A Nomad's Analyses of War on Terror!

[Nur]

Ngonge bro.

 

You write:

 

My advice to all the readers here is to engage oneself in some serious self-examination and contemplation.

 

Ndugu

 

Right on the money! Your write ups are always provocative and soul searching, if your intentions are in the cause of Allah SWT, like Shamsuddiin said in his thread, Unity of Purpose, not Unity In Opinion, I wholeheartedly agree to many of your observations without a reservation.

 

Like you, I am a strong supporter of the concept of walking our talk, that pointing fingers at others for our problems is no cure for our ills, and that we have to face our problems at the root, a nation that was risen to mankind for the spread of good values, and the forbidding of evil.

 

 

You write:

 

Think about your faith, your morals, what you deem to be right and wrong (without the interference of politics, conspiracy theories or games). Think about your duties to your fellow Muslims, to yourself and to your creator

 

 

Saaxiib

 

Politics is defined the set of activities a communities undertakes to govern its resources and relationships. Separating Politics from Faith is like accepting Allah's supremacy, but denying Him the obedience of His servants in matters that He decreed, Any thing that touch my wallet, work and relationships with oppiste sex is governed by Allah, I hope that you have no problem with that.

 

 

As for Conspiracy theory, I agree with you, it is nonesense, Instead I believe in the coincidence theory, the nice explanation of the Murdock Media empire that is so truthful, we should all consume their analyses becausde they are well intentioned, and honest, specially when Bush accused Al Qaeda, his own making in tghe 90s, an hour after September 11 without any investigation, in contrast, the Simpson case, a man caught redhanded on camera running away from a crime scene was aquitted, because the jury did not trust the police impartiality as they have called the blacks niggars, the Jury was needed unanimously to vote for a verdict, but an injured jury by such slander simply aquitted Simpson, Bravo for western values of due process of the law, but when it comes to Islam, a different yardstick is used, you cant have it bith way saaxib, either both sides are conspiring against each other, or no one conspiring, being one sided and self hating Muslim does not help us brother, being wise does.

 

 

You write:

 

If you still believe that this is a fight between two sides and that the actions of the weaker side are justified by the transgressions of the stronger side, then don’t play with words, hide behind slogans or arguments and stay silent

 

 

Saaxiib

 

 

Read this recent piece from the Guardian, then come back with your balanced interpretations:

 

 

Willful and Dangerous Refusal to Face Up to Reality

 

Seumas Milne, The Guardian

 

In the grim days since last week’s bombing of London, the bulk of Britain’s political class and media has distinguished itself by a willful and dangerous refusal to face up to reality. Just as it was branded unpatriotic in the US after the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington to talk about the link with American policy in the Middle East, so those who have raised the evident connection between the London atrocities and Britain’s role in Iraq and Afghanistan have been denounced as traitors. And anyone who has questioned Tony Blair’s echo of George Bush’s fateful words on Sept. 11 that this was an assault on freedom and our way of life has been treated as an apologist for terror.

 

But while some allowance could be made in the American case for the shock of the attacks, the London bombings were one of the most heavily trailed events in modern British history. We have been told repeatedly since the prime minister signed up to Bush’s war on terror that an attack on Britain was a certainty — and have had every opportunity to work out why that might be. Throughout the Afghan and Iraq wars, there has been a string of authoritative warnings about the certain boost it would give to Al-Qaeda-style terror groups. The only surprise was that the attacks were so long in coming.

 

But when the newly elected Respect (anti-Iraq war) MP George Galloway — who might be thought to have some locus on the subject, having overturned a substantial Labour majority over Iraq in a London constituency with a large Muslim population — declared that Londoners had paid the price of a “despicable act†for the government’s failure to heed those warnings, he was accused by Defense Secretary Adam Ingram of “dipping his poisonous tongue in a pool of bloodâ€. On Wednesday, the Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy was in the dock for a far more tentative attempt to question this suffocating consensus. Even Ken Livingstone, who had warned of the danger posed to London by an invasion of Iraq, has now claimed the bombings were nothing to do with the war — something he clearly does not believe.

 

A week on from the London outrage, this official otherworldliness is once again in full flood, as ministers and commentators express astonishment that cricket-playing British-born Muslims from suburbia could have become suicide bombers, while Blair blames an “evil ideologyâ€. The truth is that no amount of condemnation of evil and self-righteous resoluteness will stop terror attacks in the future. Respect for the victims of such atrocities is supposed to preclude open discussion of their causes in the aftermath — but that is precisely when honest debate is most needed.

 

The wall of silence in the US after the much greater carnage of 9/11 allowed the Bush administration to set a course that has been a global disaster. And there is little sense in London that the official attitude reflects the more uncertain mood on the streets.

 

There is every need for the kind of public mourning that took place in London yesterday, along with concerted action to halt the backlash against Muslim Britons that claimed its first life in Nottingham at the weekend. But it is an insult to the dead to mislead people about the crucial factors fueling this deadly rage in Muslim communities across the world.

