"...And your Lord is never forgetful..."

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

yikes, dp

 

[smaneck]

1.) You mentioned Awlaki should've turned himself in. Turn himself in for what? He wasn't charged.

He was charged by the Yemenite courts and wanted dead or alive.

2.) You ignored points 2 and 3. Point 3 is from a well-known civil rights lawyer.

I am well aware that there are argument against how Awlaki was dealt with but until someone can come up with a better option for how to deal with terrorists like this operating outside of our country but encouraging attacks against us, I'm not persuaded that Obama didn't do the only thing he could do.

3.) What happened to the concepts:"Democracy isn't just about popular vote, it also requires a proper balance of power." and "an act clearly in violation of the separation of powers essential to democracy."

If there was no more democracy left to preserve/protect in Egypt, then by virtue of all the things I mentioned in the past few posts, there is no more democracy left to preserve in the US.

No, Obama has not stopped prevented either Congress or the Courts from doing their job. He is the Commander-in-Chief of the military and this was a military action.

What a profound coincidence. 16-year-old AbdurRahman al-Awlaki was murdered just a few weeks after his father was murdered without even being charged but the government said someone else was the target. Given the government's terrible track record, I'm finding it hard to believe them.

I imagine you would, but given the fact that this created a PR nightmare, what would the US have gained by dong this?

 

[smaneck]

As defined by God and His Messenger (i.e. his sunnah). Those who best understood Islaamic rules were the first 4 Rightly Guided Caliphs, the first 3 generations in general, and the rest of the pious predecessors.

First three generations, huh? So you would include even the Umayyads as your example?

1.) Less than 2% of those who have been killed by drones in Pakistan have been high-profile targets. Not a very impressive percentage. Out of Sight, Out of Mind: A visualization of drone strikes in Pakistan since 2004

Its unfortunate that your slideshow doesn't provide any solid documentation to support its assertions. The Pakistani military has stated that most of those killed were al-Qaeda and Taliban militants. Drone attacks are based on intelligence, and that intelligence is not based simply on the fact that there are men of military age in the vicinity.

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

He was charged by the Yemenite courts and wanted dead or alive.

....But we're talking about America here.

I am well aware that there are argument against how Awlaki was dealt with but until someone can come up with a better option for how to deal with terrorists like this operating outside of our country but encouraging attacks against us, I'm not persuaded that Obama didn't do the only thing he could do.

Why don't you spare some excuses for Morsi since it seems you have an abundance of them for Obama and this government?

No, Obama has not stopped prevented either Congress or the Courts from doing their job. He is the Commander-in-Chief of the military and this was a military action.

There were no checks or balances involved - this was stated by the civil rights lawyer.

You can defend Obama till the cows come home, but it doesn't change the fact that you're willing to give Obama more power than Morsi but you're not willing to say that the former is a dictatorship (though you say the latter was).

I imagine you would, but given the fact that this created a PR nightmare, what would the US have gained by dong this?

....What would they have gained by lying about who was there? Um, it "justifies" the killing of AbdurRahman al-Awlaki. An official within the Obama administration was concerned too.

They only care about public relations when they're caught. And even then they know the American public is easily calmed down after a few weeks or months.

As for the actual killing itself, either they silenced AbdurRahman al-Awlaki or they are just plain evil. I wouldn't put these reasons past them.


Anyway, I've said all I've needed to both you and Jane on these issues. I don't know if I'll be replying again because as I mentioned, my primary purpose on this thread is not to debate. It's to give information.

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

First three generations, huh? So you would include even the Umayyads as your example?

The Prophet Muhammad said that the best generations are the first 3 generations. So I include whoever he included since I don't try to change what he said.

Its unfortunate that your slideshow doesn't provide any solid documentation to support its assertions. The Pakistani military has stated that most of those killed were al-Qaeda and Taliban militants. Drone attacks are based on intelligence, and that intelligence is not based simply on the fact that there are men of military age in the vicinity.

It's unfortunate you ignored the second link which gave proof that Obama basically determines any male of military age where the drones hit to be militants. But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.


And now maybe this will be the last I say about this issue.

 

[Aristocles X]

Sma

First three generations, huh? So you would include even the Umayyads as your example?

Whats you'r beef with the great Umayyad dynasty? You do know a great deal of ahlu sunnah hold the belief that Yazid had nothing to do with the killing of Hussain right?

