Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

event horizon · Jul 21, 2010

Actually, doesn't Bin Laden's statement sound exactly like the Sheik's ?

shafique · Jul 21, 2010

^No. You're not imagining things again are you eh?

Bin Laden - states 9/11 was in retaliation for US attacks, Loon version - Islam's at fault.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique · Jul 21, 2010

So eh, I did do a Google and couldn't find where the translation you quoted above comes from - even though it seems to be quoted on a few loon websites. .

But I did find this clear answer which refutes the loon quotes (so it is asking whether the translations on loon websites is in accordance with Islam. Shock horror - the answer is no):
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp? ... 530&CATE=1

Impermissibility of killing women and children--and other non-combatants--in war
Answered by Shaykh Gibril F Haddad

Question:
I read that a shaykh said in a taped lecture that: “And the second (matter) is the forbiddance of killing women and children in times of war. But if it is said: ‘ If they (the kuffar) do this to us- meaning that they kill our children and women- Then do we then kill them? The apparent (Thahir) is that it is (permissible) for us to kill their women and children- even if it means that we lose profit/benefit from it (since keeping them alive is a profit/benefit because they become the property of the Muslims); (and killing them in this situation is permissible) due to it threatening the hearts of the enemies and a humiliation for them. And due to the generality of the Statement of Allah: “Then whoever transgresses the prohibition against you, you transgress likewise against him” Al-Baqarah : 194 And to (purposely) destroy property (which could later belong) for the Muslims (by killing them in this case) is nothing strange. And due to this, the baggage, the baggage of the one who steals from the Ghanimah is burned, even though in that, there is the loss of some property of one the fighters." Later on, the Shaykh was asked about the fact that the women being killed are not the ones who killed our women, so is this justice? So he answered: “Then whoever transgresses the prohibition against you, you transgress likewise against him” Al-Baqarah : 194 What is justice? Not at all. They kill our women, we kill their women. This is the justice. It’s not justice to say ‘if they kill our women we won’t kill your women.’ Because this, I notice from this that it has many enormous affects on them” Is this true? Islamically is it legitimate for Muslims during war to kill non-Muslim women and children (non-combatents)? Is it legitimate Islamically to target civilian locations, such as schools, buses, shopping malls? Because many young Muslims today think this is all acceptable and that Islam promotes things such as suicide bombings or killing non-Muslims (journalists or charity workers in Iraq etc) arbitrarily after holding them for "ransom"? Can the respected shaykhs at sunnipath please refer us to scholarly comment on this matter that uses daleel/references? Or if any of the esteemed shaykhs could respond themselves. Also I have asked question in the past but the response always comes back anonymous, could the name of the shaykh replying please be given, just for the sake of knowing who the knowledge is being taken from. JazakAllah khair, for this service, it is priceless, especially for sisters who are unable to obtain scholarly advice or wisdom from elsewhere but books. Wa alaikum as salaam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu
Answer:

When the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, came upon the body of a woman in one of his campaigns, he did not say: "This could have been marketable chattel." Rather, he said: "She was not fighting, so why was she killed?"

Therefore, the rationale for not killing non-fighting personnel is exactly that: they are civilian, non-fighting personnel and our rules of warfare prohibit us from targeting them deliberately.

So it is illegitimate for Muslims during war to kill non-Muslim non-combatants including men, let alone women and children. To target them, or civilian locations such as schools, buses, shopping malls is murder.

As for the concept of absolute retaliation in kind, which is being promoted in the name of the verse “Then whoever transgresses the prohibition against you, you transgress likewise against him” al-Baqarah 194, the rest of the verse states: "And be fearful and conscious of Allah, and know full well that Allah is with the Muttaqin."

Allah Most High also says: "O you who believe! Be steadfast witnesses for Allah in equity, and let not hatred of any people seduce you that you deal not justly. Deal justly, that is nearer to your duty. Observe your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is Informed of what you do." (5:8) This shows that taqwa is defined by just conduct in warfare.

So there is a limit to the mimickry of the enemies' trangression and such transgression is not a carte blanche for Muslims to become as bloodthirsty, soulless, animalistic, and savage as the crusaders were in the Twelfth century and as their pagan epigones are today in Iraq and Palestine.

To say "They kill our women, we kill their women. This is the justice" transforms the human person into an expandable commodity whereas Islam gives it an intrinsic value, to the point that we are told we should not even strike the enemy fighter in his face. Such a concept is completely absent from their own rules of war, so is this considered injustice? WAllahu a`lam.

GF Haddad

Fail. Yet Again.

I'm starting to feel sorry for you, young one. (Well, only a little, if I'm honest).

You must hate it that I keep asking for references and you keep coming up short. :alien:

Cheers,
Shafique

Red Chief · Jul 21, 2010

Shafique, you treat Politic too wide at your own benefit. Such way you could explain Crusades by political reasons as well. Please indicate POLITICAL (not religious) benefits of intervention of Moslem brethren to Chechnya (w/o lame excuses about Saddam, Al Quaeda etc.).

Russia has never been a part of the Western World but actually has been the main enemy of the US and Co. The only thing that connects this country with the West was the Christian past and Chechen's tribes use it as a political instrument (jihad/gazavad).

Why did Moslems support them financialy and military? It was only due to Moslem solidarity.

melika969 · Jul 21, 2010

Bin Laden - states 9/11 was in retaliation for US attacks, Loon version - Islam's at fault.

And who taught them and let them to kill innocent people to take revenge?
ISLAM did!

Trying to keep Islam away of this is so very lame!

shafique · Jul 21, 2010

RC - Pope Urban II call for the crusades was pretty explicit to me - and Bin Laden stating that 9/11 was retaliation for US attacks is pretty explicit too.

Unless your arguing that the US attacks are religiously motivate, I can't see why the retaliation (which involved killing Muslim civilians too) is motivated by religion.

In 1972 Japanese terrorists shot up Israel's airport - they were doing so in solidarity with Palestinian groups. The Japanese weren't Muslim - but yet they targeted civilians in an Israeli airport. The reason behind the attack - some sort of retaliation for the killing of Palestinians in Deir Yassin in 1948!

Bin Laden says that 9/11 was in retaliation for US killings - not because of the religions of those who were killed (Christian, atheist, Muslim, Jew, Hindu etc).

Contrast that with a true religious terrorist act -that of Baruch Goldstein in 90s. He was a religously motivated terrorist - only he was a white, American born immigrant to the Middle East who chose to live in occupied Hebron. He was a doctor to boot and quite calmly put on his Israeli army uniform and walked into a mosque and killed worshippers in cold blood on the Jewish feast day of Purim. He targeted Muslims.

Bin Laden attacked the US and killed Muslims, Christians and others.

One was religously motivated, one was political.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique · Jul 21, 2010

melika969 wrote:
Bin Laden - states 9/11 was in retaliation for US attacks, Loon version - Islam's at fault.

And who taught them and let them to kill innocent people to take revenge?
ISLAM did!

Actually, the point near the end of the article is that it was not Islam that Bin Laden used to justify killing of women and children, but the political argument that the US killed innocent women and children so it was justified for him to do the same. This was when he was challenged by the Islamic injunction that forbids such killings.

So, by Laden's own admission - he says it was the US killings of innocent women and children that justified his actions, not Islam.

Sorry, but imagining that he said otherwise won't make it so.

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon · Jul 21, 2010

shafique wrote:In 1972 Japanese terrorists shot up Israel's airport - they were doing so in solidarity with Palestinian groups. The Japanese weren't Muslim - but yet they targeted civilians in an Israeli airport. The reason behind the attack - some sort of retaliation for the killing of Palestinians in Deir Yassin in 1948!

Right, militant Leftism has carried out many atrocities just like militant Islam has.

That's what everyone has pointed out.

shafique wrote:RC - Pope Urban II call for the crusades was pretty explicit to me - and Bin Laden stating that 9/11 was retaliation for US attacks is pretty explicit too.

RC didn't bring up 9/11, he brought up Chechnya. Please don't set up strawmen.

shafique wrote:Unless your arguing that the US attacks are religiously motivate, I can't see why the retaliation (which involved killing Muslim civilians too) is motivated by religion.

Once again, RC is talking about Chechnya. American isn't involved here.

Try and keep up.

shafique wrote:Bin Laden says that 9/11 was in retaliation for US killings - not because of the religions of those who were killed (Christian, atheist, Muslim, Jew, Hindu etc).

