Nobody's Fault.

[Haddad]

Originally posted by Fidel:

cloyingly

Hey, I have learned today a new word. I thought you were aiming for cunningly, but I guess it's the better one.

[xiinfaniin]

Time makes more converts than reason. That was an acquiescent prelude of the defiant pamphlet of Thomas Pain. Common Sense, he simply named. He was a young British migrant in America who refused to appoint, so to say, a man-eating feline to tend on the affairs of innocent masses. His mere writings have become the fuel of American Revolution that ousted the British rule. This is a case where the eloquence and the articulacy of simple man have shaped the thinking of the masses.

 

Although it is not fair to elevate Ch. Reese to that stature, I nevertheless found his article an authentic expression and correct representation of the pulse of the people in the West; the regular people that is. The reason that the world is changing on us is not because the enemy hates our way of life, he tells them. They are over here because we are over there.

 

I was intent to write and reflect on this. But as I re-read his article, the simplicity in which he chose to convey his message just disarmed me. Let’s pray to see more of him, the mouthers-of-full-truths. People who dare to write competently and do not play fast and loose with facts.

 

As I exit this topic, let me remind my fellow nomads that it is the tradition of God to test those who profess His faith. His divine word hints that it is precisely when time gets tough that we ought to hold His robe tight and fasten it harder.

[lol]

Originally posted by NGONGE:

 

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 eyeâ€

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 eyeâ€

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.

[/QB]

Walaalkiis, from the way u r posting seems like ur on the Judge's seat. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. And interpretation of Islam is open to anyone who has the mind to read between the lines. When u kill my brothers and I can't get to you, I have the right to kill ur brothers too. That is the way I interpret an eye for an eye concept as far as Westerners go. But when its within the reach of the person who has committed the crime to avenge it kill the criminal. Simple.

 

I do understand my religion walaalkiis, but ur mind has been manipulated by the western Media. They know how to seek compassion by showing you their suffering, appealing to your humanity side. I don't think so. Not with me.

 

When a man kills several people he is labeled as being " Murderer" and if the same man kills thousands he is " Conqueror" That is the message the West is selling I am not buying it. Americans & the British deserve what they got, coz they are also terrorizing people. Who gave the privilege to sleep soundly in their beds and the rest of the people can't even dare to put their heads down in fear that a bomb or a bullet will tear their bodies? We are all humans.. we serve to sleep well in our beds and live among our loved ones.

[NGONGE]

Originally posted by Hibo:

Walaalkiis, from the way u r posting seems like ur on the Judge's seat. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. And interpretation of Islam is open to anyone who has the mind to read between the lines. When u kill my brothers and I can't get to you, I have the right to kill ur brothers too. That is the way I interpret an eye for an eye concept as far as Westerners go. But when its within the reach of the person who has committed the crime to avenge it kill the criminal. Simple.

 

I do understand my religion walaalkiis, but ur mind has been manipulated by the western Media. They know how to seek compassion by showing you their suffering, appealing to your humanity side. I don't think so. Not with me.

 

When a man kills several people he is labeled as being " Murderer" and if the same man kills thousands he is " Conqueror"

That is the message the West is selling I am not buying it. Americans & the British deserve what they got, coz they are also terrorizing people. Who gave the privilege to sleep soundly in their beds and the rest of the people can't even dare to put their heads down in fear that a bomb or a bullet will tear their bodies? We are all humans.. we serve to sleep well in our beds and live among our loved ones. [/QB]

It is a discussion forum, Hibo. One has to make some sort of judgment and choose a side of the argument for the discussion to continue. Having said that, my judgment should really not upset anyone – they’re only words on a screen after all.

 

I’ve decided to return to this thread because of a couple of sentences you wrote. Please don’t misunderstand me now and think I’m patronising you (or judging you; in a bad way at any rate). I’m not.

 

If interpretation of Islam is open to anyone that can read between the lines. And, if everyone can apply the ‘an eye for an eye’ concept at their whim, how do we know who is wrong and who is right? Surely there must be some sort of agreement somewhere. The majority of Muslim scholars have agreed that such acts of ‘an eye for an eye’ are wrong.

