To Muslim members of ATS: What do you think about Mali?

reply to post by nenothtu

It also illustrates the fact that some things are timeless. The more things change, it seems, the more they stay the same.

Indeed. It's depressing.

I read a book called "The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11", by Lawrence Wright, a NY Journalist of some renown, which gave [a version of] the history of Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri (and others including a Saudi prince) how some of the [alleged] leaders studied in the USA early in their lives.

It was very interesting; but...was it real history? Or was it propaganda?

You are right, though, apparently they will NEVER stop. They really are still living in the 7th century. From what I can tell.
Your friend makes a good point; and as much as I oppose violence, yeah, they need to be subdued permanently.

A gripping narrative that spans five decades, The Looming Tower explains in unprecedented detail the growth of Islamic fundamentalism, the rise of al-Qaeda, and the intelligence failures that culminated in the attacks on the World Trade Center. Lawrence Wright re-creates firsthand the transformation of Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri from incompetent and idealistic soldiers in Afghanistan to leaders of the most successful terrorist group in history. He follows FBI counterterrorism chief John O’Neill as he uncovers the emerging danger from al-Qaeda in the 1990s and struggles to track this new threat. Packed with new information and a deep historical perspective, The Looming Tower is the definitive history of the long road to September 11.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by logical7

 

I believe neither is superior than the other. I do see the advantages and faults in both.
Nothing should be forced rather it should be free choice, be it a hijab or a jeans n top with a pony tail.

Perfect; I entirely agree.

btw, if you don't mind my asking...what is your age? I'm wondering if we're "cohorts" in terms of generations.

i am 27 would be 28 in May.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Not when you (quote the Koran and canonical Hadith) combine it with the policies of questionable "muslim" leaders... and present it as a "muslim" thing.

I have referred to the Koran and Hadith to describe the life of Muhammad. I have presented the violent deeds of the founder of Islam as a 'Muslim thing', as you put it.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
At least, Mohammad laid down laws prohibiting his soldiers from killing women, children and old people.

But clearly not from enslaving them, as you well know. Muhammad was both a slaver and an owner of slaves. Perhaps not unusual for a warlord at the time but not the sort of behavior one expects from the founder of a religion of 'peace', nor a side of Muhammad that Muslims in the 21st century wish revealed to non Muslims.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Whereas the Bible ....

I'm not a Christian Why do you assume that anyone who is Western is a Christian? Is it a Muslim thing?

Originally posted by logical7
Also the link you posted before about political islam, they sell "Koran" and claim that their research is well grounded. The suspicious part it that they overdo it.

Do you mean Statistical Islam?

Interestingly violent Jihad makes up

• 24% of the Medinan Koran
• 21% of the Hadith and

Center for the Study of Political Islam

What is interesting is that the Meccan Koran, when Muhammad was weak has no Jihad passages.

The Medinan Koran, on the other hand, when Muhammad was a powerful warlord, consists of 24% Jihad passages.

Muhammad's messages became more and more violent as he grew more powerful.

www.cspipublishing.com...

Originally posted by logical7
"if muslims are peaceful then they are not really following islam as it should be"

That is your statement, not mine. The fact remains however that Muhammad was a violent warlord who spread Islam by the sword. He conquered Arabia before he died. Not with words of peace but with the sword.

Originally posted by logical7
its very clear why you care to bother so much to research(mostly anti islamic sites) to spread the "Reality" of islam.

I have researched the Koran and canonical Hadith. The Muhammad revealed by Islams own holy books is a man of violence who 'punished' Jews by killing the men and enslaving the women and children, leading armies in battle and urging his followers to engage in jihad as a religious duty.

I respect the fact that you appear to reject this side of Muhammad, although worryingly you do defend Muhammad massacring and enslaving a tribe of Jews as something being appropriate behavior.

Originally posted by logical7

Ibn Ishaq was not a well researched historian or biographer. He was a story collector and guess who were the sources for the parts you mentioned, decendants of the same jewish tribes.
During his time, more stress was put on collecting authentic facts by jurists obviously as it would help form the laws. On the other hand, stories about prophet's life were not scrutinized, ibn ishaq collected these stories, and no jurist takes the biography by him as a basis to formulate any rulings.