News to me. Bin Laden is pretty clear that he is waging defensive Jihad warfare to avenge Islam, reclaim Muslim lands, reinstall Sharia rule.

But if you have evidence that al-Qaeda fights alongside Houthi or communist rebels in Yemen, please let us know.

Actually, your own article says that Bin Laden is fighting for Muslims, not non-Muslims - which is what everyone has gone at pains to explain to you.

West is driven by what he perceives as the West's aggression, violence and injustice against Muslim lands - Chechnya, Afghanistan, Palestine, etc.

Woops, no mention nor evidence that OBL would have crashed passenger airplanes into office buildings for non-Muslim lands.

shafique wrote:One was religously motivated, one was political.

The analysis of a loon.

-- Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:09 pm --

shafique wrote:
melika969 wrote:
Bin Laden - states 9/11 was in retaliation for US attacks, Loon version - Islam's at fault.

And who taught them and let them to kill innocent people to take revenge?
ISLAM did!

Actually, the point near the end of the article is that it was not Islam that Bin Laden used to justify killing of women and children, but the political argument that the US killed innocent women and children so it was justified for him to do the same. This was when he was challenged by the Islamic injunction that forbids such killings.

So, by Laden's own admission - he says it was the US killings of innocent women and children that justified his actions, not Islam.

Sorry, but imagining that he said otherwise won't make it so.

Cheers,
Shafique

So why are Koranic verses calling for the beheading of non-Muslims cited in OBL's declaration of war against the United States ?

Flying Dutchman · Jul 21, 2010

Osama's own fatwa is pretty clear:

Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders
World Islamic Front Statement

23 February 1998

Shaykh Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Ladin
Ayman al-Zawahiri, amir of the Jihad Group in Egypt
Abu-Yasir Rifa'i Ahmad Taha, Egyptian Islamic Group
Shaykh Mir Hamzah, secretary of the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan
Fazlur Rahman, amir of the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh

Praise be to Allah, who revealed the Book, controls the clouds, defeats factionalism, and says in His Book: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)"; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-'Abdallah, who said: I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped, Allah who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders.

The Arabian Peninsula has never -- since Allah made it flat, created its desert, and encircled it with seas -- been stormed by any forces like the crusader armies spreading in it like locusts, eating its riches and wiping out its plantations. All this is happening at a time in which nations are attacking Muslims like people fighting over a plate of food. In the light of the grave situation and the lack of support, we and you are obliged to discuss current events, and we should all agree on how to settle the matter.

No one argues today about three facts that are known to everyone; we will list them, in order to remind everyone:

First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.

If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.

Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.

So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.

Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.

All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on Allah, his messenger, and Muslims. And ulema have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries. This was revealed by Imam Bin-Qadamah in "Al- Mughni," Imam al-Kisa'i in "Al-Bada'i," al-Qurtubi in his interpretation, and the shaykh of al-Islam in his books, where he said: "As for the fighting to repulse [an enemy], it is aimed at defending sanctity and religion, and it is a duty as agreed [by the ulema]. Nothing is more sacred than belief except repulsing an enemy who is attacking religion and life."

On that basis, and in compliance with Allah's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims:

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah."

This is in addition to the words of Almighty Allah: "And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)? -- women and children, whose cry is: 'Our Lord, rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will help!'"

We -- with Allah's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in Allah and wishes to be rewarded to comply with Allah's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.

Almighty Allah said: "O ye who believe, give your response to Allah and His Apostle, when He calleth you to that which will give you life. And know that Allah cometh between a man and his heart, and that it is He to whom ye shall all be gathered."

Almighty Allah also says: "O ye who believe, what is the matter with you, that when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling so heavily to the earth! Do ye prefer the life of this world to the hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least. For Allah hath power over all things."

Almighty Allah also says: "So lose no heart, nor fall into despair. For ye must gain mastery if ye are true in faith."

event horizon · Jul 21, 2010

shafique wrote:Pope Urban II call for the crusades was pretty explicit to me - and Bin Laden stating that 9/11 was retaliation for US attacks is pretty explicit too.

What was explicit, exactly ? That the Pope did not cite a single violent verse from the Bible or teaching in Catholicism in his call for the crusades ?

