The British Government scares me sometimes.

And my President is Bush... so that's saying something.

Well when the government is up to it's neck in scandals, bribery allegations and being investigated by the police for criminal activity, then any old side issue focusing on someone else is good for them.

Quote:

STATEMENT FROM CHAIR OF BMF

Since the publication of a part of my interview with the Sunday Times on the 10 th December, much has been made of my views on Muslims joining the British Army and the issue of martyrdom. Many websites have carried comments on the issue from all sections of British society. Whilst many of these have been helpful, some – especially from a minority of Muslims and racist elements in the wider community – have been misinformed, ill-advised, offensive and malicious.

I have therefore decided to make a public statement to clarify the issue so that further discussions on this issue reflect the true facts rather than views based on misinformation from an out of context publication of only a part of the interview which was further misinterpreted.

The Sunday Times article on the 10 th December has caused much debate and confusion. I was contacted by a reporter with the newspaper to talk about the work of the British Muslim Forum. The interview lasted some 3 hours over 3 days and a number of telephone calls. I described the range of activities we have undertaken or are currently involved with . This included the work of some of our youth groups and community workers. The issues of educational under-achievement, poor health, unemployment amongst our youth, over-representation in our penal institutions and the criminal radicalisation of our young people were covered in the various interviews. However, only the issue of recruitment in the British Army and whether a Muslim soldier who died in conflict was a National hero/martyr or not was reported .

The Sunday Times was generally accurate except that our representatives do not actively go around telling young people to join the Army or any other institution for that matter . What I said was that we encourage British Muslim citizens to play a part in all aspects of British life. This included pursuing careers where Muslims were under-represented including the Armed Forces of this country. As citizens of this country, our allegiance must be demonstrated in all spheres. The issues of Iraq and Afghanistan are specific and need specific consideration and responses based on the individual's conscience. They must not be allowed to stifle discussion of our roles and responsibilities as citizens of this country.

As far as the much contentious issue of ‘martyrdom' is concerned, they were, and are, my personal views and have been supported by our scholars: anyone making the ultimate sacrifice of his/her life for their country is considered by that country a national hero and a martyr. The word martyr is widely used by countries throughout the world to honour their heroes. The British Armed Forces are the same. Why should a British Muslim soldier not be honoured in the same way as any other British soldier?

According to the Oxford Dictionary the term Martyr means ‘a person who is killed because of their religious or other beliefs…a person who exaggerates their difficulties in order to obtain sympathy or admiration'. This clearly states that the word Martyr is also used for other sacrifices than religion only – My views were based on this interpretation and understanding and that the term Martyr used in the article had the meaning that was not linked to religion but for other beliefs. For the armed forces that means for your country not your religion.

As far as a ‘shaheed' is concerned, this is a specifically Islamic concept but is more commonly translated as a martyr by Muslims and non-Muslims alike. For example, the Sikh martyr Udham Singh is commonly referred to as a shaheed. However, in Islam the status of a ‘Shaheed' is only conferred on those who die in the cause of Allah (SWT). I regard all ‘Shaheeds' as martyrs of Islam but not all martyrs can be ‘Shaheed'. I clarified the distinction between the two terms to the Sunday Times. This is why the term ‘Shaheed' was NOT mentioned in the Sunday Times. The general translation of the English term out of its proper context caused the confusion. I hope this now clarifies the debate. I have no doubt that some of our opponents will find excuses to still disagree as their mission is to undermine us, but this does not matter as this clarification is meant for BMF Membership and the general public who wish to have an open debate with us on this and other issues.

KHURSHID AHMED,
Chair, BMF,
December 18 th 2006

[url=http://bmf.eu.com/news.php?nws=statement_chair]Full text[/url]

salaam

thanxs for that Beast...

i dunno...still a bit vague to me

Quote:

As far as the much contentious issue of ‘martyrdom' is concerned, [b]they were, and are, my personal views and have been supported by our scholars: anyone making the ultimate sacrifice of his/her life for their country is considered by that country a national hero and a martyr. [/b]The word martyr is widely used by countries throughout the world to honour their heroes. The British Armed Forces are the same. Why should a British Muslim soldier not be honoured in the same way as any other British soldier?

but he did go on to explain, by martyr he doesnt mean shaheed in the islamic terminology.... which will baffle people.

ah well...

i'm just happy they have responded to the confusion.

It should not baffle anyone really. simple.

Martyr !=Shaheed in the Islamic sense.

BMF?

Wasn't it the WWF who represented us last month?

Anyway, I'd fight for Britain in a just war.

No surrender, no surrender to the IRA.

"Admin" wrote:

It should not baffle anyone really. simple.

Martyr !=Shaheed in the Islamic sense.

so martyr means shaheed in the islamic sense....
so fighting for britain in lets say Iraq and u die...you are shaheed?
IN THE ISLAMIC SENSE A SHAHEED WITNESSES ALLAH (SWT) WHEN HE DIES AND IS GAURANTEED JANNAH....does this apply if u die fighting for the british army?

is it still simple, Admin:-)

not really.... the BMF has made a right boob of this issue, i'm afraid.

Just so there is no confusion about my question - I think this move by the Brits is bizarre and completely twisted.

So, that said, do Muslim scholars differenciate between "dying in the cause of Allah" and "dying in the cause of Muslims" do they recognize that Muslims can do things not for God and that things done for God can come from people other than Muslims?

"TheRevivalEditor" wrote:

"Admin" wrote:

It should not baffle anyone really. simple.