Ironically, Ibn Ishaq is the source that your historian Karen Armstrong was using when she defended the killing and enslaving of the Quraysh by Muhammad.

Interestingly, Ibn Ishaq actually stated that he left out a number of stories that he felt showed Muhammad in a bad light. It is a puzzle to modern people why a devout Muslim historian would depict Muhammad as such a violent and bloodthirsty man.

Nonetheless, the violent figure he depicts is consistent with the violent character of Muhammad portrayed in the Koran and Hadith.

Originally posted by logical7
Olin, you also tell a one sided story, could you tell me why was the tribe punished?

Wikipedia states

According to Ibn Ishaq, Akhtab persuaded the Qurayza chief Ka'b ibn Asad to help the Meccans conquer Medina. Ka'b was, according to Al-Waqidi's account, initially reluctant to break the contract and argued that Muhammad never broke any contract with them or exposed them to any shame, but decided to support the Meccans after Huyayy had promised to join the Qurayza in Medina if the besieging army would return to Mecca without having killed Muhammad.[44] Ibn Kathir and al-Waqidi report that Huyayy tore into pieces the agreement between Ka'b and Muhammad.[4][45]

Wikipedia

All of the above are Muslim sources. The Qurayza, all having been killed or enslaved by Muhammad didn't have an opportunity to give their side of the story.

Originally posted by logical7
reply to post by wildtimes

 

Do the people of the West pose such a threat to Islam that we need to be eradicated? Goes both ways.

not really, how can the West with its superior military forces be eradicated?
If you are talking about western culture, then yes its sure is different from islamic culture.
I believe neither is superior than the other. I do see the advantages and faults in both.
Nothing should be forced rather it should be free choice, be it a hijab or a jeans n top with a pony tail.

I like you. One of these days I'll buy you a cup of coffee, so we can sit and discuss things over the same table.

Originally posted by wildtimes

You are right, though, apparently they will NEVER stop. They really are still living in the 7th century. From what I can tell.

You may have misunderstood me. I wasn't speaking about 7th century philosophies, I was speaking about people who will try to erase you in general, and their need to be eliminated. It's not limited to any particular religion, philosophy, or political stance. There are just some people in this world who will go to extremes in the quest for power, regardless of their ideologies. It was true in the 7th century, it was true in the second millennium BC, and it's still true today. When I was going through my Law Enforcement training, one of the instructors had a more plain-spoken way of putting it. he said "there are just some folks out there who are junkyard dog mean. No real reason for it, they just are, and you've got to deal with them." It's THOSE people I was talking about. Their ideologies are only secondary, and usually manipulated beyond recognition for their own ends.

Regarding "The Looming Tower", I don't know how much is fact and how much is fantasy, because I've never read it yet. I do know that extremism has been around for a lot longer than 50 years. I also believe, but without any real "proof", that bin Laden was just a mouthpiece for al Qaeda, just a spokesman, and that al Zawahiri was the real brains behind it.

Also, al Qaeda is no real danger - it's just a loose DISorganization, an umbrella, a training and coordinating mechanism for other, real organizations. Al Qaeda as main participants in much of anything is a fiction. They just facilitate activities of others. They also seem to "draw fire" while other organizations go about their business unmolested, because everyone is concentrating on the fiction that is AQ.

What we should be watching and wary of are wahabbis in general, and the Muslim Brotherhood in particular. They take Islam, as a religion, and try to twist it into a political justification for the things they do, and right now they are doing quite a lot, with the apparent blessings of the US. That alone gives me cause to watch them.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by logical7
Also the link you posted before about political islam, they sell "Koran" and claim that their research is well grounded. The suspicious part it that they overdo it.

Do you mean Statistical Islam?

Interestingly violent Jihad makes up

• 24% of the Medinan Koran
• 21% of the Hadith and

I'm curious as to what criteria were used to determine which Quranic passages are "Medinan" and which were "Meccan"? I've tried for a long while to find a Quran listing in the chronological order the verses were presented, and so far have had no luck.

