Spanish Muslims issue fatwa against Al-Qaeda's Osama Bin Laden

[BasketCase]

The fatwah quoted in the original post is exactly what the Muslim world needs to do: they need to stand up and condemn terrorists, and make sure they're heard doing it. The perception from the rest of the world is that good Muslims don't care what the few bad ones are doing.

But, naturally, it's hard to stand up and speak out like that.

 

[Elrohir]

Bin laden is just an escape goat; the 9/11 attacks were prearranged by the U.S/Israel intelligence service. They may not have direct involvement in the 9/11 attacks, but they did guide the whole event...i believe the whole truth shall come out one day about 9/11, and then you will fully realize that you mean nothing to governments and multinational companies.

Here you go Mac, enjoy:

 

[punkbass2000]

Well, I've thought about this issue a fair bit (and I don't like thinking! )
Anyway, I came up with a number of arguments and positions and so forth. But, naturally, they are limited by language and the inherent flaws of logic. Also, they would require a great deal of typing (don't like that either ). In addition, the lend themselves just to misconception just as much as anything else. So I will say something briefly:

I do not think that I am saying what at least some of you appear to think I am saying.

And, to round it out, though this can easily be misconstrued as well, of course, I shall leave a brief lyric which I feel captures some of the essence of my position:

"Murderers, you're murderers,
We are not the same as you."

Take what you will.

 

[Stegyre]

I do not think that I am saying what at least some of you appear to think I am saying.

And, to round it out, though this can easily be misconstrued as well, of course, I shall leave a brief lyric which I feel captures some of the essence of my position:

"Murderers, you're murderers,
We are not the same as you."

Take what you will.

Radiohead, The Gloaming. (No, I'm not a fan, I had to Google it.)

I admit, your original position struck me as very strange, as I generally perceive you as quite a bit more rational than say . . . someone else who has already drawn enough attention with his post on this thread. Perhaps you were misinterpreted, but without further explanation from yourself, I am at a loss as to what you were getting at.

 

[punkbass2000]

Ok, well I'm not goin to argue every little thing that may have come up, but I will extoll the meaning of my first post here.

"I'm not sure that this event speaks well of Islam."

To begin with, this is clearly a non-committal post. Aside from that, it is not necessarily a negative one, even if I were to state it with confidence. Perhaps it is best explained by its opposite. It can be logically derived that if this action speaks well of Islam, then Bin Laden's actions speak poorly of Islam. I simply do not subscribe to either.

As to the Radiohead quote, essentially, I think one of the dominate things we see in history is the dehumanization of the enemy. The enemy is evil, does evil things, for the purposes of evildom. They are murderers, we are not. They are terrorists, we are freedom fighters. We led the revolution against "them", and we suppressed "their" rebellion. You can say whatever you like about Bin Laden and prove them howeer you wish, but recognize that you are asserting no more than your own belief system, regardless of what it may be. Bin Laden, in this respect, does no different. You can say he has committed evil act 1, 2, and so on, justifying. He can say America (et al.) has committed evil act 3, 4, and so on, justfying evil act 1, 2 and so on. You can say his justifications are misguided. He can say yours are. You can point to specific examples of general acts. HE can point to specifc examples of general acts. You can asy his examples are not representative of the whole issue. He can say yours are not. You can on like this until the proverbial cows come home. With this sort of thought, it is essentially an all out fight to the death, where the winner is "right" by historical proclamation, no more.

EDIT: Oh, and don't try to pin the scarlet letter of "rational" on me, BTW

 

[Stegyre]

It can be logically derived that if this action speaks well of Islam, then Bin Laden's actions speak poorly of Islam. I simply do not subscribe to either.

I agree with your logic. We simply disagree on the conclusion re: Bin Laden. I think his actions do speak poorly of Islam. This is not merely a Muslim doing bad things (and I hope we at least share a baseline that compassing the death of thousands of civilians is a bad thing); it is a Muslim advocating that this is what Muslims should do! That distinguishes him from, say a pedophilic priest, who may be a despicable predator who also preys upon innocents (perhaps even the more indisputably innocent - children), but no one can reasonably say that he advocates that predation as endorsed by his religion. Bin Laden's actions/advocacy are exactly the sort of thing that give Islam, specifically, and religion, generally, a bad name.

As to the Radiohead quote, essentially, I think one of the dominate things we see in history is the dehumanization of the enemy. The enemy is evil, does evil things, for the purposes of evildom. They are murderers, we are not. They are terrorists, we are freedom fighters. . . . (etc.)

