Discussion:
Boston Mosque Refuses to Bury Alleged Bomber’s Corpse as a Muslim -- Comments?
(too old to reply)
Tom Sr.
2013-04-26 04:11:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
...
=93I would not be willing to do a funeral for him. This is a person who
deliberately killed people. There is no room for him as a Muslim.=94 --
Imam Talal Eid

What do you think about this Mosque refusing to bury suspect Tamerlan
Tsarnaev?

------------
http://www.inquisitr.com/633676/mosque-wont-bury-suspect-tamerlan-tsarnaev-=
as-a-muslim/#zSMZ0GLFTsA7pKVR.99


*Mosque Won=92t Bury Suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev as a Muslim*
April 24, 2013

As previously reported by 'The Inquisitr', Dzhokhar Tsarnaev explained
about the Boston bombing=92s motivation, saying their religious fervor
as Muslims is what triggered the violence.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev had become increasingly devout and confrontational
about his Islamic beliefs since 2010, confronting speakers at public
events who compared the Prophet Mohammed to Martin Luther King, Jr.
and another who said celebrating American holidays was acceptable.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev said his older brother planned the Boston Marathon
bombing. Tamerlan Tsarnaev was killed by police when exchanging
gunfire during the MIT shootout on April 18. The brothers killed a
campus patrol officer and carjacked an SUV before the shootout.

The family of Tamerlan Tsarnaev has received permission to bury the
body. Tamerlan=92s uncle apparently went to the Boston area mosque they
attended as a family, only to be told the mosque won=92t bury the
suspect. Tamerlan Tsarnaev=92s aunt relayed this story but cannot say
the name of the mosque.

A mosque in Cambridge claims Tamerlan Tsarnaev attended their
services, and they claim Tamerlan occasionally caused disruptions to
the point that mosque leaders threatened to kick him out. The FBI has
already questioned the people of this mosque, and they are not
offering any comments.

Imam Talal Eid of the Islamic Institute of Boston says he agrees with
the mosque that won=92t bury the suspect:

=93I would not be willing to do a funeral for him. This is a person who
deliberately killed people. There is no room for him as a Muslim.=94
------------

.


-----
-----
Please Note:

In select newsgroups my post will be followed by an out-of-date, cut-
and-paste, SHRIEKING ranting and raving post by Bob Milby Jr., aka
Patriot Games, aka Buster Norris, aka 10,000s of Sockpuppets -- Winner
of The alt.usenet.kooks Awards: Palmjob Paddle (July 2008)*, KO0k of
the Month (Sept. 2012)**, and the Order of the Holey Sockpuppet (Oct.
2012)!***

* This award is given to the person who gets spanked (as in,
thrashed) the most in a given month by other posters or even himself.
** Given to someone whose Kookery is judged to have surpassed all
others.
*** For those most prolific in the art of, abiet thinly,
disguising their net.presence behind whatever nose and glasses they
can concoct.

We hope to return you to more rational posting after this brief,
psychotic interruption.
------
------
Fariduddien
2013-04-26 20:51:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
=A0...
=3D93I would not be willing to do a funeral for him. This is a person who
deliberately killed people. There is no room for him as a Muslim.=3D94 =
=A0 --
Imam Talal Eid
What do you think about this Mosque refusing to bury suspect Tamerlan
Tsarnaev?
First, let's assume he is guilty.

The question as I understand it then becomes, is he still a Muslim?

It helps to know multiple terms used in Islam - "Muslim," "Mu'min,"
and "Munafiq".

"Muslim" means someone who is accepted as following the religion of
Islam, from a "legal" point of view. A person can still technically be
a "Muslim" and be a bad person (as will become clear from the
following other definitions).

A "Mu'min" is someone who is a true believer. The word "Mu'min" refers
to the state of a person's heart, their sincerity of faith.

A "Munafiq" is a hypocrite - someone who claims to be a Muslim, but is
not a true believer. A "Munafiq" from a "legal" point of view is still
a "Muslim" but is definitely not a "Mu'min" and in fact, according to
the Qur'an, is one of the most dangerous people to other Muslims.

(These are all terms used in the Qur'an.)

Can a person who commits a major sin (like mass murder) still be a
"Muslim?"

This is a technical question which has been discussed in Islamic
history.

I am no expert on this. However, you can find some information in the
Wikipedia article on "takfir" -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takfir

There, it says the following.

"The orthodox Sunni position is that sins generally do not prove that
someone is not a Muslim, but denials of fundamental religious
principles do. Thus a murderer, for instance, may still be a Muslim,
but someone who denies that murder is a sin is a kafir if he is aware
that murder is considered a sin in Islam."

