HOW TO DEAL WITH THE AFTERMATH OF AN INCIDENT. MURDER,TERRORISM ALLEGATIONS ETC

M

muslim brother

IB Veteran
Messages
537
Reaction score
42
Gender
Male
Religion
Islam
THIS is a very specialized and delicate matter,thread.
i can safely say there are very few people in the world qualified to advise on this
barristers and solicitors lawyers have the legal approach.
my experiences have taught me both the legal and slightly different approach
there is also a damage limitation and disaster after disaster approach.

yes it really is very complicated and nuanced.

ill start with a disaster after a disaster...

DISCLAIMER
obey the law of the land to the letter
this thread is about dealing with the media
dealing with the authorities,law enforcement is another matter and all laws of the land must be obeyed
regarding different states of the u.s and different countries ,know your rights and obey the law..completely



FULL PRESS CONFERENCE from San Bernardino Shooter’s Mosque

no disrespect to the elder but
was there was no one there who could speak decent english for the introduction
if its nothing to do with islam and muslims then why have a press conference in a mosque
unable to deal with the usual loaded and incendiary questions
totally unqualified people in front of cameras
no obligation to have a press conference in a mosque,but they did
in fact,there is no obligation to have a press conference
a complete disaster of epic proportions and unbelievably naive
putting mosques at the centre of attention
unbelievable

as terrorists are not produced in mosques
mosques should not be the focal point of the media


TOTAL DISASTER
 
Last edited:
an excellent response to murder

A British Imam's Response to the Woolwich Killing


an absolute masterclass in wisdom/communication and sensitivity

shaykh shams ud duha

 
Assalaamu alaikum Ahmed,

(smile) These are rather long videos... but I watched most of the first one. And I agree. This illustrates well how not to conduct a news conference. Some of the problems were:

Having it in a masjid
Quoting passages in Arabic and talking as if one is giving a khutbah
Poor English language skills
Having multiple persons with no knowledge of how to speak in public, voicing largely incoherent personal opinions
Putting oneself in front of a camera, when one doesn't have anything meaningful to say

The second video has some merit for a Muslim audience, however, I don't think this is the optimal example of how to do a media interview. I would suggest that the following short (under 5 minutes) video is a better example.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9dk6S7QpG4


May Allah, the Aware, Gift us with wisdom.
 
jazakallah..yes ,excellent response by ihsaan gardee

the british imams response was a talk in the mosque i believe.
 
the importance of being specific
knowing terminology,context and sensitivities

radicalisation..in the terrorism discussion its shorthand for many reasons leading to the actual criminal act.
dictionary..over a dozen variations


being told to be a moderate muslim is an insult and patronising
we should be striving for excellence,simple

extreme..there is nothing wrong with being extremely intelligent and in being extremely proactive in being extremely beneficial to greater society

What if your extremely moderate in your use of water to save the planet
Or moderately extreme when it comes to OCD
 
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...-killing-of-muslim-ahmadis-sect-a3357001.html

this mosque was in

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b076cg3d
bbc4 the deobandis part 2...




i dont know if this mosque can be even classed as deobandi


tauha qureshi....the ahmadi issue...total disaster , interviewed in the documentary


once again,if you are not able to articulate in good clear english,without an accent
if you cannot stay away from conspiracy theories and emotional outbursts.
if you do not know your own subject matter and limitations,
also if you have not asked for the questions in advance
if you are not also recording the interview with a witness with all legal rights upheld,in case of heavy editing
if you cannot handle a radio interviewer and react as if you are being grilled by MI5,

then
PLEASE DO NOT DO INTERVIEWS,leave it to the experts or men of experience and know how
 
another issue on the horizon..



like the above qadiyani issue



who bears the brunt of islamaphobia on a daily basis
the ones on the trains and buses in school and colleges


british born uk imams and british born mosque leaders must come to the forefront and not be afraid to be vocal about the need to address this issue.

where should our legal and halal and effective efforts be.
 
Last edited:
after the westminster incident some weeks ago too many muslim orgs went on the "we condemn" mantra in autopilot,without the full facts coming to light

as ive said repeatedly over the years ,is it not best to just say .."nothing to do with me/us/islam"

why constantly create an association between the actions of madmen and islam by behaving apologetically towards someone elses atrocity.

from now on i would say we condemn all illegal and immoral acts across the globe by anyone anywhere and there is no need to be asked this condescending question ever again.
 
An outsider's view ...

Most westerners understand that a vast majority of Muslims condemn terrorism, and that most Muslims have nothing to do with extremists groups.

However, the fear is that Whabbism/Salafism is growing within Muslim communities, and that the radicals are winning over the moderates. Many people in the west also believe that Saudi Arabia is directly financing and supporting terrorist cells around the world. Regardless of the truth of this, there is a big perception problem.

Within other religious groups, violent radicals also created problems. Within Christianity, the Anabaptists sought to directly overthrow governments and were pretty violent. Ultimately, these schismatic radicals were either defeated, or their theology was toned down.

Instead of verbal denunciations, something needs to be done IMHO. Some kind of unified front against groups like ISIS is needed, as their actions tarnish the reputation of Muslims everywhere, even thought this isn't fair. Torture, slave markets, burning people ...

I don't know what the ultimate answer here is, but the perception of outsiders is that things are getting much worse inside Islam
 
:salam:

There is no need for us to apologize, we should just speak Islam. And lets not think we aren't oppressed in the West, because we are.

Lets do whatever necessary to be a better Muslim, to stay Muslim (I.e. show your Islam, do not fear them).

USA is a terrorist, like ISIS. THey bomb innocents, kill innocents, etc. In my eyes, USA is no different from ISIS in some ways.

Allahu alam.
 
Last edited:
Silas said:
An outsider's view ...

Most westerners understand that a vast majority of Muslims condemn terrorism, and that most Muslims have nothing to do with extremists groups.

However, the fear is that Whabbism/Salafism is growing within Muslim communities, and that the radicals are winning over the moderates. Many people in the west also believe that Saudi Arabia is directly financing and supporting terrorist cells around the world. Regardless of the truth of this, there is a big perception problem.

Within other religious groups, violent radicals also created problems. Within Christianity, the Anabaptists sought to directly overthrow governments and were pretty violent. Ultimately, these schismatic radicals were either defeated, or their theology was toned down.

Instead of verbal denunciations, something needs to be done IMHO. Some kind of unified front against groups like ISIS is needed, as their actions tarnish the reputation of Muslims everywhere, even thought this isn't fair. Torture, slave markets, burning people ...

I don't know what the ultimate answer here is, but the perception of outsiders is that things are getting much worse inside Islam
Click to expand...

Greetings Silas

I agree in part that Muslims and non Muslims need to unite against these terrible acts of terrorism.

However, I want to ask the question have many westerners actually pondered on the motivations of these people other than 'they must have been brainwashed by Radicals'.

The fact of the matter is that more and more Muslim countries are turning into war zones, all of which have seen western governments taking advantage either by starting the war (Iraq, Afghanistan) or conveniently staying out to some degree (Yemen, Syria), all of these actions of which demonstrate the hypocrisy of western foreign policy.

This dangerous foreign policy has actually supported 'terrorists' fighting the Soviets in the '80s and now after they had used them now they want to get rid of them.

In actual fact western governments (not the western people) and its deceitful foreign policy has created these terrorists and not Islam itself.

There is an interesting article that goes into some of these aspects more below, particularly in regards to France:

http://www.arabviews.xyz/index.php/2016/08/04/why-is-france-so-susceptible-to-terrorism/

I believe the way forward is first to understand that to solve this issue we cannot just distance ourselves from people who commit these horrendous attacks but we must expose those governments for their hand in the matter aswell.
 
Many people in the west object to the foreign policies that their governments engage in, especially here in the states.

Probably less than 20% of our population supports military involvement in in the Middle East. The public is overwhelmingly against policing the world, engaging in proxy wars, aimless operations against terrorists, and yet our government still embarks on these operations. The same is true in France, where even less people support military involvement in the Middle East.

And yes, it is true that the US and Israel have covertly supported radicals and militants in the region, and even ISIS might be getting weapons and funding from Israel. It is outrageous.

And why is this? Because the American people don't control their government any longer: it is controlled by globalists, banking interests, guys like George Soros and the Rothschilds, etc.

But the other side to this story is the involvement of Saudi Arabia in this. Many believe that the Saudis were funneling money into the Clinton Foundation and supporting Obama and Hillary in return for financial and military action against secular dictators in the Middle East such as Assad, Gaddafi, and Mubarak. The assumption was that Saudi Arabia could then strengthen its position in the oil industry (as other oil-exporting nations were thrown into chaos), spread Wahhabi Islam (against other branches of Islam), and strengthen ties to the globalists under the guise of "fighting injustice".

We cannot ignore the political objectives of some of the Arab states. The deceit extends far beyond the west.

For some of these nations, blaming the west for every injustice in the world is a convenient way to distract the suffering people of their nations away from the real, immediate issues. It deflects the blame away from the government.

