veiled4allah: Kucinich in Seattle 7/19 veiled4allah: Kucinich in Seattle 7/19All comments are copyright their authors
Here's who's pinging me:
(no pings yet)The following is a list of the ten most recent entries in veiled4allah as of Mar 02, 2006:
View a list of all entries in veiled4allah
This entry has been tagged as covering the following subjects: kucinich event. The following is a list of the ten most recent entries in Al-Muhajabah's Islamic Blogs that share any of these tags:
A semantic analysis of this entry also suggests the following keywords to search for related content on: minor benefit, bush gore, department peace, benefit muslims, sick people, people, should, muslims, islam, Kucinich, kucinich, Muslims, bush, benefit, Bush, government, war, our, department, muslim, better, because, Department, afghanistan, Afghanistan
What links here: View a list of other entries in this blog (if any) that link to this entry
For more about Dennis Kucinich, please see my Muslims For Kucinich blog.
Or look generally for informational pages on my website tagged with kucinich, event
A semantic search of Al-Muhajabah's Islamic Blogs suggests the following as the ten entries most closely related to this entry:
Check out other web pages (if any) that I've bookmarked via del.icio.us that share the same tags: kucinich, event
Explore reference materials from Answers.com about these subjects: kucinich, event
Read news stories at Common Times about these subjects: kucinich, event
View search results at gada.be metasearch service for these subjects: kucinich, event
Check Waypath for blog entries generally related to this entry, or Technorati or Bloglines for blog entries that link to this entry.
Technorati tags: View blog entries, bookmarks and photos tagged by others with the same subjects as this entry: kucinich event
For external resources on the topic of this entry, you can run a search for its title kucinich in seattle 7/19 (Google, DayPop, Feedster) or keyword(s) kucinich event (Google, DayPop, Feedster). DayPop is a search engine similar to Google that focuses on searching news sources and blogs. Feedster searches blogs via RSS feeds.
Subject: Re: Kucinich in Seattle 7/19
Assalaamu aleykum!Actually I want to add something on islam in Slovenia. I am writing my reply here because 'islam in Slovenia' is closed for any further comments.
I am a Slovene muslim myself and I have always lived in Slovenia. Bosniacs make up about 80% of Slovenian muslim population and Albanians another 10%. But majority of these people are no good muslims. Mostly, they are non educated fasiqeen and most of them have done acts which lead out of islam. I estimate that about 1% out of 50,000 people are praying regularly.
The situation is disastrous. We are waiting for muslim immigrants to come and aid us. The problem is that those practising the deen and willing to work for islam are young people (students) with insufficient financial fonds. And besides, there are too few of us.
Anyhow, Slovenes have met islam for first time when the Osmanic army came to liberate this region from Austrian rule in 10th century Hijri. In that time Slovenes were too blind to recognise the right religion. They couldn't understand Turkish and the priests were telling them lies on these 'barbarians'. Other major factor of kufr were Croatian (catholic) and Serbian (orthodox christian) mercenairies in sultan's army. They were killing innocent people and robbing villages. There is no recording that these Turkish would build any mosque.
Probably some Slovene merchants embraced islam in Greece and set off for Andalus later but there are no historical sources to confirm that.
Their next meeting with islam was in 1915 AD when Bosnian soldiers came to fight against Italy (Slovenia and Bosnia were part of Austro-Hungarian Empire at that time). Bosniacs had built 2 mosques in west of country, but they were both destroyed by Italians after WWI when western Slovenia became part of Italy.
There was also 1 poet and priest in 19th century AD (Anton Aškerc) who was so inspired by islam that he risked his head and quit being a priest and a member of Catholic church. He travelled to Middle East and his last poems were at least strongly influensed by islam. If he converted to islam he was the only muslim in Slovenia. But since Slovene history is written by kufaar we cannot know for sure. They say he became an atheist.
Later, islam returned with immigrants from Bosnia (Bosnia) and later Macedonia (Torbesh, Albanian and some Turkish). Nowadays, there are about 10 converts and I am the only one from national capitol (entire population cca. 280,000; 8% muslim). People here in general dislike islam and are very racistic. As a renegade from kufr and shaytanic tradition I face many troubles in my community. But my nationality could also be my advantage sometimes.
For sure, Slovenia is an interesting country for da'wa but unfortunately quite unknown. We must hurry before devious groups like ismailis and qadiyanis start their activities here.
Islamic literature in Slovene language is very few. Mostly, there are books written by unbelievers trying to discredit islam, other are written by immigrants in cooperation with kafireen without any consulting with converts who speak muslim version of Slovene the best
Meanwhile we make duas and hope for better future.
Subject: Re: Kucinich in Seattle 7/19
can you please give me email of Muzaffer Abdulkhabir maybe i can help him in the near future (Allahu alim)i wonder what is your opinion of the ayat "“Then I came to the Prophet (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) and I heard him say, ‘They (Jews and Christians) take their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah.’ I said, ‘O Messenger of Allah, they do not worship them.’ He said, ‘Yes but they permit what Allah made Haraam and they forbid what Allah made Halaal. Then that is their worship.’”"
and when Yusaf (as) is quoted in the Quran as "rule (law making) is for none but Allah" (innal hukmu illah lillAllah)
Subject: Re: Kucinich in Seattle 7/19
Umar, if you're concerned about Muslims taking part in elections, please read this fatwa. It is halal to take part in elections if it will benefit Muslims in some way. Kucinich has said he will repeal the Patriot Act and end the warmongering of the Bush Administration. Thus, he would bring benefit to Muslims both in America and abroad and is clearly the best choice over the other candidates. You would do well to keep in mind what Shaykh Munajjid says in the fatwa:No one should imagine that anyone who says that it is OK to vote is thereby expressing approval or support for kufr. It is done in the interests of the Muslims, not out of love for kufr and its people.
I have it in my power as a U.S. citizen to remove Bush from power and replace him with another president, through a halal act, voting. You better believe I'm going to do it. How could I sit by and do nothing and let Bush be re-elected and continue his policies against Muslims at home and abroad?
I wish people would get this through their heads.
BTW, I don't give out people's email addresses without their permission. Hopefully, the brother will return and let you know if you can contact him, inshallah.
Also, the commenting function on entries that are older than two months is automatically disabled. Almost no one ever comments on the older entries anyway.
Subject: Re: Kucinich in Seattle 7/19
i believe a similar campaign was launched by muslims before the election campaign to not vote for Gore has he or his senior right hand was a jew.. however as a result bush got in power and murdered many muslims. no matter how you look at it,, Bush is not the problem,, he might be symbol or a manifestation of it,, but the problem lies that capitalist policy is based on exploitation which MUST (due to the new economic system) be done in order to mantain the high status of America in the world. Wether it is Bush or Gore, no candidate would have swerved in decision of going to war in Afghanistan in the slightest, simply because no candidate is working as single man at the top,, Just like a business to correct the fault,, its is not as easy as replacing the man at the top so much as changing how the business is run....with regards to the ayahs, i mentioned... i agree it is totally halal to take a vote.. however it is haram when it is part of law making,, i can take a vote in my local MSA on who is the leader, the consensus of such a vote does not make it a law for that person to become leader of the MSA, it is simply a method for decision making on mubah matters nor is the MSA a law making body..
however in a democratic system,, man is the law maker in direct contradiction of tawheed (only Allah is al Haakim),, and whatever fatwa you follow is in direct contradiction with the explicit injunction of several ayahs,, and since a mufti can always be fallable.. whereas Quran is not,, the ayahs easily over rule such a fatwa.. rather to follow such fatwas would be to follow the example of the Jews and Christians when they took their rabbis are as their Gods.
thats my stand.
