Muslim leaders condemn killers in Ossetia

Some rather direct words here. From Muslims. In some cases, from Muslim scholars. For example:

Deserved words? Some would argue yes. Some would argue no. It is one of the first times, if i recall correctly, that i have come across such harsh words from Muslims themselves…perhaps it’s time for more self-introspection.

Muslim leaders condemn killers, David Smith, The Observer, 5 September 2004

Islamic leaders in the Middle East yesterday denounced the slaughter of children in Russia as ‘unIslamic’, as commentators asked unusually soul-searching questions about the region and terrorism.

Even the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt’s biggest Islamic group, condemned the bloody siege in Beslan. Its leader, Mohammed Mahdi Akef, said that kidnappings may be justified but killings are not. He added: ‘What happened is not jihad [holy war] because Islam obligates us to respect the souls of human beings; it is not about taking them away.’

While some Islamic fundamentalists in the Middle East have long supported fellow Muslims fighting in Chechnya, such was the barbarity of the hostage takers that few voices spoke in support of the actions in Ossetia. Egypt’s leading Muslim cleric, Grand Sheik Mohammed Sayed Tantawi, was quoted as saying during a Friday sermon: ‘What is the guilt of those children? Why should they be responsible for your conflict with the government? You are taking Islam as a cover and it is a deceptive cover; those who carry out the kidnappings are criminals, not Muslims.’

Ali Abdullah, an Islamic scholar in Bahrain who follows the ultra-conservative Salafi stream of Islam, also condemned the school attack as ‘unIslamic’. However, he insisted Muslims were not involved and revived an old conspiracy theory: ‘I have no doubt that this is the work of the Israelis, who want to tarnish the image of Muslims.’

But the reaction was overwhelmingly filled with revulsion. Abdulrahman al-Rashed wrote an article in the pan-Arab Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper under the headline: ‘The Painful Truth: All World Terrorists are Muslims!’

Al-Rashed said that Muslims will not be able to cleanse their image unless ‘we admit the scandalous facts… Our terrorist sons are an end-product of our corrupted culture. The picture is humiliating, painful and harsh for all of us.’

His extraordinary critique was echoed by Ahmed Bahgat, an Egyptian Islamist. Writing in the pro-government newspaper, Al-Ahram , he said hostage-takers in Russia and Iraq are only harming Islam. ‘If all the enemies of Islam united and decided to harm it… they wouldn’t have ruined and harmed its image as much as the sons of Islam have done by their stupidity, miscalculations and misunderstanding.’ Horrifying images of the dead and wounded students ‘showed Muslims as monsters who are fed by the blood of children and the pain of their families’.

Some sects claim that entire gropus of people have no right to live and deserved to be slaughtered. They are brutal toward noncombatants, including women and children.

Yes, indeed, many Muslims know about the hadith in which the Prophet (pbuh) ordered his companions not to kill any women or children, etc, *but very few know that there are exceptions to this case* <-- that's the theological justification for the murder of innocent civilians.

To make kids go through hunger and thrist, those people are fit to be called animals, forget about killing the kids.

Some choose not to follow the Prophet (pbuh) maybe?

It's a dark day for muslims.

Hazrat Ali(a.s) used to say that "Muslims and non-Musims should be treated alike. Muslims are your brothers and non-Muslims are human beings just like you"

Now it's said some of the rebels were Arabs.

What's the future going to be like? Today we go after kids, what about tomorrow, what's next?

Well don't you think it was cruel of them to kill children? C'mon I totally understand that they've killed so many of ours and have been so brutal but for God's sake they were children. what kind of jihad or holy war was that? it's disgusting and those ARE the words they deserve

how would you like it if someone kills your 7-8 yr old or 11 yr old or 15 yr old??? they are innocent they have no clue who is killing who and who hates who. for a minute look at it from a mother's eyes and not from a muslim's or a christian, etc's eyes and tell me how u feel n wut u think :). it's really sad and i totally agree with what they said, that they are trying to cover their actions with the name of Islam.

