Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Aboo Uthmaan

Islam & Indiscriminate Violence

Recommended Posts

That's one point of view. Other points of view are expressed by non-fanatical Muslims overjoyed that the extremists (no music at weddings, for example) have been ousted.

 

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?

 

I don't think I did say that "the mechanism for creating a non-fanatical Muslim state exists", but given that there are plenty of non-fanatical Muslim states in existence (Morocco, Bangladesh Indonesia, Malaysia, Niger, etc), it must.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's one point of view. Other points of view are expressed by non-fanatical Muslims overjoyed that the extremists (no music at weddings, for example) have been ousted.

 

You mean in the same way that non-fanatical Americans will rejoice if millions of Americans lose their homes and die of starvation and disease because these non-fanatical Americans are happy that extremists who, say, do not allow polygamy have been ousted?

 

Let's weigh the pros and cons of the UIC, shall we?

 

Pros: Rebuilt roads, reopened airports, masjids, and seaports, no illegal roadblocks (if you don't know what this is, it's when a group of people hold people at gunpoint and demand their money), no more sea pirates to terrorize local fishermen, no more Khat (a drug), charity for the poor, no carrying guns in public, and a general sense of safety and security for everyone.

 

Cons: No music at weddings.

 

You call the UIC fanatics for returning stability and peace to my country, and consider the American government, and those Ethiopian soldiers, to be what, normal? The only extremists and fanatics I see here are America and its lapdogs.

 

Other points of views by "non-fanatical Muslims"? What bullcrap are you trying to feed me, a native of Somalia and a Muslim? The only people who rejoiced were those who destroyed Somalia to begin with. Warlords, people who are obsessed with tribalism, and corrupted businessmen. Anyone who sides with any of these groups is the scum of the Earth.

 

There is nothing worse than westerners trying to justify having my country ripped apart with comments such as "oh no, they banned music!" Cheap propoganda.

 

 

I don't think I did say that "the mechanism for creating a non-fanatical Muslim state exists", but given that there are plenty of non-fanatical Muslim states in existence (Morocco, Bangladesh Indonesia, Malaysia, Niger, etc), it must.

 

It was a typo. I meant "the mechanism for a non-fanatical Muslim state do not exist", which is exactly what you're trying to claim.

 

You're also contradicting yourself. In one moment, you were claiming that the U.S is superior to Islam in that "no mechanism for a non-fanatical Muslim state exists" and then in the next, you say that "non-fanatical Muslim states" exist.

 

So which is it? Do they or do they not exist? And are you honestly going to argue that the UIC were "fanatics" because they made laws based on Islam? Which proves MY point, which is that the west would not be willing to let a true Islamic state exist, and that is exactly why there are none. Because any attempts to create one are immediately squashed.

 

Edit: I apologize if I offend you, but this is a very personal issue, and one that angers me a great deal. And the one thing that I've found no answers to as of yet.

 

Salam.

Edited by Redeem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not claiming that the US is superior to Islam. You are the one who introduced the US into the conversation.

 

Yep, I agree that I contradicted myself, sorry - I meant that the people who think that no real Islamic state exists don't have the mechanism - or the vision - to actually create an Islamic state except one of the 'fascist hell' variety. That's because they don't recognise that Bangladesh, Niger, etc, are already non-fanatical Islamic states.

 

Which proves MY point, which is that the west would not be willing to let a true Islamic state exist, and that is exactly why there are none. Because any attempts to create one are immediately squashed.

 

I understand that your personal involvement makes this painful, and it would probably be better if we talked about a different country. However, I'm certain that you are wrong about "the west" (whatever that means) not allowing an Islamic state per se to be created. There is no evidence whatsoever that this is the case. It might be the case that the west would not be friendly towards a state whose foreign policy was to detroy israel, the USA and white-skinned Kaffirs in general - but that has nothing to do with whether or not it was an Islamic state per se.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am a Theravada Buddhist.

This is part of the problem, do you not believe that people have the right to defend themselves or do you believe that they should sit by and watch as an oppressor enters their home, ties them up and rapes their children?

