July 21st Plot and the Sentences

[Red_on_Silver]

Now that four of the accused have been found gulity and sentenced, it raises some interesting judicial issues.

I am going to give the benefit of the doubt to the judicial process and agree that these men are guilty. I have no great insight into the case and thus I accept the verdicts in good faith.

In this respect, their sentences are suitably just. No one should be allowed to murder people at will. This will send out a strong message to other people contemplating taking similar action. It probably won't stop them, if they contemplating suicide bombings but it might stop their accomplices. I hope to Allah, anyway.

My next point is, why is it that the same juidicial process that can clearly deliver justice, fails so miserably in other cases of voilence i.e. murder, rape, attempted murder, muggings, GBH etc. If the sentences were harsh then at least the victims and their families would feel a sense of justice and society at large would feel a lot safer.

[ohdear]

I agree,but as this case is of the highest profile,then the sentences were always going to be long one's.And quite rightly.

The whole judicial process doesn't stand up to scrutiny in my opinion though,but it really can't please everyone.

[alinfarah]

Now that four of the accused have been found gulity and sentenced, it raises some interesting judicial issues.

I am going to give the benefit of the doubt to the judicial process and agree that these men are guilty. I have no great insight into the case and thus I accept the verdicts in good faith.

In this respect, their sentences are suitably just. No one should be allowed to murder people at will. This will send out a strong message to other people contemplating taking similar action. It probably won't stop them, if they contemplating suicide bombings but it might stop their accomplices. I hope to Allah, anyway.

My next point is, why is it that the same juidicial process that can clearly deliver justice, fails so miserably in other cases of voilence i.e. murder, rape, attempted murder, muggings, GBH etc. If the sentences were harsh then at least the victims and their families would feel a sense of justice and society at large would feel a lot safer.

CCTV? Virtually all the crimes you relate occur beyond the electronic eyes and ears of the ubiquitous CCTV in UK! Plus the many witnesses in this particular case, tends to ease the judicial process. They got off lucky - taken in as refugees, increased living standards, education, medical care, money and free from random killings in their own countries - only to turn on the very people who allowed them in. Disgusting!

[Red_on_Silver]

CCTV? Virtually all the crimes you relate occur beyond the electronic eyes and ears of the ubiquitous CCTV in UK! Plus the many witnesses in this particular case, tends to ease the judicial process. They got off lucky - taken in as refugees, increased living standards, education, medical care, money and free from random killings in their own countries - only to turn on the very people who allowed them in. Disgusting!

I think I am missing the point. I am not trying to defend these individuals. I beleive the sentence fits the crime. My question was why in other voilent cases of crime the guilty receive such light sentences. This has been issue for good few decades, where increasingly society is large is frustrated when criminal appear not be punished justly for their crimes.

[simon pieman]

I think I am missing the point. I am not trying to defend these individuals. I beleive the sentence fits the crime. My question was why in other voilent cases of crime the guilty receive such light sentences. This has been issue for good few decades, where increasingly society is large is frustrated when criminal appear not be punished justly for their crimes.

I dont want to start a whole new debate about the judicial system in the UK off here , but is it not the case that high sentances are given at the begining of the jail term and then after appeals and retrails the final sentance is is about half the initial sentance.Or is that just me beeen a cynic.

[Ducatiboy749]

Now that four of the accused have been found gulity and sentenced, it raises some interesting judicial issues.

I am going to give the benefit of the doubt to the judicial process and agree that these men are guilty. I have no great insight into the case and thus I accept the verdicts in good faith.

In this respect, their sentences are suitably just. No one should be allowed to murder people at will. This will send out a strong message to other people contemplating taking similar action. It probably won't stop them, if they contemplating suicide bombings but it might stop their accomplices. I hope to Allah, anyway.

My next point is, why is it that the same juidicial process that can clearly deliver justice, fails so miserably in other cases of voilence i.e. murder, rape, attempted murder, muggings, GBH etc. If the sentences were harsh then at least the victims and their families would feel a sense of justice and society at large would feel a lot safer.

The Crown Prosecution Service works in very mysterious ways. Read sh*t for mysterious.

[1984]

I thought this thread was about the events of 1944 at first.

[captainred]

CCTV? Virtually all the crimes you relate occur beyond the electronic eyes and ears of the ubiquitous CCTV in UK! Plus the many witnesses in this particular case, tends to ease the judicial process. They got off lucky - taken in as refugees, increased living standards, education, medical care, money and free from random killings in their own countries - only to turn on the very people who allowed them in. Disgusting!
I couldn't agree more. This is the reason why some people are against 'all' muslims. Unjust in my view, because, as per usual, it's the few that spoil it for the many.
RoS, what sentence would put someone off, who is willing to die for his/her cause?

[Red_on_Silver]

I couldn't agree more. This is the reason why some people are against 'all' muslims. Unjust in my view, because, as per usual, it's the few that spoil it for the many.
RoS, what sentence would put someone off, who is willing to die for his/her cause?

You are right about the few spoiling it for the many.

On the question of sentence, I truly and honestly don't know. Someone who has reached that level of detachment probably cares about nothing or indeed cares about the cause so much he has forgotten about caring about anything else.

I think the only solution is to isolate them. How do we do this?

