In this thread:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225870861/53#53

Abu made the claim that Sharia law would prevent any middle eastern oil from getting into American hands. I tried asking many times for an explanation of this, but got nothing beyond a silly 'communal property' response. Can anyone explain this?

Freediver,

Quote:


It wouldn't strictly prevent sales of oil to anyone.

Under Shari'ah law, natural resources such as energy, water etc. are community property. They cannot be privatised by a single family, ruling or otherwise, and squandered for their own personal benefit, and for the benefit of the enemies of the Muslims.

So under Shari'ah, the oil would be owned by  the Muslims and for their interests. The wealth of it would have to be used for the benefit of the Muslims, and it would strictly be forbidden to sell it to anyone using it to power war machines that were routinely murdering Muslims.

So as I'm sure you can gather from those stipulations, America in her current state would not qualify to purchase any oil from Islamic lands. She would need to immediately cease all her hostlities and support for hostilities against  Muslims.

And she full well knows it.

Quote:


You still can't see how this:

Quote:


Is just utter garbage, and nothing at all to do with what I said?

Islam does not forbid trade, in fact it specifically permits and praises it in the Qur'an.

Quote:


I did? Do you have a link to this alleged statement of mine?

Quote:


As I said clearly above, there'd be no sales of oil to those fighting Muslims.

If America were crippled with such an oil embargo, I guarantee you that most 'terrorist' groups would cease to have a reason to exist very quickly. Too bad you, and others are not willing to realise this reality. But instead arrogantly demand all Muslims "hunt down the terrorists". That we hunt down those that are merely reacting to your violent, oppressive, greedy and militant actions in their lands.

Quote:


You should probably feel blessed (or cursed) that Islam exists at all. Through 2 world wars (and numerous other wars), Islam has always been the loser because they don't look at things realistically.
The western world always gave the freedom to practise faith, but  Islam is always at the mercy of honest thinking and will be wiped out when required. That requirement is nearing.

Quote:


If a decent Shari'ah implementing state existed that had prevented oil sales to the enemies fighting against Islam, then there'd be no need for 'terrorist groups', any militant movements would probably just be dissolved out of disinterest by their support bases. When people are no longer being savagely attacked, having their resources stolen from them and compliant dummies for rulers looking on in apathy... then they'd have no reason to be forming themselves into militias would they? I am still perplexed as to why you can't comprehend this fd, unless you actually sincerely believe the propaganda that Muslims are just violent and barbaric savage people who just love violence for violence's sake... They have grievances, they have reasons for doing what they do, they have been under occupation, attack, sieges economic and military, etc. for many many decades... is it that hard to conceive that such conditions push people to become militant as a defense mechanism????

Truly perplexed...

Just imagine it for a brief moment, growing up under such harsh conditions... do you think you'd be thinking and behaving as you are now? Do you think you'd hold the same views and positions about things as you do now?

Quote:


They simply wouldn't exist. Name any group you like, any militia, any guerilla movement in the Muslim world, and I guarantee you that their existence is purely based around certain conditions that simply wouldn't exist in that case...

Therefore your questions are irrelevant.

Quote:


Perhaps need was not the best choice of words. What I mean is they'd have no justification for existence and would find it very hard to recruit members, to the point of becoming completely irrelevant, and in my  opinion would disband. Do you think those people enjoy doing what they do? If so, then you really haven't learnt a thing out of any of our discussions, or out of any of the facts of this situation that you've been exposed to.

It's still all about "they did this to us in bali or wherever, they're evil and I can't accept any reasoning or justification for their actions or motives". You are in effect even more blinded by your own emotional attachment to the conflict than they are.

Quote:


As I've pointed out before, you seem to be under some delusion they just enjoy being barbaric savage militants... So there's little point in detailing this, but I'll give it one last try.

Just look at any conflict around the world where militant groups were formed to achieve the aims and aspirations of peoples. We ccould even look at the Jewish terrorist groups in Palestine from the 1920's onwards. The main 3 players were the Hanagah, Irgun & Stern Gang. They massacred Arab villagers, demolished villages, blew up the King David hotel in Jerusalem, assassinated a few members of the British Mandate government and a whole lot of other stuff. Their justifications were that they wanted to ensure they got a decent size state and to circumvent the British restrictions on Jewish immigration, and to de-Arabise the land etc. Now in 1948 when their goal was realised and the state of Israel was established, all 3 of these main terrorist organisations were disbanded. The Irgun and Stern Gangs merged and formed the basis of the IDF whilst the Hanagah went more political, renaming themselves eventually as the Israeli Labour party. It's a funny thing that happens when people who are in desperate circumstances suddenly find their aims and aspirations are achieved, they stop behaving in desperate ways... Isn't that bizarre?

Quote:


Throughout the Middle Ages pretty much all civilisations were constantly warring. In fact the Caliphate was probably the most peaceful of all, hence the term Pax Islamica.

That's say more about the instability of that period in history than it does about the nature of Muslims.

Quote:


Well if you didn't have a problem with it, you'd probably be a Muslim, so that's not such a strange position to take. Likewise a lot of Muslims have problems with democratic/secular doctrines too, that's life.

Quote:


As I stated, I don't think they'd exist, all the people you brand as terrorists are merely people with grievances that would be solved through the formation of a Caliphate. Even your own people variously brand them as terrorists and freedom fighters depending on who they have grievances with. The exact same people you're fighting in Afghanistan now were freedom fighters only a few decades ago when they were fighting the Soviets, this includes Bin Laden.

Likewise the US wants to release the Chinese Muslims from Guantanamo, who they admit trained in jihad camps, because they want to fight the Chinese, not us...

Quote:


So terrorism is justified at the moment? What demands would have to be met before you would insist terrorism is not justified?

Quote:


Poor terrorists....

Quote:


I can't accept any justification for Balie, or 9/11, or the London bombings. What is the justification BTW?

Quote:


No I'm not, but they'd find some other reason pretty quickly.

Quote:


The problem with Muslims terrorists is that so many of the goals of Islam are unacceptable. Obviously they are going to be ultraconservative, not progressive Muslims. So, that means Islam ruling the world, non-Muslims as second class citizens, slavery, stoning gays to death, a massive regular army for them to throw around isntead of random terrorism etc. These are not the sort of people you want to start appeasing.

Quote:


The people of Afghanistan were not desperate. Out of all the Muslim areas in the world, they were the closest to living under Sharia law. They were not desperate, they were emboldened by the local success of Islam resistance against historic invaders. The London bombers were not desperate. They were rich white kids. The Bali bombers were not desperate. They were fruit loops. They had to look half way round the world for something to get upset about, but they found it. Your whole argument is a sham. You are using people who do not subscribe to extremist, expansionist militant ideologies as an example of how to deal with people who do subscribe to Islam.

Quote:


You are the one with the fairytale version of history, not me. Islam may be suited to that time and that situation, but that time has passed.

Quote:


I expect it would take a lot more than the perception of benignity to get someone to subscribe to an ideology.

Quote:


It's time you faced the reality that most middle easterners don't want a Caliphate. If they did, it would be impossible to prevent. Ultimately it is not the west stopping the formation of a Caliphate, it is the locals. The west is only able to interefere so much with so little effort because the locals have already divided themselves for conquer. Likewise there are plenty of locals they could kill to help their goal of a Caliphate. Many of them are choosing that option. Not that it's helping them much. so some choose mass slaughter of foreigners on the other side of the world. It goes down a lot better at home than killing your neighbours.

Quote:


So it wouldn't actually be owned by the Muslim people and they would not be free to trade it as they wish? Rather it would be owned 'for' them and the government would tell them what they can and cannot do with it?