There are many on the Arab peninsula who are more than happy to accept military aid from the US to destroy the Houthi rebels in Yemen. They cannot then turn around and complain about western involvement in the region, or the killing of Muslims by western armies.

The radicals who then retaliate against western civilians are doing precisely what these corrupt globalists want. Such actions instill fear in western people toward Muslims, and when people are afraid, they are more likely to accept the premise that "we must fight them in the Middle-East, or they will attack us here!" It also allows western governments to impose restrictions on civil liberties, speech, etc. In the US, we have members of the Democrat Party calling for "hate speech legislation", which will quickly turn into any speech against the policies of the government. People that are afraid and irrational will accept all kids of tyranny.

Attacks against the west also strengthen the position of Israel in that the country is looked at as some kind of necessary democratic ally in a region filled with dangerous fanatics.

We must expose this entire system for what it is, and understand who is involved.
 
adam curtis ..hypernormalisation

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p04b183c/adam-curtis-hypernormalisation

an interesting documentary on bbc i player


but back on topic
in response to your previous post,
there is a battle of ideas and power struggle within islam itself
on a micro level this is even between muslim organisations in the u.k
hence these books which ive read

battle for british islam..sara khan
the enemy within...sayeeda warsi...from my hometown
preventing extremism...hanif qadir

and then there are debates within the micro groups

but there is an inability to deal effectively with current issues,and i find this unacceptable

hence i have phases of activity and times of seclusion and introspection
 
It seems to me that the fundamental question is really a simple one:

Within western nations, can Islam be reconciled with, and exist within, a secular representative government? Can Muslims respect the laws of the host nation while still being allowed to practice their religion and follow their cultural norms?

Obviously, there are Muslim scholars who say "yes", and others who say no. My concern, and the concern of a lot of people in the west, is that Whabbi Muslims are the ones saying "no", and going beyond this to say that Muslims can only follow Sharia law, western governments are illegitimate, and western people are infidels whom are not entitled to human rights or even respect.

Now I am not saying western democracy is perfect--it is far from it, and western governments have problems all their own, but this is the reality we live in. We have some Christian fundamentalists in the states that also cause issues.
 
There are many good points being raised here.

I completely agree with you brother that provocation in no way justifies acts of violence, on the contrary rather I have noticed even by the few posts here that one thing is quite clear.

There are people on both sides unfortunately fanning the flames of hate and retribution whether it is a government that blinds its people by instilling false fears and using that to go to war or its a terrorist group who misconstrue Islam and take advantage of people's sufferings and loss to justify violence, all of which leading into a vicious cycle.

I cannot see how more violence and even persecution from either side will end this.

I believe that both sides have justified grievances and both sides need to open up more to another and be open to discuss these grievances to find a common solution, just as a judge in a court will hear both sides of the story before passing their judgement or even how when there is a dispute between loved ones you would talk to both sides to understand the reality first and then try to find a solution to bring them together.

Arguably were not the IRA terrorist acts practically stopped when the British government finally decided to talk to them...
 
Silas said:
It seems to me that the fundamental question is really a simple one:

Within western nations, can Islam be reconciled with, and exist within, a secular representative government? Can Muslims respect the laws of the host nation while still being allowed to practice their religion and follow their cultural norms?

Obviously, there are Muslim scholars who say "yes", and others who say no. My concern, and the concern of a lot of people in the west, is that Whabbi Muslims are the ones saying "no", and going beyond this to say that Muslims can only follow Sharia law, western governments are illegitimate, and western people are infidels whom are not entitled to human rights or even respect.

Now I am not saying western democracy is perfect--it is far from it, and western governments have problems all their own, but this is the reality we live in. We have some Christian fundamentalists in the states that also cause issues.
Click to expand...

most of us are quite happy to live in the u.k even now.
scaremongering is a new industry both by muslim activists and the far right
 
an unfortunate bump:cry:

we do not have to apologise for the actions of one man
we are not responsible


unfortunately ,many will have to return to work and possibly deal with difficult questions and conversations.
an ongoing discussion in an ongoing investigation
 
Last edited:
Silas said:
It seems to me that the fundamental question is really a simple one:

Within western nations, can Islam be reconciled with, and exist within, a secular representative government? Can Muslims respect the laws of the host nation while still being allowed to practice their religion and follow their cultural norms?
Click to expand...

A loaded question. Those Western nations are not the "host nations" of those Muslims. That term implies it's not our country, that we are guests allowed to be here as a sufferance granted by some other, rightful owners of the country.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top