It's actually interesting to note that the rationale for the crusades was exactly the same as your claim for OBL's attacks against the United States - it was for the liberation of lands formerly held by Christians. Or, in the case of OBL, formerly held by Muslims.

Yet, your logic is that the crusades were religious but OBL is political.

Yeah, more loon logic, I see.

Red Chief · Jul 21, 2010

Shafique, where can I buy your detergent? Ariel is not satisfy me in terms of whitening. You did not reply on any of my question but argue with yourself only. Pls. do it in bullet points as you used to do.

Thank you.

shafique · Jul 22, 2010

event horizon wrote:
shafique wrote:Pope Urban II call for the crusades was pretty explicit to me - and Bin Laden stating that 9/11 was retaliation for US attacks is pretty explicit too.

What was explicit, exactly ? That the Pope did not cite a single violent verse from the Bible or teaching in Catholicism in his call for the crusades ?

Huh? Do loons have a new version of history that you get taught at Bible camp?

At that time, most Christians - especially laymen - weren't allowed to read the Bible - the word of the Pope was the word of the Church. Duh!

All the Jews in Europe that were killed when the crusaders set off - as acts of penance - they weren't killed for their lands etc, they were slaughtered by European Crusaders as a religious act.

Pope calls for a Holy War - loons say it wasn't Holy. (Now, don't get me wrong - I think Pope Urban's misuse of Christianity is indeed against the teachings of Jesus, but he did call for a Holy War against the Muslims - the very charge that is levelled against Bin Laden.)

Epic Fail. Again.

Anyway, I'm glad you now agree that Bin Ladens justification for attacking the US is political. Bravo, we are making progress (even though you have embarrassed yourself by arguing about the Crusades not being a religious war).

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique · Jul 22, 2010

Ok RC, by special request - a point by point reply.

Red Chief wrote:Shafique, you treat Politic too wide at your own benefit. Such way you could explain Crusades by political reasons as well.

The Crusades did indeed have a political element to them - no doubt. It was used to help consolidate the power of the Church and used as a useful rallying call for the European nobles who were in the habit of fighting each other.

HOWEVER, Urban's call was that it was Holy War against the infidels to liberate the Holy Land. He justified killings of people that weren't Muslim as an act of piety - when the Crusaders set off, they slaughtered European Jews as acts of piety. When they reached Palestine they slaughtered Christian villages (because they looked foreign) etc. All was done as a Holy War.

Red Chief wrote: Please indicate POLITICAL (not religious) benefits of intervention of Moslem brethren to Chechnya (w/o lame excuses about Saddam, Al Quaeda etc.).

Sorry my example earlier was not clear. The Political benefits of these fighters is the liberation of Chechnya from Russian rule - foreign fighters joining local liberation forces is not a feature exclusively of Islam or Chechnya - Brits went to Spain to fight Franco, Canadians came to the UK to fight the nazis, heck - Mauritians went to France to fight the Nazis! And my previous example was of Japanese who went to Israel to fight in the Palestinian cause (but as terrorists). In all cases, political.

Red Chief wrote:Russia has never been a part of the Western World but actually has been the main enemy of the US and Co.

Japan is not part of the Middle East - hence why I gave that example of Japanese going to Israel to fight for Palestinian liberation. Nothing to do with politics - just an association with the cause. (And, I'm not completely sure of this, the terrorists from Japan weren't Muslim )

Red Chief wrote:The only thing that connects this country with the West was the Christian past and Chechen's tribes use it as a political instrument (jihad/gazavad).

Why did Moslems support them financialy and military? It was only due to Moslem solidarity.

Why did Muslims financially support the separatists in Chechnya? Well, because they are siding with the Chechens in their fight for national sovereignty.

There are non-Buddhists are passionate about supporting Tibet, Libya financed and gave arms to Northern Ireland terrorists - and many Americans also gave financial support - when they were blowing up British targets. Was Ghadaffi supporting the Catholic terrorists because of religion - and why are the New York Irish families who supported the IRA and sent money any different from Ghaddaffi?

But we come back to the central point - 9/11 was in retaliation for US actions - i.e. political motivations and not religious.