I can understand the rest, but this is a bit harsh. :) if this is what the muslim scholars say, i don't blame the non-muslims for thinking/saying all this about us.....sigh it's just so complicated nowadays, who to believe who to blame, may Allah(swt) protect us all and help us become true muslims...ameen

[QUOTE]
But the reaction was overwhelmingly filled with revulsion. Abdulrahman al-Rashed wrote an article in the pan-Arab Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper under the headline:** 'The Painful Truth: All World Terrorists are Muslims!'**

Al-Rashed said that Muslims will not be able to cleanse their image unless 'we admit the scandalous facts... Our terrorist sons are an end-product of our corrupted culture. The picture is humiliating, painful and harsh for all of us.'

[/QUOTE]

I think this incident in chechnya clearly shows the bias of western contries and there double standards.

We have seen it before when palestinians die everyday the west and there barbarian media don't even care less, when an israeli breaks a finger nail guarnteed it will be plastered alll across media muslim terrorists attack jew.

Same in chechnya children dying everday schools get bombed its not new in chechnya, women picked up and raped in front of there husbands and there is silence now that russian children dying it suddenly becomes shocking and brutal why is there such double standards from these hypocrites but then again i just answered my own question!

Its very easy to condemn but the only way out is to fix the root cause of the problem which is Russian brutality which started this whole mess in chechnya!

I would like to know if a single Muslim feels shame for the act of some of Islamic companions.

Though some words of opening article really attracted me…..

“Its leader, Mohammed Mahdi Akef, said that kidnappings may be justified but killings are not.”

And here once again we come across a theory of design…..

“'I have no doubt that this is the work of the Israelis, who want to tarnish the image of Muslims.'”

anjaan people getting bored of your same old muslim bashing lines can you think of some new ones!

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by anjjan: *
I would like to know if a single Muslim feels shame for the act of some of Islamic companions.

[/QUOTE]

in Islam we do not take shame nor guilt for any deed dont by anyone else beside our on self and we do not hold anyone else responsible for the deeds of anyone else....

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ak47: *
anjaan people getting bored of your same old muslim bashing lines can you think of some new ones!
[/QUOTE]

can you say how you are going to win aginast conventional armies of'
west , russia india and israel by not pursuing negotiated settlement to all issues?

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by rvikz: *

can you say how you are going to win aginast conventional armies of'
west , russia india and israel by not pursuing negotiated settlement to all issues?
[/QUOTE]

Realistically it is no win for all sides. For The chechens to defeat Russia and for the Palestinians to defeat the illegal Israeli state they need a fully functioning state that will provide the military infrastructure that will provide them with the logistics to fight these entities untill then the gureilla warfare tactic just keeps Russia and Israel on the backfoot!

Negotiations usually take place between equal players when one is the bully they never will give a fair settlement and this is seen in both cases Russia and Israel behave like bullies and always go back on there words, for example Russia pulled out of 1st Chechen war and said this is end of Chechen invasion and 2 years later they lied and went back on there words and invaded again based on dubious grounds. Israel well we all know how many lies they have been telling too many to list here!

AK, is there no library or a bookstore nearby where you live? Does not your internet approach to any reasoning, educational websites?

:topic:

anjaan ur boring me get a life man :yawn:

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by rvikz: *
can you say how you are going to win aginast conventional armies of'
west , russia india and israel by not pursuing negotiated settlement to all issues?
[/QUOTE]

The idea behind asymmetric warfare is not to be able to comprehensively defeat such conventional armies; in fact, the very premise upon which asymmetric warfare is based is that the opposing conventional army is impossible to defeat with the forces at hand.

The goal of asymmetric warfare is to achieve a strategic victory without defeating the opposing army - ideally, with minimal engagement against the troops of the opposing force.

The proponents of asymmetric warfare instead maintain that a sufficient application of force against the opposing force's weakness is capable of forcing a negotiated settlement in favour of them.

You find very few (in fact, I can think of none) applicators of aymmetric warfare who expressly maintain that such a strategy is capable of leading to a defeat of a conventional army.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mAd_ScIeNtIsT: *

The idea behind asymmetric warfare is not to be able to comprehensively defeat such conventional armies; in fact, the very premise upon which asymmetric warfare is based is that the opposing conventional army is impossible to defeat with the forces at hand.

The goal of asymmetric warfare is to achieve a strategic victory without defeating the opposing army - ideally, with minimal engagement against the troops of the opposing force.

The proponents of asymmetric warfare instead maintain that a sufficient application of force against the opposing force's weakness is capable of forcing a negotiated settlement in favour of them.

