(politics) Muslim Council of Britain statement on terror events of Summer 2007

[barnasha]

The events of the past few days have been very disturbing and challenging ones for all of us. At the very outset we would like to express our heartfelt gratitude to all the police officers and security experts who were tasked with removing the threat from the explosive devices in London and Glasgow.

It looks sadly as if the terror threat currently facing our country will be with us for some time to come. So let us be absolutely clear about this: those who seek to deliberately kill or maim innocent people are the enemies of all of us. There is no cause whatsoever that could possibly justify such barbarity. Those who engage in such murderous actions and those that provide support for them are the enemies of all, Muslims and non-Muslims, and they stand against our shared values in the UK.

The police and security services have the enormous responsibility for trying to ensure the safety of all Britons. As such they deserve the fullest support and cooperation from each and every sector of our society, including all Muslims.

With this in mind, the Muslim Council of Britain will, this coming Saturday, be convening a meeting at the Islamic Cultural Centre in London of key Imams and leading community activists from across the country. At Saturday’s meeting we hope to discuss how we can work better with other partners, including the police, to try to undermine and defeat the terrorists who seek to attack us. It is our Islamic duty not only to utterly and totally condemn such evil actions, but to provide all the necessary support to prevent such atrocities from taking place.

We would take this opportunity to commend the new Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith for the calm and reassuring tone of their responses to the recent attacks in which they made clear that it was unacceptable to hold any one faith group or community as being somehow collectively responsible for the actions of a few. We also appreciate the stance taken by the Scottish first Minister Alex Salmond, who re-assured the Muslim community in Scotland in unequivocal terms when he visited Glasgow Central Mosque recently.

It cannot be stressed enough that terrorists actively seek to divide us and to undermine our collective strength. To be successful in our collective effort to deal with the threats of terror it is imperative that we all work together. We need to have confidence and mutual trust in each other. The challenges facing us as a nation require us to work together for the joint benefit of all.

Thank you.

Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari
Secretary General
The Muslim Council of Britain

edited to add link--- http://www.mcb.org.uk/features/features.php?ann_id=1617

Please do not exceed fair use of quoted material, and always provide a link when available,

[Philosophickle]

Did you write this?

[Johnny MacManky]

Hi there barnasha,

As a Scot living within hearing of Glasgow Airport, I'd like to thank you for posting this statement and the link.

It is critical that we take every opportunity to emphasise that the terrorists who use the name of Islam are acting contrary to the views of the overwhelming majority of Quran observing Muslims.

edit to add:

He's just been screened on UK Ch4 making part of that statement...

[barnasha]

Hi there barnasha,

As a Scot living within hearing of Glasgow Airport, I'd like to thank you for posting this statement and the link.

It is critical that we take every opportunity to emphasise that the terrorists who use the name of Islam are acting contrary to the views of the overwhelming majority of Quran observing Muslims.

edit to add:

He's just been screened on UK Ch4 making part of that statement...

hope they catch all the people responsible. sounds like they have. I like Gordon's response to this as well. Big defeat for the terrorists, good job on the UK gov't.

[barnasha]

Crow: thank you for leaving part of the source, and thanks adding the link for me. I will not cite so much in the future.

[Jnthn]

Barnasha - the rules for fair use of external materials can be found here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/faq.php?faq=campus_decorum#faq_campus_decorum_copyright).

J

[Johnny MacManky]

One of the earlier eye witness reports from the Glasgow Airport incident told of how one of the terrorists was on fire and the folk around tried to help him and put him out, although he was still swinging punches at the police while this was happening. The other terrorist wasn't so lucky (!) The crowd, erm... restrained his head in!

It transpires that they were both working as Doctors at the local hospital, and there are now 8 (or so) folks under arrest around the world, including another Doctor who was arrested in Brisbane (Oz).

[Narnian]

It is critical that we take every opportunity to emphasise that the terrorists who use the name of Islam are acting contrary to the views of the overwhelming majority of Quran observing Muslims.

It is far from the "overwhelming majority". The latest data shows that ONE THIRD of all muslims support the killing of innocent civilians. A third of one billion is 333 million muslims who support terrorism. Emphasising that this is not true will only further the problem. The real issue at hand is the religion's scripture and doctrines. I'm suprised there are still people out there who aren't yet aware of it. I am an ex-muslim myself.

[Crow]

Narnian,

Since you are an ex muslim, maybe you can give me an insight on this. Do the Muslims who support terrorism do so for mainly political or religious reasons?

I suspect that political ideology is usually hiding behind the skirts of theology and the true agenda in many of these acts of violence.

[Narnian]

Narnian,
Since you are an ex muslim, maybe you can give me an insight on this. Do the Muslims who support terrorism do so for mainly political or religious reasons?

I suspect that political ideology is usually hiding behind the skirts of theology and the true agenda in many of these acts of violence.

I don't think it's a matter of it being political or religious; I think the main issue is the indoctrination and brainwashing of the child from a young age that turns ordinary people into monsters.

It's easier to understand from a Jungian point of view. The Hero-Archetype of Islam - Muhammad - was a ruthless and cruel mass-murdering warrior. We know that archetypes have very strong cultural influences, not necessarily conscious, but an unconscious manner. That is is mostly unconscious makes it all the more insidiuous.

I will attempt to give you an insight into the Islamic way of thinking in the hope of shedding some light on these mysteries ....

