[Aryan_]

Originally Posted by roberto

How do the majority of British Muslims feel about this, please assume a legal war against a Muslim state aggressor

Which one?

[roberto]

Originally Posted by Aryan_

Which one?

Answer the question

[roberto]

[quote=roberto;79414]

Originally Posted by roberto

How do the majority of British Muslims feel about this, please assume a legal war against a Muslim state aggressor

There are, I suppose, many reason why only one person has answered the question, it is however somewhat disquieting.

[roberto]

[quote=roberto;77750]Independent.co.uk
Man admits plot to behead British Muslim soldier
By Terri Judd
Wednesday, 30 January 2008

Independent.co.uk
Soldier kidnap fanatic jailed for life
By Tim Walsh, PA
Monday, 18 February 2008

Khan, 37, of Foxton Road, Alum Rock, Birmingham, who planned to lure the soldier off the streets with the promise of drugs and film his beheading, was told he would serve a minimum of 14 years.

Khan admitted the kidnap plot. He also pleaded guilty at Leicester Crown Court via video link from prison to supplying equipment to terrorists in Pakistan and two counts of being in possession of a record or document likely to be of use to a terrorist.

Sentencing Khan in his absence, Mr Justice Henriques said: "You have been described by the Crown as a man who has the most violent and extreme Islamist views and as a fanatic.

"Having studied over the last month (the covert recordings), I unhesitatingly accept that description of you.

"You not only plotted to kill a soldier but you intended to film a most brutal killing."

Khan's aim, said the judge, was to deter any Muslim from joining the British Army.

"This was not only a plot to kill a soldier but a plot to undermine the morale of the British Army and inhibit recruitment," he said.

"It's plain that you were absolutely serious and determined to bring this plot to fruition."

He added: "Unfortunately your enthusiasm was infectious and you dragged in your co-accused, every one of whom should curse the day they set their eyes on you."

Khan was claiming benefits of more than £20,000 a year during the time he plotted to snatch the serviceman off the streets and decapitate him "like a pig", the court was told.

Opening the case against Khan last week, prosecutor Nigel Rumfitt QC revealed that Khan was recorded by a listening device at his home as he taught his five-year-old son how to carry out a beheading.

Mr Rumfitt also told the court that Khan was at the hub of a terrorist cell, based in Birmingham, which had organised four shipments of equipment to terrorists based in Pakistan but operating against coalition forces in Afghanistan.

And it emerged last week, in proceedings which could not be reported until today, that Khan wanted to burn the soldier's body and parade his head on a stick.

A security services probe installed in Khan's home recorded him in November 2006 telling co-defendant Basiru Gassama what he intended to do.

Khan was heard to say: "We give the judgment... we'll then cut it off like you cut a pig, man.

"Then you put it on a stick. Then we throw the body, burn it, send the video to the chacha (a reference to terrorist leaders in Pakistan).

"They will go crazy, they will start searching... London, Birmingham, Newcastle, where are these people?"

Basiru Gassama, 30, of Radstock Avenue, Hodge Hill, pleaded guilty at a previous hearing to a failure to disclose information about the plot.

Mohammed Irfan, 31, of Asquith Road, Ward End, and Hamid Elasmar, 44, of Bristol Road, Edgbaston, both pleaded guilty to engaging in conduct with the intention of assisting in the commission of acts of terrorism - namely helping Khan to supply the equipment.

Zahoor Iqbal, 30, of Elmbridge Road, Perry Barr, was found guilty by the jury at Leicester of the same charge.

In mitigation, Michael Wolkind QC, defending Khan, told the court that his client's plot had been a "mixture of fanaticism and fantasy".

Referring to the covert monitoring of Khan, he said: "If there had been a genuine threat, the buggers would have stopped it much earlier. There was a long way to go.

"His plan might have changed had British foreign policy changed. He might have withdrawn if the British troops were withdrawn."

But continuing his sentence of Khan, Mr Justice Henriques said: "So rampant are your views, so excitable your temperament, so persuasive your tongue and so imbued with energy are you, it's quite impossible to predict when, if ever, it will be safe for you to be released into the public.

"It was a plot whose purpose was to undermine democratic government, to demoralise the British Army and to destabilise recruitment, and to cause anguish to the then Prime Minister of the day and the loyal citizens of the country."

Khan was given a minimum 14 years for the plot, eight years for the supply of equipment and two and a half years for both counts of being in possession of the records of documents. The sentences will run concurrently.

[Salahadeen]

[quote=roberto;80447]

Originally Posted by roberto

There are, I suppose, many reason why only one person has answered the question, it is however somewhat disquieting.

There is no doubt that the Muslim--who joins the army of the enemies of Islam and fights the Muslims-- has become an apostate.

Yet, what Mr. Khan did was wrong, because it is vigilante justice which is not allowed in Islam, and also it is a violation of the covenant between him and the British state. Muslims must abide by the law of the land, and they cannot abuse the trust of the British who give them a visa which is a covenant which a Muslim cannot violate.

[roberto]

[quote=Salahadeen;86986][quote=roberto;80447]

There is no doubt that the Muslim--who joins the army of the enemies of Islam and fights the Muslims-- has become an apostate

The context of the question is as below


"Beyond the sheer brutality the probable underlying aspect of this is, that these people consider that for a Muslim to fight in a war against other Muslims is wrong and that the allegiance of a British Muslim must be to fellow Muslims rather than the country of which they are citizens.

How do the majority of British Muslims feel about this, please assume a legal war against a Muslim state aggressor"


Given this context would you define the army as an enemy of Islam?

[Zeinab]

Roberto said:

The context of the question is as below


"Beyond the sheer brutality the probable underlying aspect of this is, that these people consider that for a Muslim to fight in a war against other Muslims is wrong and that the allegiance of a British Muslim must be to fellow Muslims rather than the country of which they are citizens.

How do the majority of British Muslims feel about this, please assume a legal war against a Muslim state aggressor"


Given this context would you define the army as an enemy of Islam?

Firstly, on whose terms do you define 'legal' and 'aggressor'?

Personally, I think the Iraq war could never have been justified; taking up arms in a country half way around the world under the pretence of liberation / bringing democracy / overthrowing tyrancies etc. without arbitration, diplomacy or international support really isn't protecting or serving your country. Instead, it highlights an incredible arrogance and reveals a hegemonic approach to world relations.

Being against military action of your country's armed forces isn't equal to betraying your national allegiance. Islam plays a role in deciding and shaping opinions of said military action, hence, providing guidance on issues of joining or engaging in the armed forces. This, of course, does not excuse nor justify any vigilante actions. This is all in the context of Muslims living in a non-Muslim / secular state.

[roberto]

[quote=Zeinab;87139]Roberto said:

Firstly, on whose terms do you define 'legal' and 'aggressor'?

I'm not defining either, for the purpose of the question the person replying can apply his/her difinition

Thank you for your views on the Iraq war, however my question was not in connection with this particular action.

Being against military action of your country's armed forces isn't equal to betraying your national allegiance
Islam plays a role in deciding and shaping opinions of said military action, hence, providing guidance on issues of joining or engaging in the armed forces.

With all other things equal is there any difference between participating in a war against a Muslims country’s army and that of a non-Muslim country’s army?

This, of course, does not excuse nor justify any vigilante actions.

Do you think it is acceptable for a Muslim to enroll in the armed section of the police and fire if rquired on Muslims engaged in terrorist activities, or say armed robbery?

This is all in the context of Muslims living in a non-Muslim / secular state

Understood

[roberto]

[quote=roberto;86983][quote=roberto;77750]

Independent.co.uk
Man admits plot to behead British Muslim soldier
By Terri Judd
Wednesday, 30 January 2008

Independent.co.uk
Soldier kidnap fanatic jailed for life
By Tim Walsh, PA
Monday, 18 February 2008

I suppose an apology's out of the question

Back to the future with Vatman and Dobbin... | the Daily Mail


Cast your minds back a year to when police in Birmingham mounted a series of raids in connection with a plot by Islamist madmen to kidnap and behead a British soldier.


The operation was condemned as an attack on all Muslims. At the city's central mosque, Dr Mohammed Naseem, described as a "moderate" cleric, claimed Britain's Muslims were being treated like Jews in Nazi Germany.

Addressing a 2,000-strong congregation, he accused the police of inventing the plot, simply to harass peace-loving Muslims.


Dr Naseem accused the authorities of an Islamic 'smear campaign'
Reporters, especially from the BBC, flooded into the area to warn of a backlash from the "community" over this unwarranted police brutality.

The usual suspects were wheeled out to express the opinion that none of the men arrested could possibly have anything to do with terrorism.

They were all lovely boys, hard-working, mad on cricket, good to their mums etc. Each and every one was innocent and must have been fitted up by the filth. You know the script.

Police were forced on to the back foot and had to mount a charm offensive, holding reassuring press conferences and putting out thousands of flyers in five languages, justifying the arrests.

Yesterday at Leicester Crown Court, the trial of six men charged over the plot came to an end. Four pleaded guilty, one was found guilty and another found not guilty.

So much for police "persecuting" all Muslims.

The battle against Islamic terrorism is difficult enough, without "moderate" clerics whipping up trouble. The police should never have to apologise to anyone for doing their job.

With the impending departures of old school anti-terror chiefs Andy Hayman and Peter Clarke, there are said to be moves towards more touchy-feely "community" based initiatives.

But this was a victory for old-fashioned thief-taking. If the "community" - or at least that section which claims to speak for it - had its way, no one would have been brought to justice.

[Zeinab]

Back to the future with Vatman and Dobbin... | the Daily Mail

^Your source says it all really. I don't think a right-wing, sensationalist tabloid adds any wieght to your argument, roberto. No-one with a reasonable level of intelligence takes anything the Daily Mail says seriously.

[roberto]

Originally Posted by Zeinab

^Your source says it all really. I don't think a right-wing, sensationalist tabloid adds any wieght to your argument, roberto. No-one with a reasonable level of intelligence takes anything the Daily Mail says seriously.

I suppose confronted with a question you wish to avoid this sort of response is not too surprising.

Why don't you answer the question?

[Jamroll]

Originally Posted by roberto

I suppose confronted with a question you wish to avoid this sort of response is not too surprising.

Why don't you answer the question?

Lol, you remind me of the Stasi. Pray tell, what is the question, dear roberto?

[Bluestar]

How do the majority of British Muslims feel about this, please assume a legal war against a Muslim state aggressor

If that's your question roberto, then you must be in a patronising mood . No muslim should ever have to prove that he/she isn't terrorist supporting, what happened to being innocent until proven guilty? This culture of blaming until someone "proves" they're not to blame isn't productive and proves contradictory to the world you want to live in. (i say that assuming you want a peaceful rather than a non-muslim world ).

As for the answer, Pushpa answered it very well. I have to agree with Zeinabs views of the Daily Mail too i'm sure someone out there would probably find a use out of it as bog roll but other than that, it's pretty useless.

In regards to the war in Afghanistan, things have improved but it seems as if some Taliban leaders have been kept and given official positions. Now that they're richer, they do their bullying in large range rovers instead of pick ups. In regards to whether this war is moral, it's contentious, there's problems with the people who are fighting it on both sides, the way war is conducted and the overrall expectation of what will be the consequence of western interruption. Funny how the 'white mans burden' still creeps up in places. Afghanistan has a rich culture with a history of poetry, philosophy and literature. Before the Soviet War, "you couldn't stretch your leg out without poking a poet up the arse" as Khaled Hosseini put it. The meaning of a 'civilised society' is relative and to enforce one definition on another country and expect gratitude is.....oh so british.

[roberto]

[quote=Bluestar;88175]

If that's your question roberto, then you must be in a patronising mood . No muslim should ever have to prove that he/she isn't terrorist supporting, what happened to being innocent until proven guilty? This culture of blaming until someone "proves" they're not to blame isn't productive and proves contradictory to the world you want to live in. (i say that assuming you want a peaceful rather than a non-muslim world ).

Yes it is the question, although following what I believed, probably foolishly, was a sincere request for clarification I asked two further questions. None of the questions were related to direct terrorist activity, however in view of the results of various polls one example below, concern on the matter is not unreasonable.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html

As for the answer, Pushpa answered it very well.

Pushpa answer was very clear and reassuring in terms of her stance, however it was the only such answer.

I have to agree with Zeinabs views of the Daily Mail too i'm sure someone out there would probably find a use out of it as bog roll but other than that, it's pretty useless.

Noted, but really hardly a contribution

In regards to the war in Afghanistan, things have improved but it seems as if some Taliban leaders have been kept and given official positions. Now that they're richer, they do their bullying in large range rovers instead of pick ups. In regards to whether this war is moral, it's contentious, there's problems with the people who are fighting it on both sides, the way war is conducted and the overrall expectation of what will be the consequence of western interruption. Funny how the 'white mans burden' still creeps up in places. Afghanistan has a rich culture with a history of poetry, philosophy and literature. Before the Soviet War, "you couldn't stretch your leg out without poking a poet up the arse" as Khaled Hosseini put it. The meaning of a 'civilised society' is relative and to enforce one definition on another country and expect gratitude is.....oh so british

Thank you for you views on Afghanistan, Rudyard Kipling, colonisation, and regime change, however they are somewhat off subject.

Please accept my invitation to answer my question, forgotten what it was, don’t worry go back and read it