 

The first piece of disinformation long peddled by champions of the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan is that Al-Qaeda and its supporters have no demands that could possibly be met or negotiated over; that they are really motivated by a hatred of Western freedoms and way of life; and that their Islamist ideology aims at global domination. The reality was neatly summed up this week in a radio exchange between the BBC’s political editor, Andrew Marr, and its security correspondent, Frank Gardner, who was left disabled by an Al-Qaeda attack last year. Was it the “very diversity, that melting pot aspect of London†that Islamist extremists found so offensive that they wanted to kill innocent civilians in Britain’s capital, Marr wondered. “No, it’s not that,†replied Gardner briskly, who is better acquainted with Al-Qaeda thinking than most. “What they find offensive are the policies of Western governments and specifically the presence of Western troops in Muslim lands, notably Iraq and Afghanistan.â€

 

The central goal of the Al-Qaeda-inspired campaign, as its statements have regularly spelled out, is the withdrawal of US and other Western forces from the Arab and Muslim world, and an end to support for Israeli occupation of Palestinian land. Those are also goals that unite an overwhelming majority of Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere and give Al-Qaeda and its allies the chance to recruit and operate — in a way that their extreme religious conservatism or dreams of restoring the medieval caliphate never would. As even Osama Bin Laden asked in his US election-timed video: If it was Western freedom Al-Qaeda hated, “Why do we not strike Sweden?â€

 

The second disinformation line peddled by government supporters since last week’s bombings is that the London attacks had nothing to do with Iraq. The Labour MP Tony Wright insisted that such an idea was “not only nonsense, but dangerous nonsenseâ€. Blair has argued that, since the 9/11 attacks predated the Iraq war, outrage at the aggression could not have been the trigger. It’s perfectly true that Muslim anger over Palestine and the aftermath of the 1991 war against Iraq was already intense before 2001 and fueled Al-Qaeda’s campaign in the 1990s. But that was aimed at the US, not Britain, which only became a target when Blair backed Bush’s war on terror. Afghanistan made a terror attack on Britain a likelihood; Iraq made it a certainty.

 

We can’t of course be sure of the exact balance of motivations that drove four young suicide bombers to strike last Thursday, but we can be certain that the bloodbath unleashed by Bush and Blair in Iraq — where a 7 7 takes place every day — was at the very least one of them. What they did was not “home grownâ€, but driven by a worldwide anger at US-led domination and occupation of Muslim countries.

 

The London bombers were to blame for attacks on civilians that are neither morally nor politically defensible. But the prime minister — who was warned by British intelligence of the risks in the run-up to the war — is also responsible for knowingly putting his own people at risk in the service of a foreign power. The security crackdowns and campaign to uproot an “evil ideology†the government announced on Wednesday will not extinguish the threat. Only a British commitment to end its role in the bloody occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan is likely to do that.

 

 

 

Saaxiib

 

Let us see how you dismiss this one too, there are two sides to this conflict, the best way I can put it is this way

 

Dont talk about them, if you cant talk to them . UK ignored the IRA for decades, with the same rhetoric, only to sit in front of the criminals who killed innocent British people, more than Al Qaeda did, and declared peace.

 

Denials denials, like you say, do not change reality on the ground, so, again, you cant have it both ways saaxib. Telling us to accept and face up to our evil actions while you spread a blanket approval of all the big boys actions is regrettable, making it so difficult for one side, until such time when we can agree on a common interpretation of our faith,( Like the big boys have agreed on their world vision ) you wrote:

 

 

what the West does for the benefit of its own people is justified and what some self-appointed Mullahs do for their own benefits is NOT justified. It really is simple and plain to anyone who’s not either dim or duplicitous .

 

Do you see your duplicity here, I am smelling fish here saaxib, For them, its what they do for their poeple, for us it is what the Mullah do for themselves ! do you see how unjustly you are tilting the issue, or is it the London Fog that is blinding you?

 

 

You write:

 

 

Shout it out clearly and support your brothers in Jihad. If on the other hand, you think this whole thing to be wrong and not compatible with your religious beliefs or morals, denounce it, shout about how wrong it is and argue until you’re blue in the face .

 

 

Saaxib

 

I am sure we heard this question from Bush before, and before him Mussolini, ( Chi e non con me , a contra di me ) Brother, Allah provides rizq, and protects life and causes security, be true to Allah, your logic is so warped, you would have sent Moses and the oppressed Israelites to work with Pharaoh, because, their weakness was their sin, you are indeed a great deliverer of the oppressed.

 

 

Nur

[xiinfaniin]

@Dont talk about them, if you cant talk to them.

 

Wisdom of the week.

[NGONGE]

Nur,

 

 

As for the article, I believe I’ve pre-empted such logic in my earlier replies on this site. I needn’t’ split hairs here by referring to all the terrorist attacks before September 2001 or the Iraq War.