Martyr !=Shaheed in the Islamic sense.

so martyr means shaheed in the islamic sense....
so fighting for britain in lets say Iraq and u die...you are shaheed?
IN THE ISLAMIC SENSE A SHAHEED WITNESSES ALLAH (SWT) WHEN HE DIES AND IS GAURANTEED JANNAH....does this apply if u die fighting for the british army?

is it still simple, Admin:-)

not really.... the BMF has made a right boob of this issue, i'm afraid.

"BMF" wrote:

According to the Oxford Dictionary the term Martyr means ‘a person who is killed because of their religious or other beliefs…a person who exaggerates their difficulties in order to obtain sympathy or admiration'. This clearly states that the word Martyr is also used for other sacrifices than religion only – My views were based on this interpretation and understanding and that the term Martyr used in the article had the meaning that was not linked to religion but for other beliefs. For the armed forces that means for your country not your religion.

However, in Islam the status of a ‘Shaheed' is only conferred on those who die in the cause of Allah (SWT). I regard all ‘Shaheeds' as martyrs of Islam but not all martyrs can be ‘Shaheed'.

When Khurshid called Jabron Hashmi a martyr he was using the dictionary definition not the Islamic definition.

BMF didn't make a boob of this. The only thing they could have done better in this case was respond earlier.

The Times misrepresented what Khurshid Ahmed said and certain Muslims were more than willing to be taken in.

"TheRevivalEditor" wrote:

"Admin" wrote:

It should not baffle anyone really. simple.

Martyr !=Shaheed in the Islamic sense.

so martyr means shaheed in the islamic sense....

'!=' means 'DOES NOT EQUAL'

"Beast" wrote:

"TheRevivalEditor" wrote:

"Admin" wrote:

It should not baffle anyone really. simple.

Martyr !=Shaheed in the Islamic sense.

so martyr means shaheed in the islamic sense....
so fighting for britain in lets say Iraq and u die...you are shaheed?
IN THE ISLAMIC SENSE A SHAHEED WITNESSES ALLAH (SWT) WHEN HE DIES AND IS GAURANTEED JANNAH....does this apply if u die fighting for the british army?

is it still simple, Admin:-)

not really.... the BMF has made a right boob of this issue, i'm afraid.

"BMF" wrote:

According to the Oxford Dictionary the term Martyr means ‘a person who is killed because of their religious or other beliefs…a person who exaggerates their difficulties in order to obtain sympathy or admiration'. This clearly states that the word Martyr is also used for other sacrifices than religion only – My views were based on this interpretation and understanding and that the term Martyr used in the article had the meaning that was not linked to religion but for other beliefs. For the armed forces that means for your country not your religion.

However, in Islam the status of a ‘Shaheed' is only conferred on those who die in the cause of Allah (SWT). I regard all ‘Shaheeds' as martyrs of Islam but not all martyrs can be ‘Shaheed'.

When Khurshid called Jabron Hashmi a martyr he was using the dictionary definition not the Islamic definition.

BMF didn't make a boob of this. The only thing they could have done better in this case was respond earlier.

The Times misrepresented what Khurshid Ahmed said and certain Muslims were more than willing to be taken in.

well kurshid ahmeds explanation is a bit lame
he hasnt really cleared the confusion
its not that Muslims were willing to be taken in but wanted to question and challenge the statement made....but some muslims get their nickers in a twist when Muslims challenge, question them and hold fellow Muslims accountable!

you just want to jump on a bandwaggon!

We're not in the wild west.

I can't see why you find this such a big issue.

"TheRevivalEditor" wrote:

well kurshid ahmeds explanation is a bit lame
he hasnt really cleared the confusion

Khurshid Ahmed said Jabron Hashmi was a martyr.

He made a distinction between martyr and shaheed i.e. he said the two are not the same thing.

He defined a martyr as someone who dies for a cause they believe in - be it religious or non-religious.

He defined shaheed as someone who dies in the cause of Allah (swt).

Khurshid said Jabron was a martyr i.e. someone who died for what he believed in.

He did not say Jabron was a shaheed i.e. someone who died for the cause of Allah (swt).

"i.e." means "that is"

Where's the confusion?

Quote:

its not that Muslims were willing to be taken in but wanted to question and challenge the statement made....but some muslims get their nickers in a twist when Muslims challenge, question them and hold fellow Muslims accountable!

The Times did not report that Khurshid made a distinction between martyr and shaheed and it did not report that its 4 line quotation of Khurshid came from a 3 hour-long general interview.

I'm all for holding people accountable. But you can't hold people accountable on the basis of scant information from dodgy stories in newspapers.

Did you hold Asghar Bukhari accountable after reading he funded a Nazi-sympathiser or did you think 'this story is rubbish it's only out to discredit Asghar'?

"Admin" wrote:

you just want to jump on a bandwaggon!

We're not in the wild west.

I can't see why you find this such a big issue.

its not a big issue
but you and beast have turned it in to a big issue here

We're not the ones who invited people to call BMF "Scholars for Dollars", "Blair's Poodles" and "sell outs".

That was you.

We were just telling you that you were over-reating.

"TheRevivalEditor" wrote:

"Admin" wrote:

you just want to jump on a bandwaggon!

We're not in the wild west.

I can't see why you find this such a big issue.

its not a big issue
but you and beast have turned it in to a big issue here

Me?

All I said was I have no issues with Muslims joining the British Military, and that there were factual errors in the report. Nothing more.

"Beast" wrote:

We're not the ones who invited people to call BMF "Scholars for Dollars", "Blair's Poodles" and "sell outs".

That was you.

We were just telling you that you were over-reating.

that wasnt an over reaction.
am i not entitled to my views?
i was just asking the questions.
but you two didnt like that.

neway... i wont say no more on this...

So it's an over reaction to say you agree, but not one if you throw labels in disagreement?

Ok...

:twisted: