Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

The observant reader will notice shafique has managed to shift his own goal posts.

Shafique first made the claim that the crusades were religious (unlike OBL's Jihad against the US, Jews and her allies) by citing Pope Urban II's call for a crusade to protect Christendom and liberate lands held by force by other nations.

Now shafique, perhaps caught up in his own statements, has chosen to backpedal.

Shafique has now decided to switch from Pope Urban's appeal of defensive warfare against the Turks to citing the massacres some Crusaders carried out against the Jews in Central and Eastern Europe.

Understandably, shafique must now have realized that his own tendency to pontificate on subjects that he holds a poor grasp of has back fired on him.

Perhaps one should cite the atrocities against 'heretics' and 'apostates' in Muslim lands following OBL's fatwa against the Jews, the United States and her allies (undoubtedly including to so-called 'un-Islamic' regimes in the Arab and Muslim world, ie., 'apostates') as evidence that the 9/11 attacks were indeed religious, as opposed to the revisionist spin of the attacks being purely political in nature.

I will decide to overlook shafiqe's backpedaling as I could just as easily name atrocities carried out against Shia, Sufis, Qadianis, Hindus, Jews, Christians, Sikhs and moderate Muslims by groups who share the same ideological underpinnings as al-Qaeda.

Surely one would not fall for such an argument if it were applied against Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda with regards to 9/11.

So why is one to accept such strawmen when it is applied to Christians and the Pope ?

shafique wrote:Eh - you're really not going to try and convince us that the Crusades weren't holy wars are you?

Answer me this simple question - for what reason did some of the Crusaders of the First Crusade slaughter Jews of Europe before setting off for the Holy Land? Was it as an act of pious penance ?

It was a simple question. I'm not the one arguing that the Crusades weren't a Holy war - you are.

I'm not back pedalling or moving any goal posts. 9/11 was political, the Crusades were religious. I asked you a simple question above about the killings done by the Crusaders in Europe before they set off for the Holy Land - were the acts of killing Jews not acts of Christian piety according to those slaughtering the Jews?

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:

shafique wrote:Eh - you're really not going to try and convince us that the Crusades weren't holy wars are you?

Answer me this simple question - for what reason did some of the Crusaders of the First Crusade slaughter Jews of Europe before setting off for the Holy Land? Was it as an act of pious penance ?

It was a simple question. I'm not the one arguing that the Crusades weren't a Holy war - you are.

Cheers,
Shafique

Actually, I'm arguing that the 9/11 attacks were a holy war (Jihad).

I'm trying to draw an analogy between the attacks, OBL's fatwa against the US, Jews and her allies and the Pope's call for defensive warfare.

If one is to believe that OBL's war against the US is political - 'no religious basis' - then one should also agree that there is no religious basis to the crusades. At least, not to their original intent - as encapsulated in the Pope's original call for a crusade.

I know you want to avoid the question. That's pretty clear.

However, you stated that you believe the Crusades were political and not religious. If you still believe this, then answer the question:

Eh - you're really not going to try and convince us that the Crusades weren't holy wars are you?

Answer me this simple question - for what reason did some of the Crusaders of the First Crusade slaughter Jews of Europe before setting off for the Holy Land? Was it as an act of pious penance ?

If Christians were killing Jews and Muslims as acts of penance because 'Christ commands it' then that makes it a religious war. Do you disagree?


Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:I'm not back pedalling or moving any goal posts.

Well actually, you are.

You first argued the Crusades were religious based on the Pope's call to arms against the Turks.

shafique wrote:RC - Pope Urban II call for the crusades was pretty explicit to me

shafique wrote:I think Pope Urban's misuse of Christianity is indeed against the teachings of Jesus, but he did call for a Holy War against the Muslims - the very charge that is levelled against Bin Laden.)

Now you're saying the Crusades were religious because some Crusaders killed Jews while they traveled through Europe.

You have failed to link their deaths to the Pope's call for defensive warfare against the Turks and Arabs - which you originally said was 'explicit[ly]' religious in nature.

Let's first see the evidence that Urban II's appeal for action against the Turks and Arabs was explicitly religious, not political.

After that, I'll be more than happy to address the killing of Jews by some Crusaders on their way to the Crusade.

-- Thu Jul 22, 2010 10:33 pm --

shafique wrote:I know you want to avoid the question. That's pretty clear.

