Confronting the rise & allure of Militant Islam

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muslima habibtee- I would love your opinion on just one matter. I promise not to go back and forth with you on this thread as that can get overly tedious.

I recently read an article talking about the number of beheadings that take place in Saudi Arabia. I think there are about 79 or 80 that take place every year. The beheader prays for the imprisoned prior to the execution. Tell me, is Saudi Arabia's use of beheadings as a form of execution Islamic?

Sexist and condescending.

https://lebanonglc.wordpress.com/2012/11/06/stranger-or-not-youre-still-my-habibi/

[Anonymous]

How about abolishing all religions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How about abolishing all religions?

And how would we do that?

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote: I truly believe that what is happening across the Levant is political... I think any solution to this can not ignore the context of this violence: there are political and social causes that allow radical voices to be heard and acted upon, and this has nothing to do with the core values or practices of Muslims as a whole. We need to present a different ideology to the marginalized who fall for the radical rhetoric, and that starts with a conversation, but any attempt to modify the core values of the religion itself will fail.

Thank you Muslima. I only disagree with one thing -- we cannot extricate religion and politics in Iraq. Here in the US, that separation is much more distinct, but not in Iraq. That is my point -- Islam and politics are so intertwined, to say an event is only caused by politics and not religion is not accurate at all.

I agree with you -- "we need to present a different ideology to the marginalized who fall for the radical rhetoric, and that starts with a conversation." Well said. A conversation about what? An ideology about what? The disenfrachised Maslawis didn't commit to nonviolence to seek political gains. They welcomed a violent group of Sunnis who promised power and control. To them it was a win- (political) -win (religious) situation. Religion is absolutely and unquestionably a driver in what occurred on June 10th.

You know, the Iraqi scholar Fanar Haddad stated that more often than not, the intricacies of faith and theology are about as relevant in Iraqi sectarian dynamics as Christianity is in the rhetoric of European far-right groups.It is religion as identity rather than religion as faith that is being mobilized . Islam is not just a religion, it is a way of life, and so it differs from other religions in many ways. However, the relationship between 'Islam' and politics is not as simple as many make it seem.. So, 'Islam cannot mix with politics' is not an accurate statement. Nor is 'political matters cannot be dissociated from Islam' an accurate statement either. A lot of Muslims have created a "do-it yourself Islam" that is used to justify every action against the people that they perceive as oppressors. I quoted Yasir Qadhi yesterday, a Muslim scholar that I profoundly respect, and will repeat what he said again since he is way more eloquent than I am. Talking about these issues and he said every single terrorist, from Bin Laden himself, to the shoe-bomber and under-bomber and Boston bomber and every other bomber in between, ALWAYS mentions the deaths of civilians in Muslims lands as a direct cause of his own terrorist operations. While I continue to oppose these groups who claim to defend Islam (because killing innocent people is not allowed in Islam, and because attacking the superpowers of the West will result in the deaths of even more Muslims around the world), we do need to move the conversation beyond just 'condemning' every violent act from a Muslim radical, and realize that what is at stake is the continuing appeal amongst a segment of Muslims to Islamic violence as a response to Western aggression. Unless and until people of Western countries start asking themselves, 'Is it really worth it to invade other lands on false pretexts, to detain innocents for decades on end, to torture prisoners, to support brutal Apartheid states, to bully minorities by passing draconian laws and demonize their faith, etc.', there's only so much we as Muslims can do to prevent the hot-headed radicals in our midst as well.'
As a Muslim, I denounce such wanton violence and blood being shed in the name of my faith. The question is, as an American (or British, or French...): do you as well denounce the violence that your country have wrought across the globe?What we need in today's world, other than cases of self-defense of course, is to spread a culture of mutual co-existence and multi-faith dialogue and cooperation.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Here are two examples of why the US has little credibility in trying to influence Muslims:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/01/11/252671_us-airstrike-in-syria-may-have.html?rh=1

"A U.S.-led coalition airstrike killed at least 50 Syrian civilians late last month when it targeted a headquarters of Islamic State extremists in northern Syria, according to an eyewitness and a Syrian opposition human rights organization."

Note that the civilians killed were opponents of IS who had been arrested.

and

http://news.yahoo.com/egypt-student-gets-3-jail-term-atheism-152045172.html

"An Egyptian court has sentenced a student to three years in jail for announcing on Facebook that he is an atheist and for insulting Islam, his lawyer said Sunday."