- Firstly, we do not give these cowards the ammunition they need by victimising all Muslims. I have heard comments like, 'look what they are doing to you';
- We do not give them ammunition like the US soldiers saying things like, 'what's the difference between one dead Iraqi and another dead Iraqi, there is no difference, who cares';
- We do not give them ammunition by locking up people without trial for long periods of time, the longest time anywhere in the Western world bar the US
- We do not give them ammunition by agreeing to ridicilous one-sided extradition treaty with the US, where they can extradite our citizens on their say-so, but we can't do the same to their
- We do not give them ammunition by building camps like Guantanamo
- We do not give them ammunition by accepting rendition
- We do not give them ammunition by honouring Salman Rushdie
- We do not give them ammunition by being one sided in the Israel/Palestine conflict
- We do not give them ammunition by unjustly invading Muslim countries
- We do not give them ammunition by supporting dictators in Muslim countries in one breath and talking about democracy in another

In other words if we are truly just, then Muslims themselves will isolate and deal with these individuals. You cannot change the world in day, but as a nation we must change they way we act and ensure we are fair and just

[1984]

- Firstly, we do not give these cowards the ammunition they need by victimising all Muslims. I have heard comments like, 'look what they are doing to you';
- We do not give them ammunition like the US soldiers saying things like, 'what's the difference between one dead Iraqi and another dead Iraqi, there is no difference, who cares';
- We do not give them ammunition by locking up people without trial for long periods of time, the longest time anywhere in the Western world bar the US
- We do not give them ammunition by agreeing to ridicilous one-sided extradition treaty with the US, where they can extradite our citizens on their say-so, but we can't do the same to their
- We do not give them ammunition by building camps like Guantanamo
- We do not give them ammunition by accepting rendition

I agree with each of these, however

- We do not give them ammunition by honouring Salman Rushdie

His treatment since the late 80s has been rephrehensible in the extreme.

- We do not give them ammunition by being one sided in the Israel/Palestine conflict

Seeing as Israel is surrounded by much bigger countries that have tried to obliterate its existence in the past, as well as containing many in those countries who would still like to obliterate Israel, I think a bit of support for Israel is in order.

- We do not give them ammunition by unjustly invading Muslim countries
- We do not give them ammunition by supporting dictators in Muslim countries in one breath and talking about democracy in another

In other words if we are truly just, then Muslims themselves will isolate and deal with these individuals. You cannot change the world in day, but as a nation we must change they way we act and ensure we are fair and just

Generally I agree apart from the above points. However the role of what I would call a fascist desire for bringing shariah states is also a key element of terrorism. You do not believe me? Well read this recent article from an ex-British Muslim terrorist:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2115891,00.html

Here is a snippet:

When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network, a series of semi-autonomous British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology, I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.

By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the 'Blair's bombs' line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.

[Red_on_Silver]

- We do not give them ammunition by honouring Salman Rushdie

His treatment since the late 80s has been rephrehensible in the extreme.

I have to disagree. Whatever his treatment has been, only he is responsible for provoking that reaction. I would not like someone calling my mother a 'w#ore'. In effect his attack on the Prophet Muhammed was exactly that kind of insult. Bearing in mind most Muslims hold the Prophet dearer to their hearts than own family should give you an idea why the reaction as so fierce. Anyway that isn't the point, honouring Salman Rushdie was an affront to common decency, particularly as he hasn't done anything worth honouring (see my other posts/thread)


- We do not give them ammunition by being one sided in the Israel/Palestine conflict

Seeing as Israel is surrounded by much bigger countries that have tried to obliterate its existence in the past, as well as containing many in those countries who would still like to obliterate Israel, I think a bit of support for Israel is in order.

Again I have to disagree strongly. Both the US and UK have a one sided policy towards Israel. When hundreds of Palestinians are killed, hardly a murmur, when a single Israeli dies, there's widespread condemnation and retaliation.

You say Israel is surrounded by big states that want to obliterate it. Have you ever thought why? It is a state born out of terrorism. Millions of Palestinians were forcefully evicted from their homes to create the state of Israel; these people have been living as refugees for over SIXTY YEARS in other countries whilst their homes and land is occupied by Israelis. Israel continues to occupy the West Bank and Gaza (technical occupation in Gaza, although no troops, they control everything), they humiliate Palestinians on a daily basis, they kill their leaders (democratically elected, there goes your democracy), they treat Palestinians worse than animals depriving them of basic goods and services, they continue to build on Palestinian land by forcing them off.

Israel is a fact of life, but we in the West must be fair and just, we are not at present, by any stretch of the imagination.

Generally I agree apart from the above points. However the role of what I would call a fascist desire for bringing shariah states is also a key element of terrorism. You do not believe me? Well read this recent article from an ex-British Muslim terrorist:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2115891,00.html

Here is a snippet:

When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network, a series of semi-autonomous British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology, I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.

By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the 'Blair's bombs' line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.

I do not consider Shariah law to be fascist. Just because some twisted and/or misguided terrorist/would be terrorist tells you what Shariah law is, don't accept this as fact.

Shariah law is a comprehensive set of laws designed to deal with every aspect of our lives. (See my other posts in threads 'If you beleive in God' and 'Terror Attacks' to clearly understand my position of God given commandments). I beleive you do not have enough understanding of Shariah law to be criticial of it or indeed declare that it is fascist. I will agree that some people who call themselves Muslims are fascists; but isn't that also true of Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, people of no faith etc.?

[Ducatiboy749]

You are right about the few spoiling it for the many.

On the question of sentence, I truly and honestly don't know. Someone who has reached that level of detachment probably cares about nothing or indeed cares about the cause so much he has forgotten about caring about anything else.

I think the only solution is to isolate them. How do we do this?

- Firstly, we do not give these cowards the ammunition they need by victimising all Muslims. I have heard comments like, 'look what they are doing to you';
- We do not give them ammunition like the US soldiers saying things like, 'what's the difference between one dead Iraqi and another dead Iraqi, there is no difference, who cares';
- We do not give them ammunition by locking up people without trial for long periods of time, the longest time anywhere in the Western world bar the US
- We do not give them ammunition by agreeing to ridicilous one-sided extradition treaty with the US, where they can extradite our citizens on their say-so, but we can't do the same to their
- We do not give them ammunition by building camps like Guantanamo
- We do not give them ammunition by accepting rendition
- We do not give them ammunition by honouring Salman Rushdie
- We do not give them ammunition by being one sided in the Israel/Palestine conflict
- We do not give them ammunition by unjustly invading Muslim countries
- We do not give them ammunition by supporting dictators in Muslim countries in one breath and talking about democracy in another

In other words if we are truly just, then Muslims themselves will isolate and deal with these individuals. You cannot change the world in day, but as a nation we must change they way we act and ensure we are fair and just

What is all this "we don't give them ammunition"?

"They" have provided the ammuinition. All the "do nots" you have kindly provided have come in response to the actions of the cowards you are correctly criticising surely?

[Red_on_Silver]

What is all this "we don't give them ammunition"?

"They" have provided the ammuinition. All the "do nots" you have kindly provided have come in response to the actions of the cowards you are correctly criticising surely?
The cowards justify their actions based on the DO NOTS I have listed. I wholeheartedly agree, there is no justification for murder. My point was we need to deal with the grievances of the British Muslims as a whole so these terrorists cannot brainwash anyone that murder is OK. If Muslims felt a sense a fairplay, I am more than certain these terrorists wouldn't have a chance to grow or a platform to spout murder; they would be swiflty dealt with by people within the community.

At the moment if I was to confront them, I will get a lot of 'they are doing x y or z' for which I have no real answer; my only answer is that we are forbiden to kill innocents. Sadly sometimes this is not enough because their mind has been so far turned where they see themselves as victims and that all Muslims are vidtims and have become subservient. They see themselves as protecting Muslims. Because of the grievances, enough Muslims will igonore these people, rather than confront them. It does not mean they either condone or sympathise with them.

The DO NOTS are historical and nothing to do with it being a reaction to the terrorists, these have been factors for decades.

[Ducatiboy749]

Fair points. So let's go back to your original suggestion as your original list to me just seemed like a list of justifications as to why they are allowed to commit murder ("stop unjustly invading Muslim countries" - I assume that's your opinion of un-just?) ....

I think the only solution is to isolate them. How do we do this?


The media have a responsibility to not fan the flames so to speak. By this I mean that when some little back-street scally sets fire to a bundle of straw purporting to be Gere/Bush/Blair/The Queen, we don't see "Muslims react to Gere kissing Shilpa" all over the front pages. I am guessing (and hoping) that most Muslims couldn't give a flying f*ck as well as non-Muslims.

The governments in the muslim states have an equal responsibilty to not fan the flames. I think we all know that there are certain politicians in countries like Pakistan who are able to start the ball rolling when there's the slightest issue somewhere that they don't agree with and incite certain sectors of the populus.

The governments in the Western World need to be a little more sensitive.

Any more?

With regards Guantanamo (probably another issue altogether)... was that not set up for people who committed crimes against humanity? ie It wasn't set up just for the fun of it to see how many people they could collar........

If so, I believe it needs to stay exactly where it is providing of course they have sufficient proof that the people housed there are actually guilty of such a crime.

[1984]

First of all Red on Silver, did you read that link I provided?

Right, we could be some time here......excuse the editing but I shall try to cut down on space.

I have to disagree. Whatever his treatment has been, only he is responsible for provoking that reaction. I would not like someone calling my mother a 'w#ore'. In effect his attack on the Prophet Muhammed was exactly that kind of insult. Bearing in mind most Muslims hold the Prophet dearer to their hearts than own family should give you an idea why the reaction as so fierce.

So you think fatwas are legimate, then? Nothing, absolutely nothing deserves the penalty of death in my opinion. Now one could debate that as to various points, but getting one for writing a book is another matter entirely! The problem was not the book, it was the massive over-reaction.

Plus, if we are to talk about material which is deemed to be inflamatory, how about the great deal of anti-Jewish stuff coming out of the likes of Iran and Arab countries? Even then, calling for death penalties would be ridiculous.

I will not discuss knighthoods though, as we know that any twat such as that one the other side of the M62 can get one. ;)

Again I have to disagree strongly. Both the US and UK have a one sided policy towards Israel. When hundreds of Palestinians are killed, hardly a murmur, when a single Israeli dies, there's widespread condemnation and retaliation.

No. In GB there have been many protests on the street against the actions of Israel, but none against Hamas and their killing of innocent people. Double standards.

You say Israel is surrounded by big states that want to obliterate it. Have you ever thought why? It is a state born out of terrorism. Millions of Palestinians were forcefully evicted from their homes to create the state of Israel;

Could you substantiate that claim?

these people have been living as refugees for over SIXTY YEARS in other countries whilst their homes and land is occupied by Israelis.

Funny, a Holocaust survivor I know told me of how he was put into custody after his liberation from Dachau and sent to Israel and settled there by the British, which he tried to do. The thing was, the local Palestinians were attacking them in their homes with guns. The British response was to take the guns away from the Jews.

One must not forget that a minority of Jews were in Palestine before 1947. One must also not forget that the declaration that Jews were to have their own land (having been forced out in 70 CE) had come into being before WWII, and that the British policy was resettling Jews there. But Jordan, Turkey, Muslims in India and other countries lobbied GB against that. That was in the 1920s and 30s. Another fact I know is that the Mufti of Jerusalem and Prime Minister of Iraq had visited the Sachsenhausen concentration camp (I work there in the memorial site) and had interest in them in using them for Jews in their countries.

I mention this because, while I agree that

Israel continues to occupy the West Bank and Gaza (technical occupation in Gaza, although no troops, they control everything), they humiliate Palestinians on a daily basis, they kill their leaders (democratically elected, there goes your democracy), they treat Palestinians worse than animals depriving them of basic goods and services, they continue to build on Palestinian land by forcing them off.

but you must realise that things are more complicated than you seem to think. Historical anti-Semetism is a factor behind the persecution of Israel by its neighbour states. About 40 years ago all its neighbouring countries wanted to destroy it. That does not help rational and peaceful thinking.

Israel is a fact of life, but we in the West must be fair and just, we are not at present, by any stretch of the imagination.

Now, wikipedias definition of fascism is

´Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the needs of the state, and seeks to forge a type of national unity, usually based on, but not limited to, ethnic, cultural, or racial attributes`

I am, as you said, not an expert on Shariah law. I would say however that I know that things like death penalties are meted out for not being Muslim. That seems to meet the above definition in my view.

If you or someone like Code Red could enlighten me further what Shariah means; if I am wrong with the above understanding and where things like corporal punishment, stoning to death of those commiting adultery (including rape victims) stand with regard to Shariah law, I would be delighted. :)

I do not consider Shariah law to be fascist. Just because some twisted and/or misguided terrorist/would be terrorist tells you what Shariah law is, don't accept this as fact.