However, you stated that you believe the Crusades were political and not religious. If you still believe this, then answer the question:

Eh - you're really not going to try and convince us that the Crusades weren't holy wars are you?

Answer me this simple question - for what reason did some of the Crusaders of the First Crusade slaughter Jews of Europe before setting off for the Holy Land? Was it as an act of pious penance ?

If Christians were killing Jews and Muslims as acts of penance because 'Christ commands it' then that makes it a religious war. Do you disagree?


Cheers,
Shafique

Interesting strawman.

Perhaps I should raise the point that suicide bombings against Shia are acts to salvation (Koran 9:111) and one must conclude that 9/11 was wholly religious, with no political basis.

I still stand by my statement about the Crusades being a religious war. We've already established (not least in the first article) that Bin Laden's motivations were political, but I'm challenging you to back up your claim that the Crusades weren't religious wars.

When asking you about the slaughter of European Jews by crusaders, I'm merely starting with the first acts of slaughter carried out by the Crusaders - before they set off for the Holy Land.

Eh - you're really not going to try and convince us that the Crusades weren't holy wars are you?

Answer me this simple question - for what reason did some of the Crusaders of the First Crusade slaughter Jews of Europe before setting off for the Holy Land? Was it as an act of pious penance ?


If Christians were killing Jews and Muslims as acts of penance because 'Christ commands it' then that makes it a religious war. Do you disagree?

I'm sure you're aware that Urban said 'Christ commands it' - I'm just asking you whether killing in the name of Christ makes the crusades a holy war or not.

Why call this pertinent point a strawman? After all, you're the one arguing that the Crusades weren't religious wars - but can't seem to square that with the fact that the Crusaders killed Jews in Europe as acts of faith (that was just their first acts of slaughter in the name of religion - they killed more once they got to the Holy Land).

Cheers,
Shafique

If you care to recall, I'm asking you to back up your claim that the Pope's call to arms was religious while bin Laden's declaration of war against the US, her allies, and world Jewry was not.

shafique wrote:I'm sure you're aware that Urban said 'Christ commands it' - I'm just asking you whether killing in the name of Christ makes the crusades a holy war or not.

*Yawn*

OBL makes the same types of statements in his declaration of war against the US. Just read what FD copy/pasted.

shafique wrote:Why call this pertinent point a strawman?

Actually, I referred to your other 'points' as strawmen.

Try and keep up.

So, your argument is that the call to war by Pope Urban II was religious because you say he uses the phrase 'Christ commands it' ..... even though the Pope actually lays out the grievances and reasons for going to war.

shafique wrote:but can't seem to square that with the fact that the Crusaders killed Jews in Europe as acts of faith

Sure they were. Just like your other short lived claims, this one will fall like a house of cards. As soon as I blow this lie out of the water, the great historian will move on and drop another fallacy.

I'll see your killings in Europe and raise you the killings carried out by al-Qaeda and other like minded Islamic extremist groups against all sorts of different people - most of these killings were completely religious and not political.

Using your own strawman, this will prove that 9/11 was religious, not political.

My simple contention is that the Crusades were Holy wars, and that the first acts of slaughter were carried out when Crusaders slaughtered European Jews.

I simply asked you what the reason for killing the Jews were - history books tell us it was acts of Christian penance carried out 'in the name of Christ'.

Is the Loon version of history different?

If not - then how can you argue that the Crusaders who killed Jews in Europe as acts of penance were NOT engaged in a religious war?

Clarify this simple point and we can then go over the material (again!) which shows 9/11 wasn't religously based like the Crusades were.

So - does the Loon version of history concerning the slaughter of European Jews at the start of the First Crusade say they were NOT killed 'in the name of Christ' as an act of piety?

Cheers,
Shafique

Sorry, I figured you would support a claim you made if you were challenged on it.

I can understand your unwillingness to address my simple question regarding the Pope's call to arms and how that differs from OBL's declaration of war against the US, her allies and world Jewry.

shafique wrote:I simply asked you what the reason for killing the Jews were - history books tell us it was acts of Christian penance carried out 'in the name of Christ'.

Let's see those 'history' books you claim to have read.

shafique wrote:Clarify this simple point and we can then go over the material (again!) which shows 9/11 wasn't religously based like the Crusades were.