I was married to a muslim for 9 years and during this time I converted and was immersed in muslim day to day life. My ex, his family, and none of his friends were by any means "religious" in that they didn't stick to rules regarding fasting and praying, and they occasionally drank beer. They all had the goal of one day doing the Haj and then sticking to Islamic law until they die, in the hope of gaining merit for - in a way - tricking God into thinking they had 'changed their ways' :wink:

They are some of the most warm hearted and hospitable people in the world. But underneath there are many problems. For instance, my boss at work was Jewish and I never thought anything of it until my ex said, very cyrptically; "he's Jewish" - those were the ONLY words he said, but they were whispered in a way that suggested that I should be suspiscious. After hearing "He's jewish" every day for a few months, I began to hate my boss, yet I didn't know why. When I laughed at my boss's jokes, I felt guilty; like I was being a traitor, yet my ex had never said I couldn't talk to or laugh at his jokes etc. In fact, even 10 years after I left my ex, I met this boss and I STILL felt suspscious, even though I told myself it was absurd. But if you asked my husband outright; "Do you hate Jews?" He would get a look of shock on his face and say; "Of course not!" He was sickly sweet to their faces, yet always had to say; "he's a jew" or "she's a jew". It was a similar pattern with "the europeans", though to a lesser extent.

I remember one day hearing something that totally floored me. My ex's best friend (also muslim), whom I was very close to, was the most westernised, non racist, open minded person you could meet. There had been a plane hijacking and on TV innocent people were seen being carted away by amulances from the airport with many dead. I expressed my shock and anger at this event, but my friend turned to me, earnestly, and said; "But this is GOOD! We need to do this! This is what the Americans and Jews are doing to muslims, so these hijackers are HEROS!"

I felt sickened. This same guy my parents had given 2 weeks free hospitality at their house yet even they could have been those same innocents killed by his "heros"! Let me assure you that this person was the last person you would ever expect to condone terrorism. I expressed my outrage at hearing this to my husband who, to my surprise, didn't seem to even react. I asked him; "Do you agree with him?" Silence followed. "Well???" Silence, then an unconvincing; "No". But he remained his best buddy.

Condoning this behaviour is only one less step away from being that "hero". The "jew" talk was not far away from Hitler's "final solution". It is brainwashing - and it starts from an early age. No doubt he heard "he's a jew" constantly as a child. They hear that Muhammad (the prophet) was a hero and a savior from a very young age. They are taught to be superstitious of his name and that of Allah, and to not touch the Koran unless you are washing and wearing the right clothing; to always put it in a high place ... otherwise bad luck will fall or Allah may be displeased and do something (and these were doctors and engineers trained in rational thinking).

Islam is not like Christianity - it doesn't seek to give you Joy, Love, Insight, Light and Laughter. It seeks to render you stupid. Let me assure you that for muslims to leave Islam is very difficult, because their emotional roots to this ideology are very deeply entwined with their first attachments to their parents.

But muslims NEED to leave Islam, or there will never be any peace while 'prophet' Muhammmad reigns in the Islamic collective unconscious.

Hope that's answered your question :blush:

[Johnny MacManky]

It is far from the "overwhelming majority". The latest data shows that ONE THIRD of all muslims support the killing of innocent civilians. . .

Do you have a source for this "latest data"?

[Narnian]

Do you have a source for this "latest data"?

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/26/where-terrorism-finds-support-in-the-muslim-world

[Johnny MacManky]

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/26/where-terrorism-finds-support-in-the-muslim-world

Thank you. I followed the link to here (http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=248) where the sample size and countries surveyed are elabourated upon.


Support for Terror Wanes Among Muslim Publics
Released: 07.14.05. . .

Summary of Findings
Concerns over Islamic extremism . . . are shared to a considerable degree by the publics in several predominantly Muslim nations surveyed. . .. most Muslim publics are expressing less support for terrorism than in the past. Confidence in Osama bin Laden has declined markedly in some countries and fewer believe suicide bombings that target civilians are justified in the defense of Islam.. ..

The latest survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, conducted among more than 17,000 people in 17 countries this spring,

(My emphasis...) :shrug:

So, where does your "333 million" come from?

[Narnian]

So, where does your "333 million" come from?

Declined by a few thousand, yes, that's the good part if this is the trend, but if you look carefully, and do a few sums in your head, you will still arrive at a current average of one third.

The 333M total is one third of the billion muslims worldwide. A 1000 million is a billion, divided by 3 = 333 million.

[Johnny MacManky]

Ah... Are you assuming that the results of a 2005 survey of a mere 17,000 in 6 countries can be applied to all Muslims worldwide.

Come on... With that kind of a proceedure, we could produce statistics that say anything... *has a quick google* Here's one...

Most_Americans_Support_Gay_Rights (http://www.christianpost.com/article/20060601/22071_Most_Americans_Support_Gay_Rights,_Oppose_Gay_'Marriage'.htm)
Most Americans...? A Christian source... :thumb: based on a survey of 1,002 people... Piffle.

[barnasha]

even if 100% of muslims supported killing of innocent people, it would be wrong, just as the Quran says.

[mastralvarado]

Ah... Are you assuming that the results of a 2005 survey of a mere 17,000 in 6 countries can be applied to all Muslims worldwide.

Come on... With that kind of a proceedure, we could produce statistics that say anything... *has a quick google* Here's one...