As for Sheikh Anwar al Awlaki. By killing him they simply made him into an Icon for alot of the youth and his lectures are becoming quiet popular these days it seems .

 

[smaneck]

....But we're talking about America here.

Did it occur to you that the Yemenite court was essentially giving anyone the right to kill him?

Why don't you spare some excuses for Morsi since it seems you have an abundance of them for Obama and this government?

Again, Obama did not try and stop the courts from doing their job.

There were no checks or balances involved - this was stated by the civil rights lawyer.

The checks and balances would be the Supreme Court, not an individual lawyer. Awlaki's father has every right to file suit against the federal government if he thinks he has a case. He can even hire that lawyer.

They only care about public relations when they're caught. And even then they know the American public is easily calmed down after a few weeks or months.

The American public isn't the only PR problem they need to deal with.

As for the actual killing itself, either they silenced AbdurRahman al-Awlaki or they are just plain evil. I wouldn't put these reasons past them.

In other words you prefer to think they had no real motive. Not likely.

 

[smaneck]

Sma

Whats you'r beef with the great Umayyad dynasty? You do know a great deal of ahlu sunnah hold the belief that Yazid had nothing to do with the killing of Hussain right?

When Husayn's head was thrown at the feet of Yazid he raised his staff and smashed his lips. There was Companion in the court at the time who began to weep, saying he had seen the Prophet kiss those lips.

As for Sheikh Anwar al Awlaki. By killing him they simply made him into an Icon for alot of the youth and his lectures are becoming quiet popular these days it seems .

He was already a popular icon, and had personally encouraged attacks which had killed scores of Americans and would have killed more had the other attacks which he inspired succeeded.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

So what alternative would you suggest? Drone bombing is not the equivalent of bombing Naples or Sicily. Those drones are going after very specific targets. Sometimes they get it wrong and even when they take out a terrorist they are likely to take out some innocent victims with them. That, of course, is the problem but isn't that always what happens in war?

Here's where I think this conflict is approached incorrectly to begin with:

It's not a war.

A "war on terror" makes about as much sense as a "war on drugs" - and both are about equally successful.
Terrorist networks are criminal organizations, not (irregular) armies. When you kill their leaders, you don't decapitate the serpent - you create martyrs; new figureheads for new recruits to worship als glorious heroes who died for The Cause.

So, here's my alternative: tackle them the same way you'd tackle another criminal organization. I'm no criminologist, so I don't know *exactly* what could be done, but methods such as starving them out by freezing their bank accounts and undermining their support base would come to mind.

But of course, even that's just treating the symptoms, not the causes. If this is a war, it's a war for hearts and minds - and we've given people in the middle east plenty of cause to hate us. Invasions or drones do not solve this root cause of the problem - they exacerbate it. We need to put an end to neo-colonialist politics that aim at expanding the economic power of predominantly western corporations in "developing nations". Not that much has changed since the USA and Great Britain ousted Mossadeq and installed their pet dictator in order to get their hands on Iranian oil.

 

[smaneck]

The Prophet Muhammad said that the best generations are the first 3 generations. So I include whoever he included since I don't try to change what he said.

According to a hadith that was probably not written down until the end of the Umayyad Dynasty. I find the timing convenient since the Umayyads last three generations.

It's unfortunate you ignored the second link which gave proof that Obama basically determines any male of military age where the drones hit to be militants. But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.

That may be how they are counting the causalities, that is not how they are deciding who to target. In any case, it is the Pakistani military who I cited as saying that it was mostly al-Qaeda and the Taliban that were being killed.

 

[smaneck]

A "war on terror" makes about as much sense as a "war on drugs" - and both are about equally successful.

Here's the thing. We can largely end the war on drugs simply by legalizing and controlling drugs. For obvious reasons we can't take the same approach to the terrorism.

I'm no criminologist, so I don't know *exactly* what could be done, but methods such as starving them out by freezing their bank accounts and undermining their support base would come to mind.

But al-Qaeda depends on personnel, not so much money. How much money do you need to seize air planes with box cutters?

But of course, even that's just treating the symptoms, not the causes. If this is a war, it's a war for hearts and minds - and we've given people in the middle east plenty of cause to hate us. Invasions or drones do not solve this root cause of the problem - they exacerbate it.

I agree that is a problem.

