Nobody's Fault.

[Blessed]

^ Racist!

 

We get so engrossed with the trees, that we’re forever lost in the forest.

 

Carry on. Please

[Final_Say]

looooooooooooooooool haddad; thats what you have to contribute to the topic; a grammatical correction; loooooooooooool. thats silly adeer

[NGONGE]

^^^^ He's great isn't he?

Been avoiding me for months now. But, even with his quick darting runs, he finally fell down a trap of his own making.

 

That indeed

 

For this time only and in the honour of my dear Haddad, I too will try to be a hopeless pedant. Enjoy.

[xiinfaniin]

NGONGE,

 

Fair enough, saaxiib. As for the Islamic part, I am still adamant about it. In the final analysis terrorism is a political label (remember Y. Carafaat) more than it is a criminal act! It is expectable these Muslim movements (remember Sadam, though unrelated but it shows how any can claim to be on the Allah’s side) to inject religion in to this as much as they can. It is also expectable from the western powers to depict their adversary in the darkest shade possible: savages who want to destroy our civilization and way of life. But as you agreed with me the nature of this conflict is political, and not religion. We may get there, but we are not there yet. Islam is not a religion in dispute; moderate. Vs. extremist as some would have us believe. The nature of our faith is not in question. We don’t have to issue apologies and we should ridicule those who expect one. It could be more complex than this and I may as well missing the mark. As for you, one has to admire your soul-searching enquiries and self-examining posts you penned.

 

I will come back to reflect the author’s point; the duplicity of western (USA& UK) leaders and how theirs is just a treachery of sort. Some people, I suppose, are sent to fight wars that they are destined to loose.

 

Baashe,

 

It’s a serious charge when one indicts entire faith simply because a few angry men decided to express their grievances by killing unarmed and unsuspecting civilians. You see, Baashe, I avoided to discuss the root causes of terrorism and merely referred it in a passing sentence. That I thought is obvious for all. Where I took issue with our old chap was what seemed to me (subtracting NGONGE’s last post of course) stubborn insistence of his that these acts are Islamic in nature. That I thought was an impeachment of sort. That’s all saaxiib.

[Paragon]

NGONGE: Usually you write the longest posts in SOL, but with the least substance, and now you have gone out of your way to involve your family (your innocent daughter), in your tasteless rants, just to further a lame argument. Sxb give it a rest and maybe try to find out the wisdom behind one-line responses. But I guess you can't make a simple point in one line, it is a skill of its own kind .

 

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).

PS: I still think you are doing a poor imitation of McCarthyism .

[Haddad]

People that try

 

Muslims that say

[NGONGE]

Have you lost your sense of humour too now, Jamaal?

 

PS

How's that for a one-line reply?

[Viking]

NGONGE,

Words are the means we are using to communicate on this medium and you are doing a lousy job! An example is how you play around with the term ISLAM. You say Islam needs to change (which has sparked a reaction from me, Jamaal, xiinfaniin etc.), then you say Islam is perfect and then turn around and say the term Islam and Muslims are interchangebale. If you had proper comprehension of the words (in this particular context) you are throwing around then you might have saved us all a lot of time because we seem to be running around the same issues.

 

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 don't know what madrasa you went to but politics does not lie outside the scope of Islam.

 

 

You probably write ten times more (in every single post) than the average SOL forumer but yet you have a difficutly putting simple points through to the readers. Why is this? Haddad, as short as his posts are, there is no doubt or confusion in comprehending what he is saying. You stand to learn from him, and all the other "pedantic" individuals you accuse of being obtuse.

 

Forget the other points I raised and ADRESS number 2 and 3 because that is what seems to have sparked this discussion. Here is what you said (in bold) and my response to it (in italics)...

 

 

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 there was a "link" between the two and it would be hypocritical accuse anyone who agrees with this position of applying duplicity.

[Haddad]

Originally posted by Viking:

as short as his posts are, there is no doubt or confusion in comprehending what he is saying.

Merci, Monsieur Viking.