The telling bit of the article, is that Bin Laden has to step outside of Islam to justify the killing of women and children, and use a political justification.

BTW - Ariel is good!

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon · Jul 22, 2010

shafiqe wrote:HOWEVER, Urban's call was that it was Holy War against the infidels to liberate the Holy Land.

The Pontiff's call was for aiding the Greeks against Turk attack.

Pope Urbans cites 'oppression' and 'brutality' as the reasons for the attack. That sounds political, not religious, to me.

Ironically, it is OBL who is the chiefly concerned with the 'Holy' Land when non-Muslims were invited to set up bases in Saudi Arabia - bin Laden considers the presence of non-Muslims as being intolerable.

He justified killings of people that weren't Muslim as an act of piety

Actually, and once again, Bin Laden justifies the killings of non-Muslims as a religious duty - Bin Laden has no problem from quoting the Koran and citing past rulings by Muslim scholars to justify his actions.

This is yet another example of Muslims turning to violence because of the texts and teachings of Islam.

- when the Crusaders set off, they slaughtered European Jews as acts of piety.

Which is irrelevant to anything that the Pope said. Perhaps I should cite the slaughter of Shia and other heretics in Muslim lands, such as Pakistan and Iraq, and connect that to OBL's declaration of war against the US.

LoL.

Grasping at straws, are we ?

When they reached Palestine they slaughtered Christian villages (because they looked foreign) etc. All was done as a Holy War.

I hate to break this to you, but killing Americans was considered a holy act by al-Qaeda and their crew.

It's interesting that you would try to present the Crusades as a religious act based on your limited knowledge of history and claim that there's no religious basis for 9/11.

Impressive.

shafique wrote:At that time, most Christians - especially laymen - weren't allowed to read the Bible - the word of the Pope was the word of the Church. Duh!

Sure they weren't.

shafique wrote:All the Jews in Europe that were killed when the crusaders set off - as acts of penance - they weren't killed for their lands etc, they were slaughtered by European Crusaders as a religious act.

What does that have to do with the Pope's call for a crusade to aid the Greeks ?

I think Pope Urban's misuse of Christianity is indeed against the teachings of Jesus

Where did the Pope misuse Christianity ? What teaching did he abuse ?

but he did call for a Holy War against the Muslims - the very charge that is levelled against Bin Laden.)

I'm not claiming that OBL's call for holy war (jihad) against the US has no religious basis.

Epic Fail. Again.

Were you able to find a single violent passage from the Bible that the Pope cited in his call for war against the Turks ?

Hopefully your next epic victory is a little more convincing.

Or should I call you Baghdad Bob ?

Anyway, I'm glad you now agree that Bin Ladens justification for attacking the US is political. Bravo, we are making progress (even though you have embarrassed yourself by arguing about the Crusades not being a religious war).

Happy to compare Bin Laden's declaration of war against the US to the Pope's declaration of war against the Turks.

Hopefully we can see which declaration is more uniquely religious - after all, the Pope's call for war is pretty generic, any religious group that believes in one God could have written it.

But Bin Laden's is very specific. He cites the Koran, uses Islamically exclusive terms and mentions previous rulings of the Ulema.

Hopefully you're not just bluster.

shafique · Jul 22, 2010

Eh - you're really not going to try and convince us that the Crusades weren't holy wars are you?

Answer me this simple question - for what reason did some of the Crusaders of the First Crusade slaughter Jews of Europe before setting off for the Holy Land? Was it as an act of pious penance ?

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon · Jul 22, 2010

The observant reader will notice shafique has managed to shift his own goal posts.

Shafique first made the claim that the crusades were religious (unlike OBL's Jihad against the US, Jews and her allies) by citing Pope Urban II's call for a crusade to protect Christendom and liberate lands held by force by other nations.

Now shafique, perhaps caught up in his own statements, has chosen to backpedal.

Shafique has now decided to switch from Pope Urban's appeal of defensive warfare against the Turks to citing the massacres some Crusaders carried out against the Jews in Central and Eastern Europe.

Understandably, shafique must now have realized that his own tendency to pontificate on subjects that he holds a poor grasp of has back fired on him.