Most_Americans_Support_Gay_Rights (http://www.christianpost.com/article/20060601/22071_Most_Americans_Support_Gay_Rights,_Oppose_Gay_'Marriage'.htm)
Most Americans...? A Christian source... :thumb: based on a survey of 1,002 people... Piffle.

Take a look at another one of Narnian's googled-up procedural statistical posts (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1771508&postcount=1).


The Koran states you are permitted to marry up to 4 wives and the argument is that there are more females in the world than males. But this is a myth:

15-64 years: 65.2% (male 2,152,066,888/female 2,100,334,722)
51,732,100 extra males in the world at marriageable age. https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications...xx.html#People

Even the worst war in history did not "culll" enough males to make polygamy justified;


What a lame googled-up, copy & paste procedure!! No wonder Narnian still hasn't justified her own "putting in G-d's words" conclusions.


Originally posted by Narnian
CONCLUSION:

Allah got his maths wrong, and if Allah got this wrong, then the whole "perfect" Koran is wrong.


Whoever said the Qur'an is perfect. I never read where Allah said that the book itself is "perfect".


:bravo: </Narnian> :bravo:

[Johnny MacManky]

Ah, thanks for the heads up mastral...

Okay, minor Johnny rant time...This is the first time that a terrorist attack has happened right on my own doorstep, although I had friends who lived in Lockerbie and the surrounding area who were affected by that. Oh, and if y'all hadn't heard, the 'Lockerbie bomber' has been granted leave to appeal his conviction. Seems someone may have gotten a bit enthusiastic with the evidence... and this is perhaps appropriate to the focus of my little rant...

If we are going to address and resolve the problems of hate and violence we face in the world today, surely one of our primary aims must be to identify and punish the guilty ~ the actual guilty, and not those who are guilty by racial or religious association. If we are to identify the 'actual' guilty parties, then our information (and intelligence) must be accurate.

The propagation of misleading and/or inaccurate information will simply cause the situation to get worse. It will inevitably lead to people being mis-informed, and by misinformation, the wrong people will be identified as guilty... and the actual guilty parties will be allowed to remain free and unpunished.

:rant:

[Narnian]

Take a look at another one of Narnian's googled-up procedural statistical posts (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1771508&postcount=1).

What a lame googled-up, copy & paste procedure!! No wonder Narnian still hasn't justified her own "putting in G-d's words" conclusions.

Whoever said the Qur'an is perfect. I never read where Allah said that the book itself is "perfect".
]

Kindly explain just WHAT is wrong with those stats? Are you arguing that they are wrong due to the numbers being "copy pasted"? Does copy-paste automatically make a number wrong? Do I have to round the world and count them myself before my argument is "valid"? :brood: Either it shows there are far more men in the world or it doesn't :ahem: If there are more men, then marrying extra women is unfair. As I argued before every 10th woman should marry 2 husbands. That way everyone ends up partnered, as Islam is keen to ensure :eh:

[mastralvarado]

Kindly explain just WHAT is wrong with those stats? Are you arguing that they are wrong due to the numbers being "copy pasted"? Does copy-paste automatically make a number wrong? Do I have to round the world and count them myself before my argument is "valid"? :brood: Either it shows there are far more men in the world or it doesn't :ahem: If there are more men, then marrying extra women is unfair. As I argued before every 10th woman should marry 2 husbands. That way everyone ends up partnered, as Islam is keen to ensure :eh:
I don't like the conclusions and I think that the numbers of Muslim men and women have to be taken into consideration. Anyway, without taking into account the actual number of practicing muslims (women and men), it would be impossible to take the statistics as valid to make them into a conclusion where the Source is mistaken.

All you proved is how desperate the anti-Islam propagandists are to come up with apparently real arguments that just fall flat on their faces when taking into consideration the definition of a Muslim (not necessarily one who claims to be one).

[Narnian]

I don't like the conclusions

That every 10th woman should marry 2 men? Male ego hurting? :wink: Sorry, but ego should not be an indication of reality. The reality is that there has always been a huge surplus of males. Get used to it.


and I think that the numbers of Muslim men and women have to be taken into consideration.

Saudi Arabia - an ultra orthodox muslim country - has a surplus of 3 million extra men at marriageable age.


Anyway, without taking into account the actual number of practicing muslims (women and men), it would be impossible to take the statistics as valid to make them into a conclusion where the Source is mistaken.

What is mistaken about them? Denial is not a river in Egypt, you know.


All you proved is how desperate the anti-Islam propagandists are to come up with apparently real arguments that just fall flat on their faces when taking into consideration the definition of a Muslim (not necessarily one who claims to be one).

The CIA factbook is not an anti islam propagandist association. It collects data from population to Central Price Index to Gross Income and so on.

Now, Masta, I challenge you to find some alternative population statistics that demonstrate that there are more women than men in the world at marriageable age.

[barnasha]

God in the Quran allows men to marry more than one woman (as was the practice in that day), if the women could be treated equally (and a limit of 4 was set); however, polygamy was explicitly discouraged, "one is better for you, if you knew", which is one reason why polygamy is rare in today's (Muslim) cultures.

Slavery was also common in that day, and while the Quran did not explicitly abolish it, slaves were urged to be treated fairly, and giving them freedom was encouraged. Similarly to polygamy, it was a practice which existed before Islam (that is, Islam at the time of the prophet Muhammad and thereon), which eventually slimmed down to next to nothing.

