 'revolution' " compared to the way Allah has said how the rule of the world should be practiced in the sense of justice, of way of life etc. When i talk about revolutions in the direction of TRUE Islam, i am talking about countries with majority Muslims. The so called "free democratic west" is as democratic as it can be right now i would suggest.

What are my observations on that?

- We see Brexit, the "losers" want STILL prevent Brexit from happening.
- Trump won in democratic rules right..?? Yet the opposition/sore losers are still attacking Trump and/or having demonstrations against him. Many Trump voters also right now are regretting and realizing that this so called democratic way of choosing a leader is useless as you will just get another puppet.
- Erdogan just recently won by a mere 2% with the presidential referendum, this means that about 48% is not with Erdogan.
- Macron and other parties joined forces to beat Le Pen. In other words if there was not joining forces, most probably Le Pen would have won. A lot of propaganda/brain programming went out to vote for Macron. Also with him he won about 64% ..that is just way to low. That means 36% of people is not happy with him.

In other words based on how to get the right leader in democratic language, is anarchy/chaos. That is not a peaceful and satisfied society..in other words fail for the so called "free democratic west".

Now we go to so called "law".

In "free western democratic world", when somebody kills my child and me an my wife see that he REALLY REALLY REALLY regrets it and we say we forgive you. Yet the state still punishes him. In the so called "free democratic west" when people go to jail and when they get out they are totally different people. They are even LESS able to adapt to society than when they went in. Where is the mercy in that?

When a guy rapes a woman he gets certain sentence. When we Muslims say such a person deserves the death penalty, so people stand up and say how "barbaric", when we say what if that woman was your "mother/sister/daughter/wife"? They often would reply "i would kill him!!". In Islam we do not have double standards, the woman at the end of the street has just amount of value as my own mother when talking about such things. We do not have double standards.

Islamic law does not change. Just look at things now. First they SHOUT out about how "free" and "democratic" we are, but try to force religious people to bend for them and agree to certain rules. In the past it was if you would not agree to homosexuality..that is fine as long as you do not harm them by any means. Religious people from every religion could live with that. However now a days at schools it is thought to children that homosexuality is "normal" and if you would object to that, you will be fined for it. What happened to the so called "free speech?" "own opinion"?.

Islam has certain boundaries and doesn't matter if we life own 1000 years still those same boundaries are kept. People have free speech with certain boundaries of not insulting. Saying God does not exist, you are free to that, but bring your evidence. Just saying it without wanting to debate/discuss with your evidence shows your dishonesty and your intention to just create anarchy in society. Which is NOT oke and such people should be prevented to do so as they are not really wanting to search the truth, but rather just create destruction in society.

So no brother revolution to go back to the right path of Allah and not that of the so called "free democratic west". As the "free democratic west" is destroying itself from within.

EDIT: Brother you cannot expect me to reply within minutes/hours. Give people time .

 

[Simple_Person]

Western powers are against Bashar al-Assad in Syria, but they are wary of intervening too much in Syria due to their past blunders in the region. So they focus on ISIS: a terrorist group that is everyone's enemy. Personally, I think that the less the West intervenes in the Middle East, the better. Western powers are very supportive of Saudi Arabia's Royal family due to money and oil ties. It is very hypocritical of their part, but I must say that although you can criticize Saudi's royal family on many regards, they are ok - not evil dictators. If they were to be replaced by force by some other 'leaders', things would likely become worse in the region for a long time before they became better. Elsewhere, it depends. The matter of fact is that countries in the Middle East have usually had dictators (sultans, shahs, religious leaders, and so on) because they are not fond of democracy and a lot of countries in the ME have big social divides on religion/ethnicity. It is not the Western power's doing. The West has naively (and dumbly) brought down Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi thinking that the countries under the leadership of these dictators would suddenly improve with these leaders gone, but that has not been the case at all... to the contrary! You now have sectarian fighting and fighting amongst various clans, and terrorist groups like ISIS have emerged.

The fault lies in both the West for intervening clumsily and destabilizing many countries, and the Middle East for not being able to make peace through negotiations.