That would be necessary to determine these percentages, no?

reply to post by ollncasino

Do you mean Statistical Islam? Interestingly violent Jihad makes up • 24% of the Medinan Koran • 21% of the Hadith and Center for the Study of Political Islam What is interesting is that the Meccan Koran, when Muhammad was weak has no Jihad passages. The Medinan Koran, on the other hand, when Muhammad was a powerful warlord, consists of 24% Jihad passages. Muhammad's messages became more and more violent as he grew more powerful.

you are posting this 2nd time, also the "link" claiming to be "well researched."
Madani Qur'an is 1/3rd of total an deals with affairs of state, laws and defense.
Makkan Qur'an is 2/3rd and deals with building character, spirituality, patience etc.
I look at it in a different light, Muhammad pbuh played different roles, a prophet with a message, a prophet statesman, a prophet general.
You have to to at least give it to him that he waited patiently for 10years in Makkah. What warlord wanting power would waste that much time. It also doesnt fit why he denied the position of chief of Makkah, money and best women when pagans offer it all to shut him up, ibn ishaq must have mentioned that too. He also forgave Makkans who had persecuted him for decades and had tried their best to exterminate muslims. Does it befit the character you are trying to potray?

reply to post by ollncasino

The Muhammad revealed by Islams own holy books is a man of violence who 'punished' Jews by killing the men and enslaving the women and children, leading armies in battle and urging his followers to engage in jihad as a religious duty. I respect the fact that you appear to reject this side of Muhammad, although worryingly you do defend Muhammad massacring and enslaving a tribe of Jews as something being appropriate behavior.

i know that debating language, i dont reject Muhammad's pbuh side. I also dont desire respect if it comes by misunderstanding me. If you want to respect then respect that the better approach is to take an overview of someone's whole life rather than a cross-section of an event to judge.
Yes i agree that jews were punished.
Look at it this way.
When existence of islam was threatened then he dealt with it strictly but when the muslim ummah was powerful and conquered Makkah without a fight then he forgave all his enemies.
"Forgiveness is meaningful when the person is powerful enough to take revenge and yet forgives."

reply to post by ollncasino

Ironically, Ibn Ishaq is the source that your historian Karen Armstrong was using when she defended the killing and enslaving of the Quraysh by Muhammad.

then isnt it interesting that she is reaching a different conclusion than you while using the same source?

reply to post by ollncasino

I have referred to the Koran and Hadith to describe the life of Muhammad. I have presented the violent deeds of the founder of Islam as a 'Muslim thing', as you put it.

You weren't just talking about the founder of Islam.
You attempted to portray Islam in a negative light by citing how later muslim rulers discouraged conversions to keep taxes flowing in.
here

Perhaps not unusual for a warlord at the time but not the sort of behavior one expects from the founder of a religion of 'peace'

"Religion of peace" is a sarcastic term often used by fundamentalists with an axe to grind with Islam.
Or maybe I am wrong....and Mohammad indeed described Islam as a "religion of peace". But where?

I'm not a Christian Why do you assume that anyone who is Western is a Christian? Is it a Muslim thing?

Ah, interesting.
Then you choose to only focus only on the violence of certain holy books and religions then?
You seem to remain silent on the violence of the Bible. I wonder why.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Hi Skorp,
Question for you.

If you acknowledge that some later leaders of Islam were, in fact, not living by the "rules"; were they also trying to "change" the rules to suit their preferred lifestyle? Or were they simply ignoring the rules because they could get away with it?

You speak about other religions and holy books as needing to be equally scrutinized, and I agree with you.

CERTAINLY, many, many self-professed "Christian" leaders (whether Catholic or Protestant) have not followed the rules they preach..... and also have not followed the way of Jesus of Nazareth....there is no argument therefore they are equivalently abusing "power" and behaving duplicitously as any post-Muhammed Islamic leader has done or is doing.

What do you make of that overarching reality? Were -- or are -- they mistaken (whether living or dead)? What do you feel is their motive for not behaving in a true peaceful and Islamic fashion? Are they frauds?

MANY an evangelist, priest, pastor, bishop, deacon, etc. have been censured and expelled; exposed and ridiculed, and had their power taken back from them. Appropriately, in my view.

Which brings us back to Mali and the "Islamist extremists" under al-Zawahiri's AQ franchise.....who are harming other Muslims. OBVIOUSLY they are nutjobs. Just as any other pastoral person who abuses power and privelege.

