Jump to content
notme

White supremacists destroy Virginia town

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Hello,

1 hour ago, notme said:

Why? People are dying over the stupid thing. It's just a stinking statue, not a life.

I was discussing these events with a friend today, who pointed out "didn't the Confederates lose? There's no sacred ground for the conquered."

Would you say the same thing about the Sayyidah Zaynab Mosque?

All the Best,

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, David66 said:

Hello,

Would you say the same thing about the Sayyidah Zaynab Mosque?

All the Best,

David

Yes I would. It's a building, not a life. I would become angry over the loss of a building that I value, but if I had to choose between the life of my enemy or the building that is most valued to me, I'd choose the person's life. Even the most historic, most architecturally perfect, most culturally valued building is not worth more than human life. 

The statue in question is of a losing war general, and was erected in 1924. (That is, it's really not historical: the confederation had already long ago ended when the statue was built.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, hasanhh said:

From what little l have seen the most shocking thing to me was this woman blaming President Trump. 

Editorial which explains the reasoning behind this thinking:

http://amp.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/08/in_his_speech_on_charlottesville_donald_trump_told_the_nation_exactly_what.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, David66 said:

Would you say the same thing about the Sayyidah Zaynab Mosque?

Most of us wouldn't, you can't compare the two. The Confederates succeeded over brewing disloyalty, political intrigue and differences of opinion and ideological beliefs about state rights and slavery for a decade.

The conflict going around Sayyidah Zainab is a continuation of what she and her family went through. Their rights were violated and usurped by a oppressive caliphate who killed and desecrated body of Hussain Ibn Ali and imprisoned, enslaved and tortured Zainab and her family.

No comparison, David. To say that they are similar in anyway is blasphemy. The next time you write something like this, I will report you.

It is not simply a building, it is a grave and to say so is an insult to the person buried there.

Edited by Gaius I. Caesar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

@notme

You seem to place a lot of emphasis on the "rights" of those who have been defeated.

1 hour ago, notme said:

Why? People are dying over the stupid thing. It's just a stinking statue, not a life.

I was discussing these events with a friend today, who pointed out "didn't the Confederates lose? There's no sacred ground for the conquered."

Does this view include Palestinians?  Or is it just reserved for those you do not like?

10 minutes ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

Most of us wouldn't, you can't compare the two. The Confederates succeeded over brewing disloyalty, political intrigue and differences of opinion and ideological beliefs about state rights and slavery for a decade.

The conflict going around Sayyidah Zainab is a continuation of what she and her family went through. Their rights were violated and usurped by a oppressive caliphate who killed and desecrated body of Hussain Ibn Ali and imprisoned, enslaved and tortured Zainab and her family.

No comparison, David. To say that they are similar in anyway is blasphemy. The next time you write something like this, I will report you.

It is not simply a building, it is a grave and to say so is an insult to the person buried there.

Yes there is a comparison.  Both are revered historical figures.  So nice of you to threaten to use the "blasphemy" card.  The easiest way to stifle free speech.

All the Best,

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, David66 said:

Does this view include Palestinians?  Or is it just reserved for those you do not like?

Not the same.

First of all, under the United States Constitution, the Confederacy was not legally permitted to declare itself a nation. No state is allowed to break away. They were criminals all along, not even a legitimate sovereign nation. No reason to celebrate harmful criminal activity. 

Second, the American civil war is a historical event. Not even one veteran of that war is still living. The usurpation of Palestine by European immigrants is ongoing. People are still suffering through this war (if you can call it that). 

It's not about what I like or dislike. You will find few people who more strongly advocate for the upholding of the US Constitution than me. These white supremacists have a right to peaceably assemble and I'd defend that right even though I find their views stomach churningly disgusting. 

I don't care either way about Confederate statues. Leave them or remove them, it doesn't change history. But if they are used as a rallying point for violent attacks on innocent people, we are better off without them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, David66 said:

Hello,

@notme

You seem to place a lot of emphasis on the "rights" of those who have been defeated.

Does this view include Palestinians?  Or is it just reserved for those you do not like?

Yes there is a comparison.  Both are revered historical figures.  So nice of you to threaten to use the "blasphemy" card.  The easiest way to stifle free speech.

All the Best,

David

Nice try but no matter what excuse you tell me, it is blasphemy. You have plenty of free speech here but common sense dictates if you insult revered religious figures, it will certainly not end well, no matter what religion.

Besides it is absurd to compare a member of Ahlulbayt (as) with a Confederate general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, David66 said:

^ Dear Sir,

I have insulted no revered religious figure and I am offended by your assertion. 

Of course you did:

Quote

Would you say the same thing about the Sayyidah Zaynab Mosque?