Shariah law is a comprehensive set of laws designed to deal with every aspect of our lives. (See my other posts in threads 'If you beleive in God' and 'Terror Attacks' to clearly understand my position of God given commandments). I beleive you do not have enough understanding of Shariah law to be criticial of it or indeed declare that it is fascist.

I will agree that some people who call themselves Muslims are fascists; but isn't that also true of Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, people of no faith etc.?

I agree with this last paragraph.

Look mate I agree with a lot of your points. I have been involved in peace action work and inter-faith dialogue, and have been to many talks about the situation in Israel; all done with an anti-Israeli action view in mind, something which is also the case with the British media in my opinion. However, my reading of the quoted article, together with my contact with Israelis and learning about history tells me that, while the actions of the US and British governments have made the situation worse, elements within Islamic thinking and theology are also factors behind terrorism.

[Red_on_Silver]

First of all Red on Silver, did you read that link I provided?

Right, we could be some time here......excuse the editing but I shall try to cut down on space.

I have to disagree. Whatever his treatment has been, only he is responsible for provoking that reaction. I would not like someone calling my mother a 'w#ore'. In effect his attack on the Prophet Muhammed was exactly that kind of insult. Bearing in mind most Muslims hold the Prophet dearer to their hearts than own family should give you an idea why the reaction as so fierce.

So you think fatwas are legimate, then? Nothing, absolutely nothing deserves the penalty of death in my opinion. Now one could debate that as to various points, but getting one for writing a book is another matter entirely! The problem was not the book, it was the massive over-reaction.

I never said the fatwas were legitimate. Fatwas of these type can only be given and be valid in an Islamic state. I do not consider any state (Iran, Saudi Arabia et al) to be Islamic states. Even if they were, the Fatwas cannot be valid beyond the boundaries of that Islamic state. If you read my other posts, I state again and again, we as Muslims are commanded by God to respect the law of the country in which we reside.

I do not accept that legitmate protests against the book was an over-reaction. You have to understand the depth of feeling Muslims have for their prophets, including Muhammed, Jesus etc (pbut)

Plus, if we are to talk about material which is deemed to be inflamatory, how about the great deal of anti-Jewish stuff coming out of the likes of Iran and Arab countries? Even then, calling for death penalties would be ridiculous.

Rubbish being written by unknown and often anynomous writers is not the same as a novel by a leading author which is designed nothing but to denigrade

I will not discuss knighthoods though, as we know that any twat such as that one the other side of the M62 can get one. ;)

Again I have to disagree strongly. Both the US and UK have a one sided policy towards Israel. When hundreds of Palestinians are killed, hardly a murmur, when a single Israeli dies, there's widespread condemnation and retaliation.

No. In GB there have been many protests on the street against the actions of Israel, but none against Hamas and their killing of innocent people. Double standards.

I think the public in the UK generally have a great sense of jusitce and fair play and that is why you see protests against Israel. The reason why you have no protests against Hamas is because Israel is the agressor, occupying someone elese's land, killings it's people etc.

If Germany had succeded in invading Britain in WWII and forced you out of your home at gunpoint, wouldn't you have a right to resist that military occupation with an armed response?

You say Israel is surrounded by big states that want to obliterate it. Have you ever thought why? It is a state born out of terrorism. Millions of Palestinians were forcefully evicted from their homes to create the state of Israel;

Could you substantiate that claim?

This demonstrates your ignorance and almost an Israel apologist. Look at the UN records, which is not disputed by a single nation in the world including the US and Israel. There are approximately 4.5 million palestinian refugees in Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Syria and so on in refugee camps.

The reason Israel will not allow a return of these refugees to their righful homes is because Israel would then me made of more Palestinian Arabs than Israeli Jews

Look at any archives in the UN, British Library or wherever and you will see documented how the Palestinian Arabs were driven from their homes in 1948 and then again in 1967.

these people have been living as refugees for over SIXTY YEARS in other countries whilst their homes and land is occupied by Israelis.

Funny, a Holocaust survivor I know told me of how he was put into custody after his liberation from Dachau and sent to Israel and settled there by the British, which he tried to do. The thing was, the local Palestinians were attacking them in their homes with guns. The British response was to take the guns away from the Jews.

The original Jews who began settling after WWII into Palestine were welcomed by the Palestianians as semite brothers. It was not until there was the demand for the creating of Israel that problems were created. You must not forget that early settlers purchased land from the Palestinians, but once they could not buy further land, it was being taken at gunpoint

One must not forget that a minority of Jews were in Palestine before 1947. One must also not forget that the declaration that Jews were to have their own land (having been forced out in 70 CE) had come into being before WWII, and that the British policy was resettling Jews there. But Jordan, Turkey, Muslims in India and other countries lobbied GB against that. That was in the 1920s and 30s. Another fact I know is that the Mufti of Jerusalem and Prime Minister of Iraq had visited the Sachsenhausen concentration camp (I work there in the memorial site) and had interest in them in using them for Jews in their countries.

It's all great having a declaration, in theis case the Balfour Declaration of 1917, but you need the agreement of all interested parties. Where was the agreement of the Arabs for the creation of this Homeland? In fact the original Jewish Homeland was to be in Argentina.

I mention this because, while I agree that

Israel continues to occupy the West Bank and Gaza (technical occupation in Gaza, although no troops, they control everything), they humiliate Palestinians on a daily basis, they kill their leaders (democratically elected, there goes your democracy), they treat Palestinians worse than animals depriving them of basic goods and services, they continue to build on Palestinian land by forcing them off.

but you must realise that things are more complicated than you seem to think. Historical anti-Semetism is a factor behind the persecution of Israel by its neighbour states. About 40 years ago all its neighbouring countries wanted to destroy it. That does not help rational and peaceful thinking.

Israel is a fact of life, but we in the West must be fair and just, we are not at present, by any stretch of the imagination.

