The American Enemy Options

[Jim]

I can't believe it. I was reading a very informative fatwah on Imam Hussein in Islamic history (which I will post in another thread) when I saw this.

The American enemy looks at us contemptuously, for it has succeeded in disintegrating the Muslim Ummah and subjugating it. It seeks to dominate our Muslim Ummah altogether; hence, it has launched a fierce war against Islam and the Muslims in the name of combating terrorism and extremism. It has launched such a war against Afghanistan, and it is launching it now against Iraq. It has launched it also against Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya, Libya, Iran, Sudan, Bosnia, Kosovo, et cetera.

The aims behind the American invasion of Iraq were far beyond destroying a tyrant regime. Such invasion is the first step towards dominating the whole Muslim Ummah, with its religion, territories and wealth. America wants to occupy Iraq in order to press on Syria and Lebanon, so that they end their support to the Palestinian-Lebanese Islamic Resistance. This will be in the favor of the American-Zionist aggression launched against the Palestinian people. It also seeks to dominate the Gulf region wholly, though the Gulf states already present it what it wants.

America wants a complete surrender on the part of all the Arab states, even to the extent that it can review the religious curricula taught to our children in schools.

By occupying Iraq, America also seeks to press on Turkey and Iran by threatening to establish a Kurdish state that may lead to the disintegration of Turkey and Iraq and be a preliminary step towards dividing Saudi Arabia. In that way, it could redraw the map of the region as it wants.

All of us know that the Iraqi regime was tyrant and corrupt and that no Muslim would defend it. But America has taken the corruptness of such a regime as a pretext to strike Iraq, target its people, and destroy it altogether. It does all that in order to put an end to Islam and dominate the whole world.

Hence, we should take a decisive attitude and declare our clear-cut refusal to the American invasion and occupation of Iraq. Our religion requires us to do so and our Muslim Ummah needs this.

(Source)

I agree with only the last statement made here "we should take a decisive attitude and declare our clear-cut refusal to the American invasion and occupation of Iraq. Our religion requires us to do so and our Muslim Ummah needs this."

As for the rest of it, it just seems like anti-American hatred.

[LadyGarnetRose]

Anti Americna hatred has been going on for years across the Atlantic.

It's nothing new.

[Jim]

You're right Lady, that it is nothing new.

However, you would think that they would make the wording much more clear. These staements brand all Americans (even non-muslims who disagree with US policies abroad), including Ameircan Muslims as the enemy.

This is the language of dehumanization.

[MagnaCarta]

I can't believe it. I was reading a very informative fatwah on Imam Hussein in Islamic history (which I will post in another thread) when I saw this.




I agree with only the last statement made here "we should take a decisive attitude and declare our clear-cut refusal to the American invasion and occupation of Iraq. Our religion requires us to do so and our Muslim Ummah needs this."

As for the rest of it, it just seems like anti-American hatred.

Not just hatred, but paranoia. Seeing an enemy that is of made of their own brand of fear. Question...can the Muslim Ummah be so easily dismantled? Are we really so powerful as a nation that we can do this to Islam? What does that say about the power or lack of it, in the religion, to be sustained.

This stuff is the stuff that violence for religious 'defense' is made of.

[Honu]

Well said Magna.

[NEWUSER]

I can't believe it. I was reading a very informative fatwah on Imam Hussein in Islamic history (which I will post in another thread) when I saw this.

I agree with only the last statement made here "we should take a decisive attitude and declare our clear-cut refusal to the American invasion and occupation of Iraq. Our religion requires us to do so and our Muslim Ummah needs this."

As for the rest of it, it just seems like anti-American hatred.

If you think that's bad you should read his website.

And this guy is supposed to be "A leader of the European Council for Fatwa Research"...

[Jim]

If you think that's bad you should read his website.

And this guy is supposed to be "A leader of the European Council for Fatwa Research"...

I wonder what the Ummah did back in the days when it was a functional government (Caliphate). Today's Ummah is missing something that it once had... perhaps guidance. Oh yes, we can say we have the Guidance of the Quran and Sunnah. This is a common "form" answer people parrot to one another. We lack competent leadership even in our religious institutions.

