Originally posted by Viking: 4. If one is talking from a Western, political, left-wing or right-wing point of view then number 2 above becomes null and void. The leftists were mostly against the war on terror , can you elaborate in what you mean here? 6. Muslims that say there is nothing wrong with Islam then sit back and watch while rogue elements hijack the faith and use it for political reasons are duplicitous. Don't you also fall into this category? You said... "Viking, you’re being obtuse now. If I thought there was a problem with Islam (the faith) I wouldn’t be a Muslim, would I now?" [/QB] It is a case of words with you, isn’t it Viking? I have to explain every single word as I write it in case that you would not understand it? What new rubbish is this, saaxib? I thought Haddad was the king of such pointless pedantry (followed closely by Jamaal) but you’re not bad yourself you know. Now, instead of going through all this trouble of scrutinising words, wouldn’t be better if you tried to examine the ideas behind them? I shall not address your last post point by point because it would be tedious and frankly boring (even for me and I’m a patient man, saaxib). What I’ll do is reply to numbers 4 and 6. Number four because it’s integral to all that I’ve been saying all along and number six because it’s my fancy to deal with. One can use Western style moral judgments (i.e Liberal or conservative, left-wing or right-wing and the like) and one can also apply Islamic methods of making a moral judgment. We can’t have both though. In the Western style, we can quote Noam Chomsky, Edward Said, Marx, Trotsky or Leo Straus. We can use their theories to arrive at a philosophical and moral position on this issue if we want. This can be easily done and there is no problem with that at all. Well, none that I could think of, save of course for it not being an Islamic point of view. (but that’s neither here nor there for someone that wishes to use it; one would guess). If your position is one that is political (in the Western sense) then you’re not the person I’m having this argument with. You’ve chosen to play it the Western way and I don’t use those moral yardsticks to arrive at my own judgments. I could if you want me play it according to those rules though. If however, your position is Islamic then you can’t compare Iraq to London, for that would make you a hypocrite, because, as I’ve said a thousand times in here, in Islam one transgression does not pardon another. This business of merely talking of links is duplicitous because the link (again, as I’ve already said) is OBVIOUS and mentioning it is either dim-witted (let us see what OLOL would do with this one) which I don’t think you are, or evasive (which I think you are). But of course, what I think will all change if you suddenly declare your position to be a political one (see above, not Islamic). The second point that I wished to respond to was number six. The one where you ask me if I too was not being obtuse. I’m sure you will not be surprised if I reject that claim of yours and refuse to take my seat next to you on the obtuse bench (at any rate, Jamaal has filled it). I stand by my comment when saying there is nothing wrong with Islam (Allah’s revelation) and though it vexes me to stoop down to your obtuse pedantry, I have no choice but to virtually hold your hand and walk you through this confusing world of words, saaxib. We’ve done it before (which is where the obtuse label originated from) but it’s obvious that you didn’t understand. Very well, here goes: Islam = Religion, faith, Revelation from Allah (or as non-Muslims would say: is said to be form Allah). Muslims = People that follow that faith Islam (also) = the collective Muslim Ummah and is interchangeable with the word Muslim (heck, some people call us Mohammedans too, saaxib). Islam (also) = A person’s name None of these descriptions above matter though, what matters is the way the words are used and the context they’re put in. There is something wrong with Islam can be: A- Something wrong with the faith itself (the revelation form Allah) - Which I’ve already made my position clear on. B- There is something wrong with the people that follow that faith C- There is something wrong with the Bengali boy that is called Islam This should be clear to anyone that is not trying to be obtuse or argue for argument’s sake. Now back to my point and your alleged contradiction. I’m saying there is nothing wrong with Islam (the revelation) and many things wrong with Islam (Muslims today) and I’ve been shouting about it for the past month in this forum. My style might have been aggressive, argumentative, condescending, haughty and irritating but obtuse it was not. Please, please, please tell me you understand and do not come back with a comment about how racist I am towards Bengali boys, etc. STOIC But if we make excuses for this terorist our religion will be viewed by outsiders as a death cult religion. Many outsiders will view it as such regardless of what one says or does. Outsiders are not the issue though. Insiders are. These terrorists recruit their followers from amongst our brothers and sisters. We don’t believe what the terrorists espouse is Islamic. It’s our duty to ensure that every Muslim within hearing distance understands that. The excuses, links to Iraq and other duplicitous statements are counterproductive and unhelpful. Mizz-S Some topics I feel passionately about and , given a willing audience, would write and write and write about. This is one of them. The fact that you and a couple of other people understood what my aim is means that all that writing has not been in vain. PS The battery in my keyboard ran out and I had to change it. PPS I review what I’ve written by reading it loudly and now, my four year old daughter thinks Jamaal is obtuse (no offence this time, saaxib).

OLOL I’m glad you know how to use a dictionary, saaxib. It’s a first step I suppose. Maybe with time, you’ll get over your fear and start reading my ‘lengthy’ lectures all the way to the end instead of getting stuck at the first word. It would be advisable to have the dictionary. com page open in a separate window, saaxib (for when you finally get to the part where I use the word duplicitous). Happy reading. Baashe, I’m glad that you at least understood what my argument is all about. As for my little tussle with Jamaal, well, what do you expect when someone bombards you with obtuse questions like “prove that what I wrote is waffle?â€. There really is no come back there. Jamaal, Deal with my whole argument and drop the pedantry, saaxib. PLEASE.

Originally posted by Fidel: quote:Originally posted by Viking: Fidel, Would you please, in a few sentences explain what NGONGE's point is? These are Ngonge's points: 1) Specifically targeting the innocent for killing is immoral and unacceptable. 2) Doing the above in the name of Islam is a major exercise in duplicity. 3) Equating the killing of the innocent outside of war (such as in London and other cities not currently experiencing declared conflict ), to the unintentional death of civilians in a war is a cowardly abomination. I say, if we only agree on the definitions of declared war , as opposed to naked aggression, occupations and illegal invasions, we'd go a long way down this path. In addition, if admit that the London and other bombings are not occuring in vacuum and that they are in fact related to the invasion of Iraq, we are even further down the path. Finally, if we understand that war, even declared ones, have attrocities, crimes and intentional targeting of civilians (think Saigon, Hiroshima, even London in WW2, etc..), we will reach the end of the path. Ahem, I left the sex part out when quoting you. Hope that’s not a problem. Let me help you out and pen my own points: 1. Killing civilians is wrong (anywhere in the world). 2. What happened in London and Iraq are two distinctly different things. Though there is a link between them, it should not matter to us (as Muslims) when we make our judgment on each. 3. People that try to excuse one with the other are being duplicitous. 4. If one is talking from a Western, political, left-wing or right-wing point of view then number 2 above becomes null and void. 5. Indifference in this case is also duplicitous. 6. Muslims that say there is nothing wrong with Islam then sit back and watch while rogue elements hijack the faith and use it for political reasons are duplicitous. 7. In all our discussions on this subject in these forums so far. I was lucky enough to encounter few reasonable people. Alas, I also had to deal with many duplicitous people and a couple that were obtuse. This is it in a nutshell, saaxib.

Xiin, First of all, don’t let me distract you from doing your job. I’ve taken the day off today (got enough holiday and didn’t feel in the mood to go to work). I wholeheartedly accept and agree to most of what you say. The bit I’m finding difficult to accept is the Islamic part. We’re looking at it from two different sides, and while I can see what you’re saying and where your reservations lie, I’m finding it difficult to make you see what I’m saying in turn. First of all, let us not confuse ourselves with western measures and values on the subject. I am a Muslim and you are one. We are talking about an issue that (though not Islamic) reflects badly on Islam. Like I said, I agree that terrorism is political in nature and has nothing to do with Islam itself. However, those behind it, those using it and some of those that sympathise don’t see it that way. They claim to speak for Islam and Muslims (you only need to look at their declarations of Jihad and the rest of their rhetoric to see that). You’re very blase in the way you reject their claims to Islam and I’m not (I think this is really the only difference we have here). Now, the London bombing took place and people started forming opinions about it and choosing moral positions on the issue. Some did so out of a sense of bitterness and anger; others out of a sense of vengeance and revenge and many more out of a sense of helplessness (note, that I did not differentiate between these positions on the basis of condoning or condemning the act yet). A large number (regardless of agreement or disagreement) sought to link this whole thing to Iraq. The fact that it’s an obvious consequence of the war, did not stop them from saying it, mentioning it and banging on about it for three weeks! To what end exactly? It’s like saying “ I condemn the rape of that prostitute but can’t help thinking that she brought it upon herself by wearing a short mini skirtâ€! It down plays the rape and amplifies prostitution and mini skirts! If the prostitute has no morals, it does not mean I also have to compromise my own by downplaying her rape. Surely rape is rape? Now, if one half of Muslims make such excuses to avoid making an outright and unequivocal condemnation of such acts and another half condemns in a nonchalant and offhand way, wouldn’t you say there is something wrong with Islam here? (I don’t want to go over the word Islam and the way I’m using it here - suffice it to say, I’m not talking about Allah’s revelations here, so please spare me the usual obtuse argument and follow the point I’m making). I’ll repeat once more, just in case you’ve been skimming through my words again: I agree with you on the nature of terrorism. However I disagree when you say that Muslims do not have a problem of terrorism. I believe there is a problem with Islam (or the Islamic world if this will set better with you) because we’re allowing terrorists and political opportunists to direct the show and give the impression that this is Islam (and before you start a rant about how you don’t give a damn about the West, let me tell you I’m still talking about Islam and Muslims and not the West). Condemning, exposing and rejecting these people will not stop them from committing their politically motivated terrorist acts. What it will do though, is stop other Muslims from falling for their highly charged rhetoric and attractive Jihad message. I hope this was a direct enough answer, saaxib. Jamaal, There was an amazing amount of waffle there that still leads to nowhere, saaxib. What exactly is your position? If you decide to join the debate, you have to have a position, saaxib. Dancing around my words and talking nonsense is not a position. Make your stand and spare me the simplistic arguments of “you can’t judge me because you don’t know my stance on thisâ€, etc. This will get us back to the reading comprehension issue, you see! Was it not you who just wrote about Senator McCarthy? Was it not you who asked why I was calling people obtuse? Are you going to deny your own words now? Go back and read them again. See if you can work out a position there. You’re still being obtuse and though I knew it from previous exchanges, I’m now only judging you on the strength of your two posts on this thread. One of those days, I hope you would drop this fake way of conducting a debate, saaxib and engage me instead of dancing around me. Your above waffle deals with nothing that is concerned with the topic and contains nothing that I could really intellectually accept or reject. It’s waffle.

VIKING, You’re still twisting and turning, saaxib. Your position is NOT clear and untenable. You condemn with one hand and condone with the other. I asked you how you arrived at your moral stance, your reply was that the Koran states this, that and the other. Fine, why not stick with what the Koran says and leave Bush and Blair out of your moral judgment? What has Bush and Blair got to do with what the Koran states and your understanding of it? If you condemn the killing of civilians in London why are you then justifying it by talking about cause and effect, etc? You already condemn it, saaxib. You already think it is WRONG. However, what follows that is more of an attempt to prove it right than wrong! Do your words make sense to you? TAKE A MORAL STANCE, saaxib. You either want to follow the Hibo way and argue with Bush and Blair along those lines; an eye for an eye. Or, you don’t argue with Bush and Blair at all and rather stick with what (as you already believe) The Koran says. To play one against the other is a dishonest position to have. You want to stay Islamic yet you also want to argue with Bush and Blair on their terms, leaving yourself as an undecided hypocrite. TAKE A MORAL STANCE, saaxib. Jamaal, Glad to have you with us, saaxib. Now you’re comparing me to that knee-jerk reactionary, Senator McCarthy no less? If it wasn’t way out of the mark, I would be honoured. Here in these pages, from which information has once been quoted by national papers, which are also likely being watched, as is the case with many Muslim forums, aren't you coming across as a man in mission to write appeasing posts that portray the rest as supporters and sympathisers of suicide bombers? You portray anyone who doesn't speak like you or doesn't speak like an anti-terror government speaksman/woman, as being obtuse, and practising duplicity? Are you implying we're hiding something here? Or secretly supporting the terrorists? No, Jamaal. In calling you obtuse, I’m implying worse than that. I’m implying that you DONT KNOW what position to hold. You condemn the bombings and I totally believe that you (and the you here is plural) are genuine in your condemnation, yet at the same time, you also sympathise with their actions, rendering your condemnation null and void. There is no moral equivalency here (from an Islamic point of view- always from an Islamic point of view). The Iraq war was a war between the West and Iraq. Most Muslims opposed it and still do. It’s a clear unambiguous position. WE WERE AND STILL ARE AGAINST THE OCCUPATION. The London bombings are also wrong. Again, most Muslims oppose and condemn them. However, here things get a bit twisted and complicated. Is there a link between the two? There most probably is. Does it make a difference to one’s decision making process when condoning or condemning them? NO. Is there a necessity in mentioning Iraq when condemning the London Bombings? NO. Why then do most people mention Iraq? Because of the link! Is there a need to talk about that link when condemning the London Bombings? NO Why then do most people mention Iraq? Because of the link! Is there a significance in mentioning Iraq when condemning the London Bombings? NO Why then do most people mention Iraq? Because of the link! I shall stop repeating myself here and ask you to change the record. Reflect, ponder, think and analyse this whole thing. Reach a moral position and stick to it. Trying to walk this tight rope of duplicity will not do. PS Why do you always lower the tone of a discussion by talking about irrelevant things such as appeasement of invisible newspapers and what have you? It’s a very tasteless and meaningless attitude to have. Newspapers, security personnel or whoever else reads these pages have nothing to do with people’s thoughts. As far as I’m concerned, I’m yet to see anyone on this site that encourages and advocates the support of terrorists. Stop panicking, even if you suddenly discover that you sympathise with the bombers, it’s unlikely that anyone can do anything to you. You’ll still be within your ‘freedom of speech’ rights. Luckily, there is no Senator McCarthy in the UK. Now, can we get back to our discussion and stop throwing about such vulgar and pointless accusations?