At the end of the day, though, this does NOT justify in the least the actions of the terrorist who blew himself up in a crowd of kids. You don't "right" a perceived wrong by committing more wrongs.

Sorry to say this, but your analytical skill on politics is VERY VERY poor. What you are saying is what the tv is saying. Not what reality is. Based on YOUR OPINION Saudi is a "dictatorship" but they are "good", not based on facts. You see those interventions as if they were just "mistakes". Such people do NOT make mistakes. A mistake is something that you genuinely did not know, however there are THINK TANKS that create certain plans how to X and what the outcomes might be of X. How to do Y and what the possible outcomes might be of Y.

That is why i believe i have earlier in another topic referred you to this lecture. When you hear those things, i mean i would not even come up with such detailed way of doing things. This goes to the psychological level of destroying something. When somebody takes psychology in to it, that means SERIOUS business. My advice still for you, stop being so .."maybe this and maybe that". These people are not like you and me. While many of us might have principles, they do not. Yesterday they were enemies with Al-Qaeda, today they are giving them weapons. They look at their chances of interests.

IF political interest on X = 10% less by supporting group Y, HOWEVER political interest on Z = 63% by supporting group Y, then it is better to support them. This is how they think. With political interest on X being loss of life for example. They do not care about such things. Look at second video, that is why i posted those videos so that you may ponder for a moment.

 

[Simple_Person]

I am opposed to Saudi's intervention in Yemen, and I hate seeing an arms deal of $300 billion between the US and Saudi Arabia. I understand why Saudi Arabia felt justified to intervene in Yemen, though. They are wary of seeing another country that was ruled by Sunnis being toppled and led by Shias. It is a sectarian war just like in Iraq (though Iraq is ~60-65% Shia). I don't think the West is against al-Assad for the oil, though... with Saudi Arabia and Russia alone, the West has more than enough oil. They don't need Libya's oil or Syria's oil. US' own oil production has been increasing as the technology for fracking has been improving.

Like i said you have a VERY poor analytical skill on politics and strategic perspective. You know the west doesn't care so much about oil as they have much of their own, however how come they intervene in Syria? You do not know this, because like i said you do not see it.

What is happening in the news proves you constantly wrong and you are trying prevent losing face. A true man would indeed say, what you guys are saying you indeed have a point. As i had opinion X based on ABC, however FACTS are showing that you guys are indeed right based on Y and Z.

 

[Abz2000]

How can something be called a revolution, when it is NOT on the haq? I mean think about it. We say we are Muslims, the Muslims among us that have done their research to compare the so called "free democratic western 'revolution' " compared to the way Allah has said how the rule of the world should be practiced in the sense of justice, of way of life etc. When i talk about revolutions in the direction of TRUE Islam, i am talking about countries with majority Muslims. The so called "free democratic west" is as democratic as it can be right now i would suggest.

What are my observations on that?

- We see Brexit, the "losers" want STILL prevent Brexit from happening.
- Trump won in democratic rules right..?? Yet the opposition/sore losers are still attacking Trump and/or having demonstrations against him. Many Trump voters also right now are regretting and realizing that this so called democratic way of choosing a leader is useless as you will just get another puppet.
- Erdogan just recently won by a mere 2% with the presidential referendum, this means that about 48% is not with Erdogan.
- Macron and other parties joined forces to beat Le Pen. In other words if there was not joining forces, most probably Le Pen would have won. A lot of propaganda/brain programming went out to vote for Macron. Also with him he won about 64% ..that is just way to low. That means 36% of people is not happy with him.

In other words based on how to get the right leader in democratic language, is anarchy/chaos. That is not a peaceful and satisfied society..in other words fail for the so called "free democratic west".

Now we go to so called "law".

In "free western democratic world", when somebody kills my child and me an my wife see that he REALLY REALLY REALLY regrets it and we say we forgive you. Yet the state still punishes him. In the so called "free democratic west" when people go to jail and when they get out they are totally different people. They are even LESS able to adapt to society than when they went in. Where is the mercy in that?

