(June 3, 2013 at 7:28 am)ideologue08 Wrote:

(June 2, 2013 at 5:56 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: We need to include religion as part of the analysis when we're looking at the MO of guys like this and why they did why they did.

No, we don't need to include religion. It's pretty clear why the militants are doing what they're doing, they think it's a justified retaliation for the killings Iraq/Aghanistan/Yemen/Pakistan etc. No amount of religious studies is going to stop that because their motivations are primarily political in nature. If the United States and its allies slaughtered thousands of Chinese in mainland China, I can guarantee that there would at least some blowback on US and British soil. The CIA and MI6 both warned the US and its allies of some type of blowback if we enter Iraq and Afghanistan. The only way to deal with this problem is to make an example of the perpetrators. Unfortunately we don't have the death penalty here.

I disagree, but I think the point you're making a good one.

I actually said in the post you quoted that 'religion per se' may not be the cause, and certainly not 'Islam' per se (as deduced). However, these guys were using an ideological brand of their religion (whether be general Islam or something more unique and bespoke to their clique [probably the latter]) to justify their behaviour and their subsequent actions. This is their words, not mine.

I think we're misdiagnosing the patient if we miss out an integral aspect of their MO which they themselves say we should take into account. We can't say for sure that their behaviour was manifestly down simply due to the political aspect of the context they were acting in. Instrumentalism would say yes, but primordialism and (de~)constuctivism would say no and maybe respectively.

It requires more analysis, more studies, and above all, less fear of including religion within the analysis (if nothing to discount it).

I do agree, however, as an instrumentalist and a pragmatist the the behaviour of these two individuals specifically may have been triggered purely by the actions of the west in states like Iraq et al (again, we can't be sure, as nobody yet knows). But the ideological underpinnings behind their actions I think are much more expansive beyond tha (and I mean in a time based context).

(June 3, 2013 at 5:35 am)Ben Davis Wrote: Fr0d0/Fidel, I know what you mean. Although both the Islamic Society of Britain and the Muslim Council of Britain spoke out against the attack, condemning it in no uncertain terms, they both stated that there was 'no justification in Islam' for the killings. As most of us know, Qu'ran 8:12 (and other passages) specifically mandates the killing of unbelievers so there is a justification, it's just one that almost all UK muslims reject in favour of a far more tolerant form of Islam. Whilst it's highly encouraging to see the public representatives of Islam formally decry the killings as 'un-islamic', it is telling that they don't address the problem of the passages that can be used to justify such action. I assume this is a political distancing from those passages to avoid backlash. Personally, I feel that ignoring the problem won't make it go away.

Hi there Ben.

The reason why Muslims don't attempt to link the passages of the Qur'an to violent extremism is because the invocation of any text as a justification for any act of violence does not imply that the text in question is the cause.

The verse you mentioned 8:12 is not rejected by any Muslim organisation or scholar, in fact it is accepted literally by all scholars in all periods of Islam by unanimous consensus, there's no difference of opinion. And I know pretty much everything about that verse including the location that verse was revealed, the date it was revealed and why it was revealed and what it was concerning and what actions were taken historically as a result of the revelation of that verse. I can PM you the details if you want, I'm happy to help.

---

(June 3, 2013 at 7:38 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: I disagree, but I think the point you're making a good one.

I actually said in the post you quoted that 'religion per se' may not be the cause, and certainly not 'Islam' per se (as deduced). However, these guys were using an ideological brand of their religion (whether be general Islam or something more unique and bespoke to their clique [probably the latter]) to justify their behaviour and their subsequent actions. This is their words, not mine.

I think we're misdiagnosing the patient if we miss out an integral aspect of their MO which they themselves say we should take into account. We can't say for sure that their behaviour was manifestly down simply due to the political aspect of the context they were acting in. Instrumentalism would say yes, but primordialism and (de~)constuctivism would say no and maybe respectively.

It requires more analysis, more studies, and above all, less fear of including religion within the analysis (if nothing to discount it).

I do agree, however, as an instrumentalist and a pragmatist the the behaviour of these two individuals specifically may have been triggered purely by the actions of the west in states like Iraq et al (again, we can't be sure, as nobody yet knows). But the ideological underpinnings behind their actions I think are much more expansive beyond tha (and I mean in a time based context).

Well, right after he butchered that poor guy in the middle of the road, he went in front of the camera- with blood on his hands quite literally- and said that the reason why he done the action was because it's "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". That pretty much sums it up. People like him have no place in our society, two wrongs don't make a right.

---

(June 3, 2013 at 7:35 am)NoraBrimstone Wrote: Yeah! Killing people is wrong! Lets demonstrate that by... killing more people?

Let's agree to disagree And I don't believe that killing a murderer is morally wrong...the blame is on the one who committed the act in the first instance.

(June 3, 2013 at 7:46 am)ideologue08 Wrote: Well, right after he butchered that poor guy in the middle of the road, he went in front of the camera- with blood on his hands quite literally- and said that the reason why he done the action was because it's "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". That pretty much sums it up. People like him have no place in our society, two wrongs don't make a right.

On that issue I agree with you 100%. They shouldn't have any place in our society. It's a shame that they exist and continue to exist, and I think that we both agree as a muslim and an atheist that to tackle it, we need to tackle the route causes whetever they might be.

