Perspective: How to Prevent another San Bernardino Shooting

[DawudTalut]

Peace be on all.
The things continue after CA shooting.
"" The FBI now believes that the San Bernardino terrorists were radicalized even before ISIS came to the scene. Everyone is wondering how this is even possible, with some arguing this is a new way to radicalize youth. On the contrary, this method has existed for some 90 years.

While watching the footage of San Bernardino Shooting suspect’s apartment, I spotted .......""
REF: http://ahmadiyyatimes.blogspot.com/2015/12/perspective-how-to-prevent-another-san.html#more

 

[psychoslice]

By growing up and realizing that we are all One, and that religion only divides us all, its that simple.

 

[DawudTalut]

“I feel Muslim blood, Christian blood, all blood is the same. Hopefully, people get that same message”
http://ahmadiyyatimes.blogspot.com/...area-ahmadi-muslims.html?utm_source=BP_recent

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Peace be on all.
The things continue after CA shooting.
"" The FBI now believes that the San Bernardino terrorists were radicalized even before ISIS came to the scene. Everyone is wondering how this is even possible, with some arguing this is a new way to radicalize youth. On the contrary, this method has existed for some 90 years.

While watching the footage of San Bernardino Shooting suspect’s apartment, I spotted .......""
REF: http://ahmadiyyatimes.blogspot.com/2015/12/perspective-how-to-prevent-another-san.html#more

Thanks @DawudTalut , I found the article interesting.
It strikes me that I would like to better understand the formation and background of Ahmadiyya Islam. Not so much from a religious point of view, but more in terms of when it was founded, and who it's important figures are, etc. Do you have any links I could trust?

 

[Laika]

this sounds like the old debate amongst marxists over reform versus revolution to achieve socialism. violence versus non-violence, etc. shutting down religious schools and intergrating kids into secular public schools is a good idea and stops the kind of segregation that can lead to conflict. it is reasonable to expect a backlash, possibly violent, but it will reduce the ability to radicalise young people in the long-term. I don't think you can reduce it down to just a question of the "wrong" ideas, but ideas do clearly play a role.

 

[DawudTalut]

Thanks @DawudTalut , I found the article interesting.
It strikes me that I would like to better understand the formation and background of Ahmadiyya Islam. Not so much from a religious point of view, but more in terms of when it was founded, and who it's important figures are, etc. Do you have any links I could trust?

Peace be on you.
As you asked:
Official websites:
www.alislam.org
http://www.ahmadiyya.org.au/

------

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadiyya

------

http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...acrifices-operational-tasks-officials.152805/

 

[LuisDantas]

Countering the message of violence if of course necessary and a high priority. The goals and the means proposed by that article are IMO very laudable. I would even say that I agree with it, although I question its emphasis to a minor degree.

But I can't in good faith encourage the perception that such shootings would not happen were it not for the message of violent, radical Islam.

A society that does not blink when faced with the prospect of paying for and actually approving of air bombings in populated areas - which is the current situation of the USA regarding Syria, and has so often been the case at other times regarding other places - quite obviously has already accepted the intentional killing of people as unremarkable.

It seems to me that such a collective mindset should be expected to result in fairly frequent senseless acts of murderous violence. A community that often tells itself that life is cheap will end up believing it.

By that point radicalization is already a done deal, and one should expect youths to sometimes express their anxieties by way of irrational violence. Youth often causes deep anxieties, after all, and if violence is perceived as normal by society, then of course it will happen.

 

[LuisDantas]

Dawud, would you have anything to say about the much honourable Abdul Ghaffar Khan, also known as Badshah Khan?

Would there perhaps be some sort of official stance about him in Ahmadiyya Islam that you might want to share with me?

 

[Nietzsche]

Countering the message of violence if of course necessary and a high priority. The goals and the means proposed by that article are IMO very laudable. I would even say that I agree with it, although I question its emphasis to a minor degree.

But I can't in good faith encourage the perception that such shootings would not happen were it not for the message of violent, radical Islam.

A society that does not blink when faced with the prospect of paying for and actually approving of air bombings in populated areas - which is the current situation of the USA regarding Syria, and has so often been the case at other times regarding other places - quite obviously has already accepted the intentional killing of people as unremarkable.

It seems to me that such a collective mindset should be expected to result in fairly frequent senseless acts of murderous violence. A community that often tells itself that life is cheap will end up believing it.

By that point radicalization is already a done deal, and one should expect youths to sometimes express their anxieties by way of irrational violence. Youth often causes deep anxieties, after all, and if violence is perceived as normal by society, then of course it will happen.

So why is this only really happening now? Using this logic, there should've been events similar to this conducted in the 1910s and 1940s.

 

[LuisDantas]

So why is this only really happening now? Using this logic, there should've been events similar to this conducted in the 1910s and 1940s.

There may very well have been, for all I know. It is my understanding that newspieces were subject to far stronger control and censure back in those days. But that is not really the point, IMO.

The way I see it, there has been a long string of random shootings by troubled youngsters in the USA for some time now, mainly because it has become so desensitized to killings.

San Bernardino is somewhat noteworthy because it has religious terrorism aspects. But only to a certain point.

At the end of the day, this is the rare intersection between two very distinct sets of events, in that it is both a terrorist attack and also an irrational serial murder by American citizens in American soil.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Massacres_in_the_United_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Terrorist_incidents_in_the_United_States_in_2015


I guess I am not very impressed by the specific motivation of this specific event so much as I am by the widespread desensitization towards mass murder that seems to have happened in the USA in the last few decades.

But most of all, I have a hard time being very impressed by 36 people being killed or wounded when it seems so likely that at least part of the motivation is outrage for this reality

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_Syria

I am not even linked to Syria or ISIS in any way whatsoever. I may or may not have some middle eastern blood going back at least three generations (probably not). My closest link to Muslim beliefs is that a second cousin of mine used to consider himself a Muslim. No one who knows me would mistake me for a supporter of Islam as a doctrine.

And even then I still find it a crying, bloody shame that the USA finds it defensible to order death to rain from above in Syria by the thousands - while making a point of committing little to no actual troops of its own, no less.

So why is it any surprise that such an event invites some attempt at retaliation?

Compare with the Rodney King Riots of 1992.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Peace be on all.
The things continue after CA shooting.
"" The FBI now believes that the San Bernardino terrorists were radicalized even before ISIS came to the scene. Everyone is wondering how this is even possible, with some arguing this is a new way to radicalize youth. On the contrary, this method has existed for some 90 years.

While watching the footage of San Bernardino Shooting suspect’s apartment, I spotted .......""
REF: http://ahmadiyyatimes.blogspot.com/2015/12/perspective-how-to-prevent-another-san.html#more

If you read the following words you will become a radicalized terrorist hellbent on killing people

Spoiler: * DANGER * DANGER * DANGER *

God says people's hearts are empty of emotions.

 

[BSM1]

There may very well have been, for all I know. It is my understanding that newspieces were subject to far stronger control and censure back in those days. But that is not really the point, IMO.

The way I see it, there has been a long string of random shootings by troubled youngsters in the USA for some time now, mainly because it has become so desensitized to killings.

San Bernardino is somewhat noteworthy because it has religious terrorism aspects. But only to a certain point.

At the end of the day, this is the rare intersection between two very distinct sets of events, in that it is both a terrorist attack and also an irrational serial murder by American citizens in American soil.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Massacres_in_the_United_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Terrorist_incidents_in_the_United_States_in_2015


I guess I am not very impressed by the specific motivation of this specific event so much as I am by the widespread desensitization towards mass murder that seems to have happened in the USA in the last few decades.

But most of all, I have a hard time being very impressed by 36 people being killed or wounded when it seems so likely that at least part of the motivation is outrage for this reality

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_Syria

I am not even linked to Syria or ISIS in any way whatsoever. I may or may not have some middle eastern blood going back at least three generations (probably not). My closest link to Muslim beliefs is that a second cousin of mine used to consider himself a Muslim. No one who knows me would mistake me for a supporter of Islam as a doctrine.

And even then I still find it a crying, bloody shame that the USA finds it defensible to order death to rain from above in Syria by the thousands - while making a point of committing little to no actual troops of its own, no less.

So why is it any surprise that such an event invites some attempt at retaliation?

Compare with the Rodney King Riots of 1992.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots

Not that I want to walk through this mental compost but you do realize that it's the Russians that are doing the major bombing in Syria? Can you imagine the civilian casualties if we were to put troops in Syria?

 

[LuisDantas]

Not that I want to walk through this mental compost but you do realize that it's the Russians that are doing the major bombing in Syria? Can you imagine the civilian casualties if we were to put troops in Syria?

The Russians are not alone in the bombing, and that there are civilian casualties is sort of the whole point.

 

[illykitty]

Interesting perspective, thank you for posting this. I didn't know anything about the rise of extremism in India or Maulana Abul Ala Maududi. So I learned a few things.

I also somewhat agree with the solutions. I don't think someone needs to be an Ahmadiyya but surely to take inspiration from them is a good idea. Jihad of the pen is a lot better and more peaceful action than of the sword. I have no problem having intellectual debates and interesting conversations... Violence is not the answer.

To encourage a peaceful interpretation and try to combat the extreme ones is a good idea. We need to recognise it as a problem, and not to say these people aren't Muslims. It doesn't help at all to say that. It doesn't do anything to combat this issue. Take the pen and combat their wrong ideas seem to be more valid. It would also be good perhaps for such schools to not exist too. So yeah, a lot of good thoughts in the article. I am glad they aren't scared of saying things as they are.

 

[BSM1]

The Russians are not alone in the bombing, and that there are civilian casualties is sort of the whole point.

Didn't say they (the Russians) were. Your post indicated the US was entirely at fault for civilians casualties in Syria; you never mention those that were really doing the most damage. Your arguments may be better served with a modicum of intellectual honesty. Just sayin'...

 

[DawudTalut]

Dawud, would you have anything to say about the much honourable Abdul Ghaffar Khan, also known as Badshah Khan?

Would there perhaps be some sort of official stance about him in Ahmadiyya Islam that you might want to share with me?

Peace be on you...Also known as Bacha Khan.
1=He was great leader with a certain ideology.
2=I did not find any such official stance which you asked.

 

[DawudTalut]

Interesting perspective, thank you for posting this. ................ Jihad of the pen is a lot better and more peaceful action than of the sword. ...........So yeah, a lot of good thoughts in the article. I am glad they aren't scared of saying things as they are.

Peace be on you.
Thanks.

 

[Crypto2015]

The only way to stop "radicalization" is to ban Sharia Law. Any person striving to impose Sharia Law on others should be charged with sedition and deported/imprisoned. Sharia Law is the line that separates Islam as a religious set of beliefs from Islam as a political movement. Unfortunately, no state would ban Sharia law, since that would anger the Saudis and other oil-producing countries, which would entail an instant energy crisis for the Sharia-opposing state. So, in the long term, the only way to stop "radicalization" is to develop alternative sources of energy, such as nuclear energy plants.

 

[DawudTalut]

The only way to stop "radicalization" is to ban Sharia Law. Any person striving to impose Sharia Law on others should be charged with sedition and deported/imprisoned. Sharia Law is the line that separates Islam as a religious set of beliefs from Islam as a political movement. Unfortunately, no state would ban Sharia law, since that would anger the Saudis and other oil-producing countries, which would entail an instant energy crisis for the Sharia-opposing state. So, in the long term, the only way to stop "radicalization" is to develop alternative sources of energy, such as nuclear energy plants.

Peace be on you.
1=
Here is another view of the issue:


"" Shariah is not unique to Islam. Every faith has its own form of shariah. In the United States, for example, our legal system already permits some narrow civil matters to be settled through alternative dispute resolution. Among such alternative mechanisms is the beit din, or rabbinical law courts. American Jews routinely go before beit din to arbitrate real estate deals, divorces and business disputes.

In Islam, shariah can be divided into five main branches: ibadah (ritual worship), mu’amalat (transactions and contracts), adab (behavior)> (morals and manners), i’tiqadat (beliefs), and ‘uqubat (punishments). Islam prescribes certain laws or principles that govern all five main branches. At its core, shariah is intended to develop and sustain a moral and just society.