[xiinfaniin]

Jamaal & Ngonge, biyo hoostood baad iska aragteene tiinnu dood waa dhaaftay.

 

Awalbaad dekeno hore qabtay oo didisay cowshiiye

Maantana biciidkaan damcaad daba ordeysaaye

Fediyaamo deerooy haddaanan dabada kaa toogaan!

 

Saasay sheekadiinu iila ekaatay.

[Castro]

Originally posted by xiinfaniin:

Jamaal & Ngonge, biyo hoostood baad iska aragteene tiinnu dood waa dhaaftay.

Waar ninkii rooni reerka ha uhadhee isku siida raga.

[Nephissa]

^^ Dirdiraale.

[Kashafa]

Ngonge,

 

Sophistry aside, let's break this thing down:

 

I'll make two statements. Tell me the difference between the two(if you can):

 

1- I condem the London Bombings. There is no justification whatsoeverforit.

 

2- I condemn the London bombings. There is no justification whatsoeverforit. That said, it was bound to happen/chickens come home to roost/what comes around goes around./it should be no suprise(take ur pick)

 

You mean to tell me with a straight face, that because I added an explanation to Statement #2, I'm implicitly condoning the bombings ? that I'm guilty of moral vaccillation or your catch-phrase: duplicity ? you expect that to fly ?

 

Sufferin Sucotash !! Keep it moving, man

 

It is clear to all that both statements explictly and unequivocally condemn the bombings. The ONLY difference is that Statement #2 puts the bombings in context. It provides a frame of reference. You scream red murder when your words are takin outa context, why are you so desperately rejecting any attempt to put the London attacks in context, in the background of the "war on terror", in the root causes of this conflict ?

 

What your basically saying is: Condemn the bombings..... unequivocally... THEN SHUT UP. Zip it. If you try to explain, search for the root causes, point out that as long as the UK continues "waging war on terror", there will likely be more indiscriminate attacks, you're a spineless wuss trying to have it both ways.

 

I, for one, don't see it that way. I think it takes mucho backbone to tell people that what caused the horrific attacks is the foreign policy of their elected representatives. That if their military didn't causually carpet-bomb entire villages to showcase the awesome fireworks known as Shock & Awe, chances are they wouldn't have hordes of victims just thirsting for revenge anyway they can get it. Cause and Effect, friend, can't deny it. Even if you stick your head in the sand. Works just like gravity.

 

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

!

 

I quoted the Cousin to show you how an actual victim was taking all this in. HIS family was shot dead. Wrongly. He didn't go off on a tanget blaming Islam/The Muslims/The Bengali guy named Islam. He said EVEN if his cousin died at the hand of a Muslim, he'd blame the Limey Goverment. He obviously understands the Cause and Effect theory when he says:

I heard last week that there are 25,000 innocent people dead in Iraq, people who have paid the price for this war.

 

" Well, now the British are paying the price too. And now a Brazilian has paid the price for Iraq

Ok, so you don't put much stock to what an actual victim thinks about all this. How about the Mayor of London ? Does he know what he's talking about ?

 

Think for a minute, duqa. You can't muzzle the truth. And the Truth we both know fine and well is: Blair's involvement in Iraq is the main cause of 07/07. Sing that in the shower a coupla times. It'll get through.

[Strawberry_Xu]

I think it's obvious to anyone not directly involved in this debate that you are all agreeing with each other, but simply fail to realise that.

 

The point Ngonge seems to be making is that we are dealing with an Islamic problem. I think he is right, because these attacks are something that threaten our Ummah in a number of ways:

 

1. Muslims almost always get killed in these attacks.

2. Muslim suffer government/civilian reprisals for things done by a minority in their community.

3. Islam's standing in the world is threatened, by those who distort its message.

4. Extremism is a growing problem, mostly through lack of a balanced education.

5. Our children are blowing themselves up and many more are learning right now how to do so.

 

How can you say it's not an Islamic problem? It's not necessarily a problem with Islam, but a problem that affects muslims and the way they practice their religion, or things that prevent from practising their religion: miseducation/fear/diminished civil liberties etc.