Now, wikipedias definition of fascism is

´Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the needs of the state, and seeks to forge a type of national unity, usually based on, but not limited to, ethnic, cultural, or racial attributes`

I am, as you said, not an expert on Shariah law. I would say however that I know that things like death penalties are meted out for not being Muslim. That seems to meet the above definition in my view.

If you or someone like Code Red could enlighten me further what Shariah means; if I am wrong with the above understanding and where things like corporal punishment, stoning to death of those commiting adultery (including rape victims) stand with regard to Shariah law, I would be delighted. :)

First of all read my posts about God's Laws (I think in Terror Attacks, and If you beleive in God). So as a beleiving Muslim (or Christian or Jews for that matter), I have to accept the whole of his religion or none at all. Corporal punishment and capital punishment is a part the judicial punishment in certain cases, like murder etc.

There are so many safeguards in the Shariah judicial process, that it is absurd to think that capital punishment or stoning to death is common place. In fact not only is it ludicrous and defies beleif that anyone can accept that rape victims are stoned to death. If anything, the perpetrator of this heinous act would suffer this fate.

Let me just give you a snippet, before anyone accuses someone of adultery, they must have at FOUR eye witnesses to that event, not hearsay, actual eye witnesses. If they cannot produce the requisite number of eye witnesses, they are liable for punishment for slander. Please I beg you don't beleive all the hype.

Sharia simply means a collection of Laws. In this case it means, judicial as well as every aspect of a Muslim's life.

I do not consider Shariah law to be fascist. Just because some twisted and/or misguided terrorist/would be terrorist tells you what Shariah law is, don't accept this as fact.

Shariah law is a comprehensive set of laws designed to deal with every aspect of our lives. (See my other posts in threads 'If you beleive in God' and 'Terror Attacks' to clearly understand my position of God given commandments). I beleive you do not have enough understanding of Shariah law to be criticial of it or indeed declare that it is fascist.

I will agree that some people who call themselves Muslims are fascists; but isn't that also true of Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, people of no faith etc.?

I agree with this last paragraph.

Look mate I agree with a lot of your points. I have been involved in peace action work and inter-faith dialogue, and have been to many talks about the situation in Israel; all done with an anti-Israeli action view in mind, something which is also the case with the British media in my opinion. However, my reading of the quoted article, together with my contact with Israelis and learning about history tells me that, while the actions of the US and British governments have made the situation worse, elements within Islamic thinking and theology are also factors behind terrorism.

The creation of Israel has been a major geo-political mistake. Not because that there shouldn't be a Homeland for the Jews, but the nature of it's creation, rooted in terrorism and the loss of lives. An imposition by force on an established nation and the abandonment by Britain when they couldn't control the situation.

I know many figures in the Islamic world fan the flames of hatred, but they are a minority and they certainly do not represent Islam. Just do a quick search on google and you will find many hundred of speeches by leading Israeli politician including Nathenyahu, who consider the Palestinians/Arabs worse than dogs and the blood of one Israeli is worth a thousand Arabs.
I hope I am actually educating rather than inflaming. Dialogue in any form is better than no dialogue which only leads to erronous assumptions, suspicion and even hatred.

[Red_on_Silver]

With regards Guantanamo (probably another issue altogether)... was that not set up for people who committed crimes against humanity? ie It wasn't set up just for the fun of it to see how many people they could collar........

If so, I believe it needs to stay exactly where it is providing of course they have sufficient proof that the people housed there are actually guilty of such a crime.

The problem is that Guantanamo was exactly that, just pick anybody up, I suppose to satisfy the American public that something was being done.

Most of people have been released WITHOUT charge or any restriction on their freedom BUT ONLY AFTER BEING BEING INCARSERATED FOR YEARS.

The few that remain can't even be put on trial because everytime George Bush does goes to court he loses dur to a lack of evidence. They never offer evidence. In the meantime these people are just locked up. There are a few, a handful, no more than 20 or so, who may be considered dangerous but the original numbers detained were in their thousands.

We learned the painful lesson in Northern Ireland that internment does not work but is counter-productive.

[1984]

I knew this could take some time. ;)

I ask again, did you read that article I quoted from earlier?

If you read my other posts, I state again and again, we as Muslims are commanded by God to respect the law of the country in which we reside.

To tell the truth I do not have time to read many threads. I only have time for this as I am off work sick at the moment. Anyway, I never said anything to the contary of the above.

I do not accept that legitmate protests against the book was an over-reaction. You have to understand the depth of feeling Muslims have for their prophets, including Muhammed, Jesus etc (pbut)

Calling for someone to be killed is a legitimate protest? I did not realise you were Muslim as I thought Muslims wrote the words peace be upon him when they write Mohammeds name.

The case for censorship is a complex one, in that it is implied that Rushdie should have censored himself. Arguments against self-censorship include the right to free speech. Now, that right can be abused. As far as I am aware, however, Rushdie did not attack the human rights of Muslims or use inflamatory speech. If he had said kill all Muslims or something I could understand protests more, but even then calling him to be killed would be out of order.

I am Christian. We get slated all over the place! One needs a thick skin to be one with regards to insults. I say though that in a multi-cultural world one should be able to take insults. Especially without resorting to calling someone to be killed.

Rubbish being written by unknown and often anynomous writers is not the same as a novel by a leading author which is designed nothing but to denigrade

Or even events supported by the Iranian government.......and the highlighted text is just an opinion.

I think the public in the UK generally have a great sense of jusitce and fair play and that is why you see protests against Israel. The reason why you have no protests against Hamas is because Israel is the agressor, occupying someone elese's land, killings it's people etc.

So attacking civilians is not an aggressive act?

Sorry I cannot now deal with the rest of your comments as I will be in trouble if I do not get myself ready to go out now. ;) I do not know when I shall have computer access again so do not know when I can deal with the rest of your comments. I will say that you are informing and not inflaming and I am enjoying this discussion, though you have not addressed the quoted article by the Muslim or a few other comments. Anyway, have a good weekend. :)

[1984]

Here, I am back again.

This demonstrates your ignorance and almost an Israel apologist. Look at the UN records, which is not disputed by a single nation in the world including the US and Israel. There are approximately 4.5 million palestinian refugees in Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Syria and so on in refugee camps.

Now now, I only asked. No need for an over-reaction. I did not know.

Strange Israeli apologist me, then, eh, what with me agreeing with your criticism of them? In fact I would counter that you seem to be a Hamas apologist.

after his liberation from Dachau and sent to Israel and settled there by the British, which he tried to do. The thing was, the local Palestinians were attacking them in their homes with guns. The British response was to take the guns away from the Jews.

The original Jews who began settling after WWII into Palestine were welcomed by the Palestianians as semite brothers. It was not until there was the demand for the creating of Israel that problems were created. You must not forget that early settlers purchased land from the Palestinians, but once they could not buy further land, it was being taken at gunpoint

So this man was lying then?

It's all great having a declaration, in theis case the Balfour Declaration of 1917, but you need the agreement of all interested parties. Where was the agreement of the Arabs for the creation of this Homeland? In fact the original Jewish Homeland was to be in Argentina.

Which is presumably where you would have put then, if you had had the choice. I did not say that the creation of Israel was a problem-free thing.

I imagine you know why they chose Israel, and why it took place at that time?

You seem to be denying that Muslims in Palestine were against Jews. What you left out was that the Mutfi of Jerusalem and others had met with Hitler in order to sound them out in taking part in the Holocaust. This same Mufti had called for pogroms against Jews in the 1920's. So don't give me this 'open arms' business.

First of all read my posts about God's Laws (I think in Terror Attacks, and If you beleive in God). So as a beleiving Muslim (or Christian or Jews for that matter), I have to accept the whole of his religion or none at all. Corporal punishment and capital punishment is a part the judicial punishment in certain cases, like murder etc.

Oh come on, you know very well that there are different interpretations of Muslim law, just like there are in Jewish and Christian traditions. For example, some Muslims will pray putting their heads on the ground, others will use a beautiful carpet.

I do not consider Shariah law to be fascist. Just because some twisted and/or misguided terrorist/would be terrorist tells you what Shariah law is, don't accept this as fact.

Or ex terrorist, in the case I mentioned.



The creation of Israel has been a major geo-political mistake. Not because that there shouldn't be a Homeland for the Jews, but the nature of it's creation, rooted in terrorism and the loss of lives. An imposition by force on an established nation and the abandonment by Britain when they couldn't control the situation.

I know many figures in the Islamic world fan the flames of hatred, but they are a minority and they certainly do not represent Islam. Just do a quick search on google and you will find many hundred of speeches by leading Israeli politician including Nathenyahu, who consider the Palestinians/Arabs worse than dogs and the blood of one Israeli is worth a thousand Arabs.



This thread that you started in order, so it seems, to 'inform' others and not to learn from others, was about terrorism. Time and time again I have made the point that I agree with a lot of your political analysis. My point is that there is part of Islamic terrorism which has nothing to do with the war in Iraq or other western abuses, rather, it is a lot to do with a branch of Islamic theology; a fatalisic theology that celebrates death, that believes that a Shariah law world can be brought into being by the death of innocents, a world where all are Muslim, where other 'infidel' are killed. That is fascism.

[Red_on_Silver]

I knew this could take some time. ;)

I ask again, did you read that article I quoted from earlier?

No I haven't, but I will, I promise. But my brief comment would be that views of a few does not represent the majority, particularly in something as sensitive as Islam at the moment.

If you read my other posts, I state again and again, we as Muslims are commanded by God to respect the law of the country in which we reside.

To tell the truth I do not have time to read many threads. I only have time for this as I am off work sick at the moment. Anyway, I never said anything to the contary of the above.

That's OK, you don't have to read all my posts ;) . Seriosly though, read my thread, Terror Attacks, this will help you put into context my views.

I do not accept that legitmate protests against the book was an over-reaction. You have to understand the depth of feeling Muslims have for their prophets, including Muhammed, Jesus etc (pbut)

Calling for someone to be killed is a legitimate protest? I did not realise you were Muslim as I thought Muslims wrote the words peace be upon him when they write Mohammeds name.

OK, you need to take this in context with everything I have said about Islam. Salman Rushdie's tome is blasphemous and in Islam that is a capital offence. Whether you accept capital punishment or not is another matter. My point about religion has always been, that you accept the whole or none of it at all. However, it think it was cheeky of Iran to issue a Fatwa, ordering death; they have no authority. If the Iranians want to see blasphemy, they should read some of their writings which can be deemed pretty obnoxious. A Fatwa of this type (not all Fatwas) can only be issued by the Head of the Islamic Ummah (Nation/Community), otherwise known as a Caliph. Since Islam has no Caliphs, I don't see who can issue a Fatwa of such magnitude. For a minute let us assume that Iran had a right to isue that Fatwa, in this case it is valid only within an Islamic state. It cannot apply in Britain or any other non-Muslim land. Muslims living in non-Muslim land CANNOT take the law into their own hands and commit murder. If Iran felt strongly enough, it could have declared war on Britain and captured Rushdie for punishment.

As I have said before, Muslims feel very strongly about their Prophets and are willing to lay down their lives in the cause of defending his honour. However, I believe that some, and I STRESS SOME, people calling for Rushdie to be killed, on the street of the UK was over the top and hot-headedness.
The case for censorship is a complex one, in that it is implied that Rushdie should have censored himself. Arguments against self-censorship include the right to free speech. Now, that right can be abused. As far as I am aware, however, Rushdie did not attack the human rights of Muslims or use inflamatory speech. If he had said kill all Muslims or something I could understand protests more, but even then calling him to be killed would be out of order.

I am Christian. We get slated all over the place! One needs a thick skin to be one with regards to insults. I say though that in a multi-cultural world one should be able to take insults. Especially without resorting to calling someone to be killed.

