Isn't a boycott of Dutch goods, or the expulsion of Dutch ambassadors, strong unislamic? It targets innocent Dutch people for the actions of someone who just happens to live in the same country. Isn't that morally reprehensible under Islam, or are you saying that Islam supports the punishment of many innocent people for the actions of one man?
Not at all, it is not unislamic, if the Dutch can't get a grip on the man, there is collective blame as he can easily be removed and barred from making hienous statements, it's the responsibility of the foreign government to take sensible action, and so strong sanctions against them does not violate the shariah.
Not at all, it is not unislamic, if the Dutch can't get a grip on the man, there is collective blame as he can easily be removed and barred from making hienous statements, it's the responsibility of the foreign government to take sensible action, and so strong sanctions against them does not violate the shariah.
If we're to follow this logic, would it not be possible to argue that the 19 Muslim terrorists who massacred thousands of innocent people on September 11th 2001 were acting within Islamic Law? After all, you're arguing that the Dutch are collectively responsible for that particular Dutch artist's drawings, so one could argue that all Americans are responsible for the support some U.S. politicians demonstrate for Israel and are therefore legitimate targets.
If we're to follow this logic, would it not be possible to argue that the 19 Muslim terrorists who massacred thousands of innocent people on September 11th 2001 were acting within Islamic Law? After all, you're arguing that the Dutch are collectively responsible for that particular Dutch artist's drawings, so one could argue that all Americans are responsible for the support some U.S. politicians demonstrate for Israel and are therefore legitimate targets.
We're not talking about killings or war dude, Kolya was referring to sanctions that include boycotts and expulsion of diplomats and such, we're not reffering to armed combat at all, don't get carried away. What constitutes as a declaration of war is an entirely different topic.
We're not talking about killings or war dude, Kolya was referring to sanctions that include boycotts and expulsion of diplomats and such, we're not reffering to armed combat at all, don't get carried away. What constitutes as a declaration of war is an entirely different topic.
Fair enough. However, where do you draw the line? I mean, you're arguing that boycotts are acceptable but killings are not, but is there a precise list of things that Muslims can do to demonstrate their disapproval with e.g. the publication of the Danish cartoons, and a list of things which they cannot?
Not at all, it is not unislamic, if the Dutch can't get a grip on the man, there is collective blame as he can easily be removed and barred from making hienous statements, it's the responsibility of the foreign government to take sensible action, and so strong sanctions against them does not violate the shariah.
Oh right, so civil liberties are unislamic, and those that live in countries with civil liberties should expect to be punished for them?
Hmmmmm, no it is not. Comes under the category of fraudulency.
Well, I think it's pretty safe to estimate the perhaps 10% of the world's population actually pay for every piece of software they use.
In the middle east paying for it is really unheard of. So that puts many Muslims in a dangerous position, doesn't it? Yet it doesn't seem like
your scholars are bothered by this problem so much (or are they?)
Well, I think it's pretty safe to estimate the perhaps 10% of the world's population actually pay for every piece of software they use.
In the middle east paying for it is really unheard of. So that puts many Muslims in a dangerous position, doesn't it? Yet it doesn't seem like
your scholars are bothered by this problem so much (or are they?)
Yep, it is actually a tricky issue. I just replied from the top of my head, after googling and reading i've realised there are some mixed views on this topic.
Fair enough. However, where do you draw the line? I mean, you're arguing that boycotts are acceptable but killings are not, but is there a precise list of things that Muslims can do to demonstrate their disapproval with e.g. the publication of the Danish cartoons, and a list of things which they cannot?
There's a very clear line with regards to actual killing if that's what you're reffering to. Burning embassies and threatening diplomats with assassination is over the top, i fully agree, but similarly, Muslim countries and individuals reserve the right to express to foreigners their disgust at what they preceive as crossing a line that should not have been crossed. Most effectively this must eventually come through the education of foreign countries as the Jews have done successfully, so much so that there is a social stigma and in some cases legal sanctions attached to any respectable member of the public in the west that dares to criticise the Jews or attacks them in an unacceptable manner, we all know this, that anti-semetism is completely unacceptable, and questioning the holocaust is a crime, the jews have worked very hard in making this so, as should the muslims, boycotts and expulsions are temporary moves, education should be the long term goal.
Yep, it is actually a tricky issue. I just replied from the top of my head, after googling and reading i've realised there are some mixed views on this topic.
Which means that if you're pirating - you're taking a risk that maybe it's a serious sin.
Oh right, so civil liberties are unislamic, and those that live in countries with civil liberties should expect to be punished for them?
You have to realise that governments speak for the people, at least in a democracy, so any action they take is in behalf of their citizens, if they are going to let people attack others like that, the governemnt is responsible, and if you are going to equate any action against a foreign government as also an attack against its people, innocent or otherwise, then we are stuck between a rock and a hard place.
I'd ignore them, it is not my place to punish or judge.
So by extension it's not any [Muslim's] place to punish or judge. So what would you do if you saw a bunch of Muslims beat up a non-Muslim for criticising the religion somehow? Would you honestly intervene and educate them in how their actions are wrong, or would you not dare to speak out against the judgements of your "fellow brothers"?
You have to realise that governments speak for the people, at least in a democracy, so any action they take is in behalf of their citizens, if they are going to let people attack others like that, the governemnt is responsible, and if you are going to equate any action against a foreign government as also an attack against its people, innocent or otherwise, then we are stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Do be aware that you are condemning the 5 million Muslims living in the US. They must be held responsible for their implicit support of the US Constitution's first amendment, which permits Fitna to be distributed freely in the US (and would not prevent Fitna from being made in the US). Given that they knowingly have no hope in hell of overturning the first amendment, what should other Muslims think of those US Muslims who support a government that would allow people to attack Islam like Fitna does? Are they to be punished like the Dutch were punished?
Not at all, it is not unislamic, if the Dutch can't get a grip on the man, there is collective blame as he can easily be removed and barred from making hienous statements, it's the responsibility of the foreign government to take sensible action, and so strong sanctions against them does not violate the shariah.
And yet, I've seen you whinge and complain on other threads that so-called moderate Muslims are being blamed when the actions of a few extremist Muslims casts a shadow on the Islamic collective. I mean, if the moderate Muslims can't get a grip on the extremists, there is collective blame.
Not that I hold this stance, but I just want to convey to you how hypocritical and ridiculous your logic seems to me. You use one type of reasoning for non-Muslims and another for Muslims. It's quite evident from a lot of the posts you've made in the past.
Discuss theological issues, which are issues inherent to a religion, not their political manifestations.
Re: D&D Theology's "Ask A Muslim" Thread MK II