You find very few (in fact, I can think of none) applicators of aymmetric warfare who expressly maintain that such a strategy is capable of leading to a defeat of a conventional army.
[/QUOTE]

palestininans almost got an agreement with israel is it wise to accept
a bad deal or continue to fight for unattianable goal?

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by rvikz: *
palestininans almost got an agreement with israel is it wise to accept
a bad deal or continue to fight for unattianable goal?
[/QUOTE]

Depends on how bad the deal is.

In the early 90s, the asymmetric war of the PLO led to the establishment of the PA and a withdrawal of the Israeli army from large areas of the West Bank and the gaza strip. In exchange, the PLO gave up armed opposition to Israel.

Bad deal, but acceptable.

The recent "almost agreement" would have led to the creation of a horribly fragmented, overcrowded Palestinian state that would be permanently essentially a vassal of Israel.

Bad deal, unacceptable.

Scolars and people gathered here reaaly condemn terrorism or as usual we are justifying terrorism under disguise of condemnation?

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mAd_ScIeNtIsT: *

Depends on how bad the deal is.

In the early 90s, the asymmetric war of the PLO led to the establishment of the PA and a withdrawal of the Israeli army from large areas of the West Bank and the gaza strip. In exchange, the PLO gave up armed opposition to Israel.

Bad deal, but acceptable.

The recent "almost agreement" would have led to the creation of a horribly fragmented, overcrowded Palestinian state that would be permanently essentially a vassal of Israel.

Bad deal, unacceptable.
[/QUOTE]

do you really think sharon and putin will negotiate ? you cant bomb
and kill children to get independance and live happy everafter.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by rvikz: *
do you really think sharon and putin will negotiate ? you cant bomb
and kill children to get independance and live happy everafter.
[/QUOTE]

Why are you asking what I think? Where did I ever say that I am a supporter of asymmetric warfare? I simply have an understanding, gained from hours of my own free time reading about it, of what kind of mentality advocates of asymmetric war have.

Those who support asymmetric war would expect that either Putin / Sharon would eventually negotiate under tremendous domestic pressue, or failing that , whichever government succeeds Putin / Sharon after years or decades would negotiate an end.

A principle of asymmetric warfare is that today, you are unable to negotiate an outcome that is acceptable to you. Therefore you need to wage asymmetric war, for as much time as is needed, such that merely the end of the war becomes so desirable for the other side that they become willing to negotiate an outcome that you are willing to accept.

^ the problem is that asymmetrical warfare is unorganized, almost by definition. For that reason a solution acceptable to "all" is impossible and the war can never come to a full resolution. Putin could negotiate a quasi-independent state but the terrorist attacks would by those hell-bent on a fully independent state.

:k:

And that is the flaw with assymetric warfare. Because it does not require any significant amount of high-level coordination, as in symmetric warfare, asymmetric warfare can very easily break down what is a single force at the start of a conflict into many forces, with differing goals and values, by the end. This can be seen in many situations, from Northern Ireland to Palestine, to Chechnya, and the Phillipines.

However, without attempting to negotiate with the most powerful faction, the degree of the split cannot be ascertained. The only time you find out whether all factions are willing to accept the settlement is after it is made.

We saw this fail in Northern Ireland, where the Provisional IRA accepted peace but the splinter Real IRA faction did not. We see this in Palestine, where the PLO accepted peace (sort of), but Hamas, the PFLP, and the splinter Al-Aqsa martyrs brigade did not.

On the other hand, in the Phillipines, all the main Muslim rebel groups accepted the 1990s peace; only recently was the Abu Sayyaf group activated that did not.

Thanks for this....

**Islamic leaders in the Middle East yesterday denounced the slaughter of children in Russia as 'unIslamic', as commentators asked unusually soul-searching questions about the region and terrorism.

Even the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's biggest Islamic group, condemned the bloody siege in Beslan. **

This part I don't understand.

*Its leader, Mohammed Mahdi Akef, said that kidnappings may be justified * but killings are not.

He added: 'What happened is not jihad [holy war] because Islam obligates us to respect the souls of human beings; it is not about taking them away.'

The part about kidnappings being justified .......is the problem.

And his added comments.....to western ears are hard.

because...seems an excuse to terrorize innocents.

because...explaining jihad in conjunction with tradgedy doesn't meld in western eyes....even if not the intention. That is the mistrust.