I'm aware (though I'm not a Christian, nor a Jew, nor a Muslim), that people DO PROTEST against malignant leadership and wrong behavior, and that it takes decades sometimes, or centuries, or a few months, or a sudden "infamy" to remove them from power. Do you think making changes to the current mindset -- via revisions to dogma, or to texts and guidebooks -- is correct? Or is it blasphemy?


If you see that Islam has, indeed, been bent and transformed over the centuries, BY SOME LEADERS, what are your thoughts about how it should best be redirected down the path intended by Muhammed?

Please don't label me as a fundamentalist or extremist or anti-Islamist again; kindly just enlighten me to what you think, if it were to fall to you to repair the damage, you would do?

I don't have any answers, by the way. Except for more dialogue and improved understanding of one another, and of OUR OWN HISTORIES and the faults of our "own systems" (for certainly we are all subject to the "systems" in which we live).

reply to post by nenothtu

You may have misunderstood me. I wasn't speaking about 7th century philosophies, I was speaking about people who will try to erase you in general, and their need to be eliminated. It's not limited to any particular religion, philosophy, or political stance. There are just some people in this world who will go to extremes in the quest for power, regardless of their ideologies.

Agreed.

Also, al Qaeda is no real danger - it's just a loose DISorganization, an umbrella, a training and coordinating mechanism for other, real organizations.

According to NPR's 'Morning Edition' today, Al-Qaeda is supposed (at least by the reporter of the Brookings Intelligence Project) to be a real danger -- that if they are allowed a strong-hold for military camps and training grounds, they will be working on ways to bring down 'the West', especially North America.
listen to the 5 minute story here.

Third generation of Al-Qaeda (AQ 3.0) has taken advantage of the chaos of "Arab Spring" to set up shop ... traning incomers who are literally arriving from across the world, from Pakistan, Nigerian, even North America.

Al Zawahiri gives overall strategic direction to local AQ franchises, but those franchises have discretion to decide who to kidnap, what to bomb....
$200 million has been paid in ransoms, they also smuggle narcotics, cigs, blood diamonds. The "Marlboro Man" knows the area.......

"Are they looking to control the West?...."
"Ultimate target will be to attack France....all share same common desire to be part of global jihad....to strike crusaders and Zionists ABOVE ALL, AMERICA"

(I was typing the above while listening to try to give some transcription of main points)

Originally posted by ollncasino

Interestingly violent Jihad makes up

• 24% of the Medinan Koran

and:

Originally posted by logical7

Madani Qur'an is 1/3rd of total an deals with affairs of state, laws and defense.
Makkan Qur'an is 2/3rd and deals with building character, spirituality, patience etc.

Taken together, these work out to 8% of the total involving affairs of defense/warfare. That sort of disassembles the notion that the Qur'an is a manual for violent overthrow in it's majority. The argument presented is roughly the same one as would be presented by saying the Bible is a violent book because a large proportion of the single book of Kings involves warfare, death, and destruction.

Such a narrow focus skews the results, and entirely ignores mitigating material. It presents a tailored view designed to cast a dishonest light.

Originally posted by logical7

I look at it in a different light, Muhammad pbuh played different roles, a prophet with a message, a prophet statesman, a prophet general.

I entirely distrust "prophetic statesmen" and "prophetic generals". Simply by adding the extra office, the message of a prophetic messenger is skewed towards the gathering of power to the self, and away from the message of God. The very nature of the offices of statesman and general involve the gathering and exercise of power - otherwise they would be neither statesmen nor generals. There is no one to "lead" without a degree of power over those who follow.

I believe a prophet would attempt to keep the focus entirely off of himself, and on God. I have issues with Moses for the exact same reason.

I also have problems with formulae such as "those things forbidden by Allah and his Prophet". I'd be much more likely to acquiesce to prohibitions from Allah - I care not at all what his Prophet, any of them, forbids, nor do I subscribe to the notion that any should be placed beside Allah, as that formula requires.

reply to post by wildtimes


I have no quarrels with what was said in the interview - in the main, it's accurate, as far as it goes. Particularly telling was the use of the word "franchise". The sub groups are not quite "franchises" of AQ, but they're not far off. A better cognate in America would be "The United Way". The United Way is not itself a charity, it's simply an umbrella organization that collects aid and then redistributes it to other organizations. In a "franchise" (think McDonalds) the individual units are locally owned and operated, but they take direction and orders from the over-group. This is not the case with AQ, as was pointed out when he specified that al Zawahiri doesn't tell the local groups what to do, or who to do it to. In like manner, The United Way doesn't tell the organizations it assists what to do with the assistance - but neither does it assist groups that are not in line with it's own goals.

