The new British 'shoot to kill' policy: A Muslim can be shot in the head without the right to a trial, without the ability to defend himself and without the ability to even proclaim his possible innocence. All of this has been justified by the 7/7 bombings which still have not been conclusively proven to be 'suicide bombs' yet alone perpetrated by Muslims. It will now be possible for any innocent Muslim to be mercilessly shot in the head and used as a scapegoat for the next government orchestrated 'terrorist act' – how will anyone know any better if the accused is dead? Such immoral and contradictory principles are inevitable in a man made system such as democracy. It is this same Kufr system that they are pushing to impose in our lands….lands which were once ruled by the justice of the Islamic ideology and Inshallah will once again return to the ruling system revealed to us by Allah SWT.
Below is a brief on the Islamic principles of 'guilt' and 'innocence':
1. In the Islamic System the defendant is innocent until proven guilty
The evidence for this principle is derived from what Abu Dawood reported on the authority of Simak on that of Alqama Ibnu Wa’il Ibnu Hajr Al-Hadhrami on that of his father who said: “A man from Hadhramout and a man from Kindah came to the Messenger of Allah (saw) and the Hadhrami said: “O Messenger of Allah, this man has taken from a land which belonged to my father.” The Kindi said: “It is my land, it is in my possession and I am farming it. He has no claim over it.” The Messenger of Allah (saw) said to the Hadhrami: “Do you have any proof?” He said: “No.” Upon this the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “In this case you have his oath.” He said: “O Messenger of Allah! He is a rebel, he does not care what he swears and he does not fear of anything.” He (saw) said: “You have no other rights over him but this.” Al-Tirmithi also reported on the authority of Ibnu Abbas who said: “The Messenger of Allah (saw) has decreed that the onus of the oath lies with the defendant.” Abu Issa said that this Hadith is Hassan and Sahih; the learned scholars, from among the Sahaba of the Messenger of Allah (saw) and others, have been acting upon it; notably that the onus of providing the proof lies with the plaintiff and that of the oath lies with the defendant.” In the first Hadith, the Messenger of Allah (saw) commissioned the plaintiff with the proof, and this means that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty; and in the second Hadith, the Messenger of Allah (saw) explained that in essence, the proof should be provided by the plaintiff. This serves as evidence that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty.
2. In the Islamic System no one should be punished without a court ruling
As for the second matter, its evidence is derived from the saying of the Messenger of Allah (saw): “He whose wealth I have taken, here is my wealth, let him take from it, and he whose back I have lashed, here is my back, let him lash it.” The Messenger of Allah (saw) said this in his quality as ruler; it means that he who has been wrongly punished, let him retaliate against me; this serves as evidence prohibiting the ruler from punishing any of the subjects without establishing the charge for which he deserves such punishment. Also, Ibnu Maja reported in his Sunan on the authority of Ibnu Abbas who said: “The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “If I were to stone anyone without proof I would stone such and such woman. For doubts have been raised over the way she speaks, the way she dresses and over the people who go to her.” This means that the Messenger of Allah (saw) did not stone her because there was a lack of proof despite the doubts raised over her behaviour. This understanding is confirmed by what Imam Ahmed reported in his Masnad on the authority of Abu-z-Zinad on that of Al-Qassim Ibnu Mohammed who heard Ibnu Abbas say: “The Messenger of Allah (saw) ordered a “Mula’ana” i.e. a sworn allegation of adultery between Al-Ajlani and his wife. He said: “and she was pregnant. Al-Ajlani said: “By Allah I did not approach her since we made Afr (i.e.sprinkle the soil with dust), an Afr means that the palm trees are watered two months after pollination. He said that her husband had thin legs and arms and had red hair; the one she was accused to have committed adultery with was Ibnul Samha’. She gave birth to a black boy who had frizzy hair and chubby arms. So Ibnu Shaddad said to Ibnu Abbas: “Is she the woman about whom the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “If I were to stone anyone without proof I would stone such and such woman?” He said: “No, that was a woman who used to display vice after Islam.” Meaning that she used to be indiscreet but it was not proven neither through evidence, nor through admission. This means that the suspicion of adultery was there, and despite this, the Messenger of Allah (saw) did not stone her, for this has not been confirmed. He (saw) said: “If I were to stone anyone, I would stone such and such woman.” The conjunction “if” in the Arabic language denotes abstention due to the absence of something; thus the stoning was not carried out due to the absence of evidence. This serves as evidence that the ruler is forbidden from imposing a penalty on anyone from among the subjects, unless he or she perpetrates a crime which Shari'ah deems it to be a crime, and once his or her perpetration of the crime has been proven before a competent judge and in a judiciary court; because the evidence could not admissible unless it is established before a competent judge and in a judiciary court.
Thus in Islam no one is allowed to be punished without a court ruling yet alone be shot in the head.
The new British 'shoot to kill' policy: A Muslim can be shot in the head without the right to a trial, without the ability to defend himself and without the ability to even proclaim his possible innocence. All of this has been justified by the 7/7 bombings which still have not been conclusively proven to be 'suicide bombs' yet alone perpetrated by Muslims. It will now be possible for any innocent Muslim to be mercilessly shot in the head and used as a scapegoat for the next government orchestrated 'terrorist act' – how will anyone know any better if the accused is dead? Such immoral and contradictory principles are inevitable in a man made system such as democracy. It is this same Kufr system that they are pushing to impose in our lands….lands which were once ruled by the justice of the Islamic ideology and Inshallah will once again return to the ruling system revealed to us by Allah SWT.
Below is a brief on the Islamic principles of 'guilt' and 'innocence':
1. In the Islamic System the defendant is innocent until proven guilty
The evidence for this principle is derived from what Abu Dawood reported on the authority of Simak on that of Alqama Ibnu Wa’il Ibnu Hajr Al-Hadhrami on that of his father who said: “A man from Hadhramout and a man from Kindah came to the Messenger of Allah (saw) and the Hadhrami said: “O Messenger of Allah, this man has taken from a land which belonged to my father.” The Kindi said: “It is my land, it is in my possession and I am farming it. He has no claim over it.” The Messenger of Allah (saw) said to the Hadhrami: “Do you have any proof?” He said: “No.” Upon this the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “In this case you have his oath.” He said: “O Messenger of Allah! He is a rebel, he does not care what he swears and he does not fear of anything.” He (saw) said: “You have no other rights over him but this.” Al-Tirmithi also reported on the authority of Ibnu Abbas who said: “The Messenger of Allah (saw) has decreed that the onus of the oath lies with the defendant.” Abu Issa said that this Hadith is Hassan and Sahih; the learned scholars, from among the Sahaba of the Messenger of Allah (saw) and others, have been acting upon it; notably that the onus of providing the proof lies with the plaintiff and that of the oath lies with the defendant.” In the first Hadith, the Messenger of Allah (saw) commissioned the plaintiff with the proof, and this means that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty; and in the second Hadith, the Messenger of Allah (saw) explained that in essence, the proof should be provided by the plaintiff. This serves as evidence that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty.