 

What I found fascinating in your reply and, is also really the crux of this matter, was the tentative way you seem to be supporting these terrorists! Do you BELIEVE in their cause, saaxib? If you do, why are you sitting on the fence? If you don’t, why are you trying to explain it away?

 

Nur, I’m afraid that in spite of the several posts you’ve made on this topic, I still can’t tell what side of the fence you’re on.

 

I’ll return later insha allah with a more detailed reply. Have to go home now.

[Faarax-Brawn]

Asalam aleykum Nur.

 

That was a detailed and long Chronological analysis of atrocities commited by crazy folks AGAINST innocent People.Muslim or Not.

 

Howeever,I have a simple quick question to ask:

What is the punishment for someone who refuses to follow A DIRECT command from ALLAH??

[Nur]

NGONGE

 

you write:

 

" Nur, I’m afraid that in spite of the several posts you’ve made on this topic, I still can’t tell what side of the fence you’re on. "

 

 

Saaxib

 

 

I am on the side of common sense, justice and Islam, fair enough?

 

 

Now, my turn, NGONGE, I am assuming that you are a British citizen, if your faith's tenets and your countries policies collide, where is your allegiance? If your country of adoption wages a war against the country of your ancestory, which side are you going to be?

 

Hint. Ask this question to the International Zionists movement, or Irish Americans. They've both sent money, moral and material support to Isreal and the IRA respectively, two organizations that have proven track record of terrorism, killing of civilians and destruction of properties. If that was not crime then, tell me saaxib, why is it so abhorring to you to speak to Al Qaedah and the Iraqi insurgency to avoid further bloodshed, After all Bin Laden was a close friend of the Bush family for a decade, I am sure they can work their differences amicably over a nice dinner over the Thames, but not over our flying limbs and body parts please!

 

Please be as direct in answering as I was to your question.

 

 

Nur

[Nur]

Afromali bro.

 

You ask:

 

What is the punishment for someone who refuses to follow A DIRECT command from ALLAH??

 

 

Afromali bro. This question is neither simple, nor quick, I treated the same question before, please take the time to read it thoroghly.

 

 

Am I A Munafiq?

 

Well, that is a difficult question, first let us learn the relationship between iimaan, sin and kufr to see where nifaaq belongs.

 

 

1. No Soul will go to Jannah which is not a Muslim(a)

 

2. No one can be Muslim without Shahaada (Tawxiid)

 

3. Shahaada is information, we are required to believe in and bear witness thereof.

 

4. The test to see if we indeed believe in information represented by the Shahaada are our deeds:

 

So our faith is composed of a

 

A. set of Information we are required to believe.

 

B. Set of Commands we are ordered to obey

 

The extent of your belief in the information that our Prophet SAWS delivered is measured by the extent of orders that we obey.

 

In other words, our obedience to the orders of Allah, is a reflection of our belief in the information delivered to us.

 

So , Islam is composed of a two sets:

 

A) A set of information to be believed in, like Allah, Jannah, angels, etc .

 

B) A set of orders to abide with, such as Prayers, (Salat), Fasting, Upholding Justice, etc .

 

The orders are subdivided in to two categories:

 

1.Orders to do something

2.Orders to stay away from doing something

 

If Allah orders us to do something, and we fail to comply, the reason could be:

 

a. We do not believe in the information

b. We believe in it but we are arrogant

c. We are MENTALLY CHALLENGED

 

If (a) that is clear kufr

If (b) That is also kufr, the type of Sheitan

If © We may be the same case like a crazy person, Mentally Challenged, no responsibility.

 

If we are ordered to stay away from something, and we do not, we have the following scenario:

 

a. We do not believe in the information b. We are arrogant

c. We can not resist temptation

d. We are MENTALLY CHALLENGED

 

All but case © are covered above.

 

If case © is the situation, then that is called disobedience (Sin)(Macsiyah) and it is what Adam and Eve , (Hawaa) aleyhimaa assalaam have committed. It does not make one a kaafir by itself. ( The Khawaarij are the only to claim that a sin can make one a Kafir )

 

To generalize the above.

 

If a person does something he is ordered not to do, the driver is more likely weakness against temptation, and that person is not a kaafir, this is the case of Adam and Eve, Aleyhimaa assalaam .

 

If a person refuses to do something he is ordered to do, the driver of his action is more likely arrogance, like the case of Sheitan .

 

Now we visit a new territory:

 

There is a principle for detecting iiman ( Faith) levels developed by Sheikh Ibn Taymiyah. Called (Talaazumul Dhaahir wal Baatin )( Synregy of the Apparent actions of a person with the Hidden Motives within the consciousness )

 

I will simplify it for you again.

 

The inside beliefs and the outward actions of a person are always working in harmony. Except when an outside disturbance influences that person attention. When as a result, the outwardly actions of that person projects and acts contrary of what is supposed to be inside .

 

Meaning.

 

In Systems Science, when we input a signal into a balanced system, we observe an output that reflects the shape of the original signal output + the function of the signal that operated on the system.

 

In the absence of outside disturbance, we can always predict the output. But when an outside element disturbs the system, the output will not be predictable.

