Nobody's Fault.

[Castro]

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.

 

I think we should talk about sex. We will have far greater concensus on it than any other subject on earth.

The floor is yours! [/QB]

Yeah... Sex is great. A daily dose of it is ideal.

[OLOL]

Ngonge, Saaxiib, I don't need to go in lengthy pointing out your absurd indictment against our beautiful religion. (most of the borthers and sisters who did reply to you, perfectly articulated and put it beautifully why Islam is not the issue but the self-interested foreign policy of the West towards the Middle East and the Islamic World)

 

The majority of Muslims (99.9%) have nothing to do with terrorism and are not culpable for the actions of few militant nut-heads motivated by political philosophy.

 

Saaxiib let us talk about the "Root Causes" of terrorism. Let us put aside our biases & narrow interests and attempt to define terrorism first.. that should be our priority here ...

 

And this is no personal attack or character assasination but you coming across as someone working hard to please some authority. Without a shred of doubt,U have proved your loyalty and devotion to them! So spare us of this hogwash and borrowing a word from your blog .......Saaxiib K. I. S. S! = Keep it So Simple! Your protracted rants, even though they augment and embellish the whole debate, can be summarized to the "three points" mentioned above by brother Fidel. Or do you have more to say?

 

Yeah Let's talk about sex!!

[NGONGE]

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.

[Baashi]

I don't think you are listening each other. Stop and reread what Ngonge has just posted.

 

Xiin, Viking, and Olol are looking the issue from the big picture point of view and the geopolitical conflict between those who are endowed with oil (mainly Muslims) and the Industrial powers who are seeking to control this indispensible commodity whereas Ngonge put his views in moralistic terms: can we afford to let the terrorists speak for and act in our name?

 

The irony is Ngonge agreed time and again with Xiin, Viking, Olol, and other like-minded nomads but he pressed the question and asked for unequivocal position in condemning the terrorists who use the garb of Islam to commit these heinous crimes. On the other hand, nomads I mentioned did just that and reject terrorism as a tool to address our grievances against the West but coupled ifs and buts to explain the larger conflict and the two-faced nature of terrorism: one spearheaded by malcontents and another one sponsored by states.

 

I see Ngonge and Jamal are kinda engaging unmanly underhand punches. Not good.

[Paragon]

NGONGE, tell me something else sxb. Isn't it true that you judged and accused me for not knowing how to hold a position? Isn't it true that you equal civilization with a single country? You have tried to sweep what pointed out about your writing aside and you wish to ignore them, just as you do with many issues. If this is what the supposed 'position' you hold is premised on, then God forbid, I don't wish to hold position similar to yours.

 

As I said before, 'If you knew how to deal with this issue directly, you wouldn't find any twist or complication at all. Frankly, this issue is simply a beginners' debate'. The most suiting way of dealing with this type of debate, which is common to you, is to make little or nothing of it.

 

PS: If what I wrote was a 'waffle', why don't you proof it. Pick on the easy points I made in the 'waffle' and see if you can deny their validity.

[Castro]

Originally posted by NGONGE:

Ahem, I left the sex part out when quoting you. Hope that’s not a problem.

Not a problem. Glad you did.

 

1. Killing civilians is wrong (anywhere in the world).

 

Not only is that true but it does not exclude the fact that it is sometimes done intentionally for whatever reason.

 

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.

 

Muslim or not, people see the link and judgements are made using all available evidence, of which the link is an integral part.

 

3. People that try to excuse one with the other are being duplicitous.

 

I disagree.

 

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.

 

I agree and I am in this camp.

 

5. Indifference in this case is also duplicitous.

 

True.

 

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.

 

They are only as duplicitous as those who protested, in London and elsewehere, against the war in Iraq but their governments (the rougue elements) hijacked their foreign policy to invade Iraq.

 

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.

 

Perfect Gaussian distribution.

[OLOL]

The one thing that we pick from your lengthy lectures so far is that your favorite words de-jour are : Obtuse! and Duplicitous:

 

With the help of the Dictionary.com here is their meaning: Let us look at them.

 

 

1- OBTUSE:

a- Lacking quickness of perception or intellect.

 

b-Characterized by a lack of intelligence or sensitivity: an obtuse remark.

c-Not distinctly felt: an obtuse pain.

 

2- Duplicitous:

 

Given to or marked by deliberate deceptiveness in behavior or speech.

 

 

Muslims who don't differentiate terror and don't see the " governmental terrorism", the invasion, the occupation of Muslim lands and the "Fallujah, Gaza, Grozny" genocide of America, Israel, Russia & England as conventional war are duplicitous and above all OBTUSE!!! Well done !! it is like I am watching Fox news Channel and Bill O'Reilly! what a torture!

 

ciyaal xaafadda waxeey dhahaan markeey arkaan adoo kale " Kan caqligoow rabaa inoow nooga xaaro"

[Viking]

1. Killing civilians is wrong (anywhere in the world).

 

Agreed!

 

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.

 

You have to be clearer in this case; you can not say they are two distinctly different things and then in the same breath say there is a link between them. They are either disntinctly different (if you mean unrelated and if you mean anything else please make it clear) or linked, you cannot have it both ways.

 

3. People that try to excuse one with the other are being duplicitous.

 

There is no excuse for killing civilians (as we agreed in your first point) but seeing a link between the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't imply duplicity (contradictory doubleness of thought). You said yourself that tehre was a "link" between the two and it would be hypocritical accuse anyone who agrees with this position of applying duplicity.

 

 

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?

 

5. Indifference in this case is also duplicitous.

 

..and inhumane!

 

 

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?"

[NGONGE]

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.

[OLOL]

Like a cat cornered, he fights back with razor-sharp claws - Ngonge, don't take it personal and get all edgy on some simple remark...and learn how to hold back your emotions saaxiib! you are now behaving like the "duplicitous and obtuse" Muslims! I like to put people on the spot!

 

case dissmissed! next topic!

[STOIC]

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.

 

Ngonge, this is where i heartily agree with your week long argument.If your partners in this debate agree with you on this point no one will be left to hold the bag !.If we all as a muslims will admit that this people are quoting our Quran and using it for their gain i think our religion will no longer be in danger.But if we make excuses for this terorist our religion will be viewed by outsiders as a death cult religion.No one here aired any hot air-each one had a point.They were only diferent by the skin of the teeth. Ngonge you are right that emotions share alot with actual thought and beleif.You have to understand that we as a muslims are angry with the west and its policies(this is not important now).But we should value our virtues, our reasons,and above all we should value all things that are good as a muslims(i think the guys here agree with you on that).

[NGONGE]

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).

[Final_Say]

Ngong;

 

i believe u writing all those long posts, with a total waste to nut heads and hard headed xalimo's and farah's on SOL you would be better off not wasting so much time explaining a very basic thing, which is quiet logical, you would be better off writting one line posts, so that the do not look so silly.

 

it is a simple thing, i actually believe your all singing the same song, just different lines at different times; with the exception of few obvious terrorist supports who are shouting bomb them!! which i do not take very kindly to :mad:

 

 

p.s. gnong; i never posted on this thread before, i think your confusing it with "Motive; the london bombing" but anyway i get your point;

 

peace and out

[Haddad]

People that try

Muslims that say

For those who don't know it, you don't use that, you use who. that is used for things. Check for an example that assigns that to people:

 

that

[NGONGE]

^^^^ Quod erat demonstrandum

 

Pedants you say?

 

(A useless pedant at THAT)