2. In the Islamic System no one should be punished without a court ruling
As for the second matter, its evidence is derived from the saying of the Messenger of Allah (saw): “He whose wealth I have taken, here is my wealth, let him take from it, and he whose back I have lashed, here is my back, let him lash it.” The Messenger of Allah (saw) said this in his quality as ruler; it means that he who has been wrongly punished, let him retaliate against me; this serves as evidence prohibiting the ruler from punishing any of the subjects without establishing the charge for which he deserves such punishment. Also, Ibnu Maja reported in his Sunan on the authority of Ibnu Abbas who said: “The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “If I were to stone anyone without proof I would stone such and such woman. For doubts have been raised over the way she speaks, the way she dresses and over the people who go to her.” This means that the Messenger of Allah (saw) did not stone her because there was a lack of proof despite the doubts raised over her behaviour. This understanding is confirmed by what Imam Ahmed reported in his Masnad on the authority of Abu-z-Zinad on that of Al-Qassim Ibnu Mohammed who heard Ibnu Abbas say: “The Messenger of Allah (saw) ordered a “Mula’ana” i.e. a sworn allegation of adultery between Al-Ajlani and his wife. He said: “and she was pregnant. Al-Ajlani said: “By Allah I did not approach her since we made Afr (i.e.sprinkle the soil with dust), an Afr means that the palm trees are watered two months after pollination. He said that her husband had thin legs and arms and had red hair; the one she was accused to have committed adultery with was Ibnul Samha’. She gave birth to a black boy who had frizzy hair and chubby arms. So Ibnu Shaddad said to Ibnu Abbas: “Is she the woman about whom the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “If I were to stone anyone without proof I would stone such and such woman?” He said: “No, that was a woman who used to display vice after Islam.” Meaning that she used to be indiscreet but it was not proven neither through evidence, nor through admission. This means that the suspicion of adultery was there, and despite this, the Messenger of Allah (saw) did not stone her, for this has not been confirmed. He (saw) said: “If I were to stone anyone, I would stone such and such woman.” The conjunction “if” in the Arabic language denotes abstention due to the absence of something; thus the stoning was not carried out due to the absence of evidence. This serves as evidence that the ruler is forbidden from imposing a penalty on anyone from among the subjects, unless he or she perpetrates a crime which Shari'ah deems it to be a crime, and once his or her perpetration of the crime has been proven before a competent judge and in a judiciary court; because the evidence could not admissible unless it is established before a competent judge and in a judiciary court.
Thus in Islam no one is allowed to be punished without a court ruling yet alone be shot in the head.
this is how it starts, the police state is coming and they will tell their citizens it is 'for their protection'. and nobody will resist because they have the need to feel safe. I thought we here in America would do it first, seems Britian beat us to it. I feel so sorry for everyone.
Posts: 751 | From: US OF A | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stanley...I wouldn't classify this simply as a "shoot a muslim in the head" policy. I think that the fact that the police could shoot an innocent civilian and get away with it is a sure sign that practically any falsely accused can get shot by police. This is not limited to Muslims in any way, although Arab Muslims fit the standard terrorist profile. If you hadn't noticed, as well, the man shot was not Muslim nor Arab, but Brazilian.
It is similar in the US. Accused of being a terrorist, and the police can subject you to an infinite amount of years in prison without trial.
These two allowances in the US and the UK serve as a window for the government to remove those they don't like under the false pretense of terrorist.
Just thought I'd throw that into the open.
Posts: 36 | From: Washington, DC, USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whatever it is the uk is definately fast becomng a police state... with adult children living and working in the U.K i worry all the time now.. especialy as my eldest lives in Manchester.. when I think of that young man who took 7 bullets(6 to head 1 in the shoulder).. i shiver.... for there but for the grace of God.. goes my own Sons...... he ran cos his visa had expired two years ago... this ould hapen toanyone.. but to get 6 bullets into his head at point blank range..is an outrage and not to be condoned...
Posts: 230 | From: uk/U.A.E | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whatever it is the uk is definately fast becomng a police state... with adult children living and working in the U.K i worry all the time now.. especialy as my eldest lives in Manchester.. when I think of that young man who took 7 bullets(6 to head 1 in the shoulder).. i shiver.... for there but for the grace of God.. goes my own Sons...... he ran cos his visa had expired two years ago... this ould hapen toanyone.. but to get 6 bullets into his head at point blank range..is an outrage and not to be condoned...
Posts: 230 | From: uk/U.A.E | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eart to Stanley...is anyone home, is there even a glow of activity in your brain?
If I am running from the police, they yell stop and I don't stop I am going to get shot. especially if I am wearing a heavy coat in the summer and run onto a train. Wake up son.
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Eart to Stanley...is anyone home, is there even a glow of activity in your brain?
If I am running from the police, they yell stop and I don't stop I am going to get shot. especially if I am wearing a heavy coat in the summer and run onto a train. Wake up son.
posted
I don't know if it's law, but it is a custom for police. If you don't obey a policeman's orders, he can shoot you. But, supposedly, I believe he's supposed to shoot you in the leg -- not the brain. This man was shot in the brain 8 times.
Posts: 36 | From: Washington, DC, USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Eart to Stanley...is anyone home, is there even a glow of activity in your brain?