[Narnian]

if the women could be treated equally

All other issues aside for now, let's consider the above rhetoric. If the wives could be treated equally. I would like to ask any male here if they would like to share their wife with another male if she treated you both equally? Does that sound appealing? If you are honest you would be horrified at the prospect. Can you imagine lying there on your night off, thinking that now the other man is enjoying her. Don't forget; she is treating you both equally, so you should be grateful!

Can't you see how sexist and degrading it is to think that a woman's only desire is to have equal treatment? As if the man is dealing with children?

[mastralvarado]

All other issues aside for now, let's consider the above rhetoric. If the wives could be treated equally. I would like to ask any male here if they would like to share their wife with another male if she treated you both equally? Does that sound appealing? If you are honest you would be horrified at the prospect. Can you imagine lying there on your night off, thinking that now the other man is enjoying her. Don't forget; she is treating you both equally, so you should be grateful!

Can't you see how sexist and degrading it is to think that a woman's only desire is to have equal treatment? As if the man is dealing with children?

The problem is that the "polygamy rethoric" applies only to Muslims. The "CIA" deals only with quantitative data on which muslims (women and men) claim or live in islamic states. They have no way to know which muslims are real muslims (there could be a disproportionate amount of women to man ratio), for example as the Qur'an would benefit from a +4w to 1m ratio. Given the ratio is 1:1 or less women than men, which is highly unlikely, you would need to make head count of every practising muslim everywhere AND take into consideration that some muslims are NOT Islamic (in the political sense). Ofcourse, the one who makes such a statistical census, could not possibly be anti-Islamic. The CIA is not anti-Islamic (aparently), but someone who takes into consideration only the quantitative data without the qualitative variables (impossible to obtain) in order to form the conclusion that the Source (Allah) was wrong is, in my opinion, a propogandist.

[Narnian]

you would need to make head count of every practising muslim everywhere AND take into consideration that some muslims are NOT Islamic (in the political sense). Ofcourse, the one who makes such a statistical census, could not possibly be anti-Islamic. I]

I am awestruck at your reasoning :bow: The CIA should give you top job :ahem:

[Narnian]

If we are going to address and resolve the problems of hate and violence we face in the world today, surely one of our primary aims must be to identify and punish the guilty ~ the actual guilty, and not those who are guilty by racial or religious association. If we are to identify the 'actual' guilty parties, then our information (and intelligence) must be accurate.
The propagation of misleading and/or inaccurate information will simply cause the situation to get worse. It will inevitably lead to people being mis-informed, and by misinformation, the wrong people will be identified as guilty... and the actual guilty parties will be allowed to remain free and unpunished.
:rant:

lilMankyScotsGit, the misleading propagation of inaccurate information comes from muslims and dhimmi communists like yourself. What do you really know of Islam and what the prophet Muhammad did? :brood:

Note that Bourgiba, who killed Theo Van Gough said; "I do not feel any hatred: I acted purely in the name of Islam".

Read ex muslim intellectuals before saying that these guys were isolated and coincidental - try Ali Sina's essays or Ibn Warraq. http://www.faithfreedom.org/Author/Sina.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Warraq :yes:

[barnasha]

lilMankyScotsGit, the misleading propagation of inaccurate information comes from muslims and dhimmi communists like yourself. What do you really know of Islam and what the prophet Muhammad did? :brood:

Note that Bourgiba, who killed Theo Van Gough said; "I do not feel any hatred: I acted purely in the name of Islam".

Read ex muslim intellectuals before saying that these guys were isolated and coincidental - try Ali Sina's essays or Ibn Warraq. http://www.faithfreedom.org/Author/Sina.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Warraq :yes:

Ali Sina is the anti-Islamic propagandist who has created websites to try to discredit and collect negative information about Islam. someone who collects only negative information and ignores the positive information is hardly someone with an unbiased point of view.

Ibn Warraq is basically the same, neither of these sources have any credibility within academic circles.

If anyone is interested in knowing the truth, stick to the academic resources, learn history and anthropology, don't read websites or people who are trying to sell their book by causing a stir.

it's better to know the truth without listening to someone else's argument when you're only looking for information to vindicate your opinion. Adam and Eve got such info when the serpent said, "go ahead".

read these people's arguments but also do a little bit of research and don't base your knowledge on a particular subject by picking the most fringe, biased sources you can find.

[Johnny MacManky]

lilMankyScotsGit, the misleading propagation of inaccurate information comes from muslims and dhimmi communists like yourself. . .

Narnian, Your debate method involves questionable conclusions drawn from small sample surveys. Now you resort to ad hom name calling. Why should I pay any attention to your argument, and what on earth is a dhimmi communist? (Politically I'm slightly to the left of Tony Blair.)

Back to the OP... source (http://news.aol.co.uk/muslim-advert-condemns-uk-terror/article/20070705172009990005)
Muslim advert condemns UK terror

Last Updated: Friday, 06 July 2007, 07:32 GMT
- Search: Muslims United advert (http://aolsearch.aol.co.uk/web?query=Muslims+United+advert&restrict=countryUK&invocationType=pa_talktalk_cl_news_silver)

http://cdn.digitalcity.com/aoluk_feeds/article/200707/british_muslims_are_borrowing_b14963791183668757a0_200x150

Muslims United advertisement to be launched in newspapers on Friday

British Muslims are borrowing a phrase used by UK opponents of the Iraq war in a new campaign condemning attacks in this country.