Perhaps one should cite the atrocities against 'heretics' and 'apostates' in Muslim lands following OBL's fatwa against the Jews, the United States and her allies (undoubtedly including to so-called 'un-Islamic' regimes in the Arab and Muslim world, ie., 'apostates') as evidence that the 9/11 attacks were indeed religious, as opposed to the revisionist spin of the attacks being purely political in nature.

I will decide to overlook shafiqe's backpedaling as I could just as easily name atrocities carried out against Shia, Sufis, Qadianis, Hindus, Jews, Christians, Sikhs and moderate Muslims by groups who share the same ideological underpinnings as al-Qaeda.

Surely one would not fall for such an argument if it were applied against Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda with regards to 9/11.

So why is one to accept such strawmen when it is applied to Christians and the Pope ?

shafique · Jul 22, 2010

shafique wrote:Eh - you're really not going to try and convince us that the Crusades weren't holy wars are you?

Answer me this simple question - for what reason did some of the Crusaders of the First Crusade slaughter Jews of Europe before setting off for the Holy Land? Was it as an act of pious penance ?

It was a simple question. I'm not the one arguing that the Crusades weren't a Holy war - you are.

I'm not back pedalling or moving any goal posts. 9/11 was political, the Crusades were religious. I asked you a simple question above about the killings done by the Crusaders in Europe before they set off for the Holy Land - were the acts of killing Jews not acts of Christian piety according to those slaughtering the Jews?

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon · Jul 22, 2010

shafique wrote:
shafique wrote:Eh - you're really not going to try and convince us that the Crusades weren't holy wars are you?

Answer me this simple question - for what reason did some of the Crusaders of the First Crusade slaughter Jews of Europe before setting off for the Holy Land? Was it as an act of pious penance ?

It was a simple question. I'm not the one arguing that the Crusades weren't a Holy war - you are.

Cheers,
Shafique

Actually, I'm arguing that the 9/11 attacks were a holy war (Jihad).

I'm trying to draw an analogy between the attacks, OBL's fatwa against the US, Jews and her allies and the Pope's call for defensive warfare.

If one is to believe that OBL's war against the US is political - 'no religious basis' - then one should also agree that there is no religious basis to the crusades. At least, not to their original intent - as encapsulated in the Pope's original call for a crusade.

shafique · Jul 22, 2010

I know you want to avoid the question. That's pretty clear.

However, you stated that you believe the Crusades were political and not religious. If you still believe this, then answer the question:

Eh - you're really not going to try and convince us that the Crusades weren't holy wars are you?

Answer me this simple question - for what reason did some of the Crusaders of the First Crusade slaughter Jews of Europe before setting off for the Holy Land? Was it as an act of pious penance ?

If Christians were killing Jews and Muslims as acts of penance because 'Christ commands it' then that makes it a religious war. Do you disagree?

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon · Jul 22, 2010

shafique wrote:I'm not back pedalling or moving any goal posts.

Well actually, you are.

You first argued the Crusades were religious based on the Pope's call to arms against the Turks.

shafique wrote:RC - Pope Urban II call for the crusades was pretty explicit to me

shafique wrote:I think Pope Urban's misuse of Christianity is indeed against the teachings of Jesus, but he did call for a Holy War against the Muslims - the very charge that is levelled against Bin Laden.)

Now you're saying the Crusades were religious because some Crusaders killed Jews while they traveled through Europe.

You have failed to link their deaths to the Pope's call for defensive warfare against the Turks and Arabs - which you originally said was 'explicit[ly]' religious in nature.

Let's first see the evidence that Urban II's appeal for action against the Turks and Arabs was explicitly religious, not political.

After that, I'll be more than happy to address the killing of Jews by some Crusaders on their way to the Crusade.

-- Thu Jul 22, 2010 10:33 pm --

shafique wrote:I know you want to avoid the question. That's pretty clear.

However, you stated that you believe the Crusades were political and not religious. If you still believe this, then answer the question:

Eh - you're really not going to try and convince us that the Crusades weren't holy wars are you?

Answer me this simple question - for what reason did some of the Crusaders of the First Crusade slaughter Jews of Europe before setting off for the Holy Land? Was it as an act of pious penance ?

If Christians were killing Jews and Muslims as acts of penance because 'Christ commands it' then that makes it a religious war. Do you disagree?

Cheers,
Shafique

Interesting strawman.