Likewise, in reports out of Mali, we are hearing a lot of "al Qaeda" this and "al Qaeda" that, but AQ is not doing much of anything at all there. The local group, I think it was Logical7 who specified it, is "Ansara Deen". All the talk of AQ is just presentation of a boogey man, to capture attention and take the focus off of the real culprits - another of the services AQ provides.

To be sure, at some point in the future, if Ansara Deen wins, AQ may set up training camps and distribution facitilites in Mali, but right now it's not doing much there other than to provide aid and services to the local extremists, who are NOT al Qaeda. Such future activities could be "repayment" for aid rendered, as was the case in Afghanistan and later Somalia, but those are in the future - a future which may never come to pass if focus can be shifted to the miscreants it actually belongs on in the here and now.

You see, if the local extremist groups are decimated, the entire purpose of al Qaeda, its raison d'etere, is negated. it ceases to be relevant at all, and will wither and die on the vine.

This is another reason that there should be a two-pronged approach, both prongs bypassing AQ altogether. Local extremist groups ought properly to be decimated and disbanded, and on the other prong, recruitment efforts into them should be disrupted and dried up. No recruits, no fighters, the extremist organization withers and dies for lack of interest. When it withers and dies, AQ simply goes away, due to irrelevance and lack of purpose.

In that sense, AQ is not a danger - but as long as we concentrate on it, it is - because it allows the active extremist groups to flourish for lack of focus and attention by their adversaries. By focusing on AQ and ignoring the active groups, we are actually STRENGTHENING al Qaeda.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by ollncasino

Interestingly violent Jihad makes up

• 24% of the Medinan Koran

and:

Originally posted by logical7

Madani Qur'an is 1/3rd of total an deals with affairs of state, laws and defense.
Makkan Qur'an is 2/3rd and deals with building character, spirituality, patience etc.

Taken together, these work out to 8% of the total involving affairs of defense/warfare. That sort of disassembles the notion that the Qur'an is a manual for violent overthrow in it's majority. The argument presented is roughly the same one as would be presented by saying the Bible is a violent book because a large proportion of the single book of Kings involves warfare, death, and destruction.

Such a narrow focus skews the results, and entirely ignores mitigating material. It presents a tailored view designed to cast a dishonest light.

Exactly!!
and the hadith are collections of sayings of prophet and if two,three people reported it, they all are recorded as they vary slightly in narrations, also the hadith books like Saheeh Bhukhari, Saheeh Muslim etc record the same hadiths.
If a single saying about defence/war/jihad is double or triple counted then the "21% fact" also gets overblown.
The word "JIHAD" is also translated as "fight" which is not true. More appropritate is "struggle/strive"
jihad against the unbelievers then becomes, struggle to tell them about islam.
EDIT: i do like discussions and coffee.

Originally posted by logical7

The word "JIHAD" is also translated as "fight" which is not true. More appropritate is "struggle/strive"
jihad against the unbelievers then becomes, struggle to tell them about islam.

It's my understanding that it can also be used to describe the struggles within, the struggle with the self in pursuit of a better relationship to Allah, sort of a subjugation of the self and baser instincts in an effort to submit.

Not everything is about fighting in the classic sense.

EDIT: i do like discussions and coffee.

There's always a cup to be had here, day or night!

Originally posted by nenothtu

I also have problems with formulae such as "those things forbidden by Allah and his Prophet". I'd be much more likely to acquiesce to prohibitions from Allah - I care not at all what his Prophet, any of them, forbids, nor do I subscribe to the notion that any should be placed beside Allah, as that formula requires.

I've just had a lengthy discussion on this very phrase. I remain unconvinced, but concede that it might be a problem with something being lost in translation, and have no quarrels with anyone who decides on their own to embrace the formula. I still don't, but that, I suppose, is my problem.