Yet another case of Waxa la yedhi These days, wax walba la eska yedhaada..take no notice.

Viking, Consensus does not mean you’re not all being obtuse, saaxib. It really is no defence for the charge that I’m laying at your door. You say: What are you on about? Did I (or anyone here) claim to support the terror attacks in London? I don't fink so! So what is your concern (since no one seems to quite understand it)? Are you against the killing of innocent people? Good, then we are all on the same page. Which sounds good and straight in my opinion. Then you go and spoil it all by saying something st.upid (as the song goes) like: Not really fair if we are talking about the role Britain played in the invasion or Iraq...over 25 000 innocent Iraqis have lost their lives since the invasion two years ago. But I hope you aren't naive enough to fail to see the connection between the foreign policy of Britain and the latest bombings. What is the point of explaining the link, the 25000 dead Iraqis and the invasion if not to play down the bombings in London? Do you see the duplicity in your argument at all, saaxib? Do you see how obtuse you’re being? You’re mixing your causes and moral positions, saaxib. Even when you try to explain the collateral damage concept, you still carry on with the twisted style of arguing: The insurgents seem to be targeting the police and the army that has been set up by the invading army. Many civilians have been caught up in the blasts. Plus, regretting collateral damage doesn't make it moral sib. I hate to fall into the vulgar style of arguments of listing incidents and occasions (because, frankly, it would be very obtuse of me). However, as a demonstration of what you’re doing yourself here, I’ll ask you what collateral damage can be found in mosques and markets where no police or army are to be found? The “insurgents†are blowing these places too, are they not? Collateral damage has a moral justification when COMPARED to the drivel you’ve been spouting, saaxib. Have you been paying attention to anything I wrote in the past three weeks? When I asked you to take a moral stance and stick to it, you replied with the following: I thought I made my stance earlier, and I've stuck to it. I am against the killing of civilians by any party. Does that mean that I fail to see the obvious connection between the London bombings and Britain's foreign policy? Nope! That’s not taking a moral stance, saaxib. That’s being evasive and (you guessed it) obtuse. The people that bombed London did not do it out of a sense of fun. They did not randomly choose a city on a map and decide to bomb it. The WHOLE world knows that there is a link. Why repeat the obvious when condemning the bombings, saaxib? Does it make a difference to your moral stance on the issue? Would you have condemned it louder if there were no connection with Iraq? Do YOU make your moral judgments as a reaction to what Bush and Blair do? Is any of this making sense to you at all? AT ALL? I beg your forgiveness, saaxib. If I’m being harsh in my words and very pushy, I’m only doing it because I KNOW you have the mental capacity to understand and comprehend what I’m getting it. If you’ve noticed, I have not replied to every nonentity that tried to take part in this discussion. I believe that I’m sensible enough to know that there is no helping some people. Those that I see a semblance of logic in their words, I’ll chase and pester until they present me with a coherent and fair argument (we don’t necessarily have to agree). All you need do is explain your moral position in this situation and how you’ve arrived at it. Some people decided that all this is a conspiracy theory and based their judgment accordingly. I disagreed with their conclusions but had no reason to question their moral stance. They were not being duplicitous in their analysis. I do wish that you would separate from the herd and do the same. Kashafa , Still all over the place, I see? Stop juggling your values and choose a clear position (you’re a harder nut to crack than Viking but I still see some hope there too). Here is what you’re saying: Give it up, Ngonge. You put up a brave fight, but alas, your logic is twisted. You accuse others of using emotion-clouded reasoning yet you stand guilty of the same charge. What's with the "NOT IN MY NAME" rant ?. We, as Muslims, bear no responisblity for the actions of fanatics. We don't justify nor condone it. That's clear-cut. I guess you're having a tough time gettin' thru your main idea: Islam and the Muslims are at fault in this whole bloody mess. Your position here is clear, concise and would withstand scrutiny. If only you stopped there and then., I would have agreed with you and even apologised for any misunderstanding you’ve had about my opinion of Islam and Muslims! But could you stop? Heh! You continue by saying: Let us stop Jihad(or at least restrict it to Jihaad-ul-Nafs), forget about Palestine and Chechneya, and become docile law-abiding citizens of the 21st Century. Let us fix Islam. Sorry, pal. That dog don't hunt You’re sending mixed messages here, saaxib. You seem to have one foot in each camp! Are you implying that what took place in London was Jihad? If it is, why didn’t you come right out and say it? If it is not, what’s with the obtuse (are you reading this Viking?) and unnecessary argument? Why at all mention any of that? You finally lose yourself in a convoluted bubble of nonsense by quoting the cousin of the dead Brazilian guy! Do you really expect me to base my moral judgments on the words of a Brazilian? Oh! Maybe you’re still under the mistaken impression that he was Muslim! You end by leaving me this gem of a comment: Cousin Brazil understands that there are consequences for transgression. You punch somebody in the face, chances are he'll punch back(unless he's Canadian). Cousin Brazil gets it. You ,as of yet, don't. An eye for an eye it is then? RIGHT. But, I thought you didn’t justify or condone the bombings, saaxib? I bet that your Brazilian guru would call you dishonest for that, saaxib. Once again, up your game and take a logical stand. See what Hibo wrote there? I don’t agree with her of course. But at least she’s being logical and chose to base her moral judgment on the “eye for an eye†principle. Kill our civilians and we’ll kill yours, is her argument. It is a direct, unambiguous and clear position to have. If I morally disagree with her, it will only be from an Islamic angle and how she’s interpreting the Islamic doctrine when it comes to the “eye for an eye†code. I could neither call her duplicitous nor obtuse though. It’s tedious. It’s boring. It’s offensive and at times even brash. But I believe we’re making some progress here.

