Dublin Imam Cast Out By Fanatic Irish Muslims

Schuhart

Hobbes wrote:

To you prehaps.

I would have said to anyone with a grip on reality.

Hobbes wrote:

The issue I have is that some people seem to think that because a terrorist claims that they are doing in the name of their God that it validates a Correlation between them and normal Muslims.

Which, several times at this stage, has been clearly stated not to be at issue.

Hobbes wrote:

Also while they claim their actions are because of their religion what they did pretty much sends them to Hell and is totally against what Islam stands for.

In the context of Palestinian suicide bombers, this kind of stuff is not hard to find.

4-The Islamic Fiqh Council stresses that martyr operations are a form of jihad, and carrying out those operations is a legitimate right that has nothing to do with terrorism or suicide. Those operations become obligatory when they become the only way to stop the aggression of the enemy, defeat it, and grievously damage its power.

There’s another example here and links from them to other fatwas that will tell you much the same.

As regards your question, the following is the fatwa issued by Sheikh Faysal Mawlawi, deputy chairman of European Council for Fatwa and Research:

"Martyr operations are not suicide and should not be deemed as unjustifiable means of endangering one's life. Allah says in the Glorious Qura'n: "And spend of your substance in the cause of Allah, and make not your own hands contribute to (your) destruction; but do good; for Allah loveth those who do good." (Al-Baqara:195).

I’m explicitly leaving aside in this thread the wonder of this being offered as spiritual advice even in the Palestinian context.

When some individual clearly sees the logic being presented here as relevant to his personal jihad in London, are we supposed to forget we’ve read this stuff? Are we supposed to pretend that this stuff won’t make an already confused person even more confused? Are we supposed to pretend that those fatwas are not providing people with a general inspiration for those kinds of actions? Are we really supposed not to inquire?

Can I contribute my reading of the problem. From what I understand, in addition to the well known virgins, a martyr can intercede for seventy relatives. So if you’re on a suicide bomber’s happy list, the Hadith says you get into paradise. That’s obviously nonsense (or is anybody really going to try to defend it?)

So, what’s the outcome of seeing that a much loved Hadith is nonsense? It raises the question of what other beloved Hadiths are nonsense. Maybe the Quran itself contains a few problems. Maybe women aren’t half-wits by divine edict. Maybe I might as well point my backside to Mecca five times a day for all the good its doing me. I can really see why people don’t like where this is heading.

All in all, it’s much less complicated to blame it all on George W. Bush.

lostexpectation

Even if England cowardly attackced the whole Islamic world, it still wouldn't justify those cowardly attacks in London. If Muslims oppose the war in Iraq, great, just make a peaceful protest like everybody else. Don't go around bombing innocent civilians like the US/UK.

wes

Schuhart wrote:

So, what’s the outcome of seeing that a much loved Hadith is nonsense? It raises the question of what other beloved Hadiths are nonsense. Maybe the Quran itself contains a few problems. Maybe women aren’t half-wits by divine edict. Maybe I might as well point my backside to Mecca five times a day for all the good its doing me. I can really see why people don’t like where this is heading.

There are lots of Hadith are considered to be wrong. So there is precedence against it.

However, today we live in a globalised environment, what happens in Baghdad or Jakarta effects what happens everywhere. As for suicide bombings, its a form of psychological war fare as much as anything, thats what make is so scary for people who have Nuclear weapons in that if the enemy cares little for there lives killing them means very little. The religious stuff is used to convince people to commits these acts, hence Virgins are promised (disregarding any other translations or disagreements) and eternal salvation. Its the ultimate weapon for a terrorist (or Guerrilla fighter).

Hobbes

Schuhart wrote:

I would have said to anyone with a grip on reality.

I will tell you this once only. If you continue to keep attacking the poster rather then post I will temp ban you. I would also recommend reading the charter.

Which, several times at this stage, has been clearly stated not to be at issue.

Not in response to what I was originally responding to. The OP is trying to make the distinction that Muslims = fanatical terrorist or the high potential to become one, even though the evidence presented it totally contrary to that fact.

In the context of Palestinian suicide bombers,...

Which means what exactly? Are you saying that all Muslims are the same as Palestinians suicide bombers? As I said many of these actions are totally against what the majority of Muslims believe.

That is the point I am getting across. You can quote various suicide bombers or crazy regimes, but the fact is it is not reflective of the whole. It is easier to tag the whole though in such a way though as it makes it easier for people to rationalize why the attacks happen rather then exploring the whole history that lead up to that point.

Even if England cowardly attackced the whole Islamic world, it still wouldn't justify those cowardly attacks in London.

Correct.

If Muslims oppose the war in Iraq, great, just make a peaceful protest like everybody else. Don't go around bombing innocent civilians like the US/UK.

The problem is (and again it not because of Islam religion) is that the US/UK are for want of a better word at war with Iraq. We can rationalize it by saying these attacks are terrorist attacks and they should peacefully demonstrate but the truth is if Iraq was capable of waging war at the same level as US/UK you would be seeing more attacks on those countries. You can't attack another country and then except them to peacefully demonstrate when they (or people representing them) attack back.

Schuhart

Hobbes wrote:

If you continue to keep attacking the poster rather then post I will temp ban you.

If you continue to avoid the point, I’ll pursue it. Frightening as the prospect is, avoidance of a temp ban isn’t worth the sacrifice of my reason.

Hobbes wrote:

Not in response to what I was originally responding to.

Can I point out that your original response was, inter alia, that the London bombings had nothing to do with the attackers claiming to be Muslim which you seem to be trying to invisibly shift to the different proposition of it does not have anything to do with being a Muslim. You seem to be saying the only people to be counted as Muslims are people you deem to be Muslims – a sort of definitional trick to deflect any meaningful discussion of the significance of the actions of any person claiming to be of that faith that might be a bit challenging.

Hobbes wrote:

Which means what exactly? Are you saying that all Muslims are the same as Palestinians suicide bombers? As I said many of these actions are totally against what the majority of Muslims believe.

That is very clearly not what I mean, and it is simply evasion to post such a statement in response to my post. What I am pointing out is that material supporting the practice of martyrdom through suicide bombing is widely disseminated, including on websites such as islamonline.net which are regarded as reliable by people who post here.

You can deem this to be a personal attack, if that’s your technique for pigeon-holing it, but the simple fact is that you are avoiding discussion of the significance of this. Incredulity that anyone calling themselves a Muslim could ever think suicide bombing was justified does not ring true. Read those deadpan fatwas on islamonline.net, written as if the advice related to whether I should tell my girlfriend I’ve only got a small one.

I’m not suggesting that the majority of Muslims hold these views. I’ve made this very clear, and repeating that statement looks to me to be desperate **** throwing to avoid a real discussion of why a person in London might get the idea that it’s a spiritually rewarding thing to take a bomb onto a bus. The fact that a mainstream Islamic source has articles peppered with an unhealthy love of martyrdom might just have a tiny bit of relevance to this topic. Or have I just followed Alice through the looking-glass.

Hobbes wrote:

The problem is (and again it not because of Islam religion) is that the US/UK are for want of a better word at war with Iraq. We can rationalize it by saying these attacks are terrorist attacks and they should peacefully demonstrate but the truth is if Iraq was capable of waging war at the same level as US/UK you would be seeing more attacks on those countries. You can't attack another country and then except them to peacefully demonstrate when they (or people representing them) attack back.

This is just embarrassing. If you’re in a hole, what should you do?

the_new_mr

Schuhart, you know well that you are not supposed to cross the line of attacking a poster instead of their post. One week ban for that.

You will also receive a one week ban for your unnecessary incorrect remarks about Islam. See you in two weeks.

I shall place my own comments about this thread later when I have a bit of time.

Hobbes

You seem to be saying the only people to be counted as Muslims are people you deem to be Muslims

No, what the Quran defines. My understanding (although limited) is once they committed those acts in London they ceased to actions of a Muslim.

It is like a Christian killing another person in the same way. It goes totally against what it stands for, even if the person in question was to make the claim that they were still Christian after such actions.

might get the idea that it’s a spiritually rewarding thing to take a bomb onto a bus.

There is also a misconception that people are doing this because they are promised a trip to Heaven. It wasn't. As I recall from the 7/7 bombers statement it was in direct retaliation for UK actions in Afganistan and Iraq.

the_new_mr

If anyone has the idea that there is a very large minority group in the Irish Muslim community bent on destruction and death then let me say that, from my point of view, this is simply not the case.

However, we should acknowledge that there are a few individuals who may have the wrong idea when it comes to terrorism. In my opinion, this has come around partly as a result of Muslims (and Muslim youth in particular) not finding a strong Muslim role model to look up to who is righteous and worthy of respect. In Muslim history, there is the example of figures such as Omar Ibn Al-Khattab, Khalid Ibn Al-Walid, Salah El-Din and the list goes on.

These days, it has to be said that most of the leaders of Muslim countries are under the thumb of the US administration. Whether this is willingly or by force is besides the point. The main thing that most Muslims see is that there is nobody in the Muslim world who seems willing to stand up for what's right.

This is where characters such as Osama Bin Laden come in.

However, that is not to say that people like Osama Bin Laden should be respected at all. The respect that some people have for him (and people like him such as Al-Zarqawi) is what you could say misplaced respect that is trying desperately to find a place. Terrorists are not to be respected. Non-combatants are not to be killed. It's that simple.

But I wouldn't agree with Satardien in the idea that Ireland is in serious trouble of being overrun by Irish Muslim fanatics. I'd say it's nothing more than some frustrated youth with misplaced respect and I very much doubt that any of them would think of committing a terrorist act.

There should definitely be more effort in educating the Irish Muslim youth about what is really correct and what is not. It's seen as a grey area for them so they may end up believing the wrong person.

But people should try their best to refrain form trying to make others feel uncomfortable that Muslims are living in Ireland and statements that appear to paint all Muslims with the same brush as the terrorists should be avoided.

Wibbs

the_new_mr wrote:

If anyone has the idea that there is a very large minority group in the Irish Muslim community bent on destruction and death then let me say that, from my point of view, this is simply not the case.

I tend to agree with you there. I suspect there may exist sympathy for the actions of some by some, but as a general rule I highly doubt it.

In my opinion, this has come around partly as a result of Muslims (and Muslim youth in particular) not finding a strong Muslim role model to look up to who is righteous and worthy of respect.

Could very well be.

The main thing that most Muslims see is that there is nobody in the Muslim world who seems willing to stand up for what's right.

Again as a follow on from your last point I see what you're getting at. Sadly there are often too many definitions of "right'. See below.

Non-combatants are not to be killed. It's that simple.

True and clearly stated in the Quran to boot(and including not killing women kids or priests of other faiths or destroying their places of worship, monasteries and such IIRC).

But people should try their best to refrain form trying to make others feel uncomfortable that Muslims are living in Ireland and statements that appear to paint all Muslims with the same brush as the terrorists should be avoided.

True again(I'm on a roll here:D ).

On Schuhart's points and without going back and forth here, he does raise some valid questions. Specifically the responses to those questions posed on islamonline. Now obviously the web being what it is an all it's hardly written in stone, but apparently highly respected muslim scholars seem to condone or excuse, at least in one region of the world, certain actions that most people here would find questionable or at least uncomfortable. If it was a small website with dubious readings from the get go it would be bad enough, but as was pointed out it is one referenced by many in trying to explain aspects of Islam. Indeed it's a link in the sticky in this forum http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51158058&postcount=21

Schuhart wrote:

I’m not suggesting that the majority of Muslims hold these views. I’ve made this very clear,

I hold the same opinion. It's nowhere near a majority who hold these views. Certainly not among any of the Muslims I know. Not even close.

and repeating that statement looks to me to be desperate **** throwing to avoid a real discussion of why a person in London might get the idea that it’s a spiritually rewarding thing to take a bomb onto a bus.

Regardless of the "ehhh you know" throwing here I would be interested to know how these responses figure to Muslims* I would ask similar questions on the Christian forum if someone came on saying that killing abortion doctors was condoned by their texts. Interestingly this question/response seems to reject or at least twist the very clear statement in the Quran about not targeting civilians. http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503544354
Apparently it's alright if they're Israeli. Even a newbie like me sees a direct contradiction with the don't kill civilians bit stated more than once in the Quran. No wonder some are confused. I'll admit I am.



*You will excuse me if I'm asking the few here to respond for 1400 years of religious culture. Hey I have to start somewhere.:D

the_new_mr

Sorry for the late reply to this thread Wibbs.

Could you clarify your question a little. Are you asking how a Muslim reacts to the response you quoted ("and repeating that statement...").