Muslim leaders condemn terrorism

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

I agree. It is complicated and it needs co-operation and work by two communities: the mainstream community needs to go on tracking them down and putting them in jail, and their originating Faith and ethnic communities need to stop producing new ones.

Actually, the origin of the problem is a political one, not a religious one, and as such it merits a political solution. All religious leaders can do is condemn terrorism and say that it has nothing to do with the religion. But since it wasn't a religious problem to begin with, a religious solution is not going to have much affect. So instead of leaving problems on Muslims' doorsteps and telling them to clean up, you need to stop leaving those problems there. If there is a factory polluting a nearby community causing diseases amongst the inhabitants, it doesn't help if you simply tell the inhabitants to buy more medications. You have to remove the source of pollution.

As Shaykh Salman Al-Awdah said:

In fact, the ones who encourage hatred are certain Western and other non-Muslim politicians and media personalities who seem to be doing everything in their power to instigate conflicts against Muslims in various parts of the world. By their practices, they seem to be trying to give the Muslims lessons in hatred and rancor.

If there are some moderate and reasonable voices in the West and in places like India, they are being drowned out by the overwhelming clamor of extremism and anti-Islamic rhetoric. Admittedly, the same thing can be said for the Muslims as well. However, I must stress that the West is suffocating the moderate and temperate voices in the Muslim world who are on the correct Islamic methodology, the methodology that is the way of salvation for the Muslim nation. ​

Being a devout Muslim and being a supporter of al-Qaeda is not a coincidence. I am sure there are devout Muslims out there that are not supporters of al-Qaeda, but you can look at this site alone and see the two are closely related.

Rubbish. Al-Qaeda is a kharaji organization rejected by mainstream Muslims and denounced by mainstream scholars.

Having said that, I think that the Americans ought to get out of the Middle East and the Islamic world generally. And Muslims ought to be encouraged to leave non-Muslim countries. We cannot live together. Separation is the only viable option.

For bigots who are not willing to dialogue, seperation is the only option. I am still hopeful that there are people on both sides who do not reject dialogue and understanding nor turn to isolation as a cure.

After all clearly some people think that terrorism is not against the teachings of Islam - the boys who blew themselves up in London for instance.

If a Christian murders does that necessitate that the Christian believed murder was okay in Christianity? It doesn't follow logically. A religion can only be linked with the actions of its adherents if it can objectively be shown that such actions are endorsed by the religion itself. And if this problem was a religious one, then the condemnation by the Muslim scholars would have been sufficient. When all the scholars and educated leaders have condemned terrorism to be against the teachings of Islam, then it means that the problem is political and westerners are deluding only themselves when they continue to bring religion into the picture and attack Islam.

You do not see Buddhists beheading anyone.

But we do find Buddhist MONKS and ABBOTS murdering people all the same:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0011/S00003.htm
Are you saying you have never heard of the victims of the Sokka Gakai movement, concerning whom BBC comments:

It was in Buddhist Teachings and in The Book of Revelation, grossly perverted and corrupted, the justification was somehow found for mass-murder. ​

Muslims are more likely to be unemployed

Maybe it would help if we combatted job discrimination?
http://212.58.240.36/1/hi/world/europe/4399748.stm

Just as the Romans did nothing to provoke an attack at Tabuk.

Except for tying up and beheading the Prophet Muhammad's diplomat, Al-Harith ibn Umayr, and subsequently sending a huge army against the Muslims at the Battle of Mu'tah, where the Muslims were forced to retreat.

Canada clearly shows

Absolute nothing until facts have been demonstrated in court.

So the only viable solution to lowering the risk is to lower the number of young Muslim men.

This kind of ignorance is precisely the problem; rather than identifying the environmental causes you make the preposterous assumption that being a young Muslim male is the problem itself and therefore we should eliminate young Muslim males. Your ideas provide fertile ground for collecting Muslims in holocaust concentration camps. It is not easy to breed hatred towards the adherents of an entire religion like the Nazis did against the Jews. But people like yourself and propaganda make it much easier.

 

[HeiGou]

Actually, the origin of the problem is a political one, not a religious one, and as such it merits a political solution. All religious leaders can do is condemn terrorism and say that it has nothing to do with the religion.

