There has been a Muslim protest against the admission of the anti-Muslim Dutch MP Geert Wilden into Britain on the grounds of "free speech". But does he not have a point? is it not the case that the Taliban in Afghanist and the terrorists in Pakistan and in the West are infact Muslims who believe in the Quran which does requires retaliation?
Answer:-
The fact is that the slogan "Free Speech" is a political ploy that does not discriminate between truth and falsehood, prejudice, selective reporting and rabble rousing. It does not prevent Muslim speakers from being banned from entering Britain and the USA.
Yes, retaliation against oppression is certainly advocated in the Quran, but indiscriminate violence is not. The negative term "Terrorism", it is well known, is used in the same way as the positive term "Freedom Fighter" depending on which side the speakers align themselves with.
But apart from the religious point of view, let us ask three questions:-
(1) What will British or American citizens do if they were invaded by German troops? Would they meekly submit or would they retaliate? Would they also take the fight into Germany if they could?
(2) How would they regard those of their compatriots who collaborated with the enemy? Would they be seen as traitors?
(3) What if the Governments in Britain or the USA were puppet governments that mounted a campaign to kill their own citizens on behalf of the German government, would they still fight back or not?
It is claimed that the Taliban have to be defeated in order to prevent Terrorism in the West. The fact, however, is that it was not the Afghans or the Taliban but an Arab Al Quida group that did the 9/11 atrocity. The terrorism in the West was a response to the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. The word "Taliban" is now used indiscrimiately to demonise all those who oppose the invaders. I am sure the political masters in the USA and Britain know this full well, but hypocritically choose to shut their minds in order to pursue ulterior motives. And they do not mind sacrificing many lives to do so, but are unable to see that problems that are not understood cannot be solved.
> Hamid S. Aziz wrote > It is claimed that the Taliban have to be defeated in order to prevent > Terrorism in the West. The fact, however, is that it was not the > Afghans or the Taliban but an Arab Al Quida group that did the 9/11 > atrocity. The terrorism in the West was a response to the invasion of > Iraq and Afghanistan. The word "Taliban" is now used indiscrimiately > to demonise all those who oppose the invaders.
It doesn't look quite like that in the United States. The invasion of Afghanistan was not originally an attack on the Taliban. It was an attempt to capture or kill Usama bin Ladin. The Taliban refused to allow the US to chase bin Ladin and, since they were already in very bad repute in the US, it was easy for the US to join the anti-Taliban forces already active in Afghanistan.
The US government and media show every evidence that the difference between the Taliban and al-Qaida is clearly understood. If the Taliban REALLY wanted to rid Afghanistan of US soldiers all they would have to do is capture Usama bin Ladin and turn him over to the US forces. Our army can't withdraw instantly - but we would be gone very quickly.
The US invasion of Iraq is an entirely different kettle of fish. It might even have happened if there had been no 9/11 atrocity. You hear next to nothing these days about our planned withdrawal. It may well be working out and Iraq may shortly be American-free. It has been a long and disgraceful incident - but it seems to be coming to an end.
The US should, of course, give up killing people just be uncover Usama bin Ladin - who may even be dead. There is a large segment of people here who favor withdrawal from Afghanistan. We will have to see how that works out.
In the United States terrorist activities by Islamic extremists are always blamed on al-Qaida and, so far as I can tell, the terrorist always talk about Palestine. Is Afghanistan really that important?
> In the United States terrorist activities by Islamic extremists are > always > blamed on al-Qaida and, so far as I can tell, the terrorist always > talk > about Palestine. Is Afghanistan really that important?
For all his talk of Israel being the heart of the problem, he exposed his true position in the following excerpt, which he directed to fellow Arabic-speaking Muslims not long after the 9/11 strikes:
Our talks with the infidel West and our conflict with them ultimately revolve around one issue - one that demands our total support, with power and determination, with one voice - and it is: Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually?
So much for bin Laden's insistence that Israel is the "reason for our conflict with you." Now we see that the conflict ultimately revolves around whether Islam is obligated to dominate the world by force. Well, is it? Bin Laden continues:
Yes. There are only three choices in Islam: [1] either willing submission [conversion]; [2] or payment of the jizya, through physical, though not spiritual, submission to the authority of Islam; [3] or the sword - for it is not right to let him [an infidel] live. The matter is summed up for every person alive: Either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die. (The Al Qaeda Reader [4], p. 42)
This threefold choice, then - conversion, subjugation, or the sword - is the ultimate source of problems. All Islamist talk of jihad being a product of U.S. foreign policy is, therefore, false. When bin Laden asserted in this last message that it is the "neocons" who "impose the wars upon you - not the mujahideen [i.e., jihadis]," he lied. Islamic law, as he himself delineated, imposed war between Muslims and non-Muslims well over a millennium before the "neocons" - let alone the state of Israel - came into being. (...)
****
I highly encourage everyone to read the whole article.
On Oct 21, 10:45=A0am, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[I wrote:] > > In the United States terrorist activities by Islamic extremists are > > always blamed on al-Qaida and, so far as I can tell, the terrorist > > always talk about Palestine. Is Afghanistan really that important?
> Is Palestine really that important? > So much for bin Laden's insistence that Israel is the "reason for our > conflict with you." Now we see that the conflict ultimately revolves > around whether Islam is obligated to dominate the world by force.
You should be aware that I said "terrorists" meaning the rank and file who make statements about their personal motivation. I do not have a good feeling for bin Ladin's own motivation. It seems that his original motivation was get the west out of Arabia and restore the old pure Islam there. He was mortally offended by what happened in the first gulf war. Armed forces from the United States and other western powers were welcomed onto the sacred ground of Islam by the de facto rulers of Arabia.
As time went on it seemed more and more like he was aiming higher and wanted to recreate the old caliphate - and apparently he thought himself qualified to be caliph. But the situation became murkier and murkier. It seemed other people were speaking in his name. A reunited caliphate is a living dream with a large number of Muslims (but how large a number seems to be unknown - hundreds? thousands? millions? no one seems to have any idea). The rigorous jihadi stance you quote is an old one is Islam. It was the functional doctrine of the Ummayid empire. It has never been universally accepted within Islam - but there have always been men arguing that way.
But we don't know that bin Ladin thinks (thought?) that way - only that some of the people around him do. In the video that was captured in Afghanistan and played over the air at the time I saw and heard him claim credit for 9/11 but I was not convinced. I think others invented the idea behind 9/11 and he was simply trying to steal the credit for it. In particular he showed no sign of understanding WHY the 9/11 atrocity might be good (for his cause).
There are nuances here that are lost when you believe the al-Qaida propaganda. It is better not to take anybody's word too seriously. Especially when somebody claims to tell you what all Muslims believe, or in the case of the fatwa that was issued in bin Ladin's name, what all Muslims should believe.
|