If you insult me personally I will walk away from you. If you criticise Islam, I will debate with you. If you criticise Muslims, I will seek common ground with you. Rushdie did none of these things; he insulted in the most deragatory way, the Prophet. My feelings towards Rushdie is one of contempt and my feelings would be the same if he insulted Prophets Jesus, Moses, Abraham (PBUT) and so on. In an Islamic state Rushdie's punishment for insult to these great Prophets would be the same.

Rubbish being written by unknown and often anynomous writers is not the same as a novel by a leading author which is designed nothing but to denigrade

Or even events supported by the Iranian government.......and the highlighted text is just an opinion.

You may think that what I have said is an opinion, but ask anyone whether, having read Rushie, they concur with my sentiments and I think you will find that 90% will agree with me.

If Rushdie had written something of this vile nature about Jewish people, he would be, quite rghtly, roundly condemned as an anti-semite. If Rushdie had written in similar terms about blck people, he would be, quite rightly codemned as a racist. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression quite clearly has boundaries. If in civilised society we do not accept racism and anti-semitism, how can we accept Islamophobic crap? Look at the recent crisis of the Tintin comic. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression does not give you the right to gratitiously insult and denigrade a group of people, whoever they may be.

I think the public in the UK generally have a great sense of jusitce and fair play and that is why you see protests against Israel. The reason why you have no protests against Hamas is because Israel is the agressor, occupying someone elese's land, killings it's people etc.

So attacking civilians is not an aggressive act?

Again you need to read my other thread. Attacking civilians is not an option. However, my point about aggressor was in he context of Israel being an occupying force, thus aggressor.

Sorry I cannot now deal with the rest of your comments as I will be in trouble if I do not get myself ready to go out now. ;) I do not know when I shall have computer access again so do not know when I can deal with the rest of your comments. I will say that you are informing and not inflaming and I am enjoying this discussion, though you have not addressed the quoted article by the Muslim or a few other comments. Anyway, have a good weekend. :)

Sorry it took a while to respond but I have been a little busy. I see you've posted another response, I will try to respond to this now.

Thank you, I had a good weekend, I hope you had the same. having said that we're heading into another weekend. How time flies.

[Red_on_Silver]

This thread that you started in order, so it seems, to 'inform' others and not to learn from others, was about terrorism. Time and time again I have made the point that I agree with a lot of your political analysis. My point is that there is part of Islamic terrorism which has nothing to do with the war in Iraq or other western abuses, rather, it is a lot to do with a branch of Islamic theology; a fatalisic theology that celebrates death, that believes that a Shariah law world can be brought into being by the death of innocents, a world where all are Muslim, where other 'infidel' are killed. That is fascism.

I promise I will deal with the article, but I needed to make a response about points you raise.

There are fanatics who subscribe to the view you have outlined. But these people cannot claim to be doing this in the name of Islam, because their very actions are un-Islamic. There is a CLEAR PROHIBITION in the Noble Quran against the taking of innocent lives.

I agree with you that people will take advantage of a situation to cause mayhem, commit murder and so on. They are mindless; they are not Muslims and their acts are not Islamic.

THERE IS NO BRANCH OF ISLAM that celebrates death; THERE IS NO BRANCH OF ISLAM that advocates the death of inocents; THERE IS NO BRANCH OF ISLAM that supports the killing of 'infidels' in order for the world to be wholly Muslim. It is because of this faith I don't call these people Islamic Terrorists, merely mindless fanatical terrorists. God is for the whole of humanity and Prophet Muhammed (SAWS) was sent as a mercy to the whole of humanity.

Sharia Law is a representation of God's Law and taken from the Noble Quran, thus it is not Islamic Jurisprudence that is fascist but fascists that have hijacked the minds of people to make them beleive that they represent Islam and Sharia Law. This is totally false. We in the West give these people the nourishment they need to grow by allowing injustices to take place against Muslims.

[glockdanny]

My next point is, why is it that the same juidicial process that can clearly deliver justice, fails so miserably in other cases of voilence i.e. murder

The sentence for murder is fixed by law ie. life. Just what 'life' means, however....

[Red_on_Silver]

Here, I am back again.

This demonstrates your ignorance and almost an Israel apologist. Look at the UN records, which is not disputed by a single nation in the world including the US and Israel. There are approximately 4.5 million palestinian refugees in Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Syria and so on in refugee camps.

Now now, I only asked. No need for an over-reaction. I did not know.

I apologise if you felt it was an over-reaction. I merely look at images of these people livingin refugee camps for over SIXTY years when their own home is occupied by someone else. I feel sorrow to view these images. 4.5 Million People with no hop of returning home.

Strange Israeli apologist me, then, eh, what with me agreeing with your criticism of them? In fact I would counter that you seem to be a Hamas apologist.

I can't recall you agreeing with my criticism of Israel; if you have thank you. In terms of Hamas; we have to separate the different parts that make up Hamas. In a political and humanitarian context, it an acknowledged fact where Hamas have had local government powers or has been able to operate as Non-Government Organisation it has done great work; in terms of education for boys and girls alike; good welfare programmes; excellent health programmes andso on. This is acknowledged by both the UN and most western Governments. Hamas' achilles heel has been it's military operations. On the one hand as a resistance force trying to repel an occupying force, it would have very few detractors; however, it is the use of suicide bombers, particularly against the civilian population that is unacceptable and abhorrent. So no I am not a Hamas apologist.

after his liberation from Dachau and sent to Israel and settled there by the British, which he tried to do. The thing was, the local Palestinians were attacking them in their homes with guns. The British response was to take the guns away from the Jews.

The original Jews who began settling after WWII into Palestine were welcomed by the Palestianians as semite brothers. It was not until there was the demand for the creating of Israel that problems were created. You must not forget that early settlers purchased land from the Palestinians, but once they could not buy further land, it was being taken at gunpoint

So this man was lying then?

I would never accuse anyone of lying, unless I spoke to them face to face. What he said my well be true. In a situation that the British began to lose control, who knows what incidents took place. I know that the British truly screwed up and allowed terrorism to prosper and create and state by force.

It could well be that the gentleman's recollection is a little hazy and faulty. It is all about perception. Would you blame someone who has survived the holocaust, who felt a persecuted in a new land. I know that I am sensitive to some things and with time my recollection of the event is probably coloured by a multitude of things.