The "Not in Our Name" campaign will be launched with advertisements in national newspapers on Friday under the title "Muslims United".
. . .
They carry a quotation from the Koran reading: "Whoever kills an innocent soul, it is as if he killed the whole of mankind.

[Narnian]

Narnian, Your debate method involves questionable conclusions drawn from small sample surveys.

If you're referring to the Pew Research Centre, this is but one of the MANY surveys carried out with muslims from all over the world. If you look a little further you will find that this research is consistent across the board.


Why should I pay any attention to your argument,

You don't .... unless you want the truth about Islam and its role model.


and what on earth is a dhimmi communist?

A dhimmi is an Islamic term for the non-muslims who are "subdued" under Islamic theocracies. These days dhimmis in non theocratic states are those non muslims who STILL get fooled by the Religion of Peace rhetoric.

Here is a quote from an ex-muslim, and I relate to what these guys are saying from personal experience;

Hassan Butt in the UK:

When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network, a series of semi-autonomous British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology, I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.

By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the ‘Blair’s bombs’ line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2115891,00.html

And Psychiatrist Tanveer Ahmed in Australia:

What we now call extremism was virtually the norm in the community I grew up in. It was completely normal to view Jews as evil and responsible for the ills of the world. It was normal to see the liberal society around us as morally corrupt, its stains to be avoided at all costs. It was normal to see white girls as cheap and easy and to see the ideal of femininity as its antithesis. These views have been pushed to more private, personal spheres amid the present scrutiny of Muslim communities. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,22005648-7583,00.html


[B]Muslim advert condemns UK terror

A good sign, but it doesn't go far enough. Do you know much about the prophet Muhammad and what he did? If not, then I would encourage you to read his life story from the Hadithes. He was nothing short of an inhumane psychopath who killed, tortured, robbed and raped his way across Arabia. Don't you think that the ultimate role model for humankind ought to be someone who isn't a criminal? Who doesn't solve problems through violence and terror? Don't you think that a murderer as a culture's Hero Archetype could at least cause some problems?

I will give you just ONE example of many of the character of this Ultimate Role Model for humanity;

The Hadithes record the infamous story of Muhammad brutally stoning to death a depressed and ostracised young single mother.

Kitab Al-Hudud Book 017, Number 4206
.... He (the Holy Prophet) entrusted the child to one of the Muslims and then pronounced punishment. And she was put in a ditch up to her chest and he commanded people and they stoned her. Khalid b Walid came forward with a stone which he flung at her head and there spurted blood on the face of Khalid and so he abused her. Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) heard his (Khalid's) curse that he had huried upon her. Thereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: Khalid, be gentle. By Him in Whose Hand is my life, she has made such a repentance that even if a wrongful tax-collector were to repent, he would have been forgiven. Then giving command regarding her, he prayed over her and she was buried.

[barnasha]

don't mind them, i'm sure they mean well deep down within.

[JonLanceBarker]

even if 100% of muslims supported killing of innocent people, it would be wrong,

yes to this....


just as the Quran says.

and no to that.

we've already talked about this. where is your proof, barney? :eh:

[barnasha]

we've already talked about this. where is your proof, barney? :eh:

proof of what, exactly? I have mentioned that the Quran says something, whether or not it says it is not a matter of 'proof', it's stating the facts.



2: 190 AND FIGHT in God's cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression-for, verily, God does not love aggressors.*


* This and the following verses lay down unequivocally that only self-defence (in the widest sense of the word) makes war permissible for Muslims. Most of the commentators agree in that the expression la ta'tadu signifies, in this context, "do not commit aggression"; while by al=mu'tadin "those who commit aggression" are meant. The defensive character of a fight "in God's cause" - that is, in the cause of the ethical principles ordained by God - is, moreover, self-evident in the reference to "those who wage war against you", and has been still further clarified in 22: 39 - "permission [to fight] is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged" - which, according to all available Traditions, constitutes the earliest (and therefore fundamental) Queanic reference to the question of jihad, or holy war (see Tabari and Ibn Kathir in their commentaries on 22: 39). That this early, fundamental principle of self-defence as the only possible justification of war has been maintained throughout the Quran is evident from 60: 8, as well as from the concluding sentence of 4: 91, both of which belong to a later period than the above verse.

[OfficialPro]

proof of what, exactly? I have mentioned that the Quran says something, whether or not it says it is not a matter of 'proof', it's stating the facts.



2: 190 AND FIGHT in God's cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression-for, verily, God does not love aggressors.*


* This and the following verses lay down unequivocally that only self-defence (in the widest sense of the word) makes war permissible for Muslims. Most of the commentators agree in that the expression la ta'tadu signifies, in this context, "do not commit aggression"; while by al=mu'tadin "those who commit aggression" are meant. The defensive character of a fight "in God's cause" - that is, in the cause of the ethical principles ordained by God - is, moreover, self-evident in the reference to "those who wage war against you", and has been still further clarified in 22: 39 - "permission [to fight] is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged" - which, according to all available Traditions, constitutes the earliest (and therefore fundamental) Queanic reference to the question of jihad, or holy war (see Tabari and Ibn Kathir in their commentaries on 22: 39). That this early, fundamental principle of self-defence as the only possible justification of war has been maintained throughout the Quran is evident from 60: 8, as well as from the concluding sentence of 4: 91, both of which belong to a later period than the above verse.

