Bhutto Assasinated by Suicide Attack

[Prime Junta]

True, this is the crux of the problem. At least in the US, this was brought about, in part, by the de-regulation of media empires and the loss of independence of local affiliates. This created a homogenization of media that lead to more and more influence of the profit margin over the quality of journalistic programming. However, even if we reverted to pre-de-regulation days, I don't think that would be enough to solve the problem, namely the ever-increasing pressure for media in general, beyond journalism, to cater to the lowest common denominator in order to sell advertising slots. In contrast, but without being truly knowledgeable, I'd guess the quality of the BBC is due, in part, to it's subsidization by the government.

Perhaps partly. Then again, British press journalism (The Times, The Guardian etc.) is of a very high standard as well.

These things create feedback cycles too; if there is a significant public for high-quality journalism, they demand that from their journalists, who then do their best to provide it. Conversely, if the public prefers journalists who validate their pre-existing beliefs and aren't particularly upset about shoddy research, then that's what they'll get.

I'd like to say that the problem, at least in the US, could be solved by better educating our population and encouraging, as a society, the old ways of curiosity in the outside world and reward for being well-rounded as an individual rather than our current culture that is obsessed with self and rewards selfishness, but obviously that is a much larger problem to solve.

Perhaps. Much ink has been spilled over the deteriorating educational standards in the US; it could be that that has something to do with it.

 

[Prime Junta]

@Poly, good to have a Muslim voice join the discussion. What's your take on the Bhutto assassination?

I'm particularly interested in your take on the speculation above -- that Al Qaeda can't have been behind the Bhutto assassination, since they supposedly aren't allowed to target women? I understand that when Islamists assassinate Muslims, the rationale used is apostasy (takfir); they certainly used this justification for Anwar Sadat among others. Does Islamic law make a distinction between men and women when it comes to apostasy?

 

[GothicGothicness]

I am sorry to say that al-qaida doesn't care about what they are "supposed to do" they went out and said officially they did it.... so if they are not allowed to target women, why would they say it??? To me it is pretty obvious it is them.

 

[Prime Junta]

Did they? I haven't seen anything definite to that effect: two anonymous phone calls to two reasonably obscure media outlets, one unattributed allegation from an anonymous Pakistani government source. I would expect to see "press releases" issued to multiple media outlets and published on jihadi websites. So far, I haven't seen anything to this effect.

What's more, Al Qaeda most definitely cares very deeply about what they're "supposed to do." They have a very strict set of rules to which they adhere quite scrupulously. Obviously these rules permit them to make all kinds of mayhem; the question is, do they include restrictions on picking women as targets for assassinations? (I don't believe so, but I would like to get a more informed opinion about it.)

 

[POLYGON]

@ PJ: All I know is that Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) always told his army not to target women, children, old people and the non-armed, so yes women are muslims are not allowed to target enemy women...as for apostasy it does not defferniate between men and women

 

[Prime Junta]

Thanks; that's approximately what I figured. So, by Al Qaeda reasoning, attacking BB as an act of war would be haram, but if she was determined to be an apostate, she would be subject to the same penalty as a man (namely, death).

 

[POLYGON]

No Apostasy means that previously muslim becomes non-muslim without him/her admitiing or declaring...let's take praying for example, if a muslim don't pray five times a day yet he/she thinks that prayer is necessary then he/she remains a muslim, but if he/she don't pray and is against the concept of praying then he/she's not a muslim but that does not mean that he/she should die it's also haram to kill him/her, but in the case of Anwar Sadat his murderers considered him a threat and enemy to Islam because he signed peace with Israel which was highly unacceptable back then.
Back to BB if she was determined to be an apostate it's also haram to kill her coz she would be a non-muslim woman

PS PJ it's rare to see people not arabs or muslims that know like you do abt these stuff, I bet u know more than 50% of the Lebanese people where I live

 

[Prime Junta]

No Apostasy means that previously muslim becomes non-muslim without him/her admitiing or declaring...let's take praying for example, if a muslim don't pray five times a day yet he/she thinks that prayer is necessary then he/she remains a muslim, but if he/she don't pray and is against the concept of praying then he/she's not a muslim but that does not mean that he/she should die it's also haram to kill him/her, but in the case of Anwar Sadat his murderers considered him a threat and enemy to Islam because he signed peace with Israel which was highly unacceptable back then.

In Sadat's case, though, shaykh Omar abd-el Rahman issued a fatwa (beforehand) to justify the assassination. I'm pretty sure the rationale given that the peace treaty with Israel was mukaffir and therefore Sadat was condemned to death; his killers saw themselves as executioners, not assassins.

I just came across a similar fatwa issued against Taslima Nasrin, by the way, so clearly women can be sentenced the same way. IOW, the argument that "AQ couldn't have killed BB because it's haram for them to target a woman" doesn't appear to hold water.

Back to BB if she was determined to be an apostate it's also haram to kill her coz she would be a non-muslim woman

But not if she was a kafir, according to the extremists.

Don't get me wrong -- I know this kind of reasoning lives in the lunatic fringes of the salafi movement; I'm not implying that you (or any other Muslim who spends most of his time on this planet) would agree with it. (And I am aware of the Amman message.)

I'm just trying to understand the internal logic with which these movements operate; it's not always easy for a non-Muslim with only a fairly superficial understanding of the Qur'an and the sunna.

PS PJ it's rare to see people not arabs or muslims that know like you do abt these stuff, I bet u know more than 50% of the Lebanese people where I live

Ah, but which 50%, that's the question?

As it happens, my wife is Lebanese (Latin), which gives me a bit of a personal stake in following the goings-on in the Middle East. One thing I've learned is that things are rarely quite what they seem.

 

[GothicGothicness]

PJ.... I do not know what to say... Al Qaida and muslim suicide bombers has targeted both children, and women, and killed a lot of them, or are you saying that all those newsreports are falsly spread propaganda to make us hate them?

 

[Prime Junta]

No, GG, that's not what I'm saying -- and if you read this thread with a bit more thought, I'm sure you'd figure that much out yourself. In fact, what you appear to believe I'm saying is pretty near the diametrical opposite of what I actually am saying, which is a bit strange.

(FWIW, I tend not to say things that are obviously and demonstrably false.)

What I am saying is that Al Qaeda are not a bunch of random killers shooting up malls; rather, they operate with an extremely strict and complex logic and code of conduct. I'm a bit surprised if you find this thought hard to believe or understand; they are an ideologically motivated network of groups, after all, and ideologies by definition consist of moral imperatives and prohibitions -- a code of conduct, in other words.

Specifically, YellowWing said he had heard mentioned that "al-Qaeda dosent kill women its agianst their standards of religion." This statement did not strike me as plausible, and in fact a small bit of digging turned up a "death sentence" issued by an extremist cleric against Taslima Nasrin, who is a Muslim woman.

Finally, just to make it perfectly clear, I find Al Qaeda's ideology, methods, and actions utterly contemptible and abhorrent. However, I find it a worthwhile use of my time to try to understand what makes them tick. I'm also continuously annoyed by the ignorance about it and related topics by people who really should know better. As a result, I all too often find myself explaining that no, Hamas is not the same as Hezbollah, Hezbollah are not the same as Al Qaeda, that most "wahhabis" (who actually call themselves salafis) don't support Bin Laden, and that your average Muslim isn't any more likely to be a putative terrorist than your average Christian is to shoot up an abortion clinic. And that, shock and horror, many of the grievances that give extremist groups their appeal are entirely legitimate, and we should be doing something about them instead of just spouting indignation at "barbarians" or "a culture of violence" or what have you.

Which, of course, automatically qualifies me for the Great Terrorist Watch List in the eyes of many.

 

[dteowner]

Oh c'mon, PJ, the indignation koolaid tastes so good...