 

And for those who want to get into semantics again, Islamic is a valid term in this case. It does not attribute anything to the religion, but it does relate things to it, in the same way one speaks of Islamic art, Islamic literature, Islamic architecture etc.

 

I think what Ngonge is leading to (but I might be wrong) is that there will always be attacks on muslims and attacks on muslim lands. But it doesn't justify us using the same deplorable methods. Allah swt has given us guidelines in how to engage in war, and these terrorists are not following it. So one of these days, the time will come for muslims to look inwards and see what is wrong in our Ummah and collectively attempt to correct it. And we do this not for Bush/Blair, not for the Western public, not for the media, not for the far-right extremist who are itching for a chance to attack us, but we have to do is for ourselves. For the growth of our beautiful religion and to perserve our youth who one day will contribute to the Ummah in ways that are Islamic and positive.

 

There is an Islamic problem, uniquely related to us and it is something only Muslims can fix.

 

This is how I understand the point Ngonge is trying to make. That we concern ourselves foremost with Islamic problems, before attempting to correct global and political problems.

 

And now to get to the other side of the argument; I'm not saying that these political problems are not important or that they don't affect muslims. But unlike the Islamic problem of terrorism, these can be fixed by muslims and non-muslims alike. Yes these two problems are related, but are not inexorably intertwined. We can attempt to remedy the Islamic problem, whilst working on the political problems that affect us. But we musn't sit back and say, "we won't do anything until bush/blair do something".

 

Change of foreign policy should not be a condition for something we have a moral and religious duty to perform, which is taking care of our Ummah.

[NGONGE]

Viking saaxib, I could try everything in my power and write long or short sentences to help you understand but I can’t teach you to READ. Stop being emotional and read my words.

 

I’ve replied to all your questions a dozen times already. If you CAN’T READ, it’s your shortcoming and not a failing in my ability to write. Go back and READ my words again, and again, and again. Try to comprehend them then come back and have a mature discussion with me. This is still obtuse.

 

 

Kashafa,

 

Option one is perfect. Option two has been modified by you now (the jihadist rhetoric of earlier disappeared and it’s more subtle and benign). I am telling you that YOU CAN’T have option two. I am telling that by choosing option two you are being dishonest and not sincere here. There is a difference between being asked if there was a link and volunteering such information. And here, to be honest, most of you that choose option two didn’t only volunteer it; you’re in fact treating it as a vital part of the discussion!

 

You’re saying that statement two puts the bombing in context! Puts it in context for whom? For ME? Or for the other readers in the site? For Blair? What’s Blair got to do with our discussion as Muslims and our moral judgments? Why do you need to keep referring to it? Don’t you reject the bombings already? Why qualify your rejection with this “context†and “frame of reference†nonsense?

 

You’re a Muslim; you’re talking about this whole thing (one assumes) from an Islamic point of view. You don’t care about Iraq because you’re a liberal leftist but because YOU ARE a Muslim. You reject the bombings because they’re not Islamic. You (one would think) believe that the perpetrators of such acts are a wicked minority. You don’t agree with or condone their actions. BUT, you still link the bombings to Iraq and say it was expected, chickens come home to roost, etc! You insist on endlessly repeating that point. Why? Context? Frame of reference again? But you are not a left wing liberal, saaxib. You are a Muslim and you don’t need to prove any of that or apply any such ‘frame of reference’. Your frame of reference should be and stay as: This is Un-Islamic and I reject it.

 

Call it sophistry, call it a play with words and call it waffle with no substance, if you wish. If you reject the bombings on one hand and insist on providing a link on another, I also insist that you’re being two-faced (how about that for a new word?).

 

I think I’ve said enough on this thread and don’t need to add anything new on this discussion. If someone decides to view things from a different angle or pose new and unexamined questions, I might pop back and post another of my laborious and short of substance lectures. The questions posed here have all been fully and satisfactorily dealt with methinks.

 

PS

Read Xu's post above if you've an allergy to my words. I agree with every word she says of course.