Osama Bin Laden in “Wow, I’m barking” shocker!!!

That’s one interpretation, though to my eyes it looks more like OBL was far more concerned with ensuring adherence to the (well, his interpretation of the) tenants of Islam, which doesn’t preclude the murder and killing of those you regard as heretics and enemies. Or, long story short – he was a religiously motivated fanatic.

Presumably the issue is that the oath of allegiance sworn by a muslim is sworn on the koran (or whatever holy book) and the breaking of it is therefore a sin. If a pledge made to kill indiscriminately was similarly sworn, then to not kill indiscriminately would also be a sin.

Maybe we can just ask everyone to swear they aren’t terrorists and scrap the security services?

2. Cylux

That’s one interpretation, though to my eyes it looks more like OBL was far more concerned with ensuring adherence to the (well, his interpretation of the) tenants of Islam, which doesn’t preclude the murder and killing of those you regard as heretics and enemies. Or, long story short – he was a religiously motivated fanatic.

Except one of the tenants of Islam, or at least one of the quotes attributed to Muhammed is that lying is permissible in three circumstances, one of which is in war. So he would have a religious basis for claiming it is justified if he wanted to.

I imagine he just felt it made his mates look bad. He was clearly thinking about where it all went wrong towards the end there. In some ways it is a pity they got him when they did because if he continued to think about it, he may have renounced his actions. Not that it is really a pity they got him.

@ 5 SMFS

“Except one of the tenants of Islam, or at least one of the quotes attributed to Muhammed is that lying is permissible in three circumstances, one of which is in war. So he would have a religious basis for claiming it is justified if he wanted to.”

That’s what I thought too, but Peter M may be right about the issue being whether the oath was sworn on the Koran. Plus of course there are multiple interpretations of most religions.

I’d suspect ‘falsely swearing an oath of allegiance’ is taken far more seriously than ‘lying’. Indeed OBL’s correspondence lays out his concerns that “it is not permissible in Islam to betray trust and break a covenant”, thus he regards as having sworn the oath at all, regardless of if you were lying at the time, as sealing a binding covenant which it is against Islam to break.

but not lying to them.

It’s not quite who your are lying to…..it’s that you are lying.

Many religions make the same distinction.

Nevertheless, there seems to be a deep irony in Osama Bin Laden being OK with indiscriminate killing of Americans, but not lying to them.

Not really, hes just following his interpratation of a book, so anything goes.

tenants of Islam

tenets.

I’m going with blaming autocorrect on my phone with that one.

The same argument was the premise of Tom Lehrer’s Irish Ballad.

@ 5.

Except one of the tenants of Islam, or at least one of the quotes attributed to Muhammed is that lying is permissible in three circumstances, one of which is in war. So he would have a religious basis for claiming it is justified if he wanted to.

It’s not quite that simple. Firstly, the principle of Taqiyya as popularised on right wing websites wasn’t laid down by Muhammed – though there are a couple of places in the Quran which refer to the practice, it’s not a normal practice even for a suicide bomber. Taqiyya really took off during the war between the Shia and the Sunni when Islam split into two competing factions / traditions. The Sunni were never really into Taqiyya, it tends to be a Shia practice – they were the minority. It was more about saving your life than actively waging war on others.

The concept of lying being worse than killing is pretty simple to understand at the end of the day, all it needs is a little effort at seeing the world through the eyes of another culture – something I would have hoped the good multi-culturalists here on Lib Con were capable of doing. Put simply, killing another human being as part of a war is a perfectly honourable thing to do. Killing is sanctioned in The Bible – the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” is really “Thou shalt not murder”, as demonstrated by the Biblical sanction for breaking that commandment – to be put to death. In fact The Bible clearly states many occasions when human beings can be lawfully killed – the crime is unlawfull killing. All Americans are aware that they are at war with Al Quaeda, therefore, there is no dishonourable act in killing them. Swearing an oath of allegiance, and then acting against America however is fundamentally dishonourable. How else would Americans know who to trust, and at the end of the day, trust between people is something of great value, and is seen as such by God according to the various holy books of the Abrahamic faiths.

As for western secularists seeing the killing / death part in such a bad light, well, you clearly don’t understand the concept of eternal life – a concept found in Christianity and Judaism too, as well as in many other religions. If a person REALLY has faith, REALLY believes in life after death, then death simply becomes a transition between states. It is not the end. For those who believe, eternal life is on offer – and eternity goes on for much longer than our 3 score and 10.

These kind of differences in the way people see the world are at the the very root of multi-culturalism. Either you believe in the concept, or else you don’t.

Simple really.

@ 13 Duh

“These kind of differences in the way people see the world are at the the very root of multi-culturalism. Either you believe in the concept, or else you don’t.”

And people see the world in very different ways regardless of whether you believe it’s true. Killing for god is seen as good, or at least a necessary evil; breaking your word to god is seen as bad. Because it’s god that matters in that philosophy. And the same holds for nationalists if you substitute “country” for “god”. As you say: simple.

@ 14.

Indeed. Lots of people see the world in different ways. Different individuals and groups have different priorities and value systems – and that’s what makes this world interesting.

Even if it can get scary at times.

Good grief! Tom Leherer took the micky out of this attitude in his song, “The Irish ballad.” The heroine murders her family and then confesses when challenged, “For lying she knew was a sin…”

And he said satire died when Kissinger got the Nobel Peace Prize.

13. Duh

It’s not quite that simple. Firstly, the principle of Taqiyya as popularised on right wing websites wasn’t laid down by Muhammed – though there are a couple of places in the Quran which refer to the practice, it’s not a normal practice even for a suicide bomber.

Except it is. And I was not talking about Taqiyya. Muhammed lied on numerous occasions. Ibn Ishaq says that the Jadhima were afraid that if they surrendered to Muhammed, even though he promised them safety, they would be executed. Muhammed sent someone to reassure them. They surrendered. He executed them all. Well, all the men. There are any number of places where Muhammed lies. As I said, Bin Laden could have looked at those instances if he wanted to. It is also strongly backed by aHadith:

http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/hadith/muslim/032-smt.php#032.6303

Book 032, Number 6303:

Humaid b. ‘Abd al-Rahman b. ‘Auf reported that his mother Umm Kulthum daughter of ‘Uqba b. Abu Mu’ait, and she was one amongst the first emigrants who pledged allegiance to Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him), as saying that she heard Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: A liar is not one who tries to bring reconciliation amongst people and speaks good (in order to avert dispute), or he conveys good. Ibn Shihab said he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them).

http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/059-sbt.php#005.059.369

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 369:
Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah:

Allah’s Apostle said, “Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?” Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, “O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?” The Prophet said, “Yes,” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). “The Prophet said, “You may say it.” Then Muhammad bin Maslama went to Kab and said, “That man (i.e. Muhammad demands Sadaqa (i.e. Zakat) from us, and he has troubled us, and I have come to borrow something from you.” On that, Kab said, “By Allah, you will get tired of him!” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Now as we have followed him, we do not want to leave him unless and until we see how his end is going to be. Now we want you to lend us a camel load or two of food.” (Some difference between narrators about a camel load or two.) Kab said, “Yes, (I will lend you), but you should mortgage something to me.” Muhammad bin Mas-lama and his companion said, “What do you want?” Ka’b replied, “Mortgage your women to me.” They said, “How can we mortgage our women to you and you are the most handsome of the ‘Arabs?” Ka’b said, “Then mortgage your sons to me.” They said, “How can we mortgage our sons to you? Later they would be abused by the people’s saying that so-and-so has been mortgaged for a camel load of food. That would cause us great disgrace, but we will mortgage our arms to you.” Muhammad bin Maslama and his companion promised Kab that Muhammad would return to him. He came to Kab at night along with Kab’s foster brother, Abu Na’ila. Kab invited them to come into his fort, and then he went down to them. His wife asked him, “Where are you going at this time?” Kab replied, “None but Muhammad bin Maslama and my (foster) brother Abu Na’ila have come.” His wife said, “I hear a voice as if dropping blood is from him, Ka’b said. “They are none but my brother Muhammad bin Maslama and my foster brother Abu Naila. A generous man should respond to a call at night even if invited to be killed.” Muhammad bin Maslama went with two men. (Some narrators mention the men as ‘Abu bin Jabr. Al Harith bin Aus and Abbad bin Bishr). So Muhammad bin Maslama went in together with two men, and sail to them, “When Ka’b comes, I will touch his hair and smell it, and when you see that I have got hold of his head, strip him. I will let you smell his head.” Kab bin Al-Ashraf came down to them wrapped in his clothes, and diffusing perfume. Muhammad bin Maslama said. ” have never smelt a better scent than this. Ka’b replied. “I have got the best ‘Arab women who know how to use the high class of perfume.” Muhammad bin Maslama requested Ka’b “Will you allow me to smell your head?” Ka’b said, “Yes.” Muhammad smelt it and made his companions smell it as well. Then he requested Ka’b again, “Will you let me (smell your head)?” Ka’b said, “Yes.” When Muhammad got a strong hold of him, he said (to his companions), “Get at him!” So they killed him and went to the Prophet and informed him. (Abu Rafi) was killed after Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf.”

Even that website is a lie given they now call themselves the Centre for Muslim Jewish engagement. When in reality it is the Muslim Brotherhood’s American offshoot who usually only want to engage with Jews through the eye sights of an AK-47.

Taqiyya really took off during the war between the Shia and the Sunni when Islam split into two competing factions / traditions. The Sunni were never really into Taqiyya, it tends to be a Shia practice – they were the minority. It was more about saving your life than actively waging war on others.M

Which is probably why the word did not cross my lips. It is yours.

6. Chaise Guevara

That’s what I thought too, but Peter M may be right about the issue being whether the oath was sworn on the Koran. Plus of course there are multiple interpretations of most religions.

Swearing on the Bible is a Christian reminder of pagan practice. I don’t think it is such a big deal in the Muslim world or a tradition anywhere else.

Ah, who cares? Foreign policy is boring and stupid and doesn’t make any difference. All our focus should be on building socialism. Anything else is just words.

SMFS:

Generally speaking I find it more useful to look at the actions of the majority of followers of a faith, not read their holy book in isolation, and especially not by doing what the anti-Islam sites do: systematically seeking out the most threatening passages of the holy book, retranslating them using the most threatening words possible, and interpreting the result in the most threatening manner imaginable (and occasionally making bits up just for good measure).

A similar exercise – whether done from a pro- or anti-Christian viewpoint – applied to the Bible would predict very little of the real behaviour of Christians either today or in the Middle Ages. People throughout the ages have tended to reinvent and reinterpret their religion to suit what they want to do.