At Last - One of Manchester's biggest mosques refuses to bury Salman Abedi's body

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Well this is about the terrorist and you said to bury him period.

Stop deflecting from what has been asked of you

So why give him an Islamic burial?

Nobody is saying he cannot be buried.

The Mosques is under no obligation to do so.

Thus again why should he be given any Islamic rites?

Are you saying he is then a Muslim?

I thought you believed Muslim terrorists, were not Muslims?

Who said this was about the terrrorist?

That's where you've got this all wrong.

And yes, of course he's a Muslim. Never said the terrorists were not Muslims.

But a very misguided Muslim.

eddie wrote:We are talking about simply a body here - bone and blood and skin - doesn't matter what happens to it or where it goes, the guy doesn't care anymore.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

eddie wrote:We are talking about simply a body here - bone and blood and skin - doesn't matter what happens to it or where it goes, the guy doesn't care anymore.

Why don't we just mutilate and desecrate his body then?

Does that say something about the terrorist, or you?

Thorin wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Who said this was about the terrrorist?

That's where you've got this all wrong.

And yes, of course he's a Muslim. Never said the terrorists were not Muslims.

But a very misguided Muslim.

Thank you for being honest 

So why do you think he should get an Islamic burial?

He can be buried without one and certainly does not deserve one

eddie wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Why don't we just mutilate and desecrate his body then?

Does that say something about the terrorist, or you?

I don't quite know what you mean.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Thank you for being honest 

So why do you think he should get an Islamic burial?

He can be buried without one and certainly does not deserve one

Becuase I'm not God.

So I do not judge like one.

Like I said earlier, the burial process is more about us, the living, and how we treat people and respect God.

What if the terrorist was injured? Would you say doctors should not treat him?

The terrorist said he was a  Muslim. Then (Muslims should) bury him as such and let God decide.

Thorin wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Becuase I'm not God.

So I do not judge like one.

Like I said earlier, the burial process is more about us, the living, and how we treat people and respect God.

What if the terrorist was injured? Would you say doctors should not treat him?

The terrorist said he was a  Muslim. Then (Muslims should) bury him as such and let God decide.

If he was injured then he should be medically treated.

He is dead, so he does not need treatment, he just needs to be buried.

He does not need or require any Islamic rituals, as why should he?

I dont believe in God, why should I respect your myths on this?

Burying him is a decent thing to do

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Thorin wrote:


If he was injured then he should be medically treated.

He is dead, so he does not need treatment, he just needs to be buried.

He does not need or require any Islamic rituals, as why should he?

I dont believe in God, why should I respect your myths on this?

Burying him is a decent thing to do

I was speaking about Muslims and what they should do to the body. Sorry, I thought you understood that but clearly your comprehension is lacking again.

And the fact you can't see the contradiction and hypocrisy in your own post, is making me chuckle.

Even the dead need some sort of "treatment". And the Imam has a duty just as much as a doctor.

Again you fail to understand, this (burial) is not about the dead. It's about the living.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

eddie wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Why don't we just mutilate and desecrate his body then?

Does that say something about the terrorist, or you?

I don't quite know what you mean.

You said it doesn't matter what happens to the body. The guy doesn't care anymore.

So I ask you, why don't we just let it rot, or mutillte it?

Becuase how we treat the body says more about us.

Raggamuffin wrote:I think I agree with Zack on this matter. I don't think anyone should disrespect the body of this terrorist, and he should have a proper burial.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I think I agree with Zack on this matter. I don't think anyone should disrespect the body of this terrorist, and he should have a proper burial.

How is it disrespecting the body?

Burials based on religious rights are just some made up bullshit, believed through myths.

So how is it disrespecting?

You can still bury him, why the need for religious rights?

Again pandering to religious beliefs, when he had no care for the sanctity of life

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


How is it disrespecting the body?

Burials based on religious rights are just some made up bullshit, believed through myths.

So how is it disrespecting?

You can still bury him, why the need for religious rights?

Again pandering to religious beliefs, when he had no care for the sanctity of life

The article says that councils and funeral directors also refuse to deal with the body, so it's not just to do with Islam or indeed any religion. I think that feeding his body to pigs would be disrespecting the body, don't you?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The article says that councils and funeral directors also refuse to deal with the body, so it's not just to do with Islam or indeed any religion. I think that feeding his body to pigs would be disrespecting the body, don't you?

Who said anything about feeding it to the pigs in the article?

If nobody wants to deal with the body, that is their choice and i do not blame them..

You cannot force this on people

I am happy that he is buried, but that does not mean you have to perform any rites

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Who said anything about feeding it to the pigs in the article?

If nobody wants to deal with the body, that is their choice and i do not blame them..

You cannot force this on people

I am happy that he is buried, but that does not mean you have to perform any rites

Nobody in the article said it, and I didn't say they had.

I don't suppose anyone is refusing to deal with the body because they disapprove of what he did - they just don't want to be targeted for being associated with him.

Raggamuffin wrote:I think I agree with Zack on this matter. I don't think anyone should disrespect the body of this terrorist, and he should have a proper burial.

Lord Foul wrote:Firstly, unless wanted for questioning, no terrorist, injured in the commission of an act of terrorism should recieve medical aid...why should we spend £1000's of the NHS money on such a waste of oxygen? They are not, even, "honourable combatants"
secondly directly @Zack

so you are saying that these terrorists are entitled to a "Muslim burial, by virtue of an entirely spurious claim that "its what it says about us"  In otherwords demanding that WE should also recognise them as Muslims.
IN which case the entirely reasonable counter argument that muslime terrorist = islam therefore islam = terroist is valid and applicable and thus we are entitled to view all Muslims as potential terrorists......RIGHT?

or perhaps not.....
also, do you suppose for one instance those christians/jews/etc murdered in various islamic excesses (in recent time for the sake of clarity) were allowed corret and suitable burial rites???

How we deal with the dead terrorist is not (or should not be)  a reflection of what WE are , but a warning and statement to the future would be perpetrators of such acts of the contempt in which we as a society hold THEM and their warped ideology....and (given THEIR belief) the fact that at the end they will be denied the very thing they crave.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:@Foul

How's it a spurious claim that burial is about the living? How's it about the dead? The dead do not act or react.

So how we treat the dead is entirely about us. Otherwise, go be a savage and mutilate the bodies. What's stopping you?

This is very simple logic and I feel you're being blinded by emotions. To the extent you now want doctors to ignore their duty and effectively become murderers instead.

I hope you're just going through the anger phase of grieving and sense will soon return. Or may be not.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:@Foul

How's it a spurious claim that burial is about the living? How's it about the dead? The dead do not act or react.

you miss the point....by a mile...........it is a signal to the "future dead" terrorist.

So how we treat the dead is entirely about us. Otherwise, go be a savage and mutilate the bodies. What's stopping you?

that is pointless.... and moreover a strawman argument (personally it rather mutilate a live would be terrorist) the point is to deny the religious beleifs of these fanatics, with a view of making the next in line think (if they are capable)

This is very simple logic and I feel you're being blinded by emotions. To the extent you now want doctors to ignore their duty and effectively become murderers instead.

rubbish...murder is a positive act that requires direct action...and.....they simply would not get to see a doctor....

I hope you're just going through the anger phase of grieving and sense will soon return. Or may be not.

Lord Foul wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:@Foul

How's it a spurious claim that burial is about the living? How's it about the dead? The dead do not act or react.

you miss the point....by a mile...........it is a signal to the "future dead" terrorist.

So how we treat the dead is entirely about us. Otherwise, go be a savage and mutilate the bodies. What's stopping you?

that is pointless.... and moreover a strawman argument (personally it rather mutilate a live would be terrorist) the point is to deny the religious beleifs of these fanatics, with a view of making the next in line think (if they are capable)

This is very simple logic and I feel you're being blinded by emotions. To the extent you now want doctors to ignore their duty and effectively become murderers instead.

rubbish...murder is a positive act that requires direct action...and.....they simply would not get to see a doctor....

I hope you're just going through the anger phase of grieving and sense will soon return. Or may be not.

Thorin wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:@Foul

How's it a spurious claim that burial is about the living? How's it about the dead? The dead do not act or react.

So how we treat the dead is entirely about us. Otherwise, go be a savage and mutilate the bodies. What's stopping you?

This is very simple logic and I feel you're being blinded by emotions. To the extent you now want doctors to ignore their duty and effectively become murderers instead.

I hope you're just going through the anger phase of grieving and sense will soon return. Or may be not.

Well ever heard of absolute war by Von Clausewitz?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:@Foul

How's it a spurious claim that burial is about the living? How's it about the dead? The dead do not act or react.

you miss the point....by a mile...........it is a signal to the "future dead" terrorist.

So how we treat the dead is entirely about us. Otherwise, go be a savage and mutilate the bodies. What's stopping you?

that is pointless.... and moreover a strawman argument (personally it rather mutilate a live would be terrorist) the point is to deny the religious beleifs of these fanatics, with a view of making the next in line think (if they are capable)

This is very simple logic and I feel you're being blinded by emotions. To the extent you now want doctors to ignore their duty and effectively become murderers instead.

rubbish...murder is a positive act that requires direct action...and.....they simply would not get to see a doctor....

I hope you're just going through the anger phase of grieving and sense will soon return. Or may be not.

Not acting is equivalent to acting? Isn't that the "enlightened" view? Then why equate yourself to a savage.

ah doubless the "sin of omission" bull crap

maybe its time to BE a savage...though I dispute you claim that not allowing the relevent rites (as opposed to mere decent disposal, which could be acheived at the local incinerator) is "savagery" savagery is finding an excuse to DELIBERATELY AND SPECIFICALLY murder innocent men women and children, against ALL the tennets of civilised society.

The same goes for burial. Do you think someone who blows themselves up cares about how they're buried? Or how their body is treated? Then why lower yourself to their savagery?

No i dont think the above...but the denial of the rites may just put some of them off the idea
and if it provides an effective response that works...how low do you WANT me to go?
I DONT subscribe to the noxious idea of "being better than"...never claimed that stance as mine, and never applied it in my dealings with anyone.....shit on My carpet...and I'll shit down your neck......simples....Life my old and simple zack...is NOT a popularity contest.....

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Well ever heard of absolute war by Von Clausewitz?

Nope s 

Absolute_war wrote:

The utmost use of force

Clausewitz states that "...it follows that he who uses force unsparingly, without reference to bloodshed involved, must obtain a superiority if his adversary uses less vigour in [the] application [of force]." Therefore, war in its most logical form would involve each state continually reciprocating each other's use of force (plus some) to maintain a superiority, until both were using violence to its utmost extent. This is the first reciprocal action, and leads to the first extreme of war.

The aim is to disarm the enemy

Clausewitz stated that the logical purpose of war is to make the opponent comply with one's will. However, an opponent will obviously not do that unless it becomes the least oppressive of its available options. Therefore, in order to make the enemy comply with one's will, a state must place its adversary in a position that is more oppressive to it than compliance. Furthermore, that position cannot be temporary, or appear to be temporary. This is because it will be more likely that an enemy will simply 'ride out the storm' in the prospect of being in a better position at a later stage. Any change in this position would be a change for the worse, and so in order to best achieve this position a state must disarm its enemy (forcing it into a position from which it cannot resist).
Furthermore, as war involves two (or more) hostile states, this principle applies to both, and so it becomes the second reciprocal action, whereby both try to impose such a position on the other.

An utmost exertion of powers

Here Clausewitz states that if a state wishes to defeat its enemies it must annihilate them. According to Clausewitz, the use of power involves two factors. The first is the strength of available means, which may be measured somewhat by numbers (although not entirely). The second factor is the strength of the will which cannot be specifically measured (only estimated) as it is intangible.

Once a state has learned the enemy's strength of resistance it can review its own means and adjust them upwards accordingly in an effort to gain the advantage. As the enemy will also be doing this, it too becomes reciprocal (the third reciprocal action), creating a third push towards an extreme.

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

nicko wrote:I'd wrap his body in Pig skin and drop it in the sea,  12 miles out.
If Muslim terrorists knew this would happen to their dead friends would they think twice about killing "infidals"?

veya_victaous wrote:

nicko wrote:I'd wrap his body in Pig skin and drop it in the sea,  12 miles out.
If Muslim terrorists knew this would happen to their dead friends would they think twice about killing "infidals"?

to have his community leave him for a 'paupers grave' is more of an insult and does nothing to offend other Muslims

Zack is right in one thing burial is about the living

So for the mosque not to give him Muslim burial is the best, it shows there is NO war between the west and Islam as ISIS would like to claim, there is only eternal opposition of the good people of any faith or creed against the abhorred murder.

Thorin wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Nope s 

Have a read and is in reality how Nazi Germany and Japan were defeated. A the allies went to greater extremes in defeating both nations. Germany was completely destroyed at the end of WW2 and has never risen since to challenge again as a threat. It would not surprise me that ISIS are students of Von Clausewitz, as they seem to use this concept in practice.

Absolute_war wrote:

The utmost use of force

Clausewitz states that "...it follows that he who uses force unsparingly, without reference to bloodshed involved, must obtain a superiority if his adversary uses less vigour in [the] application [of force]." Therefore, war in its most logical form would involve each state continually reciprocating each other's use of force (plus some) to maintain a superiority, until both were using violence to its utmost extent. This is the first reciprocal action, and leads to the first extreme of war.

The aim is to disarm the enemy

Clausewitz stated that the logical purpose of war is to make the opponent comply with one's will. However, an opponent will obviously not do that unless it becomes the least oppressive of its available options. Therefore, in order to make the enemy comply with one's will, a state must place its adversary in a position that is more oppressive to it than compliance. Furthermore, that position cannot be temporary, or appear to be temporary. This is because it will be more likely that an enemy will simply 'ride out the storm' in the prospect of being in a better position at a later stage. Any change in this position would be a change for the worse, and so in order to best achieve this position a state must disarm its enemy (forcing it into a position from which it cannot resist).
Furthermore, as war involves two (or more) hostile states, this principle applies to both, and so it becomes the second reciprocal action, whereby both try to impose such a position on the other.

An utmost exertion of powers

Here Clausewitz states that if a state wishes to defeat its enemies it must annihilate them. According to Clausewitz, the use of power involves two factors. The first is the strength of available means, which may be measured somewhat by numbers (although not entirely). The second factor is the strength of the will which cannot be specifically measured (only estimated) as it is intangible.

Once a state has learned the enemy's strength of resistance it can review its own means and adjust them upwards accordingly in an effort to gain the advantage. As the enemy will also be doing this, it too becomes reciprocal (the third reciprocal action), creating a third push towards an extreme.

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

Maybe this is also the only realistic way to defeat ISIS

Thorin wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

to have his community leave him for a 'paupers grave' is more of an insult and does nothing to offend other Muslims

Zack is right in one thing burial is about the living

So for the mosque not to give him Muslim burial is the best, it shows there is NO war between the west and Islam as ISIS would like to claim, there is only eternal opposition of the good people of any faith or creed against the abhorred murder.

And there you have it, the view not to offend Muslims

Capitulation

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Have a read and is in reality how Nazi Germany and Japan were defeated. A the allies went to greater extremes in defeating both nations. Germany was completely destroyed at the end of WW2 and has never risen since to challenge again as a threat. It would not surprise me that ISIS are students of Von Clausewitz, as they seem to use this concept in practice.




Maybe this is also the only realistic way to defeat ISIS

Did I say I gave a shit about your reference? Lol!

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Thorin wrote:


And there you have it, the view not to offend Muslims

Capitulation

Lol! That's not what Veya said at all.

Do you even read?

Thorin wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Lol! That's not what Veya said at all.

Do you even read?

Yes i can and you fail to see my point

The only way Muslims are going to get over being so stupidly offended all the time over islam, is to do what was done about Christianity

Rip the crap out of such dumb beliefs, by continuing to take the piss.

Then Muslims might learn to grow up.

Its about time that many did

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Yes i can and you fail to see my point

The only way Muslims are going to get over being so stupidly offended all the time over islam, is to do what was done about Christianity

Rip the crap out of such dumb beliefs, by continuing to take the piss.

Then Muslims might learn to grow up.

Its about time that many did

For someone who claims to fights against bigotry, you've just demonstrated some gross hypocrisy

Well done.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Thank you for being honest 

So why do you think he should get an Islamic burial?

He can be buried without one and certainly does not deserve one

Becuase I'm not God.

So I do not judge like one.

Like I said earlier, the burial process is more about us, the living, and how we treat people and respect God.

What if the terrorist was injured? Would you say doctors should not treat him?

The terrorist said he was a  Muslim. Then (Muslims should) bury him as such and let God decide.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Thank you for being honest 

So why do you think he should get an Islamic burial?

He can be buried without one and certainly does not deserve one

Becuase I'm not God.

So I do not judge like one.

Like I said earlier, the burial process is more about us, the living, and how we treat people and respect God.

What if the terrorist was injured? Would you say doctors should not treat him?

The terrorist said he was a  Muslim. Then (Muslims should) bury him as such and let God decide.

But haven't Muslims already stated that he's not a true Muslim?   That what he's done is not Islam?  Why then would they consider burying him as  an honoured Muslim?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Becuase I'm not God.

So I do not judge like one.

Like I said earlier, the burial process is more about us, the living, and how we treat people and respect God.

What if the terrorist was injured? Would you say doctors should not treat him?

The terrorist said he was a  Muslim. Then (Muslims should) bury him as such and let God decide.

But haven't Muslims already stated that he's not a true Muslim?   That what he's done is not Islam?  Why then would they consider burying him as  an honoured Muslim?

More than 200 Muslim leaders from across the UK have signed a statement condemning the terror attack that took place in London on Saturday - and saying they will refuse to perform the traditional Islamic prayers for the perpetrators at their funerals.

The statement was published on the website of the Muslim Council of Britain, the UK’s largest Muslim body, which described the decision as an "unprecedented move," noting that the signatories have "not only refused to perform the traditional Islamic prayer for the terrorist – a ritual that is normally performed for every Muslim regardless of their actions – but also have called on others to do the same."

Opening with a strongly worded condemnation of the recent terror attacks, the statement asserts that the terrorists' acts "alienate them from any association with our community for whom the inviolability of every human life is the founding principle."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/06/Muslim-leaders-refuse-perform-funeral-prayers-london-bridge/

HoratioTarr wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Becuase I'm not God.

So I do not judge like one.

Like I said earlier, the burial process is more about us, the living, and how we treat people and respect God.

What if the terrorist was injured? Would you say doctors should not treat him?

The terrorist said he was a  Muslim. Then (Muslims should) bury him as such and let God decide.

But haven't Muslims already stated that he's not a true Muslim?   That what he's done is not Islam?  Why then would they consider burying him as  an honoured Muslim?

eddie wrote:Approximately £17,000 has been raised by Muslims for the terror attacks.

I'll have to see if I can get a link for that.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

But haven't Muslims already stated that he's not a true Muslim?   That what he's done is not Islam?  Why then would they consider burying him as  an honoured Muslim?

This is the way I see it:

People are getting the action and the person (who committed the act) confused.

The act was not Islamic. But it was committed by a Muslim.

There are certain judgements only God can make.

If Abedi was still alive, he would be facing man's justice.

Now he's dead, he will now face God's judgement.

Man has no influence over God'd judgement. Including whether he is a Muslim or not. And whether he will go to heaven or hell.

As Muslims, we hasten the burial so we do not delay God's judgement, whether that is good or bad.

Regardless if we (as men) think he's a Muslim or not, we consider ourselves to be Muslim. That includes conducting the burial ritual, so he can be judged quickly.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

eddie wrote:Approximately £17,000 has been raised by Muslims for the terror attacks.

I'll have to see if I can get a link for that.

https://mydonate.bt.com/fundraisers/muslimsformanchester

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Becuase I'm not God.

So I do not judge like one.

Like I said earlier, the burial process is more about us, the living, and how we treat people and respect God.

What if the terrorist was injured? Would you say doctors should not treat him?

The terrorist said he was a  Muslim. Then (Muslims should) bury him as such and let God decide.

But haven't Muslims already stated that he's not a true Muslim?   That what he's done is not Islam?  Why then would they consider burying him as  an honoured Muslim?

This is the way I see it:

People are getting the action and the person (who committed the act) confused.

The act was not Islamic. But it was committed by a Muslim.

There are certain judgements only God can make.

If Abedi was still alive, he would be facing man's justice.

Now he's dead, he will now face God's judgement.

Man has no influence over God'd judgement. Including whether he is a Muslim or not. And whether he will go to heaven or hell.

As Muslims, we hasten the burial so we do not delay God's judgement, whether that is good or bad.

Regardless if we (as men) think he's a Muslim or not, we consider ourselves to be Muslim. That includes conducting the burial ritual, so he can be judged quickly.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

But haven't Muslims already stated that he's not a true Muslim?   That what he's done is not Islam?  Why then would they consider burying him as  an honoured Muslim?

This is the way I see it:

People are getting the action and the person (who committed the act) confused.

The act was not Islamic. But it was committed by a Muslim.

There are certain judgements only God can make.

If Abedi was still alive, he would be facing man's justice.

Now he's dead, he will now face God's judgement.

Man has no influence over God'd judgement. Including whether he is a Muslim or not. And whether he will go to heaven or hell.

As Muslims, we hasten the burial so we do not delay God's judgement, whether that is good or bad.

Regardless if we (as men) think he's a Muslim or not, we consider ourselves to be Muslim. That includes conducting the burial ritual, so he can be judged quickly.

SEXY MAMA wrote:@Zack

No I totally disagree and so do the many imams who will not be performing Namaz for him.

Actions speak louder than words and we have to start treating the dead with same rules they applied when they were alive.

It's become a political matter and I for one believe his body deserves no respect at all.