To dig into your comparison (which is remarkably good, IMO), I think there's one big difference between the two sides. The "average Christian" (and I'll grant you the generalization if you'll return the favor) will publicly denounce the abortion clinic bomber. The US Muslim community has been remarkably quiet about all this terrorism nonsense. I simply can't believe that the entire US media has refused to give any of them a platform to voice their displeasure. US Muslims have an obligation to explain to the retarded masses what "true Islam" is really about since they are the experts. Let's be honest: Joe Redneck couldn't pick a Quran out of a lineup with Moby Dick, a Danielle Steel novel, and a Playboy. With that gaping hole unfilled with fact, uneducated stereotypes will fill it instead. Silence is interpretted as tacit approval.

 

[dteowner]

Gads, I hate getting started in these discussions... Pardon the double post, but I'm going to go in a different direction which would get pretty disjointed jammed into the previous post.

Can you explain to me why Muslim factions (I'm picking that word rather than "sects" for reasons that hopefully will become apparent, but that's still not quite the word I want) don't seem to carry on much public debate of doctrine? Maybe I'm just not tuned into those types of debates, but I just don't see it. Christians are always loudly debating what's in the Bible and how it should be applied. It gets all sorts of media coverage, and every yokel with an altar and a New Testament is more than happy to expound at length to anyone that will listen.

You just don't see that in the Muslim community. Is it happening? I figure you've got a few possibilities: it doesn't happen; it happens behind closed doors; it happens all around but gets zero publicity. Lacking any evidence to the contrary, I'm going with the first option but I freely admit to being woefully ignorant on the matter.

The link to my previous post is this: you just don't see two brown men with beards (it just wouldn't be a dte/PJ/blood-spattered-bystanders discussion without dragging out BMwB) yelling at each other about points of doctrine. If we're going to accept that extremist Muslims are following a perverted version of Islam (and I'm game for that), then where are the other factions touting a "true" interpretation and smacking around the extremists for being idiots? It's not really a Sunni/Shiite/etc thing (thus not using "sect") so much as a mainline/nutjob division I'm looking for. I don't know that I've ever met a ranking religious figure that wouldn't jump at the chance to show his/her great wisdom as well as the errors of others (some more obnoxious than others, but still).

 

[POLYGON]

In Sadat's case, though, shaykh Omar abd-el Rahman issued a fatwa (beforehand) to justify the assassination. I'm pretty sure the rationale given that the peace treaty with Israel was mukaffir and therefore Sadat was condemned to death; his killers saw themselves as executioners, not assassins.

Agreed, which made him not only a non-muslim but also a direct enemy to Islam(in their views at least) which made his execution legitimate.

came across a similar fatwa issued against Taslima Nasrin, by the way, so clearly women can be sentenced the same way. IOW, the argument that "AQ couldn't have killed BB because it's haram for them to target a woman" doesn't appear to hold water.

true

if she was a kafir, according to the extremists.

Don't get me wrong -- I know this kind of reasoning lives in the lunatic fringes of the salafi movement; I'm not implying that you (or any other Muslim who spends most of his time on this planet) would agree with it. (And I am aware of the Amman message.)

it's good that you know the difference between Muslims and Extremists, I wish everybody knew

Ah, but which 50%, that's the question?

As it happens, my wife is Lebanese (Latin), which gives me a bit of a personal stake in following the goings-on in the Middle East. One thing I've learned is that things are rarely quite what they seem.

LOL, if u mean 14 march or 8 march then that not what I meant, I was first inclined to 8 but now I don't care...

At dteowner: read the Amman Message up there..

You mean u don't see such Muslim debates on TV, had u been living in the Middle East u would've seen such debates and a lot of them in fact...yet u won't see any Christian debates...

 

[Prime Junta]

Oh c'mon, PJ, the indignation koolaid tastes so good...

