“It is not that simple. Even Bin Laden thought he was only fighting a defensive jihad whereas clearly his actions on 9/11 were blatant aggression. Bin Laden thought the West was occupying Muslim lands, therefore his actions were not in violation of the Quran. My point is that it is easy to blur the lines between defensive and pre-emptive jihad.”
tariqkhwaja on Feb 9, 2013 at 09:22:29
“It is not that easy to blur. I don't believe so. Here is the first verses of the Quran that were revealed which actually allowed Muslims to fight.
[22:40] Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged — and Allah indeed has power to help them
[22:41] Those who have been driven out from their homes unjustly only because they said, ‘Our Lord is Allah’ — And if Allah did not repel some men by means of others, there would surely have been pulled down cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is oft commemorated. And Allah will surely help one who helps Him. Allah is indeed Powerful, Mighty —
Therefore here are the conditions for Muslims to kill for "Islam":
1. They have been wronged
2. They have been driven out from their homes
3. They have been wronged for their belief that God is One.
Now tell me one war being waged against Muslims that fulfills all the aforementioned conditions. Look I am not against defensive wars ... but I am against using "Islam" to politicize those wars when "Islam" has nothing to do with it.
Yes, former President Bush used the word "Crusade" but he retracted that statement. Or did we forget that?”
Kevinbrown8187 on Feb 4, 2013 at 16:07:19
“Bin Laden commited a sin in Islam by killing innocent people. that was where he went wrong. He aknowledged when a reporter robert fisk i think interviewd him and asked him that killing innocent people was forbidden in Islam. He said yes but then he went on to say it had to be done to prevent the killing of far more muslims in muslim lands. This is a trasgression in Islam and as im sure you know In the Quran we repeatedly read to avoid trasgression or going beyond bounds. His motives were the american occupation of lebanon in the 80's the american invasion and destruction of iraq in the 90's and invasion and occupation of somalia in the 90's plus arming and supporting isreal to occupy palestine and supporting and arming dictators and kings like the saudis and arab kings and military generals in pakistan to name a few. Plus american bases litter the muslim world in client and puppet states. 500,000 children died in iraqi sanctions. yet the america comes to a standstill to mourn 20 kids killed in sandyhook. double standards. i believe its clear. its a matter of soverignty and boundries which if the west respected in muslim countries there would be no war. no cause for jihad or such and no terrorism. Bin laden wasnt preemptive Bin laden gave over 30 years of western invasions and atatcks in muslim coutnries as reason. it was a retalition attack though it was wrong none the less.”
gatoraider on Feb 4, 2013 at 15:59:27
“Invading India, Persia and Spain - was that self defense? If one reads history instead of tafseer, it becomes clearly evident what Islam is. The rantings of the various clerics presuming to represent Islam are often aggressive and antagonistic.
Sure it is always easy to find an excuse and justification for attacking.”
“So anyone who does not subscribe to your understanding of Islam is a kafir? Are you not committing shirk by playing God here? What gives you the right to call others kafir?”
Jay Patel on Feb 15, 2013 at 21:49:30
Its people like fee sabili that have bought religion to the sad place it is in. They throw around words like shirk and kafir like clueless infants! People like are one of the reasons why others turn away from religion itself!”
fee sabili on Feb 5, 2013 at 04:52:40
“Please research my post. It is there plain and clear. I did not make up a Islam on my own. I am a student of Islamic law and my teacher has been so for over 40 years.
Since the message was given to prophet saws, Muslims have become to deviate from it. Allah swt has placed injunctions for us to follow and his messenger to teach us.
Shari'ah law, isool figh, aqeedah, seerah of the prophet saws, eeman, stages of kufr, neefiq and shirk, all in books to examine. Please my sister, review them!”
fee sabili on Feb 5, 2013 at 02:54:04
“I suggest strongly to read the figh books on kufr and shirk. It is clear in its indications and descriptions. And the notion that our brothers and sisters can do something and we stand by quiet is against the sunnah.
You cannot accept certains rules of the sunnah and deny others, this is in violation of the sunnah, aqeedah and eeman.
The adhadith from prophet saws states that when a Muslims sees a wrong, he is to correct it with his hands, if he has the power to do; if not, then with his speech; if not, with his heart, which is the least form of action.
I suggest that you review the issues of figh book of kufr and shirk. They are clear! Also, the Quran is Surah Al Nur 27 to 34 tells of the aura of women and men.”
“It matters not whether she was 9 or 17. In both cases, she was VERY MUCH younger than the prophet.”
Kevinbrown8187 on Feb 1, 2013 at 21:19:55
“Get to your point exactly. was it wrong ? should he have done something different. According to the UN pedophilia is having sex with a pre pubesent. This is the 7th century ppl lived until they were 35 - 40 theyre not wating around until 28 when they "tried" out 10 ppl to get married and start a family. People got married when therye bodeis told them it was time to get married. Biology is what you follow. Ever considered Aishas opinion herslef. what did she say and think about it. Feminists curiously exclude her views on the matter. So much about being a woman and being heard. people in this day and age have sex at very young ages and even have kids by 11 and 12. it happens people reach puberty at different ages and once you hit puberty you can marry anyone else who has hit puberty.”
