User login
Author Information
Me don't ike men pushing prams. Me thinks pram pushers are whimps. Me thinks man who pushes pram is sissy.
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 8 months ago
Joined: 19 years 5 months ago
Poll
Why have you visited this website?
To check for updates
11%
Read posts
39%
Contribute to discussions
6%
Share content
3%
Social media brought me here
6%
Tis fate
35%
Total votes: 633
Active forum topics
Recent blog posts
Upcoming Events
- 30 Nov 2024 - 11:30 to 16:30
- 30 Nov 2024 - 11:30 to 16:30
- 7 Dec 2024 - 11:30 to 17:00
- 8 Dec 2024 - 11:30 to 16:30
- 15 Dec 2024 - 11:00 to 16:00
Quick Links
Who's online
There are currently 0 users online.
Salam
I was shocked to read this in today's [17 August 2009] newspapers:
Britian seems to think Al Qaeda may turn out to be justified for 9/11 and other acts of terror.
Yes, its true according to British Foreign Office.
When we have leaders like our dear Foreign Secretary saying that blowing up civilians is fine, then it is no wonder that terrorism is on the rise.
Our own David Miliband told BBC that sometimes committing acts of terrorism are very effective. He said that terror can be justified in certain circumcstances.
I think Miliband has gone insane.
Of course, the opposition party criticised the Foreign Sectretary for saying such things and boosting Bin Laden's morale.
What do I say?
I say that David Miliband is wrong.
Terror is never acceptable.
God has completely forbidden targeting civiliians and innocent people.
It is evil to kill innocent women and children.
But I suppose that the Foreign Secretary being an Atheist who does not believe in God, he would naturally not accept what the Holy Quran teaches.
Terrorism cannot be justified.
I would love to grill Miliband on TV.
Please vote in the poll, and give your reasons.
Omrow
Terrorism is never justified and Muslims should be demanding justice, not vengeance for any injustices carried out against them.
Even in Iraq - I thought the locals had a right to try and "unoccupy" their lands - just like every other people have the same right, but once they started blowing each other up, they lost all sympathy and the moral high ground too.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Quite a unanimous vote so far... but I would add that the definition of terrorism would also matter.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Terrorism may be effective, but that doesn't make it right.
Maybe if a nation is being subjected to horrendous cruelties, for the victims to perpertrate a smaller number of cruelties would not be condemned. That still doesn't make it right.
Tyranny, illegal occupation and subjugation are all wrong and dispicable acts. However terrorist activities against innocent civillians is just as wrong and dispicable because its tyranny on a micro scale. Its imperial evil condensed down for the small business, and big or small, illegal murder is wrong.
Just a thought for victims everywhere, its easy to be rational when you're not suffering. However, I would hoipe and pray that sufffering does not affect a person's moral stance.
Gentleness and kindness were never a part of anything except that it made it beautiful, and harshness was never a part of anything except that it made it ugly.
Through cheating, stealing, and lying, one may get required results but finally one becomes
What if you only target people directly involved in spreading the oppression?
From the angle of the powers that be, that is also terrorism...
I think most of us are using the definition of "indiscriminate murder" for terrorism.
Also, Galactica Season 3, Episode 1 is a good episode to watch in relation to this subject. IMO.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Maybe it is. Maybe its not. The question of a moral mandate comes into question. Whose right and does anyone care about being right. Sometimes the question isn't about a just or unjust war, its about the way in which the war is fought and the manners of the soldiers.
The Rasul (SAW) said when you kill someone in war or when you slaughter your animals, don't torture them.
These are the manners of the individual soldiers. So even if the dominant force thinks it has a mandate to go to war with another nation, it should be just as stringently sure that its soldiers will be just. If it doesn't do this and the soldiers act evily then a share of this is reflected back on the leaders and their efforts become tainted. What's obvious is that the justice of war will always be disputed and particualarly by those who it directly affects, this is because when war arrives, everyone suffers, good or bad.
If a victimised people fight the soldiers occupying their land, the effect isn't local and the individual soldiers aren't the only ones to suffer. It is an act against the occupying force as a whole. From this you get vendettas and spiralling hatred stemming from collective punishment. There are two problems; first that if you hurt me, I feel wronged and that what you did was unfair, secondly I want to hurt you or someone associated with you. As for the first problem, the feeling of being unfairly wronged must be addressed and as for the second, hurting someone innocent because they are linked to you is forbidden.
I suppose this is why justice whether penal or military should always have the full authority of the collective people (i.e. the state) behind it so that if someone must suffer, it is clear that the orchestration of force happened and can't be denied, it is clear that the orchestration of force was peer approved and not meeted out unfairly, and it is clear who to complain to.
When a perpertrator denies their violence or seems to have acted unfairly or denies you the avenue of complaint, that's when you get frustrated and desperate and start thinking about terrorism.
Gentleness and kindness were never a part of anything except that it made it beautiful, and harshness was never a part of anything except that it made it ugly.
Through cheating, stealing, and lying, one may get required results but finally one becomes
the answer is in the question.
i voted the first option.
I want to change my vote. I think that sometimes what some will class is terrorism is not only not wrong but needed.
Not however blowing up/killing/terrorising innocent people on the streets going about their business is however never right.
"Terrorism" has become a political term with many meanings.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Britain seems to think that terrorism is justified when used against bad regimes, example given by the Foreign Secretary was South Africa.
United States thinks terrorism is ok when carried against its enemies. Examples given by Vice President Dick Cheney are Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib torture centres.
Wahhabis like Bin Laden say terroism is fine as long as it is against the Infidels.
They are all wrong.
God is right.
Its never ok.
SubhanAllah, that was quite penetrating. They are basically saying its okay to use it against bad people. The trouble with that of course being, someone that I think is bad may not themselves think they're bad.
Indeed. Torture within the human family is more degraded than the behaviour of animals. To abuse the flesh of another is not what we were made for. We are made for humanity, not for devilry. Let us aspire to be angelic and if that is difficult, let us atleast not look for ways to be demonic.
Gentleness and kindness were never a part of anything except that it made it beautiful, and harshness was never a part of anything except that it made it ugly.
Through cheating, stealing, and lying, one may get required results but finally one becomes
You both have a singular definition of terrorism.
We can all agree blowing shit up, targeting innocents, (true) civilians is wrong.
(brackets because private military corporations like blackwater etc are technically civilians.)
But are you allowed to resist oppression? Would the oppressor is such a case not consider the actions of the oppressed terrorism?
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
I agree with Dawud when he says that killing innocent civilians is never justified, but I'm with Admin when he says that the definition needs to be considered. If by terrorism you mean resisting an oppressive regime by not harming civilians then maybe it is justified, but I think it's unanimous that both neo-con and extremist terrorism is haram and unacceptable.
“Before death takes away what you are given, give away whatever there is to give.”
Mawlana Jalal ud Din Rumi
I really wanted to link to a video of galactica season 3 episode 1 ere, but it was a couple of innapropriate scenes.
For those that want to, Google it watch and comment please. I hear that many American viewers did not like it as it reminded them of Iraq and it made them think...
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
It's not important what people CALL terrorism. It is what the word actually means. And by the pure definition of the word, then it's not ok.
But I'm not exactly a go-to man for this. And I voted 'I don't know' accordingly.
Don't just do something! Stand there.
">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tXRAZ7xFqE]
">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5RvL0Nwpz0]
In those videos does he once again dodge the questions by comparing apples to oranges?
He has gotten into trouble for that in the past when he has tried to get away from difficult questions by fast talking.
Bhopal was an accidental disaster in a chemical plant. That is not the same as terrorism.
Listening to what he says in the second video now and ... well he is hiding the truth while speaking it too.
Yes the invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq etc are crimes and terrorism. BUT that doesnt let OBL off the hook, he mentions him and his crimes, but then uses that to hit the americans in their crimes while continuing to overlook crimes of Muslims.
As Muslims we must speak the truth, whether it be in our favour or against us. He has failed to do that and the danget of that is that there are Muslims out there killing other Muslims, and people in the spotlight like him are not willing to confront them with the truth.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
running away from what
did obl attack twin towers is their any evidence he bombed it
twin towers exploded from the inside which shows in order to blow it up inside people was necessery, besides i dont see your scholars doing anything your schoalrs support the usa, they say usa are correct in attacking these muslim coutnries your kabbani tahirul qadri nazim hamsa yusuf these are all friends with bush and blair and the enemies
the biggest criminals are sufis for their alliance with the kafir when its been stated:
Allah (swt) says:
“O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as
allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally
to them among you - then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah
guides not the wrongdoing people.” [al Maidah 51]
“So you see those in whose hearts is disease [i.e. hypocrisy] hastening into
[association with] them, saying, “We are afraid a misfortune may strike
us.” But perhaps Allah will bring a conquest or a decision from Him, and
they will become, over what they have been concealing within
themselves, regretful.”[al Maidah 52]
as muslims we speak the truth in all matters and we also make an effort to find out the truth to start with
you obviosuly havent done your research to start with
UR first sentence: summary of what "you" said.
your second sentence: stop MAKING STUFF UP ABOUT PEOPLE. you're allowed to spew out whatever you like ok, because we're in the UK and we have "freedom of expression" dont we.
BUT, stop making stuff and ACCUSING people.
and STOP NAMECALLING. why do you call people names?
especially when its not improving anything nor is it helping in any way anyone. or is it? do you have some logic/reasoning to explain how calling people you've never met names and this having some kind of positive outcome? (the only outcome is that this will bring those people closer to Allah but... not happening right now!)
and please people, dont argue the 9/11 stuff.
OH!! let ME go some Quran quoting!!!!
the bold bit: stuff we cant knw abt for sure, we dont waste time discussing, we MOOOOVE on to more pressing matters. and no, i didnt just make that up, read it in an explanation of the Quran.
Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?
UR first sentence: summary of what "you" said.
your second sentence: stop MAKING STUFF UP ABOUT PEOPLE. you're allowed to spew out whatever you like ok, because we're in the UK and we have "freedom of expression" dont we.
BUT, stop making stuff and ACCUSING people.
and STOP NAMECALLING. why do you call people names?
especially when its not improving anything nor is it helping in any way anyone. or is it? do you have some logic/reasoning to explain how calling people you've never met names and this having some kind of positive outcome? (the only outcome is that this will bring those people closer to Allah but... not happening right now!)
and please people, dont argue the 9/11 stuff.
OH!! let ME go some Quran quoting!!!!
surah Kahf, ayah 19:
Such
(being their state), We raised them up (from sleep), that they might
question each other. Said one of them "How long have ye stayed (here)?"
They said "We have stayed (perhaps) a day or part of a day." (At
length) they (all) said "Allah (alone) knows best how long ye have
stayed here...Now send ye then one of you with this money of yours to
the town: let him find out which is the best food (to be had) and bring
some to you, that (ye may satisfy hunger therewith:) and let him behave
with care and courtesy, and let him not inform anyone about you. (19)
the bold bit: stuff we cant knw abt for sure, we dont waste time discussing, we MOOOOVE on to more pressing matters. and no, i didnt just make that up, read it in an explanation of the Quran.[/quote]
research on what
sorry just had to edit mine coz it was so messy. you know you dont have to quote everything someone say everytime you reply to them
if you're not replying to a particular text/dont need the text you can just write @name of person
like im going to do
@Abu.. i didnt understand your reply, feel free to reexplain or not. it doesnt really matter.
Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?
">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeWYL7OzgsE]
The problem with answer like his is that they generally make us hide problems instead of confronting them.
Ive been on other forums and in discussions when some muslim group announced intent to bomb a place, then that place was bombed, and later even soemtimes the same group admitted to the bombing (normally killing other muslims going about their business, working, shopping etc), the members would still not accept that that group was at fault.
They would blame it all on "kuffar media" and its spin and propaganda and instead of accepting it as a problem. they would and quote the bit where news should be verified before believing it (but forget to mention that that is about all news, not just news from sources they didnt like).
While we may never be 100% certain on how 9/11 happened, instead of jumping through loopholes to say "I do not know if OBL did it, I cannot condemn him because I do not know", he could simply say "9/11 was wrong, I condemn it as mass murder, I consider it against the teachings of Islam" without focussing on who did it and give a good answer.
Instead you get jumping through loopholes and laziness that stops him actually giving valid answers to theological questions. Just say it was wrong instead of trying to get around it to focus on who actually did it.
For us it doesnt matter who did it - it was wrong. If it was the CIA, it would be just as wrong
That video is not proof, but opinion. There is strong evidence against the official version of events. But that doesnt mean it was an inside job, rather people potentially trying to hide their incompetence.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
It might be a good idea to break the Dr Zakir Naik stuff into a new topic than having the discussion here.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
for that you need to know the words of a civil engineer, i know 3 brothers who ar ecivil engineers and every civil engineer knows a building after getting hit liek that doesnt jsut go down, nor can a building burn down into ashes like a paper does, tha tis not possible, in order for that to happen much more is needed to do to take it down like this, second the building went down like a building does with destruction of use of dynamites
anyway i dont think this needs discussing
fact is their is no reason why we muslims should be taking the blame of something which we werent invovled in saying sorry for something you didnt even do is stupidity especially when you ge this kind of heat in return
now why should i plead guilty for murder i didnt even commit at the same time wht should i say say yes to a murder on a person who didnt even commit it even if the chances are 50/50 its still not confirmed but when the evidence hint towards one direction and being confirmed only rejected by a certain group then again matter is different
with confirmation form civil engineers we know a plain cannot destroy a building like that or burn it down like that, or bring it down like that every civil engineer knows this
this has been proven by many civil engineers
it was wrong. its against islam[size=100].[/size]
Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?