You can't even show that the Pope's call to arms was religiously based.

LoL.

Too funny.

shafique wrote:I simply asked you what the reason for killing the Jews were - history books tell us it was acts of Christian penance carried out 'in the name of Christ'.

Is the Loon version of history different?

If not - then how can you argue that the Crusaders who killed Jews in Europe as acts of penance were NOT engaged in a religious war?

Was the question difficult?

You seem to insist that the Crusades were political and not religious wars. Back it up with some facts, young man. I still stand by my statements that Urban's call for holy war was just that - but it is interesting to see you squirm when faced with the reality of the first acts of slaughter of the First Crusades were done 'in the name of Christ' and killed European Jews, in Europe.

Were the killings of the Jews in Europe 'political' and not religious acts of Christian penance in the loon version of history?

Cheers,
Shafique

If you scroll back, I posed the question to you before I made any statement.

You have chosen to not answer my question.

I suggest you take this to another thread.

Were the killings of the Jews in Europe 'political' and not religious acts of Christian penance in the loon version of history?

Did you admit that even in Loon versions of history the first acts of slaughter were of Jews in Europe and were done 'in the name of Christ' as a penance?

If so, then given Urban says 'Christ Commands it' - how can you reconcile this with your contention that this was NOT a Holy War? (Killing of the Jews of Europe serves no military/political goal - or does it?)

(Oh and it is funny to see you squirm so! No need for a separate thread - we are firmly on topic - I contrasted the political nature of 9/11 with the religious basis of the Crusades, you dispute that the Crusades were religiously based and made some claims which don't stand up to scrutiny. If they did, you'd have answered the question already.)

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:If so, then given Urban says 'Christ Commands it' - how can you reconcile this with your contention that this was NOT a Holy War?

Interesting point.

And OBL says it's Allah's order to kill every American.

Are you saying that the 9/11 attacks had a religious basis after all ?

At least attempt to remain consistent with your logic.

shafique wrote:Did you admit that even in Loon versions of history the first acts of slaughter were of Jews in Europe and were done 'in the name of Christ' as a penance?

Where are these historians you claim to have read ?

Don't you complain that others supposedly fabricate stories ?

LoL.

shafique wrote:Oh and it is funny to see you squirm so!

Whatever you say, Baghdad Bob.

Still waiting for those historians.

Still waiting for you to give me an answer regarding OBL's own statements in his declaration of war against the US, her allies and world Jewry.

Oh, and I guess it would be too painful to point out that members of al-Qaeda central were blowing up Shia shrines well before the 9/11 attacks.

Wooops.

Enough with the smoke and mirrors.

shafique wrote:

Were the killings of the Jews in Europe 'political' and not religious acts of Christian penance in the loon version of history?

Did you admit that even in Loon versions of history the first acts of slaughter were of Jews in Europe and were done 'in the name of Christ' as a penance?

If so, then given Urban says 'Christ Commands it' - how can you reconcile this with your contention that this was NOT a Holy War? (Killing of the Jews of Europe serves no military/political goal - or does it?)

Are you ashamed of the fact that even the loon version of history shows the Crusaders killing Jews as acts of Christian piety?

Is it out of shame that you can't bring yourself to answer the question about how you can reconcile these historical facts with your (bizare) contention that the Crusades were political and not religious.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Are you ashamed of the fact that even the loon version of history shows the Crusaders killing Jews as acts of Christian piety?

Find a historian who says this.

shafique wrote:Is it out of shame that you can't bring yourself to answer the question about how you can reconcile these historical facts with your (bizare) contention that the Crusades were political and not religious.

One thing at a time.

You were the one to initially claim that OBL's declaration of war against the US, her allies and world Jewry was political and had no religious basis. You then said that the Pope's call to arms against the Turks and a lesser extent, the Arabs was religiously based.

I'm just trying to figure out what you believe the Pope said to make his declaration of war wholly religious that also can't be found in OBL's declaration of war.

From a casual observation, I would say OBL's declaration is far more religiously rooted than what the Pope said.

At least the Pope never cited a single violent or militant verse from the Bible or teaching of Christianity to justify the Crusades.

OBL, on the other hand, frequently cites the texts and teachings of Islam.

Funny that.

There you go again asking me to do your homework.

shafique wrote:
Were the killings of the Jews in Europe 'political' and not religious acts of Christian penance in the loon version of history?