 

A person who is a kaafir therefore will normally act as a kaafir. Sabeelul kaafireen

 

And a person who is a muslim will always act like a Muslim. Sabeelul Mumineen

 

In general, if you leave anyone alone, what he/she does is reflecting what they believe . But the minute that person feels that he/she is being observed, that feeling will somewhat effect the action of that person.

 

An example is when you catch a child making funny faces on a mirror the child will immediately alter his behaviour to an acceptable manner. This is called conforming.

 

So, when a Kaafir lives with Muslims, he may act like Muslim, to avoid problems. He is called a Munaafiq .

 

And a Muslim who lives with Kufaar may at times act like kuffar, to avoid problems. He is called Mukrah .

 

Now, a Somali Nomad who lives in Somalia, USA or Europe, is free to practice his faith, so if that person does not practice, or he acts contrary to his faiths tenets, his actions are an indicators of what is missing in his heart. In this case the actions or their absence are an indictor of the iimaan inside that person.

 

However a Muslim who lives in tyranny, his actions may not be indicator of his belief. Because, if this person practices his faith, he is afraid for his life. As a result this person conceals his faith portraying himself as non Muslim, when in effect he fully believes his faith and is willing tp practise it to the fullest if he was not afraid. His fear, though could be justifiable or may be unjustifiable, in which case he is in grave error.

 

Allah says : Are they same he who spends all his nights praying and prostrating, alert for aakhirah, and the one who is in darkness..............................."

[Faarax-Brawn]

Masahallah, Bro Nur.

 

As Always, very in-depth and full of hikmah. Your IMAN, knowledge and thinking are worth being emulated by one and all. May Allah bless you.

 

I had a very simple question, directly of course related to the issue of killing innocent people, by Muslims or against Muslims.

 

However I should have been clearer; thus I re frame and re structure the original question:

 

If ALLAH [swt], has said in his Koran, that whoever kills an innocent person, is like killing the entire Mankind [if one has the exact verse, please provide], and a Muslim, clearly disobeys such an order, directly from ALLAH [swt].

 

Then what, in your opinion, should such a Muslim be required to do?

 

Is it acceptable, to accept one Verse wholly [as the case of protecting the religion from the crusaders], and ignoring another verse [as in the case of the one above mentioned by I]?

 

More importantly, what is the punishment?

 

 

Another thing, why should a MUSLIM be doing or using as an excuse to kill innocent people, citing or mentioning, previous acts done by Non Muslims?

 

More precisely, if any suicide bomber cares about the war in Iraq, the Palestine occupation, wouldn’t it make more sense if they fought THAT war over in IRAQ? Exactly, what has any suicide bombing reversed?, policy or death otherwise?

 

These and many more questions, should be answered objectively, "AS IS"

[Nur]

Afromali bro.

 

 

Killing of innocent civilians is forbidden in Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, secularism or by Athiesm. Simply it is plain evil.

 

As for those who've committed the attrocities against innocent civilians in New York and London, whoever they are, and whatever their religion, ignorant zealots, masterminds who brainwashed them, or any other political beneficiaries Framers from this mayhem, there is no justification in our faith, and those who have committed these crimes against defenseless civilians going about their daily lives, have indeed committed a crime against all of mankind, they will have to answer to Allah SWT for their crimes, in addition to their painting of our faith a non befitting image which is contrary to all of basic tenets in Islam.

 

It is important not to religiously label the criminal by his religion, because like we agreed, no faith approves of such heinous crimes. Three men who are at large, A Christian, A Jew and a Muslim, two in hiding and one a President, Bin Laden the Muslim, and Mladic the Christian Serb leader and Sharon the Jew are said to have committed the infamous 9/11 2800 murders in NY, the Srebrenica genocide of 10,000 civilians with assistance of the Christian Dutch UN army who handed the civilians to the Serbs, and the Sabra and Shatilla Massacre of the Christian Phalangists who murdered 800 palestinian civilians in their camps in Palestine with the blatant allowance of the Israeli Army under the command of Sharon.

 

Sharon was later found by a competent Israeli court to be indirectly responsible by the massacre, Christian Mladic and the Christian Dutch army were cited by the world court at the Hague for Mladic for Genocide, and the handing over by the Dutch Battalion of unarmed Muslims to Mladic as Dutch commanders drank champagne with General Mladic; also the Dutch Battalion's supplying of fuel for General Mladic to drive away his captives for torture and execution; and General van der Wind's debriefing of July 13 and the beginning of the attempted cover-up.