Actually they can do more: they can clearly explain precisely why it is that terrorism is unacceptable in their religion, they can tell their followers to co-operate wholeheartedly with the police, they can do so themselves by displaying understanding and common sense when the police don't get things quite right and they can launch a program to prevent their own young men being led astray. I do not see this in Britain but you're presumably closer to the Muslim community - can you tell me what they have done?

But since it wasn't a religious problem to begin with, a religious solution is not going to have much affect. So instead of leaving problems on Muslims' doorsteps and telling them to clean up, you need to stop leaving those problems there. If there is a factory polluting a nearby community causing diseases amongst the inhabitants, it doesn't help if you simply tell the inhabitants to buy more medications. You have to remove the source of pollution.

If it was clear cut that this was not a problem with a sub-section of the British Muslim community but of the wider non-Muslim community I would agree with you. But I do not think it is nor can I see any evidence that it is.

As Shaykh Salman Al-Awdah said:

In fact, the ones who encourage hatred are certain Western and other non-Muslim politicians and media personalities who seem to be doing everything in their power to instigate conflicts against Muslims in various parts of the world. By their practices, they seem to be trying to give the Muslims lessons in hatred and rancor.

If there are some moderate and reasonable voices in the West and in places like India, they are being drowned out by the overwhelming clamor of extremism and anti-Islamic rhetoric. Admittedly, the same thing can be said for the Muslims as well. However, I must stress that the West is suffocating the moderate and temperate voices in the Muslim world who are on the correct Islamic methodology, the methodology that is the way of salvation for the Muslim nation. ​

So you are saying that Westerners brought this on themselves? That they incited young Muslims to go out and kill British people? Why then was this not listed among the reasons those Muslims gave for why they did what they did? Why do similar young men do similar things all over the world whether there are Western politicians there or not? Why is it that these bombings also occurred in Bali for instance - in a Muslim majority country without any Western politicians at all?

As for strangling the moderate and temperate voices in the Muslim world, the West has empowered such people within the West, given them government jobs, asked them to speak up. What happens in the wider Muslim world is a problem for Muslims but I do not see anyone being silenced there either. What I do see is large scale and wide spread support among Muslims for terrorists although I admit it is dropping.

This looks like blaming the victim to me and part of the problem. It is simply denial.

Rubbish. Al-Qaeda is a kharaji organization rejected by mainstream Muslims and denounced by mainstream scholars.

It is not rejected by everyone around here. I agree it is a khariji organisation from what I understand although my opinion obviously does not count, but they described themselves otherwise and whatever else they are they are pious.

For bigots who are not willing to dialogue, seperation is the only option. I am still hopeful that there are people on both sides who do not reject dialogue and understanding nor turn to isolation as a cure.

I would love some dialog, but I do not see much. I don't think there is much to talk about. You cannot talk with people who will not even accept that 9-11 was the work of Muslims. These sort of people (half the British Muslim population I note) simply have closed minds. I came here looking for dialog. I have come to believe that Separation is the only solution. I don't think that anyone else in my situation would do otherwise. Dialog is only possible on a basis of ignorance - ignorance of the views of many of the sort of people who post here and this, I have to point out yet again, is a reasonable site.

If a Christian murders does that necessitate that the Christian believed murder was okay in Christianity? It doesn't follow logically.

If a Christian kills because he thinks Christ wants him to, then either he is insane or he is killing from Christian reasons. If the Inquisition kills then it does so from a Christian perspective and for Christian reasons. When suicide bombers kill for religious reasons I do not see what is wrong with saying that.

A religion can only be linked with the actions of its adherents if it can objectively be shown that such actions are endorsed by the religion itself.

Perhaps. But there is still a statistical link as well. Suicide bombers in much of the world come from two very well-defined ideological traditions. I am happy to agree that they are not orthodox Muslims, I am happy to agree they represent a small part of the Muslim world. But they are not Jewish.

And if this problem was a religious one, then the condemnation by the Muslim scholars would have been sufficient.

