to the non-muslims on here...

[Muezzin]

How would y'all react if I locked this thread?

I'm keeping an eye on this thread and will close it at the first sign of trouble. Make sure you keep it civil, everyone.

 

[Keltoi]

you aren't answering the questions and even more you have to realize that some of the people along the iraqi resistance aren't doing any of that, they are simply killing soldiers without harming civilians and are still being called terrorists while Americans can kill and rape whole families and it's a completely different story.

You're right, it is a completely different story. The soldiers who commit such acts in Iraq are punished and universially condemned by the military leadership and the American people.

 

[wilberhum]

Dawud_uk
It is not possible for me to answer complex questions with almost no information. Would I fight etc? Well that depends on what kind of government was being overthrown and what government was going to replace it and why they were doing it. So with no definite details, I can not give definite answers.

Are we to assume that you would fight regardless of the circumstances?
There are some things I can assure you.
I would not torture my neighbor to death because he belonged to a different sect than me.
I wouldn’t decapitate some poor man who was trying to restore the electric while yelling “Jesus saves”.
I wouldn’t drive a car bomb into a market place and kill women and children shoppers.

Thos are just a few of the things I would not do.


I still would like an answer to my question.

How did you feel when your country, the UK, was attacked?

Here is something else I wouldn't do.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79BC9CF4-3E92-4358-95F7-5484672F00BA.htm
Several children were among those killed when a car bomb exploded during a wedding party in Iraq.
The bomb exploded outside a family home hosting a wedding reception in the north Baghdad district of Ur, just as the bridegroom's party was arriving in a convoy of cars late on Tuesday.

 

[AbdulHassanAmir]

Well, Holland was occupied. What the Dutch resistance didn't do was blowing up Dutch or German civilians. The resistance could have crossed quite easily into Germany and attack soft targets there. But we didn't.

But then again. The allies were already bombing these German civilian centres to pieces, so it would have hardly made a difference. :rollseyes

Besides, the comparison is flawed. The struggle in both Iraq and Afghanistan is (and has been for ages) not between foreigners and 'natives'. It has always been between Muslims. The foreign presence was only an addition to an already active underlying conflict. Before the Americans invaded Afghanistan there was already a civil war raging for over a decade. Before Americans invaded Iraq the Kurds already have their defacto state in the north and the Shi'ites where horribly oppressed by a Sunni dominated authoritarian ruler.

Quite frankly I'm not all that concerned about attacks on US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think these attacks are stupid and counter-productive from a political point of view, but it is not morally wrong. For me the issue was never the attacks on the occupiers. The main cause of death and instability is the civil conflict between different social groups. The same could really be said in Afghanistan, the Taliban have very little support among non-Pashtuns. These tribal and religious divisions simply didn't play a role during WW2. While there were token French, Belgians, and Dutch fighting for Germany, they were sent to the Eastern Front and not used fight fellow countrymen. Occupied Western Europe at least was actually quite peaceful, especially in the first few years of the occupation.

That is a severely flawed statement, the Dutch were afraid of the Nazis because they feared them. Also, isnt it actually sort of WEIRD how the first resistance movement (in Yugoslavia) was headed by a muslim himself? In world war 2? And whilst this was going on christians were joining the croatian waffen SS? :? The Muslim SS werent even known for any warcrimes against civilians, and showed extremely little resistance against the allies.

 

[north_malaysian]

The only non Muslims that did whatever the terrorists are doing in Iraq ... are the LTTE in Sri Lanka... I cant thing of other groups...

 

[Ummu Sufyaan]

Well, my country was also invaded by the nazis in WWII, but we still knew who was our enemy: The Nazis !
We didn't blow up innocent civilians with bombs on suicide attacks, neither flew airplanes in buildings. No, we fight against the army, and ONLY the army !
Neither we yell, we do our action in the name of god ! That makes the difference !

im sick of this!!!! how do you know its not george bush (or anyone else for that matter) hiring ppeople, and framing the muslims. think about it, its such a repetitive pattern. everytime an election happens, or peace talks occur, BOOOM!! its those muslims again, oops, better call off the peace deal between palestine and israel, say the isrealies.

guys, really get over it!!!

 

[north_malaysian]

im sick of this!!!! how do you know its not george bush (or anyone else for that matter) hiring ppeople, and framing the muslims. think about it, its such a repetitive pattern. everytime an election happens, or peace talks occur, BOOOM!! its those muslims again,!!!

