Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Saudi clerics declare Isis terrorism a 'heinous crime' under sharia law (2014)

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 34 posts

Re: Saudi clerics declare Isis terrorism a 'heinous crime' under sharia law (2014)

#11

Post by ern »

crusso wrote: post #8
rustynails wrote: post #2

This is fantastic news! This is the best news I've heard in a while. I have friends who don't like Muslims because "Muslim = terrorism". I've always struggled to argue the lack of denouncing terrorism by Muslim leaders. While there is protest by the Muslim community, the message is never driven home. I also want to add that some disgusting people posted some hateful messages toward all Muslims on Al Jazeera. It just…

This is fantastic news! Notice the article is over a year old. It's hard to see if it has had any impact whatsoever on the situation.

Maybe it deterred a few donations to ISIS, or prevented some recruitment. Regardless, it certainly does help belie claims, oft repeated, that the silent majority of Moslems tacitly support Islamist terrorism, or are silent in its face.

Re: Saudi clerics declare Isis terrorism a 'heinous crime' under sharia law (2014)

#12

Post by ceejayoz »

ern wrote: post #11
crusso wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is fantastic news! Notice the article is over a year old. It's hard to see if it has had any impact whatsoever on the situation.

Maybe it deterred a few donations to ISIS, or prevented some recruitment. Regardless, it certainly does help belie claims, oft repeated, that the silent majority of Moslems tacitly support Islamist terrorism, or are silent in its face.

Saudi Arabia has a very well documented history of supporting (not just tacitly) Islamic terrorism.

They just don't like groups with territorial ambitions that include their own lands.

Re: Saudi clerics declare Isis terrorism a 'heinous crime' under sharia law (2014)

#13

Post by dlss »

quaunaut wrote: post #5
totalkos wrote: post #3

Words and deeds; words and deeds...

Maybe we should judge you by the worst of people who look like you.

This is a non-sequitur. Totalkos didn't say "these people look like X, and X is bad" he indicated he believes the speaker to be hypocritical.

The Saudi clerics quoted in the article may well be hypocritical. I have no idea, and am not familiar with them. If you are, please just link to the evidence rather than resorting to name calling.

Re: Saudi clerics declare Isis terrorism a 'heinous crime' under sharia law (2014)

#14

Post by kristopolous »

crusso wrote: post #10
quaunaut wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe we should judge you by the worst of people who look like you.

I wish we would stop equating Islam with race. It's a set of ideas that are adopted to various degrees by members of every race. Generalization based upon the adoption of sets of ideas would seem to be a great deal more logical than generalization based upon race. [edited to clarify first paragraph]

It's part of victimhood where it's also, uniquely, a valid accusation. For instance, the idea of the black-lives-matter movement is that all black lives suffer (and by extension, all lives), not just those that are individually victimized by the police/state in explicit narrative ways.

It's the [black] families they have and the [black] communities they live in and the [black] friends that they have who also suffer ... there's a community net that gets pulled whenever a member has a tragic event --- in that sense the community suffers as a whole - regardless of their underlying diversities --- it's like tugging at a fabric ... the parts that are nearest go the furthest, but the entirety of the fabric reacts - not always in perceptible ways.

I as a relatively wealthy person, for instance, am affected by homelessness because those people are potential teachers to my children, coworkers, mentors, or customers for my business ... their plight is also my own. Their immense suffering inescapably trips the community as a whole.

Also in that way, an assault on judaism is an assault on israel, an assault on hinduism is an assault on india, and so on ... you can't isolate the victim in a systemic narrative - there's an integral effect.

Re: Saudi clerics declare Isis terrorism a 'heinous crime' under sharia law (2014)

#15

Post by nzp »

ISIS is not doing anything the Saudi regime isn't doing in terms of oppression. They are rivals, thus the declaration. If ISIS claim of caliphate is legitimate under Islamic law, then the Saudi regime isn't (or any other Muslim regime for that matter). Furthermore, ISIS ideologues have spoken openly about the fact that the Saudi regime implements only one side of Sharia, the punitive side, leaving the mandatory social benefits aside (the state under Sharia is under obligation to provide shelter, food, and clothing for all). It's one way ISIS strongly appeals to Muslims under Salafi influence.

Re: Saudi clerics declare Isis terrorism a 'heinous crime' under sharia law (2014)

#16

Post by dlss »

ern wrote: post #11
crusso wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is fantastic news! Notice the article is over a year old. It's hard to see if it has had any impact whatsoever on the situation.