Subject: Re: Kucinich in Seattle 7/19
Umar, you seem to have missed the point. The fatwa specifically relates to the question of voting in the elections of a non-Muslim country whose system is not based on the Shari'a. That is the situation we are dealing with here. Shaykh Munajjid said that if one of the candidates in an election is able to bring a benefit to Muslims or will at least not do as much harm to Muslims as the other candidates then it is halal to support that candidate in order to bring the benefit or the decrease in harm to the Muslims. Again, that is the situation that we are dealing with here.I agree with you that in 2000, there was not a substantial difference between Bush and Gore in some significant areas that affect Muslims. In that case, there might be no benefit from voting and a Muslim should refrain.
However, that is not the situation at the current time. There are nine Democratic candidates, who hold various different positions. Some of them may be better than others for Muslims. If this is in fact the case, then Muslims may wish to support the better candidate(s) in order to help them defeat the worse candidates. If or when the better candidates withdraw or prove not to be better after all, then the situation may return to what it was in 2000. But that is a decision Muslims can only make based on the circumstances moment by moment.
You have not even bothered to look at any of the candidates to see what policies they propose; you assume that because they are not Muslims they are intrinsically hostile to Islam. That is garbage. If all non-Muslims were intrinsically hostile to Islam, I would never have converted, because I was once a non-Muslim. That is why attitudes like yours upset me.
If you are convinced that I have somehow taken non-Muslim leaders as my "lord" despite my statement that my support is conditional on the benefit that they bring to Muslims, then you are free to shun me and not come back to my horrid blog and my horrid kufr ideas.
I am sick and tired of people who complain about U.S. policy all the time but when it comes to seeking to change that through lawful means they refuse to take part. If there is something that is unjust, we should seek to change it as much as is possible and as much as is lawful. A minor benefit is better than none at all. You seem to be saying that because we can't make a total transformation, we shouldn't bother to try at all.
Subject: Re: Kucinich in Seattle 7/19
firstly "benefit" and "harm" is what the capitalist system is based on, and is Totally alein to islam,, criterion for action is "halal" and "haram" not benefit and harm...secondly i don't even care for muslim candidates (some of them have the stupidity to call british soldiers as "our boys" killing those whom should be regarded as our muslim brothers).. and i know there were many members of shura that were non-muslims in the khilafah..
your support you say is "conditional" to the benefit they bring,, is this a contractual agreement then you have with him signed???
you seam to miss my point,, i don't care much about this one person, or Bush or Gore for that matter, as much as I care for the false belief that man is God, or the false belief God is only for private affairs and for everything else mankind is God of himself.
again a "minor" benefit,, firstly,, you haven't looked at history,, people supported PLO for a "minor" benefit,, and have supported or have supported the peace initiatives in Kasmir for a "minor" benefit,, and they never consider the heavy price in exchage for a minor benefit (or even if it is without such price its irrelevant),, in Palestine we have "minor" of Gaza and West Bank,, but at what price,, the price is to enslave even more harshly the rest of Palestine,, and then to isolate the two areas from Palestine..
I know your sick of one thing,, and i am so sick of people thinking that the "solutions" the pose to problems are actually solutions...No doctor will tell you that cure for cancer is to rub ointment on skin to get rid of the symptoms appearing on skin, so why is it that "educated" and "clever" people tell others that the problem is "george bush" or "gore" and the solution is this "kunich" guy? i am sick of people thinking the problem of africa is poverty alone and the solution is charity alone..... i am sick of people who think inside a box,, and don't know what is outside of it... and because of their ignorance they refuse to consider anything else apart from what they can understand.... in your opening system you said "we are living in a system not based on shariah" but I don't see how you can neglect shariah and instead of calling for its resumption, decide, we should call for "tactical voting"? what "tactic" is this,, where has it worked???
As I said with the ayah, they deny any right of voting where laws are made according whims of men discussion with their own minds. and no shaikh, mufti or any human being with any title or any name can change the meaning of these ayahs.
As I said this is where i stand,, i am afraide we will drive each other into another stalemate...
Subject: Re: Kucinich in Seattle 7/19
Umar, you still do not seem to understand what I am saying. I never said that Kucinich was "the solution for everything". Good grief! You're not even reading what I'm writing! What I am saying is that we have a choice between two possible futures, one that involves a second Bush term and one that involves a different president. That different president may be worse than Bush, the same as Bush, or better than Bush. If the different president is better than Bush, then we have made a small change for the better and that is preferable to doing nothing at all.If you're not going to respond to the actual words I've written and if you're going to keep insisting that I am advocating for kufr and haram, then there is no point in continuing this discussion.
Subject: Re: Kucinich in Seattle 7/19
I guess the fundamental difference between my opinion is this issue where you believe you would have made a "small difference" or "small change" whereas I don't see it..Yep no point in continuing this discussion as we will never agree on the above matter (seams like) so we will never arrive at the same ideas....
Hey totally forgot about the issue of Muzaffer Abdul.... Can email him my contact details (probably more safer from anyones' point of view then to email me his contact details) maybe i can help him a little
Subject: Re: Kucinich in Seattle 7/19
Er, getting back on topic, I saw Kucinch during the 4th of July weekend. He spoke at the Business and Technology seminar at the TANA (Telegu Association of North America) conference in San Jose.I was impressed in many respects, but I still think that he is not presenting a foreign policy that goes beyond "I wouldn't do what Bush did."
I talked to one of his people for a bit, and the guy said that Kucinich had opposed the war in Afghanistan. I asked him what Kucinich thought should have been done as a response to an attack made by a terrorist group that was being sheltered and supported by a government. He didn't seem to have an answer.
This is not good. I consider myself fairly liberal, but I thought action in Afghanistan was probably necessary (though of course we should have done both the war and reconstruction better), and if Kucinich is going to stake out a far-left position, he and his supporters need to be ready to defend it clearly and consistently.
Subject: Re: Kucinich in Seattle 7/19
Looking at the state of things in Afghanistan right now, it's hard to say that the U.S. actions have actually improved anything. The anarchy and warlordism that Afghanistan is descending into is very much like what happened after the Soviet withdrawal and what led to the rise of the Taliban because they were able to bring order.It also does not seem to have been particularly effective in reducing terrorism. Most of al-Qa'ida seem to have slipped away and are still free to act.
A lot of people, including Kucinich, did not initially oppose taking action against Afghanistan because they thought like you did that it would lead to the capture of Bin Laden and his associates. However, the way things have turned out, it certainly doesn't appear to have been a very productive move on our part, and also led to more than 3000 Afghan civilian casualties. I expect that this is what people are opposed to.
I read Kucinich's statement on the original use of force authorization against Afghanistan and he said,
U.S. military action should be centered on arresting the responsible parties, and the governments should place the suspects on trial. That is how we win this. This is how we should show the world that we are a humane and democratic nation. That is what gives us the moral high ground. That is what we need to do to prevent future attacks. Future attacks will not be prevented because terrorists fear our military. To kill them does not scare them. That is an honor for them to be killed. But for our democracy it is important to rise above their violent attacks and punish them with unquestionable moral superiority. That will vindicate our highest principles. Violence is reciprocal in nature. Peace is also reciprocal. The direction we take will speak volumes about our democracy. We must and we will defend our country. And we must and we will pursue and arrest these criminals. We must do so in a manner that upholds democratic principles. (source)
Does that clarify things at all?
As I understand it, the cornerstone of his proposed foreign policy is the Department of Peace. You might try searching on that to see if the substantive discussions you're looking for are found there.
Subject: Re: Kucinich in Seattle 7/19
I don't think Kucinich's perception of terrorism is quite correct. Terrorists need a place to meet, to be trained, to make plans. If a government knowingly provides that place, and after a terror attack refuses to give up the perpetrators for prosecution, that government is essentially using a proxy army to make war on the United States.If a bunch of NRIs went to India and started training to attack Pakistan, and the Indian government knew of their activities and essentially condoned them, I would consider Pakistan justified in saying that India was starting a war. It would be true even if not a single Indian resident was part of the group.
Obviously no government will go to war openly with the U.S. any more; they would be squashed flat, by nuclear weapons if necessary. I think the trend will be toward proxy soldiers for whom sponsoring government refuse to take responsibility. They won't roll tanks over our borders, or bring ships to our ports. But they will conspire to kill American civilians.
As Kucinich says, terrorists are not afraid of the U.S. military. But governments are, and governments cannot feel themselves at liberty to provide support to a proxy army and then claiming that they are innocent of what that proxy army does.
We certainly cannot go around attacking countries pre-emptively. But we do have to respond to attacks. We cannot permit a government that launches war by proxy any more than we could permit the Japanese government to launch war directly and with their flag flying.
Terrorists themselves should be tried in civil courts, but there is no way to deal with governments that are waging proxy wars other than by declaring an open war upon them.
Kucinich did talk about the Department of Peace, but I think his ideas already are sort of covered by what the State Department ought to be doing. The Department of Peace seems necessary only because what was once a Department of Defense has become a Department of War.
From what I understand about the division of responsibilities between state and federal government, the federal government has limited business in the area of domestic violence. Yes, states should cooperate to prevent this problem and to help the victims when it doesn't occur, but a Cabinet-level secretary to coordinate such matters seems unnecessary.
Subject: Re: Kucinich in Seattle 7/19
The 9/11 terrorists met, trained, and made plans within the United States; that does not mean that the U.S. government knew anything about it. Clearly, the involvement of the Taliban with al-Qa'ida was much greater than that and you may be correct that the Taliban were knowingly and actively using al-Qa'ida to conduct a proxy war against the United States. Or they may have been using al-Qa'ida for another purpose, such as serving in their Army (so that they could maintain control over Afghanistan and fight off the Northern Alliance), and al-Qa'ida did some other projects on the side. There is a very big difference in the mindset behind these two acts, even if their consequences are the same.I will also repeat, the operations in Afghanistan may have removed the specific group of individuals who comprised the Taliban but they have not changed the conditions that made the rise of the Taliban possible. They have not even succeeded at what I hope you will agree is the even more urgent priority, finding and bringing to justice those who planned the 9/11 attacks. As such, the Afghanistan policy can hardly be classed as successful. It could be that this is a failure to follow through on a sound policy. Or it could be that the policy was flawed in some way and a different policy should have been followed instead.
I agree with Kucinich that bringing the 9/11 planners to justice should have been the first priority. Then we should have determined whether, as you allege, the Taliban were actively and deliberately pursuing a proxy war against the U.S. or if they tried to ride a tiger and found that they couldn't hold onto it. Depending on which of these is the case, we could then have determined what the most appropriate response should be. It may have been what we did anyway, or it may not have been. I think that it is worth asking these questions.
Regarding the Department of Peace, you seem to admit that the State Department is not doing what it should be and that the Department of Defense likewise is not fulfilling all of its mission. If this is what you think, you should agree that some type of re-organization is necessary to return these departments to their proper sphere of functioning. One way of doing this is to simply modify the duties of the existing departments. Another way is to create a new department that coordinates functions that belong together, much as the Department of Homeland Security was created to re-organize the government and provide a single department that coordinates functions felt to belong together. Is the idea right? Maybe not, but again it's worth discussing.
If you believe that Kucinich completely misunderstands the nature of terrorism and that his mistaken understanding will put America in danger, then you can assuredly cross him off your list and focus on the other eight candidates. As for me, I think that we need to make more than cosmetic changes to the way that we run our foreign policy. I think that our current policies are fundamentally flawed and that a re-thinking is in order. That is one of the reasons that Kucinich appeals to me. Although I hope to convince people to support Kucinich, my primary desire is to make information about him and his policies available so that people can decide for themselves who to support.