But, don't worry, Egypt was represented at the march in Paris today. The US supports the Egyptian government and provides millions in military assistance to the regime. This is what we get for our money.

So very true!

This is the blind-spot of many in the West. Civilian deaths as a result of drone attacks, etc are viewed as collateral damage and because the West says it tries to avoid civilian casualties it is assumed that all is well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The District of Columbia alone recorded 108 homicides in 2014 - how many were committed by Christians? Do we need to change the daily practices of Catholics and Protestants respectively?

Really? These homicides were committed in the name of God, for the killers' hopes for Heaven? I guess we do need to emphasize more clearly that you can't get to heaven by murdering people.

Or maybe these homicides in DC were not committed in the name of religion. That seems likely to me.

You're right it's unlikely that religion was a motivating factor in any of those murders...but they still happened. I mean violence is violence right? And let's be honest, this country is no stranger to violence. Every morning crime sections across the country are filled with stories about beatings, stabbings, shootings, sexual assaults, domestic abuse - is all this violence somehow more acceptable because the assailants aren't doing so in the name of some diety?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Religion is clearly not the issue. It's used as a motivator by those who exploit. It is used in an attempt to gain political power.

Every monotheistic religion has been used this way. Stop being part of the "us vs them" problem. It's a political tool of the weak, not a religion problem.

I agree, it is a motivator -- and it is used to gain political power because in many Islamic communities, politics and religion are ONE.

No, it is used as a motivator. Big difference. People are more likely to take up arms in defense of their country and religion. Don't you remember the "they hate our freedom" BS that W spouted? No one hates freedom. That's ludicrous.

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote: I truly believe that what is happening across the Levant is political... I think any solution to this can not ignore the context of this violence: there are political and social causes that allow radical voices to be heard and acted upon, and this has nothing to do with the core values or practices of Muslims as a whole. We need to present a different ideology to the marginalized who fall for the radical rhetoric, and that starts with a conversation, but any attempt to modify the core values of the religion itself will fail.

Thank you Muslima. I only disagree with one thing -- we cannot extricate religion and politics in Iraq. Here in the US, that separation is much more distinct, but not in Iraq. That is my point -- Islam and politics are so intertwined, to say an event is only caused by politics and not religion is not accurate at all.

I agree with you -- "we need to present a different ideology to the marginalized who fall for the radical rhetoric, and that starts with a conversation." Well said. A conversation about what? An ideology about what? The disenfrachised Maslawis didn't commit to nonviolence to seek political gains. They welcomed a violent group of Sunnis who promised power and control. To them it was a win- (political) -win (religious) situation. Religion is absolutely and unquestionably a driver in what occurred on June 10th.

You know, the Iraqi scholar Fanar Haddad stated that more often than not, the intricacies of faith and theology are about as relevant in Iraqi sectarian dynamics as Christianity is in the rhetoric of European far-right groups.It is religion as identity rather than religion as faith that is being mobilized . Islam is not just a religion, it is a way of life, and so it differs from other religions in many ways. However, the relationship between 'Islam' and politics is not as simple as many make it seem.. So, 'Islam cannot mix with politics' is not an accurate statement. Nor is 'political matters cannot be dissociated from Islam' an accurate statement either. A lot of Muslims have created a "do-it yourself Islam" that is used to justify every action against the people that they perceive as oppressors. I quoted Yasir Qadhi yesterday, a Muslim scholar that I profoundly respect, and will repeat what he said again since he is way more eloquent than I am. Talking about these issues and he said every single terrorist, from Bin Laden himself, to the shoe-bomber and under-bomber and Boston bomber and every other bomber in between, ALWAYS mentions the deaths of civilians in Muslims lands as a direct cause of his own terrorist operations. While I continue to oppose these groups who claim to defend Islam (because killing innocent people is not allowed in Islam, and because attacking the superpowers of the West will result in the deaths of even more Muslims around the world), we do need to move the conversation beyond just 'condemning' every violent act from a Muslim radical, and realize that what is at stake is the continuing appeal amongst a segment of Muslims to Islamic violence as a response to Western aggression. Unless and until people of Western countries start asking themselves, 'Is it really worth it to invade other lands on false pretexts, to detain innocents for decades on end, to torture prisoners, to support brutal Apartheid states, to bully minorities by passing draconian laws and demonize their faith, etc.', there's only so much we as Muslims can do to prevent the hot-headed radicals in our midst as well.'
As a Muslim, I denounce such wanton violence and blood being shed in the name of my faith. The question is, as an American (or British, or French...): do you as well denounce the violence that your country have wrought across the globe?What we need in today's world, other than cases of self-defense of course, is to spread a culture of mutual co-existence and multi-faith dialogue and cooperation.

