Did anyone else read about this?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbkrKH7SCio&eurl=
This is an instructive eye-opener as far as I'm concerned and should be front and center on the 6:oo news. It’s flabbergasting: Those within the Muslim community who are critical of the violent jihad are branded as "Islamaphobic".
Let me get this straight. This man, Jamal Miftah, a Muslim who lives in Tulsa, believes OBL should be brought to justice and espouses Islam as a religion of peace not violence. For this he cannot return to his Mosque until he apologizes for his "insults"??? Do we not consider this evidence that many within the Muslim community will defend the behavior of other Muslims, no matter how sociopathic?
I think this administration is well worthy of criticism in how it has prosecuted the Iraq war and the WOT, but terrorism started long before September 11th and this administration’s response to it. Or do people remember that? How long before the threat facing us is commonly recognized as having its causation not in a so called western imperialism (since when is promoting self-government synonymous with exploitation?), but in an iron-age religious ideology that is so endemic to the Middle-East? I think as long as so many in the West fail to realize that there are tens of millions of people in the Muslim world that are a lot more dangerous than Dick Cheney, then it is going to be hard to recognize let alone protect ourselves from our genuine enemies.
Maybe it’s simpler or more comfortable to remain in denial and instead whine about how unpopular we are in the world. Then again, I think to grasp the nature of much of the rest of the world is to also understand that it’s a good thing that many people don’t like us. It’s a vulgar notion to wish to be liked by everyone, even more vulgar to vie for a favorable light among tribal thugs and anti-Semites.
My least favorite “Blame America First” club member is the morally bankrupt intellectual who can’t or won’t make the distinction between how we (and Israel) seek to avoid murdering non-combatants as a rule, while many Muslims intentionally murder non-combatants and use civilians as human shields. These club members are so uncomfortable with the moral component that they wash their hands of any responsibility to level judgment on people and events by going to default setting and claiming it's all an equivalent "cycle of violence", everyone is equally bad for resorting to violence. Such vacancy dressed up as enlightened thought.
The dilemma of our age is this: which will be the greater threat to our downfall, the triumph of non-judgmental postmodernism or nuclear terrorism. I’d actually put my money on the former, but I think its success will intimately contribute to the latter's success too. It’s the 1930’s all over again. In this war against religious extremism, those that would crash planes into skyscrapers, behead journalists, and blow themselves up on busses have learned to use our values against us. I don’t think I’m being pessimistic in saying that realistically, it is going to take a mushroom cloud over New York City to really shake the public into some greater understanding of this civilizational crisis. The date it happens will have lots in common with September of 1939.
What do you think? I'll go and try to think happy thoughts now...
23 comments:
Islamophobic Muslims.
Is that your new band name?
In light of that depressing story, let's take a look at this news....
( Graphic image warning )
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/28/061128160959.redzwzyd.html
DizyD, that was well put. Actually, think it could be considered not just an American feeling but a human feeling to wish for better times in the cafe of trauma.
Wow. I just caught the misspelling. I meant to say "face", but who cares now. Is "Cafe of Trauma" a new band name?
I got the article from here. There's an interview with Jamal Mifta there also.
Lugman, welcome, and understand I appreciate your comments and hope that you will consider adding your perspective in future posts.
Please recognize that when I made that comment about the causation of the current conflict, I was making a distinction between the popular theory that the West is supposedly reaping what it had sown, and a radical ideology that wishes to restore the ancient caliphate (note photo above: “Islam will Dominate”) I would not blame that ideology on Islam central, but simply on how the jihadists who have undertaken this endeavor identify themselves.
And you’re right: there aren’t tens of million of people in the Muslim world who are more dangerous than Dick Cheney when measuring capability and resources. I’m referring more to the realm of ideas and beliefs. I don’t think the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are in the top ten best reads for Cheney, whereas this wretched publication and all the hate it espouses is a regular best seller in Turkey, Egypt, and elsewhere in the Middle-East.
I'm guessing the photo was of an ITS protest. They say they are non-violent.
Islam has similarities with Christianity. Both Muslims and at least some Christians believe that Jesus (peace be upon him) will return to the Earth and will rule by God's law. So as a Muslim, yes, I do believe Islam will dominate. However, I don't feel it necessary to hold signs saying so.
The caliphate is not as ancient as you think - it was destroyed less than 100 years ago by most accounts. (the Ottoman Empire)
I think political issues do result in attacks against western countries and it can't all be blamed on extremist ideologies. When the terrorists strike, they don't simply quote the Quran or hadiths, they make political demands.
Fair point regarding the Protocols stuff.
My observation, and perhaps I'm painting with too broad of a brush here, is that where I have seen calls for the domination of Islam, I have also seen calls for, say, the beheading of those who "insult" Islam.
One can wish for the domination of a particular religion, and as long as that wish remains within the domain of thought and rhetoric, I grant all the more power to those with this wish. Far be it for me to fear and oppose notions that find their merit and adoption in the marketplace of ideas. It's when that wish turns from thought into violent action, however, that I feel compelled to ring the clarion bell, whether justified by a violent religious ideology or from perceived political/economic injustices.
And I guess I was referring to the expanding 7th century Islam rather than the era of the “sick man of Europe”. Either way, it is the stated wish of OBL and others of his ilk to reclaim this pan-Islamic empire. Unfortunately for them, modern powers like the United States stand in their way.
Lugman, I’m curious: how has your treatment as a Muslim been since 9-11? Of course, I’m assuming you’re writing from somewhere in the West...
Also, and in the original spirit of this posting, how have some of your ideas/critical notions been received by other Muslims? Assuming from your statements here that you are critical of violent jihad, are you branded as "Islamaphobic" by others?
Again, thanks for contributing!
I'd say your observation is incorrect. Two groups I know of who do call for Islamic domination are Hizb ut Tahrir and ITS. They both say they are non-violent (and I know for sure HT are). You can recognise Hizb ut Tahrir demonstrations as they normally have orange signs, I've never seen any with such statements.
From what I read of OBL (I haven't watched his speeches), his aims seem to be three, "to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque (in Jerusalem) and the holy mosque (in Makka) from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim." Many people are unaware that he has nearly achieved one of his aims:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_withdrawl_from_Saudi_Arabia
I don't even know if one of Osama bin Laden's aims is to revive the caliphate.
I live in London, UK. I've been called a terrorist a few times and get stares depending on how I dress. My younger sisters get harassed every now and again. But nothing serious so far.
Perhaps you have mistaken me, I am not critical of violent jihad. I am critical of terrorism, which I do not consider to be jihad but murder. If I was to be critical of violent jihad, I would have to be critical of some of the verses of the Quran.
Other Muslims sometimes disagree with me (most are more moderate as opposed to less) but I don't think I have ever been called Islamophobic.
Luqman, I’m not sure I understand. If it is the ultimate aim of Islam to bring the whole world under the dominion of Islam, then how can we limit that expressed aspiration to Hizb ut Tahrir and ITS?
Any sense of who these protesters are, including the ones that set fire to the Danish embassies?
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=98845472&size=o
And what are we to make of these 6?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6261899.stm
And how does the majority of Muslims in Britain view them?
“Perhaps you have mistaken me, I am not critical of violent jihad. I am critical of terrorism, which I do not consider to be jihad but murder. If I was to be critical of violent jihad, I would have to be critical of some of the verses of the Quran.”
For my own understanding, if you would, could you please clarify a bit on your statement? Under what conditions do you find violent jihad justifiable, by the Koran or otherwise, and where would you point to examples of this today in the world? Palestine? Chechnya?
Thank you for obliging all my questions so far...
It may be worth noting the stated objective of the ITS (Islamic Thinkers Society)
From their website....
"Our objective is to resume the Islamic way of life to which will fulfill the purpose of the aim. Our objective is to bring back the apparatus that was destroyed in 1924 i.e. Khilafah. Indeed it was the Khilafah that united the Muslim Ummah under one flag, one land, one border, and one leader. It was the Khilafah which served as the appartus to make sure that Tawheed manifested in all ascpect in the Muslim Ummah's affairs. Surely, anyone who accepts any other system than Allah's Shari'ah is worshipping the one who has put his laws in place of the laws of Allah. This is a major form of shirk and anyone who commits a major shirk has left Islam."
I'm not sure how these individuals think they are going to influence the return of the Khilafah, or Caliphate by appearing on the streets in Times Square and Jackson Heights, NYC holding up signes that say "Islam will Dominate". Maybe they think New Yorkers will see the error of living in a Constitutional Republic with Rule of Law and succumb to Sharia?
ITS have a list of "Scholars to be avoided" on their site, one of which is Hamza Yusuf Hanson, who, according to their site once sold tapes which called the U.S. the great satan but has since had a change of heart and advises President Bush on outreach to Muslims.
What does ITS suggest as the proper way to avoid this scholar, Hanson?
Quote:
We say to Hamzah Yusuf, whilst he stood outside the Whitehouse lawn with his friend George singing "God save America", did it not occur to him that Islam forbade making the Kuffar his intimate, let alone making the greatest enemy of the Muslims his 'buddy'?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MSFbhIG-sk&mode=related&search=
The "preacher" in segment one of that video is so full of hate and a total moral dunce.
"Luqman, I’m not sure I understand. If it is the ultimate aim of Islam to bring the whole world under the dominion of Islam, then how can we limit that expressed aspiration to Hizb ut Tahrir and ITS?"
It's a bit complicated. Every knowledgeable Muslim believes the world will be dominated by Islam. However, there are many different groups working in different ways to acheive this. Some concentrate on calling non-Muslims to Islam, some try to topple the dictators of the Muslim world (both with and without force), some call Muslims to politics, some do nothing and wait for Mahdi.
If those protestors in London were linked to any organised group, it's likely to have been Al Muhajiroun, The Saved/Saviour Sect, Al Ghurabaa etc.
The London bombers probably weren't with any group.
"Under what conditions do you find violent jihad justifiable, by the Koran or otherwise, and where would you point to examples of this today in the world? Palestine? Chechnya?"
"And what reason have you that you should not fight in the way of Allah and of the weak among the men and the women and the children, (of) those who say: Our Lord! cause us to go forth from this town, whose people are oppressors, and give us from Thee a guardian and give us from Thee a helper. [4:75]"
I don't know enough to comment about Palestine or Chechnya. But I don't accept killing noncombatants or suicide bombings as legitimate (though I could be wrong on the second, there's some difference of opinion).
"I'm not sure how these individuals think they are going to influence the return of the Khilafah, or Caliphate by appearing on the streets in Times Square and Jackson Heights, NYC holding up signes that say "Islam will Dominate". Maybe they think New Yorkers will see the error of living in a Constitutional Republic with Rule of Law and succumb to Sharia?"
No. The aim in my opinion is to spark backlash from non-Muslims. This creates further support for ITS.
"What does ITS suggest as the proper way to avoid this scholar, Hanson?"
I don't know. But I would imagine not reading his articles, going to his talks etc?
Sorry, realised I missed out a question:
"how does the majority of Muslims in Britain view them?"
82% of British Muslims think it was wrong for Muslim demonstrators to carry placards calling for the killing of those who insult Islam.
http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2006/Sunday%20Telegraph%20-%20Mulims%20Feb/Sunday%20Telegraph%20Muslims%20feb06.asp
Luqman, I’d be curious to know if that statistic jives with your personal experience. Yes?
If accurate, they as would any British citizen would have my sympathy, especially in light of the July 7th bombings. People who advocate for terrorism should be taken deadly seriously. I’m willing to take them on their word considering events on the ground, and they need to be confronted, ideologically and with force if necessary.
Probably what I and many of my American compatriots would like to know is what have moderate Muslims in Britain done exactly to denounce and refute the hateful and violent ideology of those that carry signs compelling the killing of infidels? It seems the ones preaching hate and violence have a louder voice than the rest. Do you think moderates should be more active in countering the radicals?
I also like to know about people’s ideals and how far they would go to either bring these ideals into existence or to preserve them. History has a lot to say on this. Of course it’s something everyone should at some point in their lifetime ask themselves, but, for what greater cause would one die? Where could a person of any religious or secular stripe justify the sacrifice of their life and possibly the lives of others? And is our answer compatible with the modern secular nation-state?
Are the laws of the Koran compatible with the natural law theory that is the foundation of western societies?
I believe there are a good many in my home country of the Untied States who would be as servile as the day is long to a secular tyranny (you know, the church of state envisioned by the self- anointed White Hats who share the ideology of that bearded guy whether they really know him or not). So long as it meant not having to defend a universal moral value that places a degree of obligations on others, or not having to die for anything or ever experiencing loss, or a day of discomfort without food in the stomach or money in the wallet. It shows how material many in America have become. Fortunately, there are also a great many Americans still that don’t fall victim to this world view.
Luqman, when it come to your ideals, what would you be willing to die for?
Yes, from personal experience most British Muslims wouldn't agree with such slogans in Britain. However, it should be mentioned that in an Islamic state, such artists would perhaps face execution.
Extremist ideologies need to be countered. But I don't know the best way to go about it.
Answer to what we've done (or tried to do)? Lots. You may know that Friday is our holy day. On Friday, all practising Muslim men attend the mosque to hear a sermon (khutbah). Every mosque I've been to that does their khutba in English speaks out against terrorism and extremism repeatedly. So much so that you sometimes wonder if there's anything else to Islam apart from not being a terrorist or extremist. Any Muslim event or website normally has a section denouncing terrorism and extremism. Mosques now invite MPs, policemen and clergy from other faiths into the mosque etc.
But for some (normally young) Muslims, this actually pushes them the other way. They feel that Muslim organisations have 'sold out' or become 'moderate' so they no longer respect them. And of course, the internet is open to all, so whoever you want to listen to you can find.
Extremists always have a disproportionately louder voice than moderates. Extremism makes news.
