How Islam Fought Terrorism

[Viking]

While Caesar had sleepless nights, Umar (RA) slept under a tree without anyone guarding him. The U.S. method of fighting terrorism by force, injustice, pre-emptive strikes, unilateral action and "regime change" only adds fuel to the fire. As witnessed by the recent world events.

 

The Bush administration has released a new National Security document which has been likened by the Moscow Times to Hitler's Mein Kampf, and described by the New York Times as Bush's "How I'll rule the world" blueprint.

 

This method which is used by Israelis has only been devastating to both sides if measured in human cost, loss of freedom, psychological trauma and economical loss. The U.S. and the rest of the World will be expected to suffer similar losses when it mirrors the method used by Israel and Hitler as shown by the following statement from the Bush administration, "the only path to peace and security is the path of action". That is, the U.S. must wage a perpetual war, because without war there can be no peace.

 

If we compare this attitude with that of the Early Muslims who are considered the best generation, we find the following example of Caliph Omar.

 

The Caliph Omar was the governor or president of the Islamic Empire, which included Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Syria, Egypt, North Africa and Spain.

 

One day Caesar wanted to know how Omar lived and how he treated his people. He sent a person to Al Medina where Omar lived.

 

When this man entered Al Medina he asked the people, "where is your king?" The people replied, "we have no king but we have an Amir similar to a president." This man asked, "where is he?" They told him, " he is outside Al Medina."

 

He went to find him. What did this man see? He saw Omar sleeping alone on the sand holding a little stick with no guards around him.

 

When he saw him like that he became very impressed and ashamed of himself and said, "A man all the kings in the world are scared from, sleeps that humble without any guards? You governed your people with justice and honesty so you became safe and slept. Our king is unjust and dishonest. That is why he is always scared and awake most of the night surrounded by guards inside a fortress.

 

Fighting terrorism is only by spreading justice and education, but not by force as what is happening now.

 

In the Qur'aan, Surah Al Nahl (16) verse 90, " Allah commands justice, the doing of good and looking after our relatives. Allah forbids all shameful deeds, injustice and rebellion. Allah instructs you so you may comprehend."

 

However, spreading only justice is not enough because some ignorant people may do acts of terrorism.

 

In Surah Al Nahl (16) v. 125, " O Mohammed, invite to the way of your Lord, which is Islam, with wisdom and fair preaching, and argue with them in a way that is better. Truly, you Lord knows best who has gone astray from his path, and he is the best aware of who are guided."

 

This was the character of the Early Muslims which allowed Islam to spread throughout the whole World. Allah said that the most honorable to Allah is the most fearful of Allah and not the richest, strongest or those who belong to a certain group or nationality as shown in Al Hujurat (49) v. 13. "O mankind; we have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes that you may know one another. Verily the most honorable of you to Allah is that who is most faithful, pious and fearful of Allah."

 

 

There are numerous historical examples in the Qur'aan showing the eventual outcome of oppressive tyrants such as Pharaoh compared to those who are righteous. The Qur'aan teaches us the morality, wisdom and meaning behind these events.

 

Unfortunately in Schools and Universities, history is only taught in a factual manner only showing the consequences of military conquests where morality, responsibility and accountability are considered irrelevant. It is no wonder that we can never learn from our previous mistakes. Particularly if the Christians insist on believing the Paulian idea that "the means justifies the aims". That is, it does not matter how evil your actions are as long as your intentions are good.

 

Whereas, for a good deed to be accepted in Islam, it must be sincere, with good intentions and done according to the Sunnah of our Prophet.

 

Source

[Warrior of Light]

JZK Viking its an excellent read.

[NGONGE]

I read that article three times and still don’t know who the author is preaching to! Not surprised that it met with your approval, Viking. One foot in each side, eh?

 

The author narrates a great story. However, he’s playing the usual two-faced game of politics by applying it to the Bush administration (I never think these guys mean to be two-faced. It’s merely a fashion that everyone follows nowadays). Again, he would have done much better and got better results if he concentrated on Muslims and told them how to “fight†terror instead of crying about how Bush (a Non-Muslim) is fighting terror.

 

This boastful article reminds me of the Arabic verse :

ليس الÙتي من قال كان ابي

ان الÙتي من قال ها انا ذا

A man is not he who says my father used to be

A man is he who says HERE I am

 

In other words, instead of preaching to Bush about what Islam ‘used’ to be, why not preach to us about what Islam ‘aught’ to be?

 

If only he would have focused on the last paragraph and based his whole piece on it. If only...

 

Ps

I note here that you have no problem with the use of the word "Islam" in the title! How very consistent of you, saaxib.

[Viking]

NGONGE,

Originally posted by NGONGE:

I read that article three times and still don’t know who the author is preaching to! Not surprised that it met with your approval, Viking. One foot in each side, eh?