So there are no honour killings in the Muslim world? No corruption? No murders? What do Muslim scholars condemn successfully these days? The problem is that there are many conflicting opinions in the Muslim world. I can see why it might be hard for a young Muslim man, reading islamonline for instance, to understand why suicide bombings are fard in Israel but forbidden in Britain.

When all the scholars and educated leaders have condemned terrorism to be against the teachings of Islam, then it means that the problem is political and westerners are deluding only themselves when they continue to bring religion into the picture and attack Islam.

I am not attacking Islam. I have no problem with the theoretical nature of Islam as it is presented here. Or little anyway. My problem is with the actual implementation and the attempt to make that Islam work in the real world. There is a contradiction between the condemnations of terrorism as unIslamic and the tolerance shown towards people I would call terrorists. Zarqawi died and this site was flooded by people mourning him. Who was condemning him? Nor do Bush or Blair condemn Islam, they have gone out of their way to say otherwise.

There is also something clearly wrong with their definition of "terrorism". If suicide bombings against British people are acceptable in Iraq, I can see why a young man might think they are acceptable against British people in Britain. Can't you?

But we do find Buddhist MONKS and ABBOTS murdering people all the same:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0011/S00003.htm

We find criminals who happen to be Buddhists and even Buddhist monks. We do not find Buddhists defending them. We do not find organised Buddhist terrorist groups with a specific Buddhist orientation. Just as crime in the Muslim world says nothing about Islam, crime in the Buddhist world says nothing about Buddhism.

Are you saying you have never heard of the victims of the Sokka Gakai movement, concerning whom BBC comments:

It was in Buddhist Teachings and in The Book of Revelation, grossly perverted and corrupted, the justification was somehow found for mass-murder. ​

Sorry but I could only find one rape case on that website. Don't you mean some other splinter fringe group? That is, I admit, one rape case too many, but how many do you think I could find in Pakistani madrassas if I did a quick google search? Again that does not reflect on Islam.

Maybe it would help if we combatted job discrimination?
http://212.58.240.36/1/hi/world/europe/4399748.stm

If it is discrimination. Sikhs and Hindus do not have these problems in Britain (which has a similar unemployment rate to France oddly enough even though it has a much lower unemployment rate overall).

Absolute nothing until facts have been demonstrated in court.

And yet the people who ran the mosque are happy to say they knew what was being preached.

This kind of ignorance is precisely the problem; rather than identifying the environmental causes you make the preposterous assumption that being a young Muslim male is the problem itself and therefore we should eliminate young Muslim males. Your ideas provide fertile ground for collecting Muslims in holocaust concentration camps. It is not easy to breed hatred towards the adherents of an entire religion like the Nazis did against the Jews. But people like yourself and propaganda make it much easier.

Where is the ignorance? I do not see any environmental causes, nor do I see any Muslims helping to identify any except saying it is all the West's fault. By all means I would love to hear what you have in mind. I would prefer to identify those elements that cause young men to do this. But what links young Muslim men in Britain, Spain, Pakistan, Iraq, Turkey, Afghanistan, Thailand, Indonesia, and perhaps Canada? To me it looks like suicide bombs, young men, and their flawed understanding of their religion. What other causes can you pinpoint?

 

[KAding]

Actually, the origin of the problem is a political one, not a religious one [...]

Sure it is political. But who ever said that religions can't be political?

As is explained in the 'Basics of Islam' section:

Islam is not for the mosque only, it is for daily life, a guide to life in all its aspects: socially, economically, and politically.

http://www.islamicboard.com/basics-islam/54-what-islam.html

Isn't this seperation between a political problem and a religious problem a false seperation?

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Actually they can do more: they can clearly explain precisely why it is that terrorism is unacceptable in their religion, they can tell their followers to co-operate wholeheartedly with the police, they can do so themselves by displaying understanding and common sense when the police don't get things quite right and they can launch a program to prevent their own young men being led astray.

All these steps are being undertaken by Muslim organizations, despite the lack of acknowledgement or support they recieve from the non-muslim community. Many Islamic Institutes in the west teach their students to reject extremism and violence and thus aid in promoting the true Islamic teachings amongst the younger generation.