BTW, I posted the rest of his info on Imam Hussein here:

http://islamfactor.org/index.php?showtopic...&#entry9301

I identify with Imam Hussein.

"To reform the nation of my grandfather (Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him)." This would imply putting an end to all kinds of corruption and deviation from the right path so that the nation could be united again. Uniting the nation would not be achieved in the existence of corruption; Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), is reported to have said:

"My Ummah would not unite in supporting corruption."

Al-Hassan (Al-Hussein's brother) was eager to regain the unity of the Muslim Ummah, so he made conciliation with Mu`awiyah and conceded the caliphate to him for that purpose. Al-Hussein did seek the same aim but in a different way, for the circumstances (under which he made the revolution) were different.

[fatima2003]

first allow me to point out that many people living overseas do not have understanding of how the american government works...... I was actually in an argument with someone the other day where I was having to explain that much of americans do in fact oppose what Bush has done in regards the war in iraq......

they assumed because his posiiton of presidency is voted in that all americans then do support him...... now, not everyone however is ignorant of the electoral system but there are a few.....

second..... if the american powers that be were not completely against islam then why do we see such a long history of Islam and muslims being attacked by america..... they go into country after country time after time under the guise of giveing to the peopel freedom but they put into power those who actually take away the freedoms of peoples..... they always seem to put in the worst of the extremeists or those that will take away all religious freedoms whatsoever......

whenever a government is an actual Islamic government they are deemed terrorists regardless even when thy havent done anything "terror" Iran is a perfect example.....

so is iraq........ if you remember the people at the first elections that were held voted for a reliiogus government.... america then declared the elections to have had fault of some kind and made another election and then appointed in a secular government..... the first time when the peopel elected for a reliigous government didnt matter to them..... they didnt liek the choice so the peopel had to re-choose...... that was wrong....

so you tell me why? why is american government against a religious muslim government anywhere in the world.....?

This post has been edited by fatema_shia: May 22 2008, 10:22 AM

[MagnaCarta]

first allow me to point out that many people living overseas do not have understanding of how the american government works...... I was actually in an argument with someone the other day where I was having to explain that much of americans do in fact oppose what Bush has done in regards the war in iraq......

they assumed because his posiiton of presidency is voted in that all americans then do support him...... now, not everyone however is ignorant of the electoral system but there are a few.....

second..... if the american powers that be were not completely against islam then why do we see such a long history of Islam and muslims being attacked by america..... they go into country after country time after time under the guise of giveing to the peopel freedom but they put into power those who actually take away the freedoms of peoples..... they always seem to put in the worst of the extremeists or those that will take away all religious freedoms whatsoever......

whenever a government is an actual Islamic government they are deemed terrorists regardless even when thy havent done anything "terror" Iran is a perfect example.....

so is iraq........ if you remember the people at the first elections that were held voted for a reliiogus government.... america then declared the elections to have had fault of some kind and made another election and then appointed in a secular government..... the first time when the peopel elected for a reliigous government didnt matter to them..... they didnt liek the choice so the peopel had to re-choose...... that was wrong....

so you tell me why? why is american government against a religious muslim government anywhere in the world.....?

Here is a good link:

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/Mi...t/Resources.asp

An exerpt:


As we saw in the previous section, for centuries, due to the power politics and struggle over the control of resources in the Middle East, various powers have supported numerous controversial regimes. The United States, Britain, France, and others supported dictatorships and monarchies, even overthrowing democracies.



By framing it as a 'religious' issue when in fact it is more about control over resources, and by framing it as something only America does, instead of seeing that there are often allied groups working toward the same geopolitical goals, it makes is difficult to believe that America is not against a 'religious Muslim government' anywhere in the world.

You are right in saying that they have usurped even democratic leaders...

Who said politics makes sense anyhow? Politics are imperfect, they are the sum effort of human beings with big egos and idealism doing what they can to rule the world and make their mark in history. Some are remembered as peace makers, not many. Some are remembered for doing what they could when forces were definitely moving against them, standing against the odds.