Maybe it deterred a few donations to ISIS, or prevented some recruitment. Regardless, it certainly does help belie claims, oft repeated, that the silent majority of Moslems tacitly support Islamist terrorism, or are silent in its face.

> Regardless, it certainly does help belie claims, oft repeated, that the silent majority of Moslems tacitly support Islamist terrorism, or are silent in its face.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_towards_terro... might be a better source to cite.

* In France, 19% of muslims think that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets can sometimes be justified, and 6% thought it could be justified often.

* In the UK: 12% sometimes, and 3% often

* In Egypt: 20% sometimes, and 8% often

* In Nigeria: 38% sometimes, and 8% often

So you're right that it's not the silent majority. It's the silent 25-46%.

Re: Saudi clerics declare Isis terrorism a 'heinous crime' under sharia law (2014)

#17

Post by crusso »

kristopolous wrote: post #14
crusso wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish we would stop equating Islam with race. It's a set of ideas that are adopted to various degrees by members of every race. Generalization based upon the adoption of sets of ideas would seem to be a great deal more logical than generalization based upon race. [edited to clarify first paragraph]

It's part of victimhood where it's also, uniquely, a valid accusation. For instance, the idea of the black-lives-matter movement is that all black lives suffer (and by extension, all lives), not just those that are individually victimized by the police/state in explicit narrative ways. It's the [black] families they have and the [black] communities they live in and the [black] friends that they have who also suffer .…

So all questions about ideas are racist on some level? Doesn't that then make racism meaningless since I could say that questioning any belief whatsoever impacts some race that commonly holds that belief?

Re: Saudi clerics declare Isis terrorism a 'heinous crime' under sharia law (2014)

#18

Post by ceejayoz »

dlss wrote: post #16
ern wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it deterred a few donations to ISIS, or prevented some recruitment. Regardless, it certainly does help belie claims, oft repeated, that the silent majority of Moslems tacitly support Islamist terrorism, or are silent in its face.

> Regardless, it certainly does help belie claims, oft repeated, that the silent majority of Moslems tacitly support Islamist terrorism, or are silent in its face. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_towards_terro... might be a better source to cite. * In France, 19% of muslims think that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets can sometimes be justified, and 6% thought it coul…

The "sometimes" there is a pretty big qualifier.

I run across a lot of Americans who think civilian casualties are justifiable in some situations, like hitting a terrorist with a drone when there are civilians nearby. From the link you cite:

> John Esposito, using poll data from Gallup, wrote in 2008 that Muslims and Americans were equally likely to reject violence against civilians. He also found that those Muslims who support violence against civilians are no more religious than Muslims who do not.

Re: Saudi clerics declare Isis terrorism a 'heinous crime' under sharia law (2014)

#19

Post by kristopolous »

crusso wrote: post #17
kristopolous wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's part of victimhood where it's also, uniquely, a valid accusation. For instance, the idea of the black-lives-matter movement is that all black lives suffer (and by extension, all lives), not just those that are individually victimized by the police/state in explicit narrative ways. It's the [black] families they have and the [black] communities they live in and the [black] friends that they have who also suffer .…

So all questions about ideas are racist on some level? Doesn't that then make racism meaningless since I could say that questioning any belief whatsoever impacts some race that commonly holds that belief?

I was talking with the explicit context of victimhood. The idea here, which is a few steps removed, is that any kind of indiscriminate prejudice against any group at all is problematic ... it's the prejudice that's the problem.

Nothing really groundbreaking other than for the specific insight that the targeted group is impossible to isolate.

Bystanders are integral to conflict.

Re: Saudi clerics declare Isis terrorism a 'heinous crime' under sharia law (2014)

#20

Post by crusso »

kristopolous wrote: post #19
crusso wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So all questions about ideas are racist on some level? Doesn't that then make racism meaningless since I could say that questioning any belief whatsoever impacts some race that commonly holds that belief?

I was talking with the explicit context of victimhood. The idea here, which is a few steps removed, is that any kind of indiscriminate prejudice against any group at all is problematic ... it's the prejudice that's the problem. Nothing really groundbreaking other than for the specific insight that the targeted group is impossible to isolate. Bystanders are integral to conflict.

indiscriminate prejudice

But the key word there is "indiscriminate", since by definition you can't target criticism properly ever if you're indiscriminate.

the targeted group is impossible to isolate

Not when you're talking about people who self-select by claiming belief in certain ideas. It's not at all like generalizing based upon race.

Post reply on HN