We need to put an end to neo-colonialist politics that aim at expanding the economic power of predominantly western corporations in "developing nations". Not that much has changed since the USA and Great Britain ousted Mossadeq and installed their pet dictator in order to get their hands on Iranian oil.

Yes, I would agree. It is no accident that the World Trade Center was targeted. However, this is a long term solution. In the short term you have to stop people from trying to kill you. And that may mean killing them.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Did I get this right?

LoveBeingAMuslimah dismisses the entirety of the Islamic Golden Age as spiritually corrupt? Isn't that a stance that's typically associated with Salafism - better known as Islamic fundamentalism in the West?

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

As for Sheikh Anwar al Awlaki. By killing him they simply made him into an Icon for alot of the youth and his lectures are becoming quiet popular these days it seems .

"Al-Basheer, your source of Islamic literature presents..."

or "Awakening media presents, presents, presents...."

Remember that introduction?

When Husayn's head was thrown at the feet of Yazid he raised his staff and smashed his lips. There was Companion in the court at the time who began to weep, saying he had seen the Prophet kiss those lips.

Oh, and how do you know this? I thought you didn't accept hadeeth.

Btw, I read somewhere you asking who actually really likes Mu'awiyah (may Allaah be pleased with him). Answer: the Sunnis. We love him as we love all of the Companions of the Prophet.

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

Did I get this right?

LoveBeingAMuslimah dismisses the entirety of the Islamic Golden Age as spiritually corrupt? Isn't that a stance that's typically associated with Salafism - better known as Islamic fundamentalism in the West?

Once more you're speaking without knowledge. But I guess that's the tradition of the "urban and well-cultured" people and you support them.

Don't you have somewhere else to be....y'know, places where you use insulting words to refer to Islaamic practices until you find out that Jews do the same thing AND THEN taking the time to read about it and deciding to withhold your judgement?

 

[smaneck]

Did I get this right?

LoveBeingAMuslimah dismisses the entirety of the Islamic Golden Age as spiritually corrupt? Isn't that a stance that's typically associated with Salafism - better known as Islamic fundamentalism in the West?

There is a tendency among modern Muslims in general to discard the Golden Age in favor of a return to the early days of Islam, but generally that is interpreted as the Medinian period. I've not seen many Sunnis defend the Umayyads. But given the fact that both of our Salafis here defend them, I guess that is indeed the case.

 

[smaneck]

Btw, I read somewhere you asking who actually really likes Mu'awiyah (may Allaah be pleased with him). Answer: the Sunnis. We love him as we love all of the Companions of the Prophet.

I certainly reject self-serving hadiths like the one you cite in association with the "first three generations." The Sunni account (from at-Tabari) is hardly different from that of the Sh'ites:


"In Yazid’s hand there was a cane and he was poking it into al-Husayn’s mouth. … Then he said, “

“Swords split the skulls of men who are dear
to us, but they were more disobedient and oppressive.”

One of the Companions of the Apostle of God called Abu Barzah al-Aslami, cried out, “Are you poking the mouth of al-Husayn with your cane? Take your cane away from his mouth. How often have I seen the Apostle of God kiss it! As for you, Yazid, you will com forward on he Day of Resurrection, and Ibn Ziyad will be your advocate. But this man will come forward on the Day of Resurrection, and Muhammad will be his advocate.”

Furthermore, at-Tabari (our Sunni source) makes it clear that Yazid intended all along to have Husayn executed much earlier:

"Yazid’s only concern, when he assumed power, was to receive the oath of allegiance form the individuals who had refused to agree with Muwayiya’s demand for this oath of allegiance to Yazid. Muawiyah had summoned the people to give an oath of allegiance to him that Yazid would be his heir. Yazid’s concern was to bring their attitude to an end. Therefore he wrote to al-Walid (the governor of Medina, where those that opposed Yazid lived), “Seize Husayn, Abdallah b. Umar, and Abdallah b. al-Zubayr to give the oath of allegiance. Act so fiercely that they have no chance to do anything before giving the oath of allegiance. ..
“I consider that you should send immediately to this group (the three that refused to give the oath of allegiance), and summon them to give the oath of allegiance and enter in to obedience. If they do so, you should accept that from them and leave them alone. If they refuse, you should take hold of them and execute them before they lean of the death of Muawiyah. "

 

[Aristocles X]

When Husayn's head was thrown at the feet of Yazid he raised his staff and smashed his lips.