 

Islam is not a pacifist religion, but neither is it a terroristic religion; rather, it offers the balanced path to follow in all matters, from creed to social interaction. One end of the spectrum is one extreme, those who commit acts of terror, be it on an individual, group or state level and at the other end are those who do not believe in terror but also believe that they should sit there and watch as their children are beaten.

 

It is of course an obligation in Islam to give others their rights, yet, how often do others stop to think about the rights that they owe to the One who created them and provided them with food and sustenance?

 

I agree with what you say about many of the resistance movements in the Middle East, yet I would beg to differ how many are actually resisting for the sake of Allaah. A lot of what goes on seems like nationalism and internal power struggles to me. There is an old Arabic poem that states: “Everyone claims to love Layla but Laya loves none of them.†In the same vein, anyone can claim that what they are doing is in the name of Islam but we have to first establish if there is any truth in that claim, and if not then Islam is free of them and their claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Well it’s not impossibility because it has already been actualised, and yes there will always be people who do not act fully in accordance with the Sharee'ah, but that does not negate the fact that a true Islamic state can exist and has existed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not claiming that the US is superior to Islam. You are the one who introduced the US into the conversation.

 

And you know exactly why I did so. Because you were making stupid generalizations.

 

Yep, I agree that I contradicted myself, sorry - I meant that the people who think that no real Islamic state exists don't have the mechanism - or the vision - to actually create an Islamic state except one of the 'fascist hell' variety. That's because they don't recognise that Bangladesh, Niger, etc, are already non-fanatical Islamic states.

 

There is a world of difference between a Muslim country and an Islamic country. There isn't a single Islamic country in existance today.

 

I understand that your personal involvement makes this painful, and it would probably be better if we talked about a different country. However, I'm certain that you are wrong about "the west" (whatever that means) not allowing an Islamic state per se to be created. There is no evidence whatsoever that this is the case. It might be the case that the west would not be friendly towards a state whose foreign policy was to detroy israel, the USA and white-skinned Kaffirs in general - but that has nothing to do with whether or not it was an Islamic state per se.

 

Uhhh, why would we talk about a different country? I proved my point. There isn't a single thing you can say that will change the facts, which is that the UIC did NOTHING to deserve being removed from power, nor did Somalia deserve to be plunged back into war.

 

No evidence that the west does not want an Islamic state? Have I been talking to myself? I suppose that 9/11 is no evidence that some people hate America. That's how ridiculous what you're claiming sounds like.

 

The UIC was unfriendly toward israel? America? What utter lies. I was keeping up with every little move they made in the few months they were in power, and the ONLY thing that they made it obvious was how much they disliked foreign interferance in their affairs. I can't say I blame them.

 

You're making up horrible excuses. "Well, it might have been because of this" or "It might have been because of that". Open your eyes, and see your government for the bullies that they really are. If the situation had been reversed and it was Islam that did the attacking, you would have called the invaders "extremists" and "fanatics".

 

In the same vein, anyone can claim that what they are doing is in the name of Islam but we have to first establish if there is any truth in that claim, and if not then Islam is free of them and their claims.

 

Then stop making absurd comments involving "cop-outs".

 

Also, the other thread was closed before I could reply. However, I would suggest that you read the Merriam-webster dictionary a little harder. You are still wrong. If you wish to discuss this further, PM me.

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I proved my point. There isn't a single thing you can say that will change the facts, which is that the UIC did NOTHING to deserve being removed from power, nor did Somalia deserve to be plunged back into war.

 

Erm, the UIC began a civil war and overthrew the internationally recognised government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just re-checked the Merriam-Websters and I can't see your definition there. I do agree, though, that online dictionaries are a poor substitute for genuine reference works.

 

However, if your definition of the verb "to lie" is correct - that it merely means saying something untrue, whether the speaker knows it to be untrue or not - English must have another word to cover the situation where the speaker KNOWINGLY says something untrue with the INTENT to deceive or mislead. If that word is not "lie", what is it? Not distinguishing between the concepts of saying an untruth unwittingly and saying an untruth deliberately results in (eg) it being impossible to commit perjury, and would make telling a lie not a moral issue, as there is surely no blame attached to telling an untruth unwittingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you Swampy? Why the need for another user name?

 

Erm, the UIC began a civil war and overthrew the internationally recognised government.

 

Completely false. Somalia's civil war began after the downfall of Siad Barre, which was in 1986. The UIC came into power in 2006. You're getting your facts wrong. Also, you can't call it "civil war" when there is peace. There was complete peace and stability in all of the regions that the UIC controlled, for as long as they did.

 

"Internationally recognized government" Recognized by who? But wait. "Internationally". Of course it doesn't matter that the Somali people themselves completely despise their worthless leaders who do nothing but plunge the country deeper into a hellhole, as long as the hotshots in the west "recognize" the government!

 

And recognized it for doing what? Absolutely nothing? For all of the time that the warlords sat in power, they did nothing to help the country. They did not build it, they did not educate the people, they did not give them healthcare, they did not take care of the country's finances, and they most certainly did not help the poor.

 

Do you even know the origins of the Union of Islamic Courts? After the civil war, when the common people realized that the losers who supposedly led their country were completely useless, they began to form courts all over the country that dealt with local problems, according to Islamic shari'ah. These courts were comprised of older, more intellectual and well-educated men. The courts then began to build schools, colleges, hospitals, and even banks. The more the courts did for the country, the more influence they had and the more their approval rate went up. It reached a point where they controlled all of the country's healthcare, education, and finances. The only thing that they had no power over was the government.

 

Actions speak louder than words. I said give me a good reason why the UIC should have been thrown out. Replacing a sincere group of people who have done nothing but help their country, with a group of terrorists who have created what the U.N called the worst humanitarian crisis at this time, is not a good reason. The UIC was criticized and scrutinized by the west on a daily basis even while everyone could plainly see how much they were doing for the country, but the west is suddenly silent and turns a blind eye to all of the unbelievable crimes that the "internationally recognized government" has commited since regaining control.

 

I would suggest to you to get your information straight from the source. The Somali people, those who are experiencing all of this firsthand. Because what you're doing is similar to getting information about America through the Taliban.

 

However, if your definition of the verb "to lie" is correct - that it merely means saying something untrue, whether the speaker knows it to be untrue or not - English must have another word to cover the situation where the speaker KNOWINGLY says something untrue with the INTENT to deceive or mislead. If that word is not "lie", what is it? Not distinguishing between the concepts of saying an untruth unwittingly and saying an untruth deliberately results in (eg) it being impossible to commit perjury, and would make telling a lie not a moral issue, as there is surely no blame attached to telling an untruth unwittingly.

 

If you wish to debate about the dictionary, you should take it up with those who wrote them.

 

And I would advice you to leave this alone. Questioning the rules is against the rules.

 

Salam.

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.

 

Have you forgotten that Iraq is being occupied by the US regime and its allies? And the US regime and its allies are practising 'divide and rule policy' to weaken Muslim unity by pitting Shia against Sunni. Agents of israel, US and British have been known to bomb civilian targets in Shia and Sunni areas using cars full of explosives so that Shia and Sunni would accuse each other of bombing civilian targets in Sunni and Shia's areas respectively that would lead to civil wars.

 

There were no civil wars during Saddam's era so the US regime and its allies are directly responsible for the civil wars in Iraq.

Edited by wiseguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And I would advice you to leave this alone. Questioning the rules is against the rules.

 

I'm not questioning the rules, I'm questioning the definition of "lie" that you posted. And yes, I will take it up with the people who wrote the dictionary if you'll give me the source of your post.

 

I know that you disliked the Sunadese government that the UIC rebelled against, and you might even be right to do so. I was refuting your "Oh, we are always innocent victims" argument. The UIC got to power by starting a civil war and overthrowing the legitimate government. Maybe it was a good thing they did - that's another argument - but they certainly weren't the blameless victims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Union of Islamic Courts (UIC)

 

The Islamic courts emerged in the late 1990s primarily in Mogadishu, and became the de facto judiciary in the capital after the collapse of the Somali government in 1991. The UIC was formed from the amalgamation of different clan-based courts over the past two years, dominated by the Hawiye. The Islamists are a major force in Somalia and the UIC has gained credibility among the population by setting up schools and hospitals, as well as resolving legal disputes and maintaining a tough stance on law and order. In May this year, the UN Monitoring Commission in Somalia acknowledged that the UIC had become a major force "with organisational strength, leadership and, most importantly, will".

 

Although little noticed by the outside world, in 1999 the group began to assert itself in Mogadishu and increasingly came into conflict with the secular warlords. The warlords later joined together to resist the UIC’s growing power by forming the Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism (ARPCT) in February 2006. The ARPCT immediately clashed with the UIC. Street battles became more violent, culminating in a major battle for Mogadishu that led to victory for the UIC on 5 June, when it claimed control of the city. A day later it also laid claim to areas up to 100 kilometres around Mogadishu, and since then has expanded its control over many regions of southern-central Somalia.

 

According to the PINR, “The proximate cause of the [uIC’s] power surge was revelations in early 2006 that the ARPCT had been receiving funds to arm itself from the United States through the CIA working with the Ethiopian secret services.” Washington has neither confirmed nor denied support for the ARPCT, but it has admitted to funding Somali factions assisting the capture of Islamic militants wanted by the US.

 

The impact of the UIC victory has been the collapse of the warlords’ power and of their militias. Security improved markedly in Mogadishu and the re-opening of Mogadishu airport to international flights, after 11 years, offered a concrete illustration of the changes the UIC claims to want to bring to Somalia.

 

The immediate reaction of the Western world to the success of the UIC was concern that it may emerge as the Taliban of Africa. The chairman of the UIC, Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, as well as the leader of the policy-making body of the UIC, Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys, have denied they intend to force any particular type of government on their people, or forge new links with al-Qaeda or international terrorism.

 

The US is widely perceived as supporting the Transitional Federal Government (TFG). For some years, the Bush administration has been claiming that Somalia had become a haven for al-Qaeda and other radical Islamic groups. US Ambassador to Kenya, William Bellamy, has stated publicly that it was "true that the US has encouraged a variety of groups in Somalia, in all corners of the country, and among all clans, to oppose UIJ".

 

Fears run high that the government crisis in Somalia, along with the risk of increased intervention by some of Somalia’s neighbours, could spark a conflict well beyond the country's borders. There are concerns that the TFG will either disintegrate over differences within its leadership, or over clan differences, or be crushed by the Islamists, possibly igniting a major regional conflict, according to analysts.

 

A strong US counter-terrorism partner, Ethiopia is staunchly opposed to Islam and has long supported the TFG’s president, Abdullahi Yussuf.

 

The fact is the chairman of the UIC, Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, as well as the leader of the policy-making body of the UIC, Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys, have denied they intend to force any particular type of government on their people, or forge new links with al-Qaeda or international terrorism.

 

Source: you are not allowed to post links yetglobalsecurity(contact admin if its a beneficial link)

 

Conclusion: The US regime always support war lords who with the US forces terrorize innocent people in Afghanistan and Somalia. The US proxy Ethiopia and the US puppet TFG’s president, Abdullahi Yussuf are doing the dirty work for the US regime in Somalia by terrorizing the people of Somalia.

Edited by wiseguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the article, brother ######.

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quite a discussion happened here.

 

anyways i have a question of my own.

 

why do the sunni and shi'a fight? what got the chain of violence going? most importantly what can be done to stop it?

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.

 

 

All of which Allah wishes us to let go of. you do not truly submit yourself to Allah if you dont do this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quite a discussion happened here.

 

anyways i have a question of my own.

 

why do the sunni and shi'a fight? what got the chain of violence going? most importantly what can be done to stop it?

 

:sl:

 

Sect discussions are not allowed on this forum as they are a complicated and, more often than not, touchy subject. Let us all strive to follow the Qur'an and the examples of prophet Muhammad, that is all we need as Muslims.

 

However, I'll reply in a general sense: Why do Muslims fight one another? Well, ignorance and pride would be great contributors to this. If Islam was founded on the brotherhood that Allah had intended us to form, not a single Muslim would want to harm a hair on his brother or sister's head, let alone take up arms against them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have we Muslims ever consider this factor that before 1991 i.e. the disintegration of Soviet Union, there was none of this violence existed and that WHY it was "provoked" after 1991???

 

Why, after the collapse of Soviet Union, the NATO was not disbanded??? as USSR was USA's biggest rival

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have we Muslims ever consider this factor that before 1991 i.e. the disintegration of Soviet Union, there was none of this violence existed and that WHY it was "provoked" after 1991???

 

Why, after the collapse of Soviet Union, the NATO was not disbanded??? as USSR was USA's biggest rival

 

Saddam attacked Kuweit in 1991, and made the USA worry about the oil fields in Saudi Arabia.

And then Putin came to power and made it clear that Russia is again a threat to the NATO countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://topicsfromquran.com/2018/06/30/non-physical-fighting-2/

https://topicsfromquran.com/2018/03/30/non-physical-fighting-1/

The fight in Quran is with those who do violence and terrorism in the land. Quran ask believers to do ideological fight with them who do not accept the Al-Islam (The Peace). The war mongers interpret the instruction of ideological fight to be physical fight and it increases their mongering emotions. The link to above posts reviews verses of Quran which are interpreted by war mongers to be orders of physical fighting.

2:208  يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا ادْخُلُوا فِي السِّلْمِ كَافَّةً وَلَا تَتَّبِعُوا خُطُوَاتِ الشَّيْطَانِ ۚ إِنَّهُ لَكُمْ عَدُوٌّ مُّبِينٌ

O’ People who believe, Enter into Islam/PEACE completely; and follow not the footsteps of Satan for he is an open enemy to you.

In all situations of life, the believers are to choose the judgment/option of Peace and security. Judgments other than that of Peace and security are not acceptable to Allah.

3:85  وَمَن يَبْتَغِ غَيْرَ الْإِسْلَامِ دِينًا فَلَن يُقْبَلَ مِنْهُ وَهُوَ فِي الْآخِرَةِ مِنَ الْخَاسِرِينَ

If anyone desire a Din/judgment other than Islam/PEACE never will be accepted of him and in the hereafter he will be from those who are the losers.

That is the circle of Faith which is made for the believers who don't want violence and war fare on the land.

28:83  تِلْكَ الدَّارُ الْآخِرَةُ نَجْعَلُهَا لِلَّذِينَ لَا يُرِيدُونَ عُلُوًّا فِي الْأَرْضِ وَلَا فَسَادًا ۚ وَالْعَاقِبَةُ لِلْمُتَّقِينَ

That Home/circle of the Hereafter We shall give to those who intend not high-handedness or mischief on earth. and the end is (best) for the righteous.

Those people who fight with the believers in their judgment/Din and caste them out of the circles of Faith and instigate others to caste them out too, believers are prevented to make these people their patrons/guardians. Those people who don't cast the believers out of their circles of faith (does not label them as infidels if their beliefs differ), Allah does not prevent believers to do good to them.

60:8-9  لَّا يَنْهَاكُمُ اللَّهُ عَنِ الَّذِينَ لَمْ يُقَاتِلُوكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ وَلَمْ يُخْرِجُوكُم مِّن دِيَارِكُمْ أَن تَبَرُّوهُمْ وَتُقْسِطُوا إِلَيْهِمْ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُقْسِطِينَ  إِنَّمَا يَنْهَاكُمُ اللَّهُ عَنِ الَّذِينَ قَاتَلُوكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ وَأَخْرَجُوكُم مِّن دِيَارِكُمْ وَظَاهَرُوا عَلَىٰ إِخْرَاجِكُمْ أَن تَوَلَّوْهُمْ ۚ وَمَن يَتَوَلَّهُمْ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الظَّالِمُونَ

Allah does not prevent you with regards to those who do not fight with you and do not drive you out of your circles, from dealing kindly and justly with them. for Allah loves those who are just. Verily, Allah prevents you, with regard to those who fight with you in Din/judgment, and drive you out of your circles, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them for patronage. If any turns to them for patronage, then those are the unjust ones.

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


×