I love conspiracy theories because politicians have the tendency to lie ALOT!!!

But still I want peace deal between Palestine and Israel.

 

[Dawud_uk]

Well, Holland was occupied. What the Dutch resistance didn't do was blowing up Dutch or German civilians. The resistance could have crossed quite easily into Germany and attack soft targets there. But we didn't.

But then again. The allies were already bombing these German civilian centres to pieces, so it would have hardly made a difference. :rollseyes

Besides, the comparison is flawed. The struggle in both Iraq and Afghanistan is (and has been for ages) not between foreigners and 'natives'. It has always been between Muslims. The foreign presence was only an addition to an already active underlying conflict. Before the Americans invaded Afghanistan there was already a civil war raging for over a decade. Before Americans invaded Iraq the Kurds already have their defacto state in the north and the Shi'ites where horribly oppressed by a Sunni dominated authoritarian ruler.

Quite frankly I'm not all that concerned about attacks on US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think these attacks are stupid and counter-productive from a political point of view, but it is not morally wrong. For me the issue was never the attacks on the occupiers. The main cause of death and instability is the civil conflict between different social groups. The same could really be said in Afghanistan, the Taliban have very little support among non-Pashtuns. These tribal and religious divisions simply didn't play a role during WW2. While there were token French, Belgians, and Dutch fighting for Germany, they were sent to the Eastern Front and not used fight fellow countrymen. Occupied Western Europe at least was actually quite peaceful, especially in the first few years of the occupation.

read your history again,

what happened to those who colaborated with the germans after the netherlands was liberated by the allied forces?

Abu Abdullah

 

[north_malaysian]

read your history again,

what happened to those who colaborated with the germans after the netherlands was liberated by the allied forces?

Abu Abdullah

are you referring to Ottoman?:rollseyes

 

[Dawud_uk]

Dawud_uk
It is not possible for me to answer complex questions with almost no information. Would I fight etc? Well that depends on what kind of government was being overthrown and what government was going to replace it and why they were doing it. So with no definite details, I can not give definite answers.

Are we to assume that you would fight regardless of the circumstances?
There are some things I can assure you.
I would not torture my neighbor to death because he belonged to a different sect than me.
I wouldn’t decapitate some poor man who was trying to restore the electric while yelling “Jesus saves”.
I wouldn’t drive a car bomb into a market place and kill women and children shoppers.

Thos are just a few of the things I would not do.


I still would like an answer to my question.

How did you feel when your country, the UK, was attacked?

Here is something else I wouldn't do.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79BC9CF4-3E92-4358-95F7-5484672F00BA.htm
Several children were among those killed when a car bomb exploded during a wedding party in Iraq.
The bomb exploded outside a family home hosting a wedding reception in the north Baghdad district of Ur, just as the bridegroom's party was arriving in a convoy of cars late on Tuesday.

hi wilberhum,

as it happens my attitude towards the twin towers and 7/7 attacks are a matter of public record and you can find the letters i wrote to the papers by googling "Daw'ud Mannion"

i also attended public meetings and condemned the attacks there. does that answer your question?

now as you know large parts of the resistence do not commit those acts you mention and many of them are also committed by the govt of iraq. how many times do 'terrorists' kill using police uniforms?

do you not remember that a senior iraqi general and brother of the iraqi deputy president was shot recently by a group of people 'wearing police uniforms and driving police cars'

it is a bloody mess and torture is more common and more terrible now than it ever was under saddam, as sad and terrible as that is.

Abu Abdullah

 

[Dawud_uk]

The only non Muslims that did whatever the terrorists are doing in Iraq ... are the LTTE in Sri Lanka... I cant thing of other groups...

kemar rouge in cambodia, viet kong in vietnam, shining path in peru, naming just a few.

now if you go back far enough in each countries history there are people behaving in this way, this doesnt justify or condemn it. but people should not be untruthful about their own people's past.

assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah

 

[north_malaysian]

kemar rouge in cambodia, viet kong in vietnam, shining path in peru, naming just a few.

now if you go back far enough in each countries history there are people behaving in this way, this doesnt justify or condemn it. but people should not be untruthful about their own people's past.

assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah

actually... I'm referring to 'SUICIDE BOMBINGS'

 

[Dawud_uk]

why use the kaffir name for it? what is wrong with martyrdom operation?

now if we think of this as going on a military mission where there is zero chance of survival and i think you will find there are hundreds of such examples just in the history of wwII nevermind other conflicts.

there are also such examples from the early generations of islam where people would rush towards the enemy lines seeking a certain death and martyrdom and no one ever accused them of suicide because their intention was martyrdom and to please Allah.

assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah

 

[Muezzin]

Please, please do not turn this into a discussion of suicide bombing/martydom operations/whatever the heck you want to call someone blowing themself up. It has nothing to do with the topic as I see it, and will turn the discussion extremely ugly as it has other topics in the past.

