It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A member of the tiny minority of peaceful moderate Muslims speaks out...

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 02:24 PM
link   
....then gets ostracized by his own mosque.


Jamal Miftah, a native Pakistani who moved here with his family a few years ago, spoke out against al Qeada; denouncing their actions and the actions of violent jihadists, in his mosque. He was then told to leave and never return until he apologizes.

This link provides the original article that was published in the Tulsa World wherein Mr Miftah wrote to the paper to describe his personal experience earlier this year. There is also a video link showing an interview with a local news station.



His letter, entitled "Message of Islam is not jihad, fatwahs" was published in Tulsa World on October 29. In this letter, which we reproduce below, he stated that Zawahri and bin Laden were cowards, getting young and ignorant men to become suicide bombers to kill innocent civilians.

His letter was impassioned, but it was well-intentioned. He said that Muslims throughout the world should stand up to those who advocate jihad, and to decry such behavior as being against Islam. But the letter caused only recriminations at his mosque, the Islamic Center at Tulsa.

He was threatened by several members. He protested, and then was told by the management of the mosque that he cannot return until he has apologized.


This is preciesly what the Muslim world is lacking--people willing to take a public stand against Jihadism, as this man has. I suspect, however, that either most are afraid of doing so because of fear of what might happen to them if they do; or this may mean there are more "moderates" who quietly support the premise of "extremism" simply because they hate western ideals and real freedom more than they hate Osama bin Laden and those of his ilk.

To paraphase my signature (and General Patton) Those who fear failure are doomed to fail!! Meaning: If Muslims are afraid to stand up against "extremism" they will surely fail at standing up against them--and the "extremists" will win. Who knws; maybe that's what "moderates" want.


[edit on 28-11-2006 by Freedom_for_sum]




posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   
What are rational non-muslims to think of Islam as a whole when this kind of thing happens not in Iran, Syria, Egypt, Turkey, or even England but in middle America?

The apologists are using the "Muslims do not speak bad of other Muslims in front of infidels". Well I can't see any criticism in what Mr. Miftah said about Islam but a lot of straight talk about "hypo crites, cowards, thugs and liars".

If the majority of the followers of the RoP (Religion of Peace) really believed as Mr. Miftah does then why wouldn't his mosque support him and his message?

This type of mentality really destroys the credibility of Islam in the minds of rational human beings. Maybe Mr. Miftah is right when he says, "Their time is limited and Muslims of the world will soon rise against them to apprehend them and bring them to justice."

Until these voices are heard by us infidels from within the mosque and from the mouth of more Muslims then we have no choice but to believe that voice we do hear loud and clear.



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Well, considering he was basically advocating ignoring Allah, he is lucky to get out alive...

muslims are required by religious law (the only legit law is religious law, with true muslims) to serve god, in everyway possible... Jihad is a misnomer used to describe extremism... but it isn't the same...

when a mullah calls for Jihad, he is basically calling for help, not for an attack...

For those seeking knowledge, rather than ignorance-
the true definition of Jihad

or for those seeking, but too busy to find:

Literally, jihad means doing one’s utmost to realize a goal. It is not the equivalent of war, for which Arabic and the Qur’an use qital. Jihad has a wider connotation and embraces every kind of striving in God’s cause. A mujahid is devoted to his or her cause; uses all physical, intellectual, and spiritual capacities to serve it.


I dunno, but if the guy had not used the term "Oppose Jihad", then maybe they wouldn't have been offended...



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by CasualOne
What are rational non-muslims to think of Islam as a whole

if they're rational, they're going to think that its a religion that isn't inherently violent, and that is just dominated by violent people. They're realize that pretty much every religion is open to that kind of manipulation, and that islam certainly isn't the most violent out of them.

An irrational person would start calling for muslims to be deported, or would consider all muslims to be inherently evil and dangerous, etc.

As far as jihad, it means nothing more than 'struggle'. The majority of its usage is a call for a violent warring campaign, liek a crusade. An individual muslim would have to respect a holy man, like any one in any other relgiion would have to. Its who they choose to beleive is a holy man that leads to problems, such as picking unholy men who call for violent campaigns against other people.