Here in the UK, the government allowed well-known extremists to roam free and preach openly for years as long as they were under surveillance. But to tell the truth, these guys are mostly hypocrites. Let's have a look at what happens when the going gets tough.
I admit, my values aren't fully compatible with the notion of the secular nation state. I would be willing to die for my religion (I hope) but not my country. But dying for my religion could take many shapes. In Islam, if you die protecting an innocent person or defending your property, you have also died for your religion.
I don't know what the natural law theory is, sorry. I started a Law course last year but did spectacularly badly.
Oh, you might be interested in Abu Usamah's reply. He's the black guy in the Dispatches video:
Dispatches Undercover Mosque Reply
I for one, cannot take seriously a man who on the one hand says "Islam compels one to be intellectual" and on the other hand simply states that "Women are deficient in their intellects" ....and as "proof" cites the Quran as the "proof".
The very specific way in which the Quran "proves" this deficiency is illustrated in the practice of Islamic jurisprudence, which allows that in court, 2 women are equal to one man, when giving witness, or "shahad".
Abu Usamah has said just that in the video.
He's good at religious sophistry, in that he says that no good Islamic scholar actually believes that men are superior to women in their intellect and, as "proof" he says cites the mother of Jesus as being more knowledgeable than any man, or Aisha, the wife of the Prophet.
He then goes on to say that yes, Muslim men have oppressed women in their countries because of the culture, but often times men allow their wives to give direction while driving a car.
Gender apartheid will hobble this mans culture as long as this view prevails.
That undercover mosque video has been removed from YouTube today.
It's interesting how Abu Usamah dissimulates around his statement regarding "hate the kafir". Clearly their were many in the "undercover mosque" video who said you must hate the kafir. In the Google video, Abu Usamah says the Quarn instructs one to "hate the disbelief". That's not what they were preaching in the "undercover mosque" video.
It's curious how Abu Usamah regards Egypt, for example, as an Islamic state, where he claims the Imam can utilize crucifixion as a death penalty.
Egypt's legal system isbased on English common law, Islamic law, and Napoleonic codes, but I'd never heard of crucifixions happening there. To be particular... crucifixion can mean torturous suffering. That, I understand does happen in Egypt.
Overall, it looks like Abu Usamah got caught on tape and is desperately trying to lose viewers in illogic and extensive religious dogmas, none of which I find the least bit pursuasive or reasonable.
A good read:
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001362.html
Luqman, what do you think the premise is behind the rules regarding women’s testimonies if it is not that their intellects are deficient? What else can we attribute it to?
...and call in to witness from among your men two witnesses; but if there are not two men, then one man and two women from among those whom you choose to be witnesses, so that if one of the two errs, the second of the two may remind the other... „ —Qur'an, 2:282
So, here is the “command”, but what do we suppose is the underlying reasoning? Why, categorically, is the woman likely to “err” and thus need support, but not, categorically, the man?
My wife is brighter than I, and I know that she would rightfully take great offense to the notion of her testimony being half of mine or of another mans. But then, she is a woman after all.
"The reason for which the Quran lays the condition of two women to testify in place of one man in financial case has nothing to do with the woman's femininity as some people imagine. It springs from a basic condition in the testimony itself, represented in the witness's being highly related to the subject to which he testifies no matter whether the testifier be a man or a woman. When the subject of dispute is more relevant to women and a woman is more acquainted with its details (such as nursing, offspring or sucking) then the woman has the priority in giving testimony. Being more relevant to men (such as criminality, burglary and murder) priority in giving testimony then shifts to the man." - Dr al-Buti
I've also heard Bilal Philips say something along the same lines, that in general (Muslim) women are not as familiar with financial contracts so this is why two women are needed as opposed to one man. Also, he added that memory loss is one of the effects of the menstrual cycle.
But these I am sure, would not be acceptable reasons to most western women who are perhaps just as familiar with financial contracts or criminality as men are and would be offended if a man was to suggest otherwise. I think then this verse needs to be understood in the context of an Islamic society.
Muslims living in western countries generally obey the laws of the land without causing a fuss. The only widespread exception to this I can think of are copyright laws. Anyway, verse 2:282 deals with financial transactions. In UK law, it would be permissible to carry out such transactions with or without witnesses. So if you wanted, you could get two men or a man and two women to witness it.
In Islam, there are two types of jihad, the defensive and the offensive.
The defensive is to preserve one's life, family, neighbours, posessions, religion etc.
The offensive jihad is declared by the leader of the caliphate (Islamic state) against non-Muslim states who haven't agreed/stuck to peace treaties with the Muslims. As there is currently no Islamic state, there is no offensive jihad.
No probs.
Post a Comment