 

[justahumane]

how would you react if your country was invaded? would you fight back? would you support the resistance either verbally, with money and financial help or perhaps even physically join them in their effort?

would such people as terrorists if that happened or someone fighting for the freedom of your people to live their own way of life?

now what if such an invasion force began destroying your schools, closing them down or forcing them to teach a curicullum that promoted their way of life and denegrated your's,.

how would you feel about such occupation schools?
would you think of them as a building and institution worthy of support or destruction?

ask yourself if such invasions occured on and off for a period of hundreds of years, with parts of your land being taken and handed to other nations to run despite the wishes of the people living there.
how would you feel then if you had such a history?

now imagine that one of these lands that was taken from the whole 50 or 100 or 200 years ago rebels against such oppression and fights to rejoin the lands together again? are such people terrorists or is their cause just?

imagine that your country had been invaded and a puppet ruler placed in charge, perhaps like the vichy regime in france during WWII? how would you view such a government? such a ruler?
would you see the ruler as good or a puppet no matter how good or bad his policies were?
would you view those who fought for such a government or worked them as just doing a job or as traitors?

imagine of this happening to your land, how would you feel?
perhaps at the end of this you will understand how we as muslims feel, one of the greatest ways of solving conflicts is looking to see things from the 'other' point of view.

Brother I can understand how U feel, but permit me to add that the way these things are being dealt with by muslims is utterly wrong and counter productive. I m sure that ways of Mahatma Gandhi would have solved the problems long ago, that too without loss of that much precious and innocent lives. Plz read the article below.


Eric Weiner, Correspondent for National Public Radio


MIAMI - One of the last foreigners to visit Yasser Arafat before he fell ill was Arun Gandhi, grandson of Indian leader Mohandas K. Gandhi. He traveled to Arafat's compound in Ramallah with a simple message: Put down the gun and adopt Gandhi's way of nonviolent resistance.

By that time, it was a bit late for Arafat to change tactics. The Palestinian leader's strategy, all through his life and in his final days in Ramallah as well, had been one of victory at all costs and by any means. But my advice to the next Palestinian leader would be this: Look to Gandhi, not Arafat, as your role model.

This doesn't mean capitulation, but rather the opposite. Gandhi's strategy of satyagraha - literally "soul force" - isn't some granola idea conjured up in the halls of the University of California, Berkeley, nor should it be confused with weak-kneed pacifism. It is a potent weapon - one that helped topple the British Empire and that could prove far more effective in Palestine than the bullets and bombs that have characterized the four-year-old intifada so far. That strategy, which has killed hundreds of Israelis and helped cause the death of thousands of Palestinians, has gotten the Palestinians precisely nowhere. It is time for new thinking, even if that means dusting off some old ideas.

A hundred years after Gandhi first experimented with nonviolent tactics in South Africa, his approach to conflict resolution remains widely misunderstood. A wily lawyer who understood the nature of power and how to use it, Gandhi was no pacifist. He was a fighter whose aim was to transform his opponents, not merely defeat them.

Gandhi's nonviolent tactics won't work everywhere. They couldn't move a Stalin or a Hitler - or a Saddam Hussein. But Israel, like Britain in Gandhi's time, is a nation that views itself as morally accountable and is therefore a perfect target for nonviolent resistance.

Already, there are inklings of a nascent nonviolent movement among some Palestinians. The prisoners who recently embarked on a hunger strike at an Israeli prison borrowed a page from Gandhi's playbook, knowingly or not. So have those who advocate a boycott of Israeli goods and peaceful protests against the wall that Israel is erecting along the West Bank.

But these actions haven't gone far enough, and too often they have been overshadowed by the suicide bombings and other violent acts carried out by Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other factions.