As for Muslim countries, since Saudi Arabia is often accused of being the source of of extremism and violent ideologies, I'll post the following report from Saudi:
http://www.saudiembassy.net/ReportLink/Report_Extremism_May04.pdf
If one goes through the above report it becomes apparent how nonsensical the accusations against Saudi are, given the fact that they are probably doing more than anyone else to combat this extremism and have provided the absolute condemnation of such violence from all their scholars.

If it was clear cut that this was not a problem with a sub-section of the British Muslim community but of the wider non-Muslim community I would agree with you. But I do not think it is nor can I see any evidence that it is.

Actually that negates nothing. The fact that it is a political problem does not contradict in anyway that Muslims are the subjects of that problem. The political situation in the Muslim world is the source of this conflict and that is obvious when one looks at the causes of all the violence. The same places are always referenced; clean up the political problems in those places, and you can remove the source of the problem.

So you are saying that Westerners brought this on themselves?

Not all or even most westerners. But many, including politicans, are using anti-islamic rhetoric and domestic and foreign policies to isolate the Muslim community, to instill isolationist intolerant views towards Muslims (which has been successful in your case), and to instigate conflicts in the Muslim world.

As for strangling the moderate and temperate voices in the Muslim world, the West has empowered such people within the West, given them government jobs, asked them to speak up.

It has certainly not. Instead, it empowers secularist "muslims" in the west who are rejected by mainstream Muslims, people who say that the trouble is with Islam, or that Islam is in need of reform, and that we need to reject our Muslim scholars and become 'moderates', by which they mean people who do not pray salah, follow the Islamic regulations and prohibitions. On almost a daily basis we see these people in the western media slandering Islam or Muslim scholars.

What I do see is large scale and wide spread support among Muslims for terrorists although I admit it is dropping.

In the face of all these condemnations, for you to say something like this sheer obstinance.

It is not rejected by everyone around here. I agree it is a khariji organisation from what I understand although my opinion obviously does not count, but they described themselves otherwise and whatever else they are they are pious.

Of course they superficially appear pious, that is what the Prophet Muhammad pbuh warned us about them. They recite the Qur'an but it does not go beneath their throats.

I would love some dialog, but I do not see much.

How can someone who calls for the isolation of all Muslims from the west and the elimination of all young Muslim males complain that there are no efforts for dialogue? You have to be prepared to dialogue and share understanding.

You cannot talk with people who will not even accept that 9-11 was the work of Muslims.

There are many Non-muslims who believe the same thing. I don't see how it should be an obstacle to dialogue if both sides agree that it was a despicable act and that we need to foster understanding.

If a Christian kills because he thinks Christ wants him to, then either he is insane or he is killing from Christian reasons.

These terrorists have not killed because they think God wants them, but because of the political climate in the world they mistakenly feel their actions are justified.

I am happy to agree that they are not orthodox Muslims, I am happy to agree they represent a small part of the Muslim world.

And yet you call for blanket rejection of the entire Muslim world and any dialogue with Muslims.

So there are no honour killings in the Muslim world?

Totally unislamic:
http://islamtoday.com/show_detail_section.cfm?q_id=154&main_cat_id=6

No corruption? No murders?

Found in every country, especially third world countries.

There is a contradiction between the condemnations of terrorism as unIslamic and the tolerance shown towards people I would call terrorists.

There is no tolerance shown to terrorists, we reject them fully.

There is also something clearly wrong with their definition of "terrorism". If suicide bombings against British people are acceptable in Iraq, I can see why a young man might think they are acceptable against British people in Britain. Can't you?

They are not acceptable anywhere.

We find criminals who happen to be Buddhists and even Buddhist monks.

And yet no Muslim scholars.

Just as crime in the Muslim world says nothing about Islam, crime in the Buddhist world says nothing about Buddhism.

Exactly. So why decieve yourself by attempting to draw a fictitious link?

Sorry but I could only find one rape case on that website.

I was referring to the ideology of mass-murder, actually.

If it is discrimination. Sikhs and Hindus do not have these problems in Britain

And yet how many times do we see Sikhism and Hinduism maligned in the media? How many times do we see Guru Nanak depicted as a terrorist? Discrimination is against Muslims.,

And yet the people who ran the mosque are happy to say they knew what was being preached.

Where have any facts been provided about what was being preached? Only unsubstantiated allegations. One rabid muslim in the community took the opportunity to lash out at one Islamic institute, blaming them for extremism and violent ideologies imported from Saudi, despite the fact that both denounce extremism:
http://www.almaghrib.org/documents/statementJune9.pdf
http://www.saudiembassy.net/ReportLink/Report_Extremism_May04.pdf

But what links young Muslim men in Britain, Spain, Pakistan, Iraq, Turkey, Afghanistan, Thailand, Indonesia, and perhaps Canada? To me it looks like suicide bombs, young men, and their flawed understanding of their religion. What other causes can you pinpoint?

Let me ask you this: where were young Muslim men a few decades ago? Did they not exist? We Muslims have been here for 1400 years; why then has this phenomenon of "Muslim terror" only emerged in the past few decades after the spread of warfare, and political and societal corruption in Muslim countries? Could there be any connection? "Of course not!", The bigot would say. "Sheer coincidence!"

You make it sound as though young Muslim men are some strange alien phenomenon that have come from outerspace to earth during the past few years! Look at the largest wars in this past century - world war 1 and world war 2, the causes of the most war casualties. Where were the young Muslim men there?? The west was involved there, but not the Muslims.

Sure it is political. But who ever said that religions can't be political?

As is explained in the 'Basics of Islam' section:

http://www.islamicboard.com/basics-islam/54-what-islam.html

Isn't this seperation between a political problem and a religious problem a false seperation?

You're confusing two things - on one hand you have the political situation of Muslims in the world, and on the other hand you have Islam's guidance in political governmental affairs. Since the latter is not being implemented anywhere in the world, raising it here is a null point.

Regards

 

[MinAhlilHadeeth]

MashaAllah, interesting debate. Ansar seems to be handling it better than me.... so I guess i'm gonna spectate for a while.
And sorry if I was involved in nay 'mud-slinging'.

 

[Danish]

jazakallah khair for sharing

 

[KAding]

You're confusing two things - on one hand you have the political situation of Muslims in the world, and on the other hand you have Islam's guidance in political governmental affairs. Since the latter is not being implemented anywhere in the world, raising it here is a null point.

Regards

I disagree. Since those who commit these acts of terror do it in the name of Islam it is hardly a mute point. The only reason why the perceived problem of Muslims in Iraq is also the problem of Muslims in Britain is exactly because of Islamic religious doctrine on unity. That it, being Islamic Law, is not being implemented anywhere is irrelevant, since we are not dealing with state actors here. There are many Muslims who do want to implement it and attempt to do exactly that by organizing in movements. Some of these movements use peaceful means, others do not.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Re: Al aqsa mosque

I disagree. Since those who commit these acts of terror do it in the name of Islam it is hardly a mute point.

I said that you're raising the political guidance of Islam here was a null point. Please show me what political legislation in Islam is involved in these acts. These acts are clearly motivated by the political situation that has arisen over the past few years.

 

[wilberhum]

Muslim leaders condemn terrorism
This is far from the first time that “Muslim leaders condemn terrorism”.
But as I see it there are two problems.
1) They always use the qualification of “Innocent Civilians”. Now according to OBL since I pay taxes, I am not an innocent civilian. OBL’s stance is never denied nor is there a definition given for “Innocent Civilians”. In fact I don’t believe there is no unified definition of what a terrorist is.
2) Terrorists are not identified. There are still millions out there praising OBL and other terrorists that murder anyone in there path, Muslim or not.

The condemnation becomes kind of empty when there are no definitions or examples.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

1) They always use the qualification of “Innocent Civilians”. Now according to OBL since I pay taxes, I am not an innocent civilian. OBL’s stance is never denied nor is there a definition given for “Innocent Civilians”.

In Islam, all non-combatants are innocent and we see this in the understanding of the Prophet and his companions.

2) Terrorists are not identified.

Not so:
http://www.al-athariyyah.com/Data_Files/Articles/Terrorism/CalamityofbinLaadin.pdf
http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/downloads/pdf/GSC020003.pdf

The reasons why they are seldom identified, is because the most important thing is to condemn the actions (eg. 9/11) because that is the reason for the condemnation in the first place.