^^ Thanks But where is North? After going through all this trouble, I was at least expecting a comment from him! PS Had to edit. It missed up the thread.

Don’t apologise for writing a long post. If all posts were as long and informative as this post above, SOL would be a great place to be. Alas, beggars can’t be choosers. I completely agree with you there. If there is one thing that I’ll add, it will concern the type of people that join these clandestine and terrorist organisations. I appreciate that because you are living in the West, you decided to speak about Muslims in the West and their understanding of Islam (along with the Westerners themselves). I have nothing to dispute there at all. I’ll only request your permission in borrowing the fuzzy picture you’ve painted and also applying it to Muslims in the East. Many there too, see the transgressions of the West and allow anger to rule their head and dictate their actions. That's why when we speak about the wrongness of such acts, we don’t do so for the benefit of Western eyes but Muslim ones. Indifference is not an option.

Originally posted by Viking: quote: Oh bosh. What you like to call “State-terrorism†is what most of us conventionally call War. It’s straightforward, it’s clear and all sides know where they stand. I would condone it depending on the side I’m on and my moral stance on it. What I don’t do is mix my causes and wars. NGONGE, It isn't that straighforward mate! The population of Iraq was starved for a decade (through sanctions) before the invasion. Even the UN acknowledged that these sanctions were targetting civilians and not Saddam's regime and cost over a million lives (mostly children). The term state-terrorism is used to described the terror perpetrated by states, this might seem as straightforward conventional war as you (and the govts perpetraing these atrocities) would like to call it but is terrorism nonetheless. First of all, I don't think anyone in their rightful mind supported the bombings of London, but, they aren't fooled by the govts of USA and GB who are doing their best to reject (and conceal) any connections between the blasts and their agressive, opressive and hegemonic foreign policies. If those who are attacking these govts (the terrorists) had access to nukes, stealth bombers, F16's, flight-carriers, Abraham tanks etc, then they would use them just as the state-terrorists do. Then what we would have is what you seem to be asking for, a conentional war . But, they are not as equipped as their opponents and are left with very few targets. Look at the ring (Green Zone) the American soldiers have created in Iraq, it is virtually impossible for the ill-equipped insurgents to penetrate; that is why they target those who assist them and unfortunately (using your language here) collateral damage is inevitable! If you think that the problem is with Islam (the religion itself), come out and say it clearly point by point where you think the ills lie. If you (like most of the Muslims) believe that there are a few Muslims who have a skewed interpretation of Islam are responsible for the (i.e. London) bombings (and that many more sympathise with them out of helplessness), then be clear about the way you express yourself. Viking, you’re being obtuse now. If I thought there was a problem with Islam (the faith) I wouldn’t be a Muslim, would I now? We’ve been over all of this already, saaxib. Let us not play the game of words again. Talking of the game of words, I shall sidestep your little rant about the UN, sanctions and the ‘state-terrorism’ argument. In fact, I’ll even concede it (because it still makes no great difference to the discussion). What makes a difference to the discussion is the rest of the ill-thought argument you’re trying to get away with here, saaxib. The point I’m making (and been making for weeks) is about Islam and how people’s emotions are eroding the faith and creating new innovations about what is right and what is wrong. I reject the argument that what happened in London is a fair consequence to what has been happening in Iraq. I reject it on intellectual and moral grounds and have shown CLEARLY why and how. You Viking, are twisting and turning. In fact, I’ll go as far as calling your argument dishonest. In your defence though, I’ll say that I don’t think you realise the duplicity of your argument. This is after all the prevalent view. It is duplicitous to try to apply the term collateral damage to deliberate blowing up of civilians and innocent people. Collateral damage implies a main target that is attacked with civilians being a lesser and unavoidable consequence of such an attack. Collateral damage is ALWAYS regrettable and undesirable by those that cause it. What some of the “insurgents†in Iraq are doing is not collateral damage. They deliberately choose to kill those civilians. It is duplicitous to suggest that because these insurgents lack real firepower, they should be excused for their transgressions. It’s duplicitous to imply that helplessness negates choosing a correct moral position on these issues. I have been very clear on whom I spoke about, why and the reasons for my opposition. I sincerely wish that you would choose a moral stance and stick to it, saaxib. This position of condemning these actions, yet accepting how the insurgents having no big nuclear weapons and how they can’t penetrate the Green Zone would lead to collateral damage, is bent saaxib. The application of words like "sympathy out of helplessness†is also misleading and implies a implicit tolerance of such cases. Still, you did say that it’s a small number of people that commit such acts. You also didn’t specify how many ‘sympathise’! I suppose I can’t completely tar you with the brush of duplicity just yet. Maybe, like me, you need to also be very clear with your words.