It's not what being said that is offensive, it is what being in implied in your question that is offensive. ^

You have no reason to be "moderately annoyed" with me when you insulted  the memory of the grandson of Muhammad (as) and his daughter by comparing a massacre to a civil war born from political treachery and unrest.  Please try to see from my perspective as a Shia Muslim.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Gaius I. Caesar I believe @David66 is saying that to people who follow the White Supremacist religion, General Lee is a saint, and they believe their saints inhabit their statues. That would explain its value and importance to them. 

But if you've seen any of the printed or internet rallying material published by these groups, it is obvious that it was never about a statue. It's about terrorizing marginalized communities. 

The correct response to these haters is for us to show up in greater numbers. They want us to be afraid to speak up, to show up against them, so they can feel like their philosophy of hate is in some way normal. I wasn't there today - I live too far away and I have young children and feared for my children if I was harmed or arrested - but that's what we need to do, be there, all of us. Show that we are the majority, not these hate freaks. 

All I can do is denounce them. 

https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2017-08/12/20/asset/buzzfeed-prod-fastlane-03/sub-buzz-29005-1502583569-1.png?downsize=715:*&output-format=auto&output-quality=auto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

It is not simply a building, it is a grave and to say so is an insult to the person buried there

And to an entire belief system and even more, to the extraordinary value of patience and sacrifice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@notme Indeed, I don't understand why he never got to me about what we should do, are we supposed to respect their right to terrorize and harm us in the name of "free speech" and turn a blind eye?

Or maybe he's following the example of the President, who is strangely quiet as of late.

I don't know but the statue needs to be moved to a museum before more innocent lives are lost.

How dare these white supremacists pervert history with their disgusting views.

Edited by Gaius I. Caesar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

I don't understand why he never got to me about what we should do, are we supposed to respect their right to terrorize and harm us in the name of "free speech" and turn a blind eye?

He's always been very selective with his answers. You should used to it by now. I hope I'm wrong but I get the feeling he's here to win arguments, not to learn. 

I'd also be interested in hearing @David66's suggestions for what we should do to oppose these terrorists. He says he disagrees with their ideology, but all I've seen is discouraging opposing them. If he's sure our ideas won't work, why doesn't he come up with some better ones? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, notme said:

he's sure our ideas won't work, why doesn't he come up with some better ones? 

I don't know, but honestly, if you don't have any solutions or anything of worth to add to the forum, then it probably be for the best to leave Shiachat. I haven't seen anything positive from him, he just rattles off some unpopular view, stirs the pot to a boiling climax and leaves satisfied until he needs another fix. Rinse, wash, repeat to ad nauseam.

Seems especially sensitive to criticism of the President. I called the President a "cheeto" and he was so offended that he left for a month. It was rather ridiculous

24 minutes ago, notme said:

He's always been very selective with his answers. You should used to it by now. I hope I'm wrong but I get the feeling he's here to win arguments, not to learn. 

I don't like how he treats like we are criminals sometimes. It is a bit weird and insulting. Speaking of winning...

 

so-much-winning-598fdd.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, David66 said:

Hello,

Would you say the same thing about the Sayyidah Zaynab Mosque?

All the Best,

David

Bismehe Ta3ala,

You surely know how to touch on sensitive issues.  Who went to Lee's gravesite and desecrated it?  Who went to the Museum where there are artifacts belonging to Lee and destroyed it?

How does your brain function to even remotely compare Lee who is responsible of many innocent people and Sayyida Zaynab, the granddaughter of the Prophet who protected orphans, witnessed carnage of her brothers and over 70 people?

Comments like yours above, show deep ignorance on your end.  Your time on SC is fruitless when you haven't even comprehended the difference. 

Our brave men will continue to defend Sayyida Zaynab, and comments like yours can't do anything about it.  Even when they behead our men, we will send our sons.  This is true love and we sacrifice our lives for Ahulbayt.  Your words will fade and are irrelevant, but know our burning hearts will never extinguish our passion to Ahulbayt.  

I would say shame on you, but you have no concept of honor to know what shame is.  

Wa salamu 3la man at taba3 al huda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, notme said:

 No state is allowed to break away.

Not so.

lt needs the consent of Congress only.

Now if my county wants to secede, we need the permission of both the state and the Congress. Then if it wants to join an adjacent state or Canada, we will then need their permission.

Now here is something interesting: it takes an Act of Congress to accept the Petition for Statehood. Congress can also repeal any such acceptance. Therefore, Congress can eject a state from the Union. Such as California. [just a sincere suggestion"for" the 'Wine and Weed State'] {We can call it "The Beautiful Peoples' Republic of Mellowstan"}

Factoid: in the 18teens, New England states voted on secession. Then the problems got solved. The "moderates" won. See Hartford Convention.

 

Edited by hasanhh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@notme, @Gaius I. Caesar @kirtc @Laayla

Now you all are on David66's 'case'. Trying to understand him is easy.

Remember Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" ?  Not everybody agrees with the former VP.

Think of David's posts as the Inconvenient Observation.

l, of course, have never held a conversation with David although we are reasonably close together --geographically. Yet l do write now that David strikes me as a person who dislikes glosses and declaratives.

#For you in other countries who did not understand this abstract, last sentence:

gloss = a superficial explanation or commentary.

declarative = refers to a Declarative Sentence. Also, the definitive assertion of 'truth'.

Lexicographic comment @starlight ?

And recently, David posted some interesting links.

Edited by hasanhh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Alt-Rightists at UVa were chanting about "Free Speech" as well as less desirable things.

l remember reading an OpEd in the Wall Street Journal in the mid- to late 90s  --as l have writ of before on SC.

The theme/point of the oped was that whenever political correctness existed before throughout history, it always 'came apart violently'.

Hopefully, this is not of the start of the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hasanhh said:

gloss = a superficial explanation or commentary.

declarative = refers to a Declarative Sentence. Also, the definitive assertion of 'truth'.

I couldn't care less what he does or doesn't like; I knew where he was going with that question. For a hater of glosses, he sure is picky, certainly doesn't mind when he does it.

As for your observation about declaratives, that's probably the reason why he is agnostic; Always had a problem with Scriptures and the definitive assertions of it's "truth" but that is beside the point. As far as I am concerned, he is wasting his time here, like @Laaylaand @notme as said.

3 hours ago, hasanhh said:

Remember Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" ?  Not everybody agrees with the former VP.

Think of David's posts as the Inconvenient Observation.

I fail to see the resemblance, his "observations" involve touching on sensitive subjects seemingly without tact or awareness, being selective with his answer and when you bring up something offensive he did, he tries to deflect it by being "offended" with your "assertions". So startlingly perceptive! I'm impressed, not.

3 hours ago, hasanhh said:

lt needs the consent of Congress only.

Even if that were so, what would be the point? What benefits would it have? It would simply get crushed by the Union again or crumble under the economic pressures of its failures.

Edited by Gaius I. Caesar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over the years I am pretty sure that I have come across interpretations of history that claim the Confederates were not all bad and that the other side weren't angels either.

But if the people standing up for Confederate generals are neo-Nazis and race supremacists and no one with an inclusive agenda willing to do so, then there is a problem with that cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I dont understand why you guys are trying to have a intellectual discussion with a monkey, whats your expectations? He cannot reason, throw him a banana so he stops talking.

He talks without the intention of listening, asks without the intention of getting to know, questions without the intention of caring for the answer, speaks without the intention of understanding.

As for this tragic news, I guess americans have no need for terrorists from abroad, they seem to help themselves with the home grown stuff...

VIEWER DISCRETION IS ADVISED:

 

Inna lillahi wa Inna ilayhi raji'un!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • Since you said he is not going to pay you, why do you want to add percentage to make it more? He is your brother. He owes you only what he owes you. One penny extra would be too much and the Holy Quran mentions to be fair and not do wrong to others. See this famous ayah:
    • وَإِذْ أَخَذَ اللَّهُ مِيثَاقَ النَّبِيِّينَ لَمَا آتَيْتُكُمْ مِنْ كِتَابٍ وَحِكْمَةٍ ثُمَّ جَاءَكُمْ رَسُولٌ مُصَدِّقٌ لِمَا مَعَكُمْ لَتُؤْمِنُنَّ بِهِ وَلَتَنْصُرُنَّهُ ۚ قَالَ أَأَقْرَرْتُمْ وَأَخَذْتُمْ عَلَىٰ ذَٰلِكُمْ إِصْرِي ۖ قَالُوا أَقْرَرْنَا ۚ قَالَ فَاشْهَدُوا وَأَنَا مَعَكُمْ مِنَ الشَّاهِدِينَ {81} [Shakir 3:81] And when Allah made a covenant through the prophets: Certainly what I have given you of Book and wisdom-- then an messenger comes to you verifying that which is with you, you must believe in him, and you must aid him. He said: Do you affirm and accept My compact in this (matter)? They said: We do affirm. He said: Then bear witness, and I (too) am of the bearers of witness with you.
      [Pickthal 3:81] When Allah made (His) covenant with the prophets, (He said): Behold that which I have given you of the Scripture and knowledge. And afterward there will come unto you a messenger, confirming that which ye possess. Ye shall believe in him and ye shall help him. He said: Do ye agree, and will ye take up My burden (which I lay upon you) in this (matter)? They answered: We agree. He said: Then bear ye witness. I will be a witness with you.
      [Yusufali 3:81] Behold! Allah took the covenant of the prophets, saying: "I give you a Book and Wisdom; then comes to you a messenger, confirming what is with you; do ye believe in him and render him help." Allah said: "Do ye agree, and take this my Covenant as binding on you?" They said: "We agree." He said: "Then bear witness, and I am with you among the witnesses." ***** مَا كَانَ مُحَمَّدٌ أَبَا أَحَدٍ مِنْ رِجَالِكُمْ وَلَٰكِنْ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ وَخَاتَمَ النَّبِيِّينَ ۗ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمًا {40} [Shakir 33:40] Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of Allah and the Last of the prophets; and Allah is cognizant of all things.
      [Pickthal 33:40] Muhammad is not the father of any man among you, but he is the messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets; and Allah is ever Aware of all things.
      [Yusufali 33:40] Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets: and Allah has full knowledge of all things. ***** Relevant part of the Verse: النَّبِيُّ أَوْلَىٰ بِالْمُؤْمِنِينَ مِنْ أَنْفُسِهِمْ ۖ وَأَزْوَاجُهُ أُمَّهَاتُهُمْ ۗ } [Shakir 33:6] The Prophet has a greater claim on the faithful than they have on themselves, .....
      [Yusufali 33:6] The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves, ....... [Yusufali 33:6] The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves,  ***** At Ghadir Khumm,  "Then the Messenger of Allah continued:  "Do I not have more right over the believers than what they have over themselves?"   People cried and answered:  "Yes, O' Messenger of God." Then followed the key sentence denoting the clear designation of 'Ali as the leader of the Muslim ummah.  The Prophet held up the hand of 'Ali and said:  "For whoever I am his Leader (mawla), 'Ali is his Leader (mawla)." https://www.al-islam.org/ghadir/incident.htm At Ghadir Khum, Question was asked(33:6), Muslims Answered. Seal of the Prophets, and the Witness over ALL Prophets( 3:81). Mawla here means what?  Does this mean, Mawla only in delivering revelation? What does More right over the Believers( All Past Prophets and believers present at Ghadir Khumm). Now the question is: Lets see if the cal for Unity are real. Are the Muslims united or disunited. 1) Messenger, only in Delivering Revelation. Rest, only a human like us, others an have better judgement,  opinions in leadership,preserving Quran, etc.. 2) Messenger, but Book of Allahسُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى is sufficient for us 3) Mawla in All comprehensive and Complete sense. (Prophet/Messenger/Imam-Khaliftullah Vicegerent of Allah(awj) without limitation of time and space - All my affairs- as Islam is the same as our Nature, as its a Way of life not only a personal relationship with  Allah(awj).  Let's see what this Unity, talk is all about.
    • http://en.wikishia.net/view/Wadi_l-Salam_Cemetery One of the reasons to the importance of this cemetery is its proximity to Imam 'Ali's (a) holy shrine. In addition, it has been indicated and admired frequently in Shi'areferences. It appears the earliest hadith about it is one narrated by al-Kulayni (255/869 - 329/940-1), said to be from Imam 'Ali (a). Subsequent references have narrated this hadith numerously. In this hadith, Imam 'Ali (a), accompanied with one of his companions, goes to Wadi l-Salam and uttered: "No pious man passes away on any part of the earth unless his spirit is ordered to come to Wadi l-Salam. Here, is a part of Heaven."[8]  Al-Kulayni, al-Kafi, Vol.3, P.243
    • I think she knows that if she reports her father he would be arrested and maybe go to prison. This would be catastrophic for her mother and family.
    • Concept of Unity is linked to Leadership. Cause of disunity. Ghadir Khum. What was missing at Saqifa, Fadak, Battle of Jamal, Battle of Siffin, and at Karbala? The other side apparently, believed in Tawheed, Prophethood, Prayers, Zakat, Fasting, Hajj, Recitation of Quran…… Except for Recognition of the Vicegerent/Representative of Allah(awj). "O Apostle! Deliver what has been sent down to you from your Lord; and if you don't do it, you have not delivered His message (at all); and Allah will protect you from the people ..." (Qur'an 5:67) Our safety is of no concern to us. We will not stop unmasking the culprits, removing the veil of deceit from the faces of those whose teaching have and will undermine True Islam.  Or we have lost the Message of Karbala. Why would any human be offended if Evil is exposed? How is this undermining Unity? Have you ever heard of such talk, do not expose the Traitors, it's not good for the unity of the country. If someone is supporting the Oppressors, the Unjust , they should be asked, why in the world you would do that , your innate Nature does not even allows it. Have you ever seen or heard that the humans love the Murderer and the murdered, the Oppressor and the oppressed ? This is against Human Nature. Coexistence is not the same as Unity. We coexist with other Humans, business/life goes on. Under the Umbrella topic of Unity, lies the propagation of the Political Islam/islam of Shafiqa, Jamal, Siffin…Silence them( the Shia's) with unity talk, so we can continue playing with the religion
×