Perhaps I should raise the point that suicide bombings against Shia are acts to salvation (Koran 9:111) and one must conclude that 9/11 was wholly religious, with no political basis.

shafique · Jul 22, 2010

I still stand by my statement about the Crusades being a religious war. We've already established (not least in the first article) that Bin Laden's motivations were political, but I'm challenging you to back up your claim that the Crusades weren't religious wars.

When asking you about the slaughter of European Jews by crusaders, I'm merely starting with the first acts of slaughter carried out by the Crusaders - before they set off for the Holy Land.

Eh - you're really not going to try and convince us that the Crusades weren't holy wars are you?

Answer me this simple question - for what reason did some of the Crusaders of the First Crusade slaughter Jews of Europe before setting off for the Holy Land? Was it as an act of pious penance ?

If Christians were killing Jews and Muslims as acts of penance because 'Christ commands it' then that makes it a religious war. Do you disagree?

I'm sure you're aware that Urban said 'Christ commands it' - I'm just asking you whether killing in the name of Christ makes the crusades a holy war or not.

Why call this pertinent point a strawman? After all, you're the one arguing that the Crusades weren't religious wars - but can't seem to square that with the fact that the Crusaders killed Jews in Europe as acts of faith (that was just their first acts of slaughter in the name of religion - they killed more once they got to the Holy Land).

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon · Jul 23, 2010

If you care to recall, I'm asking you to back up your claim that the Pope's call to arms was religious while bin Laden's declaration of war against the US, her allies, and world Jewry was not.

shafique wrote:I'm sure you're aware that Urban said 'Christ commands it' - I'm just asking you whether killing in the name of Christ makes the crusades a holy war or not.

*Yawn*

OBL makes the same types of statements in his declaration of war against the US. Just read what FD copy/pasted.

shafique wrote:Why call this pertinent point a strawman?

Actually, I referred to your other 'points' as strawmen.

Try and keep up.

So, your argument is that the call to war by Pope Urban II was religious because you say he uses the phrase 'Christ commands it' ..... even though the Pope actually lays out the grievances and reasons for going to war.

shafique wrote:but can't seem to square that with the fact that the Crusaders killed Jews in Europe as acts of faith

Sure they were. Just like your other short lived claims, this one will fall like a house of cards. As soon as I blow this lie out of the water, the great historian will move on and drop another fallacy.

I'll see your killings in Europe and raise you the killings carried out by al-Qaeda and other like minded Islamic extremist groups against all sorts of different people - most of these killings were completely religious and not political.

Using your own strawman, this will prove that 9/11 was religious, not political.

shafique · Jul 23, 2010

My simple contention is that the Crusades were Holy wars, and that the first acts of slaughter were carried out when Crusaders slaughtered European Jews.

I simply asked you what the reason for killing the Jews were - history books tell us it was acts of Christian penance carried out 'in the name of Christ'.

Is the Loon version of history different?

If not - then how can you argue that the Crusaders who killed Jews in Europe as acts of penance were NOT engaged in a religious war?

Clarify this simple point and we can then go over the material (again!) which shows 9/11 wasn't religously based like the Crusades were.

So - does the Loon version of history concerning the slaughter of European Jews at the start of the First Crusade say they were NOT killed 'in the name of Christ' as an act of piety?

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon · Jul 23, 2010

Sorry, I figured you would support a claim you made if you were challenged on it.

I can understand your unwillingness to address my simple question regarding the Pope's call to arms and how that differs from OBL's declaration of war against the US, her allies and world Jewry.

shafique wrote:I simply asked you what the reason for killing the Jews were - history books tell us it was acts of Christian penance carried out 'in the name of Christ'.

Let's see those 'history' books you claim to have read.

shafique wrote:Clarify this simple point and we can then go over the material (again!) which shows 9/11 wasn't religously based like the Crusades were.

You can't even show that the Pope's call to arms was religiously based.

LoL.

Too funny.

shafique · Jul 23, 2010

shafique wrote:I simply asked you what the reason for killing the Jews were - history books tell us it was acts of Christian penance carried out 'in the name of Christ'.

Is the Loon version of history different?

If not - then how can you argue that the Crusaders who killed Jews in Europe as acts of penance were NOT engaged in a religious war?