Regards

 

[wilberhum]

Ansar Al-'Adl
The reasons why they are seldom identified, is because the most important thing is to condemn the actions (eg. 9/11) because that is the reason for the condemnation in the first place.

That ‘s a very short list. And if “the most important thing is to condemn the actions’, why does it, at least in practice, only apply to Muslims? Myself, I conceder it a “cheap out”. There is not a terrorist out there that is not someone’s hero. If you don’t name names and identify specific actions, then there will always be a replacement supply. As long as there is not individual condemnation, people will always think that it does not apply to there “Hero”. At least thats my openion.

 

[Ninth_Scribe]

In Islam, all non-combatants are innocent and we see this in the understanding of the Prophet and his companions.

Regards

Issue: You say "In Islam" all "non-combatants" are innocent? I have to ask this question or the sake of clarity... of what crime?

I read that an Afghan who desired to convert to christianity barely escaped a death penalty. This issue presented itself while I was trying to understand how Zarqawi justified attacks against the Shia. These two issues became interlocked as: Abandoning of the religion = Treason. So whether they actually faught or put someone else up to the fighting (as Dr. Zawahiri accused Nuri Maliki of doing in his recent video tribute), really doesn't matter.

Or am I missing something here? Would love more elaboration, if you'd care to indulge me.

Ninth Scribe

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

That ‘s a very short list.

I could have kept looking up references and continued posting them but since only one counterexample is required to refute a claim, it wasn't necessary. Your claim that Muslim scholars are condemning with names stands refuted. Secondly, these are not nobodys I have quoted here. Shaykh Abdul-Aziz Ibn Baz was the late Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia and Shaykh Muqbil Al-Waadi'ee is the renowned Imam and Muhaddith of Yemen. Both have been described as being amongst the greatest scholars of our era with a host of scholars who have studied under them. So these statments carry a lot of weight.

And if “the most important thing is to condemn the actions’, why does it, at least in practice, only apply to Muslims?

What do you mean?

Issue: You say "In Islam" all "non-combatants" are innocent? I have to ask this question or the sake of clarity... of what crime?

Of anything which would even remote permit harm to befall them. You mention issues related to domestic penal law of an Islamic state, to be executed by the head of state after a complete judicial hearing and trial; it doesn't have the slightest thing to do with the attacks on non-combatants who are not living under an Islamic state anyway. There is no 'if's, 'and's or 'but's in this - killing noncombatants it strictly forbidden in Islam.

The apostasy issue was answered here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/refutations/4738-islam-apostasy.html
Again this is a matter of state penal law - it is not for individuals to declare whomever they will an apostate and proceed with vigilante justice against them; this is categorically prohibited in Islam.

Regards

 

[Ninth_Scribe]

Of anything which would even remote permit harm to befall them. You mention issues related to domestic penal law of an Islamic state, to be executed by the head of state after a complete judicial hearing and trial; it doesn't have the slightest thing to do with the attacks on non-combatants who are not living under an Islamic state anyway. There is no 'if's, 'and's or 'but's in this - killing noncombatants it strictly forbidden in Islam.

The apostasy issue was answered here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/refutations/4738-islam-apostasy.html
Again this is a matter of state penal law - it is not for individuals to declare whomever they will an apostate and proceed with vigilante justice against them; this is categorically prohibited in Islam.

Regards

Thank you for your excellent elaboration. So what these Sunni and Shia military groups are doing can be construed as vigilante justice since they were not appointed to preside over these issues and there is no Islamic State who appointed them? More questions. Does such a state exist? Or is Somalia the first? The mother of all questions... How would you define an Islamic State?

Ninth Scribe

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Thank you for your excellent elaboration. So what these Sunni and Shia military groups are doing can be construed as vigilante justice since they were not appointed to preside over these issues and there is no Islamic State who appointed them.

I don't even think it is vigilante justice. It is just violence to gain control or to eliminate enemies. They are not trying to implement some legal punishment.

More questions. Does such a state exist? Or is Somalia the first?

No such state exists. There are efforts, but that is all for now.

Regards