When a guy rapes a woman he gets certain sentence. When we Muslims say such a person deserves the death penalty, so people stand up and say how "barbaric", when we say what if that woman was your "mother/sister/daughter/wife"? They often would reply "i would kill him!!". In Islam we do not have double standards, the woman at the end of the street has just amount of value as my own mother when talking about such things. We do not have double standards.

Islamic law does not change. Just look at things now. First they SHOUT out about how "free" and "democratic" we are, but try to force religious people to bend for them and agree to certain rules. In the past it was if you would not agree to homosexuality..that is fine as long as you do not harm them by any means. Religious people from every religion could live with that. However now a days at schools it is thought to children that homosexuality is "normal" and if you would object to that, you will be fined for it. What happened to the so called "free speech?" "own opinion"?.

Islam has certain boundaries and doesn't matter if we life own 1000 years still those same boundaries are kept. People have free speech with certain boundaries of not insulting. Saying God does not exist, you are free to that, but bring your evidence. Just saying it without wanting to debate/discuss with your evidence shows your dishonesty and your intention to just create anarchy in society. Which is NOT oke and such people should be prevented to do so as they are not really wanting to search the truth, but rather just create destruction in society.

So no brother revolution to go back to the right path of Allah and not that of the so called "free democratic west". As the "free democratic west" is destroying itself from within.

EDIT: Brother you cannot expect me to reply within minutes/hours. Give people time .

I'm wondering if you really replied........


It's nice to see methods and tactics becoming clearer though........

Revolution is bad...
....How can something be called a revolution, when it is NOT on the haq?
....the so called "free democratic western 'revolution' .
So no brother revolution to go back to the right path of Allah and not that of the so called "free democratic west". As the "free democratic west" is destroying itself from within.

maybe it's a zero sum that we are just to wisen up on....


ous words.
033:070 Shakir
:
O you who believe! be careful of(your duty to) Allah and speak the right word,
033:070 Sherali
:
O ye who believe ! Fear ALLAH and say the straightforward word.
033:070 Yusufali
:
O ye who believe! Fear Allah, and (always) say a word directed to the Right:

71. That He may make your conduct whole and sound and forgive you your sins: He that obeys Allah and His Messenger, has already attained the highest achievement.
72. We did indeed offer the Trust to the Heavens and the Earth and the Mountains; but they refused to undertake it, being afraid thereof: but man undertook it;- He was indeed unjust and foolish;-
73. (With the result) that Allah has to punish the Hypocrites, men and women, and the Unbelievers, men and women, and Allah turns in Mercy to the Believers, men and women: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

 

[Serinity]

heck just last night one person on whatsapp told me I was lucky - I had to explain that LUCK is a false concept. Allah wills. this minor shirk is what the Muslims have no idea about - replace the word LUCK with FORTUNE to be in line with Islamic reasoning, simple stuff like this is unnoticed by Muslims.

Yeah, it irks me to see "good luck".. Because there is no luck, there is only The will of Allah.

Sometimes, one needs HARSH reminders, harsh warnings. Because if we sugar coat that, we aren't showing / conveying reality.

 

[Scimitar]

Problem is Serenity - People today are so sensitive that guys have become girls!

This has all been prophesied! vAnd we are witnessing this before our very own eyes.

Scimi

 

[Simple_Person]

I'm wondering if you really replied........


It's nice to see methods and tactics becoming clearer though........

maybe it's a zero sum that we are just to wisen up on....


ous words.
033:070 Shakir
:
O you who believe! be careful of(your duty to) Allah and speak the right word,
033:070 Sherali
:
O ye who believe ! Fear ALLAH and say the straightforward word.
033:070 Yusufali
:
O ye who believe! Fear Allah, and (always) say a word directed to the Right:

71. That He may make your conduct whole and sound and forgive you your sins: He that obeys Allah and His Messenger, has already attained the highest achievement.
72. We did indeed offer the Trust to the Heavens and the Earth and the Mountains; but they refused to undertake it, being afraid thereof: but man undertook it;- He was indeed unjust and foolish;-
73. (With the result) that Allah has to punish the Hypocrites, men and women, and the Unbelievers, men and women, and Allah turns in Mercy to the Believers, men and women: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

I am not sure what you try to say, however when i speak the path of truth, i speak about..standing up against injustice..done to Muslims or non-Muslims. Standing up against a dictator, standing up against the one who is pointing the gun at you and still speak the truth.

 

[Silas]

Generally speaking, people in the west do not blame Islam for these attacks.

There are those who are angry and frustrated, and have very little knowledge of Islam or the situation in the Middle-East, and they make snap judgments. The terrorists prey upon the sensibilities of these people to paint Muslims as a dangerous enemy. Nevertheless, I don't think it is working.

Others may blame "Muslims" in some general way for criminal actions by immigrants or refugees in Europe, when this has nothing to do with the religion, and everything to do with culture/upbringing, etc. There are criminals in every nation and of every ethnicity, but somehow in this instance, religion gets conflated with the behavior.

Where I live, we have an enormous crime problem, and it isn't Muslims committing the crimes. Those are the most peaceful people in the city lol

It is important not to assume that westerners, Christians, etc. will view Muslims as dangerous, or the "other". That simply isn't the case, and one should not have a persecution-complex.

 

[Atta Rahman]

I can half agree with you,

what I do not agree with is your contradiction:

you said to stop vilifying the west then in the same breath - you said - we need to take a critical look at our society - guess what? that's the same thing.

if I'm to critique the western society - then brother - it will be vilified!

Scimi

Just because you can't critique something without vilifying it does not mean it's the same thing. It just means you are incapable of productive criticism. Others are beyond your incapability.

 

[Serinity]

The West does not move based on morality or justice, but purely on self-interest, and same with Russia.

Allahu alam.

 

[Scimitar]

The West does not move based on morality or justice, but purely on self-interest, and same with Russia.

Allahu alam.

Potent comment, let me add to it in sh'Allah

The west teaches Evolution as a fact though it is unproven and subject to belief held in bias. This belief teaches "survival of the fittest" - the antithesis to "moral anchoring" - because altruism remains unexplained by evolutionists. Altruism is a human trait which is also shared in the animal and insect kingdom - take for example ant colonies which work together -each ant knows its role - or how about the bees which build hives for their queen? or how about (enter XYZ) this argumentum ad ignorantium is visibly flawed from the atheist - and so when applied to humans - fails even more.

Islam has always existed - from Adam AS til today - and so this is where we get our moral anchoring from - and it is only the godless evolutionist who claim moral anchoring without justification - and with strong opposition to his own ideals of "survival of the fittest" - this stupidity is oft overlooked by them and doesn't work out logically. And logic was never their strong point. Let's face it - any scientific mind which asks HOW and ignores the WHY is obviously half baked!

I love being a Muslim

Scimi

 

[Scimitar]

Just because you can't critique something without vilifying it does not mean it's the same thing. It just means you are incapable of productive criticism. Others are beyond your incapability.

you are absolutely wrong.

You do it then, let's see how you fare since youy posed the challenge first - i'll let you go first einstein as for your caveat of Constructive Criticism - where did you write "constructive" in your initial post? You just wrote "criticism"... but I'll entertain your premise - so go ahead lol

You are gonna get schooled so hard wallahi, you will wish you wasn't fasting so you could go ape!

Scimi

 

[Abz2000]

If anyone can critique secularist society honestly and holistically and sincerely based on a stable and uncontradictory method of judgement without ending up automatically vilifying it - they deserve a Nobel prize for doing the impossible and a gold medal for Olympic grade semantics.

 

[Zafran]

Iran shares borders with both Afghanistan and Pakistan and Farsi is very close to Pashto and Dari (Afghanistan's official languages, and many Pakistanis speak Pashto). Also, Iranians, Afghans, and Pakistanis are not Arabs; they are ethnically-speaking closer to Iranians. So while it's true that Afghans and Pakistans are Sunni in majority, they share other things in common with Iran, so they are less anti-Iran than Saudi Arabia and its allies. As for Turkey, they are also not Arabs, but if there was to be a war between Iran and Saudi Arabia (may that never happen), I am sure that they would side with Saudi Arabia. As for Israel, Iran has had relatively good ties with it prior to the 1979 Revolution. After that, things went down into the pits, and I suggest the reason was that having Israel and the US as enemies was convenient for the Khomeini regime, as they were hoping to find common ground with the rest of the Muslim world by having an enemy in common, and it helped with their propaganda efforts and in justifying the existence of the regime.