If I am running from the police, they yell stop and I don't stop I am going to get shot. especially if I am wearing a heavy coat in the summer and run onto a train. Wake up son.
That is still not an excuse to shoot anyone... ok maybe was a hair trigger event.. but police are better trained than that.. and if he did not stop then shoot him in the leg the arm... not 6 to head and one to shoulder..if he did not blow up from the shoulder hit.. then chances were that he was not gonna blow at all.. the officer panicked simply and purely.. and emptied his damned gun in the kids head....tis time for everyone to wake up and fix the cause not the crime.... cos the cause is deep rooted and nothing but nothing will change until those matters are addressed....think it is time for governemnts to wake up.. i am sure their glow has definatley gone out....
posted
This is not a new "shoot Muslims in the head" policy. It was brought into force 6 months after the dogs who called themselves believers flew the planes into the WTC in 2001. The fact that the poor guy was the first to be effected by it nearly 4 years later proves that the British police are not running around gunning down "Muslims" unlike your brothers in Iraq, Egypt,Spain,etc who do not care who they murder in their version of Islam l
Posts: 12 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
indeed the relpies here symbolise the beginning of the end for Capitalism and her pseudonym 'democracy' as the kuffar openly contradict their own ideology. As with the communists when they too failed with their man made ideology, the capitalists are oblivious to the fact that they are violating the very same values they falsely claim to uphold....
Posts: 59 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Democracy is only a dream: it should be put in the same category as Utopia, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
Posts: 751 | From: US OF A | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
At least you Islamo facists have admitted that you oppose democracy. The only thing we can do with these radical jihadst is kill them until they stop.......
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: At least you Islamo facists have admitted that you oppose democracy. The only thing we can do with these radical jihadst is kill them until they stop.......
Posts: 751 | From: US OF A | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The US and Britain are the most free and liberal societies on the planet. The US gets 20% of all world immigration alone and Britain is way up there per capita. The world votes with its feet and the US and UK have enormous waiting lists to get in.
What both countries are dealing with right now is the product of their liberal societies. Because citizens are free to conduct their affairs with little government oversight, some few have chosen to embrace the dark side. Instead of using their liberty to productively express their point of view, they choose to attack the society that gives them freedom and privilege.
I wonder how many of the opponents of the ‘shoot to kill’ policy felt so strongly about this issue when it was thought that the police had foiled another potential terrorist attack? Would they have been supportive?
I also wonder how they would have reacted had the police failed to stop an attack in a similar scenario where they were not given the powers to ‘shoot to kill’ and as a result a bomber had managed to run onto a train and blow himself up? Would they have blamed the police for being ineffective and for not doing enough to protect civilians?
It is understandable that people react with dismay when an innocent person is wrongly killed as a result of a policy that is designed to protect the population as a whole, but we should not forget that this policy is also one of the few weapons we have against a determined terrorist and a tragic accident alone should not be enough reason to take this protection away from the wider population.
quote:Originally posted by fuzzy: The US and Britain are the most free and liberal societies on the planet. The US gets 20% of all world immigration alone
Do we really get that much of the immigrant population? Cool!
Posts: 8794 | From: 01-20-09 The End of an Error | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Snoozin Member Posts: 344 Registered: Dec 2004 posted 08 August 2005 12:25 AM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by fuzzy: The US and Britain are the most free and liberal societies on the planet. The US gets 20% of all world immigration alone --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do we really get that much of the immigrant population? Cool!
I thought everyone apart from native Americans were or are from immigrant stock in the USA. Thats what makes it so successful,you have input from the whole of mankind.
quote:I thought everyone apart from native Americans were or are from immigrant stock in the USA. Thats what makes it so successful,you have input from the whole of mankind.
Hmmm, I just think of us as so ethnocentric most of the time. Like how we get all upset if immigrants come here and don't speak English. I can't help but compare that to Egypt, where I spoke *no* Arabic, but everyone was still so friendly and helpful.
I personally loving having a large immigrant population. I love learning about different people, and how we eventually adopt certain customs and things. I'm waiting for Hindi movies to get more popular so they play more of them here.
Posts: 8794 | From: 01-20-09 The End of an Error | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic