Someone said the above to me while saying Turkey was being hypocritical - and so was the larger Muslim community by ignoring such things.
I don't have facts and figures to back up the assertion though as I did not ask.
What do you make of this?
"Turkey killed more kurds in the past week than israel has killed palestinians in the past year"
Published by You on 7 June, 2010 - 12:59
I have a few questions:
How many of these kurds are innocent? I read that there has been a lot of militants and roadside bombs which were alledged to be kurdish attacks
How many of these palestinians were militants?
I think these questions are important because the figures could seem misleading when out of context.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane, by those who couldn't hear the music...
The kurds are being denied an identity etc. By my reckoning by being asked to give up their identity, they are innocent and not in the wrong.
"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.
Im not gonna argue against that and i guess they're in the same position jews where in before the state of Israel came about. However there has been a rise of kurdish militants causing deaths and launching terrorists attacks theres a fundamental difference between innocent gazans being starved, bombed, tortured and kurdish militants being killed in battle or warfare, im not condoning the turkish acts but you cant draw any kind of simmilarities here.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane, by those who couldn't hear the music...
That is assuming they were militants in the first place.
But no, trying to eradicate their ethnic identity is a big thing and they have a right torebel against that.
Besides, the people killed by Israel in the past year would probably be classed as militants. (the gaza incursions were over a year ago.)
"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.
ethnic cleansing is an issue in so many places.
Talking about ethinicity...
There's loads of mixed marriages nowadays and I'm thinking in the near future there wont be specific ethnicities, everyone will be mixed, to some degree. Would that mean the end of Racism? or would there be new type of racism? like the people with more mixture being racist to those with less? or vice-versa? =/
Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?
There will always be ethnicities - they may be different to the current ones though.
"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.
Bieng forced to change your ethnicity whether it be turks inflicting it upon the kurds or Israeli's upon Palestinians, it's not right.
Well i disagree UN and other authorities did list a number of civilian casualties and those people killed on the mavi marvara and the gazans being starved in Palestine arent militants.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane, by those who couldn't hear the music...
I'd say you can draw similarities - otherwise how do you explain 30,000 Kurds being slaughtered by the US's client state Turkey in the 90s?
The problem as ever in the Muslim world, is secularism! The secular elites are trying to impose their national identity on the kurds who don't fit into it and disagree with it and want a separate national identity as they believe themselves to be a different nation. Conflict arises and the savage Turkish elites are resorting to genocide against the Turks.
It's just not labelled that as Turkey has become a US client state and such terms are only used for the US's enemies!
For those who believe in national identities, here's another effect of them!
The sooner we realise our bonds are Islam and not based around nationalism, the sooner we can kick out these secular elites and their foreign divisive ideologies from our midst and get back to implementing Islam...
Oh, so its all the US's fault. Carry on then.
(and that post sounds like you think the Kurds should break away... wait another nation state?)
"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.
The Americans are a major contributing factor - their political and diplomatic cover for such genocides allows it to continue - compare their behavior to Serbia and its genocide!
Both the ruling Turks and Kurdish nationalist politicians/leaders are at fault - they carry kufr nationalistic identities and ideologies which result in such loss of life!
If both referred to Islam, all these issues would be resolved!
Isn't that the answer to all problems everywhere at all times? Its a cop out of an answer.
Is this another one of your "there are categorically no other taxes allowed in Islam ever" kind of ploys where we find out afterwards that that is not the case?
If some Kurds are trying to break away and you have ambitions to see a superstate, then surely you would support the actions to stop the kurds from breaking away?
"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.
Not true and that statement is unbelievably simplistic
The kurdish ideology of Islam and Turkish Ideology of Islam is very different so there intepretations wouldnt lead to a resolvement it isnt as easy as if only they were both good muslims because their individual definitions of a good muslim are quite different.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane, by those who couldn't hear the music...
I'm not referring to they should refer to Islam in their personal lifes (which they should no doubt!) but in the political realm.
Both refer to nationalistic secular ideologies which is leading to the conflict. If both referred to the Islamic political system, the Caliphate, there would be no problem. The Islamic state would not be enforcing Secular Turkish nationalistic identities, culture etc on the Kurds against which they are rebelling demanding a nation state of their own! Historically the Kurds collaborated with the Caliphate and provided some of the most stunning military generals in our history!
Neither Turkish Muslims or Kurdish Muslims have a history of any political system based on Islam other than the Caliphate - so differences are more imaginary and contemporaneously created that actual.
If you still disagree, please provide your solution?
I'm not referring to they should refer to Islam in their personal lifes (which they should no doubt!) but in the political realm.
Both refer to nationalistic secular ideologies which is leading to the conflict. If both referred to the Islamic political system, the Caliphate, there would be no problem. The Islamic state would not be enforcing Secular Turkish nationalistic identities, culture etc on the Kurds against which they are rebelling demanding a nation state of their own! Historically the Kurds collaborated with the Caliphate and provided some of the most stunning military generals in our history!
Neither Turkish Muslims or Kurdish Muslims have a history of any political system based on Islam other than the Caliphate - so differences are more imaginary and contemporaneously created that actual.
If you still disagree, please provide your solution?
There is no doubt that a proper caliphate would resolve the situation but how would you come about that..lets say the kurds dont agree with the caliphate as it was turkish caliph or his islamic beliefs werent the same according to them and vice versa..your referring to age where unity amongst the muslim ummah was widespread and apparent, we live in a time were unity amongst the ummah is as rare as seeing England winning the football world cup, in my opinion if we want to work towards khilafah that should be our first objective because with unity comes power.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane, by those who couldn't hear the music...
They don't have to agree with one Caliph - however all Muslims have 3 days and nights to appoint a Caliph (following ijma al-sahabah on this). If they don't they are all sinful.
Islam permits any Muslim(s) to change this situtation - if some appoint a Caliph, they can then force all Muslims to give the bayah to lift the sin of others. If the others try appointing an alternative Caliph, the former can use force against them as per the traditions that prohibit more than one Caliph existing at any one time. Problem solved.
I agree that we should work to politically unite and support all those groups calling for Khilafah in accordance to how the Prophet(saw) did it - through peaceful means such as demonstrations, talks, writing etc Ultimately the Ummah has to solve this problem - no one individual can do it for them - and if they don't, they are like sheep vulnerable to attacks and manipulation from the wolves who range from secular elites to foreign powers...
The problem many muslims face isnt the idea of khilafah or islamic rule, a lot of muslims feel that its whos introducing this khilafah that matters, i know HT will argue their version of khilafah and rule is the correct way. However a lot of muslims disagree with this and said muslims would find it hard to accept this new caliphate introduced by a group such as HT now thats just an example im adament that HT members wouldnt accept a khilafah thats set up by a brelvi movement as they would deem it to be the incorrect way of introducing and implimenting khilafah now what would you do in such a situation? if certain groups dont accept the legitamacy of a khilafah thats been introduced?
I think the solution is simple and the primary objective should be Unity which will almost definitely lead to a khilafah which will return InshALLLAH as the prophet pbuh has promised us, i believe muslim unity is the key to the shackles preventing a khilafah.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane, by those who couldn't hear the music...
Perhaps people fear that a Caliphate would be as oppressive or culturally regressive as the Taleban or other hardliners of their acquaintance, and only pay any homage to the notion as a fictitious tenet of faith and out of acquiescence. If that theory is right then only a wholesale shift towards tolerance among those promoting a Caliphate could ever make it attractive, and it would be rather more likely to arise through force. Show me it ain't so.
Agreed.
I believe that it ain't so, and I have already seen enough amazing things in my life to be confident in my belief.
Don't see where this wave is coming from though, and I'm happy to get on with my life until then.
Don't just do something! Stand there.
Maybe you're not aware that HT were happy to live under Shia rule if they implemented Islam and were going to give baya to Khomeini in 1979. That is sincerity to Islam.
Muslims should not whine who rules them by Islam when they are ruled by secular nationalists, socialists, capitalists etc nd they remain silent.
They have 3 days to choose a ruler otherwise a ruler can be forced on them - if they fight it, they can be legitimately killed - and on the day of judgement will be accounted for rebellion and dieing a death of jahilliyah as they did not give a bayah to any imam.
This is putting the cart in front of the horse - unity comes from those in political authority adopting a policy to unite the Muslim world. The current nationalist elites believe in borders and nation states so would never advocate such a policy.
The only ones who would unite us with such policies are the groups calling for Islamic states, Caliphates, and calling for abolishment of borders.
The Prophecy of Khilafah returning will happen no doubt - but don't forget Allah's condition - He will never change the state of a nation unless they make efforts to make the change themselves... then he will assist, otherwise he will leave them to their humiliation!
Oh, there wasn't an if, but ftr it was provisional, I was talking about what was likelier.
Well 31 years ago HT members also suggested that keeping a beard wasnt sunnah and that you should do it after the age of 40, there views have evolved and changed and im sure even then they would have had a few problems because they would've believed shia's do not and cannot impliment islamic rule. Also it isnt a case of whining and its not true muslims remain silent there are those who active in speaking out and acting against a repressive and immoral regimes to generalise that in my opinion is grossly unfair.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane, by those who couldn't hear the music...
Just to add here, "were going to give bay'ah" is not the same as "did give bay'ah".
"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.
So what your suggesting is that someone will come and say all you people i command you to unite? a person they may not even acknowledge as leader, i think this way of thinking isnt the most forward nor is it the best because what your suggesting is that we build the house before we build the foundations a wall without cement if you like.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane, by those who couldn't hear the music...
Amazing Muslims are so apolitical that they can ask:
"So what your suggesting is that someone will come and say all you people i command you to unite?"
It's almost like they don't live in the real world, have never read any history - Islamic or Western.
How did the Prophet(saw) unite the people of Arabia? How did the Khualfah Rashida and the Ummayads unite people from Spain to Central Asia? How did Salahadin unite the Muslims? How did Otto Van Bismark unite Germany its multitude of statelets? How did Italy unite its multiple statelets? How did the US unite? How are Europe achieving unity?
A little reading of history will help...
Unity is a complex political process and to talk about simplistic walls without cement in this context is a little naive in my opinion.
The non muslim examples you give are pathetic they didnt actually unite in most of those occasions and those islamic examples are of leaders who were widely respected and accepted now if the muslims dont respect accept the leaders then how will they unite? a little common sense on your part will help you..your beliefs are simplistic.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane, by those who couldn't hear the music...
Actually the examples are not pathetic - your answer is. For example, anyone who has even read German history at GCSE level knows about the unification process which you are cleary ignorant thereof.
And repeating terms from my comment is indicative you can't even think for ourself!
Pages