 

Finally we have Bin Laden the alledged 911 mastermind, who the only link to 9/11 is his admission and tapes, ( no neutral commission like the Hague, has so far verified the authenticity of thesae tapes, but the man is the Terror Icon of the century . A man who has worked closely with the US in Afganistan as an ally against the Soviets in the eighties, who only sends his tapes at crucial election seasons to scare voters to stand behind their incumbent president each time their populatities poll slips below 50%. Conspiracy theories claim that Bin Laden, like Elvis Pressley, may have died long time ago ( Hollywood Digital Video editing technologies helped create the tapes they claim ), but may have been kept alive for political purposes, we all know that conspiracy theories are only true when no one believes them, but if this man is never found, and a lot of draconian policies are passed, it would be too late to rewind reality back to where things were before 9/11, we may never reclaim the lost freedoms, and human lives, in addition the freindship bewteen well meaning Muslims and the tolerant American people.

 

 

Nur

[NGONGE]

Nur,

 

Though you still didn’t answer my question CLEARLY, I shall not pester you for an answer anymore and will instead use your arguments as an indication of your stance.

 

But first, let me swiftly deal with your questions. My allegiance will always be to my faith. My faith is not a custom, tradition or culture that I can discard when I move from country to country. It’s not open to question or compromise. I’m a Muslim because I believe in Islam and not because my father was/is one.

 

I think, and hope, that there was nothing vague or ambiguous about my answer to your question. I notice that you tried to give me a helping hand there with that hint of yours. This is where I disagree with you and this whole situation. I believe that I follow and adhere to a morally superior set of values and beliefs. I don’t believe that I should base my judgments, moral positions and even political decisions (taking into account your decorated explanation of the word ‘politics’) on the actions of the Zionists, Capitalists, Imperialists, Communists or people that follow other faiths.

 

To disagree with the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kashmir or any other place where Muslims are oppressed does not and should not equal agreeing with unlawful acts committed by fellow Muslims too. One should not try to explain the latter away simply because one is unhappy with the former. This, I’m afraid to say, is what many of the people I’ve been debating with on this forum have been doing. I don’t believe any of them are intentionally being duplicitous. However, and in keeping with traditional Muslim reactions, they’re instinctively thinking of their own people (i.e. our brothers and sisters in Iraq) and letting their emotions blinker their judgment (or maybe even their ignorance).

 

Brother, there is a big difference between saying “ I denounce the bombings in London but I’m frankly more concerned with the invasion of Iraq, because they’re my peopleâ€, or saying “ I denounce the bombings in London but they really had it coming, because of the invasion of Iraqâ€. This is why Anglo Saxons in London lament and feel for the dead of NY more than they would the dead of Iraq (there is a hint of ‘our people’ involved there). Empathy with one side or another is not something to frown upon or criticise. However, when that empathy is the driving force behind making moral judgments, I’ll strongly oppose, criticise and resist it. Have sympathy, have compassion, have hate even. But, one should try to prevent such sentiments from clouding one’s judgment.

 

It is really simple, Nur. Try to control your emotions and isolate your anger. Try to remember all those lectures you habitually give on Islam and Muslim behaviour. How were we supposed to behave? Why were we behaving in such a way? What is the Ajer in doing this and the punishment in doing that?

What are the benefits? What are the ills? You know the drill, saaxib..

 

 

Once you’ve done all of that, maybe you’ll find a way to explain to me how the morality of the IRA, Israel and America (or lack of) fits into the way we adjust and interpret our own values (those that you tirelessly remind us off on this site). Wrong is wrong and it should not change from one place to another or depending on who committed the wrong. However, if we decide to ditch our principles and play the game according to western rules and regulations, then we are being two-faced and we doubly lose the moral high ground. This is what is happening here.

 

 

PS

I can’t let this quote of yours pass without comment:

 

You write:

 

 

Shout it out clearly and support your brothers in Jihad. If on the other hand, you think this whole thing to be wrong and not compatible with your religious beliefs or morals, denounce it, shout about how wrong it is and argue until you’re blue in the face .

 

 

Saaxib

 

I am sure we heard this question from Bush before, and before him Mussolini, ( Chi e non con me , a contra di me ) Brother, Allah provides rizq, and protects life and causes security, be true to Allah, your logic is so warped, you would have sent Moses and the oppressed Israelites to work with Pharaoh, because, their weakness was their sin, you are indeed a great deliverer of the oppressed.

 

Heh! Though my words will make no difference to you, because you obviously made up your mind on this (are you always so hasty?), I’ll still respectfully state that these opinions of mine are not made with Brits or Americans in mind. I have had such opinions from the days I lived in the Arab world and heard ****** legalising the blood of non-believers; for the simple reason that they’re non-believers! And treating every wrong action by a Muslim against a non-Muslim as correct and just, while treating all exact actions by non-Muslims against anyone as wrong! People dying in Iraq, Palestine or Chechnya become regrettable statistics when viewed alongside the more alarming menace of such duplicitous and, frankly, immoral views.

 

I have no idea how you managed to fit prophet Musa and the Israelites into this discussion! Still, I shan’t patronise you with an Islamic anecdote in reply. I’m sure you’re intelligent, resourceful and knowledgeable enough to find an opposing story all on your own (it might even have our great prophet in it and might involve times of weakness, etc).

 

[Nur]

Ngonge bro.

 

You have settled my case for me, I find your treatment for my last post very balanced and logical, and not necesarily that i wholly agree with, but for the major part, I have restored my confidence in you, as long as we are all Faith centered, opinions will always differ, but to fundementals we all agree:

 

That we should live according to our faith's teachings:

 

1. Killing of Innocents is never justifiable

2. Islam does not condone the killing of noncombatants period.

3. Islam does not accept any of Machiavellis theories followed by present world leaders.

 

 

You write:

 

It is really simple, Nur. Try to control your emotions and isolate your anger. Try to remember all those lectures you habitually give on Islam and Muslim behaviour. How were we supposed to behave? Why were we behaving in such a way? What is the Ajer in doing this and the punishment in doing that? What are the benefits? What are the ills? You know the drill, saaxib..

 

 

Brother, Thank you for your advice, and accept my apology if I came on rather charged, sanity is becoming a rarity these days and I am no Messiah, but heed your kind advice, I shall, after all, you owe me one, inshallah I shall work for the good of Islam, and humanity, toward peace, I am sure that being balanced requires a lot of alertness, and you have reminded me that even when we are trying to be just, that we can be unjust, a difficult feet by any measure.

 

One last word, for all of us who have benefited from the neighborliness and living in the west, we should be a good example of the faith we profess, our actions speak louder, we should bridge the present rift we patience, perseverence and tolrance. There is good in all people, how much we receive of that, depends on how much of it we give, let us work in the portrayal of our real image of Islam, that of the benevolence and peace, even under the difficult circumstances of mistrust and fear about the bad image we have been painted. Good shall prevail.

 

 

Nur

[Viking]

NGONGE,

You asked Nur...

 

What I found fascinating in your reply and, is also really the crux of this matter, was the tentative way you seem to be supporting these terrorists! Do you BELIEVE in their cause, saaxib? If you do, why are you sitting on the fence? If you don’t, why are you trying to explain it away?

I think Nur was rather clear when he said...

 

"As for those who've committed the attrocities against innocent civilians in New York and London, whoever they are, and whatever their religion, ignorant zealots, masterminds who brainwashed them, or any other political beneficiaries Framers from this mayhem, there is no justification in our faith, and those who have committed these crimes against defenseless civilians going about their daily lives, have indeed committed a crime against all of mankind, they will have to answer to Allah SWT for their crimes, in addition to their painting of our faith a non befitting image which is contrary to all of basic tenets in Islam."

 

What hapenned here in London last week is NOT an isolated incident. However evil the actions of those four bombers was, it was a reaction to the atrocities committed by their soldiers abroad.

[NGONGE]

Originally posted by Nur:

Afromali bro.

 

 

Killing of innocent civilians is forbidden in Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, secularism or by Athiesm. Simply it is plain evil.

 

As for those who've committed the attrocities against innocent civilians in New York and London, whoever they are, and whatever their religion, ignorant zealots, masterminds who brainwashed them, or any other political beneficiaries Framers from this mayhem, there is no justification in our faith, and those who have committed these crimes against defenseless civilians going about their daily lives, have indeed committed a crime against all of mankind, they will have to answer to Allah SWT for their crimes, in addition to their painting of our faith a non befitting image which is contrary to all of basic tenets in Islam.

 

It is important not to religiously label the criminal by his religion, because like we agreed, no faith approves of such heinous crimes.

 

Finally we have Bin Laden the alledged 911 mastermind, who the only link to 9/11 is his admission and tapes, (

no neutral commission like the Hague, has so far verified the authenticity of thesae tapes, but the man is the Terror Icon of the century

. A man who has worked closely with the US in Afganistan as an ally against the Soviets in the eighties, who only sends his tapes at crucial election seasons to scare voters to stand behind their incumbent president each time their populatities poll slips below 50%. Conspiracy theories claim that Bin Laden, like Elvis Pressley, may have died long time ago (

Hollywood Digital Video editing technologies helped create the tapes they claim

), but may have been kept alive for political purposes, we all know that conspiracy theories are only true when no one believes them, but if this man is never found, and a lot of draconian policies are passed, it would be too late to rewind reality back to where things were before 9/11, we may never reclaim the lost freedoms, and human lives, in addition the freindship bewteen well meaning Muslims and the tolerant American people.

 

 

Nur

Oh! The evading of the question continues and the game of politics is in full flow. I’m in awe saaxib, I really am.

 

You’re all over the place, Nur. You seem to be using the conventional definition of politics to argue your case now. You’re saying not to religiously label the criminal by his religion! How do you label them then? Politically? Do you actually realise how confusing your message is, saaxib? So now you condemn these acts, right? Are you then going to also excuse them by blaming America? You do realise you can’t have both things, don’t you?

 

Note that I didn’t quote your entire post and only took the parts I want to comment on ( I trust that I have not taken anything out of context here or displayed your words in a way that makes them look more incoherent than when you first penned them).

 

Though talking about Bin Laden is a boring subject, I feel I’ll have to address it one more time.

You are probably right. These regular ‘coincidences’ are very worrying. The conspiracy theories might even be true! Still, since we have no solid proof of the validity of such conspiracy theories, we have no reason to believe any of them are true. The ‘coincidence explanation’ is therefore as good as the conspiracy itself. Neither can be said to be a fact (not without some proof anyway).

 

What is a fact, one that I and (I’m sure) you have come across on many occasions, is the fanaticism of our fellow Muslims. I know I’ve met many ignorant brothers in the past that talk of death and murder in the name of faith as a scared duty! There are many out there (in the Arab world, Asia and now Iraq) that would have no scruples with killing innocent people if they believed it will further their warped idea of Islam. You must have met such people, saaxib! You must have seen the Salamn Rushdi demonstrators (or were you too young then?), you must have seen the recent Murder in Holland (not a conspiracy theory again!). There is so much real, solid, visual evidence to prove that people like Bin Laden do exist. That those behind the London bombings were REAL Muslims and that many that carry the Iraq attacks are real Muslims. Why then does such an intelligent man as yourself still attempt to flog the dead horse of conspiracy?

 

If you don’t think the nineteen that brought down the Twin Towers were Muslim that’s ok. Let us assume they were not and that all the conspiracy theories are true. Still, there are groups of Muslims in London (Al Muhajeroon ) who believed them to be Muslim and celebrated the “great†act of the “magnificent†nineteen! There are “Muslims†kidnapping and killing children in Russia, hijacking theatres in Moscow and now blowing up police stations in Iraq! Is it all a conspiracy theory?

But what about the many that write articles, send e-mails and phone TV debates to praise Bin Laden and ‘his’ acts of terror? Conspiracy theory too? I’m not going to carry on with real life evidence for fear of discovering that the whole world are conspiring against me and you, saaxib.

 

 

Time for more reflection, saaxib.

 

EDIT

 

I was about to delete this post (after reading Nur’s last post). However, and without any offence to Nur, I decided to leave it as an illustration of one of the points I was making all along.

 

Viking,

 

Why do I feel like I’m answering the same question over and over again?

 

Ok, let us go back to the beginning. The Iraq invasion was wrong. The Iraq occupation is wrong. The Afghanistan invasion and occupation are/were both wrong. I always went by the principle that some obvious points need not be mentioned and that people read between the lines. Only a mad man would justify the Iraq and Afghanistan war, in the same way that only a mad man would justify the London bombings. Some people here sought to justify the latter, therefore, using similar weak arguments I sought to justify the former(I believe I did a better job).

 

I suggest you read everything I wrote on this subject to know why I disagree with your last post.

[Nur]

Ngonge bro.

 

Again, good points, but instead of of a point by point rebuttle allow me to give a nutshell explanation of present events in the world, from an Islamic point of view.

 

In the medieval times, the world used to be governed by emperrors, empires with clearly delineated borders and fortresses, people were very islolated from each other by walls, they knew little about each other, then came the nation states, Democracy, human rights and the rule of the law, and TV. a transparet due processes of law were decalared, human experiece for those who adopted this trend improved tremmendously to give the world nations like Sweden and Finland as forerunners of the ideal transparent governments in the western hemisphere, because justice was enhanced through participation, then came roaring Communism , arms and space race, which created distrust between west and east, Muslim nations, caught between the two who have lost their empire, the Califate, had to follow one of the camps, some of them opted to create a new alliance along with India and Indonesia called the non-aligned nations club, then the wall in Berlin fell down due to the inability of the Soviets to hold onto their Empire in the west when they were bleeding and engaged by a fierce war with the CIA supported Mujaahideen in Afghanistan where they have lost 100 thousand soldiers, as a result of this prolonged war, the Russians called quits, and the breakdown of the biggest threat to western values crumbled without danger to the western nations.

 

Instead of hailing the Mujahiddeen in Afganistan as the liberators of Poland, Latvia and Lituania, and securing America from the Soviets, The Mujahideen who sacrificed their lives for the liberation of Afghanistan from Soviets and indirectly contributed to the fall of the USA most dangerous enemy, The Soviets ( with 4000 Nuclear Warheads targeted at USA and western Europe ) in addition to the value added bonanza of freedoms that spread throughout the former Soviet republics like wild fire, instead of that , tables were turned agianst The Mujahideen warriors by their friends the CIA, the Mujahideen, the men of peace who were led by and financed by men like Bin ladin, the CIA and Muslim governments were later rebranded Al Qaedah, to wage a serious war, one needs an ugly enemy, Bin ladin was photogenic for that, and even some american girls fell in love with him on some accounts.

 

These men should have been credited to the stability and peace in Europe and the world, however, the con-artists who dragged them to Afghanistan in the first place, were done with them, The Mujahideen were effective for their past assignement against teh Soviets, but a new world order was in the horizon, a new ball game and a new totalitarian world is to begin, fear of the public was needed and villains to act that part was found in the former Mujaahideen, AKA Al Qaedah, and just like they have treated Noriega of Panama and Sad-damn of Iraq, once their assignament were done, the Mujahideen aka Al Qaedah were painted afresh with new image, that of villains.

