It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
The point seems to be that a news organization, small or large, has the right, and perhaps even the responsibility to distance themselves from any employee that forgoes being an asset and instead becomes a liability.
Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Was her Twitter her business Twitter or her personal one. It makes a difference, I guess. And again I say, you can be (relatively, per canard) unbiased at work and still have personal opinions. Professionals do that.
To the emulators of the late Religious Authority, His Eminence, Sayyed Muhammad Hussein Fadlullah (ra): It is permissible to continue to emulate a deceased Marjaa based on a Fatwa of a living religious authority who fulfills all the conditions of such a post and who deems it permissible to continue to emulate a deceased Marjaa. Furthermore, the office of His Eminence is considering issuing a detailed explanation of the issue. Meanwhile, we will continue to answer your inquires in accordance with the opinions of His Eminence.
Moreover, intellectually speaking, I believe that there is no difference between the martyr in question and the soldier who joins the battle to fight, where he knows that he might be killed by the enemy, but he is obliged to do so because of some critical circumstances and because of his belief of the legitimacy of this battle. So, when a battle needs man to turn to be a weapon in order to exert pressure on the enemies and to kill them, then this will be a part of the mechanism of the battle. Every soldier who joins a battle believing in its legitimacy keeps in mind that he might get killed after turning to a bomb. The problem is in the mentality of the Westerners who fail to consider martyrdom a part of the battle’s mobility. Thus there is no difference between the mentality of the soldier who uses conventional methods and the mentality of the martyr (by the martyr operation); for both of them attempt to achieve their goals they believe in.
It is true that Jihad is not a duty for women, but Islam has, permitted women to fight, if the requirements of a defensive war necessitate a conventional military operation or a martyrdom operation to be carried out by women. Thus, we believe those martyr women are making a new and glorious history for Arab women. We also express our denial of any reservations concerning the martyrdom operations, which have been carried out by women.
Such operations are one means of Jihad against the enemy. God (s.w.t) has imposed Jihad on Muslims within certain legal conditions. So, all means that harm the enemy and help us achieve the great goal are allowed. Perhaps some people, while discussing martyrdom operations, base their discussion on the holy Aya, “And cast not yourselves to perdition with your own hands” 2:125, and attempt to apply the concept of suicide on any similar operations. It’s true that suicide is not permissible in Islam, but what is meant by the above Aya is the individual practices concerning casting oneself to perdition is exposing oneself to death, whether one is quite sure of the inevitable harm or unsure. So, does its mean that the Moslem fighter who encounters the enemies casts himself to perdition? Of course not; otherwise, jihad in principle, will no longer be valid?
perhaps, the problem with some people is that they don’t believe in Jihad, in principle, in this stage of Islam and they think that there are some specific conditions to be achieved, a part from the supreme interest of Islam and from the pressure to be exerted to save the nation from oppressive Zionism and Israeli barbarism. Or they believe that these operations are impermissible because they target civilians. But, we know that the Mujahideen are not targeting the civilians but the occupier in occupied Palestine. In addition, we don’t consider the settlers who occupy the Zionist settlements civilians, but they are an extension of occupation and they are not less aggressive and barbaric than the Zionist soldier. At the same time that we confirm the legitimacy of these operations, we regard them among the most prominent evidence of Jihad in Allah’s way, and we consider any criticism, whether intentional or not, against this type of operation represent an offence against the confrontation movement led by the Palestinian people, including all parties, against the Israeli occupation. Because his battle requires readiness for a maximal state of challenge and confrontation, knowing that the enemy is utilizing all its capabilities and techniques to suppress the Palestinians and to undermine their public and warlike movement. Thus, we have to be well prepared to confront this enemy by all means to make it the first to suffer.
Originally posted by LittleSecret
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Yes it is your bias because you haven't put yourself on his shoes ^^
Tell me which part of his statements you agree and don't agree with.
I will keep it to those statements I do not agree with, and before I do point out that you have most certainly not put yourself in my shoes, and as such, wearing other peoples shoes is neither here nor there. Here is what I disagree with: Martyrdom. I do not agree that a sacrifice, whether it be used as a political tool, or any other reason is moral. I do not agree with martyrdom regardless of the religion that advocates it. I do not agree with sacrifice regardless of the religion that advocates it.
Sacrifice, in its simplest terms, is giving up something of a higher value for something of a lesser value. Martyrdom is the most atrocious sacrifice because it demands you give up your life, and too often demands this for dubious objectives. We all find ourselves in circumstances where we often are forced to make a choice, and that choice often means giving up something, or somethings in order to obtain our objective. However, if that objective has greater value than what we give up, then no sacrifice has been made.
Martyrdom does not have a history of success, and even Gandhi lamented the fact that arms were denied his people in the struggle for independence. The Palestinians are at war with Israel, and regardless of what I think of that war, the advocacy of martyrdom as an effective and legal tool to fight that war is atrocious. Further, any faction that advocates killing civilians in the name of war is atrocious, and finally war is atrocious, though tragically sometimes unavoidable. War is stupid, and while it may be an extension of politics, it is an extension of failed politics.