So, of course, I am simplifying by saying that the Saudi Arabia-Iranian conflict is primarily religious, but I do think that if there wasn't a religious difference, they wouldn't be constantly fighting one another.

Disagree Pakistan has many languages but its official language is Urdu - It also shares culturally a lot more with India (as Pakistan and India were one before partition 1947) however both countries dont like each other because of Kashmir. Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran are good with each other simply because they are next each other and rely on each other for trade not due to religion. The same relationship explains why Pakistan is on good terms with china.

Iran had good relations with the US and Isreal before 1979 because of the shah of Iran (not a nice guy). The ayatollah had a lot of support in Iran because the shah was perceived to be corrupt, He also came into power by overthrowing a democratically elected government with the help with the US (1953 coup). All this went against him.

I dont believe Turkey would support anyone in a war with the saudis and Iranian simply because it has too much on its own plate (syria, the kurds, internal issues). It would most likely stay out just like it did with the war with in the 80s between Iraq and Iran.

Ultimately what I'm saying is that your over emphasis on sectarian lines isn't a good explanation on whats actually is happening. It simply doesn't take in account of the bigger issues - Why does a Iranian religious theocracy support a secularist Baathist government in Syria but against them in The Iran and Iraq war in the 80s? Why does Saudi Arabia not like Isis even though they have some similarities? Why do the Turks not like the Kurds even though both are sunni? etc etc All those alliances and wars can easily be explained on geopolitical lines rather then religious lines.

 

[Serinity]

Potent comment, let me add to it in sh'Allah

The west teaches Evolution as a fact though it is unproven and subject to belief held in bias. This belief teaches "survival of the fittest" - the antithesis to "moral anchoring" - because altruism remains unexplained by evolutionists. Altruism is a human trait which is also shared in the animal and insect kingdom - take for example ant colonies which work together -each ant knows its role - or how about the bees which build hives for their queen? or how about (enter XYZ) this argumentum ad ignorantium is visibly flawed from the atheist - and so when applied to humans - fails even more.

Islam has always existed - from Adam AS til today - and so this is where we get our moral anchoring from - and it is only the godless evolutionist who claim moral anchoring without justification - and with strong opposition to his own ideals of "survival of the fittest" - this stupidity is oft overlooked by them and doesn't work out logically. And logic was never their strong point. Let's face it - any scientific mind which asks HOW and ignores the WHY is obviously half baked!

I love being a Muslim

Scimi

Their belief "survival of the fittest" has always been contradictory to human nature and the Fitrah. This belief poses a grim future and a sadist society of humans. Contrary to the fitrah.

Lets disect it, shall we? This belief says to kill the weak, because we can not have them in our gene pool. To kill the impotent men and infertile women because they are useless and can't reproduce, etc.

And the biggest ignorant assumption of all - they think they created themselves! How deluded, wallahi. They only talk from assumption - but they realise it not. They talk out of thin air, but don't realise it.

And they have deified science. Ignorant and arrogant. But they realise it not.

Allahu alam.

 

[Zafran]

The west teaches Evolution as a fact though it is unproven and subject to belief held in bias. This belief teaches "survival of the fittest" - the antithesis to "moral anchoring" - because altruism remains unexplained by evolutionists. Altruism is a human trait which is also shared in the animal and insect kingdom - take for example ant colonies which work together -each ant knows its role - or how about the bees which build hives for their queen? or how about (enter XYZ) this argumentum ad ignorantium is visibly flawed from the atheist - and so when applied to humans - fails even more.

Evolutionist have tried to explain this by saying altruism exists in species because its gives them mutual benefit and helps people survive and thrive together. Alone they would have less chances of surviving and reproducing. Although I do not believe any scientific theory is a good explanation on morality. As a Muslim I believe it calls to a higher realm outside of science - God and religion -Islam.

Just like science doesn't give us meaning or explain our subjective conscious experience or our aesthetic perspective. It doesn't have much to do with Morality as well.