Was the question difficult?

You seem to insist that the Crusades were political and not religious wars. Back it up with some facts, young man. I still stand by my statements that Urban's call for holy war was just that - but it is interesting to see you squirm when faced with the reality of the first acts of slaughter of the First Crusades were done 'in the name of Christ' and killed European Jews, in Europe.

Were the killings of the Jews in Europe 'political' and not religious acts of Christian penance in the loon version of history?

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon · Jul 23, 2010

If you scroll back, I posed the question to you before I made any statement.

You have chosen to not answer my question.

I suggest you take this to another thread.

shafique · Jul 23, 2010

Were the killings of the Jews in Europe 'political' and not religious acts of Christian penance in the loon version of history?

Did you admit that even in Loon versions of history the first acts of slaughter were of Jews in Europe and were done 'in the name of Christ' as a penance?

If so, then given Urban says 'Christ Commands it' - how can you reconcile this with your contention that this was NOT a Holy War? (Killing of the Jews of Europe serves no military/political goal - or does it?)

(Oh and it is funny to see you squirm so! No need for a separate thread - we are firmly on topic - I contrasted the political nature of 9/11 with the religious basis of the Crusades, you dispute that the Crusades were religiously based and made some claims which don't stand up to scrutiny. If they did, you'd have answered the question already.)

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon · Jul 23, 2010

shafique wrote:If so, then given Urban says 'Christ Commands it' - how can you reconcile this with your contention that this was NOT a Holy War?

Interesting point.

And OBL says it's Allah's order to kill every American.

Are you saying that the 9/11 attacks had a religious basis after all ?

At least attempt to remain consistent with your logic.

shafique wrote:Did you admit that even in Loon versions of history the first acts of slaughter were of Jews in Europe and were done 'in the name of Christ' as a penance?

Where are these historians you claim to have read ?

Don't you complain that others supposedly fabricate stories ?

LoL.

shafique wrote:Oh and it is funny to see you squirm so!

Whatever you say, Baghdad Bob.

Still waiting for those historians.

Still waiting for you to give me an answer regarding OBL's own statements in his declaration of war against the US, her allies and world Jewry.

Oh, and I guess it would be too painful to point out that members of al-Qaeda central were blowing up Shia shrines well before the 9/11 attacks.

Wooops.

shafique · Jul 23, 2010

Enough with the smoke and mirrors.

shafique wrote:
Were the killings of the Jews in Europe 'political' and not religious acts of Christian penance in the loon version of history?

Did you admit that even in Loon versions of history the first acts of slaughter were of Jews in Europe and were done 'in the name of Christ' as a penance?

If so, then given Urban says 'Christ Commands it' - how can you reconcile this with your contention that this was NOT a Holy War? (Killing of the Jews of Europe serves no military/political goal - or does it?)

Are you ashamed of the fact that even the loon version of history shows the Crusaders killing Jews as acts of Christian piety?

Is it out of shame that you can't bring yourself to answer the question about how you can reconcile these historical facts with your (bizare) contention that the Crusades were political and not religious.

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon · Jul 23, 2010

shafique wrote:Are you ashamed of the fact that even the loon version of history shows the Crusaders killing Jews as acts of Christian piety?

Find a historian who says this.

shafique wrote:Is it out of shame that you can't bring yourself to answer the question about how you can reconcile these historical facts with your (bizare) contention that the Crusades were political and not religious.

One thing at a time.

You were the one to initially claim that OBL's declaration of war against the US, her allies and world Jewry was political and had no religious basis. You then said that the Pope's call to arms against the Turks and a lesser extent, the Arabs was religiously based.

I'm just trying to figure out what you believe the Pope said to make his declaration of war wholly religious that also can't be found in OBL's declaration of war.

From a casual observation, I would say OBL's declaration is far more religiously rooted than what the Pope said.

At least the Pope never cited a single violent or militant verse from the Bible or teaching of Christianity to justify the Crusades.

OBL, on the other hand, frequently cites the texts and teachings of Islam.

Funny that.

Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

No Religious Basis For 9/11 - Muslim View

Go To

Dubai Discussions

Dubai Expat Forums

Dubai Business

Dubai Tech Discussions

Dubai Classifieds