Boxing legend Muhammad Ali responds to Trump's call to ban Muslims from entering US

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed.

[rhodie]

Some just don't see the problem. Yes, some(many) Muslims do condemn the terrorist actions, but it is the leaders who are failing. After the Paris attack, the Grand Mufti of Australia refused to condemn the terrorists. He made excuses as to why these Muslims become terrorists. The Islamic Council had to go into damage control because of his statements.

“It is therefore imperative that all causative factors such as racism, Islamophobia, curtailing freedoms through securitisation, duplicitous foreign policies and military intervention must be comprehensively addressed.” This was his excuse for the Paris attacks.

If Muslims got rid of these sorts of leaders, I think then we may believe that they mean what they say.

The guy talked to his opinion of 'causative factors', not that he was presenting 'excuses'. A number of senior Oz politicians, who personally know him, have publicly supported his efforts over time to refute Islamic extremism in Oz. Others have used right wing populist rhetoric to attack him.

The guy had to be coaxed into condemning the Paris attackers. It is plain to see. Why are you trying to defend that. Why don't they come out and totally condemn these atrocities without reservation. That is the least that I would expect.

Muslims and their leaders are shouting condemnation from the top of the towers at Trump and Abbott who are making divisive political calls. All they are doing is talking. It would be good if those put as much effort into condemning terrorists using Islam

I'm not blindly 'defending' him, his record of condemning Islamic terrorism and assisting with countering radical propaganda has been confirmed by politicians who know him publicly and privately, including in the Turnbull government. Others were spinning his comments for agendas pandering to the right, including some supporters of Abbott in the Turnbull government. usual BS political games.

BTW do a search for Muslims condemning Islamic terror, you will soon see your comment is incorrect.

At the end of the day, he said the wrong thing. Why use words to try to justify the attacks in your first statement about the attacks. It is more prudent to condemn unconditionally. Maybe it was a mistake on his part, but naive to use those words.

There is no justification for walking into a concert with arms and indiscriminately killing innocent people.

[simple1]

The guy talked to his opinion of 'causative factors', not that he was presenting 'excuses'. A number of senior Oz politicians, who personally know him, have publicly supported his efforts over time to refute Islamic extremism in Oz. Others have used right wing populist rhetoric to attack him.

The guy had to be coaxed into condemning the Paris attackers. It is plain to see. Why are you trying to defend that. Why don't they come out and totally condemn these atrocities without reservation. That is the least that I would expect.

Muslims and their leaders are shouting condemnation from the top of the towers at Trump and Abbott who are making divisive political calls. All they are doing is talking. It would be good if those put as much effort into condemning terrorists using Islam

I'm not blindly 'defending' him, his record of condemning Islamic terrorism and assisting with countering radical propaganda has been confirmed by politicians who know him publicly and privately, including in the Turnbull government. Others were spinning his comments for agendas pandering to the right, including some supporters of Abbott in the Turnbull government. usual BS political games.

BTW do a search for Muslims condemning Islamic terror, you will soon see your comment is incorrect.

At the end of the day, he said the wrong thing. Why use words to try to justify the attacks in your first statement about the attacks. It is more prudent to condemn unconditionally. Maybe it was a mistake on his part, but naive to use those words.

There is no justification for walking into a concert with arms and indiscriminately killing innocent people.

Post removed to enable reply.

True, not politically correct comments & 100% agree with your last paragraph. In relation to the Curtis Cheng murder in Sydney he said on the public record “any act of terrorism should be condemned. We refuse and reject any form of terrorist activities”. He would have been a lot better off to have made a similar straight forward comment in regard to Paris.

Edited December 13, 2015 by simple1

[jacky54]

Has the thread changed from Muhammad Ali responding to Trump into the worn out Muslims pretend to condemn terrorism?

[MrTee]

Has the thread changed from Muhammad Ali responding to Trump into the worn out Muslims pretend to condemn terrorism?

um "Ali, one of the most famous Muslims in the world, issued a statement saying, "True Muslims know that the ruthless violence of so called Islamic Jihadists goes against the very tenets of our religion.""

[theguyfromanotherforum]

Man... I dislike Trump, but there is this little voice in me that says he really should be a president.

I mean, how much worse for America can he be than Obama?

All his trolling and proclamations are so stupid that hey are brilliant.

I mean, here we have a Saudi prince condemning Trump, but every American knows Saudi is the worst offender of human rights on the planet. Sure enough they probably ARE Isis.

[simple1]

Man... I dislike Trump, but there is this little voice in me that says he really should be a president.

I mean, how much worse for America can he be than Obama?

All his trolling and proclamations are so stupid that hey are brilliant.

I mean, here we have a Saudi prince condemning Trump, but every American knows Saudi is the worst offender of human rights on the planet. Sure enough they probably ARE Isis.

Trump has business investments in Arab countries accused of funding / supporting terrorism - has be only just discovered this concern. Aside from Saudi Arabia & referring to another country he said...

He wouldn’t mention another country by name and said, “There are, but I’m not going to say it because I have a lot of relationships with people, but they are.”

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/12/12/donald-trumps-latest-feud-is-with-a-prince/

Doesn't sound like he's consistent when his personal interests are at stake.

[evadgib]

Ali in is heyday would have eaten trump for breakfast in any head-to-head TV interview, even if held on F-F-Fox news!

Here's his tongue-in-cheek pop at Brian Clough

https://youtu.be/Gze9gFWrf8U

[Rimmer]

Flame and a troll post removed

[impulse]

Doesn't sound like he's consistent when his personal interests are at stake.

He's no idiot. Even he has to hedge his bets. I'm sure he must realize there is always the ever so slim (in his mind) possibility he won't be elected...

[jacky54]

Has the thread changed from Muhammad Ali responding to Trump into the worn out Muslims pretend to condemn terrorism?

um "Ali, one of the most famous Muslims in the world, issued a statement saying, "True Muslims know that the ruthless violence of so called Islamic Jihadists goes against the very tenets of our religion.""

Depends what he means be true Muslims, if he means ones who beleive the Koran is the word of god to be acted on, then he is wrong

[7by7]

(Nested quotes removed to comply with forum software)

As has been shown many times in many different topics, Muslims across the world DO condemn IS and other terrorists who claim to be acting in the name of Islam.

From individuals in campaigns such as Not in my name and You aint no Muslim bruv (started after the stabbing at Leytonstone tube) to political leaders, religious leaders and community spokespeople. Muslims have demonstrated against IS etc. on the streets of European cities. Fatwas in the thousands have been issued against IS.

Yet you and those of a similar mindset constantly ignore or, at best, dismiss all of that.

Why?

I am aware I have a similar mindset to others, as do you. Noting a self evident association- some have a mindset similar to others- says nothing at all; unless of course the innuendo is a negative one. If that's the case, shame on you. Whats the point of that? Look, you're a pretty smart guy, whether we agree or not, but certain things should be requested to back up statements. I would love to see fatwas in the thousands issued against IS. I will even lower the bar: I would love to see fatwas in the hundreds. Here is why:

The most substantive rebuttal of IS and abu bakr al baghdadi specifically to date was the Open Letter to ISIS issues, in large part, by muslims in UK. What many do not know is that their primary opposition is actually al baghdadi and not the caliphate per se. But thats an issue of exploring their muslim brotherhood connections and connecting dots. What is noteworthy however is the utter vacany of that open letter. It was about as fraudulent as one could be. While later offered online in Arabic, it was not at first. Both that and what it says clearly suggest the audience is the West. More importantly, it actually says nothing. It expends its early and largest capital noting what is required for legal islamic fatwas to be issued, clearly implying to the uninformed Al Baghdaddi does not meet this threshold- but he does. Indeed, in many regards he is preeminently more competent than the authors of the Open Letter. However, the average consumer of this information in the west would not know this. They then proceed to repudiate IS yet provide no real scriptural support to do so. Where they have they clearly speak with two tongues as the West will hear "...thus killing one would be as if the whole world was killed..." paraphrase. Yet muslims would immediately know this oft used citation is a law pertaining only to subjugated Jews. Thus, the greatest repudiation to date can be line item expunged as utterly meaningless.

