Jump to content
Ghid

President of Egypt Opposes Jihad

Recommended Posts

Islam is at war with itself according to A Guide to Refuting Jihadism by Rashad Ali and Hannah Stuart

 

Islamic doctrine abhors compulsion in religion, prohibits suicide attacks, the killing of civilians, and requires that Muslims abide by the laws of the nation in which they live. Islamists disagree and claim their own doctrinal sources and interpretations to justify their violent acts.

 

In a January First speech, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi called on clerics to condemn those who use the religion to justify the “killing and destruction” that is “antagonizing the entire world.”

 

Will the Muslim world will consider Sisi as a credible voice for Islam? That question remains unaswered.  

 

Azhar University, the thousand-year-old center of Islamic scholarship.

 

This information according to

John Yemma , Editor at Large

Christian Science Monitor. 

1-14-2014

 

Some ask why more of Islam’s leaders don’t oppose the jihad. One leader in Nigeria, Muhammad Sanusi, does oppose it. He is the Emir of Kano, a city in Northern Nigeria.

 

On November 28, 2014  an attack at the Grand Mosque in Kano, the biggest city in the mainly Muslim north of the country, came just as Friday prayers had got under way. At least 64 people were killed and 126 injured on Friday when two suicide bombers blew themselves up and gunmen opened fire during weekly prayers at a mosque of one of Nigeria’s top Islamic leaders.

 

In the last week Boko Haram, a Nigerian, Islamist organization, killed 2000 people.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/28/nigeria-multiple-bomb-blasts-kano-mosque

Edited by Ghid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's good they're speaking out against it, but the issue is still at hand, why did it take so long for someone of the Islamic faith to speak out against it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did it take so long for someone of the Islamic faith to speak out against it?

 

 

False assertion about the silence of Muslims is false.

Edited by Yves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's good they're speaking out against it, but the issue is still at hand, why did it take so long for someone of the Islamic faith to speak out against it?

 

Muslims have been speaking out against violence and radicalism for as long as I can remember. The problem is that "Muslim cleric gives positive speech for peace" does not make the headlines quite like "ISIS releases beheading video". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that "Muslim cleric gives positive speech for peace" does not make the headlines quite like "ISIS releases beheading video". 

 

In defense of journalists, the latter tends to have more important political consequences. Most Japanese citizens before and during WWII had a relatively peaceful attitude towards the rest of the world, but that peaceful attitude was nearly irrelevant in the face of a violent elite.

Edited by Yves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's good they're speaking out against it, but the issue is still at hand, why did it take so long for someone of the Islamic faith to speak out against it?

 

It didn't. 

 

Every single time there is an act of terror in the name of Islam, hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of Muslims come out in droves to speak out against it. They actively say, "This is not the Islam I subscribe to, and I condemn it entirely". Islam may not be the true faith, but the average Muslim who shares the same bus as you, who shops at the same supermarket, who might attend your university or school, has been condemning Islamic militancy and extremist jihadism consistently. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem as well is Islam doesn't have a clear leader/authority that we can point to that is recognisable to us. They haven't had a Caliph since the Ottoman Empire and if you asked most non-muslims in the western world to name the influential thinkers in Islam, you'd just get a blank stare. Obviously you have certain influential groups like the Islamic Society of North America but that will hardly get the press of say, the Pope and Archbishop of Canterbury speaking out.

Edited by slycooper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the most part the attitudes of general Islam towards jihadism is comparable to Christianity towards the Westborough Baptist Church. It is indeed sad that a lot of America doesn't realize this, even more so when it is Christians propagating the misinformation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In defense of journalists, the latter tends to have more important political consequences. Most Japanese citizens before and during WWII had a relatively peaceful attitude towards the rest of the world, but that peaceful attitude was nearly irrelevant in the face of a violent elite.

 

I am not stating that journalists are at fault. I am merely pointing out a problem in the structure that tends to give a bleaker picture of reality than is the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In defense of journalists, the latter tends to have more important political consequences. Most Japanese citizens before and during WWII had a relatively peaceful attitude towards the rest of the world, but that peaceful attitude was nearly irrelevant in the face of a violent elite.

 

I am not stating that journalists are at fault. I am merely pointing out a problem in the structure that tends to give a bleaker picture of reality than is the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, the only Muslims who have spoken against the Islamist violence are the President of Egypt and the Emir of Kano. 

 

Other people condemn it, but not in a way that anyone would hear it, like on a talk radio, network news, or cable news program, and they condemn it as something that is non-Muslim. Or they condemn as if it is the victims fault.

 

edit:

 

I'm talking to my mother about this, and according to her, the day after 9/11 the King of Jordan condemned the attack on the World Trade Towers in New York City. The King was in the United States at the time, and said something like there was no provocation that could justify such and event. 

 

On the same note, days later, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, in a conversation with Rudy Juliani, the Prince blamed the victim.

 

For years before I could drive, a very nice man, a Palestinian  immigrant, who owns a gas station near where I live, always blamed the victim just like the crown prince. The pain in the Palestinian man's eyes always makes me want to cry.

 

I don't talk to this man much any more because now I drive, rather than ride a bicycle. My car does not have flat tires like my bicycle, but if it ever does I will take the flat tire to the nice Palestinian man, and I'm sure I will feel sad when I again see the pain in his eyes. 

Edited by Ghid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is genius. "In my opinion, those facts that you mentioned don't matter."

 

You're either ridiculously young, naive, and unintelligent; or you're a troll.

 

Lol, this. 

 

You need to look a bit further than your arbitrary boundaries currently allow you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russian Muslims renounce terrorism?  Or so says The Christian Science Monitor.

