What does Moderate Muslim mean?

[JaMaaL-23]

Biko

sxb I know that they will not win this as Allah will make his religion to outlast all man made systems, but these are surely trying times, and I Muslims (especially those who live in the West) will be the losers not Islam

[biko]

[quote="Ashlee"]q, so do you think that people who condone the 9/11 attacks and kill innocent people in subway stations which include muslims, as a good representation of ALL muslims?[/quote]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

for you to even ask such Q shows that you took the bait. the west set the bait and you bit.

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

Look kids, these are simple rules:

a. Violence (jamaal pay attention here), is the pruview of the state. Whether that is a Muslim state or a non-Muslim state, it is the purview of the state. As soon as you legitimize non-state political violence to anyone, you are opening a pandoras box - which, by the way, will adversely effect Muslims most of all. Because all these psychos will be in your countries.

b. Political Islam is dying. It's obvious. This is the death throes of the movement. It has no future because it lacks the flexibility needed to remain competetive in the modern world. Now, Lac would argue that competetiveness isn't important, that Deen is. That's fine, except that when the Ummah are living as paupers and the rest of the world is steaming ahead, the Ummah isn't going to like that.

As for Muslims living in the West or other non-Muslim locations. When you CHOSE to move to those places, you CHOSE to live under non-Islamic systems and you CHOSE to accept their cultural and social norms. If you are not prepared to do that, then you need to CHOOSE to go to a Muslim country where Muslim cultural and social norms prevail.

[surria]

"Violence (jamaal pay attention here), is the pruview of the state"

What about PMC's?

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

Can we define PMCs?

Paramilitaries???

[biko]

a. Violence (jamaal pay attention here), is the pruview of the state.



i know we will be going in circle but, aint this just another way of legitimizing state terror? like that of the US?

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

No, it is not. States can be held accountable. Whether one is or not is a different matter. But if you are upset about American involvement in Iraq, you know exactly who to complain to. Your political representatives can express your concern. It is not a perfect system, and your concern may not be addressed, but there accountability. Non-State movements are not accountable. They often don't serve a consituent. Essentially, what you have, is a group of individuals who have decided amongst themselves that they are going to kill whoever they see fit for their own politcal reasons. This is where the likes of Timothy McVeigh come from.

If you look at the Basques of Spain, how many people have they killed in the name of some obscure political goal of autonomy for the Basques? It's ridiculous. Often people who had nothing whatsoever to do with politics.

Look at the Muslim world. How many Muslims in places like Egypt and Lebanon and Syria have been killed by some obscure group? It's totally arbitrary.

The Westphalian State system is not perfect, and it's got a bloody history. But it is making progress and there is accountability in the system. There is great potential for violent movements to be massively curbed if it doesn't get undermined from non-state actors.

We have been down this road before. And I urge you to consider the following:

a. Take a look at movements where insurgents have won their conflicts. Almost universally, bad things followed:

1. China. Mao killed tens of millions of his own people. It took 50 years for China to begin to move forward.

2. Vietnam. Some people love to glorify how little Vietnam "defeated" the US. They like the David vs Goliath angle. But the truth is, Vietnam has spent the last 30 years in recovery, it has a fascist government which has hugely repressed it's own population, and it's economy was in a terrible state until it finally started to open up to a market economy.

3. The IRA. Has managed to essentially get nowhere fast. Now here we are, 3,000 lives latter, and there is no difference in Northern Ireland.

4. Cuba. The body total in Cuba isn't like other places. There have been hundreds of political prisoners killed, vice thousands and millions lost in other countries. Of course, there is no freedom of political expression in Cuba, and millions have fled the country. Cuba might even be slightly better of in the aggragate than under the Batiste regime. But at what price?

5. Somalia. My personal favorite. By embracing violence to remove an illegitimate dictator, the Somali people traded in the devil the knew, for the one they didn't. I don't think I need to elaborate on the price in this forum.

My biggest concern is that one of these Islamic organizations is going to get ahold of a nuclear weapon and use it. Our response will be swift and violent. If a bomb were to be detonated in Manhatten, for example, we would assuredly destroy Mecca and Medina. If it were of Iranian origin (the fissel material) then you could bet that Tehran and Qom would be gone. Things would swiftly tumble from there and we would see a blood letting that left the world a billion people lighter.