Xiin It is Islam, saaxib. Let us not reinvent the wheel here. Do not the Imams of most Muslim mosques preach about the destruction of Israel. The liberation of Kashmir. The sovereignty of Chechnya? If I follow your logic, I’ll end up thinking that these Imams are not following an Islamic idea but merely being political! Could Islam be easily tossed about in such a way? Let us start from the beginning; do you accept that there is a conflict between Islam and the western world? Do you agree that most people in the Muslim world (Mullah’s and all) believe we're being oppressed and exploited by the west (directly or through bad rulers)? I’m hoping that your replies will be in the affirmative. Because I personally can not remember a time when Muslims did not have a problem with the West and were not calling for one sort of Jihad or another. Now, with the recent invasion of Iraq, our problems are even bigger and our opposition to the occupation louder (and rightly so). Even the calls for Jihad can’t be faulted or argued against. However, here is where the opportunistic killers wearing the cloak of Islam can muddy the water and hijack the cause. Have they done so? One need only look at the number of suicide bombers killing civilians and innocent people in Iraq to confirm this! Has the Muslim world noticed the difference? Well, some did and opposed it loudly (and as a result got accused of being American collaborators), while others shrugged and thought of the damage these attacks are causing the Americans! Xiin, when one wants to check the pulse of Islam, where should one go? How could one make an educated guess about what Muslims think? Is it the Islamic media? (Many of those, a lot of people would argue, are controlled by despotic dictators and do not represent pure Islamic views). Should one go to mosques? Will here be the place to find a collective Islamic view? Again, here the Mullahs (not all of them admittedly) call for the destruction of Israel and the saving of Muslim lands. When Masood, Hikmatyar, Rabbani and Mullah Omer were fighting the Soviets (along with Bin Laden and whoever followed him) the entire Muslim world called them heroes and Mujahidin. We were asked to pray for them at the end of every Friday prayer! Men walked around collecting donations for the gallant Mujahidin. They were fighting infidel Russia and defending the honour of Muslim lands (that America was helping them was beside the point). We cheered them on. We cheered on the fighters in Palestine (and still do). We cheered on those in Bosnia and Chechnya! Now, don’t misinterpret my words here; I’m not at all saying that we should not have supported them and cheered them on. Of course we should, these are our Muslim brothers after all. But, we did not do that because they were merely Muslim, we did it because we knew they were fighting a just fight and using just methods (or at least one hopes that was the case). Now we have these people that kill civilians. Saaxib, you can talk about it being in London all you want and darkly hint at the spinelessness of those that strongly oppose such acts, it will still not change the nature of those acts or the need to address them. For now, the topic is about London (we could easily make it about Egypt or Iraq), and as such the London bombings are what we’re discussing. Those bombings as I stated in previous threads, were evil, wicked and utterly pointless. I’ve read many replies here trying to compare these cowards to groups such as the IRA and other resistance movements around the world. Some even spoke about Blair (as did the article above) and how he accuses such bombers of wanting to change the whole Western way of life. They call it propaganda, but is it really? What do these killers of civilians want? Don’t they want to establish an Islamic state (like many other Muslims do)? Don’t they want to liberate every Muslim land, remove every Muslim dictator and institute their warped version of Sharia law? As I know and you know, these ideas are not Blair’s, they’re the Talibani, Muslim Brotherhood and Bin Laden’s ideas. Can Blair negotiate with them? Can he reach a settlement like he did with the IRA? Will they leave him alone if he withdrew from Iraq? What should Egypt do? What should Turkey do? What should Saudi Arabia do? Who should they approach to start these negotiations? Is there a political wing for these terrorists? Where? Is there a goal other than introducing a crazy version of Islamic law with the most trivial of rules (such as being forced to have a certain length beard)? Is there actually a point in negotiating with the deliberate killers of civilians? Is there a reason that we should excuse them at all or down play their wrongdoing? But ah! Hang on a second, you will say that the cause is good but the method is wrong. With one swoop and one sentence you’ll render the whole argument irrelevant! The cause being good is not a point of contention, saaxib. Everyone has a right to fight against transgressions and oppression (Muslims do not have a monopoly on that). However, what Muslims have a monopoly on (at least according to our beliefs) is righteousness! We’re not hypocrites (allegedly), we don’t condone murder (with no ifs and buts) and we don’t compromise because of political necessities. I could try and quote sayings and verses from the Koran in support of these points, but I’m sure you already know them all off by heart. I needn't remind you that one of our favourite (and most virtuous) quotes from the Koran is the sentence about ‘ordering good and dissuading from evil’ (I’m of course paraphrasing here). Is it any good watching one’s faith transformed into a reactionary belief that is applied and adjusted according to the intensity of our anger? You say Islam is not behind these acts. I agree with you. But, you’re not saying it loud enough, even though you realise that many Muslims believe this to be acceptable and just under Islam! There are many out there that even started to use Ibn Taymiya’s fatwas to explain the legitimacy of killing civilians, saaxib. There are many that hear this and start wondering if this is not a fair fight after all. They kill our civilians, we kill theirs, is the logic used. An eye for an eye is an ancient principle after all. Then there are those that KNOW this is wrong but still get satisfaction from it! Let them taste some of what they been feeding the world for years, they say! They also say: It is wrong and I know it is wrong, but I’m going to take a neutral position here and say that this is between two bad groups of people and it does not concern me at all! I’ll bury my head under the sand and turn a blind eye to any transgressions by these so-called Islamic fundamentalists (because I’m not one and need not be involved in this)! However, and this is the important bit, I am a Muslim and I usually try to remind my brothers of good and dissuade them from evil (but not in this case, this is politics you see). Do you realise how confusing all this can be? President Bush drew the battle lines in 2001 by saying “you’re either with us or against usâ€. These bombers of civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Turkey and London are obliging him with a similar cry of “you’re either with us, or you’re deadâ€! Now, it would be a real shame that while one is desperately trying to distance oneself from Bush, one finds oneself sharing the same bed (albeit involuntarily) as this group of terrorists, wouldn’t you say? You can refuse to be with Bush and at the same time loudly condemn these murderers, saaxib. The language of state-terrorism and good cause bad method arguments, curiously smacks of intellectual indecision and evasiveness. I suggest you continue reflecting on these issues, saaxib. OLOL, Your grief for the Alis and Aishas of Iraq seems to have completely disabled your senses and cut of the oxygen to your head, saaxib. What nonsense are you speaking now? If it pleases you to label me as an apologist, I’m happy to accept the label and brandish it around with pride. But, where do you stand in all of this? I note how you put the word fanatics in quotation marks! Are you saying they’re not? Could you be the first person on SOL with the courage and balls to argue these “fanatics’†case? Please spare me the Haddad like cowardice of darting in with a comment or two without following it up with a justification when challenged, saaxib. I’m looking forward to reading a well thought out defence of your ambiguous position, saaxib. I hope you’ll be kind enough to oblige me.

