Dublin imam takes on the fanatics

[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]

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

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

 

[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

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.

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

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