 

"The Russian Council of Mufties, comprised of officially endorsed Muslim leaders, issued a statement this week that renounced terrorism, but said of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists that 'it's possible that the sin of provocation is no less dangerous for keeping the peace in today's world than the sins committed by those who react to such provocations.... To insult the feelings of believers is unacceptable, as unacceptable as extremism, or any attempt on innocent lives.'"

 

I'd call this an example of blaming the victim.

 

The Russian view of free speech appears to agree with their Muslim counterparts.

 

Russians "believe speech should be mediated by official filters, such as government and church. Many think that the conflict between traditional values and what they perceive as an anything-goes culture in the West is the source of social disorder."

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2015/0115/Je-Suis-Charlie-Many-Russians-say-nyet.?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=CTE_011415&utm_campaign=Daily%20News%20Briefing%201%2F16&cmpid=ema%3Anws%3ADaily%2520News%2520Briefing%2520%2801-16-2015%29

 

So the Russians, both Muslim and Christian, think that the government should suppress "material that would be published or broadcast, on the grounds that it is libelous or harmful."

 

In the United States we call this prior restraint and the First Amendment limits the ability of the government to do this. Three million French carrying signs that say Je suis Charlie apparently agree. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is genius. "In my opinion, those facts that you mentioned don't matter."

 

You're either ridiculously young, naive, and unintelligent; or you're a troll.

Good thing nobody said that to me. Cause if somebody did,i would be crying. But the first part made me laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Or so says the Christian Science Monitor"

What, are the Christian Scientists untrustworthy now? I see no reason to doubt the sincerity of their condemnation, nor do I find their contention that deliberately offending and provoking people can be deleterious to world peace to be unreasonable.

It really seems that you have something against Muslims, Ghid, and that you just do a particularly poor job of hiding it.

Edited by Lefebvre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It really seems that you have something against Muslims, Ghid, and that you just do a particularly poor job of hiding it.

I was kind of thinking this too... 

 

Also I should mention I apologize for my previous statement, saying more Muslims should speak out against terrorism, which after researching more, I was wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It really seems that you have something against Muslims, Ghid, and that you just do a particularly poor job of hiding it.

If thats the case,you shouldn't hold a grudge/something against somebody just because of their beleifs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If thats the case,you shouldn't hold a grudge/something against somebody just because of their beleifs.

 

That's just stupid. If someone is bigoted (like she has pretty much admitted to) we're allowed to say that it's stupid to be a bigot. Because it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's just stupid. If someone is bigoted (like she has pretty much admitted to) we're allowed to say that it's stupid to be a bigot. Because it is.

The only issue here is that "bigoted" is a loaded, subjective, and controversial term. Who gets to decide what counts and what doesn't count as bigotry, since there are many disagreements?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Muslim View of the Charlie Hebdo incident according to Al Jazeera. 

 

The Muslim view begins with the idea that “… there is no excuse or justification for responding to art with murder.”

 

However, that’s not all. The Charle Hebdo incident was caused by  “France's 1830 invasion of Algeria,” which “began a 130-year odyssey of murder, expropriation, racism, exploitation and misrule that only ended after a vicious anti-colonial struggle costing well over one million Algerian lives.

 

The Al Jazeera article continues with a retelling of French misbehavior in Africa. The interesting part of this is the lack of mention of Algerian misbehavior before 1830.

 

The United States began as a part of the British Empire, and Algeria at that time was a part of the Ottoman Empire. The Algerians and other entities in North Africa extorted payments from nations involved in shipping, which passed along the coast of North Africa. Failure to pay the extortion resulted in seizure of ship, confiscation of cargos, and enslavement of the crews.

 

When Thomas Jefferson was the Ambassador to France, he met with Algerian representatives, who demanded the extortion. During the Washington Administration, the United States paid the extortion. When Jefferson became president, he sent Navy ships to protect the shipping and if possible to eliminate the Algerian piracy. 

 

The struggle with the North Africans continued during the Madison and Monroe Administrations, and I’m a bit short on the details, but I image it continued until the French invasion in 1830.

 

One detail could be important. During the initial struggle in the Jefferson Administration, the Algerians captured an American ship, the Philadelphia. Today, the Philadelphia’s mast is in a museum in Tripoli. I believe that it serves as a sort of Victory Mosque at which jihadists worship before their jihad.

 

All this suggests to me that nothing happened to the Algerians that would not have happened to the Europeans if the Algerians had had the technology to do it, and the complaints about colonialism are an excuse for the Islamist misbehavior.

 

It sort of comes down to cowabunga dude, get a life. Revenge is not a good motivation? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Muslims have been speaking out against violence and radicalism for as long as I can remember. The problem is that "Muslim cleric gives positive speech for peace" does not make the headlines quite like "ISIS releases beheading video". 

 

Do you have a list, names, dates, where, when?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sort of comes down to cowabunga dude, get a life. Revenge is not a good motivation? 

Revenge can do more harm than good. It just adds more fuel to the fire. And the only thing i can think of that would solve revenge,would be if both sides can change their thinking about one another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Or so says the Christian Science Monitor"

What, are the Christian Scientists untrustworthy now? I see no reason to doubt the sincerity of their condemnation, nor do I find their contention that deliberately offending and provoking people can be deleterious to world peace to be unreasonable.

It really seems that you have something against Muslims, Ghid, and that you just do a particularly poor job of hiding it.

 

I think the Christian Science Monitor is a good source of information. I go to school with Muslims. I think parents are embarrassed by the Islamist misbehavior, but they don't know what to do about it. 

 

If you have a list of prominent Muslims who have spoken out against the violence in the same way as President of Egypt and the Emir of Kano, well cowabunga dude, tell us who they are.

 

Picture of the Mast of USS Philadelphia in Tripoli.

 

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/4782298

Edited by Ghid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×