Though this be madness, yet there is method in it A well thought and well presented piece. I disagree with you of course but I must concede that there is a possibility that your argument may be true. A very slim possibility mind. When it comes to Islam and Muslims the conspiracy theory is our favourite pastime. I even use it with friends nowadays; whenever we’re together and someone does something out of the ordinary, we all wonder if the Mosad are behind it all! If our favourite football player feigns injury to avoid playing in a boring friendly game, we all shout sheekadan yehood ba ka dambeesa ... This issue of conspiracy theories has been with us for centuries. The Jews and Christians seem to have superpowers and are always able to manipulate and exploit us without our knowledge. But, our intuition always tells us that yehood ba ka dambeesa sheekadan...and where will we be without our intuition, huh? These stories can not be proven either way and one gets tired of them after a while. However, what one can’t ignore, is the number of disgruntled Muslims. What one can not ignore, is the number of Imams that have spent the past thirty years (and beyond) preaching about fighting the kuffars! What one can’t ignore, is the number of people who rejoiced when they thought Bin Laden was behind the September 11 attacks (kindly note the way I said ‘thought’ here - all in keeping with your conspiracy theory I trust). This one is not a conspiracy theory. This one is real and present. There are Muslims out there who would blow up people in the name of Islam and under the mistaken belief that this will lead to something! I suggest that we shelve the conspiracy theories for the time being and concentrate on exposing these people and dissuading others from joining them. We can always return to speculating about conspiracy theories once we know for sure that none of this is coming from our side.

Originally posted by Femme Fatale: Ya'll need to stop the useless bickering and shut the hell up....119 responses for an 'alarm' but not even one thread for the 89 people who died in Egypt. Or were they not 'innocent' also? Uff. Surely some mistake, my dear. Your reply came right after my one that ended with the mention of the innocent Egyptian dead. I’m sure you were not including me in the ‘bickering’ description but thought I’ll clarify it nonetheless. For arguments sake, Let's say the terrorist united under one banner, one leadership, and decided to attack exclusively military targets in the UK and USA. Any civilian casualties would be brushed off as "collateral damage"(as u so deftly put it). Would that be justifiable ? Again, the IRA and ETA points will not be dignified with a reply from my side. Up your game, saaxib. As for this question of yours. The reply is YES. You see, here they will be fighting a WAR not a terrorist action (regardless of what the other side decides to label them as). The issue of ‘collateral damage’ though abhorrent and unacceptable (since innocent death is unacceptable) still has a moral justification. The intention is never to kill. Efforts show that the intention is not to indiscriminately kill. Surely you can see the huge difference between that (in spite of its result) and someone who sets out to intentionally kill and promises to kill even more. They might be invaders and occupiers but if one decides to compare them to those that intentionally blow up innocents, one really can’t fault the moral justifications of the invaders. PS It was not I who attempted to compare the two sides, saaxib. It’s those that try to excuse the actions of the terrorists by comparing them to the Americans in Iraq. I thought already told you to try and keep up.

Originally posted by Viking: NGONGE, In your recent posts, you seem irate over non-state terrorism and at the same time seem to somehow condone (or at least entertain) state terrorism. Would it be better if these terrorists had a seat, a leader, an army and a state-like structure? You seem to be under the illusion that those who perpetrate state-terrorism can somehow be held accountable for their actions (Iraqis, Afghans, Chechens, Palestinains etc probably would beg to differ). Oh bosh. What you like to call “State-terrorism†is what most of us conventionally call War. It’s straightforward, it’s clear and all sides know where they stand. I would condone it depending on the side I’m on and my moral stance on it. What I don’t do is mix my causes and wars. There are 250,000 American soldiers in Iraq and those Iraqis that are opposed to the occupation can and do fight them. The Chechens are doing the same (apart from the wicked men that kill school children). The Palestinians are forever firing rockets and fighting Israeli soldiers. The Afghanis fought and still fight. Of course there is propaganda, lies and deceit. However, the soldiers are still there to be shot at (should one desire). Playing with words and calling it state-terrorism, therefore equating it to the hidden people that blow up trains in London, holiday resorts in Egypt and markets in Iraq is silly and very offensive to those that actually stand up and fight. I oppose the occupation of Iraq. I opposed the Iraq war and thought it an imperialistic war to further the interests of the United States. However, my opposition to that war, my anger at the treatment of the Iraqis and my total fury at the impotence of the Islamic world shall not cloud my judgment and lead me to compromise my own principles, saaxib. When Bush and Blair were trying to sell the invasion of Iraq to their own electorate, many people came out in marches and demonstration in opposition to this war. Many of them showed their total disgust and revulsion of the evilness and opportunism of Bush and Blair. NOT IN MY NAME, they shouted! Most of these people were not Muslim. They were not arguing from an Islamic point of view. They were applying their own moral standards to this case and they came up with the conclusion that it was an unfair war. Even if many of them were atheists, it’s still probable that their moral standards are of Christian origins. Invading other countries for no good reason? NOT IN MY NAME. Well, I’m a Muslim, saaxib. I see wicked groups blow up innocent civilians in the name of Islam! I see the same Iraqis that I was worried for from American guns and bombs, being killed now by these hidden groups! I see fellow Muslims excusing the actions of Bin Laden and his followers for no convincing reasons whatsoever! And I too I’m forced to shout NOT IN MY NAME. Never in my name. Iraq will be liberated one of those days. Palestine will too. And Chechnya and Afghanistan and Kashmir, etc. But, when will Islam be? Instead of trying to explain meanings of words and who they apply to, try and look at the big picture and the bigger losses, saaxib. If you’re in support of the actions of these undercover groups, try and sell us their logic or at least explain it. If you’re not, be CLEAR in your condemnation and do not play the Bush and Blair game of adjusting morality to fit in with their goals. NOT IN MY NAME, is it in yours?