Extremists and their religious clerics invoke shariah to justify the killing of the innocent and vulnerable. They abandon the Quranic principles of governance in favor of discriminate and grossly improper applications of Islamic law. They view shariah as an instrument of conquest and carnage instead of justice and decency.

Religion should not be the business of the state. As Muslims who believe in the Messiah, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has a clear vision that religion should not legislate in the domain of man’s relation to God. Islam offers guiding principles in matters of man’s relation to man. These principles can easily be translated into secular laws based on justice, tolerance and love for mankind. The law of one’s homeland has predominance over all other laws. True shariah is conducive to a system of government that is beneficent, ensures universal human rights and minority protections and dispenses absolute justice for all people.""
From: https://www.alislam.org/egazette/updates/demystifying-shariah/

2=
Closing oil wells will do very little. You have to go deeper and help weak governments to close their powerful fanatic-Madrasas and other things which are already in motion.

3=
Who stops to explore other energy resources?

 

[Crypto2015]

Peace be on you.
1=
Here is another view of the issue:


"" Shariah is not unique to Islam. Every faith has its own form of shariah. In the United States, for example, our legal system already permits some narrow civil matters to be settled through alternative dispute resolution. Among such alternative mechanisms is the beit din, or rabbinical law courts. American Jews routinely go before beit din to arbitrate real estate deals, divorces and business disputes.

In Islam, shariah can be divided into five main branches: ibadah (ritual worship), mu’amalat (transactions and contracts), adab (behavior)> (morals and manners), i’tiqadat (beliefs), and ‘uqubat (punishments). Islam prescribes certain laws or principles that govern all five main branches. At its core, shariah is intended to develop and sustain a moral and just society.



Extremists and their religious clerics invoke shariah to justify the killing of the innocent and vulnerable. They abandon the Quranic principles of governance in favor of discriminate and grossly improper applications of Islamic law. They view shariah as an instrument of conquest and carnage instead of justice and decency.

Religion should not be the business of the state. As Muslims who believe in the Messiah, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has a clear vision that religion should not legislate in the domain of man’s relation to God. Islam offers guiding principles in matters of man’s relation to man. These principles can easily be translated into secular laws based on justice, tolerance and love for mankind. The law of one’s homeland has predominance over all other laws. True shariah is conducive to a system of government that is beneficent, ensures universal human rights and minority protections and dispenses absolute justice for all people.""
From: https://www.alislam.org/egazette/updates/demystifying-shariah/

2=
Closing oil wells will do very little. You have to go deeper and help weak governments to close their powerful fanatic-Madrasas and other things which are already in motion.

3=
Who stops to explore other energy resources?

First of all, an Ahmadiyya's understanding of what Sharia Law is is irrelevant for a non-Muslim like myself, simply because Ahmadiyya Muslims are considered to be apostates by 99% of the Muslim population. Hence, even if Ahmadiyya Muslims believe that Sharia Law is nothing but peace and love, that still leaves us with the problem of what 99% of the Muslim population think Sharia Law is. The thing is that 99% of the Muslim population knows that Sharia Law is simply a religious constitution that is clearly and unambiguously described in legal books such as "The Reliance of the Traveler" (Shafi'i school of jurisprudence). This book and any other book that emanates from the Islamic schools of jurisprudence should be banned. They teach Muslims to replace any man-made constitution with Allah's constitution. I agree with you when you say that Sharia Law is inextricably linked to what being a Muslim is. This is the big problem of our time. However, a line must be drawn somewhere if we are to fight "radicalization". The most natural way to draw this line is to separate Sharia Law from the other aspects of Islam. If this is impossible, then a peaceful coexistence between Islam and the non-Muslim world is utterly impossible.

Regarding changing other nations' belief systems, who are we to do it? If the Saudis understand Islam the way they understand it, it is their choice and, ultimately, their problem. It would be naive and extremely arrogant to believe that we have the right (and the means) to tell the Saudis what they should believe in.