I found the message to be rather clear and adresses both Muslims and non-Muslims; the author said..."Fighting terrorism is only by spreading justice and education, but not by force as what is happening now."

 

Originally posted by NGONGE:

The author narrates a great story. However, he’s playing the usual two-faced game of politics by applying it to the Bush administration (I never think these guys mean to be two-faced. It’s merely a fashion that everyone follows nowadays). Again, he would have done much better and got better results if he concentrated on Muslims and told them how to “fight†terror instead of crying about how Bush (a Non-Muslim) is fighting terror...In other words, instead of preaching to Bush about what Islam ‘used’ to be, why not preach to us about what Islam ‘aught’ to be? If only he would have focused on the last paragraph and based his whole piece on it. If only...

Click on the word "Source" (in blue) and find out how you can forward your critique to the author.

 

 

Originally posted by NGONGE:

Ps

I note here that you have no problem with the use of the word "Islam" in the title! How very consistent of you, saaxib.

Umar (RA) was a highly respected ruler (even among occidentals) and ruled in accordance with the Shari'a, so why should I have any problem with the title?

 

PS: I think you are too apologetic mate, stop trying to please the westerners because they will never be pleased until you leave the fold of Islam.

[NGONGE]

With all due respect, Viking, if you’re going to be pedantic try and be consistent. Umar (RA) was NOT Islam. He was merely a mortal ruler (a great mortal ruler). See how pointless such pedantry can be? I trust that it stands to your usual level of trivial scrutiny.

 

Islam is not a word to play with; you can’t dictate that people apply it as YOU please, saaxib. Either refuse to accept it in any context other than the religion itself or accept the use of the word in both the positive and negative senses (as you’ve done there yourself).

 

As for your childish accusation about being apologetic and trying to please Westerners, I shall play along and say YES I’m trying to please Westerners. Every word I write in here is done to impress and charm passing Westerners. However, every single one of them poses a (in my opinion) very valid question. Do you have the capacity and aptitude to deal with these questions instead of wallowing in the gutter of assumption and duplicity, saaxib? Is it possible that you could ever see beyond the tip of your nose?

 

Lastly, let me return the brotherly advice and also inform you that your duplicitous position is not healthy and that applying left-wing views to an essentially Islamic problem will, in time, erode on your values and make you leave the fold of Islam. Is it at all possible that you’ll heed my words and rethink your position?

[Taqwa]

Salam,

 

This article is basically saying that for one to combat terrorism and its kind, we have to adopt the Islamic way of the past. Conquering minds by spreading justice and education. Caliph Omar was used as an example due to his humbleness and his stance on justice for all (Non Muslim/Muslim). You can't expect justice and yet have a conflicting policy. How can you expect terror to be fought by Muslims when terrorist aren't aiming for Muslims in particular?

[Viking]

NGONGE,

You are one weird character! You were recently defending vehemently an article written by a secular homosexual who denies the authenticity of the Qur'an and questions the morality of our Noble Prophet SAWS. Yet you question why I posted this article which explains in simpleton how terrorism is best fought according to Islam.

 

 

Did Caliph Umar (RA) rule according to the Shari'a? Was he just? Did he epitomise the teachings of Islam? If you answer YES to these questions then you will not have a problem with the title.

 

Lastly, let me return the brotherly advice and also inform you that your duplicitous position is not healthy and that applying left-wing views to an essentially Islamic problem will, in time, erode on your values and make you leave the fold of Islam. Is it at all possible that you’ll heed my words and rethink your position?

You have abused the word duplicitous and used it on anyone who wasn't on your line of thought. Now I'd like you to be a fair chap and point out which points make my argument duplicitous in this post (plus any other post where you think I've used TWO opposing and contradictory ideologies to present my case).

 

This is also the second time you have used the term left-wing in describing my views. What exactly (in my arguments)prompted you use the word left-wing to describe my views? I'm really keen in finding out about these left-wing tendencies that (as you put it) would "erode on your values and make you leave the fold of Islam".

 

 

Taqwa,

I'm glad you understood the article for what it was.

[MR ORGILAQE]

Nginge is confused and doesnt know where he is going.he sounds like someone who is pretending to believe in Islam but doesnt.Well brother there couldnt have been a better example than Caliph umar.There isnt a ruler better than him,and most of institutions around today in the west started with him.Fell free to ask and i'll post it.Viking good one thanks

[NGONGE]

Originally posted by Viking:

NGONGE,

You are one weird character! You were recently defending vehemently an article written by a secular homosexual who denies the authenticity of the Qur'an and questions the morality of our Noble Prophet SAWS. Yet you question why I posted this article which explains in simpleton how terrorism is best fought according to Islam.