Other groups in Islamic history have taken alternative positions on
this issue (you can read the article for more details).

It usually takes some evidence to determine that someone has left
Islam - it is not something said lightly.

I would guess most "orthodox" scholars of today would say a person who
claims to be a "Muslim" then commits mass murder in most cases is
still a "Muslim" from a technical point of view, which is the relevant
one regarding burial rites, to my understanding.

However, one could still also argue that the person had some deviant
beliefs, a deviant personality, and so on...

Of course, this does not in any way justify such criminal acts!
DKleinecke
2013-04-27 01:27:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
=3DA0...
=3D3D93I would not be willing to do a funeral for him. This is a person=
who
deliberately killed people. There is no room for him as a Muslim.=3D3D9=
4 =3D
=3DA0 --
Imam Talal Eid
What do you think about this Mosque refusing to bury suspect Tamerlan
Tsarnaev?
First, let's assume he is guilty.
The question as I understand it then becomes, is he still a Muslim?
It helps to know multiple terms used in Islam - "Muslim," "Mu'min,"
and "Munafiq".
"Muslim" means someone who is accepted as following the religion of
Islam, from a "legal" point of view. A person can still technically be
a "Muslim" and be a bad person (as will become clear from the
following other definitions).
A "Mu'min" is someone who is a true believer. The word "Mu'min" refers
to the state of a person's heart, their sincerity of faith.
A "Munafiq" is a hypocrite - someone who claims to be a Muslim, but is
not a true believer. A "Munafiq" from a "legal" point of view is still
a "Muslim" but is definitely not a "Mu'min" and in fact, according to
the Qur'an, is one of the most dangerous people to other Muslims.
(These are all terms used in the Qur'an.)
Can a person who commits a major sin (like mass murder) still be a
"Muslim?"
This is a technical question which has been discussed in Islamic
history.
I am no expert on this. However, you can find some information in the
Wikipedia article on "takfir" -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takfir
There, it says the following.
"The orthodox Sunni position is that sins generally do not prove that
someone is not a Muslim, but denials of fundamental religious
principles do. Thus a murderer, for instance, may still be a Muslim,
but someone who denies that murder is a sin is a kafir if he is aware
that murder is considered a sin in Islam."
Other groups in Islamic history have taken alternative positions on
this issue (you can read the article for more details).
It usually takes some evidence to determine that someone has left
Islam - it is not something said lightly.
I would guess most "orthodox" scholars of today would say a person who
claims to be a "Muslim" then commits mass murder in most cases is
still a "Muslim" from a technical point of view, which is the relevant
one regarding burial rites, to my understanding.
However, one could still also argue that the person had some deviant
beliefs, a deviant personality, and so on...
Of course, this does not in any way justify such criminal acts!
I would maintain that anyone who calls themself a Muslim is a Muslim -
regardless of what else that person says or does. Only the deity can
know for sure what a person really is. On the other hand there is no
reason for anyone to feel compelled to treat that person as a decent
Muslim. Islam, per se, - submission to Allah - should buy one nothing
but acceptance by Allah.
Yusuf B Gursey
2013-04-28 16:43:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
=3DA0...
=3D3D93I would not be willing to do a funeral for him. This is a person=
who
deliberately killed people. There is no room for him as a Muslim.=3D3D9=
4 =3D
=3DA0 --
Imam Talal Eid
What do you think about this Mosque refusing to bury suspect Tamerlan
Tsarnaev?
First, let's assume he is guilty.
The question as I understand it then becomes, is he still a Muslim?
It helps to know multiple terms used in Islam - "Muslim," "Mu'min,"
and "Munafiq".
"Muslim" means someone who is accepted as following the religion of
Islam, from a "legal" point of view. A person can still technically be
a "Muslim" and be a bad person (as will become clear from the
following other definitions).
A "Mu'min" is someone who is a true believer. The word "Mu'min" refers
to the state of a person's heart, their sincerity of faith.
A "Munafiq" is a hypocrite - someone who claims to be a Muslim, but is
not a true believer. A "Munafiq" from a "legal" point of view is still
a "Muslim" but is definitely not a "Mu'min" and in fact, according to
the Qur'an, is one of the most dangerous people to other Muslims.
(These are all terms used in the Qur'an.)
Can a person who commits a major sin (like mass murder) still be a
"Muslim?"
similar issues came up during 9/11 and some criticized Muslims for not
saying that the terrorists were not Muslim, in fact in this very
forum. I also remember Catherine Jefferson responding by giving
analogous cases in Christianity and defending the position for not
disclaiming that the terrororists were Muslim. the position of the
Boston mosque may have been in response to such atitudes,
nevertheless, such issues do arise in all religions. the Roman
Catholic church denied certain rites to convicted mobster John Gotti
and he was given a non-curch funeral with some rites performed
afterwards.
This is a technical question which has been discussed in Islamic
history.
I am no expert on this. However, you can find some information in the
Wikipedia article on "takfir" -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takfir
There, it says the following.
"The orthodox Sunni position is that sins generally do not prove that
someone is not a Muslim, but denials of fundamental religious
principles do. Thus a murderer, for instance, may still be a Muslim,
but someone who denies that murder is a sin is a kafir if he is aware
that murder is considered a sin in Islam."
Other groups in Islamic history have taken alternative positions on
this issue (you can read the article for more details).
It usually takes some evidence to determine that someone has left
Islam - it is not something said lightly.
I would guess most "orthodox" scholars of today would say a person who
claims to be a "Muslim" then commits mass murder in most cases is
still a "Muslim" from a technical point of view, which is the relevant
one regarding burial rites, to my understanding.
However, one could still also argue that the person had some deviant
beliefs, a deviant personality, and so on...
Of course, this does not in any way justify such criminal acts!
Catherine Jefferson
2013-04-28 20:53:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
similar issues came up during 9/11 and some criticized Muslims for not
saying that the terrorists were not Muslim, in fact in this very
forum. I also remember Catherine Jefferson responding by giving
analogous cases in Christianity and defending the position for not
disclaiming that the terrororists were Muslim. the position of the
Boston mosque may have been in response to such atitudes,
nevertheless, such issues do arise in all religions. the Roman
Catholic church denied certain rites to convicted mobster John Gotti
and he was given a non-curch funeral with some rites performed
afterwards.
That was over a decade ago; your memory is better than mine. ;) But I
certainly would have written something like you recount.

Since nobody but God actually knows the minds and hearts of other
people, as I see it the issue here is what to do about a member of your
own religion that commits a monstrously evil act against other human
beings and then dies unrepentant? Orthodox Christian doctrine states
that the sacraments should be denied to unrepentant sinners, and an
Orthodox Christian burial should be denied to somebody who dies
unrepentant. I think most major schools of Islam teach something
reasonably similar about how to bury an unrepentant sinner, but you'd
know more than I would.

I *am* sure that an answer that "X was not Christian/X was not Muslim"
in the face of such an act at very least appears disingenuous to those
who were attacked or view themselves as targets of the attacks. For
example, think about Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, war criminals
behind the massacres of thousands of Muslims in Bosnia in the 1990s.
They both identified themselves as Orthodox Christians. If you were
asking me what I thought about them, would you want to hear a long,
context-ridden theological discussion about them? Or would you want to
hear a forthright condemnation of what they did backed up by actions
that show that I reject their actions and stated beliefs and stand with
you, not them, when they try to murder you?

You individually (Yusuf Gursey) might actually be interested in the full
theological discussion. I bet that the vast majority of Muslims
couldn't care less about Christian theological debates on whether
Christians who commit atrocities are really Christian or not, though, or
whether to bury them or not. Most Muslims know that Karadzic and Mladic
would happily have tortured and killed them if they'd been present in
Bosnia during the war. Most would want to know whether I support
Karadzic and Mladic's actions, don't support them but lack the courage
and conviction to try to stop it, or reject what they did unequivocally.

In other words, they're not worried about my theology but what I would
do if other Orthodox Christians start killing them and their families.
IMHO, given events in the 1990s and 2000s, that is a fair question. :/
(Although I hope one that any of you who know me could answer it without
first asking me.)

Most westerners -- Christian, Jewish, some Muslim, and everything else
-- feel the same way about Al Qaeda and its fellow travelers. I find
Islamic theological discussions interesting, but most Americans just
want to know whether their neighbors and friends agree with what the
terrorists did, don't agree but lack the courage and conviction to try
to stop it, or reject what they did unequivocally.

The leaders of this mosque in Boston appear to understand this fact.
They weren't so much taking a theological position as attempting to make
clear to non-Muslims who don't know much about Islam that they
unequivocally reject violent attacks on civilians in the name of Islam.
They're trying to do so in a way that doesn't appear disingenuous or
less than wholehearted. Denying a Muslim funeral and burial to the
remains of Tamerlan Tsarnaev is an effective way in American culture to
signify that they utterly reject Tsarnaev's evil actions and the beliefs
that led him to commit those evil acts.

It might not be Islamically appropriate, though. :/ I also think that
accepting that those who commit evil acts are "of you" but rejecting
their actions might be the better way to respond. I would much prefer
that Orthodox Christians accept that Karadzic and Mladic are "of us" and
then *deal* with the evil that they represent than simply refuse to
acknowledge that they are Orthodox Christians. The first path is much
more likely to lead to real repentance and change among Orthodox
Christians, and prevent the same thing from happening again. Maybe the
same is true of Muslims in communities infected with Al Qaeda style
extremism.
--
Catherine Jefferson <***@ergosphere.net>
Blog/Personal: http://www.ergosphere.net
Catherine Jefferson
2013-04-28 20:51:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
similar issues came up during 9/11 and some criticized Muslims for not
saying that the terrorists were not Muslim, in fact in this very
forum. I also remember Catherine Jefferson responding by giving
analogous cases in Christianity and defending the position for not
disclaiming that the terrororists were Muslim. the position of the
Boston mosque may have been in response to such atitudes,
nevertheless, such issues do arise in all religions. the Roman
Catholic church denied certain rites to convicted mobster John Gotti
and he was given a non-curch funeral with some rites performed
afterwards.
That was over a decade ago; your memory is better than mine. ;) But I
certainly would have written something like you recount.

Since nobody but God actually knows the minds and hearts of other
people, as I see it the issue here is what to do about a member of your
own religion that commits a monstrously evil act against other human
beings and then dies unrepentant? Orthodox Christian doctrine states
that the sacraments should be denied to unrepentant sinners, and an
Orthodox Christian burial should be denied to somebody who dies
unrepentant. I think most major schools of Islam teach something
reasonably similar about how to bury an unrepentant sinner, but you'd
know more than I would.

I *am* sure that an answer that "X was not Christian/X was not Muslim"
in the face of such an act at very least appears disingenuous to those
who were attacked or view themselves as targets of the attacks. For
example, think about Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, war criminals
behind the massacres of thousands of Muslims in Bosnia in the 1990s.
They both identified themselves as Orthodox Christians. If you were
asking me what I thought about them, would you want to hear a long,
context-ridden theological discussion about them? Or would you want to
hear a forthright condemnation of what they did backed up by actions
that show that I reject their actions and stated beliefs and stand with
you, not them, when they try to murder you?

You individually (Yusuf Gursey) might actually be interested in the full
theological discussion. I bet that the vast majority of Muslims
couldn't care less about Christian theological debates on whether
Christians who commit atrocities are really Christian or not, though, or
whether to bury them or not. Most Muslims know that Karadzic and Mladic
would happily have tortured and killed them if they'd been present in
Bosnia during the war. Most would want to know whether I support
Karadzic and Mladic's actions, don't support them but lack the courage
and conviction to try to stop it, or reject what they did unequivocally.

In other words, they're not worried about my theology but what I would
do if other Orthodox Christians start killing them and their families.
IMHO, given events in the 1990s and 2000s, that is a fair question. :/
(Although I hope one that any of you who know me could answer it without
first asking me.)

Most westerners -- Christian, Jewish, some Muslim, and everything else
-- feel the same way about Al Qaeda and its fellow travelers. I find
Islamic theological discussions interesting, but most Americans just
want to know whether their neighbors and friends agree with what the
terrorists did, don't agree but lack the courage and conviction to try
to stop it, or reject what they did unequivocally.

The leaders of this mosque in Boston appear to understand this fact.
They weren't so much taking a theological position as attempting to make
clear to non-Muslims who don't know much about Islam that they
unequivocally reject violent attacks on civilians in the name of Islam.
They're trying to do so in a way that doesn't appear disingenuous or
less than wholehearted. Denying a Muslim funeral and burial to the
remains of Tamerlan Tsarnaev is an effective way in American culture to
signify that they utterly reject Tsarnaev's evil actions and the beliefs
that led him to commit those evil acts.

It might not be Islamically appropriate, though. :/ I also think that
accepting that those who commit evil acts are "of you" but rejecting
their actions might be the better way to respond. I would much prefer
that Orthodox Christians accept that Karadzic and Mladic are "of us" and
then *deal* with the evil that they represent than simply refuse to
acknowledge that they are Orthodox Christians. The first path is much
more likely to lead to real repentance and change among Orthodox
Christians, and prevent the same thing from happening again. Maybe the
same is true of Muslims in communities infected with Al Qaeda style
extremism.
--
Catherine Jefferson <***@ergosphere.net>
Blog/Personal: http://www.ergosphere.net
Loading...