Most are remembered as power hungry by those who were on the receiving end of any effort to gain control over a part of the world economy that is not in their possession to begin with.

Muslims have the oil. If they were not Muslims but of another faith, then it might seem as if that other religion was being opposed when in actuality, it is just grabbing for power. And grabbing for power is a sure sign that there is little faith in natural harmony and cooperation in the world between men.

As for the view of America from the outside looking in, I often wonder if those from regions in the Middle East every consider the Middle Eastern even to be Americans. One thing I love about this nation is the fact that it is indeed one that is home to people from all nations and all places in the world. They call it the great experiment for a reason...

We actually have great diversity, folks living side by side from all parts of the world, from all different faiths. And there is no war going on between them on our soil...

This post has been edited by MagnaCarta: May 22 2008, 02:50 PM

[Rhoda]

How can anyone read this statement without thinking of the 14 centuries in which the forces of Islam did exactly the same thing?

Why do we see such a long history of Europe and African and Asian nations being attacked by Muslim armies? They went from country to country time after time under the guise of bringing the 'truth' to people who had other views why taking away their freedom?

[Jim]

first allow me to point out that many people living overseas do not have understanding of how the american government works...... I was actually in an argument with someone the other day where I was having to explain that much of americans do in fact oppose what Bush has done in regards the war in iraq......

they assumed because his posiiton of presidency is voted in that all americans then do support him...... now, not everyone however is ignorant of the electoral system but there are a few.....

Very true.

second..... if the american powers that be were not completely against islam then why do we see such a long history of Islam and muslims being attacked by america..... they go into country after country time after time under the guise of giveing to the peopel freedom but they put into power those who actually take away the freedoms of peoples..... they always seem to put in the worst of the extremeists or those that will take away all religious freedoms whatsoever......

whenever a government is an actual Islamic government they are deemed terrorists regardless even when thy havent done anything "terror" Iran is a perfect example.....

This is not new. They did this same thing to communist nations during the cold war. The strategy from propoganda to war and occupation is the same and not particular to Islam.

so is iraq........ if you remember the people at the first elections that were held voted for a reliiogus government.... america then declared the elections to have had fault of some kind and made another election and then appointed in a secular government..... the first time when the peopel elected for a reliigous government didnt matter to them..... they didnt liek the choice so the peopel had to re-choose...... that was wrong....

so you tell me why? why is american government against a religious muslim government anywhere in the world.....?

Your absolutely correct here. We mustnt have a short memory to this fact that you brought up.

[LadyGarnetRose]

first allow me to point out that many people living overseas do not have understanding of how the american government works...... I was actually in an argument with someone the other day where I was having to explain that much of americans do in fact oppose what Bush has done in regards the war in iraq......

they assumed because his posiiton of presidency is voted in that all americans then do support him...... now, not everyone however is ignorant of the electoral system but there are a few.....

second..... if the american powers that be were not completely against islam then why do we see such a long history of Islam and muslims being attacked by america..... they go into country after country time after time under the guise of giveing to the peopel freedom but they put into power those who actually take away the freedoms of peoples..... they always seem to put in the worst of the extremeists or those that will take away all religious freedoms whatsoever......

We aren't against Islam.

Show cases and points in regards to how many times we supposedly did this?

And what religious freedoms have been taken away?

whenever a government is an actual Islamic government they are deemed terrorists regardless even when thy havent done anything "terror" Iran is a perfect example.....

Actual Islamic government? I haven't seen one ever.

so is iraq........ if you remember the people at the first elections that were held voted for a reliiogus government.... america then declared the elections to have had fault of some kind and made another election and then appointed in a secular government..... the first time when the peopel elected for a reliigous government didnt matter to them..... they didnt liek the choice so the peopel had to re-choose...... that was wrong....

Show source for this.

so you tell me why? why is american government against a religious muslim government anywhere in the world.....?

We are? Really? Wow news to me. I mean we went to Bosnia to protect the Muslims, not the Christian Serbs. But that doesn't count... We went to Kuwait to protect Muslims from Muslims.... Wait that doesn't count. The list goes on, but ... you don't want to acknowledge it.