We in the West have a guilt complex when it concerns Jewish people. We turned a blind eye to their genocide and we should be thoroughly ashamed. I had hoped to God we would never allow tis to take place again, but we did, in Cambodia, in Rwanda, in Bosnia and now in Sudan.

Anyway, our guilt about our great failing should not mean we unjustly support everything that Israel does. In any case we confuse Jewish people with the state of Israel; one does not utomatically equate to the other. I have Jewish friends but I stand against everything the state of Israel does.

It's all great having a declaration, in theis case the Balfour Declaration of 1917, but you need the agreement of all interested parties. Where was the agreement of the Arabs for the creation of this Homeland? In fact the original Jewish Homeland was to be in Argentina.

Which is presumably where you would have put then, if you had had the choice. I did not say that the creation of Israel was a problem-free thing.

Actually no. I beleive the Jewish people should have a homeland where they felt comfortable, where they were welcome and where that state was created legitamately. I am a globalist and I don't beleive in these artificial borders that restrict our right of free passage and movement. We are made up tribes and nations but we must not be dictated to where we can go and where we cannot. If I buy a piece of land from my brother (whether he is Muslim, Jew, Christian, Hindu or Sikh), I should be able to make my home there

I imagine you know why they chose Israel, and why it took place at that time?

You seem to be denying that Muslims in Palestine were against Jews. What you left out was that the Mutfi of Jerusalem and others had met with Hitler in order to sound them out in taking part in the Holocaust. This same Mufti had called for pogroms against Jews in the 1920's. So don't give me this 'open arms' business.

First of all read my posts about God's Laws (I think in Terror Attacks, and If you beleive in God). So as a beleiving Muslim (or Christian or Jews for that matter), I have to accept the whole of his religion or none at all. Corporal punishment and capital punishment is a part the judicial punishment in certain cases, like murder etc.

Oh come on, you know very well that there are different interpretations of Muslim law, just like there are in Jewish and Christian traditions. For example, some Muslims will pray putting their heads on the ground, others will use a beautiful carpet.

I agree that there are different interpretation of Islamic Law, BUT THERE IS NO DISAGREEMENT in the fundementals amongst any of the major schools of thoughts. Everything I have stated thus far have been about the fundementals. We can disagree about whether we pray at 8.05 p.m. or 8.35 p.m. but these are minor issues not fundemental to upholding the faith.

I do not consider Shariah law to be fascist. Just because some twisted and/or misguided terrorist/would be terrorist tells you what Shariah law is, don't accept this as fact.

Or ex terrorist, in the case I mentioned.

What I meant was about present day active terrorists.

The creation of Israel has been a major geo-political mistake. Not because that there shouldn't be a Homeland for the Jews, but the nature of it's creation, rooted in terrorism and the loss of lives. An imposition by force on an established nation and the abandonment by Britain when they couldn't control the situation.

I know many figures in the Islamic world fan the flames of hatred, but they are a minority and they certainly do not represent Islam. Just do a quick search on google and you will find many hundred of speeches by leading Israeli politician including Nathenyahu, who consider the Palestinians/Arabs worse than dogs and the blood of one Israeli is worth a thousand Arabs.


I think that covers most aspects.

Once agains I promise to read that article and give you my thoughts.

[1984]

I mention this because, while I agree that

Israel continues to occupy the West Bank and Gaza (technical occupation in Gaza, although no troops, they control everything), they humiliate Palestinians on a daily basis, they kill their leaders (democratically elected, there goes your democracy), they treat Palestinians worse than animals depriving them of basic goods and services, they continue to build on Palestinian land by forcing them off.

but you must realise that things are more complicated than you seem to think. Historical anti-Semetism is a factor behind the persecution of Israel by its neighbour states. About 40 years ago all its neighbouring countries wanted to destroy it. That does not help rational and peaceful thinking

I was agreeing with what you said about Israel there.

Hamas' achilles heel is also its goal of eliminating the state of Israel.

My friend is in good health and can remember things very well.

I know that there are different interpretations of Islamic law, such as elements of Shariah; to give an example, killing people. Some Muslims stress the merciful God over the killing God. I am also aware the jihad is to be understood as a fight against oneself, in terms of one's ability to do wrong and not submit to God's ways.

[Red_on_Silver]

I was agreeing with what you said about Israel there.

Hamas' achilles heel is also its goal of eliminating the state of Israel.

My friend is in good health and can remember things very well.

I know that there are different interpretations of Islamic law, such as elements of Shariah; to give an example, killing people. Some Muslims stress the merciful God over the killing God. I am also aware the jihad is to be understood as a fight against oneself, in terms of one's ability to do wrong and not submit to God's ways.

Thanks for pointing that out about agreeing with me.

Hamas' aim of eliminating Israel is a political aim and you have to view that in the context an occupying force, and the creating of an artificial state through terrorist means. Israel is a reality and both sides will have to accomodate the other. Let the refugees return and have a fair settlement and in time these states can live side by side.

I did not say his memory was faulty, merely that it could be. Also, remembering something is often a emotional recollection and as such the actual event is seen in many perspective by many observers.

I think I have said in this thread or in Terror Attacks thread, that mercy is much more preferable and more rewarding in the eyes of God over revenge. In essence, killing someone for murder is revenge, whether this is done by the state (judicial capital punishment) or by a vigilante. However, there is the judicial provision within Islamic law for capital punishment and this is the ultimate sanction. I think, despite people's personal opinions, all Islamic scholars of jurisprudence will agree with this fundemental interpretation.

Jihad has many meanings, but first and foremost it is the fight in the cause of Allah and defending Islam. This may be a physical war or it may an intellectual one. I have explained previously how and where Islam permits wars and how a war should be conducted. I accept that Jihad is also a personal struggle to do good in the ways of Allah and abstain from doing wrong. However, I will not shy away from admitting that Jihad can mean a military campaign.

Thanks for the debate and maybe we can discuss further in the future.