Did you admit that even in Loon versions of history the first acts of slaughter were of Jews in Europe and were done 'in the name of Christ' as a penance?

If so, then given Urban says 'Christ Commands it' - how can you reconcile this with your contention that this was NOT a Holy War? (Killing of the Jews of Europe serves no military/political goal - or does it?)

Are you ashamed of the fact that even the loon version of history shows the Crusaders killing Jews as acts of Christian piety?

So, what does the Loon version of history say the reason for the First Crusaders killing Jews in Europe before setting off was? Did the Christian knights not do it 'in the name of Christ' in your version of history?

The facts though are - Urban did indeed quote the Bible in Clermont, did call for a Holy Army, did say 'Christ Commands it' and the Crusaders did go out and kill European Jews 'in the name of Christ' as the first act of slaughter. The fact that Urban didn't quote the violent verses of the Bible begs the question - what if he had done - would the slaughters have been worse? (Hard to imagine how you could make the slaughters worse than they were).

Bottom line, Crusades were a Holy War - and despite your squirming - you're ultimately All Mouth, No Trousers.

Cheers,
Shafique

You're just repeating yourself and everything you have repeated has already been addressed.

Rather tiresome, I must say. (I wonder what kind of agitated person you must be in real life)

Urban did indeed quote the Bible in Clermont

Didn't claim he didn't. I said the pope never cited a violent passage.

did call for a Holy Army

So did OBL, what's your point ?

did say 'Christ Commands it'

Ditto, see above (except Bin Laden 'says Allah orders it' with regards to killing Americans)

the Crusaders did go out and kill European Jews 'in the name of Christ' as the first act of slaughter.

Is there any connection to that and what the Pope said in his declaration of war against the Turks ?

Oh, and I haven't seen any evidence for the second part.

Perhaps you're 'working' on it ?

The fact that Urban didn't quote the violent verses of the Bible begs the question - what if he had done

But he didn't. Whereas Bin Laden *does* cite the Koran and rulings of the Ulema to justify his holy war against the US and world Jewry.

Bottom line, Crusades were a Holy War - and despite your squirming - you're ultimately All Mouth, No Trousers.

So you're denying that Bin Laden's actions aren't seen as a Holy War ?

This should be interesting.

So what does Loon version of history say the reason that the Christian knights of the First Crusade slaughtered European Jews was?

I couldn't see where you answered the question whether your version of history said they weren't slaughtered 'in the name of Christ'.

How do you reconcile this with your bizare view that the Crusades were political and not a Holy War?

Cheers,
Shafique

Shafique,
First of all thank you very much for your detailed replies but after reading I have a doubt that you can participate in coherent discussion without whitening.

shafique wrote:Sorry my example earlier was not clear. The Political benefits of these fighters is the liberation of Chechnya from Russian rule - foreign fighters joining local liberation forces is not a feature exclusively of Islam or Chechnya - Brits went to Spain to fight Franco, Canadians came to the UK to fight the nazis, heck - Mauritians went to France to fight the Nazis! And my previous example was of Japanese who went to Israel to fight in the Palestinian cause (but as terrorists). In all cases, political.

I ask you to avoid lame examples but stay on topic. Well, using your weapon, there were a lot of hot spots after collaps of Soviet Union: Chechnya, South Osesia, Abhasia and Transdnistria. Three first are located in Caucasia region with locan popilation in majority. Why did those "fighters for freedom" help only Chechens tribes? The reply is on the surface actualy. Islam.

Ok... Once more what political benefits will all those kind Moslems have from Liberation of Chechnya except religion solidarity?

Why did Muslims financially support the separatists in Chechnya? Well, because they are siding with the Chechens in their fight for national sovereignty.

There are non-Buddhists are passionate about supporting Tibet, Libya financed and gave arms to Northern Ireland terrorists - and many Americans also gave financial support - when they were blowing up British targets. Was Ghadaffi supporting the Catholic terrorists because of religion - and why are the New York Irish families who supported the IRA and sent money any different from Ghaddaffi?

He-he it's closer and hotter. I don't insist that there is the only Moslem "support" in the World but only Moslems make it globally and expanded the holy war far outside their own region.

About Ghadaffi it was assimetric reply on sanction, exactly the same as Iran do for Palestine now. In case of Ireland it's nationalistic movement (not political).