 

 

Did Caliph Umar (RA) rule according to the Shari'a? Was he just? Did he epitomise the teachings of Islam? If you answer YES to these questions then you will not have a problem with the title.

 

quote:

---

Lastly, let me return the brotherly advice and also inform you that your duplicitous position is not healthy and that applying left-wing views to an essentially Islamic problem will, in time, erode on your values and make you leave the fold of Islam. Is it at all possible that you’ll heed my words and rethink your position?

You have abused the word

duplicitous

and used it on anyone who wasn't on your line of thought. Now I'd like you to be a fair chap and point out which points make my argument duplicitous in this post (plus any other post where you think I've used TWO opposing and contradictory ideologies to present my case).

 

This is also the second time you have used the term

left-wing

in describing my views. What exactly (in my arguments)prompted you use the word left-wing to describe my views? I'm really keen in finding out about these left-wing tendencies that (as you put it) would

"erode on your values and make you leave the fold of Islam"

.

 

 

First of all, Viking. Don’t take my words out of context. The thread about Irashad Manji is still there and ANYONE who has basic comprehension abilities (excluding you and Jamaal of course) will attest to the fact that at no point in that discussion was I defending that woman. Don’t be like a hasty child that quickly swallows hot food and deprives himself of the flavour therein, chew saaxib. Chew.

 

Now on the word duplicitous. How about if I call you a hypocrite, saaxib? An unwitting hypocrite (which by the way is worse than one that does so on purpose). I’ve told you before and I tell you again, you are duplicitous because you do not hold a sustainable position. You pick a bit from both sides. You’re a bit Islamic and a bit left-wing. Your arguments for linking the Iraq war to terrorism are nothing but left-wing rhetoric. They don’t follow an Islamic position (though you try to supplement it with articles such as the see-saw above). Besides, I’ve already pointed out, in boring detail, why I think you’re being duplicitous.

 

Still, I’ve changed my mind on all of this now. Judging by your comment above about Irshad Manji alone, it’s very clear that your main problem is that you CAN’T READ. I’m sincerely not saying this to insult you or score points, saaxib. I really believe that you can’t read. You can get upset about it or you can try to improve and work on this failing of yours. You’re not alone in this by the way.

 

Orgi,

I was surprised that Viking couldn’t read simply because he’s usually not that obtuse. In your case though, there is no surprise. I wouldn’t tax a goat was something as complicated as the ability to read. When it comes to you, I’ll always try to keep it simple (just like the original article above) and give you sheeko xareer about Omer (RA) and how great a ruler he was. Stick around, I shall post you a story about him soon. waad ku farxi, saaxib.

[Viking]

NGONGE,

I mentionned Irashad Manji not because I think you are promoting homosexuality on these pages but because of your initial comments...

 

I read that article three times and still don’t know who the author is preaching to!Not surprised that it met with your approval, Viking. One foot in each side, eh?

 

So far you are the only one who sees contradiction in this article while you fail to see the contradiction (duplicity) in Irshad Manji's arguments which had your approval- she is a secular homosexual who calls herself a Muslim but does not believe in the authenticity of the Qur'an. Can it get more duplicitous/hypocritical than that? But I think you are too submerged in occidental ideology to even acknowledge this simple fact.

 

As for my comprehension skills, I don't think they are as lousy as you would like to potray them. Do your megalomaniac self a favour and visit that post to see how many people actually agreed with your views on the issue of Irshad Manji and terrorism.

 

You have still failed to show why you thought I was being left-wing (which you claim contradicts Islam). Just in case you've been living in a cocoon the last few weeks, there have been many sources that claim the terrorist attacks are linked to do to British foreign policies. Even a highly respected think-tank in the UK linked the war in Iraq with terrorism, does that make them duplicitous and hypocritical too? Read the links below in case you missed it...

 

Link

 

Link

 

I'm not at all worried about your insults mate, you have failed horribly in showing the "duplicity" in my arguments and also showed hollowness in defending your reasons to call me a "left-winger" who's on the risk of leaving the fold of Islam. Adiga leh kuu taala waxaas sxb.

[Johnny B]

Originally posted by NGONGE:

You’re a bit Islamic and a bit left-wing. Your arguments for linking the Iraq war to terrorism are nothing but left-wing rhetoric. They don’t follow an Islamic position (though you try to supplement it with articles such as the see-saw above). Besides, I’ve already pointed out, in boring detail, why I think you’re being duplicitous.

Well said NGONGE !!

When you´ve a triangle with two 90 degree angles , you know what type of triangle you´ve infront of you.

This thread ,The thread about Irashad Manji and the comparission of what the coalition forces are doing in Iraq to what Al-qaida ( n like minded)has done in 9/11 n 7/7 in the name of Islam.

That per se should make anyone´s equation equals to nill

[n]

The kind of debator you´re looking for is ONLY found in the academic circles.[/b]

 

Somalis just like many other Muslims are practising a lofty dogmatisim , just what the church did back in the 17th century when Dawrinisim was on the march.

 

Islam has done it b4, Islam does it better,etc etc .. wothout the matching self explanatory whys n hows is a cockamamie STANDARD i´ve very difficult to adopt.

 

One could think as if they beleive in a competition between the WEST and ISLAM.

West is not a religion , Islam is .

try to explain that n you get yourself engaged in a meaningless debate where you´re precieved as the defender of the WEST, i.e ANTI-ISLAM.

[NGONGE]

Though I can see that this is a futile exercise I can’t help but come back again and again. YOU CAN’T READ, saaxib. That alone would not have been a problem if you stood still. You keep jumping from one idea that you can’t comprehend to the next. If I was the cruel type I’d say it’s quite comical watching you do so. However, it’s not comical. It’s annoying, irritating and perplexing to see someone that knows the words, can read the individual words and presumably, understand the words act in the way you’re acting when words are made into sentences and paragraphs.

 

You tell me that I’m:

 

too submerged in occidental ideology

yet you’re the one quoting Western think-tanks to support your hypocritical position!

 

 

You say:

 

As for my comprehension skills, I don't think they are as lousy as you would like to potray them. Do your megalomaniac self a favour and visit that post to see how many people actually agreed with your views on the issue of Irshad Manji and terrorism.

They’re not lousy, saaxib. They’re dreadful. The number of people that agreed/disagreed with me on those two issues is not an indication of your poor reading abilities. Viking, some of those respondents have actually managed to elevate their replies to the level of a ‘debate’, you have not. You’re still stuck on words and untenable positions. Do not cite the crowd as evidence of your ability (or lack of).

 

You say:

 

 

You have still failed to show why you thought I was being left-wing (which you claim contradicts Islam). Just in case you've been living in a cocoon the last few weeks, there have been many sources that claim the terrorist attacks are linked to do to British foreign policies. Even a highly respected think-tank in the UK linked the war in Iraq with terrorism, does that make them duplicitous and hypocritical too? Read the links below in case you missed it...

I can’t accuse these sources and think-tanks of being duplicitous (though they probably are) because simply, they’re not Muslim. You are Muslim. You are trying to hold an Islamic position on the issue and at the same time apply the think-tank logic. I’m telling you that such a difficult juggling act is duplicitous. One either holds a direct Islamic position here of denouncing terrorism with no qualifications, riders or caveats. Or, one disregards the conclusiveness of the Islamic position for the flexibility of the left-wing (right-wing if you like) stances. To try peddling both is duplicitous. It’s akin to one saying “ I’m totally against the war in Iraq but will place the lion’s share of the blame on Saddam’s refusal to cooperateâ€. The absurdity of the second part of that sentence renders the first part null and void. It effortlessly exonerates the invaders of Iraq from any wrongdoing by citing Saddam’s refusal to cooperateâ€. This is what you’ve done and have been doing throughout.

 

Stop right there. Read it again before you type a long and predictable tirade about Saddam’s cooperation and Western propaganda (this is NOT the point I’m making).

 

Will you try to read this time?

 

PS

Thank you for pointing out that I could reply to the author of the article above. I certainly will reply to him and request that he improve on or remove such shabby pieces.

[Haddad]

Contrast this:

How about if I call you a hypocrite

with:

Can it get more duplicitous/hypocritical than that?

Notice the words you and that in the above quotes. We have one poster who engages in personal attacks. We have another poster who engages in attacks against a person's writing, idea or point. One is subjective, the other objective.

[NGONGE]

^^^

 

As pointless as ever. One of those days I’d like to see you really join a subject, Haddad. Why are you out of the chat room anyway?

[Viking]

Haddad,

Trying to explain anything to this dude is like what you say in Swahili Kupigia mbuzi guitar (playing a guitar to a goat)!

 

NGONGE,

Your stance is the evidently the same...

 

1. Muslims can criticize the terrorist attacks but are being duplicitous if they try to understand the underlying causes.

 

2. It is ok to post an article written by a secular homo but hypocritical to post one that explains how terrorism is to be dealt with according to Islam. Especially if the name of some occidentals happen to be used as an example.

 

 

You've called me obtuse, hypocritical, unable to comprehend simple semantics, duplicitous, pedantic etc. All this by a knuckle-head who can't see beyond the tip of his nose.

 

Listen sxb, you are better off working on some more material for your autobiographical BOREDOM thread, all these discussions have only been a distraction from what you do best. The dead horse has been flogged beyond recognition, have a nice one!