Problem is, to some of these guys, not following Islam is an "act of war" (that is, if a bunch of people are refusing to convert or at least modify their behavior, that is grounds for attacking them in "self-defence"). It doesn't so much matter what the Quran says, as it matters how it's interpreted, when it comes to why people go nuts and Jihadist.

[barnasha]

Problem is, to some of these guys, not following Islam is an "act of war" (that is, if a bunch of people are refusing to convert or at least modify their behavior, that is grounds for attacking them in "self-defence"). It doesn't so much matter what the Quran says, as it matters how it's interpreted, when it comes to why people go nuts and Jihadist.

even most of the radical, extremist types who do pervert their own religion know that jihad is against aggressors - not people who will not join your religion..

if you look at a lot of these guys who are attacking others you will find that the situations are extremely political in nature, religion is not the main factor or driving force, for example in the middle east:

1) Israel (secular/jewish) versus Palestine (islam/christian)
2) Iraq vs Iran (sunni muslim/others vs shia muslim)
3) Sunni vs Shia in post-Saddam Iraq
4) Hamas (voted into power because of Fatah's corruption) vs Fatah (US/Israel backed and funded)

none of these issues are religious, even if parties on either end of the contentions or conflicts are extremely religious - as many people in the middle east tend to be: people who take religion even more serious than money.

Your idea of attacking people in 'self defence' actually describes the Bush doctrine strikingly well, and also actions against the (largely Muslim) palestinians by the "Israeli Defense Forces". What predominantly Muslim states have acted in such a manner as these largely Jewish and Christian states have behaved in recent history, in terms of attacking "pre-emptively?" I am sure there are a few examples. It would be interesting to analyze and compare.

[OfficialPro]

even most of the radical, extremist types who do pervert their own religion know that jihad is against aggressors - not people who will not join your religion..

if you look at a lot of these guys who are attacking others you will find that the situations are extremely political in nature, religion is not the main factor or driving force, for example in the middle east:

1) Israel (secular/jewish) versus Palestine (islam/christian)
2) Iraq vs Iran (sunni muslim/others vs shia muslim)
3) Sunni vs Shia in post-Saddam Iraq
4) Hamas (voted into power because of Fatah's corruption) vs Fatah (US/Israel backed and funded)

none of these issues are religious, even if parties on either end of the contentions or conflicts are extremely religious - as many people in the middle east tend to be: people who take religion even more serious than money.

Your idea of attacking people in 'self defence' actually describes the Bush doctrine strikingly well, and also actions against the (largely Muslim) palestinians by the "Israeli Defense Forces". What predominantly Muslim states have acted in such a manner as these largely Jewish and Christian states have behaved in recent history, in terms of attacking "pre-emptively?" I am sure there are a few examples. It would be interesting to analyze and compare.
I would agree that those current issues 1-4 are not particularly religious in basis.
Well, have you heard what Whalid Shoebat has had to say about the whole Extremist movement?

[barnasha]

I would agree that those current issues 1-4 are not particularly religious in basis.
Well, have you heard what Whalid Shoebat has had to say about the whole Extremist movement?

no.

per your comments, it would be helpful to identify exactly what the aforementioned 'extremist movement' is, as well as for what reasons it exists, and how it relates to the religion of Islam and the rest of its adherents.

[OfficialPro]

no.
It would be advisable to listen to what he has to say. Everybody should. Walid Shoebat is formerly of the PLO.
Why is it that on June 4th 1967 I was a Jordanian and overnight I became a Palestinian?
When I finally realized the lies and myths I was taught, it is my duty as a righteous person to speak out.
The Israeli Arab Conflict is not about geography but about Jew hatred; Throughout the Islamic as well as Christendom's history Jews have been persecuted, the persecution of Israel is just the same as the old antisemitism.-- http://www.shoebat.com/



per your comments, it would be helpful to identify exactly what the aforementioned 'extremist movement' is, as well as for what reasons it exists, and how it relates to the religion of Islam and the rest of its adherents.
Extremists include:
the PLO and its subsidiaries:
Hamas
Hezbollah
Islamic Jihad
Al-Qaeda
and groups of that nature.

All of them share a virulent anti-semitism, evidenced by the beheading of Daniel Pearl by al-qaeda.

It's not so much that it's Islam that's the problem, but interpretations within Islam due to equivocation of terms (such as using the term "innocent" in a disingenuous manner by qualifying "innocents" as ONLY proper Muslims, and all others who are Infidels are automatically NOT "innocent"). People doing to the Quran what Fundies do to the Bible and then some.

[barnasha]

It would be advisable to listen to what he has to say. Everybody should. Walid Shoebat is formerly of the PLO.

he was in the PLO? why does that make what he has to say worth hearing? isn't he a christian, anti-Islam, pro-Israel guy who makes a living selling books?



Why is it that on June 4th 1967 I was a Jordanian and overnight I became a Palestinian?
When I finally realized the lies and myths I was taught, it is my duty as a righteous person to speak out.
The Israeli Arab Conflict is not about geography but about Jew hatred; Throughout the Islamic as well as Christendom's history Jews have been persecuted, the persecution of Israel is just the same as the old antisemitism.-- http://www.shoebat.com/


Extremists include:
the PLO and its subsidiaries:
Hamas
Hezbollah
Islamic Jihad
Al-Qaeda
and groups of that nature.