 

Now, after the end of Soviets as a formidable threat to NATO and the west, a new enemy # 1 of the public order was needed, and was found in the bearded image of Bin ladin and company, men who will never make it to a court of law, hiding in mountains that were pulverized by thousands of tons of depleted uranium shells who still manage to direct the most ferocious war against civiliazations from their caves in Afghanistan, because, if they were to speak to a jury, they would drag many politicians to jail with them, so, it was necessary to finish their contracts without pay.

 

Now, under these circumstances, when the world peoples of different cultures and religions are broght close togeher by Starbucks coffe, it becomes like two chemicals placed close to each other, a wise person must expect some chemical reactions of sorts, not that its desired, but that its likely to happen, thus take the precautions for safety.

 

Failing to look back at the historical development of the present war being fought in major city streets can mask the real culprits, motives and beneficiaries of the menace we are all suffering from.

 

As long as the real criminals are at large to this day ( Sad-Damn still waiting for his day in court ), and those who played ball before together in the same team, know of each other well enough not to disclose each other for mutual benefit, it will be a TOM and Jerry episode after another. Unless lip-biting, eye-twisting TOM catches ellusive resourcesful Jerry, who is very familiar with his big buddy Jerry's tactics, we the mice at Somaliaonline have to live with the reality until such time, when the real bad guys are caught and the good guys come forward, then we clapp in joy for the end of an intersting cartoon movie. Pass me the popcorn NGONGE!

 

 

Nur

[NGONGE]

That was a deliciously educational post. It gave us all a nicely summarised background of the situation. Of course, it hardly deals with any of my questions, but I’m at least relived that it’s out now and we would not have to refer to history again on this thread (I hope).

 

I must congratulate you on the last paragraph. The idea was beautifully expressed and clearly received.

Now, in between sips of coke and mouthfuls of popcorn, let me first agree to the cartoon idea. I dislike Jerry, because Jerry is a deceitful kind of vermin. Worse still, I can’t stand TOM. All that violence, all that aggressiveness and all that tension should really have an 18 certificate and not the Universal one that it has. Still, with this show being universally accessible to everyone, I’m more concerned with the SOL Mice being influenced by Jerry’s unacceptable behaviour, simply because Jerry happens to be a fellow mouse!

 

I might hate Tom, I might disagree with him and I might even fight Tom. I can do all of this without compromising my mousy rules and laws. A true mouse need not employ, support or excuse any ‘caty’ tactics. This whole scenario reminds one of George Orwell’s Animal Farm! Those that read it will recall how the animals rebelled against Man. How the Pigs led the revolution and how, with time, excuses and deceit the Pigs finally got to rule the rest of the animals and eventually ended up having friendly dealings with Man! The book ends with the rest of the animals looking from side to side and not knowing which is Pig and which is Man! That book was a scathing attack on Stalin’s communism and how Stalin distorted the original concepts to fit in with his own needs, prejudice and desires. Should we, like Stalin and the animals, allow others to shape our morals?

 

You see, it’s easy for one to lose one’s temper ( I almost thrashed a rude Bus driver yesterday - I‘m still annoyed at his behaviour even now). It’s easy for one to lash out. It’s easy for one to stir up an angry crowd and fuel the wrath of the mob. Anger, rage and fury can be summoned within seconds, there really is no great skill involved there.

 

Calm on the other hand, is viewed with disdain! What are you scared off? Is the first question an angry person would ask. Why are you not as upset as we are? The mob would shout. We’ve been oppressed for so long, that we now rejoice when we hear our enemy almost chocked on a pretzel! Do you not rejoice with us? The pretzel-eater is killing our people. Do you not lament the dead? What is this calm and sense you preach? Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war, saaxib. They killed our brothers and sisters, and you’re expecting us to be rational with our analysis? No, no, no we’re too angry and emotional for sense and prudence. We want vengeance and if getting this vengeance means compromising our faith then so be it.

[Goonle]

Interesting topic. Why is it that these towelheads have the right to blow infrastrures of countries just because they're having it little rough with the western world that they've chosen to partner up with for the last 5oyrs. Theyre crying and screaming for attention because the devil theyve been dealing with has takin a few of there oil wells.We just have a little tiny crisis in africa of a 100,000,000 folks dying of AIDS, excuse me if all those zeros are hard on the eye. Hopefully those towel heads that control OPEC will think twice when they try to squeeze us for every dollar we have just to get a full tank of gas. I mean brothers were just minding their business making money in the USA when they decided to put us on unemployment by bringing down those buildings. Lets have a reality check here the middle east does not have it nearly as bad as Africa but u dont see us resolving our problems by blowing up buildings or subways. I believe that arab nations though exploited are given far better treatment than any sub saharan african country can ever hope for. SO please brothers dont expect me to cry for those fat overweight petrodollar wasting bigotted towelheads.