To dig into your comparison (which is remarkably good, IMO), I think there's one big difference between the two sides. The "average Christian" (and I'll grant you the generalization if you'll return the favor) will publicly denounce the abortion clinic bomber. The US Muslim community has been remarkably quiet about all this terrorism nonsense. I simply can't believe that the entire US media has refused to give any of them a platform to voice their displeasure. US Muslims have an obligation to explain to the retarded masses what "true Islam" is really about since they are the experts. Let's be honest: Joe Redneck couldn't pick a Quran out of a lineup with Moby Dick, a Danielle Steel novel, and a Playboy. With that gaping hole unfilled with fact, uneducated stereotypes will fill it instead. Silence is interpretted as tacit approval.

Funny that you should bring this up. Just a week or two ago, someone on New York Times (Ayaan Hirsi Ali, IIRC) was bemoaning exactly the same thing. Specifically, she was asking why supposed moderate Muslims like Tariq Ramadan hadn't made a peep about the teddy-bear-named-Mohammed case, or the raped Saudi woman sentenced to be beaten for being in the same car with an unrelated man.

Well, I decided to check out what, if anything, Tariq Ramadan had to say about it. Guess what was on the front page of his website? Yup, a denunciation of that sort of thing -- including specifically those two examples, but also others -- as un-Islamic. I never saw that mentioned in NY Times, or any other major Western media outlet either. Nor anything about the Amman declaration I mentioned earlier. Nor the prominently displayed (and meticulously argued) denunciations of terrorism on some Salafist websites -- that is, hard-line, conservative Muslim websites -- I came across.

The fact is that exactly what you're asking for is very prominently displayed on web outlets of some very important Muslim community leaders. Why these don't get much air time in the mainstream media I don't know; however, if you can tell them exactly what they should do to get that message out more effectively, I'm sure they'd appreciate any tips.

References:
[ http://www.tariqramadan.com/article.php3?id_article=1292&lang=en ]
[ http://www.ammanmessage.com/ ]
[ http://www.salafimanhaj.com/article_home.php ]

 

[Prime Junta]

Can you explain to me why Muslim factions (I'm picking that word rather than "sects" for reasons that hopefully will become apparent, but that's still not quite the word I want) don't seem to carry on much public debate of doctrine? Maybe I'm just not tuned into those types of debates, but I just don't see it. Christians are always loudly debating what's in the Bible and how it should be applied. It gets all sorts of media coverage, and every yokel with an altar and a New Testament is more than happy to expound at length to anyone that will listen.

That's easy: because most of it is in Arabic, and many of the bits that are in English are in an idiom that's extremely hard to follow for anyone who isn't a Muslim. (For a sample, try this one: [ http://www.salafimanhaj.com/pdf/SalafiManhaj_TakfeerAndBombing.pdf ]. Now, in ten minutes, can you figure out which position is the author arguing? I couldn't. It took me about fifteen.)

You just don't see that in the Muslim community. Is it happening? I figure you've got a few possibilities: it doesn't happen; it happens behind closed doors; it happens all around but gets zero publicity. Lacking any evidence to the contrary, I'm going with the first option but I freely admit to being woefully ignorant on the matter.

The answer is "it happens all around but gets zero publicity." Don't take my word for it: look for yourself on the "webosphere." You'll only get the very small tip of the iceberg that's in English, but it's enough to give you a taste.

As usual, Wikipedia is a good place to start. For example, see the articles on "takfir," "ibadhi," and "Kharijite," and then follow up some of the external links; they'll get you onto the network of Islamic websites with pretty intense discussions of just these topics.

Again, why this doesn't get any press is beyond me.

The link to my previous post is this: you just don't see two brown men with beards (it just wouldn't be a dte/PJ/blood-spattered-bystanders discussion without dragging out BMwB) yelling at each other about points of doctrine. If we're going to accept that extremist Muslims are following a perverted version of Islam (and I'm game for that), then where are the other factions touting a "true" interpretation and smacking around the extremists for being idiots? It's not really a Sunni/Shiite/etc thing (thus not using "sect") so much as a mainline/nutjob division I'm looking for. I don't know that I've ever met a ranking religious figure that wouldn't jump at the chance to show his/her great wisdom as well as the errors of others (some more obnoxious than others, but still).

That's because you've probably never seen the inside of a mosque -- in real life or virtually -- and if you had, you certainly wouldn't have any idea what the BMwB's are talking about, since they'll probably be speaking Arabic, Urdu, Farsi, or some other heathen lingo.

 

[dteowner]

So why did this get no coverage and why is not being used as a lever to marginalize and ostracize the nutjobs? It would seem to me that "proper" Muslims all around the world would make every effort to publicly distance themselves from the nutjobs and doctrine like the Amman message would give them a solid "righteous" foundation to stand on.

It would also seem to me that the goof over in Iran would be all over this. Public support for the Amman Message could amount to an international "get out of jail free" card for him, couldn't it? Anyone that accepted the doctrine couldn't be accused of supporting the terrorists, which would be political gold for Ahmad-whatever, whether he truly followed it or not.

 

[Prime Junta]

A few more references for you, @dte:

[ http://www.masnet.org/views.asp?id=4649 ]
[ http://www.aifdemocracy.org/about/principles.php ]
[ http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.ph...lim_voices_against_extremism_and_terrorism_2/ ]
[ http://www.aicongress.org/bear3.html ]
[ http://www.cair.com/ArticleDetails.aspx?mid1=777&&ArticleID=24012&&name=n&&currPage=1 ]

 

[Prime Junta]

So why did this get no coverage and why is not being used as a lever to marginalize and ostracize the nutjobs? It would seem to me that "proper" Muslims all around the world would make every effort to publicly distance themselves from the nutjobs and doctrine like the Amman message would give them a solid "righteous" foundation to stand on.

I really don't know. I can speculate, of course. Perhaps it has something to do with the cultural gulf between Islamic and non-Muslim worlds. Muslims talk to each other, Westerners talk to each other, and there's way too little meaningful communication between the two communities. If the channels aren't there, the message isn't going to get through.

It would also seem to me that the goof over in Iran would be all over this. Public support for the Amman Message could amount to an international "get out of jail free" card for him, couldn't it? Anyone that accepted the doctrine couldn't be accused of supporting the terrorists, which would be political gold for Ahmad-whatever, whether he truly followed it or not.

See here; scroll down to "The Islamic Republic of Iran:" [ http://ammanmessage.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=31 ]. The first two names are Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamene'i (who issued a fatwa in support of it, no less), and Ahmadinejad.

 

[GothicGothicness]

No, GG, that's not what I'm saying -- and if you read this thread with a bit more thought, I'm sure you'd figure that much out yourself.

Ok, I get you, it looks like I jumped in late in the thread and read you in the wrong way since we agree on this point.

a code of conduct...

I have to disagree a bit here, they migth have this code, and they are very well organized in cells. But we also have several Al Qaida funded suicide bombings were a poor man or woman's family is offered money to become a suicide bomber, get training and pick a target. He does a "good" dead and his family and children gets a lot of money to survive. There are more willing people than they can train. Possibly because of poority and lack of knowledge in many countries they recruit from. US has realised this and started to pay $ to families who turn sides, it worked very well and reduced violence in for example Iraq by 60% when they started with this tactics.

 

[dteowner]

So does that throw the legitimacy of the whole thing into question? I scrolled down to Lebanon looking for Hezbollah just for fun, but came up dry. Of course, I barely know what I'm looking at- unless someone put "Terrorists R Us" in their title, I'm probably not going to have a clue.

Going thru a few of your links so far, I'm clearly swimming in water far too deep. There's a debate on quantum mechanics going on, but I'm still learning to count my fingers. The vast majority of my "knowledge" of Islam is what you've taught me (scary, eh?) and I'd only pick the Quran out of my lineup by process of elimination. I need to sit down with a BMwB for a couple hours and learn the basics.

I'm still amazed the Amman Message didn't get more coverage. I'll go along with the government not having a desire to spread the word, but it would seem the US media would be all over an opportunity to throw another dart at Dubya's policies by reminding folks that all BMwB's aren't mad bombers.