All of them share a virulent anti-semitism, evidenced by the beheading of Daniel Pearl by al-qaeda.


can you show how for example hezbollah has shown 'virulent anti semitism'?

could you show how these groups are linked, to back up your assertion that they are all part of one unified 'extremist movement'?

having done a lot of study on geopolitics, your view seems to be a dramatic oversimplification of the realities of these entities.



It's not so much that it's Islam that's the problem, but interpretations within Islam due to equivocation of terms (such as using the term "innocent" in a disingenuous manner by qualifying "innocents" as ONLY proper Muslims, and all others who are Infidels are automatically NOT "innocent"). People doing to the Quran what Fundies do to the Bible and then some.


you mean 'interpretations of islam' that go against the plain arabic of the quran?

[OfficialPro]

he was in the PLO? why does that make what he has to say worth hearing? isn't he a christian, anti-Islam, pro-Israel guy who makes a living selling books?
Ummm, because he USED to be Muslim (he GREW UP in the religion, for crying out loud), USED to be a terrorist, and is now telling us WHY he and everyone he KNEW in PLO was a terrorist? He stopped being a terrorist when he started studying the Bible.
And why are you trying to "poison the well" with some ad hominems about the man?

According to Shoebat, the PLO and organizations like it say one thing for the consumption of the masses, and turn 180 degrees and say something else entirely behind closed doors. Yassir Arafat is a prime example of such duplicity.



can you show how for example hezbollah has shown 'virulent anti semitism'?
[i]At the same time, as part of its campaign for recognition among Lebanese (and general Arab-Muslim) readers, Hezbollah engages in the dissemination of anti-Semitic literature.[/quote] http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/html/final/eng/sib/6_05/hezb_pub_e.htm

And how about their own television station repeatedly showing the FALSE story of the "blood libel" (the insanely ridiculous idea that Jews must use blood to make Matzo. This is doubly ridiculous given that Jews are forbidden in the Torah to eat blood) http://emperors-clothes.com/06war/hezanti.htm



could you show how these groups are linked, to back up your assertion that they are all part of one unified 'extremist movement'?
They are not entirely unified; hence the separate groups. However they do share a common thread. Hatred of Jews. They just disagree on the finer points of dealing with their issues.



having done a lot of study on geopolitics, your view seems to be a dramatic oversimplification of the realities of these entities.
And who have you been taking their word for it about it?



you mean 'interpretations of islam' that go against the plain arabic of the quran?
It could be hyperliteralism.

[barnasha]

Ummm, because he USED to be Muslim (he GREW UP in the religion, for crying out loud), USED to be a terrorist, and is now telling us WHY he and everyone he KNEW in PLO was a terrorist? He stopped being a terrorist when he started studying the Bible.


So he used to be muslim? That's why everyone should hear from him? Or is it because he considers everyone in the PLO terrorists, as a very small minority of those who have been in the PLO, and since this is the conclusion you want to come to, everyone should listen to this man?

Is there any other reason we should listen to this person other than the fact that he maligns the people you are trying to malign? Have you done any research to verify his claims, for example cross-referencing his depiction of the PLO with other credible sources, (preferably more credible than him) ?




why does that make what he has to say worth hearing? isn't he a christian, anti-Islam, pro-Israel guy who makes a living selling books?

And why are you trying to "poison the well" with some ad hominems about the man?


It was a question, not an argument (relying on a supposed argumentum ad hominem).

It is not poisoning the well to ask whether or not your sole reference or source in your argument is perhaps one of the the most biased and uncredible sources one might find.

stating the facts about the guy isn't really poisoning the well, because the facts here are at the question: is this guy really a credible and authoritative source? if not, why should i blindly assume anything he says is totally valid? Why not use world leaders and researchers as sources rather than hot-button authors?



According to Shoebat, the PLO and organizations like it say one thing for the consumption of the masses, and turn 180 degrees and say something else entirely behind closed doors. Yassir Arafat is a prime example of such duplicity.


To anyone who is surprised by something like this, I would say: "Welcome to the world of politics"

Now that you have quoted Shoebat in his opinion about the PLO, would you like to expound upon that subject as it relates to the matter at hand? Surely we shouldn't let this talk devolve into some sort of anti-PLO rant, especially since the PLO is not Islam.

That's like saying Bush attacking Iraq has something to do with Christianity.



[i]At the same time, as part of its campaign for recognition among Lebanese (and general Arab-Muslim) readers, Hezbollah engages in the dissemination of anti-Semitic literature.
http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/html/final/eng/sib/6_05/hezb_pub_e.htm

And how about their own television station repeatedly showing the FALSE story of the "blood libel" (the insanely ridiculous idea that Jews must use blood to make Matzo. This is doubly ridiculous given that Jews are forbidden in the Torah to eat blood) http://emperors-clothes.com/06war/hezanti.htm


do you have any sources which are not markedly pro-Israeli or anti-Islam in their stances?

forgive me if I am hesitant to explore apparently heavily biased sources as if they were extremely credibly and authoritative opinions on these matters. knowing the information myself, i dont have to read other people's opinions and try to 'connect the dots' in my imagination to try to support some opinion of mine.



They are not entirely unified; hence the separate groups. However they do share a common thread. Hatred of Jews. They just disagree on the finer points of dealing with their issues.


I don't see it that way. do you have a source?




having done a lot of study on geopolitics, your view seems to be a dramatic oversimplification of the realities of these entities.
And who have you been taking their word for it about it?


perhaps the difference between you and I is I don't take anyone's word for anything

i am a true scholar, I do my own research and don't seek knowledge only for the sake of justifying my desired conclusions.

i seek truth actively, if you let someone else hand it to you on a silver platter, you'll get cheated.




It could be hyperliteralism.

sure, it could be

[OfficialPro]

So he used to be muslim? That's why everyone should hear from him? Or is it because he considers everyone in the PLO terrorists, as a very small minority of those who have been in the PLO, and since this is the conclusion you want to come to, everyone should listen to this man?
I'm saying that as a former member of the PLO, the dude has a wealth of knowledge about how people in that organization think.

Nonie Darwish is another that should be heard out.

Even Wikipedia says that Hezbollah's goal is to destroy the state of Israel. Their own TV stations say some pretty nasty things about Jews. Can't get much more antisemitic than that.

And here's a quote by a PLO member back in the 70s:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism. For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa. While as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan." --PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein, March 31, 1977, interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLO


Is there any other reason we should listen to this person other than the fact that he maligns the people you are trying to malign?
Now wait a minute. Slow down here, fella. Do you even know what you're talking about here? You're making it seem like some people have been unfairly accused of something here. Who is being maligned?



Have you done any research to verify his claims, for example cross-referencing his depiction of the PLO with other credible sources, (preferably more credible than him) ?
You have not provided any proof as to why he might not be credible.



It was a question, not an argument (relying on a supposed argumentum ad hominem).
It's a question that presupposes argumentum ad hominem.



It is not poisoning the well to ask whether or not your sole reference or source in your argument is perhaps one of the the most biased and uncredible sources one might find.
Perhaps rather than asking the question, you should provide proof of the answer to your question.



stating the facts about the guy isn't really poisoning the well, because the facts here are at the question: is this guy really a credible and authoritative source?
You were not stating any facts. You were stating someone's opinion.



if not, why should i blindly assume anything he says is totally valid?
why should you totally dismiss it without hearing what he has to say, and judge the merits after you have heard? Isn't that a little bit unscholarly?



Why not use world leaders and researchers as sources rather than hot-button authors?
Which world leaders and researchers? And might I add, how do I know that those world leaders and researchers are not as biased (in the other direction) as you think Walid Shoebat is?

Come on, NOBODY is completely unbiased. It's impossible.



To anyone who is surprised by something like this, I would say: "Welcome to the world of politics"
Uh-huh. Well, politics is one thing, and it's NOT surprising. I understand that perfectly. Spewing virulent jew-hatred behind closed doors is something else entirely. The question becomes, when does the person say what they mean?



Now that you have quoted Shoebat in his opinion about the PLO, would you like to expound upon that subject as it relates to the matter at hand? Surely we shouldn't let this talk devolve into some sort of anti-PLO rant, especially since the PLO is not Islam.
I never said the PLO ever had that much to do with Islam. What they do have to do with is antisemitism. Their terrorist wing members had a form of Islamism, corrupted from basic Islam. The PLO isn't the end-all-and-be-all of Islam but guess what. They're all Muslims!



That's like saying Bush attacking Iraq has something to do with Christianity.
No.



do you have any sources which are not markedly pro-Israeli or anti-Islam in their stances?



forgive me if I am hesitant to explore apparently heavily biased sources as if they were extremely credibly and authoritative opinions on these matters. knowing the information myself, i dont have to read other people's opinions and try to 'connect the dots' in my imagination to try to support some opinion of mine.
Ugh, this is not scholarly or critical thinking at all. Dude, shielding yourself from various sources because you fear what they contain or the bias of the person for whatever reason is not in pursuit of truth. You should at least LOOK at them before dismissing them outright, as you have no idea what you're dismissing. It would be like me condemning the Quran without reading it because I "know" what's in there.



I don't see it that way. do you have a source?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaaZ1dbukYs
According to CNN, radical Islam takes more from Nazi-ism than they do from Islam. Ever heard about what happened with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem visiting Hitler and how he raised up an entire brigade of Balkan Muslims for the German Nazi Army? And brought back some of Hitler's crazy theories about Jews back with him.



perhaps the difference between you and I is I don't take anyone's word for anything
Of course you do. You uncritically take the Quran's word and the Hadiths' words. FYI, I do not merely take anyone's word for something. I examine the evidence before I make up my mind.


i am a true scholar, I do my own research and don't seek knowledge only for the sake of justifying my desired conclusions.
You are not. You have admitted that you avoid reading certain things and NO TRUE SCHOLAR AVOIDS READING SOMETHING for whatever reason for fear of bias. Who are you using for sources; who do you consider "unbiased"? And no, pro-Hezbollah/Hamas/Palestinian Organisations, or various Islamic groups, or something off of some Left Wing marxist or Student Workers Party site do NOT count as "unbiased."



i seek truth actively, if you let someone else hand it to you on a silver platter, you'll get cheated.
I do not let someone hand it to me. I examine it and see if it adds up.

Lemme tell you something, kid. I am not massively pro-Israel; in fact I've been rather neutral (even a tad suspicious of the Israeli side back before I knew anything) in the matter all my life. But what Walid Shoebat said made a lot of sense. You owe it to yourself to at least hear him out. You are cheating yourself if you do not. And judging unfairly, to boot.