So while I acknowledge that the Westphalian State system is not perfect, it's accountability puts limits on political violence right now and has potential to put even more limits on them in the future. Furthermore, political violence within this system allows a structure for the cessation of violence when the political parties agree to that cessation. Non-State movements are often MUCH harder to control, and often the violence, once begun, is very difficult to bring back under control.

[Grant]

Biko,

Please read and comment on the article at the start of this thread.

http://somalinet.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=85675

[surria]

[quote="MAD MAC"]Can we define PMCs?

Paramilitaries???[/quote]

Private military Contractors, mercenary soldiers, the peope who are also fighting today's wars?

[Alluring]

Mad Mac has yet to understand that when people are put in a state of suppression their once way of reaction, is with a REACTION. That being violence.

[JaMaaL-23]

[quote="MAD MAC"]Look kids, these are simple rules:

a. Violence (jamaal pay attention here), is the pruview of the state. Whether that is a Muslim state or a non-Muslim state, it is the purview of the state. As soon as you legitimize non-state political violence to anyone, you are opening a pandoras box [/quote]

What State? Are you telling us the OIL-hungry noecons had a legit mandate for the Iraq War from the American/British people (in light of their Democratic system)

The Iraq war was Unilateral and in preach of the International Law. It was Dubya's and Blair's war. How can you justify this elite group's aggression?


[quote] b. Political Islam is dying. It's obvious. This is the death throes of the movement. It has no future because it lacks the flexibility needed to remain competetive in the modern world. [quote]

what Political Islam?

with the exception of the Al-Qaeda attacks, most of the voilence taking place in the Islamic world are the reactions to the West's unjust policies of threat of military force, its imposition of punitive sanctions, and its support of oppressive governments.

I ask you what is the difference between the Al-Qaida that fought with the Russians in the 80s with uncle Sam's help and today's Iraqi/Afghan resistant groups? is it wrong to resist aggression and accupation?

[quote] That's fine, except that when the Ummah are living as paupers and the rest of the world is steaming ahead, the Ummah isn't going to like that.[/quote]

We all know who the real paupers are, who are devoid of any material (be it energy, mineral, and organic agriculture) and sprituals resources (the beuaty of a abalanced faith which is practical and complete way of life not an outdated rituals the west have reduced Christianity into)

its just the capitalist system together with the above ugly foriegn policies which are proving ineffective in this information age, where nothing is hidden, thats holding your heads above the water.

And thank Allah, China has arrived, and economic prosperity isn't exclusive to the West any more. the sun has surely risen from the East.

[quote] As for Muslims living in the West or other non-Muslim locations. When you CHOSE to move to those places, you CHOSE to live under non-Islamic systems and you CHOSE to accept their cultural and social norms. If you are not prepared to do that, then you need to CHOOSE to go to a Muslim country where Muslim cultural and social norms prevail.[/quote]
[/quote]

How I yearn for the day I pack my bags all leave this mirage thats the west, where life is so surreal and senseless.

you have noin to be proud of my friend, plus those Scientific and Economic advances you boast about are borrowed from Islam as scientific and other advances from the Muslim world helped Europe emerge from the Dark Ages.[/quote]

[musika man]

there are crazy and sane muslims. crazy muslims like salahuddiin who is like the icu from the tora bora branch of islam, who most somalis gave them a chance and defected away from them like sheikh sharif. they believe they are the saved sect and 97% of muslims practice bida' and shirk. that is their justification to kill all the muslims who dont believe in their recently found saudi tariqa. crazy people who master in killing and suicide bombings. they are the extremists, and the rest are sane muslims.

[JaMaaL-23]

^ Musika

do mean the Takfiir wal hijra group, these guys are crazy

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

Jamaal
Don't let the door hit you in the a$$ on the way out.

Also, there is no doubt that the Islamic world developed some great relative technologies. But that was a long time ago my friend. Nuclear technology, the combustion engine, modern pharmeceuticals and so forth did not come from the Islamic world. The days of Islam being top dog are LONG OVER. Get over it already.

[surria]

[quote="MAD MAC"]Look kids, these are simple rules:

a. Violence ... is the pruview of the state. Whether that is a Muslim state or a non-Muslim state, it is the purview of the state. As soon as you legitimize non-state political violence to anyone, you are opening a pandoras box[/quote

What about Private military Contractors, mercenary soldiers, the people who are also fighting in today's wars, how do they fit into your idea that violence is the Purview of the state?