Northerner , Thought I’ll answer in verse. In my time of reading, I learned about Japan Of Geisha's and of Samurais Great people to a man Now China too I read about the land of Chairman Mao Its history was great before it’s more amazing now The Brits invaded half the world for gold and other things I read about it in a book I know how Big Ben rings I’m not American as you know but know their civil war Gone With The Wind was a great book and helped open that door I read of masters and of slaves of southerners and yanks yet I have never ever set one foot in that land! The French Monarchy, I’m sure you heard was a great institution But Louis and family were scared When faced with the revolution They were executed by the mob or should we call them public? And there and then it was born the great French Republic The Spartan war was not real it was as fake as Achilles’ heel Gods came and fought alongside men and poor old Priam lost his son Odysseys he was a man of thought he was brainy and he was clever he made the horse that changed the course of this long and hard fought war between men, gods and even rivers The easterners too wrote great books on all types of subjects they even translated porn and names of sexy objects The days they loved and the afternoons but they most enjoyed the nights they wrote of 1001 of those and all their great delights Aladdin was to be found there Ali Baba and Sinbad and the adventures of the three in great old Baghdad You really don’t have to read a book written by man but I fail to see how you’ll explain not reading your Koran in there too you will find stories of many men some of them prophets, some good and great and many men of sin Each story there has a lesson, a sort of a moral tale of life and people and history and even heaven and hell Of four four two I hear you speak Of football and of races of sport and winning all the cups and trainers with no laces In reading that you might pick a hint (some might say that’s just vague) on who is good and who is bad and who might win the league It might be silly and might sound daft still, it’s information and that’s what reading’s all about enlightened communication.... PS Don’t pay too much attention to the technical bits of that (poetry was never my thing). Heh.

xiinfaniin, But these attacks have EVERYTHING to do with Islam. The people that commit them, do so in the name of Islam. The people that support them, do so in the name of Islam. Some of the people that sympathise with such acts, do so in the name of Islam. Many Muslims reject such acts and call those behind them Khwaraj! Yet, because of their rejection of the Iraq occupation, they lose sight of what’s important and find themselves (albeit unintentionally) sharing the same bed with these Khwaraj. The Iraq war is a physical, tangible and real war. It’s one where we all can see who the occupier is, where his soldiers are and what exactly is he up to. It’s one that Iraqis (and Muslims should they choose to) can take part in and fight. This other war, is not so visible. It’s clandestine, hidden and wicked. The face of it is Osama Bin Laden yet nobody knows where his army resides. Nobody knows why they almost always choose to blow up civilians (in Iraq, London, Egypt, etc)! These cowardly Khwaraj are slowly grinding down our faith and taking many disgruntled, emotional and very angry Muslims with them. When one is faced with such a threat, one becomes less concerned with Bush and Blair and more worried for Islam itself. I’m afraid that the writer of the article you’ve quoted is not interested nor will look at things from that angle, saaxib.

Kashafa, I’m not out here to teach you about the world; I’m here to debate with you. If you can’t find out about simple information such as the IRA and ETA warning systems, I’m really not interested in a debate with you, my friend. Had it been big theories or complicated laws, I would have taken up your childish accusation and provided you with proof (or a link as you call it). However, since the trivial point that I made is one that is widespread (as widespread as the comment: George Bush is the president of the United States), I shall not dignify your query with an answer and would urge you to try and keep up. Fidel, You’ve gone the long way about comparing one transgression with another there! Now I wonder if I repeated my questions from the previous thread, are you going to engage me or will you run like Haddad did? Never mind, I’ll ask anyway. We already know who the invaders of Iraq are, but, who are these people that blow up trains and kill civilians? Is there a way of finding them and fighting back? Did the air bombing set out to kill civilians or were they merely “collateral damage� Remember, we are making moral judgments here, intention matters. I said it before and I say it again, if we try to use the “an eye for an eye†principle to justify the London bombings, then the coalition could also just as easily justify their Iraq occupation. In such scenarios morality gets sacrificed for practicality, emotion and expedience. It might look good, it might sound good and it might even seem like an expected outcome! That does not make it RIGHT. One can go on a tangent on every issue and start to justify actions on the basis of grievances and transgressions. That will only lead to an unending circle of violence and the complete eradication of our values and principles. Yesterday, another terrorist attack took place in Egypt. Eighty eight people are reported dead so far. Few foreigners and many Egyptians! Was this too the result of the Iraq occupation? Could this too be brushed away with simple definitions of ‘terrorism’? PS Iraq count is an estimation and not exact figures (of course, it’s very likely that the figures might be even more than what the count states).

Fidel, I’m not sure I understand your question, saaxib. No matter what the religious affiliations of the group involved, one’s moral judgment would remain the same. Killing civilians is wrong and can not be excused away by the nature of the ‘struggle’, the type of people involved or the transgressions of the enemy. Some moral positions should never change, regardless of the situation. Kashafa, I’m sure you understand the difference between the system and random cases, saaxib. Are you saying such laws do not exist? Are you saying there is no chance of an enquiry taking place? Are you saying if an enquiry does take place there is NO chance of the outcome of it to be fair? Though this is an entirely different argument and would take us away from the point I was making (which was, just in case you forgot, that enquiries do take place when there is a wrongdoing. The evil bombers know of NO such things though), I thought I would still try to understand the aim of your little tantrum about poor Ahmed Diallo! As for the source about the IRA and ETA, look harder, saaxib. PS What exactly is your position on all of this by the way? Originally posted by Haddad: quote:Originally posted by Afromali: the rationale here is that so many innocent ppl[58 to be exact] died. You're wrong. Those innocent ppl elected the UK government. The UK government is the innocent ppl 's representative. They empowered the UK government to act on behalf of them. Not only that, they extended the mandate of its government, by awarding it another term. They gave the UK government a mandate to do what they see is fit for the UK's interests. The UK government serves its innocent ppl ; isn't that what democracy is about? Do you read what you write before you post it, saaxib? Now, is it that you don’t understand the concept of democracy and the fact that in a democracy not all voters vote for the eventual winner! Or are you being your usual unprincipled self? I know you’ll avoid me as you always do but if you believe in the message of the killers of civilians an think it fair, come right out and say it. Sell their logic and belief. Don’t use weak and convoluted arguments such as the one above. For if anyone should follow your mad logic, they too could blow your brains out and excuse it by saying that you’re a Muslim and Muslims kill civilians (88 dead in Egypt now, but those didn’t elect their government, they allowed a dictator to lead them, right?).