You have thousands of fatwas, I would love to see them- the properly developed ones as the Open Letter to ISIS architects assert- making use of accepted islamic jurisprudence, not revisiting an issue that has been previously adjudicated, reaching the deliberations and fatwa in Arabic alone, and basically being a doctor of islamic letters- all of which al baghdaddi is. So, the bar has been appropriately set, direct us to these fatwas that are scripturally complete (A fatwa must contain the scriptural reasoning and jurisprudence otherwise it is not a fatwa).


Edit- Note regarding previous post. Lets be clear to avoid historical revision. Yes, many such as you have avowed for a very long time that muslims have been speaking up against islamic jihad having origins in islam, or islamic jihad being not scripturally correct. You and others have made this point to which many have said "We just do not see it." In the post above two very recent efforts have been noted, only recent. Very recent. Perhaps they do indicate some sort of increasing responsibility being taken. We can be hopeful. But it is abundantly clear that those like me who have offered for some time virtually nothing has been said to singularly reject islamic terrorism. This is why we reach the conclusion, because it is true. What actually presents is a disparate picture of weak or feeble efforts to repudiate. But it is positively true to have concluded, at least till now, not enough has been done to speak out in condemnation.

Apologies for the delay in responding; I did try four times on Saturday, but each time my reply disappeared into cyberspace!

However, it has given me more time to read and digest your post, and it seems your argument rests on four points.

1) Muslims have only recently started to condemn Islamic terrorism, so it's too little, too late.

A pretty fatuous argument; they are, after all, condemning it! It's also wrong. Muslims around the world have been condemning Islamic terrorism for years; but it was, until recently, rarely reported in the mainstream media.

How American Muslims Really Responded to September 11

Islamic Statements Against Terrorism

Both giving examples of condemnation dating back to 2001.There are many more, if you care to look.

2) Even when statements are made, they cannot be taken seriously as they are directed at non Muslims .

Really? Even when that's true, you think that makes a difference?

Yes, sometimes such statements are directed at non Muslims; in order to make it clear that the terrorists do not represent the vast majority of Muslims worldwide; the Not in my name campaign being, in my opinion, such an example.

Many times, though, it is directed at the terrorist as well; the open letter to Al Baghdadi being an example of this.

You dismiss that letter because, you believe, it was written in English for the benefit of a non Muslim audience.
.
Well, every source I can find says the original was in Arabic. But that is beside the point; there are now many translations into many languages.

But let's be honest. Will this letter make the slightest difference to Al Baghdadi and his shadowy puppet masters? No, of course not.

However, it does serve two purposes.

• It is another example to the non Muslim world that the majority of Muslims do not support IS.
• It is also a strong argument to those misguided young Muslims who may be sympathetic towards, supporters of or even thinking of joining IS that IS are not true Muslims and such sympathies, support or actions are a sin,.

The fatwas are another example. OK, maybe I exaggerated when I said that thousands have been issued; but thousands of Muslim clerics have signed those that have been! A recent example: 70,000 Indian Muslim clerics issue fatwa against Isis, the Taliban, al-Qaeda and other terror groups

3) The open letter, fatwas and other condemnations are not based on Islamic law.

Bit arrogant of you to assume you know more about the teachings of Islam than the 120 plus scholars who originally signed the open letter and the many who have subsequently added their signatures!

Bit arrogant of you to assume you know more about Islamic law than the thousands of Muslim clerics who have issued and signed fatwas!

To be honest, I know bugger all about the intricacies of Islamic law; but I am certain that the actual scholars who have signed the open letter, signed the fatwas, made public pronouncements that terrorism is unIslamic, etc. know far more about it than you ever will.

4) Even when Muslims do condemn ISIS, they are only doing so because they, themselves want to bring about a worldwide caliphate.

I'm sorry; I simply cannot take you seriously if you do really believe such nonsense. Do you also believe the CIA are tracking us all via our mobile phones?

In conclusion; if you opened your mind, put your arrogance away, stopped believing ridiculous conspiracy theories and did some proper research you will find that my statement "Muslims across the world DO condemn IS and other terrorists who claim to be acting in the name of Islam" is perfectly true and valid and, furthermore, they have been condemning Islamic terrorism for many years.

[jacky54]

As you have taken so long to respond it's disappointing that you have ignored the topic rather- it's about what Muhamad Ali said re Trump. Maybe your deleted posts were off topic also?

[arjunadawn]

(Nested quotes removed to comply with forum software)

I am aware I have a similar mindset to others, as do you. Noting a self evident association- some have a mindset similar to others- says nothing at all; unless of course the innuendo is a negative one. If that's the case, shame on you. Whats the point of that? Look, you're a pretty smart guy, whether we agree or not, but certain things should be requested to back up statements. I would love to see fatwas in the thousands issued against IS. I will even lower the bar: I would love to see fatwas in the hundreds. Here is why:

The most substantive rebuttal of IS and abu bakr al baghdadi specifically to date was the Open Letter to ISIS issues, in large part, by muslims in UK. What many do not know is that their primary opposition is actually al baghdadi and not the caliphate per se. But thats an issue of exploring their muslim brotherhood connections and connecting dots. What is noteworthy however is the utter vacany of that open letter. It was about as fraudulent as one could be. While later offered online in Arabic, it was not at first. Both that and what it says clearly suggest the audience is the West. More importantly, it actually says nothing. It expends its early and largest capital noting what is required for legal islamic fatwas to be issued, clearly implying to the uninformed Al Baghdaddi does not meet this threshold- but he does. Indeed, in many regards he is preeminently more competent than the authors of the Open Letter. However, the average consumer of this information in the west would not know this. They then proceed to repudiate IS yet provide no real scriptural support to do so. Where they have they clearly speak with two tongues as the West will hear "...thus killing one would be as if the whole world was killed..." paraphrase. Yet muslims would immediately know this oft used citation is a law pertaining only to subjugated Jews. Thus, the greatest repudiation to date can be line item expunged as utterly meaningless.

You have thousands of fatwas, I would love to see them- the properly developed ones as the Open Letter to ISIS architects assert- making use of accepted islamic jurisprudence, not revisiting an issue that has been previously adjudicated, reaching the deliberations and fatwa in Arabic alone, and basically being a doctor of islamic letters- all of which al baghdaddi is. So, the bar has been appropriately set, direct us to these fatwas that are scripturally complete (A fatwa must contain the scriptural reasoning and jurisprudence otherwise it is not a fatwa).

Edit- Note regarding previous post. Lets be clear to avoid historical revision. Yes, many such as you have avowed for a very long time that muslims have been speaking up against islamic jihad having origins in islam, or islamic jihad being not scripturally correct. You and others have made this point to which many have said "We just do not see it." In the post above two very recent efforts have been noted, only recent. Very recent. Perhaps they do indicate some sort of increasing responsibility being taken. We can be hopeful. But it is abundantly clear that those like me who have offered for some time virtually nothing has been said to singularly reject islamic terrorism. This is why we reach the conclusion, because it is true. What actually presents is a disparate picture of weak or feeble efforts to repudiate. But it is positively true to have concluded, at least till now, not enough has been done to speak out in condemnation.

Apologies for the delay in responding; I did try four times on Saturday, but each time my reply disappeared into cyberspace!

However, it has given me more time to read and digest your post, and it seems your argument rests on four points.

1) Muslims have only recently started to condemn Islamic terrorism, so it's too little, too late.

A pretty fatuous argument; they are, after all, condemning it! It's also wrong. Muslims around the world have been condemning Islamic terrorism for years; but it was, until recently, rarely reported in the mainstream media.

How American Muslims Really Responded to September 11

Islamic Statements Against Terrorism

Both giving examples of condemnation dating back to 2001.There are many more, if you care to look.

2) Even when statements are made, they cannot be taken seriously as they are directed at non Muslims .

Really? Even when that's true, you think that makes a difference?

Yes, sometimes such statements are directed at non Muslims; in order to make it clear that the terrorists do not represent the vast majority of Muslims worldwide; the Not in my name campaign being, in my opinion, such an example.

Many times, though, it is directed at the terrorist as well; the open letter to Al Baghdadi being an example of this.

You dismiss that letter because, you believe, it was written in English for the benefit of a non Muslim audience.

.

Well, every source I can find says the original was in Arabic. But that is beside the point; there are now many translations into many languages.

But let's be honest. Will this letter make the slightest difference to Al Baghdadi and his shadowy puppet masters? No, of course not.

However, it does serve two purposes.

• It is another example to the non Muslim world that the majority of Muslims do not support IS.
• It is also a strong argument to those misguided young Muslims who may be sympathetic towards, supporters of or even thinking of joining IS that IS are not true Muslims and such sympathies, support or actions are a sin,.

The fatwas are another example. OK, maybe I exaggerated when I said that thousands have been issued; but thousands of Muslim clerics have signed those that have been! A recent example: 70,000 Indian Muslim clerics issue fatwa against Isis, the Taliban, al-Qaeda and other terror groups

3) The open letter, fatwas and other condemnations are not based on Islamic law.

Bit arrogant of you to assume you know more about the teachings of Islam than the 120 plus scholars who originally signed the open letter and the many who have subsequently added their signatures!

Bit arrogant of you to assume you know more about Islamic law than the thousands of Muslim clerics who have issued and signed fatwas!

To be honest, I know bugger all about the intricacies of Islamic law; but I am certain that the actual scholars who have signed the open letter, signed the fatwas, made public pronouncements that terrorism is unIslamic, etc. know far more about it than you ever will.

4) Even when Muslims do condemn ISIS, they are only doing so because they, themselves want to bring about a worldwide caliphate.

I'm sorry; I simply cannot take you seriously if you do really believe such nonsense. Do you also believe the CIA are tracking us all via our mobile phones?

In conclusion; if you opened your mind, put your arrogance away, stopped believing ridiculous conspiracy theories and did some proper research you will find that my statement "Muslims across the world DO condemn IS and other terrorists who claim to be acting in the name of Islam" is perfectly true and valid and, furthermore, they have been condemning Islamic terrorism for many years.

Its hard to take someone serious when they admonish about arrogance with the language of the ill informed. Indeed, the presumption to lecture on arrogance on a forum is itself so ironic as to be ridiculous.

[7by7]

As you have taken so long to respond it's disappointing that you have ignored the topic rather- it's about what Muhamad Ali said re Trump. Maybe your deleted posts were off topic also?

I have not ignored Ali nor his comments. See previous posts of mine.

The topic moved on to include general Muslim condemnation of terrorism after it was claimed that Ali had not condemned Islamic terrorism previously, it was shown that he had and then a comment was made that other Muslims should follow suit.

If you believe that such posts are off topic; use the report button and let a mod decide.

If you want to see the contents of the nested quotes I removed from the quote of ajunadawn's post, removed to comply with forum software and for no other reason, you only have to scroll back to that post.

If you or ajunadawn can demonstrate that what I have said is wrong, that Muslims across the world have not been condemning terrorism for many years; do so.

But the latest responses from both of you prove that neither of you can.

[jacky54]

When they condemn the passages in the Koran that inspire terrorism and or the violent life of Mohammad, then I will be impressed. Just condemning the unpleasant friuts of the ideology is useless without seeing the causes, and doing something about that. Not in my name posters on fb and a few mealy mouthed self appointed organisations (no women usually) with their crocodile tears just will not do.

[simple1]

To my mind the fundamental issue is Islamic theologians who voice support for violence, which in essence is political. The theologians, plus the Imams (in the West more often than not self appointed) who spread their messages are the ones to be targeted. On the political aspect of Islam, the following is relevant...

“If you think Muslims aren’t condemning ISIS, it’s not because Muslims aren’t condemning ISIS. It’s because you’re not listening to Muslims.”

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/09/11/3566181/why-isis-is-in-fact-not-islamic/

Getting back to Ali, who does follow the spirituality of Sufism. 'Islam' is based upon an Arabic root word, which can also infer an individual seekers search for peace to be reached by submitting to the will of God; in other words, a metaphysical emphasis, not political.

Edited December 15, 2015 by simple1

[jacky54]

Ali ain't no Muslim is he though bro!

[slerickson]

Except for the Title it's pretty hard to tell what this thread is about. Ali wasn't it??