[Jim]

We are? Really? Wow news to me. I mean we went to Bosnia to protect the Muslims, not the Christian Serbs. But that doesn't count... We went to Kuwait to protect Muslims from Muslims.... Wait that doesn't count. The list goes on, but ... you don't want to acknowledge it.

Actually yes. The Bush Administration has said publicly that they will not allow an Islamic government to be formed in Iraq.

Rumsfeld: U.S. won't allow religious Iraqi government

WASHINGTON -- The United States will not allow an Iran-style religious government to take hold in Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Thursday in an interview with The Associated Press....

In an interview with the Associated Press, Mr Rumsfeld said: "If you're suggesting, how would we feel about an Iranian-type government with a few clerics running everything in the country, the answer is: That isn't going to happen."

Source

[LadyGarnetRose]

Actually yes. The Bush Administration has said publicly that they will not allow an Islamic government to be formed in Iraq.

{STRAWMAN}

The point I was addressing is

so you tell me why? why is american government against a religious muslim government anywhere in the world.....?

[Jim]

well, they have come out and said it.

The administration has spoken publicly against the formation of a Kilaphate accross the Muslim world and equates it with Al Qaida.

Source

[LadyGarnetRose]

well, they have come out and said it.

The administration has spoken publicly against the formation of a Kilaphate accross the Muslim world and equates it with Al Qaida.

Source

Donald Rumsfeld is no longer Secretary of Def. Robert Gates is.

Ever think there was a reason for this? The calls for his resignation came days after this article, and those comments of his were made.

So, Rumsefeld might have been Sec of Def that doesn't make him the entire Government nor the Entirety of the Bush Administration.

Not that Bush isn't a bit of a <can't use that word>.

[Jim]

Donald Rumsfeld is no longer Secretary of Def. Robert Gates is.

Ever think there was a reason for this? The calls for his resignation came days after this article, and those comments of his were made.

So, Rumsefeld might have been Sec of Def that doesn't make him the entire Government nor the Entirety of the Bush Administration.

Not that Bush isn't a bit of a <can't use that word>.

Change in faces doesnt mean change in policy.

Cheney is critical to this thinking

[LadyGarnetRose]

Change in faces doesnt mean change in policy.

Cheney is critical to this thinking

And the only actual power Cheney has within the government is the tie breaking vote in the Senate.

Otherwise, his entire job is to wait around and hope the President drops dead.

Thank God Bush is healthy.

[Rhoda]

The administration has spoken publicly against the formation of a Kilaphate accross the Muslim world and equates it with Al Qaida.

Well, of course it has spoke against such a formation! Who, other than a hardcore Muslim, would like to see a kaliphate?

The potential for human rights abuse is by itself a reason to speak against the possibility. The above mentioned acts of military conquest is another.

And I could easily find you a hundred quotes from Muslims, past and present, who hope to dominate the entire world.

I'm against that happening. Aren't you?

However, a caliphate can only be established when one group of Muslims becomes powerful enough to enforce it on other Muslims. Somehow, when I imagine this scenario, I am not optimistic of a peaceful outcome.

[LadyGarnetRose]

Well, of course it has spoke against such a formation! Who, other than a hardcore Muslim, would like to see a kaliphate?

The potential for human rights abuse is by itself a reason to speak against the possibility. The above mentioned acts of military conquest is another.

And I could easily find you a hundred quotes from Muslims, past and present, who hope to dominate the entire world.

I'm against that happening. Aren't you?

However, a caliphate can only be established when one group of Muslims becomes powerful enough to enforce it on other Muslims. Somehow, when I imagine this scenario, I am not optimistic of a peaceful outcome.

I shiva (pun meant) at the thought of Israel going to a Halacha interpretation for law.

No missionaries any that do, stone them.

Nobody of another faith, if they are, stone them, the walls are what determine the stoning and being Israel is about to be walled off, any within are subject to it.

Not a Halacha Jew, you better convert FAST.



Believe me, a Secular Israel is much more beneficial to the Non Jews than to the Jews.