Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Aboo Uthmaan

Islam & Indiscriminate Violence

Recommended Posts

Dear all

 

Please feel free to listen / download the following audo file:

 

(www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.calltoislam(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/forum/index.php/topic,187.0.html"]Islam & Indiscriminate Violence - By Jalal Abualrub[/url]

 

Regards

 

Aboo Uthmaan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to listen to the audio behind that link, unfortunately i don't have the priveledges to do so. Any chance you could transcribe it or give an idea of what is being said?

TT

 

"I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent."

-- Mohandas K. Gandhi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Updated Link:(www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_calltoislam(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/audio/Islam%20&%20Indiscriminate%20Violence%20-%20Jalal%20Abualrub.mp3"]Islam & Indiscriminate Violence[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if Islam means peace why do suni's and shia's fight?

 

 

 

Dear all

 

Please feel free to listen / download the following audo file:

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"http://############calltoislam######/forum/index.php/topic,187.0.html"]Islam & Indiscriminate Violence - By Jalal Abualrub[/url]

 

Regards

 

Aboo Uthmaan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if Islam means peace why do suni's and shia's fight?

 

I suspect it's the blood feud syndrone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear all

 

Actually, the word Islam does not mean “peaceâ€, it means “submission†or “surrender†and that is because it is derived from the root word “al-silm.†“Peace†is a possible meaning to give to the word “Islam†but it is not the principle meaning, and peace is attained through submitting and surrendering ones will to Allaah.

 

Regards

 

Aboo Uthmaan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suspect it's the blood feud syndrone.

 

I suspect divide and rule by US and UK? The institutionalised inequality in redistibution of national resources and ability to command the states monopoly of violence as inshrined in the new iraq constitution benefits some regions and some tribes more than others. This is in my humble view a diliberate policy to devide a nation so they can use a government as a straw to suck up the countries resources.

 

Stop tek I fi cheap...Rasta would say

Edited by Rastinny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, the state has the monopoly on violence, i.e. law enforcement and military. Is there anything unusual about this?

 

The US and UK have not written the Iraq constitution.

 

The conflict between tribes and factions has historic roots to before Iraq even existed as a state. Remember Iraq with its boundaries is a product of colonialism and includes groups which would unlikely have formed a single state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if Islam means peace why do suni's and shia's fight?

 

Because "sunni" and "shi'a" are not "Islam". Islam is a religion entirely seperated from such labels.

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes like Layna said Islam is a religion and sunni, and shia are just sects within it. It is not right for them to fight, but they have different beliefs and they disagree with eachother, it is in human nature to fight. Like the famous poem named rumi once said "When someone disagrees with you, and ant of antagonism is born in the heart"-- Then that ant turns into a snake, and that snake into a lion and it is blown out of proportion. These sects don't represent Islam. If you want to know Islam then study Islam and not the Muslims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This strikes me as a cop-out. Every time someone points out that Muslims behave contrary to the teachings of their religion, a Muslim says "Ah, but this is not Islam". If it is not POSSIBLE for humans to live in societies in a way that all Muslims would agree conforms to Islam, 'Islam' is just a fantasy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because "sunni" and "shi'a" are not "Islam". Islam is a religion entirely seperated from such labels.

 

Salam.

 

I wish somebody would tell them.

 

kb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This strikes me as a cop-out. Every time someone points out that Muslims behave contrary to the teachings of their religion, a Muslim says "Ah, but this is not Islam". If it is not POSSIBLE for humans to live in societies in a way that all Muslims would agree conforms to Islam, 'Islam' is just a fantasy.

You affirm that some Muslims behave contradictory to their religion as some point out, this is correct. You then go on to condemn Muslims for agreeing and saying exactly the same thing.

 

As for what conforms to Islam and you talk of it just being a fantasy then there is a very simple answer in that we have in the Qur’aan been given a solution to follow when differences occur in order to sort out such differences and establish the truth. The problem does not lie in Islam, it lies in politics, sectarianism, nationalism, racism, power, money and the following on vein desires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You affirm that some Muslims behave contradictory to their religion as some point out, this is correct. You then go on to condemn Muslims for agreeing and saying exactly the same thing.

 

As for what conforms to Islam and you talk of it just being a fantasy then there is a very simple answer in that we have in the Qur’aan been given a solution to follow when differences occur in order to sort out such differences and establish the truth. The problem does not lie in Islam, it lies in politics, sectarianism, nationalism, racism, power, money and the following on vein desires.

 

I would argue the problem lies in the Quran's acceptance of violence as a means to solve problems. I agree that the Quran lays out this policy in a very rational and "sound" way, if there could be a sound way to carry out violence. But when you have the combination of violence being justified by a all powerfull creator god, the debate becomes inherently irrational. In a sytem like that right and wrong is not based on rational thought but on the percieved will of the creator god.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lars - I think it is important to know a bit about the background of the one I am talking to, so what "other religion" are you?

 

For the record my point was about the problem in the different understandings of Islam and the solution to follow in order to establish the true understanding!

Edited by Aboo Uthmaan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The same problem occurs with the institution of slavery in the Islamic world. The Quran never prohibited slavery, and Muhammad himself owned a few slaves. The combination of this factor with the elevation of Islamic womens rights caused an explosion of sexual slavery in the Muslim world, aimed at the non-muslim world. The Islamic slave trade began in the 7th century and didnt end until it was forced to end by the West in the early to mid 19th century. Mauritania, a Muslim country, is the only country in the world to still have the institution of chattel-style slavery, and this institution has gone on uninterupted for over 800 years.

 

The designation of the Janjaweed (evil horsemen) as “Arabs†may be contentious to modern anthropologists but the social conditions, which have been prevalent since the 7th-8th century, and continued into the 19th century, most notably being the Arab slave trade, has resulted in a number of sordid cultural practices. These practices not being because of the peoples that practice them but out of the necessity to survive in the face of centuries of sustained Arab slavery.

Perhaps the most abhorrent yet most essential cultural practice is that of female genital mutilation. Abhorrent because of the effect on the woman and the society at large, essential because this is the only thing that allowed these cultures to survive the export of African female sex slaves en-mass. The cultures that did not practice this had their entire female populations stolen and subsequently died out. As Murray Gordon argues, the most common form of slavery in the Islamic world was sexual slavery. Islamic law gives the owner full control over the slaves sexual functions and reproductive capabilities. To guard the master’s female slaves, the master acquired eunuchs for this purpose. This dichotomy starkly revealed the masters absolute power over the sexual agency of his slaves. Slaves for the purpose of sexual satisfaction were the most common form of slavery found in the Islamic world, as eunuchs and young white women fetched the highest price. Gordon Murray, Slavery in the Arab World, (1992, New Amsterdam Books), 79-80.

 

In a side note I think its interesting to note that while the transatlantic slave trades status in regard to whether or not it was a genocide is contentious, the effects of the Arab slave trade clearly were genocidal in nature. The amount and severity of violence inflicted upon African slaves in the Americas was clearly much more severe, but it could not be effectively termed as a genocide because the slave population was allowed and encouraged to reproduce. This was clearly not the case in the Arab world. Though it was a good thing that the racial aspect of slavery was not as strong in the Arab world, it had the effect of slowly annihilating the slave population because all children sired by the slave were accepted into the family of the master. Gordon, 79. Having the same effect as the policies of the Australian government when they would forcibly move “mixed race children†out of their families into white families so as to slowly “breed out†the indigenous people.

 

The cost of the dowry that a man had to pay to his wife in an Islamic marriage was much more expensive than the cost of a slave girl, slave girls were also much more submissive. Due to the high cost of white women (mostly Slavs, hence the word “slaveâ€) Nubian women from the regions of the Sudan Ethiopia and Somalia were more highly valued, and so the current social landscape of Darfur comes into view. Gordon, 82. It is important to note that the Egyptian king Muhammad Ali launched extensive campaigns of conquest into this region in 1827, introducing for the first time to the institution of Arab slavery the concept of massive transportations of people for the purpose of political goals. The reason for this massive excursion was that he feared insurrection among the traditionally white ranks of the mamluk slaves, a tradition that reveals the deep-rooted racial aspect of Arab slavery not so much unlike slavery in the west.

 

Many would argue that Slavery in the Arab world did not have a significant racial connotation to it I would digress. Though the Arab slave trade was an equal-opportunity enslaver, it did provide significant advantages to white slaves over all others, and it allowed white slaves a greater degree of humanity than it did African slaves. This is evidenced in the writings of Ibn Khaldun:

“The only people who accept slavery are the Negroes (Sudan) owing to their low degree of humanity and their proximity to the animal stage. Other persons who accept the status of slave do so as a means of attaining high rank or power, as is the case with the Mameluke Turks in the East and with those Franks ad Galicians who enter the service of the state. (Spain)†Gordon, 102.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lars

 

Do you actually want to discuss the issues at hand or do you just want to post misinformation and half truths whilst not answering any questions that have been asked of you?

 

Islam is one thing, and how some decide to apply it is another thing.

 

For the record, there is no minimum that one has to pay for the dowry. The problem is that you are not returning to the "solution"; rather, you are just citing this and that, had you bothered to return to the Qur'aan and Sunnah you would have known that some of the Prophet's (sall-Allaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) Companions married for that which they knew of the Qur'aan, this was their dowry... Far from being a material cost greater than the price of a slave girl don’t you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lars - I think it is important to know a bit about the background of the one I am talking to, so what "other religion" are you?

 

For the record my point was about the problem in the different understandings of Islam and the solution to follow in order to establish the true understanding!

 

Well my friend I am a Theravada Buddhist. and I think that Islam DOES provide a framework for pacifist resistance to violence as is outlines in Surah 5:27

 

5:27 Recite to them the truth of the story of the two sons of Adam. Behold! they each presented a sacrifice (to Allah.: It was accepted from one, but not from the other. Said the latter: "Be sure I will slay thee." "Surely," said the former, "(Allah) doth accept of the sacrifice of those who are righteous.

28 "If thou dost stretch thy hand against me, to slay me, it is not for me to stretch my hand against thee to slay thee: for I do fear Allah, the cherisher of the worlds.

29 "For me, I intend to let thee draw on thyself my sin as well as thine, for thou wilt be among the companions of the fire, and that is the reward of those who do wrong."

30 The (selfish) soul of the other led him to the murder of his brother: he murdered him, and became (himself) one of the lost ones.

 

However I fear that the willingness of the Quran to sancttion violence overshadows this tolerant tradition. For example, though I agree with the aspirations for freedom of the oppressed peoples of the middle east, their methods in attaining this freedom are at best hegemonic in nature. Every singe restance movement I can think of, does so in the name of Islam. When you ffight in the name of your religion it automatically assocciates it with violence in the mind of your oppressor. so essentially it needlessly demonizes Islam. It is also idiotic from a tactical point of view. Take for example the moderately successful resistance movement in Lebanon. Sunni will not fight with them cause they are Shia, Christians will not fight withh them because they are muslim. If they fought for LEBANON all demographic groups would willingly take part and the west would be unable to demonize Islam.

 

Take for example the case of the Vietnam war; america killed 3-5 milion Vietnamese and the Vietnamese killed 50,000+ American soldiers. The vietnamese unlike muslims fought for nationalism, whereas the Buddhist monks resisted completly by pacifist methods. if you ask anyone what their perception of Buddhism is they will tell you. "a religion of peace."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You affirm that some Muslims behave contradictory to their religion as some point out, this is correct. You then go on to condemn Muslims for agreeing and saying exactly the same thing.

 

No, I condemn (too strong a word) Muslims for not accepting the possibility that the apparent impossibility of any person or state acting fully in accordance with Islam means that Islam not only does not exist in reality, but that it cannot.

 

Most of the Muslim violence that shocks non-Muslims (stoning adulterous women, putting a price on the head of authors, assasinating politicians you disagree with, killing teachers who teach girls, and so on and on) is a result of wanting to achieve the "perfect" Islam. You need to consider the possiblitiy that achieving this might not be possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lars

 

Do you actually want to discuss the issues at hand or do you just want to post misinformation and half truths whilst not answering any questions that have been asked of you?

 

Islam is one thing, and how some decide to apply it is another thing.

 

For the record, there is no minimum that one has to pay for the dowry. The problem is that you are not returning to the "solution"; rather, you are just citing this and that, had you bothered to return to the Qur'aan and Sunnah you would have known that some of the Prophet's (sall-Allaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) Companions married for that which they knew of the Qur'aan, this was their dowry... Far from being a material cost greater than the price of a slave girl don’t you think?

I am discussing the issue. If you feel my source is incorrect feel free to repudiate them. The name of this thread is Islam and indiscriminate violence. you ignore my argument that because the Quran does not outlaw slavery it resulted in massive conquests of foriegn lands for the purpose of aquiring slaves. I took the time to properly site my source of info if you cant show it to be invalid then just admit it. And i did answer your question scroll down and read that post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This strikes me as a cop-out. Every time someone points out that Muslims behave contrary to the teachings of their religion, a Muslim says "Ah, but this is not Islam". If it is not POSSIBLE for humans to live in societies in a way that all Muslims would agree conforms to Islam, 'Islam' is just a fantasy.

 

So if an American does something that is evil (cold-blooded murder, theft, treachery, you name it) , he is representing all Americans? He is representing the U.S constitution, and the foundation that this country is built on? If a black person does evil, is it a "cop-out" to say that black people are not like that?

 

You are making a gross generalization. Learn the definition of "Muslim" and "Islam" before you blame a religion for the actions of those who claim to follow it.

 

Most of the Muslim violence that shocks non-Muslims (stoning adulterous women, putting a price on the head of authors,

 

Why do you make it sound like it is only women who are punished for adultery? Allow me to correct you; it is both men and women.

 

assasinating politicians you disagree with,

 

So because a few minority kill politicians they disagree with, this is a teaching that comes from Islam?

 

Wrong. There is absolutely nothing in the Qur'an or Hadiths to suggest that a human life may be taken because of a disagreement.

 

killing teachers who teach girls,

 

Again, have you even bothered to discover if this is a teaching of Islam?

 

and so on and on) is a result of wanting to achieve the "perfect" Islam. You need to consider the possiblitiy that achieving this might not be possible.

 

In Islam, the ends do not justify the means if the ends involve doing everything that Islam stands against. If "wanting to achieve the perfect Islam" involves killing people and taking the rights of others, then it is not Islamic.

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not arguing whether or not it is Islamic, I'm arguing that people who strive for an unrealistically 'pure' or 'perfect' manifestation of Islam on earth are the ones doing the most horrible things. For example, Wahabis regard themselves as 'better' Muslims than others, yet Whabism is responsible for grotesquely inhuman punishments. Members of the Brotherhood in Egypt imagine that they have the right to kill tourists and politicians because they are the only ones really obeying Allah. Ditto Al Quaeda and so on.

 

The idea that if enough bad people are killed, extremely strong laws are put in place, and no-one deviates a millimetre from the official line, we can have heaven-on-earth (or the equivalent) is an extremely dangerous one which affects fanatics of all ideologies.

 

The alternative to this sort of madness (and it is a madness) is compromise, relaxing of rules, allowing freedom of thought and expression. This means that instead if distancing yourself from (say) liberal US Muslim groups by claiming that they are traitors, you should embrace them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure that here in the U.S, there are many groups of white Americans who believe that they are the only ones who belong in this country, and given the opportunity, would waste no time in either deporting or exterminating all other races in America. They believe this will make America "pure" and "perfect".

 

Do they represent America as a whole, or the ideals that this country was founded upon? Is it a "cop-out" to say "This is not what America is based upon?" Or is America nothing more than a fantasy, as you claim Islam is? After all, there are millions upon millions of people who are exactly this way in this country.

 

If you lived in the heartland of a true Muslim community, and had the opportunity to experience many others in so many countries, you would know that Islam is not a "fantasy" in the least bit.

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, this madness affects fanatics of all ideologies. And yes, the violent American fanatics claim to be the "real" Americans, just like various violent Mulsim groups claim to be the "real" Muslims. It is highly unlikely that an Islamic state as envisioned by the fanatics could exist, unless as a short-lived fascist hell. Just like no "real" America as envisioned by the fanatics could exist unless as a short-lived fascist hell.

 

You are in effect agreeing with my point. The USA does obviously exist despite these fanatics. Like any other country it is a product of constant compromise, regeneration and change. But no Islamic state exists. No mechanism for creating a non-fanatical Muslim state exists (and the proposed fanatical states are doomed to never succeed). You need to consider the possibility that it is not possible for an Islamic state to exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The USA does obviously exist despite these fanatics.

 

And yet, Islam does exist, and has existed, unchanged, for the past 1400 years. A lot longer than America.

 

America is what, 300 years old? It's a baby compared to the civilizations of Islam, which lasted up until the 1920s.

 

No mechanism for creating a non-fanatical Muslim state exists (and the proposed fanatical states are doomed to never succeed).

 

Are you sure about that? Do you want to tell me why Somalia, which had been on its way to becoming a fully Islam governed country a year or so ago, was quickly and effectively brought down by the U.S governement with the use of Ethiopia as its puppets?

 

If you didn't already know this, Somalia was a country that had been unstable and dangerous for the past decade and a half. This was due to corruption in leadership and tribal conflicts between the common people. And then finally, a group who referred to themselves as the Union of Islamic Courts overthrew the warlords who had control of Somalia, and then returned order and peace to Somalia. They rebuilt roads, opened up the airports and one of the biggest Masjids, brought back business to the sea ports, cleared illegal roadblocks, captured Somali sea pirates, banned a drug, actually collected zakat (charity) and gave it to the needy, and countless other things.

 

The U.S gave financial support to Ethiopia to take control of Somalia and to kill or capture members of the UIC. Right at this moment, Somalia has gone back into darkness, in fact, the country is torn up worse than ever. The crimes and atrocities that these Ethiopian soldiers commit fall on deaf ears, and yet, when the UIC was in power, EVERY little move they made was heavily scrutinized.

 

How can you tell me that the mechanism for creating a "non-fanatical Muslim state" exists? Just who do you think would allow a true Islamic state to exist?

 

Salam.

Edited by Redeem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×