“You define promiscuity only in terms of female promiscuity. Men are allowed multiple sexual partners under Sharia law. Polygamy is just another name for it.It amounts to being religiously sanctioned promiscuity. Also, what about marriage with underage girls? How is that not a morally reprehensible practice? And don't forget marital rape. All of this happens in so-called religiously sanitized societies like Saudi Arabia.”
tariqkhwaja on Feb 1, 2013 at 20:01:58
“Firstly, I gave Saudi/Iran examples because they are pro-segregation. However, any country that forces religion down its people's throats is certainly not Islamic. Rather an Islamic country is one where people democratically adopt the values of Islam from their hearts and not just from their tongues.
Polygamy is certainly not another name for it. The responsibilities that come with the contract of marriage (to the maximum of four partners only if the four could be dealt with justice otherwise stick to one) is no fair comparison to adultery or pre-marital sex that is relatively prevalent in the West. Is it fair to call polygamy another form of adultery?
And I define promiscuity in terms of both. In fact, men are the more promiscuous breed definitely who need to restrain their eyes and segregate from women. But women must also play their role in segregation.”
“There is segregation in Saudi Arabia. Do you honestly believe society there is free of of adultery, fornication, sexual exploitation of foreign workers. Not at all.”
Kevinbrown8187 on Feb 1, 2013 at 21:13:08
“In Medina men and women would talk to each other but for a purpose and purpose only. In the markets or in the streets or whereever necaasry. But the women and men didnt promote or accept basically messing aroudn with anybody and cheating on your wife/husband. In other words fornication and adultary both inheritly wrong. men and women wouldt flirt and dressed modestlycovered up and not showing thier bodies to prevent the formation of sexual attraction and hence comitting sins. Saudi arabia is perhaphs maybe extreme in forms like not leting women drive and such but hey sometimes women dont want to go around and be harassed and hooted and ogled by men. Somtimes women want privacy for example women only malls or saloons or gym or pools.”
tariqkhwaja on Feb 1, 2013 at 09:41:03
“Its not free of it. But we are not talking of free ... we are talking of relative.
Definitely relative to Saudi Arabia/Iran/etc. promiscuous attitude is far more prevalent in the US. A simple example to illustrate this is that pre-marital sex is shunned upon by public society in those countries while in the US (and rest of the western world) it is even encouraged.
So you are right that all those vices exist in "pro-segregation" countries but there is a clear distinction in the overall attitude towards the value of chastity and family values.”
“Buy my book and read the remainder of my arguments. "Choice" is usually circumscribed by cultural expectations and cannot in effect be deemed as genuine.”
butterflyrampage on Jan 4, 2013 at 12:09:16
“With all due respect, I believe your "Choice" is quite a foggy lens you see Muslim women though. Your thoughts cannot be deemed as genuine, we all all prisoners of our own conformity, you included. I'm not telling you what to say, I am asking you to NOT say you understand all muslim women who wear the hijab. You do not know their reasons.
I am a lawyer. A 26 year old female. I do not wear even the hijab. But as an American, I understand freedom. The freedom of choice and freedom of the mind. You are looking at Islam and muslim women though the eyes of those who are not know anything about us. And you are confirming their hears that what they see is what they get. Women are more complex than that.
You are selling a book. And an ideology. And fear.
“I actually wrote a piece about this a couple of weeks ago. I condemned the killings at the Gurdwara in Wisconsin. I have condemned the treatment of religious minorities in general through my writings. I do not subscribe to the notion of religious hierarchies with " people of the book" at the top.”
Yoga is Hindu on Aug 29, 2012 at 13:35:37
“The Gurdwara is the temple in which the Sikhs pray. A mandhir is the temple in which Hindus. It's simply amazing how people will go to such great lengths to NOT even type the word "Hindu" in their pieces. WOW.”
“You are missing the point that in the US and Canada there is redress for such travesties. In Pakistan on the other hand there is religious sanction for such abominations.”
Mr Woo on Aug 27, 2012 at 21:19:51
“Of course, I agree. I'm just saying that there seems to be a backwards push directed down south. They would never be as bad as these extreme Islamic states but I really would find it difficult to stomach the US leading a charge in the name of religious freedom. Canada, at one time, certainly. Most European nations as well.”
“Are eleven year old's with Down' syndrome being incarcerated for blasphemy in the US?
Your comparison is not a fair one.”
spinnerator on Aug 27, 2012 at 14:33:20
“No but their about to make your right to choose a crime. If you want to start a fight against religious extremism you must include all religions and Mr. Woo is correct, if you live here in North America you have more to fear from Christian extremists than you do Muslim ones.”
Mr Woo on Aug 27, 2012 at 13:38:18
“If a 13 year old girl is raped by her father and becomes pregnant should she be forced to have the child? The US is moving towards this goal. My point being that certainly, the events in Pakistan and Afghanistan are horrible and unjust, but the world's only remaining superpower is not exactly a beacon of light in these matters.
“Niaqb is a "choice"only because niqab-wearing women have been indoctrinated into believing this is the only way they can attain piety. Her "choice"in Canada is contrary to Canadian values of gender equality. Look at it this way. She wants to cover up completely and her husband can walk around in shorts. She is assuming full responsibility for ensuring there is propriety in society by donning the burka or niqab. How is this a situation where both are equal?”
MuslimSister on Mar 24, 2012 at 11:32:40
“Have you given any thought to what would happen if the Niqab is banned? Maybe these women would not be able to leave their homes, would have to drop out of school, and would become more isolated than they are now. These women already accept that they can not work in certain professions, and put up with insults and mistreatment from people on the street and in the media and yet they persist because this is something they are willing to do no matter the sacrifices. Your proposed ban will not change their resolve, and will not make Canada safer or better. It will only strip a group of law abiding citizens of their rights and freedoms.”
MuslimSister on Mar 24, 2012 at 11:32:03
“I hope you realize that you are insulting the very women you claim to want to protect. These women are educated in worldly and spiritual matters and have chosen to practice their faith in this way. Most of the women I know who wear the niqab are actually unmarried university students. There is no "Muslim Man" forcing /indoctrinating them to wear it. In fact some have been forced by their parents to removed the niqab out of fear that they might be mistreated in a society that is becoming increasingly islamophobic.
Canada is a free country and everyone is free to practice their faith as they see fit. You choose to not wear the hijab, I wear the hijab, while others wear the Niqab, and yet we all claim to belong to the same faith. So tell me why should we be subjected to your interpretation of Islam? Why should the Canadian government side with you? Wouldn't it be more Canadian to allow all three versions to co-exist peacefully?
These women are not hurting anyone by dressing the way they do. They are also willing to submit to reasonable limits on their freedom when necessary.
Your "gender equality" argument is absurd. So why are women not allowed to walk around topless where men can? FYI Muslim men also have limits on their dress and behaviour. If your problem is with the religion, just say so. Stop using "gender" as an excuse.”
“So you are admitting they are marginalized. Let them benefit from the opportunities Canada has to offer by enabling them to shed the burka.”
hp blogger Farah Mawani on Mar 21, 2012 at 14:58:07
“Yes, as I stated in my original argument in our debate posted above "Some Muslim women have the right to choose their dress based on their belief systems. Others are forced to cover themselves to varying degrees by men in their families and communities. For the latter, Kenney's policy creates a no-win situation: Men in their families/communities force them to wear the veils, but, according to Kenney's policy, if they do, they are prevented from becoming Canadian citizens. This makes it even more difficult for them to overcome their oppression because, if they cannot become Canadian citizens, they are denied the complete set of rights, legal protections, access to services, and social support provided by such status. This marginalizes them even further, prevents them from being able to live freely in our country, and potentially threatens their safety." In other words, the policy you are advocating for, further marginalizes Muslim women forced to wear face veils. It does not target the men oppressing them.”
hp blogger Farah Mawani on Mar 21, 2012 at 14:07:48
“Yes, as I stated in my original argument, I am stating that those Muslim women who are forced by their husbands to wear face coverings, are marginalized. The policy you are advocating for further marginalizes rather than helps them. The policy you are advocating for targets the women who are already oppressed, rather than the men who are oppressing them.”
“"free" and "democratic"does not mean you don't have an obligation to society. When you enter public spaces, you also enter into a social contract with those you encounter on the street. Your comment conveys that you don't understand the difference between democracy and anarchy.”
hp blogger John Brian Shannon on Mar 21, 2012 at 17:52:37
“Farzana, it's not a "SOCIAL CONTRACT!!!!" -- it's a "social contract" -- do you get the difference?
I am not my brother's keeper, and neither are you.
There is no anarchy in Canada, look that word up in the dictionary.
There are however, some very misled men, bossy men, who need to be put in their place. It will happen.
You and I, do not need to change all of the laws of Canada, create huge uproar and re-make Canadian society just to deal with a couple of hundred socially-ill individuals. And, if those men break any of Canada's laws, we expect the wronged party to phone the police and report the crime - just as we expect other Canadian's to do if they are a victim or a witness to a crime.
Also, citizens everywhere need to be on the lookout for "at risk individuals" and call the police, if there appears to be any physical or mental harm being caused. It's a phone call to the police, it is not phoning the Prime Minister, it is not launching a posse, it is not starting a Royal Commission.
Your work to inform all of us is valuable, but there are many parts to the machine that is called Canada. You and I are but two cogs in that great machine.