These groups argue that the ends (a free Palestine) justify the means (violence). But Gandhi didn't see it this way. He made no distinction between means and ends. For him, they were one and the same. He once said no man "takes another down a pit without descending into it himself." If Gandhi were alive today, he would no doubt tell Arafat's successor that freedom won through violence is no freedom at all.

By adopting nonviolent tactics, the Palestinians would have plenty of company. Martin Luther King Jr. borrowed heavily from Gandhi during the US civil rights movement. The Philippines' "people power" revolution, Solidarity in Poland and, more recently, the peaceful demonstrations in Serbia in 2000 are all successful examples of nonviolent resistance.

There are examples from the Muslim world as well. In the '20s and '30s Abdul Ghaffar Khan used nonviolent methods to resist British occupation along what is now the Pakistani-Afghan border. Iraq's Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani used his moral standing to end the standoff at the Imam Ali shrine in Najaf peacefully. Why can't the Palestinians be next? True, Hamas and Islamic Jihad aren't likely to adopt nonviolent tactics, at least not immediately, and even mainstream Palestinians worry that "nonviolent resistance would look like a form of surrender."

Gandhi would counter that such resistance is a continuation of the struggle, only through different means. Pictures of unarmed Palestinians lying down before bulldozers about to raze their homes or marching up to the gates of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza - again unarmed and completely peacefully - would be powerful images that could do more to advance the Palestinian cause than 100 suicide bombings.

It wouldn't be easy. In fact, nonviolence is in many ways more difficult to practice than violence. Many Palestinians might die in the process, perhaps in greater numbers than they are dying now. On this point, Gandhi was clear-eyed. He and his followers were willing to die for their cause, just like the Hamas suicide bombers. Unlike the Hamas bombers, they were not willing to kill for it - under any circumstances.

After years of terrorism, the world would, understandably, cast a wary eye toward a new Palestinian leader espousing nonviolence. But once this nonviolent intifada, or what some Muslims are calling a "civil jihad," took hold, it would enable the Palestinians to reclaim the moral high ground and garner international support. And surely Israel wouldn't object to a shift away from violence.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is ripe for Gandhi-style civil disobedience. That's a fact that Arafat was unable - or unwilling – to grasp. It is one that his successor would be wise to embrace.



Source:http://www.gandhiinstitute.org/NewsandEvents/NewsItem.cfm?NewsID=4088

 

[Dawud_uk]

it is an interesting idea... just dont fight and disobey Allah in his command to fight back, disobey Allah's messenger saws in his commands to fight back, ignore the history of islam wherever we have been oppressed and conquerred in the past we have fought back and won.

so no, that is not the way as it is turning away from Allah and his Rasool saws and also from what has worked over and over in the past.

as well as gandhi's non violence you must realise others were fighting and so the brits knew their time was up. non-violence will only get you so far and what they dont mind giving up anyway.

Abu Abdullah

 

[AvarAllahNoor]

Our country is invaded by indians.....Khalsitan is not allowed to exist in the punjab by the hideous hindu regime. I'd support any attacks on the army but not on civilians as this is not the Sikh way. - Army against army full-out war

 

[Asyur an-Nagi]

it is an interesting idea... just dont fight and disobey Allah in his command to fight back, disobey Allah's messenger saws in his commands to fight back, ignore the history of islam wherever we have been oppressed and conquerred in the past we have fought back and won.

so no, that is not the way as it is turning away from Allah and his Rasool saws and also from what has worked over and over in the past.

as well as gandhi's non violence you must realise others were fighting and so the brits knew their time was up. non-violence will only get you so far and what they dont mind giving up anyway.

Abu Abdullah

brother, what is fighting back in your point? blowing or gasing the enemies, flip them off in a negotiation, or just fight back whatever it means?
and for quite sometimes, fighting back is not necessarily translated as drawing your sword or such.

"non violence will only get us so far"...would a violence be a solution to avoid this?

 

[Dawud_uk]

look,

someone slaps me i will ask him why he slapped me, he does it again i will knock him to the floor and give him a good kicking.

violence is something we should avoid if we can, but sometimes there are no alternatives.

Abu Abdullah

 

[Asyur an-Nagi]

look,

someone slaps me i will ask him why he slapped me, he does it again i will knock him to the floor and give him a good kicking.

violence is something we should avoid if we can, but sometimes there are no alternatives.

Abu Abdullah

so brother, the term of 'fighting back' here is performing equal or worse violence?:?