I had a bitter enemy, His heart to hate he gave, And when I died he swore that he Would dance upon my grave; That he would leap and laugh because A livid corpse was I, And that's the reason why I was In no great haste to die. And then - such is the quirk of fate, One day with joy I read, Despite his vitalizing hate My enemy was dead. Maybe the poison in his heart Had helped to haste his doom: He was not spared till I depart To spit upon my tomb. The other day I chanced to go To where he lies alone. 'Tis easy to forgive a foe When he is dead and gone. . . . Poor devil! Now his day is done, (Though bright it was and brave,) Yet I am happy there is none To dance upon my grave. Robert Service

^^^ It was a great read nonetheless.

O judgement! thou art fled to brutish beasts, And men have lost their reason! - William Shakespeare (Julius Caesar). The news reports regarding today’s incidents have been sketchy and not very clear. Though the country is in a state of emergency and the police are allowed (even encouraged) to shoot to kill. The descriptions of the shooting and the way it was carried out throws up limitless questions. Still, and here is where civilisation comes into it (for those that don’t understand the meaning of the word), there is likely to be a lengthy enquiry in due course, those found guilty will be punished and justice will be seen to have been fulfilled. Do the heroes that blow up civilians conduct any enquiries? Read the following quotes and ponder the similarities: "Neither Jewish morality nor Jewish tradition can negate the use of terror as a means of battle. "...We are quite far from moral hesitations on the national battlefield. We see before us the command of the Torah, the most moral teaching in the world: "Obliterate - until destruction." We are particularly far from this sort of hesitation in regard to an enemy whose moral perversion is admitted by all. "But primarily terror is part of our political battle under present conditions and its role is large and great: * "It demonstrates, in clear language, to those who listen throughout the world and to our despondent brothers outside the gates of this country of our battle against the true terrorist who hides behind his piles of papers and the laws he has legislated. * "It is not directed against people, it is directed against representatives. Therefore it is effective. * "If it also shakes the Jews in Israel from their complacency, good and well. "Only so will the battle for liberation begin." -- He Khazit (The Front, a Lehi underground newspaper), Issue 2, August 1943. The italicised quotation is a combination of two Biblical references to the Amalekites, Ex. 17:14 and Num. 14:45: Utterly blot out their remembrance...and destroy them completely. Many of these quotations were made by the early Jewish terrorist groups of the 1940s. The Hagganah/Irgun and Stern Gang were all Jewish groups (or splinter groups) that fought for the establishment of the state of Israel. They fought on two fronts. The Arabs on one side and the Brits on the other. They were regarded as terrorist organisation by the British government and they managed to kill, destroy and injure many British institutions and civilians. However, and this is where this terrorist group, the IRA and even the Spanish ETA differ from our dear heroic brothers, whenever these groups were about to bomb a new place, they always gave/give advance warnings in case civilians get caught in the crossfire or explosions. Our brothers and sisters (and here I‘m referring to the suicide bombers), the people of Islam and the ones born occupying the moral high ground never bother with such formalities. One wonders about the sanity of a suicide bomber when he goes in a train full of civilians, a market full of shoppers or even a line of job applicants! How does such a person rationalise his act? Are all his dreams about heaven? Do no hell nightmares creep in and weaken his resolve? One is obliged to quote the Bard one more time: When Hamlet contemplates suicide in his famous soliloquy “To be or not to be...â€, he lists all the reasons why a man would kill himself (or ought to kill himself). He then talks about death and compares it to sleep. He wonders about the dreams one might have if they decided to “sleep†(or as he puts it, shuffle of this mortal coil)! He finally reasons that such ‘sleep’ is folly and that people endure the evil of life because they’re scared of the evil of the after death! Of course, neither Shakespeare nor Hamlet followed Islam and knew about the certainty of Martyrdom. Shakespeare knew about Christianity though and knew about Heaven and Hell. With such background information and exquisite reason, he decided to spare his hero (Hamlet) the burden of committing suicide because (in his mind I guess) he didn’t know for sure which side suicidal Hamlet will end in (Heaven or Hell). I wonder if suicide bombers brood over such questions. In fact, I would not mind reading the soliloquy of one. :rolleyes: PS The source of the quotes above is: wikipedia.org

^^^ Never fear, saaxib. You can either Google for a site that has audio versions of these stories or you can buy the CD.

I’ve recently finished reading Catcher in the Rye (again) and Alice in Wonderland/Through The Looking Glass. All three stories are delightfully engrossing. Now, I’m simultaneously reading Don Quixote (which a Nomad reminded me off a while back), Orwell’s complete novels and the website bellow: Short Stories This website has a number of classic and great short stories. The Bridget Jones fans might want to check out the original ‘Bridget’ here: A Telephone Call - Dorothy Parker The horror fans might be interested in reading the amazing masterpiece that is: The Pit and the Pendulum – Edgar Allan Poe The site has many other great classics written by some of the best authors. If you enjoy your reading and can stomach reading stories on your PC, then I strongly recommend that you read some of the tales in that site. If you can’t bring yourself to reading stories on the net, I suggest that you note some of the names down and buy the books.

No Comment

Viking, Maybe it’s my disdainful attitude and haughty replies that are causing you to tackle the man and not the ball as it were. We are going in tediously dizzying circles here, saaxib. I’m seriously shocked and troubled by the dreadful idea that after reading most of my replies on Islamic subjects in the past year, you would still think I do not understand what Islam is or would need to be quoted a verse of the Koran as an explanation! This is really irksome and wearing. I could completely ignore it and move on to other topics but I’m afraid that’s not my nature, I like to satisfy myself with the fact that I’ve given things my best shot (even if they’re as trivial as dissecting the overall meaning of one word). Now that you’ve given me your explanation, what happens next? Are you going to agree with the author’s arguments and “rethink†Islam or, like Nur and Baashe competently just demonstrated, are you going to oppose them (author’s points) and clarify your position? If you decide to do neither and instead feel that your reply to me about ‘the problem with Islam’ was a sufficient reply, then really, you will be one of the people that I pointed to in my first post here (the one that Jamaal decided to quote). I seriously hope this whole thing was a wind up and that with this last explanation this matter will finally end. If however, this is genuine and you (and Jamaal) really did not understand my words or were confused by them. I will (as I’ve been doing with every reply so far) go back over them for the twentieth time and see why something that is (to my eyes at least) crystal clear, proving difficult for you! Being the bigheaded genius that I’ve always been I’ll probably be compelled to conclude that the fault is very likely to come from your side.