Another point on which we agree. Dehumanization of the "other" is a very real problem, in this as in any conflict.

You can say whatever you like about Bin Laden and prove them however you wish, but recognize that you are asserting no more than your own belief system, regardless of what it may be. Bin Laden, in this respect, does no different.

Point the first : Granted, I judge Bin Laden through the perspective of my own beliefs. But there are other aspects of my belief system that are really part of our shared beliefs. In this category, I would place the purposeful murder of civilians. At least I appear to be in company with the Fourth Geneva Convention: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm.

Point the second: “Bin Laden, in this respect, does no different”? No. Action distinguishes us. My beliefs may indict Bin Laden and his may indict me, but I have no blood on my hands.

(I PMed you on the point raised in your edit, as it was not part of the communcal discussion.)

 

[punkbass2000]

I agree with your logic. We simply disagree on the conclusion re: Bin Laden. I think his actions do speak poorly of Islam. This is not merely a Muslim doing bad things (and I hope we at least share a baseline that compassing the death of thousands of civilians is a bad thing); it is a Muslim advocating that this is what Muslims should do! That distinguishes him from, say a pedophilic priest, who may be a despicable predator who also preys upon innocents (perhaps even the more indisputably innocent - children), but no one can reasonably say that he advocates that predation as endorsed by his religion. Bin Laden's actions/advocacy are exactly the sort of thing that give Islam, specifically, and religion, generally, a bad name.

If you can ascribe any moral verdict to Islam based on the actions of those who proclaim to follow it, you can similarly dismantle any mode of thought.

Point the first : Granted, I judge Bin Laden through the perspective of my own beliefs. But there are other aspects of my belief system that are really part of our shared beliefs. In this category, I would place the purposeful murder of civilians. At least I appear to be in company with the Fourth Geneva Convention: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm.

I don't know who you're including when you emphasize "our" an "shared". Aside from that fact that you must subscribe to a whole other set beliefs to arrive at this conclusion, you're still notderiving anything non-self-referrential. IOW, "We agree with us that we're right."

Point the second: “Bin Laden, in this respect, does no different”? No. Action distinguishes us. My beliefs may indict Bin Laden and his may indict me, but I have no blood on my hands.

You mix words. When I said, "in this respect", I was not referring to other respects. As to your metaphor, it is misleading. If you mean it literally, the same could be said of Bin Laden, as far as we know, anyway. If you mean it figuratively, than I must presume you advocate no action against Bin Laden and his operatives whatsoever, which is not the impression I'm getting. Otherwise, I may let you get away with saying you have figuratively less blood on your hands than Bin Laden, even a significant "less". But that is neither here nor there.

 

[Stegyre]

If you can ascribe any moral verdict to Islam based on the actions of those who proclaim to follow it, you can similarly dismantle any mode of thought.

I’m not sure I follow what you mean by “dismantle[ing] any mode of thought.” I was not referring to any moral verdict that I ascribe to Islam. The point of my comment that you quote is that Bin Laden ascribes those values to Islam. If Bin Laden is correct about Islam, I think it is an abhorrent religion, but I do not think Bin Laden is correct, anymore than I think he speaks for Islam, which is why I believe his actions speak poorly of Islam: they misrepresent that faith and draw it into disrepute.

Your previous comment to which I was responding:

It can be logically derived that if this action speaks well of Islam, then Bin Laden's actions speak poorly of Islam. I simply do not subscribe to either.

. . . sounds as if you do not believe in making value judgments, at least not in this sphere. I do not share that qualm, obviously.

I don't know who you're including when you emphasize "our" and "shared". Aside from that fact that you must subscribe to a whole other set beliefs to arrive at this conclusion, you're still not deriving anything non-self-referential. IOW, "We agree with us that we're right."

Perhaps you should clarify what you mean by self-referential, as I'm not sure I understand you. I did provide at least one example showing a “shared” belief between myself and the Geneva Convention, a document that pre-dates me by some decades and is quite external to myself (i.e., non-self-referential).

I do not mean to include you or any other unwilling participant within “our” and “shared.” I only note that my beliefs in this regard are by no means unique. Without purporting to speak for anyone else, I think it is fair to say that a number of other posters in this thread have already demonstrated as much in response to your very comments. Clearly, there is some common ground between myself and these other posters.