Keep whitening. Ariel is good!

Red Chief wrote:Shafique,
First of all thank you very much for your detailed replies but after reading I have a doubt that you can participate in coherent discussion without whitening.

Perhaps I'm spending too much time with the loons!

But I am answering your questions the best way I know and am sincere in my interpretations.

Red Chief wrote:

shafique wrote:Sorry my example earlier was not clear. The Political benefits of these fighters is the liberation of Chechnya from Russian rule - foreign fighters joining local liberation forces is not a feature exclusively of Islam or Chechnya - Brits went to Spain to fight Franco, Canadians came to the UK to fight the nazis, heck - Mauritians went to France to fight the Nazis! And my previous example was of Japanese who went to Israel to fight in the Palestinian cause (but as terrorists). In all cases, political.

I ask you to avoid lame examples but stay on topic. Well, using your weapon, there were a lot of hot spots after collaps of Soviet Union: Chechnya, South Osesia, Abhasia and Transdnistria. Three first are located in Caucasia region with locan popilation in majority. Why did those "fighters for freedom" help only Chechens tribes? The reply is on the surface actualy. Islam.

Ok, I didn't think I was giving any 'lame examples' - but rather relevant ones of foreign fighters joining in nationalist struggles/causes.

Red Chief wrote:Ok... Once more what political benefits will all those kind Moslems have from Liberation of Chechnya except religion solidarity?

The same political benefits a non-Muslim foreign liberation fighter will get - the satisfaction that the nationalist movement has achieved it's political goals. It is the same political benefit a Canadian in WWII got when he fought for the UK, or a Brit who fought against Franco.

(See, I answered directly and gave the examples of other foreign fighters who fought in other wars/insurgencies)

Red Chief wrote:

Why did Muslims financially support the separatists in Chechnya? Well, because they are siding with the Chechens in their fight for national sovereignty.

There are non-Buddhists are passionate about supporting Tibet, Libya financed and gave arms to Northern Ireland terrorists - and many Americans also gave financial support - when they were blowing up British targets. Was Ghadaffi supporting the Catholic terrorists because of religion - and why are the New York Irish families who supported the IRA and sent money any different from Ghaddaffi?

He-he it's closer and hotter. I don't deny that there is only Moslem "support" in the World but only Moslem makes it globally and expanded the holy war far outside their own region.

Really? Only Muslims support 'holy war' outside their own region. Hmm - perhaps you're spending too much time with the loons. I tend to count bodies and bombs when assessing who the biggest villains are, not what loons imagine motives are, but hey - that's just me.

Red Chief wrote:About Ghadaffi it was assimetric reply on sanction. It was exactly the same as Iran do for Palestine now. In case of Ireland it's nationalistic movement (not political).

Sorry - are you saying a 'Nationalistic movement' is not political? Isn't it completlely political (as opposed to religious?)

Cheers,
Shafique

Shafique, sorry for the word "lame". It was rough. I meant that they were not coherent to discussion. Well, Russians and Brits fought against Franco for different but political reasons. Partisipation of Ozzy and Canadians were not exactly voluntary and was inspired by local government for political reasons - to weaken influance of Germany.

On the other hand, my example about Caucasian rebelion states looks more coherent and make the true intention of Moslem international clearer. In my view the main reason was in expanding and consolidating Islam - establishing the "The Great Caucasian Moslem Emirate" (the slogan of Chechen's rebels). From Chechen rebels it was pure Politics but from the Moslem International I am afraid but only religion.

As for nationalistic movement I don't count it political as far as it has support (finacial, military) only from diaspora. If third-party power wants to liberate Iraq or Afghanistan for instance IMO it's political.

Let's drop the question about the biggest villain for another discussion. I guess we can find larger common ground on that topic.

I wish I were a hunter.

Red Chief wrote:Shafique, sorry for the word "lame". It was rough. I meant that they were not coherent to discussion. Well, Russians and Brits fought against Franco for different but political reasons. Partisipation of Ozzy and Canadians were not exactly voluntary and was inspired by local government for political reasons - to weaken influance of Germany.

No disagreement there. Apologies over the use of 'lame' accepted.

Red Chief wrote:On the other case my example about Caucasian rebelion states look more coherent and make the true intention of Moslem international more clear.

RC - I agree to the extent that IF there was indeed a Holy War going on with Muslims fighting non-Muslims over a loon-interpretation of Ch9 of the Quran, then yes - Muslims from abroad joining in to fight alongside 'jihadists' in Chechnya etc would be doing so out of a religious conviction.

The Muslim fighters are indeed aligning themselves with the values of the separatists. And yes, given that the Chechens want independence and are Muslim, then Islam is a factor in why the foreign Muslims are joining the fight.

However, it is still a separatist/independence movement - isn't it?

May I ask how Chechnya differs from Kosovo - for example? Arguably, the US/Nato helped the Kosovan separatists to achieve independence from Serbia. The Kosovans are Muslim and seperatists. (Same goes for Bosnians, come to think of it).

I think we'll agree that NATO support of Kosovans was political and not religious? Aren't the aims the same as the Chechen separatists?

Red Chief wrote: In my view the main reason was in expanding and consolidating Islam - establishing the "Great Caucasian Moslem Emirate" (the slogan of Chechen's rebels). From Chechen rebels it was pure Politics but from the Moslem International I am afraid but only religion.

Still sounds political to me - the USSR was a union of states after all, the UAE is a collection of emirates -why shouldn't Muslim independent nations want to have self governance and form 'emirates'?

Red Chief wrote:As for nationalistic movement I don't count it political as far as it has support (finacial, military) only from diaspora. If third-party power wants to liberate Iraq or Afghanistan for instance IMO it's political.

I wish I were a hunter.

But, we still come back to 9/11 and the reasons why Bin Laden targetted the US. It wasn't to establish an Emirate in Manhattan - but, as per the evidence posted, in retaliation for US aggression in the East.

(I trust I've not been too incoherent!)

Cheers,
Shafique

RC - I agree to the extent that IF there was indeed a Holy War going on with Muslims fighting non-Muslims over a loon-interpretation of Ch9 of the Quran, then yes - Muslims from abroad joining in to fight alongside 'jihadists' in Chechnya etc would be doing so out of a religious conviction.

The Muslim fighters are indeed aligning themselves with the values of the separatists. And yes, given that the Chechens want independence and are Muslim, then Islam is a factor in why the foreign Muslims are joining the fight.

However, it is still a separatist/independence movement - isn't it?

Yes, it was. I doubt that warlords, who had been carrier officers of Soviet Army and members of CPSU, read Quran, as both main books had been merely impossible to find in the SU. I am for one first time read NT at the age of 21. The rebels use Quran for pure political reason, but internatianal support was pure religios.

May I ask how Chechnya differs from Kosovo - for example? Arguably, the US/Nato helped the Kosovan separatists to achieve independence from Serbia. The Kosovans are Muslim and seperatists. (Same goes for Bosnians, come to think of it).

I think we'll agree that NATO support of Kosovans was political and not religious? Aren't the aims the same as the Chechen separatists?

No, they are not. NATO supported Albanian expats and Moslem Serbians for pure political reason - to weaken and punish Serbia and his main allie (Who it might be? ) and change the balance of power in favour odf EU. Small weak economies are easy to incorporate to the German's body, sorry EU. (Who eventualy won in the WWII after 65 years?)

I don't know the reason for Muslim International to weaken Russia. I spoke with many ME people and found that Russia has pretty positive image here. Moreover, many of them missed strong Soviet Union.
So the only reason is expanding Islam using temporary weakness of Russia.

Still sounds political to me - the USSR was a union of states after all, the UAE is a collection of emirates -why shouldn't Muslim independent nations want to have self governance and form 'emirates'?

They promissed to expand Islam on another territories, including non-Islamic. Actualy Caucasia is not totally Muslim and we have strong allies there. That's why one target of the Chechens was a school in Beslan (Nothern Osecia), where only highlanders (non ethnically Russians) live. It was also the reason why Russians fought for Souther Osecia in 08/08/08.

RC - I have to say, I agree with what you are saying in these cases.

The separatists were/are fighting for political reasons in the places you say - and I'll take your word that there is also plan to 'expand Islam' on other territories in Caucasia. If the plan is to expand and impose Islamic rule rather than just separate and impose the will of the people, then this is indeed a 'Holy War'. Then it would indeed be like the crusades.

I also agree with you that those Muslim fighters who are joining in separatist fights, are doing so primarily because they are Muslim and want to help their Muslim separatist 'brothers' (but help them achieve political goals).

As an aside - and just to be clear - where Muslims kill other Muslims in sectarian killings - this is clearly religiously motivated in most cases (some are political, but these are minority of cases)


All that said, what I don't agree with is the 'loon' argument that 9/11 is part of a Holy War where Muslims want to use violence to impose the superiority of Islam. This is a nice story, but one that can be checked against the evidence.

This thread contains evidence that contradicts this story - 9/11 was not part of a Holy War of conquest or part of a Islamic hatred of non-Muslims- it was specificallly a terrorist attack against a Western nation that Bin Laden blames for attacks in the East.


We can perhaps disagree on whether we believe the evidence represents the true motivations for the terrorist acts - but that is what the evidence shows.


Cheers,
Shafique

As for 9/11 I disagree with your interpretation of term "Politics", as I used to disagree with another foreign term μάθημα or Science.

It was assymetric reply for the invasion to the Moslem lands and killing Moslem people and looks exactly the same as what Sallahuddin used to do. Where is "Politics" here?

The word "politics" comes from the Greek word "Πολιτικά" (politika), modeled on Aristotle's "affairs of state", the name of his book on governing and governments.

To simpilify even more the origination was πόλις (city) or country in some extension. So to prove that something has political reason you should indicate which country which benefit has as a result of the appropriate action.

Well, that all Greek to me.

I'm just using the term 'politics' to distinguish it from 'religious' - one could say 'secular' or looking for worldly power/control/justice - the other is actions because of a spiritual (or perhaps even ideological) belief.

I agree that the 9/11 was an assymetric reply to an invasion. Salahuddin is a good example - recall that in the Islamic world, the first few crusades were seen as border skirmishes at the periphery of the empire.

Salahuddin's response to the Holy War against Muslim land, was indeed a retaliation to the invasions. However, remember that Salahuddin also entered into treaties with the Franks, but these were broken - his kingdoms kept being attacked and he decided to fight back. His wars weren't Holy Wars to establish the rule of Islam - but conquests of territories and fighting against powers fighting him. But that is another story... perhaps for another thread.

Back to 9/11 - I guess if we look beyond the greek meanings of words, we are not that far apart in our analysis of what is going on. Perhaps it just comes down to whether we take the view that Bin Laden can't justify terrorism using Islam and has to resort to a 'retaliation argument' to decide whether his terrorist retaliation is BECAUSE of Islam rather than DESPITE Islam's teachings.

We seem to agree with the evidence presented that he was reacting to US bombings/killings in the East (and I'm sure you will correct me if I'm mistaken on this point).

Cheers,
Shafique

He-he,

Shafique, if you don't like foreign terms (most of them are Greek) you should launch different ones but call them by another names.

Dear sir, I bow my head to your obviously greater knowledge of Greek and other foreign words. I'll have to stick to English - which contains many words of Greek, Latin, Arabic etc origins. When I use them, it will be as in the definitions in the English dictionaries... and I cannot guarantee these agree with what they originally meant in Greek!



Cheers,
Shafique

Most Honorable Shafique,

It's the point of disagreement but not the point of disrespect!


Cheers!

shafique wrote:^No. You're not imagining things again are you eh?

Bin Laden - states 9/11 was in retaliation for US attacks, Loon version - Islam's at fault.

Cheers,
Shafique

Actually it does sound like the Sheik's justification for killing non-Muslim women and children.

OBL even quoted the same verse from the Koran as they sheik did.

UBL: ...But this forbiding of killing children and innocents... is not general [mutlaqan] and there are other writings that uphold it [nusus ukhra tuqayiduhu].

Allah's (subhannahu wa ta'aala) saying:
"And if you punish (your enemy, O you believers in the Oneness of Allah), then punish them with the like of that with which you were afflicted..." [Qur'an (16):126]

The scholars and people of the knowledge [ahlu al-`ilm], amongst them 'Sahib al-Ikhtiyarat', and Ibn al-Qayyim (rahimahullah), and Shawkaani, and a lot of others, and Qurtubi (rahimahullah) in his tafseer, say that if the disbelievers were to kill our children and women, then we should not feel ashamed to do the same to them, mainly to deter them from trying to kill our children and women again. And that is from a religious standpoint

You and your author have both been punked.