Fabricated and reject narration. Dont remember if it was fabricated or just weak though.

According to a hadith that was probably not written down until the end of the Umayyad Dynasty. I find the timing convenient since the Umayyads last three generations.

If you go by the Islamic hadith system in light of Isnad that narration is Authentic and indisputable. It does seem you are illiterate when it comes to hadith science. However it is true the Ummayad did fabricated ahadith however those ahadith are easily distinguishable using the the islamic hadith system and its methodology of that time which is known as the three-tiered method.

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

There is a tendency among modern Muslims in general to discard the Golden Age in favor of a return to the early days of Islam, but generally that is interpreted as the Medinian period. I've not seen many Sunnis defend the Umayyads. But given the fact that both of our Salafis here defend them, I guess that is indeed the case.

Your "salafis"? Where have I ever said I'm a salafi?

I certainly reject self-serving hadiths like the one you cite in association with the "first three generations." The Sunni account (from at-Tabari) is hardly different from that of the Sh'ites:

*sigh* I have quoted from Imaam at-Tabari himself more than once. He didn't bother ensuring that he only put in what's authentic in his books. He quoted from *anyone* which doesn't mean that he believed in them all. I don't know how many more times I have to repeat that.

The Sunni account (from Saheeh al-Bukhaari, the most authentic book in Islaam after the Qur'aan) is very different from that of the Shi'aas:

"Moreover, it has never been historically authenticated that he gave orders to kill al-Husayn, or had al-Husayn’s head thrown before him, or put a stick through his teeth. Indeed, it was `Ubayd Allah b. Ziyâd who committed these atrocities, as is clearly stated in Sahîh al-Bukhârî." -IslamToday

We have nothing to gain or lose by rejecting what you quoted about Yazeed.


I would say self-serving hadeeth are those that excessively praise al-Hussayn (may Allaah be pleased with him) and those that disparage the sahaabah you don't like. But you're all too keen on accepting them. You're not an unbiased historian. You are very biased in favor of the Shi'aa side.

 

[smaneck]

If you go by the Islamic hadith system in light of Isnad that narration is Authentic and indisputable. It does seem you are illiterate when it comes to hadith science.

I don't accept the hadith system because I don't regard it as reliable, not because I don't understand it. It in no way eliminates anachronisms, something basic to textual criticism as I understand it.

However it is true the Ummayad did fabricated ahadith however those ahadith are easily distinguishable using the the islamic hadith system and its methodology of that time which is known as the three-tiered method.

What? These leaders of these great three generations fabricated hadith?

Pinch me!

 

[smaneck]

Your "salafis"? Where have I ever said I'm a salafi?

I would say that anyone who insists that salafis are indistinguishable from true Muslims is a salafi.

*sigh* I have quoted from Imaam at-Tabari himself more than once. He didn't bother ensuring that he only put in what's authentic in his books. He quoted from *anyone* which doesn't mean that he believed in them all.

He does quote everyone, even giving us any contradictory accounts. That's great for us historians because we get to see the different perspectives. So if he provided an account of what happened in Yazid's court which contradicts the account I presented, please share it with us.

I don't know how many more times I have to repeat that.

You can repeat it as many times as you like, the fact he gives us multiple accounts makes him more reliable in my thinking not less.

The Sunni account (from Saheeh al-Bukhaari, the most authentic book in Islaam after the Qur'aan) is very different from that of the Shi'aas:

"Moreover, it has never been historically authenticated that he gave orders to kill al-Husayn, or had al-Husayn’s head thrown before him, or put a stick through his teeth. Indeed, it was `Ubayd Allah b. Ziyâd who committed these atrocities, as is clearly stated in Sahîh al-Bukhârî." -IslamToday

So you give us a secondary account of what al-Bukhari? Don't you have the actual hadith in question?

We have nothing to gain or lose by rejecting what you quoted about Yazeed.

Apparently you have a good deal to loose if you accept that account.

I would say self-serving hadeeth are those that excessively praise al-Hussayn (may Allaah be pleased with him) and those that disparage the sahaabah you don't like. But you're all too keen on accepting them. You're not an unbiased historian. You are very biased in favor of the Shi'aa side.

And that's why I'm citing Sunni sources.