You mix words. When I said, "in this respect", I was not referring to other respects.

With due respect, if the point of your original comment was only that Bin Laden has his beliefs and I have mine, it was not a very useful statement. The significance of Bin Laden’s beliefs is specifically how he has put them into practice. Many other Muslims agree with Bin Laden, but that concurrence of belief is not, in itself actionable. While I would strongly disagree with those Muslims, I would not support their incarceration or loss of liberty solely upon the basis of a belief that has not been translated into any action. (Sidenote: I would support a nation’s decision to refuse to grant such non-citizens entry, but we are straying further and further a field.)

As to your metaphor, it is misleading. . . . If you mean it figuratively, than I must presume you advocate no action against Bin Laden and his operatives whatsoever, which is not the impression I'm getting. Otherwise, I may let you get away with saying you have figuratively less blood on your hands than Bin Laden, even a significant "less". But that is neither here nor there.

(By definition, a metaphor is figurative, but you knew that.)
Go with your impression, rather than your presumption.
The metaphor is not misleading, you simply disagree with it. It is not an uncommon disagreement which can be illustrated with another analogy: I perceive all the difference in the world between a murder and the justice system that condemns that murder and carries out the sentence; some do not.

 

[punkbass2000]

I’m not sure I follow what you mean by “dismantle[ing] any mode of thought.” I was not referring to any moral verdict that I ascribe to Islam. The point of my comment that you quote is that Bin Laden ascribes those values to Islam. If Bin Laden is correct about Islam, I think it is an abhorrent religion, but I do not think Bin Laden is correct, anymore than I think he speaks for Islam, which is why I believe his actions speak poorly of Islam: they misrepresent that faith and draw it into disrepute.

I don't know what you mean. "I think his actions do speak poorly of Islam.", contradicts the above. Perhaps you mean you think his actions speak poorly of what he believes the faith is. You more or less say that, here, but then we're just mincing words. You say it speaks poorly of Islam. I still maintain it does not, it just causes many people to think poorly of Islam.

Your previous comment to which I was responding:
. . . sounds as if you do not believe in making value judgments, at least not in this sphere. I do not share that qualm, obviously.

Apparently.

Perhaps you should clarify what you mean by self-referential, as I'm not sure I understand you. I did provide at least one example showing a “shared” belief between myself and the Geneva Convention, a document that pre-dates me by some decades and is quite external to myself (i.e., non-self-referential).

"Self-referrential", as in, it is predicated by itself by one means or another, not whether or not you, personnally, invented it. It is the theory that refers to itself, in some senses. Of course, it still applies in your sense as well. You appear to take the Geneva Convention as that which you believe in. What makes it correct? It does. Who makes it correct (on an individual basis)? You do, as well as anyone else who accepts it as guide for ethical behaviour..

I do not mean to include you or any other unwilling participant within “our” and “shared.” I only note that my beliefs in this regard are by no means unique. Without purporting to speak for anyone else, I think it is fair to say that a number of other posters in this thread have already demonstrated as much in response to your very comments. Clearly, there is some common ground between myself and these other posters.

I'm not implying you include me. Whether or not there are, in fact, separate entities is a matter I'll leave for another discussion. In any case, those that you say have common belief with you have just that: common belief with you. No more, no less. That you all agree is immaterial.

With due respect, if the point of your original comment was only that Bin Laden has his beliefs and I have mine, it was not a very useful statement. The significance of Bin Laden’s beliefs is specifically how he has put them into practice. Many other Muslims agree with Bin Laden, but that concurrence of belief is not, in itself actionable. While I would strongly disagree with those Muslims, I would not support their incarceration or loss of liberty solely upon the basis of a belief that has not been translated into any action. (Sidenote: I would support a nation’s decision to refuse to grant such non-citizens entry, but we are straying further and further a field.)

I never purported to be useful.

(By definition, a metaphor is figurative, but you knew that.)
Go with your impression, rather than your presumption.
The metaphor is not misleading, you simply disagree with it. It is not an uncommon disagreement which can be illustrated with another analogy: I perceive all the difference in the world between a murder and the justice system that condemns that murder and carries out the sentence; some do not.

I do think the metaphor is misleading. What exactly do you propose be done about Bin Laden that is more "useful" than what I said? What lengths are acceptable?

 

[Stegyre]

This is winding down as we identify the areas in which we simply agree to disagree.

"Self-referential", as in, it is predicated by itself by one means or another, not whether or not you, personally, invented it. It is the theory that refers to itself, in some senses. Of course, it still applies in your sense as well. You appear to take the Geneva Convention as that which you believe in. What makes it correct? It does. Who makes it correct (on an individual basis)? You do, as well as anyone else who accepts it as guide for ethical behaviour.

Actually, my point is that I don’t take the Geneva Convention as my guide. Rather, I and the drafters of that document independently arrived at the same conclusion: the purposeful killing of civilians, even in wartime, is wrong. Something external to us both (me and the drafters) has apparently informed our decision. It would take some digging to discover that “self-referential source,” as the international community that adopted the convention included eastern and western nations, “Christian,” Muslim, and communist nations, and who knows what other philosophical bents?

The thrust of your point appears to be moral relativism or existentialism: the absence of any objective or external touchstone. If so, this again will be a point of disagreement.

In any case, those that you say have common belief with you have just that: common belief with you. No more, no less. That you all agree is immaterial.

IMHO, even for the relativist or the existentialist, the fact that a significant and diverse body (i.e., “the international community” – I’m sorry, I tried finding some link to identify the signatories to that convention, and this was the best I could do; I don’t like unsourced assertions, especially not my own) agrees on a certain point of view on a certain subject is, at a minimum, worthy of consideration, even though it does not require agreement.
(I am reminded of the story of the man who calls his wife while driving home:
Wife: Be careful, the news says there’s a car headed the wrong way on your freeway.
Husband: One car?! H*ll, they all are!)

Your final question about what I propose be done about Bin Laden appears to be rhetorical. I am not presumptuous enough to attempt an answer. I cannot recall in your posts where you have proposed one, either, but you are welcome to show me otherwise. (We have both written quite a lot, and probably much more than was really necessary. My excuse is work-avoidance. Yours?)

 

[punkbass2000]

This is winding down as we identify the areas in which we simply agree to disagree.

I would characterize it is as "understanding", but I won't begin another quibble

Actually, my point is that I don’t take the Geneva Convention as my guide. Rather, I and the drafters of that document independently arrived at the same conclusion: the purposeful killing of civilians, even in wartime, is wrong. Something external to us both (me and the drafters) has apparently informed our decision. It would take some digging to discover that “self-referential source,” as the international community that adopted the convention included eastern and western nations, “Christian,” Muslim, and communist nations, and who knows what other philosophical bents?

Well, really, whether or not you're upholding the Geneva Convention is not the matter. I think you're still misunderstanding what I mean by "self-referrential", though. I'm not sure how to explain it. Do you know what syllogisms are? Any conclusions drawn are predicated by their premises. To arrive at anything at all, you have to pick somewhere to start.

The thrust of your point appears to be moral relativism or existentialism: the absence of any objective or external touchstone. If so, this again will be a point of disagreement.

Hmmm... Yes and no. I tend to think what you refer to is a bit pessimistic. Buddhist, even.

IMHO, even for the relativist or the existentialist, the fact that a significant and diverse body (i.e., “the international community” – I’m sorry, I tried finding some link to identify the signatories to that convention, and this was the best I could do; I don’t like unsourced assertions, especially not my own) agrees on a certain point of view on a certain subject is, at a minimum, worthy of consideration, even though it does not require agreement.

Certainly worthy of consideration. But now we can start talking about something. For rules pertaining to a given society are one thing. Policing the world is quite another.

(I am reminded of the story of the man who calls his wife while driving home:
Wife: Be careful, the news says there’s a car headed the wrong way on your freeway.
Husband: One car?! H*ll, they all are!)

Your final question about what I propose be done about Bin Laden appears to be rhetorical. I am not presumptuous enough to attempt an answer. I cannot recall in your posts where you have proposed one, either, but you are welcome to show me otherwise. (We have both written quite a lot, and probably much more than was really necessary. My excuse is work-avoidance. Yours?)

Well, I would argue all language is rhetorical. If you don't have an answer, I'm not certain how your position really differs from mine, really. In any case, I already practice my solution regarding Bin Laden (How many people can honestly say that? )
BTW, I have no excuse.

 

[Mario Feldberg]

Bin laden is just an escape goat; the 9/11 attacks were prearranged by the U.S/Israel intelligence service.

Yep. It's too bad that only a few people can see the truth. I mean there is ... you .. and .. Hitler ...

 

[Amenhotep7]

Good!

(ten)

[slips away into shadows]