(June 3, 2013 at 7:46 am)ideologue08 Wrote:

(June 3, 2013 at 7:35 am)NoraBrimstone Wrote: Yeah! Killing people is wrong! Lets demonstrate that by... killing more people?

Let's agree to disagree And I don't believe that killing a murderer is morally wrong...the blame is on the one who committed the act in the first instance.

Wasn't that their reason for killing him in the first place? Because he (at the very least) supported the murder of innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan? Surely then, they committed no crime in your eyes?

(June 3, 2013 at 7:14 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: As far as I'm aware the guys who murdered the solider were British of Nigerian descent. There's nowhere to deport them as they have British passports and are British citizens.

Actually believe it or not, our present government have no problems stripping people off their citizenship and identity and then having them tortured or killed. Read the following links for more details:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cri...13858.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...rison.html
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/201...tizenship/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/t...nship.html

^Wow. I had no idea about that!

I laughed once when I was behind on my rent (I used to be poor, don't judge me) and I received a letter saying I could be deported if I didn't pay up. Maybe I should have been worried they'd kick me out lol

(June 3, 2013 at 8:04 am)ideologue08 Wrote: Actually believe it or not, our present government have no problems stripping people off their citizenship and identity and then having them tortured or killed. Read the following links for more details:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cri...13858.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...rison.html
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/201...tizenship/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/t...nship.html

Britain still does not have the same horrible human rights record as Nigeria and still isnt a dictatorship,

(June 3, 2013 at 8:04 am)ideologue08 Wrote:

(June 3, 2013 at 7:14 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: As far as I'm aware the guys who murdered the solider were British of Nigerian descent. There's nowhere to deport them as they have British passports and are British citizens.

Actually believe it or not, our present government have no problems stripping people off their citizenship and identity and then having them tortured or killed. Read the following links for more details:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cri...13858.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...rison.html
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/201...tizenship/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/t...nship.html

Thank you for the links.

(June 3, 2013 at 8:03 am)NoraBrimstone Wrote: Wasn't that their reason for killing him in the first place? Because he (at the very least) supported the murder of innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan? Surely then, they committed no crime in your eyes?

No, because the two are completely different situations. Let's analyse them purely from an Islamic perspective for one moment because I think this is the issue here:

The man who butchered a British soldier in Woolwich is guilty of three major sins in Islam, all of them are listed in the Qur'an and all of them carry the death penalty usually in any Islamic state: Killing a human being without justification, waging war against one's own people (treachery), incitement to wage war against one's own people (treason). The acts of treachery and treason are actually defined as being worse than killing itself in the Qur'an.

After the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet forces, there was a fatwa (scholarly opinion) given by the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Shaykh Bin Baz who died in 1998. He was asked by a foreigner whether or not it was permissible for a Muslim to fight the Russians because they are fighting the Muslims in Afghanistan. His fatwa basically concluded with two points:

1) It is not permissible for any Russian Muslim to take up arms against his own country, there are no exceptions to this rule because of the verse in the Qur'an: 8:72...but if they seek your help in religion, it is your duty to help them except against a people with whom you have a treaty of mutual alliance...

2) If however, the person isn't Russian and has no mutual understanding with the Soviets, then it is incumbent to to fight them as long as the Soviets are fighting the Afghans on account of their religion, because of the verse which says: (22:39) Permission to fight is given to those who have been fought because they have been wronged...

Now, as for the killing of a murderer, then the Qur'an is again pretty clear about this, it places the blame squarely on the one who transgressed the limits in the first instance, but as for the one who executes the actual murderer within an Islamic state: (22:33) ...he is within the law...

(June 3, 2013 at 8:28 am)ideologue08 Wrote: No, because the two are completely different situations. Let's analyse them purely from an Islamic perspective for one moment because I think this is the issue here:

The man who butchered a British soldier in Woolwich is guilty of three major sins in Islam, all of them are listed in the Qur'an and all of them carry the death penalty usually in any Islamic state: Killing a human being without justification, waging war against one's own people (treachery), incitement to wage war against one's own people (treason). The acts of treachery and treason are actually defined as being worse than killing itself in the Qur'an.

After the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet forces, there was a fatwa (scholarly opinion) given by the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Shaykh Bin Baz who died in 1998. He was asked by a foreigner whether or not it was permissible for a Muslim to fight the Russians because they are fighting the Muslims in Afghanistan. His fatwa basically concluded with two points:

1) It is not permissible for any Russian Muslim to take up arms against his own country, there are no exceptions to this rule because of the verse in the Qur'an: 8:72...but if they seek your help in religion, it is your duty to help them except against a people with whom you have a treaty of mutual alliance...

2) If however, the person isn't Russian and has no mutual understanding with the Soviets, then it is incumbent to to fight them as long as the Soviets are fighting the Afghans on account of their religion, because of the verse which says: (22:39) Permission to fight is given to those who have been fought because they have been wronged...

Now, as for the killing of a murderer, then the Qur'an is again pretty clear about this, it places the blame squarely on the one who transgressed the limits in the first instance, but as for the one who executes the actual murderer within an Islamic state: (22:33) ...he is within the law...

The Quran is not the basis of the British criminal justice system.


And never will be.