I know those who defend islam have there hearts in the right place

[ancianita]

37. What do you think of this post from ummah.com? Would this argument be acceptable

across the more peaceful Muslims within the different sects which are allegedly infighting, as well?

from Harun:

"...if khilafah were still in place, there would have been no catalyst for people to create Al-Qaeda, Dawlah, Taliban, JAN, Hamas etc and all the groups the West complains about. Absence of the central leader is why people have the ability to create paramilitaries in the first place, because there should already be an organized Islamic army which was the job of the caliph. With no caliph, no army, and no state representation the global needs of the Muslims, anyone can start a militia or paramilitary if they have guns and people. Albeit the Ottoman caliph became a figurehead towards the end, but hell we don't even have a figurehead. We have less than that these days. And these kuffar complain about chaos in the region, their creed destroyed the Muslim World and it has coming back on their own lands, which was inevitable. All of the groups that they have on the "terror list" (AQ, ISIS, Hamas, Taliban, Al-Shabab) were all formed in the late 80's, 90's, and 2000's. What was happening all those decades before? It was oppression without retaliation. They are fortunate that it took the ummah 60 years to respond to them because it could have come earlier."

and then from Blackbeard:

"...It's all matters of itjihad. There is no specific ruling set in stone when it comes to issues like this. How could there be? Stuff like this never happened during the time of Muhammad , the salaf all the way until explosives and guns were invented.

The contemporary saudi scholars who are sponsored by the apostate rulers are not the only scholars of muslims. One cannot declare another party as non-muslims or them going against Islam without proper evidence.

Simply, there will always exist two views on this matter. The scholars of jihad deriving the ruling that it's allowed in matter of qisas and the other party deriving ruling that it's not allowed even in matters of qisas. BOTH having enough evidence to make them both valid. The famous position ibn uthaymeen r.a. had which allowed qisas to be executed on civilians is proof of that.... that is that this whole issue is all based on matters of itjihad and this was the itjihad of ibn uthaymeen r.a.

I am not saying I condone the attacks or that I follow this opinion, matter of fact I don't. I refrain however from talking about those who do and I can't say what they do is haram when they have evidence that the apparent is that it's allowed. But don't get me wrong, nothing of this is the sunnah of our prophet.

It all depends where you look at, naturally the saudi scholars wont allow it. Hence why I stay away from discussions like this, why I warn others to stay away from it as we have no knowledge in this subject."

-------------------------------------------


I'm not disagreeing with you, agnostic, since I'm atheist (raised Christian).

My exposure to knowledge of Islam at the University of Chicago's Center for Middle Eastern Studies (during my year as a U. of C. Mellon Fellow) -- and even sites like this that possibly exclude Christian opinion (I don't know if that's a fact of this site, since I haven't yet tried to join) -- makes me wonder if the conversations across the billion or more Muslims who are peaceful will end up ruling the day.

And should we in the West defend Western-controlled land bases regardless of former "sins" like the crusades, colonialism and the war on terror.

I don't expect some final definitive answer, just am curious about what a concerned American former Muslim thinks.

I very much appreciate your OP.