[edit on 28-11-2006 by Nygdan]



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Ummm did you guys read his letter? The only mention of "jihad" is:

"I appeal to the Muslim youth in particular and Muslims of the world in general to rise up and start jihad against the killers of humanity and help the civilized world to bring these culprits to justice and prove that Islam is not a religion of hatred and aggression."


ok whatever that has to do with anything.

Luv Able Infidel



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
Well, considering he was basically advocating ignoring Allah, he is lucky to get out alive...


It's Interesting that you'd call into question his survival for denouncing violent jihad.....Things that may you go HMMMMM



Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
muslims are required by religious law (the only legit law is religious law, with true muslims) to serve god, in everyway possible... Jihad is a misnomer used to describe extremism... but it isn't the same...


This Islam Q&A Website is owned and operated by Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid, a highly regarded scholar and author who is recognized among Muslim sas an authority on fatwas, or Islamic rulings.

Here are three opinions: 1. 2. 3. he provides on "Jihad"--and they're hardly peaceful.


Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
when a mullah calls for Jihad, he is basically calling for help, not for an attack...


Incorrect. Literally, it means to struggle, or strive for self improvement for Allah. However, Islam also provides a violent definition (see links above) as a means to fight non-Muslims, or Kaffirs if the perception of war exists--which it does. In context of what's happening today; violent jihad reigns true.


Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
I dunno, but if the guy had not used the term "Oppose Jihad", then maybe they wouldn't have been offended...


The context of his message, both in the paper and the mosque, was for Muslims to stand against violent jihadis. The fact he was criticized and ostracised speaks volumes of where the members of that mosque stand; and only further strengthens my belief that there are many Muslims already within our borders who desire to impose Islam as the ruling religion in America.




[edit on 28-11-2006 by Freedom_for_sum]



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
if they're rational, they're going to think that its a religion that isn't inherently violent, and that is just dominated by violent people. They're realize that pretty much every religion is open to that kind of manipulation, and that islam certainly isn't the most violent out of them.


Ok, if Islam "Certainly isnt the most violent" religion, you must beleive atleast 2 religions are more violent, which Religions might they be ?



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link   

If a person has said the Shahada, they are a Muslim. If they have killed non-Muslims, or even Muslims, they are still regarded as pat of the Ummah.

This bizarre reasoning

Huh? Whats bizzare about it? They have very simple requirements to be a muslim. They have more stringent requirements to be a good muslim. A person who accepts christ is a christian, more than that, in many christian sects, it doesn't matter what he has done before that, or after it, he is guarenteed a place in heaven. So Hitler, he's, according to many christian groups, is a christian and in heaven. How is the muslim position, that once a person professes the basics of the islamic faith, (that there is only one god and mohammed is his prophet) he becomes a muslim, so bizzare???


I was told of takfeer and how they feared to criticize any Muslim, lest on Judgement Day they received punishment for denouncing another Muslim as bad.

Hmm. This is interesting. Are any of the muslims here able to attest to a similar, if not rule, a similar tendency amoung muslims? Christianity has a similar 'rule', a christian isn't supposed to call a fellow christian 'a fool', to do so is wrong. Of course, christians do this all the time.
Also, its patently obvious that many muslims are more than comfortable with, not merely criticizing, but overtly calling some muslim sects 'non-muslim' or at least heretical. Perhaps though, in those cases, an authoritative imam has already condemed the sect or individuals as heretics.
Perhaps, then, what we need now, are relatively authoritative muslims to make official rulings on people like bin laden as being 'takfeer' or some such.

One of the comments on that external site seems particularly relevant:


Murder is denounced in the Quran whereas takfir was a concept invented by jurists at a later date.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 02:38 PM
link   
The newspaper archives their links after 30 days. If you search their archives for Jamal Miftah, you get the archived pages:
www.tulsaworld.com...

Apparently, the ban has been lifted:


www.tulsaworld.com...
Houssam Elsoueissi, president of the operating council at the mosque, said he would announce at Friday's service that Jamal Miftah is free to attend services as long as there is no disturbance, and that no one at the mosque should confront him. [Previously] Elsoueissi said he talked to police about getting a restraining order against Miftah to prevent further incidents at the mosque.[...]Tulsan Mujeeb Cheema, executive director of North American Islamic Trust, said Miftah's views on bin Laden were "mainline views among American Muslims."


[edit on 12-12-2006 by Nygdan]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join