 

I don’t think we can interpret Islam in any way we like just because we are angry or there is something we don’t agree with. Because if we did, many other opportunists will do too and use the same logic that you’re using to justify their “improvised†interpretations. One such person is Amir Tahiri who wrote the following in today’s Times Online:

 

 

Muslims could also help by stopping the use of their bodies as advertising space for al-Qaeda. Muslim women should cast aside the so-called hijab, which has nothing to do with Islam and everything to do with tribal wear on the Arabian peninsula. The hijab was reinvented in the 1970s as a symbol of militancy, and is now a visual prop of terrorism. If some women have been hoodwinked into believing that they cannot be Muslims without covering their hair, they could at least use headgears other than black (the colour of al-Qaeda) or white (the colour of the Taleban). Green headgear would be less offensive, if only because green is the colour of the House of Hashem, the family of the Prophet.

Muslim men should consider doing away with Taleban and al-Qaeda-style beards. Growing a beard has nothing to do with Islam; the Prophet himself never sported anything more than a vandyke. The bushy beards you see on Oxford Street are symbols of the Salafi ideology that has produced al-Qaeda and the Taleban.

Some Muslims also use al-Qaeda and Taleban-style clothing to advertise their Salafi sentiments. For men this consists of a long shirt and baggy trousers, known as the khaksari (down-to-earth) style and first popularised by Abu Ala al-Maudoodi, the ideological godfather of Islamist terrorism. Muslims who wear such clothes in the belief that it shows their piety, in most cases, are unwittingly giving succour to a brand of Islamist extremism.

It would also be useful if Muslim preachers paid a bit more attention to God, which means doing some theology, rather than making speeches about Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq which are, after all, political, and not religious issues. The excessive politicisation of Islam has created a situation in which the best-known Muslim today is Osama bin Laden.

 

 

Islam must decide whether it wants to be a faith or a political movement. It cannot be both without being hijacked by Salafis or Khomeinists who have transformed it into a breeding ground for terror.

 

As you can see, most of what he’s saying is total and utter nonsense. However, there are words and ideas there that grabbed my attention(and I bet most readers). Despite finding him a despicable opportunist, I don’t have much of a problem with his last paragraph about politics and Islam. I do have a problem with the way he belittles the Hijab by first, saying get rid of it and then saying: you can keep it but not in such and such colours. It’s as if he’s pointing out the would be women terrorists by the colour of their Hijab! I also don’t like the way he seems to imply that terrorism and Salafis are synonyms.

Mr Tahiri thinks he can interpret Islam his own way; he’s reading between the lines there. What allows him to get away with it and take many undecided and confused Muslims with him, is our own ambiguousness and anger.

 

 

The full article can be found below. Lest I get accused of taking his words out of context, I invite you all to read it.

 

Source

[Laba-X]

Originally posted by Haddad:

quote:Originally posted by Raganimo:

Most people usually use far too much verbiage to obscure their own thoughts and opinions. Generally, an entire post can be boiled down and re-written, including each and every essential point, in a third or even half the original length.

Some people try to compensate their lack of quality or clear

thoughts and opinions

with quantitative paragraphs.

Hadaad, Only if most writers express their essential points in the clearest, simplest, most direct language, eliminating all the decorative frills - everything that is not vital; using short, straight-forward sentences and arranging the ideas in proper sequences, so that thought advances step by step, each leading to the next -from starting point to conclusion, then their messages would be alot more meaningful and ambiguous messages clarified!

[lol]

Originally posted by NGONGE:

quote:Originally posted by Hibo:

Walaalkiis, from the way u r posting seems like ur on the Judge's seat. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. And interpretation of Islam is open to anyone who has the mind to read between the lines. When u kill my brothers and I can't get to you, I have the right to kill ur brothers too. That is the way I interpret an eye for an eye concept as far as Westerners go. But when its within the reach of the person who has committed the crime to avenge it kill the criminal. Simple.

 

I do understand my religion walaalkiis, but ur mind has been manipulated by the western Media. They know how to seek compassion by showing you their suffering, appealing to your humanity side. I don't think so. Not with me.

 

When a man kills several people he is labeled as being " Murderer" and if the same man kills thousands he is " Conqueror" That is the message the West is selling I am not buying it. Americans & the British deserve what they got, coz they are also terrorizing people. Who gave the privilege to sleep soundly in their beds and the rest of the people can't even dare to put their heads down in fear that a bomb or a bullet will tear their bodies? We are all humans.. we serve to sleep well in our beds and live among our loved ones.

It is a discussion forum, Hibo. One has to make some sort of judgment and choose a side of the argument for the discussion to continue. Having said that, my judgment should really not upset anyone – they’re only words on a screen after all.

 

I’ve decided to return to this thread because of a couple of sentences you wrote. Please don’t misunderstand me now and think I’m patronising you (or judging you; in a bad way at any rate). I’m not.

 

If interpretation of Islam is open to anyone that can read between the lines. And, if everyone can apply the ‘an eye for an eye’ concept at their whim, how do we know who is wrong and who is right? Surely there must be some sort of agreement somewhere. The majority of Muslim scholars have agreed that such acts of ‘an eye for an eye’ are wrong.

 

I don’t think we can interpret Islam in any way we like just because we are angry or there is something we don’t agree with. Because if we did, many other opportunists will do too and use the same logic that you’re using to justify their “improvised†interpretations. One such person is Amir Tahiri who wrote the following in today’s Times Online:

 

 

Muslims could also help by stopping the use of their bodies as advertising space for al-Qaeda. Muslim women should cast aside the so-called hijab, which has nothing to do with Islam and everything to do with tribal wear on the Arabian peninsula. The hijab was reinvented in the 1970s as a symbol of militancy, and is now a visual prop of terrorism. If some women have been hoodwinked into believing that they cannot be Muslims without covering their hair, they could at least use headgears other than black (the colour of al-Qaeda) or white (the colour of the Taleban). Green headgear would be less offensive, if only because green is the colour of the House of Hashem, the family of the Prophet.

Muslim men should consider doing away with Taleban and al-Qaeda-style beards. Growing a beard has nothing to do with Islam; the Prophet himself never sported anything more than a vandyke. The bushy beards you see on Oxford Street are symbols of the Salafi ideology that has produced al-Qaeda and the Taleban.

Some Muslims also use al-Qaeda and Taleban-style clothing to advertise their Salafi sentiments. For men this consists of a long shirt and baggy trousers, known as the khaksari (down-to-earth) style and first popularised by Abu Ala al-Maudoodi, the ideological godfather of Islamist terrorism. Muslims who wear such clothes in the belief that it shows their piety, in most cases, are unwittingly giving succour to a brand of Islamist extremism.

It would also be useful if Muslim preachers paid a bit more attention to God, which means doing some theology, rather than making speeches about Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq which are, after all, political, and not religious issues. The excessive politicisation of Islam has created a situation in which the best-known Muslim today is Osama bin Laden.

 

 

Islam must decide whether it wants to be a faith or a political movement. It cannot be both without being hijacked by Salafis or Khomeinists who have transformed it into a breeding ground for terror.

 

As you can see, most of what he’s saying is total and utter nonsense. However, there are words and ideas there that grabbed my attention(and I bet most readers). Despite finding him a despicable opportunist, I don’t have much of a problem with his last paragraph about politics and Islam. I do have a problem with the way he belittles the Hijab by first, saying get rid of it and then saying: you can keep it but not in such and such colours. It’s as if he’s pointing out the would be women terrorists by the colour of their Hijab! I also don’t like the way he seems to imply that terrorism and Salafis are synonyms.

Mr Tahiri thinks he can interpret Islam his own way; he’s reading between the lines there. What allows him to get away with it and take many undecided and confused Muslims with him, is our own ambiguousness and anger.

 

 

The full article can be found below. Lest I get accused of taking his words out of context, I invite you all to read it.

 

Source

[/QB]

Ahhh.....NG, of course you must point that out!! I would not expect otherwise.

 

2000 years ago the world was a maelstrom of misunderstanding, tribal warfares, a need to protect one's own resources, because to do otherwise was to perish, both as a tribe and as an individual. An eye for an eye would have seemed fair recompence and 'just' in those heady days of 2000 years ago, as little other instant recourse was available. And instant recourse is still available today where there is no justice. As a species we have grown far beyond the need to (*jeez, dare I say it*) eliminate our enemies with violence ( ofcourse again if there is justice). We have grown beyond the need to react with 'like' repercussions upon those who would do us harm, If the right kind of justice is made available. An eye for an eye can be interpreted in many ways, and not all involve violence. And besides, "an eye for an eye" had little weight or practical use in the days it was quoted, but gained use now because of the lack of a strong Muslim government that speaks for the injustices that befalls their people.

 

Humans are products of their environment, prone to exonophobia (sp?). But the intellect reaches beyond these parameters in many people, and these take it upon themselves to expose the ways of the future to their fellows. An 'eye for an eye' probably didn't make good 'copy' in the days it was written, but today it has gained popularity. I don't know about the scholars who have condemned " eye for an eye' concept , if u can provide proof to that would be gr8.

 

I will reiterate, religions don't commit violent acts...........intrepretation is an intellectual pursuit, and so should be one's approach to life, religion or not.

[NGONGE]

Humans are products of their environment, prone to exonophobia (sp?). But the intellect reaches beyond these parameters in many people, and these take it upon themselves to expose the ways of the future to their fellows. An 'eye for an eye' probably didn't make good 'copy' in the days it was written, but today it has gained popularity. I don't know about the scholars who have condemned " eye for an eye' concept , if u can provide proof to that would be gr8.

 

I will reiterate, religions don't commit violent acts...........intrepretation is an intellectual pursuit, and so should be one's approach to life, religion or not.

First of all, let me sidestep the request for “proof†about the scholars‘ condemnation. In such current topics, I don’t do proof. My assumption when having a debate with anyone is that the person(s) I’m debating with has some background information about the subject being discussed. We are not having a discussion about some obscure part of Islam or rarely addressed area. We’re talking terrorism; an issue that has been in the news for the past fifteen years (and more so in the past two weeks). I suggest that you use goggle.

 

The way you managed to squeeze the history of humanity in the last 2000 years into three short paragraphs is very impressive. Still, the gist of your argument and moral position lies in the last paragraph. Yours seems to be a secular and pragmatic position! What stance you choose is not my concern. For like you said; everyone is entitled to their opinions and interpretations.

 

Where I disagree with you is in the method you used to reach that position. I believe it to be flawed, you see. You say “interpretation is an intellectual pursuit, and should be one’s approach to life, religion or notâ€! Now, I appreciate that this sentence of yours can be viewed and dissected from many angles. However, I’m going to concentrate on just the one. When you say “religion or notâ€, I get the impression that if religion suits your previously made interpretation, you’ll follow the religious path (or at least use it to support your argument), and if religion clashes with your interpretation, you’ll ignore it because, after all, interpretation is an intellectual pursuit!

 

Lest we forget what we’re talking about here, let me remind you that we are still on the subject of terrorism and its justifications. You seem to be justifying it by saying that when one is attacked, one is free to choose whatever interpretations of the religion that are available. If no “agreeable†interpretations are available however, one is free to devise his/her own! There are no moral absolutes there. One’s moral positions, therefore, will change in accordance to events, norms or changes in environments!

 

That’s fine. Though I still believe it to be an unsustainable position to hold, it’s nonetheless, a prevalent one. Where I’m puzzled and can not reconcile such a position with these situations, is in the level of anger for places like Iraq, Palestine, Kashmir, etc.

 

If we are not applying Islamic standards and adhering to its strict moral positions on such issues; if we would rather apply and pursue our own “intellectual†interpretations (sounds more like justifications to me); and, if we are being secular in our outlook, why then should we care about foreigners such as Iraqis, Palestinians or Muslim Indians? Is it because they’re Muslim? What does it mean to be “Muslim� Is it a cultural concept? Is it a political one? Not an Islamic nation, surely!

 

The Islamic position on such issues (terrorism) is very clear. It rejects the killing of innocents regardless of the nature of the provocation. It rejects the “eye for an eye†concept (in the way that you interpret it) and condemns all these ineffective acts of rage in the name of Islam.

 

The only way such acts could be justified (and even here it probably will not be easy) is when one applies manmade laws and moral justifications. Even then, the executers of such attacks will have to be Iraqis or Afghanis.

[lol]

NG: Seems like u and I are on a different platform. You see I agree with you, these terrorist acts shouldn't be labelled as Islamic Jihad. Its not. Coz an Islamic Jihad can be undertaken only if the religion is threatened. In this case its not. Selfish politicians are using the grounds of Palestine, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan & Pakistan to their advantage. Nonetheless many innocent people are loosing their lives. I am sure if you lost your family members and there is no court to judge the criminals whom u know have murdered your loved ones, you would take the matter into your hands.

So don't preach about "eye for an eye" concept being outlawed. Its not.

 

Terrorism has been on the lips of many for decades, nonetheless, it has gained popularity when the predators became the prey.

 

I still stand by my word, " Eye for an Eye" is the only way to get peace, in these regions. Let them feel the heat, when they do, then they will understand why these suiciders' are willing to loose their lives for a bunch of strangers in strange land.