Muslima -- a very thoughtful reply. There's a lot to unpack here but it is getting late. I will look into the writings of Yasir Qadhi for further insights. Thank you -- have a good night.

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote: I truly believe that what is happening across the Levant is political... I think any solution to this can not ignore the context of this violence: there are political and social causes that allow radical voices to be heard and acted upon, and this has nothing to do with the core values or practices of Muslims as a whole. We need to present a different ideology to the marginalized who fall for the radical rhetoric, and that starts with a conversation, but any attempt to modify the core values of the religion itself will fail.

Thank you Muslima. I only disagree with one thing -- we cannot extricate religion and politics in Iraq. Here in the US, that separation is much more distinct, but not in Iraq. That is my point -- Islam and politics are so intertwined, to say an event is only caused by politics and not religion is not accurate at all.

I agree with you -- "we need to present a different ideology to the marginalized who fall for the radical rhetoric, and that starts with a conversation." Well said. A conversation about what? An ideology about what? The disenfrachised Maslawis didn't commit to nonviolence to seek political gains. They welcomed a violent group of Sunnis who promised power and control. To them it was a win- (political) -win (religious) situation. Religion is absolutely and unquestionably a driver in what occurred on June 10th.

You know, the Iraqi scholar Fanar Haddad stated that more often than not, the intricacies of faith and theology are about as relevant in Iraqi sectarian dynamics as Christianity is in the rhetoric of European far-right groups.It is religion as identity rather than religion as faith that is being mobilized . Islam is not just a religion, it is a way of life, and so it differs from other religions in many ways. However, the relationship between 'Islam' and politics is not as simple as many make it seem.. So, 'Islam cannot mix with politics' is not an accurate statement. Nor is 'political matters cannot be dissociated from Islam' an accurate statement either. A lot of Muslims have created a "do-it yourself Islam" that is used to justify every action against the people that they perceive as oppressors. I quoted Yasir Qadhi yesterday, a Muslim scholar that I profoundly respect, and will repeat what he said again since he is way more eloquent than I am. Talking about these issues and he said every single terrorist, from Bin Laden himself, to the shoe-bomber and under-bomber and Boston bomber and every other bomber in between, ALWAYS mentions the deaths of civilians in Muslims lands as a direct cause of his own terrorist operations. While I continue to oppose these groups who claim to defend Islam (because killing innocent people is not allowed in Islam, and because attacking the superpowers of the West will result in the deaths of even more Muslims around the world), we do need to move the conversation beyond just 'condemning' every violent act from a Muslim radical, and realize that what is at stake is the continuing appeal amongst a segment of Muslims to Islamic violence as a response to Western aggression. Unless and until people of Western countries start asking themselves, 'Is it really worth it to invade other lands on false pretexts, to detain innocents for decades on end, to torture prisoners, to support brutal Apartheid states, to bully minorities by passing draconian laws and demonize their faith, etc.', there's only so much we as Muslims can do to prevent the hot-headed radicals in our midst as well.'
As a Muslim, I denounce such wanton violence and blood being shed in the name of my faith. The question is, as an American (or British, or French...): do you as well denounce the violence that your country have wrought across the globe?What we need in today's world, other than cases of self-defense of course, is to spread a culture of mutual co-existence and multi-faith dialogue and cooperation.

Christians in Mosul, Armenians in Aleppo and Yazidis in Iraq have absolutely nothing to do with the Western aggression, and still ended up dead.

You talked about the political motivation behind ISIS in Iraq as a response to the allegedly sectarian Iraqi government that embraced Shias too tightly and marginalized Sunnis. You are being disingenuous if you do not admit that the hatred toward Shia "rafidah" is very much a part of the mainstream Sunni discourse, and has been for a long while before Al-Maliki was even born, and that discourse toward Shia is "we dominate you or we kill you." The Sunni discourse sees any, ANY Shia rule as illegitimate, and it doesn't even recognize Shias as complete Muslims. None of that would have changed if Al-Maliki was more open toward Sunnis.

The textbooks of Saudi Arabia describe Shiaism as "shirk akbar", which makes their blood and wealth halal to take, and that was published and disseminated way before the whole Iraq affair. The Shia of Khazara were slaughtered by the violent Sunni Taliban way before the whole Iraq affair. Don't pretend it's about Maliki and his government. That's BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muslima habibtee- I would love your opinion on just one matter. I promise not to go back and forth with you on this thread as that can get overly tedious.

I recently read an article talking about the number of beheadings that take place in Saudi Arabia. I think there are about 79 or 80 that take place every year. The beheader prays for the imprisoned prior to the execution. Tell me, is Saudi Arabia's use of beheadings as a form of execution Islamic?

Sexist and condescending.

https://lebanonglc.wordpress.com/2012/11/06/stranger-or-not-youre-still-my-habibi/

Lebanon isn't representative of the entire Arabic speaking world. Many Arabs only use this word with intimate friends and family. I'd err on the side of NOT calling an Arab woman habibti unless you know her well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muslima habibtee- I would love your opinion on just one matter. I promise not to go back and forth with you on this thread as that can get overly tedious.

I recently read an article talking about the number of beheadings that take place in Saudi Arabia. I think there are about 79 or 80 that take place every year. The beheader prays for the imprisoned prior to the execution. Tell me, is Saudi Arabia's use of beheadings as a form of execution Islamic?

Sexist and condescending.

https://lebanonglc.wordpress.com/2012/11/06/stranger-or-not-youre-still-my-habibi/

Lebanon isn't representative of the entire Arabic speaking world. Many Arabs only use this word with intimate friends and family. I'd err on the side of NOT calling an Arab woman habibti unless you know her well.

I wasn't the one who used the word, but what I found, when I looked it up, is that the word is used in many languages, including Arabic and Hebrew, and is not particularly intimate. Or at least, it can be used intimately, among friends, acquaintances, strangers, etc. And don't we all know Muslima now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muslima habibtee- I would love your opinion on just one matter. I promise not to go back and forth with you on this thread as that can get overly tedious.

I recently read an article talking about the number of beheadings that take place in Saudi Arabia. I think there are about 79 or 80 that take place every year. The beheader prays for the imprisoned prior to the execution. Tell me, is Saudi Arabia's use of beheadings as a form of execution Islamic?

Sexist and condescending.

https://lebanonglc.wordpress.com/2012/11/06/stranger-or-not-youre-still-my-habibi/

Lebanon isn't representative of the entire Arabic speaking world. Many Arabs only use this word with intimate friends and family. I'd err on the side of NOT calling an Arab woman habibti unless you know her well.

I wasn't the one who used the word, but what I found, when I looked it up, is that the word is used in many languages, including Arabic and Hebrew, and is not particularly intimate. Or at least, it can be used intimately, among friends, acquaintances, strangers, etc. And don't we all know Muslima now?

I am an Arabic speaker and I think you sound weird for using this word (that you barely know) for someone you don't know.

[Anonymous]

Op here. Very familiar with the word, I am Middle Eastern. We use it to be congenial in conversation. Get over it.

[Muslima]

Christians in Mosul, Armenians in Aleppo and Yazidis in Iraq have absolutely nothing to do with the Western aggression, and still ended up dead.

Just like civilians in Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 but we killed over 500,000 of them and called it collateral damage.

You talked about the political motivation behind ISIS in Iraq as a response to the allegedly sectarian Iraqi government that embraced Shias too tightly and marginalized Sunnis. You are being disingenuous if you do not admit that the hatred toward Shia "rafidah" is very much a part of the mainstream Sunni discourse, and has been for a long while before Al-Maliki was even born, and that discourse toward Shia is "we dominate you or we kill you." The Sunni discourse sees any, ANY Shia rule as illegitimate, and it doesn't even recognize Shias as complete Muslims. None of that would have changed if Al-Maliki was more open toward Sunnis.

I never said the political motivation behind ISIS was a response to a sectarian Iraqi government. Please read critically, I clearly stated that ISIS uses the sectarian Iraqi government 's treatment of Sunnis as a means and tool to recruit more Sunni fighters on its ranks, in other words, the conflict between Sunnis and Shias sustains ISIS. Now, let's look at the origins of ISIS. ISIS was started more than 2 decades ago by a Jordanian named Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who was a Mujahideen wannabe and went to Afghanistan to fight the Soviet Union in 1989 but he arrived there too late, so he returned to Jordan and became a non-factor for much of the following decade. In the early 2000s, he went back to Afghanistan and met Bin Laden but did not join Al Qaeda. After the fall of the Taliban Regime, he fled to Iraq where he remained unnoticed till Bush invaded Iraq in 2003. After the Iraq invasion, he set up the forerunner to today’s Islamic State: Jama’at al-Tawhid w’al-Jihad (the Party of Monotheism and Jihad) and started recruiting people to his cause. So yeh it goes way before Maliki and is political More on ISIS here http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/27/isis-monster-international-solution

The textbooks of Saudi Arabia describe Shiaism as "shirk akbar", which makes their blood and wealth halal to take, and that was published and disseminated way before the whole Iraq affair. The Shia of Khazara were slaughtered by the violent Sunni Taliban way before the whole Iraq affair. Don't pretend it's about Maliki and his government. That's BS.

