Men and mice...
"Early on Friday the commander of the Fort Hood base, Lt Gen Robert Cone, told reporters that, according to eyewitnesses, the gunman had shouted the Arabic phrase "Allahu Akbar!" [God is great] before opening fire."
I feel like a mouse that just talks loudly...
15 comments:
your praise is ill informed and unreasonably romantic.
oops, that was me.
I am sorry if I find occupation and corruption unreasonable...I guess I should get with the program and support the troops.
That is a straw man if I ever did see one. I don't see any basis for the implicit claim that (a) the gunman acted on motivations against occupation and corruption or (b) that even if those were his motivations, their manifestation was ethically permissible. Amazing how nobody knows anything about this guy and yet both those who demonize him and those who reify him use nothing but his name, the alleged utterance, and their position on American imperialism as a basis for their response.
But Yaman, *why* do you not see any basis for the implicit claim that (a)the gunman acted on motivations against occupation and corruption or (b) that even if those were his motivations, their manifestation was ethically permissible?
It is something which, as you said, both those who reify and those who demonise him see as self-evident. So what is it that you believe makes this not self evident? Do you know this necessarily or through some kind of deduction. If it's necessarily why do the vast majority of people not share your position of no position, and if it is through some deduction, you have not made your reasoning clear. Based on what is already available, people have built preliminary deductions of what has happened, this will be modified as more comes to light. But to snidely criticise someone who actually has an opinion on something without backing up your comments is a little cheeky, don't you think?
What I am saying is that your concern with sounding impartial and factual has blinded you to what is in fact a perfectly acceptable inference. And you are denying this inference to other people as well, but not offering any reason for that.
I'm not trying to sound impartial and biased. But everyone is forcing him into their narratives without knowing anything about him.
The guy is a nutcase, plain and simple. No Muslim would kill a single inocent soul, military or cvilian...in the name of God and not realize that hell awaits him.
Were he a true muslim who opposed the war he could have gone to Canada which housed men like him during Vietnam & not killed anyone...making us all look bad.
"Were he a true Muslim", you sound just as fanatical as the Saudi Wahhabis when you say that. What secret do you have that tells you who is or is not a true Muslim? Please share it with us...
Any man who kills in the name of The All Merciful, and does so indiscriminately is not a Muslim.
A true Muslim is non-exclusionist.
At the risk of going on for too long let me share my idea of Islam.
Scholars agree that Islam drew its power from its "Universalist" nature. In spite of their internecine bickering over succession and other faults all Islamic leaders who followed Mohammad instinctively retained this critical quality. This Universalist quality allowed people from multitudes of cultures to accept Islam. At its core, Mohammad’s religion opened its doors to anyone willing to make a simple declaration of faith: "I proclaim that there is no god but God, and I proclaim that Mohammad is the messenger of God". It is that simple. And it is powerful. Mohammad put very few restrictions on his followers. All that he asked of us is to accept the basic truth that we are all united by the worship of God, the one and indivisible. Of course, the prophet (peace be upon him) added a other laudable activities like prayer, zakat, fast, and hajj. But if you take the totality of everything that he asked of us as Muslims, it is so little that it makes it easy for everyone to join the faith. That is the beauty of Islam as a Universalist religion. Once you get past the basics and start looking for distinguishing details of Islam, I think that the key question to ask a faithful Muslim is "how do you treat your fellow human beings?"
I think that is the gist of what Mohammad intended of Islamic behavior within the community. How do Muslims treat each other and others? Mohammad went out of his way to stress the continuity of the many prophets who preceded him from Abraham, to Moses to Jesus to Mohammad. The verse that captures this universality and inclusiveness is 3:84.
"say, we believe in God and in what has been revealed to us
and what was revealed to Abraham, Ismail,
Isaac, Jacob and the tribes,
and in the Book given to Moses, Jesus,
and the Prophet from the Lord:
We make no distinction between one and another among them,
and to God do we bow our will"
And several other Quranic verses support the attitude of tolerance and acceptance such as s 109:6 "to you your religion, to me mine". This is in addition to the well known verse 2:256 "There can be no coercion in religion". This provides ample evidence of the "universalist" and tolerant message.
On the other side of the coin you have what I call the "exclusivists". These are the people who define religion so narrowly that it excludes just about everyone who does not subscribe to their narrow definition of true faith. Among the exclusivists are Wahabis who define Islam as a tradition and non-Muslims as all who don't follow traditions, the same applies to Muslims who are deemed sinners; who engage in so called vices like drinking alcohol, enjoying music, wearing bathing suits, and even in some circles women driving cars. They have a right to this belief and you have a right to share it.
Once the exclusionists become militant and belligerent in imposing their beliefs on others, I take exception to that. In the final analysis, I do not accept their infringement on mine or others personal freedom and "There is no coercion in religion" should be a constant reminder to them. Contrast this with a Wahabi Muslim's ideas on personal freedoms…and you'd see where I think the problem lies: it is in their exclusionary identity.
Anonymous,
"A true Muslim is non-exclusionist."
Correct. I apprciate the effort you went through to tell me what you believe Islam is. I also appreciate your point of view, but please do not use the technique of labelling anybody who resists occupation and imperialism, and happens to be Muslim, a Wahhabi. You know nothing about my Muslim beliefs, though a look at my posts labelled "Islam" would tell you. You only come to me with inferences and chains.
Excuse me and other Muslims whilst we get furious about what is happening to Iraq or Palestine. Please don't assume anything about me again.
..."E-mails obtained by the FBI showed the accused had begun to discuss secret financial transfers with Yemen-based al-Qaeda sympathiser Anwar al-Awlaki, according to the Washington Post."...
You can read the rest here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8372752.stm
Hahaha,what a surprise!! Who would expect?
Maysaloon: you say…"Please don't assume anything about me again".
Where in my comments did you see assumptions about you! Unless you are a "Wahabi" I don't get it!
I am not surprised by your anger or your frustration. I am just answering your question on; who I think is a Muslim, and in my heart a Muslim is not an exclusionist. Wahabis have been just that since day one. Do I have to reference massacres of Shiaa a hundred years ago by the Wahabi Ikhwan to make my point! You want to have it both ways; appear spiritual and pious but remain defensive when challenged and claim assumption on my part. I assume nothing and God will be my judge one day, …not man.
where did you find assumptions about you, Maysaloon! why do you think you alone are furious about Palestine! what is it about my Universalist Islam that bugs you!
Post a Comment