Well, I don't know how any Muslim can just declare the blood and wealth of another human being let alone Shia halal. I am Sunni and would never ever dream than anyone's blood is halal. Anyone can say anything, doesn't make it so. So the fact that it is written in a book somewhere in Saudi Arabia or Arizona doesn't make it so. The Shia-Sunni issue goes beyond the scope of this thread and can't be summarized in a few lines, but your approach is very simplistic! Sunnis and Shias have lived in perfect harmony for years, and still do in many areas of the world today. The original split of Muslims in the first place, that gave birth to Sunnis and Shias was Political not Religious, so to make this just a matter of Religion is misleading!

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote: I truly believe that what is happening across the Levant is political... I think any solution to this can not ignore the context of this violence: there are political and social causes that allow radical voices to be heard and acted upon, and this has nothing to do with the core values or practices of Muslims as a whole. We need to present a different ideology to the marginalized who fall for the radical rhetoric, and that starts with a conversation, but any attempt to modify the core values of the religion itself will fail.

Thank you Muslima. I only disagree with one thing -- we cannot extricate religion and politics in Iraq. Here in the US, that separation is much more distinct, but not in Iraq. That is my point -- Islam and politics are so intertwined, to say an event is only caused by politics and not religion is not accurate at all.

I agree with you -- "we need to present a different ideology to the marginalized who fall for the radical rhetoric, and that starts with a conversation." Well said. A conversation about what? An ideology about what? The disenfrachised Maslawis didn't commit to nonviolence to seek political gains. They welcomed a violent group of Sunnis who promised power and control. To them it was a win- (political) -win (religious) situation. Religion is absolutely and unquestionably a driver in what occurred on June 10th.

You know, the Iraqi scholar Fanar Haddad stated that more often than not, the intricacies of faith and theology are about as relevant in Iraqi sectarian dynamics as Christianity is in the rhetoric of European far-right groups.It is religion as identity rather than religion as faith that is being mobilized . Islam is not just a religion, it is a way of life, and so it differs from other religions in many ways. However, the relationship between 'Islam' and politics is not as simple as many make it seem.. So, 'Islam cannot mix with politics' is not an accurate statement. Nor is 'political matters cannot be dissociated from Islam' an accurate statement either. A lot of Muslims have created a "do-it yourself Islam" that is used to justify every action against the people that they perceive as oppressors. I quoted Yasir Qadhi yesterday, a Muslim scholar that I profoundly respect, and will repeat what he said again since he is way more eloquent than I am. Talking about these issues and he said every single terrorist, from Bin Laden himself, to the shoe-bomber and under-bomber and Boston bomber and every other bomber in between, ALWAYS mentions the deaths of civilians in Muslims lands as a direct cause of his own terrorist operations. While I continue to oppose these groups who claim to defend Islam (because killing innocent people is not allowed in Islam, and because attacking the superpowers of the West will result in the deaths of even more Muslims around the world), we do need to move the conversation beyond just 'condemning' every violent act from a Muslim radical, and realize that what is at stake is the continuing appeal amongst a segment of Muslims to Islamic violence as a response to Western aggression. Unless and until people of Western countries start asking themselves, 'Is it really worth it to invade other lands on false pretexts, to detain innocents for decades on end, to torture prisoners, to support brutal Apartheid states, to bully minorities by passing draconian laws and demonize their faith, etc.', there's only so much we as Muslims can do to prevent the hot-headed radicals in our midst as well.'
As a Muslim, I denounce such wanton violence and blood being shed in the name of my faith. The question is, as an American (or British, or French...): do you as well denounce the violence that your country have wrought across the globe?What we need in today's world, other than cases of self-defense of course, is to spread a culture of mutual co-existence and multi-faith dialogue and cooperation.

Muslima -- a very thoughtful reply. There's a lot to unpack here but it is getting late. I will look into the writings of Yasir Qadhi for further insights. Thank you -- have a good night.

Thank you and have a good one! This is the interview of Yasir Qadhi I was referring to: